Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

Hiya Z. There is a little more info here, though it's basically the same article.

Solar beats natural gas in landmark US judicial ruling

This piece does say:

The competitive bidding of utility-scale generation projects was ordered by Minnesota’s Public Utilities Commission to choose the most cost-effective projects to help Xcel reach what the commission said was an additional 150MW of new capacity needed by 2017.

so there is more to the story. But the info given, would appear to suggest that all factors have been considered. However the decision could still be overruled, perhaps if the counter-arguments do have weight. So it's not a definite yet.

As to B&W, I thought it was a nice simple article, but with a very important additional message, that PV now (whilst prices are still falling, and efficiencies still rising) is starting to break into the US economically. So it's a little surprising (or not perhaps?) that any negative could be found. Perhaps I should have anticipated the spin.

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So it's a little surprising (or not perhaps?) that any negative could be found. Perhaps I should have anticipated the spin.

Mart.

Presumably you mean 'the Spin' from the PV magazine and 'greenies'.


The negative is the way it is presented as solar is a better option than gas - given a level playing field.


Firstly there is the State requirement to have 1.5% of electricity from the sun by 2020. That has nothing to do with being an 'economic proposition' any more than the UK's FIT scheme.


A comment from someone on the last link you posted:

So we the tax payers have lost over a billion dollars in the last few years through gov subsidized solar ventures and this is a "landmark ruling"? So now a single man, a Mr. Eric Lipman, a possible activist jurist, is now the current de facto ruler that solar energy is better for us all. The story also does not discuss who is footing the bill for this landmark ruling. Yep, you guessed right, the taxpayer. So will this Mr Eric Lipman, the new solar champion jurist, rule for the taxpayer refund if this venture goes south? Because it will

or this:

A little reality interjected here. . . The judge made the determination for only the additional energy projected. He in no way implied that solar was in no way ready for the 'big time' of being a base-load energy producer. So all you solar advocates out there quit saying this 'changes everything,' because no study has EVER validated wind or solar as a baseline power source.

Solar enthusiasts on MSE - you in particular - keep posting propaganda extracts from PV industry magazines and seemingly believing every word, and without any critical examination of what is written; and seeming comforted by the one-liners from this thread's resident idiot - in his latest guise.

Kernel_Sanders

Cardew wrote: »

- isn't Moscow south of Glasgow?

Remind me not to ask Cardew for directions!
The 'revelation' that I prefer is
that the Scilly Isles are further north than Toronto.

Cardew

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

Remind me not to ask Cardew for directions!
The 'revelation' that I prefer is
that the Scilly Isles are further north than Toronto.

Why not? Just go due East from Glasgow!


To be fair, as the remark was in the context of zeupater's phrase(below) I didn't think a detailed explanation necessary;)

Minnesota's continental climate being suited to pv. It might be a state bordering Canada, but what most people don't realise is that it would be an a similar latitude to central France

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

The negative is the way it is presented as solar is a better option than gas - given a level playing field.

Firstly there is the State requirement to have 1.5% of electricity from the sun by 2020. That has nothing to do with being an 'economic proposition' any more than the UK's FIT scheme.

I know this has been explained to you many, many times before, but probably worth doing again, to address your latest spin.

The subsidies being paid to support renewables, in this case PV in the US, do not distort the playing field, but are there to level it.

The cost implications of the CO2 from fossil fuels, and the direct (and enormous) health costs from coal in particular (€43bn in the EU alone), are not accounted for in the leccy price. For these reasons, renewables are supported. This is also the reason why they should be classed as both Green & Ethical.

Trying to spin the subsidies, that level the playing field, so that we 'feel sorry' for fossil fuels is as rational as your silly statement:

Cardew wrote: »

The electricity grid in Minnesota presumably shuts down when the sun sets! - or it gets cloudy!

unless of course you can support that presumption? As I'm not aware that it does.

Mart.

PS. You're still criticising solutions, but are you ready ..... yet .... to offer any solutions? What type(s) of generation do you support? M.

PPS. Sorry you don't like me posting news articles about PV on the 'solar ... In the news' thread. But I thought it was a very interesting piece, showing just how far things have come in such a short time, and catching out all the anti-renewables zealots, still living in the 90's. M.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

this thread's resident idiot

idiot
ˈɪdɪət/
nouninformal

noun: idiot; plural noun: idiots
1.
a stupid person.
synonyms:fool, !!!, halfwit, nincompoop, blockhead, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, imbecile, dullard, moron, simpleton, clod; More

Cardew wrote: »

In any case latitude is not the main determinant of a location's climate - isn't Moscow south of Glasgow?

:D:D

stepm

I had solar pv panels fitted a year ago and I feel fairly confident of my guarantees, why?:
- I used a local company who have been in business as electrical contractors for 50years, still owned and operated by the same family
- roof access and installation was done by a local subcontractor, also well-established and highly regarded.
- panels were supplied to the contractor by Pumb Center, part of Wolseley UK, which is part of Wolseley plc the world's number one distributor of heating and plumbing products
- inverter is from SolarEdge, the worlds leading supplier of specialist solar PV inverters and controllers.

My advice to anyone is to make sure that you know who will underwrite your PV system should it go wrong, and make sure the supplier of the panels would honour a guarantee, even if the manufacturer had gone bust.

Incidentally, the SolarEdge system is superb in my partially shaded situation. It compensates for shading and the manufacturer can remotely change system settings (if it is networked like my system) if any problems occur.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The subsidies being paid to support renewables, in this case PV in the US, do not distort the playing field, but are there to level it.

Note your use of the word 'subsidies'

Do you really not understand the point of the latest discussion? To jog your memory, this is what you posted:

Minnesota judge backs solar in favor of gas I'm a bit shocked at this story, especially given the cheapness of gas in the US. But as they say, 'don't look a gift horse in the mouth.'

Minnesota judge backs solar in favor of gas

The decision marks the first time that unsubsidized solar energy has gone head-to-head with natural gas and come out on top as the best option, both economically and environmentally.

A judge in the U.S. state of Minnesota ruled last week that solar energy was a more economical and better environmental investment for the state than gas producers.

Administrative Law Judge Eric Lipman said utility giant Xcel Energy should therefore invest in solar developer Geronimo Energy instead of natural gas generators.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ordered the proceeding to force energy companies to compete on price as the state seeks the most cost-effective projects to deliver an extra 150 MW of new capacity by 2017.

Geronimo submitted a plan to the Commission last year for an unsubsidized 100 MW project consisting of 20 arrays in 17 counties in the state budgeted at a total of $250 million.

Mart.

Note the use of the words unsubsidized, economically, more economical, unsubsidized

You were 'shocked' that solar was a better economic proposition, no subsidies needed etc etc.

Now having had it carefully explained to you, you are back to giving your reasons for subsidies, having lauded a propaganda article that stated subsidies were not needed.

I will let you return to your fantasy world.

Martyn1981

The PV good news just keeps on coming.

The UK didn't just reach 1GW of PV installed last year, it smashed it with 1.45GW installed.

ROC's boosted large scale PV to a 600% increase (good year following a bad one).

UK one of only 4 countries ranked in the top 10 for both large and small scale installs.

This year's installs could hit 2GW, with a bit of luck and a following wind.

Total UK PV should reach 4GW by March.

UK solar PV demand reached 1.45GW in 2013: large-scale grows by 600%

Mart.

Cardew

Seriously why is it good news?


Every kWh generated by solar means that the electricity customer/taxpayer has had to come up with more cash for the subsidy it attracts.


You really should take note of Monbiot!