Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Seriously why is it good news?

Well the alternative title was:-

2013 - Good news for the 76% of people that support renewables but bad news for the 4% that don't, and good news for the 82% of people that support solar, but bad news for the 4% that don't. (According to the latest DECC attitudes survey)

But,
1. It's a little unwieldy and I din't think it would FiT very well in the title box.
2. This is a solar thread on a green and ethical board.
3. I tend to think we are well beyond the stage were we should still be pandering to the small anti-renewables crowd, regardless of how loud they shout.

Cheer up and join the energy revolution (or offer a valid alternative?) :T

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Cheer up and join the energy revolution (or offer a valid alternative?) :T

Mart.

Valid alternative?


1. A generating method that can be relied upon to generate 24/7 - all year round.


2. A generating method that doesn't need huge subsidies paid for every kWh.


3. A generating method that doesn't require an alternative generating system built for those periods when the sun isn't shining - like at night.


This is a Money Saving Website, and this forum is Green and Ethical Moneysaving. To constantly quote from Solar industry publications about generation figures that mean it is costing us more and more money ain't moneysaving; and ain't good news.

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

This is a Money Saving Website.....

Quite so - but it's more a site for individuals to find out how to save money than it is for society to investigate how to plan the future.


My solar panels definitely save me money and if anyone feels they're beneficial to society that is just a bonus. If someone else feels that my panels don't save them anything then I shan't lie awake at night worrying about it.

spgsc531

EricMears wrote: »

Quite so - but it's more a site for individuals to find out how to save money than it is for society to investigate how to plan the future.


My solar panels definitely save me money and if anyone feels they're beneficial to society that is just a bonus. If someone else feels that my panels don't save them anything then I shan't lie awake at night worrying about it.

I suspect many here feed on cardew's tears

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Valid alternative?

1. A generating method that can be relied upon to generate 24/7 - all year round.

2. A generating method that doesn't need huge subsidies paid for every kWh.

3. A generating method that doesn't require an alternative generating system built for those periods when the sun isn't shining - like at night.

Sounds wonderful ...... Ummmm ........ ahhhhhhh ....... umm.. Hmm!

Sorry, I can't quite spot what it is, you seem to have forgotten to mention its name. I sincerely hope you aren't bashing PV/renewables with an imaginary technology.

Perhaps you could look to George Monbiot for inspiration, as he recently wrote an article stressing that even nuclear (with its 50 years of subsidies to date, and another 35yrs on the way) is a better option than coal (with its massive hidden costs).

But then again, your little energy snippets in the past have mentioned a liking for coal and a dislike for nuclear, so that would seem to put you at odds with GM, which itself makes no sense as you're always telling us that he is right.

And clean coal will cost more, and CCS (for coal and gas) will cost more again and receive subsidies. So that can't be it either.

Hmmm. Tricky business this, very tricky, but I'm sure you'll suggest something eventually, after all, what sort of person would just keep going onto a forum attacking a technology (or group of technologies) without having anything constructive to offer as an alternative?

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But then again, your little energy snippets in the past have mentioned a liking for coal and a dislike for nuclear,

Not for the first time you are confused - or perhaps you can point out where I have expressed a 'dislike for nuclear?' It seems to be your Modus operandi to post an inaccurate comment, and build an argument on that inaccuracy.


I do notice that your insistence that sub-4kWp installations on roofs was the best method of generation, and that PV 'Farms' were nowhere near as efficient, is not trotted out with such frequency these days.


Indeed you were in raptures when you mistakenly thought solar farms covering 70 acres n Minnesota would be more economical than gas fired generation.


Gas obtained by fracking seems to be the next sensible option for generating electricity. Buy it from the USA until the UK gets on stream.


Don't forget that instead of paying a subsidy as we do for PV generation, gas obtained from fracking in UK will be taxed as was North Sea oil and gas.


Anyway, the subject in hand is your inability to see the flaws in the Minnesota judge's ruling.


Or that we should rejoice that we are paying more and more subsidies for PV.


P.S.


As said countless times, there is no criticism of anyone taking advantage of the subsidies available for PV. Indeed the vast majority of those with PV, understandably, have been driven by the chance to profit from some stupid legislation. They are not disingenuous enough to pretend that the green aspects of PV are the driver.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Not for the first time you are confused - or perhaps you can point out where I have expressed a 'dislike for nuclear?' It seems to be your Modus operandi to post an inaccurate comment, and build an argument on that inaccuracy.

I pointed this out to you last time you denied it! Oh well, here goes again:

Cardew wrote: »

Martyn1981 wrote: »

As comparisons go, I like comparing the PV FITs budget to 3.5 years of nuclear decommissioning, which consumes energy.

So your justification for FIT is that other projects 'waste' even more money?

Moving on:

Cardew wrote: »

I do notice that your insistence that sub-4kWp installations on roofs was the best method of generation, and that PV 'Farms' were nowhere near as efficient, is not trotted out with such frequency these days.

That's because I've never said that. Something you know full well, and has been pointed out to you by others including Zeupater.

To save time I'll simply refer you to the last time you tried to troll me with these lies:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Just to remind you yet again, that I said small scale demand side PV was more 'economically viable' than large scale supply side. I did not say more efficient, nor cheaper, as you are aware.

This is simply understood once you appreciate both the difference in costs, and crucially income. I doubt I need to explain this any more times to you.

I have also asked you several times now, to stop trolling me with these false claims and misrepresentations of what I have said, and I believe, said quite clearly (remember how others tried to explain this to you, too?) Please stop it, you are only embarrassing yourself now.

Moving on again:

Cardew wrote: »

Don't forget that instead of paying a subsidy as we do for PV generation, gas obtained from fracking in UK will be taxed as was North Sea oil and gas.

Wow! You are still missing the big picture. We aren't subsidising renewables on a whim, we are doing it so as to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we burn, and the subsequent CO2 that is released. The subsidies are, effectively, a direct result of burning FF's.

So burning gas doesn't solve the problem of subsidies, it is part of the problem. Also, as you should be aware, carbon capture and sequestration for FF's including gas, is to receive a subsidy. The details have yet to be announced (I think) but I believe the initial references suggest that it will be for not less than 15yrs.

Try as hard as you might, you are just going in circles.

You keep pointing out that PV is not perfect - I agree. But fail to realise that all of the alternatives are also flawed, hence the necessary compromises and subsidies.

Mart.

Cardew

To repeat:

Anyway, the subject in hand is your inability to see the flaws in the Minnesota judge's ruling.

Or that we should rejoice that we are paying more and more subsidies for PV.

Martyn1981

Jobs in the renewables industry in Scotland are doing well, or more precisely, the positivity behind them. Not sure how this translates to the rest of the UK. I assume (guess) that off-shore wind is pretty labour intensive - anyone know?

Renewable energy firms 'looking to hire more staff'

More than half of companies working in the renewable energy sector in Scotland are looking to hire staff this year, according to a survey.

The research, commissioned by industry body Scottish Renewables, also suggested a record 11,700 people were working full-time in the sector.

That was 5% more than the previous year's study.


And a quick update on a PV milestone. As predicted, the UK has now reached half a million solar homes:

UK solar homes hit half a million milestone

The number of solar installations in the UK registered for the government’s feed-in tariff has topped half a million for the first time, according to official statistics.

The latest data released by the Department for Energy and Climate Change shows that the total number of registered installs reached 501,145 for the week ending 12 January.

Together, the mainly residential systems represent an installed capacity of 1.808GW.

Mart.

ed110220

Martyn1981 wrote: »

You keep pointing out that PV is not perfect - I agree. But fail to realise that all of the alternatives are also flawed, hence the necessary compromises and subsidies.

Mart.

Indeed. Cardew seems to be insisting on nothing short of an energy source that can supply 100% of demand, is cheap, non-polluting and does not produce large amounts of greenhouse gases. Well such a thing does not exist as yet. He is setting impossible demands, rather like the tobacco industry's demands of impossible standards of proof before they would accept the health risks of smoking.

Let's not forget that fossil fuels may seem cheap, but only if you ignore the cost everyone has to pay for their use in terms of pollution and warming the Earth. If my home is flooded because greenhouse gases increase the intensity of rainstorms that's a cost to me that isn't on the fuel bill. If someone dies in the USA from respiratory disease brought on by coal burning, that's a cost that's not on the fuel bill. If drought intensified by climate change forces up food prices that's a cost not on a fuel bill.

Banging on about when the sun isn't shining is a logical fallacy. When the sun is shining, electricity demand is always above baseload and where the demand above baseload is made up of gas generation, every kWh of solar is a kWh's worth of gas not burnt.

It's a bit like my parents and their wood burning stove fired by wood my dad get's as offcuts from work. It doesn't entirely replace their central heating, but all the wood they burn is gas saved. By your all-or-nothing logical fallacy their wood burning is pointless.