Solar ... In the news

Cardew

ed110220 wrote: »

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.

Not so! I am insisting on no such thing. It is patently obvious that every fuel has shortcomings.


Martyn is the one raising the problems of all other forms of electricity generation on this thread; and constantly asking what fuel I would prefer. His latest invention is that I was anti-nuclear.


If you care to read through all my posts on this subject, my beef is not with solar itself, but the stupidly high subsidies(FIT) it attracts in UK.


The deficiencies of solar are self evident; it doesn't generate at night and its output during the day can be unreliable and unpredictable.


It doesn't reduce the necessity of building and maintaining 'conventional' generating capacity to cope with the maximum load on the grid - to which Solar never contributes.


However the Government in its wisdom introduced a subsidy the for early adopters on privately owned houses which is now around 50 pence for every kWh generated, and they don't even have to contribute any electricity to the grid - they can use it all in house, and they get ever more resourceful in that aim.


To add insult to injury they allowed venture capitalists funding Rent a Roof companies to enjoy those same subsidies.


It would have gone some small way to making sense of using solar, if they had allowed solar farms to join the bandwagon; at least they would have contributed electricity to the Grid. However they deliberately cut those subsidies to ensure privately owned houses and Rent a Roof firms with sub 4kWp systems to retain higher subsidies.


Anyway the system exists, but it is not IMO anything to be proud about. It is a shocking waste of funds to which we all contribute and just a very few benefit.


My irritation is with zealots like Martyn, who seems incapable of appreciating the real situation and gleefully posts propaganda from the solar industry. The Minnesota saga is a prime case of his complete lack of understanding - blinded by solar!


When solar can exist without any form of subsidy - then fine. For all its deficiencies it is clean energy. Or, if it is a political necessity that we must have x% solar, then at least we should generate it in the most cost effective ways - which means solar farms and not silly little sub 4kWp systems dotted around the country which, as said earlier, do not need to feed anything into the Grid.


Another example of Martyn's complete lack of any logic is his defence of sub 4kWp systems as more efficient than solar farms. He is now trying to backtrack, but perusal of his earlier gems on this subject will reveal all.

Martyn1981

ed110220 wrote: »

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.

Thanks Ed. Absolutely what I'm trying to explain.

It's so easy for these people to mislead on the costs by referring to the subsidies 'openly' paid on renewables, whilst completely ignoring the 'hidden' costs that impact us from conventional fuels. In the long-term, renewables (and their subsidies) should lead to money-savings when all factors are considered.

It is the real costs (rather than the misleading leccy price) that has forced practically every country on the planet to start to roll out renewables to address this problem. Thankfully, in the UK, only 4% of people oppose the use of renewable energy (3% oppose, 1% strongly oppose.)

It may not initially be clear to most people, but the renewables subsidies being paid are not due to renewables, and some weird un-economic desire to have them, but due to the need to reduce FF's. They therefore reflect the hidden costs of FF's, through the need to adopt and support alternative measures.

The good news is that the costs of these alternatives is falling fast.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Another example of Martyn's complete lack of any logic is his defence of sub 4kWp systems as more efficient than solar farms. He is now trying to backtrack, but perusal of his earlier gems on this subject will reveal all.

Only a few hours before your post, I asked you politely, once again (possibly for the 4th or 5th time) to stop trolling me with these unsubstantiated lies.

Unfortunately, whilst I have been extremely patient, it appears you do not plan to stop, nor play nice, so consider this your last warning. Next time I will (sadly) have to start reporting you.

If you really do want to discuss the economic viability of small, medium and large scale PV, including the differing income revenues that act in favour of demand side PV, then that's fine with me. But I believe this subject was exhausted to your disatisfaction, resulting in your subsequent attempts to misrepresent my views.

Mart.

Cardew

Originally Posted by Cardew
Another example of Martyn's complete lack of any logic is his defence of sub 4kWp systems as more efficient than solar farms. He is now trying to backtrack, but perusal of his earlier gems on this subject will reveal all.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Only a few hours before your post, I asked you politely, once again (possibly for the 4th or 5th time) to stop trolling me with these unsubstantiated lies.

Unfortunately, whilst I have been extremely patient, it appears you do not plan to stop, nor play nice, so consider this your last warning. Next time I will (sadly) have to start reporting you.

If you really do want to discuss the economic viability of small, medium and large scale PV, including the differing income revenues that act in favour of demand side PV, then that's fine with me. But I believe this subject was exhausted to your disatisfaction, resulting in your subsequent attempts to misrepresent my views.

Mart.

Do you not realize how silly this latest post makes you look? 'throwing your toys out of the pram' because your illogical views have been pointed out.

Trolling? what nonsense. It is simply that you cannot bear to have facts pointed out.

Just look back through your earlier posts - there are scores and scores of your posts each claiming that Domestic PV installations are more viable than solar farms. Not just replies to myself, but any other poster who pointed out the nonsense you posted in defence of the FIT for sub 4 kWp systems.

Below is just a small selection of quotes from your posts. Just keep in mind that you now maintain that accusations that you stated 'domestic solar was more viable than solar farms' are 'unsubstantiated lies'

So as I have consistently argued, for viability domestic is ahead of farms

as previously, farms are not as viable as domestic. Find a report that thinks otherwise. I'm not arguing with you, I'm simply regurgitating facts.


But ..... solar farms .... they are a different animal all together. Whilst they will benefit from the lower install cost, they will suffer annual running costs, such as land, insurance, security etc, that don't apply to roof mounted commercial / domestic installs, and grid connection fees.

Also the farm will make it's money selling leccy at wholesale rates, not savings at retail rates.

Arguments:

Solar farms produce more leccy than domestic - nope, shared technology and little to no efficeincies of scale.

Solar farms are cheaper, economies of scale - nope, after including life-long running costs, there will be little to no difference.

Solar farms benefit the grid more as they only export - nope, offsetting import is exactly the same.

Transmission losses are not significant - nope, there are cost issues, and losses are not entirely dependent on distance as transformer and switchgear losses will impact too. This should balance out any generation gains from better cooling.

Subsidies are less - nope, the government never meant for FITs to be attractive to commercial scale installs and tried to maintain lower levels, specifically to discourage farms.

Solar farms will become viable sooner than domestic - nope, since costs are similar, but income streams are significantly different (wholesale price v's a combination of wholesale and retail).

Anything else? It seems to me that are no significant benefits to a PV farm, so leading on from there, domestic installs direct subsidies back into the general population, increase awareness of renewables, encourage involvement in our energy needs and educate our children.

My stance remains that domestic PV is more viable than farm PV - total costs are similar, income streams are not.

How much do you think farm PV (per kWp) costs across its lifetime compared to domestic PV?


But these are the points I've been addressing. Do you get more bang for the buck? It's easy to state it, but can it be supported? That's why I simply can't see any benefit of farm scale over domestic.

As I’ve explained many, many times to you, it’s simple economics. Solar farms
have large (additional) annual costs, land, insurance, security, admin etc. Plus
they would sell the leccy at wholesale rates, not save the cost of purchasing
leccy at retail costs, making it much harder for them to reach viability

Solar farms selling electricity at wholesale prices have harder financial hurdles to clear. But they will have some economies of scale when purchasing the panels and assorted kit.

Domestic and commercial installs sell electricity at wholesale prices and save money at retail prices, and do not face the high annual running costs of a PV farm, so the hurdles are lower.

It is rather ironic that you complain that you are being misrepresented(when you clearly are not) as it is exactly your Modus operandi. My apparent anti-Nuclear views being a good example.

silverwhistle

Cardew wrote: »

When solar can exist without any form of subsidy - then fine. For all its deficiencies it is clean energy. Or, if it is a political necessity that we must have x% solar, then at least we should generate it in the most cost effective ways - which means solar farms and not silly little sub 4kWp systems dotted around the country which, as said earlier, do not need to feed anything into the Grid..

Why aren't sub 4kWp systems cost effective? Just looking at the first 5 months for my installation and it's difficult to make projections for the remaining 7, but it looks like the return is pretty good even without the FIT (i.e. reducing bought in plus the _fixed_ percentage export allowance). I have also got peace of mind that my fuel bills will remain reasonable as prices escalate: over the period around £45 a month on Npower's most expensive rate (which I'm changing). On a yearly basis it will be a lot less per month.

I used to work in IT for one of the regional electricity companies. When I first started it was all mainframes, and then we went to a lot of distributed processing. Having a spread of energy sources is exactly the same, and often avoids the need to upgrade the network. I was once talking to one of our local distribution engineers on a course, and he mentioned the extra expense that fill-in housing or new estates could cause: new sub-stations, upgraded lines etc to meet potential peak demands. This was when low energy bulbs were first appearing, and he was only half-joking when he said they could save the cost of a new transformer by giving everyone on it new CFLs! The same applies to small scale PV: no need to upgrade the local systems, which obviously doesn't apply to large scale plant of any sort.

You go on and on and on about FITs, and they obviously really get your goat, but could you give it a bit of a rest? Even industry figures have acknowledged that they were set too high, but as they stand, with the mechanism for reduction they don't appear to be excessive. They've certainly achieved one of their purposes, as my installation cost proved.

Finally, some of us do have other motivations for installing systems: we're not just accounts driven. You seem to use the term 'greenie' in a pejorative way. Still not sure what to call you though: 'radioactiver', 'fuelburner'? At least Martyn is positive and an enthusiast and makes no bones about it,whilst accepting the valid and cautionary criticisms of PV that some make on here. You, on the other hand are just negative, and I've never seen you enthuse or post anything positive.

silverwhistle

I wrote that before seeing the last post from Cardew, and my point about the viability of my sub-4k installation becomes even more apposite.

Martyn1981

Cardew, I suspected you were spending all day trying to find something to back up your claims, and you have apparently failed.

I have stated over and over, that demand side PV is more economically viable than supply side, and also that larger demand side, such as supermarkets are the best.

You have repeatedly trolled me, claiming that I have said that small domestic PV is cheaper or more efficient.

I have never said that.

I have always agreed that large scale farms can produce electricity cheaper, and slightly more efficiently, but that those gains are surprisingly small (perhaps 40% & 20% respectively) but are mostly wiped out by annual running costs such as land, security and insurance that don't apply to (most) roof mounted demand side PV, and distribution losses, particularly transformer losses.

But more importantly I have always explained my statement on the grounds that supply side has an income of about 5p/kWh, whilst demand side has an income of around 3 times that.

Hence why I state that small(er) scale demand side PV is 'more economically viable' than supply side farms.

In all your trolling, you have always been careful to state I said cheaper of more efficiently, which I have not, you need to place it all in context, and stop trolling me.

Thank you.

Martyn.

Cardew

Your posts change from irritating to sad.


The whole thrust of your early posts was that ' as I have consistently argued, for viability domestic is ahead of farms'.


Now when such statements are brought up, they become 'unsubstantiated lies' .


You now spend your time posting extracts from Solar industry magazines that extoll the virtues of huge solar farms.


All of this to distract attention away from the Minnesota faux pas.

Cardew

silverwhistle wrote: »

Why aren't sub 4kWp systems cost effective? Just looking at the first 5 months for my installation and it's difficult to make projections for the remaining 7, but it looks like the return is pretty good even without the FIT .

If you consider that is the case - i.e. the return is good without the FIT - then you will be happy - and so would I.


Not sure what you include in your calculations when you have disregarded FIT; however most people - even the guru! - consider that £100 a year saving on in-house saving is a reasonable estimate.


Even with our rock bottom interest rates, a £6000 or so investment in PV would return around £180 pa.


So it would be interesting to see your calculations.


The 'discussion' with Martyn , stems from his fierce defence of sub 4kWp systems(when the FIT was 43p/kWh) as being more viable than solar farms. - read his early posts; and now his denials; despite his quotes!(there are far more)


He gave every reason under the sun(pun intended) why solar farms were not as viable as domestic systems despite lower subsidies than Sub 4kWp systems and(shock horror) that they might actually export most of their electricity. Reasons included; 'annual running costs, such as land, insurance, security etc, that don't apply to roof mounted commercial / domestic installs, and grid connection fees.'


Now he is always posting triumphantly how successful huge solar farms have become and in particular several 70 acre farms in Minnesota!


I do appreciate the reasons for your defence of Martyn however!

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

The whole thrust of your early posts was that ' as I have consistently argued, for viability domestic is ahead of farms'.

And I still stand by that, they are more economically viable, I have never changed my story.

You have, however, repeatedly claimed that I said that domestic systems produced leccy 'cheaper' or 'more efficiently' than a farm. Which I have not said, in a cheap attempt to undermine my comments.

You have always chosen your words carefully to misrepresent my points, and are therefore trolling me.

Each time I have pointed out your error, I have re-explained the point, so even if you did (accidentally or deliberately) misunderstand me originally, there remains no excuse for the repetition over the last year or so.

I have asked you politely, and repeatedly to stop.


I should also point out, that going back I gave you numerous examples of the numbers, and you always declined to supply numbers, on the grounds that you couldn't be expected to know the relevant costs.

Here is a very simple example for you. 4kWp install, southern UK, £6k, 4,000kWhs of generation pa. To avoid any arguments over financial losses, lets account for the costs via a 5% 25yr repayment mortgage. Adding £1k for a new inverter at yr 12, results in a repayment of £470pa. (Note, simple annual interest, with end of year payment - monthly would work out slightly lower).

£470/4,000 = 11.75p/kWh, which is lower than the UK import (socket) rate. So socket parity has already been reached.

Personally, I don't like that definition of socket parity as it requires 100% consumption. In reality you would need about 50 to 60% consumption to achieve socket parity. So you can see that even in the UK, we are closing in on socket parity, for the most suitable properties, and situations.

Obviously there are a number of additional factors, such as leccy inflation, and importantly, that this is a retrofit cost, new build would be less. Edit: Also, the system should last 30+ yrs.

So my question to you, are PV farms anywhere near grid parity?

Mart.

PS I suspect your lack of understanding lies with your assumption that 'economies of scale' are always large. When in fact, they will differ depending on the situation and product. You appear to have wildly overestimated both the economies and efficiencies of scale when considering PV.

In the case of wind, both are exceptionally large, but for PV, they are not that great, since the technology is largely the same, and after about 50kWp, it pretty much just becomes modular. M.