Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

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.

I have no problem with your nuclear views. Your post appeared to quite simply rubbish nuclear subsidies. Combining that with your near hysterical anti-subsidy arguments, and your refusal to offer any alternative to renewables, it seemed a fair bet that you were (or are) anti-nuclear.

Whilst you have still not been completely clear about your views, it does now appear that you are pro-nuclear. Have I got that right?

Personally, I have no issue with that. I'd rather not have nuclear, but I can't see an easy way of avoiding it, so I accept it as a necessary evil.

However, if you are pro-nuclear, or simply, accept nuclear, then you appear to be in a hypercritical situation, since nuclear is entirely dependent on subsidies, has been for 50 years, will be for the next 10. And the incoming reactors, circa 2023 and 2025 will then receive 35yr subsidies roughly equal to the 15yr on-shore wind, and PV subsidies at that time.

If you are pro-coal (you've also made some supportive comments) please confirm? Then you should note, that the cheaper and dirty plants are being (or have been) shutdown, so prices are rising. The current plants are still too dirty, and to mitigate CO2 emissions, CCS (if it works) will be subsidised.

Anyway you cut it, renewables are not actually that expensive (in context), and costs are still falling.

Mart.

zeupater

... and in the meantime ...

While this ridiculously long exchange has been 'frozen in time' in terms of justification, UK electricity prices have increased by ~40% and pv installation costs have fallen to around a third of what they were, distribution efficiencies have remained constant, no nuclear has been built (or even started), fossil fuel capacity has fallen, renewables generation has increased, FiT support on new systems tends to reflect the capital cost of the installation ... and, both domestic & commercial scale installations are continuing, despite industry doom-laden predictions .... more importantly, there is still little recognition of the relevance of integrated solutions within the renewables sector ... and most frustratingly, the ever-so-predictable Severn estuary tidal flow remains untapped, as do all of the floodable valleys in Wales which would be needed to support any Bristol channel/Severn estuary schemes in order to ensure that harvested energy can be delivered as power on a 24x7 basis ....

HTH
Z

Cardew

Originally Posted by Cardew

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

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.

That according to Martyn apparently was 'unsubstantiated lies' and thus myself trolling.

After giving loads of examples in posts where Martyn had posted 'domestic was more viable than solar farms' I apparently was still trolling. Then when this was posted:

Originally Posted by Cardew

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

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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

You couldn't invent it!

Now about the judge in Minnesota;)

mpn226

Boys Boys come on settle down, FiT may not be perfect but it's here for the moment and personally I hope it stays. It doesn't matter how energy is produced we all have to pay for it and regretfully we DO NOT live in an ideal world, somebody somewhere will always be upset and think they know all the answers.
Just agree to disagree and move on life is too short

Martyn1981

Hiya Cardew, I appreciate that you've had a hard day. Spending all morning confirming that I said economical and viable (exactly what I've been pointing out for a year), and failing to show I said cheaper or more efficient. So I'm happy to agree to disagree, and we can both go on claiming that I said economical and viable, and economically viable.

So I thought I might try to cheer you up a little. You know this little rant you had yesterday:

Cardew wrote: »

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.

Well, you'll be pleased to know that large scale PV has been doing really well (something I think is great too). In fact you could call this good news.

Actually, I think I did call it good news, when I posted it 2 days ago.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.

But you threw another wobbly, and must have missed it:

Cardew wrote: »

Seriously why is it good news?

Small extract (but best to read it properly, as 'the pipeline' is a little complicated):

The UK ground-mount pipeline continues to grow because the number of projects being planned easily exceeds the number being completed. Indeed, it is likely that the pipeline will exceed 6GW by the end of 2014, with even the ROC revisions on 1 April 2015 seemingly sustaining the hunger of project developers.

So cheer up, it's all good, lots of small scale PV, lots of large scale PV (the UK in 6th place in the world for both). Though personally I'm a little disappointed in the mid size roof mounted installs, but I can't have everything, can I.

Glad to know that my posts are helpful, letting you know stuff you are clearly interested in. It helps me to know it's all worth while. So big smiles all round.

Mart.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

... and in the meantime ...

more importantly, there is still little recognition of the relevance of integrated solutions within the renewables sector ... and most frustratingly, the ever-so-predictable Severn estuary tidal flow remains untapped, as do all of the floodable valleys in Wales which would be needed to support any Bristol channel/Severn estuary schemes in order to ensure that harvested energy can be delivered as power on a 24x7 basis ....

HTH
Z

Hiya Zeup. Not exactly the same, but close. Things may (just may) be happening in Swansea, with their tidal lagoon plans. Some info here:

http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com/default.aspx

There was also an article in the Times (23/12/13).

Mart.

Martyn1981

Well, I was going to lay low for a while, since 'some' folks don't like too much solar news on solar news threads, particularly if they don't like solar!

But (unfortunately) found lots of very interesting bits and bobs, well, interesting to me.

1. More a blatant promo piece, but a nice little story about housing association installs helping some poorer residents:

Solar PV scheme helps protect 350 Scottish homes from fuel poverty


2. A brief, but reasonably detailed look at the PV 'position' in the UK, and the public's growing acceptance now that the hysteria has died down (well, most of it!):

Bright new dawn for UK solar industry


3. A combined PV and storage system, to help integrate intermittent generation with a local grid that had already reached it's integration limit. [Over the last year or so, there have been many such stories from all over the world, including the UK about small (on a grid-scale) containerised storage systems being rolled out, almost as test plants for use with PV and wind. It's still a young and expensive technology, but building momentum.]

Combined PV plant and battery storage project planned for Reunion island

Mart.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

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. Lol

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 ( Isn't it something like £7 a year per household?) and just a very few benefit. ( Nearly 500,000 households? estimated to be 1,000,000 by the end of 2015?)

My irritation is with zealots like Martyn ( Really?)

When solar can exist without any form of subsidy - then fine. ( Like all other forms of energy? lol)

I wonder at what point cardew will 'cease and desist'

I wonder at what point he will realise for all his constant whining and bleating, that actually the world is carrying on (and loling at him).

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Well, I was going to lay low for a while, since 'some' folks don't like too much solar news on solar news threads, particularly if they don't like solar!

But (unfortunately) found lots of very interesting bits and bobs, well, interesting to me.

1. More a blatant promo piece, but a nice little story about housing association installs helping some poorer residents:

Solar PV scheme helps protect 350 Scottish homes from fuel poverty

Again this is just propaganda from solar industry magazines.


All the above means is that electricity customers/taxpayers have provided a subsidy to the 350 homes.


The money could just have been given direct to the housing association without the need for solar installations.


Why does solar have to take the credit?

ed110220

Cardew wrote: »

Again this is just propaganda from solar industry magazines.


All the above means is that electricity customers/taxpayers have provided a subsidy to the 350 homes.


The money could just have been given direct to the housing association without the need for solar installations.


Why does solar have to take the credit?

Ok, so how would you prefer electricity to be generated without causing serious air and greenhouse gas pollution?

After all, if the indirect costs of fossil fuel burning were paid directly, it would make fossil fuel generation very expensive indeed.

Personally I favour James Hansen's proposal of a revenue-neutral greenhouse gas tax that would be divided up and paid back per person, thereby benefiting those who produce less GHG and costing those who produce more. Sadly I doubt it would be popular with government.

Ed