Solar ... In the news

Fruit_and_Nut_Case

China hands 'death sentence' to 75% of solar cell makers

Not quite as drastic as it seems.

The Chinese government is pushing for a drastic shakeout of the country's overcrowded solar cell industry, supporting only a quarter of players and practically telling the rest to get out of the business.

silverwhistle

Cardew wrote: »

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. [SNIP]

So it would be interesting to see your calculations.

Not sure what has been written on this thread since my post and your reply (there seems to be a bit), but my reply is this:

After 5 months (which doesn't include the best months - according to PVGIS - of A/M/J/J and half of August) I've substituted more than £100. (738*.15). I've used a nominal 15p per unit which is less than I'm paying and that's not including the export allowance, which I presume yo don't object to? Some of that has been for water heating, so should be valued at a lesser rate, but my figures still stand.

Fom the end of March (standard weather allowing) I probably won't need to use gas at all for my water heating, and my gas boiler will get a complete rest for 6 months of the year.

I'm not a campaigner for PV; I'm an enthusiastic user and I'm not going to comment here often. I notice you didn't reply to my accusation that you aren't for and positive about anything. That, of course, is your right, but forgive some of us if we then come to our own conclusions.

Martyn1981

Fruit_and_Nut_Case wrote: »

China hands 'death sentence' to 75% of solar cell makers

Not quite as drastic as it seems.

Hiya F&N. I've been following this, and this article from last week, has a rough breakdown on the (possible/probable) global effects. As you say, not that drastic:

China's PV company 'cull list' to have minimal global impact

According to IHS' new report, IHS Solar PV Integrated Market Tracker – Q4 2013, the 109 companies on the list [approved list not cull list] account for 92% of Chinese polysilicon manufacturing capacity, 94% of Chinese wafer capacity, 95% of Chinese cell capacity and 93% of Chinese module capacity. "Even in a highly unlikely 'worst case' scenario assuming all other companies to exit the PV business during the course of 2014, the impact on global PV supply will be very small. Compared to other risks associated with PV markets in 2014 -- notably the unclear situation for demand in Japan -- it will be negligible," IHS concluded.

However, I can't help thinking that this will have a short term effect on prices, since demand for PV is rocketing (with 2014 estimates varying from 40GWp to 55GWp, compared to about 35GWp in 2013), so demand may outstrip supply, until more of the higher quality production plants have been built. But I'm sure the Chinese will rise to the challenge.

Mart.

Martyn1981

ed110220 wrote: »

You still haven't said how you'd prefer electricity to be generated in a way that doesn't produce unacceptable pollution, apart from French nuclear (which also requires large subsidies and cannot be modulated, so it produces as much at 0400 as at 1800).

For what it's worth, 50% of world solar PV installation is expected to be in Asia-Pacific this year, mainly China (8GW). Think what you may of the Chinese government, but they are hardheaded people and no fools. If the Chinese government is saying yes to solar and Cardew is saying no, I know which way the wind is blowing.

Ed

Speaking of wind Ed, this might take your breath away:

China on world's 'biggest push' for wind power

China has embarked on the greatest push for renewable energy the world has ever seen.

A key element involves more than doubling the number of wind turbines in the next six years.

Already the world's largest producer of wind power, China plans further massive increases.

From a current installed capacity of 75 gigawatts (GW), the aim is to achieve a staggering 200GW by 2020.

By contrast, the European Union countries together have just over 90GW of installed wind capacity.

Mart.

Cardew

silverwhistle wrote: »

Not sure what has been written on this thread since my post and your reply (there seems to be a bit), but my reply is this:

After 5 months (which doesn't include the best months - according to PVGIS - of A/M/J/J and half of August) I've substituted more than £100. (738*.15). I've used a nominal 15p per unit which is less than I'm paying and that's not including the export allowance, which I presume yo don't object to? Some of that has been for water heating, so should be valued at a lesser rate, but my figures still stand.

Fom the end of March (standard weather allowing) I probably won't need to use gas at all for my water heating, and my gas boiler will get a complete rest for 6 months of the year.

I'm not a campaigner for PV; I'm an enthusiastic user and I'm not going to comment here often. I notice you didn't reply to my accusation that you aren't for and positive about anything. That, of course, is your right, but forgive some of us if we then come to our own conclusions.

On your calculations, without quibbling about 15p/kWh and some of the electricity used for water heating, what are your estimated annual savings? £200?


That figure is higher than most people. Even so an annual saving of £200 IMO would never justify(in financial terms) the investment of several thousand pounds and the cost of a device to divert surplus electricity to water heating. Especially as there will be repairs/maintenance required during the life of the system.


As for what energy source 'I am for'. Well I think with the limitations of solar and the huge subsidies it requires, virtually every other source is preferable.


These extracts on green technologies, posted above, is one POV:

Other green energy technologies have the opposite economics. For the same amount of money, wind power produces about five times more energy than solar power. Hydropower generates six times more, and even biomass power plants are three times as effective as solar power.

To save one ton of CO2, Weimann explains, we could either spend €5 on insulating an old building, €20 as investment in a new gas-fired power plant, or around €500 on photovoltaic arrays. The benefit to the climate is the same in all those scenarios. "From a climate standpoint, every solar plant is a bad investment," Weimann concludes.

As I have stated before all forms of electricity generation have problems, however given the limitations and cost of solar, it is bottom of the pile.

This particular thread had become a nonsense. A mouthpiece for the solar industry where any mention of solar was reported on in glowing terms, without any balance.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

As for what energy source 'I am for'. Well I think with the limitations of solar and the huge subsidies it requires, virtually every other source is preferable.


These extracts on green technologies, posted above, is one POV:

Other green energy technologies have the opposite economics. For the same amount of money, wind power produces about five times more energy than solar power. Hydropower generates six times more, and even biomass power plants are three times as effective as solar power.

As I have stated before all forms of electricity generation have problems, however given the limitations and cost of solar, it is bottom of the pile.

This particular thread had become a nonsense. A mouthpiece for the solar industry where any mention of solar was reported on in glowing terms, without any balance.

Oh dear, that's what happens when you quote 18 month old articles. Here are some of the 2014/15 contract for difference (CfD) subsidy levels (per MWh):

On-shore wind £95
Off-shore £155
Hydro £100
Dedicated biomass £125
Biomass conversion £105
Large scale PV £120

and for 2018/19 (note there are rates for all years between)

On-shore wind £90
Off-shore £140
Hydro £100
Dedicated biomass £125
Biomass conversion £105
Large scale PV £100

These are 15yr subsidies, and compare reasonably well with the incoming nuclear CfD of £93/MWh in 2023(ish) which will be for 35yrs.

Don't think most people would call that bottom of the pile, especially when it's rapidly on its way up! And remember, this is in the UK, where we have above average wind, and below average solar.

[Edit: Addendum. In regard to FiT rates, PV is cheaper than anaerobic digestion, hydro and wind, but is just beaten by CHP (combined heat and power) with 12.89p v's 14.9p. M.]

Mart.

silverwhistle

Cardew wrote: »

On your calculations, without quibbling about 15p/kWh and some of the electricity used for water heating, what are your estimated annual savings? £200?

Probably a little more, plus you've forgotten the export amount, which should be £90+. So the return is pretty similar to boring bonds. My shares yield more, with more risk

As for not quibbling about 15p/kWh; you are though, aren't you? As it happens I currently pay 17.23p including VAT until my move away from Npower goes through. It actually makes sense for me to go to an even higher rate without standing charges due to my low usage.

Plus I've got a bit of peace of mind over fuel bills, reduced wear on my gas boiler, and finally as I noted earlier, it's not entirely financially driven.


Finally, if this thread has become a nonsense, I do hope you take some of the blame.

Cardew

silverwhistle wrote: »

Finally, if this thread has become a nonsense, I do hope you take some of the blame.

You obviously think I should take some of the blame!


Where do you suggest the rest of the blame lies?

zeupater

.... probably find that a good proportion resides with the UK Government's history of indecision and blithering on energy policy ... can't blame 'silverwhistle' unless (s)he's a politician, same for 'Cardew' too ....

Anyway, I for one find Mart's analysis of subsidies pretty interesting but reckon that there's still too much fat (market/margin protection) built into the capital costs for most of the technologies which will become apparent over the next few years ....


HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Anyway, I for one find Mart's analysis of subsidies pretty interesting but reckon that there's still too much fat (market/margin protection) built into the capital costs for most of the technologies which will become apparent over the next few years ....

Thank you. Now can I be cheeky and ask for your indulgence. In post #572, I suggested socket parity was close, and as an afterthought, mentioned new builds. How does this sound to you (it's more a mental exercise, so just ignore if you want):

For new build, stripping out scaffolding, a small element of roofing costs (being simpler), some economies perhaps from doing 1/2 a dozen properties etc, and less costs as no 'grant scheme/subsidy hoops', I think £4.5k for 4kWp seems reasonable, but will run with £5k, just in case. Then using the same set up as before

"4kWp install, southern UK, £5k, 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 £390pa."

£390/4,000 = 9.75p/kWh, which is equivalent to 40% consumption if leccy is 17p import and 5p export.

I appreciate that this is cherry picking, but just looking to see if we've reached (just) a viability point. Am I being reasonable, standing charges and twin tariffs can really much up some of these thought exercises?

Another thought, am I wrong to be aiming for viability in year 1. Would a fairer viability threshold, actually be when the PV breaks even over the whole 25 years, perhaps losing money in the early years, then making it back as inflation pushes leccy prices up. In which case, this example is easily viable, though no easier to 'sell' I suspect?

[Edit: Forgot to say. In reality, and cherry picking aside, I assume we are actually more like 2 years away from really being able to say that socket parity has been reached, and even then, still for only a minority of 'ideal' situations. M.]

Mart.