£100 bet against solar power - who won?

Martyn1981

cepheus wrote: »

I would certainly agree with this. Solar works best in countries with need for cooling in summer.

Thanks, but you haven't answered my questions.

Your statement was:

cepheus wrote: »

If you remember, my view is that solar is unlikely to become cost effective, for this country as a whole and we should be concentrating on more cost effective renewables such as wind and conservation. This situation remains the case in high latitudes such as the UK.

but, how do you justify that position (pro wind, anti PV on economic/cost grounds) if PV is now competing directly with on-shore wind, and has beaten (hands down) small scale wind and off-shore wind already?

If you recall last year I addressed your comments that domestic PV produced electricity at a cost of ~25p/kWh. I explained that current costs are around 7p-9p/kWh, and that the report you were referring to was drawing its info from a 2012 costing of PV, which itself was criticised at the time for being too high, as costs had already fallen by the time that (2012) report was issued.

I'm not against your green views, though mine are admittedly less intense, but I'm utterly baffled by your continued anti-PV attitude based on out of date economic information, or a refusal to compare economically the very generation types that you state don't compare economically!

PV has moved so fast it's caught everyone out. It's made fools of the critics, and improved far faster than even the most optimistic supporters thought possible. At this point in time there seems little benefit in arguing against its success, since it would appear to have already won*.

The arguments that PV would work better in sunnier climes is pointless diversion. We live here, and if it works economically here, then any suggestion that it's more economical elsewhere is simply pointless sour grapes ....... but good news for elsewhere.

*My definition of winning, comparable to the alternatives - gas, on-shore wind and nuclear.

Mart.