Martin L pushing up bills by plugging solar !

Cardew

sheffield_lad wrote: »

Solar is by no means perfect but given the limited choices and the reduction in the FIT's it looks pretty viable to me.

Depends on your definition of 'viable'.


Firstly you get a FIT subsidy of only 14.5p/kWh for every kWh you generate. Inflation linked and tax free for the next 20 years.


Then you get a payment of approx. 4.5p/kWh on 50% of all your generated electricity that it is assumed('deemed') you export to the grid.


However you actually don't have to export anything at all to get those payments; you can use it all 'in house'.


Then the viability of solar.


It doesn't generate at night, and during the day its generation is unpredictable.


It doesn't contribute anything to the grid at times of maximum load(winter's evening) so 'GB limited' still needs exactly the same amount of conventional generating capacity - i.e. solar doesn't save a single power station.


So 'viable' for those with a suitable roof perhaps - but the point of this thread is that 98% of us get no benefit from solar, but pay the 2%.


The point of this thread is the more solar generated, the more we pay.

Andy_WSM

sheffield_lad wrote: »

Then he makes suggestions of geothermal. Nice idea if you liver in Hawaii or Iceland but back in blighty its not going to get off the ground.

The UK has plenty of "hot spots" where Geothermal can, and does work.

Southampton has a rather large geothermal scheme, as does Bath (example: Roman Baths, Bath Cathedral floor heated by geothermal springs).

There are other places in the UK where hot spots exist and could be used if we had the desire and financial incentive to do so.