Break even

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I doubt there is much point in continuing to try to educate you. Is there?

I wish trout rose so easily.


Not me you need to educate Sunshine(how appropriate!) but the DECC etc - Just let them have your reasons why solar farms are not the way to go - as you detailed in the various threads over the years; I am sure they will listen attentively.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Not me you need to educate Sunshine(how appropriate!) but the DECC etc - Just let them have your reasons why solar farms are not the way to go - as you detailed in the various threads over the years; I am sure they will listen attentively.

I'll take that as a no then to the challenge of proving me wrong! :T I wonder if anyone else is surprised.

Oh, and DECC don't need my advice. If you can find any national or international economic papers that don't state that demand side PV is more economically viable than supply side ....... I'll be very surprised. Start with BNEF if you're interested.

Cardew wrote: »

I wish trout rose so easily.

Have a quiet thunk about who's playing who? [Hint - I find your desperation ever more hilarious, but fascinating on a psychological basis.] :rotfl:

Mart.

jimjames

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Thanks for the responses. Does that not seems to be odd for the country to be investing in solar when it will always cost more than other energy sources? Or am I missing something?

How much does nuclear cost? What about wind?

I'm not sure solar is any more expensive than either of those

MFW_ASAP

jimjames wrote: »

How much does nuclear cost? What about wind?

I'm not sure solar is any more expensive than either of those

You seem to have chosen your examples well. I'm sure there are other forms of energy production available. Or indeed a better way to implement solar

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

You seem to have chosen your examples well. I'm sure there are other forms of energy production available. Or indeed a better way to implement solar

That's why I gave you links to the FiT and CfD rates, so you could compare and consider.

On the small scale/demand side (FiT) PV has pretty much got it sown up now.

So looking at the larger scale supply side (CfD), you'll see that some are cheaper, similar or more expensive than PV, and it's interesting to see how the subsidies change over the 4/5 year period, set so far.

Perhaps also worth noting is that the 2019 PV CfD rate of £100/MWh is actually higher than the Solar Trade Association suggested to the government back in 2013(ish). Nobody is quite sure why the govt set a higher figure but suspicions were that they didn't want it to be lower then the nuclear CfD rate (£93), since 'selling' the idea of new nukes is already hard enough - without even more renewable subsidies being lower 5 years before the first reactor might come on line.

Running through them, you also need to consider potential size, and I'm ignoring coal, as the UK is trying to move away from it, and when you include externalities such as air pollution and early deaths, it comes out as very expensive.

So the big boys are wind, nuclear and gas, with PV a bit smaller, perhaps 10% of leccy demand. Bio-mass has large potential, but is also quite controversial.

Tidal and wave have huge potential, but costs are still very high, but the technology is advancing, so fingers crossed.

Mart.

MFW_ASAP

Perhaps the aim should have been to install PV onto the roofs of factories, schools, care homes, hospitals, farms, office blocks, etc. where the energy would have been used at source during the day, that to promote installation onto houses which are mostly empty during the day?

It would be a better use of public money and would stop the blight on our housing stock of having panels sat on house roofs.

EDIT: The other alternative would be to look at how we can make coal and gas power stations much cleaner, carbon storage, etc. The current renewable technologies are a bit, crappy, to be candid. Nothing ever seems to completely do the job completely. Solar stops at night and the panels are only 8% or so efficient, wind turbines stop when the wind stops, ground sourced heat pumps and air sourced heat pumps don't deliver anywhere near the stated COP values, heat recovery ventilation needs an air tight home or you just over ventilate the house making it colder, hydro is great - power 24/7 but has limited application, bio fuels compete with food crops.

The only 'green' technology that actually seems to work is insulation and pushing manufacturers to build more efficien products (like cars, TV sets, white goods). The focus should be on energy conservation not more production. We should be closing down coal power stations because we don't need the energy not because we have replaced the energy source.

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Perhaps the aim should have been to install PV onto the roofs of factories, schools, care homes, hospitals, farms, office blocks, etc. where the energy would have been used at source during the day, that to promote installation onto houses which are mostly empty during the day?

That's quite interesting. I've been explaining for years that large(ish) demand side PV is the most economically viable, and therefore should/could be the first to go subsidy free. This is simply explained as the cost is only a little more than farm scale, has lower running costs, but with potentially 100% consumption the income stream is approximately twice that of grid supply.

FiTs does support this (see the FiT table I posted) but take up has been woefully slow. The government has recently decided to 'put rocket boosters' under the commercial PV sector.

The biggest single hurdle apparently is that most (I think it is 70%) of commercial properties are leased, which causes issues with such a long term investment.

[Edit: Another potential hurdle is that the rooves may have been built without any spare capacity for load bearing. However this company's site may be interesting for a quick perusal. M.]

One other hurdle to your suggestion is public perception. Whilst hopefully only an issue with a minority, some people don't understand that off-set and export have the same effect on the grid (one reduces demand, the other increases supply). So might complain about demand side PV using what it generates, and depriving others!

I had to spend nearly a year explaining this to one person on MSE. Can you guess who that was?

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

EDIT: The other alternative would be to look at how we can make coal and gas power stations much cleaner, carbon storage, etc.

This is still on the cards, but it hasn't made much progress. The extra energy needed could increase consumption (of gas/coal) by 20-40% at the plant. On top of this you then to transport and store the captured carbon. CCS could work out at a higher subsidy level than renewables. But with predictable generation it might be worth it ...... if pollution is also prevented.

As you say, efficiency and insulation should be at the forefront.

Mart.

zeupater

Hi

... although it looks very likely that future of coal-fired stations is looking very shaky. Commissioning new distributed gas powered generation specifically sited to leverage shale-gas reserves would probably work out cheaper than just retro-fitting CCS - fuel transport costs disappear and the balance of trade is improved significantly .... all this and massively reducing carbon output.

Regarding " .... Perhaps the aim should have been to install PV onto the roofs of factories, schools, care homes, hospitals, farms, office blocks, etc. where the energy would have been used at source during the day ..." - just around here there's plenty of arrays popping-up - eg .... an infant's school, car dealership, community centre, bathroom shop, Supermarket, Council Offices to name just a few - I also know a number of farmers who probably average somewhere over 50kWp of generation each which is used for cooling, grain drying, extraction, pumping etc (but only when it's light ) ... that's just the small-stuff though as there's a 5MWp array not far away - not than anyone without a 4x4 (or larger) would know, you could drive right past it without even noticing ... funnily enough, the local 'anti' campaigners have gone very, very quiet ....

... :shhh:, don't wake them up - I'll get my bucket and spade out and sneak off to start the Severn Barrage whilst they're not looking ... anyone want to join in ? ....

HTH
Z

ed110220

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Perhaps the aim should have been to install PV onto the roofs of factories, schools, care homes, hospitals, farms, office blocks, etc. where the energy would have been used at source during the day, that to promote installation onto houses which are mostly empty during the day?

It would be a better use of public money and would stop the blight on our housing stock of having panels sat on house roofs.

EDIT: The other alternative would be to look at how we can make coal and gas power stations much cleaner, carbon storage, etc. The current renewable technologies are a bit, crappy, to be candid. Nothing ever seems to completely do the job completely. Solar stops at night and the panels are only 8% or so efficient, wind turbines stop when the wind stops, ground sourced heat pumps and air sourced heat pumps don't deliver anywhere near the stated COP values, heat recovery ventilation needs an air tight home or you just over ventilate the house making it colder, hydro is great - power 24/7 but has limited application, bio fuels compete with food crops.

The only 'green' technology that actually seems to work is insulation and pushing manufacturers to build more efficien products (like cars, TV sets, white goods). The focus should be on energy conservation not more production. We should be closing down coal power stations because we don't need the energy not because we have replaced the energy source.

'Blight' is rather a strong opinion. Fair enough solar PV can look out of place on historic homes, but is it really worse on the average home than TV antennas, satellite dishes, unsympathetic UPVC windows, mismatched and tacked on porches that don't match the house style, untidy external plumbing, wiring and all the other things we don't notice anymore just because we're so used to them? I would say it compares favourably with most of those things.

Also focusing on the efficiency of a particular technology isn't really meaningful in telling us how economic or workable it is. It's a bit of a tabloid journalist trick: "wind turbines are only X % efficient!" (compared with what? and exactly how does this impact the economics?). Compared with the main use to which solar energy is put (photosynthesis) solar PV is fantastically efficient. Yet we don't hear journalists demand the plants stop growing and farmers stop planting because of how horribly inefficient photosynthesis is ;-)

Ed

silverwhistle

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Perhaps the aim should have been to install PV onto the roofs of factories /SNIP/

Well, yes, and it's happening - local schools where I live, for example. But it's private individuals with the ability to quickly take decisions and act who have invested their money. We're not all rich either: my panels cost me more than 50% more than my second-hand car.

I'd also point out that even empty houses during the day can be using their own power, and hence diverting demand away from peak times, thus helping the network. I'm semi-retired, but even in the summer when working my socks off at summer school I didn't put my washing/dishwasher on when I got home!

As for your efficiency argument: no issue there either. But you'll probably find that the people who've 'blighted' their houses are also the ones who take efficiency seriously as well. My appliances are A whatever rated, most of my lights are LED now, well insulated etc. and odds are my power bills are far less than yours.