if solar is good why hasnt every one got it

tberry6686

Every solar unit generated also results in less (largely imported) finite fossil fuels being burned.

Only a tiny amount of fuel is saved as the power stations still have to be running ready to take over when the solar output drops and/or the wind drops. Powerstations cannot be turned on and off at the flick of a switch.

The fact is that without the massive subsidies for green energy no one in this country would be installing them because they make absolutely no sense in economic terms.

gazapc

tberry6686 wrote: »

Only a tiny amount of fuel is saved as the power stations still have to be running ready to take over when the solar output drops and/or the wind drops. Powerstations cannot be turned on and off at the flick of a switch.

The fact is that without the massive subsidies for green energy no one in this country would be installing them because they make absolutely no sense in economic terms.

This is a bit of a myth, so where is all this GW of energy going? Wind and solar output is perfectly forecastable in the short term (in the sort of 12 hour timeframe). This gives plenty of warning to provide general indications as to whether a coal or gas plant needs to be at 25%, 50% or 100%. In fact this data is published live online and is about half way down this page.

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm


Sudden drop outs by 1GW+ of generation aren't caused by distributed generation failures. The biggest sudden failure National Grid prepares for is either a failure of a large nuclear power station or the main French interconnector failing (2 GW).


On the second point, coal makes little sense in environmental terms, it's a balancing act.

tberry6686

There is no myth about having to keep power stations turning over to take over from solar/wind etc when required. Few (if any) power stations can be brought from shutdown to generating electricity in 12 hrs. Instead they have to be kept running (but not generating electricity). This is just about their least efficient state hence why the fuel saving is minimal.

gazapc

tberry6686 wrote: »

There is no myth about having to keep power stations turning over to take over from solar/wind etc when required. Few (if any) power stations can be brought from shutdown to generating electricity in 12 hrs. Instead they have to be kept running (but not generating electricity). This is just about their least efficient state hence why the fuel saving is minimal.

I'm not saying shutdown which of course does take many hours or even days in some cases. It's about reducing output to x%. Never is there completely no gas or coal generation on the grid. A reduction in efficiency is fine if you are producing significantly less power. Even at tick over a few MW of steam going through a system to keep it warm is nothing.

If you are saying that power stations can't do this then can you explain how they cope with 10-20 GW swings (much bigger than swings caused by renewables) over the course of 6-12 hours due to normal variance in demand every single day?

Edit: read this report written last year, warm and hot start up times are much faster than you think

razor344

Thank people have got off track

My question was

"if solar is good why hasnt every one got it"

Unless the answer is you all don't think it's any good at all

Pincher

People in Cyprus have lots of solar panels.
They also worship the sun god Helios, who is mighty near the Equator.


Here in England, we worship the cloud god Cumulo Nimbus.
He shields us from the rays of Helios. Hence Helios cannot make love to the solar panels, and make baby electricity.

Smiley_Dan

razor344 wrote: »

Thank people have got off track

My question was

"if solar is good why hasnt every one got it"

Unless the answer is you all don't think it's any good at all

Beware the noisy minority on Internet forums.

The basic reason is capital cost. Most people don't have thousands sloshing around.

Also important is the fact that some sites aren't suitable.

However, if your site is suitable, and you aren't emptying your bank account for it, it seems a perfectly sensible thing to do. It works.

tberry6686

If you are saying that power stations can't do this then can you explain how they cope with 10-20 GW swings (much bigger than swings caused by renewables) over the course of 6-12 hours due to normal variance in demand every single day?

That is not what I am saying. I did say turning over ie running but not generating, idling for want of a better word.

You are correct in that they can be brought for idle to generating a lot more quickly than I had been led to believe.

safestored4

Going back to your original question I wouldn't instal solar heating panels on my roof because:

1. When I eventually come to sell the house I can not be certain what impact the existance of these will have on the decision of the mortgage lender to lend to the buyer.

2. I would want to attract the broadest range of buyers. Like it or not a lot of people do not like the look of solar panels.

3. I am sceptical about the claimed financial savings. It all reminds me of double glazing salesmen 20 years ago.

4. As I understand it these panels have a finate life. How often do they have to be replaced and who pays for this?

I could add more but that's enough to be going on. I am happy to be shot down on all these points on matters of fact.

Cardew

silverwhistle wrote: »

But the subsidies for early adopters have resulted in the reduction in price for subsequent installers, along with even greater reductions in the subsidies, and that process is continueing. Every solar unit generated also results in less (largely imported) finite fossil fuels being burned. Lean burn coal is not the answer.


..

How on earth do you conclude that the tiny fraction of the world's production of solar panels stuck on the roofs of UK houses have been instrumental in the reduction of solar panel prices?

Had there been no solar panels fitted in the UK, it would have made no difference to the reduction in worldwide panel prices.

The stupidly high subsidies paid to early adopters simply ensured that all of us electricity consumers footed the bill for those subsidies - including those considerably poorer than those with the panels fitted; not to mention the subsidies for scores of thousands of installations paid to rent-a-roof companies.

When the subsidy scheme was first introduced, George Monboit, a leading environmentalist, wrote:

Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives, and nobody notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes. It expects a loss on this scheme of £8.2bn, or 95%. Yet the media is silent. The opposition urges only that the scam should be expanded.

On 1 April the government introduces its feed-in tariffs. These oblige electricity companies to pay people for the power they produce at home. The money will come from their customers in the form of higher bills. It would make sense, if we didn't know that the technologies the scheme will reward are comically inefficient..............


In other words, the government acknowledges that micro wind and solar PV in the UK are between seven and nine times less cost-effective than the alternatives.