if solar is good why hasnt every one got it

Martyn1981

Smiley_Dan wrote: »

Beware the noisy minority on Internet forums.

Yep! All of the 12 quarterly DECC surveys show large support for renewables, with PV topping the chart each time:

DECC Public Attitudes Tracker – Wave 12 (Summary of findings)

RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES: continue to receive high levels of support, over three quarters of UK adults (76%) support the use of renewables to generate electricity, fuel and heat in the UK, a similar proportion to September 2014 (78%) and December 2013 (77%).
Level of support for individual renewable energy sources also remain stable to that reported in September 2014; off-shore wind (74%), onshore wind (68%), wave and tidal (74%) and solar (81%). Support for biomass represents a slight increase at 65%, up from 60% in December 2013.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

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.

I don't understand what you hope to gain with your 5 (6?)yr MSE campaign against PV, especially since it relies on repeating false statements.

Of course the UK's involvement in PV made a difference to PV prices. Our contribution may have been small (tiny compared to Germany and Italy) but still a contribution, and all of the contributions add up. No contributions, no cost reduction. So you've made a false statement.

The main drivers of PV are now China, the US and Japan, but PV is being rolled out all over the world, so all those countries are now contributing to the continued development and price reduction of PV.

Cardew wrote: »

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.

I can only conclude that your fascination with the original subsidy, is simply due to embarrassment or face saving having posted, what, 5,000 anti-PV posts. The subsidy worked, and as intended fell, only it has fallen far, far faster than planned, and even the most optimistic among us, hoped.

All technologies fall in cost over time if supported, aren't you a nuclear supporter? Hasn't that received vast subsidies for 50 years, and if our government gets its way will receive them for another 35yrs? So you don't seem to mind subsidies for technologies you support.

Cardew wrote: »

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

The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes.

I appreciate that I'm flogging a dead horse, but I remain mystified as to why you would keep quoting Monbiot's article when:
1. It is filled with false claims and mistakes.
2. You are well aware of this.

You know that the £8.6bn Monbiot refers to is actually what the govt had budgeted for the PV scheme to 2030. he didn't just pick it out of the air.
You also know that that the £8.6bn is to paid by all electricity consumers. Not just the domestic sector, and certainly not just the poor domestic sector.
You also know that a few months after the article (following pressure from the comments sections in his articles) Monbiot admitted that the monies would come from all sectors.

Just another false claim in that article - George went on in that article to claim that Germany was turning its back on PV. When it was pointed out that they were actually ramping up their roll-out, he claimed that his comments were based on them reducing the FiT (therefore turning their backs on PV!!!!) however, as the rest of us all know, subsidy reductions were always planned as prices fell.

So his post asked us to look to Germany for their lead on PV. Sadly for him, their lead was positive, not negative, despite his attempts to falsely spin it.

In fact the article is so, so bad, here is a site that lists some of the many responses, that rubbish his article:

Growing Backlash to Monbiot Attack on Solar PV

Given the date of the above article (Mch 2010) you will appreciate my mysticism as to why you keep posting false and misleading information five years later.

Mart.

Cardew

There is little point in you quoting from the solar industry publications with a vested interest. What George Monboit posted in March 2010 was true then, and has proven to be true; namely it is a transfer of wealth from approx. 98% of electricity consumers to the 2% receiving the subsidy.


Solar panel prices have fall because of world wide demand - China, India, USA etc. To credit the fall in solar panel prices to the absurdly high subsidies paid to early PV adopters in UK is simply fantasy. What percentage of the world wide total of solar panels are deployed in UK?? I suspect a small fraction of 1%.


In case any readers are new to this discussion, nobody as far as I am aware makes any criticism of those who take advantage of a stupid system of subsidies; even the Rent a Roof companies who are raking in many £millions a year provided by us electricity consumers. However please spare us from the self righteous and disingenuous claims as above.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

There is little point in you quoting from the solar industry publications with a vested interest. What George Monboit posted in March 2010 was true then, and has proven to be true; namely it is a transfer of wealth from approx. 98% of electricity consumers to the 2% receiving the subsidy.

I don't know why you persist in spreading this false information. Monbiot's article was a joke, and the statement you like to quote

"The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes."

is entirely false. The domestic sector accounts for approx 35% of electricity consumption, and whilst the definition of 'the poor' can vary, it is often stated at approx 10% of households, so that would mean (in extremely simple terms) that 'the poor' will contribute about 3.5% of the monies. Or about 1/30th of what Monbiot claims.

Sticking with your need to spread that false claim, we also have to consider what percentage of installs are on the rooves of 'poor households'. As you are well aware, there have been many tens of thousands of systems installed on social housing. If the percentage of installs on 'poor households' is similar to the percentage of 'poor households', then the argument collapses further.

As for your claims that all contribute, but not all can have a PV system, then please advise me as to how many people have (or will be) installing nuclear reactors, despite all of us contributing? We all pay the subsidies (through externalities) for gas and coal turbines, but again, how many households have them?

Cardew wrote: »

Solar panel prices have fall because of world wide demand - China, India, USA etc. To credit the fall in solar panel prices to the absurdly high subsidies paid to early PV adopters in UK is simply fantasy. What percentage of the world wide total of solar panels are deployed in UK?? I suspect a small fraction of 1%.

You are contradicting yourself. Earlier you stated that the UK had made no contribution to falling prices:

Cardew wrote: »

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.

But now you state that the fall in the price is down to increased demand. So the UK did contribute through it's small contribution to that increased demand.

You also can't have it both ways, you complain about the amount of subsidy paid to PV, but at the same time comment on the very small amount deployed in the UK!

Regarding:

Cardew wrote: »

What percentage of the world wide total of solar panels are deployed in UK?? I suspect a small fraction of 1%.

Why would you suspect, why wouldn't you simply do some research to avoid posting more inaccuracies?

By the end of 2014 there was approx 180GW of PV in the world, with approx 5GW in the UK, so ~2.8%.

Assuming 'small fraction of 1%' is about 0.1%, then like Monbiot, you are out by a factor of approx 30.

Mart.

sheramber

Why haven't we got it?

Because out roof faces east /west - not good.

The sun is at such a low angle apart from midsummer -not good
We have solar garden lights that do not work for the whole of December and January.

It would take 25 years for us to recoup the cost of installation - definitely not good

Three separate firms/ agencies have confirmed that soalr panels are a no-go for us.

Similarly, wind power is no good due to where we are and the low average wind speed.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Question. Why is the solar farm so good. Then think who gets the subsidy. Then think who pays the subsidy.

Yep, the neuvaux rich get richer. The poor remain poor.

Martyn1981

sheramber wrote: »

Why haven't we got it?

Because out roof faces east /west - not good.

The sun is at such a low angle apart from midsummer -not good
We have solar garden lights that do not work for the whole of December and January.

It would take 25 years for us to recoup the cost of installation - definitely not good

Three separate firms/ agencies have confirmed that soalr panels are a no-go for us.

Similarly, wind power is no good due to where we are and the low average wind speed.

If you're still interested, then try the Green & Ethical board for advice, and suggestions for installers.

E/W would mean about 80% generation compared to a south facing system, so you'd need to get a good install price (nearer to £5k than £6k) but a 4kWp system split E/W could give you an annual income of about £600.

However, if it's a particularly steep roof (not great if off-south), you are at the top of Scotland, and have shading issues, then it probably ain't gonna work for you.

Try the PV FAQs for some general advice.

Mart.

silverwhistle

Cardew wrote: »

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.

Sometimes I can't tell if you are stupid or just have an axe to grind.

As you so helpfully highlighted, the words I used were:
have resulted in the reduction in price for subsequent installers.
I didn't mention the cost of the panels, although certainly even in a small way UK demand helps the overall situation. But I had a choice of installers, there is now a competitive infrastructure, as the variance in quotes on this board show. If we all had to rely on the ex-double glazing merchants the market wouldn't have taken off.

I shall be generous: I'll assume that you are being deliberately obtuse.

skintpaul

initial cost of installation may put people off, or not able to get finance.


Also, is any permission from landlord / council needed? (conservation area, etc)


Lack of space / adequate sunlight..

silverwhistle

Oh, and I'll also make an agreement with those complaining about subsidy. If I can get out of paying for nuclear subsidies and decommissioning, and the cost of the externalities of burning coal then I'll happily forfeit my subsidies.

Net metering and a standing charge will do me.