if solar is good why hasnt every one got it

Cardew

On FIT statement from post #31 bears repeating:

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.

sheffield_lad

But without the FIT's incentives we would be miles behind other countries in terms of renewable energy.

The idea with FIT is to kick start an industry then gradually withdraw support which is happening.

Renewable energy now accounts for 12% of the energy mix (and rising).

System

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- so your daughter never went to school and thus did not benefit ?
- subsidised wind and solar do not benefit, most of the time they don't generate or it can not be stored

Look leccy generated from solar or wind gas a value, that value is the resale market, the real price of your generation is what price your installation, generation, transport and storage is worth. Everything else is the majority subsiding the minority. Every input nuclear or carbon has a cost worth bearing because this Island like the rest of the world needs electricity. Home built & owned nuclear is the only form of secure generation and energy independence worth having - always was always will be. You and others may not like nuclear it but it is the only workable current technology solution.

Nuclear may well offer a solution but I fear that that cost to the UK is likely to rise exponentially given France's problems with its new reactors which are the same design as proposed for the UK. Clearly, the answer is fracking but then nobody wants it to take place in their local area. All least, PV solar doesn't melt down, or pollute the water course.

My daughter doesn't actually resent paying her taxes: my point is that costs whether it be for electricity generation or education have to paid for in some way. I accept that there is an argument that subsidies (FITs) should come out of the central purse; equally, there is the counter argument that those who use electricity should pay for all aspects of it via the unit price. Without some means of generating ( no pun intended) investment, then we would all be sitting at home at night with candles. I fear that we will just have to respect each other's views.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32365888

Richie-from-the-Boro

Hengus wrote: »

Nuclear may well offer a solution but I fear that that cost to the UK is likely to rise exponentially given France's problems with its new reactors which are the same design as proposed for the UK. Clearly, the answer is fracking but then nobody wants it to take place in their local area. All least, PV solar doesn't melt down, or pollute the water course.

My daughter doesn't actually resent paying her taxes: my point is that costs whether it be for electricity generation or education have to paid for in some way. I accept that there is an argument that subsidies (FITs) should come out of the central purse; equally, there is the counter argument that those who use electricity should pay for all aspects of it via the unit price. Without some means of generating ( no pun intended) investment, then we would all be sitting at home at night with candles. I fear that we will just have to respect each other's views.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32365888

- five offshore wind, 2 coal plants to convert to burning biomass and 1 new biomass CHP
- these latest contracts for 16 bi££ion so called green energy were handed out without competition between developers
- even the GOV own watchdog admitted the new 'contracts for difference' scheme' would bump the cost to the taxpayer
- the IPPR again said these GOV low-carbon programme is falling disproportionately on the poorest in society
- the poor paying for the rich hits low-income groups hardest, and goes up each year
- funding green and social policies, its 6 times more expensive @ 1.7% for the poorest and 0.3 for the richest

The % mix of energy is also a lie, the % mix of energy generated is a pointless exercise in clouding the issue. Useful energy generation that can be sold is the only number that counts, paying for generation of any type of energy that can not be sold or stored is a waste of [pun] energy. If you had to pay your own money to generate wind or solar you could not benefit from, you just would not do that - would you ?

Cardew

Hengus wrote: »

Without some means of generating ( no pun intended) investment, then we would all be sitting at home at night with candles. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32365888

Admittedly being pedantic and taking your post literally, as you are fully aware solar contributes nothing at night; so Britain could be covered in solar panels from Lands End to John O Groats and if conventional generation failed - we would need candles.


This of course is one of the major criticisms of Solar. Apart from its unpredictable generation during the day, it can be predicted with absolute certainty it won't generate at night.


The peak load on the National Grid is on an early winter's evening. So as solar will be contributing nothing/zilch/zero and it is entirely possible windmills won't be turning, we still need exactly the same conventional generating capacity as we did before we invested many £billions in renewable energy.

Martyn1981

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Home built & owned nuclear is the only form of secure generation and energy independence worth having - always was always will be. You and others may not like nuclear it but it is the only workable current technology solution.

So you criticise the subsidies for solar and wind, but at the same time support nuclear, which has been subsidised for 50 years, and costs are still going up.

You also criticise the CfD scheme:

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- even the GOV own watchdog admitted the new 'contracts for difference' scheme' would bump the cost to the taxpayer
- the IPPR again said these GOV low-carbon programme is falling disproportionately on the poorest in society
- the poor paying for the rich hits low-income groups hardest, and goes up each year
- funding green and social policies, its 6 times more expensive @ 1.7% for the poorest and 0.3 for the richest

but the CfD's for on-shore wind (2017/18) and large scale PV (2016/17) are already cheaper than the nuclear CfD. Off-shore wind should be less than nuclear by the end of this decade. Even domestic PV (FiT plus export) should be less than the index linked nuclear CfD by the first half of the next decade*.

So in 2025 (or later!) when Hinckley C starts operating, it's 35yr CfD will already be higher than all the wind and PV 15 & 20yr subsides then available.

*Based on the minimum 1.33 annual degressions of 3.5%. However this year will probably see 4 3.5% degressions.

In reality, I agree with you that we'll need nuclear. I wish we didn't, but I don't see how renewables (even with optimistic cheap storage) can scale up fast enough. However, nuclear is not cheap, and never has been.

I also appreciate your view about subsidies being paid from energy bills rather than from general taxation (where the current nuclear subsidies are hidden). But the consumer is ultimately the polluter, and I think prices should reflect all costs, including investment in renewables. Cheap(er) energy works against conservation, efficiency, and demand side generation. Investment in improving the efficiency of UK housing stock is also critical to reducing the impact of energy bills on the poor.

Mart.

System

Nuclear Energy: "Home built and owned' - try French built, Chinese-funded and UK consumer/taxpayer paid for.

I agree that nuclear power will be an important part of the energy mix.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So you criticise the subsidies for solar and wind, but at the same time support nuclear, which has been subsidised for 50 years, and costs are still going up.

You also criticise the CfD scheme:



but the CfD's for on-shore wind (2017/18) and large scale PV (2016/17) are already cheaper than the nuclear CfD. Off-shore wind should be less than nuclear by the end of this decade. Even domestic PV (FiT plus export) should be less than the index linked nuclear CfD by the first half of the next decade*.

So in 2025 (or later!) when Hinckley C starts operating, it's 35yr CfD will already be higher than all the wind and PV 15 & 20yr subsides then available.

*Based on the minimum 1.33 annual degressions of 3.5%. However this year will probably see 4 3.5% degressions.

In reality, I agree with you that we'll need nuclear. I wish we didn't, but I don't see how renewables (even with optimistic cheap storage) can scale up fast enough. However, nuclear is not cheap, and never has been.

I also appreciate your view about subsidies being paid from energy bills rather than from general taxation (where the current nuclear subsidies are hidden). But the consumer is ultimately the polluter, and I think prices should reflect all costs, including investment in renewable's. Cheap(er) energy works against conservation, efficiency, and demand side generation. Investment in improving the efficiency of UK housing stock is also critical to reducing the impact of energy bills on the poor.

Mart.

HiYa Martyn1981,

Polluter pays principal I generally agree with. Housing stock I 100% agree with. Nuclear [providing its public ownership] I agree with. Large scale PV or any PV I do not agree with ditto wind be it large or domestic or on or off shore in practical terms its totally useless.

All of these things are predicated on Kyoto and other arbitrary political targets based on 50% of eminent science saying greenhouse gas is the cause and the other 50% of of eminent science saying its cyclical and nothing to do with mankind caused greenhouse gas. So we have an artificial cost based on artificial targets based on artificial science. In practical terms we still need to look after these Islands so we need (1) leggy and (2) security of supply. The UK pays a fortune to French nuclear in particular via the interconnecter, the French own UK power companies, its nuclear generation in France [65%] and half as much TWh comes via the Netherlands [33%] interconnector almost all of the French is their own luxury of surplus & security because they own their own nuclear industry.

We can't afford to build it - hell we can't afford not to build and publicly own it. At some point we will have to build nuclear or go to war, if anyone turns the energy tap off we will have 2 weeks before the light goes out and 4 weeks before people start dying. It is real we are a small insignificant nation without 'primary' energy supply. If anyone wants to know how wonderful green energy is ask Putin to 'Black Swan' his switch in the coming winter and we are about 1 week or so from the world as we know it. Green energy is totally useless at switching a light bulb on in the winter and mainly useless at boiling a kettle in the summer. Its a false prophet in a false market. The only way you could boil a kettle is by putting a match to a container load of worthless carbon credit paper certificates, worthless because the petrodollar will immediately be abandoned as currency - and that's a dirty form of energy from a recycled tree.

Look I'm well aware that the messenger always gets shot first. and in a world of deceit, truth-tellers are always the first to be condemned but owned nuclear is and has always been the only effective way to keep our homes warm and the lights on.

Martyn1981

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

HiYa Martyn1981,

All of these things are predicated on Kyoto and other arbitrary political targets based on 50% of eminent science saying greenhouse gas is the cause and the other 50% of of eminent science saying its cyclical and nothing to do with mankind caused greenhouse gas.

I'm afraid that I don't agree with your 50:50 split from the science world*. Virtually all scientists, and most governments are now supportive of AGW. Even the Pope, though I'm not quite sure where to file that!

Even if it did turn out to be wrong, and at this stage, that looks extremely unlikely, logic would dictate action now, until the evidence points elsewhere.

However, that wasn't my point. I was responding to the fact that you were criticising the cost of wind and solar, and the impact on billpayers of the CfD mechanism, whilst supporting nuclear.

And I was simply pointing out, that before 'new nuclear' comes on line (after old nuclear has already received vast volumes of subsidies) it will cost more than large scale PV, on-shore and off-shore wind, and remarkably, even domestic scale PV.

And also pointing out that nuclear is to be funded under the CfD scheme.

I just thought it odd, that's all, that what you support will be funded under the scheme you are criticising, and be more expensive than the technologies whose costs you are questioning.

Perhaps we should give nuclear a bit of extra credit for predictable generation, unlike intermittent renewables, but it's also inflexible, and to maximise value needs to generate constantly, since ramping down doesn't save costs, only loses income.

You also point out the need for home grown energy, and that is something else that renewables bring to the table, since the fuel is local (apart from bio-mass).

For renewables to work, we'll need a mix of all of them, since they operate at different times and seasons. We also need huge advances in storage, but with new nuclear looking like a no show till 2025 (or even 2028 now, due to problems with the current reactors that have been built), that's a long time to improve storage, and to start to roll it out. This will also be an advantage for nuclear, giving it an extra market (storage) at times when demand is low.

Mart.

* There's no point debating the scientific argument for and against AGW, since there really isn't any argument anymore. Are there hats?

tberry6686

I'm afraid that I don't agree with your 50:50 split from the science world*. Virtually all scientists, and most governments are now supportive of AGW. Even the Pope, though I'm not quite sure where to file that!

Wrong on that one.

Most scientists believe in some form of global warming. AGW is very much in doubt. Every time one scientist anounces new evidence to support AGW, it is pointed out that, at best, the evidence is flimsy and very open to interpretation. There is not one robust piece of evidence for AGW (even the evidence for GW is weak when you look at the unedited data).