if solar is good why hasnt every one got it

PasturesNew

I don't have it as the payback rates aren't set in stone, you have to have it and keep your own records to see. And ... I am not sure how long I'll live here. And.... I am not sure what potential buyers might think of it. And .... I figure if I wait 5 years the technology will have changed and, by then, will be better, smaller, etc etc and I'd end up with the same payback endpoint (or less). So I'll wait and see.

tberry6686

silverwhistle wrote: »

Er.. you what? The figures I've seen are about 98/99% consensus.

The so called consensus is totally untrue. There are a great many scientists who disagree with AGW but due to the many vested interests in the AGW dogma they stay fairly quiet (the most vocal dissenters are generally retired or have independent wealth). The fact is that a scientist who is against AGW and is outspoken about it can pretty much kiss goodbye any access to research grants/funding.

Alternatively if a scientist can find an angle to blame AGW for anything they will find it far easier to get funding.

The majority of the evidence presented for AGW is at best dubious and at worst downright lies.

Martyn1981

tberry6686 wrote: »

As fossil fuels pretty much consist of Oil, Gas and Coal perhaps you could point out the subsidies to me. I am aware of none (possibly some in the case of coal but certainly not in oil and gas).

Profit wise, yes fossil fuels are profitable, as are wind turbines, solar farms etc but only due to massive subsidies.

The International Monetary Fund recently estimated fossil fuel subsidies at $5.3tn pa, compared to $120bn for renewables.

Supporters of FF's may point out that failing to pay costs that impact others downstream is not a subsidy ......... but if your product is artificially cheap because it fails to reflect all costs, then you will sell more, and profit more. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck ..... then it's probably a subsidy!

In the UK, failure to account for carbon costs, NHS costs (pollution), and nuclear subsidies paid via general taxation, probably means that the average leccy price of £50/MWh is at least £30 too low. That's important because the recent CfD auction had successful bids from PV and on-shore wind at a fraction under £80/MWh. That means that on a level playing field, those planned projects would actually be subsidy free when constructed in 2016/17.

A truer cost would actually reflect better on nuclear too, since the CfD of £92.50 looks a little less scary when compared to £80, though the nuclear figure is actually index linked to reflect the long build time, so it will rise.

For anyone interested, the off-shore wind subsidy for 2017/18 is £120. But costs are still falling, so subsides for later projects should continue to fall.

Mart.

Martyn1981

PasturesNew wrote: »

I don't have it as the payback rates aren't set in stone, you have to have it and keep your own records to see. And ... I am not sure how long I'll live here. And.... I am not sure what potential buyers might think of it. And .... I figure if I wait 5 years the technology will have changed and, by then, will be better, smaller, etc etc and I'd end up with the same payback endpoint (or less). So I'll wait and see.

The current technology is slowly improving in efficiency, and is expected to be about 10% better in a decade. Costs will also fall. And there are some other types of PV being tested.

However, the current domestic subsidy has an in-built degression mechanism. Each time quarterly installs exceed 100MWp, it gets degressed by 3.5% (larger install levels of 150, 200, 250+ can trigger degressions of 7%, 14% and 28%). There is also a mandatory 3.5% degression every 9 months if no degressions have taken place.

This year has seen degressions 1st Jan and 1st April. There is one due on 1st July, and I'll be shocked if Apr-June installs don't trigger another on 1st Oct. With current install rates, and good weather July to Sept, probably make another drop 1st Jan a good bet too.

So, as costs fall, the return on investment increases, more people install, and the subsidy degresses, rinse and repeat. So you may find that as and when the tech has improved significantly, the ROI will still be the same.

But crucially, if you don't think you'll be staying put for at least 5yrs (10 is better) then PV is probably not a good idea/investment.

Mart.

silverwhistle

tberry6686 wrote: »

The so called consensus is totally untrue. There are a great many scientists who disagree with AGW but due to the many vested interests in the AGW dogma they stay fairly quiet (the most vocal dissenters are generally retired or have independent wealth). The fact is that a scientist who is against AGW and is outspoken about it can pretty much kiss goodbye any access to research grants/funding.

Where does funding come from? If it is from research councils and the like you'll find that there is no such agenda. A 'great many'? Really? Where did you find out this information as I'd be interested to know why they felt they had to be quiet about their opinions. From what I have seen surely they should be able to get funding from one of the more vested interests, such as the rather well endowed funds of the fossil fuel companies?

The usual rule in these situations is to 'follow the money', and in this case the massive and established fossil fuel companies have the advantage. The fact that independent scientists, peer-reviewed whenever they publish, by and large agree with AGW (and much of the debate is with extent/mechanisms/impacts) is to their credit as in fact they could probably earn more with results more favourable to the fossil fuel industries.

silverwhistle

By the way, nobody has taken me up on my offer at post #41. :-)

I can't recall where I saw it, but ISTR the solar industry (or was it onshore wind?) saying the proposed CfD figures were more than they needed.. There had to be some way to make nuclear look a more attractive proposition.

I used to work in the ESI, and the particular company I worked for studiously avoids getting involved with nuclear..

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

Er.. you what? The figures I've seen are about 98/99% consensus.

You could take two approaches to this:

The first is to direct people to the IPCC reports or even to DECC's publications

IPCC Report – Key points and questions

Are humans responsible?

Yes, this new IPCC report confirms with 95% confidence that humans are responsible:

It is extremely likely that human activity is the dominant influence on climate change over the last 50 years and is responsible for more than half of the observed global temperature rise.

Greenhouse gases are at level unprecedented in 800,000 years – carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration is now 40% higher than pre-industrial and this increase is primarily due to burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

Further evidence shows that human influence can been detected in atmosphere and oceanic warming, changes in rainfall, the reduction in glaciers and Arctic ice, and some climate extremes.

The second is simply to not engage on the issue, since this myth (No. 7 in this recent article) is now quite old. So debating the point only lends it undue credence.

Mart.

silverwhistle

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- 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

Why do you see that as a problem? It's government policy to penalise the poor.

It's not an argument against encouraging solar (or whatever). Government could simply adjust other policies: increase benefits, insulation grants, regulate slum landlords etc. But don't give me concern for the poor; that's just crocodile tears. If the govenment adjusted such benefits the cost would fall on those better-off who are too lazy to do anything about their energy costs.The poor, I'm afraid, already do by cutting back.

Funnily enough, so do those of us who generate our own power.

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

I can't recall where I saw it, but ISTR the solar industry (or was it onshore wind?) saying the proposed CfD figures were more than they needed.. There had to be some way to make nuclear look a more attractive proposition.

You're not imagining it. The STA (Solar Trade Association) submitted consultation to the government on the level of CfD's they thought the industry would need up to the end of the decade. But to their surprise, the government set the 2018/19 CfD rate at £100/MWh (see page 7), which was more than they'd suggested.

General consensus was that the rate was set higher, as the nuclear CfD had just been announced at £92.50 and with onshore wind due to fall to £90, it would be a difficult 'sell' if PV was projected to be lower too. I've no idea if the claims are true, but it has gone down (in recent history) as possibly the only time that the government has suggested a higher subsidy than the relevant trade body has asked for.

Note: Those rates are the maximum at which a bid may be submitted. But the chances of success (in these reverse auctions) increases as your bid gets lower.

Mart.

lstar337

The UK needs to be getting on with thorium reactors (preferably a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) before the rest of the world does and we are left behind with super expensive energy forms!