Should the UK (like France) bar supermarkets throwing out food?

tunnel

cepheus wrote: »

Everyone who has had one of these systems installed simply states a) the unsubsidised cost of the system to install, b) the total electricity produced to date c) time of installation, d) area e) approximate location and f) orientation.

Glad to see you've been doing some reading. Been looking at getting a system installed?


Worried about the subsidy/FiT?, you can install panels without applying for the FiT if you feel that strongly about it.


If you actually read a lot of the regulars posts on here you'll realise a fair few already doing their piece to be green, you seem to be reading only what you want to see.
Preaching to the converted springs to mind!!

Martyn1981

cepheus wrote: »

I don't wish to continue this thread with a detailed discussion of subsidies complete with jargon to confuse the situation. If you wish to demonstrate Photo-voltaic technology has advanced enough to make environmental sense, I suggest a different thread in which any mention of subsidies are banned.

I'm happy to discuss on another thread if you wish to start one, but since you used this thread to have a go at PV, something you seem to need to do at every opportunity, I simply pointed out that your anti-PV stance was based on gibberish.

Your position, as stated this year is pretty clear:

cepheus wrote: »

If you remember, my view is that solar is unlikely to become cost effective, for this country as a whole and we should be concentrating on more cost effective renewables such as wind and conservation. This situation remains the case in high latitudes such as the UK.

I pointed out at the time, and again, above, that PV is now (has been for years) cheaper than wind on the small scale, and on the large scale is cheaper than off-shore wind (has been for years), and in the recent CfD auction, which prompted you to post your "more cost effective" comment matched on-shore wind.

So, I repeat, it seems that your position of supporting wind, but constantly criticising PV on the grounds of cost is somewhat faulty. I suspect you saw how expensive it was in 2010, and simply failed to keep an eye on it.

cepheus wrote: »

I really would be interested to see this, but no mention of discount and subsidy rates, or implications of intermittency - at least until the figures above have been established which forms a firm basis to start a meaningful discussion.

1. If by "the figures above" you are referring to my cost per kWh numbers, then I've already given you (twice now I believe) all the info you need to work it out.

Based on a £5k 4kWp south facing (4,000kWh) system, financed through a 4% mortgage. The reason for the mortgage is to eliminate any need to account for capital loss (depreciation) or cost of capital (lost interest on savings). Set up a spreadsheet starting with £5k in month one, plus 4%/12 interest less a repayment amount. Month 2 starts with the outstanding debt from the end of month 1.

Drag this down for 300 months. Then add an extra £1k to the outstanding debt in month 145 in case a new inverter is needed. Enter a repayment amount that brings the balance to zero in month 300. Then multiply the monthly repayment by 12 and divide by 4,000.

Very simple, should only take 2 mins.

2. If by the numbers, you mean comparative costs of generation, then, despite your demands, the simplest method is just to compare the subsidy rates, or the CfD bids. These clearly show PV ahead on all levels except against large on-shore wind where they were level. Since PV costs are still falling faster than wind ...... you can draw your own conclusions.

To be blunt, if you want to argue pro wind and anti PV on a cost of generation basis ("more cost effective renewables such as wind") then you're gonna lose every time.

Now please let me state that I'm a huge fan of wind, and all the other types of renewables. Plus energy conservation and efficiency measures. The reason I'm arguing for PV is simply to address your position.

Mart.

Martyn1981

cepheus wrote: »

I really would be interested to see this, but no mention of discount and subsidy rates, or implications of intermittency - at least until the figures above have been established which forms a firm basis to start a meaningful discussion.

Apologies for labouring the point, but going back to my spreadsheet suggestion. Do the same, but this time use an install cost of £4k. This is very important as for new builds, an install will be cheaper due to no scaffolding costs, sparkies on site already and hopefully a cheaper install cost if a number are done at the same time.

With luck your spreadsheet will show a kWh cost of 7.3p.

Next consider earnings if all export is paid for, and 1/3 of generation is consumed. That means 2/3 at 5p and 1/3 at 14p, giving a weighted average of 8p. I appreciate that this is tight, and I'm cherry picking a good install, but I haven't gone to extremes, only the better end.

You are also well aware that our leccy prices don't include all costs, such as carbon, health impacts (coal) and nuclear subsidies, so the true price is probably north of 8p/kWh not 5p. That means that the average income would be 11p v's 7.3p cost. Or, it would be perfectly fair to subsidise a system by 3p/kWh to level the playing field.

With the financing/investment coming from the demand side this is extra investment in renewables, above and beyond what the industry gets up to.

Hopefully you can now see the potential benefits of demand side PV generation.

Mart.