Solar: how much you paid (£) how much you have generated (kWh) and date of install.

cepheus

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But, back to your statement that PV isn't as cost-effective as wind, are you any closer to explaining that position yet?

I've only had one figure which can be worked on so far, where is all the data I asked for from MSE users, and why is everyone so shy about providing them?

PV small-scale domestic solar certainly isn't as cost effective as onshore commercial size wind farms, even after the present reductions in PV price. PV commercial farms in SW US, Spain, North Africa may be but I've always supported PV in this context; these are where PV subsidies should go if anywhere.

As far as I can tell, a brand new clean domestic PV system at todays prices can produce around 15p/kwh, compared to around half that for large scale on-shore wind farms. However, it's going to be impossible to determine how well these systems work in practice by examining any new system and just those which people wish to report which are surely the most favourable. 5 p/kWh is the commercial price target, which would be easily achievable in the most windy locations such as the islands off Scotland, but once again these are the most favourable, so perhaps these need to be used for cost comparisons. However, the government has stopped further wind farms on political grounds, but continues to encourage less cost effective methods such as offshore wind and small scale PV.

I'm in favour of developing any potentially cost effective system but we most prioritise those which are technically superior rather than politically acceptable to Tory constituencies.

Here's another example of inappropriate subsidies here:

There has also been criticism of the high rates for FITs compared to those for the Renewable Heat Incentive: the renewable heat technologies are more economic than renewable electricity generation so the government could save carbon much less expensively by increasing the RHI on ground source heat pumps (originally at 4.5 pence/kWh, but raised to 8.7 pence/kWh in 2014) compared to the tariffs for photovoltaic (originally up to 41.3 pence/kWh, but reduced to 14 by 2014) or the tariffs for wind turbines (originally up to 34.5 pence/kWh, but reduced to 18 by 2014).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariffs_in_the_United_Kingdom#Unfair_treatment

EricMears

cepheus wrote: »

I've only had one figure which can be worked on so far, where is all the data I asked for from MSE users, and why is everyone so shy about providing them?

Possibly you've never heard of personal privacy ?

theboylard

What I think cephus wants is the world on a stick, so he can beat others with his skewed view of things with it.

This is why I won't join in his campaign, at least some of us are doing something.

Martyn1981

cepheus wrote: »

I've only had one figure which can be worked on so far, where is all the data I asked for from MSE users, and why is everyone so shy about providing them?

Long answer:

I've given you loads of accurate and upto date numbers. Install costs and generation figs. If you don't believe me then show me that posters that have installed this year for around £5k or even less are lying. And that PVGIS is innacurate. This argument is yours, so it's for you (not us) to supply evidence.

cepheus wrote: »

As far as I can tell, a brand new clean domestic PV system at todays prices can produce around 15p/kwh, compared to around half that for large scale on-shore wind farms.

Yet I've repeatedly shown you how to do the maths using current prices and generation to get a p/kWh figure of between 7.3p and 9p.

If i'm fibbing, then show me, all I've ever asked you to do is provide some numbers/evidence to support your claims. Your latest post is simply making unsupported statements yet again.


Regarding large scale wind v's small PV, as I said earlier, I suspected that this is where you were going. Having failed to find a way to justify your claim, you try to muddy the water by comparing different markets. So have you considered:

1. Cost of generation is not all that matters. Demand side generation has a higher income stream (export and import prices) so a higher generation cost can be just as viable, even more viable depending on the relevant economics.

2. Supply side gen also has increased grid infrastructure costs. WPD have recently closed parts of their grid to supply side renewables as it can't cope with anymore.

3. Despite your animosity to domestic PV and PV'ers, it's a great way to get ordinary houeholders interested in renewables and generation, and efficiency/conservation.

Once again it seems that you are looking at this issue from a small picture position, and missing just how important PV (of all scales) is to UK renewables.


So, having had 3.5 months to answer me, you simply dodge with unsupported arguments, then state your position again:

cepheus wrote: »

I'm in favour of developing any potentially cost effective system but we most prioritise those which are technically superior rather than politically acceptable to Tory constituencies.

What is interesting though, is that your simple argument that wind is more cost-effective than PV, has now morphed into, small scale wind isn't as cost effective as PV, you have also now criticised off-shore wind. Perhaps we are getting somewhere ...... slowly?

Mart.

Martyn1981

cepheus wrote: »

As far as I can tell, a brand new clean domestic PV system at todays prices can produce around 15p/kwh, compared to around half that for large scale on-shore wind farms.

Short answer:

Show me your 15p/kWh calcs?

Mart.

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Regarding large scale wind v's small PV, as I said earlier, I suspected that this is where you were going. Having failed to find a way to justify your claim, you try to muddy the water by comparing different markets. So have you considered:

1. Cost of generation is not all that matters. Demand side generation has a higher income stream (export and import prices) so a higher generation cost can be just as viable, even more viable depending on the relevant economics.

2. Supply side gen also has increased grid infrastructure costs. WPD have recently closed parts of their grid to supply side renewables as it can't cope with anymore.

3. Despite your animosity to domestic PV and PV'ers, it's a great way to get ordinary houeholders interested in renewables and generation, and efficiency/conservation.

@ cepheus.

Addendum, point 4.

Perhaps you didn't understand why I kept stressing the cost of PV on a new build, perhaps I didn't explain it properly.

If the added cost of the install (~4kWp) on the mortgage is less than the extra income from export and saved import, then it might be politically acceptable to force new builds to have PV, without any subsidy. My calcs show that for a good location the cost may be 7.3p/kWh with an income stream of 8p/kWh (today).

I acknowledged that this was tight, but pointed out that grid supply leccy is probably subsidised by at least 3p/kWh (nuclear subsidies, CO2 impacts, health costs), so a 3p FiT would not be a subsidy.

Also, PV costs are still falling, energy costs will rise, and PV efficiencies are sneaking up, perhaps 10% over the next decade.

Mart.

Waywardmike

I've only had one figure which can be worked on so far, where is all the data I asked for from MSE users, and why is everyone so shy about providing them?

I provided mine and they were ignored??? Oh well....

zeupater

cepheus wrote: »

I've only had one figure which can be worked on so far, where is all the data I asked for from MSE users, and why is everyone so shy about providing them?

PV small-scale domestic solar certainly isn't as cost effective as onshore commercial size wind farms, even after the present reductions in PV price. PV commercial farms in SW US, Spain, North Africa may be but I've always supported PV in this context; these are where PV subsidies should go if anywhere.

As far as I can tell, a brand new clean domestic PV system at todays prices can produce around 15p/kwh, compared to around half that for large scale on-shore wind farms. However, it's going to be impossible to determine how well these systems work in practice by examining any new system and just those which people wish to report which are surely the most favourable. 5 p/kWh is the commercial price target, which would be easily achievable in the most windy locations such as the islands off Scotland, but once again these are the most favourable, so perhaps these need to be used for cost comparisons. However, the government has stopped further wind farms on political grounds, but continues to encourage less cost effective methods such as offshore wind and small scale PV.

I'm in favour of developing any potentially cost effective system but we most prioritise those which are technically superior rather than politically acceptable to Tory constituencies.

Here's another example of inappropriate subsidies here:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariffs_in_the_United_Kingdom#Unfair_treatment

Hi

"I've only had one figure which can be worked on so far" ... how disingenuous, I alone provided 20,000 which you said that you'd look at ... is it that the analysis is complete or do you need a few more ? ..... why not just do the analysis which you crave - it's easy if you have the technical ability, so easy that in the hour since reading the above post I've downloaded annual data from 100 random systems with >2 year continuous data submissions (selected by central England postcodes so as not to skew results) and produced an average annual performance by orientation, then compared this to the averaged stated system targets ....

You obviously have no intent to accept logic or analytics provided by others and are searching for data to support or disprove your own hypothesis, as many of us would do, so my recommendation is to replicate what I've just done .... when you're happy with the empirical evidence, let us know - if it's in line with mine (which it should be) we could even compare, if it's not, then there's obviously an issue of ideology clouding reality (not in my analysis though) ....

Regarding large scale pv generation, yes, the economies of scale result in a relative equipment saving and installation doesn't need scaffolding. However, you need to factor in grid-connection costs and land lease or purchase .... for example a smallish 2MWp system would consist of ~8000 panels, which at a ~1/3 land utilisation density (access, boundaries, shading) would likely need ~3.5 hectares ((8000*1.6)/.33), which around here would be worth somewhere in the region of £75k, then there's the one-off cost of HV connection, probably in the region of £100k+ .... so somewhere around £0.09/Wp before we start, which, when related to a 4kWp domestic install, probably equates to the cost of scaffolding ... factor in insurance, business rates, security, maintenance (system & estate), annual connection charges etc and any commercial operation advantages are seriously eaten into ...

Regarding ... "I'm in favour of developing any potentially cost effective system but we most prioritise those which are technically superior ... " (leaving out the ideology bit ), considering the massive fall in the cost of pv generation which is in the region of 75% over 5 years and still falling, so what other technologies would be considered to have anywhere near the same potential ? - in addition, I'm intrigued by the statement 'technically superior' and in engineering terms, how that would be defined ...

Anyway, the first part of this post is the important bit, so don't get too bogged down addressing the rest, just open up your spread-sheet and be prepared to be enlightened ... it took me less time to do my analysis than write this post! ...

HTH
Z

zeupater

cepheus wrote: »

... Here's another example of inappropriate subsidies here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariffs_in_the_United_Kingdom#Unfair_treatment

Hi

Sorry, I missed mentioning this in the above post, it completely slipped my mind ....

So that references .... "the renewable heat technologies are more economic than renewable electricity generation" ... as an owner of both you won't mind me going ... :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: .... as it's completely wrong --- I love our solar thermal, but the output is only heat and can't be used for anything else, whereas pv is far more flexible in terms of use ... then there's combining pv with heat-pumps (Air/Air, ASHP or GSHP) to effectively multiply the energy impact through the provision of a total system solution ....

If you want to discuss the relative economics of solar thermal or various flavours of heat pumps, I'm sure that a number of regular contributors on relevant threads will be willing to assist ....

HTH
Z

enrm6

a) £6300
b) 339.59 kWh
c) May 2015
d) 285W x 8 SE + 285W x 6 SW LG Panels = 3.990kWp