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

EricMears

zeupater wrote: »

. . . . If the exercise is to establish a level of support it's more reasonable to establish that figure against average rather than exceptional performance else it becomes a ridiculous exercise ....

Completely agree - so indeed do the 'official' guidance figures which use Sheffield as an example for two reasons :-
1. A great deal of the research was done at Sheffield Uni (or maybe Hallam ?)
but 2. Sheffield really is near the middle of England.

(Actually, Chesterfield is even nearer the middle of England - we're just over 200 miles from Berwick on Tweed or Portsmouth and pretty well equidistant from E & W coasts.. But if you really wanted somewhere to represent the centre of the UK it would have to be somewhere just S of the Scottish border)

Martyn1981

jimjames wrote: »

We're not in Sheffield (actually SE England) but are getting approx 1100 kWh/kWp from ours which isn't due South although no shade so either we have exceptionally efficient system or over 1000 is easily achievable for the right location and orientation.

Just playing now, but taking things to the max, and using the 2% self financed model over 25yrs, £4.5k install, and 4,400kWh generation, gives a generation cost of 6.11p/kWh. :cool:

Overly simplified model, of ignoring cost of capital, and inverter replacement (20yr warranty?), and just spreading the cost over 20yrs = £225/4400kWh = 5.11p. Expanded further,

extra £1k for inverter, 40 yrs gen (at 90% to account for degradation from 0 - 20%) = £5.5k/(4400 x 40yrs x 90%) = 3.47p/kWh.

That'll do pig, that'll do.

Mart.

Martyn1981

cepheus wrote: »

Neither do we know how well these systems would work in ten years time,

Does this count as an example of 10 year old PV technology? The performance is, after all, out of this world :

Philae comet lander wakes up, says European Space Agency

Mart.

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The performance is, after all, out of this world

I think the message is that we need to try and aim for an operating temperature of -35C

zeupater

EricMears wrote: »

Completely agree - so indeed do the 'official' guidance figures which use Sheffield as an example for two reasons :-
1. A great deal of the research was done at Sheffield Uni (or maybe Hallam ?)
but 2. Sheffield really is near the middle of England.

(Actually, Chesterfield is even nearer the middle of England - we're just over 200 miles from Berwick on Tweed or Portsmouth and pretty well equidistant from E & W coasts.. But if you really wanted somewhere to represent the centre of the UK it would have to be somewhere just S of the Scottish border)

Hi

I think that using a geographical point to average is reasonable for calculating a standardised installer figure, however, when looking at a true average for generation the average centre-point should take population density and distribution into account which would logically move the location well south of Sheffield .... lifting the average directly from PVOutput already takes this into account as long as it's accepted that the database distribution roughly represents actual installs & I don't see why it shouldn't ...

Added advantages for referencing the source also come into play when the exercise is internationalised .... why concentrate on the UK alone when data readily exists which would allow direct comparison to many other regions ?? ... you could even produce a global map using isolines to describe whatever the debate is attempting to convey ... the data's there ...

HTH
Z

jimjames

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Does this count as an example of 10 year old PV technology? The performance is, after all, out of this world :

Philae comet lander wakes up, says European Space Agency

Mart.

As far as I know there are examples of panels closer to earth that have been operating for over 30 years and still going strong but it's impressive that even in those conditions the panels still work!

Martyn1981

Hello cepheus, it's been a few more days, so thought I'd have one more go at asking you to support your statements. Since you created a thread for this purpose, it seems fair to keep asking, so here goes:

For years you've been attacking (and taking cheap shots at) PV. A few months ago you stated:

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.

and I asked

Martyn1981 wrote: »

but, how do you justify that position (pro wind, anti PV on economic/cost grounds) if PV is now competing directly with on-shore wind, and has beaten (hands down) small scale wind and off-shore wind already?

You still haven't answered the question, apparently claiming that this is the fault of PV'ers (3.5 months later) for failing to supply you with the information you need (needed), to formulate the statement in the first place? Seriously!

I've chosen to ignore your throw away statements about systems not working as we might hope, degradation, etc, as simply excuses and desperation. These arguments also encourage counter statements about problems with wind farms, and wind turbines, which simply creates a negative feedback loop ..... or to put it simple, a pointless and destructive waste of time.

However, you did make one statement:

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.

So I think it's totally reasonable for me to ask you to explain that 15p figure, and ask you for your calculations (in addition to your cost-effective wind argument ..... let's not let that one slide) after all, I've given you lots of info on how I get to 7-9p.


I honestly thought, going back, that your statements were simply based on your not keeping up with PV progress, and that as a wind fan (and environmentalist), you'd be extremely pleased to find that its 'perfect partner' had caught up.

But I'm sadly coming to the conclusion that Zeupater is right, and that your position is actually one of ideology, which is a great, great shame.

Mart.

PS I watched 'Wales this Week' ....... this week, which looked at the roll out of renewables in Wales. At the end of the program they were interviewing a man from Vattenfall, on site at the construction of Wales' largest on-shore wind farm. He stated that we need all forms of renewables (including solar, hydro, tidal, biomass etc) as wind won't work on it's own. M.

Martyn1981

Just an update.

I think it's fair to assume that cepheus won't be answering my questions, however, as he's still posting elsewhere on this issue, I thought I'd give some new numbers and thoughts.

He seems to have changed his argument from wind is cheaper than PV, to large scale, on-shore wind, is cheaper than domestic PV - so a partial victory.

He has also recently criticised the cost of off-shore wind too, so another partial victory (that all wind is not cheaper than all PV). However at the very same time, he was promoting nuclear. So thought I'd consider the numbers on that argument too.

The 35yr nuclear CfD subsidy is £92.50/MWh and is index linked due to the lengthy build time. The most recent CfD auction had off-shore wind at ~£120/MWh for 2017/18 (15yr subsidy). Domestic PV FiT is about to be cut to 12.92p (plus export at 2.425p (4.85/2)).

Looking at estimates of nuclear costs, I've seen figures of £120/MWh in 2023 and £270/MWh in 2058 - the optimistic start and end dates for the 35yr CfD subsidy. This would suggest an inflation factor of 2.5% is being used (estimated).

Delays mean that the first two new reactors will at best be operational in 2025, so looking at relative costs we have:

Nuclear - £124.40/MWh

Off-shore wind - costs still falling, but already cheaper by 2017/18 with £119.89/MWh

Domestic PV - assuming only the minimum degression of 3.5% every 3 quarters (1.33 degressions pa) then FiT of 8.2p and export of 3.1p (2.5% inflation) = 11.3p/kWh or £113/MWh. [Domestic PV would appear to meet nuclear in 2023 with both at a cost of ~£119/MWh]

I think I'll give up on the argument now, and just leave the last word to this recent posting:

cepheus wrote: »

I've just been reading a chapter in Ben Goldacre's 'I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated that that'.

Studies suggest the more evidence you supply to debunk a myth the more you will polarise opinion based on prejudiced beliefs.

Even more depressingly, research has shown that using evidence to debunk a biased view won't only entrench those who have that particular view, but they will begin to distrust science and evidence in other unrelated areas if it conflicts with their prior belief.

Mart.

cepheus

how do you justify that position (pro wind, anti PV on economic/cost grounds) if PV is now competing directly with on-shore wind, and has beaten (hands down) small scale wind and off-shore wind already?

This is true of commercial scale units, NOT rooftop units. However, wind is really still cheaper overall (see below).

I really hoped this thread to be a catalogue of real life experiences over time so we could have some evidence of the above claim. Unfortunately, you are determined to make it into an slanging match. I have no interest in demeaning solar, but you are in promoting it.

My concern about this board was that potential Eco-enthisiasts would think that 'Green living' is about solar panels. In reality it is probably the least effective methods in the UK, since the subsidy could be used to save so much more elsewhere. This includes not just generating power but avoiding the need for it.

I notice some people are posting good results which suggest they are producing around an unsubsidised 15 p/kWh verses about half that for commercial solar and onshore wind in the UK and a third of that for commercial onshore wind in Germany and Denmark. I have never claimed that solar is bad in the correct situation (large scale and low latitude) or that wind is good in all situations (far inland and small scale). I'm just trying to promote a database from which a rational non-partisan discussion could emerge.

Unfortunately, this will be impossible if people just post successes, we have to know about the failures as well such as this. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but it seems we won't know for some time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05whf7b

Here's a good unbiased article by someone who knows what he's talking about.

Onshore wind is cheaper in other countries such as Germany (between €0.05 and €0.11/kWh). That price premium for onshore wind in Britain seems to be back-to-front, given the UK’s powerful wind resource......

Previous research in Germany and Spain has found that these cost reductions outweigh the revenue support paid to wind. Wind is not subsidised in those two countries – indeed, quite the reverse, wind lowers total costs for consumers. The thing that is called a subsidy, whether existing schemes or future ones, acts to correct a market failure.

Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd, claimed solar energy is just as cost-effective as onshore wind. And that’s half-true: it has come down in price so far, so fast, that solar farms are bidding for deals as cheaply as some onshore wind farms.

Then again, this government also prefers more costly rooftop installations to solar farms. Anyway, solar and wind are complementary, not direct substitutes, with windfarms generally generating more power in winter.

Andrew ZP Smith
Co-author of the Wind chapter in the forthcoming UKERC book “Global Energy” (Oxford University Press), to be published in September 2015. He is the Academic Head of RCUK Centre for Energy Epidemiology at UCL

Disclosure statement

Andrew ZP Smith receives funding from Research Councils UK, as Academic Head of the RCUK Centre for Energy Epidemiology.

https://theconversation.com/why-onshore-wind-isnt-as-cheap-as-it-should-be-in-the-uk-43560

Martyn1981

cepheus wrote: »

I really hoped this thread to be a catalogue of real life experiences over time so we could have some evidence of the above claim. Unfortunately you are determined to make it into an slanging match. I have no interest in demeaning solar, but you are in promoting it. My concern about this board was that potential Eco-enthisiasts would think that 'Green living' is about solar panels. In reality it is probably the least effective methods in the UK, since the subsidy could be used to save so much more elsewhere, not just generating power but avoiding the need for it.

I notice some people are posting good results which suggest they are producing around an unsubsidised 15 p/kWh verses about half that for onshore wind in the Uk and a thitrd in germany and Denmark. I have never claimed that solar is bad for the right application (large scale and low latitude) or that wind is good (in many areas where they are actually built). I'm just trying to promote a rational database.

Unfortunately this will be impossible if people just post successes, we have to know about the failures as well such as this. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but it seems we won't know for some time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05whf7b

Sorry cepheus, but that is a very, very poor attempt to twist the argument. I have many times expressed my support for wind energy (and other renewables).

I have only ever been trying to get you to explain your position. Here it is again:

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.

You posted this in response to the CfD auction results, which had large scale PV matching on-shore wind. Given that PV is now matching (or starting to match) on-shore wind, and has already beaten off-shore wind. And on the small scale, PV is cheaper than wind - I asked:-

Martyn1981 wrote: »

but, how do you justify that position (pro wind, anti PV on economic/cost grounds) if PV is now competing directly with on-shore wind, and has beaten (hands down) small scale wind and off-shore wind already?

It seems like a fair question.

Since then you've done nothing but obfuscate.

I even suggested that this thread would be an attempt by you to twist the argument into a large scale wind v's small scale PV argument ....... to get you out of the hole. And it seems like that is what you are doing. NOTE: Your statement was in response to the CfD auction results pitting large scale PV against large scale wind.

I also note that you still haven't explained your claim that domestic PV costs 15p/kWh to generate, v's "half that for on-shore wind" - but reading between the lines it seems you are using older PV costs, v's current (2016/17) on-shore wind. Begs the question why you won't discuss the numbers I (and others) have given relating to current PV costs. It seems that if people disagree with your attempts to falsify the costs of PV, you simply dismiss that as being pro-PV?

Your attempt to twist this argument (your argument, since you stated it, without ever supporting it) by claiming I'm just trying to promote solar is both desperate and pathetic.

cepheus wrote: »

I have never claimed that solar is bad for the right application (large scale and low latitude) or that wind is good (in many areas where they are actually built). I'm just trying to promote a rational database.

Are you not aware of just how many posts on this board and others you have made, simply attacking PV, without ever supporting your claims with real numbers? Care to explain that 15p figure this time?

Mart.