Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi Eric / All

Don't worry about it, Mart's really just having a play with Kevin so that he(?) understands that there was a fundamental grammatical mistake in an earlier post which completely reversed the polarity of what was meant to be written to what was actually written ....

You know me too well!

But it does raise some important issues:

1. Chat is one thing, but if you are posting actual guidance advice, then you should proof read it to make sure you haven't stated the exact opposite, and given appalling information. And a quote and reference should be included so it can be properly considered.

2. Yet again (as per when I had my extension installed and the supplier guidance changed the day before) we have a situation where the installer and the supplier guidance differs. One saying before the install, and one (the one you'll chat with when buying a PV system) saying on or before.

OFGEM will clean this up, in fact there may already be an amendment out there. I've asked them for clarification.

Does come back to an important question though, should properties have to have a qualifying EPC. Improving efficiency is very important, but (other than as a bribe or blackmail) energy generation is a separate factor. Should clean leccy generation really depend on the efficiency of the property it's attached to?

Mind you, with both of us chatting about heat pumps, that does somewhat undermine my position!

Mart.

Martyn1981

For clarification and completeness I've now been directed to Feed-in Tariff: Guidance for Renewable Installations (Version 10.1) which also has the revision from 10th May (as per V8.1 of the suppliers guidance) for an EPC 'before' rather than 'on or before' the commissioning date.

Neither guidance appears to state 'after', an instruction which if followed could cost dearly.

Mart.

Alan_Brown

I pop onto MSE once in a while, and check out the threads I'm subscribed to (this one, Solar in the news, Early retirement wannabe and a DFW diary of someone). I feel like I've just wasted 10 minutes of my time scratching my head, trying to figure what on earth the chat is about to then get to the end and it's something about a grammatical error.

Come on guys, we're not in the school yard. I find this and the solar thread to be a brilliant resource for me to pick up on renewable developments. Can we keep the arguments to other threads?

Martyn1981

Alan_Brown wrote: »

I pop onto MSE once in a while, and check out the threads I'm subscribed to (this one, Solar in the news, Early retirement wannabe and a DFW diary of someone). I feel like I've just wasted 10 minutes of my time scratching my head, trying to figure what on earth the chat is about to then get to the end and it's something about a grammatical error.

Come on guys, we're not in the school yard. I find this and the solar thread to be a brilliant resource for me to pick up on renewable developments. Can we keep the arguments to other threads?

Sorry to have upset you Alan, but for clarification Kevin has a history of using guidance to mislead folk on here.

Several years ago he used new guidance to claim existing FiT'ers had committed fraud. And on this occasion his advice, if followed, would have meant substantial financial losses to new PV'ers.

My very first response to him explained my position and that the EPC couldn't be done after. I accept that he probably miswrote it, but it isn't a grammatical error, it's actually a reversal of the true position. I believe there is an enormous difference between the two, and given the nature of posts, grammatical errors crop up a lot and are typically of no interest to me.

I expected him to correct it immediately, not continue the disagreement, and unfortunately his claims that he had given correct information were thanked by another poster, which again could have appeared as validation of the information, and the subsequent loss of monies.

Should I have played with him? Perhaps not, but I did set out my position, and I did ask over and over for him to link and reference his statement - had he done so, the mistake would have been obvious, and the chance of harm minimal.

All the best, Mart.

Alan_Brown

I think I was in a bit of a bad mood yesterday from lack of sleep with the hot nights, so was probably a little less jovial than usual. It wasn't really a dig at you Mart especially as you're a brilliant contributor to both of the threads I mentioned, just a general moan. I also understand the urge to push back on people if they're being a pain.

Martyn1981

Alan_Brown wrote: »

I think I was in a bit of a bad mood yesterday from lack of sleep with the hot nights, so was probably a little less jovial than usual. It wasn't really a dig at you Mart especially as you're a brilliant contributor to both of the threads I mentioned, just a general moan. I also understand the urge to push back on people if they're being a pain.

No probs Alan, thanks so much for responding, and I fully admit I have fun with some of C&K's comments, but it's my way of breaking up the boredom of dealing with outdated pointless spin.

I do wrestle with the issue of responding to much of the provocation, and have experimented over the years, as arguing can drag down a thread or discussion (as you rightly pointed out). In many/most cases I assume that's the very point of the post, but when ignored I've found the nonsense actually increases, so it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

There is however some good news. 4 to 5 years ago when I 'stuck up' for green and ethical generation and subsidy schemes, 'C' was being unpleasant and rude to almost everyone, even on occasions attacking non-posters simply for thanking posts. Now, almost all of the vitriol is directed at myself, so I must be doing something well.

Mart.

PS. If you keep reading the news, I'll keep posting it. M.

Martyn1981

Some interesting facts and figures on the switch to renewables in California, and the economic impact and changes to energy supply:

Unlikely casualty in California's renewable energy boom: natural gas

Built largely after California's 2000 and 2001 energy crisis, the state's new fleet of natural gas plants were meant to address a shortfall in power supplies and fuel population and economic growth for decades to come. Some plants had 10-year contracts that have now lapsed, while others were built to support the state's spot power market.

But power prices in California fell to their lowest level since at least 2001 last year, and in 2016 so far are trading even lower. The low price of natural gas, thanks to the fracking boom, is largely responsible. But renewables also depress spot prices because those prices are determined by the cost of the fuel source, which for wind and solar is zero.

California's big push for renewable power began in earnest with Davis' successor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a decade ago. He set a goal for the state to obtain 33 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020, an ambitious target that the state's top three utilities are on track to exceed because of government support for wind and solar power and a dramatic drop in the price of those technologies.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Major Swedish parties agree to 100% renewable goal by 2040

The five parties, including the coalition government, have agreed on a policy framework for long term future of the country's energy generation, which includes the ambitious target of being 100% renewable by 2040.

Since spring Swedish politicians have been locked in negotiations to come up with a suitable policy framework for the future of Swedish energy, past 2025. The agreement that has been reached has focused on scaling back the country’s nuclear program and pushing renewable energies, which is likely to make small-scale PV particularly attractive.

Mart.

Martyn1981

A couple of articles looking at recycling old mines for pumped storage at a lower cost.

Gold Mine Recycled as Australia’s Largest Pumped Hydro Storage

Australia’s Genex Power is recycling a disused gold mine as a 400-450 MW pumped hydro storage project, with the potential to store and generate around 2,225 MWh daily, making this Australia’s largest energy storage project by far.

The site will ultimately include 150 MW of PV — with 100 MW of that to be integrated into the hydro transmission once complete — making dispatchable solar generation at utility-scale.

[California] 1300 MW Pumped Storage Hydro Project Moves Closer, Developer Eagle Mountain Buys Kaiser Eagle Mountain Mine

The 1300 megawatt (MW) pumped storage hydroelectric project near Desert Center, California, has moved closer to becoming a reality following the recent purchase of the Kaiser Eagle Mountain mine by developer Eagle Mountain from CIL&D.

Th current plan — according to Eagle Crest Energy, the owner of subsidiary Eagle Mountain — is for the old mine site to be transformed into a pumped storage facility to store excess electricity generated by solar energy, wind energy, geothermal, etc. Two of the vacant iron ore mining pits on site will be converted into water reservoirs linked with an underground turbine system, thereby allowing the generation of electricity on demand.

Hard to track down total storage, but finally found this link which suggests it could be 13GWh:

26. The proposed energy storage volume will permit the project to generate at full capacity for up to 10 hours each weekday, with up to 14 hours of pumping each weekday night and additional pumping during the weekend to fully refill the upper reservoir. The daily water level fluctuation will be about 100 feet in the upper reservoir and 150 feet in the lower reservoir

Mart.

lstar337

Volkswagen plans to launch 30 all-electric models to reposition itself as a leader in "green" transport.

Matthias Mueller, chief executive of Europe's biggest carmaker, said huge investments would be needed as the firm moves beyond the "dieselgate" scandal.
He hopes that by 2025, all-electric cars would account for about 20-25% of the German carmaker's annual sales.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36548893