Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

edited 12 July 2021 at 11:38AM in Green & Ethical MoneySaving
6.8K replies 443.8K views
15681011685

Replies

  • edited 25 December 2015 at 8:49AM
    Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    13K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 25 December 2015 at 8:49AM
    kevin6666 wrote: »
    Guess you're optimistic people are still going to have FIT eligible systems installed in 2016+ then!

    Kinda think the scheme will be a good as dead myself in terms of new registrations.

    Well there's no point being pessimistic, as PV has always done better than even the optimists have expected. And at a comparable subsidy rate to on-shore wind, PV farms and nuclear (FiT of 6p) I think it would do fine.

    However, at 4.39p and more importantly with the very low deployment limits, it's probably not going to be a pretty sight.

    It looks like cheap domestic PV, along with cheap large scale PV and cheap on-shore wind are all to be culled. But higher subsidies for the massive energy companies and foreign internationals (off-shore wind and nuclear) look reasonably safe.

    Merry Xmas.

    Mart.

    PS Personally I expect councils to continue installing systems. Their large rollouts will probably eat up the quarterly limits and roll forward into the next ones. This will make it very difficult for domestic installers to predict the FiT rate that a domestic system will receive (once in the queue), so expect this to have a serious impact on domestic rollout, but hopefully social housing will continue to do OK'ish. M.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    13K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Renewables generation leapfrogs nuclear as domestic bills fall
    Former energy secretary Ed Davey has continuously countered claims that bills would increase and the Levy Control Framework would be overspent and labelled them “lies” owing to the Merit Order Effect. The effect argues that as more, cheaper renewables come onto the grid the wholesale cost of electricity falls. Davey has argued that as the LCF only takes into account the gross cost of subsidies and not the net cost (costs minus reductions to the wholesale price) it should not be used as a complete gauge of costs passed onto consumers.

    Mart.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    13K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Some numbers on wind generation in 2015.

    UK wind industry smashes records in 2015
    Last year the UK generated 11 per cent of its electricity from wind, up from 9.5 per cent in 2014.
    Meanwhile, the percentage of the UK's electricity supplied by gas, oil and coal fell from 58.7 per cent to 52.1 per cent between 2014 and 2015, according to Goodall's analysis, with coal's share of electricity generation dropping from 30.9 per cent to 24.3 per cent.

    Mart.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    13K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Article on the role of nuclear going forward.

    Personally I'd rather not have nuclear as it's simply too expensive and unpopular. However, I'm not 100% convinced (yet) that it should be off the table, but it's getting closer to the edge.

    The article is from a green viewpoint, but I'm still surprised just how little interest there seems to be in nuclear going forward, even with the multi-national Paris climate commitments.

    Paris Fails to Revive the Nuclear Dream
    In Paris, in early December, the advocates of nuclear power made yet another appeal to world leaders to adopt their technology as central to saving the planet from dangerous climate change.

    Yet analysis of the plans of 195 governments that signed up to the Paris agreement, each with their own individual schemes on how to reduce national carbon emissions, show that nearly all of them exclude nuclear power.

    Only a few big players—China, Russia, India, South Korea and the United Kingdom—still want an extensive program of new–build reactors.

    To try to understand why this is so the U.S.-based Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists asked eight experts in the field to look at the future of nuclear power in the context of climate change.

    One believed that large-scale new-build nuclear power “could and should” be used to combat climate change and another thought nuclear could play a role, although a small one. The rest thought new nuclear stations were too expensive, too slow to construct and had too many inherent disadvantages to compete with renewables.

    Industry in Distress

    Amory Lovins, co-founder and chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, produced a devastating analysis saying that the slow-motion decline of the nuclear industry was simply down to the lack of a business case.

    The average nuclear reactor, he wrote, was now 29 years old and the percentage of global electricity generated continued to fall from a peak of 17.6 percent in 1996 to 10.8 percent in 2014. “Financial distress stalks the industry,” wrote Lovins.

    Lovins says nuclear power now costs several times more than wind or solar energy and is so far behind in cost and building time that it could never catch up.

    Linked article, views and opinions:

    The experts on nuclear power and climate change

    Mart.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • CardewCardew Forumite
    28.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Rampant Recycler
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The article is from a green viewpoint,

    Now that is a surprise!
  • Martyn1981 wrote: »
    I'm not entirely sure what you are saying, but for cost comparison purposes, the cost to bill payers to 'see' a MWh of leccy hit the grid (either as export or offset, both of which reduce the need for the grid to purchase a MWh of FF leccy and the subsequent CO2) is now(ish):-

    Off-shore wind today ~£150
    Off-shore wind £120 (2018)
    Nuclear £93 (2025?)
    On-shore wind £80 (2016)
    Large scale PV £80 (2016)
    Domestic PV today £150 (12.5p FiT + 2.5p export / kWh)
    Domestic PV after the reduction £69 (2016)

    Subsidies are 15yrs for wind and large scale PV, 20yrs for domestic PV and 35yrs for nuclear.

    However, off-shore wind has a capacity factor of 40% to 45% (compared to ~25% for on-shore wind and ~11% for PV), which is worth a little extra as it helps with predictability and integration.

    Mart.

    Nice to see that you're finally splitting off large-scale (commercial) PV from domestic PV with your figures Mart, instead of lumping them together to try and bolster your domestic solar PV argument.

    As I have discussed many times, PV has its place in the UK mix of renewables, but on large scale commercial implementations, not the inefficient hodge-potch of domestic rooftops. If you look at your price comparisons you can see that commercial PV is almost 50% cheaper than domestic PV, proving my point.

    If people want to reduce their own energy bills then they can fit their own panels (as I will be doing), but not expect everyone else in the UK to chip in and pay for it.
  • MFW_ASAP wrote: »
    Nice to see that you're finally splitting off large-scale (commercial) PV from domestic PV with your figures Mart, instead of lumping them together to try and bolster your domestic solar PV argument.

    As I have discussed many times, PV has its place in the UK mix of renewables, but on large scale commercial implementations, not the inefficient hodge-potch of domestic rooftops. If you look at your price comparisons you can see that commercial PV is almost 50% cheaper than domestic PV, proving my point.

    If people want to reduce their own energy bills then they can fit their own panels (as I will be doing), but not expect everyone else in the UK to chip in and pay for it.

    Yep I agree with that but it's too late. The UK now has a costly Domestic PV subsidy to pay over next 20 years. Due to the extremely poor implementation of FIT it's unlikely Domestic PV will continue to be Installed in notable volumes so the cost of it per unit will remain extremely high for the bill payer. Also as battery tech increases and other innovations come in those domestic PV systems will provide less and less export to the grid providng even worse value to the bill payers.
  • kevin6666 wrote: »
    Yep I agree with that but it's too late. The UK now has a costly Domestic PV subsidy to pay over next 20 years. Due to the extremely poor implementation of FIT it's unlikely Domestic PV will continue to be Installed in notable volumes so the cost of it per unit will remain extremely high for the bill payer. Also as battery tech increases and other innovations come in those domestic PV systems will provide less and less export to the grid providing even worse value to the bill payers.

    When they were first introduced, the FIT payments seemed to me to be a gift to middle class, middle aged voters who were grumbling about the introduction of low interest rates, destroying the financial return on their safe cash savings. It allowed them to receive a 25 (then 20) year cast iron, index linked return on an investment, with the added benefit of reducing their (probably large) energy bills.

    With the closure of the National Savings (NSANDI) fixed and inflation linked products, the government had to provide a new, safe investment vehicle for their middle income voters. Solar FITted the bill nicely.

    Even better, the government didn't have to shoulder the cost of the investment incentive, they just put it onto the backs of energy bill payers in a stealth tax that disproportionately hit the poorly paid (in a similar way that VAT does).

    How anyone can defend this crappy state of affairs is beyond me.
  • SterlingtimesSterlingtimes Forumite
    1.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭
    MFW_ASAP wrote: »
    When they were first introduced, the FIT payments seemed to me to be a gift to middle class, middle aged voters who were grumbling about the introduction of low interest rates, destroying the financial return on their safe cash savings. It allowed them to ...

    Do you require us to sing The Internationale
    Solar installed 21 November 2014 > Centre of England > 3,780 Wp > 14 *270 Watt Trina panels > 14 * Enphase micro-inverters > managed by Enlighten Envoy Hub > 19° west of south > 35° pitch > tree shading to east > iBoost > Wattson Anywhere monitoring > Schneider Electric (Drayton) MiGenie smart thermostat.
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    13K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    MFW_ASAP wrote: »
    Nice to see that you're finally splitting off large-scale (commercial) PV from domestic PV with your figures Mart, instead of lumping them together to try and bolster your domestic solar PV argument.

    No idea why you've made that up! I'm always more than happy to discuss all the relevant numbers. But usually when I give detailed breakdowns, you complain my posts are too long, then reveal you don't actually understand the numbers, or how they will be applied!

    Isn't it about time you started telling the truth.

    MFW_ASAP wrote: »
    If you look at your price comparisons you can see that commercial PV is almost 50% cheaper than domestic PV, proving my point.

    Speaking of the truth, if you look at the numbers you'll actually find that domestic PV is about to become cheaper than large scale PV ..... how exactly does that prove your point?

    Perhaps that's why the Green Party support PV, domestic PV and FiTs, despite your (false) claims to the contrary.


    If you don't support a mixed bag of renewables, disagree with the Green Party policies, and prefer to support nuclear costings, fine. But why keep posting these views on a green and ethical board, and attacking those that do support renewables. Very strange.

    Mart.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest MSE News and Guides