Fourth Anniversary Results

Cardew

And the relevance of Tony Abbott's views, Australia and India to the UK's scheme of Solar FITs is??

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

And the relevance of Tony Abbott's views, Australia and India to the UK's scheme of Solar FITs is??

If you want to talk about 'relevance', please explain how most of the posts in this thread are relevant to a very simple summary of how one particular solar panel installation has performed over the past four years !

I appreciate that many people might not be all that interested in my figures but there's nothing to stop them starting new thread(s) for their own pet topics.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Of course the scheme is a 'success' if you judge 'success' by the number of people attracted to a scheme that pays huge subsidies. Pay huge money for hamsters in revolving cages that drive generators and that would also be a 'success'. They at least could generate at night;)

Why is it 'myopic' and 'out of context' to point out that the scheme is funded by all electricity consumers - including the less well off. That is exactly the situation.

Quoting from the Guardian article posted by Sterling times:

I am sorry but(unusually for you) you are not IMO looking at this from an objective viewpoint. You base your argument on the assumption that Solar is essential - and it ain't! Objectivity is to appreciate that the only certainty about solar is that it doesn't generate at night; and does nothing to reduce the UK's dependency on conventional/nuclear power stations.

Hi

I'd classify success as being evidenced by the massive reduction in pv fully installed prices over the past few years and the related ability to drastically reduce the level of support which the sector attracts far earlier than anticipated. From a purely technological viewpoint, there hasn't been any significant development in the pv which is currently being installed in over 40years, so something needed to be done. The energy sector obviously saw pv as a threat for many years so bought-up capacity and kept production low and unit prices high, possibly hoping to milk any capital development or production subsidies which would come along for themselves, just as they have for large-scale wind-power ... only a few years ago the likes of BP & Shell would have been considered major players in pv production, one of our first quotes was for BP panels and it was hugely expensive, but when the rug was pulled from beneath their feet by a global concerted effort to encourage the development of pv as a consumer product they quickly made a 'stage-left exit' by selling off their own manufacturing ... says it all really, different approach, different result .... wind turbines still expensive, nuclear as costly as ever, Severn barrage & wave power still being talked about and in the meantime millions of individual consumers have installed their own generation and helped create an industry based on a significant level of competition ... success ??, that's probably as close to an example of targeted support success as there's ever been ...

Hamsters and revolving wheels, looks like that analogy is becoming a little outdated now ... all of the original scheme hamsters would have long joined their ancestors and unless a replacement breeding programme and the price of cages with wheels had significantly reduced, they wouldn't be anywhere near competitive with pv ... prognosis - feed prices remain high resulting in large scale hamster starvation ...

Myopic and context related to the position 'It doesn't matter how much the FIT is reduced, the principle is wrong.' ... effectively maintaining that position on pv, supporting it by stating that "that the scheme is funded by all electricity consumers - including the less well off." whilst not recognising that contracts for expensive nuclear has exactly the same effect on the consumer, and is further guaranteed by the consumer/taxpayer through CfDs ... staying too close to an issue and not standing back to consider the context is myopic, it's a little disingenuous to oppose one form of supported generation on principled grounds while supporting another which has hugely more negative impact on bills, the only real difference being to whom the support is paid (ie individual or corporate) ... paraphrasing - 'That is exactly the situation.' which you seem to be supporting ...

Is solar essential, no, neither do I consider it to be .... however, it is an element in the generation mix which is both reducing demand for carbon-based generation. Did you have time to look at some of the sources which were referenced earlier, particularly the overall UK reductions in CO2 output through the shift in generation source ?, possibly looked at the daily supply-side generation profile and seen a change ? ... probably not, but something's changing and every effect has a cause ....

As for solar not generating at night ... great, our annual electricity consumption (import) averages below 3kWh/day and I consider that further reductions are possible. It would be costly to install enough storage to cope with maximum demand, but not impractical to cover nightly base-load, which accounts for the majority of our own import ... so where's the problem ?, with affordable storage and a little re-jigging we could probably get close to zero electricity import, even at night .... affordable would only mean ~3kWh daily usable deep cycle storage with a lifespan of 10 years to cost somewhere around £1,000 to £1,500, that's not achievable yet, but developments and price movements look interesting, introduce some initial take-up support to encourage investment and economies of scale and a solution for pv integration may not be that far away ...

HTH
Z

zeupater

EricMears wrote: »

If you want to talk about 'relevance', please explain how most of the posts in this thread are relevant to a very simple summary of how one particular solar panel installation has performed over the past four years !

I appreciate that many people might not be all that interested in my figures but there's nothing to stop them starting new thread(s) for their own pet topics.

Hi

For my part ... Sorry Eric, the figures from your particular solar panel installation are most welcome! ....

.... the issue simply seems to be that the 'anti-pv' arguments and their exponents haven't moved with the times and continue to object based on outdated and selective grounds .... I'm just content in having taken various efficiency measures resulting in a combined dual fuel DD of <£20/month and hope that others can achieve this milestone too ....

HTH
Z

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

If you want to talk about 'relevance', please explain how most of the posts in this thread are relevant to a very simple summary of how one particular solar panel installation has performed over the past four years !

Explanation is simple.


I commented solely on the misplaced 'generosity' of solar FIT.


You(obviously tongue in cheek) raised Nuclear subsidies in post #3 - to which I replied in a similar TIC manner.


However if Nuclear is mentioned anywhere it will attract long posts on comparative costs and then migrate to coal/India/Australia.


My point was, and is, that giving such generous subsidies to sub-4kWp solar systems is a nonsense.

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

As for solar not generating at night ... great, our annual electricity consumption (import) averages below 3kWh/day and I consider that further reductions are possible. It would be costly to install enough storage to cope with maximum demand, but not impractical to cover nightly base-load, which accounts for the majority of our own import ... so where's the problem ?,
HTH
Z

Do you really not understand the problem?


You personally have achieved commendable reductions in consumption, much by judicious use of the solar generated electricity.


So what is the justification for you receive a huge FIT subsidy? Bearing in mind of course that this subsidy is being paid for by a levy on all other users. Why for instance should an OAP living in an all electric council flat subsidize you?

theboylard

So, what I get from all this is that you have a grievance that you have an unknown percentage of £10 added to your bill, per year, that we get paid for having used our own money to reduce our demands on the generating infrastructure (just like a commercial operation, but cute and small), and exporting surplus back to the grid, for less than the generators are guaranteed to be paid for?

If I pay, let's round it up to an even tenner, don't want you quibbling over the odd shekels, to you personally, would you leave these posts alone and go and find something else to rant about?

silverwhistle

EricMears wrote: »

If you want to talk about 'relevance',

Sorry Eric, I was almost on topic but Cardew released his hare again. My figures aren't particularly detailed but 7470kWh in two years for me, 2190 diverted to water heating and around £20 a month too, although as I don't trust the leccy companies I pay on receipt of bill.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Do you really not understand the problem?

You personally have achieved commendable reductions in consumption, much by judicious use of the solar generated electricity.

So what is the justification for you receive a huge FIT subsidy? Bearing in mind of course that this subsidy is being paid for by a levy on all other users. Why for instance should an OAP living in an all electric council flat subsidize you?

Hi

I really don't see what you classify as being a problem as a problem and have provided details as to why.

Is the 'huge' subsidy received by early adopters really huge when considering the decision to have pv installed when much of the technology was relatively unknown and the (potentially risky) returns at the time would logically be compared to (safe)long term ISAs paying up to 6% ? .... Is the return which was made available through FiT for individuals any different to that made available for pfi financing to build schools, hospitals and other public buildings, or is it lower ? .... is it a case that the return which a relatively small proportion of early pv adopters, who paid 3x or more against current installs receive and do so until the system's 25th anniversary, or is it the ongoing installations which will receive 14.9p/kWh(incl deemed export) for the next 20years ? ...
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2015/07/fit_payment_rate_table_for_publication_1_october_2015_pv_tariffs.pdf
... effectively, what is the definition of huge ? ... all I know is that compared to the cost of our (early adoption) install, the percentage difference to current system costs and FiTs has been huge, a very small part of which would be due to our contribution towards developing the market ....

Now, if I read it correctly (& I believe I do) you claim to have an issue with FiTs increasing the cost of electricity bills to 'the poor', however, as previously raised, within your preference for nuclear over all forms of renewables due to it's ability to provide dependable generation the effect on the same bills of guaranteed supply pricing underwritten by the UK taxpayer is sidelined ..... the cost of state support for nuclear generation over 60+ years makes the current level of renewables support look like mere drop in the ocean, yet despite this, each successive generation of reactors has cost significantly more than the previous whilst within 5 years the cost of a pv installation has fallen by 75% .... generations of the same OAPs and poor which you raise will be paying the £billions of support costs for Hinckley 'C' through their bills for decades to come, however the cost of new generating capacity, along with the level of support per unit generation is falling annually.

Actually, the largest subsidy related to energy is already given directly to consumers as a reduced VAT (5%) rate on energy, which accounts for a discount which is larger than the total additional cost of all energy and climate change policies combined (estimated to be 9% of an average dual fuel bill), which in turn is outweighed by the combined efficiency savings and competitive effects by an estimated 14% (2013), netting out to a 5% advantage to the energy consumer, so leaving the VAT aside as a constant, schemes related to pv, wind, insulation etc are estimated to save consumers, including the 'poor' & 'OAPs' which are continually referred to, an average of 5%, or £65/year (2013 data - source below) ...
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/172923/130326_-_Price_and_Bill_Impacts_Report_Final.pdf

Our own reductions on overall energy usage are likely unattainable for many existing properties when taking the building size and construction into consideration, but I really do believe that taking a long term approach based on incremental improvements would benefit almost anyone, the problem is that many see pv as being the first, and possibly only, step on the efficiency trail .... we do tend to make best use of pv generation, but probably not much difference to many others with pv and no automated proportional diversion ...

HTH
Z

silverwhistle

theboylard wrote: »

If I pay, let's round it up to an even tenner,

I'll go halves with you, but I'd rather put it towards a few LED lights for him in the interest of lowering demand and costs so that he benefits long term, like we do.

Subsidies exist within society all over the place (we still haven't had a response over the 35 years for nuclear and the on-going costs of decommissioning which also affects the poor) and unlike many others this one has been a notable success.

None of the points that Martyn raises are ever answered. Also if the concern for the poor were genuine I'd expect a campaign for increased benefits and pensions or better, improved housing and insulation. As a non-Tory voter I'd be very much in favour. But no.. it's back with exactly the same old simplistic argument. Taking some power out of the hands of the private, monopolistic corporate monoliths can only be good, but Cardew obviously believes in big business. As I said above I've hedged my bets with SSE shares.:D