Solar Subsidy to be cut by 90% in January

zeupater

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Your calculations don't help determine whether the energy generated was from roof-top solar (which the statement I quoted mentions) or from large scale solar farms.

Which takes me back to the point of my post, which is that without metering, it's not possible to be able to say whether roof-top solar is reducing the wholesale price. Everything else is just supposition and estimation..

Hi

That's pretty easy, apportion according to capacity band ... data here ... https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/monthly-mcs-and-roofit-statistics

Next problem please .... :whistle:

Funny, as one profile demonstrating both an anti-renewables stance and poor grasp of logical research goes quiet elsewhere, another suddenly becomes active again here and elsewhere ... ah well, if I was a cynical being I'd formulate a theory .... :D
Z

MFW_ASAP

EricMears wrote: »

I'd be amazed if the average panel owner manages to use anything like as much as 50% of their generation.

Of course there are some of us at home all day and using diverter technology but there are many more without such 'extras' and who work all week so really only able to benefit from 'free' electricity at the weekend.

We'll never know because the system is so flawed. Perhaps one day all domestic solar installations will be metered for their input into the grid (and paid accordingly), but I'm not holding my breath.

As it is, the calculations will continue to be based on a notional amount, regardless of how much they actually generate. No wonder they are scrapping the whole thing. Not soon enough IMHO.

MFW_ASAP

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

That's pretty easy, apportion according to capacity band ... data here ... https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/monthly-mcs-and-roofit-statistics

Next problem please .... :whistle:

Funny, as one profile demonstrating both an anti-renewables stance and poor grasp of logical research goes quiet elsewhere, another suddenly becomes active again here and elsewhere ... ah well, if I was a cynical being I'd formulate a theory .... :D
Z

Well this link proves you wrong (or at least provides as much information as yours did):

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change/about/statistics

We can all provide links to nothing...

The way you type leads me to believe that you're one of the trolls on the Economy board. Why don't you just use the one logon?

EricMears

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

We'll never know because the system is so flawed. Perhaps one day all domestic solar installations will be metered for their input into the grid (and paid accordingly), but I'm not holding my breath.

As it is, the calculations will continue to be based on a notional amount, regardless of how much they actually generate. No wonder they are scrapping the whole thing. Not soon enough IMHO.

I understand the long term plan is indeed for all households to have a meter that ought to offer just that functionality.

"Scrapping the whole thing" ? Where on Earth did you get that idea ? Current FIT contracts are expected to run their course; it's only new contracts that will be affected by a reduction in rates (the same reduction that was always intended when the FIT scheme had done its 'pump priming').

zeupater

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Well this link proves you wrong (or at least provides as much information as yours did):

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change/about/statistics

We can all provide links to nothing...

The way you type leads me to believe that you're one of the trolls on the Economy board. Why don't you just use the one logon?

Hi

Link to nothing ? .... There's only two relevant items on the link, the statistics (in spreadsheet form) and a guide document to the statistics, so did you even entertain opening the referenced spreadsheet, you know the one detailing capacity installed by band, then take the sub-4kWp (or even sub-10kWp) installations as a proportion of the UK total installed pv ? ... as for proof, if it's there, find it ...

Sorry, you've proposed the problem and as such have been provided a roadmap to a solution, now, logically, it's up to you to crunch the figures that you need to crunch in order to support your position - we can then either form a consensus and agree, or not ... isn't that the normal, scientific & logical approach to addressing such issues ? ...

As for the last paragraph ... I take it simply as being another diversionary tactic, therefore it doesn't even deserve further comment ...

Z

Cardew

The solar enthusiasts are still ignoring the fact that solar PV is by far the most unreliable source of generation bar none*

It is all very well crowing about 'demand side reduction' but the Grid still has to cater for 'normal' consumption on the many occasions when solar is generating virtually nothing - 'Oh look the sun has appeared let's shut down a nuclear/conventional power station.;)'

Even Germany with its huge amount of solar panels can generate as little as 0.1% of demand during a winter day.

http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/456961/reality-check-germany-does-not-get-half-its-energy-solar

In addition, Germany's annual consumption of electricity peaks in Winter evenings, when solar panels reliably generate no power. These simple realities mean that Germany, or any other cloudy and high latitude country, will struggle to generate truly revolutionary amounts of electricity from solar panels.

* At least it can be relied upon to produce zilch/nothing when there is maximum demand on the grid. So we must still keep a full 'conventional/nuclear generating capacity in UK.

Also on a money saving website it is pertinent to point out that the vaunted 'demand side reduction' comes at a cost of up to 50 pence for every kWh generated; a subsidy paid for by every electricity consumer.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Also on a money saving website it is pertinent to point out that the vaunted 'demand side reduction' comes at a cost of up to 50 pence for every kWh generated; a subsidy paid for by every electricity consumer.

Surely if you want to talk about money saving, then you'll also want to point out that your preferred option is nuclear, which is about to receive a higher subsidy than PV, get it for 35 more years, and all on top of 50 years of support so far ... already.

So we have PV, most popular energy source with the public, low subsidy already after only 5 years of support, heading for subsidy free in 5 more years, and subsidies paid to smaller companies and households.

v's

Nuclear, low level of popularity, 50 years of support, and about to get even more, with subsidies paid to giant foreign consortiums.

Surely from a green and ethical and money saving viewpoint, PV wins hands down on all counts! Smaller subsidy investment, faster time to subsidy free, fairer distribution of monies, distributed generation, involvement of the public ..... and if the government backs off a little, even more systems installed on social housing, helping to reduce the bills of the poorer folk.

New nuclear in the UK would require twice as much subsidy as solar - report

Solar and storage could provide as much electricity as a proposed new nuclear plant in the UK at half the subsidy cost, according to new analysis timed to coincide with expected news of a nuclear agreement between Britain and China this week.

It calculated that the subsidy needed for Hinkley C would come to £29.7 billion, compared to £14.7 billion for solar and storage – £3.8 billion for the solar element, £10.9 billion for storage.

Mike Landy, head of policy at the STA, said the association hoped the analysis would give the public cause to think about “how inexpensive solar has become” and “how competitive it is” against other forms of low-carbon generation.

“We are not saying that solar is the solution to all our energy problems, nor that it could completely replace other technologies. However the government needs to explain why it is drastically cutting support for solar energy whilst offering double the subsidy to Hinkley Point C.

Mart.

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

* At least it (Solar Power) can be relied upon to produce zilch/nothing when there is maximum demand on the grid

I'm sure that one day you'll come to appreciate the 'carrot & stick' approach - please let it be soon !

But one more time : If people can be incentivised to use cheap locally generated power around Noon and deterred from using expensive power in the evening then the current Maximum Demand periods will become less of a problem.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

... Even Germany with its huge amount of solar panels can generate as little as 0.1% of demand during a winter day.

http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/456961/reality-check-germany-does-not-get-half-its-energy-solar ...

Hi

Oddly enough, the author hasn't accurately referenced the source of the hourly production other than providing a general link to what, from article titles, seems to be an anti-renewables or renewables-sceptical, albeit technical, site (end of #2). There seems to be a realisation that there is an issue with determining demand-side pv generation as there is a link (end of #1) to discuss this, but the linked article concerns the issue of determining primary & final energy consumption, in no way addressing the daily profile, just long term allocation. Considering that Germany seems to have rejected Smart-metering on cost grounds, this really brings the methodology of creating the 'Best' & 'Worst' day hourly generation profiles into question - the charts may look pretty and provide some form of reinforcement to the viability of the article, but, in reality, lacking a viable data collection infrastructure means that the charts must result from extrapolation or even a simple estimation, which is no more technical or accurate than the simple demand-side estimation solution I was proposing a couple of posts ago ...

Anyway, our own worst days have been even worse than that described for Germany, generating absolutely nothing on a few occasions, however, under the conditions where this happened it would have been totally expected, so in engineering terms, performing to expectation within specification isn't unreliable ... it's just the weather that is ....

As we know, if you were to consider the primary objective of renewable energy sources as being the reduction of carbon emissions and other forms of pollution, then there's no issue as they're doing what's required of them .... of course, anyone with a bias against renewables will compartmentalise one particular technology then concentrate on it's particular 'weakness', totally ignoring supporting infrastructure which could go a long way towards mitigation, for example, in the case of pv and wind, a combination of strategic and local energy storage in various forms ... this is a little like separating & criticising the building of any one component of an integrated infrastructure project - be it runway, terminal & aircraft ... or ... grid, renewables generation & storage ...

HTH
Z

MFW_ASAP

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Link to nothing ? .... There's only two relevant items on the link, the statistics (in spreadsheet form) and a guide document to the statistics, so did you even entertain opening the referenced spreadsheet, you know the one detailing capacity installed by band, then take the sub-4kWp (or even sub-10kWp) installations as a proportion of the UK total installed pv ? ... as for proof, if it's there, find it ...

Sorry, you've proposed the problem and as such have been provided a roadmap to a solution, now, logically, it's up to you to crunch the figures that you need to crunch in order to support your position - we can then either form a consensus and agree, or not ... isn't that the normal, scientific & logical approach to addressing such issues ? ...

As for the last paragraph ... I take it simply as being another diversionary tactic, therefore it doesn't even deserve further comment ...

Z

If you supply links to back up an argument, you have to do the work to present the relevent bits (as Cardew did above), not just link to a website and say "Somewhere on this site, is information that backs my argument, go find it".

As for the last paragraph.... It is a diversionary tactic - one used by yourself when you tried to make out that I was Cardew, something you guys do a lot to try and discredit anyone who doesn't agree with you. I guess you don;t like the taste of you own medicine?