Should solar users in receipt of FIT be encouraged onto Green Tarrifs?

EricMears

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

As predicted, my point was ignored by you (again).

I look forward to the next Ground Hog day when you tell everyone that solar costs pennies next to offshore wind farms, I point out that it doesn't work at night and in winter (when we need energy the most), you deflect with some irrelevant remark to avoid the difficult truth and we do the dance all over again.

Afraid I didn't actually see any other point in the message to which I responded except that you seemed to be thinking of starting a small generation scheme - which would indeed have worked very well at night and in winter. If you could actually set up such a project and post the details here, then no doubt thousands of others would follow your lead and together make a significant dent in maximum grid demand.

But it would seem that the 'nasty minded members of this forum' will have some justification for claiming the scheme was just empty talk.

MFW_ASAP

EricMears wrote: »

Afraid I didn't actually see any other point in the message to which I responded except that you seemed to be thinking of starting a small generation scheme - which would indeed have worked very well at night and in winter. If you could actually set up such a project and post the details here, then no doubt thousands of others would follow your lead and together make a significant dent in maximum grid demand.

But it would seem that the 'nasty minded members of this forum' will have some justification for claiming the scheme was just empty talk.

As predicted, issue is sidestepped again with a daft comment. Ground hog day ensues.

EricMears

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

As predicted, issue is sidestepped again with a daft comment. Ground hog day ensues.

If it's such a "daft comment", what sort of fool does that make the person who proposed the idea in the first place ?

But as we saw in a recent thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5375318
a microHEP plant generating just over 1kWh per day was thought to be potentially worthwhile. A half decent 'bicycle generator' could easily match that and at far less cost; it would even have some side benefits in keeping the operator warm and fitter.

But talking about such proposals won't solve any energy crisis, what we need is action ! MFW_ASAP has recently proposed two small scale schemes that could have made a useful contribution to our problems. Without trying them out, there's no point in further discussion - we might just as well wait around hoping that some race of super aliens will come and rescue us before all our lights go out.

MFW_ASAP

EricMears wrote: »

If it's such a "daft comment", what sort of fool does that make the person who proposed the idea in the first place ?

But as we saw in a recent thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5375318
a microHEP plant generating just over 1kWh per day was thought to be potentially worthwhile. A half decent 'bicycle generator' could easily match that and at far less cost; it would even have some side benefits in keeping the operator warm and fitter.

But talking about such proposals won't solve any energy crisis, what we need is action ! MFW_ASAP has recently proposed two small scale schemes that could have made a useful contribution to our problems. Without trying them out, there's no point in further discussion - we might just as well wait around hoping that some race of super aliens will come and rescue us before all our lights go out.

And another sidestep, and outright lie as no one proposed a microHEP plant, a question was merely asked about what people thought was the lowest generation that was worth doing:

"What's the lowest kw/h output would people think worth the effort?"

silverwhistle

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I totally understand why your whole argument is around the cost price of solar because if you compare it against other renewables using any other metrics it fails completely.

What other metrics?

As predicted, my point was ignored by you (again).

That's a bit rich coming from you!

Whilst people who use solar are quite aware and prepared to acknowledge the disadvantages of the overnight and seasonal issue I have _never_ seen _you_ acknowledge some of the advantages of solar.

It's all very well talking about how 'green taxes' could be spent better elsewhere, but we are talking about here and now. I returned to the UK in early July 2013 and by mid-August had an installation that was generating electricity. I used my own capital from savings I generated out of PAYE income. So national infrastructure was improved, GDP and tax revenues increased, usage and import of fossil fuels reduced and one more aware electricity consumer added to the numbers with a consequent reduction in peak demand. If you prefer think of it as a mini-PFI, which I suspect you're probably in favour of, except a politician's cliche' 'hard-working' consumer benefited, and not a (probably foreign-owned) company.

I'm all in favour of other renewables, but unlike you I don't see any dichotomy in using an easily-scalable and increasingly cheap technology whilst we wait for other solutions with longer lead times.

Cardew

silverwhistle wrote: »

What other metrics?



That's a bit rich coming from you!

Whilst people who use solar are quite aware and prepared to acknowledge the disadvantages of the overnight and seasonal issue I have _never_ seen _you_ acknowledge some of the advantages of solar.


I'm all in favour of other renewables, but unlike you I don't see any dichotomy in using an easily-scalable and increasingly cheap technology whilst we wait for other solutions with longer lead times.

It would appear that MFW_ASAP has taken over from me as the 'bogeyman'!


Whilst my views on solar subsidies have been well aired, I have kept out of this thread because I believe the OP is misguided in aiming his arrows at those taking advantage of a stupid system of subsidies, particularly for sub 4kWp systems on roofs. - cue yet another retort about the advantages of 'supply side'! or subsidies for nuclear justifying solar!


Most of us take advantage of legal tax breaks, allowances, capital gains tax, inheritance tax etc etc, so I have never had any criticism of people(including RAR companies) taking advantage of solar subsidies. My criticism was aimed at the Government who allowed this stupid system of subsidies, and allowed it to be funded not from general taxation but consumers - many of whom are considerably less well off from the recipients of the subsidy.


Now the government appear to have come to its senses and are(hopefully) getting rid of what our Prime Minister in his infinite wisdom calls the 'Green Crap' we have an outcry from the solar industry that their gravy train is to be derailed.


My objection to some on this thread is their disingenuous posts. It would appear that their green credentials are the primary reason for installing PV. Or that those accepting the FIT payments in UK have been instrumental in driving down PV costs. We are bombarded with links to solar industry propaganda extolling the virtues of solar in Africa, USA, India etc as if this is some justification for solar subsidies to be continued in UK.


So good luck to those who feel they have made a 'killing' on solar PV, but spare us from the hypocrisy!

Dave_Fowler

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

No you don't get it. You can either spend green taxes on helping a few individuals reduce their own energy bills by putting solar panels on roofs that are usually angled incorrectly/inefficiently for optimum solar gain, where each small install has it's own wasteful infrastructure (iverters, etc.) or you can spend those same green taxes on a national solution that helps thousands of people to enjoy clean energy and a better environment in which to live.

Hang on a minute. If someone has a PV system fitted on their roof so that it is 'incorrectly/inefficiently for optimum solar gain, where each small install has it's own wasteful infrastructure (iverters, etc.)' then they'll not be being paid the same amount of FiTs as someone with optimally placed panels. They won't be 'robbing the poor' they'll just be making themselves poorer by paying for an inefficient system. FiTs aren't paid for just having a system, but for the power that is generated which reduces the overall national demand for power, reduces greenhouse gas emission and reduces any potential fine which will be levied on the UK government for not meeting its carbon reduction targets.

Dave F

MFW_ASAP

Cardew wrote: »

My objection to some on this thread is their disingenuous posts. It would appear that their green credentials are the primary reason for installing PV. Or that those accepting the FIT payments in UK have been instrumental in driving down PV costs. We are bombarded with links to solar industry propaganda extolling the virtues of solar in Africa, USA, India etc as if this is some justification for solar subsidies to be continued in UK.

So good luck to those who feel they have made a 'killing' on solar PV, but spare us from the hypocrisy!

This was exactly what I was looking for when I created the thread. After creating an earlier one whee I suggested moving solar to the energy board I was bombarded with abuse about the green credentials of solar investors.

I thought I'd test this by creating this thread. Sadly not a single 'green' solar investor has come forward and said that it was a good idea or that they were already doing it.

Nope, solar is all about getting your snout in the troff of solar fits and reducing your own electricity bill. Fair play to the few (one?) who admit as much.

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

And as I have responded to you (and been ignored by you) each time, I could attach a dynamo to my bike to generate electricity to power lights. It will cost much less than off shore wind, tidal and wave. As with solar, it's totally unsuited for a country that uses more energy in the long, dark winter months.

I totally understand why your whole argument is around the cost price of solar because if you compare it against other renewables using any other metrics it fails completely.

I haven't ignored you, I simply responded to your claims that PV was inefficient and didn't benefit all, by pointing out it compares very favourably with the other forms of renewable generation. And demand side generation benefits the grid in the same way supply side does ....... when you actually think it through properly.

I've also, repeatedly given you costings, since you didn't seem to know any of the numbers, nor how to compare said numbers. In this post of yours, you appear to struggle with understanding which contractual payment is bigger £80 or £120!

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I'm actually saying that I don't see how the relative costs are calculated (and your link was useless as usual in that). If you have an offshore wind turbine that provides electricity at a cost of £119.89/Mwh and a solar farm that provides electricity at a cost of £79.23/Mwh, how is the cost calculated? Does it calculate against generation over a whole year?

As the years go by, does the calculation change? I'd imagine that an offshore wind turbine is far more reliable for the generation of electricity than solar. So in winter or at night it's generating electricity and so the costs are averaging down as more electricity is produced. The solar farm is sitting there generating nothing, so the installation costs are not being offset against production.

Regarding your bike. Perhaps, if you are a good cyclist you could maintain 100W of generation, however, I suspect you have failed to cost the fuel (food) bill which at an hourly generation value of about 1p, will probably leave you well out of pocket, wouldn't you say?

Mart.

tunnel

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

or you can spend those same green taxes on a national solution that helps thousands of people to enjoy clean energy and a better environment in which to live.

The clean energy you talk about comes at a premium to conventionally generated power, only those with deep pockets can afford those tariffs.
Still....if it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside then please, continue to buy and i'll continue to produce my own

As an aside, why not lobby for net metering instead, that's definitely a viable alternative to the FiT.