A Shade Greener say they can't do an installtion

kevin6666

tunnel wrote: »

Say what you like about them, I do, I don't care for them and wouldn't have them on my roof, but with 67000+ installs, there's a hell of a lot of people who couldn't afford their own panels now enjoying the benefits of solar. Even MFW couldn't argue with that, the poor getting solar.

He might not but I could. I'd sooner see ALL of the poor and society in general getting lower energy bills and the UK having a sustainable domestic PV industry.

Thanks to good old gov we have neither.

Martyn1981

kevin6666 wrote: »

He might not but I could. I'd sooner see ALL of the poor and society in general getting lower energy bills and the UK having a sustainable domestic PV industry.

Thanks to good old gov we have neither.

Sadly, that's true about this government.

Had they cut the FiT to about 6p or 7p it could have continued fine, (whereas the level they have set is deliberately low at this point in time, for most households), delivering cheap leccy (at or below nuclear and off-shore wind costs already), and with the monies distributed to consumers, rather than energy companies.

Sadly, not only have they cut cheap support for domestic PV, but also cheap support for large scale PV and on-shore wind - presumably the smaller energy companies.

However, they are maintaining higher cost support for nuclear and off-shore wind, owned and operated by the very largest energy companies, or foreign countries.

You couldn't make it up!

Mart.

Cardew

tunnel wrote: »

Say what you like about them, I do, I don't care for them and wouldn't have them on my roof, but with 67000+ installs, there's a hell of a lot of people who couldn't afford their own panels now enjoying the benefits of solar. Even MFW couldn't argue with that, the poor getting solar.

However it doesn't seem very sensible to me to pay a firm of venture capitalists around £1,000 a year for each of those 67,000 installations - inflation linked for 20/25 years - so the house occupants can save around £100 a year.

kevin6666

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sadly, that's true about this government.

Had they cut the FiT to about 6p or 7p it could have continued fine, (whereas the level they have set is deliberately low at this point in time, for most households), delivering cheap leccy (at or below nuclear and off-shore wind costs already), and with the monies distributed to consumers, rather than energy companies.

Sadly, not only have they cut cheap support for domestic PV, but also cheap support for large scale PV and on-shore wind - presumably the smaller energy companies.

However, they are maintaining higher cost support for nuclear and off-shore wind, owned and operated by the very largest energy companies, or foreign countries.

You couldn't make it up!

Mart.

I disagree tbh. FIT was poorly thought out and spent too hard/fast in the early days. To continue to pay high for a energy that doesn't sustain the grid during peak demand would further cement the mistake. It's completely wrong that there is <=4kw domestic systems that have already paid for themselves.

Lets face it if we have genuine supply/grid problems in the future will PV help at all? - No IMO as it doesn't work during peak loads. If any country in Europe really suffered from supply issues you can bet any CO2 commitments would go out the window but if they haven't got the REAL (anytime/anywhere) generation capability we're up a certain creek...

PV has its place and that place is to be the cheapest elec possible due to its nature however atm it's completely the other way round.

Personally I want lights that turn on in the evening so given the damage that has already been done by FIT I think it's a good call to kill it off for a few years.

EricMears

kevin6666 wrote: »

Lets face it if we have genuine supply/grid problems in the future will PV help at all? - No IMO as it doesn't work during peak loads.

You're missing one rather significant point. When I have 'free' electricity available for a couple of hours either side of Noon, I tend to run major appliances in that 'window' rather than in the evenings. My own contribution to moving the grid peak is of course very small but if many other people managed to do the same then the demand at current peak periods would be significantly reduced.

Obviously I still need to switch on lights during the hours of darkness but the grid doesn't have problems with that; it does have (major) problems with lots of people cooking a meal at 6pm.

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

You're missing one rather significant point. When I have 'free' electricity available for a couple of hours either side of Noon, I tend to run major appliances in that 'window' rather than in the evenings. My own contribution to moving the grid peak is of course very small but if many other people managed to do the same then the demand at current peak periods would be significantly reduced.

Obviously I still need to switch on lights during the hours of darkness but the grid doesn't have problems with that; it does have (major) problems with lots of people cooking a meal at 6pm.

I appreciate you are one of the more balanced contributors on solar, but I really think you have missed the point rather than kevin6666.


The grid has to have reliable generating sources to cover the peak load, which as you are aware is late afternoon/early evening in winter, and has to cater for a worse case scenario where there will be nothing from renewable energy.


Perusal of the thousands of posts( a pretty good database) on the 'talking 'bout my generation' thread shows just how few 'Os' are generated on many days in winter. Therefore it follows that on many days there will be no 'free electricity' for you or any others to 'run major appliances either side of noon'.


So I suggest that solar contributes absolutely nothing to the total generating capacity needed by GB Ltd to meet maximum load.

Martyn1981

kevin6666 wrote: »

I disagree tbh. FIT was poorly thought out and spent too hard/fast in the early days. To continue to pay high for a energy that doesn't sustain the grid during peak demand would further cement the mistake. It's completely wrong that there is <=4kw domestic systems that have already paid for themselves.

Lets face it if we have genuine supply/grid problems in the future will PV help at all? - No IMO as it doesn't work during peak loads. If any country in Europe really suffered from supply issues you can bet any CO2 commitments would go out the window but if they haven't got the REAL (anytime/anywhere) generation capability we're up a certain creek...

PV has its place and that place is to be the cheapest elec possible due to its nature however atm it's completely the other way round.

Personally I want lights that turn on in the evening so given the damage that has already been done by FIT I think it's a good call to kill it off for a few years.

Sorry, but I think you are missing the big picture.

The idea of rolling out renewables is (mainly) to address the issue of CO2 output.

To focus 'PV judgment' on peak demand is silly. To focus on keeping the lights on is silly. That ignores the fact that we need CO2 free electricity during daylight.

Focusing on 'it doesn't generate without daylight' is simply spin doctoring, because it does exactly what it is supposed to do, and that is generate when there is daylight. PV delivers when PV is expected to deliver.

If you look at the generation patterns of PV and wind, you'll see they are a near perfect fit, each filling in for the other, when it is low. Without a broad mix of renewables, they all fail. Or to put it another way, why focus on winter evening CO2, whilst ignoring summer daytime CO2?

To continue to pay high for a energy that doesn't sustain the grid during peak demand would further cement the mistake.

PV has its place and that place is to be the cheapest elec possible due to its nature however atm it's completely the other way round.

These statements make no sense to me. The PV subsidies (supply side CfDs or domestic FiT) are already one of the very lowest, and still falling. The new FiT could offer a 10% gross ROI (4% net), but only in the best situations, however, even allowing for a 'fairer' FiT of 6p or 7p, it would still be cheaper today, than the proposed 35yr subsidy for nuclear in 2025, and roughly match on-shore wind. So there now, doesn't appear to be a cost issue with the deployment of the technology in the UK.

Yet your statement - 'completely the other way round of cheapest' - suggests PV is one of the most expensive. That is not true!

By all means go on about the peak demand in the winter evenings, but since that task was never linked to PV (whose role is more of a daytime and Spring to Autumn supply specialist), it's like judging a hammer on its ability to saw wood, rather than judge a balanced tool box overall.

In my opinion, judging PV on winter evening demand is pure spin doctoring - Take (any) intermittent generation and focus all judgement on what it doesn't do, rather than what it is designed to do.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

However it doesn't seem very sensible to me to pay a firm of venture capitalists around £1,000 a year for each of those 67,000 installations - inflation linked for 20/25 years - so the house occupants can save around £100 a year.

However it doesn't seem very sensible to me to pay French and Chinese venture capitalists around £2,600,000,000 a year - inflation linked for 35 years - so the house occupants can save around £0 a year. [Despite already having paid 60 years of subsidy funding.]

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Mart.

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

I appreciate you are one of the more balanced contributors on solar, but I really think you have missed the point rather than kevin6666.

How kind ! But the point I 'missed' really isn't a major issue.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The idea of rolling out renewables is (mainly) to address the issue of CO2 output

Indeed ! Our 'climate change obligations' are concerned only with annual totals. Not a very sensible approach of course but we could meet them by shutting down all fossil fuel generation from February to November and running the coal fired stations flat out in December & January. 'Smart metering' would encourage users to minimise their usage at peak times.

I'm not actually advocating that approach but please try to remember that every tonne of CO2 'saved' (at any time of day or year) counts towards our promised annual saving.

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

How kind ! But the point I 'missed' really isn't a major issue.

However in your post #16 the sole subject was that kevin6666 had missed the point i.e. 'You're missing one rather significant point. etc'

So it appears it is a 'significant point' until your reasoning is shown to be incorrect!


Now it is proven that solar generation contributes nothing to meeting the maximum demand on the grid, it appears - with the help of 'The Guru' that the discussion should be diverted to CO2 output.


Well if that is the issue, and solar is a necessity! wouldn't it have been sensible to have large solar farms getting lower subsidies than inefficient sub 4kWh installations dotted on houses all over UK. Surely that would be a better way of reducing CO2.


Also yet another dig at Nuclear, but their CO2 output isn't apparently relevant!