Should Liz Truss have offered free solar panels as well?

jj_43

so the argument for having solar panels in fields, is because they are cheaper and more efficient, for who? as we see the benefits of such cheap energy doesn't reach customers, as its all traded around between the energy suppliers. The customer pays the high prices of today. Stick them on roofs, lots of roofs about. And the householder gets the benefit.

wrf12345

The advantage of having them on the roof is that it does not take up space on existing land which could be used for farming or building. The other advantage is to the householder who gets reduced bills and possibly a small tax-free income. The ex-factory price (in China) for the latest 650W panels is 20 pence a watt (which means you can get more kw on a given space), shipping is expensive but not as expensive as the media would have you believe. The latest panels do produce about ten percent output on dull days so even with all our weather an installation may cover background usage during the day. Unfortunately, the way they are wired into the grid means they do not work in a blackout (as the grid does not want electricity flowing when they are doing repairs and inverters use grid power as a reference voltage). 

I would say that the big thing stopping solar on houses is the industry itself, frightened of the idea of householders having any independence from them.

With cheaper product costs and higher electricity prices, does free solar installations make sense again - with the installer getting the export electricity income and the householder enjoying lower bills, although battery banks could interfere with that calculation.

[Deleted User]

That was a sensible comment until you put in the conspiracy theory.

t0rt0ise

Free ice lollies in the summer would also be good!

[Deleted User]

I am really not sure where this thread is going. They is no way that the Government is going to subsidise solar panels again: that ship has now sailed and I cannot see it changing. The present focus is now on support for heat pumps. There is an argument that this financial support would be better targeted at improving insulation in our homes. 

MattMattMattUK

wrf12345 said:

The advantage of having them on the roof is that it does not take up space on existing land which could be used for farming or building. .

Much of the land they are put on is unsuitable for building and is dual use, there are two reasonably big solar farms near me, both graze sheep under the panels, so the land is not taken out of use by solar.

wrf12345 said:

The other advantage is to the householder who gets reduced bills and possibly a small tax-free income. .

There we go, you want an income stream for yourself, provided by something paid for by others.

wrf12345 said:

The ex-factory price (in China) for the latest 650W panels is 20 pence a watt (which means you can get more kw on a given space), shipping is expensive but not as expensive as the media would have you believe. 

Shipping is not cheap, at the moment a 40ft container from Shenzen to a UK port is around £22k, add in £600 in China to get it to the port and £1,800 in thr UK to get it to it's final destination and it is a reasonable cost, though probably not prohibitive per panel as a lot of panels will fit in a 40ft container. The cost is nothing to do with "the media" trying to make it out to be larger than it is.

wrf12345 said:

The latest panels do produce about ten percent output on dull days so even with all our weather an installation may cover background usage during the day. Unfortunately, the way they are wired into the grid means they do not work in a blackout (as the grid does not want electricity flowing when they are doing repairs and inverters use grid power as a reference voltage).

That is not the only reason they do not work during a blackout, it would be perfectly possible to disconnect and operate a mini supply, known as Islanding, however that requires additional kit as well as batteries, all in another £5k+ so for most, given thr infrequently of power cuts in the UK, it is not worth it.

wrf12345 said:

I would say that the big thing stopping solar on houses is the industry itself, frightened of the idea of householders having any independence from them.

Nice that you launch into conspiracy theories, "thr industry" has some reservations about lots of micro-generation connected to thr grid and rightly so, it does not mean that micro-generation does not have a place but it has to be managed carefully and, when taken on balance solar farms are a better usage of panels.

wrf12345 said:

With cheaper product costs and higher electricity prices, does free solar installations make sense again - with the installer getting the export electricity income and the householder enjoying lower bills, although battery banks could interfere with that calculation.

Making solar "free" does not make any sense, with it being cheaper, homeowners and businesses can pay for it themselves. 

pensionpawn

Deleted_User said:

pensionpawn said:

sienew said:

uk1 said:

sienew said:

wrf12345 said:

Net metering of the output (so the household gets full credit for any energy produced) and a couple of megafactories in the UK producing the latest spec panels at much lower prices might make solar more popular, and even on winter days there will be small but useful output (on bright winter days you might get max output as the panels lose efficiency if they get too hot). There will be more on alternative energy from the govn so who knws...

Even if we did get these megafactories going the solar panels - especially if govt funded - would be far better at a solar farm or on the largest commercial buildings.  Installing solar farms is much much cheaper than individual houses. It also would benefit everyone rather than just those who own houses that are suitable for solar.

You may or may not be have a decent grasp of both the scale of the problem and the scale of the potential solutions.  

However.  

Why not encourage all.  If you decide to back one horse you’ll likely lose.  If you back all horses you will win.  Even if the return is a bit less initially. And in the bizarre way our lives work it might seem to be more wasteful short term but better in the long run because the war is more important than an individual battle.

In my mind - my extremely old mind - that if you set out to eat an elephant, you can only do so a very small bite at a time.  The idea of having every home with panels on them becoming a national solar farm in addition to all the other things seems to me to be a decent and more certain way that the elephant will eventually get eaten.  And there is always somewhere with clouds and other places sometimes without.  Why do we not have laws that all new builds have panels.  All that daft cash spent on electric cars.  We’re already committed to spending eye watering amounts on backing three-legged  horses at least helping everyone harvest the sun might not be such a bad idea. 

I understand the scale. A 200 acre farm can provide energy for 18,000 houses. It is also FAR FAR cheaper. Instead of putting the solar panels on houses (that face one direction and can't move to get the most solar benefit) for the same cost you can probably put 4x the solar production in a farm.

Solar panels on new builds is theoretically a good idea but people can barely afford houses now, especially the young, so how can we add more cost on to them? It's a hard balance.

Can you tell me how a 70 Mw solar farm could track the sun, unlike the roof of a house?

Two ways, although most solar farms only use one.

There's seasonal tracking, where you change the angle of the panel to account for whether the sun is higher or lower in the sky.  You can't change the angle of your roof.

And there's daily tracking, where the frame for the panels spin to track the sun from east to west.  Less common on big solar farms, but I've never seen one on a house.

It's also a bit easier to fit a couple of extra panels in a big array to account for inefficiency.  When you've filled your roof, you've run out of room.

Have you seen a UK solar farm with either type of individually motorised panels? I confess, I have not. I work near the UK's second largest and along with the ones visible from the M4, they are definitely static. Why? Because the cost of the tracker and the energy required to power it is generally considered to not be economically recoverable. There's also the aesthetics of solar generation. Personally I prefer to see panels on roofs on modern domestic / commercial buildings rather than on top of the "UKs green and pleasant land".

QrizB

pensionpawn said:

Personally I prefer to see panels on roofs on modern domestic / commercial buildings rather than on top of the "UKs green and pleasant land".

And personally I think solar farms are a thing of beauty, but now we're into subjective opinions which shouldn't have any influence on energy policy.

uk1

wrf12345 said:

The advantage of having them on the roof is that it does not take up space on existing land which could be used for farming or building. The other advantage is to the householder who gets reduced bills and possibly a small tax-free income. The ex-factory price (in China) for the latest 650W panels is 20 pence a watt (which means you can get more kw on a given space), shipping is expensive but not as expensive as the media would have you believe. The latest panels do produce about ten percent output on dull days so even with all our weather an installation may cover background usage during the day. Unfortunately, the way they are wired into the grid means they do not work in a blackout (as the grid does not want electricity flowing when they are doing repairs and inverters use grid power as a reference voltage). 

I would say that the big thing stopping solar on houses is the industry itself, frightened of the idea of householders having any independence from them.

With cheaper product costs and higher electricity prices, does free solar installations make sense again - with the installer getting the export electricity income and the householder enjoying lower bills, although battery banks could interfere with that calculation.

They can be isolated from the grid so rendering them usable at times when the grid is broken.

jj_43

wrf12345 said:

The advantage of having them on the roof is that it does not take up space on existing land which could be used for farming or building. The other advantage is to the householder who gets reduced bills and possibly a small tax-free income. The ex-factory price (in China) for the latest 650W panels is 20 pence a watt (which means you can get more kw on a given space), shipping is expensive but not as expensive as the media would have you believe. The latest panels do produce about ten percent output on dull days so even with all our weather an installation may cover background usage during the day. Unfortunately, the way they are wired into the grid means they do not work in a blackout (as the grid does not want electricity flowing when they are doing repairs and inverters use grid power as a reference voltage). 

I would say that the big thing stopping solar on houses is the industry itself, frightened of the idea of householders having any independence from them.

With cheaper product costs and higher electricity prices, does free solar installations make sense again - with the installer getting the export electricity income and the householder enjoying lower bills, although battery banks could interfere with that calculation.

Very true, but the ex industry types on here won’t like it. Keep the energy industry out, that eco scheme was a right disappointment. 

By the way I worked in the energy industry for many years. The industry is frightened of the idea of independence, they see potentially the entire gas network being redundant, hence all that lobby about hydrogen.