Should Liz Truss have offered free solar panels as well?

sienew

pensionpawn said:

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".

Panels that track the sun on a hour by hour basis are less common. Pretty much all modern solar farms adjust the panels seasonally though which although can be small degree change actually does make a significant increase in production, especially in winter.

[Deleted User]

pensionpawn said:

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".

Motorised - no.  That's why that second (daily tracking) option is almost never taken.

Manually adjustable angle by row, done by a service engineer on a monthly basis (as the difference in angle isn't worth a daily adjustment) - yes, several times.

I wasn't trying to say whether it was good/bad/indifferent/aesthetic/efficient or otherwise.  Someone just asked how it can be done, so I told them.

[Deleted User]

jj_43 said:

Keep the energy industry out, that eco scheme was a right disappointment. 

That's probably a good suggestion - likely to get a better result from a disruptor from outside rather than relying on the old companies rapidly changing approach.

Still doesn't require the conspiracy theory bits though, that just spoils your message.

prowla

Now, if they'd done interest-free loans for solar panels, that might've been a thing.

sevenhills

[Deleted User] said:

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. 

Insulation is important at some times of the year, but my door and windows are open eight months of the year.

sienew

prowla said:

Now, if they'd done interest-free loans for solar panels, that might've been a thing.

That is a support package I could get behind. Loans spread over 10-20 years, with low or no interest and that importantly doesn't affect your ability to get other credit. It's not the government paying for them, it's you paying but over a long period which would be evened out by not having to pay such high energy bills.

pensionpawn

QrizB said:

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.

Oh but it does. Covering the areas of outstanding natural beauty is unacceptable for most people.

sienew

pensionpawn said:

QrizB said:

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.

Oh but it does. Covering the areas of outstanding natural beauty is unacceptable for most people.

Nobody here is suggesting putting solar panels in areas of outstanding natural beauty. There are almost 50 million acres of farmland in the UK, I'm sure we can find a few for solar panels.

pensionpawn

sienew said:

pensionpawn said:

killzusall said:

Thanks for all the responses, just on the note of commercial solar farms being a more effective use of money, having your own panels (no matter how impractical to rollout etc.) would give you a direct benefit as you would use less energy from the grid, but if it was sourced from a commercial solution , you are still at the mercy of the energy provider as to what they charge, and as more and more things move to electric (car charging etc) that price will go up.

The means tested comment in my original post was to say that those who would find the cost of solar a drop in the ocean probably shouldn't qualify (and are likely to have already invested), for those who don't own their homes, then landlords should be offered it to put on residences, I appreciate it won't work for everyone.

The big energy companies will invest in renewables, but not because they want to be nice to us, they will still expect to charge for it and make good profits, the way that they set up their businesses to sell the energy to a sister company at a high rate, to then sell it to us will then argue with Ofgem that they are running at a loss so that they can bump it up will always make money.

I couldn't agree more. Solar / battery farms are commercial ventures, not charities. You will be at the mercy of tariffs just like you are now with your energy company. 

They don't have to be. There is nothing stopping the government starting solar farms if they wanted. Or the government funding some sort of energy co-operative. Even if they are commercial companies some predict that putting solar panels on a house costs 4x more than in a solar farm, that means even if the energy company does take massive profits it will still remains by far the cheapest option. Solar farms are a better return on investment for tax payers money.

This would also hopefully be part of a larger energy strategy inc wind and nuclear which would make the price quite competitive.

Solar panels on individuals houses paid for the government are equally problematic in that we all pay for them yet only the person who has the panels gets the benefit. People in the already wealthier south would get most benefit (more sun) whereas those in the north need more energy but would produce less, it would only add to the north/south divide. Then add in the issue for those in rented houses (often the poorest) who would be subsiding solar for others but receive no benefit. Those in flats (once again often the poorest) wouldn't have access to solar. This is a proposal that works well for the middle class but not the poorest who need help most. Solar farms/wind/nuclear if done correctly should give everyone equal advantage.

The government support should be divided evenly around everyone that needs it. So that could be help with bills, subsidised energy from a local community solar farm or assistance for home owners / landlords to install private solar panels / a battery. To date solar panels on private homes have either been paid for by the home owners or paid for by a private firm. For both methods the government pays a feed in tariff, FiT, as an incentive to install solar. This payment comes from a green levy on everyones energy bills. So if you install solar, not only do you get paid, your levy falls due to you needing to import less electricity. Given that I export to the grid 42.4% of what I generate I, and everyone else who paid for their panels themselves, are doing their bit to fight the energy crises. This isn't a rich v poor issue. Those on lower incomes who own, let's say, a mid terrace house, if it was south facing, could have invited a "rent a roof" firm to install solar panels free of charge and they would have benefited from free solar energy reducing their electricity bill.

[Deleted User]

pensionpawn said:

The government support should be divided evenly around everyone that needs it. 

Surely the government support should be directed to where it can have the biggest impact?