Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 7th Jan 13, 4:36 PM
    • 4,692Posts
    • 6,298Thanks
    zeupater
    Solar ... In the news
    • #1
    • 7th Jan 13, 4:36 PM
    Solar ... In the news 7th Jan 13 at 4:36 PM
    Hi All

    Thought it was about time we had a thread specifically to discuss relevant press articles relating to solar pv & thermal ..... so here goes ...

    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 07-01-2013 at 4:48 PM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
Page 123
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 16th May 19, 4:39 PM
    • 4,692 Posts
    • 6,298 Thanks
    zeupater
    I think you have more faith in the government than I do when it comes to rolling out these nationwide schemes.

    The FIT scheme was chaotically administered...especially in the latter years when the reductions in FIT became reminiscent of trying to stop a runaway train.

    Smart meters have turned out to be anything but 'smart'...especially if you change supplier like the government encourages us to do.

    The reality is that the overall £/kWh for a public sector managed scheme will be probably be higher than currently achieved in the private sector.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    Hi

    From the looks of the announcement the idea seems to target the social & low income housing sector, so far removed from central government & centralised control.

    Chances are that any such scheme would conform to some form of bid based funding, so a local authority or housing trust would be allocated a tranche of money to complete each sub-project, which would likely be confined to a reasonably small area thereby resulting in quite an efficient set of installs (shared scaffold services, deliveries, better use of installation resources etc) ...

    Considering that the project has already been associated with the socialist concept of 'social', there'd likely be plenty of interest from community energy provision schemes, many of which could be run on a local basis from small PV farms, possibly on NGO, not for profit organisation or even charitable basis ....

    .... but don't get too excited at the moment, it's just a case of a political party running a pair of 'green underpants' up the flagpole in response to a bunch of (mainly) teachers spending part of their last break moaning about something different to pass the time ... <instinctively ducks to avoid the supersonic stub of chalk ... sorry Miss!> ... there's plenty of important ducks to get in line before this one will see the light of day ...

    Anyone would think that someone is operating in 'election mode' and has come up with a totally unrelated policy to attract a few more votes in the hope that nobody notices that it's simply a diversionary tactic to avoid addressing or even mentioning the really important pressing issue ... heads down Jeremy et al - you know that green's not really your colour, spending less effort painting the fence makes no real difference, it's just as comfortable to sit on whatever the colour ....

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 16th May 19, 6:24 PM
    • 8,391 Posts
    • 13,250 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Martyn,

    I think we're broadly in agreement on the major points.

    I've no problem with the FIT scheme...only with the size of profit available on an installation & where that profit went to - wealthier households, finance companies charging exorbitant interest rates & rent-a-roof installers.

    In a nutshell, the FIT profit was so large that it undermined competition leading to overcharging & dodgy finance deals.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    Yes, and thanks.

    I just think it's important to point out that the level of profit was really down to the admin, not the scheme basics, nor the level of subsidy at the start, and each new revised figure.

    In fact, had the cost of PV not fallen so far, and so fast, there would be no complaints, as the opportunity to make large returns wouldn't have been available. Which is kinda ironic when you think about it.

    Personally, do I feel a bit guilty, well actually, yes I do, but I think that's down to my personality and genuinely looking for fair balance.

    In my case, I paid nearly £12k for a 3.58kWp system, that I thought would take 12-15yrs to pay back. It was partly a gamble.

    Then I won my gamble, as actual generation from my lightly shaded system was far higher than I expected (see PVGIS v's early SAP figures, and the negativity that was spread (fairly at the time) about shade). Also degradation is far less than thought at the time, with later reports suggested around 0.4%pa, v's 1% or 2%. And lastly inverter life expectancies being much better than expected, and replacement costs tumbling.

    What if I'd lost that bet, gen was poor, panels degraded 16% by today, and I was deep into the life of my already replaced inverters, which (as a pair) cost nearly £1.4k?

    [At this point, I've noticed this may seem like a rant at you, it's absolutely not, just a point in time retrospect.]

    Because I was doing well (and feeling guilty), I then installed a WNW system at 17p/kWh (the over 4kWp rate for Mch to July 2012 installs). This was to make my gen more full day, and expected to have a 20yr payback. I was also by then trying hard to share advice on MSE as a form of 'pay it forward'.

    Unfortunately, the WNW system, despite heavy shading, has thanks to Solaredge outperformed all expectations, so probably a 15yr payback, and more guilt!!!!

    So had PV prices not fallen fast, and had PV systems not performed far better than expected, the great returns (I can't argue) wouldn't have happened. Early PV'ers won their bet, but we could have lost, a fact often forgotten by the critics.


    Anyways, back to today, and despite any opinions we share, or differ (a bit), I hope that schemes that provide PV for lower income housing, can come in at a very fair rate of return, for all parties, so any controversy should be tiny compared to late 2011+.

    All the best.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • 1961Nick
    • By 1961Nick 16th May 19, 7:06 PM
    • 473 Posts
    • 2,266 Thanks
    1961Nick
    Hi Martyn,
    You fully deserve your return for being an early adopter & taking a gamble with a significant amount of money in today’s terms... let alone back then!

    When I purchased my system it was a solid investment & the generous return was a ‘known’. £4K would be recovered in about 5 years by the FIT. Total return would be about £16K + free energy but probably less an replacement inverter. It was those sort of figures that got the ‘sharks’ circling.

    My view is that there was plenty of scope for solar to be coupled with green deal to keep rent-a-roof schemes & extortionate finance deals at bay. Lower income households would have had the opportunity to reap the rewards along with those in more fortunate circumstances.

    Dinner is ready so I’ll have to leave it there....
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400

    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus Batteries - 12kWh
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 16th May 19, 9:17 PM
    • 4,692 Posts
    • 6,298 Thanks
    zeupater
    ... In my case, I paid nearly £12k for a 3.58kWp system, that I thought would take 12-15yrs to pay back. It was partly a gamble ...
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Hi

    £12k .... Luxury !!! ... our first quote was close to (but over!) £20k and after haggling that down by ~10% but still being unhappy with the offering it took a lot of work to find someone less inclined to rip everyone off as well as supply a solution we would be happy with as there weren't many installers around in the early days of the FiT scheme .... even when headline pricing looked decent there was a strong temptation to heavily load the quote with 'specialist' scaffold prices and attempts to sell unnecessary upgrades to consumer units, house wiring etc ...

    As you say, early adopters jumped in when system prices were comparatively extortionate and many of the payback claims were either well overstated or largely unsupportable .... quite a risk when you're the first person you know that takes the jump as well as being the first for miles around, but that's what offering support incentives to kick-start a market sector are for - in a word 'confidence' ...

    I think that after millions of installations and being able to see systems & talk to relatives, friends & neighbours as well as having numerous sources of information, newcomers to microgeneration are in a completely different situation than existed in the early days of 2010 & 2011, but like changing house prices, don't consider the position & conditions at the time ...

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 16-05-2019 at 9:21 PM. Reason: grammar
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • mmmmikey
    • By mmmmikey 16th May 19, 9:36 PM
    • 215 Posts
    • 317 Thanks
    mmmmikey
    .....at the other end of the scale, I bought a bungalow with solar panels already installed. Such is the misunderstanding and suspicion around these in some quarters, a previous sale had fallen through and the price of the bungalow had been redcued by £10k to reflect the inconvenience of having to deal with the panels. So effectively I got paid £10k to own the panels and accept the £550 per annum FIT payments for the next 16 years!


    Like Martyn, this doesn't feel right to me, but in my own way do feel that I'm making amends by living a green and clean life and have been an early adopter for batteries.


    Funny old world - £10k in pocket and a £550 per year income.....
    • 1961Nick
    • By 1961Nick 17th May 19, 7:25 AM
    • 473 Posts
    • 2,266 Thanks
    1961Nick
    Here's the opinion of Ian King, the Sky News business presenter....

    https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-why-labours-arguments-to-nationalise-gas-and-electricity-are-highly-dubious-11721873

    I don't think he's a member of the JC or RLB fan club....
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400

    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus Batteries - 12kWh
    • JKenH
    • By JKenH 17th May 19, 9:07 AM
    • 361 Posts
    • 1,652 Thanks
    JKenH
    We looked at solar panels a few years ago but because of the east west roof configuration decided against it. Our choice our loss. My next door neighbour earns 10 times the FIT rate I do but he was brave enough to make the first step so I have no problem with that.

    I think when I got my panels last year the incentive was about right. With FIT and export tariff I get just under 7p a unit generated but if I can use it it saves me another 15p or so per unit so For a large part of the year I am “earning” 20p plus from my panels. Having the spare solar has pushed me to buying ASHPs which save me a lot of oil in the shoulder months. Getting the panels has made me live my life differently and It has made me think how to be more efficient with my consumption from the grid. Isn’t that what it is all about really?

    I am one of the lucky ones who could afford panels and I am conscious that those less fortunate are subsidising me which tbh seems a bit unfair. If the government took away my FIT and said you can only have metered export tariff I wouldn’t complain. I think all the early adopters should have covered the cost of their installation and be in profit by now. Is it time for a rethink? Should the government consider taxing FIT income?
    Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 17th May 19, 9:15 AM
    • 8,391 Posts
    • 13,250 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Hi Martyn,

    My view is that there was plenty of scope for solar to be coupled with green deal to keep rent-a-roof schemes & extortionate finance deals at bay. Lower income households would have had the opportunity to reap the rewards along with those in more fortunate circumstances.

    Dinner is ready so I’ll have to leave it there....
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    Yep, agree. I was never against RAR, more a fence sitting position, as the householder would benefit, but the ramifications of contracts steadily getting out of date v's new mortgage lending rules did make a mess of the whole thing.

    Too late now, but a central or local government version of the scheme would have made more sense. It was nice to see the scale of social housing rollouts, but heartbreaking to see those plans, that were rapidly expanding, suffer massively with the post 2015 decisions, and now the complete end of demand side schemes.

    I'd like to see a scheme for all, but entirely happy for a low income only policy, so long as the rollouts are significant, such as the mentioned 1m+ scheme, and that's a genuine position, even if I didn't already have PV.

    I suppose a scheme targeted at the lower end is also fundamentally unfair, but, to be blunt, who cares, it's a shift to cleaner energy, and subsidies are always controversial, so might as well make it harder to criticise.


    Just commenting in general, but whilst I find the shift by the UK pretty good, and suspect the off-shore wind wins have been more luck than judgement, I'm still somewhat heartbroken by the devastating policy changes regarding on-shore wind, PV, and small scale / demand side generation in general.

    It's OK to point to, and encourage subsidy free, but some low value support to hold our hands at this point in time (perhaps 5 more years(ish)), isn't much to ask, and the public seem to have massive support for these RE deployments and subsidies (within reason).


    Grateful for the opportunity to chat and ponder, and again, talking too, not at ..... hopefully.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • KevinG
    • By KevinG 17th May 19, 5:56 PM
    • 1,471 Posts
    • 4,117 Thanks
    KevinG
    Is it time for a rethink? Should the government consider taxing FIT income?
    Originally posted by JKenH
    Retrospective taxation? Dangerous ground!
    Baxi Ecogen 24/1.0 Micro-CHP boiler installed Oct-2010; 2kWp Solar PV - 10*200W Kioto, SMA Sunny Boy 2000HF, SSE facing, some shading in winter, 37° pitch, installed Jun-2011, inverter replaced Sep-2017.
    • michaels
    • By michaels 17th May 19, 6:11 PM
    • 22,401 Posts
    • 103,134 Thanks
    michaels
    Council houses tend to be in clusters so generation from lots of homes together would cause problems for the local distribution.

    Installation by the state would be overpriced and shoddy.

    If the govt has 100bn to spend I would rather it went on schools and hospitals than the state owning and running assets in its normal highly inefficient manner.

    Given govt levels of efficiency, the govt being responsible for maintaining power supplies would terrify me.

    If the grid needed investment but so did the NHS which would a govt prioritise spending on?
    Cool heads and compromise
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 17th May 19, 6:51 PM
    • 4,692 Posts
    • 6,298 Thanks
    zeupater
    Council houses tend to be in clusters so generation from lots of homes together would cause problems for the local distribution.

    Installation by the state would be overpriced and shoddy.

    If the govt has 100bn to spend I would rather it went on schools and hospitals than the state owning and running assets in its normal highly inefficient manner.

    Given govt levels of efficiency, the govt being responsible for maintaining power supplies would terrify me.

    If the grid needed investment but so did the NHS which would a govt prioritise spending on?
    Originally posted by michaels
    Hi

    That's exactly the quandary that effectively killed off most of the British motor industry (amongst others!) .... nationalise, don't set specific goals, lose focus, starve investment, support employment numbers as opposed to business efficiency & don't understand/notice the implications until the situation becomes terminal! ...

    ... not to worry, some say that Ted Heath'll fix it if elected in time! ...

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • mmmmikey
    • By mmmmikey 17th May 19, 9:10 PM
    • 215 Posts
    • 317 Thanks
    mmmmikey
    Getting the panels has made me live my life differently and It has made me think how to be more efficient with my consumption from the grid. Isn’t that what it is all about really?
    Originally posted by JKenH

    Couldn't agree more with this and the other comments you make. Things like the awareness of green issues that solar panels creates is one of many intangible benefits. And I'm with you on the whole FIT thing - I'm not sure I'd go as far as retrospective changes because that risks creating mistrust and stifling other future grant subsidised investment, but I do think that FIT has served it's purpose and there are other things green investment is better spent on.


    (As an aside - how late into the evening are your west facing panels generating a decent amount / about what time does generation fall below 1kW on a sunny day this time of year? Thinking of adding some (non FIT subsidised) west facing panels to supplement my 1kW south / 3kW east array. I'm just outside Lincoln so not too far away so would expect similar generation....)
    • JKenH
    • By JKenH 18th May 19, 8:10 AM
    • 361 Posts
    • 1,652 Thanks
    JKenH


    (As an aside - how late into the evening are your west facing panels generating a decent amount / about what time does generation fall below 1kW on a sunny day this time of year? Thinking of adding some (non FIT subsidised) west facing panels to supplement my 1kW south / 3kW east array. I'm just outside Lincoln so not too far away so would expect similar generation....)
    Originally posted by mmmmikey
    Some sample generation figures from Wednesday
    18.26 2319w
    18.57 1927w
    19.13 1459w
    19.39 1017w

    I should point out that my panels on the west roof are closer to WSW than West (my East roof is nearer ESE) and I have a tree shading issue around this time.

    The generation fell to 101w at 20.05 but then recovered to 254 w at 20.21.

    If the sun can get a bit higher in the next few days it might just clear the birch tree that is causing the problem before it disappears behind more distant trees.
    Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 18th May 19, 9:07 AM
    • 2,337 Posts
    • 3,344 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    the state owning and running assets in its normal highly inefficient manner.
    Originally posted by michaels

    As opposed to private companies like Carillion and G4S, various rail franchises and other examples that don't immediately spring to mind?


    The fact that the current government couldn't manage a knees up in any brewery, privatised or not, is not a good reason to fear the alternative to the legal framework that gives shareholder returns priority over all other stakeholders including society as a whole.



    On the question of solar we have a situation now, due to government policy, where the only new people who can benefit are those who can use all the consumption themselves or can afford the still expensive battery technology. Remember for new installations exporters will not get _anything_ at the moment. Great for the local energy companies though.


    As pointed out solar installations on a wider scale lend themselves to more efficiencies rather than the patchwork of private installations that has sprung up over time. It's a technology that lends itself to a steady and incremental expansion. It also fits in well with any move to EVs and ASHPs.



    Even better of course would be the installation at time of build, but the photo of new houses (I think) with solar panels that I saw in the newspaper article showed another problem; a half-hearted approach given the space with about half the potential panels installed. Given the additional cost would largely be the panels and mounting, it just seems a lost opportunity.



    I think the idea is fundamentally a good one, and although we can all come up with issues over how it may be implemented and financed I think that is where the arguments should be, rather than throwing our hands in the air and saying let's give up it's all too difficult.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 18th May 19, 9:53 AM
    • 8,391 Posts
    • 13,250 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Council houses tend to be in clusters so generation from lots of homes together would cause problems for the local distribution.
    Originally posted by michaels
    "would" cause problems? Any proof of that? The size of the systems could be scaled appropriately, or storage (domestic or DNO based) could be deployed, and whilst storage has a cost, it also brings loads of benefits too.

    "would" is a future word (as opposed to - does), yet we already have the necessary technology, and at ever falling costs, to deal with the issues you raise. So I'd suggest "could" and "won't" as realistic alternatives.

    I have no problem with people raising realistic negatives, but at all stages of RE deployment, we keep getting these 'potential problems' being promoted as inescapable facts, something they may not be, and certainly aren't when we consider the real solutions already on offer, and being developed, promoted, and in many cases, rolled out - such as tests by some LA's and/or DNO's to roll out domestic storage to allow for higher levels of domestic PV penetration.

    Looking at Australia, they are already up to 20% of domestic properties having PV. That's 2m households. The first million averaging 2.4kWp, the second averaging 5.6kWp. And no, A/C systems will not be absorbing all of this, even if they are switched on during mid day. This year, 70,000 homes are expected to install batteries.

    So solutions exist and are being rolled out already.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • michaels
    • By michaels 18th May 19, 12:30 PM
    • 22,401 Posts
    • 103,134 Thanks
    michaels
    "would" cause problems? Any proof of that? The size of the systems could be scaled appropriately, or storage (domestic or DNO based) could be deployed, and whilst storage has a cost, it also brings loads of benefits too.

    "would" is a future word (as opposed to - does), yet we already have the necessary technology, and at ever falling costs, to deal with the issues you raise. So I'd suggest "could" and "won't" as realistic alternatives.

    I have no problem with people raising realistic negatives, but at all stages of RE deployment, we keep getting these 'potential problems' being promoted as inescapable facts, something they may not be, and certainly aren't when we consider the real solutions already on offer, and being developed, promoted, and in many cases, rolled out - such as tests by some LA's and/or DNO's to roll out domestic storage to allow for higher levels of domestic PV penetration.

    Looking at Australia, they are already up to 20% of domestic properties having PV. That's 2m households. The first million averaging 2.4kWp, the second averaging 5.6kWp. And no, A/C systems will not be absorbing all of this, even if they are switched on during mid day. This year, 70,000 homes are expected to install batteries.

    So solutions exist and are being rolled out already.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    I agree not insurmountable, but one advantage of only say one every 20 houses having PV at the moment is that there is unlikely to need to be any extra investment at the local distribution network level. As you say such investment need not be prohibitive but it will need to be considered if lots of home sin a small area all have PV installed.

    I often work with the civil service, their management of projects is universally appalling and I can't see why it would be any better for running electricity generation or infrastructure. I have seen daily examples where sensible investment does not take place because of competing demands from higher political priority departments and I can't see why that would not be the case for the energy sector (it would only become high priority after the lights went out).

    Alternatively the money can be taken off the govt books using solutions like PFI - anyone suggesting that is a route we should go down?!
    Cool heads and compromise
    • michaels
    • By michaels 18th May 19, 2:47 PM
    • 22,401 Posts
    • 103,134 Thanks
    michaels
    Couldn't agree more with this and the other comments you make. Things like the awareness of green issues that solar panels creates is one of many intangible benefits. And I'm with you on the whole FIT thing - I'm not sure I'd go as far as retrospective changes because that risks creating mistrust and stifling other future grant subsidised investment, but I do think that FIT has served it's purpose and there are other things green investment is better spent on.


    (As an aside - how late into the evening are your west facing panels generating a decent amount / about what time does generation fall below 1kW on a sunny day this time of year? Thinking of adding some (non FIT subsidised) west facing panels to supplement my 1kW south / 3kW east array. I'm just outside Lincoln so not too far away so would expect similar generation....)
    Originally posted by mmmmikey
    Most of our panels are about 5-10 degrees S of W. 4kw nominal, on 14th (very good curve) we generated more than 2kw between 11AM and 18:15.

    Personally I like the idea of selling PV to the grid at spot as it might make non South orientations just as valuable as S facing as although total gen is 10% less it may be at more valuable times of the day.
    Last edited by michaels; 19-05-2019 at 7:40 PM.
    Cool heads and compromise
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 18th May 19, 5:29 PM
    • 8,391 Posts
    • 13,250 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    I agree not insurmountable, but one advantage of only say one every 20 houses having PV at the moment is that there is unlikely to need to be any extra investment at the local distribution network level. As you say such investment need not be prohibitive but it will need to be considered if lots of home sin a small area all have PV installed.

    I often work with the civil service, their management of projects is universally appalling and I can't see why it would be any better for running electricity generation or infrastructure. I have seen daily examples where sensible investment does not take place because of competing demands from higher political priority departments and I can't see why that would not be the case for the energy sector (it would only become high priority after the lights went out).

    Alternatively the money can be taken off the govt books using solutions like PFI - anyone suggesting that is a route we should go down?!
    Originally posted by michaels
    So ..... not 'would' then.

    I always think it's a shame when I see all these false negatives being stated/claimed, especially when reality has already provided solutions, or is already rolling out the solutions.

    As to your 1 in 20 example (5%), I gave a 20% and growing example that already exists.

    And in response to your 'after the lights go out' claim, can I repeat my statement that some DNO's are already carrying out tests of potential solutions, and the whole grid seems very open to storage and solutions for intermittent supply (note they already cope with intermittent demand.)

    Maybe it's my love of RE that means I read lots about the solutions to problems, and why I get a bit bored with suggested 'problems with solutions' that have been, or are being solved already.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • michaels
    • By michaels 19th May 19, 7:44 PM
    • 22,401 Posts
    • 103,134 Thanks
    michaels
    So ..... not 'would' then.

    I always think it's a shame when I see all these false negatives being stated/claimed, especially when reality has already provided solutions, or is already rolling out the solutions.

    As to your 1 in 20 example (5%), I gave a 20% and growing example that already exists.

    And in response to your 'after the lights go out' claim, can I repeat my statement that some DNO's are already carrying out tests of potential solutions, and the whole grid seems very open to storage and solutions for intermittent supply (note they already cope with intermittent demand.)

    Maybe it's my love of RE that means I read lots about the solutions to problems, and why I get a bit bored with suggested 'problems with solutions' that have been, or are being solved already.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    I think you are getting hung up on a rather random choice of words, we all know DNOs can be tricky approving anything over 4kw just as we know that it I snot hard for them to upgrade their equipment to cope with more solar if they had to.

    The lights going out comment refers to the system being run by the govt rather than the private sector - quite rightly the govt have other priorities which is why it is better they stay out of this market beyond setting the rules.
    Cool heads and compromise
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 20th May 19, 6:08 AM
    • 8,391 Posts
    • 13,250 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    I think you are getting hung up on a rather random choice of words, we all know DNOs can be tricky approving anything over 4kw just as we know that it I snot hard for them to upgrade their equipment to cope with more solar if they had to.

    The lights going out comment refers to the system being run by the govt rather than the private sector - quite rightly the govt have other priorities which is why it is better they stay out of this market beyond setting the rules.
    Originally posted by michaels
    But it's not a random word, you said would cause trouble, but all your comments since have suggested the opposite "not hard for them to upgrade their equipment to cope with more solar if they had to."

    I agree with some of your comments since, but totally disagree with your original claim. In your post two days ago you seem to double down on your original choice of words, suggesting the problem 'is not insurmountable'. That too suggests a big problem, which may be difficult to address, but even today, I (and I suspect many others) can see lots of examples of clusters of PV on social housing, or new builds.

    So had you said 'could', fine, but your post was 'would', which simply isn't true, both today in the UK, as demonstrated in countries with far higher penetration, and in the future given the solutions that already exist and are already being rolled out.

    Regarding the 'lights out' comment what you said was:

    I have seen daily examples where sensible investment does not take place because of competing demands from higher political priority departments and I can't see why that would not be the case for the energy sector (it would only become high priority after the lights went out).
    So your statement was that the problem would get very serious before it would be addressed by the government. But that's wholly untrue, or irrelevant, as again, the problem is already being addressed. If it's being addressed today, then it can't be left till it's too late.

    I'm sorry if you think I'm being pedantic, but it's actually the exact opposite, I'm not challenging a small, simple issue over a word (or two) but trying to point out that what you've suggested could happen (or would - will definitely happen) in the future, won't happen, as it's already being addressed today.

    We should celebrate the solutions and positive steps for RE integration, not deny them.

    Edit - Thinking about it, I like this thread, and the similar one on green energy in general. I like to read and learn about the topics, and post all the good news about the technologies and the developments that have been, are being, and will be rolled out. That's why I find it a shame, when negative claims are suggested that are untrue, or already out of date, or being addressed.

    It's not a new thing, it's been consistent all decade, I recall 7 or 8 years ago claims that too much PV would push up local voltage and frequency. I commented that in Germany inverters already shutdown to prevent this happening, and I think we all know that they do the same in the UK now (and have for many years).

    I strongly believe that discussing solutions to suggested possible problems is a good thing, but pushback against actual negative claims is essential.
    Last edited by Martyn1981; Yesterday at 6:22 AM. Reason: Added an edit
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

29Posts Today

2,670Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • This is a very useful and interesting, factual piece about what the PM's new Brexit proposals mean and how new they? https://t.co/qM1bCz6FZp

  • After two cancellations, I'm on the 3rd train back from Manch. Just heard its being rerouted as someone's taken tak? https://t.co/sRO4cvoWIw

  • RT @helen_undy: It's hard campaigning at the moment. Trying to cut through amid Brexit votes, protests & political resignations can feel fu?

  • Follow Martin