The two party system

[ubersonic]

Contradict yourself much? No, don't vote on record but vote Brown out because of his record!

That's not a contradiction, blindly voting against the Torys because you don't like what a former leader did 20 years ago is not the same as voting against the party currently in power based on what their current leader is doing.

 

[Glaucus]

No, it's not just home solar that imposes a lot of extra cost. That was just the subject in question, so it's what I referred to. It's also the least controllable and therefore the least cost-effective.

Have you learned about ROC yet? Or are you just ignoring it because it's inconvenient?

The costs can be shuffled about to fudge the numbers, but they're still there and they're still being paid by everyone.

Out of interest, what numbers are you deciding on for solar PV in the UK? Cost (for whole systems, not just panels), working life, rate of degradation, insolation and efficiency. I'd like to see (a) if you have any numbers and (b) if so, whether they're realistic. Of course, that still wouldn't take into account the costs of ROC and infrastructure, so it's still not a true accounting of costs.

It's not just a change in infrastructure, although that is a cost in itself. It's the huge overpayments for producing electricity from renewables and the huge payments for not producing electricity (companies are often required to turn renewables generators off because they are surplus to requirements at that point and can't be controlled easily) and the extra cost of varying controllable generators more often to smooth out the peaks and troughs of renewables.

Could the bulk of electricity be generated from renewables? On paper, certainly. In practice, probably, given enough time and money to solve the engineering problems. In some areas, right now. Iceland, for example, with its abundance of geothermal.

Is solar the best solution for a country well north of the equator? No.

Does it cost less than nothing? No.

Does it cost less than conventional generation? No.

Do we need to do it anyway? Yes.

Do we need to falsify the costs? Maybe it's politically useful, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or go along with it.

I know about roc, what has that got to do with it.
You said solar of in uk does not pay for it self. That is simply wrong.
Solar pv, costs less than buying energy of the power companies and more than pays for its installation, its also quickly moving towards cost polarity with grid generation.

You are simply wrong in what you initially said, accept it. It's not number fudging. Solar panels in uk can and do pay for themsefls. Something you said they didn't.

Solar is a great resource in uk, it makes no difference where in the world you are, the important thing is how much energy. Solar pc can easy generate your avergae home power usage. Cost is falling and effeciency of panels are increasing.

Your the only fudging costs, saying it doesn't payback in its life time without fit, you have no idea that panels had warranties. Time for you to have a rethink.


Like any energy, we can't survive on one source, we never had.

You are also totally ignoring the predicted massive increase of gas prices over the next decade.

 

[estebanrey]

Nah, the Apprentice thing was a joke. But fixed terms are nonsense. The point is the government should be serving the people, acting as a means of organisation, not telling them what to do. Obviously Law and Order is important, but it needs to become more real.

Aye, it's as though someone needs to come up with a plan for the planet, and be like - "right, this is what we've gotta do. you guys do that, you that. aye, solar panels over there, let's get moving, go go go."

Someone like Hitler! Without the genocide. Charming man apparently.

You are making the mistake that assumes democracy is infallible.

A 100% pure democracy whereby every decision is taken by the people would be a disaster.

 

[ubersonic]

A 100% pure democracy whereby every decision is taken by the people would be a disaster.

Agreed, I don't want my politician to do what I want, I want him to do whats best for me.

If every decision became a referendum tomorrow we would be out of the EU, fuel/alcohol tax would be scrapped, minimum wage would be quadrupled, TV licence fees would be quashed, capitol punishment would be back, and the rich and businesses would be taxed to the point where the rich move to a better country and all the companies pull out of London and find a new city to be the financial capitol of Europe (just like they did when they came to London).

 

[Angilion]

I know about roc, what has that got to do with it. [..] Solar is a great resource in uk, it makes no difference where in the world you are, the important thing is how much energy.[..]

Now I'm sure you don't understand the subject and don't want to, so I'm going to stop replying. ROC is a key part of the subject of costs of renewables, so dismissing it is dismissing the subject. Where you are in the world is of huge importance to how useful a resource solar power is - insolation is very far from uniform over the world. I'm genuinely surprised that anyone would write what you wrote. Surely nobody, not even the most blinkered advocate, can be unaware that some places on Earth are much sunnier than others?

You have no data (I asked for it and you ignored that) and inadequate understanding of the subject - you're just an advocate.

 

[Angilion]

You are making the mistake that assumes democracy is infallible.

A 100% pure democracy whereby every decision is taken by the people would be a disaster.

I agree. Most people don't properly understand any political issues on a national or international scale and nobody understands all of them. I'm not talking about agreement on what to do - people can understand an issue but still disagree on what to do about it. I'm talking about understanding the issue. Reading/watching one or two short and massively over-simplified news reports about an issue is as much as most people would do and that's nowhere near enough.

I'd go as far as saying that 100% pure anarchy wouldn't be any worse than 100% pure democracy, and probably not much different.

 

[Glaucus]

Now I'm sure you don't understand the subject and don't want to, so I'm going to stop replying. ROC is a key part of the subject of costs of renewables, so dismissing it is dismissing the subject. You have no data (I asked for it and you ignored that) and inadequate understanding of the subject - you're just an advocate.

Yes and no. Your original post was not about roc.
It was solar pv is not cost effective in uk and can't be. That has zero to do with roc and well either you are misinformed or living. It allready is cost effective and energy payback/cost payback/co2 pay payback are all well within the life span of solar for England.

Now lets see your data, seeing as I posted several studies on payback time. So where's you evidence that solar panels do not and can not work in uk.

They aren't.

The only reason there are solar panels in the UK is because they are massively subsidised (FIT, ROC, etc). They are not viable here. They are just a very expensive way to buy votes from people who don't understand. In addition to not being viable themselves because they're too expensive, they increase the costs of the national grid too. Of course, all this extra cost ends up on everyone's electricity bills.

Yes they are, even without roc, fit etc. They have no bearing on what you said, you are wrong, it really is as simple as that.
Fit,roc etc has just sped up adoption rate, they do not change the viability of them. These things also ensure we meet are legally binding targets, or would you rather we where financially penalised and rather than spending that money in house, we pay it to EU and gain nothing from it.

As I said in my first reply

. Even without fit they are viable. Fit has made people invest and bring down the costs.
Even without fit you will make your money back, just not much more, as its around ~20years but depends on a multitude of variables.
Edit- not even close to 18years now.

4kw system is now around 6.5k (can get it even cheaper if you shop around) and will save you at least 500 a year if not around 700

And if we look at energy and carbon payback

 

[Angilion]

[..]
So badly incompetent was the drafting of the initial law that, as written, bread placed in the sun at the front of the store would attract VAT whilst an identical loaf in the shade at the back would not.
[..]

Can you provide references to support that? It's so incompetent that it's funny, so I'd like to be able to check if it's true and not just a modern myth.

 

[Angilion]

Yes and no. Your original post was not about roc.
It was solar pv is not cost effective in uk and can't be. That has zero to do with roc and well either you are misinformed or living.

It is plain you don't understand the subject. You don't know what ROC is. You don't know what the costs are. You don't even know that ROC is part of the costs! You don't even know that insolation isn't uniform over the surface of the Earth!

You know little or nothing about the subject and you're just doing baseless advocacy. You are wasting my time with your ignorance and you are spreading disinformation that is harmful to the advocacy of "renewables", i.e. long-term sustainable energy generation.

EDIT: You have not given any evidence to support your position. You wouldn't even state the numbers you were using for the relevant factors, let alone provide any evidence in support of them. Your claim to have done so is false. And no, solar doesn't work in the UK. If it did, then it wouldn't need to be massively subsidised with FIT and ROC (it's part of the issue of ROC, so ROC is very relevant) and that's even before you consider the infrastructure costs and the costs resulting from the lack of controllability. Solar could be of some use in the UK if the equipment was so cheap it could be slapped up everywhere (and there are some experiments at very early prototype stage that could lead to that, e.g. transparent spray-on PV and PV glass) but even then you'd still have the huge infrastructure costs and the costs of frequent rapid variation of controllable generation. There's just not enough insolation this far north.

 

[Glaucus]

It is plain you don't understand the subject. You don't know what ROC is. You don't know what the costs are. You don't even know that ROC is part of the costs! You don't even know that insolation isn't uniform over the surface of the Earth!

You know little or nothing about the subject and you're just doing baseless advocacy. You are wasting my time with your ignorance and you are spreading disinformation that is harmful to the advocacy of "renewables", i.e. long-term sustainable energy generation.

EDIT: You have not given any evidence to support your position. You wouldn't even state the numbers you were using for the relevant factors, let alone provide any evidence in support of them. Your claim to have done so is false. And no, solar doesn't work in the UK. If it did, then it wouldn't need to be massively subsidised with FIT and ROC (it's part of the issue of ROC, so ROC is very relevant) and that's even before you consider the infrastructure costs and the costs resulting from the lack of controllability. Solar could be of some use in the UK if the equipment was so cheap it could be slapped up everywhere (and there are some experiments at very early prototype stage that could lead to that, e.g. transparent spray-on PV and PV glass) but even then you'd still have the huge infrastructure costs and the costs of frequent rapid variation of controllable generation. There's just not enough insolation this far north.

You can keep saying that, I know exactl what roc is, that's not the discussion. Roc is only art o the current cost as its an option. Again this isn't about that. It's. about your statement hat said they are not viable in uk. Yes they ae even Excluin Roc/fit etc they are financially viable. So you are wrong.

Ontop of all taht coming from a man who hasn't posted one figure or study and has been proved wrong by said studies.

Seeing as you keep missing it

http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/what-energy-and-carbon-payback-time-pv-panels-uk

Co2 payback

A 2006 report by the UK Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology, has calculated a "carbon footprint" of less than 60g per kWh of electricity from PV in the UK (and around 35g/kWh for PV in southern Europe), compared to 10 times as much for fossil fuels. More recent research by Fthenakis, Kim and Alsema, (2008) suggests that the total greenhouse gas emission (including CO2 and other gases) for electricity from PV panel is between 20 and 80g CO2-equivalent per kWh under UK conditions. This is ten times lower than the emissions for electricity from fossil fuels (UK grid average is around 500g/kWh, electricity from coal can be as high as 1000g/kWh).

Energy payback

A more recent study by researchers from the Netherlands and the USA (Fthenakis, Kim and Alsema, 2008), which analyses PV module production processes based on data from 2004-2006. They find that it takes 250kWh of electricity to produce 1m2 of crystalline silicon PV panel. Under typical UK conditions, 1m2 of PV panel will produce around 100kWh electricity per year, so it will take around 2.5 years to "pay back" the energy cost of the panel.

PV panels have an expected life of least 25-30 years (see How long do PV panels last?), so even under UK conditions a PV panel will, over its lifespan, produce many times more energy than was required to manufacture the panel.

 

[anything I don't mind]

id rather have a corrupt democratic plutocracy than a total democratic system where the population votes on issues individually.

The population is full with a bunch of self righteous x-factor watching lunatics, if you think they should have more say in to your freedom and life then you are nuts. Allow them to vote in a charade of an election every 5 years give them the illusion that they are taking part in the political process, far more effective.

 

[trojan698]

^Good point.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Edit: NM

 

[Angilion]

You can keep saying that, I know exactl what roc is, that's not the discussion. Roc is only art o the current cost as its an option. Again this isn't about that. It's. about your statement hat said they are not viable in uk. Yes they ae even Excluin Roc/fit etc they are financially viable. So you are wrong.

Ontop of all taht coming from a man who hasn't posted one figure or study and has been proved wrong by said studies.

That's particularly amusing coming from you, as I have repeatedly asked you for the figures you are using and you have repeatedly failed to provide them.

I haven't even asked you to provide evidence supporting the figures you're using. I've just asked for the figures. You don't have any. You're making baseless statements as a form of advocacy. I doubt if you even know what the relevant factors are, even though I've listed them in the post in which I first asked you for the numbers you're using. You don't seem to be reading my posts, so I doubt if you read them.

You've finally acknowledged that ROC is part of the cost...and then you immediately contradict yourself by saying that it isn't.

Your posts aren't consistent with themselves. They're not consistent with reality (e.g. your claim that where you are in the world is irrelevant to how effective solar power is). They're not consistent with the posts you are replying to. They're not consistent with any real numbers for any of the relevant factors because you don't have any.

Solar is not viable in the UK, not if you include all the costs it imposes on everyone involved and not just parts of the cost to the homeowner (ignoring FIT, ROC, deterioration of equipment, interest rates on investing the money in another way, infrastructure costs, additional generating costs to compensate for the unreliability and uncontrollability and increases in electricity prices to pay for those things).

You have to fudge the numbers to a ridiculous level to claim that it is viable. Or, of course, do what you're doing - ignore everything and adopt a faith-based position without a care for evidence. There's no need to fudge the numbers if you just don't bother having any numbers.

 

[Glaucus]

ThAts funny as I quoted them in the first reply.

Again it has nothing to do with roc, fit or anything else.
You didn't say the current system is crap. You said catogricly it is not viable and have just repeated it again.

If I buy a solar PV system outright and do not get it installed by a licensed fitter I don't get fit, they can't use it for roc( though that would cost them more) do I come out on top over 25 years. Yes I do, it more than finacialy.
Does it pay for it co2 wise, yes it does as the study I posted shows.
Does it pay for itself energy wise, again yes it does as the study I posted show.

So in which way is it not viable? Or are you wrong. Your statment has nothing to do with roc or fit, yours was a catagorical statment. That even if they scrapped fit and roc tomorrow it still wouldnt be viable. Which is just pure rubbish.

http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/what-energy-and-carbon-payback-time-pv-panels-uk

A more recent study by researchers from the Netherlands and the USA (Fthenakis, Kim and Alsema, 2008), which analyses PV module production processes based on data from 2004-2006. They find that it takes 250kWh of electricity to produce 1m2 of crystalline silicon PV panel. Under typical UK conditions, 1m2 of PV panel will produce around 100kWh electricity per year, so it will take around 2.5 years to "pay back" the energy cost of the panel.

PV panels have an expected life of least 25-30 years (see How long do PV panels last?), so even under UK conditions a PV panel will, over its lifespan, produce many times more energy than was required to manufacture the panel.

a 2006 report by the UK Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology, has calculated a "carbon footprint" of less than 60g per kWh of electricity from PV in the UK (and around 35g/kWh for PV in southern Europe), compared to 10 times as much for fossil fuels. More recent research by Fthenakis, Kim and Alsema, (2008) suggests that the total greenhouse gas emission (including CO2 and other gases) for electricity from PV panel is between 20 and 80g CO2-equivalent per kWh under UK conditions. This is ten times lower than the emissions for electricity from fossil fuels (UK grid average is around 500g/kWh, electricity from coal can be as high as 1000g/kWh).

Cost is slightly harder as most add on fit, which as you are talking about viability is redundant.
A 3.8kwp system is between 5.8 and 6.9k to buy and install. That will produce at 3000kwh a year and that's a very conservative number. Average electricity cost is 12.8p kwh.
So at 6.9k that's a payback time off 17.9 years at a easily acheivable energy production level. In honesty you are looking at higher than 3000kwh and cheaper install if you look around..


Energy saving trust even has standard electricity price as 14.39
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Energy-Saving-Trust/Our-calculations

http://www.phoenixecoenergy.co.uk/s...84kWp-SOLAR-PV-INSTALLATION-IN-STOKE-ON-TRENT

3.84kWp SOLAR PV INSTALLATION IN STOKE-ON-TRENT

A 16 Panel Solar PV System has been Installed in Longton, Staffordshire.

The system consists of 16x Sanyo HIT-N240SE10 Solar Panels with a Fronius IG PLus 35 Inverter.

The system is predicted to generate 3042.1kWh annually.

http://www.phoenixecoenergy.co.uk/s...384-kWp-SOLAR-PANEL-INSTALLATION-IN-CONGLETON

Having had my installation for a year I thought you might like to have performance figures. You predicted that 3013.6kW would be generated over the year. I'm happy to say that 3311.5kW were generated. You certainly did not oversell your system! I'm happy for you to use these figures with prospective clients if you wish." Mr Hinckley.

http://www.tescohomeefficiency.com/electricity-pricing/

4kwp system £6499

So again explain three things, what isn't viable? What does roc have to do with viability? What does fit have to do with viability?

Oh are you just or skip these reports again.

And that doesn't even take into consideration rise in electrical cost. And it's still more than viable.

Then on top of that as well you questioned if pv panels would even last that long, deposited them having warranties.

So no I don't have to fudge any numbers. If all fit, roc etc was scrapped, no cost to anyone other than the buyer, its still viable.

Someone installing a solar pv panel, does not mean the national grid or energy companies have to build in residencies. That's a different issue caused by goverment going green and forcing renewables through, again that has nothing to do with your statement, that they are not viable.

not if you include all the costs it imposes on everyone involved and not just parts of the cost to the homeowner (ignoring FIT, ROC, deterioration of equipment, interest rates on investing the money in another way, infrastructure costs, additional generating costs to compensate for the unreliability and uncontrollability and increases in electricity prices to pay for those things).

Again utterly wrong, these are not associated costs of solar, that is associated costs of goverment policies. The two are not the same at all, those costs are also totally I relevent to we there solar is viable.

 

[Angilion]

ThAts funny as I quoted them in the first reply.

No you didn't. You quoted two studies which concluded that in the right conditions it would take a couple of years for a PV panel to generate as much energy as was used making the panel and reduce CO2 output (in comparison with fossil fuels) by as much as was produced by making the panel. Which is worse than I thought, but I let that go by. Nobody has said that solar PV systems will never produce as much energy as it takes to make them, or that they will never reduce CO2 output by as much as was released by making them.

But you have finally provided some figures. Not for the relevant factors I asked for (which I never expected you to provide, since I'm sure you don't know what they are), but you've finally put a number to your overall claim.

So...the claim is that in the right conditions breakeven time is 17.9 years.

As promised, I won't even question your numbers. I'll just take them at face value.

You claim that solar PV is viable today because it would give a 0% return after 17.9 years.

You could easily get a far better return by putting the money into safe savings schemes rather than into buying solar PV kit. After 18 years at compound interest, the interest per year would be far more than the value of the electricity from the solar PV, so solar PV would never be a better option, even if the kit worked forever without any reduction in efficiency.

But you're still fudging the figures anyway because you're comparing generating cost from home solar PV with retail cost from the grid. There are two big flaws with that.

Firstly, home solar PV doesn't power the home directly. It can't because it's not controllable or reliable. So retail cost isn't the right comparison because without subsidisation the power companies wouldn't pay you retail costs for the electricity you generate. Why should they - not only do they have to cover the transmission costs, but your home generation is increasing their transmission costs and their generating costs. Without subsidisation, you should get less than generating cost for your electricity (less than generating cost to account for the increase in costs that you're imposing on them).

Secondly, retail costs include the costs of subsidising home solar and other non-viable forms of generation. You're not just ignoring part of the costs of solar - you're counting them as benefits instead of costs! That's blatant and extreme figure-fudging. Your claims that FIT and ROC are irrelevant are rubbish even if you ignore FIT and ROC, because they are part of the retail cost of power - power companies pass the costs on to customers, obviously.

So, in summary, your own figures prove my point and your own figures are very strongly fudged anyway. Even your blatant and enormous underestimate of the costs of solar PV in the UK still doesn't really make it economically viable - you'd be forever worse off because of inflation even with that figure-fudging.

Solar PV is not viable in the UK. Even according to your own figures, which you've finally stated after a lot of prodding. Presumably you knew how bad they were.

Note that I haven't said that solar PV will never be viable in the UK. I have said and continue to say that it isn't viable. Present tense. I've said that it may become viable in the future. I even gave examples of things in the experimental stage at the moment that would, if they work in practice at a large enough scale, make solar PV viable in the UK. It's not viable today because at anything more than the most trivial of scales the cost it adds to fuel bills is too much for the country to bear.

I've also said that we need to make use of renewables anyway, even if they cost more. But I'm not going to falsify the numbers to pretend that it's cheaper today when it so obviously isn't and I'm not going to favour a form of renewable generation that's geographically unsuited for a country so far from the equator. For a long, narrow island well to the north of the equator and noted for powerful movement of the abundance of sea offshore, the movement of the sea is a better bet for renewable electricity generation.

EDIT: Solar power generation in northern Africa and transmission to the UK is much more efficient than solar power generation in the UK. Although at the moment it would be CSP rather than PV, since CSP is viable on a large enough scale and PV isn't. That's how bad an idea it is to use solar power generation in the UK - it's much more efficient to generate it thousands of miles away and accept the transmission losses. You can't argue with geography - despite your risible claim earlier, when it comes to solar power where you are on Earth matters a huge amount. Insolation is very far indeed from uniform over the surface of the Earth.

 

[Zefan]

I started laughing at Party right and party wrong and then stopped reading at popularity contest.

Oh my god. We are soul mates.