Just look at the overhang!

[Gavin A]

One of the main reasons for this is because of the epic price hikes from suppliers to the builds. They know that billions of pounds are being spent and will happily charge $200 for a small pack of screws! There isn't tight enough regulation of costs and as we well know, certain EU legislation makes it very hard to bin off a supplier once under contract. The Fins and French are being raped at the highest of levels by greedy companies and the current legislation houses no power to do anything about it! $22 billion was one of the last figures quoted for the two plants I believe, this is over triple the predicted $7 billion for the two being built in China. Let's just hope we let the Chinese build ours! lol

probably a significant part of the issue, but then this is the reality of the situation, so it's no use making out that nuclear will be cheap when it's blatantly not going to be true in practice for the UK.

Who cares if there are a few places around the planet buried miles below the ground that will always be dangerous? There are millions more places on the surface that are 100 times more dangerous than a nuclear waste disposal site!

Personally I think this should be settled before building a new generation of plant that would generate another 40 years or so of waste to add to the stockpile currently waiting for someone to decide what to do with it.

Cumbria have just said no to it, and that was the most likely disposal site in the UK - Scotland are probably the other likely site, and their's no chance of that at the moment. The problem with the UK is that we don't have any massive uninhabited deserts.

Anyway, in 150 years time when our energy production will almost exclusively be nuclear, I'm sure we'll have found a safe way to blast the waste into space

Thorium maybe, uranium is a dead end that only won the 'race' for dominance with thorium because the military needed uranium reactors to produce their weapons.

On a serious and personal note, thanks for actually taking the time to come up with a reasoned and well structured argument against my claims. I'd far rather debate with someone like you than someone who's opening line of reply is "you're an idiot" lol. We might disagree, but we can at least disagree civilly.

I'm involved in a long term low carbon energy transition from high energy intensity fossil fuel based economy to a low energy intensity renewables based economy. It can (and must) work, but it's going to take a while for everyone to get their heads around it.

I began this process properly in 95, can't really expect everyone else to be at the same stage as me in getting their heads around it, so better to share the knowledge and hope to bring a few more people around to seeing it as a viable and realistic proposition.

A UK version of the energywende requires mass support and participation to work, it's not a spectator sport.

 

[Gavin A]

I think I'm muddling my words. Let's put it simply, a scam company installs a crappy small system on a north facing roof, it will generate bugger all (0kWp was an exageration). Lets say it generates 1000kWh per annum but the house consumes 2000kWh per annum, regardless of the fact that the solar panel isn't even covering half of the homes consumption, the company still gets paid for 50% of the 1000kWh. This is how I understand it anyway. If I am wrong, tell me exactly how this is prevented?

The feed in tariff is paid on everything generated, currently at 14.9p, shortly to drop by 3.5%, so the system owner would get 2000kWh x 14.9p per year FIT payments.

They'd also get 4.64p per year export payments on 50% of that generation, so 1000kWh x 4.64p.

And the import costs they offset.

It's a good deal for those who buy the systems, particularly high energy users, but it is entirely based on the actual level of generation from the system.

The point of the scheme though is to stimulate the market to drive up installation rates and drive down costs through efficiencies of scale, with built in reductions in the FIT payments of a minimum of 3.5% every 9 months, and up to 27% if the installation rate went above a set level in a single quarter.

Give it a few years and the FIT will be neglible, or cease to exist for new installs as it becomes unnecessary due to the lower solar costs, and the higher electricity costs being offset, which btw are being largely driven by the transition from coal to much higher cost, and rapidly rising cost gas generation.

At that point the initial investment in the Feed In Tariff will seem like excellent value for money as it only applies to the first 10-20GWp or so, and only for the first 20 years. The next 50 or 100GWp will then act to stabilise and reduce prices relative to the situation if there were no significant solar PV.

That's the bigger picture involved here, but yes I would prefer it if the rent a roofers and big finance weren't making such a killing from it, and essentially sucking money back to the city of london finance houses. We're not involved in that side of things, mostly our systems are benefiting those with relatively modest savings earning sod all interest in the bank, and seeing their savings being eaten away by rising energy costs, as well as local businesses who're seeing their margins being eroded by their rising energy costs and decide to do something about it.

ps the scheme is far from perfect, but it has enabled the UK solar industry to go from 50MWp to 3GWp of installed capacity inside the first 4 years of operation, which must be one of the most successful government initiatives ever, even if they've badly mismanaged it.

 

[D Skelton]

The feed in tariff is paid on everything generated, currently at 14.9p, shortly to drop by 3.5%, so the system owner would get 2000kWh x 14.9p per year FIT payments.

What I was actually talking about is that the PV system generates 1000kWh per year in total! The house consumes 2000kWhpa, 1000kWh more than what the PV array generates.

Some fair points made in the rest of your post. I will have to reflect on your argument once the beer has been flushed from my system. In the famous words of Mr Schwarzenegger, "I'll be back"

 

[Gavin A]

What I was actually talking about is that the PV system generates 1000kWh per year in total! The house consumes 2000kWhpa, 1000kWh more than what the PV array generates.

Are you thinking that all 1000kWh will be used in the house, then also getting paid for the 50% export?

That'd be very rare for a house with 2000kWh consumption unless they've got some sort of automatic load control, as the energy produced must be used at the time it's being produced or it will exit the house and flow out to the neighbours etc. They may export less than 50%, but on average I'd think the energy companies are slightly up on the 50% deal as a lot of bigger systems are exporting more like 70-80% and being paid for 50% only.

Some fair points made in the rest of your post. I will have to reflect on your argument once the beer has been flushed from my system. In the famous words of Mr Schwarzenegger, "I'll be back"

cheers, there's a lot of misinformation out there, and tbh probably the majority of companies out there flogging solar are pretty clueless about it themselves, so add to this confusion with their made up sales lines and stock answers.

 

[MDJ]

AAAAAHHHHH!
Sorry...beer down...time for another rant....

This proves just how little you know about what you are talking about. I'm not being rude but PLEASE go and read how the FITs system works. Quick summary...you only get paid for what you produce..if you generate nothing..you don't get paid!
As for Nuclear being better / cheaper... don't even get me started........

Also please stop posting links to your website where you are selling your electical installation / LED lighting business.

I was enjoying the thread up until this point, infact after this point was some real interesting debate, your post here regarding your comment about signatures is so silly I felt I had to reply, I won't comment about your views on Solar power as I have no interest in it and I do not install it, however You have gotten a little big for your boots in my view here regarding signatures. You are not a Moderator or Administrator on this site and you do not make up the rules, you are however getting aggressive with an established member who rightly or wrongly has given a view regarding solar power, I would recommend you calm down a bit and think about what you have commented about signatures and post an apology when you have done so and realise you are totally OTT and signatures are indeed allowed here by the team.

 

[MDJ]

The feed in tariff is paid on everything generated, currently at 14.9p, shortly to drop by 3.5%, so the system owner would get 2000kWh x 14.9p per year FIT payments.

They'd also get 4.64p per year export payments on 50% of that generation, so 1000kWh x 4.64p.

And the import costs they offset.

It's a good deal for those who buy the systems, particularly high energy users, but it is entirely based on the actual level of generation from the system.

The point of the scheme though is to stimulate the market to drive up installation rates and drive down costs through efficiencies of scale, with built in reductions in the FIT payments of a minimum of 3.5% every 9 months, and up to 27% if the installation rate went above a set level in a single quarter.

Give it a few years and the FIT will be neglible, or cease to exist for new installs as it becomes unnecessary due to the lower solar costs, and the higher electricity costs being offset, which btw are being largely driven by the transition from coal to much higher cost, and rapidly rising cost gas generation.

At that point the initial investment in the Feed In Tariff will seem like excellent value for money as it only applies to the first 10-20GWp or so, and only for the first 20 years. The next 50 or 100GWp will then act to stabilise and reduce prices relative to the situation if there were no significant solar PV.

That's the bigger picture involved here, but yes I would prefer it if the rent a roofers and big finance weren't making such a killing from it, and essentially sucking money back to the city of london finance houses. We're not involved in that side of things, mostly our systems are benefiting those with relatively modest savings earning sod all interest in the bank, and seeing their savings being eaten away by rising energy costs, as well as local businesses who're seeing their margins being eroded by their rising energy costs and decide to do something about it.

ps the scheme is far from perfect, but it has enabled the UK solar industry to go from 50MWp to 3GWp of installed capacity inside the first 4 years of operation, which must be one of the most successful government initiatives ever, even if they've badly mismanaged it.

Thanks for some interesting points Gavin, I have learned a great deal from you whilst reading this thread, cheers pal :icon4:

 

[Geordie Spark]

You call that an overhang???

You should see Wor Lass sometime !!

 

[SolarCity]

I go away from the forums for two days and this springs up.

Still not sure if Rommel is actually on the wind up or not. It is impressive to be so opinionated on something that he knows incredibly little about.

Nothing really to add. Most of his points have been fairly clearly rebutted.

Just keep it civil, people.

 

[D Skelton]

It is impressive to be so opinionated on something that he knows incredibly little about.

What is it exactly that I know so little about then? People keep saying this, that I don't know what I'm talking about and yet my main gripe with the whole idea of solar panels on roofs is based on the fact that not only do I have to pay my energy supplier for the fuel that I use but I also have to pay tax to fund companies that put solar panels on roofs, sometimes even badly!

I also can't understand how through disagreeing with the whole idea of relying on solar panels as an energy source due to its incredible inefficiency (which no one can dispute) equates to me knowing nothing about solar panels?

I find the whole notion of accusing someone of knowing nothing just because you disagree with them quite childish actually. Gavin has been the only person on this thread who has made an effort to actually answer my points rather than make condescending remarks! Seriously guys, what the hell is there to know little about? Fitting a PV system is hardly rocket science is it?!

 

[puddy]

So Mr D S how many PV solar installations have you done?

 

[D Skelton]

So Mr D S how many PV solar installations have you done?

My company has undertaken none as we don't have any interest in PV, however very early on in my career I personally helped out with fitting and installation on a handful of them. Why do you ask?

 

[Gavin A]

It is impressive to be so opinionated on something that he knows incredibly little about.

The vast majority of the UK population probably know a lot less than D Skelton on the subject in question, and have been bombarded with several months worth of anti-renewable energy subsidy propaganda.

We in the industry really do need to be able to actually form a reasoned defence to such opinions or we will lose the support of the wider UK public and politicians that we need to be able to continue the project of increasing the industries growth and cost reduction to the point where we're able to work without the need for those subsidies at all.

And that has to be the end goal of all this subsidy IMO, if that's not going to be the end goal, then we'd have to make the case for that support being necessary purely as an environmental measure, but that's a much harder case to make if it was always going to involve higher prices than for fossil fuel generation.

 

[MDJ]

Well done Gavin, the only Installer I have seen on this forum of late who can explain the pv questions and give answers which we can all understand.

 

[jason121]

[QUOTE however very early on in my career I ?[/QUOTE]

Your only 26.

 

[Marvo]

I also can't understand how through disagreeing with the whole idea of relying on solar panels as an energy source due to its incredible inefficiency (which no one can dispute)

Why is their efficiency or lack of it such a big concern for you when they're using sunlight which is free and would be serving no other useful purpose if it wasn't utilised by the PV panels.