Solar PV. Question

[ban-all-sheds]

Does he have any views on the merits or demerits of the FIT scheme?

 

[simond]

For me the answer about private PV installations comes from a local mature eco warrior who serves on a couple of committees and NGOs promoting alternative energy sources. He evaluated private PV systems and the "benefits" of linking them into the grid. He found them non economically viable. He has instead solar water heating which he considers is cost effective, simple and more reliable than the equipment necessary for PV.

Fascinating.

When you do the sums for Solar Thermal, the break even point on investment is way beyond 20 years. Most systems will need the anti freeze sorting every 5 years or so, and a new pump every 10. Will probably need a couple of new expansion vessels in that time, too. Worcester-Bosch offered me a free system for my house 6 yrs back and I'm afraid I couldn't see it being worth my time to fit it!

With Solar PV and the FiT, most customers will see their investment back in 10 years. They will probably need to replace the inverter (usually mounted indoors, costs nowadays are between £1-1.5K). Lifespan of PV is around 25 years. Outcome, somewhere between £20K and £30K cash positive.

Your friend needs to get a real job, I think. Or perhaps his maths lets him down.

 

[JohnW2]

With Solar PV and the FiT, most customers will see their investment back in 10 years. They will probably need to replace the inverter (usually mounted indoors, costs nowadays are between £1-1.5K). Lifespan of PV is around 25 years. Outcome, somewhere between £20K and £30K cash positive.
Your friend needs to get a real job, I think. Or perhaps his maths lets him down.

It's not the maths, but the implications of the maths which are the issue. The crucial point is "Sloar PV and FiT", since most of the return you speak of comes from FiT ... and where does FiT come from? Might it perhaps be from taxpayers?

So, yes, with the present situation people can make money over a period of 25 years, but at the expense of other taxpayers - and not necessarily even as great a return as would be possible with other forms of investment that would not be parasitic on taxpayers as a whole.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's not the maths, but the implications of the maths which are the issue. The crucial point is "Sloar PV and FiT", since most of the return you speak of comes from FiT ... and where does FiT come from? Might it perhaps be from taxpayers?

No - it comes from other electricity purchasers, many of whom could only dream of being as well off as the people they are funding to have solar panels on their roof.

So, yes, with the present situation people can make money over a period of 25 years, but at the expense of other taxpayers

No - at the expense of other electricity purchasers who are forced to pay extra for their electricity so that people can be bribed into installing something so useless that nobody in their right minds would consider it were they not being bribed.

 

[JohnD]

step it up to 100's or 1000's of kV, send it 10,000's of miles to feed into the grid

You appear not to know how big the UK is, or the distance between the average house and "the grid"

But as a lot of the time, a lot of the electricity generated will be used up without even leaving the house, it is an irrelevance. Whatever does leave the house will be used up long before it needs to be stepped up or go anywhere near the grid.

I expect you know that really and are just posting misleading nonsense out of malevolence.

 

[JohnW2]

step it up to 100's or 1000's of kV, send it 10,000's of miles to feed into the grid

You appear not to know how big the UK is, or the distance between the average house and "the grid"

To be fair to BAS (in relation to just this one detail matter!), I suspect that he interpreted (I think incorrectly) the statement:

They might co-incide in other countries.

... to be implying that peak generation in one country might co-incide with perak demand in another country (hence needing international movement of electricity)..

In fact, I think what martinxxxxxx probably meant was that peak generation and peak demand might co-incide within some countries.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnD]

I don't suspect that at all.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't suspect that at all.

I believe in giving benefit of the doubt where doubt exists. With BAS, there are so many other times when there's no doubt for him to be 'given the benefit of' that we don't really need to take him to task when there's any possible doubt

Kind Regards, John.

 

[empip]

Here we go...
http://99mpg.com/blog/pluggingintothesun/thebigdishmovestor/

-0-

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't suspect that at all.

Wrong again - that's exactly what I thought, given that the sequence of relevant posts was:

Also note that PV arrays are rated as kWp - the important p being Peak.
Therefore that is the expected output on a sunny day in June.
At other times of the year, the output will be considerably less.

Like when your demand for electricity goes up, you mean?

They might co-incide in other countries.

I thought that Martin meant we shouldn't be concerned about output being considerably less at other times of the year because our higher demand might coincide with peak output in other countries.

 

[Wontdothatagain]

What is the "average" output, at it's peak, of a normal Solar PV domestic system?

 

[JohnW2]

It's not the maths, but the implications of the maths which are the issue. The crucial point is "Sloar PV and FiT", since most of the return you speak of comes from FiT ... and where does FiT come from? Might it perhaps be from taxpayers?

No - it comes from other electricity purchasers ....

That's really what I meant. I was using 'taxpayers' rather sloppily to mean 'all other economicically relevant people' (virtually all of whom will be 'electricity purchasers'). On that basis, we appear to more-or-less agree.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnD]

or does it come from the profits of the company which would otherwise be distributed to shareholders?

 

[martinxxxxxx]

I don't suspect that at all.

Wrong again - that's exactly what I thought, given that the sequence of relevant posts was:

Also note that PV arrays are rated as kWp - the important p being Peak.
Therefore that is the expected output on a sunny day in June.
At other times of the year, the output will be considerably less.

Like when your demand for electricity goes up, you mean?

They might co-incide in other countries.

I thought that Martin meant we shouldn't be concerned about output being considerably less at other times of the year because our higher demand might coincide with peak output in other countries.

Sorry I am a bit simpler than that - I meant the OP was in the Bahama, where his need for electricity to run an air con unit might be at the time it is most sunny


Mike2007
Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 799
Location: Bahama
Thanked: 5 times

 

[Stoday]

The issue of other countries' time of peak demand is irrelevant. The UK is a net importer of electricity and does not export it.

Even if we did export, the effect of pv installations would be to reduce UK demand allowing more to be exported from conventional stations that are connected to the grid at higher voltages.

The fact remains: pv cannot contribute to the UK's system maximum demand and therefore cannot reduce the UK's generation power requirement. Not even by one tiny kW.