OT. Solar PV

[harry]

Just reached 2000Mwh power generated. It took 125 days. That's twice what I use in a year.

[Chris Hogg]

Probably being generous, 125 days is say 2000 hours of daylight (it is summer, so they tell us!), so a 1 Mw array??

[dennis]

Its a typo.. he actually meant mW. The reason its a couple of watt hours is because they forgot to remove the cardboard boxes around the array.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Given we rely on imported energy to generate the vast majority of our electricity, it's what happens elsewhere in the world you need to worry about.

[Another John]

...

(a) He is an electricity user the same as everyone. The difference *now* is that he's not only getting many of his units "free" (discounting the investment he's made), but is getting paid very handsomely as well.

(b) It is not Harry (nor any other PV owner), personally, who is milking the rest of us, it's the Government initiative. Harry is simply taking advantage of the scheme.

(c) What is he supposed to do? Say "Oh well I do have the money to do this, but I don't wish to subscribe to such an iniquitous scheme, so I'll leave my money in the Savings Account, where it's earning a fat

1.5%, before tax."

If he had adopted the view outlined in (c) he'd have been in the

*vanishingly small* minority of people in this country, now, who put moral consideration ahead of personal gain.

There seems to be no *rational* reasoning behind the attacks upon Solar PV owners: I detect a strong whiff of sour grapes.

If there _is_ rational reasoning, then please do enlighten me -- as you will have guessed, I'm thinking of doing it myself, but I'm wavering about. It's a lot of money, but I don't earn money any more, so I need to invest what I have in the best possible ways.

John

[John Williamson]

If you have money to invest and no income to cope with emergencies, bear in mind that once you've invested in PV panels, or any other form of "green" power generation, that money is irrevocably tied up for the life of the asset, which will have zero residual value at its "end of life", and may, in fact, cost you money to dispose of.

With most other investments, you can at least get *some* of your money back if needed at any time, for example by selling your shares in the PV panel maker or installer.

[The Natural Philosopher]

But isn't sacrificing one's own good or the good of the nation what Green Initiatives are all about?

I.e if Harry at least said 'I'm a filthy capitalist taking advantage of a stupid government loophole to make money off the backs of the working classes' it would be at least less hypocritical.

The reason is the sheer hypocrisy of it.

Like a double glazing salesman saying 'its for the good of the planet innit?

Just phone my father in law and ask him what he thinks of the solar water panels he had installed at a price he couldn't afford.

And at least they work on infra red, so a lot of the dust and dirt that builds up on them isn't so bad..

[tony sayer]

In article , Another John scribeth thus

Yes by other electricity users..

Another well thought out silly scheme by HM govvermint..

Pity..

Not at all if I thought for a moment that this was the long term answer to UK energy provision I'd be doing it, but it isn't is it?.

Take today its pissed down with rain all day the sky's overcast as it has been for the last few weeks. So we're using PV which very inefficient and is pushed buy this half baked subsidy scheme..

And if an when this becomes significant consider like windmills all the reserve fossil generation we still have to keep on the go to back it up....

Put it into what we really need .. Nuclear generation...

[Another John]

Well I agree with you Tony, 100%. But nuclear - despite its meaning vast generation which (ought to) allow cheap electricity for all demands higher taxation.

And people in this country don't like paying tax: generations have been brainwashed by the Tories, their newspapers, and successive ineffectual, pusillanimous, badly communicative Labour governments.

Nonetheless, people seem to think that they ought to pay less and less and LESS tax, whilst receiving EVER GREATER social benefits (by which I mean stuff like the NHS; practical infrastructure; social infrastructure; and yes -- benefits when laid off work, for example.

Nuclear as a means of cheap energy generation is a dead duck, thanks to the national attitude to taxes. Nuclear as a means of energy companies making ever greater profits at the expense of the mugs known as "customers" might not be dead. (For some reason people are more prepared to pay into company profits, than into the national common-wealth.)

John

[Tim Streater]

No, be like France.

No we aren't. The solution - nuclear - is a no-brainer.

[Andy Dingley]

They may also make the same decision for a less contrived reason. In my own case:

• I want that same roof space for a thermal system in a couple of years. A thermal system with sound thermodynamics and economics behind it.

• The solar PV system depends on a long-term commitment by a government with its back against an economic wall. I cannot trust a UK government that far.

• Even if I trust the scheme to operate at the FIT rates, the economics are still marginal and depend of long-term reliability of unproven panels, absence of vandalism from kids with bricks, and the reliability of inverters that seem so far to be anything but reliable.

My money isn't going into PV, it's going into (more expensive) building work that will make a currently cold and seasonally uninhabitable kitchen into a much more useful space, with adequate insulation for winter use and a solar thermal system to heat it.

[MM]

Don't keep us in suspense like this! You didn't reveal his telephone number, so we can't ring his up. But I infer from your wording that your FIL isn't too happy with his panels.

MM

[The Natural Philosopher]

More the way they were sold: 'save up to half your heating costs' (should have been hot water heating costs) and the fact that in 3 years they have needed servicing twice. at £150 a time.

ten minutes with a calculator from the suppliers own brochure in the fine print where the actual FACTS are printed, revealed that, at best, he would save £150 a year. His oil bill is over £2000.

double galzing firms are moving into PV in a big way now.

Its the big sell and the big con. DECC tried their utmost to get the FITS slashed, and succeeded on big installations - but politically they had to leave the domestic shit alone.

The government cant U turn on Cameron's green promises or Clegless' green promises (although they can do a 180 turn on Localism, which is now a license to develop regardless of local wishes).

[tony sayer]

And what about Japan?, a neigh on unforeseeable one off which with more modern plant would not have been a problem..

A pissed up exercise if I might swear!, this is going to do the square root of SOD ALL for the energy needs of the UK in coming years. Have a bit of foresight, what are we going to do when Oil is neigh on unaffordable for transport and agricultural production?..

[tony sayer]

In article , Tim Streater scribeth thus

Yes just that some here and lacking in brain capacity;(..

And for that matter the government isn't much better...

[tony sayer]

In article , Another John scribeth thus

If you think so, and most all of the above I'd agree with you, but In practice as to UK energy needs what would you do about the looming problem?..

[tony sayer]

I wonder why .. do you?...

[Tim Lamb]

Umm..

So, if the rest of the roof owning population decide to jump on this particular bandwagon, can we expect the NPs electricity bills to rise further (to fund the subsidy) or will FITs be quietly dropped?

None of my domestic roofs are ideally suited, I am too old for a capital pay back and my sympathy is with the pro nuclear lobby.

Insulation grants appear much more sensible and I will take a close interest in any *FITs* relating to alternative sources of heat.

regards

[Tim Streater]

Consequences? There have been no significant consequences.

[The Natural Philosopher]

yes, then eventually yes.

More that many people who use a LOT of power, are contracting here and abroad with powerstations directly. So you might expect to see the situation (as a fudge) that you could e.g. elect NOT to buy 'green electricity - and instead go on an all nuclear tariff - at say 10p. while the 'green tariff' is around 45p.