ADK Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Dont be silly. Nothing is free. I am talking about the overall efficiency of the power generation. How is it cheaper to have lots of little installations than one or 100 huge ones? Ah I see, when you say FREE you mean tax funded. Terrible idea. It's because as a household i'm not having to pay for land to put the panels. If land was unlimited then it would be sensible to put them in a field somewhere. You've also got the connection to the grid already there.
Zingari Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Dont be silly. Nothing is free. I am talking about the overall efficiency of the power generation. How is it cheaper to have lots of little installations than one or 100 huge ones? Ah I see, when you say FREE you mean tax funded. Terrible idea. Not really , the company install the panels free , but they receive the money for the "FIT" (feed in tariff) when the electricity generated goes into the national grid , the company makes money this way. The home owner benefits because they can use the electricity generated by the panels before it goes into the national grid .So on sunny days the electricity i'm using is powered by the panels and it's not coming through the metre, so i'm effectively getting the electricity free. any excess goes into the grid because i can't use all the electricity they generate In the evening , I take it from the grid through the meter in the normal way and pay for this . it saves the homeowner money we can do stuff like washing and tumble drying in the day but any excess goes into the grid as profit for the suppliers . it win win for all really
Captain... Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Dont be silly. Nothing is free. I am talking about the overall efficiency of the power generation. How is it cheaper to have lots of little installations than one or 100 huge ones? Ah I see, when you say FREE you mean tax funded. Terrible idea. It is not tax funded it is subsidised and incentivised, because some people see the overall long term benefits of not using up all our oil reserves and becoming over reliant on it. They also realise it is still a start up industry and needs support to get off the ground as the returns are good but long term and require initial outlay. As ADK says there is not a huge amount of free space in this country, in Spain they have huge solar parks we don't have the land to build this: but by using unused space, such as rooves, we can create the equivalent just in a more spread out way.
Jon the Hat Posted 31 July 2013 Author Posted 31 July 2013 It is not tax funded it is subsidised and incentivised, because some people see the overall long term benefits of not using up all our oil reserves and becoming over reliant on it. They also realise it is still a start up industry and needs support to get off the ground as the returns are good but long term and require initial outlay. As ADK says there is not a huge amount of free space in this country, in Spain they have huge solar parks we don't have the land to build this: but by using unused space, such as rooves, we can create the equivalent just in a more spread out way. Doing this in a more spread out way completely changes the financials. You can't just say it is ok that it is much more expensive becuase there is a subsidy. I saw fields of these in Cornwall in fact.
RobHawk Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Space shuttles are cool, but you are right, I do often sit and marvel and the beautiful grey slate on my roof, or the dirty reddy brown with bits of lichen of my neighbours house. I literally spend hours in my garden not looking at the beautiful colourful plants, nor the strapping apple tree, not even the small pond teeming with wildlife, I like to look at my roof. Seriously unless you have a thatched a roof, or some ornate Chinesey style roofing, the aesthetics really shouldn't be a consideration when you could save a small fortune in energy bills and are doing your bit to save the planet, not to mention it is free (if you have a decent sized south facing roof). That's a nice humblebrag you got going there!
Captain... Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 That's a nice humblebrag you got going there! Would that it was true, I don't have a garden, not even a Juliet balcony, was basing it on my parents garden.
Jon the Hat Posted 31 July 2013 Author Posted 31 July 2013 Would that it was true, I don't have a garden, not even a Juliet balcony, was basing it on my parents garden. Do you own your roof? Or are you in fact opining on what those of us who do have one should do with it from the certainty of not actually having to do it yourself?
Captain... Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Doing this in a more spread out way completely changes the financials. You can't just say it is ok that it is much more expensive becuase there is a subsidy. I saw fields of these in Cornwall in fact. You are right, instead of paying for large swathes of land, you use houses for free and instead of losing lots of energy through transmission it goes directly to the source rather than be transmitted long distances losing energy as it goes. Of course it also changes the cost of installation, it would be more expensive to put 1000 installations on 1000 different roofs than put them all together in a field, but that is a one off cost rather that is off set by having no rental costs. Do you own your roof? Or are you in fact opining on what those of us who do have one should do with it from the certainty of not actually having to do it yourself? No, so obviously I can't have an opinion on it.
James. Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 I think there are some cases where not having direct experience of something does sort of invalidate your opinion. Like if you didn't go to the game yet still rate the players based on the radio, or in debates involving children those people who don't have any will always struggle to understand things from a parents point of view. But not having a roof?! Pretty sure we can let Shrapnel off for that.
Zingari Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 I think there are some cases where not having direct experience of something does sort of invalidate your opinion. Like if you didn't go to the game yet still rate the players based on the radio, or in debates involving children those people who don't have any will always struggle to understand things from a parents point of view. But not having a roof?! Pretty sure we can let Shrapnel off for that. not having a juliet balcony is unforgivable though.
Jon the Hat Posted 31 July 2013 Author Posted 31 July 2013 I think there are some cases where not having direct experience of something does sort of invalidate your opinion. Like if you didn't go to the game yet still rate the players based on the radio, or in debates involving children those people who don't have any will always struggle to understand things from a parents point of view. But not having a roof?! Pretty sure we can let Shrapnel off for that. My point is that you can assume you would sign away your roof for 25 years to a company for a couple of hundred quid a year, but when it comes to it you might not. I wouldn't.
The God Emperor Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 dont see the point in having solar panels on your roof. they only produce power when its sunny. so they produce power in the day when your at work and not using any power and in the winter will barely produce any and thats when you'll really need it. unless they've invented a way to store the power produced?
Jon the Hat Posted 31 July 2013 Author Posted 31 July 2013 You are right, instead of paying for large swathes of land, you use houses for free and instead of losing lots of energy through transmission it goes directly to the source rather than be transmitted long distances losing energy as it goes. Of course it also changes the cost of installation, it would be more expensive to put 1000 installations on 1000 different roofs than put them all together in a field, but that is a one off cost rather that is off set by having no rental costs. According to Wikepedia article on Solar energy, large scale cost of installation per watt is circa $1.00, vs $3.50 for retail installations. Might be a couple of years old, but it gives you the idea of the value of scale. That would pay for a whole lot of loss, land and infrasructure cost.
Jon the Hat Posted 31 July 2013 Author Posted 31 July 2013 dont see the point in having solar panels on your roof. they only produce power when its sunny. so they produce power in the day when your at work and not using any power and in the winter will barely produce any and thats when you'll really need it. unless they've invented a way to store the power produced? You plug them in to the Grid. The grid has ways of storing the power, or of deferring electricity production through say coal or oil. Think of the national grid as a huge tub of water. If some is used, and you top up in lots of places, you need less to go in from the main tap.
The God Emperor Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 You plug them in to the Grid. The grid has ways of storing the power, or of deferring electricity production through say coal or oil. Think of the national grid as a huge tub of water. If some is used, and you top up in lots of places, you need less to go in from the main tap. aaaah I was under the illusion that you couldn't store AC volts. thanks for clearing that up
Jon the Hat Posted 31 July 2013 Author Posted 31 July 2013 aaaah I was under the illusion that you couldn't store AC volts. thanks for clearing that up Pleasure.
The Doctor Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Bit of an impractical system though isn't it? The baker has to work hard every day to provide food that everybody needs, what can the manicurist give him that he'd want in return for his bread? A much simpler system is instead of exchanging favours we hand over bits of paper of an agreed worth that the baker can spend on things he actually wants and needs. I think you mean what can he give the manicurist? Woof.
Zingari Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 aaaah I was under the illusion that you couldn't store AC volts. thanks for clearing that up you're right, you can't store it , it just means that the power provided by the solar panels replaces the electricity that would have had to have been supplied by oil or gas , Solar panels allow the generators to reduce the output thereby saving fuel.
Captain... Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 My point is that you can assume you would sign away your roof for 25 years to a company for a couple of hundred quid a year, but when it comes to it you might not. I wouldn't. I would, when I start looking to buy a house I will be definitely taking into account a south facing roof specifically to take advantage of this offer. Cheaper leccy bills and zero outlay from me. It just seems like a no brainer. As for it costing more to place them on roofs, I was reading an article about farmers charging 50k a year to rent out their fields for solar panels. There is no free land anymore in the UK and what is owned by the state is protected solar panel companies have to find privately owned land and pay a premium for it, or roofs which are free.
Guest MattP Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 I would, when I start looking to buy a house I will be definitely taking into account a south facing roof specifically to take advantage of this offer. Cheaper leccy bills and zero outlay from me. It just seems like a no brainer. As for it costing more to place them on roofs, I was reading an article about farmers charging 50k a year to rent out their fields for solar panels. There is no free land anymore in the UK and what is owned by the state is protected solar panel companies have to find privately owned land and pay a premium for it, or roofs which are free. Thank god. Can't imagine getting the train and seeing miles and miles of that monstrosity through the beautiful countryside.
OzFox Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 I would, when I start looking to buy a house I will be definitely taking into account a south facing roof specifically to take advantage of this offer. Cheaper leccy bills and zero outlay from me. It just seems like a no brainer. As for it costing more to place them on roofs, I was reading an article about farmers charging 50k a year to rent out their fields for solar panels. There is no free land anymore in the UK and what is owned by the state is protected solar panel companies have to find privately owned land and pay a premium for it, or roofs which are free. Would be a win win for the farmers as they can still keep grazing animals to keep the grass down Alternatively a win for the wildlife if farmers plant wildflowers, as some have been doing
leicsmac Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 Combination of fusion and renewables is the way forward. Fusion to power large-scale infrastructure, renewables for smaller-scale projects and personal use depending on preference. But as I said in my last post, I reckon we're going to have to wait until the big energy companies are ready for the change before it actually happens, as they probably control the patents on most renewable tech. Of course that's just a prelude to the next step - harnessing matter/anti-matter annihilation energy anyone? Heard of the Kardashev Scale?
Captain... Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 Combination of fusion and renewables is the way forward. Fusion to power large-scale infrastructure, renewables for smaller-scale projects and personal use depending on preference. But as I said in my last post, I reckon we're going to have to wait until the big energy companies are ready for the change before it actually happens, as they probably control the patents on most renewable tech. Of course that's just a prelude to the next step - harnessing matter/anti-matter annihilation energy anyone? Heard of the Kardashev Scale? Nope, feel free to enlighten us.
Jon the Hat Posted 1 August 2013 Author Posted 1 August 2013 I would, when I start looking to buy a house I will be definitely taking into account a south facing roof specifically to take advantage of this offer. Cheaper leccy bills and zero outlay from me. It just seems like a no brainer. As for it costing more to place them on roofs, I was reading an article about farmers charging 50k a year to rent out their fields for solar panels. There is no free land anymore in the UK and what is owned by the state is protected solar panel companies have to find privately owned land and pay a premium for it, or roofs which are free. £50k a year is sod all in the context of these costs. Admittedly it makes more sense if you happen to have some desert to use.
Babylon Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 You plug them in to the Grid. The grid has ways of storing the power The Grid? Awesome I'm getting some.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.