Free Solar Panels!

[threegee]

Go here and register your home (which must be South facing):

http://www.ashadegreener.co.uk/

Government pays four times the cost of normal electricity, which is why you get it for nowt by simply supplying the site!

[mercuryg]

Go here and register your home (which must be South facing):

That's not quite the only proviso is it, threegee? You missed this bit:

"* We will be installing onto roofs that fall within a 1hr travel zone from Junction 36 of the M1 motorway..."

As junction 36 is south of Barnsley and just north of Rotherham I don't think any of us are likely to qualify........

[threegee]

No I didn't! I read it all through and tried a dummy application. That's for the current batch, but they are intending to expand the scheme.

The majority of applications will fail for other reasons, so there's no certainty in anything ... except that if you don't apply there's a certainty that you will get diddly squat.

I also think that there are other operators currently looking at this market, so hopefully another firm will pilot it in this area first.

BUT...

You might find this interesting reading. http://www.guardian....-feed-in-tariff

The obvious conclusion is that these schemes are bound to be withdrawn as they become too popular - leaving those holding the price guarantees laughing.

[mercuryg]

I'm not sure they will become too popular, threegee, I think it more likely that very few people will take it up as they realise that solar power in the UK is a bit of a non starter!

Edited June 13, 2010 by mercuryg

[Monsta®]

I'm not sure they will become too popular, threegee, I think it more likely that very few people will take it up as they realise that solar power in the UK is a bit of a non starter!

How did you come to that conclusion? Free electric is a none starter? Grants for solar panels are purely ludicrous who in their right mind would want free electric when they can pay for it!

Or do you think that because the U.K don't get much sun that they won't produce much electric?

If so you should research solar panels! They do work even on the greyest of days!

[mercuryg]

Or do you think that because the U.K don't get much sun that they won't produce much electric?

yes!

If so you should research solar panels! They do work even on the greyest of days!

They do, but not very well, as you will - of course - know if you have 'researched' solar panels, i'm sure. Even the very best in solar panels that are available now are nowhere near as efficient on days when there is no sun as opposed to those where there is; this isn't hidden by the industry at all, it's openly admitted.

As for 'wow, free electricity' you are kidding, right?

people - like me - who laugh at the current trend for renewable energy sources are often met with a 'how dare you' response, as if it's sort of a law, as if it's a crime to dare to point out that in fact these so called saviours of our impending power generation problem are not the answer. Solar, wind, wave - it's all flawed, and most of it to great degrees. As with our discussion about the electric car you're reading the positive and failing to take into account the negative - research, as you implore me to undertake, involves balancing both sides of the scales and seeing which weights down the heaviest. It's no good looking at limited time government initiatives that promise free electricity and assuming that because they do that source of power must be the way forward; you have to ask questions, and there are many.

Let's start with the same one we started with when we talked about electric cars: if solar power is so good, why isn't it more widely used? After all, it's been around for decades (centuries even) and is one of the most obvious forms of alternative power? Builders now incorporate solar panels in many new houses, but not with the intention of replacing the national grid - why is that? because they are not very efficient. On a bright sunny day you'll be able to power your lights and most of your home by it, but on a cloudy day you may be able to generate only a small percentage of its available capacity. And therein lies the problem that is present with solar, wind and wave power - it's not 'on demand'.

I don't want to be patronising, but if you've researched solar power - and alternative sources - this won't be news to you; we don't have ways of storing large quantities of electricity, hence we can't rely on solar power when it's not able to be generarted in the capacity required. Power stations churn out electricity to exceed demand all the time - they have to, or we wouldn't be able to operate - it doesn't come from a big storage plant, it isn't generated over night and used the next day, week, year - it's made as we use it.

We can envisage a brilliant 'green' future as much as we like, we can talk about building the required three or five thousand new wind turbines needed to meet the quota, and we can all install solar panels, but we still have to accept that they are not 'on demand' sources.

If you seriously think that there's going to be a future where electricity is free because we all create it ourselves with personal windmills and solar panels then you're not doing your 'research' at all; solar power is expensive, inefficient and unreliable, and as with every single commercial enterprise somebody has to meet the bill. Nobody is making these solar cells for free, they don't maintain themselves, and they don't install themselves; somebody has to pay for it, and whether it's by massive misguided government subsidies or otherwise, that's you, and me.

I would rather that money spent on modern nuclear power stations which give on demand power - wouldn't you?

[Monsta®]

yes!

They do, but not very well, as you will - of course - know if you have 'researched' solar panels, i'm sure. Even the very best in solar panels that are available now are nowhere near as efficient on days when there is no sun as opposed to those where there is; this isn't hidden by the industry at all, it's openly admitted.

As for 'wow, free electricity' you are kidding, right?

people - like me - who laugh at the current trend for renewable energy sources are often met with a 'how dare you' response, as if it's sort of a law, as if it's a crime to dare to point out that in fact these so called saviours of our impending power generation problem are not the answer. Solar, wind, wave - it's all flawed, and most of it to great degrees. As with our discussion about the electric car you're reading the positive and failing to take into account the negative - research, as you implore me to undertake, involves balancing both sides of the scales and seeing which weights down the heaviest. It's no good looking at limited time government initiatives that promise free electricity and assuming that because they do that source of power must be the way forward; you have to ask questions, and there are many.

Let's start with the same one we started with when we talked about electric cars: if solar power is so good, why isn't it more widely used? After all, it's been around for decades (centuries even) and is one of the most obvious forms of alternative power? Builders now incorporate solar panels in many new houses, but not with the intention of replacing the national grid - why is that? because they are not very efficient. On a bright sunny day you'll be able to power your lights and most of your home by it, but on a cloudy day you may be able to generate only a small percentage of its available capacity. And therein lies the problem that is present with solar, wind and wave power - it's not 'on demand'.

I don't want to be patronising, but if you've researched solar power - and alternative sources - this won't be news to you; we don't have ways of storing large quantities of electricity, hence we can't rely on solar power when it's not able to be generarted in the capacity required. Power stations churn out electricity to exceed demand all the time - they have to, or we wouldn't be able to operate - it doesn't come from a big storage plant, it isn't generated over night and used the next day, week, year - it's made as we use it.

We can envisage a brilliant 'green' future as much as we like, we can talk about building the required three or five thousand new wind turbines needed to meet the quota, and we can all install solar panels, but we still have to accept that they are not 'on demand' sources.

If you seriously think that there's going to be a future where electricity is free because we all create it ourselves with personal windmills and solar panels then you're not doing your 'research' at all; solar power is expensive, inefficient and unreliable, and as with every single commercial enterprise somebody has to meet the bill. Nobody is making these solar cells for free, they don't maintain themselves, and they don't install themselves; somebody has to pay for it, and whether it's by massive misguided government subsidies or otherwise, that's you, and me.

I would rather that money spent on modern nuclear power stations which give on demand power - wouldn't you?

Yawn!

ledley king may not be fit for the next England game!

[mercuryg]

Yawn!

ledley king may not be fit for the next England game!

That's no way to continue a discussion, Monsta; I want to hear your side of the 'research' now. I read as far as this in that suppliers blurb to realise it's a con that's going to cost each and every one of us a lot of money. Here - it reads:

"It is anticipated that a 3.3kw system could save in the region of 40%-60% of electricity that an average 3 bedroom semi detached property uses. "

Anticipated? Don't they know? 'Could'? What about 'will'? 40 - 60%? What about the rest?

Come on, I want to hear why I should be in support of something that neither promises nor guarantees anythin, and claims to be free but actually isn't!

[Malcolm Robinson]

Merc,

This is the new religion you are talking about, asking for empirical evidence.......

I can see the sense in having say a solar source of power for certain things but that's all it will ever be considering our present level of technology. This was something I was looking at as a business idea but the equipment and ancillary work is far too complex at the moment.

I don't think you can underestimate the level of support Gov and local authorities will be giving this initiative and that bias corrupts the fundamental economics of the situation. The macroeconomics might be compromised in the short term but there might even be justification somewhere along the line considering our dependence on fossil fuels.

[mercuryg]

Merc,

This is the new religion you are talking about, asking for empirical evidence.......

That is part o the problem in putting forward a 'negative' view.

I can see the sense in having say a solar source of power for certain things but that's all it will ever be considering our present level of technology. This was something I was looking at as a business idea but the equipment and ancillary work is far too complex at the moment.

I don't think you can underestimate the level of support Gov and local authorities will be giving this initiative and that bias corrupts the fundamental economics of the situation. The macroeconomics might be compromised in the short term but there might even be justification somewhere along the line considering our dependence on fossil fuels.

I can't disagree at all that there is great justification in looking at our dependence on fossil fuels, but the problem lies in the way the last twenty years of government have been swayed by the anti nuclear and pro 'green' brigade. Don't get me wrong, i'm not against the idea of clean fuels and renewable energy, my problem lies in excessive investment in unproven and inefficient power sources that are never going to provide the answer to the problem.

I talk mainly of wind and solar power. Solar power is a non starter in the UK; despite Monsta's assertions - which are those of many who have been misled by the advertising and promotion of those with massive government grants - solar panels, even the most efficient ones, do not operate efficiently in anything other than the brightest of clear sunlight. This should be clear to anyone who reads that they need to be fitted south facing. furthermore, they don't work at night, and there is no facility for storing surplus energy and using it later without losing a great deal of it in the process. The quoted installer even admits that there is a possibility of 40-60% savings on electricity bills - there is no guarantee, and when you consider that teh winter months and many more will have to be subsidised by other sources of power it becomes obvious that something is not quite right here. The simple test is to look around you - solar power has been with us for a hundred years, yet it is hardly used. There is s reason for that. Look around in California and you'll see a different aspect.

Wind power is my biggest bugbear, for I firmly believe that it is a complete and utter waste of money in terms of the national grid. There is clear research data that states a wind turbine will only ever operate at 30% or less of its capacity; given that all the calculations of power provision are taken at full capacity this means we are financing an immediate and accepted shortfall. this is a ridiculous situation, and it has to stop. Recent estimates state that we need a further 2,000 wind turbines to reach the proposed output levels; that means, in truth, we need more than ten thousand, and if we are to achieve anywhere near the levels needed given that different parts of the country see different levels of wind that figure is most likely - and this isn't my estimation, it's accepted scientific fact as provided by in depth research - to increase further. we need, therefore, a further 17,000 or so wind turbines in order to reach the current output levels, and that is not to produce all of our energy, but less than 40%. The money spent on subsidising wind power - and it is vast - would be far better spent addressing the problem in hand - our impending lack of power with the closure of the nuclear stations and the coal fired. Germany, by the way, has been the biggest investor in wind and solar power over the last twenty years, and has just committed to building a series of new coal powered stations to supplement the lack of power being provided by its failed 'green' infrastructure.

We cannot rely on nature to power our industry and our homes, because nature does not respond to our demands. It's that simple. we need more power stations, and we need them now.

[Malcolm Robinson]

Thing is merc: (and I understand what you are saying!)

''In fact, a third of all the solar cells and almost half of all the wind turbines worldwide are today produced in Germany. The Renewable Energy Federation registered exports worth six billion euros in 2006 – an increase of 30% compared with the previous year. "The eco-industry is becoming a key sector in Germany. It is already a job creation engine,” says Roland Berger Partner Torsten Henzelmann. On behalf of the Federal Government, a team of consultants have compiled an eco-atlas of Germany that will be officially published at the EU environmental summit in June.

The consultants surveyed just under 1,500 firms, all of them active in the environmental technology field, and analyzed a large number of studies. Their findings are rather gratifying: German green technology is creating jobs. "By the year 2020, the sector will employ more people than mechanical engineering or the automotive industry,” says Henzelmann. He makes a bold forecast: in a few years, the eco-sector will earn more money than these two traditional key industries together.''

[Malcolm Robinson]

AND:

The Danish stastician Bjørn Lomborg is wrong to claim that the age of renewable energies is still far off. The changeover to a new power technology takes around 30 years. That was true of nuclear energy and it's also true of alternative sources of energy. In the last 15 years, wind power has advanced to such a degree that we expect it will be able to compete directly with coal, gas and nuclear power in the coming years, without subsidies. If engineers develop new storage methods to balance out the weather-related output swings, wind power alone will enable us to reach our national emissions targets.

Biomass is also close to being competitive with convential sources of energy. The decisive factor is what happens to the price of fossil fuels. Biomass won't need subsidies if oil prices exceed $150. Its potential is only limited by the amount of land available to grow the crops necessary to produce it. In Germany, fuel, electricity and biogas from our fields will soon account for f5 to 10 percent of our energy output. By contrast, the use of solar power will focus on solar heating in the coming years.

Inventions developed by German engineers are the envy of the world. But all the great inventions won't have an effect without an international emissions trading system. Only global emissions will lay the foundations for low-emission technologies to establish themselves everywhere on this planet. It is essential for our survival that we find the most effective and affordable way to reduce CO2. That's the only way we'll manage to halve CO2 emissions by 2050.

Hasty, expensive and showy measures such as light bulb bans, photovoltaic roofs in foggy Germany or hydrogen cars won't help to slow global warming. By contrast, an emissions trading system covering all sectors and regions would automatically encourage economies to take the most efficient steps to prevent CO2 -- insulating buildings, modernizing gas and coal-fired power stations, and the widespread installation of heat pumps.

Wouldn't it make sense to invest in photovoltaic systems and solar thermal energy plants in regions where the sun shines three times more often and the cost of producing power is therefore three times cheaper? European electricity customers would surely be more willing to help finance the ambitious Desertec project to produce solar power in North Africa. It would also make much more sense to finally start developing storage solutions for weather-dependent wind power. One idea would be to get a large fleet of electric cars on the road as quickly as possible. They could be charged up with low-cost wind-generated power at night, a time when much of the power generated by wind turbines goes wasted.

[mercuryg]

All interesting stuff, but the actual fact is that wind and solar power are not efficient, and are not going to halve our carbon emissions. It isn't going to happen - plain and simple. Of course the industry is creating jobs- governments are subsidising these things - but even Germany, the leader in such technology, is having to build more coal fired power stations to back up its wind supply. What's the point in subsidising wind and solar if that's what is needed (and it is, both there and here.)

My aim is not to dismiss alternative power sources but to wish, seemingly endlessly, that the governments of the world would accept that what they are aiming to achieve - this massive and seemingly imperative reduction in carbon emissions by huge amounts - is simply not acheivable and driven by unproven theories that are largely based on highly disputed cod science. To cover this country in wind turbines is an expensive mistake that will not solve the impending problem of a power deficit, and the money spent subsidising it to keep the green lobby happy could be put to better use.

I see heat pumps mentioned; great idea, but very, very expensive and high maintenance. We need nuclear reactors.

[Mr Darn]

And just what do we do with the nuclear waste from these stations?

[mercuryg]

And just what do we do with the nuclear waste from these stations?

Great question. What do we currently do with it? We bury it, and we will continue to do so until something better comes around.

The problem you highlight is one that is eternal; we have the ability to build efficient nuclear power stations that provide us with plentiful power, yet waste disposal is clearly an issue; we have the ability to build efficient coal powered power stations that provide us with plentiful power, yet the carbon problem remains and the fossil fuel resources are being depleted; we have the ability to fill the country with wind turbines and solar panels, yet these are not efficient and don't provide anywhere near the power we require.

So what do we do? In the long term, of course, we investigate alternative power sources - we always have, and always will - but in the short term we need power. Our current nuclear stations are going off line systematically, as are the older fossil fuel stations, and we need replacements - now.

It's either the problematic storage of nuclear waste, or the continued carbon emissions of fossil fuels; sadly, wind and solar power don't provide the answer.

Tides? Geothermal energy? Who knows, but for know, today, we don't have an option.

[Monsta®]

this is great this is! mercury g's vision of the future "build loads of nuclear plants and bury the waste and run cars for ever on an ever diwindling oil supply which gets harder and harder to get at (i.e. the b.p disaster!) and just scrap any green technology that could aid man kind because its not efficent enough!" please dont run for energy or tranport minister or where doomed!

ps please don't come back with "oh i didn't say that!"

[Malcolm Robinson]

ps please don't come back with "oh i didn't say that!"

I don't think he was exactly........seems to be only trying to be realistic within an emotive subject?

[mercuryg]

this is great this is! mercury g's vision of the future "build loads of nuclear plants and bury the waste and run cars for ever on an ever diwindling oil supply which gets harder and harder to get at (i.e. the b.p disaster!) and just scrap any green technology that could aid man kind because its not efficent enough!" please dont run for energy or tranport minister or where doomed!

ps please don't come back with "oh i didn't say that!"

Er, I didn't say that. If you bother to read the section on electric cars you'll see I've made my opinion quite clear that cars, as personal transport as we know them, have a limited life for the very reasons you espouse.

Neither did I say 'scrap any green technology' but rather accept that over-investment in wind and solar power - which are proven to be inefficient and not the answer - is not the best use of resources.

I did, however, state that nuclear power is the way forward, and also accept that disposing of the waste is a problem. You did, too, look:

"we could build green power stations such as wind turbines, wave machine thingies or nuclear."

That's in the electric car thread, and is your answer to my question about the lack of available power.

The thing is, Monsta, it's all very well reading the blurb about wind turbines and solar power, and saying 'hey, this looks good, lets give companies a 25 year guarantee of excessive funding so that we look like we're doing our bit for the planet' but it is impossible to get away from one simple fact: they don't work well enough to provide our future required power.

What, I ask in all seriousness, is wrong with being honest about that?

I just read that yesterday, when loads of people switched on their TV's to watch the match, there was a power surge in at least one town that led to a blackout. That's WITH on demand, station provided electricity; how on earth do you propose to overcome that when we've shut down the power stations and attempt to meet our ludicrously over the top commitment to renewable energy sources?

I take this seriously because it is serious; there is no quick fix.

[Monsta®]

for those who doubt solar technology!

read this!

[mercuryg]

for those who doubt solar technology!

read this!

And the relevance to heating and powering homes in the UK is what, exactly?

[Monsta®]

And the relevance to heating and powering homes in the UK is what, exactly?

did you actually read it?

to answer your question the fact that a solar powered plane can fly at night is testament to the progression of solar technology!

or read the topic title it says something about solar panels does it not?

[mercuryg]

did you actually read it?

to answer your question the fact that a solar powered plane can fly at night is testament to the progression of solar technology!

or read the topic title it says something about solar panels does it not?

I did read it - it's a story I've been following for some time and it's a great achievement; what I asked was what relevance it has to heating and powering homes in the UK, and the answer - if you care to think about it - is very little.

To gain the power needed to store in the bloody great batteries that thing carries so it ca fly at night it needs to fly in the day; it has a major advantage in that it is not a house, it's an aeroplane. Unless you can elevate your necessarily south facing roof to above the cloud base when the sun isn't shining you're stuffed; the aeroplane isn't.

It's logical when you think about it.