Renewables

[Markburke]

First of all the current government could have had ten years of investment in tidal and solar and have not done it. It was in just about everyone else’s manifesto. We are great at green energy manufacture in this country and it would have been a total win win for jobs. What a missed opportunity by these clowns.

Secondly, if you can afford it now is a good time to get solar installed if you have a south-ish facing house. Energy prices are up hugely already and will apparently go up another 50 percent in the summer, then another 25 percent in the autumn. FFS!

Solar now costs about a quarter of what it did fifteen years ago to install and the tech is now better. My annual gas and electric bill will cost me more at the end of this year then what it will cost to install a 12 panel system. I will struggle to pay for it, but it looks like it would pay for itself in a couple of years the way we are going. Just seems common sense. Putin won’t be getting any money off me.

 

[Cambsred]

I'm in the process of buying a house with solar that is oil heated and looking into what the most cost effective options are but that also provide resilience.

From a cost point of view oil and gas are way over inflated and I would hope at some point this will reduce. I was even considering a wood burner which is ultimately a backward step environmentally but wood is fairly easy to come by due to a few friends having access to their own woodland.

Trade off between cost and the move towards net zero.

 

[Middlesbrough123]

Raising the price of everything forces renewables to be used .

We need an exercise bike linked up to power generater , if the current energy rip off doesn’t get people fit nowt will

 

[Billy69_uk]

I was at a conference last week talking about offshore renewables (wind, wave, tidal etc) and the infrastructure needed to support such growth.

Interesting to hear that the Energy security and independence is as much or of greater value than the CO2 reductions and road to zero emissions policies the Government are talking about.

There is supposed to be somewhere in the region of up to 400GW of renewable energy in the Uk renewables market by as early as 2025. It obviously wont all come off, and a lot of it will be in places that make transmission a nightmare, but there are some very clever things going on that now seem to be getting funding.

and yes, I live a very exciting life.

 

[ThatFragranceGuy]

First of all the current government could have had ten years of investment in tidal and solar and have not done it. It was in just about everyone else’s manifesto. We are great at green energy manufacture in this country and it would have been a total win win for jobs. What a missed opportunity by these clowns.

Secondly, if you can afford it now is a good time to get solar installed if you have a south-ish facing house. Energy prices are up hugely already and will apparently go up another 50 percent in the summer, then another 25 percent in the autumn. FFS!

Solar now costs about a quarter of what it did fifteen years ago to install and the tech is now better. My annual gas and electric bill will cost me more at the end of this year then what it will cost to install a 12 panel system. I will struggle to pay for it, but it looks like it would pay for itself in a couple of years the way we are going. Just seems common sense. Putin won’t be getting any money off me.

Any time I look at a solar panel calc the only way it makes me money is if I am home working guaranteed for the life of its installation. If so I make about £1500 through its life; if I'm out until 4pm each day it costs me money

Working from home:



Not working from home:




I thinking makes sense for new builds and people with wads of cash laid around but unless i'm missing something, without a new FIT scheme, it seems neutral or potential to lose money?

 

[Andy_W]

If we had a massive plan, for nationalised renewables, and the prices we were charger being fixed to what the production cost was, not what demand was (profiteering if private, or excess tax if public), then I think practically everyone would get behind it.

It would cost a hell of a lot to get it going mind, but if we financed it up to the hilt it would be well worth it, and saves excess public money going into the hands of the wealthy. It's probably 100% necessary with our dwindling natural resources and us leaving the EU (where our energy comes via).

It's like I read the other day, where some guys energy provider only uses 100% renewables, yet the cost of their bills has gone up in line with everyone else's. This shouldn't be the case, and they should be paying almost the same price as wind hasn't got more expensive, and theoretically that energy they're paying for, through that provider should be locked into them. Effectively those who use suppliers reliant on gas and oil, should be footing the difference.

It's like with the gas prices, going up, the price has only went up after covid because demand rocketed, and has only gone up due to Russia as supply will be down. The actual extraction cost of the pre-existing wells has not gone up significantly, but their profits have. The only difference, is that when demand is high, the more expensive wells have to be used, the less economically viable ones, but the difference in those may only be 5p on the pound.

Had we had energy security, publicly owned, and the cost went up, then it would have basically just meant a higher amount of tax going into the system, which the public would have largely got back in other areas.

 

[Billy69_uk]

If we had a massive plan, for nationalised renewables, and the prices we were charger being fixed to what the production cost was, not what demand was (profiteering if private, or excess tax if public), then I think practically everyone would get behind it.

It would cost a hell of a lot to get it going mind, but if we financed it up to the hilt it would be well worth it, and saves excess public money going into the hands of the wealthy. It's probably 100% necessary with our dwindling natural resources and us leaving the EU (where our energy comes via).

It's like I read the other day, where some guys energy provider only uses 100% renewables, yet the cost of their bills has gone up in line with everyone else's. This shouldn't be the case, and they should be paying almost the same price as wind hasn't got more expensive, and theoretically that energy they're paying for, through that provider should be locked into them. Effectively those who use suppliers reliant on gas and oil, should be footing the difference.

It's like with the gas prices, going up, the price has only went up after covid because demand rocketed, and has only gone up due to Russia as supply will be down. The actual extraction cost of the pre-existing wells has not gone up significantly, but their profits have. The only difference, is that when demand is high, the more expensive wells have to be used, the less economically viable ones, but the difference in those may only be 5p on the pound.

Had we had energy security, publicly owned, and the cost went up, then it would have basically just meant a higher amount of tax going into the system, which the public would have largely got back in other areas.

I think one of the key drivers will be the rate at which the carbon tax increases. Once it gets to $150 a ton , then you will see how quickly users of carbon based fuels start switching over. I would hope there also be an end to the carbon trading and offset bull5hiat.

 

[Andy_W]

Any time I look at a solar panel calc the only way it makes me money is if I am home working guaranteed for the life of its installation. If so I make about £1500 through its life; if I'm out until 4pm each day it costs me money

Working from home:

View attachment 35977

Not working from home:

View attachment 35978


I thinking makes sense for new builds and people with wads of cash laid around but unless i'm missing something, without a new FIT scheme, it seeks neutral oe potential to lose money?

That's based on 20p per kw/hr.

New contracts are around 40p plus I think, and that's allowing for the price cap, which is going to have to go up I think? The price cap in April was based on pre-war assumptions, and it's got a lot worse since.

Also, you're going to pay for that 20,000kg of CO2, one way or another, or the whole country is going to pay for the sum of it all, one way or another.

They should make solar panels free (or tax deductible), and then the first load of bills go to paying it off. So everyone gets the benefit of it, and doesn't have the outlay. Loads won't get it as they don't think they will stay in their property 25 years, but if everyone thinks that, then it won't take off, so it needs a massive incentive.

I would hope the solar panels have a longer life than 25 years, or that at least some of the system could be re-used, or the old panels still put to some use, or expanded upon, as it gets even better.

 

[Andy_W]

I think one of the key drivers will be the rate at which the carbon tax increases. Once it gets to $150 a tin , then you will see how quickly users of carbon based fuels start switching over. I would hope there also be an end to the carbon trading and offset bull5hiat.

View attachment 35979

Yeah, I was just writing something similar to that, on the above post, didn't see yours first.

One thing the energy calculations don't factor is the cost of the carbon, and what it's going to take to rectify that, with public expenditure, or the damage that the carbon does if we do nothing. Everyone's carbon output will probably end up more costly to rectify than the sum of all their bills. So even if the cost of solar ends up the same as fossil fuels per month, averaged out, then they're going to end up paying far more in tax and in other areas to make up for it. It's a countrywide thing though, everyone will end up paying for everyone's carbon output.

Probably a good start would be to ensure that each new property, extension or renovation has to have proportionally sized solar panels or a turbine (if rural), for the property value, not the energy use.
i.e a 100k house should have £2k worth of panels and a £1m house should have 20k of panels. Or do it exponentially, so a £1m house might end up with 50k worth of panels, most of it going back into the grid, and give them no energy bills in return.

 

[ThatFragranceGuy]

That's based on 20p per kw/hr.

New contracts are around 40p plus I think, and that's allowing for the price cap, which is going to have to go up I think? The price cap in April was based on pre-war assumptions, and it's got a lot worse since.

Also, you're going to pay for that 20,000kg of CO2, one way or another, or the whole country is going to pay for the sum of it all, one way or another.

They should make solar panels free (or tax deductible), and then the first load of bills go to paying it off. So everyone gets the benefit of it, and doesn't have the outlay. Loads won't get it as they don't think they will stay in their property 25 years, but if everyone thinks that, then it won't take off, so it needs a massive incentive.

I would hope the solar panels have a longer life than 25 years, or that at least some of the system could be re-used, or the old panels still put to some use, or expanded upon, as it gets even better.

True but panel life is probably about 15 years in some cases although it assumes 25 and I can't see unit it cost being 27p-40p for 15 years, and I can't guarantee I'll be working from home that time to use the power either and batteries are another few thousand on top

Lifetime calculation assumptions (additional to the above)​

• We assume a system lifetime of 25 years with a 0.50% decrease in efficiency every year.
• We assume static electricity prices and SEG tariffs throughout the lifetime of the system.
• We estimate lifetime maintenance costs of two instances of £725 (e.g. replacing the inverter or inverter components twice during the lifetime of the system at year 10 and year 20).

 

[Billy69_uk]

Yeah, I was just writing something similar to that, on the above post, didn't see yours first.

One thing the energy calculations don't factor is the cost of the carbon, and what it's going to take to rectify that, with public expenditure, or the damage that the carbon does if we do nothing. Everyone's carbon output will probably end up more costly to rectify than the sum of all their bills.

I agree 100%, and i think there will be a higher impact to OPEX rather than CAPEX for orginisations.

I think we will also see renewables play a bigger part in producing eFuels (zero carbon alternate fuels ) for transport, shipping, and general mobiity etc.

 

[Andy_W]

True but panel life is probably about 15 years in some cases although it assumes 25 and I can't see unit it cost being 27p-40p for 15 years, and I can't guarantee I'll be working from home that time to use the power either and batteries are another few thousand on top

Lifetime calculation assumptions (additional to the above)​

• We assume a system lifetime of 25 years with a 0.50% decrease in efficiency every year.
• We assume static electricity prices and SEG tariffs throughout the lifetime of the system.
• We estimate lifetime maintenance costs of two instances of £725 (e.g. replacing the inverter or inverter components twice during the lifetime of the system at year 10 and year 20).

Of course it will, it might never go below 30p again in the UK, which is what the standard rate is (big risk assuming this won't skyrocket). Even 5% inflation will put it up to £1 per kW in 25 years. 2% inflation puts it at 50p. If you buy panels today, the cost of them is fixed today, it's inflation protected.

If we end up having to sack off gas and oil, then a boat load of money will need to be paid into the system, and it won't be the oil and gas companies paying that, it will be in the energy bills and the tax.

I'm not sure how long panels last mind, and what happens to them at end of life? I expect this is just reduced output, so still may have some use, or they just need new batteries or whatever they use, or maybe even new cells which will be pennies in 25 years?

 

[thewanderer]

If we had a massive plan, for nationalised renewables, and the prices we were charger being fixed to what the production cost was, not what demand was (profiteering if private, or excess tax if public), then I think practically everyone would get behind it.

It would cost a hell of a lot to get it going mind, but if we financed it up to the hilt it would be well worth it, and saves excess public money going into the hands of the wealthy. It's probably 100% necessary with our dwindling natural resources and us leaving the EU (where our energy comes via).

It's like I read the other day, where some guys energy provider only uses 100% renewables, yet the cost of their bills has gone up in line with everyone else's. This shouldn't be the case, and they should be paying almost the same price as wind hasn't got more expensive, and theoretically that energy they're paying for, through that provider should be locked into them. Effectively those who use suppliers reliant on gas and oil, should be footing the difference.

It's like with the gas prices, going up, the price has only went up after covid because demand rocketed, and has only gone up due to Russia as supply will be down. The actual extraction cost of the pre-existing wells has not gone up significantly, but their profits have. The only difference, is that when demand is high, the more expensive wells have to be used, the less economically viable ones, but the difference in those may only be 5p on the pound.

Had we had energy security, publicly owned, and the cost went up, then it would have basically just meant a higher amount of tax going into the system, which the public would have largely got back in other areas.

There is no such thing as a 100% renewable supplier. It is a marketing scam. All electricity generated goes into the same pot ( national grid)

 

[Andy_W]

I agree 100%, and i think there will be a higher impact to OPEX rather than CAPEX for orginisations.

I think we will also see renewables play a bigger part in producing eFuels (zero carbon alternate fuels ) for transport, shipping, and general mobiity etc.

If we can get electric cheaper than gas per kW, then we can sack off gas central heating too. The only reason electric is now 50% more than gas, is because it largely runs on gas.

Electric used to be 4x more expensive, now it's 1/8th of that, and I'd bet my hat the wind and solar farms are putting it out cheaper than gas, per kW now.

 

[Andy_W]

There is no such thing as a 100% renewable supplier. It is a marketing scam. All electricity generated goes into the same pot ( national grid)

Yeah, I know what you mean, I've worked on/ designed a lot of installations as part of wind farms, national grid jobs, solar farms and for every distributor in the country for Electric, Water, Gas and Telecoms. It's more the theory behind it, but you're right, they shouldn't be able to use the terminology they use.

But if a company put 2GW into the grid through wind/ solar, and took 2GW out of the grid at peoples homes, then they should only paying for the cable/ grid maintenance and should only be liable for the inflation in that, they shouldn't be liable for the 5x increase in cost going into the grid from the gas pipe/ power generation, and only should be paying their share towards the sub stations/ distribution and faults etc.

I don't have one of those suppliers mind, so I would be effectively agreeing that my prices should go up, as they're reliant on whatever powers them. IF some other guy bought green energy, then I would say fair play, you got lucky, and you deserve the reward of that.

 

[Billy69_uk]

There is no such thing as a 100% renewable supplier. It is a marketing scam. All electricity generated goes into the same pot ( national grid)

not true.

Some renewables are feeding into electrolysers producing green hydrogen for transport and industry use.

 

[thewanderer]

not true.

Some renewables are feeding into electrolysers producing green hydrogen for transport and industry use.

How is that the same thing? Do you get hydrogen pumped to your house?

 

[Billy69_uk]

If we can get electric cheaper than gas per kW, then we can sack off gas central heating too. The only reason electric is now 50% more than gas, is because it largely runs on gas.

Electric used to be 4x more expensive, now it's 1/8th of that, and I'd bet my hat the wind and solar farms are putting it out cheaper than gas, per kW now.

Its also interesting to see who uses the energy in the UK (according to the gov)

 

[Billy69_uk]

How is that the same thing? Do you get hydrogen pumped to your house?

yes, dont you?

There is a lot of work looking at hydrogen blending both for transport but also domestic heating etc with low cos gas alternatives etc.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ata/file/1011283/UK-Hydrogen-Strategy_web.pdf

 

[thewanderer]

Yeah, I know what you mean, I've worked on/ designed a lot of installations as part of wind farms, national grid jobs, solar farms and for every distributor in the country for Electric, Water, Gas and Telecoms. It's more the theory behind it, but you're right, they shouldn't be able to use the terminology they use.

But if a company put 2GW into the grid through wind/ solar, and took 2GW out of the grid at peoples homes, then they should only paying for the cable/ grid maintenance and should only be liable for the inflation in that, they shouldn't be liable for the 5x increase in cost going into the grid from the gas pipe/ power generation, and only should be paying their share towards the sub stations/ distribution and faults etc.

I don't have one of those suppliers mind, so I would be effectively agreeing that my prices should go up, as they're reliant on whatever powers them. IF some other guy bought green energy, then I would say fair play, you got lucky, and you deserve the reward of that.

That's not what happens tho. You get a mix of wherever is generating at that particular time. Also generators and suppliers are not the same companies in most cases.