On Feb 25, 3:52*pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:28:21 -0000, Ken Cook wrote:
Any guidance much appreciated.

If you are happy about the ethics involved and that it is pure money
investment scheme and nothing to do with saving the planet then fine. I'll
just regard you as a rich leech on society.

The ethics are that the money that pays the FIT is raised from a levy on
everyones electricity bill from the very poorest up. The poor can't afford
the required capital investment so are effectively locked out of joining in
but still have to pay.

As a money based venture either it is economically viable or it is not. The
FIT payments distort the market, by paying seriously over the going price for
wholesale electricity. Solar PV would not be economically viable without the
FIT payments.

The electricity generated is not "green" even the best PV panels are not much
more than 30% efficient, if that and efficiency drops as they get hot (like
in summer). Also because of the variable and unpredictable nature of the
power produced conventional plant has to be kept on "hot standby", burning
fuel. to provide backup so any pretence that this is "carbon free" power is
just that, a pretence.

There is quite a high energy input in their manufacture and transport from
China. I seriously doubt that Solar PV ever becomes energy positive, ie the
system has produced more energy than was consumed in manufacture, transport,
installation, maintenance and disposal.

--
Cheers Dave.
Nr Garrigill, Cumbria. 421m ASL.

Your point about efficiency of PV panels is true.
But you name any energy system that is efficient. Input always greatly
exceeds output.

We are only chipping away at the energy crisis with these green
technologies.

We are all doomed unless the government gets off its arse and puts
tidal power and nuclear power into place as an urgent priority.

Len
Wembury