MSE News: Legal threats over solar subsidy cuts

zeupater wrote: »

To be slightly less misleading, shouldn't the point regarding state subsidy of pv be .... so do the countries operate FiT schemes ...

United States .... Yes .... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States#Incentives)

"In 2010, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruled that states were unable to implement above-market feed-in tariffs because setting wholesale electricity rates was pre-empted by the Federal Power Act (FPA)"

You need a feed in tariff to be able to sell the power but the US prohibits use of feed in tariffs as subsidies.

The US never did have a national feed in tariff subsidy, just some states. And the rate? According to the page you linked it was 15 cents - less than 10p - per kWh. A FiT rate that is exactly the same as the wholesale price wouldn't be in any way problematic, so far as I can see - it wouldn't raise bills.

The US is a far better candidate than the UK because it has both deserts and air conditioning power loads that often make peak power demand also the period of peak solar power supply.

If we want to subsidise reduction in carbon we'd be much better off subsidising solar power in the US deserts than doing it in the UK - more carbon reduction per Pound spent, by far.

The alternative in some parts of the US is solar renewable energy certificates, which are generally not available at all for contracts of longer than three years.

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Possibly a reduction in need to construct the second national grid and thus a significant reduction also in the losses in transmission.

Not sure how big the latter are - would 12.5% be a ball park guess?

The former, well I haven't a clue but there has been some interesting stuff recently about sexy new pylon designs.

Hi

Agree .... and that's a point which is always missed .... let's look at hypothetical scenario of placing something like 1GWp of solar pv on the Lizard peninsula .... a pretty reasonable position for a solar farm in the S/W, Goonhilly Downs satellite dishes already have direct line access to London for communications so there's a ready corridor, and there's relatively little chance of NIMBYism as a)there are few local residents, b)the natural environment already has a blight in the dishes and c)the pv farms could be another attraction for the grockles ....

Site located, lets link it to the world .... well, it's pretty remote so there's very little chance that the power generated would be used locally .... so lets link it to the nearest large centre of population .... Plymouth, pretend that this single link would be the only grid upgrade required and also, considering that it's in a tourist area with areas of natural beauty the NIMBYs would come out to play, let's put the cables underground. One final assumption to keep the cost down and not skew the figures in favour of microgeneration, the ~3000acres required and any access infrastructure is provided for free ...

Scene set, what's the cost benefit ....

Firstly the capital bit .....
90km of new grid connection at say £20m/km = £1.8bn
1GW Solar farm at say £1.80/Wp = £1.8bn
Cost = £3.6bn (£3.60/Wp)

So comparing the capital outlay cost against roof installations and assume them to be £2.60/Wp (yes, this is a little high ) from December the cheaper option actually costs £1bn(38%) more ....

Secondly the power benefit bit ...
Insolation benefit for concentrating on S/W vs Average ... Helston(953kWh/kWp)/Meriden(843kWh/kWp) = +13%
Embedded distance transmission losses (1.5% transmission+6.5% distribution) v microgeneration approach = -8%

Benefit in energy generated for centralising in the S/W .... 13%-8%=5%

So the conclusion of this back of an envelope exercise is that 5% more usable energy could be produded per Wp installed for a capital investment which is 38% higher ... the result a benefit of -34.9% (((100*1.05*(1-0.38))-100) on capital employed ..... well isn't that a turnup for the books ....

Double the 1GW, 6000 acres, throw a 120km mixed pylon/underground link to Hinkley point, the main hub for the S/W, crossing Dartmoor & Exmoor into the mix, cost ? .... +£1.2bn ? .... okay, we're almost out of the S/W , but Hinkley B is an 870MW station so any more power would likely need grid upgrades to the Midlands and towards London ... cost ????? .... perhaps the idea of covering Cornwall with glass is starting to look a little fragile (pun intended ) ...

HTH
Z

zeupater wrote: »

Firstly the capital bit .....
90km of new grid connection at say £20m/km = £1.8bn

Z

That is a bit steep, I would hope to get a three lane motor way for that? [As designed on my Kitchen table]

Are you sure you too were not watching that interview (Countryfile?) with the Engineer who was tunnelling under the Wye Valley.

http://www.wyevalleyaonb.org.uk/

rogerblack wrote: »

That argument would make sense if the subsidy was 12% more.
It's not, it's about 250% of the rates for large systems. (8p/kWh)

The governments target - in the consultation paper for solar-PV - that they recently announced is 4.5% return, for domestic solar-PV.
Even on the new tariff, this is being dramatically beaten by offers already in the market.
Tesco are offering for post-Dec installs 10% return at the new rates.

I think all these calculations depend on massive unknowns.
When I did my calculations about 9 months ago, the numbers did not really stack up for me (roof is 30 degrees BUT is is not due South and it is not really big enough to get the 4 kWp without using the expensive mono crystalline panels.)
However as the price came sliding down from (say) £15K towards £10K, I woke up again and decided it was looking like a goer.
(Thank goodness my inherent sloth meant I am not one of the people who has not signed a "force majeur" contract and will miss the 12th December deadline.)

There were two great imponderables:

Rate of electric power inflation relative to general inflation. If I used 10% for one and 5% for the other, the stuff coming out of the panels became cost effective within my life time - net metering here we come?

The second great query was the reliability of such a passive system?

No moving parts and just a box of electrical tricks to produce the juice. Keep it cool and factor in 2 replacement inverters?.
Might make a whole lot more sense than a huge off shore windmill up a pole, which also needs a new gearbox every 10 years? That is going to be fun using a barge and some huge crane thing?

Now we have the third great imponderable: Governments are printing money in a desperate attempt to keep the merry-go-round spinning.
Some people on here are issuing dire warnings about the future value of pensioner's nest eggs.
They seriously advise buying large quantities of yellow or grey metal and shovelling it under the floor boards ???!!??
I once purchased three year's supply of black "Welsh gold" beans and had them stacked up all over the parking area round my garage, until they went up the chimney - BUT I think I would rather gamble on something with a real yield of something for which there will always be a rising demand.

jamesd wrote: »

There's a big difference between a state and a country. Saying that Britain offers a feed in tariff if only London did would be wrong as well.

It may not look too bad to you but it's irrelevant. All of the regions are currently at steps 7 or 9. Those pay $0.05 in the single region at step 7 and $0.03 in the rest. That's 3.1p or 1.9p per kWh.

A UK scheme that paid current wholesale price plus nothing (most of the US) or 1.9p above wholesale (most of California) would be much less objectionable to those who are unhappy about the cost of subsidies here.

They've gone quickly since last time I looked ... must have been a popular FiT scheme then ....

Anyway .... California has been and is operating a FiT scheme, contrary to a post which said that they weren't allowed to ... the peculiar way which the US runs it's tiered tax scheme (federal/state/local) does not change the premise that subsidies (FiT) are and have been in place. Are the federal pv tax incentives still in force and who pays for the incentives if they are and I take it that there is agreement that an incentive is a subsidy ?. The figures seem to show that the Californian subsidy was/is more lucrative than that in the UK for those who took systems on as early adopters .... $0.39/kWh on a 4kWp system at say 1500kWh+/kWp, a return over 5 years of >$11700 (£7300 UK equivalent) and net metering benefit of up to 30000kWh (say £3500 UK equivalent) ... a total return of £10.8k within 5 years if you got in at that level then .... but considering that their scheme has been operating for a while the outlay was probably considerably higher, but still not bad for somewhere considered to not operate a FiT subsidy ....

HTH
Z