Feed In Tariffs(FIT) Announced.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Thanks, but kids stuff really - I worked that lot out in my head;)

The bottom line however is that someone in Lands End with a 4kWp array gets a lot more FIT than someone with the same array in Wick.

Hi Cardew

Agree, it's really quite a good discussion in order to gain a better understanding of the subject. I'm at the point of investing the price of a new car on cladding my roof with some expensive glass, so I really want to be clear on whether everything really stacks up (investment wise) or if there are any pit-falls being missed due to a little wool-pulling in the direction of the eyes.

It's quite a complex subject which I'm determined to understand before writing any cheques

Regards
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

I'm at the point of investing the price of a new car on cladding my roof with some expensive glass, so I really want to be clear on whether everything really stacks up (investment wise) Z

Much as I have some reservations about PV as an investment, it certainly beats a new car!!

I wonder how much local variation there is in output from the panels i.e. could someone half a mile away get a significanly better output?

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

I wonder how much local variation there is in output from the panels i.e. could someone half a mile away get a significanly better output?

Hi

Logically it must, but probably not significantly .....

Thinking about a situation where the southerly arc of the horizon is dotted with hills, the closer to the hills the greater the effect on the array as the length of time the sun is visible to the array is affected, even on an unshaded array. The tool which Dave Fowler made reference to yesterday (http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps3/pvest.php) actually includes an option to display the horizon on a sun-path trace which looked quite convincing when I checked it out. It is also likely that there would be some minor effect on total generation capacity as a result of collecting less of the scattered irradiation, which we have been discussing, due to there being fractionally less sky visible. However, in all but the most extreme cases I wouldn't expect there to be a significant difference.

Probably more relevant would be areas which are affected by localised microclimates, especially in the morning where mists and fogs can linger for a number of hours although nearby areas can be completely clear. How great the overall affect of microclimate differences are is probably not possible to accurately model and would therefore need to be open to guesswork or measurement on specific installations, but then again I wouldn't think that there would be a significant difference in generation over a year.

Regards
Z

Dave_Fowler

The discrepancies between the tool (post 195) and the predictions from other sources have become much clearer now. Thank you to all those who have posted the various links.

What a disappointment that the European Community website, which gives wonderful maps depicting temperatures, radiation and climate, does not include in the calculating tool one of the major factors influencing solar PV output - clouds. Month by month average cloud cover is known and surely could have been easily included in the prediction tool.

As the spectrum used by solar PV (visible light through to UV) and that of solar heating (mainly IR) is different, there must be vast differences between the effect of clouds across this spectrum. The attenuation of UV due to water vapour appears to be much less than the attenuation of IR. I suspect this means that solar heating is even more useless than PV in cloudy conditions. Has anyone links to maps to compare the effects of cloud on thermal and PV panels?

noncom_2

Cardew wrote: »

The bottom line however is that someone in Lands End with a 4kWp array gets a lot more FIT than someone with the same array in Wick.

Yes, but the FIT scheme is a subsidy for clean energy microgeneration, not an investment opportunity. Rightly and properly, people will look at the financial payback for their chosen system at a particular location, but equally properly, the Feed In Tariff is linked to how much energy is generated by a system, not how much it cost to install.

The person in Lands End will get more FIT payment because they will be contributing more clean energy to the nation's mix, and achieving more towards the target of carbon emissions reduction.

Cardew

Dave_Fowler wrote: »

Has anyone links to maps to compare the effects of cloud on thermal and PV panels?

Did you miss this link?

http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/solres/solrespvgis.htm

Cardew

noncom wrote: »

Yes, but the FIT scheme is a subsidy for clean energy microgeneration, not an investment opportunity. Rightly and properly, people will look at the financial payback for their chosen system at a particular location, but equally properly, the Feed In Tariff is linked to how much energy is generated by a system, not how much it cost to install.

The person in Lands End will get more FIT payment because they will be contributing more clean energy to the nation's mix, and achieving more towards the target of carbon emissions reduction.

That is not in dispute.

The discussion was largely centred on what differences there would be between the North and South of Britain.

That said, and following your line of thought, why should someone in SW England be able to get the FIT for, say, 5,000kWh pa(what a 4kWp sytem will produce) and someone in N Scotland only be able to get FIT for, say 3,400kWh.(what a 4kWp array will produce at that latitude)

That is the result of fixing the FIT limit at a 4kWp array size.

If it is reasonable to give an FIT subsidy for 5,000kWh in the SW, why not allow someone in Scotland to get FIT for 5,000kWh? even if it took a 6kWp array to achieve that output.

Surely it would be more sensible to award a subsidy up to a kWh output.

Dave_Fowler

Cardew wrote: »

Did you miss this link?

http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/solres/solrespvgis.htm

Hi Cardew,

I saw the link, but it seems to be aimed at solar PV panels. I assume the contours of the available radiation will be the contours of the radiation to which PV panels are sensitive, otherwise the data could be misleading. (There is no point in mapping the percentage of total radiation received at the earth's surface if a part of that radiation is of little use to PV panels).

As solar thermal panels are sensitive to a different part of the EM spectrum, I was hoping to find a similar set of information aimed at solar thermal. I expect the different EM spectrum used by the two types of panel would produce different maps.

noncom_2

Point taken.

I guess the answer is to keep the tariff tables as simple as possible.

You could equally ask why there isn't a marginal tariff reduction for increased size of installation. Currently someone with 4.1kWpeak of solar PV will earn less than someone with 3.9kWpeak because they fall into the lower band.

Andy

John_Pierpoint

Here is my (expensive for its size?!!!!) contribution from Eon - potential builders of the notorious Kingsnorth power station (It was part of a full page advert in the latest Private Eye that I picked up to read in the dentists waiting room today).
.
Am I right in thinking that the electricity generators get some sort of carbon tax relief for subsidising energy saving/alternative technology ? That is why the "dirty" National Power has been showering consumers with energy saving light bulbs, £1 a roll loft blankets, £100++ per house cavity wall insulation?

The underlining is mine:

06 April 2010 12:00
Here comes the sun: E.ON's SolarSaver scheme is a bright investment

Providing expert advice from first consultation through to producing first power, E.ON has today (TUES) launched a solar power product that gives complete peace of mind to customers looking to save on their energy bills and reduce their impact on the environment.
Imagine making money from the power of the sun - seeing the benefit on your bills whether you are using that electricity or not. E.ON SolarSaver could see total savings of more than £24,000 over the 25-year life of the Feed-In-Tariff which rewards home owners generating their own renewable energy.
With SolarSaver, home owners could ‘break even' on their initial investment in just 12 years, giving a further 13 years of profit. And by working with E.ON, one of the UK's leading renewable energy generators, customers will have the benefit of monitoring to help maximise their income.
Phil Gilbert, from E.ON, said: "We've all got a role to play in bringing down our carbon footprint and we're helping our customers do that. With the long term benefit provided by the new Feed-in Tariff they'll even make money back.
"This will be the first of many exciting new propositions we'll have for our customers, giving them the power to produce their own heat and electricity from lower carbon sources.
"SolarSaver will give customers the level of service you'd expect from one of the UK's leading energy companies; from initial consultation to survey and installation - assessing homes for suitability, helping with planning applications and identifying grants or funding to which customers may be entitled."
Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels convert light energy from the sun into electricity that can be used to directly power appliances in your home.

• A 2.1kW system will cost approximately £11,350 and could generate on average 1,588kWh of electricity each year, reducing electricity bills, attracting payments through Feed-in Tariffs and earning money selling any unused electricity back to the grid;
• For the 25-year period over which the Feed-in Tariff (FiT) operates, customers could expect to receive up to £24,000 through FiT, export payments and savings on energy bills;
• Should you decide to move house, E.ON's Solar Certificate of Performance shows prospective buyers the potential value of the installation.

Ends

Figures based based on a 2.1kW Sharp solar photovoltaic system on south-facing roof with 30o pitch in average UK weather conditions with an average annual output of 1,588kWh. Assumes FiT subsidy at 41.3p/ kWh and supply cost of 10.086p/kWh, increasing in line with inflation assumed at 2% over 25 years.
Household energy consumption based on Ofgem figures showing average consumption of 3,300 kWh consuming 50% of the electricity generated from the system and exporting the remaining 50%.