Feed In Tariffs(FIT) Announced.

Cardew

cliffski wrote: »

You have to be seriously anti-renewables to find the FIT objectionable.

Absolutely not so!

I am totally against just about the most inefficient form of generation that can be devised.

It is completely crazy to get people to spend anything up to £20,000 and pay a subsidy of 41.3 pence for every kWh generated - that subsidy coming from our pockets.

Even more crazy to let commercial firms cash in on a system meant for individuals.

Renewable energy can(and is) be generated at a fraction of the cost of these little systems on the roof of a house. Apart from wind farms, if solar PV is deemed necessary then erect massive solar farms on the roof of warehouses/factories/supermarkets in the sunnier South of England.

cliffski

Why is a large installation on a supermarket roof better than on my roof? A nice earner for a billion pound company, but no different otherwise.
A square foot of my roof will generate the same energy as a square foot of sainsburys, except my roof is closer to where the energy is used than my house is to the local supermarket.
Long live the FIT, its the first step in our history towards truly de-centralised, democratised power generation and ownership.

Mcfi5dhc

cliffski wrote: »

Why is a large installation on a supermarket roof better than on my roof? A nice earner for a billion pound company, but no different otherwise.
A square foot of my roof will generate the same energy as a square foot of sainsburys, except my roof is closer to where the energy is used than my house is to the local supermarket.
Long live the FIT, its the first step in our history towards truly de-centralised, democratised power generation and ownership.

There are lots of arguements about this, but the main one is about companies giving out solar pv for free.

Generally, massive installations get a lower rate of FIT - I don't know the exact numbers but for an imaginary example, if ABC Company fitted 1000 panels on the roof of a supermarket, they might get 10/20/30p a unit (I don't know what it is, but it is lower). But, by splitting the 1000 panels into groups of 12, or 24 panels and sticking them onto other peoples homes, they get the maximum 41.3p a unit, which is fiddling or manipulating the intended system.

Yes they have overheads, but they also have a watertight contract, which basically means if you, the homeowner, try and get out of the contract, you are stuffed.

It is almost inconcivable that a real solar farm THAT MAKES MONEY will be built in the UK. I am a big solar fan, but we are not ideally placed in the UK. What ASG and the others are doing, is building a solar farm that does make money, but in a backdoor kind of way.

If the law changed, and "give out solar for free on peoples roofs" solar companies suddenly counted as solar farms, they would be in financial trouble very quickly,

Cardew

cliffski wrote: »

Why is a large installation on a supermarket roof better than on my roof?

Economy of scale!

Surely you can see that to fit and maintain an installation of, say, 1,000 panels in a single location is far more cost effective, efficient and 'Green' than fitting, say, 20 panels to 50 houses.

Think of the saving in time, scaffolding, equipment, cabling etc and the electricity is fed directly into the National Grid(so it doesn't matter where your house is situated)

In addition they can be installed in ideal locations in Southern England where the output is higher, rather than in multiple locations further north.

We, the customers, are paying for the subsidy, and if we are to pay for solar PV(which will never be viable in UK) then it makes sense to produce that as efficiently and in an environmentally friendly manner as possible.

Doc_N

Cardew wrote: »

Economy of scale!

Surely you can see that to fit and maintain an installation of, say, 1,000 panels in a single location is far more cost effective, efficient and 'Green' than fitting, say, 20 panels to 50 houses.

Think of the saving in time, scaffolding, equipment, cabling etc and the electricity is fed directly into the National Grid(so it doesn't matter where your house is situated)

In addition they can be installed in ideal locations in Southern England where the output is higher, rather than in multiple locations further north.

We, the customers, are paying for the subsidy, and if we are to pay for solar PV(which will never be viable in UK) then it makes sense to produce that as efficiently and in an environmentally friendly manner as possible.

You may be right, but you do need to take account of the fact that roofspace is 'free' to these companies, but acquiring or renting suitable land in the south of England certainly isn't!

noncom_2

Also, it's all very well to fantasise about large scale wind or solar farms, but we know very well that in practice most proposed schemes are derailed by NIMBY objections.

Changing the national/local planning laws to make the threshold for objecting to a "Green" energy generation farm higher than for other types of development would be one way to go (and arguably a better way, indeed), but unquestionably the FIT scheme with its tiny associated changes to planning controls allowing such installations in almost all circumstances was easier.

Also, I do think there's merit in the argument that if people have their own energy generation equipment, it will encourage better understanding of energy consumption and greater efficiency in the household, in a way that living next to a wind farm could not.

Cardew

noncom wrote: »

Also, it's all very well to fantasise about large scale wind or solar farms, but we know very well that in practice most proposed schemes are derailed by NIMBY objections.

Changing the national/local planning laws to make the threshold for objecting to a "Green" energy generation farm higher than for other types of development would be one way to go (and arguably a better way, indeed), but unquestionably the FIT scheme with its tiny associated changes to planning controls allowing such installations in almost all circumstances was easier.

Also, I do think there's merit in the argument that if people have their own energy generation equipment, it will encourage better understanding of energy consumption and greater efficiency in the household, in a way that living next to a wind farm could not.

Wind farms are a completely different issue to solar farms. Unsightly and noise issues are the understandable NIMBY objections.

However there are thousands of industrial estates with huge warehouses, factories, office blocks and supermarkets where solar PV could be mounted on the roof without any NIMBY objections.

noncom_2

Fair point.

Cardew

My back garden!


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/pictures/2008/02/06/hugesolarplant_276.jpg


This might be the future for factories:
http://www.pv-tech.org/news/_a/global_solar_rolls_out_flexible_cigs_module_for_commercial_industrial_rooft/

shoi

Cardew wrote: »

....and if we are to pay for solar PV(which will never be viable in UK).....

I don't accept never. If a normal house produces say 1000kwH, and if the normal commercial price for the consumer price increases to say 25p, thats £250 a year for 20 years makes £5000 (note this assumes no subsidy). That should be achievable on a new build house pretty soon (I'd be inclined to say it should be compulsory for most new builds). nanosolar.com have an interesting story to tell, and there's a whole bunch of other startups working on increased efficiency, lower installation cost etc.
However for those who can afford the outlay now, I think the economics will never get better, and yes I don't think it's a good use of taxpayers money. (I've previously described the deal in France, which is even more generous)