The Great 'Get Paid To Generate Energy' Hunt

Cardew

Even the self-appointed uber-environmentalist(George Monboit) thinks the solar subsidy scheme in UK is stupid.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/mar/11/solar-power-germany-feed-in-tariff

At last he speaks sense!!!

Jon_Tiffany

Cardew wrote: »

IMO companies like ASG have exploited a loophole in the regulations - not that I am criticising them.

FIT payments reduce as the size of the system increases; for systems < 4kWp it is 41.3p/kWh and reduces as the system size increases.

The Government in announcing the introduction of FITs stated:



Note 'small scale'

Nobody could call the ASG operation, with hundreds/thousands of systems, small scale. Yet they get an untaxed, inflation linked income that was intended to go to private householders.

It would be far more efficient - and cost us consumers a lot less money in subsidies( which are profit to ASG) if thousands of panels were erected in a field or on the roof of the huge factories warehouses. Economy of scale, mimimal installation/maintenance costs etc. However large scale systems don't get the large FITs.

I am amazed that the Government allowed a commercial large scale system to masquerade as lots of small scale systems. However as we the energy customers pay the subsidy in increased charges - and not the government - they don't care.

In any case my statement that the FITs are for the better off still applies. You have to own, not rent, a house(not a flat). Then the house has to have an unshaded south facing roof of sufficient size and strength for the panels - hardly a level playing field.

They do not get the income tax free - they will pay tax just like any other company. The tax free part is only for individuals.

From what Sarah from ASG posted on here they liased with Whitehall before luanching the company and went to great lengths (and expense) with their lawyers to confirm it was all ok.

Ok, I'll agree that those in flats and rented homes are going to miss out - unless they get themselves a job working for ASG? Or in the Sharp factory in Wales that is ramping up output. Or a job working any one of the many new companies starting up?

At least some of the money that goes into companies like ASG will make it back into the system through taxes. Don't we all benefit from the UK reducing its CO2 output? I understand there are big fines if we dont hit the targets.

Dont we all benefit from cleaner air? - Actually, maybe not given the way everyone is getting log burners.

zeupater

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

They do not get the income tax free - they will pay tax just like any other company. The tax free part is only for individuals.

From what Sarah from ASG posted on here they liased with Whitehall before luanching the company and went to great lengths (and expense) with their lawyers to confirm it was all ok.

Ok, I'll agree that those in flats and rented homes are going to miss out - unless they get themselves a job working for ASG? Or in the Sharp factory in Wales that is ramping up output. Or a job working any one of the many new companies starting up?

At least some of the money that goes into companies like ASG will make it back into the system through taxes. Don't we all benefit from the UK reducing its CO2 output? I understand there are big fines if we dont hit the targets.

Dont we all benefit from cleaner air? - Actually, maybe not given the way everyone is getting log burners.

Hi Jon Tiffany

I think that what Cardew was trying to convey is that the FiT payment is set at a level where there is a likely payback for individuals who invest in solar pv technology.

The payment per generated kWh has been calculated at a level to cover the end users' equipment and fitting, an allowance for some maintenance/equipment replacement in order to return the investment over a period of time, with an incentive in the form of an eventual profit.

Now looking at why the scheme was introduced, and the set level of payment per kWh, it is obvious that FiTs were not intended to be 'hijacked' by corporate bodies. The very fact that they have been probably means that the supporting legislation was flawed, which should be addressed urgently, not doing so will just transfer money from the energy users pockets to the corporations operating schemes such as this.

Looking at the typical European prices for solar pv and working on the assumption that large companies will, due to economies of scale, be purchasing at or below these levels, you will see the returns are potentially huge. I would suggest that companies operating in order to take advantage of the FiT scheme should have the payments capped at a percentage of the full 'end user' payment, possibly at somewhere between 1/2 & 2/3 of the full payment, which would bring the corporate ROI to a level more in line with what was originally intended for the end user.

Cardew

Zeupater,

Spot on.

Obviously ASG and the other firms would not have invested the £millions without getting the go ahead from Whitehall.

However we now clearly have the position where every household using mains electricity(99.999%) is paying a levy to fund FITs.

The vast majority of the 20+ million electricity customers in UK are in no position to benefit from solar PV(self financed or with an ASG type system) as they live in flats, their roof is too small, facing the wrong way, is shaded etc or live in rented accomodation.

It is bad enough that they have to pay this levy to those owners lucky enough to be able to fit solar PV, but to pay this levy to firms like ASG who have seen what is very obviously a loophole in the regulations is rubbing salt into the wounds.

The very clear intent of the regulations is to pay households with small systems(under 4kWp) a high rate of FIT. Firms who generate large scale electricity get much lower subsidies, and by any sensible interpretation ASG etc are large scale generating firm, yet we pay them for having found a loophole in the regulations.

beedydad

Cardew wrote: »

Zeupater,

Spot on.

Obviously ASG and the other firms would not have invested the £millions without getting the go ahead from Whitehall.

However we now clearly have the position where every household using mains electricity(99.999%) is paying a levy to fund FITs.

The vast majority of the 20+ million electricity customers in UK are in no position to benefit from solar PV(self financed or with an ASG type system) as they live in flats, their roof is too small, facing the wrong way, is shaded etc or live in rented accomodation.

It is bad enough that they have to pay this levy to those owners lucky enough to be able to fit solar PV, but to pay this levy to firms like ASG who have seen what is very obviously a loophole in the regulations is rubbing salt into the wounds.

The very clear intent of the regulations is to pay households with small systems(under 4kWp) a high rate of FIT. Firms who generate large scale electricity get much lower subsidies, and by any sensible interpretation ASG etc are large scale generating firm, yet we pay them for having found a loophole in the regulations.

Cardew, well said could not agree more.

I am sure that this will get reviewed/is being reviewed within Whitehall/Govt as it is not achieiving what the aim of FIT is supposed to do.

I think it is a solar industry disaster waiting to happen!!!

I am also sure that people who have taken up the "free" solar offer will, in a couple of years, forget that they only get a £100 - £150 discount off their electricity bill (which they may have realised at the start!) and no FIT and start whinging that their solar systems just do not produce much savings at all!! Then what happens?

Regards

Doc_N

beedydad wrote: »

Cardew, well said could not agree more.

I am sure that this will get reviewed/is being reviewed within Whitehall/Govt as it is not achieiving what the aim of FIT is supposed to do.

I think it is a solar industry disaster waiting to happen!!!

I am also sure that people who have taken up the "free" solar offer will, in a couple of years, forget that they only get a £100 - £150 discount off their electricity bill (which they may have realised at the start!) and no FIT and start whinging that their solar systems just do not produce much savings at all!! Then what happens?

Regards

Probably going to get even more interesting now that British Gas have entered the market.

I think the whingeing really going to get going once a house has been sold, and the new owners realise that they can't put their own system in. They should know that at the outset, of course, and it might make all the difference between selling and not selling a house - but people have short memories.

Jon_Tiffany

Doc_N wrote: »

Probably going to get even more interesting now that British Gas have entered the market.

I think the whingeing really going to get going once a house has been sold, and the new owners realise that they can't put their own system in. They should know that at the outset, of course, and it might make all the difference between selling and not selling a house - but people have short memories.

The lease will come up in the searches so any prospective buyer would be well aware of what is in place. For some buyers it will be seen as a plus point, a house with lower electric bills has more value. However, if a prospective buyer wants to install their own system then this will be a negative point.

I am already aware of people who are moving home and a criteria for the new house is to have a south facing roof.

Cardew

beedydad wrote: »

Cardew, well said could not agree more.

I am sure that this will get reviewed/is being reviewed within Whitehall/Govt as it is not achieiving what the aim of FIT is supposed to do.

I think it is a solar industry disaster waiting to happen!!!

I am also sure that people who have taken up the "free" solar offer will, in a couple of years, forget that they only get a £100 - £150 discount off their electricity bill (which they may have realised at the start!) and no FIT and start whinging that their solar systems just do not produce much savings at all!! Then what happens?

Regards

If the Government were paying the FIT subsidy, then perhaps they might look at the obvious anomaly of firms cashing in, a little closer.

However it is the electricity consumers that will pay for the firms profits in higher electricity prices.

When we do get proper smart metering, I think that a lot of people are going to be very disappointed at just how little they are saving from the ASG type systems.(where the firm get the FIT). I would not be surprised, from the reports I have read, if people will only use around 400kWh per year of the generated electricity - saving £40 a year or so.

As for people wanting rid of the systems to fit their own, no matter how watertight the legal agreement I suspect a campaign giving the 'right to buy' might achieve results. Either that or there will be a lot of 'power surges' damaging inverters!!

John_Pierpoint

It seems that the Economist (sister magazine to the Financial Times) has been investigating these transfer payments/subsidies.

The reason we are forced to do this, rather than go in for carbon capture (say), is because as a society we are signed up to "sustainability", rather than "carbon reduction".

Perhaps the "sustainability" of a world, with a population heading for 10 - 12 billion, is quietly making its way up the planning agenda; but no politician dares to say so?

aboard_epsilon

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Perhaps the "sustainability" of a world, with a population heading for 10 - 12 billion, is quietly making its way up the planning agenda; but no politician dares to say so?

yeah, agree with that .reduce the population growth or reverse it ..and forget about this carbon crap.

all the best.markj