Solar Panel Guide Discussion

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

..... The 'discussion' above is about the way the FIT scheme has evolved with installations that would produce electricty with a low subsidy(the term is relative) being curtailed to enable small installations with a high subsidy to flourish.

Hi Cardew

The above, although generally correct, is a little skewed ...

There was an obvious concern within the government that the limited funding available within the FiT scheme was likely to be consumed by large installs owned and operated by businesses, therefore not delivering the benefits of microgeneration .... I can supply another link to the relevant consultation document regarding the early reduction of the FiT tariff to support this position if requested.

The clue to the the FiT scheme being specifically related to microgeneration is detailed within the original consultation prior to launch, it's just that the detail worked on by the relevant government departments was poorly constructed & drafted which led to a number of issues with the scheme .... this is probably best supported by analysing what the 'M' stands for in 'MCS' ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Hiya Zeup, can I put you on the spot here, as arguing too long with Team GC can make me doubt my own sanity sometimes.

To counter Cardew's claims regarding export, Blossom has raised the issue of negative demand, so ignoring the FITs argument, about old historic rates, what are your thoughts on export levels?

Cardew wrote: »

That means that the electricity consumer pays less than half for each kWh they subsidise. In fact with the solar farms, unlike private houses, exporting all generated electricity the subsidy will provide around three times as much electricity.

I'm also struggling to see the difference between negative demand and positive supply. I accept that some PV'ers will use some leccy for water heating to displace E7, gas, oil etc, but I'm assuming (never safe to do so, I appreciate, but ..) this is quite low, perhaps similar to distribution losses across the grid.

So a panel on a roof, or in a farm, one increases supply, the other reduces demand, is there any net difference to 'everyone else'?

BTW Yes these arguments are silly, but having gone this far, we might as well get to the end, or this will only come up again next week.

Mart.

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

having gone this far, we might as well get to the end, or this will only come up again next week

Alas, get to the end or no, I fear it will come up next week (and the week after, and the week after . . . )

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Zeup, can I put you on the spot here, as arguing too long with Team GC can make me doubt my own sanity sometimes.

To counter Cardew's claims regarding export, Blossom has raised the issue of negative demand, so ignoring the FITs argument, about old historic rates, what are your thoughts on export levels?



I'm also struggling to see the difference between negative demand and positive supply. I accept that some PV'ers will use some leccy for water heating to displace E7, gas, oil etc, but I'm assuming (never safe to do so, I appreciate, but ..) this is quite low, perhaps similar to distribution losses across the grid.

So a panel on a roof, or in a farm, one increases supply, the other reduces demand, is there any net difference to 'everyone else'?

BTW Yes these arguments are silly, but having gone this far, we might as well get to the end, or this will only come up again next week.

Mart.

Hi

Regarding negative demand .... my thoughts - a complete red herring, misconception, or whatever you want to call it - there's simply generation and consumption so why try to be clever and complicate the issue .... you generate the electricity and it gets used by yourself or someone else ...

The idea of microgeneration is simply to move supply closer to generation and that's probably the way that most households will go in time. You can store fuel in gas form for a considerable time and distribute it pretty easily using existing infrastructure, but you can't easily store electricity and it seems that the national electricity grid/distribution is becoming a considerable profit centre .... so the question arises around the need for two grids in a micro/distributed generation environment - if an engineered solution to this is possible then there's surely a significant saving which can be passed on to all customers .... ??

Looking at negative demand from a different viewpoint ...... Of course many can't see past vast centralised plant at the moment, however it's actually power generation engineers who have developed distributed generation solutions and they actually seem to be able to satisfy the requirement for increased energy efficiencies, so I would expect to see far more cogen plants sited in built-up areas providing district heating in order to make use of what would be waste heat in most current centralised generating plant .... would that heat be seen as a negative demand, or sold ? .... it's pretty much the same quandry as talking about in-house pv production as negative demand ....

I would only really consider negative demand as being what you 'exported' ... you measure demand over time with your electricity meter in order to be charged for consumption, so negative demand must simply be a flow back to the grid, which is exactly the same as generation, from whatever source ..... if you look at it logically, a pv system cannot react to demand, it simply generates, or not, so any self-consumed generation negates the need for an import demand through the meter, so as everything has cancelled out within the premises, the result is actually zero demand at point of purchase (the meter) .... whichever way you look at it it's still really generation & demand ...

Hope this makes sense ...
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi Cardew

The above, although generally correct, is a little skewed ...

There was an obvious concern within the government that the limited funding available within the FiT scheme was likely to be consumed by large installs owned and operated by businesses, therefore not delivering the benefits of microgeneration .... I can supply another link to the relevant consultation document regarding the early reduction of the FiT tariff to support this position if requested.

The clue to the the FiT scheme being specifically related to microgeneration is detailed within the original consultation prior to launch, it's just that the detail worked on by the relevant government departments was poorly constructed & drafted which led to a number of issues with the scheme .... this is probably best supported by analysing what the 'M' stands for in 'MCS' ....

HTH
Z

Hi Z

I cannot see where my post is a 'little skewed'.

I have stated accurately that the FIT scheme gave subsidies for systems up to 5MW.

The whole thrust of my argument is that it is more cost effective to pay a low subsidy for a large system(let us call it a 'solar farm' ) rather than a high subsidy for sub 4kWp systems.

As we both stated above, there were limited funds in the FIT 'pot' (paid by all consumers) and indeed commercial enterprises were going to 'cash in'.

So we have no disagreement on that issue, and I have read the papers. The concern of the Government was that these large systems would deplete the 'pot' so on 09 June 2011 they announced that wef 01 August 2011 the FIT for installations between 251kW(TIC =Total Installed Capacity) and 5MW would be cut to 8.5p/kWh. Thus effectively killing solar farms.

Without action, the scheme would be overwhelmed," Energy and Climate Change Minister Greg Barker

The Renewable Energy Association (REA) said today the Government’s handling of the FiT review had been "poor". REA’s chief executive Gaynor Hartnell said: "Larger-scale PV [photovoltaic] has been demoniseed, when it is the most cost-effective approach. Midway through this decade we’re expecting its cost to be on par with offshore wind."

Now as you are aware I am not a fan of FIT in any shape or form(I won't quote George Monbiot;)). However it surely cannot be disputed that if consumers are to fund the FIT pot, they would have got far better value for their buck from solar farms with a lower subsidy and all electricity exported, rather than the high subsidy paid to sub 4kWp systems where only a percentage of electricity is exported .

Whilst I don't agree with the notion that the UK should 'do their bit' to drive down world prices by using solar panels, there also can be no doubt far more solar panels would be deployed, in solar farms for the same funding.

Before any further discussion, can you please give your views on the accuracy of the above.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Hi Z

I cannot see where my post is a 'little skewed'.

I have stated accurately that the FIT scheme gave subsidies for systems up to 5MW.

The whole thrust of my argument is that it is more cost effective to pay a low subsidy for a large system(let us call it a 'solar farm' ) rather than a high subsidy for sub 4kWp systems.

As we both stated above, there were limited funds in the FIT 'pot' (paid by all consumers) and indeed commercial enterprises were going to 'cash in'.

So we have no disagreement on that issue, and I have read the papers. The concern of the Government was that these large systems would deplete the 'pot' so on 09 June 2011 they announced that wef 01 August 2011 the FIT for installations between 251kW(TIC =Total Installed Capacity) and 5MW would be cut to 8.5p/kWh. Thus effectively killing solar farms.





Now as you are aware I am not a fan of FIT in any shape or form(I won't quote George Monbiot;)). However it surely cannot be disputed that if consumers are to fund the FIT pot, they would have got far better value for their buck from solar farms with a lower subsidy and all electricity exported, rather than the high subsidy paid to sub 4kWp systems where only a percentage of electricity is exported .

Whilst I don't agree with the notion that the UK should 'do their bit' to drive down world prices by using solar panels, there also can be no doubt far more solar panels would be deployed, in solar farms for the same funding.

Before any further discussion, can you please give your views on the accuracy of the above.

Hi

I always try to be an original thinker ... :D

Anyway, the skewing is really in the delivery/interpretation of the information rather than it's accuracy .... that aside, let's consider the latest available information on large UK based pv 'farms' relative to the reductions in FiT payment ...

UK Installations > 50kWp (source DECC 5920/5921 reports .. http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/energy_stats/source/fits/fits.aspx) If I'm reading this correctly it suggests that the number of installations in this category which have been accepted onto the MCS database have actually significantly increased since the reduction of the large system FiT tariff in 2011, and not decreased as proposed ....

2010 FY - 0
2011 FY - 1
2012 A - 3
2012 M - 9
2012 J - 17
2012 J - 10

... therefore, if the figures are interpreted correctly, then there seems to be a situation where FiTs are falling and at the same time the number of installations is rising, which seems to contradict the premise that .... "... lots of businesses/councils/farmers etc who wanted to set up large solar systems(solar farms if you like) were content to receive a subsidy(FIT) of 20p/kWh? Their plans being scuppered when the Government stopped the 20p FIT for these systems" .... which seemed to be the catalyst for much debate and what formed the basis for the later post which I would still classify as being a 'little skewed' ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Now as you are aware I am not a fan of FIT in any shape or form(I won't quote George Monbiot;)). However it surely cannot be disputed that if consumers are to fund the FIT pot, they would have got far better value for their buck from solar farms with a lower subsidy and all electricity exported, rather than the high subsidy paid to sub 4kWp systems where only a percentage of electricity is exported .

Whilst I don't agree with the notion that the UK should 'do their bit' to drive down world prices by using solar panels, there also can be no doubt far more solar panels would be deployed, in solar farms for the same funding.

Well, I'm struggling to find your 40/20p too. The best I can find is this OFGEM link.

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Pages/MoreInformation.aspx?docid=1&refer=Sustainability/Environment/fits/tariff-tables

It seems to suggest that PV farms (stand alone) would get 32.2p, however I think that is after the 1/4/12 upgrade, so 30.7p before, so unless I'm missing something, the actual comparison is:

43.3p + 1.55p = 44.85p
30.7p + 3.1p = 33.8p

33.8 / 44.85 = 75.36%

If you can show where you got 20p from, I'd appreciate it, and I think someone else would too.

This would suggest that a PV farm can be viable with a subsidy 10x the export rate. The question is, can one be viable without a subsidy, can leccy be generated for less than 4.5p/kWh after all fixed and variable costs have been accounted for?

Now, putting this blind alley to bed, any chance you'll provide some info to support your assertions that a PV farm (stand alone) can reach subsidy free viability before domestic / commercial installs?

Also, are you now happy that positive supply and negative demand result in the same net effect eg generate 2 units, export 2 units, grid supply +2 units, or generate 2 units, export 1 unit, import 1 less unit, grid supply +2 units? Can we tick that one off Monbiot's list?

Mart.

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I always try to be an original thinker ... :D

Anyway, the skewing is really in the delivery/interpretation of the information rather than it's accuracy .... that aside, let's consider the latest available information on large UK based pv 'farms' relative to the reductions in FiT payment ...

UK Installations > 50kWp (source DECC 2920/5921 reports .. http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/energy_stats/source/fits/fits.aspx) If I'm reading this correctly it suggests that the number of installations in this category which have been accepted onto the MCS database have actually significantly increased since the reduction of the large system FiT tariff in 2011, and not decreased as proposed ....

2010 FY - 0
2011 FY - 1
2012 A - 3
2012 M - 9
2012 J - 17
2012 J - 10

... therefore, if the figures are interpreted correctly, then there seems to be a situation where FiTs are falling and at the same time the number of installations is rising, which seems to contradict the premise that .... "... lots of businesses/councils/farmers etc who wanted to set up large solar systems(solar farms if you like) were content to receive a subsidy(FIT) of 20p/kWh? Their plans being scuppered when the Government stopped the 20p FIT for these systems" .... which seemed to be the catalyst for much debate and what formed the basis for the later post which I would still classify as being a 'little skewed' ...

HTH
Z

Hi,

That link seems to be for sub 50kW systems, unless I am reading it incorrectly.(you state also you are not sure)

The statistics presented in the table below, show the number of sub 50kW solar photovoltaic installations and capacity installed at the end of each week

I specifically stated the FIT rate on 01/08/2011 for installations between 250kW and 5MW was 8.5p/kWh and is 7.1p/kWh now.

The rates for up to 50kW are 13.5p/12.15p/kWh(higher and lower rates) and 50kW to 250kW are 11.5p/10.35p/kWh.

However if your reading of the stats is correct or not, surely that still confirms my contention that any size of installation over 4kWp(and thus getting a lower rate of FIT than the sub 4kWp system) is better value to the consumer in that they get more generated electricity for the subsidy they fund.

Let us not get too mired down in detailed figures it is sufficient to state that 7.1p to 13.5p is a lower rate than the 16p/kWh for sub 4kWp systems.

I merely want to establish the principle that a lower FIT subsidy, for larger systems is more cost effective and a better use of our funds.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Let us not get too mired down in detailed figures it is sufficient to state that 7.1p to 13.5p is a lower rate than the 16p/kWh for sub 4kWp systems.

I merely want to establish the principle that a lower FIT subsidy, for larger systems is more cost effective and a better use of our funds.

Only if:

1. The aim is to maximise short term generation, as opposed to creating a viable micro-generation industry. And

2. If somebody builds them.

You should also note that the rate for larger installs is not being reduced in Nov, as so little has been installed. This will help to balance rates over time. From Nov, the comparison (for stand alone) will be 15.44p + 2.25p = 17.69p v's 7.1p + 4.5p = 11.6p

11.6/17.69 = 66%

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Now, putting this blind alley to bed, any chance you'll provide some info to support your assertions that a PV farm (stand alone) can reach subsidy free viability before domestic / commercial installs?


Mart.

Perhaps you can point to my assertions(note plural) that a PV farm (stand alone) can reach subsidy free viability before domestic / commercial installs?