Solar Panel Guide Discussion

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.


Mart.

You are just unbelievable! 'Only if' indeed!

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

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

Isn't this constant dodging getting ridiculous!

In earlier discussions it was stated that PV would become viable in domestic installs before PV farms. Therefore it was better 'economically' to concentrate on those.

You've been touting that farms can be viable too. Based on your 40/20p numbers (which I still can't find anywhere).

So 'economically' what is the best use of FITs money, to build solar farms that may not become viable for a very long time, or promote an industry to build smaller on roof systems, that will not need subsidies?

Are you now saying that PV farms won't be viable first, but you'd still rather put the monies there? Again, the aim of PV FITs isn't to provide the maximum number of kWh's per £ of subsidy, but to establish a subsidy free tool for our CO2 fighting toolbox.

Cardew wrote: »

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.

Same thing, 'more cost effective' means long term results, not short term gains. the sooner viability is reached, the more generation you will get, for no more subsidy. I've been saying all year, you need to look at the big picture, and the goals of this scheme.

Mart.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Hi,

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



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.

Hi

File '5921-monthly-mcs-and-roofit-statistics' .. summary pv only ... Table 1 gives a monthly breakdown of MCS installations for 2012 in bands <10/10-50/>50kWp in terms of no of installations/month and also installed capacity ...

File '5920-monthly-central-feedin-tariff-register-statistics (1)' .. Annual CFR- Confirmation Date gives a breakdown summary of MCS installations for 2010 & 2011 in detailed bands between 0kWp and 5MWp (including >50kWp) with data entries above 50kWp only existing in the 50-100kWp banding, all larger bands containg no entries ....

The abovemention files are the data source for the previous analysis and the only potential issue I see is that there is an additional 'standalone' summary line in the 5920 file which contains 179 pv systems totalling 2206kWp, an average system size of 12.3kWp - however this does not exclude the possibility of a very few systems being in the >50kWp banding .... this is why I'm not certain about the data - it's simply not presented in a manner which is clear enough to be certain .....

Discussing large MCS scheme systems in bands other than >50kWp and specifically concentrating on 250kWp-5[STRIKE]0[/STRIKE]MWp is simply an unnecessary diversion because there simply aren't any within the MCS scheme dataset .....

Reitterating .... using the official government data, the number of large installations (>50kWp) which are registered for FiT payments has risen significantly in the period since the reduction of the payable FiT tariff ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

This link may be useful, as it has current and future FIT rates, plus a breakdown of recent installs. However, it is does look to be a semi-commercial site.

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/november_fit_rates_revealed_2356

Using the digression, it's possible for larger installs to get progressively better rates than smaller ones (and vice versa) depending on install levels.

Mart.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

This link may be useful, as it has current and future FIT rates, plus a breakdown of recent installs. However, it is does look to be a semi-commercial site.

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/november_fit_rates_revealed_2356

Using the digression, it's possible for larger installs to get progressively better rates than smaller ones (and vice versa) depending on install levels.

Mart.

Hi

Looks like the only useful information there which is relevant to the recent discussion is to confirm that there are no MCS registered installs above the 50-100kWp banding ...

HTH
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Discussing large MCS scheme systems in bands other than >50kWp and specifically concentrating on 250kWp-50MWp is simply an unnecessary diversion because there simply aren't any within the MCS scheme dataset .....


HTH
Z

Hi,

Firstly I assume that is a typo - and should be 5MWp?

Sorry but I really don't agree that it is a diversion; and cannot see your logic for that statement.

It is central to the point I have been making; there would have been large solar farms that would have been more cost effective.

The reason the FIT was reduced to 8.5p/kWh at short notice for systems 250kWp to 5MWp was to prevent those large systems 'swallowing' the FIT pot.

"Without action, the scheme would be overwhelmed," Energy and Climate Change Minister Greg Barker said. "The new tariffs will ensure a sustained growth path for the solar industry while protecting the money for householders, small businesses and communities and will also further encourage the uptake of green electricity from anaerobic digestion."

Cost
According to a release from DECC, every five megawatt (MW) solar project would cost about £1.3 million per year at the previous tariff rate. Twenty schemes of this size would cost approximately £26 million, an amount that could otherwise support installations for over 25,000 residences.

So of course there aren't any schemes because the FIT was cut to a level, at short notice, to ensure large systems were not viable.

However they allow A Shade Greener with 10,000+ x 3.3kWp(33.3MW if my arithmetic is correct) to collect 41.3p/kWh on those installations.

jamesingram

http://www.photon-international.com/news_archiv/details.aspx?cat=News_PI&sub=media&pub=4&parent=3379

"Photovoltaics cause prices to drop on the European Electricity Exchange

July, 2011: On July 16, the price of electricity on the EEX dropped to off-peak night levels in the middle of the day"

Is this how FITs subsides may in the future benefit its funders , the public purse.

Cardew

Blossom2528 wrote: »

Do you own a large field, is that why you are so angry all the time. Want to compete for business with a shade greener.

Two more posts in your normal style I note!

grahamc2003

I just thought I'd run through some of the recent rooftop PV installation figures to put the aptly named 'micro-generation' into some sort of perspective.

It seems that with all the solar pv on peoples' roofs (i.e. those in the highest fit rate band), the total annual generation from the lot is less than 2 days generation from our largest coal fired station when generating at its maximum power.

Cardew

jamesingram wrote: »

Is this how FITs subsides may in the future benefit its funders , the public purse.

James,

Not sure I understand that statement/question.

The 'public purse' does not fund FIT subsidies. FIT subsidies are funded by a levy on all electricity consumers.