Solar Panel Guide Discussion

zeupater

celerity wrote: »

First of all, it's not just corporations benefitting from the subsidies, it is normal homeowners like many of us on here .....

Hi

Agree, however, corporations which are operating in this sector are benefiting from the subsidies in two ways.

Firstly, the structure and timescales of the existing FiT system are now being utilised by both the UK installer base and their supply chain in order to maintain artificially high prices to maximise profit levels prior to the scheduled tariff reductions, this currently holding prices at somewhere around 25% higher than would be achieveable in a more 'competitive' environment. Allowing for panel price reductions between now and when the tariff is reduced next Spring there will obviously be ample margin for the industry to respond with a matching price reduction and still maintain inflated price levels around 25% higher than available elsewhere.

The second benefit is also related to the structure of the FiT system, where tariff levels and banding, which were developed to provide compensation to individuals for early adoption of the technology at single installation consumer price levels, have been claimed by companies through the exploitation of a loophole in the definition of the FiT banding system, whether the loophole was created in a deliberate or accidental way. This allows 'rent-a-roof' scheme operators to claim tariff payment levels designed to recompense individual consumers paying 'consumer' price levels to claim the same tariff on systems which are installed against a wholesale pricing structure, or less. There are obviously both social advantages and renewables sector growth advantages in encouraging the successful operation of these businesses, however, like the recently announced FiT tariff reductions for pv systems >50kWp in order to reflect economies of scale on ROI, there should also be a review of the tariff for 'distributed systems' based on total installed capacity to address the ROI imbalance.

HTH
Z

jgrove_2

I am not sure i follow some of the discussion here, many of which seems to relate to the subsides made by tax payers to by the electricity that the scheme produce, is that correct?

I was under the impression that the electricity company had to buy the extra i supply?

I have to admit i am pretty confused now, because as far as i can tell and these figures are fictional but,

if i use 30,000 kw of elec a year
i produce 20,000 kw elec a year

i only need to buy 10,000 kw a year

even if it takes 9 years to pay for itself its better than buying the electricity of the elec board?

Or is the underlying problem the fact that the tax payer has to subsidise it?

Help!

MoneySavingTart

jgrove wrote: »

I am not sure i follow some of the discussion here, many of which seems to relate to the subsides made by tax payers to by the electricity that the scheme produce, is that correct?

I was under the impression that the electricity company had to buy the extra i supply?

I have to admit i am pretty confused now, because as far as i can tell and these figures are fictional but,

if i use 30,000 kw of elec a year
i produce 20,000 kw elec a year

i only need to buy 10,000 kw a year

even if it takes 9 years to pay for itself its better than buying the electricity of the elec board?

Or is the underlying problem the fact that the tax payer has to subsidise it?

Help!

The subsidy or FIT is paid by the electricity providers to the owner of the PV system based on what they generate.
The govt have put the scheme in place and mandated the terms under which the electricity companies have to operate.

Even if you could generate 20kWh/year you would have to be using it at precisely the same time to make a saving on your bill. There is no power storage capability in an MCS approved system.

The import and export accounts with the providers are totally separate and indeed can be with different providers.

Bob

jgrove_2

MoneySavingTart wrote: »

The subsidy or FIT is paid by the electricity providers to the owner of the PV system based on what they generate.
The govt have put the scheme in place and mandated the terms under which the electricity companies have to operate.

Even if you could generate 20kWh/year you would have to be using it at precisely the same time to make a saving on your bill. There is no power storage capability in an MCS approved system.

The import and export accounts with the providers are totally separate and indeed can be with different providers.

Bob

So we that in mind, if i sell the 20kwh i produce because i cannot use it at the time it was produced at say 1p per kwh thats 20 pence correct?

Now when i need the 20kwh back and i only pay 15p for it then i am making money?

I am now pretty confused by the whole thing, i have a meeting with an installer on friday and i am more confused now than i was before. I understand the solar technology very well, what i don't understand is gripe people have with FIT,

I also dont understand which part the tax payer subsidises?

digitaltoast

jgrove wrote: »

So we that in mind, if i sell the 20kwh i produce because i cannot use it at the time it was produced at say 1p per kwh thats 20 pence correct?

Now when i need the 20kwh back and i only pay 15p for it then i am making money?

I am now pretty confused by the whole thing, i have a meeting with an installer on friday and i am more confused now than i was before. I understand the solar technology very well,

Not to put too fine a point on it, from what you've posted, believe me you don't! Start here and work backwards. When you're done with that, read from the top of this thread again. All the answers are there.

jgrove wrote: »

what i don't understand is gripe people have with FIT,I also dont understand which part the tax payer subsidises?

"the tax payer" per se doesn't subsidise anything. The little old lady, the person renting a house, the hard working family with the roof facing the wrong way - they all subsidise it.

jgrove_2

digitaltoast wrote: »

Not to put too fine a point on it, from what you've posted, believe me you don't! /URL]and work backwards. When you're done with that, read from the top of this thread again. All the answers are there.



"the tax payer" per se doesn't subsidise anything. The little old lady, the person renting a house, the hard working family with the roof facing the wrong way - they all subsidise it.

I have spent most of the day reading articles and forum messages, i am not renting my roof or anything like that, i am simple buying the system out right in order to save money over a period of time on my electricity bill. The power i generate goes to the elec company and they pay me for it. I also use power when i have no sun and i pay them for it, so it must balance itself out. The rate they buy elec from me at as far as i can tell is fixed for 25 years (ish)

Now its clear that this is a massively contentious issue for some folk, but i really cannot see what the problem is for the first 25 years, as a potential buyer i want to know what happens after that.

Now i do know a great deal about the technology, what has been posted here are various reports and other messages that have no real basis other than one persons opinion over another.

As long as the electricity i sell back to the grid generates more income than what i buy in then i cannot see what the problem is?

If i missing the point then please explain,

For the record i have already fitted my own solar system that is not connected to my house circuits in anyway, it produces power that is stored in a battery and used via an inverter, and or 12v feeds to things like phones laptops etc, this work well but was expensive to fit.

celerity

digitaltoast wrote: »

I'm pretty sure we can take an educated guess which way it's going to go [...] By 2008 solar PV was producing a grand total of 0.6% of Germany's electricity.:

The problem with statistics is that they are very easy to cherry pick, whether intentionally or unintentionally. For example, the 0.6% in 2008 stat fails to point out that this was only 0.01% in 2000 - so the % of consumption figure was boosted 60-fold in eight years. In 2010 the figure rose more than three-fold again to 2%. Who knows what it will be like in the future, but I would suggest it will continue to rise for a while yet.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany#Statistics

Anyway, I do empathise with the points you make. I just get weary of hearing so much negativity about renewable energy, from people that very rarely have a well-thought out alternative. If the true figure of the solar FiT over 25 years is indeed £8bn, frankly I don't consider that to be so high, especially given the money we waste elsewhere. At least with the FiT we're giving a renewable source of power a decent chance, and much of the money will go to British citizens who will circulate the money round our economy anyway.

/\dam

celerity

zeupater wrote: »

The second benefit is also related to the structure of the FiT system, where tariff levels and banding, which were developed to provide compensation to individuals for early adoption of the technology at single installation consumer price levels, have been claimed by companies through the exploitation of a loophole in the definition of the FiT banding system

Agreed, like everything thought up by politicians, it was far from perfect, and crafty people soon found ways to exploit it. No argument from me there.
They have closed one potential loophole with the >50kWp change though, as you say.

To me, this is just another example of good intentions being implemented poorly. It isn't an argument against subsidising solar PV per se though.

/\dam

celerity

jgrove wrote: »

As long as the electricity i sell back to the grid generates more income than what i buy in then i cannot see what the problem is?

If i missing the point then please explain

No disrespect intended, but I think you are indeed missing the point.

The electricity you sell back gains you 3.1p/kWh (we'll ignore deeming 50% for now) but the electricity you use costs you more like 10p/kWh.

Now when i need the 20kwh back and i only pay 15p for it then i am making money?

I'm not sure what tariff you are on, but I'd expect you to be paying more like £2.00 for it.

So, with these figures, you should see that unless you can use up as much of your generated energy as is humanly possible during the day, you won't be saving much on your bill - as your evening usage will still be chargeable.

However, the FiT then steps in and makes (most of) your payback concerns vanish.

With the FiT, in addition to all of the above, you get paid a healthy 43.3p/kWh generated. Note you get paid this whether you use it or export it, it's a completely separately calculated payment.

If you run some figures through a spreadsheet you will see that the FiT pretty much renders the export / usage calculations moot - you are earning so much more with the FiT that anything else is just a nice-to-have bonus.

Hope that helps, and you might also like to look at the payback estimates from real users at http://www.uksolarcasestudy.co.uk/ (I'd discount the figures for the poor chap near Dunstable, I fear he got rather ripped off with his install fee, so his payback period is artificially high)

/\dam

jgrove_2

celerity wrote: »

Agreed, like everything thought up by politicians, it was far from perfect, and crafty people soon found ways to exploit it. No argument from me there.
They have closed one potential loophole with the >50kWp change though, as you say.

To me, this is just another example of good intentions being implemented poorly. It isn't an argument against subsidising solar PV per se though.

/\dam

Hi Adam,

Your posts have been informative, but i am struggling to see the issues with having a system fitted (not rented).

As long as i can sell electricity for more than i have to pay for it then eventually the system will pay for itself.

I am still not entirely sure why people seem to dislike the idea?

Cheers