Export Tariff - "Opting Out" - Can I keep my own energy please?

Cardew

ClaimYourEnergy wrote: »

Hi Cardew,

OK, while I was unaware that the government were raisng the subsidy via the utility companies, it is indeed them who arranged it. From an earlier post ...


OK, even from just this one quote, I can see that others are subsidising. The point being, I did not know that the government were going to raise it via the utility companies rather than through normal taxation. However, even so, I still stand by the fact that there are many other "taxes" that I would not agree with, but I still pay into them. Maybe this is just one that can help me for a change. As I say in a post above, however, it is probably best not to be side-tracked by this, as we both agree that others do help subsidise the panels via a government decision.

CYE

Not sure what your conclusions are!

You get 44.85p as a subsidy for every kWh you generate.

Although you have been paid a stupidly high subsidy for each of those generated kWh, you are allowed to use as many of those kWh in your house as you want and not be charged anything for that consumption.

Now the whole point of your posts appears to be that somehow you feel you are being 'ripped off'.

So what are you now saying please?

ClaimYourEnergy

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

ClaimYourEnergy,

For grid storage come back about 2050 and ask again, it might just be at the very beginning provided the worlds governments put zi££ions into research starting this bonfire night. Put something like the following into your search engine:

- grid storage 2011
- energy storage 2011
- electrochemical energy storage for grid applications 2011

The fact of the matter is bolting more and more renewable's on the grid is unworkable, and storage is cost prohibitive, even if the cost of grid storage was to come down 50% [ish] it would only pay for the energy storage losses of 50% [ish]. Until we can develop a cost effective bulk redistribution storage system that will shift wind / panel / marine-wave / etc energy from off-peak to on-peak availability this whole debate is sterile, and all energy customers in the UK will continue subsidising your panels.

Hi Richie-from-the-Boro,

"... and storage is cost prohibitive ... " OK, if this is the case, then it explains a lot!

I believe I have learned some things tonight ...

1) Energy storage has a limit, even on the grid.
2) There is significant energy loss in travel affecting cost.
3) The cost of storage is prohibitive.

When you take these three aspects into account, then I can begin to see why there is a difference in cost when there is storage and travel between locations involved.

If these aspects are as costly and as inefficient as described, then I guess it would account for the difference between "banking" a unit at one price and paying to have it returned to you.

Ladies and gentlemen, if all these elements I list above are accurate and true, then I believe you may have given me a greater understanding that helps explain the differences in cost. Obviously, there is no easy way for a layman to calculate these costs, so I guess it is something to take on trust.

So, my main misunderstanding was the cost of energy storage and costs involved moving energy around. Now why didn't someone say that from the start ...

Many thanks to everybody who helped explain this to me. :T

On the other hand, if someone else thinks these aspects are insignificant, then please let me know so I can start the debate all over again.

EDIT: I just read this .. hang on ...

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Just for a bit of clarity - there is no loss of energy into the ether.

Wil hang around a bit longer just to make sure I do have this right ...

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Getting back on topic and the quest for a 'fair' selling price of excess solar energy to the local grid - I'd say a fair price is the price the supplier can buy at during that period. On average, during the day, I'd say that buying price is about 3.1p (coincidence I'm sure). Most business sell at a higher price than they buy at (suppliers sell electricity at about 3 times the purchase price, on average).

Ah, now this gets back to my main argument again .... Surely, in the case of me just supplying some energy for "free", can't they then return the energy at "cost" of transferring it back to me? (See my earlier calculation. This would also explain why you can "negotiate" a price for Exporting then?

grahamc2003 wrote: »

How things change - it was only last week that someone was arguing that for most solar panel owners, their motivation was not money but the thought of helping the environment!

Just a general point on the subject of this thread.

To be honest, "helping the environment" was a welcome addition to the investment. Don't misunderstand me, I am very happy that the investment has some benefit to the environment, but as money is as much an issue (unfortunately) to me as the next man, then I have to be sensible and consider the financial implications of such an investment as well. I just considered this was a win-win situation for anybody that was in the position to take advantage of it. If I lived in a flat, I would not begrudge my neighbour (who might live in a house) from investing in one. In fact, I would still encourage it because of the benefits to the environment. I would not have even considered what money they may be or may not be making from it. Having said that, I am also encouraging those that are in a position to have one fitted and can afford it to consider it. After all, although yet unproven, the idea sounds good for anybody who can do it.

CYE

albyota

ClaimYour Energy, for goodness sake be thankful for what you are already being paid in FITs and Export.

grahamc2003

albyota wrote: »

What We should be doing is building Hydro plants with large reservoirs all over the UK and using Solar PV during the day to power pumps that pump water from lower reservoir to upper....then at peak times at night 'Advert breaks', and morning 'Kettle on' these plants would provide the surge power, now this would also have to be paid by everyone.

QUOTE]

If you mean Pumped storage, like Dinorwig, then it's not as easy as it sounds. They are expensive to build (Dinorwig was the most expensive civil engineering project in the world when built), and you need suitable topography - which is scarce in england and wales.

You need lots of power to pump water uphill - Dinorwig needs about 275MW, so you'd need 90,000 solar systems at 3kw, each producing maximum power (which wouldn't happen often) to drive the pumps. If each solar installation cost £13k, those solar systems would cost £1.17bn. (of course if they each only export 50%, then you'd need 180,000 at a £2.34bn cost! (all ignoring transmission losses, but you get the picture).

albyota

I think you are missing the point Graham2003, you are talking about one F...ing large plant, you are are also taking what £13K...??? as a cost for installing 3kWp system on a house and using that figure......this would certainly not be the case if building numerous smaller hydro plants.

ClaimYourEnergy

Cardew wrote: »

Not sure what your conclusions are!

You get 44.85p as a subsidy for every kWh you generate.

Although you have been paid a stupidly high subsidy for each of those generated kWh, you are allowed to use as many of those kWh in your house as you want and not be charged anything for that consumption.

Now the whole point of your posts appears to be that somehow you feel you are being 'ripped off'.

So what are you now saying please?

Hi Cardew,

Because I see the Generation Tariff purely as an equivilent to a government grant to help encourage me to invest in greener energy. I consider it an investment in a technology as well as any additional benefits to the environment. (See post above.) Like any investment, there is a risk it will lose as well as gain, in this case, subject to weather conditions and equipment performance over a long period of time. However, I think the risk better than the current stock market options that offer similar returns. Thi spart of the return I consider my choice to enter or not, and understand the risks involved.

The "ripped off" feeling was from the point of view of the Export Tariff section, where I felt that being charged "full price" for a unit of energy I only passed onto the utility company five minutes ago for free.

I still think there is an argument to be raised here (after reading Graham2003 post) in that I now understand that they charge 3 times the amount they pay for it. If, however, I supplied it for nothing and wish to use it for my own use five minutes later (time a little irrelevent here), that they could return it at cost (i.e. Add costs of storage and transfer).

However, it is these "costs" that I may be under the wrong impression, if I am understanding other posters. i.e. How much does it cost a utility supplier to store and deliver 1 unit of electricty?

I am simply asking for the same unit I just created back at the cost of their storage and delivery. From a little simple math, I am not sure they are delivering this unit at a cost that is fair to me in the circumstances of it being a unit I generated.

Does this make sense?

CYE

ClaimYourEnergy

albyota wrote: »

ClaimYour Energy, for goodness sake be thankful for what you are already being paid in FITs and Export.

Hi albyota,

I am happy with the Generation Tariff.

I would also be happy with the Export Tariff if I am receiving a fair price for it. I am not sure that I am.

Some good explanations have been given with respect to storgae of a unit and delivery of said unit, but from what Graham2003 has just said, a utility company trebles the cost of a unit they pay for. The question is, how much of this cost is for simple stirage and supply and how much is for profit?

I am saying that for the units I produce and they acquire on a temporary basis, I do not expect them to earn profit on that unit. Charge me for storage and transfer, yes, but I cannot see a good argument for making a profit on it under the circumstances when I would be using the same unit almost immediately they have received it.

CYE

DVardysShadow

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Just for a bit of clarity - there is no loss of energy into the ether. When there is an instantaneous surplus of generation over demand, the excess energy is stored as an addition to the angular kinetic energy in the system (i.e. the generator sets - all of them - increase their rpm a tiny fraction), and the grid frequency rises. The converse is also true. The frequency varies a little all the time around the 50 Hz average.

To complete this picture, when the frequency rises, steam is cut off to the generators by governors attached to turbines - the governors will regulate a large percentage of steam for a small change in frequency. These governors effectively maintain grid stability.

When the steam is cut off, then the pressure and temperature available will rise. This stores far more energy than the small change in the speed of the turbine generators. But when the pressure limit for the steam is reached, it will be blown off to atmosphere. It is regarded as bad management to be continuously hovering around this state, but when it happens, energy is effectively being blown into the ether.

HappyMJ

grahamc2003 wrote: »

If you mean Pumped storage, like Dinorwig, then it's not as easy as it sounds. They are expensive to build (Dinorwig was the most expensive civil engineering project in the world when built), and you need suitable topography - which is scarce in england and wales.

You need lots of power to pump water uphill - Dinorwig needs about 275MW, so you'd need 90,000 solar systems at 3kw, each producing maximum power (which wouldn't happen often) to drive the pumps. If each solar installation cost £13k, those solar systems would cost £1.17bn. (of course if they each only export 50%, then you'd need 180,000 at a £2.34bn cost! (all ignoring transmission losses, but you get the picture).

According to Wikipedia Dinorwig is a 1800MW power station. It has 6 300MW generator/motors. Now how about that figure in solar panels...LOL...£15.6billions...and the power station is only 75% efficient so for 1800MW consumed to pump the water into the reservoir we'll only get back 1350MW.

Cardew

ClaimYourEnergy wrote: »

Hi Cardew,

See some of my previous posts with resepct to the differences between the Generation Tariff and the Export Tarrif. There is a difference between the two!

I am NOT arguing against the Generation Tariff, which I agree has been subsidised by others via an increase in utility bills as sanctioned by the government. This is good for some people and bad for others, as are many "taxes" (or equivilent payments) that affect people in different ways.

HOWEVER, the Export Tariff is seperate from the main tariff and is something a person can opt in or out of and is between the energy provider and utility company. As I say in an earlier post, I am arguing for the fair payment of energy created and supplied / bought back from the utility companies. Nothing to do with the Generate Tariff where some people lose out.

To keep this simple, we can leave the argument for the Generation tariff completely out of the picture, as I am in full agreement with you and everybody else about this, even if I at first thought the government were subsidising it via taxes rather than utility bills. It is still the government and people are still subsidising .... we agree on this point.

Please help me to discuss the issue with the Export tariff, which surely I have clearly defined by now?

CYE

No of course we can't exclude the Generation Tariff(FIT) from the discussion.

Wouldn't it be fair that for every kWh you used in the house, and thus didn't export, that you were paid no FIT?

or

Wouldn't it be fair that for every kWh you used in the house, you paid the going rate i.e. approx 10P/kWh?

I can't say this often enough, we - the electricty consumers - are paying you a huge amount of money for each kWh you generate and you are putting up a case that we should pay you more.