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

ClaimYourEnergy

Cardew wrote: »

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.

Hi Cardew,

I am NOT excluding the Generation Tariff from the discussion, BUT am saying that I believe it to be a tariff that relates to the initial outlay by the consumer. After all, why should I invest £12000 + in a technology that is not yet proven? That's a lot of money for anybody who does not have money to burn or doing it simply for the sake of the environment!

Put bluntly, if there was no Generation Tariff, I would NOT have invested my money, as much as I would like to think it would have been good for the environment. By the government offering an incentive, I am prepared to take the risk. Now, if you are in a similar position (have a workable property and the money to invest), then I would say that you might want to consider doing the same. Check out the risks for yourself and decide if it is worth doing. Note, not everybody is doing it, because they do not want to take the risk. Therefore, this is why I tallk about the Generation Tariff as being something I consider different to the Export Tariff.

Now, when it comes to the Export tariff, I was led to believe that it was a payment over and above the Generation Tariff (which it is) for energy generated in excess of what you use. What I did not fully appreciate until *after* I received the forms to fill in from my electricty supplier was how they calculated this Export Tariff.

As I explained to them, I am happy to forgo the Export Tariff payment that they would calculate, as long as they did not charge me for units I generated. Now, having discussed costs of storage and transfer of units with others on this site, I can see that there *is* a cost involved for the utility company and I now agree that I should not be receiving the units for "free" anymore, but I do think they should be returned at cost of storage and transfer only. After all, I am only talking about the units I generated, and not fresh units that I need over and above what I generate.

In brief, the Generation Tariff pays for my initial investment (hopefully) and the Export Tariff should (in my opinion) be ignored and NOt paid if I do not generate more than I use, but, consequently, I should NOT be overcharged for the units Ihave generated and the grid stores for me until I need to use then again.

CYE

grahamc2003

DVardysShadow wrote: »

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..

This only happens if the station is operating in frequency sensitive mode, so supplying primary reserve. It helps maintain grid stability over a short timeframe, up to about 4 or 5 minutes. After that, it's up to the grid engineers to instruct stations on five minute reserve to sync.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

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.

Yeah, but surely venting when near the pressure limit isn't part of the normal operating procedure is it? More the operation of the safety system I expect. As you say, pretty bad management by the power station engineer when it happens under normal circumstances. I expect it happens so rarely to be insignificant to this discussion, but it's not really my area.

albyota

Quote: In brief, the Generation Tariff pays for my initial investment (hopefully) and the Export Tariff should (in my opinion) be ignored and NOt paid if I do not generate more than I use, but, consequently, I should NOT be overcharged for the units Ihave generated and the grid stores for me until I need to use then again. quote:

---

:wall:

grahamc2003

HappyMJ wrote: »

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.

Lol - yeah my figures were just for one pump, and there are six of them!

grahamc2003

CYE - I think it's only fair that when I do a spot of servicing on my (imaginary) Dino, that I should get paid £440 an hour (4 times main dealer charges) for doing so. All garage users should chip in and pay me it, doesn't bother me if they only have a clapped out wartberg. If it doesn't actually need a service, then if I spend an hour tinkering, then I should also get (on top of the £440) an hours credit at the main dealer for my next service (i also want paying £440 when that is done too, on top of the free service). Please ask if you have any questions about the current injustice which doesn't allow my perfectly fair system.

albyota

:T:rotfl::rotfl:

ClaimYourEnergy

albyota wrote: »

Quote: In brief, the Generation Tariff pays for my initial investment (hopefully) and the Export Tariff should (in my opinion) be ignored and NOt paid if I do not generate more than I use, but, consequently, I should NOT be overcharged for the units Ihave generated and the grid stores for me until I need to use then again. quote:

---

:wall:

Hi albyota,

Are you saying you are "hitting your head against a brick wall" in frustration? I'm sorry if I make you feel like that ...

Is it too much to ask for a utility provider to "store and redeliver" a unit of energy you just created for free, at the cost of storage and transfer costs only?

Don't be swayed by the Generation Tariff part of the costs involved, because even if it paid me £1000000, that is not my argument. I am looking at this long term and from a point of fair-play:

I have little control over when energy is created and what energy goes back into the grid. To make use of this energy efficiently, I would have to monitor the power output of the panels 24/7 and use devices as and when the sun shone enough on them to generate enough power to use it.

However, I *am* generating power and do use it ... just not at the same time ... but almost at the same time. The simple process of this unit of electricity leaving my property, being stored for a short while and travelling back to me is currently costing me full price, even though I may have generated it only a couple of hours before I used it.

I don't begrudge paying transport and storage costs on this unit, but I do begrudge the company making a profit on it. NB: It has no bearing on the Generation tariff whatsoever. And even though you may say that the Generation Tariff may "compensate" for this, I am not sure I can totally agree with this argument. But, perhaps, that is your argument, and I can respect your pont in this, even if I do not agree with it.

CYE

Richie-from-the-Boro

Dirty - nuclear / coal / whatever
Clean - wind / whatever
Storage - Hydro / battery's / whatever
Local / national / intercontinental transport

Then there is waste, risk , transport, depreciation, maintenance, distribution and redistribution, moving the commodity from off-peak to on-peak availability. it always comes down to storage. The storage is always thousands of times more expensive than the electricity it stores.

Lets simplify it with a Duracell PP3 in your smoke alarm :

Battery = a bottle that stores lectrickery
Lectrickery = the amount of energy you can get into the bottle
Power = how quickly you can empty or fill the bottle

The problem you have is the Duracell battery costs thousands of times more than the lectrickery it contains. According to this website a kWh of lectrickery costs 15.43p in March this year but the bottle [ storage ] they hold it in costs £2.33. So the cost of the lectrickery from storage is magnitudes higher than it is from your 13a socket. Storing the few watts required for you mobile or smoke alarm may well be cost-bearable for the convenience it gives, but try doing that from solar panels at night or driving your Nissan Leaf under those same storage rules and you will see why multiplying energy storage need to GiGawatts is still, and will remain for decades somewhere between insurmountable and insurmountable.

If it wasn't we would have had cars powered by cheap lectrickery sice the 60's

ClaimYourEnergy

grahamc2003 wrote: »

CYE - I think it's only fair that when I do a spot of servicing on my (imaginary) Dino, that I should get paid £440 an hour (4 times main dealer charges) for doing so. All garage users should chip in and pay me it, doesn't bother me if they only have a clapped out wartberg. If it doesn't actually need a service, then if I spend an hour tinkering, then I should also get (on top of the £440) an hours credit at the main dealer for my next service (i also want paying £440 when that is done too, on top of the free service). Please ask if you have any questions about the current injustice which doesn't allow my perfectly fair system.

Hi Graham2003,

It's probably too late for me to understand the humour I believe you are using here, as I do not understand the comparison. Sorry.

Maybe we just have a different understanding of how the Export Tariff is generated?

From what I understand you are trying to say, is that you believe the Generation Tariff is as much to do with a "fair price" for the energy generated, whereas I see it as a means to potentially cover the costs of the initial outlay with a return on that investment. i.e. A larger system (which will generate more energy) costs more to install and so its generated energy is a good guide to calculate the initial outlay of the customer. From this calculation, a fair price can be paid back on the investment as a way of the Generation Tariff. In other words, although the amount of energy generated is used in the equation, it is there to help calculate the "government" subsidy in the form of the Generation Tariff to help cover th ecosts and risks involved in the initial investment.

If this is your understanding (equating to "energy payback") as opposed to my "investment payback" viewpoint, then you and I will always view the contribution of the Generation Tariff differently - and I can understand why you may have the opinions you have.

However, as I said in the last post, if you do look at this as both an investment and a means of supporting your energy usage, then you should (I would have thought) seen the reason for my argument for a "fairer" price for the Export Tariff. Of course if you believe this is what the Generation Tariff covers, then we will have to disagree with the calculations. However, if you can divorce your view of the Generation Tariff being so tied in with the Export Tariff, then surely you can see th epoint about the value of the Export Tariff as a standalone argument?

CYE

albyota

ClaimYourEnergy wrote: »

Hi albyota,

Are you saying you are "hitting your head against a brick wall" in frustration? I'm sorry if I make you feel like that ...

Is it too much to ask for a utility provider to "store and redeliver" a unit of energy you just created for free, at the cost of storage and transfer costs only?

Don't be swayed by the Generation Tariff part of the costs involved, because even if it paid me £1000000, that is not my argument. I am looking at this long term and from a point of fair-play:

I have little control over when energy is created and what energy goes back into the grid. To make use of this energy efficiently, I would have to monitor the power output of the panels 24/7 and use devices as and when the sun shone enough on them to generate enough power to use it.

However, I *am* generating power and do use it ... just not at the same time ... but almost at the same time. The simple process of this unit of electricity leaving my property, being stored for a short while and travelling back to me is currently costing me full price, even though I may have generated it only a couple of hours before I used it.

I don't begrudge paying transport and storage costs on this unit, but I do begrudge the company making a profit on it. NB: It has no bearing on the Generation tariff whatsoever. And even though you may say that the Generation Tariff may "compensate" for this, I am not sure I can totally agree with this argument. But, perhaps, that is your argument, and I can respect your pont in this, even if I do not agree with it.

CYE

I don't get it, you seem to think you should be entitled to use the complex national grid as if were your own personal battery storage system, If you are home during the day use the power from the PV system, if your out, set up timeclocks to have appliances operate when PV is at medium to maximum output, (rare in the UK, I know), your fridge and freezer and any other equipment on standby will use it, in summer after 7pm it will not be producing anything at all of any worth,......8-30 to 4pm in the winter if your lucky. Buy a battery and an PSW inverter and feed your lights.