MSE News: Solar subsidies to be slashed under government plans

kes74

rogerblack wrote: »

No situation?
So it should be available at subsidised cost to those in the worst places for it?

Subsidy should go to the places where it is most efficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (or to reduce fuel imports)

Yes of course you are right about this - I should have caveated that my statement applied to suitably located properties (i.e. ideally south-facing well-sunlit).

The point I was trying to make is, if the intention is to maximise renewable energy production, it should be roofs best positioned to provide maximum watts/m2 that get solar investment preference. Also that such roofs will not necessarily be on C+ houses.

It feels a better subsidy structure is one where;

1. Positioning determines a % grant attainable to most encourage panel installations where they will produce the greatest output

2. Standard FIT rate is near to the energy providers charge rate so what you produce and use is virtually net zero income, plus a decent rate just for any surplus returned to the grid. This gives impetus for all solar-adopters to reduce their consumption - unlike the forthcoming plan which sounds could exclude some perfectly positioned properties just because they are of older construction.

orrery

rogerblack wrote: »

No situation?
So it should be available at subsidised cost to those in the worst places for it?

There is an argument that solar should be installed to supply locally without the losses of it being passed over the grid.

Cardew

kes74 wrote: »

Yes of course you are right about this - I should have caveated that my statement applied to suitably located properties (i.e. ideally south-facing well-sunlit).

The point I was trying to make is, if the intention is to maximise renewable energy production, it should be roofs best positioned to provide maximum watts/m2 that get solar investment preference. Also that such roofs will not necessarily be on C+ houses.

It feels a better subsidy structure is one where;

1. Positioning determines a % grant attainable to most encourage panel installations where they will produce the greatest output

2. Standard FIT rate is near to the energy providers charge rate so what you produce and use is virtually net zero income, plus a decent rate just for any surplus returned to the grid. This gives impetus for all solar-adopters to reduce their consumption - unlike the forthcoming plan which sounds could exclude some perfectly positioned properties just because they are of older construction.

Why not take your principle one step further?

If you want PV solar positioned where it produces the greatest output then it should be installed in large solar farms on factory/supermarket roofs or Brownfield sites in Devon and Cornwall.

Additionally we(the electricity consumer) wouldn't have to subsidise the present ridiculously inefficient tiny installations dotted all over the country - scaffolding, labour, equipment, accounting, as well as the ongoing maintenance issues on these far flung properties.

[Deleted User]

Cardew wrote: »

Why not take your principle one step further?

If you want PV solar positioned where it produces the greatest output then it should be installed in large solar farms on factory/supermarket roofs or Brownfield sites in Devon and Cornwall.

Additionally we(the electricity consumer) wouldn't have to subsidise the present ridiculously inefficient tiny installations dotted all over the country - scaffolding, labour, equipment, accounting, as well as the ongoing maintenance issues on these far flung properties.

I'm one of these 'far flung, properties and totally agree with what you and others are saying. I'll admit I did it for the subsidy not the greater good. Perhaps if the govt stuck to say a system of grants or similar we would not have ended up in this crazy system where relatively few people benefit hugely from the scheme...

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Why not take your principle one step further?

If you want PV solar positioned where it produces the greatest output then it should be installed in large solar farms on factory/supermarket roofs or Brownfield sites in Devon and Cornwall.

Additionally we(the electricity consumer) wouldn't have to subsidise the present ridiculously inefficient tiny installations dotted all over the country - scaffolding, labour, equipment, accounting, as well as the ongoing maintenance issues on these far flung properties.

Hi

And, as touched on before, the efficiency losses for long distance transmission of the electricity counter a good proportion of the higher insolation available. Regarding costs, not generating on a microgeneration basis requires upgrade and relocation of grid resource (new pylons/underground) which is likely to counter much of the capital cost efficiencies of having large arrays in the first place ......

If there's an argument for having large pv arrays then those arrays need to be close to centres of population. Yes, put arrays in the S/W to provide energy to the (small) population there and, as long as the existing grid could cope, they could even 'export' from Cornwall to the rest of the UK. However, let's not forget all of the nice countryside and warehouse size buildings around London and other large urban areas ..... just think, you'd not only get the efficiencies of large scale arrays, but you'd also get to spend less on upgrading the grid and gain the benefit of a local 'tourist' attraction on your doorstep ....

HTH
Z

John_Pierpoint

Cardew wrote: »

Why not take your principle one step further?

If you want PV solar positioned where it produces the greatest output then it should be installed in large solar farms on factory/supermarket roofs or Brownfield sites in Devon and Cornwall.

Additionally we(the electricity consumer) wouldn't have to subsidise the present ridiculously inefficient tiny installations dotted all over the country - scaffolding, labour, equipment, accounting, as well as the ongoing maintenance issues on these far flung properties.

We could make massive savings by bulldozing all the silly little rural properties dotted about all over the place, complete with their woefully inadequate thermal properties, especially those occupied by selfish commuters or kept by even more selfish second home owners.

Everyone should be forced to live "efficiently" like this:

zeupater

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

We could make massive savings by bulldozing all the silly little rural properties dotted about all over the place, complete with their woefully inadequate thermal properties, especially those occupied by selfish commuters or kept by even more selfish second home owners.

Everyone should be forced to live "efficiently" like this:

That's one almighty commute for the farmers to get to their fields, it'd certainly bring a more conventional meaning to 'Chelsea tractors' .... .... perhaps a little leeway for some would be necessary....

Z

grahamc2003

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

We could make massive savings by bulldozing all the silly little rural properties dotted about all over the place, complete with their woefully inadequate thermal properties, especially those occupied by selfish commuters or kept by even more selfish second home owners.

Everyone should be forced to live "efficiently" like this:

That's a terrible idea. If the fit for solar panels on the roof had to be divided between all the people underneath, then a £1500 total payment could work out at only £20 per flat, assuming 80 floors.

The only fair thing to do would be to increase the level of funding so each flat got the full fit, i.e. £1500 instead of £20. Otherwise, it would be unfair to those living in such buildings since they would be denied the opportunity of being green and saving the planet.

zeupater

grahamc2003 wrote: »

That's a terrible idea. If the fit for solar panels on the roof had to be divided between all the people underneath, then a £1500 total payment could work out at only £20 per flat, assuming 80 floors.

The only fair thing to do would be to increase the level of funding so each flat got the full fit, i.e. £1500 instead of £20. Otherwise, it would be unfair to those living in such buildings since they would be denied the opportunity of being green and saving the planet.

Hi

I think that the idea would be to pave the rest of the country with glass ... quite a good idea really, high efficiency homes with plenty more power than they need on tap because everyone has starved to death due to all of the farmers being stuck in the traffic behind everyone queueing at the supermarket .... ..... bet it gets through the BRE as an 'excellent idea' though, I wonder whether someone will mention it to Chris Huhne next time they see him, he's likely to get on board too !! .... :rotfl:

Z:)

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

And, as touched on before, the efficiency losses for long distance transmission of the electricity counter a good proportion of the higher insolation available. Regarding costs, not generating on a microgeneration basis requires upgrade and relocation of grid resource (new pylons/underground) which is likely to counter much of the capital cost efficiencies of having large arrays in the first place ......

If there's an argument for having large pv arrays then those arrays need to be close to centres of population. Yes, put arrays in the S/W to provide energy to the (small) population there and, as long as the existing grid could cope, they could even 'export' from Cornwall to the rest of the UK. However, let's not forget all of the nice countryside and warehouse size buildings around London and other large urban areas ..... just think, you'd not only get the efficiencies of large scale arrays, but you'd also get to spend less on upgrading the grid and gain the benefit of a local 'tourist' attraction on your doorstep ....

HTH
Z

I am not sure if the above is meant to be humorous?

If serious, then the case for Wind farms being predominently in West Wales and Western Highlands of Scotland - or out at sea - needs review, as does the case for Windscale Nuclear power station to be on the edge of the Lake District.

There also must be a case for diverting the path of Highland rivers, with their hydro electric schemes, closer to centres of civilisation.

You know as well as I, that the total output of solar electricity - even on a sunny day is tiny in Power generating terms.