MSE News: Solar subsidies to be slashed under government plans

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

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.

Hi

I'm certainly not being humerous ..... According to PVGIS the difference in annual generation between Cornwall and Central England is ~13% .... and according to the DECC windspeed database (http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/wind/windsp_databas/windsp_databas.aspx) at a height of 10m agl the difference in average windspeed between parts of central England at 4.8m/s and, let's say, parts of the west coast of Scotland at 10.1m/s is over double and as you will know, doubling the windspeed raises the kinetic energy available by a factor of 8 ... that makes one particularly good argument for selecting the location of wind generation - an increase of Wind generation of 9.3x vs Solar at a mere 1.13x .......

That aside, the argument for placing pv in the S/W is to make use of the higher insolation (+13% v Central England), however the transmission losses over distance would likely be 8% (1.5% transmission+6.5% distribution), so a net gain of only 5% ....

Windscale .... well that's pretty obvious .... I've personally got no problem with a nuclear plant in the middle of Hyde Park, but there would be around 10million who would quickly disagree, so put it in Cumbria or the north coast of Scotland, or Somerset, or Wales then there's less people to object, and of course in the early days when it was possibly a little more uncertain whether the entire thing would blow up, the theory was that there's less people to kill ....

Hydroelectric, well that's simply a factor of calculating losses in the power distribution network vs the loss of energy (pressure/resistance) in keeping vast volumes of water under pressure between the Welsh & Scottish mountains and plants next to centres of population, as well as the 'small' issue of relative costs .... so the wire option probably wins hands down, with plenty to spare.

No matter how much pv is generating at a point in time, locating that generation close to point of use makes sense. The amount of generation is growing quickly and will continue to grow quickly .... and the cost of plant is reducing and will continue to reduce .... and the subsidy is reducing and will continue to reduce ..... I'm pretty sure that the same couldn't be said for any other form of generation.

My small amount of generation is totally insignificant to the country as a whole, but it is significant to me and many others see it the same way ..... and it's definately more cost efficient than using hamsters (before they're raised ).

HTH
Z

rogerblack

zeupater wrote: »

That aside, the argument for placing pv in the S/W is to make use of the higher insolation (+13% v Central England), however the transmission losses over distance would likely be 8% (1.5% transmission+6.5% distribution), so a net gain of only 5% ....
<snip>
My small amount of generation is totally insignificant to the country as a whole, but it is significant to me and many others see it the same way ..... and it's definately more cost efficient than using hamsters (before they're raised ).

However.
You can't raise grid inefficiencies as an issue, when the panels cost around twice the amount to put on a house.

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

No matter how much pv is generating at a point in time, locating that generation close to point of use makes sense. The amount of generation is growing quickly and will continue to grow quickly .... and the cost of plant is reducing and will continue to reduce .... and the subsidy is reducing and will continue to reduce ..... I'm pretty sure that the same couldn't be said for any other form of generation.

HTH
Z

Continue to grow? Quickly?

There is a finite sum that both governments agreed would be available in subsidies for PV and only to reach our treaty obligations.

Those subsidies are paid directly by the rest of the electricity consumers and it was agreed that only so much pain would be inflicted upon us.

The whole reasoning for the dramatic cut in FIT - and it being brought forward - was because that finite limit was in danger of being reach too quickly.

Without subsidy solar PV is a joke in terms of efficient(i.e. cost effective) production and far from grow, solar will slowly fade away and join the many stupid schemes successive UK governments have inflicted on their electorate.



On the subject of ' locating generation close to point of use' whilst there are obviously marginal advantages, your tongue must have been firmly in your cheek when you typed that as a justification! - which is why I thought it was stated with humorous intent.

Kernel_Sanders

planning_officer wrote: »

Also, homeowners wouldn't take a Council to court over not removing panels. It only becomes an offence if the Council was to serve an Enforcement Notice - and the terms of the Notice aren't complied with. You don't go to court to appeal this - an appeal is heard via an independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State.

I didn't follow this bit, unless you meant a Council wouldn't take a homeowner to court .

John_Pierpoint

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Windscale .... well that's pretty obvious .... I've personally got no problem with a nuclear plant in the middle of Hyde Park, but there would be around 10million who would quickly disagree, so put it in Cumbria or the north coast of Scotland, or Somerset, or Wales then there's less people to object, and of course in the early days when it was possibly a little more uncertain whether the entire thing would blow up, the theory was that there's less people to kill ....

.....or Bradwell - that is pretty near to London and the fallout would go all over Holland.

Oh damn, I had forgotten that EDF's fall out from the Channel coast would go all over London

zeupater

rogerblack wrote: »

However.
You can't raise grid inefficiencies as an issue, when the panels cost around twice the amount to put on a house.

Hi

I agree .... however, the issue is that not many people stand back and look at the complete picture ..... grid efficiencies go hand-in-hand with pv location and the possible requirements for extensions to the distribution network as per the following earlier post ....

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Agree .... and that's a point which is always missed .... let's look at hypothetical scenario of placing something like 1GWp of solar pv on the Lizard peninsula .... a pretty reasonable position for a solar farm in the S/W, Goonhilly Downs satellite dishes already have direct line access to London for communications so there's a ready corridor, and there's relatively little chance of NIMBYism as a)there are few local residents, b)the natural environment already has a blight in the dishes and c)the pv farms could be another attraction for the grockles ....

Site located, lets link it to the world .... well, it's pretty remote so there's very little chance that the power generated would be used locally .... so lets link it to the nearest large centre of population .... Plymouth, pretend that this single link would be the only grid upgrade required and also, considering that it's in a tourist area with areas of natural beauty the NIMBYs would come out to play, let's put the cables underground. One final assumption to keep the cost down and not skew the figures in favour of microgeneration, the ~3000acres required and any access infrastructure is provided for free ...

Scene set, what's the cost benefit ....

Firstly the capital bit .....
90km of new grid connection at say £20m/km = £1.8bn
1GW Solar farm at say £1.80/Wp = £1.8bn
Cost = £3.6bn (£3.60/Wp)

So comparing the capital outlay cost against roof installations and assume them to be £2.60/Wp (yes, this is a little high ) from December the cheaper option actually costs £1bn(38%) more ....

Secondly the power benefit bit ...
Insolation benefit for concentrating on S/W vs Average ... Helston(953kWh/kWp)/Meriden(843kWh/kWp) = +13%
Embedded distance transmission losses (1.5% transmission+6.5% distribution) v microgeneration approach = -8%

Benefit in energy generated for centralising in the S/W .... 13%-8%=5%

So the conclusion of this back of an envelope exercise is that 5% more usable energy could be produded per Wp installed for a capital investment which is 38% higher ... the result a benefit of -34.9% (((100*1.05*(1-0.38))-100) on capital employed ..... well isn't that a turnup for the books ....

Double the 1GW, 6000 acres, throw a 120km mixed pylon/underground link to Hinkley point, the main hub for the S/W, crossing Dartmoor & Exmoor into the mix, cost ? .... +£1.2bn ? .... okay, we're almost out of the S/W , but Hinkley B is an 870MW station so any more power would likely need grid upgrades to the Midlands and towards London ... cost ????? .... perhaps the idea of covering Cornwall with glass is starting to look a little fragile (pun intended ) ...

HTH
Z

The panels might cost twice as much to put on a house .... but there is no need to seriously upgrade the network, which could cost as much as the large generating farms themselves .... seems to even out the difference to me ....

HTH
Z

rogerblack

My preferred size would be field-scale - 100-250kW perhaps, near communities.
This has much smaller infrastructure costs than gigawatt plant.
And is much more efficient per unit subsidy than on roofs.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Continue to grow? Quickly?

There is a finite sum that both governments agreed would be available in subsidies for PV and only to reach our treaty obligations.

Those subsidies are paid directly by the rest of the electricity consumers and it was agreed that only so much pain would be inflicted upon us.

The whole reasoning for the dramatic cut in FIT - and it being brought forward - was because that finite limit was in danger of being reach too quickly.

Without subsidy solar PV is a joke in terms of efficient(i.e. cost effective) production and far from grow, solar will slowly fade away and join the many stupid schemes successive UK governments have inflicted on their electorate.



On the subject of ' locating generation close to point of use' whilst there are obviously marginal advantages, your tongue must have been firmly in your cheek when you typed that as a justification! - which is why I thought it was stated with humorous intent.

Hi

Let's just stand back, leave the politics of subsidy aside for a while and see what logic could dictate .....

Has the cost of a solar pv system halved in the past two years ? - yes (?) .... has an industry appeared from almost nowhere in the last two years ? - yes (?) .... Are component prices at a level where there is currently further scope for price reductions - yes (?) .... are UK installed pv prices higher than elsewhere globally - yes (?) ..... are prices likely to fall to ~£8k for an installed 4kWp system soon - probably yes (?) ...... Okay then, if there is general agreement then we have some foundations ....

Right then, let's now look at a level of unsubsidised pricing which could be attractive to the consumer. If we were to take a 4kWp system and take that as a working example and do it two ways, firstly based on current pricing an then take a look at net metering .... both being based on an annual generation of 3300kWh (825kWh/kWp) ....

Firstly a situation where 25% of generation is self consumed (12p/kWh) with the remainder exported through a smart-meter (3.1p/kWh). The annual saving would be £99(3300*.25*0.12) and the income would be £77(3300*0.75*0.031) .... so let's say £175pa. In order to return £175pa in a long-term (5% before tax - 4% after) account a basic rate taxpayer would need to invest £4375 (175/0.04) ..... let's consider this as being purchase price-point 1.

Okay, let's push the boat a little further and look at the possibility of net-metering to find the other end of the scale and say the the 3300kWh/year which the array is capable of producing is the same as the average UK electricity usage for dual-fuel customers, just because it is ... The saving becomes £396 (3300*0.12) and the associated investment on the same basis becomes £9900(396/0.04) .... we'll call this purchase price-point 2.

From the above we can see a position where someone could invest a lump-sum and link the return to energy inflation, that's correct, energy inflation, so the returns above, being year1 calculations, will be minimum returns and would likely achieve better returns in subsequent years .... I hope that this very important point is recognised.

So what do we have ? .... Price-point1 would require around a further halving of prices from what should be obtainable early next year (1-(4375/8000)), is this possible within the next two years ?, well I certainly wouldn't discount it when some are now buying panels at around €0.72/W even now. Price point2 is currently achieveable, all that would be needed would be a change in legislation to allow net-metering .... there's probably quite a sizeable lobby group from the energy industry who would oppose this though.

Okay, all of the above without bringing in the emotive issue of subsidy, but let's now bring subsidy back into into the discussion .... I agree, the cut in the current subsidy you mention is linked to the 'finite sum', but it is just as true to say that it is linked to a quicker than anticipated fall in installed prices, which is very largely as a result of global subsidies designed to achieve this very outcome. Regarding pv without subsidy being a joke ... pull my logic above apart all you can, it stands, and it stands without subsidy because it has no reference to subsidy ... yes, the calculations use back-of-an-envelope figures, but they are likely close enough to not worry about going into too much detail.

HTH
Z

zeupater

rogerblack wrote: »

My preferred size would be field-scale - 100-250kW perhaps, near communities.
This has much smaller infrastructure costs than gigawatt plant.
And is much more efficient per unit subsidy than on roofs.

Hi

Then we obviously agree ... ref the following post : ....

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

Not concentrating on the S/W results in a less need for long-distance infrastructure changes, which are very expensive. I agree that large arrays are more cost efficient, I have no issues with large arrays, I know people with large arrays, large arrays are good .... but putting them where the population density doesn't support them just to tap into marginal insolation gains doesn't make sense, whereas placing windpower where wind is available has a massive advantage - even someone who doesn't agree with windpower as a concept must even agree with this ...

HTH
Z

rogerblack

zeupater wrote: »

Okay, let's push the boat a little further and look at the possibility of net-metering to find the other end of the scale and say the the 3300kWh/year which the array is capable of producing is the same as the average UK electricity usage for dual-fuel customers, just because it is ...

Net metering would have another potentially useful impact.
Because you're paid the same amount as the electricity you use, there is no incentive to try to - for example - hook the mains up to the array in some manner.

So all the requirements for certification to avoid this go away, and in principle the only remaining one is safety, and consumer protection.
(and localised grid over-feeding, there would need to be some mechanism where a supplier could say no, in limited areas where it was causing a problem)

It would be lovely if one could simply purchase a set of panels, an inverter which plugs in through a standard plug, and erect these on a suitable (also supplied) frame in your garden.

(assuming for the moment that you have a suitable garden).

This can be really simple and cost little over the cost of the parts and delivery.

Net metering - with the upcoming lot of smart meters - if they were properly configured - could also require no meter change at all.