MSE News: Solar subsidies to be slashed under government plans

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Whilst Sharp do employ people in Wales, they are essentially assembling Japanese goods from a Japanese firm. Do we consider a Toyota made in France or Derbyshire to be French or English?

I partially agree, but that's globalisation for you ....

The 1000+ which Sharp employ on Wrexham support the local economy there and if the normal manufacturing 'rules-of-thumb' apply there's probably a further ~5000 indirectly employed in servicing the plant & it's employees. I believe that the Mono silicon ingots are from the UK and shipped to Japan for slitting into wafers then shipped back, the glass from Pilkington (St Helens), as for the other components (aluminium frame, some plastic backing, wire and a couple of plastic and electronic bits & bobs), I've no idea where they're from, but perhaps someone else could comment ..... If this is all correct there's more manufacturing jobs and less imports there than some would have us believe, especially those selling competitor products which are entirely imported and support absolutely no UK based manufacturing jobs or the balance of trade.

Having mentioned the trade balance, it should be remembered that the Wrexham plant is one of only three Sharp pv facilities globally ... UK, USA & Japan ... and the majority of UK production is actually exported .....

HTH
Z

zeupater

magyar wrote: »

I don't think it's as easy as doing that. I'm not at all an expert on the FIT because I only really work with large-scale projects, but if it's anything like the RO, you have to base the qualifications upon the actual installation - you cannot refer to the 'type' of owner.

Hi

The FiT is a banded payment system with a reduced payment/kWh for each progressively larger band. The R-A-R operators install their capital assets on multiple roofs and keep each array within the FiT band with the highest return <=4kWp.

In terms of large-scale projects, this would similar to a wind farm operator financing & creating a single windfarm but locating each turbine on parcels of land with different owners in order to maximise whatever form of subsidy this would enhance over the option of placing the same capital assets on a single piece of land.

I understand the point you make about the 'type of owner' and individual sites, however, with the panels effectively being 'capital assets' for the R-A-R operators which need to be treated as such within their accounts by law, then it would be relatively easy to classify these distributed assets differently, as could multiple systems owned by an individual ..... each site has an MCS installation number, all it would need is to have a registration of the site owner (id) and then aggregate the total installed capacity for each owner for fit banding purposes .... there you go, the basics for a workable system ... all it needs now is for someone from the government to read this thread and everything would be sorted .

HTH
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

I partially agree, but that's globalisation for you ....

The 1000+ which Sharp employ on Wrexham support the local economy there and if the normal manufacturing 'rules-of-thumb' apply there's probably a further ~5000 indirectly employed in servicing the plant & it's employees. I believe that the Mono silicon ingots are from the UK and shipped to Japan for slitting into wafers then shipped back, the glass from Pilkington (St Helens), as for the other components (aluminium frame, some plastic backing, wire and a couple of plastic and electronic bits & bobs), I've no idea where they're from, but perhaps someone else could comment ..... If this is all correct there's more manufacturing jobs and less imports there than some would have us believe, especially those selling competitor products which are entirely imported and support absolutely no UK based manufacturing jobs or the balance of trade.

Having mentioned the trade balance, it should be remembered that the Wrexham plant is one of only three Sharp pv facilities globally ... UK, USA & Japan ... and the majority of UK production is actually exported .....

HTH
Z

Also I partially agree with you and accept that it is better than straight imports.

However, I live not too far from their plant and there was quite a fuss iirc about the huge Regional grants they got for the plant extension and the profits go to Japan.

Quite ironic a firm making products that attract huge subsidies, getting huge subsidies themselves!

Pincher

The whole point was to deliver carbon reduction to meet EU targets.

This scheme very neatly allows the carbon accountants to tally up the total kWhs generated by non-carbon means, which is easily converted into carbon reduced. Another case of easy solution that brings promotion to the civil servant, but ends up costing the people money and puts them in hardship.

Chairman Mao had his Great Leap Forward, where they melted ploughs and kitchen knives to meet steel production quotas. The administrators and the people had no idea how to make steel, and they just produced useless junk metal. Idiots set targets, bureaucrats resort to easy options, and the people are dragooned into lunatic schemes that waste their time, labour and money. At least in China they had a dictatorship, what is our excuse?

jamesd

wymondham wrote: »

It would be a shame to halt the march to solar generation just as it started. I've never seen so many panels on roofs than the last 6 months or so. Whatever the reason for it, and whatever the home owner is getting from it, it is a good thing which should be encouraged.......

It's not a purely good thing if it's raising the price of power for those who aren't so able to afford higher costs, and that's what subsidies do.

The previous feed in tariff was only marginally attractive on investment grounds, compared to say share investments long term. The new one is hopelessly uncompetitive on the same basis. Not a good enough investment return and legislative risk of a cut in subsidy payments that's too high. This should mostly eliminate new installations for home photovoltaic solar power because the return is uneconomically low. Though future electricity price rises in part due to subsidies do improve the long term picture, assuming that they happen.

Longer term there are considerably more efficient solar panels in development. The time to really push home PV generation will be when those are readily available in large quantities. Two to four times the power output from the same roof space could dramatically change the economics of such schemes if initial costs are low enough. That should make them competitive with no subsidy at all when it is possible.

The threat is ironically higher to wind power because wind power is a more highly evolved technology that can't really improve its efficiency greatly the way solar cells are improving theirs. But wind can generate when solar can't and vice versa so each has some value, provided the subsidies aren't excessive.

The competition for both is a more environmentally friendly technology that's so far been required to try to compete with no subsidy at all: nuclear power. That's the one we should be expanding to keep costs down while also meeting targets. It's also more reliable than the rest for generation at all times when you need it, though some hydro power systems can beat it.

zeupater

jamesd wrote: »

It's not a purely good thing if it's raising the price of power for those who aren't so able to afford higher costs, and that's what subsidies do.

The previous feed in tariff was only marginally attractive on investment grounds, compared to say share investments long term. The new one is hopelessly uncompetitive on the same basis. Not a good enough investment return and legislative risk of a cut in subsidy payments that's too high. This should mostly eliminate new installations for home photovoltaic solar power because the return is uneconomically low. Though future electricity price rises in part due to subsidies do improve the long term picture, assuming that they happen.

Longer term there are considerably more efficient solar panels in development. The time to really push home PV generation will be when those are readily available in large quantities. Two to four times the power output from the same roof space could dramatically change the economics of such schemes if initial costs are low enough. That should make them competitive with no subsidy at all when it is possible.

The threat is ironically higher to wind power because wind power is a more highly evolved technology that can't really improve its efficiency greatly the way solar cells are improving theirs. But wind can generate when solar can't and vice versa so each has some value, provided the subsidies aren't excessive.

The competition for both is a more environmentally friendly technology that's so far been required to try to compete with no subsidy at all: nuclear power. That's the one we should be expanding to keep costs down while also meeting targets. It's also more reliable than the rest for generation at all times when you need it, though some hydro power systems can beat it.

Hi

The real point is that FiT schemes in all countries which have run similar incentives are/were always designed to 'kick start' the adoption of the technology. The FiT tarrif was originally set when a 4kWp system would cost ~£20k and that level was enough to attract early adopters and now, less than two years later, we have the same size systems being installed for £11k to £12k, or less. It was always anticipated that there would be a reduction in cost, thats why the FiT scheme had a planned reduction in tarrif built in from next year, however, with the faster than anticipated reduction in costs the FiT scheme needed/needs a correction.

In a way you might find that a reduction in FiT tarrif will simply act as a catalyst for further reductions in system prices as there's still plenty of margin available in the supply chain to play with ...

Regarding panel efficiencies, yes panels with greater efficiencies have been developed are being worked on, but much over 25% efficient is unlikely to hit the market at a level which would be considered competitive or be comparitively environmentally sound in terms of the materials which would need to be employed .... remember, without a FiT subsidy and with a large enough installation space for the required generating capacity, it's more important that the panels are cost effective than efficient.

HTH
Z

jamesd

zeupater wrote: »

without a FiT subsidy and with a large enough installation space for the required generating capacity, it's more important that the panels are cost effective than efficient.

That's one of the unhelpful distortions of the market that the current FiT encourages: a disincentive to use the most efficient panels because there is a cap on generating capacity, not on surface area.

If it was truly to encourage power generation, it should be incentivising efficiency, with a surface area option that could encourage that and also reduce the cost per kWh of the shared components and installation work. And perhaps also disincentivising relatively low efficiency panels, with varying rates by power generated per square meter of panel area.

jimjames

If you are thinking of PV solar panel installation the key date to remember is 8 December. This is NOT the installation date, it is the date that your installation has to be registered for FITs with the supplier so your installer has to have fitted and completed the paperwork well before 8th December to allow you to complete the requirements in time.

I can see a lot of people getting caught out with installations up to 8th Dec that don't meet the regulations.

grahamc2003

jimjames wrote: »

If you are thinking of PV solar panel installation the key date to remember is 8 December. This is NOT the installation date, it is the date that your installation has to be registered for FITs with the supplier so your installer has to have fitted and completed the paperwork well before 8th December to allow you to complete the requirements in time.

I can see a lot of people getting caught out with installations up to 8th Dec that don't meet the regulations.

Yes - I expect that date was/will be chosen with the expectation that most already in the pipeline will get their certicficate before 8 dec, and those who aren't (like those who ring up today), won't.

Only, I expect salesmen will think differently, and in all probability use the cut-off as an incentive to sign up there and then.

You (or rather one) just know what the posts on here starting around the 10 dec will say!.

All assuming the proposals will go ahead unchanged.

While the unemployment these changes will cause is a bit disasterous for those involved, a solution to re-employ lots of them would be for the government itself to take the lead and set in motion the construction of several Nuclear stations, from a safe and reliable design, which would create meaniningful employment with benefits to society, via a reliable electricity generating system, as a whole.

zeupater

jamesd wrote: »

That's one of the unhelpful distortions of the market that the current FiT encourages: a disincentive to use the most efficient panels because there is a cap on generating capacity, not on surface area.

If it was truly to encourage power generation, it should be incentivising efficiency, with a surface area option that could encourage that and also reduce the cost per kWh of the shared components and installation work. And perhaps also disincentivising relatively low efficiency panels, with varying rates by power generated per square meter of panel area.

Hi

I don't really understant this point ... it seems that you are saying that regardless of cost you should be fitting the most efficient panels ?

Efficiency is merely a measure of the proportion of irradiation/insolation which falls on a panel is converted to usable electricity ..... a 250Wp panel which is 15% efficient will be a certain size (actually around (100/15)x0.25 sqm) and a panel which is 30% efficient will be half that size, however, under the same test conditions they would both produce the same amount of power.

In order to maximise generation from a limited area (roof) some will make the decision to pay a premium for more efficient panels which may currently give a 5% increase in efficiency from around 15% to somewhere currently around 20% for the most efficient panels which are openly available, however there is likely somewhere around a 20%+ price premium for doing so, which just make the cost/kWh generated higher over the system life.

Looking at developments in the pv industry, it's likely that lower efficiency, but far lower cost pv based on thin film technology will be the way the market develops .... it's highly likely that laminated rolls of low cost pv will be available which can be adhered to almost any surface thus removing the need for reliance on high efficiency.

HTH
Z