MSE News: Solar subsidies to be slashed under government plans

beedydad

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.

Do not forget that the micro power generator on your roof would be more useful for your neighbours than yourself as you will probably export 75%+ of your energy genrated rather than what you use yourself.
So whether a panel is more efficient unless you change your own uses - you will be exporting even more!

We do need this adjustment to make sure the "free solar + rent a roof companies" are kicked out - it is they who have distorted the market and taken what would be fair monies for others and yes there would be a reduction in the FIT but probably not as draconian as proposed.

magyar

zeupater wrote: »

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

The problem would be that you'd almost certainly get a legal challenge from the larger operators, and they'd win, because they'd correctly point out that that they have been unfairly prejudiced.

Plus it would be very easy to get round this by setting up a series of limited companies each holding the maximum number of kW's.

Cardew

magyar wrote: »

The problem would be that you'd almost certainly get a legal challenge from the larger operators, and they'd win, because they'd correctly point out that that they have been unfairly prejudiced.

If the Government can change the pension arrangements for everyone - all of whom will be unfairly prejudiced - without consultation; then they can find a way to change the FIT arrangements of companies who took advantage of a loophole in regulations.

HalloweenJack

erm `unfair`? rubbish - why as a tax payer should i be forced to pay for the retirement of someone who has a job for life , no matter how bad they are , whilst they contribute NOTHING towards it themselves.

do shut up

zeupater

magyar wrote: »

The problem would be that you'd almost certainly get a legal challenge from the larger operators, and they'd win, because they'd correctly point out that that they have been unfairly prejudiced.

Plus it would be very easy to get round this by setting up a series of limited companies each holding the maximum number of kW's.

Hi

The argument could work the other way too .... Looking at the RHI it seems that the EU wouldn't pass the scheme as it stood due to subsidies which they considered as being too high being proposed for larger installations ... I wonder whether it's worthwhile putting this argument to Brussels for consideration

Regarding the multiple companies/registrations .... I'm sure that you would agree that this isn't insurmountable with a little intelligent thought processing ....

Z

Cardew

HalloweenJack wrote: »

erm `unfair`? rubbish - why as a tax payer should i be forced to pay for the retirement of someone who has a job for life , no matter how bad they are , whilst they contribute NOTHING towards it themselves.

do shut up

Is that addressed to me?

That was not the Civil Service pension dispute I am referring to, but to change the indexing of State Pensions from RPI to CPI. Please note I said 'everyone'(i.e. not Civil Servants)

However regardless of your views on the Civil Service pensions scheme changes,(to which I assume you are referring?) surely in the context of this thread isn't whether it is justified or not, but that the government have unilaterally imposed a change on people who consider they have been 'unfairly prejudiced'.

If they can find a way to overide objections of Armed Services/NHS/teachers etc, then they can easily find a way to overide the objections of Rent a Roof companies.

Not the thread to discuss pensions I suggest.

magyar

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

The argument could work the other way too .... Looking at the RHI it seems that the EU wouldn't pass the scheme as it stood due to subsidies which they considered as being too high being proposed for larger installations ... I wonder whether it's worthwhile putting this argument to Brussels for consideration

Regarding the multiple companies/registrations .... I'm sure that you would agree that this isn't insurmountable with a little intelligent thought processing ....

Z

I'm sure it's not insurmountable - I suppose the question is whether the government should surmount it.

Ultimately, the R-a-R people are simply making money from the fact that there is sufficient cash on the table from the subsidies. Lowering the subsidies means that fewer people will get solar panels, but also costs the country less.

HalloweenJack

apologise cardrew - yes it is civil service pensions i am reffering to - a case of not reading your post properly and just assuming (making an !!! out of u and me) - but as you might gather it is something which stokes my fire..... but for another topic ofc.

hippey

I have wondered how long the FiT would last at their current rate. But I also wonder if they might now be at risk retrospectively although this hasn't been mentioned yet the government will do what they want if they need to save some cash.

When I looked at getting panels on my roof every company I spoke to would show me charts of what was happening to the FiT payment and said this would never change so this already shows that some of it has! Glad I never did get them fitted really, this could also bring down the prices of the systems as I did get the impression that sometimes the cost was artificially high due to the 'payback' you got.

digitaltoast

Been out of the loop the last couple of weeks, found this thread having been emailed this link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055039/Is-sun-set-solar-power--leaked-document-reveals-government-planning-50-cuts-subsidies.html

Two things to remember.
1: It's in the Daily Mail. But...
2: Just because it's in the Daily Mail doesn't necessarily mean it's not true, and the links above seem to back it up.

But here's a quote from the DM to show how hysterical the press and industry have got over this already:

Industry experts believe that if the new tariffs are introduced it could put dozens of firms out of business and cost as many as 25,000 jobs.

Shaun Taylor, managing director of Buckinghamshire-based SolarTech, posted on the ClickGreen website: 'If this leak proves accurate then the Government will be condemning tens of thousands of residents in social housing to continued fuel poverty as there is no way that 'free PV' schemes will now be financially viable.

'The impact on employment will also be enormous as the industry had forecast 20,000 to 30,000 jobs would be created in this sector.

Right - so "industry experts" is just a bloke who owns a company. Which must make me an "industry expert" in ranting on forums and desperately hoping that one day, just one day, there'll be someone on Babestation who is vaguely attractive. I digress.

"cost as many as 25,000 jobs" would suggest that these are existing jobs. Whereas "the industry had forecast 20,000 to 30,000 jobs would be created in this sector" sounds a rather different proposition.

Gordon Brown forecast "no return to boom and bust". Doesn't mean either of them know what they're talking about...

In particular, I dislike Shaun's emotive use of language in the following:

If this leak proves accurate then the Government will be condemning tens of thousands of residents in social housing to continued fuel poverty as there is no way that 'free PV' schemes will now be financially viable.

Eh?! How does that work then? In that it's people in social housing and fuel poverty who pay for this scheme and are LEAST likely to benefit from the enormous solar subsidies, how is this going to "condemn tens of thousands" of them?

Sorry, solar PV industry, but the great big lumbering soviet-style iron horse of a gravy train has hit the buffers.

That's my 2p worth (but I'll get paid 43p for it, of course).