MSE News: Solar subsidies to be slashed under government plans

zeupater

Hi

I really do find it hard to follow exactly why so much is made if paying FiT to individuals and not to large organisations and also why there is a total disconnect between the impression of returns to individuals and the similar (or greater) rate of return available to investors/operators of most PFI projects, the scale of which confine the comparative cost of the FiT incentive into the realms of insignificance ... HM Treasury figures on PFI capital expendure and projected annual costs will confirm this to be the case. Every penny of unnecessary expenditure has an effect on what is available to spend to provide support to areas of society which need additional funding, hence there is less of a difference between FiT and PFI than some would lead us to believe ...

HTH
Z

grahamc2003

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I really do find it hard to follow exactly why so much is made if paying FiT to individuals and not to large organisations and also why there is a total disconnect between the impression of returns to individuals and the similar (or greater) rate of return available to investors/operators of most PFI projects, the scale of which confine the comparative cost of the FiT incentive into the realms of insignificance ... HM Treasury figures on PFI capital expendure and projected annual costs will confirm this to be the case. Every penny of unnecessary expenditure has an effect on what is available to spend to provide support to areas of society which need additional funding, hence there is less of a difference between FiT and PFI than some would lead us to believe ...

HTH
Z

While I agree with that, there are some points to be made. I don't think it's reasonable to effectively say because money is poured down the drain in plenty of other places, then we might as well do the same thing with 'renewable' energy. But this thread is about fits, and not pfi/the civil service pensions/firemen with 3 full-time jobs etc etc.

Another major difference is the funding coimes from all electricity users and not general taxation, leading to the argument about some of the poor subsidising some of the rich (you could say the same for taxation too, but it's less prevalent, less direct, and also not on topic). Yes the amounts are miniscule in government spending terms - but that is no valid argument. If it were, I'd say give me £3/4 billion taking a few quid off each bill and you wouldn't be able to argue against it.

I'm not against subsidies at all. I'm against ineffective subsidies, or subsidies which are so inefficient that the only reasons for them are ideological and effectively a sort of payment to support the cause, to join the green club, to make 'stakeholders. By almost any metric, the money spent on solar could be better spent somewhere else to acheive whatever non-ideological benefit you could mention. The co2 saving per £ of solar are incredibly low, the generation per £ is miniscule, and I bet the jobs created per £ is low and almost certainly ephemeral, the 'kickstart' to a new industry per £ is misguided since the industry is reliant on continued subsidy for decades if not forever, the reliable generation per £ is zero, and I bet on any measure you could come up with solar in the UK would perform poorly.

zeupater

grahamc2003 wrote: »

While I agree with that, there are some points to be made. I don't think it's reasonable to effectively say because money is poured down the drain in plenty of other places, then we might as well do the same thing with 'renewable' energy. But this thread is about fits, and not pfi/the civil service pensions/firemen with 3 full-time jobs etc etc.

Another major difference is the funding coimes from all electricity users and not general taxation, leading to the argument about some of the poor subsidising some of the rich (you could say the same for taxation too, but it's less prevalent, less direct, and also not on topic). Yes the amounts are miniscule in government spending terms - but that is no valid argument. If it were, I'd say give me £3/4 billion taking a few quid off each bill and you wouldn't be able to argue against it.

I'm not against subsidies at all. I'm against ineffective subsidies, or subsidies which are so inefficient that the only reasons for them are ideological and effectively a sort of payment to support the cause, to join the green club, to make 'stakeholders. By almost any metric, the money spent on solar could be better spent somewhere else to acheive whatever non-ideological benefit you could mention. The co2 saving per £ of solar are incredibly low, the generation per £ is miniscule, and I bet the jobs created per £ is low and almost certainly ephemeral, the 'kickstart' to a new industry per £ is misguided since the industry is reliant on continued subsidy for decades if not forever, the reliable generation per £ is zero, and I bet on any measure you could come up with solar in the UK would perform poorly.

Hi

I agree .... but when purely looking at the returns from FiT & PFI there's very little difference, however, FiTs seem to be emotive and the much greater overall cost of PFIs to society, including the most needy, do not ..... the arguments are generally the same and the outcome is generally the same, although the FiT is likely to be paid to taxpayers who contribute as opposed to PFIs & corporate bodies which seem to be able to discover ways in which to contribute less ...

It's just a way to put things into perspective .... in general terms it seems a little like an engineer deciding to put his finger into a hole in the dyke (the levee kind !) instead of deciding to close the lock gates first ..... perspective & prioritorisation ....

Z

jamesd

magyar wrote: »

Since this is basically a zero-risk investment, a 10% unlevered return seems incredibly high.

It's not zero risk. There's a significant legislative risk that the rules will be changed in the future for existing installations. There's also the question of whether you get the value of your capital back if you move home or not. And whether you're spending on something that will be less cost-effective than something you could buy in five years.

zeupater wrote: »

No, this is incorrect .... the 20% higher price for a more efficient system would only achieve the same generation off a smaller area ..... to achieve a 33% increase in generation off more efficient panels, the system would likely cost around 20%+33% (compounded) more (minus a little for unchanged base costs such as scaffold etc ...), so a 33% increase in generation would cost around 60% more, not 20% ...

Start with n panels for £x. Switch to 33% more efficient panels where the panel cost increases by 20%. A bit more cost for hardware for converting the higher power output for use/export. Where does the rest of the cost for the same n panel count come from? You now have an n panel system producing 33% more power from the same roof area.

zeupater wrote: »

I am really struggling to understand why you believe that the current scheme 'disincentivises using the more efficient panels'

I'm assuming sufficient roof area that the cap on generation is the limiting factor, not running out of roof area for the panels.

zeupater wrote: »

Another way of looking at it is that a 4kWp system would likely export around 70%+ of total generation anyway, so having a seriously large system in most circumstances is nothing to do with green, just greed.

Greed - the desire to make a sufficient profit compared to other investments - is the only reason I would install a solar power system. Otherwise it makes more sense to buy mains power and wait for costs to drop until a suitable return on investment is available. Even if in the short term the current subsidy makes it an attractive investment there's the opportunity cost of losing the chance to use the space later for more cost-efficient panels to consider.

This proposal would eliminate the remaining reason for me to buy such a system even though I have roughly the best UK combination of location and facing direction. At the moment the opportunity cost is the big reason not to do it.

zeupater

Hi

Regarding ....

jamesd wrote: »

Start with n panels for £x. Switch to 33% more efficient panels where the panel cost increases by 20%. A bit more cost for hardware for converting the higher power output for use/export. Where does the rest of the cost for the same n panel count come from? You now have an n panel system producing 33% more power from the same roof area..

I'm quite sure that you have a misunderstanding of what efficiency in terms of pv panels means. Quite simply a panel is power rated at a standard 1000W/sqm of direct sunlight at a standard temperature of 25C. Whether a nominal 250W panel is efficiency rated at 1% or 100% efficient it will generate the same power under the same nominal conditions, the only change being that a 100% efficient panel will cover an area of 0.25sqm and a 1% efficient alternative, 25sqm. A system with 33% more efficient panels will produce the same power as a less efficient system but cover a smaller area and cost more. The only way that you could produce 33% more power would be to purchase 33% more panels, therefore, if the solution to be able to achieve this on a given installation area means that more efficient panels are required, both the premium for the efficient panels and the increased number of panels must be considered.

Regarding

jamesd wrote: »

I'm assuming sufficient roof area that the cap on generation is the limiting factor, not running out of roof area for the panels.

However, sufficient roof area is the limiting factor and therefore the 'cap' for the majority. For others the cap could be pure cost, others it might be the relative return on capital employed as the FiT tariff bands are passed .... and yet others may just not want/require more panels than they deem necessary on their roofs ...... for example, my own system could have been considerably larger than it is, therefore, not being space limited, more efficient panels would make absolutely no economic sense ....

HTH
Z

jamesd

zeupater wrote: »

I'm quite sure that you have a misunderstanding of what efficiency in terms of pv panels means.

I don't, because...

jamesd wrote: »

Start with n panels for £x. Switch to 33% more efficient panels where the panel cost increases by 20%. ... You now have an n panel system producing 33% more power from the same roof area.

zeupater wrote: »

A system with 33% more efficient panels will produce the same power as a less efficient system but cover a smaller area

... we both correctly described the way efficiency causes the power generated to vary with surface area. You started with fixed power output and varied the area. I started with fixed area and varied the efficiency.

zeupater wrote: »

The only way that you could produce 33% more power would be to purchase 33% more panels

No need for the panel count to change, you just switch to the same number of more efficient panels.

Maybe you're used to fixing the output for calculations of what's needed and forgot that you can fix the number of panels and vary the efficiency?

zeupater wrote: »

sufficient roof area is the limiting factor and therefore the 'cap' for the majority

My point was for situations closer to yours, where there is sufficient area available to reach the generation cap and exceed it, exceeding by more of more costly and efficient panels are used. That will presumably happen for ever smaller sites as the technology improves.

zeupater wrote: »

my own system could have been considerably larger than it is, therefore, not being space limited, more efficient panels would make absolutely no economic sense ....

Right. That's the problem that I'm trying to address. I assuming that you were capped by the generation limit, then chose the cheapest available panels by W per square meter to meet that target.

I'd prefer you to be capped by an area limit, then selecting the panels that are most price-efficient comparing panel price and generating capacity for the available area. If the FiT is sufficiently high or the cost premium for more efficient panels sufficiently low that should make it sensible for you to choose more efficient panels. And that should better help to achieve a policy objective of increasing the amount of solar power generated than limiting how much power you can produce from the area.

betheebee

Hi
I've just found this thread . I have a question but don't know if this is the place to ask so please forgive me if it's on the wrong page.
My question is, Once the firm that is going to fit my panels has registered the system with my electricity supplier, how long does the elec supplier have to start paying the FIT? can they drag their heels and not recognise my claim for weeks or months or do they have a deadline ?
I'd be gratefull for any info, Thanks in advance.

orrery

betheebee wrote: »

Hi
I've just found this thread . I have a question but don't know if this is the place to ask so please forgive me if it's on the wrong page.
My question is, Once the firm that is going to fit my panels has registered the system with my electricity supplier, how long does the elec supplier have to start paying the FIT? can they drag their heels and not recognise my claim for weeks or months or do they have a deadline ?
I'd be gratefull for any info, Thanks in advance.

I'm in the same position as you, by the sound of it (7 days to install). I've already contacted my electricity supplier and they have sent me the forms. I could start filling them in now, but they can't be completed until after the install (Wednesday next week for me). The date runs from when the electricity co receives your completed forms - mine will go in by special delivery (my experience is that recorded delivery isn't reliable enough now). The serious risk would be that they decide that there is something wrong with the forms when they received them!

The data with the forms explains about the timescales for the FIT payments.

sly_dog_jonah

betheebee wrote: »

Hi
I've just found this thread . I have a question but don't know if this is the place to ask so please forgive me if it's on the wrong page.
My question is, Once the firm that is going to fit my panels has registered the system with my electricity supplier, how long does the elec supplier have to start paying the FIT? can they drag their heels and not recognise my claim for weeks or months or do they have a deadline ?
I'd be gratefull for any info, Thanks in advance.

I've not heard of an installer doing the FiT application on your behalf, unless they are renting you roof for 25years and keeping the FiT income for themselves.

Don't confuse this with the installer notifying the local elec distributor (probably western power if your are somerset?) of the installation.

Check with your installer whether they are doing the FiT forms on your behalf. I doubt it, unless you have given them your bank details, Elec A/C numbers and signed the FiT Application forms.

FiT payments are made quarterly and the latest you would expect the first payment is 90 days after your forms are received by the company you applied for the FiT payments from. Applications frequently get lost in the post so get proactive about chasing the status of the application, and use recorded delivery so you have proof of the date of delivery. Alternatively, ask your FiT supplier if they accept scanned documents/applications. EDF do via feedintariffs@edfenergy.com however you need to get the forms from them to be able to do this. They can email them out to you.

orrery

sly_dog_jonah wrote: »

FiT payments are made quarterly and the latest you would expect the first payment is 90 days after your forms are received by the company you applied for the FiT payments from.

Wouldn't that be within 90 days of the 1st meter quarterly reading submission date - i.e. up to 6 months after install? And in my case, it will be a poor quarter too!

I'm not planning on ordering the Jag until quite late next year.