We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MSE News: Solar subsidies to be slashed under government plans
Options
Comments
-
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.
Our experience was that it took four and a half weeks from installation. (Unfortunately that meant we missed the FITs from May/June's sunny weather.) The delay was because it took the installer several weeks to send the documentation. Our installer told us the delay wasn't his fault, but we were never sure why it took so long. The firm did not register the system; we had to get the paperwork from the installer and register it with our power company ourselves. As soon as they (in our case, Scottish Power) received it they registered it. Keep at your installer for the paperwork!0 -
0
-
sly_dog_jonah wrote: »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 [EMAIL="feedintariffs@edfenergy.com"]feedintariffs@edfenergy.com[/EMAIL] however you need to get the forms from them to be able to do this. They can email them out to you.
Thanks for the info, I meant to say that the firm supplying and fitting will notify our elec supplier who is First Utility. We will be doing the FiT forms, thank to you I'll get the forms now and start to fill them in, every day counts now due to the leaked news that the tariff might drop on 8th Dec. I'll also send the forms by Recorded Delivery.0 -
0
-
Hi
Regarding .......... 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? ...
There is still an obvious misunderstanding on the term efficiency as used in solar pv and how this effects the cost ...... so let's work through this with an example based on your own thoughts .....
Let's assume ....
A nominal area cap of say 25sqm as per your logic
A standard panel efficiency of 15%
A high efficiency panel rated at 20%
An installed price of £3/Wp for standard panels
An installed price of £3.60/Wp for high efficiency panels
Forgetting the number of panels and the size of each panel completely and working purely on the area available.
A standard system ....
System : 1000W/sqm*15%*25sqm = 3750Wp
Price : 3750Wp*£3/Wp = £11250
A high efficiency system ...
System : 1000W/sqm*20%*25sqm = 5000Wp
Price : 5000Wp*£3.60/Wp = £18000
The high efficiency system which produces a 33% higher (5000Wp/3750Wp) output on the same area costs 60% (£18000/£11250) more ..... QED ...... 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.
Yes, and 'exceeding' with more costly panels will definately be more costly than exceeding with area and this is the case until the limiting factor of area runs out, or there is no premium for efficiency in terms of cost/Wp ... in your proposal the limit would be a nominal cap, in the current system it's the area available, or the tariff bands etc ....... 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.
No, that is not the case ..... The nominal capacity of the system was chosen to address the house baseload during daylight hours for the majority of the year. The panels and other equipment selected were not the cheapest available and are reasonably efficient ... high efficiency panels were considered but applying a cost/benefit analysis made them an unnecessary and costly option. The size of the system also offsets the household total electricity consumption over a year, whatever benefits that might have. If the purchase decision was made purely to maximise FiT income (greed) then we would be far enough into the 10kWp+ tariff band for it to make sense, so the 'generation limit', whatever that means, in our particular case was not a limiting factor.
I still cannot follow the logic where there is not a space limit and what the ultimate immediate benefits would be for this proposal, other than delaying the uptake of pv by most until the most efficient possible panels are available, whenever that would be, this being totally counter to the policy objective you raise above ........ 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.
Our panel selection was based partially on efficiency, partially on asthetics, partially on cost and partially on where they are manufactured ..... and as a result there are panels there now, however, if there were caps on the area of roof which could be covered with pv I would likely be awaiting the panacea of the ultimate efficiency panel at a cost which would make the installation attractive enough to purchase and would therefore probably have no panels in place .....
Do you have panels, or are you awaiting the development of more efficient panels, or is this discussion merely academic ?
HTH
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
0 -
Indeed there was misunderstanding, your calculation clarified where it was:There is still an obvious misunderstanding on the term efficiency as used in solar pv and how this effects the cost
In that writing the context was panels, so a 20%+ price premium was read by me as per panel...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.
while the calculation showed that it was a 20% premium per Wp that you were thinking of, not per panel. The ambiguity wasn't in the panel efficiency but in how you specified the panel price premium - by Wp rather than by panel.A standard system ....
System : 1000W/sqm*15%*25sqm = 3750Wp
Price : 3750Wp*£3/Wp = £11250
A high efficiency system ...
System : 1000W/sqm*20%*25sqm = 5000Wp
Price : 5000Wp*£3.60/Wp = £18000
Not QED but it does require a larger payment for generated power or saving for consumed power to pay off than if it's 20% more per panel. Doubt there's sufficient premium for it to pay off at present, not sure about what future price assumptions I want to make that could make it pay.The high efficiency system which produces a 33% higher (5000Wp/3750Wp) output on the same area costs 60% (£18000/£11250) more ..... QED ...
Interesting choice. From the description it seems that your objective was to reduce net power use of the property but not to generate the maximum cost-effective amount of PV power.No, that is not the case ..... The nominal capacity of the system was chosen to address the house baseload during daylight hours for the majority of the year. The panels and other equipment selected were not the cheapest available and are reasonably efficient ... high efficiency panels were considered but applying a cost/benefit analysis made them an unnecessary and costly option. The size of the system also offsets the household total electricity consumption over a year, whatever benefits that might have. If the purchase decision was made purely to maximise FiT income (greed) then we would be far enough into the 10kWp+ tariff band for it to make sense, so the 'generation limit', whatever that means, in our particular case was not a limiting factor.
I agree with you that it would cause some potential buyers to defer purchasing. But different people have different return on investment objectives - whether purely financial or some blend - so some would still do it.I still cannot follow the logic where there is not a space limit and what the ultimate immediate benefits would be for this proposal, other than delaying the uptake of pv by most until the most efficient possible panels are available, whenever that would be, this being totally counter to the policy objective you raise above .....
I have a smallish south-facing roof in the southern part of the country that I could probably install panels on if I wanted to. I'm making the decision on purely financial grounds, including power income/saving and release of capital after property sale, whenever that might happen.Do you have panels, or are you awaiting the development of more efficient panels, or is this discussion merely academic ?
The capital cost issue is a big one for a property that will be sold at some point - it's not a lifetime home. It's simply a place that's substantially cheaper than renting.0 -
It's not really pro reduction. It's favouring keeping the subsidy at its current level for one group and reducing it for another. That would just let more individual homeowners do it, not reducing the amount of subsidy paid. Those who are concerned about reducing the subsidy that they are paying in their power bills aren't really going to care who's generating the power that they are subsidising, since they still get to pay the higher prices.HalloweenJack wrote: »0 -
It's not really pro reduction. It's favouring keeping the subsidy at its current level for one group and reducing it for another. That would just let more individual homeowners do it, not reducing the amount of subsidy paid. Those who are concerned about reducing the subsidy that they are paying in their power bills aren't really going to care who's generating the power that they are subsidising, since they still get to pay the higher prices.
Exactly.
The rent a Roof companies proposed FIT is 16.8p/kWh - still too high IMO. and agree they should be the main target
However I am totally against paying any home owners 43.3p/kWh which is funded in higher electricity prices by:
those who can't afford £10,000+
or who live in rented accomodation
live in flats
have unsuitable roofs
There is absolutely no justification for the poorest in the land paying towards income for the well off.
I certainly won't sign the petition0 -
Wont sign that petition I am totally against the FiT as its simple not fair for those who cant afford already high energy prices to pay for those rent a roof schemes or those affluent people who can look with glee they are doing there bit mean whole making a nice buck
The sooner this scheme changed/scrapped the better
A petition wont make a slight but of difference anyway but if it makes you feel go go aheadHalloweenJack wrote: »
a petiton is up pro reduction0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards