MSE News: Legal threats over solar subsidy cuts

ANITALANGLEY

I have read all the posts with interest. I run a small renewable energy company and the reduction of the FITs will have a major impact on my business to the extent that I may lose it. I don't want sympathy but I wonder why so many people don't want those who installed solar PV to benefit from their investment? They say it is the poorest who are paying the FITs. Well if that is the case then are not the energy companies to blame? The Gov say they need to pull the plug as the subsidies are now too expensive. Who for? - not them as the energy companies are paying. The way this withdrawal of subsidies has been handled is disgraceful. I have been selling and installing heat pumps for years and the grants available for them is ridiculous - hopefully the new Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) due for implimentation in 2012 will encourage people to go green. I really believe in what I do in terms of educating people about how to go green and reducing their running costs but external forces will take my business away and leave me very disillusioned. 12 hard years of slog down the drain, so it's not just the poorest who lose from this it's everyone - except of course the energy companies and the Gov who never lose. Remember, we are way behind the rest of Europe in our renewable technologies and the Gov does have a deadline to meet. We all have a planet to look after so we must all do what we can, not harp on about who has money and who doesn't. It's gone passed that now. Most of us have children or grandchildren, it's them we need to consider. If the current situation continues, money will become irrelevant and the fight for survival will take over. Please think ahead.
Ian, the price sounds fair and Sharp are good panels. Make sure that deadline promise is in writing. Good luck

Cardew

SallyKing wrote: »

China always seems to get a mention for its coal fired power stations but no one ever mentions their wind turbines.

Is the point of this post to imply China generates 'green' energy?

Google 'polution China' to see the situation.

grahamc2003

Ok, I'll mention China's wind turbines.

Their wind capacity is predicted to rise in 2020 to 250TWh.

Their coal capacity is expected to rise in 2020 (from about 3300TWh atm) to 4600TWh, and their increase in coal burning is predicted to rise by about 1.4 billion tons extra pa in that period (not far off doubling, from 1.9bn tons today to 3.4bn in 2020.

In contrast, the UK burns about 40m tons of coal, which is about 40% of the annual increase of China's use. Or, to put another way, China is increasing it's burning of coal each year by more than twice the UKs total consumption.

Makes you wonder in Global terms what effect very expensive 'carbon scrubbing' on one or two of our coal fired stations will have.

rogerblack

ANITALANGLEY wrote: »

They say it is the poorest who are paying the FITs. Well if that is the case then are not the energy companies to blame? The Gov say they need to pull the plug as the subsidies are now too expensive. Who for? - not them as the energy companies are paying.

The FiTs are paid not from tax, but from a levy on energy companies.
Where do you think this comes from if not from customers!!!

While I sympathise that you may lose your business, for any personal hardship you may endure at this difficult time, find it really difficult to see why I - who am at the moment not having the heating on due to energy prices should subsidise your business that is involved in a government money-burning endeavour. (I am aware that at the moment, renewables subsidies are a small fraction of the total)

Speaking of solar-PV - at the moment, panel prices globally are not that much over a pound a watt.

The notion that it's sensible to subsidise any solar installation - nomatter where it is, to the level that the panels are paid off in under four years is barking mad.

The argument that panels on roofs are more expensive to install in 4kW batches, so should attract a higher subsidy is not a sane one.

The only legitimate way, if it's desired to increase the amount of solar power in the country, is to push the cheapest per kWp developments.
If people want them on their roofs as a lifestyle choice, they should be paid no more than people with a field of panels stretching as far as the eye can see!

In addition.
There are generous grants and subsidies for installing solar-pv and RHI (or at least were). This is totally the wrong way to go, as these devices will break down in the relatively near term.
Similar grants should also be available for improving buildings thermal performance.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

In the context I used it, IMO it isn't a negative point and any work in UK is to be welcomed.(including car assembly)

You I believe, amongst others, have advanced the theory justifying the UK kick-starting solar usage as a means to eventually bring down prices.

Well why the UK?

China, the USA, India etc are happy to open coal fired power stations by the hundred and not provide any(very little in the USA) subsidies for their citizens to have solar PV.

Largely the research and production on solar is carried out in USA, China, Germany and Japan and they are the countries who will benefit from increased solar sales.

We covered the car issue before and again I don't think your analogy holds water. It might be appropriate if those who could afford to buy New Toyota/Honda/Nissans received a big subsidy from those who couldn't afford to buy a new car.;)

Hi

A very strange thing to post "Well why the UK? " ... that seems to have been written in a way which conveys that other countries are not operating similar schemes .... even stranger to follow on by posting regarding China, the USA & India providing little or no subsidy to the consumer, but I do note the 'to the consumer', but a subsidy is a subsidy .....

To be slightly less misleading, shouldn't the point regarding state subsidy of pv be ....

'Well why' not consider the G8 nations (France, United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada) as they collectively comprise over 50% of global GDP ..... bring in China and India which you mention and there's a considerable slice of the worlds population and wealth within ten countries .... so do the countries operate FiT schemes ...

France .... Yes .... (http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/french-pv-tariff-levels-announced_100002421/)
United States .... Yes .... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States#Incentives)
United Kingdom .... Yes .... Obviously !
Russia .... No
Germany .... Yes .... (http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?page_id=965)
Japan .... Yes .... (http://www.interpv.net/market/market_view.asp?idx=373&part_code=04)
Italy .... Yes .... (http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/italy-to-cut-solar-power-incentives-in-2011-2013_100000423/)
Canada .... Yes .... (http://microfit.powerauthority.on.ca/)
China .... Yes .... (http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/09/14/14climatewire-china-uses-feed-in-tariff-to-build-domestic-25559.html)
India .... Yes .... (http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/focus-on-indias-solar-policy-framework_100002610/)

.... then there are further 40 or so nations which also have similar schemes, but I'll take it that it would be unnecessary to list those too, but its really suffice to say that of the major nations it seems that only Russia, Brazil & Mexico don't currently operate any form of incentive/subsidy, however Mexico does operate a net metering scheme in an area of the world with pretty decent insolation ...

Regarding the car analogy ... you may wish to portray that the analogy is incorrect, but I strongly disagree .... The analogy was raised to counter a point regarding regional subsidy paid to a manufacturer to set up a pv plant in Wrexham, the counter argument was merely to point out that similar subsidies are paid in industry sectors other than solar pv and therefore the regional development fund becomes irrelevant when specifically discussing solar pv .... I believe that to be correct, others would see that to be correct and I believe that, reconsidering the context of the original point and your view on welcoming UK work, you would also ....

HTH
Z

SunnyDaze_2

Quote Rogerblack:- raw materials are £5k

Assume installation is £1k so the installer is currently making a tidy £3k-£4k profit.

If people decide not to install due to the subsidy drop - Simple supply & demand will force the installers to drastically drop their prices and push their suppliers to reduce the raw materials costs.

Impact - Customers pay less so the payback on a reduced subsidy is (almost) as quick as the current level. The only downside is that the Profit after payback is lower. But isn't that a good thing - as
installing Solar shouln't be about making a massive profit, but rather about subsidsing installation to encourage people to put them on their roof.

rogerblack

SunnyDaze wrote: »

installing Solar shouln't be about making a massive profit, but rather about subsidsing installation to encourage people to put them on their roof.

Why?
Why should we pay people who choose to put them on roofs more than the same panels installed in a large field?

BarryQ

Whilst I am in favour of renewable technologies such as solar I do not like the way the FIT scheme has been implemented.

That said due to the scheme the cost of solar in the UK has more than halved in a relatively short period and if the scheme had continued we would probably have seen grid parity in a relatively short time.

Whilst it really isn't fair to pass on the cost of the scheme to bill payers no-one seems to have noticed the big "fat cat" elephant in the room.

You as a taxpayer are already subsidising the Fossil and nuclear industry to the tune of £2.5 Billion every year in the UK alone, now tell why no-one is complaining about that.

In fact in Europe as a whole we subsidise fossil-fuel burning and nuclear so much that just one years worth of subsidy could revolutionise the worlds renewable energy industry making renewables such as solar cost competitive with fossil and nuclear power according to the World Energy Council.

It's just like the banker's fiasco, we bail them out and they carry on business as usual.

Cardew

rogerblack wrote: »

Why?
Why should we pay people who choose to put them on roofs more than the same panels installed in a large field?

Also in areas of high output like Devon and Cornwall instead of tiny installations scattered all over the country and often on unsuitable roofs.

Incidently to prevent the counter-argument that 'field' means prime farming land, it should be pointed out this can mean 'Brownfield' site and/or roofs of factories, supermarkets etc.

If our political masters deem it necessary that solar electricity must be produced to meet treaty obligations, then surely it should be produced as efficiently as possible in order to reduce the subsidies that we consumers all pay in increased electricity costs.

[Deleted User]

Liverpool_Red wrote: »

Hi Guys and Girls, Ive read with interest your posts.

I am sitting on a fence (painfull).

Ive been given a quote for £11500 and promised it will be done before 12 December.

The company seems a good one. Installed a lot on the Wirral.
The details are :-

Solar Panels
15 x Sharp NU-245 (J5)

Inverter
Aurora PVI-3.6-OUTD

I wondered if you know anything about these and is it a good price?

Thanks in advance
Ian

Given the timescales the price is fine, had you booked a month or so ago you might have got a price say £1k cheaper. Also at this late stage you will have liitle choice over kit as it's all in short supply, nothing wrong with what you have been offered anyway.

Got to grab these middle class benefits while you can...