MSE News: Legal battle launched over solar subsidy cuts

larkim

Cardew wrote: »

This is the $64,000 question. Rent a Roof(RAR) systems are registered with MCS in the name of the house owner so have they any way of knowing?

Is that right? Bearing in mind that in 2,3, 10, 20 years I might move house, I presume the MCS details would not be updated to reflect that.

Under the Eon scheme (the only one I have detailed knowledge about), there is an intermediary company - Our Generation Ltd. They have leased the space above my roof to allow them to install a system. I would imagine that the MCS cert (which I haven't seen, and don't expect to) would have their name on it, not mine.

I'm not challenging your knowledge, just clarifying. Not that it matters to me anyway!

Cheers!

Matt

Cardew

As you say this is a Money Saving Website.

There is one major issue which you haven't addressed -and dismissing it is not the same as addressing the issue. If Solar electricity is wonderful/desirable etc - then let us produce it as cheaply as possible and that means large solar farms in Devon and Cornwall. Incidentally I brought up the issue of France and Spain.

Why wouldn't these farms lead to cheaper production of panels, which you seem to feel can only be attributable to FIT.

Cardew

larkim wrote: »

Is that right? Bearing in mind that in 2,3, 10, 20 years I might move house, I presume the MCS details would not be updated to reflect that.

Under the Eon scheme (the only one I have detailed knowledge about), there is an intermediary company - Our Generation Ltd. They have leased the space above my roof to allow them to install a system. I would imagine that the MCS cert (which I haven't seen, and don't expect to) would have their name on it, not mine.

I'm not challenging your knowledge, just clarifying. Not that it matters to me anyway!

Cheers!

Matt

I was asking a question - not stating a fact?

This is the $64,000 question. Rent a Roof(RAR) systems are registered with MCS in the name of the house owner so have they any way of knowing?

I just haven't seen any breakdown of RAR installations.

The_Green_Hornet

Cardew wrote: »

This is the $64,000 question. Rent a Roof(RAR) systems are registered with MCS in the name of the house owner so have they any way of knowing?

larkim wrote: »

Is that right? Bearing in mind that in 2,3, 10, 20 years I might move house, I presume the MCS details would not be updated to reflect that.

Under the Eon scheme (the only one I have detailed knowledge about), there is an intermediary company - Our Generation Ltd. They have leased the space above my roof to allow them to install a system. I would imagine that the MCS cert (which I haven't seen, and don't expect to) would have their name on it, not mine.

Cardew wrote: »

I was asking a question - not stating a fact?

Mmmm . Sounds like you were falsely claiming that RAR systems are registered with MCS in the name of the house owner.

Are you now back tracking on that claim?

Cardew

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

Mmmm . Sounds like you were falsely claiming that RAR systems are registered with MCS in the name of the house owner.

Are you now back tracking on that claim?

Not backtracking - I thought they were registered in the name of the house owner.

If that is incorrect then it answers my question - i.e. MCS would know how many are RAR installations.

However the supplementary question is does anyone know how many RAR installations have been installed?

larkim

I read your statement "RaR systems are registered with MCS in the name of the householder" as something you knew, and then your question was "have they any way of knowing?". I must have misunderstood, though hopefully you can see why I was confused!

All I can comment on is that the certification process hasn't involved me at all; having not done a "purchased system" installation I don't know what I might have expected to have signed / seen in respect of an MCS cert, but I've seen nothing.

Matt

Martyn1981

larkim wrote: »

Is that right? Bearing in mind that in 2,3, 10, 20 years I might move house, I presume the MCS details would not be updated to reflect that.

Under the Eon scheme (the only one I have detailed knowledge about), there is an intermediary company - Our Generation Ltd. They have leased the space above my roof to allow them to install a system. I would imagine that the MCS cert (which I haven't seen, and don't expect to) would have their name on it, not mine.

I'm not challenging your knowledge, just clarifying. Not that it matters to me anyway!

Cheers!

Matt

No it's not right. The FITs application paperwork requires you to state who the 'owner' of the scheme is and to whom the payments are to be made. Otherwise the RaR's would never get their money.

There is a website that lists all the installs, but I can't remember the link. I think it may be on the DECC site.

Incidentally, I'm not a fan of RaR's as they've syphoned a lot of the money off, but playing devil's advocate, they did help to get the industry up to speed in the early days. Also many social landlords and LA's are operating similar schemes, and these do benefit many low income households directly by reducing their leccy bills. Lower tariffs for multiple installs, and tax on profits should now help to reduce such schemes.

Mart.

rogerblack

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Regarding the grid parity numbers, I stand by them, though perhaps I misled you with the term grid parity. Yes for energy suppliers to replace conventional generated electricity with PV electricity they would need a supply price closer to 3p. But since domestic customers are paying approx 13p to 15p for electricity, every kWh produced, and used saves them that amount.

I personally would favour a scheme where one could simply 'net meter', and the funding to to the energy companies to cover the costs of this.

However, neglecting that, there is one area that may make a big difference that's plausible to change in the next 10 years or so.

Energy storage.
You have 4kW of panels on the roof, and they are making ~5-10% return, depending on the scheme you joined, and the time you joined it.

If energy storage was free, then you could use all of your energy internally (assuming you use more than it produces per year).
Or around 200+ pounds/year (difference in export and import rates).

If I already had a 4kWp system on the roof, then at the moment, the batteries are not quite up to it.

Simply as 1kWh of battery that lasts 1000 cycles costs 100 pounds, which means that even neglecting inefficiencies in charge, 9p/kWh * 1000kWh = 90 quid or so, so it's a net loss.

If LiFePO4 or other cells arrive at a comparable price to this, but can do more cycles, then a plug-in energy storage device might be a very useful adjunct to solar.

Not to mention for those without solar, who can simply switch onto economy 7, and never use any peak power at all.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

As you say this is a Money Saving Website.

There is one major issue which you haven't addressed -and dismissing it is not the same as addressing the issue. If Solar electricity is wonderful/desirable etc - then let us produce it as cheaply as possible and that means large solar farms in Devon and Cornwall. Incidentally I brought up the issue of France and Spain.

Why wouldn't these farms lead to cheaper production of panels, which you seem to feel can only be attributable to FIT.

Point by point, and apologies to anyone I'm boring.

There is one major issue which you haven't addressed -and dismissing it is not the same as addressing the issue.

I didn't dismiss it, but this thread was about the current legal battle over domestic FITs rates, so I didn't want to confuse the issue or mislead anyone.

If Solar electricity is wonderful/desirable etc

Wonderful / desirable - in an attempt at fairness, I personally think it is extremely clean, quick and easy to install and has the potential to be cheap. These are personal views, I'm not claiming to be right, I'm just following the historical data. I have nothing against you disagreeing entirely, after all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not unswayable, just realistic. If nuclear fussion could be solved tomorrow, then stuff PV for on-grid! But till then ....

then let us produce it as cheaply as possible and that means large solar farms in Devon and Cornwall

Nothing against large solar farms in Devon and Cornwall, but back to distributed power, so better to have such farms located nationwide. Production may be lower as you go further north, but not disasterous, and system losses from long distribution would be minimised. So go for it, I've no problems with the industry, but don't forget to account for all industry costs and profits. Personally, roof mounted production with minimal overheads has equal merits.

Incidentally I brought up the issue of France and Spain.

Not a clue what this refers to, but fair enough, well done, you were right, have a chocolate watch, gold star!

Why wouldn't these farms lead to cheaper production of panels, which you seem to feel can only be attributable to FIT.

Always with the negative waves, Moriarty, always with the negative waves!

What did I say earlier about aggression and misquoting? Farms of panels will help immensely, and already have under the original FITs. I'm not disagreeing with your disagreement at all. Just not sure where you've created said disagreement from.

The PV industry has been growing steadily for decades, and prices have been falling on average 20% for every doubling in annual production. So like everything in life, as production goes up, costs and therefore prices fall. Economics 1.01.

Worldwide support, subsidies and FITs have contributed to the faster growth in demand, and the subsequent faster fall in prices. Said support is artificial tampering, which leads on to a much, much bigger debate, on the need, and speed to act on CO2 production. If you don't agree, fine, that's your opinion, if you do agree, also fine, the artificial support is speeding up the point at which PV becomes affordable (hopefully) to most of us. Simples.

Have fun misinterpreting, or taking everything above personally, then trying to continue a black and white argument.

Personally I think the world is grey (in a nice way), so I'll continue to try to answer each point factually, rather than personally.

Keep smiling, it's almost Xmas.

Mart.

grahamc2003

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Also many social landlords and LA's are operating similar schemes, and these do benefit many low income households directly by reducing their leccy bills.
Mart.

The other side of the 'free' energy use from rar solar is the increase in everyone's electricity bill to pay for these, and other such, schemes.

I believe the benefit is around £70pa to 'social' housing residents, with the average loading of bills for the fit plus all other 'green' subsidies exceeding that, and rising very quickly.

Whether solar subsidies make sense in a political sense is unclear to me (and I expect your job is mainly political support for such schemes, is that correct?), but I speak from the engineering standpoint, where there is no doubt that the absolutely tiny amount of generation solar panels produce, always at times of readily available cheap generation which it displaces, and never at times of high demand when the cost, both financial and environmental, is high, and at an extremely high cost of energy per pound invested, is a complete non-starter.

It really is the equivalent of paying people lots of cash to have a very unreliable and expensive car which never works when needed most, so another car, a reliable one, is bought for those times when needed most. They - both the car and solar panels - are actually extremely environmentally wasteful due to the duplicity and redundancy caused.

Politically of course, every solar panel user is a great supporter of 'green' initiatives whatever their inherent real benefits or costs, even if, as above, those in social housing financially lose out, even after their free electricity.