MSE News: Legal battle launched over solar subsidy cuts

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.


Mart.

Perhaps you might care to review your last couple of posts and see all the personal remarks! However as ‘robust discussion’ on an internet forum is apparently not to your taste; let me put this in my gentlest non-aggressive manner;)


Your whole argument, for gradual reduction of FIT etc, is based on the premise that solar has an important part to play in the UK’s generation of electricity.

Personally I don’t accept that premise. However if our political masters insist that solar is necessary to meet our treaty obligations, then surely it is better to generate that solar electricity as cheaply and efficiently as possible.

That objective is clearly not achieved by having tiny solar installations in far flung locations, often on non-optimum roofs.(wrong orientation/shaded etc)

Why not scrap the FIT scheme now for all future participants – after all the Government only committed us to pay a finite amount in subsidy and 90% is already used – and have all solar generation from solar farms in Devon and Cornwall? Surely that would meet all the aims of both the economists and environmentalists?

It seems the only reason that FITs are being continued is to assuage the impact on the solar industry and RAR companies – an industry that largely didn’t exist two years ago – and house owners who want a slice of the ‘action’.

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

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.

Wow, I thought some earlier posts had some inaccuracies in them, but where do I start with this one?

Lets try to be polite and start with something that's right. Your opening line says that bills will rise to pay for this, yep, you got that one right.

Now for the rest. Bills up more than £70. Seriously? The whole green tariff adds about 10% (£30 to £40 on an average bill) to electricity costs. This has been posted earlier. The vast majority of the money goes, and always has gone to subsidise nuclear. All FITs (wind, solar, biomass) account for approx £2 of that.

Unless you are complaining about nuclear subsidies, then you're closing remark is incorrect also.

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?),

Nope, it's as wrong as you can be. I'm just a normal (well as abnormal as the next man) 41 year old, who finds all new technology extremely interesting, and enjoys reading, or watching anything about renewables as they will (like it or not) have a big effect on all of us. Everything I've posted is available on the net from unbiased sources. And I've gone out of my way to caveat everything I've posted, and only include factually correct data, or when looking forward, pointed out that the numbers are mine based on past trends. Yet again, was that remark really necessary? Cant' we all just get along?

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.

I'll try to be quick. Tiny amount, why would you think that, who have you been listening to? On a sunny day a 4kWp system could maintain about 3.6kW for many hours. In June that would probably total about 500kWh, but in December, only about 80kWh. Even in winter when the sun to panel angle is off, you'd hope for 1.5kW at peak, though admittedly less reliable and for less hours.

The mid day power demand peak is only slightly less than the evening peak. It is neither readily available nor cheap, the exact opposite in fact. This demand peak of 12 to 2 matches up perfectly with peak PV generation especially when you note that the mid point 1pm BST, is actually 12noon GMT when the sun is strongest. So just to clarify, electricity is expensive and dirty at mid day, PV peaks at mid day. Cheap shot, but I feel this one warrants it - Could you have got it more wrong, or misrepresented the situation more?

How can it be a complete non-starter when it started 30 years ago? I won't bore anyone anymore by repeating any of my previous numbers, but please refer back and question any that you feel are wrong. I'm happy to have a friendly discussion, and if I'm wrong, then I get to learn more, which is very enjoyable, once you've realised that being right isn't that important.

Personally I believe that I have set out a reasonable argument for affordable, subsidy free, domestic installs in about 5 years time. Though if I'm completely honest, I have doctored my own made up numbers slightly for ease of maths. I think export prices are more likely to reach 4.5p than 5p in 5 years time, and import prices to be closer to 17p than 15p. But I felt they cancel each other out, and it's easier to work with 5 and 10, than 4.5 and 17. Apologies if anyone takes offence!

If you or I could get a 3% to 6% return from a domestic install, (after deducting for inverter replacement costs) then how is that a non starter? Would you apply the same logic to an annual fuel bill saving of £200 to £300 following a full gas central heating upgrade costing £5k. The numbers are the same, though I could get petty and point out no maintenance costs for PV, and a life expectancy of 40+ years, though panel efficiency will probably decline about 0.25% to 0.5% pa, so generation after 40 years may only be 80 to 90% of initial rating.

Isn't a huge proportion of this site dedicated to finding good long term investments? Isn't reducing your bills for the next 40 years a good long term investment? Remember, as leccy prices rise, the PV savings actually increase, as you continue to buy less of something that keeps costing more (that was a bit tricky, hope it makes sense). So it's the gift that keeps on giving.

There is an astonishing amount out there to learn about PV. I accept that I'm biased, but none of it is negative (in the long term) once you've removed some of the old wives tales that still get spoken / posted. My personal favourite is 'solar panels don't even generate the energy it takes to make them in their whole lifetime'. The real figure is about 18 months for the panels, or approx 3 years to cover all parts and associated energy for a full domestic install.

But when did the truth ever get in the way of a good, 'this bloke down the pub told me' fact?

I should point out that all of my positiveness and optimism is based on PV subsidies continuing to reduce, and hopefully in about 5 years disappearing completely. If I'm wrong about that, then obviously most of what I've posted is also wrong by association, or at least will take longer to reach fruition. But given the staggering improvements in efficiency and price over the years (especially the last 5) would anyone seriously bet it against it today?

Smile, it's all good.

Mart.

jamesd

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Just to repeat that point as it's so important, a 50% reduction in only 2 years as a direct response to falling worldwide PV prices. When was the last time you heard about a success like that?

Cotton prices halved from January this year to now. For electronics check the prices of DVD players and LCD TVs in larger sizes and now 3d TVs.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

A system that in perhaps 5 years could, without subsidies, save people money, is surely something that should be supported, not knocked.

Nope, it should be abolished. We don't need to be spending this money on home PV now, we can simply wait those five years instead of taking on a 25 year obligation just to move a few years earlier. Same for the proposed substantial subsidies for grid transmission of wind power from Scotland to the demand locations, in addition to the already substantial subsidies for wind power generation. While governments like to be seen to be "doing something", sometimes the best something is to wait a while.

Instead the money can be used to increase the proposed Green Deal funding and get long term benefits for the housing stock that'll still be saving money five or ten years from now when home PV is more competitive.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But I'm happy to draw a line in southern Spain if you prefer, especially given their new CSP plants that have up to 14 hours of stored energy.

Those are quite a promising development if the costs can make them competitive with the raw (subsidies removed) price of wholesale power for delivery in the SE UK. The molten salt storage is a nice bit of technology that can reduce the pain of some of solar's limitations.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Absolutely not, my posts repeatedly refer to worldwide demand and worldwide FITs schemes. Why would you ask me the opposite of what I have posted? What's to gain by such cheap shots when I'm simply trying to illustrate the big picture?

You were advocating continuing the UK scheme to help drive lower costs so it's unsurprising that you'd be criticised for doing that when it's a worldwide supply issue that's driving prices down. The difference is huge, because it means we can just abolish the UK schemes and wait. Installer businesses can switch to Green Deal work for a while. Plenty to do there.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

the national grid is under pressure, and distributed / local generation is one of the solutions. My understanding is that large centralised generation is a problem it is not desired.

The large centralised plants tend to be located close to demand. Something like wind power mostly isn't, particularly in Scotland. Domestic solar PV is located with some demand but doesn't help the grid because it's not available at peak load times so the grid has to be built out at full capacity but then is only funded by reduced usage at off peak times, raising effective transmission costs for those who provide the peak power.

A large centralised power system can help the grid. Take for example the new 895MW Langage natural gas fired Centrica plant located between Exeter and Plymouth that recently started operation. Thats on a spur of the grid and is reliable 24/7 power so it'll reduce transmission demand into the area and actually help the grid at both peak and off peak times. It's a great example of good reliable generation siting as well as being the first large power station to be built in the UK after a five year gap.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

As for wind, it doesn't always blow, but with approx 40% of Europe's usable wind energy we'd be silly to ignore such a huge energy source that on average is extremely consistent. But as with most renewables, the bigger question is the economic storage of excess unfortunately.

I agree that storage is a good problem to solve but it's not the biggest problem. That's somehow becoming price-competitive with all costs included at the point where the demand is located. And that seems to require massive subsidies for building, generation and transmission, so it's not price competitive. Solar PV seems to have better prospects because at least it can be located near demand and is relatively immature so has lots of potential cost improvement to come.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

As a long term money saving idea, the potential for PV is great.

Agreed.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Given that in recent years prices have fallen faster than was ever hoped, why bet against it now, when domestic electricity prices are under huge pressure from gas prices.

Well, the 23% drop in natural gas price over the last year doesn't seem to have had much price effect so far in spite of the pressure. It'll be interesting to see what the balance between massive shale supply and emerging market and other demand does to the price. Diversification of supply is a good plan anyway.

For solar PV it's not a case of betting against it, just picking the best time to invest, once prices have dropped. No prospect of huge drops in the cost of home insulation of many other things proposed in the Green Deal so we can do that instead now and the solar PV later. And that would nicely exploit the current surplus of supply in the building industry to get some work done at a good point in the cycle of that industry.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I see current FITs as an investment to reap rewards and savings in the future (perhaps 5 years from now). Isn't that the same idea as most savings plans

Only if you're a mug investor who believes in buying high and selling low. I'm not, I prefer to buy low.

So I'll advocate Green Deal insulation and perhaps appliances now and solar PV later. And maybe wind if that can ever become price-competitive without subsidies, which doesn't look very likely to me given it's already high technological maturity.

grahamc2003

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nope, it's as wrong as you can be. I'm just a normal (well as abnormal as the next man) 41 year old, who finds all new technology extremely interesting, and enjoys reading, or watching anything about renewables as they will (like it or not) have a big effect on all of us. Everything I've posted is available on the net from unbiased sources. And I've gone out of my way to caveat everything I've posted, and only include factually correct data, or when looking forward, pointed out that the numbers are mine based on past trends. Yet again, was that remark really necessary? Cant' we all just get along?

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.

I'll try to be quick. Tiny amount, why would you think that, who have you been listening to? On a sunny day a 4kWp system could maintain about 3.6kW for many hours. In June that would probably total about 500kWh, but in December, only about 80kWh. Even in winter when the sun to panel angle is off, you'd hope for 1.5kW at peak, though admittedly less reliable and for less hours.

The mid day power demand peak is only slightly less than the evening peak. It is neither readily available nor cheap, the exact opposite in fact. This demand peak of 12 to 2 matches up perfectly with peak PV generation especially when you note that the mid point 1pm BST, is actually 12noon GMT when the sun is strongest. So just to clarify, electricity is expensive and dirty at mid day, PV peaks at mid day. Cheap shot, but I feel this one warrants it - Could you have got it more wrong, or misrepresented the situation more?

How can it be a complete non-starter when it started 30 years ago? I won't bore anyone anymore by repeating any of my previous numbers, but please refer back and question any that you feel are wrong. I'm happy to have a friendly discussion, and if I'm wrong, then I get to learn more, which is very enjoyable, once you've realised that being right isn't that important.


Mart.

I'm pleased being incorrect isn't important to you - being correct is certainly important to me when discussions are about our electricity supply. I'll just comment on this one extract - please don't assume from that that I agree with your other responses, which I don't

As to getting on, well, I don't think that's possible while you adopt a disrespectful and misplaced patronising attitude, especially when your views are of the deeply naive 'green' variety formed from reading and accepting views which agree with your own (which to be fair, are the majority of views on the net and in discussions such as these).

The evening winter peak far exceeds the morning peak, not sure where you get your information which, contrary to what you have written, is never referenced. My views don't come from a man in the pub ('let's get on, should we?, lol!', they come from my own experience firstly in the research labs of the cegb and later in the national grid design authority, helping to ensure we have a reliable electricity supply at the lowest cost and minimum impact. So please, don't be quick to answer my points, please go as slowly and deeply as you feel able, but I have to say, if you think 500kWh is some big deal on a grid scale, or even 10 or 100 or 1000 or 10000 times that, I'll simply have to assume you are talking about topics you don't understand even at a basic level.

Current pv is tiny and, with the £750m fit subsidy, always will be. The reason it will never become a leading component of generation in the UK is because there are no engineering reasons for it to be so (to spell it out, it simply doesn't make sense by traditional engineering analysis, even if the aim is to reduce co2).

The £750m could have been spent on effective and viable initiatives with cost effective positive effects both for the environment and for all consumers.

AdmiralX

corbyboy wrote: »

pensioners are no longer subsidising the electricity bills of people wealthy enough to install solar panels.

SP are v expensive.

AdmiralX

In England solar power is not necessarily a great choice. In California is; land is dead cheap. Efficiency of renewable depend on location.
Don know if tidal has been used in England. Cutting down energy usage has a limit, more renewable energy is needed to cover some demand but requires more investment in its infrastructure. that is where R&D goes. So engineers are useful and we could do with some more.

AdmiralX

I happen to have read about the many nuclear reactors in france: they bury the "dechets" or nuclear waste underground near urban areas, villages etc. I freaked; now they plan to bury it deeper and deeper.

Martyn1981

JamesD, great points. However, expecting the rest of the world to do the heavy lifting for us over the next 5 years is both very sensible, and ducking our responsibility at the same time.

I can't fault the idea of waiting for worldwide production and consumption to rise, and hopefully bring us much cheaper panels, but keep it under your hat in case everyone gets the same idea. If we all stop, then so do the price reductions.

Germany, Italy and the US are doing more than their share at present, should we sit back and wait? Damn I hate moral questions like that, but do like the idea!

Nice one.

Mart.

rogerblack

Martyn1981 wrote: »

JamesD, great points. However, expecting the rest of the world to do the heavy lifting for us over the next 5 years is both very sensible, and ducking our responsibility at the same time.

I can't fault the idea of waiting for worldwide production and consumption to rise, and hopefully bring us much cheaper panels, but keep it under your hat in case everyone gets the same idea. If we all stop, then so do the price reductions.

But it won't all stop.
There are areas of the world where the yield for solar panels is double that in the UK.
These are very profitable - even at current rates, unsubsidised.

rogerblack

SallyKing wrote: »

I posted a thread here about the true cost of nuclear power:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3658647

Households taxed £260 a year for Nuclear Energy but less than £2 for Solar PV.

This kind of omits a rather important point!

16GW/260 = 61 megawatts per pound of subsidy.
.5GW/1.5 = 333 megawatts per pound.

However, unfortunately, it's not that good for solar, as it generally doesn't do so well at night.
.5GWp will actually be, in the UK, about 500GWh, or divided by the number of hours in a year, about an eighth of that.

41 megawatts a pound.

Hmm - that 1.50 sounds low.
We have 500MW of panels in the UK.
This will generate around 500GWh, 500 million kWh.
500 million * 43p = 215 million.
There are ~24 million households in the UK.
This would seem to indicate not 1.50, but 9 quid!
6 pounds a megawatt, 10* the subsidy of nuclear!