MSE News: Legal battle launched over solar subsidy cuts

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

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.

I'm beginning to suspect that you are deliberately misunderstanding me, to sow misinformation.

I didn't say morning peak, I specifically said 'mid day power demand peak', you even include those words when quoting me. And I've even acknowledged that this is not as high as the evening peak. Mid day is the highest peak for non domestic demand, and thus would be particularly well served by factory and office roof installed PV.

If you want references fine, how about yesterdays demand curve is that current enough

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/Realtime/Demand/demand24.htm

As demand starts to fall off late afternoon, it picks back up to the evening peak as people get home, switch on, and start cooking. This second demand curve is not well served whatsoever by PV, but the first is a perfect match.

Next you suggest that 500kWh generation is not much on a grid scale - this leaves me a little dispondent. My paragraph clearly states that this is a single property, not grid total. I can't believe you missed that, so why then go down the route of claiming I have no understanding of the situation? A claim that only holds water so long as you continue to fail to understand that I'm talking about one single individual property. Please tell me that this wasn't deliberate, or there really is no hope for a rational debate on this subject.

Given that average household electrical consumption is approx 3,600kWh per property pa, or about 300kWh p month, then 500kWh for June is quite a substantial amount. Only approximates, but from April to September a 4kWp system could generate around 400kWh per month average. Sadly not all the power is in the right place at the right time, that's why we need various types of supply.

You say even 10,000 times that isn't much, but there are now approx 200,000 domestic installs, about 1% of households. And about 20% of the housing stock is suitable, if prices drop far enough. Obviously properties with south facing roofs are top of the list.

I appreciate that you don't personally feel that PV will solve our energy needs, neither do I in fact, but every little bit helps.

Remember that reducing demand is a far better solution than increasing supply, whether it is changing to CFL bulbs, or fitting more efficient white goods etc. With that in mind, please note that domestic PV generation is not classed as energy supply, instead it is recorded as negative demand. This seemed a little strange to me at first, but the principle quickly grows on you.

If you want to discuss numbers, particularly the economics of PV as a domestic investment, then please do, I'm genuinely interested, and I can supply or direct you to no end of interesting facts and figures. But please don't start calling me uninformed, or claiming I'm some lobbyist puppet for the PV industry. It only belittles you and all of your subsequent comments.

As to getting on, well, I don't think that's possible while you adopt a disrespectful and misplaced patronising attitude

Perhaps my odd sense of humour is not to your liking, or my willingness to point out that many of your facts are actually nothing of the kind and may misinform other readers of this post who would actually like to learn more about domestic PV installs. Either way shall we start again, after all this is a time for forgiveness?

Mart.

Martyn1981

rogerblack wrote: »

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.

Very true Roger, I stand corrected. In southern Spain, Italy and Greece PV is approaching grid parity. Germany's generation per panel potential is not so great, but there industry is so well established that PV prices there put us to shame.

And I shouldn't miss out off-griders too, even in the UK, PV and batteries come in cheaper than a gennie, unless of course you can run it cheaply on recycled vegetable oil.

I apologise to everyone for hogging this thread. For years I've just sat back and read not wishing to interfere, but this is a subject I find extremely interesting, and am trying to ensure that both sides of the story are told. How sad am I.

Cheers.

Mart.

grahamc2003

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm beginning to suspect that you are deliberately misunderstanding me, to sow misinformation.

Mart.

Is that your sense of humour again, or you just being your offensive self?

My word, you have a terrible case of whatever your ailment is.

Even on this 'green' based forum, I think you've demonstrated the contempt the more extreme 'greens' have for informed opinion when they don't fit with the ideology. I'm sure that harms your cause rather than helping it.

The_Green_Hornet

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Is that your sense of humour again, or you just being your offensive self?

What is it you (and Cardew) find so offensive about Martyn1981 posts? I've read through them all and I can't see what your problem is.

Is it solely because he has had the temerity to disagree with your point of view?

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Is that your sense of humour again, or you just being your offensive self?

My word, you have a terrible case of whatever your ailment is.

Even on this 'green' based forum, I think you've demonstrated the contempt the more extreme 'greens' have for informed opinion when they don't fit with the ideology. I'm sure that harms your cause rather than helping it.

Nope that wasn't an attempt at humour, nor I believe offensive.

I simply stood my ground against your repetitive attempts to misrepresent my posts.

In that post, you claimed I'd referred to a non existent morning peak, rather than the mid day peak I had clearly referred to.

Then you stated that 500kWh of generation was tiny in relation to total grid consumption, despite my reference clearly relating to a single household, and therefore being quite substantial indeed.

You previously tried to point out that I had a pro renewables political job / agenda - simply because I have the audacity to correct you and tell the other side of a two sided argument.

Now you try again to somehow knock my postings, by claiming offence, when I question your continued misunderstanding of any numbers I post, something I've begun to suspect is deliberate given your obvious level of intelligience and knowledge. Or to claim I'm some sort of raving greenie. This despite my many references to needing a broad variety of energy supply, and my post going into great boring detail about the possible (yes only possible) economic savings from domestic PV installs in the future.

Why not get back on track and post some thoughts on where you think the pricing is going in the future.

Do you think my 5 year guess on install costs and electricity bills savings are reasonable? They are only a guess, you may have a better idea?

Forum readers are presumably interested in energy bills and potential savings. Do you forsee any savings in the short or medium term?

Obviously I think we should both attempt to look past PV subsidies, as until they are gone, they will distort both the market and related incomes. hence why I've tried to refer to 5 years in the future which may (or may not) be PV FITs free.

I don't believe this thread has passed the point of saving, so hows about we give it a shot, after all as long as you are reasonably negative, and I'm reasonably positive, other forum readers should overall get a reasonably balanced idea. (Too many reasonables?).

Happy Xmas Eve.

Mart.

jamesd

Martyn1981 wrote: »

If prices reach £4k then even a £200 pa return starts to get attractive.

Only if you're a mug investor.

That's just 5% return on an illiquid asset. Anyone can get over 10% tax free from an insurance company for the next 20 years (not required to hold for all 20) using a retail commercial bond and there are plenty of other options that make 5-10% and more without being so illiquid. To be attractive as an investment it'd need to be paying more than double that 5% rate and for me it'd probably take three or four times more to compete with the other investments I'm happy to use.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

A well run FITs scheme isn't the enemy, it's just an unpleasant short term cost to help us all save money in the future.

You seem to be forgetting that the FIT isn't a short term measure. It lasts for 25 years. It's a short term way of selling out the future for the next 25 years, more like a loan at a horrible interest rate than good planning. The remedy is to plan ahead and buy when it's cheap, not when it's expensive. The underlying basis for it has vanished because prices have been falling so rapidly, so it's not a cost that we need to bear.

The_Green_Hornet

jamesd wrote: »

Only if you're a mug investor.

That's just 5% return on an illiquid asset. Anyone can get over 10% tax free from an insurance company for the next 20 years (not required to hold for all 20) using a retail commercial bond and there are plenty of other options that make 5-10% and more without being so illiquid. To be attractive as an investment it'd need to be paying more than double that 5% rate and for me it'd probably take three or four times more to compete with the other investments I'm happy to use.

Yet the Rent-a-Roof companies, backed by venture capitalists, seem to think it is a very good investment and I doubt very much that they would be regarded as mugs in any way shape or form.

Martyn1981

JamesD, fair points re investment, and everyone has to choose what suits them best.

A 5% saving on expenditure is by definition tax free so to compare it to the high street (I appreciate you are looking much wider) that would equate to a taxed savings rate of approx 6.3%, so it gets a little bit more attractive. It is 'money gone', or as you generously described it as illiguid, as I suppose it does add a little to the property value.

However as I posted earlier, that example does equate very nicely to a similar expenditure and return on a gas central heating upgrade to help reduce your bills. So its horses for courses, and certainly wouldn't be top of most peoples investment list. But if you want to reduce bills, and have picked all the low hanging fruit (loft and cavity wall insulation, CFL's etc), then it may be something worth further consideration. But as you quite rightly said, maybe wait a few years to see how prices turn out. My guesstimate is nothing more than that, and sadly I may be miles off the mark.

Please note however that energy prices will continue to rise, so returns (savings) will also grow proportionately.

Regarding 25 year FITs payments, yes you're right again that is a long term cost, but only as the subsidy is being paid slowly in line with generation, rather than as a large up front payment, which dare I say might have been more easily forgotten about in 5 years time. My short term reference elluded to the potential ending of domestic PV FITs for new installs, perhaps in 5 years or so.

Sadly, FITs support for solar farms may take longer to eliminate. I'm less clear on all of their additional costs, but can appreciate that they have to meet a much lower generation cost to break even compared to domestic PV.

Until FITs goes completely I'm sure this will remain a very contentious issue. Fun debate though, thanks.

Happy hols.

Mart.

Edit - JamesD, would you mind giving me a little more info on those 10% investments please. I've fallen way behind on such things, not having any spare money will do that to you, but I know my father is always on the outlook for a safe long term investment. Thanks again. M.

jamesd

Martyn1981 wrote: »

would you mind giving me a little more info on those 10% investments please. I've fallen way behind on such things, not having any spare money will do that to you, but I know my father is always on the outlook for a safe long term investment.

Have him buy a copy of the Saturday edition of the Financial Times in a couple of weeks. Maybe next weekend, but that's still holiday season and they may not have the full version. After the editorial at the start there's a page that gives mortgage rates, savings rates, NS&I rates, PIBS rates and retail corporate bond rates. In the corporate bond section he'll find entries with running yield and redemption yield and some of those will have redemption yields above ten percent. Whether that'll help him will depend on his investment timescale - he might not be able to hold some of the longer term ones to redemption but would get the running yield until then. Running yields over 8% are available within PIBS and retail corporate bonds.

Retail corporate bonds can be held within a S&S ISA to pay out tax free provided their end date is at least five years in the future. Not all S&S ISA providers will offer them, it's up the provider. But since you can have an unlimited number of ISAs with money from past years that's not an obstacle, you just transfer some to a place that does allow it.

He might also look at the Trustnet list of funds sorted by yield (interest rate, effectively). Those that pay interest are tax free if held in a S&S ISA. Those that pay dividends won't have any more tax to pay in a S&S ISA but the tax isn't reclaimable. The fund details will say whether the distribution is interest. Don't just pick the highest yields, you have to consider the capital position as well. One fairly popular fund choice there is Invesco Perpetual Distribution that pays interest monthly, currently paying 7.5%, tax free if held within an ISA. I'm going to buy a little of that one soon to cover some monthly fees within my SIPP with its income.

There's no guarantee that a fund will continue paying out at the current yield, while corporate bonds held directly or PIBS are required to (with some caveats for PIBS). For direct holdings you have to watch the diversification to reduce risk yourself.

For shorter term he might want to look at the 8% regular saver account from First Direct. Up to £300 a month for a year.

In IFA could mention some other options - dunstonh has some products he alludes to sometimes that may pay more than 10% with modest risk levels.

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

Yet the Rent-a-Roof companies, backed by venture capitalists, seem to think it is a very good investment and I doubt very much that they would be regarded as mugs in any way shape or form.

I'd say they definitely aren't mugs. But they aren't getting just a 5% return. With VC backing they have probably been looking for 25% or so return on investment. Though they might have been doing it as arbitrage between low cost of money and "guaranteed" long term returns to pay the debt and make a profit and taking less than 25%.

Martyn1981

Thanks mate that was very kind of you. Appreciate you taking the time.

I think his next investment maturity date may be early 2013, but I'll check.

He is an old school pensioner and extremely risk averse, but hopefully not completely against some diversification.

Cheers.

Mart.

Edit - Jamesd, just doing a little more research before logging off for the evening, and just read some posts reporting the first sightings of sub £8k installs for a 4kWp system next year - £7,795 to be specific. Great news, that's hit my hopeful figure for next summer, so an early Xmas present. I suspect your cunning plan of sitting back and waiting has more and more merit. That also means I was wrong about dropping FITs to 25p now and 21p in the summer, it seems the govt new what they were doing after all when shooting straight for 21p. Nicely played. M.