MSE news: Government solar panel plans legally flawed

Hockley_Sue

Surely a more realistic approach to increasing use of solar energy is to ensure that all new build homes and extensions to existing ones (over a certain size) are fitted with solar panels. This could be implemented through the current planning permission and building regulation processes.

The panels will cost only a small percentage of the cost of building a new home and the jobs in the solar panel supply chain will be protected.

And, while we are on the subject, why did the Government (in the last months under Labour) let the wind turbine factory on the Isle of Wight go under whilst at the same time pumping money into the Banks?

HUDengineer

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I think the idea of investing in a local PV farm is a great idea. And could help to bring a community closer together if it was as inclusive as possible.

Regarding less efficient installs, remember that the subsidy is paid out directly based on generation, so a system that produces say 20% less units, gets 20% less subsidy. That seems fair, though not necessarily a sensible money saving investment for the householders pennies.

Mart.

But there is the rub. If you could turn a profit at 21p/unit only by having it facing South, that's fair enough, but many people got in on the 43p/unit with panels in far from ideal installs. So while they have been savvy and opportunistic, it is a terrible investment of resource, and I hope those people will hang their heads in shame, because what will have driven those people to do it is profit, ahead of eco concerns. Anyone who really cared for the planet would want to see every scrap of investment in green energy being put to the most effective use possible. The subsidy was stupidly generous, and fostered wasteful investment. Lets see a bit more shrewd thinking from now on.

Andy

rogerblack

Hockley_Sue wrote: »

The panels will cost only a small percentage of the cost of building a new home and the jobs in the solar panel supply chain will be protected.

Building integrated panels - that are fitted like any other roofing are at the moment moderately expensive.

However, they are fitted in place of the roof, not on top of it.

It makes no sense at all to 'protect the jobs in the solar panel supply chain' - if these jobs are make-work, when the right solution isn't for a specialised solar company to come along and fit the panels, but for the roofer to install them at the same time as new tiles.

This also makes the install more weather resistant.

Martyn1981

HUDengineer wrote: »

But there is the rub. If you could turn a profit at 21p/unit only by having it facing South, that's fair enough, but many people got in on the 43p/unit with panels in far from ideal installs. So while they have been savvy and opportunistic, it is a terrible investment of resource, and I hope those people will hang their heads in shame, because what will have driven those people to do it is profit, ahead of eco concerns. Anyone who really cared for the planet would want to see every scrap of investment in green energy being put to the most effective use possible. The subsidy was stupidly generous, and fostered wasteful investment. Lets see a bit more shrewd thinking from now on.

Andy

With regard to worldwide resources, you are absolutely right about the financial situation. Let's insert some numbers to help clarify:

4kWp South facing system, all other factors equal.

PVGIS site estimates of annual generation (leaving default system losses at 14% despite improvements)

Plymouth = 3,640 units pa
Birmingham = 3,210 units pa
Aberdeen = 3,080 units pa

Aberdeen at due east or due west, 2,460 units pa

So return on the individuals investment is lower. Though the effect on the subsidy is none, as it is only paid out against generation.

However, this is not a normal situation yet, as there is a subsidy. This allows for the back to front and upside down situation, where investment in the industry is still extremely important until PV can stand subsidy free.

The next bit is insane financially, but helps to drive demand, and industry expansion.

Two installs in Aberdeen with east or west orientation will generate about 5,000 units per annum, compared to a single south system in Plymouth generating 3,640 units. But twice as much 'private' money has been invested in the industry.

German solar radiance is very similar to ours, in the above example a system in Berlin would generate about 3,300units. However there industry is much larger than ours, and their prices are much lower. We are catching up.

Once subsidies are removed, then the investment decision just comes down to individual choice. For instance you may replace a bulb with a low energy bulb that is on for 10 hours a day, I may replace a bulb that is only on for 1 hour per day. Your investment is better than mine, but if mine is financially viable, then why not.

Struggling with the maths, but I've got a feeling that a commercial install on a shop or office, say 20kWp, may have just crossed over into subsidy free viability, if the location is good.

Anyone interested in crunching the numbers if I post my assumptions, maybe Roger, you seem to have a better head for numbers than me?

Apologies Andy for such a torturous response.

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The next bit is insane financially, but helps to drive demand, and industry expansion.

If we paid a stupidly high subsidy we could build up an industry and become world leaders in hamster driven turbines. i.e. if you pay a subsidy for anything that will turn if a profit, there will be demand.

Any advancement in solar technology will be developed for tropical climates where daytime demand for air-conditioning will be a driver.

Not at our latitude in UK and dotted on the roofs of hundreds of thousands of far flung properties.

IMO the whole thrust of your argument to justify solar on individual rooftops is flawed.

If our political masters decree we must have solar generated electricity, then let us have installations that are as efficient, and hence cheap, as the technology allows - and that means large solar farms - preferably in the South West - but to pre-empt any argument about location, solar farms where required.

I really cannot see the point of discussing if 30p/kWh or 27.48p/kWh is an appropriate subsidy, when solar farms would would turn in a profit at, say 10p/kWh.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

If we paid a stupidly high subsidy we could build up an industry and become world leaders in hamster driven turbines. i.e. if you pay a subsidy for anything that will turn if a profit, there will be demand.

Any advancement is solar technology will be developed for tropical climates where daytime demand for air-conditioning will be a driver.

Not at our latitude in UK and dotted on the roofs of hundreds of thousands of far flung properties.

IMO the whole thrust of your argument to justify solar on individual rooftops is flawed.

If our political masters decree we must have solar generated electricity, then let us have installations that are as efficient, and hence cheap, as the technology allows - and that means large solar farms - preferably in the South West - but to pre-empt any argument about location, solar farms where required.

I really cannot see the point of discussing if 30p/kWh or 27.48p/kWh is an appropriate subsidy, when solar farms would would turn in a profit at, say 10p/kWh.

But why pay a PV farm 10p/kWh, if a commercial installation could be viable with no subsidy? Unlike most renewables (apart from small scale bio-mass) PV has the ability of approaching the issue from demand side economics, as opposed to the usual supply side economics.

I appreciate you consider my argument flawed, you keep saying so. So why not post some calculations and numbers to help me understand where I'm going wrong?

A good starting point for rational consideration: at what price point and guesstimated time from now, do you think, 1. commercial, 2. domestic and 3. solar farms will become financially viable without subsidies? Obviously we should cherry pick from the south west first, though annual land values may impact on the farms (not sure).

Maybe we'll both learn something new.

Cheers.

Mart.

grahamc2003

Martyn1981 wrote: »

A good starting point for rational consideration: at what price point and guesstimated time from now, do you think, 1. commercial, 2. domestic and 3. solar farms will become financially viable without subsidies? Obviously we should cherry pick from the south west first, though annual land values may impact on the farms (not sure).

.

1 never
2 never
3 never

(Never = within the forseeable future)

They only generate during troughs of demand when electricity is cheap, and never at the peak, when electricity is very expensive. When smart meters have variable tariffs, you'll see the scale of the difference in retail prices, and the really low benefit solar actually gives. (This little nugget is hidden at the moment with retail prices being constant throughout the day for domestic users).

The 'midday peak' is simply a figment of your imagination.

Cardew

grahamc2003 wrote: »

1 never
2 never
3 never

(Never = within the forseeable future)

They only generate during troughs of demand when electricity is cheap, and never at the peak, when electricity is very expensive. When smart meters have variable tariffs, you'll see the scale of the difference in retail prices, and the really low benefit solar actually gives. (This little nugget is hidden at the moment with retail prices being constant throughout the day for domestic users).

The 'midday peak' is simply a figment of your imagination.

Well if a commercial solar farm could exist with no subsidy - then Great - except as I understand it nowhere in the world can the manage without subsidy.

I have no more idea of the costs than you, and what is the point in speculating?

One thing is cast iron certain, that is a solar farm with the economy of scale with optimum, non shaded, orientation will be far more efficient than sub-4kWp installations dotted all over the country. That is both for installation and subsequent maintenance.

This is why all Governments reduce the level of subsidy as the installation gets bigger.

If a solar farm can produce solar electricity at, say, 50% of the price of sub 4kWp installations, what is the point in trying to determine the subsidy for a sub-4kWp installation?

Give me one financial argument to justify the sub-4kWp installation?

HUDengineer

...would see us putting the solar panels in the best places in the country, for energy security, or in the best places in the world, for energy returned from investment of resources, although that could mean that parts of the African continent might be well suited. As it happens, I understand that lots of communities in Africa are making very good use of PV, and many are probably getting a much better return on investment within their communities, becaue of the wider benefits that a computer in a school, say, brings to them. We, meanwhile, may be using the PV energy to help power a rather more profligate lifestyle, where as much could be achieved through more energy restraint.

Mart's point about the need to create the investment is right, and of course, but I fear the objectives are political, rather than well engineered solutions. That is what the PV scheme is about: getting those with money to pay the up-front cost that the government currently cannot afford to spend, in order to meet targets agreed by politicians, but the trouble is that what is promised through these subsidies is rather similar to the Private Finance Initiatives, where the set-up cost is unpalletable, but the downstream costs will be unaffordable.

Andy

Cardew

Put it another way, if large farms could produce as many potatoes as the UK needed, and deliver them to the distribution point, for 15p a kilo, would we even consider paying a few private individuals 30p a kilo for exactly the same product? i.e. make every consumer pay double for his potatoes by way of a subsidy?

Yet that is exactly what we are doing with solar electricity. We know solar farms can produce as much electricity, at a certain price, as the Government needs to meet its treaty obligations , yet the big debate on this thread is should we make all 25 million electricity customers, give 1% of private owners double that price?

Edit
If we were to make a true comparison with solar, don't forget that 25% or even 50% of the electricity generated is used in the house and not exported. So take one of the people who claim to use 50% of generated electricity in the house. For every 2 kWh they generate we presently pay them 86.6p + 3.1p = 89.7p. However they only export 1kWh so we, the electricity consumer are paying 89.7p/kWh for electricity.