Solar PV Feed In Tariffs - Good or Bad?

Cardew

SallyKing wrote: »

Exactly, well said Mart.

The poor in this country are pretty well looked after. They get free money, free housing, free grants worth thousands for new boilers, free insulation, free winter fuel payments...

Just preserving that illuminating statement for posterity.

Really contributes to the debate!

jamesingram

zeupater wrote: »

Hi All
would the logic involved in representing individual arrays be considered as being more preferable than large scale pv, and would it be possible that there would be an overall reduction in overnight baseload as a result of changed consumption patterns ?
HTH
Z

This is one possible potential benefit of the Pv subsidy to the 100%.

this would be why a ROI is offered to early captial investors in the project and the return is paid by all electrical consumers.

Back to potatoes , perhaps you could consider that the subsidised potatoes is planted rather than eaten. .:)

John_Pierpoint

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sally, well done for having the guts to call it trivial. You are of course right, but some are desperate to blow it out of all proportion.

My gas bill has doubled, proportionately in the last 5 years from £250 to £400 (despite 20% reduction in consumption from energy saving expenditure).

The total cost of PV fits over the 25 years is generally quoted in today's money at about £8bn.

To place that in context;
4 times widening the M1
2 times Heathrow Terminal 5
1 times the UK tax revenue from tobacco
1/3 the cost of replacing Trident
1/4 the cost of the recently proposed high speed rail link

Storm in a PV cup as far as I can see.

Mart.

In 2008 United Kingdom received €3,755 Million in EU farm subsidies.

Can we call that £ 3 Billion?
Then we have to add the artificially expensive food prices in the EU caused by quotas (sugars being the worst example?)
So can I add an say another billion ? (it used to be a lot more but now there are a few family farmers admitting they are profitable even without subsidies, as China and India bid up world commodity prices and our governments debase our currencies).

So £4 billion x 25 = £100 billion.

1/12th of the price of turning sunlight into food by keeping existing inefficient farmers in business?

Meanwhile here is the list of UK's top subsidised farmers:

TATE & LYLE EUROPE (031583) €827,979,239
NESTLE UK LTD 804817 €196,777,997
MEADOW FOODS LTD €129,279,959
Czarnikow Group Limited €129,104,665
PHILPOT DAIRY PRODUCTS LTD €88,307,975
[The one with the mid-European name sells cheap clothing]

I think the poor had better give up eating, that will solve most problems.

jamesingram wrote: »

Back to potatoes , perhaps you could consider that the subsidised potatoes is planted rather than eaten. .:)

Ploughing good subsidised food back into the ground, to keep the price up, during a glut.

Surely not - you will be suggesting turning wine into industrial alcohol next.

jamesingram

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Ploughing good subsidised food back into the ground, to keep the price up, during a glut.
Surely not - you will be suggesting turning wine into industrial alcohol next.

I was thinking more of nuturing it , watering it etc. then in the future perhap you get a nice little crop.:) that's a possible future for Cardews pv potatoe

Without investment and inital losses nothing would ever happen.
Comparing £/kw capacity or cost to supply £/kW for newish technology and generation types ( with PV in year 2 of a subsidy program) to existing generation infacturers is not relistic.

rogerblack

SallyKing wrote: »

Exactly, well said Mart.

The poor in this country are pretty well looked after. They get free money, free housing, free grants worth thousands for new boilers, free insulation, free winter fuel payments...

My (free installed - actually for my mother) boiler is now dead. I'm not repairing it because I can't afford to use it.
I'm essentially not heating due to being unable to afford it. (It's 5C in here, and has been for the last couple of months.

My house already has insulation in the attic, and is not suitable for cavity wall.
Winter fuel payments are only available to those of pensionable age.

I'm living on the sofa on an electric blanket, and trying to save up what limited cash I have to pay for insulation works.

It rankles somewhat having to pay (admittedly in a small way due to my low use) for solar panels for others.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Mr and Mrs Average are just 1% of the population - they are house owners, not tenants, don't live in flats and have suitable roofs.

So you justify 99% of the population(including the poorest etc), paying huge subsidies so 1% of the houseowners(i.e. well off!!) in the land become more energy conscious and reduce their consumption?

Wouldn't that money be better spent ensuring 100% of households reduce their consumption?

Run that by me again please;)

Hi

We both are aware that the post is a concept for consideration .... subsidy levels, housing type etc should not be considered at this stage and the reasons were given, so assume that they don't exist ... this is a concept, so ignoring the post referenced above and re-reading the post in question, what do you think as an engineer having been given this at a project concept stage .... ?

HTH
Z

## Edit .... For context and consideration of the proportion of household types and what proportion are 'owner occupied" ....

"Despite the recent surge in flat building, the overall proportion of the stock of dwellings that were flats or maisonettes in England in 2008 was 18 per cent. Over 80 per cent of dwellings were houses or bungalows, with similar proportions of these being semi-detached or terraced and 17 per cent being detached"

"In 2008-09 the proportion of households who owned their home was 68 per cent. A slightly lower proportion owned their property outright (31 per cent) than were buying with a mortgage (36 percent). The proportion owning outright increased in the last 10 years from 28 per cent in 1999, and correspondingly the proportion buying with a mortgage fell from 42 per cent over the same period.The proportion of social rented homes fell from 20 per cent to 18 per cent between 1999 and 2008-09"

Source .... (http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1785484.pdf)

HalloweenJack

so whens the severn barrage being built


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-16070872

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

This quote and the rest of your post sums up your contribution to this 'debate'.

Unpalatable as it might be to you to raise any fact, 99% paying for 1% to benefit describes the situation concisely.

The irony of aiming for 98% paying, for 2% to benefit, as your solution obviously escapes you.

If I may contribute to this debate again?

I'll repeat what I said earlier, you are cherry picking, simple as that.

You are happy to discuss 25 year costs for PV, but not the 25 year benefits.

If you refuse to move past today and 1%, then you are completely failing to grasp the point of this subsidy (or the point of any subsidy for that matter), which is tomorrow! How are we expected to have an adult debate on subsidies, when you have dug your feet so firmly into the ground of today?

Mart.

Martyn1981

Zeup - I'm in full agreement with your 'average' example.

I've mentioned this sometime ago, so apologise for repeating myself, but a nearby friend with PV and an enormous electricity demand of 10,000units (due to household and family health issues). He has a backwards running meter (they still haven't swapped it out), and his demand dropped by PV +800.

He can not account for the 800, other than through better awareness, and in all honesty, with that level of consumption, he thought he was pretty 'aware' already.

This won't go down well I know, but an additional point regarding the value of FITs, is that households could be considered as being paid to have 25 year giant adverts on their roofs to make others, especially children, aware that the world is changing, and we do have to start thinking wider.

Mart.

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

We both are aware that the post is a concept for consideration .... subsidy levels, housing type etc should not be considered at this stage and the reasons were given, so assume that they don't exist ... this is a concept, so ignoring the post referenced above and re-reading the post in question, what do you think as an engineer having been given this at a project concept stage .... ?

HTH
Z

Hi,
I normally understand the thrust of your posts, but I really am struggling to understand the relevance of your concept in this debate; it seems peripheral.

If I understand your question correctly, you have expounded a theory - that of increased awareness of energy conservation leading to reduction of consumption.

Using that unproven theory, you have made several assumptions -nightime usage, buying A* appliances etc and reached some conclusions.

I could argue(but don't) that having 'free electricity' and a steady income from FIT, that they become cavalier with their energy consumption. Buy a big Plasma TV and have the house warmer because they can afford the bills etc. Drive more because they can afford the petrol.

I cannot see either theory being appropriate for an engineering appraisal.

However above all, even if you were correct, it is not justifiable for 99% of electricity customers to pay subsidies to 1% so the latter can learn to conserve energy; and how many of that 1% would take heed of such a lesson in the long term? A 25 year study perhaps to find lessons learnt!!