Solar PV Feed In Tariffs - Good or Bad?

grahamc2003

Cardew wrote: »

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!!

I agree with all that.

One thing that has concerned me about solar which I haven't yet posted (probably because it will be met with derision without consideration, comme d'habitude!) is a less esoteric point along similar lines. My concern is the way in which solar more or less forces electricity consumption to daytime (in order to maximise the use of roof generated electricity) which will obviously, to some extent, displace nightime demand. Obviously, the general aim is to shift consumption in the other direction (hence e7 tariffs) - and solar does the opposite.

Wouldn't matter of course if the consumption matched the generation. But reading these boards, just as one example, you just know that many will see (or imagine, or erronously calculate) 1kw export, and quickly switch on the 3kW immersion to use that 'free' power, in some cases displacing nighttime water heating.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.

I have not to my knowledge discussed 25 year costs for solar PV.

Talking of adult discussion, perhaps you would not make stupid assumptions about my 'grasp of subsidies' and base your arguments on that false assumption. The 'beating your Granny' approach!

i.e. 'We all know you beat your Granny, why don't you stop and how could you possibly justify such treatment'

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

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!!

Hi

Quite simply, I'm attempting to remove the 'emotive issues' from the debate to establish where the common ground is, that's exactly why the example was worded at it was, however there seems to be resistance to accept this approach ..... without mention of the 'emotive issues' we might just be able to 'break orbit' and make a little progress in the debate ....

Yes, I appreciate the issue that only around 1% of homes currently have pv, however the source previously referenced suggests that with 80% of dwellings being houses or bungalows there is ample potential for roofspace with an orientation somewhere between West & East, combined with 68% of housing being owner-occupied there is a considerable potential market for systems to be purchased by home-owners. What proportion of these roofs will be covered by subsidised panels I don't know, but what I am pretty sure of is that the need for subsidy will dissappear well before that proportion becomes significant, so why not consider the issue without reference to subsidy and social injustice ...

HTH
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

but what I am pretty sure of is that the need for subsidy will dissappear well before that proportion becomes significant, so why not consider the issue without reference to subsidy and social injustice ...

HTH
Z

Hi,

If you are correct in the future about no subsidy required, then wonderful and no need for any debate.

However we are surely discussing the situation as of today and subsidies are being paid, and used unwisely. That is the whole point of this debate. If you construe criticism of the present system to be ‘emotive’ and hence ‘out of-bounds’ then again no point in any debate.


These subsidies make no contribution toward the promised Utopia of cost effective, stand-alone solar PV generation. Meanwhile they will be paid for 25 years.

jamesingram

grahamc2003 wrote: »

My concern is the way in which solar more or less forces electricity consumption to daytime
Wouldn't matter of course if the consumption matched the generation. But reading these boards, just as one example, you just know that many will see (or imagine, or erronously calculate) 1kw export, and quickly switch on the 3kW immersion to use that 'free' power, in some cases displacing nighttime water heating.

Yes this could and probably is a problem.
I believe there's some evidence to show electricial usage going up after installation of domestic PV.
those only interested in financial returns will be thinking use what they produce and make errors like you suggest.
from my experiance many people are very unaware of thier electric/energy/ resource use and how that links to individual items

A few higher bills may move them over to what Z and others suggest , an increase understanding of there usage and a reduction.
A good percentage installs are for financial return only . ( 50/50 has been one figure offered)
In my own case installs have been for energy consumpton conscious clients and in conjunction with other measure. the returns have been secondry other than they've made the Pv install affordable/possible.


I think Pv has potential to help , but so do monitors such as the Owl ( much cheaper), high bills is what will really drive most into consideration and action.

It's similar with the old 'green' tariff con. I've heard several people
claiming they no longer need to worry about conserving energy as the 'stuff they use was green'

Perversely you could say the higher bills created by funding the FITs tarrif will make the 99% more energy conscious sorry roger B probably not funny in your situation.

jamesingram

Cardew wrote: »

Hi,

If you are correct in the future about no subsidy required, then wonderful and no need for any debate.

However we are surely discussing the situation as of today and subsidies are being paid, and used unwisely. That is the whole point of this debate. If you construe criticism of the present system to be ‘emotive’ and hence ‘out of-bounds’ then again no point in any debate.


These subsidies make no contribution toward the promised Utopia of cost effective, stand-alone solar PV generation. Meanwhile they will be paid for 25 years.

Yes, the current system is a poorly managed shamble , a opertunity missed maybe.

Yes, subsidies will no longer be need/exist at some point in the future , probably be sooner than later due to budget restrictions.

To say they make no contribution to cost effective Pv installs is I believe wrong , as they already have. They've got the ball rolling.
(let's hope they dont get feed up and take it home with them , because then it will have been a real waste.)

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Hi,

If you are correct in the future about no subsidy required, then wonderful and no need for any debate.

However we are surely discussing the situation as of today and subsidies are being paid, and used unwisely. That is the whole point of this debate. If you construe criticism of the present system to be ‘emotive’ and hence ‘out of-bounds’ then again no point in any debate.


These subsidies make no contribution toward the promised Utopia of cost effective, stand-alone solar PV generation. Meanwhile they will be paid for 25 years.

Hi

So, in a situation where there was no subsidy, would you consider that it would possibly be preferential to have individual installations with the advantages of having a consumer link to generation, or consider that large scale pv would still be preferential, even though reduction in overall energy consumption could be considerably lower ... ?

I understand that the declared point of the debate is the subsidy, however, considering that the subsidy is likely to be limited in scope, cost and quantity then at some point it needs to be considered that it will no longer be in place .... however, would that really remove the haves/have nots argument on social injustice ?

Regarding emotive issues being out-of bounds, this is not the case as I see it .... all I see is a defence formulated around the 'emotive' issues which needs to be circumvented in order to find where common ground exists ..... a simple and logical approach, one which is pretty common in my experience.

Regarding subsidies themselves, I cannot think of any previous subsidy or subsidised industry which has ever been as successful in achieving progress towards a goal of reduction and/or removal of the requirement for subsidy .... water, gas, coal, rail, road infrastructure, conventional electricity, nuclear power, further education, agriculture, the arts ..... etc, etc .....

HTH
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

So, in a situation where there was no subsidy, would you consider that it would possibly be preferential to have individual installations with the advantages of having a consumer link to generation, or consider that large scale pv would still be preferential, even though reduction in overall energy consumption could be considerably lower ... ?

I understand that the declared point of the debate is the subsidy, however, considering that the subsidy is likely to be limited in scope, cost and quantity then at some point it needs to be considered that it will no longer be in place .... however, would that really remove the haves/have nots argument on social injustice ?

Regarding emotive issues being out-of bounds, this is not the case as I see it .... all I see is a defence formulated around the 'emotive' issues which needs to be circumvented in order to find where common ground exists ..... a simple and logical approach, one which is pretty common in my experience.

Regarding subsidies themselves, I cannot think of any previous subsidy or subsidised industry which has ever been as successful in achieving progress towards a goal of reduction and/or removal of the requirement for subsidy .... water, gas, coal, rail, road infrastructure, conventional electricity, nuclear power, further education, agriculture, the arts ..... etc, etc .....

HTH
Z

1. If solar PV becomes 'self-sufficient' (i.e. needs no subsidy) then it doesn't matter if it is on a roof, or large scale. The latter will produce electricity at a lower cost and, as outlined by Graham, it simply becomes a case of how effectively its intermittent generation can be utilised by the Grid.


2. That the subsidies have reduced, and doubtless will reduce further, is not in dispute. However to credit the current system of subsidy with any role in reducing future costs is bizarre.

How has your 43.3p/kWh FIT + use as much as you like in-house -package contributed?

Higher efficiency panels, and improved manufacturing techniques - developed in the Far East, Germany and USA will drive down solar prices.

3. I really cannot understand the reasoning behind the ' people who consider the FIT system flawed and entails the poor paying the rich, is emotive - so let's ignore subsidies'

It is like having a discussion on Law and Order, but not mentioning crime and punishment because it is emotive.

4. By all means have a theoretical discussion on future technical developments on solar PV. However in a thread to discuss 'solar FIT - good or bad' to want to ignore subsidies makes no sense to me - FIT is a subsidy.

The_Green_Hornet

Well I think one thing is certain after 230 posts on this thread, the posters who dislike subsidised solar PV aren't going to convince the people who do like it to change their minds and vice versa.

It is like watching a debate in the House of Commons.

bris

I like it, I got my first cheque today.

But in all fairness why shouldn't solar be subsidised, without it, it would be nothing, no one would ever pay 15k to save 70quid a year off their electricity bill.
Let's not also forget the subsidy is peanuts in comparison to what the fossil fuel and nuclear energy get subsidised by. Don't say "but the nuclear subsidy isn't added on to our electricity bill like solar is," we still pay for it through our tax, and that bill runs into the billions.