MSE News: 'Why the solar subsidy cuts are so damaging'

prowla

I don't know why I should subsidise somebody doing something to make a profit.

telboyo

In the good old days local governments and national governments paid for the installation and operation of new infrastructure and new inventions. e.g Town gas electricity sewerage water trams telephones etc. Nowadays we would be horrified if we did not have these things. The FIT encourages players into the market- some will be happy with taking the FIT as their profit- others will strive to increase their margin by making the panels more efficient, these are the people that will eventually win the market and supply the majority, in 30 yrs or so the government will tax these people and use the benefits to pay ofr the pensioners winter fuel subsidy or whatever it is called then.
If the government does not invest in these systems now the oil will all be gone before we know it.

What would you rather?
1. Government hands out a huge "Solar panel efficiency improvement" grant to 1 or 2 companies and a university who spend half the money on R&D and the other half on lobbying the gov to extend the contract- after 30 yrs the contract eventually ends with no real advance in technology other than several MBE/OBE awards. Yet in year 32 a fantastic product appears on the market in which the people have no share although it hasall been paid withtaxpayers money.
2. Gov't pays consumers to put solar panels on their houses, (in most cases unser the old scheme this was self financing) in the mean time providing employment to thousands.In 30 yrs or so solar panels will be so efficient that all the remaining oil can be use d for necessary things.

P.S. For all those people that will say "wind and sunshine do not happen 24 hrs per day"

Q.Take a look at all the appliances in your house, how many of them need mains voltage?
A. Very few- your computer radio tv lighting and phone will all happily work on 12/24 volts DC with a little modification.

If every house had a bank of batteries there would be no need for a constant national supply, any excess power generated could be used to charge the local communal car recharge point.

CFC

telboyo wrote: »

The FIT encourages players into the market- some will be happy with taking the FIT as their profit- others will strive to increase their margin by making the panels more efficient, these are the people that will eventually win the market and supply the majority, in 30 yrs or so the government will tax these people and use the benefits to pay ofr the pensioners winter fuel subsidy or whatever it is called then.

So funny I nearly choked on my cup of tea.

Pincher

What about a petition for compensation, for people who suffer discrimination by not having a south facing roof.
We have obviously been targeted for footing the bill.

oldvicar

Views expressed are not necessarily those of MoneySavingExpert.com.

Makes you wonder what they will call a news article which is written by MSE.

HalloweenJack

you are aware that for german panels , the wholesale cost has fallen by 35% in 1 year?

http://www.solarserver.com/service/pvx-spot-market-price-index-solar-pv-modules.html

and for chinese panels its 45%

chinese panels are now 67p per watt wholesale , which makes a 2kw system 1340 for the panels , and £500 for the invertor, yes thats under £2000


if your being charghed £10000 then your being scammed massively - equipment costs have fallen that much in 1 year , FoE know this , homesun know this - the same equipment being installed in october is now £300 cheaper for the panels (2kw) 2 months later

rogerblack

telboyo wrote: »

The FIT encourages players into the market- some will be happy with taking the FIT as their profit- others will strive to increase their margin by making the panels more efficient.

This is unfortunately, misguided.
The problem with this argument is that solar panel makers cannot do this.
Only solar cell makers.
(the bits that go into solar panels).
The solar panels are about as efficient as they can get, given the price of solar cells.

In 2011, about 20GW of solar cells were produced.
About 400MW were installed in the UK.
At 2% of global demand, the FITs are not driving anything much in the way of research.

Especially with the solar industry undergoing a price crash, and many companies making little profit that can be plowed back into research.

The ~400 million pounds on UK electricity bills (admittedly most of this will be paid in the future) has probably delivered under 20 million of investment in solar cell R&D.

In addition, much of this R&D does not go towards making large improvements in solar cell price.
It goes towards making existing sorts of cells 1% cheaper - as that's where the low risk is.

Making novel sorts of cells is a hugely risky investment for a cash-strapped industry.

The firms making - comparatively - large profits are the rent-a-roof people, and the solar installers.
These people can do _nothing_ to advance the technology of solar cells.

Butti

I don't think the question is what has been done, it is how it has been done. The whole industry knew subsidies were too high but negotiation could have taken place AFTER the consultation period. This would have allowed some companies to plan for new subsidy levels and not just collapse taking a whole load of jobs with them. Some of the government's actions seem designed to put as many people as possible on the dole.

rogerblack

Butti wrote: »

I don't think the question is what has been done, it is how it has been done. The whole industry knew subsidies were too high but negotiation could have taken place AFTER the consultation period. This would have allowed some companies to plan for new subsidy levels and not just collapse taking a whole load of jobs with them. Some of the government's actions seem designed to put as many people as possible on the dole.

If the rates had continued at 43p/kWh until the planned April switch-date, then the amount of installed PV would - conservatively have doubled or tripled.
This would mean the amount a domestic customer is paying rises from 3 pounds or so a year to around 10.

10 pounds may not be a lot to some, but to many people who are struggling, it's a week or mores disposable income.

As to governmental jobs - the 'green deal' is due to be rolling out soon.

Alan_the_skinflint

So I had to re-join the MSE forums just to comment on this article. Unbelievable...

Three short months ago the sun appeared to be beating down on the UK's solar industry. Business was booming as thousands of householders seized generous subsidies to use their rooftops to harness the sun's power.

But late last year the Government announced plans that sent storm-clouds scudding over UK solar by proposing sudden plans to slash subsidy payments.

Or... thousands of householders seized subsidies paid for by the rest of the population that can't (tenants, north-facers, appartment dwellers...) or won't have solar panels installed. Gains for the "haves", losses for the "have nots". "Have nots" outnumber "haves" significantly... FIT at over 40p, but cost of electricity more like 15p (?) - it does NOT add up.

...many solar firms recognised this payment level was too high and had called for a planned and careful reduction in payments.

Many solar firms realised that they had been given a golden egg-laying goose and were worried the subsidy would be cut/removed because it wasn't affordable. I've said this many times - a business plan based on government policy is NOT a safe business plan. Basically there are (or hopefully were) a lot of people getting rich at the taxpayers' expense which may have benefited a small percentage of the population.

The big issue was the speed of the cuts.

Look, we can't afford to keep paying it, the country spends about 500 million pounds more than it earns EVERY DAY. Which bit of this is difficult to understand?

... many that couldn't get the work done in time simply cancelled their orders.

Then those people were clearly taking a (sensible) financial decision, rather than an environmental one. Most people are more "Friends of Money required to live" than FOE.

...legal challenge by Friends of the Earth and two solar firms...

...Ministers are currently wasting time and taxpayers' money appealing this decision and a judgement is expected soon.

So those solar firms are profiting from government subsidies (read: "taxpayers' money") and then spending that profit taking the government to court so they can make more money - from us, the taxpayers.

The enthusiasm for clean power was boosted by soaring fuel bills...

No, the enthusiasm was boosted by excessive subsidies, which weren't available to everyone, but everyone pays for.

...the big six energy firms that dominate the market and keep us all hooked on expensive fossil fuels.

We aren't hooked on fossil fuels - we generally do not care where the electricity etc. comes from as long as it arrives at the socket/pipe. Ask 100 people today whether they would prefer "green" subsidised solar power or a 20% cut in their bill...

...while electricity bills rose by around a third...

That is almost exactly the increase caused by simple inflation over the period, so it isn't a very damning statistic - it's a bit like saying "nearly 40% of sick days are taken on mondays or fridays."

If ministers want to protect jobs and enable more people to switch to clean power, they must come up with more money to finance the scheme. And this can be paid for by using the multi-million pound tax revenues generated by solar firms.

I'm sorry? the majority (all?) of the profits those firms make come from taxpayer funded subsidies, so we pay the firms, they import product (negatively affecting our trade balance) and THEN they pay us a small percentage back as tax. That isn't being "paid for", that is how this country ended up close to being broke.

I wonder how much of a donation FOE gets from these taxpayer funded profiteers...

Right, rant over. Solar isn't bad, but there are much more efficient ways of providing solar energy than small scale projects on private houses. We DO need to change our energy habits, the world is past Peak Oil, and we need to move towards energy security. I think if the government focused on the "we need to make sure the lights stay on" argument, rather than the woolly "green" argument then they'd get more support for renewable policies.