Solar PV - Green but not ethical?

Blossom2528

Cardew wrote: »

George Monboit the Environmentalist Guru summed it up with this quote:

The FIT scheme has achieved exactly as he said - moved £billions from the poor to the well off, with around 1% gaining.

Does that mean that the argument is wrong. It's not 1%, and it's not all from the poor?
My maths isn't great but 8billion divided by 25 years is about a billion every 3 years but more at the end than the start? So how can Cardew claim moved billions already?

EricMears

According to this government website http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/2033household1110

there would appear to have been 21.7 million households in the UK in 2008 and that number was expected to grow by 232,000 households per year so we're probably around 22.6 million households now.

24m isn't a bad guess (Government department guesses aren't renowned for accuracy !)

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Only 35% of electricity is consumed by domestic properties, the other 65%, well how is that calculated. Are those costs swallowed, or passed on to end users of the goods and services? Who buys the goods and services, the rich or ‘the poor’, and in what percentage?

Of course the other 65% of electricity charges are passed on to consumers. What sort of business could afford not to ?

As ever, 'the rich' will be buying more of the goods and services of those companies than will 'the poor'.

Have to say I'm somewhat puzzled by the idea that we have to decide whether things are going to benefit 'the rich' or 'the poor' ! The basic concept of the MSE website is to save money and that's beneficial to all sections of society. If anything, since they've got more of it, 'the rich' should be even more interested in money saving ideas than the poor

zeupater

celerity wrote: »

Can someone please provide the source that 1% of the population of the UK receive maximum FiT?

/\dam

Hi

So, as a proportion of of the number of households in the country (above) the percentage with pv is to be taken as being ....

"At the end of March there were 240,978 PV installations of 50kW and less on the Central Fit Register (CFR). Data from the MCS suggests that there are an additional 68,409 installations that had been installed at the end of March but are not yet on the CFR bringing the total installed to 309,387. The majority of which are 4kW and under (298,274).

The capacity of PV installations up to 50kW on the CFR stood at 786MW at the end of March. The MCS suggests that an additional 273MW had been installed by the end of the month bringing the total to 1.1GW. Of which 847MW was 4kW and under, 53MW was betweeen 4-10kW and 160MW between 10 and 50kW. "
Source DECC .... (http://www.decc.gov.uk/publications/DirectoryListing.aspx?tags=94) ... Feed in Tariff Monthly Update 05/04/2012

So taking the 298274 installations under 4kWp we get 1.36% (298274/22000000) of households which are eligible to the maximum FiT rate .... of course a proportion of these will be RaR, LA or HA installations.

HTH
Z

grahamc2003

The thing which makes the Uk fit system so generous is that the cost per kWh credited to the supplier is almost double what people generally expect, and this because, although it's called a feed-in tariff, it is actually nothing of the sort, and is a generation tariff.

The average rate of the fit today must be around 44p/kwh generated (being the fit and the export element). The actual cost of that energy to consumers, assuming 60% export rather than the less realistic 50% imv, is therefore around 78p/kWh.

So electricity consumers (and a small contribution from taxpayers) are paying 78p/kWh for something the suppliers can buy through traditional channels at around 4p/kWh (ballpark, the price varies). Those who say there'll soon be 'price parity' (the only rational meaning being the cost to the supplier being the current wholesale cost) have a 1800% gap to close. As more lower fit systems are installed, the average cost will drop from 78p/kWh, but imo, will never (i.,e. within the forseeable future) reach anywhere near the wholesale cost.

Whatever definition of poor or rich is used, these types of subsidies (where prices are 18 times the going rate) will cause more to enter 'fuel poverty'. Debate all you like about what that means, but to me, some people who currently have no spare cash at the end of the month are having to pay extra cash they can't afford over to me who doesn't need it. I'd say anyone who can come up with 10 grand (or 6 or 7) can manage quite well and hence isn't poor by any measure.

As much as people here like to think they are
a - saving the planet
b - helping the poor by curbing climate change (was that one serious?)
c - get paid generously from subsidies by the system of all consumers paying 18 times the real unsubsidised value of their electricity paid for, in part, by those purportably being helped in b)

then I can't see that point c) can be described by anybody as 'ethical'. We are mainly middle class (with minor exceptions), money grabbers off other electricity consumers, which inclued many poor people. To those who disagree, hands up those who would have 12 grands worth of solar panels on their roof if there were no money to be grabbed.

I realise these facts are quite unpalatable to some, and some (probably the majority) will keep in denial of them.

EricMears

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I'd say anyone who can come up with 10 grand (or 6 or 7) can manage quite well and hence isn't poor by any measure.

Perhaps one could also say that anyone who can manage to spend £100,000 or more (use £50k if you prefer) to buy a house must also be 'managing quite well' ?

Of course, most houseowners achieve that status with the help of a mortgage offered by an organisation that appreciates that they'd be able to make the repayments if they're no longer paying rent. Anyone who managed to get themselves a mortgage a few years ago would very likely be able to get a 'further advance' sufficient to install PV - indeed, explaining to their lenders that FIT payments would cover the interest on the further advance should swing the deal.

Has the ability to raise such a loan suddenly elevated them to the ranks of 'the rich' ?

zeupater

grahamc2003 wrote: »

.... So electricity consumers (and a small contribution from taxpayers) are paying 78p/kWh for something the suppliers can buy through traditional channels at around 4p/kWh (ballpark, the price varies). Those who say there'll soon be 'price parity' (the only rational meaning being the cost to the supplier being the current wholesale cost) have a 1800% gap to close. As more lower fit systems are installed, the average cost will drop from 78p/kWh, but imo, will never (i.,e. within the forseeable future) reach anywhere near the wholesale cost ....

Hi All

The real issue is that in a microgeneration environment the wholesale cost of electricity is totally irrelevant as the microgenerators (those with pv) are not in a position to purchase their electricity wholesale, they can only purchase retail. It is therefore essential that comparisons made within a microgeneration environment are based on retail, therefore closing the gap you raise significantly.

A second issue with the logic employed is that the microgenerators are also consumers, therefore the amount of electricity used on-site cannot be completely ignored, this also reduces the gap .... then again there's the benefit to LAs which passthrough to consumers within their areas etc, etc, etc ......

The point at which parity would be considered as being reached would be when investment can be made into a pv system which will show a saving over a reasonable timescale without any form of subsidy. This has now been demonstrated as being commercially possible at current large volume panel installations as close as southern europe using competitive wholesale pricing and, if net-metering was allowed within the UK, would likely be considered as being marginally financially viable by many for current pricing on a 4kWp system when displacing retail priced electricity ...

HTH
Z

grahamc2003

zeupater wrote: »

, if net-metering was allowed within the UK, would likely be considered as being marginally financially viable by many for current pricing on a 4kWp system when displacing retail priced electricity ...

HTH
Z

Hi Z,

Net metering crops up quite a lot. If implemented, it would represent a further subsidy - that of using expensive services for free.

Effectively, net metering means the grid is accepting your surplus generation at zero cost, and returing it (rather paradoxically,) at some time in the past, iyswim (most won't!). Without that service, even now, none of our grid tied solar systems would work. Obviously, the cost of that service to the grid isn't zero, and indeed, were it costed on a commercial basis, it would be set at the maximum of either the cost plus markup, or a high percentage of the benefit gained by the consumer.

Now you may say that we alrerady use the grid, so we have a right to pump energy into it (as indeed I think you have said or implied before, but I may be mistaken and it may have been soeone else). But of course, that isn't correct at all - we pay for the grid to supply us, which doesn't imply a right to supply them. (i.e. if you buy bananas from Tescos, you don't have a right to sell them bananas, let alone at the retail price or more). The idea from a grid perspective of supplying a suplus energy purchasing servce is just as incoherent as tescos buying bananas off its customers whenever a customer decides to sell them some. The grid do it because of obligations, and such obligations are subsidies in disguise.

zeupater

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Hi Z,

Net metering crops up quite a lot ....

Hi

But surely the issue is that 'the grid' isn't a supplier - it's simply a managed transport conduit, a service which is paid for by everyone with a connection, whatever the size ?

For household size connections the levy is through the standing charge, whether apparent or amortised and for larger industrial, commercial or generation connectivity a larger charge depending on the number of electrons capable of being transported at the point of connection ? ... Looking at the annual reports for National Grid ET their turnover seems to be ~£2.5bn I would therefore be quite safe to assume that the cost of 22million household connections relative to the size of the averaged or potential load is actually higher per unit than that at large generation plant, so I don't really see the issue from a grid funding POV, perhaps the large generators should be asked to pay their fair share relative & proportional to the consumer/microgenerators ...

A potential solution to the issue you raise would therefore simply be to ensure that installations which consistantly supply a net surplus to the grid pay the quarterly standing charge as opposed to the amortised charge.

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

The thing which makes the Uk fit system so generous is that the cost per kWh credited to the supplier is almost double what people generally expect, and this because, although it's called a feed-in tariff, it is actually nothing of the sort, and is a generation tariff.

The average rate of the fit today must be around 44p/kwh generated (being the fit and the export element). The actual cost of that energy to consumers, assuming 60% export rather than the less realistic 50% imv, is therefore around 78p/kWh.

So electricity consumers (and a small contribution from taxpayers) are paying 78p/kWh for something the suppliers can buy through traditional channels at around 4p/kWh (ballpark, the price varies).

But you're making the same mistake here that Cardew does. The export rate is 3.2p, not 45p, or 78p or any other number.

The 45p is the way the grant is paid towards the capital cost of the infrastructure. The only reason it's linked to generation, is because that is a fairer way of assessing the value of each install. Why should I with a ESE install get as much money as a South install - I shouldn't, so the grant is based on the viability of each install.

Trying to do maths tricks is simply misrepresenting the payment, and bears no relevance to what others are 'buying units from PV'ers' for.

If a house uses 90% of it's generation, then you'd have us believe that the grid is buying the 10% for £4.50 a unit? This is micro-generation aimed at taking responsibility for an individual properties electrical demand. Domestic and commercial PV (not PV farms) are not classed as supply, they are classed as negative demand.

Grants that pay a flat amount have not traditionally worked well, and do not fairly represent the varying qualities of installs, hence linking payments to generation.

As to viability, why are you claiming a 1,800% gap to close, that's just silly. When prices fall to the point that an install is viable on that property, to those owners, without a subsidy, then it's viable. It's no more complex than that. My guess is that current prices of say £7.5k for a 4kWp system will need to fall below £5k, before the first viable households will be found.

grahamc2003 wrote: »

b - helping the poor by curbing climate change (was that one serious?)

I assume that was a reference to my link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/jan/26/flooding-climate-change-heatwave-impact-risk?intcmp=122

I put that in, because Cardew appears to respect the Guardian (I have no opinion), and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation seem quite well respected.

"The government's exhaustive report shows that, unless preventative action is taken, we can expect a tenfold increase in the devasting impacts of flooding, while searing heatwaves will lead to deaths. But the report does not examine who will bear the brunt of this.

Recent research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) does. It shows that the richest 10% of Britons cause carbon emissions over double that of the poorest 10%. But the poorest will be worst hit, lacking the resources to prepare, respond and recover from extreme weather."

If they're wrong, tell em, or explain to us where their research is at fault. Don't shoot the messenger just because I'm supplying some reference material. You could always supply some of your own?

Mart.