Choice of intelligent switches ?

The_Green_Man_2

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Don't say that! Before you know it they'll introduce a generous subsidy for each kwh diverted into the hot water tank to make them highly profitable to install (green jobs created, uk becomes world leaders in the technology etc and only an extra couple of quid on everyone's bills!).

But seriously, I'm surprised on an environmental board, no one has commented on the anti-environmental effect of converting high grade daytime energy (electricity) into low grade heat (hot water) when there are much more efficient means of creating the low grade heat (gas). Environmentally of course, surplus solar generation (that is, by definition, expensive daytime electricity) should be exported so others can use it as a high grade energy source, and save it's generation from a power station.

Of course, there are financial benefits (post initial costs) to panel owners of using solar energy for water heating, which I expect will be the most important factor (over the environmental effects) for solar panel owners.

I wish I could thank this post twice. IIRC, the PV owner still receives the full FiTs payment, regardless of the fact that they are no longer exporting their surplus to the national grid.

This from the immersun FAQ section:

"[URL="javascript:showonlyone('newbox8');"]Does it affect my FiT or Export payments?[/URL]

No - the FiT tariff is paid on generated power and the export tariff is (in most cases) deemed rather than metered."

Talk about havingyour cake and eating it, but at least it undermines the nonsensical argument that small scale solar is helping feed energy into the national grid. It just helps the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

Martyn1981

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I wish I could thank this post twice. IIRC, the PV owner still receives the full FiTs payment, regardless of the fact that they are no longer exporting their surplus to the national grid.

This from the immersun FAQ section:

"[URL="javascript:showonlyone('newbox8');"]Does it affect my FiT or Export payments?[/URL]

No - the FiT tariff is paid on generated power and the export tariff is (in most cases) deemed rather than metered."

Talk about havingyour cake and eating it, but at least it undermines the nonsensical argument that small scale solar is helping feed energy into the national grid. It just helps the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

Just a few small points to show that nothing is quite that simple:

You say FITs payment, but actually you mean export payment, they are two different things.

As export becomes metered (roll out of smart meters) this will be taken account of.

PV'ers are paid on a deemed export of 50%, but actual average export is estimated at around 65% (mine is about 65% to 70%). I'd guess that intelligent switches won't dent this too much. As long as PV'ers are being paid for less export than they are actually exporting, then I wouldn't shout too loudly about intelligent switches.

If generation is used to heat water, then export (via off-set) still takes place, but now in a different form, such as gas, LPG, E7 etc (though CO2 emissions from replacing the leccy will probably be greater).

As the FIT reduces, devises such as these may be the financial tipping point that allows an install to go ahead anyway. So if the householders money is being used, then cleaner generation, even with water heat diversion, will still be cleaner than no PV at all.

Edit: Just to add to that last point, for all renewables to prosper (including PV) new ways to maximise the benefits will be needed. This will help enable the reduction and ultimate removal of subsidies. Plus, who doesn't like a new gadget.

Mart.

The_Green_Man_2

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Just a few small points to show that nothing is quite that simple:

You say FITs payment, but actually you mean export payment, they are two different things.

As export becomes metered (roll out of smart meters) this will be taken account of.

PV'ers are paid on a deemed export of 50%, but actual average export is estimated at around 65% (mine is about 65% to 70%). I'd guess that intelligent switches won't dent this too much. As long as PV'ers are being paid for less export than they are actually exporting, then I wouldn't shout too loudly about intelligent switches.

If generation is used to heat water, then export (via off-set) still takes place, but now in a different form, such as gas, LPG, E7 etc (though CO2 emissions from replacing the leccy will probably be greater).

As the FIT reduces, devises such as these may be the financial tipping point that allows an install to go ahead anyway. So if the householders money is being used, then cleaner generation, even with water heat diversion, will still be cleaner than no PV at all.

Edit: Just to add to that last point, for all renewables to prosper (including PV) new ways to maximise the benefits will be needed. This will help enable the reduction and ultimate removal of subsidies. Plus, who doesn't like a new gadget.

Mart.

I don't have a problem with people maximizing the use of their green technologies, I just have a problem that the taxpayer is subsidizing it.

Martyn1981

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I don't have a problem with people maximizing the use of their green technologies, I just have a problem that the taxpayer is subsidizing it.

Even if the true situation is the opposite of what you are claiming? :shocked:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

PV'ers are paid on a deemed export of 50%, but actual average export is estimated at around 65% (mine is about 65% to 70%). I'd guess that intelligent switches won't dent this too much. As long as PV'ers are being paid for less export than they are actually exporting, then I wouldn't shout too loudly about intelligent switches.

Mart.

The_Green_Man_2

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I don't have a problem with people maximizing the use of their green technologies, I just have a problem that the taxpayer is subsidizing it.

Even if the true situation is the opposite of what you are claiming? :shocked:



Mart.

So the FIT payments are created by magic and don't come from other people's taxation and energy bills? :shocked:

Martyn1981

The_Green_Man wrote: »

So the FIT payments are created by magic? :shocked:

Sorry can't follow what you are now saying. Yesterday you complained that people using intelligent switches were being paid for export even if they used it. I've pointed out that net export is greater than the 50% deemed (that is paid for).

So the average position (big picture) is the opposite of your claims. Simple maths, hardly magic!

Mart.

PS. You've referred to FIT payments again, when you are actually talking about export payments. M.

spgsc531

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sorry can't follow what you are now saying. Yesterday you complained that people using intelligent switches were being paid for export even if they used it. I've pointed out that net export is greater than the 50% deemed (that is paid for).

So the average position (big picture) is the opposite of your claims. Simple maths, hardly magic!

Mart.

PS. You've referred to FIT payments again, when you are actually talking about export payments. M.

I don't think The Green Man knows what he's talking about.

The_Green_Man_2

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sorry can't follow what you are now saying. Yesterday you complained that people using intelligent switches were being paid for export even if they used it. I've pointed out that net export is greater than the 50% deemed (that is paid for).

So the average position (big picture) is the opposite of your claims. Simple maths, hardly magic!

Mart.

PS. You've referred to FIT payments again, when you are actually talking about export payments. M.

I suggest you look at my post. I even edited it to include my own post about tax subsidies to try and help you.

Here it is again:

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I don't have a problem with people maximizing the use of their green technologies, I just have a problem that the taxpayer is subsidizing it.

You seem to be avoiding that and referring back to something from yesterday. Perhaps because you are struggling with this particular post?

Martyn1981

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I suggest you look at my post. I even edited it to include my own post about tax subsidies to try and help you.

You seem to be avoiding that and referring back to something from yesterday. Perhaps because you are struggling with this particular post?

Yes, I can see that you edited it after I started to reply. Also it's very rude of you to claim that I'm avoiding answering you - the truth is, it's very hard to keep up with your switch and move approach of starting one wild claim, then moving on to another when the answer is not to your liking.

The point still stands, you posted on a thread about intelligent switches about the reduction in export. You keep referring to FITs instead of export payments. You keep ignoring the fact that net exports are still greater than the amount paid for. So your concerns (confused or otherwise) are still invalid.

Because I've pointed out reality to you, you have chosen your normal approach, which is to move the argument on to some other aspect that you don't agree with.

If you don't agree with subsidies, then how do you suggest meeting future demand? Without subsidies we will have no nuclear, no off-shore wind, and no investment in on-shore wind and PV that could reach grid parity.

All we will have left is gas and coal, which themselves are currently subsidised since their true environmental costs are not currently reflected in their prices (though coal is starting to get hit).

It's easy to rant, harder to offer solutions.

Mart.

John_Pierpoint

Write to the European union and complain about the fine that is going to be imposed on the uk tax payer in 2020, for failing to save 20% of its carbon emissions.
It is like being a Cypriot and being beaten up by those pesky Germans.
It is just so unfair.