Solar ... In the news

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I've suggested in the past that the argument that the poor pay, without the opportunity to benefit, is false.

It's probably 'the poor' who would be the main beneficiaries of a 'rent a roof' scheme.

i.e. if you define 'poor' as not having enough cash, or a strong enough credit record, to afford to buy their own SP system then they can still benefit by inviting a RaR company to use their (owned) roof or suggesting to landlord(s) that they might care to fit a system. Agreed, they wouldn't get anything like as much benefit as FIT recipients but they would gain a great deal more than the 'crippling burden' of supporting me is costing them.

Martyn1981

Here's an alternative to putting PV on land, or rooves:-

New 50kW floating solar array completed in Norfolk

As well as freeing up land, the natural cooling effect of the water helps to ensure the panels have improved production performance. The array also provides benefits to the site, with the shade produced by the system reducing surface evaporation and algae growth.

Mart.

ed110220

EricMears wrote: »

It's probably 'the poor' who would be the main beneficiaries of a 'rent a roof' scheme.

i.e. if you define 'poor' as not having enough cash, or a strong enough credit record, to afford to buy their own SP system then they can still benefit by inviting a RaR company to use their (owned) roof or suggesting to landlord(s) that they might care to fit a system. Agreed, they wouldn't get anything like as much benefit as FIT recipients but they would gain a great deal more than the 'crippling burden' of supporting me is costing them.

I think the way solar PV costs have come down, most people who own their own homes could afford it. I don't have any statistics, but around here at least less expensive houses seem to be just as likely (perhaps more so) to have PV as more expensive ones. It could be that they have more suitable roofs (20th C ex-council houses with simple pitched roofs v Victorian houses with more complicated roofs), that their inhabitants are more concerned about electricity costs or less likely to object to the look of the panels.

Just my observation anyway!

Martyn1981

The EU anti-dumping rules are to remain for up to 15 months whilst a review is carried out. This will maintain higher prices for PV panels in the EU.

Expiry review of ‘unfair’ anti-dumping duties ‘not good news’ for UK solar

However the minimum import price on panels, which artificially inflates their price, has been extended throughout the course of the investigation which is expected to last for at least a year and as long as 15 months.

Mart.

warrenb

It is stupid isn't it. Just Germany being protectionist.

Where is the innovation at the moment, mainly Chinese manufacturers producing more and more efficient modules.

Case in point, JA Solar are now producing a 450 panel, but won't sell it here due to the MIP as it will make it to expensive.

Got a feeling DECC thought the MIP would be dropped in their process of costing the FIT cut, and now may need to evaluate.

Martyn1981

PV rollout in the USA is accelerating at quite a dramatic rate.

GTM/SEIA report: US solar market set for record-breaking fourth quarter

GTM Research expects this upcoming fourth quarter to be the largest in history for US solar, with more than 3GW of capacity installed. Looking ahead, total PV installations are projected to nearly double between now and the end of 2016 — bringing the national total to 41GW.

The utility-scale market continues to lead the way for US solar, as it makes up 42% of PV installations developed in the US, while residential accounts for 41%. As a whole, the residential solar sector hit a new quarterly record as it grew 69% year over year.

Mart.

silverwhistle

ed110220 wrote: »

I think the way solar PV costs have come down, most people who own their own homes could afford it. I don't have any statistics, but around here at least less expensive houses seem to be just as likely (perhaps more so) to have PV as more expensive ones. It could be that they have more suitable roofs (20th C ex-council houses with simple pitched roofs v Victorian houses with more complicated roofs), that their inhabitants are more concerned about electricity costs or less likely to object to the look of the panels.

Just my observation anyway!

Just noticed this and it made me chuckle as it describes my situation pretty well. Also, I'd add, some of us are a little older and have savings, and rather than watch them depreciate or get spent on a rapidly depreciating car an investment in infrastructure seems far preferable. Gawd knows the country needs it. For some of us it's also part of a general concern that sees us drive less, insulate, install LED bulbs, compost, grow our own etc. Fortunately 20th C ex-council terraces are structurally well built and have gardens that are bigger than postage stamps!

Martyn1981

This would be funny, if it wasn't so sad:-

Chinese firm part-funding UK nuclear ambitions ploughs billions into solar…in France

"France is a very safe country for investments, the feed-in tariff for solar electricity is very stable," she is reported to have said.

While France’s feed-in tariff is obviously attracting foreign investment, the same cannot be said for the UK’s. The government is still to disclose the results of a consultation on sweeping cuts to the FiT which would see returns fall to 4% at most – almost a third the 11.5% return offered to nuclear generation at the Hinkley facility.

The government has had to counter claims that the FiT reforms and a plethora of other green cuts has significantly dented investment confidence in the UK’s energy market and forced potential investors to put their finance elsewhere.

Mart.

silverwhistle

Interesting that the key is stability over the longer term, as highlighted in the recent (3 Dec.) Guardian article about energy in Uruguay:

“What we’ve learned is that renewables is just a financial business,” M!ndez says. “The construction and maintenance costs are low, so as long as you give investors a secure environment, it is a very attractive.”
...

“But in 2008, we launched a long-term energy policy that covered everything … Finally we had clarity.”

agentk

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/us-town-rejects-solar-panels-amid-fears-they-suck-up-all-the-energy-from-the-sun/ar-BBnvdKc?li=AA9SkIr&ocid=mailsignout


comments at bottom of page