Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

What is the relevance to UK of selectively quoting from USA solar industry publications.

Awhh, don't get depressed, it's not all good news. Here's an article on Greece slashing FIT rates to cheer you up:

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/greece-announces-drastic-fit-cuts_100011277/#axzz2TFaYDqAv

The Greek Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change (YPEKA) announced on Friday the new feed-in-tariffs (FITs) for photovoltaic systems. Over 40% tariff reduction has been signed off, both for ground-mounted and roof installations. This will be valid as of June 1.

Oops, just realised falling FITs and falling PV prices is actually good news ...... sorry! Double oops, do I assume that Greece hitting it's 2020 PV target in early 2013 is also good news ...... hmmm ....... tell you what, don't read that article, just have a nice cup of cocoa instead, while I find you an article on US PV firms going bust due to Chinese imports - that'll put the smile back on your face.

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/us-company-marketing-cheap-panels-to-china_100011261/#axzz2TFaYDqAv

(Thrice Oops!)

Mart.

tunnel

Just thinking out loud

Going back to battery packs, wouldn't it be better if you could take back what you don't use from the grid(export)especially once smart meters arrive on the national rollout. Obviously you shouldn't get paid the FIT on anything you take back and would be no good to any early bird on the higher FITS, but it should also help lower levy on peoples bills by not paying out as much

It would also hopefully encourage people to stay within their generation(be green:)) and potentially put an end to RaR schemes(no good to them if they're only getting paid for what's being used in the home)

The only people I could see objecting would be the energy companies.

EricMears

tunnel wrote: »

Obviously you shouldn't get paid the FIT on anything you take back

FIT payments are for generation so shouldn't be 'at risk'. Surely what you really mean is that you wouldn't get the 'export payment' for anything that wasn't exported.

rogerblack

EricMears wrote: »

FIT payments are for generation so shouldn't be 'at risk'. Surely what you really mean is that you wouldn't get the 'export payment' for anything that wasn't exported.

FIT payments are paid on the basis that they are an (indirect) subsidy to reduce total UK carbon
The rates are set so that they reflect this.
Some behaviours by people with panels paid FIT can mean they break the assumptions made.
For example, the increasing use of devices to allow people with gas supplies to use the solar-PV for water heating.

(This causes a net increase of carbon, as the electricity they don't export but are paid FIT for has still got to be generated)

Batteries would somewhat change the case - if 100% efficient, they don't change the carbon saving of FIT (apart from their capital carbon cost)

They might encourage people to swap somewhat from natural gas for heating though.

tunnel

rogerblack wrote: »

.
Some behaviours by people with panels paid FIT can mean they break the assumptions made.
For example, the increasing use of devices to allow people with gas supplies to use the solar-PV for water heating.


Batteries would somewhat change the case - if 100% efficient, they don't change the carbon saving of FIT (apart from their capital carbon cost)

They might encourage people to swap somewhat from natural gas for heating though.

This is exactly what I was thinking about. I've toyed with the idea of getting smart technology to make the most of my free leccy and for me it does stack up, primarily because i'm on the highest tariff.

But for someone just coming into PV, given the choice of "taking" back what they've exported but not being paid for it, wouldn't it do away with need to be looking at storage batteries. Indeed the FIT and some leccy tariffs are almost comparable now.
If you had the choice to use the electricity you generated and exported in the day at night, wouldn't you?

Martyn1981

tunnel wrote: »

Just thinking out loud

Going back to battery packs, wouldn't it be better if you could take back what you don't use from the grid(export)especially once smart meters arrive on the national rollout. Obviously you shouldn't get paid the FIT on anything you take back and would be no good to any early bird on the higher FITS, but it should also help lower levy on peoples bills by not paying out as much

It would also hopefully encourage people to stay within their generation(be green:)) and potentially put an end to RaR schemes(no good to them if they're only getting paid for what's being used in the home)

The only people I could see objecting would be the energy companies.

I think you're describing net-metering(?), which is what the article I posted about the US was about. Effectively you use the grid as your battery, by having exported units knocked off your bill to balance out imported units. This is basically the same as a backwards meter, but with actual import and export metered.

The problem with net metering is, is that it only operates within a window. When PV was launched in the UK 3 years ago net metering wouldn't have been enough - although I think you were also suggesting FIT on non-exported units(?). Once leccy prices rise high enough, net-metering would actually be a higher subsidy than falling FITs. Looking for a cross-over point eg south coast 4MWh gen pa:

4,000 @ 7p FIT = £280
1,400 consumption @ 15p = £210
2,600 export @ 5p = £130
total = £620

4,000 (net-metered) @ 15p = £600

[Edit: For the example I failed to strip out the subsidy element for comparison. For FITs that would be 4,000@7p = £280, and for net-metering it would be the difference between the export and import rates for the exported units, which would be 2,600@10p = £260]

I chose 7p FIT as I'd have thought this is just about do-able already for south facing, south based installs today, if prices are (or return to) £5k, eg:

4,000 @ 7p FIT = £280
1,400 consumption @ 12p = £168
2,000 (deemed) export @ 4.64p = £93
total = £541

Yet another option, to prevent PV becoming south'ist might be a FIT cap, that is only paid on the first xunits (perhaps 2,000kWh's pa).

[Edit: Sorry about all the numbers. M.]

Mart.

tunnel

Ah i see...i think. to me that would make sense, as i said, rates for FITs and leccy tariffs are becoming comparable. I don't see the point being paid for something then having to pay to buy it back.

Am i right in saying Mart is that when the FITs becomes less than the leccy then thats when net metering works? Would definately help people out,then the only people buying battery banks would be folk on the highest FITs rates. Looks like the early adopters have to shell more again to me.:(

Martyn1981

tunnel wrote: »

Am i right in saying Mart is that when the FITs becomes less than the leccy then thats when net metering works? Would definately help people out,then the only people buying battery banks would be folk on the highest FITs rates. Looks like the early adopters have to shell more again to me.:(

Hiya T, only my ramblings, but I think you're right. But the benefits will vary from household to household. A high use (of generation) household would probably prefer FITs, whilst a high export household might prefer net-metering (NM).

I've edited my previous post to show how subsidy streams come together. Using the same numbers, but going forward a few more years, you might see the following, with a further reversal as FIT becomes lower than NM:

4,000 @ 5p FIT = £200
1,400 consumption @ 17p = £238
2,600 export @ 7p = £182
total = £620
(subsidy FIT element of £200)

4,000 (net-metered) @ 17p = £680
(subsidy 2,600*(17p-7p) = £260)

Regarding early adopters and low export rate, I was quite vocal about this way, way back, feeling that the export rate should have been around 5p (4.5p + 10% to reflect no distribution losses) but with the FIT reduced accordingly. After all, the original FIT + export came as a package, with the export artificially low, and the FIT artificially high.

I was really, really pleased when the 1/8/12 expected FIT was reduced from 16.85p to 16p and the export rate increased from 3.2p to 4.5p. Seems much more sensible. But we 3.3p'ers (now) shouldn't complain as the difference is packaged into the FIT rate.

Lastly, I suggested a FIT cap earlier to levelise subsidy income between southern and northern installs, but thinking about it, that is bordering on a fixed subsidy, and I don't think fixed subsidies have ever worked particularly well in bringing down costs, so I might have to shoot my own suggestion down, not sure!

Mart.

tunnel

Would it be feasible to assume then that eventually when the FIT reduces to 0p that there would still be an export rate which would be equivalent to the then future electric prices. How long before reaching that level would net metering be worthwhile introducing.

All this is also assuming the energy companies are forced to play ball, after reading the article you posted about the US of A it would seem theirs don't want to. Interesting times in front indeed.

rogerblack

tunnel wrote: »

Would it be feasible to assume then that eventually when the FIT reduces to 0p that there would still be an export rate which would be equivalent to the then future electric prices. How long before reaching that level would net metering be worthwhile introducing.

Indeed - this would result in basically net metering.

However, there are reasonable arguments that pure net metering is unfair in some ways to the utilities.

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/SystemPrices.php?pT=SYSPRICE&dT=NRT

It is my understanding that this is a graph reflecting what the actual live spot price of electricity is - that is - what generators got, and what the electricity distrubutors paid for it.

I don't fully understand why it's not closer to retail prices - I suspect this is due to the fact that this is only a tiny amount of the total market, with most being purchased on longer term contracts.

However, it does show what short-term power actually sells for. (In large volume)

Looking at the price from 18 (9AM) to 34 (5pm) yesterday, it varied from about 4-8p/unit.

This is considerably less than retail - and if the supply companies were made to simply allow net metering on a per kWh basis, then they would be effectively paying around 15p, around double their normal cost of supply.

How much the infrastructure costs is complex - and in some cases solar may reduce the cost of the wires, in others increase it.

I wish there was some detailed study done into the actual economics of how much it would cost the utilities to service large quantities of solar.