Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

pinnks wrote: »

So, for those on reasonable FiTs, would you accept a renegotiation of your sacrosanct FiT contract to move to net metering? Would you give up generation FiT as well as export, or argue for retention of generation plus net metering?

Not sure any govt would go to the expense of all that renegotiation but it seems a reasonable position for them to take if they offer net metering...

Time to hide under the table now and pretend I didn't light the blue touch paper...:rotfl:

I think it's too late for net metering, the subsidy would be higher than the current scheme at about 6.25p/kWh (all in) since all units generated are valued at import, so around 12p-20p/kWh.

As I've mentioned before, the more extreme nuclear advocates* on other forums discussing the end of FiT pointed to new nuclear (HPC) only needing 5p-6p/kWh in subsidy, somehow not realising that demand side PV FiT is now 4p/kWh (export isn't a subsidy, in the same way that the rest of the 10p/kWh for HPC isn't).

Sadly the government claims that the country can't afford to subsidise demand side PV at 4p/KWh for clean leccy today (for 20yrs), whilst simultaneously planning to subsidise new nuclear at 6p/kWh in 10yrs time (for 35yrs).

The hypocrisy of the government is staggering as regards this issue and the LCF (levy control framework (subsidy pot)). Even if we rolled out 1GWp of demand side PV per year, and the subsidy took 10yrs to reach zero, the effective amount of subsidy would still be tiny in comparison after taking the relative capacity factor of PV into account:

1GWp x 10yrs x cf of 11% = 1.1GW of 24/7 generation.

subsidy at 2p/kWh (4p reducing to zero) for 20yrs = £3.9bn

HPC, 3.2GW x cf of 91% = 2.9GW of 24/7 generation.

subsidy at 6p/kWh for 35yrs = £53bn

So HPC gives us approx 3x the amount of generation (after a 10yr delay), for 13x the subsidy cost, and the monies go to foreign governments rather than back into the hands of UK domestic households and small businesses, raising a genuine balance of payments issue.

[Edit - I should have been more clear, PV on the demand side with or without FiTs does of course require some sort of payment for export, and it's hard to think of any argument why an export payment shouldn't be made. M.]

*I have to separate the extreme nukers, as many folk, myself included appreciate that nuclear is cleaner than coal, and low carbon, so it had a place (perhaps in the 80's for new deployments). However, with coal going anyway, and RE deployments now so fast and cheap, nuclear has lost its 'cleaner' and 'cheaper' arguments, and for most reasonable nuclear supporters is now being priced out of consideration on economic grounds.

Not that there is anything wrong with being ideologically opposed to nuclear, nor being willing to pay a premium for nuclear avoidance, since there are many long term concerns regarding nuclear.

silverwhistle

NigeWick wrote: »

I have to suspect that this government's MPs have either been bought by fossil fuel and nuclear companies or are just stupid.

Well in my life I've always been keener on the c*ck-up rather than conspiracy theories. I'm still going for stupid, even on this one, as there is a considerable degree of stupidity in government at present, more so than usual.

Perhaps it's a cunning plan by one of the ministerial Baldricks to encourage us to get battery provision? No, I didn't think so either.

To add to Martyn's last post, the other advantage of domestic PV is the large base of educated consumers, who have been instrumental in helping peak loads to reduce by demand shiftting and generally being in the forefront of getting efficient lighting and appliances.

I could write to my MP, I suppose, but he's a gurning, enthusiastically sycophantic new boy. A prize to the first one who guesses his identity.

silverwhistle

pinnks wrote: »

So, for those on reasonable FiTs, would you accept a renegotiation of your sacrosanct FiT contract to move to net metering?

Time to hide under the table now and pretend I didn't light the blue touch paper...:rotfl:

Hmm, I might need some help with spreadsheets.. Bearing in mind I have a HW diverter and would like to get an EV it all gets very complicated, but wetting my finger I think the answer would be no!:-)

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

Well in my life I've always been keener on the c*ck-up rather than conspiracy theories. I'm still going for stupid, even on this one, as there is a considerable degree of stupidity in government at present, more so than usual.

I've also taken that approach in the past, and was reluctant to accept a conspiracy approach from the government at first, but my concerns have grown when you see the package of moves they've made:

1. They dropped the FiT from about 12p/kWh to 4.5p, when 7p probably would have kept the industry alive, which in turn would have kept the cost of PV and associated kit down, and would have allowed for a steady drop to 4p. But the sudden drop hurt the industry too much.

2. I'm suspicious that damage to the industry was intentional since even if it had kept going they also threw in a 100MWp per quarter cap on FiT, so effectively they would only subsidy support 400MWp per annum of domestic and small business PV. With such a low cf for PV, that equates to approx 44MW of 24/7 generation pa.

3. The government claimed that the UK simply couldn't afford more subsidies despite the 'volume' of new FiTs being so small when cf and the reduced subsidy rate are taken into account.

4. 1, 2 and 3 seem strange given that at the same time they approved the 3,200MW HPC scheme, and are now considering Wylfa also at a much higher subsidy level, despite a planned direct £5bn investment by the government. [£5bn at £2k per install, would 'buy' 2.5m domestic PV installs that could then be subsidy free, assuming a fair export rate is paid, whereas Wylfa will get approx £30bn more in subsidies.]

5. At the same time PV and on-shore wind were excluded from further CfD auctions, the ROC's scheme was ended, planning for on-shore wind was made almost impossible, and shale gas planning rules were relaxed.

6. Public support for PV and wind remains incredibly high, whilst support for nuclear and shale is low and falling.

All in all, support for smaller scale popular 'free fuel' generation has been cut, whilst support for unpopular large scale generation requiring fuel purchases has been increased.

I truly want to believe in c**k-up, as I don't want to become a raving internet conspiracy theorist, but nothing here seems to add up nor make sense. i would say I'm currently transitioning towards conspiracy, but am still in the 'baffled' no-mans land in between.

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I truly want to believe in c**k-up, as I don't want to become a raving internet conspiracy theorist, but nothing here seems to add up nor make sense.

I'm going to poach your points and write to my MP. He's a conswervative who says onshore wind isn't any good.

silverwhistle

On what basis? The view of his grouse moor?

Martyn1981

NigeWick wrote: »

I'm going to poach your points and write to my MP. He's a conswervative who says onshore wind isn't any good.

Please do. But first if you haven't already, can I suggest you study the figures in the public Attitudes Survey. Just let them all wash over you, and let your brain absorb some of the info.

I like using these as they are the government's own survey results (fight fire with fire), and 25 surveys over 6yrs is pretty solid info.

Crucially I often harp on about the change in numbers for on-shore wind. Off-shore wind and PV have remained very, very high and solid, but on-shore is a little lower, but for me, the killer fact is that over the 6yrs on-shore wind support has risen from 66% to 76%, and opposition has fallen from 12% to 8%, and all during the period when the impact (financial & visual) has been felt.

This suggests to me that less and less people have an issue now that they can see the WT's, and even those concerned enough to oppose them have now realised, or at least 1/3 of them have, that they ain't so bad after all.

With probable CfD costs of about £50/MWh they would be close to subsidy free now, assuming a wholesale leccy rate in the £50/MWh region, as expected by the NAO in the 2020's.

The latest survey is here, though number 26 must be due soon.

Energy and Climate Change Public Attitudes Tracker: Wave 25

Select -

Energy and Climate Change Public Attitudes Tracker (PAT): Wave 25 - summary tables

and chose the renewables tab on the bottom of the page. You can also look at the nuclear and shale tabs for an indication of how public opinion is shifting.

NigeWick

silverwhistle wrote: »

On what basis? The view of his grouse moor?

I suspect it's more to do with his belief that fossil and nuclear generation are "best for the country." That said, he's not a minister now so perhaps he won't have to toe the party line quite so closely.

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Please do. But first if you haven't already,

Too late e-mail went not long after I left the forum. When I get the reply researched by his minions, I'll revisit this subject.

Martyn1981

NigeWick wrote: »

Too late e-mail went not long after I left the forum. When I get the reply researched by his minions, I'll revisit this subject.

Cool, and you can hit his response for six, as it'll almost certainly state that a mix of technologies is needed. At that stage you (we) can hit him with the recent studies/articles showing that 1. 100% RE is now doable and based on current technologies and economics, and 2. the report showing that a hybrid generation of RE and nuclear will be more expensive for the UK than all RE (or all nuclear) but RE costs are falling below nuclear costs, plus RE is already at 30%, whilst nuclear is heading for zero when the current fleet (20%) ends in the next decade or two, and the HPC 7% could be stopped (maybe) and won't be around for 10yrs.

Just saying .......