Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Martyn,

I think we're broadly in agreement on the major points.

I've no problem with the FIT scheme...only with the size of profit available on an installation & where that profit went to - wealthier households, finance companies charging exorbitant interest rates & rent-a-roof installers.

In a nutshell, the FIT profit was so large that it undermined competition leading to overcharging & dodgy finance deals.

Yes, and thanks.

I just think it's important to point out that the level of profit was really down to the admin, not the scheme basics, nor the level of subsidy at the start, and each new revised figure.

In fact, had the cost of PV not fallen so far, and so fast, there would be no complaints, as the opportunity to make large returns wouldn't have been available. Which is kinda ironic when you think about it.

Personally, do I feel a bit guilty, well actually, yes I do, but I think that's down to my personality and genuinely looking for fair balance.

In my case, I paid nearly £12k for a 3.58kWp system, that I thought would take 12-15yrs to pay back. It was partly a gamble.

Then I won my gamble, as actual generation from my lightly shaded system was far higher than I expected (see PVGIS v's early SAP figures, and the negativity that was spread (fairly at the time) about shade). Also degradation is far less than thought at the time, with later reports suggested around 0.4%pa, v's 1% or 2%. And lastly inverter life expectancies being much better than expected, and replacement costs tumbling.

What if I'd lost that bet, gen was poor, panels degraded 16% by today, and I was deep into the life of my already replaced inverters, which (as a pair) cost nearly £1.4k?

[At this point, I've noticed this may seem like a rant at you, it's absolutely not, just a point in time retrospect.]

Because I was doing well (and feeling guilty), I then installed a WNW system at 17p/kWh (the over 4kWp rate for Mch to July 2012 installs). This was to make my gen more full day, and expected to have a 20yr payback. I was also by then trying hard to share advice on MSE as a form of 'pay it forward'.

Unfortunately, the WNW system, despite heavy shading, has thanks to Solaredge outperformed all expectations, so probably a 15yr payback, and more guilt!!!!

So had PV prices not fallen fast, and had PV systems not performed far better than expected, the great returns (I can't argue) wouldn't have happened. Early PV'ers won their bet, but we could have lost, a fact often forgotten by the critics.


Anyways, back to today, and despite any opinions we share, or differ (a bit), I hope that schemes that provide PV for lower income housing, can come in at a very fair rate of return, for all parties, so any controversy should be tiny compared to late 2011+.

All the best.

1961Nick

Hi Martyn,
You fully deserve your return for being an early adopter & taking a gamble with a significant amount of money in today’s terms... let alone back then!

When I purchased my system it was a solid investment & the generous return was a ‘known’. £4K would be recovered in about 5 years by the FIT. Total return would be about £16K + free energy but probably less an replacement inverter. It was those sort of figures that got the ‘sharks’ circling.

My view is that there was plenty of scope for solar to be coupled with green deal to keep rent-a-roof schemes & extortionate finance deals at bay. Lower income households would have had the opportunity to reap the rewards along with those in more fortunate circumstances.

Dinner is ready so I’ll have to leave it there....

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

... In my case, I paid nearly £12k for a 3.58kWp system, that I thought would take 12-15yrs to pay back. It was partly a gamble ...

Hi

£12k .... Luxury !!! ... our first quote was close to (but over!) £20k and after haggling that down by ~10% but still being unhappy with the offering it took a lot of work to find someone less inclined to rip everyone off as well as supply a solution we would be happy with as there weren't many installers around in the early days of the FiT scheme .... even when headline pricing looked decent there was a strong temptation to heavily load the quote with 'specialist' scaffold prices and attempts to sell unnecessary upgrades to consumer units, house wiring etc ...

As you say, early adopters jumped in when system prices were comparatively extortionate and many of the payback claims were either well overstated or largely unsupportable .... quite a risk when you're the first person you know that takes the jump as well as being the first for miles around, but that's what offering support incentives to kick-start a market sector are for - in a word 'confidence' ...

I think that after millions of installations and being able to see systems & talk to relatives, friends & neighbours as well as having numerous sources of information, newcomers to microgeneration are in a completely different situation than existed in the early days of 2010 & 2011, but like changing house prices, don't consider the position & conditions at the time ...

HTH
Z

mmmmikey

.....at the other end of the scale, I bought a bungalow with solar panels already installed. Such is the misunderstanding and suspicion around these in some quarters, a previous sale had fallen through and the price of the bungalow had been redcued by £10k to reflect the inconvenience of having to deal with the panels. So effectively I got paid £10k to own the panels and accept the £550 per annum FIT payments for the next 16 years!


Like Martyn, this doesn't feel right to me, but in my own way do feel that I'm making amends by living a green and clean life and have been an early adopter for batteries.


Funny old world - £10k in pocket and a £550 per year income.....

1961Nick

Here's the opinion of Ian King, the Sky News business presenter....

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-why-labours-arguments-to-nationalise-gas-and-electricity-are-highly-dubious-11721873

I don't think he's a member of the JC or RLB fan club....;)

JKenH

We looked at solar panels a few years ago but because of the east west roof configuration decided against it. Our choice our loss. My next door neighbour earns 10 times the FIT rate I do but he was brave enough to make the first step so I have no problem with that.

I think when I got my panels last year the incentive was about right. With FIT and export tariff I get just under 7p a unit generated but if I can use it it saves me another 15p or so per unit so For a large part of the year I am “earning” 20p plus from my panels. Having the spare solar has pushed me to buying ASHPs which save me a lot of oil in the shoulder months. Getting the panels has made me live my life differently and It has made me think how to be more efficient with my consumption from the grid. Isn’t that what it is all about really?

I am one of the lucky ones who could afford panels and I am conscious that those less fortunate are subsidising me which tbh seems a bit unfair. If the government took away my FIT and said you can only have metered export tariff I wouldn’t complain. I think all the early adopters should have covered the cost of their installation and be in profit by now. Is it time for a rethink? Should the government consider taxing FIT income?

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Hi Martyn,

My view is that there was plenty of scope for solar to be coupled with green deal to keep rent-a-roof schemes & extortionate finance deals at bay. Lower income households would have had the opportunity to reap the rewards along with those in more fortunate circumstances.

Dinner is ready so I’ll have to leave it there....

Yep, agree. I was never against RAR, more a fence sitting position, as the householder would benefit, but the ramifications of contracts steadily getting out of date v's new mortgage lending rules did make a mess of the whole thing.

Too late now, but a central or local government version of the scheme would have made more sense. It was nice to see the scale of social housing rollouts, but heartbreaking to see those plans, that were rapidly expanding, suffer massively with the post 2015 decisions, and now the complete end of demand side schemes.

I'd like to see a scheme for all, but entirely happy for a low income only policy, so long as the rollouts are significant, such as the mentioned 1m+ scheme, and that's a genuine position, even if I didn't already have PV.

I suppose a scheme targeted at the lower end is also fundamentally unfair, but, to be blunt, who cares, it's a shift to cleaner energy, and subsidies are always controversial, so might as well make it harder to criticise.


Just commenting in general, but whilst I find the shift by the UK pretty good, and suspect the off-shore wind wins have been more luck than judgement, I'm still somewhat heartbroken by the devastating policy changes regarding on-shore wind, PV, and small scale / demand side generation in general.

It's OK to point to, and encourage subsidy free, but some low value support to hold our hands at this point in time (perhaps 5 more years(ish)), isn't much to ask, and the public seem to have massive support for these RE deployments and subsidies (within reason).


Grateful for the opportunity to chat and ponder, and again, talking too, not at ..... hopefully.

KevinG

JKenH wrote: »

Is it time for a rethink? Should the government consider taxing FIT income?

Retrospective taxation? Dangerous ground!

michaels

Council houses tend to be in clusters so generation from lots of homes together would cause problems for the local distribution.

Installation by the state would be overpriced and shoddy.

If the govt has 100bn to spend I would rather it went on schools and hospitals than the state owning and running assets in its normal highly inefficient manner.

Given govt levels of efficiency, the govt being responsible for maintaining power supplies would terrify me.

If the grid needed investment but so did the NHS which would a govt prioritise spending on?

zeupater

michaels wrote: »

Council houses tend to be in clusters so generation from lots of homes together would cause problems for the local distribution.

Installation by the state would be overpriced and shoddy.

If the govt has 100bn to spend I would rather it went on schools and hospitals than the state owning and running assets in its normal highly inefficient manner.

Given govt levels of efficiency, the govt being responsible for maintaining power supplies would terrify me.

If the grid needed investment but so did the NHS which would a govt prioritise spending on?

Hi

That's exactly the quandary that effectively killed off most of the British motor industry (amongst others!) .... nationalise, don't set specific goals, lose focus, starve investment, support employment numbers as opposed to business efficiency & don't understand/notice the implications until the situation becomes terminal! ...

... not to worry, some say that Ted Heath'll fix it if elected in time! ...

HTH
Z