Is solar PV worth it?

The_Green_Man_2

WestonDave wrote: »

To be fair FiT's are only the latest in a long line of things where people who are worse off end up inadvertently subsidising the better off as a result of Government policy designed to change behaviour. In the case of FiT's its designed to encourage renewables, in the case of cigarette duty its designed to discourage smoking (but ends up with smokers - higher proportion of whom are poorer subsidising general health costs), petrol duty (older cars tend to be less efficient so often people who can't afford a new efficient car end up paying more fuel duty). Cardew is right - the problem lies with Governments using a blunt financial instrument to change behaviour rather than the people who follow the desired pattern of behaviour change due to the incentives. So in my case, yes I have got the advantage of a system which by spreading the cost of my incentives over everyone will catch less well off people. I'm not sure I feel any worse about that than the fact that I'm not going to start smoking in order to bear my share of that burden.

The difference is that people have a choice whether they smoke or not, to a certain extent they have a choice whether they own a car. They don't have a choice of whether or not to have electricity, and so they have to pay this subsidy regardless. I think most people would prefer not to pay extra on their utility bills, but most will go along with it if they can see the benefits, either in a more robust infrastructure or supply chain or if the subsidy was being used to subsidize the bills of poorer members of society.

I don't think most people are happy to see an extra charge on their bills in order to subsidize the energy bills of a group of people who are predominantly middle class home owners. I can understand why people on here want this sort of discussion to be suppressed, as they gleefully post how much they have saved on their utility bills, they don't want to be reminded that it's on the backs of people who are struggling to pay theirs.

The_Green_Man_2

Cardew wrote: »

I would think there is considerable doubt that electricity consumption has a correlation with income.

The better-off tend to have gas or oil CH and many of the less well off have electrical heating/hot water - read the many threads in the gas and electricity section of MSE.

A lot of rental flats have those prepay electricity meters, which are universally regarded as being the most expensive way to obtain electricity. Landlords have very little incentive to make their properties more energy efficient via insulation, better glazing and efficient heating systems because they don't pay the utility bills and so the payback period on that sort of investment will be infinity.

The poorer the quality of the accommodation, the more likely this lack of efficiency investment is likely to be, meaning that the poorer members of society would be more likely to be using more energy than those in their own housing.

Isn't it bad enough that people are in these circumstances without then adding the burden of subsidizing wealthier, more comfortable people's energy bills?

https://www.ebico.org.uk/fuel-poverty

"The pressures of fuel poverty can be most acute for those who have no choice but to pay for their energy through a pre-payment meter. And as explained in detail elsewhere on this website, consumers using a pre-payment meter nearly always have to pay a higher unit rate for their energy, sometimes up to three times more, than those paying by direct debit or online."

tunnel

If solar panels had been a hell of a lot cheaper to start with then i would still have probably had them installed even without the FIT(anything that helps reduce bills)

But they weren't cheap and the only way the goverment could get people to "go greener" was to offer an incentive(FIT)

I didn't know there was a levvy on "everyones" utility bills to pay for FITS when i had mine installed and i'm willing to bet most people didn't/don't.
The fact is though is that there is a FIT, and while some people disagree with it,many don't.

We can sit and argue till the cows come home,its certainly not going to change anything!

The_Green_Man_2

tunnel wrote: »

If solar panels had been a hell of a lot cheaper to start with then i would still have probably had them installed even without the FIT(anything that helps reduce bills)

But they weren't cheap and the only way the goverment could get people to "go greener" was to offer an incentive(FIT)

I didn't know there was a levvy on "everyones" utility bills to pay for FITS when i had mine installed and i'm willing to bet most people didn't/don't.
The fact is though is that there is a FIT, and while some people disagree with it,many don't.

We can sit and argue till the cows come home,its certainly not going to change anything!

I would have thought that lower utility bills would be incentive enough to go green. What I like about the changes to FITS is that people now have to improve the overall energy efficiency in their home before they can get the higher payment for installing PV. Much better to reduce consumption as much as possible before looking to increase generation. It's a shame they didn't go further and pay zero FITs unless the installation property was 'B' rated or above.

Out of interest, if you had known that there was a levy on utility bills to pay for FITs before installation, would you still have gone through with it?

The_Green_Man_2

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I still find the spin on FITs astonishing.

If people don't want renewables than that's fine, that's their opinion, and they are welcome to it.

That's a strawman argument, no one has said we shouldn't have renewables feeding into the national grid. We just want renewables that actually DO feed into the national grid, unlike domestic PV which feeds into the installed house and where even the very little that makes it into the NG is now being diverted into water heating by some people. Y

It's not good enough to use the argument that houses with PV are using less energy from the grid, so the effect is the same because more savings could have been made by people installing insulation, better heating systems, better windows, better draft proofing than installing PV.

As we have seen on here, it's not generally the case that most people have improved their houses with passive green technologies as much as possible before moving onto active technologies such as PV. Hence the reason why the government is now insisting that houses reach a 'C' rating before they receive the top FIT payment.

EricMears

tunnel wrote: »

I didn't know there was a levvy on "everyones" utility bills to pay for FITS when i had mine installed and i'm willing to bet most people didn't/don't.

The levy isn't just for FIT payments. It's been going rather longer than the FIT scheme and was intended to be a way of subsidising all renewable generation. Fairly obvious to most people that it was the appropriate fund from which to pay FIT payments.

The government are bound by EU directives to increase renewable energy generation and the FIT scheme is just one of the vehicles for that objective. Blindingly obvious to all that nobody was going to fit solar panels when the payback period for the investment was 400 years (as indeed it was when I researched the subject thoroughly around 15 years ago) and almost as obvious that any payback period less than the life of the equipment (or the owner) wasn't going to incentivise many.

As a government policy, the FIT scheme has been surprisingly effective. Solar Panel installations have soared, the increased demand for them (here and in the other countries offering similar incentives) has resulted in panel prices dropping considerably such that we're only a few years away from not needing to offer new FIT contracts but can still expect solar installations to keep increasing. And all that has been managed without any effect on the government's budget deficit.

The renewables levy has a second intended effect of encouraging consumers to use less electricity by raising bills. It hasn't actually raised them very much - but the publicity that its existence has caused has been pretty effective in concentrating people's attention on energy-saving measures. And of course some of the renewables incentive scheme cash has indeed been directed towards grants for such energy saving measures for those who couldn't otherwise afford them.

I'm really not sure what Mr "Green with envy" expects to achieve by his constant whingeing. I certainly shan't be donating all my FIT payments to the "poor" any more than I'll be asking HMRC to take a bit extra income tax to send to them (I'm already paying quite enough tax for that sort of campaign).

Maybe he thinks the Prime Minister has nothing better to do with his time than read these forum pages and amend government policy from their suggestions ? I doubt if he does, but just in case : "Dave, your energy policies are just fine; ignore the ill-informed criticisms".

tunnel

It is better to reduce consumption by making houses more energy efficient,agreed.
But if we're to go that route then any measures like cavity wall and loft insulation should be available to all free gratis,it isn't though is it?,or at least it wasn't to me,i had to pay for both of them,tried for a grant as such. Seems anything i do to save money costs me money.

I'm all for helping out "poorer" people,but energy saving measures should be available to everyone,not just those that can't afford it.

In answer to your question,if the levy for FIT was as spgsc531 states at £2 a year in 2011 when i had them installed then yes i would have. If it had been £100's then no.

WestonDave

Trouble is - the cavity wall grants were paid for via bills as well - and were pretty universally available if you knew were to look especially at the end when the energy companies had renewables obligation money they didn't know what to do with (hence one supplier actually paying people to have it done!).

I don't particularly feel bad about a £2 per year levy feeding my profits when its probably about £20 per year (and the rest!) feeding the suppliers profits - either energy is a zero profit essential or its not - and in the latter case whether its a corporation or an individual benefiting isn't relevant. The alternative would have been to leave the money in the bank and profit from people in debt.

For the record mine was done post the energy efficiency changes so only gets the 21p rate not the top rate, and qualified with a borderline B/C assessment without taking the panels into account (so easily a B now). Short of changing our old pre 2002 UPVC windows for ones marginally more efficient there isn't a lot more we can do to improve a 1950's house so in my case, we've tried to do everything we can to cut energy use outside the PV panels. (As I don't now have a hot water tank having moved to a combi to avoid the waste of heating a tank of water only to let it cool again I can't use the sorts of internal use systems that others can). So on that basis, my conscience is clear!

EricMears

The_Green_Man wrote: »

The poorer the quality of the accommodation, the more likely this lack of efficiency investment is likely to be, meaning that the poorer members of society would be more likely to be using more energy than those in their own housing.

But of course the really poor will only have one or two rooms to heat ! Even if their unit cost was several times that of 'we rich' their actual expenditure on electricity is still going to be far less.


And do these two quotes really come from the same feeble mind :-

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I think most people would prefer not to pay extra on their utility bills, but most will go along with it if they can see the benefits, either in a more robust infrastructure or supply chain or if the subsidy was being used to subsidize the bills of poorer members of society.

The_Green_Man wrote: »

LOL, is that really the only way you can imagine to alleviate fuel poverty - to make it cheaper? Well, I guess it helps your argument.

So we're going to subsidise the bills of poorer members of society but avoid making their costs cheaper ?

I look forward to hearing that Mr Green with envy has sold his computer, given the money raised to the poor and stops posting here.

Martyn1981

The_Green_Man wrote: »

That's a strawman argument, no one has said we shouldn't have renewables feeding into the national grid. We just want renewables that actually DO feed into the national grid, unlike domestic PV which feeds into the installed house and where even the very little that makes it into the NG is now being diverted into water heating by some people. Y

You can’t just keep saying ‘strawman argument’ just because you don’t like hearing the truth. Domestic PV does feed into the grid.

Cardew spent a year trying to defend this appalling maths/accountancy trick before conceeding, but the facts are simple:

generate a unit and export it, the grid has an extra unit,

generate a unit and use it, then you displace one unit of import, and the grid has an extra unit.

It doesn’t matter whether you add a powerstation to the demand or supply side of the grid, you have still increased supply by the size of that powerstation.

Regarding water heating, I’ve already answered that in detail, smart meters will correct overpayments, water heating still exports the alternative energy source (leccy, gas, oil, lpg etc), net exports are greater than the 50% which the grid pays for. I don’t have such a device, and I’m not blindly defending them, I’m simply pointing out that there is more to it, rather than adopt your approach of making wild sweeping statements.

The_Green_Man wrote: »

It's not good enough to use the argument that houses with PV are using less energy from the grid, so the effect is the same because more savings could have been made by people installing insulation, better heating systems, better windows, better draft proofing than installing PV.

Sorry, ‘not good enough’ this is the whole crux, energy generation and export. Unfortunately you are attempting to do something that many others also do, you try to set one technology or idea against another. That is pointless, we need all the technologies and all the energy savings / efficiency savings.

The_Green_Man wrote: »

As we have seen on here, it's not generally the case that most people have improved their houses with passive green technologies as much as possible before moving onto active technologies such as PV. Hence the reason why the government is now insisting that houses reach a 'C' rating before they receive the top FIT payment.

Where are you getting that from? If you actually took the time and trouble to ask people, rather than throwing out insults, you would find that all of the people who have responded to you are extremely energy aware, and happily share advice and knowledge.

My personal view is insulate, insulate, insulate, hence why I have an ‘A’ rated property. Cavity wall insulation was subsidised (through the energy bill tariff), I think my share was £140 about 10 years ago, energy bulbs and floor/loft insulation I paid for myself before they became subsidised or free.

You keep going on about the poor, but who are you to judge us? When we moved into this house 16 years ago we had to save up for the bulbs and insulation. We had no central heating, no double glazing and rubber cabling (yes that old). We worked and saved hard. But that still doesn’t explain why you are trying to pit energy savings against additional clean generation, we need both. They are different schemes and both are essential.

Funny enough, I agree with using EPC ratings as a carrot and stick to improve house efficiencies, but at the end of the day subsidising clean generation is separate to energy savings - we don't ask large powerstations to meet EPC requirements. My understanding is that ROCs are not affected by EPC's.

Another point you keep making is that people are paying more for their leccy, but the reality is that our leccy bills are too low!!!! On-shore wind and nuclear can’t operate at current levels so need subsidising. Gas and coal can’t operate within prices if you add carbon taxes or CCS costs. So you can blame FITs if you want, but our current prices (which exclude current nuclear subsidies and de-commissioning which are in general taxation) can’t cover costs, so a levy on bills is really just a partial rebalancing of prices. Wait till new nuclear subsidies hit our bills, currently they can't legally be hidden anymore!

So, back again to the question I have asked you many, many times. Why is paying subsidies to companies operating large powerstations ok, but paying subsidies to small powerstations owned by householders wrong? How are you differentiating between the two? Do you understand that off-set is the same as export (it’s just the wiring diagram that differs)?

Mart.