Break even

MFW_ASAP

Thanks for the responses. Does that not seems to be odd for the country to be investing in solar when it will always cost more than other energy sources? Or am I missing something?

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Out of interest, without FIT payments what would the payback times be on solar?

Not sure if this answers the question, but working it backwards:-

A £5k re-payment mortgage @ 4% with an extra £1k added after 12 years (replacement inverter) works out at ~£29.65pm or £355.80pa.

Using the mortgage example, means that cost of capital, depreciation etc etc are accounted for.

So, could you earn £355.80 to breakeven. Tough!

Assuming a good location and system then 4,000kWh pa not difficult. If 1/3 consumed and 2/3 exported and assuming 15p import and 5p export, then that works out at £200 savings, and £133 export, so £333pa. Is that close enough to give an idea?

So consumption needs to go up, or costs fall.

However, since all our leccy is subsidised, nuclear, coal and gas (consider externalities such as health impacts etc etc) and that the CfD subsidies are mostly heading for around £100/MWh (10p/kWh) then our prices should be about 5p/kWh more, or a minimum subsidy of 5p maintained. That would add an extra £200 in the above example.

So with more honest/transparent pricing, then we might be there now ..... ish!

Mart.

Cardew

Duck below the parapet!

The_Green_Hornet

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Thanks for the responses. Does that not seems to be odd for the country to be investing in solar when it will always cost more than other energy sources? Or am I missing something?

You are missing the Climate Change Act 2008 which legally bound the UK to cut its overall carbon emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/part/1/crossheading/the-target-for-2050

Cardew

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

You are missing the Climate Change Act 2008 which legally bound the UK to cut its overall carbon emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/part/1/crossheading/the-target-for-2050

Not quite:

It is a target - not that we are 'legally bound'. No other country is serious about achieving the target either.

Climate Change Act 2008

2008 CHAPTER 27

An Act to set a target for the year 2050 for the reduction of targeted greenhouse gas emissions; to provide for a system of carbon budgeting; to establish a Committee on Climate Change; to confer powers to establish trading schemes for the purpose of limiting greenhouse gas emissions or encouraging activities that reduce such emissions or remove greenhouse gas from the atmosphere; to make provision about adaptation to climate change; to confer powers to make schemes for providing financial incentives to produce less domestic waste and to recycle more of what is produced; to make provision about the collection of household waste; to confer powers to make provision about charging for single use carrier bags; to amend the provisions of the Energy Act 2004 about renewable transport fuel obligations; to make provision about carbon emissions reduction targets; to make other provision about climate change; and for connected purposes. 9

In any case how does that mandate the use of solar PV to 'aim toward;)' that target. The reason PV is popular on this board, and defended so resolutely and at times illogically, is simply because the FIT makes it lucrative.

On a wider issue if Britain achieved zero carbon emissions - no cars/power/heating/manufacturing etc - the increase in emissions from China and India would wipe out Britain's saving in months.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Not quite:

It is a target - not that we are 'legally bound'. No other country is serious about achieving the target either.


In any case how does that mandate the use of solar PV to 'aim toward;)' that target. The reason PV is popular on this board, and defended so resolutely and at times illogically, is simply because the FIT makes it lucrative.

On a wider issue if Britain achieved zero carbon emissions - no cars/power/heating/manufacturing etc - the increase in emissions from China and India would wipe out Britain's saving in months.

... although there's a possibility that failing to meet such agreed targets could invoke action under the EC's infringement procedure. However, past (/current) performance and actions would suggest that as a failing target milestone approaches the standard recovery action would be to set a new target and a later set of milestones whilst 'justifying' the move by claiming that the targets are far 'more strict' and therefore 'more appropriate' to address the issue ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Thanks for the responses. Does that not seems to be odd for the country to be investing in solar when it will always cost more than other energy sources? Or am I missing something?

It might seem odd if it costs more than other energy sources, so that could be what you are missing.

PV has a reputation for being very expensive (compared to others) but the reality today might surprise you.

If you compare small scale generation, you'll see that PV is actually one of the very cheapest:

PV FiT rates

Other FiT rates

Remember to look at the generating size, and consider what could be (rationally) installed at a household level.


Next, moving on to large scale:

CfD rates

again you'll see that PV is cheaper than off-shore wind already, and across the 4/5 year period closes the gap considerably with on-shore wind. Hopefully by 2023 when the first new reactors come on line, PV will have closed with on-shore wind, with both being cheaper than nuclear. [Nuclear should be £93/MWh, but for 35 years (not 15 years).]

On top of all this PV is the most popular renewable as shown in all of the DECC surveys. The results have been 4 to 6% of people oppose solar, 80 to 85% support it.

Public attitudes tracking survey: wave 11

Apologies to throw so many numbers at you, but hopefully investing in PV will seem less odd now? In fact, if PV is one of the cheapest, most versatile (size wise), and most popular energy sources, it might actually seem odd not to invest in it.

Mart.

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

... although there's a possibility that failing to meet such agreed targets could invoke action under the EC's infringement procedure. However, past (/current) performance and actions would suggest that as a failing target milestone approaches the standard recovery action would be to set a new target and a later set of milestones whilst 'justifying' the move by claiming that the targets are far 'more strict' and therefore 'more appropriate' to address the issue ....

HTH
Z

Agreed, but as nobody else in the EU will seriously attempt to meet the target(IMO) it will be a pointless exercise to take sanctions against countries. Also we might not even be in the EU in a year or two;)

However my point was that MFW-ASAP's question on the effectiveness and cost of PV is still valid. There is nothing in the Act that mandates Solar PV.

It is also completely relevant - despite the protestations of our Guru - that solar doesn't generate at night, so will not reduce the need for other generating capacity to meet maximum load on the grid - which is on a winter's evening.

tunnel

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Out of interest, without FIT payments what would the payback times be on solar?

Cardew wrote: »

It is also completely relevant - despite the protestations of our Guru - that solar doesn't generate at night, so will not reduce the need for other generating capacity to meet maximum load on the grid - which is on a winter's evening.

How is that relevant to the question asked, MFW_ASAP never asked if solar worked at night nor did they ask how their electric would be generated during the night, is it so hard to stick to the question asked without going off on a tangent.

Going back to the question, I've been quoted £4500 for a 4kWp system for a friend of mine, assuming no breakages of any sort and electric savings of £200 a year(if your not getting a FiT you're more likely to make the most of what you've generated) then payback without any inflation would be 22.5 years.
Again that's assuming the money in the bank isn't making owt either.

Payback could be sooner with better utilisation of any generated electric or longer if you can't be a$$ed

I think most people would agree that electric price inflation will rise faster than interest rates so believe the above is a fair assumption

All simple back of a wine bottle calculations(don't smoke so no fag packet)

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

However my point was that MFW-ASAP's question on the effectiveness and cost of PV is still valid. There is nothing in the Act that mandates Solar PV.

Yep, it's a perfectly valid question, and the simple and honest answer is that PV is already one of the most effective renewables (deployable at any size, modular, fast, popular and so on). And is well on its way to becoming one of the cheapest, at all scales.

Given that this has been achieved with only 10 years of support for PV (5 in the UK), and that we have relatively low solar levels, and relatively high wind levels, shows how important it is to support this technology, especially given it's roll-out now to sun rich / cash poor countries. Something that simply wasn't possible before the multitude of international FiT (and FiT like) schemes were launched.

The Genie is well out of the bottle. So prolonging your 5 year and 5,000(?) post MSE attack on PV and FiTs seems a little pointless now, doesn't it?

Mart.