MSE News: Government plans to slash solar panel earnings

Martyn1981

That's a really good point Dave. Psychologically it looks like the FiT is the one pushing through the budget, rather than the sum of the three.

Hopefully it's simply a coincidence, not deliberate, but I would have thought the graph should be compiled in date order, with the CfD's being on top, as they are 'added' last.

Mart.

rogerblack

Gale_3110 wrote: »

I see lots of solar bashing on here but what about people whose livelihoods depends on it?

Perhaps they could be employed making peoples gardens pretty, or repainting all the railings in Britain a nice metallic purple.

Relatively few here I suspect would argue against large efficient installations which can be done at little more than the cost of the panels.

A large installation may be able to hit around 3000 pounds per 4kW installed.

This requires a subsidy of perhaps 3-8p/kWh to make it worthwhile.

I wholeheartedly support subsidy of this level.

I absolutely do not support excess subsidy in order to cover the cost of several men coming out in a van for a day to fit it to a house, when those men could install ten times the amount a day in a large installation.

This is not an 'industry'.
Doing things in the most efficient way per pound is an industry. Anything else is entirely worthy of derision.

Should people be able to install panels on their roofs - of course. But with substantially less regulation and the rates set for breakeven of large installations, and perhaps usually not worth it for rooftops.

Cardew

Gale_3110 wrote: »

I see lots of solar bashing on here but what about people whose livelihoods depends on it? !

Welcome to the forum.


Five years ago there wasn't a solar industry as such. It sprung up because the Government decided to give stupidly high subsidies for people to put little PV systems on their roof, and decided that they would get all other electricity users to pay for that subsidy not the taxman. As for your figure of £1 a year - you should look again.


The early adopters are now getting around 50pence for every kWh they generate, and they don't even have to export a single kWh if they can use it in the house.


It is nonsensical to think an industry should be protected merely to stop unemployment. Millions were employed as coal miners, tin miners, dockers, in the armed Forces, fishermen etc. Should we still have the same numbers? at least they were performing useful jobs.


In Victorian times people were employed to knock on the windows of workers to wake them - then they invented alarm clocks. Ditto literally millions were employed as farm labourers - then they invented tractors. Should we still employ those people to protect the industry?


As for the 'solar industry' well they could go back to selling double glazing(perhaps triple glazing) or whatever 'get rich quick' scheme becomes available.

System

What is there to stop Taylor Wimpey et al putting panels on suitable plots on their next site? Owners get the benefit of any free energy that they can use: the surplus gets fed into the grid (or used by other property owners on the site). No FITs involved: the buyer just pays slightly more for the house.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

.... The early adopters are now getting around 50pence for every kWh they generate, and they don't even have to export a single kWh if they can use it in the house ....

Hi Cardew

Although the above may be theoretically possible, do you have access to any source of data to support a view that this is actually happening in the 'real world' on a large scale ? ... isn't it the case that the majority of installations will be exporting somewhere between 65% and 75% of generation whist being paid a deemed rate for export based on 50%? ... have you heard about this before and maybe somehow forgotten about it ?? ... is it not also the case that even with automated proportional diversion exported energy would still be much closer to 50% than nothing ... maybe you've forgotten that you knew this too ? - convenient, mischievous or whatever the reason, you can't claim not to have been informed - alongside a multitude of others I alone must have mentioned it to yourself at least a dozen times in various discussions over the years, yet you continue to regurgitate many of the same old passages as if supported by empirical evidence ---- so again, is it anecdotal ideology, or is it a 'real world' concern? ... then again, as you're undoubtedly aware, demand side reduction equates to supply side generation, so as long as energy isn't wasted it all helps reduce carbon emissions and provide an energy generation price point ceiling for the large-scale generators and fossil fuel providers to ponder, but I reckon that you've also been made aware of that too once, or twice, or thrice, or ...

HTH
Z

[Deleted User]

I was not aiming to bash anyone.

I believe that the UK needs a solar generation industry (not just an installer industry) and may even go solar myself in the future. But I have been targeted by the used car salesmen that moved into this area in the past so I'm suspicious of installation pricing moves.

I still see no reason why mass house building projects are not forced by law to install solar panels on the new builds. Help the new householder and make a good selling point. Also as it is done in bulk, the costs are even more attractive. I have only seen this on one building site that was land sold by a council in South Tyneside.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Five years ago there wasn't a solar industry as such. It sprung up because the Government decided to give stupidly high subsidies for people to put little PV systems on their roof, and decided that they would get all other electricity users to pay for that subsidy not the taxman.

But it's five years later now, and the subsidy has tumbled in pursuit of the ever decreasing costs.

As you support nuclear, where all electricity users are about to fund another 35yrs of support (as the first 50 years of subsidy wasn't enough), I'm surprised that you are critical of a relatively tiny amount of subsidy paid back to households, whilst fully supportive of a higher subsidy that will not be paid to a single household (preferring a French/Chinese consortium).

Cardew wrote: »

As for your figure of £1 a year - you should look again.

Actually Gale_3110 was correct, the estimates for supporting PV FiTs through to zero subsidy (rather than scrapping it now), and possibly another million installs is about £1 more.

Think it through, if FiTs as a whole is adding around £9 to bills, and the PV subsidy has already fallen by 80%, and is still falling fast, then the additional cost of doubling the level of installs, and completing the support package/technology launch will now cost very little more.

Cardew wrote: »

The early adopters are now getting around 50pence for every kWh they generate, and they don't even have to export a single kWh if they can use it in the house.

Unfortunately this is deliberate misrepresentation. Perhaps 3 years ago when you were claiming that 'we' don't all get the benefit of generation, if it's consumed at source, you could be mistaken for not understanding the maths. But since then you've admitted that export and offset are the same thing, I even recall you saying 'it was just a theory' ...... but 2+2=2 is not a theory it is appalling maths.

Generation from a grid connected power station will be felt instantaneously either as export or offset. The result of both is that the grid can reduce its demand on FF generation.

As you are well aware of this, I have to ask the question why over the last 2 weeks you've made this dubious claim about 6 times across several MSE threads?

[Note: Regarding diversionary switches, I accept that they generally offset energy of a lower value, however, total diversion as a percentage of generation is probably no more than grid losses from centralised generation.]

Cardew wrote: »

It is nonsensical to think an industry should be protected merely to stop unemployment. Millions were employed as coal miners, tin miners, dockers, in the armed Forces, fishermen etc. Should we still have the same numbers? at least they were performing useful jobs.

Supporting the renewables industry and helping it become strong enough to compete directly with FF and nuclear is essential given the issues now facing the planet. You should be looking to the future, not referencing the past.

Mart.

Martyn1981

gsmlnx wrote: »

I still see no reason why mass house building projects are not forced by law to install solar panels on the new builds. Help the new householder and make a good selling point. Also as it is done in bulk, the costs are even more attractive. I have only seen this on one building site that was land sold by a council in South Tyneside.

Totally agree. In fact PV was probably essential to meet the strict new housing regs due to come in, in 2016, after 8 years of steady progress. However the government recently relaxed the regs ...... you couldn't make it up.

On the plus side, the efficiency rating of new builds (on average) has improved massively. But the far lower cost of fitting PV as part of a new build (as you suggest), would probably be close to cost effective now, even without a subsidy

Mart.

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi Cardew

Although the above may be theoretically possible, do you have access to any source of data to support a view that this is actually happening in the 'real world' on a large scale ? ... isn't it the case that the majority of installations will be exporting somewhere between 65% and 75% of generation whist being paid a deemed rate for export based on 50%? ... have you heard about this before and maybe somehow forgotten about it ?? ... is it not also the case that even with automated proportional diversion exported energy would still be much closer to 50% than nothing ... maybe you've forgotten that you knew this too ? - convenient, mischievous or whatever the reason, you can't claim not to have been informed - alongside a multitude of others I alone must have mentioned it to yourself at least a dozen times in various discussions over the years, yet you continue to regurgitate many of the same old passages as if supported by empirical evidence ---- so again, is it anecdotal ideology, or is it a 'real world' concern? ... then again, as you're undoubtedly aware, demand side reduction equates to supply side generation, so as long as energy isn't wasted it all helps reduce carbon emissions and provide an energy generation price point ceiling for the large-scale generators and fossil fuel providers to ponder, but I reckon that you've also been made aware of that too once, or twice, or thrice, or ...

HTH
Z

Hi Z

The way you have phrased your post, new readers might think you are challenging my statement that early adopters are getting around 50p for every kWh they generate. I accept that you are not disputing that fact, but it is worth putting the record straight. - for new readers!

That of course is the major issue - the stupidly high subsidy that is handed out and paid for by all electricity readers. Home owners getting paid money by people who can be considerably poorer.

The second statement I made is also absolutely accurate - let me remind you and new readers;) of that statement:

and they don't even have to export a single kWh if they can use it in the house ....

Again for the benefit of new readers who don't frequent the self- congratulatory threads, by those who have solar, in the Green and Ethical section. Let me explain:

Solar generation is completely unpredictable during the day, however it is predictable at night as it can be guaranteed to produce nothing.

During the day solar generation can increase and fall rapidly as the sun appears, and a house owner would not normally be able to use that electricity in the house unless they sat monitoring the output and switching on and off appliances to use the available supply.

So equipment has been designed to automatically use any surplus generation. There are devices like 'Immersun' which detect any surplus power being generated and divert it to the immersion heater of a hot water tank - even though the tank may be normally heated by gas/oil LPG.

So we can have the situation where the panels are generating fully and nothing is being exported; thus the export is completely unpredictable. So my statement is true - they don't have to export anything to get the full FIT subsidy and they still are assumed to export 50% of their generated electricity and get paid for that amount.

New readers should be aware that zeupater, one of the more informed posters, has solar and spends his time with many others in the Green and Ethical forum desperately defending the indefensible - namely the subsidies for solar installations on houses.

Far from me being mischievous, it is posts like that in the quote above that are designed to obfuscate and detract from the main message.

rogerblack

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Unfortunately this is deliberate misrepresentation. Perhaps 3 years ago when you were claiming that 'we' don't all get the benefit of generation, if it's consumed at source, you could be mistaken for not understanding the maths. But since then you've admitted that export and offset are the same thing, I even recall you saying 'it was just a theory' ...... but 2+2=2 is not a theory it is appalling maths.

Generation from a grid connected power station will be felt instantaneously either as export or offset. The result of both is that the grid can reduce its demand on FF generation.

If, and only if the generation is substituting for electrically heated water.
If it is substituting for gas, the carbon saving per kWh of locally generated power used locally is considerably less than might have been assumed when setting the FIT rate.

(instead of being burned locally at 85% efficiency or so, it is burned centrally at 50% efficiency, then goes through the grid incurring more losses).