MSE News: Government plans to slash solar panel earnings

zeupater

rogerblack wrote: »

This is not - quite - true.
Net metering is zero effect to anyone but the system owner only in limited circumstances.

This is because the system margin and cost of generation per unit varies over the day and night, and the cost of the network to distribute the generated energy is not free, nor in some cases will increasing the amount of unpredictable renewables have no effect on the cost of generation. (spinning up a powerstation for predicted demand that turns out not to be needed, or requiring a peaking station to makeup losses).

Net metering is an indirect subsidy - it assumes indirectly that the cost of power distribution is free.

Actually working out what the 'real' displaced energy cost is is hard.
The wholesale price of power is as I understand it significantly below retail (60%?).
Some fraction of this 40% is simply profit, but some is due to technical costs of delivering power over the network, and selling and buying power from the network so as to end up at 'net' zero would need to pay a fraction of this to cope with grid changes.

Something like 'net metering' where a unit of electricity sold to the grid gets 600-700Wh worth of credit is probably in the ballpark.

Hi Roger

Keeping a net metering system as simple as possible would be the goal. As it stands the majority of providers already cover the connection 'fixed cost' power distribution within the standing charge and then calculate the 60/40 split you mention over both standing charge and unit price ...

In the referenced post above it has been recognised that the cost of energy supplied to the grid varies throughout the day. This is actually handled through mechanisms such as imbalance pricing ... this link provides details of national grid buy and sell pricing throughout the day .... ( https://www.elexon.co.uk/reference/credit-pricing/imbalance-pricing/ ). What comes to light is that a pv system will, by definition, be generating in daylight hours when energy is purchased and sold at a premium. This means that export (banking) to the grid will be at a daytime premium and overnight withdrawal units would be at a lower value - after all, that's why when there an overnight generation surplus the industry operates tariffs such as E7 & E10 ....

An additional consideration is the relative delivery efficiency of distributed generation. Any excess power from a micro-generation system will flow to the nearest demand source on the same power phase, meaning that for the majority of systems it'll be consumed by one, or more, of the neighbours. The effect of this is almost a complete removal of distribution losses through cable resistance and transformer inefficiencies ... theoretically, removing load from various stepping transformers should also have a small positive effect on infrastructure lifespan.

Smart-metering operates on a HHM (half-hourly-metering) basis and therefore has the technical ability to provide HHB (billing) to encourage modification of usage patterns to better match generating capacity ... after all, this is the primary reason for spending £12billion of our money on the system (isn't it ??). In effect the E7 tariff will fade away and smart-metering will act as a 'stick' to shift demand through punitive peak-demand prices and attractive tariffs when demand is low. This means that the infrastructure will be in place for micro-generation daytime 'banking' to be valued at an applicable level and overnight withdrawal charged at another which could actually provide an income to pv owners as raised in the above-referenced post ... but why complicate issues when a simple system is at least as good and should provide a more palatable option to those opposed to pv, subsidies and the idea of capitalistic profitability ......

In summary, I would tend to agree that an argument could be made for the '600-700Wh worth of credit .. ' you mention, however, as explained above, this fails to take either the relative value of that grid daytime banking vs nighttime withdrawal or relative efficiencies into account - above this it also increases administrational complexity for no real advantage.

HTH
Z

rogerblack

Martyn1981 wrote: »

You might be right, but looking at a study from the US that has just come out, it suggests the opposite, placing a higher value on the PV export, than it actually receives from net metering:

Quoting from the report (of the studies they looked at)

The studies that estimated lower values for solar energy consistently undervalued, or did not include, important environmental and societal benefits that come from generating electricity from the sun.

Figure ES-2 seems to indicate that most of the analysed studies did not count costs at all, only benefits.
Some of the studies add 'economic development' as a extra to the 'real' value of solar.

This is also a meta-analysis, with all its problems.
You do not get very much better data out than in.

It's not a clearly ridiculous position to take - especially if you count carbon.
The addition of any 'economic development' element seems a bit dodgy to me though.
The lack of apparant analysis of costs in most of the reports is a concern.


http://environmentamerica.org/reports/amc/shining-rewards


In principle, I would like to do a proper analysis of some of the underlying studies.
But, I need to write another 5000 or so words by tuesday on my ESA appeal.

stevec59

I'm in the process of buying a bungalow and I'd like solar energy, but it won't be worth it after January if the new rate is agreed. What do I need to ensure that I get the current tariff, is it just a case of agreeing to the solar or does it need to be fully commissioned.


Many Thanks


Steve

zeupater

stevec59 wrote: »

I'm in the process of buying a bungalow and I'd like solar energy, but it won't be worth it after January if the new rate is agreed. What do I need to ensure that I get the current tariff, is it just a case of agreeing to the solar or does it need to be fully commissioned.

Many Thanks

Steve

Hi

The system needs to be installed, commissioned, paid for (with receipt received), MCS certified and registered, have an EPC and a correctly completed FiT application along with all supporting documentation lodged with a FiT partner before the cut-off date ... but to be safe, it's best to ensure that there are no possible issues by ensuring that ample time is allowed for the FiT partner to process & register the application with time to spare.

HTH
Z

stevec59

Wow, I'm not sure I'll get all that done, haven't even got an exchange date yet and I believe that I need to have my roof surveyed and that takes 2 weeks.

Thanks,
Steve

zeupater

stevec59 wrote: »

Wow, I'm not sure I'll get all that done, haven't even got an exchange date yet and I believe that I need to have my roof surveyed and that takes 2 weeks.

Thanks,
Steve

Hi

Well, on a new purchase you should have a valid EPC, installers should advise on roof loading at quotation stage as to whether the roof structure would need any reinforcement, if they have any issues they should check design and loadings with a structural engineer for advice .... installation only takes a day, so it all comes down to your purchase completion date, quotation to selection process, supply lead time, how long it takes you to complete the FiT application paperwork and, of course, how close to any cut-off date you're happy to work to .... some posters on the forum have gone through the entire process from getting first quote to having confirmation that correctly completed FiT registration documentation has been received all within a couple of weeks ...

HTH
Z

stevec59

Thanks for that,so if I'm lucky I'll be in with a chance.

Also, it will give me a chance to see the outcome of the consultation, I thinks that's 23rd October?

Steve

stevec59

The result of the consultation should be today, how do we find out what the outcome is?

Steve

stevec59

They have changed the outcome time to tonight

Please note that the consultation closes at 11.45pm on Friday 23 October.

https://econsultation.decc.gov.uk/office-for-renewable-energy-deployment-ored/fit-review-2015

So I guess we will find out tomorrow or Monday if thousands of installers are joining the unemployed

Steve

zeupater

stevec59 wrote: »

... So I guess we will find out tomorrow or Monday if thousands of installers are joining the unemployed ...

... or, more realistically, after there's been time to correlate, analyse, digest, formulate conclusions and publish a consultation summary .... so maybe it'll not quite be ready 'tomorrow or Monday' ....

HTH
Z