Feed in Tariff

pinnks

Indeed - old system continues as-is, additional capacity gets new FIT rate.

Lucky2

Sorry ispookie666 but current Ofgem guidance is that extensions commissioned after 15.1.16 are not eligible for FIT payments:
"Extensions
1.7. Any extension to an accredited FIT installation that is commissioned on or after
15 January 2016 is not eligible for FIT payments."

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

No, not my sole justification, as FiTs have brought the cost of PV down to levels competitive with, or even cheaper than most other forms of generation.

PV is viable on all scales, unlike most other types of generation.

PV is now viable in sun rich / cash poor countries who couldn't afford subsidies, thanks to the multitude of FiT and FiT style schemes around the world.

I only mention nuclear, because you support nuclear, yet for the first 5 years of your 6 year anti-PV campaign, kept that secret, whilst pretending you didn't like subsidies.

But now we are in the position where even domestic PV is cheaper than industrial scale nuclear, by a margin large enough to cover utility scale storage costs.




No it's not;

Nuclear requires servicing/refueling. This can take a month a year or a month every 2 years.

Hinkley C is currently generating nothing 24hrs a day, 365 days a year, and will continue to generate these impressive amounts for another 10 years or so.




Nobody (but you) said PV would generate at night. That is a totally unrelated fact. PV displaces FF generation during daylight. That's what it's designed to do, even if it is too confusing for you to grasp.




Does it? Check out Gridwatch today, you'll see that demand at 1pm was approx 38GW, whilst at 6pm it was 40GW. Given that the 1pm figure will have been lowered by embedded PV generation, are you sure it was higher at 6pm?




Actually, nightime demand is the lowest. Again, this can be seen quite clearly on Gridwatch at around 28GW last night.




Only someone with your numerical, economic and accountancy 'skills' would prefer to pay £99/MWh to France and China for centralised nuclear generation, rather than £68/MWh to Ubique for distributed PV generation.


Cardew, it's over. Your 6 year anti-PV campaign has failed.

PV (and wind) is simply too cheap.

Nuclear is simply too expensive.

It's over.

Mart.

It really is rather sad that you actually believe what you write.


PV cheap? when some are getting subsidies of 50p/kWh.


As stated previously your defence of PV is solely that Nuclear also gets subsidies.


Maximum grid load in UK is when Solar contributes nothing/zilch/zero.


That solar is better for third world countries, or countries with a sunny climate, is of little concern to us in UK still paying huge subsidies.


Above all solar generation is unpredictable, other than it is 100% guaranteed to contribute nothing when the UK grid has maximum load. That is the most important fact! Unpredictable generation, huge subsidies, and cannot generate at night.


What Monbiot stated years ago is as true now as it is was then.


For new readers who want to find out the truth from a leading environmentalist.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff

tunnel

Lucky2 wrote: »

Sorry ispookie666 but current Ofgem guidance is that extensions commissioned after 15.1.16 are not eligible for FIT payments:
"Extensions
1.7. Any extension to an accredited FIT installation that is commissioned on or after
15 January 2016 is not eligible for FIT payments."

I think that may be a bit of a grey area.

Surely the way around it is to apply for a new install rather than an extension

How could anyone even differentiate between an extension and a new installation if the install was to have a separate TGM?

Can it be classed as an extension if like both of my additions they are completely separate to the original

A little massaging of the truth and the lines suddenly become blurred!!...Just a thought!!

Martyn1981

tunnel wrote: »

I think that may be a bit of a grey area.

Surely the way around it is to apply for a new install rather than an extension

How could anyone even differentiate between an extension and a new installation if the install was to have a separate TGM?

Can it be classed as an extension if like both of my additions they are completely separate to the original

A little massaging of the truth and the lines suddenly become blurred!!...Just a thought!!

Sadly, I think Lucky 2 is right.

Your suggestion sounds fine, and matches the old legislation that states that an extension must be treated as a separate system.

However, when I did my extension, the original FiT date was used in the rule that the EPC had to be done on or before the commissioning date. This made no sense as the application rules say that the EPC has to be done before the FiT application, but as the OFGEM guidance uses the original FiT date, and the extension gets the same FiT reference just ending in xxx-2 instead of xxx-1, it seems that the guidance differs from the legislation again.

Based on that, I'd suspect any additional system to adopt the old FiT reference, and thereby not get any FiT as per the extension rules since January.

Some good news however, is that the bottom band is now 0-10kWp, so might as well go large from the start.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

It really is rather sad that you actually believe what you write.

Just moving with the times, rather than missing the big picture and endlessly reciting 6 year old articles that are nothing more than a sad joke these days.


Cardew, it's over. Your 6 year anti-PV campaign has failed.

PV (and wind) is simply too cheap.

Nuclear is simply too expensive.

It's over.

Mart.

ed110220

Objecting to new Pv on the basis of FITs received by early adopters is such poor logic that it's laughable (the 50p that keeps being bandied about).

The only costs that are relevant from the point of view of whether more Pv should be installed (or any new generating capacity) are current costs or expected future costs.

I'm sure out there there are companies or people that borrowed money to pay for computers, digital cameras etc that have since come down massively in price. By this 'logic' we'd be arguing that because someone paid £1000 for a digital camera in 1999, that price rather than the current cost of £100 is what determines whether someone should buy one today. It's total nonsense.

Cardew

ed110220 wrote: »

By this 'logic' we'd be arguing that because someone paid £1000 for a digital camera in 1999, that price rather than the current cost of £100 is what determines whether someone should buy one today. It's total nonsense.

In your analogy, the logic would hold true if the person paying £1,000 for the digital camera, got massive inflation linked subsidies for 25 years to pay back the £1,000 and then make a big profit on the £1,000 investment, the subsidies paid by the public.


Even paying for the £100 camera, they would still need to get subsidies(albeit lower) to repay the £100 and then make a profit.


As you say it was, and is, a nonsense. The only reason the subsidies are defended so rigorously in this forum is that the majority have taken advantage of a stupid system - not that you can be blamed for taking the money! but please spare us from disingenuous posts.

Martyn1981

ed110220 wrote: »

Objecting to new Pv on the basis of FITs received by early adopters is such poor logic that it's laughable (the 50p that keeps being bandied about).

Yep, it's completely laughable, just a spin doctor trick.

That's why I reference nuclear when Cardew raises the issue, since he's pro-nuclear.

So if we are to look at older subsidies then we have to include:-

1. The 60 years of support nuclear has already received. [6 years for PV and already cheaper than nuclear.]

2. The National Decommissing Agency budget which is ~£3bn pa, with an expected 100yrs to deal with current decommissioning.

3. The fact that the subsidies are paid by all of us, but non is returned to consumers.

Mart.

Cardew

So once again your only defence of solar subsidies is that nuclear also gets subsidies. Also in the case of FIT you don't even have to export a single kWh to get a subsidy for every kWh generated.


It suits your silly argument to ignore the huge disadvantage of solar in that its generation is unreliable with nothing generated at the time of maximum load on the grid.


Every time you post, you weaken your case. Read Monbiot's article in the link I gave above.