Solar energy payments are set to be slashed - will getting panels still be worth it?

Merlin139

Found this on Facebook.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/team-blog/2018/08/solar-energy-payments-are-set-to-be-slashed---will-they-still-be/

I wonder why they did not publish it in Green & Ethical Moneysaving?

The_Green_Hornet

Unfortunately the FIT scheme was far too generous at the outset and, as it was paid for by overall increases in everyone's electricity bills, it was unsustainable both financially and politically.

A new approach will be needed if rooftop solar is to continue, one that doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul, and I doubt our politicians are clever enough to come up with one.

Martyn1981

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

Unfortunately the FIT scheme was far too generous at the outset and, as it was paid for by overall increases in everyone's electricity bills, it was unsustainable both financially and politically.

A new approach will be needed if rooftop solar is to continue, one that doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul, and I doubt our politicians are clever enough to come up with one.

4p/kWh to UK households for clean green leccy today (after 8yrs of subsidy support), or 6p/kWh to French and Chinese governments for leccy in 2028(ish) (after 60yrs of subsidy support). Hmmm!

The_Green_Hornet

Martyn1981 wrote: »

4p/kWh to UK households for clean green leccy today (after 8yrs of subsidy support), or 6p/kWh to French and Chinese governments for leccy in 2028(ish) (after 60yrs of subsidy support). Hmmm!

Nice statistics but means absolutely nothing in the context of what I posted.

zeupater

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

Nice statistics but means absolutely nothing in the context of what I posted.

Hi

I Don't really follow that ....

• Unfortunately the FIT scheme was far too generous at the outset
  • Disagree ... the original tariff was based on a system price of around £5k/kWp, the issue is that the scheme review timeline didn't anticipate the speed of equipment cost reduction & the effect on uptake and the responsible department were far too slow to react.
• and, as it was paid for by overall increases in everyone's electricity bills
  • As are all forms of generation.
• , it was unsustainable both financially and politically.
  • Possibly at the higher rate for early adopters if that rate had been continued, however that's been addressed & the FiT has been reduced a number of times. When comparing the current level of support (direct & indirect) per unit of energy generated for domestic PV systems to the level of support required for alternative generation sources would suggest that all forms of generation would also be financially & politically unsustainable.
• A new approach will be needed if rooftop solar is to continue, one that doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul,
  • However, everything needs to be paid for .. energy is a commodity and as such needs to be paid for and every commodity has a value ... that's where Mart's comparison with nuclear comes into play and why it should be considered contextual - Money remaining in the UK drives the UK economy using a multiplier effect through being recycled, whilst that leaving the country has simply gone ... the point here is that (almost) each time the money recycles within the economy further employment, income & tax revenue is generated.
• and I doubt our politicians are clever enough to come up with one.
  • On this we are probably in full agreement, although there are plenty of really simple alternatives to choose from! ... :cool:

... so, I thought that it was fully contextual ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

Nice statistics but means absolutely nothing in the context of what I posted.

I'm glad you used the word 'context', as it struck me yesterday that your comments had no context. In fact it was only through the lack of context that you could make such comments.

Z has answered fully already, but you were involved in all the discussions going back, so are aware of the bigger picture, so I think it's OK for me to repeat some answers as I have some thoughts, regarding context:

Unfortunately the FIT scheme was far too generous at the outset

In context we can see that the take up was very slow at the outset and didn't ramp up for 12-18 months when install costs had fallen - and thus the subsidy rate had risen in proportion.

So, in context and with a simple fact check, your statement is not true.

and, as it was paid for by overall increases in everyone's electricity bills,

Again context is needed. The rollout of RE with subsidies was to counter the enormous 'true' costs of FF consumption. The costs of AGW and health impacts were far higher costs than the subsidies - how can I claim that? - simple, no political party would go for a higher cost alternative, as the opposition would crucify them.

So, in context, and with a simple fact check, your statement is not true.

it was unsustainable both financially and politically.

The subsidy has now fallen approx 94% to 4p/kWh and 20yrs. RE subsidies are extremely popular with the public, and solar is still the RE that has greatest support.

The subsidy is paid on generation, so capacity factors need to be considered, approx 11% for PV and 91% for new nuclear.

So, in context, the UK government (political) is happy to pay (financial) 6p/kWh for new nuclear for 35yrs, on a larger amount of generation, the context here is a subsidy that's nearly 3x greater per unit 6p v's 2.3p (4p x (20yrs/35yrs)), and also 8x greater in volume (£1.3bn v's £160m pa) if our 'context' is 1m homes with 4MWh of generation pa.

So, in context, and with a simple fact check, your statement is not true.

A new approach will be needed if rooftop solar is to continue,

Nothing wrong with a new approach, I'm sure a better system could be designed, but in context, the current scheme works.

one that doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul,

In context, that statement is not true, it's a misleading argumentative claim. Nobody is being robbed, those responsible for the energy consumption are paying (proportional to consumption). Or in other words, all of us pay into the subsidy pot in direct relation to our energy consumption, that sounds perfectly fair, no robbing.

The subsidy pot then distributes the money to the owners of the RE 'powerstations', which IMO seems entirely correct and appropriate, yes?

So, in context, and with a simple fact check, your statement is not true.

and I doubt our politicians are clever enough to come up with one.

This may be true, though they are clever enough to argue that subsidies impact bills, and therefore they need to minimise support for new RE as future nuclear commitments (£50bn for HPC and £30bn + £5bn direct investment for Wylfa) will swallow up all the subsidy monies.

So, in 'context' I suggest your claims are not true, but more importantly we can now look at the FiT scheme(s) that were launched all round the world and see that PV (and other RE) costs have tumbled.

From a UK 'context' the most important fact is that RE, especially PV got cheap enough, fast enough to head off a huge amount of thermal generation expansion in China and India. Feel free to disagree, but I'm going to state, as a fact, that had the FiT schemes not taken place when they did, especially Italy and Germany's early and more expensive involvement, we would not have RE costs as low as they are today, and thus would be seeing greater rollout of thermal generation today.

62% Of Capacity Added In Q2 2018 In India Came From Solar

You know my thoughts and views, and that for nearly 7yrs now I've been arguing on here that context is needed when posts such as yours are made - so imagine my joy when I saw you use that word. Shall we use context now going forward?

silverwhistle

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

A new approach will be needed if rooftop solar is to continue, one that doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul, and I doubt our politicians are clever enough to come up with one.

Unfortunately with the disappearance of FITs and, more importantly as I understand it, no export component, no domestic user who is unable to use all their own production is going to bother with PV.

Since I've had my panels I've exported around a third of my production, and that's with diverting some to heat hot water. I'm sure the local suppliers would like a free distributed source of power to reinforce their local networks, and users whose usage patterns reduces evening peak demand. But robbing individual consumers to subsidise corporations may not be what you had in mind, although it might be Tory policy.

Domestic PV may recover when batteries become cheaper and Electric Vehicle penetration increases, but in the meantime the businesses which were set up to meet such domestic demand will all have gone to the wall.

ogwellian

I am one of the unlucky ones who bought a new build with solar panels, but they were commissioned before the EPC (A).

I am therefore on the low FIT tariff. About 0.4p rather than 4p per generated unit.

However, our electricity costs have dropped dramatically compared to our previous similar sized property that was also an A.

So even with the pittance we're getting, they're worthwhile having (although they were included in the price of the property, so no defined financial outlay).

I wouldn't hesitate to install knowing I'd get the correct FIT payments.