The FIT system is being scrapped!

michaels

I still can't see why they don't just say people should be billed for net usage, surely smart metres could support this? And then there is no subsidy/cross subsidy to be politically embarrassed about.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

I still can't see why they don't just say people should be billed for net usage, surely smart metres could support this? And then there is no subsidy/cross subsidy to be politically embarrassed about.

Net metering is also a subsidy as the electricity suppliers would be buying off you at retail rates instead of off leccy generators at wholesale rates.

Also at this point in time, net metering might actually be a bigger subsidy than the current FiT + export.

Merlin139

Here is an idea.

Why not say to all the people who installed their systems early and are getting around 50p for each kWh. When they have been in receipt of it for say 10 years it will reduce to say 15p per kWh and reduce the time paid for fit for them to 20 years so everyone would be the same.

I would be very surprised if anybody in that situation would not have recovered their outlay.

The money saved could go back into the pot to pay for the fit for new people.

Coastalwatch

michaels wrote: »

I still can't see why they don't just say people should be billed for net usage, surely smart metres could support this? And then there is no subsidy/cross subsidy to be politically embarrassed about.

I've not come across the term net metering previously so wonder if it is simply the difference between what we generate and what we consume from the grid! If so, an interesting concept.
I've little idea what the implications might be for such a scheme but suspect the Utilities would oppose any changes to the status quo unless of course there was something in it for them. But that's all conjecture on my part.

Dave_Fowler

Merlin139 wrote: »

Here is an idea.

Why not say to all the people who installed their systems early and are getting around 50p for each kWh. When they have been in receipt of it for say 10 years it will reduce to say 15p per kWh and reduce the time paid for fit for them to 20 years so everyone would be the same.

I would be very surprised if anybody in that situation would not have recovered their outlay.

The money saved could go back into the pot to pay for the fit for new people.

I won't have recovered my outlay for 'System 1' after 10 years. The prediction is between 12 and 13 years. I know I was ripped off, but a lot of other people were too. People are much more knowledgeable now about prices than they were in 2009/10 when I was looking for an installer.

Dave F

KevinG

Dave_Fowler wrote: »

I won't have recovered my outlay for 'System 1' after 10 years. The prediction is between 12 and 13 years. I know I was ripped off, but a lot of other people were too. People are much more knowledgeable now about prices than they were in 2009/10 when I was looking for an installer.

Dave F

I am in a similar position, seriously ripped off and looking at a similar payback time, based on FiT only and ignoring interest/inflation.

KevinG

Merlin139 wrote: »

Why not say to all the people who installed their systems early and are getting around 50p for each kWh. When they have been in receipt of it for say 10 years it will reduce to say 15p per kWh and reduce the time paid for fit for them to 20 years so everyone would be the same.

So you are suggesting the government renegs on a firm commitment? What a great idea! :mad:

michaels

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Net metering is also a subsidy as the electricity suppliers would be buying off you at retail rates instead of off leccy generators at wholesale rates.

Also at this point in time, net metering might actually be a bigger subsidy than the current FiT + export.

I agree but it is probably the politics rather than the economics that matters.

Of course a fairer price might be based on wholesale prices with an adjustment for the fact that pv should receive co2 credits.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

I agree but it is probably the politics rather than the economics that matters.

Of course a fairer price might be based on wholesale prices with an adjustment for the fact that pv should receive co2 credits.

I'm not sure there is a real small p politics problem. The population has massive support for solar, domestic solar and owning homes with solar. The government doesn't really need to convince us about subsidies.

Regarding a carbon value, that's true, but it's probably in there already with net metering, let's have a play.

4kWp system generating 4,000kWh pa and exporting 2,000kWh.

FiT system gives 4p x 4,000 = £160 plus 2,000 x 5.24p = £104.80. Total £264.80.

Net metering (est) gives 15p x 2,000 = £300

So at a point in time when the government doesn't want to pay £264, in fact it doesn't want to pay anything, even for the leccy export, it would be a push to suggest they increase the amount.

Net metering does sound fairer, and I was in favour of it going back to the 2015 review. But all it really does is pander to that small percentage of the population that would rather knock RE subsidies than learn about them and appreciate that they fit into this changing world, and in the case of micro-scale PV in the UK, are actually one of the lowest/fairest subsidies out there.

EricMears

Merlin139 wrote: »

Here is an idea.

Why not say to all the people who installed their systems early and are getting around 50p for each kWh. When they have been in receipt of it for say 10 years it will reduce to say 15p per kWh and reduce the time paid for fit for them to 20 years so everyone would be the same.

I would be very surprised if anybody in that situation would not have recovered their outlay.

The money saved could go back into the pot to pay for the fit for new people.

Our panels were installed in August 2011 and total receipts crept past installation cost in middle of July 2018 (after approx. 7 years) and I anticipate collecting them for almost another 18 years yet.

We happened to have the price of our panels in savings. If we had not, we could have taken out a loan at considerably less than the expected rate of return and I'm convinced that any other homeowner could have done the same.

It's ridiculous to suggest that our payments should stop ! The government offered a (very generous) inducement to fit them and I accepted that. I (initially) lost a return on my savings of around 6% but that is no longer relevant as interest rates quickly dropped to less than 2%. Without the inducement, I'm unlikely to have made the investment and it's a matter of honour that the government stick to their bargain. Renege on the FIT scheme and nobody would ever accept any future offers.

But why should new adopters of RE expect to receive a subsidy ? Thanks to heavy investment by early adopters (not just in the UK but all over the world), prices of equipment have dropped to a level at which very little subsidy is justified and there's every likelihood that when the EU scrap their minimum price for solar panels (or of course we cease to be bound by it) panels will become even more affordable.