Should Liz Truss have offered free solar panels as well?

sienew

uk1 said:

sienew said:

wrf12345 said:

Net metering of the output (so the household gets full credit for any energy produced) and a couple of megafactories in the UK producing the latest spec panels at much lower prices might make solar more popular, and even on winter days there will be small but useful output (on bright winter days you might get max output as the panels lose efficiency if they get too hot). There will be more on alternative energy from the govn so who knws...

Even if we did get these megafactories going the solar panels - especially if govt funded - would be far better at a solar farm or on the largest commercial buildings.  Installing solar farms is much much cheaper than individual houses. It also would benefit everyone rather than just those who own houses that are suitable for solar.

You may or may not be have a decent grasp of both the scale of the problem and the scale of the potential solutions.  

However.  

Why not encourage all.  If you decide to back one horse you’ll likely lose.  If you back all horses you will win.  Even if the return is a bit less initially. And in the bizarre way our lives work it might seem to be more wasteful short term but better in the long run because the war is more important than an individual battle.

In my mind - my extremely old mind - that if you set out to eat an elephant, you can only do so a very small bite at a time.  The idea of having every home with panels on them becoming a national solar farm in addition to all the other things seems to me to be a decent and more certain way that the elephant will eventually get eaten.  And there is always somewhere with clouds and other places sometimes without.  Why do we not have laws that all new builds have panels.  All that daft cash spent on electric cars.  We’re already committed to spending eye watering amounts on backing three-legged  horses at least helping everyone harvest the sun might not be such a bad idea. 

I understand the scale. A 200 acre farm can provide energy for 18,000 houses. It is also FAR FAR cheaper. Instead of putting the solar panels on houses (that face one direction and can't move to get the most solar benefit) for the same cost you can probably put 4x the solar production in a farm.

Solar panels on new builds is theoretically a good idea but people can barely afford houses now, especially the young, so how can we add more cost on to them? It's a hard balance.

jamesg123

Green Levies Removed From Bills - please does anyone know if this means that existing feed in tariff (installed 2012) will now be cancelled? I assume payment are made from Green levy on bills? Thanks 

[Deleted User]

jamesg123 said:

Green Levies Removed From Bills - please does anyone know if this means that existing feed in tariff (installed 2012) will now be cancelled? I assume payment are made from Green levy on bills? Thanks 

Green levies and FiTs are not connected in that way.

I think the actual announcement says that the government will just pay the levy rather than the customer anyway, so the money doesn't vanish.

QrizB

Deleted_User said:

jamesg123 said:

Green Levies Removed From Bills - please does anyone know if this means that existing feed in tariff (installed 2012) will now be cancelled? I assume payment are made from Green levy on bills? Thanks 

Green levies and FiTs are not connected in that way.

The costs of the FITs are one of the elements that made up the £150 Policy Costs that were included in the cap and were derided as the "green levy".
However you're right, we're expecting them to continue to be paid out of general taxation.

pensionpawn

killzusall said:

Thanks for all the responses, just on the note of commercial solar farms being a more effective use of money, having your own panels (no matter how impractical to rollout etc.) would give you a direct benefit as you would use less energy from the grid, but if it was sourced from a commercial solution , you are still at the mercy of the energy provider as to what they charge, and as more and more things move to electric (car charging etc) that price will go up.

The means tested comment in my original post was to say that those who would find the cost of solar a drop in the ocean probably shouldn't qualify (and are likely to have already invested), for those who don't own their homes, then landlords should be offered it to put on residences, I appreciate it won't work for everyone.

The big energy companies will invest in renewables, but not because they want to be nice to us, they will still expect to charge for it and make good profits, the way that they set up their businesses to sell the energy to a sister company at a high rate, to then sell it to us will then argue with Ofgem that they are running at a loss so that they can bump it up will always make money.

I couldn't agree more. Solar / battery farms are commercial ventures, not charities. You will be at the mercy of tariffs just like you are now with your energy company. Also, for battery farms, if you export 0.5Mwhrs one month what guarantee is there that you'll get that back. What prevents another greedy battery farm client running the charge level down just when you need it. Do you get a digital receipt for your export and a guarantee of its return when you need it? What if the "grid" to the solar / battery farm goes down (bad weather, company ceased trading etc) when you need it? Yes, the economy of scale suggests that Mwhr / £ will be higher, however there is less new "grid" infrastructure required when the panels are on your roof and the battery is in your garage. It should be mandatory for all new builds (commercial as well as domestic) to have installed solar / battery capacity to meet a certain percentage of that building's energy demand. Profile the typical energy demand, do the maths and you'll find that export to the grid (grid balancing headache) will be minimal however there will be a considerable drop in import. I have 7.1 kWs of panels (east - west) and generate around 6.5 Mwhrs pa, of which 2.7 Mwhrs is exported, 1.7 Mwhrs heats my water / floor of one room and the rest reduces my import from the grid by 25% on average over the year. Imagine that, every building in the country reducing its electrical demand by 25%. I also have a solar divert so I don't need gas from April / May - Sep. Throw in a battery and electrical import, on average, is only required Nov - Feb inc, and even then it's reduced / time shifted to my E7 period. The last thing about the Gov energy plan, which we should welcome, is that it does not apply downward pressure on energy prices, if anything, it will encourage them up. Get your own panels, a solar divert and a battery and watch your bills come down whilst you gain energy indepence. If your mileage is high get an EV too! I also agree that net metering would be a massive incentive.

FreeBear

Chrysalis said: All new building required to be energy efficient.  If they not they break the law.

But new buildings are already required to be energy efficient.

What is needed is higher standards required of office to accommodation conversions along with investment to insulate existing buildings.

sienew

pensionpawn said:

killzusall said:

Thanks for all the responses, just on the note of commercial solar farms being a more effective use of money, having your own panels (no matter how impractical to rollout etc.) would give you a direct benefit as you would use less energy from the grid, but if it was sourced from a commercial solution , you are still at the mercy of the energy provider as to what they charge, and as more and more things move to electric (car charging etc) that price will go up.

The means tested comment in my original post was to say that those who would find the cost of solar a drop in the ocean probably shouldn't qualify (and are likely to have already invested), for those who don't own their homes, then landlords should be offered it to put on residences, I appreciate it won't work for everyone.

The big energy companies will invest in renewables, but not because they want to be nice to us, they will still expect to charge for it and make good profits, the way that they set up their businesses to sell the energy to a sister company at a high rate, to then sell it to us will then argue with Ofgem that they are running at a loss so that they can bump it up will always make money.

I couldn't agree more. Solar / battery farms are commercial ventures, not charities. You will be at the mercy of tariffs just like you are now with your energy company. 

They don't have to be. There is nothing stopping the government starting solar farms if they wanted. Or the government funding some sort of energy co-operative. Even if they are commercial companies some predict that putting solar panels on a house costs 4x more than in a solar farm, that means even if the energy company does take massive profits it will still remains by far the cheapest option. Solar farms are a better return on investment for tax payers money.

This would also hopefully be part of a larger energy strategy inc wind and nuclear which would make the price quite competitive.

Solar panels on individuals houses paid for the government are equally problematic in that we all pay for them yet only the person who has the panels gets the benefit. People in the already wealthier south would get most benefit (more sun) whereas those in the north need more energy but would produce less, it would only add to the north/south divide. Then add in the issue for those in rented houses (often the poorest) who would be subsiding solar for others but receive no benefit. Those in flats (once again often the poorest) wouldn't have access to solar. This is a proposal that works well for the middle class but not the poorest who need help most. Solar farms/wind/nuclear if done correctly should give everyone equal advantage.

pensionpawn

sienew said:

uk1 said:

sienew said:

wrf12345 said:

Net metering of the output (so the household gets full credit for any energy produced) and a couple of megafactories in the UK producing the latest spec panels at much lower prices might make solar more popular, and even on winter days there will be small but useful output (on bright winter days you might get max output as the panels lose efficiency if they get too hot). There will be more on alternative energy from the govn so who knws...

Even if we did get these megafactories going the solar panels - especially if govt funded - would be far better at a solar farm or on the largest commercial buildings.  Installing solar farms is much much cheaper than individual houses. It also would benefit everyone rather than just those who own houses that are suitable for solar.

You may or may not be have a decent grasp of both the scale of the problem and the scale of the potential solutions.  

However.  

Why not encourage all.  If you decide to back one horse you’ll likely lose.  If you back all horses you will win.  Even if the return is a bit less initially. And in the bizarre way our lives work it might seem to be more wasteful short term but better in the long run because the war is more important than an individual battle.

In my mind - my extremely old mind - that if you set out to eat an elephant, you can only do so a very small bite at a time.  The idea of having every home with panels on them becoming a national solar farm in addition to all the other things seems to me to be a decent and more certain way that the elephant will eventually get eaten.  And there is always somewhere with clouds and other places sometimes without.  Why do we not have laws that all new builds have panels.  All that daft cash spent on electric cars.  We’re already committed to spending eye watering amounts on backing three-legged  horses at least helping everyone harvest the sun might not be such a bad idea. 

I understand the scale. A 200 acre farm can provide energy for 18,000 houses. It is also FAR FAR cheaper. Instead of putting the solar panels on houses (that face one direction and can't move to get the most solar benefit) for the same cost you can probably put 4x the solar production in a farm.

Solar panels on new builds is theoretically a good idea but people can barely afford houses now, especially the young, so how can we add more cost on to them? It's a hard balance.

Can you tell me how a 70 Mw solar farm could track the sun, unlike the roof of a house?

uk1

They can afford to buy the solar panels on a new build house because the solar panels will reduce their monthly energy costs by more than the additional monthly mortgage cost of the solar system

[Deleted User]

pensionpawn said:

sienew said:

uk1 said:

sienew said:

wrf12345 said:

Net metering of the output (so the household gets full credit for any energy produced) and a couple of megafactories in the UK producing the latest spec panels at much lower prices might make solar more popular, and even on winter days there will be small but useful output (on bright winter days you might get max output as the panels lose efficiency if they get too hot). There will be more on alternative energy from the govn so who knws...

Even if we did get these megafactories going the solar panels - especially if govt funded - would be far better at a solar farm or on the largest commercial buildings.  Installing solar farms is much much cheaper than individual houses. It also would benefit everyone rather than just those who own houses that are suitable for solar.

You may or may not be have a decent grasp of both the scale of the problem and the scale of the potential solutions.  

However.  

Why not encourage all.  If you decide to back one horse you’ll likely lose.  If you back all horses you will win.  Even if the return is a bit less initially. And in the bizarre way our lives work it might seem to be more wasteful short term but better in the long run because the war is more important than an individual battle.

In my mind - my extremely old mind - that if you set out to eat an elephant, you can only do so a very small bite at a time.  The idea of having every home with panels on them becoming a national solar farm in addition to all the other things seems to me to be a decent and more certain way that the elephant will eventually get eaten.  And there is always somewhere with clouds and other places sometimes without.  Why do we not have laws that all new builds have panels.  All that daft cash spent on electric cars.  We’re already committed to spending eye watering amounts on backing three-legged  horses at least helping everyone harvest the sun might not be such a bad idea. 

I understand the scale. A 200 acre farm can provide energy for 18,000 houses. It is also FAR FAR cheaper. Instead of putting the solar panels on houses (that face one direction and can't move to get the most solar benefit) for the same cost you can probably put 4x the solar production in a farm.

Solar panels on new builds is theoretically a good idea but people can barely afford houses now, especially the young, so how can we add more cost on to them? It's a hard balance.

Can you tell me how a 70 Mw solar farm could track the sun, unlike the roof of a house?

Two ways, although most solar farms only use one.

There's seasonal tracking, where you change the angle of the panel to account for whether the sun is higher or lower in the sky.  You can't change the angle of your roof.

And there's daily tracking, where the frame for the panels spin to track the sun from east to west.  Less common on big solar farms, but I've never seen one on a house.

It's also a bit easier to fit a couple of extra panels in a big array to account for inefficiency.  When you've filled your roof, you've run out of room.