Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Would it only be for those with micro generation or would you be able to package it with e7 and it would again be a way for home owners with a bit of capital to make a nice profit?

michaels wrote: »

Would it only be for those with micro generation or would you be able to package it with e7 and it would again be a way for home owners with a bit of capital to make a nice profit?

Hi

Can't see how anyone could make a profit out of a scheme with that kind of structure considering that there'd be a cap specifically to prevent it and individuals would provide the initial capital funding - for example ....

A (say) 13.5kWh system installed for £6350 would attract a potential £6750(500*13.5) of support, but the cap would limit this to £3175(6350/2) to be paid quarterly over 7 years ....

... However, someone purchasing their system from an opportunist rip-off supplier may be offered a smaller system with just 2kWh of storage for the same kind of price, in which case the support would be £1000(500*2) over 7 years, the cap wouldn't apply and therefore the integrity of the funding would be maintained ...

Of course, such a domestic scale funding scheme would be confined by various other criteria, maybe these would link the scheme's maximum storage capacity directly to the microgeneration capacity, maybe in the case of grid-tied pv this could logically be around 4kWh of usable storage per kWp of installed pv capacity ...

Regarding the E7/E10 overnight tariffs .... of course, utilising overnight 'cheap' tariff supply to charge the batteries in the winter would supplement lower pv generation and therefore maintain the ability to reduce peak demand - it's completely down to the capability of the unit's management system and how it's set-up ... it could even be a further condition of scheme access ...

HTH
Z

michaels wrote: »

Thinking about it - if we do need a subsidy to help energy supply and demand move into balance I would sooner it is paid even to the undeserving middle classes than to the French state Nuclear reactor company....

Hi

True, but more than that it's a relatively inexpensive prospect. The £3billion(max) scheme mentioned earlier would result from almost all of the current pv installation base joining the scheme with 13.5kWh systems each capable of providing a peak output of 5kW. Essentially that would provide a potential to temporarily provide a maximum peak output of just under 5GW, so not insignificant considering that it's higher than HinckleyC ...

In reality, take-up would initially still be pretty slow ... I'd be surprised if take-up was over 20% of those with installed pv systems within 5 years and average capacity was over 5kWh, which would likely result in a scheme cost of <£500million giving a reasonable daily peak power demand reduction ranging from 200MW to 500MW ...

As mentioned earlier, all speculation, but speculation based on carefully reading between the lines of various reports such as the BEIS one referenced by Mart, taking special regard to the referenced sources as they often prove to be more interesting than the reports themselves ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Looking on the bright side, storage, especially if targeted towards the evening peak, would reduce the average price of leccy for everyone by peak lopping.

There are those who think that in a few years roof top solar and battery storage will cheaper than distribution cost per kWh. Remind me, why do we need Hinkley Point C?

NigeWick wrote: »

.... Remind me, why do we need Hinkley Point C?

.... because we tend to elect clueless politicians & employ naive civil servants, both groups having a much lower incentive (possibly even intellectual ability!) to perform their roles effectively than those they interact with ... trade bodies, lobby groups, multinationals etc ... after-all when did you last hear of a politician or civil servant losing their job as opposed to being moved aside or promoted when they underperformed ...

Standard Operating Procedure ... problem, indecision, report, long grass, bigger problem, indecision, report, panic, consult vested interests, comply, spend, spend more, report, panic, spend even more, achieve solution, pat self on back ... it's repeated time and again, what's more, the vested interest groups know this and have learned to manipulate the existence and scale of the original problem as well as to steer the consultation process towards their favoured position - and of course, to (knowingly) hugely underestimate original costs in order to gain competitive advantage over alternatives only to reap rewards later through introducing 'in project' uncertainty (/panic) ...

HinckleyC ? ... there's a very valid argument that just within the time-span of the latest round of reviews the advent of LED lightbulbs & TVs has reduced grid-demand to an extent where the problem which HinckleyC was to address has simply vanished .... so that probably leaves the project file and all of it's associated costs in the 'political vanity' cabinet ....

Z