Solar ... In the news

1241242244246247334

Comments

  • Hexane
    Hexane Posts: 520
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    1961Nick wrote: »
    that's assuming that the scale of the enterprise didn't drive the price skyward

    What's historically been seen is that economies of scale drive PV prices downward, not skyward.
    7.25 kWp PV system (4.1kW WSW & 3.15kW ENE), Solis inverter, myenergi eddi & harvi for energy diversion to immersion heater. myenergi hub for Virtual Power Plant demand-side response trial.
  • 1961Nick
    1961Nick Posts: 2,045
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Hexane wrote: »
    What's historically been seen is that economies of scale drive PV prices downward, not skyward.

    This scenario isn't normal supply & demand economics...an additional 1.75m installations is a huge market intervention & could potentially drive up the cost of installing pv systems.
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400
    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus & 3 x US2000C Batteries - 19.2kWh
  • zeupater
    zeupater Posts: 5,353
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    1961Nick wrote: »
    This scenario isn't normal supply & demand economics...an additional 1.75m installations is a huge market intervention & could potentially drive up the cost of installing pv systems.
    Hi

    Or it could be broken down into a series of medium size projects for groups of homes in a given area & thus be open to considerable volume related contract discounts ... it's also possible that LAs, housing trusts & the third sector having a direct involvement in such a large rollout programme ... it's not as if membership of the MCS scheme buys acess into a form of exclusive profitable cartel any more, so it's very likely that £/kWp will be far closer to those seen on large commercial/industrial installs than those currently paid by individual homeowners ...

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    B)
  • 1961Nick
    1961Nick Posts: 2,045
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    zeupater wrote: »
    Hi

    Or it could be broken down into a series of medium size projects for groups of homes in a given area & thus be open to considerable volume related contract discounts ... it's also possible that LAs, housing trusts & the third sector having a direct involvement in such a large rollout programme ... it's not as if membership of the MCS scheme buys acess into a form of exclusive profitable cartel any more, so it's very likely that £/kWp will be far closer to those seen on large commercial/industrial installs than those currently paid by individual homeowners ...

    HTH
    Z
    I think you have more faith in the government than I do when it comes to rolling out these nationwide schemes.

    The FIT scheme was chaotically administered...especially in the latter years when the reductions in FIT became reminiscent of trying to stop a runaway train.

    Smart meters have turned out to be anything but 'smart'...especially if you change supplier like the government encourages us to do.

    The reality is that the overall £/kWh for a public sector managed scheme will be probably be higher than currently achieved in the private sector.
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400
    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus & 3 x US2000C Batteries - 19.2kWh
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 14,713
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    1961Nick wrote: »
    Solar to 1.75m homes would cost in the region of £6b - £10b & that's assuming that the scale of the enterprise didn't drive the price skyward.

    Not sure I see the problem?

    So 1m homes (the rest are on interest free loans), get PV. Let's say they go for big systems of 4kWp, which have got to be around £4k on that scale, so £4bn.

    Ideally, they'd generate around 1MWh pa per kWp, so 4TWh, or approx 1% of our leccy. And roughly £50/MWh if they last 20yrs.

    So far, that all seems fine as a green energy subsidy we can all get behind as it will generate clean leccy, at a perfectly reasonable subsidy price. Then that clean leccy also helps to address fuel poverty.

    I'm not saying it's perfect. I only read it this morning. But as the PV threads on this board have shown (going back nearly ten years), unless the subsidies go to nuclear companies (ideally foreign owned) then they will be attacked for benefiting the rich whilst stealing from the poor. And whilst that argument is a complete steaming pile of bovines excrement, I'd suggest that a scheme only benefiting the 'poor' (no patronising meant) will be harder for those trying to mislead on green subsidies, to attack.

    1961Nick wrote: »
    The FIT scheme was chaotically administered...especially in the latter years when the reductions in FIT became reminiscent of trying to stop a runaway train.

    I have to disagree with that entirely. The only 'runaway train' was in the second half of 2011, when the falling costs of PV (a good thing, yes?) made the subsidies overgenerous, so they were cut in Mch 2012 by approx 50%. Continued tumbling costs (a good thing again, yes?) meant another subsidy (and tariff length) cut in Aug 2012 of about 30%, with further rate reductions scheduled in, and amplified dramatically if deployments were too fast/great.

    So in the later years there was no runaway train, quite the opposite as the government went to extraordinary lengths to keep the subsidy at a rate just below ideal, before finally cutting it this year, 2019, after only 9yrs of subsidy support despite the rate of less than 4p/kWh for 20yrs to homeowners, being less than the approx 5p/kWh for 35yrs that new nuclear will get in 2018(ish) after 60yrs of subsidy support.

    For comparison, the less than 4p rate for 20yrs, if it remained, would compare very favourably to the originally planned rate for 2019/20 of 22.7p/kWh. Bear in mind also that that 22.7p figure is in 2010 monies and for a subsidy period of 25yrs.

    I see no runaway trains here, only a technology that brings distributed energy production to the masses? And if focused on social housing, brings direct financial benefits to the occupants for a very long time, and a benefit they can rely on.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 14,713
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    zeupater wrote: »
    Hi

    so it's very likely that £/kWp will be far closer to those seen on large commercial/industrial installs than those currently paid by individual homeowners ...

    HTH
    Z

    My thoughts too. And it's not as if other countries aren't supporting PV.

    After deducting government support, the average install price in Australia for 5kWp (Apr 2019 update) is £565/kWp, with the lowest (Perth WA) at £377/kWp.

    And before any naysayer points out Australia gets more sunshine than us, please note that works against you, since with more generation per kWp, you'd actually need less support/cheaper pricing from the government, not more.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • 1961Nick
    1961Nick Posts: 2,045
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Martyn,

    Those of us that could afford solar panels have done very well out of them & will continue to do so for many years to come. The problem is that the cost of the FIT is being paid for by a surcharge on the unit rate which everybody pays. The poorest households who couldn't afford a solar system are subsidising me...and you...and that doesn't somehow seem right.

    The FIT also caused a boom-then-bust solar industry. If the FIT hadn't resulted in such large householder profits it might have lasted longer & resulted in a more organic growth of the solar industry.

    I'm not saying it's a disaster, but I reckon it could have been done a lot better by being proactive rather than belatedly reactive.
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400
    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus & 3 x US2000C Batteries - 19.2kWh
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 14,713
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    edited 16 May 2019 at 3:35PM
    1961Nick wrote: »
    Martyn,

    Those of us that could afford solar panels have done very well out of them & will continue to do so for many years to come. The problem is that the cost of the FIT is being paid for by a surcharge on the unit rate which everybody pays. The poorest households who couldn't afford a solar system are subsidising me...and you...and that doesn't somehow seem right.

    There's simply no point in me sugar coating this, I hate that argument. I detest it on so, so many levels. It only works out of context.

    The government subsidizes some items, in this case renewable electricity. I believe that's a good thing.

    They add a 'tax' onto the price of electricity (the problem target), which is paid for by all consumers, and proportional to their consumption. I believe this is fair, though of course other forms of raising the necessary monies are possible.

    The subsidy fund is then paid out to the owners of the renewable powerstation. This may be a giant off-shore wind farm, a new nuclear powerstation, or a domestic roof based micro-generation powerstation.

    All of this seems fair, sensible and dare I say normal.

    the only thing different about the FiT is that suddenly these payments (the levies/taxes are no different to any in the past) were also going to households, not just giant energy companies.

    When looked at fairly and rationally, I'd suggest the FiT scheme is far fairer than other RE subsidy distributions, though personally I see no problem in paying more for the large generators to generate more cleanly.

    It should also be noted that the 'poorest households can't afford them' argument is entirely false, since a huge number of installs have gone up on social housing properties. Those tenants have received leccy bill reductions without having to pay a penny for the install. The number of such installs represented, I believe, approx 10-20% of all PV household installs, which seems like a reasonable figure, and was actually accelerating (becoming a larger percentage) until the FiT was pulled.

    If the FiT scheme and distribution is unfair, then all subsidies to large power generators must be pure evil, since we all pay them, but not a single household receives them?

    I appreciate that your argument seems to make sense, but I strongly suggest that when context is applied, the FiT is a good scheme, and a fairer distributor of bill payers subsidy contributions.

    1961Nick wrote: »
    Martyn,
    The FIT also caused a boom-then-bust solar industry. If the FIT hadn't resulted in such large householder profits it might have lasted longer & resulted in a more organic growth of the solar industry.

    Again your focus is off. The FiT didn't cause any such problem, it was the way it was administered that caused the boom and bust issues.

    The government reviewed the largest scale FiT subsidies in the summer of 2011, by which time the falling costs of PV, a good thing, were making the subsidy levels too generous. [Note, it's not that the initial subsidies (at each review) were too generous, just that proportionally they became too generous. The scheme (see my link) always had reductions scheduled in, it's just that PV costs fell too fast, again, a good thing.] Had the government reviewed smaller scale FiT rates then, then a small(ish) reduction, with more to follow, would have been fine. Instead they waited till nov, and then completely botched the legal part, and had to wait till Mch 2012 for a massive 50% reduction, all in one go.

    They were faster to catch the next price fall (Aug 2012), but then applied a somewhat draconian policy.

    I'm not splitting hairs here, there is a difference between blaming a scheme, and blaming those responsible for administering and updating the scheme.

    The bust after the 2015 election has, in my opinion, been entirely government driven, with a subsidy maintained just too low to work well, and accompanied by a whole raft of other policies designed it seems to destroy smaller scale RE schemes, but supportive of energy projects administered by the massive energy companies (nuclear, off-shore wind and fracking). A cynical person might suggest that it's the larger companies that tend to offer directorships and consultant jobs to retired MPs.

    1961Nick wrote: »
    Martyn,
    I'm not saying it's a disaster, but I reckon it could have been done a lot better by being proactive rather than belatedly reactive.

    Yes, and clearly I agree with that, but again I have to point out that this is an issue with management of the scheme, not the principles of the scheme itself.

    Look at the Irish 'cash for ash' scheme, held up by many as a criticism of RE policies [and used by our old anti-PV / pro-nuclear poster to attack renewables.]

    Was there any RE related issue with the problem? No. It simply set no limit on how much fuel you could burn, how much heat you could generate, and simply waste, whilst the UK scheme had a limit based on the accessed heating needs of the individual property.

    The fact that it was a RE product and RE scheme was irrelevant. It was the wording (administration) of the scheme that was at fault, regardless of the product it related too.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • 1961Nick
    1961Nick Posts: 2,045
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Martyn,

    I think we're broadly in agreement on the major points.

    I've no problem with the FIT scheme...only with the size of profit available on an installation & where that profit went to - wealthier households, finance companies charging exorbitant interest rates & rent-a-roof installers.

    In a nutshell, the FIT profit was so large that it undermined competition leading to overcharging & dodgy finance deals.
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400
    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus & 3 x US2000C Batteries - 19.2kWh
  • zeupater
    zeupater Posts: 5,353
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    1961Nick wrote: »
    I think you have more faith in the government than I do when it comes to rolling out these nationwide schemes.

    The FIT scheme was chaotically administered...especially in the latter years when the reductions in FIT became reminiscent of trying to stop a runaway train.

    Smart meters have turned out to be anything but 'smart'...especially if you change supplier like the government encourages us to do.

    The reality is that the overall £/kWh for a public sector managed scheme will be probably be higher than currently achieved in the private sector.
    Hi

    From the looks of the announcement the idea seems to target the social & low income housing sector, so far removed from central government & centralised control.

    Chances are that any such scheme would conform to some form of bid based funding, so a local authority or housing trust would be allocated a tranche of money to complete each sub-project, which would likely be confined to a reasonably small area thereby resulting in quite an efficient set of installs (shared scaffold services, deliveries, better use of installation resources etc) ...

    Considering that the project has already been associated with the socialist concept of 'social', there'd likely be plenty of interest from community energy provision schemes, many of which could be run on a local basis from small PV farms, possibly on NGO, not for profit organisation or even charitable basis ....

    .... but don't get too excited at the moment, it's just a case of a political party running a pair of 'green underpants' up the flagpole in response to a bunch of (mainly) teachers spending part of their last break moaning about something different to pass the time ... <instinctively ducks to avoid the supersonic stub of chalk ... sorry Miss!> ... there's plenty of important ducks to get in line before this one will see the light of day ...

    Anyone would think that someone is operating in 'election mode' and has come up with a totally unrelated policy to attract a few more votes in the hope that nobody notices that it's simply a diversionary tactic to avoid addressing or even mentioning the really important pressing issue ... heads down Jeremy et al - you know that green's not really your colour, spending less effort painting the fence makes no real difference, it's just as comfortable to sit on whatever the colour .... :cool::D

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    B)
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards