Solar ... In the news

kevin6666 wrote: »

I know you tend to forget the majority of FIT Installs are on tariffs that are extremely high, sure PV is cheap now but the damage was done early on. Would seem Spain couldn't sustain those unrealistic early tariffs hence was successful at getting them changed but sadly such was the damage further renewable roll out had to stop presumably to keep big suppliers in business and thus keep the lights on.

Certain FIT systems are having ROI's in the 2-300% range in the UK which sums things up nicely.

Poorly thought out schemes eh

Sorry but this anti-FiT propoganda misses the point entirely in Spain.

When PV became successful, the electricity generators/suppliers had a FIT (so to speak). They realised that domestic systems would reduce their income massively, and that the new (smaller) PV generators would take away the profits.

So they had retrospective cuts to the subsidies, and blocked unsubsidised PV by having a 'dumping fee' created that is based on generation, not export. So you could export 1kWh, or zero kWh's but still get charged 6c for every unit you generate.

This is not new news, this dates back about 2 to 3 years. I've got renewable forum friends in Spain, who describe their supply companies as the (well MSE won't allow the word, but let's just say aren't the Godfather movies great).

Spain has successfully, for now, blocked the deployment of PV because it's too cheap for the old boys to compete.

Think about it, even with UK weather I have reduced my import by 50%. In Spain, with their far flatter generation, it's feasible to reduce it by far more, and with the addition of a domestic battery, possible take it close to zero. Hence why the suppliers needed a way to stop on grid PV.

And then a stealing sun tax, to prevent full off-grid.

What you are trying to sell as a good thing in Spain, is a way to prevent the new generators from making any profits (retrospectively) after investing in PV and PV farms, and denying the public the chance to install cheap PV. Very, very, very sad.

Mart.

Also can you point me in the direction where off grid installs have to pay 'sun tax'. Can only find articles saying the opposite .

Completely different issue and logic IMO and doesn't relate to the Spain issue.

kevin6666 wrote: »

Completely different issue and logic IMO and doesn't relate to the Spain issue.

How so? The argument is that grid tied solar PV users in Spain are not buying much electricity from the electricity companies, but the companies still have to maintain their infrastructure. That would seem totally analogous to someone using little electricity or gas or petrol through some investment in energy efficiency, thereby hurting the suppliers profits.

Or, imagine if I started growing a big proportion of my food at home and Asda, Tesco etc started saying 'but we still have to run our stores for the things you can't produce yourself! You now only buy the odd banana from us, but we still have to stock and staff our stores! We want your home production taxed to protect us from your unfair compettion! We want 5p levied on every apple you grow whatever you do with it!'

kevin6666 wrote: »

Completely different issue and logic IMO and doesn't relate to the Spain issue.

I think Ed has answered this fully already, we are talking about preventing people from using less energy from the grid, in order to protect the margins of the generators and suppliers. There's no difference to everyone installing low energy light bulbs ..... well perhaps there is a difference, PV terrifies the generators in sun rich places.


Look at Australia, there have been loads of attempts to slow down PV, all have failed, and it now has the highest density of PV households. Unfortunately, the grid had just finished being upgraded to 'gold plated' to meet the expected increase in demand.

The timing was 'perfect' just as energy consumption dropped (more efficient items) and then PV is launched.

Chatting with a guy in Queensland, they've seen their daily standing charge increase from Aus$0.40 to Aus $1.07 in 4 years, to maintain profits.

The fear in Australia now, is that with falling PV and batt costs, and rising standing charges, up to 1/3 of households could go off-grid.

Australian Networks Concede One Third Of Consumers Could Go Off Grid

In fact, grid maintenance costs have meant some small communities have been moved off-grid by the leccy companies, and given PV, batts and back up generation as it's cheaper than maintaining the grid.

Also, a new town of around 8,000 households may go micro-grid with PV, batts and a gas generator, as that's cheaper than the cost of building out the grid.

Also (again) connection fees for single new homes can sometimes be more than simply going off-grid:-

Is going off the grid selfish? For many, it's the only option that makes sense

Last year, some friends moved into the new three-bedroom home they had built on semi-rural block of land in northern NSW. Despite being within three kilometres of a large town, and with the power network running along the local road, they chose not to connect to the grid.

The local government-owned network operator wanted $30,000 to run a wire about 50m to the house. My friends decided they were better off spending that money on solar panels and a battery array.

They won’t have another electricity bill, and probably won’t need to spend anything more until the batteries need replacing in at least 10 years time, by which time battery storage costs might be a fraction of what they are now. They also bought a small generator, but despite moving in to the house in late autumn, they have yet to switch it on.

Did you know that in Nevada, where they have a state owned leccy supply, PV'ers are now to pay a monthly fee (on top of standing charges) as revenue will drop. It starts at $15pm and in a few years will rise to $40pm. That's nearly $500pa fee for using less grid leccy.

I could go on, but hopefully the point is made. Using less leccy in sunny places terrifies the old boys. I appreciate why they are scared, but trying to prevent people moving forward is ridiculous, it's simply going to happen whether they (you?) like it or not.

Lastly, you seem pleased at the retrospective cuts to PV income in Spain for those on the earlier tariffs. Would be equally pleased if on completion of Hinkley C the govt simply reneged on it's £93/MWh deal, and cut it "to save householders money"? What would happen to faith in the UK, to investment in UK generation ...... we've already scared off billions in renewables investment. If it's fair to do it to Spanish PV, is it fair to do it to UK nuclear too?

Mart.