|
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| The government's Feed in Tariff subsidy for solar panels has been reduced by more than half. This is going to be very difficult for installers. 30% would have been reasonable because of the reduced costs of the panels but this is going to hit hard. The proposed cut off date of 12th December is also earlier than expected hitting people who were already in the process.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener...
See some of the reactions
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2121327/solar-feed-tariff-revi...
There is a campaign brewing |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 275
| The way this has been done is very unfortunate, it must leave some people who have already ordered their installation uncertain whether or not they will be eligible for the current FIT rate, and this stop-go approach is going to penalise a lot of installers who have geared their businesses up to meet government priorities - ironic when the best justification for the existing high FIT rates was that it would stimulate a PV installation industry.
However, I actually think the new rate is more sensible, and gives a better long-term basis for a smaller but steadier PV sector. Given our location and the fundamental economics of PV, and also the fact that our peak electrical requirement is the opposite of when PV generates - i.e. in winter, at night, it never made much sense to pay out almost 4 times the retail market price of electricity in feed-in tariff.
The cut off date is particularly frustrating, as it coincides with the end of the consultation period - i.e. we won't know until the cut-off date whether it really is the cut-off date, so I imagine the whole PV industry is now going to stop dead in its tracks. |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| The feed in tariffs were supposed to reduce as the price of installation fell and the price has fallen, but not by as much as this cut.
Solar and wind together actually match up pretty well with requirements We've had to import very little since we've had both. It's nuclear that cannot be turned off at night which is the really inflexible thing.
Solar in businesses will nearly always be used up on site.
Another development Hybrid solar panels (PVT) together with a heat pump promise to join up heating and electrical requirements much more efficiently http://www.ecomerchant.co.uk/sites/default/files/Hybrid_Solar_Solut...
There is also a real hit for people getting multiple FITs which will be extremely bad news for the 'rent a roof schemes' which were starting to make a difference to people in fuel poverty or those who could never afford the money up front.
Another real blow for many Scottish home owners is the requirement that a building must be at least C rated before it qualifies for FITs. Many Scottish homes are extremely difficult to make energy efficient. If you have a 1 1/2 cottage with solid walls it is not eligible for any grant for insulation and very expensive to do. Basically it means either having a layer of insulation inside and completely re-decorating or expensive external wall insulation and re-plastering. The best way to save CO2 for many of these homes may well be solar panels but they will not now be eligible.
|
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| My nephew Gavin who has a PV company seems fairly upbeat due to recent price reductions. 'We've done a quick estimate and reckon we could be offering 4kWp systems for £9-10,000 with 8-9% returns, for perfect south facing roofs etc, which should still be worthwhile for those with a bit of a green interest if not those just after a quick investment return. For heavy energy users it's even better'. |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 275
| Much of this is undoubtedly true, but given the economy seems to be on the verge of collapse we need to consider value for money, and then it seems a bit daft to expect electricity companies to pay 46p/ kWh for electricity that you generate whenever it happens to be sunny - which will never coincide with the peak requirement - and which they then sell at 14p/ kWh, and get a whole lot of grief from public and politicians saying they're over-charging.
I would imagine that you are exporting at least 75% of the electricity generated by your PV array, because it's difficult to find a sensible use for electricity generated in the middle of the day during the summer. In hotter places it makes more sense because (a) they get more sun and (b) they use more electricity when it's hot, for air conditioning.
Nuclear has its problems, and inflexibilty is one of them, but at least it's predictable, unlike PV (or most renewables for that matter.)
I'm in favour of renewables, and indeed I think a modest subsidy for PV makes sense, but I find it very difficult to find a justification for the current level of FIT.
And I have my doubts about PVT, it sounds great until you do the sums. If you have a sensible sized PV array, so 20 m2 or so, and you aim to keep it at a sensible temperature, say 30 deg C, then you'll be producing a huge amount of luke-warm water in the middle of summer (bear in mind that a sensible size for a solar thermal collector for a family is maybe 4 m2, and that will often be operating at over 100 deg C - so the volumes of luke warm water from PVT will really be enormous). Who needs that much luke-warm water? The only way I could see it working was if you could somehow store the heat until winter, but that would be a massive engineering project. I didn't do the sums including a heat pump, admittedly, but you still end up paying a lot for a solar thermal system which is vastly over-sized.
As far as the rent-a-roof stuff is concerned, if someone in fuel poverty was lucky enough to have an unshaded south-facing roof big enough to fit a 3 kWp array, then over a year they would generate about 2,500 kWh, of which they might use 25%, saving about £65, and they would be deemed to export 50%, giving them another £35 or so. So the lucky ones with the large, unshaded, south facing roof get £100 a year, and the others get higher electricity bills because we're subsidising PV in a not-very-sunny place!
There's also a bit of good news coming for solid-walled properties - the Energy Company Obligation will require energy companies to subsidise insulation of hard-to-treat homes. |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 275
| There's a rather more scientific review of the proposed new PV FITs at http://tinyurl.com/63c6sv9 - I think the figures and conclusions here are about right.
|
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| Here is a European road map for PVT. http://www.pvtforum.org/pvtroadmap_leaflet.pdf There seems to be a lot of potential if combined with a heat pump you don't need to produce a lot of luke warm water. You can produce useful heat at the same time as making PV panels about 10% more efficent. One model uses the back of the panels as collectors for the heat pump and is more efficient than a ground loop. It's still at early stages but it looks like it's going to start being installed commercially soon. |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 275
| The thing is, if you want solar heat, you can get a solar thermal collector which is designed to make the most of the radiation, and typically measures about a maximum of 4 m2 (more than that and either you've got a bad hot water habit, or you've spent a lot of money on a system generating much more hot water in summer than you can possibly use). Alternatively, you can put 20 m2 of collector behind a PV array - in which case the PV array works a bit better, but the solar thermal collector works much much worse, and in summer you produce a huge quantity of water at whatever temperature you want the PV to be, say 30 deg C. So then you have to add on a heat pump to make the solar thermal give you a useful temperature, and you've got a very expensive and complicated system which, if it's going to produce a useful amount of heat in winter, will still produce much more heat in summer than you could ever use. Another way of looking it is that PVT is sized to maximise electrical output and that means in summer you inevitably get much more heat than you can use - which is only a problem because you're paying for the equipment (and using up resources) to produce something you don't want.
You have to compare PVT with the alternative - put a sensible-sized solar thermal collector and a PV array on the roof, accept the small PV losses from overheating, and deal with heating in winter in whatever fashion makes sense for you, a heat pump if you want. Having done the comparison (admittedly a couple of years ago) the only way I can see PVT being cost-effective is if/ when we get a cheap way of storing heat in summer and using it in winter. There have been some experiments done on this - there's a development in Canada with a massive underground thermal store, and in fact there was a similar one at the Centre for Alternative Technology some years back, but they had a lot of trouble with condensation and took it out. Maybe some kind of phase change material might do the job, but I don't think it's likely to become cost effective for many years. |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| It's using the back of the PV as a heat pump collector and improving the coefficient of performance.
See http://www.ecomerchant.co.uk/sites/default/files/Hybrid_Solar_Solut...
They do models maximising the electricity or maximising the heat according to needs.
PVT also benefit from Feed in Tariffs and will be eligible for Renewable heat incentive.
|
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 275
| But how much heat do you want from your heat pump when the PV array is hottest, i.e. on a summer's day? The sizing is dictated by the size of the PV panel, so if you ran it to maximise heat you'd end up with a 20m2 solar thermal system which is probably 5 times the size you want (and you'd lose the 10% efficiency gain for the PV).
I'm not disputing that it works, it's just a very expensive and complicated way of doing things, and I think you'll find it's cheaper and easier to keep the PV, the T and the heat pump separate. |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| I've tried to do some calculations for a domestic house based on the website cited and our energy production. The thermal equivalent looks about the same as ours. Document is in the TBI library. Not sure how link it up. The other advantage is that you can fit both thermal and PV collection in the same area so you can fit in a bigger system. We rarely exceed the maximum of our thermal collectors here. If it gets up to maximum in the summer we just look for something else to wash! With a heat pump attached it would just improve the coefficent of performance and quotes this as being better than a ground loop system. Could do with some real systems up here. Any volunteers? |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 275
| The calcs are a bit difficult to follow - is this assuming the heat pump in use too? It looks as if the calcs just show that the total output over the year will be higher for PVT than for the two separate systems - which it should be because you'll have a much bigger solar thermal collector, and therefore a more expensive system. What you need to look at, I think, is the capital cost needed to achieve the desired output, and then you can compare that with the alternative of separate systems. And you really need to look at the heat output seasonally - you're showing a solar thermal output of 5 kWh/ day, but that will be much higher in summer and much lower in winter. So I would expect a good proportion of what you are generating in summer to be wasted - which ties in with you saying you look for things to wash in summer. So you need to look at the useful heat output, rather than the total. |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| No we waste very little. As I said it rarely gets up to maximum and when it does we do some more washing and this system is the same spec for the thermal side. Calculations are without the heat pump element. I don't think prices are available yet. |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 80
| Perhaps PVT might be better suited to smaller installation where it will never supply the full demand for electricity to heat a hot water tank but can reduce the household bill.
On a recent trip to the Borders, i noticed that some social housing was being retro fitted with Solar Thermal. 2 Large panels were fitted to the roof almost using up all the available area. Perhaps these types of projects would benefit from PVT.
If you are going to build a system that produces more heat than can be used during the summer then you need some way of storing the energy. Some form of thermal mass, perhaps in a concrete floor, or stored in the walls. Perhap an oversized water tank that is super insulated could be used. |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 275
| To get an idea of the size of water tank you'd need, assume a typical 3 bedroomed house with a space heating requirement of say 15,000 kWh/ year, and wanted to store the whole of that during the summer, to use in the winter. Unless the house has underfloor heating there'll be little benefit from water less than 55 deg C, and it'll be difficult to store it at more than say 90 deg C, so the useful heat stored will range between those temperatures. The specific heat capacity of water is 1.16 Wh/litre/degC, let's call it 1 for simplicity. That means that with a 35 degC temperature difference, to store 15,000 kWh would need (15,000,000 divided by (90-55)) 429,000 litres of water - or 429 cubic metres, probably a bit bigger than the house itself. Of course the idea of storing a whole winter's worth of heat is pretty ambitious, but then we haven't taken acccount of losses, and given the length of time the heat had to be stored, the losses would probably be greater than the amount of useful heat stored. You can see why there are very few examples of heat being stored on a seasonal basis.
As Anne has pointed out, a heat pump would help because you could use water at much lower temperatures, but a heat pump costs another £10k or so, and you can buy a lot of jumpers for £10k. |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| Just spoke to a guy who installs PVT panels. They have installed about 50-60 systems this year which are eligible for Feed in Tariffs and will be eligible for RHI. The PV panels become 10- 30% more efficient (according to various estimates) and if heat pump is added it will be more efficient than ground source and considerably cheaper, taking heat from the back of the panel instead of a coil and much more efficient than an air source heat pump because you start at a higher average temperature. The price is looking like about 10% more than PV alone so just about the same as PV and thermal separately but when you think that the thermal part is behind the PV and you may then have space for a bigger system. The thermal part would be the same as a domestic thermal panel system. I.e. the heat exchanger would allow collected heat to get to a sensible temperature in a normal tank. The heat pump if added would be the price of an air source one as no ground work involved but the efficiency more than ground source. |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| Please sign this petition http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/what-we-are-doing/campaigns/fighting-fo... |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| See FOE Scotland Press release. Looks like a good time to get those solar panels up.
UK GOVERNMENT LOSES APPEAL OVER 'UNLAWFUL' SOLAR CUTS
Friends of the Earth Scotland welcomed The Court of Appeal's unanimous rejection
today (Wednesday 25 January 2012) of the UK government's attempt to overturn a
High Court ruling stating that its plans to rush through sudden cuts to solar tariff payments were illegal.
The government is now seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Friends of the Earth Scotland says any further appeal will create yet more
uncertainty for solar firms and after two courts have ruled their move illegal is
urging Ministers to concentrate on safeguarding the industry rather than wasting
more time and money on further appeals.
Friends of the Earth Scotland's Chief Executive Stan Blackley said:
"This landmark judgement confirms that devastating UK government plans to rush
through cuts to solar payments were and are illegal – and will prevent UK Ministers
from causing industry chaos with similar cuts in future.
"The UK government must now take steps to safeguard the solar industry and the
29,000 jobs still facing the chop across the UK, including potentially more than 2,000 in Scotland.
"Ministers must abandon plans to tighten the screw on which homes qualify for
solar payments – and use the massive tax revenues generated by solar to protect the industry.
"Helping more people to plug into clean energy will help protect cash-strapped
households from soaring fuel bills."
The High Court ruled shortly before Christmas that UK government plans to cut
payments for any solar scheme completed after 12 December - 11 days before the
official consultation closed - were unlawful. The judgement followed legal challenges
brought by Friends of the Earth (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and two solar firms,
Solarcentury and HomeSun, last month.
Today's judgement will prevent UK Ministers rushing through cuts to feed-in tariff payments
in the future, restoring some confidence to the clean energy industry.
Friends of the Earth Scotland is urging UK Ministers to find more money - paid for from tax
payments the industry generates - to safeguard the long-term stability of the solar industry.
Today's ruling means that, subject to any further appeal to the Supreme Court, solar tariff
payments will remain at 43.3p (p/kWh) until 3 March 2012 when – following government
moves last week – they will fall to 21 pence.
|
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 275
| It looks to me as if the govt are trying to maintain the uncertainty in order to dissuade people from installing new arrays - I can't believe they ever thought they'd win the appeal, and if they apply to appeal again, it will just be to string things out. Really we just need to get used to the idea the FIT will be 21p/ kWh. |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| It should at least mean that many of the community schemes that didn't have time to be installed by the 12th December get a second chance. 21p should be OK with the dramatic drop in the price of solar panels as long as they don't decide to cut it further to stick within their budget (or 'spending envelope!' . A more pressing concern particularly up here is whether buildings will have to be C rated for energy efficiency and I'm not sure what has been decided about that if anything.
See this blog http://www.leeds-solar.co.uk/index.php/blog/entry/decc-briefing-on-... for some analysis of the decision. |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| Here is some analysis of further announcements from the Government. http://www.leeds-solar.co.uk/index.php/blog/entry/a-review-of-confi... |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| Feed In Tariff changes from 1st August
FIT rates will reduce from 21p to 16p per kWh for under 4kW installations
The length of payments will reduce from 25 years to 20 years
Export rates will increase from 3.2p to 4.5p per kWh
These changes only apply to solar PV systems installed on or after 1st August 2012, solar PV systems installed before 1st August will still have the Feed In Tariff paid at 21p per kWh index linked and tax free for 25 years. |
|
| |
Feed in Tariffs review
