The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
https://forum.powerswitch.org.uk/
UK Energy Secretary Chris Huhne today launched a government review of feed-in tariffs (FITs) amid rising concern that large-scale solar installations could be sapping funds meant for residential and community schemes.
Nearly a year into the FIT scheme, over 21,000 renewables installations have been registered with the scheme totalling over 76 MW in capacity.
Continues
Then why did they put a maximum of 5 MW, they should have put a cap on size.“Large scale solar installations weren’t anticipated under the FITs scheme"
Is 50kW large scale? I don't think so. No one wants large scale solar farms however,consider the impact of larger-scale (over 50 kW) solar power projects
It is the same reason people have not invested in wind, you don't know how much your going to generate and they need maintenance.It will also explore why the adoption of anaerobic digestion has been so slow
Chris Goodall wrote:At one stroke Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has guaranteed that Britain will get very little electricity from smaller scale renewables. He has announced that the ‘threat’ (his words) from ground-mounted solar panels makes it necessary to urgently review the feed-in tariffs for all solar installations above 50 kilowatts. These tariffs were meant to be stable until April 2012 and would then fall in a orderly and guaranteed way over the next few years.
He hasn’t said by how much the rates for larger scale PV will fall, or when the reduction will happen. But the uncertainty introduced by his intervention, and his obvious willingness to fiddle with the feed in tariffs whenever he feels the urge, means that he has destroyed the ability of developers to raise money for any substantial renewables project. The UK renewables industry, from PV to geothermal, needs certainty and stability and this is precisely what has just disappeared.
My understanding is neither, they are a stimulus for a promising new industry.DominicJ wrote:I forget, are FiTs supposed to generate as much green energy as possible, or provide a subsidy to those wealthy enough to have the system fitted?
Indeed, this is absolutely key. Without the installer base we won't be able to take advantage of cheap solar PV that is coming. It takes time to build up the skills and initially it will be expensive but cheap solar is on the way (and in the form of thin film is already here)clv101 wrote:My understanding is neither, they are a stimulus for a promising new industry.
Bet you can't substantiate that claim, unless you have a quaint concept of 'cheap' - other than £1,000/kW installed capacity, generation at 10p/kWh?Pepperman wrote: It takes time to build up the skills and initially it will be expensive but cheap solar is on the way (and in the form of thin film is already here)
Nothing stays the same, 10p/kWh generation costs may appear cheap a few decades from now if carbon emitting electricity generation is banned or runs out of fuel...An Inspector Calls wrote:Bet you can't substantiate that claim, unless you have a quaint concept of 'cheap' - other than £1,000/kW installed capacity, generation at 10p/kWh?Pepperman wrote: It takes time to build up the skills and initially it will be expensive but cheap solar is on the way (and in the form of thin film is already here)
What UK government is going to agree to a ban on carbon produced energy? There are no signs that I can see that says we are due to run out of fossil fuels for electricity generation in the next generation. We might be past peak oil, but it's not going to be a cliff edge, but a gradual ebb. Even if the COST of electricity from conventional sources were to inflate at 10% per annum, every year, it would take 17 years for it to match present PV COSTS. There's no indication of any such sustained escalation of energy costs, there never has been, and it would lead to economic catstrophe in all the developed countries. It isn't going to happen. If nothing else, over that period the UK could embark on a very cost-effective nuclear programme and start to re-open indigenous coal mining, neither with any need for subsidy.clv101 wrote:Nothing stays the same, 10p/kWh generation costs may appear cheap a few decades from now if carbon emitting electricity generation is banned or runs out of fuel...An Inspector Calls wrote:Bet you can't substantiate that claim, unless you have a quaint concept of 'cheap' - other than £1,000/kW installed capacity, generation at 10p/kWh?Pepperman wrote: It takes time to build up the skills and initially it will be expensive but cheap solar is on the way (and in the form of thin film is already here)
The Climate Change Act 2008 says -80% forty years from now. We are yet to see how this will be achieved, but shouldn't rule out simply bans.An Inspector Calls wrote:What UK government is going to agree to a ban on carbon produced energy?
Present PV costs are nothing to do with PV costs several decades from now. Currently it costs around $3 per Wp (retail price). 40 years of -10% pa would take that to just 4 US cent. I'm not saying fossil fuels will increase at 10% or that PV will decrease at 10%. But neither will stay the same. What we can say with confidence is that fossil fuels will increase in price over the coming decades due to increased demand, depleted resource (the 'best' resources are exploited first) and increased environmental legislation. Similarly we can say PV costs are falling as process technology improves and economies of scale increase. Maybe the figures are +4% and -4%? Who knows - but over decades it's clear PV is becoming more affordable against fossil fuel. When both values are changing, today's prices are irrelevant.An Inspector Calls wrote:Even if the COST of electricity from conventional sources were to inflate at 10% per annum, every year, it would take 17 years for it to match present PV COSTS.
Why isn't it going to happen? It's curious to argue something isn't going to happen because if it did there'd be an economic catastrophe. Why did we allow previous economic catastrophes happen?An Inspector Calls wrote:...and it would lead to economic catstrophe in all the developed countries. It isn't going to happen.
What do you mean by 'economic'? By how much are you inflating coal's generation cost to account for the associated cost of climate change? If, for sake of argument, the climate warms by 6C by 2100, global GDP is reduced by a half (collapse scenario) and half of that warming is attributed to coal, what price then do you ascribe to a kWe from coal? Note, not a prediction, just a scenario. Anyway, who's talking about PV being economic by 2015 in the UK? Not me.An Inspector Calls wrote:All this talk of PV being economic by 2015 is just hot air - bullshit.
The difference between a sunny place and the UK is only around factor 4. That logic would suggest, that if PV costs fall by a factor 4 you'd approve? That is well within the realms of possibility within a few decades, even before considering how fossil fuel prices will increase.An Inspector Calls wrote:Stick to commissioning PV where it's sunny.
Best laugh I've had all day!An Inspector Calls wrote:the UK could embark on a very cost-effective nuclear programme .......neither with any need for subsidy.
That's not immutable, especially in the face of the force majeur of escalating energy costs and public unrest; remember, the majority of the public do not take climate change as a done deal, and the majority is increasing.clv101 wrote:The Climate Change Act 2008 says -80% forty years from now.An Inspector Calls wrote:What UK government is going to agree to a ban on carbon produced energy?
An Inspector Calls wrote:Even if the COST of electricity from conventional sources were to inflate at 10% per annum, every year, it would take 17 years for it to match present PV COSTS.
Your claim about the current price difference being irrelevant becomes obvious nonsense when you have to postulate 40 years of a gap closing at the collosal rate of 10 % pa. There's no sign of this happening in the wind industry where wind prices (onshore and offshore) are escalating at a high rate. Of course, you could be on to a self-fullfiling prophecy: install more PV and thus force energy bills up through the concealed subsidy on energy bills.clv101 wrote:Present PV costs are nothing to do with PV costs several decades from now. Currently it costs around $3 per Wp (retail price). 40 years of -10% pa would take that to just 4 US cent.
An Inspector Calls wrote:Stick to commissioning PV where it's sunny.
Nice try, but don't put words into my mouth and I won't put them in yours.clv101 wrote:The difference between a sunny place and the UK is only around factor 4. That logic would suggest, that if PV costs fall by a factor 4 you'd approve?
I doubt the French and Japanese will understand your sense of humour!Bandidoz wrote:Best laugh I've had all day!An Inspector Calls wrote:the UK could embark on a very cost-effective nuclear programme .......neither with any need for subsidy.