FITs to be cut of 9p/kwh for some houses?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 18 Jan 2012, 08:45

Slight clarification?
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/21 ... -escalates

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 18 Jan 2012, 11:45

It's lucky the government aren't having to support the brewing industry, because they could organise a pissup........

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 25 Jan 2012, 12:14

The court has ruled. The Government acted illegally.

http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news ... -2995.aspx

The Government has lost its appeal bid against a High Court ruling that its plans to cut the Feed-in Tariff for solar electricity were unlawful.
The judgement handed down this morning by the Court of Appeal means the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) will not be able to go ahead with its plans to cut the FiT subsidy for solar installations from December 12 2012 – leaving its policy in tatters. Instead it will have to introduce a 'plan B’, which means the cuts will be eligible from March 3 2012.

The judgement will be welcomed by Friends of the Earth and the two solar companies – Solarcentury and Homesun – which won the High Court ruling in December that Government plans to slash payments for solar photovoltaic installations completed after December 12 2011 – 11 days before an official consultation into the proposal had closed – were unlawful.

The three Lords of Justices of Appeal announced their reserved judgement this morning following a hearing 10 days ago. It ends weeks of uncertainty for the solar industry, which has been reeling ever since Government plans to cut the tariff were announced at the end of October.

katie · Post by **katie** » 25 Jan 2012, 15:44

Thank Goodness for the common sense attitude which has stopped this arrogant government from just bullying their way through the process without any consultaion or forethought.

Katie

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 25 Jan 2012, 18:53

What a disaster. So the rest of us will carry on subsidising the fitting of equipment which has no possibility in the UK of even producing the amount of energy it took to build them. This is assuming they don't break down in the 25 years claimed minimum life span.

Still, I have come across people who are retiring and have just spent £thousands on solar panels, more money than sense. When they run out of money altogether I suppose the taxpayer will have to support them AGAIN!!! What you might call a double whammy.

If this solar energy thing was so good, they wouldn't NEED to subsidise it.

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 25 Jan 2012, 19:40

Is 3-4 months difference in the reduction of the fits really going to make a long-term difference to the viability (or lack of) for the solar industry?

All it's done is cost the government more money and achieve a grand total of... nothing

Post by **clv101** » 25 Jan 2012, 19:43

woodburner wrote:What a disaster. So the rest of us will carry on subsidising the fitting of equipment which has no possibility in the UK of even producing the amount of energy it took to build them. This is assuming they don't break down in the 25 years claimed minimum life span.

That's just not true - the energy payback is well within their guarantee period, let alone life span.

woodburner wrote:If this solar energy thing was so good, they wouldn't NEED to subsidise it.

It's a fledgling industry, requiring subsidies for just a few years. 18 months ago a 4kw system cost around £15k, today that's more like £10k. The costs are falling dramatically, in part due to these subsidies. There are a number of projections that no subsidy will be needed at all by 2016. This is exactly how it's meant to work.

Post by **clv101** » 25 Jan 2012, 19:47

cubes wrote:Is 3-4 months difference in the reduction of the fits really going to make a long-term difference to the viability (or lack of) for the solar industry?

All it's done is cost the government more money and achieve a grand total of... nothing

Remember the PV industry are happy with 21p - their own reports in the autumn suggested a figure like that. What they couldn't live with was the rate falling with less notice than it takes a container load of panels to be shipped from China to the UK. In some cases ordered panels were already in transit but wouldn't arrive until after 12th Dec! Many small, but rapidly expanding companies had most of their cash tied up in such cycles.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 25 Jan 2012, 20:06

The significant thing about the Court of Appeal ruling is that it reverses the government's attempt at retrospective legislation, though I hear Huhne is saying they're going to appeal to the Supreme Court. They really want a precedent for retrospective legislation to be set. The cost of these few weeks in the timing of the FIT rate change are neither not the big issue.

The 21p only applies to some houses. Most won't be able to get that.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 25 Jan 2012, 22:21

How does anyone know where or how their panels were produced?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02595.html

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 25 Jan 2012, 22:53

Small and rapidly expanding companies (esp. those that rely on government subsidies and debt) usually end up so small as to be non-existent.

I'm guessing that the rather rapid decline in solar panel installation costs is not all due to solar panels being cheaper - what cost £14k 2-3 months ago now costs only £8k or so (installation costs that is). They got all their staff on min wage now? Or the more likely result of taking much less profit?

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 26 Jan 2012, 06:12

clv101 wrote: the energy payback is well within their guarantee period, let alone life span.

From cubes' link on another thread http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... -2,00.html

Solar lobbyists like to dazzle the public with impressive figures on the capability of solar energy. For example, they say that all installed systems together could generate a nominal output of more than 20 gigawatts, or twice as much energy as is currently being produced by the remaining German nuclear power plants.

But this is pure theory. The solar energy systems can only operate at this peak capacity when optimally exposed to the sun's rays (1,000 watts per square meter), at an optimum angle (48.2 degrees) and at the ideal solar module temperature (25 degrees Celsius, or 77 degrees Fahrenheit) -- in other words, under conditions that hardly ever exist outside a laboratory.

What are the real-world solar generation figures taking into account, that like Germany, the UK does not have the ideal solar energy incidence or ambient temperature?

Post by **clv101** » 26 Jan 2012, 09:57

cubes wrote:I'm guessing that the rather rapid decline in solar panel installation costs is not all due to solar panels being cheaper...

No it's not all to do with module costs, no one is suggesting it is. But module costs have fallen dramatically:

http://www.solarbuzz.com/facts-and-figu ... ule-prices

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 08 Feb 2012, 15:56

(erm haven't I seen that post somewhere before?..)

Post by **clv101** » 09 Feb 2012, 12:02

Here's DECC's press release:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/n ... 2_010.aspx

A better FIT scheme for consumers and communities

* A tariff of 21p/kWh will take effect from 1st April this year for domestic-size solar panels with an eligibility date on or after 3rd March 2012. Other tariff reductions apply for larger installations.
* The Department has listened carefully to feedback on the energy efficiency proposals that we put forward in the consultation of 31st October. Properties installing solar panels on or after 1st April this year will be required to produce an Energy Performance Certificate rating of ‘D’ or above to qualify for a full FIT. The previous proposals for a ‘C’ rating or a commitment for all Green Deal measures to be installed was seen as impractical at this stage. We estimate that about half of all properties are already eligible for a ‘D’ rating.
* From 1st April 2012, new ‘multi-installation’ tariff rates set at 80% of the standard tariffs will be introduced for solar PV installations where a single individual or organisation is already receiving FITs for other solar PV installations. This reflects the lower costs of such installations, as they benefit from the economies of scale. Based on the feedback received, the threshold is set at more than 25 installations. Individuals or organisations with 25 or fewer installations will still be eligible for the individual rate. DECC is now consulting on a proposal that social housing, community projects and distributed energy schemes be exempt from these multi-installation tariff rates.
* The tariff for micro-CHP installations will be increased to recognise the benefits this technology could bring and to encourage its development.

A better FIT scheme for industry

* In line with the evidence of falling costs for solar PV, DECC is proposing to peg the subsidy levels to cost reductions and industry growth to provide more certainty for future investments. This will ensure that subsidy levels keep in step with the market. It builds on the best of the existing German system and will remove the need for emergency reviews.
* Using budget flexibility to cover the overspend resulting from high PV uptake this year, while still allowing £460 million for new installations over the Spending Review period. This won’t have any impact on consumer bills beyond the agreed overall cap on renewable subsidies as it will primarily be funded from an under spend on the budget allocated for large-scale renewables.

My thoughts, the 21p/kWh is fine. The move from C to D is very welcome and certainly the most significant part of this announcement. There exists some three weeks left to get new PV installs in and still get the higher rate - I suspect demand will be so high that install prices will rise and cancel out a lot of that value.

Maybe the most interesting aspect is the proposal to peg subsidy levels to costs reductions and industry growth. I'm not quite clear what this means.