The disaster that is Britain's solar power "success&quo

[cubes]

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/regulatio ... er-success

We're being told about the wonderful success of Britain's solar power revolution:

Half a million UK homes will have solar panels installed on their roofs by the end of this year, official figures show – while the industry claims that figure could double within two years. Government data show that 495,459 solar panels had been installed, the vast majority on homes, by Sunday, since a programme of subsidies began in 2010. At the current rate of installation, of more than 2,800 panels a week, the half a million milestone will be passed by the end of the year, equating to about two per cent of UK households. The Solar Trade Association says it wants to reach one million installations in 2015.

This is, of course, entirely a disaster. For that half million installed, that million that will be, are entirely uneconomic and must be subsidised through those feed in tariffs. And the thing is it's all so unnecessary.

I don't know enough about the solar panel industry to make a judgement, but it does sound plausible.

[Little John]

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/regulatio ... er-success

We're being told about the wonderful success of Britain's solar power revolution:

Half a million UK homes will have solar panels installed on their roofs by the end of this year, official figures show – while the industry claims that figure could double within two years. Government data show that 495,459 solar panels had been installed, the vast majority on homes, by Sunday, since a programme of subsidies began in 2010. At the current rate of installation, of more than 2,800 panels a week, the half a million milestone will be passed by the end of the year, equating to about two per cent of UK households. The Solar Trade Association says it wants to reach one million installations in 2015.

This is, of course, entirely a disaster. For that half million installed, that million that will be, are entirely uneconomic and must be subsidised through those feed in tariffs. And the thing is it's all so unnecessary.

I don't know enough about the solar panel industry to make a judgement, but it does sound plausible.

What pisses me off the most about subsidised domestic solar panel installations is that subsidy has come from other electricity users. In addition to the subsidy, the home owner still has to pay a portion of the installation themselves. All fine and dandy, of course, if you are not short of a bob or two and wish to make savings/profit. The upshot being that poor households who could not afford the solar panels even with the subsidy, are nevertheless subsidising(via an extra levy on their bills) the solar installations of their richer neighbours who then go on to make savings on their future bills into the bargain.

[RenewableCandy]

I'm rather hoping that this is the very dosh that's going to come out of general taxation rather than energy bills in the future: at least with general taxation, richer people will be, on average, contributing more to it.

Don't forget where this gripe is coming from and all: The Adam Smith Institute just hate any kind of interference in the "free market". Writing "research" along those lines is what they do for a living.

Solar PV is becoming cheaper and cheaper, thanks to the subsidies (which as a result have fallen rapidly). Soon there'll be no point in subsidising it, it will be of comparable cost to mains electricity, and a lot more people will be able to afford it as a result.

The fact that the very poorest, due either to dire money shortage, or lack of a roof to call their own, will not be able to benefit even then, is a housing, or even inequality, issue and not really solar PV's fault.

[Little John]

I'm rather hoping that this is the very dosh that's going to come out of general taxation rather than energy bills in the future: at least with general taxation, richer people will be, on average, contributing more to it.

Don't forget where this gripe is coming from and all: The Adam Smith Institute just hate any kind of interference in the "free market". Writing "research" along those lines is what they do for a living.

Solar PV is becoming cheaper and cheaper, thanks to the subsidies (which as a result have fallen rapidly). Soon there'll be no point in subsidising it, it will be of comparable cost to mains electricity, and a lot more people will be able to afford it as a result.

The fact that the very poorest, due either to dire money shortage, or lack of a roof to call their own, will not be able to benefit even then, is a housing, or even inequality, issue and not really solar PV's fault.

If it came out of general progressive taxation I wouldn't have a problem with the subsidies. I would have even less problem, as well, if the doling out of the money raised was done so in a fashion which recognised the socio-economic status of the recipient. In other words, more tax raised from the rich, more benefit to the poor.

It's the fact that those subsidies currently amount to a flat tax on those who have the least ability to pay in order to benefit those who have least need of that benefit.

[woodburner]

In the UK, on a sunny summer's day, PV panels are around 16 efficient at converting incident radiation power into electricity. We are told they produce electricity when the sun goes behing a cloud. The problem is this becomes only scattered incident light. This is about 10% of direct sunlight, therefore PV panels become 1.6% efficient. They are a joke. Paid for by people without PV panels. If it is paid for by taxation, it will still be paid for by people without them. Not only is the efficiency low to start with, it falls as the panels age.

[PS_RalphW]

But sunlight is free. 1.6% of zero is still zero. More efficient panels generate moire power per roof, and have lower installation costs per kilowatt, but with a lifetime of twenty five years or more, they will pay for themselves eventually. Sunnier countries pay back quicker, the UK is still good if you take the long view. Output is better than eighty percent after twenty five years. Not many oil or gas wells do that well.

[woodburner]

But electricity from PV panels is not free. There are environmental costs which are generally hidden from the UK populous.

[Tarrel]

Using the guideline figures from the Energy Saving Trust website, I could install a 4kWp system for around £7k and, if I used all the power generated, it would pay for itself in 15 years, with no feed-in tariffs; well within the design-life of the system. (That's based on saving 15p per kWh, and installing in an optimum location at our postcode here in Scotland).

Of course, if I wasn't bothering about the bureaucracy generated by the feed-in tariffs, I could probably get it installed for a lot less than £7k. I could also claw back the money over the full 25 years plus get a 3% return on the investment. That assumes no increase in energy costs which, of course, there will be, making the numbers even more favourable.

On this basis, domestic solar PV is by no means a disaster and appears to be quite viable, even without any subsidy. Anyone who insists on more than this from their system is just being greedy IMO. It's a great hedge against future energy price inflation. The ultimate fixed rate energy deal!

Actually, based on the EST numbers, I would get a better return using all the power myself with no FITs, than if I exported 75% and received the FITs, as per the EST assumptions.

[woodburner]

The Post article describes how Luoyang Zhonggui, a major Chinese polysilicon manufacturer, is dumping toxic factory waste directly on to the lands of neighboring villages, killing crops and poisoning residents. Other polysilicon factories in the country have similar problems, either because they have not installed effective pollution control equipment or they are not operating these systems to full capacity. Polysilicon is a key component of the sunlight-capturing wafers used in solar photovoltaic (PV) cells.

What does it really cost?

[RenewableCandy]

But you'd find similar stories behind any goods made today in China. For example the latest furore, over Angora.

HMG would I'm sure, prefer to allocate FiTs only to people who installed UK-made panels (there are some! In Wales of all places ) but that'd be against WTO rules. Chateau Renewable's panels were made in Japan.

[woodburner]

But you'd find similar stories behind any goods made today in China. For example the latest furore, over Angora.

Well that's ok then, if we are throwing crap everywhere we can throw more crap to do with solar panels, and ostrich like UK purchasers can pretend they are doing their bit to save the planet, while they are actually f***ing it up.

HMG would I'm sure, prefer to allocate FiTs only to people who installed UK-made panels (there are some! In Wales of all places ) but that'd be against WTO rules. Chateau Renewable's panels were made in Japan.

They could pay only for panels whose production systems have been audited and certified to be environmentally responsible.

[RenewableCandy]

I think they tried to do that in the USA (not buying Chinese panels because they were destroying the USA panel industry). I think it was eventually stymied by the WTO.

[woodburner]

That's not the same as not buying them because they are an agent of ecocide.

[biffvernon]

(there are some! In Wales of all places ).

I think I read just a few days ago that the Welsh factory was going to close. Too many woodburners, or some such excuse.

edit: here's the story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-nort ... s-25403719

[woodburner]

That's effin world trade agreements for you. Effectively give support to the dirtiest operators.