What is your opinion of solar panels on UK homes

[John D]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth B

We don't look at in this way! Reuters came round to make a film for their news channel, and I think this link explains our point of view:

UK government pays homes to go green | Video | Reuters.com



There are two income streams - the major one is the FIT which comes to 41.3p per unit generated (regardless of how it's used) . The other comes from power exported to the National Grid, for which we receive 3p for every unit exported. As a small generator it is assumed that 50% of what we generate is exported - ie we receive a total of 42.8p per unit.

Hi Elizabeth,

That's even more interesting as the 42.8p is in effect a subsidy and is around 4 times what I am paying for each kWh I use in my house. The 42.8p in turn is therefore many times more the cost of electricity generated by the 'electricity companies'.
Without the subsidy would the alternative system ie 'solar' be viable ?????


John D
Zenfolio | John's Wild World

[Elizabeth B]

Originally Posted by John D

Hi Elizabeth,

That's even more interesting as the 42.8p is in effect a subsidy and is around 4 times what I am paying for each kWh I use in my house. The 42.8p in turn is therefore many times more the cost of electricity generated by the 'electricity companies'.
Without the subsidy would the alternative system ie 'solar' be viable ?????

John D
Zenfolio | John's Wild World

All forms of "green" energy generation (eg nuclear and wind power) attract large government subsidies, otherwise we'd be back to relying on coal - and imported gas - with disatrous effects on the environment.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth B

All forms of "green" energy generation (eg nuclear and wind power) attract large government subsidies....

Partially accurate account of the current situation - nuclear power doesn't - at least not yet, and according to government press releases will not in the future unless "similar support is also made available more widely to other types of generation". (Which, I suppose, leaves the door firmly ajar) .

BUT! - If these feed in tariff subsidies are the only way to make these smaller installations economically viable, (and with solar power in this country for the forseeable future they most certainly are the only way), then any large uptake will be disastrous on the economy.

Let's face facts here. As long as these feed in tariffs exist, then small installations like these are doing nothing for the environment. - In fact they are doing exactly the opposite, since the money spent in subsidising them could be far better spent on much more efficient large scale systems where all of the generated electricity would be sold at the going (competitive) market rate.

I am in no way criticising yourself Elizabeth B, since under the present regime you are perfectly entitled to do exactly what you have done. And given the right circumstances, I'm sure that most would do exactly the same.

But paying billions of pounds in governmental subsidy to electricity generating plants, be they small domestic units or massive commercial wind farms is just sweeping under the carpet the fact that these systems are not commercially economical.

Originally Posted by Elizabeth B

otherwise we'd be back to relying on coal - and imported gas - with disatrous effects on the environment....

I don't accept that there is any need to continue our reliance on coal or gas since nuclear power technology is here now. It is well established technology, it is the most efficient technology available, it is the most economical technology (when compared to any other currently available large scale generating system), - and - it is the most environmentally friendly when compared to any other large scale generating system (and that includes every single one of the renewables when, as it should be, full lifetime analysis is included in the equation). All of which, for those who are interested, has been amply discussed on other threads.

Perhaps there is a small light at the end of the tunnel in this respect, since with the recent announcement of eight new nuclear power plants for Britain, the government has finally begun to open its eyes to reality.

Regards,
Mike.

[John D]

I have recently been asked to look over a quotation for the installation of 'PV panel installation' rated at 30kW at an industrial unit.
Details are as follows :- Capital cost £112500 less corporate tax benefit of 28% (£31500) = actual capital outlay = £81000.
The cost of electricity currently purchased = 6.93p/kWh
Income from each Kwh generated from proposed PV panel system = 31.4p (the FEED IN TARIFF).
Estimated payback period = 8 years when all benefits are taken into account.

Some companies are prepared to install solar PV systems free of charge as the FIT is seen as being so lucrative. see : -

Consumer guidance on free solar PV offers / Solar electricity / Generate your own energy / UK Home - Energy Saving Trust

However how long can the current level of FIT be allowed to continue and how long before the FIT is abolished ????


John D

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by John D

.....Some companies are prepared to install solar PV systems free of charge as the FIT is seen as being so lucrative......However how long can the current level of FIT be allowed to continue and how long before the FIT is abolished....

Once an eligible "Microgenerating" scheme has been accepted into the Feed In Tariff scheme, the tariff rate paid per Kwh of electricity generated is fixed (in the case of PV solar panels) for twenty five years. See: -
Feed in tariffs - Generate your own energy - Energy Saving Trust
And more particularly: -
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/...ons-1%2027.pdf (78Kb PDF File).

Not a bad little earner for those who participate, but in my view simply a cynical government ploy to enable statistics on renewable energy take-up to be manipulated. - Despite the fact that renewables are significantly less efficient than other technologies, and resulting in electricity consumers in general, (both domestic and industrial), having to pay otherwise unnecessarily inflated supply costs to foot the bill of paying all these subsidies.

Regards,
Mike.

[brendaward]

Thanks for the information, did not realise you could perhaps get them installed for free. We have taken all the other energy saving steps but up till now the solar panels have been cost prohibitive.

[John D]

[quote=Lancashire Lad;693143]Once an eligible "Microgenerating" scheme has been accepted into the Feed In Tariff scheme, the tariff rate paid per Kwh of electricity generated is fixed (in the case of PV solar panels) for twenty five years. See: -
Feed in tariffs - Generate your own energy - Energy Saving Trust
And more particularly: -
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/...ons-1%2027.pdf (78Kb PDF File).


Yes Mike, I understood that to be the case for schemes already going ahead/ accepted but how long before there are changes in the FIT/benefits with regards to future schemes. I can't see the existing conditions carrying on for 25 years.
Who knows we might be solely reliant on 'nuclear' in 15/20 years time. Hopefully, sooner or later the 'penny will drop' and there shall be 'bright light at the end of the tunnel'.
John D

[Elizabeth B]

My above post on 23rd October was expressing my husband's thoughts on power generation.

Having read the replies, he did some further research, and these are his conclusions:

I wasn’t meaning to be totally anti-nuclear as it represents a low carbon method of power generation. However, nuclear power has benefited from very large subsidies over the last 50 years. Though the current government stance is that there will be no subsidies for newly built power stations, this conveniently ignores the fact that the nuclear power industry is grossly under insured for the effects of accidents and terrorism. I believe the current situation is that the state has said it will pick up any costs associated with accidents and terrorism above a fixed figure still to be agreed but almost certainly to be less the £1 billion.

Also, all the future cost of de-commissioning the existing reactors, variously estimated to be between £50 and £100 billion, will be borne by the state.

As far as “nuclear technology is here now” is concerned, there is very little recent evidence to prove this. The last nuclear power plant built in America was ordered in the 1970s and the last plant to go online was in 1996.

The Finnish experience is not encouraging. The company Areva got the contract to build this nuclear reactor according to the ERP process (European Pressurized Water Reactor). The plant should have an installed power of 1.4 GW, the planned costs were 3.4 billion Euro and commissioning was scheduled for the year 2009. According to the state of knowledge at the beginning of 2008, the start-up of the plant will be delayed at least until 2011 and the costs will be at least 40% higher than originally estimated. I believe the latest date for completion is even later than this.

All the recent announcement of “eight new nuclear power plants” has done is to agree their locations and open the bidding for these plants. There is still some way to go before we have firm plans with firm prices and agreed delivery dates.

[Lancashire Lad]

I fear that we are going away from the intent of this specific thread, but feel that your post does require a reply.

Originally Posted by Elizabeth B

....this conveniently ignores the fact that the nuclear power industry is grossly under insured for the effects of accidents....

This is something of a red herring if you look at (readily available) statistics for accidents in the energy sector over the last fifty years – nuclear power comes out as being the industry with the lowest number of accidents of the lot.

Originally Posted by Elizabeth B

....and terrorism....

Another red herring – Name any major industry that is fully insured against terrorism!

Originally Posted by Elizabeth B

....Also, all the future cost of de-commissioning the existing reactors, variously estimated to be between £50 and £100 billion, will be borne by the state....

Not quite true. – Whilst it is correct to say that the state is the major funder of decommissioning of the pioneering and now legacy nuclear facilities such as Sellafield and Dounreay, (along with the many and ongoing military nuclear facilities/equipment), almost half of the stated costs are expected to be covered by income from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and other commercial interests. (Refer to readily available Nuclear Decommissioning Authority documentation).

To put this into context, even if we exclude all of that income, and take the worst case scenario of the decommissioning cost actually being £100 billion. - Far more than that will be given away as subsidies under the terms of exisiting Renewables Obligation Certificates, and Feed In Tariffs over the next thirty years!

Also, costs for decommissioning of currently operating nuclear power are covered in the form of a small cost percentage supplement to every Kwh of electricity sold. So it is incorrect to state that all future costs of decommissioning existing reactors will be borne by the state.

Originally Posted by Elizabeth B

....As far as “nuclear technology is here now” is concerned, there is very little recent evidence to prove this....

I suggest you take a look at the situation in France, where some 75-80% of its present day electrical supplies are nuclear generated.

Originally Posted by Elizabeth B

....The last nuclear power plant built in America was ordered in the 1970s and the last plant to go online was in 1996....

That situation was brought about by a political knee jerk reaction to the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 – An accident which in nuclear terms was about as bad as it can get – complete reactor meltdown – but which caused no deaths at all, and which (other than for subsequent controlled and monitored release) involved no escape of radiation to the environment.

Originally Posted by Elizabeth B

....The Finnish experience is not encouraging.... According to the state of knowledge at the beginning of 2008, the start-up of the plant will be delayed at least until 2011 and the costs will be at least 40% higher than originally estimated. I believe the latest date for completion is even later than this.....

Presumably you are referring to the Okiluoto project? – I have been following this with some interest. Yes the project has been delayed, but the delays have been due to poor workmanship on concrete foundations & steelworks. (Which admittedly should have been picked up before they got to the extent that they did). The delays have not been caused by any problems with design of the reactor.

Yes, the final costs are indeed now expected to be in the region of 40 to 50% higher than originally stated. (Unfortunately a construction industry problem by no means confined to the building of nuclear plants).
But – even taking that extra cost into consideration, the final costs will be less than one third of the construction cost (per Gigawatt output) as will be attributable to the windfarms currently licenced for offshore construction around Britain. See: -
Nuclear Power Station questions
(And that is to say nothing of the nuclear power plant being comparatively almost three times as efficient as a method of generation).

Originally Posted by Elizabeth B

....All the recent announcement of “eight new nuclear power plants” has done is to agree their locations and open the bidding for these plants. There is still some way to go before we have firm plans with firm prices and agreed delivery dates.

I readily agree with this, but the situation results solely from successive governments keeping their heads firmly buried in the sand. If they had made the right decisions several years ago, we could now be well along the way to electrical supply security for the foreseeable future, without having to fear the consequences of reliance upon untenable amounts of wind energy, and being easily able to accommodate the planned and pending closure of existing coal fired plants.

Regards,
Mike.