Feed In Tariff budget for 2012-13 already £110 million over budget

[Ted]

Also referenced here http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05870.pdf on p9 - they do call it a 'cap' rather than a 'budget'. I'm not sure what the difference is.

This also provides the information that ROCs are costing bill payers 10 times more than FiTs.  Greg Barker has not been so quick to call for a reduction in ROCs in order to help those in fuel poverty.

[billt]

How is the introduction of an additional clean, renewable and potentially financially viable energy source, not a measurable benefit to society as a whole?

Martyn.

Because it is insignificant in the context of the actual electricity consumption of the UK. According to one of Ted's links on the green building forum there is now 630MWp of installed PV on the less than 4kWp tariff. That's about 1% of peak UK demand, which counts as negligible to me. Unfortunately that is peak capacity. Average capacity is about 10% of peak for PV, so that's 0.1% of UK demand - not a meaningful benefit and arguably not a benefit at all.

[rondurrans]

Thanks Ted

Fair point billt and therefore we are back to what would/should/could the 'subsidy' be spent on that would benefit society and the planet best?

[noah]

At this price, 50% of the country could have solar power before the bills would be doubled.

With average export of 70% we would then have 20% overcapacity. Hurrah!

Does this add up.........

[M]

How is the introduction of an additional clean, renewable and potentially financially viable energy source, not a measurable benefit to society as a whole?

Martyn.

Because it is insignificant in the context of the actual electricity consumption of the UK. According to one of Ted's links on the green building forum there is now 630MWp of installed PV on the less than 4kWp tariff. That's about 1% of peak UK demand, which counts as negligible to me. Unfortunately that is peak capacity. Average capacity is about 10% of peak for PV, so that's 0.1% of UK demand - not a meaningful benefit and arguably not a benefit at all.

But you're answering the question in terms of todays generation and todays subsidies. What about tomorrow?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but if domestic installs become financially viable, and I believe commercial is on a tipping point right now, then future subsidies (additional subsidies) go down, and generation goes up. Regarding domestic generation, with installs close to 1% of households, and average generation about 2/3 of average consumption (2,500 & 3,600 approx), then that accounts for over 0.5% of domestic demand. Yes it's small, tiny even, but doesn't every bit count, and it's early days, with a 50% cut already in subsidies.

I'm not trying to be blind to the issues today, I'm just trying to look ahead, possibly 5 years?

Mart.

[GavinA]

How is the introduction of an additional clean, renewable and potentially financially viable energy source, not a measurable benefit to society as a whole?

Martyn.

Because it is insignificant in the context of the actual electricity consumption of the UK. According to one of Ted's links on the green building forum there is now 630MWp of installed PV on the less than 4kWp tariff. That's about 1% of peak UK demand, which counts as negligible to me. Unfortunately that is peak capacity. Average capacity is about 10% of peak for PV, so that's 0.1% of UK demand - not a meaningful benefit and arguably not a benefit at all.

there's around 830MWp installed in total.

But yes, this is relatively insignificant, but how significant would you really expect a power source to be less than 2 years in to it receiving a significant level of support? We had less than 80MWp installed at this time last year, which was significantly more insignificant than this years total, and just at the installation rate for the last 4 months of 2011 we could have a further 6GWp installed by 2015, at which point we're talking about a generation source that could often be maxing out at over 10% of the UK's instantaneous power requirements, and probably over 1% of total electricity generation.

If the growth of the market were allowed to continue, we could easily be looking at double that by 2015, and maybe 20-25GWp by 2020, the vast majority of which could probably have been installed at levels of support comparable with largescale wind. To me, that would be fairly significant, and is achievable in less than 8 years, all as a direct result of the investment made in the last 2 years to get the industry to this stage from its previous cottage industry state.

[mikey9]

Thankyou GavinA
- as you frequently do - you have covered the point I was deciding how to phrase in a response.

The point being - is there any other technology that could/has in such a short a time - managed the rate of increase in production we have had for PVs.

As far as most of the population (and the production figs) are concerned - PVs didn't exist over two years ago. Now they are clearly on the radar - and we have only scratched the surface of potential install locations (I still think all those flat industrial estate roofs - perfect for optimal orientation/inclination arrays - buildings occupied and using when PVs produce).

So insignifcant (arguable) but given the right support going forward - could become a proper part of the mix.

[Ivan]

One thing that the politicians seem to miss is that

1)PV is free energy - once the equipment is paid for and installed, the energy is generated without pollution or cost almost indefinitely.

2)The Cost of PV (ie Feed In Tariff/Export Tariff) is fixed to inflation - so any PV installed even at the 43.3p rate, is then fixed relative to everyday costs - which means it becomes progressively less expensive in real terms: The cost of fuels and electricity increases much faster than inflation. If we assume that electricity prices increase 5% annually more than the inflationary percentage increases (I think this is an extremely conservative estimate), then in 20years time, electricity will be 2.5x more expensive than it is today, in real terms (ie relative to cost of loaves of bread or pints of beer). So it would be equivalent to 53p/kWh if inflation was zero for the next 20years (compared to a starting point of 21p/kWh) - which means that 43.3p+3.1p for PV will compare favourably