navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
UK's most popular Renewable Energy Forum May 25, 2012, 02:40:58 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: UPDATE ON DECC APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT | Yingli Green Energy's PV Module Ranks No.2 in TUV Rheinland Energy Yield Test | Navitron Solar Showers at Glastonbury for Year 5!
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: ACE responses  (Read 822 times)
Ted
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2677



WWW
« on: December 02, 2009, 07:45:09 PM »

The Association for the Conservation of Energy:

http://www.ukace.org/publications/ACE%20Response%20%282009-10%29%20-%20DECC%20Renewable%20Electricity%20Financial%20Incentives.pdf

- only wants fully insulated houses to be eligible for FiTs
- agrees with MCS accreditation
- concerned over fuel poverty
- thinks that systems that have been installed to meet B Regs Part L CO2 reductions should not qualify for FiTs
Logged

Volunteer moderator
6kW Proven turbine, 20 Navitron tube solar, GSHP, WBS, Rayburn wood central heating
Paulh_Boats
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2768



« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2009, 10:32:40 PM »

They say:

"ACE agrees that the minimum export price should not exceed the import price to prevent the inefficient situation where a generator exports all of their generated energy, whilst importing and using that from the grid."

That's really silly, as the exported green energy WILL be used by somebody and it WILL reduce the load on the power station generators, regardless of who uses it. More to the point to exported energy will go straight to the nearest neighbours with almost zero loss.

That points to a basic lack of knowledge about electrical engineering by ACE.

-Paul
Logged
Ivan
Guest
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2009, 12:21:25 AM »

Although high FIT distorts the value of renewables eg from a financial point of view, you can generate 1/4 of what you need, and because you have zero electricity bill, you assume you're 'carbon neutral', I think it IS important for more reasons than simply generating the incentive to install in the first place. ie if you get paid a high rate for export, you will have the incentive to reduce your consumption during the period that you generate. If we're talking PVs, that's precisely the period we need people to reduce power in order to balance the grid better. And anyone reducing their power consumption for certain periods of the day, is unlikely to consume wastefully for the remaining period of the day.
Logged
wexford
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2009, 01:05:42 AM »

@Paulh I think they are trying to stop someone running a bank of halford battery chargers for 12 hours connected to a pile of batteries then "exporting" via an inverter.

If people were and are prepared to bypass meters, attach magnets, tilt them etc they'd definitely look at pretending to export enough to cover their costs and make a few pence.

wonder what the break even point of losses in the charger, batteries and inverter versus price difference in export versus export? I'd guess the export tariff would need to be twice as much as the import tariff?


Wexford
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!