Navitron Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum

Energy/Electricity Storage and Use/Grid Connection => FITs (Feed In Tariffs) => Topic started by: Paulo on October 27, 2010, 04:06:48 PM



Title: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: Paulo on October 27, 2010, 04:06:48 PM
Dear All,
For your information. The Government was petitioned about the unfairness of the early adopter's taking a drop in revenue (quite large for some technologies) when the FIT came in. Their response is here http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=Microgenerators (http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=Microgenerators)
If you haven't got the time to read it, the abridged version is "get stuffed!"
Thanks,
Paul


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: guydewdney on October 27, 2010, 10:34:11 PM
read. then opened a bottle of plonk  :( :'( bstards


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: Countrypaul on December 20, 2010, 01:13:11 PM
Recived this link this morning concerning early adopters:
http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=GreenPioneers

Paul


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: EccentricAnomaly on December 20, 2010, 01:50:53 PM
Isn't that response cleverly worded?  It says that consumers want some such scheme, sort of implying without justification that all do, when it's clearly a premise of the original petition that some don't.  Then it goes on about how, assuming there is a need for such a scheme, MCS is a sensible choice.

At no point does it even begin to suggest a reason why FITS needs such a scheme; it totally fails to respond to the original petition.  In an exam they'd get 0/10 for not answering the question asked.


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: djh on December 20, 2010, 02:30:04 PM
In an exam they'd get 0/10 for not answering the question asked.

But that's standard operating procedure for politicians isn't it? :(


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: pottsiwebber on December 20, 2010, 03:00:32 PM
On a related early adopter FITs theme...

I have biomass boiler which isnít MCS approved wasnít installed by an MCS installer and wont qualify for RHI payments. Then again I did a lot of the work myself the boiler was half the price of an MCS approved boiler and I only had it installed by a HETAS engineer to qualify for a local grant.

I e-mailed ofgem to find out if any RHI FITs would be paid for not MCS installed biomass systems and so far the silence has been deafening.

I'm hopefully going to install solar thermal in spring but I wonít be paying for an MCS approved system installed by an MCS installer. Why? I can buy and install it for a fraction of the cost. In the very long term I may well get my MCS install money back from FITs but that would mean finding several thousand pounds right now to cover the installation. I thought the government were supposed to be discouraging personal debt not encouraging it.

I'm afraid IMHO requiring MCS approval and the such like are just examples of the government giving with one hand and taking back with the other just to be seen to be doing "the right thing".

Do it yourself and stick two fingers up to the rule makers, youíll gain new skills and learn a thing or two on the way and thatís worth more than a few years of payments for being a good little robot and doing as you are told.


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: longstroke on December 20, 2010, 03:20:55 PM
Tempting, very very Tempting!!

Especially with the disparity in prices between MCS approved kit and the same thing without. Add in some fairly up themselves MCS certified installers who have been round to quote one of whom was telling fibs about flat solar thermal panels and severly dissing Navitron products and I'm getting awfully close to your solution pottiswebber.


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: desperate on December 20, 2010, 03:37:56 PM
Thats a very good point, maybe some MCS baloney isn't cost effective compared to skilled DIYers    :hysteria :hysteria :hysteria


Desp


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: noah on December 20, 2010, 03:55:02 PM
It is tempting to view the MCS requirement as `nanny state` or `give with one hand...` but it worries me that the reality [could be] far more sinister than that: it is the subornation of democratic government by private power for private gain. The fact that it hides behind a `green` disguise is cynicism of the worst kind.


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: renewablejohn on December 20, 2010, 05:16:20 PM
Tempting, very very Tempting!!

Especially with the disparity in prices between MCS approved kit and the same thing without. Add in some fairly up themselves MCS certified installers who have been round to quote one of whom was telling fibs about flat solar thermal panels and severly dissing Navitron products and I'm getting awfully close to your solution pottiswebber.


If you go down the biomass boiler route with a slight modification you could convert to a CHP gasification and end up with double ROC's and the RHI. Then you really can stick two fingers upto MCS.


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: EccentricAnomaly on December 20, 2010, 05:25:22 PM
I think a lot of what happens is that relatively powerful companies or organizations in an industry run conferences, user group meetings and the like which are an important input to the mind-sets of the civil servants.  DIYers don't buy civil servants dinner or put them up in nice hotels or offer them some nice consultancy work after they retire so their input simply isn't interesting.  I doubt there's much direct brown-envelope corruption but from what I've seen of another industry involving a lot of government regulation there can be cosy relationships between civil servants and some industrial organizations which serve to lock out outsiders.

An important role for back-bench MPs of any party should be to dig up this sort of thing and hold the civil servants involved accountable in the sense of making them justify their decisions properly (e.g., calling the bluff in answers like this one).  I don't think this happens much in practice.

For electoral reform people worry a lot about breaking links between MPs and constituencies.  A contrary consideration might be that if you have more than one MP representing you then you have a better chance of getting at least one of them to dig into matters like this.


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: blackhawk on December 20, 2010, 07:03:18 PM
pottsiwebber
                     I'm hopefully going to install solar thermal in spring but I wonít be paying for an MCS approved system [/u]

Have the Government, MCS, Ofgen set a PRECEDENT by allowing solar pv for DIY installs from 2009 untill fits come in ??

so this should apply to solar thermal my have to go through the court's. Start a fund anyone?

i put up solar pv just befor April then the next week my solar thermal and have 24 more tubes to go up



Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: longstroke on December 21, 2010, 04:00:59 AM
Blackhawk - Have an applaud for getting on and installing!

RenewableJohn - I like where you're coming from, but would the gasifier and chp + woodgas conversion not need to be 'MCS' certified equipment in order to be elidigable for RHI, and of course installed by a MCS rip-off merchant, of which there are probably none for this system?



Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: renewablejohn on December 21, 2010, 09:27:10 AM


RenewableJohn - I like where you're coming from, but would the gasifier and chp + woodgas conversion not need to be 'MCS' certified equipment in order to be elidigable for RHI, and of course installed by a MCS rip-off merchant, of which there are probably none for this system?



Hopefully Ted will be along later to confirm but looking at the documents from DECC which Ted has posted in the past Biomass CHP is one of the few areas were MCS is not the required solution instead you have to jump through the CHPQA hurdle instead. At least with CHPQA you have a definite standard of efficiency which your system has to achieve in order for it to be eligible for ROC's and RHI.


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: Ted on December 21, 2010, 09:51:03 AM
Only CHP up to 2kW is covered by FiTs at present, so anything else still comes under ROCs - which doesn't have (and never has had) any MCS requirement.


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: fred bloggs on December 21, 2010, 10:35:02 AM
All

As soon as I've finished the building work on the house (UFH and lots of insulation) I am going to install some PV and Thermal on the south facing,45 degree roof of my garage (cash has been squirreled away) (Dont tell SWMBO, she will have it spent on a new kitchen  :fight).

Long live DIY exhappy:

Fred


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: renewablejohn on December 21, 2010, 10:51:35 AM
Only CHP up to 2kW is covered by FiTs at present, so anything else still comes under ROCs - which doesn't have (and never has had) any MCS requirement.

Thanks Ted I thought that was the case for Biomass but would it also work for a thermal solar CHP in excess of 2kW I presume you would only get single ROC's instead of the gasification double ROC's but it would still be eligible for RHI.


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: pottsiwebber on December 21, 2010, 05:49:54 PM
I'm glad to see there are several like minded people out there, I knew there would be on this forum ;D.

I'm just sick of jumping through hoops to prove what I build ,install, modify, maintain etc. etc. be it a building, heating system, vehicle etc. etc. is safe, well designed etc. etc. I know it is I did it so leave me alone!

Yes I may be able to make a bit of cash in the long run if I jump through hoops but I'd rather actually learn how to do something myself and not rely on other people. For me that's what life is all about learning and DOING! Too many people have forgotten how to use their brains and hands. So I say stop worrying about the few quid you wont get from FITs etc. and get out there and do it yourself!

More power to the rest of you out there doing the same!


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: jotec on December 21, 2010, 08:32:19 PM
Only CHP up to 2kW is covered by FiTs at present, so anything else still comes under ROCs - which doesn't have (and never has had) any MCS requirement.
Interesting my CHP is 2kw and OFGEM would only register it for ROCs not FITs. I was told this was because it is biomass (WVO) Have I missed something?

Dick


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: djh on December 22, 2010, 11:26:14 AM
I'm just sick of jumping through hoops to prove what I build ,install, modify, maintain etc. etc. be it a building, heating system, vehicle etc. etc. is safe, well designed etc. etc. I know it is I did it so leave me alone!

I sympathise with your hatred of red tape but when you put 'safe' and 'vehicle' next to each other, there's clearly a need for some red tape if you're going to operate it in public anywhere.

Buildings are a bit more difficult. I can see a case for different rules if you occupy it or if somebody else does or if you sell it. There's a weird rule for self-built boats. If you build a boat in the EU, you can't sell it until it is five years old, unless it is CE certified (and yes it is possible for an individual to have their self-built boat certified and it has been done). The rule is generally regarded as a piece of French self-interest trade protectionism, but there is a certain logic to it. Any safety issues in a boat would generally be discovered within five years.


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: pottsiwebber on December 22, 2010, 11:58:49 AM
Quote
I sympathise with your hatred of red tape but when you put 'safe' and 'vehicle' next to each other, there's clearly a need for some red tape if you're going to operate it in public anywhere.

True but in my defence I had engaged "Rant Mode"  ;D

Quote
Any safety issues in a boat would generally be discovered within five years.

Discovered as in "discovered burning off the coast of ..." or "discovered a the bottom of..."


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: johnrae on December 22, 2010, 12:00:59 PM
I'd have said any safety issues in a boat are to be identified within the first hour.  After that it's down to the use of crappy materials.  Snapped masts etc are usually due to foul weather which I'm sure the EU doesn't (yet) have a certificate for - though they may well have a "standard".  


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: djh on December 22, 2010, 12:50:54 PM
Discovered as in "discovered burning off the coast of ..." or "discovered a the bottom of..."

Exactly!  ;D

Quote from: johnrae
I'd have said any safety issues in a boat are to be identified within the first hour.  After that it's down to the use of crappy materials.  Snapped masts etc are usually due to foul weather which I'm sure the EU doesn't (yet) have a certificate for - though they may well have a "standard".

Well, I think safety issues are discovered at various times, such as the first storm or the first grounding, or the first time the gas system freezes etc. You'd be mad to take a newly built boat out into a storm for its first outing, so I think a few years is a more sensible time.

Snapped masts are never due to foul weather. Foul weather is part of the specification  ;)  A break may be due to poor materials but that is unusual. Most likely is operator error (not tensioning shrouds correctly, not reefing appropriately etc) and a specification error is probably next most likely, followed by installation or construction errors. After that we might get to materials. Germanischer Lloyd have mast requirements that go beyond CE; I imagine they'll give you a certificate if you pay them enough!


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: johnrae on December 22, 2010, 01:45:38 PM
Actually, I had my tongue well and trully stuck in my cheek when I mentioned the first hour, but it's the launch that shows up the obvious "errors" in design and build.

A vessel that's spent its first days of life being seriously worked out at sea with identified problems is no less worthy than a "perfect, no faults found" vessel that's spent five years lounging in a marina with only the occassional "jolly" out sailing.

By way of example, a car showing 3000 miles on the clock with the engine thrashed to hell is unlikely to be better than one that's done 30000 of sensible driving.


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: Ted on December 22, 2010, 03:39:49 PM
Only CHP up to 2kW is covered by FiTs at present, so anything else still comes under ROCs - which doesn't have (and never has had) any MCS requirement.
Interesting my CHP is 2kw and OFGEM would only register it for ROCs not FITs. I was told this was because it is biomass (WVO) Have I missed something?

Dick

No, you haven't missed anything. The FiT for CHP is restricted to a 10 year pilot project for a max 30,000 units that are mains gas boilers. The only unit that currently qualifies (MCS) is the Baxi Ecogen.

http://www.baxigroupspecification.co.uk/campaigns/baxi-ecogen.htm


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: jotec on December 22, 2010, 05:09:15 PM
Thanks Ted, I thought it might be something like that.
Dick


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: titan on December 22, 2010, 06:00:48 PM
I think the problem is BRE who seem to be the main "advisorís" to the government. It is understandable that a standard is set for both the equipment and installation but I can't see why diy installs with approved equipment can't be inspected and approved for a reasonable one off fee. This is a win win situation as the owner is happy and the government can claim the carbon reduction which is the only reason for all the schemes anyway.


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: pottsiwebber on December 23, 2010, 06:12:37 PM
I think the problem is BRE who seem to be the main "advisorís" to the government. It is understandable that a standard is set for both the equipment and installation but I can't see why diy installs with approved equipment can't be inspected and approved for a reasonable one off fee. This is a win win situation as the owner is happy and the government can claim the carbon reduction which is the only reason for all the schemes anyway.

I cant see why either but the "approved equipment" is again a problem. A lot of manufacturers who produce efficient well designed equipment dont want to register, and no doubt pay a large amount of money, to have their equipment "certified" by the UK government.

Meeting recognised safety and efficiency standards which are already in place and to which most if not all decent manufacturers already meet should be sufficient IMHO.


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: Paulh_Boats on January 16, 2011, 11:57:56 AM
There's a weird rule for self-built boats. If you build a boat in the EU, you can't sell it until it is five years old, unless it is CE certified (and yes it is possible for an individual to have their self-built boat certified and it has been done). The rule is generally regarded as a piece of French self-interest trade protectionism, but there is a certain logic to it. Any safety issues in a boat would generally be discovered within five years.

Nah - its just nonsense. The boat is as safe as the skipper and the weather conditions. Most of the legislation is common sense like don't use this canoe to cross the English Channel.

Some CE boats have self righting rules after a capsize, they have enough buoyancy to pop upright. However your ability to survive a capsize if thrown overboard at night in a rough sea is generally considered to be close to zero, especially if single handed in the cold weather.

The terrible 1979 Fastnet race claimed 15 lives due to extreme storms. Some boats were found floating empty the next day and their crews all drowned because they panicked and jumped into life-rafts that eventually sank. If they had stayed on board they would have survived. The point is that the crew where the weak link, not the boat.

What would be more sensible is to make people carry EPIRBs, a gadget you wear on you which reads GPS location and beams an SOS signal to a satellite. You can use it overboard in the water anywhere in the World and a local coast guard gets a message of your exact location within 3 minutes.

-Paul


Title: Re: Govt response to early adopter's petition
Post by: qeipl on January 16, 2011, 03:49:34 PM
MCS accreditation in relation to FiTs is nonsense.
FiTs are paid on kWh produced so equipment and installation 'compliance' are irrelevant.

There's no argument for MCS accreditation of equipment. It all has to be CE marked for safety. Thereafter let the market decide what works and what doesn't.

There's an argument for MCS accreditation for installations as a way of spreading best practice through the installation industry but to make it mandatory is counter-productive because it limits the number of participants (only those with enough capital to go down the MCS route will purchase).
MCS accreditation for installation should be voluntary, giving the ignorant, cautious, and litigious some comfort.
The rest should be allowed to trust their own judgement.