Navitron Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum

Energy/Electricity Storage and Use/Grid Connection => FITs (Feed In Tariffs) => Topic started by: Flamethrower_ on August 19, 2009, 01:05:08 PM



Title: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Flamethrower_ on August 19, 2009, 01:05:08 PM
Just had this emailed to me anyone want to comment on it and reply to it......

Quote
19 Aug 2009


Dear Robert

I am writing to seek your views on the proposed rate of the feed-in tariff for existing generators. Our view is that, at 9p/kWh, it is too low, and thoroughly unfair to existing generators, many of whom installed their system in anticipation of the tariff.

I'd be interested to hear your views, and whether you have had any feedback from customers. I have already received a lot of worried and angry feedback from microgenerators who receive the YouGen newsletter. I plan to start a campaign to raise awareness of this injustice and lobby for an equal rate for existing microgenerators. This will launch in mid September (when I'm back from holiday!) and run to the close of the consultation period on 15 October. I am keen to identify suppliers and their customers who support the aims and would welcome your thoughts on the first rough draft of the campaign goals below:

Equal cashback for microgenerators

The Problem
The early adopters of domestic microgeneration are being treated unfairly and penalised financially in the Clean Energy Cashback (feed-in tariff) proposals.

We believe that:
•    The early adopters are pioneers who can take a lead in encouraging others to invest in microgeneration. The government plans discriminate against them (and reward those who have played safe and waited). This risks disillusion and anger from people who should be rewarded for the risk they took, for their contribution to the increased knowledge and for the carbon reduction that has resulted.
•    People have installed Solar PV on the understanding that a feed-in tariff was likely, not realising that they wouldn’t be included.
•    9p per kWh is extremely low. Depending on which energy provider generators currently use, this may lead to a cut in the cashback they receive.
•    The Renewable Obligation was complex and not suitable for microgenerators, so the Clean Energy Cashback should not be limited to those accredited under this system.
•    The government risks damaging the domestic market for renewable heat between now and when the detailed renewable heat incentive strategy is announced. If people see how existing microgenerators are being treated they may hold back on investing in solar thermal, biomass and heat pumps until they know they will be rewarded. Homeowners may also hold off from taking other vital energy efficiency measures in the hope of more incentive schemes.

We are calling on DECC to ensure that:
•    All existing microgenerators receive the same level of Clean Energy Cashback as those who install in the first year of its introduction.
•    Existing generators of renewable heat receive equitable treatment with new installations when the Renewable Heat Incentive is introduced.

Please also let me know if you or any of your customers are happy to talk to the media about your views, and/or promote the campaign to your contacts.

Kind regards

Cathy

Cathy Debenham
YouGen - renewable energy made easy



Visit YouGen at: http://www.yougen.co.uk
Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/YouGenUK
Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cathydebenham
T: 01395 597879
E: cathy@yougen.co.uk

 
 


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: petertc on September 11, 2009, 01:13:55 PM
The only reason i can see for the lower rate @ 9p kwh, is  they think that every one has had a grant so should not be paid twice.

Surly they have all of the data required for having this rate for producers that have had a clear skies ( or what ever grant) and then the full FIT for those who had no grant and did things off of there own back.


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: wookey on September 11, 2009, 03:57:32 PM
You can make a reasonable case for a somewhat lower rate than the FIT, in that what people expected to get for installation over the last couple of years has been the 18-22p or so that suppliers have been offering for exports, and as you say a cash grant was available. Also the whole point of a better incentive scheme is that it is trying to attract people who wouldn't buy at the previous price-point. It's a bit like a shop putting things on sale: you can't ask for half your money back if you paid full price last week and this week it is 50% off.

It would be interesting to know what fraction of existing microgenerators will get a lower income from 9p/kWh generated than they did from 22p/kWh exported. I'd guess they might actually work out much the same (CeeBee - you have beeter records than most)?

But I agree that 9p +£2500 grant compared with 34.5p/kWh for 20 years seems unfair, and I'd certainly be pretty grumpy if I was in that situation (fortunately I seem to have been slightly too slow). Especially bearing in mind that as part of the transitional arrangements it is currently possible to get both the LCBP grant _and_ FITs next year.


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: CeeBee on September 12, 2009, 11:57:46 AM
It would be interesting to know what fraction of existing microgenerators will get a lower income from 9p/kWh generated than they did from 22p/kWh exported. I'd guess they might actually work out much the same (CeeBee - you have better records than most)?

My first year of having the export meter: 1966kWh generated, 1525kWh exported. I expect that's a higher proportion of export than most people. And the current rate from SSE-related companies is 28p/kWh exported (but nothing else, i.e. no ROC payments). So I'd be far worse off. But I wonder - if/when FITs arrive - will all companies really pay exactly the FIT rate? That wouldn't leave much competition between them, so I wouldn't be surprised if companies offer different rates beyond what FITs offer.

Quote
Especially bearing in mind that as part of the transitional arrangements it is currently possible to get both the LCBPO grant _and_ FITs next year.

Still a bit of a lottery though, isn't it, when the FITs haven't been decided on. Must get round to sending in my comments on FITs. There's a consultation meeting in London next Friday, but I don't think I'll manage to go - in any case, it sounds as though it's just for speakers to tell the audience precisely what is already in the consultation doc. I expect the audience to be 99% reps. from the electricity companies, MCS, etc. on a day out. Agenda item "External Speaker: The MCS and how it can play a role" doesn't inspire confidence.


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Ted on September 12, 2009, 10:29:58 PM
But I wonder - if/when FITs arrive - will all companies really pay exactly the FIT rate? That wouldn't leave much competition between them, so I wouldn't be surprised if companies offer different rates beyond what FITs offer.

That's what I'm hoping. In fact, I think anything less would be considered anti-competitive.


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Ian on September 13, 2009, 07:49:38 AM
An existing PV customer of a few years asked what he should do with regard to registering with Ofgem for ROCs now but ahead of the FITs scheme becoming firm. He has a few kW of PV panels that were installed without any kind of grant aid and he has not bothered to register for ROCs so far - so he is invisible to the authorities at the moment. He is grid tied but, against my advice he has not informed his DNO that he is doing so, yet. The PV simply offsets against his utility consumption. He does have an approved total generation meter installed.

I follow the discussions about FITs and ROCs from a distance so I have a vague idea of what is going on and just enough info to "be helpful" to customers - but I have an overriding distrust of "authorities" and them helping the little man and try to keep a good distance between me and any of their “schemes”.

So, I started to tell my enquiring customer about the position regarding grants, schemes and potential for FITs, etc and then I realised that I was starting to waffle and did not really know the answer to his question....

So, do any of the avid "follower of authorities and legal stuff" forum members here (Ted comes to mind) have a view on what a house owner with PV installed without grant aid and not currently registered with Ofgem should do ?

Should he register with Ofgem forthwith or should he hold back until all the fog around the FIT schemes clears ?

Regards,
Ian


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: CeeBee on September 13, 2009, 02:20:28 PM
So, do any of the avid "follower of authorities and legal stuff" forum members here (Ted comes to mind) have a view on what a house owner with PV installed without grant aid and not currently registered with Ofgem should do ?

Should he register with Ofgem forthwith or should he hold back until all the fog around the FIT schemes clears ?

In the end, you really have to read the consultation document on DECC's site.

It is clear what the proposals say at the moment (but of course they are only proposals - they might change, they might never be implemented).

They propose that generators which were operational at 15th July 2009 but which hadn't registered with OFGEM for ROCs before then will _not_ be eligible for FITs. Not sure where that leaves them. Still eligible for ROCs then? But they are trying to get small generators away from ROCs because of the admin.

Get your customer to read the consultation doc and respond to the questions if they don't like it. Then it might be changed. Could there be any _disadvantage_ to registering ASAP? All i can think of is that it might remove the possibility the person pretending that their existing system wa a 'new' one. I can't remember whether OFGEM care whether or not the DNO has been informed about the connection of generating equipment, but surely that's a legal requirement?


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Ted on September 13, 2009, 11:13:48 PM
I agree with CeeBee. Your customer is in danger of being in a position where he will get neither ROCs nor FITs. He certainly can't leave it and expect to register for FITs come next April (even if his system is MCS accredited - both panels and inverter and the installer) under the proposed terms he will not be eligible.

I would suggest he gets onside with his DNO and supplier immediately (this is a legal requirement) and starts the ROC registration process with OFGEM.


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: sjaglin on September 15, 2009, 10:56:37 AM
Very good comments on this feed, I would urge people to sign the petition and contact their MP using the form :

http://www.yougen.co.uk/equal/

Stef


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Ian on September 17, 2009, 08:17:35 PM
Thanks to CeeBee and Ted for the input. It is appreciated.

Regards,
Ian


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Simon on October 14, 2009, 04:16:48 PM
I recently attended 2 seminars on the FIT consultancy document which had the objective of giving a response. The seminar was attended by various people from the Welsh Assembly Government (I live in Pembrokeshire) so we were able to give feedback to the civil servants who are close to the action. Rather than detail the response, the following link has the document

http://www.ecocentre.org.uk/en/forum/11-fits-and-rocs/12-consultation-response

Addressing one or two of the issues raised in this thread, I believe that the "big six" electricity generators will have to pay exactly the same FIT for the total generation you achieve. The export tariff will have to be a minimum of 5p per kWh but presumably they can pay more if they wish. At the minimum rates stated in the consultation document, it is in essence a zero cost to the electricity companies as they are subject to LEVELISATION which spreads the cost over all companies and will be passed on to all consumers as higher unit tariffs.

The question of the unfair 9p rate for existing installations was discussed at length and most people thought it unfair. The civil servants indicated, however, that the Governments objective was to encourage NEW installations and that fairness was not part of the remit.

The low carbon housing grants are still available until April 2010 so the best strategy seems to be to install a system now with the grant (up to £2500) and get FITs from 1st April.

The consensus view at our seminar was that as the Government has to get its skates on to get everything in place by 1st April, the consultation document will probably be substantially adopted.

I, for one, am in the process of getting PV panels installed noting that you MUST use a MCS accredited installer if you want to get the grant and receive FITs. Consequently I shall have to get an accredited contractor which is a pity as solar PV is probably easier to install that solar HW which I did myself.

Simon



Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Nicedad on October 14, 2009, 05:36:41 PM
I have a small 690wp PV system which I installed myself. Both the items of kit (panels and inverter0 are non MCS compliant.

I'll thinking of having another small installation done using an MCS installer. Then power exported from both assemblies can receive FITs at this new higher rate. May have to hide connections from existing set up when the installers about.


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: StBarnabas on October 14, 2009, 06:10:06 PM
To my mind this MCS clause is unjust and anti-comeptitive. I wonder if there is some way to launch a legal challenge?   The StBC PV system would makre a good test case..


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Ted on October 14, 2009, 06:14:02 PM
I'll thinking of having another small installation done using an MCS installer. Then power exported from both assemblies can receive FITs at this new higher rate.

Well, not strictly it can't. If you have a mixed system (installed over several years and part of which precedes FITs) then you should have separate total generation meters for each system. You would get 9p for the existing system (if it is currently registered for ROCs or zero if it isn't) and the full rate only for the new system.


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Nicedad on October 14, 2009, 07:02:24 PM
As far as what registered its only the new system. Its just going to be very good at exporting if you understand what I mean.   


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Simon on October 14, 2009, 07:49:51 PM
To my mind this MCS clause is unjust and anti-comeptitive. I wonder if there is some way to launch a legal challenge?   The StBC PV system would makre a good test case..

Well you could try or just save your money. There is no way that the FITs system will start without some sort of accreditation. MCS exists therefore it is, to paraphrase Descart.

The following is from the Consultation Doc...

Small generators
3.63 For microgenerators and others where systems exist we intend to make
maximum use of third-party certification to minimise the administrative and
compliance burden. The Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) is an
independent certification scheme accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation
Service (UKAS), which assesses installer companies and products against robust
standards. It enables the provision of accurate forecasts of energy outputs to
generators as well as a level of consumer protection which meets the Office of
Fair Trading requirements. In addition, MCS gives assurances about the likely
quality, durability and performance of installations.
3.64 MCS, which is industry-led, is capable of providing independent assurance and
legitimacy to small-scale onsite energy installations. As such, it is the basis for
eligibility for grants under the Low Carbon Buildings Programme and CERT.
3.65 Given the establishment of the MCS as the only formalised industry standard in
the UK based on European and international standards, and that it has been used
as the basis of existing Government support programmes, it would be beneficial
to continue to use it for installations up to the capacity limit to which it applies
(currently 50kW). Therefore, we propose that the MCS or an equivalent scheme29
has a role to play in the accreditation and registration of installations where that
scheme applies.

and ...

Consumer protection
3.76 If FITs are to lead to greater participation in electricity generation by households,
communities and other non-expert generators, the systems, as well as being
simple, need to deliver confidence to generators that their rights in the market will
be protected and they will not be subject to exploitation.
3.77 We propose that the interests of generators – especially households – will be
protected by a range of arrangements. These include systems that are specific to
FITs and energy markets, as well as general competition and consumer
legislation.
3.78 In the case of installation, we propose using the MCS to provide consumers with
assurance about the quality of the product they are buying – that it will generate a
certain amount under certain conditions and be operational for a certain length of
time.

and ....

Auditing, assurance and enforcement
3.124 The organisations involved in the delivery and administration of FITs (the licensed
electricity suppliers, Ofgem, Elexon and, through the MCS, Gemserv) have
existing governance, audit and assurance procedures in place, some of which will
be suitable for use on FITs.
3.125 Therefore, as a general principle, where existing procedures exist, such as those
used for the RO, we will look to use these audit and assurance procedures.
We will work with the relevant organisations to ensure that the powers and
procedures in place provide the assurance we need to help achieve the following:
• Only eligible and accredited installations claim FITs;
• FITs installations only receive the tariff for which they are eligible;
• Information provided by generators is accurate and there are suitable checks in
place to prevent fraud; and
• Information provided by suppliers as part of the levelisation process is accurate
and timely.
3.126 The procedures in place to achieve these objectives are to include automated
checks, and ad hoc and scheduled audits and assessments.

Sorry about the formatting but it is copied from a PDF doc.

Simon


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Paulh_Boats on October 14, 2009, 08:46:39 PM
What a load of b******  and red tape.
All we need is to measure an export meter and pay for Kwh exported to the National Grid.
As for legitimate installs, inspector comes round once a year and checks for 1) flat things on the roof with wires 2) a pretty damn obvious DC to AC grid-tie inverter, there are only about 3 manufacturers.

I guarantee you I could fiddle a squeaky clean approved install with a diesel jenny and send the export meter spinning, only regular inspections will stop that....

Or - 4 car battery chargers in series. 48V into inverter...endless "solar power" back through export meter. 12p a unit in...36p a unit out. ££££

-Paul


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: StBarnabas on October 14, 2009, 09:18:53 PM
Paul
a few threads going on FIT's tonignt but I take grave exception  to most of the "government speak" as quoted by Simon. It seems to miss the mark by a long shot very badly argued and not credible. - Can't help but think this is going to be a disaster - hopefully I will be proved wrong..


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Ted on October 14, 2009, 09:34:51 PM
For anyone thinking of trying to subvert the 'system' I'm sure that physical inspections will be prioritised for any PV installations that are generating much more than 850 kWh/kWp per annum. I expect that benchmarks will also be set for wind turbines against wind speed profiles for different parts of the UK and anyone reporting higher than average figures will be inspected.


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Paulh_Boats on October 14, 2009, 09:44:23 PM
For anyone thinking of trying to subvert the 'system' I'm sure that physical inspections will be prioritised for any PV installations that are generating much more than 850 kWh/kWp per annum. I expect that benchmarks will also be set for wind turbines against wind speed profiles for different parts of the UK and anyone reporting higher than average figures will be inspected.

I totally agree Ted. I think we need house "MOTs" to check the solar panels, measure insulation levels, check wiring etc. and advise required work. At least when a property is sold, more often for renewables of course and older properties.

Interestingly there is no up-front red tape for a consumer of the well established car industry. Just sensible MOTs starting when things might go wrong.

-Paul



Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: martin on October 14, 2009, 09:50:04 PM
Where angels fear to tread.............
FITs are not going to be designed to work as anyone with any commonsense would expect that they should, nor will they be fair, nor will they encourage general uptake of renewables - they will not be designed to........ Like everything that this bent government has ever done, it is designed to benefit their "buddies in the trade" - any "consultations" will be a sop to appear to be "listening", when in fact they've already made up their minds, and pocketed the envelopes - the last thing on earth they want is for them to actually do what they say on the tin, that would stuff the deals they've already done with the nuclear and other allied concerns.... So in the meantime, a few more "insiders" will make a swift financial killing, a few people will pay over the odds for renewable systems, and they'll get on with real business - building nuclear reactors..... whistle
If you want to know the level of understanding of the government, I heard a member yesterday talking on the radio about how "microgeneration turbines on people's roofs would be well rewarded".......... despite the fact we all know the blo*dy things don't work, and Swindlesave has just gone down the pan.......... wacko
Me? - I'll be found embracing my battery bank crooning "mine........... all mine.........." ;)


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Rooster on October 14, 2009, 10:14:23 PM
I totally agree Ed. I think we need house "MOTs" to check the solar panels, measure insulation levels, check wiring etc. and advise required work. At least when a property is sold, more often for renewables of course and older properties.

Interestingly there is no up-front red tape for a consumer of the well established car industry. Just sensible MOTs starting when things might go wrong.

-Paul



Oooh ...... we could have things like Energy Performance Certificates and sustainability information ...... of course we would need a team of specially trained and certified inspectors ........ who would have to be a member of an accredited scheme ...... that could charge a hefty fee ........ then we could legislate so that everyone has to take part ...... lets see what could we call it ........ Oooh I know ...... how about a Home Information Pack ..... or HIP for short!!  ;)

 tumble:

You only need to look at what a pigs ear Hips are to see what the reality of such a scheme would be, simply another layer of expense and never actually achieves its potential aims.

I'm also thoroughly fed up with every person in the country being assumed (by government/legislation) to be ignorant, incompetent and an outright criminal unless you can prove yourself otherwise.

If you treat everyone like fraudulent criminals then I suspect the level of fraud increases. If you trust people I suspect trust increases.

I would personally find regular check-ups offensive and insulting.


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: wookey on October 14, 2009, 11:30:41 PM
_Today_ is the last day you get to tell the govt about the problem with relying on MCS, as opposed to whinging here which will have exactly zero effect. I just sent mine in.

Just answer these three if you haven't got time for the whole lot. (and ignore the whole section on ROCs unless you really have got time to burn - i.e start at Q35)
Q48 Do you agree with the proposed model for registration and accreditation of plant claiming
          FITs discussed in the  Accreditation, Registration and Connection section?
Q49. Do you agree with the principle that all generation should be metered to qualify
         for FITs? Do you foresee any issues with that approach?
Q59.   Do you agree with the proposed approach to auditing, assurance and
           enforcement? If not, what alternative approach do you propose and why?


Here's my (relevant) answers: (most of the others are just 'yes, that's fine' - these are the contentious bits)
----------------------------
Q46. Do you agree with our approach not to offer up-front capitalisation to
schemes as part of the FITs? If not, what alternative approach do you propose
and why?

Yes, I think this is a reasonable choice - but it does have implications:
If up-front grants are not offered then it becomes very important to accept non-MCS (DIY) installations for FITs. Currently the capital grants can cover much of the installation cost. Without them, and with an attractive FIT, DIY becomes an very cost-effective installation method (at least for domestic PV), and should not be discouraged.

I think either up-front capital grants and a lower FIT rate or no capital grants and a higher FIT rate can work.

Q48 Do you agree with the proposed model for registration and accreditation
of plant claiming FITs discussed in the Accreditation, Registration and
Connection section?

Absolutely not. This is the biggest flaw in the otherwise excellent proposal.

Given that generating stations are measured by output using approved meters there is nothing in the FIT scheme which requires any particular generating technology beyond the existing G83/1 requirements for grid connection. The MCS accredited list does nothing here except keep prices up and competition down. (There is plenty of PV equipment available which works very well but it not on the MCS accredited list for no good reason except that no-one has paid BRE to get it there. That is not a good reason for making systems built using such kit ineligible. The output is measured, so if the installed system is poor then it will produce low outputs, and receive correspondingly low payments.)

PV installations are fundamentally very simple - put a load of panels on the roof and connect them via an inverter to the grid, respecting G83/1 and part L. This is a straightforward task for the competent DIYer and doing so saves typically £3000 on a domestic install, even despite the VAT disadvantages (installers get 5%, DIYers don't) . Declaring that such a generating station somehow isn't valid and doesn't contribute to carbon emmissions reduction and renewable energy targets (which is what denying FITs amounts to) makes no sense at all. All micro-generation stations are valid and worthwhile - whoever put them there.

I cannot stress this enough - do not exclude non-MCS systems - it is illogical and will greatly reduce the number of systems installed: the difference between £8500 for 2kWp DIY and £13000 MCS-installer installed (a real, and typical, domestic example) is a major disincentive.

This would also create a problem with an installation that was initially DIY, but then extended by an MCS installer. That would make it 'half-eligible' under the consultation proposal, which seems nonsensical.

Q49. Do you agree with the principle that all generation should be metered to
qualify for FITs? Do you foresee any issues with that approach?

Yes. For the reasons given (cheap, easy, incentivises uptime efficiency and maintenance). It also important in the context of DIY/non-MCS installtions - because ultimately only the output (and legal compliance) matters.

Q51. Do you agree with the tariff levels, lifetimes and degression rates we
have set out for the chosen technologies? If not, what evidence do you have
for choosing alternatives?

No

Most are OK, except the 'Existing microgenerators' rate. The PV degression rate of 7% seems high - I don't believe it is dropping that fast. For retro-fit the tariff is about the minimum acceptable. It is sufficient to generate action in those who have funds available, but probably not for those that would need to borrow the capital. A slightly higher tariff would probaby be needed for that.

For Existing PV installations, the 9p tariff is exceedly stingy. People who were early adopters feel strongly that getting less that a third of people starting now is unfair. Last year for example SSE was offering 28p/kWh exported for PV. For a low-daytime-usage (i.e efficient) domestic property that represents a benefit of about £450/yr for a 2kWp install. The 9p FIT and 5p export tariff downgrades that income to under £300. Such people really shouldn't made worse off under the new scheme. Perhaps competition in export tariffs would help a little here, but fundamentally existing installations eserve a better deal otherwise people will be decommisioning and re-installing in order to get the new tariffs. The argument that they received a capital grant and thus deserve a lower tariff has some validity, but then people installing now (late 2009) also get this benefit under the transitional arrangements. And not _that_ low, anyway. That tariff may be acceptable for non-PV installations - I don't know.

Q59. Do you agree with the proposed approach to auditing, assurance and
enforcement? If not, what alternative approach do you propose and why?

Yes, broadly, apart from the MCS requirement for installations to be eligible, which would declare many smaller generating stations to be ineligible for no good reason. Removing this requirement may affect the best way of providing audit and fraud prevention to some minor degree, but the benefits are large and any changes needed small. 

Q62. Once an installation is defined, do you think further checks are required
to verify this? If so, what would these checks be?

A schematic and photo will be sufficient. Occaisional physical checks should be performed by way of fraud prevention.
-----------------------


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Ted on October 14, 2009, 11:43:09 PM
On the subject of MCS installations I'm being made aware of some situations where a company registers itself as an accredited MCS installer but they have none of their own employees working on installations. They instead just refer their customers to separate installers who are on their 'approved' list (which may mean they have been on a company-run installation course). The customer negotiates a price with and pays that third-party installer directly.

Somehow this method appears to pass through the current LCBP grant system unhindered - which I find a little surprising.

Anyone else heard of this approach?  If this is accepted as kosher then it may open up a course for Navitron to do the same?


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: jango on October 14, 2009, 11:51:52 PM
I work for many large sales out lets that are none mcs but i am so they sell a system with me down as the installer and supply of goods etc so they can claim the grant


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Simon on October 15, 2009, 07:51:04 AM
....

I guarantee you I could fiddle a squeaky clean approved install with a diesel jenny and send the export meter spinning, only regular inspections will stop that....

Or - 4 car battery chargers in series. 48V into inverter...endless "solar power" back through export meter. 12p a unit in...36p a unit out. ££££

-Paul


What a great idea! Here in the Land of the Midnight Sun (i.e West Wales) we seem to be able to produce solar energy 24 hrs per day.... and all at 36.5p +5p from my (prospective) PV panels. I reckon I will be able to move to South of France in about 12 months.

Seriously, we are going to have to live with MCS approval whether we like it or not. The consultation document doesn't really give much reason for thinking otherwise. My local MCS accredited installer wants £1300 for the "Design, installation and commssioning inc documentation and liaison with electricity company". AS far as I can see he would be charging a reasonable amount for the panels, inverters etc so his main profit is going to be the installation charge so he is not going to get very rich.

Of course I could do it for nothing but then I wouldn't get the FITs so we are back where we started. Incidentally, I have calculated that I will get a financial return of nearly 7.9% based on a commercial install and my current electricity unit charge of 10.8p. With the cost of electricity increasing over the years the return will look even better.

And please no flaming on the subject of payback periods and financial returns. While a small number of us enthusiasts may well try to save the world single-handed, the vast majority will look at it as an alternative investment. The consultation document says that the FITs are based on a return of between 5 and 8% so that the public WILL see it as a reasonable investment.

Simon

ps I am retired and about 65 years old so why on earth am I looking at a 25 year investment - must be crazy!


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Ivan on November 08, 2009, 06:57:52 AM
Ted,

We met the MCS admininstrators three or four weeks ago - I put the same [and other interesting] proposals to them - still waiting for an answer....(have chased them several times)


Title: Re: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......
Post by: Alan on November 08, 2009, 10:10:32 AM


Quote “ I guarantee you I could fiddle a squeaky clean approved install with a diesel jenny and send the export meter spinning “

Why pollute the planet with the exhaust of the diesel generator when any toridal transformer and two feet of wire would do a much better job.

Regards

Alan