Solar PV Feed In Tariffs

A question about : Solar PV Feed In Tariffs

As virtually every other thread on the subject of Solar PV goes off topic and ends up with a discussion about whether the feed in tariffs are a good or bad idea, or even if solar PV (or renewables in general) are a good or bad idea, I have started this new thread.

Maybe then all other threads can be left to those people who have Solar PV, or are thinking of installing Solar PV, and need advice / help from like minded people.

So, who wants to start the for/against argument?

Best answers:

• I'm gonna start off with 'bad'.
  My argument is that - for the current prices of panels and inverters, it makes sense to 'net meter', and get sane returns.
  Current hardware cost is ~5K for a 4kW system.
  Net metering - where you simply run the meter backwards - is lots simpler, and avoids any need for certification on the panels, as you can't do strange things with running power from the mains to the solar meter, for extra incentives.
  Assuming 12p/kWh, a 4kW panel would return 3600ish units a year - 430 quid.
  Payback in 12 years is not unreasonable.
  This would also (where the grid is suitable) allow those with roofs suitable for >4kW to install panels there.
  This completely eliminates some of the costs of MCS certification. (no new meter, no requirement to log data, ...)
  I would also make it legal to DIY install systems, for example on shed roofs, or your own house.
  With the upcoming smart meter install that should all be capable of this (but may not be) a solar install could be as simple as buying a shed with a 1kW solar roof from Focus, and plugging it in.
• depends in what way you mean good or bad
  for the country? - your gonna get the easy to spot anti-PV (I havent got, I can't get, etc etc) people screaming how bad it is, and on the other side some people screaming how fantastic it is.
  all I'm sure plucking facts and obscure figures why they are SO right
  for the individual who's fitted them on the pre reduced FiT - do we really need to discuss that?
  for the individual who's considering fitting them - IMHO still worth serious consideration
  the fact is the Government is committed to spreading this technology in this country, other countries have used this system to encourage people to invest.
  personally, I've invested in a system. I'm gonna get a great return on my investment. I've got a reduced electric bill. On a good day I can wash,dishwash, make cups of tea, hoover for free. At the moment I'm producing a constant 2.6kW. and I will be a net exporter of electric to the Grid over the year. I'm very happy. So good
• Roger, you'd get my vote. Sounds like a sound plan.
  If the energy companies had any issues regarding admin, etc, then they would do well to swallow them, since they are trying hard to present some 'green credentials' whether deserved or not.
  Simple, clean and easy. Great idea.
  Mart.
• remember the days you could get all sorts of wonderful (illegal) gadgets to make your meter go backwards
  wonder how long before that started again if that was the system in place lol
• wait til some chinese guy hacks it lol
• In a European Union (?) where it is now illegal to do more than change the plug on a kitchen appliance, I just cannot see a DIY option being allowed.
  Anyone got any cable in the "old" colours?
• ..........but the concept of "the expert person" is very European , as is the pressure to do away with the UK "unsafe" three pin plug in favour of a Euro design?
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europlug
• Just been reading an article in New Scientist (page 3 17/12/2011 I'm a bit behind). A couple of things struck me that might help to explain the worldwide roll out of FITs schemes regarding renewables and CO2 reduction.
  Statements from Durban, S Africa
  1. "By delaying the imposition of new emissions targets until 2020, the policy wonks in Durban all but condemned the world to decades of rapid warming. Over the next decade, global carbon dioxide emissions could rise by as much as 50%. that will make it vastly more difficult and expensive to curb global warming: UNEP says it would almost double the pace of emissions decline required thereafter. Many believe that it will be almost impossible to stay within the 2deg target."
  2. "We may, in truth, have to forget about the world's governments and the folly of their short-sighted and parochial ways, and instead seek technological fixes. If going green can be made profitable, it will become a no-brainer. Self-interest may serve the greater good where national interest does not."
  If I'm reading the article and those two selected paragraphs, fairly. Then spending now, to more quickly develop financially viable technology for the future is not only wise, but a necessity as time is simply running out, and we can't wait for natural market forces to do the work. Fixing this in the future is only ever going to cost us more, so we need to speed things up a little now!
  Mart.
• 'Developing solar technology' is a red-herring from a FIT point of view.
  The key technology is pretty much in one, and only one area.
  Development of more efficient and cost-effectively manufactured solar cells.
  Everything else is essentially make-work, if your aim is to make solar cheaper.
  Encouraging people to fit solar panels on their roofs does nothing at all to develop solar cells.
  Funding factories to manufacture solar panels from imported cells does nothing.
  Funding factories to produce solar cells in the UK, using existing methods does little.
  The only real development that can be done to meaningfully drop the cost of solar is to invest in fundamental research, which is going to be expensive to commercialise.
  The US recently spent a _large_ amount on this - IIRC totalling a bilion dollars, and some of the companies went under based on the crashing world price of solar-pv
• What Roger said, plus the faux 'job creation' aspect.
  Cut the fits, then, as we have seen, many of the newly created jobs simply disappear (obviously). Yet the fit carries on for another 25 years.
  Probably the worst job subsidy scheme going, in terms of jobs created per pound spent. It no doubt created some ephemeral jobs in year 1 of the 25 year scheme, but few in year 2 to 25.
  Not sure what type of green industry we are trying to create, as is sometimes heard. The industry is already there, mainly in China. I'm not sure if anyone seriously thinks we're going to start making solar cells do they, and installations will soon have 'made in Britasin' stamped on them? At the margin, some companies (no doubt with other government grants) may start up in the UK to assemble solar panels from Chinese solar cells, but is it the aspiration of most these days for the UK to become an assembly factory for Chinese goods?
  As to the puerile argument that anyone who dares raise some salient facts about solar power being unable to have them, then I can confirm that is a false assertion.
• @grahamc2003
  good job your posts are always brimming with salient facts, hey
  ps thanks for subsidising my FiT
• sharp panels are made in the uk not just assembled....
• it was replying to grahamc2003 who said we didnt have any `made in britain` solar panels when in fact we do....