Solar UK market; Is it dead? What’s your opinion?

[PVcompare]

The government has decided to cut subsidies to householders installing rooftop solar panels by 65% just days after agreeing to move swiftly to a low-carbon energy future at the climate change conference in Paris.

An impact assessment study by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) admits the move could wipe out up to 18,700 of the industry’s 32,000 jobs. So, the market is dead? Or like in Germany , Italy and Spain after FiT there will be spot only for companies prepared that will cut out the latest market share remained? 

 

[ProDave]

Personally I think the only viable way I will get solar PV on my new house now will be to buy the cheapest system I can find (probably on ebay) and install it myself with no FIT (and no premium for using an MCS registered installer)

And because there will be no payment for export, that system will have to incorporate measures to ensure near 100% self usage, such as a dump controller for hot water heating, and probably some battery storage as well.

So in the 2 years or so before my house is ready, I am hoping some decent battery storage options will appear.

So yes I think the number of people installing PV will drop drastically, and the "public" will only start to fit it when it becomes readily available for DIY install.

 

[shanky887614]

Personally I think the only viable way I will get solar PV on my new house now will be to buy the cheapest system I can find (probably on ebay) and install it myself with no FIT (and no premium for using an MCS registered installer)

And because there will be no payment for export, that system will have to incorporate measures to ensure near 100% self usage, such as a dump controller for hot water heating, and probably some battery storage as well.

So in the 2 years or so before my house is ready, I am hoping some decent battery storage options will appear.

So yes I think the number of people installing PV will drop drastically, and the "public" will only start to fit it when it becomes readily available for DIY install.

i read a couple years ago there was a guy that ran his house of a submarine battery that he kept topped up with solar panels.

this seems like quite a clever move as he still has the grid connection to the property incase he has any issues with it

 

[Essex1]

As anything it is down to supply and demand. The more people that install SP the less the feed in rate will be. In some states in the USA the solar feed in rate is the same as conventional energy production rates. So the market will oh age a time limit. When interest rates rise and feed in prices fall to get to a place when it would be better to leave your money in the bank - then the market is dead. 

 

[PVcompare]

As anything it is down to supply and demand. The more people that install SP the less the feed in rate will be. In some states in the USA the solar feed in rate is the same as conventional energy production rates. So the market will oh age a time limit. When interest rates rise and feed in prices fall to get to a place when it would be better to leave your money in the bank - then the market is dead. 

In my experience, is not so much the decline of incentives to curb installations rather adverse situations created by higher bank interest rates, rather than bureaucratic overload that make the installation of a photovoltaic system hard to like a nuclear plant! Like in Italy, more or less same FiT value of Germany , more “sun" but more bureaucratic and more high bank rates = less installation than in Germany

 

[binky]

I'm still getting some enquries, but unless it's a dead easy installation the payback is going over 10 years which is a psychological barrier to spending that much money. Only hope is a rise in enrgy prices to stimulate interest.

 

[Apache]

Fundamentally the price the electricity companies buy this green fuel should be at the electrical wholesale price. If the sums don't add up then PV dies for everyone other than those with sandals and composting toilets.

The future is nuclear, not people putting panels on their roof to generate most electricity in the daytime on a sunny day, when we need the least. That is the intrinsic flaw IMO.

 

[binky]

and the cost of nuclear versus green tech is......that's if they ever get around to building anything.

What is paid out to Pv is now less than you pay for electric, so the real way forward is energy saving, which is what it should be. The FiT rates were too high, to get the industry moving, but the installation costs are dropped so much as a result, that the energy saving has become quite achievable, could have done with degrading the FiT faster over the year rather than slashing it and cutting its knees off. Overall the cheapest form of electric generation is fossil fuels, but the Levelised Cost of Energy ie cost per kWh does not factor in environmental damage. How much do you cost a human life cut short by lung disease????

Reckon more hydro dam schemes is the real way forward, green and given the rainfall in the UK pretty reliable., If we have a drought, that's when the PV will be working best.

 

[Essex1]

And ironically the drought will be blamed on global warming. 

Thus the circle continues. 

 

[binky]

alas we will get more rain, but if we do get a drought, it'll be baaad. :^O

 

[PVcompare]

Not quantify the environmental damage and public health product from the use of nuclear power, gas, oil and coal for the production of elettric energy, is like selling defaultive condoms in Africa. It’s cheap, but there are consequences. Photovoltaics today would be cheaper without any "doping" if we were to pay the collateral damage.

 

[binky]

precisely, but that is someone elses bill

 

[Apache]

Not quantify the environmental damage and public health product from the use of nuclear power, gas, oil and coal for the production of elettric energy, is like selling defaultive condoms in Africa. It’s cheap, but there are consequences. Photovoltaics today would be cheaper without any "doping" if we were to pay the collateral damage.

Has anyone looked at the 'cost' of these little PV set ups on people's roofs? How much CO2 used to make, transport, install and maintain the panels for the expected lifetime and output?

It will be a shame when lots of the cheap Chinese panels start failing in a couple of years.

You two are the wrong people to discuss this with as you have a clearly vested interest. You both know that nuclear produces very little waste and hardly any CO2. Creates jobs. Produces power constantly. If PV can compete on an even playing field then it will. I personally think the panels are very unsightly - not quite as bad as all the wind turbines.

 

[apprentice87]

Coal not dole.....

john....

 

[binky]

the carbon footprint of panels is well documeted.

the panels are manufactured under stringent quality controls, mostly overseen by TuV of Germany, thye won't be failing anytime soon.

Nuclear is great bar the dangerous waste, only 3000 years until it is safe. One of the issues with nuclear is that we are using it to generate materials for bombs, There is an alternative to what we currently use, which is apprently far cheaper, but is no good for making weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

 

[apprentice87]

You know, Years ago someone told me that all this nuclear power station stuff was a lot of Radishes. They said it was only being done to make the stuff for making atom bombs, nothing to do with electricity. Makes sense when you think that the people that did the most atom bomb tests, were the french. Guess who got the most nuclear power....

Concorde was obviously designed as a thinly veiled long range very fast bomber too.....

john..

 

[binky]

It's exactly why we have nuclear power stations, the leccy was a bonus....

Not so sure about Concorde, that was more to with the prestige of the fastest passenger jet. You have to kind of remeber the UK was strong in engineering and going through the post war optimistic period we have sadly lost

 

[John Nordstrom]

It always seems like we make decisions that economically make sense for a few who are in the business of making a profit. These reactors look promising as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

 

[binky]

2 interesting articles today:-

1/ in the independent, EDF have decided that building Hinkley point isn't achievable in 9 years, and is likely to be disastorous for the company, so that's nuclear foobard for the foreseeable future and over £1 billion wasted, leaving a 7% hole in generation, plus the other 3 nuclear plants planned so that's probably 21% of generation capacity foobard. Nuclear just isn't economically viable.

2/ The Fit cap has been exceeded already, in one category within 15mins apparently. This is the biggest firking-up of the industry, even with the much lower tariffs many feasible schemes are scuppered before they even start, and it's the bigger schemes that are self sufficient, near as damn it. Needless to say the small, unviable sizes of PV  wind and hydro systems still have quotas left. Needless to say, many jobs are also scuppered. It will be interesting to see if the schemes blocked by the cap ever happen now.

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/system/files/docs/2016/02/fit_deployment_caps_that_have_been_reached_in_tariff_period_1_february_8_march_31_2016_as_of_09022016.pdf

I predict energy shortages soonish, and / or a jump in energy prices to customers.

 

[Apache]

How close would we be to having power security if all the FIT money that we squandered was put into nuclear power? Do you have a figure for what the government has paid out in these top ups?