Red Light Green Light, Solar arrays at WBC Options

[Simon Kirby]

The West Berks Lib Dems are all uppity because the council hasn't given the green-light to their plans for a revenue-generating solar-electric installation, so I thought we might muse on the pros and cons of the idea.

If I have it right the basic idea is this: The electricity company pays you at a feed-in tariff for every unit of electricity you generate. In addition to that for every unit of your own that you use that's a unit you don't have to buy from the electricity company so that's worth whatever the electricity company charges per unit, and for every unit you export to the grid the electricity company pay you 3p. So in principle if the tariff is generous enough you can make a profit by installing a photovoltaic solar array.

The sums look like this:

Installation Cost: £2.5k per kWp of installed capacity
Annual Generation: 750kWh per kWp of installed capacity
Feed-in Tariff: 31.4p per kWh (that the rate for up to 100kWp installed capacity)
Displaced units: 10p per kWh (assume 50% of units are exported)
Export Units: 3p per kWh
Annual Return: £284.25 per kWp of installed capacity, so that's 11.4% annual gross return
Installation Lifetime: 20 years
Effective return on investment: 6.4% per year

But this doesn't include the cost of decomissioning, any maintenance to the system, cost of insuring the installation, and any administration costs of the installation. It also doesn't include any standing charges, and it discounts self-consumed units at the feed-in contract supply rate.

So on the fact of it there is a return on the investment, but there are some potentially significant costs missing and they make all the difference. It's also a twenty year investment with no possibility of an early release and it's difficult to know how the cost of electricity will change over this period, though the feed-in tariff is index-linked and guaranteed so that helps.

As an investment you have to compare it with other 20-year locked in medium-risk investments, and who knows what they might yeild.

My conclusion then is that I don't know anything like enough to know whether a PV installation is a good investment, and I'd be really interested to know if the lib dems have those answers.

But there are some other issues. First, a PV installation won't save WBC a gramme of CO2, and don't let anyone tell you it does because that's double accounting. You sell the green benefit to the electricity company by taking the feed-in tariff because the electricity company is under a renewables-obligation to generate so many green units which it sells to the rest of us so that we can bask in their green goodness. That's not necessarily a problem, it just means a PV installation is just an investment, it has no environmental benefit whatsoever to WBC.

And the next issue then is what is WBC doing taking tax off me just to invest it in a 20 year investment of questionable return? this kills the idea in my mind.

So I suggest if WBC wants to be green then it just signs up to a 100% renewables tariff, and it lets me do what I want with my own money.

[Biker1]

Good post.
You've confirmed my doubts about investing in such a system.

I am also dubious about investing in a modern efficient gas heating boiler.
I doubt whether the savings in fuel ever meet the cost of replacement over the life of the boiler and would suggest that, despite the recommendations from the gas companies who are out to make a profit, one should not replace until the old installation fails irretrievably.

[Simon Kirby]

I neglected a couple of important points.

It's the 31.4p per kWh from the feed-in tariff that generates most of the income, so where does the money come from? The electricity company gets nothing for that money other than a fulfilment of its renewable obligation which is imposed by the government so the feed-in tariff gives with one hand what was taken away with another. When you look at it like this there's an obvious problem with local government investing in the scheme - they invest our money, and the interest it erns is our money too! That's not even a stealth tax, I'd say that was money laundering.

The other thing that I don't understand here is Dr. Royce Longton's involvement. I can see that he's a respected scientist, but as Chairman of Thames Valley Energy, a not for profit company which has local, national and EU funding to promote the development of renewable energy technology, he couldn't very well tell WBC that PV with the feed-in tariff is anything other than fantastic - though I note that TVE don't mention the feed-in tariff on their website so maybe I'm missing something.

[Richard Garvie]

What do you think about Wind Turbines Simon?

[Guest_NWNREADER_*]

What do you think about Wind Turbines Simon?

Wonderful 'political' question. Any answer opens the door to being told you are wrong/misinformed/anti-progress/too radical...... Often by someone who is also wrong/misinformed/anti-progress/too radical.

Ask a specific question.

[Iommi]

Wonderful 'political' question. Any answer opens the door to being told you are wrong/misinformed/anti-progress/too radical...... Often by someone who is also wrong/misinformed/anti-progress/too radical.

Presumably you are not misinformed? I can't help but think that most people with an opinion and post here are misinformed.

Are wind turbines a good idea for Newbury?

[Simon Kirby]

What do you think about Wind Turbines Simon?

Hi Richard. I absolutely love the technology, and although I don't live in sight of one I think they are a thing of beauty and actually enhance the landscape. I drive past Green Park regularly and every time I pass it I am enthralled by the turbine. I understand that big modern turbines generate very little noise from the blades and not much from the mechanical components either so they cause little environmental pollution, though the frequency of the blades can cause unpleasant strobing if you're in their shadow, and there is an issue with infrasound, but as long as they're not sited inappropriately close to housing there is no problem. My only concern with the technology is bird and bat strikes and although I'm told this is not significant I would like to be further convinced.

On the whole I think siting big turbines in built up areas is a silly public relations exercise because their efficiency is very sensitive to wind speed and turbulance, both of which are affected significantly by development.

From what I've seen of the figures there is a sound ecconomical case for very large turbines, and I think the idea of a community-funded installation is an excellent one, not least for the social benefit of people having a common interest and investment.

There is a role for smaller turbines if you're off-grid, but in general domestic-sized turbines are utterly pointless as their efficiency is poor and their cost is great, so in their lifetime they probably don't generate enough energy to offset their embodied energy.

But to answer the implied question: I believe the evidence that anthropogenic climate change is a reality that requires urgent action, but I don't buy snake oil.

As it is I am fascinated with PV, but I don't believe distributed micro-generation is the solution to our energy crisis, and I don't think many people have the first idea about the issues. I'm convinced of that what I hear people bang-on about zero carbon when they've sold their renewables obligations certificates.

What I am questioning in this specific case is the merit of WBC taking an interest-free loan from me without my agreement and investing it in a 20-year scheme which pays interest that I also fund from my taxes, and trying to steamroller it through without scrutiny by playing the green card, when on close examination it isn't green at all.

[Simon Kirby]

I neglected a couple of important points.

It's the 31.4p per kWh from the feed-in tariff that generates most of the income, so where does the money come from? The electricity company gets nothing for that money other than a fulfilment of its renewable obligation which is imposed by the government so the feed-in tariff gives with one hand what was taken away with another. When you look at it like this there's an obvious problem with local government investing in the scheme - they invest our money, and the interest it erns is our money too! That's not even a stealth tax, I'd say that was money laundering.

Actually I think the feed-in tariff is paid for by the electricity generating company rather than taxation as such because it gets fined if it doesn't present enough renewables obligations certificates, so the money for the scheme comes from a levy on the price of electricity. If you believe that electricity has to be more expensive to create parity with zero-carbon generation then that's fair, though I think the case still needs to be made that distributed micro-generation is the solution because there's also carbon-capture, fusion, fision, and large-scale renewables from wind and waves, and those technologies may not need the level of support provided by feed-in tariffs.

[Guest_NWNREADER_*]

Presumably you are not misinformed? I can't help but think that most people with an opinion and post here are misinformed.

Are wind turbines a good idea for Newbury?

I probably am misinformed about a lot of things, but my status was not my point.

According to the Energy Saving Trust, which seems to be a central source of information, domestic turbines in my bit of Newbury are not a good idea as the normal wind patterns make such an item uneconomical. I see no problem with wide-area use of turbines as a support provider, but they cannot be relied on sufficiently to provide (sufficient) power for them to ever be a total substitute. PV seems better, but that technology has a long way to go yet and early purchasers may find they are left behind.

All the time turbines etc users are a significant minority, and all the time the government of the day wants to encourage alternative energy sources there will be financial benefits for the few, funded by the many. If and when the balance is less favourable the cost will become excessive and the cost of the incentives will become prohibitive. Then they will doubtless be withdrawn.

However many of the current alternative sources are used none yet provide the total requirement, on demand, all the time. Wind is variable, sun/light has obvious restriction, hydro is not yet viable in most circumstances. Turbines etc are also inefficient mechanically and many costs - cash and environment - are not counted in normal 'must-have' calculations.

As for global warming, while doing daft things is to be discouraged a massive industry is developing almost without any measure of real value (except to the interested parties who make a fortune). Very little mention of Milankovitch Cycles, just reliance on data over recent times.

[JeffG]

I drive past Green Park regularly and every time I pass it I am enthralled by the turbine.

Where is this Green Park? The only one I know is in central London, next to Piccadilly. There is a turbine next to junction 11 on the M4 (by the old Courage brewery) - is that the one you mean?

[Simon Kirby]

Where is this Green Park? The only one I know is in central London, next to Piccadilly. There is a turbine next to junction 11 on the M4 (by the old Courage brewery) - is that the one you mean?

Yes. Sorry, is that not Green Park? Anyway, it's the one I see.

[Simon Kirby]

According to the Energy Saving Trust, which seems to be a central source of information, domestic turbines in my bit of Newbury are not a good idea as the normal wind patterns make such an item uneconomical. I see no problem with wide-area use of turbines as a support provider, but they cannot be relied on sufficiently to provide (sufficient) power for them to ever be a total substitute. PV seems better, but that technology has a long way to go yet and early purchasers may find they are left behind.

In what way do you see PV developing, and how do you see early investors being left behind? The feed-in tariff is guaranteed for 25 years and designed so that the investment is not worse than cost-neutral.

All the time turbines etc users are a significant minority, and all the time the government of the day wants to encourage alternative energy sources there will be financial benefits for the few, funded by the many. If and when the balance is less favourable the cost will become excessive and the cost of the incentives will become prohibitive. Then they will doubtless be withdrawn.

I'm not sure what point you're making, but the feed-in tariff, or at least the renewables obligations, are actually designd to increase the cost of electricity. The feed-in tariff is designed to make a PV installation cost-neutral and the cost of electricity is factored into the tariff so that the tariff by design is ramped down as the effective value of self-consumed units increases.

However many of the current alternative sources are used none yet provide the total requirement, on demand, all the time. Wind is variable, sun/light has obvious restriction, hydro is not yet viable in most circumstances. Turbines etc are also inefficient mechanically and many costs - cash and environment - are not counted in normal 'must-have' calculations.

Hydro works very well and is mature technology, it's just mostly there aren't the rivers in England with sufficient head and flow to make the investment in the civils economic. Old mill sites with the infrastructure already built are good candidates but very often the mill has been converted into residential. Scotland has some good hydro sites.

As for global warming, while doing daft things is to be discouraged a massive industry is developing almost without any measure of real value (except to the interested parties who make a fortune). Very little mention of Milankovitch Cycles, just reliance on data over recent times.

You're saying anthropogenic climate change isn't real and is a marketing conspiracy of the green technology vendors?

[Iommi]

Where is this Green Park? The only one I know is in central London, next to Piccadilly. There is a turbine next to junction 11 on the M4 (by the old Courage brewery) - is that the one you mean?

But if you don't look up something you don't know about, you never learn new things!

Quite

http://www.prupim.com/site/media/documents...udy_24_sept.pdf

You're saying anthropogenic climate change isn't real and is a marketing conspiracy of the green technology vendors?

I don't think he said that.

I understand that ACC is not proven, although likely. I think we have to be careful that we covet true energy saving measures and not false ones.

[dannyboy]

energy saving

Is the key.

[JeffG]

Quite

Very clever. I suppose it depends how many different search engines you use. It certainly didn't come up on Google. When I worked down there it was called Worton Grange.

[Iommi]

Very clever. I suppose it depends how many different search engines you use. It certainly didn't come up on Google. When I worked down there it was called Worton Grange.

I don't know why as it did for me.

http://www.google.com/search?q=greenpark+reading

It comes in about 7th down.

On topic: For me it is a paradox. We need to conserve energy, yet we are constantly dreaming ways to use it.

[Richard Garvie]

I am quite surprised that we are only having this debate now. In South Lincolnshire, there are a number of wind farms which people generally like as long as it's not on their door step. The reason I ask is that there needs to be a cross party debate as to which route WBC goes down with regards to green energy. Out of the solar / hydro / wind options available, I think wind turbines are the most viable for our area if put in the right place.

As part of my campaign preparation, I've already asked three wind energy companies to send me a list of suitable sites within West Berkshire. I think THAT information should be in the public domain, and then it should be a community debate as to whether WBC enters into discussions with the energy companies about next steps.

Hydro isn't going to generate much for us here in West Berkshire and Solar is expensive and not something that is going to work for the district on a large scale basis (I'm quite happy for somebody to send me evidence to the contrary). I'm not as educated as some on this subject, but we should be doing more not only to save energy, recycle more and waste less, but generation of clean energy should be something that is taken seriously and if it can generate funds for the District, I think that we should persue it as a priority.

[Biker1]

On topic: For me it is a paradox. We need to conserve energy, yet we are constantly dreaming ways to use it.

And we keep increasing our population - each new person = more energy need.