Good work Gavin. I'm trying to encourage people to respond to the consultation too, these petitions need 100k signatures to be taken notice of don't they?
btw, here's the facebook link I'm pushing at the moment, if people could like and share it that'd be good. It's getting a decent response so far, but still only relatively small numbers.
I'm on the national green memes committee for making facebook / twitter memes to be shared via local green party groups, so will be working up infographics for release via that medium, which should get a few tens of thousands of people, if we can get shared on the national page then that goes up to hundreds of thousands.
and will be discussing with the GP national energy spokesperson soon as well.
Sod this, I didn't campaign for 15 years to get the FIT scheme in place just to let the tories destroy the entire industry at this stage. These proposals are so obviously half baked they should be getting slaughtered for them, just got to find the key messages to get out there about it, and come up with more sensible alternative proposals - the tories have had a habit of kite flying with ridiculous measures, then rowing back on them and ending up with something not quite so bad if they create too much of a backlash. They also have a tiny majority.
I'm on the national green memes committee for making facebook / twitter memes to be shared via local green party groups, so will be working up infographics for release via that medium, which should get a few tens of thousands of people, if we can get shared on the national page then that goes up to hundreds of thousands.
and will be discussing with the GP national energy spokesperson soon as well.
Sod this, I didn't campaign for 15 years to get the FIT scheme in place just to let the tories destroy the entire industry at this stage. These proposals are so obviously half baked they should be getting slaughtered for them, just got to find the key messages to get out there about it, and come up with more sensible alternative proposals - the tories have had a habit of kite flying with ridiculous measures, then rowing back on them and ending up with something not quite so bad if they create too much of a backlash. They also have a tiny majority.
S
SRE
George Monbiot at the Gruaniad is your man.
Is that tongue in cheek?
He wrote a polemic against FITs when the scheme first started, and afaik hasn't ever retracted it.
T
TedM
I've been going through the Impact Assessment trying to find holes in it.
There are minor, inexplicable differences between figures quoted from sources and the final calculation but nothing large enough to get excited about, and some balance out anyway. The IRR part I am not certain about.
The 1.63p for 0-10kW PV is based on this:
a 3 kWp system, cost £4950,
cost should be £1700 * 3 = £5100
with 20 year annual operating costs £63/year
should be £102/year (based on £34/kWp/year given in the IA)
Generation 2980 kWh per year
Should be 2970 kWh based on 3 kWp * 8760 * 11.3% load factor where 11.3% is based on SW England with an ideal south facing roof.
Export income (2980 * 50% * 4.85p * 20 years) £1340
This should be £1445 but that is an adjustment in the 'wrong' direction and pretty much balances the 'wrong' cost figure above.
Offset import saving (2980 * 47% * 20 years * 15.03p) £4210
47% here is obviously very arguable, but using a higher rate puts the value up anyway.
The tariff is supposed to bring an IRR of 4% for 2980 * 1.63p = £50/year or £1000 over 20 years
There are different ways of working this out so I am not sure on this but I make it £149.50/yr income needed over 20 years to give an IRR of 4% given the initial £4950 investment and allowing for the other annual income. This would put the tariff at 5.02p.
The IA excludes RPI (or CPI) from all calcs, and any allowance of falling generation from the panels over time.
There are minor, inexplicable differences between figures quoted from sources and the final calculation but nothing large enough to get excited about, and some balance out anyway. The IRR part I am not certain about.
The 1.63p for 0-10kW PV is based on this:
a 3 kWp system, cost £4950,
cost should be £1700 * 3 = £5100
with 20 year annual operating costs £63/year
should be £102/year (based on £34/kWp/year given in the IA)
Generation 2980 kWh per year
Should be 2970 kWh based on 3 kWp * 8760 * 11.3% load factor where 11.3% is based on SW England with an ideal south facing roof.
Export income (2980 * 50% * 4.85p * 20 years) £1340
This should be £1445 but that is an adjustment in the 'wrong' direction and pretty much balances the 'wrong' cost figure above.
Offset import saving (2980 * 47% * 20 years * 15.03p) £4210
47% here is obviously very arguable, but using a higher rate puts the value up anyway.
The tariff is supposed to bring an IRR of 4% for 2980 * 1.63p = £50/year or £1000 over 20 years
There are different ways of working this out so I am not sure on this but I make it £149.50/yr income needed over 20 years to give an IRR of 4% given the initial £4950 investment and allowing for the other annual income. This would put the tariff at 5.02p.
The IA excludes RPI (or CPI) from all calcs, and any allowance of falling generation from the panels over time.
well, I'm glad they've at least got the costs higher than we can achieve, and excluded the RPI uplift from their calcs or it'd have been even worse.
but 15.03p per kWh for offset savings is higher than I've come across from any customer, presumably this would be from bills that include the standing charge in the per kWh cost, but that's a small minority of bills. So I think they could be challenged on that assumption.
Also 47% offset seems very high to be an average, I'll see if I can dig out an average from the elios 4 you portal system we have - Andy (sibert) how many systems data have you got access to / could get access to do you think?
but 15.03p per kWh for offset savings is higher than I've come across from any customer, presumably this would be from bills that include the standing charge in the per kWh cost, but that's a small minority of bills. So I think they could be challenged on that assumption.
Also 47% offset seems very high to be an average, I'll see if I can dig out an average from the elios 4 you portal system we have - Andy (sibert) how many systems data have you got access to / could get access to do you think?
T
TedM
15.03p is worked out backwards from the £4210 savings. The predictions in the IA for future electricity prices are higher still.
sourced from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ECC-HMT_Supplementary_Appraisal_Guidance.xlsx
from Table 4.8 Central figures adjusted to a 2016 base.
The 47% is the balance of the figure of 53% claimed as actual export achieved from figures in the Parsons Brinckerhoff report from the survey they conducted. But DECC say:
sourced from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ECC-HMT_Supplementary_Appraisal_Guidance.xlsx
from Table 4.8 Central figures adjusted to a 2016 base.
The 47% is the balance of the figure of 53% claimed as actual export achieved from figures in the Parsons Brinckerhoff report from the survey they conducted. But DECC say:
T
TedM
The PB report says:
The PB data comes from a survey response of 11 (yes, eleven) homeowners in the 0-10kW range.
The RECC data just relates to capex costs.
The PB data comes from a survey response of 11 (yes, eleven) homeowners in the 0-10kW range.
The RECC data just relates to capex costs.
Kudos to them for putting in so much effort.
Gavin - I have visibility on about 30 or so E4U systems on my own profile, some of them on >10kWp installs though. As a rough guide, I've had a flick through all the applicable installations that I can, and averaged out the self-consumption data. It is a small sample but the average is approx 46%. Lowest is 15% and highest is 90%, it really does vary quite wildly depending on the nature of the install/premises.
T
TedM
Part of the nonsense in this is that the (sparse) data has been gathered from 0-10kWp systems and is then being applied to a 3kWp exemplar system to decide the tariff for the entire band.
It should be quite obvious that the export element in a domestic situation is going to be vastly different between 3kWp and 10kWp as well as other variances caused by the owner's circumstances.
But this variable has a huge effect on the calculation of the resulting tariff and consequential payback period. At 3kWp if self-consumption is halved then the tariff has to be trebled in order to obtain the same return. (DECC's stance on this is - well the only systems we want to encourage are these high self-consumption ones.)
The more solid evidence for export/self-consumption values that can be gathered and submitted in response to the consultation the better - at least where that export figure is above 53%. I guess very few people have this data though.
Also is there any evidence that can be put forward to show that the vast majority of domestic systems are no larger than 4kWp and that, therefore, anything in the 4-10kWp band should not be considered domestic and lumped in to the same band?
It should be quite obvious that the export element in a domestic situation is going to be vastly different between 3kWp and 10kWp as well as other variances caused by the owner's circumstances.
But this variable has a huge effect on the calculation of the resulting tariff and consequential payback period. At 3kWp if self-consumption is halved then the tariff has to be trebled in order to obtain the same return. (DECC's stance on this is - well the only systems we want to encourage are these high self-consumption ones.)
The more solid evidence for export/self-consumption values that can be gathered and submitted in response to the consultation the better - at least where that export figure is above 53%. I guess very few people have this data though.
Also is there any evidence that can be put forward to show that the vast majority of domestic systems are no larger than 4kWp and that, therefore, anything in the 4-10kWp band should not be considered domestic and lumped in to the same band?
Ted - all <16A/phase installations should be notified under G83, post installation, shouldn't they? Wouldn't Ofgem have this info, in terms of the number of registered installations installed under G83?
Btw, I have tasked 4-Noks with assessing and advising the average self-consumption data for all Elios4You units installed in the UK on sub-10kWp installations. It may take some time to obtain the data but I will advise once I have it. This will only be a sample of installations, and only those where the Elios is reporting data to the portal, but it will be a larger sample than DECC have used!
T
TedM
The G83 info sits with all the individual DNOs. I don't think it ever gets passed on to OFGEM.
All the stats for number of installs registered for FiTs is published by OFGEM in any case, so we know TIC and DNC for all those - but that doesn't help with export/self-consumption.
Hi Andy,
nice work, but a request - could that be split down more at all into different system size categories, also 3 phase and single phase?
I suspect there will be some bigger installs on high energy using houses that might swing the sample. Ideally we could do with data for each 0-2kWp, 2-4kWp, 4-6kWp, 6-8kWp, 8-10kWp so that we can assess not just the average but also the variability between the system sizes within that band.
er also, is there any way of them knowing which systems have a power reducer included?
I was just checking our systems and wondering why the self consumption seemed so high, and I just clicked that a lot would be the houses with power reducers.
I could set up a shared google docs spreadsheet to collate the data from different sources, though we'd need to be careful not to have doubled up with multiple inputs from the elios portal etc.
nice work, but a request - could that be split down more at all into different system size categories, also 3 phase and single phase?
I suspect there will be some bigger installs on high energy using houses that might swing the sample. Ideally we could do with data for each 0-2kWp, 2-4kWp, 4-6kWp, 6-8kWp, 8-10kWp so that we can assess not just the average but also the variability between the system sizes within that band.
er also, is there any way of them knowing which systems have a power reducer included?
I was just checking our systems and wondering why the self consumption seemed so high, and I just clicked that a lot would be the houses with power reducers.
I could set up a shared google docs spreadsheet to collate the data from different sources, though we'd need to be careful not to have doubled up with multiple inputs from the elios portal etc.
I've asked them to focus only on the 1phase E4U Gavin, so that will be 0-10kWp installs. No way to tell from the portal end whether a site has a PR or not, unfortunately. No easy way to break down into groups of different size installs either as the size of the array is a metric that is programmed into the individual E4U, it's not translated to the portal I don't think. If I know 4-Noks, they will take some time to get this data back to me, but I have tried to pull a couple of favours and get some short-cuts taken where possible, will update in a day or two hopefully.
No....the PRs are standalone by default, switched into E4U mode via the internal software (boost button/power off_on cycle)
we need to be a bit careful on this, as we don't want to present a dataset that contains a lot of systems with power reducers or we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot.
I can sort the data I have to split it into power-reducer and none power reducer units, but I don't seem to have anywhere near as many systems online as I expected. Possibly we have a load to be added.
I'll see if I can get an open google docs spreadsheet sorted out to collate the data from different people, it looks like we're going to be best getting the data from individual installers so they can determine which have power-reducers (or similar) and which don't.
---
I've just had a meeting with a PhD student from a research group from the energy research institute at Leeds Uni. Looks likely that we'd be able to work with that team in some capacity to add credibility to this data / produce a report on it.
I can sort the data I have to split it into power-reducer and none power reducer units, but I don't seem to have anywhere near as many systems online as I expected. Possibly we have a load to be added.
I'll see if I can get an open google docs spreadsheet sorted out to collate the data from different people, it looks like we're going to be best getting the data from individual installers so they can determine which have power-reducers (or similar) and which don't.
---
I've just had a meeting with a PhD student from a research group from the energy research institute at Leeds Uni. Looks likely that we'd be able to work with that team in some capacity to add credibility to this data / produce a report on it.
I think we need to work up an initial strategy to work out the key areas that we can challenge, and data required to challenge it.
I suspect that those of us at the sharp end have direct access to the sorts of datasets, costsings and spreadsheets that the trade bodies and campaign organisations don't, so that's probably where our initial focus as a small group of installers (and suppliers) should lie.
If we work up a small list of key targets, and how we're going to tackle them, then we can then liase with STA and others (I'll be working within the Green Party) to inform them of what we're doing so they can build that work into their strategy and build the wider campaign.
I think we're only going to change the policy if the industry can create a fairly united front on this, present credible arguments backed up by credible research data, and produce a credible alternative proposal to either achieve similar overall budget cost reductions, or make a clear case why not.
My personal bottom line target with this is the CFD strike price agreed for nuclear. I think a very strong case can be made that export payments should be guaranteed at the same level as has been agreed for nuclear, and if they want to reduce the budget, then that reduction should come from across the board via the cfd strike prices, not from the FIT scheme alone. I haven't run the figures yet, but I suspect that most generators would be better off with CFD pricing on exports and no FIT than they would with a 1.6p FIT and 4.6p export.
I'd also prefer a shorter FIT payment term with higher rates to the current situation. These proposals are so low that the admin costs paid to the operators are going to exceed the FIT payments for a lot of people.
I suspect that those of us at the sharp end have direct access to the sorts of datasets, costsings and spreadsheets that the trade bodies and campaign organisations don't, so that's probably where our initial focus as a small group of installers (and suppliers) should lie.
If we work up a small list of key targets, and how we're going to tackle them, then we can then liase with STA and others (I'll be working within the Green Party) to inform them of what we're doing so they can build that work into their strategy and build the wider campaign.
I think we're only going to change the policy if the industry can create a fairly united front on this, present credible arguments backed up by credible research data, and produce a credible alternative proposal to either achieve similar overall budget cost reductions, or make a clear case why not.
My personal bottom line target with this is the CFD strike price agreed for nuclear. I think a very strong case can be made that export payments should be guaranteed at the same level as has been agreed for nuclear, and if they want to reduce the budget, then that reduction should come from across the board via the cfd strike prices, not from the FIT scheme alone. I haven't run the figures yet, but I suspect that most generators would be better off with CFD pricing on exports and no FIT than they would with a 1.6p FIT and 4.6p export.
I'd also prefer a shorter FIT payment term with higher rates to the current situation. These proposals are so low that the admin costs paid to the operators are going to exceed the FIT payments for a lot of people.
Interesting research - good work. Here's another idea. Take a look at number 4 on this page:
https://ashadegreener.co.uk/myths/
Now, these guys cherry-pick the best 4kWp properties and never fit hot water gadgets (to my knowledge). So, the information from their 50 import/export meters might be useful.
I don't know if they would be able/happy to share their anonymised data? Their business model is totally screwed if this proposal is introduced so they might be prepared to co-operate?
https://ashadegreener.co.uk/myths/
Now, these guys cherry-pick the best 4kWp properties and never fit hot water gadgets (to my knowledge). So, the information from their 50 import/export meters might be useful.
I don't know if they would be able/happy to share their anonymised data? Their business model is totally screwed if this proposal is introduced so they might be prepared to co-operate?
T
TedM
I think this is very important. It is one thing to present evidence, it is another entirely to produce evidence that cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Shorter FiT payment term was proposed before wasn't it? Somewhere around 7yrs?
I'll provide whatever data/costs I can, I'll see if I can get details from our client base.
I'll also talk to a few contacts I have in the smart-metering field - might yield some useful info.
Where does encouraging self-consumption and less grid-reliance come into this though? Is that not a consideration?
I'll provide whatever data/costs I can, I'll see if I can get details from our client base.
I'll also talk to a few contacts I have in the smart-metering field - might yield some useful info.
Where does encouraging self-consumption and less grid-reliance come into this though? Is that not a consideration?
Interesting blog article from Chris Sutor. Certainly the more positive opinion I've heard about this:
All Eco Energy Ltd | The Blog | Latest Solar PV News
All Eco Energy Ltd | The Blog | Latest Solar PV News
at the moment the key thing is to gather data to refute the self consumption assumption made by PB when determining what FIT rate was required.
Beyond that, yes the market will be for those systems with the highest self consumption levels, but to maximise the market potential we need to either get the FIt raised, or increase the export rates to the CFD rates for nuclear, or aim for net metering and no fit.
I've requested a meeting with the Green Party's energy spokesperson when he's in town this weekend to set the ball rolling to get a commitment to put an EDM before parliament - aim would be to get that to be jointly drafted with the STA, then once that's in place get STA members and anyone else we can get to lobby MPs to sign the EDM.
May as well get something useful out of the otherwise largely wasted effort I put in to the Green party election campaign.
May as well get something useful out of the otherwise largely wasted effort I put in to the Green party election campaign.
There is one other major and fundamental flaw in the data on energy costs. DECC are using tariff comparison rates that roll in the standing charge. This is clearly nonsense. You need to look at the cost per unit without the standing charge. Standing charge is a constant and should be removed from the calculation.
Have been sitting in all afternoon on a meeting of the STA. One thing is completely clear. Arguing about the technicalities of the consultation at this stage is re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. We will, further down the line need to know exactly what the industry's policies asks are.
Everything at this stage has got to happen at a political level. Unless sufficient space can be created to actually have that debate and get movement, the scheme will close at the year end due to the rush in deployment. As soon as I have a list of tangible actions everyone can take to support this I will post them here.
Be aware that a broad alliance is being built to defend FITs for all technologies. Also be aware that even if there is a successful breakthrough, there will still be a significant cut in tariffs.
Everything at this stage has got to happen at a political level. Unless sufficient space can be created to actually have that debate and get movement, the scheme will close at the year end due to the rush in deployment. As soon as I have a list of tangible actions everyone can take to support this I will post them here.
Be aware that a broad alliance is being built to defend FITs for all technologies. Also be aware that even if there is a successful breakthrough, there will still be a significant cut in tariffs.
T
TedM
I think all those are 'givens' with the political climate we find ourselves in. DECC have plenty of experience in how to ignore consultations. Showing DECC that their data is rubbish is likely to invoke the 'close all FiTs by January' nuke response.
In any case, here is the evidence we were looking for and it comes from DECC themselves and their NEED project statistics:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ty_use_in_households_with_solar_PV_panels.pdf
It shows (at Table B.3) that installing PV (size unspecified but not over 4kW) showed a decrease in electricity consumption from 5200 kWh to 4300 kWh, but the control group also showed a drop from 5200 kWh to 4700 kWh over the same period. This indicates that only 400 kWh of the drop is attributable to the installation of PV. For a 4kWp system in the South of England this would be about 10% of generation with the balance, 90%, being exported. Even for an atypical 2kWp system it is still only 20%.
Table B.4 shows the same thing after applying various weightings - a 400kWh reduction for a PV household over and above the drop seen in the control group.
Sample size was 1,900 households across England and Wales.
In any case, here is the evidence we were looking for and it comes from DECC themselves and their NEED project statistics:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ty_use_in_households_with_solar_PV_panels.pdf
It shows (at Table B.3) that installing PV (size unspecified but not over 4kW) showed a decrease in electricity consumption from 5200 kWh to 4300 kWh, but the control group also showed a drop from 5200 kWh to 4700 kWh over the same period. This indicates that only 400 kWh of the drop is attributable to the installation of PV. For a 4kWp system in the South of England this would be about 10% of generation with the balance, 90%, being exported. Even for an atypical 2kWp system it is still only 20%.
Table B.4 shows the same thing after applying various weightings - a 400kWh reduction for a PV household over and above the drop seen in the control group.
Sample size was 1,900 households across England and Wales.
Last edited by a moderator:
T
TedM
Feeding that into my spreadsheet model of how the proposed FiTs is calculated puts the required tariff at 6.9p rather than 1.63p - assuming export is still paid on the 50% deemed basis.
Trust you used the DECC figure of 16.3p/kWh for electricity and the Parsons Brinkahoff hurdle rate of 6.3% and the given cost of £1700 per kW installed regardless of system size up to 50kW.
These are all arguments for later on. At the moment all that can be meaningfully said is the data and assumptions used are highly inaccurate and in several cases spurious.
These are all arguments for later on. At the moment all that can be meaningfully said is the data and assumptions used are highly inaccurate and in several cases spurious.
T
TedM
I've used the PV hurdle rate of 4% as per 5.14 of the IA document.
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
Advert
Thread Information
Advert
Thread statistics
Advert
TrueNAS JBOD Storage Server
-
-
Understanding TrueNAS JBOD Servers: A Comprehensive Guide- Started by Dan
- Replies: 8
-
