Cost of Living Crisis

[strichener]

3 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

If only there was a way for the public's dependence on the energy suppliers to be reduced? 

Oh, wait, there is - solar panels! Pity that would reduce the amount bought from the big companies though.  I mean that couldn't be the reason why the Tories cut the solar panel incentives by a whopping 65% in 2016, just after the Paris climate agreement, could it? 

I wonder if they'll reintroduce anything similar? I 

(No, you're right, I don't, really.) 

The reason that the subsidies were cut was due to the decrease in costs of PV.  If solar is such a good idea then it should be able to be installed with zero subsidy.

[Duries Air Freshener]

The truth is, solar just isn't cost effective and cannot be relied on.

You're never going to generate significant amounts in this country with it.

[Salt n Vinegar]

1 hour ago, strichener said:

The reason that the subsidies were cut was due to the decrease in costs of PV.  If solar is such a good idea then it should be able to be installed with zero subsidy.

I'll need to check what the up to date position is, as I've not looked for a few years, but there is generally a long history of governments encouraging and discouraging consumer choices by means of the tax system. When we first looked at solar, the repayment period was (IIRC) about 15 years which we felt was too long. I reckon it'll be shorter by now.  If the government wanted faster progress towards our climate targets, it shouldn't be beyond their wit to give more encouragement.  Hardly a budget goes by without discouraging smoking by taxes/duties or encouraging business investment and R&D by tax breaks.  I understand that they have agreed to remove vat on insulation, pv and air source for 5 years (if that survives the changes in government.) However I understand that there are no longer feed in tariff payments for new installations. If that's correct does that mean that "surplus" pv electricity is given away to the electricity generator for nothing?  Seems weird. 

Did I hear somewhere that rather than a feed in tariff there's some other payment? As I said, more research required... 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Salt n Vinegar

[Left Back]

6 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

The truth is, solar just isn't cost effective and cannot be relied on.

You're never going to generate significant amounts in this country with it.

Yes you are.  A typical solar installation will generate roughly 60-70% of the amount of electricity a household uses.  About 40% of that will be consumed by the house and the other 60% exported back to the grid.

It isn’t as cost effective now with SEG as it was with FIT but you can save significant money on your bills with it, even before the current crisis.

The hardware is not actually that expensive but could be further brought down in price by buying at large scale.  What jacks the price up are rip off installers, which seems to be the norm across the renewables sector.  It’s viewed as a vehicle to move subsidies from the governments pockets, to the installers.

Solar wouldn’t solve the problem but  is certainly something that can help.

[Left Back]

18 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

I'll need to check what the up to date position is, as I've not looked for a few years, but there is generally a long history of governments encouraging and discouraging consumer choices by means of the tax system. When we first looked at solar, the repayment period was (IIRC) about 15 years which we felt was too long. I reckon it'll be shorter by now.  If the government wanted faster progress towards our climate targets, it shouldn't be beyond their wit to give more encouragement.  Hardly a budget goes by without discouraging smoking by taxes/duties or encouraging business investment and R&D by tax breaks.  I understand that they have agreed to remove vat on insulation, pv and air source for 5 years (if that survives the changes in government.) However I understand that there are no longer feed in tariff payments for new installations. If that's correct does that mean that "surplus" pv electricity is given away to the electricity generator for nothing?  Seems weird. 

No.  You get a SEG payment (around the 5p per kWH you export, your supplier sets the rate but you can switch SEG suppliers without switching electricity providers).  Not as generous as FIT was though.

ETA a caveat to SEG payments.  You have to have a smart meter to get them.  The hysterical part is only certain suppliers on some of their tariffs use the smart meter to read them.  Most of the time you have to take a photo of your export reading and email ut to them to get your payment so smart as f**k really.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Left Back

[sophia]

8 hours ago, strichener said:

The reason that the subsidies were cut was due to the decrease in costs of PV.  If solar is such a good idea then it should be able to be installed with zero subsidy.

In the context of electrical generation, what a curious statement to make.

[strichener]

2 hours ago, sophia said:

In the context of electrical generation, what a curious statement to make.

Not really.  Subsidies is one of the reasons why bills are rising.  It is not possible to be providing generators 50p+ per kWh and expect prices to stay in the low double digits, certainly not when you are switching off other sources of electricity.

We don't expect to get subsidies when we need to replace a roof on a house or upgrade radiators in a house.  Why should we expect to receive them for installation of energy converting equipment?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The reason that the subsidies were cut was due to the decrease in costs of PV.  If solar is such a good idea then it should be able to be installed with zero subsidy.

The other issue with solar panels is the environmental externalities associated with their production.

[Bairnardo]

Since being installed, my solar panel have generated 980kW. My house has used 650kW. Of that 650, thanks to the battery I have only imported around 120kW from the grid.

So my solar panels put my grid usage at less than 20%. I have also exported 360 to the grid so that drives the cost of that 20% down further.

Once I sort the tariff, in winter when solar is less I will charge my battery overnight at a reduced rate using Octopus go or Agile.

Theres absolutely no way it's not worth it. I haven't done my sums for myself. I watched a few folk on YouTube doing them for comparable systems. The prices are pushing payback times down to single figures years. What I dont buy from the grid in the next year alone will probably run into 4 figures the way we are going.

[Clown Job]

19 minutes ago, Snafu said:

I take it we should be expecting a swathe of redundancies as later in the year as businesses either shut down temporarily or for good as they too struggle to pay their energy bills, perfectly timed for just before Christmas?

 

Yes and I also suspect the number of deaths and suicides will skyrocket as a result 

 

[Salt n Vinegar]

There's just been a pensioner bloke on LBC saying that he's going to be paying out a third of his income in energy bills. There's a lot of criticism that the Tory leadership can't really grasp the implications of the energy price spike because it won't significantly affect their lifestyle. Here's a wee idea. 

How about saying to the Cabinet that for the next two years, they have to send a cheque for a third of their annual income from all sources direct to the energy companies?

Seems fair enough. 

[Granny Danger]

12 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

There's just been a pensioner bloke on LBC saying that he's going to be paying out a third of his income in energy bills. There's a lot of criticism that the Tory leadership can't really grasp the implications of the energy price spike because it won't significantly affect their lifestyle. Here's a wee idea. 

How about saying to the Cabinet that for the next two years, they have to send a cheque for a third of their annual income from all sources direct to the energy companies?

Seems fair enough. 

The Tories aren’t interested in people like that, they can elect plenty of MPs whilst ignoring such people.  Sadly Labour is offering no real alternative.

[Left Back]

38 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Since being installed, my solar panel have generated 980kW. My house has used 650kW. Of that 650, thanks to the battery I have only imported around 120kW from the grid.

So my solar panels put my grid usage at less than 20%. I have also exported 360 to the grid so that drives the cost of that 20% down further.

Once I sort the tariff, in winter when solar is less I will charge my battery overnight at a reduced rate using Octopus go or Agile.

Theres absolutely no way it's not worth it. I haven't done my sums for myself. I watched a few folk on YouTube doing them for comparable systems. The prices are pushing payback times down to single figures years. What I dont buy from the grid in the next year alone will probably run into 4 figures the way we are going.

Solar yes.  You can't really make a compelling case for batteries (until now).  They help reduce import but would actually drive up the payback period compared to solar alone. If you do the sums of batteries on their own the payback period is usually 15+ years but the batteries are only guaranteed for 10.  Of course the cost of electricity now will have dropped that figure on payback period hugely.

I've done the maths several times over the last few years and batteries never stacked up.  I reckoned the cost of them would have to half to make them financially viable.  The cost of electricity doubling has achieved the same thing.   Now wishing I'd installed them last year.

[Bairnardo]

12 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Solar yes.  You can't really make a compelling case for batteries (until now).  They help reduce import but would actually drive up the payback period compared to solar alone. If you do the sums of batteries on their own the payback period is usually 15+ years but the batteries are only guaranteed for 10.  Of course the cost of electricity now will have dropped that figure on payback period hugely.

I've done the maths several times over the last few years and batteries never stacked up.  I reckoned the cost of them would have to half to make them financially viable.  The cost of electricity doubling has achieved the same thing.   Now wishing I'd installed them last year.

Aye. With the FIT going, emphasis shifted from exporting as much as you can to importing as little as you can. For me now, instead of getting 40p for 8kW generated, I'm storing that and using it instead of importing 8kW at a few quid. 

 

At the current energy prices, even panels with no battery, or a battery on its own making use of agile tariffs can be justified, you just need to be a bit disciplined about when you do the heavy load stuff like washings etc

[sophia]

3 hours ago, strichener said:

Not really.  Subsidies is one of the reasons why bills are rising.  It is not possible to be providing generators 50p+ per kWh and expect prices to stay in the low double digits, certainly not when you are switching off other sources of electricity.

We don't expect to get subsidies when we need to replace a roof on a house or upgrade radiators in a house.  Why should we expect to receive them for installation of energy converting equipment?

You do realise that electrical generation is predicated upon subsidies or other routes to market don't you?

Hinckley Point, for example, has guaranteed income.

Your roof and radiator analogy is not relevant.

[Soapy FFC]

3 hours ago, strichener said:

Not really.  Subsidies is one of the reasons why bills are rising.  It is not possible to be providing generators 50p+ per kWh and expect prices to stay in the low double digits, certainly not when you are switching off other sources of electricity.

We don't expect to get subsidies when we need to replace a roof on a house or upgrade radiators in a house.  Why should we expect to receive them for installation of energy converting equipment?

Just looking at some of the information that is out there about the new Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. The station once built will generate 3260MW, and the projected build cost is currently about £25 billion. That makes a cost of slightly over £7500 per KW of generation capacity.

Looking at solar panels on the Energy Saving Trust website, it gives guidance values of £6500 for the installation of solar panels capable of producing 4KW, or about £1600 per KW.

So the cost of building nuclear is over 4 times the cost of installing solar, never mind the ongoing running costs which no doubt will be far higher with nuclear. I know that solar is not a complete solution, but wouldn’t it be better for the govt to help pay for the mass installation of solar panels and reduce the need for expensive power stations. Nuclear power stations are not built for free. Huge subsidies will be given to the companies that build and run them, so why is it wrong to give subsidies for micro generating stations in the form of home solar panels?

[strichener]

1 hour ago, Soapy FFC said:

Just looking at some of the information that is out there about the new Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. The station once built will generate 3260MW, and the projected build cost is currently about £25 billion. That makes a cost of slightly over £7500 per KW of generation capacity.

Looking at solar panels on the Energy Saving Trust website, it gives guidance values of £6500 for the installation of solar panels capable of producing 4KW, or about £1600 per KW.

So the cost of building nuclear is over 4 times the cost of installing solar, never mind the ongoing running costs which no doubt will be far higher with nuclear. I know that solar is not a complete solution, but wouldn’t it be better for the govt to help pay for the mass installation of solar panels and reduce the need for expensive power stations. Nuclear power stations are not built for free. Huge subsidies will be given to the companies that build and run them, so why is it wrong to give subsidies for micro generating stations in the form of home solar panels?

Take this primary school arithmetic somewhere else.

2 hours ago, sophia said:

You do realise that electrical generation is predicated upon subsidies or other routes to market don't you?

Hinckley Point, for example, has guaranteed income.

Your roof and radiator analogy is not relevant.

Electrical generation subsidies are inter-sector.  That is why PV should be able to be installed without government subsidy.  Hinckley will get the minimum guaranteed price from the consumer, not the government.  Based on the current CfD and market prices, there would be no subsidy at all.

[sophia]

23 minutes ago, strichener said:

Take this primary school arithmetic somewhere else.

Electrical generation subsidies are inter-sector.  That is why PV should be able to be installed without government subsidy.  Hinckley will get the minimum guaranteed price from the consumer, not the government.  Based on the current CfD and market prices, there would be no subsidy at all.

Repeatium repliudum absurdum 

Just admit you got it wrong and that Hinckley doesn't get a subsidy for painting and decorating 

[G51]

2 hours ago, Soapy FFC said:

Just looking at some of the information that is out there about the new Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. The station once built will generate 3260MW, and the projected build cost is currently about £25 billion. That makes a cost of slightly over £7500 per KW of generation capacity.

Looking at solar panels on the Energy Saving Trust website, it gives guidance values of £6500 for the installation of solar panels capable of producing 4KW, or about £1600 per KW.

So the cost of building nuclear is over 4 times the cost of installing solar, never mind the ongoing running costs which no doubt will be far higher with nuclear. I know that solar is not a complete solution, but wouldn’t it be better for the govt to help pay for the mass installation of solar panels and reduce the need for expensive power stations. Nuclear power stations are not built for free. Huge subsidies will be given to the companies that build and run them, so why is it wrong to give subsidies for micro generating stations in the form of home solar panels?

what happens for the half of the year when the sun is set though

[Duries Air Freshener]

37 minutes ago, Snafu said:

Does anyone have one of these old houses with a chimney?

Maybe going back to coal and or burning wood in a fireplace this winter if you can might be the way to go for some.

 

That's what we're thinking.

Hence chopping up old furniture over the past few days, which were about to go to the dump.