SEAI Report on Microgeneration

quentingargan

In 2009, ESB announced free buy&sell meters for the first 4,000 microgenerator installations. This coincided with the launch of a feed in tariff enabling householders to sell electricity from domestic wind turbines or PVs etc. to the grid for 9c per KwHr with a further 10c for the first 3,000 units per year exported for five years.

It would seem that the incentive hasn't produced the desired results. At the end of 2010, there were only 419 microgenerators connected to the grid, 357 wind, 55 solar PV, 4 micro-hydro and 3 micro-CHP. Connections seem to be happening at a rate of about 4 a week thoughout Ireland. That is hardly enough to keep one turbine manufacturer going, never mind the plethora that are out there.

You could blame the economic environment, but in reality, the payback time still seems to be too long for microgeneration to pay off.

Do we want a system like in the UK where there are enormous incentives, (subsidised by a slight increase in cost to other electricity consumers)?

And does microgeneration have a future as a viable source of clean electricity in Ireland, or is it just too expensive?

You can read the SEAI report here.

freddyuk

The cost of PV is falling rapidly as the market is flooded with equipment especially the lucrative UK market. In the UK the installation has to be completed by an MCS registered installer using MCS approved panels otherwise it will not qualify for the FIT payments.
In Ireland, AFAIK, the installation can be done DIY but it needs to be connected by an approved electrician and a completion certificate done and sent to the supplier (as long as they are giving the tariff). You will then get a free import /export meter.The cash reward is comparatively low but you do not need to pay an installer just an electrician (1/2 day) so that saves you euro 2000. At some point the cost of the system, which could provide most of the electrical needs, will be cheap enough to consider it worthwhile (grid parity).
What is that tipping point?
Wind energy has not seen the same cost reductions as the market is so small domestically.
The irradiation in West Cork is the same as South East UK and the Kwh produced there are quite stunning. Average 8-9 Kwh per day and it has been a pathetic summer. Weather in West Cork is cool and bright on good days so excellent for PV. No air pollution which also helps.
If you have a hot fill washing machine and dishwasher and gas cooking then thermal and PV are starting to look viable even here. With what you save on the materials and installation you could invest in a controller to use the excess PV generation for heating the DHW cylinder. The equipment should be a one off expense for most of us (baby boomers) as it will run for over 25 years+.
Space heating is still a problem in older properties which need a lot of draft proofing and insulation but a decent log/pellet boiler can get everything under control if you can get a supply of fuel at a decent cost. More modern properties will not need much extra space heating if they are up to spec.

ted1

Any form of energy that needs subsidies is not substantial and is a distraction. If it cannot succeed on its own merit it should be abandoned.

Do-more

ted1 wrote: »

Any form of energy that needs subsidies is not substantial and is a distraction. If it cannot succeed on its own merit it should be abandoned.

I don't fully agree with you there ted.

In the case of PV the fact that subsidies have been given, particularly in Germany and the UK, has stimulated development of better systems. Because companies have increased turnover and profits from subsidised sales they can devote more funds to research and development so with technological advances and economies of scale the capital costs of PV equipment is reducing quite rapidly.

I would agree that open ended subsidies are not a good idea and counter productive. But where a subsidy program is structured properly with reducing subsidies over time the manufacturers know that if they want to have a long term business they have to develop better and cheaper products for when the day the subsidies are no longer available.

Personally I think the UK scheme is too generous, but that's probably a different debate.

In the Irish context as we don't have a PV manufacturing business to stimulate I don't see the point in large subsidies being given, better that the likes of the UK and Germany spend the money to help drive development forward and we can gain the benefit in the future.

BryanF

do ye not think that micro generation (while it would be great & all to be 'off-grid') is much less effecient and cost effective, when compared to investing in a larger wind farm scheme?

Do-more

BryanF wrote: »

do ye not think that micro generation (while it would be great & all to be 'off-grid') is much less effecient and cost effective, when compared to investing in a larger wind farm scheme?

I can't find the report at the minute, but there was a Dutch study of small scale wind turbines which from what I recall concluded that none were economically viable.

I think there are only very limited circumstances where small scale wind turbines should be used i.e. if you live on the top of a mountain and a gird connection would involve running in a lot of poles at large expense.

There have been lots of promises on breakthroughs in Solar PV technology that would substantially reduce costs (various foils and the like) but I've yet to see any materialise.

Having said that I eagerly await the day when I can cover my roof in low cost PV panels and be energy independent.

quentingargan

ted1 wrote: »

Any form of energy that needs subsidies is not substantial and is a distraction. If it cannot succeed on its own merit it should be abandoned.

Isn't that the approach that Ireland adopted to large wind turbines twenty years ago, which is why, despite having the best wind resources in Europe, our wind farms are made using Danish and German turbines.

Ireland will never be a world leader with solar PV. Natrually it will always be more cost effective to use solar power in Spain, Italy & Greece for microgeneration. Even with the price of modules and inverters falling though, in this climate solar has a very long way to go before it can reach grid parity in this market.

But I would argue that given small subsidies, Ireland can lead the world as a producer of domestic wind turbines, and it wouldn't cost a fortune to facilitiate this. With its relatively high percentage of one-off houses, and high wind speeds, Ireland can be a testing ground for small to medium turbines, even if their eventual market is mainly off grid telecoms and other such applications.

ted1

Wind turbines need back up stations. Because wind turbines take priority the main plants are running at a reduced capacity and as such are running at a greatly reduced effiency. So wind turbines are actually causing more pollution. Remove all Subsidies. I've monitored several wind turbines and the output is nothing like the laundry made. In fact taking into account maintenance some actually lost money.
Chp is the best kind of micro generation.

quentingargan

ted1 wrote: »

Wind turbines need back up stations. Because wind turbines take priority the main plants are running at a reduced capacity

And therefore using a lot less fuel.

ted1 wrote: »

So wind turbines are actually causing more pollution.

How?

ted1 wrote: »

Chp is the best kind of micro generation.

CHP has a valuable contribution to make. Problem is that we already have enough capacity in CCGTs to meet our requirements, most of them located a long way from any heating requirements.

Our energy requirements in the future will come from a variety of sources, and it is a bit early to choose any single source to the exclusion of all others.

ted1

How?

by wind turbines taking prioirty over wind, the fossil fuel plants are made run at a reduced capacity, this reduced capacity greatly reduces the effiency of the plant thus giving off more carbon and CO2 per kWh. level the plain field and let the cheapest electricity dictate what is to be used.

CHP has a valuable contribution to make. Problem is that we already have enough capacity in CCGTs to meet our requirements, most of them located a long way from any heating requirements

office buildings/leisure centres/industry etc, should all have their own CHP. even if it is only used when their is a heating demand as in the winter/autumn.
it proves to be the best technology.

Do we want a system like in the UK where there are enormous incentives, (subsidised by a slight increase in cost to other electricity consumers)?

i don't believe in subsidies, it creates a false economy...

gman2k

ted1 wrote: »

i don't believe in subsidies, it creates a false economy...

Nuclear energy has been largely subsidized since inception, yet some still see it as the great hope of energy production in the future.

ted1

Nuclear had given the German and French companies a competitve edge since its inception 7.5c a kwh.

BryanF

if you say this:

ted1 wrote: »

i don't believe in subsidies, it creates a false economy...

about wind turbines how can you say this about:

ted1 wrote: »

Nuclear had given the German and French companies a competitve edge since its inception 7.5c a kwh.

ye subsidised competitive edge..

I think some of us could do with reading around the topic a little deeper:rolleyes:

quentingargan

ted1 wrote: »

Nuclear had given the German and French companies a competitve edge since its inception 7.5c a kwh.

Wind is subsidised to a diminishing degree by today's consumers.

Nuclear is subsidised by a growing burden on future generations.