Electric Ireland Stops Feed In Tariff for Microgenerators

Coles

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Power on your roof is worth roughly twice what the steam turbines are producing.

But yet they were paying less than half the consumer rate. Theft.

:mad:

Coles

Here's the EU resolution that has been adopted that makes support for Microgeneration an integral part of EU energy policy.

Link to Resolution 2012/2930(RSP)

Electric Ireland will do absolutely nothing to properly support Microgeneration, so the only way forward is to lobby the politicians immediately so that a proper scheme can be put in place after Electric Ireland's sham scheme ends.

gman2k

/\ Link: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/summary.do?id=1302967&t=e&l=en

quentingargan

gman2k wrote: »

Article in todays Indo by Paul Melia
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/esb-ends-scheme-for-homeowners-who-want-to-sell-power-30706655.html

A good piece also in today's Sunday Times, but not online. If we can get enough publicity for this issue and bring political pressure to bear, this situation could easily be reversed.

The situation before now was not great - there was no feed in tariff for industry, and only Electric Ireland was offering to buy power, with no long term assurance of ongoing income.

Although this latest move by Electric Ireland is a setback, it is perhaps the catalyst that was needed to bring about a change that was badly overdue.

Coles

quentingargan wrote: »

Although this latest move by Electric Ireland is a setback, it is perhaps the catalyst that was needed to bring about a change that was badly overdue.

I completely agree. Sometimes it's necessary for things to become a crisis in order to get the problem addressed. The situation as it was before now was completely unsustainable and unfair. Now it's so patently ridiculous that it has to be dealt with.

Passive House Plus/Construct Ireland would be a good place to get this issue highlighted.

Politically, I think Ministers like Simon Coveney (Agriculture) would be worth informing, but also Alan Kelly (Environment) and Paudie Coffey (Housing, Planning and Co-ordination of the Construction 2020 Strategy). On a local level people should inform their local councillors and TDs, both opposition and government. If nothing is introduced in January 2015 then it's going to be a long haul to get the issue addressed and the best chance will be to get the current opposition parties and independents to champion it.

Might be an idea to get a draft letter together if anyone out there is good with the auld words and stuff...?

Coles

Just to add...

Worth keeping track of all journalists and publications that show an interest in the issue and keeping them well informed as the issue evolves.

unkel

Surely it would be possible to force all suppliers to take on grid feeding with a tariff around what it costs them to generate electricity (I presume this is a low rate, probably well under 9c)

I'm normally not in favour of subsidies, but look what a hefty subsidy on PV panels did in the Netherlands, or even more extreme, in Belgium?

Plenty of houses there with 10-20 100w PV panels on them. Most of the investment still done by the home owner and a permanent reduction of CO2 / dependence on importing energy from abroad. Surely a win-win for everyone?

quentingargan wrote: »

A good piece also in today's Sunday Times, but not online.

Read it yesterday. With yourself in it. Picture and all

Coles

unkel wrote: »

Surely it would be possible to force all suppliers to take on grid feeding with a tariff around what it costs them to generate electricity (I presume this is a low rate, probably well under 9c)

Or how about having absolutely no subsidies whatsoever!

No subsidies for homeowners who install solar panels (there are none at the moment), and no subsidies for Electric Ireland/ESB who have a monopoly to take electricity from producers at any price they like, add 150% margin to it and sell it (at no cost to them) to neighbouring consumers.

The only fair way is to reimburse the producer for what the electricity is worth. Sure, a coal powered plant can produce electricity at 8-9c/unit, but it costs them another 12c to get it to the consumer.

Clean renewable MicroGeneration shouldn't have to subsidise Electric Ireland and the filthy coal/oil/methane power plants.

unkel

Coles wrote: »

Clean renewable MicroGeneration shouldn't have to subsidise Electric Ireland and the filthy coal/oil/methane power plants.

Maybe I wasn't very clear. I meant force the electricity suppliers to pay micro generators the same rate as they pay other suppliers / what it costs to produce it themselves

And then for the government to pay a subsidy to private individuals buying PV panels

This is what many houses in the Netherlands and Belgium look like these days thanks to subsidies on PV panels:



Obviously the subsidy will cost the state money. They do get VAT back and it will support local providers (and employment) like Quentin's company

Best of all is that the government gets private individuals to do most of the hard work of reducing CO2 / increase renewables that they have committed themselves to at a European / global level

And as the prices for panels (more global production) and installation (more local competition) comes down, the state can decrease the subsidy and after a few years remove it altogether.

Result: Permanently reduced CO2 / increased renewables
Cost: one off subsidy

quentingargan

unkel wrote: »

And as the prices for panels (more global production) and installation (more local competition) comes down, the state can decrease the subsidy and after a few years remove it altogether.

Result: Permanently reduced CO2 / increased renewables
Cost: one off subsidy

Yes - this has already happened thanks to subsidies in other countries. The UK initially had a feed in tariff of 45p for solar PV electricity, and arguably is now lumbered with long-term contracts to pay this price for electricity for the next 20 odd years. Spain likewise had a 45c feed in tariff with which it is now lumbered. Ireland sat on the sidelines for all this phase of development.

Thanks to the efforts made in these countries, the cost has come down to the point that many householders are happy enough to install systems with a 9c feed in tariff, which is pretty much the same cost paid wholesale for electricity from gas fired plants, except that it has to be delivered along the grid.

We are already late in playing our part in this technology. The least we can do is support it now that it has become feasible.

I think the argument is the one presented by Colm McCarthy - we have already built the gas fired stations, so we should use them to recoup the cost, rather than have green electricity and all our peaking stations from gas fired systems on stand-by.

gman2k

If the same effort was put into promoting micro generation as there is in the Bike to Work scheme, there would be a greater national interest and benefit.
I'm all for the Bike to Work scheme (used it myself) but the Co2 reduction element is farcical!

bluesteel

gman2k wrote: »

If the same effort was put into promoting micro generation as there is in the Bike to Work scheme, there would be a greater national interest and benefit.
I'm all for the Bike to Work scheme (used it myself) but the Co2 reduction element is farcical!

have you any calculations to make that comparison? You haven't factored in the improvements in health, traffic, enjoyment of course!

Seems to me like a bunch of hobbyists (and suppliers to same) are annoyed that their pet projects which produce piddling amounts of electricity (unpredictable of course) will no longer be able to sell at above the true economic value.

The Government efforts should be concentrated on larger scale wind projects - PV in Ireland will require much reduced panel costs.

The idea that by subsidising PV panels made in China we [tiny, bankrupt Ireland] can get things to a scale where they'll be suddenly economic is farcical. It's like Ireland spending a fortune on CO2 reduction when China's belching out vast amounts of CO2

quentingargan

bluesteel wrote: »

have you any calculations to make that comparison?

Seems to me like a bunch of hobbyists (and suppliers to same) are annoyed that their pet projects which produce piddling amounts of electricity (unpredictable of course) will no longer be able to sell at above the true economic value.

The Government efforts should be concentrated on larger scale wind projects - PV in Ireland will require much reduced panel costs.

The idea that by subsidising PV panels made in China we can get things to a scale where they'll be suddenly economic is farcical. It's like Ireland spending a fortune on CO2 reduction when China's belching out vast amounts of CO2

I don't think this needs to be subsidised to any great extent. I am all for wind farms, but the point is that solar electricity from households was being sold to the grid for roughly the same price, and this was abolished.

In fact, solar complements wind very nicely on the network - by and large when the wind speed is low, you have more light. Solar panels produce all of their power during the daytime when demand is generally higher. Wind produces 1/3rd of its power at night when we're asleep.

A grid based on increased levels of renewable energy requires a combination of mixed components (wind, hydro, solar, biomass, CHP), demand side management (such as electric cars charging off-peak, and heat pumps), and peaking plants such as gas that will run on standby, to be called in only when needed. It is the peaking part element that is effectively a subsidy because the hardware is lying idle, but if you want renewable energy, there isn't an alternative.

Coles

bluesteel wrote: »

have you any calculations to make that comparison? You haven't factored in the improvements in health, traffic, enjoyment of course!

Seems to me like a bunch of hobbyists (and suppliers to same) are annoyed that their pet projects which produce piddling amounts of electricity (unpredictable of course) will no longer be able to sell at above the true economic value.

How much do you pay for your electricity? Does that price reflect it's 'true economic value'? Perhaps you could explain what this term means to you? Thanks.

The Government efforts should be concentrated on larger scale wind projects - PV in Ireland will require much reduced panel costs.

Are you aware of the cost of solar panels? The price has collapsed in the last 2-3 years. Check it out.

The idea that by subsidising PV panels made in China we [tiny, bankrupt Ireland] can get things to a scale where they'll be suddenly economic is farcical.

Seriously. Read up on it.

It's like Ireland spending a fortune on CO2 reduction when China's belching out vast amounts of CO2

No. MicroGenerated Solar PV is becoming cost effective against coal/oil/methane regardless of the benefits of reducing our emissions of CO2. Seriously. Read up on it.

Coles

Great to see one of our MEPs making an effort to push MicroGeneration in the European Parliament. About time!

Lynn Boylan MEP wrote:

Given the important role microgeneration has in offering opportunities to households, SMEs and both rural and urban communities to produce their own energy with a focus on renewable and sustainable energy forms:
1. Does the Commission currently have any plans to produce a directive on microgeneration?
2. Can the Commission outline which funding streams or programmes are available for microgeneration?
3. What measures has the Commission taken and what measures does it plan to take to encourage the uptake of microgeneration in the EU?

recedite

quentingargan wrote: »

There are numerous devices on offer here and in the UK for about €250 that divert all surplus power to an immersion heater, so you use as much of your solar electricity as you can, and dump the surplus to an immersion. Arguably that is a lower maintenance and lower capital cost way of heating your water anyhow. And it meets part L.

But from an environmental point of view, these devices prevent useful green electricity from being exported to the grid, which is completely daft.

Technically, a typical Solar PV array would not allow a new house to meet Part L unless the surplus power was being exported. This is because of the SEAI stipulation that the electricity being produced "displaces" incoming mains electricity, and is therefore counted at the 2.5 multiplier rate. If it is only heating water, it is only displacing energy from the central heating system. So the array would have to be 2.5 times bigger, and there would not be enough space on the roof.
The most obvious con that would most likely happen is that the import/export meter would be installed at the time of first connection of the new house to the mains, just to satisfy the Part L. Then the diverter to the immersion would be retrofitted, to avoid the power being given away free to EI. So no power would ever be exported.

How much are these import/export meters going to cost anyway?

Also the EI website announcement does not actually say they intend to stop paying the 9c. They commit to paying it up until Dec 2015, and say they will charge for the meters. Buying it for 9c and selling it on to your next door neighbour for 18c seems a good business model for them. Why would they give it up?

In fairness to EI, they are entitled to a level playing field in the market. The regulator should force them to buy the power for more than 9c/unit, but equally all the other electricity providers should be bound by the same rules.

quentingargan

recedite wrote: »

Technically, a typical Solar PV array would not allow a new house to meet Part L unless the surplus power was being exported. This is because of the SEAI stipulation that the electricity being produced "displaces" incoming mains electricity, and is therefore counted at the 2.5 multiplier rate. If it is only heating water, it is only displacing energy from the central heating system. So the array would have to be 2.5 times bigger, and there would not be enough space on the roof.
The most obvious con that would most likely happen is that the import/export meter would be installed at the time of first connection of the new house to the mains, just to satisfy the Part L. Then the diverter to the immersion would be retrofitted, to avoid the power being given away free to EI. So no power would ever be exported.

How much are these import/export meters going to cost anyway?

Also the EI website announcement does not actually say they intend to stop paying the 9c. They commit to paying it up until Dec 2015, and say they will charge for the meters. Buying it for 9c and selling it on to your next door neighbour for 18c seems a good business model for them. Why would they give it up?

In fairness to EI, they are entitled to a level playing field in the market. The regulator should force them to buy the power for more than 9c/unit, but equally all the other electricity providers should be bound by the same rules.

I agree fully with the Part L comments. I have an instinctive dislike for these devices anyhow, for the reason you outline (reversing the 2.5:1 ratio). If you want to use one of these devices, then you would have to declare that you are using the immersion to supplement hot water. Click that button on the DEAP and watch what happens to your EPC/CPC :eek:

But I think that the refusal to pay for exported electricity will make these devices a commercial choice for householders - "export it for free, or use it to heat your water" - quite a few will opt for the latter.

The export meters are €340 usually. That's mad as well. You can buy a less smart, but straightforward and fully certified meter for €20 in the UK which could measure exports. You don't have to get one, especially if you aren't being paid for your power.

The 9c tariff has always been from year to year, renewed usually at this time of the year. They may or may not give it up sometime, but the main issue is that they aren't offering it to anyone after Jan 1st.

Coles

recedite wrote: »

In fairness to EI, they are entitled to a level playing field in the market. The regulator should force them to buy the power for more than 9c/unit, but equally all the other electricity providers should be bound by the same rules.

Absolutely. QuentinGargan has made this point. The CER (under direction from the Minister if necessary) should set the price relative to the consumer price. Up to now there has been no certainty because the rate was being set on a year to year basis.

That's no basis for developing an industry.

bluesteel

Coles wrote: »

How much do you pay for your electricity? Does that price reflect it's 'true economic value'? Perhaps you could explain what this term means to you? Thanks.

Are you aware of the cost of solar panels? The price has collapsed in the last 2-3 years. Check it out.



No. MicroGenerated Solar PV is becoming cost effective against coal/oil/methane regardless of the benefits of reducing our emissions of CO2. Seriously. Read up on it.

the variability in the reliability of the supply is a significant negative factor. Colm McCarthy has written on this.
1 MW of reliable, predictable electricity is more useful than sporadic supply Can you admit this? Then you've the admin overhead of dealing with you lads.

The cost is falling anyway - if it becomes economic in the future on its own great, the notion that Irish taxes/electricity rates should be used to help speed up the economies of scale is silly. A real Eamon Ryan idea. If PV were truly economic in the Irish climate we'd have large arrays like in Spain. We don't because the prices haven't collapsed by as much as you're making out.


as someone else points out :

Buying it for 9c and selling it on to your next door neighbour for 18c seems a good business model for them. Why would they give it up?

why do you think they can't be arsed dealing with small suppliers - why don't they pay 1c even? It'd be a bargain for them surely. Why don't Airtricity get in on the cheap energy source?

Micro generation is great for small holders to reduce their own supply and so reduce CO2 - messing with the grid? not so much.

You describe it as theft earlier - because they were paying less than consumer rate? Get real. Is it theft to turn down a supplier?

I'm not an electrical engineer BTW, but clearly you're not either.

BTW Feel free to link to impartial studies of the competitiveness of PV.

quentingargan

bluesteel wrote: »

BTW Feel free to link to impartial studies of the competitiveness of PV.

Like this?

Coles

bluesteel wrote: »

the variability in the reliability of the supply is a significant negative factor. Colm McCarthy has written on this.
1 MW of reliable, predictable electricity is more useful than sporadic supply Can you admit this?

MicroGeneration is as predictable as demand. Think about that for a second. If I have a solar array on my house the probability of my exporting electricity to the grid is entirely linked to my rather random use of electricity within the home. It is just as random as the way I choose to turn on the tumble dryer (4kW) or have a shower on a Saturday (7.5kW). If you want predictable MicroGeneration then why don't you also want predictable consumption? Should I have an exact time slot to turn on my tumble dryer? Get it?

Then you've the admin overhead of dealing with you lads.

It's just metering. The costs are the same for all consumers.

The cost is falling anyway - if it becomes economic in the future on its own great, the notion that Irish taxes/electricity rates should be used to help speed up the economies of scale is silly.

I'm not in favour of subsidies. I particularly don't like the idea of subsidising Electric Ireland.

If PV were truly economic in the Irish climate we'd have large arrays like in Spain. We don't because the prices haven't collapsed by as much as you're making out.

There is no Solar PV REFIT in Ireland. A unique situation in all of Europe as far as I'm aware. There is also very little small scale hydroelectricity in Ireland but that's not because of a shortage of rain. The rest of Europe (and the World) has developed their renewable energy industries while we have exported our engineers.

why do you think they can't be arsed dealing with small suppliers - why don't they pay 1c even? It'd be a bargain for them surely.

After the end of January they will take the electricity from new producers and pay NOTHING for it. How is that for a bargain?

Why don't Airtricity get in on the cheap energy source?

They will.

Micro generation is great for small holders to reduce their own supply and so reduce CO2 - messing with the grid? not so much.

Why do you think that? Did you read up on this topic like I suggested?

You describe it as theft earlier - because they were paying less than consumer rate? Get real. Is it theft to turn down a supplier?

You seem to have missed your own point about 'real economic value'?

I'm not an electrical engineer BTW, but clearly you're not either.

Oh?

Do you feel you won't understand this topic until you qualify as an electrical engineer? Seriously. Read up on it.

murphaph

Just to address the point about why we don't have large PV arrays as you find in Spain...well, they have vast tracts of desert or near desert, very poor soil anyway and little rainfall. This sort of land is more or less useless for anything other than PV.

In Ireland we can more or less use ALL our land for some sort of agriculture. Even our poor land can support sheep etc. as it gets the rain required for vegetation to grow and food exports are big business in Ireland, so a land owner would likely not beat the return he can get from directly using the land for agriculture.

That to me is the main advantage of micro (roof mounted) generation with PV, you are not wasting land to accommodate PV arrays, you slap them on existing roofs, upon which the sun's energy will fall anyway and be wasted otherwise. Land is perhaps the scarcest natural resource of all...you cannot find more of it. It is (more or less) finite so much like the nonsense that is biodiesel from rapeseed and ethanol from sugar cane, covering the land in energy crops, including the PV "crop" is madness (unless in the case of PV it's in a desert). We need land to produce food.

bluesteel

Coles wrote: »

MicroGeneration is as predictable as demand. Think about that for a second. If I have a solar array on my house the probability of my exporting electricity to the grid is entirely linked to my rather random use of electricity within the home. It is just as random as the way I choose to turn on the tumble dryer (4kW) or have a shower on a Saturday (7.5kW). If you want predictable MicroGeneration then why don't you also want predictable consumption? Should I have an exact time slot to turn on my tumble dryer? Get it?

this is garbage and your ill-informed yet patronising tone doesn't do you any credit. (but you're obviously a vested interest - where as I have no dog in the fight).

Demand in aggregate is more predictable as the number of people turning on their tumble dryer averages out. PV in neighbouring houses will start/stop producing at the same time - so the aggregate production is random and unpredictable as the Irish weather. Hence the need for expensive back up - such as Gas Turbines. I shouldn't need to explain this.

Economic Value - actually this was alluded to but perhaps a bit too subtle for your understanding. Something that produces energy at random and hence needs an expensive backup that is redundant for a portion of time is clearly less economically valuable that something predictable and consistent.

If you are going to calculate the economic value of this supposedly free energy you must factor in the backup cost.

SpaceTime

Is Irish sunshine exposure not a bit of a factor in PV uptake?

We've a LOT of days of 100% cloud cover or very close to it.

bluesteel

quentingargan wrote: »

Like this?

is that really the best source? A general interest piece on Bloomberg - rather than say a rigorous IEEE article.

It doesn't even focus on micro generation and the issues associated with it - let alone in cloudy Ireland. I previously accepted that there are places where Large Scale PV is valid. In a cloudy Norther European country - it can't be taken as given

on closer reading I'm not even sure the article serves your cause.

After years of struggling against cheap natural gas prices and variable subsidies, solar electricity is on track to be as cheap or cheaper than average electricity-bill prices in 47 U.S. states -- in 2016, according to a Deutsche Bank report published this week. That’s assuming the U.S. maintains its 30 percent tax credit on system costs, which is set to expire that same year.

Even if the tax credit drops to 10 percent, solar will soon reach price parity with conventional electricity in well over half the nation: 36 states.

I'm just guessing but they'd be the Southern States?

galwaytt

gman2k wrote: »

If the same effort was put into promoting micro generation as there is in the Bike to Work scheme, there would be a greater national interest and benefit.
I'm all for the Bike to Work scheme (used it myself) but the Co2 reduction element is farcical!

True, but even the Bike to Work scheme isn't available to everyone...."terms & conditions apply" and all that.............

bluesteel

Coles wrote: »

I'm not in favour of subsidies. I particularly don't like the idea of subsidising Electric Ireland.
There is no Solar PV REFIT in Ireland. A unique situation in all of Europe as far as I'm aware. There is also very little small scale hydroelectricity in Ireland but that's not because of a shortage of rain. The rest of Europe (and the World) has developed their renewable energy industries while we have exported our engineers.

After the end of January they will take the electricity from new producers and pay NOTHING for it. How is that for a bargain?

Again you're missing the point. I didn't say it was a bargain.

The point that they are ignoring this supposed bargain - and don't think it worth their while to buy your power at even 2c says a lot about its value.

bluesteel

Coles wrote: »

Why do you think that? Did you read up on this topic like I suggested?

again withe zeal of the convert. Feel free to link to the rigorous peer reviewed sources [specifically on micro generation in Irish climate or similar] on which you base your opinions. Otherwise you might as well be telling me that homeopathy is great and vaccines cause autism. There's a lot of tendentious "articles" on that too.

quentingargan

bluesteel wrote: »

is that really the best source? A general interest piece on Bloomberg - rather than say a rigorous IEEE article.

It doesn't even focus on micro generation and the issues associated with it - let alone in cloudy Ireland. I previously accepted that there are places where Large Scale PV is valid. In a cloudy Norther European country - it can't be taken as given

on closer reading I'm not even sure the article serves your cause.

You keep looking for peer reviewed data, and yes - it probably doesn't exist. But here is the situation - you had a scheme under which microgenerators could export to the grid and get paid 9c. That is within 1c of the price paid for gas fired power from Whitegate, or wind. Wind in particular is less valuable because it is both variable and produces 1/3rd of its output at night.

You also have new buildings where solar PV is the lowest cap-ex way of meeting the building code.

So regardless of its feasibility, you had people willing to sell clean solar power from their rooftops (not interfering with agricultural land or imposing aesthetic issues and not requiring any grid reinforcement) for 9c.

The pilot scheme operated by a Semi-State company closed down before a replacement scheme was introduced or even considered. Regardless of profitability, there are properties wanting to sell to the grid at that price.

Does it matter if we do or don't have peer reviewed data on its viability?

The Bloomberg piece is about trends. Yes - you only have grid parity in some states, but the trend on PV costs is downwards, and energy prices upwards. Bloomberg writes the Tier listing the determines what solar projects get funded (their so-called Bloomberg Tier One listing). They know a thing or two about the subject. Although tarnished, the financial sector has drifted away from backing losers.

Coles

bluesteel wrote: »

this is garbage and your ill-informed yet patronising tone doesn't do you any credit. (but you're obviously a vested interest - where as I have no dog in the fight).

Demand in aggregate is more predictable as the number of people turning on their tumble dryer averages out. PV in neighbouring houses will start/stop producing at the same time - so the aggregate production is random and unpredictable as the Irish weather. Hence the need for expensive back up - such as Gas Turbines. I shouldn't need to explain this.

You have obviously expanded a lot of energy in waging war against wind farms, which is fine, but MicroGeneration is not wind farms. It is a very broad range of technologies, none of which are in synch with each other in the way that a single energy source is. If you are trying to make an argument that small scale energy sources shouldn't be utilised because they might reduce the production of electricity from a large methane power station then you are on your own with that one.

I think you would be best to step back form this debate and actually consider what it is about. I have no interest in wasting my time educating you when aren't prepared to make any effort yourself.

Google 'microgeneration' and 'distributed generation' and start there.