Renewable Energy Support Scheme. Not vary supportive

quentingargan

The next phase of the consultation process begins. Time to put pen to paper. Otherwise, microgeneration looks like getting kicked down the road once more and solar parks and wind farms are the only options considered.

Page 36:
In most EU Member States, no specific schemes to support micro-generation and self-consumption exist. In fact, in a number of Member States, distribution system operators do not even measure the volume of self-generated electricity. Nevertheless, even in these countries consumers may find that they can save money by generating their own electricity from small-scale RES-E installations (e.g., rooftop PVs), rather than buying it from the grid. Examples of this type of activity are happening across Ireland today, without subsidy or payment.

SO. If we're doing it already, why support it??

Page 37:
In terms of providing remuneration for micro-generation for citizens and community based projects, DCCAE assessed three approaches... (

[feed in tariff, net metering or market value approach. The latter is "most sustainable"].

From a policy standpoint, the EC views this approach as the most sustainable, however it requires market design reforms (e.g., ensuring that market prices reflect the true value of scarcity, consumers are on dynamic pricing tariffs, etc.).

In other words, you can't do this until everyone has smart meters?

Page 39:
The Government is committed to ensuring value for money for all consumers. Therefore it may not be appropriate to include support for micro-generation in the new RESS, particularly as the RESS will be funded via the PSO.

That should kick it all well down the road.

Very disappointing. :mad:

KCross

Playing devils advocate here.... I suppose there are 2 possibilities there:

1) The paper is factually incorrect. If it is do you have a point of view on where it is wrong?
2) The paper is correct, in which case the medium to large scale projects are the better value for money until smart metering is rolled out.


I think we'd all love to be able to put in Solar PV with battery backup and/or Feed In Tariff but we shouldn't expect it at the expense of poorer tax payers. It has to make financial sense at government level.


@quentingargan, do you have thoughts on why the paper is wrong which I think is what you are alluding to when you say the paper is disappointing in its views.

quentingargan

KCross wrote: »

Playing devils advocate here.... I suppose there are 2 possibilities there:

1) The paper is factually incorrect. If it is do you have a point of view on where it is wrong?
2) The paper is correct, in which case the medium to large scale projects are the better value for money until smart metering is rolled out.


I think we'd all love to be able to put in Solar PV with battery backup and/or Feed In Tariff but we shouldn't expect it at the expense of poorer tax payers. It has to make financial sense at government level.


@quentingargan, do you have thoughts on why the paper is wrong which I think is what you are alluding to when you say the paper is disappointing in its views.

Advocate away on behalf of Satan

The reality is that a PSO levy will subsidise the roll-out of renewables. Whether that should go to an Australian pension fund that owns solar parks, or to individual householders and businesses is something that isn't right or wrong, but I would take a view that it is better to pay a little more and foster buy-in within the community and keep the work and revenue local.

The LCOE for solar parks is put at about 12c per KwHr for solar PV. I would be delighted to be paid that much for surplus solar energy exported from my house's PV system. But this is not going to happen according to this document.

Commercial rooftop PV is priced at 16c. I don't think it is anything like that much.

There are some good things in the paper - encouraging community ownership for example. But it is disappointing that microgeneration is being kicked down the road while other forms of renewable look more likely to be fostered.

It IS a consultation process. We can all make submissions. I certainly will.

KCross

quentingargan wrote: »

The reality is that a PSO levy will subsidise the roll-out of renewables. Whether that should go to an Australian pension fund that owns solar parks, or to individual householders and businesses is something that isn't right or wrong, but I would take a view that it is better to pay a little more and foster buy-in within the community and keep the work and revenue local.

The paper seems a bit biased against domestic Solar PV by ruling it out.

If the economics of domestic Solar PV doesn't make as much sense as the large scale systems then fair enough but they shouldn't just rule it out. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing approach. They should allocate a pro rata amount to make it somewhat financially viable.

As you have mentioned it would support local jobs/installers so they would gain some of that investment back and get people thinking more about energy efficiency which would be a good thing.