Is there anything stirring re. a Feed In Tariff in Ireland

TomOnBoard

I'm sorry if this has been answered already, but if it has, I can't find the answer.

Since the 9 cent feed in tariff that Electric Ireland had as part of its micro generation pilot project was dropped a while back, has there been any attempt at a Government level to introduce a proper FIT here?

If so, when is one likely to be put in place? If not, is there a real economic case for home generation using PV systems or similar at all, unless they are sized to exactly match consumption at all times? (I'm focusing on the economic argument here, rather than the green/environmental case)

Or, has Government decided that home generation using PV is not economically sustainable, and that all electricity should be produced only from large scale installations such as wind farms, power stations etc?

Gumbo

Nope.

And from internal sources (my missus works in EI), they are starting to talk about batteries and solar space heating but aiming it at new builds at present.

She came home asking loads of questions about the cost, size etc (of my PV array of course )

*pinch of salt of course, as you know in most places, the staff are usually the last to hear anything.

rolion

@Tom

Not gonna happen... design and build your own PV farm to cover your needs first and adjust if possible to the generation cycle (time of day,months of the year).

Have fun...

unkel

No sign of FIT. And there is no economic argument in favour of installing PV unfortunately.

Unless you genuinely can use almost all of your production (and I don't mean charging up your car, that you could charge at cheap night rates, heating your water that you could do for the fraction of the cost with a gas boiler, etc.)

It might make sense if you are mining crypto currencies. Or if you grow many, many pots of a certain type of plant that needs a lot of heating :pac:

quentingargan

You have until next Friday 10th to make a submission to the consultation process for a FIT. See HERE.

Personally I will be making a submission seeking more focus on rooftop and less on solar parks. I will also be suggesting an export payment rather than a production payment to avoid the ludicrous situation in the UK where the PSO levy pays enormous sums to households who export no electricity at all.

KCross

quentingargan wrote: »

I will also be suggesting an export payment rather than a production payment to avoid the ludicrous situation in the UK where the PSO levy pays enormous sums to households who export no electricity at all.

Surely the way a FiT works is, you have an import/export meter so any electricity that is surplus is exported and logged by the meter and you get paid for that?

Isn't that how the pilot FiT worked in this country a few years ago?

Is the UK different somehow? Can you explain?

quentingargan

KCross wrote: »

Surely the way a FiT works is, you have an import/export meter so any electricity that is surplus is exported and logged by the meter and you get paid for that?

Isn't that how the pilot FiT worked in this country a few years ago?

Is the UK different somehow? Can you explain?

In the UK you put a meter to measure that amount of electricity you PRODUCE. You get paid for this whether you use it or not. The temptation then is to install devices to use all your surplus power to heat water.

Most people working in the industry are lobbying for a similar so-called feed in tariff here. The term FIT is misleading - it is for production, not export.

I would prefer to see the system we had before where you get paid for exporting your surplus. Self-consumption is viable already I would argue.

TomOnBoard

quentingargan wrote: »

You have until next Friday 10th to make a submission to the consultation process for a FIT. See HERE.

Personally I will be making a submission seeking more focus on rooftop and less on solar parks. I will also be suggesting an export payment rather than a production payment to avoid the ludicrous situation in the UK where the PSO levy pays enormous sums to households who export no electricity at all.

As I see it, if you read between the lines of the reports already produced and available on the Govt Dept's website (linked earlier) the consultants are not particularly favouring domestic PV electricity production. They seem to be looking a community projects as being the smallest economically viable production unit which minimise distribution losses while maximising 'bank for the buck' I don't know how much those views/reports will inform the current consultation process. Bear in mind that these reports are looking at a FIT (that they're referring to as a RESS) in the context of a range of 'green' energy production methods, including wind (both on- and off-shore), solar, biomass etc., so solar will have to compete with other energy sources for support. I know its not an either/or (or at least shouldn't be) but you know how these things go here.

From reading stuff on the web about what's happening in the UK & Europe, there is also a debate going on as to whether financial supports should be focused on domestic production at all, as it is not seen as being the most effective or efficient way of financially supporting green power production. The biggest argument I've seen against anything other than a token payment to householders for their production is that the fixed network still needs to be in place to each house so long as they stay on- grid. More of the costs on your electricity bill are being oriented towards higher fixed charges that are independent of consumption just to pay for the existence and upkeep of the distribution system.

quentingargan

Agreed Tomonboard. But I suppose the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

The most viable form of PV is industrial rooftop (which is very cheap to install) but if there are Part L compliance systems of 3 and 4 panels being put in, it doesn't cost much to upscale them to 12 or 16 panels. That isn't happening because there are no incentives.

Also, there needs to be public buy-in. Why should the PSO levy only be doled out to overseas funds building huge parks that are a blight on the landscape, and not available in any shape or form to domestic users?

TomOnBoard

quentingargan wrote: »

Agreed Tomonboard. But I suppose the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Very true.

quentingargan wrote: »

The most viable form of PV is industrial rooftop (which is very cheap to install) but if there are Part L compliance systems of 3 and 4 panels being put in, it doesn't cost much to upscale them to 12 or 16 panels. That isn't happening because there are no incentives.

I think your point about industrial rooftops is very relevant. I've seen one locally (hundreds of panels with 3 inverters) that is very effective, particularly because when consumption is at its highest (i.e. during the working day), production is also at it highest. Apart from being able to get VAT back and write capital investment off against profits, the one I've seen also got very good grant aid.

I'm not sure that anywhere has really cracked the nut of whether/how to incentivize domestic PV at our latitudes. The incentives elsewhere (for example Czech Republic some years ago) that focused on payment for generation (even if not exported to the grid) have led to huge issues around a tendency by some people towards 'profiteering' where some people built inordinately large installations because payments were so high. Coupled with experiences from schemes like "Cash for Ash" that became such an embarrassment in Northern Ireland, it is hard to see how anything other than token payments will be made at a domestic level for PV production in Ireland.

I think it is noteworthy that (other than basically getting the VAT back, which applies to any 'home improvement' measure) there are no grants offered through SEAI for PV installations, while there is a grant for Solar Thermal water heating panel installations. It does not seem that the body responsible for "sustainable energy" has any great belief in PV as a measure that they should promote through grants. Perhaps that says something about Govt policy as well.

quentingargan wrote: »

Also, there needs to be public buy-in. Why should the PSO levy only be doled out to overseas funds building huge parks that are a blight on the landscape, and not available in any shape or form to domestic users?

I fully agree that any supports should be oriented towards Irish developments rather than towards overseas funds. However, for example assuming that Apple (a foreign entity despite its significant Irish footprint) goes ahead with the Athenry data centre (which will consume vast amounts of electricity), and it is seen as such a boon to the country (whether that view is right or wrong) it would be hard to argue against foreign entities being supported for energy generation.

As to the blight on the landscape argument, I suspect that the cut- away bogs of the Midlands, previously earmarked for large- scale wind production might become the new centre for large scale PV production, as the landscape arguments against turbines that have raged for a few years might be seen to be weaker in respect of PV farms. Whether as much leccie is possible out of such PV farms as might be got out of wind is a whole other matter for debate.

One bottom line in all of this will be our need as a country to be able to produce demonstrable achievements in the area of greenhouse emission reduction. Much may be sacrificed in the battle to to achieve that goal.

quentingargan

TomOnBoard wrote: »

As to the blight on the landscape argument, I suspect that the cut- away bogs of the Midlands, previously earmarked for large- scale wind production might become the new centre for large scale PV production, as the landscape arguments against turbines that have raged for a few years might be seen to be weaker in respect of PV farms.

True, but most of the applications for planning seem to have been in the south of the country where yield is highest. Also, sites close to a grid connection point are highly prized. So the decision on where these end up will be driven by economics rather than aesthetics.

TomOnBoard

quentingargan wrote: »

True, but most of the applications for planning seem to have been in the south of the country where yield is highest. Also, sites close to a grid connection point are highly prized. So the decision on where these end up will be driven by economics rather than aesthetics.

Well, it does make most sense from a productivity point of view for Solar/PV to be sited where it will get the most light/sun, and the South/South East would have traditionally been considered as the sunniest parts of the country. Also, I understand/agree with the need for, and value of connectivity points close to the Grid.

I reckon the Midlands bogs location will eventually be used as the arguments against use of wind may become outweighed by 'lesser impact' arguments for PV. The availability or otherwise of grid connections will arise in the Midlands anyway as Bord Na Mona will not let the cutaway bogs just sit there without being used for something. Previously BNM was all about peat/turf for electricity generation, then dabbled in biomass, then fought for wind turbines and I can see how, if inland turbines fall out of favour (as the very large scale ones seem to have done) solar PV may be the next piece of fruit that they will try to pick. Even if PV output is only say 70-80% of that which would be attainable in Munster/South Leinster, there is so much acreage out there that they could have multiples of the acreage with multiples of panels in use. Taking the cost of land in the South vs in these bogs into account, the economics could well justify a more Northerly location especially as panel prices fall. In addition, BNM is using generated leccie to keep the pumps running, without which much of the Midland bogs would simply be a swamp or shallow lake at this stage.

All of these points are no doubt being made within the consultations process. BNM is, if nothing else, a strong and experienced user of political, media and public relations to get support for its causes. When that machine gets mobilised, I wouldn't like to be standing in its way! :eek::eek::eek:

In any event, I would not be depending on the outcome of the RESS consultation to greatly improve the economic arguments/payback of PV for domestic roofs. I meant to say earlier however, that I could see Farm buildings as getting paid for surplus electricity in future just like the industrial building argument you made earlier.