microgeneration

Donalde

Does anyone know what reason the ESB give for not offering a feed-in-tarriff?

whiskeyman

I presume all suppliers would need to be setup to do it?
Probably needs IT system readiness?

Macha

They (and all suppliers) will have to start offering remuneration of some sort as it's in the newly agreed EU Renewables Directive. Probably by the end of this year but I can't find anything on their website.

Macha

Speak of the devil...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/green-light-to-sell-solar-electricity-back-to-grid-dvwf0jbt7

ted1

Macha wrote: »

Speak of the devil...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/green-light-to-sell-solar-electricity-back-to-grid-dvwf0jbt7

They should just remove the battery incentive it’s daft to be giving people grants for domestic batteries when the grid could take it
They then could operate net metering

Macha

I don't actually have a subscription to the Irish Times - does it mention a battery incentive and if so, what is it?

I agree that net metering is a very good option for kick-starting the market. Once the market reaches eg 5%, it can get a bit tricky in terms of dminishing grid charges (that's a HUGE debate). Then you have options of something like the wholesale price + premium or the value of solar approach that is starting to replace net metering in some US states.

That of course could be combined with a grant to help people cover the cost of the initial investment.

ted1

Macha wrote: »

I don't actually have a subscription to the Irish Times - does it mention a battery incentive and if so, what is it?

I agree that net metering is a very good option for kick-starting the market. Once the market reaches eg 5%, it can get a bit tricky in terms of dminishing grid charges (that's a HUGE debate). Then you have options of something like the wholesale price + premium or the value of solar approach that is starting to replace net metering in some US states.

That of course could be combined with a grant to help people cover the cost of the initial investment.

Well the battery incentive is already there, if getting a system over 2KWH and using a grant they make you get a battery but give you a 1,000 towards it

Donalde

Once the market reaches eg 5%, it can get a bit tricky in terms of dminishing grid charges (that's a HUGE debate).


Could you explain this, or provide a link?

Macha

Donalde wrote: »

Once the market reaches eg 5%, it can get a bit tricky in terms of dminishing grid charges (that's a HUGE debate).

Could you explain this, or provide a link?

Sure, so on everyone's electricity bill, there are three parts: one covers the cost of producing the electricity (as determined by the wholesale market), one that covers the cost of policies (in Ireland this is the PSO levy) and one that covers the costs of the infrastructure, ie grid charges.

In some countries these grid charges are charged per kWh, ie the more electricity you use, the more grid charges you pay. In others, it's a set amount every month. I don't know about Ireland but I imagine it's covered in the set standing charge, ie it's the latter.

Anyway, self production and consumption of energy (in this case mostly solar PV) means households are buying less electricity from the grid, which in countries where the grid charges are /kWh means there could be a significant reduction in these contributions. But the fixed costs of the grid remain the same, only it's being paid by a smaller pool of people.

Add in heavy industry grid charge exemptions like in Germany and you have what utilities call the 'death spiral', ie the more people produce their own electricity (or all of it, ie go off-grid), the more costly it is for those who remain on the system, which in turn encourages them to produce more or all of their own electricity etc etc.

You might think 'well in Ireland it's a fixed charge so this won't happen' but imagine a situation where say 66% or more of your electricity bill is just fixed costs like the PSO levy and the standing charge. Most people will start wondering if they wouldn't be better off disconnecting entirely.

My understanding is that the assumed point at which this starts to become a problem in terms of collecting grid charges is when net metering hits around 5% of the grid users. Of course that also depends if you're like Germany and give ridiculous grid charge exemptions to large energy users.

I hope that makes sense.

quentingargan

The answer to this is that the fixed charge should reflect the cost of maintaining a grid whether it is used or not. Then charge for the electricity bought and sold over that grid.

Subsidising the hardware of the grid by relying on profit from the sale of electricity still leaves us paying the same amount overall, except with more microgeneration, you might need slightly less grid infrastructure than you do if you implement solar by having huge solar parks in one end of the country transmitting electricity to consumers somewhere else.

The area we are really missing out on in Ireland is industrial rooftops. It is far cheaper to put solar pv on industrial roofs than it is to build either solar parks or retrofit on houses. So why aren't we doing this? It would make far more sense - grid is in place, no need to take up land or install security fencing etc.

I can't help feeling that the powers that be (ESB) is quite married to the model of the grid being funded by people buying and selling electricity.

Macha

Yes, I totally agree but doing it via electricity bills is tricky. As I mentioned above, what is the incentive to stay on the grid if your bill is upwards of 66% fixed charges? Given our temperate climate, we're not like somewhere like Sweden where a household's peak demand in winter would be so difficult to cover.

I would even subscribe to the argument that the person who lives off-grid on an island should pay something towards the grid because it is a common good, vital to decarbonise the energy system (and not just the electricity system as we will have to electrify a lot of heating/cooling and transport).

Are you sure that industrial roofs are cheaper than ground-mounted? I thought ground mounted was half the price of residential rooftop generally? The good news about the new EU legislation that the new proposals are based on, is that industrial users can also benefit - although there are some limitations.

ted1

In non residential TUOS and DUOS costs are priced separately.

In the future I think electricity will be sold like broadband, pay x amount per month and get up to a certain amount of units ( download allowances)

Macha

ted1 wrote: »

In the future I think electricity will be sold like broadband, pay x amount per month and get up to a certain amount of units ( download allowances)

I really hope not. The incentive to save energy will be lost entirely.

ted1

Macha wrote: »

I really hope not. The incentive to save energy will be lost entirely.

Go over your allowance and be penalised.

Donalde

Thanks Macha for the explanation.
Could the problem not be solved by setting the FIT at, say, the wholesale price of electricity less a % to cover the grid charges? Then only those who went completely off-grid would escape the costs (and they would not be concerned about FIT!)

I agree with quentingargan about industrial rooftops as long as this includes farm buildings which, I believe are eminently suitable, and would have the added benefit of putting some income in the hands of farmers, rather than multinational finance companies behind the wind farms.
Installing on house rooftops will be much more troublesome than say a slatted house where small leaks, should they happen, would not be of great consequence.
Is there any way of evaluating the benefit of producing and using electricity locally? ie the cost saving (if any) of producing and using locally.

Macha

ted1 wrote: »

Go over your allowance and be penalised.

I don't think that's how we max out efficiency like we know we have to in order to limit temperature increase to 1.5C.

Does the allowance slowly go down? How do you calculate the allowance? etc etc.

Donalde wrote: »

Thanks Macha for the explanation.
Could the problem not be solved by setting the FIT at, say, the wholesale price of electricity less a % to cover the grid charges? Then only those who went completely off-grid would escape the costs (and they would not be concerned about FIT!)

The problem with that is that it wouldn't take into account the wider benefits that microgeneration bring to the grid. Eg, less investment in transmission infrastructure and associated electricity losses, less need for peaking plant etc. That's the joy of the value of solar approach, ie it looks at all of these issues: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/inside-the-new-approach-to-finding-the-true-value-of-solar/381006/

The other side of this whole equation is of course looking at how TSOs and DSOs are investing these grid charges. Are they investing in an old system or are they making sure they're making the necessary investments to facilitate microgeneration - plus demand response? DSOs shouldn't necessarily just be putting more copper in the ground - maybe they should be looking at other types of investments.

In Ireland, it's our old friends ESB Networks who own the distribution system and the dinosaurs inside the business aren't always in favour of these developments.

Donalde wrote: »

I agree with quentingargan about industrial rooftops as long as this includes farm buildings which, I believe are eminently suitable, and would have the added benefit of putting some income in the hands of farmers, rather than multinational finance companies behind the wind farms.
Installing on house rooftops will be much more troublesome than say a slatted house where small leaks, should they happen, would not be of great consequence.
Is there any way of evaluating the benefit of producing and using electricity locally? ie the cost saving (if any) of producing and using locally.

Industrial, farmers - hey what about the buildings in every GAA pitch in Ireland? Sports stadiums, hospitals, schools - they all should qualify with some lmiitations under the new EU Directive.