Public Consultation on a Micro-generation Support Scheme (MSS) in Ireland

the_amazing_raisin

I guess to expand my point regarding a high consumption house, if you're in a house with 2 EVs, heat pump and electric cooking your annual consumption is going to be around 10,000kWh, much higher than average

Now in that sutuation, the more you can offset the better, so it's tempting to go for as big an array as possible, possibly even over 6kWp if your house supports it

There are going to be times with a big array that you'll be unable to self consume so you could end up exporting a lot. However, if the scheme wants to discourage this type of situation, then it shouldn't be financially beneficial. This is why a diminishing financial return is the best approach IMO, it creates a situation where you can manage short bursts of exporting a lot of power, but doing it long term will be of no financial gain

I feel like the 6kW limit is a bit arbitrary. I get the argument regarding grid stability, but I'm not understanding how it's okay for my house to import up to 16kW, but can only export 6kW. What's so different between import and export that results in a 10kW gap?

I agree there should be additional checks for bigger producers, but I feel like the jump from being a small producer to a big one should be higher. 6kW just seems very low, especially considering other countries seem to manage bigger generators without any trouble

slave1

We have 2 EV's, no heat pump but storage heater in Winter, electric cooking, immersion etc.
With normal work commute the annual consumption is above 20,000kWh, no way we could do it for 10,000kWh

loyatemu

KCross wrote: »

The idea is self consume and size your array accordingly and obviously you have to oversize the array to cover more of the autumn/winter months so the FiT will then take the resultant excess in the summer but the idea is that it would be relatively speaking small amounts of excess (<30%).

where's the benefit to the grid of having domestic users feeding in at times when there is already ample capacity?

I suppose it might drive prices down if there is time-based flexibility in tariffs, but there's a limit to how much people can switch their usage to the daytime and people with PV arrays have an incentive to do this already anyway.

If every PV install included a battery, it would effectively take those users mostly off-grid, which would reduce the requirement for peak-time capacity on the grid (peaker plants, grid-attached batteries etc).

KCross

loyatemu wrote: »

where's the benefit to the grid of having domestic users feeding in at times when there is already ample capacity?

There isnt much benefit, which is why they are not encouraging it. Size the array to maximise self consumption.

KCross

cruisey1987 wrote: »

I feel like the 6kW limit is a bit arbitrary. I get the argument regarding grid stability, but I'm not understanding how it's okay for my house to import up to 16kW, but can only export 6kW. What's so different between import and export that results in a 10kW gap?

My guess.... your import capacity is based on you not drawing that 16kW for hours on end. Its a house so your usage is continuously up/down and things like heat pumps and ovens come on/off. They dont consume their max rating continuously. Its called diversity.

With SolarPV you could have, lets say, 5 houses connected to a transformer and if they all had 11kWp connected to the grid and its a fine summers day you could have hours on end of every house dumping 11kW to the grid at the same time and for hours on end.... it wouldnt be able to handle that, as is, without some upgrades.

Some cutoff has to be picked. Anything above that cutoff requires investigation of the infrastructure around your house.

the_amazing_raisin

slave1 wrote: »

We have 2 EV's, no heat pump but storage heater in Winter, electric cooking, immersion etc.
With normal work commute the annual consumption is above 20,000kWh, no way we could do it for 10,000kWh

You really need to look at a heat pump

KCross

I got some important clarifications from the department.

The references in the docs to Jun 2020 were wrong. They were meant to say Jun 2021 and have now been corrected if you download the paper again!

That means that the CEP is NOT available to anyone that already has a SolarPV system deployed. It would only apply to new installs done via the SEAI after Jun 2021.

Existing installs prior to that date would only be able to draw the CEG.

The better news, as I understand it, is that the 30% export limit only applies to the CEP and that explains how they are going to manage that since you will have to register/prove your array size with the SEAI and they will only give you CEP payments upto the 30% of the size you have registered (upto 4kWp). You can still install 6kWp if you wish but you will only get the CEP payment for 30% of 4kWp.

If you have an existing 6kWp system you would get paid for all your export at the CEG rate.

There is also a committment that 80% of those that have registered an NC6 form with Eirgrid will get a smart meter before the scheme starts in July 2021. There will be a plan B initially for the other 20% but not sure exactly what that is.


Health warning on all that.... it is still a consultation so anything/everything could change when they actually go live with it, so dont make any decisions based on my post!

the_amazing_raisin

I think that's good news regarding the CEP, it'll keep costs under control and stop it turning into another cash for ash scheme

At the same time I think it's good that someone with a larger array gets the market rate for export, it seems like a fairer system in that the electricity provider is paying, and not the taxpayer

phester28

Am I reading the above wrong. So anyone with solar currently installed is not able apply for FIT, only those after june this year will be illegible. Well done the greens.

idc

phester28 wrote: »

Am I reading the above wrong. So anyone with solar currently installed is not able apply for FIT, only those after june this year will be illegible. Well done the greens.

There are two schemes CEG and CEP. Existing installs can get the CEG scheme.

If I understand correctly new installs after June can also get a CEP payment based on max 4 kWp but there is a 30% export limit. I guess this to replace existing grant system and thus only seai registered installs can get this

the_amazing_raisin

idc wrote: »

There are two schemes CEG and CEP. Existing installs can get the CEG scheme.

If I understand correctly new installs after June can also get a CEP payment based on max 4 kWp but there is a 30% export limit. I guess this to replace existing grant system and thus only seai registered installs can get this

That's my understanding of what KC said too

I believe the CEP is intended to replace the current grants. I hope they remove the requirement for houses to be built before 2011 as well

KCross

phester28 wrote: »

Am I reading the above wrong. So anyone with solar currently installed is not able apply for FIT, only those after june this year will be illegible. Well done the greens.

No, as I said...
“Existing installs prior to that date would only be able to draw the CEG.”

air

The 30% cap on exports has to go, that would just cause us to repeat the mistakes of the UK where people install diverters etc. out of spite to avoid exporting energy they are not going to get paid for.

This means this zero carbon energy is lost to the grid and generally squandered instead.

If the rate paid is commercially viable, it should be viable whether 30% or 100% of the energy generated is exported.

Self consumption is already encouraged by paying an export rate less than retail cost as stated elsewhere in the paper, so this misguided limit is not required to encourage self consumption - which is the only justification offered.

KCross

air wrote: »

The 30% cap on exports has to go, that would just cause us to repeat the mistakes of the UK where people install diverters etc. out of spite to avoid exporting energy they are not going to get paid for.

This means this zero carbon energy is lost to the grid and generally squandered instead.

If the rate paid is commercially viable, it should be viable whether 30% or 100% of the energy generated is exported.

Self consumption is already encouraged by paying an export rate less than retail cost as stated elsewhere in the paper, so this misguided limit is not required to encourage self consumption - which is the only justification offered.

It only limits CEP, not CEG so you will get paid.

Another reason for the limit, which I think you missed, is to protect the taxpayer as the CEP is being paid for by other taxpayers via a PSO levy increase.

It can be argued it’s reasonable on the basis that leaving it wide open for “rich” people to install large arrays while poor people are left behind because they can’t afford an array but still have to pay the increased levy!

air

Thanks, I had only skimmed it and missed the distinction between the two.

I would argue that it should be CEG only, we have existing (and very generous) mechanisms in place to distribute social welfare to those who need it.

I think that's the issue with all these schemes, they try to achieve too many things at once - BER improvements, social harmony, world peace etc. and end up not achieving anything very well.

Why not just provide a scaled export tariff structure with various prices per kWh guaranteed, tiered at various annual export levels - 6c up to 3000kWh, 5c from 3000-10000kWh type thing.
Dispense with all the bureaucrats and jobs for the administrators.

We already have extensive standards in place to ensure the safety of electrical installations, the SEAI inspectors are adding no value in that regard.

This worked fine for the original Electric Ireland micro generation scheme, no grants were provided for hardware installation, just a guaranteed export rate, a single form and a RECI cert for the installation.

graememk

KCross wrote: »

It only limits CEP, not CEG so you will get paid.

Another reason for the limit, which I think you missed, is to protect the taxpayer as the CEP is being paid for by other taxpayers via a PSO levy increase.

It can be argued it’s reasonable on the basis that leaving it wide open for “rich” people to install large arrays while poor people are left behind because they can’t afford an array but still have to pay the increased levy!

So My mis reading ended up being right all along!

Makes much more sense.

Id be happy with the standard export, with no limits average is €60/ MWh which is 6c/kWh

So, Im going to try to work through how much do you need to pay per kwp, to break even on export alone. just for fun.

Where I am with optimal angle, (https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/#PVP) and direction I would get 835kWh from 1kWp of panels, if exported 100%
would earn you 50 euro/ year.(huh didn't expect it to be so round)

Assume a 10 year payback , that's 500 euro. which then you would have to pay €500/kwp. A 10kwp array would need to only cost €5000, Even self builds would struggle to hit that!

Ive got the space to be able to stick another 7.2 kwp on a roof, but its flat and not due south... SW/NE, Total estimate for the year is 5035kWh.
If I exported everything in a year, would "make" €302.
Cost solely for export it would need to come in at €420/kwp.
Just an interesting thought experiment.

But a 6c rate would completely negate any real savings by using a Zappi*, Or HW Diverts*. and will get more people on board, also reducing the payback of the whole system.



*Can have other reasons to get them, maybe smug mode by running your car on solar, or not having to light a fire to have hot water in the summer!

Batteries If they don't cost too much, walk the line.

But good news on the clarification. - they need to get the Smart meters and Day night sorted too. I'm not giving up my day night rate to be able to export! would cost me more money than id ever make back exporting.

citizen6

Are we assuming that the existing SEAI grants will be removed after FIT comes in? I'm not seeing any end date for the grant on SEAI website.

graememk

citizen6 wrote: »

Are we assuming that the existing SEAI grants will be removed after FIT comes in? I'm not seeing any end date for the grant on SEAI website.

More or less yes. Maybe there will be a bit of an overlap.

Not going to hear anything until the consultation is over.

Seai can stop the grant at any time. There might be some notice, anyone's who's already accepted still gets to finish etc

minnow

The Green Party have a Facebook Live event on making submissions for the micro generation scheme tonight at 7pm. Might be of interest to some:
https://fb.me/e/LY75ICRj

Niceday20

Interesting article on RTE this morning, quote:

A scheme allowing people sell home generated electricity to the national grid will require a "huge investment" in Ireland's electricity network, Minister for the Environment Eamon Ryan has said.

Under the plan individuals, community groups, business owners and farmers - or micro-generators - will be able sell electricity to the national grid if they generate it from solar panels, wind turbines and other sustainable energy technologies.

The plan is part of the Government's 'Microgeneration Support Scheme', which is set to begin in July and is in public consultation until mid-February.

Speaking on RTE's Morning Ireland, Minister Ryan said: "I think it will require huge investment. It will require real engineering expertise from ESB Networks. I am confident that they can and will do that."

Under the proposed scheme, micro-generators can sell 30% of the excess electricity they produce and export it back to the grid. The price that electricity will be sold at is being formulated during the consultation process.

"It’s a scheme to get people generating power at home, and in their own business, and on the farm," Mr Ryan said, adding that the consultation would help deliver a "fair price".

"The real benefit in having your own power is not having to pay for the electricity you are using. I think that for most householders and most businesses the real saving will be in their own electricity bills," he said.

The CEO of 3CEA - the three County Energy Agency for Kilkenny, Carlow and Wexford – welcomed the 'Micro Generation Support Scheme' but said initial projections showed homeowners could spend 14 years recouping the cost of their solar panels.

Paddy Phelan said price incentives needed to be good enough to attract people to invest in renewable energy technologies for their homes and businesses.

"I would see that the incentive would need to be greater to get people to change their behaviour," said Mr Phelan.

"Limiting export on a household or a business or a farm to 30% is a missed opportunity," Mr Phelan said.

He raised questions about the capacity of the electricity network to take electricity from many microgenerators.

"I think that it is borne out by the difficulties that we might see in terms of the age of our electricity network.

"The Government really needs to consider bolstering the supports to the network to allow it to be upgraded and to facilitate expanding the scheme to allow for more export from all the community buildings, farmer roof buildings and homes right across the country," he said.

Farmer Tommy O'Shea, of O'Shea Farms in Pilltown, Co Kilkenny runs part of his farm business on solar panels.

He said the 30% limit on the amount of electricity that can be sold by individuals, farmers, individuals and business owners is too small and he has the scope to generate more electricity.

Minister Ryan said there is a "real challenge in our network – in our distribution network and transmission network to really scale it up to make it capable of availing of this really competitive fuel supply, this renewable supply we have.

"Having significant microgeneration, in my mind, supports the grid and stabilises it, he said, adding that ESB Networks, as the distribution company, is already introducing a range of smart technologies to the electricity network.

Micro-generation is defined as micro-generation technologies, including micro-solar PV, micro-hydro, micro-wind and micro-renewable CHP with a maximum electrical output of 50kW, designed to primarily service the self-consumption needs of the property where it is installed.

The scheme is part of Ireland’s transition to a net-zero carbon economy, and is part of trying to achieve
Ireland’s 2030 targets for renewable energy.

phester28

What I really dont get here is. I currently am exporting ALL my excess to the grid just I am not getting paid for it. Nothing will change overnight. I understand the ESB will have to put some local caps to prevent overloading a sub station or something like that. What am I missing?

the_amazing_raisin

I'm still not following this 30% of the elctricity generated rule

Is it on a cumulative (kWh) basis or instant (kW) one?
Is 30% the size of the array, or the kWp capcapity, or the kWh generated per year or what?

I don't see how not having a fixed figure will discourage large systems, if anything a percentage would seem to incentivise installing a larger PV array to maximiuse the export and reduce your bills to 0

KCross

phester28 wrote: »

What I really dont get here is. I currently am exporting ALL my excess to the grid just I am not getting paid for it. Nothing will change overnight. I understand the ESB will have to put some local caps to prevent overloading a sub station or something like that. What am I missing?

Thats it. You arent missing anything.

cruisey1987 wrote: »

I'm still not following this 30% of the elctricity generated rule

Is it on a cumulative (kWh) basis or instant (kW) one?
Is 30% the size of the array, or the kWp capcapity, or the kWh generated per year or what?

I don't see how not having a fixed figure will discourage large systems, if anything a percentage would seem to incentivise installing a larger PV array to maximiuse the export and reduce your bills to 0

The 30% is on kWh, not kW.
It will be determined by the size of the array that you register/prove with the SEAI. YOu can install a larger system if you wish but you wont get the premium payment for anyting beyond the 30%. You'll still get the standard payment though.

See my earlier post about the 30% limit... its for CEP only, not CEG.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116144653&postcount=158

slave1

I'll be fine so as with my Shading I'm probably at 40%-50% of potential but I am not....

letting ESB know if/when I add to my PV arrays
losing my night rate - given Winter heating of water and 365 charging of two EVs

the_amazing_raisin

KCross wrote: »

Thats it. You arent missing anything.



The 30% is on kWh, not kW.
It will be determined by the size of the array that you register/prove with the SEAI. YOu can install a larger system if you wish but you wont get the premium payment for anyting beyond the 30%. You'll still get the standard payment though.

See my earlier post about the 30% limit... its for CEP only, not CEG.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116144653&postcount=158

Thanks, I still don't see how that incentivises smaller systems


Say for example a 3kWp system exports 1500kWh to the grid per year. I'll get the CEP bonus on 500kWh and the basic CEG rate on the remaining 1000kWh, based on the 30% rule


However, if I treble the system to 9kWp and export 4500kWh, then I get 1500kWh at the higher CEP rate


So it's not in my interest to install a larger system, which they seem to be trying to discourage


That's why I feel that if they fixed the CEP at something like 1000kWh per year instead of a percentage then it'd be better at encouraging smaller systems


Personally, I'm fine with a higher CEP, but it seems to go against what they want to accomplish

slave1

To put proper incentives in place to move us away from fossil fuel there should be initial get paid for what you export, end of.
Later they can taper the incentives after penetration/learnings.

To tick a box and effectively kill FIT off just carry on with what they have proposed, end of.
ESB gets their way, fat cats

KCross

cruisey1987 wrote: »

Thanks, I still don't see how that incentivises smaller systems


Say for example a 3kWp system exports 1500kWh to the grid per year. I'll get the CEP bonus on 500kWh and the basic CEG rate on the remaining 1000kWh, based on the 30% rule


However, if I treble the system to 9kWp and export 4500kWh, then I get 1500kWh at the higher CEP rate


So it's not in my interest to install a larger system, which they seem to be trying to discourage


That's why I feel that if they fixed the CEP at something like 1000kWh per year instead of a percentage then it'd be better at encouraging smaller systems


Personally, I'm fine with a higher CEP, but it seems to go against what they want to accomplish

I dont really get your logic.

The CEP is proposed to be capped at 30% export upto a max of 4kWp... maybe you missed that bit? Anything you install above 4kWp wont get any CEP.

You'll get CEG on all of your install though which everyone should be happy with. If we get anything close to night rate electricity prices for CEG I think thats a decent price to get and it will be a known price in advance.

You can install 9kWp if you wish and you'll get CEG for all of that but only CEP for 30% of 4kWp. Does that make any more sense?

The 30% export limit is to put a cap on that incentive since its taxpayer funded and not have the taxpayer on the hook for people installing massive systems. Its not alot different to the current grant system in that regard in that you only get grant aid upto 4kWp... nothing stopping you going to 6kWp but you pay for the extra 2kWp yourself.... the CEP is being organised in the same way.

If there was no cap, the result would be a northern ireland cash-for-ash system where people went wild and starting burning pellets for free money for no benefit to the country... and the taxpayer out of pocket for huge sums. I'm sure there would be uproar here if that happened!

Note: The CEG is not taxpayer funded. Only the CEP. The CEG is funded internally by the electricity providers. They need to manage the costs themselves by market supply/demand, which is a good thing. Its not SEAI or the dept administering it.

KCross

slave1 wrote: »

To tick a box and effectively kill FIT off just carry on with what they have proposed, end of.

What issues do you see with the current proposal? Why does it kill FiT off?

slave1 wrote: »

To put proper incentives in place to move us away from fossil fuel there should be initial get paid for what you export, end of.

Thats all there. You export, you get paid. What issue do you see?

slave1

Well the ESB continue their blanket 6kW limitation, if someone has the space and means they should be allowed go above without red tape.

Re second point, there will not be payment for all exported and I disagree with that, the ESB will take it all but won't pay for it all, that's just not a forward thinking perspective.
Look at Germany where there was 100% payment (above Market rate too) and a guaranteed 20 year plan from the onset.

More energy export can only be a good thing, up to ESB how they manage it and therein lies the limitation

KCross

slave1 wrote: »

Well the ESB continue their blanket 6kW limitation, if someone has the space and means they should be allowed go above without red tape.

Re second point, there will not be payment for all exported and I disagree with that, the ESB will take it all but won't pay for it all, that's just not a forward thinking perspective.
Look at Germany where there was 100% payment (above Market rate too) and a guaranteed 20 year plan from the onset.

More energy export can only be a good thing, up to ESB how they manage it and therein lies the limitation

You need to read it again. You will get paid for all your export. I’ve stated that on nearly every post now.

Your other point about the 6kW limit is not within the remit of this consultation or FiT in general. You can go above 6kWp if you wish but let’s be honest, it’s not critical since most houses wouldn’t be able to take that volumes of panels anyway.

I don’t see anything in your reply that kills FiT.

Plaster your house with as many panels as you like up to 50kWp and you’ll get paid for the export at the CEG rate. What’s the issue?

slave1

I could have sworn there was posts about payment cap at 30% rated kWp, must be losing it

graememk

slave1 wrote: »

I could have sworn there was posts about payment cap at 30% rated kWp, must be losing it

The premium rate is capped at 30%. Of your output?(magical calculation maybe they just use jrc) up to 4kwp + ber requirements+ faff

Besides, anyone that has panels in now won't get the premium rate. That's for installs after June 2021.

Anyone who has panels in now gets the CEG (clean export guarantee) regulated by the CRU I think.

Suppliers have the choice to pay more if they want.

KCross

citizen6 wrote: »

Are we assuming that the existing SEAI grants will be removed after FIT comes in? I'm not seeing any end date for the grant on SEAI website.

Apparently not. The grant is to be reduced but not eliminated.

idc

Watched the green party live facebook discussion on this. Didn't really learn anything new but they did stress if people have issues with the current plan submit your objections/changes etc. They had someone who worked on consultation and another who appears to do a lot of community and school installations. She was very opposed to a lot of the scheme as is -- BER requirement and problems with the ESB network and issues with new connections.

the_amazing_raisin

idc wrote: »

Watched the green party live facebook discussion on this. Didn't really learn anything new but they did stress if people have issues with the current plan submit your objections/changes etc. They had someone who worked on consultation and another who appears to do a lot of community and school installations. She was very opposed to a lot of the scheme as is -- BER requirement and problems with the ESB network and issues with new connections.

I'm not really sure what people's issues with a minimum BER requirement is, it pays off much better to spend money on energy efficiency than installing lots of renewables


I remember watching a demo video some company (I won't name them) put out for a new and magical solar thermal tube that's apparently much better than the old ones. They showed a house in Galway that they brought from a G rating to NZEB using only those panels


The problem is they're massively overproducing energy to offset the losses, whereas it's much more beneficial to cut down on usage first. Then you'll need a vastly smaller amount of energy generation to cover your needs

graememk

None of the articles/Discussions seem to even mention the non subsidised tariff.

Seem to run down the rabbit hole of BER, caps etc.

Of the Proposal

Subsidised rate (CEP) - Needs to have limits, (Cash for ash is a great example) yearly Output is easily estimated, allowed to export 30% of total yearly generation. The months nov-Feb will have v little export anyway. BER is understandable. Bit like the current SEAI grants.

Non Subsidised (CEG)- Minimum set by CRU, Suggested Average wholesale rate, maybe a bit less, Suppliers can pay more if they want. - Im sure they can set their own limits ( bit like energia and the night rate limit)

phester28

cruisey1987 wrote: »

I'm not really sure what people's issues with a minimum BER requirement is, it pays off much better to spend money on energy efficiency than installing lots of renewables


I remember watching a demo video some company (I won't name them) put out for a new and magical solar thermal tube that's apparently much better than the old ones. They showed a house in Galway that they brought from a G rating to NZEB using only those panels


The problem is they're massively overproducing energy to offset the losses, whereas it's much more beneficial to cut down on usage first. Then you'll need a vastly smaller amount of energy generation to cover your needs

Your info is outdated and a BER is nothing more than a guesstimate with moving goalposts. See the new version of Deap software details

In my case as they mention (thusfar) BER B2 minimum rate for FIT (hold the CEG CEP as I've not seen the detail yet). I have spent large to take my house from an area typical of g to a C1 including the solar. There is nothing more I can do without the likes of external cladding which would cost in the region of 10-15k and would save a rough 100 euro per year. Meanwhile my solar has the potential to sell back or as it is currently give to the grid for free.

KCross

phester28 wrote: »

In my case as they mention (thusfar) BER B2 minimum rate for FIT (hold the CEG CEP as I've not seen the detail yet). I have spent large to take my house from an area typical of g to a C1 including the solar. There is nothing more I can do....

You don’t need to do anything else. You will be eligible with a BER of C and in any case I think the BER requirement only applies to CEP, not CEG.

The reference to BER B is about other schemes, not this one.

the_amazing_raisin

KCross wrote: »

You don’t need to do anything else. You will be eligible with a BER of C and in any case I think the BER requirement only applies to CEP, not CEG.

The reference to BER B is about other schemes, not this one.

Actually I think they do mention that the minimum BER will increase over time

That's probably for the higher CEP payment though

Also, adding solar may improve your BER rating (seems to be some debate around this) so you may still be eligible if the BER is high enough afterwards

graememk

cruisey1987 wrote: »

Actually I think they do mention that the minimum BER will increase over time

That's probably for the higher CEP payment though

Also, adding solar may improve your BER rating (seems to be some debate around this) so you may still be eligible if the BER is high enough afterwards

Adding solar does increase your ber rating, by how much is a different story.

Also if it's like most other grants etc, once you're in, you're in, requirements may change for new entrants as they go forward.

For instance, I think I can kick my house up from a D1 to a c3 by changing a boiler that's rarely used (as it's old) - and that's just changing it to a standard, but newer one, nevermind a condensing one.

If I really wanted to, I could even get a second hand one from done deal, as long as it has the proper labels/markings (ie Grant) as people are switching them out to go for condensing ones.

4kwp of solar would do the same.

irishchris

Yes solar definitely improves your ber. Got a ber report done prior to install of 2.88kwp and was a c2. Same assessor did ber after install few weeks later and new result was a b2

air

With CEP limited to 30% of 4kWp, it sounds like a complete waste of everyone's time unless it's a very generous rate, which I don't expect it would be.

Even at that, the money spent on administering it would be better spent elsewhere I think.

Just force the market to offer a fixed commercially viable rate for export within the existing regulations which are already fit for purpose and be done with it.

I don't think Eamon Ryan has any idea what he's talking about in terms of the grid reinforcement required (no change there).
The ESB Networks CEO has been very bullish for the past few years on their ability to deliver multiples of the current loads to domestic consumers to facilitate EVs and heat pumps.

If sufficient PV is ever installed to cause very low daytime wholesale rates, tariffs will be adjusted to reflect that and usage will also move, mitigating a large part of the problem.

Also PV is trivial to throttle and export control devices could be easily installed if required.
We are a decade at least away from domestic penetration of a level that would cause any issues whatsoever I believe though, even allowing for the current infrastructure.

KCross

air wrote: »

With CEP limited to 30% of 4kWp, it sounds like a complete waste of everyone's time unless it's a very generous rate, which I don't expect it would be.

The only indication we have on the rate for CEP is this wording:

The CEP is being paid on exported electricity and is targeted to be at a rate that is below the retail rates paid by the prosumer, which encourages self-consumption.

I've no idea what that would equate to. What are "retail rates paid by the prosumer"?

air wrote: »

Just force the market to offer a fixed commercially viable rate for export within the existing regulations which are already fit for purpose and be done with it.

Thats basically the CEG, which is in the proposal. It is fixed and mandatory. It's a viable rate based on market rates and the providers have to manage it themselves without any supports or grants etc.

Thats basically everything you are asking for?


The thinking around the CEP (which is a topup payment on top of CEG) is that there is too much of a gap between install cost and payback and that if they dont put some incentives in place we will remain where we are, which is very low uptake.

I dont know if thats a valid viewpoint or not. The uptake of the current grant system seemed to be quite good but maybe the numbers, relatively speaking, are still not high enough to make a dent in carbon footprint. I dont know.

With the SEAI capital grant and a CEP then people might take it more seriously and we'd get higher uptake rates. At least thats their hope anyway.

Its a hard one to call but I'd say if we just went with the CEG (lets say 7c/kWh for your export) and no other supports there would be tacid uptake of that. Its fine if you do a DIY install and have a "cheap" system but the current install prices, before grant, are not exactly cheap and its not from lack of competition as there is a long list of approved installers. So, what do you do? Do nothing isnt an option. Providing additional capped incentives for a fixed time period seems reasonable if it results in people installing some panels?


Personally, I think there is way too much focus on the 30% thing within CEP in this thread... you get paid for all your export within CEG, you cant ask for much more than that really.... the CEP is just an added sweetner to get new people onboard.

Anyone with an opinion should be submitting it to the department. No point in complaining later or complaining on boards!

air

Yes, you've interpreted me correctly and I think in essence the CEP has just muddied the waters and created confusion.

It's going to be applicable on such a small amount of export (say 1200 units per annum) that it's impact on ROI is going to be very small.

As such it should be abandoned in the interests of keeping things more straightforward and easy to administer and evaluate.

KCross

air wrote: »

Yes, you've interpreted me correctly and I think in essence the CEP has just muddied the waters and created confusion.

It's going to be applicable on such a small amount of export (say 1200 units per annum) that it's impact on ROI is going to be very small.

A such it should be abandoned in the interests of keeping things more straightforward and easy to administer and evaluate.

The less that SEAI have to do with the whole thing the better, thats for sure.


The 1200 units though would add up over 10-15 years. That could be 10-20% of the install cost right there. Depends on what the rate is.

mp3guy

Most of the discussion here is all about the bottom line. Anyone considering the carbon impact of encouraging more micro generation? It's a rare sight on the EirGrid dashboard for renewable generation to account entirely for demand for an extended period of time even in ideal solar and wind conditions, so you can assume anytime you're feeding in power you're saving the average (something like 352 gCO2/kWh?) EirGrid amount of carbon, on whatever you consume and export for your neighbours to use.

Eventually the grid will be decarbonized, but there're many tonnes of CO2 to be saved in the mean time. Just hope folks don't spitefully avoid a higher annual yield array because they won't get a few extra cents.

air

Solar is pretty unique in that excluding the installation costs there isn't the kind of economies of scale that you get with other forms of renewable generation.
From a carbon perspective, domestic generation compares very favourably with larger scale commercial generation.
There are basically zero transmission and distribution losses to contend with.

For roof mounted systems, there is no additional support structure required which saves on materials, and there is already a grid connection so no overhead there either.
There is also no land use impact which is quite significant also.

In an ideal world we would see domestic generation that would at the very least match daytime domestic base load. This would require next to no infrastructural upgrades and provide excellent returns from a carbon perspective.

Ideally then if there is more commercial scale solar generation coming on line, this will drive down daytime energy rates which should lead to low cost daytime electricity in summer especially, which would be great for charging EVs for example.

blobert

KCross wrote: »

The only indication we have on the rate for CEP is this wording:

The CEP is being paid on exported electricity and is targeted to be at a rate that is below the retail rates paid by the prosumer, which encourages self-consumption.

I've no idea what that would equate to. What are "retail rates paid by the prosumer"?





Thats basically the CEG, which is in the proposal. It is fixed and mandatory. It's a viable rate based on market rates and the providers have to manage it themselves without any supports or grants etc.

Thats basically everything you are asking for?


The thinking around the CEP (which is a topup payment on top of CEG) is that there is too much of a gap between install cost and payback and that if they dont put some incentives in place we will remain where we are, which is very low uptake.

I dont know if thats a valid viewpoint or not. The uptake of the current grant system seemed to be quite good but maybe the numbers, relatively speaking, are still not high enough to make a dent in carbon footprint. I dont know.

With the SEAI capital grant and a CEP then people might take it more seriously and we'd get higher uptake rates. At least thats their hope anyway.

Its a hard one to call but I'd say if we just went with the CEG (lets say 7c/kWh for your export) and no other supports there would be tacid uptake of that. Its fine if you do a DIY install and have a "cheap" system but the current install prices, before grant, are not exactly cheap and its not from lack of competition as there is a long list of approved installers. So, what do you do? Do nothing isnt an option. Providing additional capped incentives for a fixed time period seems reasonable if it results in people installing some panels?


Personally, I think there is way too much focus on the 30% thing within CEP in this thread... you get paid for all your export within CEG, you cant ask for much more than that really.... the CEP is just an added sweetner to get new people onboard.

Anyone with an opinion should be submitting it to the department. No point in complaining later or complaining on boards!

Thanks very much for the summary of it that's made it a bit clearer.

You'd given some good advice on my thread here about my plans for a new build with up to 30kw of solar panels.

I'm trying to work out if the system goes ahead as outlined whether it would be worth doing, as the amount of panels I was going to put up was always going to be based on the FiT system available to try and maximise this.


I see no mention in the public consultation document about increasing the limits for export, am I missing that?

We're going to have a 3 phase connection for the new house so as it stands we can export up to 11kW I think. Some of the previous discussion of this suggested they were going to increase this up to 25-50kW to allow greater microgeneration export (without the current level of complication if you wanted to operate on this scale) but is this now not the case?

I'm guessing if I want to keep things simple I should be installing up the the limit of microgeneration export and maybe a little beyond to maximise tariffs.

So let's say they leave the export limit at 11kW for 3 phase. I install 15kW of panels and limit my export to 11kW.

As per current document I would be getting paid for all exported units under CEG (lets say it's 5c per kwH) and then a bonus of the extra CEP on 30% of my exported power. Am I understanding this correctly?

For a lot of the year I'm likely to self consume nearly all the power generated but in summer months I'll probably be producing a big excess.

Hypothetically if my system was cranking out the full 15kW while I was away in the summer I'd be losing the additional 4kW of power (as this could not be exported) but otherwise be getting paid for the 11kw.

So am I right in saying the sensible thing from a financial perspective would be to install up to, and maybe a little beyond the export limit?

And when I submit comment on it, the main thing I should be suggesting, as has been suggested my many others here, is that they should be increasing the export limits from their very low levels?

Do you think it would be worth compiling a basic list of what people are looking for here and have a bunch of us submit the same observations? I'd imagine this would be more likely to have impact if they get a lot of submissions all asking for the same thing.

Thanks again!

KCross

blobert wrote: »

I see no mention in the public consultation document about increasing the limits for export, am I missing that?

We're going to have a 3 phase connection for the new house so as it stands we can export up to 11kW I think. Some of the previous discussion of this suggested they were going to increase this up to 25-50kW to allow greater microgeneration export (without the current level of complication if you wanted to operate on this scale) but is this now not the case?

I'm guessing if I want to keep things simple I should be installing up the the limit of microgeneration export and maybe a little beyond to maximise tariffs.

So let's say they leave the export limit at 11kW for 3 phase. I install 15kW of panels and limit my export to 11kW.

The consultation document does "allow" you to go all the way to 50kWp and get paid for that export but it doesnt say anything about the process changing in relation to the 11kW(on 3-phase) limit for NC6. Personally, I dont think they'll change that but you never know. If they dont change it it means a more complex process for installing anything beyond 11kW. Probably better in that case to just do as you say... 15kW, imited to 11kW export.

blobert wrote: »

As per current document I would be getting paid for all exported units under CEG (lets say it's 5c per kwH) and then a bonus of the extra CEP on 30% of my exported power. Am I understanding this correctly?

Correct, although see comment below about 2011 requirement which might be in play.

blobert wrote: »

So am I right in saying the sensible thing from a financial perspective would be to install up to, and maybe a little beyond the export limit?

Yes, but I wouldnt do anything until we get all the details. This is still only a consultation. Anything/everything is up for change. The scheme is supposed to be live for 1 Jul so you wont have to wait long and in any case you wont get CEP if you install right now.... it HAS to be installed after 30 Jun to qualify.

There is also the issue that the existing grant scheme from SEAI (which will still be in play after this, just at a reduced level) has a stipulation right now that your house has to be owned/occupied prior to 1 Jan 2011 to qualify for grant (and hence also CEP). If that stupid requirement remains it might rule out CEP entirely for you. Again, its an unknown, until we see final detail.

Since your house is new, I'd make a submission around that 2011 requirement being removed if I were you!

the_amazing_raisin

Regarding the export limit, they do seem to be saying anything up to 50kW can qualify as a microgenerator

It seems the process for up to 6kW single phase or 11kW 3 phase is quite straightforward to get connected as it requires no changes to the existing grid

Exporting above this power is feasible but requires more documentation. The current process seems to require a lot in terms of certification and various power calculations which would require a qualified electrical engineer to work out. It also seems to be subject to an auction system and has a fairly expensive depoist

I'm hoping they simplify the process a bit for the 11kW-50kW generators and remove the auction bit. I'm pretty sure the grid can handle a few 50kW generators without disrupting the gas power stations profits