Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

FITs, PV and the UK: The Bigger Picture

By Miguel Mendonça, Author
March 16, 2010   |   8 Comments
A response to the current feed-in tariff/ PV debate in the UK.

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

8 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 8
Anonymous
March 17, 2010
The author states: "Feed-in tariffs are a proven method of rapidly delivering the largest volume of this renewable energy at the lowest cost"

This is a highly dubious claim. FITs do create a small market for enormously costly technology. The correlation between creating this initial market and getting a cost-effective product that might ultimately gain a decent market share without subsidies is speculation. R&D funding seems much more likely to accelerate needed technological breakthroughs than government mandated purchases of inferior products.
Steven
Comment
2 of 8
March 18, 2010
The above comment notes the author has asserted that "Feed-in Tariffs are a proven method of rapidly delivering the largest volume of this renewable energy at the lowest cost".

The German experience has demonstrated the truth of that statement. Howeverthe weaknesses of FiT schemes are now out there for all to see. Cutbacks in the FiT payments are widespread. I think that this is indicative of an inherent weakness in the thinking behind FiT schemes.

The take into account emerging technology and cost reductions I think each photovoltaic facility, (larger than say 20KW), needs to be assessed in terms of its total cost, (determined by rigorous audit), and its electrical performance over say a two year period.

Payments to the owners should comprise three components; payment of the electricity produced, payment for the reduction in GHG's production and payment of a government guarantee that ensures an adequate return on investment and replacement of assets.

The detail would vary from country to country but I believe there is a clear need to think differently about the way FiT schemes are devised. It would give governments and investors greater certainty and would better adapted to technological change and declining costs.
Comment
3 of 8
March 19, 2010
Howard,

Germany's FIT scheme already fulfils your requirements. It pays a fixed amount per kilowatt hour, based one all three of the benefits you have listed. For the sake of simplicity, customers are given one payment rather than three separate ones. And of course the goal is, as you say, to provide owner/operators of PV systems with a reasonable and secure return on investment.

In order to take advantage of falling production costs (enabled by the very market volumes that Feed-in Tariffs bring with them) Germany's FIT reduces every year. In fact Germany's most recent version of their renewable energy law reduces the tariff even faster if the financial return becomes too attractive and the PV market grows faster than anticipated.

The reason for the recent cuts announced by Germany (also France and the Czech Republic) is that the market succeeded in reducing the market price for PV even faster than the (already accelerated) reductions foreseen in their respective laws. This is absolutely does NOT indicate any weakness in FIT programs. Rather, it proves that they achieve their goal (driving PV volumes up and prices down) and that governments can easily adjust their FIT rates to further accelerate this trend. Naturally these adjustments are preceded by lots of debate about the depth of new FIT cuts as well as their timing (due to the lead time on larger projects) but that is part of the democratic process and certainly nothing to be afraid of.
No image available
Comment
4 of 8
Anonymous
March 19, 2010
I have to disagree with Howard's remarks in comment #2. The German FIT scheme indicates success at delivering modest volume at the HIGHEST cost. In some years half of all the PV panels produced were installed in cloudy Germany (probably not the best deployment) because they were willing to overpay for the limited supply. There are some people who believe that overpaying for something eventually causes innovation; somewhere I sense a flaw in this argument. All those who wish to prove me wrong should send me checks for items they wish to pay 20% above market price for and I will ship these to them while providing as much innovation as I can muster.

Howard also feels that governments should guarantee an adequate return on investment for PV. As a rate payer I think the government should promote a robust free market so that competition provides me with the lowest possible prices for electricity. Ih Howard wants to subsidize inefficiency I suggest that he make direct payments to the vendors of his choice.
Comment
5 of 8
March 23, 2010
Anonymous, there is no such thing as a free market energy supply. The FF lobby is well endowed and therefore powerful, leaning on 100 year of already written off investments in those technologies.

Externalities like coal pollution , coal ash waste handling, black lung coal miner hospital care etc are NOT accounted for in the coal electricity price you pay for. Therefore your free market assumption is biased from the start. And do not get me started on 'cheap' nuke power plants.

If I pursue your logic to the end, I wonder why we went to the moon, why we invested in mobile phone technology, why we invested in mamoth computers in the 1950's. Of course you now enjoy digital watches developped during the moon race, mobile phones replacing the now obsolete fixed phone lines and portable pc's that replaced the typewriter, all being manifold more powerful than the technology they replaced.

My point ? Fossil fuels are FINITE. That alone is enough for me to invest 20% more in PV and other renewable technologies, allowing the growth of scale to do it's magic, by reducing the prices in an analog way as it did to qartz technology, mobile phone technology, computer technology. Or do you want to go back to the stone age, once the last drop of oil, coal or uranium is extracted ?

To drive my point home : in the 80's, wind turbine generated electricity at 60 cents per kWh, now it is around 6 to 9 cents/kWh. PV electricity is going the same curve : in the 1980's : 80 cents per kWh, now around 18 cents per kWh.

So let the FIT program do it's work, by increasing demand, leading us to purchase it, and reducing prices along the way. Your kids will be thankful you did it.
No image available
Comment
6 of 8
Anonymous
March 23, 2010
Some of these comments are very naive.
First of all, the amount of electricity generated under a FIT Program is a very small percentage of the total energy used. When you divide the total cost (including the FIT cost) by the total energy used ... the actual impact per Kw is barely noticeable.
If you live in a location where Peak Demand happens and the utilities have to buy extra electricity from an outside source, all internal producers get the same price as the the external producer ... and this is far more expensive than anything caused by FIT.
Lastly, remember what you paid for the first generation of electric calculators, televisions, computers etc. verses what you can currently buy them for ... an amazing difference, Why? Simple supply and demand, which creates mass production, which brings down the price, and allows new research to make a better product at a cheaper price. This isn't rocket science!
At the turn of the 20th century, Luddites, like some of these commentators, had all these same type of justifications why the automobile was too expensive, too noisy, and not necessary because the horse and carriage was the best and only way to go.
As the population continues to grow at almost exponential speed, sustainable renewable energy must happen of, like many previous cultures, ours will also die.
No image available
Comment
7 of 8
Anonymous
March 24, 2010
People looking for the cheapest way to do things are the problem. All the things we do are bound up in a social and ecological context that cannot be reduced to pennies. The costs of cheap oil outside the economy are staggering. Maybe people do not count those costs because they think they have escaped paying for them. We all know this is an illusion. The contempt shown for solar power reveals more about the writers than it does about the cost of solar power. I have solar panels on my roof. And I have never regretted the paying the price to get them. They link me to the solution to the problems of global warming and pollution of earth, air and water than is driving us towards extinction. Get a clue you rational calculators. Before it is too late.
Comment
8 of 8
March 24, 2010
I support a feed-in tariff for small rooftop solar, as it will make up for the economy of scale that leads to mega-projects.

See what we are facing here in Colorado's San Luis Valley- square miles of solar plants and transmission line http://www.saveslv.org
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Miguel Mendonca

View Miguel Mendonca's Profile
About: Miguel Mendonça is Research Manager for the World Future Council. His background is in forestry, horticulture, geography, history, journalism, social science an... more »

Advertise With Us

Endurance Wind Power POWER-GEN Africa Renewable Energy World Europe Rotork plc American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) 3TIER Planet Solar Inc
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters