Half a million installations!

14 Jan 2014: The Guardian reports: "The solar power industry appears to have installed its 500,000th set of panels in the UK in recent days, in a move that marks a major milestone for the burgeoning sector.
    According to figures by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, 499,687 solar schemes had been installed by 5 January under the feed-in tariff scheme that supports solar arrays with a capacity smaller than 50kW."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/14/solar-panels-on-half-a-million-uk-buildings-figures-suggest

Solar companies to sue government

23 Jan 2013: Guardian article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/23/solar-companies-feed-in-tariff-cuts
17 companies suing the British government for £140million. 2012 has been a bad year for the solar industry, not just because of the endless rainfall, but because Osborne cut away most of the incentive provided by the Feed in Tariff - causing immense problems for the Renewables industry which had geared up to meet the demand.

1000 megawatt milestone achieved

26 Feb 2012: Here's a link to a Guardian report that the growth of solar panel installations in the UK has pass the 1000MW mark last week. This has been due to the 'explosive' growth of the rate of installation since the Feed in Tariff was announced in 2009. This is 41 times the amount of PV panels previously installed. I call that a success.

    Looking at it from the higher plane, it should not be about Tariff, which is a short term incentive - but the tariff has been miraculously successful. As a species we are motivated by economic forces.
    It should be about widespread generation of totally Clean Energy with zero infrastructure cost (we provide the roof and pay for the installation), and zero wholesale fuel purchase cost (the Sun), and zero running cost (apart from the FIT which is cheaper than the costs of salaries and maintenance of a power station).
   A good economic justification for the tariff is that energy delivered to houses from distant power stations is only about 1/3 of that generated at source, whereas the energy we supply to our neighbours is 1/1 - 3 times as efficient!

There is still uncertainty in the industry about the status of the FiT, although there is no worry about the 21p tariff - the confusion is about the 43p one. If you have a decent size of roof with good orientation, it is still an excellent investment at the 21p rate.
   It is most unfortunate that at the same time as this confusion is occurring, there is also much discontent in the Wind industry. Although the government is nominally backing it, the confusion in the PV industry and the damage caused by the 100 tory MPs letter has caused the big players in the Wind industry to freeze some projects which would have created thousands of jobs. Whatever you think of wind towers in the landscape, there is still an overwhelming need for electricity in our modern life. The MPs think that electricity flows from a socket, not being aware that it has to be generated somewhere. They would be woken up to reality if there were more brown-outs. In the high winds of last autumn, a nuclear power station in Scotland was out of action for more than 2 days, so it isn't just windmills that have problems sometime.
   The government has a target of 22mW installation by the end of the decade, but their tampering with the FiT and their linking with EPCs has made this target near impossible unless a future government support the FiT more earnestly. Germany has 25MW already.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/23/feed-in-tariff-solar-breakthrough?intcmp=122

Green Technologies

10 Jan 2012:  The need for the economy to make a transition to green technologies is eloquently explained in this Guardian article by Andrew Simms. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/green-economy-boost-2012

There's a story here of lost opportunities, governments going back on promises, ideals which get dumped if they are not 'good for business'.... The green movement needs to keep plugging away, it ain't going to come easy.

High Court ruling on FIT changes

24 Dec 2011: It seems that the High Court found that the government were wrongful in pressing ahead with major changes to the Feed in Tariff without considering that the consultation process was not completed, and that the deadlines given have caused untold chaos in the solar installation industry.... and we should not forget some of the inevitable job losses or company closures.

[See the Guardian Report for details. ]

Most people assume that Cameron and Osborne (who seems from his actions and saying to have little regard for the 'Green' revolution) will just carry on regardless of the Court ruling, or of the effects on the Solar industry and customers. 

Why link to Insulation?

When this was first mooted, it was proposed that the higher tariff should apply to houses which meet an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) of level "C". Although this sounds at first sight like a good incentive, it reveals, at closer inspection to be just another form of discouragement, and favouring the well off house owner.

   Energy Generation is a different matter from Energy Conservation, and both are excellent, but there is No Reason for them to be so tightly linked, or for one to exclude the other. Should we also make a law that "Only houses with PV panels should be Insulated"? Of course not. That demonstrates the absurdity of the current proposal that "Only houses with Insulation should have PV panels". There are other ways to incentivise insulation, and these are being done.

  Society needs Energy, so why should we not encourage panels to be fixed on garages, barns and old houses that are not easy to insulate? In the same way, there are many buildings than can and should be insulated, but because of chimneys, dormers, trees or hips, they cannot be adapted for photovoltaic. 

    It can cost more to insulate a house up to level C than to fix solar panels. This new requirement becomes a charter favouring the rich or the owner occupier, because it requires an expensive operation on the house first, and perhaps a season's delay. 

   What does it do for social housing (especially of older dwellings)? A quick one or two day installation of panels can reduce future fuel poverty for a whole street, but a programme of insulation of a whole street would mean a complex and expensive process of decanting tenants etc. with funds that the local authorities or housing associations do not have.

Changes to FIT

30 Oct 2011: DNC writes: Congratulations to all who had the courage to go ahead and install PV during the last 2 years. If you are on the bandwagon, your investment is reasonably safe (although government still has the right to decide how index linking goes). Those who have not installed have to go ahead quick, as the Feed in Tariff changes expected for April 2012 may occur earlier, perhaps in December 2011.
If you have a system installed, but haven't yet registered it for FIT, do so very quickly, because there is a dealing coming up.
    The Guardian got this scoop off the Energy Saving Trust website, shortly before it disappeared again from the EST website. But the details were mostly confirmed by Greg Barker in the morning news of 29th Oct. The DECC website will show the details from Monday 31st Oct onwards.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2011/oct/28/feed-in-tariffs-solarpower

     I don't altogether disagree with the policy. Degression was always going to be built in, but it needs to degress faster, due to the fall in the cost of installations. The original assumption was that Energy prices are only ever going to go up, and this has been true. The next assumption is that increasing world demand would balance with falling manufacturing cost keeping installation prices stable - this assumption was wrong, because costs of installations have almost halved in a couple of years due to vastly ramped up Chinese manufacturing, and competition in the installation industry. But most people will find the new rate is a serious discouragement, even if they are well intended to do something for clean energy and safer climate - 43p reducing to 21p will reduce payback to 5-6% (16-20 years), and the resulting cutback in installations will not bring prices down as fast as they have fallen since 2009.

   My 4kW installation was over £19K a mere two years ago, and now 4kW is reliably only about £11k, and some installers can beat even that. When I started doing Rushcliffe Solar estimations, we were getting paybacks of 8%-10%, and now prices have fallen so much that it's 12%-16% - this is too high a return, causing people to make rushed decisions for the wrong motives. The minister said that people should also consider the other long term things like improving house insulation and glazing, before rushing to instal electrical generation on inefficient buildings.

   Ironically, this decision is going to push PV prices up, as there are increasingly frantic order books, and shoppers can no longer shop around much - they just have to select whoever can fit them in before the new year. Companies who have moved into PV may be considering shifting out of it again. It is a blow for the nascent industry, to be sure.
See also:
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2120568/feed-tariff-cuts-threaten-kill-solar-pv
http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/national-news/122739-consumers-and-industry-react-with-fury-to-leaked-feed-in-tariff-cut-plans.html

Media coverage of Solar PV

August
There is a very good discussion of the 'Solar for Free' idea in an article in the Guardian of 9 August. This followed the outbreak of articles in the Times and Mail, and features on the BBC, mostly initiated by the clever press agencies working for the companies who offer the 'Solar for Free'. The Guardian did a far better job of researching what was behind the story, remembering to put the other point of view.
We are not against it, because we are glad to see more solar roofs, but we are against the spokespersons failing to mention that if you pay for it yourself, you will enjoy a massive benefit from the Feed in Tariff.
  The summary of Adam Vaughan's Guardian article is saying that it's a better idea for you the householder to get the feed in tariff.

Loan Scheme for householders - perhaps....

The Guardian has a good article on a new Loan scheme for householders, based on Pay as you Earn from your Feed in Tariff. This is not zero interest, but is low interest, similar to Mortgage rates (which are cheaper than normal bank loans.) And you would still experience much reduced electricity bills, as I do now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/mar/06/solar-panels-pay-as-you-save
But before you go ahead, note that the article points out that the scheme will take time to go through, and would not complete until after the General Election.
The feed in tariff is agreed by all parties, so that is not affected.

Jeremy Leggett replies to Monbiot

I am glad to see that Jeremy Leggett has provided a spirited reply to George Monbiot's misleading article; you can read it at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/09/george-monbiot-bet-solar-pv
We do not regret our PV at all, it is pumping electricity into the grid very well. In March we have already equalled the whole of February's harvest by the 9th of March - more than 3 weeks to go yet!
In September, I am planning to add another 3 panels on my south wall.

Brignall takes the boot out!

Miles Brignall has a long report in the Guardian Money section, following the announcement of the Feed in tariffs and now the scheme of loans for householders. The cost of installation can be met from the future Feed in Tariff earnings. These, the responsibility and the loan, can be passed on to the inheritors/ buyers of the house if you move on.
  Read the article and give it some good thought. It makes huge sense, and is a good riposte to the destructive article by Monbiot.

Monbiot puts the boot in

I have never disagreed with Georges Monbiot before. But in an article in the Guardian, he has written a horrible diatribe against solar PV which of course throws comfort to the deniers, and conveniently ignores arguments which dent his. I will try to answer some of these, but to place a responding comment on the Guardian website you have to register and create a new password etc, which is so tiresome.
      His argument is typical of those who have come round to the idea of reviving Nuclear power, and is in favour of highly centralised power plants, or offshore windfarms. I cannot believe the naivety of one of his arguments which is similar to the right wing "if you give child benefit to the poor they will only spend it on drink" - in which he argues that you could be paying feed in tariff to families living in uninsulated houses, when they should be spending it on insulation. The reality (which he ignores) is that PV is something that highly conscientious people fit after they have already done the easy things like insulation and double glazing.
  I may add more.. but I am getting ready for an early start in the morning to go to EcoBuild.