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

holdfast

I think anyone can apply when the scheme is up and running. But the way this is been touted it primarily to meet the users with a little kick for the county. If you go bigger and export more my guess is you will not get paid more than the average kWh rate. The intent at this stage is for people to use as much as they can i.e best payback and then a little incentive to offset the losses. But who knows they may make a cash for ash scheme like the North.

I even think sizing your system to meet your ev and heat pump may be overkill. As the more demand we have the more wind energy we can put on the grid at night and or winter, when it is at its best output. This will happen more over the next few years so energy may become cheaper at these times. Versus a PV battery system which will have a low output in the winter and more costly. Just my reading of where we are going.

the_amazing_raisin

I think that 3kW limit seems pretty poor. I know some inverters let you limit the export and it's designed for self consumption, but there's going to be times when you're outputting more and can't consume it all

I get that there has to be limits, but I can't see any reason why they can't give an export limit that same as your import limit (16kVA in my case). Even 50% of the import limit would go a long way

If they want to put limits on a microgeneration scheme, then it should be around the amount of kWh exported per year. In other words, below say 5000kWh per year you get a guaranteed rate, above that you get a lower rate per kWh.

the_amazing_raisin

Okay, having read as much as I could understand, maybe someone could make sure I'm not wandering wildly off track.

The proposal seems to be summarised below (I've added some paragraphs and emphasis):

Based on the assessment report, the recommended policy option is an option that includes a Clean Export Guarantee(CEG). The advantages of a Clean Export Guarantee is that it can be provided at near cost-neutrality as the rates are provided by suppliers based on wholesale electricity prices, which also aligns with the European objectives of the recast Renewable Energy Directive. Moreover, a CEG is inherently able to provide incentives for self-consumption, energy efficiency and avoids the risk of overcompensation, which are all objectives set under the Climate Action Plan.

The long-term objective is to have an arrangement that provides a market-based payment that incentivises export of electricity when the peak system demand occurs through optimising demand side time-of-use of appliances, so as to reduce the costs of supporting non-renewable back-up generation.

Suppliers would then be able to offer time-of use tariffs that vary for different periods of the day and this would optimise micro-generation for system demand. This requires a system of time-of use tariffs and a deployment of Smart Meters that is not available in the Irish electricity market today but should be planned for over the lifetime of the MSS.

In the interim,the CEG can be supported through an interim settlement arrangement based on a manual process, and therefore a minimum tariff is being proposed that reflects the average wholesale Day Ahead Market Price (DAM).

As the CEG will not be able to meet the viability gap for the lowest cost technologies in any sector until technology costs reduce further, it is recommended that the CEG is supplemented by a Clean Export Premium(CEP) in the first years to support deployment of new renewable micro-generation. In line with the CEG, a minimum tariff by sector based on the viability gap of the lowest cost technology is being proposed.

As the CEP is defined as bridging the difference between the viability gap and the CEG provided for new installations, and the technology costs are expected to reduce, there is also a planned phase-out of this subsidy over time, thereby reducing the risk of policy uncertainty or overcompensation.

And some explanation of the terms

CEG = SEG:
A Smart Export Guarantee (SEG), which is an obligation on licensed electricity suppliers of a specific size to offer an export tariff to renewable generators with eligible installations. The suppliers can decide the level of the export tariff as well as its type and length. This could mean there could be a variety of different SEG tariffs available and generators may consider switching to suppliers with the most favourable SEG

CEP = FIP:
Under a feed-in premium (FIP)scheme, generators receive a premium on top of the market price of their electricity production. Premiums can either be fixed (at a constant level independent of market prices) or sliding (with levels varying in line with wholesale electricity prices). Fixed FIP schemes are simpler in design but there is a risk of overcompensation in the case of high market prices or under-compensation when market prices are low. In the case of slidingFIP schemes, the regulator faces some risk in case electricity prices decrease, as support levels fluctuate with changes in electricity market prices. On the other hand, the regulator does not risk having to pay for overcompensation, as is the case under a fixed FIP scheme. The sliding FIP scheme does however make the scheme more complex, thereby adding additional administration costs.

So basically what they're saying is that electricity providers will be obliged to pay a rate for export defined by the CRU based on the market prices of electricity (CEG). This can be a fixed rate or an agile rate based on market prices, it's up to the supplier which they choose

Because there's some question marks over the viability of this model, there's be a premium rate paid over the market rate for a while until costs get lower

Am I reading that right?

idc

KCross wrote: »

I didn’t read it that way. I think those tables were for illustration and cost estimation. I didn’t read it as being used to fix every generator to one fixed export limit.

That wouldn’t make much sense as the variation in household electricity usage is huge.

How do you think they will monitor generation in that case?

Currently the only official meter is the one where electricity enters the premises. How will they monitor a multitude of different inverters/batteries inside each house. Realistically it would need to be monitoring of the dc cables. Monitoring electricity coming out of a combo battery/inverter is no good as you'd also need to account for people filling battery from mains.

Also am sure someone on one of the other PV threads mentioned how it would be easier to cheat the system if they had a meter at the fuse board inside the house for calculating pv generation!

KCross

idc wrote: »

How do you think they will monitor generation in that case?

Currently the only official meter is the one where electricity enters the premises. How will they monitor a multitude of different inverters/batteries inside each house. Realistically it would need to be monitoring of the dc cables. Monitoring electricity coming out of a combo battery/inverter is no good as you'd also need to account for people filling battery from mains.

Also am sure someone on one of the other PV threads mentioned how it would be easier to cheat the system if they had a meter at the fuse board inside the house for calculating pv generation!

No one knows but I presume you’ll need an export/smart meter and somehow register the size of your system.

They might realise it can’t really be policed and not enforce it at all. They could come up with anything!

graememk

The only place they can monitor is in the sealed smart meter.

There could maybe try to set limits.. or something. But the meter is the only place.

idc

I think my previous idea on 30% is slightly wrong as rereading i noticed the value I reported is actual annual demand as opposed to generation!

Given the variety of different use cases within a sector and the lack of available demand
data for these use cases, it was necessary to make several assumptions to determine the
demand which is detailed below. The following table summarises the annual demand
assumed across each sector.

But then after the table of sectors it also states

Using these annual demands, annual hourly demand profiles are determined to examine
supply vs demand and generate self-consumed and exported power proportions.

so the likelihood is the 30% cap will be derived off some value based on the above demand. So they'll come up with some formula to determine the average house with PV and how much it generates in a year!

Thats just my take on this!!!

championc

KCross wrote: »

No one knows but I presume you’ll need an export/smart meter and somehow register the size of your system.

They might realise it can’t really be policed and not enforce it at all. They could come up with anything!

They already know the size of people's systems, from the NC6 Form, which is tied to your MPRN

idc

championc wrote: »

They already know the size of people's systems, from the NC6 Form, which is tied to your MPRN

Not exactly it only reports the size of the inverter I think. Which isn't really the complete picture. I could install a 6kW inverter for future use while initially only attaching 1kWp worth of panels!
Or what about all the guys you add to there system. Do you send in a new NC6 Form?

KCross

graememk wrote: »

The only place they can monitor is in the sealed smart meter.

There could maybe try to set limits.. or something. But the meter is the only place.

championc wrote: »

They already know the size of people's systems, from the NC6 Form, which is tied to your MPRN

I'd agree. Realistically the export meter (smart or otherwise) is the only measure they can reliably use. Anything inside the premise will be wide open to abuse. Eirgrid wont go there.

idc wrote: »

Not exactly it only reports the size of the inverter I think. Which isn't really the complete picture. I could install a 6kW inverter for future use while initially only attaching 1kWp worth of panels!
Or what about all the guys you add to there system. Do you send in a new NC6 Form?

The NC6 has two elements...
- Inverter: Model and Rating (Max Mec)
- Panels: Max Generation Capacity (kVA)

They look for both but in any case it couldnt really be used for capping a FiT. You could have filled in an NC6 and then subsequently upgraded the inverter or added panels. How would they know? Unless its an offence to add panels without an NC6 update and they actually enforce that!

The export meter is the only real reliable measurement they can use but its still perplexing as to how they think they can detect whether you have breached the 30% export limit when they dont know how much you have generated.

I'm worried about this element of the scheme as they might come up with some mad system administered by SEAI which will just make the whole thing more cumbersome than it should be.

mp3guy

KCross wrote: »

I'm worried about this element of the scheme as they might come up with some mad system administered by SEAI which will just make the whole thing more cumbersome than it should be.

Sounds about right.

slave1

Oh absolutely, red stupid tape like having to print off and snailmail photos to the SEAI to adhere to EV Home Chargepoint grant criteria, emails not accepted, the mind boggles

graememk

slave1 wrote: »

Oh absolutely, red stupid tape like having to print off and snailmail photos to the SEAI to adhere to EV Home Chargepoint grant criteria, emails not accepted, the mind boggles

They dont even have the decency to snail mail back the confirmation that they have got it, they email it back to you...

MAULBROOK

championc wrote: »

They already know the size of people's systems, from the NC6 Form, which is tied to your MPRN

My NC6 stated a 4.8kw system, it now a 6.2kw and thats not on any NC6 form.

idc

MAULBROOK wrote: »

My NC6 stated a 4.8kw system, it now a 6.2kw and thats not on any NC6 form.

I guess thats another question? Are you supposed to send in a new NC6 if you change your system. I did notice on form it has spaces for up to 3 inverters!!

the_amazing_raisin

KCross wrote: »

I'd agree. Realistically the export meter (smart or otherwise) is the only measure they can reliably use. Anything inside the premise will be wide open to abuse. Eirgrid wont go there.

There's only 3 ways I can see it being enforceable

1. Installations over 6kWp (I think that's the limit???) are required to go to 3 phase to allow more export power. There'll probably be an assessment when applying for export to determine of your grid connection can handle the peak power. Presumably Eirgrid would need to be informed then of any expansions to your PV array
2. The export meter has a built in limiter to prevent more power from being exported
3. Eirgrid monitor the output of the smart meter closely, they can update every 30 mins so they could flag any premises that are exporting more than the limit quite quickly

MAULBROOK

idc wrote: »

I guess thats another question? Are you supposed to send in a new NC6 if you change your system. I did notice on form it has spaces for up to 3 inverters!!

Not a clue

mp3guy

cruisey1987 wrote: »

There's only 3 ways I can see it being enforceable

1. Installations over 6kWp (I think that's the limit???) are required to go to 3 phase to allow more export power. There'll probably be an assessment when applying for export to determine of your grid connection can handle the peak power. Presumably Eirgrid would need to be informed then of any expansions to your PV array
2. The export meter has a built in limiter to prevent more power from being exported
3. Eirgrid monitor the output of the smart meter closely, they can update every 30 mins so they could flag any premises that are exporting more than the limit quite quickly

Why would higher than 6kW export require three phase? You can import 15kW on single phase, why not export?

How would a meter "limit" the power? It has to go somewhere, and I doubt it could just be dissipated. It would require communication with individual inverters to scale down the array.

graememk

Making sure the premium tariff they are suggesting isnt exploited by putting limits on things just complicated things to no end.

id be happy with the average wholesale rate (even if there is a 3% reduction on it or something)

Will have to wait until this consultation process is over... Fun.

I'd say they wont limit the export, just not pay you for it!

idc

mp3guy wrote: »

Why would higher than 6kW export require three phase? You can import 15kW on single phase, why not export?.

Because that's the rules as defined by esb networks. https://www.esbnetworks.ie/new-connections/generator-connections/connect-a-micro-generator

25 amperes (6kW) at low voltage [230 volt] when the connection is single phase
16 amperes(11kW) at low voltage [230/400 volt] when the connection is three phase

mp3guy

idc wrote: »

Because that's the rules as defined by esb networks. https://www.esbnetworks.ie/new-connections/generator-connections/connect-a-micro-generator

My point is that it was implied you had to go to three phase for some technical reason as opposed to the ESB's arbitrary 6kW rule, which seems like it may change after this consulation is over. You can for example, export more than 6kW if you go the more awkward route that doesn't involve the "express" NC6 form that suits most for microgeneration - https://www.esbnetworks.ie/new-connections/generator-connections/connect-a-renewable-embedded-generator. The ESB has numerous generators connected on the LV network in the tens of kW.

the_amazing_raisin

mp3guy wrote: »

My point is that it was implied you had to go to three phase for some technical reason as opposed to the ESB's arbitrary 6kW rule, which seems like it may change after this consulation is over. You can for example, export more than 6kW if you go the more awkward route that doesn't involve the "express" NC6 form that suits most for microgeneration - https://www.esbnetworks.ie/new-connections/generator-connections/connect-a-renewable-embedded-generator. The ESB has numerous generators connected on the LV network in the tens of kW.

I agree the 6kW rule doesn't make sense and I'll be saying as much in my response to the consultation. Nevertheless, the ESB make the rules and we have to abide by them


I looked at the details for the higher power generator and you need to provide numerous design documents and certificates, which will probably need an electrical engineer to provide. There's also a non-refundable a connection fee deposit of around €2k if I recall . I doubt you'll make enough on export to pay for the cost of the connection

mp3guy

cruisey1987 wrote: »

I looked at the details for the higher power generator and you need to provide numerous design documents and certificates, which will probably need an electrical engineer to provide. There's also a non-refundable a connection fee deposit of around €2k if I recall . I doubt you'll make enough on export to pay for the cost of the connection

Yes, the red tape surrounding NC5(A) is something that comes up often. NC6 is much easier for the many PV installations happening these days.

The fees are listed in that link I posted above, for e.g. it's €773 for > 11kW ≤ 50kW. With a decent sized array, you might make that back from FIT within a year or two. Or, given a big enough array and home usage, will save yourself that money on bills if you were otherwise unable to get such a big installation.

KCross

mp3guy wrote: »

My point is that it was implied you had to go to three phase for some technical reason as opposed to the ESB's arbitrary 6kW rule, which seems like it may change after this consulation is over.

I dont think its that arbitrary. Going over 6kW means they have to do an assessment to see if there is any infrastructure work required to support it based on other micro-generators on the same line etc.

e.g. if you opened it up that every house could get 11kW you could on a sunny day overload local infrastructure if several houses were dumping to the grid at the same time... the 6kW "express" option is there for a reason.

The consultation paper says that "everyone" could install 3kW PV today and the grid would be fine and in lots of cases it could take 6kW without upgrades being required but beyond that they would have to do infrastructure upgrades or at least assess your particular location.

I dont think they'll change these requirements particularly since the document makes several references to self-consumption being the focus.

mp3guy

KCross wrote: »

I dont think its that arbitrary. Going over 6kW means they have to do an assessment to see if there is any infrastructure work required to support it based on other micro-generators on the same line etc.

e.g. if you opened it up that every house could get 11kW you could on a sunny day overload local infrastructure if several houses were dumping to the grid at the same time... the 6kW "express" option is there for a reason.

The consultation paper says that "everyone" could install 3kW PV today and the grid would be fine and in lots of cases it could take 6kW without upgrades being required but beyond that they would have to do infrastructure upgrades or at least assess your particular location.

I dont think they'll change these requirements particularly since the document makes several references to self-consumption being the focus.

Right, yes. The impression I have is that it's first come first served when it comes to that capacity, which you can view here https://www.esbnetworks.ie/new-connections/generator-connections/network-capacity-map.

So, if you want to be able to do something unusual and export more than standard amounts, better nab any available capacity before your neighbours get PV.

the_amazing_raisin

KCross wrote: »

I dont think its that arbitrary. Going over 6kW means they have to do an assessment to see if there is any infrastructure work required to support it based on other micro-generators on the same line etc.

e.g. if you opened it up that every house could get 11kW you could on a sunny day overload local infrastructure if several houses were dumping to the grid at the same time... the 6kW "express" option is there for a reason.

The consultation paper says that "everyone" could install 3kW PV today and the grid would be fine and in lots of cases it could take 6kW without upgrades being required but beyond that they would have to do infrastructure upgrades or at least assess your particular location.

I dont think they'll change these requirements particularly since the document makes several references to self-consumption being the focus.

It's showing a pretty severe lack of ambition though, indicates the ESB is unwilling to do any work to make the grid able to handle more microgeneration

mp3guy

cruisey1987 wrote: »

It's showing a pretty severe lack of ambition though, indicates the ESB is unwilling to do any work to make the grid able to handle more microgeneration

They'll continue fighting tooth and nail to prevent progress.

KCross

mp3guy wrote: »

Right, yes. The impression I have is that it's first come first served when it comes to that capacity, which you can view here https://www.esbnetworks.ie/new-connections/generator-connections/network-capacity-map.

So, if you want to be able to do something unusual and export more than standard amounts, better nab any available capacity before your neighbours get PV.

The consultation clearly says that everyone should have access to the scheme so I doubt they will refuse your application because your neighbors have availed of it already. If there are upgrades required the consumer wont have to directly pay for those upgrades but if you ask for a larger array than they decide you will probably have to pay a shortfall.

It would work the same as your incoming grid connection. We are all entitled to a grid connection and the regulator sets the price for a connection upto 16kVA... if you want more than that you pay extra for the privilege. They will likely do the same here for any upgrades related to export.

cruisey1987 wrote: »

It's showing a pretty severe lack of ambition though, indicates the ESB is unwilling to do any work to make the grid able to handle more microgeneration

The document says that they have done a study and everyone could install 3kWp today and the grid would be fine as is so I dont see an issue unless your plan is to install a large array (>10kWp).

For sure they are not in favour of promoting micro-generation in general but the 6kW limit isnt really a manifestation of that. If you want a larger array you can have it and you pay for the infrastructure upgrades accordingly.... in the very same way you can have a 20-30kVA grid connection into your house as well if you like but you pay the fees accordingly.


I think we need to understand also that the proposed FiT is not free to the taxpayer. It is a subsidy that other taxpayers will have to pay for. So, opening it up to allow unfettered access and have people putting in huge arrays just to make money off other taxpayers isnt reasonable.... we dont need another "ash for cash" scheme like they have in the North.

Its easy to say, i'm generating electricity and giving it to Eirgrid for free.... but its not as simple as that. The big generators still have to be on standby and paid for when the clouds roll over and you stop exporting.... hence why its a subsidy that is being socialised.

unkel

KCross wrote: »

if you opened it up that every house could get 11kW you could on a sunny day overload local infrastructure

KCross wrote: »

The consultation paper says that "everyone" could install 3kW PV today and the grid would be fine.

Do you not think those statements contradict each other?

So if every household could export 3kW that means that on the day the FIT comes in, the grid would be fine if a quarter of all households overnight have a 11kwp install. Which of course is not going to happen, the uptake of micro generation will be very, very gradual (would take years for even that level of 3kW per household - we might never get that far) and the ESB will monitor this and over time they can adjust the grid to allow for a lot more micro generation than we have today.

Other countries in the EU are years ahead of us and they didn't seem to have massive problems...

the_amazing_raisin

unkel wrote: »

Do you not think those statements contradict each other?

So if every household could export 3kW that means that on the day the FIT comes in, the grid would be fine if a quarter of all households overnight have a 11kwp install. Which of course is not going to happen, the uptake of micro generation will be very, very gradual (would take years for even that level of 3kW per household - we might never get that far) and the ESB will monitor this and over time they can adjust the grid to allow for a lot more micro generation than we have today.

Other countries in the EU are years ahead of us and they didn't seem to have massive problems...

I think they did mention they can support larger export with a smaller uptake, which is the more likely scenario

KCross

unkel wrote: »

Do you not think those statements contradict each other?

So if every household could export 3kW that means that on the day the FIT comes in, the grid would be fine if a quarter of all households overnight have a 11kwp install. Which of course is not going to happen, the uptake of micro generation will be very, very gradual (would take years for even that level of 3kW per household - we might never get that far) and the ESB will monitor this and over time they can adjust the grid to allow for a lot more micro generation than we have today.

Other countries in the EU are years ahead of us and they didn't seem to have massive problems...

I don’t follow your logic at all. I don’t see a contradiction.

They simply want to ensure that you don’t have one person taking all the capacity on a transformer to the detriment of everyone else having access.

It’s also about spreading the subsidy to as many houses as possible.

Which is better... 3 houses with 10kWp arrays or 10 houses with 3kWp arrays!

unkel

KCross wrote: »

Which is better... 3 houses with 10kWp arrays or 10 houses with 3kWp arrays!

10 houses with 10kwp arrays

My point is if they are saying that if every house in the land would export 3kW, that's fine. So what's the problem here? It would take many years before we reach that level even if anyone so inclined would start installing 10kwp arrays from tomorrow

KCross

unkel wrote: »

10 houses with 10kwp arrays

My point is if they are saying that if every house in the land would export 3kW, that's fine. So what's the problem here? It would take many years before we reach that level even if anyone so inclined would start installing 10kwp arrays from tomorrow

There isnt a problem per se.
The discussion had two tangents...

- Why the current 6kW export limit dictated by Eirgrid under the NC6 system
- Why the 30% export limit proposed by this consultation.

Im just explaining the logic for those two things as laid out in the consultation paper.

Its not all about "can the grid take it". The taxpayer is funding this and so part of it is about value for money.

mp3guy

I think this consultation has just added more confusion to the mix.

So today, the grid could take, on average, 3kWp export from every house. So, what does that mean? What does it mean for existing 6kW installs, future installs > 3kW. Waiting lists? Payment for infrastructure upgrades if your neighbour got in there first? A cap on all installs to 3kWp unless you pay even if there is capacity?

unkel

KCross wrote: »

The taxpayer is funding this and so part of it is about value for money.

I haven't thought this through, but what makes you think the taxpayer is paying for this? Is it not just basically your utility provider that buys from you at the same rate as they buy from their wholesale suppliers? So they pay you 5c and sell it onto your neighbour for 15c

KCross

mp3guy wrote: »

I think this consultation has just added more confusion to the mix.

It has certainly raised additional questions because they havent clearly laid out how it will be implemented but I suppose thats the whole point of a consultation... to get feedback.

mp3guy wrote: »

So today, the grid could take, on average, 3kWp export from every house. So, what does that mean?

It means that no grid upgrades would be required to support anyone installing 3kWp of Solar on their roof.

mp3guy wrote: »

What does it mean for existing 6kW installs, future installs > 3kW.

Existing installs will continue as is.... likewise for future installs but they are suggesting that the FiT be capped somehow. I still cant see how they will do that.

mp3guy wrote: »

Payment for infrastructure upgrades if your neighbour got in there first? A cap on all installs to 3kWp unless you pay even if there is capacity?

That would be for the CRU to decide but I doubt they'd do that as long as you stay within the 6kWp thats there already today.

unkel wrote: »

I haven't thought this through, but what makes you think the taxpayer is paying for this? Is it not just basically your utility provider that buys from you at the same rate as they buy from their wholesale suppliers? So they pay you 5c and sell it onto your neighbour for 15c

Not exactly, the taxpayer (via a proposed increased PSO levy) is on the hook for 10s of millions.

Its all in the docs but basically there are two proposed payments....

CEG... a minimum fixed guaranteed payment per kWh provided to you for your excess, based off the average annual Day-ahead market price. I dont remember there being a cost to the tax payer for this payment. It is from your provider as you have detailed above. The provider is expected to manage this payment themselves ensuring they dont lose their shirt on it by adjusting their retail rates as they see fit to protect themselves from market price fluctuations.

CEP... a premium payment on top of the CEG which is proposed to be funded by a PSO levy increase which is being paid to close what they call the "viability gap" (the difference between paying for the system to the value you get out of it). The payment is for 15 years and phased out then as its expected that install costs will drop to make up the shortfall. Your provider will give you this CEP payment also but they claim it back off the regulator via the PSO levy.

unkel

KCross wrote: »

CEP... a premium payment on top of the CEG which is proposed to be funded by a PSO levy increase which is being paid to close what they call the "viability gap" (the difference between paying for the system to the value you get out of it). The payment is for 15 years

WTF? What imbecile / communist came up of that stupid idea? Just pay the wholesale rate of the moment. Not guaranteed. Whatever it is. Be it 1c, 5c or 20c. Or even nothing in 10 years time from now and hopefully every single roof in Ireland is plastered with PV

Zero cost to the tax payer. And a lot less work to do for the government to bring our emissions down and reduce our fines. Or in other words a saving to the tax payer

KCross

unkel wrote: »

WTF? What imbecile / communist came up of that stupid idea? Just pay the wholesale rate of the moment. Not guaranteed. Whatever it is. Be it 1c, 5c or 20c. Or even nothing in 10 years time from now and hopefully every single roof in Ireland is plastered with PV

Zero cost to the tax payer. And a lot less work to do for the government to bring our emissions down and reduce our fines. Or in other words a saving to the tax payer

The assessment is that you wouldn’t have an ROI then which means you won’t have the wide scale uptake we need and hence we miss our target and presumably fines ensue.

Bear in mind that this proposal could be replacing the grant.

Calahonda52

KCross wrote: »

The assessment is that you wouldn’t have an ROI then which means you won’t have the wide scale uptake we need and hence we miss our target and presumably fines ensue.

Bear in mind that this proposal could be replacing the grant.

This will only feed back into the price of panels going up, so no benefit to Joe and Mary Domestic.
This proposed system, like all the grant schemes here are fundamentally skewed to benefit the supplier of the hardware.
Just look at how profitable Ki**span got from insulation and solar thermal grants through lobbying of, initially FF Government, making millionaires of a few of the elite.

KCross

Calahonda52 wrote: »

This will only feed back into the price of panels going up, so no benefit to Joe and Mary Domestic.
This proposed system, like all the grant schemes here are fundamentally skewed to benefit the supplier of the hardware.

It’s not a grant scheme though. We already have a grant scheme with inflated prices as you suggest. Hopefully they ditch that.

the_amazing_raisin

Calahonda52 wrote: »

This will only feed back into the price of panels going up, so no benefit to Joe and Mary Domestic.
This proposed system, like all the grant schemes here are fundamentally skewed to benefit the supplier of the hardware.
Just look at how profitable Ki**span got from insulation and solar thermal grants through lobbying of, initially FF Government, making millionaires of a few of the elite.

I dunno if that's true, there's plenty of budget panels around despite far more generous supports in other countries, I doubt they'll raise prices because of little old Ireland

More likely the installers will try to raise prices, but for anyone who will source their own panels, inverter and battery there will still be good value to be had. If installers raise their prices too much then everyone will just buy their own gear and that'll take away a major source of income for them

the_amazing_raisin

KCross wrote: »

It’s not a grant scheme though. We already have a grant scheme with inflated prices as you suggest. Hopefully they ditch that.

I dunno, as someone who isn't eligible for the grant, I'd prefer if they expanded it

Hopefully they at least get rid of that dumb requirement for houses to be built before 2011

unkel

KCross wrote: »

The assessment is that you wouldn’t have an ROI then which means you won’t have the wide scale uptake

LOL, 95% of the people wouldn't be able to do a proper ROI calculation either way. The wholesale rate of the moment is good enough for me. And prices of PV hardware are so low that we don't need any stupid subsidies on those either

The payback time will be very quick if you buy at good prices and install DIY. Even if you get the job done by an installer, the ROI will be much better than any money in a savings account

Unkel's proposal: zero subsidies, FIT unlimited quantity at wholesale rate of the moment only (could be negative), no restrictions on who can fit where (houses, offices, farms) any age of the building. Zero government / ESB involvement, just a diktat to the utility providers

Either that or net metering...

the_amazing_raisin

unkel wrote: »

LOL, 95% of the people wouldn't be able to do a proper ROI calculation either way. The wholesale rate of the moment is good enough for me. And prices of PV hardware are so low that we don't need any stupid subsidies on those either

The payback time will be very quick if you buy at good prices and install DIY. Even if you get the job done by an installer, the ROI will be much better than any money in a savings account

Unkel's proposal: zero subsidies, FIT unlimited quantity at wholesale rate of the moment only (could be negative), no restrictions on who can fit where (houses, offices, farms) any age of the building. Zero government / ESB involvement, just a diktat to the utility providers

Either that or net metering...

To be fair, you're not exactly an average electricity consumer as I recall

I'm in a similar boat, all my heating, cooking and transportation is electric. Currently we're consuming 8,500kWh per year, and if the wife gets an EV or PHEV it'll move to over 10,000kWh

I'd absolutely be intending to install the biggest PV array I can.

The irony is that this is the way many houses will go as we switch to EVs and new build houses and retrofits almost all use heat pumps now. With all the focus on indoor air quality, I suspect a lot of people will move to electric cooking as well

So this concept of the 'average' PV system being 3kWp is going to be out of date very quickly IMO

unkel

I don't export any electricity in the winter months, that's for sure. And that's even with my battery switched off

KCross

unkel wrote: »

LOL, 95% of the people wouldn't be able to do a proper ROI calculation either way. The wholesale rate of the moment is good enough for me. And prices of PV hardware are so low that we don't need any stupid subsidies on those either

The payback time will be very quick if you buy at good prices and install DIY. Even if you get the job done by an installer, the ROI will be much better than any money in a savings account

Unkel's proposal: zero subsidies, FIT unlimited quantity at wholesale rate of the moment only (could be negative), no restrictions on who can fit where (houses, offices, farms) any age of the building. Zero government / ESB involvement, just a diktat to the utility providers

Either that or net metering...

And you can bet there would be little or no uptake if you went with that. DIY installs only apply to a tiny minority of people. Most people will want a one-stop shop and some minimum pricing.

The CEP payment is proposed to be limited to 15 years at which point, presumably, it would just be the CEG which is a zero subisdy FiT so you are getting alot of what you are asking for here but the CEP is there to encourage people to get on board.

unkel

Any idea of the split in value per kWh exported between these two payments?

KCross

unkel wrote: »

Any idea of the split in value per kWh exported between these two payments?

Well, the CEG is based off the DAM
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115918720&postcount=16

Not sure if VAT would need to be added to that or not so that gives you a ballpark for what CEG would be worth.

No specific values given on what CEP would be worth other than they mention it should be set at "a rate that is below the retail rates paid by the prosumer". That doesnt really give much away but I'd be guessing maybe upto another 5c/kWh topup.... pure guess.... and thats only for new eligible installs after Jun 2020 so existing generators will be on CEG only.

If CEG is in or around night rate electricity I think that would be reasonable. Net metering, while great, isnt realistic.

slave1

cruisey1987 wrote: »

To be fair, you're not exactly an average electricity consumer as I recall

I'm in a similar boat, all my heating, cooking and transportation is electric. Currently we're consuming 8,500kWh per year, and if the wife gets an EV or PHEV it'll move to over 10,000kWh

I'd absolutely be intending to install the biggest PV array I can.

The irony is that this is the way many houses will go as we switch to EVs and new build houses and retrofits almost all use heat pumps now. With all the focus on indoor air quality, I suspect a lot of people will move to electric cooking as well

So this concept of the 'average' PV system being 3kWp is going to be out of date very quickly IMO

LOL, wish I was at the 10MW level (I think MW is 1,000kW?), with 2 EVs and normal working conditions I'm 24MW a year, immersion 365days, storage heater Nov-March then usual domestic appliances and thirsty home cinema.

While FIT is nice I never factored it given Ireland's inept attitude and my full faith that the ESB will do everything in their power to render it financially meaningless.
We should be matching our PV arrays to personal consumption and avoiding excess production IMHO, then FIT is irrelevant.

If FIT, then net metering as early incentive as we need as much sustainable electricity production as possible.
I've no electrical background but can see the need to move away from 60amp houses to 100amp, three phase is common enough in other countries but jazuz don't have that in Ireland, "sure what would you be doing that for" attitude.

Ireland/ESB want to hold onto old ways, ESB need to move away from restrictive attitudes and move to open arms, we need large battery banks like Australia so excess becomes null and void.
Blanket release of Planning Restrictions, boost the EV sector.
I could go on, but what do I know

unkel

It's sad really. Almost 100 years ago the ESB were a very progressive organisation with a visionary leader. Look at them now.