Sun Setting on UK Solar?
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 01.20.08
It’s not uncommon for TreeHugger to praise the good green goings on in the UK, such as the recent announcement that all domestic electricity could be supplied by wind by 2020. But a report in the Telegraph newspaper casts some doubt on our enthusiasm. Exploring the reasons why Britain ranks last in Europe for solar power, reporter Sarah Lonsdale puts the blame squarely at the feet of government:
Figures for per capita production of solar electricity show that the UK is 15th in Europe, behind Spain, Greece and Italy. These countries have more sun but, to our shame, we lag behind Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Holland."I missed out on £5,000 of grants because as I was building the house, the Government was in the process of changing the grants system," says [David] Street. By the time he managed to obtain his grant, it had become a flat rate of £2,500 per household, and as a result he had to cut back on the number of panels he installed.
The report looks to countries like Spain and Germany as role models, where solar homeowners are paid as much as 30p (60 cents) per kWh (kilowatt hour) for electricity they sell back to the grid as a result of Government support, while UK rates vary from utility to utility, starting at nothing, through to a high of 18p (36 cents). It looks like the UK has some catching up to do.
Wherever you live, if you are aiming to go solar, why not check out our guide on How to Green Your Electricity. ::The Telegraph::via Solarcentury::
Look, I don't mean to be excessively negative or anything, but it doesn't surprise me at all that we in the UK are lagging behind in the use of solar power. But the thing is there's a very good reason for this:
It's NEVER SUNNY in this fricking country!
We should be much MORE ashamed about our weak use of wind power, because we've got loads of the stuff to spare.
While its tempting to bash the UK government for not supporting photovoltaic (PV) to the same extent as other equally non-sunny countries, its very important to talk about how a country defines its renewable energy (RE) policy.
To think that every country should support every type of RE equally is a fallacy and in the case of limited budgets for RE its important that each country hits the easy targets first. If you had £10 to spend on RE investment in the UK you should put it on solar-thermal or wind or wave or biomass before PV. What would be more refreshing would be a UK government who takes the issue seriously enough to say that they will not support PV at all and prefer to really tackle the energy issue rather than greenwashing their policies with a bit-here-and-a-bit-there approach.
/ Colm O'G
P.S. I have a 3kWp PV installation on my house, working nicely for the last 4 years but I can say in hindsight that in terms of reducing emissions it would have been more efficient to invest in insulation/solar-thermal etc. By that I mean that once I've done my own house I should do my neighbours etc. before splurging on a PV system.
what a GREAT cautionary tale for all governments looking at what works and what doesn't. i am not certain how it works in the UK, but in the US, the government already supplies MASSIVE subsidies to oil, gas and coal, as well as guarantees on their capital investments, so the money is ALREADY being spent, just on the polluting profiteers instead of the solution. also, the utilities are supposed to bear the expense of the "buyback" program, since they have been permitted to socialize their costs for so long (use of public land, subsidies, tax breaks, etc.) AND because the utilities have to meet 20% "renewable power" levels, it saves them the up-front investment if they can buy from little suppliers like us.
it is strange to me that people are acting like it's either "good building practices and conservation" OR "local, decentralized power generation." it is not now, and never will be one or the other. you are supposed to do all the conservation FIRST (including insulation, etc.), then determine your new usage, then build out your system. i have never heard of someone just slapping a giant, expensive system on their roof and hoping for the best, no matter how much power they were using. it's like buying a bus then looking around and realizing you are a single guy and you only needed a motorbike...
Echoing the two previous comments, I find it very strange how many in the environmental media seem to treat energy policy as some sort of new age competitive sport. There is no attempt to rationalize policy for the greater good, when sadly this is a problem where there is no lesser good. When the seas start rising it would seem of little comfort where on various rankings charts one's own country fell. If a solar panel could prevent far more CO2 emissions by being placed in a Mediterranean country, why is it wrong for the British government to focus it's subsidies in ways that prevent the panel from being diverted to where it will provide significantly less benefit.
I agree reduction of energy consumption is the first step to making a big difference. However the next step is support of those that are trying to make a difference.
I think there is a huge un-calculated benefit and that is leadership and awareness. When you start seeing solar panels on your neighbours roofs you are reminded of the need to reduce and conserve at a personal level. They are in effect advertisements for change and in that way I think they need more support.
Perhaps solar is not as effective in the UK compared to other places around the world - however it is still more effective than doing nothing.
Well at least that is my opinion.
Cheers - Eric
pickuppal.com
Could I just point out that in order to qualify for the £2500 grant one has to have loft and cavity wall insulation to (new) Building Regulations standards (remember 99.5% of UK houses are NOT NEW), energy-saving bulbs and an assortment of other energy-saving measures already in place. So it's not either-or, it's easy-wins /then/ the interesting stuff.
Also, there's a huge variation in sunshine hours here. Twice as many hours on the south coast as in the Scottish Highlands, for example.
Finally PV panels are not like oil, they won't run short just because you buy more: if you buy more, people will jolly well make more, and with a bit of luck bring the price down...
My comment didn't post. What gives?#
------
Author's comment:
Apologies anonymous, sometimes comments go missing in our system for mysterious computer-geek reasons I know nothing about. I have certainly not rejected any comments on this post deliberately (i.e. for inappropriate content etc), so maybe try reposting. I'll keep an eye out for it.
My comment didn't post. What gives?
Contrary to popular belief PVs are not a low-carbon technology but rather a medium-carbon technology. This is due to the carbon-intensive nature of PV manufacturing. So for once, the UK Government may have got it right. If you're serious about reducing the carbon emissions from your home then better insulation and solar thermal hot water collectors are far more effective.
It may not seem as dramatic and trendy as PVs and micro wind turbines but it is the most cost effective and efficient way of reducing our household energy demand. Don't be taken in by the green wash.
I have two letters that will explain the reduction in the brits use of solar....
B P
nuff said