The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Just flat out purchasing enormous quantities of panels and then hireing people to put them up would have been much more economically efficient, far less inequitable and have the same virtue of market making and upscaling of production used to justify FiT's.
I still don't get why you think the (intended) profit-taking by renewables installers is supposed to be delegitimizing, nor do I understand why you focus on PV-installing homeowners only when Japan's feed-in law disfavours them (with the 10-year guarantee in place of the general 20-year one while the rate is the same, see upthread).
Regarding the explicit intention to give renewables installers good profits:
New feed-in tariff system a rush to get renewables in play | The Japan Times Online
There is a specific section in the new tariff law that calls on METI to aim for large-scale renewable energy use over the first three years of the new tariff. To accomplish this goal, the law adds, METI is supposed to give special consideration to the profits of renewable energy suppliers. Thus it is hoped high tariffs will encourage large-scale investment by current and new players in the renewable energy field, especially since the internal rates of return under the new system range from 4 percent for some biomass forms to 13 percent for geothermal, 8 percent for wind farms over 20 kw, and between 3.2 and 6 percent for solar.
There is a specific section in the new tariff law that calls on METI to aim for large-scale renewable energy use over the first three years of the new tariff. To accomplish this goal, the law adds, METI is supposed to give special consideration to the profits of renewable energy suppliers.
Thus it is hoped high tariffs will encourage large-scale investment by current and new players in the renewable energy field, especially since the internal rates of return under the new system range from 4 percent for some biomass forms to 13 percent for geothermal, 8 percent for wind farms over 20 kw, and between 3.2 and 6 percent for solar.
So what? On the other hand, I read of no similar exceptions for industrial consumers as in Germany.
Massive electricity rate hikes
Again with the strawmen... *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I expect something in the order of 50 GW at most (and 20 GW more realistically) until 30 June 2015. Last year, when installed capacity jumped from 3.6 to 4.7 GW, 2.15 TWh was fed back (and 2.25 TWh produced). Not an awfully high capacity factor, and indeed IEA-PVPS claims 1,000-1,1000 kWh per kW is "typical" (I guess clouds plax a role). Going with that, I would expect at most 55 TWh and more realistically 20 TWh annual production from what gets installed under the launch feed-in rates, that would be c. 5% resp. 1.8% of total production. For a significant price effect of a ¥42/kwh feed-in rate vs. retail prices in the ¥11.5-23.1/kwh range (from winter high-voltage industrial to large-consumption household, 2008 TEPCO figures quoted by IEA-PVPS) that negates the benefits via marginal pricing (which should be substantial due to the "peak-shaving" daily power curve), I think something well above 10% of annual production would be needed. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Given Japanese household savings levels, and the impressive return on investment, that the islands of japan not could buy the entire 30 gw of potential production currently going without customers, but outbid other markets for the lion share of the entire global output and cause expansion of productive capacity. And I think they will. Further, given a market, said manufacturing capacity has increased by over 100% year-on-year before. so.. eh, might very well hit 50 gw rated capacity by year end. If this doesnt cause the government to slam on the breakes somewhere in the region of 400 GW (rated) at law expiry would not shatter the supply chain, nor exceed what japanese construction firms can manage to put up. This is just solar, mind.
Cleaner:
Global production capacity for solar volatic elements is currently around 60 gw (rated). About half of this productive capacity is in search of buyers.
The japanese government just gave them a market for the entirety of this potential output, and the average japanese household can make this investment without having to loan the money. I expect them to do so, because the return is so very high. Further, productive capacity in this sector has doubled year-on-year to meet new demands before. It is not a strech to suppose this will happen again. Thus, by the time the law expires, it within the realm of physical and engineering possibility that over 400 gw (Rated) of solar has been put up in japan. And as long as the law is on the books, financial incentives make this maximalist scenario quite likely. This is just the solar sector - sales of windmills and so on to Japan are also likely to be extremely strong.
What's more, I repeat that if we think of the specific investor circle of homeowners wanting rooftop solar, ¥42/kWh for just ten years (equivalent to c. 0.21/kWh over 20 years, ignoring maintenance costs and cell degradation) is not that stellar an offer, even with the somewhat higher annual yield per kW capacity than in Germany. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Quantities of energy fall unharvested that are vastly greater than our present consumption even with our hoggish and wasteful (ab)use patterns at this time.
We are standing thirsty in a clean river and being conned into buying dirty water to slake our needs.
There is zero need for further Fuku-traumatisation of entire regions with anachronistic technology now the cat is out of the bag.
Who ever regretted installing solar panels? Compare with Chernobyl survivors.
QED...
Worrying about who gets rich off of this is an unaffordable luxury. They should be in car rooves, bus stops, malls, hospitals, industrial areas, land too poisoned by our little 'experiments' for growing food or living on. Sadly that's a Lot. Of. Land.
The new combination PV/greenhouse combos coming out of China look like a great step forward to diminishing the transport costs of food and other vittles.
The wonder if the internet is how robust it is, through distributed nodes of data. It's a great metaphor for PV too. The more people do it the less the strain on the grid. 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
No, that would eliminate competition between producers and thus development and thus limit economic efficiency. Also, it would be in a higher danger of a future government undoing it. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Also, there are a number of variations here that could have been used that would limit this even more.
While PV isn't competitive with other sources in terms of generation costs, its generation costs are competitive for self consumption because this type of production avoids the distribution charge. Noting this, why not focus on that strength as the basis for a campaign. For example, installing solar street lights not only saves cities the cost of generation+distribution charges, they limit the need for building and maintaining infrastructure for this purpose. Again because self-supply evades the distribution charge, another good policy might would be to cover the roofs government buildings, schools, etc with panels to limit the amount of power they draw from the grid. The focus has to be on the margin.
The costs of distribution + infrastructure construction/upkeep mean that for isolated communities taking them off the grid might actually make economic sense because dropping these areas where the marginal costs of distribution are particularly high can lower distribution costs throughout the rest of the grid. While it may seem to be a step backwards to take rural areas off the electrical grid, it could very well be that because the marginal costs of delivering electricity to these areas is so high that it would actually save utilities money to remove them from the grid while maintaining a duty of service, albeit through local systems. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
PV can be competitive with other sources in terms of generation costs during daily peaks, just when it gives most (the market effect currently observed in Germany), but good point about saving the distribution charge with self-consumption. On one hand, self-consumption can be enhanced by focusing on rooftop solar (both rsidential and industrial), though the Japanese feed-in law doesn't focus on that. On the other hand, if surplus cannot be fed into the grid, then generated electricity will be wasted or needs storage, and in both cases real generation costs will increase, so grid connection is a key. I have nothing against solar streetlights, but they are beans compared to total consumption, hardly something to be the main focus. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by IdiotSavant - Feb 28
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 28 1 comment
by Oui - Mar 1 4 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 23 18 comments
by Oui - Feb 22 27 comments
by Oui - Feb 25
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 20 30 comments
by gmoke - Feb 14 2 comments
by Oui - Mar 4
by Oui - Mar 14 comments
by gmoke - Mar 1
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 281 comment
by Oui - Feb 2831 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2318 comments
by Oui - Feb 2227 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2030 comments
by Oui - Feb 2024 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1914 comments
by Oui - Feb 197 comments
by Oui - Feb 181 comment
by Oui - Feb 1794 comments
by Oui - Feb 168 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1523 comments
by gmoke - Feb 142 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1413 comments
by Oui - Feb 145 comments