Jazze Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Good news today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17490096 does anyone know if the isle of man government subsidises solar panels and if so why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc & Tricia Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 The Manx Government provides no subsidies for any form of renewables - in fact anyone wishing to generate electricity at home will in fact pay what is in effect a penalty under the MEA Home Generation Tariff equating to circa 25 pence per day. What this means is a home micro system (wind or solar) would have to generate around 1.6 kilowatts of power per day BEFORE they break even. Should the IoM Government introduce a similar Feed in Tariff scheme? I would like to say yes but it is not financially viable or sustainable. The UK Feed in Tariff will also disappear very soon (I believe) - the basis of the case was that action was taken prior to planned consultation which just means it will take a little longer for the scheme to be abandoned, i.e after the consultation. On a personal note because I have a commercial interest in the MEA Home Generation Tariff / renewables market, I am in continuous communication with the MEA in an effort to find a workable and fair compromise but let's not hold our breath. Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazze Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 Wow! Having to pay to generate your own electricity. Regardless of anyones opinion on renewables this can only be a bad thing from both a social and an environmental perspective. I seem to remember England wanting to kill off the feed-in tariff scheme within the next 5 years which is a shame. It is a shame the Government hasn't offered incentives to encourage growth in the renewables industry on the island. It could end up being a good niche economy as the space industry is becoming and would encourage manufacturing on the island potentially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Wow! Having to pay to generate your own electricity. Regardless of anyones opinion on renewables this can only be a bad thing from both a social and an environmental perspective. Jazze from a social and business perspective I would query what you say - we have over invested in the MEA and got a massive over-capacity and a massive debt that has to be paid for through our electricity bills. Any reduction in Pulrose output means that loan money has to be recovered over less units sold - which means that the price of electricity will go up significantly (forgetting any subsidies needed for renewables). A bit against my argument above - isn't the single most important change that could be made be to properly insulate properties? I recall that the report commissioned by the IOMG a couple of years ago (?) came to that conclusion. Of course this would also reduce demand and require the MEA to increase the unit price. And to be environmentally legitimate the MEA could not use freed up capacity to export as this would do nothing for the CO2 output. OTOH as you say renewables research and manufacture might provide a possible higher value wealth creation activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey boy Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 You are so right. Although it should be said that you can generate as much electricity as you like without paying, it's only if you want to grid tie it that you'll be disadvantaged with tariffs. The IOM could & should be a world leader in renewables. We've got it all, sun, wind, tides, government owned electricity company. It beggars belief that we are so far behind most of the developed world. If only our greedy, short sighted politicians could see beyond the easy cash cow that is tax dodging we may have a sustainable economy to go with our sustainable power sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazze Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 The mistakes made with the MEA should not be used as an excuse not to invest in sustainable technologies for the future. Infact our 100% reliance on fossil fuels is quite frankly ridiculous. (n.b. I do not classify that 100ft chimney stack renewable energy before anyone mentions it given they have been chucking fuel on it to keep the damn thing burning) Wow! Having to pay to generate your own electricity. Regardless of anyones opinion on renewables this can only be a bad thing from both a social and an environmental perspective. A bit against my argument above - isn't the single most important change that could be made be to properly insulate properties? I recall that the report commissioned by the IOMG a couple of years ago (?) came to that conclusion. Of course this would also reduce demand and require the MEA to increase the unit price. I fully support insulating properties, particularly for those vulnerable in society, such as the elderly, who are overly exposed to increases in fuel price. I spoke to John Christophers before Christmas, an Architect who designed the UK's first 'zero carbon house', he had an interesting solution to this problem. A Government scheme could be implemented where there is an opt-in opt-out option for houses in a particular area to have a 'retro-fit' done on their home. Insulated added, double glazing put in, solar panels put up etc etc. Doing it on a large scale would reduce costs too! Shame about the state of the budget and the fact programs like this one are long-burn programs on a large scale and politicians are notoriously short sighted, just looking to the next election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Unfortunately corporations have more influence than they should do within governments, so any ideas to make society more independant would impact on corporate profits and therefore tax revenues, which explains why governments and big business walk hand in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 You are so right. Although it should be said that you can generate as much electricity as you like without paying, it's only if you want to grid tie it that you'll be disadvantaged with tariffs. The IOM could & should be a world leader in renewables. We've got it all, sun, wind, tides, government owned electricity company. It beggars belief that we are so far behind most of the developed world. If only our greedy, short sighted politicians could see beyond the easy cash cow that is tax dodging we may have a sustainable economy to go with our sustainable power sources. At the same time the IOM government is promoting itself as a centre of excellence for Green Tech. Considering they don't even encourage solar panels and you have to get planning permission for them that is a bit rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 The mistakes made with the MEA should not be used as an excuse not to invest in sustainable technologies for the future. Infact our 100% reliance on fossil fuels is quite frankly ridiculous. (n.b. I do not classify that 100ft chimney stack renewable energy before anyone mentions it given they have been chucking fuel on it to keep the damn thing burning) Wow! Having to pay to generate your own electricity. Regardless of anyones opinion on renewables this can only be a bad thing from both a social and an environmental perspective. A bit against my argument above - isn't the single most important change that could be made be to properly insulate properties? I recall that the report commissioned by the IOMG a couple of years ago (?) came to that conclusion. Of course this would also reduce demand and require the MEA to increase the unit price. I fully support insulating properties, particularly for those vulnerable in society, such as the elderly, who are overly exposed to increases in fuel price. I spoke to John Christophers before Christmas, an Architect who designed the UK's first 'zero carbon house', he had an interesting solution to this problem. A Government scheme could be implemented where there is an opt-in opt-out option for houses in a particular area to have a 'retro-fit' done on their home. Insulated added, double glazing put in, solar panels put up etc etc. Doing it on a large scale would reduce costs too! Shame about the state of the budget and the fact programs like this one are long-burn programs on a large scale and politicians are notoriously short sighted, just looking to the next election. But Jazze what about the other point - our government have got us in beyond our knecks in debt with a gas-powered electricity generation station (plus an incinerator) that can produce about twice the total requirements for electricity here. I know that renewables are a good additional source of power but the economics on the IOM are IMO unfortunately utterly banjaxed by what the MEA and the government did. The MEA have to recover the servicing and repayment costs on that loan from consumers of their electricity. The economic case needs to be looked at as well as the environmental one - not a popular view probably but I think it is the pragmatic one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazze Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 I don't think investing in renewable technologies will reduce the demand for power from Pulrose. The islands population is still growing, be it slower than it has been in the past. Therefore the over capacity will slowly be corrected as the population increases, though it may be slightly slower if renewables become more a more financially rewarding investment. However I think it would be fair to the population to give them a choice over where they get their electricity from. If they are committed to invest in say solar panels for their roof, then they should be rewarded with the lower electricity/fuel bills this brings and not be penalised in any ways with charges in the same way how people who install extra insulation save money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 do you seriously have to pay a home generation tarrif if you use a wind genny or PV panels to charge batteries etc and no connection to the mea supply ? that would be perverse would they class solar water heating or extra insulation (subsidised by British Gas ) as the same as it reduces the amount of electricity (or gas supplied by their pipeline) used ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I don't think investing in renewable technologies will reduce the demand for power from Pulrose. . Jazze, the IOMG has a target of substituting 15% of Pulrose output with renewables by 2015. That is a big cut in output from Pulrose which has to be paid for by consumers. I am not as sure that demand will continue to increase. The Island's economy is growing slower than inflation which indicates decline, people are getting much more careful with power use due to other imposts, new homes are better insulated etc... Not against renewables but I do not think we have had any serious discussion about the cost impacts. I know this is not everything, but to the average consumer and to business it is a big issue. Mr Bell saw it as such to the extent that just before the last election he pumped several millions of taxpayer money into the MEA to avoid a price increase (on the grounds that business could not manage a further increase). Its an issue that needs thinking through properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 So on this island you get penalised for using mother nature as your energy source, something that is a god-given right to each and every one of us as it's free??? WTF???!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I think we also need to recognise, however unpalatable, that the subsidies given in the UK for things like insulation and electricity generation, were there because the UK was running out of generation capacity and it was seen as an alternative way for power companies to avoid major capital expenditure. That is definitely not the case here. The MEAs figures indicate that the local peak electricity demand is only about 59% of MEA generating capacity. If you have 41% spare capacity why would you pay for others not to use your electricity? It just makes paying off the debt that much more difficult. I do agree that it is a bit strange if you have to pay a penalty for your own renewables if these are entirely seperated from the grid and just used for your own use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazze Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 I think the figure you gave that the government has a "target of substituting 15% of Pulrose output with renewables by 2015" is going to remain exactly that. A target. In no way is a figure like that achievable in such a small space of time, especially due to the penalties they are imposing on creating your own power. If the MEA is operating with 41% spare capacity then they can hardly expect us all to almost double our power usage just to make up the shortfall, just as they cannot expect us to not the utilise viable renewable alternatives as opposed to stomaching increases in prices. It goes against every principle of a free economy. No matter how much in debt the MEA they cannot force us to pay for their mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.