The comprehensive spending review of October 20^th could have spelt a disaster for the UK solar industry if they had instantaneously cut the feed-in tariff.  Thankfully no such cut was made and the industry can continue on as before, at least for now.  All feed-in tariffs are designed be decreased on a regular basis.  This is so that the return on investment from a given renewable energy technology stays the same over time.  The great thing about feed-in tariffs is that they decrease and decrease until they reach the same value as retail electricity prices, at which point you’re at grid parity and you don’t need the feed-in tariff anymore.  Its hard to predict exactly when this will happen but in the case of UK solar PV, costs decrease very rapidly and I think that in 5 years time grid parity will be very close.

Currently the UK feed-in tariff is not set to be reviewed until April 2012, with changes possibly not coming in until 2013.  In most feed-in tariff markets, the tariff decreases annually, so not changing our feed-in tariff for two whole years is too long in my opinion.  The feed-in tariff at today’s PV prices provides a fantastic return on investment. 9-12% annual return for 25 years beats nearly everything you could get in an ISA or other savings product.  In two years time, with another two years of cost reduction, the investment return could be significantly higher than it is now.  Frankly, as someone who works in the solar industry, I say that this would be a bad thing.  What the industry needs to see is steady year on year growth, not a boom and bust.  The tariff is fine where it is for now, but soon it needs to be decreased to ensure the returns don’t get too high.  The returns are high enough to trigger major growth in the industry, if they are too high then we will see more and more people pile into the market in a way that is unsustainable.  The tariff would then have to be cut very significantly to control the market, which would lead to a massive drop-off.

It is very important that the industry has visibility on what will happen to feed-in tariffs so businesses can plan ahead.  To solve this Germany have announced what will happen to the feed-in tariff based on the results of the previous year. That means that if the market reaches a certain size, the egression the following year will be larger and vice-versa. The details of this are published so that everyone can see what the degression rates could be – we need this level of visibility in the UK.

Another big problem with feed-in tariffs is that they cause a surge of installations in the run-up to a feed-in tariff degression – which is not particularly healthy.  What would be best is to decrease the feed-in tariff little and often, so there are no sudden jolts to the industry.  Italy has just introduced quarterly feed-in tariff degression i.e. decreasing the feed-in tariff every 3 months instead of once a year.  I think this is a great idea.  As long as the degression each quarter is small and planned ahead, the industry will be able to continue to grow steadily without the need for big every year or every two years.  France on the other hand are considering an annual cap to the PV market.  This is absolutely terrible for the industry as it limits everybody’s growth and will cause redundancies across the industry in France if it goes ahead.

So now we are back on our feet in the UK, lets think about how to create a stable solar industry going forward by decreasing the FiT in a sensible way.  It could be that we follow the Italians lead on this one.

The BBC website yesterday released a business article showing that all is not doom and gloom in the financial world. Certainly, while we are told that Britain is set to reel under the dramatic public sector spending review of the coming months, farming at least has the potential to benefit financially from the government’s solar feed-in tariff scheme.

Solarfeedintariff.co.uk has been a keen exponent of the tariff system both home and abroad for the last three years as a way of making solar projects viable, profitable and of course, a long term alternative to other unprotected investments. Now, as the BBC has reported, it is now the turn of forward thinking farm owners to cash in on the tariff scheme which pays small scale producers of solar photovoltaic energy a fixed, premium rate both for the energy they use and feed back into the national grid.

On a BBC website laden with news of the scrapping of the Ark Royal, cutting the Housing budget and the Spending Review, it is good news for a young and growing UK photovoltaic industry that high profile media outlets are now regularly running with solar feed-in tariff case studies. Never one to shy away from the media, Glastonbury festival entrepreneur Michael Eavis plays a prominent role throughout the article, highlighting the very simple financial rewards involved in investing in solar. Indeed, in an industry often reluctant to change Eavis provides perhaps the best example of how farmers can increase profits through investing in new areas, in his case, Rock Festivals and Solar panels.

With a number of solar pv companies now vying to tap into the burgeoning solar market on British farms, landowners will have no shortage in sourcing panels in order to start tapping in to the tariff scheme. The BBC article, rich with quotes from suppliers stressing difficulty in keeping up with demand at the moment, highlights that, once the revenue generation model of solar pv becomes better understood and widely accepted, then the potential for long term profits in UK rural solar projects will continue to go from strength to strength.

For more information on how you could benefit from the solar feed-in tariff, please contact: elliot@solarfeedintariff.co.uk

Solarbuzz, the market research group which focuses on solar photovoltaic (pv) has released its UK pv market 2010 report and highlights strong growth potential for the year ahead. Indicating the link between the market and the feed-in tariff legislation, Solarbuzz predict that 2011 will see a surge in solar pv installation as investors look to tap into the government’s tariff scheme.

With a focus on such factors as market segmentation, market size and tariff rates the report has highlighted the continuing growth of the infant solar pv market in the UK. Alan Turner of Solarbuzz said,

“The early entrance of big name brands are helping to lend public confidence to what is generally a poorly understood renewable energy source in the UK,”

The Solarbuzz market report has highlighted the following trends for solar pv:

• The south east accounts for 45 per cent of residential solar pv installations in the US
• 2011 solar pv figures will be hugely impacted by emerging agricultural and industrial projects
• Big name brands entering the solar pv market will easily meet the growing demand for solar installations

Solar panels are by far the most expensive item in a solar panel installation. Understanding the features that differentiate a good solar panel from a bad one is not so straightforward. In several instalments I’d like to give a guide to each of the key criteria to look out for. I will try keep it as simple as possible but it is something that many people ask me about so I think it isn’t a bad idea to discuss these issues in some depth.

First of all I’d like to discuss solar panel efficiency. This defines how effective a solar panel is in converting sunlight into electricity for a given surface area. The advantage of having a higher efficiency solar panel is that you can get more power out of a small available area. For this reason, high efficiency solar panels are normally priced at a premium and targeted at the domestic market where space is most constrained. High efficiency does not necessarily mean better quality or reliability however – these issues are covered later. Nor does higher efficiency mean better value; in many cases lower efficiency panels are used because they are more cost-effective in places where space utilisation is not so critical.

First of all, how do you find out the efficiency of a solar panel? It’s easy to find out this out for yourself. Remember that the power of a solar panel is given by the power you get out under ‘standard test conditions.’ This means the output is measure when the panel is exposed to a very bright light with an intensity of 1000 Watts per square meter (1000W/m2) at a temperature of 25oC. This is normally expressed in Watts (e.g. 185W or 230W etc) and is the power you will get when the sun is very strong. You can then multiply the module length and width (which is shown on the datasheet) to get the module area. By taking the module power in Watts and the standard test conditions of 1000W/m2 you can determine the module efficiency as follows;

Efficiency = power out / power in = module power / (width x length x 1000W/m2)

When evaluating solar panel efficiency its important to be aware that each solar cell has an efficiency higher than that of the whole solar panel (or module) due to empty space. Therefore make sure to find out which value you are looking at.

In general solar panels you will come across in the UK will be made of silicon (I have discussed thin film panels previously) so the discussion here will focus on these. The highest efficiency silicon solar panels on the market today are between 17% and 18% efficient. The efficiency of silicon solar panels is increasing due to R&D, but improvements are incremental and slow because there are a number of fundamental limitations to the efficiency of silicon solar cells which mean that any drastic improvements in the near future are unlikely. Perhaps I will describe those limitations in another article.

The main factor you will come across that affects module efficiency is whether the module is mono or multi-crystalline. In English this means that the solar cells can easy be made from mono or multi-crystalline silicon. Mono crystalline solar cells consist of a slice of a single, very pure silicon crystal and hence are very efficient due to few defects. Multi-crystalline solar cells, which comprise multiple crystals, are around 1-2% less efficient but are generally more cost-effective to produce. Personally I think it generally makes sense to use mono-crystalline cells for domestic installations where space is at a premium and multi-crystalline cells for larger installations.

Another factor that can affect efficiency is anti-reflective coatings. These are becoming more and more common. Nearly all solar cells have texturing directly on top of them that reduces reflection and now many solar panels come with anti-reflective glass. This generally consists of a textured glass that can be seen as a speckled pattern if you look closely. The improvement of anti-reflective coatings is hard to determine, although some manufacturers claim energy yield enhancements of over 5 percent.

When installing a solar panel system your ultimate goal should always be to get the best return on your investment, which means getting the most power for the lowest price without risking reliability and is dependent on many factors besides efficiency. Whilst there are a number of other technologies on the horizon that can be used to improve efficiency by small amounts, nothing will create a drastic change overnight. Prices of solar panels will continue to fall rapidly as production volume increases (in the same way as many other technology products such as computer memory) but these price falls will be matched by reductions in the feed-in tariff. Therefore don’t worry that installing today’s technology risks being superseded by a miracle solar panel tomorrow. Working in the industry gives you pretty good insight as to what is coming down the line.