Green Home Diary

Protected: Leases

admin — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:34:36 +0000

Protected: Will Trust Status

admin — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:12:46 +0000

Will Hampshire County Council ban Wind Turbines on their land?

admin — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:09:18 +0000

Winchester Action on Climate Change (WinACC), Friends of the Earth & others are lobbying Hampshire County Council (HCC) concerning their Wind Turbine Policy on whether to restrict the use of HCC land for large wind turbine developments.

The economics and argments for wind turbines are being pursued by WinACC and FOE.

What we are concerned with here is HCC’s “Leading by Example” approach to their Energy Strategy (found here).

Providing the location for wind turbines are placed in an appropriate location I am assuming that the economics stand up – this assumption is subject to WinACC’s detailed investigation into the economics and carbon savings wind turbines bring to the energy mix.

However, there could be other factors that reduce or even negate the basic wind turbine economics making the installation of wind turbines, such as negative impact to visiting holiday makers i.e. an impact to the Travel industry due to a perceived ” … adverse visual and amenity impact on Hampshire’s outstanding and high quality landscapes and countryside, …”. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but put aside for one moment the arguments for and against the “visual and amenity impact”.

If HCC reject a proposal to install Wind turbines (or any renewable) on their land, what should happen next?

Quite simply, HCC should work with the proposer or other interested parties to find an alternative solution the achieves the same cost benefits without the perceived economic downside. (We assume this is quantifiable).

A “NOT ON MY BACKYARD” approach is not leadership and sets a poor example. A positive leadership attitude is to proactively find alternative solutions to achieve similar benefits without the downsides.

We call upon HCC to update and declare this “proactive” approach to issues of this kind in their Energy Strategy Document.

Letter Exchange

Letter 1 – see here. HCC Response here

Letter 2 – see here. HCC Response here

Response to Letter 2 from Hampshire County Council concerning Wind Turbines

admin — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:03:09 +0000

Dear Mr Veck

Thank you for your email of 6 November, which has been passed to me by Cllr Kendal for a response.

I can assure you that the County Council does take the issues of energy and climate change seriously. It has recently agreed a Energy Strategy which provides an appropriate local response to addressing these issues and provides a framework for a programme of projects appropriate for the Hampshire context.

There are a range of views on the costs and impacts of renewable generation, including onshore wind power and the Council has to balance those issues with its responsibilities as a land owner and other priorities. In reaching that balance, the Council must also consider the relative efficiency and impact of the current available renewable technologies.

With regards to your own energy costs, the County Council has been proactively responding to the challenges of energy costs, security and climate change for some time.

One focus is the theme of community energy reduction. The County Council is a lead partner in the Insulate Hampshire project, with a forecast 17,000 insulation measures installed in Hampshire residences by the end of March 2013. We are currently looking at how this work can be supplemented by other community measures such as collective switching which are considered more appropriate in Hampshire at the present time.

Yours sincerely

Frances Martin
Assistant Director Waste, Planning and Environment

Letter 2 to Hampshire County Council – it didn’t answer my question

admin — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:59:30 +0000

Dear Cllr Kendal

Thank you for your response but it did not answer the specific question so let me be more precise:-

Situation:

HCC refuse to lease HCC owned land to an Energy Suppler that wishes to install large wind turbines on the basis of this new policy.

Assumption:

HCC are committed to meeting Legally Binding CO2 / Energy reduction targets.

Expected Response:

HCC is proactive with finding an alternative solution.
I expect HCC to work with the Energy Supplier to find an alternative solution that meets (or is better than) the cost benefits associated with the energy supplier’s Wind Turbine solution.

As our elected members, I find it unacceptable for you to abdicate responsibility for the legally binding targets – saying NO is not good enough. I suggest if HCC does abdicate responsibility, there could be cause to pursue legal compensation as a result of the potential increase in energy bills. Just to spell this out: I am not prepared to take further increases in my energy bills because HCC have not collaborated with the energy supplier to find alternative solutions. It is simply not good enough to say “not on my back yard”.

Please confirm (simply YES or NO) to the expectation stated above.

Yours sincerely

Rob Veck

Response to Letter 1 from Hampshire County Council concerning Wind Turbines

admin — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:57:08 +0000

Dear Mr Veck

Thank you for your comments on the decision report entitled, ‘Policy on large wind turbines and wind farms on County Council Land’. The decision on whether to adopt a policy to restrict the use Hampshire County Council’s own land for large wind turbine developments will be made by the Leader of the County Council as Executive Member for Policy and Resources.

The policy is being considered to provide clear guidance for scheme promoters, and in recognition of the often conflicting objectives between the benefits of wind power in providing clean renewable energy, when the wind blows, and the adverse visual and amenity impact on Hampshire’s outstanding and high quality landscapes and countryside, which are an important economic asset in themselves, and a key aspect of the character of Hampshire

This paper only addresses large wind turbines and wind farms on the County Council’s own land and is not looking to restrict small scale or domestic installations. The County Council has no jurisdiction on the latter and it would therefore not be appropriate for it to comment.

We are completely signed up to the benefits of low carbon energy, but believe that at present large scale wind turbines on our land do not provide a sufficient benefit to justify the loss of some of Hampshire’s most prized undeveloped countryside. We recognise however that wind turbine technology will develop, and the financial regimes that apply may also change, therefore we will keep the position under close scrutiny.

I would also like to take this opportunity to reassure you that the County Council takes the energy and climate change agenda very seriously. The County Council recently approved an Energy Strategy and we agreed to explore a range of options to ensure that Hampshire has future access to sustainable and secure energy sources. On shore wind power is not the only source of low carbon energy.

I can assure you that the County Council will continue to assess future opportunities under this changing agenda.

Yours sincerely

Councillor Melville Kendal

Letter 1 to Hampshire County Council’s Policy on Wind Turbines

admin — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:54:24 +0000

Dear Sir
Re: HCC Policy on Wind Turbines
Before raising issues on the recent publicity on the above subject, I commend HCC on their
Hampshire Insulate project. This is good news which has not been widely published and
demonstrates commitment to CO2 reductions.

No doubt you will have received comments and feedback regarding the CO2 issues associated with the non-provision of Wind Turbines on HCC land. This is all very obvious, but the key Energy Security risks to be taken into account for the HCC Energy Policy (probably needing update) revolved around the following:-

By 2015, a significant proportion of coal fired power stations will be decommissioned (as required by EU legislation), which, according to a recent Ofgem report will increase the risk of power failures / brown outs.
Nuclear power supply is unlike to be in place until the next decade.
An unquantifiable risk (at present) is the take up of electric cars. According to well respected academics at Reading and Southampton University, this could have a significant impact of grid infrastructure and supply. One charge uses 26 units for a range of 120 miles (6000+miles per year). This represents 33% increase on electricity usage per household (assuming an average house uses 4000 units per year). A lot will depend on the market take up (which is supported by a government subsidy of £5000 at present1). I suggest the estimates for future demand may be under estimated.
As a result, the UK will be more dependent on energy imports, and I suggest that energy prices will increase significantly. The UK will be held to ransom.

If the HCC are approached by external parties (such as energy suppliers) asking to lease land for the provision of wind turbines, I am assuming HCC policy will simply reject the request. Given the risks above, I hope you would agree that the HCC has a duty of care to its residents and businesses to seek alternative solutions that have the same cost benefits (or better).

When the cost benefits are not favourable, this could potentially become a vote looser:-

The alternative solution is more expensive resulting in a proportionally more expensive energy bill.
No alternative solution is provided resulting in a significant increase in energy bills.

#1 Is the price that we collectively pay to keep a beautiful countryside (although I do hope you
support the campaign to remove pylons from the countryside).

#2 translates to “Conservative Policy supports significant increases in Energy Bills”.

I do not think it is responsible for the HCC to simply say NO, since it has a commitment to meet legal CO2 reduction targets. What I do expect is the HCC to take responsibility to work with the requestor to provide an alternative solution that provides the same (or near) cost benefits. I look forward to a statement from HCC to this effect.
Yours sincerely
Rob Veck
Superhome owner meeting 80% reduction in CO2 emissions.

SuperHome Open Day Free Event 24th March 1-4pm

admin — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 12:11:08 +0000

Colden Common’s very own eco home is opening its doors to the public with guided tours between 1 and 4pm on Saturday 24^th March. This is your chance to get close to sustainable technologies and explore ways to cut your energy bills, generate your own energy and increase your home comfort.

Our property, a 1979 detached house, has been refurbished with comfort, energy saving and the environment in mind. As a result its carbon footprint has been cut by 80% making it a SuperHome. As part of a network of over 100 SuperHomes, we volunteer our time to share both the benefits and challenges of making an old home energy efficient. Don’t expect a sales pitch (this is a charity initiative), but do bear in mind that enthusiasm can be infectious. We hope you’ll join us. Please see the Open Day information below and browse the website to find out more about SuperHomes.

Rob and Sue Veck

Event detail:-

Your Hosts: Rob and Sue Veck 01962 714177

Address: 8 Piping Close, Colden Common, Winchester SO21 1UP

Tours: Sat 24 Mar: 1pm to 4pm. These free tours last between 30 – 45 mins.

Booking: No advance booking required – just arrive in time for a tour

Directions: Visit www.maps.google.co.uk here. Please phone well in advance if unsure and look out for balloons or banner on arrival

Parking: Parking on Piping Rd

Feed-in-Tariff Consultation Response

admin — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 08:02:58 +0000

Introduction

This document is the response from Rob Veck, GreenHomeDiary.com, professional Project Manager, and a Superhome owner that has achieved an 80% reduction on household emissions to meet the Kyoto target. This could not have been achieved without the installation of PV and Solar Hot water.

A copy of this document has been sent to Winchester Action on Climate Change for their consideration, amendment and inclusion of their comments.

Executive Summary

We should be aiming:-

To encourage capital & manufacturing cost reductions to make PV more affordable for a greater proportion of householders / businesses.
To generate Green Jobs.
At an equitable distribution of FIT.
Ultimately achieve parity with power generated for the grid.
To contribute towards government carbon target.
Make best use of the FiT funds.

This could be achieved by:-

A capped and tiered FIT that is linked to capital price performance to ensure a good ROI of 5% to 8% and 10 to 12 year payback period.
Lowering the cap on a regular (quarterly?) basis to “encourage” reductions in capital and manufacturing costs.

A capped and tiered FiT would also help sustain the funds for a longer period, and contribute towards the 10% saving required by 2015.

We assert that the tariff for multi-installation should be increased for non-profit community based schemes that enable community members (who are unable to install PV) to invest in their community scheme to the benefit of other community members and fuel poverty.

We are concerned about the impact of the sudden change to the feed-in-tariff and previous changes & delays (e.g Renewable Heat Incentive) on the future credibility of the Green Deal putting at risk the adoption by consumers, and participation by businesses. This change appears to be large without taking into consideration the impact on the market, and specifically jobs – there is no business assessment of either of these critical points in the draft impact document. The date for the lower tariff before the closure date for this consultation lowers the credibility of the overall process.

Responses


1	Do you agree or disagree with the proposed new tariffs for solar PV? Give reasons to support your answer.
	Disagree – in parts. Evidence #1: Discussions with PV installers and local groups indicate customers would not proceed with the amended tariff rates. Installers predict a collapse of the market which would have an impact on jobs and the industry in general. However, the situation is not as clear as it could be. Panel prices have dropped, and the FIT mechanism is encouraging profiteering at the expense of the consumer and detriment of bleeding dry the monies set aside for the FIT. Evidence #2: The impact to jobs is happing at a national level – see Carillion takes £20m hit on FITs lay-offs. However, this may be more to the economic climate as compared to the effect of the FIT. Evidence #3: Page 3 of document 3364 quotes “5% for well located installations” for the intended ROI for PV – however, the launch of FITs quoted 5 -8% and has been well establish as such since April 2010. Additionally the Minister has also quoted 5 to 8% criteria. The document is not as transparent as it should be on this point. PROPOSAL An alternative mechanism for providing an equitable return on investment that meets the Minister’s criteria & market expectations can be achieved by capping the FiT to a specific capital cost / performance price point, reducing the FiT as the Capital cost / performance reduces, and reducing the cap on a regular (quarterly?) basis. This achieves the vision outlined above :- 1. More inefficient / costly panels will have a lower ROI and longer payback period. This encourages customers to look for better cost performance panels, which in combination of a regularly reduced price performance cap, will apply market pressure to encourage manufacturers to reduce costs and invest in improvements to increase panel efficiency. The issue about the lack of research was raised by George Monbiot – he suggested that the monies provided for the FiT could have been better spent through research to improve the efficiency of panels. Such improvements are slow in coming (PVT for example has a much higher efficiency rate as a result of the water cooling technology incorporated into the panels.) In the author’s opinion, a gradual reduction of the FiT linked to cost performance softens the impact on the market and, with sufficient communication from the government, should send a message to manufactures that cost reductions are required. 2. Tiered FiT based on capital price performance provides a more equitable distribution of FiT monies which is more socially acceptable and “better value for money” i.e. cheaper panels generating the same amount of power should still only result in a 5 to 8% ROI and 10 to 12 year payback. This avoids accusations of a system that encourages profiteering and takes into account dynamic market changes. Such an approach reduces the risk of exhausting FiT funding earlier than expected. 3. Additionally, tiered FiT as previous described encourages consumers to shop for lower priced systems (taking into account reliability and long term performance), and aids competition encouraging manufacturers to achieve better price performance. (note, panels from China benefit from their fixed exchange rate – no easy answer to that one, unfortunately) 4. Capping the FiT to a specific capital price performance point would require installers to be more transparent about their pricing. Prices above the Capped FiT would not achieve the ROI and Payback period. We have already seen evidence of customers being ripped off with panels priced significantly higher than the real price. Better transparency should help reduce excessive profiteering from cowboy installers. 5. The consultation document raises the issue of “value for money” which is assumed to be the additional levy applied to householder bills to support the FiT. In order to test “value for money” we have contacted a local electricity supplier, Utilita (and one query outstanding from British Gas). Their calculation resulted in £0.72p ex Vat per customer per year which is excellent value for money. A detailed description of the calculation used for a tiered approach to FiT is in appendix A.
2	Do you agree or disagree with the proposal of applying the new tariffs to all new solar PV installations with an eligibility date that is on or after a reference date that comes before the legal implementation of those tariffs? Give reasons to support your answer.
	Disagree. This impacts customers who have paid a deposit, and installers where the deposit has been used as a down payment to secure the capital equipment. This is a high risk that this deposit is non-refundable in these circumstances even through the original assessment was based on current FiT payments. It may also impact the installer who may have ordered and paid for equipment up front.
3	Do you agree or disagree with the proposed reference date of 12 December 2011? Give reasons to support your answer.
	Disagree Proposals and agreements that have been based a reference date of April 2012 – the original date for changing the FiT, may force contract issues. A date earlier than the close date for the consultation brings into question the credibility of the consultation process.
4	Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to introduce new multi-installation tariff rates for all new solar PV installations that meet the definition set out above and have an eligibility date of on or after 1 April 2012? Give reasons to support your answer.
	Disagree (and agree – see below) If the policy is to only attract householders, then the tiered scheme as described in #1 would need to be lowered for multi-installations. HOWEVER this then excludes the possibility of a Non Profit Community Interest Company providing an investment vehicle for community members that are unable to install PV on their property. i.e. A CIC that raises funds from community members could install PV on households that are appropriately orientated and also suffering from fuel poverty. The benefits of a community based scheme of this type are:- Fuel poverty households save on their electricity bills. Other community members unable to install PV receive a return on their investment which also help other community members. The CIC receives a small income for managing the scheme and profits can be recycled into other schemes. We think community based schemes encouraging householders, and non-profit organisations should be excluded from the multi-installation tariff rates. In fact, to encourage schemes of this type (where economies of scale can be achieved through bulk buying), the graduated tariff as described in appendix A should be increased to obtain a higher than 7.6% return on investment. An additional requirement of a community based scheme would require investors to sign up to a EPC C rating.. Agree For schemes that are not community based we agree with this proposal.
5	Do you agree or disagree with the proposed multi-installation tariff rates? Give reasons to support your answer.
	See #4
6	Do you agree or disagree with the proposal that for solar PV attached to a building, eligibility for the standard tariffs proposed in chapter 2 should be contingent on a minimum energy efficiency requirement being met? Do you have views on whether such a requirement should apply in relation to all buildings or just to dwellings or non-domestic buildings? Give reasons to support your answer.
	Conditionally Agree A full assessment should be done (as required by the Green Deal, which should include all measures needed to meet the 80% 2050 target) and a subset of measures identified from the assessment such that a minimum energy efficiency level is met and does not include the energy saved from PV. Addition of PV then exceeds the minimum applied to building. This should be applied to dwellings and non-domestic buildings – we need to meet the UK statutory carbon targets. However, there are exceptions such as farm buildings where measures may not be applicable, in which case, another building should be identified upon which measures can be applied and subsequently implemented.
7	Which of our two lead options for the energy efficiency requirement – requiring a building to achieve a specified EPC rating, or requiring the installation of all measures that are identified on an EPC as potentially financeable under the Green Deal – do you prefer for (1) dwellings, and (2) non-domestic buildings? Give reasons to support your answer.
	Preference A full assessment should be done (as required by the Green Deal, which should include all measures needed to meet the 80% 2050 target), and those measures identified & potentially financeable under the Green Deal to be implemented within 1 year from the installation of the PV, UNLESS it makes sense to install some of the measures before the PV is installed. In this case, the customer may need to take out a loan. If these measures are installed before the Green Deal, then the customer should have the option of subsequently financing them from the Green Deal and pay off the loan used to implement the early changes. Applicable to both dwellings and non-domestic buildings with exceptions (see 6).
8	Under the first option for the energy efficiency requirement, do you agree or disagree with the proposal that the EPC rating required to be achieved should be level C or above? Give reasons to support your answer.
	DO NOT KNOW Will a level C achieve our carbon targets? Someone more knowledgeable needs to determine the correct level required in order to meet UK’s legal binding targets and long term 2050 target. I doubt a level C will meet those targets (assuming good behaviour change).
9	Do you agree or disagree with the proposal that, for a transitional period only, all solar PV installations attached to a building should initially qualify for the standard tariff, and their continued eligibility for that tariff should be conditional on the building to which the PV installation is attached achieving the energy efficiency requirement within a specified period? Give reasons to support your answer.
	Agree PV installations should be conditional on energy efficiency changes within a given period.
10	Do you agree or disagree that this transitional arrangement should apply to installations with an eligibility date on or before 31 March 2013, and that the specified period should be 12 months from the installation’s eligibility date? Give reasons to support your answer.
	Agree
11	Can you identify any other issues, besides those discussed in this chapter, in relation to the implementation of an energy efficiency requirement for (1) dwellings, and (2) non-domestic buildings?
	TRACK RECORD Trust is a difficult thing to build and easily lost. Events such as Hips, the revised tariff on >50KW PV systems, and now this potentially puts the credibility of RHI and the Green Deal at risk.

APPENDIX A

Solar PV Payback Calculation

The diagram above shows the possible return on a £11,750 installation with estimated output of 3434 kWh per year. The calculation takes into account the diminishing efficiency of the array (see Solar PV Payback Calculations). This starting point is based on a recently installed system.

The table below shows estimates as to what the FiT should be in order to 7.6% return. The payback period ranges between 13.85 to 10 years.

Base Case – the (unlikely) situation where there is no inflation, no energy costs inflation, and 50% of energy produced is exported.
Expected Case – over 25 years, the situation where inflation is assumed to be 3% and energy costs will continue to rise at 4%.
Extreme Case – over 25 years, the situation where inflation is assumed to be 4% and energy costs will continue to rise by 8.5%.
Net Present Value – assumes that an equivalent investment (say, in a savings account) is 3% which equates to 2.4% after 20% tax.

		BASE CASE				EXPECT CASE		EXTREME CASE
Capital Cost	Fit	1^st Year Return	20% Tax payer	NPV	Payback Period (years)	NPV	Payback Period (years)	NPV	Payback Period (years)
£11750	21.00	7.60%	9.50%	£3,344	13.85	£10,187	11.89	£16,760	10.50
£11500	20.45			£3,271	13.85	£ 9,990	11.44	£16,507	10.48
£11250	19.90			£3,198	13.85	£ 9,793	11.43	£16,255	10.47
£11000	19.35			£3,126	13.85	£ 9,596	11.43	£16,003	10.46
£10750	18.79			£3,047	13.86	£ 9,391	11.43	£15,742	10.45
£10500	18.24			£2,975	13.86	£ 9,194	11.42	£15,490	10.43
£10250	17.69			£2,902	13.86	£ 8,998	11.41	£15,238	10.42
£10000	17.13			£2,824	13.86	£ 8,792	11.41	£14,976	10.40
£9750	16.58			£2,751	13.86	£ 8,595	11.40	£14,724	10.39
£9500	16.03			£2,679	13.86	£ 8,399	11.40	£14,472	10.37
£9250	15.47			£2,600	13.87	£ 8,193	11.39	£14,211	10.36
£9000	14.92			£2,528	13.87	£ 7,996	11.39	£13.959	10.34
£8750	14.36			£2,449	13.88	£ 7,791	11.38	£13,698	10.32
£8500	13.81			£2,377	13.88	£ 7,594	11.37	£13,446	10.30
£8250	13.26			£2,304	13.88	£ 7,398	11.37	£13,193	10.28
£8000	12.71			£2,232	13.88	£ 7,201	11.36	£12,941	10.26
£7750	12.15			£2,153	13.89	£ 6,995	11.35	£12,680	10.24
£7500	11.60			£2,081	13.89	£ 6,799	11.34	£12,428	10.21
£7250	11.04			£2,002	13.90	£ 6,593	11.34	£12,167	10.19
£7000	10.49			£1,930	13.90	£ 6,397	11.32	£11,915	10.16
£6750	9.94			£1,857	13.91	£ 6,200	11.31	£11,662	10.13
£6500	9.39			£1,785	13.91	£ 6,003	11.30	£11,410	10.10
£6250	8.83			£1,706	13.92	£ 5,798	11.29	£11,149	10.07
£6000	8.28			£1,634	13.92	£ 5,601	11.27	£10,897	10.04

House of Parliament Mention about our House and GreenWin

admin — Sat, 14 May 2011 06:28:11 +0000

GreenWin is a project that I am working with WinACC with to start a community based hub to support the Green Deal. The goal is to bring together householders, suppliers, skilled trades, and communities to take advantage of the Green Deal on a non-profit basis. This got a mention on Tuesday 10th May by our local MP, Steve Brine, and hopefully we will get the opportunity to outline the business plan to Department of Energy and Climate Change, and the minister.

The script of Steve’s speech is here. The overal debate was positive with some level of consensus across all the parties. What we’re all struggling with is how we’re going to know if the Green Deal is actually meeting the 2020 targets as the deal is taken up by householders and businesses.

You can see the live debate below (if you have silverlight installed) – the GreenWin mention starts at time stamp 19:22:25