Given that large scale solar farms have largely been a driving force around Europe – take a look at Spain and Germany - I fail to see why the Government have done their maths based on the uptake of small-scale residential developments? And if they are trying to support residential developments why does the proposal also introduce reductions for small scale from 32p/kWh to 19p/kWh - this seems counterintuitive to the aims? There seems to be some confusion with what is being said and the policies on the table.
Aside from this, we are missing a huge economic and environmental opportunity by stifling a fragile solar industry through reduced tariffs.
The solar industry has the potential to provide hundreds of jobs across the UK, as well as a healthy taxable income and the source of economic stimulus and cheap power for our communities.
By cutting the tariff on large scale solar developments, we also risk alienating foreign investors who have already earmarked sites in Cornwall and the South East of England. International developers looking at UK sites have already expressed their disappointment at the proposals. Amir am Roth-Dublin, head of business development at German project developer Juwi Solar, who had planned 60MW of installations over the next two years, recently commented: ‘The proposed PV tariff for >250kWp systems is totally unreasonable. We would have expected much higher rates to drive the UK PV market into growth instead of bust – which will happen with these uneconomical rates,” Manufacturers such as AZUR Solar and Controller have also expressed their concerns.
What is more, by damaging the large scale solar sector, we could be inadvertently damaging our ability to meet stringent carbon dioxide emission targets. The consequence of this will be heavy fines imposed by the European Commission that ultimately will be paid for by us, the tax payer.
The limits proposed and the legal definition of micro generation present another issue - 150kW seems reasonable for individual households. However it fails to recognize that not every household is suitable for a PV installation. Some may have roofs that are not south facing or have an unsuitable surface area for roof-mounted arrays. In order to readdress this distributional inequality many communities have begun the planning process of creating their own solar parks - larger than 150kW - in order to share the benefits of generating electricity and income for themselves as well as enabling those who cannot support their own solar projects to get involved. I don’t believe this would be a viable or economically sound option under the proposed reduction.
Does this not fly in the face of David Cameron’s ‘Big Society?’ policy where individuals and communities have the right to take ownership of local assets? We have seen how community based wind projects have benefited communities in the past – you only have to look at the Fintry wind farm project to get a glimpse of the potential community solar power could offer. With reduced tariffs, I fear many communities will not pursue their own projects, despite the energy saving benefits.
There is also an important ethical argument to consider here – apart from lifestyle changes, there is very little that individuals or communities can do to make a real difference to the energy saving debate. Getting involved with community based renewable energy projects offer one of the few direct and tangible actions a person can take to reduce carbon emissions significantly. It is also the only way we can make a stand to rising bills and the insecurity of supply, but with the review, far from achieving the principles of ‘Big Society,’ it seems our hands are tied once again.
Editor's Note: Many thanks to Michael Rieley at renewable energy recruitment consultants, Taylor Hopkinson Associates, for this article, and James Walter at Candid Media for supplying it.
For additional information:
