Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Building and Infrastructure
Renewable Energy
Export electricity price
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fowler VF" data-source="post: 3353264" data-attributes="member: 57664"><p>But it has kick started an entire industry. The high initial capital cost of those early plants like PV and wind came down rapidly as they became more mainstream. The various schemes reacted to this and the increase in uptake, by reducing tariffs through degressions. Hence we come to the point that reasonable scale PV for example is now very close to being viable with little or no subsidy, biomass heating subsidy is less than half what it was but there are still new plants going in as later adopters gain the confidence of seeing proven track records. OK the administration of the UK schemes hasn't been perfect; there have been one or two blatant abuses by operators (but many of those are now on borrowed time), the degression mechanism was a bit clunky but by and large it worked. Headline numbers for the high tariffs that some early plants are receiving need to be seen in the context of high initial capital costs and much higher risks of adopting new technology. Later adopters have benefitted from those early adopters taking the risk and gaining the knowledge and experience and have also benefitted from lower capital costs of plant due to higher volumes of build and better design. Hence those later adopters have less capital at risk and more knowledge to work from; less risk = less reward. </p><p></p><p>Contrast this with the Northern Ireland situation. Very slow initial uptake of RHI, so they upped the rates and then were "surprised" by the speed it took off at. Like launching a go cart down a hill, it wouldnt go at first so they gave it an almighty shove, then once it got going they realised they hadn't fitted either brakes (UK degression mechanism) or steering (UK Tier 1 and Tier 2 mechanism). Most of the media haven't grasped these fundamental differences between the mainland and NI, and have mistakenly focussed on individual operators as being the problem. The basic problem was the NI administrators just not implementing the degression and seasonal limiters like their UK counterparts, coupled with the old attitude of "it doesn't matter, Westminster is paying not us!" Actually this was what brought it all to a head in the end when Stormont (all sides) suddenly realised that it was going to be them that was paying for the excess after all; not Westminster.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fowler VF, post: 3353264, member: 57664"] But it has kick started an entire industry. The high initial capital cost of those early plants like PV and wind came down rapidly as they became more mainstream. The various schemes reacted to this and the increase in uptake, by reducing tariffs through degressions. Hence we come to the point that reasonable scale PV for example is now very close to being viable with little or no subsidy, biomass heating subsidy is less than half what it was but there are still new plants going in as later adopters gain the confidence of seeing proven track records. OK the administration of the UK schemes hasn't been perfect; there have been one or two blatant abuses by operators (but many of those are now on borrowed time), the degression mechanism was a bit clunky but by and large it worked. Headline numbers for the high tariffs that some early plants are receiving need to be seen in the context of high initial capital costs and much higher risks of adopting new technology. Later adopters have benefitted from those early adopters taking the risk and gaining the knowledge and experience and have also benefitted from lower capital costs of plant due to higher volumes of build and better design. Hence those later adopters have less capital at risk and more knowledge to work from; less risk = less reward. Contrast this with the Northern Ireland situation. Very slow initial uptake of RHI, so they upped the rates and then were "surprised" by the speed it took off at. Like launching a go cart down a hill, it wouldnt go at first so they gave it an almighty shove, then once it got going they realised they hadn't fitted either brakes (UK degression mechanism) or steering (UK Tier 1 and Tier 2 mechanism). Most of the media haven't grasped these fundamental differences between the mainland and NI, and have mistakenly focussed on individual operators as being the problem. The basic problem was the NI administrators just not implementing the degression and seasonal limiters like their UK counterparts, coupled with the old attitude of "it doesn't matter, Westminster is paying not us!" Actually this was what brought it all to a head in the end when Stormont (all sides) suddenly realised that it was going to be them that was paying for the excess after all; not Westminster. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Building and Infrastructure
Renewable Energy
Export electricity price
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top