The amount of household solar power capacity installed in the past two months has plummeted by three quarters following the government’s cuts to subsidies, according to new figures.
A fall in solar power was expected following a 65% reduction in government incentives paid to householders, but the size of the drop-off will dismay green campaigners who want take up on clean energy sources to accelerate.
Data published by the energy regulator this week shows there was 21 megawatts (MW) of small solar installed in February and March this year, after a new, lower incentive rate came into effect. By contrast, energy department figures show that for the same period in 2015, 81MW was installed.
The cuts were announced just days after energy secretary Amber Rudd helped agree the historic Paris climate deal, and have bankrupted several solar companies. The government says the changes were necessary to protect bill payers, as the solar incentives are levied on household energy bills.
But Lisa Nandy, shadow energy and climate secretary, said: “The chancellor ignored the warnings and slashed support for this important industry in the clear knowledge it would cause job losses and deter investment. These figures show the damage his decision is causing.”
Industry said it was going through a difficult time but there were grounds for optimism.
“The market is going through a very difficult time with deployment down considerably compared to this time last year. This is of course because of the cliff-edge cut to the feed-in tariff [the incentive scheme], and has caused a handful of businesses to close shop over the last few weeks,” said David Pickup, business analyst at the Solar Trade Association.
“However we are confident that solar can still provide an attractive investment in certain circumstances and that the market will recalibrate by selling solar as a package with other smart cutting edge technology to increase self-consumption of the solar electricity.”
The feed-in tariff data for solar schemes under 10kW, considered largely household installs, is slightly skewed because there was a surge in March 2015 as people rushed to meet a deadline for an attractive rate, and because the scheme was closed for the first week of February this year. However, observers said it was clear the bulk of the fall was down to the cuts.
Greenpeace UK energy campaigner Diana Vogtel said: “The UK government is going against both public opinion and economic sense by cutting support for this booming technology. If lowering bills for hard-working families is indeed a priority for the government energy policy, why are ministers backing astronomically expensive new nuclear whilst ditching much cheaper energy sources?”
A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “It’s only fair that the costs on people’s energy bills to support solar projects should come down as the industry establishes itself and costs fall. Ultimately, we want a low carbon energy sector that can stand on its own two feet rather than relying on subsidies.”
This week the IPPR thinktank called on the next mayor of London to make the capital a ‘global green city’ by increasing solar investment. A recycling and waste company said it had installed the capital’s biggest solar photovoltaic scheme in Bow, at 1MW, and a bus shelter made with transparent solar panels was unveiled at Canary Wharf.
The industry also received some sunnier news, in the shape of the European commission’s action plan on VAT, which suggested that Europe will allow ministers’ plans to keep VAT rates at 5%.
View all comments >
comments (508)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
Some of the fall will be due to installers bringing forward projects into December.
In any case, the smaller number of installations at lower cost will save a lot of money. Good that the VAT rate is staying at 5%, though according to the Guardian is a subsidy, so must be bad.
And if we are going to subsidise green energy lets subsidise the stuff we have lots of: waves and wind. Let California and Florida develop solar.
Why are subsidies bad for new, clean enterprises?
Solar is:
Not new:
1878: Augustin Mouchot displayed a solar power generator at the Universal Exhibition in Paris
1883: the first pv solar array, by Charles Fritts on a rooftop of 42 Nassau Street, NY
Not clean energy:
Ontario nuclear powered electricity emits 40g CO2/kWh.
Solar + natural gas emit 200 g CO2/MWh. Solar does not work without fossil fuel support. Solar is intermittent : dependent on time of day, weather and season.
The graph in this story shows that there was a big increase towards the end of 2015.
This is a familiar pattern that has happened repeatedly before when these subsidies change.
Every time this happens, the solar industry howls (despite the huge increase in their business just before) and then it is followed by increases in installations again.
We should not take that for granted, but the signs are that solar installations will continue increasing at a good healthy rate again soon.
I think you make a fair point about crying wolf in 2011. But once you're down to 4.39p per kilowatt hour, there's not much further down to go. Having installed solar myself last year, the sums made sense, but I don't see they add up for most people now. I think this time round might be different.
In previous times i would have read your point, shrugged and moved on. This time I must draw your attention to one simple fact.
This cut was too severe, too contrived and so unnecessary.
I just closed a young, energetic domestic solar installation company, laying off half a dozen installers, including myself, because the government has decided to hang it's hat on a white elephant of a nuclear deal and the rest of us be damned.
Solar will recover on large scale commercial, because energy security, peak shifting and storage will add up. But on domestic the governments policy is nothing short of scandalous. They pander to their oil/gas lobby and have sold our children short.
They've also just put at least 50,000 jobs in jeopardy in an industry that potentially shows us another way.
A poor show.
thanks for your reply. It is honestly appreciated.
I think it's great that you installed solar panels last year and I hope that it is working out for you.
I hope that you are wrong (in a good way) about the future of solar installations here in the UK. I want renewables to succeed here in the UK and elsewhere, as well as other low/lower carbon solutions that wean us off dirtier energy sources and help us to continue our improvements to the environment. The evidence to date suggests that they will. I hope that's the case and that in a few years' time I do not have to follow your good example here and admit (regrettfully for the environment) that I was wrong.
Thanks again for taking the time to reply BTL.
Probably more to do with less b/s spin "high pressure sales" calls than the actual "value" to the buyer reducing due to govt action.
No, it's totally down to Govt action. Having said that I'm not sure I totally disagree with them, but either way it just makes no sense now to have a domestic grid tied solar installation as you're talking of at least a 30 year payback and the panels won't even last that long. I was surprised that it was only a 75% drop tbh. Ought to have been much nearer 100%.
So far as high pressure sales pitch, I don't think the companies were even allowed to do that. They're regulated. I got my panels a few years ago and didn't get any spin. Did my homework prior to calling a company of course. South facing roof with no shading for starters.
The reason I'm not totally against the Govt change is because there's an argument that affluent people are getting money from the FITs and everyone else is having to pay it. Okay, I'm one of them but the solar company who did my installation took a huge chunk too. Perhaps so long as commercial installations continue to rise then from an ecology point of view things are still going the right way. Look forward to a response actually because I'm kind of on the fence over this one. Can't decide if the Tories were right or not in this instance.
They were wrong. You don't make sudden major cuts like this if you want to nurture an industry.
funny how around the world the same decisions are being made... this is an over hyped industry that like wind is not returning what it should have yet unlike wind has seen the actual cost of panels plummet since the "plan" was devised... so much so that China has 40 manufacturers of solar panels for every one in America or Europe - hence why they are all going bust, in China & the West.. The subsidy is not needed... yet the only sales "pitch" was "get it quick before the Govt money ends" - this was not an industry selling on " explained merit" it was one selling with a "buy me gimmick" - nurture? you really do not know what the industry was or what the American investors were finding when they went to solar panel trade shows... there would be 2 or 3 American firms, and there would be 60 Chinese firms with very little IP between them all promising to make and sell for 1/2 the price...
Fascinating to see how quickly the Guardian's regular supporters of fossil fuels spring into action as soon as articles such as this are published. They must be getting very worried at their prospects.
One wonders where they find the time :)
Overtime! ;-)
...Ultimately, we want a low carbon energy sector that can stand on its own two feet rather than relying on subsidies.”
I'm sick of hearing this crap. Get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear, then bleat if if you still need to.
The current 60 billion nuclear UK decommissioning cost that the taxpayers have to cough up for this dangerous technology makes the subsidies to foreign owned companies to build more reactors all the more galling.
''Ultimately, we want a low carbon energy sector that can stand on its own two feet rather than relying on subsidies.”
I'd like to see him try telling that to the privatised rail companies.
Or remove subsidies for farming.. thha wil get an even bigger reaction
I think DECC's decision to reduce solar subsidies will backfire horribly. Very little new electricity generation is being commissioned and any that is will receive much greater than market price per kWh generated.
Candles for all!
Don't worry, I'm sure cheap gas from fracking will be powering all the new gas-fired power stations Osborne wants any minute now.
Any minute now.
So, given that the government made a 'whopping profit' from the whole debacle, how has Osborne managed to double the national debt?
==================
The whopping profit was 35 bn on the loans, 600 bn on the tax from the finance sector, 10-20 bn loss on Brown's share trading.
Has Obsourne doubled the debt? yes.
Why? He spent more and accumulated more debt than he paid off. What else would you expect?
Now for Brown. He quadrupled the pension debt alone in just over 5 years. He added 750 bn a year to the debt 2005-2010.
Osbourne's problem is the debt he inherited.
So since you like the maths. What should Osbourne have done to reduce the debt, with some numbers.
Start off with the True state debt, on and off the books.
So let me get this straight, you're saying that Osborne doubled the debt, increasing it far, far more than any previous Chancellor, without (according to you) any assistance from the banking crisis, from which we made (according to you) a 'whopping profit', and he did this whilst slashing welfare, closing libraries, freezing public sector pay and even cutting disability benefits, and you want to talk about Brown?
I'm far more interested in your take on Osborne. I knew he was shit, but I had absolutely no idea he was this shit.
Please, tell me more.
Keep plants on your roof.
Won't the soil slide off?
Nah , flat roofs .
I've been throwing pot plants at mine for 2hrs now and it's generated bugger all electricity.
why are all new builds not made to have at least a solar panel for hot water? As a proportion of a house, it isn't much...
This Government's cancellation was rank stupidity, and was a key part of the "getting rid of the Green Crap" agenda which attempted to blame sky-high new-build property prices (as well as energy prices) on "green measures" (like insulation, air-source heat-pumps and PVs) rather than the ubiquitous land-banking and the deliberately slow rate of release of new properties.
If you think one solar panel will heat your hot water you are very much deluded
Cost on investment.
One thing I'd be very interested to see is the rate at which installations of home storage systems are going now. The previous model encouraged selling as much as possible which is problematic for the grid as a whole, while the lower feed one could encourage more people to install storage, which in turn would change the profile from output falling off as the time of maximum demand approaches to one of reducing consumption during peak demand
The Whole UK installed:
Jan Feb
(0-4) 24,212 24,321
(4-10) 22,852 22,923
2,176 2,176
348 348
26 26
total 864,218 867,876
Under 4000 systems in feb and most under 4kW the amount of storage is going to be meaningless even if it were at 100%. Electric cars would be more significant.
Basically, you are only going to get people doing it for moral reasons or perhaps some extreme DIYers who are going off-grid via buying direct from China.
No it didn't actually. The tariff paid for export to the grid is quite low and in most cases in the absence of export meters based on a notional 50 per cent of total generation (which is not known in real time). It makes far more sense to use the power for yourself, given current retail prices. The issue is that from this time of year it's difficult to use all ones production.
Only the other day we were told that we now have too much solar power. Make your minds up!
By whom? the people wanting to convince you that the government were right or someone serious.
This sort of thinking, matches someone sitting on a high branch, then sawing it off whilst sat on the wrong side of the cut....Ouch!!!
The 'genius' of Gidiot.
They probably cannot find a tax dodge in it.
They don't want individual people to have their own power.
Nowt stopping you having your own power, this is about generating into the grid. People can go off grid and have a Tesla Powerwall or even 19 car batteries linked up in series if they want to go full hillbilly. I think a genny might be worth keeping in the garage for winter while they're at it.
If you use power during the day when the panels are generating electricity, you are using your own power, maybe not 100% of it. I use my washing machine, dishwasher and heat pump during the day and have a significant reduction in my power use. Excess power is fed into the grid during the daytime peak.
I see the Guardian is ignoring the Cameron debacle. Perhaps this is why they are losing readers.
They only report on items they think we should know about.
Are you having trouble with this Internet thingy? Has someone set up your system to make CiF the only page you can get?
Happy to help - here's the current Guardian front page.
Just reading the paper brings you lots of news about other things that were being kept from you - live free, charleswood!
You are joking. Cameron has been front page news all week. Not a peep about Labour so hardly open minded reporting. Maybe momentum would be better
We are not allowed to comment because the owners of this rag use the Cayman Islands - as do many in the Labour party.
Not before time. A white elephant programme that drained vast amounts of money from causes that desperately needed it. If solar isn't capable of supporting itself after all these years then putting it out of its misery can only be a good thing.
White elephant in what sense ? Did you know 8% of electricity generated is lost in transmission, so household solar eliminates that.
I understand that it was well on the way to supporting itself but the Government has ruined all that.
>> If solar isn't capable of supporting itself
I've done the math and it is now almost parity with grid electricity, and with grid electricity going up and the sunshine, well, free, it can only improve.
My solar panels only run on offshore sun. Not much of that where I live.
Sigh, They work more efficient in direct sunlight, but still gather power from LIGHT. Regardless of how overcast it is.
As an owner of a 4Kw installation I can say that the power drops to something pathetic once the sky becomes overcast. Perhaps 200w or 600w if it's light cloud. You need plenty of blue in the sky to be pushing 2Kw plus.
I also have solar panels and mine can generate up to 30% in full cloud but reasonably bright light. It has Enphase micro inverters though. It generates up to 90% in full sun, depending on the time of year, time of day. Maybe yours aren't positioned well.
There may well be a case for gradually reducing subsidies as costs come down, but that's not what has happened. Unfortunately, the DECC spokesperson's statement is not a fair argument made in good faith, but a piece of spin attempting to disguise an ideological/party-funding-inspired attack on renewables.
When you look at this government's record on the environment and climate change, nearly everything they have done is damaging. There are some Conservatives who understand the climate problem, and it's high time they made their voices heard.
DECC's job is their to support the minister not serve the public, some people mistakenly confuse the US system with ours.
But remarkably few MPs. Even Tim Yeo supported fracking in the end and Cameron bought Zac off with the Mayor candidacy.
Ultimately, we want a low carbon energy sector that can stand on its own two feet rather than relying on subsidies.”
You may want it but it is probably never going to happen. The cheapest form of energy involves burning fossil fuel and discharging the waste into the atmosphere, and for a dependable 24/7 supply that will always be true. We have a choice - either pay extra for energy that doesn't involve carbon emissions or condemn our children to an extremely unpleasant future.
Of course, the renewable industry doesn't help itself by constantly banging on about achieving grid parity, for example with solar power. That's only true for electricity delivered on its terms - when and where the sun is shining. A dependable supply requires lots of extra kit that ain't cheap.
That's right - every other sector stands on its own two feet without subsidies. Oh wait, my mistake
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/12/uk-breaks-pledge-to-become-only-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies
I'm a greeny and work as an environmental economist. Ignoring the fact that oil and gas remain heavily subsidised by government, I do support solar but think that subsidies aren't really the right way to go about it. Personally I'd much prefer to see an escalator tax on oil and gas. If the externalities or negative costs of fossil fuels were factored into the equation then renewables would become economical far more quickly.
People often talk about not having the money, but economics is largely about decisions and priorities.
Sadly your first sentence disqualifies your opinion from being taken seriously.
Just a thought, those areas which have the most daylight should be given more incentives to switch to so solar.
One problem is that the grid needs refurbishing. Cornwall in particular is struggling to cope with the extra electricity production on sunny summer days. One thing that would help is to encourage more panels to be installed on East/West facing roofs to flatten the output peak at midday. In fact many people normally run their domestic equipment in the afternoon, so west facing roofs may be more effective for them than south facing ones even if peak output is slightly less.
So that's anywhere between the tropic of cancer and the tropic of Capricorn then ?
Or did you just mean the south of Britain .
Interesting thought.
''Ultimately, we want a low carbon energy sector that can stand on its own two feet rather than relying on subsidies''
This government tries to talk up nuclear with the lie that it is low carbon. So the above statement doesn't make sense, given the unfathomably large subsidy they are insanely plotting to give to Hinckley C.
It does if you are a low-life Tory who is going to be on the receiving end of a large wedge of cash for agreeing that the UK residents won't mind paying three-times as much for their Electricity...
and to add insult to Injury, it will be OWNED by the FRENCH, PAID FOR by the CHINESE, and likely built by Polish or similar Eastern European Immigrants on minimum wage...
Where do I sign up to get my name on the Ballot Paper for PM?
What do you mean - I have to prove I am corrupt?
Can I just LIE like Cameron does?
Low carbon , high radiation .
Solar panels don't emit deadly rays .
The better criticism is Too expensive ; Too slow ; Dangerous.
It's low carbon, that's a fact.
Just high cost, high waste, and slow.
We need something fast, that is the most pressing thing.
Solar panels are fast. Wind is fast. Geothermal is fairly fast. Tital is quite fast. Wave is on the way but doesn't work terrible well yet.
We need all of these plus some biomass, as long as it's zero net emission.
Most likely due to lobbying from energy firms.
Every home in the UK should have solar panels on the roof tops. Not to mention should be recycling and have their own water recycling to. Tech is there, cheap to, however it will cut into certain profits.
Can't be cutting them profits now can we?
dont mention the tax insentives and subsidys given to north sea oil fracking and ofcourse the biggest bast@rd of them all nuclear energy as always socialise losses and privatise the profits
Your right every home should be solar .
Maybe council's could apply it to social housing using local companies and the feed in money generated could be used for local community care .
Or potholes ect , museums , libraries.
Solar on every roof may overload the grid with power during the day with rolling blackouts at night.
Not against solar but intermittent power has to be integrated into the grid.
Well done Amber....great policy. Not.
This proves that solar power is a failure.
Time that these thieves were stopped once and for all.
Alternatively, it proves that this government is ideologically opposed to renewable energy, because it conflicts with their determination to promote fracking.
Vinculture more likely proves that as with everything else they touch the government prove their incompetence and are totally incapable of producing an energy policy that dose not include other nations skimming the profits paid for by the people yet again .
We the money pit that are the British public do solomly swear to pay France and china through the nose for our electricity .
We will play down the winter deaths through cold that will occur .
For we are the continuous money pit for the world to use , we are the fools , we vote for fools , and we let fools make desicions for political purposes not for us .
And so it should.
A complete waste of money, according to Lord Lawson.
Hopefully, with a Brexit win, the sceptics, euro and climate, will bring some rational thinking to the fore, and we can forget all these stupid EU directives on environmental issues.
Remind me, what is Lawson's qualification for concluding that renewable energy is a complete waste of money. Could it be the boom and bust he presided over while Chancellor of the Exchequer?
says lord lawson who lives in the south west of franc huh hipocritical chinese communist tory liar
Would that be the one who lives in France . ?
Sign in or create your Guardian account to recommend a comment