In the United Kingdom, grand plans for “feed-in tariffs,” to reward renewable-conscious Brits as of April 2010, have not been particularly well received. While a host of new and promising renewable energy installation and provisions companies have taken over our television screens and energy providers throughout the country are proclaiming their excitement at the arrival of the scheme, much of the British public and press appear far from convinced.
The basic premise for the incentives, due to apply to installations planned from April within specific sizes, states that members of the British public who install small scale domestic solar panels, wind turbines and other renewable facilities in their homes can receive fixed rates on the electricity produced by the installations and thus, hack off a chunk of our energy bills.
One example from the UK Department for energy and Climate Change (DECC), says that installing photovoltaic panels could earn homeowners £900 per annum; a saving of £140 per annum.
According to the government, this scheme could see one in 10 homeowners installing such facilities during 2010 – a key move in Britain’s efforts towards meeting its 2020 energy targets which require a 30 per cent rise from its current 5.5 per cent renewable grid portion.

Promises of cheaper energy bills swirled amidst our current climate of fear for climbing energy prices following our cold spell in early 2010. Yes, even by British standards there’s been a chilly snap in the air and our central heating systems have been turned up.

While admittedly we can be a little lacking in realizing renewable power education compared with some of our European counterparts, I wonder if rousing raucous interest in installing solar panels during our Siberian snow storms was a bit of a tall order from the beginning?

It appears that the main bone of contention raised by critics is the moderate gains we are set to make under these new incentives. Critics of the scheme claim that the energy bill reductions touted are too mild and far from generous enough to truly interest the general public. Add to that the fact that those who do not install renewable facilities face another estimated £11 per year on their bill, and it appears that the feed-in tariff incentive has its underlying downsides.

According to the Solar Trade Association, these incentives offer roughly half of that offered by some similar schemes.

The British Hydropower Organisation, whilst welcoming the arrival of these new incentives, points out that certain details within the structure of the feed-in tariff will directly affect overall hydropower development.
In the time leading up to the feed-in tariff announcement, some hydro companies signed up to the previous Renewable Obligation (RO) and those companies which did so before April 2008 will not be able to apply for the feed-in tariff nor complete the original RO scheme. Unlike the RO, under the feed-in tariff there is no allowance for refurbishment of hydro facilities. When you consider that enabling refurbishment can promise up to 100 years of operation from a hydro plant, for example, this flaw appears critical in the part this renewable source can play.

It appears that this latest incentive might be another UK policy dressed up as a ‘one size fits all’ solution for our renewable energy response, again littered with small print and difficult commercially realistic details. It all comes down to education: Educating the public, the policy-makers and the unified response of renewable industry groups.

Policy shaped after announcement is part and parcel of progress. However it’s a still a shame when the same problems are brought to the table. A good step in the right direction, yes, but there’s plenty to shape and re-hash before the feed-in incentives hit the spot.