|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feed-in tariff article.|
- 1 When is a FiT a PPA?
- 2 Effect on prices of electricity
- 3 Footnote problem
- 4 Untitled comments
- 5 Washington State FIT
- 6 Link 5 dead www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/eca_ctte/.../sub123.pdf
- 7 grid parity
- 8 this article needs to be edited for clarity
- 9 Dead link
- 10 Serious confusion about production vs delivery
- 11 Copyright violation removed, expansion possible
- 12 kWh
When is a FiT a PPA?
In the New York part of the article it says that the tariff is more of a power purchase agreement and goes on justifying this by citing an inability of the seller to use their own electricity. Is that really a defining criterion of PPA? According to Wikipedia's Power Purchase Agreement article it does not seem to be and the World Bank does not list it either (http://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/sector/energy/energy-power-agreements/power-purchase-agreements). Asdir (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Effect on prices of electricity
This article gives outdated or imprecise information on the effect of FIT on the prices of electricity. Whilst it is a standard green agenda that electricity prices decrease for the consumer, this has actually never been proved in research. All evidence points to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
This article's footnote 7 is not working. When I was on the EERE website, I used EERE's search for "Feed-in Tariff", and the correct EERE webpage came up, just fine. So I cut-and-pasted that (correct) webpage's URL, which follows: http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=11592
At any rate, I was not able to make that improvement in this WP article, because all of the footnote sourcecode (or references sourcecode) is hidden somehow. I regard this as very unfriendly on WP's (Wikipedia's) part, to deny me access to that sourcecode despite my being a registered user.
So someone with the needed authority should update the sourcecode with a link that works, namely the one I pasted, above. And then either delete my=this Talkpage entry, or give it a title -- I certainly don't care which. For7thGen (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The claim that netmetering is usually introduced before a FIT is not true.
Washington State FIT
This article doesn't list the Washington FIT. I believe this one established in 2005 was the first in the country: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=WA27F&re=1&ee=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the first FIT that I am aware of was introduced in the 1970s by Jimmy Carter. Details are here http://www.lses-lb.org/articles/feed-in-tariff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Link 5 dead www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/eca_ctte/.../sub123.pdf
Grid parity is not the goal of a feed-in tariff. As Telepolis points out in Der Eigenverbrauch - alles Schlechte kommt aus Amerika, energy forms that are cheaper than grid parity, would have to rise in cost. MovGP0 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
this article needs to be edited for clarity
I am a law student researching solar energy, which led me to "feed in tariffs." I have no idea what these are so I wanted to use wikipedia as a jumping point for a broad understanding of this industry. Unfortunately, this article is filled with so much jargon it makes no sense -- and I'm used to reading pretty complicated topics.
Take the very first two paragraphs of the article. I will repost them here with my concerns as a reader regarding what kind of information I wanted, but didn't get. I am sorry if the following comes off as harsh but I am very frustrated.
- A feed-in tariff (FIT, standard offer contract advanced renewable tariff or renewable energy payments) is a policy mechanism designed to accelerate investment in renewable energy technologies. It achieves this by offering long-term contracts to renewable energy producers, typically based on the cost of generation of each technology. Technologies such as wind power, for instance, are awarded a lower per-kWh price, while technologies such as solar PV and tidal power are offered a higher price, reflecting higher costs.
I want to know what a feed in tariff is. The first sentence tells me that it is "a policy mechanism." It then tells me that is is a policy mechanism designed "to accelerate investment." How does it do this? It offers "long-term contracts to energy producers." "IT" offers contracts. What is it? I understand that the energy producers get the contracts, but who gives them the contracts? Is it a contract between the producer and the end-user? Between the producer and the government? What are these contracts? Are we talking about lease contracts? Sales contracts? Mortgage contracts? Who are the parties to the contracts?
So far, I understand a feed in tariff to be a mechanism that encourages investments by giving contracts to producers. This doesn't make much sense to me. The mechanism is giving a contract to a person???
The last sentence of the first paragraph tells me that the contract varies depending on whether it is a solar, wind, or tidal -- other than that I don't understand how this affects "the contract." I am told that "the technologies" are "awarded" "lower prices." This sounds weird. Why is the word award being used? If I engage in a contract of mortgage I wouldn't say I have been awarded a mortgage loan. And I wouldn't say the house was awarded a mortgage. This says the technology is awarded. That doesn't make sense. And somehow there are lower prices. For what? I don't know -- low prices are awarded. Milk in the grocery store has a price. Presumably when we are talking about price here we mean the price of something, but I don't know what that something is or who is the one that is supposed to be paying it. For example, when I buy milk I pay a price for it and I buy it from a grocery store, but the grocery store paid a price for it when it bought it from the farmer -- so we've got two separate prices here with three different parties. You can talk about lowering the price I pay at the grocery or the price the grocery pays the farmer which (arguably) trickles down to me. The article needs clarification about prices and parties and priced object.
So the first paragraph is a bunch of meaningless jargon that expects you to understand what a "feed in tariff" already is I guess.
- In addition, feed-in tariffs often include "tariff degression", a mechanism according to which the price (or tariff) ratchets down over time. This is done in order to track:p.25 and encourage technological cost reductions.:p.100 The goal of feed-in tariffs is to offer cost-based compensation to renewable energy producers, providing the price certainty and long-term contracts that help finance renewable energy investments
I still don't know what feed-in tariffs are but now I know they include tariff degression. Good to know. Finally, I am told that price = tariff when the sentence says "the price (or tariff) ratchets down over time." When I remove all the extraneous jargon from the last sentence I walk away with this basic idea -- Feed in tariffs offer compensation to producers that help finance investments. This sentence makes sense grammatically but content-wise its pretty meaningless.
Someone who has the technical knowledge about these things ought to go over this article with a fine-tooth comb and rewrite it so that it makes sense to general readers. I hope someone can use what I've said for a starting point as to what is wrong with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:105:B00B:4804:C0E5:6FCD:A4DC:D643 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Topic Uganda: The following link is dead: http://www.era.or.ug/Pdf/Approved_Uganda%20REFIT%20Guidelines%20V4%20(2).pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Serious confusion about production vs delivery
The article is very unclear about the distinction between the payment for what an electricity producer produces and what they actually deliver or "feed in". For example, the UK system makes a payment based on the amount of electricity "produced", even when that is not fed into the grid - amazingly, there is no obligation for the electricity "produced" to actually be meaningfully "consumed" or "delivered". The electricity from a PV system can simply be dumped into a resistive dummy load, and the "feed-in tariff" is still paid, even though nothing has been "fed in". Under the UK scheme, there may be a separate payment for feeding electricity into the grid, but it is a pretty minuscule amount, around one tenth of the amount paid for "production" (2-3p/kWh). There is no obligation on the grid to pay for electricity received according to this http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/01-02/RE_info/photovoltaics.htm
The use of the term "feed-in" tariff is thus highly misleading in schemes where the payment does not require anything to be fed in. The overall "success" of these schemes is measured on how much electricity is "produced" in total, which may exceed by a great margin the amount of electricity supplied into the market, creating a false impression.
The problems and confusions surrounding became apparent to me when my mum was advised it was most financially efficient to stop exporting power to the grid completely by dumping her PV electricity into a domestic water heater (a hugely wasteful use when the obvious alternative would be a heat pump at 5x the efficiency, and when her consumption of hot water is minimal).
It seems the bogus UK scheme design is mirrored in several other countries' schemes.
Could we alert the reader to this confusion of "produced" electricity vs. "fed-in" electricity, and the harmful effect on economic incentives, as well as the likelihood of serious confusion caused by using the ferm "feed-in" tariff, where there is no requirement to actually feed anything in? Perhaps we should have a "criticisms" section? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation removed, expansion possible
I just removed a long copy-and-paste from . There was some material about the Sacramento Municipal Utility District which might be good to properly incorporate into the article. -- Beland (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment is invited at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Proposal on the question of whether kWh (with no space and no dot) is an acceptable unit symbol for use in articles, as opposed to restricting the choices to kW·h or kW h (i.e. with either a space or a dot). EEng (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)