Solar energy is certainly a good thing for the planet's health, but things are at risk of changing for the worse for our wallets. Public incentives for those who install solar panels on their roofs or balconies are being reduced, and the "net metering" mechanism, which financially rewards the electrons generated, is being phased out. they don't take off Because the new Renewable Energy Communities (CERs) are too complicated and trapped by lame regulations, they promised even richer incentives than in the past for those willing to join forces with other energy consumers and producers to accelerate the growth of photovoltaic energy. In short, is it worth investing in your own solar energy from now on?
The answer it is not easyBelow, we try to explain why, what is changing in the technological framework and incentives for private installations. To discover that a good photovoltaic system, well-calibrated to our needs, can still guarantee some advantages not only for our environmental vocation but also for our finances, but which margins tend to dangerously reduce.
Technology advances and equipment costs less
If we look at the last twenty years, the scenario can be summarized as follows: the costs of the equipment that make up our photovoltaic system have dropped in real terms, at the same power, by approximately 30%. Thanks to the two classic factors that drive transformations in sectors with significant technological content: economies of scale As the market grows, so do the technologies. Relatively limited progress has been made in the latter area, particularly in the panels. More significant progress has been made in the management systems: inverters (where Chinese industries dominate the entire photovoltaic supply chain, posing many challenges). problemi di sicurezza) and storage systems, i.e. batteries, which have seen their cost halved in parallel with the growth in their efficiency In terms of both space and operating life, a 5 kWh battery now takes up less space than a trolley, eliminating any storage issues.
Even with installation costs (labour) that have remained practically constant, today a typical system calibrated to serve a country house or a medium-large sized apartment, made up of panels with a power between 5 and 10 kilowatts (kW) with a battery storage between 5 and 15 kilowatt hours (kWh) costs in total just over 10 thousand euros, 30% less compared to 10 years ago. In this respect, convenience has therefore increased.
The great brake of incentives that are going backwards
But here's the other decisive factor: the incentive framework. Little has changed in recent years regarding installation costs. The eco-bonus regulations have remained essentially unchanged and currently guaranteesFor most citizens, a 50% refund spread over 10 years using the traditional mechanism for refunding amounts based on tax returns. More favorable rules apply, for example, to condominium installations.
But here is the other factor, decisive for calibrate convenience of our vocation for solar energy: the remuneration for the energy thus produced. The energy we don't consume directly and therefore feed into the grid through our "exchange meter."
A crucial premise is needed here. The changes to the regulations governing the remuneration of our sold energy confirm a key concept that characterizes photovoltaics: the most convenient use of the electrons produced with the incentives in force is that ofconsumption, that is, the energy we use directly, avoiding buying it from outside. This is because in the majority of cases involving plants activated in the last 15 years, the energy we "transfer" into the national electricity system is paid much less than the energy we withdraw. rebus It's all here, in the incentives that are going backwards.
The U-turn in subsidy policy from 2003 to today
From 2003 to 2013, the first major push for photovoltaic energy came with five editions of the so-called Conto Energia (Energy Bill), which provided for a very high remuneration for kilowatt-hours delivered to the public grid with a "guaranteed withdrawal" mechanism for the following twenty years, making the installation of the systems still cost-effective. Since 2013, the Net Metering system has been in place as the prevailing system, with the substantial disappearance of the prize: the kilowatt hour produced and delivered was generally paid half (the detailed mechanism depends on the time slots and other factors) of that withdrawn, with a mechanism that in any case subjected (and subjects) any excess in the deliveries, by those who for example have large plants and consume little or nothing, to a taxation of these sums, equated to taxable income.
Since last year, contracts with the Energy Account have been discontinued and have been replaced by the so-called Dedicated Withdrawal. This formula, structured differently but conceptually similar, guarantees lower refunds.
Salvation, theoretically capable of restoring a very solid convenience In the installation of residential photovoltaic systems, this is represented by CERs (Renewable Energy Communities). Owners of new systems join together to negotiate "standard" installations with a single supplier at more convenient prices and to network the energy produced in a consortium, within a defined territorial catchment area for both generation and consumption. All of this is managed virtually by the public grid operator. This way, as stipulated by the CER regulations, incentives are activated for all energy produced and consumed within the community, as well as that sold to the grid.
Well-valued incentives, which essentially re-propose the margins once guaranteed from the various editions of the energy bill, this time extended not only to producers but also to energy consumers who are part of the CER. Unfortunately, as repeatedly noted by FIRSTonline, among broken promises and attempts to revitalization, the take-off of Energy Communities remains held back by the usual Italian tangle of bureaucracy and planning errors.
From all this it is clear that reckon Correctly assessing the cost-effectiveness of our photovoltaic system isn't easy. Analysts and experts attempt this, using estimates and projections that are difficult for the average citizen seeking guidance to process or decipher.
The “sample” case to estimate the convenience
The specialized portal tries to cross-reference updated incentives and possible solutions D Day in an excellent weighted analysis just published.
Year after year, "it takes longer and longer to amortize the costs of the entire system." Even if the latter is equipped with a battery storage system, "it could take even longer more than twenty years" the report states. This is because "the price of energy paid by the public grid has remained fairly stable over the years, hovering around €0,30 per kilowatt-hour. It moves slowly and doesn't plummet during the central hours of the day, as happens on the wholesale market," while "the remuneration for energy sold is decreasing year after year," and so the time needed to repay the system is lengthening.
DDay makes theexample of a small plant of just under 5 kW in Northern Italy under the net metering regime, reproducing in detail the latest complete three-year reporting provided by the GSE, the public operator that manages the balance between consumption and reimbursement. Result: with the current incentive system, "in the transition between what is withdrawn and what is injected today, almost 19% of the value is lost compared to 10,6% two years ago." And "the situation destined to get worse especially for those who install a system today: the exchange on site no longer exists and the current incentive systems, the energy communities, are still in a phase that we can define as embryonic, not as simple to activate as the incentives that they should partly replace, but above all expensive to manage for those who have a small system". own goal For the true green vocation we would like to give our energy system? Exactly.
