MSE News: 'Why the solar subsidy cuts are so damaging'

Since when did friends of the earth sell there asses to a corporation?

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Since when did friends of the earth sell there asses to a corporation?

Yes and what is this tree hugger doing writing articles for MSE with her green biased pro global warming opinions presented as more important over common sense?

The real facts are that this subsidy is unaffordable for UK taxpayers and electricity consumers (utlimately added to non solar users bills) and the government needed to halt this money making scheme quickly. Its already cost taxpayers a fortune at a time when the government simply does not have the money.

I would have gone further, abolishing the feed in tariff payments completely. Thats what the government should have done.

I'm - sort-of in agreement with FoE - though not their specific aims.
Boosting the subsidy to larger schemes, for example, would make more sense.

At the moment, the subsidy for field-scale solar is 8.5p/kWh - boosting this to where numbers of this size of scheme are installed would make great amounts of sense.
Increasing this subsidy to perhaps 12p/kWh, and reducing domestic subsidy to the same amount, while allowing net-metering (you get no FITs, your meter simply runs backwards) would make a lot more sense than the current roof-centric ideas.

It would both allow large schemes which are more efficient, and DIY installation of panels. (buy a shed with a solar roof, and simply have any electrician wire it into the house for a hundred quid)

That FOE article must be the most stupid and disingenous article ever to appear on MSE(I appreciate MSE are not responsible for its content)

This quote sums it up:

Why solar's popular

The enthusiasm for clean power was boosted by soaring fuel bills, and the strain they put on cash-strapped householders. ....Little wonder that there have been disturbing stories of people having to choose between heating and eating.'

That certainly plays to the crowd! --- 'cash strapped householders' - 'soaring fuel bills' - 'Little wonder that there have been disturbing stories of people having to choose between heating and eating.'

The FOE solution therefore is that electricity bills should be even higher.

Of course the subsidies for solar electricity are paid for directly by these 'cash strapped householders'(and not the taxpayer) and indeed the whole purpose of the Government's cuts in FITs was to prevent our fuel bills 'soaring' even more.

The FOE also state:

Even with the proposed changes, solar will still represent a good investment for many people

So given that undoubtedly true statement, it begs the question why the FOE solution was to get into bed with Solar firms and go to court to ensure that these 'proposed changes' were not implimented from 12 December. The solar firms using the FOE to lend 'respectibility' to their case had a very clear motive, i.e. to feed from the rich pickings for a few more weeks and ensure that our fuel bills are even higher.

They also have the audacity to accuse the Government of wasting taxpayer's money, by opposing FOE in court. If the Government wins the 'cash strapped customer' pays lower bills - If the FOE win those customers pay higher bills.

It is well recognised that the FOE view everything through a 'Green Haze' but in this situation they have really excelled - they should be ashamed!

EDIT:
Would the FOE care to tell us what donations they have received directly and indirectly from the solar industry - and did they get any help with their court costs?

taffy056 wrote: »

Of course things had to change with FIT, far to high to be sustainable, but to make changes before the consultation has ended makes you wonder why have a consultation as its already been decided and acted on.

Something that is missing from the report is that if your property is not in band C in the energy efficiency banding the FIT is not 21p a unit but actually 12p, which means that the home needs to be fully insulated, and other measures like windows, doors and so on. Basically if you live in a house built more than 30 years ago you probably never get it to band C without spending a fortune on it, and even if you do that you may still not do it.

It was a consultation and not a negotiation, and the situation had changed since the timeframe was set; with the rate of installations increasing at an unsustainable rate.

However this particular thread is discussing the FOE article and their actions. It seems to me bizarre that they can argue on the one hand that you can make money - and let's face it, the whole FIT saga is about making money - at 21p/kWh and on the other hand go to court to prevent it being dropped to 21p/kWh.