Free solar power system. Is it a scam?
Options
Comments
-
SarahLucyD wrote: »Cardew - hold on, we aren't getting the grants. You are now starting to misquote us, that simply isn't fair. Also, we are looking to fit 2000 systems, not 3000. As you must be aware, the £2500 grant is being phased out along with the ROCs and the Microgeneration Tariffs and is being replaced entirely by the FITS (Generation and Export Tariffs). There are no grants available for us. And once again I must re-iterate that we were told by Andrej Miller that what we intend to do is entirely in keeping with what the Government is trying to encourage. The Government realises that it is lagging behind most other European countries as regards renewable energy:
"The Renewables Obligation is... focused on larger projects. We also want to encourage smaller projects, generating electricity closer to where it's used: solar panels on people's houses, community wind projects and farm based anaerobic digestion. This needs a simpler system, with more predictable returns. We are therefore also consulting on Feed-in Tariffs to guarantee an income for small scale renewable electricity generators..."
The Rt Hon Lord Hunt of Kings Heath OBE
Minister of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Extract from white paper: Consultation on Renewable Electricity
It does not specify that it is merely trying to encourage homeowners to generate electctricity from renewable sources.
We are making it easy for people to go greener and save money in the process by having free electricity whilst also creating jobs, which we couldn't possibly do if we didn't also make money from it. In my opinion it is a great shame that we are being criticised for it. We can't win can we?
Sarah
The £2,500 grant is available now for systems being fitted before April 2010 and they will still get the full FIT of 36.5p/kWh.
You are missing my point I think. I make no criticism of your company for exploiting what I maintain is a loophole.
As the Noble Lord stated in your quote, it is for "smaller projects". Your scheme is not a small project, fitting 2,000 x 3.3kW systems is 6.6MW - a very large project.
You haven't answered the central point I made. If it is in the spirit of the regulations to allow a firm to have, 2,000 systems qualifying for 2,000 domestic subsidies(FIT), why not let them have 2,000 small systems all located in one location? This would save a fortune in fitting, maintenance, electronic monitoring equipment etc. etc.
Not only would it save a huge amount of money on installation and ongoing maintenance, it would also be a lot greener;)
Also in the White Paper an aim was:
engagement (including greater energy awareness potentially leading to demand reduction
Additional benefits include consumer
Your system offers no incentive to a user. It really is just the opposite - it is a classic case of 'use it or lose it'
By that I mean if your system generates 2,500kWh pa and he(excuse the masculine terminology) is frugal with energy use and only uses 1000kWh in his house during the day. then he exports 1,500kWh. However if he uses, say 2,000kWh during the day, that extra 1000kWh doesn't cost him a penny! So no incentive to be frugal.0 -
This is an interesting thread.
Distilling the information, it looks like the company wants to install a solar system to use people's houses to generate electricity that will be provided free to the householder, and the scheme depends upon funding from a government grant scheme.
I guess the questions are (a) what happens if the government pulls the plug (metaphorically), (b) what happens if the system needs to be uninstalled, (c) who is liable for damages and insurance to the equipment?0 -
Cardew - if we did that then 2000 households would not benefit from the free electricity that our systems would generate. It would all be exported back into the grid. Our business model is not based on receiving the export tariff, only the generation tariff, which is why we are fitting it onto domestic roofs and letting the homeowners use the electricity for free.
We have already checked with AMiller that what we are doing does not make us a large scale generator.
We consider that by fitting the solar panels for free we will be i) earning money, ii) raising public awareness as regards the green issue, iii) saving people money due to the free electricity they will have and iv) people will actually use less electricity in the long term because we believe they will be more aware of what they use (tending to try and use more in the daytime and less in the evening).
As regards the £2500 grants - we can't take advantage of that as we aren't SELLING the panels - we are supplying them for free. The homeowners won't own them. The £2500 only applies if you actually buy a system.
I am now going home and I don't have internet access at home because when I did I had no home life. Accordingly, you can now really sling the mud behind my back :rotfl: as I won't be able to respond to any more comments until tomorrow when I get back to my desk
. Have a good evening.
Sarah Dyson - A Shade Greener Ltd0 -
Prowla - for systems that are installed between April 2010 and April 2011 the tariffs will be guaranteed by the government for 25 years. After April 2011 we were advised that the proposed scheme will either continue or be replaced by something similar. After consultation we believe it will continue, with the generation tariff possibly increasing. This isn't a grant scheme by the way - it is not state funded. It is the power utility companies who pay the tariff because they are obliged to purchase a certain amount of their energy from renewable sources. And Cardew I know you have maintained it is risky and not good business sense to base our business on such schemes then I can only say that is entirely our choice, there is no risk to the homeowner. The risk is entirely ours. The contract that the homeowner signs stipulates that they are not responsible for anything relating to the panels and will not have to pay anthing now or in the future. The only thing it stipulates as regards responsibility is that the homeowner can't remove them and sell them!!!
We take care of the insurance.
The main thing is that the homeowner does not pay anything at any point. The reason this thread started was that people wondered if it is a scam - it is not.
Now I really must go home.0 -
As a newcomer to this thread I am staggered at the vitriol, incivility and negativity being directed at this company and at Sarah . Her contributions seem to me totally open, frank and helpful and deserve much better than the smarta* nit-picking 'you dont even understand what a FIT is, na-na' comments from others. Shame on you!
As 'used to be' said above this seems a very worthwhile venture. The householder benefits from reduced electricity bills, the country gets extra renewable energy generated, it helps save the planet and the company makes a profit . And profit is not a dirty word in my vocabulary!
(PS I have no link to the company or vested interest at all)0 -
As a newcomer to this thread I am staggered at the vitriol, incivility and negativity being directed at this company and at Sarah . Her contributions seem to me totally open, frank and helpful and deserve much better than the smarta* nit-picking 'you dont even understand what a FIT is, na-na' comments from others.
As 'used to be' said above this seems a very worthwhile venture. The householder benefits from reduced electricity bills, the country gets extra renewable energy generated and helps save the planet and th company makes a profit . And profit is not a dirty word in my vocabulary!
(PS I have no link to the company or vested interest at all)
The only 'vitriol' - as you term it - was when Sarah got her facts completely wrong at the beginning; and stuck to her guns when told she was wrong; and was telling posters they were wrong.
That allied to the fact in general the solar industry are a byword for deception - ask any trading standards authority - made people suspicious.
When she realised her initial input was misleading explained the situation, there hasn't been any animosity as far as I can see. As you say her contributions have been frank and informative.
It is perfectly valid on an internet chat forum for their to be lively discussion on such subjects, and by many standards this has been 'gentle'.
As I said earlier, if the company can operate in the way they intend, then good luck to them. On the face of it those getting the system on their roof will get a modest return.
I just find it extraordinary that, in these times of finacial restraint, the Government will allow a firm to get the subsidies for 2000 'domestic' systems. Surely nobody can argue that this scheme is in the spirit of the Act.
If the model is successful there will bound to be other firms getting in on the same act. I cannot see the Government allowing such schemes.0 -
As a newcomer to this thread I am staggered at the vitriol, incivility and negativity being directed at this company and at Sarah .
Just a tad melodramatic?
The company website really doesn't explain how it all works and even Sarah's attempts at explaining it haven't been completely coherent (as she's admitted to in post #26) so in light of this the comments aren't really unexpected.
However I agree that she has had the decency to come on here and help enlighten us; most companies would refuse to discuss this in an open forum, much less to put their business plan on open view, so certainly they have my respect for that.
(Sarah: This is a 'consumer revenge' website. It's whole point is to dissect businesses to ensure that us customers don't get ripped off. Your minor feather-ruffling is nothing compared to the savaging some companies get for popping their heads over the parapet!)
Actually quite refreshing for someone to discuss something like this so openly.....0 -
SarahLucyD wrote: »We are making it easy for people to go greener and save money in the process by having free electricity whilst also creating jobs, which we couldn't possibly do if we didn't also make money from it. In my opinion it is a great shame that we are being criticised for it. We can't win can we?
I think the business model is potentially better than consumers buying outright but I think your company's website could be a bit more transparent on or covering some issues.
eg
- date of install is missing ie April at the earliest
- level of insulation required
- overcoming barriers to installs eg insulation, double glazing *
- fair use policy? can owners use all the energy generated without penalty?
- if not are there incentives for using less and hence increasing returns **
- minimum duration for install eg 5, 10, 15 years? early penalty?
- signing over contract if the house is sold
- type of property ***
Note while the company checks out for companies house and its domain name it doesn't as yet appear on the list of approved installers for PV. (appreciate you said just approved)
* double glazing might be a sizeable barrier to pv and there is no mention of making it more affordable by combining it with a free pv install to offset some of the costs.
** from what I gather it is 36.5 for electricity consumed and an extra 5p (or was?) for what is fed in to the grid.
*** low rise flats might be awkward since roof ownership is shared but flats are generally more energy efficient and there are generally fewer windows so barriers are lower in that regard. Rather than seeking individuals, partnership with councils who are installing double glazing etc in mixed ownership areas might be a worthwhile opportunity.
I would hope such business models will be permitted in the final wording. I suspect it will enable more people to go for pv and put more pressure on / enable manufacturers to improve costs. It might mean that prices and tariffs will potentially be reduced quicker with a 'service' rather than a 'product' model.0 -
SarahLucyD wrote: »And Cardew I know you have maintained it is risky and not good business sense to base our business on such schemes then I can only say that is entirely our choice, there is no risk to the homeowner. The risk is entirely ours.
Sarah,
Where have I ever said such a thing?
Or indeed ever said your scheme was a scam?
I have questioned in another thread if it was finacially viable for individuals to purchase and buy solar - purely looking at return on investment.
However I would never presume to question your firm about the sense to base your business on such a scheme. With bulk purchase, no rip off margins for installation and maintenance I can readily understand it could be viable.
My only reservation would have been getting the allowance for 2,000 small systems - but you have obviously cleared that hurdle.
P.S.
Please don't take the earlier comments personally. This site is spammed all the time by 'get rich quick' merchants particularly those attempting to cash in on the Green Bandwagon, and, as the title of the thread suggests, people are suspicious! Your early input didn't help allay those suspicions;)
Your subsequent input has clarified matters - and we all like blondes!0 -
If your company uses British made PV panels (easy peasy) and British componants where possible, then you have my support in your venture.
Good luck
M0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards