Solar Panel Guide Discussion

Ok, here’s a summary of the pointless noise and distraction of the past week.

1. Cardew claims that reducing import by x units is not the same as increasing export by x units – wholly insane position. Clarified perfectly in Blossom’s PV farm v’s factory post. There is no issue whatsoever, so this is just noise, angry pointless noise.

2. Cardew claims that PV farms were to be built when tariffs were 40p domestic, and 20p Large install, but they didn’t get a chance – a purely hypothetical argument. But in reality the tariff ratios were approx. 40p v’s 30p. Also at that time domestic 4kWp install were approx. £12,000 and were taking place – and crucially, had been taking place for over a year when prices were £16,000+, which is 1.33 times more. So domestic was happening at the level of returns that large farms didn’t. So there is no issue whatsoever, so this is just noise, angry pointless noise.

3. Digital Toast claims that panels won’t last 25 years, and performance drops off by 1% pa. To support this, he posts a link to a site, that states that panels will have an economic life of at least 25 years, and gives historic results of performance losses being less than 1%. He also claims that inverters will only last 7 years, which seems to go against manufacturers expectations, and any logic surrounding standard 5 year, 10 year, 12 year warranties, and extended warranties of 20 years. So there is no issue whatsoever, so this is just noise, angry pointless noise.

4. Cardew claims that funding FITs (or is it all Green Tariff monies?) via energy bills is wrong, as everyone pays energy bills, so it should come from general taxation – which everyone also pays. Also missing the point, that as environmental taxes/schemes it seems wholly appropriate that they are clear, transparent, and fall into the doctrine of ‘the polluter pays’. So there is no issue whatsoever, so this is just noise, angry pointless noise.

5. Graham claims that PV is small in the UK, especially when compared to the UK’s largest power station. That it is, no-one has said differently, PV is still very young in the UK, as were coal fired power stations originally. So there is no issue whatsoever, so this is just noise, angry pointless noise.

So we have loads of noise and distraction – to avoid the fact that:-

A co-ordinated approach to FITs has massively reduced the cost of PV (and associated equipment) in a very short time, and in the UK has also succeeded in lowering non PV panel install costs as the industry has developed and matured.

That the subsidy is actually extremely small, especially when compared to recent price hikes (last 5 years), and that rates have been reduced far faster than ever expected, and years ahead of the original built in timescale/rates.

On a ‘Green & Ethical’ board, we should be celebrating this success, especially this last year, with the almost complete capitulation over AGW by climate sceptics. PV is here, and it’s not going anywhere, the world changes, so get on with it.

Mart.

Taxes are either usually progressive or have an element of discretion. The funding of the Fit is neither. It falls disproportionately on the lesser well off (they pay a higher percentage of their disposable income than do the better off, in general). There is really no element of discretion on whether the fit element in bills is paid or not (assuming people accept that in our society it is unacceptable to use no electricity).

So those worst able to afford this tax (those already in fuel poverty plus those it will drive into fuel poverty) are the very people hit the hardest by this tax - not surprising with its characteristics being almost the opposite of almost all other taxes.

Of course - I get fit payments, so I'm alright Jack. But just because I benefit doen't mean I think the system is great. I think such a system stinks. If it came from the purse generated by existing taxation, then I wouldn't object to this aspect of it (indeed, this aspect wouldn't exist). The government think the same, with rhi payments coming from central funding, and even some of the excess fit budget coming from the rhi budget.

I suspect several here had had a life on benefits, and the fit is simply just another way of acquiring cash. While I have no objection to contributing to those who, for no fault of their own, need benefits, I do have an objection to the poorest in society being forced to pay them (which they do through fits, but not through e.g. income tax).

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Taxes are either usually progressive or have an element of discretion. The funding of the Fit is neither. It falls disproportionately on the lesser well off (they pay a higher percentage of their disposable income than do the better off, in general). There is really no element of discretion on whether the fit element in bills is paid or not (assuming people accept that in our society it is unacceptable to use no electricity).

So those worst able to afford this tax (those already in fuel poverty plus those it will drive into fuel poverty) are the very people hit the hardest by this tax - not surprising with its characteristics being almost the opposite of almost all other taxes.

The best solution for 'the poor' is no increased burden, whether related directly to their consumption of goods and services, or through general taxation. So developing an industry that is subsidy free viable, will provide increased energy supply, or decreased energy demand, with no further costs to the poor, once this scheme is complete.

However, your preferred solution of nuclear power, seems to fit in very well with your preference to hide subsidies and costs in general taxation, where they are not seen, not appreciated, and are largely unchallenged preventing true competition.

So, let's look at nuclear decommissioning, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), spends about £2bn pa. How much energy do we get for this zero? Or maybe less than zero, since it will consume energy, not generate it.

£2bn pa is about twice the cost to households of the entire Green Tariff on leccy bills. That's just the decommissioning costs.

You need to look at the big picture, the long-term picture. All forms of energy supply have their pluses and minuses. If you only focus on the minuses we will be left with a very short list, possibly a blank sheet of paper.

Mart.

Cardew wrote: »

High Z,

I suspect if you asked anyone to define the term 'funded by the public purse' the concensus would be expenditure funded from UK taxation revenue.

Thus someone paying a great deal of tax would be contributing more to that expenditure(say, an aircraft carrier!) than someone paying little or no tax.

That simply isn't the case with funding of FIT. Only those who pay electricity bills pay this levy to Utility companies. The companies then pay this levy into a pot which is drawn on by utility companies to pay FIT.

Importantly the levy is 'ring fenced' and is charged at the same rate for the richest or poorest electricity consumer.

I concede that the quoted document states that for control purposes the levy shall be regarded as taxation, but maintain that the FIT levy is a long way from the generally accepted definition of 'Public Purse'.

It seems to me that your case depends on finding wording that refers to the Levy as 'Taxation' and because definitions of 'Public Purse' use the term 'taxation' - Eureka!

However if you wish to define the FIT levy as coming from the Public Purse - so be it.

I maintain that the FIT levy does not come in the generally accepted or colloquial definition of 'Public Purse'

So we must agree to disagree, and there is no concensus.

Anyway the important issue is that the FIT levy is directly paid by all electricity consumers and is dependant on the size of the bill and not the income/wealth of the consumer.

Hi

Okay, I'll dissect the above and, for clarity, address each point in order ...

"I suspect if you asked anyone to define the term 'funded by the public purse' the concensus would be expenditure funded from UK taxation revenue." .... it's probably even simpler than that, most would probably say that it was paid for by the government - however, if you then asked the same person to check the definition of the term 'public purse' they would likely find that the true definition was "funds raised by a government by taxation or other means." - however, this is a moot point as the key which you correctly identified is 'taxation' ....

"Thus someone paying a great deal of tax would be contributing more to that expenditure(say, an aircraft carrier!) than someone paying little or no tax." ... as is the case on every form of tax, the more you pay the more you contribute, however there are reservations on the term more, would that be in cash terms or percentage of income because the two are usually mixed a little depending on what is trying to be proved ...

"That simply isn't the case with funding of FIT. Only those who pay electricity bills pay this levy to Utility companies. The companies then pay this levy into a pot which is drawn on by utility companies to pay FIT." ... and only those who buy beer pay beer tax, and only those who buy fuel for their cars pay fuel tax, etc ... The issue you raise seems to be that the pot into which the money is paid isn't the same and your point is that because of this it's not to be treated as a tax. There is a very good reason for this which has already been raised, the levy (tax) provides ringfenced funding for scheme payments, therefore there is a complete closed loop, so why add complexity by paying the money collected to a central coffer involving multiple other government departments and then have a separate agency draw the same value from the central fund to pay the MCS tariff ... it must be possible for almost anyone to understand that sub-contracting the energy companies to both collect the levy and pay the MCS funds according to the relevant tariff provides a streamlined, low cost administrative solution ....

"Importantly the levy is 'ring fenced' and is charged at the same rate for the richest or poorest electricity consumer." ... It is ringfenced, however the reasoning for this has already been explained. Ringfencing has absolutely nothing to do with the rate at which people pay - if the levy was to be paid directly to the central coffer then the position would be exactly the same for both the 'richest or poorest electricity consumer' ... this makes absolutely no difference whatsoever and therefore cannot logically be considered important ....

"I concede that the quoted document states that for control purposes the levy shall be regarded as taxation, but maintain that the FIT levy is a long way from the generally accepted definition of 'Public Purse'." .... how is it logically possible to accept that the levy is taxation and that the public purse was "expenditure funded from UK taxation revenue." and then be unable to reconcile the two, whether taking your view of what the generally accepted definition would be or even the official definition, "funds raised by a government by taxation or other means." ... I would presume that this would strike most reading as simply being argumentative for argument's sake ...

"It seems to me that your case depends on finding wording that refers to the Levy as 'Taxation' and because definitions of 'Public Purse' use the term 'taxation' - Eureka! " ... on the contrary. My case depends on logic and when the logic was questioned official supporting references were provided ... one to HM Treasury's policy document regarding DECC levy-funded spending the other being an accepted published definition .... without challenge there would be no need to provide source references & providing source references is the accepted methodology to support a position. Apart from all of this supporting evidence, inductive reasoning would conclude that "If it walks like a duck ...."

"I maintain that the FIT levy does not come in the generally accepted or colloquial definition of 'Public Purse'" ... and you would be perfectly within your rights to convince yourself that you are correct, however, considering the contrary viewpoint and the supporting evidence from various sources, it would be likely that this would be seen as a completely illogical position. Having been been posed a question the usual process is to work through presupposition, consideration, research and conclusion, accepting that the answer may not be the same as the presupposition ..... not accepting that the two can be different is usually classified as a form of delusionism ....

"Anyway the important issue is that the FIT levy is directly paid by all electricity consumers and is dependant on the size of the bill and not the income/wealth of the consumer." .... Okay then, the only point which this can possibly relate to is the issue of 'fairness', so let's place this 'important issue' into context. The method of collection of the FiT and/or it's distrubution does not differentiate it from the fairness of many other other forms of taxation. As previously raised, beer drinkers pay beer tax, drivers pay fuel tax, smokers pay their tax, so do airline passengers and (etc ...) .... everyone who isn't included doesn't pay, just as those who don't buy electricity don't pay ... so far the same, so the levy (tax) is just as unfair as many other taxes .... so let's look at the amount paid ('size of the bill and not the income/wealth of the consumer') ... is council tax based on the wealth or income of the householder, or simply the property ?, the wealth/income makes little difference on fuel tax either - consider your Mr Smith & Mr Jones from an earlier post : one is 'rich' and one is 'poor', both live in London and drive the same number of miles/year, one has a new 'A' banded roadtax car capable of achieving 60mpg and pays no roadtax or congestion charge and the other has a 15 year old cheap car which averages 25mpg and costs 250/year in roadtax .... which one pays the most in fuel & road tax, and which one pays extra to enter inner London ? ... is it the income or wealth of these individuals which is being taxed in a fair manner ? ... perhaps simply looking at the relative taxes in context defines how different taxes are just as unfair and therefore the relative importance being applied to the issue ...

When I played sport and questions were being asked by the opposition I quickly learned that the scoreboard held the answer in black&white and how to accept this ... some decisions were unfair, but they were the decisions made at the time. History being history seen alongside unfairness is something to come to terms with, helped by the knowledge that some favourable unfair decisions provided a balance ....

Public Purse - "funds raised by a government by taxation or other means."

HTH
Z

grahamc2003 wrote: »

As a general point, I think a little humility wouldn't go amiss

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I suspect several here had had a life on benefits, and the fit is simply just another way of acquiring cash.

Irony, or what?

Mart.