Free solar power system. Is it a scam?

Cardew

celerity wrote: »

To be fair, the context was talking about this forum. In my view, there are few "Greenpeace types" on here debating renewables - the ones who are in favour have not been against nuclear per-se.

Again, the context here is that someone was posting their solar PV results for the past year and was quite pleased with them, but got back a somewhat snarky reply saying a nuclear reactor would be millions of times more productive. Given you were the person who asked for the solar results to be posted in the first place, do you think that reply was on-topic and warranted?

Anyway, we have already debated the merits and objections to Solar PV feed in tariffs in the UK, so there is no point going over old ground again.

Like it or not, the FiT for solar in the UK is here (hopefully for the next 25 years ) so really it's not a productive exercise to keep carping on about how you don't agree with it. It would be much better to come up with some alternative positive ideas on how you would like our government to promote renewables...

/\dam

This is an internet forum, and will inevitably move off subject. I didn't think that was a 'snarky' reply from 'hasdogs' It was just pointing out the tiny amount of power a solar PV system produces in a rather TIC manner.

On the subject of being 'on topic' do you feel your contribution in stating(wrongly IMO) there is anti-renewable rhetoric in this thread, together with your views on Nuclear power are relevant to a discussion on 'Free' PV systems?

P.S.
At the risk of falling foul of your definition of 'good netiquette', may I ask if you are by any chance a retired teacher?

Personally I would prefer it if you commented on the contents of a post - or ignored any point raised - and not lectured us on what is allowable or not. e.g. "Anyway, we have already debated the merits and objections to Solar PV feed in tariffs in the UK, so there is no point going over old ground again."

That discussion was in a different thread, and might not have been seen by some reading this thread.

Likewise I will continue to keep posting on my views on FITs

so really it's not a productive exercise to keep carping on about how you don't agree with it. It would be much better to come up with some alternative positive ideas on how you would like our government to promote renewables...

grahamc2003

celerity wrote: »

Like it or not, the FiT for solar in the UK is here (hopefully for the next 25 years ) so really it's not a productive exercise to keep carping on about how you don't agree with it. It would be much better to come up with some alternative positive ideas on how you would like our government to promote renewables...

/\dam

Starvation in the world is well and truely here too - should we just accept it without comment because it's with us already?

As to government promoting renewables - well we've seen the PM promoting cycling (while his papers follwed in a Jag), and we've seen him install and very soon after remove, a windmill from his (or is it our) property, so I'm not too sure why you think government's proposals do much good anyhow.

Surely it would be much better to have those professionally trained in all aspects of energy promoting solutions to our looming energy shortfall woudn't it? Do you really think a bunch of QCs with the odd ex-trade union leader thrown in for good measure is the best set of people to decide on how our electricity is produced? See why some of us think some of the proposals are ineffective (at best)?

Just in passing, what do you think of domestic wndmills - you know, those promoted by our PM?

celerity

hasdogs wrote: »

If it were reasonable now it wouldn't require enormous subsidies for it to happen.

[obvious counter-argument]The same could be said for nuclear, past and present, could it not?[/obvious counter-argument]

/\dam

celerity

Cardew wrote: »

On the subject of being 'on topic' do you feel your contribution in stating(wrongly IMO) there is anti-renewable rhetoric in this thread, together with your views on Nuclear power are relevant to a discussion on 'Free' PV systems?

Not particularly no - but at least I admit it .
For the record, I'm not saying there is anti-renewable rhetoric in this thread, I am saying there is on this forum. And the tangent occurred because of what I perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a snarky comment.

At the risk of falling foul of your definition of 'good netiquette', may I ask if you are by any chance a retired teacher?

I'm afraid I'm not, but your question has caused me to chuckle at the thought, thanks .
If you are curious about what I do my company is called Celerity Design, and you know my first name. You can find out more than you could possibly want to know about me online if you really wanted to.

Personally I would prefer it if you commented on the contents of a post - or ignored any point raised - and not lectured us on what is allowable or not.

Tsk tsk, a lunchtime detention for taking things personally I think.

e.g. "Anyway, we have already debated the merits and objections to Solar PV feed in tariffs in the UK, so there is no point going over old ground again."

That discussion was in a different thread, and might not have been seen by some reading this thread.

In all seriousness, you're doing me a disservice if you think I was lecturing you. My reasons for linking to it were for the reason you say above, some might not have already seen it. Also, I don't see any reason to retype stuff I've already said - this is the Internet, Links are Good.

Likewise I will continue to keep posting on my views on FITs

I'm genuinely dismayed if you think I'm in any way challenging your right to do that. If I've offended with my comments, I apologise, sincerely. We may disagree about a few things but I've respected your views in every post you make.

/\dam

celerity

grahamc2003 wrote: »

[...] I'm not too sure why you think government's proposals do much good anyhow.

Surely it would be much better to have those professionally trained in all aspects of energy promoting solutions to our looming energy shortfall woudn't it? Do you really think a bunch of QCs with the odd ex-trade union leader thrown in for good measure is the best set of people to decide on how our electricity is produced? See why some of us think some of the proposals are ineffective (at best)?

Yes, I completely agree that experts and engineers should be the main advisors.
My somewhat cynical view is that governments have countless groups lobbying for funds, each with their own experts with an axe to grind, and it probably is quite difficult for them to make decent decisions on matters they are not qualified to understand.

Just to be clear, my opinions on this aren't particualrly political, I have little time for this government or the last for that matter.

What I do passionately believe in is that we do *something* that changes things in my lifetime. Provided what we do isn't a complete waste of time I'm prepared to live with a sub-optimal solution, as you have to be realistic in what can be achieved by a bunch of politicians whose only real life skill is in politicking .

I guess where we differ is that you are frustrated as you think current UK renewable policy is a waste of time. If I shared that view I'd be annoyed as well, so I do empathise.

Just in passing, what do you think of domestic wndmills - you know, those promoted by our PM?

At the risk of upsetting Cardew by linking , my views are here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3221664
Summary: I think they're largely a waste of time - but I like wind farms on suitable sites .

/\dam

Cardew

celerity wrote: »

I'm genuinely dismayed if you think I'm in any way challenging your right to do that. If I've offended with my comments, I apologise, sincerely. We may disagree about a few things but I've respected your views in every post you make.

/\dam

Thanks! Not offended - just a little 'narked'.

XRayDave

Hello again.

It was interesting the way my last post (of my solar PV figures) sparked that interesting debate...

Anyway with one day to go (two if you count that the published figures relate to the previous day) I have generated (according to ASG) 3158kWh in the last 12 months from my 3.3 kWp system.

Final (12 month) figure will be posted on Friday.

XRD

celerity

XRayDave wrote: »

Anyway with one day to go (two if you count that the published figures relate to the previous day) I have generated (according to ASG) 3158kWh in the last 12 months from my 3.3 kWp system.

Good to know, cheers.
It's early days for me (six weeks of stats), but May saw 600kWh for my 3.91kWp system. PVGIS estimates 3,350kWh for my first year, but I'm hoping it will exceed 3,500kWh, weather permitting obviously. We're just off from due South facing and are based in Cambridgeshire. What did you generate in May please, and where are you based?

/\dam

Cardew

celerity wrote: »

and where are you based?

/\dam

Read posts #1065 and #1066 on previous page.

I would post a link but you might think I was being facetious;)

celerity

Cardew wrote: »

Read posts #1065 and #1066 on previous page.

I would post a link but you might think I was being facetious;)

Aha, Sheffield. I have to say, based on the limited knowledge I have since I got my panels, you seem to have done extraordinarily well to generate that much in a relatively northern location.
What was your worst month? I'm not expecting to generate anything useful over Dec-Jan. I need approx 400W to power my office though so if it could just maintain that for most of the days then that would help me.

/\dam