Free solar power system. Is it a scam?

K4blades

So it all depends on how you define small scale. And if ASG had stuck to 2000 installations, then thats OK, but by going to 6000, then they are exploiting a loophole. Your arguement just doesn't stack up.
Also you are answering the earlier question as to why ASG don't just fill fields with PVs: because the govt. want them on houses, so ASG are doing what the govt. want, so wheres the loophole, oh yeah..naughty ASG didn't accurately calculate how many people would want to take part in something that leaves them with lower bills, so had to later increase their numbers, which incidentally are still a lot less than ISIS are and have been talking about!

But even if it did, so what.
Why do you object to what ASG are doing?
People generally come to sites like this because they want advice in the form of cold hard facts, not opinions.

K4blades

And if you think the government will tighten the rules, etc, think again. The coalition have already changed the rules so that councils can benefit from FITs which could cost a lot more than the likes of ASG.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn10_89/pn10_89.aspx (Benefiting council tax payers at the expense of the utility companies)

I also understand there will be further relaxtion of the rules in the near future. Watch this space.

Cardew

K4blades wrote: »

People generally come to sites like this because they want advice in the form of cold hard facts, not opinions.

K4blades; I suspect most of the critiscim of this scheme comes from people who;
1) haven't done their research

So your definitive statements and 'cold hard facts' have been have the result of your exaustive research like this quote below?

The likes of ISIS and ASG were very much involved in the consultation and the government KNEW EXACTLTY WHAT THEY WERE DOING WHEN THEY DREW UP THE LEGISLATION, so stop bleating on about loopholes. If you don't believe me submit a FoI request to DECC.

Well despite stating other people's opinions are 'absolutely rubbish' you should be able to back up those cold hard facts of yours with information obtained under the FoI.

The fact that these 'rent a roof schemes' were not mentioned in the proposals, or the legislation, doesn't matter; your research has shown that you know exactly the Government's intent. Not your opinion mind you - cold hard facts!!

So still want to keep up your bluff?

K4blades

Oh dear.......
you sound ruffled.
There are pages and pages of comments from you suggesting that the business's are "exploiting a loophole" Asked to backup that claim and you try to turn it onto me to give evidence that its not. Ha Ha.
Come on, be honest why don't you stop avoiding my direct questions and tell us all why you are oppossed to the likes of ASG making a profit.

Right from the start of this thread you have shown your "anti" approach which is fair enough, but as soon as someone questions why that is the case, rather than give us your arguement, you want me to justify what I say.
Oh Dear, oh dear.

Cardew

K4blades wrote: »

Come on, be honest why don't you stop avoiding my direct questions and tell us all why you are oppossed to the likes of ASG making a profit.

Where have you ever asked a 'direct question' to me about ASG?

No matter, I have made my objections perfectly clear in loads of post. Firms like ASG have found a loophole so that the levy, that every electricity customer pays for PV, goes into the coffers of a commercial company.

So I take it that you are just going to ignore my requests for any proof of your previous statements.

Your contributions are totally discredited - just bluff!

Cardew

Someone has posted in another Thread that the FT have reported that the Government are reviewing the level of FIT payments because of the boom in applications.

K4blades

Cardew wrote: »

Where have you ever asked a 'direct question' to me about ASG?

No matter, I have made my objections perfectly clear in loads of post. Firms like ASG have found a loophole !

Ahh, there you go again with your accusations, but then you expect me to prove your accusations are wrong, if you've been making these accusations for so long, as you have, then have the bottle to back it up, instead of expecting me to prove you wrong, or maybe you can't, maybe you've just been sprouting your OPINION for too long on here, and now its questioned, you don't like it.

So you object to a commercial company making a profit, didums, but thats the way of world, so just because you don't like it, its not a good enough reason to imply that people shouldn't use ASG.

And clearly you are very silly if you think that banning the likes of ASG would lead to the utility companies reducing their bills to their customers. Or is that your "bluff" to cover up your weak arguement!

Or would you rather the money go to new nuclear power stations, which wouldn't have the same direct benefit to Mr and Mrs OAP with their reduced bills.

Come on, if you are going to argue with me, at least have the balls to be honest and transparent about your agenda.

Doc_N

Gizmosmum wrote: »

........ the best would be the inclusion of those early adopters who have paid loads for their pv panels and aren't able to tap into the FiT - not long to go now ..

Unlikely, I think, in view of this, from Chris Huhne a couple of weeks ago:

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): Will the Government backdate the clean energy cashback scheme and any future renewable heat incentive to ensure that those who pioneer the technology are properly rewarded and supported?

Chris Huhne: The hon. Lady makes a point that is dear to my heart, not only in the context that she raises, but in that of, for example, the feed-in tariff for wind. Unfortunately, I do not benefit from that tariff as a pioneer. I considered the issue carefully on a value-for-money basis, and I am afraid that the advice from my officials was clearly that we cannot introduce retrospection in such cases because it does not represent value for money. We are trying to introduce new schemes in future, and therefore, sadly, the only incentive and payback that people such as the hon. Lady and I will get is the warm glow of being pioneers.



From Hansard, 16 September 2010

Doc_N

Cardew wrote: »

Someone has posted in another Thread that the FT have reported that the Government are reviewing the level of FIT payments because of the boom in applications.

From the FT:

The Department of Energy and Climate Change confirmed that the Treasury was examining FITs as part of the comprehensive spending review, even though the subsidies’ cost comes not from taxpayers but consumer energy bills.
An adviser to Mr Huhne said no decisions had been taken ahead of the review.

Ominous........

Jon_Tiffany

Cardew wrote: »

Someone has posted in another Thread that the FT have reported that the Government are reviewing the level of FIT payments because of the boom in applications.

I guess that would make you happy then. See the rates reviewed and companies like ASG go belly up. The end result - lost jobs, and those who cant afford the panels still cant afford them. The UK misses its targets for renewables and gets a great big fine from the EU - as if we dont give them enough money already.

I've followed this thread right from the beginning and to be honest I just cant understand why you are on this mission about ASG and a loophole.

You seem to have ignored my posts about what Sarah from ASG said.

Do you have some sort of grudge against ASG?