Free solar power system. Is it a scam?

K4blades

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

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?

Well said Jon. There are thousands of people benefiting from what ASG are doing, many are pensioners struggling with their bills, and yet this misery wants to bring an end to it all because "he doesn't like them making a profit"

Jon_Tiffany

K4blades wrote: »

Well said Jon. There are thousands of people benefiting from what ASG are doing, many are pensioners struggling with their bills, and yet this misery wants to bring an end to it all because "he doesn't like them making a profit"

Cardews main objection to ASG making a profit is that the money comes from the customers - by all accounts this will be somewhere between £5 and £10 extra per year. Small price to pay for cleaner air and a better future for our children?

Lets now contrast that with another company that makes profits - Tesco. They make huge profits. Do we benefit from them? Well they employ a lot of people, mostly on very low wage and thats about all.

How many people realise that companies like Tesco that employ lots of low wage earners are in effect subsidised by the taxpayer?

All those low wage earners have their money topped up by quite considerable tax credits. This means that these companies can then get away with paying lower wages, which they couldn't if the tax credits were not there.

You might argue that, yes, while the UK taxpayers are subsidising cheap labour at the likes of Tesco its worth it because its all for the greater good - better that people are employed and productive with a small cost to the taxpayer than un employed and a burden on the state.

I'll admit that this post has really gone off topic, but then so has the whole thread. What started out as a discussion about the ASG offer has now turned into something very different.

On many forums a thread like this would have been locked by now.

Cardew

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

Lets now contrast that with another company that makes profits - Tesco. They make huge profits.

Jon,
That is not a fair analogy.

We have a choice about shopping at Tescos and contributing to their profits. We have no choice as electricity customers about contributing to ASG and similar companies profits.

I am not in any way blaming ASG, they saw an opportunity and cashed in, and I have said that many times earlier in this thread. They have been remarkably up front.

The fault of course is with the Government for not closing this loophole. It was inevitable that once ASG exploited this loophole then the big boys would move in. Does everyone feel as happy that British Gas(our favourite whipping boy) is apparently doing the same as ASG only on a far bigger scale?

If you believe my objections are directed against ASG below are a couple of my quotes from this thread posted last year.

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

As I said earlier, if the company can operate in the way they intend, then good luck to them.

If the model is successful there will bound to be other firms getting in on the same act
This really does raise the issue of what will happen if the really big players like BG etc get in on the act.

BG supply to about 10 million homes? If they were to fit solar systems to, say, 2 million the profits they would make could be huge if they were allowed to claim in a similar manner to yourself, and of course that profit would come from a levy on all electricity customers(not just BG).

zeupater

K4blades wrote: »

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.

Hi

Please be assured, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with companies such as ASG are doing, as long as they operate within the spirit of the rules, not the letter of the rules as they currently exist. It is obvious that there was an original belief that 2000 installations would just about be the limit which could be installed under the scheme. If this is the case then 'small' companies would have been happy with the returns which would apply to an aggregated 5MWp of installation, and therefore the applicable FiT payment for that size of installed capacity. Obviously, with the definition of the FiT scheme being for micogenerators and small scale operators, and the scheme being limited to 5MWp capacity, small scale should be seen as being a capacity below 5MWp, with the definition of micogeneration being set at 50kWh as per the Energy Act 2004.

Where there seems to be a step change is around how the installations are registered, and who they are registered to. It currently seems that on a 'moneysaving' forum there are money savers who seem to extremely happy to support a view that commercial organisations can take advantage of a loophole which allows them to install thousands of pv arrays, utilising volume purchase discounting, which add up to multi-megawatts of aggregated generating capacity and this can be done whilst achieving the same level of FiT payment as an individual install, completely ignoring the banded FiT tariff, which if applied as it was originally intended would still provide a very reasonable return ..... surely, considering that this 'loophole' provides an additional 12p/kWh to the scheme operators at a direct cost to the energy consumer, it cannot be a position which would be supported by anyone other than those with a direct interest in taking advantage ...........

I must reitterate, operating within the 5MWp band for FiT payments and receiving 29.3p/kWh would still provide a reasonable return on investment and profit to any 'rent-a-roof' operator which would make absolutely no difference to the take-up rate by those who wish to have installations and receive 'free power', however, maintaining the position that a 'loophole' doesn't exist and meanwhile claiming unaggregated FiT payments within the 4kWp band at 41.3p/kWh simply earns an extra 12p/kWh ..... almost 41% more than they would have originally expected .... I'd hazard a guess that providing a little spin to maintain obviously enhanced returns of that kind of proportion keeps those wonderful bankers providing the finance happy!.

I, like many others who contribute, post as an individual with no personal interests in the industry to declare, reading the position of others could lead members to believe that the interests of some may possibly differ ...........

Regards

Cardew

K4blades wrote: »

Come on, if you are going to argue with me,

Argue with you?

You are just out of your depth!

Go and do some research.

K4blades

Cardew wrote: »

Jon,
That is not a fair analogy.

We have a choice about shopping at Tescos and contributing to their profits. We have no choice as electricity customers about contributing to ASG and similar companies profits.

/QUOTE]

Yes you do have a choice. There are umpteen smaller providers that don't contribute towards FITs. Once again, Cardew, I find your mis-information being twisted so that you can knock ASG, and once again you fail to give a satisfactory answer: 1) why do you oppose ASG making a profit as long as lots of other people benefit and 2) do you really think that utility bills would be less if we didn't have FITs in the current format.
People coming onto this thread want to know the facts about ASG, and whether or not they are going to get scammed, not your opinion which seems to be against a company because they are making a go of it.

K4blades

Cardew wrote: »

Argue with you?

You are just out of your depth!

Go and do some research.

Thats incredible, do you realise that many people reading this thread will be laughing at you. You like to portray yourself as some sort of expert, yet your facts are mostly just your opinion, backed up with little evidence, scrapping at any barrel you can so that you can knock ASG, irrespective of what benefits other people may see. And you clearly don't like anyone questionong your views.

K4blades

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Please be assured, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with companies such as ASG are doing, as long as they operate within the spirit of the rules, not the letter of the rules as they currently exist. It is obvious that there was an original belief that 2000 installations would just about be the limit which could be installed under the scheme. If this is the case then 'small' companies would have been happy with the returns which would apply to an aggregated 5MWp of installation, and therefore the applicable FiT payment for that size of installed capacity. Obviously, with the definition of the FiT scheme being for micogenerators and small scale operators, and the scheme being limited to 5MWp capacity, small scale should be seen as being a capacity below 5MWp, with the definition of micogeneration being set at 50kWh as per the Energy Act 2004.



Regards

Once again you go off assuming you know what "the spirit of the rules are", who made you God. The government made the legislation, and they did it with their eyes open, though you continue to suggest that they were somehow duped, though you have no evidence of this.
And why the obsession with 2000 that ASG were talking about, ISIS have always talked about a much higher figure than that, as everyone who knows about the consultation knows, though you think you know better!

And again I ask you..so what anyway, who's losing out. Oh yeah, you think our electricity bills would be less without FITs, dream on. In fact, in the future they could be higher. There are lots of reports about regarding the rising cost of whole sale gas, which is only going to get worse in the coming years, how do you propose we deal with keeping those costs down. Not everyone has 10-15k sat around to invest for the next 10 years or more so why don't you try suggesting something constructive.

Jon_Tiffany

Cardew wrote: »

Jon,
That is not a fair analogy.

We have a choice about shopping at Tescos and contributing to their profits. We have no choice as electricity customers about contributing to ASG and similar companies profits.

Yes, we have a choice over which supermarket we shop, but the point is we have no choice over paying tax which fund WTC and CTC. Do you think its right that we pay part of the wages bill for large supermarkets?

Any business which employees staff on or near to minimum wage is having their salaries supplemented with government funded working tax credits and child tax credits.

Take this example, figures are my best guess:

Full time supermarket worker has a total annual income of £16k. Of that £10k is paid by the supermarket and £6k is paid by the government. Why should the supermarket be able to make huge profits by paying staff a low wage and having it topped up by the government?

K4blades

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

Yes, we have a choice over which supermarket we shop, but the point is we have no choice over paying tax which fund WTC and CTC. Do you think its right that we pay part of the wages bill for large supermarkets?

Any business which employees staff on or near to minimum wage is having their salaries supplemented with government funded working tax credits and child tax credits.

Take this example, figures are my best guess:

Full time supermarket worker has a total annual income of £16k. Of that £10k is paid by the supermarket and £6k is paid by the government. Why should the supermarket be able to make huge profits by paying staff a low wage and having it topped up by the government?

Or why should the BBC receive my licence fee if I only watch ITV,
why should virgin trains receive some of my taxes when I don't use trains, why should the CERT companies make a profit from insulating houses, when I had to pay for mine, I could go on all night playing this game but the truth is I don't care because I can see a wider good. And I like a consistent argument, not hypocrisy.

Some people seem to be very selective when they talk about "facts and evidence", when really they are just offering their opinions.