Free solar power system. Is it a scam?

Jon_Tiffany

Cardew wrote: »

Well not sure how you work this out.

If you assume that each installation gets their minimum output of 2,800kWh pa(they investigate if it is below that) that is a minimum of 16,800,000kWh. I suspect they will get more than the minimum from each installation.

However 6,000 x 3.3kWp systems are 19.8MWp.

The rate of 29p/kWh only applies for installations up to 5MWp that is the maximumum for payment of FITs. Above that figure it reduces again - I believe it comes under the ROC payments.

P.S.

Do you have anything to support your statement that industry pays over 60% of the levy?
Even if they did - it is still us that will pay that cost to industry.

It still only works out to pennies per year. Why argue over if its 3p or 10p per year? The amount is tiny!

zeupater

skelly01 wrote: »

This thread has degenerated into a laughing stock. The petty squabbles and debates of late are absolutely nothing to do to with the thread title.
The threads on here are supposed to inform people to make a decision. It's time some people posting stood back , stopped squabbling like little schoolkids and got back on track as to what the thread is about....... Free Solar Power, Is it a scam.
From the very early posts on here, and to reiterate on the facts no it is not a Scam.Yes there are loopholes but a scam clearly not.

Hi skelly01

I tend to agree that the tone of the thread has degenerated, but I do believe that if you consider that a loophole is being exploited to artificially increase the FiT payment from 29.3p/kWh to 41.3p/kWh and claims are made (possibly by individuals connected to the industry, or even on behalf of the industry) that this is totally justified, would not increase costs to the consumer and the industry would collapse if the loophole were to be removed may not be quite correct, could possibly be deliberate misinformation by the operators themselves and therefore this could be considered as being a scam, which is what this thread is about afterall.

Regards

Gizmosmum_2

and on the argument goes ... and on... and on .....

skelly01

zeupater wrote: »

Hi skelly01

I tend to agree that the tone of the thread has degenerated, but I do believe that if you consider that a loophole is being exploited to artificially increase the FiT payment from 29.3p/kWh to 41.3p/kWh and claims are made (possibly by individuals connected to the industry, or even on behalf of the industry) that this is totally justified, would not increase costs to the consumer and the industry would collapse if the loophole were to be removed may not be quite correct, could possibly be deliberate misinformation by the operators themselves and therefore this could be considered as being a scam, which is what this thread is about afterall.

Regards

Zeupater,

Is it not the case though that if there is deliberate mis-information, then these companies will find themselves in court in a lawsuit? Using a loophole does not constitute a scam. However if it is proved somewhere down the line that there is or has been deliberate mis-information then this could be fraud and does constitute a scam. I guess time will tell. Me personally I do not believe that the companies are scamming any individuals. In fact I actually applaud the likes of ASG etc for being entrepreneurial and giving those less well off, who for whatever reason cannot afford solar panels, the chance to save something off their electricity bills and being a bit more environmentally aware.
After all the fundamentals of MSG are to save the public and consumers money no matter how little or large. strip out all the banter about who gets what or doesn't, at the end of the day the likes of ASG and ISIS are indeed saving the end user something.

Jon_Tiffany

Interesting article here:

Farmers weekly

"The Feed-in Tariff scheme is on course to meet its first-year renewable energy generation target of 100MW, according to industry figures.

Just over 42MW of electricity generation capacity has been installed in the six months since the scheme was launched in April, most of which was in the residential solar photovoltaics sector, the report by Ownergy said."


"Ownergy estimated that the total installed capacity to-date would add less than 2p per month to the average electricity bill."

Surprising that even with the likes of ASG we are only just on track to meet the target. Also surprised at the low takeup of wind power.

K4blades

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

In order ....

' though you have no evidence of this' .... recently provided reference to a quote on the subject made by ASG themselves ...

'And why the obsession with 2000 that ASG were talking about' .... 2000 installations seem to fit well with a 5MWp upper limit set within the FiT scheme ...

'And again I ask you..so what anyway, who's losing out' .... everyone, domestic, commercial and public sector who purchases energy in the UK will be contributing to the additional 12p/kWh which will be claimed by the 'rent-a-roof' scheme operators.

'you think our electricity bills would be less without FITs, dream on' .... of course they would be, they would be far lower without the recovery of renewable & clean energy investment costs, but that's not what the current debate is about, it's simply the difference in FiT payments between rent-a-roof scheme operators aggregating the installed generating capacity to a limit of 5MWp, claiming 29.3p/kWh ... and ... insisting that all of the capital assets they own do not constitute a single distributed system, claiming 41.3p/kWh. The difference of 12p/kWh will be paid by the consumer, therefore the electricity bills would theoretically be lower without this enhanced level payment ....

' so why don't you try suggesting something constructive' ... It is constructive to suggest that the solution to the obvious 'loophole' which can be utilised to enhance corporate profits at the expense of consumers is to close it. The constructive approach is furthered by supporting a position to aggregate all capacity operated by a single entity, private or corporate, in order to determine the correct FiT tariff banding. Doing this will in no way reduce the demand for 'free systems' and will therefore have no effect on employment in the installation and associated renewables industry, but increasing energy costs to UK industry just to enhance large 'rent-a-roof' scheme operator margins may well have a negative effect on the UK manufacturing base, which is an approach which I would suggest would be considered 'destructive' ....

Regards

I will try and keep this simple for you.
You referenced this quote from ASG:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=26999509&postcount=28
In this quote ASG say they talked to the government, and mentioned Andrej Miller by name.
so 1) are you saying Sarah lied when she said this? A simple yes or no will do.

or 2) are you saying that ASG did meet with Andrej Miller but lied to him. (I accept that they increased numbers from 2000 to 6000, but they claim the government knew about what you call the "rent a roof" scheme, and the numbers are irrelevant anyway as ISIS were talking about many more.)
Again a simple yes or no?

If the answer is yes to either of these, they are very serious allegations that you should back up with evidence, maybe you should speak to Andrej.
If the answer is no, then by deduction the government knew what ASG wanted to do, so NO LOOPHOLE, NO EXPLOITATION.

Then you say we will all be contributing to FITs. WRONG AGAIN, get your fuel from a smaller supplier who doesn't pay into it. I mentioned this before but both yourself and Cardew ignored the point, so maybe you just don't like facts....and Cardew thinks I need to research. And apart from anything else, without FITs and ASG, we still need to address future supply problems, do you think someone is just going to build a massive nuclear power station costing billions without passing that charge on. By your own figures, FITs will cost £11million a year, nothing compared to the £70million that NPower have just been ordered to pay out, another point I raised that you ignored.
Oh but of course, you think we don't need to improve supply issues, you think the utilities would just cut their bills, ha ha ha , wait while I pick my self up.

Then you go to suggest schemes like ASGs would still be there if the tariffs were lower. Now its clear you don't like business, but any 5 year old will tell you that businesses only invest when they can make good money. Without the current tariffs, ASG might not exist, maybe not have get funding from the banks etc, so lots of people who currently are getting panels wouldn't. If I'm wrong how come the industry wasn't booming pre-April.

Cardew thinks I'm out of my depth but believe me, I'm only just dipping my toe in the water. As people have said, they come onto this thread to find out the facts about ASG, and are getting fed up with listening to the opinions of some people who think they know better than anyone else, and resent a different view. Maybe you could see how silly some of your arguments are, if only the anti-ASG chip on your shoulder wasn't so big.

But at least your posts are always good for a laugh.

zeupater

K4blades wrote: »

I will try and keep this simple for you.
You referenced this quote from ASG:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=26999509&postcount=28
In this quote ASG say they talked to the government, and mentioned Andrej Miller by name.
so 1) are you saying Sarah lied when she said this? A simple yes or no will do.

or 2) are you saying that ASG did meet with Andrej Miller but lied to him. (I accept that they increased numbers from 2000 to 6000, but they claim the government new about what you call the "rent a roof" scheme, and the numbers are irrelevant anyway as ISIS were talking about many more.
Again a simple yes or no?

If the answer is yes to either of these, they are very serious allegations that you should back up with evidence, maybe you should speak to Andrej.
If the answer is no, then by deduction the government knew what ASG wanted to do, so NO LOOPHOLE, NO EXPLOITATION.

Then you say we will all be contributing to FITs. WRONG AGAIN, get your fuel from a smaller supplier who doesn't pay into it. I mentioned this before but both yourself and Cardew ignored the point, so maybe you just don't like facts....and Cardew thinks I need to research. And apart from anything else, without FITs and ASG, we still need to address future supply problems, do you think someone is just going to build a massive nuclear power station costing billions without passing that charge on. By your own figures, FITs will cost £11million a year, nothing compared to the £70million that NPower have just been ordered to pay out, another point I raised that you ignored.
Oh but of course, you think we don't need to improve supply issues, you think the utilities would just cut their bills, ha ha ha , wait while I pick my self up.

Then you go to suggest schemes like ASGs would still be there if the tariffs were lower. Now its clear you don't like business, but any 5 year old will tell you that businesses only invest when they can make good money. Without the current tariffs, ASG might not exist, maybe not have get funding from the banks etc, so lots of people who currently are getting panels wouldn't. If I'm wrong how come the industry wasn't booming pre-April.

Cardew thinks I'm out of my depth but believe me, I'm only just dipping my toe in the water. As people have said, they come onto this thread to find out the facts about ASG, and are getting fed up with listening to the opinions of some people who think they know better than anyone else, and resent a different view. Maybe you could see how silly some of your arguments are, if only the anti-ASG chip on your shoulder wasn't so big.

But at least your posts are always good for a laugh.

Hi

It's probably better to not even bother to reply, other to refer to the post being referenced http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=37171970&postcount=681 which seems to have been misinderstood, along with the referenced post in the previous post.

Anyone is free to calculate what income can be generated at approximately 800kWh/annum generated per kWp installed and what the difference between 29.3p/kWh and 41.3kWp would be ..... remember, this thread does not apply to any 'rent-a-roof' operator in particular, however there seem to be well in excess of 100,000 installations currently planned resulting in a considerable FiT income by someone, especially if the return is boosted by 41% ..... it certainly looks like well in excess to the £70million refered to ....

I have no connection with the industry, the position of others may be different, hence the opposite viewpoint and the appearance of many posts which don't really stack up, everyone is free to review the thread ......

Regards

K4blades

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

..... it certainly looks like well in excess to the £70million refered to ....
Regards

According to YOUR earlier figures it would only cost £11million. Make your mind up.

I see that OFGEM today have authorised increases in bills so that the grid infrastructure can be improved.
Maybe they should take Zeupaters approach, sod future supply issues, and slash bills as he seems to be suggessting would happen if FITs weren't around.

He just doesn't get it, and keeps going on about people calculating different levels and different tariffs.
PEOPLE DON'T CARE, THEY JUST WANT TO KNOW IF ITS A SCAM OR NOT, AND IF THEY ONLY SAVE £50.00 OFF THEIR ANNUAL BILLS ITS BETTER THAN NOTHING.
Like I said, if he wasn't so blinded by the chip on his shoulder he would see that.

K4blades

Oh and I notice he didn't answer my direct questions, 1 or 2 in post 717. Give him a day or two and he'll be back accusing ASG of exploiting govt. loopholes. HIS OPINION WITH NO EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP.

beedydad

Seems that this thread is getting all mixed up and off topic. Perhaps those who have other issues could start another thread then this one can concentrate on the "free solar" schemes.

I noticed that some posters are now calling them "rent a roof" - that seems not to be the case as actually renting implies that you get a return for what ever you are renting - in this case your roof.

What you actually are getting is a reduction in your electricity bills by something like £50 - £150 per annum (depends whom is quoting but these figures have been widely touted as probably correct). To me that is not a fair rent.

Consider that a householder can rent a room or a garage. I do acually rent a lock up garage and pay £15 per week - £780 pa.

For a room you can get up to £4,000 (I think) per annum £76 per week TAX FREE!!! No hassles on either fronts.

So why oh why do people think it is great deal to rent your roof for peanuts or less??????

Just because this is the offering made by a few companies - they are playing on your emotions (being green) and your financial stupidity (its free!!!!) that you should let them take the bulk of the available FIT monies.

I have suggested before and do again - people ought to re-think this and ask for a real RENT for a roof. I thought before £100 pa might be a starting point but I now believe it should be higher!

Regards