Free solar power system. Is it a scam?

John_Pierpoint

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I agree, for smaller/newer players in the industry it's going to be much harder to compete with the 'big boys' simply because of the relatively small added value element from the install itself (small companies usually have an overhead advantage) and lack of access to the credit and bulk discount pricing available to larger concerns. However, it must be remembered that not all installers are small, with a number having group turnovers measured well into the hundreds of millions. My example on payment terms was for Tesco/(Enact), definately not small concerns and very likely to be on at least 60daysEOM terms with their own suppliers, that's why I'm surprised that they're being allowed to push their own payment terms to the maximum allowable boundaries.

As an aside, looking at the 'rent-a-roof' market (as this is what the thread is about afterall), considering the volumes involved, if they've not negotiated directly with the manufacturers, or screwed the wholesalers down to reasonable levels, then they're fools to themselves (which I seriously doubt). It is purely due to the fact that because of volume purchasing and installation the fully installed cost is so low for rent-a-roof providers and they are still allowed to claim FiTs at the same rate as someone paying full market price that I do not agree with what they are being allowed to do (i.e. exploit the loophole). I believe that this simply diverts corporate investment in renewable technologies away from schemes where it could be better utilised.

Regards

This is sounding a bit like the discussions about the price of meat.
Somewhere a lot of "value" is being added somewhere along the chain from calf to slab, but everyone in the chain is claiming relative poverty.
Can someone post a breakdown showing where the final cost of a typical installation goes, both in terms of pieces of equipment and the stage of the distribution chain ?
At least it is not as bad as petrol, where by far the biggest chunk of the price is tax.

Jon_Tiffany

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I believe that this simply diverts corporate investment in renewable technologies away from schemes where it could be better utilised.

Regards

I agree that the best and most efficient use would be to build large scale wind and solar farms.

However, the opposition to these projects is huge, especially at a local level with the NIMBYs. Hence the government looking to promote smaller scale schemes.

Cardew

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

I agree that the best and most efficient use would be to build large scale wind and solar farms.

However, the opposition to these projects is huge, especially at a local level with the NIMBYs. Hence the government looking to promote smaller scale schemes.

Opposition for Wind farms agreed.

However there are acres of flat top factories, warehouses, supermarkets on industrial sites and retail parks where scores of thousands of solar panels could be errected without any Nimby objection. What's more they could be in the South where the output is higher.

zeupater

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

This is sounding a bit like the discussions about the price of meat.
Somewhere a lot of "value" is being added somewhere along the chain from calf to slab, but everyone in the chain is claiming relative poverty.
Can someone post a breakdown showing where the final cost of a typical installation goes, both in terms of pieces of equipment and the stage of the distribution chain ?
At least it is not as bad as petrol, where by far the biggest chunk of the price is tax.

Hi John

If you want to open a thread to discuss the real 'price of meat' I'll be happy to take part .... don't think you'd get many 'farmers', 'meat wholesalers' or 'butchers' involved in the chain claiming anything but foul play and poverty on that one though, although I have a good idea how the butcher's costs look ....

Regards

Jon_Tiffany

Cardew wrote: »

Opposition for Wind farms agreed.

However there are acres of flat top factories, warehouses, supermarkets on industrial sites and retail parks where scores of thousands of solar panels could be errected without any Nimby objection. What's more they could be in the South where the output is higher.

Yes, good point. I would of thought that with the FITs just about every business with a warehouse or large industrial unit would be looking to install some solar panels. Especially as for most businesses they are going to have a very high daytime electricity use so they should really benefit from some panels.

DonSwan

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Just a heads-up, 'third party' installations ('rent-a-roof') and the FiT biased motivation of companies operating them was raised as a concern in the energy and climate change debate in Westminster and was aired on TV this morning ......

Any idea what the House of Lords debate decided about FITs? Can anyone find a link to this?

Doc_N

DonSwan wrote: »

Any idea what the House of Lords debate decided about FITs? Can anyone find a link to this?

Here?


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/index/101102.html

Look under Energy:Climate Change

DonSwan

Here?

Excellent, thanks. Interesting that Baroness Noakes is reported as saying, "a whole industry has grown up around third-party installation, designed to milk the tariffs" (my emphasis). Whoever said the House of Lords was a bunch of dinosoars and should be abolished - it sounds as though there are some pretty sharp people in there. (I nearly wrote "switched-on", but that would have been inviting trouble ...)

zeupater

DonSwan wrote: »

Any idea what the House of Lords debate decided about FITs? Can anyone find a link to this?

In particular ..... Lords Hansard 2 Nov 2010 : Column 1620 - Baroness Noakes

'I shall take the example of feed-in tariffs. These tariffs benefit those who invest in various forms of favoured small-scale renewable energy by providing a non-market price for that energy. It is certain that these tariffs have skewed investment decisions. The mere fact that a whole industry has grown up around third-party installation, designed to milk the tariffs, is a testament to the effectiveness of the policy of encouraging investment in small-scale renewables. However, the cost of those feed-in tariffs is not borne by the energy companies-they simply pass them to energy users. I applaud the Government's spending review for acknowledging that the tariffs will be changed from 2013 to make the scheme more affordable. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to return those tariffs to something much closer to market pricing principles.' (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101102-0002.htm#10110262000459)

..... looks like some outside the confines of this forum are having similar thoughts, but as normal, the problem with Westminster as a whole is conversion of thought into action in a timely manner .....

##Edit ... Cross posted with above posts .... watching CSI & typing, yes, take note ladies .... a man multitasking :eek:

M4ximillion

Localweb wrote: »

I applied, was accepted, went all through the whole thing, got near to them being fitted- until I saw the full contract (that they dont show you till your at the final stage) and the charge that is lodged at the land registry....I'm actually surprised anyone's mortgage lenders agrees to the contract at all?

My daughter is a barrister and she freaked out at the contract - so I'm not doing it...

To me, does not make sense to save a few hundred a year in leccy bills if it could mean it is hard to sell and maybe cost you thousands indirectly if you needed to sell etc.

Before agreeing to surveys etc. save yourself some time by demanding to see the 'final' contract and get that checked out legally before you take the plunge.

Sorry love, load of rubbish, I reckon you are simply out to give ASG as bad name like some others are on this thread. You can get a copy of the paperwork at any stage, just like I did - in my case before I even applied. Interesting that further on down the line you say you can't produce a copy of this contract you are talking about cause you binned it. How convenient. (As I said I got a copy of it before I even applied and it isnt a contract its a lease). Also interesting that your daughter happens to be a barrister:cool:. Not been on thread for ages, too busy but just had a few mins this morning and had to say Im surprised your post is still there cause its simply lies and I thought ASG still followed this thread Im going to tell ASG what youre saying cause its bull. In fact I reckon youve not even seen any paperwork otherwise youd know it was a lease. I reckon youre making it all up.

They dont take a charge out at the land registry and if your daughter is a barrister she'd know the difference between a charge and what ASG register at the Land Registry. ASG have an in house solicitor, she told me all about it. They register their lease thats all, thats to ensure that anyone buying the property doesnt have to start signing contracts to take on the panels, they just buy the house with the lease in place and get the same rights to the use of the panels as initial homeowner. Im getting a system from ASG in the new year. As I said, I got a copy of the lease before I even applied, most sensible folk would and ive been through it all with one of their home visit team.

I think its poor that people are using this forum to try and dirty ASGs name with lies, once again hidden agendas here its unfair that a forum like this can be used this way. I have my own little business doing ironing and id be really upset if people came on here and told lies about my business.