Free solar power system. Is it a scam?

Gizmosmum_2

I understand where the Fit comes from but that doesn't mean that government couldn't bow to pressure from people such as yourself who object to commercial organisations benefiting from the Fit.

There's already debate happening about removing solar fields from the Fit, solar thermal isn't guaranteed to be included in the RHI - it all comes from the utilities, but at the discretion of central government via the Energy bills.

Whether I agree or disagree with commercial capitalisation of the Fit is irrelevant, there is some risk to commercial organisations in promoting this, all I'm saying is that bigger risks are often rewarded with bigger gains.

zeupater

Gizmosmum wrote: »

All true, but ASG etc have taken the risk with the banks. It's them who will be in the sh*t if the government retracts the FiT not the householder. I don't really see any difference between this and any other commercial operation/investment. The greater the risk the greater the return.

Hi

If there's any risk at all it's likely to be with the taxable status of the FiT being offset against income tax. The likes of ASG are corporate bodies and therefore pay tax on a corporate basis, therefore changes in personal tax will have no effect on their profitability.

There are two other factors which need to be considered .....

Firstly, the cost of the installations are so much lower for the 'rent-a-roof' scheme operators when compared with single system owners resulting in highly accelerated payback before profit.

Secondly, everyone talks about selling the exported power at an assumed 3p/kWh, which is the guaranteed tariff with the ability to opt-out in order to negotiate your own tariff ...... it's very possible that the large operators have consolidated their production and are selling it as a single block to the highest bidder, a very easy way for the generators to meet their renewables requirements .......

HTH
Z

Gizmosmum_2

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

If there's any risk at all it's likely to be with the taxable status of the FiT being offset against income tax. The likes of ASG are corporate bodies and therefore pay tax on a corporate basis, therefore changes in personal tax will have no effect on their profitability.

There are two other factors which need to be considered .....

Firstly, the cost of the installations are so much lower for the 'rent-a-roof' scheme operators when compared with single system owners resulting in highly accelerated payback before profit.

Secondly, everyone talks about selling the exported power at an assumed 3p/kWh, which is the guaranteed tariff with the ability to opt-out in order to negotiate your own tariff ...... it's very possible that the large operators have consolidated their production and are selling it as a single block to the highest bidder, a very easy way for the generators to meet their renewables requirements .......


I agree the prices will be lower, I've heard of some staggering low prices for panels based on massive bulk purchase but I wonder how much really is profit by the time you've paid back bank loans (ASG seem to have a deal with Lombard), there's no electricity savings (even though this won't be a huge amount) and even if you could get double the ROC then you've still go huge up front costs for offices, admin staff, marketing etc etc -

I'm no financial boffin but I can't really see how they can make much more Joe Bloggs on the street can for installing his own system which is by no means massive maybe 6 - 8%??? Retailers and many other sectors are making well in excess of this - what's the difference? We all still pay - I object to paying £44 extra on my insurance because someone is making a fraudulent claim!

I'm not quite convinced that these companies are quite as bad as they are painted, they've just seized an oportunity. Personally I wouldn't go for the free offer but it doesn't mean it isn't for everyone. :undecided

grahamc2003

Gizmosmum wrote: »

I understand where the Fit comes from but that doesn't mean that government couldn't bow to pressure from people such as yourself who object to commercial organisations benefiting from the Fit.

There's already debate happening about removing solar fields from the Fit, solar thermal isn't guaranteed to be included in the RHI - it all comes from the utilities, but at the discretion of central government via the Energy bills.

Whether I agree or disagree with commercial capitalisation of the Fit is irrelevant, there is some risk to commercial organisations in promoting this, all I'm saying is that bigger risks are often rewarded with bigger gains.

Just as a technical possibly useless point, the rhi will come from central taxation, unlike the fit etc from consumer bills. I think this may be due to make the pain of consumers less and avoid what will likely be riots over energy bills in a few years time (especially because the unbearably high power bills will coincide with power cuts too!). For this reason, I think it's certainly possible that fits may be cut, inspite of the promises to the contrary. These days, political promises seem to be brushed aside as circumstances change, (e.g. '... but the situation was totally different when we made that promise'), so in reality, promises these days mean pretty well nothing.

Jon_Tiffany

grahamc2003 wrote: »

These days, political promises seem to be brushed aside as circumstances change, (e.g. '... but the situation was totally different when we made that promise'), so in reality, promises these days mean pretty well nothing.

I don't often agree with you Graham, but on the subject of political promises being broken I'm with you 100%. 25 years is a long time and a lot can/will happen over the lifetime of the FITs. I'm just hoping that my system can at least recover its costs before the promises are broken.

I reckon we will see the following changes within 5 years:

- income from FITs being made subject to income tax
- massive reduction in the tariffs for solar systems

If the income is made subject to income tax this will hit higher rate tax payers hard (of which there are more now the bands have been changed). 40% of the FITs paid will go straight to the government.

Gizmosmum_2

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Just as a technical possibly useless point, the rhi will come from central taxation, unlike the fit etc from consumer bills. I think this may be due to make the pain of consumers less and avoid what will likely be riots over energy bills in a few years time (especially because the unbearably high power bills will coincide with power cuts too!). For this reason, I think it's certainly possible that fits may be cut, inspite of the promises to the contrary. These days, political promises seem to be brushed aside as circumstances change, (e.g. '... but the situation was totally different when we made that promise'), so in reality, promises these days mean pretty well nothing.

That explains why the RHI budget is being cut - I couldn't work out what impact it was having on the budget deficit when it was coming from the utilities. Out of interest - I was talking to someone who had their solar thermal installed in June after being told that RHI had already been approved. Looks as though he's going to be disappointed when RHI eventually kicks off but I suspect he's not alone ...

keith_r59

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

I don't often agree with you Graham, but on the subject of political promises being broken I'm with you 100%. 25 years is a long time and a lot can/will happen over the lifetime of the FITs. I'm just hoping that my system can at least recover its costs before the promises are broken.

I reckon we will see the following changes within 5 years:

- income from FITs being made subject to income tax
- massive reduction in the tariffs for solar systems

If the income is made subject to income tax this will hit higher rate tax payers hard (of which there are more now the bands have been changed). 40% of the FITs paid will go straight to the government.

If the Government do anything I think they will change the inflation proofing from RPI to CPI and drop the tariff for new installations. Personally, I can't see them taxing the FiTs for private households.

K4blades

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

If there's any risk at all it's likely to be with the taxable status of the FiT being offset against income tax. The likes of ASG are corporate bodies and therefore pay tax on a corporate basis, therefore changes in personal tax will have no effect on their profitability.


Z

They also employ lots of people who pay income tax, many of whom, in the current climate, may not be working otherwise and claiming benefits.

K4blades

Gizmosmum wrote: »

There seems to be several types of "surveys" out there at the minute. The "I want to sell a system" - 20 min survey with a price at the end of it. The thorough installer survey which includes measuring the roof structure, checking the electrcis and completing a sap assessment which takes about 60 - 90 mins and then a structural survey in addition to the through installer survey, where drawings are created, pressure points calculated and corresponding strengthening carried out to ensure the extra load on the roof will withstand freak wind/snow loads.

....

Do you mean SAP assessment or RDSAP, either way, I don't see the point as they don't accurately reflect FITs.
Under RDSAP, the figures are way out due to the defaults used being way out of date. With the latest updates to SAP, they have been brought more into line, but only just. It is assumed that 50% of the electricity is used, and the other 50% exported, with an export rate of about 12p per kwh. SAPs have a lot of uses, but calculating financial savings through FITs is not one of them, though it would give you a good idea of how much less CO2 you would be emitting.
Your general point about surveys is a good one though, I can't see any reputable installer fitting without a proper survey, especially if they are paying the insurance, as is the case with the rent a roof schemes.
I know of someone who was told by ASG that they couldn't install on their roof unless it was strengthened and checked by building control. ASG told him that they couldn't do the work, let alone charge for it, but they recommended a couple of local firms that could. It was then up to him if he wanted to proceed.
A couple of months ago, ASG also announced they were fitting a slightly smaller system which gave them more flexibilty, ie smaller size means less weight.

Cardew

Gizmosmum wrote: »

zeupater wrote: »

Hi


I'm not quite convinced that these companies are quite as bad as they are painted, they've just seized an oportunity. Personally I wouldn't go for the free offer but it doesn't mean it isn't for everyone. :undecided

I am totally against the 'Rent a Roof' scheme as I object to 'venture capitalists' being able to make a profit from all of us who pay electricity bills.

However we live in a Capitalist society and you cannot blame firms for exploiting a loophole in the regulations; blame the Government!

It remains completely mad however to allow firms to have thousands of systems all getting huge subsidies intended for individuals, where another firm generating the same amount of electricity from a single system gets a fraction of the subsidy; despite the latter system being far more environmentally friendly.