The Great 'Get Paid To Generate Energy' Hunt

celerity

Companies that apply for FiT payments are subject to them being taxed like any other revenue stream, I can't imagine farmers would be any different.

I love your image of ovine herds happily grazing between banks of panels. The sheepdogs might need a bit of retraining though .

/\dam

Mary_Hartnell

Interestingly the same programme this week is featuring the plight of hill farmers - one guy with a big farm appeared to have received a "subsidy" of about 50K but still failed to make enough declared profit to pay tax. More of a life style than a business.

zeupater

Hi All

Spot pricing analysis for May is now available ......

http://www.solarserver.com/service/p...v-modules.html

European manufactured panels fall to €1.57/Wp (-2.7%), with chinese sourced panels reducing by a whopping 5.2% in a month to €1.25/Wp ...... whilst the Pound strengthened by around 2% in the month .....

This now means that european panels have fallen by 40% in a year, whilst the list price of systems installed by some well known nationals have remained unchanged ...... mmmmmmm, it's good to be 'green' ...

HTH
Z

keith_r59

I have a feeling that the well known nationals won't reduce their prices until the Feed in Tariff for new installations is decreased in April 2012.

malch

is it just me or does anyone else think that those paying for their panels are subsidising the rent a roof mobs, in that I mean that companies doing both paid for and free installation up the price of paid for, then cream of substantial profits to finance the free systems. This will also keep the system prices artificially high across the board.

beedydad

malch wrote: »

is it just me or does anyone else think that those paying for their panels are subsidising the rent a roof mobs, in that I mean that companies doing both paid for and free installation up the price of paid for, then cream of substantial profits to finance the free systems. This will also keep the system prices artificially high across the board.

There is some truth in what you say as it is very likely that the "free or rent a roof" mobs will istall at the lowest cost to make them more proftiable for themselves. Whereas they will take their time and install very carefully to get the best price for a fully paid system.

If you worked out the costs it would be noticeable.

See the other forum in regard to "free" solar scam, sorry I mean scheme.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2637431

Regards

Cardew

beedydad wrote: »

There is some truth in what you say as it is very likely that the "free or rent a roof" mobs will istall at the lowest cost to make them more proftiable for themselves. Whereas they will take their time and install very carefully to get the best price for a fully paid system.

If you worked out the costs it would be noticeable.

See the other forum in regard to "free" solar scam, sorry I mean scheme.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2637431

Regards

I have been 'banging on' for over a year now on the government allowing 'venture capitalists' to exploit a loophole and claim the subsidies that were clearly meant for individual properties.

Adding insult to injury, we pay for those subsidies in higher electricity prices.

Those paying the subsidies include include the poorest in our society; and everyone in rented accomodation, flats unsuitable houses etc

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

I have been 'banging on' for over a year now on the government allowing 'venture capitalists' to exploit a loophole and claim the subsidies that were clearly meant for individual properties.

Adding insult to injury, we pay for those subsidies in higher electricity prices.

Those paying the subsidies include include the poorest in our society; and everyone in rented accomodation, flats unsuitable houses etc

Hi

Just a shame it wasn't addressed at the same time as the review of the FiT scheme for >50kW pv systems (http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn11_027/pn11_027. aspx).

I do note that the reason for the review for these larger systems was stated as being "Such projects could potentially soak up the subsidy that would otherwise go to smaller renewable schemes or other technologies such as wind, hydro and anaerobic digestion.". I for one cannot see any reason whatsoever why distributed generating capacity owned by a either a corporate body or an individual should not have the total owned capacity aggregated for the purpose of FiT allocation as this would still leave the 'rent-a-roof' type schemes as being as viable to investers as current large scale schemes without soaking up the available subsidy through what can only be described as being pure greed.

Z

celerity

zeupater wrote: »

I for one cannot see any reason whatsoever why distributed generating capacity owned by a either a corporate body or an individual should not have the total owned capacity aggregated for the purpose of FiT allocation as this would still leave the 'rent-a-roof' type schemes as being as viable to investers as current large scale schemes without soaking up the available subsidy through what can only be described as being pure greed.

Whilst I do actually think this is a nice idea, it could be argued that at least this type of cashing in has the benefits of a) getting micro-generation installed on domestic properties and b) boosting the small-scale solar PV market.

Like I say, I do tend to agree with you though.

/\dam

Cardew

celerity wrote: »

has the benefits of a) getting micro-generation installed on domestic properties and b) boosting the small-scale solar PV market.



/\dam

Why do we want it 'boosted' when it is so inefficient and costs us all a fortune in subsidies? Directly on our electricity bill!

If solar is required(and I don't accept it is) why have the Government massively reduced the subsidies to large scale generators to discourage solar farms, when these can produce solar electricity much cheaper.