Free solar panel discussion

Mcfi5dhc

K4blades wrote: »

How very silly.
Your roof doesn't return £19128, its your money that you have spent on buying the panels that brings that return. Your roof just happens to beneath the panels.
I don't dispute if you have the money to invest, the scheme is a good way to get a decent return. But if you haven't, and your roof is going to be there either way, you might as well get something rather than nothing.

I stand by my calculations

Having a house is no longer just somewhere where you live, and the price rises and falls along with everyone elses. It can now be a money generator.

So, if you install yourself, great, you'll make some money.

If you go for a free system, you prevent others (me) from installing and making my £20k. So, I would either (a) offer £20k less for the house than your identical next door neighbour, or (b) walk away

Think of it like this, you can sell your existing house and are buying a new one. Two identical next door houses are for sale, one with SSE free solar panels, one without. You have £10k burning a hole in your back pocket. Which one do you go for?

K4blades

Mcfi5dhc wrote: »

I stand by my calculations

Having a house is no longer just somewhere where you live, and the price rises and falls along with everyone elses. It can now be a money generator.

So, if you install yourself, great, you'll make some money.

If you go for a free system, you prevent others (me) from installing and making my £20k. So, I would either (a) offer £20k less for the house than your identical next door neighbour, or (b) walk away

Think of it like this, you can sell your existing house and are buying a new one. Two identical next door houses are for sale, one with SSE free solar panels, one without. You have £10k burning a hole in your back pocket. Which one do you go for?

Like I said, most of us live in the real world. People looking to buy a new house these days struggle to get the deposit, let alone have 10K burning a hole in your pocket.
However, you are correct in that someone looking for a house to buy, to put their own solar panels on, would walk away. So what, simple mathematics, common sense, whatever, tells you there are a lot more people who DONT have that sort of money and intention than do, so more people would see it as a bonus rather than a disencentive. Or are you one of these people that thinks just because you can afford it, those that can't should go without.
You could also say that adding a conservatory de-values your house because a potential buyer in the future might want to use that bit of back garden for a vegatable patch, if you are going to be silly, you can make any arguement you want, but it doesn't stack up when given serious consideration.

grahamc2003

K4blades wrote: »

Of course, if you don't or can't you're £10 a year worse off, but so what. I have to pay for all sorts of things that I don't directly benefit from, its called capitalism.

Unfortuantely, I don't have time to correct your very numerous mistakes in your posts, but I just had to pick up on this howler.

Capitalism is for efficiencies through free markets and free choice.

This scheme is the polar opposite of capitalism - ensuring massive inefficiency of power generation through massive subsidies which we have no choice to pay.

Were it the rich, in general, who lost out and the poor, in general, who gained, it would be called socialism.

I'm not sure what political entity this scheme of inefficiency, subsidy, with a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich is called - I think it's pretty unique as far as political ideologies are concerned.

And please, no more of 'the poor gain too'. Not many of the poor even own a house, let alone a house with a roof the size necessary to install a free system.

K4blades

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Unfortuantely, I don't have time to correct your very numerous mistakes in your posts, but I just had to pick up on this howler.

Capitalism is for efficiencies through free markets and free choice.

This scheme is the polar opposite of capitalism - ensuring massive inefficiency of power generation through massive subsidies which we have no choice to pay.

Were it the rich, in general, who lost out and the poor, in general, who gained, it would be called socialism.

I'm not sure what political entity this scheme of inefficiency, subsidy, with a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich is called - I think it's pretty unique as far as political ideologies are concerned.

And please, no more of 'the poor gain too'. Not many of the poor even own a house, let alone a house with a roof the size necessary to install a free system.

You really do struggle with reading don't you?
What I said was that paying for things I don't want to is capitalism, not specifically these schemes. It happens all the time with taxes, and in lots of other ways, specifically with utilities we could be talking nuclear power stations, we could be talking free cavity wall insulation, these things are paid for by us all, whether we want to or not. So OK, don't call it capitalism, call it democracy, either way its a part of life, so stop being pedantic and try putting forward a better argument.

beedydad

K4blades wrote: »

How much is your roof worth?
Beedeydad keeps going on about getting a better rent for it, but has not fed back on here if he has tried doing it.
Cardew wants a 50/50 split. Unlikely to happen as the provider is taking all the risk, costs, maintenance, etc while all you are doing is allowing someone else to use your roof space.
So lets look at the argument that we are all paying for the FITs, the implication is that we would have lower bills if it weren't for FITs, does anyone seriously believe this, Cardew? Graham?, anyone. As I have posted elsewhere the money would simply get spent on something else.
However, lets accept that argument.
Taking ASGs figures of a FIT income of £1284 per annum.
Now I know this will vary massively across all the different installers, but it is quite typical.
The most optimistic figure I have seen is for a total of 200,000 installations, though I think it will be much less than this, and that includes the private individuals.
But if we did have 200,000 installations, at a cost of £1284 each, thats a total annual cost of £256 million.
Wow, a lot of money.
But if we are all paying for it, (and assuming by all, we only mean domestic customers, not commercial), there are 25million houses in this country,
so £256million, divided by 25million, means each house has to contribute just over a tenner to fund FITs. So if you have a system installed from the likes of ASG, and reduce your bill my more than a tenner, your on the winning side.
Of course, if you don't or can't you're £10 a year worse off, but so what. I have to pay for all sorts of things that I don't directly benefit from, its called capitalism.

In response K4 - I have not applied as I do not personally consider it a good dea,l as has been set out by many posters before. All I have been trying to do is highlight that the balance of income/profit is seriously tipped towards the "free" solar companies and I am attempting to address the balance.

I met a chap from REAL who was interested in this aspect as they have put out advice for people on these free schemes.
http://www.realassurance.org.uk/pdf_information-regarding-free-solar-pv-systems.pdf

which may be help to people.

Cost of FIT - i do not believe that we are as yet charged for this as a levy will be added to all bills, not sure of the detail as to whether it will alter the kw unit rate or there will be a seperate item somewhere on all our bills - maybe we should all watch for this.

I note you say the cost seems very low between £5- £10pa but do not forget that utility bills will be going up by somewhere between 7% - 10% over next year - so any savings will soon be swamped by have to pay for any chargeable power used!

This will make it difficult to judge whether solar is seriously making any savings when any people are trying to compare last years bills with this or next years!

Regards

Jon_Tiffany

beedydad wrote: »

do not forget that utility bills will be going up by somewhere between 7% - 10% over next year

All the more reason to do what you can to reduce the amount of leccy you use. Energy efficiency first, then solar pv - free or buying your own, either way it will reduce your bills.

zeupater

Hi All

I think that the discussion revolving around rich/poor, capitalism/socialism etc is really getting away from the subject at hand.

As it stands I have no problem with companies offering the free systems, it's a good idea, I also have no problem with any company or individual taking advantage of loopholes whilst they exist, as long as it isn't particulary immoral to do so, and they are aware that the rules can change.

My particular objection is simply the level of FiT which can be claimed by the operators of the 'rent-a-roof' schemes. A recent post mentioned that the investment required to supply a rent-a-roof system was £20k, another poster reckoned that the cost would be closer to £10k, however, it is very likely that the full cost of components and installation for a 3.3kWp system fitted in standard form in high volume is below £8k. It must be remembered that only the most suitable properties are selected for the schemes, which both keeps the installation costs down and allows the FiT payments to be maximised.

A 3.3kWp system costing the operator below £8k will attract somewhere in the region of £1100 to £1200 per year in payments, quite a rapid return on capital outlay. If anyone on this forum were to attempt to purchase a similar system from an MCS installer the price would most likely be in the region of £12k - £14k, the extra cost simply being margins in wholesale and installation, with a small consideration being due to reductions in ecomomy of scale efficiencies.

Considering that a 3.3kWp installation will provide the same income whether it is self funded or a 'rent-a-roof' system, I don't really understand why those who choose to invest in their own systems and have a reasonable rate of return on the investment are criticised for taking advantage of 'the poor', when the 'rent-a-roof' scheme operators who make a far healthier return are defended to the hilt, even though the enhanced returns could easily be used to provide a better return for their customers/(suppliers ?), which they choose not to do in order for a corporate body to pocket the maximum returns for themselves.

If the FiT payment to the 'rent-a-roof' operators were to be modified to reasonably reflect a return on investment similar to that which would apply to an individual install then I for one would be happier. Considering that the available FiT pot seems to be of limited size, it would make sense from an environmental standpoint if the funds were spread over as many installations as the fund will support ....... surely, seeing that the returns available to an individual are so reasonable, is it really likely that 'rent-a-roof' organisations would withdraw from the market if their returns were brought into line with those available to the self funded installation.

Having considered social, economic, moral and ecological reasons for reducing the FiT for 'rent-a-roof' scheme operators, I can see absolutely no reason to not do so. Obviously there will be those who will come to the opposite conclusion, the only question which keeps returning again and again is really 'How close to the industry are these people who defend to the hilt ?'

Regards

beedydad

zeupater wrote: »

Hi All

I think that the discussion revolving around rich/poor, capitalism/socialism etc is really getting away from the subject at hand.

As it stands I have no problem with companies offering the free systems, it's a good idea, I also have no problem with any company or individual taking advantage of loopholes whilst they exist, as long as it isn't particulary immoral to do so, and they are aware that the rules can change.

Rich V's Poor? Free V's Paid

It does seem a bit skewered in the analysis.

Rich - assumes you have a big property suitable to fit a large solar kit - then you have a choice to pay for it yourself or get a free kit
Poor - assumes you may rent from either council or private in which case neither scheme would apply as not in tennents hands. OR may be cash poor but own own property - so can only get a free kit OR maybe be poor because can only live in a small house and not able to apply for either scheme as roof not large enough!
There are too many variables to state that this is a rich V's poor and the poor lose out.

Would like to see a scheme where smaller "free" kits are offered to smaller/poorer households - or through Councils so that the poorer/less well off can actually benefit. Now if in the makeup of the utility companies such as BG SSE were to do this or were obliged to offer these as a % of the total kits installed (a bit like new buildiing requirements where a % has to be allocated for social housing) then I think it would satisfy a number of the posters over the unfairness in the current structure.
Regards

Cardew

The above ignores the fact that many of 'the poor' live in flats or houses with unsuitable roofs(wrong orientation/pitch, shaded etc)

M4ximillion

zeupater wrote: »

Hi All

I think that the discussion revolving around rich/poor, capitalism/socialism etc is really getting away from the subject at hand.

As it stands I have no problem with companies offering the free systems, it's a good idea, I also have no problem with any company or individual taking advantage of loopholes whilst they exist, as long as it isn't particulary immoral to do so, and they are aware that the rules can change.

My particular objection is simply the level of FiT which can be claimed by the operators of the 'rent-a-roof' schemes. A recent post mentioned that the investment required to supply a rent-a-roof system was £20k, another poster reckoned that the cost would be closer to £10k, however, it is very likely that the full cost of components and installation for a 3.3kWp system fitted in standard form in high volume is below £8k. It must be remembered that only the most suitable properties are selected for the schemes, which both keeps the installation costs down and allows the FiT payments to be maximised.

A 3.3kWp system costing the operator below £8k will attract somewhere in the region of £1100 to £1200 per year in payments, quite a rapid return on capital outlay. If anyone on this forum were to attempt to purchase a similar system from an MCS installer the price would most likely be in the region of £12k - £14k, the extra cost simply being margins in wholesale and installation, with a small consideration being due to reductions in ecomomy of scale efficiencies.

Considering that a 3.3kWp installation will provide the same income whether it is self funded or a 'rent-a-roof' system, I don't really understand why those who choose to invest in their own systems and have a reasonable rate of return on the investment are criticised for taking advantage of 'the poor', when the 'rent-a-roof' scheme operators who make a far healthier return are defended to the hilt, even though the enhanced returns could easily be used to provide a better return for their customers/(suppliers ?), which they choose not to do in order for a corporate body to pocket the maximum returns for themselves.

If the FiT payment to the 'rent-a-roof' operators were to be modified to reasonably reflect a return on investment similar to that which would apply to an individual install then I for one would be happier. Considering that the available FiT pot seems to be of limited size, it would make sense from an environmental standpoint if the funds were spread over as many installations as the fund will support ....... surely, seeing that the returns available to an individual are so reasonable, is it really likely that 'rent-a-roof' organisations would withdraw from the market if their returns were brought into line with those available to the self funded installation.

Having considered social, economic, moral and ecological reasons for reducing the FiT for 'rent-a-roof' scheme operators, I can see absolutely no reason to not do so. Obviously there will be those who will come to the opposite conclusion, the only question which keeps returning again and again is really 'How close to the industry are these people who defend to the hilt ?'

Regards

Youre obviously a very reasonable person and i think thats a really fair post and i think youre spot on. But i think youre missing the point about why some folk are defending these companies. In my case it is purely selfish, and Im not embarrassed saying that. I defend these companies simply because I want a free system, because i cant afford my own and this is my only chance. To be frank me and my hubby struggle every month to make ends meet. I have two jobs - my own little business where i earn a bit of extra money ironing and a full time job as well. My hubby works ong hours but we still struggle. Its our own fault, we over stretched ourselves with the mortgage but it was a case of the bank letting us at the time. I think a lot of people on this forum have the luxury of not having to worry about money and I AM NOT KNOCKING THEM thats life - I dont resent anyone who earns lots of money, they pay their taxes and are good for the economy, but I think it also means they can take a moral stance much easier and be more objective (think thats the word!). I messed around at school, i didnt get many qualifications, I'll never have a really high paying job and a lot of people round me are in the same boat as we are and always will be. Im trying to save money wehrever I can because every bit helps, believe me and to be very very honest im looking after number one and couldnt give a monkeys whether these companies make money or not and if the governtment reduces the money that these companies claim, again I really couldnt give a damn - as long as they do it after ive got my free system:o