Free solar panel discussion

grahamc2003

energysavingexp wrote: »

Where do you get your figures from? £1200 pa for leccy
mine is more like £300 if that
also has anyone noticed a big rise on their leccy bill to pay for the fit's because i have not.
also i am wondering if you have solar pv or not
and if not is it because your house is not suitable.
you say you dont like paying the subsidy were you consider it to be a waste.
well what about your tax bill, most of that goes on wast.
if i felt as strongly about it as you do, i would get my leccy cut off and produce my own.
but you cannot do anything about the tax bill that you still have to pay and that is a real wast of money.

Sorry, I thought it was clear that for somone with the free panels to get £80 in 'free' electricity, the panel owners get the fit, and the consumers pay for everything - the £80, the fit, and the 3p export, which I reckon would be £1200.(pa).

My day rate electricity unit price is going up by 10% next month. There will be plenty more rises in the coming years well above the input costs of the industry and inflation, and this to pay for this and other schemes.

Even if my tax bill goes largely on waste, that doesn't mean I want any more waste, or where I see it I'm not going to post my views on it. I find it hard to believe that anyone actually likes inefficient systems, since all they do is make things more expensive (and that is in addition to the fit costs).

My house is suitable for PV, and I could buy a roof full of panels should I wish, but none of those factors have any bearing on my views on fits - they are totally irrelevant to the underlying facts.

energysavingexp

My own views on solar pv is that it is a good thing.
i would rather there was no FIT schemes at all, if they dropped the price of the panels say to £100 each (20 panels £2000)
then no one would be paying for someone elses system.
and you could just start with a few panels and keep on adding to them as and when you can afford.

Cardew

Nang wrote: »

Sorry but I don't understand the grammar in this sentence.

Are you saying that without the subsidies the solar power plants would disappear overnight?

Or that people should make the UK go antisolar by spreading the word that it puts most peoples energy bill up?

Or perhaps you are saying both?

Can you clarify please.

Firstly - Nobody is making any criticism of individuals who are fitting their own PV systems.
The same applies to those renting out their roof - albeit they are getting a pitiful return IMO.

Yes, I am saying that solar PV in UK and Germany would never have got off the ground without massive subsidies and nobody in future would fit PV.

Certainly if the public were aware that they were paying those subsidies directly in higher fuel bills, there would be disquiet.

Bear in mind that the majority of the people in UK are not eligble for those solar subsidies as they don't own a house but rent, live in a flat or have an unsuitable roof - wrong orientation, structure, shaded etc. So the poorer who don't own houses are subsidising house owners.

Even worse these subsidies are now filling the coffers of the Rent a roof companies.

Electricity produced by gas/coal/oil/nuclear costs about 4p to 5p per kWh to produce. We pay about ten times that amount in FIT for solar PV.

If it is deemed imperative that the UK must have solar power. Then it would make sense to have scores of thousands of PV panels mounted on the roofs of factories/supermarkets/warehouse/office blocks etc in Southern England; instead of thousands of little PV systems on roofs dotted about UK.

Nang

Cardew wrote: »

Firstly - Nobody is making any criticism of individuals who are fitting their own PV systems.
The same applies to those renting out their roof - albeit they are getting a pitiful return IMO.

Yes, I am saying that solar PV in UK and Germany would never have got off the ground without massive subsidies and nobody in future would fit PV.

Certainly if the public were aware that they were paying those subsidies directly in higher fuel bills, there would be disquiet.

Bear in mind that the majority of the people in UK are not eligble for those solar subsidies as they don't own a house but rent, live in a flat or have an unsuitable roof - wrong orientation, structure, shaded etc. So the poorer who don't own houses are subsidising house owners.

Even worse these subsidies are now filling the coffers of the Rent a roof companies.

Electricity produced by gas/coal/oil/nuclear costs about 4p to 5p per kWh to produce. We pay about ten times that amount in FIT for solar PV.

If it is deemed imperative that the UK must have solar power. Then it would make sense to have scores of thousands of PV panels mounted on the roofs of factories/supermarkets/warehouse/office blocks etc in Southern England; instead of thousands of little PV systems on roofs dotted about UK.

It seems you feel quite strongly about it. Two questions:-

1. What would you suggest instead?
2. What are you going to do about the issue?

Cardew

Nang wrote: »

It seems you feel quite strongly about it. Two questions:-

1. What would you suggest instead?
2. What are you going to do about the issue?

1. Build scores of nuclear power stations

2. Try to buy shares in 'Rent a roof' companies!

Nang

Cardew wrote: »

1. Build scores of nuclear power stations

2. Try to buy shares in 'Rent a roof' companies!

In my opinion (and its just opinion, I don't have hard evidence) the governments decision comes down to 3 things :-

1. Meeting green energy quotas.
2. Lack of government funds:- i.e they haven't got the money to spend on tons of green power station so they are getting the public to stump up the cost, with the promise of additional payback over a 25 year period.
3. What's available now!:- They need something they can literally throw up on peoples houses and see some results instantly.

Whatever way you look at it I reckon you can pretty much guarantee that this solution is here to stay, as this government have come to the same conclusion as the last one (sigh of relief for some of us).

Seems to me you have 2 choices.

1. Block up your local fuel depot (like the French).
2. Accept the impending reality and either:- Get some yourself, try to help folk to get the most out of the free schemes or buy shares in 'Rent a roof' companies.

Doc_N

Nang wrote: »

In my opinion (and its just opinion, I don't have hard evidence) the governments decision comes down to 3 things :-

1. Meeting green energy quotas.
2. Lack of government funds:- i.e they haven't got the money to spend on tons of green power station so they are getting the public to stump up the cost, with the promise of additional payback over a 25 year period.
3. What's available now!:- They need something they can literally throw up on peoples houses and see some results instantly.

Whatever way you look at it I reckon you can pretty much guarantee that this solution is here to stay, as this government have come to the same conclusion as the last one (sigh of relief for some of us).

Seems to me you have 2 choices.

1. Block up your local fuel depot (like the French).
2. Accept the impending reality and either:- Get some yourself, try to help folk to get the most out of the free schemes or buy shares in 'Rent a roof' companies.

Very true. Isn't it also the case that it's cheaper to fund the FIT payments than it would be to fund the EU fines for failing to meet the targets we've signed up to?

The FIT payments are funded by electricity users, I know, but since the EU fines would be paid by all of us, and we're all (or most of us) electricity users, the cost per person is probably lower with FITs than it would be without.

Jon_Tiffany

Doc_N wrote: »

Very true. Isn't it also the case that it's cheaper to fund the FIT payments than it would be to fund the EU fines for failing to meet the targets we've signed up to?

I've heard that these fines are massive, would be interested to know exactly how much if anyone knows.

Better to spend the money on some UK jobs, creating something that will last for at least 25years generating green electric than give the money straight to the EU. We give them enough as it is.

Cardew

Doc_N wrote: »

Very true. Isn't it also the case that it's cheaper to fund the FIT payments than it would be to fund the EU fines for failing to meet the targets we've signed up to?

The FIT payments are funded by electricity users, I know, but since the EU fines would be paid by all of us, and we're all (or most of us) electricity users, the cost per person is probably lower with FITs than it would be without.

Agreed - we have a quota to meet. However as said in an earlier post:

If it is deemed imperative that the UK must have solar power. Then it would make sense to have scores of thousands of PV panels mounted on the roofs of factories/supermarkets/warehouse/office blocks etc in Southern England; instead of thousands of little PV systems on roofs dotted about UK.

Huge solar farms would be much much more efficient and cost the electricity customers a lot less extra on their bills.

Doc_N

Cardew wrote: »

Agreed - we have a quota to meet. However as said in an earlier post:

If it is deemed imperative that the UK must have solar power. Then it would make sense to have scores of thousands of PV panels mounted on the roofs of factories/supermarkets/warehouse/office blocks etc in Southern England; instead of thousands of little PV systems on roofs dotted about UK.
Huge solar farms would be much much more efficient and cost the electricity customers a lot less extra on their bills.

Sounds fine in theory, but huge solar farms in the south of England need either land (high capital outlay or rental payments) or the roofs of buildings. And the owners of the roofs will want to be paid - quite possibly as much as the FIT payments are costing now.