Free solar panel discussion

PeterZ_2

Y_Phrunts wrote: »

1/ What do you expect the government to do in order to meet its promise of reduced C02 emmissions? Reduce power and give us all periods of black outs? That certainly is a moral issue considering the mayhem it would cause.

2/ Yes the scheme is a subsidy so are you against ALL subsidies , not just in relation to energy?

3/ The PV fitting companies (and self purchased systems) will be generating electricity so it’s hardly an ‘owt for nowt’ situation is it. They have put their money up and would not have done so without some form of motivation. ‘Financial incentive’ would be a more appropriate description than the word ‘greed’. Greed is over indulgence. Many people don’t want to be a drain on the national grid (I certainly don’t) and I would partake in the scheme for my own good in the short term and everybody’s good in the long term so ‘greed’ is not really applicable here I don’t think.

4/ You might also complain about grants for insulation while you’re at it. Everybody through the tax system I assume pays for these. Or do you wish for people to continue to waste energy and the power stations to meet the supply needs and the government to use YOUR TAX MONEY to pay the huge fines for failing on the international agreement?
It has been forecast that this scheme will cost you about £8 a year on top of your existing bill. That is hardly ‘a fortune’ in your words is it? A previous poster (digital toast) has argued that PV power generation will make no difference to what the power stations have to produce because of the time scale involved in changing their output. I am no expert at how all this works and bow to his expertise in this area but I find it hard to believe that (in your words) this whole thing is a con trick. Who is being conned? Is it the EU that has conned our government into accepting reduced C02 emissions when this is not possible? Have the power generating companies conned the government into thinking that green energy could make a difference, even a small difference? Are the government conning themselves into thinking they can effect a change in production and consumption thereby keeping everybody’s price levels reasonable?
The way I read it is that PV is a way for households to reduce their dependence on the national grid and that they would like as many households to go down that route as possible. Public inertia is something that they have to get around and kick starting a scheme by putting out financial sweeteners to encourage pioneers to advertise the innovation and to put the word around is hardly a scathing ploy is it. I wonder if the Germans have done something similar and we are just following their lead.

5/ There is no doubt that there is a lot of wasted capital locked into bank accounts doing nothing. The government has made a move to tap into that resource by getting investors to use that money and help bail them out of the situation they find themselves in. Can’t see anything morally shocking about that really.
Unless, as said before, you would like to pay for it through your taxes and vote for such an incompetent government?

Excellent post, well said!

PeterZ_2

For those reading this thread, you should also read this:

http://www.ashadegreener.co.uk/news/

"
A couple of internet forums about free solar panels have been hijacked by some people who don’t agree with Solar Panels and the Free Solar Panel industry and are against what our company is doing.
Some of the people on these forums are saying that homeowners couldn’t possibly halve their annual electricity consumption with our 3.3kw system and that homeowners will hardly make use of the free electricity.
Some of the people on these forums are saying that people won’t be able to sell their property with our systems in place, and that people won’t be able to get a mortgage or re-mortgage their properties.
All of these claims are entirely inaccurate and because we have now had some systems out there for over a year we have concrete evidence to repudiate what these people are saying."




Its a real shame that Sarah from ASG was banned from posting on here (due some small minded people who complained).

Cardew

PeterZ wrote: »

Its a real shame that Sarah from ASG was banned from posting on here (due some small minded people who complained).

I certainly agree it is a real shame that Sarah isn't posting any more. Her input was surely appreciated by everyone, including the people who are against the principle of ''rent a roof'.(including yours truly!)

However it is my understanding that the only complaint(by one person!) was the inclusion of her company name in her signature block - which is against MSE rules. She wasn't banned as such but felt that she would not post under those restrictions.

See post #394 onwards in this thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/35005873#Comment_35005873

Myself and others exchanged correspondence trying to get her to carry on posting. One poster was another ASG employee.

Cardew

Y_Phrunts wrote: »

1/ That certainly is a moral issue considering the mayhem it would cause.

2/ Yes the scheme is a subsidy so are you against ALL subsidies , not just in relation to energy?

3/ The PV fitting companies (and self purchased systems) will be generating electricity so it’s hardly an ‘owt for nowt’ situation is it. They have put their money up and would not have done so without some form of motivation. ‘Financial incentive’ would be a more appropriate description than the word ‘greed’. Greed is over indulgence. Many people don’t want to be a drain on the national grid (I certainly don’t) and I would partake in the scheme for my own good in the short term and everybody’s good in the long term so ‘greed’ is not really applicable here I don’t think.

4/ You might also complain about grants for insulation while you’re at it. Everybody through the tax system I assume pays for these. Or do you wish for people to continue to waste energy and the power stations to meet the supply needs and the government to use YOUR TAX MONEY to pay the huge fines for failing on the international agreement?
It has been forecast that this scheme will cost you about £8 a year on top of your existing bill. That is hardly ‘a fortune’ in your words is it? A previous poster (digital toast) has argued that PV power generation will make no difference to what the power stations have to produce because of the time scale involved in changing their output. I am no expert at how all this works and bow to his expertise in this area but I find it hard to believe that (in your words) this whole thing is a con trick. Who is being conned? Is it the EU that has conned our government into accepting reduced C02 emissions when this is not possible? Have the power generating companies conned the government into thinking that green energy could make a difference, even a small difference? Are the government conning themselves into thinking they can effect a change in production and consumption thereby keeping everybody’s price levels reasonable?
The way I read it is that PV is a way for households to reduce their dependence on the national grid and that they would like as many households to go down that route as possible. Public inertia is something that they have to get around and kick starting a scheme by putting out financial sweeteners to encourage pioneers to advertise the innovation and to put the word around is hardly a scathing ploy is it. I wonder if the Germans have done something similar and we are just following their lead.

5/ There is no doubt that there is a lot of wasted capital locked into bank accounts doing nothing. The government has made a move to tap into that resource by getting investors to use that money and help bail them out of the situation they find themselves in. Can’t see anything morally shocking about that really.
Unless, as said before, you would like to pay for it through your taxes and vote for such an incompetent government?

Welcome to the forum.

What do you expect the government to do in order to meet its promise of reduced C02 emmissions? Reduce power and give us all periods of black outs?

Solar PV generation will have absolutely no effect on any 'periods of blackout'. The peak load on the National Grid is always on an early winter's evening when solar PV is generating nothing.

Solar PV at the UK's latitude is highly inefficient. If however it is decreed that we must have Solar Generation then let us have solar farms with thousands of panels on factory/supermarket roofs and scrubland in South West England - or even Spain and transmit the electricity in the same way as we get nuclear generated power from France.

It is just a nonsense to have the inefficiency of thousands of tiny systems on roofs dotted all over UK.

Turning to the question of subsidies. The majority of people in UK have no option to receive any subsidy from Solar PV. They live in Flats, or they are renting, or their houses are unsuitable(shaded - wrong orientation etc)

The people who gain from Solar PV are those who can afford the £thousands to buy a system, or venture capitalists owning the 'Rent a Roof' companies. So the poorest in our society are levied to pay huge subsidies to these people.

furndire

It is a shame as I found Sarah to be really helpful.

grahamc2003

furndire wrote: »

It is a shame as I found Sarah to be really helpful.

I would really like to see reps from any solar company posting on here, if their interest were declared (reading the above, it looks like MSE take the opposite
view, i.e. they can post, but can't declare their interest, which they possibly view as free advertising).

Instead, asg on their website are apparantly commenting on people on this board and making false accusation, which I would like to respond to. I think the reason they have decided not to post on here is because they don't want responses to their inaccurate accusations.

So I'd like to appeal to mse to let solar companies post here, with a 'signiture' saying they are reps for their company - a little like bgas and other utility companies declare their interests. I'd like to see their accusations backed up by references to the source posts of which they are complaining.

For example, I have never seen a post on here to which this relates

<i>Some of the people on these forums are saying that people won’t be able to sell their property with our systems in place</i>

and I'd like to see them justify that assertion, assuming of course they are talking of posts on these boards. Perhaps PeterZ, as one who appears to agree with them, could post a link to such a post?

Y_Phrunts

Cardew wrote: »

Welcome to the forum.



Solar PV generation will have absolutely no effect on any 'periods of blackout'. The peak load on the National Grid is always on an early winter's evening when solar PV is generating nothing.

Solar PV at the UK's latitude is highly inefficient. If however it is decreed that we must have Solar Generation then let us have solar farms with thousands of panels on factory/supermarket roofs and scrubland in South West England - or even Spain and transmit the electricity in the same way as we get nuclear generated power from France.

It is just a nonsense to have the inefficiency of thousands of tiny systems on roofs dotted all over UK.

Turning to the question of subsidies. The majority of people in UK have no option to receive any subsidy from Solar PV. They live in Flats, or they are renting, or their houses are unsuitable(shaded - wrong orientation etc)

The people who gain from Solar PV are those who can afford the £thousands to buy a system, or venture capitalists owning the 'Rent a Roof' companies. So the poorest in our society are levied to pay huge subsidies to these people.

1/ So you believe in the con trick then and we are all wasting our time generating electricity. Right Ho.

I just don't get this problem with peak consumption levels. If they can crank the system up to deal with it now then they will do the same in the future but from a different bench mark to start with. I also think PV's tendency to fluctuate has been over emphasised as a major problem. As I understand it PV works through the effect of light, not heat, and as we can predict how many hours of daylight we will get at any time during the year we should be able to anticipate PV production levels fairly accurately. In fact we have done because it's been worked out how much a system will produce over a year give or take a smidgen.

If the light quality is poor (not because the sun isn't shining) then surely then is the time to increase through standard production. In the winter months other forms of generation will have to be increased to compensate (as we do now) but this would be over a fair time span so I cannot see the problem. Failing that we could throw the switch and get French imports as you suggest. As I said I'm no expert on how the national grid works so I'll take your word for it that French imports is a realistic alternative.

2/ We cannot change our location on the globe so your point is erm.... a bit pointless. From what I have read it's to do with light quality (not heat) and we get our fair proportion. A clear sky in Lincolnshire will no doubt outperform a dusty hazy sky at a lower latitude.

Land owners are already facing protests over installing green energy on their land. I don't think the government have enough time to wait for all the planning applications to get delayed through protests. Blimey the Ramblers Association is going to be well pleased.

But putting as much onto factory roofs is a good idea and will probably increase. I don't think they get the same level of feed in tariff that domestic houses get though. So why, I ask myself, is the government promoting domestic usage? Could it be that it might have a very real effect on educating us all that consumption needs to be used sensibly. You have already read on this board that watching a meter spin has an effect on the PV user. How many of us who don't have PV go and look at our meters regularly and curtail our use or change our use? I know I don't. I'm lazy like the majority of people

I know it's not a parallel example but look at the educative effect of water boards making the general public aware of water consumption by metering them.
It comes down to educating the brain through the pocket. It works.

3/ An inefficient system is surely better than no system at all isn't it?

4/ That's a fair point. Not everybody can afford the capital outlay but I think I already covered it in my previous post. If electricity prices are somehow kept from getting out of hand it won't be because of the few PV pioneers that are taking up the offer now BUT in the future when a vast number of houses have it installed it could make a difference. Have you seen some of the aerial photographs over German towns? In the photographs I saw they have nearly every other house generating off the roof. Now that surely must make a difference. Didn't I hear on the radio that they are decommissioning a nuclear power station soon and hope to repeat that process?

So we have to start somewhere. And the start is with the present scheme.

I can foresee a problem for the government when the present scheme comes to a halt (or review) next spring. How will they maintain the impetus to increase the number of fittings because as sure as eggs is eggs nobody is going to take up PV just to generate their own electricity it wouldn't make financial sense at present day prices. HOWEVER if their ploy works and people generally think that it is a good idea AND THE PRICE DROPS as it does with mass production. Then HEY...........

Cardew

Y_Phrunts wrote: »

1/ So you believe in the con trick then and we are all wasting our time generating electricity. Right Ho.

Has anyone made any form of criticism of those who choose to buy a PV system or 'rent out their roof'? It is not critisism to challenge some of the claims made for solar PV!

2/ We cannot change our location on the globe so your point is erm a bit pointless. From what I have read it's to do with light quality (not heat) and we get our fair proportion. A clear sky in Lincolnshire will no doubt outperform a dusty hazy sky at a lower latitude.

The further South you are situated, the higher the generated output from PV. There are several websites that give the estimated output of PV systems and SW England is the highest in UK - Spain is much better! So if it is decreed the UK has to use solar(it isn't mandated to use solar!) then let us do it as efficiently as possible.

Land owners are already facing protests over installing green energy on their land. I don't think the government have enough time to wait for all the planning applications to get delayed through protests. Blimey the Ramblers Association is going to be well pleased.

Scrubland and factory/office/supermarket roofs won't annoy the Rambler's association.

But putting as much onto factory roofs is a good idea and will probably increase. I don't think they get the same level of feed in tariff that domestic houses get though.

Exactly my point! Larger systems get a lower FIT because they can produce electricity cheaper. That means that the cost to all consumers is lower


3/ An inefficient system is surely better than no system at all isn't it?

A higher efficiency is the aim.

4/ That's a fair point. Not everybody can afford the capital outlay but I think I already covered it in my previous post. If electricity prices are somehow kept from getting out of hand it won't be because of the few PV pioneers that are taking up the offer now BUT in the future when a vast number of houses have it installed it could make a difference. Have you seen some of the aerial photographs over German towns? In the photographs I saw they have nearly every other house generating off the roof. Now that surely must make a difference. Didn't I hear on the radio that they are decommissioning a nuclear power station soon and hope to repeat that process?

Don't need to see the photos, I lived in Germany for years and visit frequently.
Germany have reduced their FIT payments to existing as well as future systems. There is exactly the same debate in which you and I are currently engaged.

In any case why hold up Germany as a shining example of 'Green' practices? I lived there when the Green Lobby got the salting of roads banned. It only lasted 1 year because of the increase in deaths, injuries and car damage!!

So we have to start somewhere. And the start is with the present scheme.

I can foresee a problem for the government when the present scheme comes to a halt (or review) next spring. How will they maintain the impetus to increase the number of fittings because as sure as eggs is eggs nobody is going to take up PV just to generate their own electricity it wouldn't make financial sense. HOWEVER if their ploy works and people generally think that it is a good idea AND THE PRICE DROPS as it does with mass production. Then HEY...........

Obviously most people won't take PV unless they get huge subsidies; a good argument for not having solar!!!

Incidentally I hardly think that people collecting FITs can be termed 'Pioneers'. That term is better applied to those who installed PV some years ago.

Anyway the above discussion applies to all PV systems and this thread is about the 'free' Rent a Roof systems. IMO it is a disgrace that the Government allows these firms to collect FITs intended for individuals, subsidies that even the poorest in our society fund allong with the rest of consumers.

Y_Phrunts

Has anyone made any form of criticism of those who choose to buy a PV system or 'rent out their roof'? It is not critisism to challenge some of the claims made for solar PV!

Maybe not you personally and I haven't the time or the inclination to read your past posts, sorry, but generally speaking yes there has been a criticism of those taking up PV. How else can you interpret it? You are claiming that the poor will subsidise them. 'Them' being the people fortunate enough to afford the initial outlay and you can take that as individuals or companies.

The further South you are situated, the higher the generated output from PV. There are several websites that give the estimated output of PV systems and SW England is the highest in UK - Spain is much better! So if it is decreed the UK has to use solar(it isn't mandated to use solar!) then let us do it as efficiently as possible.

I am not disputing that fact. What I am saying is that it is still possible to generate satisfactory levels in the north because they still get decent amounts of light and the quality of the light can be better. But generally speaking yes you are right in the sense that it would be more profitable for individuals or companies in southern areas. But what sort of morality are you using to tell people in more northern areas that they cannot take part in the scheme even though their payback time will be longer? If we start to use some sort of moral scale based on the notion of 'efficiency' then I can see a forthcoming witchunt. People getting fined (or worse) for being energy wasteful. No, behaviour has to change via the pocket and if individuals or companies want to take PV on at lower profitability then that is their choice.

Scrubland and factory/office/supermarket roofs won't annoy the Rambler's association.

Don't you think? I disagree. There would also be massive protests from wildlife groups, guaranteed. Your proposal smacks of highland clearances.

Exactly my point! Larger systems get a lower FIT because they can produce electricity cheaper. That means that the cost to all consumers is lower

See point I made about education. People are not going to change their behaviour if the problem is remote, as remote as a factory roof.

You cannot force businesses to have PV on their roofs either. If the financial incentive is not great enough for them they won't bother and it looks like they are not bothering. If you increase the subsidy to make it more attractive for them you increase the cost to consumers. Back to square one.

Don't need to see the photos, I lived in Germany for years and visit frequently.
Germany have reduced their FIT payments to existing as well as future systems. There is exactly the same debate in which you and I are currently engaged.

In any case why hold up Germany as a shining example of 'Green' practices? I lived there when the Green Lobby got the salting of roads banned. It only lasted 1 year because of the increase in deaths, injuries and car damage!!

I would imagine the debate revolves around my point about how to increase the PV uptake when the FIT is reduced or scrapped altogether.

Obviously most people won't take PV unless they get huge subsidies; a good argument for not having solar!!!

Incidentally I hardly think that people collecting FITs can be termed 'Pioneers'. That term is better applied to those who installed PV some years ago.

Anyway the above discussion applies to all PV systems and this thread is about the 'free' Rent a Roof systems. IMO it is a disgrace that the Government allows these firms to collect FITs intended for individuals, subsidies that even the poorest in our society fund allong with the rest of consumers.

I am confused by this, sorry. On the one hand you are saying it is OK for individuals to get the FITs but not the free fitting companies. As I said before I would imagine there is some sort of political anxiety involved (desperation may be too strong a word) in designing a strategy to get people to take up PV generation. If a free fitting gets the system onto lots of roofs then it could kick start a trend where more people will go for it and maybe buy the system themselves. It's about how to market the idea in my view. Personally I wouldn't go for a free system, but not on moral grounds. Obviously I am not as easily offended by the scheming barstewards as you are as I can see the ploy behind it and it could come good for everybody eventually.

Cardew

Just for clarification.

I make no criticism of anyone taking advantage of the subsidies for PV systems - and that includes the 'Rent a roof' schemes.

My criticism is aimed at the Government(both the present and the previous crew). that allows such a system - in particular allowing the venture capitalists behind the 'rent a roof' scheme to exploit a loophole and claim subsidies intended for individual systems. These subsidies don't forget are paid for by a levy on every consumer - the majority of whom cannot benefit from PV solar systems(Flts, renters, unsuitable roofs etc)