Free solar panel discussion

Cardew

Zeupater has summed up my views far more succinctly than my post.
As said in an earlier post,

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.

grahamc2003

K4blades wrote: »

But surely, venture capitalists, by their very nature will only do something if they can make lots of money out of it Reducing the profitablity, makes it much less of an attractive proposition, so less likely to happen......which is why we never had PVs everywhere prior to FITs.


Not that I'm against your suggestion of using factory roofs, etc, I just think its wishful thinking to expect it to happen without it being heavily funded in some way or another.

Unfortunately, that can be said of much of what we have in the world, such as the transport infrastructure.

I'm not sure of your point - you seem to be coming round to a similar view to those you have been arguing with. Yes, we never had much PV before because it made no sense, it solved no problem, it was an expensive toy for those who are interested in these things, it generates power at 10 times the cost of other generation technologies. So it's clear why not much of it was around before subsidies.

Now slap on a massive subsidy and anything can be taken up. But the subsidy only affects the financial considerations - it is still no cheaper, more efficient, it still solves no problems, and it still costs 10 times other generation.

Some of us think that is a rediculous, highly wasteful situation and actually quite cruel to poorer people who have to pay higher bills while at the same time diverting investment from more promising technologies - others seem to think it's the bees knees.

Regarding transport - well that is subsidised in virtually every place on earth - the difference between that and solar is that there are tangible benefits to society of transport, whereas there are none from solar (in fact I'd say there is a net detrimental effect of solar in the uk, disproportinatley lumped on the worse off).

jakowako

Recently applied for Eon's SolarExchange offer of free panels for £99. Applied via their website giving all my property details/location etc. Now received a telephone call from Eon stating that because I live in Scotland, a "Scottish Law" prevents them from installing panels on my roof.The guy from Eon could not elaborate on what this "law" was but just that their legal teams were on to it to try and get it changed. Call me a cynic but I was just expecting them to tell me that because of Scottish latitude, then installation and FIT would not be profitable enough for them....but a Scottish Law? :mad: Is there such a thing?

Jako

Cardew

jakowako wrote: »

Recently applied for Eon's SolarExchange offer of free panels for £99. Applied via their website giving all my property details/location etc. Now received a telephone call from Eon stating that because I live in Scotland, a "Scottish Law" prevents them from installing panels on my roof.The guy from Eon could not elaborate on what this "law" was but just that their legal teams were on to it to try and get it changed. Call me a cynic but I was just expecting them to tell me that because of Scottish latitude, then installation and FIT would not be profitable enough for them....but a Scottish Law? :mad: Is there such a thing?

Jako

Scottish law differs from England regarding property sales. I wonder if that could be the issue i.e. the 25 year restrictions that are binding on future owners.

Nang

PeterZ wrote: »

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).

Yep it is a shame cos check out this line from your link...

We now have proof that many of our homeowners have halved their annual electricity consumption from the grid.

I would love to take a look at this, I have been trying to work out how to get a sensible figure for this for months without an export meter. But the best I have so far is that one of my data doners reckons his bill is about £250 pounds less than last year, (interesting but not really irrefutable evidence).

If ASG were able to post a method and some calculations it would really help me out.

Cardew

Nang wrote: »

Yep it is a shame cos check out this line from your link...

We now have proof that many of our homeowners have halved their annual electricity consumption from the grid.

I would love to take a look at this, I have been trying to work out how to get a sensible figure for this for months without an export meter. But the best I have so far is that one of my data doners reckons his bill is about £250 pounds less than last year, (interesting but not really irrefutable evidence).

If ASG were able to post a method and some calculations it would really help me out.

ASG don't fit an export meter to their systems. So I suspect their 'proof' is a testimonial from a customer stating 'last year my electricity bill was £x and this year it was £y.'

Go on the motoring Forum and you will get people claiming that a £10 magnet strapped to the fuel lines of the car improves fuel consumption by 30%.

What matters is how much Mr Average saves from a PV system and there is plenty of evidence that £100 pa is a reasonable figure - with many not saving that much!

The favoured method of 'using up' the PV generated power is to use an immersion heater. However if you have gas your savings per kWh are really 3p to 4p. and unless you are generating near maximum power, it can actually cost money. Also more and more properties have Combi boilers - so no HW tank!.

jakowako

Cardew wrote: »

Scottish law differs from England regarding property sales. I wonder if that could be the issue i.e. the 25 year restrictions that are binding on future owners.

Cheers, I think I may have been misleading with my rant about "Scottish law, is there such a thing". I am definitely aware that Scottish Law has many differences from other UK Laws. i'm just concerened that the punter who called from Eon could not tell me what this law is, so why did he get the job of telling Scottish customers that they could not get Solarexchange from Eon considering there is nothing in their website which states that this is the case.

you may well be right about 25 year restrictions and thanks for your input, but surely they could add this to their website and save their Scottish customers the hassle

Nang

Cardew wrote: »

ASG don't fit an export meter to their systems. So I suspect their 'proof' is a testimonial from a customer stating 'last year my electricity bill was £x and this year it was £y.'

So in a nutshell, No more solid than the data I already have, and unlikely to hold up under any scrutiny.

Shame....but unless they start posting again, or they post it on their website I guess we are unlikely to ever find out.

Y_Phrunts

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I'm not sure of your point - you seem to be coming round to a similar view to those you have been arguing with. Yes, we never had much PV before because it made no sense, it solved no problem, it was an expensive toy for those who are interested in these things, it generates power at 10 times the cost of other generation technologies. So it's clear why not much of it was around before subsidies.

Now slap on a massive subsidy and anything can be taken up. But the subsidy only affects the financial considerations - it is still no cheaper, more efficient, it still solves no problems, and it still costs 10 times other generation.

Some of us think that is a rediculous, highly wasteful situation and actually quite cruel to poorer people who have to pay higher bills while at the same time diverting investment from more promising technologies - others seem to think it's the bees knees.

Regarding transport - well that is subsidised in virtually every place on earth - the difference between that and solar is that there are tangible benefits to society of transport, whereas there are none from solar (in fact I'd say there is a net detrimental effect of solar in the uk, disproportinatley lumped on the worse off).

Wow! that is quite a damning statement. Have you a link to establish that it is 10 times more costly than other forms of generation? I'd be interested to look at the scale. But are you not missing the point in that PV is a green energy whereas others may not be. If it's so expensive in comparison why are the Germans going for it?

Your last paragraph does not address the problem of how to get the technology to become a popular way to produce power. The government cannot afford to subsidise it so where is the money going to come from? And following on from the discussion
above re venture capitalists why should they feel obliged to fund a scheme without a profit motive and who is going to supply that profit? Nobody answered that.

Anyway I think we are going round in circles with this one. I admire your sense of social justice re 'the poor' but don't the elderly get heating allowances paid for through our taxes and don't I contribute to them? You don't hear me complaining about that even though it must be an absolutely massive sum.

K4blades

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I'm not sure of your point - you seem to be coming round to a similar view to those you have been arguing with. Yes, we never had much PV before because it made no sense, it solved no problem, it was an expensive toy for those who are interested in these things, it generates power at 10 times the cost of other generation technologies. So it's clear why not much of it was around before subsidies.

You are jumping to a lot of conclusions about my views.

Yes, they are/were expensive but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. The point of the FIT scheme is to take a niche product to mass market, which in turn will also make them cheaper and there for cost effective.
Most drugs, when first developed are very very expensive, should we not bother with developing any new drugs.

"Some of us think that is a rediculous, highly wasteful situation and actually quite cruel to poorer people who have to pay higher bills while at the same time diverting investment from more promising technologies - others seem to think it's the bees knees."

The fact that "the venture capitalists" you are so against, are fitting the systems onto peoples houses free, means that the poor can benefit. Those people with lots of money could if they wanted, buy PVs before FITs. FITs are allowing the poor to benefit too, and in fact, those people in the house during daylight hours benefit more than others, so thats err.....unemployed, pensioners,....so please don't patronise poor people with your illogical arguments. And the annual cost per household is well under £1.00 which would probably be charged anyway, but spent on something else.

And please do tell, what are these other promising technologies that are not getting supported. Most people in favour of FITs don't see it as an either/or situation, they want all new technologies to develop, so we become less dependable on foreign or dirty power.


"Regarding transport - well that is subsidised in virtually every place on earth - the difference between that and solar is that there are tangible benefits to society of transport, whereas there are none from solar (in fact I'd say there is a net detrimental effect of solar in the uk, disproportinatley lumped on the worse off). "

You may think solar is no good, but millions of people around the world have a different point of view. Just like in my view, cars are more useful than trains, but I accept that there is a need for trains, and subsise them through my taxes.

Thats the way of the world I'm afraid.