Free solar panel discussion

grahamc2003

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

.

At any time in the cycle a purchase of pv systems based on straight line depreciation starting at £5.60/Wp will provide a significant margin to the scheme operator, who after the initial setup period, due to the nature of the business (admin/facilities management) is easily able to contract without major upset, or simply invest the proceeds in replacement plant capacity, providing the ability to offset more profit ....


Just my appraisal ...

HTH
Z

Yeah, and very useful, thanks.

I agree it's likely the installers will be paying half the 'value' of the panels, so have a different starting point in their books than the house owner. In a way, that makes the return forgone by the panel owner twice as bad! The yield given up by the owner is then twice the numbers I quoted (being twice the return the house owner can expect by starting at half the value, iyswim).

While the business may not go bust for financial reasons (as per your analysis), I still think that after ten/twenty years, they simply won't have any remaining agreements - the whole lot being bought out, imv. As Cardew said elsewhere, other businesses will start up offering finance for the home owners to buy out the contract with such mega returns available in 10 years time. (Since the government incentives for PV is limited (iirc to just under a billion quid) I'm not sure the business can simply continue reinvesting in more installations for ever (once the pv fit is exhausted, no one will be offering free panels!).

Also, another major point worth making is that just making a profit isn't enough for any company. They are profit maximisers - and that's why I fail to see any company selling assets yeilding 330%pa (to them, being 165% to the home owner) at the 20 year stage (under my previous assumptions). Why would they have terms in their contracts allowing that?

K4blades

grahamc2003 wrote: »

The poor cannot benefit from fits in any way whatsoever. Maybe you class people as poor if they own a house with a large south facing roof, but I don't.

Graham, this is your quote:
THE POOR CANNOT BENEFIT FROM FITS......

I've asked you before K4, please do not misquote me. If you wish to state that I have said something, then please supply a link instead of simply making stuff up.


No mis-quote, Graham, no making stuff up, if you want I'll quote the full post that seemed to suggest that poor people only live in flats, you may forget the nonsense you come out with but I don't.

And to repeat, because this is something else you have clearly forgotten or prefer to make up yourself....

I DO NOT REPRESENT ANY PV COMPANY...I am self employed, and support many different forms of energy production, but happen to support FITs, and have done some work for several PV installers. I have also done lots more work for many other types of companies, but you don't like that fact......or any other fact so try to discredit me with your silly and petty lies, and just like Cardew, don't answer any direct question put to you.

I can also bring up the quote from Cardew that said only home-owners of detached houses would benefit.

Cardew also told another contributor "THERE WILL BE LOTS OF DAYS WHEN YOU GENERATE NO ELECTRICTY",
I notice Cardew doesn't deny saying this, which is clear nonsense, but still, all you can do is try to discredit me. How very childish.

I'm sorry if it embarrasses you when are quoted as saying something that is clearly incorrect. But then again, maybe you should get your facts straight first.

grahamc2003

K4blades wrote: »

Graham, this is your quote:
THE POOR CANNOT BENEFIT FROM FITS......

You may forget the nonsense that you write but I don't.

And to repeat, because this is something else you have clearly forgotten

.

K4 - Are you for real? Do you think my quote translates to what you said I said, which was

Graham posted on here that only "well off" people can benefit from FIts and PVs.

I did not say anything about poorer people not benefiting from PV - I said they can't benefit from FITs, since they, by definition, can't own a house with a large roof (in which case they wouldn't be poor imv). The panel owners (companies, the middle class and the generally better off) benefit from the fits, the property occupants (who in rare cases could be classed as poorer off) benefit (albeit a small amount) from the PV panels.


So please search again and show where I said less well off people can't benefit from PV.

Please read and understand posts before throwing your inaccurate assessments.

EDIT .. AH, I see you have now complety edited the above post. I give up, it's pointless trying to discuss with you.

K4blades

And further, on the issue of PVs/FITs being used by local authorities, which is happening at a very increasing rate, when the PVs become profitable after about 9-10 years, that profit can then be used to subsidise lower tax bills, or improve services for the wider community.

(That doesn't really fit in with your argument though does it Graham, when you said the poor cannot benefit in any way what so ever.)

K4blades

grahamc2003 wrote: »

K4 - Are you for real? Do you think my quote translates to what you said I said, which was



I did not say anything about poorer people not benefiting from PV - I said they can't benefit from FITs, since they, by definition, can't own a house with a large roof (in which case they wouldn't be poor imv). The panel owners (companies, the middle class and the generally better off) benefit from the fits, the property occupants (who in rare cases could be classed as poorer off) benefit (albeit a small amount) from the PV panels.


So please search again and show where I said less well off people can't benefit from PV.

Please read and understand posts before throwing your inaccurate assessments.

I'm sorry you are struggling with this, is it too difficult for you.

You said the poor cannot benefit whatsoever from FITs.
There is clear evidence that poor people are benefiting because they are getting reduced bills, and even if its only £10.00, thats £10.00 less, which means the poor person is less poor.

Most people can follow that point, its a pity you can't, especially as this site is aimed at people looking for ways to save money.

grahamc2003

K4blades wrote: »

I'm sorry you are struggling with this, is it too difficult for you.

You said the poor cannot benefit whatsoever from FITs.
There is clear evidence that poor people are benefiting because they are getting reduced bills, and even if its only £10.00, thats £10.00 less, which means the poor person is less poor.

Most people can follow that point, its a pity you can't, especially as this site is aimed at people looking for ways to save money.

The £10 is a reduction in their bill - not a fit payment.

And cut the attempt at silly patronising, you're reinforcing a reputation the industry is trying to escape from.

K4blades

grahamc2003 wrote: »

EDIT .. AH, I see you have now complety edited the above post. I give up, it's pointless trying to discuss with you.

I didn't remove anything, simply added to it, but I know you don't like discussing things with me because its so easy for me to show how silly some of your comments are. So carry on ignoring me if you wish.


Anyone who has followed these threads will know that numerous people have come on here to give their first hand, positive experiences of having PVs and FITs, only to have their arguments pulled apart, Cardew even tried to take over a thread that MSE set up specifically for people to give feedback on their installations. If all you can do is discredit other people instead of putting forward useful, constructive ideas, it simply shows you as what you are......people with an agenda.

K4blades

grahamc2003 wrote: »

The £10 is a reduction in their bill - not a fit payment.

And cut the attempt at silly patronising, you're reinforcing a reputation the industry is trying to escape from.

Oh dear...
They are £10 better off with lower bills because an installer has used the FIT payment to fund the system that provides the £10 reduction.

And you accuse me of patronising...ha ha, you are embarrasing yourself and making this so much fun for me.

grahamc2003

omg, goodbye k4.

K4blades

And just to put to bed another silly myth...
The Council of Mortage Lenders have just issued guidance on the rent a roof schemes.
Basically, as long as certain conditions are being met, such as the installer paying the insuarance, and no excessive maintenace costs placed on the householder, all stuff I would expect a decent installer to comply with anyway....then there is no reason not to allow an installation to proceed or refuse lending.


Oh dear, the argument against FITs gets weaker by the day.