Free solar panel discussion

Pincher

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

Pincher, the FITs allow up to a 5MW PV system, there is no reason why your plan wouldn't work. Just buy the land, let the local community take ownership and give them a share of the returns.

There seems to be a case of sour grapes here.

If what you say is covered by the scheme, then why does Isis do it the hard way round, by recruiting roofs up and down the country, and putting up cash upfront? All they have to do is to lease a waste land for 25 years, which is paid for by rent over those 25 years, so not much upfront capital. Get people to stump up £8k cash, which they use to erect PV panels. Split the annual FIT £500, £1,000 like I said, and they are awash in cash flow, without very much initial capital at all. Obviously there is land rental, maintenance and overheads, so I don't think £500 is extortionate.

After loan interest and capital repayment, each householder still gets a good wack, just for signing a contract. No scaffodling, no planning permission, just free money. So EVERYBODY will sign up for it. How is it going to be paid for? Only homeless people without an address will not be getting the FIT!

The way FIT is funded, you need a thousand mugs to pay for one lucky sod. If you make it possible for everybody to get the FIT, nobody will get a penny. If the average bill is £1,200 now, you will end up paying £2,700 a year, and get £1,500 back in FIT. :rotfl:

They are putting PV panels up in the most piecemeal, leat cost effective manner possible, and letting commcerical companies leech away the community pot of money that we are forced to contribute to. Why don't they just take the money and build a solar farm! Arrrrgggh!

Sour grapes is somebody else getting something for nothing.
This situation is somebody puting their hand in my pocket: I call that stealing.:mad:

Gizmosmum_2

Pincher wrote: »

No scaffodling, no planning permission, just free money.

Planning is needed and contentious, a lot easier to do what ISIS etc are doing to make a few quid. As I understand it the Green Infrastructure Bank will be for individuals so that they can access expensive equipment at a reasonable rate and it's going to be available for pv and the RHI linked products if they go ahead so potentially everyone can benefit. No doubt someone will find a loophole to that system to start off with too. Few things are perfect to start off with.

I have to say that while I agree with equity for those less well off and able, I too was skint 20 years ago and came from a very modest home but made the decision to educate, save and invest rather than drink, smoke and holiday. I'm not saying either is right or wrong but what I'm saying is that you make your choices and usually have to live with the consequences. I'm not lucky being a landlord, I chose not to drink, etc (ok and be boring!) to try and secure some sort of pension for the future. If I die before I capitalise on anything I've made then I suffer the consequences!

ISIS etc may be making a few quid on what they are doing but they're employing people, providing free electric for some and paying corporation tax on the Feed in Tariff - just like any other business. They take the risk and reap the reward if it works and we get a tiny bit greener on the back of it.

samba

Gizmosmum wrote: »

ISIS etc may be making a few quid on what they are doing but they're employing people, providing free electric for some and paying corporation tax on the Feed in Tariff - just like any other business. They take the risk and reap the reward if it works and we get a tiny bit greener on the back of it.

ISIS et al are profiting of the electricity consumer, pure and simple. My bills will go up to pay dividends to a handful of adventure capitalists who don't care about being green - just the colour of the money. Anyone who let's them put a system on their house for a few measly kWh is a sucker and if they think they are solving the world's problems then they need to think again.

If it wasn't for the overly-vocal green 'eco' lobby, we wouldn't need to do any of this, as we would have a plentiful supply of nuclear energy like some other countries do.

John_Pierpoint

samba wrote: »

ISIS et al are profiting of the electricity consumer, pure and simple. My bills will go up to pay dividends to a handful of adventure capitalists who don't care about being green - just the colour of the money. Anyone who let's them put a system on their house for a few measly kWh is a sucker and if they think they are solving the world's problems then they need to think again.

If it wasn't for the vocal green 'eco' lobby, we wouldn't need to do any of this, as we would have a plentiful supply of nuclear energy like some other countries do.

..............and a plentiful supply of waste to guard against terrorists to pass on to our great................................................ great........................................................................................... ..........................great...................................................................................
..............................................................great grandchildren.
The FiT is not as a result of saving carbon but because the UK has signed to a "sustainability" treaty.
Yellow cake is no more "sustainable" than than any other mineral that is used up in its application (generating heat).

samba

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

..............and a plentiful supply of waste to guard against terrorists to pass on to our great................................................ great........................................................................................... ..........................great...................................................................................
..............................................................great grandchildren.
The FiT is not as a result of saving carbon but because the UK has signed to a "sustainability" treaty.
Yellow cake is no more "sustainable" than than any other mineral that is used up in its application (generating heat).

Nice bit of FUD there - got both "Think of the children" and "Watch out for terrorists" in there.

Gizmosmum_2

samba wrote: »

If it wasn't for the overly-vocal green 'eco' lobby, we wouldn't need to do any of this, as we would have a plentiful supply of nuclear energy like some other countries do.

I'm a bit confused - France has loads more nuclear than we have but they have the FiT too .... what's their argument for FiT ... without being derrogatory about other's opinions if possible..:)

Cardew

Gizmosmum wrote: »

I'm a bit confused - France has loads more nuclear than we have but they have the FiT too .... what's their argument for FiT ... without being derrogatory about other's opinions if possible..:)

They are in the EEC - end of discussion.

John_Pierpoint

Gizmosmum wrote: »

I'm a bit confused - France has loads more nuclear than we have but they have the FiT too .... what's their argument for FiT ... without being derrogatory about other's opinions if possible..:)

I expect the same answer applies - at least France seems to have an EDF electricity generating turbine on every fair sized weir on every river.

The FiT is not as a result of saving carbon but because the UK has signed to a "sustainability" treaty.
Yellow cake is no more "sustainable" than than any other mineral that is used up in its application (generating heat).

John_Pierpoint

samba wrote: »

Nice bit of FUD there - got both "Think of the children" and "Watch out for terrorists" in there.

So you feel perfectly happy about the Russians building a nuclear bomb raw material production unit in that democratic stable country Iran?

What is your solution for storing the waste and how do you propose to de-commission the end of life power stations?

Do you know that there are still movement restrictions on Welsh lambs?

I worked on an Amdahl computer in a former life.
(What became of the company?)

"No IT manager ever got fired for specifying IBM" but a few leasing companies got bankrupted:rotfl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

grahamc2003

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

So you feel perfectly happy about the Russians building a nuclear bomb raw material production unit in that democratic stable country Iran?

What is your solution for storing the waste and how do you propose to de-commission the end of life power stations?

Do you know that there are still movement restrictions on Welsh lambs?

I worked on an Amdahl computer in a former life.
(What became of the company?)

"No IT manager ever got fired for specifying IBM" but a few leasing companies got bankrupted:rotfl:

Strange thing is John, it doesn't matter if every roof in the country were covered in pv panels, and if every available bit of land had a windmill on it, we'd still build exactly the same number of Nukes.
So I'm afraid you're still left with what to do with the waste, and your children's children will still have to muddle along as best they can. They'll certainly be infinitely better off with the Nukes than without them - have you ever read of the lifesytle in countires with an energy deficit/random powerouts/power for half an hour a day?

Just remember this very simple fact - if whatever electricity generation you dream up can't guarantee to generate at times of peak demand, then you have to have other generation which can.

That's why the nukes are coming, however many people think like you - there is simply no realistic choice (in England and Wales which NGC covers). Ten years ago I would say most people held your view (hence the terrible mess looming in 4 or 5 years time). Today, I think, and hope, most are pro-Nuclear, or at least realise the alternatives are worse/don't work/are not of the scale required.