Free solar panel discussion

Poosmate

I like the look of Solar Panels on a roof and would love to have them on my roof. I've been knocked back by Homesun, shame really as I was going for their share option where you pay £500 up front and £5 per month and get to buy them at a later date.

Oh well, back to the drawing board!

I really do wish people would stop harking on about customers having to foot the bill for the FiTs payments - it really is getting tiresome now. At the end of the day we've all been footing the bill for years already to subsidise the buying of land for wind farms. Who benefits from that? A few lucky landowners. I wouldn't mind betting that paying FiTs is much cheaper than aquiring land, gaining planning permission, fighting the local "NIMBY's" and actually purchasing and commissioning the wind turbines! All of the energy companies are compelled to supply a certain percentage of renewable energy through Acts passed through Government (I'll try to find links).

It's not just the energy market either. Years ago, mobile phone companies were paying arm and legs to get land on which to place their masts so their customers could receive a better reception, how was that paid for if not in the cost of the handsets and the tariffs?

And so it continues.

At least with the FiTs scheme and possibly the RHI scheme from next April, we, the general public are able to get something back - ok some more than others but that's life.

And let's not forget also all of the schemes on offer to some but not others - the Winter Fuel Allowance for the over 60's(or is it 65s?), free loft insulation and cavity wall installation if on certain benefits, or for a cost of £99 if you don't qualify for the free installation, all these free energy monitoring gadgets, Heavens British Gas are even offering 3 free swims for up to 4 people each time - now I strongly object to that! What's that all about!?

Anyway, many people are only seeing a small section of the big picture. All of these measures are there to help people save money on their energy (except the WFA) so in effect some of it is being given back to us. The bigger picture is that if this country doesn't hit it's targets in reducing it's carbon emissions, it's going to be whacked with huge fines and who's going to end up paying for them?

Poo

grahamc2003

Poosmate wrote: »

I
Anyway, many people are only seeing a small section of the big picture. All of these measures are there to help people save money on their energy (except the WFA) so in effect some of it is being given back to us. The bigger picture is that if this country doesn't hit it's targets in reducing it's carbon emissions, it's going to be whacked with huge fines and who's going to end up paying for them?

Poo

Helping people save money on energy? That is something it definately does not and cannot do. By subsidising an extremely inefficient method of generation (as solar is), at the very best all you can do is enable a very few people reduce their bills by a very small amount at the cost of everyone else having increased energy bills (sorry if that is boring for you).

The big picture is that subsidising inefficiency (i.e. solar in the UK) is a very expensive idea and, in engineering terms (and I expect most who dislike this scheme are professionsal engineers making an engineering judgement of the whole circumstances) is simply nonsense. If the government forces a supplier to spend a pound of my money, then I'd like that pound to produce the maximum effect, and not a minimal or insignificant effect as the solar fits do.

With regard to the cost of this subsidy, the only reason home bills will be affected in a relatively minor way is due to the costs being loaded (90% I think) on businesses - another smoke and mirror trick.

I frankly find the 'free scheme' very unattractive for almost everybody. aiui, the scheme requires a charge to be made on your property (meaning you need the panel owners permission to sell your house) and that (obviously!) shouldn't be undertaken lightly or without legal advice. And the legal advice would probably cost a fair percentage of the 'free' electricity benefit over the full 25 years.

csae

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Helping people save money on energy? That is something it definately does not and cannot do. By subsidising an extremely inefficient method of generation (as solar is), at the very best all you can do is enable a very few people reduce their bills by a very small amount at the cost of everyone else having increased energy bills (sorry if that is boring for you).

The big picture is that subsidising inefficiency (i.e. solar in the UK) is a very expensive idea and, in engineering terms (and I expect most who dislike this scheme are professionsal engineers making an engineering judgement of the whole circumstances) is simply nonsense. If the government forces a supplier to spend a pound of my money, then I'd like that pound to produce the maximum effect, and not a minimal or insignificant effect as the solar fits do.

With regard to the cost of this subsidy, the only reason home bills will be affected in a relatively minor way is due to the costs being loaded (90% I think) on businesses - another smoke and mirror trick.

I frankly find the 'free scheme' very unattractive for almost everybody. aiui, the scheme requires a charge to be made on your property (meaning you need the panel owners permission to sell your house) and that (obviously!) shouldn't be undertaken lightly or without legal advice. And the legal advice would probably cost a fair percentage of the 'free' electricity benefit over the full 25 years.

A right barrel of laughs you are aren't you?..;)

I to have reservations over the "Free Scheme", a nice way of doing your "bit", but shrouded in future problems I'd expect.

I really can't see how someone, the future house buyer,would be too chuffed at having panels on the roof that they don't "gain" the FITS from.

Now a house that has had the panels paid for, that's a different story!

Larnsky

In respect to future buyers not wanting to purchase a house if they can't gain the FiTs from the panels, am I not right in thinking that the FiT is being reviewed in April 2012 when it is suspected to drop considerably, so as long as you have no intention to sell your house before then the chances are that people won't be able to gain from the FiT anyway. Additionally just because people aren't able to gain from the FiT payment from panels on a roof still does not mean they would be able to fork out the £12k for the panels in the first place.

The free option although not as beneficial still offers a reduction in bills and even if it does only do a small amount to help reduce the countries energy consumption, it's still something and they do say every little helps.

geoff2

easy wrote: »

Ah, so you are against this scheme entirely simply because you can't get accepted,

"If I can't benefit from this, nobody should " hmm ???

Is that your whole contribution to the discussion? How childish. We've been debating the qualification criteria amongst other things and I was simply making the point - in agreement with another poster - that the companies appear to be very selective about what properties qualify. That's why some people have registered but still not heard back and others have had an immediate response. That will be because places are limited and those with second-rate roofs will be put on the B-list while they let the scheme run long enough to pick up plenty of premium properties that can generate lots of surplus to sell. So yes, I am unconvinced by this particular scheme, which will end up being subsidised by those who do not qualify. If I don't think it's a fair one, why shouldn't I say so? A week ago I was falling over myself to apply but having sobered up and read a bit more info, I won't be applying. I'm 100% in favour of renewables but, as I see it at the moment, the Government is still not really showing a commitment to see these solutions installed in as many homes as possible. This scheme is typical of the public/private initiatives we've seen cropping up over the last decade in the areas of health, education and transport because they look cheap for the public purse at the outset but end up being costly, delivering lots of lovely profit to the companies involved - very nice if you're a shareholder, I'm sure. What the Government should be doing is re-nationalising our energy supply to remove the current nonsense and building decent sized solar arrays on brownfield sites to deliver power to local communities, instead of abdicating responsibility.

geoff2

Gizmosmum wrote: »

I don't live in a mansion and mine's 55m2

I suppose that illustrates the unfair randomness of the scheme. Looking across the road at the (south facing detached) houses opposite me, the relevant bits of the roof are triangles about 30ft wide and maybe 15ft high but they're cut into by dormers and chimney stacks. There just isn't that much clear space for 30 sq m.

PK49

M4ximillion wrote: »

Of course youre allowed your opinion but anyone else coming on this forum whove said anything good about free solar and youve just tried to intimidate them. Also your estimates on 'free' leccy get lower and lower - so you reckon its only £50 a year now eh? God youre like the grim reaper. You should look on ASG website they've just got some of their customers talking about what theyve saved up to now and one woman had a cheque for £140 back from leccy comapny and they reduced her mnthly standing order by £20 - that adds up to more than £50 a year to me. I reckon folk shouldn't be too swayed by whats said on here cause theres people here with their own agendas and people should make their own mind up. Ask lots of questions from the company youre dealing with, like I did. Remember Cardew - nobodies forcing anyone to do anything or sign up to anything. You make it sound as if these poor folk with these free systems are being tortured into doing it. If it werent for these companies doing the freebie option I wouldnt have a cat in hells chance of having solar. Lighten up!:D

This must be the worst case of spelling and lack of apostrophe use during this whole thread!! :eek:

geoff2

csae wrote: »

We have subsidised inefficiency in this country for years, mainly Engineering.:D

"are professionsal engineers making an engineering judgement of the whole circumstances"

You mean banal, sanctimonius old men that between them, have pretty much sounded the death knell of engineering in this country because of their inability to embrace change?

Their thoughts and opinions are not required quite frankly...!

I have to come to grahamc's defence here, although I'm against the scheme and not an engineer (and also note that grahamc is not saying he's an engineer) and I'm sure I'm not the only one. This kind of anti-science posting doesn't help advance the debate at all. It's off-topic, prejudiced, cliched and narrow-minded.
Whilst it's undoubtedly true that in the 60's and 70's some of our engineering companies became complacent and allowed foreign companies to take the opportunities available, that doesn't mean we should tar them all with the same brush and not be willing to support them now. We've got huge innovative talent in this country and it needs our support so that we can rebuild our manufacturing base and get people off the dole and into skilled jobs.

Elainemary

Just to let all " fors " and " againsts " know there was an article in yesterday's Daily Mirror regarding what Which? magazine has to say about free panels. Any comments about what they have to say? Some of the recent mails have become like 5 year olds squabbling in a sand pit. Can we all get back to reasoned discussion, please or is that asking too much?

M4ximillion

geoff2 wrote: »

And I bet it's got a nice simple rhomboid roof instead of my combination Edwardian triangles and chimney stacks!

It certainly has - thats what theyre looking for so I hope I qualify:D