Spending Review: solar feed-in tariffs safe – for now

MSE_Jenny
MSE_Jenny Posts: 1,312 MSE Staff
First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
edited 21 October 2010 at 4:07PM in Energy
This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:
«134

Comments

  • Sceptic001
    Sceptic001 Posts: 1,111 Forumite
    "...even though the Government says the tariff is fixed for now, it could change its mind."

    Is Martin saying that the government could renege on its 25 year guarantee? Is it not a legally binding contract?
  • adaadat
    adaadat Posts: 260 Forumite
    "Bizarrely, you get paid far more per unit for generating electricity than it would cost to buy electricity from your provider."

    Of course you do, because it's a scam - a sickening waste of tax-payers' money. It's part of the lunacy of pretending to combat Climate Change, wasting many billions, whilst China and India race ahead, with no intention to stop building 'coal-fired' power stations.

    It won't, in any way, speed-up the development of solar panel technology and create the fabled 'green industries', as you cannot force someone to innovate - to develop an improvement to the technology or develop a wholly new technology. Subsidies cannot create new technologies; you cannot subsidise someone's 'Eureka' moment. The Soviet Union is a pretty good example of that.

    However, expect many to leap at the chance to grab £12,000 of tax-payers' money for free.

    Incidentally, many of the solar panels won't last anywhere near as long as 25 years.
  • adaadat wrote: »
    "Bizarrely, you get paid far more per unit for generating electricity than it would cost to buy electricity from your provider."

    Of course you do, because it's a scam - a sickening waste of tax-payers' money. It's part of the lunacy of pretending to combat Climate Change, wasting many billions, whilst China and India race ahead, with no intention to stop building 'coal-fired' power stations.

    It won't, in any way, speed-up the development of solar panel technology and create the fabled 'green industries', as you cannot force someone to innovate - to develop an improvement to the technology or develop a wholly new technology. Subsidies cannot create new technologies; you cannot subsidise someone's 'Eureka' moment. The Soviet Union is a pretty good example of that.

    However, expect many to leap at the chance to grab £12,000 of tax-payers' money for free.

    Incidentally, many of the solar panels won't last anywhere near as long as 25 years.


    It is not tax payers money - its funded by the energy companies.

    Panels will easily last for 25 years.

    Plenty of new jobs are being created as a result.

    China is investing heavily in wind power.
  • Sceptic001
    Sceptic001 Posts: 1,111 Forumite
    It is not tax payers money - its funded by the energy companies.
    And the energy companies are funded by their customers...:rotfl:
  • adaadat
    adaadat Posts: 260 Forumite
    Plenty of new jobs are being created as a result.

    China is investing heavily in wind power.

    If this is anywhere near as bad as Spain's experience, God help us. Each 'green' job in Spain cost - cost - 2.2 real jobs, in the rest of the economy, which is why, when the public discovered this, all subsidies were cut. Note Spain's roughly 20% unemployment rate.

    China is investing in 'wind-power' manufacturing - manufacturing many of the windmills the idiotic Westerners are stupid enough to buy, whilst, as I said, continuing to open a coal fired power plant almost on a weekly basis. Of course they also want the Western technology to supplement their own, but they aren't stupid enough to blanket their own country in the stupid things, bar here and there, as a tokenistic gesture.
  • MSE_Martin
    MSE_Martin Posts: 8,272 Money Saving Expert
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Sceptic001 wrote: »
    "...even though the Government says the tariff is fixed for now, it could change its mind."

    Is Martin saying that the government could renege on its 25 year guarantee? Is it not a legally binding contract?

    That is always possible. In the UK parliament is omnicompetent, what it says is paramount (ignoring some complexities due to europe).

    Thus if parliament ruled that the USA was still part of the UK - then under UK law it would be. If it decided to change the rate it can do.

    You call it a contact, but remember that depends on UK law, and the government can change the law.

    Im not predicting it will do this - but 25 years is a long time, my point is anything could happen
    Martin Lewis, Money Saving Expert.
    Please note, answers don't constitute financial advice, it is based on generalised journalistic research. Always ensure any decision is made with regards to your own individual circumstance.
    Don't miss out on urgent MoneySaving, get my weekly e-mail at www.moneysavingexpert.com/tips.
    Debt-Free Wannabee Official Nerd Club: (Honorary) Members number 000
  • adaadat wrote: »
    "Bizarrely, you get paid far more per unit for generating electricity than it would cost to buy electricity from your provider."

    Yep, crazy. I'd rather see this cash put towards nuclear power stations or returned in reduced electricity bills.

    Seems green gimmicks are immune from the cutbacks - perhaps because "green taxes" are such a useful cash cow.
  • Sceptic001
    Sceptic001 Posts: 1,111 Forumite
    MSE_Martin wrote: »
    That is always possible. In the UK parliament is omnicompetent, what it says is paramount (ignoring some complexities due to europe).

    Thus if parliament ruled that the USA was still part of the UK - then under UK law it would be. If it decided to change the rate it can do.

    You call it a contact, but remember that depends on UK law, and the government can change the law.

    Im not predicting it will do this - but 25 years is a long time, my point is anything could happen
    Hmmm.... I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if the government/parliament does have the power to rip up contracts like that. After all, the courts do on occasion overrule government decisions. It is an interesting legal point.
  • Equaliser123
    Equaliser123 Posts: 3,404 Forumite
    adaadat wrote: »
    "Bizarrely, you get paid far more per unit for generating electricity than it would cost to buy electricity from your provider."

    Of course you do, because it's a scam - a sickening waste of tax-payers' money. It's part of the lunacy of pretending to combat Climate Change, wasting many billions, whilst China and India race ahead, with no intention to stop building 'coal-fired' power stations.

    It won't, in any way, speed-up the development of solar panel technology and create the fabled 'green industries', as you cannot force someone to innovate - to develop an improvement to the technology or develop a wholly new technology. Subsidies cannot create new technologies; you cannot subsidise someone's 'Eureka' moment. The Soviet Union is a pretty good example of that.

    However, expect many to leap at the chance to grab £12,000 of tax-payers' money for free.

    Incidentally, many of the solar panels won't last anywhere near as long as 25 years.

    I don't think you understand the scheme at all.

    1. It is not "£12,000 of tax-payers' money for free". If you are referring to the install cost, it is required to be privately funded. Schemes where the property owner is able to use the electricity but the panels are provided 'free' are commercial in nature.

    2. The FIT are paid for by the energy companies.

    I really, really wish you would check your facts before posting.
  • Equaliser123
    Equaliser123 Posts: 3,404 Forumite
    MSE_Martin wrote: »
    That is always possible. In the UK parliament is omnicompetent, what it says is paramount (ignoring some complexities due to europe).

    Thus if parliament ruled that the USA was still part of the UK - then under UK law it would be. If it decided to change the rate it can do.

    You call it a contact, but remember that depends on UK law, and the government can change the law.

    Im not predicting it will do this - but 25 years is a long time, my point is anything could happen

    There is no contract but there ARE concepts such as estoppel (i.e. someone has acted to their detriment in reliance upon a promise made) or legitimate expectation (a European concept) which, in my view, would make it difficult for any body to renege on something like this.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards