FITs warning!

Rodders57

It is the increase in solar farms the government wants to stop. In Spain they pulled the plug on FITS because the government were paying for it and it was culled along with other public spending. Farmers stopped farming over there also. As it has been stated FITS in this country is not paid by HM Gov. The review is about solar farms end of.

davehills

I suspect that FITs for individuals will remain largely unchanged and that it'll be the rent-a-roof merchants that get targeted.

What'll happen though if FITs to these companies get drastically curtailed? Their economic model will vanish overnight.

*If* they were to go bust then their assets (The solar panels) would be sold to the highest bidder.

Most likely any such buyer would remove these nearly-new panels to sell off leaving the homeowner without solar.

Is there anything in the T&Cs of rent-a-roof companies outlining what'll happen in the event they go bust?

Hmmmmm...take care out there..

Cardew

davehills wrote: »

Most likely any such buyer would remove these nearly-new panels to sell off leaving the homeowner without solar.

The cost of the panels is only part of the cost of a PV system. It is the labour(including scaffolding) electronics etc that cost a lot of money.

To have the same labour cost(including scaffolding) to remove second hand panels and make good the roof, would hardly seem a wise move; especially the demand for second hand panels will not be high if FITs are cut.

davehills

Well, assume FITs remain for consumers but are axed for corporations.

Would you personally pay, say, £4,000 to a company for a six month old system that originally cost £9,000?

Of course you would.

They'd be paying 10p to 20p in the pound so it'd obviously be worth them to pay a contractor to remove said systems. They'd then clean 'em up and sell 'em on.

keith_r59

davehills wrote: »

I suspect that FITs for individuals will remain largely unchanged and that it'll be the rent-a-roof merchants that get targeted.

What'll happen though if FITs to these companies get drastically curtailed? Their economic model will vanish overnight.

*If* they were to go bust then their assets (The solar panels) would be sold to the highest bidder.

Most likely any such buyer would remove these nearly-new panels to sell off leaving the homeowner without solar.

Is there anything in the T&Cs of rent-a-roof companies outlining what'll happen in the event they go bust?

Hmmmmm...take care out there..

Can't see it myself but then there is nothing like a bit of scaremongering to get the juices flowing.

As I said earlier, the review is only being brought forward for systems of more than 50kW capacity so it will have no impact on small household installations.

keith_r59

As suspected, it seems that the FITs for large scale solar energy systems (over 50kw) are going to be cut by up to 70% from August.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12790613

This is good news for the home owner as the change is designed to preserve funds, which come from consumer bills, for schemes on domestic roofs.

Cardew

keith_r59 wrote: »

As suspected, it seems that the FITs for large scale solar energy systems (over 50kw) are going to be cut by up to 70% from August.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12790613

This is good news for the home owner as the change is designed to preserve funds, which come from consumer bills, for schemes on domestic roofs.

This quote is interesting:

"I want to make sure that we capture the benefits of fast-falling costs in solar technology to allow even more homes to benefit, rather than see that money go in bumper profits to a small number of big investors," he said.

Let us hope that this also applies to the 'rent a roof' companies as they allow 'bumper profits to a small number of big investors,'

To add insult to injury, those bumper profits are paid for by a levy on all electricity customers.

penrhyn

Cardew wrote: »

This quote is interesting:



Let us hope that this also applies to the 'rent a roof' companies as they allow 'bumper profits to a small number of big investors,'

To add insult to injury, those bumper profits are paid for by a levy on all electricity customers.

I agree with Cardew.

grahamc2003

Cardew wrote: »

This quote is interesting:



Let us hope that this also applies to the 'rent a roof' companies as they allow 'bumper profits to a small number of big investors,'

To add insult to injury, those bumper profits are paid for by a levy on all electricity customers.

Yes, and what is strange that many of the supporters who have a 'free' system seem to think they benefit financially, through 'free' electricity, via these schemes. (I think that is their sole reason for support!).

But a back of fag packet calculation shows that even they actually lose out financially - the extra costs on their bill to support this scheme and numerous others like it, exceeding the small benefit of the 'free' electricity they use.

keith_r59

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Yes, and what is strange that many of the supporters who have a 'free' system seem to think they benefit financially, through 'free' electricity, via these schemes. (I think that is their sole reason for support!).

But a back of fag packet calculation shows that even they actually lose out financially - the extra costs on their bill to support this scheme and numerous others like it, exceeding the small benefit of the 'free' electricity they use.

I don't quite understand your logic. As every consumer, whether they have solar panels installed or not, are paying extra costs on their electricity bills to support the renewables scheme there is a financial benefit in having a "free" system installed albeit a small one.