FITs warning!

keith_r59

penrhyn wrote: »

No, the debate is why the vast majority of consumers should be subsidising middle class ecobling vanity projects ( and the cowboys exploiting loopholes in the regulations)
They will not make an atom of difference to the countries reliance on fossil fuels, guess what guys, most of us heat our homes with gas.

As I said earlier in this thread.....

"I don't disagree but unfortunately this is what happens when the previous UK government signs a legally binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 34% by 2020 (and 80% by 2050) without having any original ideas on how to achieve it."

I also would have to say that, in my opinion, the majority of people who have installed panels on their roofs have done so for the obvious financial benefits and not for "ecobling vanity" as you put it.

PeterZ_2

Cardew wrote: »

The way I read it is that the 10% is only on the electricity bill; so the £100 applies only if you have a £1,000 electricity bill.

However we are all going to pay that 10% regardless of having PV panels on your roof or bird poo!

Yes, exactly. My annual bill is around £400, so at worst I pay around £40 a year towards the various green subsidies.

Now we are only talking about FITs here so the £8 a year figure sounds about right.

PeterZ_2

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Thanks for ther uswitch info. It looks like the 'green' costs on bills are now 10% according to them.

I suppose whether those with free panels gain or lose overall is down to semantics.

I feel if they get £70 of 'free' electricity, but their bills are increased by £100 (uswicth), then I would look upon that as them losing out £30 overall. You appear to want to stop your analysis at the £70 benefit, which I suppose is up to you, but it seems strange to simply ignore the bill loading these schemes involve to arrive at a net gain or loss due to the systems. Just because those without the free panels lose out £100 pa doesn't alter any of the facts for those with them (which I think is related to the point you are trying to make)

Anyhow, I think it's clear we all understand the numbers involved, the money in and the money out, and it just comes down to how we wish to view those numbers.

Graham, your reasoning makes absolutely no sense at all!!!

Its bit like saying putting in energy efficient light bulbs will not make a saving on your bill because part of the green subsidy goes towards British Gas giving out free light bulbs!

It doesn't matter if its energy saving bulbs, a new A rated appliance, solar panels or even one of those voltage reducing gizmos - if it reduces your bills then you are saving money!

grahamc2003

PeterZ wrote: »

Graham, your reasoning makes absolutely no sense at all!!!

Its bit like saying putting in energy efficient light bulbs will not make a saving on your bill because part of the green subsidy goes towards British Gas giving out free light bulbs!

It doesn't matter if its energy saving bulbs, a new A rated appliance, solar panels or even one of those voltage reducing gizmos - if it reduces your bills then you are saving money!

I think my reasoning is unassailable, no matter how many exclamation marks you use to force your point.

And using straw men doesn't help your position at all - I never said having free solar won't lower your bill (in fact I explicitly stated that it will). But the point you must know but are unable to accept, is that all bills will be loaded to pay for such schemes.

And energy saving bulbs are not at all similar to the free solar situation. When I install an energy saving bulb (or triple A rated appliance), consumers bills are not loaded in proportion to any energy saved and given to the bulb owners, so there is nothing to net off against the savings.

noncom_2

You seem to be making what appears to me to be an incorrect assumption...... namely that the entire 10% of bills which is used by the Energy Co.s to pay for "Green initiatives" is going into subsidising FITs.

This is patently not the case. I don't know what proportion of the 10% "Green" loading on the bills pays for FITs specifically, but I'd guess it's pretty small. The rest goes into things like R&D of large scale future clean energy technologies.

Unless you are one of the people who (in my view unscientifically) deny that man-made climate change either exists or is a problem, then this work has to be done regardless of FITs for small scale production, and the majority of the 10% surcharge would remain even if FITs were scrapped.

Therefore to conclude that people with rent-a-roof Solar Panels are no better off seems false - you should compare the savings on electricity with the tiny extra amount on their bills which pays FITs, not with the whole 10%.

PeterZ_2

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I think my reasoning is unassailable, no matter how many exclamation marks you use to force your point.

And using straw men doesn't help your position at all - I never said having free solar won't lower your bill (in fact I explicitly stated that it will). But the point you must know but are unable to accept, is that all bills will be loaded to pay for such schemes.

And energy saving bulbs are not at all similar to the free solar situation. When I install an energy saving bulb (or triple A rated appliance), consumers bills are not loaded in proportion to any energy saved and given to the bulb owners, so there is nothing to net off against the savings.

Energy saving bulbs are exactly the same as FITs.

A while back from British Gas I got a box of free energy saving bulbs, a power saver extension lead and an energy monitor all completely free. I am not a british gas customer.

Where do you think BG got the money from to pay for this? Its not because they felt generous enough to give free stuff away. The cost was ultimately loaded onto everyones bills.

See this:http://www.energychoices.co.uk/free-energy-saving-light-bulbs-add-gbp45-to-energy-bills-2503103.html

"Which? senior policy advisor Fiona Cochrane said: “We all pay for CERT – the average household puts in £45 a year through their bills."

So I'm sorry but you are wrong. Energy saving bulbs do add extra cost to everyones bills. Its actually quite shocking that free light bulbs adds £45 a year. Puts the £10 required for FITs into perspective.

PeterZ_2

grahamc2003 wrote: »

But the point you must know but are unable to accept, is that all bills will be loaded to pay for such schemes.

You really need to go back and read my earlier post:

"Yes, exactly. My annual bill is around £400, so at worst I pay around £40 a year towards the various green subsidies.

Now we are only talking about FITs here so the £8 a year figure sounds about right."

Maybe I'm being dumb here, but to my mind its perfectly clear that I understand that bills are loaded for green schemes!

nearlynew

One of the conditions of the FIT scheme is that payments are only made on the original installation.

Taking panels off one roof and fitting them on another would disqualify you (or the new owner) from any payment.

Cardew

nearlynew wrote: »

One of the conditions of the FIT scheme is that payments are only made on the original installation.

Taking panels off one roof and fitting them on another would disqualify you (or the new owner) from any payment.

Which is why the 'Rent a roof' companies [STRIKE]stitch up [/STRIKE] place a restriction on current and future owners.