Solar Panel Guide Discussion

K4blades

beedydad wrote: »

The appalling issue is that the latest Ofgem Report states that in the first year 28,608 soler PV kits were installed. A further 10,000 odd in next 3 months.

So even with all the publicity and the main USP that you can have "free solar" or r-a-r that we (the UK) have installed a nats peeeee's worth of solar.

Given as stated that there are 25million or properties and if you discounted to those who could possibly have solar ie due to orientation and roof size, that you could say 20% are worthy ie 5 million solar pv kits - 40 odd thousand is nought really worth it.

FIT payout also seems strange it equates to around £155 each given that less than 30,000 would have recieved it in first year. Looking at the info they would have had the kits on average of 6 months so could it be that the yearly FIT's would be around £300 ish? so where are all the big kits earning mega amounts?

Regards

So if its all been a massive failure and not took off at all, you have no need to worry about it being such a financial burden on all our bills.
Seems odd that people think a nats pees worth of PV is going to damage the poor so much?

K4blades

grahamc2003 wrote: »

People pointing out one poorer off person who may have very indirectly gained (from cheaper electricity rather than the fit) does not alter that argument one bit. Fits go to panel owners, and private people owning panels also own the house it's on so they are likely to be in the better off category.

I don't know Graham, one minute championing the poor, the next totally disregarding them. There are a lot more than one example if you bother to read, instead of ignoring the posts you disagree with.
Social housing is a little behind private installations due to the fact that they were originally, not allowed to claim FITs. One of the first things the coalition did when they came to power was reverse that, so social landlords CAN claim FITs, but then they have had to sort our supplies, legalities, funding, etc, etc. In the coming months and years, installations on social housing will increase dramatically. And as I said before, as councils benefit from FITs, this will help the wider community through better services or lower council tax bills.

Ignore my post if you choose Graham, but it doesn't mean you are right and it won't stop it from happening.

celerity

darkpool wrote: »

Do you not think FIT is bad for business? It increases electricity prices causing UK industry to move abroad to places like china. I don't think you can say FIT is good for UK industry

Well it's good for the UK Solar industry .
As noted previously, this has knock-on benefits for scaffolders and electricians. Also, many solar PV companies will also offer solar thermal and potentiall heat pump technology as well, which in turn boosts the trade for plumbers across the country.

Finally, all the houseowners receiving FiT cheques in the next few years are going to find that they are burning a hole in their pockets - so will likely spend some of it - good news for the UK economy.

So, no I don't think it's bad for business at all.

Also, nobody has yet demonstrated on this thread the direct increase in electricity prices due to the FiT, so it's a moot point as far as I'm concerned. One person claimed 15% - another claimed 20p.
Until we have a decent estimate it's very difficult to have an opinion on it one way or the other.

I also don't think solar panels are a good investment

You're not the only person to say that, and that's entirely your right.
However, there are countless examples on this forum of people demonstrating that it's a decent long-term investment for people in the right circumstance, beating a tax-free ISA or other savings account etc. Obviously you either disagree with the concensus opinion that it will outperform a savings account, or you have some other objection such as not wanting to stay tied to your property for 12 or more years?

May I ask a general question for people against the FiT, not aimed at darkpool? Has *anything* you've read on this forum made you think that maybe, just maybe, the FiT isn't quite as terrible as you first thought?

I will go on record as saying that the opposite is true for me - reading negative posts about the FiT has made me think, and then agree that it is less than ideal and could have been implemented in a much better way.
However, on balance I still think there is the possibility that the benefits could turn out to be worth it. I'm open to both viewpoints though, which I honestly don't get the impression some people on here are.

/\dam

RenovationMan

http://www.which.co.uk/about-which/press/press-releases/campaign-press-releases/energy/2011/06/consumers-shouldnt-subsidise-solar-for-businesses-says-which/

Which? wants:

• The Government to show how much money consumers are paying for the FIT and other environmental levies in their bills. Our research shows that 87% of consumers want to see more information on these and other levies in their bills.
• As the costs of solar technologies fall, we want to see these costs being passed on to consumers buying solar PV.

*The Government estimated that the impact of FIT on a domestic electricity bill is an average of £8.50 per year over the period 2011-2030. Ofgem estimated that all environmental levies (Carbon Emissions Reduction Target scheme, Community Energy Saving Programme, Renewables Obligation, EU Energy Trading Scheme and the FIT), cost each domestic customer £84 a year (2009).
** According to DECC, just one very large solar PV project of 5 MW could take up the cost of providing generation tariffs to over 1,250 homes

K4blades

celerity wrote: »

May I ask a general question for people against the FiT, not aimed at darkpool? Has *anything* you've read on this forum made you think that maybe, just maybe, the FiT isn't quite as terrible as you first thought?

/\dam

You make a good point Adam, I think FITs are good, but I'm in no way a zealot, though it sometimes feels that it is being suggested that I am. Personally, as I've posted elsewhere, for me generation is all about as many eggs as possible in the basket.
My main reason for visiting these forums is to trade real life experiences and there for, spread knowledge.

However, the impression, rightly or wrongly, created by some is that, no matter what is said, they will object to FITs, or PVs generally, no matter what the consensus. This undermines their view, IMHO, and draws into question, the validity of their comments which is a shame because their contributions could be valued, but only if they took a more balanced and fair view.

celerity

RenovationMan wrote: »

*The Government estimated that the impact of FIT on a domestic electricity bill is an average of £8.50 per year over the period 2011-2030.

If that's true, it's about 16 pence per week. For all the people complaining about an unfair tax on the poor - is that figure low enough for you to revise your opinion even slightly? If not, how low would it have to go? 10p a week? 1p a week? 1p a year?!

** According to DECC, just one very large solar PV project of 5 MW could take up the cost of providing generation tariffs to over 1,250 homes

Yes, whoever thought up the FiT wasn't shrewd enough to spot this loophole . They have retrospectively capped installs that are bigger than 50kWp though, so nobody can claim they haven't tried to act.

/\dam

RenovationMan

celerity wrote: »

If that's true, it's about 16 pence per week. For all the people complaining about an unfair tax on the poor - is that figure low enough for you to revise your opinion even slightly? If not, how low would it have to go? 10p a week? 1p a week? 1p a year?!
/\dam

I wouldn't want to pay 1p in tax to subsidise someone else's electricity bill*. Let's be honest, the surplus that is put back into the grid will amount to virtually nothing.

* Actually that's not true. I would happily subsidize the poor and the elderly's energy bills.

Cardew

K4blades wrote: »

As for electric car, I would never get one thinking I could power it solely from the PVs. The cost comparisons would be between petrol and grid electric, but my point being that if we did get one, any PV contribution would be an added bonus if we used it instead of exporting it.

Wouldn't virtually everyone with an electric car routinely charge it overnight on an Economy 7 tariff.

It takes 8 hours @ 16 amps for a full charge approx 32kWh - or 40 amps for a fast charge.*

Much like the 'discussion' about using an immersion heater - but more so.

* For the Nissan Leaf

keith_r59

RenovationMan wrote: »

I wouldn't want to pay 1p in tax to subsidise someone else's electricity bill*.

* Actually that's not true. I would happily subsidize the poor and the elderly's energy bills.

Nor do I and that is why I have had solar panels installed.

K4blades

Cardew wrote: »

Wouldn't virtually everyone with an electric car routinely charge it overnight on an Economy 7 tariff.

It takes 8 hours @ 16 amps for a full charge approx 32kWh - or 40 amps for a fast charge.*

Much like the 'discussion' about using an immersion heater - but more so.

* For the Nissan Leaf

I haven't looked into it enough to know, but the premise being that if its on the drive, and not much else is happening in the house, rather than export any excess leccy, use it to give the car batteries a top up.

Like I said though, I have not researched this enough though....but talking long term again, and as technology develops...it would make sense.