Solar Panel Guide Discussion

Martyn1981

Times, they are a changing!

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/property-and-mortgages/buying-and-selling-property/17321/solar-panels-bin-collections-most-desirable-property-extras-revealed

"When it comes to a little something extra to seal the sale of a property, solar panels are apparently top of the list.

Solar panels have surprisingly been named as the most desirable property ‘extra’ in a new survey.

The research, by ING Direct, asked people what smaller things – excluding basics such as price, location and condition – would tip them towards a particular property.

And it seems many people are attracted by the idea of having an energy-generating installation at home, with 38% of those surveyed saying it would be their number one extra."

Who'd have thunk it?

Edit: Telegraph version:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9546286/Weekly-bin-collection-and-solar-panels-are-top-property-deal-sealers.html

Mart.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

... At least the money for those other subsidies comes from [STRIKE]The Public Purse[/STRIKE] (don't bite Z;)) ALL taxpayes and is not, like FIT, which is contributed to by electricity consumers without regard to their income/wealth!

Hi

Two quick and very simple questions ...

i - Why is the levy on electricity consumption considered to be unfair because it doesn't take regard to income and/or wealth, but petroleum fuel duty is considered to be fair, even though it is contributed to by fuel consumers and also disregards income and/or wealth ?

ii - If the levy were to be paid directly to the government by the energy companies and then distributed (from unringfenced funds) amongst all carbon reduction schemes, including FiT, by a government department it would then be handled in exactly the same way as petroleum tax ..... if this was the case and it cost, for sake of discussion, twice as much tax to be raised as is current in order to fund the increased public sector administration, would it be considered a better solution, ie more cost/tax for the same outcome ? ...

Simple questions usually have simple answers which do not require deviation from the points at hand .....

HTH
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Two quick and very simple questions ...

i - Why is the levy on electricity consumption considered to be unfair because it doesn't take regard to income and/or wealth, but petroleum fuel duty is considered to be fair, even though it is contributed to by fuel consumers and also disregards income and/or wealth ?

ii - If the levy were to be paid directly to the government by the energy companies and then distributed (from unringfenced funds) amongst all carbon reduction schemes, including FiT, by a government department it would then be handled in exactly the same way as petroleum tax ..... if this was the case and it cost, for sake of discussion, twice as much tax to be raised as is current in order to fund the increased public sector administration, would it be considered a better solution, ie more cost/tax for the same outcome ? ...

Simple questions usually have simple answers which do not require deviation from the points at hand .....

HTH
Z

If I pay petroleum fuel duty, I get fuel. The duty paid goes into the 'Public Purse' and is used to fund Aircraft carriers etc.(even hospitals, pensions etc!)

The levy on our electricity bills goes straight(via your definition of Public Purse if you like;)) to individuals or Rent a Roof Companies. They don't even have to supply energy to the National Grid.

Your second question is of the 'When did you stop beating your Granny' variety. Far too much supposition!

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

i - Why is the levy on electricity consumption considered to be unfair because it doesn't take regard to income and/or wealth, but petroleum fuel duty is considered to be fair, even though it is contributed to by fuel consumers and also disregards income and/or wealth ?

HTH
Z

Similarly, when the water industry needed new investment after privatisation in 1991, the monies were raised by increasing bills (remember inf + K). Not from general taxation.

Mart.

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

If I pay petroleum fuel duty, I get fuel. !

Actually, oil companies would be more than happy to let you have their fuel at the same sort of modest rate our transatlantic cousins enjoy IF you could find some way of avoiding PFD. Paying the PFD doesn't get you any extra fuel at all.

Similarly, electricity supply companies issue bills showing their (not quite so) modest charges for electricity then add on the 5% VAT and the renewable levy. Again, paying those surcharges doesn't get you any extra electricity.

colinh22

Yes, they caught me too. I thought I could get my money back as I paid by credit card. Lloyds bank were less than useless. They told me to go to the ombudsman. So I asked for all my original paperwork back that I sent them and they said they had not kept it. In the end I wrote off the money down to experience. A very expensive experience!!

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

If I pay petroleum fuel duty, I get fuel. The duty paid goes into the 'Public Purse' and is used to fund Aircraft carriers etc.(even hospitals, pensions etc!)

The levy on our electricity bills goes straight(via your definition of Public Purse if you like;)) to individuals or Rent a Roof Companies. They don't even have to supply energy to the National Grid.

Your second question is of the 'When did you stop beating your Granny' variety. Far too much supposition!

Hi

And therefore following your logic .... if the levy paid into the government's unringfenced fund you would be just as happy paying it as any other tax ....

Now, let's suppose that everyone agrees and that's what happens ... however, the levy is increased on electricity bills in order to fund the central pot with an appropriate amount of money to cover the additional cost of administration .... would you be just as happy ..... there are no grannies in this logic at all, just a logical approach to gauge the validity and logic of your own views ....

It's pretty simple really ... leaving all other aspects aside ... is it likely to be a cheaper alternative overall to have the energy companies utilise the infrastructure which they broadly already had in place within their billing & customer service departments before FiTs than to estiblish a completely new centre for administration within the public sector ...

They are simple questions based on logic, no grannies here, just an attempt to inject a little Boolean logic into the thought process ... on the road ahead the road splits and forms a 'Y', the driver has no control over the velocity of the vehicle, only the steering and may not agree with turning left, or turning right and would rather go straight ahead, however this is not an option, the driver must weigh up the options and make a decision, no traps ... just weigh up the options and turn the wheel .... one direction is logical, the other is plainly illogical, doing neither and deliberating whilst the junction approaches is simply foolish and will certainly be seen so by everyone after the inevitable accident ... logic must logically be taken to it's conclusion & I simply believe that the conclusion is pretty clear ...

HTH
Z

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

Actually, oil companies would be more than happy to let you have their fuel at the same sort of modest rate our transatlantic cousins enjoy IF you could find some way of avoiding PFD. Paying the PFD doesn't get you any extra fuel at all.

Similarly, electricity supply companies issue bills showing their (not quite so) modest charges for electricity then add on the 5% VAT and the renewable levy. Again, paying those surcharges doesn't get you any extra electricity.

Where did I mention anything about 'extra' fuel? or extra electricity.

We get something when we chose to pay for fuel i.e. fuel. The PFD goes into the public purse.

The levy on our electricity bills goes to direct* to Householders and RAR companies in FIT. They don't even have to put any electricity back into the National Grid

* via Utility companies!

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Where did I mention anything about 'extra' fuel? or extra electricity.

We get something when we chose to pay for fuel i.e. fuel. The PFD goes into the public purse.

The levy on our electricity bills goes to direct* to Householders and RAR companies in FIT. They don't even have to put any electricity back into the National Grid

* via Utility companies!

So paying PFD to get no extra fuel is fine, but paying FITs and export tariffs to get increased supply is bad?

Also if no electricity is going into the grid, how do you balance the equation, since supply has increased but demand hasn't?

Also, if you're happy to pay PV farms 100% for the benefit of all their generation, why aren't you even happier to pay householders only 50% for the benefit of all theirs?

Mart.

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

And therefore following your logic .... if the levy paid into the government's unringfenced fund you would be just as happy paying it as any other tax ....


HTH
Z

Hi Z.

Absolutely incorrect! Of course I wouldn't!

My consistent position has been that the FIT scheme is, (to quote Monbiot,) grotesque! It is a 'tax' taking money from the poor and transferring it to the well-off. That 'tax' takes no account of the income or wealth of those who have no option but to pay.

As John_Pierpoint stated in his post above:

I have three real world friends with PV panels and receiving the FiT.

One, a very early adopter (October 2009), could be said to be a true "greenie" but the primary motivation for the other 3 of us, is to farm the FiT subsidy

With respect Z, your method(on some issues) is to pose the 'When did you stop beating your Granny' - questions and hope people will fall into that trap.

The situation with the FIT scheme is quite simple - it is a levy(tax if it makes you happy) on electricty customers taking no account of their financial situation, and transferring that money to the 'well off'. Thus the very poorest in the land pay toward profits for house owners who can afford £xthousand and venture capitalists behind Rent a Roof firms.

If you and others want to believe you are Pioneers' paving the way to a Green Utopia - carry on.

QED