Solar Panel Guide Discussion

silverwhistle

I'm sorry mate, but as someone looking in from outside "the level of irrelevance" of some of the arguments does seem high, and benefits no one delving around here for enlightenment , although for members of the club it's no doubt fun. I'm not an engineer or, god forbid, an accountant so have a greater acceptance that an argument doesn't always have to revolve around decimal places to get the point across.

From what I've gathered here and elsewhere the original FIT was probably too high and badly designed and has been admitted to as such by industry insiders. The change to this rate was mismanaged by the government, as seems to have occurred to most of their policies, but a mechanism has been put in place to reduce the rates in line with reducing capital costs. The FIT (here and globally) has helped to reduce these costs.

Now, in my case I hope to go ahead even at the lower rates, and working part-time would hope to use as much of my own generation as possible. I really hope that other guy doesn't come on here telling me that it's a subsidy and that I'm "very wealthy" or I'd be tempted to run him over with my 12 year old Skoda Fabia. Another equally annoying diversion when there are far more worthy targets. I just want to know how to get the best technology, the best from it and protect myself from large companies who have foreign owners and see me as a ripe and low fruit.

spgsc531

zeupater wrote: »

Hi M

It's really a non-issue, the point being that a pedantic approach to personally attack a member over such a small and understandable difference deserved the reply which was requested. If the op had answered, then the goading would have worked as intended - so, considering that the post, which I considered unacceptable, had unexplainably been endorsed by at least one member, I took the challenge on and provided two alternative explanations. Various arguments can be made around the semantics, but it's plain for everyone to see that the original post made was correct within the context which it was made ....

Without doubt, there are individuals which join these boards simply for the sake of argument and conflict, some may even have multiple concurrent profiles which are used to effect whilst protecting their main profile(s) from possible official censure (ie PPR), with others simply creating new profiles when receiving a posting ban from the administrators. It is my considered opinion that it is fair to say that the recent member profile posting to inflame conflict likely falls into one of these categories and has been so since very soon after the profile first appeared - I believe that I was the first member to respond to this profile after created and had already formulated this view within a few days of what seemed to be deliberate inflaming of argument with a number of existing members in such a way where it simply seemed to be a continuation of previous exchanges.

If there are points to be made, then make the points .... simply posting 'ad hominem' to goad a response is wrong, both morally wrong and wrong in terms of the rules of this forum and should therefore be discouraged in the strongest possible way, by everyone ...

Regarding the house prices, I agree, it's all part of the negotiation & selling process ... however, for most, the process is sub-contracted to the selling agent, who, being professionals in this area and being paid handsomely for their services, should be familiar with both the existence, performance capabilities & financial returns from pv and all other forms of renewable energy provision in order to provide their client with the 'best possible' customer service resulting in the 'best possible' price - providing a lesser service would likely be considered by some as being a breach of contract.

HTH
Z

I simply pointed out that there is no 50p+/kWh subsidy.

You are the one continuing this, rather than just admitting cardew and therefore you are wrong.

It's very simple, 48.46 is not 50+.

I pointed it out because cardew has a continual habit of posting 'facts' that are wrong/misleading.

Please look up the definition of subsidy in relation to the subject before continuing your obfuscation.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi M

It's really a non-issue, the point being that a pedantic approach to personally attack a member over such a small and understandable difference deserved the reply which was requested. If the op had answered, then the goading would have worked as intended - so, considering that the post, which I considered unacceptable, had unexplainably been endorsed by at least one member, I took the challenge on and provided two alternative explanations. Various arguments can be made around the semantics, but it's plain for everyone to see that the original post made was correct within the context which it was made ....

HTH
Z

Hiya Zeup, sorry to prolong this discussion, but I'm not sure if you are criticising me when you say 'unexplainably been endorsed'? If not then please ignore me, but if it was meant about me and the post at 8am this morning, then perhaps I thanked it too easily, perhaps not - I'm undecided.

But I think you are aware, as am I, that when it comes to Cardew's posts, you have to consider the intent as well as the content.

Now, there is nothing easier than to find out the current and past FIT rates:

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/fits/tariff-tables/Documents1/FIT%20Tariff%20Table%201%20April%202013%20PV%20Only.pdf

and the highest subsidy rate is 46.81p. Had Cardew tried to slip 'about 50p' or 'nearly 50p' through, then for the sake of a 6.8% exaggeration his naughtiness could be ignored (tolerated), but he did say 50p+, a statement which is hard to understand or explain, and seems wholly unnecessary.

Whilst I appreciate your explanation of a 50p subsidy, on this occasion I can't agree with a calculation that classes export rate and leccy savings as a subsidy.

So this then feeds back into the regular mis-information and false claims referred to in the 8am post.

I also agree with the statement that the survey probably didn't take FIT rates into account, as I doubt most of the people would have been aware of the rates or how they operated, unless of course they had previously investigated the scheme.

So, whilst I think the post was harsh, I did find it interesting, and agreed with several points, hence my thanks.

Apologies for getting involved in the pedantic argument about 50p. I normally find yours and spgsc531 butting of heads unnecessary, but I stand by my view that 50p+ was a deliberate error, designed to mis-inform, or to put it differently, another day, another myth.

Is it worth pointing out that we need renewables and low carbon generation, so subsidies are unavoidable, so constantly arguing over issues just for the entertainment of one mis-informed member, is somewhat pointless. But tolerating that mis-information would simply allow it to spread and grow. Tricky situation, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Zeup, sorry to prolong this discussion, but I'm not sure if you are criticising me when you say 'unexplainably been endorsed'?

Do you not understand 'context'?

The subject under discussion was the impact of Solar on house prices. Not the justification of FIT etc etc; good or bad, FIT is a fact of life.

In that context I posted:

Personally I would have thought that a house

with an income stream would have had some impact on the price obtained. In that respect the 'older' PV installations with their 50p+/kWh subsidy would be more attractive.

Z posted

To place into context ... regarding point 1,

testing your own assertion, two identical houses for sale, both with identical owned pv installations, one with FiTs at ~50p/kWh for 23years, the other ~15p for 19 .... which is the most attractive to the astute purchaser ? .... this is simply the point which was being made and I, supported by logic, agree in full.

Now would it have changed the context if I had posted 48.46p + xP for export, or that next year it will be 50p+/kWh or in 10 years might be 70p/kWh?

The sole point in this context was that older FIT installations have a higher income stream than the latest installations and thus would be likely to have a greater impact on house prices.

Instead you have to get involved in defending and supporting the usual childish nonsense from 'your friend'.

What objectivity!

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Do you not understand 'context'?

The subject under discussion was the impact of Solar on house prices. Not the justification of FIT etc etc; good or bad, FIT is a fact of life.

In that context I posted:
....
Z posted
....

Now would it have changed the context if I had posted 48.46p + xP for export, or that next year it will be 50p+/kWh or in 10 years might be 70p/kWh?

The sole point in this context was that older FIT installations have a higher income stream than the latest installations and thus would be likely to have a greater impact on house prices.

Instead you have to get involved in defending and supporting the usual childish nonsense from 'your friend'.

What objectivity!

Hi Cardew

Thanks for the clarification of the position within context .... it is the context which is the issue here and it's my belief that there's far too much hanging onto decontextualized extracts by some in order to play games for what can be reasonably considered as being no more than personal gratification .... to me 50p is close enough to accept within context even though we rarely agree when it comes to the issue of subsidy, as I would also expect the 15p which I purposely raised knowing it to be incorrect, but being in the right ballpark to illustrate a position - I do find it to be a little one-sided & unfortunate that exactly the same issue was presented and it wasn't actually pick-up though ... perhaps context is winning through slowly seeing that it's acceptable on at least one half of the discussion ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Now would it have changed the context if I had posted 48.46p + xP for export, or that next year it will be 50p+/kWh or in 10 years might be 70p/kWh?

Agreed, there would be little change in the context, but that doesn't explain why you would choose to state 50p+ when you should be aware that the correct figure is 46.81p.

Trying to sneak in little errors and exaggerations is pointless, and only undermines any argument you are trying to make. In the past you have expressed a dislike for ambiguous terms such as 'up to', a dislike I also share. But the addition of a '+' sign to an already inflated figure smacks of similar mischief.

There is also a throwback here to your domestic v's farm PV opinion, where your argument was boosted considerably by claiming a 20p farm subsidy, when the true rate at the time was 30.7p.

So it might appear that your use of incorrect FIT rates is less than accidental.

In future to save this silliness, why not simply use accurate information, since it's readily available. Or leave it out completely if it's not relevant to the context!

Mart.

PS @ Zeup - 15.44p does round down to 15p (too cheeky / doesn't quite fit with 19 years? Ok, I'll admit to missing that one.) M.

Harryo

spgsc531 wrote: »

I wondered how long before you surfaced again. Perhaps there should be a study into you going quiet on here after being shown up yet again, and you re-surfacing? .........
So really, like the only other 'facts' you care to 'enlighten' this forum with, it's not really relevant anymore.

Your adverse comments on Cardew are not justified. He is an active member of these forums and I have found many of his posts to be informative and technically correct. Just look at the number of posts he has made and the number of times he has been thanked.

spgsc531

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Agreed, there would be little change in the context, but that doesn't explain why you would choose to state 50p+ when you should be aware that the correct figure is 46.81p.

Trying to sneak in little errors and exaggerations is pointless, and only undermines any argument you are trying to make. In the past you have expressed a dislike for ambiguous terms such as 'up to', a dislike I also share. But the addition of a '+' sign to an already inflated figure smacks of similar mischief.

There is also a throwback here to your domestic v's farm PV opinion, where your argument was boosted considerably by claiming a 20p farm subsidy, when the true rate at the time was 30.7p.

So it might appear that your use of incorrect FIT rates is less than accidental.

In future to save this silliness, why not simply use accurate information, since it's readily available. Or leave it out completely if it's not relevant to the context!

Mart.

PS @ Zeup - 15.44p does round down to 15p (too cheeky / doesn't quite fit with 19 years? Ok, I'll admit to missing that one.) M.

Couldn't agree more. I think it's hilarious that cardew (& zeupater jumping on his bandwagon) says it's about context, really cardew?

Just to remind you what I said:

spgsc531 wrote: »

(1) There you go again, getting even simple facts wrong. Or did you deliberately exaggerate it? Please point out where this amount is true?

Don't see any context in there? What is so hard for you (cardew & zeupater) to say yes we were wrong, 50+ is wrong, instead of all the obfuscation? Amusing as it is for everyone reading.

cardew, post one of your 'facts' I will try to make sure to point it out to the forum, stop being wrong or mis-informing and it won't happen, simples.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Agreed, there would be little change in the context, !

Mart.

Do you really consider the rest of your post to be a serious adult response - look at post #1961.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Agreed, there would be little change in the context, but that doesn't explain why you would choose to state 50p+ when you should be aware that the correct figure is 46.81p.

Trying to sneak in little errors and exaggerations is pointless, and only undermines any argument you are trying to make. In the past you have expressed a dislike for ambiguous terms such as 'up to', a dislike I also share. But the addition of a '+' sign to an already inflated figure smacks of similar mischief.

There is also a throwback here to your domestic v's farm PV opinion, where your argument was boosted considerably by claiming a 20p farm subsidy, when the true rate at the time was 30.7p.

So it might appear that your use of incorrect FIT rates is less than accidental.

In future to save this silliness, why not simply use accurate information, since it's readily available. Or leave it out completely if it's not relevant to the context!

Mart.

PS @ Zeup - 15.44p does round down to 15p (too cheeky / doesn't quite fit with 19 years? Ok, I'll admit to missing that one.) M.

Hi M

I really think that semantics and previous history are outweighing a logical approach here. As stated before, the post must be considered within context, that being the viewpoint of the purchasers, therefore the following logic would/should apply ...

... would it not be true that the total FiT scheme benefit for an early adopter would currently be 48.46p/kWh ? (ie FiT+Deemed export)
... would it be likely that any potential purchasers' calculation as to what value the pv system would be to them include the total tariff plus an allowance for inflation ?
... would it be correct to say that anyone making a decision to purchase today would likely not complete on the purchase until July/August ?
... would it then be logical to say that roughly 66% (8months) of the first years FiT would be at current rates, with the remaining fraction being at next years ?
... would 50/48.46 not be considered as being 3.1% ?
... would this year's inflation not likely be around or above this figure ?
... would the purchasers' calculation therefore not likely include a figure of 50p+/kWh for each and every whole year that the FiT would apply to their system, with the only exception being the remainder of the current scheme year (prior to April 2014) ?
... would this not mean that on a purchase completed at the end of July which includes a system installed within the peak period of 2011 would still have ~23 years 4months of FiT payments remaining ?
... would this not then resolve to a purchasers calculation based on 8months of income below 50p/kWh followed by 22years 8months at 50p+/kWh ?

Considering the above, and looking at the original point of contention ... Quote ... "Personally I would have thought that a house with an income stream would have had some impact on the price obtained. In that respect the 'older' PV installations with their 50p+/kWh subsidy would be more attractive." ... then which of the following statements would more likely apply ? ....

(a) - The purchasers' calculation will be based on an averaged FiT below 50p/kWh.

... or ...

(b) - The purchasers' calculation will be based on an averaged FiT above 50p/kWh.

Leaving pedants aside, any sane individual would hopefully have arrived at the same conclusion, and if so should be in agreement with the original point being contended. The term 'income stream' is important to the context of the point as it suggests something which is not applicable at a particular time, but something which is dependent on the passage of time, the variable (time) being overlooked by some (as previously raised) .... this is why I consider the above quoted text to be correct in detail, fact & sentiment and therefore deserves support as opposed to an unnecessary & blinkered 'ad hominem' opposition ...

HTH
Z

---

PS ... M, the 19 years remaining would reflect a purchase of a property with around a 1year old installation with a reduced FiT tariff so as to compare with a higher rate system installed a year earlier therefore having 23 years remaining .... exact figures or ages were not used, and actually didn't need to be used to illustrate that an early adopter system, being based on 25 years of payments, will both have a longer period yet to run and a higher FiT tariff than one installed today, yesterday, or tomorrow, which will be based on 20 years ....

Z

---