Solar Panel Guide Discussion

zeupater

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi M

I really think that semantics and previous history are outweighing a logical approach here.

Z

Hiya Z, sadly your efforts to defend Cardew on the basis that previous history shouldn't be used to pre-judge his future intentions and actions, have been undone on your Solar News thread.

Whilst all of this may have appeared silly and petty to you, his actions do support my stance that once you allow him to sneak a small falsehood through, it only serves to bolster his confidence, and will almost certainly be repeated and followed by greater falsehoods.

The issue on this thread was never really about the small difference between 46.81p v's 50p, or the less small(!) difference between 46.81p v's 50p+, it was always about closing the door before he got his foot in it - in order to prevent growing momentum, and further falsehoods.

So, were you right to suggest that I was using previous history to pre-judge - yes you were.

Was I wrong to pre-judge him - possibly.

Was I wrong to pre-judge him on the assumption that he would continue with such silliness ...... you be the judge as I simply find his desperate actions pointless and tiresome these days.

Mart.

The_Green_Hornet

zeupater wrote: »

Does anyone else see the irony that the biggest solar pv troll on here has actually thanked this post?

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Z, sadly your efforts to defend Cardew on the basis that previous history shouldn't be used to pre-judge his future intentions and actions, have been undone on your Solar News thread.

Whilst all of this may have appeared silly and petty to you, his actions do support my stance that once you allow him to sneak a small falsehood through, it only serves to bolster his confidence, and will almost certainly be repeated and followed by greater falsehoods.

The issue on this thread was never really about the small difference between 46.81p v's 50p, or the less small(!) difference between 46.81p v's 50p+, it was always about closing the door before he got his foot in it - in order to prevent growing momentum, and further falsehoods.

So, were you right to suggest that I was using previous history to pre-judge - yes you were.

Was I wrong to pre-judge him - possibly.

Was I wrong to pre-judge him on the assumption that he would continue with such silliness ...... you be the judge as I simply find his desperate actions pointless and tiresome these days.

Mart.

Hi M

The most relevant part of the post you referenced is missing - ie ....

zeupater wrote: »

....
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 ...

I have absolutely no intent to 'defend Cardew' and am pretty sure that Cardew needs no defending. It's pretty clear from past exchanges that I often take opposing views to cardew, however, on this particular point of contention I simply see context being excluded in a pretty thinly veiled component of what seems to have been a continuous attempt to discredit another member .... this is extremely poor etiquette and even contrary to published forum rules.

If argument is necessary at least choose a point worthy of debate, one which is capable of setting one viewpoint against another, not one person against another. As everyone is aware, I'm a great supporter of renewables and energy efficiency, however, I simply disagree with the choice of issue to contend in this particular instance. I tend to justify my positions with supporting logic and in this case the logic provided seems to stack up pretty well as the term 'income stream' separates a 'point in time' from a 'period of time' and therefore negates all serious argument for selecting a point-in-time tariff as the basis for argument, whether 46.81p, 48.46 or 50p, because for the majority of the period-of-time which a purchaser in question would be considering, the rate would be 50p+ and that's why context is so extremely relevant.

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Fair enough Zeup.

Thanks for responding.

Mart.

spgsc531

zeupater wrote: »

Hi M

The most relevant part of the post you referenced is missing - ie ....



I have absolutely no intent to 'defend Cardew' and am pretty sure that Cardew needs no defending. It's pretty clear from past exchanges that I often take opposing views to cardew, however, on this particular point of contention I simply see context being excluded in a pretty thinly veiled component of what seems to have been a continuous attempt to discredit another member .... this is extremely poor etiquette and even contrary to published forum rules.

If argument is necessary at least chose a point worthy of debate, one which is capable of setting one viewpoint against another, not one person against another. As everyone is aware, I'm a great supporter of renewables and energy efficiency, however, I simply disagree with the choice of issue to contend in this particular instance. I tend to justify my positions with supporting logic and in this case the logic provided seems to stack up pretty well as the term 'income stream' separates a 'point in time' from a 'period of time' and therefore negates all serious argument for selecting a point-in-time tariff as the basis for argument, whether 46.81p, 48.46 or 50p, because for the majority of the period-of-time which a purchaser in question would be considering, the rate would be 50p+ and that's why context is so extremely relevant.

HTH
Z

Stop obfuscating, and just admit the figure is wrong.

doughnutmachine

i have to admit that i think Cardew and Graham2003 (?) have by far the strongest grasp on the challenges of electricity generation than anyone else on this forum.

all this talk of solar power not having economies of scale etc is best described as being amusing.

SkipandLucy

well thanks guys! I only wanted to know about resale value of the solar panels currently languishing on the roof of my house! lol! :cool:

Prospective purchasers have struggled with the concept of SP's despite the fact they have covered my electricity bill over the last year, both with FIT payments and reduced consumption.
bottom line is I am not giving them away so that they can benefit at my expense , so I will just have to wait and see! :beer:

John_Pierpoint

You are having all the luck:
An installer who did not know how to register the installation on the central database.
A FiT provider overloaded with applications who could not get a round tuit when given a faulty application.
An estate agent who does not understand how FiT contracts work.
Now a house buyer "... "... "........ ".......... "...... "....... "......... " ?

Would a nice colour photocopy of the next cheque from British Gas help explain?

Last year the EU imported $30 billion of PV panels from China, have your buyers mastered the concept of driving a car? If so understanding how to work PV panels should be child's play in comparison.

jimjames

SkipandLucy wrote: »

well thanks guys! I only wanted to know about resale value of the solar panels currently languishing on the roof of my house! lol! :cool:

Prospective purchasers have struggled with the concept of SP's despite the fact they have covered my electricity bill over the last year, both with FIT payments and reduced consumption.
bottom line is I am not giving them away so that they can benefit at my expense , so I will just have to wait and see! :beer:

Could you leave them in place, they get the electricity and you get the FIT payments? Pretty much like a rent a roof scheme