MSE News: Legal battle launched over solar subsidy cuts

whasup

bris wrote: »

RAR schemes are free with most of the big installers, what did you pay the £500 for? Do you realise that it could take 5 to 10 years in electricity savings just to get your £500 back.

I was wondering that? Without the the FIT you get all the disadvantages with virtually no benefit. The rar company should have paid you £500.

WhiteHorse

Marvellous how business types (normally the first to rant 'layabouts living off the taxpayer'), suddenly think that subsidies are some sort of right.

HalloweenJack

whole price of panels is 95p per watt for german and 70p per watt for chinese

grahamc2003

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Marvellous how business types (normally the first to rant 'layabouts living off the taxpayer'), suddenly think that subsidies are some sort of right.

Yeah, but the layabouts aren't saving the planet with their handouts. The general middle class taking money from all classes including many less well off and some on the breadline and in fuel poverty is just right and dandy through green tinted specs.

The_Green_Hornet

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Yeah, but the layabouts aren't saving the planet with their handouts. The general middle class taking money from all classes including many less well off and some on the breadline and in fuel poverty is just right and dandy through green tinted specs.

You don't have to wear green tinted specs to see that there is easy money is to be made by sticking some solar panels on your roof.

The Queen is one energy price increase away from "fuel poverty" so it is a totally meaningless term in my opinion, and when was the last time you saw a "breadline?

grahamc2003

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

You don't have to wear green tinted specs to see that there is easy money is to be made by sticking some solar panels on your roof.

I agree.

But you need green tinted specs to be unaware of where the easy money comes from.

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

The Queen is one energy price increase away from "fuel poverty" so it is a totally meaningless term in my opinion, and when was the last time you saw a "breadline?

I'm more interested in the substance rather than the semantics.

ed110220

I think the thing people are forgetting is that the intention of the FIT subsidy for solar was to decrease the price of the systems long-term by building up an industry on a reasonable scale. In that sense, they were successful in that the costs have steady come down, and quite dramatically too.

I don't think the intention was ever to massively subsidise every house with a suitable roof to have a solar PV system, it was to bring down the price of solar and make it more competitive with gas etc, which have been rising in price.

It's true this has added to the cost of electricity, but only very marginally compared with the increase due to rising gas prices.

Cardew

ed110220 wrote: »

I think the thing people are forgetting is that the intention of the FIT subsidy for solar was to decrease the price of the systems long-term by building up an industry on a reasonable scale. In that sense, they were successful in that the costs have steady come down, and quite dramatically too.

I don't think the intention was ever to massively subsidise every house with a suitable roof to have a solar PV system, it was to bring down the price of solar and make it more competitive with gas etc, which have been rising in price.

It's true this has added to the cost of electricity, but only very marginally compared with the increase due to rising gas prices.

The Government had to meet treaty obligations to generate a certain amount of solar energy as part of the Green mix.

There was never any intent to 'build up the solar industry'. That industry has sprung up almost overnight to feed off the rich pickings - particularly the Rent a Roof companies who found and exploited a loophole.

Is there anything more crazy than having scores of thousands of tiny systems on roofs of houses(often unsuitable roofs) dotted all over the UK and paying them huge subsidies. Don't forget that if a house uses 50% of its generated electricity in the house, the cost of each exported kWh of electricity is 88 pence!

We could achieve exactly the same production of solar energy by having huge solar farms in Devon and Cornwall for a tiny fraction of the subsidy. about 20%?

Pennylane

bris wrote: »

RAR schemes are free with most of the big installers, what did you pay the £500 for? Do you realise that it could take 5 to 10 years in electricity savings just to get your £500 back.

I've already explained what we got for our £500 and I'm not unhappy. We would have needed scaffolding to do some work and that would have been a couple of hundred quid anyway. It's my money! There are other schemes (now) which are doing it for "free" but over a year ago there weren't.

My friend looked into one of the "free" ones but the firm looked at the electricity you used and she was hoping she could start using more daytime electricity but they said she couldn't go beyond what she normally used.

We're talking £500 not £5000 and what's that? A couple of trips round the supermarket, a few meals out with friends, nearly a tank full of heating oil. And if I want to I can buy my panels. I think you're more concerned than I am!;)

jamesingram

Cardew .
I'm sure you're aware of inefficiency when transporting electricial energy over large distances. Is this considered in your 20% figure.
Mircogeneration for onsite(local) usage removes the high losses of generated energy that such farms would suffer.

If the FIT tariff was not intended 'build up the solar industry' then it's clearly been a side effect , kit price is now 50% what is was when the tariff started, one potential reason for this is that UK wholesalers (due to FITS) have the confidence to buy in bulk.

cheers