MSE News: Legal battle launched over solar subsidy cuts

Cardew

bris wrote: »

You mean like the fossil fuel industry which gets subsidies worth 10 times what all the renewable energies get combined.
The coal used to generate our electricity has been subsidised for years ever since maggie destroyed our coal industry.

Nuclear power, the cost to the tax payer just to decommision the last generation of nuclear power is going to be £72billion.

The cost of solar subsidies are nothing in comparison to whats already been paid and will be paid again to kep the lights on, so don't think for a minute your hard done by just because of solar power.

Not for one minute do I accept your statistics, however that is not the point of this discussion and your comparison is a argument devoid of merit.

Any subsidy to the coal/nuclear generating industry is to enable them to supply energy cheaper, to all customers, than it would be without those subsidies. That subsidy is paid from taxation.

The subsidies for solar(FIT) have exactly the opposite effect. They directly increase the price of electricity for all customers(the subsidy is not paid for by taxation). The vast profits from these subsidies are paid to a tiny fraction(less than 0.5%) of the population. i.e. Those wealthy enough to be able to afford £10,000+ or even worse venture capitalists who fund the Rent a Roof companies.

The sole purpose of encouraging renewable energy was to meet our environmental committments. However the Government simply got it's figures wrong in the level of subsidy and enabled huge profits to be made - profits that we pay in higher electricity prices.

The bleating is coming from an industry that has its snouts removed from the trough earlier than expected.

[Deleted User]

Cardew wrote: »

The stupidly high subsidy(FIT) is not paid from taxes but a levy on the electricity bills of all other customers.

This means that even the poorest in the land - pensioners etc - pay for the well-off to enjoy a large income. Even worse is the fact that the FIT scheme has been exploited by the so called Rent A Roof firms finding a loophole so they get all the subsidies meant for an individual. Many firms will be raking in many £millions each, inflation linked for 25 years and paid for by us electricity customers.

The vast majority cannot take advantage of the subsidy as they rent not own, live in flats or houses with unsuitable roofs.

As soon as the cuts were announced giving the 12 Dec deadline, a feeding frenzy started and the UK's solar capacity doubled in 6 weeks.

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/decc_reveal_deadline_week_figures_2356/



Friends of the Earth as usual see everything through a 'Green Haze' 'if its green its wonderful!'

I don't have a lot of time for this Government, but by putting an end to this crazy system of subsidy, they are at least showing some sense.

Yeah I always thought the govt. should have stuck to the original deadline and changed it then.

Cutting it early has only inceased the number of installs through publicity.

Crazy...

ashleyriot

Any subsidy in any form - whether it be on electricity, petrol or FIT is economically incorrect and distorts the market - it would be far better to give further tax breaks to those in financial difficulty and at the same time make everyone be a bit more careful with how they spend (whenever something is cheaper, people are more wasteful anyway).

There are massive profit margins for the fitters of solar panels and that needs to be eradicated now. They can charge so much because there is so much 'profit' for the household over 25 years - far better to charge £5,000 and see a return of £12,000 over 25 years (at little cost to the tax payer) than charge £12,000 to see a return of £25,000 over 25 years.

If you're interested more in that first paragraph, read some books by Robert H. Frank - start with The Economic Naturalist and then try The Return of the Economic Naturalist, which has loads about tax and subsidies in it.

thenudeone

pete_v wrote: »

If domestic solar panels can be made economically viable, then great. But if they're not, the rest of us should not be paying people to install them. Let them stand on their own two feet like any other form of energy.

Pete

What has whether solar panels are economically viable got to do with whether we need to reduce CO2 output to prevent global climate catastrophe?

I am a great believer in free market economics and in the ability of free trade to improve well-being BUT if we have learned anything from the economic mess of the last four years it is that using purely short-term financial measures to assess decisions which have long term and far-reaching consequences will result in some very poor decisions being made!

Sometimes doing what is right for the long term future of the planet will not be a good decision when assessed using purely financial measures. Surely that doesn't surprise you. Or does it?

whasup

I am a chartered surveyor and the majority of my work is design and development - new builds, conversions, refurbs etc. So I come in contact with a large number of contractors of all types - including solar fitters. One contractor (who happens to also be a good friend) went into solar about 12 months ago. He had an existing High Street presence, contacts, equipment etc. and a good start on the knowledge so it seemed to make sense. The other day I saw him and asked him what he was going to do. His response was quite supsrising; he said he was really not bothered with the way it had turned out (with the FIT etc.) because the business is a full of sharks who tell lies to punters and will basically do and say anything to get an order. You either do the same or you don't get any business and that's not something he wants to be involved with. His ending words were; solar cowboys are the new double glazing cowboys .

When you see net adverts which proclaim 'solar panels can produce 50% of your annual electricity' - which I saw the other day - it makes you realise what a rotten business it is. And all with the full support of those lovely fluffy people down at Friends of the Earth. Brilliant.

PS. You'll be pleased to know that my friend made an absolute fortune in the month or so leading up to December so he's not going to starve in the next 12 months.

Cardew

thenudeone wrote: »

What has whether solar panels are economically viable got to do with whether we need to reduce CO2 output to prevent global climate catastrophe?

I am a great believer in free market economics and in the ability of free trade to improve well-being BUT if we have learned anything from the economic mess of the last four years it is that using purely short-term financial measures to assess decisions which have long term and far-reaching consequences will result in some very poor decisions being made!

Sometimes doing what is right for the long term future of the planet will not be a good decision when assessed using purely financial measures. Surely that doesn't surprise you. Or does it?

Every thinking person can appreciate there is an argument for renewable energy. Either to prevent [STRIKE]global warming [/STRIKE] (sorry) climate change or to preserve our stock of fossil fuel; and I do mean 'argument' as there are opposing views on the subject.

However, this particular discussion is centred on the indisputable fact that the Government fixed the level of subsidy for solar energy far too high and has enabled huge profits to be made - profits paid for by all customers.

Not even the solar industry argue that the level of subsidy(FIT) shouldn't be reduced, they are simply in court to attempt to delay the date of the FIT reduction to enable them to make huge profits for a few more months.

The_Pixi

Hi can someone explain to me what the 'subsidy' is?

I don't own my own home but had always wanted solar panels when I do (mostly for the end of the world sinarios I pictured, like 28 days later, and that having electricity in those event would be good)

I understood that if I had a few thousand I could outright pay for panels (something I was factoring into a house purchase in the future) and unused/spare electric would be sold back to the grid?

So where is the subsidy? Is it the cost of the panels?

If my house generates electricity and I SELL my commodity to someone is that subsidy, I'm sure you are all correct I have just not got where the subsidy comes in.

If the Grid won't pay a good rate for the electricity couldn't I just cut it off and not give it to them? Small peanuts to them I guess.

jamesd

The subsidy is the cost of the power to other consumers. That was 37.8p per kWh for power you use, with no charge to you for that power, plus and additional 3.1p per kWh for any power you don't use but instead export to the grid for other users.

The wholesale cost of power in general is around five to six pence per kWh, about half of the price per kWh paid by consumers for their electricity. So your subsidy would have been about 33p per kWh you use yourself and 36p for power you didn't use.

The costs of those subsidies to those with panels are paid by other consumers in their electricity bills. That's why there are people here posting who are happy at reduction in the subsidy and would be happier with elimination.

The new rates are generally described as about half of those.

The panel cost isn't subsidised.

whasup

The_Pixi wrote: »

Hi can someone explain to me what the 'subsidy' is?

I don't own my own home but had always wanted solar panels when I do (mostly for the end of the world sinarios I pictured, like 28 days later, and that having electricity in those event would be good)

I understood that if I had a few thousand I could outright pay for panels (something I was factoring into a house purchase in the future) and unused/spare electric would be sold back to the grid?

So where is the subsidy? Is it the cost of the panels?

If my house generates electricity and I SELL my commodity to someone is that subsidy, I'm sure you are all correct I have just not got where the subsidy comes in.

If the Grid won't pay a good rate for the electricity couldn't I just cut it off and not give it to them? Small peanuts to them I guess.

The subsidy is called the 'feed in tarif'. (or FIT) Which means you get paid an amount for the electricity you feed back into the grid. Dreadfully inefficient though. My advice is look into solar water heating. Much cheaper, you don't have the huge array of panels on the roof that will devalue your house and the product (a tank of hot water) can be used any time.

The_Pixi

Ahhhh, I'm still confused, sorry to keep asking.

I read the solar page on mse and still can't understand (I'm normally pretty sharp with this money saving)

So you are paid for electricity you generate yourself?

If so that is interesting, I saw the panels as a way of generating free electricity whilst selling off excess, by generating free energy I reduced my bill?

And to the people in the room hands up who thinks their bill will be reduced if this 'subsidy' payment thing is reduced?