MSE News: 'Why the solar subsidy cuts are so damaging'

Richie-from-the-Boro

Blowin~in~the~Wind and the green lobby: -

jamesd

"Why solar's popular ... The enthusiasm for clean power was boosted by soaring fuel bills, and the strain they put on cash-strapped householders. "

That's why solar is unpopular, not why it's popular. It contributes to the soaring fuel bills by paying a subsidy that's many times the cost of other sources of electricity, raising the bills for everyone.

The solution is to scrap the subsidies and wait until solar is cheaper than other sources of power. Then it really will be a way to save everyone money.

Cardew

Alan_the_skinflint wrote: »

So I had to re-join the MSE forums just to comment on this article. Unbelievable...



Basically there are (or hopefully were) a lot of people getting rich at the taxpayers' expense which may have benefited a small percentage of the population.



So those solar firms are profiting from government subsidies (read: "taxpayers' money") and then spending that profit taking the government to court so they can make more money - from us, the taxpayers.


No, the enthusiasm was boosted by excessive subsidies, which weren't available to everyone, but everyone pays for.





I'm sorry? the majority (all?) of the profits those firms make come from taxpayer funded subsidies, so we pay the firms, they import product (negatively affecting our trade balance) and THEN they pay us a small percentage back as tax. That isn't being "paid for", that is how this country ended up close to being broke.

I wonder how much of a donation FOE gets from these taxpayer funded profiteers...

.

I obviously agree with the thrust of your post - however it is not the taxpayer that pays the subsidies but the electricity customer in a levy on their bills.

Less than 1% of the population benefit from solar - the rest of us pay - including the poorest in the land.

John_Pierpoint

It is a bit like Greece, where the bankrupt state is collecting tax via the electricity bills.

Personally I am convinced that African governments were doing something similar using their 'phone bills; probably one of the major drivers in the penetration of mobile phones amongst an impoverished population.

Alan_the_skinflint

Cardew wrote:

it is not the taxpayer that pays the subsidies but the electricity customer in a levy on their bills.

In most cases taxpayer/customer would be interchangeable (i.e the same people, if not paying by the same mechanism) - but a taxpayer who doesn't pay electricity (for whatever reason) would not pay it so you are 100% correct.

Your point about the "poorest in the land" is very relevant, a family living in poverty aren't in a position to benefit, whereas they *are* paying (leading back to your original point) through their electricity bill/top-up.

(EDIT: But all taxpayers will be paying for any court case!)

[Deleted User]

Here's a thought..........

1% of the population are benefiting from the solar subsidy.

I'm one of the other 1% who cannot get mains gas so have to rely on heating from electricity.

So for me solar makes sense to redraw the balance...

Like I said just a thought from a personal point of view...

Unfortunately life and taxes will never be fair but I have to say it's not often the govt. allows the 'ordinary person' to make a reasonable return on an investment.

Doitin

Government and consumers paying "householders" 43p per KW when retail electricity is sold around 7p KW is an encouragement for wide scale fraud.
It is not technically difficult to plug your solar system into your mains, thereby for every pound of electricity you put into your solar system, you are paid back more than £6.
It is not feasible to physically check every installation once Feed In Tariff payments begin.
Large scale solar farms in Spain were using this method. They were caught out when they got even greedier and started producing solar electricity at night...
I doubt a UK data analysis has taken place to identify discrepancies in production between different installations.
Cutting the subsidy from 43 to 21p could still produce a fraudulent return of 3:1.
The FIT scheme was badly designed and badly implemented. Some installers, and all investors, saw a quick buck and cashed in before just as quickly crashing out.

Left to it's own devices "the market" will deliver the same feeding frenzy every time these"green" initiatives appear, and leave the tax payers to clear up the mess afterwards if it all goes wrong.

rogerblack

Doitin wrote: »

Government and consumers paying "householders" 43p per KW when retail electricity is sold around 7p KW is an encouragement for wide scale fraud.
It is not technically difficult to plug your solar system into your mains, thereby for every pound

While technically true - people have been contacted and asked to explain relatively small discrepancies.
The maximum generation of a solar panel in an area, compared to a similar one will usually be within 10%.

I would personally like us to ditch FITs, and for you to simply get paid the retail rate for your electricity, so there was no benefit in doing this - the meter 'simply' goes backwards when generating more power than is used.

Martyn1981

Doitin wrote: »

Government and consumers paying "householders" 43p per KW when retail electricity is sold around 7p KW is an encouragement for wide scale fraud.
It is not technically difficult to plug your solar system into your mains, thereby for every pound of electricity you put into your solar system, you are paid back more than £6.
It is not feasible to physically check every installation once Feed In Tariff payments begin.
Large scale solar farms in Spain were using this method. They were caught out when they got even greedier and started producing solar electricity at night...
I doubt a UK data analysis has taken place to identify discrepancies in production between different installations.
Cutting the subsidy from 43 to 21p could still produce a fraudulent return of 3:1.
The FIT scheme was badly designed and badly implemented. Some installers, and all investors, saw a quick buck and cashed in before just as quickly crashing out.

Left to it's own devices "the market" will deliver the same feeding frenzy every time these"green" initiatives appear, and leave the tax payers to clear up the mess afterwards if it all goes wrong.

The installs specifics are registered and recorded both by the FIT provider and by OFGEM. Any generation outside of that expected from the location, size and orientation are questioned.

One friend decided to upgrade his system. Whilst the new 'total' install was being registered he sent in his quarterly reading, and 2 days later got a phonecall querying his figure. Obviously this instance was fine, but he was shocked how quickly they spotted it, and on such a relatively small amount.

So, no, I wouldn't try hooking it up to the mains, the solar radiation levels are highly predictable, and more importantly systems can be crossed referenced against their nearby neighbours.

Mart.

mysterons

'retail electricity at 7p per KW', :rotfl: where?