MSE News: Government loses appeal over solar subsidy cuts

Cardew

Can you believe 'The Friends of The Earth'?

Donna Hume of charity Friends of the Earth says: "Even with the changes, solar will still represent a good investment for many people. It allows households to continue to make money from the sun – and frees them from increasingly expensive fossil fuels and a stitched-up energy market dominated by the big six.
"However, a cloud of uncertainty still hangs over the financial viability of the entire scheme. If ministers want to protect jobs and enable more people to switch to clean power, they must come up with more money to finance the scheme."

It is a 'good investment' for 1% of the UK population especially the Rent a Roof companies, the rest of us pay for their profits in higher electricity prices - including the poorest in the land. Pensioners etc.

It is not the Government 'coming up with the money' but electricity customers paying increased prices by means of a levy.

Lotus-eater

I've had an email and a call already from solar firms. Neither have said anything about the government appealing to the supreme court.
Although I did remind them

LV_Sue

jimjames wrote: »

And that was the problem in December. We ended up with different panels from those originally planned due to lack of supply of the original ones. In the end it was better to get panels installed than miss the deadline although that now looks like it may not have been the case.

That was the problem we had. Our panels were installed in late November and are larger than the original ones on the information supplied to our local council in our Permitted Development application.
Now the Council want all sorts of reports from our installer and are saying we probably will have to remove 2 of our 8 panels! We will fight this if it turns out to be the case.

The ironic thing is...........by law we didn't even have to apply for Permitted Development, but thought we would do it 'by the book' knowing there were other cases in our Borough where the Council had issues with the solar panel installations!

HalloweenJack

dont forget mr i signed up to place an advert , the government are again appealing this so its nothing like certain.

Bin_Boy

I have a hard time with this whole affair. I personally think reducing the FIT as installation costs decrease is fair play, but i have a huge problem with the irresponsible behaviour of the DECC and Chris Huhne, the notice was clearly inadequate and the consultation a farse.

What's worse they're effectively getting what they wanted because the uncertainty has significantly reduced inatallations. I personally think that the judgement should have also prevented the tariff being reduced for a further 3 months from the original april date to balance the uncertainty.

As a minimum the government should seriously consider forcing chris huhne to resign over the farse.

Cardew

Bin_Boy wrote: »

I have a hard time with this whole affair. I personally think reducing the FIT as installation costs decrease is fair play, but i have a huge problem with the irresponsible behaviour of the DECC and Chris Huhne, the notice was clearly inadequate and the consultation a farse.

What's worse they're effectively getting what they wanted because the uncertainty has significantly reduced inatallations. I personally think that the judgement should have also prevented the tariff being reduced for a further 3 months from the original april date to balance the uncertainty.

As a minimum the government should seriously consider forcing chris huhne to resign over the farse.

In the 6 weeks before Dec 12th - they doubled the amount of solar installed in UK since the introduction of FIT some 20 months earlier. Had the government not stepped in, they would used up all the allocated money.

Why should we customers have to pay more money, so solar companies can keep their noses in the trough for a few more weeks.

I am not a fan of Chris Huhne, or his party, but on this he cannot be faulted.

Pincher

Just for curiousity's sake, I searched for MCS qualified installers.

Lots of them in London. Amusing thing is, one of them qualified on 1st December 2011! :rotfl:

Talk about turning up after the party's ended.

Paul_Herring

Out of interest, anyone know when the energy subsidy for those without south-facing roofs and those living in (e.g.) flats is coming in?

You know - the people who are actually paying for the solar subsidy, but aren't getting anything out of it.

Just wondering...

HalloweenJack

you actually dont `need` a south facing roof (another lie told by rent a roof companies) , its just south is the best

a south facing roof will give optimal output of approx 90% of peak rated power , turn east/west and that drops - to about 75%

and north facing? the big no no?

actually you would get about 60% rated peak power from north facing panels

so 2kw facing south would give at best about 1800w ; same east/west would be 1500w and north facing it would be 1200w

Paul_Herring

HalloweenJack wrote: »

you actually dont `need` a south facing roof (another lie told by rent a roof companies) , its just south is the best

Then it's a lie propogated by the government as well then:

DirectGov wrote:

You can use PV systems for a building with a roof or wall that faces within 90 degrees of south.
[...]
Preferably, you need three to four square metres of southeast to southwest facing roof,...

I note you chose not to address the main point of my post however, and that is those who cannot, for whatever reason, have solar panels are subsiding those who can through increased energy bills.