We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Solar Panels --- a bit of a Gimmick
Options
Comments
-
good job quoting a reference to non owner houses to owner houses having R-a-R
but it's not what i said
I said non owner houses with R-a-R to owner houses who have bought.....
Z well done thanking him for his irrelevant post
This is what you stated:Ive already pointed out why your post was irrelevant. A tiny proportion of owner houses will have R-a-R panels compared to purchased ones. the vast majority of R-a-R panels have gone to council houses,HA houses etc.
Read A Shade Greener's website
http://ashadegreener.co.uk/
http://ashadegreener.co.uk/myths/0 -
This is what you stated:
Read A Shade Greener's website
http://ashadegreener.co.uk/
http://ashadegreener.co.uk/myths/
Yes, A tiny proportion of owner houses will have R-a-R panels compared to purchased ones.
Your point???0 -
I see your modifying posts now Cardew.....Grats....0
-
Hi Don
Again, unnecessary abuse .... why do you need to be so abusive to people on both sides of a discussion ? ....
Anyway ... I actually made a point which describes a situation where solar panels could reduce the value of a house at the time of sale, you simply made a counter position ... I could be right, so could you, therefore your post above is factually incorrect .....
also .... regarding the other recent post ....
.... if we're considering the value of a property there's an obvious link to selling that property, why else would anyone be looking at values as any real value is what a buyer is willing to pay. If a buyer doesn't like the idea of a restrictive contract being in place on a property they would have a number of options which would include walking away and reducing the offer price on the property. If a buyer likes solar pv and wants to take advantage of FiT payments the option would be to buy the house with the R-A-R panels and then buy-out the remaining contract, so let's look at an example of what is likely to happen ....
Two houses are for sale in the same road and the only difference is one has a recently fitted R-A-R system and the other doesn't. A potential purchaser who wants an owned pv system in order to take advantage of FiT payments looks at both properties and needs to make a decision on what to offer ....
Property 1 - House Value + ~23/24 year contract buyout of 3.3kWp system for £14000+VAT (20%) = £16800
Property 2 - House Value + new 3.3kWp system for £6800 inc VAT.
... so logically, wouldn't the purchaser initially look at the price they would be willing to pay, including pv, then set the offer price accordingly, so ..... Offer Price = (Total - 16800) v (Total - 6800) ... which would mean an offer of £10k less for the house with the existing R-A-R system.
Regarding Larkim .... From previous discussions I understand the logic which was used in making the decision and as he(?) has posted in the past, part of the decision was related to the plan to stay in the house for the duration of the restrictive contract, therefore the effect on the saleable value of the property was irrelevant and the value of the energy savings would be welcome, however small, therefore the logic employed is sound in my opinion.
HTH
Z
That's the exception that makes the rule? right?0 -
Do you not feel that it is a trifle arrogant for you to attempt(and fail) to sum up everyone’s stance on PV? Even worse to then base your criticism on that incorrect analysis.
On the contrary, I've clearly pointed out that I'm simply unable to understand what your position is, as your arguments make no sense. On the 'Good or Bad' thread, each time one of your views was exhaustively answered and your errors pointed out, you would cry foul, and claim that, that was not what the thread was about and try another angle. Same result every time.My position on PV has been quite consistent. It is good clean environmentally friendly electricity that is extremely expensive to produce. The unpredictable nature, and inability to generate at times of peakload(i.e. after sunset!) are major drawbacks.
As has been answered over and over and over (yawn), yes it's expensive that's why it's subsidised. Is the argument that something is subsidised being used to argue against a subsidy? Prices are falling fast - due to worldwide subsidies. Success?
Not generating after dark, used to criticise, again, yawn. So what, does anyone expect them too? The clue is in the word 'solar'. If failure to help with the winter peak means they are a failure, then under the same broken logic, their ability to provide support for the summer peak must mean they are a huge success? Silly, irrelevant argument, as always. They do what they say on the tin. Nothing more, nothing less.However if our political masters determine that we must generate PV electricity, then it should be generated as efficiently and cheaply as possible. That would mean large solar farms – preferably in SW England – or near where it would be most beneficial. It could be situated on factory/supermarket roofs, brownfield sites or farmland on raised platforms.
To pay stupidly high subsidies to have tiny systems on scores of thousands of roofs in far flung locations across UK is a nonsense. To compound this situation by paying those subsidies to house owners and rent a roof companies for electricity they don’t even have to export is unbelievable!
There hasn’t been a single coherent argument against solarfarms, who could produce electricity at a fraction of the subsidy paid to houseowners and Rent a Roof firms.
Even if the weird proposition - that the UK’s contribution of solar installations has been instrumental in driving down worldwide solar production costs - had any merit, solar farms would support that notion.
Actually that is not true. You may wish to claim that this has never been answered on a thread where you have brought it up for the first time. But on all of the numerous threads where you have made the same statement, it has been answered, over and over and over (yawn). Distribution losses, annual running costs, lower revenue from selling at wholesale costs, not savings against retail prices, etc.
On every occasion (20+?) you have been asked / or could have chosen, to supply counter numbers to prove that such sites are economically superior. You never do, you just 'point it out again' somewhere else.
My position on solar PV farms is, depending on annual running costs such sites can probably produce electricity cheaper, however, the wholesale v's retail price may mean that they are not financially superior. As this is private investors money, the case has to be solid. Any chance you will finally run some numbers on this?
A far better, and quicker solution, would be to encourage industry and commerce to install systems on their own roofs, for their own consumption. Systems greater than 20kWp, but no larger than their normal daily consumption, would have large economies of scale, with no infrastructure connection concerns. Many organisations now have 7 day openings and would consume near enough 100% of generation. Those savings would then be valued at retail, not wholesale pricing. And even today, be borderline financially viable without subsidies as installed costs should be less than £1500/kWp.
Lastly, I note that your usual, 'takes from the poor to give to the rich', argument is missing. Do you now realise that PV (and other renewables) could actually help to stabilise energy prices in the long-term, by injecting cheap electricity (or reduced demand) into the mix, albeit, at irregular times?
For anyone else reading this, who has bravely made it to the end of my lengthy lecture (sorry), I would strongly suggest reading the 'Solar PV Feed in Tariffs - Good or Bad?' thread. All comments are only those of the contributors, but all of the above arguments have been discussed in great detail, and contains a lot of information and referenced material. Saves repeating it on different threads, over, and over and over yawn!
Mart.Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 20kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
HiThat's the exception that makes the rule? right?
It seems that it's pretty plain for all to see that you've now re-read the posting and note that you've been arguing against an exception .... a position where it is possible to see that there are circumstances where "Who says they could devalue your house?" can be answered, note the use of could, so is it possible that panels could devalue a owner-occupied house. The answer to the question is therefore - I say that it could, not that it would, but in certain circumstances it could and that's all I have posted and supplied supporting logic for.
Again I note that there have been multiple replies to a single post ... is it possible that you could actually read, digest and understand what has been posted before rushing into the predictable abuse in the future as it would certainly keep the unnecessary post count down and encourage others to participate in debate without the expectation of illogical vitriol.
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
0 -
Hi
It seems that it's pretty plain for all to see that you've now re-read the posting and note that you've been arguing against an exception .... a position where it is possible to see that there are circumstances where "Who says they could devalue your house?" can be answered, note the use of could, so is it possible that panels could devalue a owner-occupied house. The answer to the question is therefore - I say that it could, not that it would, but in certain circumstances it could and that's all I have posted and supplied supporting logic for.
Again I note that there have been multiple replies to a single post ... is it possible that you could actually read, digest and understand what has been posted before rushing into the predictable abuse in the future as it would certainly keep the unnecessary post count down and encourage others to participate in debate without the expectation of illogical vitriol.
Z
as you always do, you Sir Humphrey out of the facts
golfclap, Sir Humphrey....
Hi
It seems that it's pretty plain for all to see that you've now re-read the posting and note that you've been making a post. You could argue that making a post could be a post or it could not be a post! Let us develop this argument, if you regard a posting as a post it could be regarded a post but note i did not say it would be a post! Of course you could argue that a post is the exception to the rule of posts, but as i clearly stated it could be a post, you are wrong! arguing against an exception .... a position where it is possible to see that there are circumstances where "Who says they could make a post?" can be answered, note the use of could, so is it possible that posts could devalue a owner-occupied house. The answer to the question is therefore - I say that it could, not that it would, but in certain circumstances it could and that's all I have posted and supplied supporting logic for.
Don
if the cap fits?0 -
Another unnecessary post which makes just as much sense as many others and yet still attempts abusiveness ......as you always do, you Sir Humphrey out of the facts
golfclap, Sir Humphrey....
QED
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle0 -
Another unnecessary post which makes just as much sense as many others and yet still attempts abusiveness ......
QED
Z
While I admire you for patience beyond the call of duty, I really can't see how you ever expect anything other than a nonsensical post with a dollop of abuse from Don. A cut and paste of a long reasoned post followed by just several words usually unconnected. At first, I thought it was just responses to me, then you and Cardew got the same, and now it's everybody, with the exception of maybe just one equally clueless.
Don, you didn't until recently have a job installing panels did you? Did you previously post as K4Blades on this forum?
While it's quite disturbing watching anyone sensible with good ideas and knowledge getting shouted down by your ubiquitous and universal argument 'I am right, you are wrong' (and that's the extent of any reasoning you put forward) together with abuse ensuring most think twice before bothering to post again. I sometimes wonder of the value of this thread to newcomers looking for reasonable information.1
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards