Can we treat the governments policies on saving energy seriously?

tunnel

jeepjunkie wrote: »

Surely I can' be alone in not realising where the FIT subsidy came from when the decision was made to install PV?

QUOTE]

I didn't have a clue, and had i known it still wouldn't have made me change my mind. I had money in the bank earning a derisory interest rate and the opportunity arose.

I actually think it was better to "invest" in my panels rather than some multi national company shares that we constantly hear about using child slave labour on far away shores.

EricMears

jeepjunkie wrote: »

E.g. The fact that income tax [and I pay a lot] does not cover the benefits bill highlights how messed up the UK is. How is that right? FITs is small fry in comparison...

I realise they've effectively become income tax under another name but surely the original intention was for National Insurance contributions to fund the benefits bills.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

Nobody disputes that raising prices reduces demand - for years that has been the rationale behind increasing the tax on tobacco products.

The stupidity of the FIT system is what they do with the proceeds of the 'Green Levy' which they use as the instrument to increase electricity prices.

Many of the poorest in our society live in rented all electric flats and so pay far more of the green levy.

What possible justification is there to give that green levy money to just 2% of home owners and Rent a Roof companies.

As Monbiot states, it really is transferring £billions from the poor to the middle class.

All this rubbish you spout has been disproved many times.

You have clearly been shown up on here on many occasions the stupid things that you say are "facts".

So why do you run away and hide for a while, then pop up with the same stupid "facts" repeatedly?

You really are amusing

[Deleted User]

tunnel wrote: »

jeepjunkie wrote: »

Surely I can' be alone in not realising where the FIT subsidy came from when the decision was made to install PV?

QUOTE]

I didn't have a clue, and had i known it still wouldn't have made me change my mind. I had money in the bank earning a derisory interest rate and the opportunity arose.

I actually think it was better to "invest" in my panels rather than some multi national company shares that we constantly hear about using child slave labour on far away shores.

Yup it sickens me that 'household' names in this country exploit cheap labour/resources abroad.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Many of the poorest in our society live in rented all electric flats and so pay far more of the green levy.

spgsc531 wrote: »

All this rubbish you spout has been disproved many times.

So why do you run away and hide for a while, then pop up with the same stupid "facts" repeatedly?

Apologies that I can't remember exactly where these discussions took place, but I remember the key facts.

Firstly Cardew claimed that electric heating in social housing was 'commonplace', he has now changed that to the rather meaningless 'many'. At the same time The Green Man was trying to support the argument claiming that social housing was inferior (efficiency wise).

I can't remember who supplied the data, but I seem to recall it was Zeupater who did the analysis.

The true situation was that social housing had higher than average EPC ratings, and the leccy heating wasn't commonplace, but was about around 10%, and comparable with non social rented properties at about 7% (or thereabouts, memory letting me down on the finer details).

So, wash, rinse, replace commonplace with many, and repeat.

It's all a game of spin doctoring. A bit like taking the Green levy,
stripping out generation subsidies,
stripping out FiT subsidies,
stripping out PV FiT subsidies,
stripping out domestic PV FiT subsidies,
then ignoring eligibility, and suitability, and simply complaining that only 2% of households have taken part so far.

There's nothing like a fair analysis, and this is nothing like ......

Mart.

spgsc531

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Apologies that I can't remember exactly where these discussions took place, but I remember the key facts.

Firstly Cardew claimed that electric heating in social housing was 'commonplace', he has now changed that to the rather meaningless 'many'. At the same time The Green Man was trying to support the argument claiming that social housing was inferior (efficiency wise).

A trail of clues....

spgsc531 wrote: »

Ignoring everything else, this really did make me chuckle. Well done cardew.

silverwhistle

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Solar owners help shine light on UK’s future energy needs

“The data we collect will allow us to get a better understanding of the UK’s future energy needs. Our initial findings from these trials suggest that PV customers are typically more engaged and interested in their own energy use than customers without LCTs. We also found that compared to non-PV users, they tend to use more electricity during the day, which is the time when their solar energy is generating.

“These findings are interesting because these customers may therefore consume less energy during the early evening, when there are peaks in the demand for electricity, and when the network is under most pressure.”

I know he has to say it, but he's expressing the bleedin' obvious to any PV owner. Of course we try and use our power when it's generated.

Incidentally, I wish people would stop quoting the 50p a unit figure so freely to give the impression it is still available to new installations. I'm happy with my 14.98p, thankful that the capital cost has come down and that I'm no longer subsidising the banks so much having spent my small savings in infrastructure improvements. It's good to know I'm part of the rich middle class with my 11K a year income..

kevin6666

silverwhistle wrote: »

I know he has to say it, but he's expressing the bleedin' obvious to any PV owner. Of course we try and use our power when it's generated.

Incidentally, I wish people would stop quoting the 50p a unit figure so freely to give the impression it is still available to new installations. I'm happy with my 14.98p, thankful that the capital cost has come down and that I'm no longer subsidising the banks so much having spent my small savings in infrastructure improvements. It's good to know I'm part of the rich middle class with my 11K a year income..

Who's paying you 14.98? That exact Tariff rate has never existed in FIT.

Cardew

No vested interests in this thread then?

silverwhistle

kevin6666 wrote: »

Who's paying you 14.98? That exact Tariff rate has never existed in FIT.

You're quite right. It was a typo. Perhaps you could have pointed out or guessed that I meant 14.90...