Can we treat the governments policies on saving energy seriously?

silverwhistle

Cardew wrote: »

No vested interests in this thread then?

Oh, absolutely. Hadn't you noticed that society is full of them, and not normally as transparent as on here. I'm sure you have your own vested interest in something or other, the only difference being we don't know what they are so can't go on interminably about them.

Taking advantage of a particular, legal, government encouraged policy doesn't mean we can't also be in favour of better schemes for improving the housing stock, better insulation or whatever.

Trying to build up resentment towards people who have invested in this way is negative and destructive. By all means campaign for a change in direction, but in the meantime don't complain about those of us who are doing something about our personal situation. Perhaps you can afford to ignore the small additional monthly income that FITS will represente, but _I_ can't, and that 50 quid is important to me..

Kernel_Sanders

Cardew wrote: »

George Monbiot is not exactly popular on this Board;)

He appears to be an idiot. He wrote Though there's a system to ensure functioning devices are installed, it can't be long before thousands of petty criminals discover the perfect carousel fraud, bypassing their solar panels by connecting the incoming wire to the outgoing wire. :rotfl:
He's also factually incorrect when he states if you sell power to the grid rather than using it yourself, you get an extra 3p

kevin6666

You lot would be surprised how open to fraud the FIT scheme is. Meters that are worth about a tenner and frankly it's all game on. MCS Installers that are trying to flog these things to customers more than happy to lie about installation dates in a bid to not lose a sale.

Ya know what Ofgem does about these when informed? Oh yea..nothing.

Those that have invested 1000s in panels etc will of cause argue about cancer rates and all sort of new scientist nonsense.

Get real, if power plants stopped working where would you be..screwed. If all the small PV systems stopped tomorrow what would happen? Nothing.

Lets invest in real stuff.

Cardew

silverwhistle wrote: »

Oh, absolutely. Hadn't you noticed that society is full of them, and not normally as transparent as on here. I'm sure you have your own vested interest in something or other, the only difference being we don't know what they are so can't go on interminably about them.

Taking advantage of a particular, legal, government encouraged policy doesn't mean we can't also be in favour of better schemes for improving the housing stock, better insulation or whatever.

Trying to build up resentment towards people who have invested in this way is negative and destructive. By all means campaign for a change in direction, but in the meantime don't complain about those of us who are doing something about our personal situation. Perhaps you can afford to ignore the small additional monthly income that FITS will represente, but _I_ can't, and that 50 quid is important to me..

I suggest you go back through all my posts on this subject and you will see that time and again I have stressed that there is no criticism of anyone taking advantage of a stupid government scheme - not even Rent a Roof companies. This post earlier in the thread summed up the situation perfectly, and with which I am totally in agreement:

I can't speak for other solar 'enthusiasts' but if the Government is going to pay me 50p/kWh income then I will gladly bite their hand off to offset the ever increasing energy costs I have to endure.

That is what I like about politicians, they always enact poorly thought out schemes where intelligent people can take advantage to make a few quid.

What amuses me is the disingenuous attempts to justify FITs on the grounds that somehow their PV systems are saving the world from global warming, rather than them cashing-in on an ill thought-out and unjust system.

As for your comment 'By all means campaign', that is exactly what I am doing - and by entering the 'Lions Den' and tweaking a few tails it might help.

P.S.
Yes we all have our 'vested interests' - I rather liked the idea of buying a few hundred acres of land in Scotland and plant fir trees as a tax [STRIKE]evasion[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]avoidance[/STRIKE] planning scheme;)

However I am certain I wouldn't try and dream up some disingenuous claptrap to justify the scheme.

Martyn1981

kevin6666 wrote: »

You lot would be surprised how open to fraud the FIT scheme is. Meters that are worth about a tenner and frankly it's all game on. MCS Installers that are trying to flog these things to customers more than happy to lie about installation dates in a bid to not lose a sale.

Ya know what Ofgem does about these when informed? Oh yea..nothing.

Care to expand on this, provide some evidence?

While you're at it, care to explain how yesterday you were able to query a typo in the FiT rate of 8 hundredths of a penny, but a few days ago you said that nuclear would make our bills cheaper - so presumably generate for less than the current average supply price of ~ £45/MWh, when the actual CfD announced 'everywhere' is double that figure. Selective memory recall perhaps?

Mart.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

As for your comment 'By all means campaign', that is exactly what I am doing - and by entering the 'Lions Den' and tweaking a few tails it might help.

Nope, this isn't campaigning, it's simply whining! Also a true campaigner wouldn't use false facts to create false arguments.

The FiT schemes were considered and launched, so no need for you to keep moaning (on here) about one of the hundreds (or should that be thousands) of subsidies, benefits, schemes etc that exist.

Since its launch it has done exactly what it was designed to do. Think about that for a moment ..... you might not like (nor understand) the job of the scheme, but it has been a total success since it has done what it was designed to do, but far, far faster than anyone expected.

So we have a scheme, that exists, and is running successfully, but you think that complaining about it, with lots of false facts and spin doctoring is 'campaigning'. No it aint.

Had to laugh at your description of these threads as the 'Lions Den', are you trying for sainthood through martyrdom? Should we call you Daniel from now on?

Let's see, the scheme was launched and you and Graham started attacking everyone on these threads with rude posts, and false facts, preventing any rational debate on the subject. Now that informed individuals are fighting back, WITH FACTS, you think that you are some sort of moral campaigner?

If you have a better solution to renewables (which need subsidy support) then why don't you say so. Why for years have you refused to offer an alternative ..... to alternatives, especially the many FiT schemes that allow household participation?

Mart.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

As for your comment 'By all means campaign', that is exactly what I am doing - and by entering the 'Lions Den' and tweaking a few tails it might help.

However I am certain I wouldn't try and dream up some disingenuous claptrap to justify the scheme.

cardew would rather constantly dream up some disingenuous claptrap to whine about it instead

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So we have a scheme, that exists, and is running successfully, but you think that complaining about it, with lots of false facts and spin doctoring is 'campaigning'.

Do you not realise how silly your ‘Cardew said this, or Cardew said that’ posts make you look?

Do you feel your constant(and failed) attempts to discredit me make up for your failure to see the ‘big picture’? I don’t think I have read anyone on MSE so fixated with minutia and so lacking in logic.

For instance your definition of success of the scheme is that people have cashed in on a good investment.

The ‘Big Picture’ is that the FIT system was, and still is, an ill thought out scheme that has enabled £billions to be transferred from the less well-off to middle class home owners and venture capitalists owning Rent a Roof companies.


Do you really feel that finding, and usually misinterpreting, something I wrote in 2010 changes the ‘Big Picture’.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

Do you not realise how silly your ‘Cardew said this, or Cardew said that’ posts make you look?

Speaking of silly posts making you look silly....

Cardew wrote: »

Lastly, I don't need, or want, patronising remarks about being 'quite inteligent'.

was hilarious

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Do you really feel that finding, and [STRIKE]usually misinterpreting[/STRIKE] quoting, something I wrote in 2010 changes the ‘Big Picture’.

Since there has been no fundamental change in the FiT scheme since it was launched - other than the dramatic speeding up of the degression mechanism - everything you have said, and tried to argue over the past 4 years, should have stood the test of time.

If you'd used facts, and avoided spin, you wouldn't now have to fear the hypocrisy of going in ever decreasing circles.

Moving on, since you don't appear to like the payment of subsidies for renewables, especially schemes available to the public, what do you suggest as an alternative to alternatives? Time to be constructive, solutions to problems, not problems to solutions!

Mart.