MSE News: Certainty for households as Government solar subsidy bid defeated

stottyb

Anyone who got in before March 3rd is laughing. System prices these days are incredibly low though. I've just invested before the EPC certification is required (i live in an old property). I got a 4kw for £6,995 fully installed. For me, south-east facing roof, i'm expecting just shy of £1000 a year.

The FiT, even at 21p gets a big thumbs up from me

John_Pierpoint

oldvicar wrote: »

Being only slightly serious for a moment:

An exceptionally mild winter in 2020 just might help us hit the target. And if global warming is as big a threat as some pundits say, we might just get such warm weather (a bit like today's mid-summer temperatures!)

20% by 2020 is the soft target, look how easy it gets to pass legislation for your children and grand children, when your role is to push up daisies:

The Climate Change Act 2008 sets a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. The Act also requires Government to set carbon budgets, which are limits on greenhouse gas emissions in the UK for consecutive five year periods. These carbon budgets must be set at least three budget periods in advance. They are designed to put emission reductions on an appropriate and cost-effective pathway to our 2050 target.
The first three carbon budgets were set in 2009, following advice from the independent Committee on Climate Change. The Fourth Carbon Budget – the limit on emissions for the five year period from 2023 to 2027 – has to be set in law by the end of June 2011.
As advised by the Committee on Climate Change, the level we propose setting in law would mean that net emissions over the Fourth Carbon Budget period should not exceed 1950 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. - a 50% reduction from 1990 levels.

Mind you the man who delivered that is currently facing charges of dishonesty?

Never has there been such a huge gap between the perceptions of the governors and the governed.

John_Pierpoint

stottyb wrote: »

Anyone who got in before March 3rd is laughing. System prices these days are incredibly low though. I've just invested before the EPC certification is required (i live in an old property). I got a 4kw for £6,995 fully installed. For me, south-east facing roof, i'm expecting just shy of £1000 a year.

The FiT, even at 21p gets a big thumbs up from me

"Fill your boots" it won't last. The FiT will be coming down again soon, the contract will be limited to 20 years (no longer 25), the indexation will be against CSI (not RPI); but the export rate is likely to increase from 3.1p, as that is looking cheap for day time power, especially as most people export more than the deemed 50%.

BTW the energy performance certificate is a bit like going in for an MOT on a car that might be ready for the breakers, because it looks like failing its emission limits and it is uneconomic to repare because its value will be less than the costs of teh improvement. [I have such a car!].
You could call in a EPC assessor, mine charged £45, be tipped the wink that the house is over the limit for PV panels but go ahead and get them installed and have the assessor come back at the same time. Surprise surprise that £7K investment together with a few more simple things like changing the light bulbs should tick enough boxes to get the "improved" house through its emissions test.

Now if you had tried to explain this to a motorist 20 years ago, the vast majority of them worried about their rust buckets; it would have been suggested to you that bats were moving into your belfry.
The very thought of scrapping a vehicle with good brakes and steering, though getting a little bit heavy on oil and petrol consumption, must demonstrate a shortage of sandwiches in the pic nic.

For those still to be convinced that the wreckers ball is just a little bit nearer to what they regard as their "heritage" home; just remember that the budget is intended to extract another £100 million a year from those high income individuals, scouring the countryside to find a run down building of special heritage importance to convert to a high statues dream home. That is justg a nudge towards knock it down and rebuild "sustainably" - "Zero carbon" here we come.

ivorthought

It seems that the relatively new UK Supreme Court has some teeth afterall. After centuries of appellate courts being politically controlled by executive dominated Lord Chancellors , who in recent years tended to be the college buddies of incumbent Prime Ministers, the Supreme Court has on more than one occasion forced the Government to obey the law.
The confusion caused by the present Con Lib Government could have wrecked the process of trying to find more ecological and ethical ways of producing "natural" and relatively safe energy. I went ahead with installing solar panels in post December 12th 2011 but ,until now, had no certainty of whether or not I could afford the venture in the long run. I wonder how many people , however, have been deterred from looking at solar energy because of the incompetence of the present Tory led Government.
So, well done Supreme Court in keeping at least some check on Government shenanigans. More please.

Cardew

ivorthought wrote: »

It seems that the relatively new UK Supreme Court has some teeth afterall. After centuries of appellate courts being politically controlled by executive dominated Lord Chancellors , who in recent years tended to be the college buddies of incumbent Prime Ministers, the Supreme Court has on more than one occasion forced the Government to obey the law.
The confusion caused by the present Con Lib Government could have wrecked the process of trying to find more ecological and ethical ways of producing "natural" and relatively safe energy. I went ahead with installing solar panels in post December 12th 2011 but ,until now, had no certainty of whether or not I could afford the venture in the long run. I wonder how many people , however, have been deterred from looking at solar energy because of the incompetence of the present Tory led Government.
So, well done Supreme Court in keeping at least some check on Government shenanigans. More please.

Welcome to the forum.

I couldn't agree with you less.

All this decision means is that you, and others* - particularly the Rent a Roof companies, get the stupidly high subsidy of 43.3p/kWh. Thus, given there is a finite sum for FITs, we get half the solar electricity generated than would have been generated if FIT was 21p/kWh.

Bear in mind that this subsidy(FIT) is paid directly by a levy on the bills of all electricity consumers - 99% of whom don't have solar and the vast majority unable ever to have solar panels(flat owners, tenants, unsuitable roof etc)

The Government's decision to reduce the FIT early was practical and sensible; albeit ruled unlawful because of a technicality and nothing to do with the production of solar energy. As said above, had the decision gone the other way there would have been twice as much solar energy produced in UK for the same amount of subsidy.

* There is no criticism implied of you or anyone else who takes advantage of the scheme

[Deleted User]

Cardew wrote: »

Welcome to the forum.

I couldn't agree with you less.

All this decision means is that you, and others* - particularly the Rent a Roof companies, get the stupidly high subsidy of 43.3p/kWh. Thus, given there is a finite sum for FITs, we get half the solar electricity generated than would have been generated if FIT was 21p/kWh.

Bear in mind that this subsidy(FIT) is paid directly by a levy on the bills of all electricity consumers - 99% of whom don't have solar and the vast majority unable ever to have solar panels(flat owners, tenants, unsuitable roof etc)

The Government's decision to reduce the FIT early was practical and sensible; albeit ruled unlawful because of a technicality and nothing to do with the production of solar energy. As said above, had the decision gone the other way there would have been twice as much solar energy produced in UK for the same amount of subsidy.

* There is no criticism implied of you or anyone else who takes advantage of the scheme

Going for ther popular vote again...?

Just like how you have no idea about heat pumps you are now writing this ^^^

You couldn't make it up...

GaryMo_2

Cardew wrote: »

Thus, given there is a finite sum for FITs, we get half the solar electricity generated than would have been generated if FIT was 21p/kWh.

Bear in mind that this subsidy(FIT) is paid directly by a levy on the bills of all electricity consumers - 99% of whom don't have solar and the vast majority unable ever to have solar panels(flat owners, tenants, unsuitable roof etc)

Correct, in principle but many of the people who bought at 43.3p did so primarily for the lucrative FiT rate. Would there really have been twice as many people buying at 21p?*

I guess we'll only know that when we see the figures for the next three months though I guess there will be less systems installed.

Also, I'm lead to believe that FiT's raises a general customers bill by around £2 at the most whereas subsidised insulation, low energy lamps etc adds ten times as much.

*I bought at 21p before the first appeal decision but only because I knew there was IMO an 80% chance that the government would lose the appeal. 21p worked but wasn't fantastic. I wouldn't have lost but had a lot to gain. If I knew for sure it was 21p then I more than likely wouldn't have had an install. Just being honest!

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Welcome to the forum.

I couldn't agree with you less.

Bear in mind that this subsidy(FIT) is paid directly by a levy on the bills of all electricity consumers - 99% of whom don't have solar and the vast majority unable ever to have solar panels(flat owners, tenants, unsuitable roof etc)

There you go again with your 99% argument! Ignoring the fact that PV is still in its earliest days. Ignoring all of the people that could benefit from other elements of the FITs budget, wind, hydro, bio-mass. Just cherry picking one element that you don't agree with to criticise green policy.

With any subsidy or benefit there will be winners and losers. For instance we could all find something that we find personally wrong with government spending and taxation, maybe something that we don't benefit from personally, but that doesn't mean the whole system is wrong.

You can choose to extract one element (FITs) from the Green Tariff if you like, then extract one part of that (PV) if you like, then extract only those installs that have taken place to date (1% of households, perhaps 5% of all viable households) if you like. But that's hardly a sensible position on which to base a valid discussion. More a narrow minded approach at a single point in time, with no context of the long-term aims and goals.

Cardew wrote: »

The Government's decision to reduce the FIT early was practical and sensible; albeit ruled unlawful because of a technicality and nothing to do with the production of solar energy.

Practical & Sensible. Let's see. They announced a consultation process, then before the consultation period was complete, they announced the decision, the revised rate, and the implementation date. A date that would come into force before the end of the consultation period!

Impractical & Insensible are two words that spring to mind, when they could have set a date after the consultation period. This would have implemented the changes earlier than the 3rd March, and avoided the embarrassment of having multiple tiers of our judicial system 'laugh' at the inane actions of our government, as they ran around like 3 year old's trying to hammer square pegs into round holes.

At least 3 year old's are cute when they act stupid, Ministers are simply embarrassing.

Mart.

nande2000

Martyn1981 wrote: »

There you go again with your 99% argument! Ignoring the fact that PV is still in its earliest days. Ignoring all of the people that could benefit from other elements of the FITs budget, wind, hydro, bio-mass. Just cherry picking one element that you don't agree with to criticise green policy.

With any subsidy or benefit there will be winners and losers. For instance we could all find something that we find personally wrong with government spending and taxation, maybe something that we don't benefit from personally, but that doesn't mean the whole system is wrong.

You can choose to extract one element (FITs) from the Green Tariff if you like, then extract one part of that (PV) if you like, then extract only those installs that have taken place to date (1% of households, perhaps 5% of all viable households) if you like. But that's hardly a sensible position on which to base a valid discussion. More a narrow minded approach at a single point in time, with no context of the long-term aims and goals.



Practical & Sensible. Let's see. They announced a consultation process, then before the consultation period was complete, they announced the decision, the revised rate, and the implementation date. A date that would come into force before the end of the consultation period!

Impractical & Insensible are two words that spring to mind, when they could have set a date after the consultation period. This would have implemented the changes earlier than the 3rd March, and avoided the embarrassment of having multiple tiers of our judicial system 'laugh' at the inane actions of our government, as they ran around like 3 year old's trying to hammer square pegs into round holes.

At least 3 year old's are cute when they act stupid, Ministers are simply embarrassing.

Mart.

Totally agree..I think we are just sleep walking into French Nuclear, just how expensive do we think that will be ?