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!
Cold called re free solar panels.
Comments
-
silverwhistle wrote: »On the question of FITs and the poor, with respect I think that's a complete red herring. The FIT design and rates might not be the best, but the aim of the policy is fine: security of supply, employment, balance of payments, developing the industry, bringing down costs, etc. I may be getting cynical in my old age, but bringing the poor into this seems just a diversionary tactic that I've seen elsewhere from often right-wing people who don't care about green issues and even less for the poor. I'd also like to know how we define someone's poverty status. I'm certainly not poor and have enough for a system in my ISA, but my car is 12 years old, don't have a tv, and generally live within my means
Hiya Silverwhistle. My thoughts too. Strip away all the emotive diversionary comments and you are left with - all leccy consumers, contributing (proportionally to consumption) in the ongoing and future generation of leccy.
Since the new wave of generation (renewables, nuclear or CCS) are all more expensive that current bills can support - they need subsidies (ring-fenced bill increases).
At that point subsidies that go to MR and Mrs Joe Normal's powerstation (instead of Big Power plc's) are no different - possibly fairer!
(Regarding returns compared to ISA's, Eric is your man, ask him about E's?
)
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 -
silverwhistle wrote: »
As it happens social housing has often been a recipient for PV, but if people are so concerned about the 'poor' perhaps they should campaign on a more general basis for them, so that they have the additional income to cover some of the additional energy costs. They'll still have to pay nuclear de-commissioning costs, and I haven't noticed an equivalent campaign about them.
Welcome to the forum.
You appear to have appreciated, and agreed with, many of the points made on MSE by those in favour of PV and FITs.
It is of course relevant that lots of the 'poor' live in flats or houses with unsuitable roofs - size, orientation, shading etc and will never get PV - but of course will pay towards the FIT levy.
On the question of social housing 'often' being a recipient for PV, the Green campaigner George Monboit(much admired on this forum) addressed that very point
Two years ago, I warned that the feed-in tariff, a tax on energy
bills which pays for people to produce their own low-carbon electricity, would be deeply regressive. To install solar
electricity, for example, you would need your own roof plus £10,000 or more in cash. If you were lucky enough to possess
both these assets, you would be making, at other people's expense, one of the most lucrative of all possible investments.
It would give you a state-guaranteed return of 5-8%, fixed
for 25 years, which was both index-linked (making a nominal return of 7-10%) and tax free.
Those who angrily denounced my analysis claimed that it could in fact be a progressive scheme, as communities of poorer people could be helped to cash in. They're still claiming
it, even though the facts deserted them long ago. Today,
Andrew Pendleton of Friends of the Earth insists in the
Guardian that there are "countless" examples of community feed-in tariff schemes in the UK.
They're not countless; they've been counted by the energy regulator, Ofgem, in its annual report. There are
403 such schemes, as opposed to 29,265 domestic installations. The community projects have, on average, been larger than the domestic ones, but they still account for only 5%
of the total capacity, while private home owners' schemes account for 82%.
(Thanks to Mike Kirwin for pointing me to the
Ofgem report).
The feed-in tariff is just what Andrew Pendleton says it
isn't: "a middle-class subsidy". No amount of cherry-picking by Friends of the Earth, which throws around figures without providing comparisons, will change that. This group, which is usually a force for good, needs to look long and hard at the social impact of the policies it supports.
The transfer of money from the poor to the middle classes and the rich engineered by the feed-in tariff will do almost nothing to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. The government's 2050 carbon pathways calculator allows you to choose the most extreme of all possible solar options: using "all
suitable roof and façade space" in the UK: a remarkable 9.5 square metres of solar panels per person.
Were we to fund a programme on this scale, it would be likely to bankrupt the United Kingdom, yet, by 2050, it would reduce
the amount of energy provided by fossil fuels by a grand total of just 9%.
As you are new on MSE I thought you might have missed the above.
Doubtless Martyn1981 will reply on your behalf.0 -
Silverwhistle - as a new member of the MSE forum - can perhaps be forgiven for getting off the topic of this thread (about 'Rent-a-Roof' companies making cold calls).On the question of social housing 'often' being a recipient for PV, the Green campaigner George Monboit(much admired on this forum) addressed that very point
As you are new on MSE I thought you might have missed the above.
Doubtless Martyn1981 will reply on your behalf.
He (she ?) may even not realise that anyone can start a new thread from the next level of this forum by clicking on the <New Thread> button near top of page. Or click here for a direct link to do that
Existing members have no such excuse !
For anyone who is interested in the ramblings of Guru Monbiot, there's a dedicated thread - click here to find it.
But you'll notice that it has attracted very few postings !NE Derbyshire.4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).24kWh of Pylontech batteries with Lux controller BEV : Hyundai Ioniq50 -
Hi
.... and in addition to the above, Cardew is totally aware that the referenced Monbiot quotation is completely outdated (as evidenced by the total number of domestic installations being 29668(29265+403) - it's currently 418791 as of last Sunday, so that's 14x more than the referenced figure), that the 403 schemes have absolutely nothing to do with 'the poor' and consist of church-roof, village halls, community centres etc, that the '29265 domestic installations' also include 'rent-a-roof' and social schemes as well as 'private homes', that '£10000 or more in cash' is likely over double the current outlay, that ....
This has been discussed in detail on numerous occasions before, however, a totally outdated newspaper article, based on totally outdated data, written by a 'political activist' is continually regurgitated as it's one of the few sources (even if flawed) which support an ingrained viewpoint ....
HTH
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
0 -
The report was 16 months ago and the newspaper article 15 months old.
A question! Do you consider the fitting of PV to social projects and council tenants justifies the FIT scheme?0 -
-
Silverwhistle - as a new member of the MSE forum - can perhaps be forgiven for getting off the topic of this thread (about 'Rent-a-Roof' companies making cold calls).
He (she ?) may even not realise that anyone can start a new thread from the next level of this forum by clicking on the <New Thread> button near top of page. Or click here for a direct link to do that
Existing members have no such excuse !
Our new contributer had picked up and agree with all the 'pro FIT' points and expressed his views on 'anti Fit' points.
It was not until my post that you went into 'moderating mode' again.
However Martyn1981's post( posted well before mine) didn't seem to trigger your moderating instincts!Hiya Silverwhistle. My thoughts too. Strip away all the emotive diversionary comments and you are left with - all leccy consumers, contributing (proportionally to consumption) in the ongoing and future generation of leccy.
Since the new wave of generation (renewables, nuclear or CCS) are all more expensive that current bills can support - they need subsidies (ring-fenced bill increases).
At that point subsidies that go to MR and Mrs Joe Normal's powerstation (instead of Big Power plc's) are no different -
possibly fairer!
A nice even-handed approach!0 -
jeepjunkie wrote: »What do you think?
A rhetorical question?0 -
It was not until my post that you went into 'moderating mode' again.
However Martyn1981's post( posted well before mine) didn't seem to trigger your moderating instincts!
A nice even-handed approach!
Contrary to your obvious belief, I don't spend every moment of the day reading these pages. I wish MSE would appoint a full time moderator who could intercept OT comments much sooner.
My post was made on my first visit to this thread this morning and was addressed to all existing members reminding them that there was a dedicated page for discussion of the topics which were getting (and continue to be) completely off the subject of this thread. How could any one be more 'even handed' ?
Why does anybody feel that this is an appropriate place to recycle the old arguments ? I'm quite sure that if Silverwhistle is interested in the GM topic he'll view that page; if not he'll ignore it.NE Derbyshire.4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).24kWh of Pylontech batteries with Lux controller BEV : Hyundai Ioniq50 -
Existing members have no such excuse !
For anyone who is interested in the ramblings of Guru Monbiot, there's a dedicated thread - click here to find it.
But you'll notice that it has attracted very few postings !
Eric, fair point
I should know better, and wrists dutifully slapped.
Response to be posted on George Monbiot thread.
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
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards