Cold called re free solar panels.

Cardew

InVestor wrote: »

People can cry and whine about probably 100's of things which they think are unfair. I generally find it's because they missed out for some reason or other.

Well we agree on that at least. Some reasons might be:

1. They live in a flat.

2. They live in rented accomodation.

3. They have an unsuitable roof. (shading, orientation, etc)

4. They can't afford a PV system.

I think that about 98% of properies don't have PV, so the 98% are paying for the subsidy(and the 2% are paying themselves as well if we want to be pedantic)

If you read back through the threads on this system, there is no criticism directed at those who have taken advantage of the system - just criticism of the Government for introducing such a stupid scheme.

George Monbiot sums it up beautifully:

http://www.monbiot.com/2010/03/01/a-great-green-rip-off/

The feed-in tariffs about to be introduced here are extortionate, useless and deeply regressive.

Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives and no one notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes. It expects a loss on this scheme of £8.2bn, or 95%(1). Yet the media is silent. The opposition urges only that the scam should be expanded.


On April 1st the government introduces its feed-in tariffs. These oblige electricity companies to pay people for the power they produce at home. The money will come from their customers, in the form of higher bills. It would make sense, if we didn’t know that the technologies the scheme will reward are comically inefficient.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

George Monbiot sums it up beautifully:

"The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes. "

"It would make sense, if we didn’t know that the technologies the scheme will reward are comically inefficient."

Thank you for those two quotes, they couldn't sum up George's argument better.

In the first one, he wrongly claims that every penny for PV FITs will be paid by the poor, whereas in reality the monies come from fuel levies, on all domestic customers, and all other sectors too. That statement is at best a complete lack of understanding. At worst a deliberate attempt to mislead and rabble rouse, creating division.

Hopefully you have also shown to Graham (again) that this false claim has been made (despite his repeated denial), and that you yourself like to keep promoting it, despite George himself retracting it a few months later in March 2010.

In the second one - well what can I say. The subsidy is paid on a kWh generated basis. Since every kWh of electricity is the same as another, it's hard to understand how this can be labelled inefficient.

Perhaps instead he thinks PV generation is inefficient, but at approx 15% direct conversion from sunlight, I'm not sure if any other form of generation is more efficient? Let's see, coal and gas start with photosynthesis at approx 5%.

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Thank you for those two quotes, they couldn't sum up George's argument better.

In the first one, he wrongly claims that every penny for PV FITs will be paid by the poor, whereas in reality the monies come from fuel levies, on all domestic customers, and all other sectors too. That statement is at best a complete lack of understanding. At worst a deliberate attempt to mislead and rabble rouse, creating division.

Hopefully you have also shown to Graham (again) that this false claim has been made (despite his repeated denial), and that you yourself like to keep promoting it, despite George himself retracting it a few months later in March 2010.

In the second one - well what can I say. The subsidy is paid on a kWh generated basis. Since every kWh of electricity is the same as another, it's hard to understand how this can be labelled inefficient.

Perhaps instead he thinks PV generation is inefficient, but at approx 15% direct conversion from sunlight, I'm not sure if any other form of generation is more efficient? Let's see, coal and gas start with photosynthesis at approx 5%.

Mart.

Well he wrote the article - see link - in March 2010.

A Great Green Rip-Off - March 1, 2010

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 2nd March 2010.

So 'his retraction' was a few months later(in March 2010)

Care to give a a link for his retraction?

Secondly is that really your idea of efficiency - conversion of sunlight? Clutching at straws methinks.

What about unable to generate at night?

Inconsistent output?

Huge subsidies required?

Huge capital cost for putting tiny systems on roofs.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hopefully you have also shown to Graham (again) that this false claim has been made (despite his repeated denial), and that you yourself like to keep promoting it, despite George himself retracting it a few months later in March 2010.

Well he wrote this in January 2012 and it doesn't sound like a retraction to me!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/13/green-deal

This is just one of the means by which money is being taken from the poor and given to the rich.


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.

Would love to have a link for his 'retraction'.;)

jimjames

KeenToMakeSavings wrote: »

He told me the SAP prediction for a 4 kWp system was 4,120 kWh per year and that I could assume that of this 2,000 kWh would be unused by me and would therefore be exported back to the grid. He therefore told be the FIT payments would therefore cover my loan and I would therefore never be out of pocket even in the first year.

I then visited the SAP website where the figure for my property is only 3,360 kWh per year, not the 4,120 kWh the 'advisor' told me.

Because his figure precisely balances the loan repayments I have to conclude that rather than tailor the loan to match the FIT payments as I had been told, the SAP figure is being falsified to make it appear that the FIT payments will cover the loan when in fact they almost certainly won't.

If this was PV Solar UK then it is likely that they are using another figure as well as the SAP numbers and claiming that theirs is more accurate. If they are actually falsifying the actual SAP numbers then that is a very different situation.

We had a quote/visit from PV Solar UK and I was very surprised at their pressure tactics and misleading information including claiming that electricity would rise at 15% for the next 25 years without any idea of the effect of compounding.

In hindsight the only thing that was accurate about their quote was their estimated generation. Although we didn't use them the output we got in our first year was well over 30% above the SAP numbers. However we are in SE England which makes a big difference compared to Sheffield for SAP.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Would love to have a link for his 'retraction'.;)

Don't mind supplying you with it again, but can't you just refer back to when I last supplied you with it? After all it was only 5 months ago and you did comment on it. Strange you have forgotten so quickly, and chosen to start posting it again.

Equally odd that Graham thanked you for those comments, but days later, and just recently again, claims to have never seen such ridiculous views on this site. It's all rather odd, almost as if reality is unable to get past Team GC filters!

Do you now believe again that only 'the poor' pay the Green Tariff? If not, then why do you keep promoting GM's statement years after even he admitted that FITs wasn't funded solely by the poor?

Mart.

grahamc2003

EricMears wrote: »

Not without wading through the hundreds of pages we've accumulated where people have been banging on about the alleged sayings of some American guru claiming the scheme as a transfer of assets from poor to rich.

I suspect that the 'several' (I believe that's actually 'many') instances of others feeling that confusion had crept in adequately demonstrates that such statements were made.

It's disappointing that you wont' ot can't back up what you say.

If there are 'many' instances of people 'clarifying' that it isn't only the poor which pay the fit in response to someone saying it is, then surely it should be extremely easy to find just one instance, shouldn't it?

I'm interested as to what prompted you to post ajust a couple of posts back that 'it isn't only the poor who pay'? Surely you must have been prompted by someone saying it was only the poor mustn't you? If so, can't you simply link to who said that (I repeat, in years here I've never seen anyone say it)? If it wasn't a response, then what motivated you to post it?

If you find a post from me saying 'the pope is catholic', you can bet a post just before state the pope wasn't. Not many randomly post a fact for no reason, they are usually prompted.

The several posts I've seen over the years stating the obvious 'oit's not only the poor who pay' have always been made in response to a post saying there is a transfer from the poor to rich which, I hope, you can see doesn't say that only the poor pay. Even Monbiot stated £8bn will be transfered fro the poor to the rich, but again, that doesn't imply only the poor pay, otherwise the total fit cost would be £8bn, and it's certainly going to be more than that over the 25 year fit life.

You stated something as fact Eric. You are one of the more reasonable posters imv. Either back up your fact or withdraw it please. Otherwise, I, and others i expect, will just assume you create straw men to justify your position.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Do you now believe again that only 'the poor' pay the Green Tariff? If not, then why do you keep promoting GM's statement years after even he admitted that FITs wasn't funded solely by the poor?

Mart.

'not solely the poor'!

Err who said that?

Is that really the best you can do?

You really are 'clutching at straws'.

dreaming

I have started a thread on "In my home" but a poster has directed me to this forum.
I am currently looking into having pv fitted as I will be retiring later this year and want to reduce future monthly bills as much as possible. I have had 1 quote so far (more to come soon) and the guy suggested 10 panels on the south east facing roof, with a suggested 1908 kWh per year. I live alone in a 2 bed bungalow and think I am quite a light user of power (I currently pay £54/month dual gas&elec on a fixed tariff). The savings he quoted were approx £110 a year.

What should I be asking when they come to survey property? and is it worth going ahead - I can fund the installation without a loan?

ETA - can you keep it as simple as possible please?

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

'not solely the poor'!

Err who said that?

Is that really the best you can do?

You really are 'clutching at straws'.

Are you struggling to keep up again?

It was George Monbiot who admitted that it was not funded solely by the poor when he made his retraction:

"It's true to say that not all this money will be taken from the poor,"

So you still haven't answered my question, just dug your hole a little deeper:-

Do you think his original statement is still true that all monies come from the poor?

Or his revised position is true?

If the later, then why, nearly 3 years later do you still keep promoting that view? Do you not realise how confusing this is to poor Graham?

Mart.