Cold called re free solar panels.

zeupater

Hi All

Looks like the bickering is back, but over what ? ... is it what someone said in a newpaper column?, and if so, was what was written correct or not ? ... so who's right & why ?

Okay let's look at the timeline ...

On 01/02/2010 the Government signed off the "[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]THE FEED-IN TARIFFS (SPECIFIED MAXIMUM CAPACITY AND FUNCTIONS ORDER - 2010" [/FONT]which provides the framework for the UK's domestic CO2 reduction policy to meet EU statutory and treaty requirements for CO2 reduction .... the detailed reasoning for the Order being to establish a "formal basis for ensuring properly run scheme to enable a switch to a low carbon economy and society by providing a support mechanism for distributed and small scale electricity generation using renewable and other low carbon sources. This measure is designed to contribute to the binding target contained in the 2009 EU Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC), to achieve 20% of the EU’s energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020 with a UK share of 15%.". The Order provides a 20year view on the cost of establishing the FiTs scheme for all qualifying technologies, these being described as "new anaerobic digestion, hydro, solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind projects up to5 megawatt (MW) capacity limit. The scheme will also support 30,000 micro combined heat and power (mCHP) installations with an electrical capacity of 2 kilowatt (kW) or less, as a pilot programme", with a 20year horizon obviously being selected due to the Tariff lifetime for anaerobic digestion, wind and hydro generation being set to 20 years (Table 2/p42). The total cost for all schemes covered by this document was estimated to be "£8.6bn cumulative to 2030" (Summary / p7). (Source : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/678/pdfs/uksiem_20100678_en.pdf )

... At this point it must be noted that within the referenced Order, 'PV' is defined as being 'solar photovoltaic' in section 8.2 (p3), however, within the summary on page 7, the references to the £8.6bn being 'PV' relate to 'Present Value' .... this is important ....

After the document was released, an article by George Monbiot appeared in the Guardian on 01/03/2010 which stated that "Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives, and nobody notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes" and continues to reference information from the February document, confirming this as being the data source. ( Source : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff ).

The article itself is a pretty ambiguous and, in my opinion, poor quality journalism where either there has been a complete misunderstanding of the official document p7 summary referencing 'PV' as present value and taking it as relating to photovoltaic, or there is a deliberate attempt to misinform ... so bad journalism whichever way it's looked at .... especially so as this particular article is the basis for so much argument on this forum and other places since ....

So, back to the £8.6bn relating to the 'poor'. It has been established what the source of the £8.6bn relates to and that £8.6bn is the total funding cost over a 20year period and that the claim made is that "The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes", which means that the intention of the article is to present (both "say" & "imply") that the entire £8.6bn is provided by the 'poor' as it represents the entire scheme value as presented in the data which George Monbiot had used as his article source .... therefore, with the claim so obviously being wrong, every debate which has referenced this article and attributed it to George Monbiot has been based on a flawed premise, either a journalistic mistake, or deliberate misinformation for effect ....

.... "Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives, and nobody notices." ? .... so possibly not, maybe after spending "years looking for the definitive example", it simply still hadn't been found in March 2010, just misinterpreted within a poorly researched article .....

HTH
Z

EricMears

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Having a nice time Cardew?
Even with the proof, Eric can only muster a condescending and weak attempt at a personal attack rather than doing the honorable thing and admitting he interpreted something incorrectly

"Proof" of what ?

Has somebody posted a list of the few (or many) examples of people offering to clear up confusion so that I can examine them ? In the absence of such a list, I shan't be commenting upon them.

And search this forum (or any other) as you will, you'll find no personal attack by me on anybody !

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

.... Nobody has said or implied that only the poor contribute. Not Monboit or anyone on this thread

Hi

If George Monbiot's information source stated that total cost of the scheme was £8.6bn and knowing this he wrote ("said") "The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes" then he believed, or for effect wanted others to believe, that only the poor were contributing .... it is therefore therefore "implied" that only the poor are paying (8.6-8.6=0) ...

.... therefore, both "implied" & written ("said") by George Monbiot in the Guardian article and by implication, probably by anyone who referenced the specific article to support a viewpoint, without considering it's flawed basis, since .... (Ref post #72 above)

HTH
Z

KeenToMakeSavings

jimjames wrote: »

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.

No, he specifically stated several times that the 4,120 kWh per year he was quoting was the SAP rating for their 4kWp system and later on the phone when I challenged this figure, they insisted it was the SAP rating and this was a government-guaranteed minimum figure so my FIT tariff earnings and my electricity savings would not be less than the loan repayment of £113.42 per month. They never mentioned another figure not made any claims of anything being more accurate than their (mis-quoted) SAP figure.

Had I gone ahead I would have been significantly out of pocket for several years as all my previously posted calculations have shown.

The above are the reasons I started my posts - to warn others of the fraudulant claims some suppliers are making and to do their own research before making a decision, as I have done.

Ian

KeenToMakeSavings

InVestor wrote: »

Less than 60 seconds searching found Tesco doing unsecured loans up to £15,000 up to 10 years for a headline APR of 5.2%..

I've checked and you are correct but I've regularly checked and up until a very few weeks ago, the maximum loan period was only 5 years.

To qualify for the stated 5.2% APR, the minimum loan is £7,500 compared with a typical purchase price of £6,000 for a 4 kWp system. Tesco give the interest on £7,500 at 5.2% APR as £79.84 but my monthly FIT income + electricity savings assuming 3,550 kW per year (PVGIS data for my property) would be £72.21 per month averaged over the year so I would only be out of pocket by an average of £7.63 per month which is certainly better than with the special Solar PV Barclay loan or any other. In practise, in the winter I'd be significantly more out of pocket but make gains in the summer.

Of course all the calculations assume I realise the PVGIS figure for the year in the first place, which is a speculative assumption given the present weather pattern here in Cumbria.

But I'm grateful for your loan update which for those with a bit of surplus monthly income to act as a buffer, makes the prospect much more viable.

Ian

zeupater

KeenToMakeSavings wrote: »

No, he specifically stated several times that the 4,120 kWh per year he was quoting was the SAP rating for their 4kWp system and later on the phone when I challenged this figure, they insisted it was the SAP rating and this was a government-guaranteed minimum figure so my FIT tariff earnings and my electricity savings would not be less than the loan repayment of £113.42 per month. They never mentioned another figure not made any claims of anything being more accurate than their (mis-quoted) SAP figure.

Had I gone ahead I would have been significantly out of pocket for several years as all my previously posted calculations have shown.

The above are the reasons I started my posts - to warn others of the fraudulant claims some suppliers are making and to do their own research before making a decision, as I have done.

Ian

Hi

The BRE SAP calculation is contained in Appendix M of the following document (Page 82) ..... http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/SAP/2009/SAP-2009_9-90.pdf

with the calculation being defined as ... (0.8 ´ kWp ´ S ´ ZPV) ... reference must be made to tables H2 & H4 for relative orientation/slope irradiation and overshading, however using the best orientation values for S(H2) and no overshading (H4), it looks like the 0.8 factor simply hasn't been applied in the figures you've been supplied .... have a look at the document and see what the SAP results should be ...

Regarding "government-guaranteed minimum figure" ... there is no such thing, either made or implied. The SAP figure is simply a reasonable conservative estimate of the generation from a system. Of course, each installer will attempt to 'up-sell' their product over the competition by providing information based on the historical actual performance of 'example' existing systems which could imply that some some panel packs are shipped at above nominal performance, however, this is no guarantee of system performance for the panel pack you would receive, or the performance within a particular location's microclimate, so be wary if this approach is used.

HTH
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

If George Monbiot's information source stated that total cost of the scheme was £8.6bn and knowing this he wrote ("said") "The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes" then he believed, or for effect wanted others to believe, that only the poor were contributing .... it is therefore therefore "implied" that only the poor are paying (8.6-8.6=0) ...

.... therefore, both "implied" & written ("said") by George Monbiot in the Guardian article and by implication, probably by anyone who referenced the specific article to support a viewpoint, without considering it's flawed basis, since .... (Ref post #72 above)

HTH
Z

You are obviously feeling sorry for Martyn to have posted the above.

You know full well that the poor have to pay towards the FIT subsidy.

You also know full well that Monbiot never said 'only the poor' and it is absolutely obvious to anyone with two brain cells that all who pay electricity bills pay towards the FIT.

Even if he had made a mistake and stated 'only the poor' - which of course he didn't - it wouldn't make any difference to his reasoning. His logical criticism of the FIT scheme would still stand - the poor do contribute to the FIT subsidy.

If your only defence of his attack on FIT scheme is to try and attribute to him something he never stated, and clearly never meant; then you have lost the argument.

I think we all are aware of Martyn's lack of logic when it comes to any criticism of his beloved PV, but you can really do better than come out with such disingenous nonsense - merely to give him support.

grahamc2003

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

If George Monbiot's information source stated that total cost of the scheme was £8.6bn and knowing this he wrote ("said") "The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes" then he believed, or for effect wanted others to believe, that only the poor were contributing .... it is therefore therefore "implied" that only the poor are paying (8.6-8.6=0) ...


Z

But Monbiot's information source did not say the total cost of fits was £8.6bn. It said the cost to 2030 was £8.6bn (as I have already posted twice and subsequently you once)

Will you still be paid your fit in 2031? (under current plans?). The poor will still be contributing to mine in 2037.

So your first word 'if' is where you are going wrong. He said £8.6bn was being transfered from the poor to the middle class, the fit cost will be greater than £8.6bn, therefore he did not isay or imply or otherwise indicate that 'only the poor pay the fit'.

What he did say in the same article (para 2) about who would pay the fit was

"On 1 April 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."

This bloke is the green guru, the environmentalist par excellence, the leader, the oft quoted expert on every green matter. Amazing how he becomes the person who purposely misleads others as soon as he states the obvious - that the fit system is pretty cack whichever way you look at it, and especially when it involves a shift of cash from those unable to afford it to line the pockets of those who can afford to shell out several grand.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

You also know full well that Monbiot never said 'only the poor' and it is absolutely obvious to anyone with two brain cells that all who pay electricity bills pay towards the FIT.

If your only defence of his attack on FIT scheme is to try and attribute to him something he never stated, and clearly never meant; then you have lost the argument.

As you are well aware, I find your anti PV/FITs arguments very funny, and have spent over a year mythbusting them.

But this weekend has been hysterically funny - thank you!

So just to re-cap once again

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

ii. At the time the anticipated budget was £8.6bn.

iii. GM himself (under repeated pressure from 'Monbiotwatch') retracted that argument in March 2010.

Even you can't sneak out of this one. He attributed what he thought would be the whole cost of the scheme to the poor. That article is riddled with huge anti PV/FITs errors, possibly the reason why you chose it for your campaign(?)

Simple question to resolve this issue:

Do you agree with GM that the 'poor' will pay £8.6bn (in 2010 money) for PV FITs?

Assuming the poor make up 20% of domestic consumption, and domestic consumption is approx 35% of total consumption, I make the total cost (extrapolating from GM's numbers) £123bn (not sure what that will be when indexed linked to mid 2030's).

Mart.

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

But Monbiot's information source did not say the total cost of fits was £8.6bn. It said the cost to 2030 was £8.6bn (as I have already posted twice and subsequently you once)

So Monbiot was wrong to use that number as a total cost, and wrong to apply that number only to the poor.

But after applying 'Graham maths' - two wrongs make a right - GM was correct ..... oh dear, dear, dear!

Mart.