Green Technologies

The_Green_Man_2

spgsc531 wrote: »

What do you mean by the Government is sensibly making changes?

Details

New rules on the payment of FITs for solar PV installations came into force on 1 April 2012. From that date you are required to send to your FITs supplier an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) showing that your property has an EPC band D or better at the time of your application to get the standard rate of FITs rather than the lower rate.

If your property is a band E or less when you first apply for FITs then you will receive the FIT at the lower rate. Note that even if you improve your property’s EPC band to a D or higher at a later date you will still get the lower rate.

This requirement applies only to new solar PV systems and extensions of existing solar PV systems with an eligibility date on or after 1 April 2012. This is not a retrospective requirement for existing solar PV systems. At a later date these requirements may also apply to wind turbines and micro-CHP (both currently under consultation).

Why is this now a requirement?

This new requirement has been introduced by the UK Government wants to ensure that homes meet minimum standards of energy efficiency before it encourages the installation of solar PV. The UK Government states that this is because reducing demand for energy is one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing carbon emissions and therefore a process that should be prioritised before installing microgeneration technologies such as solar PV: “Currently, around 51% of all dwellings are rated at EPC level D or above, and 47% of all dwellings except flats (this compares to 13% of dwellings at EPC level C or above)."

Personally, I would have gone further and raised it to C and above for Fits and no subsidy below that level, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.

I see that you're still trying to distract the discussion with numbers instead of discussing the wider question of whether it's better to use green taxes to reduce consumption than to increase production.

The_Green_Man_2

EricMears wrote: »

You may see that as discriminating against the poor - but so too is making them queue to catch a bus whilst the more fortunate sail past them in a Rolls Royce.

Yes, but the poor people's bus fares are not used to subsidize the fortunate people's Rolls Royce, which is the point I have been trying to make. Thanks so much for your brilliant and succinct example.

spgsc531

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Details

New rules on the payment of FITs for solar PV installations came into force on 1 April 2012. From that date you are required to send to your FITs supplier an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) showing that your property has an EPC band D or better at the time of your application to get the standard rate of FITs rather than the lower rate.

If your property is a band E or less when you first apply for FITs then you will receive the FIT at the lower rate. Note that even if you improve your property’s EPC band to a D or higher at a later date you will still get the lower rate.

This requirement applies only to new solar PV systems and extensions of existing solar PV systems with an eligibility date on or after 1 April 2012. This is not a retrospective requirement for existing solar PV systems. At a later date these requirements may also apply to wind turbines and micro-CHP (both currently under consultation).

Why is this now a requirement?

This new requirement has been introduced by the UK Government wants to ensure that homes meet minimum standards of energy efficiency before it encourages the installation of solar PV. The UK Government states that this is because reducing demand for energy is one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing carbon emissions and therefore a process that should be prioritised before installing microgeneration technologies such as solar PV: “Currently, around 51% of all dwellings are rated at EPC level D or above, and 47% of all dwellings except flats (this compares to 13% of dwellings at EPC level C or above)."

Personally, I would have gone further and raised it to C and above for Fits and no subsidy below that level, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.

I see that you're still trying to distract the discussion with numbers instead of discussing the wider question of whether it's better to use green taxes to reduce consumption than to increase production.

Oh I see now, you meant the Government HAS sensibly made changes

More old news..

The_Green_Man_2

spgsc531 wrote: »

Oh I see now, you meant the Government HAS sensibly made changes

More old news..

I didn't say it was new news, I said that the government is making sensible changes. I happen think that they haven't gone far enough but it will encourage people to reduce their power consumption before they increase their power generation.

The government seems to get it, and you seem to keep avoiding it. This is the third or fourth time you've chose to. Do you not think it might be undermining your credibility?

Do you think it's better to reduce power consumption than to increase power generation?

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

As I said in post #4, payment of FITs is a government policy. Installing the gear to qualify for them was open to anybody with the spare cash or a credit rating good enough to borrow the capital cost.

You may see that as discriminating against the poor - but so too is making them queue to catch a bus whilst the more fortunate sail past them in a Rolls Royce.

If you don't like the scheme, have a go at your MP, MEP or whatever. Railing at the people who have accepted the government offer isn't going to change anything.

1. Open to anybody?

Firstly even if they had the cash they had to be:

A. A home owner and not renting

B. Not live in a flat.

C. Have a suitable roof.- size, orientation, structure, not shaded etc.

2. Of course FIT discriminate against the poor. The OAP in a council flat - especially with all-electric heating as so many are - pays toward the FIT subsidy for people far better off.

3. There has never been any 'railing' in this section of MSE at people who have taken advantage of a money making opportunity. It is the disingenous justification of FITs by some posters that is so pathetic.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

1. Open to anybody?(1)

Firstly even if they had the cash they had to be:

A. A home owner and not renting(2)

B. Not live in a flat.(3)

C. Have a suitable roof.- size, orientation, structure, not shaded etc.(4)

2. Of course FIT discriminate against the poor. The OAP in a council flat(5) - especially with all-electric heating as so many are - pays toward the FIT subsidy for people far better off.

3. There has never been any 'railing' in this section of MSE at people who have taken advantage of a money making opportunity. It is the disingenous justification of FITs by some posters that is so pathetic.

1. Hmm, let's see..

2. 25 million homes in the UK, Approx. 7 out of 10 are owner occupied.

So that's 17.5 million homes.

3. Why not live in a flat?

4. FiT payments are proportional to generation so what is your point here??

5. Which Councils are you talking about? Many councils have/are fitting solar PV to stock, so many 'pensioners' will be benefiting - especially with all-electric heating as so many are - from annual electricity savings of £80-£100? Solar PV FiT contribution was £2(?) per year in 2011?

The_Green_Man_2

The_Green_Man wrote: »

The government seems to get it, and you seem to keep avoiding it. This is the third or fourth time you've chose to. Do you not think it might be undermining your credibility?

Do you think it's better to reduce power consumption than to increase power generation?

Still no answer. This is starting to get embarrassing for him.

tunnel

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I happen think that they haven't gone far enough but it will encourage people to reduce their power consumption before they increase their power generation.

Do you think it's better to reduce power consumption than to increase power generation?

By offering the FIT the goverment encouraged me to do both. I swapped all my power hungry appliances,installed PV,hence increased my power generation and reduced my power consumption. I can honestly say that without the FIT "incentive" i wouldn't have even considered any of it.

I'd also like to think that with all the PV installations around that eventually the price of energy should eventually start to reduce as there's less demand from the grid(as i'm led to believe has happened in Germany). Whether that happens you should really be taking that up with the energy "cartels"!

Tunnel

Martyn1981

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Personally, I would have gone further and raised it to C and above for Fits and no subsidy below that level, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.

Good point. It was initially set at C, but downgraded to D just before implementation. I think the carrot of FITs would have worked well to deal with the stick of a 'C'. However, a 'C' might have removed eligibility from too many households. Also, whilst energy saving is very important, PV (or any micro-generation) is not really energy saving, it is energy generation. So a balance had to be maintained between limiting PV rollout, but encouraging CO2 free generation.

I needed an EPC for my PV extension, my property got an A, having done all the 'right' things already. I believe that subsidising energy saving measures (even for a minority of households) is morally right.

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I see that you're still trying to distract the discussion with numbers instead of discussing the wider question of whether it's better to use green taxes to reduce consumption than to increase production.

I'm baffled as to why you keep saying this, when it's been addressed so many times already! Google the Green Tariff, it's not just PV FITs.

Also why you keep trying to introduce this artificial choice. We need energy efficiency, plus lower energy demand by changing practices (not the same thing), plus zero carbon generation, plus lower carbon generation.

If you want to chat about energy saving, and renewables in general, then you're in the right place as we are all passionate about these subjects. But trying to single PV out with an 'or' argument over energy savings, or stating woefully inaccurate and out of date 'facts' is only going to provoke a critical (possibly suspicious) response.

So, hows about we take a breather and start again. What savings are you thinking of for your property? Are you insulated to the max, have you any questions? Eric can advise on RWH, Zeup on solar thermal, most of us on PV, and also suggest threads and discussions on other items/issues.

Mart.

The_Green_Man_2

tunnel wrote: »

By offering the FIT the goverment encouraged me to do both. I swapped all my power hungry appliances,installed PV,hence increased my power generation and reduced my power consumption. I can honestly say that without the FIT "incentive" i wouldn't have even considered any of it.

Sorry, but it's a bit of a poor excuse to give someone thousands of pounds of taxpayers money in the hope that they will become energy efficient once they have installed PV.

We did all of the above without recourse to public funds. We're now installing IWI insulation which is costing a kings ransom but which will help reduce our energy consumption.