Is solar PV worth it?

spgsc531

tunnel wrote: »

Actually Cardew,maybe you have never read anything on here as such but i certainly did yesterday. The green mans post,thats post 66 for anyone reading,you'll notice it was first posted at 9.23am and then very quickly edited at 9.26am.

I read that post pre edit and found it to be a very offensive personal attack on spgsc531.

Now i have no problem trading punches on here with anyone who doesn't agree/disagree on FITs,its everyones personal view and their entitled to it,but i do draw the line at such offensive behaviour.

Tunnel

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Just noticed this. It's a blatant lie but I can't defend myself against it. All I can say is that everyone who has edited their posts on here originally posted something appalling about me and then deleted it. You rotters.

See how it works? Pathetic way of diverting attention against the debate, which is whether poor people should subsidize the rich. I vote no.

Just thought I should comment seeing as it was about me.

I also saw the post that Tunnel saw, I actually immediately reported what I would agree was a very offensive personal attack on me.

After I had written and sent the report and returned to this thread it had disappeared. Whether removed by a Moderator or the OP I do not know.

The_Green_Man wrote: »

From what I have seen, you guys are the ones 'ganging up' and making snide remarks, not Cardew.(1)

I think you guys should take a long hard look at yourselves.(2)[/QUOTE]

I think it's pretty clear to everyone who is doing that(1)

Pot Kettle Black really comes to mind(2)

The_Green_Man_2

I'd be interested in knowing what this 'missing' very offensive post actually said. Can you enlighten the few of us who have not seen it?

EricMears

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Who voted you in charge of the forum? It's not for members of the public to decide what can get posted onto the forum, it's for Martin Lewis and the board monitors.

Perhaps worth reading the forum rules page ? (http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/forum-faqs )

We hope this forum is a great MoneySaving community for people to chat and discuss consumer issues, free from nasty comments and people trying to sell to you.

No mention there about an intention to inform and advise.

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I bet this forum was quiet but full of wonderful people and wonderful threads before the PV investors moved in and took over.

Actually, I was a member of the MSE community before I followed advice given on these boards that Solar Panels would be a worthwhile money saving investment. And I find it very amusing to be told by someone who only a joined a couple of months ago that I know nothing about the forum.

The_Green_Man wrote: »

we can't change the government policy on FITS (Though they are moving in the right direction).

ANY government policy can be changed by pressure in the right place - but it's foolish to rely upon our government reading comments in fora like this.

The FIT scheme hasn't actually 'changed' in response to public pressure : It was introduced at a higher rate to kick-start the process and was always intended to be gradually reduced until it reaches the point where it becomes unnecessary.

As an example of a goverment policy it's been outstandingly successful (mainly because it's part of a wider international effort).

Nobody need feel guilty about investing in a government sponsored scheme. What's your next campaign going to be ? Perhaps you should attack people who buy lottery tickets in the hope of winning rather than for the pure joy of investing in the feel-good projects that might benefit the poor ?

The_Green_Man_2

The name of this forum is "Green and Ethical Moneysaving". I guess your definition of Ethical moneysaving differs from mine. I could save money by buying cheap battery eggs rather than the free range ones from my local farm. I choose not to save money this way because I don't think it's ethical.

I also choose not to take money from FIT for the same reason. I'd be saving money on my energy bills, but that saving would be at the expense of others and so it would not be ethical to do so.

You can dodge around and muddy the issue as much as you like with your 'missing insults', forum rules (no idea what you on about with this) and other posts but the fact that you keep wanting to supress debate about FITs because you are all ashamed of your lack of ethics.

p.s. I love the way you all add frivolous examples to bolster your positions. I say again that your example payments (this time it's lottery tickets) are not compulsary and so not relevent to the discussion.

EricMears

The_Green_Man wrote: »

The name of this forum is "Green and Ethical Moneysaving". I guess your definition of Ethical moneysaving differs from mine. I could save money by buying cheap battery eggs rather than the free range ones from my local farm. I choose not to save money this way because I don't think it's ethical.

I also choose not to take money from FIT for the same reason. I'd be saving money on my energy bills, but that saving would be taken from other people who need their money more than I do. I.e. It would not be ethical to do so.

You can dodge around and muddy the issue as much as you like with your 'missing insults', forum rules (no idea what you on about with this) and other posts but the fact that you keep wanting to supress debate about FITs because you are all ashamed of your lack of ethics.

Sadly, it doesn't surprise me to learn that you've posted all these silly messages without first bothering to read the forum rules !

"Ethical money saving" was presumably intended for people who know how to save money ethically to pass on tips to like-minded forum members. I don't recall reading a single money saving tip (ethical or otherwise) from you.

Nothing 'unethical' about buying battery eggs - indeed, many of the poorer members of society have no choice but to do just that and I'm appalled that they should be attacked simply for being poor and having to do so. Perhaps you could make your first relevant posting by telling us where one might buy "free range" eggs at a price all can afford ?

EricMears

The_Green_Man wrote: »

p.s. I love the way you all add frivolous examples to bolster your positions. I say again that your example payments (this time it's lottery tickets) are not compulsary and so not relevent to the discussion.

Always better to read the whole message before posting a reply. My example of lottery tickets was included without having to edit the posting so could easily have been mentioned without needing to edit.

But it's NOT a "frivolous example". There really are people who feel that the national lottery was provided with the principal aim of funding "good causes" and that anyone fortunate enough to buy a winning ticket ought to give their winnings away.

tunnel

The_Green_Man wrote: »

The name of this forum is "Green and Ethical Moneysaving". I guess your definition of Ethical moneysaving differs from mine. I could save money by buying cheap battery eggs rather than the free range ones from my local farm. I choose not to save money this way because I don't think it's ethical.

I also choose not to take money from FIT for the same reason. I'd be saving money on my energy bills, but that saving would be at the expense of others and so it would not be ethical to do so.

You can dodge around and muddy the issue as much as you like with your 'missing insults', forum rules (no idea what you on about with this) and other posts but the fact that you keep wanting to supress debate about FITs because you are all ashamed of your lack of ethics.

p.s. I love the way you all add frivolous examples to bolster your positions. I say again that your example payments (this time it's lottery tickets) are not compulsary and so not relevent to the discussion.

If your so ethical,man up and admit to what you wrote. Or don't your "ethics" stretch that far?

The_Green_Man_2

tunnel wrote: »

If your so ethical,man up and admit to what you wrote. Or don't your "ethics" stretch that far?

I didn't write anything. Someone saw that I had edited my post (to remove typos and grammatical errors) and decided to pretend I had edited out an insult. This is an internet debating technique people use to divert the debate from the original discussion and into trivialities. You guys on here do it so often it has become second nature. You'd rather talk about how to afford free range eggs than talk about the subsidy paid by lower income citizens to middle income home owners.

Well, at least I am prepared to pay over the odds to have free range - I don't expect others to subsidize me so that my free range eggs are cheaper than other people's battery eggs.

Are you guys ever going to talk about how you are subsidized by the poor or will you continue to try and disrupt the discussion because you don't like to hear the truth?

Martyn1981

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Well, at least I am prepared to pay over the odds to have free range - I don't expect others to subsidize me so that my free range eggs are cheaper than other people's battery eggs.

Are you guys ever going to talk about how you are subsidized by the poor or will you continue to try and disrupt the discussion because you don't like to hear the truth?

You are still missing, or avoiding the key question I have asked you many times. Why is it ok for all energy consumers to invest in future generation, and low carbon generation by paying subsidies to powerstations owned by large companies ..... but not ok to pay subsidies to support powerstations owned by householders?

Your entire argument is back to front. You are determined to focus on the fact that not everyone can have a PV system, not everyone can have a hydro system, not everyone can have a wind turbine etc. But the real truth is that monies are going to some households instead of no households.

Unless of course you are claiming that the poor have the means and resources to build a wind farm or nuclear powerstation?

You need to look at the big picture and long term, rather than spoil these threads lecturing those with PV, or asking for advice on PV.

With regard to subsidies, I have no problem swearing on mine, or my loved ones lives that even if I couldn't install PV (or any of the other technologies), I would still support FITs, for its forward looking and inclusive nature.

I'm not able to afford a new car, let alone a new electric car, but I also fully support the grants paid towards them, as I believe that this technology needs to be fully explored - I do not complain that currently the benefits of that scheme are outside of my reach.

Mart.

Martyn1981

tunnel wrote: »

If your so ethical,man up and admit to what you wrote. Or don't your "ethics" stretch that far?

The comments made about you on the afternoon of the 27th have also been deleted / removed.

Mart.