Is solar PV worth it?

The_Green_Man_2

The comments you all made about me on the same day have been removed/deleted. We can all play this pathetic game.

The_Green_Man_2

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But the real truth is that monies are going to some households instead of no households.

Some middle income housholds and no lower income households. That's the 'real truth'.

"There should be a cast-iron rule for all public policy: it must not discriminate against the poor. No tax or charge should be approved which transfers money from the poor to the rich.

The rule should not even need stating when it comes to green measures. Part of the point of protecting the environment is to defend the interests of all people, including those who have not yet been born. An environmental policy which harms the interests of a society's poorest people offends one of the fundamental tenets of what I believe environmentalism to be. "

Martyn1981

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Some middle income housholds and no lower income households. That's the 'real truth'.

Far more complicated than that (that is why I keep suggesting you learn about this topic before posting more errors). LA / LHA's are also installing systems. Plus the falling costs of renewables - especially PV - will help to cap future price rises, prices that have soared with rising gas costs, and will soar again with the introduction of fossil fuel pollution requirements, carbon costs, and nuclear subsidies.

Rising prices affect the poor disproportionately, so investing now, is crucial. Current investment is funded out of leccy bills, as it is leccy users that will be affected in the future.

But, back to the question:

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?

Mart.

Martyn1981

The_Green_Man wrote: »

The comments you all made about me on the same day have been removed/deleted. We can all play this pathetic game.

Be careful playing games - just because it's gone, doesn't mean 'it is gone!'

Mart.

EricMears

The_Green_Man wrote: »

"There should be a cast-iron rule for all public policy: it must not discriminate against the poor. No tax or charge should be approved which transfers money from the poor to the rich."

You've got a busy time ahead of you !

OAP's winter fuel allowance is paid to all OAPs and taken from general taxation which some poor people have to pay.

Bus passes are paid to all over current minimum state pension age. Taken from council tax - which as we all know is paid (at least in part) by even the very poorest in society.

Free prescriptions are given to OAPs & the very young - some of each group would include people from very rich families. Funded from NI contributions (a tax on all workers including the very lowest paid).

Free TV licences given to all TV viewers over 75 no matter how wealthy they might be. Paid for by other people's TV licence revenue including OAPs between 65 & 75 with no income other than state benefits , the unemployed, the disabled and many other disadvantaged groups.

Free hospital treatment given to all NHS patients (except OAPs who suffer a deduction from their pension when in hospital). Unless they volunteer to pay for a private room, that even includes the very wealthy. Funded from NI contributions (a tax on all workers including the very lowest paid).

I'd suggest it might be worth starting a new thread for each of these topics - but please ensure that all the new threads are clearly labelled with their expected content so that those of us happy to keep making those subsidy payments needn't bother reading them.

shirlgirl2004

Wow it's like walking into a playground!

I came into this thread to see if it was worth getting solar pv. I had solar in the past to heat hot water and TBH it did very little to heat water for the house and so saved my family nothing and probably, all things considered, didn't do much for the environment.

I now understand some people think there is an ethical debate to be had but to be fair to the OP that wasn't the question. Could the toys go back in the pram and someone answer the question from a moneysaving perspective? Please!

The_Green_Man_2

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

Wow it's like walking into a playground!

I came into this thread to see if it was worth getting solar pv. I had solar in the past to heat hot water and TBH it did very little to heat water for the house and so saved my family nothing and probably, all things considered, didn't do much for the environment.

I now understand some people think there is an ethical debate to be had but to be fair to the OP that wasn't the question. Could the toys go back in the pram and someone answer the question from a moneysaving perspective? Please!

I suggest you read Martin's sticky at the top of this particular forum. As he correctly states, not all moneysaving ideas are actually good for the environment - that's why he set up this board and that's why the word "ethical" appears in the title.

MSE_Martin wrote: »

Sometimes going cheap can hurt the environment. This board's been set up to counter that. How do you live life the MoneySaving way, but protect our planet too?

I understand your confusion though, and perhaps this is why solar PV should be placed in a mini board on the "Investments" board rather than the "green and ethical board" because most people are interested in the financial returns rather than the ethics of solar PV.

The_Green_Man_2

EricMears wrote: »

You've got a busy time ahead of you !

OAP's winter fuel allowance is paid to all OAPs and taken from general taxation which some poor people have to pay.

Bus passes are paid to all over current minimum state pension age. Taken from council tax - which as we all know is paid (at least in part) by even the very poorest in society.

Free prescriptions are given to OAPs & the very young - some of each group would include people from very rich families. Funded from NI contributions (a tax on all workers including the very lowest paid).

Free TV licences given to all TV viewers over 75 no matter how wealthy they might be. Paid for by other people's TV licence revenue including OAPs between 65 & 75 with no income other than state benefits , the unemployed, the disabled and many other disadvantaged groups.

Free hospital treatment given to all NHS patients (except OAPs who suffer a deduction from their pension when in hospital). Unless they volunteer to pay for a private room, that even includes the very wealthy. Funded from NI contributions (a tax on all workers including the very lowest paid).

I'd suggest it might be worth starting a new thread for each of these topics - but please ensure that all the new threads are clearly labelled with their expected content so that those of us happy to keep making those subsidy payments needn't bother reading them.

A lot of those are being addressed. Take child benefit for instance, even millionaire footballers were allowed to claim it, now the government have changed the rules.

However, as I keep stating and you guys keep ignoring, I'm not on this board to change the direction of government, I'm providing information to those who are undecided about PV and seek all of the information. You guys provide the financial details and I provide the ethical details.

If people still chose PV, then good luck to them but at least they can't say that they didn't realise that their PV array is part subsidized by the poor.

Dave_Fowler

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

Wow it's like walking into a playground!

I came into this thread to see if it was worth getting solar pv. I had solar in the past to heat hot water and TBH it did very little to heat water for the house and so saved my family nothing and probably, all things considered, didn't do much for the environment.

I now understand some people think there is an ethical debate to be had but to be fair to the OP that wasn't the question. Could the toys go back in the pram and someone answer the question from a moneysaving perspective? Please!

It's interesting to hear at first-hand that you have been disappointed by the solar thermal returns on investment. This has been the subject of debates on the forum over the past years.

As far as solar PV is concerned, you will need to consider your location, roof pitch and orientation, shading and any other factors which affect PV output. In a reasonable location you can expect to get a return of around 10% on your investment. The rate of FITs changes from time to time so that the return remains about the same. My original system cost just under £18k and my second system around £5k. at the same time the FITs has dropped from around 45p to 14p.

Dave F

PS also look out for ethical flack as a return!

The_Green_Man_2

Dave_Fowler wrote: »

PS also look out for ethical flack as a return!

Yes 'ethics' have really dropped off the radar on this particular board since the chase for FITs started. Perhaps Martin L should change the name of the board? Solar PV in the UK is netiehr green or ethical.