Is solar PV worth it?

tunnel

The_Green_Man wrote: »

It seems that people are happy to try and 'play the person instead of the ball' on here, a tactic to avoid answering difficult questions.

Will no one just man up and admit that they are receiving a subsidy from people who are more than likely poorer than them in order to reduce their electricity bills, and they don't care a jot.

At least that would be honest.

Err,i'll admit to taking a subsidy from everyone,rich,middle class and poor,business's too. Thing is, i was once the poor person you keep going on about,yet i got off my poor a**e and did something about it rather than sitting there blaming anything bar myself.

I've since paid £100k's in taxes both personally and through my business. So if i can get a little bit back then i'm jolly well going to do so and i don't give a jot who knows.

I see also you never seem to condemn all the councils up and down the country who've also installed PV systems on their houses,collecting FITs subsidy from the very poor people you keep bleating about,is that morally wrong?

The_Green_Man_2

tunnel wrote: »

Err,i'll admit to taking a subsidy from everyone,rich,middle class and poor,business's too. Thing is, i was once the poor person you keep going on about,yet i got off my poor a**e and did something about it rather than sitting there blaming anything bar myself.

I've since paid £100k's in taxes both personally and through my business. So if i can get a little bit back then i'm jolly well going to do so and i don't give a jot who knows.

I see also you never seem to condemn all the councils up and down the country who've also installed PV systems on their houses,collecting FITs subsidy from the very poor people you keep bleating about,is that morally wrong?

Thanks for that, it's nice to see someone stand up and be counted. I particularly enjoyed your little brag about how well you were doing financially. It really helped my argument.

For what it's worth, no one has suggested that the poor are blaming anyone else for their financial position, though I guess it doesn't help them if the self-confessed rich like yourself takes a slice of what little money they have in order to feather their own nests.

Cardew

tunnel wrote: »

and now used my money as an investment that is fully backed by the goverment.

Everyone has the opportunity to do exactly as i have done,why is that so wrong?

The most certainly don't have such an opportunity!

People live in flats.

People live in rented accomodation.

People have unsuitable roofs - shading, structure, size, orientation etc etc.

People cannot afford £xthousand as an investment.

Personally, as stated many times in this section, I don't think there is any justification for criticising those who take advantage of the FIT scheme.

The criticism IMO is aimed at the Government(past and present) who allowed such a stupid scheme.

The issues have been well rehearsed and the thrust of The-Green-Man's argument cannot really be argued against by any thinking person(IMO). Undoubtedly the FIT scheme takes money from the poor and gives it to the better off.

Dave_Fowler

In this digital age, recordings don't wear out - no matter how many times you play them. Bring back vinyl!

Dave F

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

Undoubtedly the FIT scheme takes money from the poor and gives it to the better off.

It takes money from rich and poor alike - pro-rata to their electricity consumption which no doubt has a correlation with income.

But why bother criticizing the scheme here - it's a piece of legislation , done and dusted. You might just as well complain about income tax or national insurance contributions - indeed, that would probably be more useful since those are variable schemes unlike FIT payments which are fixed at start of individual contracts.

WestonDave

To be fair FiT's are only the latest in a long line of things where people who are worse off end up inadvertently subsidising the better off as a result of Government policy designed to change behaviour. In the case of FiT's its designed to encourage renewables, in the case of cigarette duty its designed to discourage smoking (but ends up with smokers - higher proportion of whom are poorer subsidising general health costs), petrol duty (older cars tend to be less efficient so often people who can't afford a new efficient car end up paying more fuel duty). Cardew is right - the problem lies with Governments using a blunt financial instrument to change behaviour rather than the people who follow the desired pattern of behaviour change due to the incentives. So in my case, yes I have got the advantage of a system which by spreading the cost of my incentives over everyone will catch less well off people. I'm not sure I feel any worse about that than the fact that I'm not going to start smoking in order to bear my share of that burden.

Martyn1981

I still find the spin on FITs astonishing.

If people don't want renewables than that's fine, that's their opinion, and they are welcome to it. But if we accept that we need renewables and/or nuclear then we have to accept subsidies.

Subsidies paid to powerstations owned by large companies, or subsidies paid to powerstations owned by householders.

From what I can see the biggest plus of FITs - that most of the money goes to householders - is being spun in a lawyer/politician style into a negative.

If you break the argument down it doesn't just become pointless, it actually flips around, after all, surely distributing the subsidy between householders is vastly fairer than to large companies who have always failed to improve competition.

Another major point that gets missed, is that as FITs reduces, the burden on all leccy payers reduces, but investment in these technologies is from the demand side, not the supply side, so the grid sees increased supply, or reduced demand without any supply side infrastructure investment.

I'd be interested to know what proportion of households could, over time, benefit from FITs (PV, wind, CHP, hydro etc).

Mart.

Cardew

Dave_Fowler wrote: »

In this digital age, recordings don't wear out - no matter how many times you play them. Bring back vinyl!

Dave F

Does that apply to both sides? Martyn please note!

Also it is relevant that there are newcomers to MSE and/or these threads.

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

It takes money from rich and poor alike - pro-rata to their electricity consumption which no doubt has a correlation with income.

I would think there is considerable doubt that electricity consumption has a correlation with income.

The better-off tend to have gas or oil CH and many of the less well off have electrical heating/hot water - read the many threads in the gas and electricity section of MSE.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

Does that apply to both sides? Martyn please note!

Also it is relevant that there are newcomers to MSE and/or these threads.

Probably relevant to point out that your repetitive nonsense has been answered and ridiculed repetitively too then:

spgsc531 wrote: »

Let's clear your distraction up, you posted:

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.

Implying that very few people have access to Solar PV FiTs.

I responded to your post:

spgsc531 wrote: »

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?

I think it's pretty accepted annual electrical savings of £80-£100 for Solar PV, even ignoring what you said 'especially with all-electric heating as so many are'

I also think it's fair to say Solar PV FiT contribution was £2(or so?) per year in 2011, as guidance.

I then responded to your accusation:

Cardew wrote: »

'Many Councils'? - Yet another misleading statement, indeed another myth:

spgsc531 wrote: »

A quick google found this as the first link:

http://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/council-solar-panels

"Solar panel systems are currently being fitted on many council houses across the country"

There are 468 local councils in the UK.

There are 11,000 town, parish and community councils in the UK.

Just my (one) borough council has fitted 400 council houses with Solar PV, with a further 1600 identified as suitable. I'm sure it's not hard to find many more councils doing the same.

Nobody has claimed/implied that FITs are justified because council tenants are reaping the benefit.

I was just responding to your post with facts.[/QUOTE]

Although, noted you have amended your nonsense a little bit.

I'm sure those newcomers can make their own mind up who is pathetic.

Dave_Fowler wrote: »

In this digital age, recordings don't wear out - no matter how many times you play them. Bring back vinyl!

Dave F