if solar is good why hasnt every one got it

Richie-from-the-Boro

FIT was slashed in March '12 from 43p to 21p its currently 14.9p per kWh of electricity generated, and according to DECC will continue to decline on a three-month basis. Its a hard to justify this entirely artificially created market .. .. just cut it to zero. The jury's is still out but around 10 years for a modern £1000 inverter sounds reasonable, yes some few older well made early ones saw 15 years, modern ones - we will see.

sheffield_lad

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

FIT was slashed in March '12 from 43p to 21p its currently 14.9p per kWh of electricity generated, and according to DECC will continue to decline on a three-month basis. Its a hard to justify this entirely artificially created market .. .. just cut it to zero.

What would cutting the FIT rate to zero do for the industry?

It would be wiped out. PV has come a long way with millions of homes now benefiting from free electricity.

The FIT rate drops as the price of the panels comes down. The sensible approach is exactly what is happening.

lstar337

Cardew wrote: »

Whilst some people do not consider panels to be an eyesore, surely nobody considers that they enhance the appearance of a property.

Some of the PV 'tile' designs are nice looking, I would say a whole roof of them would be an enhancement compared to standard tiles. But that is just my opinion, on the whole I would say you are correct about peoples attitudes.

captainhindsight_2

razor344 wrote: »

but if solar is so good then why hasnt every one got it ???

There are plenty of things which are a good deal that not every one takes up the list is endless. Just because not every one takes it up does not make it too good to be true.

Richie-from-the-Boro

sheffield_lad wrote: »

What would cutting the FIT rate to zero do for the industry?.

That depends on how you see an artificial industry. The industry as you see it is uses general [non-solar users] tax to pay the equivalent of a bribe in the form of FIT. An industry, any industry should stand or fall on its own feet. If its uneconomic without using my money to pay a bribe then its simply uneconomic, find another way or don't do it.

PV has come a long way with millions of homes now benefiting from free electricity

PV has not and will never work unless its stand alone financing. The only people who benefit from free leccy are those who have their leccy paid for by myself and other taxpayers. If PV users had to pay for their own install, receive no subsidy's and generate electricity then it is indeed free - but they don't - I pay - PV users are leeching money from people like me.

Sterlingtimes

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

If PV users had to pay for their own install, receive no subsidy's and generate electricity then it is indeed free - but they don't - I pay - PV users are leeching money from people like me.

Fundamentally, energy resources are becoming scare. The world demand for electricity is doubling every 10 years.

It must surely be in the national interest to generate power at home.

But a huge amount of people are resisting all sort of UK based energy sources: home solar, farm solar, fracking, wind, tidal. Every English village has its protest committee. The ethos is that "we want the energy to enhance our living standards but we would prefer that all of the dirty and nasty stuff happens abroad". It would be so much nicer so to speak that the solar and wind power are generated in Ireland (for instance) and wired back to our green and pleasant land.

The typical environmentalist is challenged by the desire on the one hand to preserve our countryside and to reduce fossil fuels on the other. I respect the views of the environmentalist to the extent that they are prepared to suffer an impact on their standard of living. But I lose sympathy at the point when they head on a plane with their family to Florida using the airport which they object wearing their "I am an environmental hero" tee-shirts.

Policy generally is driving home grown energy production while maintaining living standards.

System

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

PV has not and will never work unless its stand alone financing. The only people who benefit from free leccy are those who have their leccy paid for by myself and other taxpayers. If PV users had to pay for their own install, receive no subsidy's and generate electricity then it is indeed free - but they don't - I pay - PV users are leeching money from people like me.

That's one view, I suppose. My daughter, who has no children, might argue that she should have her income tax bill reduced as she has no need for schools.

FWiW, all types of energy generation have to be paid for with subsidies. Just look at the cost of new nuclear power stations:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/08/hinkley-point-european-commission-nuclear-power-station-somerset

Cardew

Hengus wrote: »

That's one view, I suppose. My daughter, who has no children, might argue that she should have her income tax bill reduced as she has no need for schools.

FWiW, all types of energy generation have to be paid for with subsidies. Just look at the cost of new nuclear power stations:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/08/hinkley-point-european-commission-nuclear-power-station-somerset

That argument for your daughter doesn't stand up when comparing subsidies for solar generation.


The FIT subsidy to those with solar PV is paid directly by a levy on our electricity bills.


If the FIT subsidy were paid for by general taxation from the Exchequer/Council like the cost of Education that would be another matter; albeit IMO it still doesn't make a case for solar PV


So some of the poorest in the land living in an all electric council flat with an electric bill of, say, £1,500pa pay 3 times as much levy toward the subsidy, than a high rate tax payer in a gas heated property paying £500 pa electricity.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Hengus wrote: »

That's one view, I suppose. My daughter, who has no children, might argue that she should have her income tax bill reduced as she has no need for schools.

FWiW, all types of energy generation have to be paid for with subsidies. Just look at the cost of new nuclear power stations:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/08/hinkley-point-european-commission-nuclear-power-station-somerset

- so your daughter never went to school and thus did not benefit ?
- subsidised wind and solar do not benefit, most of the time they don't generate or it can not be stored

Look leccy generated from solar or wind gas a value, that value is the resale market, the real price of your generation is what price your installation, generation, transport and storage is worth. Everything else is the majority subsiding the minority. Every input nuclear or carbon has a cost worth bearing because this Island like the rest of the world needs electricity. Home built & owned nuclear is the only form of secure generation and energy independence worth having - always was always will be. You and others may not like nuclear it but it is the only workable current technology solution.

[Deleted User]

Surely arguing about the FIT is a fruitless exercise when the sheer amount we get taxed in one form or another there is vast wastage when solar is actually one of the little gems costing very little.