Fourth Anniversary Results

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

That's effectively what the article should have conveyed then there wouldn't be the possibility of any misinterpretation or spin ...

HTH
Z

But in fairness to the Guardian they probably didn't anticipate anyone separating the second sentence, from the first, as that could be seriously misleading!

Recent research by the Policy Exchange thinktank found the contribution of FiTs and the renewable obligation (RO) amounted to £10 and £38 respectively. Jim Watson, the director of the UK Energy Research Centre said the contribution of solar to the RO was “relatively small” whereas the industry benefits from the vast majority of FiTs.

Mart.

theboylard

Cardew wrote: »

Well what 'you get' is absolutely incorrect and you compound that by making quite the silliest statement I have seen on these boards.


The OP in his first post gives figures that show he has received nearly £7,000 at an average of 47.5p for every kWh he has generated.


So he has been paid that subsidy for every kWh he generates and he doesn't even need to export a single kWh if he can find a way to use it 'in house'.


Can you not understand that you don't reduce demands on the generating infrastructure when it counts, as the maximum load on the Grid is when solar is generating zilch.


With the odd exception, there isn't a thinking person on this thread who doesn't appreciate the points I make about the stupidity of the FIT system for solar are accurate. Yet there is this desire to justify the FIT system rather than accept it as a nice little earner - totally disingenuous in many cases.

Shall we correct your figures? What Eric quoted is not what I get so don't put us all in the same pot. My installation was approx half of Erics, but my FiT is less a third of your calculated figure, and reduced by 5 years.
But I chose to make an investment in my own energy security, so I was happy to put my money where my mouth is.
Care to take up mine/silverwhistle's offer?

Silliest statement?
I feel based on your obsessed ranting on this thread alone, that among your 24,000+ posts, you will have nailed that honour many times, each being better than the last.

Love you xxx

Cardew

theboylard wrote: »

Shall we correct your figures? What Eric quoted is not what I get so don't put us all in the same pot. My installation was approx half of Erics, but my FiT is less a third of your calculated figure, and reduced by 5 years.
But I chose to make an investment in my own energy security, so I was happy to put my money where my mouth is.
Care to take up mine/silverwhistle's offer?

Silliest statement?
I feel based on your obsessed ranting on this thread alone, that among your 24,000+ posts, you will have nailed that honour many times, each being better than the last.

Love you xxx

What you individually do, or don't do, and your motives is of no relevance.


I am making a generalised criticism of the solar FIT system and give valid reasons for that criticism. If you class that as 'obsessed ranting' then you are out of your depth in a discussion forum.

theboylard

I think you'll find that on the scale of rational behaviour and balanced viewpoints on a discussion forum, I'm paddling in very shallow waters...

But I don't think much light reaches the depths you occupy?

Mwah, mwah (continental style kisses for you)

EricMears

I'd probably agree that the FIT scheme is 'generous' - maybe even 'over-generous'.

But you have to see the thing in perspective. Our government were obliged by EU rules to demonstrate that the UK was investing in renewables but chose not to increase taxes to make the necessary investment themselves. The FIT scheme was cribbed from other EU members (where it's worked just as well as it has here) and has indeed spared the government from finding the funds but without the far higher costs that a PFI scheme would have required. And of course sharing the FIT proceeds amongst a large number of small investors is a much more popular scheme than letting a few 'cronies' cream off the (even larger) profits. Just to set at rest the minds of anyone who might be worried about it, the scheme hasn't made me a millionaire (yet)

My original posting (#1 in this thread) was intended only to reassure potential FIT applicants that the reference sources are indeed pretty reliable. The waffle that it's attracted will no doubt be ignored by anyone who appreciated the original intention.

There are a lot of government schemes with which I'm not entirely happy :-

The whole area of PFI - if a third party is making money then such a scheme should have justified government investment in the first place.

Student loans - the grant scheme we had in the 1950s & 60s (even 70s ?) worked well and its beneficiaries will almost certainly have repaid that investment by getting far better jobs than they might otherwise have done and hence 'joined the higher rate taxation club' to make the scheme self-funding in the long term.

I could go on (and on and on . . . . ) but would much rather that such matters were discussed in a new topic (or several) with a title that tells forum users what to expect there.

theboylard

As his nibs won't apologise for sidetracking your thread, I will.
My apologies for the off topic comments Eric.

Thanks for the stats, always useful.

nobby1963

Looking forward to our systems 4th anniversary in November, it looks like it's going to be along similar lines to yours as regards to figures but time will tell ( after watching the weather forecast just now - there ain't going to be much sun down here in 'sunny Devon ' over the next few days ).
Did manage to get our system for £11k though.
It's a shame that a thread started with the best of intentions and of particular interest to me and I guess other earlier adopters got so off track though.
I accept that the FIT scheme for solar has its objectors but just start a new thread and have the debate there.
I understand though that's once it's been brought up the argument needs defending.....
Nobby
Cloudy Devon.

tunnel

Them's some good numbers you have there Eric. Any chance you could find out what your neighbours ROI is with the tracking system? .....Second thoughts......better not or there'll be another 3 pages of cr$p to read through before we can all go "green" with envy....

silverwhistle

Cardew wrote: »

The OP in his first post gives figures that show he has received nearly £7,000 at an average of 47.5p for every kWh he has generated.

The subsidy is now about a third that and costs have come down dramatically too. It looks like subsidy has been very succesful in achieving what it was meant to? It's a shame nuclear costs haven't come down in the same way.

Can you not understand that you don't reduce demands on the generating infrastructure when it counts, as the maximum load on the Grid is when solar is generating zilch..

So you really haven't been listening to those of us who have been pointing out (repeatedly) that we have been transferring our demand to when we are generating. We have been reducing demands on the infrastructure when it counts, you utter numpty.

As Nobby above has pointed out, start your own thread and stop raising the same points again and again where it is not relevant. And please answer some of the questions that you are asked about the alternatives as at the moment it appears you are on commission from the nuclear industry.

Sue (ex-ESI)

jimjames

EricMears wrote: »

Our SME Inverter was initialised at 13:45hrs on 16/08/2011
TGM read Zero at that point

Current Total Yield (according to Sunny Explorer) 14.701 MWh
TGM reading 14719kWh

(As an aside, that means the Inverter is under-reading by 0.12% wrt TGM)

System cost £12500
FIT payments collected (to end June) £6733.41
Earnt since last claim £261.40
Total earnings £6994.81

Just received another FIT payment. Our system was installed slightly later than yours (Nov 2011) and is slightly smaller at 3kWp.

We've now generated 12,000 kWh with payments of £5634 at a system cost of £8995.

http://solar-panels-review.321web.co.uk/index.php/yearly-comparison-of-solar-pv