We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Should solar discussions be moved to the Energy board?
Comments
-
My argument has always been against the solar FIT system, not those who take advantage of the system. However I just wish there would be an admission that the majority have fitted solar purely as an investment and spare us from the disingenuous protestations about their green credentials.
Of course the FIT system is a method of transferring wealth from the less well off to house owners who can afford to install a solar system or rent a roof firms. What George Monboit wrote in March 2010 was true then, and has proven to be true; namely 'it is a transfer of wealth from approx. 98% of electricity consumers to the 2% receiving the subsidy.'
My views in a nutshell, especially the bit about solar investors wrapping themselves in a green cloak. If we had to have fits paid to individuals, the government should have insisted that they all had to reach a B energy rating before they qualified. Too many have stuck solar panels on their poorly insulated and energy inefficient houses and boasted about their green credentials. Sustainability is about reducing consumption, not increasing generation, an idea totally lost on this particular 'green' forum.0 -
As it happens, I have been watching that thread but haven't seen any messages in support of moving this board elsewhere posted.Luckily the thread on the feedback board is the important one and these guys haven't ruined that (though maybe they will now). Any decision to re-organise the boards will be taken based on feedback on that thread, not this one.
But it's inconceivable that any MSE official would ever make a decision on what happens to one board based on ill-informed criticism posted elsewhere. At the very least, we would expect to see a message from MSE_Andrea (or one of her colleagues) alerting all users of this board of the proposal and inviting comments - maybe even launching a poll on the subject ?NE Derbyshire.4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).24kWh of Pylontech batteries with Lux controller BEV : Hyundai Ioniq50 -
Any decision to re-organise the boards will be taken based on feedback on that thread, not this one.
I believe that MSE Andrea said she would also monitor this thread so you may be out of luck, but never fear, you have Cardew's backing which must count for something.MSE_Andrea wrote: »Hi!
It's great to see the Green and Ethical board being used so much.
We'll monitor your thread on there and see what other MSErs in the Green and Ethical community have to say on there.0 -
Hard to believe that MFW_ASAP has actually read any of the postings on this board over the last few years !My views in a nutshell, especially the bit about solar investors wrapping themselves in a green cloak. If we had to have fits paid to individuals, the government should have insisted that they all had to reach a B energy rating before they qualified. Too many have stuck solar panels on their poorly insulated and energy inefficient houses and boasted about their green credentials. Sustainability is about reducing consumption, not increasing generation, an idea totally lost on this particular 'green' forum.
His (her ?) 'new idea' of insisting that FIT applicants ought to start with a better than averagely insulated house was in fact adopted by the scheme administrators a couple of years ago and reported here at the time. True, the threshold is actually a 'C' rating rather than 'B' - but that still represents a much better than average house. I'd quite like to see it needing an 'A' rating - but recognise that would actually mean demolishing virtually every house not built within the last couple of years - hardly a very 'green' approach !
Also widely reported in this forum is the fact that installation of solar PV almost always results in increased monitoring of household power consumption and huge reductions in the total amount of power consumed. One might expect people with free power at the flick of a switch to be less careful of usage and I'm sure that's probably true in some cases. However, those of us who have gravitated to this page are in the main both green and ethical so have risen above that temptation.NE Derbyshire.4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).24kWh of Pylontech batteries with Lux controller BEV : Hyundai Ioniq50 -
My argument has always been against the solar FIT system, not those who take advantage of the system.
... but in your next sentence undermines your statement above.However I just wish there would be an admission that the majority have fitted solar purely as an investment and spare us from the disingenuous protestations about their green credentials.
I derive a salary from a global corporate concerned with energy management. I have also invested in solar. However, I am also very committed to green and ethical issues in this regard.
The issue of commitment to solving the world wide energy problem and the issue of benefiting financially are not mutually exclusive.
I am far from being an eco warrior or being politically engaged in green issues: I am more of the view that green behaviour must be guided by sound business and financial logic.
Two posters here retain the view that anyone who derives financial benefit cannot possibly have ethical concerns. I find the comments insulting.I have osteoarthritis in my hands so I speak my messages into a microphone using Dragon. Some people make "typos" but I often make "speakos".0 -
The_Green_Hornet wrote: »I believe that MSE Andrea said she would also monitor this thread so you may be out of luck, but never fear, you have Cardew's backing which must count for something.
Actually I may be in luck, as I'm sure that MSE Andrea can see the 'wood from the trees' and ignore the baiting that was going on by the status-quo boys and see that people have admitted that they 'stumbled' onto this forum after looking in more obvious places (such as the Energy board). What you have to remember is that this forum isn't here so that a few (18 people at last count) can get together in a clique and discuss how much power they generated today and how much they diverted into their hot water tanks instead of supplying the national grid, it's here to help and appeal to the largest number of people. My suggestion of moving solar from an obscure board to a more popular (and relevant) one will undoubtedly increase 'foot-fall' in this forum. Putting aside the silly squabbles - no one has argued against that fact. The only (on-topic) retorts have been 'but we like it here', 'this is where we've always been', 'we found this board eventually after searching about and now we know where it is', 'if it aint broke, don't fix it' and these are just not compelling enough arguments against the single argument that if you move the board to somewhere more logical and popular, more people will use the resource. IMHO.0 -
Hard to believe that MFW_ASAP has actually read any of the postings on this board over the last few years !
His (her ?) 'new idea' of insisting that FIT applicants ought to start with a better than averagely insulated house was in fact adopted by the scheme administrators a couple of years ago and reported here at the time. True, the threshold is actually a 'C' rating rather than 'B' - but that still represents a much better than average house.
Actually you're wrong. You get full FIT payments if your house has an EPC rating of D or above. You get the reduced rate FITs if your house has an EPC rating of D or below. I never said this was 'my idea' (another strawman). I felt when it was introduced that it was a step in the right direction but it should have been introduced at the start (if we had to have FITs) and should have been a lot more stringent.0 -
Sterlingtimes wrote: »...
Two posters here retain the view that anyone who derives financial benefit cannot possibly have ethical concerns. I find the comments insulting.
Can you identify the two posters please and justification for the above statement.0 -
Are you at least going to answer why you posted this thread in the green and ethical forum instead of the water forum, the sub forum from energy. Surely you would have had a better response in that forum with more "footfall". Is it because anything that is seen as green...like water recycling, solar pv, solar thermal, ground source heat pumps, insulation, woodburners etc etc, people choose to come here instead of the energy board.(such as the Energy board).
I have included PV because FiT aside, when most people get panels fitted they automatically switch to eco mode in their heads, trying their very best to cut their own consumption, thus reducing demand which has to be greener for everyone.
Also,Instead of berating the FiT, why not campaign instead to bring in net metering whereby you get to use all the exported energy when you need it. It is now at a point(cost wise) that the FiT could be dropped entirely if that was to be introduced.2 kWp SEbE , 2kWp SSW & 2.5kWp NWbW.....in sunny North Derbyshire17.7kWh Givenergy battery added(for the power hungry kids)0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards