Should solar users in receipt of FIT be encouraged onto Green Tarrifs?

MFW_ASAP

The title says it all really. Should people with solar panels, who are in receipt of feed in tariff subsidies, be encouraged onto electricity plans that have 100% generation from renewables or lose their tariff subsidies?

Most owners of solar panels have seen a large reduction in their electricity bills, paid for by the subsidies from other people's electricity bills. The average panels are paid off within 6 or 7 years, with the remainder of the 20 or 25 year subsidy providing them with a tax free income.

Should they therefore give a little back by paying a little bit more for their electricity (still much less than they would have paid without solar panels) by going onto a Green Tariff. This would further assist the renewables industry and help the UK move towards a CO2 free future.

Those who don't want to help out, could opt out of their FIT payments and remain on cheaper, coal/natural gas based energy supplies.

Thoughts?

EricMears

Those of us in receipt of FIT payments are well aware that the 'green levy' on everybody's bills (including our own) are spread over a number of projects and the FIT scheme forms a very small part of that.

The object of the various subsidies is to 'create a level playing field' to encourage more organisations to invest in alternative technologies. Having created such a 'level playing field' , there should be absolutely no reason for 'green energy' to be sold to consumers at a premium price.

The terms of our FIT contracts were clearly set out before acceptance and did not include any obligation to use any particular energy supplier during the contract period.

MFW_ASAP

Well, times change Eric and given the 'green credentials' of this board, I would have thought that you were all on renewable energy plans anyway?

You'd all still keep your snouts in the troughs, but you'd have to give a little back to help the environment. Is that so wrong?

EricMears

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Well, times change Eric and given the 'green credentials' of this board, I would have thought that you were all on renewable energy plans anyway?

You'd all still keep your snouts in the troughs, but you'd have to give a little back to help the environment. Is that so wrong?

This board is part of the "Money Saving Expert' website. There should be a bit of a clue in the name to hint that people join such an organisation to save money - not to help further subsidise organisations in receipt of government grants.


The 'little given back' would actually result in the allegedly green generators getting even richer rather than being of any help to the environment.

tunnel

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

You'd all still keep your snouts in the troughs

Oooo, The Green Man returns!!!

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Integrated ones (such as the ones I'm having fitted to a outbuilding) or solar roof tiles are fine, but panels that sit on a roof like a hat are more than likely to reduce the sale price of the house, sometimes much more than the cost of the install and the electricity savings

Will you be going on to a green tariff or as Eric suggests, use this site to save money? I know which I'd rather do!
__________________

MFW_ASAP

EricMears wrote: »

This board is part of the "Money Saving Expert' website. There should be a bit of a clue in the name to hint that people join such an organisation to save money - not to help further subsidise organisations in receipt of government grants.


The 'little given back' would actually result in the allegedly green generators getting even richer rather than being of any help to the environment.

So you're saying that you don't mind receiving subsidies yourself, but you baulk at paying them? You also saying that the country should not pay subsidies to help the renewable energy sector get established and that we should be 'money saving' and get the cheapest energy, no matter where it comes from or what damage it does to the planet?

This part of MSE used to be a nice place where people were passionate about the environment gathered. We talked about saving money, but in a way that was gentle to the environment, such as recycling worn car tyres into planters or using natural products for cleaning, such as vinegar.

Since the advent of Feed in Tariffs, the board has been swamped with people who just want cheap electricity, who cloak themselves in a 'green persona' but don't actually do anything other then get solar installed to earn them an income.

Heaven forfend that you would want to forgo a little of those energy savings and interest free subsidies to help promote renewables that other people can benefit from. For shame Eric. For shame.

MFW_ASAP

tunnel wrote: »

Will you be going on to a green tariff or as Eric suggests, use this site to save money? I know which I'd rather do!
__________________

I'm already on a green tariff for my electricity supply. I've also bought energy efficient appliances and light bulbs, internally insulated the walls, roof and floors of my house, fitted water saving taps and shower heads.

Basically, I have done everything I can to reduce my energy usage, and now I'm in the process of installing solar panels to introduce some renewable energy generation.

So to answer your question, I have done both - they are not mutually exclusive.

EricMears

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Heaven forfend that you would want to forgo a little of those energy savings and interest free subsidies to help promote renewables that other people can benefit from. For shame Eric. For shame.

You quite obviously didn't read (or maybe didn't understand ?) my earlier postings !

Spending extra cash on an allegedly 'green' tariff doesn't "benefit the environment" - it just helps to put extra money into the pockets of those who are already taking subsidies intended to allow them to compete on an equal footing with 'dirty generators'.

It's a very boring bit of economic theory that anyone who wants to understand can look up for themselves but basically if you want to achieve the most efficient use of resources, the optimum way is to choose the method that gives the best financial return. Diluting that advice with non-financial considerations will just result in a less efficient result.

warrenb

It is a tricky subject, because there are people out there that want to do their bit for the environment, but don't want to have no return on an investment. I think personally the best way would be that the initial cost of PV can off set against tax, and then drop FIT and have the export tariff at the same rate that you pay for your electricity, but properly metered.

This way, the person having them installed has an incentive to have it done, but also realises a return based on their efficiency of electricity use.
This way people will buy bigger systems and be more energy efficient.


Also, the person then has a decision, go on a higher tariff (green possibly) and be paid more for each unit and be more efficient, or go for the lowest tariff, get smaller return and be less efficient.

This way, I believe people will fit systems that give a better all day return, thus bringing it to more East and West facing properties, and not just South to get the biggest generation number, but all in a 3 hour slot.


If I had the chance I would have gone East and West (and am still looking to do this once better more efficient panels are available) rather than cramming 4kw on one roof for the pure numbers.

MFW_ASAP

EricMears wrote: »

Spending extra cash on an allegedly 'green' tariff doesn't "benefit the environment" - it just helps to put extra money into the pockets of those who are already taking subsidies intended to allow them to compete on an equal footing with 'dirty generators'.

I'm not sure why you keep saying 'alleged' green tariff. Are you saying that are all fraudulent?

Anyway, conspiracy theories to one side. Are you really saying that going onto a Green Tariff, where all the energy is supplied by renewables, does not benefit the environment?

Really?

Is it really so bad to 'put money into the pockets of green generators to allow them to compete with dirty generators'. Are you really saying that's a bad thing?

Really?

MFW_ASAP

warrenb wrote: »

It is a tricky subject, because there are people out there that want to do their bit for the environment, but don't want to have no return on an investment. I think personally the best way would be that the initial cost of PV can off set against tax, and then drop FIT and have the export tariff at the same rate that you pay for your electricity, but properly metered.

This way, the person having them installed has an incentive to have it done, but also realises a return based on their efficiency of electricity use.
This way people will buy bigger systems and be more energy efficient.


Also, the person then has a decision, go on a higher tariff (green possibly) and be paid more for each unit and be more efficient, or go for the lowest tariff, get smaller return and be less efficient.

This way, I believe people will fit systems that give a better all day return, thus bringing it to more East and West facing properties, and not just South to get the biggest generation number, but all in a 3 hour slot.


If I had the chance I would have gone East and West (and am still looking to do this once better more efficient panels are available) rather than cramming 4kw on one roof for the pure numbers.

Great thought provoking post. :beer: