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

ed110220

Indeed. What the anti-FIT crowd seem to forget, is that all electricity generation for the grid is profit based. The big energy companies don't build and run power stations, wind farms etc out of the goodness of their hearts, so to single out PV is perverse.

Short of nationalising the electricity industry and generating all electricity on a not-for-profit basis (which may be a good idea, but not really what's being discussed) domestic generation is surely the most equitable way of doing it, as it gives people on modest incomes the opportunity to take part, not just the big energy companies.

As I've pointed out, PV is now within reach of almost anyone who owns their own home. Housing associations and their tenants can benefit too.

Cardew

ed110220 wrote: »

Indeed. What the anti-FIT crowd seem to forget, is that all electricity generation for the grid is profit based. The big energy companies don't build and run power stations, wind farms etc out of the goodness of their hearts, so to single out PV is perverse.

Short of nationalising the electricity industry and generating all electricity on a not-for-profit basis (which may be a good idea, but not really what's being discussed) domestic generation is surely the most equitable way of doing it, as it gives people on modest incomes the opportunity to take part, not just the big energy companies.

As I've pointed out, PV is now within reach of almost anyone who owns their own home. Housing associations and their tenants can benefit too.

The 'anti-FIT crowd' remark is a welcome step forward.


Of course the energy generators are profit making concerns; however they compete in a competitive market. Not so those in receipt of FIT subsidies. For early adopters to be getting around 50p for every kWh they generate is indefensible IMO, especially as they don't need to export a single kWh if they can find ways of diverting their output. Do those with swimming/paddling pools have a immersun clone?


Oh, and did I mention that the FIT subsidy is paid for by a levy on all electricity consumers etc etc!

MFW_ASAP

ed110220 wrote: »

Indeed. What the anti-FIT crowd seem to forget, is that all electricity generation for the grid is profit based. The big energy companies don't build and run power stations, wind farms etc out of the goodness of their hearts, so to single out PV is perverse.

Short of nationalising the electricity industry and generating all electricity on a not-for-profit basis (which may be a good idea, but not really what's being discussed) domestic generation is surely the most equitable way of doing it, as it gives people on modest incomes the opportunity to take part, not just the big energy companies.

As I've pointed out, PV is now within reach of almost anyone who owns their own home. Housing associations and their tenants can benefit too.

If everyone could afford PV and fitted it, then the country would go bust paying each other the FIT payments. It's a pyramid/PONZI scheme that benefits those who got in early and are at the top of the pyramid.

Much better for green levies and taxes to be spent in a way that benefits all payers of those taxes, not just the few who could afford to get in on the top floor.

A single large wind turbine can supply electricity to 4000 homes. That's the sort of technologies we should have been investing in, rather than the piecemeal, inefficient implementation of domestic solar.

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/powering-4000-homes-one-wind-turbine.html

ed110220

Cardew wrote: »

The 'anti-FIT crowd' remark is a welcome step forward.


Of course the energy generators are profit making concerns; however they compete in a competitive market. Not so those in receipt of FIT subsidies. For early adopters to be getting around 50p for every kWh they generate is indefensible IMO, especially as they don't need to export a single kWh if they can find ways of diverting their output. Do those with swimming/paddling pools have a immersun clone?


Oh, and did I mention that the FIT subsidy is paid for by a levy on all electricity consumers etc etc!

Given how few installations there are on 50p tariffs compared with later and lower tariffs (and particularly compared with how many there would be on lower and lower tariffs still if the government doesn't kill off the whole thing) and the consequently trifling amount it adds to the average bill, bringing it up is simply an emotional/rhetorical device.

One can argue that it should have been cut sooner, but at this point that's about as useful as discussing whether we should have gone to war with Germany in 1936.

silverwhistle

Perhaps the government could increase benefits for 'poor people' so that they can afford the extra trifling amounts (which are always inflated by some people - I can't mention names as they get all sensitive).:-)

That way those of us who have invested thousands from our meagre savings to improve the infrastructure can get a little extra, as well as the knowledge that in future we don't have to worry so much about increasing bills on the back of the nuclear subsidy. Perhaps we can also get the government to back on-shore wind too - a far more important target, in my opinion, restore insulation programmes, and stop encouraging fracking. I believe the Green party are for those things,along with grass roots action and a more limited role for big business. They're not very good at publicising that though..

MFW_ASAP

Well, it looks like the votes are in and not one of the solar boys is currently using, or is planning on using a green tariff. The general consensus seems to be that they bought into solar as an investment only and are only interested in being 'green' if they get an investment return.

Proof, if needed, that the solar stuff should go onto the energy board or even the investment boards, but definitely shouldn't be on the Green boards. With the 'I'm all right jack' attitude to Fits and the lack of compassion for those struggling to pay their energy bills (and therefore the solar tariffs) it shows that Ethical they ain't.

EricMears

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Well, it looks like the votes are in and not one of the solar boys is currently using, or is planning on using a green tariff.

Afraid I didn't see a voting opportunity within this thread.

I believe the original title was "Should solar users in receipt of FIT be encouraged onto Green Tarrifs?" but I haven't seen any hint of encouragement to do so. As I mentioned at an early stage, the generators of 'green electricity' are all getting huge (far greater than I get !) subsidies to compensate them for the extra costs in 'going green'. These subsidies are paid for by all electricity consumers and ought to result in green tariffs that are competitive with 'dirty tariffs'. The fact that they're all at a premium price would suggest that rather than being satisfied with the warm glow they could get from sharing their good fortune and encouraging others to support their efforts they're just using it as an opportunity to make more money.

I look forward to them making a real effort to encourage new 'green' customers in the New Year.

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Well, it looks like the votes are in and not one of the solar boys is currently using, or is planning on using a green tariff. The general consensus seems to be that they bought into solar as an investment only and are only interested in being 'green' if they get an investment return.

Proof, if needed, that the solar stuff should go onto the energy board or even the investment boards, but definitely shouldn't be on the Green boards. With the 'I'm all right jack' attitude to Fits and the lack of compassion for those struggling to pay their energy bills (and therefore the solar tariffs) it shows that Ethical they ain't.

Putting aside the stupidity of the thread suggestion - which can also be read as those that do nothing should be forced onto FF only tariffs - Who are you to lecture people on being green?

You recently posted:

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

For the record, I voted Green and I'm a life member of that party (having the paid the £400+ to do so).

Yet your views on PV, domestic PV and the FiT are the exact opposite of those promoted by the Green Party. You do know that don't you?

Green Party Manifesto

Provide a free nationwide retrofit insulation programme, concentrating on areas where fuel poverty is most serious. This is designed to insulate 9 million homes in total and take at least 2 million homes out of fuel poverty, aiming for the Passivhaus ultra low-energy refurbishment standard by 2020. It will offer up to £5,000 worth of free insulation, or other energy improvements such as solar photovoltaics (PV) if the insulation is already up to the standard, to every home in designated areas.

Our vision for the energy system is a diverse mix of public and private participants, including community, cooperative and municipal generation, supply and distribution. We will end the dominance of the Big Six energy companies. We will stabilise the ‘policy landscape’ for renewable energy to provide certainty for investment decisions, including long-term targets and stable feedin
tariffs.

Green Party - Keep FiT

“The Feed in Tariff (FIT) has been a great success. It has enabled hundreds of thousands of homes, communities and businesses to generate their own energy and has led to the price of solar power reducing to a point where it is possible to imagine it competing without subsidy in the near future. But the government proposals for dramatic cuts in the FiT risks bringing this success story to a sudden halt. Rather than celebrating the contribution this will make to combatting climate change, the government seems intent on destroying an industry which has so much to offer the UK in terms of job creation, security of energy supply, and low-carbon generation.

Reaction to the government’s feed-in tariff cuts

Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP

"I welcome the fact that the government has rowed back slightly on these cuts but these measures will still be deeply damaging. Rather than really rethinking these disastrous and deeply unpopular plans, ministers will inflict serious damage on an industry which creates thousands of jobs and is a vital part of a zero carbon future.

"The government's strong words on climate change ahead of the Paris summit are being revealed to be nothing short of bluster and spin. Ministers happily take credit for being climate champions on an international stage while flagrantly undermining the renewable industry here at home.

"Solar is popular and cost effective - and the price is rapidly dropping. To cut support at this stage not only dashes hopes of Britain leading the way in meeting the 1.5 degree target set in Paris last week, but also risks putting thousands of people of of work."

So it seems that all of us PV'ers are 'doing the right thing' as judged by the Green Party. A party who would (I suspect) throw you out for your constant abusive posts ...... if you actually used your real name.

Your actions don't appear to be green or ethical. So if you don't speak for the Green's (despite your pretence), who exactly is it you speak for?

Mart.

[Deleted User]

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Well, it looks like the votes are in and not one of the solar boys is currently using, or is planning on using a green tariff. The general consensus seems to be that they bought into solar as an investment only and are only interested in being 'green' if they get an investment return.

Proof, if needed, that the solar stuff should go onto the energy board or even the investment boards, but definitely shouldn't be on the Green boards. With the 'I'm all right jack' attitude to Fits and the lack of compassion for those struggling to pay their energy bills (and therefore the solar tariffs) it shows that Ethical they ain't.

Are you serious!?

PVers here have taken the financial risk of putting £0,000s of pounds on their roof to not only benefit themselves over the longer term but also the country as a whole. Win win I would thought...

As a result of generating clean solar energy of which 50% [as per the export rate] is exported for minimal return [certainly on my FIT rate] for the benefit of all.

A knock on effect of owning solar is a much greater awareness of energy consumption hence driving down costs through implementing further measures e.g. LEDs, new appliances etc.

I even changed from a Jeep to a tiny city car [second hand of course] to reduce my overall energy footprint and reduce costs but no matter how hard I try I can't find green pumps at the forecourt that charge more for the sake of it?

Also changed [at my cost] from LPG to a heat Pump for which I receive RHI payments so should there be an even more expensive electricity price when gas is as cheap as chips?

What am I saying... well there are lots of ways to be green[er] that may or may not get a subsidy and if you are struggling with energy bills then do something about it...

MFW_ASAP

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Yet your views on PV, domestic PV and the FiT are the exact opposite of those promoted by the Green Party. You do know that don't you?

Mart.

nope, in your eagerness to score points, you missed the salient point in those Green Party quotes:

"concentrating on areas where fuel poverty is most serious"
"to every home in designated areas"

Fuel poverty is not the most serious within the homes of the middle classes who can afford the investment of solar. If the Greens had an input into the decision making around investment into solar, we wouldn't have a tariff on everyone's electricity bills, proportionally impacting the poorer in society in order to enrichen the wealthiest in society. We would have seen government investment where the poorest members of society had reduced electricity bills, not the wealthiest.

I have no problem at all with general taxation being used to help out those who need help. I doubt very much that you and your cronies were suffering from fuel poverty and so needed me and other energy users to subsidise your bills.