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

EricMears

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

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?

On the contrary, it was a great idea - but giving them an incentive that's supposed to be enough to allow them to compete and then letting them charge a premium price for their product perhaps isn't quite so good.

Surely, rather than putting all that money into the pockets of large companies who use it to con even more out of the gullible fools who sign up with them, we should have had some sort of incentive scheme to get people to provide as much of their own electricity as possible - but of course that's exactly what our government have been doing for the last few years and the 'pump priming that it (and similar schemes in other countries) have achieved means that new adopters should be able install similar kit without needing ongoing subsidies.

Funnily enough, the same cost reductions don't seem to have persuaded the alleged green generators to cut their prices. That isn't suggesting any sort of conspiracy theory - it's a completely foreseeable example of greed.

tunnel

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

and now I'm in the process of installing solar panels to introduce some renewable energy generation.

That's nice you're doing that.
You do realise though that without the initial high FiT the likes of myself and Eric may not have installed solar, had we not done that then installs would still be out of reach for the vast majority.Would you still be installing it at 3 times it's cost with no ROI(honest answers only)


As an aside, I have swapped light bulbs, changed white goods, TV's, insulated...etc, etc, even so, money is an issue and i'll continue to buy my energy from the cheapest supplier.

MFW_ASAP

tunnel wrote: »

That's nice you're doing that.
You do realise though that without the initial high FiT the likes of myself and Eric may not have installed solar, had we not done that then installs would still be out of reach for the vast majority.Would you still be installing it at 3 times it's cost with no ROI(honest answers only)

LOL, stuff and nonsense. We could have installed solar panels on commercial properties with incentives to business that would have had zero impact on domestic fuel bills, provided more efficient solar generation and still helped reduce the cost of solar panels.

As an aside, the cost of panels are reducing because of the global uptake (especially in Germany and Japan) of solar, rather than because of your and Eric's input.

Also, you and Eric are not paying for your panels they will be 100% paid for by other energy bill payers, with a further 100% back-hander, so please don't try and come across as though you're the saviour of the green movement.

tunnel

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

As an aside, the cost of panels are reducing because of the global uptake (especially in Germany and Japan(where they pay FiTs or subsidies as you like to call them)) of solar, rather than because of your and Eric's input..

I've corrected that for you

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Also, you and Eric are not paying for your panels they will be 100% paid for by other energy bill payers, with a further 100% back-hander, so please don't try and come across as though you're the saviour of the green movement.

MFW_ASAP

tunnel wrote: »

I assume that you're trying to deny that what you paid for your solar panels will be more than returned to you in FIT payments, export payments and solar energy savings?

Go tell the marines!!! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Sterlingtimes

The first posting is clearly designed to instigate an argument. This is a money saving forum.

I focus upon three problems:

[1] electricity demand in the world is doubling every 10 years;

[2] energy demand in the world is doubling every 20 years; and

[3] we buy much of our energy from overseas with much of the money flowing to undesirable regimes.

Far from being a "green", I can see great advantage in generating our energy at home, hence I see benefit in renewables, energy crops, nuclear and fracking. I also see benefit in smart grids being used to manage supply and demand.

I cannot see that opting for a "green" tariff at extra expense serves any purpose.

tunnel

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I assume that you're trying to deny that what you paid for your solar panels will be more than returned to you in FIT payments, export payments and solar energy savings?

I just love how you swept past the fact that only through subsidies paid as FiTs that prices of solar have reduced so much.


I can wait till you've had your install before you thank me for your lower cost install.....your welcome!!

EricMears

Sterlingtimes wrote: »

I cannot see that opting for a "green" tariff at extra expense serves any purpose.

Apart of course from puffing up the profits of 'green' energy companies !

If they actually used their government grants to reduce the price they charged consumers, I'd be one of their keenest supporters.

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

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.

I think you'll find this board was a nice place where passionate people talked about environmental issues well before The_Green_Man turned up to insult PV'ers (before being banned for abuse), and has remained a place where folk passionate about renewables have continued to discuss such matters despite your arrival (with identical posts, context, word for word sometimes) and repeated attempts to start arguments and post abuse about those in receipt of renewable generation subsidies.

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

LOL, stuff and nonsense. We could have installed solar panels on commercial properties with incentives to business that would have had zero impact on domestic fuel bills, provided more efficient solar generation and still helped reduce the cost of solar panels.

The incentive was (and still is) a FiT of approximately 10% less than that for domestic PV. It's paid by a levy on all consumers (same as the domestic FiT) and take up has sadly been abysmal as commercial installs appear to need a higher (and faster) rate of return on capital due to investment costs and building lease lengths.

But, back to your complaints, so once again (I think I've mentioned this dozens of times already), it seems you are fine with renewable generation subsidies that go to large (or gigantic) companies, but not when they are paid to your neighbours. Interesting distinction (ideology?)


Quick comparison between domestic PV and large scale supply side gen:-

If the FiT is cut to 9p, it'll still be too high, but will make the cost of domestic PV cheaper than off-shore wind (£115/MWh by 2017).

A cut to 7p, seems fair, solar industry would continue fine, and would be the same price now, as new nuclear is to receive (£93/MWh) sometime in the mid 2020's!

A cut to 5p would be tough, but the industry would continue at a slower level, and the cost would match on-shore wind and PV farms in 2016 (£80/MWh).

So it seems MFW_ASAP is a little late to the party, as domestic PV with a reasonable cut in the FiT would now become one of the most cost effective subsidies, and also the fairest by far as the subsidies are paid out to energy consumers.

Mart.

thenudeone

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

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

IIRC only about 1% of the public are on a "green" tariff, yet around 20% of UK energy is produced by renewables.
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/chart/proportion-total-electricity-generated-renewable-fuel-sources-uk

Renewable energy use has risen to 20% mainly by government policy directly or indirectly forcing producers to use Renewables.

If you are with a standard supplier and decide to switch to a green tariff, all that will happen is that they will hypothetically earmark some of their existing Renewable supply as going to you.

The supplier can truthfully say that 100% of your energy is Renewable, but the total amount or proportion of UK energy produced by Renewables doesn't change at all as a result of you having a green tariff.
In some cases some vague commitment to investing in Renewables may be made, but in most cases the higher price you pay simply makes more profit for the electricity supplier.

Unless you are with a supplier who already has a very high proportion of green tariff customers (when they would be forced to buy more Renewables to meet your demand), then in order to increase the actual amount of Renewable energy produced, you would need to buy a green tariff from a supplier who deals exclusively in Renewable energy (eg: Good Energy or Ecotricity) and who buys only Renewable energy (on the market or from FIT customers) or invests in Renewable projects itself. Buying in this way will increase the amount of Renewable energy produced.