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

MFW_ASAP

Cardew wrote: »

However they are not subsidized by the taxpayer! They are subsidized by a levy on consumer's electricity bills.

Thus, say, pensioners with a low income in an all electric council property, will find themselves paying considerably more towards the subsidy than a high income house owner in a property with gas/oil central heating.

Apologies. I have made the same point myself on this board. I've always seen FITs as a retrograde step, the movement of wealth from the poor to the middle classes.

I also agree with your point about the solar spokesman on here. He and his pals ventured onto a discussion on the economy board and employed the same tactic there as they do here, namely personal abuse and multiple verbose posts designed to bore the life out of any debate.

It was a shame because the economy debate was about solar for warm countries (posted by someone from Oz) and how well suited it was to those places. Naturally, when the solar bullies arrived, it became all about the UK and how FIT payments here have globally reduced the price of solar for all third world countries, how solar farms (not domestic roof top) figures show that PV is cheaper than wind, wave, nuclear (without pricing in technologies to allow solar to work 24hrs/365 days per year - such as massive batteries).

Once we get rid of fit payments then hopefully this board can get back to ethical ways to save money (i.e. not by taking money off poorer people to reduce your own energy bills). I dare say the 'My array is better than yours' generation thread will remain, but perhaps the board guides will finally move it to the energy board.

MFW_ASAP

Sterlingtimes wrote: »

EU Policy pays farmers to set aside land upon which crops are not to be grown and then flys aircraft over the land to ensure that the land is not being used for growing crops. Given that there is apparently too much land in the UK, why would you not turn it over to a productive use such as solar?

I would favour encouraging farmers to use their land for productive purposes rather than paying farmers for doing nothing.

Well you needn't worry about that anymore because the EU scrapped the arable set-aside policy in 2008.

Cardew

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Well you needn't worry about that anymore because the EU scrapped the arable set-aside policy in 2008.

I believe that was under the same legislation that aimed to reduce(not altogether successfully) 'butter mountains' and wine/milk lakes'

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

I believe that was under the same legislation that aimed to reduce(not altogether successfully) 'butter mountains' and wine/milk lakes'

Hi

For info :- https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/basic-payment-scheme

Z

zeupater

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

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?

Thoughts ? ... considering that it's simply a thread to promote argument as opposed to debate - absolutely none.

Z

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I also agree with your point about the solar spokesman on here. He and his pals ventured onto a discussion on the economy board and employed the same tactic there as they do here, namely personal abuse and multiple verbose posts designed to bore the life out of any debate.

It was a shame because the economy debate was about solar for warm countries (posted by someone from Oz) and how well suited it was to those places. Naturally, when the solar bullies arrived, it became all about the UK and how FIT payments here have globally reduced the price of solar for all third world countries, how solar farms (not domestic roof top) figures show that PV is cheaper than wind, wave, nuclear (without pricing in technologies to allow solar to work 24hrs/365 days per year - such as massive batteries).

Would you happen to be referring to this thread?

Is that the thread I was chatting on for a month before you turned up?

Is that the thread where your first post was deleted as it was simply an abusive comment against myself and PV'ers?

Is that the thread where you sided with a guy who, after realising he'd got his info wrong, deleted ~200 posts then denied saying them?

Is that the thread where I tried repeatedly to get it back on to warm places?

Is that the thread where (despite claiming you are a green party member) you sided with a guy who claims:

• coal is good for poverty, despite being in direct disagreement with the IPCC, WHO, IMF, OXFAM and Indian Ministers,
• the health impacts of coal pollution are untrue,
• that the world is facing a coming ice-age.

You seem to have a staggering lack of memory recall, or a staggeringly weak grip on the truth?

Mart.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Thus, say, pensioners with a low income in an all electric council property, will find themselves paying considerably more towards the subsidy than a high income house owner in a property with gas/oil central heating.

More crocodile tears from the nuclear fan, since those same pensioners will be paying more for nuclear subsidies. And that's despite already having subsidised the industry for 60 years.

At least the council/social housing resident has* a chance of a PV system to reduce their leccy bills. They have no chance of receiving a micro nuke ...... have they?

*Had a chance, prior to the governments upcoming decision.

Mart.

MFW_ASAP

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Would you happen to be referring to this thread?

Is that the thread I was chatting on for a month before you turned up?

Is that the thread where your first post was deleted as it was simply an abusive comment against myself and PV'ers?

Is that the thread where you sided with a guy who, after realising he'd got his info wrong, deleted ~200 posts then denied saying them?

Is that the thread where I tried repeatedly to get it back on to warm places?

Is that the thread where (despite claiming you are a green party member) you sided with a guy who claims:

• coal is good for poverty, despite being in direct disagreement with the IPCC, WHO, IMF, OXFAM and Indian Ministers,
• the health impacts of coal pollution are untrue,
• that the world is facing a coming ice-age.

You seem to have a staggering lack of memory recall, or a staggeringly weak grip on the truth?

Mart.

Yes, that's the thread, no to everything else.

MFW_ASAP

zeupater wrote: »

Thoughts ? ... considering that it's simply a thread to promote argument as opposed to debate - absolutely none.

Z

Great post. Thanks for contributing.

MFW_ASAP

Cardew wrote: »

I believe that was under the same legislation that aimed to reduce(not altogether successfully) 'butter mountains' and wine/milk lakes'

The intention was good, based on sustainability and crop rotation. It was just badly implemented and abused.