Solar PV installation to be removed from EPC calculation

MFW_ASAP

nobby1963 wrote: »

I am sure there are many many other members like me who read your posts and feel like ranting too.

Personally I think Zeupeter and others have the patience of saints for being so calm in their responses to your obviously provocative posts.

I live in hope that you are removed from this forum so as we don't have to read your poison.

Nobby.

If you don't like to read my 'poison' (perhaps you dislike being reminded that your solar investment returns are paid for by poorer people?) then why on earth are you in a thread that I created?

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of threads on MSE to choose from, yet you've come onto this one in order to be outraged. :rotfl:

tunnel

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

(perhaps you dislike being reminded that your solar investment returns are paid for by poorer people?)

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

(perhaps you dislike being reminded that your solar investment returns are paid for by everyone?)

Thought I'd better correct that for you, you wouldn't want anyone thinking that only poorer people pay levies now would you?

Cardew

nobby1963 wrote: »

I live in hope that you are removed from this forum so as we don't have to read your poison.

Nobby.

My pal spent all last evening visiting every !!!!!! website he could find - he was absolutely outraged at the filth he saw.:mad:


The day before it was the animal cruelty websites and he thought those disgusting and upsetting.:mad:


Tonight it is etc etc;)

[Deleted User]

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

You don't like being told the simple truth that other people, many if whom are poorer than you, are subsidising your electricity bills.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but there were poor people in the dark ages and there will probably be poor people in the future...

My point is that FITs in the grand scheme of things is a very short lived scheme with new installs getting very little subsidy to the point that if I installed solar now I wouldn't bother.

So has no bearing on how poor people are, that is up to them as individuals to sort out!

MFW_ASAP

jeepjunkie wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm wrong but there were poor people in the dark ages and there will probably be poor people in the future...

My point is that FITs in the grand scheme of things is a very short lived scheme with new installs getting very little subsidy to the point that if I installed solar now I wouldn't bother.

So has no bearing on how poor people are, that is up to them as individuals to sort out!

Are you all right, Jack?

Let them eat cake?

MFW_ASAP

I have a new signature to fit in with my pals on here!

[Deleted User]

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Are you all right, Jack?

Let them eat cake?

Hmmm...

There is a huge below average looking council estate across from a railway station I use now and again. I would estimate that 60%+ of the properties now have solar pv and they are all getting external wall insulation even though they clearly have a cavity wall.

Looks like they are getting good value from the tax payer for giving up the equivalent of one packet of fags a year. Not to mention all their other 'benefits.'

Does that make you happy?

Whereas I have to work my nuts off to create a warm efficient family home...

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Touche!

I hadn't appreciated that power companies in UK did not need an such an 'extensive infrastructure' because of individual houses generating electricity.

Indeed I was under the impression that solar didn't generate at night, and sometimes not even during the day. Were that true it would of course meant that solar would make no difference to the loading on the power supply infrastructure!

Conversely I have read of the difficulties imposed upon the infrastructure caused by having to cope with intermittent power generation from multiple sources. Power supply engineers often discuss those difficulties.

Hi

Of course, that totally overlooks the salient point regarding the synergy between the posts, that being "most(all?) ... companies will actively encourage ... and offer advice on the subject." and how this impacts on the moral and ethical position of one who would embrace one subsidy and yet reject another ...

On a previous thread your position regarding the OPs RWH system ....

Cardew wrote: »

With United Utilities the charge for Surface Water Drainage(SWD) is £75pa(2014/15).

To reduce your bill by 50% even allowing for SWD deduction, I calculate you will need to use approx. 95 cubic metres of rainwater pa. That is also assuming that you don't intend paying the sewerage charge of £1.264/cubic metre for rainwater you are diverting into the sewer via your house;)

I am a little puzzled why you need to store rainwater, when it would surely be easy to divert/pump water from your stream to a tank?

Now, taking the OP's stated RWH domestic usage of ~2000lltres/week, that would represent accepting somewhere around £130 of subsidy from 'those living in poverty'.

I find it rather odd that you would support one who would intend to receive an indirect subsidy which would be the equivalent of the FiT return on a 2kWp system when the new rates come into play, whilst still not welcoming the ongoing reductions as the sector & technology matures.

The real issue here is that there's an underlying issue behind the OP's position on FiT, and it's not necessarily ideology based like your own. Take for example ....

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I'm currently re-wiring the house and have to do a similar thing there. I'll get an electrician to check the work and 'sign off' on it. Mainly for insurance purposes as electrical work is pretty straightforward. We're talking tens of pounds, rather than hundreds for this sort of service.

I checked the FIT rate post 1st April 2014 and it drops slightly to 14.38p. I've already had roof insulation installed that meets current building regs and I'm about to have high-spec glazing fitted to the house, so I perhaps may be able to scrape a 'D' efficiency rating?

I'll run some figures (thanks mac2008 for the calcs), but given the reduced VAT on the equipment (5% rather than 20% - provided the installer passes on these savings) and the higher FIT payments for a 'D' rating, I think it'll work out better to have the equipment fitted by an MCS registered installer.

I need to get planning permission first though, which is a real pain.

.. so could the anti-FiT bitterness just be down to missing out on the domestic FiT because of a combination of listed property restrictions and unrecognised internal insulation resulting in a poor EPC report ? ... Considering the history of posting being so heavily investment return focussed it certainly looks to be the case.

Ethics, morals & ideology? ... probably not then considering the evident U-turn, likely just bitterness from missing out before the original EPC requirement changes and not achieving a minimum band D, either with or without utilising the loophole raised in this thread.

Z

MFW_ASAP

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Of course, that totally overlooks the salient point regarding the synergy between the posts, that being "most(all?) ... companies will actively encourage ... and offer advice on the subject." and how this impacts on the moral and ethical position of one who would embrace one subsidy and yet reject another ...

On a previous thread your position regarding the OPs RWH system ....


Now, taking the OP's stated RWH domestic usage of ~2000lltres/week, that would represent accepting somewhere around £130 of subsidy from 'those living in poverty'.

I find it rather odd that you would support one who would intend to receive an indirect subsidy which would be the equivalent of the FiT return on a 2kWp system when the new rates come into play, whilst still not welcoming the ongoing reductions as the sector & technology matures.

The real issue here is that there's an underlying issue behind the OP's position on FiT, and it's not necessarily ideology based like your own. Take for example ....


.. so could the anti-FiT bitterness just be down to missing out on the domestic FiT because of a combination of listed property restrictions and unrecognised internal insulation resulting in a poor EPC report ? ... Considering the history of posting being so heavily investment return focussed it certainly looks to be the case.

Ethics, morals & ideology? ... probably not then considering the evident U-turn, likely just bitterness from missing out before the original EPC requirement changes and not achieving a minimum band D, either with or without utilising the loophole raised in this thread.

Z

On your first point. You're confusing sewage metering with surface water drainage. You're comparing apples with oranges. No wonder you're all over the place with your argument.

Second point. Until I saw some posts from Cardew, I was unaware where the FIT payments came from. As soon as I realised the implications, I took the ethical view that I didn't want to take a handout paid for by people who are less well of than myself and so I didn't install PV.

Thanks to Cardew for enlightening me, even though it opened him up to abuse from the likes of yourself who would rather people remained in the dark about FIT funding.

Interestingly, if you read the whole thread, I was mentioning that I wanted to do a DIY install and wondered if the FIT payments has reduced to the point where the artificial 'uplift' they give to solar prices had reduced to the point where DIY was a cheaper route.

It hadn't at that point, though maybe it will now with the FITs being reduced even more?

Also interestingly, I was welcomed on the board until I started to question FIT payment funding and agreeing with Cardew's stance. The Solar bullies soon put me in my place though, eh?

[Deleted User]

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Also interestingly, I was welcomed on the board until I started to question FIT payment funding and agreeing with Cardew's stance. The Solar bullies soon put me in my place though, eh?

I hate point out eh bleeding obvious but it's you that's the bully here

The rest of us are law abiding citizens who have a common interest