Fit Rates 2017

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

Do you live in China then? Or is it just those in the UK who brought prices down?

No ! Anyone who lives anywhere in the world and who bought early is partly responsible for the lower prices enjoyed by later purchasers. Nobody is saying that UK buyers achieved that on their own but it would be almost as silly to say that the Chinese did it on their own.

ed110220

Cardew wrote: »

Do you live in China then? Or is it just those in the UK who brought prices down?

The bottom line is that UK electricity customers will be paying you and others ever increasingly obscene amounts for the next 17 years.

As I have said many times, there is no criticism on my part of those who jumped on the bandwaggon, the blame lies firmly with the Government who introduced the absurd FIT scheme. However please spare us the 'pioneers' angle; there was plenty of oportunity to have PV panels before the introduction of FIT.

Read George Monboit;)


P.S.
Anything that states the truth is considered as trolling by the Guru.

Actually there was very little interest in domestic solar PV in China (rather than manufacturing for export) until relatively recently as it was seen as too expensive. Wealthier countries, in particular Germany, subsidised PV until prices came down. Now China is installing it faster than any other country and even poorer countries such as India are installing it on price alone.

So undoubtedly subsidies did help prices come down and for PV to take off worldwide. Could the FIT scheme have been better designed? Yes. But what good is there in agitating against what's already done and past, except for rhetorical purposes?

Ed

Martyn1981

Ectophile wrote: »

I see it not so much as a sign of progress as of lousy planning by the government.

They kept the FIT payments too high for too long. The money allocated started running out far too fast, and the government panicked and massively cut the FIT. Many solar installation companies went bust as the customers disappeared.

Yes, the rate was kept high for too long, but that doesn't mean the original rate was wrong, which is what Chuckles keeps moaning about.

Also, the reason the funds were spent faster than expected, was because the cost of installs fell faster than expected, which raised the returns, faster than expected.

The government always had a degression scheme in place, it simply didn't revise that scheme when the worldwide cost of PV fell faster and further than expected.

So it's not so much bad planning, as bad management by the government.

With regard to the loss of solar companies, that is entirely to the government choosing a subsidy level that is slightly too low. The amount of subsidy monies that PV accounts for is small potatoes compared to off-shore wind and nuclear. All PV subsidies add around £9 pa to household bills. To support a doubling of capacity and see the PV scheme through to completion works out at about £1 more, that's how far costs and subsidies for PV have fallen.

When Hinkley Point C comes on line, the early high PV subsidies will be approaching the end of their contracts, but HPC will add £10 pa to household bills, and this amount will rise as the estimated wholesale price of leccy falls (see page 40). So despite 60yrs of support, nuclear will be adding 35yr costs to our bills at a point in time when PV will need no further subsidies.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

P.S.
Anything that states the truth is considered as trolling by the Guru.

Nope!

I have no problem with the truth, nor those that openly disagree with renewable energy.

However, posting false information, many years after you know that it is false, is trolling.

Just from this new thread, we have the Monbiot issue, which you've known for 4+ years is false, and the export/offset angle, which you actually admitted was a false argument about 3 years ago. Also the attempt to misrepresent statements to falsely conclude that it was only UK actions that lowered costs.

From a global point of view PV is now an unstoppable success, yet you still wish to cause division by stirring up issues on a green and ethical board, despite your support for nuclear, and the fact that you deliberately kept that support hidden, whilst 'pretending' to be concerned about household support going to your neighbours, instead of multi-national companies.

Now you are arguing because the subsidy has been maintained at the same level (via inflationary uplifts) for another year, something it was always going to do. So it seems that the purpose of your posting is to troll, not to rationally debate a subsidy that you personally didn't get, nor support.

Perhaps I can ask you once again, why it was ok for your household to receive similar amounts of money for investing in the future (child support), but not for others to invest in the environment? Don't you want your children and grandchildren to have the opportunity for cleaner air, and cheaper energy bills thanks to renewable energy, and the opportunity to generate their own energy with PV?

Hobbo2006

I am in the very lucky position to have the original FIT rate, although at the time, ordering was a gamble due to the court cases going on keep the higher rate. It could have halved if the case was lost.

Anyway, we bought and installed in Feb 2012 and the case was won.

This year should be a landmark year. If we have a good summer the panels should have paid for themselves and be in the black rather than red!

gefnew

Hi all
If you Look at this as just another investment opportunity offered by the government then it is no different to buying bonds that are issued to cover government debt etc , but this is also saving the government from missing climate targets with little upfront costs from the tax payers.
As the capital costs are covered by joe public and no long term monies being used to maintain all the installations.
The roi they receive is also proportional to the risk as any investment is and clearly the people who invest early in any company or scheme reap the best rewards.
god bad or indifferent?
As they say no good shutting the door when the horse has bolted.
For it being a bad scheme I do not think so , it opened a up a whole new industry and jobs where created from very little use of public funds , unlike some of the schemes used by government which tend to show very little roi when they conclude.
Regards
gefnew

Cardew

gefnew wrote: »

Hi all
If you Look at this as just another investment opportunity offered by the government then it is no different to buying bonds that are issued to cover government debt etc , but this is also saving the government from missing climate targets with little upfront costs from the tax payers.
As the capital costs are covered by joe public and no long term monies being used to maintain all the installations.
The roi they receive is also proportional to the risk as any investment is and clearly the people who invest early in any company or scheme reap the best rewards.
god bad or indifferent?
As they say no good shutting the door when the horse has bolted.
For it being a bad scheme I do not think so , it opened a up a whole new industry and jobs where created from very little use of public funds , unlike some of the schemes used by government which tend to show very little roi when they conclude.
Regards
gefnew

Interesting analogy!

Firstly, as said above and many times previously, there is no criticism of anyone taking advantage of the scheme; the criticism is aimed at the government for introducing such an absurd scheme; and the disingenuous statements of those with a vested interest who feel compelled to justify its existence .

However can I address your statement that:

If you look this is just another investment opportunity offered by the government then it is no different to buying bonds that are issued to cover government debt.

No different?


Firstly if the Government offered bonds, then the opportunity would be open to anyone. To take advantage of the FIT scheme one had to own a house, with a suitable roof(size and shading) and have sufficient funds to pay for the installation. Those in rented accommodation, flats, owners with unsuitable roofs, could not take advantage of the scheme. To add insult to injury the Government allowed Rent a Roof firms funded by venture capitalists to cash in on the scheme with scores of thousands of installations getting FIT.

Next we come to payment of the absurdly generous subsidies – inflation linked for 25 years. These subsidies not paid by the Government, but directly by a levy on all electricity consumers. This means that that all those unable to take advantage of the scheme have to pay for the subsidies in higher charges; this includes pensioners living in an all electric rented council flat.

For new readers(and to get The Guru to bite;)) George Monboit, the environmental guru, made this statement before FIT was introduced:

Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives, and nobody notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes. It expects a loss on this scheme of £8.2bn, or 95%. Yet the media is silent. The opposition urges only that the scam should be expanded.

On 1 April the government introduces its feed-in tariffs. These oblige electricity companies to pay people for the power they produce at home. The money will come from their customers in the form of higher bills. It would make sense, if we didn't know that the technologies the scheme will reward are comically inefficient..............


In other words, the government acknowledges that micro wind and solar PV in the UK are between seven and nine times less cost-effective than the alternatives.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/13/green-deal

In the link above Monboit wrote:

The green deal is a useless, middle-class subsidy


This deal is in no way green – it's just one of the means by which money is being taken from the poor and given to the rich

As you are aware, early adopters, for every kWh generated, are getting over 5 times as much money in subsidies as the retail cost – let alone the generated cost. Also of course you don’t have to export a single kWh if you can devise means of using it in-house.

The Northern Ireland Government has fallen for paying too generous ‘green’ subsidies in the form of Renewable Heat Initiative(RHI). Pity our Government didn’t fall for the even more stupid FIT scheme. However unlike in Northern Ireland, the UK Government do not pay the subsidies, they get electricity customers to pay. Which was how this thread started!

gefnew

Hi cardew
As is All investment types , the rich get richer the poor get poorer.
This is down to very bad planning of the original scheme not the uptake by very eco minded people who saw a double edge sword and made the most of it ,they became the catalyst for it to grow.
as for the levy on poor people the same effect as hinkley ,Swansea bay , trident , road tax , it goes on and on.
the way the world works sucks but hey.
gefnew

Cardew

gefnew wrote: »

Hi cardew
As is All investment types , the rich get richer the poor get poorer.
This is down to very bad planning of the original scheme not the uptake by very eco minded people who saw a double edge sword and made the most of it ,they became the catalyst for it to grow.
as for the levy on poor people the same effect as hinkley ,Swansea bay , trident , road tax , it goes on and on.
the way the world works sucks but hey.
gefnew

Hi,
Well I am glad we agree on the 'very bad planning of the original scheme' - that is really my main point and has been for years.


However with expenditure on Trident etc the difference is that it is paid for by General Taxation. Thus the 'poor' will pay far less tax than the 'rich'.

Not so with the FIT system in which the subsidies are paid directly by increased electricity charges. Therefore my admittedly emotive case of pensioners living in a badly insulated all-electric council flat, will be paying far more, in increased electricity charges, toward the FIT subsidies than someone living in a large gas centrally heated house.



Couldn't agree more with you about 'the rich get richer the poor get poorer'. The very point Monboit was making way back before the scheme was introduced. i.e.

it's just one of the means by which money is being taken from the poor and given to the rich

Cardew

silverwhistle

Cardew wrote: »

Well I am glad we agree on the 'very bad planning of the original scheme' - that is really my main point and has been for years.

and years, and years and years, without adding anything new and continueing to give misinformation as Martyn has pointed out. I wasn't a very early adopter for a reason (although I wanted to be) but I benefited from them with the eventual price I paid but lower FIT. You have never, ever, acknowledged that there was degression built into the scheme and that not everybody got the high rate. You've never acknowledged how expensive future nuclear will be, but constantly hark BACK to the start of the PV scheme, not refer to current rates.

I have never noticed you ever suggesting other ways of helping the poor, whether to compensate for their extra few quid a year on their electricity bills, or for any other reason for that matter. I seem to recall some smug stuff about various properties you own. I really do not understand your obsession with this matter and detect no real empathy with the disadvantaged, which is why I normally tend to ignore your posts.

Many poor pensioners in council flats may even have solar panels installed by the HA which then takes the FIT but, using your example, why not agitate for a national campaign of insulation which would benefit those people who are fuel poor, whether their heating is electric or gas?