Its claw back time - they are reneging on the deal!

Sterlingtimes

ard123en wrote: »

So moving forward will water companies start a surcharge for having a water butt in your backyard.

Can't have you using free water there that's not fair on others

Of course, you are correct. By using a water butt you are using less metered water and although you pay fixed charge this may not provide fully for the fixed costs of water production and distribution. People who contrive to use less water really ought to be punished by a special charge.

Is is not about time that consumers start to realise that good citizens must up their usage of electricity, gas and water? Preservation and conservation is old hat. Increase your usage and pay your way, the Regulators have spoken.

Sterlingtimes

Cardew wrote: »

The owners of PV systems are paid for 100% of the energy they generate; that subsidy is paid by other consumers.

Possibly correct. Owners of PV systems were to be paid an incentivisation payment over time according to an agree formula in consideration of their investing in and maintaining solar PV system. Rightly or wrongly since this was adjudged to benefit all consumers of electricity such consumers would contribute to the incentivisation.

"Other consumers" should, of course, thank PV investors for their contribution in reducing energy demand overall. What you call a subsidy is really a "thank you payment".

Cardew

Sterlingtimes wrote: »

Possibly correct. Owners of PV systems were to be paid an incentivisation payment over time according to an agree formula in consideration of their investing in and maintaining solar PV system. Rightly or wrongly since this was adjudged to benefit all consumers of electricity such consumers would contribute to the incentivisation.

"Other consumers" should, of course, thank PV investors for their contribution in reducing energy demand overall. What you call a subsidy is really a "thank you payment".

Not 'possibly' correct; - 100% correct!

'Rightly or Wrongly' - obviously the latter! The astute George Monbiot was correct in denouncing the FIT scheme in 2010.

'reducing energy demand' - PV generation does nothing to reduce the peak demand on the Grid. which is when PV generates zero/zilch/nothing.

I do appreciate your remarks are 'tongue in cheek'(I hope) and the above is in the same vein(albeit accurate)However on a serious note it is unbelievable that people can be paid for every kWh they generate, need not export anything and still get paid for an assumed 50% AND still feel that they are hard done by. Witness the 'we export 60% and only get paid for 50%' . Indeed another poster mused on the possibility of using an Immersun(or similar) in summer to divert generation to a heater placed outside rather than 'waste his generation' by exporting.

ed110220

Cardew wrote: »

Not 'possibly' correct; - 100% correct!

'Rightly or Wrongly' - obviously the latter! The astute George Monbiot was correct in denouncing the FIT scheme in 2010.

'reducing energy demand' - PV generation does nothing to reduce the peak demand on the Grid. which is when PV generates zero/zilch/nothing.

I do appreciate your remarks are 'tongue in cheek'(I hope) and the above is in the same vein(albeit accurate)However on a serious note it is unbelievable that people can be paid for every kWh they generate, need not export anything and still get paid for an assumed 50% AND still feel that they are hard done by. Witness the 'we export 60% and only get paid for 50%' . Indeed another poster mused on the possibility of using an Immersun(or similar) in summer to divert generation to a heater placed outside rather than 'waste his generation' by exporting.

I think you need another drum to beat; that one is getting rather worn

Cardew

ed110220 wrote: »

I think you need another drum to beat; that one is getting rather worn

True;), worn but factual.

Makes a change from the constant posting of solar industry promotion material.

tunnel

Cardew wrote: »

'reducing energy demand' - PV generation does nothing to reduce the peak demand on the Grid. which is when PV generates zero/zilch/nothing.

Rubbish, I use ALL my energy eating appliances whenever I'm generating meaning during the so-called "peak demand" they're all turned off.
Please explain how that doesn't reduce "peak" demand?
Pretty certain out of all the PV installations nationwide I'm not on my own either.

EricMears

tunnel wrote: »

Rubbish, I use ALL my energy eating appliances whenever I'm generating meaning during the so-called "peak demand" they're all turned off.
Please explain how that doesn't reduce "peak" demand?
Pretty certain out of all the PV installations nationwide I'm not on my own either.

Our house operates in exactly the same way.

Sad day today - I've just set the dishwasher to run overnight and it's more than likely that I'll not be running it on 'free' electricity for the next three months or so.

silverwhistle

Cheers Tunnel, I'm exactly the same.

The regulars sigh wearily when Cardew turns up. It should be pointed out to new readers that said poster is only factual in regard to what he selects and he ignores anything which doesn't meet his world view. I think his basic premise is that PV subsidies are so unfair and this leads to constantly selecting the negative aspects of PV.

He thinks in his own mind that he is counter-weight to the enthusiasts on here, but really most of us would express different opinions in private.

silverwhistle

I know Eric, I know. But at least today I par-boiled the potatoes with solar power. The sauteing I'm afraid wasn't. :-)

The_Green_Hornet

To be fair, us early adopters did get a sweet deal which will see us trouser tens of thousands of pounds profit for sticking a few solar panels on our roofs simply because the government set the Feed in Tariff far too high at the outset and were too slow in reducing it as equipment and installation prices fell.

However, I am sure that whatever method ofgem uses to claw back some of these profits they will make a complete balls up of it by making it overly complicated.