FIT slashed

[RobertL]

Some of us chose not to, because we felt the scheme was unethical.

Robert

[The Other Mike]

They shoudl force parasitic c*nts like you to go off grid. You'll be able to keep warm by running on a treadmill linked to a generator.

[Tim Watts]

I agree that the FIT scheme was superficially stupid and unfair[1]

But I don't agree with bashing harry for the sake of it. If EDF came round and left a bar of gold on my doorstep with a note saying "it's yours", I'd be all over it like a ferret on a rabbit that fell into a jug of Bisto.

[1] There is an argument that a kickstart like this would drive down panel costs, but water-solar panels seem to be doing fine by themselves and I really would like to see the net sum energy input of one of these including associated inverter, material transport costs and fitting vs a realistic lifetime energy output averaged over the area where FIT was available.

[John Rumm]

Yup I would concur. I have no hard feelings for folks who went for these schemes. So long as one accepts that they are nothing more than investment opportunities that take advantage of poorly thought through "incentives" etc, and ones does not get sucked in by the green wash etc.

I am a little distressed that the people funding the "return" on these investments are yet another variation of joe tax payer (or in this case joe energy user - although the difference is moot), but that is a criticism of the creators of the scheme in the first place.

One has to accept that governments will concoct various schemes that will fail to achieve their stated goals, and instead be ruthlessly exploited by canny investors etc, in much the same way as they will also concoct ways of dipping their hands into your pockets without warning. One could argue you may as well roll with the punches and stick your snout in the trough as and when the need or opportunity provides itself.

Obviously a market led approach would have been far more sensible. Set an incentive rate based on what one is prepared to pay to encourage micro generation schemes, and let the system figure out what technologies return the best bang for your buck (i.e. the most useful[1] electricity for the lowest cost). The ultimate goal however should be that any generation scheme will ultimately move to a point where it is a net contributor and self funding and hence attractive on its own merits.

[1] Useful being generation that can work 24/7 and not require expensive warm backup.

Indeed, however they seem to have taken the step of finding the lest productive micro gen system available, also the one least suitable for our climate, and then incentivised its use the most. The chances that it could ever reach the point of being self supporting seem slim to none. The irony is that the FiT rates for hydro plant are the lowest of all of them, and that is probably the most effective option we have.

[Roger Chapman]

It was a scheme that the Government was desperately anxious to promote so they offered incentives. Taking them up on that is no different to accepting say child allowance.

Ethics these days depends very much on where you are coming from:

To the fundamentalist Moslem interest is unethical but killing apostates is a sacred duty.

To a parent privileges such as child allowance are an inalienable right but how ethical is taxing the childless poor so that someone who already has a larger income and a more comfortable existence is further rewarded for a particular lifestyle choice.

[Jules Richardson]

I wondered that; I thought they might have rounded up 2747 to 3000 and then split it over 6 months, but that would still be a 500W not 600W monthly average (and the assumption was 600W over the warmer months and 0 over the colder ones)

300W monthly average over a whole year might not be far wrong though I suppose, if you're actually getting 500W during peak season - surely that'll tail off dramatically during shorter days, cloudier (is that even a word?) weather, snow on the panels etc.

[The Natural Philosopher]

That is not true. What SEEMS to have happened us that a political 'solution' to 'climate change' was required so a bunch of lobby groups bent their ears and said 'renewable energy, but it will cost a lot, but you can spin that into 'green jobs'

The fact is of course that renewable energy costs a bloody fortune and makes almost no difference to carbon emissions whatsoever, costs anything up to a million euros per job created, and displaces 2.5 people from more useful work they could be doing.

The only people who benefit are the manufacturers and installers and the harry's of this world who don't give a shit as long as they are making money out of government and greenpiss gullibility.

Taking them up on that is no different to

No, it IS different. Child allowance says - rightlt or wrongly ' we want you to breed, have a cash incentive' It does what it sets out to do.

Renewable energy does not ..it says 'we want to save carbon, have a cash handout for ONLY this technology or that technology' In short it doesn't even work for the reasons its promoted. That is the true state of affairs.

It always has, mate.

Exactly.

Iniquitous.

[The Natural Philosopher]

+1

[The Natural Philosopher]

I wouldn't. Not if I knew for a fact it was stolen from my neighbours.

[The Natural Philosopher]

The point is that microgeneration is a stupid bloody idea anyway. The whole renewable biznai is concocted by cynical marketing men to appeal to green dipsticks and politicians. It doesn't have to actually work, and it doesn't.

[Chris J Dixon]

The proposed new terms for FIT include a requirement that the property is at least band C for energy efficiency, otherwise the lowest possible tariff applies.

Chris

[Jethro]

Ah, Jethro's "if it really mattered" test being applied !

[Andy Burns]

And for the 'rent a roof' schemes to only be paid at 80% of the FIT rate, so about 17p/kWh.

[Tim Streater]

+1

[Tim Streater]

What, even the ones I paid into every month?

[Steve Walker]

I don't know about that. Those poor will not build up a decent pension pot and without children, they will be relying upon the children of others to look after them, pay tax, etc. when they are retired. If anything, it is an investment in their own futures!

SteveW

[Windmill]

If the bulbs are 300 watts each this idea might be relevant.

One can put a current surge limiter in series with each bulb, basically a resistor whose resistance _falls_ as it warms up.

Very old technology first used to give a soft start when a string of valve filaments ('heaters') were wired in series so that a radio could run off 240v. without needing a power transformer. (One filament tended to get an unbalanced, high voltage until everything warmed up, and this approach prevented that). Showing my age, I s'pose.

An old DigiKey catalog(ue) lists an 'inrush current limiter' which has a resistance of 120 ohms cold and 1 ohm when hot, with a max. current of 2 amps. A 240 volt 300 watt bulb would have a resistance of about 190 ohms when on, so the 1 ohm series resistance wouldn't dim it much. The cold resistance of a tungsten filament in a bulb is about 1/10 of the hot resistance, about 19 ohms in this case (meaning an inrush current of over 12 amps, which is why bulbs fail so often when first switched on). However this series current limiter would reduce that to around 1.7 amps.

The current limiter dissipates around 1.5 watts so gets a little warm. Needs a metal box.

Did this once for someone who complained about the short life of reflector floodlamps, but he didn't like it that the light switch became a little warm.

[tony sayer]

Well I do remember them and barretters;!..

Might look into that, after all the simplest ideas are often the best;)..

No problem where this is going and its not likely to be on that long either..

[tim....]

Phew, got in just in time! I am become one of the elite. I expect the price of panels will come down. There won't half be a rush before Christmas.

Mind you, £0.21/Kwh would still give a better return than money in the bank these days.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Not when you have to write down the initial investment to zero, it doesn't

tim

[Roger Chapman]

I am beginning to find posters whose software doesn't properly distinguish between their remarks and those that have gone before more than a little confusing. Tim at least has added a divider.

Harry got in with plenty of time to spare. Those who get in 'just in time' are those who are still in limbo but will get in by 12th December.

The installation is a wasting asset so, as an investment, the capital has to be recovered before any profit is made.

The argument against the 43.3 FIT seems to be that a 10% return is far to high but it is a risky venture and deserves a substantial premium over and above what can be gained from guaranteed investments. The real profit is far in the future and there is plenty to go wrong over the 25 uncertain years the scheme will be in operation.

With a system costing £15000 and the FIT at 43.3p the expected income is approximately equivalent to interest at 10% so for the first year there is little prospect of any recovery of capital invested.

With a FIT of just 21p and notional interest of 4% there is at least a £100 surplus to set against capital but the low return means that just about any major expense will turn a poor return into a dead cert loss maker. You can get 4% now on a number of 3 year fixed rate ISAs with banks (including Northern Rock) where the Government has guaranteed that your savings are safe. Who in their right mind is going to invest in risky PV panels when there is a gold plated alternative available? Yes I know the scheme will still seem attractive to the committed Greeny but such folk are so thin on the ground that that those with sufficient funds to indulge their prejudices could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.