I talked to a friend in Norfolk today, who had solar panels installed on his house roof during the spring. He told me that, so far, he has had FIT payments totalling 59p. He is wondering if it was worth it.....
Did *he* pay to install them? If someone else paid, they'll be taking the generation FITs and maybe letting him have the export FITs ...
No idea. I'll ask him when we next talk. I don't know anything about 'generation FITs' and 'export FITs', I have never been tempted to bother with the things! Apart from which, they wouldn't look good on a thatched roof.
I've just been playing around on the datalogging site set up by the people that make the Solis inverter I've got on mine. There are quite a few people in the UK who've set up accounts. One in Ipswitch has earned £297 since install at the end of July.
As you don't say how big they are, no-one can say what the FIT payment shou ld be (assuming he owns them and not some rent-a-roof company. (The rent-a-roof have largely disappeared since the FIT payments have reduc ed.) However £0.59 is definitely wrong.
I have 4Kw panel on my roof, it generates around 4000 Kwh/year. How much cash that equals depends on the FIT rate at the time of installati on. Anywhere between £2000 and £600.
The other factors are orientation of the panels and any shading.
He should be checking his solar panel meter readings and submitting them qu arterly. He should have a very good idea from this of how much (£) he sho uld be getting.
I think the 'generation FITs' are the payments we electricity users pay those who can afford and / or have the opportunity to stick these things on our roofs (so not you for example) for the electricity they actually generate (even if they use it themselves!), whereas the 'export FIT's' are the payments we electricity users pay for the electricity the said system generates and that actually goes back into the grid for the rest of us who use electricity can use.
If he had a company install the panels FOC then he gets the free electricity (which the rest of us pay over the odds for) and the company get the money (that the rest of us pay over the odds for).
Best thing. Now, if you lived in say California, paid for the panels yourself and used the electricity generated to run your aircon it would all make more sense (and wouldn't be immoral / theft either).
Many people don't think they 'look good' on most roofs but most capitalists don't really care about such things (or the ecology), as long as they are making money. ;-(
Cheers, T i m
p.s. I think solar energy and panels are a great invention, I have many panels and solar powered devices, I just don't expect other people to have to pay for them and question the net ecology / carbon footprint (now much energy and pollution they took to produce versus the total 'clean' energy they produce over their lives and the pollution saved because of that). In any case I don't try to push the 'green' bs, I just use them where it's convenient or I don't have the option of mains. ;-)
That sounds like a decent approach. If they are as good as touted, they should pay for themselves. I object to paying for somebody else to have them. But they are perfect for places such as remote road signs or flood monitoring posts, where there is no convenient power supply. Air conditioning, while great on some occasions, is rarely needed in Norfolk.
I have no idea how big they are, nor whose they are, he didn't say during the conversation.
At least the reduction in FIT payments has had at least one good effect.
Which is why he is unhappy with them at the moment.
Again, I haven't seen the installation. His house generally faces East/West, so I would expect the panels to be at one of these orientations.
He didn't say during the conversation.
Next time we talk, I will ask him for some details.
Thanks. ;-)
Quite.
And that's the rub for those of us who actually understand what it's all about (and then care when we do).
The bottom line: The government have to meet certain (and possibly questionable when looking at the bigger picture) 'green' targets and if they don't they get fined. So they force energy suppliers to offer grants to try to get people on the system (simply to try to get the generation figures up) and the energy suppliers in turn pass that cost onto their customers. Except, solar energy only works when the sun is out (so that's absolute tops ~66% of the time and much much less in the winter etc) so we still need all the other sources to be kept running (not counting wind power of course as there *will be* many still and dark days every year). Now, some of that generation doesn't run so efficiently when not at reasonable load so may well offset the
*real world* eco advantages to the whole farce.
Oh, of course ... like I said I have and have used solar PV since they were readily available (I may have 10 panels of different sizes here and some in use as we speak) but I don't expect anyone else to pay for them, even if I'm not drawing quite so much from the grid whilst doing so.
And it's not only that we pay people for the energy they generate at an inflated rate compare with typical suppliers, we do so index linked and guaranteed for 20 years!
Quite (and why I mentioned California) and why many think we are too far above the equator for solar to be truly viable.
I was thinking earlier that the ISS was probably a good example of solar PV being put to good use (FWIW in general etc). The panels charge batteries so they still have energy when it's dark and everyone who pays taxes in the countries who support the project pay their share (not just a subset of the people).
If the UK government (and therefore taxpayers) are going to be fined for not meeting these 'green generation' levels, it should be the same group of people who should be funding any grants if that is what is needed to get people onto such schemes (and grants shouldn't be needed in the first place if the solution was truly stand-alone viable).
Now, if we were talking about subsidising people to run microgeneration projects that could be available 24/7 (not just when the sun was shining or the wind blowing) and paid them ONLY for what they didn't use themselves, I can't see any one (including me) having an issue with that (and I might install such a plant myself ... IF the eco and economics made sense etc).
Cheers, T i m
Many EU countries find it cheaper to pay the EU fine than pay the subsidies.
You forgot to add that the payments are also tax-free :((
That would be good ... and OOI, see if he knows just who is paying for the FIT (even if he isn't getting it personally) and what he thinks of it (morally / ethically)?
One thing we do know for sure (without asking him) is that no one would put any solar panels anywhere where they aren't using the electricity they generate themselves ... unless they were getting some guaranteed and index linked (for the next 20 years) *payment*.
This is proven 100% by the recent downturn in the relatively lacklustre uptake of such schemes across the board.
The government are desperate to improve the (supposedly) 'green' energy generation but at the same time can't afford (re loss of votes) to penalise simple electricity users any more / as much.
This is especially the case being so few have he opportunity to 'take up' any subsidise / grants offered. All those in rented accommodation or own their own houses where the planning / listed / roof size / orientation or even like us, simply because the poor thermal design of the (1897) house means we can't have it.
Most people can make use of free loft insulation and no one is
*making* any money out of it. Subsidised double glazing or cavity wall insulation also only makes the installers some money but again, only saves the owner money via energy savings, not making money (and certainly not index linked money for the next 20 years). ;-(Nope, the FIT is just plain wrong (on so many levels) ...
Cheers, T i m
LOL ... like the fines they seem to impose for not having car insurance. ;-(
Cheers, T i m
NO ... it gets worse!
Thanks for the heads up though ... now where is my protesting mask ... ;-)
Cheers, T i m
And inflation linked...............!
All form of electricity production are subsidised.
You only think that because you lack ed the initiative ormoney to fit them yourself. Typical envious socialist.
And you have the brass neck to complain about the cost of electricity from Hinkley C! Talk about two-faced.
Maybe so, but how many of these subsidies benefit a tiny minority of individuals in the same way the FIT does?
Cheers, T i m
In article , Davey writes
East/West is the worst possible scenario.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.