Solar panels - are FIT payments worth it? Generation FIT vs. export FIT

[Huge]

I'm sorry, I forgot that you're a socialist and therefore an idiot, and need everything explained slowly and in single syllable words.

[John Jackson]

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

[T i m]

Cheers. ;-)

It's funny how many people really think anything like this is 'free' ... as in no one actually has to pay for it. (not like harry who knows full well who pays his FIT scam, he just doesn't care).

I overheard someone the other day saying 'we got a free flat' but it's only free to them. Their 'free flat' costs the rest of us something and again, no one cares until we find out they have been renting it out and making money out of it. The only difference between that and what harry does is what harry does isn't actually illegal, just immoral.

Everything has to be paid for by someone somewhere and if it's say (some of the stuff harry quotes in his bogus arguments, like) libraries or swimming pools then they are social resources that most would agree should be paid for (as in the provision of the facility at least) by 'all of us'. In most cases that really means all_of_us (in a position to pay) re taxes and rates etc.

What we don't do is PAY those with money to use the swimming pools and libraries, subsidised by those with (often) less money.

T i m

[Tim Streater]

Ah, another Woddles nym.

[bert]

In the case of council tax that means householders, definitely not "all of us" and not on the basis of ability to pay.

[T i m]

Well yes, but I tried to cover that with the ('in a position to pay') along with general taxation? ;-)

eg, If it's 'The government' are going to be fined by Europe for not meeting various (and some possibly dubious) 'targets' then it should be they that raise the money for the fines from the general population as they do with any similar revenue. Better, they get the energy suppliers to spend more money or realistic solutions, rather than subsidising a toy for the well_to_do? It should all be Nationalised again, they it all makes better sense (than trying to get an energy generator to influence the will / direction of the population etc).

Re 'renewable energy' it seems they pass that responsibility to the energy suppliers and force them to do stuff when it in turn isn't wanted or isn't appropriate (according to many who seem to know)?

Cheers, T i m

[dennis]

The problem is that they have to reduce carbon emissions to not be fined. Just how do they do that in a reasonable time scale?

[The Natural Philosopher]

They follow Europe's example, and pay the fines. Its cheaper

Or leave the EU.

[Huge]

[129 lines snipped]

FFS snip irrelevant content!

[T i m]

Good question (and I'm not saying I have the answer). ;-)

The problem is as I see it and so far is we haven't found a workable solution, even to throw money at. I mean, as of right now on a fairly breezy day, we are getting 14.87% of our energy from wind. And that's fine ... ignoring the carbon / Co2 footprint that the creation, installation and running of these wind farms produced? So, do we know how many years it will take before the (environmental) 'cost' and 'savings' of those two will balance out? We aren't talking about the financial costs here but the thing the government may be fined over?

If the answer is 'never' then maybe they are not the answer? Similar with solar PV etc.

There will always be a problem getting anyone to do 'the right thing' when that said thing seems questionable and is in the main, invisible and irrelevant to them. It's difficult enough stopping people littering (inc chewing gum and dog-ends) let alone getting them to rip out a working boiler to fit a more 'energy efficient' one (that may be less reliable and therefore have a higher carbon footprint than the old one)?

How many people bother to do anything when told they could save 'x' on their (say) electricity, insurance, mobile phone or telephone bills? To many people, the tiny savings on offer simply aren't worth the perceived effort and potential issues (and in most cases we aren't generally talking 'lots' on any of these things and in comparison with the general annual COL).

Like this end of terrace house with it's solid 9" brick walls. I did use 'thermal' render on the inside of the flank wall pre plastering but to do something worthwhile thermally, considering it would have to cater for the front door and stairs etc, probably isn't worth the cost and effort, compared with just putting on a jumper or heating the rooms we are in. We still haven't had any heating on this year yet (in any room).

Now, a neighbour with a similar age / design property had a grant for that external foam cladding but I'm really not sure about it in general and am sure I wouldn't want it on a massive flank wall directly on a public pavement (assuming I could get the permissions needed to reduce the width of the pavement by 100 or so mm)? If they wouldn't let me have a small front porch type extension because of the shape of the windows (from tall narrow sashes to more conventional single landscape) then in theory, what are the chances of the cladding? My changes would 'Spoil the street scene ...' apparently ... and some single colour cladding over the yellow and red stock bricks would be acceptable presumably (and it seems to be)?

So, I'm not suggesting everone do nothing, I'm saying it isn't always easy or even possible for everyone to do something that will make any real / tangible difference ... well, not until we all change our lifestyles massively? I know 'every little helps' but sometimes that simply doesn't help enough.

Like if everyone had solar PV ... it still wouldn't help for a minimum of 1/3 of the year. Or maybe it would ... if we all drove solar charged electric cars and restricted our journey times and instances to what level we could charge them to from our own (or our families / friends / hired-use) panels? Now I could probably get away with that for most times, but not everyone could and again that's ignoring the pollution created by building the cars themselves and especially from the batteries?

No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure what the answer is. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Huge]

Stop having babies.

[T i m]

Well, there is that but didn't they do something like that in China and got themselves in a mess (with no one to 'keep' the elderly)?

I do believe we are very fast out growing the planet (if we haven't done so already?) and when you see these SiFi shows where an invading and highly evolved species sees how we are screwing things up for ourselves 'infesting' the planet etc ... I often find myself agreeing with them. ;-(

So it looks like the ways of most of the native (and as we would call 'primitive) peoples around the world had it pretty well right. Take no more than you need and use everything you have 100%.

I'm glad in a way I probably won't be here to see it reach meltdown but I'm sorry for my (one) child and what mess we will leave them (or children, even if only the few left to keep humanity going) have to deal with.

Cheers, T i m

[Tim Streater]

They did that because they had to. Given the chance of an easy alternative, they'll take it just like the rest of us.

[Huge]

We're going to have to stop having babies at some point; why not now?

[T i m]

Ok ...

I'm not sure that's the case though is it? There are many peoples who

*choose* to live say a simple / nomadic life and whilst I'm sure some of them may well have gone off and joined the rest of the world, the bulk of their kind carry on as they have for thousands of years.

And you can't say they aren't aware of the modern world as many make use of some of the technology (mobile phones and the like), and are fully aware of what they could have if they wanted ... it's just they don't want to swap 'their way' for the modern alternative.

And the thing is, there were able (in the most part) able to both survive and have what is probably a more fulfilling life (in the real sense of it) than many of us?

It's sort of along the lines of why many of us cycle when we could drive, or go camping when we could stay in a hotel, or go walking in rainy England rather than lay in the sun in Spain. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

I know what you are saying but who is going to pay for everyone as they live longer?

I agree with you that we may not need as many babies (each) ... especially in countries and cultures where infant mortality rate isn't very high.

I was happy to have just the one and came from a family where I just had one sister.

Maybe when we ALL get given Solar PV for free (could still be cheaper than the fines), aren't robbing FIT payments off others and just use it to reduce our own energy costs, we could all pay for our own old age care. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Tim Lamb]

Still doesn't stop us aspiring to live at the same level as the residents of California!

>

[bert]

In article , T i m writes

Nukes

[bert]

For the third successive year life expectancy in the UK has gone down.

[T i m]

"Despite this, the falls in female life expectancy between 2011 and 20

12 at ages 65, 75 and 85 were all statistically significant, as was the fall in male life expectancy at 85. Although these small falls were statistically significant, the overall trend has been upwards and this does not point to a change in the overall trend. "

Cheers, T i m