Latest on Solar PV power.

[harry]

[Brian Gaff]

That is what you get from talking to Trump. Seriously the funniest thing I heard recently is an Elephant mounted sun shade with solar charger. One assumes they won't sell many in Surrey. Brian

[Chris Hogg]

Bearing in mind it only produced 1% of our electricity in 20125 (see earlier thread), and in northern Europe it doesn't even return the energy invested in it during manufacture, one can only be glad that the Government has at last seen sense regarding this worst of all possible forms of renewable energy. It might be a different matter if we lived in north Africa, or California, but we don't.

[T i m]

And (fiscally) 'cheaper' (isn't not environmentally green until the

*entire* process of manufacture and installation are done via self generated VP electricity) is only 'cheaper' when it's actually doing anything (which can only ever be say (absolute maximum) 60% of the time (daylight)).

PV is like saying it's 'cheaper' to bury our waste in the ground ... till we run out of holes in the ground to tip it of course.

PV (especially here in the UK as you say) is as much a 'solution' to our reliable energy needs as 'away' is to throwing things away.

You can nearly visualise the UK running on PV as you can watching a light powered being by someone on a dynamo generator bike. Light, light, light oh dear, dark. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. My solution to much of this and especially in regard to the FIT theft.

Anyone on taking our money via the FIT should be taken off grid (or they can't claim it). They would then be forced to supply their own storage solutions to store their own surplus to use when the sun wasn't shining. They would be given a slot meter where they could buy electricity off *our* grid at £1/unit.

Or

They stay on grid and ONLY get paid for what they export (at the std commercial production rate). None of this should ever been seen / used as just a cash-cow (harry). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[dennis]

Its more like saying you get your water from rainfall (free like solar) but intermittent, without any storage. You can use it while it rains but have to use the mains when its not.

Having a battery, powerwall, makes it like having a small tank that will collect a few gallons of rain so you can still have rain water for a few hours after the rain stops.

Why not a cash cow? Its the greens like harry that keep claiming its actually saving the planet that are liars, people that just take advantage of the rules are just normal people. I bet you take advantage of any tax breaks you can find rather than pay more.

[Brian-Gaff]

Actually one problem is power storage. It needs somebody to come up with a cheap efficient way to store the generated powe and feed it in when its needed. Brian

[T i m]

Or tip stuff in a hole till it's filled, yes. All good things must come to an end. ;-)

Yup. Just what my cousin has and he's currently undergoing legal action with the supplier because it does do what they promised (now fancy that!). ;-(

Because it's the rest of us, often the less fortunate who are paying for it.

Or just (scientifically) gullible at the best.

Or ignorant of the bigger picture in some cases.

We aren't talking about tax breaks we are talking about *earning money*, earnings that are index linked and guaranteed!

And no, even though I could afford the panels I wouldn't go for a FIT theft system, or certainly not one that is as bogus as the one that is in action now (even with lower levels of theft)..

Put the panels on the roof yourself ('at your own cost') and by all means accept payment (or offset your charges would be better) for any energy you generate AND EXPORT but ONLY at the current commercial generation rates.

Anyone trying to sell anything over and above market rates would normally be considered a scammer. Just as those who bought shares in what were publicly owned services and then immediately sold them on for a profit. No one is saying it is illegal but many people say it is immoral and would rather 'miss out' than be part of it.

It's no different to someone being given a Council house and then sub-letting it for a profit (or buying their council house at a reduced rate for that matter, especially when we are in desperate need of social housing and most of the houses in question were far from 'derelict (and certainly not compared with this 120 year old house).

And no, I've always paid my dues and never been part of any scam where I have used others to pay for my earnings.

Cheers, T i m

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yeah. Cat beller of the first order, aren't you.

If someone could only come up with a simple cheap reliable way to hold a zillion degree plasma stable we could have fusion reactors instead of vaillants..

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

[Tim Streater]

Gosh Brian, I never thought of that. What a clever chap you are.

That's energy sorted then, what next will you apply your intellect to?

[T i m]

I *know* you are, as you are about to demonstrate. ;-)

Of course there is. How much can you *earn* out of having loft installation fitted (even if fitted 'free' paid for by others)?

The FIT is a food bank where people take the food (for free) and then sell it.

Nope. I think it has some moral / social merit to try to encourage as many people as possible to *save* energy, on behalf of the whole country. It is often means tested and only applied under specific circumstances.

But as I said, no one (householders) makes money from having loft insulation fitted. The savings they make aren't index linked or guaranteed for 2-0 years (even though they may turn out to be).

Yup, and that is also questionable.

In the case of IC vehicles it's generally pretty logical where the most polluting paying the most money. With electric / hybrid vehicles the net green benefit is highly questionable so any grants are potentially as bogus as the FIT payments.

IF everyone when out a bought an electric car do you think 1) The electricity supply infrastructure would be able to cope, 2) the overall pollution (inc manufacturing and disposal) would be any / much less (if at all less) or that they would carry on offering grants (often paid to those 'with' by those who are 'without') for any of it?

We all know it's all just some BS because without the subsidies most 'green' energy solutions couldn't stand on their own two feet and 'most people' don't do something (even if it might benefit them) without some sort of incentive.

If someone told me I could possibly save £50 pa on my electricity bill by swapping supplier I (and the vast majority) wouldn't be bothered. I CBA to clear the loft out to get free loft insulation so paid for it and fitted it myself when I wanted to.

Exactly ... fooling a tiny minority into spending their own money on a highly questionable 'project'.

Why should you get paid anything at all? If you were paying your water heating costs before, why should 'we' be paying for / towards them now?

Apart from a community project and then it make sense if you are exporting energy to *others*.

Yes, I know.

Or less, depending on how close you got to the initial FIT theft price cutoff (biggest rates / cheapest panels).

A neighbour took out a bank loan to pay for his solar PV system on the second tier FIT rates. I think he has nearly paid off the loan with the money saved / earned in two years.

Yes, and that time can be quite short, depending on the cost (inc size) and efficiency of the system and how you use the energy produced.

I didn't say there were no risks ... and those risks may turn out to be higher than some first thought if the panels don't retain the efficiency they were promised and the companies guaranteeing them go down the pan (unless *we* are ring-fencing that as well).

So, I repeat, it's nothing to do with energy, it's nothing to do with 'green', it's all to do with profiteering from others (especially when it's (PV) neither a good source of energy (in the UK) or 'green').

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

And further increasing the cost to other electricity consumers.

I wish I had no morals as I could also take the FIT theft and still sleep ok.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. We asked and pair for 4 takeaway sandwiches at a local cafe we use quite a lot. When we got to our destination we found we had been given 5 (and our daughter ate it later), so the next time we went to the cafe we told them what had happened and paid for the extra sandwich.

I *could* have 'got away with it' of course but it didn't sit comfortably with me. I treat others how I would like to be treated myself (even if that doesn't always happen).

[dennis]

What has earn got to do with it?

Wrong! People like harry use as much of it as possible and don't sell it.

What happens is the energy companies pay you to generate electricity for them and they let you use as much of it as you like for free because they can't afford to meter it.

The hell is it means tested. I had my loft done for free by BG. They needed me to do so to help meet their obligations and avoid a fine.

Of course the savings are linked to fuel prices not RPI. That means they will rise faster for now than RPI. They have more disposable income after having it fitted free so they are "earning". They pay less contribution to the green energy tax as a result so some others have to pay more.

Its a congestion charge not a pollution charge.

Most vehicles already pay more tax if they pollute more.

Can they add new capacity faster than they can sell cars?

Will the powerwall concept need more capacity than cars and will that make intermittent energy more useful? When they offer "FIT" for them will that be more theft if it actually fixes a problem?

So they aren't actually stealing then, just investing in what the government wants them to?

Are you out in the sticks or stuck on the end of some extra long mains? If so why should anyone else pay the extra costs of getting power, water, sewage, phones to you?

Well at least we agree on the fact that its not green.

[T i m]

The difference,. The thing you said didn't exist.

Yes, so equally unethical.

That doesn't make it right though does it?

I didn't mean to say that.

But some grants require other things to be right / done. Like, you might not get a 'home improvement grant' (or didn't) if you didn't have say an outside toilet.

Yes, the *savings*.

Now, yes.

Nice try, still wrong. Do they get *paid* anything by anyone directly? No, thought not.

Too convolute. The (basic) point is that some people are given grants to do things to make their lives more comfortable *and* save (the country) energy at the same time, not to earn any money (directly).

Road tax is based on Co2 emissions. Discounts are generally given for the same thing. 'Congestion' increases the impact of (kerb side) emissions, *especially* for IC engined vehicles (and also electric vehicles to a lesser extent as regen braking only really works when braking from speed not slow / stop-start stuff).

Yes, that's what I said?

Apparently not (considering how close we are currently sailing towards the wind right now without all that extra load).

We could never have sufficient storage capacity with the technology that they have now (there was a post highlighting the fact here recently).

No, if it actually means it really helps (eg, giving us energy at peak load times, even in the dark), then it has some justification at least.

Legally no, morally, yes. See, there are people out there that aren't like harry who have principals.

Because it's not 'your fault' where you live (you may be born there) and the supply of basic services is the right of everyone (within reason) and therefore the costs of the more difficult sites would be covered by the easy ones.

One day you might also realise it's (the whole current FIT setup) is not *right* either but maybe not while you are benefiting from it personally. ;-)

OOI, I wonder if there is a system where you could hook your solar PV system up to the grid, get paid for what you export (at the std commercial supply rates) and buy electricity off the grid when required, also at the std residential rates? I mean a real / official setup for that, not just giving your FIT theft money to charity etc?

I wonder how many people who fitted Solar PV systems / FIT knew of / considered the ethics of it all? I know a neighbour who went for it didn't.

And I know that one of the Solar PV suppliers who used to cold call, called me 'an idiot' for *not* installing a system because of my moral objections. But then he probably steals money from his friends and does have tax and insurance on his car ...

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

"The Home Heating Cost Reduction Obligation (HHCRO) under which suppliers provide measures which improve the ability of low income and vulnerable households to affordably heat their homes."

And

"Eligibility

You must own your property or rent it privately and have the owner?s permission to do the work.

You must also get one of the following benefits:

Pension Credit Child Tax Credit (and your income is £16,010 or less) Working Tax Credit (and your income is £16,010 or less) Income Support income-based Jobseeker?s Allowance income-related Employment and Support Allowance Universal Credit (and you earned £1,250 or less after tax in any assessment period in the last 12 months)"

Looks like means testing to me?

Cheers, T i m

[dennis]

It may not be your fault but you could pay the amount it costs to provide those service rather than stealing other peoples cash that don't have such high costs. Do you see where your argument leads?

BTW who decides what is "within reason" and why should *they* get to do it?

[dennis]

Or live in certain areas where the above doesn't apply?

The only questions asked were: can we do at least 2/3 of the loft. do you have less than 270mm of insulation. do you have the owner permission.

[T i m]

But that's not how 'social' systems work is it? Don't you (happily) pay towards say the local public library, swimming pool or park, even though you may not use any of them? The point is there is an *offset* where the ease of say installing electricity to a row of houses offsets the difficulty of supplying the less straightforward ones. The 'norm' is the average cost of supplying said service, not the cheapest.

Same with the cost of mail ... it costs the same to send a letter to the extremes of (say) the UK as it does to send something next door but the *actual* cost of doing both is obviously very different.

Doesn't your council offer 'aids' for the elderly or disabled, often completely FOC? Don't you agree with that either? Might you think different if you were in need of such?

Yes, common sense. ;-)

Common (social) sense mate.

Now, of they were living in the sticks and expected 'us' to pay for their drive ... or pay them for the energy they generate but still use themselves, then yes, that would be wrong / immoral / unethical. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Of course, but if we were comparing like for like?

Yes, but that is a very specific instance and again, not the spirit of the general discussion ... and that was ...

Why should other electricity users be expected to pay money TO those who can afford to put solar panels on their property, even when they use the energy they produce themselves?

Why would the be expected to pay more than the current commercial rates and have such payments index linked and guaranteed?

The whole idea is preposterous! ( And especially so considering how bogus the 'green' principal it's all supposed to be based on is).

Now, if you were forced to export some of the hot water (or in your specific case, hot air ) you generate towards heating the village hall then that is completely different. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[dennis]

I pay quite happily, however you appear to resent paying for some of the services the government has decided should exist.

Something else you think shouldn't be so?

Its you that appears to describe some of the things the government does as theft, not I.

I would say it leads to losses for the poor. Maybe you are far right?

[dennis]

You have done so since power stations were built. Do you think the electricity used by a power station is metered and paid for.

The only real argument you appear to have is that electricity producers should pay for the electricity they use running the plant at a higher rate than they sell it for.

Looked at that nice new nuke lately? I assume you are going to lodge a protest at them building it.

Now if the "green" principle is wrong then you could ask the government to stop doing it, however it would be unwise to cancel the existing contracts as that will piss off a lot of people and make any future negotiations very difficult as nobody would trust them.

Its probably pointless though as the government has already reduced the FIT payment so its not really worth installing solar PV any more.