Latest on Solar PV power.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-energy-uk-government-accused-trying-to-kill-off-climate-change-theresa-may-a7570161.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 01:21:24 -0800 (PST), harry
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.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 09/02/2017 11:22, T i m wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:42:00 +0000, dennis@home

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!). ;-(

<snip> >> They stay on grid and ONLY get paid for what they export (at the std

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:02:16 +0000, dennis@home
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). <sigh>
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/02/2017 20:11, T i m wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:47:15 +0000, dennis@home

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.

Nope?

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.

<snip>

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/02/2017 22:38, T i m wrote:

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:36:10 +0000, dennis@home

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/02/2017 18:57, T i m wrote:

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?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 20:01:53 +0000, dennis@home

Correct. Specifically any that directly line the pockets of a minority who have by a majority who have not.

No, I'm saying that's exactly how it should be.

Yes, those things that *would* be deemed by anyone with a fully functional moral compass as being 'theft'.

How?

Maybe (whatever that means / is), if it means that stuff should be considered fair and equal.

Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/02/2017 21:14, T i m wrote:

So that would include the disabled and the unemployed and sick as well as anyone getting any sort of benefit like vouchers for child care or tax benefits?

But that is lining the pockets of people that want to send mail to far off places using cash from people that want to send to local places. That's what you said you didn't want.

People paying for what they get, some may not be able to afford it. Pay more for long services. More for using the roads. Pay to use the library. etc.

Fair is you pay what it costs for what you use, it may not be what you want but life is not fair. Personally I think the way it is is better and spending a bit on others is a good idea.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 22:34:18 +0000, dennis@home

I'm not sure their gains are index linked and guaranteed for 20 years ... or based on 'dubious' ethics though are they (but nice try).

No, see, I'm not sure I am ever going to explain the difference of *financial gain* (of an individual) versus 'uniform cost' to everyone (as a society). The reason I won't be able to get you to see (or except) those facts is you too have taken said theft up. ;-(

It is?

Quite, that's why the FIT theft is immoral.

What?

Yes, anything that allows people to earn money at the expense of others (and for dubious causes) is wrong.

No, we should all pay for that, use it or not.

Then you would prefer to pay the full cost of posting something a distance ... or paying extra for electricity that has come from Scotland because you should contribute towards all the infrastructure between them and you and ... (the ridiculous list would go on of course).
No one is suggesting one shouldn't pay for what one uses and at a fair and reasonable rate (if social) and all bets are off if it's commercial but why do you think many governments, agencies and companies subsidise stuff to make stuff available to people cheaper or more easily.
*Completely* different to *paying* a minority for indulging themselves.

You (in a desperate attempt to justify your own morally corrupt position) are trying to mix everything up but it won't wash (and never will).

Of course you do, as long as it's you (and your kind) the rest of us are forced to spend more on.
Do something for society and few will have any issues you getting something out of it yourself.
Do something for yourself and with a direct cost to others and those others will have issues with you.
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/02/2017 23:46, T i m wrote:

So you don't want to pay electricity producers to build plant and supply electricity then?
Its that attitude that has got is in a mess.

I am just pointing out that your position is wrong and a simple extension of what you say will destroy society as we know it.
Its the sort of extension that the extreme right wing appears to want so I guess you are extreme right wing or just haven't actually thought it through.

But you spend money on stuff like that all the time, its where tax goes.
Maybe you would have been happier if the government paid FITs and stuff out of general taxation and just put a carbon tax on fuel? Then they could have spent it on defence or stuff like that without you knowing or complaining.

Well at the time the first solar panels were being installed with the expensive FIT rates people were being told that they were for the good of everyone else.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:29:53 +0000, dennis@home

Oh, I didn't realise you or harry was building his own nuke! (about the only form of dependable power we have right now)

Quite. Not sure what that has got to do with paying the likes of you or harry to produce and consume their own energy?

But it isn't, it's how good society has worked for millions of years. People looking after each other (often whilst trying to fend off the greedy and selfish).

Only the 'what I say' that you seem to have twisted into something else.

Like I said, if you want to try to pigeon hole what I say to make it better for you to understand then so be it. I have no interest in politics so can't be held responsible for anything you make up or don't understand about my words.

What, that actually benefits individuals financially and directly and without any justification?

At least that might have made a bit more sense but I still haven't seen any real justification to the FIT in the first place (and I don't consider a knee-jerk reaction to avoiding a fine *justification* to anything. It's like being told you will be fined if you don't get your car MOT'd when it should have been MOT'd in the first place.

But I'm not discussing those things (and I'm sure there are loads), I'm just discussing this one thing (but nice distraction again).

Quite, and so was smoking and drinking an Elixir that contained mercury but some people had the brains to see though all the hype before science proved us right.
Given that your solar hot water installation was cheap, how about you proving that you *are* better than the harrys of this work and taking yourself off the FIT scheme? Or if you can't, donating any FIT money you are paid to a charity? I don't want to hear about you having to recoup the initial costs first because 1) no one told you you had to do it and 2) any real 'green' solution should be able to stand on it's own two feet (shouldn't it)?
If I decide to buy a car that is supposed to do better mpg than my existing one I look into all the facts and estimate the payback time. If it's not worth doing then I don't so it and I certainly wouldn't drag other people into it (especially without their permission).
I have no issues with making use of solar PV and water (I've used both when camping to good effect) but neither are a real solution for the country and therefore others shouldn't be further penalised for the whole scam.
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:28:06 -0800 (PST), harry

Yeah, it's all working out well for some in Auz eh and they get 3 times the sunshine we do, have half the population we do, 30 x the size (more room for panels or windmills) and a massively bigger coastline than we do (tidal / wave / windmills).

Yes, and you could add a graph showing that burning babies could be a form of sustainable fuel but it wouldn't *actually* would it? ;-(
Until they invent a better form of energy storage, no energy source that can't be relied on 24/7 is worth a squat and then it STILL needs to be ecologically (and ethically, no getting a great number of people to pay a small number of people to play house and solar PV) sound.
Any *truly good* energy source will ... stand on it's own two feet financially, will be available 24/7 and won't consume more energy and create more pollution in its inception than it can give out in it's lifetime.
It will be like the concept of MagLev in that it works, offers great performance potential and has few moving parts so little to wear out / maintain (all adding to the cost / carbon footprint).
Or geo-thermal community heating projects or locating datacentres where the environment can keep them cool.
Or peoples living in a way where they don't consume more than the earth can naturally provide or it can naturally recycle.
Now I'm enough of a realist to know we are currently way past that point but who knows if / how long it will now last?
All I do know is that the likes of solar PV and without any realistic storage solution on the horizon isn't it, well whilst we still have a batch of dark *every* 24 hours that is. Now, ignoring the questionable carbon neutrality of solar PV, and even when we can cover our own (UK) load and had ay 60GW's worth of feed from countries that were lit when we were dark, what when it's overcast everywhere?
It's just lucky your moral compass was broken when the government first forced the rest of us to fund you putting that while elephant on your roof. ;-(
Ere, this could be fun ... tell us the total carbon footprint of your solar PV system ... that's including say mining the aluminium ore to make the frames and moving it to the smelting plant and forming it in to the profiles etc etc (same for the panels, inverters, cables, installation and final disposal) versus how much energy they will generate during their lifetimes.
And then how much cash you predict you will earn off us over the same period, along with how much pollution you think you will save (considering solar and wind aren't there 24/7 or even close to it).
And you must have done all these numbers, considering 1) your previous job and 2 (therefore) deciding if to go ahead with the installation or not (fully considering ethical and ecological grounds of course?).
In the meantime ... I would be happy to contribute towards you FIT payments if you would go off grid (from a consumption POV).
Talk about wanting us to buy your cake, you eating it and rarely sharing any (without us having to pay over the top for it anyway!).
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/02/2017 23:33, T i m wrote:

It would appear your moral compass is a bit biased imo.
You obviously don't buy from any company that employs accountants as that is investing money to get more money out of others. Even worse when they do the vAT/tax returns to avoid paying too much tax as that costs everyone more.
I wonder if you support drug dealers as they make stuff cheaper?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.