Solar energy doesn't need subisires?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Hahahaha

[The Todal]

[T i m]

I think this demonstrates that even with such bogus subsidies, 'most people' aren't interested in such schemes (PV solar specifically and the FIT theft).

'Most people' might happily have their lofts insulated, have a new more-efficient boiler, cavity wall insulation or double glazing [1] because they are (in most cases) a 'good idea' and any grants offered towards such are 1) generally funded by everyone (not just other electricity consumers) and 2) unquestionably 'work' work at this latitude (and at night and in the winter, both when they are most needed). ;-)

Solar PV is a good idea for some (even at this latitude) if it's not over subsidised (especially by just other electricity consumers) and

*especially* when that subsidy is at a rate over and above the real cost of electricity supply and when it's not guaranteed and index-linked for 25 years!

How bad does an idea have to be when you have to stoop so low to get people to sign up to it! ;-(

Run it for yourself, to offset your electricity bill, even get paid the going rate for any surplus energy you actually export (not just generate and use yourself) but do all the above at your own cost and until you can make said panel work at night (so we don't *still* have to have generators running (standby / inefficiently)) cut all the eco bs.

Now, if we were in say California and wanted to reduce the cost of running our air-con during the summer / day ... and not asking anyone else to subsidise the project, good on you! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[1] I'm not sure I like / agree with that external thermal insulation. Apart from anything else, you try getting planning permission to have say a post, box, vent or flu sticking ~100mm out across the public footpath / pavement?

[dennis]

They are funded from the same tax on electricity as solar panels so I guess that makes all the ones with free insulation, etc. thieves as well.

[Tim Streater]

Don't all those free insulation grants come out of general taxation? That was what I was told, when I got it done here.

[harry]

Not subsidised to the extend of nuclear power.

Totally obsolete and expensive.

Or gas and coal.

[T i m]

Even if they don't, they don't actually *earn* those people cash, index linked and guaranteed for the next 25 years! At the best they

*save* the occupants money and reduce the demand on the grid at the same time (and not just house owners with suitable roofs with no planning restrictions and the (not insignificant) funds available).

So said insulation schemes actually reduce the energy load to the country, *even when it's dark* and *especially* when the sun goes (cold) in and in the winter! ;-)

If solar PV was actually credible (at this latitude) then it should be financially viable on it's own (no need for the FIT theft). Most people wouldn't even mind if there were some grants towards the initial installation costs but most wouldn't agree with the concept of paying people (over_the_odd) for energy they produce but still consume themselves! Anything that reduces load on the grid and / or adds energy to the system (however small) should be supported.

FIT though ... 'Well done mate, here is some cash for thinking of yourself!' ;-(

Cheers, T i m

p.s. OOI, I wonder how many of the people here who actually support the FIT theft actually have their own solar PV systems?

[dennis]

There are lots of people that have "free"panels that only get the savings. Not everyone invests in them.

I wonder how many have the "free" ones?

[T i m]

No, quite, and if you want or are able to offer your roof to a 3rd party, then that's fine ... and it's not 'the savings' most will be bothered about ... it's the potential *earnings* and who is paying for that, index linked and guaranteed for 25 years!

Really, what other 'investment' would come with such a guarantee?

I think a cousin on mine does on the IOW, 'they' (whoever 'they' are) put the panels on his roof and he gets a / the kickback (which we electricity users still pay for I guess).

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

I think he gets the PV electricity (and I think he has some solar hot water as well) and 'they' get out FIT theft (index linked and guaranteed for 25 years etc).

If it is a solar Co offering the free panels ... as 'they' will be supplying and fitting their panels at cost, 'they' will be earning (from our FIT subsidy) even sooner than a conventional owner might.

Less chance of that sort of solar Co going broke, what with their investment raking in the FIT, even when little of the electricity produced will be going to them those who are actually paying for it. ;-(

Assuming they last the 2-3 years it might take for *us* to recoup their hardware costs, even if they go to the wall they will still be getting the FIT, index linked and guaranteed for the remaining 20+ years!

Cheers, T i m

[Huge]

Or at least until the house changes hands, at which point the new owner, if they've any sense (and decent legal advice) will want them removed.

[T i m]

Good point.

One Solar Co I was playing with on a cold call said they would move any installation with me if / when I moved, the first move free and subsequent moves at minimal cost.

'assuming you are still in business' ... I replied. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[bert]

In article , Tim Streater writes

The BGAS guy who came to inspect my loft told me that it would be provided by BGAS free of charge because BGAS reckoned it was cheaper than paying the fine for not doing enough to help their customers save money. He then proceeded to tell me they would not top up my insulation because it wouldn't save enough money to qualify under this system.

[bert]

In article , harry writes

The more renewables you have the more you need to subsidise power stations that stand idle. So any subsidy to nuclear or gas is really a subsidy which should be attributed to renewables. If we had carried on with nuclear when we lead the world we wouldn't be going cap in hand to the Chinese to build our power stations.

[harry]

So why is nuclear power to cost twice as much as we pay now?

[dennis]

Because its low carbon and anything low carbon can be exploited to make more cash because of the GW nuts.

[Chris Hogg]

Because it won't be on stream for quite a few years, and by that time all electricity will be more expensive than it is now, along with everything else. It's called 'inflation'. Pretty obvious, I would have thought.

[The Natural Philosopher]

because its been strangled by senseless regulation is the correct answer

[F]

I thought the new nuclear was going to cost twice as much and that that cost was index linked so it will always be twice as much? Unless the index linking only starts once they're online.

[Tim Streater]

Nom the price per MWHr is what we will pay, for volts from that station, from now til kingdom come (unless the station wears out earlier, I suppose). I don't think there's any index linking involved.