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.....
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
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.
Check a few others on the map. It's quite interesting to see how
they're performing. :)
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
<snip> >> p.s. I think solar energy and panels are a great invention, I have
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
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
Nope. You really are brain dead aren't you harry? (And don't forget I
would be far from the first to say that on here). ;-)
Yes, of course, because they are generating energy that they don't use
themselves for free ... AND force others to pay for!
Or maybe you think there are whole families living in these places ...
or even in the wind turbines! ;-)
(I'm not saying a power station might not pay for it's own electricity
use, but even if it didn't it would be miniscule compared with the
amount of energy it supplies to others, twenty four hours a day, three
hundred and sixty five days of the year.)
Is this all really so difficult for you to understand or are you so
desperate to justify your own immoral position you will try any BS /
distraction to try to ease your conscious (assuming you have one that
Cheers, T i m
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.