Solar pv generation

[skier-hughes]

So who has Solar PV?
How are your generation figures?
I'm assuming our meter is telling me how many units I've generated, which gives me in the last 3 days
6.3, 1, 4.2
From a 4kw system, but with the scaffolding still standing it throws small shadows over several panels.

How are we doing?

 

[Schoolmarm]

Pass lol!! I can't figure it out but I will try again tomorrow.

 

[skier-hughes]

I got 3.6 yesterday and 4.5 today

 

[MdB]

Well that is 20p worth of electricity generated per day and £1.56 gained per day from everybody else's electricity bill.

 

[biffvernon]

Don't judge too much by a day in December. I've had mine for 15 months and average 10kWh per day. About an 11% return on capital, tax free.

 

[skier-hughes]

I wasn't Biff, was just wanting to compare how we were doing against others on the same day, although I realise it could be sunny with you and cloudy with me etc

 

[Lime]

Well that is 20p worth of electricity generated per day and £1.56 gained per day from everybody else's electricity bill.

that's the truth.

 

[Flyfisher]

Indeed. A non-sustainable 'green' initiative whereby poor consumers subsidise the rich who can afford the capital investment for pv panels. Fat cat greens eh? :wink:

 

[skier-hughes]

Well now I'm among the fat cats I may as well enjoy it

 

[tobydog]

Don't take it personally but I'm going to turn off one lamp tonight in protest. You fat cat's need to feel the pinch too!! :wink:

 

[skier-hughes]

I'm afraid the other 56 million peole with lights on will mean I just don't care about you sitting in the dark.............

 

[tobydog]

I guessed as much but I have to be seen to make a stand. Nothing to do, of course, with the fact I have a thatched roof and it's sour grapes!!

The reality is that I will turn one lamp off and Mrs. T will turn two more on. Your money's safe with me.

 

[Flyfisher]

Well now I'm among the fat cats I may as well enjoy it

And good luck to you. I've no problem with the scheme per se, only its misrepresentation.

Well, that and the fact that I was too late to climb aboard the bandwagon myself. :lol:

 

[biffvernon]

Misrepresentation? What? Who? The whole scheme has been very transparent to anyone bothering to do the reading.

The only misrepresentation was when the Government said the FiT rate would not change till April 2012 and then changed it in December 2011. Not so much misrepresentation actually as a blatant lie.

 

[Flyfisher]

Misrepresentation? What? Who?

So would you agree that FITs is an unsustainable scheme funded by the poor that subsidises the rich to achieve high returns on their capital?

 

[biffvernon]

Misrepresentation? What? Who?

So would you agree that FITs is an unsustainable scheme funded by the poor that subsidises the rich to achieve high returns on their capital?

It's funded by all electricity consumers and as far as rich people spend more money on electricity than poor people it is funded by rich people more than by poor people. Thus your suggestion that it is funded by the poor is a misrepresentation.

The FiT is paid not to the rich but to those who have the right shaped roof and a spare several thousand pounds. The cost is similar to that of a modest family saloon car so hardly the preserve of the rich, though it may, sadly, rule out the poor.

An important objective of a high initial FiT rate was to stimulate the growth of a new industry. The scheme was promised to maintain this rate till April 2012, a date that the industry could use to plan their investment. There was nothing 'unsustainable' about this. There are many precedents for government to arrange start-up incentives to certain industries. Changing the rules during the scheme is unprecedented.

Ultimately, the important thing is that we stop burning fossil fuel. Anything that moves us in this direction must be welcomed though measures that move us in this direction fastest should be given the highest priority. Whatever the cost. The cost of not abandoning fossil fuel burning is life on this planet.

 

[Flyfisher]

The 'poor', of course, often cannot obtain credit and are thus forced to buy their energy on a PAYG basis at a substantially higher cost than those fortunate enough to be deemed 'rich' enough to benefit from a credit account. So while the rich may buy more energy, like everything else, they are able to do it at a lower cost and the FIT 'tax' paid by all energy consumers will, of course, be a greater burden on the 'poor' than the 'rich'. But I'm sure they'll bear that burden with due stoicism knowing that they are helping to save the planet. :wink:

And, of course, an 11% return on capital is a big boost to the economy, which . . . er, hang on, that's not such a good thing as it mean rich people can get richer and therefore able to consume more. Good for the economy perhaps, but not so good for the environment?

So perhaps it was a good thing for the government to change the rules of the FIT scheme, particularly if it helps discourage big businesses from building huge solar pv 'farms' and prevents rich business people get even richer?

Perhaps a better way to stimulate the growth of renewable energy industries would be to simply increase the tax on fossil fuels to a level at which expensive renewable technologies become economically competitive? Except, of course, such a thing is not politically acceptable anywhere on the planet because of the immediate hardship it would cause. And therein lies the real problem; known pain now versus unknown gain sometime, perhaps, in the unknown future.

It's a tough sell, which could be why progress is so frustratingly slow.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I have to be seen to make a stand.

Ummm.... if you turn off your lights, I don't think we'll see your stand.

Turn more on :idea: :idea: :idea: and you'll also put a smile on Graham's FiT face. :wink:

 

[worms]

An important objective of a high initial FiT rate was to stimulate the growth of a new industry.

Absolutely! And it seems to have worked, given the reduction in cost of pv panels. However, the fact that the uPVC double-glazing salesmen have now added solar pv to their hard-sell list doesn't entirely fill me with confidence!

 

[biffvernon]

So perhaps it was a good thing for the government to change the rules of the FIT scheme, particularly if it helps discourage big businesses from building huge solar pv 'farms' and prevents rich business people get even richer?

The reduction in the FiT rate was always part of the plan. Changing the rules in the way the government has done is devastating for companies who made investment decisions on the basis of government promises and, most importantly, sets a new precedent for government reliability. In future industry will not be able to trust government statements. Surprisingly perhaps, this is new.

Perhaps a better way to stimulate the growth of renewable energy industries would be to simply increase the tax on fossil fuels to a level at which expensive renewable technologies become economically competitive?

Of course - but Mr Osborne is doing the opposite.