Desirability of Solar PV panels installation
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Yes you could say that - and a noble thing to do it would be; if it were not being funded by people who cannot get credit and are forced to use pre-payment inflated prices. It is this that makes it utterly shameful really.
Also it is a cop out, if the gov't were to do some thing with tidal energy there would be no on to rob to pay for it so that emerging technologywhich isn't yet quite financally viable doesn't get a look in.
No it is a con and one that makes the have nots think it is right to go grab what they can, because that is the way the world is.
A fairer system should be in place. Germany woke up to this, hence we ar getting their unit on the cheap.
I hope that FIT is rescinded.
I have every right.
Offensive?
It would be impossible for me to be as offensive as I find the whole notion of FITs.
It would be impossible for me to be as offensive as I find the idea of putting up the cost of electricity in order to pay people with spare cash to install useless PV facilities.
The FIT system is disgusting, and people who take advantage of it are disgusting.
Fine - you get the Mods to put a stop to the distorting, theiving, FIT schemes for tiny domestic solar PV systems which are, unquestionably, going to kill poor old people, (and it's hard to think of anything more offensive than that).
The best possible way?
I'll suspend disbelief for a moment, and treat you as if you are even part-way capable of debating the realities of alternative energy sources, and ask you to put forward a convincing technical explanation of how fixed orientation solar PV panels of a few square m in a country between 50-58° N with a predominantly wet and cloudy climate represent a sensible and effective and economically viable way to generate enough electricity to bring about a large enough reduction in our existing generation infrastructure to make a measurable difference to the amount of CO2 produced and/or to make us significantly less dependent on fossil fuels.
Sponsored Links
And how will the proper market prices make the idea of small scale domestic PV installations look if people are only paid at the proper market rate for the electricity they actually generate?
If you want to ally yourself with holmslaw, and accept the total destruction of any credibility that goes with that, then be my guest.
You might like to begin your association with him by explaining why what he said above was relevant to the topic being discussed here.
... you're a c u next tuesday.
Can you?
Well, let's make a few adjustments so that they really are similar:
1) Make 3D TVs so that they only work during daylight. Want TV at night? Then buy an ordinary TV in addition.
2) That makes a 3D forever more expensive than an ordinary TV, since everyone wants to watch at night too. Makes it all more expensive than most can afford. So the government gives 3D TV owners £100 a month to help. And increases the licence fee to ordinary TV owners to pay for the better off to get their £100 a month.
3) Does someone have the audacity to suggest this is morally offensive?
Note that: (1) PV panels only work during daylight. (2) UK maximum demand always occurs during the early December evening, when it's dark.
PV generation has to be backed up with alternative generation. It cannot displace even one kW. The cross subsidising FIT tariff is funded by other consumers, including the poorest.
A short while ago there was a bloke on Dragons' Den who was boasting about the high profitability of being MCS and supplying and installing PV systems. IIRC he was making £3/4k per installation and wanted to expand to compete with the likes of EDF. There are a lot of electricians who see this as a goldmine and are spending ££££s to get MCS.
I shall be delighted when the dragons lose money because the competition from those electricians squeezes their profits.
I shall be even more delighted when the government realises there are negative votes in pv and abandons the scheme, dumping all the electricians who spent ££££s getting MCS before they can earn their costs back. There is precedence for this: houses had to have a HIP before they could be put up for sale. Lots of hopefuls spent £££s getting trained up then Labour lost the election and one of the first things the Coalition did was to dump HIPs and leave the HIPsters out in the cold.
The hipsters didn't get any sympathy even though they were not acting immorally.
Just a thought: Even in Biblical times bankers and tax collectors were considered below common prostitutes in the social pecking order. Shortly these days anyone holding MCS will be considered even lower than bankers...
Not very good
The stupid idea that these are a way of meeting climate control targets is a joke the through life carbon footprint is huge. Bet no one can contradict this as it is largely hidden information by the manufacturers
The dragons pulled out of the deal when they realised that a review of FIT is in the offing.
So they won't be losing any money
They ain't as stupid as normal folk who are still jumping on this scheme.
The people I'd like to see lose money are the ones who signed up for FIT payments.
Retroactive cancellation of the contracts is what's needed. They did it in Spain.
Retroactive cancellation of the contracts is what's needed. They did it in Spain.
Can you point to any other examples of technology which has become financially viable because the government imposed a levy on people who weren't users of it in order to make it financially viable to the people who were, rather than leaving the developers of the technology to get on with it and invest in R&D in the normal way, as any company would if they were seeking to develop new products or services which they could sell at a profit?
The Wilson government subsidised the development of the 64k ram. Trouble is, they subsidised the wrong company; the 64k ram got into production in America (Texas Instruments IIRC) and the government's money was wasted.
Here the technology became financially viable in spite of the government subsidy.
That's not the same - that's governments directly funding a business, which can be an OK thing to do, at least in theory. I was thinking more of them funding customers to persuade them to buy otherwise uneconomic products, something which is likely to dissuade companies from doing development work - if you're selling a product anyway because your customers are getting a handout, why burn your money on R&D?
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
