Who told you that ? Have you spoken to any estate agents about whether solar panels increase the value of a house ?
Fit 2 PV solar panels now, more later?
- Thread starter meadowhog
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Mostly magazine articles and what friends who have bought them have been told. (Probably by the purveyors)
I dont know of anybody who has sold their house with PV. I dont even know if the FiT contract stays with the house or the owners?
I dont know of anybody who has sold their house with PV. I dont even know if the FiT contract stays with the house or the owners?
As the majority of "purveyors" are on commission they will only be talking about the ( apparent ) benefits.
I do know someone who had PV ( but not FIT ) on their roof.... made the sale difficult. Hence the suggestion to ask estate agents. House insurance is also something to look into,
Depends on the contract. Some contracts are that the roof is leased to the company on a fixed term lease and the new owners have to take over that contract whether or not they want to have PV.
If the contract is with the owner then when the owner moves house who will pay for the panels to be moved, the roof to be re-instated and other costs. And what if the new house has no suitable roof for the panels. How much will it cost to cancel the contract.
Sponsored Links
I agree with you bernardgreen its difficult to see the truth. Ive heard of the rent a roof schemes I think your either daft or a show off to have them.
What seems sensible is if the house is sold the PV stays just as the CHS stays. But would the original FiT stay with the house or the owner who had it installed?
BTW: Having read more of the scant PV FIT threads I would like to state I'm on the side of 'NOT A VICTIM'.
What seems sensible is if the house is sold the PV stays just as the CHS stays. But would the original FiT stay with the house or the owner who had it installed?
BTW: Having read more of the scant PV FIT threads I would like to state I'm on the side of 'NOT A VICTIM'.
If people can afford them now then let them throw their money away on them now - that doesn't make them despicable.
What makes them despicable is, having thrown their own money away, replenishing their bank balance by forcing other people to hand over their money to them, even if those people can't afford to do that, even if they are already in fuel poverty, and even if, for those already in dire straits, it kills them.
I think in your mind that makes them dispicable.
You have a choise and you choose to be victimised by this government, not by me!
There are quite a number of people who think that greedy people who take advantage of the government's scheme are despicable because it penalises the poor and disadvantaged.
It just amazes me that they advertise their greed from the rooftops.
It just amazes me that they advertise their greed from the rooftops.
The choice for the vast majority of people will be to either divert money to pay large electricity bills or to reduce energy consumption to level that does not support a reasonable standard of living.
The FIT scheme uses money from most electricity uses to pay a few. The most have to provide the money. they have no choice. The few can afford to invest money into scheme at teh expense of most.
What about the people living in flats who cannot install PV. They will be paying increased prices to finance those who can fit PV
You're quite right that I don't choose to be victimised by you.
If you sign up for the FIT scheme you choose that I be victimised by you.
This is called a 'loss leader' and its extremely common. Its designed to stimulate this area. The project is to be scaled down in April. As with virtually all things they start off expensive and not so efficient. There are enough panel manufacturers to provide healthy competition and drive down costs.
At some point those people who would have 'no choice' will be supplied electricity from renewable green sources such as PV (micro wave technology I suspect), and not be held to ransom by Russian olygarks and hence pay less for their power. This will however only happen if theres a market.
We could alternatively not invest in new technology and pay skyhigh prices for power. Those with a bit of spare cash will benefit but ultimately so will the less well off. The choice as they say'is yours'.
At some point those people who would have 'no choice' will be supplied electricity from renewable green sources such as PV (micro wave technology I suspect), and not be held to ransom by Russian olygarks and hence pay less for their power. This will however only happen if theres a market.
We could alternatively not invest in new technology and pay skyhigh prices for power. Those with a bit of spare cash will benefit but ultimately so will the less well off. The choice as they say'is yours'.
A 'loss leader' is not designed to result in a financial benefit for those availing themselves of the offer; if that happens, it's purpose has failed. If the 'loss leader' technique achieves what it intends, it will result in an increased spend of the consumers involved. I don't think it's possible to come up with an actual retail equivalent of a FIT, because it's essentially unprecedented - it would be like Tescos agreeing to give a select group of people a 300% refund on everything they bought for the next 25 years, the cost being bourne by all the non-select Tesco customers!
What's that?
I'm sure no-one has a problem with the concept of investing in new technology. The power generating companies have to do that, and individuals are free to try to do it if they so wish - the only argument is about the unjustifiable, and 'unfair', subsidies.
Given the existance of these subsidies, it is either true or not true that those who can afford to invest in pv can make a substantial long-term profit. If not true, there's no point in doing it. If true, then that 'substantial profit' will inevitably be mirrored by a corresponding substantial loss for those too poor to invest - again, not good.
Kind Regards, John.
The let them compete and drive down costs. Don't take away the commercial incentives for companies to innovate by subsidising users of systems that don't actually do any good.
Did cars get better and cheaper because governments made cyclists in the 1920s and 30s pay more for their bikes so that the purchase of Bentleys could be subsidised?
Or did it happen because car makers began to compete with each other to make their products better and cheaper?
Historically our peak demand for electricity is late afternoons/early evenings on December weekdays. If we covered every single roof in the UK with PV panels, how much electricity would they be producing 1½ - 2 hours after sunset?
Well there certainly are 2 camps here. I prefer the morally correct path of creating jobs, cutting polution and having a better world for our children to grow up in.
Ive got a big shed, I could fit 3 more panels on that too.
Ive got a big shed, I could fit 3 more panels on that too.
I certainly can't see how anyone could argue with that. As I said before:
So, if you want to generate as much electricity as you can (for yourself and/or others) and not accept the FIT (i.e. if you sell electricity, do so at no higher a price than others will be paying for it), then you retain the moral high ground and could only be praised. However, accept FITs and the moral pendulum swings quite a long way!
Kind Regards, John
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
