On 01/11/2011 14:49, Tim Watts wrote:
The Other Mike wrote:

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 02:35:51 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

The electricity I have generated so far has paid back 8% of capital
already in two quarters. Obviously the next two quarters will be much
reduced.
As it is tax free that's worth even more.

They shoudl force parasitic c*nts like you to go off grid. You'll be
able to keep warm by running on a treadmill linked to a generator.


I agree that the FIT scheme was superficially stupid and unfair[1]

But I don't agree with bashing harry for the sake of it. If EDF came round
and left a bar of gold on my doorstep with a note saying "it's yours", I'd
be all over it like a ferret on a rabbit that fell into a jug of Bisto.

Yup I would concur. I have no hard feelings for folks who went for these
schemes. So long as one accepts that they are nothing more than
investment opportunities that take advantage of poorly thought through
"incentives" etc, and ones does not get sucked in by the green wash etc.

I am a little distressed that the people funding the "return" on these
investments are yet another variation of joe tax payer (or in this case
joe energy user - although the difference is moot), but that is a
criticism of the creators of the scheme in the first place.

One has to accept that governments will concoct various schemes that
will fail to achieve their stated goals, and instead be ruthlessly
exploited by canny investors etc, in much the same way as they will also
concoct ways of dipping their hands into your pockets without warning.
One could argue you may as well roll with the punches and stick your
snout in the trough as and when the need or opportunity provides itself.

Obviously a market led approach would have been far more sensible. Set
an incentive rate based on what one is prepared to pay to encourage
micro generation schemes, and let the system figure out what
technologies return the best bang for your buck (i.e. the most useful[1]
electricity for the lowest cost). The ultimate goal however should be
that any generation scheme will ultimately move to a point where it is a
net contributor and self funding and hence attractive on its own merits.

[1] Useful being generation that can work 24/7 and not require expensive
warm backup.

[1] There is an argument that a kickstart like this would drive down panel
costs, but water-solar panels seem to be doing fine by themselves and I
really would like to see the net sum energy input of one of these including
associated inverter, material transport costs and fitting vs a realistic
lifetime energy output averaged over the area where FIT was available.

Indeed, however they seem to have taken the step of finding the lest
productive micro gen system available, also the one least suitable for
our climate, and then incentivised its use the most. The chances that it
could ever reach the point of being self supporting seem slim to none.
The irony is that the FiT rates for hydro plant are the lowest of all of
them, and that is probably the most effective option we have.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/