arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Jim K
wrote:

arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?


If he's got a round featureless head with a vent on top ...

He's a prick.

Derek G.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:

arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Unfotunately if he's really only interested in the (skewed) economics
then anything related to total carbon, resources used or energy
positive over lifetime etc aren't going to make much difference.

You probably need to get him to look at things like trusting HMG not
to change the FIT rules over the next 20 to 25 years? (They've
already fiddled with them). Will the current premium over electricty
costs remain for that period or even as long as the payback time?

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Jun 13, 9:36 am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Unfotunately if he's really only interested in the (skewed) economics
then anything related to total carbon, resources used or energy
positive over lifetime etc aren't going to make much difference.

You probably need to get him to look at things like trusting HMG not
to change the FIT rules over the next 20 to 25 years?

are we assuming the install will still work by then? ;)

(They've
already fiddled with them). Will the current premium over electricty
costs remain for that period or even as long as the payback time?

Jim K

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:

You probably need to get him to look at things like trusting HMG
not
to change the FIT rules over the next 20 to 25 years?

are we assuming the install will still work by then? ;)

Another good point. What is the expected, realistic, life of the
panels? How will their efficiency have changed?

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Jun 13, 10:32*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:
You probably need to get him to look at things like trusting HMG
not
to change the FIT rules over the next 20 to 25 years?

are we assuming the install will still work by then? ;)

Another good point. What is the expected, realistic, life of the
panels? How will their efficiency have changed?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Efficiency is guaranteed for educe by less than1%/year.
There are 40yr old ones running @ 80% of original output.
They have a ten year guarantee.

On Jun 13, 8:23 pm, harry wrote:
On Jun 13, 10:32 am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:
You probably need to get him to look at things like trusting HMG
not
to change the FIT rules over the next 20 to 25 years?

are we assuming the install will still work by then? ;)

Another good point. What is the expected, realistic, life of the
panels? How will their efficiency have changed?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Efficiency is guaranteed for educe by less than1%/year.
There are 40yr old ones running @ 80% of original output.

are yours same though? er no

They have a ten year guarantee.

ah ha.... i.e. a theoretical maximum guarantee is only 10 years....
shurely better to recalc your "win win" on 10yrs and hope for best??

tell us the summs plse....

Jim K

On Jun 13, 8:23*pm, harry wrote:
On Jun 13, 10:32*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:
You probably need to get him to look at things like trusting HMG
not
to change the FIT rules over the next 20 to 25 years?

are we assuming the install will still work by then? ;)

Another good point. What is the expected, realistic, life of the
panels? How will their efficiency have changed?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Efficiency is guaranteed for educe by less than1%/year.
There are 40yr old ones running @ 80% of original output.

Were thay mass produced and made down to a price? No, thought not.

MBQ

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:23:15 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Jun 13, 10:32*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:
You probably need to get him to look at things like trusting HMG
not
to change the FIT rules over the next 20 to 25 years?

are we assuming the install will still work by then? ;)

Another good point. What is the expected, realistic, life of the
panels? How will their efficiency have changed?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Efficiency is guaranteed for educe by less than1%/year.
There are 40yr old ones running @ 80% of original output.

But then what's 80% of FA?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:

arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Unfotunately if he's really only interested in the (skewed) economics
then anything related to total carbon, resources used or energy
positive over lifetime etc aren't going to make much difference.

You probably need to get him to look at things like trusting HMG not
to change the FIT rules over the next 20 to 25 years? (They've
already fiddled with them). Will the current premium over electricty
costs remain for that period or even as long as the payback time?


When you look at what they've done to pension funds and rules over the
same time scale I wouldn't trust them for a second.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

On 13-06-2011 09:15, Jim K wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K
Because they are typically about 19% efficent. There are developments in
progress which will greatly increase the efficency thus making them
economically viable. They will also get cheaper. I'd wait about 5 years
and then get some. Whilst waiting get a solar thermal system installed.

On Jun 13, 9:50 am, Rob wrote:
On 13-06-2011 09:15, Jim K wrote: arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K

Because they are typically about 19% efficent.
There are developments in progress which will greatly increase the efficency thus making them
economically viable. They will also get cheaper. I'd wait about 5 years
and then get some.

any links for that stuff? TIA

Whilst waiting get a solar thermal system installed.

I don't think i get enough sun :(

Jim K

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:52:55 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:

I don't think i get enough sun :(

You don't need direct sun light. They collect solar radiation that is
present even without bright sunlight. Obviously you get most energy
collcted under bright direct sun conditions but even cloudy days will
collect something.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Jun 13, 10:30*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:52:55 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:
I don't think i get enough sun :(

You don't need direct sun light. They collect solar radiation that is
present even without bright sunlight. Obviously you get most energy
collcted under bright direct sun conditions but even cloudy days will
collect something.

--
Cheers
Dave.

They are not economic if they lie in shadow. You get about one tenth
of the full output. Because they are in series a shadow onone affects
all.

On Jun 13, 8:21*pm, harry wrote:
On Jun 13, 10:30*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:52:55 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:
I don't think i get enough sun :(

You don't need direct sun light. They collect solar radiation that is
present even without bright sunlight. Obviously you get most energy
collcted under bright direct sun conditions but even cloudy days will
collect something.

--
Cheers
Dave.

They are not economic if they lie in shadow. *You get about one tenth
of the full output. *Because they are in series a shadow onone affects
all.

They shouldn't be in series for that very reason. if they are then you
were sold a dud.

MBQ

In message
, Jim
K writes
On Jun 13, 9:50 am, Rob wrote:
On 13-06-2011 09:15, Jim K wrote: arsehole relative is forging ahead
and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K

Because they are typically about 19% efficent.
There are developments in progress which will greatly increase the
efficency thus making them
economically viable. They will also get cheaper. I'd wait about 5 years
and then get some.

any links for that stuff? TIA

Whilst waiting get a solar thermal system installed.

I don't think i get enough sun :(

Jim K
I read somewhere that for decent performance they need to be orientated
between SE and SW. My roof faces due west.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

Rob wrote:
On 13-06-2011 09:15, Jim K wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K
Because they are typically about 19% efficent. There are developments in
progress which will greatly increase the efficency thus making them
economically viable. They will also get cheaper. I'd wait about 5 years
and then get some. Whilst waiting get a solar thermal system installed.

if they get cheap the subsidies will be chopped

On Jun 13, 9:50*am, Rob wrote:
On 13-06-2011 09:15, Jim K wrote: arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K

Because they are typically about 19% efficent. There are developments in
progress which will greatly increase the efficency thus making them
economically viable. They will also get cheaper. I'd wait about 5 years
and then get some. Whilst waiting get a solar thermal system installed.

Only getting the cost down due to economy of scale, and rising prices
for the alternatives (oil, etc) will ever make solar PV attractive on
purely cost terms. There are fundamental limits to efficiency (i.e.
nowhere near 100%) which are already being approached.

Personally I would like to fit solar PV so as to be "off grid" and
have control over my own supply but only if the price comes down and
there's a viable storage mechanism to even out the highs and lows of
generation.

MBQ

On Jun 14, 12:14*pm, "Man at B&Q" wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:50*am, Rob wrote:

On 13-06-2011 09:15, Jim K wrote: arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K

Because they are typically about 19% efficent. There are developments in
progress which will greatly increase the efficency thus making them
economically viable. They will also get cheaper. I'd wait about 5 years
and then get some. Whilst waiting get a solar thermal system installed.

Only getting the cost down due to economy of scale, and rising prices
for the alternatives (oil, etc) will ever make solar PV attractive on
purely cost terms. There are fundamental limits to efficiency (i.e.
nowhere near 100%) which are already being approached.

Personally I would like to fit solar PV so as to be "off grid" and
have control over my own supply but only if the price comes down and
there's a viable storage mechanism to even out the highs and lows of
generation.

MBQ

The normal installation you buy is run in parallel with the grid.
Indeed it has an "anti islanding" capability means it shuts down if
the grid goes off for any reason.
The panels probably will get more efficient in the future but how long
do you wait?

How do you think fossil fuels are going to go pricewise? Double in ten
years? More?

And they've shut down our only shale gas well at Blackpool due to it
causing earthquakes. OOO! There's a nuclear plant just up the road.

On Jun 13, 9:15*am, Jim K wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?


He pays, say, £12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.


Robert

RobertL wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:15 am, Jim K wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?


He pays, say, £12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.

Course they would. In fact councils bought em in droves.



Robert

"RobertL" wrote in message
...


He pays, say, £12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.

Look up annuity.

On Jun 13, 11:47*am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"RobertL" wrote in message

...

He pays, say, £12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. *It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. *After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.

Look up annuity.


Good point.

Robert

On Jun 13, 11:47*am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"RobertL" wrote in message

...

He pays, say, £12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. *It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. *After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.

Look up annuity.

An anuuity carries on paying out when you move house for whatever
reason.

Annuities don't require massive tax payer funded subsidies.

MBQ

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Jun 13, 11:47 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"RobertL" wrote in message

...

He pays, say, £12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.

Look up annuity.

An anuuity carries on paying out when you move house for whatever
reason.

So do the fits.
You can sell them to the new owner or rent the roof space using the free
electricity.


Annuities don't require massive tax payer funded subsidies.

No? they need pension credits the way things are.
Labour stole a lot of cash from funds and now tax payers will have to top up
pensions.

On Jun 14, 1:57*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...









On Jun 13, 11:47 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"RobertL" wrote in message

....

He pays, say, 12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. *It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. *After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.

Look up annuity.

An anuuity carries on paying out when you move house for whatever
reason.

So do the fits.
You can sell them to the new owner

Assuming the new owner will pay anything over the otherwise value of
the house.

or rent the roof space using the free
electricity.

How do you rent a roof space that is on a house you have sold?

Annuities don't require massive tax payer funded subsidies.

No? they need pension credits the way things are.

The people needing pension credits are generally the ones who have no
other pension provision, i.e. the ones with no annuities.

Labour stole a lot of cash from funds and now tax payers will

The effect was nothing like as bad as some people would have you
believe and anyone who has not adjusted their pension strategy in the
meantime is a blinkered fool who should be thrown in the poor house of
neccessary.

MBQ

On Jun 13, 9:15*am, Jim K wrote:

anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

There's no money in PV in the UK

The only money is in grant-farming the pokbarrelled FIT

As no doubt a rabid Daily Mail / Telegraph reader (most pricks are),
where does he stand on statist command-economy subsidies?

On Jun 13, 10:43*am, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:15*am, Jim K wrote:

anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

There's no money in PV in the UK

The only money is in grant-farming the pokbarrelled FIT

As no doubt a rabid Daily Mail / Telegraph reader (most pricks are),
where does he stand on statist command-economy subsidies?

Hey ! I know the Daily Mail is a bit reactionary and over-eggs the
pudding, not really helping itself in the process, but it does
highlight some trends in society that need to be discussed.
Certain people try to discredit the Daily Mail by saying it takes a
few infrequent cases (behaviour or travellers / people on 32 grand
grants after having 10 children they cannot afford etc) and tries to
get people angry / bigoted.
BUT - the fact that some of the cases happen at all is the point.
Every time some social worker or "CEO" of a council says "this is only
an isolated incident", you know that it almost certainly is not.
Simon.

On 13/06/2011 11:18, sm_jamieson wrote:

Hey ! I know the Daily Mail is a bit reactionary and over-eggs the
pudding, not really helping itself in the process, but it does
highlight some trends in society that need to be discussed.

Oh yes, definitely.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ra-outing.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...gas-break.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...band-Phil.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...liam-polo.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...Abu-Dhabi.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...attle-out.html

In message , Clive
George writes
On 13/06/2011 11:18, sm_jamieson wrote:

Hey ! I know the Daily Mail is a bit reactionary and over-eggs the
pudding, not really helping itself in the process, but it does
highlight some trends in society that need to be discussed.

Oh yes, definitely.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...Cambridge-Kate
-Middleton-gives-favourite-coat-extra-outing.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...tine-Bleakley-
Frank-Lampard-matching-muscles-enjoy-romantic-Vegas-break.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...ss-addict-Juli
e-Neville-displays-super-slim-bikini-body-holiday-husband-Phil.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...nk-Young-Princ
e-shows-newly-toned-torso-takes-William-polo.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...Toni-Terry-con
tinue-loved-displays-holiday-Abu-Dhabi.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...rtime-Ball-201
1-Nicole-Scherzinger-Jennifer-Lopez-battle-out.html
You could replace dailymail with sun/miror/star and get the seam sort of
thing or worse.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

Jim K wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Is he paying for the installation or taking one of those silly finance
packages? If the latter then he's probably making his house unsaleable
since the new owner would have to sign up to the finance agreement. Would
you buy a house knowing that in addition to the mortgage you have to take
on someone else's debt?

On Jun 13, 9:15*am, Jim K wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K

I have a PVarray myself. Your arsehole relative is on a winner.
The anticipated return on my system is11% on capital laid out,
inflation linked, tax free for 25 years.

The only down sides are, is the technology reliable? and you can't get
your money back once you've spent it.
Oh and hard to take with you if you move house.
So in fact, the prick is you.

On Jun 13, 8:15 pm, harry wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:15 am, Jim K wrote:

arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K

I have a PVarray myself. Your arsehole relative is on a winner.
The anticipated return on my system is11% on capital laid out,
inflation linked, tax free for 25 years.

The only down sides are, is the technology reliable? and you can't get
your money back once you've spent it.
Oh and hard to take with you if you move house.
So in fact, the prick is you.

pub kicked you out again Harry?

Jim K

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:

The only down sides are, is the technology reliable? and you can't
get
your money back once you've spent it.
Oh and hard to take with you if you move house.
So in fact, the prick is you.

pub kicked you out again Harry?

Naw, just remember Harry only sees the money side and not the whole
picture. I guess he has to justify the large capital outlay to
himself somehow.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Jun 13, 8:15 pm, harry wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:15 am, Jim K wrote:

arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K

I have a PVarray myself. Your arsehole relative is on a winner.
The anticipated return on my system is11% on capital laid out,
inflation linked, tax free for 25 years.

The only down sides are, is the technology reliable? and you can't get
your money back once you've spent it.

care to share your summs?
hic

Jim K

In message
,
harry writes
On Jun 13, 9:15*am, Jim K wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K

I have a PVarray myself. Your arsehole relative is on a winner.
The anticipated return on my system is11% on capital laid out,
inflation linked, tax free for 25 years.

The only down sides are, is the technology reliable? and you can't get
your money back once you've spent it.
Oh and hard to take with you if you move house.
So in fact, the prick is you.
Do you think it will increase the selling price of your house if and
when you move?
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

On Jun 13, 9:40*pm, hugh ] wrote:
In message
,
harry writes



On Jun 13, 9:15*am, Jim K wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K

I have a PVarray myself. Your arsehole relative is on a winner.
The anticipated return on my system is11% on capital laid out,
inflation linked, tax free for 25 years.

The only down sides are, is the technology reliable? and you can't get
your money back once you've spent it.
Oh and hard to take with you if you move house.
So in fact, the prick is you.

Do you think it will increase the selling price of your house if and
when you move?
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have looked into this.
Buyer's views at the moment are sharply polarised.
However the view is that, in the future, PV panels will be viewed as a
very desireable asset on a house.
BTW, they don't have to be on the roof. Ground arrays are available.
You might not want to put one on the front elevation of your chocolate
box cottage but the garage/outbuilding roof might be suitable.

If your retired, you have the best opportunity to save electricity in
the middle of the day. (You are paid for it whether you use it
yourself or not).

On Jun 15, 6:49*am, harry wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:40*pm, hugh ] wrote:









In message
,
harry writes

On Jun 13, 9:15*am, Jim K wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K

I have a PVarray myself. Your arsehole relative is on a winner.
The anticipated return on my system is11% on capital laid out,
inflation linked, tax free for 25 years.

The only down sides are, is the technology reliable? and you can't get
your money back once you've spent it.
Oh and hard to take with you if you move house.
So in fact, the prick is you.

Do you think it will increase the selling price of your house if and
when you move?
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have looked into this.
Buyer's views at the moment are sharply polarised.
However the view is that, in the future, PV panels will be viewed as a
very desireable asset on a house.

Maybe if the installer paid for them.

Maybe not if they're tied in to some contract involving a lease of the
roof space.

MBQ

On Jun 15, 12:12*pm, "Man at B&Q" wrote:
On Jun 15, 6:49*am, harry wrote:





On Jun 13, 9:40*pm, hugh ] wrote:

In message
,
harry writes

On Jun 13, 9:15*am, Jim K wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K

I have a PVarray myself. Your arsehole relative is on a winner.
The anticipated return on my system is11% on capital laid out,
inflation linked, tax free for 25 years.

The only down sides are, is the technology reliable? and you can't get
your money back once you've spent it.
Oh and hard to take with you if you move house.
So in fact, the prick is you.

Do you think it will increase the selling price of your house if and
when you move?
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have looked into this.
Buyer's views at the moment are sharply polarised.
However the view is that, in the future, PV panels will be viewed as a
very desireable asset on a house.

Maybe if the installer paid for them.

Maybe not if they're tied in to some contract involving a lease of the
roof space.

MBQ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quite right I'm sure.
Your electricity provider is also likely to be a rent-a-roofer too.

On Jun 13, 8:15*pm, harry wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:15*am, Jim K wrote:

arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K

I have a PVarray myself. Your arsehole relative is on a winner.
The anticipated return on my system is11% on capital laid out,
inflation linked, tax free for 25 years.

The only down sides are, is the technology reliable? and you can't get
your money back once you've spent it.
*Oh and hard to take with you if you move house.
So in fact, the prick is you.

I do sincerely hope the government see sense and cut off the silly
subsidies for PV.

MBQ