Just reached 2000Mwh power generated. It took 125 days. That's twice
what I use in a year.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:25:01 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Just reached 2000Mwh power generated. It took 125 days. That's twice
what I use in a year.

Probably being generous, 125 days is say 2000 hours of daylight (it is
summer, so they tell us!), so a 1 Mw array??

Its a typo.. he actually meant mW.
The reason its a couple of watt hours is because they forgot to remove the
cardboard boxes around the array.

Gazz wrote:
Just reached 2000Mwh power generated. It took 125 days. That's twice
what I use in a year.

bloody hell harry, that must be an enormous electric arse dildo you
use to need that much power.


:-)))))

--
Adam

On Aug 24, 8:52*am, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:25:01 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Just reached 2000Mwh power generated. It took 125 days. That's twice
what I use in a year.

Probably being generous, 125 days is say 2000 hours of daylight (it is
summer, so they tell us!), so a 1 Mw array??

--

Chris

Ah mistake! 2Mwh or 2000Kwh :-)
Generating around 500Kwh/month from a 4Kw array

On Aug 24, 2:47*pm, "Gazz" wrote:
Just reached 2000Mwh power generated. It took 125 days. That's twice
what I use in a year.

bloody hell harry, that must be an enormous electric arse dildo you use to
need that much power.

Finger trouble.

harry wrote:

Generating around 500Kwh/month from a 4Kw array

Great, 4x my monthly consumption at this time of year, shame most of it
is only available when I don't need any ...

On Aug 24, 7:40*pm, Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:
Generating around 500Kwh/month from a 4Kw array

Great, 4x my monthly consumption at this time of year, shame most of it
is only available when I don't need any ...

It matters not whether I use it or not I still get paid for it. The
reduction to my bill is about a third.
The saving would be less if we were not at home to use electricity
through the day.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Aug 24, 2:47 pm, "Gazz" wrote:
Just reached 2000Mwh power generated. It took 125 days. That's twice
what I use in a year.

bloody hell harry, that must be an enormous electric arse dildo you use to
need that much power.

:Finger trouble.

fist trouble shurely??

Jim K

Gazz wrote:
Just reached 2000Mwh power generated. It took 125 days. That's twice
what I use in a year.

bloody hell harry, that must be an enormous electric arse dildo you use
to need that much power.

so he uses 1GWh a year. (1000Mwh).

At 10p a unit that's only a £100,000k bill.

So his panels at 45p a unit are earning £900,000k p.a. return.


Just wait for a couple of sunny days, harry, and you will be a millionaire.

Or a tosser who doesn't know a kilowatt from a megawatt

Whatever.

harry wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:52 am, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:25:01 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Just reached 2000Mwh power generated. It took 125 days. That's twice
what I use in a year.
Probably being generous, 125 days is say 2000 hours of daylight (it is
summer, so they tell us!), so a 1 Mw array??

--

Chris

Ah mistake! 2Mwh or 2000Kwh :-)
Generating around 500Kwh/month from a 4Kw array

So 17% capacity factor. Worse than a ****in windmill.
AND its summer.

On Aug 25, 6:49*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:52 am, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:25:01 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Just reached 2000Mwh power generated. It took 125 days. That's twice
what I use in a year.
Probably being generous, 125 days is say 2000 hours of daylight (it is
summer, so they tell us!), so a 1 Mw array??

--

Chris

Ah mistake! 2Mwh or 2000Kwh * *:-)
Generating around 500Kwh/month from a 4Kw array

So 17% capacity factor. Worse than a ****in windmill.
AND its summer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But profitable.
What I recieve will be the normal price for electricity in a few
years.
But you're too stupid to understand this.

In article
..com, harry scribeth thus
On Aug 25, 6:49*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:52 am, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:25:01 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Just reached 2000Mwh power generated. It took 125 days. That's twice
what I use in a year.
Probably being generous, 125 days is say 2000 hours of daylight (it is
summer, so they tell us!), so a 1 Mw array??

--

Chris

Ah mistake! 2Mwh or 2000Kwh * *:-)
Generating around 500Kwh/month from a 4Kw array

So 17% capacity factor. Worse than a ****in windmill.
AND its summer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But profitable.
What I recieve will be the normal price for electricity in a few
years.
But you're too stupid to understand this.


And you understand that its the rest of -us- paying -you- such high
rates that will make it so?......
--
Tony Sayer

harry wrote:
On Aug 25, 6:49 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:52 am, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:25:01 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:
Just reached 2000Mwh power generated. It took 125 days. That's twice
what I use in a year.
Probably being generous, 125 days is say 2000 hours of daylight (it is
summer, so they tell us!), so a 1 Mw array??
--
Chris
Ah mistake! 2Mwh or 2000Kwh :-)
Generating around 500Kwh/month from a 4Kw array
So 17% capacity factor. Worse than a ****in windmill.
AND its summer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But profitable.
What I recieve will be the normal price for electricity in a few
years.

If 45p a unit is the electricity price of tomorrow, it will only be
becuse the government, has fallen under a revolution that will make
Libya look like the teddy bears picnic, after having ruined the economy
with windmills and solar panels.

But you're too stupid to understand this.

I dont think so, harry.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If 45p a unit is the electricity price of tomorrow, it will only be
becuse the government, has fallen under a revolution that will make
Libya look like the teddy bears picnic, after having ruined the economy
with windmills and solar panels.

Given we rely on imported energy to generate the vast majority of our
electricity, it's what happens elsewhere in the world you need to worry
about.

--
*Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article
.com, harry scribeth thus
....
But profitable.
What I receive will be the normal price for electricity in a few
years...
...
And you understand that its the rest of -us- paying -you- such high
rates that will make it so?......


(a) He is an electricity user the same as everyone. The difference *now*
is that he's not only getting many of his units "free" (discounting the
investment he's made), but is getting paid very handsomely as well.


(b) It is not Harry (nor any other PV owner), personally, who is milking
the rest of us, it's the Government initiative. Harry is simply taking
advantage of the scheme.


(c) What is he supposed to do? Say "Oh well I do have the money to do
this, but I don't wish to subscribe to such an iniquitous scheme, so
I'll leave my money in the Savings Account, where it's earning a fat
1.5%, before tax."


If he had adopted the view outlined in (c) he'd have been in the
*vanishingly small* minority of people in this country, now, who put
moral consideration ahead of personal gain.


There seems to be no *rational* reasoning behind the attacks upon Solar
PV owners: I detect a strong whiff of sour grapes.

If there _is_ rational reasoning, then please do enlighten me -- as you
will have guessed, I'm thinking of doing it myself, but I'm wavering
about. It's a lot of money, but I don't earn money any more, so I need
to invest what I have in the best possible ways.

John

Another John wrote:

If there _is_ rational reasoning, then please do enlighten me -- as you
will have guessed, I'm thinking of doing it myself, but I'm wavering
about. It's a lot of money, but I don't earn money any more, so I need
to invest what I have in the best possible ways.

If you have money to invest and no income to cope with emergencies, bear
in mind that once you've invested in PV panels, or any other form of
"green" power generation, that money is irrevocably tied up for the life
of the asset, which will have zero residual value at its "end of life",
and may, in fact, cost you money to dispose of.

With most other investments, you can at least get *some* of your money
back if needed at any time, for example by selling your shares in the PV
panel maker or installer.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Aug 26, 1:28*pm, Another John wrote:
In article ,
*tony sayer wrote:



In article
.com, harry scribeth thus
...
But profitable.
What I receive will be the normal price for electricity in a few
years...
...
And you understand that its the rest of -us- paying -you- such high
rates that will make it so?......

(a) He is an electricity user the same as everyone. The difference *now*
is that he's not only getting many of his units "free" (discounting the
investment he's made), but is getting paid very handsomely as well.

(b) It is not Harry (nor any other PV owner), personally, who is milking
the rest of us, it's the Government initiative. *Harry is simply taking
advantage of the scheme.

(c) What is he supposed to do? *Say "Oh well I do have the money to do
this, but I don't wish to subscribe to such an iniquitous scheme, so
I'll leave my money in the Savings Account, where it's earning a fat
1.5%, before tax."

If he had adopted the view outlined in (c) he'd have been in the
*vanishingly small* minority of people in this country, now, who put
moral consideration ahead of personal gain. *

There seems to be no *rational* reasoning behind the attacks upon Solar
PV owners: I detect a strong whiff of sour grapes.

If there _is_ rational reasoning, then please do enlighten me -- as you
will have guessed, I'm thinking of doing it myself, but I'm wavering
about. *It's a lot of money, but I don't earn money any more, so I need
to invest what I have in the best possible ways.

John

You are exactly correct.
The return on capital in my case is forcast to be 12%.
This is because I have an ideal site, my house was purchsed with this
in mind.
So far I am on target to achieve this. I was well above until the
recent cloudy weather. There have been a few tribulations but I seem
to have got round them.

There are a few "Whatifs"/pitfalls.
As follows.
The weather could be bad. ie not sunny.

Thought the return is good, you can't get your money back.

You need to make sure there are no roof leaks when they've done. I had
one but I haven't heard of another to be fair. They had to come back
to fix this.

Is the technology reliable? You guess is as good as mine. I suppose
there is a small chance of a failure. Check out length of guarantee.
(Five years in my case)

Get several quotes. Check size (power/Watts)of inverter against size
of panels.
Some of them quote for a slightly undersize (cheaper) inverter. It
will protect itself from damage but you may as well get similar
quotes.

There are a lot of newcomers out there if not actually cowboys. Every
****ing roofer and TV a real installer in the country is getting on
the bandwagon. They send out youths with NVQs that need close
watching.

Check your mains voltage on Sunday am (likely to be highest then). If
it is near the legal maximum (in UK 253volts), you might have a
problem.
You need a decent instrument. The gadget shuts down if a certain
voltage is reached. With my inverter, 263 volts,dunno about others.
Remember too, the voltage rises when you pump power back into the
mains.
How much depends on the impedance, it can be easily determined if it
looks marginal.

Most important of all is the paperwork.
There are two certificates you need. One from the network owner,
permission to run in parallel.
The other to say the thing complies with national standards from the
installer.

The person you sell electricity to will want copies plus proof of
payment for the array. This could be B/gas eon etc. The
smallerelectproviderdon'tbuy

Vital this gets in on or before start up date with the COMPLETION and
STARTUP days to be the same. They only pay from the date on the
certificate so you might end up giving them free electricity.

Your installer should do most of this bumf but check out, some haven't
a clue.
ESPECIALLY THE DATES THING.

In article .
invalid, Another John scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article
.com, harry scribeth thus
...
But profitable.
What I receive will be the normal price for electricity in a few
years...
...
And you understand that its the rest of -us- paying -you- such high
rates that will make it so?......


(a) He is an electricity user the same as everyone. The difference *now*
is that he's not only getting many of his units "free" (discounting the
investment he's made), but is getting paid very handsomely as well.

Yes by other electricity users..


(b) It is not Harry (nor any other PV owner), personally, who is milking
the rest of us, it's the Government initiative. Harry is simply taking
advantage of the scheme.

Another well thought out silly scheme by HM govvermint..


(c) What is he supposed to do? Say "Oh well I do have the money to do
this, but I don't wish to subscribe to such an iniquitous scheme, so
I'll leave my money in the Savings Account, where it's earning a fat
1.5%, before tax."


If he had adopted the view outlined in (c) he'd have been in the
*vanishingly small* minority of people in this country, now, who put
moral consideration ahead of personal gain.


Pity..

There seems to be no *rational* reasoning behind the attacks upon Solar
PV owners: I detect a strong whiff of sour grapes.


Not at all if I thought for a moment that this was the long term answer
to UK energy provision I'd be doing it, but it isn't is it?.

Take today its ****ed down with rain all day the sky's overcast as it
has been for the last few weeks. So we're using PV which very
inefficient and is pushed buy this half baked subsidy scheme..

And if an when this becomes significant consider like windmills all the
reserve fossil generation we still have to keep on the go to back it
up....


If there _is_ rational reasoning, then please do enlighten me -- as you
will have guessed, I'm thinking of doing it myself, but I'm wavering
about. It's a lot of money, but I don't earn money any more, so I need
to invest what I have in the best possible ways.

John

Put it into what we really need .. Nuclear generation...
--
Tony Sayer

On Aug 26, 10:37*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article .
invalid, Another John scribeth thus





In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article
.com, harry scribeth thus
...
But profitable.
What I receive will be the normal price for electricity in a few
years...
...
And you understand that its the rest of -us- paying -you- such high
rates that will make it so?......

(a) He is an electricity user the same as everyone. The difference *now*
is that he's not only getting many of his units "free" (discounting the
investment he's made), but is getting paid very handsomely as well.

Yes by other electricity users..



(b) It is not Harry (nor any other PV owner), personally, who is milking
the rest of us, it's the Government initiative. *Harry is simply taking
advantage of the scheme.

Another well thought out silly scheme by HM govvermint..



(c) What is he supposed to do? *Say "Oh well I do have the money to do
this, but I don't wish to subscribe to such an iniquitous scheme, so
I'll leave my money in the Savings Account, where it's earning a fat
1.5%, before tax."

If he had adopted the view outlined in (c) he'd have been in the
*vanishingly small* minority of people in this country, now, who put
moral consideration ahead of personal gain. *

Pity..



There seems to be no *rational* reasoning behind the attacks upon Solar
PV owners: I detect a strong whiff of sour grapes.

Not at all if I thought for a moment that this was the long term answer
to UK energy provision I'd be doing it, but it isn't is it?.

Take today its ****ed down with rain all day the sky's overcast as it
has been for the last few weeks. So we're using PV which very
inefficient and is pushed buy this half baked subsidy scheme..

And if an when this becomes significant consider like windmills all the
reserve fossil generation we still have to keep on the go to back it
up....

If there _is_ rational reasoning, then please do enlighten me -- as you
will have guessed, I'm thinking of doing it myself, but I'm wavering
about. *It's a lot of money, but I don't earn money any more, so I need
to invest what I have in the best possible ways.

John

Put it into what we really need .. Nuclear generation...

Yeah. Be like Japan.

No-one is saying PV is desireable. It will have to be used in
conjunction with other renewable technologies.
We're getting to the point when there is no alternative. This is a
pump priming excercise.

On Aug 26, 1:28*pm, Another John wrote:
In article ,
*tony sayer wrote:



In article
.com, harry scribeth thus
...
But profitable.
What I receive will be the normal price for electricity in a few
years...
...
And you understand that its the rest of -us- paying -you- such high
rates that will make it so?......

(a) He is an electricity user the same as everyone. The difference *now*
is that he's not only getting many of his units "free" (discounting the
investment he's made), but is getting paid very handsomely as well.

(b) It is not Harry (nor any other PV owner), personally, who is milking
the rest of us, it's the Government initiative. *Harry is simply taking
advantage of the scheme.

(c) What is he supposed to do? *Say "Oh well I do have the money to do
this, but I don't wish to subscribe to such an iniquitous scheme, so
I'll leave my money in the Savings Account, where it's earning a fat
1.5%, before tax."

If he had adopted the view outlined in (c) he'd have been in the
*vanishingly small* minority of people in this country, now, who put
moral consideration ahead of personal gain. *

There seems to be no *rational* reasoning behind the attacks upon Solar
PV owners: I detect a strong whiff of sour grapes.

If there _is_ rational reasoning, then please do enlighten me -- as you
will have guessed, I'm thinking of doing it myself, but I'm wavering
about. *It's a lot of money, but I don't earn money any more, so I need
to invest what I have in the best possible ways.


Well I am retired and in exactly the same position as you are.
Low interest and increasing inflation eats away at savings.
The f***g government is punishing people who have been careful,
hardworking and thrifty.
Meanwhile, the *******s who have run up massive debts are being
protected. When interest rates go up a lot will be out of their
unaffordable mortgaged house.
This is the reason I have gone in for this too. I suppose there is a
risk with the longevity.
But, there is an absolute certainty that a few years down the road
your savings will be worth FA at worst and seriously depleted at best.

I fired mine up on 21 April. I have had my first quarterly payment of
£688.
Winter will be much less of course.
I am selling to British Gas, it took three weeks for the money
(cheque) to arrive from telling them meter reading on July 21st

My array cost £14,000 for a 3.88Kw (peak) array. I will supposedly get
12%return but I have an ideal location. If you PM me I have the bumf
on calculating out your energy return from a given sized panel. Not
rocket science.
But your quotation will include this.
The ideal roof faces due south and is @ 36degrees. Less is generated
as it deviates from this, also any shadows are a major a problem.

If you decide to go ahead, get in quick, next April the rates paid for
electricity for new installations is be be cut by 7% apparently.
There may well be a rush on in a few months as people realise this &
you may be left out.

However it may well be the price of panels will come down like flat
screenTVs.
Your guess is as good as mine.

I had a fair amount of hassle it has to be said due to incompetent
installers.
I think as installers get more experienced, things will improve on
that front.
The technology has worked perfectly so far.

I hear the Russians are planning a massive new industry in the
Caucasus making panels.

On Aug 26, 1:52*pm, John Williamson
wrote:
Another John wrote:

If there _is_ rational reasoning, then please do enlighten me -- as you
will have guessed, I'm thinking of doing it myself, but I'm wavering
about. *It's a lot of money, but I don't earn money any more, so I need
to invest what I have in the best possible ways.

If you have money to invest and no income to cope with emergencies, bear
in mind that once you've invested in PV panels, or any other form of
"green" power generation, that money is irrevocably tied up for the life
of the asset, which will have zero residual value at its "end of life",
and may, in fact, cost you money to dispose of.

With most other investments, you can at least get *some* of your money
back if needed at any time, for example by selling your shares in the PV
panel maker or installer.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

There are quite a few people in this group besides myself with PV
panels. If it goes wrong, you can be sure they will be on here
bitching about it.
So far, nada.
It won't cost money to dispose of.
Putting the roof back as it was would be expensive. Cheaper just to
put on new panels.

On Aug 27, 7:35*am, harry wrote:
On Aug 26, 1:28*pm, Another John wrote:





In article ,
*tony sayer wrote:

In article
.com, harry scribeth thus
...
But profitable.
What I receive will be the normal price for electricity in a few
years...
...
And you understand that its the rest of -us- paying -you- such high
rates that will make it so?......

(a) He is an electricity user the same as everyone. The difference *now*
is that he's not only getting many of his units "free" (discounting the
investment he's made), but is getting paid very handsomely as well.

(b) It is not Harry (nor any other PV owner), personally, who is milking
the rest of us, it's the Government initiative. *Harry is simply taking
advantage of the scheme.

(c) What is he supposed to do? *Say "Oh well I do have the money to do
this, but I don't wish to subscribe to such an iniquitous scheme, so
I'll leave my money in the Savings Account, where it's earning a fat
1.5%, before tax."

If he had adopted the view outlined in (c) he'd have been in the
*vanishingly small* minority of people in this country, now, who put
moral consideration ahead of personal gain. *

There seems to be no *rational* reasoning behind the attacks upon Solar
PV owners: I detect a strong whiff of sour grapes.

If there _is_ rational reasoning, then please do enlighten me -- as you
will have guessed, I'm thinking of doing it myself, but I'm wavering
about. *It's a lot of money, but I don't earn money any more, so I need
to invest what I have in the best possible ways.

Well I am retired and in exactly the same position as you are.
Low interest and increasing inflation eats away at savings.
The f***g government is punishing people who have been careful,
hardworking and thrifty.
Meanwhile, the *******s who have run up massive debts are being
protected. When interest rates go up a lot will be out of their
unaffordable mortgaged house.
This is the reason I have gone in for this too. *I suppose there is a
risk with the longevity.
But, there is an absolute certainty that a few years down the road
your savings will be worth FA at worst and seriously depleted at best.

I fired mine up on 21 April. I have had my first quarterly payment of
£688.
Winter will be much less of course.
I am selling to British Gas, it took three weeks for the money
(cheque) to arrive from telling them meter reading on July 21st

My array cost £14,000 for a 3.88Kw (peak) array. I will supposedly get
12%return but I have an ideal location. If you PM me I have the bumf
on calculating out your energy return from a given sized panel. *Not
rocket science.
But your quotation will include this.
The ideal roof faces due south and is @ 36degrees. *Less is generated
as it deviates from this, also any shadows are a major a problem.

If you decide to go ahead, get in quick, next April the rates paid for
electricity for new installations is be be cut by 7% apparently.
There may well be a rush on in a few months as people realise this &
you may be left out.

However it may well be the price of panels will come down like flat
screenTVs.
Your guess is as good as mine.

I had a fair amount of hassle it has to be said due to incompetent
installers.
I think as installers get more experienced, things will improve on
that front.
The technology has worked perfectly so far.

I hear the Russians are planning a massive new industry in the
Caucasus making panels.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

harry wrote:
On Aug 26, 10:37 pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article .
invalid, Another John scribeth thus





In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus
...
But profitable.
What I receive will be the normal price for electricity in a few
years...
...
And you understand that its the rest of -us- paying -you- such high
rates that will make it so?......
(a) He is an electricity user the same as everyone. The difference *now*
is that he's not only getting many of his units "free" (discounting the
investment he's made), but is getting paid very handsomely as well.
Yes by other electricity users..



(b) It is not Harry (nor any other PV owner), personally, who is milking
the rest of us, it's the Government initiative. Harry is simply taking
advantage of the scheme.
Another well thought out silly scheme by HM govvermint..



(c) What is he supposed to do? Say "Oh well I do have the money to do
this, but I don't wish to subscribe to such an iniquitous scheme, so
I'll leave my money in the Savings Account, where it's earning a fat
1.5%, before tax."
If he had adopted the view outlined in (c) he'd have been in the
*vanishingly small* minority of people in this country, now, who put
moral consideration ahead of personal gain.
Pity..



There seems to be no *rational* reasoning behind the attacks upon Solar
PV owners: I detect a strong whiff of sour grapes.
Not at all if I thought for a moment that this was the long term answer
to UK energy provision I'd be doing it, but it isn't is it?.

Take today its ****ed down with rain all day the sky's overcast as it
has been for the last few weeks. So we're using PV which very
inefficient and is pushed buy this half baked subsidy scheme..

And if an when this becomes significant consider like windmills all the
reserve fossil generation we still have to keep on the go to back it
up....

If there _is_ rational reasoning, then please do enlighten me -- as you
will have guessed, I'm thinking of doing it myself, but I'm wavering
about. It's a lot of money, but I don't earn money any more, so I need
to invest what I have in the best possible ways.
John
Put it into what we really need .. Nuclear generation...

Yeah. Be like Japan.

Or France. Excellent idea.

harry wrote:
There are quite a few people in this group besides myself with PV
panels. If it goes wrong, you can be sure they will be on here
bitching about it.

I wasn't thinking about the *installation* going wrong.....

Other things in life can knock you back, and you need enough reserves to
cope.

So far, nada.
It won't cost money to dispose of.

So, someone will come along when they expire from old age and take them
away for free, then?

Putting the roof back as it was would be expensive. Cheaper just to
put on new panels.

And, depending on state of the roof structure due to the additional
loading, maybe replace that, too. Admittedly, you may need to do that
even without the panels being on it, but you won't have spent the cost
of it on the panels in the first place, or won't be committed to a 25
year lease for the "free"panels.

Economically, if you have other income and/ or enough in reserve, they
make sense. If you are on a fixed income without many reserves, they are
a depreciating asset which ties up your money for a *long* time.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

Put it into what we really need .. Nuclear generation...

Well I agree with you Tony, 100%. But nuclear - despite its meaning
vast generation which (ought to) allow cheap electricity for all demands
higher taxation.

And people in this country don't like paying tax: generations have been
brainwashed by the Tories, their newspapers, and successive ineffectual,
pusillanimous, badly communicative Labour governments.

Nonetheless, people seem to think that they ought to pay less and less
and LESS tax, whilst receiving EVER GREATER social benefits (by which I
mean stuff like the NHS; practical infrastructure; social
infrastructure; and yes -- benefits when laid off work, for example.
cue violent thread swerves


Nuclear as a means of cheap energy generation is a dead duck, thanks to
the national attitude to taxes. Nuclear as a means of energy companies
making ever greater profits at the expense of the mugs known as
"customers" might not be dead. (For some reason people are more prepared
to pay into company profits, than into the national common-wealth.)

John

On Aug 26, 1:28*pm, Another John wrote:

(c) What is he supposed to do? *Say "Oh well I do have the money to do
this, but I don't wish to subscribe to such an iniquitous scheme, so
I'll leave my money in the Savings Account, where it's earning a fat
1.5%, before tax."

They may also make the same decision for a less contrived reason. In
my own case:

* I want that same roof space for a thermal system in a couple of
years. A thermal system with sound thermodynamics and economics behind
it.

* The solar PV system depends on a long-term commitment by a
government with its back against an economic wall. I cannot trust a UK
government that far.

* Even if I trust the scheme to operate at the FIT rates, the
economics are still marginal and depend of long-term reliability of
unproven panels, absence of vandalism from kids with bricks, and the
reliability of inverters that seem so far to be anything but reliable.

My money isn't going into PV, it's going into (more expensive)
building work that will make a currently cold and seasonally
uninhabitable kitchen into a much more useful space, with adequate
insulation for winter use and a solar thermal system to heat it.

On Aug 27, 9:41*am, John Williamson
wrote:
So, someone will come along when they expire from old age and take them
away for free, then?

They're not batteries. There's nothing any more toxic in a solar panel
than in a DG sealed unit.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:18:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Just phone my father in law and ask him what he thinks of the solar
water panels he had installed at a price he couldn't afford.

Don't keep us in suspense like this! You didn't reveal his telephone
number, so we can't ring his up. But I infer from your wording that
your FIL isn't too happy with his panels.

MM

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Aug 27, 9:41 am, John Williamson
wrote:
So, someone will come along when they expire from old age and take them
away for free, then?

They're not batteries. There's nothing any more toxic in a solar panel
than in a DG sealed unit.

I know what's in a PV panel.

Last time I had some glazing taken away, I had to pay. The cost was
included in the price of the replacement glazing, but it was not zero.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Aug 27, 9:41 am, John Williamson
wrote:
So, someone will come along when they expire from old age and take them
away for free, then?

They're not batteries. There's nothing any more toxic in a solar panel
than in a DG sealed unit.

Tellurium mercury and cadmium.

MM wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:18:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Just phone my father in law and ask him what he thinks of the solar
water panels he had installed at a price he couldn't afford.

Don't keep us in suspense like this! You didn't reveal his telephone
number, so we can't ring his up. But I infer from your wording that
your FIL isn't too happy with his panels.


More the way they were sold: 'save up to half your heating costs'
(should have been hot water heating costs) and the fact that in 3 years
they have needed servicing twice. at £150 a time.

ten minutes with a calculator from the suppliers own brochure in the
fine print where the actual FACTS are printed, revealed that, at best,
he would save £150 a year. His oil bill is over £2000.

double galzing firms are moving into PV in a big way now.

Its the big sell and the big con. DECC tried their utmost to get the
FITS slashed, and succeeded on big installations - but politically they
had to leave the domestic **** alone.

The government cant U turn on Cameron's green promises or Clegless'
green promises (although they can do a 180 turn on Localism, which is
now a license to develop regardless of local wishes).



MM

In article
..com, harry scribeth thus
On Aug 26, 10:37*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article .
invalid, Another John scribeth thus





In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article
.com, harry scribeth thus
...
But profitable.
What I receive will be the normal price for electricity in a few
years...
...
And you understand that its the rest of -us- paying -you- such high
rates that will make it so?......

(a) He is an electricity user the same as everyone. The difference *now*
is that he's not only getting many of his units "free" (discounting the
investment he's made), but is getting paid very handsomely as well.

Yes by other electricity users..



(b) It is not Harry (nor any other PV owner), personally, who is milking
the rest of us, it's the Government initiative. *Harry is simply taking
advantage of the scheme.

Another well thought out silly scheme by HM govvermint..



(c) What is he supposed to do? *Say "Oh well I do have the money to do
this, but I don't wish to subscribe to such an iniquitous scheme, so
I'll leave my money in the Savings Account, where it's earning a fat
1.5%, before tax."

If he had adopted the view outlined in (c) he'd have been in the
*vanishingly small* minority of people in this country, now, who put
moral consideration ahead of personal gain. *

Pity..



There seems to be no *rational* reasoning behind the attacks upon Solar
PV owners: I detect a strong whiff of sour grapes.

Not at all if I thought for a moment that this was the long term answer
to UK energy provision I'd be doing it, but it isn't is it?.

Take today its ****ed down with rain all day the sky's overcast as it
has been for the last few weeks. So we're using PV which very
inefficient and is pushed buy this half baked subsidy scheme..

And if an when this becomes significant consider like windmills all the
reserve fossil generation we still have to keep on the go to back it
up....

If there _is_ rational reasoning, then please do enlighten me -- as you
will have guessed, I'm thinking of doing it myself, but I'm wavering
about. *It's a lot of money, but I don't earn money any more, so I need
to invest what I have in the best possible ways.

John

Put it into what we really need .. Nuclear generation...

Yeah. Be like Japan.

And what about Japan?, a neigh on unforeseeable one off which with more
modern plant would not have been a problem..


No-one is saying PV is desireable. It will have to be used in
conjunction with other renewable technologies.
We're getting to the point when there is no alternative. This is a
pump priming excercise.

A ****ed up exercise if I might swear!, this is going to do the square
root of SOD ALL for the energy needs of the UK in coming years. Have a
bit of foresight, what are we going to do when Oil is neigh on
unaffordable for transport and agricultural production?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Tim
Streater scribeth thus
In article
,
harry wrote:

On Aug 26, 10:37*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article .
invalid, Another John scribeth thus

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

Put it into what we really need .. Nuclear generation...

Yeah. Be like Japan.

No, be like France.

No-one is saying PV is desireable. It will have to be used in
conjunction with other renewable technologies.
We're getting to the point when there is no alternative.

No we aren't. The solution - nuclear - is a no-brainer.


Yes just that some here and lacking in brain capacity;(..

And for that matter the government isn't much better...
--
Tony Sayer

In article .
invalid, Another John scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

Put it into what we really need .. Nuclear generation...

Well I agree with you Tony, 100%. But nuclear - despite its meaning
vast generation which (ought to) allow cheap electricity for all demands
higher taxation.

And people in this country don't like paying tax: generations have been
brainwashed by the Tories, their newspapers, and successive ineffectual,
pusillanimous, badly communicative Labour governments.

Nonetheless, people seem to think that they ought to pay less and less
and LESS tax, whilst receiving EVER GREATER social benefits (by which I
mean stuff like the NHS; practical infrastructure; social
infrastructure; and yes -- benefits when laid off work, for example.
cue violent thread swerves


Nuclear as a means of cheap energy generation is a dead duck, thanks to
the national attitude to taxes. Nuclear as a means of energy companies
making ever greater profits at the expense of the mugs known as
"customers" might not be dead. (For some reason people are more prepared
to pay into company profits, than into the national common-wealth.)

John

If you think so, and most all of the above I'd agree with you, but In
practice as to UK energy needs what would you do about the looming
problem?..
--
Tony Sayer

If you decide to go ahead, get in quick, next April the rates paid for
electricity for new installations is be be cut by 7% apparently.

I wonder why .. do you?...


--
Tony Sayer

On Aug 27, 9:00*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus





On Aug 26, 10:37*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article .

On Aug 27, 9:05*pm, tony sayer wrote:
If you decide to go ahead, get in quick, next April the rates paid for
electricity for new installations is be be cut by 7% apparently.

I wonder why .. do you?...

--
Tony Sayer

The pump is primed.

On Aug 27, 9:03*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article .
invalid, Another John scribeth thus





In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

Put it into what we really need .. Nuclear generation...

Well I agree with you Tony, 100%. *But nuclear - despite its meaning
vast generation which (ought to) allow cheap electricity for all demands
higher taxation. *

And people in this country don't like paying tax: generations have been
brainwashed by the Tories, their newspapers, and successive ineffectual,
pusillanimous, badly communicative Labour governments. * *

Nonetheless, people seem to think that they ought to pay less and less
and LESS tax, whilst receiving EVER GREATER social benefits (by which I
mean stuff like the NHS; practical infrastructure; social
infrastructure; and yes -- benefits when laid off work, for example.
cue violent thread swerves

Nuclear as a means of cheap energy generation is a dead duck, thanks to
the national attitude to taxes. *Nuclear as a means of energy companies
making ever greater profits *at the expense of the mugs known as
"customers" might not be dead. (For some reason people are more prepared
to pay into company profits, than into the national common-wealth.)

John

If you think so, and most all of the above I'd agree with you, but In
practice as to UK energy needs what would you do about the looming
problem?..
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What have YOU done? F.A .I expect.

In message
,
harry writes
On Aug 27, 9:05*pm, tony sayer wrote:
If you decide to go ahead, get in quick, next April the rates paid for
electricity for new installations is be be cut by 7% apparently.

I wonder why .. do you?...

--
Tony Sayer

The pump is primed.

Umm..

So, if the rest of the roof owning population decide to jump on this
particular bandwagon, can we expect the NPs electricity bills to rise
further (to fund the subsidy) or will FITs be quietly dropped?

None of my domestic roofs are ideally suited, I am too old for a capital
pay back and my sympathy is with the pro nuclear lobby.

Insulation grants appear much more sensible and I will take a close
interest in any *FITs* relating to alternative sources of heat.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
On Aug 27, 9:05 pm, tony sayer wrote:
If you decide to go ahead, get in quick, next April the rates paid for
electricity for new installations is be be cut by 7% apparently.

I wonder why .. do you?...

--
Tony Sayer

The pump is primed.

Umm..

So, if the rest of the roof owning population decide to jump on this
particular bandwagon, can we expect the NPs electricity bills to rise
further (to fund the subsidy) or will FITs be quietly dropped?


yes, then eventually yes.

More that many people who use a LOT of power, are contracting here and
abroad with powerstations directly. So you might expect to see the
situation (as a fudge) that you could e.g. elect NOT to buy 'green
electricity - and instead go on an all nuclear tariff - at say 10p.
while the 'green tariff' is around 45p.



None of my domestic roofs are ideally suited, I am too old for a capital
pay back and my sympathy is with the pro nuclear lobby.

Insulation grants appear much more sensible and I will take a close
interest in any *FITs* relating to alternative sources of heat.

regards