harry wrote:
On Nov 1, 9:35 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
I don't think Harry has ever seriously pushed "saving the planet". It
is purely a financial investment with a "guaranteed" return
Given they've cut the subsidy much further and earlier than was planned,
here's hoping they cut the duration from 25 years to 10 or less.
I suspect that within 5 years government spending along with government
income will simply evaporate. When a counterparty in a contract goes
tits up, generally the contract is null and void. Or rather you get a
penny in the pound from the receiver, if anything.

So these cast iron contracts will become essentially as much use as a
Zimbabwean dollar note.

Ah another envious old man. Full of bull****. You need to get out
more.
In five years I will have had my money back very likely.

you will be luicky then

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 09:35:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I suspect that within 5 years government spending along with government
income will simply evaporate.

Er, FIT payments are *not* funded from government money they are
funded from a levy/surcharge that the government imposes on the
electricity suppliers. This reduction in the FIT payment is because
the subsidy and guaranteed return has been so popular the pot of
money the surcharge generates is running out. They either had to up
the pot (and thus add to everyones bills), cap the number of eligable
installations or reduce the payments for new installations.

The RHPP and RHI (if/when it happens) is government money and I can
see that being scrapped or watered down as to be useless.

--
Cheers
Dave.

harry wrote:
On Oct 31, 7:49 pm, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:24:19 -0700, harry wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:18 pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15507750

Down to 21p/kWHr for installations completed after 12th Dec 2011.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Phew, got in just in time! I am become one of the elite.

The word is 'leech'.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

So how about people who traded in cars under the "scrappage" scheme?
The word for you is envy.

I nearly did. But why waste all that money on a new car when the old one
works fine?

--
Adam

On Nov 1, 9:35*am, harry wrote:
On Nov 1, 8:16*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:





On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 05:31:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I have done 2747Kwh to date.

Less energy that we have used from oil for hot water and some
space
heating lately all summer.

Its about 300 litres of oil innit?

Harry has saved the planet from burning four car tankfuls of diesel.

A shade over 10kWHr per litre so more like 270l or nearer three
tankfuls of diesel...

I don't think Harry has ever seriously pushed "saving the planet". It
is purely a financial investment with a "guaranteed" return of about
10% over 20 years. Without factoring in rising grid prices.

--
Cheers
Dave.

True. *But in a few years electricity will cost 43 p/Kwh anyway.
The important thing is the electricity took up no further (fuel)
resources to generate it and will not for years to come.
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.
Anyone on this group that didn't get on the bandwagon has only
themselves to blame. *It has been made perfectly clear it was a good
deal.-

Some of us chose not to, because we felt the scheme was unethical.

Robert

On Nov 1, 9:25*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:44*pm, Adam Aglionby wrote:







On Oct 31, 4:42*pm, Adrian C wrote:

On 31/10/2011 16:18, Dave Liquorice wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15507750

Down to 21p/kWHr for installations completed after 12th Dec 2011.

It is to everyones interest that the panel prices come down to as cheap
as possible to everyone. As I see it the current subsidy is just
encoraging manufacturers to keep the panels priced high, and spread
unhealthy bonuses in the pockets of ex-double glazing salesmen.

I don't see a lot of difference material handling wise between solar
panels and flat panel TV sets. Perhaps a redundant factory or two of
Phillips can be converted?

--
Adrian C

Oversupply in the panel market already, strangely enough PV and double/
triple glazing seem to be same people...

Cheers
Adam- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's more too successful not over supply.

Nope , oversupply, bearing in mind have to have the cash to invest up
front to reap the 10%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/m...mps-on-warning

No point in blaming the Chinese, they are aware and relying on growing
their domestic market

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90...0/7302559.html

Cheers
Adam

They talk the same . *They are mostly roofers, electricians and aerial
fixers.
There are a lot of cowboys out there.

On Nov 1, 9:49*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 31, 9:40*pm, misterroy wrote:









On Oct 31, 7:46*pm, John Rumm wrote:

On 31/10/2011 19:24, harry wrote:

Mind you, 0.21/Kwh would still give a better return than money in the
bank these days.
I wonder what percentage of the national load it provides on a sunny
day?
I have done 2747Kwh to date.

It hardly matters, it will need a proper power station sat there in hot
reserve anyway, so its real contribution is of little value.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

" I have done 2747Kwh to date."
How long have you been generating and what is the max rating?
ta- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The other factor is you save off your electricity bill butyou need to
tailor your life round sunny days to get the maximum benifit. Ideally
you need to be retired, ie in the house round midday.
In Summer you can save a lot but in Winter much less scope.
Time switches and watching the weather forecast could help.

Make an interesting point, load management related to local and
forecast conditions would seem to make sense.

Hardware and network connectivity has never been cheaper or easier.

In Summer you can knock a third off your bill but I dunno about
Winter,it will be much less.

I did think about fitting time switches to our freezers etc to stop
them coming on by night (when obviously no power is generated.)


Wonder if super insulated fridges are a money saver...

Cheers
Adam

Ah, the sun's just come out. *Maybe I'll sit in front of the meter for
a while and watch the £ notes coming in *:-)

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


--

The Other Mike wrote:

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

[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.



--
Tim Watts

On Nov 1, 5:31*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:24:19 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

I expect the price of panels will come down.

Why? The bottom has just been knocked out of the market.

There won't half be a rush before Christmas.

Except that actually getting a system installed before 12th Dec might
be quite tricky with all the accredited Solar PV firms fully booked
up...

I wonder what percentage of the national load it provides on a sunny
day?

4/5ths of bugger all. From the article linked to at the start of this
thread:

"As a result, figures from Ofgem show the amount of solar power
installed in the UK has increased dramatically, from 30 megawatts
(MW) before the subsidy started in 2010 to 321MW by October this
year."

321MW installed capacity with UK deamnd of around 40,000MW so about
0.8%.

and a capacity factor of around 10% so 0.08% overall

I have done 2747Kwh to date.

In what ? 6 months?

An average of 600 watts?

And that was the summer.

So an average of 300 watts over the year?



Less energy that we have used from oil for hot water and some space
heating lately all summer.

Its about 300 litres of oil innit?

Harry has saved the planet from burning four car tankfuls of diesel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I haven't been running for a year so where do you get 300w from?
I have generated three times what I have use dis a more useful
statistic

On Nov 1, 10:58*am, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Oct 31, 7:49 pm, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:24:19 -0700, harry wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:18 pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15507750

Down to 21p/kWHr for installations completed after 12th Dec 2011.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Phew, got in just in time! I am become one of the elite.

The word is 'leech'.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

So how about people who traded in cars under the "scrappage" scheme?
The word for you is envy.

I nearly did. But why waste all that money on a new car when the old one
works fine?

--
Adam- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quite right. I kept my old car too.

On Nov 1, 1:20*pm, Adam Aglionby wrote:
On Nov 1, 9:49*am, harry wrote:





On Oct 31, 9:40*pm, misterroy wrote:

On Oct 31, 7:46*pm, John Rumm wrote:

On 31/10/2011 19:24, harry wrote:

Mind you, 0.21/Kwh would still give a better return than money in the
bank these days.
I wonder what percentage of the national load it provides on a sunny
day?
I have done 2747Kwh to date.

It hardly matters, it will need a proper power station sat there in hot
reserve anyway, so its real contribution is of little value.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

" I have done 2747Kwh to date."
How long have you been generating and what is the max rating?
ta- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The other factor is you save off your electricity bill butyou need to
tailor your life round sunny days to get the maximum benifit. Ideally
you need to be retired, ie in the house round midday.
In Summer you can save a lot but in Winter much less scope.
Time switches and watching the weather forecast could help.

Make an interesting point, load management related to local and
forecast conditions would seem to make sense.

Hardware and network connectivity has never been cheaper or easier.

In Summer you can knock a third off your bill but I dunno about
Winter,it will be much less.

I did think about fitting time switches to our freezers etc to stop
them coming on by night (when obviously no power is generated.)

Wonder if super insulated fridges are a money saver...

Cheers
Adam



The A+ rated ones are well insulated. I imagine the only real way to
improve their efficiency is to insulate them more.

On Nov 1, 2:24*pm, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 02:35:51 -0700 (PDT), harry
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.

--

Well ****s are useful, you aren't.

On 01/11/2011 10:27, Adrian C wrote:
On 01/11/2011 09:35, harry 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.

Simple, don't make it tax free forever. Hell, the goverment raise and
lower taxes at a stroke. Very simple to correct this social injustice.
Someone should start a petition.


It is by no means as simple as you think. The system itself is a wasting
asset so all the capital costs can be set off against income (as can
incidental expenses). The sure result for the Government would be that
in the early years they would see losses being set off against income
that would otherwise be taxed rather than an additional income stream.

Harry appears to have invested some £15,000 and if we assume his 8% so
far this year translates into 10% over the course of a full year he will
be lucky to get all his capital back in ten years as the FIT reduces
year by year.

All he has to show after 10 years is some free electricity over the
period. Once the capital is repaid he is still not really coining it as
in 10 years the guarantees will have run out, the panels will be by then
operating at reduced efficiency and panels or inverter may well fail, to
be replaced at Harry's expense. After 25 years, assuming the equipment
is still working, he loses the guaranteed FIT and the power company will
no doubt turn round and say: "Now its our turn. We will only pay you 10%
of what we charge for electricity and if you don't like that find some
way of dumping your excess capacity. We don't want, or need, such little
increments to our huge generating capacity."

If you want a legitimate tax free income without the uncertainties of
this scheme take out a cash ISA every year. And if you don't mind a
little hassle take in a lodger. Last time I checked (which was several
years ago) you can make up to £4000 gross tax free which is much more
than Harry is getting and he has had to shell out £15000. Taking in
lodgers OTOH can be done at minimal expense. You don't have to feed them.



--
Roger Chapman

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 |
\================================================= ================/

On 31/10/2011 19:46, John Rumm wrote:
On 31/10/2011 19:24, harry wrote:

Mind you, £0.21/Kwh would still give a better return than money in the
bank these days.
I wonder what percentage of the national load it provides on a sunny
day?
I have done 2747Kwh to date.

It hardly matters, it will need a proper power station sat there in hot
reserve anyway, so its real contribution is of little value.

Nonsense.

Unlike windmills the major contribution of PV panels is reducing demand
on the grid and with a multitude of individual houses any variation in
demand/output will be statistically easy to determine and any
variability will be small in relation to the other factors that the grid
has to take into account.

I don't know what the exact proportion is but even windmills don't need
100% of hot reserve. PV panels shouldn't need very much (or even any)
even if every house in the land was so equipped.

--
Roger Chapman

On 01/11/2011 17:24, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 31/10/2011 19:46, John Rumm wrote:
On 31/10/2011 19:24, harry wrote:

Mind you, £0.21/Kwh would still give a better return than money in the
bank these days.
I wonder what percentage of the national load it provides on a sunny
day?
I have done 2747Kwh to date.

It hardly matters, it will need a proper power station sat there in hot
reserve anyway, so its real contribution is of little value.

Nonsense.

Unlike windmills the major contribution of PV panels is reducing demand
on the grid and with a multitude of individual houses any variation in
demand/output will be statistically easy to determine and any
variability will be small in relation to the other factors that the grid
has to take into account.

PV makes very good sense in countries where the sun gets high in the sky
and ambient temperatures and humidity require airconditioning. It is on
the verge of barking mad to subsidise installation of PV panels in the
UK at latitude 50+ N - where net energy payback is about 4:1 - but
installed in sunny places like Australia or Japan you get nearer 7:1.
And more importantly you get the extra energy boost at a time of peak
demand. Load and generation are naturally matched there.

Have you not noticed how the solar powered "please go round the bend"
signs die a horrible death in midwinter when they are really needed.

I don't know what the exact proportion is but even windmills don't need
100% of hot reserve. PV panels shouldn't need very much (or even any)
even if every house in the land was so equipped.

PV panels in the UK at present probably don't need any hot reserve as
their total overall contribution is not statistically significant.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 01/11/2011 12:54, RobertL wrote:

Anyone on this group that didn't get on the bandwagon has only
themselves to blame. It has been made perfectly clear it was a good
deal.-

Some of us chose not to, because we felt the scheme was unethical.

It was a scheme that the Government was desperately anxious to promote
so they offered incentives. Taking them up on that is no different to
accepting say child allowance.

Ethics these days depends very much on where you are coming from:

To the fundamentalist Moslem interest is unethical but killing apostates
is a sacred duty.

To a parent privileges such as child allowance are an inalienable right
but how ethical is taxing the childless poor so that someone who already
has a larger income and a more comfortable existence is further rewarded
for a particular lifestyle choice.

--
Roger Chapman

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 09:19:38 -0700, harry wrote:

On Nov 1, 5:31Â*am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:24:19 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

I expect the price of panels will come down.

Why? The bottom has just been knocked out of the market.

There won't half be a rush before Christmas.

Except that actually getting a system installed before 12th Dec might
be quite tricky with all the accredited Solar PV firms fully booked
up...

I wonder what percentage of the national load it provides on a sunny
day?

4/5ths of bugger all. From the article linked to at the start of this
thread:

"As a result, figures from Ofgem show the amount of solar power
installed in the UK has increased dramatically, from 30 megawatts
(MW) before the subsidy started in 2010 to 321MW by October this
year."

321MW installed capacity with UK deamnd of around 40,000MW so about
0.8%.

and a capacity factor of around 10% so 0.08% overall

I have done 2747Kwh to date.

In what ? 6 months?

An average of 600 watts?

And that was the summer.

So an average of 300 watts over the year?

Less energy that we have used from oil for hot water and some space
heating lately all summer.

Its about 300 litres of oil innit?

Harry has saved the planet from burning four car tankfuls of diesel.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I haven't been running for a year so where do you get 300w from?

I wondered that; I thought they might have rounded up 2747 to 3000 and
then split it over 6 months, but that would still be a 500W not 600W
monthly average (and the assumption was 600W over the warmer months and 0
over the colder ones)

300W monthly average over a whole year might not be far wrong though I
suppose, if you're actually getting 500W during peak season - surely
that'll tail off dramatically during shorter days, cloudier (is that even
a word?) weather, snow on the panels etc.

harry wrote:

On Nov 1, 9:35 am, The Natural

I suspect that within 5 years government spending along with government
income will simply evaporate. When a counterparty in a contract goes
tits up, generally the contract is null and void. Or rather you get a
penny in the pound from the receiver, if anything.

If someone buys their electricity from ABC Energy Ltd, and also has a
FIT contract, do they get their kickback from ABC Energy Ltd, or from a
subsiduary like ABC (Eco Bollox 2010) Ltd?

So these cast iron contracts will become essentially as much use as a
Zimbabwean dollar note.

Ah another envious old man. Full of bull****. You need to get out
more.
In five years I will have had my money back very likely.

Great, so we can use you as an example of why they shouldn't be paid for
25 years then?

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...

Harry appears to have invested some £15,000 and if we assume his 8% so far
this year translates into 10% over the course of a full year he will be
lucky to get all his capital back in ten years as the FIT reduces year by
year.

Harry's fit doesn't reduce year by year, it goes up as its index linked.
It was intended that *new* installations would start at a lower rate of fit
each year.
Now they are halving it on *new* installations.

harry wrote:

On Nov 1, 8:37 am, Andy wrote:

Given they've cut the subsidy much further and earlier than was planned,
here's hoping they cut the duration from 25 years to 10 or less.

Ah more envy/sour grapes. I bet you sit in the house on benifits.

Not at all, I could afford to fit (ha, ha) PV to half the houses in the
street, but I choose not to do my own as I don't agree with the scheme
(and have no faith it will remain in existance).

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:06:29 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

Harry appears to have invested some £15,000 and if we assume his 8% so
far this year translates into 10% over the course of a full year he will
be lucky to get all his capital back in ten years as the FIT reduces
year by year.

Er the FIT paid does not reduce year by year, unless the country
moves into deflation...

You get a starting FIT rate when the system is online and registered.
Until the 12th Dec that is 43p/unit, after 12th Dec it will be
21p/unit. Then there is an annual adjustment to compensate for
inflation. So unless things go very wrong (deflation) Harry will be
getting his 43p/unit plus adjustments for the next 25 (20?) years.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 01/11/2011 19:28, dennis@home wrote:


"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...

Harry appears to have invested some £15,000 and if we assume his 8% so
far this year translates into 10% over the course of a full year he
will be lucky to get all his capital back in ten years as the FIT
reduces year by year.

Harry's fit doesn't reduce year by year, it goes up as its index linked.
It was intended that *new* installations would start at a lower rate of
fit each year.
Now they are halving it on *new* installations.

Mea culpa. I looked at the table and assumed that the year on year
tables showed a declining return rather than a declining investment for
new entrants.

I see they have indexed by RPI so far. How long before that changes to
the lower index?

A wasting investment of £15000 needs to pay £600 pa just to return the
capital in 25 years. At 21p that is 2857 KWH just to recover the
capital. Dodgy.

--
Roger Chapman

On 01/11/2011 19:24, Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:

On Nov 1, 9:35 am, The Natural

I suspect that within 5 years government spending along with government
income will simply evaporate. When a counterparty in a contract goes
tits up, generally the contract is null and void. Or rather you get a
penny in the pound from the receiver, if anything.

If someone buys their electricity from ABC Energy Ltd, and also has a
FIT contract, do they get their kickback from ABC Energy Ltd, or from a
subsiduary like ABC (Eco Bollox 2010) Ltd?

Indeed a question I have pondered in the past...



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:44:40 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

A wasting investment of £15000 needs to pay £600 pa just to return the
capital in 25 years. At 21p that is 2857 KWH just to recover the
capital. Dodgy.

Is it? Harry's system has produced about that over, admitedly summer,
6 months...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 01/11/2011 23:38, Dave Liquorice wrote:

A wasting investment of £15000 needs to pay £600 pa just to return the
capital in 25 years. At 21p that is 2857 KWH just to recover the
capital. Dodgy.

Is it? Harry's system has produced about that over, admitedly summer,
6 months...

ISTR that Harry has claimed that he has an almost ideal situation for
panels so anyone with poor orientation, shading or other issues is not
going to get as good a result. Having said that the SAP* assessment for
my roof is 3336KWh/yr but then I have a 30 degree south facing roof with
very little shading even at the margins of the day.

I can't find any information on the way in which efficiency falls with
age but it must have some effect over 25 years.

The final 15 years at least will be out of guarantee and any substantial
replacement costs for failing equipment could do much more than eat up
any potential profit. In my opinion there is still a risk with a nominal
10% margin if you are unlucky but with 43.3p rather than 21p there is a
much larger cushion.

*Government's standard assessment procedure apparently but that is
little more than pie in the sky. Only with hindsight will it become
clear how big the margin is between optimistic prediction and cold hard
fact. By way of comparison the endowment I took out in the early 80s
with Government approved predictions was supposed to pay out just over
200% of the assured sum. In the event it paid out just under 100% on
maturity 20 years later.

--
Roger Chapman

On Nov 1, 5:06*pm, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 01/11/2011 10:27, Adrian C wrote:

On 01/11/2011 09:35, harry 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.

Simple, don't make it tax free forever. Hell, the goverment raise and
lower taxes at a stroke. Very simple to correct this social injustice.
Someone should start a petition.

It is by no means as simple as you think. The system itself is a wasting
asset so all the capital costs can be set off against income (as can
incidental expenses). The sure result for the Government would be that
in the early years they would see losses being set off against income
that would otherwise be taxed rather than an additional income stream.

Harry appears to have invested some £15,000 and if we assume his 8% so
far this year translates into 10% over the course of a full year he will
be lucky to get all his capital back in ten years as the FIT reduces
year by year.

All he has to show after 10 years is some free electricity over the
period. Once the capital is repaid he is still not really coining it as
in 10 years the guarantees will have run out, the panels will be by then
operating at reduced efficiency and panels or inverter may well fail, to
be replaced at Harry's expense. After 25 years, assuming the equipment
is still working, he loses the guaranteed FIT and the power company will
no doubt turn round and say: "Now its our turn. We will only pay you 10%
of what we charge for electricity and if you don't like that find some
way of dumping your excess capacity. We don't want, or need, such little
increments to our huge generating capacity."

If you want a legitimate tax free income without the uncertainties of
this scheme take out a cash ISA every year. And if you don't mind a
little hassle take in a lodger. Last time I checked (which was several
years ago) you can make up to £4000 gross tax free which is much more
than Harry is getting and he has had to shell out £15000. Taking in
lodgers OTOH can be done at minimal expense. You don't have to feed them.

--
Roger Chapman

The FIT is inflation linked. How do you suppose inflation is going to
be this next few years? Clearly the gov intends to pay it's debts by
inflation and paying back in near worthless money.

Also where else can you invest money to get this rate of return?

Also adds value to the house and saves my electricity bills.

The 8% was for electricity generated in six months. By my estimation
it will be 12% in twelve months (dpending on weather). Next year the
price paid will go up with the inflation link. Plus the reduced
electrcity bills and no tax.

TurNiP will be posting now hoping for a permanent solar eclipse.

90,000 people can't be wrong. FIT hasbeen reduce through over
enthusiasm, not because of financial loss.

On Nov 1, 5:15*pm, John Rumm wrote:
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 * * * * * * *|
\================================================= ================/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The PV panel could be fitted to at least 50% of all houses, there are
few sites for windmills and micro-hydro power. There are FIT payment
for these too but few sites.

These schemes use zero fossil fuel and will be market viable to in the
near future. The FIT scheme is about bringing the technology forward
and inculcating the public with it'svalue. In fifty years it will be
the major/only producer of domestic power.

Stuff like heat pumps and co-generation still needs fossil fuel.

My own thing (insulation) needs no further fuel once installed and I
have zero energy use/export power. I export enough electric power for
two other houses (assuming them to use the same power as I do.)

BTW I have got time switches for my freezers so they won't come on at
night and only use free electricity by day. I estimate this will cut
my electric bill by a further 5%.

On Nov 1, 5:24*pm, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 31/10/2011 19:46, John Rumm wrote: On 31/10/2011 19:24, harry wrote:

Mind you, 0.21/Kwh would still give a better return than money in the
bank these days.
I wonder what percentage of the national load it provides on a sunny
day?
I have done 2747Kwh to date.

It hardly matters, it will need a proper power station sat there in hot
reserve anyway, so its real contribution is of little value.

Nonsense.

Unlike windmills the major contribution of PV panels is reducing demand
on the grid and with a multitude of individual houses any variation in
demand/output will be statistically easy to determine and any
variability will be small in relation to the other factors that the grid
has to take into account.

I don't know what the exact proportion is but even windmills don't need
100% of hot reserve. PV panels shouldn't need very much (or even any)
even if every house in the land was so equipped.

--
Roger Chapman

I think the small PV schemes are the way to go. There is a four volt
(approx) drop on my supply when a cloud passes (max-min). If it was a
huge array the effect would be greater. It depends on the size/
regulation of the local transformer too.
Small PV arrays reduce the size needed on th grid as electricity is
produced locally.
The main problem is that output is down in Winter.

I think that power generators will take into account sunlight
intensity and national cloud patterns to predict needs. They already
look at weather forecasts.

harry wrote:

90,000 people can't be wrong. FIT has been reduce through over
enthusiasm, not because of financial loss.

Well, 'burden' might be a better word than 'loss'.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cm.../pn11_091.aspx

"There is a finite funding allocation for the FITs scheme so as to limit
the impact on energy consumers"

On Nov 1, 7:17*pm, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 09:19:38 -0700, harry wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:31*am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:24:19 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

I expect the price of panels will come down.

Why? The bottom has just been knocked out of the market.

There won't half be a rush before Christmas.

Except that actually getting a system installed before 12th Dec might
be quite tricky with all the accredited Solar PV firms fully booked
up...

I wonder what percentage of the national load it provides on a sunny
day?

4/5ths of bugger all. From the article linked to at the start of this
thread:

"As a result, figures from Ofgem show the amount of solar power
installed in the UK has increased dramatically, from 30 megawatts
(MW) before the subsidy started in 2010 to 321MW by October this
year."

321MW installed capacity with UK deamnd of around 40,000MW so about
0.8%.

and a capacity factor of around 10% so 0.08% overall

I have done 2747Kwh to date.

In what ? 6 months?

An average of 600 watts?

And that was the summer.

So an average of 300 watts over the year?

Less energy that we have used from oil for hot water and some space
heating lately all summer.

Its about 300 litres of oil innit?

Harry has saved the planet from burning four car tankfuls of diesel.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I haven't been running for a year so where do you get 300w from?

I wondered that; I thought they might have rounded up 2747 to 3000 and
then split it over 6 months, but that would still be a 500W not 600W
monthly average (and the assumption was 600W over the warmer months and 0
over the colder ones)

300W monthly average over a whole year might not be far wrong though I
suppose, if you're actually getting 500W during peak season - surely
that'll tail off dramatically during shorter days, cloudier (is that even
a word?) weather, snow on the panels etc.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The prediction is 3200Kwh/year but I think I am running above that, I
have only 500 to go. Obviously weather dependent.

I had a few days shutdown when they came back and fixed the roof and
when the power company changed the local tranformer.

The highest daily output was 29.6Kwh(May). the lowest so far was
0.6Kwh (rained all day)Last week. Atmospheric moisture is a key
factor,more so than angle of incidence even. Even a slight haze can
knock output back by 10%. A deep blue sky is the thing.
Also they are more efficient in cold weather. Probably ranges over
10% in our climate.
So, lots of factors. Even if you are at the top/bottom of a hill.

A key factor is that the peak output (beween 10.00 and 14.00)
coincides with peak demand.

On Nov 1, 7:29*pm, Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:
On Nov 1, 8:37 am, Andy *wrote:

Given they've cut the subsidy much further and earlier than was planned,
here's hoping they cut the duration from 25 years to 10 or less.

Ah more envy/sour grapes. I bet you sit in the house *on benifits.

Not at all, I could afford to fit (ha, ha) PV to half the houses in the
street, but I choose not to do my own as I don't agree with the scheme
(and have no faith it will remain in existance).

But I bet you will want your Old Age Pension and child benefit, and
Winter fuel allowance and other taxpayer funded money.

It is the future you daft old bugger. Fossil fuels will be reserved
for agriculture, heavy transport, aviation and similar.

While you have sat on your arse, procrastinating and stuck in the mud,
I at least have done something for the future. And though you have
known all about and coould have particpated, the boat has passed you
by. (Well nearly) A nieghbour of mine has had a recent PV quotation,
the prices are falling rapidly.

On Nov 1, 7:28*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Roger Chapman" wrote in message

...

Harry appears to have invested some £15,000 and if we assume his 8% so far
this year translates into 10% over the course of a full year he will be
lucky to get all his capital back in ten years as the FIT reduces year by
year.

Harry's fit doesn't reduce year by year, it goes up as its index linked.
It was intended that *new* installations would start at a lower rate of fit
each year.
Now they are halving it on *new* installations.

Exactly so. But I still think they will be viable, prices for
installation are falling.

On Nov 1, 7:51*pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:06:29 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:
Harry appears to have invested some £15,000 and if we assume his 8% so
far this year translates into 10% over the course of a full year he will
be lucky to get all his capital back in ten years as the FIT reduces
year by year.

Er the FIT paid does not reduce year by year, unless the country
moves into deflation...

You get a starting FIT rate when the system is online and registered.
Until the 12th Dec that is 43p/unit, after 12th Dec it will be
21p/unit. Then there is an annual adjustment to compensate for
inflation. So unless things go very wrong (deflation) Harry will be
getting his 43p/unit plus adjustments for the next 25 (20?) years.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Correct. I'll probably be dead by then.

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 01:36:30 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

Small PV arrays reduce the size needed on th grid as electricity is
produced locally.

So when the sun sets (or is clouded out) you sit in the dark? Don't
watch telly or use any other electrical appliance?

I think that power generators will take into account sunlight
intensity and national cloud patterns to predict needs.

Not with the total installed capacity of less than 1% of demand. ISTR
they work with a 20% margin of spinning reserve. So if a nuke station
and a big coal fired station fall off line at the same time (say
3,400,000 kW) the grid struggles but doesn't collapse.

They already look at weather forecasts.

Mostly for the temperature, if it gets cold the demand for space
heating shoots up.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Nov 1, 11:38*pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:44:40 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:
A wasting investment of £15000 needs to pay £600 pa just to return the
capital in 25 years. At 21p that is 2857 KWH just to recover the
capital. Dodgy.

Is it? Harry's system has produced about that over, admitedly summer,
6 months...

--
Cheers
Dave.

One of the offical projections (given by the installers) is 3200Kwh
for the year.
I found out where they got it from (a website) There are several ways
of doing projections and all hangs upon the weather and many other
factors.
My own projection is 3700Kwh unless we have prolonged bad weather. I
read the meter ever night.

I have a near ideal site.
I believe the price cut will ensure that only better sites are used.
And of course in the sunnier parts of the country.
So Jocks and Taffs lose out again.
I will let youknow the grand total.

On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 08:04:57 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 01/11/2011 23:38, Dave Liquorice wrote:

A wasting investment of £15000 needs to pay £600 pa just to return the
capital in 25 years. At 21p that is 2857 KWH just to recover the
capital. Dodgy.

Is it? Harry's system has produced about that over, admitedly summer,
6 months...

ISTR that Harry has claimed that he has an almost ideal situation for
panels so anyone with poor orientation, shading or other issues is not
going to get as good a result. Having said that the SAP* assessment for
my roof is 3336KWh/yr but then I have a 30 degree south facing roof with
very little shading even at the margins of the day.

I can't find any information on the way in which efficiency falls with
age but it must have some effect over 25 years.

The final 15 years at least will be out of guarantee and any substantial
replacement costs for failing equipment could do much more than eat up
any potential profit. In my opinion there is still a risk with a nominal
10% margin if you are unlucky but with 43.3p rather than 21p there is a
much larger cushion.

*Government's standard assessment procedure apparently but that is
little more than pie in the sky. Only with hindsight will it become
clear how big the margin is between optimistic prediction and cold hard
fact. By way of comparison the endowment I took out in the early 80s
with Government approved predictions was supposed to pay out just over
200% of the assured sum. In the event it paid out just under 100% on
maturity 20 years later.

Lucky you. I was told the same but current estimates show mine will
pay about about 2/3 of it's value when it matures in a couple of
years[1]

[1] There is some bull**** "top-up promise" which might increase the
payout but I doubt it will actually happen.
--
(\__/) 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.

On Nov 2, 9:12*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 01:36:30 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
Small PV arrays reduce the size needed on th grid as electricity is
produced locally.

So when the sun sets (or is clouded out) you sit in the dark? Don't
watch telly or use any other electrical appliance?

I think that power generators will take into account sunlight
intensity and national cloud patterns to predict needs.

Not with the total installed capacity of less than 1% of demand. ISTR
they work with a 20% margin of spinning reserve. So if a nuke station
and a big coal fired station fall off line at the same time (say
3,400,000 kW) the grid struggles but doesn't collapse.

They already look at weather forecasts.

Mostly for the temperature, if it gets cold the demand for space
heating shoots up.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Solar PV can be only part of the plan. We need all these renewables,
tidal, wave, geothermal etc.
But with PV, everyone can participate.
Also if my PV packs in, it is not a national disaster as it would be
if a major primary substation/power station had problems.

On Nov 1, 8:44*pm, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 01/11/2011 19:28, dennis@home wrote:



"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...

Harry appears to have invested some 15,000 and if we assume his 8% so
far this year translates into 10% over the course of a full year he
will be lucky to get all his capital back in ten years as the FIT
reduces year by year.

Harry's fit doesn't reduce year by year, it goes up as its index linked..
It was intended that *new* installations would start at a lower rate of
fit each year.
Now they are halving it on *new* installations.

Mea culpa. I looked at the table and assumed that the year on year
tables showed a declining return rather than a declining investment for
new entrants.

I see they have indexed by RPI so far. How long before that changes to
the lower index?

A wasting investment of 15000 needs to pay 600 pa just to return the
capital in 25 years. At 21p that is 2857 KWH just to recover the
capital. Dodgy.

--
Roger Chapman

Well I had more than £600 for the first quarter of use.
The only thing that worries me is the reliabilty of the technolgy.
It's guaranteed for five years but the firm may be bust by then,
especially after the recent announcemnt.

However fault finding looks to be easy enough I could probably fix it
myself.

In message
,
harry writes
On Nov 2, 9:12*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 01:36:30 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
Small PV arrays reduce the size needed on th grid as electricity is
produced locally.

So when the sun sets (or is clouded out) you sit in the dark? Don't
watch telly or use any other electrical appliance?

I think that power generators will take into account sunlight
intensity and national cloud patterns to predict needs.

Not with the total installed capacity of less than 1% of demand. ISTR
they work with a 20% margin of spinning reserve. So if a nuke station
and a big coal fired station fall off line at the same time (say
3,400,000 kW) the grid struggles but doesn't collapse.

They already look at weather forecasts.

Mostly for the temperature, if it gets cold the demand for space
heating shoots up.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Solar PV can be only part of the plan. We need all these renewables,
tidal, wave, geothermal etc.

Preferably the ones with little environmental/visual impact and having a
realistic financial payback.

But with PV, everyone can participate.

Not really. You have agreed to a *seed* publicity plot planted on your
roof. If the idea germinates and passers by think it worth planting
their own, the payback benefits will quickly deteriorate. Meanwhile the
govt. gets a free ride convincing the public that energy conservation is
important.

Also if my PV packs in, it is not a national disaster as it would be
if a major primary substation/power station had problems.

True. It will also help the unemployment statistics when someone comes
out to do the repairs.

regards



--
Tim Lamb