On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 05:41:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andrew wrote:

I wondered why my Drax shares were doing so well since the market
turmoil - healthy dividends too.

shares in DRAX? surely that was sold to EDF along with the nukes?

British Energy only owned the Nukes and Eggborough, and only the nukes
were sold to EDF

Drax was sold by National Power in the late 90's and was owned by a US
based company for a number of years before it was floated about five
years ago.


--

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 09:45:26 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:44:38 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 06/11/2011 10:07, tim.... wrote:

I am beginning to find posters whose software doesn't properly
distinguish between their remarks and those that have gone before more
than a little confusing. Tim at least has added a divider.

But it's easy to get it *right*. I assume it's a another broken copy
of windows live mail to blame.

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).

Ah but that would be £30k on their capital budget and £20 onto their revenue
budget.
One they can spend on the kids, the other they can't.

It's not that simple. I'm not even sure whether they can use their
capital budget for this. And it's still £30K that not spent on useful
infrastructure.
--
(\__/) 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 07/11/2011 01:08, Andrew wrote:

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

What a useless piece of investment advice. If you have spare cash even
the 21p FIT is worth having compared to 2% deposit rates. And it is
indexed linked so after a few years of deliberate inflation (to wipe out
the governments debts) you will still be getting a decent return.
Much better to put £10,680 into a share ISA every year and invest in
blue chip firms paying good dividends and reinvest those dividends.
The Alliance Trust in Dundee is way way cheaper than most other DIY
ISA and SIPP providers. If you still have at least 10 years to go to
retirement, putting money on deposit is just helping the banks to make
more profit.

You think what you like but as far as I am concerned the 21p FIT is too
risky for such a limited return. You don't get any capital growth with
the PV scheme either and the money invested declines in value just as if
it had been in a bank account that you can't actually get at. The one
advantage the bank account has is you are guaranteed to get your money
back almost whenever you want it even if it is returned in Wilsonian
'pound in your pocket' pounds.

Unless you are a higher rate tax payer the only persons who are going to
get any real benefit from an all share ISA are the agent who sold you
the scheme and the firm that administers the ISA.

Not true. My ISA is self invested in whatever I choose, shares, bonds,
etfs, gilt funds, unit trusts, investment trusts etc. No-one sold it to
me, I opened it years ago and it now worth 6 figures. The freedom
from CGT alone has made it worthwhile, despite hiccups with BP shares
in 2010, 75% loss on Barclays bank and theft of railtrack shares by that
money-grabbing lying cheat Byers.

You have been lucky but others taking the same path as you at a
different time may not have been anywhere near as lucky. Anyone climbing
on the shares bandwagon when the footsie was at its peak is currently
nursing a substantial loss and have no idea when they will be in a
position to recover their original capital, let alone catch up with
inflation.

Someone, somewhere has a share ISA that is now worth over £5 million,
but he or she may have some insider knowledge to get it that high.
Quite a few people have £1 million+ share ISA's.

The dividends from the £5million will be about £150K per year, tax free,
so it is worth doing. Just do your own research and use
a low cost execution-only ISA provider like Alliance Trust. They only
charge as little as £6.25 plus 0.5% stamp duty on any sized deal.
When reinvesting dividends they only charge £5 plus stamp duty.
If you buy funds or unit trusts in an Alliance Trust ISA or SIPP they
refund all the up-front commission (generally 5%) plus some of the trail
commission. Other firms have similar arrangements.

At the moment there is no annual charge or low-activity charge on their
self-select ISA - but this may change in 2012 after Retail Disclosure
kicks in.

You mean there are hidden charges that weren't previously disclosed?

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.

What happens if the lodger steals your financial details and commits
fraud ?. Will the banks or building societies then compensate you ?.

That is not particularly likely and as things stand at present banks and
building societies might well have to compensate if they are shown to be
negligent. OTOH it is hard to get any compensation from a financial
advisor who has been more concerned with lining his own pocket that
helping you make safe and rewarding investments. Safe and rewarding
don't tend to go together in any event.

Only stupid people use 'independent financial advisers'. A fool and his
money are soon parted, and that applies to anyone dealing with a
salesman who is on commission. Anyway, just because an investment has
turned out badly, doesn't mean that you were badly advised.
An IFA should asses what your level of risk is before suggesting
any particular products, but just remember that they are paid
by commission (until 2012).

From your viewpoint everyone who doesn't follow your advice is stupid
so as an financial adviser don't you see the circular nature of your own
argument?

As MacMillan once said when asked what his worst fears were, he replied
'Events dear boy, events'. You cannot predict what will happen next year
never mind 15 years ahead. No one would have predicted 0.5%
base rates by 2009 when back in 1991 it was 15%. Don't blame
IFA's for the collapse in maturity values of with-profit-funds.

Back in the eighties these and endowments were the flavour of the
month, and plenty of people who took them out before the 70's
inflation peak did well out of them. However once inflation and
interest rates fell in the 90's they did less well - and as usual
in Britain the 'compensation culture' took over. For every
salesman who sold a financial product on commission, there is at
least one member of the public who made
a miss-selling claim when actually they signed on the dotted line
because they were motivated by greed. In fact you could say that
the same people who took out endowment mortgages (who did so to pay
lower mortgage rates and dream about that big bonus cheque) are
the same sort of people who have put PV panels on their roofs,
or submitted exagerated insurance claims. The latter is fraud,

Everyone who wants a profit is ultimately motivated by greed. You are
wrong about endowment mortgages btw. In their early years those who took
them out had to pay a higher rate of interest and AFAIK no one ever got
a lower rate. The icing on the cake was that all the payments remained
interest and thus eligible for tax relief but the cake itself was based
on the same premise as your belief in shares - that over a lengthy
period the market is just bound to do better than cash.

PV panels were a good way to get a good return, as were
with-profit-funds in the past. Offer free money to anyone
and they will take it - witness the B2L jamboree.

PV panels are a risky investment that won't actually pay off in full for
25 years. Rather like a repayment mortgage but unlike the mortgage there
is no way of bailing out before the end of the scheme without incurring
a substantial loss.

Sensible people recognised that a standard mortgage paid off some
capital every year, and increasingly after year 10, so the debt
is going down. I have to query the mental state of anyone who
thought that an endowment mortgage was a good idea.

Which in turn leaves me questioning your mental state.

The only safe investment is to buy Indexed Linked Gilts. But
they are now trading at a premium so you wont make much money.
If you need to keep up with inflation then some degree of risk
is needed. Over a longer time frame (7 years +) then equities
are an acceptable risk. Banks and BP aside you won't go far
wrong investing directly in BT, GSK, Vodaphone, Unilever, Shell,
Rolls Royce, Reckitt Benckiser, National Grid, United Utilities
and many more FTSE100 companies that have a track record of increasing
dividends. Then there plenty of well-run companies in the FTSE250
index. Invest in a low cost tracker if you dont like the idea of
direct investing, but remember that trackers, as their name suggests
can go down as well as up, whereas defensive shares are more stable
(but will go down when interest rates go up).

BT isn't paying such large dividends as it did when it was first
privatised and Roll Royce isn't doing much better. Incomewise they are
real dogs.

You need to be a relatively large investor to play the market. Small
investors are forced either to buy very few stocks or spread their
holding very thinly. And the costs of buying in in the first place and
then tinkering with the portfolio are much higher with small parcels
than with large.

No CASH ISA will keep up with inflation, and tend to have
lousy rates anyway. £10,000 invested in PV panels is
probably as good as the same amount in Nat Savings indexed bonds
(if they are still available). Failing that NAtional Grid have
issued indexed linked corporate bonds which were all snapped up
(but you can still buy them because they are traded every day).

ISTM that until the Bank Rate went through the floor some cash ISAs at
least were doing more than just keeping up with inflation.

If you don't like 'risk', leave your money in a deposit account and
after about 20 years it will be worth a fraction due to inflation -
the riskiest decision you could have made.

No it isn't. Buying into a business that promptly goes bust is probably
the worst but keeping cash under the mattress rather than in an account
is certainly also much worse - absolutely no income at all and the risk
of total loss through fire or theft.

What ever you, do not invest in a structured guaranteed product that
gives you (for example) 50% of the FTSE rise over a 6 year period or
your money back.
After 6 years you will have not had any income, certainly no
dividends and if the markets tumble just before the maturity date
you will have lost a big chunk to inflation. The BS also gets
8% commission on these nasty products, plus 1% annual trail
commission. As usual these are typically sold to nervous older
people who don't appreciate the risks of the counterparty
going bust (Lemans in 2008). You can lose all your money on these,
and you would need to study the T&C very carefully so see
if the BS would be liable. With a direct investment in shares,
investment trusts or unit trusts, if the markets crash, then just wait
for them to recover - they always have in the past. Meanwhile you are
still getting dividends.

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. ;-)

--
Roger Chapman

On 07/11/2011 06:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:

Roger: email to you fails...so I cant send you data..

Sorry if the address I use misleads anyone. I am with BT now. Zetnet was
dumped after it was taken over and they cut off my newsgroup access
without explanation while support ignored my e-mails. Funnily enough my
e-mail telling them I was stopping paying led to my account being closed
immediately. I suspect that they just didn't want dial-up customers and
I didn't like their broadband charges enough to take that route.

--
Roger Chapman

On 07/11/2011 07:52, harry wrote:

I just wish I had had space for a bigger array, I could have gone for
the next size up.

You mean that you only have a 3Kw array. That was very short-sighted of you.

--
Roger Chapman

The Other Mike wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 11:06:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:23:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:25:06 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

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.
Umm .. when did that happen last with serious consequences?..
Sizewell B and Longannet going off line in quick succesion with the
loss of 1,510,000 kW generation gave the grid summat to think about
in May 2008. Load was shed, ie people had power cuts and most of the
country noticed the dip in voltage and then further voltage
reductions.

That's no worse than the wind dying over the whole country. We are
having to cope with that sort of loss on a weekly basis now.
It's a lot worse, the incident mentioned above happened in a two
minute timescale. If the wind suddenly stopped across the UK in the
space of 2 minutes I'd get really worried.

very easy to have a have overspeedinmg turbinesand switch whole wind
farms - 7000MW + off just like that.

P.S. I despise wind power.

The rate of change of generation from wind farms is relatively slow
compared to other sources. 15% in 30 minutes is typical. Or about
600MW with the current level of 4GW directly connected wind
generation.

Rather than look at wind turbines as generation it's more realistic to
class them as random demand reduction schemes as they perform in a
similar manner to consumer demand.

Predictions 6 hours ahead are only accurate to about +/- 25% at lower
total outputs, improving to about 10% on higher total outputs. So
that currently equates to a +/- 400MW error, 6 hours out.

Does anyone know of an energy supplier that sources their generation
only from nukes, hydro and UK coal, with less than 10% from fast
response gas generation, and with no wind, or PV?


Not in the UK, no.

Switzerland is all nuke/hydro.
France is mostly nuke with a smattering of gas..

Ho hum.

Coal power back on line and throwing it all to France and Holland

22.5GW of coal online this morning and about 3GW going in the general
direction of the EU.

I guess harry's ****ing panels are a bit thin on the ground this gloomy
morning.

And for all the hot air in Brussels, nothing is making up for the loss
of 'nuklearkraft'

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:58:43 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 07/11/2011 01:08, Andrew wrote:

Only stupid people use 'independent financial advisers'. A fool and his
money are soon parted, and that applies to anyone dealing with a
salesman who is on commission. Anyway, just because an investment has
turned out badly, doesn't mean that you were badly advised.
An IFA should asses what your level of risk is before suggesting
any particular products, but just remember that they are paid
by commission (until 2012).

From your viewpoint everyone who doesn't follow your advice is stupid
so as an financial adviser don't you see the circular nature of your own
argument?

Many people have little choice to get advice from IFAs since they do
not know enough to make the decisions themselves. Andrew is also
confused since he does not appear to know the difference between
intelligence and knowledge.

As MacMillan once said when asked what his worst fears were, he replied
'Events dear boy, events'. You cannot predict what will happen next year
never mind 15 years ahead. No one would have predicted 0.5%
base rates by 2009 when back in 1991 it was 15%. Don't blame
IFA's for the collapse in maturity values of with-profit-funds.

Even when they "guaranteed" maturity values?

Back in the eighties these and endowments were the flavour of the
month, and plenty of people who took them out before the 70's
inflation peak did well out of them. However once inflation and
interest rates fell in the 90's they did less well - and as usual
in Britain the 'compensation culture' took over. For every
salesman who sold a financial product on commission, there is at
least one member of the public who made
a miss-selling claim when actually they signed on the dotted line
because they were motivated by greed. In fact you could say that
the same people who took out endowment mortgages (who did so to pay
lower mortgage rates and dream about that big bonus cheque) are
the same sort of people who have put PV panels on their roofs,
or submitted exagerated insurance claims. The latter is fraud,

Everyone who wants a profit is ultimately motivated by greed. You are
wrong about endowment mortgages btw. In their early years those who took
them out had to pay a higher rate of interest and AFAIK no one ever got
a lower rate. The icing on the cake was that all the payments remained
interest and thus eligible for tax relief but the cake itself was based
on the same premise as your belief in shares - that over a lengthy
period the market is just bound to do better than cash.

I could not afford a repayment mortgage when I bought my first house
therefore an Endowment was a logical option. Despite the fact is has
underperformed it enabled me to buy a house.

You need to be a relatively large investor to play the market. Small
investors are forced either to buy very few stocks or spread their
holding very thinly. And the costs of buying in in the first place and
then tinkering with the portfolio are much higher with small parcels
than with large.

Right.

--
(\__/) 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 07/11/11 01:08, Andrew wrote:
On 06/11/2011 22:19, Roger Chapman wrote:


Unless you are a higher rate tax payer the only persons who are going to
get any real benefit from an all share ISA are the agent who sold you
the scheme and the firm that administers the ISA.


Not true. My ISA is self invested in whatever I choose, shares, bonds,
etfs, gilt funds, unit trusts, investment trusts etc. No-one sold it to
me, I opened it years ago and it now worth 6 figures. The freedom
from CGT alone has made it worthwhile, despite hiccups with BP shares
in 2010, 75% loss on Barclays bank and theft of railtrack shares by that
money-grabbing lying cheat Byers.

[...]

Only stupid people use 'independent financial advisers'. A fool and his
money are soon parted, and that applies to anyone dealing with a
salesman who is on commission. Anyway, just because an investment has
turned out badly, doesn't mean that you were badly advised.
An IFA should asses what your level of risk is before suggesting
any particular products, but just remember that they are paid
by commission (until 2012).
[...]

Some people like managing their money, just as other DIYers like cabinet
making or decorating. But not everyone has the skill, the knowledge, nor
talent and favourable circumstance. If you DIY and it turns out well for
you fine, but others look upon self-made disasters and choose to
get-a-man-in. In which case the problem with finance as with every other
form of not-DIY is how to find a reliable competent tradesman these days.

--
djc

On Nov 7, 9:36*am, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:44:38 +0000, Roger Chapman

wrote:
On 06/11/2011 10:07, tim.... wrote:

I am beginning to find posters whose software doesn't properly
distinguish between their remarks and those that have gone before more
than a little confusing. Tim at least has added a divider.

But it's easy to get it *right*. *I assume it's a another broken copy
of windows live mail to blame.

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. *IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).
--

Not bad if it was recent (Weather is deteriorating now.). The most I
ever made in a day was £13 but that was in May. There are other
factors besides sunshine.

On Nov 7, 12:10*pm, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 07/11/2011 07:52, harry wrote:

I just wish I had had space for a bigger array, I could have gone for
the next size up.

You mean that you only have a 3Kw array. That was very short-sighted of you.

--
Roger Chapman

The lowesr band is 4Kw. The next is 10 Kw. But you get a lesser
payment for ten

harry wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:36 am, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:44:38 +0000, Roger Chapman

wrote:
On 06/11/2011 10:07, tim.... wrote:
I am beginning to find posters whose software doesn't properly
distinguish between their remarks and those that have gone before more
than a little confusing. Tim at least has added a divider.
But it's easy to get it *right*. I assume it's a another broken copy
of windows live mail to blame.

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).
--

Not bad if it was recent (Weather is deteriorating now.). The most I
ever made in a day was £13 but that was in May. There are other
factors besides sunshine.


I made $20 in a day once working in a Los Angeles scrapyard breaking
yank tanks.

I wonder how much I would get paid for smashing harry's PV panels?

On Nov 7, 9:36*am, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:44:38 +0000, Roger Chapman

wrote:
On 06/11/2011 10:07, tim.... wrote:

I am beginning to find posters whose software doesn't properly
distinguish between their remarks and those that have gone before more
than a little confusing. Tim at least has added a divider.

But it's easy to get it *right*. *I assume it's a another broken copy
of windows live mail to blame.

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. *IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).

They will be able to cut their electricity bill hugely. Schools are
ideal, no-one there at night when no power is generated.
Our local school has PV panels but they are on a previous scheme, not
the FIT.

In article
,
harry wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:36 am, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:44:38 +0000, Roger Chapman

wrote:
On 06/11/2011 10:07, tim.... wrote:

I am beginning to find posters whose software doesn't properly
distinguish between their remarks and those that have gone before more
than a little confusing. Tim at least has added a divider.

But it's easy to get it *right*. I assume it's a another broken copy
of windows live mail to blame.

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).

They will be able to cut their electricity bill hugely. Schools are
ideal, no-one there at night when no power is generated.

but they are there first thing in the morning when it's dark and many are
used for other activities in the evenings.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On 07/11/2011 17:01, harry wrote:
On Nov 7, 12:10 pm, Roger wrote:
On 07/11/2011 07:52, harry wrote:

I just wish I had had space for a bigger array, I could have gone for
the next size up.

You mean that you only have a 3Kw array. That was very short-sighted of you.

The lowesr band is 4Kw. The next is 10 Kw. But you get a lesser
payment for ten

I was aware of that. The sacrifice of the higher FIT means that more
investment doesn't necessarily garner an increased profit. I haven't
looked at that in any detail but the lower the return the more chance
you have in making more money on a less risky investment.

--
Roger Chapman

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:36:02 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).

But in only 4.109589041095890410958904109589 years they will have got
all their money back


--

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
harry wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:36 am, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:44:38 +0000, Roger Chapman

wrote:
On 06/11/2011 10:07, tim.... wrote:
I am beginning to find posters whose software doesn't properly
distinguish between their remarks and those that have gone before more
than a little confusing. Tim at least has added a divider.
But it's easy to get it *right*. I assume it's a another broken copy
of windows live mail to blame.

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).
--
Not bad if it was recent (Weather is deteriorating now.). The most I
ever made in a day was £13 but that was in May. There are other
factors besides sunshine.


I made $20 in a day once working in a Los Angeles scrapyard breaking
yank tanks.

I wonder how much I would get paid for smashing harry's PV panels?

Half a days work - I'll give you a tenner

20 if you let dennis's tyres down on the way


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
harry wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:36 am, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:44:38 +0000, Roger Chapman

wrote:
On 06/11/2011 10:07, tim.... wrote:
I am beginning to find posters whose software doesn't properly
distinguish between their remarks and those that have gone before more
than a little confusing. Tim at least has added a divider.
But it's easy to get it *right*. I assume it's a another broken copy
of windows live mail to blame.

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).
--
Not bad if it was recent (Weather is deteriorating now.). The most I
ever made in a day was £13 but that was in May. There are other
factors besides sunshine.


I made $20 in a day once working in a Los Angeles scrapyard breaking
yank tanks.

I wonder how much I would get paid for smashing harry's PV panels?

Half a days work - I'll give you a tenner

20 if you let dennis's tyres down on the way


Will you pay travelling expenses?

On Nov 7, 6:27*pm, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 07/11/2011 17:01, harry wrote:

On Nov 7, 12:10 pm, Roger *wrote:
On 07/11/2011 07:52, harry wrote:

I just wish I had had space for a bigger array, I could have gone for
the next size up.

You mean that you only have a 3Kw array. That was very short-sighted of you.
The lowesr band is 4Kw. The next is 10 Kw. But you get a lesser
payment for ten

I was aware of that. The sacrifice of the higher FIT means that more
investment doesn't necessarily garner an increased profit. I haven't
looked at that in any detail but the lower the return the more chance
you have in making more money on a less risky investment.

--
Roger Chapman

Personally I would rather rely on technology than the word of inept
and/or crooked financial advisors.
As someone said no-one can predict the next five years.
I think having zero energy bills and a tax free, inflation proof
income for 25 years (even if small) is a considerable financial
advantage.

It obviously costs less/installed Kw for larger installations. I would
have gone for a 10Kw if I had the space. I have a large garden but it
is incorrectly orientated for a ground array. The house roof is
perfect.

On Nov 7, 5:02*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:36 am, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:44:38 +0000, Roger Chapman

wrote:
On 06/11/2011 10:07, tim.... wrote:
I am beginning to find posters whose software doesn't properly
distinguish between their remarks and those that have gone before more
than a little confusing. Tim at least has added a divider.
But it's easy to get it *right*. *I assume it's a another broken copy
of windows live mail to blame.

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. *IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).
--

Not bad if it was recent (Weather is deteriorating now.). The most I
ever made in a day was £13 but that was in May. *There are other
factors besides sunshine.

I made $20 in a day once working in a Los Angeles scrapyard breaking
yank tanks.

I wonder how much I would get paid for smashing harry's PV panels?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah, more envy. They gave you too much. Were you beating your head
against them? It would explain many things.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:51:50 +0000, The Other Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:36:02 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).

But in only 4.109589041095890410958904109589 years they will have got
all their money back

I assumed that the average daily "earnings" would be half that so just
over 8 year payback assuming nothing goes wrong.

I wonder how many KW £30,000 buys?
--
(\__/) 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.

Mark wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:51:50 +0000, The Other Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:36:02 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).
But in only 4.109589041095890410958904109589 years they will have got
all their money back

I assumed that the average daily "earnings" would be half that so just
over 8 year payback assuming nothing goes wrong.

I wonder how many KW £30,000 buys?
about 300,000

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:35:47 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:51:50 +0000, The Other Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:36:02 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).
But in only 4.109589041095890410958904109589 years they will have got
all their money back

I assumed that the average daily "earnings" would be half that so just
over 8 year payback assuming nothing goes wrong.

I wonder how many KW £30,000 buys?
about 300,000

Is that W or KW?
--
(\__/) 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 Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:38:06 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

I wonder how many KW £30,000 buys?
about 300,000

Is that W or KW?

*Slap*! both of you for being sloppy and not saying kWh.

No the first is a valid question though lacking in detail it's
refering to the rating of PV array rather than the energy generated
by one that the second has misread,

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 08/11/2011 08:13, harry wrote:

I just wish I had had space for a bigger array, I could have gone for
the next size up.

You mean that you only have a 3Kw array. That was very short-sighted of you.
The lowesr band is 4Kw. The next is 10 Kw. But you get a lesser
payment for ten

I was aware of that. The sacrifice of the higher FIT means that more
investment doesn't necessarily garner an increased profit. I haven't
looked at that in any detail but the lower the return the more chance
you have in making more money on a less risky investment.

Personally I would rather rely on technology than the word of inept
and/or crooked financial advisors.

25 years is a long time to rely of technology that is only guaranteed
for 5 years and you must have relied on at least some of what your
salesman told you in order to decide if it was a worthwhile investment.

Going for the 10KW would have reduced your margin by about 12.5% (which
is less than I thought it might be) but going for that bigger array
would mean more eggs in one basket and, for most people other than you
and Andrew tying up a very large sum for a very long time.

As someone said no-one can predict the next five years.
I think having zero energy bills and a tax free, inflation proof
income for 25 years (even if small) is a considerable financial
advantage.

But you have also invested £15,000 in a wasting asset which needs to
produce a substantial income in order even to break even.

My calculations suggest that in order to earn your 10% the price of
electricity has to continue to rise. While some pundits are predicting a
tripling of prices in 10 years Huhne was insisting that prices will be
falling by then. Huhne is both a politician and a idiot so it wasn't
entirely clear what he was getting at but it just could be that he knows
something that we don't so should not be discounted out of hand.

It obviously costs less/installed Kw for larger installations. I would
have gone for a 10Kw if I had the space. I have a large garden but it
is incorrectly orientated for a ground array. The house roof is
perfect.

I have a big enough south facing roof to take a 10 Kw array. A bit to
late in the day now but should I have filled that roof with PV panels?

--
Roger Chapman

Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:38:06 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

I wonder how many KW £30,000 buys?
about 300,000

Is that W or KW?

*Slap*! both of you for being sloppy and not saying kWh.

No the first is a valid question though lacking in detail it's
refering to the rating of PV array rather than the energy generated
by one that the second has misread,

So the question should have been kWp.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:17:29 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

I wonder how many KW à £30,000 buys?
about 300,000

Is that W or KW?

*Slap*! both of you for being sloppy and not saying kWh.

No the first is a valid question though lacking in detail it's
refering to the rating of PV array rather than the energy
generated
by one that the second has misread,

Interesting. I read it as how many units you could buy before your bill
racked up to £30k with the electric company.

That would have been kWHr not kW, they are not the same thing.

kWHr is a unit of energy, equivalent to 3.6MJ.
kW is a "rate of energy expenditure", equivalent to 1000 Joules per
second.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Mark wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:35:47 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:51:50 +0000, The Other Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:36:02 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).
But in only 4.109589041095890410958904109589 years they will have got
all their money back
I assumed that the average daily "earnings" would be half that so just
over 8 year payback assuming nothing goes wrong.

I wonder how many KW £30,000 buys?
about 300,000

Is that W or KW?
Kwh

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:25:41 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article o.uk,
"Dave Liquorice" wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:17:29 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

I wonder how many KW à £30,000 buys?
about 300,000

Is that W or KW?

*Slap*! both of you for being sloppy and not saying kWh.

No the first is a valid question though lacking in detail it's
refering to the rating of PV array rather than the energy
generated
by one that the second has misread,

Interesting. I read it as how many units you could buy before your bill
racked up to £30k with the electric company.

That would have been kWHr not kW, they are not the same thing.

I'm well aware of all that, I would have written it kWh, is all.

I did mean power, not energy. I assume solar panels are rated by
power?

--
(\__/) 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 Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:52:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:35:47 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:51:50 +0000, The Other Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:36:02 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).
But in only 4.109589041095890410958904109589 years they will have got
all their money back
I assumed that the average daily "earnings" would be half that so just
over 8 year payback assuming nothing goes wrong.

I wonder how many KW £30,000 buys?
about 300,000

Is that W or KW?
Kwh

Over what period? (I want to know the power output)
--
(\__/) 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 08/11/2011 15:50, Mark wrote:
I wonder how many KW £30,000 buys?
about 300,000

Is that W or KW?
Kwh
Over what period? (I want to know the power output)


Your original question related to a school spending £30,000. I don't
know the answer for sure but if £15,000 was the benchmark for a 4Kw
array then I think it reasonable to assume the school got a 10,000 Kw
array for their money. There must be some economy of scale for the
bigger set-up but FIT wise it wouldn't make sense to exceed 10 Kw by a
small margin as that would give a lower FIT. (But rules may have been
different for schools).

What I would like to know is whether a 4 Kw array is ever going to
produce 4 Kw or will the practical maximum always be a rather lower
figure. If Harry has been watching his meter assiduously he should be
able to tell us.

--
Roger Chapman

Mark wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:25:41 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article o.uk,
"Dave Liquorice" wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:17:29 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

I wonder how many KW à £30,000 buys?
about 300,000
Is that W or KW?
*Slap*! both of you for being sloppy and not saying kWh.
No the first is a valid question though lacking in detail it's
refering to the rating of PV array rather than the energy
generated
by one that the second has misread,
Interesting. I read it as how many units you could buy before your bill
racked up to £30k with the electric company.
That would have been kWHr not kW, they are not the same thing.
I'm well aware of all that, I would have written it kWh, is all.

I did mean power, not energy. I assume solar panels are rated by
power?

Oh..let see they are about 3 times more expensive than offshore wind, at
about half the capacity factor. So say 5billion a gigawatt? 5,000 a KW?
Nampelate capacity only of curse. Lucky to get 10% of that averaged over
a year.

On 08/11/2011 08:57, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:51:50 +0000, The Other Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:36:02 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).

But in only 4.109589041095890410958904109589 years they will have got
all their money back

I assumed that the average daily "earnings" would be half that so just
over 8 year payback assuming nothing goes wrong.

I wonder how many KW £30,000 buys?

As many as you like...

what changes is how long you want them for.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:03:47 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 08/11/2011 15:50, Mark wrote:
I wonder how many KW £30,000 buys?
about 300,000

Is that W or KW?
Kwh
Over what period? (I want to know the power output)


Your original question related to a school spending £30,000. I don't
know the answer for sure but if £15,000 was the benchmark for a 4Kw
array then I think it reasonable to assume the school got a 10,000 Kw
array for their money. There must be some economy of scale for the
bigger set-up but FIT wise it wouldn't make sense to exceed 10 Kw by a
small margin as that would give a lower FIT. (But rules may have been
different for schools).

10 or 10,000 KW? If £15K pays for 4KW then I assume that they won't
get 10,000KW for £30K ;-)

What I would like to know is whether a 4 Kw array is ever going to
produce 4 Kw or will the practical maximum always be a rather lower
figure. If Harry has been watching his meter assiduously he should be
able to tell us.

10-50% I'd assume.
--
(\__/) 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 8, 8:57*am, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:51:50 +0000, The Other Mike

wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:36:02 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. *IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).

But in only 4.109589041095890410958904109589 years they will have got
all their money back

I assumed that the average daily "earnings" would be half that so just
over 8 year payback assuming nothing goes wrong.

I wonder how many KW £30,000 buys?
Around ten or twelve depending on installion costs.
Probably more in the near future.

On Nov 8, 12:11*pm, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 08/11/2011 08:13, harry wrote:

I just wish I had had space for a bigger array, I could have gone for
the next size up.

You mean that you only have a 3Kw array. That was very short-sighted of you.
The lowesr band is 4Kw. The next is 10 Kw. But you get a lesser
payment for ten

I was aware of that. The sacrifice of the higher FIT means that more
investment doesn't necessarily garner an increased profit. I haven't
looked at that in any detail but the lower the return the more chance
you have in making more money on a less risky investment.
Personally I would rather rely on technology than the word of inept
and/or crooked financial advisors.

25 years is a long time to rely of technology that is only guaranteed
for 5 years and you must have relied on at least some of what your
salesman told you in order to decide if it was a worthwhile investment.

Going for the 10KW would have reduced your margin by about 12.5% (which
is less than I thought it might be) but going for that bigger array
would mean more eggs in one basket and, for most people other than you
and Andrew tying up a very large sum for a very long time.

As someone said no-one can predict the next five years.
I think having zero energy bills and a tax free, inflation proof
income for 25 years (even if small) is a considerable financial
advantage.

But you have also invested £15,000 in a wasting asset which needs to
produce a substantial income in order even to break even.

My calculations suggest that in order to earn your 10% the price of
electricity has to continue to rise. While some pundits are predicting a
tripling of prices in 10 years Huhne was insisting that prices will be
falling by then. Huhne is both a politician and a idiot so it wasn't
entirely clear what he was getting at but it just could be that he knows
something that we don't so should not be discounted out of hand.



It obviously costs less/installed Kw for larger installations. I would
have gone for a 10Kw if I had the space. *I have a large garden but it
is incorrectly orientated for a ground array. *The house roof is
perfect.

I have a big enough south facing roof to take a 10 Kw array. A bit to
late in the day now but should I have filled that roof with PV panels?

--
Roger Chapman

In my view yes. Don't forget the economies of scale and fixed
overheads. (Transport, scaffolding, etc)
I think installation prices will fall shortly so the sums will have to
be done again. I think there will be turmoil, a lot of these solar
panel installers will go out of business I think.

Maybe not the sort of thing for a chocolate box cottage, at least on a
prominent position.

Anything that breaks in the next 25 years can be fixed, probably with
better technology too.

You need examine all factors that have a bearing on the panel output,
it will be more critical than ever now.

The main downside that I see is that unlike money in the bank, you
can't get it back.

On Nov 8, 3:03*pm, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:25:41 +0000, Tim Streater





wrote:
In article o.uk,
"Dave Liquorice" wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:17:29 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

I wonder how many KW à £30,000 buys?
about 300,000

Is that W or KW?

*Slap*! both of you for being sloppy and not saying kWh.

No the first is a valid question though lacking in detail it's
refering to the rating of PV array rather than the energy
generated
by one that the second has misread,

Interesting. I read it as how many units you could buy before your bill
racked up to £30k with the electric company.

That would have been kWHr not kW, they are not the same thing.

I'm well aware of all that, I would have written it kWh, is all.

I did mean power, not energy. *I assume solar panels are rated by
power?


Yours is a valid question.See my post.

It's not possible to give a definative answer for Kwh anyway.There is
anly the capital cost to take into account (plus loss of interest)
So it depends how you want to write this cost off.

There is no primary fuel to purchase and little maintenance.
So the only running cost will be for repairs and there are few
statistics to date.

On Nov 8, 4:48*pm, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:03:47 +0000, Roger Chapman





wrote:
On 08/11/2011 15:50, Mark wrote:
I wonder how many KW £30,000 buys?
*about 300,000

*Is that W or KW?
Kwh
Over what period? *(I want to know the power output)

Your original question related to a school spending £30,000. I don't
know the answer for sure but if £15,000 was the benchmark for a 4Kw
array then I think it reasonable to assume the school got a 10,000 Kw
array for their money. There must be some economy of scale for the
bigger set-up but FIT wise it wouldn't make sense to exceed 10 Kw by a
small margin as that would give a lower FIT. (But rules may have been
different for schools).

10 or 10,000 KW? *If £15K pays for 4KW then I assume that they won't
get 10,000KW for £30K ;-)

What I would like to know is whether a 4 Kw array is ever going to
produce 4 Kw or will the practical maximum always be a rather lower
figure. If Harry has been watching his meter assiduously he should be
able to tell us.

10-50% I'd assume.
--
(\__/) *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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A 4Kwp array can in fact generate more than 4Kw on cold and sunny
days. (They are more efficient when cold).
The limiting factor is the grid tie inverter which manipulates the
output of the panels for max output, but won't let them go above it's
designed maximum.
On virtually any Summer sunny day they will hit max for a period of a
few hours. The output is very like half a sine wave from dawn to dusk
if there are no clouds. On exceptional days you can see the top of
the wave is "clipped" by the inverter. (The panel on mine draws a
graph every day.)

Yes I do read the meter every day.

KWh max/day was just under 30. (May)
Kwh max/day recent, was 15 sunny all day. (Last week)
Kwh/day min was yesterday 0.2 Foggy/rain all day.

Recent Kw max I saw was last week around 3 (Sun is now lower in sky.)

Present Kwh generated 2787 since April 21

Target is 3300Kwh

In article , Roger Chapman
scribeth thus
On 08/11/2011 15:50, Mark wrote:
I wonder how many KW £30,000 buys?
about 300,000

Is that W or KW?
Kwh
Over what period? (I want to know the power output)


Your original question related to a school spending £30,000. I don't
know the answer for sure but if £15,000 was the benchmark for a 4Kw
array then I think it reasonable to assume the school got a 10,000 Kw

Heck a whole lorra power!, how does that work;?..

array for their money. There must be some economy of scale for the
bigger set-up but FIT wise it wouldn't make sense to exceed 10 Kw by a
small margin as that would give a lower FIT. (But rules may have been
different for schools).

What I would like to know is whether a 4 Kw array is ever going to
produce 4 Kw or will the practical maximum always be a rather lower
figure. If Harry has been watching his meter assiduously he should be
able to tell us.


Don't reckon much was collected today its damp, miserable, raining and
overcast and what's much worse me Arthritis is 'givin me merry hell;!...
--
Tony Sayer

On 08/11/2011 16:48, Mark wrote:

10 or 10,000 KW? If £15K pays for 4KW then I assume that they won't
get 10,000KW for £30K;-)

I really must improve my proof reading skills. 10 Kw or 10,000 W. It
must have been the association with £30,000 that did for me.

--
Roger Chapman