On 18/01/2014 17:10, harryagain wrote:
....
So it's a tax fiddle?

HMRC have used my books to check on people who dealt with us, because,
as the inspector said, they could rely on the accuracy of my accounts.

A bookkeeping exercise.

The rental income goes to a pension scheme, so it is subject to
independent audit and has to be a commercial amount, to satisfy the
pension company.

Tch tch.
And him coming so morally superior too when he is robbing the taxpayer
quoting such unrealistically high rents.

Did you miss the bit about my rents being about 15% *lower* than some
others in the same area?

Colin Bignell

On 18/01/2014 18:23, tony sayer wrote:
Wise words...

Normal people (particularly ones who have at some point been tenants) at
least have a basic understanding of the domestic market - what's
expected, "would I live there" and rental rates (easily checked by a
rummage on Zoopla etc).

Vetting new tenants is a fairly well understood process as is dealing
with them when they default (acknowledged that sometimes this is not
always easy, back to good vetting in the first place).

I would not have a clue about commercial[1] - except that I see a lot of
commercial property sit empty for long periods.

Yes why does that happen?, we were looking at a unit in Cambridge around
8 years ago for a customer only problem was it was too large.

You have just answered your own question.

Colin Bignell

In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 18/01/2014 18:23, tony sayer wrote:
Wise words...

Normal people (particularly ones who have at some point been tenants) at
least have a basic understanding of the domestic market - what's
expected, "would I live there" and rental rates (easily checked by a
rummage on Zoopla etc).

Vetting new tenants is a fairly well understood process as is dealing
with them when they default (acknowledged that sometimes this is not
always easy, back to good vetting in the first place).

I would not have a clue about commercial[1] - except that I see a lot of
commercial property sit empty for long periods.

Yes why does that happen?, we were looking at a unit in Cambridge around
8 years ago for a customer only problem was it was too large.

You have just answered your own question.

Colin Bignell


No, it was too large for what they needed, it wasn't that big overall...

--
Tony Sayer

In message , tony sayer
writes
I would not have a clue about commercial[1] - except that I see a lot of
commercial property sit empty for long periods.

Yes why does that happen?, we were looking at a unit in Cambridge around
8 years ago for a customer only problem was it was too large.

You have just answered your own question.

Colin Bignell


No, it was too large for what they needed, it wasn't that big overall...

Am I wrong thinking uniform business rate is chargeable on empty
business use property?

Currently our local authority has 100% relief on property up to a
certain size. On annual review though.


--
Tim Lamb

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
Wise words...

Normal people (particularly ones who have at some point been tenants) at
least have a basic understanding of the domestic market - what's
expected, "would I live there" and rental rates (easily checked by a
rummage on Zoopla etc).

Vetting new tenants is a fairly well understood process as is dealing
with them when they default (acknowledged that sometimes this is not
always easy, back to good vetting in the first place).

I would not have a clue about commercial[1] - except that I see a lot of
commercial property sit empty for long periods.

Yes why does that happen?, we were looking at a unit in Cambridge around
8 years ago for a customer only problem was it was too large.

Its still empty and still up for letting..



It happens because commercial landlords are often large property companies,
who are greedy opportunists. Many terraces of shops, will have been built by
such property companies, so the cost of owning them is minimal, and they
don't care that they can sit on them with them being empty, until someone
comes along with enough of a desire, and the cash available, to occupy one.
The unit that we are currently in, had stood empty for several years before
we took it. One of the main problems with getting people to take commercial
property on rent, is the take-the-**** way that business rates are
calculated. They often come to as much as - if not more than - the rent,
effectively making your rent double what it appears to be.

Commercial landlords are a law unto themselves. Whereas when there is a
recession, the rest of us have to adjust our prices to continue to get
business, these people do no such thing. Commercial rents never go down,
only up, and as the rateable value is based on the market rent value, so do
the rates, all of which make it difficult for businesses - particularly new
start-ups - to satisfy the costs involved

Arfa



[1] Perhaps shops. They might be OK. But again, many can sit empty for
long periods and shops almost always want to remodel and fit upon moving
in, a problem domestic tenants don't raise.




--
Tony Sayer

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 15:27, tim...... wrote:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On Saturday 18 January 2014 12:42 Nightjar wrote in uk.d-i-y:


In case you think my rate of return is unrealistically high, a cousin
of mine has just bought a couple of buildings rented to a garage and a
tyre fitting business for £140,000 and his rental income from those is
£17,000 pa, or 12.14% return on capital.

I was going to ask - I thought 5% was more the norm? Is yours domestic
property?

No he rents commercial property

I've told him before he is extremely lucky to have a "single" commercial
property that give him this RoR.

It is not particularly unusual for small industrial units in this area.
There are some, of similar size, that rent out for about 15% more per sq
ft, but they can stand empty for a few months when they become empty.

As a "base-load" investment for "normal" people, commercial property is
generally recognised as a do not touch with a barge pole option.

Randomly choosing a commercial property to "buy to rent" could as easily
see you getting a 25 year return of 0% income and a loss on capital
invested, instead of the "luck" that Colin has had (though ISTR he rents
the property that he owns, to a company that he owns, so he has no risk
of the tenant doing a flit - this is not something that 99% of owner can
rely upon).

I stopped renting properties to my own companies when I retired. Since
then, I have had normal commercial leases.

Small industrial units are a much better investment than commercial
properties as a whole. As they attract start-up businesses, they are in
constant demand. If anything, the recession increased the demand as more
people decided to go it alone. It also helps that nobody seems to be
building them these days.

I don't know what you mean by small, but there are some small industrial
units near me that have been empty since they built them, 5 years ago.

They don't appear, to me, to be in a poor location, but they seem incapable
of renting them (perhaps they are just looking for 25 years terms)

tim

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 16:40, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 07:44, harryagain wrote:
...
The salesman is going round looking for South facing, shadow free
roofs.
I expect he will also be attracted to bungalows as scaffolding cost
less.
Concrete tiled roofs will also be attractive.

They are the current equivalent of double glazing salesmen. An ideal
roof,
to them, is one without panels on it and they will sell to anybody who
says yes.

You dozy old bugger.
They are not selling solar panels.
The householdpays nothing. (Until they want to sell their house that is.)
They are looking for free sites where they can generate maximum income
for
themselves.
ie the FIT payment.
The householder only gets free electricity.
So they are only going to be wanting ideal sites.

They are going to want any site where they can persuade the gullible to
let them put up panels.

what's gullible about accepting such an offer

If you weren't thinking of having panels to keep the FIT for yourself what
have you lost?

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote in message
...


And even with access to advice, the really good property will still be
going to those better connected than you. In many cases commercial
property really does only become available to normal people to buy,
because no other mug will!


So it's a tax fiddle?

do you mean owing it and retuing it to a company that you own.

No, it's a perfectly normal thing for medium sized companies to do

A bookkeeping exercise.

No the two entities are set up as entirely different "people"

tim

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 16:40, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 07:44, harryagain wrote:
...
The salesman is going round looking for South facing, shadow free
roofs.
I expect he will also be attracted to bungalows as scaffolding cost
less.
Concrete tiled roofs will also be attractive.

They are the current equivalent of double glazing salesmen. An ideal
roof,
to them, is one without panels on it and they will sell to anybody who
says yes.

You dozy old bugger.
They are not selling solar panels.
The householdpays nothing. (Until they want to sell their house that
is.)
They are looking for free sites where they can generate maximum income
for
themselves.
ie the FIT payment.
The householder only gets free electricity.
So they are only going to be wanting ideal sites.

They are going to want any site where they can persuade the gullible to
let them put up panels.

what's gullible about accepting such an offer

If you weren't thinking of having panels to keep the FIT for yourself what
have you lost?

The gullible bit is:-
"What happens when you want to sell the house?"
(Answer, You are in for a financial shock)

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/01/2014 18:21, harryagain wrote:

Seeing your roof is clearly ideal and attracting them you should have
done
it yourself years ago.
Opportunity missed.

Its comments like these that lay bare harry's real motivations. If one is
hoping to save the planet, then why would it be an opportunity missed? New
panels will generate as much or more as old ones...

The only opportunity missed is to dip you hands into the pockets of other
electricity consumers quite as deeply, due to the less obscene level of
FiT payment on offer now.


The taxpayer /banks/gov. are robbing me at the moment.
I don't feel even slightly guilty about getting some of my money back.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On Saturday 18 January 2014 07:50 harryagain wrote in uk.d-i-y:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/01/2014 18:21, harryagain wrote:

Seeing your roof is clearly ideal and attracting them you should
have done
it yourself years ago.
Opportunity missed.

Its comments like these that lay bare harry's real motivations. If
one is hoping to save the planet, then why would it be an opportunity
missed? New panels will generate as much or more as old ones...

The only opportunity missed is to dip you hands into the pockets of
other electricity consumers quite as deeply, due to the less obscene
level of FiT payment on offer now.

--
Cheers,

John.

You are a hlf wit.
High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

Oi - not with me paying!


You will be/have been subsidising every other form of energy production for
decades.
From sciving coalminers to Nu Nuclear.

At the moment your money is going into shareholders pockets.
The gov has sold all the silver at knockdown prices.
Latest being of course Royal Mail.
Just as they did with allour energy sources, now passed into foreign hands.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/14 10:20, Tim Watts wrote:
On Saturday 18 January 2014 07:50 harryagain wrote in uk.d-i-y:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.
Oi - not with me paying!



High prices were not necessary to get any other industry started. Either
they were covered by private investment (say LCD TV panels) , or the
products was so good that people were prepared to pay the price (as in
computers, early on).


Cost of wind turbines remains static after 30 years at around £1m/Mw.


Solar panels are even more expoesnive. And without batteries they are only
half a solution anyway, batteries haven't been getting cheaper either.

Harry is just spouting the usual drivelling greeny bollox that has
resulted in him being in my killfile for the last year.

Yet here you are with your usual drivel.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/201...newable-energy

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/13/...-breakthrough/

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/01/2014 18:21, harryagain wrote:

Seeing your roof is clearly ideal and attracting them you should have
done
it yourself years ago.
Opportunity missed.

Its comments like these that lay bare harry's real motivations. If one
is hoping to save the planet, then why would it be an opportunity
missed? New panels will generate as much or more as old ones...

The only opportunity missed is to dip you hands into the pockets of
other electricity consumers quite as deeply, due to the less obscene
level of FiT payment on offer now.

--
Cheers,

John.

You are a hlf wit.
High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

No they weren't

All our power industries have governemt subsidies.

"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:


"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles could see
the advantages.

You could say exactly the same about the nuclear power industry - the
one that supplies us with cheap, reliable, safe energy.

Only it's not cheap.
The taxpayer is paying/will have to pay forever the cost of storing
nuclear
waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

Other countries have realised this, but not our numpty government.

There's waste, and then there's waste.

Fly ash from coal-fired stations is radioactive, but isn't treated as
hazardous, whereas if it came from a nuclear site the same level of
activity would require stringent controls.

Nuclear waste can be burnt in power-generating reactors designed for
the task.


Fiction.
Tell me where these reactors are.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 17:05, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 07:50, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
It is Arfa who has missed his chance.
However it still pays (though less) due to the fall in installation
cost
so
he should look into getting his own system...

Just to check your claims and because I will need to re-roof my house
soon. I have run a few figures. My house faces SW, so the roof is not
ideal. However, my garage runs east to west and that would allow me a
south facing array 8m x 4m at an angle of 42 degrees, the ideal year
round
angle at my latitude. I rather doubt I would get planning permission to
put a two angle array on the garage, as the winter angle would add more
than 3 metres to the height of the building.

According to this site:

http://www.solarguide.co.uk/solar-pv...tor#bestresult

That would give me a 4kWp system, which would cost, on average, £6,561
and
give me a return of £861.83 per annum. According to the site, that would
recover my money in 6 years 9 months.

However, that ignores the cost of not investing the money elsewhere.
Assuming a return of 9.03% on capital, which I achieve from rental on
property I own, it would take 14 years for the solar installation to
return more than an investment of the same amount at 9.03% and, after 19
years, I would make a total profit of £969.79 from the solar panels.
However, unlike the solar PV system, the capital invested in the
properties is not only still available to me, but has actually increased
in value by 32% in the past 20 years, equivalent to £2,099 on an
investment of £6,561. As I have said before, my money is better invested
elsewhere.

Would I have been better to get in early, as you claim? According to
other
posts by you, you have a 4kWP system, which cost you £14,000 to install.
Running the same calculations on that investment and the higher rates of
FIT, I would not do better than a 9.03% investment by the end of 20
years,
so buying now would actually be slightly better.

In case you think my rate of return is unrealistically high, a cousin of
mine has just bought a couple of buildings rented to a garage and a tyre
fitting business for £140,000 and his rental income from those is
£17,000
pa, or 12.14% return on capital.

Colin Bignell

36 deg is the ideal inclination for UK. do you live in Iceland?

As I have pointed out to you before, the ideal angle depends both upon
your latitude and what you are optimising for. 42 degrees gives a better
winter yield than 36 degrees.

If you are going to deduct for loss of income on capaital on solar panels
you have to do it on property to give a proper comparison.

As I have said before, you don't seem to understand discounted cash flow.
The principle is that you have a given sum of money; You then compare the
returns on using that sum of money in different ways and see what the
current net value of each option is.

If all the above was true, why are so many commercial premises standing
MT?

It depends upon what you class as a commercial premises. The sort I own,
small industrial units, are in high demand and rarely stand empty for any
length of time.

What about repairs?

Those are the tenants' responsibility. They lease the property in a
specific condition and have to return it in exactly the same condition.

FIT is tax free.

I feed the rental income into a pension scheme, so that is also tax free.
Not that it matters much. Even if I had to deduct tax from the rental
income, the figures are still in favour of keeping the capital.

There is the reduction on electricity bills to take into account.
(Increasing amount)

If you look at the web site I linked to, you will see that is included.

Also the projected FIT return is kept conservative by the rules they have
to
abide by. I have exceeded it even in bad years.

Financial projections can only be based upon demonstrable returns, not pie
in the sky claims.

And it adds value to the house.

I would have thought the opposite, but, again, if you want to claim that,
it needs to be quantified to be included as a factor.

You can't get a benefit of £2000/yr any
more.
It means in effect you have a more than fuel bill free house.

A 4kWp array would not cover my electricity use.

A 4KWp array covers my electricity needs including the (electric) car.
I export a lot in Summer and import in Winter
And the FIT payment would cover my electricty bill by a factor of four.

You must have a very wasteful and inefficient house.
(Oh you said it was uninsulated and heated by electricity.)
You must be mental.



It is a permitted developement in most cases, no Planning Permission
required.

Mounting an array on an existing roof may be a permitted development.
Mounting them on an outbuilding and increasing the height by a few metres
almost certainly is not.

How are you going to increaset he roof height by metres?


And not everyone has £140,000 to invest.

That bought quite a large unit in North Wales. You could probably have
bought a fairly small industrial unit for what you spent on converting
your house.

Colin Bignell

On 19/01/2014 08:36, tim...... wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
....
Small industrial units are a much better investment than commercial
properties as a whole. As they attract start-up businesses, they are
in constant demand. If anything, the recession increased the demand as
more people decided to go it alone. It also helps that nobody seems to
be building them these days.

I don't know what you mean by small, but there are some small industrial
units near me that have been empty since they built them, 5 years ago.

By small I mean 1,000 sq ft or less. That will suit most one or two man
businesses.

They don't appear, to me, to be in a poor location, but they seem
incapable of renting them (perhaps they are just looking for 25 years
terms)

It will depend upon a lot of factors. There is one estate in my area
that was built by a development company that has a very bad reputation
as a landlord. That always has a lot of empty properties.

Colin Bignell

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 16:40, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 07:44, harryagain wrote:
...
The salesman is going round looking for South facing, shadow free
roofs.
I expect he will also be attracted to bungalows as scaffolding cost
less.
Concrete tiled roofs will also be attractive.

They are the current equivalent of double glazing salesmen. An ideal
roof,
to them, is one without panels on it and they will sell to anybody who
says yes.

You dozy old bugger.
They are not selling solar panels.
The householdpays nothing. (Until they want to sell their house that
is.)
They are looking for free sites where they can generate maximum income
for
themselves.
ie the FIT payment.
The householder only gets free electricity.
So they are only going to be wanting ideal sites.

They are going to want any site where they can persuade the gullible to
let them put up panels.

what's gullible about accepting such an offer

If you weren't thinking of having panels to keep the FIT for yourself
what have you lost?

The gullible bit is:-
"What happens when you want to sell the house?"

so what happens when you do want to sell the house

remember -UTCCA applies here

tim

On 18/01/2014 20:27, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 18/01/2014 18:23, tony sayer wrote:
Wise words...

Normal people (particularly ones who have at some point been tenants) at
least have a basic understanding of the domestic market - what's
expected, "would I live there" and rental rates (easily checked by a
rummage on Zoopla etc).

Vetting new tenants is a fairly well understood process as is dealing
with them when they default (acknowledged that sometimes this is not
always easy, back to good vetting in the first place).

I would not have a clue about commercial[1] - except that I see a lot of
commercial property sit empty for long periods.

Yes why does that happen?, we were looking at a unit in Cambridge around
8 years ago for a customer only problem was it was too large.

You have just answered your own question.


No, it was too large for what they needed, it wasn't that big overall...

Unless your customer had unusual needs, that would probably apply to
most businesses, unless they were looking to expand from another location.

Colin Bignell

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote in message
...


You are a hlf wit.
High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

No they weren't

All our power industries have governemt subsidies.

but we don't need to subsidise this one

making electricity from PV as a commercial exercise is a stupid game to be
playing. PV is the option of last resort for locations where it's that or
nothing. Trying to make it an economic form of production for base load is
idiotic

tim

The bit I haven't understood is why a roofing company hasn't come up
with a solar panel roof? Or have they? I can't see the case for drilling
holes to install panels on top of roof tiles/slates.

On 19/01/2014 11:00, harryagain wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
...
A 4kWp array would not cover my electricity use.

A 4KWp array covers my electricity needs including the (electric) car.
I export a lot in Summer and import in Winter
And the FIT payment would cover my electricty bill by a factor of four.

Except that, in my calculations, I am setting that against the cost of
not investing the money elsewhere. Setting it against the cost of the
electricity bill would be counting the same sum twice, which doesn't work.


You must have a very wasteful and inefficient house.
(Oh you said it was uninsulated and heated by electricity.)
You must be mental.

I wouldn't get the FIT without bringing the insulation up to the
required standard. However, my use is similar to that of one of my
cousins before he insulated and the 4kWp solar array he has on his
stable block does not meet all his electricity needs, so I don't expect
one would meet mine.

....
Mounting an array on an existing roof may be a permitted development.
Mounting them on an outbuilding and increasing the height by a few metres
almost certainly is not.

How are you going to increaset he roof height by metres?

The garage has a flat roof, to remain within the permitted development
height limits for outbuildings. A 4m wide array at 42 degrees will add
2.67m to the building height.

Colin Bignell

On 19/01/2014 11:45, Capitol wrote:
The bit I haven't understood is why a roofing company hasn't come
up with a solar panel roof? Or have they? I can't see the case for
drilling holes to install panels on top of roof tiles/slates.

They have, but I note they are no longer in the Marley roofing
catalogue. IIRC they were significantly more expensive than add on panels.

Colin Bignell

harryagain wrote:

A 4KWp array covers my electricity needs including the (electric) car.
I export a lot in Summer and import in Winter

So basically you're using the National Grid as an energy storage
device.

And the FIT payment would cover my electricty bill by a factor of four.

wow

You must have a very wasteful and inefficient house.

And yours is probably less efficient than you think, bearing in mind
the above.

(Oh you said it was uninsulated and heated by electricity.)
You must be mental.

Run a car on electricity? You must be mental...

--
Terry Fields

harryagain wrote:


"Terry Fields" wrote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

Other countries have realised this, but not our numpty government.

There's waste, and then there's waste.

Fly ash from coal-fired stations is radioactive, but isn't treated as
hazardous, whereas if it came from a nuclear site the same level of
activity would require stringent controls.

Nuclear waste can be burnt in power-generating reactors designed for
the task.

Fiction.

It's perfectly feasible. The science is known.

Tell me where these reactors are.

People who use the National Grid as a storage battery while claiming
how efficient their taxpayer-subsidised CO2-increasing 'renewables'
don't like the idea, and we mustn't upset them by introducing
realities into their blinkered view of life.

--
Terry Fields

On 19/01/14 11:35, tim...... wrote:
making electricity from PV as a commercial exercise is a stupid game to
be playing. PV is the option of last resort for locations where it's
that or nothing. Trying to make it an economic form of production for
base load is idiotic

+1


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 19/01/2014 11:31, tim...... wrote:

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote in message
...
If you weren't thinking of having panels to keep the FIT for yourself
what have you lost?

The gullible bit is:-
"What happens when you want to sell the house?"

so what happens when you do want to sell the house

In effect, you are leasing your roof to the company supplying and
fitting the PV panels, and lenders are generally unwilling to mortgage
encumbered properties.When you come to sell, the purchaser's lender sees
that there is a registered charge on the property, and either hikes the
rate or declines to mortgage the property, as the title is not free and
clear. If it's a cash sale, then there may or may not be a problem
depending on the legal advice given to the purchaser.

Incidentally, if you go for one of these deals, you need permission from
your lender before going ahead, as many mortgages forbid you from
granting a lease on part or all of the property to a third party.

Nothing to do with the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
Regulations 1999.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 19/01/2014 12:05, Terry Fields wrote:


Run a car on electricity? You must be mental...

He doesn't like to travel *too* far....


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 19/01/14 11:35, tim...... wrote:
making electricity from PV as a commercial exercise is a stupid game to
be playing. PV is the option of last resort for locations where it's
that or nothing. Trying to make it an economic form of production for
base load is idiotic

+1



Indeed come the new Ice age;!...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806
--
Tony Sayer

"John Williamson" wrote in message ...

On 19/01/2014 12:05, Terry Fields wrote:


Run a car on electricity? You must be mental...

He doesn't like to travel *too* far....

More's the pity...

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 16:40, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 07:44, harryagain wrote:
...
The salesman is going round looking for South facing, shadow free
roofs.
I expect he will also be attracted to bungalows as scaffolding cost
less.
Concrete tiled roofs will also be attractive.

They are the current equivalent of double glazing salesmen. An ideal
roof,
to them, is one without panels on it and they will sell to anybody
who
says yes.

You dozy old bugger.
They are not selling solar panels.
The householdpays nothing. (Until they want to sell their house that
is.)
They are looking for free sites where they can generate maximum income
for
themselves.
ie the FIT payment.
The householder only gets free electricity.
So they are only going to be wanting ideal sites.

They are going to want any site where they can persuade the gullible to
let them put up panels.

what's gullible about accepting such an offer

If you weren't thinking of having panels to keep the FIT for yourself
what have you lost?

The gullible bit is:-
"What happens when you want to sell the house?"

so what happens when you do want to sell the house


Usually you have to buy the installation at an inflated price.
(All in the fine print.)

So be very sure to read it before signing up.

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote in message
...


You are a hlf wit.
High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

No they weren't

All our power industries have governemt subsidies.

but we don't need to subsidise this one

making electricity from PV as a commercial exercise is a stupid game to be
playing. PV is the option of last resort for locations where it's that or
nothing.

Exactly. Nothing may be what we have in the future.
The clothheads are planning that right now.

The cost of renewable fuel is zero and always will be.
Infra structure has always been expensive ands always will be.

"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:


"Terry Fields" wrote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

Other countries have realised this, but not our numpty government.

There's waste, and then there's waste.

Fly ash from coal-fired stations is radioactive, but isn't treated as
hazardous, whereas if it came from a nuclear site the same level of
activity would require stringent controls.

Nuclear waste can be burnt in power-generating reactors designed for
the task.

Fiction.

It's perfectly feasible. The science is known.

Tell me where these reactors are.

People who use the National Grid as a storage battery while claiming
how efficient their taxpayer-subsidised CO2-increasing 'renewables'
don't like the idea, and we mustn't upset them by introducing
realities into their blinkered view of life.


So it's pie-in-the-sky bollix?
There's not many more blinkered than you here.

"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

A 4KWp array covers my electricity needs including the (electric) car.
I export a lot in Summer and import in Winter

So basically you're using the National Grid as an energy storage
device.

And the FIT payment would cover my electricty bill by a factor of four.

wow

You must have a very wasteful and inefficient house.

And yours is probably less efficient than you think, bearing in mind
the above.

(Oh you said it was uninsulated and heated by electricity.)
You must be mental.

Run a car on electricity? You must be mental...

It works very well.
As you obviously don't have one, how would you know?

"Capitol" wrote in message
...
The bit I haven't understood is why a roofing company hasn't come up with
a solar panel roof? Or have they? I can't see the case for drilling holes
to install panels on top of roof tiles/slates.

They have. Intended for complete re-roofs/new builds.
The individual tiles type are a joke, both in terms of expense and
performance.

There are others with large interlocking panels.

The problem is the are unique, if the firm went bust and you needed just one
replacement panel, you would be buggered.

The term for the technolgy is "integrated solar panels/roofs".
The whole roof becomes a solar PV panel.
http://www.spiritsolar.co.uk/solar-p...integrated-pv/
Another disadvantage is there is no cooling air beneath the panels which
reduces efficiency.

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:05:51 +0000, harryagain wrote:

There's not many more blinkered than you here.

Oh, the irony.

On 18/01/2014 19:47, Nightjar wrote:

They are going to want any site where they can persuade the gullible to
let them put up panels.

That would be pretty silly.
They only get income from the FITs and they only get paid for what is
actually generated and they are metered.

They will want the ~due south, unobstructed roof spaces first and will
only put them elsewhere if the prices drop.

I would estimate that a 4kp array will cost them about £4k5 and will
return about £700 pa.

On 19/01/2014 18:10, harryagain wrote:
"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

A 4KWp array covers my electricity needs including the (electric) car.
I export a lot in Summer and import in Winter

So basically you're using the National Grid as an energy storage
device.

And the FIT payment would cover my electricty bill by a factor of four.

wow

You must have a very wasteful and inefficient house.

And yours is probably less efficient than you think, bearing in mind
the above.

(Oh you said it was uninsulated and heated by electricity.)
You must be mental.

Run a car on electricity? You must be mental...

It works very well.
As you obviously don't have one, how would you know?


You don't need to own one to know that they are limited in range and
speed or that they take a long time to recharge. My car can do up to 800
miles on a full tank, can cruise the autobahn at 145mph (130mph on the
winter tyres I have on now) and can refuel in a few minutes. It would
suit the needs of a lot more people than an electric car would.

Colin Bignell

On 19/01/2014 17:55, harryagain wrote:
"tim......" wrote in message
...

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 16:40, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 07:44, harryagain wrote:
...
The salesman is going round looking for South facing, shadow free
roofs.
I expect he will also be attracted to bungalows as scaffolding cost
less.
Concrete tiled roofs will also be attractive.

They are the current equivalent of double glazing salesmen. An ideal
roof,
to them, is one without panels on it and they will sell to anybody
who
says yes.

You dozy old bugger.
They are not selling solar panels.
The householdpays nothing. (Until they want to sell their house that
is.)
They are looking for free sites where they can generate maximum income
for
themselves.
ie the FIT payment.
The householder only gets free electricity.
So they are only going to be wanting ideal sites.

They are going to want any site where they can persuade the gullible to
let them put up panels.

what's gullible about accepting such an offer

If you weren't thinking of having panels to keep the FIT for yourself
what have you lost?

The gullible bit is:-
"What happens when you want to sell the house?"

so what happens when you do want to sell the house


Usually you have to buy the installation at an inflated price.
(All in the fine print.)

So be very sure to read it before signing up.



Then you will find out its about retail prorata for the remaining years.
Do you have any evidence the prices are inflated?

On 19/01/2014 11:45, Capitol wrote:
The bit I haven't understood is why a roofing company hasn't come
up with a solar panel roof? Or have they? I can't see the case for
drilling holes to install panels on top of roof tiles/slates.

They shouldn't drill holes.
They have brackets that go under the tiles/slates and then attach to
channels that hold the panels.
Unless they break a tile/slate the roof will be just as effective after
as it was before.

You can get solar tiles which replace tiles ans/or slates and form the
actual roof. Only really suitable on new build or new roofs.

harryagain wrote:


"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...

Run a car on electricity? You must be mental...

It works very well.

Within its limited range, limited speed, limited accesories, long
charge times and *hugely* expensive replacement batteries.

As you obviously don't have one, how would you know?

I don't need one to know about their shortcomings.

--
Terry Fields