On 18/08/2014 09:37, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 17/08/2014 17:38, Tim Lamb wrote:
...
I don't imagine Harry was seriously suggesting a return to horsepower
...

I sometimes wonder what Harry is seriously suggesting, as none of his
proposals are practical, except for a very few living with the support
of a highly industrialised country that is not relying upon the
technology he espouses. I can't help but feel that a lot of his
postings are trying to justify to himself having spent as much money
as he did on his house.

It can be very hard admitting being wrong about something particularly
if it involves close family.

Presumably Mrs. Harry had to be convinced that living in an insulated
but ugly home was necessary to save the planet. Every argument which
questions this position must be rubbished if sound reasoning is not
available.

I can sympathise with the original PV investment on a purely commercial
basis: 15K spent, no intention to ever relocate, original FIT payment....

£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.


--
Colin Bignell

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 18/08/2014 09:37, Tim Lamb wrote:

I can sympathise with the original PV investment on a purely commercial
basis: 15K spent, no intention to ever relocate, original FIT payment....

£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.

I understand share price inflation over a long enough period has kept up
with property etc.

I suspect the lack of dealing charges and zero risk would be more
attractive.



--
Tim Lamb

On 18/08/2014 10:25, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 18/08/2014 09:37, Tim Lamb wrote:

I can sympathise with the original PV investment on a purely commercial
basis: 15K spent, no intention to ever relocate, original FIT
payment....

£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.

I understand share price inflation over a long enough period has kept up
with property etc.

Indeed, but you can do quite a bit better than the stock market, if you
have a good spread of investments, take the long view and don't mind if
some of the investments don't work out too well.

I suspect the lack of dealing charges and zero risk would be more
attractive.

Harry's idea of investment seems to be putting money in a Building
Society, so he probably is in the risk averse category.


--
Colin Bignell

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 17/08/2014 21:02, bert wrote:
In message , harryagain
writes
....
The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

In 1894, a writer in The Times estimated that, within 50 years, the
streets of London would be nine feet deep in horse manure.

And in some parts you might say they weren't far off.
--
bert

On 18/08/2014 08:28, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 17/08/2014 21:02, bert wrote:
In message , harryagain
writes
....
The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

In 1894, a writer in The Times estimated that, within 50 years, the
streets of London would be nine feet deep in horse manure.


How would the horses get into London once the manure had got to, say, 4
feet?

On 18/08/2014 18:48, Dennis@home wrote:

How would the horses get into London once the manure had got to, say, 4
feet?

On two feet?

Shades of Orwell, I fear.

--
Rod

On 18/08/2014 18:48, Dennis@home wrote:
On 18/08/2014 08:28, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 17/08/2014 21:02, bert wrote:
In message , harryagain
writes
....
The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

In 1894, a writer in The Times estimated that, within 50 years, the
streets of London would be nine feet deep in horse manure.


How would the horses get into London once the manure had got to, say, 4
feet?

I suspect that, spiritually, he was one of Harry's forebearers.

--
Colin Bignell

On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

In message . com,
"Dennis@home" writes
On 18/08/2014 08:28, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 17/08/2014 21:02, bert wrote:
In message , harryagain
writes
....
The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

In 1894, a writer in The Times estimated that, within 50 years, the
streets of London would be nine feet deep in horse manure.


How would the horses get into London once the manure had got to, say, 4
feet?
With their four feet
--
bert

On 18/08/2014 20:29, Dennis@home wrote:
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.


Nothing is zero risk. His house might have caught fire and the fire
brigade refused to enter, because of the solar panels. He might have
failed to hear an electric car approaching and been run over and killed
before he had time to enjoy ripping off the rest of society. The risks
of failure might be low, but they are never zero. I think that the low
risk version of the fund would probably have produced a similar return
to the FIT, although I don't have actual figures for that option.

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2014 20:29, Dennis@home wrote:
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

Nothing is zero risk.

Some things are.

His house might have caught fire and the fire brigade refused to enter,
because of the solar panels.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

He might have failed to hear an electric car approaching and been run over
and killed before he had time to enjoy ripping off the rest of society.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

The risks of failure might be low, but they are never zero.

Wrong, as always.

I think that the low risk version of the fund would probably have produced
a similar return to the FIT, although I don't have actual figures for that
option.

But the risk would have been much higher even with that.

On 19/08/2014 07:23, Rod Speed wrote:
....
His house might have caught fire and the fire brigade refused to
enter, because of the solar panels.

Even sillier than you usually manage....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22462664

http://www.westyorksfire.gov.uk/uplo...5833ee5d86.pdf

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0H114420130905

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/02...-solar-panels/

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 07:23, Rod Speed wrote:
...
His house might have caught fire and the fire brigade refused to
enter, because of the solar panels.

Even sillier than you usually manage....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22462664

http://www.westyorksfire.gov.uk/uplo...5833ee5d86.pdf

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0H114420130905

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/02...-solar-panels/

The chance of that is microscopic, stupid.

"Nightjar wrote in message
...

On 18/08/2014 20:29, Dennis@home wrote:
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.


Nothing is zero risk. His house might have caught fire and the fire brigade
refused to enter, because of the solar panels. He might have failed to hear
an electric car approaching and been run over and killed before he had time
to enjoy ripping off the rest of society. The risks of failure might be
low, but they are never zero. I think that the low risk version of the fund
would probably have produced a similar return to the FIT, although I don't
have actual figures for that option.

But that would not give the same smug feeling of legitimately dipping one's
hand into the pockets of others.

On 19/08/14 13:04, Richard wrote:
But that would not give the same smug feeling of legitimately dipping
one's hand into the pockets of others.

http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20..._explained.jpg

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 19/08/2014 13:04, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar wrote in message
...

On 18/08/2014 20:29, Dennis@home wrote:
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.


Nothing is zero risk. His house might have caught fire and the fire
brigade refused to enter, because of the solar panels. He might have
failed to hear an electric car approaching and been run over and
killed before he had time to enjoy ripping off the rest of society.
The risks of failure might be low, but they are never zero. I think
that the low risk version of the fund would probably have produced a
similar return to the FIT, although I don't have actual figures for
that option.

But that would not give the same smug feeling of legitimately dipping
one's hand into the pockets of others.

Its not that different, you are taking profits from companies.
The profits come from ordinary people the same as taxes.

On 19/08/2014 12:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 07:23, Rod Speed wrote:
...
His house might have caught fire and the fire brigade refused to
enter, because of the solar panels.

Even sillier than you usually manage....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22462664

http://www.westyorksfire.gov.uk/uplo...5833ee5d86.pdf


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0H114420130905


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/02...-solar-panels/


The chance of that is microscopic

So, you agree, not zero.

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 17:38, Tim Lamb wrote:
...
I don't imagine Harry was seriously suggesting a return to horsepower
...

I sometimes wonder what Harry is seriously suggesting, as none of his
proposals are practical, except for a very few living with the support of
a highly industrialised country that is not relying upon the technology he
espouses. I can't help but feel that a lot of his postings are trying to
justify to himself having spent as much money as he did on his house.

How much money do think I spent?

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 17/08/2014 17:38, Tim Lamb wrote:
...
I don't imagine Harry was seriously suggesting a return to horsepower
...

I sometimes wonder what Harry is seriously suggesting, as none of his
proposals are practical, except for a very few living with the support of
a highly industrialised country that is not relying upon the technology he
espouses. I can't help but feel that a lot of his postings are trying to
justify to himself having spent as much money as he did on his house.

It can be very hard admitting being wrong about something particularly if
it involves close family.

Presumably Mrs. Harry had to be convinced that living in an insulated but
ugly home was necessary to save the planet. Every argument which questions
this position must be rubbished if sound reasoning is not available.

I can sympathise with the original PV investment on a purely commercial
basis: 15K spent, no intention to ever relocate, original FIT payment....

You seem to have forgotten this is a DIY group.
My investment will have paid for itself in six years (four already gone.)
Energy price rises ensure it.

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2014 09:37, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 17/08/2014 17:38, Tim Lamb wrote:
...
I don't imagine Harry was seriously suggesting a return to horsepower
...

I sometimes wonder what Harry is seriously suggesting, as none of his
proposals are practical, except for a very few living with the support
of a highly industrialised country that is not relying upon the
technology he espouses. I can't help but feel that a lot of his
postings are trying to justify to himself having spent as much money
as he did on his house.

It can be very hard admitting being wrong about something particularly
if it involves close family.

Presumably Mrs. Harry had to be convinced that living in an insulated
but ugly home was necessary to save the planet. Every argument which
questions this position must be rubbished if sound reasoning is not
available.

I can sympathise with the original PV investment on a purely commercial
basis: 15K spent, no intention to ever relocate, original FIT payment....

£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out of
the FIT.

Well work it out for yourself.
Total expenditure around £20,000

Benefits
4Mwh/year at average £0.48/Kwh
Plus saving on electricity and petrol (electric car) Estimate £1000/year.
No road tax on car
Tax free. Add 20% to total.

No gas bill
No maintenance/repair cost on boiler.
No heating installation/replacement cost/depreciation/loss of interest on
money spent. (However you wish to view it.

You could deduct some for the extra capital cost of an electric car, but it
has reduced maintenance.
No oil/filter. air filter, exhaust, clutch, no possibilty of failing
emissions test.
Braking is largely regenerative so brake pads last forever.
I can't even see any grease nipples.
It needs tyres
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jKG...ature=youtu.be

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2014 10:25, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 18/08/2014 09:37, Tim Lamb wrote:

I can sympathise with the original PV investment on a purely commercial
basis: 15K spent, no intention to ever relocate, original FIT
payment....

£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.

I understand share price inflation over a long enough period has kept up
with property etc.

Indeed, but you can do quite a bit better than the stock market, if you
have a good spread of investments, take the long view and don't mind if
some of the investments don't work out too well.

I suspect the lack of dealing charges and zero risk would be more
attractive.

Harry's idea of investment seems to be putting money in a Building
Society, so he probably is in the risk averse category.

No, my idea is property. (And land)
Buy a wreck with a very obvious problem and fix the problem and do it up.
Up sizr when prices are down.
Downsize when prices are up.
Extend the small property.
All part time DIY of course.
And tax free.

Here is a propety that had a very obvious problem. No road and 3/4 mile from
the highway.
Google EarthNP4 8TT
There is now a road as you will see.
I knew for a source of free rock. So the road went in for around £1000
About two thousand tons of rock were needed.
I bought that house for £25,000 & sold it ten years later for nearly
£400,000
Probably spent another £5000 on it over the ten years./
So better than shares in the HSBC.
Quite right, risk free.
But a lot of work.

I have done five houses up.
First one cost £400. (Ooop North 1970.)
Retrospectively, I wasn't bold enough, I could easily have done twice as
good and been a millionaire.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...efficient.html

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2014 20:29, Dennis@home wrote:
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.


Nothing is zero risk. His house might have caught fire and the fire
brigade refused to enter, because of the solar panels. He might have
failed to hear an electric car approaching and been run over and killed
before he had time to enjoy ripping off the rest of society. The risks of
failure might be low, but they are never zero. I think that the low risk
version of the fund would probably have produced a similar return to the
FIT, although I don't have actual figures for that option.

The house is insured.
The solar panels did not increase the premium.
There is still a good return from PV panels, they are much cheaper now.
Not so good as it was on FIT day one, also you have to get in more
technology eg solar switches.
The fire brigades are well aware of how to deal with PV panels these days.
I would say around 50% of houses round place have solar panels.
I was the first, I write in our parish magazine.


I am looking into getting a rotating array for the garden,
You get 40% more electricity from a rotating array,
They cost a bit more and the site is not ideal.
Dunno if there will be any planning issues.

Reminds me, we are having two giant wind turbines a few miles away, 500Kw
jobs.
More to come it's rumoured.
The local are going bananas. Heh Heh.

On 19/08/2014 18:37, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 17:38, Tim Lamb wrote:
...
I don't imagine Harry was seriously suggesting a return to horsepower
...

I sometimes wonder what Harry is seriously suggesting, as none of his
proposals are practical, except for a very few living with the support of
a highly industrialised country that is not relying upon the technology he
espouses. I can't help but feel that a lot of his postings are trying to
justify to himself having spent as much money as he did on his house.

How much money do think I spent?


According to your previous postings, in pure cash terms around £20k, of
which £14k was on the solar panels. However, not included in your
costings are the lost interest on that money, had you invested it
elsewhere (£5,600 over four years in the HSBC scheme I have mentioned),
nor the value of the time and effort you invested in the project.

--
Colin Bignell

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2014 20:29, Dennis@home wrote:
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

Nothing is zero risk.

Some things are.

His house might have caught fire and the fire brigade refused to enter,
because of the solar panels.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

He might have failed to hear an electric car approaching and been run
over and killed before he had time to enjoy ripping off the rest of
society.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

The risks of failure might be low, but they are never zero.

Wrong, as always.

I think that the low risk version of the fund would probably have
produced a similar return to the FIT, although I don't have actual
figures for that option.

But the risk would have been much higher even with that.

The risk is they break down and need repair.
Might be a problem getting matching panels now, they are 3.5 years old.
The new panels all look less clunky then mine..
But everything is now much cheaper.
Also it's a bungalow so little scaffolding needed.

I have never heard of any breaking down.
Touch wood.

harryagain wrote:

http://youtu.be/4jKGQXH55fs

Does YouTube's suggestion list include an episode of Steptoe & Son for
anyone else after watching that?

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 22:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:
...
Who wants slightly radioactive building blocks laced with arsenic and
other heavy metals?

All breeze blocks are slightly radioactive. Granite and coal are too,
more so.

There is also quite good, if circumstantial, evidence that slightly raised
background radiation levels are good for human health.

That'll be why they done away with luminous waches and trimphones then?

"bert" ] wrote in message
news
In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:16:57 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:



Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain
or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats
just
to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates

Grass Harry. All grains (wheat, barley, oats etc), they're all
grasses, or didn't you know that? Concentrates are made from them. So
why have all these green machines, the horses, disappeared, Harry?
It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient
machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.

..and don't produce cart loads of ****.
--
bert

The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back then.
I use as much as I can get in my garden.

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 21:02, bert wrote:
In message , harryagain
writes
....
The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

In 1894, a writer in The Times estimated that, within 50 years, the
streets of London would be nine feet deep in horse manure.

--
Colin Bignell

Hah, Drivel.
It was vitally neccesary that it all went back to where the oats came from.
Total recycling.
Otherwise in a few years nothing would grow.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 18/08/2014 08:28, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 17/08/2014 21:02, bert wrote:
In message , harryagain
writes
....
The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

In 1894, a writer in The Times estimated that, within 50 years, the
streets of London would be nine feet deep in horse manure.


How would the horses get into London once the manure had got to, say, 4
feet?

Don't worry, it's bollix.

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2014 18:48, Dennis@home wrote:
On 18/08/2014 08:28, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 17/08/2014 21:02, bert wrote:
In message , harryagain
writes
....
The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

In 1894, a writer in The Times estimated that, within 50 years, the
streets of London would be nine feet deep in horse manure.


How would the horses get into London once the manure had got to, say, 4
feet?

I suspect that, spiritually, he was one of Harry's forebearers.

How would anyone get into their houses if the doors and windows were buried?
Total horse****. :-)

In message , harryagain
writes

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
.. .
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 17/08/2014 17:38, Tim Lamb wrote:
...
I don't imagine Harry was seriously suggesting a return to horsepower
...

I sometimes wonder what Harry is seriously suggesting, as none of his
proposals are practical, except for a very few living with the support of
a highly industrialised country that is not relying upon the technology he
espouses. I can't help but feel that a lot of his postings are trying to
justify to himself having spent as much money as he did on his house.

It can be very hard admitting being wrong about something particularly if
it involves close family.

Presumably Mrs. Harry had to be convinced that living in an insulated but
ugly home was necessary to save the planet. Every argument which questions
this position must be rubbished if sound reasoning is not available.

I can sympathise with the original PV investment on a purely commercial
basis: 15K spent, no intention to ever relocate, original FIT payment....

You seem to have forgotten this is a DIY group.
My investment will have paid for itself in six years (four already gone.)
Energy price rises ensure it.

I haven't forgotten. The helpful price rises are coming from my
contribution to your FIT.

Too late now but selling off generating capacity was a huge mistake as
was the failure by succeeding govts. to promote nuclear generation. The
CND marchers of my youth are now 70+ and need reliable energy sources.




--
Tim Lamb

On 19/08/2014 19:43, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 22:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:
...
Who wants slightly radioactive building blocks laced with arsenic and
other heavy metals?

All breeze blocks are slightly radioactive. Granite and coal are too,
more so.

There is also quite good, if circumstantial, evidence that slightly raised
background radiation levels are good for human health.

That'll be why they done away with luminous waches and trimphones then?



That was done for the _fear_ of radiation - that doesn't prove there is
any danger.

Andy

On 19/08/2014 15:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/08/14 13:04, Richard wrote:
But that would not give the same smug feeling of legitimately dipping
one's hand into the pockets of others.

http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20..._explained.jpg

Yes. This.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 19/08/2014 19:45, harryagain wrote:
It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back then.

Considerable quantities of seaweed have been used in coastal areas for
many centuries.

--
Rod

On 19/08/2014 19:32, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2014 20:29, Dennis@home wrote:
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.


Nothing is zero risk. His house might have caught fire and the fire
brigade refused to enter, because of the solar panels. He might have
failed to hear an electric car approaching and been run over and killed
before he had time to enjoy ripping off the rest of society. The risks of
failure might be low, but they are never zero. I think that the low risk
version of the fund would probably have produced a similar return to the
FIT, although I don't have actual figures for that option.

The house is insured.
The solar panels did not increase the premium.
There is still a good return from PV panels, they are much cheaper now.
Not so good as it was on FIT day one, also you have to get in more
technology eg solar switches.
The fire brigades are well aware of how to deal with PV panels these days.
I would say around 50% of houses round place have solar panels.
I was the first, I write in our parish magazine.


I am looking into getting a rotating array for the garden,
You get 40% more electricity from a rotating array,
They cost a bit more and the site is not ideal.
Dunno if there will be any planning issues.

Shame you get reduced FITs from having more than 4kw fitted.
Only about 13p a unit.


Reminds me, we are having two giant wind turbines a few miles away, 500Kw
jobs.
More to come it's rumoured.

That should lower the price of the properties around there.

I hope you have good sound insulation and no resonant spaces in your house.

On 19/08/2014 19:20, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here
wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would
have increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made
as much out of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...efficient.html




You aren't very energy efficient if you are using 7000kWhr a year.
That's more than I use and the daughter uses a lot.
You need to do better if you actually want to save the planet.


I could never save £4000 a year on energy, I don't pay anywhere near
that much and never have. You must waste a lot.

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 12:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 07:23, Rod Speed wrote:
...
His house might have caught fire and the fire brigade refused to
enter, because of the solar panels.

Even sillier than you usually manage....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22462664

http://www.westyorksfire.gov.uk/uplo...5833ee5d86.pdf


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0H114420130905


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/02...-solar-panels/


The chance of that is microscopic

So, you agree, not zero.

Wrong, as always, zero.

On 19/08/2014 22:10, Dennis@home wrote:
On 19/08/2014 19:20, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here
wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would
have increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made
as much out of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...efficient.html





You aren't very energy efficient if you are using 7000kWhr a year.
That's more than I use and the daughter uses a lot.
You need to do better if you actually want to save the planet.


I could never save £4000 a year on energy, I don't pay anywhere near
that much and never have. You must waste a lot.

Yep. In a house with no double glazing, 100mm of loft insulation,
electric cooking, non-off peak electric water heating and direct
electric heating, I pay about £2,500 a year. The electricity company
keep trying to persuade me that is excessive.

--
Colin Bignell

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2014 20:29, Dennis@home wrote:
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.


Nothing is zero risk. His house might have caught fire and the fire
brigade refused to enter, because of the solar panels. He might have
failed to hear an electric car approaching and been run over and killed
before he had time to enjoy ripping off the rest of society. The risks of
failure might be low, but they are never zero. I think that the low risk
version of the fund would probably have produced a similar return to the
FIT, although I don't have actual figures for that option.

The house is insured.

And its completely trivial to ensure that it can't catch fire anyway.

The solar panels did not increase the premium.
There is still a good return from PV panels, they are much cheaper now.
Not so good as it was on FIT day one, also you have to get in more
technology eg solar switches.
The fire brigades are well aware of how to deal with PV panels these days.

Yeah, there is no risk they will just sit there in the truck and watch it
burn.

I would say around 50% of houses round place have solar panels.
I was the first, I write in our parish magazine.

I am looking into getting a rotating array for the garden,
You get 40% more electricity from a rotating array,
They cost a bit more and the site is not ideal.

One place I walk past for exercise has a couple of ****ing
great rotating arrays. Very impressive. And eliminates any
possibility of the fire brigade wetting their pants too.

Dunno if there will be any planning issues.

Reminds me, we are having two giant wind turbines a few miles away, 500Kw
jobs.
More to come it's rumoured.
The local are going bananas. Heh Heh.

You poms always were barking mad |-)