On 05/10/2015 11:49, rick wrote:
On 05/10/2015 10:24, F wrote:
On 04/10/2015 02:35, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 17:43:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Yes panels guaranteed 87% efficiency for 25 years.
Per panel Optimizer & Inverter alko 25 yr guarantee

87% efficient PV?! No.

87% of the orginal 15% - 20% effciency of conversion of light to
electricity. So 13% - 17% hopefully after 25 years.

As for the control gear guarantee it's not worth the paper it's
written on if it's not backed by some form of insurance. If the
company offering the guarantee ceases trading you're stuffed without
an insurance element.

None of the hardware is guaranteed for 25 years and the inverters are
*expected* to have to be replaced every 10 years or so.

The only guarantee is on the size of the original FiT payments. Later
installations don't get 25 years.



Not in my case ... my panels are guaranteed in terms of product for 25
years, and guaranteed in terms of minimum solar conversion efficiency
for 25 Years.
The per panel optimizers and the inverter also guaranteed for 25 years.

Some kit only gives 10 yrs ... I went with kit that has full 25 yr

All guarantees are also held by a 3rd party company, so covered in the
event supplier goes bust.
Things have moved on a lot in terms of product.

You bought a third party guarantee, as opposed to the guarantee that
comes with the hardware?

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

On 05/10/2015 17:50, F wrote:
On 05/10/2015 11:49, rick wrote:

Not in my case ... my panels are guaranteed in terms of product for 25
years, and guaranteed in terms of minimum solar conversion efficiency
for 25 Years.
The per panel optimizers and the inverter also guaranteed for 25 years.

Some kit only gives 10 yrs ... I went with kit that has full 25 yr

All guarantees are also held by a 3rd party company, so covered in the
event supplier goes bust.
Things have moved on a lot in terms of product.

You bought a third party guarantee, as opposed to the guarantee that
comes with the hardware?


No the contract comes with a full 25 yr warranty ... h/w covered by
manufacturers but also with funds held in an independent account (like
escrow) so should supplier go bust you still have the 25yr warranty.

On 05/10/2015 17:04, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:41:19 +0100, rick
wrote:

snip

Correct I get paid 50% of what I generate ... so the more I use (for
free) the better.

With current interest rates ... I'm getting better payback form Solar
than I would get from a bank account.

Cool. When do those of us without solar panels but who use electricity
get our cut (being as we are sponsoring you as such)? ;-)

Cheers, T i m



You are getting your cut ... just you are deciding not to take the
Government up on it ... was open to all.

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:46:04 +0100, rick
wrote:

On 05/10/2015 17:04, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:41:19 +0100, rick
wrote:

snip

Correct I get paid 50% of what I generate ... so the more I use (for
free) the better.

With current interest rates ... I'm getting better payback form Solar
than I would get from a bank account.

Cool. When do those of us without solar panels but who use electricity
get our cut (being as we are sponsoring you as such)? ;-)

Cheers, T i m



You are getting your cut ...

How is that then? It feels like I'm paying for your cut?

just you are deciding not to take the
Government up on it ...

Like I didn't when they sold off public owned utilities you mean? What
if I simply didn't have the funds or suitable roof? Hardly my decision
in those cases eh?

was open to all.

Like the above? So, if you had the money you bought shares in
something that belonged to everyone then sold them on for a profit
(not sharing that profit with *everyone* who actually owned the things
in the first place)? That sounds fair (not). ;-(

I'm not saying it's illegal but I'm not sure its moral either. (along
with the 'right to buy' your rented Council house for a fraction of
it's value when there is insufficient public housing available?

I'm sure many can sleep well with all that ...

Cheers, T i m

On 05/10/2015 11:35, rick wrote:
On 04/10/2015 01:43, wrote:

Yes panels guaranteed 87% efficiency for 25 years.
Per panel Optimizer & Inverter alko 25 yr guarantee

87% efficient PV?! No.



Yes ... guaranteed .. its a Tier 1 rated panel

87% No.

87% of what you got originally I'd believe. The record is under 50%.

But that doesn't matter. What matters is the watts you get for the
pounds you spent. Right now that'll be ... zero. It's dark. Tomorrow
probably 3/5 of f-all too, as the weather is poor. And when you do make
money it's coming from people like me.

Andy

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:51:26 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

snip

But that doesn't matter. What matters is the watts you get for the
pounds you spent. Right now that'll be ... zero. It's dark. Tomorrow
probably 3/5 of f-all too, as the weather is poor. And when you do make
money it's coming from people like me.

Not just you of course, it's coming from the vast majority who don't
have PV solar FIT.

So, assuming we all do have to subsidise most (all?) energy producers
to some degree, at least we are ALL doing so and we can get most of
that non-eco_energy 24/7.

FIT is like having a petrol station where if you can afford one of the
'special cars', your petrol gets paid for (by us apparently) when you
drive it, even if you are just driving it for yourself and your petrol
station doesn't work when the sun isn't shining so we can't use it
either (not that we can afford to at your prices).

So, your petrol station can't be relied on by us (or you for that
matter, so you still have to use all the others) and we are worse off
because of it, especially is the sun is shining! ;-(

If it wasn't for the fact that most people aren't interested in
sticking solar panels on their roof, and / or know what the FIT burden
is, I think there would be an uprising!

Cheers, T i m

On 05/10/2015 21:51, Vir Campestris wrote:


87% of what you got originally I'd believe. The record is under 50%.

But that doesn't matter. What matters is the watts you get for the
pounds you spent. Right now that'll be ... zero. It's dark. Tomorrow
probably 3/5 of f-all too, as the weather is poor. And when you do make
money it's coming from people like me.

Andy

No it's 87% of the efficiency based on the test data of a new panel.

Not sure if you are just terminally pessimistic .... my array as I type
this is pushing out 968W on a grey overcast day.

This month so far it has generated 60.65kWh (5 days)
When it earns money its coming from the Government, if you class that as
'you' then it is also from 'me'

If you choose not to take up the 'payback' offer that is a personal
thing for you.

It's like any Government fund/subsidy/allowance - if you are eligible
and don't take it, then that is your choice.

On 05/10/2015 19:37, T i m wrote:


I'm sure many can sleep well with all that ...

Cheers, T i m



Government makes a system available to all, to encourage use of
renewables - I have no moral issue with that.

In the same way they give you a financial incentive to have low
emissions on your car.

In both cases you have the choice to take up the incentive or not.

Those that do so, can do it for tree hugging, knit your own yoghurt
reasons, or simply as it makes financial sense ... either way it helps
the government meet the environment.
Lowers emissions and makes for healthier environment.

So can I sleep happy with that? ......... absolutely.

On 01/10/2015 19:49, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 19:36:31 +0100, rick wrote:

Ahh no ... you would be using Solar PV energy .. which is free

Thiefing B's are actually paid for the electricity they nominally
export even if they never export a mWHr by selfishly using it all
themselves.

Robin Hood in reverse: robbing the poor to give to the rich.

On 06/10/2015 12:43, rick wrote:
On 05/10/2015 21:51, Vir Campestris wrote:


87% of what you got originally I'd believe. The record is under 50%.

But that doesn't matter. What matters is the watts you get for the
pounds you spent. Right now that'll be ... zero. It's dark. Tomorrow
probably 3/5 of f-all too, as the weather is poor. And when you do make
money it's coming from people like me.

Andy

No it's 87% of the efficiency based on the test data of a new panel.

Not sure if you are just terminally pessimistic .... my array as I type
this is pushing out 968W on a grey overcast day.

This month so far it has generated 60.65kWh (5 days)
When it earns money its coming from the Government, if you class that as
'you' then it is also from 'me'

If you choose not to take up the 'payback' offer that is a personal
thing for you.

It's like any Government fund/subsidy/allowance - if you are eligible
and don't take it, then that is your choice.


AS soon as I finished sending previous mail .. checked again .. now at
2.48kWh ....... that is a lot better than 3/5 of f-all

http://tinyurl.com/paj3gma

On 06/10/2015 13:00, rick wrote:
On 06/10/2015 12:43, rick wrote:
On 05/10/2015 21:51, Vir Campestris wrote:


87% of what you got originally I'd believe. The record is under 50%.

But that doesn't matter. What matters is the watts you get for the
pounds you spent. Right now that'll be ... zero. It's dark. Tomorrow
probably 3/5 of f-all too, as the weather is poor. And when you do make
money it's coming from people like me.

Andy

No it's 87% of the efficiency based on the test data of a new panel.

Not sure if you are just terminally pessimistic .... my array as I type
this is pushing out 968W on a grey overcast day.

This month so far it has generated 60.65kWh (5 days)
When it earns money its coming from the Government, if you class that as
'you' then it is also from 'me'

If you choose not to take up the 'payback' offer that is a personal
thing for you.

It's like any Government fund/subsidy/allowance - if you are eligible
and don't take it, then that is your choice.


AS soon as I finished sending previous mail .. checked again .. now at
2.48kWh ....... that is a lot better than 3/5 of f-all



url .. corrected - http://tinyurl.com/okenqdh

On Monday, 5 October 2015 08:00:00 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 4 October 2015 16:18:39 UTC+1, wrote:
On Sunday, 4 October 2015 15:13:18 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 1 October 2015 20:58:52 UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:36:35 UTC+1, rick wrote:
NT:

http://www.immersun.co.uk/wp-content...anual-v1.1.pdf


You'd be using the most expensive energy to do a job that can be done
by very cheap energy. There lies the issue. Spend the 200 on some
solarthermal kit instead.

Ahh no ... you would be using Solar PV energy .. which is free

perhaps you jest

No he doesn't.
He's paid for generating it regardless of whether he uses himself or not.

But he pays upfront for the kit. That has to be amortised. The only way you can get free heat from the sun is to stand outside.

The fuel is free.
Don't be pedantic.
It makes you look stupid.

Oh dear

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 13:27:00 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , rick
wrote:

On 06/10/2015 12:43, rick wrote:
On 05/10/2015 21:51, Vir Campestris wrote:


87% of what you got originally I'd believe. The record is under 50%.

But that doesn't matter. What matters is the watts you get for the
pounds you spent. Right now that'll be ... zero. It's dark. Tomorrow
probably 3/5 of f-all too, as the weather is poor. And when you do make
money it's coming from people like me.

Andy

No it's 87% of the efficiency based on the test data of a new panel.

Not sure if you are just terminally pessimistic .... my array as I type
this is pushing out 968W on a grey overcast day.

This month so far it has generated 60.65kWh (5 days)
When it earns money its coming from the Government, if you class that as
'you' then it is also from 'me'

It comes from other electricity users. I class it as theft, personally.

+1

And that's the rub isn't it, I wonder how many of those people
enjoying the extortionate FIT payments (especially those who took it
up at the beginning and what, it's *guaranteed* for 25 years!!)
actually believe it's 'the Government' (via our taxes presumably in
any case) are paying for all this and not just other electricity
consumers?

Buy a PV system and put it on your roof (fine). Get someone else to
put a PV system on your roof and rent the space to them, and maybe get
a cut of any surplus energy sold (also fine). Get paid for any surplus
energy the system produces but not at a rate way above the industrial
rate and not subsidised by other electricity consumers. [1]

I wonder if once they realise that they might go a bit quieter (as
most people stealing from others like that surely should)?

I'm not *blaming* them exactly, after all, it was offered to them and
it's not illegal (even if it's immoral) but I wonder if they really
are confused just why others haven't taken it up (or are just
pretending they don't know because they are embarrassed)?



Cheers, T i m

[1] I wonder if all electricity consumers were sent a poll asking if
they want to opt IN to the FIT subsidy scheme (con), how many (without
panels on their roof) would tick 'Yes'?

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 12:49:59 +0100, rick
wrote:

On 05/10/2015 19:37, T i m wrote:


I'm sure many can sleep well with all that ...

Cheers, T i m



Government makes a system available to all, to encourage use of
renewables -

Ok in principal but ...

I have no moral issue with that.

Ok, well that may say more about you ... (under the (FIT)
circumstances etc). ;-(

In the same way they give you a financial incentive to have low
emissions on your car.

I do? Ok, supposing I do, how many of us drive or need goods and
services that require others to drive? How would I be worse off if you
took your panels off your roof?

In both cases you have the choice to take up the incentive or not.

No I don't, I may not have had *the choice* if I didn't have the funds
or didn't have a suitable size / aspect roof.

Those that do so, can do it for tree hugging, knit your own yoghurt
reasons, or simply as it makes financial sense ... either way it helps
the government meet the environment.

Yes, and all that is fine if it *didn't penalise innocent and already
overburdened electricity consumers* with the disproportional high
price you get paid to save *yourself* money.

Lowers emissions and makes for healthier environment.

When the sun is shining you mean? When it's not, what do we all do?

So can I sleep happy with that? ......... absolutely.

Ok, I'll cut you a deal. You rely *only* on your solar system to meet
your electricity needs and you can keep your (my / our) FIT subsidy.
Deal? ;-)

Oh, and as for 'emissions'. Do the panels I don't have create more
emissions than the ones you do? Or were yours produced, transported,
installed and maintained by small furry creatures that just run on
fresh air? How long will it take for that carbon footprint to be
neutralised do you know OOI? (And I hope you do know or how could you
possibly defend the green credentials)?

For you to be really honest about all this you would have to fess up
the *total* cost and benefits to the eco-system *for everyone* (as you
are so keen on thinking of us all). ;-)

Now, if you had a water wheel generating electricity ... and you had
bought a paid for it yourself and it was made out of low carbon
footprint materials and fully recyclable ... and you paid for it all
yourself .... and you only got the std rate for any spare electricity
and it didn't affect the water course downstream, I'd be the first one
to applaud you for your efforts. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I have had a full road-going plug in electric car for over 25
years and I have *never* tried to sell it as a benefit to the
environment (outside of reducing kerbside emissions possibly) and I
certainly didn't buy it knowing that others were going to have to
subsidise my 'hobby' or with the intention of making money (off
others) from it.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 12:43:25 +0100, rick wrote:

When it earns money its coming from the Government,

Er no FIT monies are coming from levy on everyones elctricity bill, a
levy that is about 10% IIRC but it's not all for the FIT payments.

The RHI comes from central government but they have fiddled with that
to exclude any solar thermal system that does anything but domestic
hot water.

If you choose not to take up the 'payback' offer that is a personal
thing for you.

It's like any Government fund/subsidy/allowance - if you are eligible
and don't take it, then that is your choice.

Most funds/subsidy/allowances etc available to the general public
don't require you to come up with a fairly substantial up front sum.
For a significant number of households that sum would be a years
gross income...

--
Cheers
Dave.

T i m wrote:

I wonder if once they realise that they might go a bit quieter (as
most people stealing from others like that surely should)?

I'm not *blaming* them exactly, after all, it was offered to them and
it's not illegal (even if it's immoral) but I wonder if they really
are confused just why others haven't taken it up (or are just
pretending they don't know because they are embarrassed)?

I wonder if you apply similar logic to enjoying things funded by
the lottery without ever buying a ticket?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:31:50 +0100, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

T i m wrote:

I wonder if once they realise that they might go a bit quieter (as
most people stealing from others like that surely should)?

I'm not *blaming* them exactly, after all, it was offered to them and
it's not illegal (even if it's immoral) but I wonder if they really
are confused just why others haven't taken it up (or are just
pretending they don't know because they are embarrassed)?

I wonder if you apply similar logic to enjoying things funded by
the lottery without ever buying a ticket?

The recipients of such funding you mean? If so then no, because anyone
using their free will to subsidise the system by buying a ticket has
done so knowing full well what the options were and have possibly done
so, knowing some (hopefully) *good cause* will enjoy the cash, even if
they don't win.

Simply because I am an electricity consumer I am *forced* to subsidise
those who already have the money and opportunity (suitable aspect roof
and / or a roof of their own etc) via the FIT and really can't bring
myself to give a big thumbs up to those who are benefiting. ;-(

I just the same way I support charities (even though some are more
like companies) because *I* choose to using my own free will and am
happy that (also) potentially people(or animals) less fortunate than I
might benefit.

It is really all about having the choice and I bet not just for me.

I wonder if you put a poll on everyone's next electricity bill,
explaining the true value of PV energy in a country like England, the
*total* cost to the environment (mining the raw materials, forming
them into panels, distributing, installing and maintaining said (some
of which will be done with diesel lorries and vans presumably)
equipment, the fact that it's no good when the sun goes in (and it
does that every day) and then *we*, the electricity users who don't
have the opportunity or simply choose not to go out and get panels on
our roof, have to subsidise those who do ... I wonder what percentage
would tick 'No thanks'?

Now, drop all the eco BS and just earn the going rate for any surplus
electricity you have (and certainly not get paid for what you generate
and use yourself!) and those with, wouldn't need to be trying to
justify how reasonable it all is to those without.

If the idea of solar PV was really *that good*, for the environment or
even / just financially to those who could afford and had the
opportunity to install it, surely it would be on many many more houses
in the UK than the few you see it on today?

OOI. What percentage of the UKs electrical demands is med by domestic
PV? How much of it's demand is met at night?

Don't get me wrong, I have a fair selection of solar panels and solar
powered / charged devices and find them very handy when I'm off grid
(motorcycle / cycle camping etc) or where I want a small outdoor light
without having to run any cables, however, I *certainly* wouldn't to
try to say they were completely 'green' or expect anyone else to
subsidise them for me.

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:56:13 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

I do? Ok, supposing I do, how many of us drive or need goods and
services that require others to drive? How would I be worse off if you
took your panels off your roof?

Brace yourself for this, T i m

braced

Air pollution would be 0.0000000001% worse.

Imagine that, eh?

I'd have to as I don't suppose it could be measured. ;-)

But what about all the other pollution (not just airborne) generated
by the creation of the panels and associated equipment in the first
place?

What I'm saying is that pollution might be acceptable (as in a cost to
mankind), *IF* the solution it provided was truly, 'stand on yer own
two feet' viable as a solution.

Solar PV is hardly new yet I see / saw no massive uptake, even with
the initial criminal levels of FIT? Maybe Apple could market Solar PV
in the UK. They can get people to buy all sorts of stuff and at full
price. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 06/10/2015 15:31, Chris J Dixon wrote:
T i m wrote:

I wonder if once they realise that they might go a bit quieter (as
most people stealing from others like that surely should)?

I'm not *blaming* them exactly, after all, it was offered to them and
it's not illegal (even if it's immoral) but I wonder if they really
are confused just why others haven't taken it up (or are just
pretending they don't know because they are embarrassed)?

I wonder if you apply similar logic to enjoying things funded by
the lottery without ever buying a ticket?

Chris


They don't claim their tax allowance as that means others have to pay
more. ;-)

On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 17:00:06 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:31:50 +0100, Chris J Dixon
wrote:
T i m wrote:


I wonder if once they realise that they might go a bit quieter (as
most people stealing from others like that surely should)?

I'm not *blaming* them exactly, after all, it was offered to them and
it's not illegal (even if it's immoral) but I wonder if they really
are confused just why others haven't taken it up (or are just
pretending they don't know because they are embarrassed)?

I wonder if you apply similar logic to enjoying things funded by
the lottery without ever buying a ticket?

The recipients of such funding you mean? If so then no, because anyone
using their free will to subsidise the system by buying a ticket has
done so knowing full well what the options were and have possibly done
so, knowing some (hopefully) *good cause* will enjoy the cash, even if
they don't win.

Simply because I am an electricity consumer I am *forced* to subsidise
those who already have the money and opportunity (suitable aspect roof
and / or a roof of their own etc) via the FIT and really can't bring
myself to give a big thumbs up to those who are benefiting. ;-(

I just the same way I support charities (even though some are more
like companies) because *I* choose to using my own free will and am
happy that (also) potentially people(or animals) less fortunate than I
might benefit.

It is really all about having the choice and I bet not just for me.

I wonder if you put a poll on everyone's next electricity bill,
explaining the true value of PV energy in a country like England, the
*total* cost to the environment (mining the raw materials, forming
them into panels, distributing, installing and maintaining said (some
of which will be done with diesel lorries and vans presumably)
equipment, the fact that it's no good when the sun goes in (and it
does that every day) and then *we*, the electricity users who don't
have the opportunity or simply choose not to go out and get panels on
our roof, have to subsidise those who do ... I wonder what percentage
would tick 'No thanks'?

Now, drop all the eco BS and just earn the going rate for any surplus
electricity you have (and certainly not get paid for what you generate
and use yourself!) and those with, wouldn't need to be trying to
justify how reasonable it all is to those without.

If the idea of solar PV was really *that good*, for the environment or
even / just financially to those who could afford and had the
opportunity to install it, surely it would be on many many more houses
in the UK than the few you see it on today?

OOI. What percentage of the UKs electrical demands is med by domestic
PV? How much of it's demand is met at night?

Don't get me wrong, I have a fair selection of solar panels and solar
powered / charged devices and find them very handy when I'm off grid
(motorcycle / cycle camping etc) or where I want a small outdoor light
without having to run any cables, however, I *certainly* wouldn't to
try to say they were completely 'green' or expect anyone else to
subsidise them for me.

Cheers, T i m

Lottery money is politely requested from you. If you're sensible you say no.

FIT money is taken from you under threat of harrassment & theft of your goods, refusal of ability to get a mortgage to buy a house and other assorted downsides. Ie extortion.

On 05/10/2015 11:41, rick wrote:




Just looked at my system ... 1st week Oct and it's generating at the
moment 3.2kW

So for lunch Tomato soup warmed in microwave, toast from toaster &
coffee from boiled kettle ........

So Tim ... as you are convinced I am using your wealth on this .....
thank you for your contribution to my lunch.


Plenty to export this afternoon and get my FIT payments clocking up.

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 01:45:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
snip

Lottery money is politely requested from you.

I'd say it's not even that. You have to ask to buy a ticket, no one
even requests that you do.

If you're sensible you say no.

Or don't ask in the first place. ;-)

FIT money is taken from you under threat of harrassment & theft of your goods, refusal of ability to get a mortgage to buy a house and other assorted downsides. Ie extortion.

I guess you are saying that if you withheld what could be the FIT -
overpay portion of your electricity bill, that is what might happen
and I think you are right.

I wonder if that's what we should do, like people did with the Poll
tax (or pretty all the other things that the 'people' decide isn't
fair or reasonable).

A few people stop paying and get in the press. Questions are asked in
the house and things get changed. It's how it's worked for many years.
This could be one of those things (if only *everyone* knew about it
.... and even some of those here who receive our money though their FIT
payments don't seem to realise where their ill-gotten_gains come
from!). ;-(

I wonder if like the winter fuel allowance there is no way of handing
it back but there is nothing stopping them giving their FIT
overpayments to a charity? (I have no issue with them getting paid the
market value for their excess energy contribution).

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:10:29 +0100, rick
wrote:

On 05/10/2015 11:41, rick wrote:

Just looked at my system ... 1st week Oct and it's generating at the
moment 3.2kW

So for lunch Tomato soup warmed in microwave, toast from toaster &
coffee from boiled kettle ........

So Tim ... as you are convinced I am using your wealth on this .....
thank you for your contribution to my lunch.

Not just me mate, everyone here and elsewhere in the UK who buys
electricity!


Plenty to export this afternoon and get my FIT payments clocking up.

Now that's better ... forget all this eco BS and just accepting you
are parasiting off the rest of us. ;-)

Oh well, it takes all sorts I guess, givers and takers ...

Cheers, T i m

On Monday, 5 October 2015 11:44:18 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 23:57:29 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Sunday, 4 October 2015 19:13:54 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 07:01:52 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

snip

I think I once saw some slate sized individual panels that were wired
in series to make a bigger (potentially roof sized) panel. I wonder if
they actually still exist out there?


They use them in National Parks and what have you.

Ah, where you can't just bung some ugly panels over your existing roof
you mean?

Very expensive.

Could be a small price to pay to make the function of generating
electricity from solar energy 'transparent' (physically and
atheistically).

That said, there is a communal building (warden controlled) that has
an artificial slate (west facing) roof where the entire roof is
covered in black solar panels to the point that is *is* the roof
(aesthetically). Apart from looking like it's wet (raining out) all
the time it's not that bad.

It's a matter of perception,the same could be said of TV aerials and dishes.

It could indeed, and boundary fences etc.

I 'spect your ancestor was whining when chimneys were invented.

I doubt is as chimneys are a basic function for anyone who wanted heat
(after a simple hole in the top).

Q. If it wasn't for the FIT, would you still have invested?
I probably wouldn't have hard of them.
If it wasn't for FIT, panels would not be as numerous/cheap as they are.

Does FIT apply all round the world then? Do you think the UK is
leading the solar takeup?

As you're clearly not clever, the purpose of subsidy is to induce the public to take some action that has been deemed desirable by some Government think tank.

It's because I'm clever (and have morals) I can see the system for
exactly what it is (and as you partly describe). It is an inducement
that penalises the majority on the (non justifiable) whim of a
minority.

I wonder what percentage of the people who fully understand the bigger
picture have *chosen* not to take up the FIT concept on moral grounds?

ie, I've been making good use of solar (both PV and water) for *years*
and might consider such for my house *if* I thought it would be a good
thing all round.

Once people get used to the idea, subsidies can be reduced.

Not sure that's going to happen any time soon though is it? People
taking it up in greater numbers?

Which is exactly what happened.

Yes, the government realised it's costing us too much money in this
time of austerity and the populous don't like it. *You* buy your
panels yourself and by all means sell any surplus power
that_you_don't_use at the standard rate.

BTW
There is a scheme which pre-dates the FIT still running but is was not so widely advertised/known about.

I'm sure there are ... like the 'stand on your own two feet' systems.

The whingers that appear here are brain dead, all form of electricity generation are subsidised.

We know, just not as much as the FIT system, even though it's now
reduced to something less like theft.

If someone wants to put panels on their roof or erect a wind turbine it's none of their business.

Quite, as long as that also applies to all / every other modification
that would normally require planning permission. I'm sure you would be
the first to cry when someone did something you didn't like.

To many ignorant busybodies around.

Or people who are reasonable and so don't condone theft?

Probably socialists.

See above.

Cheers, T i m

I can see you're a sit on your arse socialist.
There are consequences for idleness.

On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 14:31:25 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 13:27:00 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , rick
wrote:

On 06/10/2015 12:43, rick wrote:
On 05/10/2015 21:51, Vir Campestris wrote:


87% of what you got originally I'd believe. The record is under 50%.

But that doesn't matter. What matters is the watts you get for the
pounds you spent. Right now that'll be ... zero. It's dark. Tomorrow
probably 3/5 of f-all too, as the weather is poor. And when you do make
money it's coming from people like me.

Andy

No it's 87% of the efficiency based on the test data of a new panel.

Not sure if you are just terminally pessimistic .... my array as I type
this is pushing out 968W on a grey overcast day.

This month so far it has generated 60.65kWh (5 days)
When it earns money its coming from the Government, if you class that as
'you' then it is also from 'me'

It comes from other electricity users. I class it as theft, personally.

+1

And that's the rub isn't it, I wonder how many of those people
enjoying the extortionate FIT payments (especially those who took it
up at the beginning and what, it's *guaranteed* for 25 years!!)
actually believe it's 'the Government' (via our taxes presumably in
any case) are paying for all this and not just other electricity
consumers?

Buy a PV system and put it on your roof (fine). Get someone else to
put a PV system on your roof and rent the space to them, and maybe get
a cut of any surplus energy sold (also fine). Get paid for any surplus
energy the system produces but not at a rate way above the industrial
rate and not subsidised by other electricity consumers. [1]

I wonder if once they realise that they might go a bit quieter (as
most people stealing from others like that surely should)?

I'm not *blaming* them exactly, after all, it was offered to them and
it's not illegal (even if it's immoral) but I wonder if they really
are confused just why others haven't taken it up (or are just
pretending they don't know because they are embarrassed)?



Cheers, T i m

[1] I wonder if all electricity consumers were sent a poll asking if
they want to opt IN to the FIT subsidy scheme (con), how many (without
panels on their roof) would tick 'Yes'?

Typical socialist with an astounding level of stupidity compounded with envy.
If you have children, they are being educated at my expense.
If you get on the bus, it's subsidised at my expense.
If you use the library, it's run at my expense.

So because I don't use any of these, they should be closed down????

You are barking mad.
And clearly too stupid to have put PV on your roof. (Or are you claiming poverty too?)
Don't claim the moral high ground, it's plain old fashioned envy we have here.
Easy to see AFTER the event that PV was a good deal for the owner.
But then so is owning a nuclear power station.
(Subsidised at an even higher level.)

On Monday, 5 October 2015 19:37:54 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:46:04 +0100, rick
wrote:

On 05/10/2015 17:04, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:41:19 +0100, rick
wrote:

snip

Correct I get paid 50% of what I generate ... so the more I use (for
free) the better.

With current interest rates ... I'm getting better payback form Solar
than I would get from a bank account.

Cool. When do those of us without solar panels but who use electricity
get our cut (being as we are sponsoring you as such)? ;-)

Cheers, T i m



You are getting your cut ...

How is that then? It feels like I'm paying for your cut?

just you are deciding not to take the
Government up on it ...

Like I didn't when they sold off public owned utilities you mean? What
if I simply didn't have the funds or suitable roof? Hardly my decision
in those cases eh?

was open to all.

Like the above? So, if you had the money you bought shares in
something that belonged to everyone then sold them on for a profit
(not sharing that profit with *everyone* who actually owned the things
in the first place)? That sounds fair (not). ;-(

I'm not saying it's illegal but I'm not sure its moral either. (along
with the 'right to buy' your rented Council house for a fraction of
it's value when there is insufficient public housing available?

I'm sure many can sleep well with all that ...

Cheers, T i

If you're poor, it's your own fault.
It's down to idleness.
You had every chance here in the UK.
Just too idle to take them.
There are consequences for idleness.

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 22:43:27 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

snip

I can see you're a sit on your arse socialist.

I am? I'll have to take your word for your need to label people as I'm
really not into 'politics' (or religion or sport).

There are consequences for idleness.

So I see ... *you* are happy to let other people work while you steal
money off them via your FIT overpayments.

When the revolution comes I'm afraid you will be one of the first
against the wall. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 23:00:48 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

snip

[1] I wonder if all electricity consumers were sent a poll asking if
they want to opt IN to the FIT subsidy scheme (con), how many (without
panels on their roof) would tick 'Yes'?

Typical socialist with an astounding level of stupidity compounded with envy.

Lets see ...

If you have children, they are being educated at my expense.

Yes, paid for by the taxes we ALL have to pay to keep the country
running. The same children that will be working to pay your FIT
payments and pension btw.

If you get on the bus, it's subsidised at my expense.

I don't (well, maybe when on holiday), however, again this is
something that those who NEED that service benefit from and the cost
is spread across everyone who pays taxes. NOT just consumes
electricity.

If you use the library, it's run at my expense.

Again, not for many many years (I'm not a big reader (for fun) and
have had access to the Internet for information since it was available
to 'the public'). However, I'm happy to pay for them via my taxes
because OTHER PEOPLE benefit from them ... not just people with enough
spare cash to be able to put some panels on their roof.

So because I don't use any of these, they should be closed down????

No, but it's more like the 'Public' golf course in Beckenham (I think
it was) where the powers have decided the space, paid for by everyone
would be better used by *everyone*, not just a tiny minority of
golfers.

You are barking mad.

Can't come up with anything like a real argument / justification for
your stealing Harry?

And clearly too stupid to have put PV on your roof.

I think you will find it's the exact opposite. Because there is no way
you can justify your decision to do so with anything other than a
total lack of understanding of the bigger picture, morals or your
greed.

(Or are you claiming poverty too?)

Nope, own my own house and could afford to put a PV system in if I
wanted. I could even afford to do so without the FIT theft ...

Don't claim the moral high ground, it's plain old fashioned envy we have here.

Yeah, if that helps you over your guilt and embarrassment you carry on
thinking that mate.

Easy to see AFTER the event that PV was a good deal for the owner.

I'm pretty sure those who went in for it at the beginning were pretty
sure the theft they would be party to for the next 25 years, index
linked, guaranteed knew exactly what they were doing (and who they
were doing it to).

But then so is owning a nuclear power station.
(Subsidised at an even higher level.)

I think you have been proven wrong here (nothing new in that of
course) and we ALL make use of nuclear power, even you! You have to of
course ... EVERY night and EVERY overcast day ...

So, if you want everyone to stop calling you a thief, show us the
receipts where you demonstrate you have donated your FIT theft /
overpayments to a charity of your choice (and no, I don't mean the
'look after Harry at everyone else's cost' charity).

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 08:38:16 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
harry wrote:

On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 14:31:25 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

[60 or more lines snipped because harry was too idle to do it. There
are consequences for idleness, harry]

[1] I wonder if all electricity consumers were sent a poll asking if
they want to opt IN to the FIT subsidy scheme (con), how many (without
panels on their roof) would tick 'Yes'?

Typical socialist with an astounding level of stupidity compounded with envy.
If you have children, they are being educated at my expense.
If you get on the bus, it's subsidised at my expense.
If you use the library, it's run at my expense.

Thee have all involved political agreement and not theft, unlike FIT.

Bingo.

You are barking mad.

Welcome to the barking mad club, T i m. Woof woof !!

If Harry is sane and we are mad, I'm pappy to be mad. ;-)

Easy to see AFTER the event that PV was a good deal for the owner.

Only because it involved legalised theft.

Quite, no one has ever suggested it wasn't a good deal for the owner,
it is plainly obvious it's a cash cow ... but only if you are happy
with earning said cash off the backs of other people having to pay
their electric bill.

Now, if Harry had anything like a conscience he would just put his
hands up and agree that he is living off the efforts of others (in
most cases 'less fortunate' than him (financially, not moral compass
of course) and stop trying to justify his actions based on anything
other than selfish greed.

Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.

I bet he is also happy with all those big corporations who aren't
paying the tax they should because of legal loopholes, creative
accountancy and a total lack of morals. We aren't talking of companies
just breaking even here, we are talking about those making billions
without paying their way.

He would definitely side with all the bankers and their massive
bonuses ...

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 23:10:03 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Monday, 5 October 2015 19:37:54 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:46:04 +0100, rick
wrote:

On 05/10/2015 17:04, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:41:19 +0100, rick
wrote:

snip

Correct I get paid 50% of what I generate ... so the more I use (for
free) the better.

With current interest rates ... I'm getting better payback form Solar
than I would get from a bank account.

Cool. When do those of us without solar panels but who use electricity
get our cut (being as we are sponsoring you as such)? ;-)

Cheers, T i m



You are getting your cut ...

How is that then? It feels like I'm paying for your cut?

just you are deciding not to take the
Government up on it ...

Like I didn't when they sold off public owned utilities you mean? What
if I simply didn't have the funds or suitable roof? Hardly my decision
in those cases eh?

was open to all.

Like the above? So, if you had the money you bought shares in
something that belonged to everyone then sold them on for a profit
(not sharing that profit with *everyone* who actually owned the things
in the first place)? That sounds fair (not). ;-(

I'm not saying it's illegal but I'm not sure its moral either. (along
with the 'right to buy' your rented Council house for a fraction of
it's value when there is insufficient public housing available?

I'm sure many can sleep well with all that ...

Cheers, T i

If you're poor, it's your own fault.

A feeble distraction attempt from your guilt.

It's down to idleness.

BS.

You had every chance here in the UK.

I did indeed and I decided against parasiting off the back of a subset
of the community.

Just too idle to take them.

Or have more morals than you?

There are consequences for idleness.

Yes, you think it's ok to parasite off others. Pay your FIT
overpayments to a charity to prove just how irrelevant earning money
off the backs of the hard work of others isn't acceptable to you.

Cheers, T i m

On 07/10/2015 15:51, T i m wrote:

Not just me mate, everyone here and elsewhere in the UK who buys
electricity!


I thank you all



Plenty to export this afternoon and get my FIT payments clocking up.

Now that's better ... forget all this eco BS and just accepting you
are parasiting off the rest of us. ;-)

Oh well, it takes all sorts I guess, givers and takers ...



I'm doing it as it makes financial sense .... saves me money ... and
makes me money, not because I am into tree hugging.

I give enough by tax ... so I have no problem taking what is on offer.

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:15:25 +0100, rick
wrote:

On 07/10/2015 15:51, T i m wrote:

Not just me mate, everyone here and elsewhere in the UK who buys
electricity!


I thank you all



Plenty to export this afternoon and get my FIT payments clocking up.

Now that's better ... forget all this eco BS and just accepting you
are parasiting off the rest of us. ;-)

Oh well, it takes all sorts I guess, givers and takers ...



I'm doing it as it makes financial sense .... saves me money ... and
makes me money,

Yup, we know.

not because I am into tree hugging.

Fair enough.

I give enough by tax ... so I have no problem taking what is on offer.

Again, you have made that very clear. We all give enough in tax mate,
just some of us don't feel inclined to penalise a subset of the
community for our own ends.

And you aren't alone (ignoring all the other FIT stealers). ;-)

I had one of the Solar PV cold callers (well, guised as a survey to
start with because that's how they have to be to trick people into
buying into this whole FIT scam) and he asked me why I wasn't
interested in taking up his 'special off' on a complete PV system (on
my fully owned South facing roof with the cash in the bank to pay for
it).

I explained it was partly because of the FIT subsidy ... paid for not
be the (people elected) Government (as you first thought), but just
the other electricity users and he couldn't understand why anyone
could see that as a reason. At one point he even called me 'a mug'
(for not taking up solar PV for that reason) and that he would do so,
if he could afford it. I was further pleased that by me not buying a
system off him would probably mean less commission for him and
therefore even less chance of me having to subsidise him as well as
you! ;-)

It made me chuckle to hear that such a company had been hit with a big
fine for their cold calling tactics. ;-)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...nuisance-calls

Isn't it indicative of just how unappealing the idea is to most people
for a company to have to stoop so low. At least double glazing IS an
advantage (over single glazing) to most people at this lattitude. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Thursday, 8 October 2015 07:10:09 UTC+1, harry wrote:

If you're poor, it's your own fault.
It's down to idleness.
You had every chance here in the UK.
Just too idle to take them.
There are consequences for idleness.

There are many causesof poorness. Some certainly are the person's fault, but also some aren't.


NT

rick wrote:

I have a 4kW PV solar system

Idly looking at houses on rightmove, one I saw had PV panels reasonably
tasteful round the back, but then I saw the phrase

"Solar Panels: The seller wishes to remain the payee of the feed in
tariff for a period of 10 years from the date of completion."

Do what!

On Sunday, 1 November 2015 21:50:50 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
rick wrote:

I have a 4kW PV solar system

Idly looking at houses on rightmove, one I saw had PV panels reasonably
tasteful round the back, but then I saw the phrase

"Solar Panels: The seller wishes to remain the payee of the feed in
tariff for a period of 10 years from the date of completion."

Do what!

I think there'd be lots of problems trying to do that.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 23:11:51 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

"Solar Panels: The seller wishes to remain the payee of the feed
in
tariff for a period of 10 years from the date of completion."

Do what!

I think there'd be lots of problems trying to do that.

The precedent is there with the "rent a roof" schemes.

Of course the owner of the roof can set the level of rent rent and
also raise one off fees for access rights to maintain the system and
insist on indemnity insurance, etc. Rent? £8760/year ought to cover
it (4 * 12 * 0.5 * 365). B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.