On 20/10/2015 08:57, T i m wrote:


'Most people' might happily have their lofts insulated, have a new
more-efficient boiler, cavity wall insulation or double glazing [1]
because they are (in most cases) a 'good idea' and any grants offered
towards such are 1) generally funded by everyone (not just other
electricity consumers)


They are funded from the same tax on electricity as solar panels so I
guess that makes all the ones with free insulation, etc. thieves as well.

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:36:46 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 20/10/2015 08:57, T i m wrote:

'Most people' might happily have their lofts insulated, have a new
more-efficient boiler, cavity wall insulation or double glazing [1]
because they are (in most cases) a 'good idea' and any grants offered
towards such are 1) generally funded by everyone (not just other
electricity consumers)

They are funded from the same tax on electricity as solar panels so I
guess that makes all the ones with free insulation, etc. thieves as well.

Don't all those free insulation grants come out of general taxation?
That was what I was told, when I got it done here.

Even if they don't, they don't actually *earn* those people cash,
index linked and guaranteed for the next 25 years! At the best they
*save* the occupants money and reduce the demand on the grid at the
same time (and not just house owners with suitable roofs with no
planning restrictions and the (not insignificant) funds available).

So said insulation schemes actually reduce the energy load to the
country, *even when it's dark* and *especially* when the sun goes
(cold) in and in the winter! ;-)

If solar PV was actually credible (at this latitude) then it should be
financially viable on it's own (no need for the FIT theft). Most
people wouldn't even mind if there were some grants towards the
initial installation costs but most wouldn't agree with the concept of
paying people (over_the_odd) for energy they produce but still consume
themselves! Anything that reduces load on the grid and / or adds
energy to the system (however small) should be supported.

FIT though ... 'Well done mate, here is some cash for thinking of
yourself!' ;-(

Cheers, T i m

p.s. OOI, I wonder how many of the people here who actually support
the FIT theft actually have their own solar PV systems?

On 21/10/2015 14:06, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:36:46 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 20/10/2015 08:57, T i m wrote:

'Most people' might happily have their lofts insulated, have a new
more-efficient boiler, cavity wall insulation or double glazing [1]
because they are (in most cases) a 'good idea' and any grants offered
towards such are 1) generally funded by everyone (not just other
electricity consumers)

They are funded from the same tax on electricity as solar panels so I
guess that makes all the ones with free insulation, etc. thieves as well.

Don't all those free insulation grants come out of general taxation?
That was what I was told, when I got it done here.

Even if they don't, they don't actually *earn* those people cash,
index linked and guaranteed for the next 25 years! At the best they
*save* the occupants money and reduce the demand on the grid at the
same time (and not just house owners with suitable roofs with no
planning restrictions and the (not insignificant) funds available).

So said insulation schemes actually reduce the energy load to the
country, *even when it's dark* and *especially* when the sun goes
(cold) in and in the winter! ;-)

If solar PV was actually credible (at this latitude) then it should be
financially viable on it's own (no need for the FIT theft). Most
people wouldn't even mind if there were some grants towards the
initial installation costs but most wouldn't agree with the concept of
paying people (over_the_odd) for energy they produce but still consume
themselves! Anything that reduces load on the grid and / or adds
energy to the system (however small) should be supported.

FIT though ... 'Well done mate, here is some cash for thinking of
yourself!' ;-(

There are lots of people that have "free"panels that only get the
savings. Not everyone invests in them.


Cheers, T i m

p.s. OOI, I wonder how many of the people here who actually support
the FIT theft actually have their own solar PV systems?


I wonder how many have the "free" ones?

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:56:15 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

If solar PV was actually credible (at this latitude) then it should be
financially viable on it's own (no need for the FIT theft). Most
people wouldn't even mind if there were some grants towards the
initial installation costs but most wouldn't agree with the concept of
paying people (over_the_odd) for energy they produce but still consume
themselves! Anything that reduces load on the grid and / or adds
energy to the system (however small) should be supported.

FIT though ... 'Well done mate, here is some cash for thinking of
yourself!' ;-(

There are lots of people that have "free"panels that only get the
savings. Not everyone invests in them.

No, quite, and if you want or are able to offer your roof to a 3rd
party, then that's fine ... and it's not 'the savings' most will be
bothered about ... it's the potential *earnings* and who is paying for
that, index linked and guaranteed for 25 years!

Really, what other 'investment' would come with such a guarantee?


p.s. OOI, I wonder how many of the people here who actually support
the FIT theft actually have their own solar PV systems?


I wonder how many have the "free" ones?

I think a cousin on mine does on the IOW, 'they' (whoever 'they' are)
put the panels on his roof and he gets a / the kickback (which we
electricity users still pay for I guess).

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:39:51 +0100, T i m wrote:

just remembered

I wonder how many have the "free" ones?

I think a cousin on mine does on the IOW, 'they' (whoever 'they' are)
put the panels on his roof and he gets a / the kickback (which we
electricity users still pay for I guess).

I think he gets the PV electricity (and I think he has some solar hot
water as well) and 'they' get out FIT theft (index linked and
guaranteed for 25 years etc).

If it is a solar Co offering the free panels ... as 'they' will be
supplying and fitting their panels at cost, 'they' will be earning
(from our FIT subsidy) even sooner than a conventional owner might.

Less chance of that sort of solar Co going broke, what with their
investment raking in the FIT, even when little of the electricity
produced will be going to them those who are actually paying for it.
;-(

Assuming they last the 2-3 years it might take for *us* to recoup
their hardware costs, even if they go to the wall they will still be
getting the FIT, index linked and guaranteed for the remaining 20+
years!

Cheers, T i m

On 21 Oct 2015 17:04:33 GMT, Huge wrote:

snip

Assuming they last the 2-3 years it might take for *us* to recoup
their hardware costs, even if they go to the wall they will still be
getting the FIT, index linked and guaranteed for the remaining 20+
years!

Or at least until the house changes hands, at which point the new owner,
if they've any sense (and decent legal advice) will want them removed.


Good point.

One Solar Co I was playing with on a cold call said they would move
any installation with me if / when I moved, the first move free and
subsequent moves at minimal cost.

'assuming you are still in business' ... I replied. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 20/10/2015 08:57, T i m wrote:

'Most people' might happily have their lofts insulated, have a new
more-efficient boiler, cavity wall insulation or double glazing [1]
because they are (in most cases) a 'good idea' and any grants offered
towards such are 1) generally funded by everyone (not just other
electricity consumers)

They are funded from the same tax on electricity as solar panels so I
guess that makes all the ones with free insulation, etc. thieves as
well.

Don't all those free insulation grants come out of general taxation?
That was what I was told, when I got it done here.

The BGAS guy who came to inspect my loft told me that it would be
provided by BGAS free of charge because BGAS reckoned it was cheaper
than paying the fine for not doing enough to help their customers save
money.
He then proceeded to tell me they would not top up my insulation because
it wouldn't save enough money to qualify under this system.
--
bert