On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:50:04 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

East/West is the worst possible scenario.
--
bert

Drivel.
East/West only reduces power output by 15%.
In Germany solar panels are being installed E/W to extend the availability of solar power.

Makes sense according to the Uni who researched this concept.

I have a neighbour who has both.
This means they can save more electricity.

Translation: 'This means he can earn more money by forcing other
electricity users to subsidise him more'.

Now, if it was simply to 'save more electricity' then he *could* give
his FIT blood money to a good cause eh? After all, he can't think the
whole FIT-up thing is fair can he, just like you can't and I know
because you went into it just to help them develop better alternative
energy solutions, you too will be donating your FIT theft similarly
.... ? We aren't even talking about you not keeping all the energy you
generate and use yourself, just the rest of us only paying (even over
the odds) for the surplus energy you export. After all, how is your
system benefiting anyone other than you otherwise?

And we will even be happy for you to choose an alternative energy
research firm or straight 'good works' charity yourself.

See, even though we electricity users didn't get any choice in the
matter (to subsidise your intermittent and selfish energy supply) we
are giving you the choice of where to donate your FIT blood money! See
how different we are from you harry ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. Do you admit to people you are on benefits harry (all be that
they are paid to you via electricity buyers rather than taxpayers)?

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:16:00 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

That is unless someone builds some storage.

Amazin' how many people say this as if there is a solution out there
waiting to be applied, and that's it's only the perversity of SOME
PEOPLE which prevents that solution from being deployed.

rolls eyes

ITEM: people have been working on battery storage for 100 years or
more, and the best that has been produced is, essentially, useless, for
the needed purpose. Does any battery system approach the energy density
of a tank of dizzle?

I don't think so.

As an EV owner of over 25 years and an electric vehicle designer,
builder and racer (full size, not just models) over the same period
AND a solar panel owner and user ... I'd say it's only just starting
to get there. Not necessarily because of a vast improvement in the
stored energy available but possibly to do with how efficiently it's
used?

ITEM: pumped storage is touted, and what we have is useful.

Agreed. Using 'surplus' energy to build up a an energy store, even
those there are several layers of losses there, is worth doing
(because the energy is 'surplus' in the first place). If we had
massive over(storage)capacity to cover the longest run of windless /
darkest days and enough energy (live and surplus) to keep it charged
up then we would have solved most of it.

Are there
any more potential sites in this country?

Does harry live on his own at the bottom of a valley? ;-(

Apart, I mean, from damming
up some of the larger Welsh valleys, and good luck with that.

Quite. What about underground? Two (or multiple) massive underground
chambers, one above (or generally higher than) the other could work?

And ... being harry is so keen / proud to be a pioneer in all of this,
how about we block up his house and use his panels to pump water from
the ground to first floors and allow it back though a turbine when the
sun goes in? ;-)

I'm sure there would be plenty of people here (even) who would be
happy to donate to that particular project and we might even get
something in return for our money! weg

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:04:57 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:52:40 +0000, T i m wrote:

And ... being harry is so keen / proud to be a pioneer in all of this,
how about we block up his house and use his panels to pump water from
the ground to first floors and allow it back though a turbine when the
sun goes in? ;-)

I'm sure there would be plenty of people here (even) who would be
happy to donate to that particular project and we might even get
something in return for our money! weg

Cheers, T i m

Limited head, it's a bungalow http://tinyurl.com/q3t7tbg and
http://tinyurl.com/nrd8mgc

Thanks for those Chris.

I particularly like the:

"I believe I will get the money invested back in less than four years
due to energy price increases that are inevitable in the next few
years." No mention if that is with or without the FIT ripoff?

The really funny bit is:

"I believe everybody should be able to benefit from this technology,"

Except of course they can't, especially so when those who have not are
sponsoring those who do! He goes on:

"ie all future new houses should be built to passive house standards."

Handy for those of is already in houses or can't get a house at all
(not).

"It is important to publicise the fact s about what is possible, many
people just don’t know."

I'm guessing he's talking about making those with the opportunity (so
not the poor people who could really use the breaks) aware of how it's
possible to fleece those same people by adding to their electric
bills?

What do they say ... "The rich get richer ... "

Cheers, T i m

p.s. And no wonder the NHS was so inefficient in those days! ;-)

On 11/11/2015 09:59, T i m wrote:

To prove they aren't all selfish and greedy there is nothing stopping
them giving their FIT theft to suitable (eco / charitable) causes.



There aren't any such charities.

On Wednesday, 11 November 2015 09:27:00 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:36:12 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 17:56:50 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:47:34 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:


snip

All form of electricity production are subsidised.

Maybe so, but how many of these subsidies benefit a tiny minority of
individuals in the same way the FIT does?

Cheers, T i m

In exactly the same way.

Nope. You really are brain dead aren't you harry? (And don't forget I
would be far from the first to say that on here). ;-)

They benefit the owners/shareholders of the installations.

Yes, of course, because they are generating energy that they don't use
themselves for free ... AND force others to pay for!

Or maybe you think there are whole families living in these places ...
or even in the wind turbines! ;-)

(I'm not saying a power station might not pay for it's own electricity
use, but even if it didn't it would be miniscule compared with the
amount of energy it supplies to others, twenty four hours a day, three
hundred and sixty five days of the year.)

Is this all really so difficult for you to understand or are you so
desperate to justify your own immoral position you will try any BS /
distraction to try to ease your conscious (assuming you have one that
is)?

Cheers, T i m

So you're not paying for your electricity?
The problem is you're brain dead.
Probably a socialist.

On Wednesday, 11 November 2015 09:49:41 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:45:10 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

Nope, the FIT is just plain wrong (on so many levels) ...


People who sit on their arses and do nothing have no morals.

Is that what you think I'm doing here and you aren't?

There is a good chance I had my first solar panel long before you did
... and (FWIW) I've had a full plug-in electric car before most people
in the world (over 25 years) ... and it's because I have actually used
and experienced these things I know exactly what they can and can't do
and why I haven't gone into the solar PV thing for myself (even though
I could if I chose to).

Sounds like you're one of them.

'Sounds to you like I'm one of them' you mean?

Ere harry, how about you try to explain why so few people have taken
up the FIT theft offer and how it is predicted (is demonstrated) that
will drop even more now they have reduced just how much they steal off
us to give you and your kind?

See if you can do so without the 'exploring new horizons' bs
(considering how long solar systems have been available) and without
lying about the motives of making use of the FIT for nearly everyone
who realises who is actually paying for it.

We'd still be in the stone age if we relied on the likes of you.

And we would be in the dark ages (*every night of the year* and *most
of the winter*) if relied on solar PV eh harry!!

It's not the fools who rushed in on the whole FIT thing, it was those
who didn't actually understand how it worked and if they did it was
those with the lest ethics / morals.

This was proven when I was playing with a solar PV supplier
cold-caller and discussing the FIT system. When he found out I had my
own house, it had a South facing roof and could afford the system, he
couldn't understand why I wouldn't go for it. He went as far as
calling me 'a mug' for being 'bothered' about the idea of forcing
other electricity users to subsidise my own electric use!

No, if you want to put your (sorry, 'our') money where your BS is re
tasking us forward into a new green energy revolution ... keep the
panels on the roof, keep it set up just as it is in fact but give ALL
your FIT blood money to some company (even) who are working on
developing REAL renewable energy.

Or, and you might go for this as we already know just how selfish you
are ... add a battery storage to your system (once you have designed a
green one) so you aren't ALSO relying on the rest of us keeping those
real-world power generators running 24/7 .

No, I didn't think you would (or could) ... in the same way you never
seem actually able to justify your immoral position, outside of your
own greed. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

I hope for the sake of your highly moral position you don't use the library, buses, schools, swimming baths, the pavement, etc etc.
All subsidised by the public purse.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , T i m
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 08:16:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 11/11/2015 00:07, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:29:29 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 10/11/2015 21:20, bert wrote:

East/West is the worst possible scenario.

I think you will find North is worse.

I thought some Uni did some research and suggested some E/W systems
offered more output than a pure S one, for the same total area of
panel?

There needs to be a mix of E/S/W panels with more W and E than S to
provide a smoother peak.

Sounds like a good solution (the mix).

That is unless someone builds some storage.

Amazin' how many people say this as if there is a solution out there
waiting to be applied, and that's it's only the perversity of SOME
PEOPLE which prevents that solution from being deployed.

ITEM: people have been working on battery storage for 100 years or
more, and the best that has been produced is, essentially, useless, for
the needed purpose. Does any battery system approach the energy density
of a tank of dizzle?

Doesnt need to when used in the house to
power the house when the sun isn't shining.

In that situation the problem is the cost not the energy density.

ITEM: pumped storage is touted, and what we have is useful. Are there
any more potential sites in this country? Apart, I mean, from damming
up some of the larger Welsh valleys, and good luck with that.

On Wednesday, 11 November 2015 15:46:01 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:04:57 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:52:40 +0000, T i m wrote:

And ... being harry is so keen / proud to be a pioneer in all of this,
how about we block up his house and use his panels to pump water from
the ground to first floors and allow it back though a turbine when the
sun goes in? ;-)

I'm sure there would be plenty of people here (even) who would be
happy to donate to that particular project and we might even get
something in return for our money! weg

Cheers, T i m

Limited head, it's a bungalow http://tinyurl.com/q3t7tbg and
http://tinyurl.com/nrd8mgc

Thanks for those Chris.

I particularly like the:

"I believe I will get the money invested back in less than four years
due to energy price increases that are inevitable in the next few
years." No mention if that is with or without the FIT ripoff?

The really funny bit is:

"I believe everybody should be able to benefit from this technology,"

Except of course they can't, especially so when those who have not are
sponsoring those who do! He goes on:

"ie all future new houses should be built to passive house standards."

Handy for those of is already in houses or can't get a house at all
(not).

"It is important to publicise the fact s about what is possible, many
people just don't know."

I'm guessing he's talking about making those with the opportunity (so
not the poor people who could really use the breaks) aware of how it's
possible to fleece those same people by adding to their electric
bills?

What do they say ... "The rich get richer ... "

Cheers, T i m

p.s. And no wonder the NHS was so inefficient in those days! ;-)

Not the idle just continue to whinge.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:07:36 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 11/11/2015 09:59, T i m wrote:

To prove they aren't all selfish and greedy there is nothing stopping
them giving their FIT theft to suitable (eco / charitable) causes.



There aren't any such charities.

There must be some that aren't the charity of harry?

RNLI. Salvation Army?

Cheers, T i m

On 10/11/2015 23:59, Rod Speed wrote:

Do you vote in local or general elections?

I don’t, even tho that is compulsory here.

How can it be compulsory? That's absurd and highlights why they
absolutely NEED to be gifted the power of control even if the vote is
one of a spoilt ballot form.

If not, would you vote if a party came to fruition that
satisfied your every desire for how things should be?

Not unless there was some prospect of them being able
to change anything. There clearly isn't with UKIP for example.

"Both wings belong to the same bird"
The system works by the swing between heavy borrowing and (fake) debt
repayment. Every left-right swing is a trick of deluded democracy.

Even Dynamo can't fool as many people as the fake-elected few, and he's
really good (on TV at least)

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 08:33:04 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Wednesday, 11 November 2015 09:49:41 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:45:10 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

Nope, the FIT is just plain wrong (on so many levels) ...


People who sit on their arses and do nothing have no morals.

Is that what you think I'm doing here and you aren't?

There is a good chance I had my first solar panel long before you did
... and (FWIW) I've had a full plug-in electric car before most people
in the world (over 25 years) ... and it's because I have actually used
and experienced these things I know exactly what they can and can't do
and why I haven't gone into the solar PV thing for myself (even though
I could if I chose to).

Sounds like you're one of them.

'Sounds to you like I'm one of them' you mean?

Ere harry, how about you try to explain why so few people have taken
up the FIT theft offer and how it is predicted (is demonstrated) that
will drop even more now they have reduced just how much they steal off
us to give you and your kind?

See if you can do so without the 'exploring new horizons' bs
(considering how long solar systems have been available) and without
lying about the motives of making use of the FIT for nearly everyone
who realises who is actually paying for it.

We'd still be in the stone age if we relied on the likes of you.

And we would be in the dark ages (*every night of the year* and *most
of the winter*) if relied on solar PV eh harry!!

It's not the fools who rushed in on the whole FIT thing, it was those
who didn't actually understand how it worked and if they did it was
those with the lest ethics / morals.

This was proven when I was playing with a solar PV supplier
cold-caller and discussing the FIT system. When he found out I had my
own house, it had a South facing roof and could afford the system, he
couldn't understand why I wouldn't go for it. He went as far as
calling me 'a mug' for being 'bothered' about the idea of forcing
other electricity users to subsidise my own electric use!

No, if you want to put your (sorry, 'our') money where your BS is re
tasking us forward into a new green energy revolution ... keep the
panels on the roof, keep it set up just as it is in fact but give ALL
your FIT blood money to some company (even) who are working on
developing REAL renewable energy.

Or, and you might go for this as we already know just how selfish you
are ... add a battery storage to your system (once you have designed a
green one) so you aren't ALSO relying on the rest of us keeping those
real-world power generators running 24/7 .

No, I didn't think you would (or could) ... in the same way you never
seem actually able to justify your immoral position, outside of your
own greed. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

I hope for the sake of your highly moral position you don't use the library, buses, schools, swimming baths, the pavement, etc etc.
All subsidised by the public purse.

Mate, could you try a little harder to come up with something better
and more parallel / relevant please? Your attempt to distract from
your own selfish position is again noted.

FWIW, no, I don't use any of those but even if I did, I am also a TAX
/ Ratepayer and happy to contribute to something that we ALL could use
(and no one profits over).

The only person really benefiting from your solar PV system is YOU.
YOU are being paid, over the odds by me and all the other electricity
users for electricity you generate and USE YOURSELF! How can you even
start to think you can ever justify that position?

Now, I'm more than happy to pay you the going rate for your highly
unpredictable surplus power generation, but ONLY at the current
commercial going rate.

So, if you actually want to try to claw back any credibility here,
please try to present the actual truth. You consider taking money from
those who in many cases can't really afford it and do so as some form
of income is IMHO, immoral, unethical and disgusting.

Do the right thing and request you be taken off the current / bent FIT
system and only be paid for the energy you actually EXPORT. Then you
might just gain some respect (from me anyway). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, 11 November 2015 10:10:01 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:50:04 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

East/West is the worst possible scenario.
--
bert

Drivel.
East/West only reduces power output by 15%.
In Germany solar panels are being installed E/W to extend the availability of solar power.

Makes sense according to the Uni who researched this concept.

I have a neighbour who has both.
This means they can save more electricity.

Translation: 'This means he can earn more money by forcing other
electricity users to subsidise him more'.

Now, if it was simply to 'save more electricity' then he *could* give
his FIT blood money to a good cause eh? After all, he can't think the
whole FIT-up thing is fair can he, just like you can't and I know
because you went into it just to help them develop better alternative
energy solutions, you too will be donating your FIT theft similarly
... ? We aren't even talking about you not keeping all the energy you
generate and use yourself, just the rest of us only paying (even over
the odds) for the surplus energy you export. After all, how is your
system benefiting anyone other than you otherwise?

And we will even be happy for you to choose an alternative energy
research firm or straight 'good works' charity yourself.

See, even though we electricity users didn't get any choice in the
matter (to subsidise your intermittent and selfish energy supply) we
are giving you the choice of where to donate your FIT blood money! See
how different we are from you harry ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. Do you admit to people you are on benefits harry (all be that
they are paid to you via electricity buyers rather than taxpayers)?

It's return on capital invested.

Benefits is paid to ******* who are either thick or idle.
With the possible exception of some disabled.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:53:35 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

p.s. Do you admit to people you are on benefits harry (all be that
they are paid to you via electricity buyers rather than taxpayers)?

It's return on capital invested.

Yup, just an income stream to you ... or you wouldn't have done it in
the first place or be boasting how much it earns you (off the backs of
others, many less fortunate). At least income tax or rates burdens
those paying it in a proportionate way.

Benefits is paid to ******* who are either thick or idle.

Or, more correctly, it is a benefit that people draw that is
generally paid for by others for doing nothing. Exactly like your FIT
payments in fact!

So, what exactly did you do *personally* re the fitting of your solar
PV system and what part do you *personally* play on a day to day basis
to 'earn' the money you are getting from the rest of us electricity
users, apart from boast how much it 'earns' you that is?

(Earning is normally the reward you receive in return for your
efforts)

Had it just saved you money then you probably wouldn't have so much
animosity towards you from those of us who see what you are party to
as being immoral.

snip

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:53:35 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:


p.s. Do you admit to people you are on benefits harry (all be that
they are paid to you via electricity buyers rather than taxpayers)?

It's return on capital invested.

Benefits is paid to ******* who are either thick or idle.
With the possible exception of some disabled.

That will be almost everybody then as over their life many will have
received a payment that increased their spending power compared to
somebody receiving exactly the same wage/salary/pension for doing the
same job but whose circumstances did not qualify them for the payment.
Many people your age look in askance at people receiving obvious
benefits while conveniently forgetting things like Family
allowance/child benefit that for 15 years or so they probably accepted
willingly which enable them to spend on something like running a nice
car from which they looked down on their work partner who hadn't yet
bred who could only afford a banger.
Don't know if you did have Children, perhaps you can be honest and let
us know and whether to stick to your principles you didn't claim it(
if that's possible) or gave it away.
You must be of the age to qualify to for the Winter Fuel Payment, that
is a benefit . What do you do with it? if you keep it that then in
your own words that makes you thick or idle.
Probably a bus pass as well but those can be of limited value if there
are few buses.

G.Harman

On 12/11/15 11:30, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:53:35 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:


p.s. Do you admit to people you are on benefits harry (all be that
they are paid to you via electricity buyers rather than taxpayers)?

It's return on capital invested.

Benefits is paid to ******* who are either thick or idle.
With the possible exception of some disabled.

That will be almost everybody then as over their life many will have
received a payment that increased their spending power compared to
somebody receiving exactly the same wage/salary/pension for doing the
same job but whose circumstances did not qualify them for the payment.
Many people your age look in askance at people receiving obvious
benefits while conveniently forgetting things like Family
allowance/child benefit that for 15 years or so they probably accepted
willingly which enable them to spend on something like running a nice
car from which they looked down on their work partner who hadn't yet
bred who could only afford a banger.
Don't know if you did have Children, perhaps you can be honest and let
us know and whether to stick to your principles you didn't claim it(
if that's possible) or gave it away.
You must be of the age to qualify to for the Winter Fuel Payment, that
is a benefit . What do you do with it? if you keep it that then in
your own words that makes you thick or idle.
Probably a bus pass as well but those can be of limited value if there
are few buses.

G.Harman



I see you are half way to the realisation that all a socialist
government does is take peoples money in taxes, subtract a bureaucratic
commission, and give some of it back to them in the form of services
they could have paid for themselves, inefficiently, and with politically
correct strings attached.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

In article . com,
lid writes
On 10/11/2015 21:20, bert wrote:

East/West is the worst possible scenario.

I think you will find North is worse.
Think again.
--
bert

In article , T i m
writes
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:04:57 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:52:40 +0000, T i m wrote:

And ... being harry is so keen / proud to be a pioneer in all of this,
how about we block up his house and use his panels to pump water from
the ground to first floors and allow it back though a turbine when the
sun goes in? ;-)

I'm sure there would be plenty of people here (even) who would be
happy to donate to that particular project and we might even get
something in return for our money! weg

Cheers, T i m

Limited head, it's a bungalow http://tinyurl.com/q3t7tbg and
http://tinyurl.com/nrd8mgc

Thanks for those Chris.

I particularly like the:

"I believe I will get the money invested back in less than four years
due to energy price increases that are inevitable in the next few
years." No mention if that is with or without the FIT ripoff?

The really funny bit is:

"I believe everybody should be able to benefit from this technology,"

Except of course they can't, especially so when those who have not are
sponsoring those who do! He goes on:

"ie all future new houses should be built to passive house standards."

Handy for those of is already in houses or can't get a house at all
(not).

"It is important to publicise the fact s about what is possible, many
people just dont know."

I'm guessing he's talking about making those with the opportunity (so
not the poor people who could really use the breaks) aware of how it's
possible to fleece those same people by adding to their electric
bills?

What do they say ... "The rich get richer ... "

"The poor always pay more"

Cheers, T i m

p.s. And no wonder the NHS was so inefficient in those days! ;-)



--
bert

In article ,
writes
On 10/11/2015 21:20, bert wrote:

East/West is the worst possible scenario.

It's being actively encouraged in Germany I believe. less peak but a
longer duration to help smooth out the all-southern facing power peak.


But does it give the best results for the individual installation?
--
bert

In article ,
harry writes
On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 21:25:42 UTC, bert wrote:
In article , Davey
writes
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 23:48:34 -0800 (PST)
harry wrote:

As you don't say how big they are, no-one can say what the FIT
payment should be (assuming he owns them and not some rent-a-roof
company.

I have no idea how big they are, nor whose they are, he didn't say
during the conversation.

(The rent-a-roof have largely disappeared since the FIT
payments have reduced.)
At least the reduction in FIT payments has had at least one good effect.

However 0 Which is why he is unhappy with them at the moment.


I have 4Kw panel on my roof, it generates around 4000 Kwh/year.
How much cash that equals depends on the FIT rate at the time of
installation. Anywhere between 0
The other factors are orientation of the panels and any shading.

Again, I haven't seen the installation. His house generally faces
East/West, so I would expect the panels to be at one of these
orientations.

He should be checking his solar panel meter readings and submitting
them quarterly. He should have a very good idea from this of how much
(0
He didn't say during the conversation.

Next time we talk, I will ask him for some details.

East/West is the worst possible scenario.
--
bert

Drivel.
East/West only reduces power output by 15%.
I would regard a 15% reduction as quite significant.
In Germany solar panels are being installed E/W to extend the
availability of solar power.
I have a neighbour who has both.
This means they can save more electricity.

--
bert

On 12/11/15 14:30, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 10/11/2015 21:20, bert wrote:

East/West is the worst possible scenario.

I think you will find North is worse.
Think again.
I thought again.
The North is worst.
Horrible people, lousy weather and cold and full of flat caps and whippets.



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:43:22 +0000
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 12/11/15 14:30, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 10/11/2015 21:20, bert wrote:

East/West is the worst possible scenario.

I think you will find North is worse.
Think again.
I thought again.
The North is worst.
Horrible people, lousy weather and cold and full of flat caps and
whippets.




Per Stephen Potter: "But not in the South..".

--
Davey.

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:33:59 +0000, bert wrote:

snip

What do they say ... "The rich get richer ... "

"The poor always pay more"

I knew it as '... and the poor get poorer.' but yours works better in
this case (thanks to harry and his kind). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:43:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 12/11/15 14:30, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 10/11/2015 21:20, bert wrote:

East/West is the worst possible scenario.

I think you will find North is worse.
Think again.
I thought again.
The North is worst.
Horrible people, lousy weather and cold and full of flat caps and whippets.

Nothing wrong with whippets ... (seems to be the std family pet for
us). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

wrote
harry wrote

p.s. Do you admit to people you are on benefits harry (all be that
they are paid to you via electricity buyers rather than taxpayers)?

It's return on capital invested.

Benefits is paid to ******* who are either thick or idle.
With the possible exception of some disabled.

That will be almost everybody then as over their life many will have
received a payment that increased their spending power compared to
somebody receiving exactly the same wage/salary/pension for doing the
same job but whose circumstances did not qualify them for the payment.

That isn't really true with those who don't have any kids.

Many people your age look in askance at people receiving obvious
benefits while conveniently forgetting things like Family allowance/child
benefit that for 15 years or so they probably accepted willingly which
enable them to spend on something like running a nice car from which
they looked down on their work partner who hadn't yet bred who could
only afford a banger.

That will only happen in a system which is very generous
in its payment for kids. There aren't many that pay what it
actually costs to keep the kid, so those that have kids
wont have any surplus to spend on the nice car.

There are a few that stupid, particularly Australia where
a single woman with quite a few kids can end up with a
rather higher standard of living due to the kids than the
same person without kids working in a low end job like say
running a checkout in the supermarket or stacking shelves
there, particularly if the one with kids lives in welfare housing
where the rent paid is determined by the income received.

Don't know if you did have Children, perhaps you
can be honest and let us know and whether to stick
to your principles you didn't claim it( if that's possible)

It certainly is here with all benefits, including
the aged pension and all the disability benefits.

or gave it away. You must be of the age to qualify
to for the Winter Fuel Payment, that is a benefit .

Bloody hell, we don't have anything like that here.

What do you do with it? if you keep it that then
in your own words that makes you thick or idle.

Or both in his case.

Probably a bus pass as well but those can
be of limited value if there are few buses.

Yeah, I do qualify for that myself but there are is
no public transport that it can be used on here.
It can be used on the long distance train/bus
system but I never use that, I always fly or drive.

I do qualify for some things like free car rego but
haven't bothered to do the paperwork to get that.

On 12/11/15 18:13, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:43:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 12/11/15 14:30, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 10/11/2015 21:20, bert wrote:

East/West is the worst possible scenario.

I think you will find North is worse.
Think again.
I thought again.
The North is worst.
Horrible people, lousy weather and cold and full of flat caps and whippets.

Nothing wrong with whippets ... (seems to be the std family pet for
us). ;-)


Its the people who have the flat caps really.

Cheers, T i m



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 12/11/15 11:30, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:53:35 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:


p.s. Do you admit to people you are on benefits harry (all be that
they are paid to you via electricity buyers rather than taxpayers)?

It's return on capital invested.

Benefits is paid to ******* who are either thick or idle.
With the possible exception of some disabled.

That will be almost everybody then as over their life many will have
received a payment that increased their spending power compared to
somebody receiving exactly the same wage/salary/pension for doing the
same job but whose circumstances did not qualify them for the payment.
Many people your age look in askance at people receiving obvious
benefits while conveniently forgetting things like Family
allowance/child benefit that for 15 years or so they probably accepted
willingly which enable them to spend on something like running a nice
car from which they looked down on their work partner who hadn't yet
bred who could only afford a banger.
Don't know if you did have Children, perhaps you can be honest and let
us know and whether to stick to your principles you didn't claim it(
if that's possible) or gave it away.
You must be of the age to qualify to for the Winter Fuel Payment, that
is a benefit . What do you do with it? if you keep it that then in
your own words that makes you thick or idle.
Probably a bus pass as well but those can be of limited value if there
are few buses.

I see you are half way to the realisation that all a socialist government
does is take peoples money in taxes, subtract a bureaucratic commission,
and give some of it back to them in the form of services they could have
paid for themselves, inefficiently, and with politically correct strings
attached.

That's a silly claim with the most important stuff like the
roads, airports, health care, military, judicial system, cops
etc. You wouldnt be able to pay for those yourself.

Which might just be why even the Torys had govt
do that stuff before socialism was even invented.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
lid writes
On 10/11/2015 21:20, bert wrote:

East/West is the worst possible scenario.

I think you will find North is worse.
Think again.

No need to, he's right.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , T i m
writes
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:04:57 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:52:40 +0000, T i m wrote:

And ... being harry is so keen / proud to be a pioneer in all of this,
how about we block up his house and use his panels to pump water from
the ground to first floors and allow it back though a turbine when the
sun goes in? ;-)

I'm sure there would be plenty of people here (even) who would be
happy to donate to that particular project and we might even get
something in return for our money! weg

Cheers, T i m

Limited head, it's a bungalow http://tinyurl.com/q3t7tbg and
http://tinyurl.com/nrd8mgc

Thanks for those Chris.

I particularly like the:

"I believe I will get the money invested back in less than four years
due to energy price increases that are inevitable in the next few
years." No mention if that is with or without the FIT ripoff?

The really funny bit is:

"I believe everybody should be able to benefit from this technology,"

Except of course they can't, especially so when those who have not are
sponsoring those who do! He goes on:

"ie all future new houses should be built to passive house standards."

Handy for those of is already in houses or can't get a house at all
(not).

"It is important to publicise the fact s about what is possible, many
people just dont know."

I'm guessing he's talking about making those with the opportunity (so
not the poor people who could really use the breaks) aware of how it's
possible to fleece those same people by adding to their electric
bills?

What do they say ... "The rich get richer ... "

"The poor always pay more"

Like hell they do when their entire income is benefits.

p.s. And no wonder the NHS was so inefficient in those days! ;-)

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:33:59 +0000, bert wrote:

snip

What do they say ... "The rich get richer ... "

"The poor always pay more"

I knew it as '... and the poor get poorer.'

That was a lie since the welfare systems got going.

but yours works better in this case (thanks to harry and his kind). ;-(

Still a lie, particularly with those whose entire income is benefits.

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:56:34 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"T i m" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:33:59 +0000, bert wrote:

snip

What do they say ... "The rich get richer ... "

"The poor always pay more"

I knew it as '... and the poor get poorer.'

That was a lie since the welfare systems got going.

but yours works better in this case (thanks to harry and his kind). ;-(

Still a lie, particularly with those whose entire income is benefits.


Yes, but as I find is often the case with you, you take things
literally and often with regard to your own local circumstances. [1]

The phrase 'The rich get richer and the poor get poorer' does still
generally stand in many many (most) places around the world, including
I suspect, even in England and Australia. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[1] Like when I was speaking of the illogic of giving Xmyth presents
of cycles and skates to kids when it is cold and wet outside (and not
giving them in the spring / summer etc) and you mentioned it was ok
for you at Xmyth because it *was* the summer. This however is a Uk
based, and therefore focused newsgroup so the 'norm' for most comments
will be with that in mind. ;-)

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-11-12, John Jackson wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

[31 lines snipped]

I see you are half way to the realisation that all a socialist
government
does is take peoples money in taxes, subtract a bureaucratic commission,
and give some of it back to them in the form of services they could have
paid for themselves, inefficiently, and with politically correct strings
attached.

That's a silly claim with the most important stuff like the
roads, airports, health care, military, judicial system, cops
etc. You wouldnt be able to pay for those yourself.

That argument can be blown out of the water with one word; supermarkets.

Hadn't noticed any cops, judicial system, armies, airports, roads
and stuff like that on sale at any supermarket I have ever been in.

T i m wrote
Rod Speed wrote
T i m wrote
bert wrote

What do they say ... "The rich get richer ... "

"The poor always pay more"

I knew it as '... and the poor get poorer.'

That was a lie since the welfare systems got going.

but yours works better in this case (thanks to harry and his kind). ;-(

Still a lie, particularly with those whose entire income is benefits.

Yes, but as I find is often the case with you, you take things literally

Even sillier than you usually manage.

and often with regard to your own local circumstances. [1]

Wrong again.

The phrase 'The rich get richer and the poor get poorer' does
still generally stand in many many (most) places around the
world, including I suspect, even in England and Australia. ;-(

Like hell it does with the poor get poorer.

Particularly with those whose entire income is benefits,
they in fact have been doing the exact opposite ever
since the welfare system was invented as the level of
benefits paid keeps increasing in real terms all the time.

So much so that quite a few actually choose to
live on benefits instead of actually working now
and are very selective about what work they will do.

[1] Like when I was speaking of the illogic of giving Xmyth presents
of cycles and skates to kids when it is cold and wet outside (and not
giving them in the spring / summer etc) and you mentioned it was ok
for you at Xmyth because it *was* the summer. This however is a Uk
based, and therefore focused newsgroup so the 'norm' for most
comments will be with that in mind. ;-)

Nothing like it in this case.

T i m Wrote in message:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 08:33:04 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Wednesday, 11 November 2015 09:49:41 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:45:10 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

Nope, the FIT is just plain wrong (on so many levels) ...


People who sit on their arses and do nothing have no morals.

Is that what you think I'm doing here and you aren't?

There is a good chance I had my first solar panel long before you did
... and (FWIW) I've had a full plug-in electric car before most people
in the world (over 25 years) ... and it's because I have actually used
and experienced these things I know exactly what they can and can't do
and why I haven't gone into the solar PV thing for myself (even though
I could if I chose to).

Sounds like you're one of them.

'Sounds to you like I'm one of them' you mean?

Ere harry, how about you try to explain why so few people have taken
up the FIT theft offer and how it is predicted (is demonstrated) that
will drop even more now they have reduced just how much they steal off
us to give you and your kind?

See if you can do so without the 'exploring new horizons' bs
(considering how long solar systems have been available) and without
lying about the motives of making use of the FIT for nearly everyone
who realises who is actually paying for it.

We'd still be in the stone age if we relied on the likes of you.

And we would be in the dark ages (*every night of the year* and *most
of the winter*) if relied on solar PV eh harry!!

It's not the fools who rushed in on the whole FIT thing, it was those
who didn't actually understand how it worked and if they did it was
those with the lest ethics / morals.

This was proven when I was playing with a solar PV supplier
cold-caller and discussing the FIT system. When he found out I had my
own house, it had a South facing roof and could afford the system, he
couldn't understand why I wouldn't go for it. He went as far as
calling me 'a mug' for being 'bothered' about the idea of forcing
other electricity users to subsidise my own electric use!

No, if you want to put your (sorry, 'our') money where your BS is re
tasking us forward into a new green energy revolution ... keep the
panels on the roof, keep it set up just as it is in fact but give ALL
your FIT blood money to some company (even) who are working on
developing REAL renewable energy.

Or, and you might go for this as we already know just how selfish you
are ... add a battery storage to your system (once you have designed a
green one) so you aren't ALSO relying on the rest of us keeping those
real-world power generators running 24/7 .

No, I didn't think you would (or could) ... in the same way you never
seem actually able to justify your immoral position, outside of your
own greed. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

I hope for the sake of your highly moral position you don't use the library, buses, schools, swimming baths, the pavement, etc etc.
All subsidised by the public purse.

Mate, could you try a little harder to come up with something better
and more parallel / relevant please? Your attempt to distract from
your own selfish position is again noted.

FWIW, no, I don't use any of those but even if I did, I am also a TAX
/ Ratepayer and happy to contribute to something that we ALL could use
(and no one profits over).

The only person really benefiting from your solar PV system is YOU.
YOU are being paid, over the odds by me and all the other electricity
users for electricity you generate and USE YOURSELF! How can you even
start to think you can ever justify that position?

Now, I'm more than happy to pay you the going rate for your highly
unpredictable surplus power generation, but ONLY at the current
commercial going rate.

So, if you actually want to try to claw back any credibility here,
please try to present the actual truth. You consider taking money from
those who in many cases can't really afford it and do so as some form
of income is IMHO, immoral, unethical and disgusting.

Do the right thing and request you be taken off the current / bent FIT
system and only be paid for the energy you actually EXPORT. Then you
might just gain some respect (from me anyway). ;-)

Cheers, T i m


Nicely summed up :-)

--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-11-13, John Jackson wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-11-12, John Jackson wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

[31 lines snipped]

I see you are half way to the realisation that all a socialist
government
does is take peoples money in taxes, subtract a bureaucratic
commission,
and give some of it back to them in the form of services they could
have
paid for themselves, inefficiently, and with politically correct
strings
attached.

That's a silly claim with the most important stuff like the
roads, airports, health care, military, judicial system, cops
etc. You wouldnt be able to pay for those yourself.

That argument can be blown out of the water with one word; supermarkets.

Hadn't noticed any cops, judicial system, armies, airports, roads
and stuff like that on sale at any supermarket I have ever been in.

I'm sorry, I forgot that you're a socialist and therefore an idiot, and
need
everything explained slowly and in single syllable words.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 00:07:31 +0000 (GMT+00:00), jim k wrote:

T i m Wrote in message:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 08:33:04 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Wednesday, 11 November 2015 09:49:41 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:45:10 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

Nope, the FIT is just plain wrong (on so many levels) ...


People who sit on their arses and do nothing have no morals.

Is that what you think I'm doing here and you aren't?

There is a good chance I had my first solar panel long before you did
... and (FWIW) I've had a full plug-in electric car before most people
in the world (over 25 years) ... and it's because I have actually used
and experienced these things I know exactly what they can and can't do
and why I haven't gone into the solar PV thing for myself (even though
I could if I chose to).

Sounds like you're one of them.

'Sounds to you like I'm one of them' you mean?

Ere harry, how about you try to explain why so few people have taken
up the FIT theft offer and how it is predicted (is demonstrated) that
will drop even more now they have reduced just how much they steal off
us to give you and your kind?

See if you can do so without the 'exploring new horizons' bs
(considering how long solar systems have been available) and without
lying about the motives of making use of the FIT for nearly everyone
who realises who is actually paying for it.

We'd still be in the stone age if we relied on the likes of you.

And we would be in the dark ages (*every night of the year* and *most
of the winter*) if relied on solar PV eh harry!!

It's not the fools who rushed in on the whole FIT thing, it was those
who didn't actually understand how it worked and if they did it was
those with the lest ethics / morals.

This was proven when I was playing with a solar PV supplier
cold-caller and discussing the FIT system. When he found out I had my
own house, it had a South facing roof and could afford the system, he
couldn't understand why I wouldn't go for it. He went as far as
calling me 'a mug' for being 'bothered' about the idea of forcing
other electricity users to subsidise my own electric use!

No, if you want to put your (sorry, 'our') money where your BS is re
tasking us forward into a new green energy revolution ... keep the
panels on the roof, keep it set up just as it is in fact but give ALL
your FIT blood money to some company (even) who are working on
developing REAL renewable energy.

Or, and you might go for this as we already know just how selfish you
are ... add a battery storage to your system (once you have designed a
green one) so you aren't ALSO relying on the rest of us keeping those
real-world power generators running 24/7 .

No, I didn't think you would (or could) ... in the same way you never
seem actually able to justify your immoral position, outside of your
own greed. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

I hope for the sake of your highly moral position you don't use the library, buses, schools, swimming baths, the pavement, etc etc.
All subsidised by the public purse.

Mate, could you try a little harder to come up with something better
and more parallel / relevant please? Your attempt to distract from
your own selfish position is again noted.

FWIW, no, I don't use any of those but even if I did, I am also a TAX
/ Ratepayer and happy to contribute to something that we ALL could use
(and no one profits over).

The only person really benefiting from your solar PV system is YOU.
YOU are being paid, over the odds by me and all the other electricity
users for electricity you generate and USE YOURSELF! How can you even
start to think you can ever justify that position?

Now, I'm more than happy to pay you the going rate for your highly
unpredictable surplus power generation, but ONLY at the current
commercial going rate.

So, if you actually want to try to claw back any credibility here,
please try to present the actual truth. You consider taking money from
those who in many cases can't really afford it and do so as some form
of income is IMHO, immoral, unethical and disgusting.

Do the right thing and request you be taken off the current / bent FIT
system and only be paid for the energy you actually EXPORT. Then you
might just gain some respect (from me anyway). ;-)

Cheers, T i m


Nicely summed up :-)

Cheers. ;-)

It's funny how many people really think anything like this is 'free'
.... as in no one actually has to pay for it. shrug (not like harry
who knows full well who pays his FIT scam, he just doesn't care).

I overheard someone the other day saying 'we got a free flat' but it's
only free to them. Their 'free flat' costs the rest of us something
and again, no one cares until we find out they have been renting it
out and making money out of it. The only difference between that and
what harry does is what harry does isn't actually illegal, just
immoral.

Everything has to be paid for by someone somewhere and if it's say
(some of the stuff harry quotes in his bogus arguments, like)
libraries or swimming pools then they are social resources that most
would agree should be paid for (as in the provision of the facility at
least) by 'all of us'. In most cases that really means all_of_us (in a
position to pay) re taxes and rates etc.

What we don't do is PAY those with money to use the swimming pools and
libraries, subsidised by those with (often) less money.


T i m

In article , T i m
writes
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 00:07:31 +0000 (GMT+00:00), jim k wrote:

T i m Wrote in message:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 08:33:04 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Wednesday, 11 November 2015 09:49:41 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:45:10 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

Nope, the FIT is just plain wrong (on so many levels) ...


People who sit on their arses and do nothing have no morals.

Is that what you think I'm doing here and you aren't?

There is a good chance I had my first solar panel long before you did
... and (FWIW) I've had a full plug-in electric car before most people
in the world (over 25 years) ... and it's because I have actually used
and experienced these things I know exactly what they can and can't do
and why I haven't gone into the solar PV thing for myself (even though
I could if I chose to).

Sounds like you're one of them.

'Sounds to you like I'm one of them' you mean?

Ere harry, how about you try to explain why so few people have taken
up the FIT theft offer and how it is predicted (is demonstrated) that
will drop even more now they have reduced just how much they steal off
us to give you and your kind?

See if you can do so without the 'exploring new horizons' bs
(considering how long solar systems have been available) and without
lying about the motives of making use of the FIT for nearly everyone
who realises who is actually paying for it.

We'd still be in the stone age if we relied on the likes of you.

And we would be in the dark ages (*every night of the year* and *most
of the winter*) if relied on solar PV eh harry!!

It's not the fools who rushed in on the whole FIT thing, it was those
who didn't actually understand how it worked and if they did it was
those with the lest ethics / morals.

This was proven when I was playing with a solar PV supplier
cold-caller and discussing the FIT system. When he found out I had my
own house, it had a South facing roof and could afford the system, he
couldn't understand why I wouldn't go for it. He went as far as
calling me 'a mug' for being 'bothered' about the idea of forcing
other electricity users to subsidise my own electric use!

No, if you want to put your (sorry, 'our') money where your BS is re
tasking us forward into a new green energy revolution ... keep the
panels on the roof, keep it set up just as it is in fact but give ALL
your FIT blood money to some company (even) who are working on
developing REAL renewable energy.

Or, and you might go for this as we already know just how selfish you
are ... add a battery storage to your system (once you have designed a
green one) so you aren't ALSO relying on the rest of us keeping those
real-world power generators running 24/7 .

No, I didn't think you would (or could) ... in the same way you never
seem actually able to justify your immoral position, outside of your
own greed. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

I hope for the sake of your highly moral position you don't use the
library, buses, schools, swimming baths, the pavement, etc etc.
All subsidised by the public purse.

Mate, could you try a little harder to come up with something better
and more parallel / relevant please? Your attempt to distract from
your own selfish position is again noted.

FWIW, no, I don't use any of those but even if I did, I am also a TAX
/ Ratepayer and happy to contribute to something that we ALL could use
(and no one profits over).

The only person really benefiting from your solar PV system is YOU.
YOU are being paid, over the odds by me and all the other electricity
users for electricity you generate and USE YOURSELF! How can you even
start to think you can ever justify that position?

Now, I'm more than happy to pay you the going rate for your highly
unpredictable surplus power generation, but ONLY at the current
commercial going rate.

So, if you actually want to try to claw back any credibility here,
please try to present the actual truth. You consider taking money from
those who in many cases can't really afford it and do so as some form
of income is IMHO, immoral, unethical and disgusting.

Do the right thing and request you be taken off the current / bent FIT
system and only be paid for the energy you actually EXPORT. Then you
might just gain some respect (from me anyway). ;-)

Cheers, T i m


Nicely summed up :-)

Cheers. ;-)

It's funny how many people really think anything like this is 'free'
... as in no one actually has to pay for it. shrug (not like harry
who knows full well who pays his FIT scam, he just doesn't care).

I overheard someone the other day saying 'we got a free flat' but it's
only free to them. Their 'free flat' costs the rest of us something
and again, no one cares until we find out they have been renting it
out and making money out of it. The only difference between that and
what harry does is what harry does isn't actually illegal, just
immoral.

Everything has to be paid for by someone somewhere and if it's say
(some of the stuff harry quotes in his bogus arguments, like)
libraries or swimming pools then they are social resources that most
would agree should be paid for (as in the provision of the facility at
least) by 'all of us'. In most cases that really means all_of_us (in a
position to pay) re taxes and rates etc.

In the case of council tax that means householders, definitely not "all
of us" and not on the basis of ability to pay.
What we don't do is PAY those with money to use the swimming pools and
libraries, subsidised by those with (often) less money.


T i m

--
bert

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 20:35:58 +0000, bert wrote:

snip

I overheard someone the other day saying 'we got a free flat' but it's
only free to them. Their 'free flat' costs the rest of us something
and again, no one cares until we find out they have been renting it
out and making money out of it. The only difference between that and
what harry does is what harry does isn't actually illegal, just
immoral.

Everything has to be paid for by someone somewhere and if it's say
(some of the stuff harry quotes in his bogus arguments, like)
libraries or swimming pools then they are social resources that most
would agree should be paid for (as in the provision of the facility at
least) by 'all of us'. In most cases that really means all_of_us (in a
position to pay) re taxes and rates etc.

In the case of council tax that means householders, definitely not "all
of us" and not on the basis of ability to pay.

Well yes, but I tried to cover that with the ('in a position to pay')
along with general taxation? ;-)

eg, If it's 'The government' are going to be fined by Europe for not
meeting various (and some possibly dubious) 'targets' then it should
be they that raise the money for the fines from the general population
as they do with any similar revenue. Better, they get the energy
suppliers to spend more money or realistic solutions, rather than
subsidising a toy for the well_to_do? It should all be Nationalised
again, they it all makes better sense (than trying to get an energy
generator to influence the will / direction of the population etc).

Re 'renewable energy' it seems they pass that responsibility to the
energy suppliers and force them to do stuff when it in turn isn't
wanted or isn't appropriate (according to many who seem to know)?

Cheers, T i m

"bert" wrote in message
news
In article , T i m
writes
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 00:07:31 +0000 (GMT+00:00), jim k wrote:

T i m Wrote in message:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 08:33:04 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Wednesday, 11 November 2015 09:49:41 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:45:10 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

Nope, the FIT is just plain wrong (on so many levels) ...


People who sit on their arses and do nothing have no morals.

Is that what you think I'm doing here and you aren't?

There is a good chance I had my first solar panel long before you did
... and (FWIW) I've had a full plug-in electric car before most
people
in the world (over 25 years) ... and it's because I have actually
used
and experienced these things I know exactly what they can and can't
do
and why I haven't gone into the solar PV thing for myself (even
though
I could if I chose to).

Sounds like you're one of them.

'Sounds to you like I'm one of them' you mean?

Ere harry, how about you try to explain why so few people have taken
up the FIT theft offer and how it is predicted (is demonstrated) that
will drop even more now they have reduced just how much they steal
off
us to give you and your kind?

See if you can do so without the 'exploring new horizons' bs
(considering how long solar systems have been available) and without
lying about the motives of making use of the FIT for nearly everyone
who realises who is actually paying for it.

We'd still be in the stone age if we relied on the likes of you.

And we would be in the dark ages (*every night of the year* and *most
of the winter*) if relied on solar PV eh harry!!

It's not the fools who rushed in on the whole FIT thing, it was those
who didn't actually understand how it worked and if they did it was
those with the lest ethics / morals.

This was proven when I was playing with a solar PV supplier
cold-caller and discussing the FIT system. When he found out I had my
own house, it had a South facing roof and could afford the system, he
couldn't understand why I wouldn't go for it. He went as far as
calling me 'a mug' for being 'bothered' about the idea of forcing
other electricity users to subsidise my own electric use!

No, if you want to put your (sorry, 'our') money where your BS is re
tasking us forward into a new green energy revolution ... keep the
panels on the roof, keep it set up just as it is in fact but give ALL
your FIT blood money to some company (even) who are working on
developing REAL renewable energy.

Or, and you might go for this as we already know just how selfish you
are ... add a battery storage to your system (once you have designed
a
green one) so you aren't ALSO relying on the rest of us keeping those
real-world power generators running 24/7 .

No, I didn't think you would (or could) ... in the same way you never
seem actually able to justify your immoral position, outside of your
own greed. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

I hope for the sake of your highly moral position you don't use the
library, buses, schools, swimming baths, the pavement, etc etc.
All subsidised by the public purse.

Mate, could you try a little harder to come up with something better
and more parallel / relevant please? Your attempt to distract from
your own selfish position is again noted.

FWIW, no, I don't use any of those but even if I did, I am also a TAX
/ Ratepayer and happy to contribute to something that we ALL could use
(and no one profits over).

The only person really benefiting from your solar PV system is YOU.
YOU are being paid, over the odds by me and all the other electricity
users for electricity you generate and USE YOURSELF! How can you even
start to think you can ever justify that position?

Now, I'm more than happy to pay you the going rate for your highly
unpredictable surplus power generation, but ONLY at the current
commercial going rate.

So, if you actually want to try to claw back any credibility here,
please try to present the actual truth. You consider taking money from
those who in many cases can't really afford it and do so as some form
of income is IMHO, immoral, unethical and disgusting.

Do the right thing and request you be taken off the current / bent FIT
system and only be paid for the energy you actually EXPORT. Then you
might just gain some respect (from me anyway). ;-)

Cheers, T i m


Nicely summed up :-)

Cheers. ;-)

It's funny how many people really think anything like this is 'free'
... as in no one actually has to pay for it. shrug (not like harry
who knows full well who pays his FIT scam, he just doesn't care).

I overheard someone the other day saying 'we got a free flat' but it's
only free to them. Their 'free flat' costs the rest of us something
and again, no one cares until we find out they have been renting it
out and making money out of it. The only difference between that and
what harry does is what harry does isn't actually illegal, just
immoral.

Everything has to be paid for by someone somewhere and if it's say
(some of the stuff harry quotes in his bogus arguments, like)
libraries or swimming pools then they are social resources that most
would agree should be paid for (as in the provision of the facility at
least) by 'all of us'. In most cases that really means all_of_us (in a
position to pay) re taxes and rates etc.

In the case of council tax that means householders,

More than just them, because even renters
pay that indirectly in the rent they pay.

definitely not "all of us"

Yes, clearly squatters don't pay that.

and not on the basis of ability to pay.

There is still some effect of that with council tax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Tax#Exemptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counci...il_Tax_Benefit

What we don't do is PAY those with money to use the swimming pools and
libraries, subsidised by those with (often) less money.

On 14/11/2015 20:54, T i m wrote:


eg, If it's 'The government' are going to be fined by Europe for not
meeting various (and some possibly dubious) 'targets' then it should
be they that raise the money for the fines from the general population
as they do with any similar revenue. Better, they get the energy
suppliers to spend more money or realistic solutions, rather than
subsidising a toy for the well_to_do? It should all be Nationalised
again, they it all makes better sense (than trying to get an energy
generator to influence the will / direction of the population etc).

The problem is that they have to reduce carbon emissions to not be
fined. Just how do they do that in a reasonable time scale?

On 14/11/15 22:58, dennis@home wrote:
On 14/11/2015 20:54, T i m wrote:


eg, If it's 'The government' are going to be fined by Europe for not
meeting various (and some possibly dubious) 'targets' then it should
be they that raise the money for the fines from the general population
as they do with any similar revenue. Better, they get the energy
suppliers to spend more money or realistic solutions, rather than
subsidising a toy for the well_to_do? It should all be Nationalised
again, they it all makes better sense (than trying to get an energy
generator to influence the will / direction of the population etc).

The problem is that they have to reduce carbon emissions to not be
fined. Just how do they do that in a reasonable time scale?


They follow Europe's example, and pay the fines. Its cheaper

Or leave the EU.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.