I talked to a friend in Norfolk today, who had solar panels installed
on his house roof during the spring. He told me that, so far, he has
had FIT payments totalling 59p.
He is wondering if it was worth it.....

--
Davey.

Davey wrote:

I talked to a friend in Norfolk today, who had solar panels installed
on his house roof during the spring. He told me that, so far, he has
had FIT payments totalling 59p.
He is wondering if it was worth it.....

Did *he* pay to install them? If someone else paid, they'll be taking
the generation FITs and maybe letting him have the export FITs ...

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 23:52:33 +0000
Andy Burns wrote:

Davey wrote:

I talked to a friend in Norfolk today, who had solar panels
installed on his house roof during the spring. He told me that, so
far, he has had FIT payments totalling 59p.
He is wondering if it was worth it.....

Did *he* pay to install them? If someone else paid, they'll be taking
the generation FITs and maybe letting him have the export FITs ...



No idea. I'll ask him when we next talk. I don't know anything about
'generation FITs' and 'export FITs', I have never been tempted to
bother with the things! Apart from which, they wouldn't look good on a
thatched roof.

--
Davey.

On 10/11/2015 00:21, Davey wrote:

I don't know anything about
'generation FITs' and 'export FITs', I have never been tempted to
bother with the things! Apart from which, they wouldn't look good on a
thatched roof.

I've just been playing around on the datalogging site set up by the
people that make the Solis inverter I've got on mine.
There are quite a few people in the UK who've set up accounts.
One in Ipswitch has earned £297 since install at the end of July.
http://ginlongmonitoring.com/Termina....aspx?pid=7402
Check a few others on the map. It's quite interesting to see how
they're performing.

On Monday, 9 November 2015 23:47:02 UTC, Davey wrote:
I talked to a friend in Norfolk today, who had solar panels installed
on his house roof during the spring. He told me that, so far, he has
had FIT payments totalling 59p.
He is wondering if it was worth it.....

--
Davey.

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.
(The rent-a-roof have largely disappeared since the FIT payments have reduced.)
However £0.59 is definitely wrong.

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 £2000 and £600.

The other factors are orientation of the panels and any shading.

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 (£) he should be getting.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 00:21:42 +0000, Davey
wrote:

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 23:52:33 +0000
Andy Burns wrote:

Davey wrote:

I talked to a friend in Norfolk today, who had solar panels
installed on his house roof during the spring. He told me that, so
far, he has had FIT payments totalling 59p.
He is wondering if it was worth it.....

Did *he* pay to install them? If someone else paid, they'll be taking
the generation FITs and maybe letting him have the export FITs ...



No idea. I'll ask him when we next talk. I don't know anything about
'generation FITs' and 'export FITs',

I think the 'generation FITs' are the payments we electricity users
pay those who can afford and / or have the opportunity to stick these
things on our roofs (so not you for example) for the electricity they
actually generate (even if they use it themselves!), whereas the
'export FIT's' are the payments we electricity users pay for the
electricity the said system generates and that actually goes back into
the grid for the rest of us who use electricity can use.

If he had a company install the panels FOC then he gets the free
electricity (which the rest of us pay over the odds for) and the
company get the money (that the rest of us pay over the odds for).

I have never been tempted to
bother with the things!

Best thing. Now, if you lived in say California, paid for the panels
yourself and used the electricity generated to run your aircon it
would all make more sense (and wouldn't be immoral / theft either).

Apart from which, they wouldn't look good on a
thatched roof.

Many people don't think they 'look good' on most roofs but most
capitalists don't really care about such things (or the ecology), as
long as they are making money. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I think solar energy and panels are a great invention, I have
many panels and solar powered devices, I just don't expect other
people to have to pay for them and question the net ecology / carbon
footprint (now much energy and pollution they took to produce versus
the total 'clean' energy they produce over their lives and the
pollution saved because of that). In any case I don't try to push the
'green' bs, I just use them where it's convenient or I don't have the
option of mains. ;-)

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:48:30 +0000
T i m wrote:

I think the 'generation FITs' are the payments we electricity users
pay those who can afford and / or have the opportunity to stick these
things on our roofs (so not you for example) for the electricity they
actually generate (even if they use it themselves!), whereas the
'export FIT's' are the payments we electricity users pay for the
electricity the said system generates and that actually goes back into
the grid for the rest of us who use electricity can use.

If he had a company install the panels FOC then he gets the free
electricity (which the rest of us pay over the odds for) and the
company get the money (that the rest of us pay over the odds for).

I have never been tempted to
bother with the things!

Best thing. Now, if you lived in say California, paid for the panels
yourself and used the electricity generated to run your aircon it
would all make more sense (and wouldn't be immoral / theft either).

Apart from which, they wouldn't look good on a
thatched roof.

Many people don't think they 'look good' on most roofs but most
capitalists don't really care about such things (or the ecology), as
long as they are making money. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I think solar energy and panels are a great invention, I have
many panels and solar powered devices, I just don't expect other
people to have to pay for them and question the net ecology / carbon
footprint (now much energy and pollution they took to produce versus
the total 'clean' energy they produce over their lives and the
pollution saved because of that). In any case I don't try to push the
'green' bs, I just use them where it's convenient or I don't have the
option of mains. ;-)


That sounds like a decent approach. If they are as good as touted, they
should pay for themselves. I object to paying for somebody else to
have them. But they are perfect for places such as remote road signs or
flood monitoring posts, where there is no convenient power supply.
Air conditioning, while great on some occasions, is rarely needed in
Norfolk.

--
Davey.

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 £0.59 is definitely wrong.
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 £2000 and £600.

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
(£) he should be getting.

He didn't say during the conversation.

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

--
Davey.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:40:31 +0000, Davey
wrote:

snip

p.s. I think solar energy and panels are a great invention, I have
many panels and solar powered devices, I just don't expect other
people to have to pay for them and question the net ecology / carbon
footprint (now much energy and pollution they took to produce versus
the total 'clean' energy they produce over their lives and the
pollution saved because of that). In any case I don't try to push the
'green' bs, I just use them where it's convenient or I don't have the
option of mains. ;-)


That sounds like a decent approach.

Thanks. ;-)

If they are as good as touted, they
should pay for themselves.

Quite.

I object to paying for somebody else to
have them.

And that's the rub for those of us who actually understand what it's
all about (and then care when we do).

The bottom line: The government have to meet certain (and possibly
questionable when looking at the bigger picture) 'green' targets and
if they don't they get fined. So they force energy suppliers to offer
grants to try to get people on the system (simply to try to get the
generation figures up) and the energy suppliers in turn pass that cost
onto their customers. Except, solar energy only works when the sun is
out (so that's absolute tops ~66% of the time and much much less in
the winter etc) so we still need all the other sources to be kept
running (not counting wind power of course as there *will be* many
still and dark days every year). Now, some of that generation doesn't
run so efficiently when not at reasonable load so may well offset the
*real world* eco advantages to the whole farce.

But they are perfect for places such as remote road signs or
flood monitoring posts, where there is no convenient power supply.

Oh, of course ... like I said I have and have used solar PV since they
were readily available (I may have 10 panels of different sizes here
and some in use as we speak) but I don't expect anyone else to pay for
them, even if I'm not drawing quite so much from the grid whilst doing
so.

And it's not only that we pay people for the energy they generate at
an inflated rate compare with typical suppliers, we do so index linked
and guaranteed for 20 years!


Air conditioning, while great on some occasions, is rarely needed in
Norfolk.

Quite (and why I mentioned California) and why many think we are too
far above the equator for solar to be truly viable.

I was thinking earlier that the ISS was probably a good example of
solar PV being put to good use (FWIW in general etc). The panels
charge batteries so they still have energy when it's dark and everyone
who pays taxes in the countries who support the project pay their
share (not just a subset of the people).

If the UK government (and therefore taxpayers) are going to be fined
for not meeting these 'green generation' levels, it should be the same
group of people who should be funding any grants if that is what is
needed to get people onto such schemes (and grants shouldn't be needed
in the first place if the solution was truly stand-alone viable).

Now, if we were talking about subsidising people to run
microgeneration projects that could be available 24/7 (not just when
the sun was shining or the wind blowing) and paid them ONLY for what
they didn't use themselves, I can't see any one (including me) having
an issue with that (and I might install such a plant myself ... IF the
eco and economics made sense etc).

Cheers, T i m

On 10/11/15 11:24, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:40:31 +0000, Davey
wrote:

snip

p.s. I think solar energy and panels are a great invention, I have
many panels and solar powered devices, I just don't expect other
people to have to pay for them and question the net ecology / carbon
footprint (now much energy and pollution they took to produce versus
the total 'clean' energy they produce over their lives and the
pollution saved because of that). In any case I don't try to push the
'green' bs, I just use them where it's convenient or I don't have the
option of mains. ;-)


That sounds like a decent approach.

Thanks. ;-)

If they are as good as touted, they
should pay for themselves.

Quite.

I object to paying for somebody else to
have them.

And that's the rub for those of us who actually understand what it's
all about (and then care when we do).

The bottom line: The government have to meet certain (and possibly
questionable when looking at the bigger picture) 'green' targets and
if they don't they get fined. So they force energy suppliers to offer
grants to try to get people on the system (simply to try to get the
generation figures up) and the energy suppliers in turn pass that cost
onto their customers. Except, solar energy only works when the sun is
out (so that's absolute tops ~66% of the time and much much less in
the winter etc) so we still need all the other sources to be kept
running (not counting wind power of course as there *will be* many
still and dark days every year). Now, some of that generation doesn't
run so efficiently when not at reasonable load so may well offset the
*real world* eco advantages to the whole farce.

But they are perfect for places such as remote road signs or
flood monitoring posts, where there is no convenient power supply.

Oh, of course ... like I said I have and have used solar PV since they
were readily available (I may have 10 panels of different sizes here
and some in use as we speak) but I don't expect anyone else to pay for
them, even if I'm not drawing quite so much from the grid whilst doing
so.

And it's not only that we pay people for the energy they generate at
an inflated rate compare with typical suppliers, we do so index linked
and guaranteed for 20 years!


Air conditioning, while great on some occasions, is rarely needed in
Norfolk.

Quite (and why I mentioned California) and why many think we are too
far above the equator for solar to be truly viable.

I was thinking earlier that the ISS was probably a good example of
solar PV being put to good use (FWIW in general etc). The panels
charge batteries so they still have energy when it's dark and everyone
who pays taxes in the countries who support the project pay their
share (not just a subset of the people).

If the UK government (and therefore taxpayers) are going to be fined
for not meeting these 'green generation' levels, it should be the same
group of people who should be funding any grants if that is what is
needed to get people onto such schemes (and grants shouldn't be needed
in the first place if the solution was truly stand-alone viable).

Now, if we were talking about subsidising people to run
microgeneration projects that could be available 24/7 (not just when
the sun was shining or the wind blowing) and paid them ONLY for what
they didn't use themselves, I can't see any one (including me) having
an issue with that (and I might install such a plant myself ... IF the
eco and economics made sense etc).

Cheers, T i m

Many EU countries find it cheaper to pay the EU fine than pay the subsidies.


--
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.

T i m wrote:

And it's not only that we pay people for the energy they generate at
an inflated rate compare with typical suppliers, we do so index linked
and guaranteed for 20 years!

You forgot to add that the payments are also tax-free (

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:53:17 +0000, Davey
wrote:

snip

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
(£) he should be getting.

He didn't say during the conversation.

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

That would be good ... and OOI, see if he knows just who is paying for
the FIT (even if he isn't getting it personally) and what he thinks of
it (morally / ethically)?

One thing we do know for sure (without asking him) is that no one
would put any solar panels anywhere where they aren't using the
electricity they generate themselves ... unless they were getting some
guaranteed and index linked (for the next 20 years) *payment*.

This is proven 100% by the recent downturn in the relatively
lacklustre uptake of such schemes across the board.

The government are desperate to improve the (supposedly) 'green'
energy generation but at the same time can't afford (re loss of votes)
to penalise simple electricity users any more / as much.

This is especially the case being so few have he opportunity to 'take
up' any subsidise / grants offered. All those in rented accommodation
or own their own houses where the planning / listed / roof size /
orientation or even like us, simply because the poor thermal design of
the (1897) house means we can't have it.

Most people can make use of free loft insulation and no one is
*making* any money out of it. Subsidised double glazing or cavity wall
insulation also only makes the installers some money but again, only
saves the owner money via energy savings, not making money (and
certainly not index linked money for the next 20 years). ;-(

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

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:31:58 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
snip

Now, if we were talking about subsidising people to run
microgeneration projects that could be available 24/7 (not just when
the sun was shining or the wind blowing) and paid them ONLY for what
they didn't use themselves, I can't see any one (including me) having
an issue with that (and I might install such a plant myself ... IF the
eco and economics made sense etc).

Cheers, T i m

Many EU countries find it cheaper to pay the EU fine than pay the subsidies.

LOL ... like the fines they seem to impose for not having car
insurance. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:39:00 -0000, "Robin" wrote:

T i m wrote:

And it's not only that we pay people for the energy they generate at
an inflated rate compare with typical suppliers, we do so index linked
and guaranteed for 20 years!

You forgot to add that the payments are also tax-free (

NO ... it gets worse!

Thanks for the heads up though ... now where is my protesting mask ...
;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 12:13:06 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:39:00 -0000, "Robin" wrote:

T i m wrote:

And it's not only that we pay people for the energy they generate at
an inflated rate compare with typical suppliers, we do so index linked
and guaranteed for 20 years!

You forgot to add that the payments are also tax-free (

NO ... it gets worse!

And inflation linked...............!

On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 08:48:34 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 00:21:42 +0000, Davey
wrote:

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 23:52:33 +0000
Andy Burns wrote:

Davey wrote:

I talked to a friend in Norfolk today, who had solar panels
installed on his house roof during the spring. He told me that, so
far, he has had FIT payments totalling 59p.
He is wondering if it was worth it.....

Did *he* pay to install them? If someone else paid, they'll be taking
the generation FITs and maybe letting him have the export FITs ...



No idea. I'll ask him when we next talk. I don't know anything about
'generation FITs' and 'export FITs',

I think the 'generation FITs' are the payments we electricity users
pay those who can afford and / or have the opportunity to stick these
things on our roofs (so not you for example) for the electricity they
actually generate (even if they use it themselves!), whereas the
'export FIT's' are the payments we electricity users pay for the
electricity the said system generates and that actually goes back into
the grid for the rest of us who use electricity can use.

If he had a company install the panels FOC then he gets the free
electricity (which the rest of us pay over the odds for) and the
company get the money (that the rest of us pay over the odds for).

I have never been tempted to
bother with the things!

Best thing. Now, if you lived in say California, paid for the panels
yourself and used the electricity generated to run your aircon it
would all make more sense (and wouldn't be immoral / theft either).

Apart from which, they wouldn't look good on a
thatched roof.

Many people don't think they 'look good' on most roofs but most
capitalists don't really care about such things (or the ecology), as
long as they are making money. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I think solar energy and panels are a great invention, I have
many panels and solar powered devices, I just don't expect other
people to have to pay for them and question the net ecology / carbon
footprint (now much energy and pollution they took to produce versus
the total 'clean' energy they produce over their lives and the
pollution saved because of that). In any case I don't try to push the
'green' bs, I just use them where it's convenient or I don't have the
option of mains. ;-)

All form of electricity production are subsidised.

On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 11:57:14 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:53:17 +0000, Davey
wrote:

snip

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
(£) he should be getting.

He didn't say during the conversation.

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

That would be good ... and OOI, see if he knows just who is paying for
the FIT (even if he isn't getting it personally) and what he thinks of
it (morally / ethically)?

One thing we do know for sure (without asking him) is that no one
would put any solar panels anywhere where they aren't using the
electricity they generate themselves ... unless they were getting some
guaranteed and index linked (for the next 20 years) *payment*.

This is proven 100% by the recent downturn in the relatively
lacklustre uptake of such schemes across the board.

The government are desperate to improve the (supposedly) 'green'
energy generation but at the same time can't afford (re loss of votes)
to penalise simple electricity users any more / as much.

This is especially the case being so few have he opportunity to 'take
up' any subsidise / grants offered. All those in rented accommodation
or own their own houses where the planning / listed / roof size /
orientation or even like us, simply because the poor thermal design of
the (1897) house means we can't have it.

Most people can make use of free loft insulation and no one is
*making* any money out of it. Subsidised double glazing or cavity wall
insulation also only makes the installers some money but again, only
saves the owner money via energy savings, not making money (and
certainly not index linked money for the next 20 years). ;-(

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

Cheers, T i m

You only think that because you lack ed the initiative ormoney to fit them yourself.
Typical envious socialist.

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

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 08:48:34 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 00:21:42 +0000, Davey
wrote:

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 23:52:33 +0000
Andy Burns wrote:

Davey wrote:

I talked to a friend in Norfolk today, who had solar panels
installed on his house roof during the spring. He told me that, so
far, he has had FIT payments totalling 59p.
He is wondering if it was worth it.....

Did *he* pay to install them? If someone else paid, they'll be taking
the generation FITs and maybe letting him have the export FITs ...



No idea. I'll ask him when we next talk. I don't know anything about
'generation FITs' and 'export FITs',

I think the 'generation FITs' are the payments we electricity users
pay those who can afford and / or have the opportunity to stick these
things on our roofs (so not you for example) for the electricity they
actually generate (even if they use it themselves!), whereas the
'export FIT's' are the payments we electricity users pay for the
electricity the said system generates and that actually goes back into
the grid for the rest of us who use electricity can use.

If he had a company install the panels FOC then he gets the free
electricity (which the rest of us pay over the odds for) and the
company get the money (that the rest of us pay over the odds for).

I have never been tempted to
bother with the things!

Best thing. Now, if you lived in say California, paid for the panels
yourself and used the electricity generated to run your aircon it
would all make more sense (and wouldn't be immoral / theft either).

Apart from which, they wouldn't look good on a
thatched roof.

Many people don't think they 'look good' on most roofs but most
capitalists don't really care about such things (or the ecology), as
long as they are making money. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I think solar energy and panels are a great invention, I have
many panels and solar powered devices, I just don't expect other
people to have to pay for them and question the net ecology / carbon
footprint (now much energy and pollution they took to produce versus
the total 'clean' energy they produce over their lives and the
pollution saved because of that). In any case I don't try to push the
'green' bs, I just use them where it's convenient or I don't have the
option of mains. ;-)

All form of electricity production are subsidised.

Completely stand alone off the grid systems aren't.

In article ,
writes
On 10/11/2015 00:21, Davey wrote:

I don't know anything about
'generation FITs' and 'export FITs', I have never been tempted to
bother with the things! Apart from which, they wouldn't look good on a
thatched roof.

I've just been playing around on the datalogging site set up by the
people that make the Solis inverter I've got on mine.
There are quite a few people in the UK who've set up accounts.
One in Ipswitch has earned £297
Earned? What's this "earned"?
since install at the end of July.
http://ginlongmonitoring.com/Termina....aspx?pid=7402
Check a few others on the map. It's quite interesting to see how
they're performing.




--
bert

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 £0.59 is definitely wrong.
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 £2000 and £600.

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
(£) he should be getting.

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

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

East/West is the worst possible scenario.

I think you will find North is worse.

On 10/11/2015 21:17, bert wrote:

One in Ipswitch has earned £297
Earned? What's this "earned"?

Earn: "obtain (money) in return for labour or services"
Services: "a system supplying a public need such as transport,
communications, or utilities such as electricity and water.

On 10/11/2015 17:56, T i m wrote:

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?

I have a quick question for you Tim.
Do you vote in local or general elections?

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

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.

"Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬)" wrote
in message ...
On 10/11/2015 17:56, T i m wrote:

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?

I have a quick question for you Tim.
Do you vote in local or general elections?

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

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.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:31:16 +0000, Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬)
wrote:

On 10/11/2015 17:56, T i m wrote:

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?

I have a quick question for you Tim.

Ok.

Do you vote in local or general elections?

I have done but I generally just spoil my paper. Reason, I don't know
enough of the facts (who does) or trust those spouting stuff as facts
and offering promises to trust anyone or to be able to make an
educated decision. In the same way I don't get involved in religion or
sport (although those are more because I really don't care). ;-)

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

Yes and no, as long as I felt 'my desire' was shared by the majority
and was generally and realistically considered the best for everyone.

'Saving money' by say insulating your loft is good for everyone.
Paying a minority who have the money and the opportunity to put solar
panels on their roof and then paying them over the odds for the
electricity they mainly use themselves *only* benefits that same
minority so wouldn't get my (or most peoples I suspect) vote.

The same people though would probably put a thumbs up for solar panels
themselves, or any use where *everyone* benefited (in a real tangible
and indisputable) way.

That can never happen with straight solar PV or wind generation
because there WILL BE some days when both contribute nothing (of
worth) to our energy needs, so we still have to rely on the
alternatives.

How much of Scotland would we have to flood to be able to provide a
hydro-electric battery big enough to compensate for the fact that
there often isn't any wind or sun (in the UK)?

Cheers, T i m

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?

Cheers, T i m

On 11/11/2015 00:05, T i m wrote:

Do you vote in local or general elections?

I have done but I generally just spoil my paper. Reason, I don't know
enough of the facts (who does) or trust those spouting stuff as facts
and offering promises to trust anyone or to be able to make an
educated decision. In the same way I don't get involved in religion or
sport (although those are more because I really don't care). ;-)

Ah... well you visit the polling station so you are registering a vote
of lack of confidence in the eligible parties.
You are contracting into acceptance of giving power of control and
governance to the political system regardless of who gets in it matters
not. By making an impression with thine hand and submitting that spoilt
paper to be counted you have voted for "the system" so, you're voting
for FIT if your elected government system decides it's for the good
of... of their pockets by pay-offs and private investments typically.


'Saving money' by say insulating your loft is good for everyone.
Paying a minority who have the money and the opportunity to put solar
panels on their roof and then paying them over the odds for the
electricity they mainly use themselves *only* benefits that same
minority so wouldn't get my (or most peoples I suspect) vote.

But you DID vote for it, deceived by the great lie admittedly but you
voted in the system, you gave it energy (personal) and allowed it so
carry on.

That can never happen with straight solar PV or wind generation
because there WILL BE some days when both contribute nothing (of
worth) to our energy needs, so we still have to rely on the
alternatives.

I agree 100% I also agree that it's a sham and the whole "green" thing
is driven by corruption and profiteering and you're right that it's an
un-fair elitists "club"
You know why I "invested" in building the extension and paying for
solar... because I have zero confidence in banks and politics. I could
have just purchased some bullion but that can be stolen quite easily.
Even without the FIT I'd have put solar on the roof if for no other
reason than being able to keep the house cooler in the summer and to
remove money from the uncertainty of banks. Cash currently devalues as
does technology so I might as well get some benefit from the money in
the form of increasing the value of the property even if it is only by
the same amount spent.

How much of Scotland would we have to flood to be able to provide a
hydro-electric battery big enough to compensate for the fact that
there often isn't any wind or sun (in the UK)?

The solution to storage no doubt exists as does the answer to limitless
energy but the power heirachy needs "slaves" to keep working to pay
taxes to fund their corrupt alternative agenda. If energy was free we
wouldn't need to work so much and earn so much and pay them so much!

Solar panels and FIT or invading other countries (war)
Paedophile politicians.... ANY vote for any party or no parties is
unknowingly giving agreement to EVERYTHING that comes under the heading
of politics/government.

So there you have it. Your brain might find solarPV and FIT abhorrent
but you voted for it without understanding the consequences of your
ballot paper actions.


Cheers
Pete

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 01:15:53 +0000, Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬)
wrote:

On 11/11/2015 00:05, T i m wrote:

Do you vote in local or general elections?

I have done but I generally just spoil my paper. Reason, I don't know
enough of the facts (who does) or trust those spouting stuff as facts
and offering promises to trust anyone or to be able to make an
educated decision. In the same way I don't get involved in religion or
sport (although those are more because I really don't care). ;-)

Ah... well you visit the polling station so you are registering a vote
of lack of confidence in the eligible parties.

Correct ... or in the system in general.

You are contracting into acceptance of giving power of control and
governance to the political system regardless of who gets in it matters
not.

Yes, because they are all (well, the serious parties) just walking
either side of the same thin line these days.

By making an impression with thine hand and submitting that spoilt
paper to be counted you have voted for "the system"

Democracy, yes (even though we don't really have it we have it more
than in some countries).

so, you're voting
for FIT if your elected government system decides it's for the good
of... of their pockets by pay-offs and private investments typically.

Correct. However, you are assuming that one part would just introduce
one immoral system (like FIT) and another would only do one different
immoral thing, whereas we all know they are all doing loads of good
and bad things.


'Saving money' by say insulating your loft is good for everyone.
Paying a minority who have the money and the opportunity to put solar
panels on their roof and then paying them over the odds for the
electricity they mainly use themselves *only* benefits that same
minority so wouldn't get my (or most peoples I suspect) vote.

But you DID vote for it, deceived by the great lie admittedly but you
voted in the system, you gave it energy (personal) and allowed it so
carry on.

See above. It is NEVER a matter of making a decision on a single
policy.

That can never happen with straight solar PV or wind generation
because there WILL BE some days when both contribute nothing (of
worth) to our energy needs, so we still have to rely on the
alternatives.

I agree 100% I also agree that it's a sham and the whole "green" thing
is driven by corruption and profiteering and you're right that it's an
un-fair elitists "club"

That's good then. ;-)

You know why I "invested" in building the extension and paying for
solar... because I have zero confidence in banks and politics.

Ok .... ?

I could
have just purchased some bullion but that can be stolen quite easily.

Well, not as easily as those of us with the morality to NOT indulge in
the FIT theft are having our money stolen from us?

Even without the FIT I'd have put solar on the roof if for no other
reason than being able to keep the house cooler in the summer and to
remove money from the uncertainty of banks.

Ok, so why didn't you do that? Why don't you do that now?

Cash currently devalues as
does technology so I might as well get some benefit from the money in
the form of increasing the value of the property even if it is only by
the same amount spent.

Eh?

How much of Scotland would we have to flood to be able to provide a
hydro-electric battery big enough to compensate for the fact that
there often isn't any wind or sun (in the UK)?

The solution to storage no doubt exists as does the answer to limitless
energy but the power heirachy needs "slaves" to keep working to pay
taxes to fund their corrupt alternative agenda. If energy was free we
wouldn't need to work so much and earn so much and pay them so much!

But energy is free ... to a minority eh? But as they say, there is no
such thing as a free lunch ... someone pays somewhere.

Solar panels and FIT or invading other countries (war)
Paedophile politicians.... ANY vote for any party or no parties is
unknowingly giving agreement to EVERYTHING that comes under the heading
of politics/government.

Not really. Just like the FIT actively takes money from the majority
and gives it to a minority, fitting loft insulation doesn't take
anything significant from anyone, saves the householder and country
energy but no one PROFITS from it off the back of anyone else.

So there you have it. Your brain might find solarPV and FIT abhorrent
but you voted for it without understanding the consequences of your
ballot paper actions.

Nope. What I did was demonstrate my apathy and distrust for what was
on offer whilst retaining the right to make the choice, as / when I
felt it would actually make a difference in a way that would benefit
all of us. Unfortunately, to actually make a choice I would have to
have the real hard facts / truths and as the chances of that are
pretty slim, how is one ever going to know what the best decision is?

I guess I could do what most people do and:

Vote the way my family has always voted.
Vote for the one policy that would benefit me.
Vote for someone I liked personally.
Not vote for some one, party or cause I didn't like (that may be good
for the country as a whole).
Vote for someone to stop someone else getting it.
Vote for anything as it's easier than making a real choice (including
the choice to spoil your paper).
Not turn up at the polling station at all.

You have active actions and inactive consequences. One IS more
proactive and is making a specific statement whilst the other isn't.

It's like when she walks in holding up two dresses and asks your
opinion of which one she should wear. Are you telling me that offering
your opinion is *always* the right answer or a good thing to do
(ever)! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:37:27 +0000, Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬)
wrote:

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.


So, that takes your energy supply from 1/2 to 2/3'ds of the day (at
best) then? ;-)

Luckily we are keeping the power ready for you 24/365 ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

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.
They benefit the owners/shareholders of the installations.

On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 11:57:14 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:53:17 +0000, Davey
wrote:

snip

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
(£) he should be getting.

He didn't say during the conversation.

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

That would be good ... and OOI, see if he knows just who is paying for
the FIT (even if he isn't getting it personally) and what he thinks of
it (morally / ethically)?

One thing we do know for sure (without asking him) is that no one
would put any solar panels anywhere where they aren't using the
electricity they generate themselves ... unless they were getting some
guaranteed and index linked (for the next 20 years) *payment*.

This is proven 100% by the recent downturn in the relatively
lacklustre uptake of such schemes across the board.

The government are desperate to improve the (supposedly) 'green'
energy generation but at the same time can't afford (re loss of votes)
to penalise simple electricity users any more / as much.

This is especially the case being so few have he opportunity to 'take
up' any subsidise / grants offered. All those in rented accommodation
or own their own houses where the planning / listed / roof size /
orientation or even like us, simply because the poor thermal design of
the (1897) house means we can't have it.

Most people can make use of free loft insulation and no one is
*making* any money out of it. Subsidised double glazing or cavity wall
insulation also only makes the installers some money but again, only
saves the owner money via energy savings, not making money (and
certainly not index linked money for the next 20 years). ;-(

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

Cheers, T i m

People who sit on their arses and do nothing have no morals. Sounds like you're one of them.
We'd still be in the stone age if we relied on the likes of you.

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 �0.59 is definitely wrong.
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 �2000 and �600.

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
(�) he should be getting.

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%.
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.

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?

Cheers, T i m



There needs to be a mix of E/S/W panels with more W and E than S to
provide a smoother peak. That is unless someone builds some storage.

The spongers that don't care will just put them South where they get
maximum fits without any regard to need.

harry wrote
T i m wrote
harry wrote

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?

In exactly the same way.

Nope, quite differently.

They benefit the owners/shareholders of the installations.

Which with quite a bit of it was the govt.

Not parasites like you.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 11:57:14 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:53:17 +0000, Davey
wrote:

snip

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
(£) he should be getting.

He didn't say during the conversation.

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

That would be good ... and OOI, see if he knows just who is paying for
the FIT (even if he isn't getting it personally) and what he thinks of
it (morally / ethically)?

One thing we do know for sure (without asking him) is that no one
would put any solar panels anywhere where they aren't using the
electricity they generate themselves ... unless they were getting some
guaranteed and index linked (for the next 20 years) *payment*.

This is proven 100% by the recent downturn in the relatively
lacklustre uptake of such schemes across the board.

The government are desperate to improve the (supposedly) 'green'
energy generation but at the same time can't afford (re loss of votes)
to penalise simple electricity users any more / as much.

This is especially the case being so few have he opportunity to 'take
up' any subsidise / grants offered. All those in rented accommodation
or own their own houses where the planning / listed / roof size /
orientation or even like us, simply because the poor thermal design of
the (1897) house means we can't have it.

Most people can make use of free loft insulation and no one is
*making* any money out of it. Subsidised double glazing or cavity wall
insulation also only makes the installers some money but again, only
saves the owner money via energy savings, not making money (and
certainly not index linked money for the next 20 years). ;-(

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

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

Rabid bigots like you in spades.

Sounds like you're one of them.

We know you are.

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

Nope, we'd have nukes like the frogs do.

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

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

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.

But whilst that will smooth out the (supply) peak it won't actually
increase the net effect will it? In fact it won't help the rest of us
at all as it's only the peaks that generally take the level outside
what the (domestic) FIT scroungers can't use themselves (I can see
harry turning stuff on just to use it all up himself!). ;-(

The spongers that don't care will just put them South where they get
maximum fits without any regard to need.

I'm pretty sure they don't have any regards past their own needs mate,
or they wouldn't have gone into such a selfish scheme in the first
place ... ;-( [1]

Cheers, T i m

[1] Few contest the concept of domestic and farm sized solar PV
installations supporting our energy needs (all be it so unpredictable
to be useless), it's *just* the FIT and how it pays people (at a level
over and above the going rate and is index linked, guaranteed for 20
years and tax free) for the electricity they use themselves! Now, if
they were paid *just* for what surplus they exported, even if they
used most of it themselves, then that would be a different matter. To
prove they aren't all selfish and greedy there is nothing stopping
them giving their FIT theft to suitable (eco / charitable) causes.