http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7570161.html

That is what you get from talking to Trump.
Seriously the funniest thing I heard recently is an Elephant mounted sun
shade with solar charger. One assumes they won't sell many in Surrey.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7570161.html

On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 10:13:19 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 01:21:24 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7570161.html

Bearing in mind it only produced 1% of our electricity in 20125 (see
earlier thread), and in northern Europe it doesn't even return the
energy invested in it during manufacture, one can only be glad that
the Government has at last seen sense regarding this worst of all
possible forms of renewable energy. It might be a different matter if
we lived in north Africa, or California, but we don't.


And (fiscally) 'cheaper' (isn't not environmentally green until the
*entire* process of manufacture and installation are done via self
generated VP electricity) is only 'cheaper' when it's actually doing
anything (which can only ever be say (absolute maximum) 60% of the
time (daylight)).

PV is like saying it's 'cheaper' to bury our waste in the ground ...
till we run out of holes in the ground to tip it of course.

PV (especially here in the UK as you say) is as much a 'solution' to
our reliable energy needs as 'away' is to throwing things away.

You can nearly visualise the UK running on PV as you can watching a
light powered being by someone on a dynamo generator bike. Light,
light, light oh dear, dark. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. My solution to much of this and especially in regard to the FIT
theft.

Anyone on taking our money via the FIT should be taken off grid (or
they can't claim it). They would then be forced to supply their own
storage solutions to store their own surplus to use when the sun
wasn't shining. They would be given a slot meter where they could buy
electricity off *our* grid at £1/unit.

Or

They stay on grid and ONLY get paid for what they export (at the std
commercial production rate). None of this should ever been seen / used
as just a cash-cow (harry). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 09/02/2017 11:22, T i m wrote:


PV is like saying it's 'cheaper' to bury our waste in the ground ...
till we run out of holes in the ground to tip it of course.

Its more like saying you get your water from rainfall (free like solar)
but intermittent, without any storage. You can use it while it rains but
have to use the mains when its not.

Having a battery, powerwall, makes it like having a small tank that will
collect a few gallons of rain so you can still have rain water for a few
hours after the rain stops.


PV (especially here in the UK as you say) is as much a 'solution' to
our reliable energy needs as 'away' is to throwing things away.

You can nearly visualise the UK running on PV as you can watching a
light powered being by someone on a dynamo generator bike. Light,
light, light oh dear, dark. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. My solution to much of this and especially in regard to the FIT
theft.

Anyone on taking our money via the FIT should be taken off grid (or
they can't claim it). They would then be forced to supply their own
storage solutions to store their own surplus to use when the sun
wasn't shining. They would be given a slot meter where they could buy
electricity off *our* grid at £1/unit.

Or

They stay on grid and ONLY get paid for what they export (at the std
commercial production rate). None of this should ever been seen / used
as just a cash-cow (harry). ;-)

Why not a cash cow?
Its the greens like harry that keep claiming its actually saving the
planet that are liars, people that just take advantage of the rules are
just normal people.
I bet you take advantage of any tax breaks you can find rather than pay
more.

Actually one problem is power storage. It needs somebody to come up with a
cheap efficient way to store the generated powe and feed it in when its
needed.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"T i m" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 10:13:19 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 01:21:24 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7570161.html

Bearing in mind it only produced 1% of our electricity in 20125 (see
earlier thread), and in northern Europe it doesn't even return the
energy invested in it during manufacture, one can only be glad that
the Government has at last seen sense regarding this worst of all
possible forms of renewable energy. It might be a different matter if
we lived in north Africa, or California, but we don't.


And (fiscally) 'cheaper' (isn't not environmentally green until the
*entire* process of manufacture and installation are done via self
generated VP electricity) is only 'cheaper' when it's actually doing
anything (which can only ever be say (absolute maximum) 60% of the
time (daylight)).

PV is like saying it's 'cheaper' to bury our waste in the ground ...
till we run out of holes in the ground to tip it of course.

PV (especially here in the UK as you say) is as much a 'solution' to
our reliable energy needs as 'away' is to throwing things away.

You can nearly visualise the UK running on PV as you can watching a
light powered being by someone on a dynamo generator bike. Light,
light, light oh dear, dark. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. My solution to much of this and especially in regard to the FIT
theft.

Anyone on taking our money via the FIT should be taken off grid (or
they can't claim it). They would then be forced to supply their own
storage solutions to store their own surplus to use when the sun
wasn't shining. They would be given a slot meter where they could buy
electricity off *our* grid at £1/unit.

Or

They stay on grid and ONLY get paid for what they export (at the std
commercial production rate). None of this should ever been seen / used
as just a cash-cow (harry). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:42:00 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/02/2017 11:22, T i m wrote:


PV is like saying it's 'cheaper' to bury our waste in the ground ...
till we run out of holes in the ground to tip it of course.

Its more like saying you get your water from rainfall (free like solar)
but intermittent, without any storage. You can use it while it rains but
have to use the mains when its not.

Or tip stuff in a hole till it's filled, yes. All good things must
come to an end. ;-)

Having a battery, powerwall, makes it like having a small tank that will
collect a few gallons of rain so you can still have rain water for a few
hours after the rain stops.

Yup. Just what my cousin has and he's currently undergoing legal
action with the supplier because it does do what they promised (now
fancy that!). ;-(


snip

They stay on grid and ONLY get paid for what they export (at the std
commercial production rate). None of this should ever been seen / used
as just a cash-cow (harry). ;-)

Why not a cash cow?

Because it's the rest of us, often the less fortunate who are paying
for it.

Its the greens like harry that keep claiming its actually saving the
planet that are liars,

Or just (scientifically) gullible at the best.

people that just take advantage of the rules are
just normal people.

Or ignorant of the bigger picture in some cases.

I bet you take advantage of any tax breaks you can find rather than pay
more.

We aren't talking about tax breaks we are talking about *earning
money*, earnings that are index linked and guaranteed!

And no, even though I could afford the panels I wouldn't go for a FIT
theft system, or certainly not one that is as bogus as the one that is
in action now (even with lower levels of theft)..

Put the panels on the roof yourself ('at your own cost') and by all
means accept payment (or offset your charges would be better) for any
energy you generate AND EXPORT but ONLY at the current commercial
generation rates.

Anyone trying to sell anything over and above market rates would
normally be considered a scammer. Just as those who bought shares in
what were publicly owned services and then immediately sold them on
for a profit. No one is saying it is illegal but many people say it is
immoral and would rather 'miss out' than be part of it.

It's no different to someone being given a Council house and then
sub-letting it for a profit (or buying their council house at a
reduced rate for that matter, especially when we are in desperate need
of social housing and most of the houses in question were far from
'derelict (and certainly not compared with this 120 year old house).

And no, I've always paid my dues and never been part of any scam where
I have used others to pay for my earnings.

Cheers, T i m

On 09/02/17 18:23, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Actually one problem is power storage. It needs somebody to come up with a
cheap efficient way to store the generated powe and feed it in when its
needed.
Brian

Yeah. Cat beller of the first order, aren't you.

If someone could only come up with a simple cheap reliable way to hold a
zillion degree plasma stable we could have fusion reactors instead of
vaillants..

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On 09/02/2017 19:39, T i m wrote:


And no, I've always paid my dues and never been part of any scam where
I have used others to pay for my earnings.

So you work for all the time you are paid for?
No extra tea breaks or fag breaks?
There is no excessive profits in what you produce?
Never even taken a pencil for use on a none work project?
Hi, Saint Tim.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 09/02/2017 19:39, T i m wrote:


And no, I've always paid my dues and never been part of any scam where
I have used others to pay for my earnings.

So you work for all the time you are paid for?

Worked for more than I was paid for in fact.

No extra tea breaks

Skipped most of them.

or fag breaks?

Never been actually stupid enough to smoke.

There is no excessive profits in what you produce?

None.

Never even taken a pencil for use on a none work project?

Used my own stuff at work at times.

Hi, Saint Tim.

Nothing saintly about it, scammer.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 22:14:30 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/02/2017 19:39, T i m wrote:


And no, I've always paid my dues and never been part of any scam where
I have used others to pay for my earnings.

So you work for all the time you are paid for?

While I was working, pretty much yes.

No extra tea breaks

When I worked with BT (P.O. Factories) you only had breaks at set
times, as I did when IT training. When I worked in the field I CBA to
stop for any other than those required, so no again. When I was at a
base/ office I took tea back to the workshop / my office but it was
often left to go cold (because I was on the phone to a customer or was
busy with my work).

or fag breaks?

Never smoked so no.

There is no excessive profits in what you produce?

What? Are you trying to conflate legitimate commercialism with theft?

Never even taken a pencil for use on a none work project?

I've rarely taken anything I wasn't OK'd to so do (often in lieu of
time / effort).

Hi, Saint Tim.

No (or 'yes' compared to you possibly) but maybe I just have a working
moral compass. I can (try to ) help you fix yours if you like?

Anyroadup ... was all that some sort of sad plot to try to justify FIT
payments? Well, you failed and will always fail because there is no
justification.

Giving someone a grant to say insulate their home ... to save the
country (and them) energy isn't allowing that person to earn money
from anyone else. There is a difference between earning and saving
(look it up).

Allowing electric cars free parking or low / no road tax or even free
charging points (you can see how desperate they are to make this green
BS stick eh!) isn't earning the owners any money, it's saving them
some. Putting a solar farm in a field (for free) is only something you
can / might do if you are going to earn money from it. To earn money
you need people to pay it and that's other electricity consumers.

Put the panels in a field and sell the electricity they produce *at
the going rate* and ONLY for that which you export. Very free would
have any issues with that (unless you try to tell us it's 'Green
energy' when it's not ... it's just not a black as some energy).

*Paying* someone, both over the commercial rate and for what they
consume themselves AND making it inflation proof and guaranteed for
20+ years IS theft, especially if you only make the people who pay
their electric bills (not the Taxpayers) carry the burden.

The government thought it would be a good idea so it's the government
(so everyone they are supposed to represent), pay the bill (or better
still, get real and scrap the theft thing completely).

Cheers, T i m

On 10/02/2017 01:12, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 22:14:30 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/02/2017 19:39, T i m wrote:


And no, I've always paid my dues and never been part of any scam where
I have used others to pay for my earnings.

So you work for all the time you are paid for?

While I was working, pretty much yes.

No extra tea breaks

When I worked with BT (P.O. Factories) you only had breaks at set
times, as I did when IT training. When I worked in the field I CBA to
stop for any other than those required, so no again. When I was at a
base/ office I took tea back to the workshop / my office but it was
often left to go cold (because I was on the phone to a customer or was
busy with my work).

or fag breaks?

Never smoked so no.

There is no excessive profits in what you produce?

What? Are you trying to conflate legitimate commercialism with theft?

Never even taken a pencil for use on a none work project?

I've rarely taken anything I wasn't OK'd to so do (often in lieu of
time / effort).

Hi, Saint Tim.

No (or 'yes' compared to you possibly) but maybe I just have a working
moral compass. I can (try to ) help you fix yours if you like?

Anyroadup ... was all that some sort of sad plot to try to justify FIT
payments? Well, you failed and will always fail because there is no
justification.

Giving someone a grant to say insulate their home ... to save the
country (and them) energy isn't allowing that person to earn money
from anyone else. There is a difference between earning and saving
(look it up).

Allowing electric cars free parking or low / no road tax or even free
charging points (you can see how desperate they are to make this green
BS stick eh!) isn't earning the owners any money, it's saving them
some. Putting a solar farm in a field (for free) is only something you
can / might do if you are going to earn money from it. To earn money
you need people to pay it and that's other electricity consumers.

Put the panels in a field and sell the electricity they produce *at
the going rate* and ONLY for that which you export. Very free would
have any issues with that (unless you try to tell us it's 'Green
energy' when it's not ... it's just not a black as some energy).

*Paying* someone, both over the commercial rate and for what they
consume themselves AND making it inflation proof and guaranteed for
20+ years IS theft, especially if you only make the people who pay
their electric bills (not the Taxpayers) carry the burden.

The government thought it would be a good idea so it's the government
(so everyone they are supposed to represent), pay the bill (or better
still, get real and scrap the theft thing completely).

Cheers, T i m


I think you are confused.
There is no difference between not paying for something that others have
to pay or being paid "FIT".

For example you think its OK for someone to get a grant to save energy
as nobody is paying for it?
The grants for insulation come from the same 5% green tax on energy that
the FIT payments come from.

People avoid the congestion charge because they have a subsidised
electric car, others have to pay the tax.

FIT payments for solar PV are the commercial rates, its what the
government decide was needed to get people to spend their own money on a
project the government didn't want to spend on.

......


In fact I admit I get more from my solar thermal panels in "FIT" than I
would get if it were solar PV. I get paid 19p a unit of heat rather than
the 16p for solar PV.
There is also no way to export that heat.

(However it doesn't cause grid instability like solar PV might.)


You don't get a grant to install solar thermal or solar PV, you pay for
it and the government pays you back over a long time for doing as it asks.
It can take 10 or 12 years before you get the money back.
Only after that time do you actually stand to make a "profit" for your
risk. You may not make any profit if things go wrong and you need lots
of repairs as the government doesn't pay for them.

On Friday, 10 February 2017 13:02:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/02/2017 01:12, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 22:14:30 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/02/2017 19:39, T i m wrote:


And no, I've always paid my dues and never been part of any scam where
I have used others to pay for my earnings.

So you work for all the time you are paid for?

While I was working, pretty much yes.

No extra tea breaks

When I worked with BT (P.O. Factories) you only had breaks at set
times, as I did when IT training. When I worked in the field I CBA to
stop for any other than those required, so no again. When I was at a
base/ office I took tea back to the workshop / my office but it was
often left to go cold (because I was on the phone to a customer or was
busy with my work).

or fag breaks?

Never smoked so no.

There is no excessive profits in what you produce?

What? Are you trying to conflate legitimate commercialism with theft?

Never even taken a pencil for use on a none work project?

I've rarely taken anything I wasn't OK'd to so do (often in lieu of
time / effort).

Hi, Saint Tim.

No (or 'yes' compared to you possibly) but maybe I just have a working
moral compass. I can (try to ) help you fix yours if you like?

Anyroadup ... was all that some sort of sad plot to try to justify FIT
payments? Well, you failed and will always fail because there is no
justification.

Giving someone a grant to say insulate their home ... to save the
country (and them) energy isn't allowing that person to earn money
from anyone else. There is a difference between earning and saving
(look it up).

Allowing electric cars free parking or low / no road tax or even free
charging points (you can see how desperate they are to make this green
BS stick eh!) isn't earning the owners any money, it's saving them
some. Putting a solar farm in a field (for free) is only something you
can / might do if you are going to earn money from it. To earn money
you need people to pay it and that's other electricity consumers.

Put the panels in a field and sell the electricity they produce *at
the going rate* and ONLY for that which you export. Very free would
have any issues with that (unless you try to tell us it's 'Green
energy' when it's not ... it's just not a black as some energy).

*Paying* someone, both over the commercial rate and for what they
consume themselves AND making it inflation proof and guaranteed for
20+ years IS theft, especially if you only make the people who pay
their electric bills (not the Taxpayers) carry the burden.

The government thought it would be a good idea so it's the government
(so everyone they are supposed to represent), pay the bill (or better
still, get real and scrap the theft thing completely).

Cheers, T i m


I think you are confused.
There is no difference between not paying for something that others have
to pay or being paid "FIT".

For example you think its OK for someone to get a grant to save energy
as nobody is paying for it?
The grants for insulation come from the same 5% green tax on energy that
the FIT payments come from.

People avoid the congestion charge because they have a subsidised
electric car, others have to pay the tax.

FIT payments for solar PV are the commercial rates, its what the
government decide was needed to get people to spend their own money on a
project the government didn't want to spend on.

.....


In fact I admit I get more from my solar thermal panels in "FIT" than I
would get if it were solar PV. I get paid 19p a unit of heat rather than
the 16p for solar PV.
There is also no way to export that heat.

(However it doesn't cause grid instability like solar PV might.)


You don't get a grant to install solar thermal or solar PV, you pay for
it and the government pays you back over a long time for doing as it asks.
It can take 10 or 12 years before you get the money back.
Only after that time do you actually stand to make a "profit" for your
risk. You may not make any profit if things go wrong and you need lots
of repairs as the government doesn't pay for them.

One my first array.
I calculate that after five years,I have got my money back.
Depending on if you include the zero tax element.

My second array was half the price but the FIT is only a quarter.

Still electricity prices go up so increasing the value of electricity saved oof my electric bill.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:02:16 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

I think you are confused.

I *know* you are, as you are about to demonstrate. ;-)

There is no difference between not paying for something that others have
to pay or being paid "FIT".

Of course there is. How much can you *earn* out of having loft
installation fitted (even if fitted 'free' paid for by others)?

The FIT is a food bank where people take the food (for free) and then
sell it.


For example you think its OK for someone to get a grant to save energy
as nobody is paying for it?

Nope. I think it has some moral / social merit to try to encourage as
many people as possible to *save* energy, on behalf of the whole
country. It is often means tested and only applied under specific
circumstances.

The grants for insulation come from the same 5% green tax on energy that
the FIT payments come from.

But as I said, no one (householders) makes money from having loft
insulation fitted. The savings they make aren't index linked or
guaranteed for 2-0 years (even though they may turn out to be).

People avoid the congestion charge because they have a subsidised
electric car,

Yup, and that is also questionable.

others have to pay the tax.

In the case of IC vehicles it's generally pretty logical where the
most polluting paying the most money. With electric / hybrid vehicles
the net green benefit is highly questionable so any grants are
potentially as bogus as the FIT payments.

IF everyone when out a bought an electric car do you think 1) The
electricity supply infrastructure would be able to cope, 2) the
overall pollution (inc manufacturing and disposal) would be any / much
less (if at all less) or that they would carry on offering grants
(often paid to those 'with' by those who are 'without') for any of it?

We all know it's all just some BS because without the subsidies most
'green' energy solutions couldn't stand on their own two feet and
'most people' don't do something (even if it might benefit them)
without some sort of incentive.

If someone told me I could possibly save £50 pa on my electricity bill
by swapping supplier I (and the vast majority) wouldn't be bothered. I
CBA to clear the loft out to get free loft insulation so paid for it
and fitted it myself when I wanted to.


FIT payments for solar PV are the commercial rates, its what the
government decide was needed to get people to spend their own money on a
project the government didn't want to spend on.

Exactly ... fooling a tiny minority into spending their own money on a
highly questionable 'project'.

.....


In fact I admit I get more from my solar thermal panels in "FIT" than I
would get if it were solar PV. I get paid 19p a unit of heat rather than
the 16p for solar PV.

Why should you get paid anything at all? If you were paying your water
heating costs before, why should 'we' be paying for / towards them
now?

There is also no way to export that heat.

Apart from a community project and then it make sense if you are
exporting energy to *others*.

(However it doesn't cause grid instability like solar PV might.)


You don't get a grant to install solar thermal or solar PV, you pay for
it and the government pays you back over a long time for doing as it asks.

Yes, I know.

It can take 10 or 12 years before you get the money back.

Or less, depending on how close you got to the initial FIT theft price
cutoff (biggest rates / cheapest panels).

A neighbour took out a bank loan to pay for his solar PV system on the
second tier FIT rates. I think he has nearly paid off the loan with
the money saved / earned in two years.

Only after that time do you actually stand to make a "profit" for your
risk.

Yes, and that time can be quite short, depending on the cost (inc
size) and efficiency of the system and how you use the energy
produced.

You may not make any profit if things go wrong and you need lots
of repairs as the government doesn't pay for them.

I didn't say there were no risks ... and those risks may turn out to
be higher than some first thought if the panels don't retain the
efficiency they were promised and the companies guaranteeing them go
down the pan (unless *we* are ring-fencing that as well). sigh

So, I repeat, it's nothing to do with energy, it's nothing to do with
'green', it's all to do with profiteering from others (especially when
it's (PV) neither a good source of energy (in the UK) or 'green').

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:43:23 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

SNIP

Still electricity prices go up so increasing the value of electricity saved oof my electric bill.

And further increasing the cost to other electricity consumers.

I wish I had no morals as I could also take the FIT theft and still
sleep ok.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. We asked and pair for 4 takeaway sandwiches at a local cafe we
use quite a lot. When we got to our destination we found we had been
given 5 (and our daughter ate it later), so the next time we went to
the cafe we told them what had happened and paid for the extra
sandwich.

I *could* have 'got away with it' of course but it didn't sit
comfortably with me. I treat others how I would like to be treated
myself (even if that doesn't always happen).

On 10/02/2017 20:11, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:02:16 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

I think you are confused.

I *know* you are, as you are about to demonstrate. ;-)

There is no difference between not paying for something that others have
to pay or being paid "FIT".

Of course there is. How much can you *earn* out of having loft
installation fitted (even if fitted 'free' paid for by others)?

What has earn got to do with it?


The FIT is a food bank where people take the food (for free) and then
sell it.

Wrong!
People like harry use as much of it as possible and don't sell it.

What happens is the energy companies pay you to generate electricity for
them and they let you use as much of it as you like for free because
they can't afford to meter it.



For example you think its OK for someone to get a grant to save energy
as nobody is paying for it?

Nope. I think it has some moral / social merit to try to encourage as
many people as possible to *save* energy, on behalf of the whole
country. It is often means tested and only applied under specific
circumstances.

The hell is it means tested.
I had my loft done for free by BG.
They needed me to do so to help meet their obligations and avoid a fine.


The grants for insulation come from the same 5% green tax on energy that
the FIT payments come from.

But as I said, no one (householders) makes money from having loft
insulation fitted. The savings they make aren't index linked or
guaranteed for 2-0 years (even though they may turn out to be).

Of course the savings are linked to fuel prices not RPI.
That means they will rise faster for now than RPI.
They have more disposable income after having it fitted free so they are
"earning". They pay less contribution to the green energy tax as a
result so some others have to pay more.


People avoid the congestion charge because they have a subsidised
electric car,

Yup, and that is also questionable.

others have to pay the tax.

In the case of IC vehicles it's generally pretty logical where the
most polluting paying the most money. With electric / hybrid vehicles
the net green benefit is highly questionable so any grants are
potentially as bogus as the FIT payments.

Its a congestion charge not a pollution charge.

Most vehicles already pay more tax if they pollute more.


IF everyone when out a bought an electric car do you think 1) The
electricity supply infrastructure would be able to cope, 2) the
overall pollution (inc manufacturing and disposal) would be any / much
less (if at all less) or that they would carry on offering grants
(often paid to those 'with' by those who are 'without') for any of it?

Can they add new capacity faster than they can sell cars?

Will the powerwall concept need more capacity than cars and will that
make intermittent energy more useful?
When they offer "FIT" for them will that be more theft if it actually
fixes a problem?


We all know it's all just some BS because without the subsidies most
'green' energy solutions couldn't stand on their own two feet and
'most people' don't do something (even if it might benefit them)
without some sort of incentive.

If someone told me I could possibly save £50 pa on my electricity bill
by swapping supplier I (and the vast majority) wouldn't be bothered. I
CBA to clear the loft out to get free loft insulation so paid for it
and fitted it myself when I wanted to.


FIT payments for solar PV are the commercial rates, its what the
government decide was needed to get people to spend their own money on a
project the government didn't want to spend on.

Exactly ... fooling a tiny minority into spending their own money on a
highly questionable 'project'.

So they aren't actually stealing then, just investing in what the
government wants them to?


In fact I admit I get more from my solar thermal panels in "FIT" than I
would get if it were solar PV. I get paid 19p a unit of heat rather than
the 16p for solar PV.

Why should you get paid anything at all? If you were paying your water
heating costs before, why should 'we' be paying for / towards them
now?

Are you out in the sticks or stuck on the end of some extra long mains?
If so why should anyone else pay the extra costs of getting power,
water, sewage, phones to you?


There is also no way to export that heat.

Apart from a community project and then it make sense if you are
exporting energy to *others*.

(However it doesn't cause grid instability like solar PV might.)


You don't get a grant to install solar thermal or solar PV, you pay for
it and the government pays you back over a long time for doing as it asks.

Yes, I know.

It can take 10 or 12 years before you get the money back.

Or less, depending on how close you got to the initial FIT theft price
cutoff (biggest rates / cheapest panels).

A neighbour took out a bank loan to pay for his solar PV system on the
second tier FIT rates. I think he has nearly paid off the loan with
the money saved / earned in two years.

Only after that time do you actually stand to make a "profit" for your
risk.

Yes, and that time can be quite short, depending on the cost (inc
size) and efficiency of the system and how you use the energy
produced.

You may not make any profit if things go wrong and you need lots
of repairs as the government doesn't pay for them.

I didn't say there were no risks ... and those risks may turn out to
be higher than some first thought if the panels don't retain the
efficiency they were promised and the companies guaranteeing them go
down the pan (unless *we* are ring-fencing that as well). sigh

So, I repeat, it's nothing to do with energy, it's nothing to do with
'green', it's all to do with profiteering from others (especially when
it's (PV) neither a good source of energy (in the UK) or 'green').


Well at least we agree on the fact that its not green.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:47:15 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

There is no difference between not paying for something that others have
to pay or being paid "FIT".

Of course there is. How much can you *earn* out of having loft
installation fitted (even if fitted 'free' paid for by others)?

What has earn got to do with it?

The difference,. The thing you said didn't exist.


The FIT is a food bank where people take the food (for free) and then
sell it.

Wrong!
People like harry use as much of it as possible and don't sell it.

Yes, so equally unethical.

What happens is the energy companies pay you to generate electricity for
them and they let you use as much of it as you like for free because
they can't afford to meter it.

That doesn't make it right though does it?



For example you think its OK for someone to get a grant to save energy
as nobody is paying for it?

Nope. I think it has some moral / social merit to try to encourage as
many people as possible to *save* energy, on behalf of the whole
country. It is often means tested and only applied under specific
circumstances.

The hell is it means tested.

I didn't mean to say that.

I had my loft done for free by BG.
They needed me to do so to help meet their obligations and avoid a fine.

But some grants require other things to be right / done. Like, you
might not get a 'home improvement grant' (or didn't) if you didn't
have say an outside toilet.


The grants for insulation come from the same 5% green tax on energy that
the FIT payments come from.

But as I said, no one (householders) makes money from having loft
insulation fitted. The savings they make aren't index linked or
guaranteed for 2-0 years (even though they may turn out to be).

Of course the savings are linked to fuel prices not RPI.

Yes, the *savings*.

That means they will rise faster for now than RPI.

Now, yes.

They have more disposable income after having it fitted free so they are
"earning".

Nice try, still wrong. Do they get *paid* anything by anyone directly?
No, thought not.

They pay less contribution to the green energy tax as a
result so some others have to pay more.

Too convolute. The (basic) point is that some people are given grants
to do things to make their lives more comfortable *and* save (the
country) energy at the same time, not to earn any money (directly).


People avoid the congestion charge because they have a subsidised
electric car,

Yup, and that is also questionable.

others have to pay the tax.

In the case of IC vehicles it's generally pretty logical where the
most polluting paying the most money. With electric / hybrid vehicles
the net green benefit is highly questionable so any grants are
potentially as bogus as the FIT payments.

Its a congestion charge not a pollution charge.

Road tax is based on Co2 emissions. Discounts are generally given for
the same thing. 'Congestion' increases the impact of (kerb side)
emissions, *especially* for IC engined vehicles (and also electric
vehicles to a lesser extent as regen braking only really works when
braking from speed not slow / stop-start stuff).

Most vehicles already pay more tax if they pollute more.

Yes, that's what I said?


IF everyone when out a bought an electric car do you think 1) The
electricity supply infrastructure would be able to cope, 2) the
overall pollution (inc manufacturing and disposal) would be any / much
less (if at all less) or that they would carry on offering grants
(often paid to those 'with' by those who are 'without') for any of it?

Can they add new capacity faster than they can sell cars?

Apparently not (considering how close we are currently sailing towards
the wind right now without all that extra load).

Will the powerwall concept need more capacity than cars and will that
make intermittent energy more useful?

We could never have sufficient storage capacity with the technology
that they have now (there was a post highlighting the fact here
recently).

When they offer "FIT" for them will that be more theft if it actually
fixes a problem?

No, if it actually means it really helps (eg, giving us energy at peak
load times, even in the dark), then it has some justification at
least.


We all know it's all just some BS because without the subsidies most
'green' energy solutions couldn't stand on their own two feet and
'most people' don't do something (even if it might benefit them)
without some sort of incentive.

If someone told me I could possibly save £50 pa on my electricity bill
by swapping supplier I (and the vast majority) wouldn't be bothered. I
CBA to clear the loft out to get free loft insulation so paid for it
and fitted it myself when I wanted to.


FIT payments for solar PV are the commercial rates, its what the
government decide was needed to get people to spend their own money on a
project the government didn't want to spend on.

Exactly ... fooling a tiny minority into spending their own money on a
highly questionable 'project'.

So they aren't actually stealing then, just investing in what the
government wants them to?

Legally no, morally, yes. See, there are people out there that aren't
like harry who have principals.


In fact I admit I get more from my solar thermal panels in "FIT" than I
would get if it were solar PV. I get paid 19p a unit of heat rather than
the 16p for solar PV.

Why should you get paid anything at all? If you were paying your water
heating costs before, why should 'we' be paying for / towards them
now?

Are you out in the sticks or stuck on the end of some extra long mains?

Nope?

If so why should anyone else pay the extra costs of getting power,
water, sewage, phones to you?

Because it's not 'your fault' where you live (you may be born there)
and the supply of basic services is the right of everyone (within
reason) and therefore the costs of the more difficult sites would be
covered by the easy ones.

snip

So, I repeat, it's nothing to do with energy, it's nothing to do with
'green', it's all to do with profiteering from others (especially when
it's (PV) neither a good source of energy (in the UK) or 'green').


Well at least we agree on the fact that its not green.

One day you might also realise it's (the whole current FIT setup) is
not *right* either but maybe not while you are benefiting from it
personally. ;-)

OOI, I wonder if there is a system where you could hook your solar PV
system up to the grid, get paid for what you export (at the std
commercial supply rates) and buy electricity off the grid when
required, also at the std residential rates? I mean a real / official
setup for that, not just giving your FIT theft money to charity etc?

I wonder how many people who fitted Solar PV systems / FIT knew of /
considered the ethics of it all? I know a neighbour who went for it
didn't.

And I know that one of the Solar PV suppliers who used to cold call,
called me 'an idiot' for *not* installing a system because of my moral
objections. But then he probably steals money from his friends and
does have tax and insurance on his car ...

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:47:15 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

The hell is it means tested.

"The Home Heating Cost Reduction Obligation (HHCRO) under which
suppliers provide measures which improve the ability of low income and
vulnerable households to affordably heat their homes."

And

https://www.gov.uk/energy-company-obligation

"Eligibility

You must own your property or rent it privately and have the owner’s
permission to do the work.

You must also get one of the following benefits:

Pension Credit
Child Tax Credit (and your income is £16,010 or less)
Working Tax Credit (and your income is £16,010 or less)
Income Support
income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
income-related Employment and Support Allowance
Universal Credit (and you earned £1,250 or less after tax in any
assessment period in the last 12 months)"

Looks like means testing to me?

Cheers, T i m

On 10/02/2017 22:38, T i m wrote:

Are you out in the sticks or stuck on the end of some extra long mains?

Nope?

If so why should anyone else pay the extra costs of getting power,
water, sewage, phones to you?

Because it's not 'your fault' where you live (you may be born there)
and the supply of basic services is the right of everyone (within
reason) and therefore the costs of the more difficult sites would be
covered by the easy ones.

It may not be your fault but you could pay the amount it costs to
provide those service rather than stealing other peoples cash that don't
have such high costs.
Do you see where your argument leads?

BTW who decides what is "within reason" and why should *they* get to do it?

On 11/02/2017 00:53, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:47:15 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

The hell is it means tested.

"The Home Heating Cost Reduction Obligation (HHCRO) under which
suppliers provide measures which improve the ability of low income and
vulnerable households to affordably heat their homes."

And

https://www.gov.uk/energy-company-obligation

"Eligibility

You must own your property or rent it privately and have the owner’s
permission to do the work.

You must also get one of the following benefits:

Pension Credit
Child Tax Credit (and your income is £16,010 or less)
Working Tax Credit (and your income is £16,010 or less)
Income Support
income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
income-related Employment and Support Allowance
Universal Credit (and you earned £1,250 or less after tax in any
assessment period in the last 12 months)"

Looks like means testing to me?

Cheers, T i m


Or live in certain areas where the above doesn't apply?

The only questions asked we
can we do at least 2/3 of the loft.
do you have less than 270mm of insulation.
do you have the owner permission.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:36:10 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 10/02/2017 22:38, T i m wrote:

Are you out in the sticks or stuck on the end of some extra long mains?

Nope?

If so why should anyone else pay the extra costs of getting power,
water, sewage, phones to you?

Because it's not 'your fault' where you live (you may be born there)
and the supply of basic services is the right of everyone (within
reason) and therefore the costs of the more difficult sites would be
covered by the easy ones.

It may not be your fault but you could pay the amount it costs to
provide those service rather than stealing other peoples cash that don't
have such high costs.

But that's not how 'social' systems work is it? Don't you (happily)
pay towards say the local public library, swimming pool or park, even
though you may not use any of them? The point is there is an *offset*
where the ease of say installing electricity to a row of houses
offsets the difficulty of supplying the less straightforward ones. The
'norm' is the average cost of supplying said service, not the
cheapest.

Same with the cost of mail ... it costs the same to send a letter to
the extremes of (say) the UK as it does to send something next door
but the *actual* cost of doing both is obviously very different.

Doesn't your council offer 'aids' for the elderly or disabled, often
completely FOC? Don't you agree with that either? Might you think
different if you were in need of such?

Do you see where your argument leads?

Yes, common sense. ;-)

BTW who decides what is "within reason" and why should *they* get to do it?

Common (social) sense mate.

Now, of they were living in the sticks and expected 'us' to pay for
their drive ... or pay them for the energy they generate but still use
themselves, then yes, that would be wrong / immoral / unethical. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:40:07 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 11/02/2017 00:53, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:47:15 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

The hell is it means tested.

"The Home Heating Cost Reduction Obligation (HHCRO) under which
suppliers provide measures which improve the ability of low income and
vulnerable households to affordably heat their homes."

And

https://www.gov.uk/energy-company-obligation

"Eligibility

You must own your property or rent it privately and have the owner’s
permission to do the work.

You must also get one of the following benefits:

Pension Credit
Child Tax Credit (and your income is £16,010 or less)
Working Tax Credit (and your income is £16,010 or less)
Income Support
income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
income-related Employment and Support Allowance
Universal Credit (and you earned £1,250 or less after tax in any
assessment period in the last 12 months)"

Looks like means testing to me?

Cheers, T i m


Or live in certain areas where the above doesn't apply?

Of course, but if we were comparing like for like?

The only questions asked we
can we do at least 2/3 of the loft.
do you have less than 270mm of insulation.
do you have the owner permission.

Yes, but that is a very specific instance and again, not the spirit of
the general discussion ... and that was ...

Why should other electricity users be expected to pay money TO those
who can afford to put solar panels on their property, even when they
use the energy they produce themselves?

Why would the be expected to pay more than the current commercial
rates and have such payments index linked and guaranteed?

The whole idea is preposterous! ( And especially so considering how
bogus the 'green' principal it's all supposed to be based on is).

Now, if you were forced to export some of the hot water (or in your
specific case, hot air weg) you generate towards heating the village
hall then that is completely different. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 11/02/2017 18:57, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:36:10 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 10/02/2017 22:38, T i m wrote:

Are you out in the sticks or stuck on the end of some extra long mains?

Nope?

If so why should anyone else pay the extra costs of getting power,
water, sewage, phones to you?

Because it's not 'your fault' where you live (you may be born there)
and the supply of basic services is the right of everyone (within
reason) and therefore the costs of the more difficult sites would be
covered by the easy ones.

It may not be your fault but you could pay the amount it costs to
provide those service rather than stealing other peoples cash that don't
have such high costs.

But that's not how 'social' systems work is it? Don't you (happily)
pay towards say the local public library, swimming pool or park, even
though you may not use any of them? The point is there is an *offset*
where the ease of say installing electricity to a row of houses
offsets the difficulty of supplying the less straightforward ones. The
'norm' is the average cost of supplying said service, not the
cheapest.

I pay quite happily, however you appear to resent paying for some of the
services the government has decided should exist.


Same with the cost of mail ... it costs the same to send a letter to
the extremes of (say) the UK as it does to send something next door
but the *actual* cost of doing both is obviously very different.

Something else you think shouldn't be so?


Doesn't your council offer 'aids' for the elderly or disabled, often
completely FOC? Don't you agree with that either? Might you think
different if you were in need of such?

Its you that appears to describe some of the things the government does
as theft, not I.


Do you see where your argument leads?

Yes, common sense. ;-)

I would say it leads to losses for the poor.
Maybe you are far right?


BTW who decides what is "within reason" and why should *they* get to do it?

Common (social) sense mate.

Now, of they were living in the sticks and expected 'us' to pay for
their drive ... or pay them for the energy they generate but still use
themselves, then yes, that would be wrong / immoral / unethical. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 11/02/2017 19:07, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:40:07 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 11/02/2017 00:53, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:47:15 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

The hell is it means tested.

"The Home Heating Cost Reduction Obligation (HHCRO) under which
suppliers provide measures which improve the ability of low income and
vulnerable households to affordably heat their homes."

And

https://www.gov.uk/energy-company-obligation

"Eligibility

You must own your property or rent it privately and have the owner’s
permission to do the work.

You must also get one of the following benefits:

Pension Credit
Child Tax Credit (and your income is £16,010 or less)
Working Tax Credit (and your income is £16,010 or less)
Income Support
income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
income-related Employment and Support Allowance
Universal Credit (and you earned £1,250 or less after tax in any
assessment period in the last 12 months)"

Looks like means testing to me?

Cheers, T i m


Or live in certain areas where the above doesn't apply?

Of course, but if we were comparing like for like?

The only questions asked we
can we do at least 2/3 of the loft.
do you have less than 270mm of insulation.
do you have the owner permission.

Yes, but that is a very specific instance and again, not the spirit of
the general discussion ... and that was ...

Why should other electricity users be expected to pay money TO those
who can afford to put solar panels on their property, even when they
use the energy they produce themselves?

You have done so since power stations were built.
Do you think the electricity used by a power station is metered and paid
for.

The only real argument you appear to have is that electricity producers
should pay for the electricity they use running the plant at a higher
rate than they sell it for.


Why would the be expected to pay more than the current commercial
rates and have such payments index linked and guaranteed?

Looked at that nice new nuke lately?
I assume you are going to lodge a protest at them building it.


The whole idea is preposterous! ( And especially so considering how
bogus the 'green' principal it's all supposed to be based on is).

Now if the "green" principle is wrong then you could ask the government
to stop doing it, however it would be unwise to cancel the existing
contracts as that will **** off a lot of people and make any future
negotiations very difficult as nobody would trust them.

Its probably pointless though as the government has already reduced the
FIT payment so its not really worth installing solar PV any more.


Now, if you were forced to export some of the hot water (or in your
specific case, hot air weg) you generate towards heating the village
hall then that is completely different. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 20:01:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

But that's not how 'social' systems work is it? Don't you (happily)
pay towards say the local public library, swimming pool or park, even
though you may not use any of them? The point is there is an *offset*
where the ease of say installing electricity to a row of houses
offsets the difficulty of supplying the less straightforward ones. The
'norm' is the average cost of supplying said service, not the
cheapest.

I pay quite happily, however you appear to resent paying for some of the
services the government has decided should exist.

Correct. Specifically any that directly line the pockets of a minority
who have by a majority who have not.


Same with the cost of mail ... it costs the same to send a letter to
the extremes of (say) the UK as it does to send something next door
but the *actual* cost of doing both is obviously very different.

Something else you think shouldn't be so?

No, I'm saying that's exactly how it should be.


Doesn't your council offer 'aids' for the elderly or disabled, often
completely FOC? Don't you agree with that either? Might you think
different if you were in need of such?

Its you that appears to describe some of the things the government does
as theft, not I.

Yes, those things that *would* be deemed by anyone with a fully
functional moral compass as being 'theft'.


Do you see where your argument leads?

Yes, common sense. ;-)

I would say it leads to losses for the poor.

How?

Maybe you are far right?

Maybe (whatever that means / is), if it means that stuff should be
considered fair and equal.

Cheers, T i m

On 11/02/2017 21:14, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 20:01:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

But that's not how 'social' systems work is it? Don't you (happily)
pay towards say the local public library, swimming pool or park, even
though you may not use any of them? The point is there is an *offset*
where the ease of say installing electricity to a row of houses
offsets the difficulty of supplying the less straightforward ones. The
'norm' is the average cost of supplying said service, not the
cheapest.

I pay quite happily, however you appear to resent paying for some of the
services the government has decided should exist.

Correct. Specifically any that directly line the pockets of a minority
who have by a majority who have not.

So that would include the disabled and the unemployed and sick as well
as anyone getting any sort of benefit like vouchers for child care or
tax benefits?



Same with the cost of mail ... it costs the same to send a letter to
the extremes of (say) the UK as it does to send something next door
but the *actual* cost of doing both is obviously very different.

Something else you think shouldn't be so?

No, I'm saying that's exactly how it should be.

But that is lining the pockets of people that want to send mail to far
off places using cash from people that want to send to local places.
That's what you said you didn't want.



Doesn't your council offer 'aids' for the elderly or disabled, often
completely FOC? Don't you agree with that either? Might you think
different if you were in need of such?

Its you that appears to describe some of the things the government does
as theft, not I.

Yes, those things that *would* be deemed by anyone with a fully
functional moral compass as being 'theft'.


Do you see where your argument leads?

Yes, common sense. ;-)

I would say it leads to losses for the poor.

How?

People paying for what they get, some may not be able to afford it.
Pay more for long services.
More for using the roads.
Pay to use the library.
etc.


Maybe you are far right?

Maybe (whatever that means / is), if it means that stuff should be
considered fair and equal.

Fair is you pay what it costs for what you use, it may not be what you
want but life is not fair.
Personally I think the way it is is better and spending a bit on others
is a good idea.



Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 22:34:18 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 11/02/2017 21:14, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 20:01:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

But that's not how 'social' systems work is it? Don't you (happily)
pay towards say the local public library, swimming pool or park, even
though you may not use any of them? The point is there is an *offset*
where the ease of say installing electricity to a row of houses
offsets the difficulty of supplying the less straightforward ones. The
'norm' is the average cost of supplying said service, not the
cheapest.

I pay quite happily, however you appear to resent paying for some of the
services the government has decided should exist.

Correct. Specifically any that directly line the pockets of a minority
who have by a majority who have not.

So that would include the disabled and the unemployed and sick as well
as anyone getting any sort of benefit like vouchers for child care or
tax benefits?

I'm not sure their gains are index linked and guaranteed for 20 years
.... or based on 'dubious' ethics though are they (but nice try).



Same with the cost of mail ... it costs the same to send a letter to
the extremes of (say) the UK as it does to send something next door
but the *actual* cost of doing both is obviously very different.

Something else you think shouldn't be so?

No, I'm saying that's exactly how it should be.

But that is lining the pockets of people that want to send mail to far
off places using cash from people that want to send to local places.

No, see, I'm not sure I am ever going to explain the difference of
*financial gain* (of an individual) versus 'uniform cost' to everyone
(as a society). The reason I won't be able to get you to see (or
except) those facts is you too have taken said theft up. ;-(

That's what you said you didn't want.

It is?



Doesn't your council offer 'aids' for the elderly or disabled, often
completely FOC? Don't you agree with that either? Might you think
different if you were in need of such?

Its you that appears to describe some of the things the government does
as theft, not I.

Yes, those things that *would* be deemed by anyone with a fully
functional moral compass as being 'theft'.


Do you see where your argument leads?

Yes, common sense. ;-)

I would say it leads to losses for the poor.

How?

People paying for what they get, some may not be able to afford it.

Quite, that's why the FIT theft is immoral.

Pay more for long services.

What?

More for using the roads.

Yes, anything that allows people to earn money at the expense of
others (and for dubious causes) is wrong.

Pay to use the library.
etc.

No, we should all pay for that, use it or not.


Maybe you are far right?

Maybe (whatever that means / is), if it means that stuff should be
considered fair and equal.

Fair is you pay what it costs for what you use,

Then you would prefer to pay the full cost of posting something a
distance ... or paying extra for electricity that has come from
Scotland because you should contribute towards all the infrastructure
between them and you and ... (the ridiculous list would go on of
course).

No one is suggesting one shouldn't pay for what one uses and at a fair
and reasonable rate (if social) and all bets are off if it's
commercial but why do you think many governments, agencies and
companies subsidise stuff to make stuff available to people cheaper or
more easily.

*Completely* different to *paying* a minority for indulging
themselves.

it may not be what you
want but life is not fair.

You (in a desperate attempt to justify your own morally corrupt
position) are trying to mix everything up but it won't wash (and never
will).

Personally I think the way it is is better and spending a bit on others
is a good idea.

Of course you do, as long as it's you (and your kind) the rest of us
are forced to spend more on.

Do something for society and few will have any issues you getting
something out of it yourself.

Do something for yourself and with a direct cost to others and those
others will have issues with you.

Cheers, T i m

On 11/02/2017 23:46, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 22:34:18 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 11/02/2017 21:14, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 20:01:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

But that's not how 'social' systems work is it? Don't you (happily)
pay towards say the local public library, swimming pool or park, even
though you may not use any of them? The point is there is an *offset*
where the ease of say installing electricity to a row of houses
offsets the difficulty of supplying the less straightforward ones. The
'norm' is the average cost of supplying said service, not the
cheapest.

I pay quite happily, however you appear to resent paying for some of the
services the government has decided should exist.

Correct. Specifically any that directly line the pockets of a minority
who have by a majority who have not.

So that would include the disabled and the unemployed and sick as well
as anyone getting any sort of benefit like vouchers for child care or
tax benefits?

I'm not sure their gains are index linked and guaranteed for 20 years
... or based on 'dubious' ethics though are they (but nice try).



Same with the cost of mail ... it costs the same to send a letter to
the extremes of (say) the UK as it does to send something next door
but the *actual* cost of doing both is obviously very different.

Something else you think shouldn't be so?

No, I'm saying that's exactly how it should be.

But that is lining the pockets of people that want to send mail to far
off places using cash from people that want to send to local places.

No, see, I'm not sure I am ever going to explain the difference of
*financial gain* (of an individual) versus 'uniform cost' to everyone
(as a society). The reason I won't be able to get you to see (or
except) those facts is you too have taken said theft up. ;-(

That's what you said you didn't want.

It is?



Doesn't your council offer 'aids' for the elderly or disabled, often
completely FOC? Don't you agree with that either? Might you think
different if you were in need of such?

Its you that appears to describe some of the things the government does
as theft, not I.

Yes, those things that *would* be deemed by anyone with a fully
functional moral compass as being 'theft'.


Do you see where your argument leads?

Yes, common sense. ;-)

I would say it leads to losses for the poor.

How?

People paying for what they get, some may not be able to afford it.

Quite, that's why the FIT theft is immoral.

Pay more for long services.

What?

More for using the roads.

Yes, anything that allows people to earn money at the expense of
others (and for dubious causes) is wrong.

Pay to use the library.
etc.

No, we should all pay for that, use it or not.


Maybe you are far right?

Maybe (whatever that means / is), if it means that stuff should be
considered fair and equal.

Fair is you pay what it costs for what you use,

Then you would prefer to pay the full cost of posting something a
distance ... or paying extra for electricity that has come from
Scotland because you should contribute towards all the infrastructure
between them and you and ... (the ridiculous list would go on of
course).

No one is suggesting one shouldn't pay for what one uses and at a fair
and reasonable rate (if social) and all bets are off if it's
commercial but why do you think many governments, agencies and
companies subsidise stuff to make stuff available to people cheaper or
more easily.

*Completely* different to *paying* a minority for indulging
themselves.

So you don't want to pay electricity producers to build plant and supply
electricity then?

Its that attitude that has got is in a mess.


it may not be what you
want but life is not fair.

You (in a desperate attempt to justify your own morally corrupt
position) are trying to mix everything up but it won't wash (and never
will).

I am just pointing out that your position is wrong and a simple
extension of what you say will destroy society as we know it.

Its the sort of extension that the extreme right wing appears to want so
I guess you are extreme right wing or just haven't actually thought it
through.


Personally I think the way it is is better and spending a bit on others
is a good idea.

Of course you do, as long as it's you (and your kind) the rest of us
are forced to spend more on.

But you spend money on stuff like that all the time, its where tax goes.

Maybe you would have been happier if the government paid FITs and stuff
out of general taxation and just put a carbon tax on fuel?
Then they could have spent it on defence or stuff like that without you
knowing or complaining.

Do something for society and few will have any issues you getting
something out of it yourself.

Do something for yourself and with a direct cost to others and those
others will have issues with you.

Well at the time the first solar panels were being installed with the
expensive FIT rates people were being told that they were for the good
of everyone else.


Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:29:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

No one is suggesting one shouldn't pay for what one uses and at a fair
and reasonable rate (if social) and all bets are off if it's
commercial but why do you think many governments, agencies and
companies subsidise stuff to make stuff available to people cheaper or
more easily.

*Completely* different to *paying* a minority for indulging
themselves.

So you don't want to pay electricity producers to build plant and supply
electricity then?

Oh, I didn't realise you or harry was building his own nuke! (about
the only form of dependable power we have right now)

Its that attitude that has got is in a mess.

Quite. Not sure what that has got to do with paying the likes of you
or harry to produce and consume their own energy?


it may not be what you
want but life is not fair.

You (in a desperate attempt to justify your own morally corrupt
position) are trying to mix everything up but it won't wash (and never
will).

I am just pointing out that your position is wrong

But it isn't, it's how good society has worked for millions of years.
People looking after each other (often whilst trying to fend off the
greedy and selfish).

and a simple
extension of what you say will destroy society as we know it.

Only the 'what I say' that you seem to have twisted into something
else.


Its the sort of extension that the extreme right wing appears to want so
I guess you are extreme right wing or just haven't actually thought it
through.

Like I said, if you want to try to pigeon hole what I say to make it
better for you to understand then so be it. I have no interest in
politics so can't be held responsible for anything you make up or
don't understand about my words.


Personally I think the way it is is better and spending a bit on others
is a good idea.

Of course you do, as long as it's you (and your kind) the rest of us
are forced to spend more on.

But you spend money on stuff like that all the time, its where tax goes.

What, that actually benefits individuals financially and directly and
without any justification?

Maybe you would have been happier if the government paid FITs and stuff
out of general taxation and just put a carbon tax on fuel?

At least that might have made a bit more sense but I still haven't
seen any real justification to the FIT in the first place (and I don't
consider a knee-jerk reaction to avoiding a fine *justification* to
anything. It's like being told you will be fined if you don't get your
car MOT'd when it should have been MOT'd in the first place.

Then they could have spent it on defence or stuff like that without you
knowing or complaining.

But I'm not discussing those things (and I'm sure there are loads),
I'm just discussing this one thing (but nice distraction again).

Do something for society and few will have any issues you getting
something out of it yourself.

Do something for yourself and with a direct cost to others and those
others will have issues with you.

Well at the time the first solar panels were being installed with the
expensive FIT rates people were being told that they were for the good
of everyone else.

Quite, and so was smoking and drinking an Elixir that contained
mercury but some people had the brains to see though all the hype
before science proved us right.

Given that your solar hot water installation was cheap, how about you
proving that you *are* better than the harrys of this work and taking
yourself off the FIT scheme? Or if you can't, donating any FIT money
you are paid to a charity? I don't want to hear about you having to
recoup the initial costs first because 1) no one told you you had to
do it and 2) any real 'green' solution should be able to stand on it's
own two feet (shouldn't it)?

If I decide to buy a car that is supposed to do better mpg than my
existing one I look into all the facts and estimate the payback time.
If it's not worth doing then I don't so it and I certainly wouldn't
drag other people into it (especially without their permission).

I have no issues with making use of solar PV and water (I've used both
when camping to good effect) but neither are a real solution for the
country and therefore others shouldn't be further penalised for the
whole scam.

Cheers, T i m

On Sunday, 12 February 2017 16:40:01 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:29:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

No one is suggesting one shouldn't pay for what one uses and at a fair
and reasonable rate (if social) and all bets are off if it's
commercial but why do you think many governments, agencies and
companies subsidise stuff to make stuff available to people cheaper or
more easily.

*Completely* different to *paying* a minority for indulging
themselves.

So you don't want to pay electricity producers to build plant and supply
electricity then?

Oh, I didn't realise you or harry was building his own nuke! (about
the only form of dependable power we have right now)

Its that attitude that has got is in a mess.

Quite. Not sure what that has got to do with paying the likes of you
or harry to produce and consume their own energy?


it may not be what you
want but life is not fair.

You (in a desperate attempt to justify your own morally corrupt
position) are trying to mix everything up but it won't wash (and never
will).

I am just pointing out that your position is wrong

But it isn't, it's how good society has worked for millions of years.
People looking after each other (often whilst trying to fend off the
greedy and selfish).

and a simple
extension of what you say will destroy society as we know it.

Only the 'what I say' that you seem to have twisted into something
else.


Its the sort of extension that the extreme right wing appears to want so
I guess you are extreme right wing or just haven't actually thought it
through.

Like I said, if you want to try to pigeon hole what I say to make it
better for you to understand then so be it. I have no interest in
politics so can't be held responsible for anything you make up or
don't understand about my words.


Personally I think the way it is is better and spending a bit on others
is a good idea.

Of course you do, as long as it's you (and your kind) the rest of us
are forced to spend more on.

But you spend money on stuff like that all the time, its where tax goes.

What, that actually benefits individuals financially and directly and
without any justification?

Maybe you would have been happier if the government paid FITs and stuff
out of general taxation and just put a carbon tax on fuel?

At least that might have made a bit more sense but I still haven't
seen any real justification to the FIT in the first place (and I don't
consider a knee-jerk reaction to avoiding a fine *justification* to
anything. It's like being told you will be fined if you don't get your
car MOT'd when it should have been MOT'd in the first place.

Then they could have spent it on defence or stuff like that without you
knowing or complaining.

But I'm not discussing those things (and I'm sure there are loads),
I'm just discussing this one thing (but nice distraction again).

Do something for society and few will have any issues you getting
something out of it yourself.

Do something for yourself and with a direct cost to others and those
others will have issues with you.

Well at the time the first solar panels were being installed with the
expensive FIT rates people were being told that they were for the good
of everyone else.

Quite, and so was smoking and drinking an Elixir that contained
mercury but some people had the brains to see though all the hype
before science proved us right.

Given that your solar hot water installation was cheap, how about you
proving that you *are* better than the harrys of this work and taking
yourself off the FIT scheme? Or if you can't, donating any FIT money
you are paid to a charity? I don't want to hear about you having to
recoup the initial costs first because 1) no one told you you had to
do it and 2) any real 'green' solution should be able to stand on it's
own two feet (shouldn't it)?

If I decide to buy a car that is supposed to do better mpg than my
existing one I look into all the facts and estimate the payback time.
If it's not worth doing then I don't so it and I certainly wouldn't
drag other people into it (especially without their permission).

I have no issues with making use of solar PV and water (I've used both
when camping to good effect) but neither are a real solution for the
country and therefore others shouldn't be further penalised for the
whole scam.

Cheers, T i m

Drivel as usual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewa...United_Kingdom
And that was two years ago

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:28:06 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

I have no issues with making use of solar PV and water (I've used both
when camping to good effect) but neither are a real solution for the
country and therefore others shouldn't be further penalised for the
whole scam.



Drivel as usual.

Yeah, it's all working out well for some in Auz eh and they get 3
times the sunshine we do, have half the population we do, 30 x the
size (more room for panels or windmills) and a massively bigger
coastline than we do (tidal / wave / windmills).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewa...United_Kingdom
And that was two years ago

Yes, and you could add a graph showing that burning babies could be a
form of sustainable fuel but it wouldn't *actually* would it? ;-(

Until they invent a better form of energy storage, no energy source
that can't be relied on 24/7 is worth a squat and then it STILL needs
to be ecologically (and ethically, no getting a great number of
people to pay a small number of people to play house and solar PV)
sound.

Any *truly good* energy source will ... stand on it's own two feet
financially, will be available 24/7 and won't consume more energy and
create more pollution in its inception than it can give out in it's
lifetime.

It will be like the concept of MagLev in that it works, offers great
performance potential and has few moving parts so little to wear out /
maintain (all adding to the cost / carbon footprint).

Or geo-thermal community heating projects or locating datacentres
where the environment can keep them cool.

Or peoples living in a way where they don't consume more than the
earth can naturally provide or it can naturally recycle.

Now I'm enough of a realist to know we are currently way past that
point but who knows if / how long it will now last?

All I do know is that the likes of solar PV and without any realistic
storage solution on the horizon isn't it, well whilst we still have a
batch of dark *every* 24 hours that is. Now, ignoring the questionable
carbon neutrality of solar PV, and even when we can cover our own (UK)
load and had ay 60GW's worth of feed from countries that were lit when
we were dark, what when it's overcast everywhere?

It's just lucky your moral compass was broken when the government
first forced the rest of us to fund you putting that while elephant on
your roof. ;-(

Ere, this could be fun ... tell us the total carbon footprint of your
solar PV system ... that's including say mining the aluminium ore to
make the frames and moving it to the smelting plant and forming it in
to the profiles etc etc (same for the panels, inverters, cables,
installation and final disposal) versus how much energy they will
generate during their lifetimes.

And then how much cash you predict you will earn off us over the same
period, along with how much pollution you think you will save
(considering solar and wind aren't there 24/7 or even close to it).

And you must have done all these numbers, considering 1) your previous
job and 2 (therefore) deciding if to go ahead with the installation or
not (fully considering ethical and ecological grounds of course?).

In the meantime ... I would be happy to contribute towards you FIT
payments if you would go off grid (from a consumption POV).

Talk about wanting us to buy your cake, you eating it and rarely
sharing any (without us having to pay over the top for it anyway!).

Cheers, T i m

On 12/02/2017 23:33, T i m wrote:


It's just lucky your moral compass was broken when the government
first forced the rest of us to fund you putting that while elephant on
your roof. ;-(

It would appear your moral compass is a bit biased imo.

You obviously don't buy from any company that employs accountants as
that is investing money to get more money out of others. Even worse when
they do the vAT/tax returns to avoid paying too much tax as that costs
everyone more.

I wonder if you support drug dealers as they make stuff cheaper?

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:56:04 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 12/02/2017 23:33, T i m wrote:


It's just lucky your moral compass was broken when the government
first forced the rest of us to fund you putting that while elephant on
your roof. ;-(

It would appear your moral compass is a bit biased imo.

Not sure how you think you could possibly judge that!

You obviously don't buy from any company that employs accountants as
that is investing money to get more money out of others.

WHF tangent are you off on now?

1) It's nothing to do what I do but people taking FIT payments from
others.

2) Accountants aren't generally *earning* money for people but more
often getting others to pay what they owe and trying to *save* the
company money (although the difference between earning and saving
seems to continue to evade you). The accountancy departments are
rarely profit centres.

Even worse when
they do the vAT/tax returns to avoid paying too much tax as that costs
everyone more.

How can it be any worse than getting a group of people to pay an
individual for energy they generate but use themselves?

I wonder if you support drug dealers as they make stuff cheaper?

At least drug dealers give something back for taking peoples money!
What do we get back from paying you your FIT payments?

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:56:04 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:
snip

How can it be any worse than getting a group of people to pay an
individual for energy they generate but use themselves?

I wonder if you support drug dealers as they make stuff cheaper?

At least drug dealers give something back for taking peoples money!
What do we get back from paying you your FIT payments?

Cheers, T i m

If the government, for presumably sound political reasons of its own
related to international affairs, wants to pay us[1] for doing something
entirely pointless who are we to unpatriotically refuse to take the
money?

[1] Those of us at the bottom of steep E/W valleys exposed to neither
wind nor sun have an excuse.

--

Roger Hayter

On 13/02/17 11:12, Roger Hayter wrote:
T i m wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:56:04 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:
snip

How can it be any worse than getting a group of people to pay an
individual for energy they generate but use themselves?

I wonder if you support drug dealers as they make stuff cheaper?

At least drug dealers give something back for taking peoples money!
What do we get back from paying you your FIT payments?

Cheers, T i m

If the government, for presumably sound political reasons of its own
related to international affairs, wants to pay us[1] for doing something
entirely pointless who are we to unpatriotically refuse to take the
money?

Whose money is the government using to pay us?

In teh end money spent = someone's time bought: the question is could
that person have been doing something more useful and productive than
digging holes and filling them in again.

Ultimately cost benefitr analysis shows that many many jobs would be
best completely abolished and the people who do them put on the dole.
Even if their standards of living didn't suffer, the roads would be less
crowded...



[1] Those of us at the bottom of steep E/W valleys exposed to neither
wind nor sun have an excuse.



--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:12:12 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

T i m wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:56:04 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:
snip

How can it be any worse than getting a group of people to pay an
individual for energy they generate but use themselves?

I wonder if you support drug dealers as they make stuff cheaper?

At least drug dealers give something back for taking peoples money!
What do we get back from paying you your FIT payments?

Cheers, T i m

If the government, for presumably sound political reasons of its own
related to international affairs,

Or avoiding fines based on some bogus 'Green' / pollution scam ...

wants to pay us[1] for doing something
entirely pointless who are we to unpatriotically refuse to take the
money?

Yes, *especially* when the people paying the money in aren't 'The
people' via their taxes but those who buy electricity.

[1] Those of us at the bottom of steep E/W valleys exposed to neither
wind nor sun have an excuse.

As do those of us with ethics ...

I'm sure there are loads of similar scams going on and of course there
are people happy to take money from those who can least afford it but
with this (the whole FIT thing), *no one* had to sign up for the FIT
scheme to do what they did.

There must be more grid-isolated Solar PV and water systems around the
world than those connected to the grid and certainly than those
*earning money* from others though it (whilst consuming the energy
themselves).

Even a solar farm where the landowner doesn't actually draw any energy
off themselves but exports it all to the grid, (whilst claiming the
FIT) is less questionable IMHO.

Cheers, T i m

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 13/02/17 11:12, Roger Hayter wrote:
T i m wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:56:04 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:
snip

How can it be any worse than getting a group of people to pay an
individual for energy they generate but use themselves?

I wonder if you support drug dealers as they make stuff cheaper?

At least drug dealers give something back for taking peoples money!
What do we get back from paying you your FIT payments?

Cheers, T i m

If the government, for presumably sound political reasons of its own
related to international affairs, wants to pay us[1] for doing something
entirely pointless who are we to unpatriotically refuse to take the
money?

Whose money is the government using to pay us?

In teh end money spent = someone's time bought: the question is could
that person have been doing something more useful and productive than
digging holes and filling them in again.

Ultimately cost benefitr analysis shows that many many jobs would be
best completely abolished and the people who do them put on the dole.
Even if their standards of living didn't suffer, the roads would be less
crowded...

Follow that logic and we should probably not have started invading the
Middle East and Asia. The point being that it is a bit mean to pick on
the particular inept piece of governance involved in FIT payments for
special moral opprobrium. But I realise I am intruding on someone
else's longstanding argument.

I never used to refuse mortgage interest relief either. Let alone
winter heating allowance.


--

Roger Hayter

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:24:07 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

Whose money is the government using to pay us?

In teh end money spent = someone's time bought: the question is could
that person have been doing something more useful and productive than
digging holes and filling them in again.

Ultimately cost benefitr analysis shows that many many jobs would be
best completely abolished and the people who do them put on the dole.
Even if their standards of living didn't suffer, the roads would be less
crowded...

Follow that logic and we should probably not have started invading the
Middle East and Asia.

Yes, there are loads of 'other things' we could discuss, but we aren't
atm. ;-)

The point being that it is a bit mean to pick on
the particular inept piece of governance involved in FIT payments for
special moral opprobrium.

Other than that was 1) what was being discussed and 2) no one *had* to
take it up? I'm sure there must be a way to generate electricity and
simply get paid for what you generate, and that it?

No, the *reason* the likes of harry took it up was simply to earn the
money from it (and that's the big issue, when *we* are paying him).

But I realise I am intruding on someone
else's longstanding argument.

Not 'someone's' Roger, 'many peoples'. I bet there are even people out
there who have solar PV and are getting paid the FIT and have no idea
who is actually paying it and some ... who may even feel sufficiently
ashamed to then give the payments away or come off the system?

I never used to refuse mortgage interest relief either. Let alone
winter heating allowance.

No, although many have passed the latter onto charity .... but even
those aren't the same as installing a solar PV system and doing so
just to get in before the initial FIT reduction, simply to earn
(more) money from it.

Did you have to go out of your way to get those things, or did they
just happen? Did either thing give you an index linked and guaranteed
rate for 20 years?

Did you get other 'uninvolved people to pay for it based on some bogus
'it's better for all of us' plan?

Even giving someone who regularly lives and drives in one of our big
and polluted cities a grant against the price of an electric car makes
*some* sense as it reduces kerbside emissions ... but *only* on those
grounds (as any other 'eco' credentials are also bs and I've had a
Plug-In EV for around 30 years).


Cheers, T i m