You still haven't said an alternative. Its fulfilled it's initial purpose. goody somes up what it's achieved. With out FfiT you would have that competition or fall in price, at least not significant. You idea of just the government paying directly doesn't work.
Solar energy and the Feed-In Tariff - your opinions
- Thread starter Thomas L
- Start date
You still haven't said an alternative. Its fulfilled it's initial purpose. goody somes up what it's achieved. With out FfiT you would have that competition or fall in price, at least not significant. You idea of just the government paying directly doesn't work.
I know... And I don't pretend to know... But there just seems something odd about the maths...
- If we assume an install costs £10-12k
- People are suggesting making approaching £1.5-2k a year from the scheme = eg: £30,000 to £50,000
So the basic maths is we're paying people say £40,000, to get a £10,000 install on their roof? And where is all that money coming from? Other people's pockets...
Personally I think the idea of getting these panels up is good, but just throwing money away to achieve this seems once again to smell of an ill thought out knee-jerk government scheme. Hence the panic to try and get the tariff reduced.
If we think of it in a black a white fashion, 3-4 times the number of panels could have been put up for the same money
I know... And I don't pretend to know... But there just seems something odd about the maths...
- If we assume an install costs £10-12k
- People are suggesting making approaching £1.5-2k a year from the scheme = eg: £30,000 to £50,000
So the basic maths is we're paying people say £40,000, to get a £10,000 install on their roof? And where is all that money coming from? Other people's pockets...
Personally I think the idea of getting these panels up is good, but just throwing money away to achieve this seems once again to smell of an ill thought out knee-jerk government scheme. Hence the panic to try and get the tariff reduced.
If we think of it in a black a white fashion, 3-4 times the number of panels could have been put up for the same money
The is exactly where the money will come from. Energy suppliers will soon add a line to all house hold bills to pay for the feed in tarrifs. I think some suppliers have already done this.
Sorry, if I understand your comment, you're confirming that basically this wonderful scheme will basically be charging myself, and the rest of my neighbours more, so Mr Smith at the end of the road can pocket his tens of thousands of pounds profit... Hmmm...
Sorry, if I understand your comment, you're confirming that basically this wonderful scheme will basically be charging myself, and the rest of my neighbours more, so Mr Smith at the end of the road can pocket his tens of thousands of pounds profit... Hmmm...
pretty much at least if I am correct.
For a start it was more than 12k to begin with its down to about 9k, hence reduction in tariffs.
Also you get paid for electricity put back into the grid, not just from the FIT. So you become a mini electrical supplier, just like they pay a power plant.
It might seem expensive but it's a drop in the ocean in thes UK budget and it's worked, just walk arounds ands see how many you can see, just a fw years ago, public opinion was PV is unsuitable for tehs Uk and off coure thes reduction in prices. Swhsich I believe i still being held attired ally high as the deal is so good and will drop once the new FIt comes into force.
If you think of it in black and white. You wouldn't get 3-4times as many panels. You pay more for less in your scenario. You pay a flat fee all through government and that's see that. Oer you pay a high initial price,a seat up the industry, bring prices down as prices drop you lower FIT till its no longer needed, then you have 10e of thousands moe panels Ana vastly cheaper per panel price than you scenario. Looking to much into insant figures, rather than long term.
Also you get paid for electricity put back into the grid, not just from the FIT. So you become a mini electrical supplier, just like they pay a power plant.
It might seem expensive but it's a drop in the ocean in thes UK budget and it's worked, just walk arounds ands see how many you can see, just a fw years ago, public opinion was PV is unsuitable for tehs Uk and off coure thes reduction in prices. Swhsich I believe i still being held attired ally high as the deal is so good and will drop once the new FIt comes into force.
If you think of it in black and white. You wouldn't get 3-4times as many panels. You pay more for less in your scenario. You pay a flat fee all through government and that's see that. Oer you pay a high initial price,a seat up the industry, bring prices down as prices drop you lower FIT till its no longer needed, then you have 10e of thousands moe panels Ana vastly cheaper per panel price than you scenario. Looking to much into insant figures, rather than long term.
Last edited:
If we think of it in a black a white fashion, 3-4 times the number of panels could have been put up for the same money
Who would want to put solar panels on their roof it didn't make them any money?
Right now on this sunny day my panels are generating approx 3.5kw and as i work from home I am currently no burden on the electricity grid. I would be interested to see what impact that would have if most homes have a system like this, would we be able to poser down a power station or 2 in the summer day times?
What have you guys using done about the inverters? And have you taken that into your costs?
The FiT is calculated with one inverter replacement during the life and all the 4kw inverters seem to have a 5year guarantee, with most being extendable to 10years and at least one being extended to 20years.
The FiT is calculated with one inverter replacement during the life and all the 4kw inverters seem to have a 5year guarantee, with most being extendable to 10years and at least one being extended to 20years.
How about public sector buildings/offices to start off with. They're going to be using lots of electricity during the day, unlike Mr Smith down the road who's out all day, and instead uses his mostly in the evening.
How about installing them on new builds, where they can be installed more cheaply and more aesthetically (as part of the roof line instead of mounted ontop). These individuals would get reduced electricity changes, but not a FIT.
How about instead if individuals were offered 75% of a panel installation cost. Electricity savings would soon offset their £2-3k cost, but again there wouldn't be any daft FIT.
I simply don't see how paying Mr Smith down the road £30-40k to get £10k of kit on his roof makes any sense at all... Electricity is already expensive enough without simply throwing consumer's money away on daft schemes.
Last edited:
New. Builds have to have one form of renewable energy, although most go for an air heat exchang.
And I have heard that big extension from next year might require you to fit renewable as well. Us haven't heard anything about that recently.
How does fitting to public sector buildings, establish the private supply chains and competition?
Doesn't matter if joe blog isn't in, as it's exported to the grid and so can be used anywhere.
It makes perfect sense when you look at it long term, which either you aren't thinking about or refuse to think about.
100 panels at 40k(cost over 25years)
Then 10000 panels purchased privately at no cost
Or
400 panels at 40k
Then 400 panels purchased priavtley as they are still to expensive, public opinion never changed and little private competition to bring prices down.
I wonder which works long term.
On top of that, FIt does not cost the uk much. uk is like a massive company with cash flow. Your wwa means stumpin the cost upfront, FIT spreads the cost over 25+ ears. So cost per year to the Uk is small.
And I have heard that big extension from next year might require you to fit renewable as well. Us haven't heard anything about that recently.
How does fitting to public sector buildings, establish the private supply chains and competition?
Doesn't matter if joe blog isn't in, as it's exported to the grid and so can be used anywhere.
It makes perfect sense when you look at it long term, which either you aren't thinking about or refuse to think about.
100 panels at 40k(cost over 25years)
Then 10000 panels purchased privately at no cost
Or
400 panels at 40k
Then 400 panels purchased priavtley as they are still to expensive, public opinion never changed and little private competition to bring prices down.
I wonder which works long term.
On top of that, FIt does not cost the uk much. uk is like a massive company with cash flow. Your wwa means stumpin the cost upfront, FIT spreads the cost over 25+ ears. So cost per year to the Uk is small.
Last edited:
I would say this is one of the biggest unknowns in the solar industry. If inverters start failing after 5 years and need to be replaced every 7 or 10 years it completely screws up the business model.
I can't see them failing that soon, as they come with 5year warranty and for ~£200 per 5 year extension.
What's the difference been Mr Smith's roof or a Community Centre roof or a local government office roof? The hardware is going to be exactly the same etc, as could even be the suppliers. So the only difference is does the fitting needlessly line Mr Smiths pocket or not.
Again, what's wrong for example with my plucked from the air suggestion of paying 75% of any installation charge? Hell, make it 80%
So for the amount of money we're going to dish out to Mr Smith down the road on the current wonderful scheme we could have fitted THREE times the installations! Wouldn't that be better to get the market kick started? 2-4 the number of installation for the same expense?
Again, I don't see how giving Mr Smith for a brand new Mercedes is a wise investment of our money.
Last edited:
Do you know how government procurement works? Obviously not. It is not the same at all.
Would public opinion change, no. As you don't have the oh my mates had it installed and it's producing these real world figures.
So no you still haven't come up anythinggg even remotely as good.
Ontop of that your model requires a huge upfront fee rate than spread over 25 years.
And how do you have 3-4 times as many panels? As its unlikely you would have the private take up over the long term, so you would actually end up over 3-4decades at a much higher price per panel installed. Hence you have saved anything and actually cost the Uk more money.
How does your plan kick start the market?
Would public opinion change, no. As you don't have the oh my mates had it installed and it's producing these real world figures.
So no you still haven't come up anythinggg even remotely as good.
Ontop of that your model requires a huge upfront fee rate than spread over 25 years.
And how do you have 3-4 times as many panels? As its unlikely you would have the private take up over the long term, so you would actually end up over 3-4decades at a much higher price per panel installed. Hence you have saved anything and actually cost the Uk more money.
How does your plan kick start the market?
Take Mr Smith:-
Current scheme - He spends £10k. We pay him say £25-40K over the next 25years.
Alternative - He spends just £3000. We pay £7000 upfront.
Net result, same hardware on same roof at same cost... Same amount of electricity going into the grid.
The different? One costs us 3-4 times more.
You could argue more people would be willing to spend just £3000 to get an install than five figures!
And for the cost of Mr Smith under the current scheme, we could have paid for Mr Smith and Mr Jones to have an installation and still been better off...
Surely installing more units will kick start the business even more?
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/new...source=Business Green Weekly&utm_medium=Email
£128m paid out since FIT's introduction 2 years ago or to simplify it £1 per year per head of the UK population. Excessive?
£128m paid out since FIT's introduction 2 years ago or to simplify it £1 per year per head of the UK population. Excessive?
The difference will be Mr Smith and the Community Centre will look at the installation cost and the running cost whereas anything government/council/NHS/emergency services/etc related will only ever pay attention to the installation cost. If it means losing £15k over 5 years to knock £3k off the install cost they will do it.