Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: aaronjb on 01 November 2011, 11:33:09
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15507750
All those people who were banking on the tariff not changing until April are in for a sudden shock:
The new tariff of 21 pence, down from the current 43p, will take effect from 1 April and be paid to anyone who installed their solar system after 12 December.
-
Good news in one sense that the payouts for this nonsense are at least tending towards reality.
Bad news in another sense that my brother has just set himself up as a sparky, and installing solar panels is a big chunk of his planned income. I predict him being rather busy.. until 12th December. :-\
-
A sensible approach and will ultimately be back dated to all installs in the course of time I am sure.
As I have already said, its madness to be offering such highly inflated prices for energy production and particulalrly one such as PV where the numbers barely added anyway.
What it should do is drive the efficiency of the cells further and the get the install costs down to offset and maybe they will be further developed to the point where they are half useful.
-
A sensible approach and will ultimately be back dated to all installs in the course of time I am sure.
As I have already said, its madness to be offering such highly inflated prices for energy production and particulalrly one such as PV where the numbers barely added anyway.
What it should do is drive the efficiency of the cells further and the get the install costs down to offset and maybe they will be further developed to the point where they are half useful.
What it should do is drive the efficiency of the cells further and the get the install costs down to offset and maybe they will be further developed to the point where they are half useful.
One would hope so - but in the search for practical alternatives to burning oil and so on for energy use this hardly inspires confidence to those who wish to avail of those alternatives believing that it will be of benefit and provide a degree of energy security.
In my view it's a prime example of legislation enacted on the back of wide-boy tactics adopted by lobbyists and 'special advisors' who seem to be more interested in lining their own pockets rather than offering a well researched, well developed but above all else affordable means of generating energy.
It seems to me that the Westminster bubble-dwellers have failed to move cautiously in this field. They have allowed themselves to be panicked on their insane quest to cut carbon emissions in this vain effort to adopt the moral high ground within the world ranking charts of environmentally responsible nations.
All they have really achieved however is to have done us all up like kippers and blatantly, through this incompetence, placed many of our people firmly in the realms of fuel poverty.
-
All they have really achieved however is to have done us all up like kippers and blatantly, through this incompetence, placed many of our people firmly in the realms of fuel poverty.
Agreed. Government policy appears currently to be decided either by ministers themselves (one week they are responsible for health, the next week it's energy and "climate change", etc - not a lot of subject knowledge there!) or lobbyists and other industry representatives, all with a vested interest in emptying the government coffers in their direction.
A whole layer of largely impartial government agencies who used to sit between these two appears to have either evaporated or, in most cases, had their remit expanded and distorted in such a way as to make them about as impartial as the lobbyists themselves, and often signing from the same hymn sheet. It's a dangerous situation we're in, IMHO. :(
-
Oh look.. "Friends of the Earth" have stepped in to save this clearly environmentally sound subsidy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16291768
I guess MDTM must be wrong about solar panels not being the environmental panacea to end all panaceas if Friends of the Earth are involved, because surely they wouldn't have any other motive than saving the earth from us human scum, would they? ... ;)
(I wonder if they were planning on having a lot of panels installed..)
-
I think the retards who appealed to the courts should pay the ongoing losses for life to the taxpayer.
-
Oops. It seems my comments upset a couple of peeps. That wasn't my intention.
However, I maintain that if the rather pointless Friends of the Earth organisation really think it's worthwhile (it's not!), then they should fund the subsidies themselves. Rather than the beleaguered taxpayer. It is just frittering taxpayers money away for no environmental gain.
-
Agreed. Although it's proving to be quite handy for my brother who has just set himself up in business as a sparky. He's run off his feet wiring up solar-powered-subsidy-propagators at the moment. ;D
-
Oops. It seems my comments upset a couple of peeps. That wasn't my intention.
However, I maintain that if the rather pointless Friends of the Earth organisation really think it's worthwhile (it's not!), then they should fund the subsidies themselves. Rather than the beleaguered taxpayer. It is just frittering taxpayers money away for no environmental gain.
Bit of a sweeping statement? Or do you really believe that without them the global entities intent on pillaging the earth regardless of consequences would have held themselves in check? A sort of self regulation. Next you will be saying lets fish all the whales out of the sea and use the fat to propel diesel cars.
As far as the subsidies are concerned the real question we should ask is what the hell is going on. Decisions on the future seem to being made on a whim and then reversed by the next lot of whim makers. Reminds me of the MOD. Lets have some aircraft carriers, lets not, oh go on then it is only money.........
-
The perpitrator of said upset has been delt with
-
The perpitrator of said upset has been delt with
I had to check to see if I'd been banned (again), then.. :-X
Kevin - I hope he can wire things up correctly, unlikely the lot a friend of mine had install panels on his house.. he paid extra to have a two channel inverter, only to find that they were going to wire all the panels to one channel (until he overheard their 'lets just join this lot together' conversation) and they managed to wire it together so that when he was generating electricity ... nothing happened (wired the meter in back to front, or something along those lines)..
Makes you wonder where they find these folks, eh.
-
The perpitrator of said upset has been delt with
I had to check to see if I'd been banned (again), then.. :-X
Kevin - I hope he can wire things up correctly, unlikely the lot a friend of mine had install panels on his house.. he paid extra to have a two channel inverter, only to find that they were going to wire all the panels to one channel (until he overheard their 'lets just join this lot together' conversation) and they managed to wire it together so that when he was generating electricity ... nothing happened (wired the meter in back to front, or something along those lines)..
Makes you wonder where they find these folks, eh.
There's a rush on, so I guess any useless Gibbon'll do at the moment. ::)
-
The perpitrator of said upset has been delt with
Someone (who shall be nameless) may be missing for 24 hrs :o
-
The perpitrator of said upset has been delt with
Someone (who shall be nameless) may be missing for 24 hrs :o
TB? :o :o :o
-
Oh Dear... heads will roll :o
It will all end in tears ;D ;D ;D
-
The perpitrator of said upset has been delt with
I think he's got what he deserves.....he's a big meanie! :P
-
Oops. It seems my comments upset a couple of peeps. That wasn't my intention.
However, I maintain that if the rather pointless Friends of the Earth organisation really think it's worthwhile (it's not!), then they should fund the subsidies themselves. Rather than the beleaguered taxpayer. It is just frittering taxpayers money away for no environmental gain.
Bit of a sweeping statement?
I think they are ineffective, and go to extreme lengths/costs to achieve nothing. Solar isn't going to make a blind bit of difference. Like wind. Or any other current renewables. Yet cost a fortune to implement. Working from the figures given by the manufacturers that I've retrieved from those who have it, it takes about 7yrs to make back the installation costs (based on the 43p payback per KWhr), and life of panels is given as approx 10yrs. And nobody I know is getting the estimated amount of electric they were promised.
It only makes any sense financially with this higher level payback, hence Friends of the Earth getting on their high horse.
OK, but it saves the planet. But does it? Based on those using such systems not getting enough payback at 43p/kwh to even remotely cover their non solar electric use at about 15p/kwh, that means solar is covering way less than 1/4 (break even point at 43p/kwh) of electric use. As with electric cars, manufacturing costs (carbonwise) and short life, does it work out effective? I think not. Yet Friends of the Earth idiots will persue this at any cost, not based on using common sense, but a soap box "its green because we don't burn coal" ill considered attitude.
If its green electric at any cost, nuclear is probably the only viable answer currently, although it will take years to get new reactors online. Japan's disaster has scared the do-gooders away, despite the fact that it should be considered a success story right up to the point when they discovered the brought in generators to recharge the batteries were incompatible.
Or tackle the real issue - the world is overpopulated. Unsustainably. Or is that too controversial?
Then we need to go back to a basic argument - is man substantially affecting climate. It used to be "Global Warming", now even the beeb call it "Climate Change" instead. There are lots of conflicting studies, which makes it unclear if mankind has affected climate. Undoubtedly, parts of the Earth are warmer than 50yrs ago... ...but Greenland was, errr, green back in the 12th century. Don't tell me, that was the Romans driving their Landrovers all over their empire that caused Artic icecaps to retreat.
Personally, I think I do fall into the category of "Mankind may have affected global climate, but not to the extent we are being scare-mongered into believing". Green is expensive, good for businesses that invest in it.
So do I think 'home' solar is a (even small) answer? NO!
Do I think Friends of the Earth are idiots? YES!
-
I wish you would stop pishing about and say what you really think ;D
-
I wish you would stop pishing about and say what you really think ;D
I think the word censor would break....
...and as we currently have nobody who can fix it if it goes Pete Tong, maybe I shouldn't try... ...or should I //Evil cackle
-
Handbags at 10 paces ;D ;D
-
Oops. It seems my comments upset a couple of peeps. That wasn't my intention.
However, I maintain that if the rather pointless Friends of the Earth organisation really think it's worthwhile (it's not!), then they should fund the subsidies themselves. Rather than the beleaguered taxpayer. It is just frittering taxpayers money away for no environmental gain.
Bit of a sweeping statement?
I think they are ineffective, and go to extreme lengths/costs to achieve nothing. Solar isn't going to make a blind bit of difference. Like wind. Or any other current renewables. Yet cost a fortune to implement. Working from the figures given by the manufacturers that I've retrieved from those who have it, it takes about 7yrs to make back the installation costs (based on the 43p payback per KWhr), and life of panels is given as approx 10yrs. And nobody I know is getting the estimated amount of electric they were promised.
It only makes any sense financially with this higher level payback, hence Friends of the Earth getting on their high horse.
OK, but it saves the planet. But does it? Based on those using such systems not getting enough payback at 43p/kwh to even remotely cover their non solar electric use at about 15p/kwh, that means solar is covering way less than 1/4 (break even point at 43p/kwh) of electric use. As with electric cars, manufacturing costs (carbonwise) and short life, does it work out effective? I think not. Yet Friends of the Earth idiots will persue this at any cost, not based on using common sense, but a soap box "its green because we don't burn coal" ill considered attitude.
If its green electric at any cost, nuclear is probably the only viable answer currently, although it will take years to get new reactors online. Japan's disaster has scared the do-gooders away, despite the fact that it should be considered a success story right up to the point when they discovered the brought in generators to recharge the batteries were incompatible.
Or tackle the real issue - the world is overpopulated. Unsustainably. Or is that too controversial?
Then we need to go back to a basic argument - is man substantially affecting climate. It used to be "Global Warming", now even the beeb call it "Climate Change" instead. There are lots of conflicting studies, which makes it unclear if mankind has affected climate. Undoubtedly, parts of the Earth are warmer than 50yrs ago... ...but Greenland was, errr, green back in the 12th century. Don't tell me, that was the Romans driving their Landrovers all over their empire that caused Artic icecaps to retreat.
Personally, I think I do fall into the category of "Mankind may have affected global climate, but not to the extent we are being scare-mongered into believing". Green is expensive, good for businesses that invest in it.
So do I think 'home' solar is a (even small) answer? NO!
Do I think Friends of the Earth are idiots? YES!
Have you not learned your lesson?
Antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated (especially when I still need revenge :D :D )
Bye Bye!
-
Oops. It seems my comments upset a couple of peeps. That wasn't my intention.
However, I maintain that if the rather pointless Friends of the Earth organisation really think it's worthwhile (it's not!), then they should fund the subsidies themselves. Rather than the beleaguered taxpayer. It is just frittering taxpayers money away for no environmental gain.
Bit of a sweeping statement?
I think they are ineffective, and go to extreme lengths/costs to achieve nothing. Solar isn't going to make a blind bit of difference. Like wind. Or any other current renewables. Yet cost a fortune to implement. Working from the figures given by the manufacturers that I've retrieved from those who have it, it takes about 7yrs to make back the installation costs (based on the 43p payback per KWhr), and life of panels is given as approx 10yrs. And nobody I know is getting the estimated amount of electric they were promised.
It only makes any sense financially with this higher level payback, hence Friends of the Earth getting on their high horse.
OK, but it saves the planet. But does it? Based on those using such systems not getting enough payback at 43p/kwh to even remotely cover their non solar electric use at about 15p/kwh, that means solar is covering way less than 1/4 (break even point at 43p/kwh) of electric use. As with electric cars, manufacturing costs (carbonwise) and short life, does it work out effective? I think not. Yet Friends of the Earth idiots will persue this at any cost, not based on using common sense, but a soap box "its green because we don't burn coal" ill considered attitude.
If its green electric at any cost, nuclear is probably the only viable answer currently, although it will take years to get new reactors online. Japan's disaster has scared the do-gooders away, despite the fact that it should be considered a success story right up to the point when they discovered the brought in generators to recharge the batteries were incompatible.
Or tackle the real issue - the world is overpopulated. Unsustainably. Or is that too controversial?
Then we need to go back to a basic argument - is man substantially affecting climate. It used to be "Global Warming", now even the beeb call it "Climate Change" instead. There are lots of conflicting studies, which makes it unclear if mankind has affected climate. Undoubtedly, parts of the Earth are warmer than 50yrs ago... ...but Greenland was, errr, green back in the 12th century. Don't tell me, that was the Romans driving their Landrovers all over their empire that caused Artic icecaps to retreat.
Personally, I think I do fall into the category of "Mankind may have affected global climate, but not to the extent we are being scare-mongered into believing". Green is expensive, good for businesses that invest in it.
So do I think 'home' solar is a (even small) answer? NO!
Do I think Friends of the Earth are idiots? YES!
Have you not learned your lesson?
Antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated (especially when I still need revenge :D :D )
Bye Bye!
Poor TB suspect it'll take more than a nipple tweek....... ;) ;D
-
I see Which are equally thick as 2 short planks over the Credit Card thing. We're surrounded by useless do-gooder organisations, clearly made up of breakless, stupid, blinkered idiots. I'm just the stupid kid from the local Comprehensive, but jeez....
-
You mean those 'rip off' surcharges that were just covering the clearing house fees for most small businesses, and will now simply be built into the price regardless of how you're paying? That Credit Card thing? ;)
-
You mean those 'rip off' surcharges that were just covering the clearing house fees for most small businesses, and will now simply be built into the price regardless of how you're paying? That Credit Card thing? ;)
Precisely.
breakless rather idiots. 100 million sperm, and they were the fastest ???