Something-for-nothing: Tory style

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:33 pm

After you fork out money to pay for solar panels you'll be expected to give free electricity away to multi-billion pound companies who will then sell it.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... government" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:46 pm

it's a newspaper story [so mainly inaccurate/incomplete] from a tory bashing lefty propoganda rag. and you actually believe everything they write? bless.

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:50 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:After you fork out money to pay for solar panels you'll be expected to give free electricity away to multi-billion pound companies who will then sell it.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... government" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Get a life Turtle. It's boring all this stuff. Why not change the theme and post about something like the biggest protection racket around. THE EU.

Big business and snakes like Blair (for his own ends) and his oppo who is a Claret love it.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:05 pm

biggles wrote:it's a newspaper story [so mainly inaccurate/incomplete] from a tory bashing lefty propoganda rag. and you actually believe everything they write? bless.

It's not inaccurate. They're getting rid of the feed-in tariff, so any excess electricity you produce will go to the energy companies - for free!

In what way is that inaccurate? Go on, tell me. I'll wait.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:08 pm

Stayingup wrote:Get a life Turtle. It's boring all this stuff. Why not change the theme and post about something like the biggest protection racket around. THE EU.

Big business and snakes like Blair (for his own ends) and his oppo who is a Claret love it.

Yes, I have my issues with the EU. I don't see why that is relevant in this thread. Unless you just want to drag it off-topic because you know i'm right but hate it.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:09 pm

Imploding Turtle - a man with a fork, in a world of soup...

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:19 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's not inaccurate. They're getting rid of the feed-in tariff, so any excess electricity you produce will go to the energy companies - for free!

In what way is that inaccurate? Go on, tell me. I'll wait.

they way you seem to believe all you read in the guardian is kindda sweet and almost endearing. did you start reading it before or after you read the brothers grimm?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:25 am

biggles wrote:they way you seem to believe all you read in the guardian is kindda sweet and almost endearing. did you start reading it before or after you read the brothers grimm?

In supporting an opinion i'm sharing I tend not to link article's that I don't believe, so you're kinda basing your opinion on a biased data set. Not that i'm surprised by your inability to work that out for yourself. In fact i'm not entirely sure that even now I've explained it you understand it.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:32 am

The scheme was introduced in 2010, was it a labour policy or Tory, seeing as the Tories took over in that year?

I've checked, one of the last Labour polices, to entice people to switch to solar power etc.

The change is one of a double whammy for solar power in the UK, with energy regulator Ofgem also announcing measures on Tuesday that will see solar households pay more for their energy"

Interesting bit at the end.
Reminds me a little of Labour telling everyone to buy diesel and then the price of diesel at the fuel stations rose to be higher than petrol....

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:20 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:After you fork out money to pay for solar panels you'll be expected to give free electricity away

Not at all true.

You won't have the right to sell your excess electricity to the national grid.

It's a big difference really, isn't it?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:23 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's not inaccurate. They're getting rid of the feed-in tariff, so any excess electricity you produce will go to the energy companies - for free!

Not true, again.

If you hook up your supply to the national grid then you will not be paid for your excess production - but you'd have to hook up your system to the grid in the first place.

Why would you hook up your system to the national grid, knowing they aren't going to pay you for any excess consumption if you weren't prepared to give them the excess for free?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:39 am

Rowls wrote:Not at all true.

You won't have the right to sell your excess electricity to the national grid.

It's a big difference really, isn't it?

Not really. But it must really **** you off as a free market nut that an individual doesn't have the right to sell something that his/her property produces.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:42 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Not really. But it must really **** you off as a free market nut that an individual doesn't have the right to sell something that his/her property produces.

Nobody has the "right" to sell anything under free markets - you have the right to offer something for sale.

Big difference, isn't it?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:43 am

Turtle, this is another one of those threads where you've shown yourself up as being a bit below average in the intelligence stakes.

I'd drop it now and let this dull thread gently slide down the order.

All the best, Rowls.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:02 am

Rowls wrote:Nobody has the "right" to sell anything under free markets - you have the right to offer something for sale.

Big difference, isn't it?

Imagine thinking you win a debate on a matter of pure pedantry, and still be wrong.

The right to sell and the right to a buyer are two completely different things, unfortunately in your haste to call me stupid you were too stupid to realise that that's what you really wanted to say.
The right to sell and the right to offer for sale is the exact same thing.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:04 am

Rowls wrote:Turtle, this is another one of those threads where you've shown yourself up as being a bit below average in the intelligence stakes.

You have to be an awful lot smarter than you to pull this kind of thing off.

This is the bit where you say that you have to leave, before continuing to reply for the next 4 hours.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:19 am

Rowls wrote:Not true, again.

If you hook up your supply to the national grid then you will not be paid for your excess production - but you'd have to hook up your system to the grid in the first place.

Why would you hook up your system to the national grid, knowing they aren't going to pay you for any excess consumption if you weren't prepared to give them the excess for free?

How does one prevent excess electricity one creates via solar panels leaking into the national grid? Asking for a miserable friend.

Seriously, while we still have coal fired power stations why on earth would we take so many steps to inhibit solar power? What would you suggest people do with their excess electricity? Keep the lights on?

Our government - filled as it is with stupid people - would rather stuff the pockets of foreign owners of our energy providers with gold, than enable our country to power itself with renewable energy. It's shameful.

As Americans say: Follow the money. Why does our government subsides fossil fuel twenty times more than the renewable energy industry?

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:25 am

Good job i got mine 4 years ago, pays over £600 a year, linked to inflation for 25 years, plus electricity savings on top !

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:40 am

claretandy wrote:Good job i got mine 4 years ago, pays over £600 a year, linked to inflation for 25 years, plus electricity savings on top !

And you would enjoy denying the same to other people?

Taffy on the wing · Post by **Taffy on the wing** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:25 am

Rowls wrote:Not at all true.

You won't have the right to sell your excess electricity to the national grid.

It's a big difference really, isn't it?

So what will you do with the excess? ....".Keep it in one's bottom? "
You Sir are being disingenuous!

Taffy on the wing · Post by **Taffy on the wing** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:30 am

AndrewJB wrote:How does one prevent excess electricity one creates via solar panels leaking into the national grid? Asking for a miserable friend.

Seriously, while we still have coal fired power stations why on earth would we take so many steps to inhibit solar power? What would you suggest people do with their excess electricity? Keep the lights on?

Our government - filled as it is with stupid people - would rather stuff the pockets of foreign owners of our energy providers with gold, than enable our country to power itself with renewable energy. It's shameful.

As Americans say: Follow the money. Why does our government subsides fossil fuel twenty times more than the renewable energy industry?

Have you not heard about Industry Lobbyists? It's pay to play.....Worse here in US.....grab your yellow vest!

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:57 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yes, I have my issues with the EU. I don't see why that is relevant in this thread. Unless you just want to drag it off-topic because you know i'm right but hate it.

Wrong again Turtle. You usually are though. Time for you to sit back and learn something.

Bosscat · Post by **Bosscat** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:25 pm

claretandy wrote:Good job i got mine 4 years ago, pays over £600 a year, linked to inflation for 25 years, plus electricity savings on top !

Snap & with the saving of around £500 on our Leccy bill makes us £1100 a year..... happy days

.

Got ours as we were told that the feed in tarriff was ending.
Now they have paid for themselves its win win....

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:42 pm

Taffy on the wing wrote:Have you not heard about Industry Lobbyists? It's pay to play.....Worse here in US.....grab your yellow vest!

From the Guardian-

"30,000 lobbyists and counting: is Brussels under corporate sway?
From mobile phone charges to nations' interests, these shadowy agitators are estimated to influence 75% of European legislation"

Lobbying is a billion-euro industry in Brussels. According to Corporate Europe Observatory, a watchdog campaigning for greater transparency, there are at least 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels, nearly matching the 31,000 staff employed by the European commission and making it second only to Washington in the concentration of those seeking to affect legislation. Lobbyists sign a transparency register run by the parliament and the commission, though it is not mandatory.

By some estimates, they influence 75% of legislation. In principle, lobbyists give politicians information and arguments during the decision-making process. In practice, the corridors of the parliament often teem with individuals, who meet MEPs in their offices or in open spaces such as the "Mickey Mouse bar" (nicknamed so because of the shape of its seats) inside the parliament.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:51 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:From the Guardian-

"30,000 lobbyists and counting: is Brussels under corporate sway?
From mobile phone charges to nations' interests, these shadowy agitators are estimated to influence 75% of European legislation"

Lobbying is a billion-euro industry in Brussels. According to Corporate Europe Observatory, a watchdog campaigning for greater transparency, there are at least 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels, nearly matching the 31,000 staff employed by the European commission and making it second only to Washington in the concentration of those seeking to affect legislation. Lobbyists sign a transparency register run by the parliament and the commission, though it is not mandatory.

By some estimates, they influence 75% of legislation. In principle, lobbyists give politicians information and arguments during the decision-making process. In practice, the corridors of the parliament often teem with individuals, who meet MEPs in their offices or in open spaces such as the "Mickey Mouse bar" (nicknamed so because of the shape of its seats) inside the parliament.

What would you say if it were discovered that Juncker and other senior EU people regularly auctioned off dinner with them to anyone who could afford it - including people connected to senior Russian politicians?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:58 pm

I'm loving the idea that lobbying is only done in Brussels.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:01 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm loving the idea that lobbying is only done in Brussels.

I'm loving the idea somebody said it was.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:04 pm

AndrewJB wrote:What would you say if it were discovered that Juncker and other senior EU people regularly auctioned off dinner with them to anyone who could afford it - including people connected to senior Russian politicians?

I'd still say when people complain of the lobbying that goes on in Westminster, it's nothing to the grand scale lobbying that goes on in the bloated Brussels behemoth.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:17 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I'd still say when people complain of the lobbying that goes on in Westminster, it's nothing to the grand scale lobbying that goes on in the bloated Brussels behemoth.

I'd say that what goes on here is as close to organised corruption as you could get. Selling time with any politician should be banned. You say the EU is more corrupt. I'd be interested in seeing your source for that. But you'd agree I'm sure that we should concentrate on our own problems.

Chobulous · Post by **Chobulous** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:29 pm

AndrewJB wrote:What would you say if it were discovered that Juncker and other senior EU people regularly auctioned off dinner with them to anyone who could afford it - including people connected to senior Russian politicians?

Sauce?

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:45 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's not inaccurate. They're getting rid of the feed-in tariff, so any excess electricity you produce will go to the energy companies - for free!

In what way is that inaccurate? Go on, tell me. I'll wait.

Well said IT. I worked on an environmental magazine a few years ago and the feed-in tariff was only ever going to be temporary, I know because I covered it a lot. The feed-in tariff was a massive selling point for SP, being used as a way of reducing, in effect, the cost of having them installed. That cost was actually quite expensive but the feed-in and the reduced cost of your own electricity were meant to make it cost effective. The owner of such a company admitted to me once that you would have to stay in the house you had it installed in for a number of years for it to be worthwhile (I forget exactly how many years so forgive me) even with the tariff. I think we may see the take up of SP slow down now considerably because of this.
Of course people who really care about the environment may still want the option but it would be nice if the power companies passed on the savings to customers in general but of course we all know that won't happen.
As for the people who think it's just a newspaper story - bless.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:48 pm

To complete a more balanced picture perhaps the OP could have posted these remarks from the article:

'The government is understood to be preparing to announce a market-based replacement to the export tariff early in the new year, which would write the rules for how energy suppliers could buy the excess power, though they would not be mandated to do so.'

'A BEIS spokesperson said: “It’s only right we protect consumers and adjust incentives as costs fall, with solar having fallen by 80%, and we will consult shortly on a future framework for small-scale renewable energy generation.” ' Consumers of course include those that can't or don't want to have solar panels.

But then we wouldn't have a thread I suppose.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:51 pm

Chobulous wrote:Sauce?

Mayo - mixed with a little wasabi.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:54 pm

AndrewJB wrote:And you would enjoy denying the same to other people?

Not at all, there has to be some incentive for forking out 5.5k, or else why would you bother ?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:54 pm

AndrewJB wrote:I'd say that what goes on here is as close to organised corruption as you could get. Selling time with any politician should be banned. You say the EU is more corrupt. I'd be interested in seeing your source for that. But you'd agree I'm sure that we should concentrate on our own problems.

Do I need a source? It's a far far bigger entity. The Guardian isn't known for its euroscepticism is it. But if they're publishing articles saying 75% of legislation is influenced by lobbying you know it's big and bigger than anything going on at the parish council of Westminster.

No doubt you'll disagree......

"30,000 lobbyists and counting: is Brussels under corporate sway?
From mobile phone charges to nations' interests, these shadowy agitators are estimated to influence 75% of European legislation"

Any sources showing comparative in Westminster?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:00 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Do I need a source? It's a far far bigger entity. The Guardian isn't known for its euroscepticism is it. But if they're publishing articles saying 75% of legislation is influenced by lobbying you know it's big and bigger than anything going on at the parish council of Westminster.

No doubt you'll disagree......

"30,000 lobbyists and counting: is Brussels under corporate sway?
From mobile phone charges to nations' interests, these shadowy agitators are estimated to influence 75% of European legislation"

Any sources showing comparative in Westminster?

Of course Brussels is under corporate sway. So is parliament. So is the US Congress. All legislatures are under corporate sway to some degree. It's why we have laws in place to limit political campaign contributions and political campaign financing sources which you don't seem to care about.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:02 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Of course Brussels is under corporate sway.

That would have sufficed.......

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:10 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:The right to sell and the right to offer for sale is the exact same thing.

That's good news. I already knew I had the right to offer my car for sale at £100,000, but I didn't realise I had a right to sell it. Because at that price, I will certainly exercise that right. Do I get to nominate the buyer?

You can argue that the government removing the duty to buy the power is the same as removing the householder's right to sell; or you can argue that the government removing the duty to buy the power is not the same as removing the householder's right to sell. But you can't argue both.

When the full plans come out, it might be easier to see what they are doing. But the guaranteed, subsidised rate will be gone.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:12 pm

The worst point about all of this, is where people are forced at gunpoint to fit these awful things to their roofs

Fewming

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:18 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:In supporting an opinion i'm sharing I tend not to link article's that I don't believe, so you're kinda basing your opinion on a biased data set. Not that i'm surprised by your inability to work that out for yourself. In fact i'm not entirely sure that even now I've explained it you understand it.

you do have problems understanding things, don't you? what you linked to is a newspaper article - IT ISN'T NECESSARILY TRUE - yet you put it up as though it is gospel. you only [need to] believe it to be true; not the same thing. you seem to live in a liberal/socialist bubble where only things that you believe in get through its' protective shield. you've been so well brain-washed that anything that differs from you personal opinion is automatically assumed to be false so you ignore it or are physically incapable of actually reading it. it's equally sad and amusing.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:26 pm

I don't want to get the thread pulled here Biggles, but that isn't exclusively a problem IT has got.

Taffy on the wing · Post by **Taffy on the wing** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:28 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Of course Brussels is under corporate sway. So is parliament. So is the US Congress. All legislatures are under corporate sway to some degree. It's why we have laws in place to limit political campaign contributions and political campaign financing sources which you don't seem to care about.

And that is why it's important to vote for Jeremy Corbyn!
he won't be bought

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:42 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I don't want to get the thread pulled here Biggles, but that isn't exclusively a problem IT has got.

true, but it's the way he will argue 'til he's blue in the face that every little bit of the piece is the gospel truth. no doubt this particular story is based on an underlying truth but it will have been twisted and redacted until it is fit to serve the Guardian's tory-bashing agenda. which, of course, denies the reader a more honest picture of its' reality. also, even in the unlikely case that the story has some truth to it AT THE TIME OF PRINTING things change and the final outcome will probably be much-changed from the original newspaper article. However, it will have served its' purpose of serving up yet another sensationalist newspaper headline. i guess that editing style sells papers, though.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:57 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Do I need a source? It's a far far bigger entity. The Guardian isn't known for its euroscepticism is it. But if they're publishing articles saying 75% of legislation is influenced by lobbying you know it's big and bigger than anything going on at the parish council of Westminster.

No doubt you'll disagree......

"30,000 lobbyists and counting: is Brussels under corporate sway?
From mobile phone charges to nations' interests, these shadowy agitators are estimated to influence 75% of European legislation"

Any sources showing comparative in Westminster?

The Tory party openly sell "time" with the prime minister, and other senior ministers to raise money for the party, and you ask me for comparative sources? I've never believed the EU is perfect, nor do I think the UK is. What I've pointed out is that lobbying can take place under the radar of official lobbying. The Tory party is funded by big money, which it rewards in various ways. I think the Eu is similar. I dislike both for the same reason. Don't you?

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:05 pm

biggles wrote:you do have problems understanding things, don't you? what you linked to is a newspaper article - IT ISN'T NECESSARILY TRUE - yet you put it up as though it is gospel. you only [need to] believe it to be true; not the same thing. you seem to live in a liberal/socialist bubble where only things that you believe in get through its' protective shield. you've been so well brain-washed that anything that differs from you personal opinion is automatically assumed to be false so you ignore it or are physically incapable of actually reading it. it's equally sad and amusing.

Which facts from the article do you think aren’t true?

yorkyclaret · Post by **yorkyclaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:54 pm

So the well to do people who generate this electicity will donate to the national grid, making power cheaper for poorer people like me.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:38 pm

yorkyclaret wrote:So the well to do people who generate this electicity will donate to the national grid, making power cheaper for poorer people like me.

Hi yorky, yes, it's something like that.

When people installed solar pv panels on their roofs they were offered a very generous feed-in-tariff. One or two of the posters above have mentioned how this works for them.

The next part was that the "above market price" of the electricity paid by the local elec distribution company for the "spare elec" was then re-charged onto everyone elses' elec bills. So, under the current (no pun) arrangements, everyone pays a bit more on their elec as a "green subsidy" to the people who spent the money and installed the solar panels.

Next bit, solar panels are now so much cheaper that they no longer need "government subsidies" (actually paid for by you and me, the ordinary guys) to make the installation worthwhile. There was a report in one of the papers this week about BP (yes, even oil companies are now in the elec business) will install large scale "solar farms" without the need for any subsidies.

The bit the Guardian seems to have missed (I've not read the link, but assume IT wouldn't have posted if it was there), under the F-i-T scheme most of the solar panels were being installed by people who could afford to install them - and they were being subsidised by the less wealthy people who could not afford to install for themselves - maybe they lived in a flat, or maybe they lived in social housing. So, the old system (some) wealthy people get richer at the expense of the ordinary people who haven't installed solar panels.

Remember, also, that the previous contracts will continue to be honoured - so, we will still be paying a (bit) more for our elec for the benefit of people who (most likely) have more money, already, than most.

Stopping the feed-in-tariff will stop making elec more expensive than it needs to be.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:57 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:
The right to sell and the right to a buyer are two completely different things, unfortunately in your haste that [wasn't] what you really wanted to say.

The right to sell and the right to offer for sale is the exact same thing.

Hi IT, you are someone who likes to learn, I believe.

Have you heard the term "bid and offer?"

A trader may state both her "bid" and her "offer." The bid will always be less than the offer. "I will buy at $98.00 and I will sell at $102.00" for example.

A second trader may state his "bid" and his "offer." Let's say his "bid" is $98.25 and his "offer" is $101.50.

Then let's imagine that all the other people who need to buy and all the people who need to sell look at these prices. A seller may say, I "offer" at $101.00 and a buyer may say I "bid" at $100.00.

So far, we have got no purchases and no sales - because none of the bids and offers have matched.

Maybe one of the buyers and one of the sellers both have to get a deal done. Having seen all the other "Bids" and "offers" they independently decide that a succesfuls bid needs to be higher and a successful offer needs to be lower. Maybe, just maybe, the buyer moves his bid to $100.50. And, maybe the seller then decides to move her offer to $101.50. Now, and only now, we have a trade.

Do you see now how "the right to sell and the right to offer for sale" are not the same thing.

You are welcome.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:18 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi yorky, yes, it's something like that.

When people installed solar pv panels on their roofs they were offered a very generous feed-in-tariff. One or two of the posters above have mentioned how this works for them.

The next part was that the "above market price" of the electricity paid by the local elec distribution company for the "spare elec" was then re-charged onto everyone elses' elec bills. So, under the current (no pun) arrangements, everyone pays a bit more on their elec as a "green subsidy" to the people who spent the money and installed the solar panels.

Next bit, solar panels are now so much cheaper that they no longer need "government subsidies" (actually paid for by you and me, the ordinary guys) to make the installation worthwhile. There was a report in one of the papers this week about BP (yes, even oil companies are now in the elec business) will install large scale "solar farms" without the need for any subsidies.

The bit the Guardian seems to have missed (I've not read the link, but assume IT wouldn't have posted if it was there), under the F-i-T scheme most of the solar panels were being installed by people who could afford to install them - and they were being subsidised by the less wealthy people who could not afford to install for themselves - maybe they lived in a flat, or maybe they lived in social housing. So, the old system (some) wealthy people get richer at the expense of the ordinary people who haven't installed solar panels.

Remember, also, that the previous contracts will continue to be honoured - so, we will still be paying a (bit) more for our elec for the benefit of people who (most likely) have more money, already, than most.

Stopping the feed-in-tariff will stop making elec more expensive than it needs to be.

Given what you've said, would it not be better for the government to push for more solar generated electricity? Could the government not explore the idea of providing solar panels more widely? If it is cheaper, and works well, why not do this?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:10 am

AndrewJB wrote:Given what you've said, would it not be better for the government to push for more solar generated electricity? Could the government not explore the idea of providing solar panels more widely? If it is cheaper, and works well, why not do this?

Hi Andrew, how do you propose the gov't "push for more" solar pv? Are you thinking to continue to make it a little "money maker" for the people who can afford to install the solar panels? That's what has been done with the feed-in-tariff - but that tariff has been paid for by higher elec prices for everyone else. The push has been successful. The (global) investment in the production of solar pv has massively brought down the cost of the panels. No one needs a subsidy now to make it make financial sense to install them. Of course, you still need a house, with your own roof. We know there are many who don't have that advantage. Surely, it's better that the subsidies that continue to be required are spent on the technologies that won't get built without the subsidy?

Today is the shortest day. I don't know how much pv will contribute to elec supply today. We know it won't be a great deal.

I expect there will be a way for residential solar to sell any excess elec they generate back to the grid. I'd expect this to be paid for at market prices, rather than above market prices as now. The latter, of course, was the "don't haves" paying more for the benefit of the one's who have. A little bit of "from the many - to the few." I always thought these types of policies weren't that popular.....