FREE Solar Panels!!!!!
Discussion
In the local shopping centre the other day and was handed a leaflet by these chaps...
http://www.ashadegreener.co.uk/
Assumed it was a scam of some sort or you needed to pay X amount or that there woudl be a catch SOMEWHERE!
But i've been over the website pretty carefuly, and from what I can see, the only stipulations is that you have a south facing roof and are within an hour of Jct 36 on the M1. You get to use the generated electricity and they get to claim any payments from the government etc.
Anyone seen anything like it? Heard about these guys?
I've applied so will see what happens!
http://www.ashadegreener.co.uk/
Assumed it was a scam of some sort or you needed to pay X amount or that there woudl be a catch SOMEWHERE!
But i've been over the website pretty carefuly, and from what I can see, the only stipulations is that you have a south facing roof and are within an hour of Jct 36 on the M1. You get to use the generated electricity and they get to claim any payments from the government etc.
Anyone seen anything like it? Heard about these guys?
I've applied so will see what happens!
Dan_1981 said:
In the local shopping centre the other day and was handed a leaflet by these chaps...
http://www.ashadegreener.co.uk/
Assumed it was a scam of some sort or you needed to pay X amount or that there woudl be a catch SOMEWHERE!
But i've been over the website pretty carefuly, and from what I can see, the only stipulations is that you have a south facing roof and are within an hour of Jct 36 on the M1. You get to use the generated electricity and they get to claim any payments from the government etc.
Anyone seen anything like it? Heard about these guys?
I've applied so will see what happens!
We produce and manufacture a large exhibition stand for a large UK manufacturer and they have mentioned something similar.http://www.ashadegreener.co.uk/
Assumed it was a scam of some sort or you needed to pay X amount or that there woudl be a catch SOMEWHERE!
But i've been over the website pretty carefuly, and from what I can see, the only stipulations is that you have a south facing roof and are within an hour of Jct 36 on the M1. You get to use the generated electricity and they get to claim any payments from the government etc.
Anyone seen anything like it? Heard about these guys?
I've applied so will see what happens!
I haven't looked at the proposition any further on a personal level.
This is happening because of the subsidies for home generated electricity.
From what I remember the electricity companies, by law, have to give you something like 3 times the price for electricity you generate at home, as they can ask for electricity that they generate and you use at home.
It's to cover the cost of the panels, and make home generation worthwhile. I don't think anyone has considered the environmental impact of the home electricity generating plant. I also think that the government is looking for an excuse for their woeful approach to power generation in the country.
At least this way, when it all goes pear-shaped, and there isn't enough power to go around, they can say that we (populace) didn't adopt their approach fast enough. I'm pretty sure that even if everyone had solar panels, it still wouldn't be enough to justify the current conventional power generation scheme.
Moreover, it's a great way for companies to start up, and claim wedges of taxpayers cash. In the end, you're not getting anything for free. You pay the the money you get back for any electricity you supply to the grid, in taxes. Since you're giving that money to the company who installs the panels, then you're paying for them in taxation. It must be so, since the electricity companies have to pay for you to generate power less efficiently than they could make it themselves. They can't do that sustainably.
From what I remember the electricity companies, by law, have to give you something like 3 times the price for electricity you generate at home, as they can ask for electricity that they generate and you use at home.
It's to cover the cost of the panels, and make home generation worthwhile. I don't think anyone has considered the environmental impact of the home electricity generating plant. I also think that the government is looking for an excuse for their woeful approach to power generation in the country.
At least this way, when it all goes pear-shaped, and there isn't enough power to go around, they can say that we (populace) didn't adopt their approach fast enough. I'm pretty sure that even if everyone had solar panels, it still wouldn't be enough to justify the current conventional power generation scheme.
Moreover, it's a great way for companies to start up, and claim wedges of taxpayers cash. In the end, you're not getting anything for free. You pay the the money you get back for any electricity you supply to the grid, in taxes. Since you're giving that money to the company who installs the panels, then you're paying for them in taxation. It must be so, since the electricity companies have to pay for you to generate power less efficiently than they could make it themselves. They can't do that sustainably.
Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 20th April 16:29
But what do you get out of it for having the panels on the roof?
I can only figure that the company doing this, expect the power to be generated during the day, when it's not normally needed by the home owner.
I would have thought it better, in the circumstances, for them to be paying you for the roof-line real estate. They hope to make money from your agency, as a solar site?
I don't know about all of this. I'm certainly not an expert in socially engineered solar panels, but something doesn't smell right to me.
I can only figure that the company doing this, expect the power to be generated during the day, when it's not normally needed by the home owner.
I would have thought it better, in the circumstances, for them to be paying you for the roof-line real estate. They hope to make money from your agency, as a solar site?
I don't know about all of this. I'm certainly not an expert in socially engineered solar panels, but something doesn't smell right to me.
Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 20th April 20:10
So I guess if you have panels installed yourself and own them yourself - any electricity you don't use is "sold" back to the electricty company / grid?
Is that right?
Where as in this case - anythig that isn't used is sold back and the company that installs them gets the payment?
Or does it not work like that?
But even if it does - I get to use free electricty when I am generating it?
Is that right?
Where as in this case - anythig that isn't used is sold back and the company that installs them gets the payment?
Or does it not work like that?
But even if it does - I get to use free electricty when I am generating it?
dilbert said:
This is happening because of the subsidies for home generated electricity.
From what I remember the electricity companies, by law, have to give you something like 3 times the price for electricity you generate at home, as they can ask for electricity that they generate and you use at home.
It's to cover the cost of the panels, and make home generation worthwhile. I don't think anyone has considered the environmental impact of the home electricity generating plant. I also think that the government is looking for an excuse for their woeful approach to power generation in the country.
At least this way, when it all goes pear-shaped, and there isn't enough power to go around, they can say that we (populace) didn't adopt their approach fast enough. I'm pretty sure that even if everyone had solar panels, it still wouldn't be enough to justify the current conventional power generation scheme.
Moreover, it's a great way for companies to start up, and claim wedges of taxpayers cash. In the end, you're not getting anything for free. You pay the the money you get back for any electricity you supply to the grid, in taxes. Since you're giving that money to the company who installs the panels, then you're paying for them in taxation. It must be so, since the electricity companies have to pay for you to generate power less efficiently than they could make it themselves. They can't do that sustainably.
IncorrectFrom what I remember the electricity companies, by law, have to give you something like 3 times the price for electricity you generate at home, as they can ask for electricity that they generate and you use at home.
It's to cover the cost of the panels, and make home generation worthwhile. I don't think anyone has considered the environmental impact of the home electricity generating plant. I also think that the government is looking for an excuse for their woeful approach to power generation in the country.
At least this way, when it all goes pear-shaped, and there isn't enough power to go around, they can say that we (populace) didn't adopt their approach fast enough. I'm pretty sure that even if everyone had solar panels, it still wouldn't be enough to justify the current conventional power generation scheme.
Moreover, it's a great way for companies to start up, and claim wedges of taxpayers cash. In the end, you're not getting anything for free. You pay the the money you get back for any electricity you supply to the grid, in taxes. Since you're giving that money to the company who installs the panels, then you're paying for them in taxation. It must be so, since the electricity companies have to pay for you to generate power less efficiently than they could make it themselves. They can't do that sustainably.
Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 20th April 16:29
The Feed in Tariffs (payments for electricity) are paid for by the electricity companies not the taxpayer. Hence the money comes from anyone who pays an electricity bill, but doesn't have qualifying microgeneration through higher bills.
There must have been some truely epic lobbying to deliver the tariffs that PV now receives, because there are several other microgeneration solutions that are a more cost effective option.
sassthathoopie said:
dilbert said:
This is happening because of the subsidies for home generated electricity.
From what I remember the electricity companies, by law, have to give you something like 3 times the price for electricity you generate at home, as they can ask for electricity that they generate and you use at home.
It's to cover the cost of the panels, and make home generation worthwhile. I don't think anyone has considered the environmental impact of the home electricity generating plant. I also think that the government is looking for an excuse for their woeful approach to power generation in the country.
At least this way, when it all goes pear-shaped, and there isn't enough power to go around, they can say that we (populace) didn't adopt their approach fast enough. I'm pretty sure that even if everyone had solar panels, it still wouldn't be enough to justify the current conventional power generation scheme.
Moreover, it's a great way for companies to start up, and claim wedges of taxpayers cash. In the end, you're not getting anything for free. You pay the the money you get back for any electricity you supply to the grid, in taxes. Since you're giving that money to the company who installs the panels, then you're paying for them in taxation. It must be so, since the electricity companies have to pay for you to generate power less efficiently than they could make it themselves. They can't do that sustainably.
IncorrectFrom what I remember the electricity companies, by law, have to give you something like 3 times the price for electricity you generate at home, as they can ask for electricity that they generate and you use at home.
It's to cover the cost of the panels, and make home generation worthwhile. I don't think anyone has considered the environmental impact of the home electricity generating plant. I also think that the government is looking for an excuse for their woeful approach to power generation in the country.
At least this way, when it all goes pear-shaped, and there isn't enough power to go around, they can say that we (populace) didn't adopt their approach fast enough. I'm pretty sure that even if everyone had solar panels, it still wouldn't be enough to justify the current conventional power generation scheme.
Moreover, it's a great way for companies to start up, and claim wedges of taxpayers cash. In the end, you're not getting anything for free. You pay the the money you get back for any electricity you supply to the grid, in taxes. Since you're giving that money to the company who installs the panels, then you're paying for them in taxation. It must be so, since the electricity companies have to pay for you to generate power less efficiently than they could make it themselves. They can't do that sustainably.
Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 20th April 16:29
The Feed in Tariffs (payments for electricity) are paid for by the electricity companies not the taxpayer. Hence the money comes from anyone who pays an electricity bill, but doesn't have qualifying microgeneration through higher bills.
There must have been some truely epic lobbying to deliver the tariffs that PV now receives, because there are several other microgeneration solutions that are a more cost effective option.
The electricity companies can't sustainably pay the money. So then there's a bailout (which is undoubtedly blamed on international factors). Who pays? It's the taxpayer.
What it is, is that the government are buying "crap stuff", on your behalf, with a loan that you will have to pay back.
It's "crap", because it can't provide all of your needs, and it drives those who can out of business.
Broadly speaking microgeneration is quite a sensible way to generate a proportion of our total electricty needs (30% ish?) because you avoid transmission losses.
Since 75% of domestic energy requirements are for heat, not electricity it makes sense to support technologies that offer combined heat and power at a local level.
Currently we waste a lot of energy when it escapes as heat via cooling towers. Central plant runs at around 30-35% efficiency. Micro combined heat and power by comparision is between 75% and 85% efficient.
The highly complex supply chain makes entry into the market extremely difficult for new technology, particularly since you need economies of scale in order to price the technology competitively.
The FiT ought to allow public awareness to increase, economies of scale to develop, and overall efficiency of the system improve. The benefit being a net decrease in energy used, a reducion in energy imports, and the growth of green collar jobs (the UK is a major player in these markets).
So the goal is valid whether you are a MMGW believer or not.
Do I think the PV tariff is priced fairly relative to the other technologies? - no. I am sure that the prices available at the moment will be lowered once we are over the initial hump of early adoption.
Since 75% of domestic energy requirements are for heat, not electricity it makes sense to support technologies that offer combined heat and power at a local level.
Currently we waste a lot of energy when it escapes as heat via cooling towers. Central plant runs at around 30-35% efficiency. Micro combined heat and power by comparision is between 75% and 85% efficient.
The highly complex supply chain makes entry into the market extremely difficult for new technology, particularly since you need economies of scale in order to price the technology competitively.
The FiT ought to allow public awareness to increase, economies of scale to develop, and overall efficiency of the system improve. The benefit being a net decrease in energy used, a reducion in energy imports, and the growth of green collar jobs (the UK is a major player in these markets).
So the goal is valid whether you are a MMGW believer or not.
Do I think the PV tariff is priced fairly relative to the other technologies? - no. I am sure that the prices available at the moment will be lowered once we are over the initial hump of early adoption.
Edited by sassthathoopie on Wednesday 21st April 13:27
sassthathoopie said:
Broadly speaking microgeneration is quite a sensible way to generate a proportion of our total electricty needs (30% ish?) because you avoid transmission losses.
Since 75% of domestic energy requirements are for heat, not electricity it makes sense to support technologies that offer combined heat and power at a local level.
Currently we waste a lot of energy when it escapes as heat via cooling towers. Central plant runs at around 30-35% efficiency. Micro combined heat and power by comparision is between 75% and 85% efficient.
The highly complex supply chain makes entry into the market extremely difficult for new technology, particularly since you need economies of scale in order to price the technology competitively.
The FiT ought to allow public awareness to increase, economies of scale to develop, and overall efficiency of the system improve. The benefit being a net decrease in energy used, a reducion in energy imports, and the growth of green collar jobs (the UK is a major player in these markets).
So the goal is valid whether you are a MMGW believer or not.
Do I think the PV tariff is priced fairly relative to the other technologies? - no. I am sure that the prices available at the moment will be lowered once we are over the initial hump of early adoption.
...And then the company that provided the "FREE" solar panels will go out of business. Did they pay for themselves? Who covers that cost? Are you saying that the people in the company that supplied the solar panels will walk away with the debt? I reckon that they'll walk away with a nice chunk of taxpayer money myself.Since 75% of domestic energy requirements are for heat, not electricity it makes sense to support technologies that offer combined heat and power at a local level.
Currently we waste a lot of energy when it escapes as heat via cooling towers. Central plant runs at around 30-35% efficiency. Micro combined heat and power by comparision is between 75% and 85% efficient.
The highly complex supply chain makes entry into the market extremely difficult for new technology, particularly since you need economies of scale in order to price the technology competitively.
The FiT ought to allow public awareness to increase, economies of scale to develop, and overall efficiency of the system improve. The benefit being a net decrease in energy used, a reducion in energy imports, and the growth of green collar jobs (the UK is a major player in these markets).
So the goal is valid whether you are a MMGW believer or not.
Do I think the PV tariff is priced fairly relative to the other technologies? - no. I am sure that the prices available at the moment will be lowered once we are over the initial hump of early adoption.
Edited by sassthathoopie on Wednesday 21st April 13:27
I'm completely with you on micro-generation, but it's not always the best way to do things. There's a company fairly local to me that manufacture a range of replacement central heating boilers. They have fuel cells in them. Said fuel cells produce both electricity and heat from natural gas. CHP.
Because both the heat and electricity are used in the home, and surplus electricity can be sold back to the grid, it is extremely efficient. In general terms it's a much better way to use natural gas.
These aren't solar panels though. I agree it has nothing to do with MMGW. It's just that there are good ways to spend taxpayer money, and bad ways. Photovoltaic is not a good way to spend taxpayer money.
Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 21st April 14:07
As I understand it the FiT is guaranteed for individual projects 25 years, with rates linked to inflation. Consequently the installer is purchasing an asset (guaranteed returns for 25 years for electricity sold to the grid) that costs the price of installing the PV. The householder doesn't mind the inconvienience because his electricity bills are cheaper. PV has a working lifetime of around 25 years IIRC
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/u... Table of tariffs pdf link at the bottom of the page
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/u... Table of tariffs pdf link at the bottom of the page
sassthathoopie said:
As I understand it the FiT is guaranteed for individual projects 25 years, with rates linked to inflation. Consequently the installer is purchasing an asset (guaranteed returns for 25 years for electricity sold to the grid) that costs the price of installing the PV. The householder doesn't mind the inconvienience because his electricity bills are cheaper. PV has a working lifetime of around 25 years IIRC
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/u... Table of tariffs pdf link at the bottom of the page
But as a counter to what I originally said, you proposed that the value of PV generated electricity would come down. Now you're saying it's not going to. http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/u... Table of tariffs pdf link at the bottom of the page
I don't think you can have it both ways.
Obviously the price can come down for new entrants, at some later point, which would be the social engineers argument. The trouble is that everyone has to be doing it for it to be viable for the company that delivers the panels for free. Without the incentive, I don't think people will do it.
Unless everyone does it, there's just not enough electricity at stake to make a business. Even then, there's not enough electricity to meet the need.
I think CHP micro-generation can work, but I don't think solar micro-generation can.
dilbert said:
But as a counter to what I originally said, you proposed that the value of PV generated electricity would come down. Now you're saying it's not going to.
I don't think you can have it both ways.
I stated individual projects. ie PV on a roof this year is guaranteed those tariffs (linked to inflation) for 25 years. As the technology becomes more widespread the price available for new installations decreases. Without the guarantee then there would still be no buy in - particularly since we are in the midst of an election.I don't think you can have it both ways.
dilbert said:
Obviously the price can come down for new entrants, at some later point, which would be the social engineers argument. The trouble is that everyone has to be doing it for it to be viable for the company that delivers the panels for free. Without the incentive, I don't think people will do it.
I think you are getting the supply chain a little muddled. The incentive is there in part to deliver economies of scale to the manufacturer. The installer is quite happy to just own a document that gives him entitlement to the electricity generated by each roof that he's worked on.The theory is that the incentive finally disappears when the technology is price competitive with other less efficient plant. I suspect free installation will only last a short while as even the government will have to realise they cocked this one up.
(Note: This is b
ks as PV doesn't make sense in the UK with existing technology, solar thermal maybe)dilbert said:
Unless everyone does it, there's just not enough electricity at stake to make a business. Even then, there's not enough electricity to meet the need.
I think CHP micro-generation can work, but I don't think solar micro-generation can.
I'm not sure what you mean about not enough electricity to make a business - remember that the FiT pay for electricity generated for use in the building, as well as electricity generated for export. I've not done the sums but I'm sure over 25 years the cost of installation (at trade prices remember) will be recouped easily. I think CHP micro-generation can work, but I don't think solar micro-generation can.
The thing with microgeneration (or distributed generation - which I prefer) is that it is about using a variety of technologies to best suit the individual application. As I mentioned above, I'm in agreement that supporting PV doesn't make rational sense, solar thermal maybe, mCHP certainly does; shame then that only the first 10,000 mCHP installations qualify...
sassthathoopie said:
As I mentioned above, I'm in agreement that supporting PV doesn't make rational sense, solar thermal maybe, mCHP certainly does; shame then that only the first 10,000 mCHP installations qualify...
Good lord, is that last bit really true?What I mean by "not enough electricity at stake to make a business", is not that the panels cannot be paid for. It's that the business can't then make the money it needs to survive as a viable business.
Perhaps the cost of PV will come down. It's a semiconductor manufacturing process after all. The thing is that there's little development money in it, so not many jobs. Then it's all going to happen in a foreign country anyway. That level of remoteness means that we don't have to account for the real environmental impact.
I doubt that enough conventional semiconductors (microprocessors and such) have been made to cover the roof of every home in a small country such as ours since the seventies when it all began. Could that be achieved in another 25, and would it actually be worthwhile?
Do the people that devise this stuff actually have any conception of what they're expecting the world around them to achieve?
Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 21st April 16:01
Well - we won't be getting them anyway!
Just had an email back telling us that our house is not suitable.
Could be for any number of reasons, wrong size roof, not south facing, roof not big enough.
To be honest i'm not quite sure how they can tell any of this other than the orientation, as all you give them is a pin point on a google map. Zoomed right in there is nowhere near enough detail to tell size or shape of roof.
And ours is very south facing.
Oh well.
Just had an email back telling us that our house is not suitable.
Could be for any number of reasons, wrong size roof, not south facing, roof not big enough.
To be honest i'm not quite sure how they can tell any of this other than the orientation, as all you give them is a pin point on a google map. Zoomed right in there is nowhere near enough detail to tell size or shape of roof.
And ours is very south facing.
Oh well.
I did the sums on this. I am midlands based and reckon my roof is big enough for a 4kw set up. The roof is south facing and the correct angle. I googled and came up with 850 units per kw installed per annum, 3400 at 41p each per annum. Should generate an income of £1360 per year tax free plus as I understand it, I can use any electric I can from my own install free. Cost of install is in region of £13000 for hardware plus fitting. Not sure on fitting say £4000. Total outlay £17000 income £1300 a return of 7.6%. Theres no tax on the income so if you are a higher rate payer you would have to earn 12% before tax. I have been told the panels come with a 25 year power curve that is guaranteed, the inverter may need maintaining/replacing other than that if the install is done well, with quality stainless fixings etc should last 25 years. However, how do you factor in the depreciating £17000 over 25 years and if it was rainy day money its gone...also not sure it would add value to the property. If you like the idea and can afford the install without worrying, I think on balance get in now.
Bit of a bump - the company offering it has just been featured on the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8732725.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8732725.stm
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff