Is this “the greenest government ever” which Cameron promised us?

The boom in solar panels in the UK started when the last government announced its “feed-in tariff” scheme in April 2010. This offered money to home owners who generated their own electricity using solar “photovoltaic” panels (also known as solar PV). The feed-in tariff pays a fixed rate for all electricity generated – even if you then use it in your own home. Additional payments are made to those who sell surplus units to the National Grid. The prices offered will be index-linked, and the government has pledged to maintain these tariffs for the next 25 years.

To install your own solar panels will usually cost about £12,000 – depending on the size of the system, access to the roof and location. According to the figures of the Energy Saving Trust, an independent body, it will take about 10 years before you recoup your original outlay. There may also be further maintenance or repair costs to pay. If you move house during this period, you obviously can’t take the panels with you.

The other option is to rent your roof to a solar provider. In that case, start-up costs are minimal. Many companies advertise free installation, while in some cases homeowners will pay a couple of hundred pounds. The downside is that the solar company collects the feed-in tariff. As the figures from the EST make clear, this is the bulk of the money made from the scheme.

What if you move? Many claim that solar panels will add to your home’s value, but this depends on who owns the panels. While a buyer might like the idea of lower utility bills, they might not like the fact that an outside company owns large panels attached to your roof. Conveyancing law remains largely untested around this issue, and clearly there may be legal issues to resolve, such as who is responsible for maintenance and upkeep. There is also the question of who owns the panels when the 25-year tariff ends, and what would happen should the government of the day change the terms of the scheme before then.

The main risk is that the government reneges on its 25-year promise, although this would require legislative change. However, it’s worth noting that it’s already scaled back the feed-in tariffs paid to commercial organisations. As with any new technology, there’s also the risk that far better, more efficient – and possibly cheaper – solar systems may be developed over the next few years, leaving you stuck with the equivalent of an expensive Betamax stapled to your roof.

(Article abridged and adapted from the ‘Your Money’ section of ‘The Daily Telegraph’, 15.10.11)

So, would you put solar panels on your roof?

When you look at the advertising blurb, all is rosey, the sun shines and you are in the money!
Some companies say you are allowed 2 moves in the 25 year contract (Heh! Think I've bu88ered that one!)
Some others say you can move, and the panels stay where they are - don't know how that works.
"freeelectricity4you" will be in contact "within 14 days" and I will post then on this thread what happens

on the face of it, it seems like a good scheme, thing is just exactly for whom? OW has already outlined a poignant caveat! (Which is noted) any more would be most welcome. Also anyone out there who has put solar panels on the roof, in the garden or even I've seen them on caravan sites!

It all depends on the payback period or ROI for the financially aware. In some places in Canaduh, the payback is about thirty years. And yet, the lifespan of these panels is generally accepted to be about ten years. So am I going to pay a huge amount of money for something that has a payback period of thirty years or so but will have to spend the same [or more] money ten years down the road? Not likely.
 
Like I said, it all depends on the contract. Generally speaking, solar power is a really stupid idea, right up there with inventing the artificial appendix or putting training wheels on a wheelbarrow. There is no reliability, very poor availability and a short lifespan. The people with the money are counting on the fact that there are enough stupid people out there who will spend far too much to get set up. They make out like bandits. Stupid people are left holding the bag.  :affraid:
 
gator

In such circumstances, lawyers tend to use the Latin tag Nemo dat, which means "Nobody gives things away without a reason".

I have a couple of questions on this topic.
 
1. Who is responsible for the maintenance and cleaning of these panels once they are up on the roof? I mean, if you take a mythical "little old lady" who has enough money to do this but is poorly equipped to be slogging around on the roof in the middle of winter, who has to remove the snow and the dirt and the mud and make sure that these panels are clean enough to work properly?
 
2. Do the solar companies give you any performance guarantees? If you buy a hundred kilowatts of panels, thinking that your own consumption would never get that high, and it turns out that for 90% of the time, these panels are useless, who pays for that?
 
All in all, solar power is a really stupid idea.
 
gator

here is the blurb!
http://freeelectricity4u.co.uk/

"Example. A circa 4kw system could return you £1739 per year index linked/tax free.*

This equates to a 12% return* on your investment which is index linked and tax free. Guaranteed for 25 years with a life expectancy of 40 years."

I hope the link works over the pond!

My intrest stems from much respected brother in law - a quantity surveyor, have in much to say about them. ER, is he installing any?? NAH!!

Astra, your link does work and it makes my point for me to some extent. Not once did I see a pic of solar panels that look like my roof does in November through April. There ain't no way that those panels would work at my place - firstly because of the amount of snow load on them and secondly because in December, it is dark at about 4PM and not light again until about 9AM. That doesn't give you a very long day in which to gather up some electricity and bag it for later use. OTOH, in the summer [when the electric load is usually the lightest] it is light from about 4:30 AM until midnight.
 
And a life expectancy of 40 years with a 25 year guarantee. I want to see the fine print on that one as I just don't believe it.
 
Sorry, there is a lot of the world where these puppies just won't work.
 
gator

Our daylight times are much the same as yours. OK we get a week of snow and think it is hard! mororways come to a halt etc

A WEEK of snow? Ah you poor baby.    There is an old joke around here that summer is going to be on a Tuesday this year. Sometimes it is quite correct.
 
All I am saying is that in ideal circumstances, solar power may be marginally acceptable. However, most of us live in places that are far from ideal and, even if we did live in that magical place, few of us would be willing to put up with the hassles of home made power. Take it from one who has spent most of a life generating power in huge thermal plants.
 
gator

This was on BBC NORTH

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/stanley/9307559.Homes_to_get_solar_panels/


Though why Craghead (near Stanley) was chosen beats me!!

The article on TV showed miles of Solar Panels on a terrace of 20 houses, and as Gator stated, it is the leccy company which will benefit!

I was told I would recieve a reply in two weeks - still nuffin'

Before the last election, Cameron promised us “the greenest government ever”. That turned out to be yet another of his broken promises.

The benefit which could accrue from signing up to solar power on your roof has been cut in half by this excuse of a government. It would now take you up to 25 years to see a return on your investment. It could well put 25,000 jobs at risk; the Chief Executive of solar firm 'HomeSun' predicts that thousands of companies will be bankrupt by Christmas.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Solar-power-cut-yahoofinanceuk-4143931106.html

1. The fiction

In 2006, months after becoming Tory leader, Cameron visited the Arctic Circle to highlight climate change – including being pictured with sled-pulling huskies – and announced he was having a wind turbine installed on his newly refurbished home to support green energy. At the same time, three solar panels were fitted to the roof of his £1.5 million home. In his first week as Prime Minister in May 2010, Cameron told civil servants at the Department for Energy and Climate Change: "I want us to be the greenest government ever – a very simple ambition and one that I'm absolutely committed to achieving”.

2. The truth

The funding for households who feed excess electricity generated by their solar panels into the national grid is to be cut from 43p to 21p per kilowatt hour (kwh) from December, doubling the length of time people would have to wait before their solar panels became economically viable. This move threatens 25,000 jobs in the solar panel industry.

The man who fitted solar panels to the roof of Cameron’s home has accused him of "lying" over his commitment to the environment. Brian Evans criticised the PM for "destroying" the solar electricity industry by slashing state subsidies for feed-in tariffs by more than half. Mr Evans, who runs his own solar panel installation business, said he was being forced to lay off his only two employees because the government was cutting funding for homes that generate solar electricity.

It doesn't stop there. This Tory-dominated government is raising the motorway speed limit to 80mph, adding more than two million tons a year to carbon emissions.

New rules will strip away protection of the countryside from development – the government has so far resisted a continuing, widespread campaign against the plans.

Ministers announced last year a mass sell-off of forests, despite no reference to it in either the Conservative manifesto or coalition agreement, but a public campaign forced a U-turn.

The Green Investment Bank has been blocked by Osborne from providing loans. It will not be allowed to borrow until 2015.

Ministers have scrapped a Conservative manifesto pledge to criminalise the possession of illegal tropical timber.

The Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund, which diverted £20 million in taxes raised from the sand and gravel industry to 200 green projects, has been scrapped. The Sustainable Development Commission and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution have also been axed.

3. The results

The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) said the recent decision to review targets for cutting emissions in half by 2025 makes business think Cameron is not really serious about being “the greenest government ever”. As a consequence, companies are failing to invest in urgently-needed renewable energy projects like wind and solar. Ultimately the delay could push up energy prices due to the government’s failure to see the potential in green energy.

Zac Goldsmith, a Conservative member of the EAC, said: "Investors will not provide the capital to replace Britain’s creaking coal-fired power stations with low carbon alternatives until they are certain of support. Without certainty, the UK will be left behind the rest of Europe and be forced to continue paying high prices for imported oil and gas”.

Sources used:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exclusive-backlash-grows-over-camerons-green-sellout-6261657.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/cameron-isnt-green--hes-yellow-says-man-who-fitted-his-solar-panels-6265073.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8818384/Greenest-Government-ever-failing-on-climate-change.html

Seems that "Mandelperson" is not the only MP who bathes in snake oil!!

Perhaps when Camoron said his would be the GREENEST Government he really meant that they were inexperianced in all facets of government.......

I guess the financial situation (We spent all the money) the Labour party left the country in has meant that many areas have seen their financing cut....not just the green agenda.

Oh and hi Ivan and co....good to be back. Thank you for starting up Cutting Edge again. Do you know what happened with Pro Boards?

Pro Boards went back to smoking good shit, I hear.

Thank you for starting up Cutting Edge again. Do you know what happened with Pro Boards?

Hello blue. The answer to your question is 'no', as this will reveal:-
http://www.forum-software.org/proboards/user-reviews

Nevertheless, time to move on. Defeat is not being knocked to the ground, it's failing to get up again! You have witchfinder to thank for setting up this forum and for twisting my arm to start all over again.

Well thank you both.. Ivan and Witchy...much appreciated!

To be honest I prefer the look of this forum to the Pro boards one anyway

Wake up Britain - the Tory-led Coalition has already reduced your disposable income by 3.5% and they've hardly started yet. Every weekly- shop now requires you to work for half-an-hour more in order to pay for it.

I noticed that on Prime ministers question time, a space where Theresa May usually sits, but then noticed her sitting much closer to the exit, but on a closer look I found it to be the little tart, Michael Fabricant, what is it with Herr Cameron, all he wants to do is to surround himself wiv loads of blond "yes please" men. Makes me wonder, does it you.

....all he wants to do is to surround himself wiv loads of blond "yes please" men.

It's the best way of ensuring that he's not surrounded by the type of oiks who tend to ask if he's got any dirty fivers he wants to get rid of.

Obviously, he is surrounding himself with people (?) who tell him ALL he wants to hear, the very way he wants to hear it!!

Not a good recipe for long premiership!




(just don't tell him I said it though!!)

"Green power" is a myth created by treehuggers. The moment a true government discards the idiots that promote it the better for everybody. Anybody in the "Alzheimer's society" that post here remember the "millennium bug" that people/companies wasted £billions on?

Carry on believing what your told and then wonder why there's a forgotten generation of kids without the wherewithal to to think or be employable.

One of the yards on the Tyne was making much of working in the "Renewable Sector" and having a good future.

Appledore is now laying off 90 workers, due to the gubmint's changes to funding!

Announced on BBC yesterday. (every year, the lay-offs just before the festive season are the ones which stick in the throat)

If a government has to fund it, then there's no future in it anyway.

Agree regarding the layoff's though.

tlttf. It’s par for the course for right-wingers to rubbish any attempts to preserve this planet. The Tory philosophy is always to asset-strip in favour of their cronies and donors, make a fast buck now and sod the long-term consequences. That’s why Cameron’s promise to give us “the greenest government ever” was so surprising. Of course it was just part of his say-anything-to-get-elected rhetoric and turned out to be yet another broken promise from the worst government in living memory.

Perhaps you should concentrate your fire on people who “believed what they were told” by Cameron and voted for a party which looks after 1% of the population at the expense of the 99%. And if the threat of the “millennium bug” was just a con it would have been perpetrated by computer programmers, not “tree huggers”.

Surprisingly, Thatcher fully appreciated the dangers of Global Warming and our pollution of the Planet.

She told the assembled fellows of the Royal Society on 27 September 1988: "For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world's systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/michael-mccarthy-climate-change-isnt-a-leftwing-cause--the-iron-lady-knew-that-6268156.html

Surprisingly, Thatcher fully appreciated the dangers of Global Warming and our pollution of the Planet.

AH!! THAT EXPLAINS IT!!!


Explains why she shut all the smelly steel and chemical works, the noisey, smelly dusty shipyards and those horrible grimy Coal Mines!

An extract from an article by Samira Shackle:-

A wide-range of environmental groups and activists have written to ‘The Observer’. One letter, from the heads of Greenpeace and the RSPB (among others) says: “Following the Chancellor's autumn statement, we can say that the coalition is on a path to becoming the most environmentally destructive government to hold power in this country since the modern environmental movement was born.”

At the heart of the problem is not just austerity, but the perception in government that pursuing green policies is an inconvenient burden on the economy rather than a necessity and an opportunity. Cameron's comments at the start of his premiership indicated that he understood the possibilities for jobs and growth afforded by a re-engineering of how the UK generates and uses its energy. The government's own National Ecosystem Assessment reiterated this.

Climate change talks in Durban are ongoing. But if the coalition continues to treat green issues as a hindrance to growth, not a boost, there is no doubt that the UK will fall behind.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/government-green-coalition#reader-comments

Canada has announced its withdrawal from the Kyoto Agreement. The Coalition has recently pushed "binding" targets for energy conservation further into the future. Going Green is an expensive proposition, and just at the moment not enough people want to pay for the luxury of a clear conscience.

The over-riding objection is that traditional Western Industrial pollution has been shifting to the previously under-developed Countries, and it's a bit rich coming from us to now say to them that they mustn't do what we always did.

".. it's a bit rich coming from us to now say to them that they mustn't do what we always did. "

Oh. It's a strategy I always use with the kids...

Oh dear Ivan's in the never never land of the previous government desperate to tax and borrow as much as possible to pursue any impossible objective of which 'climate change' hocus was just another example.The funding of which he speaks of course is yet another tax via our fuel bills totally unaffordable in these hard times. As for funding ridiculous windmills the stupidity of throwing money at something that needs a backup by a proper power source for every unit it produces for when the wind doesn't blow beggars belief but then previous lot had the brain power of Prescott and we now have police dodging Huhne says it all. The planning relaxation another red herring strangely supported by the D Telegraph egg on interestingly egged on by state funded interests like Natural England. This sea of concrete idea is a myth less than 14% on the land is built on and many parts of the Green Belt are less than beautiful or attractive. People have to live somewhere and if we continue to take all comers into the country the problems will only get worse. Please don't witter on about 'brown field'developers will not build on sites where people do not wish to live,require expensive clean up operations which would make them unsaleable or build tons flats the slums of the future which as should be noted are the first dive in value in the recession.
And no Astra the closures were not because they were dirty and smelly it was because they could not compete with other countries not hide bound by over unionised labour. Or maybe they could still be producing loads of expensive coal for the power stations Ivan want to close down

Clearly the way forward is for everyone to stop whatever they're doing and become a Banker.

oftenwrong wrote:Clearly the way forward is for everyone to stop whatever they're doing and become a Banker.

There are other things to do but whilst castigating the bankers it should not be forgotten that they were egged on by politicians here by the feel good factor that ever rising house prices and easy credit that they produced.Also the American government have managed to creep under the radar of blame although they virtually forced their banks to make unsustainable loans in yet another social engineering project to make people owners of homes they couldn't afford and under normal circumstances be correctly considered a bad risk . The bankers then devised a system designed to safe guard their position which didn't work!

There is nothing new under the sun.

Founded in 1711, the management team of The South Seas Corporation eventually realized that the value of their personal shares in no way reflected the actual value of the company or its dismal earnings. So they sold their stocks in the summer of 1720 and hoped no one would leak the failure of the company to the other shareholders. Like all bad news, however, the knowledge of the actions of SSC management spread, and the panic selling of worthless certificates ensued. The huge hole in the south sea bubble also punctured the Mississippi Company's unrealistic value and both came crashing down.

A complete crash, which would be heralded by the folding of banks, was avoided due to the prominent economic position of the British Empire and the government's help in stabilizing the banking industry. The British government outlawed the issuing of stock certificates, a law that was not repealed until 1825.




http://www.investopedia.com/features/crashes/crashes3.asp#ixzz1fyN75KOf

Also the American government have managed to creep under the radar of blame although they virtually forced their banks to make unsustainable loans in yet another social engineering project to make people owners of homes they couldn't afford and under normal circumstances be correctly considered a bad risk .

I'm not so sure you're seeing the "big picture" in all of this. The US government's "social engineering" program was designed to get people with lower incomes into their own homes. This is extremely profitable both for the government and the private sector as home ownership actually creates a lot of jobs.

What the government DIDN'T know when this program was instituted clear back in the Clinton years was that financial engineers were already busy at work hatching a scheme that was so complicated and contrived that even Alan Greenspan admitted he couldn't figure it out. Given that, I certainly can't explain it to you, either, but I do know that this scheme required housing prices to increase literally into infinity. These financial engineers knew full well that prices couldn't increase like that, so there was a point where the bubble would burst. Everyone knew well beforehand that their actions would cause a major economic collapse, but they kept right on going because they were getting rich ... super rich. It had nothing whatsoever to do with either bankers or home buyers. The bankers were merely giving out loans based on the value of the homes which were skyrocketing in price thanks to the financial engineers fiddling with the market. Eventually, that "social engineering" project instituted by the government became unsustainable, thanks again to those financial engineers working behind the curtain; the banks still had to bring low income home buyers into the fold despite the fact that property values were soaring so banks issued those detestable ARMs which resulted in home owners getting screwed a few years down the line. But the banks got their money thanks to those same financial engineers selling bad debt with a triple A rating to a plethora of buyers - even buyers in places like Norway.

And all the while, they knew the bubble would burst; they could have gotten out of the game before it did, but the greedy bastards had to milk every last penny they could, so pop it went and hello financial meltdown. The financial engineers simply closed up their shops, cashed in their tens of billions of dollars, and retired into the shadows. Meanwhile, banks lost their money and had to be bailed out, homeowners were being foreclosed upon willy nilly, and a small town in Norway had to lay off over half of its police force because the mayor's decision to buy into bad debt being sold as good debt nearly bankrupted the town.

That's it in a nutshell. If the US government had been able to regulate the market - which conservatives absolutely hate - then this never would have happened. But it should be an object lesson that we cannot trust in Wall Street financiers to actually consider morality, ethics, or the national (or global) economy. If they can make a buck, they'll do it even if it ruins the world.

Evidence, if further proof were needed, that Banks are more powerful than Governments.

kentdougal. Welcome to the forum.

You seem to have missed, or chosen to ignore, the question posed by this thread. Regardless of the pros and cons of windmills, Cameron, as part of his determination to lie his way into power at all costs, promised us the greenest government ever. What he’s given us is the most environmentally destructive government in living memory.

Not at all Ivan, he's simply put an experiment on hold until the country can afford it. What's destructive about trying to save the country and it's resources?

tlttf wrote:Not at all Ivan, he's simply put an experiment on hold until the country can afford it. What's destructive about trying to save the country and it's resources?

The only thing Green about Cameron is his economic policy. now that is what i would call very green indeed.