T
TedM
Transcript of what he said here - Speech by Greg Barker at the Ecobuild Conference - Department of Energy and Climate Change
- Thread starter TedM
- Start date
-
- Tags
- today
Discuss Greg Barker at EcoBuild today in the Solar PV Forum | Solar Panels Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
Share this page
OP
moggy1968
he's a brave man, did he have protection!
OP
moggy1968
What wordy mumbo jumbo nonsence.
Those houses look no different as a result of the green deal to if they had a standard refurb (i.e a lick of paint!!!)
As i have suggested before this has very little to do with PV. It is to do with insulation and heating. It is more about wasting less, not about generating electricity in more efficient and environmentally sound ways.
It offers the PV industry nothing.
Who, other than the big companies already invested in this, will be willing to undertake the investment in training and equipment to undertake this when the Government has previously completely shafted the industry.
The Government has set out their green credentials, they suck.
Those houses look no different as a result of the green deal to if they had a standard refurb (i.e a lick of paint!!!)
As i have suggested before this has very little to do with PV. It is to do with insulation and heating. It is more about wasting less, not about generating electricity in more efficient and environmentally sound ways.
It offers the PV industry nothing.
Who, other than the big companies already invested in this, will be willing to undertake the investment in training and equipment to undertake this when the Government has previously completely shafted the industry.
The Government has set out their green credentials, they suck.
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
babba
I got as far as the before and after photos was it wall coating he was plugging...nothing these people say is true..same old same old self justification. Cut the FITS and six months later, here is your green deal...wonder how many people will buy PV when they can spend nothing upfront..that will be the next spanner in the works.
OP
finchy
No one can clarify a massive floor in this scheme - House valuations ! How do you buy a house with all these improvements finianced through a green deal loan attached to a house. Will we be paying twice for these improvements. If the house price takes the green deal loan into account then it would artifically down value houses. Where by people who pay for it out their own pocket will lose out when a Surveyor values a house and compares it to the one sold with the green deal.
The upside if this is not addressed is there is a loop hole market where you can buy a house "improve" it using green deal loan and sell it on and pocket the increase in value from green loan ! Morally wrong, but I know people who have made a good living from the stamp duty loop hole (which is beeing addressed with Budget).
Very daft, I really need this clarified before I can take the green deal serious !
The upside if this is not addressed is there is a loop hole market where you can buy a house "improve" it using green deal loan and sell it on and pocket the increase in value from green loan ! Morally wrong, but I know people who have made a good living from the stamp duty loop hole (which is beeing addressed with Budget).
Very daft, I really need this clarified before I can take the green deal serious !
OP
moggy1968
interesting, might be worth considering for my new angle of business in property development (unless I start buying up land for farming subsidies of course!!)
OP
JulianC
Greg Barking talks a lot but says little. I have yet to talk to any customer/friend/family member that thinks taking out a loan to pay for stuff they weren't bothered about doing in the first place is a good idea. The Golden Rule is pretty much unworkable. The Green Deal will gradually fade to white and look more and more elephantine as time goes on. The only people who will do well out of it are the loan providers and, of course, the training companies, as we drones line up to hand over yet more of our hard-earned to find out what hoops we need to jump through in order to add yet another logo to our vans. What a big bag of dog eggs it really is.
OP
moggy1968
It's a fair point!!!
- Reaction score
- 723
You're only the second person I've ever met that has used that expression!
OP
JulianC
Something I picked up from a mountain biking forum I occasionally frequent
OP
moggy1968
If thats the case that is a serious conflict of interest and an absolute disgrace
OP
JulianC
What? Mountain biking and the Green Deal?
OP
moggy1968
all forms of exercise and the green deal!!
sorry, this comment was in reference to the number of people from the big 6 working at the DECC but I pressed the wrong button!!
OP
sambotc
Flame suit on, please be gentle
I know a lot of you here do have a vested interest in P.V and understandably when you look at the costs you have all put upto gain accreditation etc.
The question is, if the FITS hadn't have been set so high in the first place say 20p, would P.V and is P.V a viable carbon cutting green product?
I would say that the majority of customers who bought P.V in the last 12 months did so for the financial gain rather than the green credentials associated with it, would you agree?
So if the FIT's only covered the cost of the install, then once paid for ended leaving the customer with the reduced energy costs only, do you think a lot of companies (and certainly none of the rent-a-roof crowd) would have been so keen to get involved in this technology?
Personally i'm not sure they would as the amount of money tied up for X amount of years until the FIT would have reimbursed the costs would have put a lot of people off?
Truthfully, had the FIT not have made the whole P.V thing very financially desirable, the only people who would have benefitted would have been the energy companies buying the export back at a reduced rate and selling it on for profit.
So maybe (IF they can make this scheme work) this kind of scheme will have a better impact on reducing carbon emissions and saving people money?
I'm not trying to offend, and would be good to hear unbiased views on the potential on a scheme like this. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the green deal is going to miss the mark and line the pockets of training centres and government backed schemes, but was P.V ever really going to make such an impact on the real issues of reduced carbon/sustainable living?
I'm ready, hit me with what you've got :56:
I know a lot of you here do have a vested interest in P.V and understandably when you look at the costs you have all put upto gain accreditation etc.
The question is, if the FITS hadn't have been set so high in the first place say 20p, would P.V and is P.V a viable carbon cutting green product?
I would say that the majority of customers who bought P.V in the last 12 months did so for the financial gain rather than the green credentials associated with it, would you agree?
So if the FIT's only covered the cost of the install, then once paid for ended leaving the customer with the reduced energy costs only, do you think a lot of companies (and certainly none of the rent-a-roof crowd) would have been so keen to get involved in this technology?
Personally i'm not sure they would as the amount of money tied up for X amount of years until the FIT would have reimbursed the costs would have put a lot of people off?
Truthfully, had the FIT not have made the whole P.V thing very financially desirable, the only people who would have benefitted would have been the energy companies buying the export back at a reduced rate and selling it on for profit.
So maybe (IF they can make this scheme work) this kind of scheme will have a better impact on reducing carbon emissions and saving people money?
I'm not trying to offend, and would be good to hear unbiased views on the potential on a scheme like this. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the green deal is going to miss the mark and line the pockets of training centres and government backed schemes, but was P.V ever really going to make such an impact on the real issues of reduced carbon/sustainable living?
I'm ready, hit me with what you've got :56:
OP
moggy1968
I think you need to look at the historical persepective.
If you want people to get involved in a new energy there needs to be some form of susidy, as there is for the big 6 for wind and nuclear energy.
When FiTS was introduced the intention was to provide around a 10% return to make it attractive for the consumer.
The price of installations dropped as kit prices dropped and installations costs came down.
No one was in any doubt that the tariff needed to be reduced. The problem came with the government sitting on their fat lazy backsides prevaracating for too long. That led to the massive rise in installs because, as you say, the returns were too great.
Instead of acting in a sensible and timely manner the government then got a flap on and slashed the tarriff by over 50% and gave the industry just 5 weeks notice, breaking the law in the meantime, leading to even more uncertainty in the market place.
They now propose to cut the tariff even more, with the aim of giving people a return of 4-6%.
Now, why would you take money out of your savings and tie it up in a PV system where you have no access to your cash, rather than investing it wisely (my parents currently get 6% on their savings thanks to a decent IFA)
If you are relying on people doing it for entirely green reasons then we will return to the system pre 2010. How many PV installs did you see before then?
If the Government want to promote PV then they need to incentivise people to do so, and in a sensible, sustainable manner, not the kind of ill thought out, ill informed, half witted, arrogant, self interested, self fulfilling knee jerk nonsence we have seen up to now.
In response to your question, PV has already made a significant impact on producing clean energy. It is a viable and economical way to produce electricity, and to get it into production quickly. Be under no illusions, we have an energy crisis in this country and unless we start producing more soon we will be in real trouble. FiTS provided a quick and hassle free way for the Government to do this (and actually quite cost effective if you look at the total build cost of a new power station, including dealing with planning, public objections, overspends that we never hear about etc etc)
All this has nothing to do with the Government having an interest in the environment. It has to do with people in Government sucking up to big companies to line their own pockets in the future.
The Government does not have a green agenda, it has it's own agenda
If you want people to get involved in a new energy there needs to be some form of susidy, as there is for the big 6 for wind and nuclear energy.
When FiTS was introduced the intention was to provide around a 10% return to make it attractive for the consumer.
The price of installations dropped as kit prices dropped and installations costs came down.
No one was in any doubt that the tariff needed to be reduced. The problem came with the government sitting on their fat lazy backsides prevaracating for too long. That led to the massive rise in installs because, as you say, the returns were too great.
Instead of acting in a sensible and timely manner the government then got a flap on and slashed the tarriff by over 50% and gave the industry just 5 weeks notice, breaking the law in the meantime, leading to even more uncertainty in the market place.
They now propose to cut the tariff even more, with the aim of giving people a return of 4-6%.
Now, why would you take money out of your savings and tie it up in a PV system where you have no access to your cash, rather than investing it wisely (my parents currently get 6% on their savings thanks to a decent IFA)
If you are relying on people doing it for entirely green reasons then we will return to the system pre 2010. How many PV installs did you see before then?
If the Government want to promote PV then they need to incentivise people to do so, and in a sensible, sustainable manner, not the kind of ill thought out, ill informed, half witted, arrogant, self interested, self fulfilling knee jerk nonsence we have seen up to now.
In response to your question, PV has already made a significant impact on producing clean energy. It is a viable and economical way to produce electricity, and to get it into production quickly. Be under no illusions, we have an energy crisis in this country and unless we start producing more soon we will be in real trouble. FiTS provided a quick and hassle free way for the Government to do this (and actually quite cost effective if you look at the total build cost of a new power station, including dealing with planning, public objections, overspends that we never hear about etc etc)
All this has nothing to do with the Government having an interest in the environment. It has to do with people in Government sucking up to big companies to line their own pockets in the future.
The Government does not have a green agenda, it has it's own agenda
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
sambotc
I agree moggy, and the reason I am currently un-employed is because of the fiasco in December, so i'm all to aware of how they balls'd it up big time!
The points you have outlined above are exactly my point though, the technology itself (P.V) does not seem to provide enough of an incentive to justify the outlay. I am a heating engineer predominantly (although 17th edition and P.V qualified) and so a lot of green deal technologies are available in my line of work, solar thermal, condensing boilers, controls, heat pumps, biomass etc etc
Some of them do actually pay for themselves over a period of time, solar P.V does not? I appreciate that part of the process involves installing enough quantity to drive prices down via demand, but even when prices hit 'rock bottom' so to speak, the savings on your energy bill based on someone who works 9-5 compared with outlay and maintenance (replacing inverter etc) doesn't seem to add up from here?
So the point I am trying to make is, maybe the problem is partly due to the technology itself not being quite ready for the task?
Again, i'm not trying to tread on toes, but trying to get a realisitc picture of the whole sustainable, renewable, green malarky!
The points you have outlined above are exactly my point though, the technology itself (P.V) does not seem to provide enough of an incentive to justify the outlay. I am a heating engineer predominantly (although 17th edition and P.V qualified) and so a lot of green deal technologies are available in my line of work, solar thermal, condensing boilers, controls, heat pumps, biomass etc etc
Some of them do actually pay for themselves over a period of time, solar P.V does not? I appreciate that part of the process involves installing enough quantity to drive prices down via demand, but even when prices hit 'rock bottom' so to speak, the savings on your energy bill based on someone who works 9-5 compared with outlay and maintenance (replacing inverter etc) doesn't seem to add up from here?
So the point I am trying to make is, maybe the problem is partly due to the technology itself not being quite ready for the task?
Again, i'm not trying to tread on toes, but trying to get a realisitc picture of the whole sustainable, renewable, green malarky!
OP
moggy1968
No electrical energy source is self funding, we all pay for it. Do you want to pay for it now (as we do, through our electricity bills) or do you want your children to pay for it when all the natural resources are used up and there's no more fluffy wuffy polar bears!?
frankly, I think paying £5 a year for the current level of solar pV is well worth the cost (and I don't even have a system 'cos I live in a rented house!), and if we installed 4x that amount at a more reasonable fits of 30p it would still be very worthwhile.
How about Government predicts a problem and acts, rather than waiting until it's all gone wrong, we have inadequate electrical supplies and there's a big panic.
Oh no sorry, that means planning beyond the next 4 years doesn't it. sack that then!
You want to know what I think about the future of green energy in this country. In the short to medium term, there isn't one.
frankly, I think paying £5 a year for the current level of solar pV is well worth the cost (and I don't even have a system 'cos I live in a rented house!), and if we installed 4x that amount at a more reasonable fits of 30p it would still be very worthwhile.
How about Government predicts a problem and acts, rather than waiting until it's all gone wrong, we have inadequate electrical supplies and there's a big panic.
Oh no sorry, that means planning beyond the next 4 years doesn't it. sack that then!
You want to know what I think about the future of green energy in this country. In the short to medium term, there isn't one.
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
sambotc
I think realistically your right, but then realistically what difference will the UK make to the worlds carbon emissions? I know anything is better than nothing but talk about bad timing! World recession, lack of industry and manufacturing, wars in other countries.. but oh lets act fast on the carbon emissions of everyday society!
I'm not to familiar with P.V design and paybacks, but how would the current FIT system compare to an increased export rate of say 10p/KWh on an £8k 4kw system from an average household say 30% usage/70% export
I mean how many houses are there with 4kw systems on the roof with ample space to install more, but due to the cap on the FIT's make it uneconomically viable? Where's the sense in that given the costs involved in increasing the size at the time of installation would have been marginal? Surely that's counter productive with regards to cost/carbon reduction?
I'm not to familiar with P.V design and paybacks, but how would the current FIT system compare to an increased export rate of say 10p/KWh on an £8k 4kw system from an average household say 30% usage/70% export
I mean how many houses are there with 4kw systems on the roof with ample space to install more, but due to the cap on the FIT's make it uneconomically viable? Where's the sense in that given the costs involved in increasing the size at the time of installation would have been marginal? Surely that's counter productive with regards to cost/carbon reduction?
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
babba
It aint what you do its the way that you do it ... I understand fits were to high...but the way this whole thing has been dealt with is a sham and a knee jerk reaction...they cant tell us about the green deal in clarity and they can chop the fits...they are only interested in big busness and lining their own pockets...
Reply to Greg Barker at EcoBuild today in the Solar PV Forum | Solar Panels Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
Share this page
Similar Threads
Hello
Our 4kW solar system generated 4.4kWh today (Sunday 13/03/23) compared with our neighbour’s 6.4kW system which generated 19kWh. Clearly...
Electrician Jobs
[E.ON] Sustainable energy careers / Nationwide
Time is running out to take positive action on climate change. Join our team and help shape a sustainable future. With innovative energy...
Hi all
Is anyone aware of the change to solar generation FIT payment contracts for existing installations. (FIT payment scheme closed in 2019)...
Electrician Jobs
Looking for qualified solar installers
Are you a qualified electrician with experience of solar installation interested in developing your management experience and looking for a new...
Electrician Jobs
Solar PV Technical Manager
Are you a qualified electrician with experience of solar installation interested in developing your management experience and looking for a new...
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.