View Full Version : Coalition Government's cut to solar FiT is legally flawed.
The High Court has ruled that the Government's cut to solar feed-in tariff from 43p to 21p is legally flawed as a result of a legal challenge to the cut by solar companies and Friends of the Earth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16291768
The High Court has ruled that the Government's cut to solar feed-in tariff from 43p to 21p is legally flawed as a result of a legal challenge to the cut by solar companies and Friends of the Earth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16291768
Well they should change the Law. The energy rich robbing the energy poor. Not very progressive is it?
Who is the energy rich and the energy poor again?
Who is the energy rich and the energy poor again?
The ones who can afford Solar Panels and the rest of us.
The ones who can afford Solar Panels and the rest of us.
You mean the solar panels that cost the same price of a below average family car that the rest of us drive?
But you would look a turkey trying to get to work on a solar panel while your roof caved in under a motor!
I've said it before but if they believe it is so good and worthwhile then they would make it a scheme for everyone's benefit rather than lining the pockets of those who have spare cash already.
But you would look a turkey trying to get to work on a solar panel while your roof caved in under a motor!
I've said it before but if they believe it is so good and worthwhile then they would make it a scheme for everyone's benefit rather than lining the pockets of those who have spare cash already.
Ah very funny but then not everyone wants to drive or does drive a car, different people have different priorities in life and the Government is taking that choice away from those who wish to choose to lower their carbon footprint and fuel bills.
But hey wait a mo, you get charged no vehicle excise licence fees for having a car that does less than 100g CO2/km, surely someone has to pay for them to take to the road, it is the rest of us that has to do that and they are the rich that can afford those hybrid low carbon cars. :roll:
I quite agree it is about priorities. But even if I sold our car I still couldn't afford to put any panels up.
But if there was a scheme where the govt covered the install cost and claimed the FIT until things were covered and we got the free leccy in the meantime then it would be a win win, or even a win win win.
But instead we line the pockets of those who have the spare cash.
I quite agree it is about priorities. But even if I sold our car I still couldn't afford to put any panels up.
But if there was a scheme where the govt covered the install cost and claimed the FIT until things were covered and we got the free leccy in the meantime then it would be a win win, or even a win win win.
But instead we line the pockets of those who have the spare cash.
Yes, you are talking my politics here, Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green Party has tabled Early Day Motion 2455 which calls for such a scheme to be installed into social housing which would benefit the worse off. No LibDems signed up and only one tory Peter Bottomley. I notified John Thurso, he acknowledged me but hasn't signed.
But in the meantime we can only pee with the bit we've got. :)
You mean the solar panels that cost the same price of a below average family car that the rest of us drive?
I know people who have solar panels AND drive a vehicle!
Anyway does this ruling mean us without these panel things, pay our electricity to those who have em?
I see that political party was mentioned
And I'm ever so pleased that the Greens are thinking about coal.
"With carbon capture and storage, coal might have a continued role to play in the short term".
Seems very sensible - what with the millions of tons under our feet. Well done the Greens!
Have you got a link please?
Total misrepresentation as always.
I'll finish off the paragraph.
"With carbon capture and storage, coal might have a continued role to play in the short term. But we don't yet know whether CCS is technically feasible or commercially viable, and it's far too much of a gamble. New coal and nuclear plants are not the answer to energy security, climate change or peak oil."
Have you got a link please?
As you've requested: http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/policy/show/6
Total misrepresentation as always.
I'll finish off the paragraph.
"With carbon capture and storage, coal might have a continued role to play in the short term. But we don't yet know whether CCS is technically feasible or commercially viable, and it's far too much of a gamble. New coal and nuclear plants are not the answer to energy security, climate change or peak oil."
You can't just ignore what they honestly wrote: "With carbon capture and storage, coal might have a continued role to play in the short term
You can't just ignore what they honestly wrote: "With carbon capture and storage, coal might have a continued role to play in the short term
Yes I can, it is the difference between taking things on board Prima facie and actually thinking about it. I'm glad Patrick Harvie thinks about it because CCS has been thrown into economic chaos with all the major energy providers revoking interest, how right Patrick was eh? ;)
You mean the solar panels that cost the same price of a below average family car that the rest of us drive?
Blimey! I didn't think they were that expensive.
Yes, you are talking my politics here, Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green Party has tabled Early Day Motion 2455 which calls for such a scheme to be installed into social housing which would benefit the worse off. No LibDems signed up and only one tory Peter Bottomley. I notified John Thurso, he acknowledged me but hasn't signed.
But in the meantime we can only pee with the bit we've got. :)
Something in the right direction at least, but not quite what I would like to see. Who picks up the tab?
And an even more progressive position: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16288267
If we consider the rapid increase in the numbers of people living in fuel poverty and look through all the hype we can see that this stramash is not so much about saving the planet and more about making money. At the end of the day those that can least afford it are being taxed to fund the FiT for the better off. Clearly that is unsustainable. Now I’m not averse to any new technology that might help save the planet but it has to been done in a fair and equitable manner.
Something in the right direction at least, but not quite what I would like to see. Who picks up the tab?
And an even more progressive position: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16288267From the same report:
The consultation suggests that houses should have to meet insulation standards before they qualify - for example, insisting that it should have an Energy Performance Certificate C rating at least.
Government data suggest this would require 86% of homes to get an upgrade before becoming eligible. In most cases this would cost about £5,600, but could be much more expensive.
For a semi-detached house with solid walls, the bill could be up to £14,000 - and with solar panel installation coming in at an average of £9,000, the committees fear a huge impact on uptake, potentially dealing the industry a "fatal blow".
A 'fatal blow'? So basically it's fine to live in a house that has an EDC below C yet still maintain you're doing your bit for energy efficiency, and get your Feed in Tariffs paid by others?
Fully agree with the consultation above, if everyone did take steps to use energy efficiently and take measures to mitigate their use, it would help a hell of a lot.. I know of a great many who live in Croft houses who have stone (rubble walls) and yet only have a sheet of 12.5mm plasterboard between that and the 'stone cold wall' - I've spent considerable sums in insulating my own stone house and in line with minimal use of power, I have no doubt whatsoever I'd have no problems in ascending to a miserly 'C'.
If these folks who have panels on their roofs can afford to pay [the price of a family car] they can certainly afford to take energy matters seriously.!
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/BuyingAndSellingYourHome/Energyperformancecertificates/DG_177026
I know people who have solar panels AND drive a vehicle!
Anyway does this ruling mean us without these panel things, pay our electricity to those who have em?
Funny the number of houses I see with panels on the roof and yet in the driveway is a shiny new gas guzzling Chelsea Tractor!
If we consider the rapid increase in the numbers of people living in fuel poverty and look through all the hype we can see that this stramash is not so much about saving the planet and more about making money. At the end of the day those that can least afford it are being taxed to fund the FiT for the better off. Clearly that is unsustainable. Now I’m not averse to any new technology that might help save the planet but it has to been done in a fair and equitable manner.
Kerrching!
Without turning this into a ranty pro / anti / denier thread rather than a debate, this is what bothers me about renewables. The priority is not about green energy but lining peoples pockets.
And whilst there's money to be made were going to 'see' obfuscated reports, data and stat's on what needs to be done.
........ I know of a great many who live in Croft houses who have stone (rubble walls) and yet only have a sheet of 12.5mm plasterboard between that and the 'stone cold wall' - I've spent considerable sums in insulating my own stone house and in line with minimal use of power, I have no doubt whatsoever I'd have no problems in ascending to a miserly 'C'.
If these folks who have panels on their roofs can afford to pay [the price of a family car] they can certainly afford to take energy matters seriously.!
Quite agree. But it's not always possible nor affordable for everyone to get a C rating. (and without drifting too far these reports are cobblers as they make many incorrect assumptions).
Renewables have their place without a doubt. But we need to focus on energy reduction, domestically, commercially & industrially. But the energy Co's don't really want you to do that do they?!!
We need to make renewables, especially micro renewables a cheap (i.e. attainable for the masses) option rather than a money making scheme for the few.
And I return again to the simple point, if it's that good why doesn't the Gov't / EU fund it for the masses to benefit from free leccy?
No lining of pockets, apart from employee's fitters etc. and ultimately the manufactures (in turn employing peeps).
Good Post
"If these folks who have panels on their roofs can afford to pay [the price of a family car] they can certainly afford to take energy matters seriously.!"
I can understand it's costly to take these measures (took me years) it's just that I know of certain homes that have these money-makers on the roof, yet no cash spent on; for example insulation, and yet they have a very nice expensive camper
If we consider the rapid increase in the numbers of people living in fuel poverty and look through all the hype we can see that this stramash is not so much about saving the planet and more about making money. At the end of the day those that can least afford it are being taxed to fund the FiT for the better off. Clearly that is unsustainable. Now I’m not averse to any new technology that might help save the planet but it has to been done in a fair and equitable manner.
it seems to me that the only ones who want to save the planet at no cost are the hippies, tree huggers and anti globalists etc, but not everyone is so altruistic then it seems to me that saving the planet should be profitable, afterall that is what motivates most people and businesses.
But what about those who want too but can't afford too?
I'm sure if you gave folk the option of free leccy in exchange for throwing some gubbins on their roof you'd have a far bigger uptake.
For the bunny huggers, hippies etc. they often make a lifestyle choice which may be quite dramatic in many peoples eyes. A very small minority making big changes. Why not try and get the masses to make small changes first?
If you take the extremis view on the profitability of the renewables sector it is nothing more than a complete conspiracy for the rich / illuminate / THEM / THEY / CIA etc. to make vast sums of money from taxation of the masses under the guise of 'saving the planet'. Nothing more than a lie.
it seems to me that the only ones who want to save the planet at no cost are the hippies, tree huggers and anti globalists etc, but not everyone is so altruistic then it seems to me that saving the planet should be profitable, afterall that is what motivates most people and businesses.
I would be happy to support any methods to save the planet and would be happy to advocate the use of any renewable technology. But I find it morally repugnant that the poor, the disabled and pensioners, in fact anyone living on a small fixed income are pay increased charges for their electricity to subsidise other people's FiT. It's bad enough that energy charges are already subject to VAT at 5%.
You can bang on as much as you like about the benefits etc. but with increasing energy costs the poorest in society cannot continue to fund the better off!
What do you suggest? Euthanasia?
I would be happy to support any methods to save the planet and would be happy to advocate the use of any renewable technology. But I find it morally repugnant that the poor, the disabled and pensioners, in fact anyone living on a small fixed income are pay increased charges for their electricity to subsidise other people's FiT. It's bad enough that energy charges are already subject to VAT at 5%.
You can bang on as much as you like about the benefits etc. but with increasing energy costs the poorest in society cannot continue to fund the better off!
What do you suggest? Euthanasia?
Tough Gronnock, it's folks like you that don't want "to save the planet" that are resisting..
Nah, this 'saving the planet' is a glib utterance from mostly semi-fanatical 'do as I say' types who don't give a damn who suffers in the process, albeit increasing the energy bill for those that can ill afford it..
I'm not totally sure how sticking a few panels on a roof and making others pay for it will actually 'save the planet' of course the trite answer will be; 'every little helps'..
I was under the impression that even Professor James lovelock the scientist who developed the Gaia theory, has said it's too late to 'save the planet' and believes we can only hope the earth will take care of itself.. mind you he also said nuclear power is the only Green solution - but don't want to go there with our resident eco-warrior hovering in the sidelines do we?
I'm fully behind the idea of energy conservation, but I'll do it without forcing others to pay for my attempts..
Reggy you initiated this thread. Surely it's only fair to ask; Do you have solar panels on your roof, by any chance? I don't, so think that's reciprocal..
I would be happy to support any methods to save the planet and would be happy to advocate the use of any renewable technology. But I find it morally repugnant that the poor, the disabled and pensioners, in fact anyone living on a small fixed income are pay increased charges for their electricity to subsidise other people's FiT. It's bad enough that energy charges are already subject to VAT at 5%.
You can bang on as much as you like about the benefits etc. but with increasing energy costs the poorest in society cannot continue to fund the better off!
What do you suggest? Euthanasia?
I will sympathise with you as I understand your point but I think it is a false one. The reason being that over reliance on fossil fuels is the major contributor to increases in fuel bills. So continuing to be be reliant on fossil fuels without seeking alternatives is just going to push fuel bills up and up.
I actually find it morally repugnant that we should continue to be over reliant on fossil fuels thus making life hard for the poorest in society that can ill afford to heat their homes when the rich can buy themselves out of rising fuel prices.
........when the rich can buy themselves out of rising fuel prices.How exactly? By building a private nuclear plant? Or are you suggesting that the current set up of FiT is purely a reverse Robin Hood tax on the poor and nothing to do with renewable energy?
I will sympathise with you as I understand your point but I think it is a false one. The reason being that over reliance on fossil fuels is the major contributor to increases in fuel bills. So continuing to be be reliant on fossil fuels without seeking alternatives is just going to push fuel bills up and up.
There is nothing false about the rise in the number of people in fuel poverty. There is nothing false in the 5% VAT on fuel prices. There is nothing false about the way the supply companies spread the cost of funding the Feed in Tariff across all its customers, incuding those who can least afford it.
I actually find it morally repugnant that we should continue to be over reliant on fossil fuels thus making life hard for the poorest in society that can ill afford to heat their homes when the rich can buy themselves out of rising fuel prices.
I agree. However little will change as long as the only focus is on how much profit can be made; and please don't tell me all the profits are reinvested - we all know it's not. If the need to curb climate change and save the planet is so important then it has to be recognised that everyone is in this together. Grubbiement and the energy supply companies need to recognise this and find a fairer and more equitable way forward. To do otherwise will only increase cynicism and resistance to change.
Interesting Thread, but see #46 2011 a year of extremes
Green_not_greed
05-Jan-12, 20:07
I'd like to point out that we can all be Green without being greedy.
IMO folks can buy into energy saving schemes and use smaller cars if they want - its their choice to do so. They should want to be green and so do so without any financial incentives. The solar tariff scheme - like the RoCs we all overpay for - is something to benefit installers and developers. Just like wind turbines. The government are perfectly entitled to raise or lower these subsidies at their leisure. Without them, we'd all be a damn site better off and there would be far fewer people in fuel poverty. IMO if most of us did a small part for the environment there would be no need for the obscenity that is industrial wind.
Strange really. There are many people who could and would make many changes, small changes, but possibly many changes if they were able too.
Instead of allowing people to make these changes to reduce CO2 emissions, save money and do their small bit for the environment it is instead required of them to pay the wealthy and the corporates for, often, nothing.
Should anyone pass comment they are cast out and deemed a DENIER!
Strange really. There are many people who could and would make many changes, small changes, but possibly many changes if they were able too.
Instead of allowing people to make these changes to reduce CO2 emissions, save money and do their small bit for the environment it is instead required of them to pay the wealthy and the corporates for, often, nothing.
Should anyone pass comment they are cast out and deemed a DENIER!
I agree, but the Green Party would change the whole economics of providing renewable energy so it doesn't benefit the rich. Vote for them if you are unhappy.
Did the route from Strathy all the way to Wick today (via Castletown) noted the houses with the solar panels on top, some with just two, others with 18 and one with 21 !!! - they must be making a bomb. (out of us)
I see the Government is appealing the Fit ruling..
roadbowler
07-Jan-12, 08:57
it seems to me that the only ones who want to save the planet at no cost are the hippies, tree huggers and anti globalists etc, but not everyone is so altruistic then it seems to me that saving the planet should be profitable, afterall that is what motivates most people and businesses. I think you'll find that "hippies, treehuggers or anti-globalists" aren't out to "save" the planet. I think those you mention here don't think the planet needs saving as it was and will be here long before and after humans have. It is better than mildy arrogant to believe that humans could save something they barely understand. It doesn't need saving, Earth cares not if she is walloped by a gigantic asteroid tomorrow tea time wiping out every living thing off the face of it nor does she care if she turns into a fireball or an ice cube. Humans are entirely insignificant for her wellbeing. So, stop using this as your excuse! saving her should be profitable????? Do you not recognise the la-la land where that idea is coming from? Look rheghead, I'm no picking on you persay but, many people share this mentality and it is primitive and in the grand scheme of things really shows the ugliness of capitalism and what humans have become because of it. What the planet needs is a bit of respecting along with the other lifeforms we currently share it with. Solar panels have nothing to do with "saving the planet". I believe most are doing it as an investment of their savings as interest rates are rubbish. One could even go so far as saying it is also a type of "benefits" for the wealthier than average and to boot, the government gets to meet their ludicrous climate change targets. I can see it, many here can see it, that these targets and these schemes are a fallacy. Phill, quality post there.
I think you'll find that "hippies, treehuggers or anti-globalists" aren't out to "save" the planet. I think those you mention here don't think the planet needs saving as it was and will be here long before and after humans have. It is better than mildy arrogant to believe that humans could save something they barely understand. It doesn't need saving, Earth cares not if she is walloped by a gigantic asteroid tomorrow tea time wiping out every living thing off the face of it nor does she care if she turns into a fireball or an ice cube. Humans are entirely insignificant for her wellbeing. So, stop using this as your excuse! saving her should be profitable????? Do you not recognise the la-la land where that idea is coming from? Look rheghead, I'm no picking on you persay but, many people share this mentality and it is primitive and in the grand scheme of things really shows the ugliness of capitalism and what humans have become because of it. What the planet needs is a bit of respecting along with the other lifeforms we currently share it with. Solar panels have nothing to do with "saving the planet". I believe most are doing it as an investment of their savings as interest rates are rubbish. One could even go so far as saying it is also a type of "benefits" for the wealthier than average and to boot, the government gets to meet their ludicrous climate change targets. I can see it, many here can see it, that these targets and these schemes are a fallacy. Phill, quality post there.
Yes! I believe that Global Warming is the planet's mechanism for ridding itself of the Human infestation. :eek::Razz
roadbowler
07-Jan-12, 09:46
Yes! I believe that Global Warming is the planet's mechanism for ridding itself of the Human infestation. :eek::Razz ...and could we blame her!? Lol
A strange logic but then such is the richness of all opinions.
A strange logic but then such is the richness of all opinions.
Yes well....if you think about, the last few hundred years, someone or something is waging biological, geological and ecological warfare against us.
personally, I think Portgower needs a closer looking at!
secrets in symmetry
07-Jan-12, 14:06
I think you'll find that "hippies, treehuggers or anti-globalists" aren't out to "save" the planet. I think those you mention here don't think the planet needs saving as it was and will be here long before and after humans have. It is better than mildy arrogant to believe that humans could save something they barely understand. It doesn't need saving, Earth cares not if she is walloped by a gigantic asteroid tomorrow tea time wiping out every living thing off the face of it nor does she care if she turns into a fireball or an ice cube. Humans are entirely insignificant for her wellbeing. So, stop using this as your excuse! saving her should be profitable????? Do you not recognise the la-la land where that idea is coming from? Look rheghead, I'm no picking on you persay but, many people share this mentality and it is primitive and in the grand scheme of things really shows the ugliness of capitalism and what humans have become because of it. What the planet needs is a bit of respecting along with the other lifeforms we currently share it with. Solar panels have nothing to do with "saving the planet". I believe most are doing it as an investment of their savings as interest rates are rubbish. One could even go so far as saying it is also a type of "benefits" for the wealthier than average and to boot, the government gets to meet their ludicrous climate change targets. I can see it, many here can see it, that these targets and these schemes are a fallacy. Phill, quality post there.It's amazing how much effort is required to be part of the wilfully ignorant tree-hugging hippy movement!
So, the Government lost its appeal to the court of Appeal. Rumour has it that the Government so desperate to illegally cut the feed in tariff that instead of admitting it got it wrong and cut it by a modest amount, they are taking this to the Supreme Court. Ludicrous and a waste of tax payers money and ministerial time.
So, the Government lost its appeal to the court of Appeal. Rumour has it that the Government so desperate to illegally cut the feed in tariff that instead of admitting it got it wrong and cut it by a modest amount, they are taking this to the Supreme Court. Ludicrous and a waste of tax payers money and ministerial time.
For once I support the Govt in what they are doing and I do so hope they win the case at the Supreme Court!!
C3..............[disgust]
Strange really. There are many people who could and would make many changes, small changes, but possibly many changes if they were able too.
Instead of allowing people to make these changes to reduce CO2 emissions, save money and do their small bit for the environment it is instead required of them to pay the wealthy and the corporates for, often, nothing.
Should anyone pass comment they are cast out and deemed a DENIER!
Pardon my ignorance. But what is a DENIER, please.
Pardon my ignorance. But what is a DENIER, please.Have a look at the 2011 A year of extremes thread from about here.
(http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?165987-2011-A-year-of-extremes&p=917578#post917578)
It's a term bandied about for anyone that questions man made climate change, or climate change in general. Whether those questions be legitimate questions as to the causes and data presented, or an actual non acceptance of any climate change.
Quite often used in a negative, defamatory way.
a 4kw PV system is pretty affordable now, less than £6k installed.
I would like to see results of how they perform in Caithness before I went ahead though.
Anyone here know how they are performing?
Have a look at the 2011 A year of extremes thread from about here.
(http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?165987-2011-A-year-of-extremes&p=917578#post917578)
It's a term bandied about for anyone that questions man made climate change, or climate change in general. Whether those questions be legitimate questions as to the causes and data presented, or an actual non acceptance of any climate change.
Quite often used in a negative, defamatory way.
Ah, i see. Deny, deniar . I was reading like denier, ( tights ). If you get what i mean.[lol]
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.