Solar Panel Megathread

[BoroughGal 10]

The reason it is unethical is because most people can’t benefit from solar panels but have no choice but to fund the panels for the small minority of people that can have them. The panels aren’t viable without the subsidy that other energy users are forced to pay.

Sorry but you lost me on the second paragraph.

 

Whilst you continue taking from the national grid with your sizable carbon footprint.

 

Re second paragraph - no problem. Not really important to be honest.

[MrSmith 10]

Whilst you continue taking from the national grid with your sizable carbon footprint.

 

Re second paragraph - no problem. Not really important to be honest.

 

Some people have no choice but to take from the grid and at the same time they have no choice but to fund your panels, forcing people to help you lower you carbon foot print is unethical, if you feel strongly enough about your carbon footprint you should fund it and not everyone else. I obviously understand why you would enter into the deal because it does make financial since to allow other to fund your electricity. But it is just as unethical as plugging an extension into a neighbours socket without their knowledge.

[BoroughGal 10]

Some people have no choice but to take from the grid and at the same time they have no choice but to fund your panels, forcing people to help you lower you carbon foot print is unethical, if you feel strongly enough about your carbon footprint you should fund it and not everyone else. I obviously understand why you would enter into the deal because it does make financial since to allow other to fund your electricity. But it is just as unethical as plugging an extension into a neighbours socket without their knowledge.

 

Not really, one is legal (and encouraged by the government), the other isn't.

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the ethics I'm afraid. I have my own thoughts on why you object so strongly.

[MrSmith 10]

Not really, one is legal (and encouraged by the government), the other isn't.

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the ethics I'm afraid. I have my own thoughts on why you object so strongly.

 

I didn't say anything about being illegal I said ethical, just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical.

[BoroughGal 10]

I didn't say anything about being illegal I said ethical, just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical.

 

Yeah, and I said we'd have to agree to disagree on the ethics.

 

I wouldn't plug anything into my neighbours electricity without asking, because - ultimately - it wouldn't be legal.

[Lab-rat 10]

£9,000 to fit and - in *addition* to the free electricity (and subsequent lowering of bills) - 43p per unit generated, amounting to around £1000-£1500 per year. It was definitely viable. Maybe not so much now, but before, I assure you.

 

How much has you house insurance gone up by fitting them......? You've got 9k of extra risk screwed on you roof & if you haven't declared them do you think the insurance will pay out when some ingenious little scrote falls through your roof trying to extract one to sell? Lead frequently goes missing off church roofs and it aint worth 9k a roof!!!!

Edited December 14, 2011 by Lab-rat

[BoroughGal 10]

How much has you house insurance gone up by fitting them......? You've got 9k of extra risk screwed on you roof & if you haven't declared them do you think the insurance will pay out when some ingenious little scrote falls through your roof trying to extract one to sell? Lead frequently goes missing off church roofs and it aint worth 9k a roof!!!!

 

Not sure I feel the need to tell you how much my insurance has gone up by, but do you really think I'd expect them to pay out if I'd not declared them? What a ridiculous statement!

 

Believe it or not, I'm aware of lead thefts. Our garden is as secure as it can be, and it would be very difficult to get on the roof without being seen or heard. Have you any statistics on the amount of solar panel thefts there've been up to now? Because it's not something I'm panicking about at the moment. Thanks for your concern though.

[MrSmith 10]

Yeah, and I said we'd have to agree to disagree on the ethics.

 

 

So you think it is ethical for the government to force the majority of people (group A) to pay for you carbon footprint of the minority (group B) to be transferred to china, and to pay (group B) some of the money (group A) is forced to pay.

It defiantly makes financial sense for group B but it’s a long way off being ethical to force Group A to give Group B money.

[Ash576 10]

I always thought they were overpriced, even with the feed in tarrif. But there must have been a reason why the gov decided originally what that level was going to be. Or were they misinformed, or duped. I cetainly don't know. But it doesn't seem to me to be a viable thing to do now.

 

I wonder how those companies who 'fit them free' (effectively commandeering your roofspace) and holding those to a 25 year lease on the feed in tarrif will now react when effectively they are going to lose half of the expected income over that 25 years? Or was there a get out clause where they can do it for 50 years?...???

 

A lot of the companies that were offering the free solar panels will no longer be offering them since the FiT cuts, meaning that only the richest families will be able to benefit from saving on their electricity bills which doesn't seem fair to me.

 

There are still a few companies that are going to take the hit and still offer completely free panels, I know Engensa is one of them and there are a few others.

[truman 10]

A lot of the companies that were offering the free solar panels will no longer be offering them since the FiT cuts, meaning that only the richest families will be able to benefit from saving on their electricity bills which doesn't seem fair to me.

 

There are still a few companies that are going to take the hit and still offer completely free panels, I know Engensa is one of them and there are a few others.

 

But the "free" companies are very particular on which roofs they use...

[MrSmith 10]

A lot of the companies that were offering the free solar panels will no longer be offering them since the FiT cuts, meaning that only the richest families will be able to benefit from saving on their electricity bills which doesn't seem fair to me.

 

There are still a few companies that are going to take the hit and still offer completely free panels, I know Engensa is one of them and there are a few others.

 

Without the subsidy from the tax payer solar panels aren’t viable so a rich person wouldn’t buy them to save money, they would only buy them if they wanted to cut their carbon footprint.

The whole point of the panels is to cut CO2 not save money and not make a profit. The problem with the panels though is they are made in china using dirty energy, so all we do is transfer our CO2 to china.

[PeteMorris 10]

Without the subsidy from the tax payer solar panels aren’t viable so a rich person wouldn’t buy them to save money, they would only buy them if they wanted to cut their carbon footprint.

The whole point of the panels is to cut CO2 not save money and not make a profit. The problem with the panels though is they are made in china using dirty energy, so all we do is transfer our CO2 to china.

 

That's an excellent observation!