Posted by Giga2 on April 6, 2011, 7:16 pm
>>
>> On 4/6/2011 1:36 AM, Falcon wrote:
>> >>
>> > [..]
>> >>>> Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
>> >>>> reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it
>> >>>> still be worth quite a lot in 15 years?
>> >>>
>> >>> No.
>> >>
>> >> Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of the
>> >> price?
>> >
>> > Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price and
>> > doing so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher
>> > electricity prices.
>>
>> Cost isn't the issue, cost /effectiveness/ IS.
>>
>> As soon as they are cost effective, I'll install them.
>>
>> At current prices, they are NOT cost effective, so why would I install
>> them?
>>
>> > The cost of panels isn't the only factor to be considered when deciding
>> > to install them; like wind turbines, without generous Feed in tariffs
>> > working alongside the Renewables Obligation they would never pay their
>> > way. Currently these measures are adding around 15% to all fuel bills
>> > and that's expected to rise significantly as penetration levels
>> > increase.
>> >
>> > These are tough times for many people though. The government has said
>> > it will review FITs with a view to delivering 40 million of savings
>> > (around 10%) in 2014/15. How they intend to do that is anyone's guess.
>> > Reducing the guaranteed price perhaps? The DECC says "The review will
>> > be completed by the end of 2011, with tariffs remaining unchanged until
>> > April 2012" but add ... "(unless the review reveals a need for greater
>> > urgency)."
>>
>> So, how exactly does government 'reduce the price'?
> Feed in tariffs are set by the government.
>> > Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to amount
>> > to around 5 billion in 2020 through the renewables obligation alone
>> > and around 360 million through the climate change levy exemption (both
>> > figures in 2010 prices, quoted by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
>> > State to the DECC in Lord's Hansard 19 Jan 2011 : Column WA33), I
>> > expect the government's sense of 'urgency' could rise very soon.
>>
>> Subsidies don't reduce price, they just shift costs from one person to
>> another through compulsion.
> Correct.
From somebody who is not doing there 'bit' to someone who is!
Posted by Giga2 on April 6, 2011, 7:15 pm
> On 4/6/2011 1:36 AM, Falcon wrote:
>>>
>> [..]
>>>>> Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
>>>>> reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it still
>>>>> be worth quite a lot in 15 years?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of the
>>> price?
>>
>> Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price and
>> doing
>> so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher electricity
>> prices.
> Cost isn't the issue, cost /effectiveness/ IS.
> As soon as they are cost effective, I'll install them.
> At current prices, they are NOT cost effective, so why would I install
> them?
Maybe to do something for the general good?
>> The cost of panels isn't the only factor to be considered when
>> deciding to install them; like wind turbines, without generous Feed in
>> tariffs working alongside the Renewables Obligation they would never pay
>> their way. Currently these measures are adding around 15% to all fuel
>> bills
>> and that's expected to rise significantly as penetration levels increase.
>>
>> These are tough times for many people though. The government has said it
>> will review FITs with a view to delivering 40 million of savings (around
>> 10%) in 2014/15. How they intend to do that is anyone's guess. Reducing
>> the
>> guaranteed price perhaps? The DECC says "The review will be completed by
>> the end of 2011, with tariffs remaining unchanged until April 2012" but
>> add
>> ... "(unless the review reveals a need for greater urgency)."
> So, how exactly does government 'reduce the price'?
>> Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to amount to
>> around 5 billion in 2020 through the renewables obligation alone and
>> around 360 million through the climate change levy exemption (both
>> figures
>> in 2010 prices, quoted by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to
>> the DECC in Lord's Hansard 19 Jan 2011 : Column WA33), I expect the
>> government's sense of 'urgency' could rise very soon.
> Subsidies don't reduce price, they just shift costs from one person to
> another through compulsion.
>>
>> http://xrl.us/bjmpa6 (Link to www.decc.gov.uk)
>>
>
Posted by Peter Franks on April 6, 2011, 7:21 pm
On 4/6/2011 12:15 PM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>> On 4/6/2011 1:36 AM, Falcon wrote:
>>>>
>>> [..]
>>>>>> Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
>>>>>> reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it still
>>>>>> be worth quite a lot in 15 years?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of the
>>>> price?
>>>
>>> Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price and
>>> doing
>>> so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher electricity
>>> prices.
>>
>> Cost isn't the issue, cost /effectiveness/ IS.
>>
>> As soon as they are cost effective, I'll install them.
>>
>> At current prices, they are NOT cost effective, so why would I install
>> them?
> Maybe to do something for the general good?
I do. And I choose things that are far more effective than me spending
$0K on PV.
Posted by Giga2 on April 7, 2011, 8:28 am
> On 4/6/2011 12:15 PM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>>> On 4/6/2011 1:36 AM, Falcon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> [..]
>>>>>>> Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
>>>>>>> reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> be worth quite a lot in 15 years?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of the
>>>>> price?
>>>>
>>>> Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price and
>>>> doing
>>>> so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher electricity
>>>> prices.
>>>
>>> Cost isn't the issue, cost /effectiveness/ IS.
>>>
>>> As soon as they are cost effective, I'll install them.
>>>
>>> At current prices, they are NOT cost effective, so why would I install
>>> them?
>>
>>
>> Maybe to do something for the general good?
> I do. And I choose things that are far more effective than me spending
> $0K on PV.
That is probably a matter of opinion.
Posted by Peter Franks on April 7, 2011, 12:59 pm
On 4/7/2011 1:28 AM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>> On 4/6/2011 12:15 PM, Giga2<Giga2 wrote:
>>>> On 4/6/2011 1:36 AM, Falcon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>> Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
>>>>>>>> reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it
>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>> be worth quite a lot in 15 years?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of the
>>>>>> price?
>>>>>
>>>>> Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price and
>>>>> doing
>>>>> so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher electricity
>>>>> prices.
>>>>
>>>> Cost isn't the issue, cost /effectiveness/ IS.
>>>>
>>>> As soon as they are cost effective, I'll install them.
>>>>
>>>> At current prices, they are NOT cost effective, so why would I install
>>>> them?
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe to do something for the general good?
>>
>> I do. And I choose things that are far more effective than me spending
>> $0K on PV.
> That is probably a matter of opinion.
Probably not.
How about this for a change: since you are so pro-environment for doing
things for the general good, why don't *you* pay for my PV system?
XML site map
>> On 4/6/2011 1:36 AM, Falcon wrote:
>> >>
>> > [..]
>> >>>> Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
>> >>>> reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it
>> >>>> still be worth quite a lot in 15 years?
>> >>>
>> >>> No.
>> >>
>> >> Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of the
>> >> price?
>> >
>> > Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price and
>> > doing so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher
>> > electricity prices.
>>
>> Cost isn't the issue, cost /effectiveness/ IS.
>>
>> As soon as they are cost effective, I'll install them.
>>
>> At current prices, they are NOT cost effective, so why would I install
>> them?
>>
>> > The cost of panels isn't the only factor to be considered when deciding
>> > to install them; like wind turbines, without generous Feed in tariffs
>> > working alongside the Renewables Obligation they would never pay their
>> > way. Currently these measures are adding around 15% to all fuel bills
>> > and that's expected to rise significantly as penetration levels
>> > increase.
>> >
>> > These are tough times for many people though. The government has said
>> > it will review FITs with a view to delivering 40 million of savings
>> > (around 10%) in 2014/15. How they intend to do that is anyone's guess.
>> > Reducing the guaranteed price perhaps? The DECC says "The review will
>> > be completed by the end of 2011, with tariffs remaining unchanged until
>> > April 2012" but add ... "(unless the review reveals a need for greater
>> > urgency)."
>>
>> So, how exactly does government 'reduce the price'?
> Feed in tariffs are set by the government.
>> > Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to amount
>> > to around 5 billion in 2020 through the renewables obligation alone
>> > and around 360 million through the climate change levy exemption (both
>> > figures in 2010 prices, quoted by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
>> > State to the DECC in Lord's Hansard 19 Jan 2011 : Column WA33), I
>> > expect the government's sense of 'urgency' could rise very soon.
>>
>> Subsidies don't reduce price, they just shift costs from one person to
>> another through compulsion.
> Correct.