|
|
Post by hairyloon on Apr 8, 2014 21:16:50 GMT
The previous government came up with the Feed In Tariff (FIT) scheme to encourage micro-generation of sustainable energy. It is quite good, and has been quite successful, but where it is let down is that the certification system is only suitable for large manufacturers.
Britain is traditionally a nation of practical and ingenious men with sheds. Many of these are quite capable of building a micro-generation system, and some of them might come up with something innovative. Every secondary school in the country with a half decent technology department (and that should be all of them) has the means to build a small wind turbine, but none of them would be able to claim FIT payments for the power they generate.
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) is a good example. Electricity generation is at best 25% efficient so wherever possible, that waste should be put to use as heat... Or coming at it the other way, if you are going to burn something to keep warm, then why not burn it in a generator and make a bit of electricity while you do it?
The FIT scheme recognises this, and you can in theory buy a CHP boiler to run your domestic central heating. However, in practice, there are only two companies that produce certified boilers, and neither of them have answered my sales enquiry.
Yet I could reasonably easily build a CHP system from what I have lying about. :?
The number of people that this problem affects may be relatively small, but isn't that all the more reason to create a loophole to give then access to the incentives?
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl John on Apr 10, 2014 8:01:21 GMT
The number of people that this problem affects may be relatively small, but isn't that all the more reason to create a loophole to give then access to the incentives? I think we should all contribute to being a solution, however we can and the Government should make it easy to do so. In our Manifesto, we suggest introducing a National Smart Grid, whereby anyone can produce their own electricity e.g. with solar panels on the roof; and sell excess to the state. Energy security will become more of an issue, as a Party, we would examine the entire subject of energy and this would include the certification system and access to incentives. |
|
|
|
Post by hairyloon on Apr 10, 2014 9:59:47 GMT
The number of people that this problem affects may be relatively small, but isn't that all the more reason to create a loophole to give then access to the incentives? I think we should all contribute to being a solution, however we can and the Government should make it easy to do so. In our Manifesto, we suggest introducing a National Smart Grid, whereby anyone can produce their own electricity e.g. with solar panels on the roof; and sell excess to the state. We can already do this, though the rate at which you sell is far less than the rate at which you buy. The FIT scheme is an additional incentive; it has worked exceptionally well in the case of solar panels, but they are not something that a chap can construct in his workshop. Regarding energy security, there was a discussion on the wireless a few months back about the suggestion that different rates could be charged for electricity depending upon the time of day. The discussion was cut short, but the idea made a lot of sense to me. I would also suggest considering a rationing system: decide on a reasonable rate for an individual's annual energy consumption and charge a premium rate for consumption in excess of that. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl John on Apr 10, 2014 10:20:15 GMT
I am doing my bit with 11 solar panels, wish the payback period was shorter (i.e. higher FIT).
As I said, Energy security will become more of an issue, as a Party, we would examine the entire subject of energy and this would include the certification system and access to incentives.
When we look at the issue, we will see how to help the man in the shed!
|
|
|
|
Post by hairyloon on Apr 10, 2014 12:18:31 GMT
I am doing my bit with 11 solar panels, wish the payback period was shorter (i.e. higher FIT). I think your wish is not reasonable: is the payback not guaranteed at over 9%APR? And that doesn't include the electricity that you use. If the payback time was shorter, then that money would have to come from somewhere else. The fact that solar panel have been taken up so widely is clear evidence that the rate is high enough, if not over-generous: how much prime farmland is now covered with great slabs of silicon? |
|
|
|
Post by Karl John on Apr 10, 2014 12:34:55 GMT
It was higher but reduced.
|
|
|
|
Post by hairyloon on Apr 10, 2014 20:04:02 GMT
It was higher but reduced. Indeed, but in response to the reduction, the price of PV panels plummeted. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl John on Apr 10, 2014 20:57:32 GMT
That is true
|
|
fossn
New Member
Posts: 10 
|
Post by fossn on Jul 24, 2014 16:35:49 GMT
We already have a system of pricing electric according to when you use it, it's called economy7. Splitting the day/week or whatever into too many segments might be over complicated.
Our energy usage, production and profiteering by big business and speculating by greedy elitist individuals all needs a complete overhaul.
Public opinion is moving towards renationalisation.
Selling it off to the private sector has led to the manipulation of wholesale costs, rampant profiteering, price fixing and no investment in new power stations as the greedy, elitist mega rich push up the price every time the wholesale cost rises, which they also control, and never reduce it when the price falls.
|
|
|
|
Post by hairyloon on Aug 4, 2014 1:19:00 GMT
We already have a system of pricing electric according to when you use it, it's called economy7. Splitting the day/week or whatever into too many segments might be over complicated. Would you rather a complicated system of energy pricing and regulation or a simple one that cannot always supply enough? Not forgetting the cost of marketing. The trouble with nationalising industries is that puts them in the hands of the government, who can barely be trusted to wipe its own bottom: it ought not be let loose with something as important as energy supply. What we need is a new way of doing it where the industry is run for the benefit of the nation, but independent of government. Really we should probably be starting to think about a global energy policy... |
|
fossn
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by fossn on Aug 4, 2014 19:11:31 GMT
Yes. I would agree with a new type of privatisation, like a not for profit co operative without political interference.
Energy for the people by the people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Parsley on Sept 28, 2014 14:45:23 GMT
Yes. I would agree with a new type of privatisation, like a not for profit co operative without political interference. Energy for the people by the people. I would prefer to call it a new form of 'nationalisation', with workers and consumers actually involved or democratically elected to the management of nationalised industries. In addition to this I would like to see the formation of community energy co-operatives for renewable energy generation. Sources of energy generation could be placed on local homes, businesses and industrial premises. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl John on Oct 12, 2014 6:12:43 GMT
I would prefer to call it a new form of 'nationalisation', with workers and consumers actually involved or democratically elected to the management of nationalised industries. In addition to this I would like to see the formation of community energy co-operatives for renewable energy generation. Sources of energy generation could be placed on local homes, businesses and industrial premises. Agree |
|
|
|
Post by Parsley on Oct 24, 2014 22:30:45 GMT
To quote the DR mission,
'To be an active force in the continual reform of the UK’s democratic processes, by offering all citizens the opportunity to participate equally in political decision-making, and by facilitating the use of innovative solutions and balanced representation'.
Could this also be included in re-nationalised industries, therefore offering a totally different form of nationalisation?
|
|
