If that is in any way near true then the BBC and Sky need to make headline, unconditional retractions and commit to reviewing their reporting policies. This isn’t one they should be able to just quietly sweep under the carpet.
You obviously missed how all their consistent mistakes during COVID got swept under the carpet & none of the morons lost their jobs.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
Apart from the non-trivial chance of an armed insurrection there just isn't enough time to get a conviction and sentencing before the 2024 campaign starts.
I think there's more chance of Biden dropping dead than Trump getting locked up. He looked like he was either fucked or buggered in Tall Abib and couldn't work out which it was.
I actually agree entirely with this, despite the lame attempt at a jibe at the end.
The simplest case has the most accomodating to Trump judge, so no guarantee yet that it won't be pushed back further than May, and the others being more complex a) it is at least possible he is not convicted, b) appeals mean he won't be behind bars by the time of the election.
Trump will never serve a day in prison.
I'm inclined to call that one the other way.
Today's guilty plea is from an attorney who ran dozens of lawsuits for Trump trying to overturn Elections. Her co-defendant in this trial - Ken Chessborough (spelling?) is a bigger fish lawyer who I think may himself flip - especially if the Prosecutor is offering "No jail time" deals.
Sidney Powell who flipped today has been throwing everything except the kitchen sink at it, and nothing worked. I think this was the kitchen sink, and her Plan Z.
If Chessborough flips, this trial does not happen, the calendar opens up and trials can be pulled forward or dates maintained.
The other Prosecutors are on win:win deals - they either get to see evidence rehearsed and put on the public record which they can use as a mine if the co-defendant opts for trial, or they get co-operating witnesses who they can get to testify. I think a plea deal will be for co-operation in any trials.
Trump's activities resulted in deaths of multiple police officers, and politicians' lives being risked.
If I had to call-it, I'd say that others will fall like dominoes - especially in charges around the Coffee County Election Date breach and theft, and Trump himself may end up asking for a deal. Perhaps a Guilty Plea in exchange for 5 years behind bars.
The Prosecutors want Trump and Giuliani and a few others.
It's also worth a note that the Department of Justice has indicated it may appeal the sentences for some of the top foot-soldiers (eg Leaders of Proud Boys - eg one who got 22 years when they asked for 33 years). They haven't even started on the animators such as Trump or his minions yet.
Finally, this is the Georgia Trial, and one of two (iirc) which are not amenable to Presidential Pardons to get them off after the fact.
It is surprising how many people appear to be counting on a Trump win in 2024 so they can get pardons, as they are far more vulnerable than he is in some cases. It is a big gamble to take with your future.
It is, as you note, perhaps not a coincidence that this flip is in a state where neither Trump nor even the Governor could pardon.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
Apart from the non-trivial chance of an armed insurrection there just isn't enough time to get a conviction and sentencing before the 2024 campaign starts.
I think there's more chance of Biden dropping dead than Trump getting locked up. He looked like he was either fucked or buggered in Tall Abib and couldn't work out which it was.
I actually agree entirely with this, despite the lame attempt at a jibe at the end.
The simplest case has the most accomodating to Trump judge, so no guarantee yet that it won't be pushed back further than May, and the others being more complex a) it is at least possible he is not convicted, b) appeals mean he won't be behind bars by the time of the election.
Trump will never serve a day in prison.
I'm inclined to call that one the other way.
Today's guilty plea is from an attorney who ran dozens of lawsuits for Trump trying to overturn Elections. Her co-defendant in this trial - Ken Chessborough (spelling?) is a bigger fish lawyer who I think may himself flip - especially if the Prosecutor is offering "No jail time" deals.
Sidney Powell who flipped today has been throwing everything except the kitchen sink at it, and nothing worked. I think this was the kitchen sink, and her Plan Z.
If Chessborough flips, this trial does not happen, the calendar opens up and trials can be pulled forward or dates maintained.
The other Prosecutors are on win:win deals - they either get to see evidence rehearsed and put on the public record which they can use as a mine if the co-defendant opts for trial, or they get co-operating witnesses who they can get to testify. I think a plea deal will be for co-operation in any trials.
Trump's activities resulted in deaths of multiple police officers, and politicians' lives being risked.
If I had to call-it, I'd say that others will fall like dominoes - especially in charges around the Coffee County Election Date breach and theft, and Trump himself may end up asking for a deal. Perhaps a Guilty Plea in exchange for 5 years behind bars.
The Prosecutors want Trump and Giuliani and a few others.
It's also worth a note that the Department of Justice has indicated it may appeal the sentences for some of the top foot-soldiers (eg Leaders of Proud Boys - eg one who got 22 years when they asked for 33 years). They haven't even started on the animators such as Trump or his minions yet.
Finally, this is the Georgia Trial, and one of two (iirc) which are not amenable to Presidential Pardons to get them off after the fact.
It is surprising how many people appear to be counting on a Trump win in 2024 so they can get pardons, as they are far more vulnerable than he is in some cases. It is a big gamble to take with your future.
It is, as you note, perhaps not a coincidence that this flip is in a state where neither Trump nor even the Governor could pardon.
Also, on the campaign timing point, at least two Judges - I think for the Washington and Georgia cases, which would iirc be Judges Chutken and McAffee - have stated that the process of Justice cannot be derailed because a defendant in a criminal trial happens to be a political candidate. They seem attached to equality before the law.
The Florida Judge is a Trump appointee, who seems to be incompetent and perhaps even a patsy.
I have to say that following this in a little detail has not reassured me as to the quality of the USA legal system, and especially their racketeering laws - where you can be held responsible for things that you did not even know somebody else was doing.
I've seen a few commentators saying that their elected Judges system in some States is not good.
So not super quick either way, but with lower turnout possibly sooner than that if counting overnight, since election officials don't under staff parliamentary by-election counts.
Tamworth did count their locals overnight back in May, which is a good sign, but it is frustratingly hard to tell quickly what plans are.
You can see declaration times from the last 3 elections on my election night spreadsheet.
OK, I’ve been confirmed in my view that London is not only a dump but also the most boring city in the world especially in its endlessly tedious rush hour traffic.
If you want excitement, treat yourself to a trip on the Elizabeth Line.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
Apart from the non-trivial chance of an armed insurrection there just isn't enough time to get a conviction and sentencing before the 2024 campaign starts.
I think there's more chance of Biden dropping dead than Trump getting locked up. He looked like he was either fucked or buggered in Tall Abib and couldn't work out which it was.
I actually agree entirely with this, despite the lame attempt at a jibe at the end.
The simplest case has the most accomodating to Trump judge, so no guarantee yet that it won't be pushed back further than May, and the others being more complex a) it is at least possible he is not convicted, b) appeals mean he won't be behind bars by the time of the election.
Trump will never serve a day in prison.
I'm inclined to call that one the other way.
Today's guilty plea is from an attorney who ran dozens of lawsuits for Trump trying to overturn Elections. Her co-defendant in this trial - Ken Chessborough (spelling?) is a bigger fish lawyer who I think may himself flip - especially if the Prosecutor is offering "No jail time" deals.
Sidney Powell who flipped today has been throwing everything except the kitchen sink at it, and nothing worked. I think this was the kitchen sink, and her Plan Z.
If Chessborough flips, this trial does not happen, the calendar opens up and trials can be pulled forward or dates maintained.
The other Prosecutors are on win:win deals - they either get to see evidence rehearsed and put on the public record which they can use as a mine if the co-defendant opts for trial, or they get co-operating witnesses who they can get to testify. I think a plea deal will be for co-operation in any trials.
Trump's activities resulted in deaths of multiple police officers, and politicians' lives being risked.
If I had to call-it, I'd say that others will fall like dominoes - especially in charges around the Coffee County Election Date breach and theft, and Trump himself may end up asking for a deal. Perhaps a Guilty Plea in exchange for 5 years behind bars.
The Prosecutors want Trump and Giuliani and a few others.
It's also worth a note that the Department of Justice has indicated it may appeal the sentences for some of the top foot-soldiers (eg Leaders of Proud Boys - eg one who got 22 years when they asked for 33 years). They haven't even started on the animators such as Trump or his minions yet.
Finally, this is the Georgia Trial, and one of two (iirc) which are not amenable to Presidential Pardons to get them off after the fact.
It is surprising how many people appear to be counting on a Trump win in 2024 so they can get pardons, as they are far more vulnerable than he is in some cases. It is a big gamble to take with your future.
It is, as you note, perhaps not a coincidence that this flip is in a state where neither Trump nor even the Governor could pardon.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
Apart from the non-trivial chance of an armed insurrection there just isn't enough time to get a conviction and sentencing before the 2024 campaign starts.
I think there's more chance of Biden dropping dead than Trump getting locked up. He looked like he was either fucked or buggered in Tall Abib and couldn't work out which it was.
I actually agree entirely with this, despite the lame attempt at a jibe at the end.
The simplest case has the most accomodating to Trump judge, so no guarantee yet that it won't be pushed back further than May, and the others being more complex a) it is at least possible he is not convicted, b) appeals mean he won't be behind bars by the time of the election.
Trump will never serve a day in prison.
I'm inclined to call that one the other way.
Today's guilty plea is from an attorney who ran dozens of lawsuits for Trump trying to overturn Elections. Her co-defendant in this trial - Ken Chessborough (spelling?) is a bigger fish lawyer who I think may himself flip - especially if the Prosecutor is offering "No jail time" deals.
Sidney Powell who flipped today has been throwing everything except the kitchen sink at it, and nothing worked. I think this was the kitchen sink, and her Plan Z.
If Chessborough flips, this trial does not happen, the calendar opens up and trials can be pulled forward or dates maintained.
The other Prosecutors are on win:win deals - they either get to see evidence rehearsed and put on the public record which they can use as a mine if the co-defendant opts for trial, or they get co-operating witnesses who they can get to testify. I think a plea deal will be for co-operation in any trials.
Trump's activities resulted in deaths of multiple police officers, and politicians' lives being risked.
If I had to call-it, I'd say that others will fall like dominoes - especially in charges around the Coffee County Election Date breach and theft, and Trump himself may end up asking for a deal. Perhaps a Guilty Plea in exchange for 5 years behind bars.
The Prosecutors want Trump and Giuliani and a few others.
It's also worth a note that the Department of Justice has indicated it may appeal the sentences for some of the top foot-soldiers (eg Leaders of Proud Boys - eg one who got 22 years when they asked for 33 years). They haven't even started on the animators such as Trump or his minions yet.
Finally, this is the Georgia Trial, and one of two (iirc) which are not amenable to Presidential Pardons to get them off after the fact.
It is surprising how many people appear to be counting on a Trump win in 2024 so they can get pardons, as they are far more vulnerable than he is in some cases. It is a big gamble to take with your future.
It is, as you note, perhaps not a coincidence that this flip is in a state where neither Trump nor even the Governor could pardon.
Also, on the campaign timing point, at least two Judges - I think for the Washington and Georgia cases, which would iirc be Judges Chutken and McAffee - have stated that the process of Justice cannot be derailed because a defendant in a criminal trial happens to be a political candidate. They seem attached to equality before the law.
The Florida Judge is a Trump appointee, who seems to be incompetent and perhaps even a patsy.
I have to say that following this in a little detail has not reassured me as to the quality of the USA legal system, and especially their racketeering laws - where you can be held responsible for things that you did not even know somebody else was doing.
I've seen a few commentators saying that their elected Judges system in some States is not good.
Plenty of Trump appointed judges have ruled against him in cases of course, but the Florida one does have form for being very accomodating to him, to the point of an unusually pointed slapdown by the Court of Appeals in that area.
The comments from the Washington judge have been interesting, since the defence lawyers really do appear to be saying, without citing any legal precedent or law, that if you are running for office you should not be subject to the rules governing any other person on pre-trial release. So not equality before the law, but openly that elected officials and those seeking to be elected are exempt from the law (presumably until after the election, but if you lose you might be running against immediately - especially if for the US House)
Georgia's racketeering laws are apparently very broad, which contrasts with the rules nationally about bribery and corroption, where if some commentators are right you essentially need a written confession that money x is for corrupt act y in order to prove it in the eyes of the Surpeme Court.
OK, I’ve been confirmed in my view that London is not only a dump but also the most boring city in the world especially in its endlessly tedious rush hour traffic.
If you want excitement, treat yourself to a trip on the Elizabeth Line.
If you haven't had enough of Trump, this site appears to be doing a reasonably good job of trying to collate the publicly available documents and filings in relation to the various cases
Hello @AvantiWestCoast … given the train is not moving, and hasn’t moved from Euston, any chance you can switch off the automatic voice coming on every couple of minutes to list all the stations we are not yet going to … #noisepollution One phoney welcome is enough."
So not super quick either way, but with lower turnout possibly sooner than that if counting overnight, since election officials don't under staff parliamentary by-election counts.
Tamworth did count their locals overnight back in May, which is a good sign, but it is frustratingly hard to tell quickly what plans are.
You can see declaration times from the last 3 elections on my election night spreadsheet.
OK, I’ve been confirmed in my view that London is not only a dump but also the most boring city in the world especially in its endlessly tedious rush hour traffic.
If you want excitement, treat yourself to a trip on the Elizabeth Line.
Delays in style!
An open door to fun.
Did you mean "An open door to funds?"
Er, no. That's a different subthread. I had in mind the DM (falling over its own tongue) here:
Fake news, we will find out tomorrow that it was actually Spanish wine makers unloading the lorry early by mistake. Then Vitisphere will have to row back n the story in a way which suggests they weren’t wrong but they were wrong.
Overall, slightly more sympathise with Israel than Palestine but with big differences by party. Scotland stands out as being much more pro-Palestine than anywhere else in the UK, as are 18-24 year olds.
Israel v Palestine is a football matter in Scotland. Rangers supporters are pro Israel. Therefore Celtic supporters are pro Palestine.
I think it’s pretty much two way traffic. Extreme Unionism’s increased support for Israel more precisely mirrors the far right’s move from antisemitism to Islamophobia (eg Nick Griffin). Even AfD in Germany now tries to cosy up to Israel though so far their advances have been rebuffed.
I hope the stewards at Ibrox make sure the lads flying the Star of David aren’t sat beside the ones flying SS Totenkopf symbols, the ideological ruck might get a bit tasty.
They have half a point. Some spanish producers exporting to France print french language only labels and pictures of french looking chateaux and put "Made in the EU" on the back in tiny letters and don't mention Spain at all.
Overall, slightly more sympathise with Israel than Palestine but with big differences by party. Scotland stands out as being much more pro-Palestine than anywhere else in the UK, as are 18-24 year olds.
Israel v Palestine is a football matter in Scotland. Rangers supporters are pro Israel. Therefore Celtic supporters are pro Palestine.
I think it’s pretty much two way traffic. Extreme Unionism’s increased support for Israel more precisely mirrors the far right’s move from antisemitism to Islamophobia (eg Nick Griffin). Even AfD in Germany now tries to cosy up to Israel though so far their advances have been rebuffed.
I hope the stewards at Ibrox make sure the lads flying the Star of David aren’t sat beside the ones flying SS Totenkopf symbols, the ideological ruck might get a bit tasty.
On Fairliered's metric, an absolute majority support Partick Thistle or prefer rugger or model railways.
I see Sunak has unambiguously stood next to Netanyahu and said "we want you to win".
Good for him.
I've been a major critic of Sunak since he put up NI onwards, but credit where credit is due. He is showing some good principles and standing for that which is righteous here. 👍
What does "win" mean?
The only ways that Israel can "win" are to:
1) expel the Palestinian people from Gaza 2) run Gaza as a police state, with full occupation by a large number of soldiers, or 3) negotiate some sort of peace agreement that gives the Palestinians a better life than they have had to endure over the past couple of decades.
You can't eliminate Hamas and expect that to be job done. When people are kept under oppression, the most violent and radical elements will tend to rise to the top. Hamas is a symptom of the conditions under which the Gazans have had to live; if Hamas is eliminated and nothing else changes, Gaza will just end up being run by another similarly ruthless bunch bent on revenge.
I suspect we are looking at 2. I don’t think the Biden Administration will support 1 at all.
Although I have my doubts that 2 will work, maybe 2 can eventually lead to 3 in the fullness of time rather than further enmity and destruction. The only way that will come about is if Israel is prepared to support the development of Gaza. Do I think that’s likely? Sadly, no.
I wonder about 2 with huge amounts of aid going into Gaza. In my view, as you say, the only way to defeat Hamas is through Gazan prosperity.
If I was Biden I’d be using my political weight to persuade Israel of the benefits of such an aid package, and create a coalition of the wiling to fund it.
I think step one is for Netanyahu to go. He has fostered Hamas in order to have an implacable opponent who will not reach a peace agreement so Israel could continue creating "facts on the ground". Netanyahu was already on shaky ground. I think some of his coalition will abandon him resulting in new Israeli leadership.
Step two is to review the intelligence failure and make sure it never happens again. Contain Hamas as total eliminanation is probably not possible
I think step three is to abandon the two state solution. It's clearly not going to work.
The concern Israel has with step 4 is the potential that it becomes a Jewish minority state in the long term, I think.
It feels to me like the only option other than the 2 state solution is some form of Bosnia and Herzegovina-type arrangement where you have a single polity made up of separate states (Israel and Palestine, or Israel/WB/Gaza) each of which is responsible for its own affairs largely (inc movement in/out) but that has a joint leadership council at the top drawn from each, and perhaps even a UN appointed Chair. Great care would have to be taken as to what matters are reserved to the council and what are the responsibilities of the states. One would probably be defence, because I can’t see how both states can continue to separately arm themselves.
But clearly that’s just my musings and I can’t profess to be an expert on the conflict.
Why would eg the Iranian Government permit peace to exist in a reformed Israel?
I'd say that if there were any settlement, then Iran would treat Israel as it has treated Lebanon and/or Syria. The lives of the people there, whether Jew or Palestinian, are worth nothing to them, and a war outside Iran is convenient.
Plus remember that several decades ago the Palestinian leadership launched a war attempting to depose the Government of Jordan, when the 'refugees' were in camps in Jordan. That was 1970 - the other Black September. 4000 killed in a short war until the Jordanian Armed Forces put them back in their box. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September
The latter is the type of circumstance I suggest Egypt is nervous about.
The other point about some kind of overseeing council which held responsibility for matters including defence is that there's no way the Israelis would agree to it. Part of the reason for the founding of Israel, and central to its identity is the idea that you simply can't trust others with your own security given how widespread antisemitism is, and therefore any government or body that acted as such couldn't be trusted to place the safety of Jews ahead of other priorities. A lesson learned in the hardest way imaginable. One look at the composition of certain UN bodies and the fact that they censure Israel multiple times more than any other state. As pointed out, with Iran in the region and having stated its desire to wipe out Israel again and again, as well as other neighbouring states who are often hostile, even when engaging, there's absolutely no way Israelis would allow defence to be the preserve of a body that could in effect disarm them, before any state or terror group could take advantage.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
Historically, you certainly would. Germany had the Feed in Tariff, where they would pay people for the electricity generated. But they've cut and cut and cut it, so that now it is way below the retail cost of electricity.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
I'd love to have solar panels, but I'm curious about your Maths. Unless you have an EV, I don't understand how your Maths works.
I haven't had a quotation for my home, but have been looking online as I'm interested and it seems a typical Solar installation today costs about £5-6k including parts and labour. More if you want a battery to go with it.
So based on your theory that £1k = £190 in savings then should expect ~£1k - £1.2k in cost savings.
But my total annual electricity bill is only £1k. So I'd have to have to come in on the low-end of the quote range, and have all my bill wiped out in order to meet the ratio you named.
And since the cost of electricity is due to come back down off its peak, even then a 100% cost reduction wouldn't meet your quoted numbers.
So where are your numbers coming from? Unless you can get an installation done for £1k - in which case great, how?
Hello @AvantiWestCoast … given the train is not moving, and hasn’t moved from Euston, any chance you can switch off the automatic voice coming on every couple of minutes to list all the stations we are not yet going to … #noisepollution One phoney welcome is enough."
You would think Alistair Campbell would know all about telling people that something was happening when it really wasn’t. Just hoping AvantiWestCoast troll him by using AI to use the voice of Colin Powell to announce things that aren’t happening.
So not super quick either way, but with lower turnout possibly sooner than that if counting overnight, since election officials don't under staff parliamentary by-election counts.
Tamworth did count their locals overnight back in May, which is a good sign, but it is frustratingly hard to tell quickly what plans are.
First time I was an agent, back in Feb 74, the Returning Officer told us that if we needed a recount he’d lock everything down and we’d come back in the morning! I, as Liberal Party agent, asked what would happen if we needed a recount to save our deposit. He was non-plussed; never thought of it. I didn’t think we would, the way things were going, but we had in 1970!
Liberal Agent Man (apologies to P. F. Sloan, Steve Barri, Johnny Rivers and OKC!)
There's a chap who leads a life of a stranger As for winning, there really is no danger For at every election he's in Liberals never seem to win Odds are he won't get back his deposit
Liberal Agent Man Liberal Agent Man They've taken away your numbers And your deposits just the same
Leafleting in Chelsea one day Canvassing the Gorbals next day Pray your focus never waivers Scrutinizing spoiled ballot papers Odds are he won't ever see his deposit
Christie is at least running to loudly criticise Trump despite having no hope - other than hoping Trump has a heart attack what are the others bothering for?
At local elections Tamworth is usually one of the first to declare, along with Sunderland. But it's slower at Westminster elections, probably due to the rural areas that are included in the constituency but aren't part of Tamworth council.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
...Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year....
...along with the associated power inverters and controls, which are also seeing considerable innovation.
I think it's easy to miss just how much solar prices have collapsed:
And so while something might have been true when panel prices were $2 or even $1 per watt, it can now be not true with prices down at $0.27/watt or thereabouts
I'm not convinced by your first set of numbers, as a solar panel install (unless you DIY it) in England will start at about £5k (Octopus price) and involve 1-2 kWp of panels. Usually it is 2 days and a team of 2 men.
The return on a 2kWp install on Rick Stein's restaurant in Cornwall, South facing, no shading, is currently estimated at £380.
What is notable is that for a smallish (ie no special permissions needed) system the price is basically unchanged from 2015, and that half of the price for such an install will be labour and kit for the installers. Building scaffolding to roof level is not cheap.
But I think you are right about the attractiveness of their use on domestic and commercial premises, and it is just yet another abject failure by this Government that we do not have a basic regulatory requirement in place which should have started in perhaps 2017/18 or earlier.
Christie is at least running to loudly criticise Trump despite having no hope - other than hoping Trump has a heart attack what are the others bothering for?
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
Historically, you certainly would. Germany had the Feed in Tariff, where they would pay people for the electricity generated. But they've cut and cut and cut it, so that now it is way below the retail cost of electricity.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
I'd love to have solar panels, but I'm curious about your Maths. Unless you have an EV, I don't understand how your Maths works.
I haven't had a quotation for my home, but have been looking online as I'm interested and it seems a typical Solar installation today costs about £5-6k including parts and labour. More if you want a battery to go with it.
So based on your theory that £1k = £190 in savings then should expect ~£1k - £1.2k in cost savings.
But my total annual electricity bill is only £1k. So I'd have to have to come in on the low-end of the quote range, and have all my bill wiped out in order to meet the ratio you named.
And since the cost of electricity is due to come back down off its peak, even then a 100% cost reduction wouldn't meet your quoted numbers.
So where are your numbers coming from? Unless you can get an installation done for £1k - in which case great, how?
They quote £7,000 for installation on average (inc labour), and £365* typical saving if out until 4pm.
So that's £52 per £1000 invested, which is rather different to your £190.
If you have a way of getting a solar system for £1k I'd love to see it.
* And that's in London, lower elsewhere, presumably as elsewhere is further North.
I know London is out on the fringes of the UK, more so than Wick or Belfast, but there is life within North Island south of London: Lizard Point is as far as one can get.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
Historically, you certainly would. Germany had the Feed in Tariff, where they would pay people for the electricity generated. But they've cut and cut and cut it, so that now it is way below the retail cost of electricity.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
I'd love to have solar panels, but I'm curious about your Maths. Unless you have an EV, I don't understand how your Maths works.
I haven't had a quotation for my home, but have been looking online as I'm interested and it seems a typical Solar installation today costs about £5-6k including parts and labour. More if you want a battery to go with it.
So based on your theory that £1k = £190 in savings then should expect ~£1k - £1.2k in cost savings.
But my total annual electricity bill is only £1k. So I'd have to have to come in on the low-end of the quote range, and have all my bill wiped out in order to meet the ratio you named.
And since the cost of electricity is due to come back down off its peak, even then a 100% cost reduction wouldn't meet your quoted numbers.
So where are your numbers coming from? Unless you can get an installation done for £1k - in which case great, how?
They quote £7,000 for installation on average (inc labour), and £365* typical saving if out until 4pm.
So that's £52 per £1000 invested, which is rather different to your £190.
If you have a way of getting a solar system for £1k I'd love to see it.
* And that's in London, lower elsewhere, presumably as elsewhere is further North.
I know London is out on the fringes of the UK, more so than Wick or Belfast, but there is life within North Island south of London: Lizard Point is as far as one can get.
LOL I edited the numbers to simplify it as I was looking at with SEG in London which inflated the figure.
The £190 saving @rcs1000 quoted is listed as in Manchester, without SEG . . . but install of a system will set you back £5-7k+ not £1k.
£190 saving off the cheapest possible £5k install is a 3.8% saving which isn't really affordable if you're borrowing with today's interest rates.
Just had this message (reproduced and modified) from Tamworth:
Labour should win but Labour has made a real mess of the campaign, lying about where their candidate lives and lying by saying they will stop green space house building which is national labour policy. Given what’s happened it’s shocking if conservatives hold but they have the far more credible candidate now.
Local candidates going against national policy on house building, especially at a by-election, seems like a real dog bites man story.
Always respect the power of the NIMBY vote.
Or runway or railway building. Anything building really.
Not that the progressives of Hampstead are any different. We saved the Coffee Cup. We saved the Crepe Van.
Here's a puzzle for all of you, but especially rcs1000: In two years after George W. Bush was re-elected (2006 and 2007), the US total fertility rate rose above the 2.1 replacement rate, barely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
Are there any other advanced nations where that has happened since 2000? (Or start even earlier, even earlier, if you like.)
Why did that happen, then? (Bush did pursue a number of family-friendly policies, including education reforms.)
(Speculation: Morale may be part of the answer. I have long thought that the population spurt in Imperial Germany after the Franco-Prussian War can be partly explained by high morale. Low morale would also help the almost static French population druing the same period.)
Immigration likely more of a factor.
Not that yours truly was personally doing much child-creating during Cheney-Bush administration; however, there re-election did NOT result in raising MY morale. Quite the opposite!
And from what I can recall, I was NOT alone in this. Indeed, by period you cite, W wasn't exactly wildly popular among Republicans and Independents, let alone Democrats.
Here's a puzzle for all of you, but especially rcs1000: In two years after George W. Bush was re-elected (2006 and 2007), the US total fertility rate rose above the 2.1 replacement rate, barely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
Are there any other advanced nations where that has happened since 2000? (Or start even earlier, even earlier, if you like.)
Why did that happen, then? (Bush did pursue a number of family-friendly policies, including education reforms.)
(Speculation: Morale may be part of the answer. I have long thought that the population spurt in Imperial Germany after the Franco-Prussian War can be partly explained by high morale. Low morale would also help the almost static French population druing the same period.)
Immigration likely more of a factor.
Not that yours truly was personally doing much child-creating during Cheney-Bush administration; however, there re-election did NOT result in raising MY morale. Quite the opposite!
And from what I can recall, I was NOT alone in this. Indeed, by period you cite, W wasn't exactly wildly popular among Republicans and Independents, let alone Democrats.
Perhaps it was just the great increase of the word Bush in the news.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
...Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year....
...along with the associated power inverters and controls, which are also seeing considerable innovation.
I think it's easy to miss just how much solar prices have collapsed:
And so while something might have been true when panel prices were $2 or even $1 per watt, it can now be not true with prices down at $0.27/watt or thereabouts
I'm not convinced by your first set of numbers, as a solar panel install (unless you DIY it) in England will start at about £5k (Octopus price) and involve 1-2 kWp of panels. Usually it is 2 days and a team of 2 men.
The return on a 2kWp install on Rick Stein's restaurant in Cornwall, South facing, no shading, is currently estimated at £380.
What is notable is that for a smallish (ie no special permissions needed) system the price is basically unchanged from 2015, and that half of the price for such an install will be labour and kit for the installers. Building scaffolding to roof level is not cheap.
But I think you are right about the attractiveness of their use on domestic and commercial premises, and it is just yet another abject failure by this Government that we do not have a basic regulatory requirement in place which should have started in perhaps 2017/18 or earlier.
Bonus bit:
Back in 2015 when I was considering installs on a couple of rental properties, my best quotes for 4kWp installs were coming in at £4999.
In the end the only one I did was a 10kWp install on my own house, which came in at just under £12k in 2015. However, it is somewhat comprised by E/W facing and neighbouring trees.
But I think you are right about the attractiveness of their use on domestic and commercial premises, and it is just yet another abject failure by this Government that we do not have a basic regulatory requirement in place which should have started in perhaps 2017/18 or earlier.
The economics have improved recently with much improved export tariffs. I just switched to an export tariff which gives me £0.15 per kWh fixed price. This year I may just squeak in a 9% return on the original price, which is fine given the FIT has a 20 year guaranteed index link on the generation element.
National polling at present, is far less significant than STATE polling in early caucus/primary battlegrounds. Such as Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.
Haven't checked most recent, but reckon by that standard, Haley has leap-frogged DeSantis. With Ramaswamy stepping on his heels.
Christie is running (and has been all the time) to boost his public profile and (am guessing) his future lecture circuit fees.
Pence is running (ditto) for some kind of personal vindication, or something like that.
Scott is running for Vice President (neither Christie nor Pence have slightest chance at this).
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
Historically, you certainly would. Germany had the Feed in Tariff, where they would pay people for the electricity generated. But they've cut and cut and cut it, so that now it is way below the retail cost of electricity.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
I'd love to have solar panels, but I'm curious about your Maths. Unless you have an EV, I don't understand how your Maths works.
I haven't had a quotation for my home, but have been looking online as I'm interested and it seems a typical Solar installation today costs about £5-6k including parts and labour. More if you want a battery to go with it.
So based on your theory that £1k = £190 in savings then should expect ~£1k - £1.2k in cost savings.
But my total annual electricity bill is only £1k. So I'd have to have to come in on the low-end of the quote range, and have all my bill wiped out in order to meet the ratio you named.
And since the cost of electricity is due to come back down off its peak, even then a 100% cost reduction wouldn't meet your quoted numbers.
So where are your numbers coming from? Unless you can get an installation done for £1k - in which case great, how?
They quote £7,000 for installation on average (inc labour), and £365* typical saving if out until 4pm.
So that's £52 per £1000 invested, which is rather different to your £190.
If you have a way of getting a solar system for £1k I'd love to see it.
* And that's in London, lower elsewhere, presumably as elsewhere is further North.
I know London is out on the fringes of the UK, more so than Wick or Belfast, but there is life within North Island south of London: Lizard Point is as far as one can get.
LOL I edited the numbers to simplify it as I was looking at with SEG in London which inflated the figure.
The £190 saving @rcs1000 quoted is listed as in Manchester, without SEG . . . but install of a system will set you back £5-7k+ not £1k.
£190 saving off the cheapest possible £5k install is a 3.8% saving which isn't really affordable if you're borrowing with today's interest rates.
I'd quite like to have a go here - we have good sunshine totals and there are plenty of solar arrays around - but our best roof is only south-west facing.
For both cost and amusement I'd prefer to self-build but I don't know how much of the circuit has to be 'certified'.
It is a shame Octopus don't do a basic 'install an inverter to connect your panels to' installation.
I don't need scaffolding for most of the roof being in a bungalow with a fairly low pitch - I can just walk up the tiles.
On Topic. Both Tory Mid Beds and Tamworth holds. Not because I want it but because it will be a real laugh watching everyone try and work out what the hell it means.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
Historically, you certainly would. Germany had the Feed in Tariff, where they would pay people for the electricity generated. But they've cut and cut and cut it, so that now it is way below the retail cost of electricity.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
I'd love to have solar panels, but I'm curious about your Maths. Unless you have an EV, I don't understand how your Maths works.
I haven't had a quotation for my home, but have been looking online as I'm interested and it seems a typical Solar installation today costs about £5-6k including parts and labour. More if you want a battery to go with it.
So based on your theory that £1k = £190 in savings then should expect ~£1k - £1.2k in cost savings.
But my total annual electricity bill is only £1k. So I'd have to have to come in on the low-end of the quote range, and have all my bill wiped out in order to meet the ratio you named.
And since the cost of electricity is due to come back down off its peak, even then a 100% cost reduction wouldn't meet your quoted numbers.
So where are your numbers coming from? Unless you can get an installation done for £1k - in which case great, how?
They quote £7,000 for installation on average (inc labour), and £365* typical saving if out until 4pm.
So that's £52 per £1000 invested, which is rather different to your £190.
If you have a way of getting a solar system for £1k I'd love to see it.
* And that's in London, lower elsewhere, presumably as elsewhere is further North.
I know London is out on the fringes of the UK, more so than Wick or Belfast, but there is life within North Island south of London: Lizard Point is as far as one can get.
LOL I edited the numbers to simplify it as I was looking at with SEG in London which inflated the figure.
The £190 saving @rcs1000 quoted is listed as in Manchester, without SEG . . . but install of a system will set you back £5-7k+ not £1k.
£190 saving off the cheapest possible £5k install is a 3.8% saving which isn't really affordable if you're borrowing with today's interest rates.
TBF it's a sliding scale. A ~£6-7k 4kWp install - return potentially £600-800 (estimate but in the ballpark) will be a return towards approx 10%.
Overall, slightly more sympathise with Israel than Palestine but with big differences by party. Scotland stands out as being much more pro-Palestine than anywhere else in the UK, as are 18-24 year olds.
London is also more pro Palestine on that poll, as are Labour voters and more narrowly LD voters
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
Historically, you certainly would. Germany had the Feed in Tariff, where they would pay people for the electricity generated. But they've cut and cut and cut it, so that now it is way below the retail cost of electricity.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
I'd love to have solar panels, but I'm curious about your Maths. Unless you have an EV, I don't understand how your Maths works.
I haven't had a quotation for my home, but have been looking online as I'm interested and it seems a typical Solar installation today costs about £5-6k including parts and labour. More if you want a battery to go with it.
So based on your theory that £1k = £190 in savings then should expect ~£1k - £1.2k in cost savings.
But my total annual electricity bill is only £1k. So I'd have to have to come in on the low-end of the quote range, and have all my bill wiped out in order to meet the ratio you named.
And since the cost of electricity is due to come back down off its peak, even then a 100% cost reduction wouldn't meet your quoted numbers.
So where are your numbers coming from? Unless you can get an installation done for £1k - in which case great, how?
They quote £7,000 for installation on average (inc labour), and £365* typical saving if out until 4pm.
So that's £52 per £1000 invested, which is rather different to your £190.
If you have a way of getting a solar system for £1k I'd love to see it.
* And that's in London, lower elsewhere, presumably as elsewhere is further North.
I know London is out on the fringes of the UK, more so than Wick or Belfast, but there is life within North Island south of London: Lizard Point is as far as one can get.
LOL I edited the numbers to simplify it as I was looking at with SEG in London which inflated the figure.
The £190 saving @rcs1000 quoted is listed as in Manchester, without SEG . . . but install of a system will set you back £5-7k+ not £1k.
£190 saving off the cheapest possible £5k install is a 3.8% saving which isn't really affordable if you're borrowing with today's interest rates.
TBF it's a sliding scale. A ~£6-7k 4kWp install - return potentially £600-800 (estimate but in the ballpark) will be a return towards approx 10%.
Unless you have a battery and/or an electric car, or are working and running a business from home, I don't see how those numbers work.
Especially since the Energy Savings Trust figures are based on a £7k system and say £190 return without SEG if out until 4pm.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
Historically, you certainly would. Germany had the Feed in Tariff, where they would pay people for the electricity generated. But they've cut and cut and cut it, so that now it is way below the retail cost of electricity.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
I'd love to have solar panels, but I'm curious about your Maths. Unless you have an EV, I don't understand how your Maths works.
I haven't had a quotation for my home, but have been looking online as I'm interested and it seems a typical Solar installation today costs about £5-6k including parts and labour. More if you want a battery to go with it.
So based on your theory that £1k = £190 in savings then should expect ~£1k - £1.2k in cost savings.
But my total annual electricity bill is only £1k. So I'd have to have to come in on the low-end of the quote range, and have all my bill wiped out in order to meet the ratio you named.
And since the cost of electricity is due to come back down off its peak, even then a 100% cost reduction wouldn't meet your quoted numbers.
So where are your numbers coming from? Unless you can get an installation done for £1k - in which case great, how?
They quote £7,000 for installation on average (inc labour), and £365* typical saving if out until 4pm.
So that's £52 per £1000 invested, which is rather different to your £190.
If you have a way of getting a solar system for £1k I'd love to see it.
* And that's in London, lower elsewhere, presumably as elsewhere is further North.
I know London is out on the fringes of the UK, more so than Wick or Belfast, but there is life within North Island south of London: Lizard Point is as far as one can get.
To get a solar system for £1000 you buy the panels secondhand or ex-bankruptcy via ebay, and install it yourself on eg a shed or woodstore. It depends if it is grid-connected or not.
When I get around to it I will be getting a car port which just consists of a frame, and solar panels as the roof.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
Historically, you certainly would. Germany had the Feed in Tariff, where they would pay people for the electricity generated. But they've cut and cut and cut it, so that now it is way below the retail cost of electricity.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
I'd love to have solar panels, but I'm curious about your Maths. Unless you have an EV, I don't understand how your Maths works.
I haven't had a quotation for my home, but have been looking online as I'm interested and it seems a typical Solar installation today costs about £5-6k including parts and labour. More if you want a battery to go with it.
So based on your theory that £1k = £190 in savings then should expect ~£1k - £1.2k in cost savings.
But my total annual electricity bill is only £1k. So I'd have to have to come in on the low-end of the quote range, and have all my bill wiped out in order to meet the ratio you named.
And since the cost of electricity is due to come back down off its peak, even then a 100% cost reduction wouldn't meet your quoted numbers.
So where are your numbers coming from? Unless you can get an installation done for £1k - in which case great, how?
They quote £7,000 for installation on average (inc labour), and £365* typical saving if out until 4pm.
So that's £52 per £1000 invested, which is rather different to your £190.
If you have a way of getting a solar system for £1k I'd love to see it.
* And that's in London, lower elsewhere, presumably as elsewhere is further North.
I know London is out on the fringes of the UK, more so than Wick or Belfast, but there is life within North Island south of London: Lizard Point is as far as one can get.
To get a solar system for £1000 you buy the panels secondhand or ex-bankruptcy via ebay, and install it yourself on eg a shed or woodstore. It depends if it is grid-connected or not.
When I get around to it I will be getting a car port which just consists of a frame, and solar panels as the roof.
Shit. I paid a hell of a lot more than that and all I got was Saturn and about 3 moons of Jupiter. And not even the big ones!
On Topic. Both Tory Mid Beds and Tamworth holds. Not because I want it but because it will be a real laugh watching everyone try and work out what the hell it means.
Lol! Enjoyed that, Richard, but seriously.....I think Labour win Tamworth, but not by much.
Mid-Beds is simply too close to call. It could be any of the main three.
It is if it didn’t have to go through the same checks as anyone else applying. If she used her position to get the funding when it wasn’t justified then it’s terrible and Sunak has to go but if not then ok.
Otherwise we have to accept that any future spouse of a senior politician cannot have their own business interests at all in order to make things squeaky clean just in case they benefit in any remote way from government policy. I’m guessing it might put more people off from politics and the cycle of reduction to career politicians will continue in a worse direction.
But it’s all good in terms of politics to attack Sunak through his wife in the 2020s.
It just seems a bit of a coincidence doesn't it? I don't know how many firms received government money and how many firms are linked to Sunak's wife but four seperate firms linked to his family receiving government cash sounds like quite a lot.
Do you think Mr S and Mrs M are sitting there at home cackling away at night where they are coming up with schemes to gouge a few mil from the tax payer for her related business ventures? Do you think they are grifters trying to scam money out of the tax payer?
They are seriously wealthy and Mrs M, unless I’m wrong, isn’t sitting in a Bond villain boardroom directing the investments and applications of her many businesses in which she is a shareholder.
There will be teams of people like you who are looking at policies and tax breaks in many financial industries and seeing if it’s suitable or they are applicable and going for it.
If anything Sunak has probably spoken to her and her people as well as others and asked what can be done to stimulate investment. We can’t on one hand bemoan that politicians don’t know what happens in the real world of business then hammer those who actually are balls deep in business.
It would be no different if a PM whose husband or wife was a doctor and spoke to their work colleagues about what could help. There will be many ideas, wants and requests and some will be good, some bad, some indifferent but nothing wrong with asking for opinions and ideas outside of civil servants and spads.
So it’s likely something that’s considered a good idea for investment, people who work in Mrs M team see they can use it and apply.
I don’t think the Sunak family is high fiving over the returns they will get from it thinking “we’ve made it”. They will believe rightly or wrongly that it’s a good scheme and they apply like everyone else - and as I said, if they didn’t apply like everyone else and pass the same tests, then he would have to go.
Once again, your impassioned and lengthy defence of Sunak seems a bit disproportionate. This is far from the first tale of Sunak's policies when in office benefiting his financial interests. There's a time when these things stop looking like happy coincidences for the hardworking Sunaks and start looking like they are absolutely trying to 'gouge a few million from the taxpayer'. The idea that 'a few million' is something that the fabulously wealthy Sunaks would sniff at is itself ridiculous - no good business person disdains 'a few million' for their companies, not even people who could buy and sell Sunak several times over. We're not talking about wrongly expensing a twix and a bottle of water here.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
Historically, you certainly would. Germany had the Feed in Tariff, where they would pay people for the electricity generated. But they've cut and cut and cut it, so that now it is way below the retail cost of electricity.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
I'd love to have solar panels, but I'm curious about your Maths. Unless you have an EV, I don't understand how your Maths works.
I haven't had a quotation for my home, but have been looking online as I'm interested and it seems a typical Solar installation today costs about £5-6k including parts and labour. More if you want a battery to go with it.
So based on your theory that £1k = £190 in savings then should expect ~£1k - £1.2k in cost savings.
But my total annual electricity bill is only £1k. So I'd have to have to come in on the low-end of the quote range, and have all my bill wiped out in order to meet the ratio you named.
And since the cost of electricity is due to come back down off its peak, even then a 100% cost reduction wouldn't meet your quoted numbers.
So where are your numbers coming from? Unless you can get an installation done for £1k - in which case great, how?
They quote £7,000 for installation on average (inc labour), and £365* typical saving if out until 4pm.
So that's £52 per £1000 invested, which is rather different to your £190.
If you have a way of getting a solar system for £1k I'd love to see it.
* And that's in London, lower elsewhere, presumably as elsewhere is further North.
I know London is out on the fringes of the UK, more so than Wick or Belfast, but there is life within North Island south of London: Lizard Point is as far as one can get.
To get a solar system for £1000 you buy the panels secondhand or ex-bankruptcy via ebay, and install it yourself on eg a shed or woodstore. It depends if it is grid-connected or not.
When I get around to it I will be getting a car port which just consists of a frame, and solar panels as the roof.
Shit. I paid a hell of a lot more than that and all I got was Saturn and about 3 moons of Jupiter. And not even the big ones!
If you insist on buying in this arm of the galaxy of course you are going to be ripped off.
You can buy one out in the Magellanic cloud for a third of the price. The commute isn't too bad - only 160k years or so.
OK, I’ve been confirmed in my view that London is not only a dump but also the most boring city in the world especially in its endlessly tedious rush hour traffic.
Ultimate provincial error - trying to drive anywhere in London during rush hour. Did you go anywhere south of the river before declaring your boredom and leaving?
They have half a point. Some spanish producers exporting to France print french language only labels and pictures of french looking chateaux and put "Made in the EU" on the back in tiny letters and don't mention Spain at all.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
Historically, you certainly would. Germany had the Feed in Tariff, where they would pay people for the electricity generated. But they've cut and cut and cut it, so that now it is way below the retail cost of electricity.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
I'd love to have solar panels, but I'm curious about your Maths. Unless you have an EV, I don't understand how your Maths works.
I haven't had a quotation for my home, but have been looking online as I'm interested and it seems a typical Solar installation today costs about £5-6k including parts and labour. More if you want a battery to go with it.
So based on your theory that £1k = £190 in savings then should expect ~£1k - £1.2k in cost savings.
But my total annual electricity bill is only £1k. So I'd have to have to come in on the low-end of the quote range, and have all my bill wiped out in order to meet the ratio you named.
And since the cost of electricity is due to come back down off its peak, even then a 100% cost reduction wouldn't meet your quoted numbers.
So where are your numbers coming from? Unless you can get an installation done for £1k - in which case great, how?
They quote £7,000 for installation on average (inc labour), and £365* typical saving if out until 4pm.
So that's £52 per £1000 invested, which is rather different to your £190.
If you have a way of getting a solar system for £1k I'd love to see it.
* And that's in London, lower elsewhere, presumably as elsewhere is further North.
I know London is out on the fringes of the UK, more so than Wick or Belfast, but there is life within North Island south of London: Lizard Point is as far as one can get.
To get a solar system for £1000 you buy the panels secondhand or ex-bankruptcy via ebay, and install it yourself on eg a shed or woodstore. It depends if it is grid-connected or not.
When I get around to it I will be getting a car port which just consists of a frame, and solar panels as the roof.
Shit. I paid a hell of a lot more than that and all I got was Saturn and about 3 moons of Jupiter. And not even the big ones!
If you insist on buying in this arm of the galaxy of course you are going to be ripped off.
You can buy one out in the Magellanic cloud for a third of the price. The commute isn't too bad - only 160k years or so.
The Local Group is getting a bit crowded for my liking, wiki says almost 80 galaxies.
Give me the Boötes Void, much more exclusive, and virtually empty - the NIMBY of the universe.
OK, I’ve been confirmed in my view that London is not only a dump but also the most boring city in the world especially in its endlessly tedious rush hour traffic.
Ultimate provincial error - trying to drive anywhere in London during rush hour. Did you go anywhere south of the river before declaring your boredom and leaving?
On Topic. Both Tory Mid Beds and Tamworth holds. Not because I want it but because it will be a real laugh watching everyone try and work out what the hell it means.
It would concentrate the minds of the opposition parties hugely.
Which wouldn’t be a bad thing. Especially since the most likely result would put us into Labour hubris territory. Which isn’t a good thing. Arr’right….
OK, I’ve been confirmed in my view that London is not only a dump but also the most boring city in the world especially in its endlessly tedious rush hour traffic.
Ultimate provincial error - trying to drive anywhere in London during rush hour. Did you go anywhere south of the river before declaring your boredom and leaving?
Don’t worry, it’s a tale as old as human existence, from Mesopotamia onwards.
The capital city is a dump nobody would want to live in, and it’s also an unfairly privileged place whose people are lucky to live in it.
Got my car insurance renewal quote through, was £295 (from a Compare website last year) and the Renewal Quote is for £420 this year.
Done another Comparison search and a new quote came in at £317 so not bad considering how high inflation was, was concerned it'd be higher.
Very good.
My renewal quote went for £500 to nearly £900, so I found another around the £500. My existing insurer cold called me today to see if I was renewing, but luckily the problems I am having currently with my BT phone via broadband cut them off before I could tell them anything.
OK, I’ve been confirmed in my view that London is not only a dump but also the most boring city in the world especially in its endlessly tedious rush hour traffic.
Ultimate provincial error - trying to drive anywhere in London during rush hour. Did you go anywhere south of the river before declaring your boredom and leaving?
No he's right it's a dump.
Please then can we reverse the Barnett formula. Please!
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
Historically, you certainly would. Germany had the Feed in Tariff, where they would pay people for the electricity generated. But they've cut and cut and cut it, so that now it is way below the retail cost of electricity.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
I'd love to have solar panels, but I'm curious about your Maths. Unless you have an EV, I don't understand how your Maths works.
I haven't had a quotation for my home, but have been looking online as I'm interested and it seems a typical Solar installation today costs about £5-6k including parts and labour. More if you want a battery to go with it.
So based on your theory that £1k = £190 in savings then should expect ~£1k - £1.2k in cost savings.
But my total annual electricity bill is only £1k. So I'd have to have to come in on the low-end of the quote range, and have all my bill wiped out in order to meet the ratio you named.
And since the cost of electricity is due to come back down off its peak, even then a 100% cost reduction wouldn't meet your quoted numbers.
So where are your numbers coming from? Unless you can get an installation done for £1k - in which case great, how?
They quote £7,000 for installation on average (inc labour), and £365* typical saving if out until 4pm.
So that's £52 per £1000 invested, which is rather different to your £190.
If you have a way of getting a solar system for £1k I'd love to see it.
* And that's in London, lower elsewhere, presumably as elsewhere is further North.
I know London is out on the fringes of the UK, more so than Wick or Belfast, but there is life within North Island south of London: Lizard Point is as far as one can get.
LOL I edited the numbers to simplify it as I was looking at with SEG in London which inflated the figure.
The £190 saving @rcs1000 quoted is listed as in Manchester, without SEG . . . but install of a system will set you back £5-7k+ not £1k.
£190 saving off the cheapest possible £5k install is a 3.8% saving which isn't really affordable if you're borrowing with today's interest rates.
TBF it's a sliding scale. A ~£6-7k 4kWp install - return potentially £600-800 (estimate but in the ballpark) will be a return towards approx 10%.
Unless you have a battery and/or an electric car, or are working and running a business from home, I don't see how those numbers work.
Especially since the Energy Savings Trust figures are based on a £7k system and say £190 return without SEG if out until 4pm.
EST worked example.
I don't understand "ignoring the SEG". It's a real number in the calculation.
Post code RG30 2LX, unencumbered 4kWp install on a S-facing 40 degree roof, out until 4pm gives a £360 benefit which is ~£200 plus SEG of ~£160.
SEG pays 5.5p / kWh.
In practice you get 15p / kWh export on the open market (Octopus Outgoing Fixed tariff), which makes it 15/5.5 x £160 ie £440.
£440 + £200 = £640, which is in my range.
In practice benefit could be greater because many of us can work from home, or are at home anyway, or can move loads around to use more generated electricity than assumed by EST,
eg at a simple level we can have a water tank with a timer set to heat it up during the day, or appliances on timers etc.
I suggest that anyone who pays over £6k for a 4kWp solar installation is a possibly a bit of a mug, or not working on getting a best price. I would be aiming to pay £5000 to £5500 for a 3rd party install of such a system.
OK, I’ve been confirmed in my view that London is not only a dump but also the most boring city in the world especially in its endlessly tedious rush hour traffic.
Ultimate provincial error - trying to drive anywhere in London during rush hour. Did you go anywhere south of the river before declaring your boredom and leaving?
No he's right it's a dump.
Please then can we reserve the Barnett formula. Please!
Overall, slightly more sympathise with Israel than Palestine but with big differences by party. Scotland stands out as being much more pro-Palestine than anywhere else in the UK, as are 18-24 year olds.
London is also more pro Palestine on that poll, as are Labour voters and more narrowly LD voters
Not a good poll for Starmer. He's been far too strident for the taste of his voters and it is an issue that can swing votes.
I learnt a long time ago if I didn't have a strong view on a race not to get involved. A win for any of the Conservatives, Labour or Liberal Democrats in Mid Bedfordshire, the 268th most marginal Conservative seat, would come as no surprise, a win for any other candidate would.
As for Tamworth, the 311th most marginal Conservative seat, either Labour or Conservative. I just suspect Labour are going to get close but not close enough.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
Historically, you certainly would. Germany had the Feed in Tariff, where they would pay people for the electricity generated. But they've cut and cut and cut it, so that now it is way below the retail cost of electricity.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
I'd love to have solar panels, but I'm curious about your Maths. Unless you have an EV, I don't understand how your Maths works.
I haven't had a quotation for my home, but have been looking online as I'm interested and it seems a typical Solar installation today costs about £5-6k including parts and labour. More if you want a battery to go with it.
So based on your theory that £1k = £190 in savings then should expect ~£1k - £1.2k in cost savings.
But my total annual electricity bill is only £1k. So I'd have to have to come in on the low-end of the quote range, and have all my bill wiped out in order to meet the ratio you named.
And since the cost of electricity is due to come back down off its peak, even then a 100% cost reduction wouldn't meet your quoted numbers.
So where are your numbers coming from? Unless you can get an installation done for £1k - in which case great, how?
They quote £7,000 for installation on average (inc labour), and £365* typical saving if out until 4pm.
So that's £52 per £1000 invested, which is rather different to your £190.
If you have a way of getting a solar system for £1k I'd love to see it.
* And that's in London, lower elsewhere, presumably as elsewhere is further North.
I know London is out on the fringes of the UK, more so than Wick or Belfast, but there is life within North Island south of London: Lizard Point is as far as one can get.
To get a solar system for £1000 you buy the panels secondhand or ex-bankruptcy via ebay, and install it yourself on eg a shed or woodstore. It depends if it is grid-connected or not.
When I get around to it I will be getting a car port which just consists of a frame, and solar panels as the roof.
Shit. I paid a hell of a lot more than that and all I got was Saturn and about 3 moons of Jupiter. And not even the big ones!
If you insist on buying in this arm of the galaxy of course you are going to be ripped off.
You can buy one out in the Magellanic cloud for a third of the price. The commute isn't too bad - only 160k years or so.
The Local Group is getting a bit crowded for my liking, wiki says almost 80 galaxies.
Give me the Boötes Void, much more exclusive, and virtually empty - the NIMBY of the universe.
You know there's something really really big in it that eats stars... 😀
Overall, slightly more sympathise with Israel than Palestine but with big differences by party. Scotland stands out as being much more pro-Palestine than anywhere else in the UK, as are 18-24 year olds.
London is also more pro Palestine on that poll, as are Labour voters and more narrowly LD voters
Not a good poll for Starmer. He's been far too strident for the taste of his voters and it is an issue that can swing votes.
havent you got more important things to do than worry about blighty ? Manny Macron appears to be upsetting everyone.
Overall, slightly more sympathise with Israel than Palestine but with big differences by party. Scotland stands out as being much more pro-Palestine than anywhere else in the UK, as are 18-24 year olds.
London is also more pro Palestine on that poll, as are Labour voters and more narrowly LD voters
That poll is quite out of line with the YouGov tracker polling on whether people are more sympathetic to the Palestinians or Israelis. Last polling in July was 24% more sympathetic to Palestinians, 10% Israelis.
Overall, slightly more sympathise with Israel than Palestine but with big differences by party. Scotland stands out as being much more pro-Palestine than anywhere else in the UK, as are 18-24 year olds.
London is also more pro Palestine on that poll, as are Labour voters and more narrowly LD voters
Not a good poll for Starmer. He's been far too strident for the taste of his voters and it is an issue that can swing votes.
But if he'd taken a different approach that might also have swung voters. Basically he's trying his hardest to come across as not-a-nutter-like-his-predecessor.
Overall, slightly more sympathise with Israel than Palestine but with big differences by party. Scotland stands out as being much more pro-Palestine than anywhere else in the UK, as are 18-24 year olds.
London is also more pro Palestine on that poll, as are Labour voters and more narrowly LD voters
Not a good poll for Starmer. He's been far too strident for the taste of his voters and it is an issue that can swing votes.
I think it will be more of a problem for Starmer in government than electorally.
His equivalent of, “We ran for office as New Labour, and we shall govern as New Labour,” will be seen as governing like the Tories to a significant part of his base.
The Met told a charity campaigning against antisemitism to switch off billboard vans showing child kidnap victims of terrorist group Hamas or they would be “in breach of the peace”, the charity’s chief executive has said.
OK, I’ve been confirmed in my view that London is not only a dump but also the most boring city in the world especially in its endlessly tedious rush hour traffic.
Ultimate provincial error - trying to drive anywhere in London during rush hour. Did you go anywhere south of the river before declaring your boredom and leaving?
Don’t worry, it’s a tale as old as human existence, from Mesopotamia onwards.
The capital city is a dump nobody would want to live in, and it’s also an unfairly privileged place whose people are lucky to live in it.
I know right. Can you imagine not living in London? It's horrific even contemplating it.
OK, I’ve been confirmed in my view that London is not only a dump but also the most boring city in the world especially in its endlessly tedious rush hour traffic.
Ultimate provincial error - trying to drive anywhere in London during rush hour. Did you go anywhere south of the river before declaring your boredom and leaving?
Don’t worry, it’s a tale as old as human existence, from Mesopotamia onwards.
The capital city is a dump nobody would want to live in, and it’s also an unfairly privileged place whose people are lucky to live in it.
I know right. Can you imagine not living in London? It's horrific even contemplating it.
OK, I’ve been confirmed in my view that London is not only a dump but also the most boring city in the world especially in its endlessly tedious rush hour traffic.
Ultimate provincial error - trying to drive anywhere in London during rush hour. Did you go anywhere south of the river before declaring your boredom and leaving?
Lambeth and Southwark count?
Ultimate metropolitan error - making silly assumptions about geography
I learnt a long time ago if I didn't have a strong view on a race not to get involved. A win for any of the Conservatives, Labour or Liberal Democrats in Mid Bedfordshire, the 268th most marginal Conservative seat, would come as no surprise, a win for any other candidate would.
As for Tamworth, the 311th most marginal Conservative seat, either Labour or Conservative. I just suspect Labour are going to get close but not close enough.
I suspect that if the Tories were being offered 267 seats in the next Parliament they would bite your hand off.
BREAKING NEWS - Lou Pinella nominated for Baseball Hall of Fame
Seattle Times ($) - Lou Piniella, the winningest manager in Mariners history, could soon get his long-awaited call from the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Piniella, 80, is one of eight finalists on the Contemporary Era Ballot, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum announced Thursday.
The 16-member Contemporary Era Committee will vote on the finalists at the MLB Winter Meetings in December. Finalists who receive votes on at least 75% of ballots (at least 12 of 16 votes) cast by the committee will be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2024.
Piniella spent 23 years as a major league manager, leading the Cincinnati Reds to a World Series championship in 1990.
Three years later, he arrived in Seattle. . . .
Over 10 seasons as the Mariners manager, Piniella posted a record of 840-711 (.542) and led the club to four postseason appearances. He is the all-time winningest manager in club history and one of 11 members of the Mariners Hall of Fame. . . .
Piniella had career managerial record of 1,835-1,713 over 23 seasons with the New York Yankees (1986-88), Reds (1990-92), Mariners (1993-2002), Tampa Bay Devil Rays (2003-05) and Chicago Cubs (2007-10).
He is one of four people in MLB history with at least 1,500 managerial wins and 1,500 hits as a player . . .
SSI - Can testify that Lou Pinella remains quite popular in Seattle, esp. with those old enough to remember when he was managing the Mariners at the peak of their entire history.
So much so that, until recently, Lou has been featured in TV ads for a local chain of apartments for semi-superannuated geezers.
On that note, former Seattle Seahawk football star and local hero Marshawn Lynch is featured on a ad that's been running for years after he left the 'Hawks roster, in his case for a local plumbing company. Highlight being when a two-year old in his mother's arms points to Marshawn, exclaiming "Beastmode!"
OK, I’ve been confirmed in my view that London is not only a dump but also the most boring city in the world especially in its endlessly tedious rush hour traffic.
Ultimate provincial error - trying to drive anywhere in London during rush hour. Did you go anywhere south of the river before declaring your boredom and leaving?
Don’t worry, it’s a tale as old as human existence, from Mesopotamia onwards.
The capital city is a dump nobody would want to live in, and it’s also an unfairly privileged place whose people are lucky to live in it.
I know right. Can you imagine not living in London? It's horrific even contemplating it.
Really?
Have you tried therapy to get past this mental block?
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
Historically, you certainly would. Germany had the Feed in Tariff, where they would pay people for the electricity generated. But they've cut and cut and cut it, so that now it is way below the retail cost of electricity.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
I'd love to have solar panels, but I'm curious about your Maths. Unless you have an EV, I don't understand how your Maths works.
I haven't had a quotation for my home, but have been looking online as I'm interested and it seems a typical Solar installation today costs about £5-6k including parts and labour. More if you want a battery to go with it.
So based on your theory that £1k = £190 in savings then should expect ~£1k - £1.2k in cost savings.
But my total annual electricity bill is only £1k. So I'd have to have to come in on the low-end of the quote range, and have all my bill wiped out in order to meet the ratio you named.
And since the cost of electricity is due to come back down off its peak, even then a 100% cost reduction wouldn't meet your quoted numbers.
So where are your numbers coming from? Unless you can get an installation done for £1k - in which case great, how?
They quote £7,000 for installation on average (inc labour), and £365* typical saving if out until 4pm.
So that's £52 per £1000 invested, which is rather different to your £190.
If you have a way of getting a solar system for £1k I'd love to see it.
* And that's in London, lower elsewhere, presumably as elsewhere is further North.
I know London is out on the fringes of the UK, more so than Wick or Belfast, but there is life within North Island south of London: Lizard Point is as far as one can get.
LOL I edited the numbers to simplify it as I was looking at with SEG in London which inflated the figure.
The £190 saving @rcs1000 quoted is listed as in Manchester, without SEG . . . but install of a system will set you back £5-7k+ not £1k.
£190 saving off the cheapest possible £5k install is a 3.8% saving which isn't really affordable if you're borrowing with today's interest rates.
TBF it's a sliding scale. A ~£6-7k 4kWp install - return potentially £600-800 (estimate but in the ballpark) will be a return towards approx 10%.
Unless you have a battery and/or an electric car, or are working and running a business from home, I don't see how those numbers work.
Especially since the Energy Savings Trust figures are based on a £7k system and say £190 return without SEG if out until 4pm.
EST worked example.
I don't understand "ignoring the SEG". It's a real number in the calculation.
Post code RG30 2LX, unencumbered 4kWp install on a S-facing 40 degree roof, out until 4pm gives a £360 benefit which is ~£200 plus SEG of ~£160.
SEG pays 5.5p / kWh.
In practice you get 15p / kWh export on the open market (Octopus Outgoing Fixed tariff), which makes it 15/5.5 x £160 ie £440.
£440 + £200 = £640, which is in my range.
In practice benefit could be greater because many of us can work from home, or are at home anyway, or can move loads around to use more generated electricity than assumed by EST,
eg at a simple level we can have a water tank with a timer set to heat it up during the day, or appliances on timers etc.
I suggest that anyone who pays over £6k for a 4kWp solar installation is a possibly a bit of a mug, or not working on getting a best price. I would be aiming to pay £5000 to £5500 for a 3rd party install of such a system.
I excluded SEG because I was responding to Robert saying this: if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
The reality seems to be if you spend £5000-7000 today and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid you will reduce your bill by about £190, which is somewhat different.
Octopus Outgoing Fixed Tariff is only available if you're on an Octopus tariff, if you're not the export rate is 4.1p rather than 15p which is a bit of a difference too.
My son and daughter in law got married this year after 12 years of dating. They are both adamant about not having children. Its not to do with tax incentives or anything.
For them its two things
a) There life style would change due to the costs of rearing a child b) They don't think its fair to have children who will end up paying huge amount of tax to fund the spending excesses of today c) They don't regard it as their duty to provide arse wipers for millenials
I learnt a long time ago if I didn't have a strong view on a race not to get involved. A win for any of the Conservatives, Labour or Liberal Democrats in Mid Bedfordshire, the 268th most marginal Conservative seat, would come as no surprise, a win for any other candidate would.
As for Tamworth, the 311th most marginal Conservative seat, either Labour or Conservative. I just suspect Labour are going to get close but not close enough.
I suspect that if the Tories were being offered 267 seats in the next Parliament they would bite your hand off.
Christie is at least running to loudly criticise Trump despite having no hope - other than hoping Trump has a heart attack what are the others bothering for?
If Trump had a heart attack, Haley/Christie would walk the general election. Trump is the Republicans’ biggest liability.
I learnt a long time ago if I didn't have a strong view on a race not to get involved. A win for any of the Conservatives, Labour or Liberal Democrats in Mid Bedfordshire, the 268th most marginal Conservative seat, would come as no surprise, a win for any other candidate would.
As for Tamworth, the 311th most marginal Conservative seat, either Labour or Conservative. I just suspect Labour are going to get close but not close enough.
I suspect that if the Tories were being offered 267 seats in the next Parliament they would bite your hand off.
268th most marginal Tory seat . . . given the Tories had 365 at the last election, doesn't that mean only 97 less marginal than that?
Overall, slightly more sympathise with Israel than Palestine but with big differences by party. Scotland stands out as being much more pro-Palestine than anywhere else in the UK, as are 18-24 year olds.
London is also more pro Palestine on that poll, as are Labour voters and more narrowly LD voters
Not a good poll for Starmer. He's been far too strident for the taste of his voters and it is an issue that can swing votes.
I think it will be more of a problem for Starmer in government than electorally.
His equivalent of, “We ran for office as New Labour, and we shall govern as New Labour,” will be seen as governing like the Tories to a significant part of his base.
I learnt a long time ago if I didn't have a strong view on a race not to get involved. A win for any of the Conservatives, Labour or Liberal Democrats in Mid Bedfordshire, the 268th most marginal Conservative seat, would come as no surprise, a win for any other candidate would.
As for Tamworth, the 311th most marginal Conservative seat, either Labour or Conservative. I just suspect Labour are going to get close but not close enough.
I suspect that if the Tories were being offered 267 seats in the next Parliament they would bite your hand off.
I can't seem to express this in a way people on here understand.
The Conservatives won 365 seats in December 2019 - Mid Bedfordshire is the 268th most marginal or alternatively the 97th safest seat (the safest is South Holland & the Deepings where Labour needs a 31.4% swing to take the seat). Tamworth comes in as the 311th most marginal or the 54th safest seat.
The most marginal seat (or the 365th safest seat) is Bury North which Labour would win on a 0.11% swing.
Overall, slightly more sympathise with Israel than Palestine but with big differences by party. Scotland stands out as being much more pro-Palestine than anywhere else in the UK, as are 18-24 year olds.
London is also more pro Palestine on that poll, as are Labour voters and more narrowly LD voters
Not a good poll for Starmer. He's been far too strident for the taste of his voters and it is an issue that can swing votes.
I think it will be more of a problem for Starmer in government than electorally.
His equivalent of, “We ran for office as New Labour, and we shall govern as New Labour,” will be seen as governing like the Tories to a significant part of his base.
Comments
https://medium.com/britainelects/previewing-the-two-parliamentary-and-four-local-by-elections-of-19th-october-2023-b9316572b706
The Florida Judge is a Trump appointee, who seems to be incompetent and perhaps even a patsy.
I have to say that following this in a little detail has not reassured me as to the quality of the USA legal system, and especially their racketeering laws - where you can be held responsible for things that you did not even know somebody else was doing.
I've seen a few commentators saying that their elected Judges system in some States is not good.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mVF_IPhgNgMar-oH3Q4XhWJnpVt4UiECLkFhDIXwZlY/edit?pli=1#gid=0
The comments from the Washington judge have been interesting, since the defence lawyers really do appear to be saying, without citing any legal precedent or law, that if you are running for office you should not be subject to the rules governing any other person on pre-trial release. So not equality before the law, but openly that elected officials and those seeking to be elected are exempt from the law (presumably until after the election, but if you lose you might be running against immediately - especially if for the US House)
Georgia's racketeering laws are apparently very broad, which contrasts with the rules nationally about bribery and corroption, where if some commentators are right you essentially need a written confession that money x is for corrupt act y in order to prove it in the eyes of the Surpeme Court.
https://www.vitisphere.com/actualite-100401-blocage-et-casse-de-vins-importes-a-la-frontiere-espagnole.html
https://www.justsecurity.org/88175/trump-trials-clearinghouse/
"ALASTAIR CAMPBELL
@campbellclaret
Hello @AvantiWestCoast … given the train is not moving, and hasn’t moved from Euston, any chance you can switch off the automatic voice coming on every couple of minutes to list all the stations we are not yet going to … #noisepollution One phoney welcome is enough."
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1714973031276146690
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12648153/elizabeth-line-furious-commuters-demand-investigation-rush-hour-delays-emergency-rail-works.html
I hope the stewards at Ibrox make sure the lads flying the Star of David aren’t sat beside the ones flying SS Totenkopf symbols, the ideological ruck might get a bit tasty.
They quote £7,000 for installation on average (inc labour), and £190 typical saving if out until 4pm, without SEG, in Manchester..
£190 saving for £7k installation is different maths for £190 saving for £1k installation.
There's a chap who leads a life of a stranger
As for winning, there really is no danger
For at every election he's in
Liberals never seem to win
Odds are he won't get back his deposit
Liberal Agent Man
Liberal Agent Man
They've taken away your numbers
And your deposits just the same
Leafleting in Chelsea one day
Canvassing the Gorbals next day
Pray your focus never waivers
Scrutinizing spoiled ballot papers
Odds are he won't ever see his deposit
Johnny Rivers - Secret Agent Man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hPm4eiiD08
https://x.com/Politics_Polls/status/1715046085188559243?s=20
2024 National Republican Primary:
Trump 62%
DeSantis 9%
Haley 6%
Ramaswamy 6%
Christie 3%
Pence 3%
Scott 2%
A big blue sign saying ‘Birmingham M40.’
The return on a 2kWp install on Rick Stein's restaurant in Cornwall, South facing, no shading, is currently estimated at £380.
What is notable is that for a smallish (ie no special permissions needed) system the price is basically unchanged from 2015, and that half of the price for such an install will be labour and kit for the installers. Building scaffolding to roof level is not cheap.
But I think you are right about the attractiveness of their use on domestic and commercial premises, and it is just yet another abject failure by this Government that we do not have a basic regulatory requirement in place which should have started in perhaps 2017/18 or earlier.
As if he has a heart.
The £190 saving @rcs1000 quoted is listed as in Manchester, without SEG . . . but install of a system will set you back £5-7k+ not £1k.
£190 saving off the cheapest possible £5k install is a 3.8% saving which isn't really affordable if you're borrowing with today's interest rates.
Not that the progressives of Hampstead are any different. We saved the Coffee Cup. We saved the Crepe Van.
Not that yours truly was personally doing much child-creating during Cheney-Bush administration; however, there re-election did NOT result in raising MY morale. Quite the opposite!
And from what I can recall, I was NOT alone in this. Indeed, by period you cite, W wasn't exactly wildly popular among Republicans and Independents, let alone Democrats.
Thank you.
Hmm - might need to update my profile sometime. #LovingBigAnge
Back in 2015 when I was considering installs on a couple of rental properties, my best quotes for 4kWp installs were coming in at £4999.
In the end the only one I did was a 10kWp install on my own house, which came in at just under £12k in 2015. However, it is somewhat comprised by E/W facing and neighbouring trees.
But I think you are right about the attractiveness of their use on domestic and commercial premises, and it is just yet another abject failure by this Government that we do not have a basic regulatory requirement in place which should have started in perhaps 2017/18 or earlier.
The economics have improved recently with much improved export tariffs. I just switched to an export tariff which gives me £0.15 per kWh fixed price. This year I may just squeak in a 9% return on the original price, which is fine given the FIT has a 20 year guaranteed index link on the generation element.
Haven't checked most recent, but reckon by that standard, Haley has leap-frogged DeSantis. With Ramaswamy stepping on his heels.
Christie is running (and has been all the time) to boost his public profile and (am guessing) his future lecture circuit fees.
Pence is running (ditto) for some kind of personal vindication, or something like that.
Scott is running for Vice President (neither Christie nor Pence have slightest chance at this).
For both cost and amusement I'd prefer to self-build but I don't know how much of the circuit has to be 'certified'.
It is a shame Octopus don't do a basic 'install an inverter to connect your panels to' installation.
I don't need scaffolding for most of the roof being in a bungalow with a fairly low pitch - I can just walk up the tiles.
The election will be decided on whether Trump is convicted and jailed next year or not
I think I will probably have confused them.
Yay to immigration
Yay to taking Palestinian refugees
Boo to the size of the State.
Especially since the Energy Savings Trust figures are based on a £7k system and say £190 return without SEG if out until 4pm.
When I get around to it I will be getting a car port which just consists of a frame, and solar panels as the roof.
Mid-Beds is simply too close to call. It could be any of the main three.
You can buy one out in the Magellanic cloud for a third of the price. The commute isn't too bad - only 160k years or so.
Done another Comparison search and a new quote came in at £317 so not bad considering how high inflation was, was concerned it'd be higher.
Give me the Boötes Void, much more exclusive, and virtually empty - the NIMBY of the universe.
Which wouldn’t be a bad thing. Especially since the most likely result would put us into Labour hubris territory. Which isn’t a good thing. Arr’right….
The capital city is a dump nobody would want to live in, and it’s also an unfairly privileged place whose people are lucky to live in it.
My renewal quote went for £500 to nearly £900, so I found another around the £500. My existing insurer cold called me today to see if I was renewing, but luckily the problems I am having currently with my BT phone via broadband cut them off before I could tell them anything.
I don't understand "ignoring the SEG". It's a real number in the calculation.
Post code RG30 2LX, unencumbered 4kWp install on a S-facing 40 degree roof, out until 4pm gives a £360 benefit which is ~£200 plus SEG of ~£160.
SEG pays 5.5p / kWh.
In practice you get 15p / kWh export on the open market (Octopus Outgoing Fixed tariff), which makes it 15/5.5 x £160 ie £440.
£440 + £200 = £640, which is in my range.
In practice benefit could be greater because many of us can work from home, or are at home anyway, or can move loads around to use more generated electricity than assumed by EST,
eg at a simple level we can have a water tank with a timer set to heat it up during the day, or appliances on timers etc.
I suggest that anyone who pays over £6k for a 4kWp solar installation is a possibly
a bit of a mug, or not working on getting a best price. I would be aiming to pay £5000 to £5500 for a 3rd party install of such a system.
I learnt a long time ago if I didn't have a strong view on a race not to get involved. A win for any of the Conservatives, Labour or Liberal Democrats in Mid Bedfordshire, the 268th most marginal Conservative seat, would come as no surprise, a win for any other candidate would.
As for Tamworth, the 311th most marginal Conservative seat, either Labour or Conservative. I just suspect Labour are going to get close but not close enough.
https://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/lille-nantes-bordeaux-montpellier-plusieurs-aeroports-francais-evacues-apres-de-nouvelles-alertes-a-la-bombe-20231019
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/sympathies-for-the-israelis-palestinian-conflict
Basically he's trying his hardest to come across as not-a-nutter-like-his-predecessor.
His equivalent of, “We ran for office as New Labour, and we shall govern as New Labour,” will be seen as governing like the Tories to a significant part of his base.
But wave a terrorist flag, not a problem.
Ultimate metropolitan error - making silly assumptions about geography
"I condemn Hamas for sabotaging the attempt of Saudi Arabia to reach a peaceful resolution” to the Palestinian plight.
"I condemn Israel for funneling Qatari money for Hamas"
https://x.com/hxhassan/status/1715054586619204063
Seattle Times ($) - Lou Piniella, the winningest manager in Mariners history, could soon get his long-awaited call from the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Piniella, 80, is one of eight finalists on the Contemporary Era Ballot, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum announced Thursday.
The 16-member Contemporary Era Committee will vote on the finalists at the MLB Winter Meetings in December. Finalists who receive votes on at least 75% of ballots (at least 12 of 16 votes) cast by the committee will be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2024.
Piniella spent 23 years as a major league manager, leading the Cincinnati Reds to a World Series championship in 1990.
Three years later, he arrived in Seattle. . . .
Over 10 seasons as the Mariners manager, Piniella posted a record of 840-711 (.542) and led the club to four postseason appearances. He is the all-time winningest manager in club history and one of 11 members of the Mariners Hall of Fame. . . .
Piniella had career managerial record of 1,835-1,713 over 23 seasons with the New York Yankees (1986-88), Reds (1990-92), Mariners (1993-2002), Tampa Bay Devil Rays (2003-05) and Chicago Cubs (2007-10).
He is one of four people in MLB history with at least 1,500 managerial wins and 1,500 hits as a player . . .
SSI - Can testify that Lou Pinella remains quite popular in Seattle, esp. with those old enough to remember when he was managing the Mariners at the peak of their entire history.
So much so that, until recently, Lou has been featured in TV ads for a local chain of apartments for semi-superannuated geezers.
On that note, former Seattle Seahawk football star and local hero Marshawn Lynch is featured on a ad that's been running for years after he left the 'Hawks roster, in his case for a local plumbing company. Highlight being when a two-year old in his mother's arms points to Marshawn, exclaiming "Beastmode!"
Have you tried therapy to get past this mental block?
But it's only a BBC report so we'd better discount it.
They’ve actually done their job and verified it and not just taken one of the protagonists word on trust.
The reality seems to be if you spend £5000-7000 today and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid you will reduce your bill by about £190, which is somewhat different.
Octopus Outgoing Fixed Tariff is only available if you're on an Octopus tariff, if you're not the export rate is 4.1p rather than 15p which is a bit of a difference too.
My son and daughter in law got married this year after 12 years of dating. They are both adamant about not having children. Its not to do with tax incentives or anything.
For them its two things
a) There life style would change due to the costs of rearing a child
b) They don't think its fair to have children who will end up paying huge amount of tax to fund the spending excesses of today
c) They don't regard it as their duty to provide arse wipers for millenials
The Conservatives won 365 seats in December 2019 - Mid Bedfordshire is the 268th most marginal or alternatively the 97th safest seat (the safest is South Holland & the Deepings where Labour needs a 31.4% swing to take the seat). Tamworth comes in as the 311th most marginal or the 54th safest seat.
The most marginal seat (or the 365th safest seat) is Bury North which Labour would win on a 0.11% swing.
Tory 33
LD 16
Other 14
Lots of bedwetting over various voodoo polls on Twitter does not turn round the fundamentals.
I think the Tories will hold Tamworth
Tory 43
Lab 42
LD 7
Other 8
wibble
Who as I dimming recall, promptly donated the one he got from W to a OxFam store?