navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address. Following continuous spam/hack attempts on the forum, "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Govt response to early adopter's petition  (Read 6387 times)
Paulo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


« on: October 27, 2010, 04:06:48 PM »

Dear All,
For your information. The Government was petitioned about the unfairness of the early adopter's taking a drop in revenue (quite large for some technologies) when the FIT came in. Their response is here http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=Microgenerators
If you haven't got the time to read it, the abridged version is "get stuffed!"
Thanks,
Paul
Logged
guydewdney
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4320



« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2010, 10:34:11 PM »

read. then opened a bottle of plonk  Sad Cry bstards
Logged

Pic of wheel on day 1
7.2kW Waterwheel and 9.8kW PV
Countrypaul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1789


« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2010, 01:13:11 PM »

Recived this link this morning concerning early adopters:
http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=GreenPioneers

Paul
Logged
EccentricAnomaly
Guest
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2010, 01:50:53 PM »

Isn't that response cleverly worded?  It says that consumers want some such scheme, sort of implying without justification that all do, when it's clearly a premise of the original petition that some don't.  Then it goes on about how, assuming there is a need for such a scheme, MCS is a sensible choice.

At no point does it even begin to suggest a reason why FITS needs such a scheme; it totally fails to respond to the original petition.  In an exam they'd get 0/10 for not answering the question asked.
Logged
djh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2128


« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2010, 02:30:04 PM »

In an exam they'd get 0/10 for not answering the question asked.

But that's standard operating procedure for politicians isn't it? Sad
Logged

Cheers, Dave
pottsiwebber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 167



« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2010, 03:00:32 PM »

On a related early adopter FITs theme...

I have biomass boiler which isnít MCS approved wasnít installed by an MCS installer and wont qualify for RHI payments. Then again I did a lot of the work myself the boiler was half the price of an MCS approved boiler and I only had it installed by a HETAS engineer to qualify for a local grant.

I e-mailed ofgem to find out if any RHI FITs would be paid for not MCS installed biomass systems and so far the silence has been deafening.

I'm hopefully going to install solar thermal in spring but I wonít be paying for an MCS approved system installed by an MCS installer. Why? I can buy and install it for a fraction of the cost. In the very long term I may well get my MCS install money back from FITs but that would mean finding several thousand pounds right now to cover the installation. I thought the government were supposed to be discouraging personal debt not encouraging it.

I'm afraid IMHO requiring MCS approval and the such like are just examples of the government giving with one hand and taking back with the other just to be seen to be doing "the right thing".

Do it yourself and stick two fingers up to the rule makers, youíll gain new skills and learn a thing or two on the way and thatís worth more than a few years of payments for being a good little robot and doing as you are told.
Logged

"If it aint broke you can probably still fix it!"

15kW Kostrzewa Pellet / Wood / Grain boiler
4kW Stovax WBS (2kW to room, 2kW back boiler)
216ltr Navitron thermal store
Navitron solar this spring
longstroke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2010, 03:20:55 PM »

Tempting, very very Tempting!!

Especially with the disparity in prices between MCS approved kit and the same thing without. Add in some fairly up themselves MCS certified installers who have been round to quote one of whom was telling fibs about flat solar thermal panels and severly dissing Navitron products and I'm getting awfully close to your solution pottiswebber.
Logged
desperate
Guest
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2010, 03:37:56 PM »

Thats a very good point, maybe some MCS baloney isn't cost effective compared to skilled DIYers    hysteria hysteria hysteria


Desp
Logged
noah
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 509


« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2010, 03:55:02 PM »

It is tempting to view the MCS requirement as `nanny state` or `give with one hand...` but it worries me that the reality [could be] far more sinister than that: it is the subornation of democratic government by private power for private gain. The fact that it hides behind a `green` disguise is cynicism of the worst kind.
Logged
renewablejohn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2966



« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2010, 05:16:20 PM »

Tempting, very very Tempting!!

Especially with the disparity in prices between MCS approved kit and the same thing without. Add in some fairly up themselves MCS certified installers who have been round to quote one of whom was telling fibs about flat solar thermal panels and severly dissing Navitron products and I'm getting awfully close to your solution pottiswebber.


If you go down the biomass boiler route with a slight modification you could convert to a CHP gasification and end up with double ROC's and the RHI. Then you really can stick two fingers upto MCS.
Logged
EccentricAnomaly
Guest
« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2010, 05:25:22 PM »

I think a lot of what happens is that relatively powerful companies or organizations in an industry run conferences, user group meetings and the like which are an important input to the mind-sets of the civil servants.  DIYers don't buy civil servants dinner or put them up in nice hotels or offer them some nice consultancy work after they retire so their input simply isn't interesting.  I doubt there's much direct brown-envelope corruption but from what I've seen of another industry involving a lot of government regulation there can be cosy relationships between civil servants and some industrial organizations which serve to lock out outsiders.

An important role for back-bench MPs of any party should be to dig up this sort of thing and hold the civil servants involved accountable in the sense of making them justify their decisions properly (e.g., calling the bluff in answers like this one).  I don't think this happens much in practice.

For electoral reform people worry a lot about breaking links between MPs and constituencies.  A contrary consideration might be that if you have more than one MP representing you then you have a better chance of getting at least one of them to dig into matters like this.
Logged
blackhawk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2010, 07:03:18 PM »

pottsiwebber
                     I'm hopefully going to install solar thermal in spring but I wonít be paying for an MCS approved system [/u]

Have the Government, MCS, Ofgen set a PRECEDENT by allowing solar pv for DIY installs from 2009 untill fits come in ??

so this should apply to solar thermal my have to go through the court's. Start a fund anyone?

i put up solar pv just befor April then the next week my solar thermal and have 24 more tubes to go up

Logged
longstroke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2010, 04:00:59 AM »

Blackhawk - Have an applaud for getting on and installing!

RenewableJohn - I like where you're coming from, but would the gasifier and chp + woodgas conversion not need to be 'MCS' certified equipment in order to be elidigable for RHI, and of course installed by a MCS rip-off merchant, of which there are probably none for this system?

Logged
renewablejohn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2966



« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2010, 09:27:10 AM »



RenewableJohn - I like where you're coming from, but would the gasifier and chp + woodgas conversion not need to be 'MCS' certified equipment in order to be elidigable for RHI, and of course installed by a MCS rip-off merchant, of which there are probably none for this system?



Hopefully Ted will be along later to confirm but looking at the documents from DECC which Ted has posted in the past Biomass CHP is one of the few areas were MCS is not the required solution instead you have to jump through the CHPQA hurdle instead. At least with CHPQA you have a definite standard of efficiency which your system has to achieve in order for it to be eligible for ROC's and RHI.
Logged
Ted
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3940



« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2010, 09:51:03 AM »

Only CHP up to 2kW is covered by FiTs at present, so anything else still comes under ROCs - which doesn't have (and never has had) any MCS requirement.
Logged

Volunteer moderator
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!