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 recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "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 3 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Correspondence re anti-competition aspects of the MCS/FITs tie-up.  (Read 90564 times)
biff
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11927


An unpaid Navitron volunteer who lives off-grid.


« Reply #75 on: December 28, 2009, 03:11:59 PM »

new years greetings honorable rob, angel
                  turbine still in the box,solar dazzling the countryside,reflective paint on the panels, but i like your style.i am going to have a word with my friend pj because he was looking for someone to advise him on a roof mounted turbine for his bog hotel.noise is not a problem but pj would insist on  education,preferably dececades of learning and someone who can get by on not a lot of dosh.i am looking forward to seeing this american job on pj,s roof. stir
           biff whistlie
Logged

An unpaid Navitron volunteer,who has been living off-grid,powered by wind and solar,each year better than the last one.
Rob in Halstock
Guest
« Reply #76 on: December 28, 2009, 05:22:54 PM »

new years greetings honorable rob, angel
                  turbine still in the box,solar dazzling the countryside,reflective paint on the panels, but i like your style.i am going to have a word with my friend pj because he was looking for someone to advise him on a roof mounted turbine for his bog hotel.noise is not a problem but pj would insist on  education,preferably dececades of learning and someone who can get by on not a lot of dosh.i am looking forward to seeing this american job on pj,s roof. stir
           biff whistlie


Hi Biff

Your freind can certainly join this forum and I will answer any question about my own system. If he chooses to do somthing similar I would be honored to explain how I overcame certain problems. However I do not have sufficient experience in the field to be offering advice to anyone on such an instalation as you have mentioned above. Some of the other members on here who apparently have written many books on the subject would probably be better placed for such advice. I would reccomend your freind speaks to them first.

New years Greeting to you also  garden
Rob
Logged
Hammer to fit
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« Reply #77 on: January 09, 2010, 09:15:35 PM »

All,

Am I correct in believing the Bill can now only be amend? If so then would a credable solution be to allow the manufacturers to accredit their own product to appropriate standard(s).

This is in effect what the company I work for do, we are a (1st tier) supplier to the car manufacturers, we hold a TS16949 (TS= technical specfiication) which is ISO9000 with 'extra bits' specifically for the automotive industry. This gives our own measuring & test facilities the status of an accredited laboratory (ISO17025) for our product (we do need to traceable to national standards etc).

It does assume the turbine manufacturers do have measuring / test facilities, surely they have these to develop there own products in the 1st place? For the low volume / 1 off manufacturer (Fred in a Shed) the alternative for to this would be as mentioned above a single vehicle approval type test as undertaken on kit cars & the like when 1st registered?

IMHO the legislation is inevitable, the relevance we maybe able to have a say upon.

Dave
PS: I thought this also applied to PV installations or did I just dream that?
Logged
njord
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



« Reply #78 on: April 26, 2011, 09:32:31 AM »

All,

It's very simple, if you have a good quality product in which you have every confidence you step up to the plate, get it tested in accordance with the MCS and go sell wind turbines.

If you lack confidence in your product you kick off in the hope of creating smoke screens behind which you can hide.

Sorry to be contravertial but its as simple as that. We cannot expect the public to commit to spending tens of thousands of pounds based upon a licked finger held in the wind any more.

This is a perfect example of "if you can't stand the heat..........."
Logged
martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« Reply #79 on: April 26, 2011, 09:40:29 AM »

Ho hum - what it boils down to is that only the "really big boys" can afford the ludicrously expensive rigmarole to get their products "approved" -  sometimes these may be well established bits of machinery that have given sterling service for years, which must now jump through the hoops at vast expense to be "accepted" - small manufacturers often just can't afford it!
MCS/FIT was badly thought out and implemented from the start, and is really only a trade protection clique run by a bunch of moneygrabbing "suits" of the very worst sort that sends prices skywards*, and actually does bog all about real "quality" and service - if you've got the money, you're in! whistlie

*in the case of some technologies, has actually doubled the price of an install, and precluded many from taking up renewables.........
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
njord
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



« Reply #80 on: April 26, 2011, 09:51:56 AM »

Ho hum - what it boils down to is that only the "really big boys" can afford the ludicrously expensive rigmarole to get their products "approved" -  sometimes these may be well established bits of machinery that have given sterling service for years, which must now jump through the hoops at vast expense to be "accepted" - small manufacturers often just can't afford it!
MCS/FIT was badly thought out and implemented from the start, and is really only a trade protection clique run by a bunch of moneygrabbing "suits" of the very worst sort that sends prices skywards*, and actually does bog all about real "quality" and service - if you've got the money, you're in! whistlie

*in the case of some technologies, has actually doubled the price of an install, and precluded many from taking up renewables.........

One perfectly acceptable point of view Martin.

Another however is that our industry is riddled with equipment not living up to the manufacturers optimistic claims and it is about time something was done to separate the wheat from the chaff. Anybody actually going through the MCS process will be aware that it couldn't possibly double the cost of an install unless the original design was so poor it had to be completely re-designed to be up to scratch which is exactly what the MCS is designed to do and a good thing in my book.
Logged
A.L.
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 907


« Reply #81 on: April 26, 2011, 09:59:11 AM »

hello njord,

I have heard that simple MCS wind testing costs 80,000. Wonder what that would do to install costs of a small wind turbine?
Logged
njord
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



« Reply #82 on: April 26, 2011, 10:08:15 AM »

hello njord,

I have heard that simple MCS wind testing costs 80,000. Wonder what that would do to install costs of a small wind turbine?

Thanks for your input A.L. I'd be grateful if you could provide any evidence to support that figure as it certainly doesn't match my experience.

Just so we are clear here folks we are all aware that the MCS is a one of cost to the turbine manufacturer not a project specific cost?

Logged
A.L.
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 907


« Reply #83 on: April 26, 2011, 10:16:03 AM »

hi,

it is a figure I got unoficially from an employee of a testing site

of course it is a one-off fee, but what small company could afford it upfront before any sales?
Logged
njord
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



« Reply #84 on: April 26, 2011, 10:39:03 AM »

hi,

it is a figure I got unoficially from an employee of a testing site

of course it is a one-off fee, but what small company could afford it upfront before any sales?

I'm just awaiting confirmation of the cost from a reliable source and will let you know.

Question: Can any back street garage perform MOT's or do they have to invest in the right equipment and certification first to ensure the job is done correctly? It os of course the latter as it should be.
Logged
martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« Reply #85 on: April 26, 2011, 10:40:10 AM »

When I first came into the business, Navitron pioneered good affordable domestic solar hot water systems, it is NOT rocket science to install, and this forum partly came about to help people do their own installs, or find competent installers who'd put in a good system affordably - there was perfectly good legislation regarding faulty/shoddy goods - since that time we've had the chocolate teapot fiasco, and a complete "big business take over" of renewables, often to their extreme detriment (particularly on affordability) - rather than buying a kit and "fitting themselves", people are now actively discouraged from that route, and instead encouraged to spend probably at least twice as much on an install from a company encumbered with all the "expensive bits of paper", often seeking handouts to help them pay.
I though it was pretty barmy when "grants" first became available - take 2,000 out of the system by taxation, remove collection costs, you have 1,000 for a grant, take out 600 from that for "admin" costs (giving otherwise unemployable f***wits a job), all to award a grant of 400, which could only be on an "approved" system - all the companies of course on the scheme having shot the price of an install skywards....... end result, LESS people taking up the technology because it's too pricey, or delaying time after time because the grants ran out.... (which from where I'm sitting is barking bonkers).
I don't envy small turbine companies in this country - thanks to government fuelled "teapot madness", a complete refusal by "the powers that be" to begin to understand the subject,  a self-proclaimed "voice of the industry" trade association that was (better not use the word that springs to mind) responsible for much of the low opinion in which "small wind" is held, thanks to their accepting money from, and backing the teapot manufacturers in their "king's new clothes" enterprise.
To saddle them with colossal "testing and approval" fees (kerrrching!) helps stop small companies from ever getting up and running, and is also detrimental to the small companies existing - we need renewables, not a bunch of leeches making money from extra layers of unnecessary and obstructive "red tape"....... whistlie

Swindlesave teapots had every "bit of paper" going, and for all I know are still eligible for a grant - so much for the efficacy of the "system" which I suspect has a lot more to do with brown envelopes and handshakes  "undue influence" than any real attempt to get renewables taken up by the public at large......
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 10:52:05 AM by martin » Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
njord
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



« Reply #86 on: April 26, 2011, 11:32:52 AM »

When I first came into the business, Navitron pioneered good affordable domestic solar hot water systems, it is NOT rocket science to install, and this forum partly came about to help people do their own installs, or find competent installers who'd put in a good system affordably - there was perfectly good legislation regarding faulty/shoddy goods - since that time we've had the chocolate teapot fiasco, and a complete "big business take over" of renewables, often to their extreme detriment (particularly on affordability) - rather than buying a kit and "fitting themselves", people are now actively discouraged from that route, and instead encouraged to spend probably at least twice as much on an install from a company encumbered with all the "expensive bits of paper", often seeking handouts to help them pay.
I though it was pretty barmy when "grants" first became available - take 2,000 out of the system by taxation, remove collection costs, you have 1,000 for a grant, take out 600 from that for "admin" costs (giving otherwise unemployable f***wits a job), all to award a grant of 400, which could only be on an "approved" system - all the companies of course on the scheme having shot the price of an install skywards....... end result, LESS people taking up the technology because it's too pricey, or delaying time after time because the grants ran out.... (which from where I'm sitting is barking bonkers).
I don't envy small turbine companies in this country - thanks to government fuelled "teapot madness", a complete refusal by "the powers that be" to begin to understand the subject,  a self-proclaimed "voice of the industry" trade association that was (better not use the word that springs to mind) responsible for much of the low opinion in which "small wind" is held, thanks to their accepting money from, and backing the teapot manufacturers in their "king's new clothes" enterprise.
To saddle them with colossal "testing and approval" fees (kerrrching!) helps stop small companies from ever getting up and running, and is also detrimental to the small companies existing - we need renewables, not a bunch of leeches making money from extra layers of unnecessary and obstructive "red tape"....... whistlie

Swindlesave teapots had every "bit of paper" going, and for all I know are still eligible for a grant - so much for the efficacy of the "system" which I suspect has a lot more to do with brown envelopes and handshakes  "undue influence" than any real attempt to get renewables taken up by the public at large......

A heartfelt and eloquent argument Martin and all credit to you for standing by what you believe however whether we like it or not wind power, large small or otherwise is a business. People consider wind power in most cases to save or make money not because they are eco-warriors. All businesses need to be regulated whether we all like it or not and in my opinion the MCS is necessary.

May I ask, you aren't suggesting that there is corruption in our industry are you? I have never seen any evidence of it and to make a suggestion like that wihtout firm evidence is at best irresponsible.
Logged
njord
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



« Reply #87 on: April 26, 2011, 11:34:46 AM »

hi,

it is a figure I got unoficially from an employee of a testing site

of course it is a one-off fee, but what small company could afford it upfront before any sales?

Hi A.L.

I stand corrected, we were both wrong it's more like 100k!
Logged
noah
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 502


« Reply #88 on: April 26, 2011, 12:01:06 PM »

My opinion is that good government should not only protect its citizens but seek to empower them as well.
Part of the rationale behind the `encouragement` of small renewables was to get said citizens
Quote
involved
and in fact what has happened has been to limit their participation to that of passive consumers.
This of course is, by accident or design, exactly what the commercial interests require.
Interesting how it is that the commercial sector, usually the first to complain about red tape, can be so supportive of RT in some forms- when it protects their market.
Logged
martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« Reply #89 on: April 26, 2011, 12:56:35 PM »

"you aren't suggesting that there is corruption in our industry are you?" - excuse me while I crack a few ribs laughing - the Swindlesave fiddle illustrates exactly the rank corruption and stupidity rife all the way through the industry, through it's self-appointed "voice of the wind industry" right into the heart of successive ignorant and dishonest governments.......
In words of one syllable, the BWEA accepted funding from the teapoteers, and cheerfully represented their cause, when people who actually knew a bit about wind said at the time that they were wrong, and it would do the industry great damage (which it has) - now that may just be blithering incompetence, it may be dishonesty on a grand scale, I honestly don't know, but what I do know is that it has set the UK small wind industry back years - why should anyone ever trust them again?.... whistlie

Let's face it, Tony's cronies set up these nice little "let's line our pocket" schemes for one purpose - make themselves a few bob whilst sheltering under a "green" smokescreen - these are avidly being carried on by Dave's Dullards cronies....... whistlie

I'm all for the "Anderson shelter" approach - we face a far bigger threat now than the hun hordes, we need to empower people, and make the tools available so we can all have the modern equivalent of an Anderson shelter, rather than grubby schemes to "corporatise" renewables and "make jobs and vast profits for the boys" whilst actually delivering a tiny fraction of what we really need.........
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7   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!