Those things are becoming dirt cheap that even without government subsidies they become affordable and pay themselves back within a decent time.

Have you done the maths, to back that claim.

I have:) Do it everyday...

Then show me, because I am very skeptical.

Most customers who have solar panels pay the minimum of €10 a month. One kWh solar energy releases 50 grams of CO2 while coal for example releases 1000 grams per kWh. (that's the clean energy part)The energy it costs to build a solar panel is won back after 2 or 3 years of using the solar panel.

An installation with a capacity of 4000 Wp (wattpeak) produces 3200 kWh a year. The average usage of a 4 person family is 3500 kWh a year so a family who has solar panels only pay for a small amount of kWh. If the solar panels deliver 100% of your yearly usage you don't even have to pay for the tranport-and distribution costs of the electricity. So we advice every customer who owns the delivery address to consider solar panels. Actually we can't advice it pro-active because of the company's profits, you know.........

I'd like to point out that you completely failed to 'show the figures' relevant to the actual question asked and posted yet another pleasant little story about how nice solar is with absolutely nothing to back it up. again. LOL
You should REALLY avoid places like this where the people specialize in critical thinking.
The fact that you've cherry picked the questions you want to answer and ignored some points i've made multiple times is further evidence of shallow thinking.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

No idea where you get those figures from, I'm still skeptical

I work in the energy business. I see the figures everyday. Solar panels in general are a good way to save money for your energy and they're proven to be quite effective. Of course it depends which country you live in. The more sun, the more your solar panels produce.

and AGAIN you dodge the Actual Question.

'trust me, I'm a pro' doesn't cut it with people like us.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

I'm also pointing out that alternative energy sources are NOT economically viable at this time which is a real, honest to goodness self evident truth. It costs too much and there's no dependability. (regarding nighttime, clouds and still air)

That may have been the case a few years ago, but not anymore (at least not with solar panels). Those things are becoming dirt cheap that even without government subsidies they become affordable and pay themselves back within a decent time.

And you keep claiming that the only companies that take in sustainability are the ones that are funded by government subsidies. Prove it. Show us evidence that government subsidies are the primary reason these companies do it.

In stark contrast, note how most Fossils are only able to continue polluting due to the ridiculous tax breaks that they get and for the sake that they pay nothing for the waste products and pollution they cause...


There are far better and cleaner and far less costly ways to power our industry and farming that do not require the fossils fueled destruction of our environment...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

What you just said is fundamentally 'if the world wasn't the way it is, it'd be different' LOL

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

50 studies that show companies that invest in sustainability outperform companies that don't.

Slogans and PR material won't cut it financially and in the real world when it comes to keeping the price of energy from destroying what is left of our society.

You wanted proof, I gave you 50 studies that all state that investing in sustainability as business is beneficial. Look, if you are going to stick your head in the sand and ignore studies into this subject be claiming they are just slogans and pr material, it is abundantly clear that you have made up your mind and nothing I do, say or show you will change your mind.

Those are not 'studies' they're polls and opinion pieces.
I recommend you actually READ what you google up to try and support your argument. I did.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

Hello everyone! Just a few things re the recent discussions :)

The fossil fuel industry annually receives subsidies of around $400 billion. Renewables around $60 billion globally.

A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute, a USA based nonpartisan research and policy organization might give us a little insight into how the system "works" and why the disparity between fossil and renewables may in fact be widening rather than closing. (Please note: The following figures apply to the USA but are not intended to single that nation out. The trend is global and the reasons elsewhere on the planet are not that dissimilar to these).

For the seven year period (ending 2008) federal government subsidies to fossil fuels totalled approximately $72 billion, while subsidies for renewable fuels totalled $29 billion. However, more than half of the renewable energy subsidy ($16.8 billion) was for corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing America's reliance on foreign oil, is generating serious environmental concerns with regards water, pesticides and nitrates etc. So that's a lot of money on an unsustainable "renewable" which tars all other renewables with the same toxic brush.

Further disparity is caused by the fact that most of the subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in the US are written permanently into the tax codes. This allows those industries to take full advantage of them, as opposed to the subsidies for renewable energies, which are time-limited, often with one year expiry dates which creates uncertainty for the industry over whether an application for renewal will be successful. It keeps the unit costs of renewable energy equipment higher and contributes to some of the unfavourable comparisons in savings to consumers quoted elsewhere in this thread. In countries where the balance is more equal, unit costs are coming down.

America is not alone. Britain has recently leapt into the eyes-tight-shut-wallet-wide-open strategy, with it's wooing of the fracking industry. I don't have comparable figures for Britain yet with regards the following (but I suspect I'll find some given that the UK ranks fifth on a global list of countries based on total financial support given to carbon-intensive energy industries) but is it any wonder that over 56% of currently elected congressional Republicans deny any environmental harm caused by the fossil fuel industry when we stop to consider that they shared $55.5 millon from that industry in campaign contributions? Extrapolated over the globe, could that be why this huge-profit industry needs so much in the way of subsidies?

The fact is globally, renewable energy has, and still is receiving far less in tax breaks and subsidies than conventional energy. Those that say it isn't are looking at some very skewed data. Step back, take a deep breath of fresh air (if you can) and look again with eyes wide open.

In legislation, the precautionary principle states that: Lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used to postpone measures to prevent environmental degradation. That was how we achieved the Montreal Protocol on CFC's.

When it comes to the fossil fuel industry however, we more often than not are using the innocent until proven guilty principle. It works because there is a lot of money in the defence machine focussing on CO2 and pointing the finger of blame at the planet instead. My comparative research into volcanoes versus man will be ready to post up in a few days and sorry guys - we are really not looking innocent. :/

Finally... What is the justification of the Koyoto Protocol offering developing countries requirements different from those of developed countries?

The simple, and unpalatable truth is that for well over a hundred years developed countries created the current problems... so... the protocal states, not unreasonably, that they should make the sacrifices necessary to clean them up. The sooner they do so, the sooner the onus will be on the developing countries to do the same, and the western economies that will benefit the most, will be those who got their house in order early. Let's hope it doesn't take well over a hundred years for that to happen.

Anyway :) Hope everyone's been having a good day/evening :)

Hello everyone! Just a few things re the recent discussions :)

The fossil fuel industry annually receives subsidies of around $400 billion. Renewables around $60 billion globally.


Anyway :) Hope everyone's been having a good day/evening :)

The USA alone used over 465 billion (4.65 e11) gallons of gasoline ALONE last year. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10
IF that 400 billion dollars were spread across those gallons of gasoline and removed, it'd raise the price less than 1 USD/US gallon.

That 400 billion is actually world wide and applies to ALL fossil fuels.

QED the subsidy applied to fossil fuels is insignificant regarding the final price. A matter of pennies.
While the volume of fossil fuels sold makes the subsidy insignificant regarding price, it's still a wonderful windfall for the stockholders/owners of the energy companies because THERE it's concentrated into relatively few hands.
Thanks for helping dispose of the 'subsidy' myth.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

IF that 400 billion dollars were spread across those gallons of gasoline and removed, it'd raise the price less than 1 USD/US gallon

I ask why should a profitable industry have a subsidy?

---

IF that 400 billion dollars were spread across those gallons of gasoline and removed, it'd raise the price less than 1 USD/US gallon

I ask why should a profitable industry have a subsidy?

It doesn't compute in my head either

IF that 400 billion dollars were spread across those gallons of gasoline and removed, it'd raise the price less than 1 USD/US gallon

I ask why should a profitable industry have a subsidy?

It doesn't compute in my head either

That's another question and subject.
One well worth discussion, too.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

IF that 400 billion dollars were spread across those gallons of gasoline and removed, it'd raise the price less than 1 USD/US gallon

I ask why should a profitable industry have a subsidy?

It doesn't compute in my head either

That's another question and subject.
One well worth discussion, too.

Why should ANY industry have a subsidy?

No idea where you get those figures from, I'm still skeptical

I work in the energy business. I see the figures everyday. Solar panels in general are a good way to save money for your energy and they're proven to be quite effective. Of course it depends which country you live in. The more sun, the more your solar panels produce.

and AGAIN you dodge the Actual Question.

'trust me, I'm a pro' doesn't cut it with people like us.

Ok man, don't eat me. I know we have them 'highly intellectual' people here, but I deal with reality, real figures and 'regular' people who need their elektricity. By the way, I don't think I was addressing myself to you, now was I?

You should REALLY avoid places like this where the people specialize in critical thinking.

I would really like you not to tell me what I have to or should do, if you don't mind.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

IF that 400 billion dollars were spread across those gallons of gasoline and removed, it'd raise the price less than 1 USD/US gallon

I ask why should a profitable industry have a subsidy?

It doesn't compute in my head either

That's another question and subject.
One well worth discussion, too.

Why should ANY industry have a subsidy?

Ask the farmers.
Ask the green energy startups.
Ask big companys who pay into PACS.
Ask the oil industry.
Ask any state trying to woo a company to expand in said state.
Ask- well you know dont you?

---

[/quote]

Old James

IF that 400 billion dollars were spread across those gallons of gasoline and removed, it'd raise the price less than 1 USD/US gallon

I ask why should a profitable industry have a subsidy?

It doesn't compute in my head either

That's another question and subject.
One well worth discussion, too.

Why should ANY industry have a subsidy?

Ask the farmers.
Ask the green energy startups.
Ask big companys who pay into PACS.
Ask the oil industry.
Ask any state trying to woo a company to expand in said state.
Ask- well you know dont you?

Farmers? They shouldn't.
Green Energy start-ups? They shouldn't.
PACs? Shouldn't exist.
Oil industry? They shouldn't.
Industry being woo'ed? They shouldn't.

People and businesses paying lobbyists to influence Government produces corruption.

Government trying to influence business decisions produces corruption.

The rest are an unwarranted intrusion into the free market by Government. It produces economic inefficiencies.

If a business cannot make it on its own merits, it doesn't deserve to remain in business. It is not Government's place to decide. Whenever Government tries to 'pick winners' it usually winds up 'picking losers'.

Business should stay out of Government, and Government should stay out of Business.

I ask again, Why should ANY business get a subsidy?

Those are not 'studies' they're polls and opinion pieces.
I recommend you actually READ what you google up to try and support your argument. I did.

If by supporting your argument you mean 'made a claim without providing any kind of evidence to support it while dodging any requests for where you got your data' then indeed.

However, that is not my definition of supporting an argument.

This is supporting an argument

Your claim that no one invests in sustainability is an utter lie. Its a 250 billion dollar industry. Sure, perhaps not as much as the traditional established and dominant unclean technologies, but the difference is small. Your claim that the only reason companies invest in sustainability is because they get fat government subsidies to do it is also total nonsense. Sadly, in the West investments in sustainability is down, thanks to government non commitment to setting up policies regarding sustainability. Meanwhile in developing economies, investments are up. Also, investments were down simply because sustainable technology is getting better developed and therefor cheaper.

Oh and to some others here complaining about China, China is by now the biggest investor in sustainable technology.

Farmers? They shouldn't.

Enjoy eating sand as food prices will rise to levels you can no longer afford.

Green Energy start-ups? They shouldn't.

Enjoy total market dominance of old unclean companies who invest minimally in new technology because any new competitors don't stand a chance.

PACs? Shouldn't exist.

Agreed.

Oil industry? They shouldn't.

They don't need it.

Industry being woo'ed? They shouldn't.

Eh, they do create jobs, but I agree that subsidies are a bad move.

People and businesses paying lobbyists to influence Government produces corruption.

Yes and no. Lobbying is both good and bad. The bad is obvious, with the government doing little more than doing what business wants them to do, which is beneficial for business but not so beneficial for others. However, at the same time lobbying gives citizens a way into the government outside election cycles. Its useful for civil rights groups, environmental groups or other issue groups to get their point across to the government. Furthermore a lot of lobby groups consist of experts and those experts are vital in drafting legislation because they know that particular industry or policy field and they have a far better understanding of the consequences of legislation than your average congressmen. Lobbying is fine, healthy even, as long as its properly regulated and there is transparency into the process.

Government trying to influence business decisions produces corruption.

No it doesn't and besides that, its vital for human health and safety.

The rest are an unwarranted intrusion into the free market by Government. It produces economic inefficiencies.

The paradox is that a free market without any government intrusion very quickly becomes an unfree market run by a bunch of monopolies or cartels. For a free market to properly function, the government is needed to regulate certain aspects of it. But yes, it does result in inefficiencies. But those inefficiencies are not nearly as bad as the ones that would be created in a market dominated by only a few major corporations.

If a business cannot make it on its own merits, it doesn't deserve to remain in business. It is not Government's place to decide. Whenever Government tries to 'pick winners' it usually winds up 'picking losers'.

Yes and no. While indeed there is a big chance those companies go out of business the moment the government stops supporting it, it might be vital to the interests of the state to keep them in business. Take the financial crisis for example. Had governments all around the world not intervened and saved a number of their banks, there would have been a literal economic apocalypse. The economy would no longer exist. Everyone would have been out of a job and out of money. Is that an acceptable price for upholding some 'survival of the fittest' principle? Yeah don't think so.

Or take the agricultural sector. Its a simple fact that in a lot of countries agriculture is just to expensive to survive in a free market. But by subsidizing them, they can remain in business, and keep the food price somewhat affordable. Food security, especially in 10 years from now, will only be achieved if states step in and subsidize their farmers to produce more than the free market otherwise would have made them produce and it will be somewhat affordable for the consumer.

I ask again, Why should ANY business get a subsidy?

Because sometimes letting a business fail comes at an unacceptable price.

Farmers? They shouldn't.

Enjoy eating sand as food prices will rise to levels you can no longer afford.

Green Energy start-ups? They shouldn't.

Enjoy total market dominance of old unclean companies who invest minimally in new technology because any new competitors don't stand a chance.

PACs? Shouldn't exist.

Agreed.

Oil industry? They shouldn't.

They don't need it.

Industry being woo'ed? They shouldn't.

Eh, they do create jobs, but I agree that subsidies are a bad move.

People and businesses paying lobbyists to influence Government produces corruption.

Yes and no. Lobbying is both good and bad. The bad is obvious, with the government doing little more than doing what business wants them to do, which is beneficial for business but not so beneficial for others. However, at the same time lobbying gives citizens a way into the government outside election cycles. Its useful for civil rights groups, environmental groups or other issue groups to get their point across to the government. Furthermore a lot of lobby groups consist of experts and those experts are vital in drafting legislation because they know that particular industry or policy field and they have a far better understanding of the consequences of legislation than your average congressmen. Lobbying is fine, healthy even, as long as its properly regulated and there is transparency into the process.

Government trying to influence business decisions produces corruption.

No it doesn't and besides that, its vital for human health and safety.

The rest are an unwarranted intrusion into the free market by Government. It produces economic inefficiencies.

The paradox is that a free market without any government intrusion very quickly becomes an unfree market run by a bunch of monopolies or cartels. For a free market to properly function, the government is needed to regulate certain aspects of it. But yes, it does result in inefficiencies. But those inefficiencies are not nearly as bad as the ones that would be created in a market dominated by only a few major corporations.

If a business cannot make it on its own merits, it doesn't deserve to remain in business. It is not Government's place to decide. Whenever Government tries to 'pick winners' it usually winds up 'picking losers'.

Yes and no. While indeed there is a big chance those companies go out of business the moment the government stops supporting it, it might be vital to the interests of the state to keep them in business. Take the financial crisis for example. Had governments all around the world not intervened and saved a number of their banks, there would have been a literal economic apocalypse. The economy would no longer exist. Everyone would have been out of a job and out of money. Is that an acceptable price for upholding some 'survival of the fittest' principle? Yeah don't think so.

Or take the agricultural sector. Its a simple fact that in a lot of countries agriculture is just to expensive to survive in a free market. But by subsidizing them, they can remain in business, and keep the food price somewhat affordable. Food security, especially in 10 years from now, will only be achieved if states step in and subsidize their farmers to produce more than the free market otherwise would have made them produce and it will be somewhat affordable for the consumer.

I ask again, Why should ANY business get a subsidy?

Because sometimes letting a business fail comes at an unacceptable price.

Agricultural subsidies exist to keep food prices HIGH, not to lower them.

The recent financial crisis... The US Government CAUSED it. They mandated that banks and other financial institutions make home mortgage loans to people that had no reasonable way to pay the loans back. This caused a 'housing bubble', as the influx of money caused an inflation in housing prices. The bubble finally popped. Financial institutions and investors had a LOT of toxic assets on their hands. Liquidity dried up. The economy went to crap. We are still not out of it.

I repeat, the US Government CAUSED it. Without the Government interference in the housing loan market, there would have been NO housing bubble to pop, therefore NO world-wide financial crisis. I repeat, Government interference in business is BAD. Without that law, there is no way in heck that the banks and other financial institutions would have made the loans that turned toxic and almost cratered the world-wide economy.

As far as lobbying goes, you condemn it (and rightly so) on the more right-wing causes... but applaud it on the more left wing causes... Excuse me, but I think your bias may be showing...

As far as the 'experts' helping to draft legislation, you are SERIOUSLY telling me that it is a good idea to let these highly-paid experts draft legislation affecting the industries that paid them? That is just begging for corruption.

Perhaps Government should just not pass so many laws... As Tacitus said:

The more corrupt the Government, the more numerous are its laws

'Transparency into the process'... Most all lobbying is nothing more than thinly disguised BRIBERY. Everything from

let me buy you dinner

to

how would you and your wife (or husband... or whatever) like a week's vacation on our dime in some exotic far away place? Lets just call it a 'fact finding trip'.

Do you seriously think that as the lobbyists commit felonies, they are going to openly ADVERTISE it?? I think not.

But those inefficiencies are not nearly as bad as the ones that would be created in a market dominated by only a few major corporations.

Major Corporations EXIST due to Government interference. A little thing called 'corporate personhood'.

Because sometimes letting a business fail comes at an unacceptable price.

NOT letting a business fail comes at an unacceptable price.

Agricultural subsidies exist to keep food prices HIGH, not to lower them.

Shows what you know about economics 101. Look, subsidies mean the government pays a certain price to farmers for all their products, meaning that farmers are going to produce more than what would normally be acceptable on the free market. Now if you remember your supply and demand curves, what happens when there is more supply? Right, prices go down.

Of course, people still pay for it, just not in the supermarket.

The recent financial crisis... The US Government CAUSED it. They mandated that banks and other financial institutions make home mortgage loans to people that had no reasonable way to pay the loans back. This caused a 'housing bubble', as the influx of money caused an inflation in housing prices. The bubble finally popped. Financial institutions and investors had a LOT of toxic assets on their hands. Liquidity dried up. The economy went to crap. We are still not out of it.

Oh yes, the US government caused it, though not in the way you are suggesting. They caused it because they deregulated the financial markets. There used to be laws regulating the financial sector and those laws made it pretty clear what you could and could not do. Those laws were scrapped because the free market could supposedly regulate itself, and as a result banks started doing this.

There was no law that mandated banks to loan money to people that couldn't afford to pay it back. Banks did that because it was profitable. They were betting on those loans to fail because they had insured them. If those loans failed, they got a massive insurance check. Basically what they did was basic insurance fraud. Except that thanks to deregulation, insurance fraud was turned into a financial product to be traded.

I repeat, the US Government CAUSED it. Without the Government interference in the housing loan market, there would have been NO housing bubble to pop, therefore NO world-wide financial crisis. I repeat, Government interference in business is BAD. Without that law, there is no way in heck that the banks and other financial institutions would have made the loans that turned toxic and almost cratered the world-wide economy.

It was the lack of regulation that did it. And it was the lack of any law saying that they couldn't loan money to people who couldn't afford it and then insure that loan and cash in the insurance money once those people failed to pay back.

As far as lobbying goes, you condemn it (and rightly so) on the more right-wing causes... but applaud it on the more left wing causes... Excuse me, but I think your bias may be showing...

Yep, I'm biased because I prioritize breahtable air, water that doesn't contain toxins and civil rights over corporations ability to make money.

What is wrong with citizens asking their government to make laws protecting their environment and civil rights?

As far as the 'experts' helping to draft legislation, you are SERIOUSLY telling me that it is a good idea to let these highly-paid experts draft legislation affecting the industries that paid them? That is just begging for corruption.

That depends. If you want to make a law about environmental protection, wouldn't it be better to have an expert on the environment tell you what he needs for the best kind of protection? Or would you leave it to a bunch of lawyers who spend their whole lives in DC and don't have a clue about the environment come up with measures to protect it?

The same is true for any policy field. Sure, those experts are paid for by those industries, which is why the process needs to be open and transparent, so people know who is arguing for what and give people a chance to come up with counter arguments or policy alternatives to what the industry paid experts come up with. The problem right now is that it happens way to much behind closed doors with only experts from an affected industry and thus stuff gets written into the legislation without anyone knowing whats in there until its put to the vote.

Perhaps Government should just not pass so many laws... As Tacitus said:

The more corrupt the Government, the more numerous are its laws

Yeah, sorry but reality won't allow for that. We live in a complex society, and it is growing ever more complex. Complexity means more things that require regulations to properly function.

'Transparency into the process'... Most all lobbying is nothing more than thinly disguised BRIBERY. Everything from

let me buy you dinner

to

how would you and your wife (or husband... or whatever) like a week's vacation on our dime in some exotic far away place? Lets just call it a 'fact finding trip'.

Do you seriously think that as the lobbyists commit felonies, they are going to openly ADVERTISE it?? I think not.

Its never entirely possible to prevent bribery, but sure, politicians should declare any gifts, donations or trips they receive from industry officials. And let lobbyists register themselves or else deny them all access to the Capitol or White house. There are ways to regulate it.

Major Corporations EXIST due to Government interference. A little thing called 'corporate personhood'.

So? Being a large corporation is not bad by itself. They have their benefits. And even without corporate personhood you would get big corporations or cartels. Again, without government regulation of the market, the free market would become an unfree market in a couple of years. That is inevitable.

NOT letting a business fail comes at an unacceptable price.

In some cases it is indeed best to let the business fail. Still, in other cases it is not. Letting system banks fail is little more than nuking your own economy and possible the global economy. Saving those banks is expensive, letting them fail...well, the cost of that is almost impossible to quantify.

Not really a scientific study this, more an anecdotal personal story.

Last year i bought 3 200w solar panels and a 600W inverter for £300.
They're mounted on a framework above the shed. They're not on the house roof because i don't have a south-facing roof and i'd have to hire contractors to install things up there anyway.
The wooden framework above the shed does face south and i built it myself. Total materials cost £50.
20 yards of armoured cable to connect the shed to the house £20.
Total install cost £370.

I don't get the feed-in tariff of 21p/unit or whatever it is these days, to qualify for that i need installation certificates and other paperwork, which would probably have doubled my cost of installation.
I'm on simple net metering, the meter turns one way (it's a digital smart meter but you know what i mean) when i'm drawing electricity out of the grid and turns the other way when any surplus is flowing back in. At the end of the month, i am charged for the net amount removed from the grid, currently at 13.19 p/kWh.

From June '12 to May '13, i spent £212.13 on electricity (not including standing charge)
System became operational 3rd June 2013.
From June '13 to March '14, i have spent £104.33 on electricity (not including standing charge.
Extrapolating to the end of May, (104.33/10*12) that's £125.20.
Net saving (212.13-125.20) £86.93.
Payback time (370/86.93) 4.26 years.
Guarantee on panels 25 years.
Profitable lifespan (25-4.26) 20.74 years.
Total saving (20.74*86.93) £1802.93, and that's if prices stay stable, which they won't.

Now, who said solar power isn't profitable?

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Wind power can't replace fossil fuels.
Solar power can't replace fossil fuels.
Wave power can't replace fossil fuels.
Tidal power can't replace fossil fuels.
Hydroelectric power can't replace fossil fuels.
All of the above together, that's a different matter.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Not really a scientific study this, more an anecdotal personal story.

Last year i bought 3 200w solar panels and a 600W inverter for £300.
They're mounted on a framework above the shed. They're not on the house roof because i don't have a south-facing roof and i'd have to hire contractors to install things up there anyway.
The wooden framework above the shed does face south and i built it myself. Total materials cost £50.
20 yards of armoured cable to connect the shed to the house £20.
Total install cost £370.

I don't get the feed-in tariff of 21p/unit or whatever it is these days, to qualify for that i need installation certificates and other paperwork, which would probably have doubled my cost of installation.
I'm on simple net metering, the meter turns one way (it's a digital smart meter but you know what i mean) when i'm drawing electricity out of the grid and turns the other way when any surplus is flowing back in. At the end of the month, i am charged for the net amount removed from the grid, currently at 13.19 p/kWh.

From June '12 to May '13, i spent £212.13 on electricity (not including standing charge)
System became operational 3rd June 2013.
From June '13 to March '14, i have spent £104.33 on electricity (not including standing charge.
Extrapolating to the end of May, (104.33/10*12) that's £125.20.
Net saving (212.13-125.20) £86.93.
Payback time (370/86.93) 4.26 years.
Guarantee on panels 25 years.
Profitable lifespan (25-4.26) 20.74 years.
Total saving (20.74*86.93) £1802.93, and that's if prices stay stable, which they won't.

Now, who said solar power isn't profitable?

I second this post wholeheartedly. Those are the calculations we make every day.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures