Which all goes to support my long held view that the Tories hatred of nationalised industries is not just (if at all) ideological but just a means of stopping national / regional work-forces being able to strike and disrupt the country.

This pretty well sums up the ridiculous (and some may argue corrupt) state of affairs we currently have in this country: www.cityam.com/article/138240349 ... r_Homepage

This pretty well sums up the ridiculous (and some may argue corrupt) state of affairs we currently have in this country: www.cityam.com/article/138240349 ... r_Homepage

Quote ="Dally"This pretty well sums up the ridiculous (and some may argue corrupt) state of affairs we currently have in this country: www.cityam.com/article/138240349 ... r_Homepage'" It's an interesting piece. I disagree with quite a bit of it – mostly because I think it's rather muddled for, I suspect, ideological reasons. Still worth reading, though, and far better argued than much of what is published. Can I point out right now that I've been blabbing on about a supranational corporatocracy for some years? What's most interesting, arguably, is that he's trying to seeing corporatism as different from capitalism rather than a stage of it. There's been a a fair old bit of economists, in recent years, saying: 'Oh: maybe old Charlie Marx wasn't as wrong as we thought', and the prime reason is – in essence – the analysis that capitalism will, ultimately, east itself.

Quote ="Dally"This pretty well sums up the ridiculous (and some may argue corrupt) state of affairs we currently have in this country: www.cityam.com/article/138240349 ... r_Homepage'" It's an interesting piece. I disagree with quite a bit of it – mostly because I think it's rather muddled for, I suspect, ideological reasons. Still worth reading, though, and far better argued than much of what is published. Can I point out right now that I've been blabbing on about a supranational corporatocracy for some years? What's most interesting, arguably, is that he's trying to seeing corporatism as different from capitalism rather than a stage of it. There's been a a fair old bit of economists, in recent years, saying: 'Oh: maybe old Charlie Marx wasn't as wrong as we thought', and the prime reason is – in essence – the analysis that capitalism will, ultimately, east itself.

To China presumably?

Only 29% of total UK energy consumption is via domestic use.
For house with a South-facing (-ish) roof, that house's needs can be more than met by solar panels and free the householder from rapacious power company bills.

Granted, that's not much good for houses facing the "wrong" way, or for apartments etc ... but no-one is saying that solar panels are the single magic silver bullet to solve our problems, ditto for wind power, tidal power, ground-source heat pumps, air-source heat pumps, hydro etc etc ... but it all adds up and, IMHO, just because one of them is not the total solution does not mean that they are not worth doing.
I'm not suggesting that was your meaning but there are people out there who do suggest that ... Sir Bernard Ingham is one and vigorously supports nuclear at the drop of a hat via SONE (Supporters of Nuclear Energy).
Mind you, he (yes, even he) is opposed to the deal just done. My guess is that's because SONE is funded by the UK nuclear industry who will be somewhat miffed that a deal has been done with a Franco-Chinese consortium rather than with Ingham's paymasters.

Don't see why solar panels aren't installed on every new suitable building being built. It'd add sod all to the cost of a new house.

Probably because Eric Pickles doesn't like 'em

Do we have a UK nuclear industry capable of building such a plant?

May he does like 'em but he's eaten 'em all?

Put them near some sandwiches and biscuits

Spot on, we build reactors for submarines in Derby at Rolls Royce, we have some excellent top end construction companies. Surely we could have done this and not had to give £ zillions over the years to other countries.

I live in Germany. They are everywhere. I drove down to Bavaria last year. I passed entire fields of solar panels on the way.

Yep I've noticed them in Germany too, I love going to Germany, not sure why I just enjoy it more than other places for some reason.

As mentioned it's not THE answer and I'm not an expert on this by any means but surely it'd make a decent contribution if every new building had solar panels installed during construction? Not to mention providing plenty of half decent jobs?

Not sure if they're available yet, but the next development in solar panels was going to be roof tiles made out of solar PV material so they'd look like a normal roof.
When that happens there really is no excuse.

Current system is householder pays for the panels and fitting to solar panel sompany. They get a paid from the electricity company e.g. british gas approx 15p/kwh generated. The householder uses whatever energy they wish and the remainder goes back to the grid and the householder gets approx 5p/kwh for the excess energy they generate. All payments to the householder from the electricity companies are tax free. For my 3 bed semi it would cost approx £7k to install and pay back in 7-10 years via payments from electricity company and the fact that I would have no electricity bills. The lifetime of the panels is guaranteed for 20 yrs. In theory the excess power my house could produce could power next door as well.

All very well and good and I would jump at it had I got the £7k to pay for it.

By getting the generators to pay for the fitting and allowing them to keep all profits from sales of excess power generated it would benefit both the elctricity company and the householder. A very sensible arrangement for all concerned so it definitely won't happen!!!

Well I am getting Solar Panels fitted next week. For free.

The company supplying them takes the feed in tarrif and I just get to use the electricity generated to reduce my bills. I basically rent my roof to them. They maintain them and even agree if I need the panels removed for roof maintenance they do it for free.

A while back this option would have been a poor one if you had the funds to buy them yourself but now its debatable if you did have the money if you couldn't get a similar return by simply investing it.

I also probably won't be in this house long enough to reach break even anyway so it seemed a no-brainier to me.



Some energy companies did used to offer free solar panels but withdrew from the market as the feed-in tariff reduced. So it wasn't simply selling the excess that had them offering free panels but the fact the feed-in tariff you signed over to them was large enough for them to make it worthwhile.

As it stands my supplier reckons due to the fact the panels cost them less than the typical £7K you would pay and even at the reduced level of feed in tarrif they still make a profit long term. This is despite covering all maintenance of the whole system (not just the panels).

I could in theory use the generated leccy to run a ground or air sourced heat pump to further reduce my bills.

What was also interesting when discussing all this with them was the next big thing will he storing the excess daytime leccy generated for use after dark. Theoretically you ought to be able to store enough to meet you entire needs for the "average" household. I'd love to be able to put the leccy generators out of business from my point of view by doing that!

I think they reckon there will be suitable incentives to install this technology but if they do, they need to remove on David Cameron who today I see panicked in PMQ's and threatened to remove the "green subsidy" from the cost of our bills as his solution to the problem of rising prices (a Labour policy of the last government "opposed" by a grand total of 5 MP's in the entire House)

A retired couple at the end of our cul-de-sac had them fitted a few years ago to their bungalow, he paid himself from his lump sum retirement cash off his pension and as the feed in tariff was over 40p at the time he reckons he gets his free usage and a return on his investment of over 10% in money back, far better than the bank or BS. Might not be as lucrative now as the tariff is much lower I believe.

They do exist already.
You're right, there's no excuse now.

You have to get the big housebuilders on side first, which is very difficult, they are reluctant to change. I have worked with the likes of Bellway, Bovis, Barratt etc for over 12 years and they challenge even small changes to the industry that might put costs up, especially in the current climate. Currently, the biggest problem for the industry is getting bricks, blocks and roof tiles as the manufacturers shut down production and it's not easy to get back up to speed, so applying massive changes of this type would be fought against. Where you do see PV panels etc is in the social housing sector, where they get the tariff back themselves.

What? You mean the profit-driven, private sector doesn't always work flexibly and wonderfully? You've been reading Das Kapital. You Commie.

Quote ="DaveO"...I think they reckon there will be suitable incentives to install this technology but if they do, they need to remove on David Cameron who today I see panicked in PMQ's and threatened to remove the "green subsidy" from the cost of our bills as his solution to the problem of rising prices (a Labour policy of the last government "opposed" by a grand total of 5 MP's in the entire House)'" So much for "Vote blue, go green" ([iD.Cameron, April 2006, back in the days when he'd fly to a snowy country to have his photo taken hugging a husky[/i). www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urges.html I see Sir John Major reckons that some people having to choose between heating and eating is "unacceptable" and energy suppliers using a 6% cost rise to justify a 10% price rise is also "unacceptable". Another bloody Marxist.

Quote ="DaveO"...I think they reckon there will be suitable incentives to install this technology but if they do, they need to remove on David Cameron who today I see panicked in PMQ's and threatened to remove the "green subsidy" from the cost of our bills as his solution to the problem of rising prices (a Labour policy of the last government "opposed" by a grand total of 5 MP's in the entire House)'" So much for "Vote blue, go green" ([iD.Cameron, April 2006, back in the days when he'd fly to a snowy country to have his photo taken hugging a husky[/i). www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urges.html I see Sir John Major reckons that some people having to choose between heating and eating is "unacceptable" and energy suppliers using a 6% cost rise to justify a 10% price rise is also "unacceptable". Another bloody Marxist.

If you think that was bad, have you seen any of his other comments?

This took my eye:

"IDS is trying to reform benefits. But unless he is lucky or a genius, which last time I looked was not true, he may get things wrong ... If he listens only to bean-counters and cheerleaders only concerned with abuse of the system, he will fail."

[url=http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/john-major-bites-back.htmlStory[/url

Ruddy Marxists, as you say.

Yup.
But he hasn't factored in how IDS's "belief" trumps everything else.

True.

I spent a few years working for housing developer clients, including 2 of the ones you mention.
You could always tell who was destined to reach the top in their organisation.
It was the biggest most arrogant 2@.