Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Gas and electricity

Energy bills set to reach £2,000 a year

John Fitzsimons
by Lovemoney Staff John Fitzsimons on 03 February 2010  |  Comments 22 comments

Energy bills will skyrocket to unaffordable levels by 2015 unless the Government acts now, says a new report.

The Government may soon be completely in charge of the energy market in the UK, with far reaching changes needed to prevent energy bills skyrocketing to £2,000 a year, energy watchdog Ofgem has warned.

The regulator has concluded its Project Discovery report, with some shocking findings. Chief among them is the suggestion that unless the infrastructure behind the energy market is completely revamped, you and I will face energy costs spiralling out of control.

For many of us, gas and electricity will be simply unaffordable - and that could mean the lights going out across the country.

What's the problem?

Ofgem has highlighted a number of key issues which present a perfect storm of challenges to the UK energy market.

These include the fact that huge investment is required into the energy market - many of our power stations are nearing the end of the line and need replacing - at a time when finances are tight, while the pressures of hitting domestic and international carbon targets are also likely to force up prices.

In addition, our energy supplies are far from secure, with our reliance on energy from overseas.

All these factors combined present a massive problem in terms of providing us with energy at an affordable price - by 2015 energy bills may be beyond many of us, according to the report, and could come to as much as £2,000 a year for some.

What's more, Ofgem reckons the measures needed to fix it might cost an almighty £200bn.

The suggested solutions

This is the bit that is really interesting, and will have far reaching consequences not just on how much we pay in energy bills, but who that money goes to.

Ofgem has outlined a series of different possible solutions.

The most basic plan involves targeted reforms, consisting of setting a minimum carbon price (which Ofgem thinks will promote low carbon investment) and improving price signals, which would encourage suppliers to ensure they had access to back up supplies, particularly in times of high demand.

Should this prove unsuccessful, there are a series of additions to the plan that can be added, including further energy supply obligations on suppliers, and launching a tenders process for renewable energy to encourage private investment.

Here comes nationalisation...

The final plan is the most radical - if all of the other ideas don't work, Ofgem suggests having a 'central energy buyer', responsible for setting the amount and type of new energy needed, as well as organising tenders for the new infrastructure required.

In essence, it means state control of the energy market. We've already seen banks nationalised in the last few years - energy companies may very well be next.

What you can do

While that remains a long shot, the simple fact is that no matter what changes come into force, bills are only going one way: up.

Thankfully there are plenty of things you can do to ensure you are not hit too hard.

The first should be to adopt the Lower your household bills goal at lovemoney.com, which should give you plenty of ideas on how to keep your energy expenditure as low as possible.You could also use our online banking service to keep track of your energy bills, so you always know how much you're spending.

Nab a feed-in tariff

This week, the Government finally unveiled its plans for feed-in tariffs, and they should definitely be on your radar if you want to keep your energy expenditure as low as possible, over the long-term.

Basically, homeowners will be paid for generating their own power, through measures like rooftop windmills and solar panels.

And doing so could prove pretty lucrative - according to the Department for Energy and Climate Change, fitting a typical 2.5kW well sited solar pv installation could see the homeowner handed up to £900, as well as saving around £140 a year on their electricity bill.

In fact, any surplus energy created can then be sold on to the National Grid, earning you even more cash!

The Government is currently undergoing a consultation on the scheme - with some critics arguing the cash incentives should be even higher - before fully launching in April.

Get a better deal!

Millions of Brits languish each year on standard tariffs from their energy providers, shelling out hundreds of pounds more than they need to. It's utterly daft!

The key is to shop around for a tariff which really meets your needs, without breaking the bank.

Luckily lovemoney.com have our own utilities quote engine which, with just a few details, can save you a small fortune. The average saving reported by lovemoney.com users is a massive £215!

Get an energy quote from lovemoney.com's utilities quote engine

More: Beautiful people earn more money | Watch out for these cold-calling rip-offs

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (22)

  • Escapeman
    Love rating 13
    Escapeman said

    Tough news, though not unexpected.

    Your article relates to COST to the individual, and apart from the Feed-In Tarriff, nothing on what people can do to reduce their overall demand anyway.

    We have just built a house (locally called the Eco House, but it is far from beeing so). it is "low energy", though, and much can be applied to existing houses without much skill, and if you can do it yourself, not much cost.

    1) Install Solar HOT WATER panels. if you have an immersion heater port on a water tank you can exhange that electrical heater for a hot water wand from the solar panel. Harder to add panels with Combi boilers but can be done.

    Reckon on £1k+ for the bits for a single solar panel, add on to that incidental costs for pipe lagging, scaffolding, tool hire, and DIY!

    We have practiaclly free hot water (reduced family now of two) from about March to September, with the occasional burst from the boiler. We make sure our washing machine is used on sunny days too.

    2) Cut out the draughts. Find any gaps between windows and walls, doors and plug 'em up. Keep the expenive heat in! Builder foam about a fiver a tin, and you can get better than that if you look. Dirt cheap to do.

    3) Sounds like a worn out record: Insulate and re-insulate the loft. Re-lay the floor if you have to! Deals are on all over the place for 2-for-1 for extra insulation. it pays for itsel in minutes.

    4) Get a whole-house energy meter, and see what uses the juice. Cost £35 (Efergy). Look at LED (Light emmiting diode) replacement lamps. The so-called Low Energy lamps the G'ment is so keen on you using is only a stop gap. Our GU10 replacement cost £20 - and uses 3 (three) watts. it will pay for itself in 18 months, and will last about 20 (twenty) years. It is "warm white" not that crappy blue white you get with cheaper models.

    5) Also consider re-plasterboarding your main living room(s) with Jablite-backed plasterboard. Helps seal all those leaky window-frame gaps, allows you to put in more interesting lighting, the cable for your surround sound system ... Basically, we did this with 40mm boards (28mm of insulation) and we are toasty warm all winter.

    6) NOW consider getting PV solar panels on your roof. Payback period is down to 16 years or so, but that could be a lot less if price of enery goes up violently. It may also give you a secondary source of electricity (what powers the pumps in your boiler when you get a power cut?).  Cost in the order of £10-20k!

    If you really want to look at the country's energy problem, look at the (freely downloadable) booy "Sustainable Enery without the hoyt air" by David McKay (http://www.withouthotair.com/).

    As an aside, we have not had the boiler on for the past week other than 30 minutes to heat water for a shower.

    Start thinking on doing simple stuff to protect YOURSEVES rather than getting a better energy deal for your money.

    And no, I am not an eco-warrior, I just wanted less dependency on others for my energy needs! It's the engi8neer in me, y'see.

    Report on 05 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Stargazer
    Love rating 11
    Stargazer said

    Went to a lecture by Prof. Mackay last year and can thoroughly recommend his book. He has tried out many and varied energy saving ideas on his own typical semi-detached house - and, of course, assessed them thoroughly for effectiveness and value for money. Prof. Mackay's book also sets the standard as a comprehensive analysis of the feasibility of generating the world's energy using sustainable means.

    For a typical house better insulation and draughtproofing is probably the most cost-effective way to save energy, followed by replacement of an inefficient boiler. And yes, solar water heating is much more cost-effective than solar panels.

    Report on 05 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • bungalow
    Love rating 4
    bungalow said

    During the 'energy crisis@ of the mid 1970's I worked in Basildon and we fitted 6 new bungalows with PV's had south facing walls painted black with a glass pane in front ( tromb walls ) had heat pumps smart meters on the gas & electric easily giving up to the minute enrgy costs the level of insulation beat the current Part L and 6 families and of all things Double glazing ( a first for Rented properties? ) 6 of the Gadafi expelled refugee Ugandan Asians ( all graduates ) moved in and moniotored their energy use afxing the costs weekly back to us I recall. Bills were over 2/3 less than those for ordinary homes with admittedly a long 30year payback.

    What happened to the work.. the Oil supplies came back from OPEC M Thatcher pioneered short term free market economics Including the sell off of these homes and we all saidlets have jam today & stuff tomorrow.

    You get what you deserve, & reap what you sow.

    Report on 05 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • nosbort
    Love rating 124
    nosbort said

    I looked into feed-in some time ago and from a purely ecconomic point of view it simply didn't make sense. I'm sure the costs have changed but I was quoted £16k for the kit to feed into the grid, that is on top of the cost of the generating set. Unless this is made affordable I can't see many people doing this.

    Report on 05 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Reality Returns
    Love rating 4
    Reality Returns said

    Of course energy prices will soar when you compare the cost of so called renewable energy to hydrocarbon energy:

     

    Wind on shore - FOUR times the cost of a modern combined cycle gas station per kw installed (low capacity factor and needs open cycle oil fired GTs or low loaded coal/oil plant to cover this)

     

    Wind off shore - EIGHT times the cost of a modern combined cycle gas station per kw installed (improved capacity factor but still needs some open cycle oil fired GTs or low loaded coal/oil plant back-up)

     

    Biomass Power - TEN times the cost of a modern combined cycle gas station per kw installed

     

    All the costs are rechargeable to the consumer as part of the so called 'Green' Obligation. In addition the consumer has to pay for the carbon credits that the energy producers buy for the 'right' to generate what is basically cheap energy from the hydrocarbon fuels (Coal, Gas and Oil).

     

    This is the price we pay to freeze from so called global warming. The national press indicates the cost to the UK citizens of all this climate change abatement nonsense will be in excess of £700 billion over the next forty years. The outcome will be hugely increased energy poverty, a tiny reduction in plant food (CO2) and no detectable difference in global average temperature. This is all at a time when eminent solar scientists tell us that the Earth is moving into a cooling period.

     

    With no average warming officially detected since 1998 and colder winters now, this appears far more likely than 'run-away global warming.' The whole 20th century only experienced a 0.6 deg C temperature rise and most of this was natural variation as experienced in centuries before industrialisation.

     

    The way forward is extensive nuclear power (cheaper and more reliable than windmills) and, as the 300 years coal we already have in reserves becomes more economic to acquire, building new coal fired plant without the ridiculous expense of carbon sequestration.

     

    Report on 05 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • oldhenry
    Love rating 265
    oldhenry said

    A lot of 'sharks' will(have) move(d) into the energy business with the idea of making a fast buck, and they will. The solar lark/wind generator lark is for dreamers, you will never pay for the massive rip off costs.

    I got a woodburner 8 years ago, self fitted and free wood. That makes sense( and is carbon neutral). There is free wood everywhere, you have to look for it and be prepared to hump it and cut it ,and season it . But it is fun and keeps you fit into the bargain.

    Forget teh solar lark, now grond energy may be ok if you are prepared to dig a great trench acroos your garden, but if you leave the house, no one will repay you, the buyers prefer seeing a silly consavatory.

    Report on 05 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Reality Returns
    Love rating 4
    Reality Returns said

    OLDHENRY

    Couldn't agree more on the PV / Windmill / Heatpump rip-offs. Waste of space and money but I cannot say I am that keen on wondering round finding my own firewood - how do you keep cool if Global Warming ever happens or even in the odd British warm summer?

    I'll stick with gas heating and electric cooling for my home, thanks. I like my climate controlled in both home and car without chopping wood. I don't think many of us are the hunter-gatherer types after years of civilisation. Carbon neutral is the last thing I would consider, if at all. Technology will provide as it always has...needs no carbon police...lol

    Report on 05 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Meanmachine2
    Love rating 37
    Meanmachine2 said

    Something does not add up with regards to all the hype about selling electricity back to the grid.

    I saw an advert on TV for solar electric panels where it was claimed that you could sell your surplus electricity back to the grid at 23p per unit. As I can buy electricity at about 10p per unit I dont think that the suppliers are going to take a loss. So who's telling porkies?

    The only people who are going to get rich are the installers. 

    Report on 05 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • fenemore
    Love rating 202
    fenemore said

    Maybe the government now realises that letting all our energy companies fall into foreign hands was not the best decision they ever made. Didn't they EVER stop to think just why other European countries did not follow that ethos? They protected their own infrastructure by forbidding foreign companies to get a foothold - despite what competition legislation comes out of Brussels. Perhaps it is time for us to give a two-fingured salute to "rules" we don't like. I for one would vote for that!

    Report on 05 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Ken1961
    Love rating 22
    Ken1961 said

    nosbort relook at your calculations the new feed in tariffs and a drop in the cost of pv panels (about 20%) make far more sense than they did just a few months ago.

    Lots of comments from people who don't have a clue!

     

    Oldhenry, how the hell can ground energy be ok, which costs around 10kw/hr of electricity to run for a typical house, and will set you back circa £10-15k, but solar thermal, which cost around £2.5k and has very little running costs, (only a small central heating style pump) in your opinion is not! explain please.

    Reality Returns, so pv is a rip off is it? so your investment will last around 25-30years, costs the same as a small family car (£10-12k), pay for it's self in around 10 to 12 years, with a guaranteed feed in tariff of 36.1pence per unit increasing with inflation for the next 25 years for new build house and 41.6pence per unit for retrofit in to existing houses, as with new build this will increase with inflation for at least the next 25 years. This tariff is for ALL the electricity you generate including the units you use, so the units you use cost from the utility company circa 10p, they pay you the difference and the full amount for the units you do not use, please explain how this is a rip off? I've no idea where you got your generating costs, but they are a cuntry mile off. Also in case you have not noticed gas is a finite fossil fuel, and in addition to this I have no desire to depend on Russia for it. Nuclear power is not the answer, it's a costly method of generating electricity, the risk of accidents and the problems surrounding storage of spent fuel and decommissioning out way any advantages it may have, to verify this just look into BNFL's track record.

    Meanmachine2 you should have payed more attention to the tv advert, you might have learned some thing.

    Of course you guys are all entitled to your opinion, however if you are going to give an opinion please base this on fact, not hear say from Fred in your local pub. 

       

    I have been in the energy conservation industry for over 30 years and have been shouting that in this country we are squandering our natural resources through ignorance, long before any one had ever heard of global warming (which I think is a tax raising red herring). What is beyond any argument is that fossil fuel is a finite resource and is therefore going to run out. So we are left with Hydro, Tidal, Wind, Solar Photovoltaic, Hydrogen CHP & Carbon Capture along with micro generation schemes which is where you come in.

    Like it or not gentlemen, as the song say's; times they are a changing.

    Report on 05 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Ken1961
    Love rating 22
    Ken1961 said

    oops of course I ment "country"

    Report on 05 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Escapeman
    Love rating 13
    Escapeman said

    All,

    I URGE you all to get the book ("Sustainable Energy withouth the Hot Air") and browse. He is a bright spark, that David McKay, and I think what he says is well reasoned and worthwhile considering.

    HOWEVER - I disagree about ground source heat pumps. You use 1 kWh of energy to drive the pump, but get 3-4 kWh of heat out. If you burn coal, you only get 20-25% of the energy in that coal extracted and across your doorstep as electricity. Gas is better but the same holds. Better burn that gas in an efficeient condensing boiler.

    As for feed in tarriffs etc - it is a clever ploy to get YOU to pay for the capital investment of the Photovoltaic (not termal) solar panels. It therefore builds extra geeneration capacity, albeit fickle.

    As for nuclear power stations, I am all in favour, though using other fuels than uranium (eg thorium?) And dont think coal is "safer" - our local powerstation (ca 2000 MW) burns about 100,000 TONNES of coal A WEEK! In that contects, a nuclear reacto with 130 tonnes of radioactive material *for its lifetime* ain't so bad. It is just more toxic, but at least you know (or shoud know!) where it is.

    Also, do not confuse THERMAL solar panels with PHOTOVOLTAIC soar panels. The former heats water (can be 90% but I reckon ours is more like 70%), the second generates electicity (20% or less). Thermal is lot cheaper than PV!

    Report on 05 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Ken1961
    Love rating 22
    Ken1961 said

    Yes a heat pump has a cop of around 3 or 4 to one. i.e. put 1Kw in get between 3 & 4 out, however the average house requires more than 3 or 4kw to heat it. On average a modern family home requires around 10 to 12Kw there for between 2 & 4Kw of electricity will be used to produce this. Then you have to add to this the hot water demand between 3 & 6kw, depending upon usage and expected recovery rates. So typical house between 5Kw/hr. & 10Kw/hr.

    Most ground heat pumps are not suitable to generate the DHW (domestic hot water for bathing) due to the low temperatures they generate, typically below 50 deg C, water needs to be stored above 60 deg C to combat legionella bacteria so immersion heaters require to be used. Also ground heat pumps if you did try to heat your DHW with the heat pump through the night, when it was used, you would have to revert back to the immersion heaters in the day time and to raise the water to above 60 deg C, typically 65 deg C.

    All of these figures of course depend on the heating system being underfloor heating and well designed through out the building as radiators are not particularly suitable for heat pumps and efficiencies will be altered and bad design will negate all advantages a heat pump could give.

    I will restate my aversion to nuclear, because no one has addressed the expense of dealing with spent fuel storage and the costs involved in decommissioning the power plant at the end of it's life. The fuel also has to be mined and transported, and again I will state that if you want to see the real cost of nuclear generated electricity look at BNFL's track record.

     

    The argument about Pv panels that Escapeman puts forward as a ploy.....sorry how is that? The utility company is going to pay back to you approximately 3.5 to 4 times the amount of money that they charge you, for example you generate 1000 units of electricity with your Pv panels in a new house, they will pay you £361, so they are paying you for EVERY unit you generate, now if you have used 500 of those units, they will charge you 10p per unit, so you will get a bill for £50, which means they will send you a cheque for £311, which is the amount you have generated minus the amount you have used, the only ploy behind this is to get you to use less electricity, because the less you use the bigger your cheque. Yes you have paid for the capital investment, yes it builds extra generation capacity, yes you are saving them from building that capacity, but they are paying you back, and in 10 to 12 years, you will have your money back and still have 13 to 15 years of guaranteed feed in tariff which is all profit as there are no maintenance costs.

     

    David McKay has got some things right but not every thing, technology has moved in this market sector very rapidly, there are many new products with vast improvements made to them, and prices are coming down as more companies join in e.g. Solar panels, both Pv & thermal have dropped in price by around 20% in the last few months which has the effect of shortening payback periods.

     

    Report on 06 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Reality Returns
    Love rating 4
    Reality Returns said

    Ken1961 - Obviously you are a green PV salesman.

    The German Experience - They are ahead in this plant food abatemetn nonsense and the government is in full back-pedal on solar. Read on: 

    The Economist, April 2008

    The law says electricity produced from renewable sources must be purchased by utilities according to a generous "feed-in tariff" that sets higher-than-market rates and fixes them for 20 years. Roof-mounted photovoltaic systems installed in 2007, for example, can sell power at €0.49 per kilowatt-hour, or about seven times today's wholesale price, until 2027. The fixed rate allows investors to calculate returns and removes uncertainty over financing.

    The utilities that buy power at these higher rates pass the extra costs back to their customers in the form of higher electricity bills. This added an average of 1 euro cent per kilowatt-hour to the price of electricity last year, increasing the typical household electricity bill by 5%, or €3 a month. For the country as a whole, the cost was €7.7 billion in 2007, up 38% on the year before. Enthusiasts consider that a small price to jump-start a new industry and start decarbonising the power supply.

    But the government is not so sure. It has proposed a revision to the EEG, which calls for a shift away from solar and towards other forms of renewable energy, and offshore wind in particular. As things stand, the feed-in tariff for solar goes down by 5% every year. But new proposals call for a cut of 9.2% next year, and 7-8% thereafter.

    The problem is not just the expense of the existing law. Cheerleaders for solar had hoped that the increased demand for panels would help manufacturers reduce unit costs, and thus make solar more competitive in the long run. Instead, the rush into solar has led to a shortage of the high-grade silicon used to make the cells, which has soared in price from $25 per kilogram in 2003 to around $400 today.

    Indeed, such is the demand for solar panels in Germany that it has kept prices high globally. This is wonderful for manufacturers, but makes it more expensive to install solar capacity in sunnier parts of the world, where it would generate more electricity. The EEG's generous rates for solar amounted to "picking winners on a grand scale", says Dieter Helm, an expert on energy policy at the University of Oxford.

    Concluding:

    In the long run, the hope is that Germany's clean-tech industry will be able to survive without any subsidies, and will do its bit to preserve the country's status as an industrial titan. Yet unless solar power becomes competitive with cheaper forms of generation, it will never make much of a dent in the nuclear and coal-fired power on which Germany relies. And then there is the problem of storing it for use on cloudy days and at night. Meanwhile, the unlikely flowering of solar panels beneath Germany's cloudy skies continues.

    You can see why so few people in the UK have solar panels. There are much more cost-beneficial and real investments to make or as in the example below better ways to spend your money to obtain immediate benefit.

    Who would ever pay for a car knowing it was at least 12 to 15 years before they could get any benefit from it and they'd have to travel by bus in the meantime? But any time during the 12 to 15 years, the government could pull the plug so it could be 25 to 40 years....bad deal, Mr PV salesman.

    Report on 06 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Reality Returns
    Love rating 4
    Reality Returns said

    When all this AGW mythology dies - PV and wind power die too. Can't come too soon!!

    Nuclear has a proven record of safe and productive operation over decades. It is only objected to by pseudo-green luddites (and PV salesmen) who want to turn our economies back to the middle-ages.

    When the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow,

    back to nuclear power we'll go!

    300 years of coal in the ground

    Digging it up, economically sound

    Imported fuel will be so low

    Just oil and gas for the cars to flow.

    A little good explorative geology

    Indiginous fossil fuel, for our technology.

    Get stuck in on PV / windmills, or save yourselves a packet and don't.

    Report on 06 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Escapeman
    Love rating 13
    Escapeman said

    Ken1961 - you and I are singing from the same songsheet!

    When I said "ploy", I meant it in the sense that, instead of the Governmment/Utility company paying directly for building another power station, by using feed-in tarriffs, they persuade households to foot the equivalent capital cost.

    I am very worried about energy dependence of the UK.

    What happens when Russia turns off the gas supply, or the middle east decides to sell to China? Sure we have coal, but it is pretty filthy, even in non-carbon terms.

    I want to make sure that the my solar panel generates hot water for a good fraction of the year, the PV cells (if I had them) the electrical energy for living a pretty 21st C life, and wood-burning (no coal for me) stove to be warm in the winter.

    One thing that seems to assumed is that everyone wants to know what the cost/payback period is in £ (or $ or whatever). I want to know what the carbon cost is for most things, I still have to dela with the monetary world to buy things, but I prefer to get whatever I buy directed to energy independence, and to lower my impact on this planet.

    All househoilds in the UK amount for 4% of the electicity consumed, aparrently. Even if everyon adopts an energy independence stance, they ain't gonna make much impact as a whole.

    Those are my choices, others can choose others. But I'll encourage and help anyone who choses to be energy independent, to be so.

    Report on 06 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Reality Returns
    Love rating 4
    Reality Returns said

    Escapeman

    "but I prefer to get whatever I buy directed to energy independence, and to lower my impact on this planet"

    1) costly solar panels will make no difference to enegry dependancy for buk supply of energy in the UK as they haven't in Germany

    2) as to saving the planet - I'm surprised anyone still believe all that tax-hiking nonesense with recent developments. There has been no global warming since 1998 and we ae experiencing the coldest winter in 30 years.

    3) A few solar panels will make an undetectable difference to the UK's 2% of world emissions; the UK's world emissions have an undetectable influence on world emissions and world CO2 emissions have but a minimal influence on global temperature.

    4) Burning wood has drabacks, not least the inconvenience but each to his/her own.

    If you buy solar, you waste money and achieve nothing.

    Report on 08 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • fenemore
    Love rating 202
    fenemore said

    I'm with you Escapeman - if you had to dream up an idea where the Great British Public would willingly pay more for less, you couldn't do better than invent "man-made global warming".

    As you say - if it were true then our tiny pimple of an island can make no difference whatsoever. If we stopped ALL co2 emissions tomorrow it would have zero impact. I just do not understand how so many people are being fooled - maybe the Great Pritish Public should be renamed as the Gullible British Public.

    Report on 08 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • ffordcash
    Love rating 0
    ffordcash said

    PV panels are also a good investment.

    You can achieve 8-10% tax-free return, which makes the payback time less than 10 years. Not all properties are suitable, but if you have roof which faces within +-20 degrees of south you are in an ideal position. Viable systems will cost from £6000 and usually take less than 2 days to fit.

    I am in the business.

    http://www.thegreenelectrician.co.uk

    Report on 12 August 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • solarlite
    Love rating 0
    solarlite said

    The fact that all payments made to solar pv owners through the Feed in tariff scheme come courtesy of the energy companies, it is plain to see that energy bills will rise to compensate for this, In a nutshell if you dont own solar pv you may well be paying for those who do.

    A wise investment? i believe so.

    www.solarlite-uk.com

    Report on 14 May 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • tudorsolar
    Love rating 1
    tudorsolar said

    If you scared of rising energy bills you should start thinking about investing your money to secure yourself in future. Energy is more and more expensive every year (it will never stop). So what to do? Invest?

    That is not an easy task to make a good investment. There are lots of companies clamming to be a solution for your money. But more likely you are solution for their money. Visit this article: http://www.lovemoney.com/news/debt/improve-your-finances/5292/six-ways-to-get-100-for-free

    If you are able to generate your own electricity and sell it to the grid your problem is solved. Visit http://www.tudorsolar.com .

    Decide now what is best for you and your family.

    Regards

    Report on 14 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • sTudorSolar
    Love rating 1
    sTudorSolar said

    "If you scared of rising energy bills you should start to think about investing your money to secure yourself in future. Energy is more and more expensive every year (it will never stop). So what to do? Invest?"

    Agree!

    Report on 27 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 26 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable)

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Halifax BT 25 Month MasterCard

0% for 25 months (2.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 19.0% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV2