2026-10-22: I found these old writings when I was cleaning up some stuff and added them here.
Read more…
The argument's topic about usage of renewable energy and feed-in tariff system is a pretty recent thing. It says that it always is beneficiary for consumers (from individual homeowners to large corporations) to install solar panels on their premises and enter into a long-term contract with their electricity company where the company has to purchase electricity from such people at an increased rate. They claim that it more than offsets the initial costs of installation of solar panels and suggest that the feed-in tariff plan be more actively pursued. In the process they have made some assumptions which if questioned and proven wrong might leave their argument vulnerable.
Firstly they have assumed that it is always possible for the customer to bear the initial costs of the solar panels and their installation. The consumer might not have the surplus necessary for that after their other expenses. It is possible that they take a loan from bank for the aforementioned purpose but the interest rates of banks could sometimes get so high that it no longer remains justifiable to do so. Although if the government introduces some kind of scheme where banks are supposed to provide a loan at much lower rate of interest then it might become feasible.
The second point then comes that consumers just might not have the space required to install the solar panels. It is not that difficult a task for people who live in separate bungalows or corporations who have a complete building for them. But in the case of someone living in an apartment or someone having an office in a large building it no longer remains viable to have solar panels installed because they don't have the required space for it.
It is also stated that the consumer needs to enter into a long-term contract with the company. This can also cause hindrance because the people might not plan to remain in the same place for a long-time or they wish to switch their residence mid-contract, who bears the initial costs of those panels in that case and who gets to eat the fruits of feed-in tariff?
Also the place where the consumers are situated might not prove to be a good candidate for installation of solar panels. It might be due to a myriad of reasons ranging from not enough sunlight (like some hill-station which remains mostly cloudy) to frequent cases of tornadoes or an infestation of animals (like monkeys in India). All these factors can either decrease the money generated by the solar panels or increase the maintenance costs required to keep them working at their best.
All in all, the presented argument is compelling and they should actually pursue the feed-in system more actively but simultaneously they also should keep the points mentioned above in mind and try to decrease the hassles to the minimum possible for consumers.