The new feed-in-tariffs kick in today, the 1st of April 2010, but are they worth it? Who really foots the bill?

A recent Radio 4 programme examined this very issue, showing that it isn't as straightforward as it might at first seem.

What are FITs?

Feed-in-tariffs or, the clean energy cashback, encourage people to generate energy at home. The government pay you for all energy you produce -that which you use and any excess you send back to the grid.

This can involve a range of technologies, but the most common are solar panels and wind turbines.

Clean energy targets

The aim is to help us reach renewable energy targets.

Former boss of the Renewable Energy Association Phillip Wolf said: "The UK's actually way behind the rest of Europe and much of the rest of the world in terms of the take up of renewable energy. We produce here about 2 per cent of our energy from renewables whereas the European average is approaching 10 per cent."

Wolf says that, with the FITs, for the first time: "people will actually get a sensible financial return for their investment."

Let's talk money  

Wolf estimates that a £15 - £30,000 outlay on the technologies is typical.

The rates of payback vary wildly. With wind you're guaranteed a return of 5-8 per cent a year index linked for 20 years tax free.

Guardian columnist George Mombiot says that this technology is aimed at those with capital to spend, largely the middle classes.

The FIT is levied against all consumers though, including the poorest.

All bill payers face, on average, £6.50 per year added to their bills to pay those making money from renewables.

Farmers

Farmers, with more well placed land and buildings than most, are set to benefit from and contribute to FITs massively. Many have south-facing rooves, ideal for solar panels. Poultry rearing operations can be powered by small wind turbines. Solar thermal can heat water for dairy farmers.

Urban generation

Most people in the UK live in towns. For FITs to be as successful as the government hope, it must work in urban areas too.

With unreliable wind speeds and smaller, often less ideally positioned roof space, isn't it a gamble how much good most people can do -for themselves or the environment?

Ethical?

For some, the decision about whether to take advantage of the FIT scheme or not is largely an ethical one.

In talking about wind technology, George Mombiot said: "It all depends on whether you're going to get the sort of return in terms of electricity from that wind turbine which would actually justify the subsidies.

"It could be, you do. And if so, good luck to you. You'll be doing very well out of it but perhaps you deserve to because you'll be generating electricity which'll actually help to reduce carbon emissions. 

"But if you don't have high wind speeds then basically it's a scam. You'll still make plenty of money out of it because the investment is geared in such a way that you can't really lose.

"But the rest of us will be paying you to mess about while we could be doing something more serious. Like insulating homes or perhaps putting the money into a very large scale wind farm in the optimum place -where it's windiest, rather than where your home happens to be. This would actually give us a much better return in terms of carbon cuts for the money that we'd spend."

The Energy Savings Trust's strategy director points to social tariffs and the odd housing association scheme to help the less well-off take advantage of FITs to dispute claims they penalise any sector of society.

In considering a wind turbine for his country home, BBC presenter Tom Heap concluded: "When the westerlies do blow, I'd save carbon and make money, but poorer people than me are footing a large part of the bill."

Happy with your microgeneration installer? Recommend them to others in the W? Local community.