Feed in Tariff

Cardew wrote: »

So once again your only defence of solar subsidies is that nuclear also gets subsidies. Also in the case of FIT you don't even have to export a single kWh to get a subsidy for every kWh generated.

PV doesn't need defending, it has already crossed the finishing line, you just don't know how to admit you are wrong.

I've given loads of reasons why PV is successful, but you are in complete denial. I point out the effect on global prices, so you say that's not important. I point out that costs are as low (or lower) than wind and nuclear, and you're not interested. I say that CO2 has been reduced and you say CO2 has nothing to do with it. I point out the subsidy is probably the fairest we've ever seen, returning monies to consumers and you run away and hide.

You even resort, repeatedly, year after year, to a silly mention of self consumption, despite the fact that you know that export and offset have the same effect on the grid ...... don't you remember your sad and silly potato arguments?

Cardew wrote: »

It suits your silly argument to ignore the huge disadvantage of solar in that its generation is unreliable with nothing generated at the time of maximum load on the grid.

Never ignored anything. I simply don't see the point of judging PV on what it doesn't do. That's just 'old Dad' logic, moaning about everything that's new and predicting it won't work. If you want downsides for nuclear, how about BANG and $100bn's in clean up costs! Does that help anyone, does that promote an adult discussion?

Following your logic, then you'd be happy with PV if it only generated from 5pm to 7pm in the GMT months. Or to put it another way, if it generated for 1hr per day on average, rather than for 11hrs per day on average. Or to put it another way, you never use leccy during daylight hours ....... is that true?

We can get 10% of our leccy from PV without any issues. Perhaps 20% with storage. Given that nuclear probably can't exceed 10GW (15GW at most) without needing storage, then they seem to share the same disadvantage.

The problem for nuclear is that if storage is built, then nuclear will die. Large scale storage is agnostic, it doesn't care where the leccy comes from, so if you build storage, you'll build PV and on-shore wind at £80/MWh rather than nuclear at £100/MWh (probably £118/MWh by 2025).

Cardew wrote: »

Every time you post, you weaken your case. Read Monbiot's article in the link I gave above.

I seem to be busting your myths just fine, whilst you only repeat old articles and try to stir up arguments.

Why would I want to read that article again, I read it 6 years ago, it was a joke then and has only gotten worse.

Cardew wrote: »

What Monbiot stated years ago is as true now as it is was then.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff

I absolutely agree, it's as true now as it was then, assuming you still believe that:-

1. Only poor households are to pay the FiT budget.
2. That PV is comically inefficient, and generation should be judged on processing efficiences not economics.
3. That PV generation costs 7 to 9 times more than wind and hydro.
4. That Germany reduced its FiT rate in 2010 because it was turning its back on PV, rather than because PV costs were falling.
4a. That Germany reduced the scale of PV rollout from 2010, rather than increased it.
5. That houses don't have to meet minimum efficiency standards to receive FiT.
6. That PV'ers will wire incoming mains to the TGM's and fraudulently earn a fortune.

I'm sure there are other 'truths', since you describe Monbiot as an environmentalist, perhaps have a read of the FOE response to his article, it's quite detailed.

In defence of feed-in tariffs: Friends of the Earth response to George Monbiot


Once again Cardew it's over. If you want to attack PV you have to offer something better. So far PV beats nuclear on cost, flexibility, subsidy time period, subsidy volumes, public support, world wide acceptance.

Mart.

PS. In case you're worried that you wind me up with this nonsense, don't be concerned. I love this stuff, it's great trying to educate people, not matter how resistant to the truth they may be.

kevin6666 wrote: »

Let us know when we'll start decommissioning traditional power stations due to PV been so awesome.

Soon as I get my battery back up you can let them know to get started....

Cardew wrote: »

PV apparently beats Nuclear on Flexibility. Cue more 'thanks' from his disciples.

How's your 4kW domestic nuclear reactor going? Probably as well as your hamster wheels!

I point this out to you, as you spent years attacking 'sub 4kWp systems on roofs', and yet now they are generating at a lower cost than your beloved nuclear. Quite an entertaining position, especially on a Green & Ethical board.


Anyways, back to your claim that Monbiot is as true now, as then, so are you claiming the following are all true:-

1. Only poor households are to pay the FiT budget.
2. That PV is comically inefficient, and generation should be judged on processing efficiences not economics.
3. That PV generation costs 7 to 9 times more than wind and hydro.
4. That Germany reduced its FiT rate in 2010 because it was turning its back on PV, rather than because PV costs were falling.
4a. That Germany reduced the scale of PV rollout from 2010, rather than increased it.
5. That houses don't have to meet minimum efficiency standards to receive FiT.
6. That PV'ers will wire incoming mains to the TGM's and fraudulently earn a fortune.

Perhaps it is time you actually explained your position, rather than just throwing out insults and claiming that folk don't need leccy during daylight hours, only during the winter evenings.

Mart.

I seem to be in exactly the same situation. We moved into our house on the 24th of March and the sales rep only called round to hand over an envelope of paper-work (MCS certificate etc) about 2 weeks later!

I even spoke to the energy saving trust after British Gas rejected our application and they assured me that there was no such cutoff point and our application should have been added to a queue for the next FIT cap period, its only after speaking to them that I've found out that we are excluded, from information buried in a 126 page PDF from the Ofgem website...

I cant believe that we should be excluded from the feed in tariff just because of the date our installation was built???

I guess you missed the recent news that Ferrybridge C power station, a 2000 MW coal-burning plant in North Yorkshire, ceased operation at the end of March?

Or that Longannet power station (2400 MW) in Scotland closed in the same month?

Others that have closed in the last few years are Kingsnorth (1940 MW, 2012), Didcot A (1940 MW, 2013), Cockenzie (1152 MW, 2013), Tilbury B (1037 MW, 2013), Ironbridge B (970 MW, 2015) and Littlebrook D (1245 MW, 2015).