Free solar panel discussion

Cardew

K4blades wrote: »

The fact that "the venture capitalists" you are so against, are fitting the systems onto peoples houses free, means that the poor can benefit.

Lots of 'the poor' in these parts don't own a house big enough to fit a solar PV array.;)

Most seem to live in flats or rented accomodation.

grahamc2003

Y_Phrunts wrote: »

Wow! that is quite a damning statement. Have you a link to establish that it is 10 times more costly than other forms of generation? I'd be interested to look at the scale. But are you not missing the point in that PV is a green energy whereas others may not be. If it's so expensive in comparison why are the Germans going for it?
.

I'm sure you can easily google to find the cost of generation by conventional plant of around 3p/kwh (that's an average cost - it varies every half hour, and has been known to be zero).

The suppliers have to pay approx 45p/kwh to solar panel owners, so I'll correct my previous view of 10 times the cost to the more correct view of solar being 15 times the cost of conventional generation.

Germany have solar and wind generation because of a 'green' ideology and influence - they certainly don't have those things due to engineering considerations (same with us).

Y_Phrunts wrote: »

Your last paragraph does not address the problem of how to get the technology to become a popular way to produce power. The government cannot afford to subsidise it so where is the money going to come from? And following on from the discussion
above re venture capitalists why should they feel obliged to fund a scheme without a profit motive and who is going to supply that profit? Nobody answered that.

Why should we want such an inefficient and expensive manner of electricity generation made more popular?

The government pay for nothing. Taxpayers pay for all government spending. In the case of FITs, electricity customers pay - everyone gets higher bills, currently approx 11% goes on 'green' subsidies, and that has been predicted to rise to 50% in several years - and remember that will be 50% of large electricity bills. Today, Scot power put prices up - 10% in the case of electricity and they really have no choice with all the extra costs now lumped into bills.

The point about profit is moot since it's nonsense imv to have a system subsidising inefficient methods.

Y_Phrunts wrote: »

Anyway I think we are going round in circles with this one. I admire your sense of social justice re 'the poor' but don't the elderly get heating allowances paid for through our taxes and don't I contribute to them? You don't hear me complaining about that even though it must be an absolutely massive sum.

There's no comparison between social payments and fits. Most of my and your tax goes in social benefits - I don't begrudge the elderly (if in need) getting fuel allowances if it means them keeping warm rather than freezing, literally, as some do. I really don't see any link between that and subsidising an inefficient means of electricity generation.

This support for something which doesn't make any engineering sense and costs everyone quite a bit extra on their energy bills seems to me like turkeys voting for Christmas. Stick the word 'green' in front of anything and people seem to postpone any rational analysis of what they support.

I bet there are many people who think wind and solar is really great while at the same time up in arms about rising energy prices, totally unaware that they are joined at the hip.

grahamc2003

K4blades wrote: »

The fact that "the venture capitalists" you are so against, are fitting the systems onto peoples houses free, means that the poor can benefit.

Please don't put words into my mouth.

Please provide a link to where I said I am against venture capitalists, or withdraw your statement.

The poor cannot benefit from fits in any way whatsoever. Maybe you class people as poor if they own a house with a large south facing roof, but I don't.

Y_Phrunts

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I'm sure you can easily google to find the cost of generation by conventional plant of around 3p/kwh (that's an average cost - it varies every half hour, and has been known to be zero).

The suppliers have to pay approx 45p/kwh to solar panel owners, so I'll correct my previous view of 10 times the cost to the more correct view of solar being 15 times the cost of conventional generation.

Germany have solar and wind generation because of a 'green' ideology and influence - they certainly don't have those things due to engineering considerations (same with us).
Why should we want such an inefficient and expensive manner of electricity generation made more popular?

The government pay for nothing. Taxpayers pay for all government spending. In the case of FITs, electricity customers pay - everyone gets higher bills, currently approx 11% goes on 'green' subsidies, and that has been predicted to rise to 50% in several years - and remember that will be 50% of large electricity bills. Today, Scot power put prices up - 10% in the case of electricity and they really have no choice with all the extra costs now lumped into bills.

The point about profit is moot since it's nonsense imv to have a system subsidising inefficient methods.



There's no comparison between social payments and fits. Most of my and your tax goes in social benefits - I don't begrudge the elderly (if in need) getting fuel allowances if it means them keeping warm rather than freezing, literally, as some do. I really don't see any link between that and subsidising an inefficient means of electricity generation.

This support for something which doesn't make any engineering sense and costs everyone quite a bit extra on their energy bills seems to me like turkeys voting for Christmas. Stick the word 'green' in front of anything and people seem to postpone any rational analysis of what they support.

I bet there are many people who think wind and solar is really great while at the same time up in arms about rising energy prices, totally unaware that they are joined at the hip.

So your bottom line is that you are against all forms of green energy because in your book they are inefficient. So we waste our taxpayer's money paying out the fines to the EU and to hell with the environment. Right Ho, my grandchildren are going to love you. End of discussion.

grahamc2003

Y_Phrunts wrote: »

So your bottom line is that you are against all forms of green energy because in your book they are inefficient. So we waste our taxpayer's money paying out the fines to the EU and to hell with the environment. Right Ho, my grandchildren are going to love you. End of discussion.

No, I'm not against all forms of green energy. I'm against all inefficient forms of electricity generation.

No, all forms of 'green' energy are not inefficient.

No, we shouldn't waste money paying fines to the EU.

No, I'm not anti-environmental. I'm anti rediculous systems which ride on a facade of being environmental when they actually help in ruining the environment one way or the other.

And no, I doubt your grandchildren will ever know me.

K4blades

Cardew wrote: »

Lots of 'the poor' in these parts don't own a house big enough to fit a solar PV array.;)

Most seem to live in flats or rented accomodation.

"The poor cannot benefit from fits in any way whatsoever. Maybe you class people as poor if they own a house with a large south facing roof, but I don't. "


My definition of "poor" isn't one made up to try and make a point. I mentioned in my previous post the unemployed, and pensioners. Not sure about where you live but around here they are not all rounded up and forced into flats, they live in all sorts of houses, as do lots of other people on benefits. Every year concern grows with lots of organisations away from this debate about fuel poverty, and for example, reports of some pensioners switching off their heating so they can afford to eat. They don't restrict their concerns to people who live in flats.

Nor does anyone have to own a large south facing roof. Not too far from me is an estate of small semis owned by a housing association, occupied by people on low incomes and the HA have put PVs on all the roofs. So the tenants get free electricity at no cost to them selves. (or neglible cost)

And any saving in energy use is likely to be more beneficial to the poor who are less likely to have brand new triple A rated appliances, more likely to have 25 year old C rated appliances, meaning their relative demand is higher.
And saving £X a year, whatever X is, is more beneficial to poor people as it represents proportionally more of their income.

And as for those who can't have PVs because they live in flats....with recent price increase announced, the Bank of England expect 15% increases in energy costs, due to wholesale costs of gas and oil....much,much more than the cost of FITs, then anything that can be done to reduce our dependency on gas and oil, has a benefit on all in society, including those who live in flats.


You may have valid points for being against FITs but at least keep you arguments credible and stop patronising poor people.

Cardew

K4blades wrote: »

You may have valid points for being against FITs but at least keep you arguments credible and stop patronising poor people.

= K4blades
The fact that "the venture capitalists" you are so against, are fitting the systems onto peoples houses free, means that the poor can benefit.

Run that by me again;)

grahamc2003

K4blades wrote: »

"
then anything that can be done to reduce our dependency on gas and oil, has a benefit on all in society, including those who live in flats.

.

Anything? Are you sure? So if I get my 1w generator out and connect it to my hamster wheel all in society will benefit? Of course to get this method of eletcricty generation more widespread, it would have to be subsidised by £500/kwh.

Now you may instantly see the rediculous nature of the above (but then again you may stick to your 'anything helps' stance), but solar is exactly the same on a different scale. Exactly the same reasoning you use. The scale difference is solar costs society 15 times the market rate for energy, whereas the hamster wheel would cost a 1000 times. All your arguments equally apply to the hamster wheel.

John_Pierpoint

Y_Phrunts wrote: »

. So we waste our taxpayer's money paying out [the fines] to the EU.

I thought we already where?

Why are we over governed, especially by pseudo politicians in Europe.
(The Condems are at least posturing that they can cut government spending - as our taxes switch from paying for schools & hospitals to paying off Gordon Browns debts and accrued interest).

Let me know how much the EU budget, the one that is never audited successfully, is being cut this year and let me know what we get for financing this gravy train.

Nang

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Anything? Are you sure? So if I get my 1w generator out and connect it to my hamster wheel all in society will benefit? Of course to get this method of eletcricty generation more widespread, it would have to be subsidised by £500/kwh.

Now you may instantly see the rediculous nature of the above (but then again you may stick to your 'anything helps' stance), but solar is exactly the same on a different scale. Exactly the same reasoning you use. The scale difference is solar costs society 15 times the market rate for energy, whereas the hamster wheel would cost a 1000 times. All your arguments equally apply to the hamster wheel.

A question. Just as a point of clarification really...

To follow this augument through, if the traditional methods of power generation continue to rise as they are, won't there come a point where your hamster wheel becomes competitive without any subsidies?

When this point comes folk might be pleased that we as a nation invested in rodent based forms of power generation, because they might help to keep the price down a bit.

Might even be time to invest in a couple of insomniac mice to do the day shift.