Solar Panel Guide Discussion

Martyn1981

digitaltoast wrote: »

Hmmm, a completely unreferenced article, unlike Monbiot's which are meticulously footnoted. You've not shown me where Monbiot made the retraction you stated,

As requested.

He retracts it 2.09pm 11/3/10.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/mar/11/solar-power-germany-feed-in-tariff?commentpage=1#start-of-comments

It seems odd to me that such a nonsense statement would have ever been made in the first place. It provides no purpose other than to create unwarranted division.

No rational person could ever have believed such sillyness. But that part of his anti-PV/FITs rant was only one example of the astonishingly poor piece of journalism contained within. Admittedly he didn't possess a crystal ball, and couldn't know that PV prices would fall as fast as they subsequently did - but at the same time he took no account of the historic data that was already available.

PV sits within a range of renewables (PV, wind, hydro, bio-mass, tidal etc). Renewables should be viewed as a package deal, generating at varying times, who together act as both energy suppliers and demand reducers. Also worth noting the growing number of interconnectors linking the UK to other European countries (existing, under construction and planned). As such renewables will reduce demand on fossil fuel generation.

How are we doing so far? Are you happier about the real impact of bills on the poor, PV panel life expectancies, inverter life expectancies, panel degradation, CO2 savings from the growing levels of UK and global renewables generation?

Mart.

digitaltoast

Martyn1981 wrote: »

As requested.

He retracts it 2.09pm 11/3/10.

What you said Monbiot said:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Oh come on, not that old chestnut again. Even the original author of the 'moves money from the poor to the rich' George Monbiot, retracted that statement over 2 years ago when challenged on-line by 'Monbiotwatch'.

What Monbiot actually said: http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/2973428

Monbiotwatch:

"Billions of pounds" will not have been committed by 2013 on PV or any other technology as a result of this very modest feed-in tariff scheme.

It's not just the tariffs which will have been forked out by then, but the capital costs, incurred by householders, of the equipment. It will certainly stretch to billions. And if you think 41p is "very modest" I dread to imagine what you'd consider an expensive tariff.

The total cumulative cost to all electricity consumers (not just households) of this scheme and for all technologies is £6.7 billion by 2030. You claimed incorrectly in your first piece that the Gvt was "about" to take £8.6 billion from the "poor" and give it to the "middle class".

The government's impact assessment shows that the total cost will be £8.6bn. Most of this money will come from tariffs, the rest from spending of other kinds. It's true to say that not all this money will be taken from the poor, but the overall impact, as I'm sure you can see, is regressive.

That's hardly "retracting the statement" is it?

Incidentally, I'm no fan of most of what Monbiot comes out with, especially with regard to politics/social housing/yoof and stuff, but he was right about peak oil and right about biofuels and all his articles are well referenced.

Just think what that £8.6bn could have done if it was invested in insulation or research into thorium reactors....

Martyn1981

digitaltoast wrote: »

That's hardly "retracting the statement" is it?

Just think what that £8.6bn could have done if it was invested in insulation or research into thorium reactors....

Sorry, but that sounds like a retraction to me. First he states that the entire cost of PV FITs will be transferred from the poor to the middle classes, the he states:

"It's true to say that not all this money will be taken from the poor, but the overall impact, as I'm sure you can see, is regressive."

Let's just look at the facts, PV FITs sits within FITs, which in turn sits within a number of schemes subsidised by the Green Tariff. This is a 'tax' on energy bills (4% gas, 10% electricity). So it is borne by all customers, not just the poor. Add on to that, that not all PV systems are installed for the middle classes - council, LHA, RaR.

Now admittedly, Monbiot may not have anticipated the 'free' systems, though I think he should have, but he was well aware that funding wasn't specifically targeted against the poor.

To continue this argument 2.5 years later when all of the facts are obvious, and have been discussed to death already in the 'Good or Bad' thread seems pointless.

Regarding insulation subsidies, that was already in the Green Tariff when FITs was launched.

Regarding Thorium reactors - I'm actually a big fan, but this technology has been around for decades, and the problems of corrosion have not yet been solved, though research continues. So fingers crossed.

Can I say, that once again I'm baffled by this anti-PV approach. I don't understand the need to separate renewables into their individual types, then try to point out what they can't (individually) do - PV doesn't work without sunlight, wind doesn't work without wind, hydro output is severely reduced after sustained poor rainfall. What is the purpose?

You raise the issue that PV isn't valid as it doesn't contribute at all times, especially during the winter afternoon/evening peak. I've always found this an odd argument, you could counter it by pointing out that PV contributes during the summer peak, and is therefore a success, but both arguments are equally flawed and pointless.

PV didn't cause the winter peak, doesn't worsen the winter peak, and was never charged with, nor claimed to be able to solve it.

Crucially, a different perspective is needed. Rather than saying that PV generation doesn't match all high demand, swop it around and you'll note that all high demand matches PV generation.

To start again, do you think AGW is real and serious, if so, can we afford to ignore any low carbon solutions? Is there any single solution to this problem? Is there any solution that won't involve higher bills/subsidies (FITs, CCS costs, carbon taxes, nuclear subsidies)?

Every solution has faults, and none can do it on their own, so why pick on any individual energy solution, especially one that has the fastest falling costs, is probably borderline viable now for commercial installs (20kWp+), and is hopefully within 5 years of domestic viability, if my earlier estimates are valid?

Caveat: domestic viability will begin slow as in the example I gave, and spread as costs fall, technology advances, and also with lower install costs as part of new build. The odds of it ever being viable in the bottom of a northern Scotland valley with small E/W roofs, are extremely small, but possibly within the next 160 years - when decommissioning of the new proposed nuclear power stations may be complete.

Mart.

grahamc2003

Martyn1981 wrote: »

First he states that the entire cost of PV FITs will be transferred from the poor to the middle classes, the he states:

"It's true to say that not all this money will be taken from the poor, but the overall impact, as I'm sure you can see, is regressive."

.

I have never seen anyone who has said - or even thinks - that the fits' entire cost comes from the poor.

Since you state Monbiot has said that, please could you provide a link to where he says it.

Monbiot has said words to the effect that the Fits result in a transfer of wealth from the poor to the middle classess/better offf, and he has never, afaiia, retracted that, (and certainly your quote isn't anyform of retraction!) - and neither would he be expected to retract it when it is obvioulsy the case. Even the 'free' systems result in the majority of cash transfer being to business owners, who are likely to be in the 'better off' category (and if they aren't at the moment, after a few years of fit payments they will be).

His statement of course doesn't exclude transfers from the rich to the poor (as would be the case relatively rarely when a rich person without panels indirectly pays the fit loaded on his bill to a solar power company who has installed a system on social housing, where the occupant gets a very minor benefit of a small amount of solar generated electricity (the company owners/investors getting the large fit benefit)

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I have never seen anyone who has said - or even thinks - that the fits' entire cost comes from the poor.

Since you state Monbiot has said that, please could you provide a link to where he says it.

It's contained in the article that Cardew has posted in support of your arguments on dozens of occassions. And a point he made great play off until a few months ago, when it was soundly ridiculed.

"Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives and no one notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes. It expects a loss on this scheme of £8.2bn, or 95%(1). Yet the media is silent. The opposition urges only that the scam should be expanded."


http://www.monbiot.com/2010/03/01/a-great-green-rip-off/

I'm glad to see that you are also surprised that anyone could ever think it to be true.

Mart.

orrery

grahamc2003 wrote: »

His statement of course doesn't exclude transfers from the rich to the poor (as would be the case relatively rarely when a rich person without panels indirectly pays the fit loaded on his bill to a solar power company who has installed a system on social housing, where the occupant gets a very minor benefit of a small amount of solar generated electricity (the company owners/investors getting the large fit benefit)

I wasn't aware that that the subsidy is charged in any different way to any consumer, whether rich or poor, solar owner or not. Surely we all pay it, if we use energy?

We need solar, just as we need every other green technology, and we need as much of all of it as possible because there is great inertia from society at large to slow or prevent each and every technology being implemented, which ensures that only a very small proportion ever will.

Neither is the FIT excessive. It needs to be at a level to persuade those who have the money to invest it in micro-generation, essentially to join a PFI scheme. I'm on the generous pre December 2011 FIT, and even then it would have been better for me to invest the money in a cash ISA for the first 17 years - only after that do I see a real profit. Few people would consider 17 years to be a reasonable payback period. Newer tariffs are worse and will never compete with a cash ISA, even at the current low rates of interest.

The_Green_Hornet

Isn't George Monbiot that private schooled champagne socialist who wants to close down all private schools so no one else can benefit from the same standard of education that he received?

Blossom2528

digitaltoast wrote: »

Just think what that £8.6bn could have done if it was invested in insulation or research into thorium reactors....

Why do people keep picking and choosing the subsidies they like. All of them have subsidies of one type or another. Why is subsidising research into thorium reactors ok, but spending it on PV bad? If the aim of the game is to move towrds viability how can you pick on one subsidy but promote another. At least FITs is transparent - or is that why it gets picked on, because all the other subsidies are harder to see.

digitaltoast

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

Isn't George Monbiot that private schooled champagne socialist who wants to close down all private schools so no one else can benefit from the same standard of education that he received?

Ah, we're onto the Ad Hominems already. We'll be on Godwin's law before you know it at this rate.

No idea about Monbiot's schooling. Is it relevant to his ability to post links to whitepapers?

Isn't Oscar Pistorius that guy with no leg below the knee? Can't see him being able to run.
Isn't Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones that black farmer chap? You know, colour makes all the difference when it comes to farming and business.
Aren't some of our MP's women and some them (shock horror! whisper it now... gay?!). I don't see how a gay man or a women would possibly be able to vote on party issues.

I don't really care whether he's black, white, gay, straight, rich, poor, a toff or a chav. He's either got a point or he hasn't.
And if he hasn't, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to easily rebut it, won't you?

digitaltoast

Blossom2528 wrote: »

Why is subsidising research into thorium reactors ok, but spending it on PV bad? If the aim of the game is to move towrds viability how can you pick on one subsidy but promote another.

Because in 50 years time, after £billions spent, at 5pm solar PV will STILL be contributing a big fat zero at the evening peak. Given that wind is unreliable, we'll never have enough tidal and pumped storage is unviable in the quantities required, then we'll either be getting our reliable base load from fossils or nuclear.

You really just don't seem to understand the basics of the national grid system.

Believe me, there is nothing I'd rather see more than a magic bullet to free us from carbon reliability. I drive a 90mpg eco-car, but it runs on plain ol' diesel, and gets nearly a third more mpg than an equivalent hybrid.

Sometimes the solution isn't always the glitzy shiny expensive one; it's the carefully engineered economically viable one.

Yes, we have to do something. But we need to do the right thing.