MSE News: Legal battle launched over solar subsidy cuts

SallyKing

Cardew wrote: »

Your logic escapes me! Do you not appreciate the impact of the two different subsidies?

1. You earn £250,000 p.a and live in a company owned mansion.

2. I am a poor pensioner struggling to make ends meet, with an income not quite enough to pay tax.

A. Some of the huge amount of tax you(should!) pay goes toward the subsidy for Nuclear power enabling them to produce my my electricity cheaper.

I pay no tax.

B. The subsidy for solar is paid directly by myself in higher fuel bills; which I can't afford.

To add insult to injury, that subsidy goes to less than 1% of the population and rich investors in Rent a Roof firms(wouldn't mind betting you are one!;))

Even worse the people getting that subsidy don't even have to export any of that generated electricity - they can use it in their own houses.

I'm afraid that like Martyn, I'm also offended by your attitude. We dont have panels ourselves, but I have some friends who do. They are most certainly not rich. My friends husband is a windowcleaner and has worked long and hard over the years to support them. They used part savings and part borrowed money to buy their system.

I'm sure that there are many 'rich' people with panels, but I think you will find there are also many 'poor' people as well.

I have also been told (I cant verify if this is true), that large numbers of the small solar systems were bought by 'poor' pensioners, as they are the only ones with spare cash and savings.

You boys need to all grow up and stop spoiling what was a quite interesting thread.

SallyKing

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Ok, now I'm angry (sorry Sally).

I've been re-reading these posts trying to work out what Graham was going on about.

I took your 'you earn £250,000 .....' remarks on the chin, petty I thought, but on the chin.

What I completely missed was that reference to my being a rich RaR. You are a thoroughly unpleasant person. You attack my character, and all my attempts to help people with PV advice etc. Imply I'm a rich man, misleading people, then like a coward slap a silly smiley face on the end, as if that makes it ok. It doesn't.

Who am I really, stop guessing and lying about me and just ask.

I'm 41, living on DLA. My wife earns £22k pa.
I've suffered from leg and spine problems from birth. In 2000, these got worse, and started to affect my spinal cord. I had to reduce my hours in work, before leaving in 2005. I was on unpaid leave for 5 years, but work decided they couldn't wait any longer for me (fair enough, can't blame them) and I took a voluntary severance of £14k for 18years service (16 years after reducing for part time).

Last summer after a lot of stress and worry, my wife and I decided to invest the bulk of the money £12k in a PV system. ESE not great, and a payback of 12 years, 18 years if you include interest.

We are not rich, we are not RaR's with a mansion, we are just ordinary people on a reasonable income, doing the best we can.

On good days, I do voluntary work for elderly neighbours (maybe 30 to 60 mins) but I can't stand for too long. My wife volunteers as a friend for U, taking an underpriveleged child out once a week. She volunteers at a deaf youth club every friday (having trained to stage 3 sign language solely to volunteer). She also, on average, does 1 weekend a month volunteering for deaf charities at residential camps (fri to sun) only transport costs are paid.

We are members of several charities, VOS, Plan Cambodia, George Thomas Trust and some smaller ones.

I can't travel (1 drive to physio each month, 1 drive to chiropractor once a week), so I devote time to learning. And find renewables extremely interesting. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. If I can share some knowledge and make some friends then great.

I'm sorry to empty my heart like this, and I know it's wholly inappropriate, but I think I'm a nice guy, and my wife is positively lovely. So any personal attack on me, my family, my finances, my 'ulterior motives for posting', is only ever going to upset and anger me.

Apologies for this post everyone, I know this isn't the place, but I'm so angry.

Martyn.

Martyn, I am so sorry to hear of the challenges that life has thrown at you. It would seem you have dealt with them admirably, and that rather than feeling sorry for yourself you have gone on to help others. I wish you well for 2012 and hope that the year ahead brings you good health and fortune.

Thank you for taking the time to post on this thread. I have been following the thread for a while and have enjoyed hearing both sides of the story.

However, it gets a little tiring when certain members (I think we all know the two members I'm talking about) just keep repeating themselves and fail to even consider that just maybe they might be wrong?

grahamc2003

albyota wrote: »

Graham, I think Martyn has aimed that particular post at Cardew, Are we going to continue this discussion like grown-ups or shall we just not bother?

AL

Sorry Al, but I simply can't see how it was aimed at anyone other than me. He explicitly stated it was a quote from me.

In a way, I think it may explain a post earlier on today where again, I was incorrectly accused by Martyn of a long list of things which I had said, which I simply hadn't, which was, to me, a catalogue of straw men.

I simply can't see your motivation for the last sentence of your post.

albyota

If you carry on I'll send you both to your rooms without any tea.

A least we can all take comfort from the fact that we have delayed the next iceage by some 1500 years.:eek:

Martyn1981

Hello everyone.

Firstly may I please offer my apologies to everyone for losing my temper like that. And for venting on this forum. I read, I typed, I failed to walk away and take a deep breath first. Extremely unprofessional.

Secondly, Graham, I apologise if you thought that was targeted at you, it was not. I mentioned you as it was your 'clue' in post 183, that made me re-read the threads. Initially I thought it referred to Cardew's more recent post, and was suggesting I was an FoE or Greenpeace lobbyist attacking nuclear. I failed to notice Cardew's original RaR reference, and had you not directed me to it, I may still not have.

Sally, you are an extremely kind lady, and I thank you so very much for your kind comments, they mean a lot to me, and for your repeated attempts to calm matters down on this thread. I believe you tried previously around posts #90 or so. Perhaps the UN could make great use of you.

Blossom, I'm sincerely sorry if this nonsense and sillyness has driven you from this thread. Please keep reading, posting and learning, that's what this should really be about.

Z, HJ and everybody else, please keep the information coming on PV, renewables, integration and so on. I still know so little and am genuinely fascinated in what you can tell me.

Lastly, Albyota, thank you for trying to put a line under all this childishness, like Sally, you obviously appreciate a good debate, more than a petty mud slinging match, for which I apologise again.

Martyn.

albyota

Just a note to all, some of us have been contributing to this forum in many threads for 2 or 3 years or more, sometimes the discussions can get a bit out of hand.

To start with, we all have our own opinions, then discussions like these, informative, helpful, balanced, make one think things through, logically and hopefully get to understand both sides. It is here where we should either agree, yield or move away.

Too many times have I witnessed a poster with strong opinions be shot down in flames, never to return, people with real data and statistics, are simply told that they must be lying (talking boll**Ks) or have a connection to a company.

Well I work for a Renewables company (its never been a secret) with a passion for saving energy, I don’t knit my own yoghurts, or hug trees, but I like to advise people the best course of action from an unbiased point of view, usually from my own experience of having these technologies installed in my house, I enjoy helping resolve their problems, troubleshooting, like Cardew (very clever helpful guy), however, I tend to watch from a distance when !!!! starts flying, please lets use a bit of forum etiquette and write sensible, factual, balanced posts, keeping it interesting.

Anyway, 13GW from severn Barrage is one source, 4GW from another, 20 Gig here, 40 gig there, it all adds up, with tidal all aroud our coasts, Hydro, wind, biomass, compressed air storage, LNgas NSgas, Nuclear, wherever it comes from we are going to go through different phases of use over the next fifty years, mistakes will be made, lessons to be learned, but at least my grandchildren will have lights to leave turned on!!!

The_Green_Hornet

SallyKing wrote: »

You boys need to all grow up and stop spoiling what was a quite interesting thread.

I'm afraid to say that, what I can tell from being on here for just a few months, the sole aim of Graham2003 appears to be to spoil every thread when someone posts something he doesn't to agree with.

On a properly moderated forum he would have been thrown off by now. Best just to ignore him.

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Sorry Al, but I simply can't see how it was aimed at anyone other than me. He explicitly stated it was a quote from me.

In a way, I think it may explain a post earlier on today where again, I was incorrectly accused by Martyn of a long list of things which I had said, which I simply hadn't, which was, to me, a catalogue of straw men.

I simply can't see your motivation for the last sentence of your post.

Graham in an attempt to put this to bed finally, would it be useful if in regard to my post #190 I pointed out exactly where you didn't say the things you keep denying you said!

You claim not to have tried to misrepresent my reasons for posting, such as claiming I'm an extreme green, or a political lobbyist.

Post #71

Whether solar subsidies make sense in a political sense is unclear to me (and I expect your job is mainly political support for such schemes, is that correct?),

Post #84

Is that your sense of humour again, or you just being your offensive self?

My word, you have a terrible case of whatever your ailment is.

Even on this 'green' based forum, I think you've demonstrated the contempt the more extreme 'greens' have for informed opinion when they don't fit with the ideology. I'm sure that harms your cause rather than helping it.

I should also repeat, that had it not been for your mischief making in post #183

Mart, my bff, you seem to have missed Cardew's implied question of whether you have a vested interest in promoting solar.

I would not have re-read the posts and discovered Cardew's RaR dig.

If this helps put and end to this sillyness, I'll make the following statement;

I'm willing to believe from your strenuous denials, that you had genuinely forgotten about the above referenced posts. To forget such remarks so quickly, suggests they were spur of the moment comments, and I'm willing to accept that you did not therefore truly mean to suggest I had an ulterior motive for posting.

I hope this is acceptable.

Martyn.

Martyn1981

Blossom2528 wrote: »

I'm still here mart, don't worry. sometimes you just have to have a shout, don't know how you lasted so long being tag teamed by them for weeks. I think your nice nad your wife sounds lovely.

So whose going to tell me all about the barrage thingy then. is 13Gw as much as it sounds?

Blossom, here's a nice link I found about the barrage, it's not the prettiest web site, but has a simple charm that sets out the key points,

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Severn-Barrage-Tidal-Power.htm

It's a pretty unique situation, as it has a truly enormous tidal range, combined with an equally massive catchment area, but 'luckily' has a narrow point (if you can call 10 miles narrow) where the largest of the proposals could be built. There are smaller versions, using lagoons, that could be constructed further up river, near the 2 Severn bridges.

It suggests that the barrage could supply 5% of the UK's electricity. The cost of £20bn is mid way between what I've read elsewhere £10bn to £32bn.

It's scary big, and scary expensive, and could suck funding away from other renewables, or proposed nuclear.

I think it's sheer scale frightens anyone from trying it yet. It won't be able to match generation to peak evening flow all days, but would be able to tackle this problem some days depending on tide times.

It could be the very 'balancer' of supply that renewables need to help make up for their achilles heel - variability / reliability of supply.

Environmentalists appear split in a habitat v's CO2 reduction dilemma.

Sorry to harp on, but the sheer scale of this project, and it's potential, and it's potential cost for that matter are simply staggering.

Mart.

grahamc2003

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Graham in an attempt to put this to bed finally, would it be useful if in regard to my post #190 I pointed out exactly where you didn't say the things you keep denying you said!

You claim not to have tried to misrepresent my reasons for posting, such as claiming I'm an extreme green, or a political lobbyist.

Post #71

Whether solar subsidies make sense in a political sense is unclear to me (and I expect your job is mainly political support for such schemes, is that correct?),

Post #84

Is that your sense of humour again, or you just being your offensive self?


Martyn.

So much for drawing a line and moving on. I let you have the last word before, and now you've tried to have a second last word!

Your quote proves I didn't accuse you of being anything at all - just my expectations and asking whether you are or not.

As to post 84 - I can't remember the particular abuse you dished out to me in that instance, since there were quite a few, all started by you. Maybe it's the one where you said I got my information from a bloke down the pub, or maybe that my sole intention was to mislead people, or maybe the one where you didn't know where to start correcting the multitude of lies in my post. All unprovoked, all taken by me with with no recourse.

Look mate - if you want to be cuddled by the usual green emotional responses and views which you could get on thousands of other places, then this place will be as good as any. But don't kid yourself that you are here to learn anything of the implications of these things or the technical challenges these things cause, because green eyes are firmly shut to those factors which interfer with their, and your, emotional vision of how you would like things to be.

To cheer you up (because for some reason you appear to let comments on this board upset you, and it's not my intention to upset anybody) here's my emotional response to the Severn barrage proposal, with any technical implications simply sent into the ether (no doubt where you think they belong).

The severn barrage would be great, giving half the uk's electricity for free, just from the tide flowing in or out. Electricity would be free to all once up and running. I've worked out by having a better design of water turbine the output could be doubled, meaning all coal fired power stations could be closed down, along with the poisonous filthy co2 smoke the pump out. The co2 saving will stop us going over a tipping point, and the earth would be saved from global warming. I've googled and there's no effect whatsover on the national grid, in fact there'd only be positive effects of removing the midday peak. If anyone tells you differently, then they are liars, just google for the facts. France has had a barrage for a long time, proving they work.

(Plase don't quote me on the above).

That's my line drawn, I leave the baying crowd to make what they will, perhaps some should reflect on the gang culture they are part of.