MSE News: Legal battle launched over solar subsidy cuts

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

The massive advantage which the Severn Estuary has is that it has an East/West orientation, is funnel shaped and continues as the Bristol Channel, which is also funnel shaped and then has unrestricted deep flow directly into the Atlantic with no further land to the West for between 2000 and 4000 miles, therefore a massive body of water for the moon & sun to pull on - an almost perfect combination which is evidenced by the following table of the global top 50 observed tidal ranges ..... (http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/faq2.html#26) .... the total volume of water moved by each tide is staggering which results in the likelihood that around 50% of the barrage generation potential for the entire UK being within the Severn scheme .... interesting information/read available on this Welsh Assembly report ... (http://www.assemblywales.org/10-011.pdf)


HTH
Z

Thanks Z, those reports make for interesting reading. Living in S. Wales I'd say the Welsh Assembly report on political views is sound. Most people around here find it more interesting than frightening, and anything new to look at makes a change! Report shows that most of the Welsh parties are in general agreement except Plaid Cymru, but that's not entirely unusual.

The tidal range chart also fascinating, especially Barry, Newport and Cardiff being in England, best leave that subject to Plaid again.

As I've said earlier, I understand the cost is immense, but when placed in context with high speed rail, and the looming power shortfall we're facing by 2020, it just might be time to get on with something, anything.

Combining the full scale barrage with smaller lagoons higher up (regardless of which scheme gets built first) should also help to spread out the generation, but we're going to need to lay 1 or 2! new cables to cope me thinks.

Mart.

ed110220

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Que?

However much unreliable generation is connected to the grid, you also have to have reliable generation to meet thew peak (which is the factual period around 17:00 to 18:00 on a cold winter's evening).

That's a bit of a red herring because peak demand is typically met by fast response ie controllable but expensive sources which can be switched on and off. The more alternative, such as renewable, electricity is being produced, the less expensive and polluting gas will have to be burnt.

It's a bit like having a car, but arguing there is no point in cycling where possible to save petrol because you'll still need the car for certain occasions.

Here's a chart of electricity usage for the past 24 hours:



Speaking only of a single peak is a little misleading too, as there is a considerable 'plateau' between about 0800 and 1600 for which solar would be very useful.

celerity

rogerblack wrote: »

You (or in your specific case, the RaR company enabled by you) are being paid partially from my electricity bill.

It may only be 3 or 4 pounds on my bill, but this is a significant slice of a weeks disposable income.

The usual figure bandied around is £8.50 per year, which is more like 23p off your week's disposable income.
Note, I'm not saying this is a particularly fair subsidy, just wanted to put some perspective on it.

I've said it before on here, but only time will tell if the solar PV FiT was a success or failure in this country. If solar PV plays a role in UK domestic or business energy needs with little or no subsidies then I would consider it a success. If market forces combined with the constraints of the technology itself in the UK mean that few new installations are ever put up in future, then I would consider it to have been a waste of time.

But, the cost as noted above has been relatively low, and the potential gains were worth a try, even with a flawed subsidy that could undisputedly have been implemented with more thought. The hope is that millions of property owners across the UK will have access to cheaper, better solar PV systems in the future, which act as a hedge against rising energy prices and save money in their own right. For businesses especially (who use a lot of electricity during the day, which can't be said about most households) this is an extremely attractive goal to aim for.

Just thought I would throw some positive love towards the FiT, as long term readers of this forum will know there is an impressively robust campaign by Cardew (and to a lesser extent graham) to knock it at every opportunity .

Full disclosure: I have a solar PV array and my positive views on it are well documented in my previous posts. I also have no problem with Cardew or graham, on the contrary, they have taught me plenty and made me think even when I don't agree with them, which is all I ask when debating on the web.

/\dam

Cardew

celerity wrote: »

Just thought I would throw some positive love towards the FiT, as long term readers of this forum will know there is an impressively robust campaign by Cardew (and to a lesser extent graham) to knock it at every opportunity .

Full disclosure: I have a solar PV array and my positive views on it are well documented in my previous posts. I also have no problem with Cardew or graham, on the contrary, they have taught me plenty and made me think even when I don't agree with them, which is all I ask when debating on the web.

/\dam

My position is actually quite simple.

IMO until solar can exist without subsidy, its limitations outweigh its merits.

However, our political masters have decreed that we(the customer) will pay for generation of solar electricity.

That being the case why on earth don't we use our money subsidising solar farms instead of hundreds of thousands of tiny installations in far flung locations on often unsuitable roofs - and to add insult to injury give our money to Rent a Roof firms who found a way to exploit the system.

It is not even as if you have to export the electricity you generate( getting a subsidy for every kWh) as you can use as much as you like in your property - and you along with others work hard at this;)

P.S.
I would add that during my 'impressively robust campaign' in not one of my posts on this subject have I criticised anyone for having a PV system installed - including the Rent a Roof companies.

celerity

Cardew wrote: »

IMO until solar can exist without subsidy, its limitations outweigh its merits.

Obvious response: this could be said about any new energy technology - subsidies are a standard way of helping them "find their feet" in the market.
Or to put it another way, although your statement is correct, it doesn't mean an initial subsidy is a bad idea.

It is not even as if you have to export the electricity you generate( getting a subsidy for every kWh) as you can use as much as you like in your property - and you along with others work hard at this;)

We most certainly do .
Agree or disagree with the FiT, you have to accept that one of its objectives was to encourage people to stump up an investment that will take over ten years to recoup, and you further have to accept that in this one respect at least, it succeeded very well.

I would add that during my 'impressively robust campaign' in not one of my posts on this subject have I criticised anyone for having a PV system installed - including the Rent a Roof companies.

Agree 100% - my choice of phrase was more tongue-in-cheek admiration of how you can keep coming on here regularly and never seem to grow weary of posting the same arguments and rebuttals .
There is "implied criticism" of course, simply by questioning the scheme in general, but this is more a reflection on human nature to take offence where none is meant. We've seen that already on this thread .

/\

Martyn1981

celerity wrote: »

The usual figure bandied around is £8.50 per year, which is more like 23p off your week's disposable income.
Note, I'm not saying this is a particularly fair subsidy, just wanted to put some perspective on it.

I've said it before on here, but only time will tell if the solar PV FiT was a success or failure in this country. If solar PV plays a role in UK domestic or business energy needs with little or no subsidies then I would consider it a success. If market forces combined with the constraints of the technology itself in the UK mean that few new installations are ever put up in future, then I would consider it to have been a waste of time.


/\dam

Hiya. I thought I'd get a view on the subsidy from the horses mouth. So I asked my father who is a retired widower on a low fixed income.

He watches every penny (too hard sometimes) but has mellowed a bit as he's got older. I suggested FITs could add about £6 to his electricity bill and he described that as 'a gallon of derv'. So I said the green tariff has added about 10% to domestic electric bills (about £25 for him). he pointed out that as a pensioner he got free cavity wall insulation and would have got free loft insulation but I did it for him, saving him about £100 a year off his gas bill.

He also reckons he saves about £30 a year from the low energy bulbs he keeps getting free. 'swings and roundabouts' was his conclusion.

He also mentioned that he gets the winter fuel allowance too, which he thinks should be paid directly to the gas company, as he could 'blow it all on fags and beer' if he wanted too. (He doesn't).

At 74, he said for me to post, 'I've had my fun, it's my kids and grandkids I worry about now!'

As you say, if this works, then we could have energy savings (negative demand) that are substantial, for what is, in government spending terms, a relatively small subsidy. If it doesn't work, then infrastructure spending and subsidies mean we've widdled about £2bn up against the wall. Another 2 years of good PV price movements and we should have a good idea on the potential success.

I think if subsidies are better managed now, and installs slow a little, then over the next 5/6 years, that £6 or £8 should only go up about 50% more at most. Cutting out 2 gallons of diesel or 2 packs of cigs, would also help with CO2 emissions!

Mart.

Cardew

However it could be done so much more efficiently and generate far more solar electricity for our bucks - if we had solar farms!

celerity

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I think if subsidies are better managed now, and installs slow a little, then over the next 5/6 years, that £6 or £8 should only go up about 50% more at most.

As far as I know, the £8.50 per year figure is factored over 30 years.
You presumably have to add inflation to it, but nothing else.

/\dam

celerity

Plus the other thing people seldom take into account with the FiT is that all the early adopters have effectively injected the economy with around £10,000 each. This money can't be ignored if you also begrudge the £8.50 per year that we all pay - not if you want to be fair anyway. Thanks to the FiT, around 1000 new solar install companies were created, all with paid jobs, and who gave out extra work to scaffolders, electricians, associated distributors etc.
All of this work in turn is taxable, flowing directly into the public coffers.

You could in fact look at this from the point of view that people who signed up for the FiT were actually loaning the country a significant amount of money, on the promise of gradual payback over about twelve years, followed by "interest" over the following thirteen. Put that way I think we should perhaps be getting medals .

/\dam

Cardew

celerity wrote: »

I think we should perhaps be getting medals .

The OBE perhaps --- Other B*ggers Earnings!

(An adaption of the Military version - Other B*ggers Efforts)