Choice of intelligent switches ?

spgsc531

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Is it so difficult to believe that someone who is middle class, middle income and has enough roof space for a 10 KW/h solar PV system if he so chose could possibly be against a government scheme that not only discriminates against the poor, but even worse, that takes money from the poor and distributes it to the wealthy?

Honestly/seriously, is that really so difficult to believe or understand?

Sounds like a pretty big Barn to fit a system that big. Is that 10 KW/h[sic] in Winter or Summer?

Are you a retired/born again Banker by any chance?

Think I spelt that right.

Martyn1981

spgsc531 wrote: »

Are you a retired/born again Banker by any chance?

No, not a banker maybe a politician or lawyer, who else could take the great advantage of FITs - that the subsidies go to households instead of large companies - and try to present it as a negative to households?

Some good news for GM, the govt is in the process of committing us to paying 10's of billions of pounds of subsidies to EDF. Much better for the British poor.

Is it just me, or has the G&E board become much busier lately? It used to just tick along quietly with the odd request for some PV help and advice. But lately it's absolutely overflowing with PV thread comments.

Mart.

The_Green_Man_2

jeepjunkie wrote: »

Yet the 'poor' expect the rest of us to get out and work hard to pay for their benefits? Hence why I said earlier that income tax raised does not cover the benefits bill. An extremely odd situation dont you agree which has landed us with a 4.3 trillion pound debt which thanks to the structural deficit gets bigger every day... FITs is small fry in the real world.

I would have more respect for the some able bodied 'poor' if they could find something to do other than smash bottles daily on cycle paths that pass through their estates. Small minded idiots... Plenty work out there but benefits pay more as we live in a society where a large bulk of the population think they are entitled to things instead of working hard to achieve them...

I seem to think that it was the bankers who caused the financial crisis, not the poor. I am also amazed that you think people poorer than yourself are all criminals or benefit layabouts.

Your post is appallingly prejudiced but not surprising. This is exactly my point when I say that the Green and Ethical board has been hijacked by hard nosed investors who should be posting on an investment board and not a board that used to be for people who care about their environment and their society.

The_Green_Man_2

Martyn1981 wrote: »

No, not a banker maybe a politician or lawyer, who else could take the great advantage of FITs - that the subsidies go to households instead of large companies - and try to present it as a negative to households?

Some good news for GM, the govt is in the process of committing us to paying 10's of billions of pounds of subsidies to EDF. Much better for the British poor.

Is it just me, or has the G&E board become much busier lately? It used to just tick along quietly with the odd request for some PV help and advice. But lately it's absolutely overflowing with PV thread comments.

Mart.

You keep building strawmen and making yourself look pathetic. I ask again, where have I mentioned that subsidies should go to large companies instead of the British poor?

Martyn1981

The_Green_Man wrote: »

You keep building strawmen and making yourself look pathetic. I ask again, where have I mentioned that subsidies should go to large companies instead of the British poor?

You like your strawmen don't you?

So suggesting you are happy to pay subsidies for renewables generation to large companies is a strawman.

But when I suggested you didn't agree with paying subsidies for renewables, that was also a strawman!

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I haven't said that I don't agree with paying subsidies, you're building a strawman argument here to help bolster your argument. Another poor debating technique.

It's probably best to have a consistent opinion on renewables subsidies, that way you can keep your postings consistent.

So, yet again (and again) we're back to the same old question:

Why is it ok for all energy consumers to invest in future generation, and low carbon generation by paying subsidies to powerstations owned by large companies ..... but not ok to pay subsidies to support powerstations owned by householders?

Mart.

The_Green_Man_2

Where in that text did I mention that subsidies should go to large companies instead of the British poor

It's you who need to actually read other people's posts more carefully.

So yet again, you keep building the strawman that I mentioned it's ok to pay subsidies to large companies but not to the poor. I haven't. I keep saying that it's morally and ethically wrong for everyone, especially those who can least afford it to pay a subsidy that further enriches wealthy individuals.

Argue against that instead of building your strawmen.

orrery

The_Green_Man wrote: »

So without the FIT payment, solar would not have provided a good enough return? Is that because for the money invested, it doesn't provide enough electricity*?

*Prior to FITs you could still export energy to the national grid and receive a payment based on the amount of export energy you generated.

No - it isn't about 'enough electricity'. The technology isn't far enough down its maturity curve to go without a subsidy at the current electricity price. However, technology will improve, PV volumes will increase, costs decrease and electricity will increase in price so that the curves will eventually intersect and subsidy can be reduced to zero. In the meantime we need to restructure the whole power distribution marketplace, but we have to start somewhere.

orrery

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I seem to think that it was the bankers who caused the financial crisis...

I'm not sure that is true. They were part of the mix, alongside ratings agencies (who probably shoulder the largest responsibility), governments who borrowed too much and everyone else (including the poor) who borrowed too much. Credit cultures are fine when things are on the up, but predictably disastrous when things turn down.

The_Green_Man_2

orrery wrote: »

I'm not sure that is true. They were part of the mix, alongside ratings agencies (who probably shoulder the largest responsibility), governments who borrowed too much and everyone else (including the poor) who borrowed too much. Credit cultures are fine when things are on the up, but predictably disastrous when things turn down.

So you're saying the poor didn't cause the credit crunch?

The_Green_Man_2

orrery wrote: »

No - it isn't about 'enough electricity'. The technology isn't far enough down its maturity curve to go without a subsidy at the current electricity price.

Ah, maturity curve. Any idea when a PV panel will be cheap enough to install without a subsidy? PV panels have been going since the 1950s, one would have though that if they were going to mature then they would over that timeframe. Don't make me paste in a computer from 1955 as an example of maturing technology.....