Choice of intelligent switches ?

John_Pierpoint

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I believe that any taxpayer monies should be used to the greatest possible advantage and to the benefit of the greatest number of people. I don't believe therefore that a subsidy paid to the few individuals who can afford the upfront costs to put solar panels on their roofs meets that criteria, nor is it the most effective way to implement Renewables into the UK.

Can I ask one question or a dozen?

I believe that any taxpayer monies should be used to the greatest possible advantage and to the benefit of the greatest number of people.

Do you agree that the above is a normative not a positive statement?

Do you believe that the increasing levels of green house gases in the atmosphere are a danger to the climate and will reduce the carrying capacity our planet for all creatures, including the naked apes?

Have you ever tried using one of the web sites that purports to calculate you carbon footprint?

Would you like to share the result with us?

What, if anything are you and your family doing to cut your emissions of green house gasses?

Public spending is in the range of 40 - 50% of GDP (it depends how you measure it and if you think the shareholdings in banks are an "investment" of tax payer's money). Do you find this proportion high, low or about right ?

I don't believe therefore that a subsidy paid to the few individuals who can afford the upfront costs to put solar panels on their roofs meets that criteria, nor is it the most effective way to implement Renewables into the UK.

As the resident hypocrite on this thread, I technically agree with you.

However, there is a notorious survey, where people were asked what would influence them to make "green" changes in their lives and given the choice:

A. The change that would make the greatest improvement (like commuting on the bus or adding more lagging in the loft)?

B. The change that would offer the best return to their bank account?

C. The change that allowed them to keep up with their social circle ?

The majority duly ticked box "A". - the ethical choice.

In the event the reality turned out to be "C".

My decision was obviously "B". I arrived at that decision 14 months ago because:

I realised that we had passed a cusp in economic history in the West and our government will be forced to devalue the "£" currency, [and the carbon tonne is the field of boiler rooms].

"Green" Legislation changes could devalue my home to the point where it would be bought as as demolition site.

There have been several waves where the rising price of fossil fuels have been the solution to rising prices, but not this time - even with fracking - the low hanging fruit has already been consumed.

Personally I believe fuel prices will inflate faster than other goods, so that "net metering", the point at which you would prove of the technology (?), will be achieved before the end of my 25 year contract.

[I had recently sold a three room Victorian house for £400k, it was rated at "F" in its Energy Performance Certificate - I am wondering if the greater fool who bought it realises it will be unletable in 2018?
http://www.buytolet.net/everything-landlord-should-know-about-energy-efficiency-and-energy-performance-certificates-epcs
That was one of the main reasons for getting rid of it, though 14 months ago the investment of £10k putting PV panels on the roof would have solved the letability problem but not now]

I think that Martyn1981, judging by his efforts to get both slopes of his roof generating, demonstrates he is in camp "A" of the above choices - what would be your decision?

Energy saving - the secret vice, that nobody need know about and if they do they will assume you are poor? Putting panels on your roof in effect is a visible vote on behalf of the government who signed Kyoto on behalf of all its citizens.

[What can I do to demonstrate that I never voted for the Common Agricultural Policy ?]

orrery

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

However, there is a notorious survey, where people were asked what would influence them to make "green" changes in their lives and given the choice:....

There are also a number of exercises run as games between universities where it has been shown that the population will delay taking difficult environmental decisions to the point where it will be just too late. I don't want to be one of them - I decided that taking action early was a good idea, and - as it turned out - the payback was better too.

The_Green_Man_2

Oh dear, it looks like the board guides have been busy on this unmoderated forum. Or have I deleted everything to cover up some more insults to members? :rotfl:

John_Pierpoint - I can't be bothered to comment to then have my responses deleted by heavy handed board guides. I think I've made my points pretty clearly to be fair, I don't see the relevence of your machine gun questioning to my stance on the transfer of income from the poor to the rich via taxpayer subsidies.

John_Pierpoint

So that is a NO then.

I think we had better get back on thread and talk about gizmos that monitor the generation and try to capture the power into something else.

I think I would prefer to have my own gizmo rather than let the electricity supplier decide when to turn off and on my power.

The_Green_Man_2

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

So that is a NO then.

Well tell me how any of your cross questioning relates to my stance against the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich via PV FiTs and we'll go from there.

John_Pierpoint

orrery wrote: »

There are also a number of exercises run as games between universities where it has been shown that the population will delay taking difficult environmental decisions to the point where it will be just too late. I don't want to be one of them - I decided that taking action early was a good idea, and - as it turned out - the payback was better too.

The frog in the gently heating saucepan model ?
Easter Island here we come ?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2011/10/31/climate-overpopulation-environment-the-rapa-nui-debate/

BP means before present.

John_Pierpoint

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Well tell me how any of your cross questioning relates to my stance against the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich via PV FiTs and we'll go from there.

I would hope that the levy is applied in proportion to existing consumption, rather than per electricity meter as a sort of poll tax. So the most is paid by the largest existing consumers?

Are you a land owner by any chance?

The_Green_Man_2

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

I would hope that the levy is applied in proportion to existing consumption, rather than per electricity meter as a sort of poll tax. So the most is paid by the largest existing consumers?

Are you a land owner by any chance?

Are you saying you'd like those who consume more energy to pay more for other people's PV? Is that calculated by kWh used or a more rudimentary percentage figure added to the overall bill (i.e. 1% on top of the total bill in £)?

I have no idea of the relevence of our second question.

orrery

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

The frog in the gently heating saucepan model ?

Yes - probably. Teams of students were offered money to either invest, or save the planet. The winner was the one who massed the most money, but if they collectively fail to contribute enough to saving the planet then everyone loses. After each round, they could all see a summary of each other's behaviour. The results indicated that there are always enough 'chancers' who will leave it too late for the planet to be saved by a co-ordinated last minute group effort.

EricMears

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Are you saying you'd like those who consume more energy to pay more for other people's PV? Is that calculated by kWh used or a more rudimentary percentage figure added to the overall bill (i.e. 1% on top of the total bill in £)?

I have no idea of the relevence of our second question.

Thanks to a little-known science called 'Mathematics', the 'two formulae' would give pretty well the same result (apart from a small correction for any standing charge.

I'm sure once the other question was answered, its relevance would become apparent