Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

Martyn1981

simplewanderer wrote: »

Hi
Newbie here, live in NI, so think the whole FIT thing doesn't apply to me.

I live on a small farm, with a nice windy hill. Was considering a wind turbine, however the low maintenance/minimal planning of solar PV is tempting.

Grateful for any advice from those who know more than me [i.e. everyone]

Thanks

Hiya, you could try this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4326665

and ask Energetic for his thoughts / ideas.

Mart.

grahamc2003

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

My son has this theory that the current share price of the oil companies means that all their reserves have to be pumped up and burnt.

ie all this energy/carbon reduction is just wishful thinking therefore homo sapiens has the 7,000,000,000 joint death wish.

I don't think he sat there with a PC doing the sums himself.

Any idea where this concept was developed?

[No he is not a teenage school boy into conspiracy theory - he is managing a million + budget of your tax money].

The thing is John, homo sapiens would be killed off by the billion if oil companies suddenly stopped pumping up the oil or digging out the coal. I understand the main cause of death would be due to a lack of clean water, an excess of soiled water and the consequent diseases rather than freezing or not being able to get to Tescos to do the weekly shop. The choice seems to be almost immediate certain death for billions and a miserable hard life for the survivors, versus an unknown outcome for us should we continue to consume resources.
There would certainly be no mobile phone, text or data services, and hence the age group on which our species future depends wouldn't have the will to live anyhow.

spgsc531

I guess you always get some people who are naysayers.

While the Government were too slow to react to falling Solar prices in 2011, the system seems much better managed now.

For me, FiTs has and is doing it's job. I think it will take years to see the full benefits. It's a whole new world we're heading into.

Like others I agree it makes sense to invest in all renewables.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

as previously, farms are not as viable as domestic.

My stance remains that domestic PV is more viable than farm PV -



After spending so much time referring to Monbiot's error ridden 2010 anti PV rant,

However you stated that:

I didn't say that the planned farms weren't viable. As you and Graham have
stated many times, a high enough FIT would make anything viable.

Now even you have conceded that all the planned farms by Councils and commercial organisations were at a lower FIT than for sub-4kWp systems.

So why were they not allowed to go ahead, and produce more electricity for the subsidy we pay?

Of course all of these organisations should have listened to you and read your figures;) and then realised that all of their business plans were flawed. You should set yourself up as a consultant.

You know, and every thinking person who reads this thread knows, you are talking nonsense.

P.S.
George Monboit must be devastated to read such a well argued and robust case against his views - well up to your normal standard!

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi



Within the consultation the following seems to be at odds with the idea that large-scale installations are no longer viable ...

.... as can be seen, it is anticipated that large-scale installations are expected to increase, not decrease ...

HTH
Z

They should have consulted Martyn and he would produce figures to show that all these organisations have got it wrong!

My stance remains that domestic PV is more viable than farm PV

The increase in PV on social housing e.g. Wrexham's plans, is a form of 'Rent a Roof' where at least the income goes to the Council, and benefits everyone in the District, and not to venture capitalists in RAR companies.

They have a long way to go though!

This is just one of the means by which money is being taken from the poor and
given to the rich.





Two years ago, I warned that the feed-in tariff, a tax on energy
bills which pays for people to produce their own low-carbon electricity, would
be deeply regressive. To install solar electricity, for example, you would need
your own roof plus £10,000 or more in cash. If you were lucky enough to possess
both these assets, you would be making, at other people's expense, one of the
most lucrative of all possible investments. It would give you a state-guaranteed
return of 5-8%, fixed for 25 years, which was both index-linked (making a
nominal return of 7-10%) and tax free.





Those
who angrily denounced my analysis claimed that it could in fact be a
progressive scheme, as communities of poorer people could be helped to cash in.
They're still claiming it, even though the facts deserted them long ago. Today,
Andrew Pendleton of Friends of the Earth insists in the
Guardian that there are "countless" examples of community feed-in
tariff schemes in the UK.





They're not countless; they've been counted by the energy regulator, Ofgem,
in its annual report. There are 403 such schemes, as
opposed to 29,265 domestic installations. The community projects have, on
average, been larger than the domestic ones, but they still account for only 5%
of the total capacity, while private home owners' schemes account for 82%.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

They should have consulted Martyn and he would produce figures to show that all these organisations have got it wrong!



The increase in PV on social housing e.g. Wrexham's plans, is a form of 'Rent a Roof' where at least the income goes to the Council, and benefits everyone in the District, and not to venture capitalists in RAR companies.

They have a long way to go though!

Hi

I'm pretty sure that Martyn has taken, is taking and will continue to take the stance that when taking land, insurance, security, infrastructure upgrades & all associated costs into consideration there is little difference in the overall capital & revenue costs over the anticipated lifetime of microgeneration systems or farmscale systems and that there is a differential between wholsale revenue and consumer pricing for calculating the relative income & savings .... and you yourself will continue to quote someone who is paid large sums of money by news agencies (specifically because of a history of controversial standpoints) and maintain that large systems would have cost the 'taxpayer'/'consumer' less in the long-run.

My take is that relying on large installations only would have maintained artificially high capital costs, whether you consider this for the UK alone or globally, this being entirely due to the introduction of direct competition to the large-scale generators/operators at home & globally .... wind turbines are being constructed at a greatly increased volume, however the economies of scale theories haven't kicked in in that sector ... why?, well mainly cozy relations & vertical integration of the manufacturing/supply sectors, with limited/no direct competition ...

An alternative way to have financed/subsidised pv would have been through PFI, however, the returns would have been similar to, or even greater, than FiTs - with the added benefit of paying the money directly to large investors/operators ..... the scale of PFI actually dwarfs FiTs (Info : http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/summary_document_pfi_data_march_2012.pdf ), this being done solely to take ~£60Billion of capital investment and depreciation off the governments books and treat it as revenue expenditure, this costing around 4.5x the original capital cost ..... would this be the approach which would have been better, large corporates taking advantage ? ... why can't it just be understood that FiTs was envisaged to run as a collection of small-scale PFI schemes, operating under similar terms & conditions and levels of return ? ...

So what remains? ... funding for the scheme? ... so what - whether it would be levied as a tax on the generation & supply sectors, the withdrawal of carbon credits, central taxation, local taxation or any other possible form of financing, the costs would be similar, or higher and there would still be the same effect on society ... ie, a diversion of expenditure from one place to another, from one line in the accounts to another, from one department to another ....

Simply check the DECC reports which establish the costs of FiTs (including administration) ... http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/fits/Documents1/FITs%20Annual%20Report%202011-2012.pdf ... compare them to the PFI costs above and let's get a little perspective on the matter ....

It would be good to see a little maturity return to these boards with a lot less squabbling of who said what and in what order and little else, and that's from both sides ... if anyone disagrees with the system, then my advice would be to take the more usual approach and lobby someone who can make a difference. With pv FiTs, we have what we have, it's unlikely to change and the window for pv FiT registration along with the tariffs paid are reducing that quickly that the ongoing total payments will effectively be irrelevant in the scheme of recovery of capital investment in the energy sector ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

However you stated that:

Now even you have conceded that all the planned farms by Councils and commercial organisations were at a lower FIT than for sub-4kWp systems.

So why were they not allowed to go ahead, and produce more electricity for the subsidy we pay?

Of course all of these organisations should have listened to you and read your figures;) and then realised that all of their business plans were flawed. You should set yourself up as a consultant.

You know, and every thinking person who reads this thread knows, you are talking nonsense.

Yet again you fail to grasp the initial error that set you off on this false detour. Whilst the lower farm FIT (33.8p) was about to become viable, the domestic FIT of 44.85p had been viable for over a year, and was by then 'too' viable.

So you take two different FITs at the same time, and wrongly conclude they were equally viable. Rather than promote farms at 33.8p as you suggest, the government should have reduced the domestic FIT to about 30p (whilst slashing the farm FIT as they did).

Quick run through of your full farm argument, which you seem to be trimming steadily as your 'interesting' claims are slowly revealed:

It's much cheaper to slap it all in the S. West- ignoring what Zeup has to keep reminding you every 6 months or so, that grid enhancement would be needed.

we'd get 3 times the leccy, only because you tried to make people think off-set wasn't export, so they'd believe they were being ripped off, so we get ...

we'd get 2 times the leccy, only because you kept claiming the two rates were 40p domestic and 20p farm, why would you do that .... hmmmm .... I wonder why, so we get ...

we'd get 1.33 times the leccy, only because you claim similar viabilities, and ignore the fact that domestic FIT was already FAT.

It seems that your whole 'farm theory' is based on 'accidental' mathematical errors, that if not spotted and commented on here (for a year or more now) might have 'accidentally' led to people becoming wrongly annoyed at FITs. Now we wouldn't want that would we, not on MSE, a site set up to give accurate, honest, financial advice to the general public?

Lastly, I'll ask you again (been over a year now I think), if you believe that farms are more viable than domestic, then put some meat on the bones. After all, it's your argument, not mine! Edit: Having read Zeup's post, scrap that question. I've read enough reports to be content. Shall we just put domestic v's farm to bed (nobody else cares!), and go back to just pointlessly arguing about the FITs!!

Mart.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

It would be good to see a little maturity return to these boards with a lot less squabbling of who said what and in what order and little else, and that's from both sides ...

HTH
Z

Apologies, you are right. Maybe I've just spent too long working with data, that I don't like to see incorrect numbers being used. I'll take a step back.

On a separate note, and whilst unfortunately I've clearly irritated doughnutmachine, I did think it was a very interesting and enjoyable discussion on hydro. And I did get to learn and research some new 'stuff'.

As well as the many other types of renewables, I do think hydro, wind and solar fit together very nicely, each bringing something special to the table (winter, summer, north, south, wet, sunny and so on).

Mart.

Energetic_2

TBH i've long since lost interest in this argument. There are far more wasteful and pointless uses of public money to get annoyed about than the tariffs, and on a much larger scale.

I have chosen to stay out of it, not because i have nothing to offer, but because my time is better spent helping people with their own energy concerns than refuting jaded nonsense on a forum. The devaluation of the pound by infinite money printing will continue to drive the cost of imported energy up and i'm doing what i can to help households lessen the burden.

From my perspective since the beginning of the FiT we have seen prices for PV more than halve, bringing it from an investment product for those approaching retirement in 2010 to an energy product affordable to families looking to secure their energy future. I prefer the latter (although i made more money from the former).

I've been amazed that so much negativity and what comes accross as actual geniuine anger and personal attacks could have been generated by such a well intentioned thread.

Ultimately there is no single replacement for fossil fuel, an integrated response is needed and all technologies will have to play a part in our future energy mix. You can't fight that.

Germany has spent far more than the UK implementing these schemes, they are now in the enviable position of being able to decomission their nuclear generation and having to pay heavy industry to take power from the grid and produce things on a windy sunny day in southern states. (In the UK we pay the big 6 to turn the turbines off when it gets too windy).

Arguing which is best is pointless on a forum such as this, if you really feel so strongly about these issues speak to your MP, respond to OFGEM and DECC consultations as you are entitled to do as a stakeholder in these schemes.

Enough of the sarcasm and baiting, have you really nothing better or more fulfilling in your life?

e
solar professional, here to help...

spgsc531

Energetic wrote: »

TBH i've long since lost interest in this argument. There are far more wasteful and pointless uses of public money to get annoyed about than the tariffs, and on a much larger scale.

I have chosen to stay out of it, not because i have nothing to offer, but because my time is better spent helping people with their own energy concerns than refuting jaded nonsense on a forum. The devaluation of the pound by infinite money printing will continue to drive the cost of imported energy up and i'm doing what i can to help households lessen the burden.

From my perspective since the beginning of the FiT we have seen prices for PV more than halve, bringing it from an investment product for those approaching retirement in 2010 to an energy product affordable to families looking to secure their energy future. I prefer the latter (although i made more money from the former).

I've been amazed that so much negativity and what comes accross as actual geniuine anger and personal attacks could have been generated by such a well intentioned thread.

Ultimately there is no single replacement for fossil fuel, an integrated response is needed and all technologies will have to play a part in our future energy mix. You can't fight that.

Germany has spent far more than the UK implementing these schemes, they are now in the enviable position of being able to decomission their nuclear generation and having to pay heavy industry to take power from the grid and produce things on a windy sunny day in southern states. (In the UK we pay the big 6 to turn the turbines off when it gets too windy).

Arguing which is best is pointless on a forum such as this, if you really feel so strongly about these issues speak to your MP, respond to OFGEM and DECC consultations as you are entitled to do as a stakeholder in these schemes.

Enough of the sarcasm and baiting, have you really nothing better or more fulfilling in your life?

e
solar professional, here to help...

Couldn't agree more with this post. The 2 main protagonists (trolls?) seem to have seperate but caustic need to create argument about Solar, or Solar FiT.

My answer was to put them on ignore, it's not been long but the forum seems (for me) all the better for it already.

I'm sure the arguing, sarcasm, nastiness won't stop. Perhaps people should consider if feeding the trolls is worth it. What you said in bold sums it up really.

spgsc