Solar ... In the news

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Already answered #341.

So, can we go back to solar in the news now?

Mart.

Firstly, believe or not, your 'answer' is simply an opinion - and doubtless even more unbelievably, you don't speak for everyone.

Secondly, the 'green levy' includes solar and how it is funded in future was raised by someone else* on this thread, and IMO is far more interesting than your constant quoting of articles from the biased solar industry publications.

Thirdly zeupater's raising of the subject of DSC for gas/electricity has also nought to do with solar. - no protest there I note! Your usual obsequious manner toward those you want to 'keep onside' prevails.

* Your kindred spirit spgsc531 in post 526

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Firstly, believe or not, your 'answer' is simply an opinion - and doubtless even more unbelievably, you don't speak for everyone.

Secondly, the 'green levy' includes solar and how it is funded in future was raised by someone else* on this thread, and IMO is far more interesting than your constant quoting of articles from the biased solar industry publications.

Thirdly zeupater's raising of the subject of DSC for gas/electricity has also nought to do with solar. - no protest there I note! Your usual obsequious manner toward those you want to 'keep onside' prevails.

* Your kindred spirit spgsc531 in post 526

Firstly, you asked me a question, and I pointed out that I had in fact already answered it, giving my opinion in post #341.

Secondly, if you don't want to read articles about solar in the news, then why keep reading this thread and complaining about it. Just ignore it.

Thirdly, Zeupater didn't raise the issue of DSC, he responded to my comments in the aforementioned post #341.

Fourthly, why you go to such lengths to try to provoke arguments and cause diversion on these threads is beyond me. If you have a constructive alternative to renewables and their subsidies then why not just say so. What is the point of this constant negativity, without ever offering anything constructive.

So, how's about we just go back to solar in the news.

Mart.

Martyn1981

World Energy Council finds UK has one of the fairest and most secure systems for supplying energy

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2296635/uk-energy-system-ranked-among-the-worlds-best

The UK is one of only five countries regarded as having the most sustainable national energy systems in a new ranking by the World Energy Council (WEC).

The London-based forum gives the UK a AAA rating alongside Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and Spain in terms of how the countries balance the "energy trilemma" of energy security, energy equity, and environmental sustainability.


More info on the report can be found here:

WEC launches 2013 Trilemma report as UN holds General Assembly

http://www.worldenergy.org/news-and-media/news/wec-to-launch-2013-trilemma-report-as-un-holds-general-assembly/

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Firstly, you asked me a question, and I pointed out that I had in fact already answered it, giving my opinion in post #341.

Secondly, if you don't want to read articles about solar in the news, then why keep reading this thread and complaining about it. Just ignore it.

Thirdly, Zeupater didn't raise the issue of DSC, he responded to my comments in the aforementioned post #341.

Fourthly, why you go to such lengths to try to provoke arguments and cause diversion on these threads is beyond me. If you have a constructive alternative to renewables and their subsidies then why not just say so. What is the point of this constant negativity, without ever offering anything constructive.

So, how's about we just go back to solar in the news.

Mart.

Why is it you feel that you will dictate the agenda in every thread on this section? Or that any general question in the thread is only addressed to yourself?

The subject of the Green Levy moving from energy bills to taxation was raised by spgsc531 in post #326 It was commented on by jimjames, Ericmears, Green Hornet, zeupater and myself. All of whom thought it worthy of discussion

Far from being argumentative or negative, the discussion doesn't even raise the merits/demerits of solar FIT; merely how all subsidies might be paid for in future.

What on earth has your diatribe in post #352 got to do with the green levy possibly moving from energy bills to taxation.

If you don't want to comment on that question, it is not mandatory! Or do you feel your 'ownership' of every thread might be threatened?

P.S.

Nuclear, which you've made negative comments about previously,

This stupid tactic of yours is really getting boring. You make some inaccurate statement attributing comments to your perceived 'opponent', and unless it is denied, base arguments on that inaccuracy.

1. Care to point out where I have been negative about Nuclear.

2. What have my views on Nuclear have to do with 'solar in the news'?

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

If you don't want to comment on that question, it is not mandatory! Or do you feel your 'ownership' of every thread might be threatened?

Cardew, you keep asking me (in a post addressed to me (and Z) and two posts replying to me) the same question, and I keep telling you that I've already given my views (in post #341). You can keep asking me if you want, and you are of course free to discuss that point all you want with others. But as far as I'm concerned, you've asked me, and I've told you where my answer is. So back to solar in the news.

Cardew wrote: »

This stupid tactic of yours is really getting boring. You make some inaccurate statement attributing comments to your perceived 'opponent', and unless it is denied, base arguments on that inaccuracy.

1. Care to point out where I have been negative about Nuclear.

2. What have my views on Nuclear have to do with 'solar in the news'?

You decided to raise your views on PV and FiTs ...... yet again, and I asked you what your alternative suggestion is. Something I've asked you many, many times over the past year or so. To me it seems simple, if you can't offer something constructive as an alternative, then constant negative remarks and digs seem pointless - a complete waste of time.

So, once again, if you don't like renewables and/or their subsidies, then offer an alternative solution to our future energy needs. As far as I can find, you have only ever been 'positive' about coal, though there may be negative comments somewhere too, that wouldn't surprise me.

As to challenging me to support my claims about what you have said - why do you keep doing this. Surely you should be pleased that I have read your posts, rather than complain about / deny any references to them, every time I mention one!

Cardew wrote: »

Martyn1981 wrote: »

As comparisons go, I like comparing the PV FITs budget to 3.5 years of nuclear decommissioning, which consumes energy.

So your justification for FIT is that other projects 'waste' even more money?

So, I'm going back to solar in the news, and I'm not particularly interested in your continued attempts to start an argument with me. If you don't want to read news articles about solar, then not reading a thread entitled 'Solar in the News' would seem a better bet, than to keep complaining.

Have a nice day.

Mart.

zeupater

Hi All

I think that the recent exchange of viewpoints are relevant, both to recent news items and solar pv.

To put this into some form of simplified context ....

• The recent Labour party conference resulted in a policy statement which effectively said that because of unfair pricing practices in the energy sector there would be an enforced price increase moratorium.
• The energy sector countered with the argument that a considerable proportion of the increase was due to the CCL, a proportion of which funds the pv FiT scheme (Note that they didn't raise the £12billion cost of smartmetering though ).
• There have been a number of articles going around recently about tariff simplification. A number of these report that moving all customer offerings to SC will cost the sector money which will result in higher prices. (although, I'd conclude that the opposite is almost certain!)
• To keep the item in the news, the energy sector is pushing for the CCL to be transferred from direct billing to general taxation.

These news items are not unrelated, there is a causal timeline which directly links them. Obviously it's a game of politics & misinformation, so 'Cui bono' ? ...

The important consideration in linking all of these together is that the CCL (which includes an element for the pv FiT) being collected directly on energy bill ensures that the 'polluter' pays proportionally to the level of 'pollution'/usage. This effectively brings into play a 'carrot & stick' incentive for customers to help themselves reduce their own bills ... the carrot is to make use of available funding for energy conservation measures etc, the stick is the price of the energy and the desirability (/value) of properties if the owner (including landlords) decides to not take advantage. The energy sector cannot fail to see this as a direct threat to their business growth viability, after-all, they are in the business of making profit from generating & selling energy. So, what are their two main options? .... maintain revenue through growing the margin in a shrinking demand market is one. This would require resistance to cost transparency - does this sound familiar? ... and/or ... disconnect the direct link between the CCL and billing, thus destroying both the carrot and the stick in one go, in the belief that the consumer would no longer strive to reduce their own consumption, which is also familiar.

To me, there seem to be a number of journalists, political activists and ideologists who, having latched onto the 'injustice' of the pv FiT system so closely/strongly that they are now unwilling/unable to stand back a little and consider that this is just a component part of an overall strategy to reduce carbon emissions through both introducing cleaner energy sources and reduce energy demand. As such, they have swallowed, hook, line & sinker, exactly what would best suit the energy providers, not the consumer or the environment ...

See, there is a reason for linking these news items, and there is strong & logical reasoning to answer the question which was raised a few posts ago (#351) .... "However it seems to me that that the only point of any further discussion on this subject is whether the 'green Levy' should be moved from energy bills to general taxation - is it a good idea or not? " .... overall, no, it's not a good idea.

HTH
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

See, there is a reason for linking these news items, and there is strong & logical reasoning to answer the question which was raised a few posts ago (#351) .... "However it seems to me that that the only point of any further discussion on this subject is whether the 'green Levy' should be moved from energy bills to general taxation - is it a good idea or not? " .... overall, no, it's not a good idea.

HTH
Z

Thanks for a reasoned argument, albeit not one with which I would agree.

The less well-off pensioner in an all electric council flat have little option to fit wood burners, etc etc and whilst you might consider the present system:

ensures that the 'polluter' pays proportionally to the level of 'pollution'/usage. This effectively brings into play a 'carrot & stick' incentive for customers to help themselves reduce their own bills .

I suggest many have simply no option but to 'pollute'.

So overall I think the funding the 'green levy' from taxation and not fuel bills is a good idea.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

and you are of course free to discuss that point all you want with others.



I'm not particularly interested in your continued attempts to start an argument with me.

Mart.

Can you not see that it is you starting an argument?

The subject was nothing to do with you; it was raised by someone else and interested others.

It was not even a discussion of the merits/demerits of solar PV FIT, merely questioning if changing their funding source would be a good idea?

Yet you have to weigh in with an attack on totally irrelevant issues.

Anyway thank you for your permission to discuss the subject with others; much appreciated.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Can you not see that it is you starting an argument?

The subject was nothing to do with you; it was raised by someone else and interested others.

Cardew, for goodness sake stop! Take a breath, and stop!

You asked me (and Z) a question in post #351, and have asked me twice more, and each time I have directed you to the views (answer) I gave in post #341 - 10 posts before you asked the question!

Martyn1981 wrote: »

1. Having the levies added to energy prices means that 'the polluter pays'.
2a. Higher direct prices (as opposed to indirect prices) will encourage energy conservation.
2b. Higher direct prices (as opposed to indirect prices) will encourage the purchase of more efficient items.
2c. Higher direct prices (as opposed to indirect prices) will encourage more demand side generation.

Even the use of standing charges, rather than an all in 'petrol forecourt' price is probably detrimental to the above.

Mart.

Perhaps you don't like my answer. It seems to be very similar to Zeupater's, and you just said you disagree with his. But constantly asking me for an answer, won't change my view, nor post #341.

So having answered your question 4 times now, and not (ever) expecting an answer from you regarding your suggested alternative(s) to renewables, shall we (the two of us) move on. I'll go back to solar in the news, and you do what you do!

Thank you.

Mart.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Thanks for a reasoned argument, albeit not one with which I would agree.

The less well-off pensioner in an all electric council flat have little option to fit wood burners, etc etc and whilst you might consider the present system:



I suggest many have simply no option but to 'pollute'.

So overall I think the funding the 'green levy' from taxation and not fuel bills is a good idea.

Hi Cardew

In the post I made which was electively referenced above there was an extremely relevant paragraph concerning the current discussion and the question you asked regarding the 'green levy' ....

"To me, there seem to be a number of journalists, political activists and ideologists who, having latched onto the 'injustice' of the pv FiT system so closely/strongly that they are now unwilling/unable to stand back a little and consider that this is just a component part of an overall strategy to reduce carbon emissions through both introducing cleaner energy sources and reduce energy demand. As such, they have swallowed, hook, line & sinker, exactly what would best suit the energy providers, not the consumer or the environment ..."

... To me, it seems incredulous that the entire post was brushed aside with a simplistic argument which totally misses the point ... "The less well-off pensioner in an all electric council flat have little option to fit wood burners, etc etc " ... Okay, they can't I agree, they may, or may not be able to have pv either, but importantly, the 'green taxes' which are collected through the 'green levy' element of their bills also fund improvements to their insulation and other energy saving improvements through schemes such as ECO ( https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/energy-companies-obligation-eco/information-domestic-consumers ) ... likewise, for private landlords, their properties become far less attractive to tenants if they aren't improved, which also likely reduces their market value .... This fully supports the reasoning made above .... it really does suit the position of the energy companies to maintain a 'divide & conquer' approach in order to feed & concentrate discussion at the 'component' level as opposed to the level where it should be, i.e.'strategic' ....

If the 'polluter' doesn't pay, then everyone pays ... is it fair for an 'off-grid' property in the wilds of Scotland or Wales to be forced to pay for the 'pollution' resulting from the past building standards and current improvement policies of urban councils, and in doing so, take the pressure off the worst offenders? ...

Discussion relating to green taxes, FiT, RHI and whatever else always comes around to an emotive last ditch defensive position referencing the plight of 'pensioners living in council flats', however, my personal experience of many pensioners is that having both a high degree of life experience and a considerable amount of free time, they tend to make a pretty formidable foe if you rub them up the wrong way . If I was a pensioner paying considerably more to heat my property than necessary just because my local authority was too lazy to research/make grant-funded improvements, then I know what options would be available to me .... for example, simply seeing something like this would have me on the phone straight away - 'By investing in our homes this initiative allows us to reduce the 35 per cent of heat that is lost through the walls of a property, so that our residents’ heating bills are reduced.' http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/eco/camden-to-insulate-13659-homes-in-%C2%A38m-project/6522596.article , but I doubt that I'd be as incentivised to bother if the 'green taxes' were collected through general taxation - I simply wouldn't have a reminder of how much I was paying for nothing every time a new energy bill came through the letterbox.

The stakeholder to which 'green tax' collection through general taxation as opposed to a direct 'polluter pays' levy is most beneficial is the energy sector ... so, as usual, the obvious first question for everyone should have been 'Cui bono'....

HTH
Z