Solar ... In the news

Cardew

Leeds_Solar wrote: »

I trust cardew that you have also been ardently ripping into the government for their decision to scrap these protected tariffs if you really are concerned about those living in fuel poverty.

As a matter of principle I don't think the protected tariffs(or warm home scheme) should have ever come from a levy on energy bills.

As stated earlier, pre-pay tariffs are often(not always) used by the less well off and used to be more expensive because of the cost of administering the scheme. Now under political pressure they are in line with some of the mainstream tariffs, to finance that scheme there is a cross-subsidy.

We have a social security system, that is generous or inadequate according to your POV! and the less well off should be helped with their energy bills via that scheme - if they qualify.

The above sentiments are really in agreement with your quote earlier in the thread:

It's possible that a scheme paid for from general taxation could have been a success, however we have had successive governments who've done everything possible to transfer government spending off the books via PFI financing, and these sort of arrangements,

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nothing special article, except for the paragraph I've copied, regarding the 20by20 target. I wonder if this is still possible, momentum will need to grow?

Greg Barker to launch solar energy roadmap at Solar Energy UK

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/greg_barker_to_launch_solar_energy_roadmap_at_solar_energy_uk

Solar Power Portal understands that the roadmap is expected to restate the often repeated 20GW by 2020 solar ambition. The solar strategy will aim to set out in detail how the government and the private sector can work together to capitalise on the sector’s growth.

Mart.

Update, Greg Barker is looking towards commercial rooftop installs to help meet the 20by20 target:

SEUK: Barker threatens government action against ‘inappropriate’ PV development

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/seuk_barker_threatens_government_action_against_inappropriate_pv_developmen

Extracts:

Energy minister Greg Barker has launched a ‘roadmap’ towards publication of the UK’s first solar strategy, reaffirming his commitment towards a target of 20GW of PV by 2020 but threatening government action against insensitive development.

Speaking at Solar Energy UK in Birmingham today, Barker pledged to crack down on inappropriately sited solar developments, stating that he foresaw a growing role for large rooftop PV in achieving the UK’s targets rather than increasingly controversial open-field PV development.

Barker said large-scale rooftop schemes would have a growing role in meeting the UK’s 2020 solar target, claiming PV would need to be developed on just 14% of the UK’s commercial rooftops in order to meet the 2020 target.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Californian utilities hit out against battery stored solar power

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/californian-utilities-hit-out-against-battery-stored-solar-power_100012982/#axzz2h0Vm88iq

Extracts:

Three of the state's largest utilities claim that customers with battery storage systems installed alongside their rooftop PV can give no guarantee that the energy they feed back to the grid is clean.

In response, various solar energy associations and campaigners have voiced their concerns, claiming that once again the solar industry is being unfairly maligned and treated with mistrust.

The battery storage issue opens an as-yet-untouched can of worms. As battery costs fall, customers have been tempted to install solar systems with batteries attached in order to store excess energy that can be used as a backup source of power, or a means to pump that excess energy to the grid in return for lower bills.

As California’s robust solar industry further promotes the wider use of batteries, the dispute requires immediate attention, with the current rules in a state of flux.

One thing is for sure: the issue of solar storage is not going to quietly disappear into the night. Battery costs are expected to fall by as much as 57% by 2020, and the global market for solar storage is forecast to increase from sub-$200 million currently to $2.8 billion by 2018, according to Lux Research.

Mart.

zeupater

Leeds_Solar wrote: »

.... I was responding to a specific statement you made which is demonstrably false ...
... the evidence of the scientific literature at the time clearly demonstrates 6:1 published papers supporting the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis vs cooling ...
... Presenting your memory of what was being taught to you in high school in the 70s .. in contradiction of published research assessing all peer reviewed published scientific papers at the time demonstrates a particularly low burden of proof ... [*1]

...
tbh though, none of that is even vaguely controversial or inconsistent with current thinking.

i) [simplified version] There was a slight temporary cooling trend occurring particularly in the northern hemisphere, caused largely by a process known as global dimming, related to the vast amounts of particulate pollutants ... or the underlying warming trend associated with rising greenhouse gas levels. [*2]

... So your teachers weren't really wrong .... unless they were falsely extrapolating from the short term trend and expecting it to continue, which is the sort of error I could well see a fairly poorly trained teacher making, but doesn't in itself have any real reflection on the actual understanding of the subject amongst the majority of scientists active in the field at the time. [*3]

... Actually, the IPCC was established as a political tool to delay the action that the scientific consensus at the time was already clear needed to be taken... Not that the IPCC isn't a good idea and I'd fully support continued research under its banner, just not for it to be used as a delaying tactic by US politicians waiting for some form of mythical level of absolute scientific proof. [*4] ...

... The consensus position in science doesn't continually change, it changes in light of evidence presented to refute previous hypothesis / consensus positions, but once no such evidence can be presented, it then becomes established scientific fact in the same way that gravity, or the earth not being flat are no longer disputed and haven't been for some time. [*5] ..

... There are also vested interest groups with a combined turnover of approximately 15% of the entire global GDP... vs scientists who'd mostly get paid regardless of their position on AGW, I'll leave you to consider which is really the more likely vested interest group to be twisting the public presentation of the science to suit their own agenda. [*6]

[*1] In the 1970's it was being taught. If it could have simply been demonstrated that it both wasn't covered in any syllabus and wasn't taught, it would have gone a long way towards discrediting my point(s). However, to attempt to illustrate a position based on much later historical research into consensus, which simply concentrates on counting the number of papers, as opposed to the quality & relevance of content, and then going further and counting the number of much later citations in a period when there was a clamour for prior research to reference as support for later research isn't the same thing ... it is also noteworthy that although the paper was designed to research 'Global warming' consensus, it doesn't concentrate on Anthropogenic, although it's structure conveniently seems to lead the reader to this conclusion ... taking the approach of attempting to discredit the author is a well known/used ploy, particularly in climate science - how else would there be such a high degree of consensus in the IPCC which doesn't seem to reflect that apparent in both the general population, or relevant professional bodies.

[*2] I've seen this argument used before. Pan evaporation records suggest that 'Global Dimming' due to aerosols didn't start a couple of decades before the 1970s, its been apparent for at least a half-century before then, I saw reference to a continuous data set in Australia when 'Global Dimming' became mainstream in the media ... here's a decent paper which seems to be widely referenced .... ( http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/2003GL019060.pdf )

[*3] A statement which is "demonstrably false " either is or isn't. If there is a question of whether a cooling trend was being taught or not, then why would the teachers be considered as being 'poorly trained', especially when different teachers were covering the same issue within different schools (MrsZ attended different schools, but covered the same material) ... doesn't this logically suggest centralised syllabus approval by the examining board, which would require board consensus, therefore having nothing to do with the quality of the teacher?

[*4] That's not really in line with what the UN said at the time of the IPCC's inception ... http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r053.htm , or their history (including timing) of report publication .. ( http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#.UlQWxr5wa00 )

[*5] Consensus actually evolves, some goes on to be established as being fact, whilst other consensus just remains as being an 'adopted view'. The flat earth became spherical by consensus over a period of time, supported by a number of scientific & mathematical 'proofs' ... effectively, despite all of the relevant disparate research which built towards this universally 'adopted view' the ultimate 'proof' for universal 'consensus' to be considered as undisputed 'fact' being a simple photograph ...

[*6] I would consider that there would be many involved in the global debate with vested interests to protect. It matters not what their relative size and corresponding access to funding is, just the point which they need to protect, and why they need to protect it. This could include a myriad of reasons, ranging from the survival of global businesses, to the personal reputation of an individual. Obviously, this means that a mixture of misinformation, politics, and discrediting opposing viewpoints often take precedence over open & honest debate .... Importantly, this applies equally to all concerned .... this, and [*5] above, really illustrate why I maintain that .... 'There are vested interest groups which would have everyone believe that consensus is fact .... but 'in fact', it's not.'

HTH
Z

zeupater

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

Social tariffs are being replaced by the Warm Home Discount Scheme.

Warm Home Discount Scheme

Hi

.... assisted by the Energy Companies Obligation (ECO) scheme, which is designed to support vulnerable and low income households, as well as hard-to-treat buildings where the expense of implementing energy saving measures could not be recouped through savings in energy bills .....

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/energy-companies-obligation-eco/information-domestic-consumers

HTH
Z

Leeds_Solar

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

Social tariffs are being replaced by the Warm Home Discount Scheme.

/QUOTE]
yes, it's being replaced by a one off rebate of up to £135 this winter. The rebate is also only available to certain pensioners.

I trust that it's obvious enough what the difference is between a one off sugar pill to take away the immediate protests about the removal of the protected tariffs vs ongoing protected tariff rates for those in fuel poverty?

Also, the point I was making was that when FIT was first planned and implemented, the fuel poor were directly protected from really contributing to it's cost by the fact that they were / could be eligible for this reduced protected tariff from which the energy companies weren't really making profits, and therefore weren't contributing to the costs of the FIT scheme from those tariffs.

Now they will be making significant operating profits from the fuel poor, and as part of that the fuel poor will be contributing to the FIT payments in the way that Cardew is complaining about.

This is down to the ending of the social tariffs by this government, not the FIT scheme specifically. Ending the social tariffs will have a far greater direct impact on the fuel poor than any impact from the funding of the feed in tariff scheme.

Leeds_Solar

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

.... assisted by the Energy Companies Obligation (ECO) scheme, which is designed to support vulnerable and low income households, as well as hard-to-treat buildings where the expense of implementing energy saving measures could not be recouped through savings in energy bills .....[/URL]

HTH
Z

which amounts to approximately half the level of funding available via warmfront and associated schemes in 2010 - the half that was funded from general taxation has gone completely.

rogerblack

Leeds_Solar wrote: »

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

Social tariffs are being replaced by the Warm Home Discount Scheme.

yes, it's being replaced by a one off rebate of up to £135 this winter. The rebate is also only available to certain pensioners.

This is not correct.
The 'core group' is only available to certain pensioners, however there is a much wider group - the 'broader group' - whos eligibility varies from provider to provider.
Being disabled and on certain income related benefits for example ,ay qualify you.
(Got payment last year, and am not yet a pensioner)

Cardew

Leeds_Solar wrote: »

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

Social tariffs are being replaced by the Warm Home Discount Scheme.

/QUOTE]


I trust that it's obvious enough what the difference is between a one off sugar pill to take away the immediate protests about the removal of the protected tariffs vs ongoing protected tariff rates for those in fuel poverty?

Also, the point I was making was that when FIT was first planned and implemented, the fuel poor were directly protected from really contributing to it's cost by the fact that they were / could be eligible for this reduced protected tariff from which the energy companies weren't really making profits, and therefore weren't contributing to the costs of the FIT scheme from those tariffs.

Now they will be making significant operating profits from the fuel poor, and as part of that the fuel poor will be contributing to the FIT payments in the way that Cardew is complaining about.

This is down to the ending of the social tariffs by this government, not the FIT scheme specifically. Ending the social tariffs will have a far greater direct impact on the fuel poor than any impact from the funding of the feed in tariff scheme.

You have raised and are concentrating solely on the 'fuel poor'.

There are loads of people who are not in receipt of benefits but certainly not well off. They can have large electricity bills in all electric flats and pay proportionately far more in levies(social and green) than people who are far better off.

Paying the levies from general taxation would reverse that situation - the better off would contribute more, as they generally pay more tax.

Despite protestations from the self appointed 'solar guru' of MSE, George Monbiot was correct in his first article.(and his second)

His 'error' was to state domestic customers instead of all electrical customers; which doesn't change the principle. However it has been seized upon in an attempt to discredit a perceptive and well reasoned article.

Leeds_Solar

1 - So your contention is that despite the fact that 6 times more papers were published referencing global warming in the 1970's than those predicting global cooling, you still maintain that there was a scientific consensus at that time about global cooling.

What is being taught at in secondary schools is not really evidence of what the scientific consensus on a complex subject might be at the time - as anyone who's studied science will tell you, half the more complex stuff you're taught in high school is wrong / over simplified, and you have to get taught how it actually works at A-level / degree level once you've got a better grasp of the fundamentals needed to actually understand it.

Most high school teachers are more likely to be influenced by high profile TV programs on the subject than they are by the actual peer reviewed scientific literature.

Besides, as I've said, the basics of the stuff you describe being taught was pretty much correct, it's only if that was then used to extrapolate to a long term cooling trend that it would have been wrong, and not reflecting the scientific understanding at the time.

The general point stands regardless though, the level of support amongst scientists working in this field in the 70's for the global cooling hypothesis was in no way comparable with the level of support / consensus that exists now, and has done for the last 25 years or so around Anthropogenic Global Warming.

2 - I did flag it up as being a simplified version for a reason, and I'm not surprised you've seen the argument made before. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make with the paper you've referenced though tbh.

The point I was making being that the teachers weren't exactly wrong to teach that there had been a recent slight short lived cooling trend, nor is this inconsistent with the current understanding of the climatic processes involved.

3 - There aren't a lot of geography or physics teachers around teaching at high school level who could in any way be classed as experts in the field of climate science. Not many Phd graduates specialising in climate science are going to have ended up teaching high school geography.

Therefore the depth of the knowledge and understanding of the subject is likely to be relatively limited. I don't really see what's controversial about this statement tbh.

4 - So, you take the UN and IPCC statements at face value when it suits you then?

for reference, I was taught in the 90s by a professor who co-authored the UNWCED sustainability report in 1987, and worked closely with the UNWCED for much of the 80's and early 90s, so witnessed the diplomatic process involved in setting up the IPCC, the RIO earth Summit, and Kyoto at first hand.

Essentially that was the politics at the time, the US would not support a global agreement at that time, the best they'd support was an international effort to study the science in more depth.

5 - I'm not really sure this is the place for in depth discussion on the scientific method, but if you want to go down that line, then it'd essentially be true to say that there actually isn't any such thing as a scientific fact, just hypothesis which haven't as yet been proven to be false.

At some point in the process though, after the hypothesis has been tested as rigorously as possible, and all other alternative hypothesis have been ruled out, then the scientific community operating in the field will essentially start treating the hypothesis as being a scientific fact as the possibility of anyone disproving it becomes increasingly remote.

that's my 2 paragraph synopsis of the entire works of Popper, Kuhn et al.


[*6] <snip> Importantly, this applies equally to all concerned [/QUOTE]
rubbish.

One side of this 'debate' has spent very little on actual scientific research while spending hundreds of millions on a 2-3 decade long PR campaign to discredit the IPCC and spread doubt in the public mind about it's conclusions.

The other has spent virtually all the money it receives directly on scientific research, and very little on PR activities. (ok greenpeace and FOE muddy the waters a bit there, but only a bit)

Only one side in this 'debate' has any interest in discovering and publishing the actual truth of the subject, the other side is only interested in obscuring that and misleading the public.

So no, they're not even slightly equal in this regard.