Solar ... In the news

zeupater

Leeds_Solar wrote: »

.... I think I'll end this discussion by apologising on behalf of the whole of climate science for you having apparently been slightly misled when studying for your o'levels. It's obviously something that irks you.

I can only try to assure you that the situation now really is nothing like the situation in the 70s when there was considerable confusion on the subject still.

Hi

I really think that the point of maintaining this discussion has been completely missed. My view is that there is considerable separation between politically motivated and true scientific research, especially so when politically motivated research is offered as a valid argument against something which, in itself, it could neither prove, or disprove. In this case, there's a simple and logical solution which could .... just ask a historian, but isn't 'history' considered more 'art' than 'science' - which raises the quandary ... "Trust me, I'm a scientist" doesn't really stack up with "this science is based on an art" ...

For information, my own belief is that a considerable proportion of climate science is genuine, that warming exists (caveat: timescale) and that a considerable proportion of the warming is due to humankind ... however, when it comes to AGW being 'fact', it's simply the prefix 'A' combined with 'fact' and the 'proof' provided by complex climatic modelling which is questionable ... I spent many years on developing and working with complex modelling and really do understand the issues, that includes the model itself, the quality of the data, and the interpretation of the output ....

Anyway, if you are truly interested in science, as opposed to scientific opinion, do endeavour to complete the simple exercise, it really does go a long way towards understanding the interplay between various periods of analysis much better than decadal, smoothed annual vs fixed period mean etc .... after all, simultaneously comparing multiple period means against literally hundreds of 30 year baselines must be much more interesting than a conveniently selected averaged timescale against a single one (1961-1990) ...

HTH
Z

Cardew

Back to 'news'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10368842/SSE-retail-boss-blames-Government-for-energy-price-rise.html

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

Back to 'news'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10368842/SSE-retail-boss-blames-Government-for-energy-price-rise.html

The thanks was for getting back to news rather than me being grateful for news of price rises

I wasn't aware that "Government-imposed green levies" were due to rise ! How can a fixed charge (I'm not asking whether people approve of it or not and this isn't really an appropriate topic to discuss that) possibly be cited as a reason for an increase in prices ?

The_Green_Hornet

EricMears wrote: »

The thanks was for getting back to news rather than me being grateful for news of price rises

I wasn't aware that "Government-imposed green levies" were due to rise ! How can a fixed charge (I'm not asking whether people approve of it or not and this isn't really an appropriate topic to discuss that) possibly be cited as a reason for an increase in prices ?

They are blaming the rises on the Coalition's Energy Company Obligation (ECO) which, ironically for this forum, is all about assisting people in fuel poverty.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10345743/Green-levies-on-energy-bills-unfair-says-Michael-Fallon.html

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-households-to-cut-their-energy-bills/supporting-pages/energy-companies-obligation-eco

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

The thanks was for getting back to news rather than me being grateful for news of price rises

I wasn't aware that "Government-imposed green levies" were due to rise ! How can a fixed charge (I'm not asking whether people approve of it or not and this isn't really an appropriate topic to discuss that) possibly be cited as a reason for an increase in prices ?

Why is the Green Levy a 'fixed charge'?

As more subsidies are given for Solar/Wind etc to new participants then the cost to the Utility companies increases, and that is passed to customers.

Likewise as said in earlier posts, the justification for those subsidies is not the point of discussion in this thread; but should they be funded from taxation.

Cardew

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

They are blaming the rises on the Coalition's Energy Company Obligation (ECO) which, ironically for this forum, is all about assisting people in fuel poverty.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10345743/Green-levies-on-energy-bills-unfair-says-Michael-Fallon.html

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-households-to-cut-their-energy-bills/supporting-pages/energy-companies-obligation-eco

With respect I think you have misread the Telegraph article. It is not just the ECO which is a 'social levy' but the 'green levy'

The comments are the strongest indication yet that the Conservatives may pledge to scale back existing green policy costs, as the party scrambles to counter Ed Miliband’s energy price freeze plan. “Piling further costs and green levies on to energy bills is unfair to consumers,” said Mr Fallon
.......................

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

Why is the Green Levy a 'fixed charge'?

As more subsidies are given for Solar/Wind etc to new participants then the cost to the Utility companies increases, and that is passed to customers.

Likewise as said in earlier posts, the justification for those subsidies is not the point of discussion in this thread; but should they be funded from taxation.

AIUI, the supply companies collect money from their customers on behalf of the government and at a rate set by them. Whilst they do indeed pay out from the fund to subsidise solar panels, wind farms, insulation etc. etc. any costs above (or below) their 'fair share' are claimed from (repaid to) the central fund.

Martyn1981

Article with some interesting numbers and conclusions:

'Green taxes' fight energy bills not fuel them

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/oct/10/green-taxes-energy-bill-fuel-sse-price-rising

Some extracts:

SSE's own figures, analysed by Reg Platt at the IPPR think tank, show the rise equates to £93 a year. Of that, £23 is due to rising wholesale energy costs and £28 for investment in the grid and meters. VAT adds £5 and another £23 is unaccounted for, but will include SSE's own costs, profit and projected rises for the next year, during which SSE has pledged to freeze its tarfiffs. That all means that just one sixth of SSE's rise - £15 - is due to the rise in government "green taxes".

Half of those "green taxes" are in fact for social programmes (see graphic below) that help keep the poor and old a bit warmer in winter, by better insulating their homes. The other half goes on supporting the clean and renewable energy that will reduce householders exposure to future rises in fossil fuel costs. Yes, "green taxes" will probably double by 2020, but the bill savings they deliver will last decades

As the temperature as the energy bill argument rises yet further and "green taxes" are further villified, take a step back, do the math and you'll find those very same "green taxes" are in fact the best weapon you have to fight future energy bill rises.

Mart.

Fruit_and_Nut_Case

I didn't want to start a new thread for this but we all need a laugh sometimes, so...
Fake Science: How Solar Power Works [Picture]

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

AIUI, the supply companies collect money from their customers on behalf of the government and at a rate set by them. Whilst they do indeed pay out from the fund to subsidise solar panels, wind farms, insulation etc. etc. any costs above (or below) their 'fair share' are claimed from (repaid to) the central fund.

Agreed; there is no conflict between that statement and mine.

If more people are claiming subsidies, the more money the energy companies pay out, and thus the more money they collect from customers by way of increased charges on their bill.