George Monbiot is Right/Wrong

Fruit_and_Nut_Case

I've created this thread so that people who want to discuss the rightness or wrongness of George Monbiot (who he?) can bicker amongst themselves and leave the rest of the forum for useful information.

Fat chance, I reckon.

The_Green_Hornet

He has the same journalistic insights (incites?) as all the contributors to the Guardian / Observer.

InVestor_2

George Monbiot is wrong.

EricMears

Excellent idea for a new topic.

Most of us can mark it as being of no interest and politely suggest that anyone mentioning that name in any other thread might care to re-post here instead.

Martyn1981

Sorry peeps, I didn't spot this thread until after I'd responded on the other one.

TBH I think the GM argument has run out of steam, so is hopefully about to fade away.

May the sun be with you.

Mart.

zeupater

Hi

Is Monbiot right, or wrong on what ? .... there are many points which he makes which I agree with, and conversely, many which I don't. Quite simply, he seems to be a writer who simply enjoys a confrontational approach and often seemingly tends to make comment well beyond his full technical understanding - much like many on this forum, so I don't really understand why he's not a member .... perhaps he simply likes capitalism too much and needs to be recompensed to contribute, or alternatively, could already be a member (now, there's a thought ! )

I'm pretty content to read any of his articles or comment, but would always consider that what has been written is the viewpoint of one who seems to be a typical 'serial activist' (on a number of fronts), so always look for the possibility of, and reasoning for, any underlying motivation ....

Call me a cynic ? ..... well, go-on then :cool:

HTH
Z

EricMears

zeupater wrote: »

. . . . often seemingly tends to make comment well beyond his full technical understanding - much like many on this forum, so I don't really understand why he's not a member .... perhaps he simply likes capitalism too much and needs to be recompensed to contribute, or alternatively, could already be a member (now, there's a thought ! )


Call me a cynic ? ..... well, go-on then :cool:

HTH
Z

The same thought had struck me.

If I were a moderately well known author and wanted to publicise my works, I'd very likely set up a couple of fake IDs and get them apparently arguing about the content. Might just result in a few sales . . . . ?

Wouldn't dream of calling Z a cynic - probably (just like me) experienced in the ways of the world.

Martyn1981

Hiya Zeup, I find GM a bit of an oddity, it seems he has a good heart, but 'that' article on PV and FITs, really irritated me, as you have probably guessed by now.

I think it's the scale of the errors that did it for me, the £8.6bn from the poor, pricing wind at 4.5p, claiming Germany was pulling out of PV and FITs.

These aren't small, accidental errors, they are very important, and would convince many against both PV and FITs. My impression is that 'that' article is designed to mislead, not inform. That's not a very nice thing to say, but hard to come to any other conclusion.

@ Eric, would a copy of my birth certificate, proving I was born in Hawaii help?

Joking aside, I appreciate that digging my heels in and arguing these points makes for painful reading (if you can be bothered), but these same issues kept popping up on every thread, like a demented game of whack-a-troll, so it's seemed like a good investment to nail each one down.

Hopefully, a few are now dead in the water. But I'm not holding my breath, yet!

Mart.

EricMears

We seem to have had a sudden surge in interest in squabbling over what the great man may or may not have meant.

For those unable to find this topic for themselves, I've pushed it up the batting order a bit. But I shan't make a habit of doing so - I'd suggest that the lack of postings in this thread probably reflects the actual level of interest in the topic.

Martyn1981

Looking at comments from silverwhistle and Cardew on the ‘Cold called re free solar panels.’ Thread.

I find this article by GM interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/04/end-of-nuclear-careful-what-you-wish-for

In brief, he says that whilst nuclear isn’t great, it’s needed to combat CO2 emissions. Effectively nuclear is the lesser evil.

Now I actually agree with this, I don’t want nuclear, and it does worry me, but I fear it might be essential to get us through the next 20 to 30 years. Just my opinion.

So let’s compare GM’s stance on nuclear and PV.

Both will be subsidised through leccy bills, since nuclear costs can no longer be supported/hidden in general taxation. So all bill payers will contribute, poor and rich alike, plus everyone else, and all other sectors too. So no difference between nuclear or domestic PV.

Nuclear subsidies are there to support an industry that is unable to support itself, despite 50+ years of subsidies. FITs is there to support and launch a large scale rollout of PV. After only about 7 years, it is becoming viable in many countries, and after 3 years support in the UK, it is already starting to look viable in the short to medium term.

Nuclear subsidies will go to all generation. PV subsidies are falling, and subsidy rates are set against roll out, so will reduce further – the more we have, the less it costs.

Best bet subsidies on nuclear are currently 5p to 6p per kWh (excluding insurance and de-commissioning costs) for 40 years. FIT rates (domestic) are currently 15.44p (14.9p or less from Aug) for 20 years. So currently comparable, and PV will be lower than nuclear before any new nuclear reactors come on line.

Nuclear subsidies go to the nuclear industry. Domestic PV FIT goes (mainly) to households.

So to summarise my interpretation of GM’s views:

Nuclear – long term fixed subsidies, all paid to large companies, to support an industry that isn’t becoming competitive ….. so Good?

Domestic PV – medium term, reducing subsides, mostly paid to households, to support and launch an industry (large scale), to become competitive ……. so Bad?

I think it’s very sad that GM decided to mislead people over the truth of PV, but even sadder that many years later, he and people fooled by his false claims, are still using them in an ever more desperate attempt to save face. Hypocrisy will always out!

Mart.

zeupater

Hi M

From what has been reported recently. it looks like EDF are attempting to twist the Government's arm a little further and split the risks completely from the benefits ....

I find no rational explanation to why a technology which has already been proven in concept through numerous previous generation plant in the UK and plant of exactly the same design as those proposed for the UK which have been (/are being) constructed elsewhere in Europe should have any construction cost risk remaining ..... It is generally accepted that on large projects a cost overrun will occur on the first build, mainly being due to poor project management rather than design shortfalls ... however, by the fifth build the total cost should come in at between 20% & 30% lower than the budgeted cost of the first (not the actual cost) ... standard economies of scale which EDF obviously understand & H.M.Government's civil servants don't (unless they're eyeing up a future career move to the private sector ) ...

Looking at Hinkley Point ... if the requested generation subsidy is actually around £100/MWh (as rumoured/reported) on a 3260MW rated plant (http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/south-west/hinkley-point-c-new-nuclear-power-station/) then the subsidy would be ~£7.8million/day, or £2.8billion/year with an anticipated 60year design lifespan - that's also excluding any additional operating profit on the sale of electricity to the open market ... also consider, that this level of expenditure is to develop just one site ...

It seems to me that there is an industry concern that by the time that such high lead-time projects commence operation and throughout their operating lifespan, there will be considerable moderating/downward pressures on energy market-pricing from alternative sources (fracking & low cost renewables) to seriously question the long-term viability of such capital intensive projects .... hence the sector's attempt to privatise the upside & nationalise the risk ....

<context hat on> ... ~£2.8billion ? - isn't that about the equivalent of ~10000 acres of pv panels (~3000 acres installed), probably around ~750k ~4kWp fully subsidised systems provided for free each year for the same cost ... or enough to finance the FiT payments on ~5.6million new 4kWp installations at the current FiT level .....

HTH
Z