George Monbiot is Right/Wrong

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi M

<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

That's a bit of an eye opener. And yes I did reach for the trusty calc, since 5.6m installs is probably the max the UK could handle.

With my 'nuclear hat' on (can't believe I'm arguing nuclear up!) its tariff would give 3 times the leccy 5p v's 15p, but PV rate still dropping, and should deliver 40 years, but subsidy for 20 years. So looks comparable ... wow. But of course (as Graham would point out) we need the guaranteed delivery of nuclear, so it earns some bonus points, unless storage improves.

What really concerns me about the nuclear subsidy is that it will act as a price anchor, pulling prices towards 10p. Now, that's a good thing when spot prices are really high, go above 10p, and they actually have to pay some money back. But not such a good thing as we roll out more and more wind, and spot prices drop, let's say to 2p, but nuclear then gets 8p subsidy, and drags the average back up a bit.

I think the UK can cope with about 4 or 5 times more wind than we currently have, and recently we saw a sustained 5GW of generation for several days. So a windy night won't save us money, since the subsidy will go up.

Similarly, a nice sunny, Sunday, with 20GW+ of PV going, and a bit of wind, will do the same.

So the spot price benefits of renewables in the future, will be lost as we simply replace price reductions, with nuclear subsidy increases.

Maybe we'd be better off paying the 20 year subsidy, estimated at around 12p to 16p (instead of 5p to 6p)? At least that way we'll start to escape the subsidy, just as renewables are hitting really big generation.

Mart.

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

Thank you for your suggestion, however there are new people joining MSE all the time and, as this is an internet Forum, it does them no harm to read eminently sensible articles from people like George Monboit.

If you find any opinions expressed on this section of MSE unpalatable then you can always put those posters on ‘ignore’ and then you will not get irritated.

Some of us find the input from vested interests on MSE both ill-informed and at times downright silly, so we are entitled to express our opinion for the benefit of newcomers.

Any newcomers who are looking for Guru Monbiot's thoughts would have to read every single thread on this part of the MSE forum. Why put them to all that trouble when they could see them here ?

Has the guy actually written anything this year ?

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

Any newcomers who are looking for Guru Monbiot's thoughts would have to read every single thread on this part of the MSE forum. Why put them to all that trouble when they could see them here ?

I think you are missing the point.

Newcomers are not looking for Monboit's input, if they even knew he existed they would 'google'.

If a newcomer posts, in another thread, something contentious about PV then it does no harm to point out the Great Man's views. After all there does seem to be a 'cabal' determined to stifle any input that that is critical of PV and FIT.

You will never stop threads from migrating away from the initial post.

EricMears

Originally Posted by zeupater
Hi

As for the question, I'll ask one back ... what is the current breakdown of pv installations on rented accommodation as opposed to owner occupied, maybe this would help define the scope of the question within context ... perhaps the conversation can be continued in a more appropriate thread ?

Cardew wrote: »

No idea, I suspect a very small proportion of the total number of installations. The great majority being owners of the installation or Rent a Roof companies.

However it would be no consolation to the 'poor' in a flat, who have to pay the FIT levy - regardless of who is collecting the subsidy.

There's no real correlation between rich/poor and housedweller/flatdweller ! There are indeed some very rich folk renting London flats (or at least they were rich before they started paying that sort of rent !)

But are we saying that flatdwellers ought to be exempted from the climate change levy ? Surely they are the very people who should be induced to change their behaviour. Zipping up and down in a lift probably uses more electricity each day than ever I manage to use with my immersion heater. And of course many hi-rise flats are banned from using gas because of a perceived explosion risk so are wasting our electricity on heating.

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

But are we saying that flatdwellers ought to be exempted from the climate change levy ?

I am saying that as PV is fairly useless - unpredictable output(except at night when you can confidently predict no output) - doesn't lessen our dependance on conventional generation etc etc. Then there shouldn't be FIT's for PV paid to the 'middle class' by the 'poor'.

P.S.
Your 'zipping up and down in lifts' comment is wonderful!

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

I am saying that as PV is fairly useless - unpredictable output(except at night when you can confidently predict no output) - doesn't lessen our dependance on conventional generation etc etc. Then there shouldn't be FIT's for PV paid to the 'middle class' by the 'poor'.

P.S.
Your 'zipping up and down in lifts' comment is wonderful!

Thank you - and welcome to this 'new' thread.

If all flatdwellers were able to walk up and down stairs (obviously I exclude the disabled and almost as obviously I'd discourage building of hi-rise flats) there would be a very useful reduction in electricty demand.

But you later comments seem to have moved goalposts. There is still no evidence for flat dwellers being 'poor' - indeed there's lots of evidence for them being richer than we poor houseowners,

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

You will never stop threads from migrating away from the initial post.

Not whilst there are people who think it clever to hijack everybody else's threads.

zeupater

EricMears wrote: »

There's no real correlation between rich/poor and housedweller/flatdweller ! There are indeed some very rich folk renting London flats (or at least they were rich before they started paying that sort of rent !)

Hi Eric

I know ... it's just that the question was directly related to a previously posed question ..... "A question! Do you consider the fitting of PV to social projects and council tenants justifies the FIT scheme?".

Considering that the question of tenure and energy efficiencies has been discussed recently (http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=60418851&postcount=247) I'm pretty surprised that socio-economic status of the householder is being raised again without supporting evidence so quickly resulting in a post containing "No idea, I suspect a very small proportion of the total number of installations. The great majority being owners of the installation or Rent a Roof companies." ... in my book, if someone has "No idea" for the basis of supporting an argument - then why argue ?? ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

If a newcomer posts, in another thread, something contentious about PV then it does no harm to point out the Great Man's views. After all there does seem to be a 'cabal' determined to stifle any input that that is critical of PV and FIT.

Maybe this is your problem. Opinions will differ, and it's unlikely anyone will change their key views in a compressed time period.

But, 90%+ of the time, we're not discussing views, we're discussing 'facts' that simply aren't. Or your attempts to suggest to people that old, error ridiculed, false assumption filled articles are, were, or will be true.

Explaining to you, perhaps 100 times (sound about right?) that off-set and export are the same, should not have been necessary. A child should have understood it after 1 post. So your posting 2+2 = 5 is not an opinion or a fact, it was just misleading. Shouldn't misleading 'facts' of this nature and importance be challenged?

Other 'facts' like the £8.6bn moving from the poor, false tariffs that exaggerate an argument, claims about planning rules, commonplace electric heating etc need to be challenged, so people aren't mislead.

It's not about opinions, and it's not about cabal's, it's just an ever growing number of people who can do the maths, or have read up on the subject, or who can look at the big picture - pointing out where you have gone wrong. Then pointing it out again, the next time you make the same mistake. Then pointing ...... well you get the idea (hopefully).

Cardew wrote: »

You will never stop threads from migrating away from the initial post.

Agreed, as long as there are those that would destroy a thread, just to spread diversion and division, this will be impossible. But worth a punt. Especially if it's more akin to hijacking, than gentle migration!

Mart.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

Thank you for your suggestion, however there are new people joining MSE all the time and, as this is an internet Forum, it does them no harm to read eminently sensible articles from people like George Monboit.

If you find any opinions expressed on this section of MSE unpalatable then you can always put those posters on ‘ignore’ and then you will not get irritated.

Some of us find the input from vested interests on MSE both ill-informed and at times downright silly, so we are entitled to express our opinion for the benefit of newcomers.

I'm really confused by this statement. You seem to be saying others than you posting ill-informed and at times downright silly posts. But, from my time here it is YOU inputting such things.

I'm hopeful someone who has been here a lot longer than me could list numerous examples for the new people joining MSE that could be educated.

You clearly try to avoid facts because you just get ripped apart numerous times when you do, so you rely on an old completely outdated article (stating its what he says not you) that has been proven time and again to be full of holes.

This says it all really:

zeupater wrote: »

... in my book, if someone has "No idea" for the basis of supporting an argument - then why argue ?? ....