George Monbiot is Right/Wrong

Cardew

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

HTH
Z

I have no idea of the percentage; but have stated that "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."

Now you know full well I am correct in that statement, or you would prove me wrong - as would you know who!!

Do you really need to stoop to such semantic nonsense to curry favour with the clique.

So would you disagree with small proportion or not?

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

I have no idea of the percentage; but have stated that "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."

Now you know full well I am correct in that statement, or you would prove me wrong - as would you know who!!

Do you really need to stoop to such semantic nonsense to curry favour with the clique.

So would you disagree with small proportion or not?

You are correct in 'suspecting' something is correct?

Well, we all know what happened when you last 'suspected' something...

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

I have no idea of the percentage; but have stated that "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."

Now you know full well I am correct in that statement, or you would prove me wrong - as would you know who!!

Do you really need to stoop to such semantic nonsense to curry favour with the clique.

So would you disagree with small proportion or not?

I'm confused again, in the same post you state very small, but ask the question small.

Semantics?

[Deleted User]

Cardew wrote: »

Then there shouldn't be FIT's for PV paid to the 'middle class' by the 'poor'.

Just found this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11717254

There are more benefits than there are careers so I'm sure the poor are taken care off just fine

OffGridLiving

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'.

Isn't this the case with most micro generation projects? It doesn't mean we should give up though.

I've seen negative comments (on other forums, happily not on this one) about the economic feasibility of installing a rainwater harvesting system, which is something I'm looking to do in the next 12 months. While my situation lends itself to a cheaper installation of RWH (because I'm already doing some remedial work to drains, etc.) it still probably won't pay in purely economic terms, but it does have a rapid payback in sustainability terms, and in the end that's surely what really matters?

EricMears

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3936465Oh dear,

Now we seem to have somebody hijacking poor Cardew's own personal thread !

I'm sure that 'OffGridLiving' doesn't mean to offend and that we can forgive a relative Newbie the 'sin' of posting off topic messages but I'd really like to suggest that we discuss Rainwater Harvesting on one of these pages :-

Rainwater to flush my toilet - how can I set this up

Rainwater harvesting - How do you calculate 'pay off' period

Look forward to continuing discussion there.

OffGridLiving

EricMears wrote: »

Oh dear,

Now we seem to have somebody hijacking poor Cardew's own personal thread !

I'm sure that 'OffGridLiving' doesn't mean to offend and that we can forgive a relative Newbie the 'sin' of posting off topic messages but I'd really like to suggest that we discuss Rainwater Harvesting on one of these pages :-

<links deleted as newbies are not allowed to post them>

Look forward to continuing discussion there.

Thanks Eric. While I did mention RWH, the main point of my post was related to the thread and the comment made by the other poster about PV being 'fairly useless'. I took this comment to mean that s/he thought that the amount of energy generated isn't worth the investment, but wanted to point out that there is more to investing in renewables (or other sustainable living technologies) than just the financial payback, there is an environmental payback too.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

I have no idea of the percentage; but have stated that "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."

So would you disagree with small proportion or not?

That's a rather grey statement, in more ways than one. Do you mean:-

small proportion in terms of total numbers, or

small proportion, after taking into account the relative number of social housing properties?

What would be an acceptable rate? I assume a 1:1 ratio would be accepted by all on here without debate, but what is an acceptable minimum ratio 2:1 (twice as many owner occupied installs to social housing installs) (proportional to property numbers)?

Mart.

EricMears

OffGridLiving wrote: »

..... wanted to point out that there is more to investing in renewables (or other sustainable living technologies) than just the financial payback, there is an environmental payback too.

Quite so.

And I never tire of recycling Chairman Mao's only really worthwhile quotation "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" which I take to mean that if nobody bothers to implement possible 'green' solutions to our problems but just sits back & criticises those who do our planet would run out of resources long before we can manage without them.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

I have no idea of the percentage; but have stated that "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."

Now you know full well I am correct in that statement, or you would prove me wrong - as would you know who!!

Do you really need to stoop to such semantic nonsense to curry favour with the clique.

So would you disagree with small proportion or not?

Hi

I would actually go further and 'suspect' that all installations are owned by their owners ..... however, I don't really follow why, when discussing Monbiot's position on 'Rich' vs 'Poor' this hasn't been translated to 'Owner occupiers' vs 'Rental Sector', but 'Owner occupiers + RAR' vs 'Rental Sector' in order to, erroneously, attempt to create a better fit to the point being discussed. On many previous occasions, RAR has been raised by yourself as being linked to social housing and council social housing schemes, so surely the RAR element is being considered as being on the wrong side of the equation .... I'm pretty sure that you appreciate the number of RAR installations which exist, considering that it has been raised on numerous occasions on these boards ....

Anyway, looking at the best available published analysis of the sector (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65847/5635-trends-deployment-dom-solar-pv-et-article.pdf), it seems that "
Overall,at the end of 2011 in England, 24 per cent of all domestic PV installations are assumed to be owned by aggregators" .... considering that most who would have the financial ability to purchase the systems outright would likely be defined by Monbiot as 'The Rich', and therefore, following his logic, 'The Rich' would more likely purchase systems (or finance them) outright than have a RAR system installed, it would stand that any aggregated systems would be installed on properties occupied by the less well off - shall we say 'the Poor' for the sake of this discussion ...

Okay, so we now have a simplified split on the installations of 3:1 (76%:24%). We have recently had a discussion on property tenure related to heating source and levels of insulation ( http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=60418851&postcount=247 ) where a simplified split of 'Rich' vs 'Poor' was taken as 'owner occupation' forming 'The Rich' (asset based) and the combined Private & Social housing rental sector forming 'The Poor' (same caveats apply). Using the same source data .... ( https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/88370/EHS_Headline_Report_2011-2012.pdf ) ... and looking at the split in tenure, we can deduce that of the 22754k properties in the UK, 14765k (~65%) are owner occupied, thus describing a simplified 2:1 split ....

I would suggest that, considering the above ratios (3:1 based on pv installation ownership vs 2:1 based on property ownership), the great chasm which was 'suspected' does not exist ...

Regarding .... "Now you know full well I am correct in that statement, or you would prove me wrong " .... I hope that the above analysis would be considered as being the proof which was so eloquently being sought ....

HTH
Z