George Monbiot is Right/Wrong

EricMears

Or you may have missed this thread which seems to discuss a scheme whereby "the poor" (if you care to define that as anyone who can't afford to buy SPs) might be enabled to have SPs fitted free of charge AND keep the FIT payments (albeit that I'm guessing most of the incoming cash would be spent on servicing a loan).

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

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

Hopefully this report will help. It's by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and appears (to me) to be very fair and unbiased. It refers to data in Mch 12:

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/renewable-energy-getting-benefits-right-social-housing

The site page and summary are very interesting. Then when you get into the main report, page 20 it states:-

"It is not known how many social landlords have accessed FITs, but a Camco study suggests that around 10 per cent of FITs payments are going to social landlords. Social housing represents 16 per cent of UK housing, which suggests that social landlords have benefited less from FITs proportionally than the other sectors."

I'm sure Cardew will leap on the 10:16 ratio, but that doesn't sound too large 'a chasm' to me. Also, I don't know how the ratio of roofs to properties (flats/houses) differs between social housing, and non-social housing.

It will be interesting to see what has happened since 3/12, with the lower FIT, but also lower install cost. And as the report notes the political posturing, hopefully decisions can now be taken with less fear of sudden and dramatic changes.

Obviously, as the subsidy reduces, and the FIT becomes a smaller part of the PV income stream, such installs may well suffer. So bad news for the poor (sorry social housing - as not necessarily the same), as the subsidy goes down!

Mart.

PS Am I the only one wondering if Cardew's Google button is broken? M.

zeupater

EricMears wrote: »

Or you may have missed this thread which seems to discuss a scheme whereby "the poor" (if you care to define that as anyone who can't afford to buy SPs) might be enabled to have SPs fitted free of charge AND keep the FIT payments (albeit that I'm guessing most of the incoming cash would be spent on servicing a loan).

Hi Eric

The split used above just follows Monbiot's view that those who own pv and collect FiTs are 'The Rich' and those who don't own pv and pay the levy through their energy bills are 'The Poor' .... this must be the case because it's the basis of the article which is continually being referenced and the basis of all argument which has arisen as a result of, and based on, the article .... just attempting to be consistent as logic works both ways...

HTH
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

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

1. You need to look at your post #19 again. The reason for my intervention was the 'justification' of PV FIT on the grounds that the 'poor' in rented council houses gained. This was my question:

"A question! Do you consider the fitting of PV to social projects and council tenants justifies the FIT scheme?".

When you turned the question round, I further stated:

"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."

2. To try and move the goal posts in your post above and include those houseowners(not tenants) who have had RAR installations as ‘poor’ is ludicrous.

In any case the question posed was about PV on rented council accomodation, not your definition of poor house owners. So your figures are just a nonsense.

3. I have never linked RAR installations to social housing.RAR companies only installed on privately owned houses - for the 25 year lease- albeit there doubtless will be some of those houses let.

4. I had read the link about 24% of properties 'assumed' to be aggregator. However the definition of 'aggregator' was given as an organisation owning 25 PV installations.

Therefore, throughout this analysis, we have attempted to cover private owners schemes and aggregator schemes separately where possible. For this analysis we have defined an aggregator to be any single generator that owns 25 or more installations

5. So my reading of the paper is that 76% are private owner schemes and the 24% aggregator will include all the RAR companies who have installed on privately owned properties and councils/housing associations who have installed on their rented properties.

6. So I stand by my statements that the great majority of PV installations are on an owned house and a small proportion on rented properties.

P.S. You gave the link - but it is a year out of date.

Cardew

Just for the sake of Martyn and spgsc531 - who seem to have difficulty following posts.

The discussion started because of this statement:

As it happens social housing has often been a recipient for PV,

This was the question zeupater asked me:

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.

Also the 'poor' that Monboit(and most of us) refers to includes those who have no PV on their roof, or have no roof on which to put PV. They are the people paying toward the FIT levy.

So in that context read zeupater's post#31 where he decides that the 'poor' are houseowners who have PV on their roof funded by Rent a Roof companies.

So as only about 2% to 3% of dwellings in UK have PV, zeupater's conclusion is that the 'rich' and the 'poor' come from that 2% to 3%.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

Just for the sake of Martyn and spgsc531 - who seem to have difficulty following posts.

The discussion started because of this statement:



This was the question zeupater asked me:



Also the 'poor' that Monboit(and most of us) refers to includes those who have no PV on their roof, or have no roof on which to put PV. They are the people paying toward the FIT levy.

So in that context read zeupater's post#31 where he decides that the 'poor' are houseowners who have PV on their roof funded by Rent a Roof companies.

So as only about 2% to 3% of dwellings in UK have PV, zeupater's conclusion is that the 'rich' and the 'poor' come from that 2% to 3%.

You have a habit of quoting things, but removing the quote link! Why is this that?

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Also the 'poor' that Monboit(and most of us) refers to includes those who have no PV on their roof, or have no roof on which to put PV. They are the people paying toward the FIT levy.

1. So your definition of the poor includes those who have no PV? Why not just say 'from' or 'up to' if you can't be more specific.

2. Trying to make sense of your definition, leads one to ponder if you are saying that those who get 'free' systems aren't poor.

3. All electricity consumers pay the levy, as they should do.

Cardew wrote: »

So in that context read zeupater's post#31 where he decides that the 'poor' are houseowners who have PV on their roof funded by Rent a Roof companies.

1. Are you concluding that those that have RaR systems are not poor? Are rich? Are something in-between? As always, you appear to being making grand statements, without ever committing yourself.

2. Whilst we can't guess at any individual install, it seems fair to me, to assume that those people that went for a RaR system, will, on average, have less funds and disposable income than those that paid outright for their systems. Are you concluding otherwise?

3. If you read the report I posted, you'll find that those living in fuel poverty can't simply be defined as those living in social housing. An example given, is someone with little to no disposable income, living in a property that they own outright.

Cardew wrote: »

So as only about 2% to 3% of dwellings in UK have PV, zeupater's conclusion is that the 'rich' and the 'poor' come from that 2% to 3%.

1. If you are suggesting 'only' come from that 2% to 3% - then I see no such conclusion. I fear you have tried (yet again) to twist the argument in such a tight circle that you have dug (drilled) another hole for yourself.

2. If you are saying that the conclusion is that the 2% to 3% will include some rich and some poor - then I agree with it, who wouldn't?

3. For all GM's posturing, and your attempts to create division and diversion, there is one simple over-riding fact:

Our future energy generation can not be funded via current leccy prices, if we are to role out zero or low carbon. Whether we are talking renewables, nuclear or CCS, they will all require higher prices. Perfectly fair and understandable.

Currently those higher prices have been ring-fenced into levies and subsidies. Perfectly fair and understandable.

Large amounts are and will go to large companies for large scale powerstations - wind, solar, biomass, hydro, tidal, nuclear, possibly CCS etc. No individuals, rich or poor can fund such a powerstation on their own (Cardew caveat - within reason).

So we all fund these schemes, without being able to take part. But as the recipients of the product, it's current and future generation is part of the price we pay. Perfectly fair and understandable.

With FITs, we have exactly the same situation as with the large scale plants, only this time, the monies go mainly to powerstations owned by householders.

Following the illogical argument that FITs is somehow unfair, then - since FITs seems eminently fairer to bill payers than subsidiising large companies, then campaigns against FITs, should only take place, after those that are unhappy with the situation have successfully campaigned against subsidies to non-households.

The whole 'the poor can't benefit from FITs' argument, is a fake and divisive one. I can't benefit from FITs for wind, hydro, CHP etc, so am I being treated unfairly - of course not, my levy goes towards clean generation. If I couldn't benefit from PV FITs, would that make this unfair, of course not, my levy still goes towards clean generation.

The irony of this whole argument is astonishing. FITs is fairer to households than other subsidies, and PV in particular, is probably the first technology that will become subsidy free. So all households, including the poor, will benefit from that demand side investment for free!

Mart.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Just for the sake of Martyn and spgsc531 - who seem to have difficulty following posts.

Since you are concerned about my understanding, perhaps this a good time to ask you for a favour!

In order that I can better understand your position, would you mind saying whether you favour renewables (and or low carbon technology)? And how you would fund our changing energy needs?

Thanks.

Mart.

OffGridLiving

Martyn1981 wrote: »

In order that I can better understand your position, would you mind saying whether you favour renewables (and or low carbon technology)? And how you would fund our changing energy needs?

There's a question so important that it deserves its own thread!

It's also so complex that it'd be extremely difficult for anyone not in the energy industry to answer, and even then they would probably end up pushing their own VI. Just out of interest, how would you answer it?

<EDIT> Sorry, there is a thread covering this question and you've partially answered your own question in there:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Ok, here goes, bare bones suggestion:

First 25years
New gas to replace old gas and old coal,
new nuclear to replace old nuclear,
renewables to fill gaps,
then renewables to reduce gas consumption,

25years+
then renewables and storage to replace gas and eventually nuclear,
if CCS can be made to work well, then coal + CCS to replace gas, retaining gas for domestic heating, or automotive use,
nuclear fussion, which seems to be getting more funding than thorium.

Explanation, regarding 'old' nuclear - I'm not a big fan of nuclear, and the costs (before decommissioning) look to be terrifying, but without a huge shift in our attitudes towards energy consumption, I can't see a realistic way in which nuclear can be left out ...... yet.

So easy for me to criticise nuclear, but since I can't offer a better solution, that would be unreasonable of me.

Additional:
Higher prices, stop hiding any support or subsidies outside of energy bills.
Reverse pricing so first units are cheaper than later units.
Use VAT as a weapon, apply it on a rising schedule based on average consumption rates.
Redirect any extra funds into supporting the poor, increased tax brackets at the bottom, free efficiency improvements, etc.

Mart.

If the infrastructure investment is to be 100% placed onto energy bills, inclusive of a (full?) VAT rate, it's hard to see how anyone but the very wealthy could afford to service their energy bills? It's even harder to see how our industries could compete in a global marketplace if their energy costs were so high?

Martyn1981

OffGridLiving wrote: »

If the infrastructure investment is to be 100% placed onto energy bills, inclusive of a (full?) VAT rate, it's hard to see how anyone but the very wealthy could afford to service their energy bills? It's even harder to see how our industries could compete in a global marketplace if their energy costs were so high?

That's a fair question. But what is the alternative?

Under EU rules governments can't support industries such as gas, coal, nuclear (steel, cars etc). So the proposed nuclear subsidies have to go onto bills now. The Tories were trying to get nuclear classed as 'green energy', since that can (I believe) be supported through general taxation. But the Lib Dems are strongly against this form of subsidy - after all, we'll still be paying it, but it will artificially reduce leccy prices (as at present).

By falsely reducing bills, this undermines the savings of both renewables and energy efficiency / energy savings.

Next, if we fund leccy investment through taxation (rather than keep the costs within the industry and consumers) then the money will have to come from some new or additional taxation.

Perhaps a solution would be to find a product that is consumed by all households and industry, then tax it proportionately to consumption by placing a 10% tariff on it. Apologies if this seems argumentative, but isn't that what the Green Tariff does?

Regarding my VAT argument, it is only my opinion, and yes I appreciate that it would push up energy bills for high consumers, but also it would encourage demand side renewables, energy efficiency and energy savings. The real losers would be the energy companies, as their product would become more expensive, and they would need to improve efficiencies/lower costs to maintain consumption levels.

If the increased tax revenue was ring fenced, then it could be directed back into the poorer energy consumers, via free/subsidised energy efficiency measures, and an increase in the bottom tax bracket. I see it as having no net increase on tax revenues (in an ideal world), but redirecting funds via a green tax on high consumption.

Mart.