Green Technologies

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

The UK FiT scheme, being part of a concerted approach to CO2 reduction by governments on a global basis, can be justified just by considering the reduction in global panel & inverter prices alone. The scheme, as previously stated, is designed to be time limited ... as new installations come on-line the ongoing cost of the scheme per unit generated is being diluted, this effectively being on a daily basis, and will therefore eventually become pretty insignificant.

HTH
Z

Evening.

Not arguing with the above but regarding justification of FITs, especially the 'moral' issue, I'm still completely baffled what the problem is.

I'm very aware that linking A to B then C and so on, can often give a false or misleading answer, but am I missing something, or is it as simple as this:

If you want zero or low carbon generation

then you accept subsidies of renewables and nuclear generation as they currently cost more than fossil fuels

if you accept subsidies to large companies with no monies to householders

then a subsidy paid to some householders is far more 'fair' to householders than subsidies paid to no householders.

Is it just me, or is the very thing that is so positive about FITs, being used as a negative? Am I looking at this too simplistically, or are others over complicating this?

Mart.

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I simply posted to ensure that everyone was aware that the information referenced was (i) outdated & (ii) wrong in the context it was used ..... the reference was made in relation to council schemes, the data referenced actually related to 'community' schemes averaging 12.5kWp (FY2010/11), which is completely different to 'domestic' installations.


Z

Sorry Monbiot wasn't wrong - he specifically pointed out what it covered:

They're not countless; they've been counted by the energy regulator, Ofgem, in its annual report. There are 403 such schemes, as opposed to 29,265 domestic installations. The community projects have, on average, been larger than the domestic ones, but they still account for only 5% of the total capacity, while private home owners' schemes account for 82%.

The point of quoting him was in answer to the multi-named poster who claimed:

Many councils have/are fitting solar PV to stock, so many 'pensioners' will be benefiting(sic) -

So, cutting through all this semantic juggling, to claim/imply that FITs are justified because council tenants are reaping the benefit is just nonsense.

spgsc531

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Have you noticed

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Well 2GW is about the capacity of about 2 nuclear stations.

Do you know how many nuclear stations can be closed due to the 2GW of solar capacity?

I noticed you couldn't answer my simple questions.

When did anyone say 2GW of Solar PV would replace base load generation nuclear stations?

Why are you comparing apples and oranges again?

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Sorry Monbiot wasn't wrong - he specifically pointed out what it covered:



The point of quoting him was in answer to the multi-named poster who claimed:



So, cutting through all this semantic juggling, to claim/imply that FITs are justified because council tenants are reaping the benefit is just nonsense.

Hi

I think that the error was actually in raising the GM article to support a point on council properties .... community projects are not domestic installations. each registered installation is linked to a meter in a property, therefore each 12.5kWp registered system cannot be across multiple properties ....

There is no semantic juggling, just a hard fact based on the 403 properties referenced not being related to 'Many Councils', which seems to be the reasoning behind the GM article being raised by yourself ....

HTH
Z

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

to claim/imply that FITs are justified because council tenants are reaping the benefit is just nonsense.

Let's clear your distraction up, you posted:

Cardew wrote: »

1. Open to anybody?(1)

Firstly even if they had the cash they had to be:

A. A home owner and not renting(2)

B. Not live in a flat.(3)

C. Have a suitable roof.- size, orientation, structure, not shaded etc.(4)

2. Of course FIT discriminate against the poor. The OAP in a council flat(5) - especially with all-electric heating as so many are - pays toward the FIT subsidy for people far better off.

3. There has never been any 'railing' in this section of MSE at people who have taken advantage of a money making opportunity. It is the disingenous justification of FITs by some posters that is so pathetic..

Implying that very few people have access to Solar PV FiTs.

I responded to your post:

spgsc531 wrote: »

1. Hmm, let's see..

2. 25 million homes in the UK, Approx. 7 out of 10 are owner occupied.

So that's 17.5 million homes.

3. Why not live in a flat?

4. FiT payments are proportional to generation so what is your point here??

5. Which Councils are you talking about? Many councils have/are fitting solar PV to stock, so many 'pensioners' will be benefiting - especially with all-electric heating as so many are - from annual electricity savings of £80-£100? Solar PV FiT contribution was £2(?) per year in 2011?

I think it's pretty accepted annual electrical savings of £80-£100 for Solar PV, even ignoring what you said 'especially with all-electric heating as so many are'

I also think it's fair to say Solar PV FiT contribution was £2(or so?) per year in 2011, as guidance.

I then responded to your accusation:

Cardew wrote: »

'Many Councils'? - Yet another misleading statement, indeed another myth:

spgsc531 wrote: »

A quick google found this as the first link:

http://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/council-solar-panels

"Solar panel systems are currently being fitted on many council houses across the country"

There are 468 local councils in the UK.

There are 11,000 town, parish and community councils in the UK.

Just my (one) borough council has fitted 400 council houses with Solar PV, with a further 1600 identified as suitable. I'm sure it's not hard to find many more councils doing the same.

Nobody has claimed/implied that FITs are justified because council tenants are reaping the benefit.

I was just responding to your post with facts.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

So, cutting through all this semantic juggling, to claim/imply that FITs are justified because council tenants are reaping the benefit is just nonsense.

Does paying subsidies to huge companies and multi-nationals when no council (or social housing) tenants whatsoever benefit also offend you?

So back to the question that has been asked of you so many times, 'what would you do then to address AGW?' After all, being critical is extremely easy, being constructive requires effort.

I'm beginning to suspect that you've realised that every option will require subsidies, but supporting a subsidy 'only' paid to large companies will now appear hypocritical, thus creating a Catch 22 situation, and explaining your silence(?)

Mart.

Edit: Perhaps it's time for you to take a deep breath, and give up on this obsessive behaviour. After all, if you stop for 2 mins and look down at the dead horse you're still flogging, you might notice it was actually removed over a year ago, and turned into beef lasagne. M.

andyg9053

* Actually unpredictable output is not strictly accurate - we know for certain that it won't be generating a single watt when max generation is required i.e. on a winter's evening. Thus all the PV installations do not reduce the requirement for conventional generation capacity again by a single watt.

True we will still need the ability to produce this power for a dark winters night, however on a bright sunny day it can be turned down to tickover thus reducing the amount of gas used/CO2 produced. Eventually this tickover may be used to pump water back up the mountain in Hydro electric plants during the day as well as at night.

PS. No I dont receive FIT but if it encourages new technology that always starts expensive then maybe its a good idea.

The_Green_Man_2

Martyn1981 wrote: »

perhaps even suggesting how you would address AGW, and what technology(s) you favour?

Has this even been proven to exist?

Wouldn't the fact that we are coming out of an ice age, explain rising sea levels and higher temperatures. This has happened for millenia, certainly for longer than humans have been on the planet.

The earth has actually existed longer without ice caps than it has with them. Just because we humans arrive at a point in time when we have polar ice, doesn't mean that this is the norm. The earth is a dynamic entity, it doesn't and has never existed in a steady state.

PeterZ_2

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Solar can only produce appreciable amounts of energy in summer and in daylight, a period when there is much less demand on the national grid. As a national power source it's not worth the investment. The Fits money would have been better spent on larger renewable projects.

Understand what you are saying but would reword part of that to the following:

Solar can only produce appreciable amounts of energy in spring, summer and autumn during daylight hours when the demand for electricity is highest.

PeterZ_2

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Does paying subsidies to huge companies and multi-nationals when no council (or social housing) tenants whatsoever benefit also offend you?

So back to the question that has been asked of you so many times, 'what would you do then to address AGW?' After all, being critical is extremely easy, being constructive requires effort.

I'm beginning to suspect that you've realised that every option will require subsidies, but supporting a subsidy 'only' paid to large companies will now appear hypocritical, thus creating a Catch 22 situation, and explaining your silence(?)

Mart.

Edit: Perhaps it's time for you to take a deep breath, and give up on this obsessive behaviour. After all, if you stop for 2 mins and look down at the dead horse you're still flogging, you might notice it was actually removed over a year ago, and turned into beef lasagne. M.

EDF are cuurrently pushing the UK government for increased subsidy for Nuclear.

I'm surprised that Cardew is still flogging that horse, I thought he had gone away but then realised I had him on ignore.