Green Technologies

EricMears

The_Green_Man wrote: »

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.

Have to agree that all the 'forecasts' of AGW are based on mathematical models that start from the premise that it must be happening and then go on to measure it.

Every chance that there may be some false correlations introduced (e.g. there are more miles of motorway in the UK than there were in 1960; I earn more than I did in 1960 ; my earnings have therefore been increased by motorway building ).

I too have often made the point that strange things can be expected as an ice age draws to an end.

However, I still think it would be 'a good thing' if we placed less reliance on burning fossil fuels and made more use of renewables. I don't subscribe to the idea that oil is running out fast but you can't argue with the fact that we're using fossil fuels faster than new supplies are being created. I don't foresee our children or grandchildren having major problems but in a hundred or a thousand years time somebody certainly will.

If you want to encourage the use of renewables then the only way to do so is to apply economic pressure. You can argue all day whether carrots are better than sticks but the FIT scheme is a bit of both and does seem to be achieving its desired effect in that SPs are approching the point where new installations might be justified without a subsidy.

Sob all you like about the 'burden on the poor' - their descendants will also feel the pinch when fossil fuels run out and they should expect to help ease the risk. A surcharge on energy consumption will be felt less by smaller energy users and more by the larger consumers so should help to concentrate the minds (& efforts) of those paying it. Slapping another 5p on income tax wouldn't be anything like as effective.

Martyn1981

The_Green_Man wrote: »

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.

Hiya. Fair question, in fact I feel this is the whole nub. If there's a problem with CO2 then we have to spend money, if PV subsidies are no worse (long term) than other subsidies then blah blah blah ...

Personally I'm entirely happy with the CO2 evidence, and 99% happy with the science linking CO2 to AGW. Others aren't so sure, and the debate (quite fairly) will go on.

The argument now seems to be to show (or attempt to show) that CO2 doesn't cause GW, but rather follows GW, therefore we the 'A' part doesn't really matter. Personally I'm with the science that CO2 and GW are linked and therefore AGW is a massive problem.

Regarding CO2 levels, they had been relatively stable for the last 10,000 years, rising from around 265ppm to about 280ppm since the end of the last ice age. But since the industrial revolution and major coal burning, around 1880, have now risen to approx 400ppm.

So in 10,000 years nature raised CO2 levels approx 5%, then in 130 years we raised them a further 40%.

If (I'm only saying if (but I do believe it)) CO2 is the problem, then we have to do something now, and unfortunately that means spending money to artificially shorten the time it takes renewables to reach economic viability.

There is also the other argument that Eric has posted, if FF costs are going to keep rising, (and nuclear isn't going to get any cheaper) then subsidising renewables today, will help to cap energy price rises.

That is why I don't buy the argument 'are subsidies fair', since that becomes irrelevant if(?) they are unavoidable.

Mart.

spgsc531

spgsc531 wrote: »

Let's clear your distraction up, you posted:



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

I responded to your post:



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:





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.

Update, after getting some more accurate information from my local borough council:

6200 social houses (50% flats, 50% houses)
2000 suitable properties for solar panels, although more are being identified with advances in technology.
562 to date have solar panels fitted.
Council manifesto committed to doing more, depending on funding issues.

That's 1 out of 11,000 councils.