Green Technologies

spgsc531

The_Green_Man wrote: »

It might be that Germany are generating several megawatts using solar

I stated in 2 separate posts that Germany was producing 21.8 GW
yesterday. You don't seem very good with numbers or with units.

Do you understand what FiTs is for?

Are you complaining about FiTs or FiTs for PV?

Martyn1981

The_Green_Man wrote: »

The thread is about whether you get enough 'bang for your buck' with green technologies. It might be that Germany are generating several megawatts using solar,

'several megawatts' is not very accurate:

http://www.sma.de/en/company/pv-electricity-produced-in-germany.html

The_Green_Man wrote: »

but if that power costs 10 times as much as other technologies then what is the point?

'10 times' is not very accurate, can you give examples?

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Well, I guess it's fine as long as you are the one generating the electricity and receiving the FiTs. If you're the one footing the bill with your raised energy bills, then it's not so fine.

Back to my question above, why is paying subsidies to a large company ok, but when it comes to small 'companies' wrong?

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Microgeneration can't possibly work for a nation of 60 million people.

Not very accurate. Can you explain why micro-generation won't help?

The_Green_Man wrote: »

As to my green credentials. I think the FITs money would be better spent in reducing our consumption rather than increasing our generation.

Not a very accurate summation of the Green Tariff. FITs is one part of the Green Tariff. Energy efficiency is another part. There are more.

The_Green_Man wrote: »

End of.

Fair enough. But if you've got the time, I'd still love to hear your thoughts on my question:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

then why does paying subsidies to a huge number of small powerstations suddenly become morally wrong?

Mart.

The_Green_Man_2

Phew a lot of anger in here. The tag-teaming and multi-quote interrogations are amazing. Does this happen to everyone who doesn't tow the party line?

As I said, much better to use green taxes to help everyone reduce their consumption instead of allowing a tiny minoprity of people to generate additional energy without any regard to whether they have already done as much as they can to reduce their consumption first.

The way I see green taxes working well is if, for example, you have an average gas bill of £800 per year and charge an additional £200 in green taxes. The £200 is then used to increase people's insulation, eventually reducing consumption back down so that their annual bills are back to £800 even with the £200 green tax. Everyone gains.

How it shouldn't work is that people have an average electricity bill of £800 and charge an additional £200 in green taxes. The £200 is given to people who can afford to install solar, who then have their electricity effectively reduced to £400. Great for them but it does nothing to address the raised bills of everyone else, nor does it do anything to reduce overall consumption.

spgsc531

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Phew a lot of anger in here. The tag-teaming and multi-quote interrogations are amazing. Does this happen to everyone who doesn't tow the party line?

As I said, much better to use green taxes to help everyone reduce their consumption instead of allowing a tiny minoprity of people to generate additional energy without any regard to whether they have already done as much as they can to reduce their consumption first.

The way I see green taxes working well is if you have an average gas bill of £800 per year and charge an additional £200 in green taxes. The £200 is then used to increase people's insulation, eventually reducing consumption back down so that their annual bills are back to £800. Everyone gains.

How it shouldn't work is that people have an average electricity bill of £800 and charge an additional £200 in green taxes. The £200 is given to people who can afford to install solar, who then have their electricity effectively reduced to £400. Great for them but it does nothing to address the raised bills of everyone else, nor does it do anything to reduce overall consumption.

Hmm, anger? tag-teaming?

Are you going to answer any questions? Seems reasonable for you to respond.

Where do you get your £200 figure from?

grahamc2003

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Phew a lot of anger in here. The tag-teaming and multi-quote interrogations are amazing. Does this happen to everyone who doesn't tow the party line?

.

I'm afraid so. You don't get so much a discussion on these green forums, rather it's say what is expected on the very superficial level, or face abuse. Doesn't matter two hoots if you have some relevant expertise to help clarify misconceptions - unless they fit in with the puerile superficial green orthodoxy, you'd be best keeping them to yourself.

Even the ultra green guru George Monbiot is now viewed as a traitor to the cause for stating something, although perfectly obvious, wasn't on the list of things which can be said, and he was previously viewed more or less as the green God.

Perfectly reasonably to spend money in the most efficient manner possible, but while most on here are raking in fits, you won't get away with any of your own thoughts which don't support them 100%. Those in fuel poverty can eat cake.

Welcome btw. If contributers need a venue for a get together over a pint or two, I'd suggest a pub in York called The House Of The Trembling Madness.

Cardew

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Phew a lot of anger in here. The tag-teaming and multi-quote interrogations are amazing. Does this happen to everyone who doesn't tow the party line?

As I said, much better to use green taxes to help everyone reduce their consumption instead of allowing a tiny minoprity of people to generate additional energy without any regard to whether they have already done as much as they can to reduce their consumption first.

The way I see green taxes working well is if you have an average gas bill of £800 per year and charge an additional £200 in green taxes. The £200 is then used to increase people's insulation, eventually reducing consumption back down so that their annual bills are back to £800. Everyone gains.

How it shouldn't work is that people have an average electricity bill of £800 and charge an additional £200 in green taxes. The £200 is given to people who can afford to install solar, who then have their electricity effectively reduced to £400. Great for them but it does nothing to address the raised bills of everyone else, nor does it do anything to reduce overall consumption.

You should realize that you mustn't use logic in this part of MSE.

You should also appreciate that little sub-4kWp installations on the roofs of houses dotted around UK collecting a FIT of 44p/kWh is a far more efficient way of generating solar electricity than these large solar farms. It doesn't matter that they don't even need to send any electricity to the Grid.

P.S.

is if you have an average gas bill of £800 per year and charge an additional £200 in green taxes.

Another tactical error, notwithstanding your intent to give an example, you gave a figure of £200(the 'if' will be ignored) and normally you will be beaten to death over your figure of £200 - see post #35 as the starter.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

You should realize that you mustn't use logic in this part of MSE.

You should also appreciate that little sub-4kWp installations on the roofs of houses dotted around UK collecting a FIT of 44p/kWh is a far more efficient way of generating solar electricity than these large solar farms. It doesn't matter that they don't even need to send any electricity to the Grid.

P.S.



Another tactical error, notwithstanding your intent to give an example, you gave a figure of £200(the 'if' will be ignored) and normally you will be beaten to death over your figure of £200 - see post #35 as the starter.

Is this you not using logic?

Where do you get your figure of 44p/kWh?

The_Green_Man_2

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I'm afraid so. You don't get so much a discussion on these green forums, rather it's say what is expected on the very superficial level, or face abuse. Doesn't matter two hoots if you have some relevant expertise to help clarify misconceptions - unless they fit in with the puerile superficial green orthodoxy, you'd be best keeping them to yourself.

Even the ultra green guru George Monbiot is now viewed as a traitor to the cause for stating something, although perfectly obvious, wasn't on the list of things which can be said, and he was previously viewed more or less as the green God.

Perfectly reasonably to spend money in the most efficient manner possible, but while most on here are raking in fits, you won't get away with any of your own thoughts which don't support them 100%. Those in fuel poverty can eat cake.

Welcome btw. If contributers need a venue for a get together over a pint or two, I'd suggest a pub in York called The House Of The Trembling Madness.

Thanks graham, I really needed a post like yours to 'steady the ship'. I must admit I was rocked by the aggresiveness of the posts. I always view this sort of frenzied attack as being a guilty conscience over-compensationg, people don't really want to be the bad guy.

Fuel poverty is a terrible thing and it's only going to get worse, especially as we seem to be getting colder winters again. A program of subsidized fitting of insulation, draft proofing, energy efficient boilers, glazing would be better use of green taxes than FiTs. It seems that the old folks can freeze in their beds as long as a few people get cheap energy and an inflation busting investment return.

They keep demanding that I answer their loaded questions but none seem capable of responding to my question of whether green taxes are better spent on programs to reduce consumption or to increase generation. I'd imagine that they know they can't win that discussion so they try to distract with these rabid tag-team multi-post inquisition. The amount of energy saved by millions being able to turn down their thermostats by a couple of degrees dwarfs the small amount of extra energy generated by a few thousand, and by a massive amount.

I'd love to know how many of these guys spouting on about their green credentials would have installed PIR without the FiTs.

Cheers though, you've restored my faith that some people 'get it'.

The_Green_Man_2

Cardew wrote: »

You should realize that you mustn't use logic in this part of MSE.

You should also appreciate that little sub-4kWp installations on the roofs of houses dotted around UK collecting a FIT of 44p/kWh is a far more efficient way of generating solar electricity than these large solar farms. It doesn't matter that they don't even need to send any electricity to the Grid.

P.S.



Another tactical error, notwithstanding your intent to give an example, you gave a figure of £200(the 'if' will be ignored) and normally you will be beaten to death over your figure of £200 - see post #35 as the starter.

Again, thanks for posting this.

I've amended that post to make it clear as crystal that it's an example. :cool:

spgsc531

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Phew a lot of anger in here. The tag-teaming and multi-quote interrogations are amazing. Does this happen to everyone who doesn't tow the party line?

As I said, much better to use green taxes to help everyone reduce their consumption instead of allowing a tiny minoprity of people to generate additional energy without any regard to whether they have already done as much as they can to reduce their consumption first.

The way I see green taxes working well is if, for example, you have an average gas bill of £800 per year and charge an additional £200 in green taxes(1). The £200 is then used to increase people's insulation, eventually reducing consumption back down so that their annual bills are back to £800 even with the £200 green tax. Everyone gains.

How it shouldn't work is that people have an average electricity bill of £800 and charge an additional £200 in green taxes(2). The £200 is given to people who can afford to install solar, who then have their electricity effectively reduced to £400(3). Great for them but it does nothing to address the raised bills of everyone else, nor does it do anything to reduce overall consumption.

Bit confused by your maths:

1. £800+£200=£1000

2. £800+£200=£1000

3. £1000-£200=£400????

You really don't seem very good with maths/units, perhaps Cardew who seems to be supporting it so strongly can explain?