Is solar PV worth it?

The_Green_Man_2

EricMears wrote: »

Laudable as the concept may be, I'm afraid it wouldn't help to reduce the country's carbon emissions (indeed it would almost certainly increase them).

Please give a believable scenario where alleviating fuel poverty for the poor could possibly cause this to happen?

EricMears

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Please give a believable scenario where alleviating fuel poverty for the poor could possibly cause this to happen?

You don't have to be all that bright to realise that if electricity was cheaper, people would use more of it ! Whilst I appreciate that you're only wanting the very low users to use more, that will still result in an increase in electricity consumption and hence an increase in carbon emissions (unless of course we can incentivise a lot more people to install renewable generation solutions).

The_Green_Man_2

EricMears wrote: »

You don't have to be all that bright to realise that if electricity was cheaper, people would use more of it ! Whilst I appreciate that you're only wanting the very low users to use more, that will still result in an increase in electricity consumption and hence an increase in carbon emissions (unless of course we can incentivise a lot more people to install renewable generation solutions).

LOL, is that really the only way you can imagine to alleviate fuel poverty - to make it cheaper? Well, I guess it helps your argument.

How about using the money to reduce our consumption and therefore reduce energy bills? The majority of UK housing stock is woefully energy inefficient. A rapid program of installing loft, inter floor, slab and IW/EW insulation, zonal heating controls and more efficient boilers is what is required. Much better to reduce the consumption of energy than to just increase the generation.

I'm surprised you didn't consider this, it seems to obvious though completely destructive of your argument.....

EricMears

The_Green_Man wrote: »

LOL, is that really the only way you can imagine to alleviate fuel poverty - to make it cheaper? Well, I guess it helps your argument.

How about using the money to reduce our consumption and therefore reduce energy bills? The majority of UK housing stock is woefully energy inefficient. A rapid program of installing loft, inter floor, slab and IW/EW insulation, zonal heating controls and more efficient boilers is what is required. Much better to reduce the consumption of energy than to just increase the generation.

I'm surprised you didn't consider this, it seems to obvious though completely destructive of your argument.....

But there are already measures in place to help people install energy saving measures. And indeed they are being financed from levies on fuel bills generally. I thought you were proposing something new - and price reduction for low users would be quick & easy to implement (albeit with the disadvantages I've already mentioned).

Martyn1981

The_Green_Man wrote: »

How about using the money to reduce our consumption and therefore reduce energy bills? The majority of UK housing stock is woefully energy inefficient. A rapid program of installing loft, inter floor, slab and IW/EW insulation, zonal heating controls and more efficient boilers is what is required. Much better to reduce the consumption of energy than to just increase the generation.

Why do you keep saying this when you must surely be aware that such measures already exist - you've been told repeatedly. Can't you do some basic research rather than filling threads requesting advice on panels or intelligent switches with your rants?

Mart.

The_Green_Man_2

I know these measures already exist, but they are limited to virtually tinkering at the edges. We should be take the current levels of investment, add in all the sums being used to pay FITs to rich people and add some more money in and have a huge retrofit program to bring our housing stock up to standard.

A large capital expenditure program such as this is exactly the sort of thing this country needs to pull it out of recession, plus we will be left with a legacy of energy efficient homes. A much more realistic ways to hit our carbon reduction targets than to just offer discounts on a bit of loft insulation and pay subsidies to rich people to help reduce their energy bills.

I understand your resistance to this sort of thinking, as rich people in receipt of state benefits, you're hardly going to see any point of view which undermines your own self interest. Turkeys voting for xmas comes to mind.

EricMears

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I know these measures already exist, but they are limited to virtually tinkering at the edges. We should be take the current levels of investment, add in all the sums being used to pay FITs to rich people and add some more money in and have a huge retrofit program to bring our housing stock up to standard.

A large capital expenditure program such as this is exactly the sort of thing this country needs to pull it out of recession, plus we will be left with a legacy of energy efficient homes. A much more realistic ways to hit our carbon reduction targets than to just offer discounts on a bit of loft insulation and pay subsidies to rich people to help reduce their energy bills.

I understand your resistance to this sort of thinking, as rich people in receipt of state benefits, you're hardly going to see any point of view which undermines your own self interest. Turkeys voting for xmas comes to mind.

You seem to be confusing a government objective of reducing carbon emissions wih some half-baked attempt at re-distribution of wealth !

The FIT scheme funds aren't available for reallocation. The government offered them - with binding contracts - as an incentive to help reduce carbon emissions. It really doesn't matter whether you think that was a good idea or a bad one; it has happened. I may feel that attempting to invade South Africa in 1901 was a bad idea - but I don't waste my time (or more importantly : other people's time !) in still debating the issue.

spgsc531

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I know these measures already exist, but they are limited to virtually tinkering at the edges(1). We should be take the current levels of investment, add in all the sums being used to pay FITs to rich people(2) and add some more money in(3) and have a huge retrofit program to bring our housing stock up to standard.

A large capital expenditure program such as this is exactly the sort of thing this country needs to pull it out of recession, plus we will be left with a legacy of energy efficient homes. A much more realistic ways to hit our carbon reduction targets than to just offer discounts on a bit of loft insulation and pay subsidies to rich people to help reduce their energy bills.

I understand your resistance to this sort of thinking, as rich people in receipt of state benefits, you're hardly going to see any point of view which undermines your own self interest. Turkeys voting for xmas comes to mind.

I see you took my advice

(1) Care to put a £figure to this?

(2) Then compare to this £figure?

(3) Care to put a £figure to this, then explain where it will come from?

Or do you just like your delusional ranting?

The_Green_Man_2

spgsc531 wrote: »

I see you took my advice

(1) Care to put a £figure to this?

(2) Then compare to this £figure?

(3) Care to put a £figure to this, then explain where it will come from?

Or do you just like your delusional ranting?

I see you are still trying to avoid the simple question I put:

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I see that you're trying desperately to avoid the point I made. Pretty shabby debating technique and totally transparent.

Why not try and answer this: "Why on earth should everyone subsidize the energy bills of people who are more than financially capable of funding their own?"

Do you not agree with this: "I'd much rather see that money go towards helping alleviate fuel poverty for the poorer sections of our community, rather than to a bunch of middle class householders."?

spgsc531

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I see you are still trying to avoid the simple question I put:

Which one? You asked 2

The first is answered by simple research of the Government's reasons for FiTs.

The second is/was not avoided, I just chose to ignore it as it's a stupid question.

Now your turn.