Virtual slaps

Sterlingtimes

I have felt a few virtual slaps on this forum for sharing ideas that are money saving but not considered to be "green and ethical". It is perhaps a little awkward that most solar postings appear here. Perhaps emotive issues such as "immersion diversion" should be posted in the Energy forum where virtual slaps are less likely.

tunnel

Sterlingtimes wrote: »

Perhaps emotive issues such as "immersion diversion" should be posted in the Energy forum where virtual slaps are less likely.

Got to ask mate....why?

Sterlingtimes

tunnel wrote: »

Got to ask mate....why?

I'll try to explain. I was told something this: the Government has paid the FIT fee in the expectation that the user provides excess electricity back to the grid for use by his neighbours. The diversion of electricity to reduce the usage of gas is unethical.

Apparent "unethical behaviour" may be buying a £150 C rated tumble dryer rather than a £700 A+ one because latter is "ethical" whereas the former is not even though there is an economic case for buying a cheaper one.

A solar user who contrives to use his generation to the fullest is not displaying ethical behaviour.

All in all I have seen a minority of posters remind others that this is an ethical board.

I'll let you know the next time I get slapped.

tunnel

Sterlingtimes wrote: »

A solar user who contrives to use his generation to the fullest is not displaying ethical behaviour.

BUT, this is the "green" and "ethical" forum and would you not see it as being green to generate your own leccy and use as much as possible, thus lowering the need to draw from the grid. Indeed when it gets to the point that its not necessary to pay a FiT, would the "ethical" argument even exist?

EricMears

Sterlingtimes wrote: »

I'll try to explain. I was told something this: the Government has paid the FIT fee in the expectation that the user provides excess electricity back to the grid for use by his neighbours.

There's nothing in my FIT contract that gives any hint of governmental expectations.

A verbal contract isn't worth the paper its printed on

But don't worry about it : A virtual slap is virtually painless.

1961Nick

tunnel wrote: »

Got to ask mate....why?

Judging by your avatar, you'd probably enjoy a few slaps!:shocked:

Martyn1981

Sterlingtimes wrote: »

I'll try to explain. I was told something this: the Government has paid the FIT fee in the expectation that the user provides excess electricity back to the grid for use by his neighbours. The diversion of electricity to reduce the usage of gas is unethical.

All in all I have seen a minority of posters remind others that this is an ethical board.

I'll let you know the next time I get slapped.

Slapped if you do, slapped if you don't!

Don't worry about it, you're going to get slapped either way. The G&E thread and discussions on PV are filled with criticisms of PV on the basis that whilst this may be a green and ethical board, the site itself is one of money saving, so if you promote the green issues, you'll get slapped too for that.

People will always try to argue the small issues, whilst ignoring the big picture. Your diversionary device does off-set against that leccy use, it doesn't just 'disappear'. If your diversion was off-setting leccy water heating, then there would be no issue. I'd also suggest that for those with oil/gas tanks, then there is also no issue given that their off-set (reduced use of the alternative fuel) plus reduced transportation etc makes up for it. However, since the offset for most using a diversionary switch will be mains gas, then it's true that the value of the off-set gas is smaller than the value of the leccy diverted. But .....

the big picture is much ...... bigger(?) given PV's concentrated generation pattern (day time, and BST) then in the longer term saturation has to be considered, as seen in Germany. So storage raises it's ugly head, so considering/developing/rolling out technologies to address this will become ever more important as the years go on. So experimenting with any devices to maximise the use of PV or the economics of PV can only be a good thing (green & ethical) in the long run, even if it is only to rule them out depending on their success and popularity.

Then you have tunnel's point. If a diversionary switch makes subsidy free PV viable (when it otherwise wouldn't be) then any arguments against the use of that PV leccy generated become nonsense, since you wouldn't have it without the switch (or other devices that get invented as PV evolves).

Another thought, and I'm still cooking this one, so not sure if it works (anyone?) is to compare centralised generation to distributed generation.

Let's assume that 50% of PV'ers have hot water tanks, all use mains gas to heat their water, and of those, all install diversionary devices, and we don't value gas off-set (worst case scenario).

Then let's consider the numbers. If those PV'ers divert 1,000kWh's of leccy to water heating, and this represents approx 1/4 of their generation, then total loss is 50% * 25% = 12.5% which is roughly similar to electricity distribution losses on the grid.

The more you consider the multiple complexities of the big picture, the more pointless the slaps become.

Mart.

Sterlingtimes

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Slapped if you do, slapped if you don't!

Don't worry about it, you're going to get slapped either way. The G&E thread and discussions on PV are filled with criticisms of PV on the basis that whilst this may be a green and ethical board, the site itself is one of money saving, so if you promote the green issues, you'll get slapped too for that. ... The more you consider the multiple complexities of the big picture, the more pointless the slaps become.
Mart.

Thank you, Mart, for a well considered posting. I agree with this approach.

Some of us may lie in bed at night worrying about money whilst others may lie in bed at night worrying about the planet. Hopefully, our underlying personal concerns lead us to consider similar solutions.

My position is complicated because I work for a major energy management company. We are taught that energy demand in the world is currently doubling every twenty years, and electricity demand in the world is doubling every ten ten years. This is a big problem to resolve. Of course the company for which I work is primarily motivated to increase the share value for its investors, but secondarily benefits from ethical thinking. So even at a corporate level, the money versus ethical dilemma exists.

Really, the motivations are secondary to the actions that are taken to resolve a problem that is going to hit our children and grandchildren.

If energy can be produced in the home and in the business premises and consumed within the home and business premises then that is a massive start to resolving the difficult problem. So there ought to be no slapping.

Where I would become a slappor rather than a slappee is in confronting the opponents of renewal energy who raise planning objections to each and every project. We have a self-appointed committee in the village I live that has manage to block the construction of a solar farm. Slaps would be targeted upon those who really deserve the slaps.