Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

kevin6666

It's good to see a bit of debate on here rather than the Solar people counting their precious 'O's (£s) with the self belief they alone are bettering mankind and helping provide society with cheap (expensive) renewable energy (well except when it's most needed).

MFW_ASAP

kevin6666 wrote: »

It's good to see a bit of debate on here rather than the Solar people counting their precious 'O's (£s) with the self belief they alone are bettering mankind and helping provide society with cheap (expensive) renewable energy (well except when it's most needed).

That debate won't last much longer, the solar gang are already petitioning MSE to get me banned. Instead of doing as Cardew says and debating my points, they make personal jibes and then start crying when I give them a taste of their own medicine.

They can't argue against my points though because they know my points are correct. The mortgage free, middle income, middle class solar investors are subsidised by poorer people who are in fuel poverty. While these guys sit on the 'Ethical' forum discussing how quickly their investment will pay back, how much they saved on their energy bills and how much energy they diverted into their emmersion heaters, some of the people subsidising them are sat in the debt forums discussing whether they can afford their bills and making the difficult decision of whether to Heat or Eat.

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I did raise the point that if you are going to compare solar costs against other renewables (including nuclear) that you should compare 'like for like' and include storage costs for when solar doesn't work (at night and in winter). I gave an example that the wind is always blowing somewhere in the UK, whereas nighttime is universal over the whole country. How this is 'supporting nuclear' is something that exists only in your odd mind.

You stated:

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Wind, wave, and dare I say it, nuclear, suddenly starts to look rather inexpensive....

[Ignoring the fact that wave (and tidal) cost around £200 to £300/MWh, far more than domestic PV]

I pointed out that the cost of large scale storage was roughly the difference in cost between PV and nuclear, so your statement was false, and falsely supported nuclear.

Also, despite your claims, and my love of wind generation, it doesn't always generate, and like PV will also require storage when it reaches disruptive scale. So your argument was false, and falsely supported the economics of nuclear v's PV.

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I am a green party member. The green party is for solar PV (as am I). The Green party is for subsidies (as am I), the Green party is for reducing the burden of energy costs from the low paid (as am I), the green party is for subsidizing the implementation of domestic solar PV for households in fuel poverty and deprived areas (as am I). I pulled apart the information you supplied from the Green party and you skulked away from that thread. I daresay you'll do the same here....

The Green party supports the FiT, as per the links I gave you on the other thread. Your denial of their position is absurd. Your objection to the FiT is the exact opposite of Green Party reality.

I've already given you all the references and links in this post:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Putting aside the stupidity of the thread suggestion

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I am for large-scale solar, hence my objection to the inefficiencies of small scale solar.

Stop for one minute and think about the absurdity of your position. You claim to support renewables, subsidies and large scale PV.

So you are happy to pay £80 to a PV farm to reduce grid demand on FF generation by 1MWh. But you object to paying your neighbours £69 for the same result.

Clearly you haven't thought this through, and your objection is clearly not rational, but based on ideology.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Firstly Monboit's article was as true then, as it is now. This is the central theme of his argument:

Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives and no one notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes.

That is exactly what happened. FIT enabled middle class home owners to profitably invest in PV with the income for that investment paid by all electricity consumers. Many of them considerably poorer than those who made such an investment e.g. OAP in an all electric council flat.

As you are aware, the article was rubbished by almost all:

Growing Backlash to Monbiot Attack on Solar PV

But more importantly, you are well aware, as we've all had this debate many times over many years that the FiT budget of £8.6bn, contained in the quote you like to post so much, is to be paid by all energy consumers. So it wasn't just to be paid by the poor element of the domestic sector, but all consumers from all sectors.

Monbiot lied in his opening paragraph, and if anything it went downhill from there.

To repeat, you already know this, and you are well aware that the £8.6bn statement is false, so why do you keep posting false information ........ that you know is misleading and argumentative? Or did I answer my own question in the last 3 words?

Cardew wrote: »

Secondly, of course if you have a survey, PV comes 'top of the pops'. Do you think those surveyed consider, or have any idea about how PV is funded?

There have now been 15 quarterly DECC attitude surveys. That seems pretty thorough to me. If you revue them, you'll see that attitudes have remained very consistent. The latest are:

Support for solar 80%, with only 6% against it.

On-shore wind is 66% for and 12% against.

Off-shore wind is 77% for and 7% against.

Nuclear is 36% for and 25% against.

Since all* of these technologies are funded the same, by a levy on our bills, I fail to see your point.

*The new nuclear subsidy of 35 years, starting around 2025 will be funded as above. However, the current funding (of ~60 years) is funded via general taxation.


[Edit: Just a thought, but 100 years of £bn's of support for nuclear, plus the NDA budget of 2 to 3 billion for 100+ years ......... kind of makes the tiny investment in PV these last 6 years look negligible ....... especially when you see PV closing in on 'low to no' subsidy in 6 years, whilst nuclear failed completely in 60 years. "Please Sir, can I have 35 more years?" M.]

Mart.

MFW_ASAP

Martyn1981 wrote: »

You stated:



[Ignoring the fact that wave (and tidal) cost around £200 to £300/MWh, far more than domestic PV]

I pointed out that the cost of large scale storage was roughly the difference in cost between PV and nuclear, so your statement was false, and falsely supported nuclear.

Also, despite your claims, and my love of wind generation, it doesn't always generate, and like PV will also require storage when it reaches disruptive scale. So your argument was false, and falsely supported the economics of nuclear v's PV.




The Green party supports the FiT, as per the links I gave you on the other thread. Your denial of their position is absurd. Your objection to the FiT is the exact opposite of Green Party reality.

I've already given you all the references and links in this post:






Stop for one minute and think about the absurdity of your position. You claim to support renewables, subsidies and large scale PV.

So you are happy to pay £80 to a PV farm to reduce grid demand on FF generation by 1MWh. But you object to paying your neighbours £69 for the same result.

Clearly you haven't thought this through, and your objection is clearly not rational, but based on ideology.

Mart.

Deary me Mart, you're so desperate to smear that you're actually saying that a jokey 'Dare I say it' is supporting nuclear? Bit tenuous there I'm afraid, much like most of your posts.

Yes, I'd rather pay £80 to a PV farm to supply me and my neighbours (and perhaps a significant part of our village) with clean energy than to pay £69 to my neighbour for him to supply himself with clean energy.

Perhaps if the government had concentrated on large scale projects (solar, wind, wave), rather than trying to garner votes by giving the middle classes an investment vehicle, all of these technologies would have more penetration in the UK and also be much cheaper by now.

MFW_ASAP

Oh, and as to your green party statements. Your links simply stated that the green party is in favour of subsidizing renewables. It mentions using feed in tariffs to provide the subsidy.

They do not say that they will fund the feed in tariffs by adding it to energy bills, with no accounting for people's financial circumstances. Indeed the Greens state that they will reduce energy bills for everyone, especially those who are in fuel poverty.

The current FIT funding structure is nothing like this. I'm not opposed to feed in tarrifs to support renewables, I'm opposed to the way those feed in tariffs are funded.

Of course, you'll now forget that I posted this, slope off from the discussion and pop up in a new one spouting the same nonsense as though this post never happened. You're priceless mart. :rotfl:

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

As you are aware, the article was rubbished by almost all:


Blah Blah Blah


Support for solar 80%, with only 6% against it.

As usual you are simply a mouthpiece for the solar industry and quote their publications.


The thrust of Monboit's article was that middle class home owners are making big profits from subsidies, and those subsidies are funded directly by a levy on all electricity users - including the poor.


As said above, no matter how you try and nitpick and obfuscate, Monboit's statement was true then and is true now. In fact shortly after he made that statement the situation got even worse when the Government allowed Rent a Roof companies to cash in on the subsidies.


As for 'support for solar 80%' only you could construe that as support for the stupid FIT scheme for sub 4kWp systems on houses.


As said above, include this question in the survey and see what the percentage would be!

Do you think it fair that home owners can fit PV and receive a subsidy of between 40p and 50p for every kWh generated(inflation linked for 25 years) and in addition can use as much of that electricity in their houses without the need to export anything. Further more the cost of that subsidy will be paid directly by a levy on the bills of all electricity consumers, including the poorest in our society.

MFW_ASAP

Cardew wrote: »

As for 'support for solar 80%' only you could construe that as support for the stupid FIT scheme for sub 4kWp systems on houses.

I think he's a tory politician in disguise. He asks questions and ignores answers that he doesn't like, instead making up 'your' answers to his 'questions'. He then pops up in another discussion and uses his made up answers against you. It's quite amusing to watch as I'm sure he believes his own propaganda.

A discussion with Mart goes something like this:

Me: "I'm not happy with the way that FIT payments are funded through electricity bills as it means that people on lower incomes are hit proportionally more than those with higher incomes".

Mart: "So you're saying that we shouldn't subsidise renewables. I thought you were a member of the Green Party and you're against renewables!!!!"

Me: "No, I'm in favour of renewable subsidies, I'm just not happy with the way this particular subsidy is paid for as it unfairly hits poorer bill payers. Funding from general taxation would be fairer as the wealthier would shoulder a higher proportion of the costs"

Mart: "So you want nuclear and would prefer to give faceless corporations subsidies instead of your neighbours!!!"

Me: "Well, I think that commercial renewables offer a better 'bang for the buck' because they provide clean power to a larger number of people and have economy of scale. Plus the infrastucture is set up better so that the grid is not overloaded on sunny days. Primarily though, my point is that I don't like how the FIT scheme is funded.

Mart: "You're just jealous of us solar boys because we have solar and you don't and you love corporations"

Me: "Well, I'm actually OK financially and could have invested in solar years ago when the FIT payments were the most generous, but as I said, I don't like how the FIT payments are funded and so in good conscience couldn't accept payments knowing they came from people poorer than myself who are struggling to pay for their own bills, let alone chipping in for mine."

Mart: "***silence***"

Time passes...

Me: "I notice that the EPC loophole s going to be closed. This is good news because it undermines the whole point of having an EPC limit for FIT payments"

Mart: "Well, you're a member of the Green party and think that we shouldn't subsidize renewables, so you're totally at odds with your party!!"

Mart: "And you want nuclear and would prefer to give faceless corporations subsidies instead of your neighbours!!!"

Mart: ""You're just jealous of us solar boys because we have solar and you don't and you love corporations"

Me: *sigh*

Wash and repeat, wash and repeat.

tunnel

Cardew wrote: »

If PV was considered necessary by our masters then at least any subsidy should have been paid by general taxation. Then we would not have the stupid situation of, say, an OAP in an all electric council flat paying far more by way of a levy than us who enjoy gas/oil CH..

Believe it or not I sort of agree with that statement although we should all have a responsibility as far as green issues go. Although saying that, I don't believe a £7 a year levy is out of the way for those less fortunate, especially with the amount of green incentives that can be had, for which many with pv don't qualify for but still contribute to..

Cardew wrote: »

P.S.
Personally I have been consistent in not having any criticism of those taking advantage of the crazy FIT system - the fault lies with the Government.

Correct, just wish the other poster would see it that way instead of insulting those of us who took advantage of a perfectly legal government backed scheme.

MFW_ASAP

tunnel wrote: »

Believe it or not I sort of agree with that statement although we should all have a responsibility as far as green issues go.

Indeed, but the responsibility should be shared fairly, instead of putting a larger burden on the lower paid.

tunnel wrote: »

Although saying that, I don't believe a £7 a year levy is out of the way for those less fortunate, especially with the amount of green incentives that can be had, for which many with pv don't qualify for but still contribute to.

I pay my taxes in the hope that it will help fund a benefit system that provides a safety net to those people less fortunate than myself. I fully expect that I'll never get out of the system even a fraction of the monies that I have put in. I'm fine with that, it's the foundation of a fair and equitable society.

Going off your post, you seem to expect a payback and begrudge helping those less well off than you. Different folks, different strokes.