Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

No, you don't get it Mart. There is no difference if all energy was generated by clean, renewable means. As you know, it's not.

My choice is therefore to subsidise my neightbour so that he generates clean energy for himself, leaving more grid energy for the rest of us (grid energy that is predominantly 'dirty') or I can subsidize commercial renewables that supply myself and my neighbours with more clean energy. As I said, I'd rather do the latter.

As I've already explained, you simply don't get it!

Demand side generation or supply side generation both affect the grid the same. If you are able to understand that, then you'll realise that your years(s) long complaining was entirely false.

1. Supply side PV farm generates and exports 1MWh to the grid. The grid therefore reduces it's demand on FF generation by 1MWh.

2. Demand side generation produces 1MWh. Let's assume all of it is consumed on site. Thereby reducing import and demand on the grid by 1MWh. The grid therefore reduces its demand on FF generation by 1MWh.

They are the same, that's why, and I repeat, your whole argument is a nonsense.

If you don't believe they are the same then ask someone with a rudimentary understanding of mathematics. Even Cardew admitted (several years ago) that export and offset were the same, though he did go a little odd first, ranting about potato farmers ....... I kid you not!

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I noticed you cut out the bit where I said that I'd rather invest monies into large scale renewables because of the better 'bang for the buck'. You always ignore that....

I didn't ignore it, I was quite clear, you'd rather pay £80 to a supply side generator to reduce FF generation demand on the grid by 1MWh, than pay your neighbours £69:

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

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.

So I did address your bang for the buck claim, only (as usual) you had it completely backwards.

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

and so we go around and around again....

I am not against FIT payments and neither are the Greens. I'm against the way they are funded. As are the Greens, if they were in power they would ensure that the lower paid are not disproportionately impacted by green levy's (as they are now).

Yes, we keep going round and round. The FiT, is funded by a levy on all energy consumers, who ultimately are the polluter, the more you consume, the more you pollute.

But ...... just in case you don't understand this too, the ROC and CfD subsidies that fund large scale wind, PV (and potentially wave and tidal) are also funded by the same mechanism. So you can't criticise FiT whilst extolling supply side generation at the same time, as the funding is the same. Hence you are being hypocritical.

So once again, your argument is entirely false, since your chosen option of generation is funded exactly the same as the one you oppose. The only difference, in my eyes, is that it is far fairer (ethical) to distribute the subsidies back to the consumers via demand side than it is to pay it too large energy companies.

However, please note, I have no objection to paying subsidies to clean energy, supply side generators, it's just that demand side support is clearly a far fairer form of subsidy distribution.

Mart.

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

According to government figures, 17% of the UK population is in 'absolute low income'*

That's not just poor, but in poverty.

*someone is considered to be in absolute low income if they receive less than 60 per cent of average income.

Thank you for the numbers, so we can now more accurately assess the statement by Monbiot, that Cardew has posted many (100+?) times.

So he claimed that the entire budget would be paid by poor households, when the figure would be 17% x 30% = 5%*.

*Assuming poor households consume on average the same amount of leccy as other households.

So Monbiot lied by a factor of 20. He exaggerated the impact on poor households 20 times (at least). Do you think that's odd? Do you also think it odd that Cardew has been posting that paragraph for years AFTER finding out it was a lie?


Back to 17%. If 17% of households are poor, or in fuel poverty, (and I have no reason to doubt you, but it is a little annoying that you never supply any references to support your claims ......... but often complain about the thouroughness of my responses), then you should find this article interesting:

Thousands of social tenants will lose out if solar subsidies cuts go ahead

There are more than 4m social homes in England and Wales. It is estimated that 30-40,000 had solar panels fitted last year in the UK, accounting for one-fifth to one-quarter of all installations, according to the Solar Trade Association (STA).

Obviously linking social housing to poor is not an ideal comparison, but without a better metric at this point, it seems that the distribution of PV to 'the poor' is not disproportional.


Going back to my previous post, and attempts to explain the affect of demand side generation on the grid, we can now put the two issues together and see that demand side PV on 'poor households' can directly reduce their bills, and benefit the grid, at a lower cost ....... one could even say ....... better bang for your buck.

Mart.

kevin6666

I struggle to see how PV certainly domestic sized systems offer better bang for any buck at current Tariffs, and given nobody will be installing them anymore that's set for years to come. Also talking about demand on the grid it's pretty comical we're paying crazy unit prices for energy that isn't even available during peak demand.

EricMears

kevin6666 wrote: »

I struggle to see how PV certainly domestic sized systems offer better bang for any buck at current Tariffs, and given nobody will be installing them anymore that's set for years to come.

I'm sure you're wrong there.

The current regime of having to use an 'approved contractor' has persuaded many of us that it's better to pay an artificially high installation price to qualify for generous FIT payments. Now that the scheme (and similar ones in other countries) have 'primed the pump' panels are becoming much more affordable although 'approved contractors' still have to recoup their registration costs.

If the price is right, I'll very likely do a DIY installation in the near future and I understand from his recent post that MFW_ASAP is likely do something similar. No doubt many others will follow suit.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Each time you quote Monbiot's article you quote his first paragraph:

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.

You are fully aware that at the time of his article, the stated FiT budget was £8.6bn. Therefore Monbiot claimed that the whole cost would fall on poor households.

So Monbiot lied. He set out an article designed to mislead, offend, and cause division.

But far more importantly, you've been aware that that statement was false for a number of years, yet you keep posting it.

Why do you keep posting a false statement that will only mislead and cause offence and division.

From another post:


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?

So Monbiot lied by a factor of 20. He exaggerated the impact on poor households 20 times (at least). Do you think that's odd? Do you also think it odd that Cardew has been posting that paragraph for years AFTER finding out it was a lie?

Mart.

Your lack of logic, as usual, shines like a beacon.

However that is not the point of this post. Do you not understand that your posts about Monboit are defamatory?

You simply cannot write anywhere - including the internet - statements such as 'So Monbiot lied. He set out an article designed to mislead, offend, and cause division.'

If your posts come to his attention, he will be justified in taking action.

I suppose to a lesser extent your accusation that I deliberately and knowingly repeated those alleged lies, could come into the same category!

MFW_ASAP

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Thank you for the numbers, so we can now more accurately assess the statement by Monbiot, that Cardew has posted many (100+?) times.

So he claimed that the entire budget would be paid by poor households, when the figure would be 17% x 30% = 5%*.

*Assuming poor households consume on average the same amount of leccy as other households.

So Monbiot lied by a factor of 20. He exaggerated the impact on poor households 20 times (at least). Do you think that's odd? Do you also think it odd that Cardew has been posting that paragraph for years AFTER finding out it was a lie?


Back to 17%. If 17% of households are poor, or in fuel poverty, (and I have no reason to doubt you, but it is a little annoying that you never supply any references to support your claims ......... but often complain about the thouroughness of my responses), then you should find this article interesting:

Thousands of social tenants will lose out if solar subsidies cuts go ahead



Obviously linking social housing to poor is not an ideal comparison, but without a better metric at this point, it seems that the distribution of PV to 'the poor' is not disproportional.


Going back to my previous post, and attempts to explain the affect of demand side generation on the grid, we can now put the two issues together and see that demand side PV on 'poor households' can directly reduce their bills, and benefit the grid, at a lower cost ....... one could even say ....... better bang for your buck.

Mart.

As usual, you didn't read the post correctly. I said 17% were in poverty, not merely 'poor'. The poor figure will be far higher. I suggest you google and find the correct figure instead of your 'back of fag packet' proofs.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Your lack of logic, as usual, shines like a beacon.

However that is not the point of this post. Do you not understand that your posts about Monboit are defamatory?

You simply cannot write anywhere - including the internet - statements such as 'So Monbiot lied. He set out an article designed to mislead, offend, and cause division.'

If your posts come to his attention, he will be justified in taking action.

I suppose to a lesser extent your accusation that I deliberately and knowingly repeated those alleged lies, could come into the same category!

I appreciate what you are up to, but:-

His statement was untrue when it was published.

You have repeated the statement for years after becoming aware that it was untrue.

When false and misleading statements are made, they should be challenged, and the reason for the action questioned.

Simples!

[Edit: You do admit that the statement is untrue ..... don't you? M.]

Mart.

Martyn1981

kevin6666 wrote: »

I struggle to see how PV certainly domestic sized systems offer better bang for any buck at current Tariffs,

I was simply responding to MFW and showing that £69 is less than £80. PV farms and on-shore wind installed this year under the latest CfD auction will receive £80/MWh. Off-shore wind £120, and nuclear (eventually) £93.

It's perfectly easy to compare generation costs ........ once you realise that offset and export have the same affect on the grid.

Mart.

ed110220

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I was simply responding to MFW and showing that £69 is less than £80. PV farms and on-shore wind installed this year under the latest CfD auction will receive £80/MWh. Off-shore wind £120, and nuclear (eventually) £93.

It's perfectly easy to compare generation costs ........ once you realise that offset and export have the same affect on the grid.

Mart.

It isn't a difficult concept (the last), but some people seem to have difficulty grasping it.

Say you have four scenarios:-

a) Mr Brown generates 1 kWh with the solar PV on his roof. He uses it rather than importing 1 kWh from the grid.

b) Miss Jones generates 1 kWh with the solar PV on her roof and exports it to the grid.

c) Solar Corp. International generates 1 kWh from its solar farm and exports it to the grid.

e) Mrs Patel replaces her old electrical appliance with a new energy efficient one and saves 1 kWh that she would otherwise import from the grid.

In simple terms they are all the same in that they all resulted in 1 kWh of fossil fuel electricity generation not being required. It's therefore illogical to say that Solar Corp is better than Mr Bown or Mrs Patel is better than Miss Jones etc.


Things are slightly complicated by other factors such as grid losses and if solar electricity isn't used 1:1 to substitute for grid electricity (eg using PV electricity to substitute for mains gas doesn't give as much GHG saving as using it to substitute for mains electricity). But those are essentially details in the scheme of things.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I appreciate what you are up to, but:-

His statement was untrue when it was published.

You have repeated the statement for years after becoming aware that it was untrue.

When false and misleading statements are made, they should be challenged, and the reason for the action questioned.

Simples!

[Edit: You do admit that the statement is untrue ..... don't you? M.]

Mart.

On your head be it!


Of course Monboit's statement is true: it was then, and is now. However much you might try and obfuscate his statement stands.


Even if you believe it is inaccurate, or believe he was mistaken that is very different from accusing him of deliberately telling lies.


I suggest that you take some layman or legal advice about this statement:

So Monbiot lied. He set out an article designed to mislead, offend, and cause division.