Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

ed110220 wrote: »

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

TBH when chatting with people about these issues (yes I am that boring) nobody .... ever .... has had any trouble understanding the concept of export or offset. I've never had to explain it.

But on these boards, it comes up all the time with the anti PV or anti FiT guys.

Myself (and Z) spent a year talking 'potatoes' with Cardew.

MFW is trying to use it as his defence for paying £80 to supply side generators, rather than £69 to his neighbours.

And kevin brings it up here:

kevin6666 wrote: »

Also as battery tech increases and other innovations come in those domestic PV systems will provide less and less export to the grid providng even worse value to the bill payers.

not only failing on the offset/export issue, but stating the exact opposite of every article ever written on the economic benefits of storage ..... namely that using storage to shave peaks will reduce the average cost of electricity on the grid, whether deployed on a domestic, industrial or grid scale.

The way I see it, debate is great. But the information posted has to be accurate and honest. And ideally referenced.


Just for fun, your example is great, but here's one to confuse anyone that argues with you in the future:-

Scenario 1 - PV farm supplies the grid, which then supplies a factory.

Scenario 2 - PV farm sells directly (via a PPA) to the factory.

Scenario 3 - PV panels owned by and placed on the roof of the factory.

Same panels, same generation, same factory, same grid, yet we are supposed to believe that scenario 3 (possibly 2 as well) benefits the grid less than scenario 1. makes you want to cry (or laugh) sometimes.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

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:

Interesting!

So you are claiming that the whole £8.6bn FiT budget was to be paid by poor domestic householders?

You are aware (because I told you years ago) that Monbiot admitted 2 months later (around Mch 2010) that he was wrong and the budget would be paid by all consumers in all sectors (obviously).

He admitted it in a comments section in the Guardian, having been pursued for 2 months by a poster called 'MonbiotWatch' (or something like that).

So Monbiot knows it isn't true. Clearly it wasn't true, and you've known this for many years. So the question still remains, why do you keep posting that paragraph when the statement is untrue, and you are aware that it's untrue?

Interesting!

Mart.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Of course Monboit's statement is true:

Quick thought, as I suspect you'll try to spin your way out of this one. Simple question:

Do you agree with the statement that £8.6bn (crucially, the entire FiT budget) was to be paid by poor domestic householders?

If so, then please explain how, why, and support your statement (remembering that Monbiot doesn't agree).

If not, then give it up, and move on.

Mart.

tunnel

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Scenario 1 - PV farm supplies the grid, which then supplies a factory.

Scenario 2 - PV farm sells directly (via a PPA) to the factory.

Scenario 3 - PV panels owned by and placed on the roof of the factory.

Same panels, same generation, same factory, same grid, yet we are supposed to believe that scenario 3 (possibly 2 as well) benefits the grid less than scenario 1. makes you want to cry (or laugh) sometimes.

I'd say that possibly the only thing that scenario 2 & 3 won't benefit are the energy companies shareholders.
I wonder if some of the anti's have too many shares wrapped up in their SIPPS and just see their pensions eroding, I know I haven't, my shares are on my rooves.

Sterlingtimes

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

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.

For my part, I am sure that my at-risk investments in my pension go some way to funding good projects like nuclear investment, better energy management, the development of medicines. The socialist may sleep so uneasy in his bed at night that the following morning he/she feels compelled to send a voluntary cheque to the Revenue and Customs.

After all, we have all have different approaches to ethics.

Martyn1981

chucknorris wrote: »

I wanted to ask you a technical question in a PM, but it looks like you have not allowed others access to send you messages, would it be possible for you to send me quick PM, so that I could reply and ask you something?

He's been PPR'd (again).

Mart.

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

He's been PPR'd (again).

For an explanation of that statement, it might help to read the MSE FAQs page on http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/forum-faqs

What's "PPR" under some people's usernames?
PPR (Posting Privileges Removed) is the term we use when we stop someone posting on the forum.

The page goes on to explain that anyone who has been PPRd but rejoins with an AE (Alter Ego) will be PPR'd again.

zeupater

EricMears wrote: »

For an explanation of that statement, it might help to read the MSE FAQs page on http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/forum-faqs


The page goes on to explain that anyone who has been PPRd but rejoins with an AE (Alter Ego) will be PPR'd again.

Hi

In light of very recent posts ... let's hope so.

Z

Martyn1981

Some good news regarding clean energy investment.

Clean energy attracts record $329bn investment, despite fossil fuel price crash

The rise of the global clean energy industry is now irreversible according to analysts, as new figures released today by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) reveal clean energy investment rose four per cent in 2015 to reach a record high of $329bn.

The latest figures confirm the global clean energy sector continued to defy predictions that historically low fossil fuel prices across the oil, coal and gas markets would undermine investment in renewables, electric vehicles, and other clean technologies.

BNEF said over the past 12 months clean energy investment rose from $315.9bn to $329bn, beating the previous high set in 2011 by three per cent. The market was driven by surging investment in China, the US, Latin America and India, the report said.

2015 was also the highest-ever year for the installation of renewable capacity, with 64GW of wind capacity and 57GW of solar commissioned, BNEF said, up 30 per cent compared to the same period last year.

More good news - regarding that 57GW figure for PV, it's worth noting how quickly that has grown. In 2010 the IEA (the International Energy Agency) normally well respected for energy predictions, but forever lambasted for its 'behind the curve' renewable predictions, stated a 2024 figure of PV deployment, which was reached in early 2015.

Recently (late 2015) they predicted a 2030 deployment of PV based on a static 40GW deployment each year from 2014 to 2030. An annual figure already exceeded by 50% and rising each year. India alone has scaled deployment up from 1GW to 3GW this year, with scheduled deployment reaching 17GW pa by the end of the decade, to reach their 100GW by 2022 target.

Mart.

Cardew

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3400335/How-falling-oil-prices-exposed-great-green-lie-Saudi-Arabia-s-battle-drive-prices-far-reaching-peak-oil.html