Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

Hiya JoeJoe1.

Sorry I've upset you, but I just wanted to get to the bottom of what Kevin was saying, as he's rather vague.

He was far clearer in the past when he said:-

1. All renewables subsidies should go to nuclear.

2. When he claimed there was no checking process for FiT submissions, and PV'ers could falsify claims, then replace their TGM's each year ...... seriously ....... have a look!

3. When he claimed that deemed export of 50% was too high, and actual export is less.


I'm all for debate, I love it, but as I've said previously to people like MFW_ASAP, who post idiotic, mathematically challenged, fact denying info ....... debate only works if the information is correct.

Talking of MFW, and I appreciate you are new to the forum. But hopefully a quick check back will show you how hard it is to have a rational, fact based debate on renewables, when such unpleasant people keep trying to spoil enjoyment for everyone else, via their childish posts.

I'm sure you'll agree with that.

Mart.

tunnel

JoeJoe1 wrote: »

Why does it matter to you so much what Kevin thinks? I'm sure you mean well but it just comes across as bullying. The last time I looked, the forum had Martin Lewis's name across it, not Martyn Solar. Kevnin has as much right to post an article on here as you, and without having to fill in the Martyn background check.

I think you may need to take a step back from the forum, perhaps spend a little more time with your wife and kids, if you have them (if you don't then it wouldn't be surprising and it would explain a lot). There is life beyond the internet Marty.

Stop trying to play the "big man" in forumland and concentrate on getting on in the real world. If you feel a sense of worth in real life, then maybe you wouldn't have to try and gain it on the internet?

Let other people take their turn Marty, you don't own the internet.

Priceless....coming from the poster who just happens to have registered the same time another got PPR'd and just happens to write in a similar vein....

For instance...

JoeJoe1 wrote: »

Do you choose ethical funds in your pension or do you target individual shares in low carbon energy companies and pharms?

I don't understand the socialist reference re: sending cheques to the Revenue. Certainly people should pay their fair share of taxes, with the caveat that taxation should be based on ability to pay.

Now that's something that could be straight from MFW's mouth.
Apologies if I'm wrong but.....

Something you need to tell us?

Martyn1981

JoeJoe1 wrote: »

I think you may need to take a step back from the forum, perhaps spend a little more time with your wife and kids, if you have them (if you don't then it wouldn't be surprising and it would explain a lot). There is life beyond the internet Marty.

Irony overload!

Mart.

kevin6666

Martyn1981 wrote: »

1. All renewables subsidies should go to nuclear.

2. When he claimed there was no checking process for FiT submissions, and PV'ers could falsify claims, then replace their TGM's each year ...... seriously ....... have a look!

3. When he claimed that deemed export of 50% was too high, and actual export is less.
]/QUOTE]

1. I don't recall saying that and had a quick look back at my posts and can't find it at a glance. I'm sure you'll point it out but that's not my current view.

2. I would have never claimed there is no checking on FIT reading submissions, it's part of ofgems guidance that yearly sunlight variations are taken into account and also 24 month inspections have to be completed or payments will be suspended (in theory). So while PV reads are reasonably easy to provide tolerance checks for Wind is not so much. Yes it's surprising how often generation meters go wrong. Yes the scheme has been exploited: from MCS certificates having the wrong date on them, claiming for Installations that never happened to incorrect customer Meter Reads. Now these have been found and sent to whoever but sure it can and has happened. Is it a wide scale problem...no.

3. On <=4kw domestic PV systems where generators have installed Export Metering the majority have found out they were worse off and reverted to deemed. Most likely due to the cost of export metering. I haven't looked at export data in ages so can't recall anymore.

I'm not going to comment further on the FIT scheme for the moment as it sounds like it will not re-open or when it does take up will be slim to none.

In a few months with the scheme nicely wrapped up we can draw some conclusions from what it has delivered, has the PV industry collapsed, has the public got value for money, and if the ice caps are saved.

EricMears

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeJoe1
I think you may need to take a step back from the forum, perhaps spend a little more time with your wife and kids, if you have them (if you don't then it wouldn't be surprising and it would explain a lot). There is life beyond the internet Marty.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Irony overload!

Mart.

Our new chum seems to have deserted us. No doubt he's looked back at postings from Restoration_Man, The_Green_Man & MFW_ASAP and decided he'd like to follow wherever they went ?

Martyn1981

kevin6666 wrote: »

Martyn1981 wrote: »

1. All renewables subsidies should go to nuclear.

2. When he claimed there was no checking process for FiT submissions, and PV'ers could falsify claims, then replace their TGM's each year ...... seriously ....... have a look!

3. When he claimed that deemed export of 50% was too high, and actual export is less.

1. I don't recall saying that and had a quick look back at my posts and can't find it at a glance. I'm sure you'll point it out but that's not my current view.

If all the investment that's gone into renewables had gone into nuclear all of the public would have benefited and we would have long term sustainable power supply with cheaper energy bills. Instead FIT has provided the middle class with a misguided/smug belief that they're in someway helping save the planet and also a nice little money spinner paid for by those who can't afford these systems. You know somethings wrong when farmers have filled their fields with spinning solar panels instead of using them for farming! All these little PV systems are pointless as far as the grid is concerned so we still need proper investment in large scale energy production and renewables just can't cut it.

I'm glad to hear your views have changed, as pouring all the renewables subsidies into nuclear (the proverbial drop into the proverbial ocean), would have made no difference to nuclear, but cost us all the (now cheap) renewables.

If your view has changed, does that now mean you think renewables do 'cut it'? And what are your thoughts now on nuclear - already losing on cost grounds to "little PV systems", and none of the money being returned to bill payers ....... possibly none of the money even being returned to the UK!

kevin6666 wrote: »

2. I would have never claimed there is no checking on FIT reading submissions, it's part of ofgems guidance that yearly sunlight variations are taken into account and also 24 month inspections have to be completed or payments will be suspended (in theory).

Final word is the goverment is fully to blame for 99% of the problems with FIT and there is still plenty more unresolved with the main one been the Generation Meters are completely unregulated which given they determine how much of the bill payers money gets handed over is an absolute disgrace.

The only Generator Meter Details the supplier holds are what you tell them. So while they will hold MSN/Model/Last Inspect dates etc it's all worthless because it's provided by the customer. Look at a standard Import Meter and its detail are held by 3 fully regulated systems, Meter Operator, Data Collector and Data Aggregator. In the event on a Meter x the nominated MOP comes out does the exchange, collects all the data which triggers data flows across the industry. A meter x on your Generation Meter and you ring an electrician who replaces it and chucks the old one in the skip. You ring your supplier who has little choice but to take your word for all the details your provide.

Yes suppliers have tollerance checks on your FIT meter reading but it's very difficult to be very accurate due to the nature of PV/Wind etc.

At current suppliers have no plans to read your gen meters as the industry/goverment hasn't provided the regulation/standards to do so.

I suspect you now regret making all that stuff up.

kevin6666 wrote: »

3. On <=4kw domestic PV systems where generators have installed Export Metering the majority have found out they were worse off and reverted to deemed. Most likely due to the cost of export metering. I haven't looked at export data in ages so can't recall anymore.

The information I've seen suggests the deemed 50% export on <=4kW PV systems is too high. Obviously most people aren't in all day but when they do meter their export for whatever reason it's not good.

Do you have any links to support your claims? Do you genuinely believe that average export is less than 50%? Mine is about 70%.

kevin6666 wrote: »

I'm not going to comment further on the FIT scheme for the moment as it sounds like it will not re-open or when it does take up will be slim to none.

In a few months with the scheme nicely wrapped up we can draw some conclusions from what it has delivered, has the PV industry collapsed, has the public got value for money, and if the ice caps are saved.

Or current conclusions - the scheme has already delivered current domestic PV generation at a cost similar to large scale on-shore wind, PV and nuclear, and far cheaper than off-shore wind.

Sounds like a success to me, shame the government won't allow it to work. But that's a problem with the management, not the technology/industry.

As I've pointed out before, the government is happy to fund vast amounts of nuclear and off-shore wind generation, so one has to question their motives in shutting down the already cheaper on-shore wind, large scale PV and domestic PV deployments.

Mart.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeJoe1
I think you may need to take a step back from the forum, perhaps spend a little more time with your wife and kids, if you have them (if you don't then it wouldn't be surprising and it would explain a lot). There is life beyond the internet Marty.



Our new chum seems to have deserted us. No doubt he's looked back at postings from Restoration_Man, The_Green_Man & MFW_ASAP and decided he'd like to follow wherever they went ?

Oh I'm sure he'll be back soon, since he doesn't seem to have anything better in his life to do, than to keep rejoining a site (that he's banned from). Maybe we'll get lucky this time and his parents will take away his internet privileges.

Mart.

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Oh I'm sure he'll be back soon, since he doesn't seem to have anything better in his life to do, than to keep rejoining a site (that he's banned from). Maybe we'll get lucky this time and his parents will take away his internet privileges.

Mart.

Having spotted the 'AE' trick three (maybe more ?) times now, I suspect MSE management will be keeping a careful eye out for next reincarnation. Hopefully they'll even invoke the small print in their standard T&Cs and start levying the promised administration charge. See paragraph 8.10.2 of
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/terms-conditions

Cardew

Stimulating as your triumphant posts, about getting a dissenting voice silenced, might be; can't this thread return to the 'solar is wonderful and beyond reproach' theme.

kevin6666

I wasn't going to comment any further for a while at Martyn' posts but the post accusing me of saying we should invest totally in nuclear and then he digs out a post of mine which say no such thing. What the hell? And I stand by the post frankly. Yes we need renewables as well but we have to invest in generation that can generate when required.

Then you accuse me of making things up about DAs/DCs MOPS etc compared to Joes electric doing meter exchanges. Get real.

No I'm not going to provide you any links to export data or any other for that matter as it's not in the public domain (to my knowledge).

And if we take it that further FIT Installs are slim to none then FIT has failed fully. We have no ongoing domestic PV industry and we could have had twice the offshore wind capacity installed for the same cost as what we have with FIT. It's simply not arguable.