Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

EricMears

kevin6666 wrote: »

Think if Dr Jones PV system has already paid for itself then would it be wrong to change his FIT rate to something more inline with the market and pass the savings either back to the bill payer or better still back to renewable investments

Or of course if Dr Jones' house is bigger than I think he needs, I ought to be able to evict him and live there myself !

The terms of PV contracts were clearly spelled out and used to attract investors to the scheme in the first place. Any retrospective changes to the terms would quite simply be fraud.

I bet we all hated the kid in the playground who said "I had my fingers crossed when I promised to share my sweets - so you're not getting any"

kevin6666

EricMears wrote: »

Or of course if Dr Jones' house is bigger than I think he needs, I ought to be able to evict him and live there myself !

The terms of PV contracts were clearly spelled out and used to attract investors to the scheme in the first place. Any retrospective changes to the terms would quite simply be fraud.

I bet we all hated the kid in the playground who said "I had my fingers crossed when I promised to share my sweets - so you're not getting any"

That house and sweets were/are privately funded. So I would disagree with evicting him.

tunnel

kevin6666 wrote: »

Think if Dr Jones PV system has already paid for itself then would it be wrong to change his FIT rate to something more inline with the market and pass the savings either back to the bill payer or better still back to renewable investments (i.e. give current FIT the slight tweak it could do with to provide the UK with an ongoing domestic PV industry).

While they're at it, would you like the government to slash the near 8% rate my son is currently enjoying from a 10yr bond we locked away for his future?

kevin6666

Martyn1981 wrote: »

This of course also applies to nuclear generation at night, when the wholesale price of leccy is lower, lifting the subsidy element of the CfD higher.

I fail (yet again) to understand your obsession with the PV subsidy, whilst being a nuclear supporter?

With 6 years of support PV (including domestic scale) is now cheaper than the price nuclear is set to get in 10 years time. That nuclear price rides on the back of 60 years of subsidy support already.

So what's the problem? The 15yr (CFD) and 20yr (FiT) PV subsidies are already lower than the incoming 35yr nuclear subsidy. So the renewables subsidies have worked, whilst the nuclear subsidies appear to have failed. How can you condone one that goes to vast scale foreign corporations, whilst moaning about the other one which goes to smaller businesses and households? Isn't it time to move on?

Mart.

Interesting you always flat out ignore my comment on certain PV systems having already fully returned on their investment. 20 Years of pure profit ahead.

My view point is having sustainable and cheap grid coming from whatever power source. - Note there were recent press claims that we could be having blackouts early as next year..I wonder how 50p a unit PV electric would help with that.

I also am at a loss how you say FIT has been a success while renewable industry appears to be going down the pan and seems to be a trend that happens world wide. Just because FIT has made PV cheaper than X matters little if no one is installing it.

You seem to ignore basic rules of economics claiming some conspiracy against PV world wide when in reality introducing unfair and or fixed rates into a competitive market inevitably leads to exactly what has happened. Undo..undo..abort :rotfl:

I mean it's pretty clear of course you're serving your own self-interests but ultimately economics will take over, it's just a question of time.

Martyn1981

kevin6666 wrote: »

I also am at a loss how you say FIT has been a success while renewable industry appears to be going down the pan and seems to be a trend that happens world wide. Just because FIT has made PV cheaper than X matters little if no one is installing it.

You seem to ignore basic rules of economics claiming some conspiracy against PV world wide when in reality introducing unfair and or fixed rates into a competitive market inevitably leads to exactly what has happened. Undo..undo..abort :rotfl:

Offer nuclear what on-shore wind and PV are getting and see what happens to your economic argument!

Your failure to compare the relative rates of subsidies is probably what you keep missing.

Mart.

Martyn1981

tunnel wrote: »

While they're at it, would you like the government to slash the near 8% rate my son is currently enjoying from a 10yr bond we locked away for his future?

Depends, did any of that investment money come from the PV income you received that Kevin claimed you'd gotten fraudulently when he used the wrong regulations to have a go at us all?

Mart.

EricMears

kevin6666 wrote: »

Interesting you always flat out ignore my comment on certain PV systems having already fully returned on their investment. 20 Years of pure profit ahead.

Do we also think that anyone who buys a house and rents it out at a yield of around 10% p.a. ought to let his tenant live rent free after year 11 ?

tunnel

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Depends, did any of that investment money come from the PV income you received that Kevin claimed you'd gotten fraudulently when he used the wrong regulations to have a go at us all?

Mart.

Nah, locked it away way before my PV came along. I was just using it as an example, he's getting a cracking rate as we invested when rates were high, now they're low would he be expected to take a drop?
Thing is, many turned to PV when the bank rates dropped as it gave a better return, why should they be now penalised for that decision....it's madness.


One things for sure, IF and it's a big IF it did happen, I won't be letting my FiT provider off the hook with my nice little earner

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Offer nuclear what on-shore wind and PV are getting and see what happens to your economic argument!

Your failure to compare the relative rates of subsidies is probably what you keep missing.

Mart.

@Kevin. I should probably expand on this answer in case you try to spin your way out of it.

Today, PV farm and on-shore wind farm investors are willing to build generation for £80/MWh, but the government has cut the budgets for them.

Today folk are installing domestic PV at £69/MWh. It's a very low rollout, and the rate should be higher, but it's happening.

In 10 years time nuclear needs £93/MWh or it won't get built.

So the issue does not revolve around the cost of generation but the government support, priorities and ideologies.

Has the FiT scheme been a huge success, yes. In just 6 years it's delivered cheaper domestic generation than large scale nuclear generation, despite nuclear having a 60 year funding headstart. I think that's an economic success.

The big question you should ask yourself is if PV is possible today at £69/MWh, how low will it be in 10 years time, when (if?) Hinkley starts generating?

Mart.

ed110220

kevin6666 wrote: »

Interesting you always flat out ignore my comment on certain PV systems having already fully returned on their investment. 20 Years of pure profit ahead.

My view point is having sustainable and cheap grid coming from whatever power source. - Note there were recent press claims that we could be having blackouts early as next year..I wonder how 50p a unit PV electric would help with that.

I also am at a loss how you say FIT has been a success while renewable industry appears to be going down the pan and seems to be a trend that happens world wide. Just because FIT has made PV cheaper than X matters little if no one is installing it.

Renewables are going down the pan world wide? I'm not sure what planet you're living on, but it's not this one!

Here's a chart of global net additions of renewable capacity showing each year a larger addition:



(http://www.theclimategroup.org/what-we-do/news-and-blogs/global-renewable-energy-capacity-increased-120-since-2000/)

In the USA in both 2014 and 2015 renewable power capacity additions exceeded fossil fuel additions (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-04/renewables-top-fossil-fuels-as-biggest-source-of-new-u-s-power)