Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

... .That was true then, and is still true, as witnessed by the current rate of 50p+ for every kWh generated and paid for by electricity consumers. You don’t need an O level to appreciate that is true ....

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: ..... <cough> bulls**t <cough>, if that's as close to the truth as you believe it gets then there's a fundamental issue which could only be addressed through nothing less than paradigm shift and unless your claim to be an engineer is disingenuous - you certainly know it :- above that almost everyone else reading this knows it too ..... it may possibly be a consideration which would be made by someone without attaining anywhere close to that much vaulted O-Level, but not one which stands up to even the smallest application of logic ....

Sorry Cardew, you're actually not making much sense and certainly not contributing much to a thread dedicated to G&E news (which should be current not decades old) other than to intentionally spoil ... maybe it's time to expend all of that excess post-Xmas energy taking the dog (if you have one) for healthy walks through the countryside and over the hills - it'd be much more appreciated by so many of us and you'd be able to mount the hobby-horse labelled 'well-being' and encourage us all to follow in your footsteps ... don't know what the dog would think of the idea though ...

Z

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Debate? You don’t even know the meaning of the word.

Yet more word salad from you, but no answers to any questions.

You raised two new arguments - I have pointed out the failings of both of the links you have supplied, you have simply attacked me again.

If you want to debate, then fine, stand by your links:-

1. Do you agree that the FiT would be completely financed by poor domestic customers?

2. Do you believe that the EROEI of PV is negative?

3. Do you believe that PV is not a valid source of electricity in the UK, because it cannot supply all of our electricity?

Posting up decade old negatives, as they are the only negatives you can find on PV when trawling the net to continue your crusade against PV (not FiTs) is pointless, unless you can defend the arguments contained within.

So end these bitter and personal attacks and actually defend and debate your stance, rather than simply trolling green and ethical threads.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

However you have spent the last few years trying every way to discredit Monbiot.

I've never tried to discredit Monbiot, I've never needed to, his own article did that, something I've pointed out hundreds of times ...... in response to you each time you've raised it as proof that PV doesn't work.

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Sorry Cardew, you're actually not making much sense

Z

Originally Posted by Cardew
... .That was true then, and is still true, as witnessed by the current rate of 50p+ for every kWh generated and paid for by electricity consumers. You don’t need an O level to appreciate that is true ....

There surely can be no argument that the thrust of Monbiot's article before the introduction of FIT was that the scheme enabled a transfer of money from the poor to the middle classes.

Therefore I stand by my quote above.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

There surely can be no argument that the thrust of Monbiot's article before the introduction of FIT was that the scheme enabled a transfer of money from the poor to the middle classes.

Therefore I stand by my quote above.

Correct, that was the thrust, however it was untrue, both in the claim of moving the whole budget from the poor, and in reality with the huge number of council and social housing installs.

Bringing up a an old and false article to attack PV in 2017 is not debate, it's trolling.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Correct, that was the thrust, however it was untrue, both in the claim of moving the whole budget from the poor, and in reality with the huge number of council and social housing installs.

Bringing up a an old and false article to attack PV in 2017 is not debate, it's trolling.

Once again you demonstrate your lack of logic.

His article was not untrue! You introduce the term 'whole budget'(was the term in the original article?) and thus use semantics to attempt to accuse him of lying.

The FIT scheme enabled the transfer of money from the poor to the middle class - and owners of RAR companies. True then, and true now.

So end these bitter and personal attacks and actually defend and debate your stance, rather than simply trolling green and ethical threads.

Personal attacks? You are the culprit - witness the frequent accusations of trolling - for which some people have been banned.

Why not ignore my posts(put me on 'ignore') and not comment? You don't own this section of MSE and it not mandatory to respond.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

His article was not untrue! You introduce the term 'whole budget'(was the term in the original article?) and thus use semantics to attempt to accuse him of lying.

Correct, the term 'whole budget' wasn't in his article, however he referred to the whole budget amount of £8.6bn. So not only did he apply the 'whole budget' to the poor part of the domestic sector, but he failed to point out that it was the 'whole budget' as that would have tipped more folk off.

Cardew wrote: »

Personal attacks? You are the culprit - witness the frequent accusations of trolling - for which some people have been banned.

Why not ignore my posts(put me on 'ignore') and not comment? You don't own this section of MSE and it not mandatory to respond.

All of your old posts, and these new ones use the same tactic, PV won't work because this old article says so.

When I attempt to engage you in rational debate and ask you to support the claims that your posts are making, you refuse. You simply post personal remarks then repost the false claims. Isn't that trolling?

So, to prove you aren't a troll, please defend the 3 articles you are now promoting:

Do you believe that the whole FiT budget will only be paid by poor domestic customers?

Do you believe a technology is invalid for the UK unless it can provide 100% of the UK's energy needs, or even just 100% of the UK's leccy needs?

Do you believe that normal (or 'typical') rooftop PV will never significantly exceed 10% efficiency?

Do you believe that PV consumes more energy in its manufacture than it will ever generate?

If you don't stand by the claims you have posted then how is that not trolling.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Personal attacks? You are the culprit - witness the frequent accusations of trolling - for which some people have been banned.

Is this your new tactic -keep trolling, then complain when I point it out, to try to get me banned?

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Is this your new tactic -keep trolling, then complain when I point it out, to try to get me banned?

I never ever try to get people banned, anyway I find your input amusing.

I tried debating with you about solar farms being more sensible than sub 4kWp systems on top of roofs and attracting a(then) 40p+ payment for every kWh generated. You spent page after page of posts giving your opinion on why sub 4kWp systems were the way to go and solar farms were a stupid idea. Now you deny ever denigrating solar farms and contribute post after post of publicity about solar farms culled from solar industry publications.

I tried debating with you about quantifying how much fossil fuel generation was contributing to global warming; citing the vested interest of some organisations who have produced discredited reports. Now according to you I am a ‘denier’.

You can’t even understand the point about Monbiot. You have incorrectly attributed the term ‘whole budget’ to Monbiot and that is sufficient for you to make him public enemy No 1(after myself;)) on this section of MSE. You don’t even see how blinkered you are when solar is mentioned.

This thread is about ‘Green and Ethical Energy issues in the news’. All we get from you is unstinting glorification of all things solar. Post anything that you don’t like and it is trolling!
Your constant attacks on several posters who contributed to the forum have turned it into the Martyn 1981 show!

So why don’t you put me on ‘ignore’ and you won’t be bothered about my posts.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

There surely can be no argument that the thrust of Monbiot's article before the introduction of FIT was that the scheme enabled a transfer of money from the poor to the middle classes.

Therefore I stand by my quote above.

Okay then, stand by your quote, but if that's going to be taken seriously you'll need to convince me and many others .... so have a go - to help you out here's the source of the data you'll need to use for basic analysis ...

Installed capacity under FiT scheme ...
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/fit/contacts-guidance-and-resources/public-reports-and-data-fit/feed-tariffs-quarterly-statistics

FiT tariff table ....
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/system/files/docs/2016/04/version_2-_feed-in_tariff_scheme_tariff_table_1_april_2016_-_31_march_2017_pv_only.pdf

... of course, the above sources would allow a rough cut analysis which wouldn't take too long if basic assumptions are made (ie all installs <4kWp on occupied premises), but at least the figures would suit your position as opposed to that held by most who would show interest ... then again, if you're up for a full analysis by individual installation you could use the following raw data (2 very large spreadsheets!) where the code in spreadsheet column J precisely defines the applicable FiT tariff ...

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/feed-tariff-installation-report-31-december-2016

... you could even analyse the average socio-economic distribution for pv installations by cross referencing post code areas to other government source data if you were minded to!

Cardew, you're the engineer and there's the empirical data, so get on with it, support your position regarding the below ...

Cardew wrote: »

... .That was true then, and is still true, as witnessed by the current rate of 50p+ for every kWh generated and paid for by electricity consumers. You don’t need an O level to appreciate that is true ....

... and astound us by proving that the current rate (either current rate or average will do - you have the sources) is '50p+ for every kWh generated' ... if you can't, then what you claim to be 'true' will have been proved otherwise!!

An engineer and a technical challenge like this ... of course we'll get an analytical reply as opposed to emotive one ... :rotfl:

Z