Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Okay then, stand by your quote, but if that's going to be taken seriously you'll need to convince me and many others ....


... 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!!


Z

Well firstly I don't need to convince you of anything, but it is too easy for me to prove I am correct.

Secondly instead of going off at a tangent, consider what was said by Monbiot before the introduction of the FIT scheme ie. transfer of of money from poor to middle classes.

I take it that you and even the Guru will agree that on the introduction of the scheme in 2010 that the FIT/export rate paid to those participating was over 40p for every kWh generated(including the 50% assumed export).(1)

I take it you might also agree that those early participants are now receiving over 50p for every kWh generated(2)

So what is your difficulty in understanding 'it was true then' (1) and 'is true now'(2) I could even add that those participants will be receiving in excess of 50p for the next approx 18 to 20 years.

That you want to include the lowering rates of FIT up to the current rate, is your problem. I have never said all participants - so read the exam question please!

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

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.

False claim. I posted that demand side PV was more economically viable than supply side PV. I still believe that.

You've spent 4+ years trolling me (like this) falsely claiming that I said domestic PV would produce leccy more cheaply.

I have explained your mistake 100's of times (others have explained it to you too), but you still make the false claim (trolling), and have never, ever supplied numbers to prove me wrong, despite my many requests. I can only conclude that you think my real argument is right, so persist in falsely presenting my views.

I love PV farms, I just love demand side PV more, as I believe it is better. Since the demand side could cope with 30-40GWp of PV (the most the UK could handle without storage) I'd rather all PV was demand side, but I'm still 99% happy with PV farms. [I bet this comes up again and you ignore (for the 101st time) my response.]

Cardew wrote: »

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’.

I won't call this false yet, but all I can recall on the subject of AGW from you is that you once said to me that 'you were minded to believe in it.' Other than that I can't recall any debate about fossil fuel generation, so you'll need to remind me.

However, a couple of years ago, in a desperate attempt (like this week) you posted a number of quotes (no links) criticising PV. On googling the quotes all (3 I seem to recall) of them could be traced back to climate denialist websites.

I don't believe I've ever called you a denier, you may or may not be, but you are happy to use their false information to wrongly discredit PV on here just to cause arguments ...... kind of like trolling.

Cardew wrote: »

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.

False claim. I have 'correctly' attributed the term 'whole budget' to Monbiot as he referred to the amount equal to the whole budget (and finance costs), when he stated how much money would leave the poor. Here's a revue of his article and that part in particular:

In defence of feed-in tariffs: Friends of the Earth response to George Monbiot

“The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes.”

The overall impression George Monbiot gives of the cost of the UK‟s feed-in tariff scheme and how this cost is distributed is misleading. The cost to consumers of the UK FIT scheme is £6.7bn not £8.6bn[iii] (£8.6bn is the resources cost – the overall cost is based on an assumption of a cost of capital of 10% across all investors. In reality many investors will invest for a lower return so the actual subsidy cost to the consumer cost is lower than the resource cost). This £6.7bn cost to consumers is the cumulative cost to 2030 ie over the next two decades - a period of time which doesn‟t quite match the impression of immediacy of George Monbiot‟s „about to‟ claim.

Furthermore the cost to all consumers is not the same as the cost to households. George Monbiot has confused the two. The Government is expecting 66% of the cost of the scheme to fall on businesses with households paying the other 34%. This figure isn‟t in the Impact Assessment so Mr Monbiot couldn‟t have been expected to have taken it into account. It has however been published in Friends of the Earth‟s briefing on the UK scheme and is included in our calculations for the cost of improving the scheme[iv]. Assuming this division stays constant until 2030 this means the cost to all households of the FIT is an average of £2.28bn over 20 years. DECC‟s Impact Assessment estimates that the average impact on a household electricity bill is just £6.50 in 2015 or an average of £8.50 (70p per month) over the whole period 2011-2030[v]

Cardew wrote: »

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!

False. I put the solar only information on the PV news thread.

Quite why you read all the green and ethical threads just to complain about green and ethical matters is beyond me.

Cardew wrote: »

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

So you won't stop trolling these threads, so I have to put you on ignore? That sounds a little bit like a threat? But what exactly am I being threatened with - every time you post, you make my case for me, PV is a success now so it can't fail as it's already won the race, and pointing out your falsehoods is a good way to advise folk on the anti-PV and anti-RE spin that is still out there - so ..... am I bothered!


Now, having answered your little outburst at me, can we get back to the issue. You're now promoting three articles to attack PV, so will you defend the claims they make:-

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: »

Well firstly I don't need to convince you of anything, but it is too easy for me to prove I am correct.

So why don't you?

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Well firstly I don't need to convince you of anything, but it is too easy for me to prove I am correct.

Secondly instead of going off at a tangent, consider what was said by Monbiot before the introduction of the FIT scheme ie. transfer of of money from poor to middle classes.

I take it that you and even the Guru will agree that on the introduction of the scheme in 2010 that the FIT/export rate paid to those participating was over 40p for every kWh generated(including the 50% assumed export).(1)

I take it you might also agree that those early participants are now receiving over 50p for every kWh generated(2)

So what is your difficulty in understanding 'it was true then' (1) and 'is true now'(2) I could even add that those participants will be receiving in excess of 50p for the next approx 18 to 20 years.

That you want to include the lowering rates of FIT up to the current rate, is your problem. I have never said all participants - so read the exam question please!

<cough> ... bulls**t ...

You're the engineer .... so stand by what you claim to stand by ... obviously you post for effect, so show that you mean what you say and provide proof using the data sources provided, not to me because I believe you can't, but to the many who read these threads but don't contribute ... I've never come across an engineer yet who wouldn't readily accept such an interesting challenge, will you do it? - or simply slink away and pretend that you're right to yourself through selectively repeating drivel which has been or can readily be discredited in order to maintain a level of self-righteousness whilst almost every other rational or logical person simply laughs, shrugs and gets on with doing something more interesting ....

C'mon, if you're an engineer you'll love the challenge but if you're simply a wordsmith you'll come back with more bulls**t (as usual) ... this is you time, stand up and provide proof that almost the whole world is wrong and it's Cardew who will shine in an everlasting golden glow of righteousness which will be celebrated by all through raising statues and singing songs or praise ...

Z

Cardew

Can you not understand that I have proved my point? Those who got the 'grotesque subsidy' * initially are still getting it. QED

If you have all the figures, and enjoy a challenge, please work out how much money has been paid to those getting the initial high rate of FIT, and how much will they have got at the end of the 25 year term. Use your own assumptions for inflation rate, degredation of panels etc.

* not my phrase, but that of Dominic Lawson - a huge fan of our friend Monbiot. This article is well worth reading - for those who have an open mind.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-good-riddance-to-the-great-solar-scam-6262348.html

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Can you not understand that I have proved my point? Those who got the 'grotesque subsidy' * initially are still getting it. QED

If you have all the figures, and enjoy a challenge, please work out how much money has been paid to those getting the initial high rate of FIT, and how much will they have got at the end of the 25 year term. Use your own assumptions for inflation rate, degredation of panels etc.

* not my phrase, but that of Dominic Lawson - a huge fan of our friend Monbiot. This article is well worth reading - for those who have an open mind.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-good-riddance-to-the-great-solar-scam-6262348.html

<cough> ... more bulls**t (as expected/predicted) ...

Obviously the claim of being an engineer just flew out of the window, closely followed by much remaining credibility - which just leaves the title of 'wordsmith' ....

As previously mentioned, a true engineer would have at least tested the logic employed before acceptance and when assumptions are queried use data to provide empirical proof ... herein lies the problem which an engineer would fully understand - there's no empirical proof available through regurgitating bulls**t, so logically even a poor engineer wouldn't even try ....

Z

Cardew

All this 'true engineer' codswallop doesn't from you shouldn't impress anyone - except the Guru.

As I said earlier, it is not even 'O' level to understand the situation and appreciate what I said is accurate - true then and true now. 40p+ in 2010/11 and 50p+ in 2017 for the same people. What do you find difficult to understand about that?

You attempting to introduce a whole new set of criteria is quite pathetic.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

All this 'true engineer' codswallop doesn't from you shouldn't impress anyone - except the Guru.

As I said earlier, it is not even 'O' level to understand the situation and appreciate what I said is accurate - true then and true now. 40p+ in 2010/11 and 50p+ in 2017 for the same people. What do you find difficult to understand about that?

You attempting to introduce a whole new set of criteria is quite pathetic.

Yet again (5 yrs+) you've gone full circle.

You start of claiming that the original FiT was too high.

When challenged to justify that claim for the start of the scheme you start posting old articles that claim PV doesn't and won't work.

When asked if you actually agree with the basis of those debunked articles, you go back to moaning about the original FiT payment.

So, let's test the FiT:-
Did it result in the rollout of PV in the UK - yes.
Has the scheme been popular - yes.
Has the cost of PV fallen - yes.
Has the FiT fallen as expected - no.
Has the FiT fallen dramatically faster than expected - yes.
Does PV compare well against the alternatives - yes.
Does PV actually appear to be at the better end of all alternatives - yes.
Does PV work well on the demand side - Yes.
Is PV possibly better on the demand side than the supply side - yes.
Is the distribution of subsidy monies to the demand side infinitely fairer than distributing them to the supply side - yes.
Will PV be a success in the future - no.
Is that because it is a success by all measures in the UK already - yes.

Is demand side PV a cheaper and fairer solution than your choice of new nuclear - yes:-

New domestic PV - £66/MWh paid in support for 20yrs, to UK households, keeping the monies within the UK, reducing CO2 today. This is the result of less than 7yrs of support.

New supply side nuclear - £102/MWh paid in support for 35yrs, to French and Chinese governments, losing the monies to a balance of payments deficit, reducing CO2 in 2028(ish). This is the result of more than 60yrs of support.

Is your campaign against PV valid - no.
Has your campaign been a failure - yes.
Are you embarrassed - yes.
Do you continue to 'spin' long after the issue was settled because you are embarrassed ........ could be!

Will you ever answer any questions challenging your claims against PV - of course not.

Martyn1981

4 New Ways to Store Renewable Energy With Water

In 2017, a number of new pumped-hydro technologies should achieve milestones. They aim to bring the low cost of the technology to geographies that ordinarily wouldn’t allow it. Here are four you might hear about:

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

All this 'true engineer' codswallop doesn't from you shouldn't impress anyone - except the Guru.

As I said earlier, it is not even 'O' level to understand the situation and appreciate what I said is accurate - true then and true now. 40p+ in 2010/11 and 50p+ in 2017 for the same people. What do you find difficult to understand about that?

You attempting to introduce a whole new set of criteria is quite pathetic.

... Ah, so why do you continue to post in a very selective and carefully worded manner and continually regurgitate outdated & largely discredited viewpoints so that anyone who isn't well informed on the subject of PV & FiT would be mislead to believe your views ... for example the 50p+ tariff as if it applies to all, not just a relatively small subset of installations .... so what is the average tariff ? ... I've supplied you with the necessary links for a rough-cut analysis and also a detailed one by individual installation too if you were really interested in anything other than saving face and causing mischief ...

This is a thread for G&E news and your input, as usual, has absolutely nothing in common with the subject, so unless you're willing to play the game nicely you really do need to wind your neck in, stop, desist, and bu**er off back to areas of the forum where your contributions are genuinely welcomed ... failure to do so would simply reinforce views held by others that you're simply a well versed troll intent on nothing other than causing mischief for mischiefs sake!

Z