Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

edited 12 July 2021 at 11:38AM in Green & Ethical MoneySaving
6.8K replies 443.9K views
16791112685

Replies

  • edited 6 January 2016 at 3:17PM
    MFW_ASAPMFW_ASAP
    1.5K Posts
    edited 6 January 2016 at 3:17PM
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    No idea why you've made that up! I'm always more than happy to discuss all the relevant numbers. But usually when I give detailed breakdowns, you complain my posts are too long, then reveal you don't actually understand the numbers, or how they will be applied!

    Isn't it about time you started telling the truth.

    Physician heal thyself. Good to see that you've finally started telling the truth, probably because with the huge reduction of FITS about to happen, domestic PV is finally becoming cheap enough so that you don't have to lump in commercial PV prices to bolster your argument.
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    Speaking of the truth, if you look at the numbers you'll actually find that domestic PV is about to become cheaper than large scale PV ..... how exactly does that prove your point?

    Yes, and how has this happened? Because the government has vastly reduced the FIT payment, which is exactly what I wanted. Interestingly, you've again tried to deceive with your 'facts' that domestic solar PV is about to become cheaper than large scale PV, yet omitting that this is for NEW INSTALLATIONS only, with existing installations continuing with their locked in FIT rates for the next 20 years or so.
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    Perhaps that's why the Green Party support PV, domestic PV and FiTs, despite your (false) claims to the contrary.


    If you don't support a mixed bag of renewables, disagree with the Green Party policies, and prefer to support nuclear costings, fine. But why keep posting these views on a green and ethical board, and attacking those that do support renewables. Very strange.

    Mart.

    Oh dear, you're getting all disingenuous again mart, with your strawman argument that I don't support a mixed bag of renewables, despite me saying in this very thread thatI see place for PV in the UK energy mix, just not via the inefficient hot-potch of domestic rooftop installations. I've never supported Nuclear, you're confusing me (deliberately?) with Carhew (sp.).

    I've made it clear already how the Green party would have implemented subsidies for renewables and energy efficiency, which would have come from general taxation where the better paid would shoulder a greater burden than the lower paid, rather than FITS where the opposite is true. The Greens would also have targeted those households who are in fuel poverty with a program of heavily subsidized PV installations and energy efficiency improvements, something totally missing with FITS.

    Please stop lying and saying that my clear and well documented objection to Feed it tariffs and the promotion of PV via inefficient domestic installations is really an attack on renewables or subsidies. You just make yourself look foolish and make it really easy for me to shoot down your argument.

    I asume you always fail to address my two issues (FITS and the promotion of PV via inefficient domestic installations) is because you actually can't come up with a cogent argument against them and so have to create a new argument that you can win?
  • EricMearsEricMears Forumite
    3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    MFW_ASAP wrote: »
    Yes, and how has this happened? Because the government has vastly reduced the FIT payment, which is exactly what I wanted.
    Regardless of whether any individual now decides that's what they wanted, it's exactly what was described (at the start of the FIT scheme) would happen.

    The generous rewards were only ever promised to early adopters and were intended as a 'pump priming' exercise. Unlike most government schemes which fail miserably (think "Ground Nuts Scheme " !) this one was carefully thought out and implemented in cooperation with other governments.
    NE Derbyshire.
    4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).
    BEV : Nissan Leaf e+
  • edited 6 January 2016 at 3:20PM
    MFW_ASAPMFW_ASAP
    1.5K Posts
    edited 6 January 2016 at 3:20PM
    EricMears wrote: »
    Unlike most government schemes which fail miserably (think "Ground Nuts Scheme " !) this one was carefully thought out and implemented in cooperation with other governments.

    Haha, if you think this scheme was carefully thought out, then I'd hate to see what you think is a disaster! :rotfl:

    The government has had to make unexpected, unanticipated interventions twice now to vastly reduce the Feed in Tariff, to the dismay of the solar industry, rather than sticking with the planned annual rate reductions. The second intervention had its own intervention where the proposed rate cut was reduced after a furor from the industry. This doesn't smack of a well run scheme to me! :eek:

    Of course the whole FIT scheme was flawed anyway because of the way it was financed through bills and not taxation and because it focused on inefficient hotch-potch of domestic installs, with roof angles and orientations that were never pitched efficiently even in summer, let alone winter.

    Commercial solar with efficiencies of scale, sensible infrastructure that doesnt overload the grid on sunny days and the ability to optimally angle the panels is the way to go. It's a shame so much of bill payers money has been wasted. The UK could have been so much further forward with a practical scheme that focused more on providing renewable energy for the country than on providing middle class, middle aged voters with a guaranteed investment vehicle.
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    13K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    MFW_ASAP wrote: »
    Physician heal thyself. Good to see that you've finally started telling the truth, probably because with the huge reduction of FITS about to happen, domestic PV is finally becoming cheap enough so that you don't have to lump in commercial PV prices to bolster your argument.



    Yes, and how has this happened? Because the government has vastly reduced the FIT payment, which is exactly what I wanted. Interestingly, you've again tried to deceive with your 'facts' that domestic solar PV is about to become cheaper than large scale PV, yet omitting that this is for NEW INSTALLATIONS only, with existing installations continuing with their locked in FIT rates for the next 20 years or so.



    Oh dear, you're getting all disingenuous again mart, with your strawman argument that I don't support a mixed bag of renewables, despite me saying in this very thread thatI see place for PV in the UK energy mix, just not via the inefficient hot-potch of domestic rooftop installations. I've never supported Nuclear, you're confusing me (deliberately?) with Carhew (sp.).

    I've made it clear already how the Green party would have implemented subsidies for renewables and energy efficiency, which would have come from general taxation where the better paid would shoulder a greater burden than the lower paid, rather than FITS where the opposite is true. The Greens would also have targeted those households who are in fuel poverty with a program of heavily subsidized PV installations and energy efficiency improvements, something totally missing with FITS.

    Please stop lying and saying that my clear and well documented objection to Feed it tariffs and the promotion of PV via inefficient domestic installations is really an attack on renewables or subsidies. You just make yourself look foolish and make it really easy for me to shoot down your argument.

    I asume you always fail to address my two issues (FITS and the promotion of PV via inefficient domestic installations) is because you actually can't come up with a cogent argument against them and so have to create a new argument that you can win?

    You are such a confused individual, it's always hard to try to help you.

    You recently criticised large scale PV against nuclear, citing storage costs, despite PV being cheaper (domestic PV even cheaper soon).

    You claim to be a Green Party member, however your views are the exact opposite of their views, as I showed by posting 3 links to their policies on domestic PV and FiTs.

    You now claim to support subsidies for renewables, yet you are against one of the very cheapest, and the only one that gets returned to consumers (your neighbours) rather than to large supply side companies. Or ..... in the case of nuclear, to France and China.

    So PV, especially domestic PV, seems to be extremely popular (always comes highest in the DECC surveys), is already one of the cheapest, and easily the fairest in terms of distribution.

    Me thinks you've never actually thought this through ..... too busy posting contradictory or abusive posts. Or perhaps, like Cardew, you read George Monbiot's (now fully ridiculed article on PV) and didn't realise that half of it was wrong when written, followed shortly after by the other half.

    Mart.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • edited 6 January 2016 at 5:04PM
    MFW_ASAPMFW_ASAP
    1.5K Posts
    edited 6 January 2016 at 5:04PM
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    You are such a confused individual, it's always hard to try to help you.

    You recently criticised large scale PV against nuclear, citing storage costs, despite PV being cheaper (domestic PV even cheaper soon).

    You claim to be a Green Party member, however your views are the exact opposite of their views, as I showed by posting 3 links to their policies on domestic PV and FiTs.

    You now claim to support subsidies for renewables, yet you are against one of the very cheapest, and the only one that gets returned to consumers (your neighbours) rather than to large supply side companies. Or ..... in the case of nuclear, to France and China.

    So PV, especially domestic PV, seems to be extremely popular (always comes highest in the DECC surveys), is already one of the cheapest, and easily the fairest in terms of distribution.

    Me thinks you've never actually thought this through ..... too busy posting contradictory or abusive posts. Or perhaps, like Cardew, you read George Monbiot's (now fully ridiculed article on PV) and didn't realise that half of it was wrong when written, followed shortly after by the other half.

    Mart.

    Mart, please stop 'playing the man' instead of discussing the points. The only person who is confused is yourself. You make up so much stuff (google strawman arguments) to bolster your argument, that you can't actually separate your own stories from reality.

    Not that it will make any difference because you'll skulk off from this discussion and re-raise the same discredited arguments again in a different thread, but here I go again. *sigh*

    I am for large-scale solar, hence my objection to the inefficiencies of small scale solar.

    I did raise the point that if you are going to compare solar costs against other renewables (including nuclear) that you should compare 'like for like' and include storage costs for when solar doesn't work (at night and in winter). I gave an example that the wind is always blowing somewhere in the UK, whereas nighttime is universal over the whole country. How this is 'supporting nuclear' is something that exists only in your odd mind.

    I am a green party member. The green party is for solar PV (as am I). The Green party is for subsidies (as am I), the Green party is for reducing the burden of energy costs from the low paid (as am I), the green party is for subsidizing the implementation of domestic solar PV for households in fuel poverty and deprived areas (as am I). I pulled apart the information you supplied from the Green party and you skulked away from that thread. I daresay you'll do the same here....

    I am for subsidizing renewables, even domestic PV if it is installed on households suffering from fuel poverty - though I believe there are better ways to resolve fuel poverty than this. I'm not for subsidizing domestic PV for middle class, middle income home owners. I believe though that small scale is not the most efficient way to implement renewables in a country of 64 million people. A single wind turbine can generate enough energy for 4000 people, that's what we should subsidize and a much better use of people's money.

    Domestic PV is extremely popular with those who have installed PV and are receiving twin benefits of reduced energy costs and an investment return. It's not so popular with those who are subsiding their investment return. The UK should be in the business of moving to renewable forms of energy, not providing investment returns.
  • tunneltunnel Forumite
    2.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    MFW_ASAP wrote: »
    If people want to reduce their own energy bills then they can fit their own panels (as I will be doing), but not expect everyone else in the UK to chip in and pay for it.
    Why ever not, millions of households have had green incentives offered to them, you know the ones, loft insulation, cavity wall insulation, new boilers etc etc....and I am expected to fund them through either my bills or direct taxation, why should solar be any different?
    2 kWp SEbE , 2kWp SSW & 2.5kWp NWbW.....in sunny North Derbyshire
  • CardewCardew Forumite
    28.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Rampant Recycler
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    So PV, especially domestic PV, seems to be extremely popular (always comes highest in the DECC surveys), is already one of the cheapest, and easily the fairest in terms of distribution.

    Or perhaps, like Cardew, you read George Monbiot's (now fully ridiculed article on PV) and didn't realise that half of it was wrong when written, followed shortly after by the other half.

    Mart.


    Firstly Monboit's article was as true then, as it is now. This is the central theme of his argument:
    Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives and no one notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes.

    That is exactly what happened. FIT enabled middle class home owners to profitably invest in PV with the income for that investment paid by all electricity consumers. Many of them considerably poorer than those who made such an investment e.g. OAP in an all electric council flat.

    No matter how you desperately try and discredit his article, you cannot escape that central fact.

    Secondly, of course if you have a survey, PV comes 'top of the pops'. Do you think those surveyed consider, or have any idea about how PV is funded?

    If the valid question below was included in the survey, what do you think the answer would be?
    Do you think it fair that home owners can fit PV and receive a subsidy of between 40p and 50p for every kWh generated(inflation linked for 25 years) and in addition can use as much of that electricity in their houses without the need to export anything. Further more the cost of that subsidy will be paid directly by a levy on the bills of all electricity consumers, including the poorest in our society.

    Fairest in distribution?? Except for those getting FIT, electricity enters houses via cables connected to the national grid!

    You spent your first couple of years on this section of MSE arguing vociferously against solar farms. Now you are simply a unquestioning mouthpiece for the solar industry extolling the virtues of anything connected solar; particularly huge solar farms.
  • tunnel wrote: »
    Why ever not, millions of households have had green incentives offered to them, you know the ones, loft insulation, cavity wall insulation, new boilers etc etc....and I am expected to fund them through either my bills or direct taxation, why should solar be any different?

    Are you on a low income?

    My parents were offered free loft insulation and a free condensing boiler because they were on Pensions Credit. They didn't accept it because I had already installed both in their house years ago.

    As I have said, I wouldn't be against subsidizing solar on houses where people are suffering from fuel poverty or in deprived areas, though I feel there are much better alternatives to solve this than just increasing generation. Most of these are what you have alreayd stated and have the advantage of working when they are needed most - at night and in the winter, which solar.....

    I don't think we should subsidize the energy bills of people who are not on low incomes. Do you?
  • CardewCardew Forumite
    28.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Rampant Recycler
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    tunnel wrote: »
    Why ever not, millions of households have had green incentives offered to them, you know the ones, loft insulation, cavity wall insulation, new boilers etc etc....and I am expected to fund them through either my bills or direct taxation, why should solar be any different?


    Solar is different.


    In the context of FIT, it can only be fitted to very few houses where the roof is suitable and the owner can afford the investment - it was about 1% of houses I believe when the scheme was introduced. The scheme is not available to flat dwellers, tenants etc. So 99% were paying the 1%


    The subsidy was stupidly high and inflation linked for 25 years, for grossly inefficient sub 4kWp installations dotted about all over UK. Solar farms would have been far more cost effective and at least the generation would have been exported.


    If PV was considered necessary by our masters then at least any subsidy should have been paid by general taxation. Then we would not have the stupid situation of, say, an OAP in an all electric council flat paying far more by way of a levy than us who enjoy gas/oil CH.


    P.S.
    Personally I have been consistent in not having any criticism of those taking advantage of the crazy FIT system - the fault lies with the Government.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest MSE News and Guides