Should solar discussions be moved to the Energy board?

MFW_ASAP

I posted a thread on the site feedback board to discuss whether solar energy discussions should be moved to its own 'solar' sub board, rather than remains in here where it rather swamps any other discussion.

Given that feed it tariffs are not ethical (the poorest in society paying a disproportionate amount in green taxes so that the wealthier can install solar) and that most people instal solar as an investment vehicle rather than to be green, shouldn't it therefore be in a more appropriate forum?

This would then leave this forum clear for real green and ethical money saving discussions.

Discuss...

EricMears

It's really not clear whether you are proposing a completely new 'solar power' section for the MSE board or simply moving SP topics to the 'Energy' section where they'll be lost amid discussions about choosing the best gas supplier etc.

I believe this particular section of the MSE Forum is called "Green & Ethical Moneysaving".

How can alternative energy use not be described as both 'green' AND 'ethical' ?

The line "the poorest in society paying a disproportionate amount in green taxes so that the wealthier can install solar" is a complete red herring ! The majority of these poor people's contributions go to fund nuclear power and commercial wind farms and (maybe one day I hope) other alternative generations such as tidal power.

Anything added to electricity bills affects smaller consumers (and poorer people tend to be smaller consumers) disproportionately - the biggest scandal being 'standing charges'. Perhaps we should describe standing charges as unethical - are MSE campaigning against them ?

To describe a popular topic as 'swamping other topics' is pretty silly too. If you remove all 'popular' topics from a particular board you'll be left with a board to which nobody bothers to access.

Martyn1981

Firstly let’s consider your claim that FiTs aren’t ethical. All energy production receives subsidies, either directly, such as nuclear (for the last half century), or indirectly, such as coal and gas, by failing to pay for CO2 emissions and impacts, or the health costs of air pollution. Large companies installing supply side wind and PV also receive subsidies. The main difference with FiTs is that the bulk of the subsidies are paid out to households rather than to a small number of large companies. That seems green and ethical to me.

I suspect that if PV subsidies weren’t paid to households, but only went to supply side large generators (like all the other subsidies) that we wouldn’t see any criticisms. It’s only the fact that FiT subsidies go to households, that some folk feel the need to claim that this is unethical – a false argument that I personally find unethical.

Next, you claim that the poorest pay more. Can you support that claim? What proportion of households are classed as ‘poor’, is it ~10%? Over the past 5 years I’ve read hundreds of articles talking about projects to install PV systems on the rooves of social housing. Some schemes are for 20 or 30 properties, some are for 2 to 3 thousand properties. I would guess, that around 10% of domestic PV installs (50k to 100k) benefit these properties. They may not receive the subsidies, but they will save around £100pa on leccy bills, without any financial investment. This seems green and ethical to me.

Ten years ago PV was the most expensive form of generation, and was beyond the means of cash poor, sun rich countries. Now PV is one of the cheapest forms of generation. In the UK on the large scale it is already cheaper than off-shore wind and nuclear energy, and matches on-shore wind. On the small scale it is the cheapest form of demand side generation. Hopefully within the next ten years we'll see financial support for domestic PV at lower levels than for large nuclear generation. If the current government review slashes FiT rates down to 7p (or less), then PV will become cheaper than new nuclear. Looking outside the UK, large scale PV contracts are now being issued at rates as low as $0.05/kWh. Without the worldwide effort to reduce PV costs, primarily through feed-in-schemes, this would not now be possible. The UK was right to make a small contribution to this international campaign. This seems green and ethical to me.

Another aspect of this board is the community that has grown up, with PV’ers discussing generation, and offering a huge amount of advice and support to those considering PV, or other technologies. The MSE G&E community are always happy to hold the hands of those needing advice and support. Huge effort is also made to prevent potential PV'ers from being 'ripped off' by unscrupulous companies. That seems ethical to me.

PV and PV discussions offer an important educational element, as do the PV installs themselves, which help to normalise this technology for the next generation. Discussions also allow for the dissemination of true and honest information, which helps to push back against misleading (or spin-doctoring) information, often posted by nuclear fans. This seems ethical to me.

If you look at the 14 quarterly attitudes survey carried out by DECC, you’ll find that solar is the most popular form of generation. It typically scores ~80% support and 5% opposition. Nuclear typically scores support levels in the 30’s, and opposition levels in the 20’s. So based on public opinion, it seems that PV support is both green and ethical.

Sadly there doesn’t seem to be much discussion on other green and ethical issues on this site, I use another forum for my daily fixes. However, I’m not convinced that solar discussions have any effect on this. I’ve tried to stimulate some interest in general environmental items in the news, but it doesn’t seem to attract much interest. I’m not sure that blaming PV discussions, and PV advice for this is particularly ethical.

Mart.

hollie.weimeraner

So looking at the landing page for Green & Ethical Money saving, topics date back to 14th August. Out of all the topics displayed 1 is about wood burning and 1 is spam. The rest are all Solar PV related.

Perhaps we should rename the forum "Solar PV" and have a sub category for other Green MS issues? :laugh::laugh:

EricMears

This thread is of course simply an information message that the idea has been offered for discussion on another section of the MSE board (incidentally one that's somewhat under-used - probably because it's so difficult to find !).

It seems rather silly that OP didn't give a link to that 'discussion' but I will :-


See: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=69030490#post69030490

theboylard

Has someone got a doppleganger?

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi!

I've posted on your thread on Site Feedback.

I'm glad the board's getting lots of discussion but I'm happy to hear what other Green and Ethical board users have to say

MFW_ASAP

EricMears wrote: »

This thread is of course simply an information message that the idea has been offered for discussion on another section of the MSE board (incidentally one that's somewhat under-used - probably because it's so difficult to find !).

It seems rather silly that OP didn't give a link to that 'discussion' but I will :-


See: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=69030490#post69030490

I created the thread this morning on my iphone while travelling to work on the train. The forum isn't optimised for use on mobiles, so it's difficult to do anything other than type straightforward text. Thanks for adding the link. I posted the following on the feedback thread, but also thought I'd copy it here to further discussion on here... "It seems like a couple of the more vocal regulars on the board are keen on solar staying on the Green and Moneysaving board, but haven't found fault with having solar as a sub-board off the main board. This isn't a new idea, by the way, many boards do this. Most notably was the Debt Free Wannabe board, where the members diaries were swamping the debt advice. MSE crated a diary sub-board just for this. I guess it would be a reasonable compromise, but to be honest, not only is solar unethical (with poor individuals funding wealthy individual's solar investments via the FIT payments) but I'd argue it wasn't moneysaving either because it's not economically viable without subsidies - it would actually be a Money Loser to buy solar panels without the subsidies"

legoman62

theboylard wrote: »

Has someone got a doppleganger?

That was my first thought:eek:

ed110220

Your assertion that feed in tariffs are not ethical rests on the false assumption that burning fossil fuels has no external cost. Burning fossil fuels has a big external cost that is borne by everyone, but especially by the poor in all countries and in particular in poor countries.

As global warming harms crops, food prices rise. That's mainly a problem for the poor. Even in the UK many people have been depending on food banks since the financial crisis. Experts point to soaring food prices in the Middle East as the immediate cause of the protests that started the current wave of turmoil. Food prices shot up after Russia's 2010 wheat crop was damaged by a heatwave and fires and Russia banned wheat exports. The poor are also most vulnerable to weather related disasters and rising sea levels made worse by warming, for example cyclone Yolanda in the Philippines.

In addition, without some kind of subsidy or government intervention it is doubtful whether any new generation capacity will be built, whether that's a power station or domestic installation. The idea that the market alone will get it built is a fantasy. Yet no-one seems to criticise the amount that will be spent subsidising Hinkley Point C when criticising solar Fits.

Ed

MFW_ASAP

There doesn't seem to be much opposition to a Solar sub-board. As far as FIT payments are concerned, I don't have a problem with subsidising renewables that benefit everyone. I'm opposed to subsidizing renewables that benefit just the owner of the renewables via reduced electricity bills. Its especially galling when you see people installing devices to divert unused solar energy into their hot water cylinders despite being paid for it feeding into the national grid. Fits are just a wealth distribution device, distributing from the poor to the wealthy.