Should solar discussions be moved to the Energy board?

EricMears

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

. . . . . . it would actually be a Money Loser to buy solar panels without the subsidies"

That was certainly true 4 years ago when I bought mine - but try and remember that I invested in this government backed scheme in response to a generous offer that still cost the government less than it would have paid to large companies via a PFI scheme.

Actually, I still think that the 'right' thing to do would have been to spend taxpayers' money on installing a lot of solar panel schemes.

But, 'their way' or 'mine' and UK schemes or other countries' , the result has been the same : increased demand for solar panels has brought installation costs down almost to a level where they would be viable without subsidy and in a few years time I'll be able to rewrite this sentence without the "almost".

I first looked into solar panels when building our house 15 years ago but dismissed the idea when I found out that it would take 400 (yes, four hundred !) years to recover the cost of the panels. I'm not sure what today's figure is but imagine it's a lot less than that.

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Haha, I love how you ignored the huge benefit to the householder of his reduced 2kw. No, let's talk about the benefit to the 'grid', far more palatable.

I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely, again. And it's a very important point. You stated:

As far as FIT payments are concerned, I don't have a problem with subsidising renewables that benefit everyone.

So I pointed out that all* demand side PV is felt by the grid, either as export or offset. So the grid gets the same benefit from demand side, as supply side generation.

If you are still confused, then consider this:

1. Panels in a field that supply the grid, with some of that grid supply then going to a house.

2. Panels in a field that supply a house directly, and send the remaining leccy to the grid.

3. Panels on the house roof, supplying the house, with the excess sent to the grid.

In all 3 examples it's the same panels, same grid, same house and same demand. So mathematically the effect of the PV generation on the "grid" is the same. yes the household saves money on their bill, but why should that concern you? What's important is that the subsidy is falling fast and will hopefully be lower than off-shore wind and nuclear soon.

* I accept that diversionary switches are a different animal, and that the offset is of a lower value.

The problem now is that you've shot yourself in the second foot too.

1st foot - you said that it is unethical for subsidies going to some households, but you are happy for subsidies (supply side) to go to no households.

2nd foot - you are happy for subsidies if all benefit from the leccy. But you've made the same glaring mathematical error that others before you have (and more will in the future I suspect) that own consumption (offset) doesn't benefit the grid too, in equal measure to export.

So your two un-ethical arguments have now collapsed. Problem solved!

Mart.

MFW_ASAP

Martyn1981 wrote: »

yes the household saves money on their bill, but why should that concern you?

It concerns me because the majority have increased energy bills so that the minority have reduced energy bills. You can wrap it up as much as you like in how you're helping the grid and supplying clean energy but only a tiny fraction of you would have solar if you didn't get FIT payments (. That tiny fraction are the green and ethical people this board is for, not the investors who have solar because it gives better returns than a bank account. Thanks for helping me make my point about the continued relevance of solar on this board.

EricMears

IF we were starting from scratch and setting up a new MSE forum page to discuss solar panels then it would indeed make a lot of sense to hang it off the 'energy' section. But we're not - the thread has been here for several years and is well supported; moving it somewhere else would just cut down on the numbers of people using it and leaving only the non-SP postings in the rump of the thread would result in a forum board where hardly anyone posts, even fewer read and eventually be closed down. I can't imagine anybody supporting that !

Perhaps I should also add that reading every thread in its entirety is not a condition of MSE membership. Anyone who finds the daily reports from self-generators boring has a simple remedy : don't read that page.

MFW_ASAP

This board was here before you solar boys rocked up and will be here once you all vanish (when the Fits payments end). Without solar it will allow other green issues to be discussed. At present they just get wiped off the front page with all the solar discussion, never to be seen again....

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

It concerns me because the majority have increased energy bills so that the minority have reduced energy bills.

You're still missing the point, or avoiding it.

You are happy for all to have increased energy bills to pay for subsidies that go to no households. You only object, on ethical grounds, to subsidies that do go to households?

You've tried to justify it by suggesting that supply side generation is different to demand side generation, but it isn't, you got your maths wrong. So your unethical argument has collapsed.

Mart.

EricMears

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

This board was here before you solar boys rocked up and will be here once you all vanish (when the Fits payments end). Without solar it will allow other green issues to be discussed. At present they just get wiped off the front page with all the solar discussion, never to be seen again....

That's sheer fantasy ! How many non-solar topics have you launched on this board and how many replies did you get ?

The truth is that 'money savers' and 'Green & Ethical' folk tend to form mutually exclusive groups. Strip out the solar postings and you can see that this board averages rather less than one new topic a month.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

That's sheer fantasy ! How many non-solar topics have you launched on this board and how many replies did you get ?

The truth is that 'money savers' and 'Green & Ethical' folk tend to form mutually exclusive groups. Strip out the solar postings and you can see that this board averages rather less than one new topic a month.

Also, if you look at other boards, you'll see their thread turnover is incredibly rapid. Some boards get more than a page worth of new threads each day, whereas the G&E board is rather slow and quiet. So the argument that people won't post new threads is sounding more and more odd!

Mart.

theboylard

To reduce the admin on the staff, why not move the very few green&ethical non pv threads to their own sub board, that way MFW and co can have their pv free board as they wish?

edwink

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

and the usual posters drone on about how many kwh they produced that day and how much money they saved on electricity and how much unused solar they diverted into their water tanks.

I am one of the usual posters and I POST not drone on about how many kWh my panels produce on any given day and how much money I have saved on electricity and how much solar energy is diverted to my water tank.


I use 2 of my generated kWh's in my house during the day and 2 kWh are diverted to my water tank.

BUT my panels produce 12 kWh (sometimes up to 15 kWh) on average throughout the summer. SO 12 kWh - 2 used - 2 diverted LEAVES 8 to export. ENOUGH SAID!!!!!!!!!!

Happy where the thread is thank you!!!!!