Should solar discussions be moved to the Energy board?

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I've no intention of claiming the fit. If things go to plan, I'll be installing evacuated tubes for space heating and hot water and 4kw panels split over East/west roofs. All DIY and all paid for by me. I pay my own way in life, thanks.

I chat with a lot of folk on the Navitron forum about renewables. Many of them are off-grid. Over the last 4 years they have started to install PV to supplement their wind generation, batteries and back up generators.

Some of them have also stated that they don't get subsidies for installing PV, but they do graciously conclude that they can only afford to install PV now because the prices have fallen so far, so fast as a result of subsidy support.

30 years ago PV cost about $70/Wp. 10 years ago it cost about $7/Wp, now it costs $0.70/Wp. Without the combined efforts of a multitude of countries subsidising PV, it would not now be at a stage where you could seriously consider installing a large system.

Similarly, it would not now be at a stage that poorer countries, who can't afford subsidies, but could benefit enormously from solar generation, could consider rolling out vast quantities of PV.

So long as you accept that subsidies are currently needed to continue the rollout of UK renewables, then you should accept that the FiT scheme, targeting subsidies towards domestic installs, is the fairest ...... in terms of distribution.

Mart.

EricMears

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I've no intention of claiming the fit. If things go to plan, I'll be installing evacuated tubes for space heating and hot water and 4kw panels split over East/west roofs. All DIY and all paid for by me. I'm also in the process of fitting a rainwater harvesting system and I've already fitted internal wall insulation. None of it was subsidised by anyone else. I pay my own way in life, thanks.

The fact that a DIY SP installation could be a worthwhile investment is entirely due to the 'pump-priming' of the FIT scheme. When I first considered fitting SPs, they would have taken four hundred years to pay for themselves. Without the FIT schemes (ours plus other similar ones around the world) the payback period wouldn't have dropped by very much - perhaps the payback period might have dropped to one hundred years but that still wouldn't justify investing.

BTW, I hope you're a 'qualified electrician'. Unless you are, I'm afraid Part P of the Building Regs would prevent you from self-installing new circuits to your household electrical system.

jimjames

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.

Huge benefit? 30p? That doesn't sound huge to me.

But back to the topic, as per other replies I can't see any reason to move it when there are so few other threads. Maybe other green/ethical ones are on other boards like living below your means or getting out of debt?

edwink

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I'll be installing evacuated tubes for space heating and hot water and 4kw panels split over East/west roofs. All DIY and all paid for by me. I'm also in the process of fitting a rainwater harvesting system and I've already fitted internal wall insulation. None of it was subsidised by anyone else. I pay my own way in life, thanks.

My back boiler stove for hot water and heating was paid for by ME

My south facing solar panels were all paid for by ME

My DIY rainwater harvesting system was paid for by ME

My internal wall installation was paid for by ME

NONE OF THIS WAS SUBSIDISED BY ANYONE ELSE. I PAID MY OWN WAY IN LIFE, THANKS.

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

If things go to plan, I'll be installing evacuated tubes for space heating and hot water and 4kw panels split over East/west roofs. All DIY and all paid for by me. I'm also in the process of fitting a rainwater harvesting system and I've already fitted internal wall insulation.

Just another thought, but don't forget to ask for advice on here.

Zeupater shares knowledge on ST and integrating multiple heat sources into a heat store.

Eric shares knowledge on rainwater harvesting.

Edwink can advise on free wood for a wood burner, so much she has to turn some away now.

Myself, tunnel, Pinnks and others share knowledge on split PV systems, generation patterns and expectations, as I assume you'll want to get the system size just right if you aren't going to apply for FiTs but will be paying a premium price for an in-roof system.

Many others (and some threads) will give advice and performance on diversionary switches to heat water from PV excess, as I assume you'll want to do that since you probably won't be able to find a buyer for your excess generation.

I can direct you to, or introduce you to, or post questions on your behalf on the Navitron forum if you want to consider a battery storage system for excess generation, but these will typically be lead acid options, so you might want to wait approx 5 years to see how the current rollout of newer lithium based storage progresses. You could consider something like the Nedap PowerRouter inverter which is ready to work with batteries, but you can add them later.

I appreciate that we are all PV'ers, but hopefully you can overlook that fact.

Mart.

MFW_ASAP

You're quietly building a little strawman argument there Martyn that somehow I want this board to be deleted (hence your post about who to go for information), you're also trying to suggest that I have something against people who claim FITs.

I assume you do this to discredit me (the usual reason to create a strawman argument to distract instead of just discussing an issue). To set this right, I have already had help on this forum and I'm thankful for it. I think it's a great place to go for renewables advice. I also don't have a problem with people claiming FITs, I just believe that they shouldn't have been created in the first place by government and that the money could have been better spent to promote renewables.Hopefully that addresses your strawman, though I wont be discussing these points anymore because it'll just mean your strawman is working.

What I am arguing for is that a board where a range of renewable energy and zero carbon energy discussions take place is probably better as a sub-board of the Energy forum rather than in a board with an obscure title of Green and Ethical Moneysaving. As someone already said - they looked in the energy board and a few other boards trying to find this important resource.

Much better to put the board where people can find it rather than hide it away under a title that is barely relevant to the subject matter discussed. Existing members will soon adjust to where the board is located (all existing posts will be moved, not deleted) and newbies will be able to easily find it. There is also the potential of new 'foot traffic' from people who were looking to reduce bills by changing tarrifs in the energy board and then realise they can also reduce bills by installing PV/Thermal/wood stoves/etc. Please discuss this rather than trying to distract with strawmen

EricMears

Most new members of this section of the forum get here as a result of an internet search. I expect that's equally true of other MSE pages as - let's face it - the MSE index system isn't wildly intuitive.

Were a particular page to be moved, existing members would have to restructure their shortcuts and for several weeks people searching for help would be sent off down blind alleys to be told 'this page no longer exists'. I really can't see how that would 'help' anybody !

MFW_ASAP

EricMears wrote: »

Most new members of this section of the forum get here as a result of an internet search. I expect that's equally true of other MSE pages as - let's face it - the MSE index system isn't wildly intuitive.

Were a particular page to be moved, existing members would have to restructure their shortcuts and for several weeks people searching for help would be sent off down blind alleys to be told 'this page no longer exists'. I really can't see how that would 'help' anybody !

What shortcuts?

I assume if it's a real issue, then MSE must already have a process for re-indexing things when they move boards - they move and create boards all the time.

If you're talking about internet shortcuts, then I'm sure you can sort them pout quickly (and as an aside, what do you have them for - if it's to general ino that people ask about all the time, then shouldn;t these be put in a single thread and attached as a sticky at the top of the board)?

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

You're quietly building a little strawman argument there Martyn that somehow I want this board to be deleted (hence your post about who to go for information), you're also trying to suggest that I have something against people who claim FITs.

No strawmen, I was simply pointing out that if you, or anyone else wants advice on green issues or renewables, then you'll find a wealth of knowledge and support on the G&E board, especially from PV'ers.

The location of PV discussions is not of great concern to me, though I think it sits well under green and also under ethical. And I wouldn't want it to become 'lost' or risk any confusion.

My objection is to your false argument that it shouldn't sit under ethical because

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Given that feed it tariffs are not ethical

You've since stated that you don't have a problem with subsidies that are paid to supply side generators:

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

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.

As I've previously explained and demonstrated, demand side generation benefits the grid in the same way as supply side generation. Unfortunately some folk over the years have failed to understand this, or have fallen for the maths tricks posted by others.

So you are arguing that energy subsidy payments that go to no households are ok, but energy subsidies paid to 100's of thousands of households are un-ethical.

This is clearly a false argument, I would even go as far as to say it is unethical. Therefore your initial reason and justification for wanting these posts moved is invalid.

Mart.

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I cut out the irrelevent portions of your verbose post.

You are still avoiding the elephant in the room. You clearly and specifically asked for the PV FiT threads to be moved from the green & ethical board, because you claim they are not ethical.

Your claim is based on the out of context argument, put about mainly by anti-renewable or pro-nuclear spin doctors, that a subsidy financed by all, that is only paid to some is unfair. So let’s place it back in context:

1. Do we need to change the way we generate electricity, clean it up, and reduce carbon emissions – Yes?

2. Should all consumers of energy pay for this, either directly through their energy bills or indirectly through general taxation – Yes?

3. Should the subsidies then be paid to the owners of the power stations that generate the clean leccy – Yes?

4. Under the FiTs subsidy (as opposed to the ROC or CfD subsidies) those owners are primarily households – Yes?

5. So why is it ethical and acceptable to you, to pay the subsidies to a small number of large supply side generators, but unethical to pay it to a vast number of demand side generators?

Why are you still avoiding this particular elephant?

Mart.