Solar Subsidy to be cut by 90% in January

zeupater

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

If you supply links to back up an argument, you have to do the work to present the relevent bits (as Cardew did above), not just link to a website and say "Somewhere on this site, is information that backs my argument, go find it" ... .

Hi

Nice try, but the issue is that it's your argument ... you made some statements, I simply provided the roadmap to a solution to the issue you described. In replying, you claimed that ....

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Your calculations don't help determine whether the energy generated was from roof-top solar (which the statement I quoted mentions) or from large scale solar farms.

Which takes me back to the point of my post, which is that without metering, it's not possible to be able to say whether roof-top solar is reducing the wholesale price. Everything else is just supposition and estimation..

... odd really, I didn't provide any calculations, just a solution methodology, but in addressing your obvious concerns around small scale solar I added a link to the authoritative source for the data you obviously crave ... that's a link to a pretty simple spreadsheet (only 335kB ), this one... https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/monthly-mcs-and-roofit-statistics ... to which you claimed ... "We can all provide links to nothing..."

In summary, it's your statement in a reply to 'EricMears' which sums your position ability/willingness to accept alternative viewpoints ...

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

... As it is, the calculations will continue to be based on a notional amount, regardless of how much they actually generate. No wonder they are scrapping the whole thing. Not soon enough IMHO.

... note that the issue you raised is the ability to assess the impact of solar (particularly rooftop solar) on daily grid provision, but when provided with a workable solution simply ignore it and retreat to diversionary tactics ... you can assess the impact on a 'notional amount' based on 50% export if you want, but as we all (hopefully) know, that is a completely flawed approach ... if looking at grid impact the relevance is 'grid impact', which encompasses both pv self-consumption and export, so where's the logic in considering the 'deemed' split at all? ...

HTH
Z

zeupater

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

.... As for the last paragraph.... It is a diversionary tactic - one used by yourself when you tried to make out that I was Cardew, something you guys do a lot to try and discredit anyone who doesn't agree with you. I guess you don;t like the taste of you own medicine?

Hi

Thought I split this bit off and address separately due to it's comparative irrelevance ....

Are you confusing mention of a 'doppleganger' linked to your current profile by another member which Cardew initially took as referencing him(?)self, before realising that reference was to "The_Green_Man" and amending a post accordingly ...

Cardew wrote: »

I had assumed that was aimed at me, but reading later posts could it have been the 'green man'? ...

... that would be a PPRd profile where one of the last posts was ...

The_Green_Man wrote: »

That's not how it works. I could post a link to the encyclopeadia Britanica and say that "somewhere in there it says that the Sky is green and the fields are blue", then demand you read the entire thing to prove that I'm wrong ....

... oddly that post reads so much like a number of recent ones, for example ...

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

If you supply links to back up an argument, you have to do the work to present the relevent bits (as Cardew did above), not just link to a website and say "Somewhere on this site, is information that backs my argument, go find it" ...

... there's also a very close correlation to another profile which has recently been posting elsewhere ... as one profile take a breath for a while, another seamlessly steps-into the debate 'all guns blazing' ... yet again! ... aren't coincidences funny things ... :shhh:

Z