Solar Subsidy to be cut by 90% in January

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

An attack by the solar industry is hardly contemporary discredit! To slightly misquote Mandy Rice-Davies 'They would say that wouldn't they'.

Anyway new posters read the article and form your own opinions.

The thrust of the article was true then and is true now; and the hopefully impending demise of solar FIT for new installations should be welcomed.

Hi

Really ? .... no allowance for digression alone places a rather large question-mark above the entire article. Add in anything related to the predicted CO2 savings (7million tonnes by 2020) being well underestimated further questions the validity ... then, for someone so able to predict the future, there's absolutely no mathematical allowance for the huge reduction in the cost of installations ... then there's misunderstanding of (or misleading) terms such as "Insulating commercial buildings costs nothing" ... add to this a misunderstanding of the relative capabilities of energy generation (kWh/kWp) in higher latitudes which although described as 'risible' is unlikely to be more than a 2:1 ratio (Av best global location vs UK Average) is >50% really 'risible'? ... then there's the rant about energy source carbon balancing and German renewables, which with hindsight has proved to be completely wrong ... then there's the comparison to subsidising investment on double glazing - enough said there! ... what about the doom & gloom on fraudulent metering of generation etc, FiT partners seem to have got that one sorted from day1 therefore rendering an entire passage irrelevant ... as for the closing remarks, 'Seldom has there been a bigger public rip-off', well the aggregated expenditure on PFIs dwarfs FiTs and without clear budgetary control various departments and LAs ran amock, there's a number of pretty average schools & hospitals which will end-up costing £1/2billion each, that's a lot of money considering the anticipated lifespan and number of students/patients served - seldom?, probably not then! ...

Placing everything in context, isn't a retrospective view enlightening ...

HTH
Z

KevinG

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Quite the contrary actually, as several PV'ers on MSE (and elsewhere) have reported being asked to supply a photo of their TGM when reporting higher than average quarterly figures.

Yes, I've had to supply photos on more than one occasion from my two FiT-eligible systems, so it seems unlikely this scam would ever have taken off.

Cardew

KevinG wrote: »

Is there any evidence that this ever happened?

Cases in Spain reported.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/17/nobody-expects-the-spanish-solar-inquisition/


However the British are far too honest to stoop to such practice. It might work I suppose if someone with, say, a 2kWp array claimed for, say, FIT for an output typical of 3kWp array from the time the system was installed. Or 'compensated' for shading or a North facing display.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Cases in Spain reported.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/17/nobody-expects-the-spanish-solar-inquisition/

Interesting company you keep?

Watts Up With That?

Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog which promotes climate change skepticism or denial, created in 2006 by Anthony Watts.

Mart.

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

Cases in Spain reported.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/17/nobody-expects-the-spanish-solar-inquisition/


However the British are far too honest to stoop to such practice. It might work I suppose if someone with, say, a 2kWp array claimed for, say, FIT for an output typical of 3kWp array from the time the system was installed. Or 'compensated' for shading or a North facing display.

The examples quoted were of solar panel owners putting extra power through their TGMs by coupling up a diesel generator. That would of course work quite well - though pretty easy to detect when far too much was being claimed compared to officially similar generators nearby.

But the 'scheme' described earlier of coupling the incoming mains to the TGM would require a major investment in additional wiring and again would be easy to spot from the unbelievably high results reported. And of course if the perpetrators settled for 'slightly high' outputs the exercise wouldn't be worth the effort.

ed110220

I thought Cardew's debating style, if it can be called that, was familiar. Now I realise where I've seen it before - the science denial movement, especially the climate denial part. That is a few tropes repeated constantly however many times they have been shown to be wrong, irrelevant or misleading.

Now with the Whatsupwiththat quote we see the link. Someone who uncritically quotes a pseudoscience site like that can't be taken seriously.

Ed

Martyn1981

ed110220 wrote: »

I thought Cardew's debating style, if it can be called that, was familiar. Now I realise where I've seen it before - the science denial movement, especially the climate denial part. That is a few tropes repeated constantly however many times they have been shown to be wrong, irrelevant or misleading.

Now with the Whatsupwiththat quote we see the link. Someone who uncritically quotes a pseudoscience site like that can't be taken seriously.

Ed

Yes, and as you previously noted on the solar in the news thread in early July with another denialist reference.

But I think yesterday's post on the news thread was particularly interesting, quoting a far right conspiracy theory group claiming that solar doesn't work in Australia, despite having posted almost the exact opposite on this thread 4 days earlier

Cardew wrote: »

Do you not appreciate that in the sunshine states of USA that the peak load on the grid is on a summer afternoon. e.g between 2pm-3pm in California and 4pm to 5pm in Texas. Also in case you were not aware they have more sun in these States and India, China Australia etc.

I'm not sure whether this is a disclosure of actual beliefs (having finally come clean on supporting nuclear), or simply comes under the rule:

"Whatever you believe in, you'll find information on the internet to support it."

and driven by desperation, may have simply dug too deep. At the depths now reached I'm concerned that he'll soon be unearthing a Balrog! :shocked:

Mart.

Cardew

Ed and Martyn,


Don't you think your personal attacks are rather childish?


Climate denial, nuclear subsidies etc , all obviously designed to divert attention from the issue; which is that at last the crazy system of FIT subsidies in UK - note United Kingdom! - is at last going to finish.


People reading these threads must think we suffer from OCD!

MFW_ASAP

hollie.weimeraner wrote: »

Well I'm sure MFW_ASAP will be pleased at least

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5311870

I'm absolutely delighted, just a shame the measures have been signposed - cue the massive rush as 'Green and Ethical' types try and push their snouts into the trough before the FITS end.

Hopefully we can then look at installing renewables on an efficient, industrial scale that benefit all consumers rather then the completely inefficient piece-meal domestic instalations we have seen.

It's a shame they won't be able to pull back on fitrs for existing installs, but perhaps the could insist all PV owners install smart meters to make sure that the taxpaers don't get ripped off with 50% PV assumed generation going to the grid actually going to water tanks and electric blow heaters (a shockingly un-green and un-ethical use of excess solar).

Step in the right direction at last.

MFW_ASAP

ed110220 wrote: »

The fixed output of nuclear presents a similar 'problem' to the variability of renewables in that it it produces just as much at 3am when demand is lowest (and electricity least valuable) as when demand is highest (and electricity is most valuable).

I'm not sure why we're talking about nuclear power on a thread about solar PV feed it tariffs, but I do feel I have to correct the inaccuracies above.

Key to the flexible operation of nuclear power plants is the ability to adjust quickly, but evenly; adjusting output power without overly disturbing
the neutron flux distribution within the reactor core.

There are five basic ways to change and control the reactivity of a nuclear reactor:
• Adjust the amount of fissile material in the reactor:
• Adjust the neutron leakage from the reactor:
• Adjust the rate of primary coolant circulation:
• Adjust the amount of neutron absorption within the reactor
• Deliberately insert absorption materials into the reactor core

The fifth method is the usual approach adopted either via the insertion of neutron-absorbing control rods or by the injection of liquid burnable poisons into the coolant/moderator circuit of a water cooled reactor