Should solar users in receipt of FIT be encouraged onto Green Tarrifs?

EricMears

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Not much good to the planet if the journey takes a thousand years.

The planet has - quite literally - got all the time in the world.

In its history, Earth has been much hotter than it is now and also much colder; there is absolutely no threat to the planet if it reverted to either extreme - it will just carry on spinning for the next few billion years. It might however be an inconvenience to our species (and many others) if it moved out of the current temperature range.

MFW_ASAP

EricMears wrote: »

The planet has - quite literally - got all the time in the world.

In its history, Earth has been much hotter than it is now and also much colder; there is absolutely no threat to the planet if it reverted to either extreme - it will just carry on spinning for the next few billion years. It might however be an inconvenience to our species (and many others) if it moved out of the current temperature range.

Wow, I didn't realise this!
Have you informed the newspapers?

EricMears

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Wow, I didn't realise this!
Have you informed the newspapers?

You and millions of others ! And of course I haven't informed "the papers" - anyone with an ounce of scientific knowledge (i.e. prob not journalists) should be able to work that out for themselves.

tunnel

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

we don't have time to waste putting a few solar panels on a few roofs, we have a planet to save.

You just don't get it do you?
At least with solar panels on my roof/rooves I'm not burning as much gas or using as much hydrocarbon based generated electric, thus helping save the planet that you keep bleating on about.

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I just don't think that small scale implementation of renewables is the best use of public funds. They're inefficient and benefit a very small number of people, mostly the people who install the renewables yet are paid for by everyone.

Much better for large scale projects that produce large scale energy that benefits a large number of people. We're a nation of 64 million people, we don't have time to waste putting a few solar panels on a few roofs, we have a planet to save.

But on the other threads I responded to you on, you were suggesting off-shore wind, tidal and wave, all of which are more expensive than PV, and more expensive than domestic PV if the FiT was revised down to a more sensible level of 7p to 9p. So your alternatives do not appear to be a better use of public funds. Once, of course, you make yourself aware of the actual costs, rather than jumping to conclusions.

Regarding who benefits, you have fallen into the same trap/misunderstanding that many others have. All domestic PV generation is 'felt' by the grid, either as export or offset*, so it benefits the grid in exactly the same way as large scale supply side generation.

Currently PV FiT and export is ~ 15p/kWh, whilst off-shore wind is about £150/MWh. Both are coming down.

So in both cases £150 of consumer monies, will result in 1MWh of generation, and the grid reducing its demand on FF generators by 1MWh. So you are wholly wrong to differentiate on the basis of who benefits.

The main difference is that subsidies to off-shore wind go to huge energy companies, whereas the FiT goes back to UK consumers (and your neighbours), a far fairer and more ethical distribution of funds.

Once looked at rationally, it's very hard to understand why anyone would support subsidies/funding for supply side generation, but be against funding for demand side generation?

*Diversionary switches will offset their leccy consumption in another form (gas, oil, lpg (possibly leccy) etc). However, even if valued at zero, it is probably on a similar scale to the distribution losses from central generation/transmission.

Mart.

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Wow, I didn't realise this!
Have you informed the newspapers?

Whilst I take AGW very seriously, Eric is completely correct. The planet can cope with these relatively small changes, it's the life that lives on it (such as us) that need far longer to adapt, change and evolve.

So it's not the planet we are trying to save, it's the current lifeforms, and our own backsides, that need saving.

If you've been following the news from Paris, you'll be aware that the 'safety limit' of a 2C rise has now been revised down to 1.5C. So we all need to act, and that includes taking personal responsibility, through reducing waste, employing more efficient devices, and where suitable generating our own clean leccy.

Mart.

MFW_ASAP

tunnel wrote: »

You just don't get it do you?
At least with solar panels on my roof/rooves I'm not burning as much gas or using as much hydrocarbon based generated electric, thus helping save the planet that you keep bleating on about.

No you don't get it. You can either spend green taxes on helping a few individuals reduce their own energy bills by putting solar panels on roofs that are usually angled incorrectly/inefficiently for optimum solar gain, where each small install has it's own wasteful infrastructure (iverters, etc.) or you can spend those same green taxes on a national solution that helps thousands of people to enjoy clean energy and a better environment in which to live.

MFW_ASAP

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But on the other threads I responded to you on, you were suggesting off-shore wind, tidal and wave, all of which are more expensive than PV, and more expensive than domestic PV if the FiT was revised down to a more sensible level of 7p to 9p. So your alternatives do not appear to be a better use of public funds. Once, of course, you make yourself aware of the actual costs, rather than jumping to conclusions.

Mart.

And as I have responded to you (and been ignored by you) each time, I could attach a dynamo to my bike to generate electricity to power lights. It will cost much less than off shore wind, tidal and wave. As with solar, it's totally unsuited for a country that uses more energy in the long, dark winter months.

I totally understand why your whole argument is around the cost price of solar because if you compare it against other renewables using any other metrics it fails completely.

EricMears

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

And as I have responded to you (and been ignored by you) each time, I could attach a dynamo to my bike to generate electricity to power lights. It will cost much less than off shore wind, tidal and wave. As with solar, it's totally unsuited for a country that uses more energy in the long, dark winter months

Then why ever don't you ?

The power output from one bicycle powered dynamo will be small - but certainly not negligible. If you switch the most-used lights in your house to LEDs, the bike-dynamo will comfortably cover your house's base load thus doing your bit to reduce the load on the National Grid. :T

Send us a few pictures when you've done it because I'm sure some nasty minded members of this forum will claim the scheme was just empty talk.

MFW_ASAP

EricMears wrote: »

Then why ever don't you ?

The power output from one bicycle powered dynamo will be small - but certainly not negligible. If you switch the most-used lights in your house to LEDs, the bike-dynamo will comfortably cover your house's base load thus doing your bit to reduce the load on the National Grid. :T

Send us a few pictures when you've done it because I'm sure some nasty minded members of this forum will claim the scheme was just empty talk.

As predicted, my point was ignored by you (again).

I look forward to the next Ground Hog day when you tell everyone that solar costs pennies next to offshore wind farms, I point out that it doesn't work at night and in winter (when we need energy the most), you deflect with some irrelevant remark to avoid the difficult truth and we do the dance all over again.

:rotfl: