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

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Do you not appreciate that Nuclear generates 24/7 for 365 days a year and forms part of the UK's generating capacity to meet the maximum load on the Grid?

Of course I appreciate that, unlike you I'm able to look at the big picture.

Mart.

ed110220

MFW_ASAP strikes me as what is described on the Internet as a "concern troll".

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Here's an even cheaper solution on a larger scale, costing around £10/MWh across it's lifetime, so an extra £5/MWh on all intermittent generation.
Plans sent for Welsh storage giant

Which of course is broadly similar to a nearby plant that's been working well for 40 years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Of course I appreciate that, unlike you I'm able to look at the big picture.

Mart.

You? Big picture?


Your obsession with the virtues of solar verges on ???

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

You? Big picture?


Your obsession with the virtues of solar verges on ???

It's such a shame that you feel that way, and your continued failure to see the big picture.

If you actually read all of my views, you'd see I'm interested in all forms of renewable generation. I've even posted that nuclear may be unavoidable, since it reduces the need for coal generation and is low CO2, though, ideally, I'd rather it wasn't expanded, if possible.

I suspect your misunderstanding that I only favour solar is based on the many years and many posts I've spent pointing out the false information you have tried to spread about PV. I suspect your position started having fallen for Mr Monbiot's naughty nonsense article, and remains simply for face saving reasons.

But, if you think about it, all that has now come to an end. PV is now a successful technology, spreading rapidly across the planet, and it is cost effective compared to both other renewables and FF generation.

And most importantly, your pretense that the subsidy system is unfair, since all consumers pay, but only some consumers receive - has now been blown out of the water by you finally admitting your support for nuclear, where all pay, but none receive. That's the problem with hypocrisy, it always outs eventually.

Mart.

silverwhistle

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Usual 'bully boy' tactic on this board. Play the man and not the topic. For the record, I voted Green and I'm a life member of that party (having the paid the £400+ to do so).

In that case I apologise for casting aspersions on your voting record.

That still leaves the question as to why this is the only policy where I have noticed your criticisms of government policy as they relate to concern for the poor, and why you never acknowledge some of the advantages of solar as recently pointed out to Cardew.

I've seen so many people criticising individual renewable energy technologies one by one that I apologise for assuming you were one of them from the impression you give here.

MFW_ASAP

silverwhistle wrote: »

In that case I apologise for casting aspersions on your voting record.

Thankyou.

silverwhistle wrote: »

That still leaves the question as to why this is the only policy where I have noticed your criticisms of government policy as they relate to concern for the poor, and why you never acknowledge some of the advantages of solar as recently pointed out to Cardew.

I've seen so many people criticising individual renewable energy technologies one by one that I apologise for assuming you were one of them from the impression you give here.

I've been pretty consistent in my viewpoint. I think that for a nation of 60 million people, we need a national solution to our national power needs. I have no problem with people installing solar on their houses to reduce their own electricity bills and, more importantly, their carbon footprint. I just don't think they should be subsidized by the taxpayer.

I think solar definitely has its place in the mix of UK renewables, but I think the energy is much more efficiently produced in large scale, such as solar farms (but only on land that cannot be used to grow crops) and on commercial and factory roof and fascades where the angle of the panels is optimum (often commercial properties have flat roofs, so the panels can be angled optimally for summer and winter sun.

Green taxes should provide the biggest bang for the buck, and impact the largest number of people as possible.

Cardew

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Thankyou.

I have no problem with people installing solar on their houses to reduce their own electricity bills and, more importantly, their carbon footprint. I just don't think they should be subsidized by the taxpayer.

I think solar definitely has its place in the mix of UK renewables, but I think the energy is much more efficiently produced in large scale, such as solar farms (but only on land that cannot be used to grow crops) and on commercial and factory roof and fascades where the angle of the panels is optimum (often commercial properties have flat roofs, so the panels can be angled optimally for summer and winter sun.

.

However they are not subsidized by the taxpayer! They are subsidized by a levy on consumer's electricity bills.


Thus, say, pensioners with a low income in an all electric council property, will find themselves paying considerably more towards the subsidy than a high income house owner in a property with gas/oil central heating.


That said, even if it were subsidised from direct taxation, it wouldn't remove my fundamental objection to the stupidly high subsidy paid for tiny sub4kWp systems.


Agree whole-heartedly that if we have to have a mix of solar to meet our 'green obligations' then solar farms on 'brown-field' sites and factory roofs are the best option.


I have argued that point since this debate on MSE began, only to be opposed by MSE's very own publicist for the solar industry(guess who?) who argued strongly against solar farms and in favour of sub-4kWp systems.(demand-side trumps everything especially with a 50p/kWh subsidy!) Albeit lately he is not adverse to cut and pasting details of solar farms in UK, as well as the usual contributions from India, China, Africa, USA etc!

Cardew

silverwhistle wrote: »

In that case I apologise for casting aspersions on your voting record.

That still leaves the question as to why this is the only policy where I have noticed your criticisms of government policy as they relate to concern for the poor, and why you never acknowledge some of the advantages of solar as recently pointed out to Cardew.

I've seen so many people criticising individual renewable energy technologies one by one that I apologise for assuming you were one of them from the impression you give here.

"Christ", as was once said at The Glasgow Empire, "There's two of them!".

Both worried about the less well-off and accusing others of hypocrisy.
I rather suspect they both voted for a party who are doing far more to make the less well-off suffer.

If your 'aspersion' was that we both vote Conservative then you have done as well as a famous Norwegian singer on a Eurovision song contest; I have never vote Conservative in my life.

Sterlingtimes

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I think solar definitely has its place in the mix of UK renewables, but I think the energy is much more efficiently produced in large scale, such as solar farms (but only on land that cannot be used to grow crops) and on commercial and ...

EU Policy pays farmers to set aside land upon which crops are not to be grown and then flys aircraft over the land to ensure that the land is not being used for growing crops. Given that there is apparently too much land in the UK, why would you not turn it over to a productive use such as solar?

I would favour encouraging farmers to use their land for productive purposes rather than paying farmers for doing nothing.