Solar at Gloucester Cathederal

Martyn1981

lstar337 wrote: »

Didn't even know FIT was available for systems that large. I thought it was for small domestic systems only. Never bothered to look into it as the landlord collects the FIT for our panels.

Hiya, I'm full of useless information.

Yep, the FiT was targeted at demand side, whilst the ROC (renewable obligation certificate) was targeted at the supply side. Supply side now get CfD's (contracts for difference), but our wise government has decided to exclude PV (and possibly on-shore wind) from future auctions.

There is (or was) some crossover between FiTs and ROCs as investors sought to find the best deal. We are also now seeing demand side PPA's (power purchase agreements) where a company installs the PV, claims the FiT, then sells the leccy to the business at a rate below retail, but above wholesale. A form of rent a roof.

An old 'spin' argument against FiTs was that it's paid by all households, but only goes to some. When in reality, all energy is subsidised, but FiTs is the only one that goes back to the demand side, giving PV'ers (like us) the nickname prosumers (producers/consumers) - making FiTs, theoretically, the only 'moral' subsidy.

Here are the FiT rates and bands under the new (2017) scheme.

For a laugh, compare the current 20yr subsidy, to what the government expected the 25yr deal to be in 2016/17.

4.18p/kWh v's 34.4p/kWh (27.5p x (25/20))

Whilst I think 6p/kWh is needed, I think we can agree it's all gone rather well. :T

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya, I'm full of useless information.

An old 'spin' argument against FiTs was that it's paid by all households, but only goes to some. When in reality, all energy is subsidised, but FiTs is the only one that goes back to the demand side, giving PV'ers (like us) the nickname prosumers (producers/consumers) - making FiTs, theoretically, the only 'moral' subsidy.

You second paragraph proves your first paragraph is true.

With your obsession with solar, you come out with a lot of nonsense, but that statement takes the prize.

As the great George Monboit wrote about FIT:

Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives and no one notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes.

To be in receipt of FIT you have to own your house(with a few exceptions) and thus receive generous subsidies.

Those who rent, live in flats have to pay a for this subsidy. Thus OAPs living in an all electric council flat, pay a subsidy that home owners enjoy.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

As the great George Monboit wrote about FIT:

The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes.

Your favourite quote, that you've posted 100+ times(?). But was it ever true, or was it a lie?

Do you still believe that the whole FiT budget was to be paid only by the domestic sector, and only by a part of that sector?

Posting a statement that you know to be false, years after you've been informed is rather naughty isn't it?

Cardew wrote: »

Those who rent, live in flats have to pay a for this subsidy. Thus OAPs living in an all electric council flat, pay a subsidy that home owners enjoy.

So, your complaint is that not every single household will receive fiTs, as not every single household will invest in RE generation.

That takes me back neatly to my question, which you still haven't answered.

Why is it OK for you to receive child benefit subsidy (current equivalent ~£1,500pa for 2 children for 18 years) for investing in the future of the UK, when not all households will have children?

Your issue smacks of total hypocrisy, as you support the nuclear industry. It's been subsidised by taxpayers for 60yrs, and the new nuclear contracts will be subsidised by householders, via exactly the same mechanism as FiTs (a levy on bills) for 35yrs. Yet, and here's the big one - not a single household in the UK will install a nuclear powerstation and receive the nuclear CfD. Including OAP's in all electric flats, though there is a chance that they'll get a free PV system to help reduce their bills.

So you support a household bill levy that goes to no households, but spend 6+ years campaigning against one that does go to households, on the basis that it's unfair or because you fell for the nonsense that Monbiot said.

Your whole argument collapses under the hypocrisy test, displaying an irrational and biased position, probably born out of an ideological opposition.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

With your obsession with solar,

Would you mind saying my 'obsession' with renewable energy generation.

It only appears (to you) that I'm obsessed with PV as I've been more than happy to shoot down all your silly arguments, during your long-standing campaign against PV.

If you want to start a campaign against wind energy* - perhaps on the basis that not all (hardly any) households receive the subsidies, and that it doesn't generate when the winds not blowing - I'll be more than happy to show that your arguments fail on a comparison basis to nuclear ....... too.

* Slightly tricky I admit, since Monbiot likes wind, but perhaps you could take the approach that it's now equal too, or more expensive than PV.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Your issue smacks of total hypocrisy, as you support the nuclear industry. It's been subsidised by taxpayers for 60yrs, and the new nuclear contracts will be subsidised by householders, via exactly the same mechanism as FiTs (a levy on bills) for 35yrs. Yet, and here's the big one - not a single household in the UK will install a nuclear powerstation and receive the nuclear CfD. Including OAP's in all electric flats, though there is a chance that they'll get a free PV system to help reduce their bills.

Do you not realize that you are making my point perfectly. No house owner gets a big fat subsidy from Nuclear power.

You have championed sub 4kWp solar panels on houses, even though those systems need contribute nothing to the Grid.

Yet solar farms with a much lower FIT, and at least contributing to the grid(albeit intermittently!), were always condemned by you as not as efficient as sub 4kWp systems. i.e. the quote below.

PV does not benefit from economies of scale in efficiency. Bigger is not better.

This doesn't stop you posting every bit of publicity on solar farms put out by the solar industry.

To get back on subject, I wonder if the cathederal does collect FIT? The press release appears to have been produced by the solar industry, yet doesn't mention FIT.

silverwhistle

Cardew wrote: »

No house owner gets a big fat subsidy from Nuclear power.

No, I believe you'll find the subsidy goes the other way, from all householders to nuclear.

By the time (if?) Hinckley gets built it'll be one if not the most expensive form of energy. If the cost is loaded onto the unit charge your favourite object of patronisation - 'the poor' and 'OAPs' will suffer far more than ever they paid for other peoples' FITs. I look forward to your campaign for an uprating in benefits to take account of these costs.

In the meantime they'll be those of us taking advantage of technological advances and cost reductions in storage and panels to even further reduce our demand on the grid. I hope to get my import to under 1000kWh a year, so not too far to go.

Cardew

silverwhistle wrote: »

No, I believe you'll find the subsidy goes the other way, from all householders to nuclear.

You are correct! Who said differently?


What is the relevance of that statement to the fact that home owners in receipt of FIT are getting a large subsidy from people, who for many reasons,(flats, rented accommodation etc) cannot receive that subsidy? As Monboit said 'shifting £x billion from the poor to the middle class'

I really wonder why you are all so defensive on this forum. Nobody is blaming you for taking advantage of a money making scheme. However it is surely in order for someone to criticise that scheme.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Do you not realize that you are making my point perfectly. No house owner gets a big fat subsidy from Nuclear power.

Please don't try to spin your way out of this, it's a really simple question, based directly on your argument.

You don't like the FiT because it's paid by all households but only goes to some. Now, putting aside the fact that surely virtually all subsidies are paid to a minority, I have asked you to explain/justify your position since:-

1. You yourself have received at least one subsidy for investing in the future of the UK, paid by all households, but only received by some.
2. You support nuclear whose subsidies are paid by all households, but received by no households.

If some is wrong, why is none ok?

Cardew wrote: »

You have championed sub 4kWp solar panels on houses, even though those systems need contribute nothing to the Grid.

Not this old chestnut. I thought you'd dropped this entirely false argument. Following a year or so of arguing and waffling on about about potato farms, you claimed your argument was simply a theory.

So to rehash a pointless argument, as you already know you are wrong. If a PV'er consumes the generation, their generation is felt by the grid as reduced demand, or 'offset'.

If I generate 4MWh, and consume 1.5MWh, the grid receives 2.5MWh as export which it uses to reduce demand on gas generation by 2.5MWh, and it 'feels' the 1.5MWh of home consumption as reduced demand, allowing it to reduce demand on gas generation by 1.5MWh. So there is no difference, your argument is false. I only point this out in case any new readers are not aware of it, nor your attempts to falsely slip it in on regular basis.

Cardew wrote: »

Yet solar farms with a much lower FIT, and at least contributing to the grid(albeit intermittently!), were always condemned by you as not as efficient as sub 4kWp systems. i.e. the quote below.

PV does not benefit from economies of scale in efficiency. Bigger is not better.

PV doesn't benefit from economies of scale. Wind benefits massively, but PV doesn't.

Quick lesson, do you know the difference between economies of scale and economies of volume?

A domestic PV system uses the same technology and in many cases the same panels as a PV farm.

The current support for domestic PV is £66/MWh, whilst the PV farms coming on line this year and next will be receiving a CfD of £83/MWh.

I never condemned PV farms (another false claim by you). I have nothing against PV farms, I simply believe that demand side PV is more economically viable, and, that as the other forms of RE aren't suited to demand side generation, that capacity should be reserved for PV. I'm punishing PV farms for the failings of other forms of generation, including nuclear, but that's my position. Unfortunately, you've been trolling me for so many years with false claims, that I doubt you even realise you are doing it.

Perhaps I should ask you this question, repeated from years ago. Do you think I'm wrong in claiming demand side PV is more economically viable, and if so, could you please post some numbers to show me? As far as I'm aware, despite the years of trolling, you've never once provided an argument to show I'm wrong.

Cardew wrote: »

This doesn't stop you posting every bit of publicity on solar farms put out by the solar industry.

I'd rather see demand side PV, but as I've told you many times, whilst demand side may be better, PV farms are still great. The more PV the better, right?

If I'm anti-PV-farms, then I don't understand why you complain about me posting information about them. You seem to have gotten yourself a bit confused.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

You are correct! Who said differently?

So why do support nuclear, but condemn PV FiTs?

In the past, others have rationalized your obsession on the grounds that you are jealous that others are receiving a subsidy.

Perhaps the far greater nuclear subsidies are ok in your book, because no householdders will get them - along the lines of - "If I can't get it, then nobody should get it"?

As I've said, and asked, your position is hypocritical, thus your argument falls apart.

BTW I see you've removed the amount of money from your Monbiot quote, yet you still haven't answered my question:

Do you still believe that the whole FiT budget was to be paid only by the domestic sector, and only by a part of that sector?

Cardew

Martyn, I can't be bothered to read your filibuster!