Solar at Gloucester Cathederal

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

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

More obfuscation. But given your vast number of posts on the subject of PV (5,000+?) could you please answer the questions:-

1. Why do you condemn the FiT subsidy for being paid to a minority (like all subsidies?) but support the nuclear subsidy which is paid to no households.

2. Why do you call the FiT immoral, but are happy to receive a similar subsidy yourself (investing in the future of the UK by having children)?

3. Do you believe Monbiot's claim that all the FiT would be paid only by the domestic sector, and then, only by the poor part?

4. As you have started to bring up the issue of self-consumption again, something you've been complaining about for 6 years - are you once again claiming that the grid doesn't benefit from (feel) the reduced demand that offset cause?

5. Why do you 'condemn' my position that demand side PV is more economically viable than supply side PV, but have, despite numerous requests, never, not even once, posted numbers to disprove my argument.

In short, why do you keep making ugly claims and posting divisive statements, yet refuse to support those claims with any rational response/argument?

Cardew

Martyn
May I refer you to post#21

This is a thread about Gloucester Cathedral, and was until you started your silliness again in post#12.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Martyn
May I refer you to post#21

This is a thread about Gloucester Cathedral, and was until you started your silliness again in post#12.

Won't answer, or can't answer?

Surely this thread was started by you to have a knock at PV and the PV news. The Gloucester Cathedral part is almost irrelevant?

BTW, I seem to recall you and Graham posting on every single PV thread where someone asked for help and advice, that the scheme was immoral, when asked why you kept doing it, you claimed new folk needed to know. Well, don't 'new folk' need to know how you justify/validate your arguments, after all, you've making the grand statements for 6 years, you must have come up with an answer by now ...... surely!

silverwhistle

Cardew wrote: »

You are correct! Who said differently?

So we've established you don't mind subsidies, but only those you approve of; those which transfer the money from everybody, including the poor, to large, mainly foreign companies.

We've established you like nuclear which will be extremely expensive and will have a large impact on the poor which may be more than they ever contributed towards FITs. You talk about 'large subsidy' over and over again, when the actual amount is quite small - I believe DECC mentions £6 p.a., so less than can be saved by moving supplier.

I really wonder why you are all so defensive on this forum.

I don't feel defensive at all, but if I've ever repeated myself on here it's normally because you've been on again with one of your disingenuous, inaccurate and misleading posts. You just ignore questions, repeat the same misleading misinformation ad-infinitum and I wish I had some other explanation for your behaviour other than obtuseness or mischievous intentions.

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

I believe DECC mentions £6 p.a., so less than can be saved by moving supplier.

Hiya. I've seen a few different estimates, but they tend to be around £10pa per household. That's for all FiTs, but of course the majority will be for PV.

The subsidy for HPC (Hinkley Point C), not nuclear, just HPC, would today be around £20pa per household based on:

£102/MWh CfD - £40/MWh price leccy is sold at = £62/MWh

£62/MWh x 3,200MW plant x 92% capacity factor x 24hrs x 365days = £1.6bn

£1.6bn x 30% (percentage of leccy to domestic) / ~24m households = £20

Importantly, this is not nuclear's first visit to the buffet table, as it's already been subsidised for 60 yrs. Best guess is 5p/kWh + decommissioning costs.

I doubt this calculation is thorough enough, but perhaps an average of 5GW for 60 yrs @ £50k/GWh = £131bn

Decommissioning is also tricky, but the current departmental budget is about £2.5bn pa for approx 100 years = £250bn

For new nuclear, the decommissioning is included in the CfD strike price. The companies have to deposit adequate funds into a 'savings' account, such that it will grow to cover decommissioning costs. Hopefully the funds will grow enough, the costs won't be too high, a method of storage will be found, and the companies won't default/go bust.

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

For new nuclear, the decommissioning is included in the CfD strike price. The companies have to deposit adequate funds into a 'savings' account, such that it will grow to cover decommissioning costs. Hopefully the funds will grow enough, the costs won't be too high, a method of storage will be found, and the companies won't default/go bust.

Addendum. There has been a lot of debate this last year or so regarding the cost of storing nuclear waste (not the decommissioning costs), as storage could be highly expensive.

It now appears that the government has 'made a deal' with France and China to protect them from paying too much. Something the UK government really didn't want to tell us. So the cost of HPC could be even more. It also turns out that if the cost of decommissioning is too high (NO!) then we'll step in for those costs too.

Secret government papers show taxpayers will pick up costs of Hinkley nuclear waste storage

Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing radioactive waste produced by Britain’s newest nuclear power station soar, according to confidential documents which the government has battled to keep secret for more than a year.

The papers confirm the steps the government took to reassure French energy firm EDF and Chinese investors behind the £24bn Hinkley Point C plant that the amount they would have to pay for the storage would be capped.

The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy – in its previous incarnation as the Department for Energy and Climate Change – resisted repeated requests under the Freedom of Information Act for the release of the documents which were submitted to the European commission.

“The government has attempted to keep the costs to the taxpayer of Hinkley under wraps from the start,” said Dr Doug Parr, Greenpeace chief scientist. “It’s hardly surprising as it doesn’t look good for the government’s claim that they are trying to keep costs down for hardworking families.”

But, earlier this month, on the very last day before government officials had to submit their defence against an appeal for disclosure of the information, the department released a “Nuclear Waste Transfer Pricing Methodology Notification Paper”. Marked “commercial in confidence”, it states that “unlimited exposure to risks relating to the costs of disposing of their waste in a GDF [geological disposal facility], could not be accepted by the operator as they would prevent the operator from securing the finance necessary to undertake the project”.

Instead the document explains that there will be a “cap on the liability of the operator of the nuclear power station which would apply in a worst-case scenario”. It adds: “The UK government accepts that, in setting a cap, the residual risk, of the very worst-case scenarios where actual cost might exceed the cap, is being borne by the government.”

Separate documents confirm that the cap also applies should the cost of decommissioning the reactor at the end of its life balloon.

Cardew

silverwhistle wrote: »

So we've established you don't mind subsidies, but only those you approve of; those which transfer the money from everybody, including the poor, to large, mainly foreign companies.

We've established you like nuclear which will be extremely expensive and will have a large impact on the poor which may be more than they ever contributed towards FITs. You talk about 'large subsidy' over and over again, when the actual amount is quite small - I believe DECC mentions £6 p.a., so less than can be saved by moving supplier.



I don't feel defensive at all, but if I've ever repeated myself on here it's normally because you've been on again with one of your disingenuous, inaccurate and misleading posts. You just ignore questions, repeat the same misleading misinformation ad-infinitum and I wish I had some other explanation for your behaviour other than obtuseness or mischievous intentions.

You haven't established I don't mind subsidies; I would prefer there were none.

However with Nuclear at least it generates 24/7 in all weathers.

The 'huge subsidy' is that paid to early adopters of PV with sub 4kWp systems. Being paid around 50p/kWh for every kWh generated is indefensible IMO - especially when you don't need to export anything.

For misleading and disingenuous posts look no further than the nonsense spouted by the Guru in post #12 - this in a thread about Gloucester Cathedral.

As for not answering questions, why should I get involved with my attitude toward child allowance, or defend the Nuclear industry, coal in china/India and all the other diversions posted in this section.

My primary objection was, and is, the payment of FIT to sub 4kWp systems on the roof of home owners, when the majority who pay for that subsidy do not have the opportunity to cash in on the system.

This section of the forum just exists for glorification of all things solar and any justified criticism brings the Guru to a state of apoplexy.

tunnel

Cardew wrote: »

My primary objection was, and is, the payment of FIT to sub 4kWp systems on the roof of home owners, when the majority who pay for that subsidy do not have the opportunity to cash in on the system.

Why does it pain you so much? We all pay the subsidies whether it be solar, wind, nuclear.....
At least with solar the man in the street can have a piece of the pie, with all the others NOBODY apart from big corporations get a look in

Cardew wrote: »

This section of the forum just exists for glorification of all things solar

You don't have to visit you know

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

My primary objection was, and is, the payment of FIT to sub 4kWp systems on the roof of home owners, when the majority who pay for that subsidy do not have the opportunity to cash in on the system.

But clearly that's a fake argument, since you support nuclear where none of the subsidies go to home owners.

So, any chance you can now answer, truthfully, the questions I asked. After all, they all relate directly to statements you've made many, many times in the past, and on this thread.

1. Why do you condemn the FiT subsidy for being paid to a minority (like all subsidies?) but support the nuclear subsidy which is paid to no households.

2. Why do you call the FiT immoral, but are happy to receive a similar subsidy yourself (investing in the future of the UK by having children)?

3. Do you believe Monbiot's claim that all the FiT would be paid only by the domestic sector, and then, only by the poor part?

4. As you have started to bring up the issue of self-consumption again, something you've been complaining about for 6 years - are you once again claiming that the grid doesn't benefit from (feel) the reduced demand that offset cause?

5. Why do you 'condemn' my position that demand side PV is more economically viable than supply side PV, but have, despite numerous requests, never, not even once, posted numbers to disprove my argument.

Again I have to state the obvious, you want to keep grandstanding, but without any explanation nor justification (within context) they all appear to be baseless. leaving me wondering why you object to a subsidy, paid to households, for a clean green form of generation, popular with the vast majority of the population, that has proved exteremly successful in just 6 years, compared to the failure of nuclear subsidies after 60 years.

Cardew

Martyn, Read post #23.