Solar at Gloucester Cathederal

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Martyn, Read post #23.

Questions too hard? Or perhaps the answers!

Cardew

tunnel wrote: »

You don't have to visit you know

I want to visit on occasion and comment; isn't that the purpose of a Forum?

I am not upset when subsidies for PV are discussed in such a biased manner, why do you all get so upset when a counter-view is expressed.

You don't have to read my posts you know

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

I am not upset when subsidies for PV are discussed in such a biased manner, why do you all get so upset when a counter-view is expressed.

I'm not upset. I'm actually quite interested in your counter-view, that's why I've asked you to explain/justify it. After all, if you can't, nobody can!

Just to repeat, these are all issues that you have raised, and keep raising, so my asking for 'in-context' clarification, seems rather engaging, friendly and polite.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm not upset. I'm actually quite interested in your counter-view, that's why I've asked you to explain/justify it.

My view on the FIT paid for small rooftop PV systems has been explained to you many times. Those views are the same as the principle Monbiot expressed. Those objections were valid then; and they are valid now.

Your views on nuclear & coal(in UK/China/India) child benefit/global warming etc are of no interest to me.

Now do you understand we are talking about subsidies for PV.

silverwhistle

Cardew wrote: »

I am not upset when subsidies for PV are discussed in such a biased manner, why do you all get so upset when a counter-view is expressed.

Well, at least you make me laugh with your talk of bias. Once again you highlight the 50p for early adopters but never once have you ever acknowledged the existence of the degression mechanism and how it rapidly reduced the subsidies, and that in practice most people (including myself) receive a lot less.

Never once have you accepted that there was a purpose to the FITs which it was successful in achieving. You state that you are against all subsidies, yet are quite happy with a nuclear industry that will need greater amounts than that already devoted to it for the last 60 years.

Forgive me if I am less than convinced by your 'concern for the poor' schtick. If I were you you'd have greater impact campaigning about housing benefit cuts..

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

My view on the FIT paid for small rooftop PV systems has been explained to you many times. Those views are the same as the principle Monbiot expressed. Those objections were valid then; and they are valid now.

Your views on nuclear & coal(in UK/China/India) child benefit/global warming etc are of no interest to me.

Now do you understand we are talking about subsidies for PV.

Hiya. i appreciate you've expressed your views many, many times. I'm simply asking you to explain them.

It seems to me that being against a subsidy because not everyone receives it (even one as inclusive as the FiT), is a rather odd position, but as one great philospher once said "stupid is, as stupid does".

But what I'm trying to understand, is how you can then support subsidies for PV farms, rather than PV households, since that appears to contradict your argument. And more importantly, why you support subsidies for nuclear, which aren't received by any UK households, once again, appearing to contradict your firmly held stance that a subsidy is 'bad' or 'immoral' if all households don't get it. Thus giving the impression that you are simply a hypocrite or perhaps presenting false claims to hide an ideological position.

Since you go to such great lengths to promote your grand statements, I'm simply trying to see if you can justify/support them within a rational context, rather than as throwaway Daily Mail headlines.

So's back to the 5 very simple questions, can you please answer them, after all they relate to issues you've brought up many times, including on this thread.


Perhaps 5 questions are too many for you to answer in one go, so let's start with your favourite Monbiot quote, one you've made 100's of times, and as recently as 4 days ago, that the whole FiT budget is to be paid by the poor sector, of the domestic electricity sector.

Is that claim true today? Was it true 4 days ago? Was it ever true?

Oops! 3 questions.

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

Forgive me if I am less than convinced by your 'concern for the poor' schtick. If I were you you'd have greater impact campaigning about housing benefit cuts..

I'd simply be interested to see evidence of him campaigning on this scale against any other subsidy.

Given that the FiT is open to all with RE capability (wind, hydro, PV etc), including 'short' flats, tall flats (systems have been installed that cut the communal cost of lighting, lifts etc), private renters, social renters etc - there must be a vast number of subsidies targeted at a smaller number of people/households.

Examples of these campaigns will make for interesting revue, though given the rationale for complaint, surely the nuclear industry would be at the very top - high cost, unfair distribution, failing technology (in context), lack of public support, Monbiot's condemnation of the subsidy deal.

We shall see!