Fit Rates 2017

theboylard

@Cardew:

Can you please explain the subsidy that Hinkley C will get?
And how that is different and fairer to all?
And then explain your costs with the Solar PV FiT scheme (quoting your mate George) in comparison with Hinkley C? Don't forget to strip out Wind/Hydro etc.

Oh, don't forget to add in all the subsidies that Nuclear has already had - need to keep the costs fair and balanced.

I am genuinely interested in the above, and as you seem to have all the facts, and are opposed to subsidy schemes, then your costs are likely to be far less conservative.

Thanks in advance

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

For new readers(and to get The Guru to bite;)) George Monboit, the environmental guru, made this statement before FIT was introduced:

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

Your post is nothing but word salad, however I'm happy to address your Monbiot comments as I've said before you are simply trolling.

The Claim that £8.6bn is to be moved from the poor to the middle classes is false. You are well aware that the £8.6bn is the total cost, and is to borne by all electricity consumers and sectors, not just one small part of the domestic sector. You are also aware that Monbiot was shamed into admitting that it wasn't true about 3 months later by a Guardian commentator called 'MonbiotWatch'.

If it isn't true then please say so, I've asked you many times, but you won't say it (either way), however you are more than happy to re-post information that you know is untrue, and that is trolling, isn't it?

Please don't pretend that calling a scheme immoral, is not an insult to those that take part. Again, as I've said before, that tactic of yours is simply to prevent you from being reported and banned from MSE.

Your attacks on the Fit continued well after the rate was dropped, so you are attacking PV, not the initial rate.

You have also repeatedly stated that you don't think we should have PV at all, but if we have to, it should be in PV farms in Cornwall - that's an anti PV statement, not anti-FiT.

You repeatedly state that PV doesn't work at night, this is an anti-PV (and anti intermittent RE) statement, not anti-FiT.

You even stated that you want me to bite, and you and your team mate Graham, made many personal attacks on me, when I stuck up for PV and the FiT, so that seems more trolling ..... wouldn't you say.

Yet again you've raised the issue of export. Yet you are well aware that the FiT has no link to export, and the higher use of generation actually improves the economics of PV, and thereby reduces the amount of subsidy needed. For commercial installs, there is a good chance that they will be able to consume 100% of generation. Your repeated and deliberate use of this terminology is trolling - it's a knowingly false argument, designed to cause upset.

You pretend to worry about pensioners and the poor in electrical heated properties, yet PV installs disproportionately support the poor via social and council installs, requiring no capital outlay by the occupants.

You also support nuclear, which will be funded via exactly the same mechanism, yet not a single household, rich /poor, young/old will be able to invest in a nuclear generation system. So your argument against PV on this basis is wholly hypocritical, and worse yet you know that, that's why you refused to answer me when I asked if you supported nuclear, for about 3 years.

You point to Monbiot as your justification, but he absolutely ripped the Hinkley Point C (HPC) deal to bits.


But lets get back to the main point, you say that the PV FiT was absurdly high. No it wasn't, it was about right to encourage early investors, at risk, to spend large amounts. The fault is that the subsidy wasn't lowered sooner.

But the subsidy needed to lowered sooner than expected, because the scheme in the UK (and internationally) was such a huge success and prices fell so fast.

As I pointed out earlier, here's a comparison of new PV to new nuclear:

New domestic PV - £66/MWh paid in support for 20yrs, to UK households, keeping the monies within the UK, reducing CO2 today. This is the result of less than 7yrs of support.

New supply side nuclear - £102/MWh paid in support for 35yrs, to French and Chinese governments, losing the monies to a balance of payments deficit, reducing CO2 in 2028(ish). This is the result of more than 60yrs of support.

Only a fool would conclude that nuclear subsidies are worthwhile, whilst PV subsidies aren't.


Lastly, PV is just one component of renewable energy. PV and on-shore wind are already far cheaper than HPC. Off-shore wind will be cheaper than HPC before it comes on line. The tidal lagoon package will be cheaper than HPC. Bio-energy is cheaper and generating today. Storage costs are tumbling.

All of these are important in their own right, but when combined their value is greater than the sum of their parts, and between them could be generating around 50% of UK electricity (currently 25%), when HPC comes on line to supply 7% at a far higher price, subsidy, and subsidy contract period (35yr).

You can now choose one of two paths.

1. Continue to post false arguments. Trolling.
2. Answer the issues I've raised in fair comparison to your chosen technology. Debating.

Martyn.

PS What's your name?

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Not so with the FIT system in which the subsidies are paid directly by increased electricity charges. Therefore my admittedly emotive case of pensioners living in a badly insulated all-electric council flat, will be paying far more, in increased electricity charges, toward the FIT subsidies than someone living in a large gas centrally heated house.

As the nuclear subsidies will have a far greater impact on these folk, and no opportunity for them to install a nuclear powerstation, could you please point me to your proportionately larger campaign against nuclear please.

Given you've spent 6yrs and probably 5,000 posts attacking the PV FiT, I can only assume you will direct me to a 10yr+ campaign with around 20,000 posts against new nuclear?

Thanks.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

The Northern Ireland Government has fallen for paying too generous ‘green’ subsidies in the form of Renewable Heat Initiative(RHI).

@ all.

Some explanation of this issue is needed, as it upsets me personally. I mentioned to my wife when the news broke that the real victim here would be RE (renewable energy). Since opponents of renewables would focus not on this as a failure to manage a government scheme, but rather on the fact that it is a renewable scheme.

I predicted that we'd see it being used as a political weapon against RE in general.

So, the truth - under the RHI (renewable heat incentive) properties are assessed to estimate their heating needs. They are then able to claim subsidies up to that limit. It is monitored using heat meters.

Simply put, heat meters have an in pipe and an out pipe. They measure the temperature difference between the two, and the rate of flow, to calculate the amount of kWhs supplied to the property. The meter is installed internally, so it excludes losses from supply pipes if the boiler is installed outside (perhaps in a boiler shed).

Unfortunately in NI, they didn't employ a cap, allowing for the deliberate overuse of the boilers to 'farm' the subsidy difference between the cost of the fuel and the subsidy.

So this is not a failure of RE, but of the contract terms of a subsidy scheme, and could of course apply to any technology of any type.

Thanks.

Cardew

silverwhistle wrote: »

I seem to recall some smug stuff about various properties you own.

Really? Tell me more?

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So this is not a failure of RE, but of the contract terms of a subsidy scheme, and could of course apply to any technology of any type.

Agreed and it applied to the solar PV FIT scheme.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Agreed and it applied to the solar PV FIT scheme.

Nope, I see no problem with the FiT contract terms, there was no opportunity to misuse*, the only failing was in the management of the tariff and not reducing it fast enough. The original rate was fine, despite your claims to the contrary. You may try to spin and distract with comments on RaR schemes, but they allowed for installs on properties that couldn't afford to pay for PV:

Cardew wrote: »

To take advantage of the FIT scheme one had to own a house, with a suitable roof(size and shading) and have sufficient funds to pay for the installation.

* Monbiot did claim that all the systems would be backwired with the TGM's running from the mains. Yet another completely false claim of his.


Back to reality - Still not addressing any of the issues I've raised?

5yrs and counting.

warrenb

Can you three please just create a "let's argue in here" thread, as at the moment you are basically trashing all the other threads.
I don't care who starts what,when or why. Just please stop trashing the threads

Martyn1981

warrenb wrote: »

Can you three please just create a "let's argue in here" thread, as at the moment you are basically trashing all the other threads.
I don't care who starts what,when or why. Just please stop trashing the threads

This was tried about 5 years ago. A specific thread called the PV FiTs good or bad thread was set up, and Cardew and his team mate Graham asked to use that.

Unfortunately it didn't work.

Whilst I appreciate that the threads get trashed, can I state that that is the whole point - I've been saying it for years. A few years back I tried to ignore the posts to see if that would calm him down, but after about 6 months the number of posts had actually increased and he was using my name in many of them as a form of baiting.

It's not pretty, but the best solution seems to be to just ride it out (January is usually the worst).

I do apologise for my part in this sillyness.

warrenb

These have now been published.