Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 7th Jan 13, 4:36 PM
    • 4,801Posts
    • 6,469Thanks
    zeupater
    Solar ... In the news
    • #1
    • 7th Jan 13, 4:36 PM
    Solar ... In the news 7th Jan 13 at 4:36 PM
    Hi All

    Thought it was about time we had a thread specifically to discuss relevant press articles relating to solar pv & thermal ..... so here goes ...

    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 07-01-2013 at 4:48 PM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
Page 129
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 19th Jun 19, 4:32 PM
    • 4,801 Posts
    • 6,469 Thanks
    zeupater
    .... Energy bought through prepayment meters is still more expensive than that bought on a standard tariff paid for by direct debit, and the premium over online accounts is even bigger. In July, Citizens Advice said prepayment customers were paying on average £226 a year more for their energy than those on the cheapest online deals. ...
    Originally posted by pile-o-stone
    Hi

    Again, that's an article which essentially employs a form of spin to support what they're attempting to convey as opposed to being fully transparent or even logical on delivering the real facts in a meaningful way ...

    I'm not saying that prepayment customers don't pay more, but the logic used isn't quite what it first seems ... in simply comparing the average a prepayment customer is paying with the best online deals to arrive at £226, the author is attempting to convey that the gap between those on prepayment meter average tariffs & usage are paying £226/year more than those not on prepayment meters, which is essentially flawed logic .... the only logical direct comparison would be to compare the average prepayment customer with the average credit customer, then if deemed necessary highlight the saving that both groups could enjoy if they were to shop around for the best deals ...

    As continually reported through the media, Martin Lewis and many, many times on this site, for various reasons there are plenty of people not taking advantage of the most attractive tariffs available on the market ...

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 19-06-2019 at 4:35 PM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 19th Jun 19, 4:35 PM
    • 8,672 Posts
    • 13,652 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    My only intention was to point out that the downside for some lower income households could be a lot greater than your examples indicated...whereas, using an actual suppliers tariff, clearly shows that the upside is marginal at best.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    And the upside for some lower income households could be greater too, but now we are both just cherry picking, and proving nothing, and adding nothing to the discussion.

    And whilst I understand why you would want to compare it to an actual tariff, that is not technically going to be accurate as standing charges (as Z has pointed out repeatedly) vary, so do not therefore cover actual costs. Some will be too high, some will be too low, and therefore results in comparisons will vary, but those differences can't be taken to the bank, since a shift to NSC accounts would result in differences in the changes to tariffs depending on how fairly or not, the SC's have been worked out.

    The reason I gave a theoretical, was to highlight that total costs, and total revenues don't change, it was not meant to be an accurate cost forecast.

    Moving for a moment from G&E and to the oversite (so to speak), removing SC's also means that a quick/instant comparison can be made between different offerings, and this would surely be a good thing in removing confusion, and helping everyone to get the best deal.


    Terminology like "pointless spin move" leads me to believe that you are prepared to accept any collateral damage as long as carbon emissions are reduced.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    Sorry, but yet another post from you trying to link/associate me with something negative.

    I'm sure a move from no standing charge to standing charges would be far more detrimental to lower income households, than a move away, as I'm suggesting. I'm also sure, that if reality was flipped, and the situation was that I was suggesting such a move (to standing charges) you would be making exactly the same claims against me - though in that instance they would be correct.

    Your linking me to 'collateral damage' when I believe there would be a net improvement (more winners than losers) is nothing more than spin and an attempt to FUD up what I've suggested.

    As to costs to reduce carbon emissions, I am prepared to accept costs, and I think you've made it perfectly clear that you doubt both the need, in general, and for the UK especially.

    We obviously have a fundamental disagreement on AGW and UK responsibilities, and the action needed. If you think this can be addressed without costs, then you are wrong. If you think the cost of action is more than the cost of inaction, then I believe you are wrong again.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 19th Jun 19, 4:38 PM
    • 8,672 Posts
    • 13,652 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    People on limited incomes are already paying more for their energy:

    https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/nov/10/poverty-premium-costs-poor-energy-phone-tariffs-councils

    "Being poor comes at a cost. The best bank accounts, borrowing rates and energy tariffs are all reserved for people who are in a position to shop around. And if you do not have a clean credit file or access to up-to-date technology you can expect to pay more for almost everything you buy."

    Higher energy costs can be the hardest to avoid. Energy bought through prepayment meters is still more expensive than that bought on a standard tariff paid for by direct debit, and the premium over online accounts is even bigger. In July, Citizens Advice said prepayment customers were paying on average £226 a year more for their energy than those on the cheapest online deals.

    Householders can switch between prepayment tariffs, but there is little competition so the choice – and saving – is limited. To get the best deals, as well as internet access, you need a good credit record. Even with these, private renters can find it hard to switch payment types. While the regulator Ofgem says a landlord cannot prevent you switching meters, you may have to switch back at the end of the tenancy, and the associated costs could be off-putting."
    Originally posted by pile-o-stone
    Yes.

    So removing 'normal' economics from the equation, where you get a better price the more you buy, something pointed out by silverwhistle:

    It seems perverse to have a lower marginal rate if you increase consumption, and I don't know of many other retail situations where that applies. It's all very well saying poor people may use more due to circumstances beyond their control, but with higher fixed charges those who make an effort to cut their costs, whether by insulation or accepting lower levels of comfort, will be penalised by higher marginal costs the more they save.
    Originally posted by silverwhistle
    would be a good thing, and allow those that use less, to pay less.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 19th Jun 19, 4:52 PM
    • 8,672 Posts
    • 13,652 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Terminology like "pointless spin move" leads me to believe that you are prepared to accept any collateral damage as long as carbon emissions are reduced.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    Sorry for the extra post, but just had a good chuckle, as your post now, and a previous one trying to spin the FiT subsidy as a negative have reminded me of a very similar attempt by another poster on here about 7 years ago to do the exact same.

    He tried to pick an example of a loser, to thereby undermine the whole FiT scheme. He mentioned a poor old pensioner living in an all electric flat, who has to pay levies on their leccy bill to go to domestic PV'ers. Obviously he was trying to paint that as 'bad'.

    What was missing of course, was context. So as a nuclear supporter he was more than happy for said pensioner to pay levies for the nuclear subsidies, yet no pensioner, no flat, no household, in fact ...... nobody ....... would be building a nuclear reactor and thereby be in receipt of any subsidy receipts. The same can of course be said for large scale renewables too.

    So he 'cleverly' took what makes the FIT scheme far fairer than all the other RE and nuclear schemes (which go to large scale supply side owners) as it goes back to consumers, and spun that positive as a negative.

    So long as context is thrown aside in these discussions, they are meaningless. When you accept carbon emissions have a cost, we can discuss the costs of dealing with it, till then I see little point in discussing the matter.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 19th Jun 19, 6:21 PM
    • 3,278 Posts
    • 2,592 Thanks
    GreatApe
    So long as context is thrown aside in these discussions, they are meaningless. When you accept carbon emissions have a cost, we can discuss the costs of dealing with it, till then I see little point in discussing the matter.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    FITs and CFDs need not be put onto bills

    They could and should be paid from central government spending. Likewise any grid upgrades should be paid for the project requiring the upgrade

    This way would also be more honest accounting with politicians able to decide if they want to sub another marginal £ to wind mills or healthcare and schooling
    • 1961Nick
    • By 1961Nick 19th Jun 19, 6:42 PM
    • 600 Posts
    • 2,730 Thanks
    1961Nick
    Sorry for the extra post, but just had a good chuckle, as your post now, and a previous one trying to spin the FiT subsidy as a negative have reminded me of a very similar attempt by another poster on here about 7 years ago to do the exact same.

    He tried to pick an example of a loser, to thereby undermine the whole FiT scheme. He mentioned a poor old pensioner living in an all electric flat, who has to pay levies on their leccy bill to go to domestic PV'ers. Obviously he was trying to paint that as 'bad'.

    What was missing of course, was context. So as a nuclear supporter he was more than happy for said pensioner to pay levies for the nuclear subsidies, yet no pensioner, no flat, no household, in fact ...... nobody ....... would be building a nuclear reactor and thereby be in receipt of any subsidy receipts. The same can of course be said for large scale renewables too.

    So he 'cleverly' took what makes the FIT scheme far fairer than all the other RE and nuclear schemes (which go to large scale supply side owners) as it goes back to consumers, and spun that positive as a negative.

    So long as context is thrown aside in these discussions, they are meaningless. When you accept carbon emissions have a cost, we can discuss the costs of dealing with it, till then I see little point in discussing the matter.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    If you are incapable of countenancing any opinion that isn’t 100% inline with your own, then I see little point in further discussion. If my opinion bothers you so much, perhaps you should consider blocking my input?
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400

    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus Batteries - 12kWh
    • 1961Nick
    • By 1961Nick 19th Jun 19, 6:45 PM
    • 600 Posts
    • 2,730 Thanks
    1961Nick
    FITs and CFDs need not be put onto bills

    They could and should be paid from central government spending. Likewise any grid upgrades should be paid for the project requiring the upgrade

    This way would also be more honest accounting with politicians able to decide if they want to sub another marginal £ to wind mills or healthcare and schooling
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    Makes sense to me.
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400

    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus Batteries - 12kWh
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 19th Jun 19, 9:46 PM
    • 4,801 Posts
    • 6,469 Thanks
    zeupater
    Makes sense to me.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    Hi

    I don't really follow why it would be considered to make sense as ...

    On connectivity .... Apart from microgeneration installed within the supply capacity of existing connections and local network conditions, this is effectively what happens already ... Additional large scale capacity which is connected directly to the transmission network is subject to considerable connection planning charges, covering the cost of specific network connection investment with an additional maintenance cost based on a percentage of the capital equipment installed ... if the connection is smaller scale distributed generation (biomass, solar farm etc) then there's no transmission network planning cost but the cost of assets for distribution network extension are charged, as is a proportion of distributed network reinforcement if required (eg - microgeneration installation above 16A as mentioned above), this being before connectivity maintenance ....

    General network reinforcement for both the low voltage (distribution) & the high voltage (transmission) networks are (supposed to be) borne as both revenue & capital expenditure by the relevant providers from supply & demand revenues apart from where central government has applied strategic requirements & the regulator allows project specific costs to be recovered through other means ... this probably applying to major infrastructure such as HP-C, major international interconnectors or onshore/offshore wind power grid connectivity nodes ...


    On source of microgeneration incentives ... effectively what we have in place is a form of ring-fenced taxation in which the government has sub-contracted administration to the energy supply sector as opposed to funding from the general taxation pool ... it's essentially the same as how fuel, alcohol & tobacco duties are handled, directly linking the taxation to those consuming as opposed to expecting everyone to pay according to an unrelated formula ... this seems to be a class of specific direct taxation revenue which can be targetted to encourage reduction in consumption if required to drive personal health improvements, emissions reductions etc ... now that really makes sense if you sit back and look at the big picture without any form of initial bias ...

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 19-06-2019 at 9:49 PM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 20th Jun 19, 5:43 AM
    • 8,672 Posts
    • 13,652 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    If you are incapable of countenancing any opinion that isn’t 100% inline with your own, then I see little point in further discussion. If my opinion bothers you so much, perhaps you should consider blocking my input?
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    If you keep posting AGW denial arguments, try to spin my 'positive' comments on pricing changes that would benefit the poor and reduce carbon emissions as 'accepting collateral damage', and keep taking cheap pot shots, then sadly I probably will put you on my ignore list and double it.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 20th Jun 19, 5:48 AM
    • 8,672 Posts
    • 13,652 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Makes sense to me.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    I'm not surprised by that, since placing the costs on bill payers means that the polluter pays - we are after all the polluter as we are the end user. [Edit, sorry Z, I see you already explained that. M.]

    Shifting the cost onto general taxation would make energy cheaper, and whilst we all like to see our bills go down, and it might be a vote winner for the government (at the time), it would also be a major failing in trying to address the bigger issue - AGW.

    Energy bill payers pretty much represent:
    All of us.
    Means we pay as we pollute with proportional increases/decreases.
    helps to reduce energy consumption.
    Means those that will incur AGW costs, are paying AGW prevention/reduction costs.
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 20-06-2019 at 5:50 AM. Reason: Added an edit
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • 1961Nick
    • By 1961Nick 20th Jun 19, 7:48 AM
    • 600 Posts
    • 2,730 Thanks
    1961Nick
    Hi


    On source of microgeneration incentives ... effectively what we have in place is a form of ring-fenced taxation in which the government has sub-contracted administration to the energy supply sector as opposed to funding from the general taxation pool ... it's essentially the same as how fuel, alcohol & tobacco duties are handled, directly linking the taxation to those consuming as opposed to expecting everyone to pay according to an unrelated formula ... this seems to be a class of specific direct taxation revenue which can be targetted to encourage reduction in consumption if required to drive personal health improvements, emissions reductions etc ... now that really makes sense if you sit back and look at the big picture without any form of initial bias ...

    HTH
    Z
    Originally posted by zeupater
    The problem is that it's the wealthy that can avoid paying the 'tax' for green initiatives. Many lower income households just don't have the capital required to install solar, batteries, ASHPs or a more efficient boiler. For many years, even simple things like low energy light bulbs were prohibitively expensive.

    Targeting is fine, but there needs to be a safety net for those that don't have the resources/knowledge to change their consumption.

    The fact that low income households are directly contributing to my quarterly FIT payment doesn't sit entirely comfortably.
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400

    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus Batteries - 12kWh
    • NigeWick
    • By NigeWick 20th Jun 19, 11:16 AM
    • 3,035 Posts
    • 1,362 Thanks
    NigeWick
    As continually reported through the media, Martin Lewis and many, many times on this site, for various reasons there are plenty of people not taking advantage of the most attractive tariffs available on the market
    Originally posted by zeupater
    I'm one of them as I'm trying to be green.

    We're with Ecotricity for gas as they are trying to use grass to produce it, and, Ovo for renewable electricity in order to get the two years "free" subscription to the Polar charging network. The solar FiT more than pays for the gas we use. I don't like the standing charges as with our water being heated by the solar from late April o early October we don't use gas at all.
    The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
    Oliver Wendell Holmes
    • Hexane
    • By Hexane 20th Jun 19, 11:22 AM
    • 44 Posts
    • 62 Thanks
    Hexane
    Many lower income households just don't have the capital required to install solar, batteries, ASHPs or a more efficient boiler. For many years, even simple things like low energy light bulbs were prohibitively expensive.

    Targeting is fine, but there needs to be a safety net for those that don't have the resources/knowledge to change their consumption.

    The fact that low income households are directly contributing to my quarterly FIT payment doesn't sit entirely comfortably.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick

    In reality this is not what happened. A great many solar installs are actually on council houses (therefore lower disposable income) because the FiT benefitted the council - and the occupants benefitted from the lower bills. Other solar installs were of the "rent a roof" variety, which admittedly had various problems such as pigeon infestations, but were still available to lower income households without capital outlay. So that's a very large number of lower-income solar installs being funded out of your (and my) energy bill supplements.

    And other government initiatives aimed to reduce emissions (funded in these cases I think by the energy companies but anyway ultimately passing the cost back to bill payers) provided the low energy light bulbs as well. Npower were mailing out free packs of half a dozen low energy bulbs of different sizes to their bill payers, complete with simple instructions on getting the best value from them. Admittedly this is regressive because high earners got them for free too, but it gets the technology out there for the low income households for free.
    7.25 kWp PV system (4.1kW WSW & 3.15kW ENE), Solis inverter, myenergi eddi & harvi for energy diversion to immersion heater. myenergi hub for Virtual Power Plant demand-side response trial.
    • 1961Nick
    • By 1961Nick 20th Jun 19, 12:17 PM
    • 600 Posts
    • 2,730 Thanks
    1961Nick
    In reality this is not what happened. A great many solar installs are actually on council houses (therefore lower disposable income) because the FiT benefitted the council - and the occupants benefitted from the lower bills. Other solar installs were of the "rent a roof" variety, which admittedly had various problems such as pigeon infestations, but were still available to lower income households without capital outlay. So that's a very large number of lower-income solar installs being funded out of your (and my) energy bill supplements.

    And other government initiatives aimed to reduce emissions (funded in these cases I think by the energy companies but anyway ultimately passing the cost back to bill payers) provided the low energy light bulbs as well. Npower were mailing out free packs of half a dozen low energy bulbs of different sizes to their bill payers, complete with simple instructions on getting the best value from them. Admittedly this is regressive because high earners got them for free too, but it gets the technology out there for the low income households for free.
    Originally posted by Hexane
    Indeed there were plenty of solar installations without any capital outlay by the occupier. But there are also many more low income households that rent privately or live in flats that didn't have the option of solar pv. I have no idea what percentage of Council houses have solar roofs, but I would guess from observations, that it's not that high.

    I've had the benefit of a few free low energy bulbs. I've also spent hundreds of pounds replacing the rest of them - spots, candles, globes, golf balls - ES, SES, SBC, which generally were not free. Thankfully, we've now reached the price point where everybody can benefit.
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400

    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus Batteries - 12kWh
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 20th Jun 19, 12:21 PM
    • 4,801 Posts
    • 6,469 Thanks
    zeupater
    ... And other government initiatives aimed to reduce emissions (funded in these cases I think by the energy companies but anyway ultimately passing the cost back to bill payers) provided the low energy light bulbs as well. Npower were mailing out free packs of half a dozen low energy bulbs of different sizes to their bill payers, complete with simple instructions on getting the best value from them. Admittedly this is regressive because high earners got them for free too, but it gets the technology out there for the low income households for free.
    Originally posted by Hexane
    Hi

    The underlying issue here is that such initiatives, although effectively initially paid for by the customer (whatever their earnings status!) the net effect for all consumers & the environment is beneficial as the payback (through energy use reductions) is (/was) so short.

    What needs to be weighed against such schemes are the alternative provisions, which almost certainly revolve around increased generation capacity, something which would cost far more and be chargeable to consumers over a far longer period, so the question of social or economic regression only applies if a myopic analysis is performed ... standing back and looking at the overall net effect what first seems to be regressive becomes an extremely progressive move for low earners as they tend to expend a larger proportion of their income on energy ...

    You can scale the effect of such initiatives across other technologies by simply comparing the investment in large centralised generation, for example simply replacing Plasma & LCD televisions with newer LED technology units reduces overall demand by multiples of additional capacity provided by schemes such as HPC at a fraction of the cost, as does replacing CFL lighting with LED lightbulbs ....

    This is effectively the issue which blows away the economic argument for smart-metering. The project is justified on consumers employing consumption visibility to enable proactive management to their usage profile (HHM/TOU/HHB driven), resulting in both long term billing savings to the customer through the sector requiring lower capital investment and more efficient employment of generation & distribution resource providing incentives to the industry to chase & invest in further efficiency measures ..... the problem constantly overlooked is that whilst the project has been deliberated over for well over a decade, two of the main contributors to wasteful domestic energy consumption (unnecessary lighting throughout the home & TVs on but not being watched) have been managed through employing energy efficient technology as opposed to information visibility, so much of the savings promised by smart-metering have already been banked & they can't be banked twice (no matter how hard the industry & the regulator work to spin the accounts!) ...

    If there is to be talk of regressive cost (/applied indirect taxation) and wasteful use of capital within the energy supply industry, the first place to look would be in meter cupboards & garages all over the country as it's now simply a conduit to move wealth from the (poor) consumer to the (less poor) corporate shareholder ...

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 20-06-2019 at 12:38 PM. Reason: +s +e +employing
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 20th Jun 19, 1:02 PM
    • 8,672 Posts
    • 13,652 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    In reality this is not what happened. A great many solar installs are actually on council houses (therefore lower disposable income) because the FiT benefitted the council - and the occupants benefitted from the lower bills. Other solar installs were of the "rent a roof" variety, which admittedly had various problems such as pigeon infestations, but were still available to lower income households without capital outlay. So that's a very large number of lower-income solar installs being funded out of your (and my) energy bill supplements.
    Originally posted by Hexane
    You are spot on. As the FiT came to an end I think the figures for installs were running at about 20-25% on social housing, so that seems like a roughly even distribution, and of course those residents benefit from lowered leccy bills without any capital investment whatsoever.

    But the crucial issue, that is avoided by out of context criticism of the FiT scheme, is that it is fairer than all the other energy generation subsidies, but is the only one that gets attacked ....... for being unfair!

    I believe that consumers should pay a fee/levy to clean up our consumption. I hope that seems fair to all.

    I believe it's entirely correct that that money gets paid out as subsidies to companies building RE generation, such as wind farms and PV farms, in order to speed up the deployment of said generation.

    So we have a situation that seems fair to me, where 'we all pay, but nobody gets any of it' (we being domestic households). And I'm not aware of anyone moaning about that.

    But when the Fit came along, and nobody got replaced by some, we suddenly had an outburst of outrage, and cries of 'will no-one think of the poor'.

    The anti-FiT argument only works out of context, and in my experience has been a favourite of the NAACB (nuclear-at-any-cost-brigade) - a level of hypocrisy that I am simply not able to comprehend.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 20th Jun 19, 1:08 PM
    • 8,672 Posts
    • 13,652 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    I have no idea what percentage of Council houses have solar roofs, but I would guess from observations, that it's not that high.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    My observations would suggest the exact opposite, in fact about half a mile east would include a concentration of about 30 social housing properties, and the same west would include about 20-30 installs on 3-storey affordable town-house blocks. I'm sure there are many private PV households I haven't spotted on walks, runs and cycles, but even so, the total would be nowhere near that 50-60 figure, perhaps 20?
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 20th Jun 19, 3:04 PM
    • 3,278 Posts
    • 2,592 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Makes sense to me.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick

    The UK is in quite a lucky fortunate position and we will be able to meet our electrical grid needs in a clean and mostly affordable way thanks to a combination of being next to France and not too far from Norway plus having lots of suitable offshore wind locations

    While offshore wind power will add some costs, inter-connectors should reduce costs plus we have significant existing low cost nuclear which should be kept going for as long as they are safe. So the UK will be able to have an affordable clean grid. We pay half the retail price and come 2023 we will have a grid half as dirty too vs the Germans

    With what we have under construction and the commitment of offshore wind we have made we dont need much more of anything esp solar PV . We dont need more nuclear nor more PV or unproven tidal. The interconnectors under construction and the offshore wind under construction and committed to will make the UK grid of 2023 some 75% green and we are committed to significant offshore wind 2023-2030 which will chip away at the remaining 25% plus the two EPRs under construction will come online sometime in the 2020s too

    Really solar PV should not play a significant part in the UK grid going forward so the subs should be zero. It is a great technology for regions that have their demand peak in the summer months. It was mostly pointless deploying it in the UK we would have been much better off having spent the money that went to UK PV on interconnectors to France.

    In fact if you could turn back time the one significant thing that we could and should have done was to have built 5 links to France in 1986 rather than the one link. Those four additional links would have displaced some 1,800 TWh of Coal/NG over that period and reduced UK wholesale and probably retail prices marginally too. About 1.2 billion tons of CO2 not emitted had we built a 10GW connection to France rather than a 2GW connection.

    Anyway, going forward the UK grid is more or less solved by what is under construction and committed too


    The next stage is converting gas fired heating to electrical heating
    So a program of insulation and converting gas boilers to electric boilers or electric resistance heaters is needed. Starting with the lowest demand properties first. Which likely means Flats first. Then the newer homes. etc. Very difficult task much more so than the period 2010-2030 which solved the electrical grid
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 20th Jun 19, 3:13 PM
    • 3,278 Posts
    • 2,592 Thanks
    GreatApe
    But the crucial issue, that is avoided by out of context criticism of the FiT scheme, is that it is fairer than all the other energy generation subsidies, but is the only one that gets attacked ....... for being unfair!
    Originally posted by Martyn1981

    Erm no it isn't whats fair is what is smart
    The UK should have greened its grid in this order

    1: Interconnectors. Cheap effective fast. Cost is negative (saves money)
    2: Offshore wind power. Adds costs but is Affordable and 30% summer CF 50% winter works well with seasonal demand
    3 Nothing else because onshore wind and PV of any type on roofs or land are less effective for a given watt of capacity than #2

    You try to paint PV as cheap or cheaper than the nuclear deal agreed. That was a mistake one that wont be repeated so to try and use one mistake to cover another mistake (PV in the UK) makes no sense


    Anyway whats all the arguments about
    We are where we are
    We dont need anymore PV not on roofs not on land
    Because the grid of 2023 is already ~75% non fossil fuel
    And 2023-2030 we have committed to adding another circa 15 GW of offshore wind

    Building any more PV or nuclear or tidal makes no sense in the UK
    Move on, the grid is solved. Figure out how the UK is going to solve seasonal heating and that is not by building PV nor is it by making electricity more expensive
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 20th Jun 19, 3:30 PM
    • 3,278 Posts
    • 2,592 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Makes sense to me.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick

    There really isnt much more to debate about power generation in the UK

    We are already on a path to circa 75% non fossil fuels in the UK grid by 2023 and are committed to circa 15GW offshore wind build out during the 2023-2030 period too which will further reduce the 25% that is fossil fuels

    Plus I think it is quite likely additional links to Norway/Germany/France will be built in the 2023-2030 period too

    Any debate about further PV of any kind, or tidal, or onshore wind, or anything really, is pointless. We are at the end of the line for the UK grid its done its solved (more or less) by what has been built, what is under construction and what is committed to

    Likes of Martyn are walking looking straight down at their feet. If they looked up and just looked at 5 years from now maybe he would wake up and stop worrying thinking about the grid. Next stage is fixing heating. Don't waste 5 years arguing about PV or Nuclear or Tidal its all irrelevant debate

    Figure out how to solve heating. Start today

    1: No FF in new builds bring that forward to 2020 no need to wait to 2025 its a wasted opportunity.

    2: Start converting away from gas fired boilers in flats to electrical heating. This can be made affordable by the regulator regulating a smart heating tariff that costs about half of today so 8p a unit but homes are curtailed when the local and national grid is at capacity. If necessary the government is going to have to sub this directly to make it affordable to end consumers in the conversion and ongoing usage a bit like how they sub old folk when the temp falls during the winter

    3: Improve insulation so far as is reasonable

    4: Move onto electrifying larger properties and commercial and retail buildings etc

    This is going to be a huge huge huge challenge and it could cost as much as £35 billion a year for the government to subsidies expensive electricity 15p a unit to be used instead of 5p a unit NG. An ongoing cost so either taxes need to go up significantly for everyone not just 'the rich' or money needs to be diverted from elsewhere (pensions, NHS, Education, Police, whatever)

    I think this £35 billion a year subsidy to make electricity affordable for heating is probably an over estimate. I think it can be done for perhaps 1/3rd that figure so a sub of circa £12 billion a year. Still very significant would need roughly speaking the basic rate of tax to go up from 20% to 22% and the middle rate from 40% to 44% and the highest rate from 45% to 50%

    Despite the green lobby saying otherwise, the switch to non FF is going to have a substantial ongoing cost. Worthwhile or not is debatable but a significant cost it will be
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,850Posts Today

7,430Users online

Martin's Twitter