Farage Murdoch Gove Boris

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

In that case I know no climate change deniers. Do you?

I think you'll find most climate change sceptics a tad more nuanced than that.

Many climate sceptics just don't want to be inconvenienced by having to face adapting their lifestyles

[ahinton]

This is partly nonesense. Solar power by itself (hugely expensive, of course) cannot generate at night so it needs backup. Your technology adds, in agreement with my point, the backup system of storage (at further huge expense) and I'll assume you're thinking of thermal storage in molten salts rather than pumped storage. So that route (of limited world-wide availability) could be emission-free, but most likely would be uncompetitive with conventional generation. Elsewhere, solar energy is a headache in terms of grid-system management (as is being demonstrated in Germany), and does require fossil-fuel backup.

You omit due consideration of at least two factors here.

The first of these is cost. You mention expense and, of course, there's no such thing as a free lunch, even if (as in the case of solar power), one of the ingredients is indeed "free". There's no denying the hardware costs, of course, but then the same was once said of the kinds of computer that we use in our homes and offices which obviously cost a tiny fraction of what they used to do and provide vastly more processing, memory &c. power; there may be other factors to account for this plummeting of cost but the principal one is surely mass-production to meet mass demand. I don't see why such an argument would not apply equally well to solar power hardware as it has in the world of home and office computers. You also make no allowance for the constant increase in the costs of exploration, extraction and distribution of fossil fuels and, as such, seem all too keen to point up the high costs of solar energy hardware but not so much so to compare it with ongoing sourcing of fossil fuels.

The second issue is backup and storage. I did say that solar energy alone could not possible hope to take the place of all fossil fuel use, but those who have developed their homes, small office premises, small farms and factories and the like by adapting them as far as possible to solar energy use do not necessarily require fossil fuel backup or, to the extent that the may do so, the amount of that backup is vastly less than the amount of fossil fuels that would otherwise be used. The argument in favour here is particularly strong for the small scale user as distinct from large-scale developments that would require grid-system management. It would be perfectly possible to replace a substantial proportion of small road vehicles with electrically powered ones, although the technology here is not yet as advances as it would need to be for such vehicles to become the norm; the only fossil fuel backup required for these is when recharges have to be made from a fossil-fuel dependent electricity source and, likewise, even this would call for far less fossil fuel energy than would a tank of petrol or diesel.

As for wind generation there are numerous studies, based on historical data not models, showing it does not provide the CO2 cuts stated on the tin. (Bentek, USA; Sharman, Denmark, Wheatley, Ireland; Post, Netherlands).

I am not wholly against wind generation in principle, but I do believe that its ability to reduce CO2 emissions is often exaggerated and the value for money aspect is not all that it's sometimes cracked up to be except in consistently windy areas.

These are examples of expensive policy changes made without thought.

Even though some or all of these might not have been the best thought out policy decisions, I don't think that you could realistically call these wholesale "policy changes" per se, since no wind farm has been developed, built and commissioned to replace another energy source to be decommissioned as part of the same policy.

I think also that there's too much emphasis placed upon large grid system thinking and not enough about small scale generation in the way that some people form their views on this; we're all far too hidebound by the perception that all our energy use has to be dependent upon major national suppliers.

[ahinton]

http://glyndebourne.com/our-wind-turbine-0

I don't think that this proves that wind power is a good thing in all circumstances and situations; what is does appear to prove, however, is that, given the right hardware properly installed in the most advantageous locations, it can be beneficial. It's evidently doing well for Glyndebourne (perhaps helped a little by all the hot air emanating from sopranos) but, on its own, it would hardly serve the whole of East and West Sussex.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

It may well be that the cost of renewable technologies will come down. Progress with wind suggests otherwise. Solar shares many concepts with semiconductor fabrication. It is an old technology and therefore unlikely to have much scope for cost cutting. I am fully aware of the costs of fossil fuel exploration and indeed assume that this is being reflected in the cost of the fuels. Perhaps we see this in the price of gas at the Henry Hub which has fallen by a factor of three over the past 8 years? If the cost of these new renewable technologies is too high then it's time to send them back to the research labs for developemnt, not roll them out under pressure from illusory climate change catastrophe.

While renewable generation has its place (eg the success on the island of Eigg), elsewhere I don't agree with your bucolic vision of off-grid generation.

Much (but certainly not all) of the mess we find ourselves in with our electricity generation system flows from political endorsement of renewables and green-driven rejection of coal-fired and nuclear generation. The industry is now so riddled with renewable subsidies and European directives that it is becoming almost impossible to build new generation cheaply and quickly.

[ahinton]

Many climate sceptics just don't want to be inconvenienced by having to face adapting their lifestyles

Some might take this view but it's neither a common one (as far as I know) or indeed a necessary one; people don't have "to be inconvenienced by having to face adapting their lifestyles" unless they have less energy with which to fuel those lifestyles - changing from one energy source to another does not of itself necessarily involve reductions in consumption.

My interest in this subject from a small scale standpoint is equally influenced by thoughts about how to economise on power use without reducing its benefits. EPCs (DPEs in France) are legally binding information documents that show anticipated usage and, in UK, they also include anticipated costs of that usage over three years. A newly built 250+ square metre floorspace 5-bedroom 3-bathroom house on two floors recently sold by a friend in Bath has such a high specification that the anticipated cost of power for heating lighting and hot water is shown as around £2,000 over three years - and it doesn't even benefit from solar PV (though it does have solar thermal). Achieving that result has obviously come at a cost but one that could well plummet if most people wanted to build to this standard. Efficient underfloor heating systems can cut electricity consumption considerably, as can air source and ground source heat pumps, inert gas filled double glazing, efficient floor / wall / roof insulation, heat recovery ventilation systems and the like; with the benefit of all of these as well as low energy lighting and low consumption white goods where possible, the amount of electricity required to power a home can become a fraction of what it would be without them, so it's not all about the source from which one gets power in any case.

Taking full advantage of this kind of thing is particularly useful in France where the usual deal is that the customer pays EDF for all electricity that he/she uses at one rate and EDF buys from that customer all that he/she generates at a rate several several times higher, with the end result that net energy costs can be a negative figure; I know of one person whose electricity bills on a house near Perpignan comes to the equivalent of around -£2,000 p.a. but, although he's made as sure as possible that he keeps his electricity consumption to the barest minimum, he's had to make no sacrifices to his lifestyle. Someone else that I know in France has an all-electric car that is only ever charged at a commercial charging point when it needs to be charged away from his home where he can do this from a solar PV supply, so it runs almost entirely without dependency upon fossil fuel use; if at some point he can change the vehicle for a solar-boosted one (which looks to be on the cards in the not too distant future), he'll hardly ever have to charge it away from home.

[ahinton]

In that case I know no climate change deniers. Do you?

I think you'll find most climate change sceptics a tad more nuanced than that.

I do not. I was responding to what you wrote, which was evidently less clear than it might have been.

[ahinton]

It may well be that the cost of renewable technologies will come down. Progress with wind suggests otherwise. Solar shares many concepts with semiconductor fabrication. It is an old technology and therefore unlikely to have much scope for cost cutting.

Solar energy production costs are only likely to come down substantially as a result of mass demand and mass production to meet it, as do most costs. I did not suggest that its technology is perfect, but research has not stopped to improve it and some researchers believe that there remains vast scope for improvement.

If the cost of these new renewable technologies is too high then it's time to send them back to the research labs for developemnt, not roll them out under pressure from illusory climate change catastrophe.

Here you go again! I presume you now to mean not that climate change or its potentially catastrophic consequences are of themselves illusory but that human involvement in them is illusory; if that's the case, please be honest and say so!

While renewable generation has its place (eg the success on the island of Eigg), elsewhere I don't agree with your beaucolic vision of off-grid generation.

"Beaucolic"? Well, it's a nice a Freudian slip as they come, I suppose! But there's nothing "bucolic" in my vision either - and, far more importantly, it's not just my vision. What do you have against homeowners and small businesses benefitting from selling their off-grid generated electricity to a hard-pressed electricity supplier - and what is your in principle objection to people generating their own electricity if it reduces not only their CO2 emissions but also their cost outlay because it works for them?

Much (but certainly not all) of the mess we find ourselves in with our electricity generation system flows from political endorsement of renewables and green-driven rejection of coal-fired and nuclear generation. The industry is now so riddled with renewable subsidies and European directives that it is becoming almost impossible to build new generation cheaply and quickly.

That's not the case. Not all those whose views on this are "green-driven" object to nuclear generation in any case, although I accept that some do. The benefits of separation (as far as possible) of small scale and large scale generation are surely obvious, otherwise hardly anyone would even think to bother with trying to unhook themselves from large national suppliers' ever higher energy bills by harnessing alternative energy sources and taking the other steps that I mentioned to reduce consumption without having to make sacrifices in order to do so. I'm not suggesting that individual governments or EU are going the best ways about addressing these issues, but that doesn't undermine the validity of the general principles involved.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

What do you have against homeowners and small businesses benefitting from selling their off-grid generated electricity to a hard-pressed electricity supplier - and what is your in principle objection to people generating their own electricity if it reduces not only their CO2 emissions but also their cost outlay because it works for them?

None whatsoever, so long as I don't pay for it.

Here you go again! I presume you now to mean not that climate change or its potentially catastrophic consequences are of themselves illusory but that human involvement in them is illusory; if that's the case, please be honest and say so!

I don't see any looming catastrophe. Do you?

The benefits of separation (as far as possible) of small scale and large scale generation are surely obvious

Not to me, I'm afraid. The grid offers security of supply, and controlled voltage and frequency beyond anything I could achieve by myself. Why should I want, at great expense, to become an energy supplier? And why should I entrust my energy supply to people who, unlike me, have no expertise in the industry? You should also know, as I've mentioned here before, that I heat my house with a heat pump, and I've lagged my house with 90 mm of external insulation, both at my own expense.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Sometimes we do have to look after ourselves, but whenever possible we should balance this against the good of the many.

[ahinton]

None whatsoever, so long as I don't pay for it.

OK - but that presumably means that you don't want to pay for your own installations, since there would quite obviously be no possibility whatsoever of any legal obligation upon you to fund anyone else's!

I don't see any looming catastrophe. Do you?

I don't know; that's the problem and, since I do not claim to know, I do not and cannot discount the possibility of one.

Not to me, I'm afraid. The grid offers security of supply, and controlled voltage and frequency beyond anything I could achieve by myself. Why should I want, at great expense, to become an energy supplier? And why should I entrust my energy supply to people who, unlike me, have no expertise in the industry? You should also know, as I've mentioned here before, that I heat my house with a heat pump, and I've lagged my house with 90 mm of external insulation, both at my own expense.

Indeed - so you are prepared to spend money on your own installation and I hope that it is now benefitting you. The French arrangements, however, mean that you'd still retain precisely that supply security that you do not wish to sacrifice from the grid, because you carry on ordering and being supplied from the grid but you sell back to the grid what you generate and you profit from it.

[Serial_Apologist]

The French arrangements, however, mean that you'd still retain precisely that supply security that you do not wish to sacrifice from the grid, because you carry on ordering and being supplied from the grid but you sell back to the grid what you generate and you profit from it.

The same, or a similar such scheme, operates in this country, afaik.

[ahinton]

The same, or a similar such scheme, operates in this country, afaik.

I believe that it does, although I do not have the precise details.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I believe that it [home generation systems] does, although I do not have the precise details.

In the UK it's the Feed In Tariff scheme (FIT), and there are various levels of payment for the different technologies. None of the technologies provide a genuine grid-worthy supply in that they're both variable and intermittant, and cannot provide the grid services such as response and reserve that are demanded of the major suppliers. And yet, those earning FITs are rewarded at a rate per MWh far higher than any conventional supplier obliged (through the Grid Code) to deliver both energy and the grid support services. This distorts the market such that now we see the likes of EdF demanding an up-front payment for any nuclear energy they supply at rates similar to those flowing from FITs/ROCs when elsewhere in the world they'd be earning at usual bulk grid rates. That's what I object to paying for.

It's galling to see many of these schemes being installed on church roofs - robbing Peter to pay Paul. FITs are regressive energy tariffs. They (and ROCs payments) are contributing to energy poverty. They are yet another example of the damage done by unthinking and hasty reaction to supposed looming climate change catastrophe.

[ahinton]

In the UK it's the Feed In Tariff scheme (FIT), and there are various levels of payment for the different technologies. None of the technologies provide a genuine grid-worthy supply in that they're both variable and intermittant, and cannot provide the grid services such as response and reserve that are demanded of the major suppliers. And yet, those earning FITs are rewarded at a rate per MWh far higher than any conventional supplier obliged (through the Grid Code) to deliver both energy and the grid support services. This distorts the market such that now we see the likes of EdF demanding an up-front payment for any nuclear energy they supply at rates similar to those flowing from FITs/ROCs when elsewhere in the world they'd be earning at usual bulk grid rates. That's what I object to paying for.

It's galling to see many of these schemes being installed on church roofs - robbing Peter to pay Paul. FITs are regressive energy tariffs. They (and ROCs payments) are contributing to energy poverty. They are yet another example of the damage done by unthinking and hasty reaction to supposed looming climate change catastrophe.

Even if the deals about which you and I have written are dispensed with, the sense of robbing Peter to pay Paul and vice versa will always continue; that's life, so get used to it (as I'm sure you already are so don't need to) - and it's certainly not limited to alternative energy use!

The idea of having a power "grid" is as up for grabs as is anything else; complacency in such matters is unwise. That said, those who cannot make use of such deals because they are not on a national grid in the first place (few in UK but a few more in France and more again in rural Spain and Portugal) can still set up their own arrangements (indeed they've no option but to do so) and save money if they go for the alternative energy solutions; this will and indeed should ultimately be the way for most people who use alternative energy sources - they'll generate their own power and the big boys can go hang. FITs are therefore a stepping stone only, although one on which profits can be made by those who take full advantage of them while they still exist.

The main point, however, is that, subsidies or no subsidies, FITs or no FITs, someone somewhere will always be ready to take advantage of the DIY approach and, in the long run, may well be glad to have done so if and when the reliability of grid systems becomes far less universal than its generally perceived to be now.

Not far from the French village where I aim to end up, there's another which is now planning to go it alone by setting up a large PV array in a disused quarry that will aim to serve the entire village if they get away with completing it; of course this will mean all manner of corrupt backhanders to and from absolutely everyone living there and dodgy deals with other localities and EDF along the route, but if that's the only way to achieve anything of any use and benefit, then so be it - and I wish them the best of success with it because at least once they've cracked it they'll have cut their dependency upon the grid, which will be of benefit not only to them but also to a woefully overstretched grid.

In the end, governments that charge tax on power will also lose out, of course, because they'll struggle to be able to justify the levying of taxes on what people generate on their own premises that they don't sell to anyone else for a profit.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

People not connected to the grid should be supported in their efforts to establish supplies. However, in the UK, if you're not grid connected, you don't get FITs. And only the capital-rich can afford their own renewable energy system.

I may be complacent about the merits of the grid but I recall the huge improvement in overall power system generation efficiency which resulted from its establishment in the UK. It will be with us for a while yet.