taking from the poor and giving to the rich

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

as we know, Coalition policy in all areas of our life.... however this piece in the NYT by Krugman caught my eye since it reruns George Monbiot's analysis of the CAP in the EU and Mr Osborne and his merchant banker [failed] friend and their comments on food banks ...

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I'd have thought George's most blatant example of robbing Peter to pay Paul (in the UK) would be renewable energy subsidies, which he (and the left) espouses. Even the churches are at it!

[ahinton]

I'd have thought George's most blatant example of robbing Peter to pay Paul (in the UK) would be renewable energy subsidies, which he (and the left) espouses. Even the churches are at it!

Some of these have been shortsightedly scaled back, actually - but do you think it's a bad idea to encourage the growth in renewables and sustainables in the energy market when, as we all know from experience, the greater the take-up, the sooner the costs of the equipment fall, to the point at which such subsidies will no longer be needed? One has only to consider the typical cost of the equipment for a solar PV installation, which has fallen considerably onver the past few years. Where in any case in the offer of this kind of subsidy is the alleged element of robbing Peter to pay Paul, given that both Peter and Paul are entitled to take advantage of it?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

There's no sign of the cost of windmills dropping. If anything they're becoming more expensive to install. On shore windmills are now well in excess of £1m/MW installed, offshore £3m/MW; prior costs of onshore used to be ~£0.8m/MW, North Hoyle (offshore) was built for £1.25m/MW. Windmill development has had ten years to lower its costs and improve its technology; it's done neither, simply trousered the subsidy.

As for solar, the price came down solely because the government cut the subsidy. When the subsidy was near halved, lo, within a few months the cost of the panels halved - the result of manufacturing development?

Peter can't install a solar system because he can't afford it. Paul can, and he gets a huge subsidy which Peter helps to pay for.

[ahinton]

There's no sign of the cost of windmills dropping. If anything they're becoming more expensive to install. On shore windmills are now well in excess of £1m/MW installed, offshore £3m/MW; prior costs of onshore used to be ~£0.8m/MW, North Hoyle (offshore) was built for £1.25m/MW. Windmill development has had ten years to lower its costs and improve its technology; it's done neither, simply trousered the subsidy.

I don't disagree with any of that; indeed, wind farm problems are what give the renewables/sustainables sector of the energy market a bad name.

As for solar, the price came down solely because the government cut the subsidy. When the subsidy was near halved, lo, within a few months the cost of the panels halved - the result of manufacturing development?

The price came down largely because of increased take-up, as almost always happens.

Peter can't install a solar system because he can't afford it. Paul can, and he gets a huge subsidy which Peter helps to pay for.

Peter can't invest in an ISA because he can't afford it. Paul can and he gets a huge subsidy for which Peter helps to pay. There'll always be some winners and losers just as there'll always be those who bend subsidies for their own profit, but Peter and Paul remain equally entitled to take advantage of the same government subsidies and, in any case, the overall benefits in terms of easing the strain on the national grid, cutting emissions and air pollution, reducing the numbers of moving parts and the rest are likewise equally available to Peter and Paul. You may as well try to argue that all taxation is robbing Peter to pay Paul (and some might say that you would not necessarily be entirely wrong).

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The price came down largely because of increased take-up, as almost always happens.

Peter can't invest in an ISA because he can't afford it. Paul can and he gets a huge subsidy for which Peter helps to pay. There'll always be some winners and losers just as there'll always be those who bend subsidies for their own profit, but Peter and Paul remain equally entitled to take advantage of the same government subsidies and, in any case, the overall benefits in terms of easing the strain on the national grid, cutting emissions and air pollution, reducing the numbers of moving parts and the rest are likewise equally available to Peter and Paul. You may as well try to argue that all taxation is robbing Peter to pay Paul (and some might say that you would not necessarily be entirely wrong).

Well you say solar panels came down because of demand (why aren't they becoming more expensive now that demand has sharply fallen), I say it was because the subsidy was slashed. Either way, there was no technology improvement.

There is no benefit to the national grid. Solar is totally discounted from grid calculations since it's non-despatchable. In fact, it makes grid management more diificult the larger the proportion of solar is connected since fossil fuel plant has to stop and start (thus increasing their emissions) to cater for the fluctuations of renewables. Any benefit that Peter might see can only be in the form of reduced electricity bills, and yet we know the green subsidy proportion on our electricity bills is rising, hand in hand with fuel poverty.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

yes but AIC two things bother me; the scale of the rip off is huge when it comes to agribusiness, far far larger than solar subsidies

... and the second thing is that you have banged on about them before [not on this thread], and i tend to agree that they are not thought through, i do not wish to agree with you because i expect a load of climate change denial of the saloon bar sort as practised by a certain Mr Neill to start pouring forth ... perhaps you might clarify your views for me? ....

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Solar subsidies are really a side issue, though they do provide a reasonably consistent power supply (it doesn't have to be sunny) compared with wind power (not working during the current anticyclone). Fossil fuel power stations cannot easily be stopped and nuclear ones don't necessarily stop even when you want them to.

Farm subsidies may be desirable in certain instances, perhaps for investment purposes, but the current iniquitous policy needs to change.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Fossil fuel power stations cannot easily be stopped.

Piffle

[An_Inspector_Calls]

yes but AIC two things bother me; the scale of the rip off is huge when it comes to agribusiness, far far larger than solar subsidies

... and the second thing is that you have banged on about them before [not on this thread], and i tend to agree that they are not thought through, i do not wish to agree with you because i expect a load of climate change denial of the saloon bar sort as practised by a certain Mr Neill to start pouring forth ... perhaps you might clarify your views for me? ....

CAP applies across Europe. So does the subsidy on renewables and I doubt there's much difference in the scales. And at least from CAP we do get some food . . .

I suppose you're referring to Andrew Neil discussing climate change (and specifically the current temperature standstill) with Davey. In the sense that neither is an expert on climate science, then perhaps it was a saloon bar debate. It's just a pity our energy policy seems to be decided in a saloon bar discussion.

As for climate change, my view is that, of course, CO2 causes climate change. I grasped that way back in the 70s when working on energy trapping phenomena in gaseous and solid organic compounds. Back then, like Fred Hoyle, I couldn't see what there was to worry about. Since the first IPCC report there have been estimates of 'by how much' for each doubling of CO2 concentrations. These varied considerably depending upon how much you believed various positive feedback mechanisms existed. The estimates vary between ~1 C and 6 C. But the trend with the sequence of IPCC reports over the years (they're every 5 years) has been relentlessly downward. Moreover, no one has convincingly (or even remotely) demonstrated any of the necessary positive feedback mechanisms that might cause problems. Now there's a temperature standstill during a period when CO2 has continued to ramp up, and this has been not been predicted by any of the climate models. That's serious, because the major part of this debate is under-pinned by the models. So I'm sceptical as to why we need, in the UK, to spend a vast sum on subsidies to install more renewables and augment the electricity grid on a 'maybe' for which the evidence is getting weaker all the time. And the Precautionary Principle won't do. It's a lazy argument (dodging any attempt at a costing analysis) and besides we should really apply the Precautionary Principle to any application of the Precautionary Principle.

[Richard Barrett]

Back then, like Fred Hoyle, I couldn't see what there was to worry about.

That would be the same Fred Hoyle who held (among other evidence-free fringe beliefs) that life on Earth began when bacteria arrived from elsewhere on comets, that the universe was in an eternal steady state, and that flu epidemics are caused by viruses from space.

The clue to why renewable energy sources are so important is in the word "renewable".

[An_Inspector_Calls]

And the clue to why renewable energy is a problem is in the words 'expensive' and 'subsidy'.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

ah thanks, as i thought .... the clue to energy is also in the words expensive depleting resources, subsidies and corruption, corporate gangsterism etc .... who hate to see their subsidised markets being taken away by renewables ...

i take my lead on this elsewhere

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I take that "subsidies and corruption, corporate gangsterism " refers to the renewables industry - all those landowners coining the subsidies, the wind advocates telling us 'it's always blowing somewhere in the UK, wind is not intermittent, its production aligns with the UK's load curve, etc'

McKay is very good, although you might want to refresh your memory reading chapter 18.

1.To make a difference, renewable facilities have to be country-sized.
For any renewable facility to make a contribution comparable to our current consumption, it has to be country-sized. To get a big contribution from wind, we used wind farms with the area of Wales. To get a big contribution from solar photovoltaics, we required half the area of Wales. To get a big contribution from waves, we imagined wave farms covering 500 km of coastline. To make energy crops with a big contribution, we took 75% of the whole country.

Renewable facilities have to be country-sized because all renewables are so diffuse. Table 18.10 summarizes most of the powers-per-unit- area that we encountered in Part I.

To sustain Britain’s lifestyle on its renewables alone would be very difficult. A renewable-based energy solution will necessarily be large and intrusive.

2.It’s not going to be easy to make a plan that adds up using renewables alone. If we are serious about getting off fossil fuels, Brits are going to have to learn to start saying “yes” to something. Indeed to several
somethings.

He doesn't cover shale gas though.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i am no believer in veggie sandal solutions myself, i opt for nuclear and electric cars, conservation and turning the thermostat down ...and solar heating ...

there has been no honest discussion and very little integrity in the energy sector in my lifetime .... the reason i do not take your line on renewables is the scandalous miscalculations of the old CEGB under its chair of the 'true' cost of wind power etc [check their depreciation costs etc] .... there are City types who agree with you but there is one sound conclusion in all this .... we are facing a huge investment and strategic challenge in energy, and special interests will dominate the debate ... i do not wish to add any weight to their influence since they always seek to make the poor poorer and the rich richer ....