PV has little benefit to the grid in the UK, as our peak usage is not when the sun is out. Therefore I think this is a good move and PV should never have been promoted to the level it was in the UK.

Maybe PV costs will now come down enough that it will still make sense on the bases of a persons own usage of the output.

I would like to see the money going to good standard of insulation in homes along with lots more investment in wave power and tidal power.

Wind seems to have had it, as no one will stand up the the green party etc that does not wish to see wind power near where the live!

Posted By: ringiI would like to see the money going to good standard of insulation in homes...

I admire your optimism!

Solar PV always generates when demand is elevated. It never produces in the small hours when demand is lower. According to grid watch, combined cycle gas turbines are currently the largest source of electricity at just over 11 GW. That's 11GW worth of fossil fuel burning on a summer day that could be displaced by PV. Once we've displaced fossil fuels on a summer day *then* we can cross the bridge of storage etc, and by that time costs will no doubt have fallen further. Sunny places with high electricity costs have already reached this point such as parts of Australia where domestic PV has caused grid demand to fall to its lowest around midday/early afternoon, lower than the traditional 2-3am minimum.

Gideon and co's policy is radically anti-environmental and can only be explained by a desire to protect big fossil fuel interests and energy companies but they and the billionaire press have been very skilful in creating the public perception that 'green subsidies' are behind the rise in energy prices, when they are in reality only a tiny fraction. Can't see any other reason to curb on-shore wind which was one of the cheapest sources, pay almost twice the wholesale price for electricity from Hinkley point and now want to pay about a third of the wholesale price of electricity for domestic solar PV. So Hinkley C electricity will be paid almost six times as much as domestic solar, and for 35 years rather than 20.

Oh and just when the world is told we have already got far more fossil fuel reserves than can be safely burned, they want to rush into exhuming a new one by fracking - makes me really angry!

Ed

I agree CW; non strategic, and lacking direction.

Especially dismal at a time when the USA, China and other countries are pushing ahead, the UK is going to go to Paris with a very backward position. It seems the Ukip-Lawson tendency is in control of Tory policy and while the government hasn't actually denied that climate change is happening or a problem those who believe that are setting the policy.

Ed

Survey after survey show that there is a large majority in favour of expanding renewable generation, especially solar but also onshore wind. If a government was honest with people about the costs and spoke about the facts such as the actual small figures added to average bills, rather than deceiving people into thinking bills are rising mostly or entirely because of subsidies, it would be pretty easy to win the public over. Honesty would also involve being clear about the costs to the economy, human health and nature of burning fossil fuels on the huge scale we are doing, and that on the other hand the cost of renewable power is falling.

If America the land of the gas guzzler, big oil and the worst climate denial comes up with much more ambitious plans than the UK, then we know we're in a bad state.

Ed

Posted By: CWattersWhich party promises sane middle ground policies that people will support?

Sane maybe, but I'm not sure the average GBF poster could be described as middle ground, assuming you mean the median person.

I said the _average_ GBF poster

Posted By: ringiI ... think that FIT should have been reduced over a number of years

But that requires planning and thinking ahead. It's fairly clear that government has enough trouble just thinking at all.

I wonder if they could spell Capability Maturity Model

Posted By: ringiOne issue is that FIT mostly benefited people with money, but put up the cost of energy most for people without money.

The first bit may be true, but I believe the second part has been analysed and shown to be false. The increased availability of renewable energy has brought down wholesale prices. At least some of that price reduction got through to the retail market.
I'd be grateful if anyone can find the source of this research.

Survey after survey show that there is a large majority in favour of expanding renewable generation, especially solar but also onshore wind.

Very true, but if you ask "are you in favour of a wind farm in your area" you get a very different answer.

Some years ago a survey was carried out in our village by the Parish Council. It wasn't about renewables but village life in general, one of the questions just happened to be about wind turbines. A majority was in favour of them including me.

About two years later an application for a wind farm was submitted on an area of land to the west. Despite the large area available six turbines were proposed about as close as possible to two villages/conservation areas.

Something like 85% of the population in these two villages wrote to object. I think only one independent resident wrote in favour. Even one of the land owners wrote to object! He was then reminded that he had signed a contract and withdrew his objection (but not before if had appeared on the planning web site).

The developer submitted hundreds of post cards from people in favour that they collected by stopping people in the street of a town some 13 miles away. None lived near the site. Some were tourists visiting from towns 200 miles away. I think only two people spoke in support at the appeal and one of those was from Greenpeace and I think he lived in the next county.

If developers insist on putting turbines so close to houses it's no wonder we all turn into NIMBYS.

PS: I know there are surveys saying people would support a wind farm in their area. However we found many people in our village didn't really understand how big they would be until a blimp was flown on site. Even a surveyor we used was shocked when his motorised theodolite pointed to where the top of one of the turbines would have been. He initially thought he'd made a mistake.

Posted By: CWatters

Survey after survey show that there is a large majority in favour of expanding renewable generation, especially solar but also onshore wind.

Very true, but if you ask "are you in favour of a wind farm in your area" you get a very different answer.

But surely that is no different from mobile telephone masts, electricity pylons, TV transmitter towers, motorways etc, which pretty much everyone use and recognise as necessary?

Ed

The trouble with these type of surveys/questionnaires, is that they are biased from the start.

Why would anyone want more expensive power and the generator in their backyard when they currently get cheap and reliable power 'from somewhere else'.

I'd say after initially concerns re domestic PV. After 5 years of having and fitting them I think they're a great cost effective option for onsite/local generation and a way to reduce fossil fuel burning , simple and easy to install on most home. Quick partical fix to a long term problem.
I also think they're not far off standing on their own without subsides . The various eco lobby groups claim coal, gas and other fossil fuels benefit from subsides higher than current renewable subsides.
Making this green subsides backlash uproar a nonsense
Can they be believed ?