Fracking Hell...

I have no roof, and therefore disaprove of this.

Chernobyl is now a fantastic wildlife reserve- always a bright side.
The wildlife is definitely a bright side - It's all glow-in-the-dark.

Means they can go running at night more safely then- more win!

Neil - don't get me started on photovoltaic solar. it remains unsustainable, the technology has more embedded energy than can ever be generated in its lifetime, and they contain loads of nasties that make them a nightmare to dispose of at their end of life. Subsidies for this type of small scale generation is sadly little more than greenwash - and misguided at that.
Solar hot water on the other hand can be very useful in many climates and requires little more investment than a length of black rubber hose (and a roof, of course).

The government subsidy I'm talking about is on a large scale - £billions to help build offshore wind farms and nuclear power stations.

When I lived in Malta we had a solar water heater on the roof- worked brilliantly.

We had had to practically smuggle the damn thing in though- the Maltese government charges a massive tax on these as it saw you as trying to evade paying your energy bill.

What's that? Mintoff is batshit mad?

Its not the people who need the jumpers its their houses.
I've always wondered how much energy we could save if there was some kind of legal/financial incentive for landlords to improve insulation in their properties. There must be millions of rented homes in the UK burning more fuel in winter because neither the owner (who doesn't pay the gas bill) or the tenant (who wont live there more than a few years) have any incentive to improve insulation.

There was a boiler replacement incentive a few years ago. I missed it.

Quick google shows this kind of thing..
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/moneytaxandbenefits/benefitstaxcreditsandothersupport/on_a_low_income/dg_10018661

http://www.which.co.uk/energy/creating-an-energy-saving-home/guides/energy-grants/free-insulation-deals/

Its not the people who need the jumpers its their houses.

I've always wondered how much energy we could save if there was some kind of legal/financial incentive for landlords to improve insulation in their properties. There must be millions of rented homes in the UK burning more fuel in winter because neither the owner (who doesn't pay the gas bill) or the tenant (who wont live there more than a few years) have any incentive to improve insulation.
My house is on a district heating circuit, which serves a few hundred homes.

With that many houses, you would expect huge economies of scale - except that we pay more per year on heating bills than if we had our own gas boiler.

There is no individual incentive to turn the heating off ever, nor to have any insulation at all.

Tragedy of the commons at work.

What's that? Mintoff is batshit mad?

This is the man who sited a fucking power station in a bay just to ruin a political opponents view.

Yes, subsidies do encourage diversity, in very specific ways- providing a subsidy for solar panels encourages people to buy them.

With the recent effort in this direction it has encouraged the middle classes who have a) the capex and b) the roof to do so- funded by a national increase in the cost of electricity.

As a percentage of their household budget the cost of electricity has gone down- a result for the middle class solar panel owner.

However, their power bills have not gone down due to returning "clean" power to the grid, or generating their own green power, they have gone down because everyone else is paying part of their bill.

i.e. the people in high rise flat-blocks, paying more than 10% of their household income to energy companies are very charitably subsidising this so that the chap with solar panels can put more money towards his holiday in Tuscany.

Neil - don't get me started on photovoltaic solar. it remains unsustainable, the technology has more embedded energy than can ever be generated in its lifetime, and they contain loads of nasties that make them a nightmare to dispose of at their end of life. Subsidies for this type of small scale generation is sadly little more than greenwash - and misguided at that.
Solar hot water on the other hand can be very useful in many climates and requires little more investment than a length of black rubber hose (and a roof, of course).

The government subsidy I'm talking about is on a large scale - £billions to help build offshore wind farms and nuclear power stations.

Policies aside, you can easily generate more than you use with a few panels on a south facing roof.

You don't even need to be middle class.

point is, it's cheaper for everyone if you just buy from the grid. apart from you. and it's actively destroying the environment.

Policies aside, you can easily generate more than you use with a few panels on a south facing roof.

You don't even need to be middle class.

Point is that the total cost of that electricity, if you have to pay the un-subsidised price, makes that very much more expensive than the grid power.

So it's an indulgence, something to do if you have some spare cash lying around that you don't mind using for something whimsical.

How are they actively destroying the enviroment?

Not being dependend on the grid is only whimsical whilst a) it works b) prices are stable.

start here
http://www.txses.org/solar/content/solar-photovoltaic-end-life

But buying a diesel generator and collecting old chip fat is what you'd do if you were paying the real price for things- buying solar panels is what you do for fun, as it's less smelly.

But buying a diesel generator and collecting old chip fat is what you'd do if you were paying the real price for things- buying solar panels is what you do for fun, as it's less smelly.

I did try veggie oil in my van actually.

The subsidies have been cut now AFAIK. They were supposed to help develop and eventually bring down the cost of panels. The Germans are years ahead with a similar scheme.

start here
http://www.txses.org/solar/content/solar-photovoltaic-end-life

I'd hope in 30 years time there might be better ways of processing panels at the end of their life. I think that's pretty realistic.

Materials in PV cells can already be recycled.

Economically?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/03/solar-panels-ewaste

Economically?

Yes, when they're all fucked in 20 years there'll be loads of them, they suspect enough to be cost effective.

Ask this mob: http://www.pvcycle.org/

So the answer is no, then.

IANAE but I think the difference may be between standard silicon panels (can be dealt with and a majority of the market) vs thin film solar, which uses cadmium telluride and other elements

So the answer is no, then.

No. Read the article.

There's very little of them ready to be recycled so the answer is.. probably.