The solar power industry says it has seen the loss of more than half its 35,000 jobs due to recent changes in government energy policy, just at a time when solar power has eclipsed coal as a major generator of Britain’s electricity.
Experts believe ministers had cut subsidies too far and too fast, praising the “seismic”, record-breaking growth of solar in recent years.
If subsidy cuts cause job losses then it isn’t competitive, is it?
It is time people realise that it is not wind but subsidies that turn the wind mills.
It’s cost-competitive in Arizona. And solar heating for hot water is probably cost-competitive in the UK (not entirely sure given installation & maintenance costs). But photovoltaic still isn’t competitive in the UK.
Not to worry, another barmy set of taxes and regulations on fossil fuel burners will soon take care of that.
@ Andrew M
Solar water heating *is* economic in the UK even if you employ a professional to install it (provided he’s honest). We get a maintenance visit once every five years – the third one found a part needed replacing.
A few years ago another site was discussing it and of of the guys (an engineer, so “handy”) described how he had designed and built his own.
Not to worry, another barmy set of taxes and regulations on fossil fuel burners will soon take care of that.
If the world’s governments get their way and adopt emissions targets, we’ll see profitable oil companies fall away to be replaced by companies harvesting government subsidies. Or we’ll get companies like France’s Total who, being shit at oil and gas, suck up to their government in the hope it’ll be easier to collect taxpayer cash when the inevitable squeeze hits.
Technically, wouldn’t “seismic” growth be shaky?
And I’d think it’s geothermal that’s the only one that can see “seismic” growth.
Well, according to the greenies, (fracking) gas does seismic as well?
‘just at a time when solar power has eclipsed coal as a major generator of Britain’s electricity.’
You Brits must have a different definition of “major.”
@ SE
Yeah, they talk about “minor earthquakes” which the vast majority of people didn’t even notice. A minor earth tremor of 0.1 on the Richter scale is less than one-trillionth of a serious earthquake – enough to rattle a teacup in its saucer which a small child in a tantrum can do by stamping on the floor.
@ Gamecock
An eclipse only lasts for a few minutes. Please note he said *a* major not *the* major so solar being briefly ahead of coal, hydro, wind and biomass made it *a* major generator after nuclear and natural gas. “maior” translates as “larger” so as solar was briefly > coal, wind, hydro it was briefly “maior” – just not normally “magnum”.
No, John. The most solar EVER contributed was 7%. Once.
They kill coal, then boast the trivial solar as major. They can boast it produced more than coal, but that’s rather stupid since they killed coal.
@ Gamecock
That still made it bigger than coal, biomass, wind or hydro. Please note that “major” does not mean big – it just means “bigger”.
Secondly, if solar contributed 6% for the whole of May (how does the Grauniad know since National Grid doesn’t record solar PV generation?!?), then it must have produced more than 7% during daylight since it produces 0% in the dark.
Since wind currently shows as 1.16% (with a footnote than unmetered wind would add about another 30% so it’s about 1.5%), fake-renewable biomass 4.73% and hydro shows only 0.34% solar is/was bigger than wind, biomass and hydro. Deliberately misleading use of “major” but what do you expect from the Grauniad?
‘Please note that “major” does not mean big – it just means “bigger”.’
Sure, if you leave out gas and nuclear, the actual majors.
@ Gamecock
Observe my last sentence “Deliberately misleading use of “major” but what do you expect from the Grauniad?”
PS *maximus* is the latin for “biggest”
Solar cells in temperate latitudes* require about 20% more energy to produce (if you include mining the raw materials etc) than they will generate in their useful lifetime. They’re essentially a storage battery for Chinese coal-fired energy, which can be slowly released in the sunshine amid claims they’re ‘green’ (while generating lots and lots of lovely subsidies).
Utterly, utterly bonkers.
* They’re a sensible solution in (e.g.) Arizona or Texas where peak domestic demand (for aircon) and peak solar coincide a bit better.
“Deliberately misleading use of “major” but what do you expect from the Grauniad?”
So why did you defend it?
@ gamecock
I am NOT defending the Grauniad – I was informing you of the meaning of “major”.
There is a Kipling poem that points out the half-truth hides the blacker lie. So while you rabbit on about their abuse of language you miss more important bits like the massive subsidies to an energy conversion process and that it cannot ever keep the lights on in the dark. Ed Millionaireband decreed that poor people in the UK should subsidise, through a surcharge on their electricity bills, his rich pals who installed solar panels on their roof, paying them a subsidy for decades for each kilowatt-hour of four times the market price. That was evil.