Solar Next In Line For Subsidy Cuts
By Paul Homewood
h/t Mark Hodgson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33619017
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is consulting on plans that would see subsidies for some new solar farms close by 2016.
The government says the move is necessary to protect consumers.
The solar industry said subsidies were one of the cheapest ways that the government could meet its climate change targets.
Under the government’s plans, so called "small scale" solar farms will no longer qualify for support under a key subsidy mechanism – the renewables obligation – from April next year.
New projects that receive the subsidy may also see the level cut.
Naturally the solar industry are whining:
Jonathan Selwyn, a board member of the Solar Trade Association, told the BBC that the subsidy cut would "have a very large impact" on the industry.
Mr Selwyn called for "a level playing field" for solar in relation to nuclear energy and fracking, in terms of subsidies and planning regulations.
I think that the fracking industry, which receives no subsidy at all, would be highly delighted!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
If the costs were not levelised, the solar would effectively be far more subsidised compared to nuclear.
On a per kW/hr delivered basis the renewables subsidies are more than nuclear, and that’s for crap electricity at that.
Look on the bright side, Keitho. Solar receives no FIT during the night.
Whereas wind gets a FIT when there’s no wind…. or too much wind..
Good luck next winter, you guys from the UK !!
On today’s Radio 4 interview on this morning the BBC showed typical bias by siding immediately with the solar industry. The energy minister was put under outrageous pressure and the “debate” was very one sided.
” New projects that receive the subsidy may also see the level cut. ”
……… so presumably existing projects will continue to recieve the same subsidy?
Its so hilarious.. we get drones coming and telling us just how efficient and cheap solar and wind are… and that they are cost effective against real energy supplies….
but remove the subsidies…
… and they collapse in a screaming, whining mess
roflmao !!!
Thanks for the article, Paul. Here’s the latest ramping up ahead of propaganda from the BBC (it seems we’re going to get at least one scare story a day between now and the Paris jamboree): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33612294
Despite containing sections which say things like “Some birds are also set to thrive including the avocet and the little egret. Some are already doing so, including the Dartford warbler which was reduced to just a few pairs in the 1960s. It recovered and has moved across England in recent years, thanks to a changing climate” the headline is “Growing threat to England’s curlews from climate change”.
Keep’em coming BBC, let’s continue to see your complete and utter lack of journalistic integrity. Anyone would think they want the Government to scrap the TV licence!
And this is the affect that the cut in subsidies is having.
http://www.thegwpf.com/uk-planning-bids-for-renewable-energy-projects-drop-by-80/
80% reduction in Project Applications, which just proves they are in it for the trough of cash, nothing to do with being “green”.
I don’t understand!
The Warmists keep insisting that
unreliablesrenewables have achieved and even undercut the price of fossil fuels.So how come they are still dependent on subsidies?
Surely the advocates aren’t telling porky pies?