B1524 – Stadia Solar Energy Bill 2019 (Seconding Reading). Watch

This discussion is closed.
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 month ago
#21
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
If you knew the point he was making why did you respond to another point then, are you dense?
I'm sorry? I was agreeing with Jammy and countering a counter to his point.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 month ago
#22
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
I'm sorry? I was agreeing with Jammy and countering a counter to his point.
D0D0A7E0-72F9-4F39-AE61-8BEF11738910.jpeg
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 month ago
#23
(Original post by barnetlad)
For the majority of those clubs that are within the scope of this Bill, there are five years to comply, and the cost is less than that of one player's salary for that time, or one transfer fee for an average player. For those in the top two divisions, less than a year's salary, or probably one month's for the club just outside Manchester.
Many don't have 5 years, many have only 2 or 3 years. Now let's have a little look at the figures, maybe we should use Bury and Giggs lane as an example. Google Maps and pixel measurement give me a total stands roof area of ~11,000m2, renewableenergyhub gives a best value rate of about £6-8k for 28m2 and scaling this up to Giggs Lane pushes the cost near to the million mark. Now Companies House comes in useful because we can look at the accounts and see that in the last 2 years with accounts being filed that would equate to ~20% of annual turnover, greater than gross profit and increases losses by 35-40%.

Bolton, larger capacity so I assume larger roofs to cover, only 2 years because they're over 25k, also making losses year in year out.

Move up to the Championship and Charlton paints a similar picture

Jump up to the Premiership and the issue still persists, in this case looking at Cardiff but why stick to the bottom of the pile, move up to Everton and we see a trend emerging

(Original post by CatusStarbright)
The English plural is 'stadiums'.
As is the Latin plural, Stadia is only the plural for those that think they know Latin and want to look smart
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 month ago
#24
The lowest Championship wage bill in 2017/18 was £10m, so about £300k per season is not unreasonable. Even Barnet in the National League have income of £3m per year, who would have to find perhaps £150k per year if no sponsor could be found (roof area is smaller than most).
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 month ago
#25
Stupid idea. Energy return minimal and cost return minimal. The only things massive about this is the price and complexity of retrofitting older stadia. And there's the principles of stealing the stadia's energy. Solar panels shouldn't be connected to the National Grid. If they produce energy that energy should be used to power the stadium. Expecting the stadium to contribute to everyone else is deplorable
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 month ago
#26
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Stupid idea. Energy return minimal and cost return minimal. The only things massive about this is the price and complexity of retrofitting older stadia. And there's the principles of stealing the stadia's energy. Solar panels shouldn't be connected to the National Grid. If they produce energy that energy should be used to power the stadium. Expecting the stadium to contribute to everyone else is deplorable
Except the stadium takes out of the grid and it will likely produce less than it consumes (I'd imagine) so it really isn't an issue. Any that it would put in to the grid it would be paid for.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 month ago
#27
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Except the stadium takes out of the grid and it will likely produce less than it consumes (I'd imagine) so it really isn't an issue. Any that it would put in to the grid it would be paid for.
If the stadium takes out more than it produces it shouldn't need to be in the grid. It would be pointless inflicting more cost on the owners for no benefit.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 month ago
#28
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Stupid idea. Energy return minimal and cost return minimal. The only things massive about this is the price and complexity of retrofitting older stadia. And there's the principles of stealing the stadia's energy. Solar panels shouldn't be connected to the National Grid. If they produce energy that energy should be used to power the stadium. Expecting the stadium to contribute to everyone else is deplorable
As I understand it the excess energy supplied to the Grid is bought back by the Grid, not supplied free of charge.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 month ago
#29
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
As I understand it the excess energy supplied to the Grid is bought back by the Grid, not supplied free of charge.
At a rate below market rate.

It still does not explain why there needs to be a connection if a stadium might not be a net energy contributor. Analysis and exceptions should really apply instead of blanket policies to apply to everything. And it doesn't explain why the cost should be at the stadium's expense. The cost of connecting them up is not cheap (it's never cheap when doing it to your own house let alone a stadium). The revenue from selling any surplus is not going to cover the cost of installation and the cost of panels. For a house the average time to recoup costs is 12-18 years and that's with government subsidies before the axe in 2015. It's longer now.

Second point, it might be none of this works in some stadia. Large commercial premises pay for energy all in one go, there's no meter. One set fee covers all of their usage. Homeowners are paid for their surplus energy by looking at what is used and generated using a smart meter. It's impractical to expect stadia to have meters installed if they don't already have them. Imagine having to rewire every electricity cable through a central portal instead of joining the national grid at the nearest location. More so, imagine the fire risk if everything joins in one location :afraid:. It'll end up with stadiums not being paid anything. It returns to the earlier point of it needing to be done on a case-by-case basis.

This bill is one of those dreamy ideas. Amazing in your mind. Terrible on paper and even worse in practice.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 month ago
#30
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
As is the Latin plural, Stadia is only the plural for those that think they know Latin and want to look smart
So you then trying to correct people when there's no widespread agreement. The great Latin history books from the 1800s all used stadia.
1
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 month ago
#31
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
So you then trying to correct people when there's no widespread agreement. The great Latin history books from the 1800s all used stadia.
The English plural is 'stadiums'.
0
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 month ago
#32
Both variations are accepted, though "stadiums" is more common
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 month ago
#33
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
The English plural is 'stadiums'.
And the Japanese plural is 'スタジアム'.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 month ago
#34
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
At a rate below market rate.
By which you mean that a private electricity company will buy electricity at a lower price than it sells?

(Original post by BlueIndigoViolet)
Both variations are accepted, though "stadiums" is more common
^^ This.

I'm in the 'stadiums' camp personally but then I'd also be in the 'radiuses' and 'phenomenons' camp too if one were widespread...
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 month ago
#35
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
By which you mean that a private electricity company will buy electricity at a lower price than it sells?



^^ This.

I'm in the 'stadiums' camp personally but then I'd also be in the 'radiuses' and 'phenomenons' camp too if one were widespread...
Yes. Private companies will always look to acquire at the cheapest rate
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 month ago
#36
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
And the Japanese plural is 'スタジアム'.
Fascinating.
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 month ago
#37
(Original post by barnetlad)
The lowest Championship wage bill in 2017/18 was £10m, so about £300k per season is not unreasonable. Even Barnet in the National League have income of £3m per year, who would have to find perhaps £150k per year if no sponsor could be found (roof area is smaller than most).
You really need to check your maths/ Of course it might come as news to you but there are a great many sports clubs that are not only not in the Premier league, nor just outside the national football leagues, but outside football all together. Many clubs in regional leagues will be hit, clubs with assets in the hundreds of thousands and so small that they don't even have to present full accounts, let alone audited accounts. Even the top rugby clubs appear poor and irrelevant financially when compared to even the **** football teams
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 month ago
#38
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
You really need to check your maths/ Of course it might come as news to you but there are a great many sports clubs that are not only not in the Premier league, nor just outside the national football leagues, but outside football all together. Many clubs in regional leagues will be hit, clubs with assets in the hundreds of thousands and so small that they don't even have to present full accounts, let alone audited accounts. Even the top rugby clubs appear poor and irrelevant financially when compared to even the **** football teams
Small clubs are exempt from either the 1,000 seat or 2,000 capacity rule. I am aware of the financial health or otherwise of many sports clubs. Many have very small amounts of roof space too, with much of their grounds being open.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 month ago
#39
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Stupid idea. Energy return minimal and cost return minimal. The only things massive about this is the price and complexity of retrofitting older stadia. And there's the principles of stealing the stadia's energy. Solar panels shouldn't be connected to the National Grid. If they produce energy that energy should be used to power the stadium. Expecting the stadium to contribute to everyone else is deplorable
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Except the stadium takes out of the grid and it will likely produce less than it consumes (I'd imagine) so it really isn't an issue. Any that it would put in to the grid it would be paid for.
Given the number of days (or hours) that a sports stadium covered by this Bill is used, I expect it to contribute energy to the grid, for which it is paid.
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
If the stadium takes out more than it produces it shouldn't need to be in the grid. It would be pointless inflicting more cost on the owners for no benefit.
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
At a rate below market rate.

It still does not explain why there needs to be a connection if a stadium might not be a net energy contributor. Analysis and exceptions should really apply instead of blanket policies to apply to everything. And it doesn't explain why the cost should be at the stadium's expense. The cost of connecting them up is not cheap (it's never cheap when doing it to your own house let alone a stadium). The revenue from selling any surplus is not going to cover the cost of installation and the cost of panels. For a house the average time to recoup costs is 12-18 years and that's with government subsidies before the axe in 2015. It's longer now.

Second point, it might be none of this works in some stadia. Large commercial premises pay for energy all in one go, there's no meter. One set fee covers all of their usage. Homeowners are paid for their surplus energy by looking at what is used and generated using a smart meter. It's impractical to expect stadia to have meters installed if they don't already have them. Imagine having to rewire every electricity cable through a central portal instead of joining the national grid at the nearest location. More so, imagine the fire risk if everything joins in one location :afraid:. It'll end up with stadiums not being paid anything. It returns to the earlier point of it needing to be done on a case-by-case basis.

This bill is one of those dreamy ideas. Amazing in your mind. Terrible on paper and even worse in practice.
The timescale to recoup costs, assuming no sponsorship, may well be many years I agree. Sports stadiums, unless many houses and other business premises, are usually used by the same club for many years, even in some cases over a century. Many of the roofs now in place were installed as part of the move to more or all seater grounds in the 1990s. A long payback period is reasonable.

The 25% rule recognises that some parts of a stadium may have heritage protection, some may have less sunshine or brightness than other parts, and that some roofs are easier to fit solar panel than others.
0
The Mogg
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 month ago
#40
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
And the Japanese plural is 'スタジアム'.
How is that even relevant jesus christ :lol:

Also, how has this derailed into an argument over the usage of a fairly innocent word, we now know what the author meant by it now lets move on. You're welcome.
1
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you voted in today's general election?

Yes (29)
45.31%
No (16)
25%
I'm not old enough (19)
29.69%

Watched Threads

View All