British Gas to increase electricity prices by 12.5% in Sept

sd99 wrote: »

Correct, but I meant if I hadn't switched last week, the same fix now would cost 13.5% more as they have today withdrawn the 'HomeEnergy Fixed Aug 2019' product, and replaced it with the 'HomeEnergy Secure Aug 2019' product...

Ah that makes more sense.
Have to say for my usage/area I rarely find any BG tariffs listed in the top 20 cheapest tariffs on CEC so the exact tariffs they offer escape me.

One thing that does not appear to be reported in the media is the removal of the BG £15 annual dual fuel discount. This means dual fuel customers will be paying £7.50 extra a year for both their electric and gas. So the increase in electricity will be greater than the reported 12.5% for dual fuel customers and they will be getting an increase on their gas as well!

lstar337 wrote: »

But why are green taxes increasing when green energy sources are requiring less and less subsidy in order to be viable?

Many green sources (solar on/off shore wind) are now coming in at better prices than HPC ever will.

So where is the money going?

Note the source, The Telegraph. Known to hate all forms of green energy.

It appears that what are being called "Green Taxes" are in fact for other things. The majority being for (not so) SMART meters (about £40 per year), support funds for companies going bust, Warm Home payments, etc. Some may even be for paying for the clean up of nuclear & fossil fuels.

In fact it looks like less than £30/year of this "Green Tax" is actually for helping to support solar & wind generation, and that is actually reducing as costs come down.

Cardew wrote: »

New installations might attract lower subsidies - but they are still getting subsidies.

However the £millions/billions already being paid out in subsidies is index linked for a 25 or 20 year term. These subsidies are paid for by all electricity customers.

For instance the early adopters of solar PV on domestic properties have their subsidies index linked for 25 years and are now getting over 50p for every kWh(unit) they generate; and to add insult to injury they don't have to export a single kWh if they can use it in their property.

Cheer up, it could be worse, we could be financing new generation that doesn't start till the late 2020's, on a high 35yr subsidy, with payments going to France and China, and despite having subsidised the technology for 60yrs already, and at a time when the US is cancelling builds because of the high cost impact on customers ...... or is this another discussion thread where we're not allowed to mention your beloved nuclear?

Cardew wrote: »

Not 'beloved nuclear' - I simply prefer something that can generate at night, and when the sun isn't shining and the wind not blowing.

And you are entitled to your opinion, but I prefer RE as it needs far less subsidies than nuclear, after all .....

These subsidies are paid for by all electricity customers.

...... and after just 10yrs of support the RE subsidies are falling rapidly, with 15yr off-shore wind contracts (this year) expected to join PV and on-shore wind at lower costs than the 35yr new nuclear subsidies. Even more impressive when you consider that nuclear has already been subsidised for 60yrs.

BTW, you also said:

Cardew wrote: »

and to add insult to injury they don't have to export a single kWh if they can use it in their property.

This is just to remind you that whether the electricity is consumed on site, or exported, the effect on the grid is the same.

Eg if I generate 1kWh and export it to my neighbours, then that will displace 1.08kWh of leccy that the National Grid needs from fossil fuel generation.

However, if I generate 1kWh and consume it, then that will displace 1.08kWh of leccy that the National Grid needs from fossil fuel generation.

So the result is the same, and your point serves no purpose other than to mislead. I could have said 'accidentally' mislead, but since you are aware of this, as you've been corrected dozens of times over the last 5yrs, it seems silly to continue the game of whether you are deliberately trying to post false information.

[Note - UK Distribution losses are estimated at being approx 8%]

BTW2 - I know I've asked this before, but you've never answered me - why do you run a campaign against the only energy subsidy that goes to your neighbours, but don't campaign against all the other subsidies (direct or indirect), none of which go to your neighbours? Shirley, a rational person would go after nuclear subsidies first?