We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Can we treat the governments policies on saving energy seriously?
Comments
-
The 'subsidies' were never intended to reflect the cost of local generation - simply to encourage more people to take part in it.
Firstly you have to own a house - not a flat. Then it has to have a roof of the correct size, shape and orientation.
They don't even have to export any of the electricity for which they receive a subsidy.
I believe roughly 2% of houses in UK have PV and the subsidies are paid for by all electricity customers.
Many of those house are owned by Rent a Roof(R-a-R) companies financed by venture capitalists. They didn't need any encouragement to suck up the subsidies!
Just one R-a-R firm(A Shade Greener) boasts on its website that it has installed 28,767 systems and have received a subsidy for 114,423,000kWh - and will continue to receive huge inflation linked subsidies for the next 20+ years.
http://ashadegreener.co.uk/
So what is the scheme, other than a method of transferring funds from electricity consumers, including the poor, to house owners or R-a-R company owners.0 -
Firstly you have to own a house - not a flat. Then it has to have a roof of the correct size, shape and orientation.
They don't even have to export any of the electricity for which they receive a subsidy.
I believe roughly 2% of houses in UK have PV and the subsidies are paid for by all electricity customers.
Many of those house are owned by Rent a Roof(R-a-R) companies financed by venture capitalists. They didn't need any encouragement to suck up the subsidies!
Just one R-a-R firm(A Shade Greener) boasts on its website that it has installed 28,767 systems and have received a subsidy for 114,423,000kWh - and will continue to receive huge inflation linked subsidies for the next 20+ years.
http://ashadegreener.co.uk/
So what is the scheme, other than a method of transferring funds from electricity consumers, including the poor, to house owners or R-a-R company owners.
Thanks for subsidising mine
0 -
So what is the scheme, other than a method of transferring funds from electricity consumers, including the poor, to house owners or R-a-R company owners.
It's a method of dissuading electricity consumers, including the rich, from using quite so much electricity.
There is no better way to reduce demand than by increasing price and those who advocate paying green subsidies from general taxation completely miss the point.
It would of course be 'unfair' to raise prices by (say) taxing electricity bills and using the proceeds to reduce general taxation. Cross-subsidising other vehicles that should reduce demand seemed (and still seems) a particularly elegant solution.NE Derbyshire.4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).24kWh of Pylontech batteries with Lux controller BEV : Hyundai Ioniq50 -
People perhaps overlook the fact that reducing electricity demand is more important than increasing the amount available.
By being paid to generate my own electricity, I am of course encouraged to buy less and indeed my increasing awareness of what I actually use cannot help but further reduce how much I buy.
The 'subsidies' were never intended to reflect the cost of local generation - simply to encourage more people to take part in it.
Hiya Eric, you may be interested in the 'Customer-led Network Revolution (CLNR) project':
Solar owners help shine light on UK’s future energy needs
“The data we collect will allow us to get a better understanding of the UK’s future energy needs. Our initial findings from these trials suggest that PV customers are typically more engaged and interested in their own energy use than customers without LCTs. We also found that compared to non-PV users, they tend to use more electricity during the day, which is the time when their solar energy is generating.
“These findings are interesting because these customers may therefore consume less energy during the early evening, when there are peaks in the demand for electricity, and when the network is under most pressure.”
Therefore, the project believes that the more solar energy is generated, the less demand will be placed on local electricity networks. Dr Sidebotham added: “We are also trialling automatic load switching, whereby electricity generated by solar panels in the day is automatically used within the home, and this could help move even more consumption into the day and reduce the early evening peak.
Mart.Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 28kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
It's a method of dissuading electricity consumers, including the rich, from using quite so much electricity.
There is no better way to reduce demand than by increasing price and those who advocate paying green subsidies from general taxation completely miss the point.
It would of course be 'unfair' to raise prices by (say) taxing electricity bills and using the proceeds to reduce general taxation. Cross-subsidising other vehicles that should reduce demand seemed (and still seems) a particularly elegant solution.
Surely, you are not being serious!
Do I understand that argument correctly?
To reduce the consumption of electricity by all consumers, the price is increased by imposing a 'Green Levy'.
However the proceeds of that 'green levy' should be given to the 2% of home owners with the correct roof and sufficient funds to purchase a PV system or Rent a Roof companies.
That is the silliest argument I have heard, confirmed by Martyn thanking you!0 -
Energy can't be too expensive if businesses leave their doors open or households their windows open in the middle of winter, yet they do. Of course some of them have money to burn. Perhaps the levies should be paid by those who have got the money to waste, and they can be identified quite easily. What do you think?0
-
Surely, you are not being serious!
Do I understand that argument correctly?
To reduce the consumption of electricity by all consumers, the price is increased by imposing a 'Green Levy'.
However the proceeds of that 'green levy' should be given to the 2% of home owners with the correct roof and sufficient funds to purchase a PV system or Rent a Roof companies.
That is the silliest argument I have heard, confirmed by Martyn thanking you!
It's simple economics.
Raising prices of any goods will reduce demand; reducing prices will increase demand. Nothing special about electricity - it follows same laws of economics as any other product.
Quite surprises me that government didn't keep the lions share of receipts but they really did want to be seen to be doing something to reduce fossil fuel dependency.NE Derbyshire.4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).24kWh of Pylontech batteries with Lux controller BEV : Hyundai Ioniq50 -
It's simple economics.
Raising prices of any goods will reduce demand; reducing prices will increase demand. Nothing special about electricity - it follows same laws of economics as any other product.
Quite surprises me that government didn't keep the lions share of receipts but they really did want to be seen to be doing something to reduce fossil fuel dependency.
Nobody disputes that raising prices reduces demand - for years that has been the rationale behind increasing the tax on tobacco products.
The stupidity of the FIT system is what they do with the proceeds of the 'Green Levy' which they use as the instrument to increase electricity prices.
Many of the poorest in our society live in rented all electric flats and so pay far more of the green levy.
What possible justification is there to give that green levy money to just 2% of home owners and Rent a Roof companies.
As Monbiot states, it really is transferring £billions from the poor to the middle class.0 -
The stupidity of the FIT system is what they do with the proceeds of the 'Green Levy' which they use as the instrument to increase electricity prices.
Many of the poorest in our society live in rented all electric flats and so pay far more of the green levy.
What possible justification is there to give that green levy money to just 2% of home owners and Rent a Roof companies.
What is it about the Dec/Xmas/Jan period that 'sets you off' each year?
So now you think the Green Levy only goes to 2% of homeowners ... isn't this ludicrous anti-PV campaign of yours just getting silly now?
Maybe to help you get through this troubling month, I can offer a couple of suggestions. You are clearly obsessed with me, given the constant references to my name, and also the 'thanks button' which you're always harping on about.
So feel free to call me Mart, and perhaps you could abbreviate the 'thanks button' to something like 'TBx'. These two measures should shave hours off your weekly posting time.
Oh, and cheer up, it's not all bad news. There's the tiniest chance that there is some sort of Karmic link between your 4 to 5 year anti PV & FiT campaign (4,000 .... 5,000 posts?), and the simply staggering success of FiT and PV all over the world during that period. Perhaps you could now start a similar campaign claiming that Wales will never win the Rugby World Cup! :T
All the best.
Mart.Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 28kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
The objections raised in 2010 are still absolutely valid. Those who installed PV then are now getting close to 50p/kWh in subsidy for each kWh generated; and will be getting this inflation linked for the next 20+ years. They don't even have to export any of that electricity.
!
Surely I can' be alone in not realising where the FIT subsidy came from when the decision was made to install PV?
Long gone are the days when govts tinkered with a penny on income tax. Now tax is collected on everything from everything resuting in perceived[?] unfairness.
E.g. The fact that income tax [and I pay a lot] does not cover the benefits bill highlights how messed up the UK is. How is that right? FITs is small fry in comparison...0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards