Solar ... In the news

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Just to be clear, so there can be no confusion, I have not suggested increasing the unit charge and having a fixed standing charge, I am suggesting increasing the unit charge and having no fixed standing charge.

My suggestion will, I believe, turn out to be a net benefit for those described in your earlier post .....



...... as these people are more likely to have lower consumption than the more wealthy, and higher consuming households in the UK.

In case there is still any confusion, here is a hypothetical example of before and after prices and revenue:

Unit charge 15p/kWh and standing charge of £105pa:

Low user, 2,000kWh = 2,000kWh@ 15p + £105 = £405
Average user, 3,500kWh = 3,500kWh@ 15p + £105 = £630
High user, 5,000kWh = 5,000kWh@ 15p + £105 = £855

Next you take the standing charge and divide it by the average use to share it out fairly. So £105/3,500kWh = 3p/kWh and then add this on to the unit price, so £15p + 3p = 18p/kWh:

Low user, 2,000kWh = 2,000kWh@ 18p = £360
Average user, 3,500kWh = 3,500kWh@ 18p = £630
High user, 5,000kWh = 5,000kWh@ 18p = £900

Note that the average bill, and the average revenue has not changed and remains at £630 per household. There is no net change to total revenue, however, the higher unit price should encourage a reduction in use as every kWh avoided now saves the household 20% more than before.

The assumption that wealthier households purchase more energy than low income households might not be true?

Energy saving measures require capital investment & that may be a factor that excludes those that are 'just getting by'.

'2 incomes no kids' households would probably benefit, those with 2 kids & one adult at home all day could possibly get clobbered if their consumption was very high.

Running the above figures again using the current Bulb tariff...

Low: -£32.40
Mid: -£4.25
High: +£25.90

10000kWh +£126.40 (Easy to get up to this sort of figure using fan heaters for supplementary heating).

pile-o-stone

ASavvyBuyer wrote: »

It is not Z that has been added to my ignore list. I value his posts, as they are on-topic and relevant.
It was by following Z's post that I investigated getting a ASHP and had one installed.

I'm happy to admit that I totally misunderstood your post

pile-o-stone

silverwhistle wrote: »

It's more likely that the less-well off will make more efforts to reduce usage than the better off, so why deny them that agency by making it more difficult for them?

The trouble is that the less well off's efforts to reduce usage will be turning off the heating and sitting in cold damp houses, rather than spending thousands of pounds on insulation, air tightness and new windows/doors.

As to your other point about a fixed standing charge, we have this with BT where we all pay the same amount for our landline connections, and the money is used to maintain the network. The only thing I'd change with this model is to have a separate company that just does the maintenance rather than maintenance and telephone/internet packages. The more we spread the cost across all users, the lower the fee will be (especially if there is openness about the income and spending). The unit price of the energy should be cheaper too as the suppliers can't inflate prices, claiming the standing charge is included in the rate.

As I said right at the start, the reason I'm proposing this approach is because it'd be fairer for everyone to pay rather than targeting solar users:

https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/solar_households_could_be_hit_by_radical_changes_to_network_costs

"The UK solar industry will be mostly hit by potential changes to residual network charge recovery, which Ofgem currently bases specifically on a household’s net consumption.

This means that customers who consume more electricity - drawing from the grid - pay more than those who use less. This has meant that adopters of rooftop solar PV, by reducing their reliance on the grid, effectively pay less in residual charges than those without.

Customers with batteries could too offset their exposure to residual charges by drawing from the grid when electricity is at its cheapest and using stored electricity during peak times.

It has long been argued that this has created an imbalance in energy bills, allowing consumers able to afford rooftop solar to pay less towards the ongoing maintenance and operation of the grid.

“When one set of consumers pays less, it increases charges for others, including those that are in vulnerable circumstances.

“The networks exist to provide electricity at times when we rely upon them. We want to make sure that all users pay a fair share of the costs even if they are only using the networks when their on-site generation is not producing electricity,” Wright wrote.

Ofgem has firstly considered it fairest that residual charges are recovered from demand, rather than supply or a mixture of the two. This means that end consumers will be burdened with the majority of residual costs, however this is not too different from the current means of cost recovery."

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

The assumption that wealthier households purchase more energy than low income households might not be true?

Might not, but probably is.

1961Nick wrote: »

10000kWh +£126.40 (Easy to get up to this sort of figure using fan heaters for supplementary heating).

Easy to get up to any figure, if that's your intention.

But to repeat what I said - "My suggestion will, I believe, turn out to be a net benefit for those described in your earlier post"

Note the use of the term net, since there will always be winners and losers, but I suspect the net change will be beneficial, and using single negative examples is a pointless spin move as that game can be played by all, but then nobody wins.

zeupater

pile-o-stone wrote: »

... "... This means that customers who consume more electricity - drawing from the grid - pay more than those who use less. This has meant that adopters of rooftop solar PV, by reducing their reliance on the grid, effectively pay less in residual charges than those without.

Customers with batteries could too offset their exposure to residual charges by drawing from the grid when electricity is at its cheapest and using stored electricity during peak times.

It has long been argued that this has created an imbalance in energy bills, allowing consumers able to afford rooftop solar to pay less towards the ongoing maintenance and operation of the grid.

“When one set of consumers pays less, it increases charges for others, including those that are in vulnerable circumstances.

“The networks exist to provide electricity at times when we rely upon them. We want to make sure that all users pay a fair share of the costs even if they are only using the networks when their on-site generation is not producing electricity,” Wright wrote.

Ofgem has firstly considered it fairest that residual charges are recovered from demand, rather than supply or a mixture of the two. This means that end consumers will be burdened with the majority of residual costs, however this is not too different from the current means of cost recovery."

Hi

However, looking at the text isn't there a fair case to consider it as being a prime example of pure spin that the solarpowerportal website has simply reported? ....

Effectively the quoted article states that the infrastructure costs are currently bourne by the demand side as opposed to the supply side but fails to mention that this fixed cost element is currently almost exclusively covered as a fixed cost standing charge, therefore whatever the effect that microgeneration has on individual bills, there's absolutely no direct impact on infrastructure (reported as residual cost) funding!

... Furthermore, there would be a very strong counter argument that as microgeneration nodes act both on the supply & demand side of the equation, the supply side should be subject to the same rules as centralised generation regarding ongoing network access charges and therefore some form of netting formula should be applied to the access cost


HTH
Z

GreatApe

1961Nick wrote: »

The assumption that wealthier households purchase more energy than low income households might not be true?

Energy saving measures require capital investment & that may be a factor that excludes those that are 'just getting by'.

'2 incomes no kids' households would probably benefit, those with 2 kids & one adult at home all day could possibly get clobbered if their consumption was very high.

Running the above figures again using the current Bulb tariff...

Low: -£32.40
Mid: -£4.25
High: +£25.90

10000kWh +£126.40 (Easy to get up to this sort of figure using fan heaters for supplementary heating).

It punishes primarily those who have electrical heating which tends to be those who live in flats who tend to be the poorer in society.

A better system would be three different charges depending on use case

1: As is now. ~15p a unit
2: A very cheap rate for EV charging with smart charging tariffs. Perhaps circa 6p a unit
3: A cheap rate for electrical heating with smart metering to be used outside of peak periods. Perhaps circa 8p a unit

Or even perhaps a system like so

A high fixed cost depending on the size of the house. Could be bedrooms or M2

fixed fee for the line (£200 for 1 bedroom. £300 for 2 bedroom. £400 for 3 bedroom. £500 for 4 bedroom £600 for 5 bedroom £700 for anything above

7p for each unit consumed.

The advantage of this is you would quickly electrify heating and have a huge incentive for EVs (charging an EV being circa 1/3rd this cost this way vs the mart idea of 18p a unit)


Within 5 years we will need to start electrifying heating since the grid will be circa 75% non fossil fuel we will need to add demand to the grid

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Might not, but probably is.



Easy to get up to any figure, if that's your intention.

But to repeat what I said - "My suggestion will, I believe, turn out to be a net benefit for those described in your earlier post"

Note the use of the term net, since there will always be winners and losers, but I suspect the net change will be beneficial, and using single negative examples is a pointless spin move as that game can be played by all, but then nobody wins.

My only intention was to point out that the downside for some lower income households could be a lot greater than your examples indicated...whereas, using an actual suppliers tariff, clearly shows that the upside is marginal at best.

Terminology like "pointless spin move" leads me to believe that you are prepared to accept any collateral damage as long as carbon emissions are reduced.

pile-o-stone

People on limited incomes are already paying more for their energy:

https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/nov/10/poverty-premium-costs-poor-energy-phone-tariffs-councils

"Being poor comes at a cost. The best bank accounts, borrowing rates and energy tariffs are all reserved for people who are in a position to shop around. And if you do not have a clean credit file or access to up-to-date technology you can expect to pay more for almost everything you buy."

Higher energy costs can be the hardest to avoid. Energy bought through prepayment meters is still more expensive than that bought on a standard tariff paid for by direct debit, and the premium over online accounts is even bigger. In July, Citizens Advice said prepayment customers were paying on average £226 a year more for their energy than those on the cheapest online deals.

Householders can switch between prepayment tariffs, but there is little competition so the choice – and saving – is limited. To get the best deals, as well as internet access, you need a good credit record. Even with these, private renters can find it hard to switch payment types. While the regulator Ofgem says a landlord cannot prevent you switching meters, you may have to switch back at the end of the tenancy, and the associated costs could be off-putting."

pile-o-stone

The trouble with concentrating on power generation or transport is that the public can see some small improvements (wind turbines and electric vehicles) and feel that the problem is undercontrol, while in reality the real issue is ignored. Vast amounts of methane is created by livestock, and this greenhouse gas is 20 to 30 times more potent at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2.

An interesting fact is that if we stopped all fossil fuel burning from transport we would not see any appreciable difference in the environment for decades:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air

"The lifetime in the air of CO2, the most significant man-made greenhouse gas, is probably the most difficult to determine, because there are several processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years. The rest is removed by slower processes that take up to several hundreds of thousands of years, including chemical weathering and rock formation. This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years."

In contrast, if we all stopped eating meat, then the impact on the environment would be dramatic and virtually instantaneous:

"Methane, by contrast, is mostly removed from the atmosphere by chemical reaction, persisting for about 12 years. Thus although methane is a potent greenhouse gas, its effect is relatively short-lived."

Cars vs Cows:

https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-planet-beef-or-cars-1919932136.html

"Cars are often used as the golden standard of environmental destruction. We know that our driving is hurtful to the environment. But, what about a burger? We don't instinctually associate meat consumption with climate change, but does the dark side of the meat industry give cars a run for their money? Which is actually worse—cows or cars?

Livestock emissions make up anywhere between 14.5 and 18 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions. Comparably, the transportation sector is responsible for around 14 percent of emissions. By those numbers alone, our current system of meat production is extremely damaging. Perhaps more looming, however, is that while transportation creates CO2, livestock farming is hugely responsible for producing methane. As you may know, methane is 23 times more potent when it comes to warming the planet."

This is why most enviromental websites agree that the Single biggest thing you can do to save the planet is to give up eating meat.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/149271-the-single-biggest-thing-you-can-do-for-the-environment

"According to Environmental Defense, if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be equivalent to taking more than half a million cars off of our roads. If everyone ate vegetarian one day a week, we'd also save 100 billion gallons of water (aka enough to supply all the homes in New England for almost four months); 1.5 billion pounds of crops otherwise fed to livestock (enough to feed the state of New Mexico for more than a year); and 70 million gallons of gas (enough to fuel all the cars of Canada and Mexico combined and then some)."

Unfortunately We're whistling in the wind. Politicians just increase taxes on fuel bills to show their green credentials, but it has little or no impact on the environment. Increasing the cost of meat so that it takes into account the damage it does to the environment would have a huge impact but would be massively unpopular because people would rather retain their meat habit than see improvements to the environment.

zeupater

pile-o-stone wrote: »

.... Energy bought through prepayment meters is still more expensive than that bought on a standard tariff paid for by direct debit, and the premium over online accounts is even bigger. In July, Citizens Advice said prepayment customers were paying on average £226 a year more for their energy than those on the cheapest online deals. ...

Hi

Again, that's an article which essentially employs a form of spin to support what they're attempting to convey as opposed to being fully transparent or even logical on delivering the real facts in a meaningful way ...

I'm not saying that prepayment customers don't pay more, but the logic used isn't quite what it first seems ... in simply comparing the average a prepayment customer is paying with the best online deals to arrive at £226, the author is attempting to convey that the gap between those on prepayment meter average tariffs & usage are paying £226/year more than those not on prepayment meters, which is essentially flawed logic .... the only logical direct comparison would be to compare the average prepayment customer with the average credit customer, then if deemed necessary highlight the saving that both groups could enjoy if they were to shop around for the best deals ...

As continually reported through the media, Martin Lewis and many, many times on this site, for various reasons there are plenty of people not taking advantage of the most attractive tariffs available on the market ...

HTH
Z