Solar ... In the news

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

Agree 100% about the Gordon Brown sleight of hand taxation. With regard to energy prices not only is the 'green levy' included in charges, but the 'social tariffs' for those on certain benefits, and even the pay as you go charges.

However I simply don't agree with your last paragraph. It is nothing to do with bleating from those who cannot have panels.

If the green levy was paid from the Treasury the better off taxpayers would contribute more than the less well off.

At the moment a couple struggling to live without getting benefits, and paying say £1,500 pa for an all electric household, are paying far more toward the green levy than a well off couple paying say £500 electricity and with gas CH.

P.S. The green levy is not just the FIT for householders but all the subsidies paid for 'green generation' so please let us not go over the justification for your FIT again.

Have you forgotten already this garbage you spew out every few months has been discredited before?


Care to put a number to that, before (I'm sure) someone will find it in previous posts and repost to remind you (yet again...)

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

We're getting some very complicated messages about what I might have meant !

The basic point was that if the cost is moved from bills to "the taxpayer" then taxes would have to be increased. That isn't what our government like to be seen as doing.

Eric, although this article is a little boring, I thought it worthy of posting since they have obviously been reading your comments:

EU PVSEC: PV investment potential still largely untapped, says Citigroup head

http://www.pv-tech.org/news/eu_pvsec_pv_investment_potential_still_largely_untapped_says_citigroup

He said in some countries these support mechanisms had mistakenly been constructed as a ‘subsidy’ for the technology, when the original intention behind them was that they were to attract affordable debt capital into the sector.

“There are two kinds of feed-in tariff. In Germany, the cost is contained in the electric system, and rate payers pay for it; there’s no cost to the taxpayer or government,” Eckhart said.

“Then you’ve got what you have in Spain – a subsidy of electricity, so any added cost flows immediately to government. So here we have taxpayers paying for electricity. Other countries should have done what Germany did and kept the cost contained in the supply system, not let it flow over to the taxpayers. And that’s the issue across Europe, where governments are picking up like €30 billion as in Spain – of course they’re cutting back, they’ve got big national debt.”

Mart.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

... Even the use of standing charges, rather than an all in 'petrol forecourt' price is probably detrimental to the above ....

Hi

This is so right ... as a result of Ofgem's requirement for industry product simplification, the decision to move from a choice of SC or NSC to SC only will cost the poor & vulnerable considerably more than any green levy.

Due to our levels of insulation and installed renewables technologies, we use extremely little imported energy, probably levels which are similar to someone without these measures who would be classified as being in extreme 'energy poverty'. Simply moving from our existing NSC offering at the end of the month to a direct SC replacement and using the same energy over the next 12 months as we did over the last would lead to a ~50% increase in our annual energy bill, that's an additional ~£150 in monetary terms. I would therefore expect that a similar level of increase to be the case for anyone with low energy consumption being forced to move from a NSC to SC tariff, and that will certainly include many of the most vulnerable people in the country.

To place that into context, at our level of energy consumption, we currently contribute ~£10/year towards the CCL, therefore the change from NSC to SC will cost us 15x the CCL in a single increase... this will be true for anyone with similar consumption levels & usage pattern to ourselves ... but I've yet to see the mainstream media pick up on this.

The petrol forecourt analogy you use is pretty relevant ... a SC tariff is pretty similar to being charged a 'simplified' pumping fee of £12 and then ~£1/litre for the actual fuel ... fine if you've got a fuel hungry 4x4 with close to a 100litre fuel tank as you'd pay proportionally less per litre than someone with a small energy efficient vehicle with a 30 to 40 litre capacity .... where's the sense in that?, it would just take away a major incentive for fuel efficiency .... what's the possibility that the energy suppliers don't know this ?, I'd reckon it'd be as close to 0% as you could possibly imagine!, so what are the chances that they are using this, protected by as much misinformation as they can, to their advantage ? ... probably just as close to 100% that it would be unfair to not classify it as being a certainty ... :cool:

HTH
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

I would therefore expect that a similar level of increase to be the case for anyone with low energy consumption being forced to move from a SC to NSC tariff, and that will certainly include many of the most vulnerable people in the country.





HTH
Z

Hi Z

What you say about the introduction of Daily Standing Charge(DSC)on gas/electricity is certainly true for those with low consumption; albeit a switch Ebico can go some way to alleviating that for some customers.

However whilst the DSC will have a greater effect than the Green Levy for those with low consumption it won’t for those on normal or above normal consumption; and the less well-off are equally likely to be in that later category. e.g. pensioners in an all electric flat.

In any case I fail to see the relevance of comparing the DSC and the Green levy!

The point of the discussion was that a switch of the ‘green levy’ from being paid through electricity bills to being paid through taxation(direct or indirect;)) will be of advantage to the less well-off as they pay less in taxes.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Hi Z

What you say about the introduction of Daily Standing Charge(DSC)on gas/electricity is certainly true for those with low consumption; albeit a switch Ebico can go some way to alleviating that for some customers.

However whilst the DSC will have a greater effect than the Green Levy for those with low consumption it won’t for those on normal or above normal consumption; and the less well-off are equally likely to be in that later category. e.g. pensioners in an all electric flat.

In any case I fail to see the relevance of comparing the DSC and the Green levy!

The point of the discussion was that a switch of the ‘green levy’ from being paid through electricity bills to being paid through taxation(direct or indirect;)) will be of advantage to the less well-off as they pay less in taxes.

Hi Cardew

Your point about pensioners is likely correct. On average, pensioner households would likely use considerably more energy than the average of other households of the same size, however, that would not likely be the case for a pensioner living alone on the most basic of incomes, these are the ones I referred to as being the 'vulnerable'. To many the daily decision comes down to 'eat' or 'heat', therefore the heating stays off for as long as possible and even then only the main living areas are warmed. I know it's an emotive argument, but the fact is - it's true, it happens and these members of society are the low energy users which the change from NSC to SC will hit pretty hard.

Regarding the offering from Ebico, I'm currently having a pretty serious 'discussion' (a heated argument really) with our energy supplier regarding the change from optional NSC/SC to SC only, trying to make them understand how the sector's chosen path will affect the low energy use end of the market and how this will impact on the vulnerable. Part of the discussion revolves around an answer which they have supplied which states that there are no, repeat NO, offerings currently available with any supplier which are cheaper than the 2012 economics based tariff which we are currently on, that every supplier is using/will use a SC, and that they cannot 'waive' the standing charge because it covers this, that & the other, all this despite my argument relating to amortisation (I even used a petrol pump analogy to illustrate the point, well before M raised it above).

The point of considering the tariff 'simplification' (compulsory SC) to the CCL (green levy) is simply one of pure context. We're low usage customers by choice and although 'fuel poverty' thankfully doesn't apply to us, it does to many others who are 'low users' by circumstance. To these people the issue isn't the CCL, which could be costing them around £10/year, it's the additional ~£150/year which will soon be hitting them if they currently are on a NSC tariff. These are people who, at best, would likely get a 'tariff ending' notification through the post and simply move to what they've been told is the best alternative currently available. My concern, based on what our particular supplier has recently communicated, is that a similar level of disingenuous communication will be employed when the energy companies are required by legislation to disclose what the cheapest alternative offering is from their competitors ... if the likes of Ebico don't generate and simply sub-contract a significant proportion of their administrative burden to one of the 'big 6', then would any of the 'big 6' use this anomaly to not classify them as direct competitors and therefore ignore their existence (ie not include them in the legislated competitive analysis) .... that's what they seem to have done in addressing my communications on this very subject so far, so there's already evidence that this is the likely future ploy.

To conclude, I am really flabbergasted that the mainstream media and political activists such as the beloved 'Monbiot' (et al) haven't picked up on the potential scale of this yet. The energy sector have pulled the wool over the combined eyes of their regulators, the government, the media, pressure groups, outspoken political activists and many of their respective followers .... they may well have 'played a blinder', but is everyone asleep? ... what will it take for this to 'hit the fan' ? - mortality figures published in a few years time ? ... what a scandal, but of course, just like underperforming hospitals, the banking sector and global economic collapse - 'it was impossible to predict, therefore no-one saw it coming' ....

... anyone still 'fail to see the relevance' ?

HTH
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi Cardew

Your point about pensioners is likely correct. On average, pensioner households would likely use considerably more energy than the average of other households of the same size,



HTH
Z

Agreed the introduction of the DSC will hit low consumption users.

The aim to ‘simplify tariffs’ just hasn’t been achieved. The DSC can vary from 0p to 45p? and each company has a different discount structure. It is virtually impossible to work out the cheapest tariff unless you know your annual consumption in kWh and how to use a comparison website.

On the subject of the Green Levy moving from energy bills to general taxation, this might be of interest.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10345743/Green-levies-on-energy-bills-unfair-says-Michael-Fallon.html

Energy giants SSE and E.On have called for ministers to go further and remove environmental and social levies from energy bills altogether, paying for them through general taxation instead.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10357189/Green-energy-to-cost-consumers-400-over-next-five-years.html

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Agreed the introduction of the DSC will hit low consumption users.

The aim to ‘simplify tariffs’ just hasn’t been achieved. The DSC can vary from 0p to 45p? and each company has a different discount structure. It is virtually impossible to work out the cheapest tariff unless you know your annual consumption in kWh and how to use a comparison website.

On the subject of the Green Levy moving from energy bills to general taxation, this might be of interest.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10345743/Green-levies-on-energy-bills-unfair-says-Michael-Fallon.html





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10357189/Green-energy-to-cost-consumers-400-over-next-five-years.html

Hi

Re: the headline "Green energy to cost consumers £400 over next five years" and the very next line "Every British household will pay an average of more than £400 in higher bills over the next six years .... " .... don't you just love the press ... is it 5 years, or 6 ?? .... wish they'd make their minds up! ....

Then again, what a really poor article ... did the author never go to school, or is there a belief that we didn't ? ... how exactly do the reconcile the following ? ...

"The subsidies are paid for by consumers and businesses through their annual bills and passed to the green energy generators.

Half of energy bills are paid by business, with the other half by domestic consumers, and the total subsidy divided among British households equals £425 per household."

... of course it does, or does it ?

£22billion divided by 22.1million(2011) households is £995/household, so do they really mean 'the total subsidy' or just the domestic proportion ? ... or, perhaps they have no idea that there is a different CCL for domestic & commercial customers, in which case they've simply taken half of their CCL estimate as being £11billion, which at £425/household would mean that they've used the number of households as being 25.9million, which, allowing for a some rounding along the way, sort-of stacks up with the latest projections for 2021 .. "the number of households in England is projected to grow to 24.3 million in 2021, an increase of 2.2 million (10%) over 2011, or 221,000 households per year" ( https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/190229/Stats_Release_2011FINALDRAFTv3.pdf )
.. but it's not 2021 yet, is it ??

It's time that the press started to take their articles seriously. If these are to be considered as being serious subjects, not just column inch fillers, they must do better ... every time that basic mistakes such as these are made, their own credibility comes into question, well it does for me because I tend to question most of what I read ....

Ah well, at least I'd score them a little for the sentiment, but as for content and delivery, you tend to see much better arguments put forward on this forum, even ones which I may not agree with ..... :rotfl:

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

It's time that the press started to take their articles seriously. If these are to be considered as being serious subjects, not just column inch fillers, they must do better ... every time that basic mistakes such as these are made, their own credibility comes into question, well it does for me because I tend to question most of what I read ....

HTH
Z

When I read those opening lines earlier this afternoon, I did have a quick chuckle, but then I find most of the Telegraph's articles on renewables quite funny. The later paragraphs are not so funny:

Matthew Sinclair, Taxpayers Alliance chief executive, said it was clear the Energy Bill had failed and that the vast amounts of money earmarked for renewable generation should instead be used to support research aimed at bringing down the cost of green power.

I can't make my mind up about the TPA, they are just to close to the 'Tea Party' for me to let my guard down. But I'd love to know what they mean by that statement "used to support research aimed at bringing down the cost of green power." The cost is already falling fast via the constant development taking place in the roll-out:-

I note the article states that the CfD for off-shore wind will be £155/MWh, [in 2014] but fails to point out that it's scheduled to fall to £135/MWh in 2019; Onshore wind will get £100 from 2014, dropping to £95 in 2019, while large solar PV will receive £125 in 2014 and get £110 in 2019.

So do they have something up their sleeve to back their statement, or is it an empty promise?

Also, do I just have my bull poo alarm set too high, or does the argument of support R&D but not roll-outs come up more and more often now. However, when you think about it, PV and wind were highly researched and developed technologies 5 or even 10 years ago. But the main cost reductions are from the actual large scale roll-out, bringing both production cost savings and lower install costs through experience.


Next we have this beauty:

Dr Lee Moroney of the Renewable Energy Foundation, which is critical of the “green” energy plans, said: “Government subsidies which are added to electricity bills in order to meet over ambitious EU climate change targets are complex, opaque, and very expensive for the consumer.

“The subsidy costs are set to increase significantly and will last 15 to 25 years. The scale of the consumer costs is shocking and senseless in view of the fact that UK greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced faster and more economically by less extravagant measures.”

Again, no explanation of how these reductions will take place! And why is the Telegraph quoting an anti-wind organisation set up by Noel Edmonds? In fact the name itself seems highly deceitful 'Renewable Energy Foundation' - you'd think they produce renewable energy, they don't, or promote renewable energy, they don't, or that they are a foundation for renewable energy, they're not. They're just an anti wind lobbying group 'accidentally' named to give the opposite impression - I'm sure that wasn't the intention.

Looks to me as if the Telegraph was scraping the bottom of the barrel when it put this article together, so checking the opening numbers was the least of their lesser concerns.

Mart.

Cardew

Z/Martyn,

I am not an apologist for The Telegraph, or any other paper with badly researched information; but I can't see why you feel it necessary to trash the articles in this thread.

The only relevance to this part of the thread was this statement:

Energy giants SSE and E.On have called for ministers to go further and remove environmental and social levies from energy bills altogether, paying for them through general taxation instead.

As I might just have mentioned in the past, I am not a fan of the high subsidy solar FIT, and I believe you hold opposing views.;)

However it seems to me that that the only point of any further discussion on this subject is whether the 'green Levy' should be moved from energy bills to general taxation - is it a good idea or not?

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Z/Martyn,

I am not an apologist for The Telegraph, or any other paper with badly researched information; but I can't see why you feel it necessary to trash the articles in this thread.

I'm not trashing the articles, I'm pointing out that the articles are trash.

Cardew wrote: »

As I might just have mentioned in the past, I am not a fan of the high subsidy solar FIT, and I believe you hold opposing views.;)

But since you steadfastly refuse (or are unable) to offer an alternative solution to renewables* (and their subsidies), it's a view you keep expressing but fail to justify.

The only other big players are:
Nuclear, which you've made negative comments about previously, and which will attract larger subsidies (and additional costs such as decommissioning and insurance) in the long-term than renewables.
Gas, which is a carbon emitting FF, with rapidly rising prices.
Coal, which is the only energy provider which you've posted positive comments, as far as I have seen. But is only cheap if you ignore all of the health and environmental costs. But if those costs are included, becomes more expensive than renewables.

[* I assume your anti-PV position holds true for all renewables given that PV now has one of the lower subsidies when compared to other renewables, be it on a domestic (FiT) scale, or on a larger (ROC's & CfD's) scale.]

Cardew wrote: »

However it seems to me that that the only point of any further discussion on this subject is whether the 'green Levy' should be moved from energy bills to general taxation - is it a good idea or not?

Already answered #341.

So, can we go back to solar in the news now?

Mart.