Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

ed110220

michaels wrote: »

Political suicide but economic good sense would be not to have less tax on heating a home than on buying energy efficiency measures or even just a thick sweater. If you are worried about equality/poverty then address this using tax/benefits not hidden subsidies

[Who gains most from the lower tax rate in £s? Obviously those who use the most who are probably in the biggest houses with the most assets and often highest incomes, thus in terms of targeting support to those who need it the lower tax rates are extremely inefficient.]

Anyone want to lobby their MP to persuade them to end this economic and environmental stupidity? Thought not.

It would make much more sense to use VAT on heating fuel to fund the upgrade of homes so they require less energy to heat, especially for the poor. Energy efficient homes with more expensive per kWh fuel can still be much cheaper to keep warm than poorly insulated homes with cheap fuel.

Martyn1981

ed110220 wrote: »

It would make much more sense to use VAT on heating fuel to fund the upgrade of homes so they require less energy to heat, especially for the poor. Energy efficient homes with more expensive per kWh fuel can still be much cheaper to keep warm than poorly insulated homes with cheap fuel.

I've probably posted this many times before, getting old, can't remember, but I'd go for the 20%VAT option, but ring-fence the +15% receipts for energy reduction, efficiency, fuel poverty etc. Hopefully, there would still be some left over for RE and storage, which could also reduce the wholesale cost.

If prices went up 15%, I'm sure we'd see a reduction in demand, and a take up of items like LED's which might balance out that 15% themselves.

Probably a way to rig it against FF's. Even if just passing on a RE subsidy based on the % or RE in your suppliers mix ..... but now I'm overcomplicating it.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

But how much would it cost per kwh?

GIYF - let us know what you find.

silverwhistle

michaels wrote: »

If you are worried about equality/poverty then address this using tax/benefits not hidden subsidies

Pricing structures don't help either as they penalise low users. I'm not struggling (off for a couple of weeks in the Alps this weekend) but I am a low user as a result of solar panels and using a wood burner for much of my heat (and wearing jumpers!).


The actual unit rate on my tariff, or on any alternative tariff when you add in the standing charge to the unit rate, is horrendous. For high users the SC is irrelevant, but any efforts by low users to cut their bills is ultimately undermined by this.



Having variable standing charges would be far too difficult administratively, I would have thought, but there must be something achievable along these lines to help those who either can't afford the fuel or who have made the effort to reduce their own consumption.

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

Having variable standing charges would be far too difficult administratively, I would have thought, but there must be something achievable along these lines to help those who either can't afford the fuel or who have made the effort to reduce their own consumption.

Myself, the only fair system is a zero standing charge or the 'petrol forecourt' model, where all costs are included in the unit price.

Total costs/revenue wouldn't change, and medium/average consumers would see no change as the higher unit costs would balance against the removal of standing charges, but high users would pay more, and low users pay less.

The benefit, is that with higher unit costs, greater savings are achieved through energy reduction, efficiency and own generation etc..

There's a fair argument that we should all pay the same for the infrastructure that allows us to be supplied energy, but I think zero charges are also fair, as we then pay proportionally to the amount we use that infrastructure (yes I am aware that pushing more leccy or gas through the system has little additional cost, but hopefully my point can be seen).

Martyn1981

Back to nuclear bashing (I'm sure that's how I come across), this article has some interesting and surprising comments.

Innogy SE: UK nuclear woes promise 'exciting' times for renewables

Speaking to reporters in London yesterday, Innogy SE's chief operating officer Hans Bünting said Hitachi's decision last week to shelve work on nuclear development in the UK was "exciting news" for the green power sector.

"I'm not anti-nuclear, but I am trying to deliver carbon-free electricity at the lowest price possible," he said. "Comparing the cost of nuclear with cost of the proposed offshore projects and optimised onshore projects and solar, it comes down to half the cost in some cases."

"Personally I think the energy policy of the Great Britain needs to be re-written in a way that can only support renewables," he added. "We are standing here to deliver."

Crucially, the government and its independent advisors seem to concur. Yesterday, Business Secretary Greg Clark wrote to the FT to reiterate his Commons statement of last week, insisting that while the government remains supportive of new nuclear in the UK the sector was in danger of being "outcompeted" by lower cost renewables that promise to deliver an "abundance" of clean power in the 2030s.

Separately, an analysis from the government's climate advisors the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has found the UK could meet its power demands and climate commitments for 2030 without any new nuclear power beyond Hinkley Point C, which is already under construction.

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Back to nuclear bashing (I'm sure that's how I come across),

Not as much as me. Nuclear is now a waste of money as it is far more expensive per MWh than wind. With wind getting cheaper while nuclear is getting more expensive to start up.

Then there's the remote possibility of a nuclear catastrophe or terrorist act, one would not get that so badly with renewable generation. The subsidies government is giving to nuclear and fossil fuel generation would pay for renewables and storage. Storage being necessary for when the wind isn't blowing or the sun shining.

BTW, loving my solar system & Tesla PW2. Only 4% of my electrickery came from the grid yesterday due to a couple of sunny days. 4.4kWh from the grid on Economy 7 this morning so we'll have enough to not use any daytime price electricity. The 4.4 kWh includes our use of the 9kW shower earlier.

silverwhistle

NigeWick wrote: »

BTW, loving my solar system & Tesla PW2. /snip/



The 4.4 kWh includes our use of the 9kW shower earlier.

Ooh, I hatecha! :-) Prices for second hand Leafs aren't going down at all!

Come on you company car fleet managers, buy EVs and keep those contracts short..


I presume, as a PV user, that you had a suitably brief shower.:D

Martyn1981

This article caught my eye because of the scale of production - 10% of US leccy demand whilst helping to reduce evaporation and algae growth, and can benefit from existing electrical infrastructure if co-located at hydro-electric reservoirs. Win, win, win, win ........

US Floating Solar Could Generate 10% Of Annual Electricity Production

Installing floating solar solar PV projects on the more than 24,000 man-made US reservoirs could generate approximately 10% of the national annual electricity production, according to a report published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

...... and to think folk used to post comments about having to cover our countries with windmills and PV panels if we wanted to go down the RE route ...... seems they forgot about the water too ....

Martyn1981

More eye catching numbers:

Bonaire set a goal of 100% renewables in 2004 after a fire destroyed the main diesel generator on the island in 2004. The wind generators added afterwards helped drive the cost of electricity in Bonaire down from $0.50 per kilowatt-hour to $0.22 per kWh, according to the World Bank.

Not bad for 'expensive' RE and storage, and still early days:

Caribbean Island Bonaire Balances Solar, Wind, & Diesel With Storage

Caribbean island Bonaire is adding a 6 megawatt energy storage system to help balance its solar and wind assets with backup diesel generators, opening up the potential for greater renewable penetration. Additional solar will expand on the 2015 pilot project that included close to 800 solar panels.

Bonaire, part of the Netherlands Antilles, will soon have a renewable portfolio of 11 MW of wind, 6 MW of new energy storage, a pre-existing 3 MW battery bank, and the small solar pilot. These assets will be used to limit the use of the 14 MW of diesel generator and the 3 MW backup diesel generator, says Lisa Magnuson, the Senior Vice President for Global Marketing at Greensmith Energy, in San Francisco.