Green Tax costs £149 per Household

Martyn1981

Crowmann wrote: »

Unless anyone has noticed Britain is bankrupt by any reasonable definition.

Not true, we are one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, and historically one of the worst CO2 emitters, therefore it's perfectly correct for us to invest in low carbon generation - both green and ethical.

The actions of the wealthier western nations has already brought RE costs down to the point that poorer developing countries, such as India, have now changed their policies and are going to rollout more renewables and less FF generation than they were planning just 5yrs ago.

Indian Wind Tender 3X Oversubscribed, New Record Low Tariff Expected

Tamil Nadu, India, Generates Record Wind Power, Is Forced To Shut Down Thermal Plants

Crowmann wrote: »

Simply put we are between a rock and hard place - God alone knows how we will power the replacement of petrol and diesel.

The leccy needed for the whole UK car fleet is an increase of 20%, but 10% net after deducting the 6.5kWh/gallon needed for refining petrol.

To put that 10% increase in context, UK renewables have increased from 5% of generation 10yrs ago, to 25% last year, and are predicted to hit 33% by 2020.

Crowmann

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Not me, I was perfectly happy to pay for a shift to renewables long before I realised I could take part myself.

I suspect your claim is false and unsubstantiated.

Plus this focus on homeowners receiving a subsidy is a red herring. All energy gets subsidies, it's just that the FiT allows some of that to go to our neighbours. That's when the faux outrage seems to have started.

I don't have children, but people who have invested in the future of the UK by having two children will receive around £1,500 per year now (or equivalent in the past). I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever, and similarly if I wasn't receiving the FiT I would still support it.

After all, the majority of the UK support renewables (79%) and solar generation (86%). Only a minority oppose them, though they are, admittedly, very loud!

My experience is the keenest advocates of renewables are from those with a financial benefit - not really in dispute I would have thought? Sure there are exceptions who wanted to move to an off grid existence but the majority saw a scheme and took advantage. Myself included.

Those who do not were in large part not aware until more recently the cost funding that benefit would dramatically ramp up their costs. We could argue the percentages but the basics are reasonable?

So we have two very different camps IMV which will continue to diverge.

Martyn1981

Crowmann wrote: »

My experience is the keenest advocates of renewables are from those with a financial benefit - not really in dispute I would have thought?

Entirely in dispute I'd have thought.

4% of households have PV.
44% of homebuyers want PV and storage.
86% support solar.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

It might have escaped your notice that this board is entitled 'Green & Ethical MONEYSAVING'.

Just compare my post to yours and see who is 'ranting'.

You really need to chill out. Why don't you ignore this thread and let there be some sensible discussion - like the points made in the post above.

I'm chill, just laughing at your attempts to troll.

If you really want a discussion then you'd answer the question I've asked you about 100 times - how do you explain your anti subsidy argument whilst supporting nuclear, the biggest subsidy drain there has ever been?

If you aren't trolling then why did you hide your support for nuclear (nuclear subsidies) for years, is it because (as I said many times) that your whole argument would collapse into hypocritical nonsense.

Starting arguments for fun - trolling.
Posting positions that you know are false - trolling.
Misrepresenting others posts deliberately - trolling.

BTW, if this is a money saving site, then renewables are cheaper than nuclear, so you seem to be on the wrong side of the fence ... or the troll bridge.

Cardew

Diversionary tactics are now Nuclear, Smart Meters, and BG telling lies.

The contributions to this section of MSE are largely from those who benefit from the 'Green' subsidies, paid for by electricity customers; the majority of whom have no chance to get on the 'gravy train'.

As said many times, most don't condemn people for taking the opportunity to make some money, but please spare us the disingenuous posts; e.g. 'without our pioneering investment PV panels would still cost the earth' etc

michaels

Martyn1981 wrote: »

1. Your £50 guess may be a good one. The NAO have dropped future wholesale rates down to £60/MWh, but appear to be considering a further reduction. See page 40 of the NAO report.

2. This prompted them to increase the subsidy element of the £90bn of payments in the first 35yrs from £6bn to £30bn. See page 41.

3. If the wholesale price settles around £50/MWh then the subsidy element will be closer to £45bn.

4. With on-shore wind and PV heading for £50/MWh v's HPC's current index linked price of £97/MWh, then again, we would be looking at having around £45bn spare to spend on back up gas capacity (£2bn) and let's say 30GWh of storage at $95/kWh (Eos are contracting at that price today for 2022 deliveries), so about £2.2bn

5. So let's say the same generation as HPC, plus 3GW of gas capacity, plus 30GWh of storage, plus £40bn in change.

6. Just for fun ..... we currently pay about £3bn pa for nuclear decommissioning (expected to spend that for 75-100 years), which works out at about £120 per household.

Ouch - the govt paused for a review before signing but then did so anyway - was the consideration £x on everyone's bill that you can blame on the evil supply companies = not much political pain as opposed to 'UK not open for business not spending on infrastructure' headlines plus peeing off the French (whilst negotiating brexit) and the Chinese (we need them to buy our bonds) which would come at high immediate cost to a govt which doesn't think beyond the electoral cycle time-frame.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm chill, just laughing at your attempts to troll.

If that is your definition of 'chill' I would hate to see you agitated; even your supporters in this section must be embarrassed. Why don't you take NigeWick's advice in post #6 and ignore my posts.

You continue to make a fool of yourself whenever you post - I suppose Crowmann is added to your long list of 'trolls'.

Cardew

NigeWick wrote: »

Doesn't government get money from all tax payers?

You are missing the point about payment of subsidies.

We all pay tax, and by and large, those with higher incomes pay more tax. Not so with the 'Green' subsidies like FIT.

As an example the levy for 'green' subsidies means low income pensioners living in a badly insulated, all electric flat pay much more on their electricity bill than a high income household with gas CH.

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

As an example the levy for 'green' subsidies means low income pensioners living in a badly insulated, all electric flat pay much more on their electricity bill than a high income household with gas CH.

Or as another example, a high income household with an indoor swimming pool heated by electricity would pay far more than a pensioner living in a flat connected to a district heating scheme.

AIUI, the RO charges are part of the cost per unit so it would be normal for high income households to use more electricity than low income households and hence pay more into the RO 'pot'. Almost a perfect example of the socialist tenet "from each according to their ability" !

NineDeuce

Crowmann wrote: »

Cardew may be a tad negative on renewables but the point is fair - £149 per year is a lot and non discriminatory to low earners.

Loads of folk on here would have a very different opinion if they did not get a slice of that imposed charge.

The incentives for renewables should have come from the government rather than a regressive tax on all users.

How long before the government reneges on the RPI element? My money is not that long. Think they wont? Student Loan promises got binned - the politics of renewables is largely middle class folk looking for a better return on their savings so giving them a haircut will not provoke must anger and probably some rejoicing?

Why should energy be discriminatory based on earnings? Is food?