Green Tax costs £149 per Household

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

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.

... and what about the counter position which we've all been over time & time again .... the principle of 'polluter pays'. Effectively, someone living in a large property who can't be bothered to take energy efficiency measures pays a disproportionate contribution in terms of (tax+levy) when compared to taxation alone ... of course, we all are aware that a substantial component of the environmental levy is targetted at energy efficiency measures, particularly ones which have very strict social & demographic eligibility requirements ... and don't forget the probable £trillion+ of support (at current economics) which has been poured into the development of nuclear generation by the UK alone over the past 60-or-so years - and it's still not anywhere near being able to stand on it's own merit in an open market.

Should we continue to pour money into a deepening money-pit without ever having a chance to gain economic benefit? ... or should we simply move on and focus on technologies which look to be fully commercially viable without any form of support well before HinckleyC even supplies a single watt ..... I know which option would benefit those on low incomes in the future, and as most of us will be classified as 'low income pensioners' at some time, there's very little to be gained in continually creating & demographic division ...

Z

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

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'.

Nope, he's not a troll.

I'm pretty sure to be a troll it has to be deliberate, and the troll knows that the information they are providing misrepresents the situation.

Let's look at you, you argue that subsidies are bad, but support subsidies for nuclear.

You argue that all households paying a subsidy that goes to some is bad, yet support a nuclear subsidy that goes to no households.

When challenged on this fact, you deny its relevance.

So you want to start the same ole arguments, over and over, but ignore the answers and the fact that your anti-RE position* is a tiny minority position.

So everything about your posts on here appear to tick trolling boxes.

* I say anti-RE as most renewables are intermittent and you spend a lot of time attacking PV for being intermittent, so assuming you are fair, you are anti-RE. You have also stated many times that the UK should not have PV at all.

BTW, I really don't think you get me. It's clear that for years you have been trying to poke me and annoy me, but all you achieve is to make your trolling more transparent. So I'm super chill and chuckling away as you prove to all, what I pointed out around 5yrs ago ...... that you're a troll on the G&E board.

Keep smiling, I will.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

Ouch - the govt paised for a review before sogning but then did so anyway - was the comsideration £x on everyones 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 timeframe.

I have to answer in two parts as I won't be a hypocrite and condemn nuclear and HPC outright.

Part 1 - I thought it was expensive, especially being for 35yrs v's the 15yrs for wind and PV, but it wasn't then (2012) insane. Plus even nuclear is better than coal, and we really do need to reduce CO2.

So a reasonable priced nuclear provision, at a small premium over intermittents, or akin to intermittents with storage, seems reasonable.

Part 2 - Announcement of review in 2016, by which time PV, on-shore wind and the forward cost projections of off-shore wind, showed us that HPC was way over priced now. At this point my reluctant acceptance of nuclear (coal/CO2 argument) was wafer thin, and this project is insanely expensive.

I don't think I'm being a conspiracy theorist to say that China had a quiet word with Theresa May and said 'don't embarrass us', after all she did call the review/delay right when the signing was due.

We are now stuck due to the £22bn poison pill we have to pay if we cancel before completion, or during the 35yr subsidy period.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

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

The poor are also the ones that suffer the most from air pollution, and are more vulnerable to AGW as they can't adapt as easily as the wealthy.

If our energy bills accounted for CO2 emissions and the externalities of FF pollution, then renewables wouldn't need subsidies as the base costs would be more than enough - level playing field. But by ignoring these costs, or 'hiding' them in general taxation (nuclear decommissioning costs, NHS costs etc), we end up having to deal with half-story idiots who get upset at renewable subsidies because they lack the mathematical, economical and accounting skills necessary to see the big picture ...... that was a fun sentence, I'm really chilling here with some Beach Boys greatest hits going too.

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.

Won't they be paying for nuclear too, and as pensioners haven't they been paying for nuclear for 60yrs already?

BTW, remember about 5yrs ago when I mentioned this to my pensioner father and he laughed pointing out that he's had subsidised CWI, free CFL lamps, free loft insulation, winter fuel allowance and cold weather payments.

Also, pensioners like that would benefit greatly from PV. The council and social housing schemes were making up 20-25% of PV installs before the government pulled the rug. [Don't get too excited - I did see the word flat, but many are 2 or 3 storey so PV is still possible, and wall mounted PV is possible too, or just a 2 panel canopy perhaps supplying 500-600kWh of baseload leccy pa.]

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

... We are now stuck due to the £22bn poison pill we have to pay if we cancel before completion, or during the 35yr subsidy period ...

Hi

Of course, there's no legislation that can be passed which cannot be repealed ... additionally, there's nothing to stop the full economic and social impact of industrial incidents being assessed in order to legislate for compulsory market based insurance premiums and/or bond ...

Of course, any combination of the two would send a chill down the spine of significant magnitude that a state of detente would effectively exist, requiring both sides to either take their pills off the table and part amicably, or swallow them.

Z

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

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" !

Not so! You appear to have missed this in the example I gave:

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.

Many flats have electricity for their heat and hot water. It would be normal IMO for high income households to have gas or oil for their heat and hot water.

zeupater

Hi

But isn't it also the case that the various schemes which the levy supports are rapidly addressing the issue of heat source and insulation, thereby substantially invalidating the impact of the argument ...

For example, the BEIS household efficiency report details current insulation levels and remaining potential ... report available directly through the National Statistics site as part of a series of reports <On this link> or in an energy saving context (with links to BEIS) on a site <Using this link> ....


HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Many flats have electricity for their heat and hot water. It would be normal IMO for high income households to have gas or oil for their heat and hot water.

I note that you've now used a non committal 'Many' for the flats with leccy heating.

Do I assume you've used 'many' instead of 'common', because Z tore this argument to shreds about 5yrs ago providing numbers that leccy heating was anything but common, something nearer to 10% or 12% I seem to recall.

BTW, any reason the flats can't have an ASHP to help with the heating, much more economical and lower carbon too.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

Ouch - the govt paised for a review before sogning but then did so anyway -

Just in case you're interested, and to show this isn't just a UK problem, we have nuclear builds being cancelled in the US this week (2x 2 reactors) because they don't offer good value to the companies customers. Now there's an Ouch and a half.

S.C. utilities halt work on new nuclear reactors, dimming the prospects for a nuclear energy revival

“We simply cannot ask our customers to pay for a project that has become uneconomical,” Lonnie Carter, the president and chief executive of Santee Cooper, said in a statement. “And even though suspending construction is the best option for them, we are disappointed that our contractor has failed to meet its obligations and put Santee Cooper and our customers in this situation.”

Martyn1981

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.

Here we go, I thought I'd seen revised NAO figures.

Compare the 2016 report page 40 to the 2017 report page 39.

The future estimated wholesale price has been revised down massively. So the HPC subsidy will increase from approx £40/MWh (£100 CfD contract - £60 wholesale average) to £55/MWh (£100 CfD contract - £45 wholesale average), though of course this will apply to RE subsidies too, assuming there still are some post 2035, and as they may go subsidy free, with luck.

The HPC subsidy element would increase by about £15bn if prices change as suggested.