100GW offshore wind power by 2030 possible?

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

In short, the low unit rate, high standing charge argument was probably the single biggest factor in most people giving up completely on the 'cells' account. This in turn led to the new account.

I'd suggest that most people understand and possibly support the need for energy 'rationing' through prices. As you say, a low unit rate would lead to overuse and waste.

We might all wish that our bills (for anything) were lower, but we can't always get what we want (as Jagger might say), and in the case of energy we have to accept the simple fact that due to the side effects, we simply can't have/use as much as we'd like to.

Personally, and this is not a particularly popular pricing scheme, but I fully support the 'petrol forecourt' pricing model for energy. Put the standing charge in with the price. That way each unit costs more, making you think a bit more about reducing waste, energy efficiency, and the economics of self generation.

The total cost/revenue doesn't change at all, but low users would pay a bit less, high users a bit more, and average users the same.

Eg (using made up/simplified numbers for ease of maths):

Leccy cost 15p/kWh plus a standing charge pa of £105:

Low user, 2,000kWhs @ 15p = £300 + £105 = £405
Average user 3,500 @ 15p = £525 + £105 = £630
High user 5,000 @ 15p = £750 + £105 = £855

Divide the standing charge by average consumption £105/3,500 = 3p/kWh, so NSC tariff becomes 18p/kWh:

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

So your grand idea is to make heating so unaffordable people simply opt not to heat or to under heat their homes and die and get more sick more often or of course just stick with natural gas. How much public support would you have for this? How can you integrate 100GW offshore wind into the UK grid without electrifying heating and how can you electrify heating without cheap electricity to displace cheap gas?

You can still maintain a link to efficiency by having the line rental dependant on EPC rating X floor area.

So the big old 200 SQM solid brick detached house with a G rating might pay £120 per month line rental. If the owner gets it to a B rating Their line rental goes to £35 per month

The B rated 40sqm two bed council flat might pay £7 a month line rental

Install LED install a heat pump insulate double glaze etc and get cheaper line rental
This makes sense as the pressure on the grid from an A rated 40swm flat is much lower than a G rated 200 SQM detached.

The overall grid cost elements can be the same on average
The marginal cost will be low just wholesale prices of probably 3-5p

Incentive to be efficient
Incentive to switch to electrified heating
Ability to deploy a lot more offshore wind much more rapidly
Solves curtailment

Ectophile

The system of varying standing charge with property energy efficiency is just going to hit poor people living in cold, draughty rental accommodation.


Richer people in nice warm houses will see their bills go down dramatically. Poor people will see their bills go up, and with a low unit price and high standing charge, even turning the heating down will save very little.

GreatApe

Ectophile wrote: »

The system of varying standing charge with property energy efficiency is just going to hit poor people living in cold, draughty rental accommodation.

Richer people in nice warm houses will see their bills go down dramatically. Poor people will see their bills go up, and with a low unit price and high standing charge, even turning the heating down will save very little.

Poor people tend to live in smaller homes and many flats are social or lower end

The EPC multiply the floor area would mean even someone in a old uninsulated 2 bedroom council flat will pay just £15 per month the rich man in his 200sqm detached band E might pay £150 per month. 5x more as his property is 5x the size and 2x more as lower energy rating