Cost of reducing emssions

Martyn1981

Nemo72 wrote: »

the thing is: why should we reduce emissions at such a high cost, whilst the US and China are not reducing theirs?
Should we pay for it while others don't do it and therefore become more competitive with lower manufacturing costs?

But, the cost isn't that high, action costs less than inaction, and the US and China are reducing emissions.

Plus of course, renewables and renewables subsidies are extremely popular in the UK, and always have been. It's only a minority that oppose them as can be seen in the 31 quarterly public attitude tracker surveys performed over the last 7+yrs by BEIS (previously by DECC).

The latest shows support for RE to produce our leccy at 84% and opposition at 2%.

Belief that they provide economic benefits to the UK, support 74%, oppose 5%.

Support for individual technologies vary from a low for bio-mass of just 70% (oppose 5%), and on-shore wind with 78% support, but a high of 6% opposing, and then up to off-shore wind 81% support (2% oppose) and solar with 80% support but a much higher opposition of 3%.

So renewables, cheap, massively popular and being rolled out Worldwide, despite the objections of a small minority. So nothing to fear.

JKenH

Nemo72 wrote: »

the thing is: why should we reduce emissions at such a high cost, whilst the US and China are not reducing theirs?
Should we pay for it while others don't do it and therefore become more competitive with lower manufacturing costs?

Fair question but you are not going to get an objective answer to that on here as practically everyone on this forum supports renewable technology whether it is for green/environmental reasons or because it saves them money. Some of us are lucky enough to be subsidised by those less fortunate individuals who either can not afford renewable technology or live in properties where its adoption is impractical. I think if surveys were couched in a different way, asking people how much a year would they be prepared to see added to electricity bills the response might be a little different.

GreatApe

99% of people surveyed agreed a ban on dihydrogen monoxide

https://youtu.be/yi3erdgVVTw

Proving once and for all surveys mean jack poop

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

think if surveys were couched in a different way, asking people how much a year would they be prepared to see added to electricity bills the response might be a little different.

Please don't worry. This 'concern' comes up quite often, but in reality, support for renewables, and support for renewables subsidies has always been very high DESPITE people thinking that they pay a lot of subsidies, when in fact it's much less than they realised.

And of course, as time goes on, the subsidies for these technologies gets less and less. It looks like PV and on-shore wind are close to subsidy free today, and the latest off-shore contracts (for 2024/25 commissioning) should be roughly net subsidy free.

So whilst a very small number of folk may raise concerns about the cost of renewables, or try to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), they are always competing against truth, facts and science. Or to put it another way - denialist opinion brought a spoon to a fact gun fight.

British public thinks wind power subsidies are 14 times higher than reality

The UK public believes that wind power subsidies paid by consumers are many times higher than they actually are, according to polling for the industry.

A survey questioned 2,000 people for industry body RenewableUK about what they thought payments for wind farms added to fuel bills, and found the average estimate was £259 for a typical £1,300 dual-fuel energy bill.

But the industry said the actual cost of wind power subsidies from domestic energy bills was around £18 a year.

The research also suggests people underestimate public support for wind power, putting backing at around 40% on average, while the latest surveying by the government show support is at 74% for offshore wind and 68% for onshore wind farms.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Please don't worry. This 'concern' comes up quite often, but in reality, support for renewables, and support for renewables subsidies has always been very high DESPITE people thinking that they pay a lot of subsidies, when in fact it's much less than they realised.

And of course, as time goes on, the subsidies for these technologies gets less and less. It looks like PV and on-shore wind are close to subsidy free today, and the latest off-shore contracts (for 2024/25 commissioning) should be roughly net subsidy free.

So whilst a very small number of folk may raise concerns about the cost of renewables, or try to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), they are always competing against truth, facts and science. Or to put it another way - denialist opinion brought a spoon to a fact gun fight.

British public thinks wind power subsidies are 14 times higher than reality

I believe concern was being expressed about the impact of government climate policies on our industrial competitiveness.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change in 2014 published a paper

Estimated impacts of energy and climate change policies on energy prices and bills

- see link below.

Table D7: Estimated average impact of energy and climate change policies on energy bills paid by large energy intensive industrial users that do not benefit from any exemptions or compensations other than the CCL discount that applies to all companies with CCAs in 2020 - suggests that government policies will increase electricity costs from c£7m to c£10.5m - an increase of of 50%.

The publication also sets out the impacts on other users.


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/384404/Prices__Bills_report_2014.pdf

Cardew

JKenH wrote: »

Fair question but you are not going to get an objective answer to that on here as practically everyone on this forum supports renewable technology whether it is for green/environmental reasons or because it saves them money. Some of us are lucky enough to be subsidised by those less fortunate individuals who either can not afford renewable technology or live in properties where its adoption is impractical. I think if surveys were couched in a different way, asking people how much a year would they be prepared to see added to electricity bills the response might be a little different.

Excellent post!


Exactly what I have been saying for years - those with vested interests seeing any criticism of the FIT system as a personal attack and hence a need to defend their position.

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

Some of us are lucky enough to be subsidised by those less fortunate individuals who either can not afford renewable technology or live in properties where its adoption is impractical.

If you feel that way, then why not donate your FIT payments to a charity? At the very least, you could turn off your iboost diverter so that more of your clean energy is getting to the grid and therefore to the people you feel are subsidising your solar panels (and your heat pump I assume, via the RHI payments?)

Cardew

pile-o-stone wrote: »

If you feel that way, then why not donate your FIT payments to a charity? At the very least, you could turn off your iboost diverter so that more of your clean energy is getting to the grid and therefore to the people you feel are subsidising your solar panels (and your heat pump I assume, via the RHI payments?)

What JKenH has stated is unquestionably correct.



Had you been contributing to this forum 10 years ago, discussion of the newly introduced FIT scheme was a major topic. However there was never any criticism of anyone taking advantage of the scheme, any more than people taking advantage of Income Tax(legal) loopholes, planting forest plantations etc etc.


The questionable logic of the highest FIT rates being paid to < 4kWp systems on private houses – where in theory nothing need be exported; whist solar farms – where virtually everything could be exported - were getting much lower rates was one point of contention.


The other aspect was the point raised by JKenH where the subsidy was/is paid by a direct levy on electrical consumers rather than General Taxation. An illustration used at the time was poorer occupants of an all electric council flat, who obviously could not have solar panels, paying a levy effectively toward homeowners who could afford panels.


The much respected environmental contributor to the Guardian - George Monbiot – wrote an excellent article on just this subject see: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff


I think it would be accurate to say the article was not well received by some vested interests on this forum.;)

pile-o-stone

Cardew wrote: »

What JKenH has stated is unquestionably correct.

Had you been contributing to this forum 10 years ago, discussion of the newly introduced FIT scheme was a major topic. However there was never any criticism of anyone taking advantage of the scheme, any more than people taking advantage of Income Tax(legal) loopholes, planting forest plantations etc etc.


The questionable logic of the highest FIT rates being paid to < 4kWp systems on private houses – where in theory nothing need be exported; whist solar farms – where virtually everything could be exported - were getting much lower rates was one point of contention.


The other aspect was the point raised by JKenH where the subsidy was/is paid by a direct levy on electrical consumers rather than General Taxation. An illustration used at the time was poorer occupants of an all electric council flat, who obviously could not have solar panels, paying a levy effectively toward homeowners who could afford panels.


The much respected environmental contributor to the Guardian - George Monbiot – wrote an excellent article on just this subject see: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff


I think it would be accurate to say the article was not well received by some vested interests on this forum.;)

If you have an issue with a government policy, why not take issue with the government rather than with the people who may benefit from that policy?

I think that the £20k per year limit on ISAs is way too high as it disproportionately benefits richer people (how many ordinary households can put away £20k each year?). It allows wealthy people to shield money from the taxman, so naturally the rest of us pay more tax to cover it. Following your logic, should I start posting on the MSE investment board and have a go at people who use ISAs?

Even worse is that higher rate tax payers receive a 40% rebate on money they put into their pensions. Less well off people only receive a 20% rebate. Should I post on the pensions board and have a go at the higher rate payers?

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

What JKenH has stated is unquestionably correct.



Had you been contributing to this forum 10 years ago, discussion of the newly introduced FIT scheme was a major topic. However there was never any criticism of anyone taking advantage of the scheme, any more than people taking advantage of Income Tax(legal) loopholes, planting forest plantations etc etc.


The questionable logic of the highest FIT rates being paid to < 4kWp systems on private houses – where in theory nothing need be exported; whist solar farms – where virtually everything could be exported - were getting much lower rates was one point of contention.


The other aspect was the point raised by JKenH where the subsidy was/is paid by a direct levy on electrical consumers rather than General Taxation. An illustration used at the time was poorer occupants of an all electric council flat, who obviously could not have solar panels, paying a levy effectively toward homeowners who could afford panels.


The much respected environmental contributor to the Guardian - George Monbiot – wrote an excellent article on just this subject see: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff


I think it would be accurate to say the article was not well received by some vested interests on this forum.;)

And now for the truth.

Mr C and his friend Graham, both nuclear supporters would greet each and every post asking for advice on getting solar panels by telling the people that the FiT scheme was 'immoral'. If challenged on this they would always say that the individuals taking part are doing nothing wrong, but the scheme is immoral - thus avoiding being PPR'd. The trick I found was to quickly disagree with them, and 'draw their fire/ire' away from the person seeking help, not an anti-PV lecture from nuclear supporters ........ one day that fire/ire might finally subside! ;-)

The question of export was raised repeatedly by Mr C, as he refused to understand that offset has the same effect on grid demand and supply as export. In other words, not asking the grid (FF generation) for leccy, because it was being provided by the PV, would displace supply side generation. in fact, due to system losses of approx 8%, in reality exporting, or consuming (offset) 1kWh of demand side PV would displace 1.08kWh of FF generation. In order to claim that supply side subsidies (such as nuclear) are better, he argued for months that the grid doesn't see/feel offset - but eventually changed his story and said he'd never claimed that, despite months of weird 'potato farmer' claims (I kid you not).


On to the fact that the subsidy comes from a levy on all electricity consumers proportional to consumption. This seems perfectly fair, though of course moving it to general taxation might be preferred. But the crucial issue here, is that all the subsidies are funded this way. The only difference between the FiT and say the nuclear HPC subsidy is that the FiT goes to households, whereas the nuclear (and other large scale RE subsidies) don't. The question that this then raises, is why does the one scheme that goes to households, get 'attacked' and described as 'immoral' but none of the others raise so much as an eyebrow.

Moving on to Mr Monbiot's article. This is worth reading as it is simply the worst piece of journalism I've ever had the misfortune to read. It is full of nonsense and downright lies.

The opening paragraph falsely claims that the whole FiT budget (which at the time was £8.6bn) would be paid by the poor part of the domestic sector, let's call that about 7% of consumers (20% of a 35% sector), whereas in truth, of course, the leccy is on all consumers of all sectors.

The article was ridiculed by environmentalists at the time, and has only gone downhill over time. Sadly, however, Mr C would use this (and still is!!!) to try to mislead folk over the subsidy scheme.

None of the claims and arguments made by Mr C stood up to intellectual debate and examination 10yrs ago, but he still makes them. Though at least now we know that he supports nuclear, something he tried to keep hidden (when criticising subsidies) for 5yrs.


Edit - I should probably add that over the years probably about ~100 people have answered Mr C's claims and tried to point out the truth/obvious, but he remains unconvinced, and will (I suspect) spend another 10yrs trying to educate us all on the problems of RE, and the benefits of nuclear ...... even as RE triumphs, and nuclear begins to fade.