Cost of reducing emssions

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

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

Every country has to do it, and are doing it, so the argument is mute, just another excuse to do too little too late, and we really need to put those old, tired denialist doctrines behind us now.

Cardew

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Should I post on the pensions board and have a go at the higher rate payers?

Did you miss the part in my post where I stated?

However there was never any criticism of anyone taking advantage of the scheme any more than people taking advantage of Income Tax(legal) loopholes,

JKenH

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?)

Excellent idea for the socialists among you to take up as of course you have consciences. I have been told more than once on here that I am ‘morally bankrupt’ so you won’t be surprised that I am quite happy to pocket my tax free PV subsidy. Unlike others on here, though, I accept that this doesn’t look good. I also have happily taken advantage of the OLEV grant (and the generous tax concessions on pension contributions granted by HMG that I see from another post are upsetting you).

If you think about it in a little more depth, though, you will probably take comfort from the fact that it is the higher rate taxpayers with the government subsidised pensions and Isas who are actually picking up most of the tab in the form of reduced dividend income as a consequence of the levies on industry.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.

Thank you for the post.



I would invite readers of this post to form their own opinion of Monbiot’s article if they have not read it before. Not unnaturally the solar industry – whose views are well represented in this forum – attacked any criticism as they were eager to protect the bonanza of solar panel installations on houses.



Bear in mind that the criticism was that FIT should not be funded by a levy on electrical consumers – the majority of whom could not take advantage of such a scheme - but from general taxation; and there was never criticism of those who took advantage of the scheme.


Readers might note the term ‘nuclear supporters’ appears to be a term of rebuke. Personally I believe that nuclear power generation has a part to play in the reduction of carbon emissions. In that sense it is ‘Green’ reliable, and can generate 24/7 in all weathers.


On the subject of carbon reduction even some of the most enthusiastic RE advocates have Gas Central Heating and solid fuel burners. Does that make them ‘fossil fuel supporters’?

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Thank you for the post.



I would invite readers of this post to form their own opinion of Monbiot’s article if they have not read it before. Not unnaturally the solar industry – whose views are well represented in this forum – attacked any criticism as they were eager to protect the bonanza of solar panel installations on houses.



Bear in mind that the criticism was that FIT should not be funded by a levy on electrical consumers – the majority of whom could not take advantage of such a scheme - but from general taxation; and there was never criticism of those who took advantage of the scheme.


Readers might note the term ‘nuclear supporters’ appears to be a term of rebuke. Personally I believe that nuclear power generation has a part to play in the reduction of carbon emissions. In that sense it is ‘Green’ reliable, and can generate 24/7 in all weathers.


On the subject of carbon reduction even some of the most enthusiastic RE advocates have Gas Central Heating and solid fuel burners. Does that make them ‘fossil fuel supporters’?

And yet all the RE and nuclear subsidies are levied in the same way, but the only one you attacked as being unfair, and immoral, is the one that gets paid to households and customers, rather than to large energy companies.

The fact that you have for 10yrs attacked the paying of subsidies to PV (and RE) whilst for most of it hiding the fact that you supported nuclear, clearly shows that you don't have a problem with subsidies, how they are raised, or how they are paid, clearly demonstrating that the truth was something else.

Nuclear supporter is not a negative term. I was too till about 2010-2012, as nuclear generation is far cleaner and less harmful to the public than coal emissions, but I'm also capable of learning, and on realising that RE could displace nuclear, and do it cheaper, there remained no more 'pro's' for nuclear. Those that still support and promote it today have to accept that due to the costs, any nuclear generation produced will be at the price of a greater amount of RE generation. In other words, nuclear expenditure and deployment will actually reduce our actions to combat climate change.

As for those that still have GCH, that is simply the way the World is today, but we can act, we can install a heat pump instead, something I have researched*, we can opt for green(er) gas supplies, we can support RE and long term storage as that will hopefully include gas storage. What we shouldn't do is point to the status quo as a cheap way to spin silly views.

*Turns out our annual consumption is so small (especially having seen what some on here use) that ASHP might not be a sensible choice for me, however I'm satisfied that my 'green' investment fund comprising 29 different RE schemes with Abundance, will offset more than all of our FF consumption as we search for a better long time solution.

I hope that you too are taking the issue seriously.