Energy news in general

Scot_39

More Telegraph bad press on uk wind reliance and likely pricing under 95% by 2030.

Note the reduced wind output despite increasing installations  and higher reliance on gas.

The bit about Starmer et al commitme t too join EU carbon credit scheme for gas plant increasing levies costa from 20 to 30% of costs even before deal signed with more to come - arguably yet another reason they offer only relative savings in future for renewables plans.

As as above it is govt policy that is dragging the other generation techniques costs up to overtake the ever increasing costs on short to medium term of renewables and grid transition.

Bit speculative given dont know round 7 pricing yet only the off shore fixed OSWind inflationary cap shift, but ..

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/08/24/miliband-is-gambling-on-wind-power-even-questions-mount/

stripling

@Scot_39
"The bit about Starmer et al commitme t too join EU carbon credit scheme for gas plant increasing levies costa from 20 to 30% of costs even before deal signed with more to come - arguably yet another reason they offer only relative savings in future for renewables plans.
As as above it is govt policy that is dragging the other generation techniques costs up to overtake the ever increasing costs on short to medium term of renewables and grid transition.
Bit speculative given dont know round 7 pricing yet only the off shore fixed OSWind inflationary cap shift, but .." 

It's written by Ms Watt Logic - the lobbyist for the Tufton Street anti-renewables gang. To be taken with a large pinch of salt....    😁

QrizB

An article on US electricity demand and generation. There's a conflict there between the current administration's ideology (coal is king) and the reality that it's the most expensive option for generation (other than building a new nuclear plant).

 https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/08/us-electricity-2025-solar-continues-growth-coal-still-up

Scot_39

It depends how you cost energy.

And whether those who favor renewables like it or not - wholesale cost - at grid connection point - is not a valid comparison - and wont be for best part of a decade for existing capacity - given current planning and project delays (like the 18m reality check that faced EGL1) let alone future.

Which is as the DESNZ admits - one of the major reasons in the UK why renewables isn't delivering cheaper energy compared to fossil fuel generation.

And whether you include other factors.

US might be considering the wages and taxes of it's coal producers and miners - the UK has little remaining capacity of its own. 

So like our gas - despite loads of reserves we are not allowed to use by those in the thrall of the green lobby - we would have to import.

Scot_39

And just to underline my point on the now being slowly but surely exposed to a growing number of the population, the true costs of renewables continues to creep even higher.

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-08/summary-of-changes-to-energy-price-cap-1-october-to-31-december-2025.pdf

Network charges up £24 ex VAT and overheads - 6% 3x target inflation, due primarily (Ofgems word not mine) to electricity balancing costs = more bad news for our bills from EMs accelerating renewables plans.

And that £24 extra for renewables is ONLY the now - just wait until grid thermal hits forecast £3bn by 2030, and balancing costs hit the forecast £8bn total.

So whilst wholesale costs drop £15, renewables and a massivd ectension to whd costs imposed via policy costs in our bills by this Labour govt instead of properly funding benefits via taxation to cover them - drive our bills ever higher.

Ildhund

Scot_39 said:

... costs imposed via policy costs in our bills by this Labour govt instead of properly funding benefits via taxation to cover them -

I'm going to question this again. What are the big differences between adding costs to electricity customers' bills and adding them to 'general taxation'? The cohort of those who pay VAT must include the entire population. The cohort of those who pay income tax is smaller, largely because it excludes the young and some older citizens on low incomes. The cohort of those who buy electricity is smaller again, because there is usually only one bill per household. So if you wanted to raise money for extra benefits, say, by general taxation, you could increase VAT by 1% (to raise £8.8Bn) or the basic rate of income tax by 1p in the £ (to raise £6.9Bn). WHD is a bit odd, because it's a benefit that's paid for also by those who receive it.

I'd like to hear why you'd rather see an increase in taxation than an increase to the standing charge for electricity. Would you personally be better off? (In case you're wondering, I would be.)

Scot_39

No I pay taxes in past even at 40% when doing 60 hr weeks for months on end.

But whilst tax is not perfect its certainly more progresive and income focussed than energy bills.

Those above the thresholds for whd and other benefits pay regardless of income.  Or medical need.

As most policy costs are or were in 2024 on unit rates not SC.  In fact iirc only about £22 of the then  £188 were and thats assuming duel fuel.

So a poor frail elderly or disabled person on say £15k a year pays maybe more than the £215 if can afford to heat to medical needs if thats over median tdcv.

Wheras a rich person with solar and battery arrays costing upto £10,000s pays a fraction of it.

Id likely pay more via taxes.  But then I use below median all electric tdcv by not heating to moderate let alone tge nhs recommended upto 21C temps elderly, sick and disabled should be able to.

This £35 cap rise includes c£50 of govt policy price rises, but their Sizewell £1pm will soon add another guestimated £10-15.

So those on £150 whd may only see £90 net savings based on impact of already announced / in progress but far from peak renewables costs - from govt policy at cap tdcv levels.

But my argument is that whd and other schemes wouldn't even be necessary if social costs and yes even vat now that we can were removed from the top line.  Again totaling  c£300 imposed - even if exclude tge renewables factors in total let alonr just todays further rise in network costs rise (£24 - primarily balancing) - costs versus the false claim they are helping millions by £150 WHD. 

Who in reality still face their share of the £300cord policy and vat, ax well, as renewables on top.

Its only giving back a fraction of the money the govt is taking from us all.

The_Green_Hornet

Ildhund said:

Scot_39 said:

... costs imposed via policy costs in our bills by this Labour govt instead of properly funding benefits via taxation to cover them -

I'm going to question this again. What are the big differences between adding costs to electricity customers' bills and adding them to 'general taxation'? The cohort of those who pay VAT must include the entire population. The cohort of those who pay income tax is smaller, largely because it excludes the young and some older citizens on low incomes. The cohort of those who buy electricity is smaller again, because there is usually only one bill per household. So if you wanted to raise money for extra benefits, say, by general taxation, you could increase VAT by 1% (to raise £8.8Bn) or the basic rate of income tax by 1p in the £ (to raise £6.9Bn). WHD is a bit odd, because it's a benefit that's paid for also by those who receive it.

I'd like to hear why you'd rather see an increase in taxation than an increase to the standing charge for electricity. Would you personally be better off? (In case you're wondering, I would be.)

Income tax is progressive; flat rate standing charges are not.

The government prefers to put these things onto the standing charge as customers tend to blame greedy energy companies instead of them when their bills go up.

MeteredOut

Ildhund said:

Scot_39 said:

... costs imposed via policy costs in our bills by this Labour govt instead of properly funding benefits via taxation to cover them -

I'm going to question this again. What are the big differences between adding costs to electricity customers' bills and adding them to 'general taxation'? The cohort of those who pay VAT must include the entire population. The cohort of those who pay income tax is smaller, largely because it excludes the young and some older citizens on low incomes. The cohort of those who buy electricity is smaller again, because there is usually only one bill per household. So if you wanted to raise money for extra benefits, say, by general taxation, you could increase VAT by 1% (to raise £8.8Bn) or the basic rate of income tax by 1p in the £ (to raise £6.9Bn). WHD is a bit odd, because it's a benefit that's paid for also by those who receive it.

I'd like to hear why you'd rather see an increase in taxation than an increase to the standing charge for electricity. Would you personally be better off? (In case you're wondering, I would be.)

For me, i think it should be in general taxation because its the right thing to do - we should not hide social funding within energy bills.

I've no idea if doing that benefit me or not, but I suspect not.

Scot_39

The_Green_Hornet said:

Ildhund said:

Scot_39 said:

... costs imposed via policy costs in our bills by this Labour govt instead of properly funding benefits via taxation to cover them -

I'm going to question this again. What are the big differences between adding costs to electricity customers' bills and adding them to 'general taxation'? The cohort of those who pay VAT must include the entire population. The cohort of those who pay income tax is smaller, largely because it excludes the young and some older citizens on low incomes. The cohort of those who buy electricity is smaller again, because there is usually only one bill per household. So if you wanted to raise money for extra benefits, say, by general taxation, you could increase VAT by 1% (to raise £8.8Bn) or the basic rate of income tax by 1p in the £ (to raise £6.9Bn). WHD is a bit odd, because it's a benefit that's paid for also by those who receive it.

I'd like to hear why you'd rather see an increase in taxation than an increase to the standing charge for electricity. Would you personally be better off? (In case you're wondering, I would be.)

Income tax is progressive; flat rate standing charges are not.

The government prefers to put these things onto the standing charge as customers tend to blame greedy energy companies instead of them when their bills go up.

Yes todays bbc hys / comments are full of such ill informed folk blaming tge energy companies despite the Ofgem summary breakdowns showing

£35 increase basically = c£50 govt costs - c£15 savings on wholesale costs.