Energy news in general

Scot_39

Firstly even those who get WHD £150 - pay the policy costs - so its not £150 - its nearer £100 net from midnight for just WHD in the policy costs for dual fuel homes with the extra £7 adjustment.

Take the full £236 - even they are £86 worse off.

And the poor who dont get the £150 ?

During energy crisis 8m homes on benefits got £300 quarterly payments from the last govt - that leaves 2m

There are c9m homes in energy poverty by one common international metric in the UK - thats nearly a third. That leaves 3m of them not on WHD.  

Even the base 6m plus - over 20%.

Both are shameful figures in a G7 nation.

Many would be far better off without net zero and other policy costs - including as above WHD - added to their bills in the first place.  And millions then lifted well clear of the qualifying thresholds.

If you can afford it - and its your belief that your making a global impact - fine.

Even if you believe the UK c67m population can - you need to carry - not force - the whole nation of 67m to accept that.

Recent polling - suggests you would be wrong to believe you can do so anymore.

And given the decades old consensus is breaking down amongst those seeking to lead us - that now becomes key.

matt_drummer

Scot_39 said:

Firstly even those who get WHD £150 - pay the policy costs - so its not £150 - its nearer £100 net from midnight for just WHD in the policy costs for dual fuel homes with the extra £7 adjustment.

Take the full £236 - even they are £86 worse off.

And the poor who dont get the £150 ?

During energy crisis 8m homes on benefits got £300 quarterly payments from the last govt - that leaves 2m

There are c9m homes in energy poverty by one common international metric in the UK - thats nearly a third. That leaves 3m of them not on WHD.  

Even the base 6m plus - over 20%.

Both are shameful figures in a G7 nation.

Many would be far better off without net zero and other policy costs - including as above WHD - added to their bills in the first place.  And millions then lifted well clear of the qualifying thresholds.

If you can afford it - and its your belief that your making a global impact - fine.

Even if you believe the UK c67m population can - you need to carry - not force - the whole nation of 67m to accept that.

Recent polling - suggests you would be wrong to believe you can do so anymore.

Your maths is out Scot. The WHD comes off what we have already calculated as the gross cost including a contribution to the WHD.

They get £150 off of the £1,800. (the £1,800 includes a contribution to the WHD)

The £1,800 that could be £450 less.

So it could be £1,350 but for 6.1 million homes it is £1,800 minus £150 so £1,650, that is £300 more than it could be. `Just' £25 pm, not a fortune, not miles better off, hardly any better off at all.

The poor who don't get WHD of £150 are presumably not poor enough to need it?

They wouldn't be far better off without net zero, the most it could possibly be is £150 a month if they paid absolutely nothing for their energy and obviously that is totally unrealistic. That is not far better off, if a tiny bit better off, £20 to £40 a month.

Most people when asked would like to pay less for everything, polling is not proof that something is wrong.

Scrapping net zero isn't going to save anybody a fortune, because it doesn't cost any individual a fortune, it costs a modest amount, less than an iphone, less than a months dog food etc etc.

Nobody will ever change unless it is forced on them, that is why we are in the mess we are, we haven't paid for stuff we should have been paying for over the past decades.

At some point, things have to change, it cannot carry on as it is, when do you suggest we start?

Scot_39

No my maths is spot on the £150 isn't really £150 - because it does as you say get financed by the policy costs  included in the £1800.

They dont save £150 by getting the WHD.

They get c£100 net benefit and they and others pay c£50 extra towards the system that the then get c£150 off.

The key word is NET.

If no one got WHD - they would pay £1750 - with WHD they pay £1650 - thay arent £150 better off at all.

They are £150 better off than those who don't get it - but that isn't the same as the recipients themselves being £150 better off.

matt_drummer

Scot_39 said:

No my maths is spot on the £150 isn't really £150 - because it does as you say get financed by the policy costs  included in the £1800.

They dont save £150 by getting the WHD.

They get c£100 net benefit and they and others pay c£50 extra towards the system that the then get c£150 off.

The key word is NET.

If no one got WHD - they would pay £1750 - with WHD they pay £1650 - thay arent £150 better off at all.

They are £150 better off than those who don't get it - but that isn't the same as the recipients themselves being £150 better off.

They get £150 off the `mythical' £1,800 meaning they only pay £1,650

They could be paying only £1,350.

Their extra costs are only £300 pa however you account for the WHD, it's not really a lot of money.

The fact that they are £150 better off than those that don't get WHD is all that is relevant. They have £150 that I don't have, they are £150 better off than me in this respect.

Money is a man made idea, it doesn't really exist, it's just bits of paper or numbers on paper and screens.

The key NET figure that these people are paying more than they could be is £300 pa, maybe not great but not the astronomical amount that your post suggest.

Scot_39

Your right things do have to change - so in an ideal world - on 1st day of new parliament

Pass a bill 

- that scraps curtailment payments to all renewables - or imposes 100% - or very near - windfall tax on them - not on profits on the payments even if they make no profit.

- that forces all new renewables farms not yet licensed (better still - any not yet built even if licensed) to pay for their own grid connection costs.

- puts a windfall tax on profits from existing farms - to repay domestic and business customers the price paid to connect them - and recover all previous curtailment payments - over n years.

I can think of milder variations along those lines - but without such radical changes - we are destined to pay via our bills or as of April through our taxes - for what little has been removed from the bills (temporarily) - for the expense.

And for those greens who say - but that would make renewables non viable - or it will collapse the roll out in UK - fine - lets have that debate.  

A recent poll had 68% think lower bills should be vs 21% who think net zero should be the priority for UK energy policy. 

I'll happily follow the Swiss and have a more regular referenda based govt system - than dictate by the WM bubble - including 3 recently on nuclear and green energy policy - I might well lose if the UK follows suit on renewables.

matt_drummer

I can only assume that you value money more than polluting the place we live.

It's not even that much money.

Do you think that 68% are capable of making the correct decisions for the greater good, not just the decisions that suit them best?

I know this is a money saving forum, but money really is the root of most of our problems.