Abolish standing charges

Gerry1

MultiFuelBurner said:

They should be planning many more nuclear tractors imo but that's not a vote winner

You are Neil Parish MP, and I claim my fiver ! 😈

GingerTim

Gerry1 said:

MultiFuelBurner said:

They should be planning many more nuclear tractors imo but that's not a vote winner

You are Neil Parish MP, and I claim my fiver ! 😈

Former MP if we are being pedantic 

MultiFuelBurner

Gerry1 said:

MultiFuelBurner said:

They should be planning many more nuclear tractors imo but that's not a vote winner

You are Neil Parish MP, and I claim my fiver ! 😈

Nothing wrong with Nuclear Tractors in Nahfolk land.

MikeJXE

MultiFuelBurner said:

Qyburn said:

Scot_39 said:
Last year - according to gridiamkate - c55% of all electricity generated in UK was from non fossil fuels 

What's that going look like after 23 million houses have switched from gas to ASHP, and 30 million cars replaced with electric. I did a rough calculation suggesting the cars would add 18% to UK total consumption. ASHP? I don't know what they use annually but 6,000kWh each adds another 43%

Scot_39 said:
Are you ready to apply the same to domestic gas - and it's 100% carbon emitting energy.

Domestic gas hearing's carbon impact is not much different to mains electricity. A couple of years ago it was higher, now it maybe above or below depending on the generation mix. That's before adding the extra 60% that will mostly be gas fired.

Its really not as simple as saying "use electricity for everything and don't worry about energy saving"

The flaw in your thinking is the light switch approach to calculation. 23 million won't instantly stop using gas it will be gradual and that's why there is loads of planning for pylons on and off shore connections going through now. They should be planning many more nuclear tractors imo but that's not a vote winner so will have to be after the election for whoever takes control.

Think gradual until 2050.

The flaw is the government who make a pigs ear of everything that needs a plan of action

ICE cars have already been put back, nuclear power stations is anybodies guess

If we all wanted to switch in the next 10 years it wouldn't be impossible 

Even when all this achieved at huge cost it doesn't mean we have a clean bubble of air over our island 

MultiFuelBurner

MikeJXE said:

MultiFuelBurner said:

Qyburn said:

Scot_39 said:
Last year - according to gridiamkate - c55% of all electricity generated in UK was from non fossil fuels 

What's that going look like after 23 million houses have switched from gas to ASHP, and 30 million cars replaced with electric. I did a rough calculation suggesting the cars would add 18% to UK total consumption. ASHP? I don't know what they use annually but 6,000kWh each adds another 43%

Scot_39 said:
Are you ready to apply the same to domestic gas - and it's 100% carbon emitting energy.

Domestic gas hearing's carbon impact is not much different to mains electricity. A couple of years ago it was higher, now it maybe above or below depending on the generation mix. That's before adding the extra 60% that will mostly be gas fired.

Its really not as simple as saying "use electricity for everything and don't worry about energy saving"

The flaw in your thinking is the light switch approach to calculation. 23 million won't instantly stop using gas it will be gradual and that's why there is loads of planning for pylons on and off shore connections going through now. They should be planning many more nuclear tractors imo but that's not a vote winner so will have to be after the election for whoever takes control.

Think gradual until 2050.

The flaw is the government who make a pigs ear of everything that needs a plan of action

ICE cars have already been put back, nuclear power stations is anybodies guess

If we all wanted to switch in the next 10 years it wouldn't be impossible 

Even when all this achieved at huge cost it doesn't mean we have a clean bubble of air over our island 

Correct it wouldn't be impossible as you say as electric cars can charge overnight when demand is low and can also feed that power back into the grid when demand is high. (Perfect free battery storage and those with EV's paid for this benefit)

Cleaner bubble would be a good statement. It's all small steps to being cleaner. 

Let's see what the next Government does whoever they shall be.

Resistance will come but hopefully they will tax gas usage so it becomes the more expensive of energies. A pollution tax (the ulez of energy taxes)

Gerry1

MultiFuelBurner said

Resistance will come but hopefully they will tax gas usage so it becomes the more expensive of energies. A pollution tax (the ulez of energy taxes)

Gas (and diesel) tractors are exempt from ULEZ !

MultiFuelBurner

Gerry1 said:

MultiFuelBurner said

Resistance will come but hopefully they will tax gas usage so it becomes the more expensive of energies. A pollution tax (the ulez of energy taxes)

Gas (and diesel) tractors are exempt from ULEZ !

I can only get my tracker to go 55mph and that's by stripping it down to just a seat and engine.

MattMattMattUK

sevenhills said:

matelodave said:

This has become the same pointless discussion that goes round and round without any sort of resolution.

Those that understand, will accept that there really isn't a better system to proved 24/7 services to every household in the land.

I agree, it's not practical to have zero standing charges.

What should happen is that everyone has their own personal carbon allowance that is low or zero tax, with the more they use the more they pay.

Just like with earnings, £1275 tax free, then after the tax free part you pay 20% tax and then a higher rate at a certain level.

This would initially only work with low taxes on domestic gas and electricity, but other energy could be regulated and included.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/personal-carbon-allowance-trading-climate-crisis-b1956705.html

That would be onerous and bureaucratic to administer, just apply the carbon tax direct to the product or service if you want a carbon tax.

njm123

ArbitraryRandom said:

Apologies if this has been addressed in the 10 previous pages (I did try to read through but admit I got a little bored...). 

I tried to review the Ofgem consultation (as recommended on the first page) and wonder if someone can explain this graph?



I understand the supplier of last resort costs increasing as a result of the many number of companies which crashed - but I'm not sure I understand why there was a corresponding increase in the TNUoS or DuoS? 

If I'm understanding correctly, these costs have increased not because of 'world pressures', but because of UK political decisions re the future energy infrastructure? Therefore, if part of the standing charge were to be reduced or removed, the most sensible argument (to me) its that these should be paid for from (the already progressive) general taxation pot rather than the standing charge - thus allowing the charge to be halved? 

This Graph sums up the problem with standing charges neatly - they are no longer just the infrastructure costs as they used to be, they now include extra bits that are effectively other Surcharges from the Regulator/Government.  Personally I think these should be shown separately on bills.   That way people can see what they are and should see over time which elements are changing and if that's fair.  For example SoLR seems to be dropping away as the market stabilises , be interesting to see what happens to the others when the problems they cover dissipate.   Although I do suspect as one "problem" clears a new one will be found and added to the standing charge rather than making the supplier raise costs or the Government cover from general taxes.

sevenhills

MattMattMattUK said:

That would be onerous and bureaucratic to administer, just apply the carbon tax direct to the product or service if you want a carbon tax.

As I see it, we need to tax carbon, because higher prices dissuade its use. As can be seen from taxing smoking.

So how do we make sure the poor are not disadvantaged?

As can be seen from council tax, taxing houses is more straightforward than taxing people. We would then need to bring in allowances for how many people per house, but not overcomplicate it.