Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981 · 19 June 2019 at 5:35PM

1961Nick wrote: »

My only intention was to point out that the downside for some lower income households could be a lot greater than your examples indicated...whereas, using an actual suppliers tariff, clearly shows that the upside is marginal at best.

And the upside for some lower income households could be greater too, but now we are both just cherry picking, and proving nothing, and adding nothing to the discussion.

And whilst I understand why you would want to compare it to an actual tariff, that is not technically going to be accurate as standing charges (as Z has pointed out repeatedly) vary, so do not therefore cover actual costs. Some will be too high, some will be too low, and therefore results in comparisons will vary, but those differences can't be taken to the bank, since a shift to NSC accounts would result in differences in the changes to tariffs depending on how fairly or not, the SC's have been worked out.

The reason I gave a theoretical, was to highlight that total costs, and total revenues don't change, it was not meant to be an accurate cost forecast.

Moving for a moment from G&E and to the oversite (so to speak), removing SC's also means that a quick/instant comparison can be made between different offerings, and this would surely be a good thing in removing confusion, and helping everyone to get the best deal.

1961Nick wrote: »

Terminology like "pointless spin move" leads me to believe that you are prepared to accept any collateral damage as long as carbon emissions are reduced.

Sorry, but yet another post from you trying to link/associate me with something negative.

I'm sure a move from no standing charge to standing charges would be far more detrimental to lower income households, than a move away, as I'm suggesting. I'm also sure, that if reality was flipped, and the situation was that I was suggesting such a move (to standing charges) you would be making exactly the same claims against me - though in that instance they would be correct.

Your linking me to 'collateral damage' when I believe there would be a net improvement (more winners than losers) is nothing more than spin and an attempt to FUD up what I've suggested.

As to costs to reduce carbon emissions, I am prepared to accept costs, and I think you've made it perfectly clear that you doubt both the need, in general, and for the UK especially.

We obviously have a fundamental disagreement on AGW and UK responsibilities, and the action needed. If you think this can be addressed without costs, then you are wrong. If you think the cost of action is more than the cost of inaction, then I believe you are wrong again.

Martyn1981 · 19 June 2019 at 5:38PM

pile-o-stone wrote: »

People on limited incomes are already paying more for their energy:

https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/nov/10/poverty-premium-costs-poor-energy-phone-tariffs-councils

"Being poor comes at a cost. The best bank accounts, borrowing rates and energy tariffs are all reserved for people who are in a position to shop around. And if you do not have a clean credit file or access to up-to-date technology you can expect to pay more for almost everything you buy."

Higher energy costs can be the hardest to avoid. Energy bought through prepayment meters is still more expensive than that bought on a standard tariff paid for by direct debit, and the premium over online accounts is even bigger. In July, Citizens Advice said prepayment customers were paying on average £226 a year more for their energy than those on the cheapest online deals.

Householders can switch between prepayment tariffs, but there is little competition so the choice – and saving – is limited. To get the best deals, as well as internet access, you need a good credit record. Even with these, private renters can find it hard to switch payment types. While the regulator Ofgem says a landlord cannot prevent you switching meters, you may have to switch back at the end of the tenancy, and the associated costs could be off-putting."

Yes.

So removing 'normal' economics from the equation, where you get a better price the more you buy, something pointed out by silverwhistle:

silverwhistle wrote: »

It seems perverse to have a lower marginal rate if you increase consumption, and I don't know of many other retail situations where that applies. It's all very well saying poor people may use more due to circumstances beyond their control, but with higher fixed charges those who make an effort to cut their costs, whether by insulation or accepting lower levels of comfort, will be penalised by higher marginal costs the more they save.

would be a good thing, and allow those that use less, to pay less.

Martyn1981 · 19 June 2019 at 5:52PM

1961Nick wrote: »

Terminology like "pointless spin move" leads me to believe that you are prepared to accept any collateral damage as long as carbon emissions are reduced.

Sorry for the extra post, but just had a good chuckle, as your post now, and a previous one trying to spin the FiT subsidy as a negative have reminded me of a very similar attempt by another poster on here about 7 years ago to do the exact same.

He tried to pick an example of a loser, to thereby undermine the whole FiT scheme. He mentioned a poor old pensioner living in an all electric flat, who has to pay levies on their leccy bill to go to domestic PV'ers. Obviously he was trying to paint that as 'bad'.

What was missing of course, was context. So as a nuclear supporter he was more than happy for said pensioner to pay levies for the nuclear subsidies, yet no pensioner, no flat, no household, in fact ...... nobody ....... would be building a nuclear reactor and thereby be in receipt of any subsidy receipts. The same can of course be said for large scale renewables too.

So he 'cleverly' took what makes the FIT scheme far fairer than all the other RE and nuclear schemes (which go to large scale supply side owners) as it goes back to consumers, and spun that positive as a negative.

So long as context is thrown aside in these discussions, they are meaningless. When you accept carbon emissions have a cost, we can discuss the costs of dealing with it, till then I see little point in discussing the matter.

GreatApe · 19 June 2019 at 7:21PM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So long as context is thrown aside in these discussions, they are meaningless. When you accept carbon emissions have a cost, we can discuss the costs of dealing with it, till then I see little point in discussing the matter.

FITs and CFDs need not be put onto bills

They could and should be paid from central government spending. Likewise any grid upgrades should be paid for the project requiring the upgrade

This way would also be more honest accounting with politicians able to decide if they want to sub another marginal £ to wind mills or healthcare and schooling

1961Nick · 19 June 2019 at 7:42PM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sorry for the extra post, but just had a good chuckle, as your post now, and a previous one trying to spin the FiT subsidy as a negative have reminded me of a very similar attempt by another poster on here about 7 years ago to do the exact same.

He tried to pick an example of a loser, to thereby undermine the whole FiT scheme. He mentioned a poor old pensioner living in an all electric flat, who has to pay levies on their leccy bill to go to domestic PV'ers. Obviously he was trying to paint that as 'bad'.

What was missing of course, was context. So as a nuclear supporter he was more than happy for said pensioner to pay levies for the nuclear subsidies, yet no pensioner, no flat, no household, in fact ...... nobody ....... would be building a nuclear reactor and thereby be in receipt of any subsidy receipts. The same can of course be said for large scale renewables too.

So he 'cleverly' took what makes the FIT scheme far fairer than all the other RE and nuclear schemes (which go to large scale supply side owners) as it goes back to consumers, and spun that positive as a negative.

So long as context is thrown aside in these discussions, they are meaningless. When you accept carbon emissions have a cost, we can discuss the costs of dealing with it, till then I see little point in discussing the matter.

If you are incapable of countenancing any opinion that isn’t 100% inline with your own, then I see little point in further discussion. If my opinion bothers you so much, perhaps you should consider blocking my input?

1961Nick · 19 June 2019 at 7:45PM

GreatApe wrote: »

FITs and CFDs need not be put onto bills

They could and should be paid from central government spending. Likewise any grid upgrades should be paid for the project requiring the upgrade

This way would also be more honest accounting with politicians able to decide if they want to sub another marginal £ to wind mills or healthcare and schooling

Makes sense to me.

zeupater · 19 June 2019 at 10:46PM

1961Nick wrote: »

Makes sense to me.

Hi

I don't really follow why it would be considered to make sense as ...

On connectivity .... Apart from microgeneration installed within the supply capacity of existing connections and local network conditions, this is effectively what happens already ... Additional large scale capacity which is connected directly to the transmission network is subject to considerable connection planning charges, covering the cost of specific network connection investment with an additional maintenance cost based on a percentage of the capital equipment installed ... if the connection is smaller scale distributed generation (biomass, solar farm etc) then there's no transmission network planning cost but the cost of assets for distribution network extension are charged, as is a proportion of distributed network reinforcement if required (eg - microgeneration installation above 16A as mentioned above), this being before connectivity maintenance ....

General network reinforcement for both the low voltage (distribution) & the high voltage (transmission) networks are (supposed to be) borne as both revenue & capital expenditure by the relevant providers from supply & demand revenues apart from where central government has applied strategic requirements & the regulator allows project specific costs to be recovered through other means ... this probably applying to major infrastructure such as HP-C, major international interconnectors or onshore/offshore wind power grid connectivity nodes ...

On source of microgeneration incentives ... effectively what we have in place is a form of ring-fenced taxation in which the government has sub-contracted administration to the energy supply sector as opposed to funding from the general taxation pool ... it's essentially the same as how fuel, alcohol & tobacco duties are handled, directly linking the taxation to those consuming as opposed to expecting everyone to pay according to an unrelated formula ... this seems to be a class of specific direct taxation revenue which can be targetted to encourage reduction in consumption if required to drive personal health improvements, emissions reductions etc ... now that really makes sense if you sit back and look at the big picture without any form of initial bias ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981 · 20 June 2019 at 6:43AM

1961Nick wrote: »

If you are incapable of countenancing any opinion that isn’t 100% inline with your own, then I see little point in further discussion. If my opinion bothers you so much, perhaps you should consider blocking my input?

If you keep posting AGW denial arguments, try to spin my 'positive' comments on pricing changes that would benefit the poor and reduce carbon emissions as 'accepting collateral damage', and keep taking cheap pot shots, then sadly I probably will put you on my ignore list and double it.

Martyn1981 · 20 June 2019 at 6:48AM

1961Nick wrote: »

Makes sense to me.

I'm not surprised by that, since placing the costs on bill payers means that the polluter pays - we are after all the polluter as we are the end user. [Edit, sorry Z, I see you already explained that. M.]

Shifting the cost onto general taxation would make energy cheaper, and whilst we all like to see our bills go down, and it might be a vote winner for the government (at the time), it would also be a major failing in trying to address the bigger issue - AGW.

Energy bill payers pretty much represent:
All of us.
Means we pay as we pollute with proportional increases/decreases.
helps to reduce energy consumption.
Means those that will incur AGW costs, are paying AGW prevention/reduction costs.

1961Nick · 20 June 2019 at 8:48AM

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

On source of microgeneration incentives ... effectively what we have in place is a form of ring-fenced taxation in which the government has sub-contracted administration to the energy supply sector as opposed to funding from the general taxation pool ... it's essentially the same as how fuel, alcohol & tobacco duties are handled, directly linking the taxation to those consuming as opposed to expecting everyone to pay according to an unrelated formula ... this seems to be a class of specific direct taxation revenue which can be targetted to encourage reduction in consumption if required to drive personal health improvements, emissions reductions etc ... now that really makes sense if you sit back and look at the big picture without any form of initial bias ...

HTH
Z

The problem is that it's the wealthy that can avoid paying the 'tax' for green initiatives. Many lower income households just don't have the capital required to install solar, batteries, ASHPs or a more efficient boiler. For many years, even simple things like low energy light bulbs were prohibitively expensive.

Targeting is fine, but there needs to be a safety net for those that don't have the resources/knowledge to change their consumption.

The fact that low income households are directly contributing to my quarterly FIT payment doesn't sit entirely comfortably.

Solar ... In the news

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free