Home Electricity & Costs - what are you doing?

[Beeechke1]

That Rance article is a good read. It does highlight the kinds of local ecology issues that have to be faced though. Don't forget that the UK's RSPB has more than a million members - it's one of the world's largest conservation organisations.

Maybe there'd be more public support (and hence more willingness by politicians not to give way to special interest groups) for a Severn tidal scheme, while electricity costs and energy security are top of mind.

The loss of one or two rare birdy species in Britain - even if that actually happened - seems to me to be a price worth paying to head off massive CC-created biodiversity losses in other parts of the world (not least from sea level changes - ironic when we're talking about barrage schemes). But that's always going to be a hard sell to the public.

Preventing further biodiversity loss is as important for a healthy inhabitable plant as mitigating climate change.

 

[Ch1pbutty]

The Rampion windfarm off Brighton has resulted in a reef which is protected from commercial fishing boats. So its not all bad.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Preventing further biodiversity loss is as important for a healthy inhabitable plant as mitigating climate change.

Yes and my point was that we ought to be at least contemplating trade-offs, ie some possible limited species loss in one locality, to reduce the potential larger losses in another part of the world (in this example arising from CC, although there are of course also other development-induced pressures on biodiversity, eg land use changes).

Unfortunately, politically, local issues usually trump global ones.

 

[GrannyJen]

Preventing further biodiversity loss is as important for a healthy inhabitable plant as mitigating climate change.

Is it diversity loss or diversity change?

 

[Beeechke1]

Is it diversity loss or diversity change?

Your right in the case of the projects above its the habitat loss or change which has consequences for biodiversity, sometimes predictable, but often not and yes sometimes positive or if not are we prepared to accept a net negative impact locally for a positive impact on another continent. I really don't know but as @Velma's Dad says seems like a hard sell to me.

 

[clarinetbcn]

That Rance article is a good read. It does highlight the kinds of local ecology issues that have to be faced though. Don't forget that the UK's RSPB has more than a million members - it's one of the world's largest conservation organisations.

Maybe there'd be more public support (and hence more willingness by politicians not to give way to special interest groups) for a Severn tidal scheme, while electricity costs and energy security are top of mind.

The loss of one or two rare birdy species in Britain - even if that actually happened - seems to me to be a price worth paying to head off massive CC-created biodiversity losses in other parts of the world (not least from sea level changes - ironic when we're talking about barrage schemes). But that's always going to be a hard sell to the public.

Didn't someone just link to an article in a post above that said the massive die-off of species we have caused in recent decades is due to humans' alteration of habitat, and that reducing carbon emissions will save US but do little to address biodiversity losses? Of course we must address carbon, but the article cautioned against confusing reducing carbon emissions with reducing biodiversity losses, which are mostly due to change in habitats caused by the enormous increase in the human population.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Didn't someone just link to an article in a post above that said the massive die-off of species we have caused in recent decades is due to humans' alteration of habitat, and that reducing carbon emissions will save US but do little to address biodiversity losses? Of course we must address carbon, but the article cautioned against confusing reducing carbon emissions with reducing biodiversity losses, which are mostly due to change in habitats caused by the enormous increase in the human population.

Much biodiversity loss to date has been due to land use changes (ie not specifically CC-driven), HOWEVER... CC - particularly changing rainfall patterns, increased forest fires, ocean acidification etc - will be a much bigger driver of species losses over coming decades.

I get tired of reading that CC is a consequence of human population growth. It isn't, it's a consequence of burning fossil fuels. By moving as quickly as possible to harnessing sustainable energy resources, the planet could sustain an even larger population than the projected 10.4bn by the end of the century (and after that, population will fall). In my view, the "too many people" argument can be a convenient excuse to drag heels on phasing out fossil fuels. In any case, how exactly are we supposed to reduce the population? Compulsory sterilisation? So really, it's a cop-out argument. We just need to focus on the things we can control, which is public policy on energy switchover in the countries we live in.

(Yes, we also need to find ways to persuade some countries to stop chopping down forests to make way for farming and logging, but that's a separate thing from carbon emissions reduction, it's not an either-or.)

End of rant.

 

[GrannyJen]

I'm getting slightly irritated by every time someone talks about averting the inevitable the actions needed are defeated by others talking about the possible.

If anyone wanted to do something about loss of biodiversity in the Bristol Channel then do something about the pollution of the river Wye thanks to agricultural run-off. In the meantime we continue to burn fossil fuel, we continue to provide cash flows for tyrants and we continue to surrender our energy security.

Perhaps if we put the dangers to the planet first and made our energy future secure then we can also then address issues of biodiversity but nothing is going to screw up diversity more than by poisoning the planet so sort that one out first.

 

[trev0rk]

. In the meantime we continue to burn fossil fuel, we continue to provide cash flows for tyrants and we continue to surrender our energy security.

While I don't agree with the Insulate Britain activities, there is no doubt in my mind that we need to reduce consumption not increase production.
The cost of Sizewell C could be used to insulate 1+ million homes with a permanent energy reduction greater than the nuclear energy produced.
Don't suppose that would go down well at Davos!
Out of interest, as I have fully green electricity, why has my electric tariff gone up? Wind and solar are still free at source?

 

[clarinetbcn]

RE: previous posts, Yes of course, that's why I made it clear that without addressing carbon all species will be wiped out. But there is nothing preventing us from at the same time addressing the damage we have brought about by bulldozing down habitats to build more suburban houses AND flying fresh fruit all over the world (my brother was an agriculture inspector for the U.S. government, he told me once about signing off on the importation to California of oranges from Valencia, Spain, the same week that he inspected an export of California oranges to Spain. Someone made a lot of money). I think that the planet can support the current population, but not unless we get a lot smarter and motivated to apply our knowledge to both these problems. Fixing one does not automatically fix the other, and both issues are at a critical stage.

Isn't it a well known fact that when a single species' predators are removed, it can overpopulate and create environmental havoc? We have been smart enough to remove most of our own predators (weather, disease, wild animals) but have been selfish and negligent about dealing with the consequences of simply taking over other habitats without wondering what the effects will be. This is not either/or, it's both, which sometimes gets lost in the discussion.

 

[GrannyJen]

Out of interest, as I have fully green electricity, why has my electric tariff gone up? Wind and solar are still free at source?

Yes, a good question, and, when as right now I am exporting green energy into the grid, why do I only get 25% of the price they want to charge me?

 

[clarinetbcn]

Yes, a good question, and, when as right now I am exporting green energy into the grid, why do I only get 25% of the price they want to charge me?

I have the same problem as you. Electrical companies have successfully lobbied that in order to get retail price for your electricity, you must get an industrial license as an energy producer, hundreds of thousands of euros. They didn't even let us get paid wholesale until recently. This is exactly the sort of selfish, greedy scam that is leading us to disaster.

Goggle Spain's tax on the sun put in place by the conservative PP (now thankfully repealed), which for years made home PV systems illegal. The electric companies cynically said it was in solidarity with poor people, since only rich people had PV and poor people would suffer as a result. A complete scam: even when I have zero net consumption from the network, I still pay a fixed cost to maintain the network that I draw from every night, making it unnecessary to have batteries.

Even with this situation, my net consumption from March to November is zero, and from December to February is a fraction of what it used to be. It would be net zero year round if the calculation were made yearly, like in California, instead of monthly, which means I still lose some compensation in spring and fall since the most I can get is net zero, never any carry over credit for a month where I produce more than I use. It helps that panel production efficiency goes up as temperatures go down, so as long as there is sun, the lower temperature compensates part of the loss from the lower sun angle. (By the way, that's one of the important reasons for not sticking solar panels directly to the roof of your van, instead using a mounting system that allows air to flow under the panels to help cool them.)

 

[Velma's Dad]

Yes, a good question, and, when as right now I am exporting green energy into the grid, why do I only get 25% of the price they want to charge me?

Ha, it's because they are the only buyer, so it's a monopsony (I had to look that one up).

 

[Bellcrew]

While I don't agree with the Insulate Britain activities, there is no doubt in my mind that we need to reduce consumption not increase production.
The cost of Sizewell C could be used to insulate 1+ million homes with a permanent energy reduction greater than the nuclear energy produced.
Don't suppose that would go down well at Davos!
Out of interest, as I have fully green electricity, why has my electric tariff gone up? Wind and solar are still free at source?

There is no such thing as "fully green electricity" from the grid, as far as I am aware what comes down your supply cable is a combination of what is available/needed to avoid blackouts when the wind fails to blow at night. You are completely correct that it is absurd that the renewable producers have been able to piggy back on the vast increase in the gas price whilst retaining their absurd subsidies, good business if you can get it.

 

[clarinetbcn]

There is no such thing as "fully green electricity" from the grid, as far as I am aware what comes down your supply cable is a combination of what is available/needed to avoid blackouts when the wind fails to blow at night. You are completely correct that it is absurd that the renewable producers have been able to piggy back on the vast increase in the gas price whilst retaining their absurd subsidies, good business if you can get it.

That's true about network electricity not being 100% green. My company covers 100% of their costumers' usage with wind and solar (I posted the data a while back, I think in response to a comment that no company produces 100% green), but since they use the shared network to distribute, they are not allowed by government regulators to lower their prices beyond a certain level. They are however required to pay in advance for usage of the distribution network long before they receive payment from their customers. Since that fee is dependent on the average price of electricity, it skyrocketed this year, driving many smaller green producers out of business, because even when their billing arrived, they were obligated to pay vastly higher network fees in advance while receiving billing which had been made at the old price. Mine asked for short-term investment from customers to cover the advance cost, which has since been repaid. Nobody made a killing except the large fossil companies, who had capital reserves available and have kept prices high even though their costs have now been going down.

This situation is one of the many reasons that I installed my own PV system, in order to directly receive the benefits.

 

[Mansfieldman750]

Yes, a good question, and, when as right now I am exporting green energy into the grid, why do I only get 25% of the price they want to charge me?

That’s because the government kept on cutting the Feed In Tarif, eventually doing away with it all together in 2019, thus discouraging anyone from putting up a new solar installation. Bad move, shocking actually.

 

[subthree]

That’s because the government kept on cutting the Feed In Tarif, eventually doing away with it all together in 2019, thus discouraging anyone from putting up a new solar installation. Bad move, shocking actually.

The previous owners of our house installed the PV system about 9-10 years ago when the FIT was 52 pence per kWh!!! We inherited the 25 year term so still another 15 years to go.

 

[The Tall Luthier]

Tidal power is the cleanest solution. Tides are reliable and constant. Much better than wind or solar. Pity that politicians are easily convinced by quick fixes and sales pitches which have allowed massive wind farms that ruin our countryside. Scotland is blighted by these sites.

I often wonder whether the people who object to windmills on aesthetic grounds would also have objected to electricity pylons back in the day.
I understand that’s they do change landscapes but their output is of direct benefit to the community.

 

[Velma's Dad]

That’s because the government kept on cutting the Feed In Tarif, eventually doing away with it all together in 2019, thus discouraging anyone from putting up a new solar installation. Bad move, shocking actually.

And also... maintaining the existing ratio of gas and electricity prices per KWh deters the installation of heat pumps (despite each switchover to a HP saving several tonnes of CO2 per year) and also of EV purchases (although to be fair they seem to be doing pretty well as it stands). Not exactly joined-up energy/climate policy is it.

 

[johnyboy]

Yes, a good question, and, when as right now I am exporting green energy into the grid, why do I only get 25% of the price they want to charge me?

Tesla tariff for me - same price energy in as energy out

Oh and on original FiT, which pretty much covers my annual usage for EV owning, all electric house

 

[Mansfieldman750]

The previous owners of our house installed the PV system about 9-10 years ago when the FIT was 52 pence per kWh!!! We inherited the 25 year term so still another 15 years to go.

Good man ! You’ll get a big increase next April as well as FIT is linked to cpi ( or rpi, can’t remember ) Loadsamoney !

 

[subthree]

Good man ! You’ll get a big increase next April as well as FIT is linked to cpi ( or rpi, can’t remember ) Loadsamoney !

Really? In the 6 years we have lived here it hasn't changed by 1p.

 

[Mansfieldman750]

Something wrong there. We installed ours in 2011 when the FIT was 43.3p/kWh. It’s gone up every April since and now stands at 60.23p/kWh.

 

[trev0rk]

Good man ! You’ll get a big increase next April as well as FIT is linked to cpi ( or rpi, can’t remember ) Loadsamoney !

RPI

 

[subthree]

Something wrong there. We installed ours in 2011 when the FIT was 43.3p/kWh. It’s gone up every April since and now stands at 60.23p/kWh.

Just shows that I haven't bothered to check my statements! Our FIT is indeed 60.23p/kWh plus the 4.25p/kWh export rate. Even more of a result. Thanks for the heads up.