x404.co.uk
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/

Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=17737		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  pcernie [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20451189

How marvelous. It's all just a big coincidence that this comes along at the same time Cameron's making energy policy on the fly, and ministers obviously can't agree on just how green to be. Never mind the serious questions on just how efficient 'green energy' currently is, or that nobody can accurately predict even the gas prices...
Author:  Amnesia10 [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment
Quote:
The International Energy Agency has forecast natural gas prices to rise by 40% by 2020, even with an influx of cheap shale gas.

So much for Osbourne's lower energy prices in the future.

What is needed is a carbon tax that allows renewables to be cost effective now, without subsidy and to hit nuclear with a levy that matches so that the government does not have to pay out for the decommissioning of the nuclear industry after they offshore all the money and go bust rather than pay for the clean up. The government would have a significant carbon tax income which it could use to offset the costs for people by providing free insulation for all including small businesses and other energy saving schemes which benefits the tax payer in the long run. Eventually as more energy will be generated without the use of carbon this revenue will fall.
Author:  l3v1ck [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment
What we need is to scrap the subsidy on wind power. It's expensive and unreliable. There are better low carbon power sources.
Author:  jonbwfc [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment
Amnesia10 wrote:
What is needed is a carbon tax that allows renewables to be cost effective now,

I'm all for non-hydrocarbon energy, but making everything else more expensive does not make something more cost effective, it makes the other ones less cost effective. What we need is a rational, objective (good luck with that over climate change) energy 'duty' system where the cost of producing energy by a given method reflects the the total cost of use, that including both the cost of production and any related clean-up costs.

Punitive taxation/banning things to change people's behaviour doesn't work if they don't want to change their behaviour anyway. Never has worked. Prohibition, the petrol escalator, cigarette taxation, 'The War on Drugs'... all failures. Convincing people to change their behaviour/plans with rational argument sometimes has. If you say 'if you are going to do that we are going to charge you double' most people will just do it anyway and hate you. If you say 'you should do that half as much because it's really not that good a thing to do' most people will, if not do half as much, at least do a fair portion less.

The vast majority of the population are adult, well meaning and at least reasonably rational if treated as such. Treat people as adults and they will act like adults, treat them like children and they will act like children, and sulky ones at that.
Author:  Amnesia10 [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment
l3v1ck wrote:
What we need is to scrap the subsidy on wind power. It's expensive and unreliable. There are better low carbon power sources.

Yes but the true costs of carbon are not included in any current tax. I agree about ending the subsidy for wind power, but that does not encourage a switch to lower carbon sources. If you end the wind power subsidy and had a carbon tax for carbon generating sources then it will encourage other low carbon sources but methane from fracking is not low carbon, especially if you include all leakages which are far worse than other carbon dioxide. If you add an appropriate carbon tax for that wind power could still be cost effective.
Author:  ShockWaffle [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment
jonbwfc wrote:
Punitive taxation/banning things to change people's behaviour doesn't work if they don't want to change their behaviour anyway. Never has worked. Prohibition, the petrol escalator, cigarette taxation, 'The War on Drugs'... all failures. Convincing people to change their behaviour/plans with rational argument sometimes has.

That isn't true. We know that in America where petrol is hardly taxed at all people drive larger less fuel efficient cars than we do. That is because Americans don't factor in the price of petrol when choosing a car to the same extent that we do, so that's a sin tax that works right there.

Levies on cigarettes and alcohol also appear to reduce consumption, albeit less evenly because in that case they are changing lifestyle choices rather than investment ones on the whole. And likewise, subsequent to the purchase of your car, when your cost per mile is fixed, you may or may not forgo the car for short journeys, perhaps if you have chosen your car unwisely, you will be more likely to wisely leave it at home from time to time.

A carbon tax which affected the maths of companies deciding what kind of power stations to build would definitely have an effect. It would most likely promote the increasing use of gas rather than wind power though, because wind always needs expensive backup power for days when there is no breeze, so it always doomed to be inefficient unless subsidised in a manner that does nothing to level any playing fields at all.
Author:  Linux_User [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 5:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment
Gas isn't sustainable though; I won't mind the extra charge if the money is going to be invested in researching and developing sustainable energy sources rather than just lining the pockets of the shareholders of the energy companies.
Author:  ShockWaffle [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment
Linux_User wrote:
Gas isn't sustainable though

There's enough of it to generate all the electricity we need for many decades to come, it's the fuel source that makes most sense with present technology. There's no point wondering if it is sustainable into the next century as it will surely be superseded by then.
Author:  Linux_User [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment
ShockWaffle wrote:
Linux_User wrote:
Gas isn't sustainable though

There's enough of it to generate all the electricity we need for many decades to come, it's the fuel source that makes most sense with present technology. There's no point wondering if it is sustainable into the next century as it will surely be superseded by then.

That's the kind of complacency we can do without. Gas isn't doing global warming any favours either.

In terms of present technology available, nuclear is the option that makes most sense - we don't need to import the gas for a start. That's still no excuse not to invest in researching and developing alternatives.
Author:  rustybucket [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment
Linux_User wrote:
In terms of present technology available, nuclear is the option that makes most sense

I'm the keenest of proponents of nuclear power... but only if state-owned.

If we're going to subsidise the build and pay for the decomm, we should have the operating profits.
Author:  l3v1ck [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment
For the next generation I'd be happy with Nuclear or Gas/Coal with carbon capture (if possible).
Author:  jonbwfc [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment
rustybucket wrote:
I'm the keenest of proponents of nuclear power... but only if state-owned.

Problem is, given the current world economy, there are very few states that can afford the up-front costs of building large scale nuclear power plants, either by spending reserves or by financial devices (i.e. loans or bonds) and even fewer who could do so then put aside funds to finance decommissioning later on. Unless a private company can see an eventual profit in it, it's just not going to happen.

Jon
Author:  ShockWaffle [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment
Linux_User wrote:
ShockWaffle wrote:
Linux_User wrote:
Gas isn't sustainable though

There's enough of it to generate all the electricity we need for many decades to come, it's the fuel source that makes most sense with present technology. There's no point wondering if it is sustainable into the next century as it will surely be superseded by then.

That's the kind of complacency we can do without. Gas isn't doing global warming any favours either.

In terms of present technology available, nuclear is the option that makes most sense - we don't need to import the gas for a start. That's still no excuse not to invest in researching and developing alternatives.

You are clearly rather forgetful. Amnesia (who is the one with the excuse in this regard) already specified a carbon tax that takes full costs into account as a replacement for subsidies.

I was commenting on the likely outcome of such. Complacency has nothing to do with it, simple analysis is either true or false. With a carbon tax in place, gas becomes more competitive against its cheapest rival (coal), and its competitors that require subsidy to operate at all (including wind and nuclear) will not become more attractive for investment, therefore gas wins. Easy.
Author:  jonbwfc [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment
ShockWaffle wrote:
jonbwfc wrote:
Punitive taxation/banning things to change people's behaviour doesn't work if they don't want to change their behaviour anyway. Never has worked. Prohibition, the petrol escalator, cigarette taxation, 'The War on Drugs'... all failures. Convincing people to change their behaviour/plans with rational argument sometimes has.

That isn't true. We know that in America where petrol is hardly taxed at all people drive larger less fuel efficient cars than we do. That is because Americans don't factor in the price of petrol when choosing a car to the same extent that we do, so that's a sin tax that works right there.

Levies on cigarettes and alcohol also appear to reduce consumption, albeit less evenly because in that case they are changing lifestyle choices rather than investment ones on the whole. And likewise, subsequent to the purchase of your car, when your cost per mile is fixed, you may or may not forgo the car for short journeys, perhaps if you have chosen your car unwisely, you will be more likely to wisely leave it at home from time to time.

Both of these points are, I admit, debatable to some degree. Mainly because there are so many variables involved it's hard to prove a direct causal link between punative measure and behaviour. For example : Europeans do tend to drive more economical cars than Americans, but that was equally true when petrol was cheap in Europe before taxation and cost were applied as a disincentive. And the number of large fuel-inefficient American style cars on UK roads has never been higher, at least from my anecdotal experience. You saw virtually no American 'station wagons' on UK roads 20 years ago, yet today I would probably see one on an average commute into work any given day. Also I would argue the fact the number of 'car miles' driven in the UK has not fallen proportionally to increase of taxation applied, in fact it's continued to grow pretty much independently, shows that there's no direct link between taxation and consumption - demand is largely inelastic.

In the case of consumption of alcohol and tobacco they have indeed fallen, but it's impossible to separate the effect of increased taxation from other factors such as the increased education of the awareness of the damage these substances to do to us when consumed - both are probably part of the drop but without a decent control group it's impossible to define to what degree one or the other is causing the effect. Plus there are secondary effects too - someone may want to quit smoking because of the cost but would only be able to do so because of the availability of free cessation reinforcers on the NHS for example.

However there are number of cases where punative measures have failed or are patently failing - Prohibition in the US and the general 'war on drugs' are two. The case that punative measures will and always do result in reduced aberrant behaviour is very, very far from proved on a societal scale.

ShockWaffle wrote:
A carbon tax which affected the maths of companies deciding what kind of power stations to build would definitely have an effect. It would most likely promote the increasing use of gas rather than wind power though, because wind always needs expensive backup power for days when there is no breeze, so it always doomed to be inefficient unless subsidised in a manner that does nothing to level any playing fields at all.

It would have an effect on the types of power stations being built, if it affected the forms of generation that were most profitable for the companies building them.That's a simple reward mechanism which I'd agree would work well. I'm of the opinion however that demand for electrical power is also pretty inelastic - it may reduce as we develop more efficient gadgets but people aren't generally going to stop using their shiny things because they use power, unless you're talking about people who are effectively in poverty already and they aren't like to be heavy users anyway.

Stick on it's own has shown no great signs of being the answer. A bit of stick with a bit of carrot, IMO that stands more of a chance.
Author:  ShockWaffle [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment
I'm not sure of the relevance of prohibition. Nobody has proposed a ban on petrol to my knowledge,which reflects the fact that nobody needs to be told it wouldn't work out well.

And I think your miles claim is wrong
Image

economist.com wrote:
Britain, another nation that measures such things obsessively, has a similar arc. Kilometres travelled per person were stable or falling through most of the 2000s. Total traffic has not increased for a decade, despite a growing population. For the past 15 years Britons have been making fewer journeys; they now go out in cars only slightly more often than in the 1970s. Pre-recession declines in per-person travel were also recorded in France, Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand and Belgium.
http://www.economist.com/node/21563280

More importantly, the additional benefits of using a carbon tax instead of wind subsidies may not necessarily be measured in terms of amounts of wind power, or reduced energy consumption. A carbon tax can raise revenues that don't have to be pissed up a wall, whereas every penny that goes into wind subsidy is complete waste. The money can be spent on research for something less awful than wind, mitigating the effects of climate change, building some kind of giant carbon hoovering machine, whatever really, no idea is worse than what we already do or plan to do, including doing nothing about it at all.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/