Monday
Oct282013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Transparency and culpability
Oct 28, 2013 Climate: Parliament Energy: costs Energy: grid Media 
I return to the blogging saddle to find little changed. The Guardian's campaign to put the lights out continues apace, promoting a campaign to get universities to divest from fossil fuel companies and trying to pin the blame for power system chaos on the big six energy firms.
Looking on the bright side, there are at least the hint of some changes in the government line:
Some green charges will be scrapped while others will be taken off bills and instead funded by Government directly. If extra public money is needed to pay for this, that will be provided by additional spending cuts.
Reader Comments (63)
"Do you really consider green measures as one an item within the government's £600 billion plus budget is going to be less "hidden" than one that appears every month on peoples' energy bills?"
I recognize that statement from the recent past. Why do I get this feeling that Bit Bucket is back?
While all the hype is about the visible cost impact of the various green taxes, the other less-visible costs should form part of the debate.
The charges levied by the National Grid are rising sharply because they are obliged to add substantial infrastructure to link remote renewable sites to the grid and/or upgrade existing power lines. Secondly the generators will be seeking to counter the poor returns on their newer plants due to them running as "peaking" plants.
The comparison we need - but will never see - is what power costs would be without any of the distortions
steveta_uk
Nicely put, I'd also add that the poorest and elderly live in the oldest properties which are the hardest to insulate.
BTW you mentioned GEC Semiconductors in one of your posts, did you ever work at MEDL in Lincoln?
BBC Radio Youandyours, goes to expert on the green deal ....Guess who ? Chrimbo Huhne
- proving BBC recruit "experts" from their own coctail party
- At least presenter was firm and started by mentioing he works for green energy corp
I actually agree with Huhne if there is one subsidy it should be to fixbad insulation, but plan was badly implemented. Deliberately ? (after Huhne left it)
- he moaned it should be installed at point between moving house .. but surely marketing ideeas like that should be left to corps that benefit from the subsidy.
bill,
"So whats the point? Is it a diversionary tactic, a case of being 'seen to be doing something', having noted that the public don't pay much attention to detail and just get the headline bit, 'your fuel bills are now going to be less'."
Being completely selfish about it, this is great news for me.
I'm quite poor. I live in a tiny one bed cottage. But my electricity bills are huge. I don't have central heating - just those useless storage heaters. They cost a fortune - even with me wearing thermals all winter.
I went on holiday with an old college mate recently. (Surfing, supposedly, though it felt a lot more like drowning to me.) His heating bills are far lower than mine on each of his houses. (I'm sure he pays more than I do in total - but you would with that many houses!)
So, if he pays part of my electricity bill through his much larger income tax, then I won't be complaining. That might be cheeky - but it'll help me out. (Thanks Al!)
I tried to post on the Guardian that the first thing we could do is stop the power plant closures, followed by the not unreasonable idea that we could re-visit the now obviously not-occurring cagw theory and perhaps re-visit what type of power stations we choose to use.
However I'm now on pre-mod and my heresy was not allowed to see the light of day. 'Comment Is Free' indeed, etc etc.....
@steveta_uk
Once again I totally align myself with your view
@Cheshirered
It stopped surprising me a long time ago that it was always the left or the alarmist websites that either blocked me out or enlisted attack dogs to scream at me.
I find it amazing how people feel threatened by FACTS.
@ Retired Dave
It's because pesky facts make their years of alarmist rhetoric look very silly indeed, and by extension that makes them look very silly too. Do they not like that.
@ steveta_uk
I agree that transferring green costs from energy bills to general taxation would be a lot fairer, and as a pensioner myself I would benefit. However, it would be much better if the costs of ineffectual greenery were scrapped rather than simply being transferred from the consumer to the taxpayer. By including the costs in general taxation would be a way of concealing them, and if the government did so its main motive would be trying to neutralise opposition to its policies.
OT: SandyS, I was with GEC Semiconductors in North Wembley, attached to the Hirst Research Centre. We had some limited dealings with Lincoln, but it too long ago to remember exactly why.
We also imported and distributed some new-fangled things called "micro-processors" from a Californian startup called Intel. Not sure if anything came of that business.
steveta_uk
OT Doubtful our paths crossed then.
"...[A] campaign to get universities to divest from fossil fuel companies and trying to pin the blame for power system chaos on the big six energy firms."
For a slight charge, I'm sure Obama will lend the Guardian George W. Bush, his perennial scapegoat, for additional help.
Collectivists turn all taxation schemes into redistribution. It's what they do. They assume production. They don't equate high electricity prices with exported jobs. They don't equate generous safety net handouts as inducements to MORE poor people.
I'm sure Edmund Burke is spinning in his grave. Maybe some enterprising entrepreneur could dig up his body, attach some magnets, turn his corpse into a generator.