Posted by: @iaack

↑

@jeff The cost of an electric motor is pretty insignificant compared with cost of electricity it consumes in its operational lifetime. The cost of installing a wind farm compared to its earning potential over its 25 year lifespan (giving its energy source is free as the wind), just why is it necessary for 20 year CfD to help pay for it?

Because its what the investors demand, simple as that.  Like it or not we are dependent on them, and like it or not they have a choice in what to invest in.  

You may recall that, about 2 years ago, there was a call for bids to build new wind turbines and there were NO responses because the conditions/price we were offering wasn't good/high enough.  In a sense its possibly good news if that happens occasionally because it shows that the government is pitching it about right, but of course it doe imply that better terms are required by the market if we want to actually achieve anything.

Armchair contract negotiation is easy, actual contract negotiation less so.  Im not saying government (whatever the colour) always gets it right, they are human after all, but starting from the presumption that they can dictate to the market the terms of investment is unrealistic.  Maybe if we had a command economy the size of China we might be in a position to do that, but we don't and we aren't

Posted by: @jeff

↑

@old_scientist

I also care about the environment like you and you make some very good points. 

It is hard to quantify what slowing down net zero investment in the UK would mean. What it would mean both locally and globally. 

I agree globally and locally we need to do something. 

We aren't a large global greenhouse emitter so we will make little difference if we do or don't in terms of global or local temperatures or global or local sea levels. That is very blunt rather than doing the right thing and showing global leadership but we live in strange times.

From a UK perspective I think we will need to gradually change the crops we grow anyway as I honestly believe temperatures are going to go up higher now whatever we do or don't do.

As for sea levels around the UK I think realistically we should limit sea defences and let nature take its course apart from critical infrastructure etc. 

As for flood defences again obviously some investment is needed but I strongly believe again that we need to let nature find a level that is viable in many cases even at the unfortunate impact on some areas.

I am all for net zero in the UK but we need a viable route to get there which needs so much clearer communication. If we move to net zero quicker than the majority of the rest of the world we currently run the risk of a higher cost of living with no benefits of lower temperatures or sea levels or flooding locally or globally. 

At the moment I don't think we have a viable route to net zero but I equally not sure what is viable.

We see it with so many things, just look at the eye watering boiler upgrade scheme £7,500!!! Non means tested!!! The government kept increasing it as the take up was so low. This is another car crash as it is unviable at scale and it is going to people who don't really even need it in many cases. This is meant to be a mature technology! 

A pause, review and rethink is needed I think to get us to net zero at some time in the future that is viable. 

I cannot understand why heat pumps (and solar/battery) are not mandated for all new build properties in the UK. I know the government are unlikely to meet their target for new build homes, but there are still a large number of new build homes that will be built by 2030, all of which could have an ASHP install, 6-8 solar panels on the roof (3-4kWp) and a battery to help smooth peak evening demand on the grid. If they want to help fund or subsidise it, abolish or rebate stamp duty on properties with an ASHP installed. They can't even mandate developers to put 4-6 solar panels on the roof of all new builds.

Not means-tested, but would at least get the installation numbers up quickly and not result in thousands of botched retrofits.

Posted by: @old_scientist

↑

I cannot understand why heat pumps (and solar/battery) are not mandated for all new build properties in the UK.

I suspect it's because housebuilders have lobbied/told government it will add ~ 20K to the price, a figure which they will have calculated by considering it as a retrofit not saving anything they would otherwise have to do,vans without taking into account any economies of scale.  

I also suspect that there are insufficient civil servants with a scientific or business training to challenge the housebuilders on their claims.

Unfortunately if we want to get the better of big business we need the best MPs and the best civil servants with the right training.  I dont think either profession is sufficiently attractive relative to the alternatives available to the best people for many to sign up.  Some politicians, the media and many people make it even less attractive by their constant downing of those who serve us, and totally arbitrary rules such as denying home working.  Of course some of the best do sign up and I'm not saying either civil servants mps are poor, the point is that to do the job we need them to do they need to be better than the best in industry.  

@jamespa 

Ah, you mean MPs that have not proved themselves through the local party structures? Not arguing for different, but this is a first pass the post system..

Posted by: @old_scientist

↑

I cannot understand why heat pumps (and solar/battery) are not mandated for all new build properties in the UK.

 

I am going this route. But I keep asking myself, having solar retrofit in a single property.. It provides resiliency and exercises the grey matter in my brain, but can it really be competitive with professionally run solar farms? 

Posted by: @old_scientist

↑

I cannot understand why heat pumps (and solar/battery) are not mandated for all new build properties in the UK.

As that's an energy issue, it would need the DESNZ to push for it.

But its the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government which is behind the push for 1.5m new houses.

DESNZ (and Ofgem) meet with, and listen to, representatives of the energy sector.
Their preference is for Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) to be commercially owned and installed onto the grid.
That brings profit into the energy sector.

It would be more energy-efficient to have battery storage within homes because the electricity only has to pass once across the Distribution Grid.
Home-based storage also increases the Resilience of the electricity supply system... which is a key target for NESO.

But DESNZ can't hear those arguments because those who hold such views don't get invited to DESNZ strategy meetings.

There is currently one 'live' public consultation being run by DESNZ concerning the Continuation of the Warm Homes Scheme (beyond March'26)
into which you could insert a response requesting incentives for domestic storage batteries.

The Warm Homes Scheme has 'alleviating energy poverty' as one of its aims, so your proposal would be relevant.
Householders with battery storage could reduce their energy bills by importing from the grid using a ToU tariff.

You might suppose that giving such a response is a waste of time, but that may not be the case.

The number of responses to these Public Consultations is pretty low... usually less than 100.
And very few submissions are ever provided by ordinary members of the public.
So yours would stand out.

They key is to make sure that your point is being made as an answer to one of the questions being asked.
And you should at least attempt to give responses to a good proportion of the other questions.
If not, you run the risk of your submission being viewed as 'lobbying' and therefore not counted as a contribution.

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Posted by: @old_scientist

↑

I cannot understand why heat pumps (and solar/battery) are not mandated for all new build properties in the UK.

As that's an energy issue, it would need the DESNZ to push for it.

But its the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government which is behind the push for 1.5m new houses.

DESNZ (and Ofgem) meet with, and listen to, representatives of the energy sector.
Their preference is for Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) to be commercially owned and installed onto the grid.
That brings profit into the energy sector.

It would be more energy-efficient to have battery storage within homes because the electricity only has to pass once across the Distribution Grid.
Home-based storage also increases the Resilience of the electricity supply system... which is a key target for NESO.

But DESNZ can't hear those arguments because those who hold such views don't get invited to DESNZ strategy meetings.

 

There is currently one 'live' public consultation being run by DESNZ concerning the Continuation of the Warm Homes Scheme (beyond March'26)
into which you could insert a response requesting incentives for domestic storage batteries.

The Warm Homes Scheme has 'alleviating energy poverty' as one of its aims, so your proposal would be relevant.
Householders with battery storage could reduce their energy bills by importing from the grid using a ToU tariff.

You might suppose that giving such a response is a waste of time, but that may not be the case.

The number of responses to these Public Consultations is pretty low... usually less than 100.
And very few submissions are ever provided by ordinary members of the public.
So yours would stand out.

They key is to make sure that your point is being made as an answer to one of the questions being asked.
And you should at least attempt to give responses to a good proportion of the other questions.
If not, you run the risk of your submission being viewed as 'lobbying' and therefore not counted as a contribution.

Thank you @transparent

I see the closing date for the survey is Nov 20th, so I will think about your comments and how best I can draft a submission, as a Warm Home Discount recipient.

I think there has to be some merit to the idea on achieving ongoing savings, rather than just throwing £150/year at low income households which is clearly unsustainable and achieves no lasting / ongoing benefit.

Remember that almost all submissions to Government Public Consultations are text-only, and uninspiring.

As an ordinary member of the public, you can't be expected to keep within 'the rules'.

The civil servants who get to read and collate these responses are more likely to take note of what you say if you include:

• photos of what you've had installed under the scheme
• a graph, such as one showing how far HMG is falling behind a target
• a screenshot of a relevant newspaper article, because that better demonstrates what the wider public think
• a relevant quote from a topic on this forum (with the URL so they can look it up!)

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Posted by: @old_scientist

↑

I cannot understand why heat pumps (and solar/battery) are not mandated for all new build properties in the UK.

...

Their preference is for Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) to be commercially owned and installed onto the grid.
That brings profit into the energy sector.

well, I expect both grid level and home level are needed. Being a market economy individuals and companies choose what they want. I hope the contracts for grid battery, reservoirs etc make very clear that these would be paid as they perform a function NESO is driving use of.    

When a home battery is fit, the contract should be simple and allow the individual do what they see fit. You cannot rely on it.  

Posted by: @transparent

↑

It would be more energy-efficient to have battery storage within homes because the electricity only has to pass once across the Distribution Grid.
Home-based storage also increases the Resilience of the electricity supply system... which is a key target for NESO.

I believe the participants are driven by contracts and financial drivers. Not energy waste per se.  

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Householders with battery storage could reduce their energy bills by importing from the grid using a ToU tariff.

That sounds interesting but battery storage at borough or county level should be much more cost efficient. But trickier to build as it would need to reward risk taking. 

One persons view 

https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/british-energy-policy-not-cheap-not-home-grown-and-not-secure/

In sync with the Nesta figures showing the escalating balancing costs when the wind farms have to curtail and the CfD top up paid to wind farms as they are more expensive than gas turbines on average.

It is only going to get worse as more wind turbines are added? 

Posted by: @jeff

↑

In sync with the Nesta figures showing the escalating balancing costs when the wind farms have to curtail and the CfD top up paid to wind farms as they are more expensive than gas turbines on average.

It is only going to get worse as more wind turbines are added? 

Contracts like CfD are what matters most for price formation.. So the answer to your question is another question. Do the new contracts have to be similar to the previous?

@jeff

Posted by: @jeff

↑

It is only going to get worse as more wind turbines are added? 

In my humble opinion I think yes it is going to get worse due to the limitations of the grid not being able to distribute the power. The generators will not take the financial hit because it is not their fault the power transport network is not up to the job.

I have given up and decided to get off this crazy train as much as possible and am putting in solar and batteries now. Did not want to spend the extra money but feel I have to to try and safeguard the future pension.

P.S I have just returned from our relatives in Western Australia and they were horrified by the cost of our power. They are paying 13 cents a Kwh (6.5p Khw) so we are doing something seriously wrong

Posted by: @technogeek

↑

P.S I have just returned from our relatives in Western Australia and they were horrified by the cost of our power. They are paying 13 cents a Kwh (6.5p Khw) so we are doing something seriously wrong

You are right we are doing something seriously wrong, namely we are in the wrong place on the globe and overpopulated.

Australia has abundant resources of land relative to population (nearly 100 times as much), coal and sun, we have none of those.  Despite their coal resources they are  planning to convert to renewables, presumably in recognition both of climate change the fact they will eventually run out of coal and the fact that solar is the cheapest form of energy on the planet.

The solution is to move to where the conditions for cheap energy exist and reduce our population density 

I propose we detach the UK and tow it to the Pacific Ocean, whilst at the same time executing 99% of our population.

Alternatively we can deal with the world as it is not the world as we would like it to be.

Posted by: @technogeek

↑

and am putting in solar and batteries now. Did not want to spend the extra money but feel I have to to try and safeguard the future pension.

Putting in solar and batteries is imho a sound defence if you don't wish to relocate.  This is even more the case if the next government decides to slow our transition to renewables in search if short term political gain, thus extending the grip that  countries with despot regimes have over us both as a country and as individuals.

Petrostates hate renewables because the energy can be generated anywhere so is not under their control.  In the 80s we may have had limited elements of petro-statehood, now not so;  remaining economically extractable resources do not give us material leverage over global energy prices.