"According to Boris Johnson:

'Overall, if you look at what we have done with renewables it has helped
to reduce bills over the last few years and will continue to do so.
That’s why one of the things I want to do is use this moment to really
drive towards more offshore wind turbines.'

"Perhaps he should read what the Office for Budget Responsibility have
to say. According to their annual Medium Term Forecasts, subsidies for
renewable energy have cost the public £78 billion in the last ten years.
This equates to about £3000 per household.

"Nearly all of this has been added to energy bills, although a small
part, the RHI scheme, is funded out of general taxation. As domestic
users only consume about a third of total electricity generation, their
bills reflect about a third of this cost. However, the public end up
paying for the other two thirds one way or another, whether through
higher prices and fares, higher taxation and lower public spending."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/24/renewable-subsidies-have-cost-78-billion-in-last-10-years/

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On 25/04/2022 09:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> "According to Boris Johnson:
>
> 'Overall, if you look at what we have done with renewables it has helped
> to reduce bills over the last few years and will continue to do so.
> That’s why one of the things I want to do is use this moment to really
> drive towards more offshore wind turbines.'
>
> "Perhaps he should read what the Office for Budget Responsibility have
> to say. According to their annual Medium Term Forecasts, subsidies for
> renewable energy have cost the public £78 billion in the last ten years.
> This equates to about £3000 per household.
>
> "Nearly all of this has been added to energy bills, although a small
> part, the RHI scheme, is funded out of general taxation. As domestic
> users only consume about a third of total electricity generation, their
> bills reflect about a third of this cost. However, the public end up
> paying for the other two thirds one way or another, whether through
> higher prices and fares, higher taxation and lower public spending."
>
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/24/renewable-subsidies-have-cost-78-billion-in-last-10-years/
>
>
Mind boggling. But having stuffed the parliamentary party with
brain-dead yes-men (sorry, yes-persons) I'm not sure when we are going
to start having leaders who don't subscribe to the highly effective
"post-truth" strategy.

On 04/25/2022 10:43 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> "According to Boris Johnson:
>
> 'Overall, if you look at what we have done with renewables it has helped to reduce bills over the last few years and will continue to do so. That’s why one of the things I want to do is use this moment to really drive towards more offshore wind turbines.'
>
> "Perhaps he should read what the Office for Budget Responsibility have to say. According to their annual Medium Term Forecasts, subsidies for renewable energy have cost the public £78 billion in the last ten years. This equates to about £3000 per household.
>
> "Nearly all of this has been added to energy bills, although a small part, the RHI scheme, is funded out of general taxation. As domestic users only consume about a third of total electricity generation, their bills reflect about a third of this cost. However, the public end up paying for the other two thirds one way or another, whether through higher prices and fares, higher taxation and lower public spending."
>
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/24/renewable-subsidies-have-cost-78-billion-in-last-10-years/
>
Yes, yes those long timescales give very sexy, big numbers.

pop: 27.8e6 households
cost 78e9£ (10 years)
2806£/household in 10 years
280.6£ 1 year
23.4£ month.
1/3
7.8£/month.

But..
You failed to specify substituted resource costs for an actual cost-benefit analysis.

On 13:19 25 Apr 2022, newshound said:

> On 25/04/2022 09:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> "According to Boris Johnson:
>>
>> 'Overall, if you look at what we have done with renewables it has
>> helped to reduce bills over the last few years and will continue to
>> do so. That's why one of the things I want to do is use this
>> moment to really drive towards more offshore wind turbines.'
>>
>> "Perhaps he should read what the Office for Budget Responsibility
>> have to say. According to their annual Medium Term Forecasts,
>> subsidies for renewable energy have cost the public £78 billion in
>> the last ten years. This equates to about �3000 per household.
>>
>> "Nearly all of this has been added to energy bills, although a small
>> part, the RHI scheme, is funded out of general taxation. As domestic
>> users only consume about a third of total electricity generation,
>> their bills reflect about a third of this cost. However, the public
>> end up paying for the other two thirds one way or another, whether
>> through higher prices and fares, higher taxation and lower public
>> spending."
>>
>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/24/renewable-subsidies-have-cost-
>> 78-billion-in-last-10-years/
>>
>>
> Mind boggling. But having stuffed the parliamentary party with
> brain-dead yes-men (sorry, yes-persons) I'm not sure when we are
> going to start having leaders who don't subscribe to the highly
> effective "post-truth" strategy.

I can't believe Boris is genuinely green. He's far too self-centred.
Presumably he thinks there are votes to be had.

However why does he make the public pay dearly for a green future at a
time they can't afford it?

On 25/04/2022 16:56, Pamela wrote:
> I can't believe Boris is genuinely green. He's far too self-centred.
> Presumably he thinks there are votes to be had.
>
> However why does he make the public pay dearly for a green future at a
> time they can't afford it?

He's a politician.
In your words, he thinks there are votes to be had.

Andy

On 17:04 25 Apr 2022, Vir Campestris said:

> On 25/04/2022 16:56, Pamela wrote:
>> I can't believe Boris is genuinely green. He's far too self-centred.
>> Presumably he thinks there are votes to be had.
>>
>> However why does he make the public pay dearly for a green future at a
>> time they can't afford it?
>
> He's a politician.
> In your words, he thinks there are votes to be had.
>
> Andy

Surely there's vastly more people worried about their bills who are being
asked to fund Boris's green future than there are greens who think this is
a great idea?

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 02:04:17 +1000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 25/04/2022 16:56, Pamela wrote:
>> I can't believe Boris is genuinely green. He's far too self-centred.
>> Presumably he thinks there are votes to be had.
>> However why does he make the public pay dearly for a green future at a
>> time they can't afford it?
>
> He's a politician.
> In your words, he thinks there are votes to be had.

But it is less clear that there are actually votes
to be had now that so many are feeling the pain
of very high electricity and gas prices now.

On 25 Apr 2022 at 19:36:18 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 02:04:17 +1000, Vir Campestris
> <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 25/04/2022 16:56, Pamela wrote:
>>> I can't believe Boris is genuinely green. He's far too self-centred.
>>> Presumably he thinks there are votes to be had.
>>> However why does he make the public pay dearly for a green future at a
>>> time they can't afford it?
>>
>> He's a politician.
>> In your words, he thinks there are votes to be had.
>
> But it is less clear that there are actually votes
> to be had now that so many are feeling the pain
> of very high electricity and gas prices now.

Meanwhile the Freench are laughing, due to not using much gas for domestic
heating and not having to pay for it and put electricity prices up, due to
their 75% of nuclear volts..

--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

Tim Streater wrote:

> Meanwhile the Freench are laughing, due to not using much gas for domestic
> heating and not having to pay for it and put electricity prices up, due to
> their 75% of nuclear volts..

Although the non-use of gas and the availability of nuclear power still required
imposition of a price cap on EDF by Macron.

On 25/04/2022 08:42 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2022 at 19:36:18 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 02:04:17 +1000, Vir Campestris
>> <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/04/2022 16:56, Pamela wrote:
>>>> I can't believe Boris is genuinely green. He's far too self-centred.
>>>> Presumably he thinks there are votes to be had.
>>>> However why does he make the public pay dearly for a green future at a
>>>> time they can't afford it?
>>>
>>> He's a politician.
>>> In your words, he thinks there are votes to be had.
>>
>> But it is less clear that there are actually votes
>> to be had now that so many are feeling the pain
>> of very high electricity and gas prices now.
>
> Meanwhile the Freench are laughing, due to not using much gas for domestic
> heating and not having to pay for it and put electricity prices up, due to
> their 75% of nuclear volts..

....the difference that the critics prefer to forget about.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 05:42:51 +1000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> On 25 Apr 2022 at 19:36:18 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 02:04:17 +1000, Vir Campestris
>> <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/04/2022 16:56, Pamela wrote:
>>>> I can't believe Boris is genuinely green. He's far too self-centred.
>>>> Presumably he thinks there are votes to be had.
>>>> However why does he make the public pay dearly for a green future at
>>>> a
>>>> time they can't afford it?
>>>
>>> He's a politician.
>>> In your words, he thinks there are votes to be had.
>>
>> But it is less clear that there are actually votes`
>> to be had now that so many are feeling the pain
>> of very high electricity and gas prices now.
>
> Meanwhile the Freench are laughing, due to not using much gas for
> domestic
> heating and not having to pay for it and put electricity prices up, due
> to
> their 75% of nuclear volts..

Yep, nukes are the only sensible way to go.

Even Boris has noticed that now, tho he stupidly still wants
to add more "renewables" too. Hasn't noticed that when
you have nukes, no point in the "renewables"

On 25/04/2022 17:19, Pamela wrote:
> On 17:04 25 Apr 2022, Vir Campestris said:
>
>> On 25/04/2022 16:56, Pamela wrote:
>>> I can't believe Boris is genuinely green. He's far too self-centred.
>>> Presumably he thinks there are votes to be had.
>>>
>>> However why does he make the public pay dearly for a green future at a
>>> time they can't afford it?
>>
>> He's a politician.
>> In your words, he thinks there are votes to be had.
>>
>> Andy
>
> Surely there's vastly more people worried about their bills who are being
> asked to fund Boris's green future than there are greens who think this is
> a great idea?
>
FFS.

Their research shows that it sounds good enough to impress what Hillary
Clinton foolishly called "the basket of deplorables". With FPTP quite
small swings are enough to make a big difference.

Anyway he's saying that renewables have kept the costs down. The fact
that it is a lie is irrelevant.

In article <t45mv2$jup$1@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>"According to Boris Johnson:
>
>'Overall, if you look at what we have done with renewables it has helped
>to reduce bills over the last few years and will continue to do so.
>That’s why one of the things I want to do is use this moment to really
>drive towards more offshore wind turbines.'
>
>"Perhaps he should read what the Office for Budget Responsibility have
>to say. According to their annual Medium Term Forecasts, subsidies for
>renewable energy have cost the public £78 billion in the last ten years.
>This equates to about £3000 per household.
>
>"Nearly all of this has been added to energy bills, although a small
>part, the RHI scheme, is funded out of general taxation. As domestic
>users only consume about a third of total electricity generation, their
>bills reflect about a third of this cost. However, the public end up
>paying for the other two thirds one way or another, whether through
>higher prices and fares, higher taxation and lower public spending."
>
>https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/24/renewable-subsidies-have-cost-78-billion-
>in-last-10-years/
>

Yes well until such times as they harness the mighty power of our
glorious leaders botty we shall have to do with what we've got!

Is it now time that we can reasonably consider DIY Solar power systems?.

OK Panels seem to be around 140-170 "ish" quid. Ten of those on my
garage flat roof south facing home made metalwork , then an inverter
feeding the power to my house anyone reckon its now worth it as a own
power DIY project?..

Seeing the leccy here is 30 Pence a unit!?...

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 25/04/2022 21:07, Jock wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 05:42:51 +1000, Tim Streater
> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Apr 2022 at 19:36:18 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 02:04:17 +1000, Vir Campestris
>>> <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/04/2022 16:56, Pamela wrote:
>>>>> I can't believe Boris is genuinely green. He's far too self-centred.
>>>>> Presumably he thinks there are votes to be had.
>>>>>  However why does he make the public pay dearly for a green future
>>>>> at a
>>>>> time they can't afford it?
>>>>
>>>> He's a politician.
>>>> In your words, he thinks there are votes to be had.
>>>
>>> But it is less clear that there are actually votes`
>>> to be had now that so many are feeling the pain
>>> of very high electricity and gas prices now.
>>
>> Meanwhile the Freench are laughing, due to not using much gas for
>> domestic
>> heating and not having to pay for it and put electricity prices up,
>> due to
>> their 75% of nuclear volts..
>
> Yep, nukes are the only sensible way to go.
>
> Even Boris has noticed that now, tho he stupidly still wants
> to add more "renewables" too. Hasn't noticed that when
> you have nukes, no point in the "renewables"

But as Jim Hacker famously put it: "I am their leader. I must follow them".

On 25 Apr 2022 at 20:55:29 BST, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> Tim Streater wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile the Freench are laughing, due to not using much gas for domestic
>> heating and not having to pay for it and put electricity prices up, due to
>> their 75% of nuclear volts..
>
> Although the non-use of gas and the availability of nuclear power still required
> imposition of a price cap on EDF by Macron.

But their input costs haven't changed, so that was just a try-on by EDF.

--
"The EU Customs Union is a racket that defends producers in rich countries against producers in poor countries."

Jacob Rees-Mogg MP

On 4/25/2022 4:12 PM, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <t45mv2$jup$1@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>> "According to Boris Johnson:
>>
>> 'Overall, if you look at what we have done with renewables it has helped
>> to reduce bills over the last few years and will continue to do so.
>> That’s why one of the things I want to do is use this moment to really
>> drive towards more offshore wind turbines.'
>>
>> "Perhaps he should read what the Office for Budget Responsibility have
>> to say. According to their annual Medium Term Forecasts, subsidies for
>> renewable energy have cost the public £78 billion in the last ten years.
>> This equates to about £3000 per household.
>>
>> "Nearly all of this has been added to energy bills, although a small
>> part, the RHI scheme, is funded out of general taxation. As domestic
>> users only consume about a third of total electricity generation, their
>> bills reflect about a third of this cost. However, the public end up
>> paying for the other two thirds one way or another, whether through
>> higher prices and fares, higher taxation and lower public spending."
>>
>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/24/renewable-subsidies-have-cost-78-billion-
>> in-last-10-years/
>>
>
> Yes well until such times as they harness the mighty power of our
> glorious leaders botty we shall have to do with what we've got!
>
> Is it now time that we can reasonably consider DIY Solar power systems?.
>
> OK Panels seem to be around 140-170 "ish" quid. Ten of those on my
> garage flat roof south facing home made metalwork , then an inverter
> feeding the power to my house anyone reckon its now worth it as a own
> power DIY project?..
>
> Seeing the leccy here is 30 Pence a unit!?...
>

Winter solar output is poor.

https://www.exeoenergy.co.uk/images/uploads/solar-panel-output-graph.jpg

This means you may need to scale the number of panels, if needing
the same number of watts or kWh in winter.

The ratio there is 7:1 .

In some parts of the world, the summer to winter isn't as severe
and is closer to 2:1 .

If you bought seven times as many panels, you would use the
Feed In Tariff in summer, to "dispose" of the excess power.

And for punters, the translation is "no FIT, no PV".
If the FIT is not attractive, there's no point using PV.
Because the FIT is there to convert the peaky nature of
PV, into something useful ("money"). The FIT is how you
pay off the panel investment.

That's what my brother-in-law has done. He discovered his
power company offers an excellent FIT (they generate power
using diesel and are not connected to the country-wide grid).
He's covered all roof areas in PV panels. He used an inheritance
as his "bag of money" to fund the project. These are not
circumstances which will arise for everyone. I would not
be offered the same attractive FIT he got.

In the United States, some FITs are zero or negative, because
the power company "really doesn't want your power". To do PV
there, you need a battery bank too, to make the power usable.
The reason for this attitude, is the level of service staff
increase, needed to support people running their own power
generation facilities. "Sir, sir, my inverter just blew up.
Can you help me ???". The power company doesn't want that phone
call.

Paul

On 26/04/2022 09:41, Paul wrote:

>
> And for punters, the translation is "no FIT, no PV".
> If the FIT is not attractive, there's no point using PV.
> Because the FIT is there to convert the peaky nature of
> PV, into something useful ("money"). The FIT is how you
> pay off the panel investment.

The feed in tariff in the UK is now around 5p per kWh (maybe less) and
possibly zero if it's a DIY install because no-one will officially
approve the DIY installation being connected back to the grid. Gone are
the days of FITs payments that made lots of money.

With a DIY install in the UK it's probably safe to assume that most of
the electricity usage will be from the grid during mid winter. Payback
comes with being able to use ALL the power generated during the summer
and thus being off grid. Possibly factor in a battery for maximum usage
of generated solar when evening use is required in spring/autumn and its
getting dark outside.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 21:07 25 Apr 2022, Jock said:

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 05:42:51 +1000, Tim Streater
> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Apr 2022 at 19:36:18 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 02:04:17 +1000, Vir Campestris
>>> <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/04/2022 16:56, Pamela wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't believe Boris is genuinely green. He's far too
>>>>> self-centred. Presumably he thinks there are votes to be had.
>>>>> However why does he make the public pay dearly for a green
>>>>> future at a time they can't afford it?
>>>>
>>>> He's a politician. In your words, he thinks there are votes to be
>>>> had.
>>>
>>> But it is less clear that there are actually votes` to be had now
>>> that so many are feeling the pain of very high electricity and gas
>>> prices now.
>>
>> Meanwhile the Freench are laughing, due to not using much gas for
>> domestic heating and not having to pay for it and put electricity
>> prices up, due to their 75% of nuclear volts..
>
> Yep, nukes are the only sensible way to go.
>
> Even Boris has noticed that now, tho he stupidly still wants to add
> more "renewables" too. Hasn't noticed that when you have nukes, no
> point in the "renewables"

Promoting schemes like wind power can only upset Tory voters in the
shires.

There will always be loud green supporters (especially amongst the
student age group) but my guess is a majority of voters place plenty of
other things above green matters. I do.

I don't know how typical I am of the majority but most green news
passes over my head without me bothering to listen other than note what
new folly green activists have come up with. Yes, I appreciate the
cleaner air we have nowadays but the wider imperative to go green
immediately seems over-stated.

However Boris has gone totally bonkers for green at almost any cost,
even keeping our fuel bills high at a time of rising cost of living.
Maybe wife Carrie Symonds is behind the irrational exuberence. Maybe
Boris and Carrie think he has such a majority that he can afford to
those who are indifferent to the green agenda.

On 26 Apr 2022 at 10:06:07 BST, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On 26/04/2022 09:41, Paul wrote:
>
>>
>> And for punters, the translation is "no FIT, no PV".
>> If the FIT is not attractive, there's no point using PV.
>> Because the FIT is there to convert the peaky nature of
>> PV, into something useful ("money"). The FIT is how you
>> pay off the panel investment.
>
> The feed in tariff in the UK is now around 5p per kWh (maybe less) and
> possibly zero if it's a DIY install because no-one will officially
> approve the DIY installation being connected back to the grid. Gone are
> the days of FITs payments that made lots of money.
>
> With a DIY install in the UK it's probably safe to assume that most of
> the electricity usage will be from the grid during mid winter. Payback
> comes with being able to use ALL the power generated during the summer
> and thus being off grid. Possibly factor in a battery for maximum usage
> of generated solar when evening use is required in spring/autumn and its
> getting dark outside.

You won't be off grid; you'll still be paying the Standing Charge.

--
What power have you got?
Where did you get it from?
In whose interests do you use it?
To whom are you accountable?
How do we get rid of you?

Tony Benn

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 20:30:55 +1000, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21:07 25 Apr 2022, Jock said:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 05:42:51 +1000, Tim Streater
>> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Apr 2022 at 19:36:18 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 02:04:17 +1000, Vir Campestris
>>>> <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25/04/2022 16:56, Pamela wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't believe Boris is genuinely green. He's far too
>>>>>> self-centred. Presumably he thinks there are votes to be had.
>>>>>> However why does he make the public pay dearly for a green
>>>>>> future at a time they can't afford it?
>>>>>
>>>>> He's a politician. In your words, he thinks there are votes to be
>>>>> had.
>>>>
>>>> But it is less clear that there are actually votes` to be had now
>>>> that so many are feeling the pain of very high electricity and gas
>>>> prices now.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile the Freench are laughing, due to not using much gas for
>>> domestic heating and not having to pay for it and put electricity
>>> prices up, due to their 75% of nuclear volts..
>>
>> Yep, nukes are the only sensible way to go.
>>
>> Even Boris has noticed that now, tho he stupidly still wants to add
>> more "renewables" too. Hasn't noticed that when you have nukes, no
>> point in the "renewables"
>
> Promoting schemes like wind power can only upset Tory voters in the
> shires.
>
> There will always be loud green supporters (especially amongst the
> student age group) but my guess is a majority of voters place plenty of
> other things above green matters. I do.
>
> I don't know how typical I am of the majority but most green news
> passes over my head without me bothering to listen other than note what
> new folly green activists have come up with. Yes, I appreciate the
> cleaner air we have nowadays but the wider imperative to go green
> immediately seems over-stated.
>
> However Boris has gone totally bonkers for green at almost any cost,
> even keeping our fuel bills high at a time of rising cost of living.
> Maybe wife Carrie Symonds is behind the irrational exuberence. Maybe
> Boris and Carrie think he has such a majority that he can afford to
> those who are indifferent to the green agenda.

IMO it is more likely that he has chosen to go with more nukes
and more renewables to appeal to both those who realise that
nukes are the future and to those stupid enough to be keen
on renewables and doesn't care about wasting all that money
on more renewables, all he cares about is staying in govt.

Tim Streater wrote:

> alan_m wrote:
>
>> With a DIY install in the UK it's probably safe to assume that most of
>> the electricity usage will be from the grid during mid winter. Payback
>> comes with being able to use ALL the power generated during the summer
>> and thus being off grid. Possibly factor in a battery for maximum usage
>> of generated solar when evening use is required in spring/autumn and its
>> getting dark outside.
>
> You won't be off grid; you'll still be paying the Standing Charge.

And I suspect he'll still be importing even in summer, just less often than in
winter.