Hacker News Reader

Comment by onion2k | Hacker News Reader

If the whole UK energy grid could become fossil free, and the only cost would be a 2x increase in costs, then that would be to me a fair price to pay.

A large number of people would die as a result of such a policy. Fuel poverty is already a significant problem, the UK government gives out 'winter fuel payment' benefits to some, but doubling the price of energy would push a lot of elderly, infirm, and poor people to stop heating their homes.

This idea would need to come with nationalised energy costs for it to work.

View on HN

https://www.businesselectricityprices.org.uk/historical/

They've already doubled.

Now, of course this is more complex because some of that price rise is due to "levies" being placed to support both "green" initiatives and support for the vulnerable.

...and for nuclear. Look at how Hinkley point got subsidised.

Hinkley was and is an aberration.

Its a fucking stupid project that was signed to make a political point. Instead of thinking about the needs of the next 100 years, it was signed to fulfill a short term political goal.

The government were over a barrel, the people making the contract knew it, and the government signed anyway.

doubling the price of energy would push a lot of elderly, infirm, and poor people to stop heating their homes

2x increase in cost doens't necessarily directly translate to doubling the price for everyone. For example it could be coupled with a scheme where consuming way above average makes the part which is above much more expensive, depending on income, to yield the ones consuming less and/or low income not having to pay double. Plus taxing overconsumption could be an incentive to getting rid of some needless energy usage.

And yet it's often the people on smallest income who consume the most for heating because their houses as unlikely to be insulated well. The government is giving out grants to improve insulation/boiler efficiency, but if you live in council housing you're screwed again.

In the UK homes are heated with gas, not electricity.

Yes, have you replied to the wrong comment?

Besides, very soon all new construction in the UK will be required to be heated exclusively by electricity, so for new housing heating costs will be absolutely huge compared to gas.

My rough calculations me that switching my 1970s UK detached home from gas to electric for hot water and central heating would triple my usage costs (and that doesn't include the cost of switching in the first place).

I'm still interested in doing it though because it would massively simplify the heating system. Removing gas from the system would mean I could do all the regular maintenance by myself whereas at present I'm obliged to use a registered, gas-trained plumber on the boiler itself because the law requires it.

It's an interesting point. The law actually allows a competent person to work on their own gas systems themselves but doesn't define exactly what that means. I've seen people claim that it only narrowly applies to previously qualified Gas Safe engineers who have allowed their registration to lapse but I think that is a stretch.

Also, I think the idea would be to install an air source heat pump rather than resistive electrical heating.

You could use a heat pump if your radiators allow it.

for new housing heating costs will be absolutely huge compared to gas

Isn't it more nuanced than that? Don't know UK rules, but since you mention new housing: aren't these required to adhere to some minimum of insulation, likewise for renovations, thereby drastically reducing the energy required in the first place (I mean if I just compare our renovated house with my parent's, energy requirement is 4 to 5 times less per square m)? Moreover depending on climate, cost to produce a given amount of energy is lower for heta pumps than for gas?

I mean, yes, there are standards, but the standards are sometimes shit. As an example - my friend just bought a very expensive brand new house, fancy insulation, but.....all radiators are like 2 feet wide? Even for the living room where intuitively, that cannot be the correct size of a radiator for that. But apparently(having complained) nope, these are regulation size etc. Now he spends 2x as much on heating for a house the same size as his old one built 20 years ago, because predictably, the rooms never get hot enough in winter with those crappy undersized radiators.

Again, that's just anecdote, feel free to ignore it.

Wrt insulation I really meant law, not standard. I hope there are no laws limiting the size of radiators? That would not make a lot of sense i.e. story sounds more like whoever was in charge of calculating the size completely messed up.

It could be, but coming from happy Energiewende Germany, as a household you pay more than twice as much for your power as any industrial or commercial user, 30ct/kWh vs. 12ct/kWh. The difference comes from the usual rebates, but the largest part is that commercial users don't pay the renewable tax that is mandatory for non-commercial users. For the really big users, such as smeltings, there are additional subsidies on top to keep the price of power even lower.

So the situation might be different elsewhere, but in Germany, poor consumers pay for Energiewende plus subsidies.

Yes unfortunately it's not uncommon at all that certain industries effectively get subsidized for their energy use and/or pay less taxes on it. In an ideal world that could be adjusted as well though but realistically that's not going to happen. Example from neighbouring country how crippled things can be: solar would be subsidized, leading to the ones with enough money putting complete factory roofs full with solar, to the point the time in which they'd gain back the initial cost would be a couple of years only. Don't get me wrong, great that they have solar energy, but there's way, way more concumer roofs out there but with an average income the initial cost for them is just too much.

The combination of a carbon tax and universal basic income is the solution here.

It would also push adoption of non-fossil energy sources, since poor people have more than enough incentives to chose the economically best solution for them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com