Scottish Government and Politicians Silently Confirm 98% Of Every Electricity Bill Is Their Parasitism

    Recently (24th Feb) I did articles here and on ThinkScotland giving my calculations showing that electricity costs could be reduced to 97.92% (well call it 98%) of what it currently is.

    At the end I expressed a willingness to consider doubts:

I'm not standing by that exact figure though I would hold to each part as being either firm or a reasonable estimate. Nor does it matter much. If we can say at least 90% of electricity costs are state parasitism and can, over a number of years, be removed it doesn't immediately matter if another 80% reduction is ultimately possible. But if some supporter of windmillery feels the figures can be factually disputed I am sure they will do so.

If nobody in Scotland's political class feels able to point to any error, after it has been aired here on ThinkScotland, it would be difficult to conclude these figures are in error. I am sure the editor would be willing to publish a serious critical article (unlike, for example, the BBC, which virtually never allows a balancing of opinions on such subjects).

     At the same time I emailed Patrick Harvie, Green Party leader, the Green, SNP, Labour, Conservative & LibDem party organisations, Scottish Renewables, and the BBC, both as an organisation and their "environmental" expert, Roger Harrabin notifying them of this and asking if they, in any way, disputed that 49/50ths of every bill is governmental parasitism. That was pretty much belt and braces because politicians do take notice of the media if they have horse sense and it is inconceivable that those responsible for the government of Scotland in this field would not either have seen it or had it drawn to their attention.

   If one of them chose not to disagree it was because they could not produce a credible disagreement. If all of them chose not to disagree it is because all of them know it is true and that the most credible dispute they could make would simply prove my case.

    As I commented on the ThinkScotland article

 it is obvious none of them are able to dispute the math. So undisputed then that 98% of our electricity bills are indeed governmental parasitism. Nice to have it settled.

  Neil Craig

    That means all the fuel poverty and all of the recession. They know it and thus deliberately did it.

LabNatConDemGreens Want More Fuel Poverty - Joint Statement By Every Uncorrupt MSP

Deepening Energy Crisis: Britain Has Become ‘Uninvestable’, Analyst Warns
Danny Fortson, The Sunday Times

The German owner of Npower is set to write off hundreds of millions of pounds on the value of its British power plants in the latest sign of a deepening crisis among the big six energy suppliers. RWE, one of Europe’s largest power companies, will reveal the British loss as part of an expected £4bn writedown of the value of its fleet of power stations.

The loss arises from pollution taxes that are forcing the closure of old coal-fired plants. Big subsidies for renewable energy, meanwhile, have made even gas-burning plants, which are much cleaner than coal stations, loss-making.

The hit will alarm Whitehall, which is increasingly worried about the lights going out. Companies have stopped building new power stations amid a political and regulatory backlash, sparked last year by Ed Miliband’s pledge to freeze energy prices....

Peter Atherton, analyst at Liberum Capital, said Britain had become uninvestable as political pressure over soaring household bills has intensified. “I can think of a dozen very good reasons not to invest in the UK, and not one good one to invest here this side of the election,” Atherton said.
----------------------------------------------------

      Ed Miliband, with his lying, corrupt, and literally murderous promise to freeze electricity prices when he was already on record as wanting higher electricity prices, merits particular condemnation. Ed Miliband was previously on record as saying that, because of his Climate Change Act "energy bills are likely to rise". Thus, by definition, every Labour MP/MEP who is not cynical, corrupt and murderous has publicly dissociated themselves from his lying promise (that would be zero so far).

     But he only deserves a little more censure that the other parties. All of them supported that Act; all of them are deliberately pushing up electricity prices and bringing blackouts closer; and every MP/MSP who is not a cynical, corrupt, murderous totalitarian has publicly denounced the policy (5 MPs & zero MEPs out of 760).

     And its worse in Scotland

Scottish homes pay most for energy in Britain
 Basically because we are further north. But don't worry Salmond is about to promise that after independence Scotland will be further south.
 

Average Electricity Bill £1,400 - Intended To Be £3,000 By 2020 - What Could It Be

   This is a reprint from an something I wrote some time ago.

   I come to the remarkable conclusion that nuclear electricity could cost just over 2% to produce that it does now.

   That means the average household electricity bill of £1,500 could be about £40. A matter of some importance when we are in recession; the correlation between energy use and economic strength is as close as anything in economics; last year excess winter deaths rose to 34,000.

   A few caveats:

   Firstly this is not an official UKIP opinion - Roger Helmer has seen it but not commented either way.

   Even if it is correct we would not get there for some years - nuclear reactors take time to build and the economic growth such a price reduction would bring would certainly greatly increase demand, slowing the fall in prices. "It would take time" however, is not a reason for not starting now.

   It may well be that some international regulations (not just the EU this time) require a certain amount of unnecessary regulation.

On the other hand:

    These figures have been available for some time and I have used them online a number of times against anti-nuclearists. Not once have I had a serious arithmetical objection to them.

    Arithmetic always works.

    Each individual bit works.

    When something is being done, by definition it is possible to do it - for example it is simple fact that the new Hinkley Point reactor is nearly 4 times more expensive than the closely comparable one, also being built by European contractors, in China.

   On the third hand:

   It doesn't really matter right now whether we can cut electricity bills to 2%v of what they are. A 90% cut would be almost as nice. Or 80%. Or even half price. Even a 25% cut would be valuable. In fact all parties but UKIP, despite Miliband's cynical and murderous promise to enforce a short term price freeze, are committed to raising fuel bills. All are aiming to raise average bills to £3,000 a year by 2020. The SNP policy is that even after independence, England will subsidise Scots windmills, otherwise our greater number of windmills would push prices well above £3,000.

   Even if these figures prove to be significantly wrong, and no evidence has been produced that they are, it is certain that electricity costs can be massively reduced from what our ruling parties want & that this will save lives and produce economic success.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
The True Cost of Electricity & How The "Debate" Is Being Dishonestly Restricted

From the estimable Register

   Shows how the electricity price rises from 2007 is largely "policy and regulation costs" ie direct state parasitism. The other is "transport costs" ie the grid, which is basically to pay for extending the grid so that windmill electricity produced in the outer isles can be transported to London. This is a hidden "green" subsidy and an extensive one.

   By comparison actually producing the stuff is barely up and by 2020 will be back down to 2007 costs. I presume this is the benefit of shale more than offsetting windmill parasitism. VAT appears not to be included.

   The alleged corporate greed of the "big 6" monopolists means supplier costs will go from 19% DOWN to 16%.

    So clearly, even within the terms of the official "debate" the fault lies with political price raising.

    But the official debate ignores the political effect of preventing the cheapest power sources (nuclear, coal & shale) being used.
   

    This is how the ruling class normally frame any "debate". The only thing discussed is a few percentage points made up of either profit or government levies according to villain. The graph above shows that the levies are rising fast and the profits, as a % of cost, falling.

    Unmentioned is that Hinkley Point is costing 4 times a much (and taking 7 years longer which pushes up interest payments) than comparable Chinese ones, and nuclear is considerably cheaper than average power.

   Undebated is that 90% of electricity prices (perhaps more) are government regulatory parasitism - you will never know it from BBC "news".
   Even the "big six" would much rather be damned for the largely false charge of price gouging than be shown to be running expensive obsolete equipment that could not compete with engineering cost nuclear, thus they do not call the MPs the liars they certainly are. This is common among dominant companies with fixed assets.

 

    Lets go for a best possible cost:

 

Nuclear is currently 40% of the average cost of our power basket.

China is building at 0.27 our costs.

Because China is building in 3 years and us in 10 we have 7 years foregone income while paying interest - assuming the normal 10% return that is 1.10^7 = 1.95

Assume China is not entirely without state parasitism - say 10% 

VAT 20%

How much could cost be reduced if it was allowed to mass produce reactors - 3 fold seems a conservative estimate.

 

60% X 0.27 X 1/1.95 X 90% X 1/1.20% X 1/3 = 0.0208 or 2.08% of current costs.

 97.92% parasitism.

 

   Way below current standing charges = "electricity to cheap to meter". Though this does not include transportation costs. However if the amount of power we use goes up anything like proportionately, handling costs will go down, not quite proportionately.

 

   I'm not standing by that exact figure though I would hold to each part as being either firm or a reasonable estimate. Nor does it matter much. If we can say at least 90% if electricity costs are state parasitism and can, over a number of years, be removed it doesn't immediately matter if another 80% reduction is ultimately possible.

 

   But if some supporter of windmillery feels the figures can be factually disputed I am sure they will do so ;-)

   If not 2.08% of £1,400 a year is £29.12

 

£3,000 Electric Bills by 2020, Unless We Go For Separation In Which case Far Higher

    Another letter to assorted editors today:

Sir,

      We have seen the SNP's financial case coming apart when Westminster says a separate England would act in its interests not ours.

 

     This brings up another, even more serious, little reported issue where SNP policy depends entirely on promising England would wish to subsidise Scotland after separation.

 

      The SNP's white paper also asserts the rest of the UK would unquestionably wish to retain our joint national grid and specifically that England would decide to keep subsidising windmills in Scotland. If this did not happen, or if English voters subsequently voted in a government which wished to end the subsidy, we would be in serious trouble. Already the traditional parties are agreed on pushing to increase the average household's electricity bill, across the UK, from £1,400 to £3,000. Without continuing subsidy, our large number of windmills would make our bills far higher than that.

 

    So far the SNP have declined to say how they can guarantee the English would not vote for a government committed to their interests.

 

Neil Craig

UIKP prospective candidate Glasgow North

 

The £3,000 average electricity bill, courtesy of all the global warming obsessed LabNatconDemGreen cartel is proven here

http://www.express.co.uk/news/property/378878/Energy-bills-to-more-than-double-to-3-000-by-2020

 

    It cannot be denied so they agree to not mention it and hope the punters won't notice.