Originally posted by: jarathoon
Let ignore the complexity argument here for a second, the fact that this is a secondary subsidy to offset the effects of paying for the primary subsidy. Lets ignore the fact that a whole new bureaucratic system will have to be invented, staffed and paid for to administer this.
You can't ignore the complexity - it's a complex issue
In one particular example of an energy intensive activity: server farms, DECC would be effectively asking a large number of people who do not use the internet, perhaps retired and others on fixed incomes, to secondary subsidise the people who do use the internet. Some people may think this is unfair.
I wouldn't class server farms as energy intensive - try thing cement or concrete manufacture, steel industry, chemical or petrochem plants.
Paying for things you don't use or get is what results from a democratic society - there are no street lights where I live - but I don't get a council tax reduction
Once the government find that certain groups (like people on fixed incomes) can no longer afford to pay the primary and secondary subsidies combined, it will either have to add them to the secondary subsidy or create a new tertiary subsidy to help them specifically.
Yep - so what's new
Now there is a smaller group having to pay the primary, secondary and perhaps tertiary subsidies.
Indeed - take a look at the working population and those on benefits - have you not noticed a diminishing pool of people payng for an expanding pool of people - a variety of reasons, but demographics and ageing are key areas.
This is a potentially unstable system which leads to a smaller and smaller group of people paying for the entire system of subsidies. You might say these consumers and SME's can afford it so it doesn't matter.
See above, it's how our economic system works
However at some point some of these energy users (the largest first) will find it is cheaper to generate most of their electricty off-grid. Then ever smaller numbers of people and businesses will then have to support the complex system of subsidies and their costs will rise very quickly in consequence.
Almost certainly so - but someone somewhere will be able to show a net reduction in carbon intensity of the grid so it'll be back slapping and congratulations all round.
As soon as this starts happening the whole system will need to be cross subsidised by cash from the general taxation system otherwise it will collapse as ever larger numbers of consumers and businesses are either priced off the grid or added to the subsidy system.
For sure - who paid for the grid in the fisrt place - consumers or taxpayers
What at first might appear to be a reasonable suggestion to some could quite possibly lead instability and collapse.
I doubt it James, I really do - fixing a few rates for emerging generation technologies and offering a few subsidies to intensive users isn't going to lead to the collapse of western civilisation, any more that the FITS and RHI schemes will.
How many consumers qualify as "energy intensive" and what is thier predicted consumption as a % of total UK consumption.
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.