Carbon tax budget increase

Akrasia

I was using round numbers to illustrate the point. The actual cost and payback of every pv installation depends on the size, type and location of the installation

The point is that there are two factors in whether people will switch, the cost of the existing energy supply, and the cost of switching to renewables

A carbon tax is aimed at making it more attractive to switch by making the low carbon alternative more competitive. The carbon taxes are also accompanied by grants to offset capital costs in moving to the greener technology

Most people won't move if it doesn't make financial sense for them to do so, so if the aim is to have big reductions in CO2 emissions, government policy needs to either mandate changes by regulations (building regs, panning etc) or incentivize people to change on their own, and not just people, but industry and commercial activity

firemansam4

Round numbers? Your figures are miles out from the reality as far as I can see.

How many people in Ireland do you think right now can afford around 6 or 7 thousand euros which will take 11 years to pay back? I would hazard a guess only a small percentage of the population. For many they are not and will not be in that position to make that kind of investment.

I can understand the need to deter people away from carbon based fuels, but to just simply keep raising the carbon tax who for many just don't have the means to invest in greener technologies will not work.

I do agree that there needs to be other ways to do this, things like planning regulations to force these technologies on new builds. Or other strategies need to be looked at.

Akrasia

firemansam4 wrote: »

Round numbers? Your figures are miles out from the reality as far as I can see.

How many people in Ireland do you think right now can afford around 6 or 7 thousand euros which will take 11 years to pay back? I would hazard a guess only a small percentage of the population. For many they are not and will not be in that position to make that kind of investment.

I can understand the need to deter people away from carbon based fuels, but to just simply keep raising the carbon tax who for many just don't have the means to invest in greener technologies will not work.

I do agree that there needs to be other ways to do this, things like planning regulations to force these technologies on new builds. Or other strategies need to be looked at.

They're not 'simply' raising the carbon tax, they're also subsidising home improvements and supporting the development of wind farms in the upcoming Renewable Electricity Support Scheme. For low income households. The state will provide lots of these improvements for free with the warmer homes scheme.

And if householders can't afford a solar PV installation. They can still be more energy efficient. Anyone using incandescent or halogen lightbulbs can switch to LED. Replace appliances with A++ at their end of life, use dryers and dishwashers more efficiently etc.the incentive to reduce energy consumption increases when energy costs are higher.


And energy companies are incentivised to buy more power from renewable sources to avoid carbon taxes so in the long term, it will speed up the phasing out of coal turf and gas power generation.

badtoro

Akrasia wrote: »

they're also subsidising home improvements

The state will provide lots of these improvements for free with the warmer homes scheme.

And if householders can't afford a solar PV installation.

Nada for new builds afaik except regulations (€€€).

zl1whqvjs75cdy

badtoro wrote: »

Nada for new builds afaik except regulations (€€€).

They don't need it though, they're built to standards that old houses aren't

badtoro

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

They don't need it though, they're built to standards that old houses aren't

Thye're not free, standards cost money, which was my point. Example that oil is the cheapest heating, yet put in new build planning without a renewable and you'll be refused. There is just the stick for people doing new builds.

Akrasia

badtoro wrote: »

Thye're not free, standards cost money, which was my point. Example that oil is the cheapest heating, yet put in new build planning without a renewable and you'll be refused. There is just the stick for people doing new builds.

It a completely justifiable regulation. Oil might be cheaper at the construction phase, but in the long run it is much more expensive and more polluting than some kind of renewable heating or passive heating design. Its always cheaper to engineer better standards into a new build than to retro-fit half arsed upgrades to an existing property later on.
You're paying back a mortgage, if it's an extra thousand a year but your energy bills are 1500 a year cheaper, you're better off.

I was renting a 30 year old house a few years ago, it cost an absolute fortune to heat and still felt cold. I'm living in a 10 year old house now and it's less than half the heating cost per year.

The difference is the regulations, and I can improve energy efficiency further when my gas burner is due for replacement.

badtoro

badtoro wrote: »

Thye're not free, standards cost money, which was my point. Example that oil is the cheapest heating, yet put in new build planning without a renewable and you'll be refused. There is just the stick for people doing new builds.

the value of a hose is based on the market, not the cost to build so the extra cost to a builder can be easily lost.

For a private new build, then the cost of renewables is just a simple part of the equation like sewage, electricity or a phone line.

badtoro

Aegir wrote: »

the value of a hose is based on the market, not the cost to build so the extra cost to a builder can be easily lost.

For a private new build, then the cost of renewables is just a simple part of the equation like sewage, electricity or a phone line.

Does not change my point.

Dr Brown

We have the carbon tax and now the sugar tax next the government will bring in the fresh air tax.

blackwhite

infacteh wrote: »

You left out building a nuclear power plant, the cleanest, most reliable form of electricity production available!

I remember reading an article a number of years ago that had ran the numbers on this, and it worked out that the cost of building and maintaining a nuclear plant wouldn't have made sense given the scale of our energy requirements at the time.

It would be interesting to see whether our current energy demands, combined with the East-West interconnector (and the ability to sell electricity into the UK market) would have any impact on the viability of such a scheme now.

BaronVon

It would be very viable. The new Nuclear power plants come in a modular format, you can just add a module when your power demands increase.

There's no point driving an electric car, when that electricity is generated from coal/oil/gas/turf. Renewable power isn't reliable enough to be the main source of power generation, but nuclear power, backing up renewable power, is the cleanest, most efficient form of power production.

A large cost of nuclear power production is due to regulation, which could be reduced with the advancements that have been made in Nuclear power production. Unfortunately, I cannot foresee any time in my lifetime that Ireland will build a Nuclear power plant. There's not even any debate about it at the moment.

Dr Brown

infacteh wrote: »

There's no point driving an electric car, when that electricity is generated from coal/oil/gas/turf.

Cutting down on air and noise pollution is still a big advantage for electric cars regardless of where the power comes from.

A large cost of nuclear power production is due to regulation, which could be reduced with the advancements that have been made in Nuclear power production.

Its only right that nuclear power has alot of regulation.

If anything goes wrong it will cause a major incident.

Long term use of Nuclear power is a very bad idea. Its not a question if things will go wrong with Nuclear power plants but when.

blackwhite

infacteh wrote: »

It would be very viable. The new Nuclear power plants come in a modular format, you can just add a module when your power demands increase.

There's no point driving an electric car, when that electricity is generated from coal/oil/gas/turf. Renewable power isn't reliable enough to be the main source of power generation, but nuclear power, backing up renewable power, is the cleanest, most efficient form of power production.

A large cost of nuclear power production is due to regulation, which could be reduced with the advancements that have been made in Nuclear power production. Unfortunately, I cannot foresee any time in my lifetime that Ireland will build a Nuclear power plant. There's not even any debate about it at the moment.

From what I read at the time, there was a capital v scale debate - whereby the size that would need to be built to justify many of the fixed costs involved would have produced far too much for our needs at the time.
As I understand it, the new technologies that would be suitable for Ireland’s needs are still approx 10 years away

na1

Trasna1 wrote: »

I

If we overnight converted to electric cars, it would have an insignificant impact on national emissions.

If we overnight converted to electric cars the motor tax for the electric vehicles will jump from current €120 a year to something like €500 a year
Because Motor Tax has nothing to do with the emissions.