Beelbeebub

Convoluted tax accounting?! Shocked I tell you! Shocked!

So if the HOC figures are correct (£4bn in revenue) the tax payer could well be net negative .... (Depends if the £10bn is per year or over a period)

The HoC library says "How much money are oil and gas taxes forecast to raise in future years? The OBR has forecast that taken together receipts from offshore corporation tax, petroleum revenue tax and the energy profits levy will raise £4.1 billion in 2025/26. Receipts are then forecast to decline to £0.1 billion in 2030/31, primarily due to the expected continued fall in oil and gas production and expiry of the EPL" That's not a lot in government terms (or oil company profit terms) So the argument seems to be that the pio companies want to pocket the 4bn for themselves rather than allow it to go to the Exchequer. But they also argue that continued O&G extraction is vital for government revenues. "Allowing us to keep going will give you lots of tax revenue but we can't keep going unless you lower the taxes" We either lose the tax revenue because the companies don't operate or because we don't charge them. BTW whilst I agree about the sentiment over local extraction over importation the difference we are talking about is tiny Again, the difference between the green and red lines. It doesn't make much odds to security of supply, prices, CO2, jobs or anything else whether we do or don't allow more extraction. The only thing it really effects is the oil company bottom lines. I'm not sure they need or deserve more profit.

Quite!

BP editing the north sea. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62q7w003lro "As we focus our portfolio and direct capital to our highest-value opportunities, we believe our North Sea business will be better positioned as part of another company" Implying that the North Sea isn't a high value opportunity. Another data point I found. In round numbers. In 2025 the UK produced 330Twh of gas and net imported 330Twh (460 imp 139 exp) for a total of 660Twh used. Of which 190Twh went to electricity production to produce 90Twh of electricity A further 250Twh went to domestic (mainly heating) Leaving 220Twh for other stuff. Renewables generated just over 100Thw. If we replace the majority of domestic heating with heat pumps we would need another 100Twh (assuming scop of 2.5) If we add another 100Twh we would be able to dissolace gas from generation* Which would leave a gas demand of around 220Twh which is around about our current production. So tripling our current production is needed - which happens to be the target. *We would still need gas plants and storage to provide backup and peaker demand, at least until we get enough storage but the overall gas demand would be much lower therefore freeing up gas for things that we cannot easily replace either with.

I'm fairly sure all "proper" inverters now have this built in. As for the micro inverters that are suitable for plug in solar - I'm not sure, obviously the "approved" ones will along with the shutdown hardware etc. I'm sure it's possible to buy some cheap ones without the necessary hardware online. But I think the main point is that even in the worst case the risk is just blowing your old RCD up with your unapproved inverter. So you end up getting a new bi directional RCD and hopefully a proper inverter. I don't think there is any additional risk to things catching fire or people getting shocked beyond the normal risk whenever you plug something in. There are plenty of dodgy gizmos you can buy online that have a far higher likelihood of shock or fire than your old RCD crapping out

IIRC, the issue with unidirectional RCD/rcbo only occured if the inverter continued to feed power when the grid goes down -which shouldn't happen (as has been pointed out) And then the problem resulting from that situation is that the RCD/rcbo is damaged - which would result in a dead circuit and the home owner getting it replaced with a bidirectional one I think the bigger issue is the electricians industry bodies not wanting something where electricians aren't needed. I am fairly sure they would mandate only qualified electricians are legally allowed to plug or unplug devices if they could.

I was thinking of the higher rates! They were 15p, now 12p And I suspect they will keep falling as solar generation gets more and more common. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/aug/02/solar-powers-record-share-britain-electricity-july

Yes, no plans to sell. I've looked at the multi tenant systems (solshare or something). They are pretty pricey (5-10k) and have 15 outputs (5 x 3phases) so make the most sense in blocks of flats. That is the most hard nosed approach but the benefit to the tenants is much more limited - especially with lower export rates.

If I did an AC transmission system the temptation would be to make it a non battery system and leave fitting of batteries to soak up the excess something for the tenants to do if they wish. This might be easier with plug in battery systems.

There are 4 houses in a loose crescent around a "green". A field backs on to the "green" to the north with a high hedge The panels are being fitted to comply with the EPC regulations and get each property to. "C" grade 1 house is a good candidate for normal E/W roof solar being a bungalow with a low pitched concrete roof. The other 3 have problematic roofs. Either not good aspect (shaded) or not good enough condition to allow solar to be fitted with out a new roof first or both But a ground mounted array could be fitted in the "north" field out of sight (and far enough back so it's not shaded by the hedge. I figure it's easier and cheaper to install and maintain one array in a field than 3 arrays on 3 roofs. And then for the bungalow I have to decide if it's cheaper/easier to put panels on the roof Vs chuck some more up in the field array and run a cable to it (that would be the 100m one. The others are closer to 50m) Strictly speaking the batteries are not needed as the EPC system currently only accounts for the panels and inverter - you get no points for batteries. But it gives so much extra benefit to the tenants it's hard not to justify it beyond the purely mercenary view.

Good point The array will be fairly large (maybe 8+ panels for each house) so the voltage will probably be higher than mains so the current lower. Plus we have had high voltage issues in the past.

In favour hybrid systems so the battery generally needs to be next to the inverter. If I use the AC method then there is one AC line (a line, neutral and earth) going to the remote inverter connecting to the meter tails between the meter and the consumer unit and I need a switchover box at the house to isolate from the mains in a power cut so I don't energise the mains. I could arrange for power cut cover but there would need to be a Comms line as well which cuts onto the cost savings.

Not a bad idea, it would definitely cut cable costs but I think i'd I be giving up the power cut backup function? And is there a problem with exporting the earth? The panels will all be earthed together by virtue of being fixed to a metal frame stuck to the ground. But the houses they supply are 50 to 100m away. wouldn't the same issue with car chargers and remote earth/faults raise it's head?

I don't have a fence only a hedge, and at one point I have to pass a gate and another a drive way. In the field I could see effectively building a fence to carry the cable - i'll probably do that. at least the buried sections will then not be in a field. the biggest bugger is there are a ton of other services around, gas, mains, water and sewage plus some telephone. Potentially I could go overhead the whole way, it's just passing over the drive way and gate are a bit untidy.