To Ms. Shaw: -- the "fix" for this -- is being privately developed for mass use - in the form of a small, solid-state , electric power supply - which a Physicist in the UK has tested, and published that the sysem he built developed a 9 :1 output to input power ratio - with laboratory size testing.
His system is sized to develop the single-phase / 230 AC / 50 Hz / 20 Amp power commonly used in the UK - and with larger components can develop up to and including 480 VDC or VAC / 600 Amps / 288 kW max - or 400 VDC / 600 Amps for vehicular power.
The technical information - labeled "MRES" - can be found on the website "Kerrow Energetics" / owned by Physicist and Electric Power Researcher, Mr. Julian Perry.
The technology is using the exact same resonating electric circuit, used exactly the same way - as the resonating receiver circuit found in the billions of radios manufactured after Nikola Tesla invented the Radio in 1900.
It should be pointed out - that presently there is no Law or Regulation that stipulates that any private premises owner (of any size premises) if connected to a power source - has to use "only that power made available" by that connected power source.
It should be pointed out that the unit can be installed either singularly, or in numbers required to continuously power any site - up to and including any "heat-sourced" (including Atomic of Fusion if one ever gets built) or Hydro-powered high voltage electric power station - allowing for all now clean power plants to be used 24-7 / 365 days a year / at up to 100% continuous output.
It should be pointed out that as far as vehicular power - any battery or ICE (internal combustion engine) powered vehicle, can be retrofitted-repowered, be it on land / in or on the seas / of in the air as a propeller; rotor; or hi-bypass jet powered private of commercial aircraft - making available:
--- unlimited range of travel and / or movement, and
--- unlimited time of travel and / or movement.
Finally -- it should be pointed out that in 2024, just after the Labour Party was voted into office: the technology was directly offered, "with no strings attached" to: PM Starmer; Exchequer Reeves; Secretary of Energy Miliband; and Mission Control Chief Chris Stark - who asked for and received the information via LinkedIn - and then "went silent".
The others did not respond.
The Governments of Wales and Scotland also received and positively reacted to the information - with the caveat "...that Westminster controlled the power sources and the power grids..." (paraphrase).
So you now have it.
What you do with the information is up to you - because the power units will be available in the future.
I can't speak for Germany, but in the UK with similar electricity prices it's cheaper to run an electric car than a petrol one. This is partly because of taxes on petrol. We are adding a mileage tax for EVs but they'll still be cheaper to run if charged at home. The subsidy is to encourage adoption I guess, because up front costs are higher, and implies a shadow carbon price on petrol because the government want people to switch (I don't think it is subject to ETS).
Now whether this is wise industrial policy is a different question- which often gets wrapped up in climate policy.
There is an error in source 5, CPS is either £18 per tonne or £0.018 per kg, same change for the ETS. Also source 6, the £2.6Bn is for the whole of the ETS, so including industry and transport, not just electricity.
Thanks for the pick-up on the labelling, will update. on the £2.b billion - as I understand Conservative and Reform policy proposals, it's to scrap all carbon taxes, not just for the electricity sector. So I thought worth including the full figure as the budget loss impact even though as you rightly point out it is increasingly from other sectors, not just electricity.
Does the 6% reduction come directly from the Centre for British Progress paper? If so they were only looking at removing the CPS not the UK ETS as well.
No, I sourced the paper to refer to the £400m CPS Treasury impact and their methodology. I ran the analysis myself on the savings from scrapping ETS and CPS separately, following their methodology and cross-checking with the CPS value in the paper. I think their approach isn't quite right as I mentioned in the footnotes, because CfDs are more likely to deliver electricity at the same time as gas isn't setting the price (whereas I think their methodology assumes these two factors are independent), but think it's a close approximation.
No worries. Here it is - any thoughts on it, just let me know - As I said I am uncomfortable with the assumption of excluding CfDs as this might be correlated with when gas sets the price. Also I used the 2025 average carbon prices, this has gone up a lot in 2026.
1. Find CO2 per unit of gas: 0.000382 tonnes (382g) CO2 per kWh of gas (DESNZ)
2. Find carbon prices per tonne: £49.41 per tonne ETS price used in civil penalties as of Nov 2025 (DESNZ) and £18 per tonne CPS price (DESNZ/DBT)
3. Assume gas sets the price 85% of the time (2024 figure, ECIU) and the remainder prices are set by zero-emission electricity
4. Assume CfDs are not affected by the carbon price, which made up ~15.7% of demand in 2025 (LCCC, NESO).
5. Take (tonnes CO2 / kWh) x (£ / tonne) x (85% prices set by gas) x (1-15.7% covered by CfDs) = each tax's estimated impact on electricity prices (£0.02/kWh combined)
6. Divide £0.02/kWh by the price cap all in price, £0.35/kWh) = 5.7% (rounded to 6%)
As a cross-check, I could also have used the UK government's compensation measure of carbon prices per unit at £25.55/MWh in 2024 prices, and around £25/MWh is what I see often quoted in the news. Aside from updating to 2025 carbon price figures, I would expect my calculation to be less than this because of my assumption of gas setting the price and it being clean generation the rest of the time, and assuming CfDs are insulated from this cost.
To Ms. Shaw: -- the "fix" for this -- is being privately developed for mass use - in the form of a small, solid-state , electric power supply - which a Physicist in the UK has tested, and published that the sysem he built developed a 9 :1 output to input power ratio - with laboratory size testing.
His system is sized to develop the single-phase / 230 AC / 50 Hz / 20 Amp power commonly used in the UK - and with larger components can develop up to and including 480 VDC or VAC / 600 Amps / 288 kW max - or 400 VDC / 600 Amps for vehicular power.
The technical information - labeled "MRES" - can be found on the website "Kerrow Energetics" / owned by Physicist and Electric Power Researcher, Mr. Julian Perry.
The technology is using the exact same resonating electric circuit, used exactly the same way - as the resonating receiver circuit found in the billions of radios manufactured after Nikola Tesla invented the Radio in 1900.
It should be pointed out - that presently there is no Law or Regulation that stipulates that any private premises owner (of any size premises) if connected to a power source - has to use "only that power made available" by that connected power source.
It should be pointed out that the unit can be installed either singularly, or in numbers required to continuously power any site - up to and including any "heat-sourced" (including Atomic of Fusion if one ever gets built) or Hydro-powered high voltage electric power station - allowing for all now clean power plants to be used 24-7 / 365 days a year / at up to 100% continuous output.
It should be pointed out that as far as vehicular power - any battery or ICE (internal combustion engine) powered vehicle, can be retrofitted-repowered, be it on land / in or on the seas / of in the air as a propeller; rotor; or hi-bypass jet powered private of commercial aircraft - making available:
--- unlimited range of travel and / or movement, and
--- unlimited time of travel and / or movement.
Finally -- it should be pointed out that in 2024, just after the Labour Party was voted into office: the technology was directly offered, "with no strings attached" to: PM Starmer; Exchequer Reeves; Secretary of Energy Miliband; and Mission Control Chief Chris Stark - who asked for and received the information via LinkedIn - and then "went silent".
The others did not respond.
The Governments of Wales and Scotland also received and positively reacted to the information - with the caveat "...that Westminster controlled the power sources and the power grids..." (paraphrase).
So you now have it.
What you do with the information is up to you - because the power units will be available in the future.
Why did Germany just agree to subsidize Chinese EV cars when they have the highest electrical cost in the West??? https://cnevpost.com/2026/01/19/germany-ev-subsidy-to-include-chinese-brands/
I can't speak for Germany, but in the UK with similar electricity prices it's cheaper to run an electric car than a petrol one. This is partly because of taxes on petrol. We are adding a mileage tax for EVs but they'll still be cheaper to run if charged at home. The subsidy is to encourage adoption I guess, because up front costs are higher, and implies a shadow carbon price on petrol because the government want people to switch (I don't think it is subject to ETS).
Now whether this is wise industrial policy is a different question- which often gets wrapped up in climate policy.
There is an error in source 5, CPS is either £18 per tonne or £0.018 per kg, same change for the ETS. Also source 6, the £2.6Bn is for the whole of the ETS, so including industry and transport, not just electricity.
Thanks for the pick-up on the labelling, will update. on the £2.b billion - as I understand Conservative and Reform policy proposals, it's to scrap all carbon taxes, not just for the electricity sector. So I thought worth including the full figure as the budget loss impact even though as you rightly point out it is increasingly from other sectors, not just electricity.
Does the 6% reduction come directly from the Centre for British Progress paper? If so they were only looking at removing the CPS not the UK ETS as well.
No, I sourced the paper to refer to the £400m CPS Treasury impact and their methodology. I ran the analysis myself on the savings from scrapping ETS and CPS separately, following their methodology and cross-checking with the CPS value in the paper. I think their approach isn't quite right as I mentioned in the footnotes, because CfDs are more likely to deliver electricity at the same time as gas isn't setting the price (whereas I think their methodology assumes these two factors are independent), but think it's a close approximation.
How do you calculate 6%? I don't see a methodology explained in your paper so I apologise if you have included it and I am missing it.
No worries. Here it is - any thoughts on it, just let me know - As I said I am uncomfortable with the assumption of excluding CfDs as this might be correlated with when gas sets the price. Also I used the 2025 average carbon prices, this has gone up a lot in 2026.
1. Find CO2 per unit of gas: 0.000382 tonnes (382g) CO2 per kWh of gas (DESNZ)
2. Find carbon prices per tonne: £49.41 per tonne ETS price used in civil penalties as of Nov 2025 (DESNZ) and £18 per tonne CPS price (DESNZ/DBT)
3. Assume gas sets the price 85% of the time (2024 figure, ECIU) and the remainder prices are set by zero-emission electricity
4. Assume CfDs are not affected by the carbon price, which made up ~15.7% of demand in 2025 (LCCC, NESO).
5. Take (tonnes CO2 / kWh) x (£ / tonne) x (85% prices set by gas) x (1-15.7% covered by CfDs) = each tax's estimated impact on electricity prices (£0.02/kWh combined)
6. Divide £0.02/kWh by the price cap all in price, £0.35/kWh) = 5.7% (rounded to 6%)
As a cross-check, I could also have used the UK government's compensation measure of carbon prices per unit at £25.55/MWh in 2024 prices, and around £25/MWh is what I see often quoted in the news. Aside from updating to 2025 carbon price figures, I would expect my calculation to be less than this because of my assumption of gas setting the price and it being clean generation the rest of the time, and assuming CfDs are insulated from this cost.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-emissions-trading-scheme-and-carbon-price-support-apply-for-compensation/compensation-for-the-indirect-costs-of-the-uk-ets-and-the-cps-mechanism-guidance-for-applicants)