Energy Bills

[Newbie to this]

10 minutes ago, oowee said:

😃 I thought most on here believed in the free market, blue rinse and all that. never realised there were a few socialists at heart. 👍

Blue rinse, blimey how old do you think I am.

I do believe in the free market, and until now it has been working quite well. But Something needs to be done.

If you remember when this energy crisis all started, I mentioned restarting the coal mines along with fracking and upping north sea oil production. But as the new climate change religion won't allow most, if any of that, and the cost that this religion adds to our bills......something else needs to be considered. If that is re-nationalisation temporarily until the crisis is over, then it is an evil I'm willing to accept.

[JohnfromUK]

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

the energy companies are going to have to be re-nationalised

What difference would that make?

• At present, the 'energy companies' have to buy in their fuel and that is the major cost - and would not change, nationalised or not. 
• They have to run and maintain their distribution systems -  and would not change, nationalised or not.
• They have to supply and read meters, supply new connections -  and would not change, nationalised or not.

The profit they make is (at present) virtually nil - in fact very many have gone bankrupt in the last 2 year because that cannot make money.

So unless the new owner (the Gov't under a nationalised system) chooses to sell energy at a loss - virtually nothing changes - other than civil servants (who aren't very business orientated have to run a business in very difficult times.

The ones making money are the oil and gas producers (who are not in most cases the energy companies from whom we but our household gas and electricity) - and that is because they sell their oil and gas at world prices.  Much of their 'profits' (which I agree are huge) are paper profit because it relates to the value of oil and gas they have in stocks/reserves not yet drilled out of the ground.  If and when the prices fall - they will (as they did circa 2020 when BP lost £18 Bn - https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/295603/bp-losses-2020/) make huge losses as it is all about values.

[Dave-G]

3 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Blue rinse, blimey how old do you think I am.

I do believe in the free market, and until now it has been working quite well. But Something needs to be done.

If you remember when this energy crisis all started, I mentioned restarting the coal mines along with fracking and upping north sea oil production. But as the new climate change religion won't allow most, if any of that, and the cost that this religion adds to our bills......something else needs to be considered. If that is re-nationalisation temporarily until the crisis is over, then it is an evil I'm willing to accept.

unions would lurve that as it'll get politicized to hold the gov to ransom with strikes.

[oowee]

42 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

What difference would that make?

• At present, the 'energy companies' have to buy in their fuel and that is the major cost - and would not change, nationalised or not. 
• They have to run and maintain their distribution systems -  and would not change, nationalised or not.
• They have to supply and read meters, supply new connections -  and would not change, nationalised or not.

The profit they make is (at present) virtually nil - in fact very many have gone bankrupt in the last 2 year because that cannot make money.

So unless the new owner (the Gov't under a nationalised system) chooses to sell energy at a loss - virtually nothing changes - other than civil servants (who aren't very business orientated have to run a business in very difficult times.

The ones making money are the oil and gas producers (who are not in most cases the energy companies from whom we but our household gas and electricity) - and that is because they sell their oil and gas at world prices.  Much of their 'profits' (which I agree are huge) are paper profit because it relates to the value of oil and gas they have in stocks/reserves not yet drilled out of the ground.  If and when the prices fall - they will (as they did circa 2020 when BP lost £18 Bn - https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/295603/bp-losses-2020/) make huge losses as it is all about values.

Resellers have gone bust. They have gone bust as a result of the govt controls on price capping. We could control prices through legislation, ownership or windfall tax. WE could and some would argue should have been self sufficient in energy (net) but for weak government controlled by short term politics. Johnson is right to prioritise nuclear just a bit late in doing so. The drive for renewables is a good thing but should be backed by a government supported energy storage programme and a massive nation wide insulation program. 

[Newbie to this]

OK, I'm willing to accept that it is not the answer. I don't believe in nationalisation anyway.

The price cap at present, isn't going to cut it, especially the non existent one for businesses.

So I'm back to coal mines, fracking and north sea oil. All of which will take time.

So in the mean time drop all tax, levies and duties on all fuel, especially the green (religion) ones. But I can see it happening, but it would take a huge chunk of of energy bills.

[Mice!]

11 minutes ago, oowee said:

Johnson is right

Never thought I'd read those words 😅😅

[JohnfromUK]

7 minutes ago, oowee said:

We could control prices through legislation, ownership or windfall tax.

We could - but the power companies have to buy raw energy - whether it comes from gas, oil, coal, nuclear, wind, solar.  And they have to buy some of those at 'world market' prices (oil, coal, gas) which is largely outside our Gov't control.

The others - nuclear, wind, solar - no one (I think) really knows exactly what it costs - it depends on how you do the sums and what you include/leave out, what subsidies are applied etc. 

This is not a level playing field already as many are already subsidised/taxed/guaranteed a minimum selling price per 'unit' ............ it's VERY complex.

[JohnfromUK]

7 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Never thought I'd read those words 😅😅

+1  🤣

[JohnfromUK]

47 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

I don't believe in nationalisation anyway.

Nor do I, and also remember that some of the big energy companies are foreign owned (e.g EDF is French owned, EON and N Power are mainly German owned, Scottish Power is Spanish owned) and I suspect they won't take kindly to the UK Gov't seizing their companies .........

https://www.nationalworld.com/lifestyle/money/who-owns-great-britains-electricity-supply-market-share-of-energy-companies-british-gas-edf-and-eon-explained-3231013

Edited September 4, 2022 by JohnfromUK

[oowee]

29 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

We could - but the power companies have to buy raw energy - whether it comes from gas, oil, coal, nuclear, wind, solar.  And they have to buy some of those at 'world market' prices (oil, coal, gas) which is largely outside our Gov't control.

The others - nuclear, wind, solar - no one (I think) really knows exactly what it costs - it depends on how you do the sums and what you include/leave out, what subsidies are applied etc. 

This is not a level playing field already as many are already subsidised/taxed/guaranteed a minimum selling price per 'unit' ............ it's VERY complex.

I would agree but there is no reason that the govt should not go for self sufficiency first and sell surplus. We could set a price for the UK market. Either way you cut the market we simply do not have a plan to manage the situation and build capacity.  If UK plc owned energy production, wind solar, it could set its own price for the UK. 

29 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Never thought I'd read those words 😅😅

Even he cannot be wrong every time. 

I dont think free market in energy is the way forward. Free market above base supply I can live with but we need a strategy not simply build this here, that there, subsidise this, cap that give some cash here which we have simply does not work.

Edited September 4, 2022 by oowee

[Dave-G]

40 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Nor do I, and also remember that some of the big energy companies are foreign owned (e.g EDF is French owned, EON and N Power are mainly German owned, Scottish Power is Spanish owned) and I suspect they won't take kindly to the UK Gov't seizing their companies .........

https://www.nationalworld.com/lifestyle/money/who-owns-great-britains-electricity-supply-market-share-of-energy-companies-british-gas-edf-and-eon-explained-3231013

I've always felt it a big mistake to let ANY foreign country or business be able to control our essential supplies and industry.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Dave-G

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Dave-G said:

I've often felt it a big mistake to let ANY foreign country or business be able to control our essential supplies and industry.

I'm inclined to agree - but when they took control - we (and they) were all in the EU - and I'm not sure that could have been stopped .........

There were some 'get outs' from foreign control where defence and security related matters were concerned I think, but not many others.

[Yellow Bear]

Just now, Dave-G said:

I've often felt it a big mistake to let ANY foreign country or business be able to control our essential supplies and industry.

But this is exactly what the EU wanted   -  control from main euro players!

At the moment the first thing we need to ditch is the "green levy" and the second is the vat.  General tax cuts will not help those in most need - ie those on fixed incomes , many below the tax threshold

[Dave-G]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

I'm inclined to agree - but when they took control - we (and they) were all in the EU - and I'm not sure that could have been stopped .........

There were some 'get outs' from foreign control where defence and security related matters were concerned I think, but not many others.

Correct - likely carefully planned by that guy herr-fort-staffen bloke. 

 

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, so what extra financial help will Truss or Sunak give to help off set the energy October price rise,

[oowee]

54 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

But this is exactly what the EU wanted   -  control from main euro players!

At the moment the first thing we need to ditch is the "green levy" and the second is the vat.  General tax cuts will not help those in most need - ie those on fixed incomes , many below the tax threshold

On the contrary we should use this as an opportunity to rethink energy policy. Insulation, building standards, supply control, energy storage, should be top of the agenda. They wont be of course because we have a tory short term govt. They only have a couple of years or so to buy our vote. 

Edited September 4, 2022 by oowee

[Yellow Bear]

22 minutes ago, oowee said:

On the contrary we should use this as an opportunity to rethink energy policy. Insulation, building standards, supply control, energy storage, should be top of the agenda. They wont be of course because we have a tory short term govt. They only have a couple of years or so to buy our vote. 

Whilst I agree with this it should NOT be first.   

Also the last thing we need is a government controlled monopoly of power - nothing is as inefficient as a monopoly  or as costly as a government monopoly run by civil servants.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Yellow Bear

[Jim Neal]

21 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

It’s all very dependant on what you do, where you live, as well as many other factors. 
 

If you bought a house in 2008 when the prices crashed you probably have a much smaller mortgage than someone who bought in recent years when prices are sky high. 
 

A family with a person working earning £50k who’s partner only earns £10k a year is worse off after taxes than a couple who both earn £30k a year each. 
 

A family who get free child care from grandparents and earn less than £50k may be better off than a family earning £50k but have to pay nursery fees / childcare etc. 

A person who got a council house years ago, and now earns decent money, is likely better off than someone on more money who has to pay full market rate rent (a woman in my work earns about £50k a year now, but has had her council home for 20+ years, she used to be a single mother long ago when she got it. She pays about £300-400 PCM rent for a 2 bed place in central Bristol, privately you’d pay well over £1000-1200 to rent such a place, plus the council does all the upkeep). 

 

A family living in the North or another area of the country is likely to have a lot more disposable income from £50k than someone in the South. 
 

Due to my partners job we need to live a reasonable commute to Gloucester. Therefore it’s a lot more to live than friends of ours who’ve recently moved to  Newcastle, or if we moved back to Wales. 
 

We’re certainly not hard up by any means but if we had dependents I can see how the prices would have a massive impact. 

Yep, all of that noted Lloyd but if £50k is not enough for people to live on then they've made some incorrect decisions somewhere along the line. There's a lot of people who simply refuse to admit that their lifestyle of added luxuries could easily be altered to make the essentials affordable.

 

 

[JohnfromUK]

6 hours ago, Jim Neal said:

There's a lot of people who simply refuse to admit that their lifestyle of added luxuries could easily be altered to make the essentials affordable.

and this, for many will be the real "pill they have to swallow".

[Newbie to this]

7 hours ago, Jim Neal said:

Yep, all of that noted Lloyd but if £50k is not enough for people to live on then they've made some incorrect decisions somewhere along the line. There's a lot of people who simply refuse to admit that their lifestyle of added luxuries could easily be altered to make the essentials affordable.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

and this, for many will be the real "pill they have to swallow".

And doesn't mean that it will not hit them as hard as someone else who lives paycheck to paycheck.

[old man]

13 hours ago, Dave-G said:

I've always felt it a big mistake to let ANY foreign country or business be able to control our essential supplies and industry.

It was obvious at the time to lots, done in the name of competition to control prices? Eventually to end as monopoly as here? Germany I believe had more common sense than to give away total control as we did by retaining the upper hand at top level?

If Truss gets in I see an even more rapid decline as she has the reptilian look of Thatcher, a few will benefit at the detriment to most?

We get what we deserve?

[JohnfromUK]

26 minutes ago, old man said:

Germany I believe had more common sense than to give away total control

Germany, by their huge dependence on exclusively Russian gas (i.e. via fixed pipelines from Russia rather than by sea transport from anywhere) gave away MORE control not less.  But they did it in a different way and compounded it by closing nuclear stations early and removing (the admittedly 'dirty') much coal based generating capacity.

[12gauge82]

Here's an idea. 

The government gives interest free loans to private individuals who's roofs are in good condition and face the right way (somewhere between East, South and west maybe). 

The individuals pay off the loan via the energy they generate and once paid in full, become the owners of the panels and other infrastructure attached to their property. 

The government invests in public owned energy storage technologies and facilities for when the sun isn't shining and overnight ect. 

Eventually the UK would have virtually 100% a green energy grid, owned by the public and run without profit. 

Someone tell me what the down side of that is if it were rolled out efficiently and effectively? Other than big business not getting to fleece the public of course! 

[Penelope]

On 02/09/2022 at 16:53, JohnfromUK said:

Which is about 61 degrees.  You should save energy sticking to that in winter!  That would be found too cold by many people.

19 is about 67 degrees, which for me is a nice comfortable temperature in normal clothes. 

Before I retired, we were in an open plan office and the female staff (who seemed to feel 'wrong temperature' much more than males in my recollection) were complaining of being cold in the winter - when it was 24C (about 75 degrees) - but in summer at the same temperature they complained the air conditioning wasn't working and were too hot!

 

The perennial problem with building management!! 

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said:

The government gives interest free loans to private individuals who's roofs are in good condition and face the right way (somewhere between East, South and west maybe).

The Gov't (in the broad sense) is not well joined up here.  I have a very suitable roof (in principle).  Faces just a touch west of due south (ideal), fairly low pitch (ideal), very strong load bearing ability (good), not visually prominent from anywhere other than next door (good).

But I'm not allowed as I'm a listed building, and it is part shaded by a very large tree that I'm not allowed to remove.  This is in fact nonsense, because the roof in question is 1960s put on before the building was listed, and of dark concrete tiles (hence the high load bearing ability).  The tree is a common sycamore that is causing problems with leaves and seeds - but despite being instructed (by English Nature/Natural England) to remove sycamores elsewhere on my property as they are "non-native and invasive" - I'm not allowed to touch the one near the house because it is "within the curtilage of a listed building" who have a 'higher say' than English Nature/Natural England.

I did explore solar when I did a major property upgrade about 5 years ago - but was told by the local authority (listed buildings Dept) - 'not on your Nelly'.  My next door neighbour (who isn't listed) got his accepted, but he had to deal with a different Dept (planning) !