Gas & Electricity

It's just a delaying tactic unfortunately and one that means we'll be paying a lot of cash for a lot longer period of time. A gamble that prices will be cheaper in the next few years. What happens if it isn't should be the question, is the debt written off? do we have to pay double the price for years to come? this only seems to protect the utility companies rather than the consumers and that's why the directors of these companies all want this in. I'd prefer to protect the consumers first then the utility companies. If I had the option I'd want to pay for what I use straight away not on credit that I can't see or control
I get your point mate and you’re right that the uncertainty with high prices could go on for years but as things stand is there a viable alternative solution that protects consumers first and foremost and isn’t going to cost the taxpayer in the long run? I honestly can’t think of one and the reality is that if the current price cap isn’t frozen then millions will have to choose between eating and keeping warm, and thousands of companies are going to go bust. Our economy would capitulate overnight. Subsidising our energy bills to get us through this winter and possibly next winter kicks the can down the road in terms of us no doubt picking up the tab through taxation over time but not doing something so drastic will result in something much worse.
 
The company I work for has a fixed deal which runs out in a few months.

Current standing charge 35p a day
Current kWh charge 16p

Proposed standing charge £20 a day (£7,300 a year without using any energy)
Proposed kWh charge £1.05

A lot of businesses are going to go to the wall in this.
Seeing a lot of similar price increases for businesses on here and elsewhere. It seems a 6 or 7 fold increase for businesses once their current fixed rate deal cones to an end is the norm. Apparently the new measures coming in will see help for businesses too but I’m not sure how much help they’ll get and whether it will be enough.
 
I get your point mate and you’re right that the uncertainty with high prices could go on for years but as things stand is there a viable alternative solution that protects consumers first and foremost and isn’t going to cost the taxpayer in the long run? I honestly can’t think of one and the reality is that if the current price cap isn’t frozen then millions will have to choose between eating and keeping warm, and thousands of companies are going to go bust. Our economy would capitulate overnight. Subsidising our energy bills to get us through this winter and possibly next winter kicks the can down the road in terms of us no doubt picking up the tab through taxation over time but not doing something so drastic will result in something much worse.

Cancel HS2 and give the £100billion saved to every household £4k. There's one for starters. Which would you rather have no electric bills for a year or a 20 minute faster train to London? There's loads of things that can be done they just need to sort it out
 
Cancel HS2 and give the £100billion saved to every household £4k. There's one for starters. Which would you rather have no electric bills for a year or a 20 minute faster train to London? There's loads of things that can be done they just need to sort it out
Cancel Brexit. Whats the divorce bill for that costing?
 
I’ve never understood why the UK hasn’t ever gone down this route as it has the highest tidal range in all of Europe - I’d read that is has the potential to supply up to 12% of the uks energy needs and yet as far as I am aware there are none.
I'm actually quite surprised tidal is that low, I would have thought it could be considerably higher, and it is of course an absolute guaranteed, predictable and constant source of power unlike wind and sun.
 
Nice videos online about how to bypass the electric meter. You're fucked if you have a smart meter though.

Makes you wonder why the companies were pushing smart meters on everyone.....
 
My understanding of how the wholesale price of electricity is determined is this:

At the moment, energy in the UK is traded on the wholesale market under 'marginal costing' which in the UK means one National price for electricity based on the price of the most costly generator that feeds the national grid. Invariably, this means that the cost of producing gas generated electricity dictates the wholesale price of electricity. So whilst renewable electricity might generate say 25%- 30% of the UK needs (and is multiple times cheaper than gas generated), nuclear another % (ditto), as soon as gas generated electricity is required on the grid, that dictates the price.

Now surely, given the massive brains at play in this government there is a way of unpicking that to ensure a true, more average cost of generation is charged. If that takes time then the model described above must be creating excess profit in those companies that generate electricity that could be levied as a windfall tax and used to mitigate things until they can sort out their pricing. Then the goal must be to get the UK to 100% self sufficiency utilising renewables and nuclear as quickly as we possible can.
 
My understanding of how the wholesale price of electricity is determined is this:

At the moment, energy in the UK is traded on the wholesale market under 'marginal costing' which in the UK means one National price for electricity based on the price of the most costly generator that feeds the national grid. Invariably, this means that the cost of producing gas generated electricity dictates the wholesale price of electricity. So whilst renewable electricity might generate say 25%- 30% of the UK needs (and is multiple times cheaper than gas generated), nuclear another % (ditto), as soon as gas generated electricity is required on the grid, that dictates the price.

Now surely, given the massive brains at play in this government there is a way of unpicking that to ensure a true, more average cost of generation is charged. If that takes time then the model described above must be creating excess profit in those companies that generate electricity that could be levied as a windfall tax and used to mitigate things until they can sort out their pricing. Then the goal must be to get the UK to 100% self sufficiency utilising renewables and nuclear as quickly as we possible can.

Panaroma on catch up explains very clearly and in detail the scam we are being subjected to mate.

OFGEM is not fit for purpose. Any announcement this week to help us all with bills, although welcome, will be useless unless a total reform of the sector is also announced.
 
Panaroma on catch up explains very clearly and in detail the scam we are being subjected to mate.

OFGEM is not fit for purpose. Any announcement this week to help us all with bills, although welcome, will be useless unless a total reform of the sector is also announced.
did it touch on the above and is it accurate?
 
Cancel HS2 and give the £100billion saved to every household £4k. There's one for starters. Which would you rather have no electric bills for a year or a 20 minute faster train to London? There's loads of things that can be done they just need to sort it out
But you said yourself that this could go on for a lot longer than a year so what do we do if we've cancelled HS2 and the £100 billion has been dished out, only to find ourselves in the same position 12 months later?

Besides, cancelling HS2 at this stage isn't a realistic option. Billions and billions have already been spent on it, plenty of work has already been done, contracts signed, etc, so cancelling it now will cost billions more which no doubt would then be passed onto the taxpayer. Oh, and thousands of jobs will be lost. It's also short-sighted to say that the only benefit of HS2 is that we can get to London half an hour quicker. This country has been crying out for a decent high speed rail link between London and the major UK cities for decades, and many European countries shit all over us in that regard. HS2 - once it is up and running - will be capable of providing up to 18 trains an hour to and from London which is a huge increase on what we have today. It will also more than pay for itself over time so the idea that it is £100 billion spunked into thin air simply isn't true. We're forever berating the short-sightedness of the government (be it this one or previous ones) but then when they do actually come up with a long-term project like this - and one that is backed by all 3 main political parties - people still aren't happy.
 
But you said yourself that this could go on for a lot longer than a year so what do we do if we've cancelled HS2 and the £100 billion has been dished out, only to find ourselves in the same position 12 months later?

Besides, cancelling HS2 at this stage isn't a realistic option. Billions and billions have already been spent on it, plenty of work has already been done, contracts signed, etc, so cancelling it now will cost billions more which no doubt would then be passed onto the taxpayer. Oh, and thousands of jobs will be lost. It's also short-sighted to say that the only benefit of HS2 is that we can get to London half an hour quicker. This country has been crying out for a decent high speed rail link between London and the major UK cities for decades, and many European countries shit all over us in that regard. HS2 - once it is up and running - will be capable of providing up to 18 trains an hour to and from London which is a huge increase on what we have today. It will also more than pay for itself over time so the idea that it is £100 billion spunked into thin air simply isn't true. We're forever berating the short-sightedness of the government (be it this one or previous ones) but then when they do actually come up with a long-term project like this - and one that is backed by all 3 main political parties - people still aren't happy.
it was just 1 example of things to do from 1000 options, I'm not the prime minister
 
But you said yourself that this could go on for a lot longer than a year so what do we do if we've cancelled HS2 and the £100 billion has been dished out, only to find ourselves in the same position 12 months later?

Besides, cancelling HS2 at this stage isn't a realistic option. Billions and billions have already been spent on it, plenty of work has already been done, contracts signed, etc, so cancelling it now will cost billions more which no doubt would then be passed onto the taxpayer. Oh, and thousands of jobs will be lost. It's also short-sighted to say that the only benefit of HS2 is that we can get to London half an hour quicker. This country has been crying out for a decent high speed rail link between London and the major UK cities for decades, and many European countries shit all over us in that regard. HS2 - once it is up and running - will be capable of providing up to 18 trains an hour to and from London which is a huge increase on what we have today. It will also more than pay for itself over time so the idea that it is £100 billion spunked into thin air simply isn't true. We're forever berating the short-sightedness of the government (be it this one or previous ones) but then when they do actually come up with a long-term project like this - and one that is backed by all 3 main political parties - people still aren't happy.
I don't want to derail the chat but HS2 is false promise. It's only linking Birmingham to London fast but guess what it already has a fast link already. The last time I looked trains to London were getting slashed anyway. How will it pay for itself? the person wanting to go to London will go to London regardless of it taking 10 minutes longer or not. Ther only way it would pay for itself is if the ticket prices for HS2 train were double the price of the existing trains. That's the only way it will pay for itself and I hazard a guess that is what they'll attempt to do.

The example I've used demonstrates there's 100 billions of pounds available to the treasury whenever they want to do a vanity project. Don't let them con you into thinking money doesn't exist. They could easily afford solar panels and batteries for every household they just don't want to spend it on you and rather get rich by making their businesses they hold shares in richer.
 
it was just 1 example of things to do from 1000 options, I'm not the prime minister
Fair enough. However they go about it though, the cost always ends up getting put back on us anyway. It happened when the banks got bailed out and it'll happen with this. What I will add is that while I'm receptive to picking up some of the hit over time in order to see us all get through this period (because the alternative really doesn't bear thinking about), I also think the energy companies need to take a hit too. If the government are going to come up with the cash to subsidise our bills and pay that shortfall to the energy companies, they shouldn't be giving them the full amount of that shortfall if it means they still end up posting multi-billion pound profits. That would be wrong as it would mean they (the energy companies) are not taking any hit whatsoever.
 
I don't want to derail the chat but HS2 is false promise. It's only linking Birmingham to London fast but guess what it already has a fast link already. The last time I looked trains to London were getting slashed anyway. How will it pay for itself? the person wanting to go to London will go to London regardless of it taking 10 minutes longer or not. Ther only way it would pay for itself is if the ticket prices for HS2 train were double the price of the existing trains. That's the only way it will pay for itself and I hazard a guess that is what they'll attempt to do.

The example I've used demonstrates there's 100 billions of pounds available to the treasury whenever they want to do a vanity project. Don't let them con you into thinking money doesn't exist. They could easily afford solar panels and batteries for every household they just don't want to spend it on you and rather get rich by making their businesses they hold shares in richer.
Nah, there's more - much more - to HS2 than Birmingham mate:

 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top