MSE News: Guest Comment - Why are energy prices increasing?

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Energy
115 replies 7.8K views
168101112

Replies

  • grahamc2003grahamc2003 Forumite
    1.8K Posts
    ✭✭✭
    magyar wrote: »
    No, you're just pushing your own agenda here. I was specifically responding to posts about whether it was fair or right of utilities to charge more for green tariffs; in which case it makes perfect sense to examine whether they themselves pay more for them. And as I have pointed out in Post 60, in all cases other than small home solar, they don't.
    Ah, I see, the old 'agenda' nugget when someone points out a howling error in what you posted ..Hence effectively green electricity costs the same to the utility as brown electricity.

    You said the above in post 60, and not

    in all cases other than small home solar, they don't.
    magyar wrote: »
    Ultimately we need to build new generation. Long-term, we can build nuclear, but we will not see those until 2025 at the earliest. Realistically we can only build gas and renewables in the 2015-2020 timescale. We're already about 45% dependent upon gas supply for our generation. Do you really want to end up 60-70% dependent upon imported gas

    And who is responsible for that situation? I'd say it's the very same people who are calling the shots at the moment. The ones who got us into this mess (which will become apparent to all in just a few years) are the ones now proposing solutions which won't work.
    The situation today (with electricity shortages looming whatever we do today) is a result of the 'green' campaign against Nuclear over the last 50 years, resulting in no long term actions taken when needed. Almost all renewables are non-dispatchable, meaning in practice they will not ensure the avoidance of power shortages (and hence why, in an unsubsidised market, many renewables would have zero, or close to zero, value). The decommissioning of Nuclear was predictable, and the electricity shortages due to that was predictable and predicted (and add in the 'green' forced closure of perfectly reliable and efficient large coal stations and the situation becomes much worse).

    No, I don't want to rely on gas to generate electricity, and never have. (I think it's crazy actually, but the single choice remaining for the near term). It is something forced onto the industry by irrational decisions made under the guise of 'environmentalism' when in fact, industry experts would always have told you it is anything but. It uses scarce resources in a very inefficient manner.

    I'm afraid, due to the non-dispatchability of windpower, building more and more windfarms will not result in any lowering of the requirement for conventional generation, including gas and Nuclear. Perhaps people should reflect on that when their rapidly increasing energy bills drop on their doormat.
  • magyarmagyar Forumite
    18.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ah, I see, the old 'agenda' nugget when someone points out a howling error in what you posted ..Hence effectively green electricity costs the same to the utility as brown electricity.

    You said the above in post 60, and not

    in all cases other than small home solar, they don't.

    The point I was picking you up on is changing the topic to "what everyone has to pay for green" rather than "what people who pay for green tariffs get for their money".

    Regarding my 'howling error', I maintain that to the utility, green electricity costs 'effectively the same' as brown. For small home solar, which makes up less than 1% of the total renewable energy, they effectively pay for something they're not getting, which is a quirk of the system.

    It is rather intriguing that you think it's a 'howling error' to have ignored something which makes up less than 1% of the total price, whereas you have based your entire argument on it.
    And who is responsible for that situation? I'd say it's the very same people who are calling the shots at the moment.

    Who are?

    I have not copied the rest of the post, but I would make one point that you claim 'industry experts' would agree otherwise. It is industry experts who agree the energy policy.

    I know that conspiracy theorists think it's all made up by incompetent governments, or profit-driven cartels, but in practice energy policy is drafted by people who know what they're doing, and consulting those who are affected.

    I agree completely that nuclear has been off the agenda for too long, but this is not because of environmentalism, it's because of cost. It was easier to build small CCGTs than it was to make strategic decisions to support nuclear (which needs just as much support as renewables). I'm a big nuclear fan, and very happy for us to support it in the future.

    Energy companies do not set energy policy: an E.ON or an SSE really does not care whether they build gas, nuclear or wind. They just want a return which matches their risk, and is affordable.
    Says James, in my opinion, there's nothing in this world
    Beats a '52 Vincent and a red headed girl
  • bengasmanbengasman Forumite
    601 Posts
    ✭✭
    magyar wrote: »
    ...Do you really want to end up 60-70% dependent upon imported gas?
    If the alternative is renewable energy at 60p/kWh hour, yes, absolutely, no doubt about it, I do prefer dependency on gas at 1/10 of the price.
  • magyarmagyar Forumite
    18.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    bengasman wrote: »
    If the alternative is renewable energy at 60p/kWh hour, yes, absolutely, no doubt about it, I do prefer dependency on gas at 1/10 of the price.

    Renewable energy doesn't cost 60p/kWh.
    Says James, in my opinion, there's nothing in this world
    Beats a '52 Vincent and a red headed girl
  • bengasmanbengasman Forumite
    601 Posts
    ✭✭
    magyar wrote: »
    Renewable energy doesn't cost 60p/kWh.
    Not at the moment, but it will be when there is a shortage of leccie because the treehugger lobby delayed the construction of fossil fuel fired generators.
    Besides, I would still prefer gas if wind/solar was "only" twice as expensive as gas/oil.
  • magyarmagyar Forumite
    18.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    bengasman wrote: »
    Not at the moment, but it will be when there is a shortage of leccie because the treehugger lobby delayed the construction of fossil fuel fired generators.
    Besides, I would still prefer gas if wind/solar was "only" twice as expensive as gas/oil.

    Why would the price of renewable energy go up because there was a shortage of electricity? If anything they will come down due to economies of scale and better technology.

    You have a very mixed-up and confused argument. One minute this is all a big scam caused by greedy multinationals, then it's all the fault of a load of hippy tree-huggers. The politicians who brought in the policies are idiots, according to you.

    Amazing how the world is one big conspiracy to get you, isn't it?
    Says James, in my opinion, there's nothing in this world
    Beats a '52 Vincent and a red headed girl
  • bengasmanbengasman Forumite
    601 Posts
    ✭✭
    magyar wrote: »
    Why would the price of renewable energy go up because there was a shortage of electricity?
    It's called: supply and demand.
    magyar wrote: »
    If anything they will come down due to economies of scale and better technology.
    That would presume that energy suppliers only charge as much as they need to cover their costs; not even you can believe that.
    magyar wrote: »
    You have a very mixed-up and confused argument. One minute this is all a big scam caused by greedy multinationals, then it's all the fault of a load of hippy tree-huggers. The politicians who brought in the policies are idiots, according to you.
    Amazing how the world is one big conspiracy to get you, isn't it?
    No conspiracy theory at all; 3 completely different issues. Speaking of being confused.

    The "CO2 pollution" is not a scam from multinationals, but from tax hungry governments that used it to justify billions worth of tax hikes with the excuse of "saving the planet".

    The treehuggers just walk around with their heads in the sand whilst using ridiculous arguments to stop this "pollution".

    And as for the previous Labour government: any bunch that leaves a country that used to be one of the wealthiest in Europe with more debt than all the previous governments created together ( last figures I saw quoted £78,000 debt per average family ) but nothing to show for it, can rightly be called idiots as far as I am concerned.
  • magyarmagyar Forumite
    18.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    bengasman wrote: »
    It's called: supply and demand.

    That would presume that energy suppliers only charge as much as they need to cover their costs; not even you can believe that.

    You're making no sense. If there's enough electricity to supply you with some, then there's enough electricity to supply everyone with some. So by definition electricity supply can only ever be low margin. There will always be something which governs the marginal price. At the moment it's gas price, in a high-renewables world it would be the price of intermittency or the price of energy storage.
    bengasman wrote: »
    No conspiracy theory at all; 3 completely different issues. Speaking of being confused.

    The "CO2 polution" is not a scam from multinationals, but from tax hungry governments that used it to justify billions worth of tax hikes with the excuse of "saving the planet".

    The treehuggers just walk around with their heads in the sand whilst using ridiculous arguments to stop this "pollution".

    And as for the previous Labour government: any bunch that leaves a country that used to be one of the wealthiest in Europe with more debt than all the previous governments created together ( last figures I saw quoted £78,000 debt per average family ) but nothing to show for it, can rightly be called idiots as far as I am concerned.

    We'll be here forever if we start debating those points. Although I would point out that anyone who can hug trees, walk about and have their head in the sand all at the same time must be pretty clever...
    Says James, in my opinion, there's nothing in this world
    Beats a '52 Vincent and a red headed girl
  • davidgmmafandavidgmmafan Forumite
    1.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    "The utility will charge its customers for both power and also a levy (regulated by the government) for both the renewables obligation certificates and the feed-in tariff. So effectively the feed-in tariff and the RO costs them nothing."

    I think I understand, does this support my point that the customer is paying? If there's a levy it has to be paid by someone is it me?

    Not trying to be funny I just don't understand :p
    Mixed Martial Arts is the greatest sport known to mankind and anyone who says it is 'a bar room brawl' has never trained in it and has no idea what they are talking about.
  • magyarmagyar Forumite
    18.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes, it does. Everyone pays for it.
    Says James, in my opinion, there's nothing in this world
    Beats a '52 Vincent and a red headed girl
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Covid test firms form self-regulating body

A bid to tackle poor service concerns

MSE News

Cheap home insurance

Grab 100+ quotes & cashback

MSE Guides