David Cameron writes for MSE on his plans to help on energy bills

System

Huge savings can be made in my opinion if you buy low energy electricals. Serious savings.

nem39esis

I recall British gas saying they had to raise energy prices because the current costs to them meant they were making a loss- what a load of rubbish, if that was true why have theyre profits increased greater than what they raised the prices by. Such a con, they get away with it thats why they do it.

Totality

berbastrike wrote: »

Huge savings can be made in my opinion if you buy low energy electricals. Serious savings.

That means buying new appliances, which cost money, and doesn't change the price being paid for your electricity.

Everybody was told a few years ago that moving to low energy lightbulbs will bring serious savings. Since then, bills have soared.

magyar

Totality wrote: »

That means buying new appliances, which cost money, and doesn't change the price being paid for your electricity.

Everybody was told a few years ago that moving to low energy lightbulbs will bring serious savings. Since then, bills have soared.

Clearly what you've said is true, but it's rather missing the point isn't it? Bills would have soared MORE if people had not switched to low energy light bulbs.

I think actually the government would be quite right to keep average bills the same, but make lower users subsidise higher users (rather than the other way round as it is right now)

Totality

magyar wrote: »

Clearly what you've said is true, but it's rather missing the point isn't it? Bills would have soared MORE if people had not switched to low energy light bulbs.

I think actually the government would be quite right to keep average bills the same, but make lower users subsidise higher users (rather than the other way round as it is right now)

The part I've bolded is indeed correct. However, I honestly don't think your average customer cares about "Spend £x on this to save £x." The only thing people care about is how much their bill is, so the idea of shelling out to try and save a few quid won't appeal.

magyar

Totality wrote: »

The part I've bolded is indeed correct. However, I honestly don't think your average customer cares about "Spend £x on this to save £x." The only thing people care about is how much their bill is, so the idea of shelling out to try and save a few quid won't appeal.

You clearly shouldn't shell out for things you don't need replacing yet, but buying low-energy versions of things when they do need replacing makes sense.

The government should do what it can to ensure that people are buying electricity in a fair market - that doesn't mean we should not encourage people to use less (the only guaranteed way of reducing your energy bill!)

*edit* and actually it's a shame more people can't work out that if you spend £50 more on a lower-energy fridge, for example, you'll probably save double that over the lifespan of the fridge.

Totality

magyar wrote: »

You clearly shouldn't shell out for things you don't need replacing yet, but buying low-energy versions of things when they do need replacing makes sense.

The government should do what it can to ensure that people are buying electricity in a fair market - that doesn't mean we should not encourage people to use less (the only guaranteed way of reducing your energy bill!)

*edit* and actually it's a shame more people can't work out that if you spend £50 more on a lower-energy fridge, for example, you'll probably save double that over the lifespan of the fridge.

Agreed and agreed. On the latter, perhaps that's an idea for the powers that be here at MSE.

jamesd

wozearly wrote: »

Which leaves about 5% for costs related to power subsidy and other associated bits (ie, not much).

Does that include things like required fuel mix changes, say from coal to gas or other, whether by fixed legislation or cap and trade schemes that make a method more expensive than it's underlying cost?

wozearly wrote: »

The main reason for the rise is that wholesale prices have risen substantially, as they are likely to continue to do. The government subsidy for alternative power generation isn't particularly cost-efficient to say the least, but in the grand scheme of things I don't believe its a big driver of cost in bills.

I agree that wholesale costs are likely to rise, in part because those aren't restricted to just the cost of fuel but include the effects of limits on fuel mix as well as outright subsidies. I think that the costs of some fuels will rise.

It'll be interesting to see what effect things like fracking have on natural gas supply and usage. that should greatly reduce the cost and increase the use of that fule, if it's not made uncompetitive in some way.

Baggerz1

Figures were quoted last night on Countryfile on BBC1. It was for Off Shore windfarm, being paid to a Danish company I think, who will make a huge difference to our economy by providing 70 jobs, whoop woo ! Oh and of course reducing all those nasty "Greenhouse" gases , except when you calculate how much extra power is used to make the windmills in the first place and then erect them, I think i read somewhere that it takes at least 15 years of operation before they "break even" on power used in construction versus energy produced !

magyar

Baggerz1 wrote: »

Figures were quoted last night on Countryfile on BBC1. It was for Off Shore windfarm, being paid to a Danish company I think, who will make a huge difference to our economy by providing 70 jobs, whoop woo ! Oh and of course reducing all those nasty "Greenhouse" gases , except when you calculate how much extra power is used to make the windmills in the first place and then erect them, I think i read somewhere that it takes at least 15 years of operation before they "break even" on power used in construction versus energy produced !

The Danish company is probably Dong. I think you must be referring to Walney in the Irish Sea. The bit about wind farms not really paying back their energy costs is an often-spouted myth - the 'carbon neutral' point in a wind farm is about 6-8 months URL="http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html#payback"]link[/URL

Offshore wind farms do use more steel so this might be a bit longer, but they generate more on average than onshore sites so the two probably cancel each other out.

As for the 70 jobs, that would be long-term, in the short term they would use up to a thousand people constructing them. Those people are learning skills which they can take to another site working for a different company, constructing a different site.