MSE News: Consumer groups urge action on energy prices at summit

adwat

I agree Mazio, a good indicator is the number of households suffering fuel poverty - this figure has increased each year since 2000 (I can't find reliable figures from before this - but from personal experience know that my fuel bills have been increasing as a proportion of earnings since the mid 90's), during which time the profits of the various energy companies have also increased. The last government tacitly recognised this by increasing winter fuel payments for the elderly whilst at the same time allowing the rest of us to pay more. We have an ineffectual regulator in this country and moreover successive governments that allow fuel prices to increase year on year over and above inflation. Don't forget it benefits the treasury's coffers by way of increased VAT revenue on ever expensive fuel.

magyar

adwat wrote: »

....Source?

adwat wrote: »

Wrong.

Natural Gas is 15% more expensive in France compared to the UK.

Source - International Energy Agency - http://www.iea.org/publications/free...p?PUBS_ID=1199 - Publication Date October 2011

My source was the two charts higher up in the thread, which we'd been discussing. The units in your link are a little confusing, whereas the two charts above (totally separate sources) seem to concur.

magyar

adwat wrote: »

Which brings us back nicely to my original comment - we are ever encouraged to use energy more efficiently, however, prices increase to compensate. You seem to ignore the fact that the various energy companies are averse to investing in increased generating capacity - it's far easier (and cheaper) to encourage the poor householder to use less by being more effiecient. Not a bad business model if you can get away with it - and they are!

What gave you that idea? I've been stating that the very REASON they need to maintain reasonable profit levels is to maintain the level of investment they are doing.

And it's completely wrong to suggest energy companies want total demand to fall, why would they?

harz99

Consumerist wrote: »

You may find this Ofgem Press Release of 14 October 2011 of some interest.

Not really, OFGEM are still happy to have a standing charge which penalises low users, and they don't even show that in their comparative illustration !

Pincher

An Englishman's home is his castle,
but castles are notoriously expensive to heat,
so the Englishman sold his castle and moved into a well insulated bio-dome, where he grows his own food and flushes his toilet with rain water, which is then used to fertilise the plants.

And then the council comes along and tears it down, because it's not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. So he rents a castle and claims Income Credit, and lives in fuel poverty because a castle costs so much to heat.

A prophetic tale of things to come.

harz99

magyar wrote: »

If you want to do something about it, use less.

And in total pay a higher real rate for energy used because of the standing charge which penalises low users.

Incidentally, in all the charts you have been posting to show the UK as having reasonable energy prices versus the other countries, are standing charges taken into account and do all the other countries even have them?

adwat

magyar,

You seem a little confused. Energy companies want the population to use the same amount of energy overall so that they do not have to invest in new infrastructure, therefore they are able to supply the energy needs of an increasing population in the cheapest possible way and thereby maximize profits. Quite a simple idea, and as I point out, a pretty amazing business model.

The so called investment that you refer to is government funded CO2 reduction measures, so instead of building, say, a nice big natural gas or coal fired powerstation, or heaven forbid a nice juicy nuclear plant which would significantly add to overall generating capability and thereby reduce overall generating costs (supply & demand dear boy - don't make me give you an economics 101), they erect hundreds of windmills generating a poor supply of intermittent, poorly transmissible and expensive energy.

If you find the International Energy Agency figures too hard to figure out, well, that's not my problem. However, they are widely recognised as the most authoritative resource, multi governmental etc. etc. - more so than the Mickey Mouse figures you present.

magyar

harz99 wrote: »

And in total pay a higher real rate for energy used because of the standing charge which penalises low users.

Incidentally, in all the charts you have been posting to show the UK as having reasonable energy prices versus the other countries, are standing charges taken into account and do all the other countries even have them?

I totally agree that it's completely wrong that people pay proportionally more if they use less - totally wrong.

Can't confirm that the figures do include standing charges, but it would be very inaccurate if they didn't, so I assume that - since the two separate sources concur - that they did.

magyar

adwat wrote: »

Energy companies want the population to use the same amount of energy overall so that they do not have to invest in new infrastructure, therefore they are able to supply the energy needs of an increasing population in the cheapest possible way and thereby maximize profits. Quite a simple idea, and as I point out, a pretty amazing business model.

I'm sorry, that's just wrong. Why would energy companies not want to invest in infrastructure? It's their raison d'être. It's like saying 'Tesco don't want to have to invest in new stores" - why wouldn't they?

The whole point of being a utility is to take your shareholders money and put it to work by investing in plant and get a return.

adwat wrote: »

The so called investment that you refer to is government funded CO2 reduction measures, so instead of building, say, a nice big natural gas or coal fired powerstation, or heaven forbid a nice juicy nuclear plant which would significantly add to overall generating capability and thereby reduce overall generating costs (supply & demand dear boy - don't make me give you an economics 101), they erect hundreds of windmills generating a poor supply of intermittent, poorly transmissible and expensive energy.

How many wrong statements do you want to get in one post?

- renewables support systems aren't government funded, they're paid for out the electricity bill
- you can't just 'build a nuclear plant'; several of the Big 6 were involved in the planning process for the new build of nuclear plant, however SSE have already pulled out because they're concerned about spending so much on something which the government appears to be wavering on.
- it would be very uneconomic to build new coal plant due to the LCPD which would require huge amounts of emissions abatement.
- utilities build wind farms because they're incentivised to do so by the government. They don't care what they build. I can promise you that if the government supported coal or gas in the same way, they'd build that instead.

dizzeeblondee

Its all a load of boolocks.
They did it with petrol, now they do it with other fuel. By announcing an investigation followed by a 'freeze' of prices, the UK public are lulled into a false sense of security. Our vastly overpriced petrol/gas/electric has been frozen, and like lemmings we all roll over and say 'oh well at least it won't rise'.
How can Ofgem or whatever they are called, turn round and say the UK customers asked for clearer tariffs, as the number one complaint....I think they'll find that the number one complaint is its too damn expensive!

They must think we're bloody stupid!

Sorry, was just peeping through the main forum and fell upon this, I'll shut up now! :P