David Cameron & energy prices

paulmapp8306

Oh - talking of "renewables" - as I say tahts the market im going into - however, currently most form of renewable energy is VERY expensive to produce.

Ive already mentioned wind, so

Solar? at present its far too inefficient and far too costly to buy the pannels (not to make them - but there sold at a very high proiffit margin currently). the technology will no-doubt improve BUT currently its not cost effective. Ultimately - insisting ALL new buildings have pannels as roofs (residential, commercial, industrial) unless theres a H&S issue could be a way forward - but the power companies will not like that, and ithe tech is a way off (if it every comes) to make it economical.

Geo-Thermal: This is actually very useable, but only if the country itself is in a suitable geological location - were not.

tidal: This is the only method that currently makes sense from an economical POV, however there arnt enough suitable tidal locations to provide more than a reasonably small % of what we require.

The ONLY power source currently available, that doesnt burn carbon fuels, and is cost effective, and can meet demand is nuclear - which (for reasons I really cant fathom - appart from media scares) is not popular. Ultimately it may well come down to 5 times the price for powers, OR neuclear.

paulmapp8306

Oh - forgot hydro-electric. Expensive to build but cheap to run - but like tidal - not enough locations to provide more than a small % of our needs.

grizzly1911

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Oh - talking of "renewables" - as I say tahts the market im going into - however, currently most form of renewable energy is VERY expensive to produce.

Ive already mentioned wind, so

Solar? at present its far too inefficient and far too costly to buy the pannels (not to make them - but there sold at a very high proiffit margin currently). the technology will no-doubt improve BUT currently its not cost effective. Ultimately - insisting ALL new buildings have pannels as roofs (residential, commercial, industrial) unless theres a H&S issue could be a way forward - but the power companies will not like that, and ithe tech is a way off (if it every comes) to make it economical.

Geo-Thermal: This is actually very useable, but only if the country itself is in a suitable geological location - were not.

tidal: This is the only method that currently makes sense from an economical POV, however there arnt enough suitable tidal locations to provide more than a reasonably small % of what we require.

The ONLY power source currently available, that doesnt burn carbon fuels, and is cost effective, and can meet demand is nuclear - which (for reasons I really cant fathom - appart from media scares) is not popular. Ultimately it may well come down to 5 times the price for powers, OR neuclear.

Won't be popular north of the Border bt we have just returned from the Western Isles and out of 14 days the (Consumer) wind turbines on several adjacent properties only stopped turning for 1/14 days.

Whilst I appreciate they can't be guaranteed to provide the energy all the time at peak capacity I am sure they can reduce our reliance on other forms of energy for substantial periods of time. Accept that the maintenance cost of offshore farms and the grant assistance to install operate are far too high.

I agree with you on Solar PV. I do believe if it is that good then it should be mandatory to install on all new builds and all Government occupied/owned property.Installation/feed in tariffs should be removed or substantially cut. Both of these measures would instill confidence and drive down the supply/fit cost.

With both wind and solar there are too many middlemen creaming off the top at present

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i'm not sure how we would "all benefit" from a situation where everyone gets moved to the highest tarriff. i can see how shareholders would benefit.

switching about between providers of a product is what a consumer has to do within a competitive marketplace and it is hardly unique to utilities.

perhaps we should just tell tescos and sainsbury's what they have to charge for a tin of tomatoes and remove all of the different brands - all cans to look the same so poor old consumers aren't all confused. when tescos says he wants to put tomatoes in a different can and sell them for 10p less to attract price savvy consumers, tell him he can't because it would confuse all the others.

everybody benefits!

We would all benefit as a society if if tariffs were compressed. There would still be competition between operators to offer a good deal. The current schemes benefit the small who can and want to change. Many old and less able cannot tap that market. At the moment we pay a premium for that degree of choice across the board, which I put at £100 -£150 plus each time I need/am forced to switch.

We aren't telling different operators that they can't charge different "best" tariffs. If Mr T wants to sell tomatoes at 10p less that is up to him. I am happy with Aldi tomatoes and beans because IMO the quality is comparable to the main brands or non Apple I products because they essentially do the same thing. Other people are obsessed by brands and never ending choice for essentially the same thing. Choice doesn't mean you get the best value.

No different for electric and gas just because I change supplier the quality isn't going to be any different, I'm not going to get greener electric or gas that burns hotter. This is basic commodity over which the only difference is price.

paulmapp8306

Certainly a combination - down the line - is achievable with practically no carbon emissions.

the final aim - all buildings to have roofs made of Solar pannels, which would effectivly mean the country would need practically no other energy during daylight (maybe a little - high industrial/commercial users would be suplimented by the power generated from the residential pannels). Supliment this with wind/tidal/hydro for dark/night hours and those high commercial daytime users - and a slack handfull of new, efficient neuclear plants in case of high need, or night hours with no wind and higher demand, and were good to go.

Cost is still an issue - though the cost of maintaining wind will come down as the tech moves, solar will get more efficient so need less light to provide what is needed (and it will get cheaper). The timeframe to build the solar would be large - all new builds yes but you'd have to retro fit all old buildings as well, which curently is not cheap.

No FITS - you use the power generated by your roof - and excess goes into the grid and can be sold abroad or stored (that tech would need to be implimented as well - but its there). Take from the grid when your need exceeds your production. Much lower bills - but much lower proffits for the energy companies which they wont like.

grizzly1911

howee wrote: »

Yes they have messed this one up a tad



Everyone can't be on the lowest tariff or there would not be a low tariff.

The one issue I have with online comparison sites is the commission taken from the utilities. Just turn a tv on and not see an ad is amazing think of the money spent yet all people like Martin Leiws need to say is call your own provider and go on their online tariff.

I agree that we all pay through the nose for all the switching costs and commission paid to switching sites and cashback. The trouble is the energy suppliers don't offer a "retentions" department to retain your business they are happy to to see you leave if their best price is currently higher than a competitor.

At a given point in time your supplier may not be offering the best tariff.

I accept that once you have moved to online/DDR the savings to be made on switching are less and you just end up on a different part of the escalator. That said having last switched 4 weeks ago my tariff achieved was 8% lower than the next one up and 16% cheaper than my then current suppliers best tariff.

I do accept that this is all a matter of timing and that the hike in price may well be bigger next time.

sheffield_lad

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Certainly a combination - down the line - is achievable with practically no carbon emissions.

the final aim - all buildings to have roofs made of Solar pannels, which would effectivly mean the country would need practically no other energy during daylight (maybe a little - high industrial/commercial users would be suplimented by the power generated from the residential pannels). Supliment this with wind/tidal/hydro for dark/night hours and those high commercial daytime users - and a slack handfull of new, efficient neuclear plants in case of high need, or night hours with no wind and higher demand, and were good to go.

.

No matter how much solar we had even with solar on every roof this is still not enough to generate enough energy for our needs. The average solar installation will often give you useful usage in the day but does not cover even on a sunny day the use of say a washer and a kettle (items with elements), typical usage after solar is still around 7upd. That's before we get to heating lol, how many units of electric do you recon you need to heat a house using electric even if it is helped with solar :eek:

Of course any such scheme would help but it would not cover the housholds so forget about spare generation or industry.

We need a clean cheap power source that exists already the answer is gas we just need to push on with fracking.

grizzly1911

howee wrote: »

I am not sure that argument stacks up. Say you want to buy an Ipad, or tin of Heinz Beans. Same product different offers but probably only 6 MAJOR retailers who offer the same goods at very similar prices.

We seem to be in hysterical mode (not here btw), more country in general and in particular the BBC with energy costs. Can we not see that nationalisation would probably put the price up or the more gov's press utilities to offer insulation and build new infrastructure and help for the fuel poor it puts the bill up not to mention green tax's and FIT's.

It's not going to happen but imagine if they went the way of the US and started fracking, interesting to see what would win out protesters over the fracking methods+greenies or the majority who want cheap reliable fuel?

Point is you don't have to take an IPad or Heinz (and the associated brand premium) there are other products that offer 99% for lower.

The price we pay for energy includes a back door tax to help pay for the insulation and help for the people who can't pay. Arguably these services should be provided by the Governement.

I think we will start fracking more and also believe we should be resisting the coal embargo by the EU. We have the resource, we have the labour, it can be operated more cleanly than in the past and the likes of China don't give a flying fig.

grizzly1911

howee wrote: »

No matter how much solar we had even with solar on every roof this is still not enough to generate enough energy for our needs. The average solar installation will often give you useful usage in the day but does not cover even on a sunny day the use of say a washer and a kettle (items with elements), typical usage after solar is still around 7upd. That's before we get to heating lol, how many units of electric do you recon you need to heat a house using electric even if it is helped with solar :eek:

Of course any such scheme would help but it would not cover the housholds so forget about spare generation or industry.

We need a clean cheap power source that exists already the answer is gas we just need to push on with fracking.

With solar there would be (and are) many net suppliers into the grid especially those properties without families and those at work.

Without FITs they don't wash their face on cost grounds for retro fit.

I have considered it but ruled it out for two main reasons.

1.) Cosmetically it would look awful where we currently live. I have seen some slimmer much blacker panels that may be acceptable but no doubt the cost wouldn't be.

2.) I am not sure we will stay here long term, I am not convinced I could recover the costs on sale and it may put some buyers off, cosmetically and with ongoing maintenance.

P.S. Have you got shares in fracking?

sheffield_lad

grizzly1911 wrote: »

With solar there would be (and are) many net suppliers into the grid especially those properties without families and those at work.

Without FITs they don't wash their face on cost grounds for retro fit.

I have considered it but ruled it out for two main reasons.

1.) Cosmetically it would look awful where we currently live. I have seen some slimmer much blacker panels that may be acceptable but no doubt the cost wouldn't be.

2.) I am not sure we will stay here long term, I am not convinced I could recover the costs on sale and it may put some buyers off, cosmetically and with ongoing maintenance.

P.S. Have you got shares in fracking?

Err nope lol, but I would look at some if an AIM junior started to frack!

Agree with solar but its just a small part of the greater mix, folk thinking they could heat their home using solar is fairytale stuff no matter how big the installation is.

I was going to have solar last year, got the quote £6k 2.4kw and would have recovered the cost in 7yrs but I could not justify sticking £6K on the roof, its currently in shares, the difference being if I need it it's there.