Warning that energy prices will rise

Harry_Boyle

wotsthat wrote: »

...and those people who are constantly surprised by rises are always telling us that it can only get worse.

However, woe betide anyone that suggests monitoring energy use with the aim of reducing bills or, worse, insulation. It's bizarre because I think these people spend a bigger proportion of income on utilities than those advocating making savings.

The whole 'there is nothing we can do' attitude on here from some posters is pretty dismal. I go on a few 'green' forums and there are loads of people, many with little or no money, who are doing everything they can to install insulation and more efficient lights, boilers, stoves, white goods, etc.

They do this not just for economic reasons but also to do their bit for the environment. With lots of grants and subsidies available there is no excuse for people to just sit back and do nothing other than complain on internet forums.

Thrugelmir

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I think the time has come to start rewarding those , who have taken measures to reduce consumption through insulation, boilers etc positively. Reduced tariffs perhaps?

My reward is reducing my outgoings. Incentive enough.

Harry_Boyle

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My reward is reducing my outgoings. Incentive enough.

The warm glow that comes from a mixture of warm house, reduced costs and lower carbon emissions. What more could you ask for .

A._Badger

Harry_Boyle wrote: »

The warm glow that comes from a mixture of warm house, reduced costs and lower carbon emissions. What more could you ask for .

How about sufficient intelligence to realise when you're being taken for a ride?

Harry_Boyle

A._Badger wrote: »

How about sufficient intelligence to realise when you're being taken for a ride?

Who do you feel is taking you for a ride?

chewmylegoff

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I think the time has come to start rewarding those , who have taken measures to reduce consumption through insulation, boilers etc positively. Reduced tariffs perhaps?

They are rewarded; their bills are lower. Surely that's the point of doing it in the first place? What we certainly don't need is the muppetry around e.g. Solar Panels where the government (i.e. all taxpayers) is paying people an income (i.e. a premium to the actual value of the electricity they are producing) to have a solar panel stuck on their house.

Harry_Boyle

chewmylegoff wrote: »

They are rewarded; their bills are lower. Surely that's the point of doing it in the first place? What we certainly don't need is the muppetry around e.g. Solar Panels where the government (i.e. all taxpayers) is paying people an income (i.e. a premium to the actual value of the electricity they are producing) to have a solar panel stuck on their house.

The number of solar panels you see in nice middle class areas, paid for by the rest of us including the lower paid is maddening. To be fair, it was a Labour initiative and the Lib/Cons tried to reduce the subsidy ASAP.

If people want solar in order to reduce their electricity bills and to reduce their carbon footprint, then they should be prepared to pay for it themselves. If the payback is too long then perhaps they would be better off by spending the money to reduce their useage with more efficient electrical devices.

People seem to be installing these green technologies as a first resort, rather than doing everything they can to upgrade their houses. I've lost count of the number of times I've read posts on Green forums where someone has installed an ASHP and is moaning about the cost of electricity, mainly because they didn't make the house as air tight and as insulated as they could prior to fitting the 'sexy' technology.

Generali

Solar is great in Aus and is worth a small subsidy for, despite my general opposition to subsidies.

The reason? When it's sizzling hot and the sun is boiling away in the sky, everyone turns the air con on full. That coincides with peak solar panel output.

In theory it would be possible for Aus to operate by solar alone, with the energy being stored into the night by melting salt. I doubt the same is possible in Manchester or Exeter.

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

They are rewarded; their bills are lower. Surely that's the point of doing it in the first place? What we certainly don't need is the muppetry around e.g. Solar Panels where the government (i.e. all taxpayers) is paying people an income (i.e. a premium to the actual value of the electricity they are producing) to have a solar panel stuck on their house.

Not really because the unit price still goes up.

Arguably as the demand "drops" producers have to increase price to some degree to maintain profitability to cover overgheads regardless of the raw commodity .

If you drive apolluting car you pay more, via fuel and VED.

If I have made apositive effort to reduce my footprint I shouldn't be penalised because others don't.

Solar panel subsidies and the rush by people to get them is a joke in this country.