Energy news in general

MattMattMattUK

Scot_39 said:

@ MattMattMattUK

This is not an environmental debating forum - this is a forum about energy - and as its hosted by MSE - about energy costs.

So then why are you bringing your climate change denial beliefs to the forum?

booneruk

Aaaaaanyway

I listened into this last night (and couldn't help but think of this thread while doing so). It was very interesting and contained some (well, what appeared to me anyway) joined up thinking on the direction we could, and probably should take with renewables, home infrastructure and the grid (and it all saves money in the end)

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-15093011/Interview-Listen-Octopus-boss-Greg-Jackson-discuss-bring-bills-down.html

Also available on Spotify  (and no doubt other podcast platforms)
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2JKgXsJErNFn9DxWlzV3PN?si=ZxhPBfnATz6TvfP3hQ_RCw

MattMattMattUK

Scot_39 said:

And just for balance on costs

Whether some here like it or not - for all of those basking in savings from more flexible tariffs like agile or say SMART TOU, for everyone gaining - others - millions of others are paying more - possibly even 10+ millions in fact.

Other consumers are not losing out, it is not a zero sum game for consumers. ToU tariffs allow suppliers to purchase cheaper generation at times when there is an excess, rather than the grid pay curtailment payments (something you regularly complain about), and sell that to consumers at a lower price, that does not mean that other pay more, they may indeed also pay less due to reduced curtailment payments. The rate paid for the others is based on the overall grid usage and the price as usually fixed by gas generations costs, as you well know. 

Scot_39 said:

By Ofgem's estimate as of Oct last year 26m went to SVT tariffs - so at one stage at least for part of the year - upto 90% of households - more likely closer to half allowinf for duel fuel homes - were on SVT tariffs and 7m - more likely closer to half homes - on or been on fixes (the wording needs some thought - I didnt read it thew way google AI when searched Ofgem site for:-

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/press-release/energy-price-cap-will-rise-12-january

The fix level is increasing - upto 20m (min 10m if all DF) had or have fix contracts upto this cap announcement

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/press-release/energy-price-cap-will-rise-2-percent-october

But of course fixes reflect current levies and network costs at the time entered - they only delay rises and for some with exit fees even moderate falls if they happen - and the rises - like Octs £35 net, £51 policy -  likely to be there come renewal time.

I am really not sure what that adds, you seem to do this quite a lot, post walls of text, links to sites, but none of it actually supports your point. 

Scot_39 said:

Of course some can still save - by cutting use - by time shifting if multirate - by taking part in demand price management - or by investing in technology.

But as to how many have, will do or even can ?

Most can, nearly all can, over time most will, so far around 8-9% have. 

JKenH

MattMattMattUK said:

JKenH said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Scot_39 said:

QrizB said:

Scot_39 said:

And thats still the problem with far too many green initiatives.
Putting low carbon above low energy prices.

Low carbon, however, is more important than low prices and should be above it.

That's the international political and scientific consensus.

For literally millions of ordinary folk they simply cannot afford tbe costs of such lofty concerns.

They can, the long term cost will far outstrip any short term saving.

Scot_39 said:

For the rich libral elites dragging us down that path maybe. MPs, highly paid advisors and of course ministers  c150k plus expenses can probably afford double or treble even current bills to match their eco beliefs / credentials.

Anyone who starts out banging on about "liberal elites" or variants of that has already lost the argument. Many already will have, solar panels, batteries, heat pumps, etc. Up front cost for long term saving. 

Scot_39 said:

Someone living alone on £12k pension credit, £25k minimum wage or even potentially less in adult means tested benefits, including all too often a rent offset that undercontributes and so eats into other funds cannot.


So for the poor unable to heat their homes and even feed themselves adequately a lot less so.

Even those on moderate incomes are struggling.

They generally are not, they are just prioritising other things, the prioritise fast fashion, new cars on finance, holidays, smoking etc.

I have looked at what benefits pay, I could survive on those and still have money to spare, eg. rent paid, other benefits to live off, I would have to be careful, but it would certainly be doable. I would rather not live on benefits, which is why I do what I do, it is also why I feel that disabled people should be supported more, because disabled people have no choice about being disabled. 

Scot_39 said:

This isnt about whether climate change is real or even as 67m in 8bn global and growing we can meaningfully influence it - it is about who pays - and who doesnt - as can afford to buy their way out of it.

We can meaningfully influence it, sure we cannot fix it on our own, but even the biggest emitters cannot do that, we all need to cut down, it does not work if only some people bother because they claim it is too hard.

Scot_39 said:

Even if in one such recent thread OPs opinion £3k is not a lot - I suggest those already using food banks - 2.8m did so in 23/24 ,

Food bank use tells us very little about anything other than how many people use food banks. I used to help out in one, I helped people with budgeting as well. Many people did not want help budgeting, they were happy with the "free" food provided, they could afford to buy food, but they prioritised other things such as cigarettes, streaming, alcohol, entertainment etc. because they had no alternatives for those things, but could get free food in the food banks. Those who genuinely needed help were mostly people with disabilities who not only had limitations on what they could do work wise, but often faced additional costs from their disability, they could not make their budget balance no matter how much they cut back because their essential outgoings exceeded their income.

Scot_39 said:
the nearly 2m homes in electric debt repayment or 91 day arrears in Ofgems Q1 2025 update - already £100s if not £1000s when add in gas  behind on payments - would strongly disagree.

Again a meaningless statistic, it does not tell us why they are in arrears, it does not tell us if they can afford to pay, it just tells us that they have not.

Scot_39 said:

Their was in Ofgems last update £4.15bn owed to energy companies - debt repayment plan and 91d arrears - and when all drbt costs lumped together - added up to £50 in April cap to pay for that too. 
With green costs and levies - including policy costs - and taxes - adding literally £100s to our bills - you have to wonder how much lower both those figures could be without them.

The issue is energy suppliers are not allowed to effectively recover debts, they are not allowed to cut off non-payers, many people know that they can choose not to pay, move house and disappear.

Scot_39 said:

As to climate opinions.  Well those are perhaps shifting against the orthodoxy.

There are now as of recent yougov polls c10% fewer  people in the UK who believe climate change is not being exagerated. 

High energy prices are IMO potentially helping drive what you might think of cynicism.

Another 10% shift - and the rapid rises forecast in balancing and curtailment are likely to accelerate such concerns IMO - and that may soon become tge majority view.

So what you have established is that greater than 90% of people lack the intellect to understand climate science, or choose to believe populist opportunists over actual scientists. Again, that proves nothing about climate change, it just evidences that there are a lot of stupid people.

Scot_39 said:

And its certainly being played to great effect by one populist party - leading currently by a massive margin in the polls.   It can be dangerous to presume too much about ordinary voters beliefs in your beliefs,  2016 vote and 2019 vote distributions shows what happens when you do.

Populists will say anything, promise anything, lie about anything to get elected, it is what they do, unfortunately we allow gullible people to vote.

Scot_39 said:

Energy bills for the poor should not IMO be carrying the can under any just system of transition.

The idea of a claim of a "just" transition is farcical, we should all carry the cost of fixing the problem, not just "someone else".

Scot_39 said:

Green leadership of old stood up boldly for supporting the transition via progressive taxation.

Aggressively progressive taxation does not generally work, as evidenced by all the countries who make taxation work properly, such as Scandinavia. If green parties concentrated more on green issues, rather than petty squabbling over identity politics and economic illiteracy. 

Scot_39 said:

I may not have voted for them - but at least they recognised the poor and many working class earners even above median salaries - weren't going to be able to afford it on their own.  And last year c2m - 6.7% did.

I would not vote for them because they are not a green party, they are a hard left party obsessed with identity politics and their proposals are economically illiterate. I would vote for a genuine environmental party proposing tax reform and overall tax increases, something on the Scandinavian model would be ideal, but instead we will get more short termism. 

So what you have established is that greater than 90% of people lack the intellect to understand climate science, or choose to believe populist opportunists over actual scientists. Again, that proves nothing about climate change, it just evidences that there are a lot of stupid people. 

Populists will say anything, promise anything, lie about anything to get elected, it is what they do, unfortunately we allow gullible people to vote.

Those sentiments sound as though they come straight from the liberal elites that you don’t want us to mention.

People who bang on about "liberal elites", "elites", and other such terms are generally of a certain persuasion, mostly lacking any element of critical thinking.

JKenH said:

Getting back on topic there are numerous voices in industry calling for a more balanced approach to energy policy rather than putting all our eggs in the Renewables basket. It makes little sense to ignore our own offshore oil and gas - yes the price, and hence cost to the consumer, is driven by international energy markets - current policy ignores the tax, foreign exchange and employment benefits of continuing to utilise our own fossil fuel resources. 

I am not proposing "putting all our eggs in the renewables basket", that is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said so you can create a straw man. I am a huge proponent of nuclear, I am in favour of a managed transition away from fossil fuels, I also recognise that we need to move to a net zero position, not just abandon it and be a climate change denier. Additionally, even if one is a conspiracy theorist and has decided to believe climate denial theories there is still a huge reason to transition away from fossil fuels and that is energy security, with large scale nuclear and renewable energy generation we could be independent of global energy price fluctuations, we could be independent of needing to import energy, it would ensure security if supply, as well as being better for the environment. 

JKenH said:

Fine, you may not agree, but it is still a valid point of view and we should not dismiss those who support continuing to exploit our existing resources to varying degrees as being stupid. We all have different priorities and each of us is entitled to our own point of view and to express it whether on social media or at the ballot box. 

Just to be clear, climate change denial is not a valid point of view and those who believe in that conspiracy theory are stupid. The scientific evidence is overwhelming, amongst scientists, rather than populists and conspiracy theorists masquerading as scientists, the matter is as settled as anything can be. People are entitled to hold a stupid point of view, it does not stop that point of view being stupid, it does not mean that others cannot point that out. 

Why do you insist on linking anyone who suggests we retain an element of fossil fuel use with climate denial and conspiracy theories and call that point of view stupid? This sense of superiority of those who believe their point of view trounces all others is the reason society is in the mess it is today. Maybe you should try and understand why others might hold an alternative point of view rather than just calling them stupid. Their priorities may simply be different to yours.

Phones4Chris

MattMattMattUK said:

Just to be clear, climate change denial is not a valid point of view and those who believe in that conspiracy theory are stupid. The scientific evidence is overwhelming, amongst scientists, rather than populists and conspiracy theorists masquerading as scientists, the matter is as settled as anything can be. People are entitled to hold a stupid point of view, it does not stop that point of view being stupid, it does not mean that others cannot point that out. 

I'm not going to try and wade through everything that's been said here, but I've noted, not only in this thread, but elsewhere, there are replies from you that are extremely rude, you need to reign it in a bit. Just because people have a different point of view to you doesn't make them stupid!
Whilst there's clear evidence that there is climate change, there is NOT clear evidence about the fundamental cause, is it man made or natural, there are disagreements amongst experts. There is change and we need to deal with it!
I've no intention of commenting further about any of this atm. Later I'm going to check out those podcasts mentioned in the posts before this one and may return to comment then.

MattMattMattUK

JKenH said:

MattMattMattUK said:

JKenH said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Scot_39 said:

QrizB said:

Scot_39 said:

And thats still the problem with far too many green initiatives.
Putting low carbon above low energy prices.

Low carbon, however, is more important than low prices and should be above it.

That's the international political and scientific consensus.

For literally millions of ordinary folk they simply cannot afford tbe costs of such lofty concerns.

They can, the long term cost will far outstrip any short term saving.

Scot_39 said:

For the rich libral elites dragging us down that path maybe. MPs, highly paid advisors and of course ministers  c150k plus expenses can probably afford double or treble even current bills to match their eco beliefs / credentials.

Anyone who starts out banging on about "liberal elites" or variants of that has already lost the argument. Many already will have, solar panels, batteries, heat pumps, etc. Up front cost for long term saving. 

Scot_39 said:

Someone living alone on £12k pension credit, £25k minimum wage or even potentially less in adult means tested benefits, including all too often a rent offset that undercontributes and so eats into other funds cannot.


So for the poor unable to heat their homes and even feed themselves adequately a lot less so.

Even those on moderate incomes are struggling.

They generally are not, they are just prioritising other things, the prioritise fast fashion, new cars on finance, holidays, smoking etc.

I have looked at what benefits pay, I could survive on those and still have money to spare, eg. rent paid, other benefits to live off, I would have to be careful, but it would certainly be doable. I would rather not live on benefits, which is why I do what I do, it is also why I feel that disabled people should be supported more, because disabled people have no choice about being disabled. 

Scot_39 said:

This isnt about whether climate change is real or even as 67m in 8bn global and growing we can meaningfully influence it - it is about who pays - and who doesnt - as can afford to buy their way out of it.

We can meaningfully influence it, sure we cannot fix it on our own, but even the biggest emitters cannot do that, we all need to cut down, it does not work if only some people bother because they claim it is too hard.

Scot_39 said:

Even if in one such recent thread OPs opinion £3k is not a lot - I suggest those already using food banks - 2.8m did so in 23/24 ,

Food bank use tells us very little about anything other than how many people use food banks. I used to help out in one, I helped people with budgeting as well. Many people did not want help budgeting, they were happy with the "free" food provided, they could afford to buy food, but they prioritised other things such as cigarettes, streaming, alcohol, entertainment etc. because they had no alternatives for those things, but could get free food in the food banks. Those who genuinely needed help were mostly people with disabilities who not only had limitations on what they could do work wise, but often faced additional costs from their disability, they could not make their budget balance no matter how much they cut back because their essential outgoings exceeded their income.

Scot_39 said:
the nearly 2m homes in electric debt repayment or 91 day arrears in Ofgems Q1 2025 update - already £100s if not £1000s when add in gas  behind on payments - would strongly disagree.

Again a meaningless statistic, it does not tell us why they are in arrears, it does not tell us if they can afford to pay, it just tells us that they have not.

Scot_39 said:

Their was in Ofgems last update £4.15bn owed to energy companies - debt repayment plan and 91d arrears - and when all drbt costs lumped together - added up to £50 in April cap to pay for that too. 
With green costs and levies - including policy costs - and taxes - adding literally £100s to our bills - you have to wonder how much lower both those figures could be without them.

The issue is energy suppliers are not allowed to effectively recover debts, they are not allowed to cut off non-payers, many people know that they can choose not to pay, move house and disappear.

Scot_39 said:

As to climate opinions.  Well those are perhaps shifting against the orthodoxy.

There are now as of recent yougov polls c10% fewer  people in the UK who believe climate change is not being exagerated. 

High energy prices are IMO potentially helping drive what you might think of cynicism.

Another 10% shift - and the rapid rises forecast in balancing and curtailment are likely to accelerate such concerns IMO - and that may soon become tge majority view.

So what you have established is that greater than 90% of people lack the intellect to understand climate science, or choose to believe populist opportunists over actual scientists. Again, that proves nothing about climate change, it just evidences that there are a lot of stupid people.

Scot_39 said:

And its certainly being played to great effect by one populist party - leading currently by a massive margin in the polls.   It can be dangerous to presume too much about ordinary voters beliefs in your beliefs,  2016 vote and 2019 vote distributions shows what happens when you do.

Populists will say anything, promise anything, lie about anything to get elected, it is what they do, unfortunately we allow gullible people to vote.

Scot_39 said:

Energy bills for the poor should not IMO be carrying the can under any just system of transition.

The idea of a claim of a "just" transition is farcical, we should all carry the cost of fixing the problem, not just "someone else".

Scot_39 said:

Green leadership of old stood up boldly for supporting the transition via progressive taxation.

Aggressively progressive taxation does not generally work, as evidenced by all the countries who make taxation work properly, such as Scandinavia. If green parties concentrated more on green issues, rather than petty squabbling over identity politics and economic illiteracy. 

Scot_39 said:

I may not have voted for them - but at least they recognised the poor and many working class earners even above median salaries - weren't going to be able to afford it on their own.  And last year c2m - 6.7% did.

I would not vote for them because they are not a green party, they are a hard left party obsessed with identity politics and their proposals are economically illiterate. I would vote for a genuine environmental party proposing tax reform and overall tax increases, something on the Scandinavian model would be ideal, but instead we will get more short termism. 

So what you have established is that greater than 90% of people lack the intellect to understand climate science, or choose to believe populist opportunists over actual scientists. Again, that proves nothing about climate change, it just evidences that there are a lot of stupid people. 

Populists will say anything, promise anything, lie about anything to get elected, it is what they do, unfortunately we allow gullible people to vote.

Those sentiments sound as though they come straight from the liberal elites that you don’t want us to mention.

People who bang on about "liberal elites", "elites", and other such terms are generally of a certain persuasion, mostly lacking any element of critical thinking.

JKenH said:

Getting back on topic there are numerous voices in industry calling for a more balanced approach to energy policy rather than putting all our eggs in the Renewables basket. It makes little sense to ignore our own offshore oil and gas - yes the price, and hence cost to the consumer, is driven by international energy markets - current policy ignores the tax, foreign exchange and employment benefits of continuing to utilise our own fossil fuel resources. 

I am not proposing "putting all our eggs in the renewables basket", that is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said so you can create a straw man. I am a huge proponent of nuclear, I am in favour of a managed transition away from fossil fuels, I also recognise that we need to move to a net zero position, not just abandon it and be a climate change denier. Additionally, even if one is a conspiracy theorist and has decided to believe climate denial theories there is still a huge reason to transition away from fossil fuels and that is energy security, with large scale nuclear and renewable energy generation we could be independent of global energy price fluctuations, we could be independent of needing to import energy, it would ensure security if supply, as well as being better for the environment. 

JKenH said:

Fine, you may not agree, but it is still a valid point of view and we should not dismiss those who support continuing to exploit our existing resources to varying degrees as being stupid. We all have different priorities and each of us is entitled to our own point of view and to express it whether on social media or at the ballot box. 

Just to be clear, climate change denial is not a valid point of view and those who believe in that conspiracy theory are stupid. The scientific evidence is overwhelming, amongst scientists, rather than populists and conspiracy theorists masquerading as scientists, the matter is as settled as anything can be. People are entitled to hold a stupid point of view, it does not stop that point of view being stupid, it does not mean that others cannot point that out. 

Why do you insist on linking anyone who suggests we retain an element of fossil fuel use with climate denial and conspiracy theories and call that point of view stupid?

The original reply was relating to a comment where Scot was proposing "abandoning net zero" and giving up on transitioning away from anything other than fossil fuels, so again, another straw man. There is no realistic prospect of tackling climate change and retaining long term usage of fossil fuels, there can be a valid discussion about the pace of that transition, e.g. those proposing it can happen by the end of the decade are as deluded as those who think we can use significant amounts of fossil fuels up until the end of the century. 

JKenH said:
This sense of superiority of those who believe their point of view trounces all others is the reason society is in the mess it is today.

It's not about superiority, it is about rationality. So far everyone on here arguing against net zero has displayed a believe in climate change denial, none of them are talking about a managed transition, they are talking about stopping building renewables and increasing fossil fuel use, that is not rational. 

JKenH said:
Their priorities may simply be different to yours.

Their priorities seem to be kick the can down the road and hope someone else will deal with it in the future, or just pretend it is not real. Just to be clear, there are rational discussions to be had about the pace of transition, about how that is funded, about the different technologies used etc. but there is no rational discussion to be had about climate change denial, that is not about priorities, that is a conspiracy theory. 

booneruk

Phones4Chris said:

there's clear evidence that there is climate change, there is NOT clear evidence about the fundamental cause, is it man made or natural, there are disagreements amongst experts. 

The only experts we should be listening to are proper scientists, and they're in vast agreement that it is man made.

I'd rather we prepare ourselves for a fossil fuel free future, doing so should be sensible even to those who deny man made climate change.

Of course, those who throw in words like climate-scam aren't worth listening to in any debate.

MattMattMattUK

Phones4Chris said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Just to be clear, climate change denial is not a valid point of view and those who believe in that conspiracy theory are stupid. The scientific evidence is overwhelming, amongst scientists, rather than populists and conspiracy theorists masquerading as scientists, the matter is as settled as anything can be. People are entitled to hold a stupid point of view, it does not stop that point of view being stupid, it does not mean that others cannot point that out. 

I'm not going to try and wade through everything that's been said here, but I've noted, not only in this thread, but elsewhere, there are replies from you that are extremely rude, you need to reign it in a bit. Just because people have a different point of view to you doesn't make them stupid!
Whilst there's clear evidence that there is climate change, there is NOT clear evidence about the fundamental cause, is it man made or natural, there are disagreements amongst experts. There is change and we need to deal with it!
I've no intention of commenting further about any of this atm. Later I'm going to check out those podcasts mentioned in the posts before this one and may return to comment then.

There is clear evidence, overwhelming evidence, that climate change is manmade. There is not disagreement amongst experts or scientists, the only people disagreeing are conspiracy theorists or disagreeing for political gain. 

It is not about a different point of view, the difference is between rational people and conspiracy theorists. 

mmmmikey

victor2 said:

MSE_ForumTeam5 said:

We've removed some posts from this thread. A gentle reminder, please, to keep to the MoneySaving aspects of energy news in this thread, rather than politics and geopolitics.

Above is from last June. 

Politics does inevitably come into this thread, but once again the MoneySaving aspects are being replaced by a discussion not really suited to this environment. Just my opinion of course.

Hi - I've been outside in the "offline" world for a bit. I'm wondering what your thoughts are as an ambassador on how successful we're being at keeping to the MoneySaving aspects of energy news in this thread, rather than politics and geopolitics?

debitcardmayhem

mmmmikey said:

victor2 said:

MSE_ForumTeam5 said:

We've removed some posts from this thread. A gentle reminder, please, to keep to the MoneySaving aspects of energy news in this thread, rather than politics and geopolitics.

Above is from last June. 

Politics does inevitably come into this thread, but once again the MoneySaving aspects are being replaced by a discussion not really suited to this environment. Just my opinion of course.

Hi - I've been outside in the "offline" world for a bit. As an Ambassador, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on how successful we're being at keeping to the MoneySaving aspects of energy news in this thread, rather than politics and geopolitics?

Sadly most news is not Money saving per se, a lot is driving it in the opposite of saving. Mind you Mandelson was an ambassador 😂