Cost of energy per day

SnakePlissken

Dolor said:

SnakePlissken said:

If everything had not been privatised we would see cheaper energy today.

I would be interested in understanding your rationale for making such a statement. One of the key reasons why we are in the situation that we are in is because of short-term Government decision making on such things as investment in nuclear power; energy storage etc. The international markets decide the price of energy. The companies that drill for gas etc are now international companies (yes, even BP) who will direct supply to those who will pay the most. How would this change with PowerUK?

PS: if you think that the NHS is primes inter pares when it comes to health care, you clearly haven’t been a inpatient in a NHS Hospital recently. 

As I said other countries tax energy producers with a windfall tax, UK can easily do this.

And Englands issues are not investing in onshore wind and other renewable technologies. And barfing carbon capture schemes, which would have helped.

Why do you so many people follow the UK gov line here, its astounding, your either well programmed by media or have vested interests


Ps (not sure what primes inter pares means, is it  a new Amazon service?) But i have a far better understanding of the NHS than you ever will have in your lifetime!

[Deleted User]

SnakePlissken said:

Dolor said:

SnakePlissken said:

If everything had not been privatised we would see cheaper energy today.

I would be interested in understanding your rationale for making such a statement. One of the key reasons why we are in the situation that we are in is because of short-term Government decision making on such things as investment in nuclear power; energy storage etc. The international markets decide the price of energy. The companies that drill for gas etc are now international companies (yes, even BP) who will direct supply to those who will pay the most. How would this change with PowerUK?

PS: if you think that the NHS is primes inter pares when it comes to health care, you clearly haven’t been a inpatient in a NHS Hospital recently. 

As I said other countries tax energy producers with a windfall tax, UK can easily do this.

And Englands issues are not investing in onshore wind and other renewable technologies. And barfing carbon capture schemes, which would have helped.

Why do you so many people follow the UK gov line here, its astounding, your either well programmed by media or have vested interests


Ps (not sure what primes inter pares means, is it  a new Amazon service?) But i have a far better understanding of the NHS than you ever will have in your lifetime!

Windfall tax has nothing to do with supplier privatisation. It is a Government decision whether or not and when to impose taxes.

Agreed, the political short-term nature of our Parliamentary system works against investments in projects where the benefit is realised many years into the future. Again nothing to do with the nationalisation of energy suppliers.

I declare a personal interest in our Government. I am a voter!

’Primes Inter Pares’ means first amongst equals.

We are all waiting to know why you think that a national energy supplier is the way forward?

SnakePlissken

Dolor said:

SnakePlissken said:

Dolor said:

SnakePlissken said:

If everything had not been privatised we would see cheaper energy today.

I would be interested in understanding your rationale for making such a statement. One of the key reasons why we are in the situation that we are in is because of short-term Government decision making on such things as investment in nuclear power; energy storage etc. The international markets decide the price of energy. The companies that drill for gas etc are now international companies (yes, even BP) who will direct supply to those who will pay the most. How would this change with PowerUK?

PS: if you think that the NHS is primes inter pares when it comes to health care, you clearly haven’t been a inpatient in a NHS Hospital recently. 

As I said other countries tax energy producers with a windfall tax, UK can easily do this.

And Englands issues are not investing in onshore wind and other renewable technologies. And barfing carbon capture schemes, which would have helped.

Why do you so many people follow the UK gov line here, its astounding, your either well programmed by media or have vested interests


Ps (not sure what primes inter pares means, is it  a new Amazon service?) But i have a far better understanding of the NHS than you ever will have in your lifetime!

Windfall tax has nothing to do with supplier privatisation. It is a Government decision whether or not and when to impose taxes.

Agreed, the political short-term nature of our Parliamentary system works against investments in projects where the benefit is realised many years into the future. Again nothing to do with the nationalisation of energy suppliers.

I declare a personal interest in our Government. I am a voter!

’Primes Inter Pares’ means first amongst equals.

We are all waiting to know why you think that a national energy supplier is the way forward?

We can look at the contrast between state owned and privatised water industry as a comparison.

In England water was privatised, whilst in Scotland it remains in public ownership as a stand alone
statutory  corporation. Which outperforms others 
Scottish water outperforms english companies in performance and cost of water, where it remains unmetered

https://wics.scot/publications/scottish-water/performance/scottish-water-performance-report-2020-21



This model is used in nordic countries who have a mix of private and state companies.

In fact labour policy is to have a new state owned electricity company in England.

A state owned company has no share holders and profits can be plowed back in to service improvement, upgrading of infrastructure, etc.


But any state owned company should be run as a stand alone enterprises where government is not involved in day to day management, but sets strategic goals for company.
How they achieve it is up to the management of the company.

And companies should not be used as cash cows for governments, but rather any profits are reinvested in the company.


There are exceptions to this with Norways oil and gas ownership, where the massive global profits are put into a government soveriegn  investment fund for good of country. Which at 1.2 trillion is the largest such fund in the world.

And how can you tell if electricity was still state owned it would not have had investment in new generation?  Is yer name nostradamous or do you have access to the multiverse in some way?

Mstty

SnakePlissken said:

Dolor said:

SnakePlissken said:

Dolor said:

SnakePlissken said:

If everything had not been privatised we would see cheaper energy today.

I would be interested in understanding your rationale for making such a statement. One of the key reasons why we are in the situation that we are in is because of short-term Government decision making on such things as investment in nuclear power; energy storage etc. The international markets decide the price of energy. The companies that drill for gas etc are now international companies (yes, even BP) who will direct supply to those who will pay the most. How would this change with PowerUK?

PS: if you think that the NHS is primes inter pares when it comes to health care, you clearly haven’t been a inpatient in a NHS Hospital recently. 

As I said other countries tax energy producers with a windfall tax, UK can easily do this.

And Englands issues are not investing in onshore wind and other renewable technologies. And barfing carbon capture schemes, which would have helped.

Why do you so many people follow the UK gov line here, its astounding, your either well programmed by media or have vested interests


Ps (not sure what primes inter pares means, is it  a new Amazon service?) But i have a far better understanding of the NHS than you ever will have in your lifetime!

Windfall tax has nothing to do with supplier privatisation. It is a Government decision whether or not and when to impose taxes.

Agreed, the political short-term nature of our Parliamentary system works against investments in projects where the benefit is realised many years into the future. Again nothing to do with the nationalisation of energy suppliers.

I declare a personal interest in our Government. I am a voter!

’Primes Inter Pares’ means first amongst equals.

We are all waiting to know why you think that a national energy supplier is the way forward?

We can look at the contrast between state owned and privatised water industry as a comparison.

In England water was privatised, whilst in Scotland it remains in public ownership as a stand alone
statutory  corporation. Which outperforms others 
Scottish water outperforms english companies in performance and cost of water, where it remains unmetered

https://wics.scot/publications/scottish-water/performance/scottish-water-performance-report-2020-21



This model is used in nordic countries who have a mix of private and state companies.

In fact labour policy is to have a new state owned electricity company in England.

A state owned company has no share holders and profits can be plowed back in to service improvement, upgrading of infrastructure, etc.


But any state owned company should be run as a stand alone enterprises where government is not involved in day to day management, but sets strategic goals for company.
How they achieve it is up to the management of the company.

And companies should not be used as cash cows for governments, but rather any profits are reinvested in the company.


There are exceptions to this with Norways oil and gas ownership, where the massive global profits are put into a government soveriegn  investment fund for good of country. Which at 1.2 trillion is the largest such fund in the world.

And how can you tell if electricity was still state owned it would not have had investment in new generation?  Is yer name nostradamous or do you have access to the multiverse in some way?

I suspect that plan would only have saved us the high standing charges cost which incorporates all those failed small energy chancer companies(I was a customer of symbio lol)

It wouldn't have shielded anyone from the increasing energy costs as we don't produce enough energy on this small island to run it. So we have to buy with everyone else and we have all decided to support the Ukraine.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but looking at energy prices across Europe based on incomes. With the government helping are we paying more or about the same?

jimjames

We have solar but generation this time of year is generally very low. Yesterday and today are exceptions though with over 8kWh produced, very sunny and cold are ideal conditions even if the day length doesn't allow as much generation as summer.

No smart meter but on my own tracking we've spent over £220 so far this month for gas and electric but it's quite a large house and not heated too warm - generally maximum is 18.5C and drops overnight when heating off. Fortunately south facing so is currently warming up without heating being on but is still under 17C

SnakePlissken

Mstty said:

SnakePlissken said:

Dolor said:

SnakePlissken said:

Dolor said:

SnakePlissken said:

If everything had not been privatised we would see cheaper energy today.

I would be interested in understanding your rationale for making such a statement. One of the key reasons why we are in the situation that we are in is because of short-term Government decision making on such things as investment in nuclear power; energy storage etc. The international markets decide the price of energy. The companies that drill for gas etc are now international companies (yes, even BP) who will direct supply to those who will pay the most. How would this change with PowerUK?

PS: if you think that the NHS is primes inter pares when it comes to health care, you clearly haven’t been a inpatient in a NHS Hospital recently. 

As I said other countries tax energy producers with a windfall tax, UK can easily do this.

And Englands issues are not investing in onshore wind and other renewable technologies. And barfing carbon capture schemes, which would have helped.

Why do you so many people follow the UK gov line here, its astounding, your either well programmed by media or have vested interests


Ps (not sure what primes inter pares means, is it  a new Amazon service?) But i have a far better understanding of the NHS than you ever will have in your lifetime!

Windfall tax has nothing to do with supplier privatisation. It is a Government decision whether or not and when to impose taxes.

Agreed, the political short-term nature of our Parliamentary system works against investments in projects where the benefit is realised many years into the future. Again nothing to do with the nationalisation of energy suppliers.

I declare a personal interest in our Government. I am a voter!

’Primes Inter Pares’ means first amongst equals.

We are all waiting to know why you think that a national energy supplier is the way forward?

We can look at the contrast between state owned and privatised water industry as a comparison.

In England water was privatised, whilst in Scotland it remains in public ownership as a stand alone
statutory  corporation. Which outperforms others 
Scottish water outperforms english companies in performance and cost of water, where it remains unmetered

https://wics.scot/publications/scottish-water/performance/scottish-water-performance-report-2020-21



This model is used in nordic countries who have a mix of private and state companies.

In fact labour policy is to have a new state owned electricity company in England.

A state owned company has no share holders and profits can be plowed back in to service improvement, upgrading of infrastructure, etc.


But any state owned company should be run as a stand alone enterprises where government is not involved in day to day management, but sets strategic goals for company.
How they achieve it is up to the management of the company.

And companies should not be used as cash cows for governments, but rather any profits are reinvested in the company.


There are exceptions to this with Norways oil and gas ownership, where the massive global profits are put into a government soveriegn  investment fund for good of country. Which at 1.2 trillion is the largest such fund in the world.

And how can you tell if electricity was still state owned it would not have had investment in new generation?  Is yer name nostradamous or do you have access to the multiverse in some way?

I suspect that plan would only have saved us the high standing charges cost which incorporates all those failed small energy chancer companies(I was a customer of symbio lol)

It wouldn't have shielded anyone from the increasing energy costs as we don't produce enough energy on this small island to run it. So we have to buy with everyone else and we have all decided to support the Ukraine.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but looking at energy prices across Europe based on incomes. With the government helping are we paying more or about the same?

Within Scotland the generation capacity has been greatly increased with another 3rd of generation capacity being added over next few years. With a mix of pumped storage, onshore &  offshore wind and tidal planned. Scotland produces well over 100% of what it requires.

There is nothing to stop England from investing in this apart from the tory government.

In England a political decision was made not just for onshore wind, but also Solar, to not allow planning for new generation.  This would have increased capacity in England and decreased dependancy on gas.

England is currently more reliant on gas and fossil fuel than Scotland is for generation.

Scotland today is using around 15% from gas, whilst England as a whole is 52% and Wales is 75% from gas. With 


The dependancy on gas for generation, is costing more as it is the most expensively generated electricity.

[Deleted User]

SnakePlissken said:

Mstty said:

SnakePlissken said:

Dolor said:

SnakePlissken said:

Dolor said:

SnakePlissken said:

If everything had not been privatised we would see cheaper energy today.

I would be interested in understanding your rationale for making such a statement. One of the key reasons why we are in the situation that we are in is because of short-term Government decision making on such things as investment in nuclear power; energy storage etc. The international markets decide the price of energy. The companies that drill for gas etc are now international companies (yes, even BP) who will direct supply to those who will pay the most. How would this change with PowerUK?

PS: if you think that the NHS is primes inter pares when it comes to health care, you clearly haven’t been a inpatient in a NHS Hospital recently. 

As I said other countries tax energy producers with a windfall tax, UK can easily do this.

And Englands issues are not investing in onshore wind and other renewable technologies. And barfing carbon capture schemes, which would have helped.

Why do you so many people follow the UK gov line here, its astounding, your either well programmed by media or have vested interests


Ps (not sure what primes inter pares means, is it  a new Amazon service?) But i have a far better understanding of the NHS than you ever will have in your lifetime!

Windfall tax has nothing to do with supplier privatisation. It is a Government decision whether or not and when to impose taxes.

Agreed, the political short-term nature of our Parliamentary system works against investments in projects where the benefit is realised many years into the future. Again nothing to do with the nationalisation of energy suppliers.

I declare a personal interest in our Government. I am a voter!

’Primes Inter Pares’ means first amongst equals.

We are all waiting to know why you think that a national energy supplier is the way forward?

We can look at the contrast between state owned and privatised water industry as a comparison.

In England water was privatised, whilst in Scotland it remains in public ownership as a stand alone
statutory  corporation. Which outperforms others 
Scottish water outperforms english companies in performance and cost of water, where it remains unmetered

https://wics.scot/publications/scottish-water/performance/scottish-water-performance-report-2020-21



This model is used in nordic countries who have a mix of private and state companies.

In fact labour policy is to have a new state owned electricity company in England.

A state owned company has no share holders and profits can be plowed back in to service improvement, upgrading of infrastructure, etc.


But any state owned company should be run as a stand alone enterprises where government is not involved in day to day management, but sets strategic goals for company.
How they achieve it is up to the management of the company.

And companies should not be used as cash cows for governments, but rather any profits are reinvested in the company.


There are exceptions to this with Norways oil and gas ownership, where the massive global profits are put into a government soveriegn  investment fund for good of country. Which at 1.2 trillion is the largest such fund in the world.

And how can you tell if electricity was still state owned it would not have had investment in new generation?  Is yer name nostradamous or do you have access to the multiverse in some way?

I suspect that plan would only have saved us the high standing charges cost which incorporates all those failed small energy chancer companies(I was a customer of symbio lol)

It wouldn't have shielded anyone from the increasing energy costs as we don't produce enough energy on this small island to run it. So we have to buy with everyone else and we have all decided to support the Ukraine.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but looking at energy prices across Europe based on incomes. With the government helping are we paying more or about the same?

Within Scotland the generation capacity has been greatly increased with another 3rd of generation capacity being added over next few years. With a mix of pumped storage, onshore &  offshore wind and tidal planned. Scotland produces well over 100% of what it requires.

There is nothing to stop England from investing in this apart from the tory government.

In England a political decision was made not just for onshore wind, but also Solar, to not allow planning for new generation.  This would have increased capacity in England and decreased dependancy on gas.

England is currently more reliant on gas and fossil fuel than Scotland is for generation.

Scotland today is using around 15% from gas, whilst England as a whole is 52% and Wales is 75% from gas. With 


The dependancy on gas for generation, is costing more as it is the most expensively generated electricity.

In a national and integrated system, you can't separate out generation from different countries.  The "green" energy doesn't restrict itself to only going locally.

Gas is not the most expensively generated electricity at the moment.  Both coal and oil are more expensive.

Scotland produces >100% of demand because it is a large country with few people, and most of its generation was part-funded by the UK taxpayer.

Put down your saltire and stop just shouting "evil torys".

EssexHebridean

Magnitio said:

M0KBJ said:

Swipe said: The smokeless fuel I use has doubled in price since this time last year. Stoves will likely be outlawed in a few years so I certainly wouldn't be contemplating installing a stove right now. I haven't lit mine this year yet due to coal costs and certainly don't miss the work.

You may well be right. Friends have just spent >£6000 on new stove and chimney. It will look beautiful but I wonder if they'll be using it regularly in a couple of years.

If we are to reduce co2 emissions and local pollution, then this is definitely not a good idea.

The problem is, we still have a fair bit of U.K. housing stock that is designed to be heated this way - we’re currently considering buying a grade II listed property with a large central fireplace which would heat multiple rooms - indeed, potentially pretty much the whole building. By contrast, much of the rest of our town’s housing doesn’t even have chimneys. The property we’re looking at will be far more “healthy” heated using the fireplace, and as there are relatively few other properties in the town still using that form of heating, the pollution aspect would be relatively minor. 

SnakePlissken said:

keveen said:

Deleted_User said:

Any solutions keveen?  Or are you just going to keep pointing out that prices have gone up, which I'm pretty sure we have all noticed?

It's strange how many people have accepted a new high price norm and seem to think it's OK and affordable! And aren't angry about where their money is going. We must not accept it passively. 

What to do soon is to vote out the idiots and try a new lot (yes possibly the same) who will if we can believe any politician, introduce reforms to the market system. The only power we have is every 5 years and of course making it clear to our MPs that we are not happy with the way things are run. We don't get any benefit from cheap renewables as the price of their electricity is inflated to the highest gas price level that sets the price of electricity. another rigged system. It won't change unless people express their discontent. The They Work for You website is a great easy place to contact your MP. If they think we are happy they won't do anything.
Plus I'm getting a multi-fuel stove for next year...

Agree, we should not accept this as a new normal, just as we will not accept NHS privatisation.

Filling MPs mailboxes to show disatisfaction is a good start and democracy in action.

And the way the energy market works is flawed and needs reformed as its not fit for purpose.
For electricity, yes ukraine affects slightly on gas generation, but renewables & nuclear  are no more expensive to produce than they were before ukraine war started.

SSE offered to have prices well  below cap on renewables, but regulator/UK gov appear to be dragging their feet on this.

If everything had not been privatised we would see cheaper energy today.
A windfall tax should be applied, similarly to what EU is doing.

As nobody is proposing NHS privatisation, there is nothing to “accept” or otherwise, there.

Making structured complaints to MPs about specific issues is indeed a great way of seeing action - at least for those of us who are fortunate enough to have excellent local MPs. “Filling their mailboxes” with spurious objections to things that have already been explained at length however, les so - that simply reduces their time available for the areas where it would be better used, IMO. 

As a Nation we currently do not produce enough energy by means of renewables to fulfil our needs. We could rely on renewables, and at a cheaper price, but how would you feel when you got home from work in the temperatures we are seeing currently to find that you couldn’t turn on the heating, or even a light, cook a meal or make a hot drink, far less settle down with the computer to write a letter of protest to your MP, as the energy supplies for the day from our own production had run out some hours earlier for that day? That’s the reality - it might well be cheaper if we were entirely “in house” but there wouldn’t be sufficient to go round. 

Dolor has already question your point about cheaper energy if the industry hadn’t been privatised. I’m curious - are you of an age to remember the pre-privatisation times? (I know, I’m allegedly on the ignore list (aka “I don’t like the truth you are presenting me with list”  so the OP won’t reply - perhaps someone else could pose the question? ) 

EssexHebridean

[Deleted User] said:

SnakePlissken said:

Mstty said:

SnakePlissken said:

Dolor said:

SnakePlissken said:

Dolor said:

SnakePlissken said:

If everything had not been privatised we would see cheaper energy today.

I would be interested in understanding your rationale for making such a statement. One of the key reasons why we are in the situation that we are in is because of short-term Government decision making on such things as investment in nuclear power; energy storage etc. The international markets decide the price of energy. The companies that drill for gas etc are now international companies (yes, even BP) who will direct supply to those who will pay the most. How would this change with PowerUK?

PS: if you think that the NHS is primes inter pares when it comes to health care, you clearly haven’t been a inpatient in a NHS Hospital recently. 

As I said other countries tax energy producers with a windfall tax, UK can easily do this.

And Englands issues are not investing in onshore wind and other renewable technologies. And barfing carbon capture schemes, which would have helped.

Why do you so many people follow the UK gov line here, its astounding, your either well programmed by media or have vested interests


Ps (not sure what primes inter pares means, is it  a new Amazon service?) But i have a far better understanding of the NHS than you ever will have in your lifetime!

Windfall tax has nothing to do with supplier privatisation. It is a Government decision whether or not and when to impose taxes.

Agreed, the political short-term nature of our Parliamentary system works against investments in projects where the benefit is realised many years into the future. Again nothing to do with the nationalisation of energy suppliers.

I declare a personal interest in our Government. I am a voter!

’Primes Inter Pares’ means first amongst equals.

We are all waiting to know why you think that a national energy supplier is the way forward?

We can look at the contrast between state owned and privatised water industry as a comparison.

In England water was privatised, whilst in Scotland it remains in public ownership as a stand alone
statutory  corporation. Which outperforms others 
Scottish water outperforms english companies in performance and cost of water, where it remains unmetered

https://wics.scot/publications/scottish-water/performance/scottish-water-performance-report-2020-21



This model is used in nordic countries who have a mix of private and state companies.

In fact labour policy is to have a new state owned electricity company in England.

A state owned company has no share holders and profits can be plowed back in to service improvement, upgrading of infrastructure, etc.


But any state owned company should be run as a stand alone enterprises where government is not involved in day to day management, but sets strategic goals for company.
How they achieve it is up to the management of the company.

And companies should not be used as cash cows for governments, but rather any profits are reinvested in the company.


There are exceptions to this with Norways oil and gas ownership, where the massive global profits are put into a government soveriegn  investment fund for good of country. Which at 1.2 trillion is the largest such fund in the world.

And how can you tell if electricity was still state owned it would not have had investment in new generation?  Is yer name nostradamous or do you have access to the multiverse in some way?

I suspect that plan would only have saved us the high standing charges cost which incorporates all those failed small energy chancer companies(I was a customer of symbio lol)

It wouldn't have shielded anyone from the increasing energy costs as we don't produce enough energy on this small island to run it. So we have to buy with everyone else and we have all decided to support the Ukraine.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but looking at energy prices across Europe based on incomes. With the government helping are we paying more or about the same?

Within Scotland the generation capacity has been greatly increased with another 3rd of generation capacity being added over next few years. With a mix of pumped storage, onshore &  offshore wind and tidal planned. Scotland produces well over 100% of what it requires.

There is nothing to stop England from investing in this apart from the tory government.

In England a political decision was made not just for onshore wind, but also Solar, to not allow planning for new generation.  This would have increased capacity in England and decreased dependancy on gas.

England is currently more reliant on gas and fossil fuel than Scotland is for generation.

Scotland today is using around 15% from gas, whilst England as a whole is 52% and Wales is 75% from gas. With 


The dependancy on gas for generation, is costing more as it is the most expensively generated electricity.

Scotland produces >100% of demand because it is a large country with few people, and most of its generation was part-funded by the UK taxpayer.

Just a small difference… 

It’s funny, this is the second national crisis situation in the past few years where some people seem determined to pretend population density is irrelevant! 

macman

Most of the growth in Scottish renewables has been funded by foreign investment and ownership. They've invested in projects that will produce the best return, which, if we're talking wind power, will be in Scotland. Since it's more windy there, on and offshore...
It's driven by economics, not politics.