Octopus IOF new rates April

MWT

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81938479#Comment_81938479

Rates like £1/kWh sound a lot like a short-term offer to get people interested, hard to see how that is sustainable, but enjoy it while you can get it…

MattMattMattUK

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81938537#Comment_81938537

If we wanted energy security the government would be building a hundred nuclear reactors, not messing around with fossil fuels.

debitcardmayhem

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81938588#Comment_81938588

Can they have them ready before they install 25M heat pumps or do those 25M homes go without heating , the country needs gas now, and importing LNG (and oil) adds to the warming gases. Yes we should get rid of fossil fuels but sadly we need it for the foreseeable future.

QrizB

Can they have them ready before they install 25M heat pumps or do those 25M homes go without heating

If the political will is there, they can be ready in about the same time as a new gas field will take to connect up.

Onshore civil engineering is so much simpler than the offshore equivalent.

debitcardmayhem

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81938670#Comment_81938670

Apparently, Serica can have one up and delivering in 3 years ? But 25 million boiler replacements , and at what cost, come on get real. I want us to stop relying on FF, but we need gas for the foreseeable.

MattMattMattUK

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81938654#Comment_81938654

We are not going to be bringing any new gas fields online any quicker than building reactors and gas rigs and pipelines are much more vulnerable than reactors. The unfortunate situation is we should have been developing those gas fields over the last two decades whilst also building reactors, renewables, and storage, we did not so we are behind on both sides, but as it would take just as long or longer to push for more gas as it would to build reactors and the reactors will last longer, emit no CO2 from operation (although building them will cause an impact) and be much more secure then the only rational choice is nuclear rather than gas.

If we standardised a design, got rid of a whole range of silly rules around building reactors (three year bat studies, two year fish studies, letting the NIMBYs get in the way), then we could have new reactors coming online at the end of the decade and be bringing more online every month after that, the chances of getting new gas and oil producing anything by the end of the decade is fanciful, the fields we have left are looking at 6-8 years from being told to start to actually getting gas in commercial quantities. More gas from the North Sea was the solution five years ago, it was even more of a solution ten or twenty years ago, now it is just a pointless exercise.

MattMattMattUK

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81938706#Comment_81938706

We do not need to replace 25 million boilers with heat pumps instantly, we do it gradually, we can continue to import from trusted partners (Norway mostly) in the interim but whilst also phasing down then out of gas. Any before someone pipes up with the daft idea of hydrogen for domestic gas supplies, no, it is not viable as a solution.

Qyburn

Re "Greg's" arithmetic I think that "Although there’s a 50p/month rise in standing charges" must be just a bit of standard text. It's in our email as well, even though our S/C is going down by just over 5p.

Qyburn

I wonder what's going to happen in the Summer, when the price cap is expected to rise. I would guess that Octopus won't increase IOF rates.

The_Green_Hornet

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81938754#Comment_81938754

With the current government target of 600,000 heat pump installations a year it will take 41.67 years to replace those 25 million boilers, and they are not even close to achieving that replacement rate.

More glacial than gradual.