Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bostik Bailey

An example of a fair and open market

101 posts in this topic

Good idea. What's in it for them? Do they really want to reduce consumption, it a bit counter intuitive for any commercial business to try and discourage spending on it's goods. It may also go against the new OFGEN regulations on simplifying tariffs.

It's quite basic market economics really.  They're trying to find the sweet spot of matching how high they can make their bills before people start turning off luxury items.  A good number of people will go into serious fuel poverty and start turning off heating before some people will even think about turning off their tumble dryers in mid-summer.  The ideal, but thoroughly amoral, point for energy companies is look for that sweet spot of maximum revenue against lowest supply.

 

Think next time you see a politician, e.g. that nice Mr Davey, telling you in a very patronising tone to just put on a jumper if you can't afford to heat your house, just think of yourself as one of those in the category of "non profitable" for the energy companies.  They don't care if you freeze as long as more affluent households keep their computers running at the same time as their TVs and other energy draining profitable stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite so. but since so many in politics , the media and on here want to interfere with the energy companies, why not do so in a way that that benefits the less fortunate. 

 

People complain when energy prices go up 10% in a year but rejoice when house prices treble in ten years. Both of these disadvantage the poorest and weakest in our society...or don't we care  about that, or global warming any more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite basic market economics really.  They're trying to find the sweet spot of matching how high they can make their bills before people start turning off luxury items.  A good number of people will go into serious fuel poverty and start turning off heating before some people will even think about turning off their tumble dryers in mid-summer.  The ideal, but thoroughly amoral, point for energy companies is look for that sweet spot of maximum revenue against lowest supply.

 

Think next time you see a politician, e.g. that nice Mr Davey, telling you in a very patronising tone to just put on a jumper if you can't afford to heat your house, just think of yourself as one of those in the category of "non profitable" for the energy companies.  They don't care if you freeze as long as more affluent households keep their computers running at the same time as their TVs and other energy draining profitable stuff.

 

 

he didn't say "wear a jumper " though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite so. but since so many in politics , the media and on here want to interfere with the energy companies, why not do so in a way that that benefits the less fortunate. 

 

People complain when energy prices go up 10% in a year but rejoice when house prices treble in ten years. Both of these disadvantage the poorest and weakest in our society...or don't we care  about that, or global warming any more?

I agree with you entirely.  For example, the help to buy scheme is just idiocy adding fuel to restoke a housing market that was adjusting itself slowly.

 

The thing that's influenced us the most in our energy use was that little electricity usage reader that Scottish Power sent us.  It's very telling when you stick on the tumble dryer and you see the price per hour shoot up.  I find myself looking at it occasionally these days, wondering why it's above the 4p/hr idling rate and what I can turn off to get it back to that.  I've found that with nothing bar a few lights on, the fridge and maybe the bedroom telly that it idles quite nicely at 4p/hr, I got it down to 2p/hr once in an experiment with no power on bar the fridge, my computer infrastructure (routers, etc) and my server in my office.  My brain treats it as a game but I'd really like to see how much it's reduced our bills when our 6 monthly one comes in soon in comparison to last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we have one of those. It is quite revealing. Its not about being miserable and cold but about cutting out waste..and it does work.

 

My other gripe is with pre-payment meters and the fact that the unit prices with these  is higher than for high-use direct debit payers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite so. but since so many in politics , the media and on here want to interfere with the energy companies, why not do so in a way that that benefits the less fortunate. 

 

People complain when energy prices go up 10% in a year but rejoice when house prices treble in ten years. Both of these disadvantage the poorest and weakest in our society...or don't we care  about that, or global warming any more?

 

 

we have one of those. It is quite revealing. Its not about being miserable and cold but about cutting out waste..and it does work.

 

My other gripe is with pre-payment meters and the fact that the unit prices with these  is higher than for high-use direct debit payers. 

 

I'm with you completely on both points. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scottish power now in at 8% rise. The whole set up smells like a Fleetwood trawler.

No doubt all these companies have invested in the same "improvements" at the same time, so that they all have to put the prices up within month of each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that operating profit, profit before tax etc?

 

And ckn/ What was your profit last year...i.e. income less costs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that operating profit, profit before tax etc?

 

And ckn/ What was your profit last year...i.e. income less costs?

I'm sure you can accept Ofgem as a credible external source with reliable sources of information.  If so, where's the problem with their figures?  Also, the FT and Telegraph are not known as soft left-wing newspapers and they're the ones leading the story.  I think you're verging on unreasonable pedantry now defending these rises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mate who works for Ofgem suggested that power companies had threatened that they would stop 'investing' in building new power stations if the regulator tried to stop excessive prices rises,  then we would be up the creek when the blackouts started.

 

I did ask him what purpose Ofgem serves and he was not entirely sure but after being made redundant from being a forensic scientist he was keeping his head down and not asking difficult questions of his employers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you can accept Ofgem as a credible external source with reliable sources of information.  If so, where's the problem with their figures?  Also, the FT and Telegraph are not known as soft left-wing newspapers and they're the ones leading the story.  I think you're verging on unreasonable pedantry now defending these rises.

 

1. Where do I say I have a problem with their figures?

 

2. Where have I defended these rises?

 

3. What profit do you regard as acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mate who works for Ofgem suggested that power companies had threatened that they would stop 'investing' in building new power stations if the regulator tried to stop excessive prices rises,  then we would be up the creek when the blackouts started.

 

I did ask him what purpose Ofgem serves and he was not entirely sure but after being made redundant from being a forensic scientist he was keeping his head down and not asking difficult questions of his employers.

 

From the Ofgem web site:

 

Ofgem does not control the prices customers pay – this is down to energy suppliers. We regulate the prices energy companies charge for transporting energy to your home through pipes and wires.

 

Of course, maybe they should but maybe the difference between Ofgem and Ofwat is that water companies generally get their water for nothing, so the bills we pay are for the capture, storage, delivery etc,

 

Still, how does it feel now that you support the Mail's stance?  see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478251/Energy-firms-profits-DOUBLE-year.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone with isupplyenergy?

 

Mrs the Leit reports that they are coming out as the best option for us on electricity.  One year fixed price deal.  £174 saving.  

 

The question I have is how come a company that I have never heard of can offer me such a saving, and the big six cannot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 21st century granny's response to British Gas's price raise

 

(NSFW warning)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to a renowned Lib Dem in The Guardian,  "About 9% of energy bills are government charges. Some 5% go on the eco subsidy. Without these policies, bills would be more painful for the most vulnerable, and higher for many others.

About 4% goes to support low-carbon electricity from renewables."

 Do ALL energy companies have to pay this, or is it just the big six?

 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/27/green-taxes-bills-saving-energy-fossil-fuels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been an eventful month for nPower: a 10.4% rise in prices for consumers, an 8% increase in half-year profits, a cut of billions of pounds of investment that they had planned for Britain and, to top it all off, 1400 jobs outsourced from Britain to India.

 

Yay for the free market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go four miles west of Bradford city centre. You'll find most farms have a wind turbine. The moors beyond, owned by Yorkshire Water, are covered in them.

 

Not like farmers and multinationals to take advantage of subsidies is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Two Ronnies did a 'News item' about the government having a method to lower inflation.  "If something goes up in price, they don't count it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 16 October 2008, Miliband, Secretary of State for the newly created Department of Energy and Climate Change, announced that the British government would legislate to oblige itself to cut greenhouse emissions by 80% by 2050, rather than the 60% cut in carbon dioxide emissions previously announced.

 

In March 2009, after discussion with Peter Postlethwaite (remember him from Brassed Off?) Miliband announced to the House of Commons a change to the government's policy on coal-fired power stations, saying that any potential new coal-fired power stations would be unable to receive government consent unless they could demonstrate that they would be able to effectively capture and bury 25% of the emissions they produce immediately, with a view to seeing that rise to 100% of emissions by 2025.

 

Miliband represented the UK at the 2009 Copenhagen Summit, from which emerged a global commitment to provide an additional US$10 billion a year to fight the effects of climate change, with an additional $100 billion a year provided by 2020

 

So clearly he agrees that  we have to do something major about emissions, energy usage etc  if we as a country are to play our part in reducing the impact of factors that may affect climate change. Clearly he also thinks that he can sit on the beach Knut-style and repel the rising tide of energy price increases. But isn't that the very mechanism he put in place? So how does an unenforceable cap on elec and gas bills help reduce consumption? Make it cheaper and people will use more. Make it cheaper and people will not invest in  ways to save energy   

 

Of course . ®Ed could actually adopt some radical policies to enable the less well off to be protected  against this but he hasn't actually got the Balls ( oh if only, if only) the brains, of the ability to do that.  He could for instance, put up the bills for the better off and lower them for the worse off by reversing current tariffs so that the the unit price increases the more you use. Set a threshold at the average usage of a family of four in a three bed semi in Meriden , then above that, the price doubles.  Govt keeps the difference between what the utils would normally charge and  this new price structure to reduce the price for the less well off and to support the measures we have to take to reduce energy use and emissions.  Can't see that going down well in the industrial heartlands of Islington, Hampstead and Crouch End - Miliband's natural constituency.

 

The fact remains that under whatever govt, energy prices will continue to rise...and rise..and rise.  in the three year between 2007 and 2011, under Miliband,  the average domestic fuel( gas plus elec)  bill increased by over 20%  oh, Ed, oh, Ed, Ubi parentes, malum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging by the large volume of people lighting up there houses from this weekend to the new year the price of electricity in the Wigan area is way to cheap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact remains that under whatever govt, energy prices will continue to rise...and rise..and rise.  in the three year between 2007 and 2011, under Miliband,  the average domestic fuel( gas plus elec)  bill increased by over 20%  oh, Ed, oh, Ed, Ubi parentes, malum?

See now, I disagree with that.  Some intelligent thinking and moderate quality investment over the last few decades would have had us in a very strong position now but idiot short-termism by all parties have left us reliant on non-UK fuel sources and non-UK owned generators.  Even if the current government took the hit on the chin on behalf of the country for the next decade, and rather than panicking over messing about with the green taxes as they have, they could have diverted that into building more next-generation power plants, be it nuclear, coal, gas, oil, wind or wave.  I'd prefer the nuclear, wind and wave bits though as that does not leave us hostage to short-term foreign fuel supply problems.

 

This isn't a party political point I'm making, Labour were/are just as bad as the Tories and the Lib Dems have no clue what planet they're on today.  The Greens' view is daft.  The UKIP view is "green stuff is baaaad, mkay", their policy document (that I have read) is just daft but for exactly the opposite reasons to that of the Greens.  I think there's not a single party that's got a coherent energy policy that stands up to more than a cursory look into the detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  I think there's not a single party that's got a coherent energy policy that stands up to more than a cursory look into the detail.

 

agreed

 

"You got big dreams? You want energy security? Well, energy security costs, and right here is where you start paying."

 

A big supporter of having a significant nuclear capacity in the mix, I am equal;y aware of the huge (and carefully hidden) lifecycle costs.  I'll have a wager with you: if energy costs are cheaper on the day of my demise, you can light the incinerator yourself!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017