Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

ci_newman said:
I'm fairly energy consious as well (overall elec usage is 3600kWh / year for a family of 4, wife and I both WFH 5 days a week) but since doing hourly monitoring and tracking of my usage with SmartThings I've been able to significantly reduce my usage. It's about changing a mindset really, for example I used to run a load of laundry whenever the basket got full, and if the weather that day happened to be raining then I would just throw it in the tumble drier. After realising that each load of drying cost ~ £1/load I've now started doing laundry on days where rain isn't forecast so I can hang it up outside instead.

I've also been able to reduce my "standby" usage by around 100W by identifying a number of small devices that were each using a sizeable chuck of power too (SkyQ STB, leaving my A/V amp on "network standby" etc). 100W per hour, every day for 365 days a week is not to be sniffed at. Thats the equivilent of £245/year on the current SVR tariff.
Click to expand...

:)
 
dave1983 said:
I think come October is where the sting will be because of the Autumn months when gas / electric is mostly needed. However i do think the governments attitude towards the Increase is NI is just stupid. People are already on the breadline i understand they want to claw back the costs of Covid-19 but the timing of this is just wrong.
Click to expand...

Definitely, even if the price only goes up by 20% in October that's an 85% increase in the price cap from one winter to another, that will be devastating to many people.

Stopping the NI hike, and scrapping fuel duty and VAT on energy would at least help modestly.
 
Energize said:
Definitely, even if the price only goes up by 20% in October that's an 85% increase in the price cap from one winter to another, that will be devastating to many people.

Stopping the NI hike, and scrapping fuel duty and VAT on energy would at least help modestly.
Click to expand...

NI hike doesn't affect the less well off, in fact they will pay less.
 
It's £34k-£35k for the break even point.

Martin Lewis:
Martin Lewis has explained that the magic number is £35,000 to “break even”.

He said: "If you’re under that [amount], this is a gain, if you’re over that [amount], then the two measures are a loss for you.

"Effectively the way it works on earnings is from over around £9,600, all the way up to around £35,000, you will either not pay any more, or lower down [the pay scale], will pay less National Insurance than currently.”

He added: "If you earn £35,000 or more then the 1.25 percentage point increase outweighs the change in the starting threshold, so you will pay more National Insurance."
Click to expand...

Source -https://www.nationalworld.com/lifes...wis-salary-national-insurance-changes-3624800
 
D.P. said:
volatility ido not the same as reliability. The volatility can be modelled and capacity factors incorporated into the national grid. The fact is, the more wind power is added to the grid, the less volatility there is because wind has very low spatial correlation.

And frankly, your opinion is just not that useful unéess you are a domain expert. Actual experts, with decades pf experience , don't believe nuclear needs to be part of our future energy mix. Most prominently, experts in areas of nuclear energy policy don't think nuclear is required or desirable for a future 100% renewable energy
Click to expand...

For me its quite simple, if the wind supply cannot produce power 24/7/365 and even more so it can move from producing a lot to very little due to sudden changes in wind patterns then its not reliable.

To put in simple terms lets say you need a constantly supply of 1 kiilowatt of power, the wind can produce say 1.5 for 6 hours, and then nothing for the next 10 hours, what happens when it stops, your power cuts off unless you have another source of power.

The expert opinion wouldnt think that because nuclear isnt considered a source of power that is renewable. If the question was 100% reliable energy rather than 100% renewable energy, would those experts think the same thing? There is people who worked on the national grid who have made it clear nuclear was the backbone of cheap power for the country in the past.

Do I want 100% renewable energy? Not at these prices no.
 
Last edited:
Freakbro said:
I heard a tip for fridges to make them more efficient is if you don't have a lot of food in them at times then fill the empty space with jugs of water.
Click to expand...

Nice.

My fridge is using about 4.8KwH every week (currently march-april), which is less than the quorted averages I have seen on websites so seems ok. Its set to 3 on the dial although sometimes in summer I do boost it to 4.
 
chrcoluk said:
The expert opinion wouldnt think that because nuclear isnt considered a source of power that is renewable. If the question was 100% reliable energy rather than 100% renewable energy, would those experts think the same thing? There is people who worked on the national grid who have made it clear nuclear was the backbone of cheap power for the country in the past.
Click to expand...

Nuclear is an interesting case.

Because there is enough nuclear fuel to last until the end of the earth, should it not be in the same category as renewables?
 
Energize said:
Nuclear is an interesting case.

Because there is enough nuclear fuel to last until the end of the earth, should it not be in the same category as renewables?
Click to expand...

Personally I put nuclear fission in its own bracket.

It's neither renewable or a fossil fuel.
 
Renewable is a strange term really. Wind isn't renewable, solar isn't renewable. 'Renewable' - not depleted when used. Well when we use some solar or wind energy to convert it to electricity, we do deplete it. Its just that lots more comes continually from the source. Its not the same solar packet or wind parcel that gets used again.

Zero emissions energy is a better term, of which solar, wind and nuclear fits nicely into that category.
 
danlightbulb said:
Renewable is a strange term really. Wind isn't renewable, solar isn't renewable. 'Renewable' - not depleted when used. Well when we use some solar or wind energy to convert it to electricity, we do deplete it. Its just that lots more comes continually from the source. Its not the same solar packet or wind parcel that gets used again.

Zero emissions energy is a better term, of which solar, wind and nuclear fits nicely into that category.
Click to expand...

None of them are really zero emissions when you factor in manufacturing, construction, operation and disposal. Also for instance:

"With the construction phase largely to blame, wind turbines emit slightly more particulate matter (PM), a form of air pollution, at an "exception" rate higher per unit of energy generated(kWh) than a fossil gas electricity station("NGCC"),[31][32] and also emit more heavy metals and PM than nuclear stations, per unit of energy generated."

For human/animal and possibly plant health, rather than climate change directly, particulate matter is one of the worst aspects despite being one of the least focussed on generally - brake and tyre particulates aren't great at all.
 
danlightbulb said:
Renewable is a strange term really. Wind isn't renewable, solar isn't renewable. 'Renewable' - not depleted when used. Well when we use some solar or wind energy to convert it to electricity, we do deplete it. Its just that lots more comes continually from the source. Its not the same solar packet or wind parcel that gets used again.

Zero emissions energy is a better term, of which solar, wind and nuclear fits nicely into that category.
Click to expand...

Renewable energy sources are naturally continually replenished. In most cases by the sun.
 
danlightbulb said:
Renewable is a strange term really. Wind isn't renewable, solar isn't renewable. 'Renewable' - not depleted when used. Well when we use some solar or wind energy to convert it to electricity, we do deplete it. Its just that lots more comes continually from the source. Its not the same solar packet or wind parcel that gets used again.

Zero emissions energy is a better term, of which solar, wind and nuclear fits nicely into that category.
Click to expand...

How many light bulbs have you got Dan
 
danlightbulb said:
Renewable is a strange term really. Wind isn't renewable, solar isn't renewable. 'Renewable' - not depleted when used. Well when we use some solar or wind energy to convert it to electricity, we do deplete it. Its just that lots more comes continually from the source. Its not the same solar packet or wind parcel that gets used again.

Zero emissions energy is a better term, of which solar, wind and nuclear fits nicely into that category.
Click to expand...

Unless your worrying about it running out in about 10 billion years or so its renewable ;) but then the earth will be part of the sun in about 5 billion years when the sun turns in to a red giant which should improve the efficiency ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom