Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

Perhaps if they actually took monthly direct debits and billed people they wouldn't have been in this position in the first place. In the eight months I was with them they took three direct debits, all on the same day in June, Before that they took nothing, no bill, no direct debits. Since then it's been the same, no billing, no direct debits. I have got onto them at least once a month to get answers from them but kept getting fobbed off and I haven't heard anything from them in six weeks despite emailing them three times. They used to reply the same day or next day at the latest but the last couple of months absolutely nothing. I know some have had no problems with them but I can't be the only one who has had a nightmare. As of last weekend I am back with Octopus and looking forward to three hours of free leccy tomorrow between 12.00 and 15.00 as well as the hour tonight. It's aa huge price increase to go back to them though!!
 
Next Drive Smart seems alright if your car is on their list and also it has referral possible etc. They dont like my golf cart so SO energy are less fussy and same sort of deal setup I guess

jack.gif
 
Last edited:
Wind power is great in the UK as it's often windy when it's cold, and that's when we consume the most energy. But it can still be cold and still. You will need something to fill the gap when the winds not blowing or to store the energy excess from when it is. I can't see us getting away from gas turbines for a good while yet unfortunately.
 
dwarf said:
Wind power is great in the UK as it's often windy when it's cold, and that's when we consume the most energy. But it can still be cold and still. You will need something to fill the gap when the winds not blowing or to store the energy excess from when it is. I can't see us getting away from gas turbines for a good while yet unfortunately.
Click to expand...
UK Power needs to ensure that the country is properly interconnected across all regions. This way, when we have wind energy available, it can be distributed effectively and not simply switched off while private operators continue to collect our coins!
 
darkgen said:
UK Power needs to ensure that the country is properly interconnected across all regions. This way, when we have wind energy available, it can be distributed effectively and not simply switched off while private operators continue to collect our coins!
Click to expand...
We are and more are being built. :)
 
bigmike20vt said:
am sure Reform and the Tories won't be talking about this!

Wind power has cut £104bn from UK energy costs since 2010, study finds | Wind power | The Guardian https://share.google/3JXhCPY3Rb7BQ6qVU
Click to expand...
Highly miss-leading as wind farms replaced cheaper coal not gas. In realty if has cost us a lot more than using the coal it replaced.

Gas usage has actually increased after 2013 due to the reduction in coal generation. So another fantasy based University study.
 
Sasahara said:
Highly miss-leading as wind farms replaced cheaper coal not gas. In realty if has cost us a lot more than using the coal it replaced.

Gas usage has actually increased after 2013 due to the reduction in coal generation. So another fantasy based University study.
Click to expand...

Coal isn’t cheap anymore, not to mention how dangerous coal mining is.

All the coal plants that were phased out were all end of life anyway and wouldn’t have been replaced. This is because the emissions are horrific, I’m not talking about CO2, I’m talking about the impact on the local environment and the people that live there. There isn’t really anywhere you can realistically build a new coal power station without the smog descending on thousands upon thousands of people.

Their replacement was gas, it’s not unreasonable to base the savings on gas.
 
Sasahara said:
Highly miss-leading as wind farms replaced cheaper coal not gas. In realty if has cost us a lot more than using the coal it replaced.

Gas usage has actually increased after 2013 due to the reduction in coal generation. So another fantasy based University study.
Click to expand...
Love a bit of smog in the morning.
 
It was pretty clear a long time ago that Tomato was another accident waiting to happen but there's literally zero disincentive as a customer to sign up to these suppliers, other than we all end up paying for it in the long run.
 
One More Solo said:
It was pretty clear a long time ago that Tomato was another accident waiting to happen but there's literally zero disincentive as a customer to sign up to these suppliers, other than we all end up paying for it in the long run.
Click to expand...
Paying for what? They don't hold any customer balances as customers are only billed for actual use retrospectively.
 
Exactly as the posters above have put it. In more extreme examples like Bulb, the government effectively had to assume all of the pricing risk in order to make it commercially viable for Octopus to take on their customers. We either end up paying for these collapses through the standing charge or taxation.
 
200sols said:
IIRC Octopus repaid the full cost of the bulb bailout to the treasury.
Click to expand...
This was a function of energy prices. In simple terms, Octopus and the government agreed a deal in which Octopus would pay the hedged rate for energy which was purchased in the market at spot rate. Because energy prices fell over the period, Octopus ended up paying more than the spot rate for energy and the government pocketed the difference. Had prices risen over the same period, Octopus would have received a potentially substantial subsidy.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
Coal isn’t cheap anymore, not to mention how dangerous coal mining is.

All the coal plants that were phased out were all end of life anyway and wouldn’t have been replaced. This is because the emissions are horrific, I’m not talking about CO2, I’m talking about the impact on the local environment and the people that live there. There isn’t really anywhere you can realistically build a new coal power station without the smog descending on thousands upon thousands of people.

Their replacement was gas, it’s not unreasonable to base the savings on gas.
Click to expand...

It does depend on the coal used. Blue flame anthracite burns very cleanly, they used it for iron smelting for that reason. Ironically wood burners lower life expectancy in built up areas and are far worse then this particular type of coal. We have the same coal seam as east coast of USA, plenty of it left but the carbon is why supposedly they want to use wood with its worse emissions and we can regrow trees but last I heard thats not happening. They pellets used target cheap hard wood forests and they dont replant it.

I would advise people to check the manual for their wood burner and see if it also allows a brand of smokeless coal. I would want a burner that handles anthracite, lasts over 12hrs when burning.
Natural gas also is better on emissions worse on carbon supposedly and UK has a lot of gas if we wanted to use it we import from Qatar instead.

One More Solo said:
It was pretty clear a long time ago that Tomato was another accident waiting to happen but there's literally zero disincentive as a customer to sign up to these suppliers, other than we all end up paying for it in the long run.
Click to expand...
Tomato has the money to carry on but they failed to keep enough capital leeway under the new requirements, so if they are taking action to close them its precaution not collapse or thats what Ive read is the case.

ember-energy.org

UK biomass emits more CO2 than coal | Ember

Burning wood is a larger emitter than coal in the UK, and is the electricity sector’s second largest CO2 emitter after fossil gas.
ember-energy.org ember-energy.org
 
The Drax biomass deal was a travesty, it should have continued burning coal until th plant was phased out.

It was largely done for political reasons and a bung to fossil fuel consumers (e.g. to enable us to claim we no longer use coal).

This is the one ‘renewable’ energy subsidy that people should have been kicking off about. I highly doubt the same deal would be done if it was on the table today.
 
rules have been fixed post bulb though - such that if projected customer income from tomato couldn't be met by hedged up front energy costs and cash in the bank, you are out;
not dissimilar to the banks - tomato can't just gamble on nice weather and Ukraine war ending.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
Coal isn’t cheap anymore, not to mention how dangerous coal mining is.

All the coal plants that were phased out were all end of life anyway and wouldn’t have been replaced. This is because the emissions are horrific, I’m not talking about CO2, I’m talking about the impact on the local environment and the people that live there. There isn’t really anywhere you can realistically build a new coal power station without the smog descending on thousands upon thousands of people.

Their replacement was gas, it’s not unreasonable to base the savings on gas.
Click to expand...
If wind farms were not an option it would have been between coal, gas and nuclear.
A lot coal plants were closed before their natural eol, if wind hadn't taken off or taken longer to develop, it's likely coal power stations would have run longer rather than being replaced by gas power stations in the same time frame.

Coal power stations could have been replaced and there were many proposals to do so, but government policy put an end to them in 2009/10. But they were under serious consideration.

It's unlikely gas would have been a option to provide 70% peak usage in that time period as the supply infrastructure wouldn't be able to cope. Additional gas would have to be LNG in the short term, which is pretty expensive and not good for the environment.
www.theguardian.com

Exported gas produces far worse emissions than coal, major study finds

Research challenges idea that sending liquefied natural gas around the world is cleaner alternative to burning coal
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Long term a pipeline, but the only significant production capacity for this was Russia.

So I stand by if wind hadn't been an option a combination of coal and gas would have been the result, with probably more coal just by delaying the decommissioning of old plants. And I highly doubt this would have cost an additional £104 bn since 2010.

This said, I'm happy wind farms are viable, but we don't need fantasy scenarios to justify them. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom