Not really done the numbers but as i recall people that did in this thread some time ago suggested it would have done by now. I was going off that as never stopped to verify the calculations myself.
Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)
- Thread starter DXP55
- Start date
Not really done the numbers but as i recall people that did in this thread some time ago suggested it would have done by now. I was going off that as never stopped to verify the calculations myself.
Soldato
You are simply ignoring facts. I don't go out of my way to reduce my consumption at all. There are two of us in this house. We have the lights on. I even have a dehumidiifier that I run periodically.
So your statement is factually wrong, its not 'only possible' if your are single or have solar/batteries.
10-15% of households is like 3-4 million households.
Seems your definition of abnormal is anything not the average.
I mean... that is kinda the dictionary definition of abnormal.
Bottom 5%, bottom 10% makes no difference really, you are a very low user and thus fixed costs will be a higher percentage of your bill.
Last edited:
Soldato
Soldato
I dont disagree because it is factual. Its not abnormal though when its 3-4 million UK households.
Language is important.
@b0rn2sk8 is suggesting that its only possible to use 3kWh a day if you have some kind of very unusual set up. That is simply not the case.
If you have gas heating and cooking there is no way you should be getting anywhere near 10 kWh a day. What are you using it on?
Oh the irony of accusing me of ignoring facts while you ignore the detail within your own chatGPT assertions.
Go back and actually read what you posted. It’s lumping people who are lower users because they just have extremely low consumption and those who low users because they have other sources of energy like solar into the same category.
Over 5% of U.K. households have solar these days and a huge proportion of them will now be low users as a result, including me.
Don’t forget, it only counts energy used by the house and removes other demand such as space heating and electric cars from the figures.
As I’ve already explained, you can’t easily differentiate between those who are genuinely low and those who have opted for other forms of energy generation in the way the energy market is currently structured in the U.K.
If you lower the standing charge for one group, you also lower it for the other, the other group doesn’t need it lowering. You’ll end up in situations where those who can’t take advantage of solar end up subsidising those who do.
I didn’t say you have an unusual set up, I said you have to go out of your way to use so little e.g. you consciously minimise your consumption as much as possible.
As for what I personally use it on? We are on a computer enthusiasts forum, I’ll give you one guess….
Lets just quote ofgem, they reckon 'low' use is 1 flat or 1 bedroom house with 1-2 people = 1800kWh per year. Almost 5 per day. So you're abnormally low even by that measurement, do you live in a flat or 1 bedroom house?
Language is important. Lets check the dictionary.
I wouldnt normally quote dictionary because its petty but your AI response deserved it.
The number of households doesn't mean it isn't abnormal.
Language is important. Lets check the dictionary.
I wouldnt normally quote dictionary because its petty but your AI response deserved it.
Last edited:
Soldato
I dont go out of my way to reduce my energy use, at all. So your assertion is simply wrong here.
It is just a natural consequence of having both gas heating and gas cooking. The fridge is still on, the washing machine still gets used multiple times per week, I even run a dehumidifier. And I also have a PC that I game on (not everyday), a TV I watch (every day) and a work laptop that is plugged in whenever Im at home.
And yet my consumption is still 3-3.5kWh a day. Must be some magic happening somewhere.
Soldato
Normal is a range not a spot value.
Let me come back to height again. The average for a man is 5'9". Its also still normal to be anywhere between say 5'5-6'2.
Above/below that your in the <5 percentiles.
If you want to believe that abnormal simply means not the average then go for it, you won't find that assumption used in any professional/scientific field. They wouldn't even use the word as its subjective anyway. Accepted wisdom would be the 5 percentiles maybe the 10 percentiles.
Average --> Lower than average --> very low --> abnormally low.
Lets see what Chat GPT says about it:
Ah yes it mentions range without even being prompted for it.
Last edited:
No, I just quoted dictionary because you mentioned language. Fact is you are way lower than even the 'low' figure on the range of figures ofgem give - there is your 'range'. Your usage is abnormally low.
Soldato
If you want to define abnormal as the 10-15 percentile then fine. I don't.
I assume then that you also think a 6'1" tall person is abnormally tall. That's ok, if you do, I just want to be consistent.
Ps chat GPT agrees with me.
Edit - I even asked it to find evidence:
As an aside, chat GPT is so powerful. Imagine trying to source that data and sources yourself. Impossible.
Last edited:
Soldato
I certainly don't go out my way or make conscious efforts to lower consumption and I average 3.5kWh/day
Of those 10% nearly half probably have solar. Being a very low user because you have solar isn’t the same thing as just being a very low user like you.
P.S. chat GPT isn’t a reliable source of information, it’s literally renown for making stuff up, all the time.
Soldato
I take the point that low users will now include solar users.
I agree on chatgpt, do have to be careful with it. However its very good at scouring the web and finding stuff you'd never be able to find (or would take ages) just using google. Its very powerful on interpretive language.
Ive been using it in my part time study course to help steer me in the right direction. Takes hours (at least) off the initial research of topics.
Last edited:
Do you agree that it’s a catch 22 when it comes to the standing charge for low users because of this?
Do you also agree that the proportion of low users which are low because they have solar will only bigger, the higher solar penetration gets?
Soldato
Yes and yes.
Although the movement of solar users from average/higher than average, to low, will also lower the typical use value/change the distribution percentiles across the board.
Last edited:
What happened to your range?
So you want me to say 6ft 1 is out of range?
Remember your energy use was well below the ofgem low range and you didn't clarify what size house you had as that makes a difference as well. Either way i'd still say your use is abnormally low and a 6 ft 1 person is not abnormally tall, they are just 'tall'.
Last edited:
Soldato
There's no point continuing to argue, Ive made my point. 6'1 is the 95th percentile, my electricity use is the 10-15th percentile. So being 6'1 is more abnormal than my electricity use is.
Last edited:
That’s the rub though isn’t it?
There isn’t a win win solution to this that doesn’t have political or real costs for a certain group.
If you cut the standing charge which benefits low users, you also give benefits to solar users who don’t need it and push more on to typical users who can’t afford or simple can’t install solar. You get crushed by the media for cutting charges for rich people with solar and adding it on to others bills.
If you add additional charges for solar users or cut export payments you get crushed by the green lobby and you damage the domestic solar industry (again!!) which costs jobs and puts you behind on net zero objectives and makes you more reliant on expensive imported gas.
The current situation of higher standing charges probably better reflect the ‘end game’ of where we get to. Now we just need to finish the smart meter roll out so we can move to standard time of use pricing.
You will believe what you want to believe. Seems we can only use ranges that support your argument though. I'm guessing house size pushes you further into the 'abnormal' zone as well.