Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

[Rai200]

Yeah but thats highly subjective, I know my main (of 3) display uses between 26 and 50w which is going to be framerate and lighting etc dependent.
But others will be lower or higher, there is a lot of inequality in this area.

I think 50 is more typical for a decentish higher monitor, or a much older one.

I have one of the first 34" UW monitors (Acer BX340CK, 75Hz, IPS) and that claims 53.6w typical usage. Which I imagine is pretty average for a PC monitor.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Well it is as I said, they manipulating where the profits go. You just described it in your post.

I do agree on your last point buts its a shame some countries arent keen on it (this includes us with backing out of planned corp tax increases under truss).

I think this has ran its course now so my reply on this taboo stops here, I said what I wanted to say, it did bite me when people are trying to push this on people who just want to maintain their income to costs ratio whilst they are not the cause of the inflation. Hence the posts.

You didn't say, well infer, anything of the sort.
You said they reduced their profit to pay less tax by charging less, ie not maximising their selling price.

Amazon UK 100% make as much profit as they can.
The tax reduction side is simply accountants moving what they can to pay less tax somewhere else.

There is an absolutely massive difference between charging the maximum you can then moving the profit elsewhere and selling at a point where you make no profit.

We are back to supply and demand again. If the supply increases or decreases it will intersect with the demand curve at a different point.

Simply, if we want UK sourced energy to be cheaper it requires government intervention. Any CEO or senior leader of a large energy producer isn't going to get to remain in the job long if they decided to sell energy noticeably below market rate.

 

[Richie]

Whether the correct recovery method of putting the failed supplier amount on the SC is correct I am 50/50. Normally people wouldn't notice or care, but now due to the significance they do.

I agree with the standing charge myself.
It shouldn't be this high and its only this high due to failed suppliers.

However when it all boils down its the normal story, those against SC mean they don't want to pay it and want someone else to.

That's where I am with the SC. I am happy to pay for the infrastructure but it's the level of increase I find a little galling e.g. having to pay for failed businesses. These were private companies and, if you had lost money from other private companies, then it would most likely be lost and you'd have to suck it up.

What would increase transparency would be to show how much is being used to cover these balances, the amount of that balance and a repayment forecast. It would also show when the increase would be removed bringing SC back down (yeah, I know, pie in the sky asking for this to happen)

Also - if the credit balances all got added to the Elec SC, why has Gas SC quadrupled?.... Are they saying that Gas infrastructure operating costs have quadrupled in the last 1-2 years?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

That's where I am with the SC. I am happy to pay for the infrastructure but it's the level of increase I find a little galling e.g. having to pay for failed businesses. These were private companies and, if you had lost money from other private companies, then it would most likely be lost and you'd have to suck it up.

What would increase transparency would be to show how much is being used to cover these balances, the amount of that balance and a repayment forecast. It would also show when the increase would be removed bringing SC back down (yeah, I know, pie in the sky asking for this to happen)

Also - if the credit balances all got added to the Elec SC, why has Gas SC quadrupled?.... Are they saying that Gas infrastructure operating costs have quadrupled in the last 1-2 years?

Well for starters there are guarantees place, such as when you deposit money with a bank. The government sees the benefit of the backing, and how without it there would be less consumer confidence. They of course hope to never need to step in.

I would personally assume maybe 10% of the increase was costs and the rest bailout monies.

I am not sure but think I heard the money was also including the negotiated subsidy for the energy companies taking over failed company customers as they were being forced to sell below market price.
EG Bulb, as the cap goes up less than market price the amount the other companies want in order to take over the customers goes up.
Otherwise (like Bulb right now) no one would be willing to take the customers.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Boris takes aim at Labour / Lib Dem failures whilst Tory govt gets on with building more nuclear reactors...

‘Thanks a bunch, Tony’: Boris Johnson hits out at Labour’s ‘abject failure’ to invest in nuclear power

Outgoing PM takes aim at Tony Blair and Nick Clegg as he promises £700m for Sizewell C nuclear power station project

www.telegraph.co.uk

Better late than never I guess, on the plan to build 8 new reactors. Hopefully they can build them with a more streamlined pace.

Just in time (or in this case Just enough) has its place but I don't think running with just enough electricity is a good idea. We kind of do need some level of abundance as it opens up options for other technologies that need to be used.

 

[n111ck]

Good points. Nearly everyone will get smashed by the price increases.

I'm amazed the tories have clung on following Johnson's resignation.

I assumed they'd go for an early election and hope for a hospital pass to Labour.

Can you imagine the howls if Truss calls an election straight away effectively paralysing the govt for another 6 weeks lol.

 

[Uther]

They won't call an election they know they are going to get slaughtered in, unless they want out and it can all be Labours fault again.

 

[Troop]

Some of them seem a bit off. Computer monitor 1p per hour, as if!

My Dell 24" uses 12-13w in use , so 80+ hours to use 1 unit of electric.

 

[Zenduri]

Can you imagine the howls if Truss calls an election straight away effectively paralysing the govt for another 6 weeks lol.

I wouldnt put it past Poundland Thatcher

 

[mid_gen]

Better late than never I guess, on the plan to build 8 new reactors. Hopefully they can build them with a more streamlined pace.

Just in time (or in this case Just enough) has its place but I don't think running with just enough electricity is a good idea. We kind of do need some level of abundance as it opens up options for other technologies that need to be used.

Let's be clear about what is happening here though.

The British taxpayer is putting up a few hundred million pounds to entice the French government into spending a few billion so they can then extract profits from British consumers.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Let's be clear about what is happening here though.

The British taxpayer is putting up a few hundred million pounds to entice the French government into spending a few billion so they can then extract profits from British consumers.

1 step at a time. If it was my choice I would have a private company set up that is 70% owned by the UK government*, Triple lock it in (or whatever fancy legal options available) so that ownership ain't going anywhere, owning public infastructure.

*20% could be linked to government bonds or even owned by the public pension pot and the remaining 10% listed on the stock exchange.

 

[mid_gen]

1 step at a time. If it was my choice I would have a private company set up that is 70% owned by the UK government*, Triple lock it in (or whatever fancy legal options available) so that ownership ain't going anywhere, owning public infastructure.

*20% could be linked to government bonds or even owned by the public pension pot and the remaining 10% listed on the stock exchange.

Well we don't have our own capability to build nuclear stations right now, so yes, it's probably the least worst option.

It's still another case of Tory short-termism selling off our infrastructure to the benefit of foreign state treasuries. Completely mental.

 

[potatolord]

I can't work out in my head if they are just stupid.
Or if they do want to lose the next election. Pass the country to Labour in its dire state, take over next time and blame Labour for the next 12 years.

Putting truss in charge, holding back on help will achieve this.

It could be both?

In their position I would have gone for, and deliberately thrown, an election. Let someone else deal with the pain and recession, while my lot blame them for their failure to fix a global financial meltdown.

It worked before...

 

[robgmun]

Some of them seem a bit off. Computer monitor 1p per hour, as if!

My Asus gaming monitor pulls 30w, which is 0.03kwh, which works out to about 1.5p per hour, so yeah I bit higher but not a lot so

EDIT - Yeah I keep my brightness quite low as I'm very light sensitive and it can hurt my eyes, same with my OLED tv.

 

[n111ck]

They won't call an election they know they are going to get slaughtered in, unless they want out and it can all be Labours fault again.

Labour are unelectable with Starmer in charge and no recognisable MP's other than the likes of Abbot or Rayner (who are all jokes).

If there was another election I would guess at either a reduced Tory majority or a re-run of the May years.

However an election in the next 12 months would be pure self indulgence.

 

[Tony Edwards]

Labour are unelectable with Starmer in charge and no recognisable MP's other than the likes of Abbot or Rayner (who are all jokes).

If there was another election I would guess at either a reduced Tory majority or a re-run of the May years.

However an election in the next 12 months would be pure self indulgence.

Only recognisable to you. Normal people however.

 

[robgmun]

Only recognisable to you. Normal people however.

Normal people will know even less, please don't think normal people are as interested as political junkies like you and me. That's a classic lefty mistake

 

[n111ck]

Only recognisable to you. Normal people however.

You are a Labour zealot not a normal person.

 

[Haggisman]

What is irrational about wanting to lower the burden on your customers to maintain your user base? If prices keep rising more people are not going to be able to pay, meaning less energy purchased and sold, meaning less profits earnt.

This logic applies fine for discretionary/luxury purchases which are easily available. When you're talking about essentials which are in short supply, it doesn't really matter whether half your customers can't afford your product, because the other half will be happy to outbid each other in order to secure supply. This is what people seem to be failing to grasp; there is a shortage of supply, which is why we can't (as a country) just turn round to the producers and say "we're not paying that much" - because their response will be "that's fine, we'll sell it to someone else".

It's all good though.

Just buy a new kettle.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1565298102524846080

Even if the economics of that somehow worked out, I'm not sure if that's actually possible without breaking the laws of thermodynamics? It takes a certain amount of energy to heat a certain amount of water by a certain temperature, a different kettle isn't going to change that. Unless your old kettle is so badly insulated that it is losing a significant amount of heat in the minute or so it takes to boil, or the new one is a heat pump kettle (do they even exist? ), then the savings are going to be in the fractions of a penny surely?

 

[the shadow]

Brightness makes so much difference.
I'm glad I have a light sensor on my monitor.

My plasma TV. Its amazing how much the smart meter jumps around on dark vs light scenes

3 weeks now my 100w Plasma has been off my 17 inch monitor is saving me a lot of units
If i watch a movie i will turn on the projecter or the tv right now my units has not been so low for a long time
My annual usage at this rate wil drop about 15 -18 %