Energy Suppliers

@Classic Blue Theme @Uther Well I could pay a normal standing charge but I’m happy paying an extra £10 a month for them to apparently invest in renewables. It was something like £125 vs £135/mo.

Standing charge makes about £124 difference over the course of the year.

I also have a professional disagreement with octopus.
 
Last edited:
My current fixed tariff with Octopus is finishing this month. Are there any fix term offers for electricity only that are worth doing or is it best to wait till the price come down (if they ever do)?
 
dirtychinchilla said:
Sorry I don’t understand what point you’re making?




Just the standing charge or the rest of it?
Click to expand...
As others have pointed out, the SC is the highest I've ever seen and it is not as if you liver in the Outer Hebrides either!

As admiral as it is choosing a so-called renewable only tariff; I could not trust any of these energy suppliers and the shady way they advertise investment in some sources yet still pull / offset costs against others. I'm too cynical!
 
darkgen said:
As others have pointed out, the SC is the highest I've ever seen and it is not as if you liver in the Outer Hebrides either!

As admiral as it is choosing a so-called renewable only tariff; I could not trust any of these energy suppliers and the shady way they advertise investment in some sources yet still pull / offset costs against others. I'm too cynical!
Click to expand...

Yes it’s quite high, but I’ve always intentionally overpaid to help support green growth.

That’s why I don’t trust Octopus. They blindly push electrification, and I disagree with that.
 
Last edited:
dirtychinchilla said:
Yes it’s quite high, but I’ve always intentionally overpaid to help support green growth.

That’s why I don’t trust Octopus. They blindly push electrification, and I disagree with that.
Click to expand...
D00d; I trust your egalitarian nature BUT goodness me do not trust energy suppliers to do the right thing. At this point, and in-step with every other utility company’s nature, I'd want to pay as little as possible as these chancers are never in it for societies good.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
Yes it’s quite high, but I’ve always intentionally overpaid to help support green growth.

That’s why I don’t trust Octopus. They blindly push electrification, and I disagree with that.
Click to expand...
isn't green growth and electrification combined with green energy one and the same thing?
(albeit with backbone of nuclear but that is a long time coming )
 
darkgen said:
D00d; I trust your egalitarian nature BUT goodness me do not trust energy suppliers to do the right thing. At this point, and in-step with every other utility company’s nature, I'd want to pay as little as possible as these chancers are never in it for societies good.
Click to expand...
I dunno I do think people like Dale Vince (ecotricity) and Greg Jackson (Octopus) genuinely do care about greening up our country.
I don't think looking to make a profit as well is necessarily at odds with that
 
Last edited:
I'm sure there is an inkling of "doing the right thing" somewhere BUT look at the state of it all. Take water, wtf did all the investment go? Of course, we know. That's the point. they all knew, long-term, they are on to a loser, so milk it, milk it, milk it. Ultimately it will take governments to stand up taxpayers’ money as security, to make it happen. Hence, screw it. I want to pay as little possible as ultimately, we know it will fall on the shoulders of your children's and the generations to come. Raw deal after decades of, at best, benign thievery.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
@Classic Blue Theme @Uther Well I could pay a normal standing charge but I’m happy paying an extra £10 a month for them to apparently invest in renewables. It was something like £125 vs £135/mo.

Standing charge makes about £124 difference over the course of the year.

I also have a professional disagreement with octopus.
Click to expand...

Seems nuts to be willing to pay extra for fun, I'd rather fund my own green energy (solar) than rely on someone else's promise to do so.
 
You all make reasonable points. I'll probably change it to the lower SC tariff.

I wish we had solar. We bought this house brand new in 2021 and it didn't have solar panels. Massive disappointment. I would much rather have paid for them upfront than had to think about it now (I thought about it; definitely can't afford it).
 
I had a new build house a few years ago that didn't have them, but others did, felt like the developers just put them on the social housing ones so they could presumably get paid for export, leaving them off the fully owned houses.

Probably met their "green estate" quota but done in such a way that it also gave them the most return benefit.

In roof system is probably the best to look at and is easiest to do when there isn't any roof at all.
 
Last edited:
HungryHippos said:
I had a new build house a few years ago that didn't have them, but others did, felt like the developers just put them on the social housing ones so they could presumably get paid for export, leaving them off the fully owned houses.
Click to expand...

A lot of Housing Associations and councils have solar as a requirement on their new builds so a developer has to install them whereas they are not required on the private homes
 
Richie said:
A lot of Housing Associations and councils have solar as a requirement on their new builds so a developer has to install them whereas they are not required on the private homes
Click to expand...

Yep they should just mandate that panels go on all new houses in general unless there is a good reason not to, seems silly when we're meant to be building houses of the future to leave them off the spec.
 
Solar on new builds would be a fraction of the cost on retrofit.
Plus they could install the in roof systems which, look nicer, allow access to micro inverters etc

Some of the cost would be offset vs an ad hoc addition, most of the sparkie costs, less roof tiles no need for extra scaff etc
Even the roof load aspect since the panels are not dissimilar in weight to the roof tiles they would replace.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Solar on new builds would be a fraction of the cost on retrofit.
Plus they could install the in roof systems which, look nicer, allow access to micro inverters etc

Some of the cost would be offset vs an ad hoc addition, most of the sparkie costs, less roof tiles no need for extra scaff etc
Even the roof load aspect since the panels are not dissimilar in weight to the roof tiles they would replace.
Click to expand...

Been saying this for a decade now. No new house build should be granted planning without a large amount of PV on the roof and a significant amount of battery storage.
 
john_smith said:
Been saying this for a decade now. No new house build should be granted planning without a large amount of PV on the roof and a significant amount of battery storage.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree on the battery. It won't suit everyone and its a lot of cost.
I mean add the provision (ie hybrid inverter which is nigh on same cost) and wiring to a suitable location, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom