1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Gas and Electricity Prices

Discussion in 'off topic' started by gordonscobie, Sep 14, 2021.

  1. laughingboy

    laughingboy pfm Member

    The recent report by the Tony Blair Institute is worth reading, if only for the graphs and the conclusion:
  2. Ponty

    Ponty pfm Member

    Yes, I’d agree. If I were installing a new system now, it would be PV with battery storage. Back in 2009, the PV systems weren’t where they are today, whereas solar thermal is very simple tech which just works. Unfortunately I can’t install such things in my new place, so at the mercy of gas prices but at least the house is very well insulated and efficient.
  3. wulbert

    wulbert pfm Member

    "Publicly Owned" in this country (UK) is a byword for underfunded, understaffed, poor investment. No company or service fails simply because it is state owned. But here, because we don't value our public services, we always run public services on a shoestring. This creates the ideal rationale for privatising "failing" public services. (See NHS).

    Other countries are capable of providing excellence in their public services. It a choice that governments make. We have decided to have crap public services (voting Tory is a good way to ensure this).
    Seanm, Sue Pertwee-Tyr and Dogberry like this.
  4. matthewr

    matthewr spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld

    A publicly owned energy company would still be funded by us paying our bills and would still run at a profit that could be returned to the taxpayer.

    The problem is more that the firms are priced on the basis that they are run as they are now and we would run them less rapaciously so we would likely significantly overpay.
  5. mandryka

    mandryka pfm Member

    Thanks. Maybe there will be a deal with Russia to facilitate increased supply of pipeline gas.

    Does anyone know -- when European countries import liquefied gas, do they pay rates which are elevated because of the shortage of pipeline gas? Where I'm coming from is this: is importing gas from, e.g. America, a way for countries to reduce energy inflation, or is it just a means of ensuring adequate supply?

    The increased energy costs will be a serious impediment to growth -- I can see why Truss emphasises growth.
  6. palindrome

    palindrome Thru a hedge, backwards and forwards.


    'Ground control to Major Tom
    Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong'. . .

    twotone and clivem2 like this.
  7. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    Private also may tend to go for the highest price that maximises total profit. i.e. may mean they charge more that some can afford because that loss is smaller than the extra amount they can extort... erm get from the lambs who cough up the higher amount. In 'theory' other providers then 'compete'. ...At least that what the books say...

    Alas, the shareholders may be other companies, etc, their directors may be appointed by other companies, not small sharegolders, and they all 'flock' to their general benefit in terms of cash extraction from the 'free' (sic) market (sic).

    Public ownership can in contrast be run as benefits people in general and keep the money in general circulation with the public, one way or another. Not extract it for a few - often overseas, often who then buy up other assets in the UK they 'rent' back to use.
  8. Ponty

    Ponty pfm Member

    As always, easy from afar. Rough and tough a £2K subsidy per household (28M) would cost £56BN every year. The last ‘windfall tax’ raised £5BN. Look forward to seeing the detail.
  9. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr neither here nor there

    And how much of a hit to national finances would be caused by a deep recession and major unemployment?
    PhilofCas likes this.
  10. Mike Reed

    Mike Reed pfm Member

    I heard on this morning's news that Sir Kier Starmer has hit upon the idea of freezing the price cap. No detail was given, but I find that idea a potential solution to rising energy prices. I assume that the gov't would be held to make up the difference to the companies. Simples !!!! However,

    This could be very complex to work out remuneration to the companies as wholesale prices change continually, and gov't refunds being lethargic at best may result in more companies going under. Not sure, but I can't see how the poorer users would be targeted by this as everybody would benefit; maybe nothing wrong with that either.

    Haven't thought much about this and without official analysis, it's hard to form a judgement. Although possibly too simplistic to work, this is at least a new thought on the crisis. I'm sure other fishies have more info. and ideas on this than me; please do tell
  11. Joe Hutch

    Joe Hutch Mate of the bloke

    It seems to me that re-nationalisation would be a good way of avoiding the to and fro of money from the Government to the energy companies, and would avoid all these one-off subsidies.
  12. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr neither here nor there

    I wonder if the reason Johnson is doing sod all about this ATM (apart from the usual reason, obvs) is that he knows or expects the new incumbent to freeze the price cap at or around current levels, and they’ll be in post before the next cap is due to come into effect.
  13. Seeker_UK

    Seeker_UK Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans

    Last week's Briefing Room on R4 had a good overview of things.

    The overall consensus seemed to be to go with OFGEM's recommendation to let the cap rise to keep the focus on the cost of energy and drive public behaviour towards greater energy efficiency, but provide a rebate to the bottom 30-60% of the UK with the lowest household incomes and reinvigorate household insulation schemes.
  14. Ponty

    Ponty pfm Member

    The biggest factor in that happening is businesses, who are on uncapped tariffs in any case. Help households all you like but if people haven’t got jobs to go to, they still can’t pay.
  15. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    I've also been thinking of Solar PV. Two reasons. One being the obvious - to get electrical energy to use/store (or sell back to the grid). The other is that when - as during the last few days -it is 'sunny' the black slates on our roof turn upstairs into an oven! Even though we're well North, the last few days has deliver > 30C in our bedrooms even with all the windows wide and fans blowing though air. Far hotter upstairs than down.

    Our bedrooms are built into the roof-space.
  16. Joe Hutch

    Joe Hutch Mate of the bloke

    Another argument in favour of re-nationalisation.
  17. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    However it still means we pay extortionate prices - just via Government.

    No, it makes more sense to cap the price that the *extractors* in the UK Sector of the North Sea can charge us, along with mandating we are 'first in the queue' for gas/oil they extract. They can make a 'normal' profit from us and still sell any additional gas/oil elsewhere at 'world prices' so still do nicely.

    Starmer's approach is still a form of 'business as usual' which means we cough up via a different route. Tory-lite. *Unless* he intended to cap the *extractor's* price, which the reports don't seem to indicate.
  18. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr neither here nor there

    You would, however, have to have some means to compel the providers to supply you. Otherwise there’s no current shortage of parties who will pay the market rate for their product, so why would they sell to you at a discount unless they had to?
  19. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    The problem with re-Nationalisation is that we'd have to pay for the all the plant, machinery, etc, assets at some kind of market price and give that to the current owners. There is no need for that if we simply cap the price they *have* to sell their output to us for the duration of the 'emergency'. Once the price drops again in future we can choose what we may do next. Not commit to buying them up entirely.
  20. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    Yes. I thought I'd already said that we would tell them how much they would have to sell to us, and for how much/kWh. Then leave any more above that for them to sell elsewhere at World Market prices. So they still make some profit from us, and can make more per kWh elsewhere on top. But this would be done by some form of Crown Decree during a National Emergency caused by War.

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice