Energy Prices

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, BFTD said:

Aye, it's more crying about having to do anything at all that isn't of immediate personal benefit.

If oaky was really concerned about us running out of electricity, then limiting use of things that use, on average, just under four times the average household usage of electricity per day would be the obvious place to start.

Focusing instead on castigating someone for doing an extra washing or using the tumble dryer shows he's not actually that concerned about that prospect at all.

[strichener]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

^^^ Missing the point spectacularly

I think you are missing the point.  Why rail against electric cars when the alternative is fossil fuels.

[BFTD]

26 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

If oaky was really concerned about us running out of electricity, then limiting use of things that use, on average, just under four times the average household usage of electricity per day would be the obvious place to start.

Focusing instead on castigating someone for doing an extra washing or using the tumble dryer shows he's not actually that concerned about that prospect at all.

Oaksoft virtue signalling?

Huge if true.

[Todd_is_God]

1 minute ago, strichener said:

I think you are missing the point.  Why rail against electric cars when the alternative is fossil fuels.

Oaksoft is claiming to be worried about running out of electricity, not on any impact burning fossil fuels may have on the environment. Electric cars use a decent amount of electricity (at an average of 0.3kW per mile, the average EV would use 6kWh per day - or 75% of the average daily usage for a house). A Tesla battery is 75-100kWh from empty to full. In the event of an actual energy shortage, they're not that helpful in tackling the problem.

Yet he seems more concerned by those using a tumble dryer to dry their clothes or putting the heating on to keep warm.

If he suggested something like a hot tub ban instead then I could understand that to a point, but instead he's gone down a bit of a green crusade recently and is expecting everyone to cut back because he has.

[Bairnardo]

Get the diesel trains back immediately

[vikingTON]

Quote

 

Ofgem’s chief executive, Jonathan Brearley, is expected to announce the regulator’s public information campaign on Thursday, when he will tell the Energy UK conference “this isn’t the time for complacency” as energy costs continue to rise.

He is expected to say that reducing energy consumption is “not only the most direct way of reducing our bills [but] it directly helps with security of supply, contributes to decarbonisation, and saves money for the public finances,” according to the Financial Times.

 

'Don't turn your heating on because otherwise Putin wins!!11!! and we can't afford more tax cuts for the rich' will make for an interesting public information campaign.

The only significant reason why most individuals would go out of their way to cut energy consumption - cost - has had its signal effectively muzzled by state intervention this winter. Many people either haven't realised this yet, or the ongoing 'cost of living' media frenzy is primed to terrify them into not heating their homes regardless of the actual price they would pay. That's where public information is warranted - not this cut consumption drivel for a problem entirely of the government and regulators' making. 

Perhaps instead of hectoring the public for having the temerity to act like it's still a first world country, Ofgem can turn its attention to the scores of cowboy energy firms that folded under its watch. 

[scottsdad]

12 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

Oaksoft is claiming to be worried about running out of electricity, not on any impact burning fossil fuels may have on the environment. Electric cars use a decent amount of electricity (at an average of 0.3kW per mile, the average EV would use 6kWh per day - or 75% of the average daily usage for a house). A Tesla battery is 75-100kWh from empty to full. In the event of an actual energy shortage, they're not that helpful in tackling the problem.

Yet he seems more concerned by those using a tumble dryer to dry their clothes or putting the heating on to keep warm.

If he suggested something like a hot tub ban instead then I could understand that to a point, but instead he's gone down a bit of a green crusade recently and is expecting everyone to cut back because he has.

I don't think comparing electric cars to houses is a good comparison. Best to compare electric cars with petrol ones as this is the energy that will be replaced if people switch.

Take something a bit more bog standard. The Renault Zoe has a battery capacity of 52 kWh and uses ~0.25 kWh per mile.

To charge this from completely empty to completely full would cost around £18 in electricity, and give you driving for about 200 miles.

A gallon of petrol costs ~£7.25. A car doing 40 mpg will cost around £36 for 5 gallons, and give you driving for about 200 miles. Around double the  financial cost.

In terms of generating these kWh, a gallon of petroleum liquids (not regular unleaded) generates around 13 kWh in power stations.  To charge the Renault Zoe would take around 4 gallons of these.

In short, an electric vehicle uses marginally less fuel than a petrol equivalent, but costs much less to run.

[Todd_is_God]

1 hour ago, scottsdad said:

I don't think comparing electric cars to houses is a good comparison. Best to compare electric cars with petrol ones as this is the energy that will be replaced if people switch

Well, yes, but we don't use petrol to generate our electricity.

I'm not making an environmental argument, rather pointing out the obvious flaw in Oaksoft's plan to save electricity.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

19 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Well, yes, but we don't use petrol to generate our electricity.

I'm not making an environmental argument, rather pointing out the obvious flaw in Oaksoft's plan to save electricity.

Yep, I may be wrong but i don't think there are any oil fired generations in operation in the UK any more, at least not at scale. As mentioned already, scotland is already almost completely away from fossil fuels for power generation, only gas fired peterhead remains. the rest of the UK is still a bit to go tho

[scottsdad]

28 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Well, yes, but we don't use petrol to generate our electricity.

I'm not making an environmental argument, rather pointing out the obvious flaw in Oaksoft's plan to save electricity.

To be fair, @oaksoft is not wrong about a lot of it. Many people, seeing their bills rising, have cut back on electricity. Some cannot cut back more without sitting in the dark.

But many more people haven't. At least, not as much as they could. A relatively modest (£15 million) government ad campaign could cut electricity usage by quite a bit by informing people of alternative ways to do regular stuff, like drying clothes. If people did this, then the amount that the government is subsidising the energy companies would drop by more than the £15m. It's crazy that this campaign was stopped. I genuinely have heard people complain that their bills are away up, whilst they run a tumble dryer all day when it is dry outside.

I do indeed take your point about electric cars. A lot of very false advertising going around about these ("zero emissions").

[hk blues]

28 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

To be fair, @oaksoft is not wrong about a lot of it. Many people, seeing their bills rising, have cut back on electricity. Some cannot cut back more without sitting in the dark.

But many more people haven't. At least, not as much as they could. A relatively modest (£15 million) government ad campaign could cut electricity usage by quite a bit by informing people of alternative ways to do regular stuff, like drying clothes. If people did this, then the amount that the government is subsidising the energy companies would drop by more than the £15m. It's crazy that this campaign was stopped. I genuinely have heard people complain that their bills are away up, whilst they run a tumble dryer all day when it is dry outside.

I do indeed take your point about electric cars. A lot of very false advertising going around about these ("zero emissions").

Do we need to spend 15m on a campaign to tell people that it's cheaper to dry clothes outside than using a tumble dryer though?  

[Todd_is_God]

8 minutes ago, hk blues said:

Do we need to spend 15m on a campaign to tell people that it's cheaper to dry clothes outside than using a tumble dryer though?  

You'd probably be surprised tbh.

That said, drying clothes outside in winter in Scotland is not always practical, and drying clothes slowly in a cold indoor environment is asking for mould to grow.

£15m out of £100b is also absolute chicken feed.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Todd_is_God

[hk blues]

7 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

You'd probably be surprised tbh.

That said, drying clothes outside in winter in Scotland is not always practical, and drying clothes slowly in a cold indoor environment is asking for mould to grow.

£15m out of £100b is also absolute chicken feed.

The bas burst if folk really need to be told where, when and how to dry their clothes.  I can think of plenty better uses for 15m as I'm sure you can.

[Todd_is_God]

10 minutes ago, hk blues said:

The bas burst if folk really need to be told where, when and how to dry their clothes.  I can think of plenty better uses for 15m as I'm sure you can.

Not so much about telling people where and how to dry their clothes but plenty of people will have no idea how many kWh their tumble dryer uses and/or still don't understand the £2,500 cap isn't a spending limit.

RE: £15m of course I can. But a 0.015% saving isn't anything worthwhile.

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, scottsdad said:

To be fair, @oaksoft is not wrong about a lot of it. Many people, seeing their bills rising, have cut back on electricity. Some cannot cut back more without sitting in the dark.

But many more people haven't. At least, not as much as they could. A relatively modest (£15 million) government ad campaign could cut electricity usage by quite a bit by informing people of alternative ways to do regular stuff, like drying clothes. If people did this, then the amount that the government is subsidising the energy companies would drop by more than the £15m. It's crazy that this campaign was stopped. I genuinely have heard people complain that their bills are away up, whilst they run a tumble dryer all day when it is dry outside.

I do indeed take your point about electric cars. A lot of very false advertising going around about these ("zero emissions").

Or the government could just not throw tax cuts at the rich and clobber windfall taxes on the energy producers, which would substantially reduce the overall cost of its policies. It could also have tapered its support measures instead of giving a universal payment to everyone. 

Putting the onus on the public to not run the leccy too much because the Chancellor will be sad/Putin will be happy about it is pathetically small-time behaviour. 

 

[scottsdad]

16 minutes ago, virginton said:

Or the government could just not throw tax cuts at the rich and clobber windfall taxes on the energy producers, which would substantially reduce the overall cost of its policies. It could also have tapered its support measures instead of giving a universal payment to everyone. 

Putting the onus on the public to not run the leccy too much because the Chancellor will be sad/Putin will be happy about it is pathetically small-time behaviour. 

 

I agree with your first point. Why there is no windfall tax is anybody's guess.

[Todd_is_God]

19 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Yes, but I was.

Really?

21 hours ago, oaksoft said:

It's astonishing and quite frankly criminal that the government are not leading the way on a prolonged national campaign about everyone cutting their energy usage by a certain percentage.

Between the cost-of-living crisis, the bill the government will have to pay energy firms to compensate for the price cap and the environmental crisis, this should be a no-brainer.

That'll be why you popped it last in your list of things you were voicing your faux concern over then.

[Todd_is_God]

25 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I've haven't mentioned electric cars at all. Really not sure what you're trying to achieve here.

Whether or not you agree with the point I was making, I think I've explained my reasoning for bringing up electric cars 

Are you going to explain how, if there was an energy shortage, someone battering 50+kWh a week into an electric car is fine but someone using a tumble dryer now and then, for example, is out of order? Or will you continue to ignore the question because you can't really answer it?

[RiG]

Weird flex but okay...

[Shadow Play]

8 hours ago, scottsdad said:

I don't think comparing electric cars to houses is a good comparison. Best to compare electric cars with petrol ones as this is the energy that will be replaced if people switch.

Take something a bit more bog standard. The Renault Zoe has a battery capacity of 52 kWh and uses ~0.25 kWh per mile.

To charge this from completely empty to completely full would cost around £18 in electricity, and give you driving for about 200 miles.

A gallon of petrol costs ~£7.25. A car doing 40 mpg will cost around £36 for 5 gallons, and give you driving for about 200 miles. Around double the  financial cost.

In terms of generating these kWh, a gallon of petroleum liquids (not regular unleaded) generates around 13 kWh in power stations.  To charge the Renault Zoe would take around 4 gallons of these.

In short, an electric vehicle uses marginally less fuel than a petrol equivalent, but costs much less to run.

Is that not because of the government’s Energy Price Guarantee? i.e. without this the price for a unit electricity was predicted to at least double come January 2023.  Using your figures above that would make 200 miles cost £36 for electricity - the same as petrol.

I’m not knocking the use of electric cars.  I’m just pointing out that their running costs are now being massively subsidised by the government (under the Energy Price Guarantee) and will continue to to be subsidised for at least the next two years.