Energy Prices

[101]

19 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I thought I'd done quite well to get my usage down so low but that is quite impressive.

To get mine down further I'd probably need to switch off one of the computers and also drop my coffee and tea intake from 12 mugs a day. The kettle probably accounts for most of the electricity. 

Yeh I only have a few hot drinks but use the hob and over at least once a day usually cook my porridge on the hob in the morning, but don't have a dishwasher which I think saves power.

But after all that Shell keep pressuring me to up my bill to £85 a month. Wankers.

[SuperSaints1877]

Am I correct in thinking that all people who have multiple homes in the UK that are not rented out will get £400 grant to help with the utility bills?

Surely if you can afford to have more than one dwelling you can afford to pay your utility bills?

Obviously this does not affect landlords where tenants are directly responsible for the utility bills.

It just seems absurd that the mega rich who own multiple properties get multiple assistance. 

Surely that can’t be right?

[SuperSaints1877]

13 hours ago, oaksoft said:

At this rate I'm beginning to think I'm going to have to come out of retirement and see what action I can pick up at the docks. 

Were you into prostitution? 

Was this where you developed your porn scripts?

[scottsdad]

28 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Right now I have 2 computers running

You can browse P&B and pornhub on the same computer. Just use different browser windows.

Happy to supply more energy saving tips...

[SuperSaints1877]

15 hours ago, oaksoft said:

There's going to be a few smug environmentalists who have off-gridded their houses right now.

There are a number of communities in the UK that have been in place for many years and work really well off grid. Swampy has been part of one in Wales for decades. That lifestyle only suits hardcore environmentalists.

A new option for those can afford to is known as Passive Housing which use very little energy to heat.

A number of projects in the UK already including in Scotland including social housing associations.

https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/passivhaus-what-you-need-know/

https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/plans-cleared-for-passivhaus-homes-in-fife
 

https://passivhaustrust.org.uk/news/detail/?nId=947

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4xy6eo16ymqkxmq/PHT_PH Benefits Summary_Full report_5.0_Double Page.pdf?dl=0

[MEADOWXI]

These folk have no shame and are scum, as they insist they need to hike prices again in October,

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/centrica-profits-gas-energy-bills-b2132932.html

 

British Gas owner Centrica has seen operating profits increase five-fold to £1.34 billion as energy bills soar.

The company’s profits for the six months to the end of June were a substantial increase on earnings compared to the £262m recorded in the same period last year.

[Left Back]

39 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

Am I correct in thinking that all people who have multiple homes in the UK that are not rented out will get £400 grant to help with the utility bills?

Surely if you can afford to have more than one dwelling you can afford to pay your utility bills?

Obviously this does not affect landlords where tenants are directly responsible for the utility bills.

It just seems absurd that the mega rich who own multiple properties get multiple assistance. 

Surely that can’t be right?

Correct.  It isn't means tested and is per property.

[s_dog]

2 hours ago, Clown Job said:

 

They always use the arguments that most of their profits are from other aspects of their business and consumer energy doesn't make them much money, and that they need the profits to reinvest in future energy generation, and they now add in that they need the money to diversify/explore green energy. Plus of course they need profits to keep shareholders happy, lobbying politicians and the like.

The fact that Shell has more than doubled their second quarter profits compared to last year (£9.4bn up from £4.5bn) , and Centrica's half year figure is five times higher (£262m last year to £1.3bn) is crazy and there is nothing that can justify these huge increases when people are going to be asked to pay silly money for their energy this winter.

[Andy Dufresne]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

That is disgraceful.

You are entitled to have that money returned and that direct debit set to something sensible.

BTW, how on earth did you keep your gas usage to £1.93?

We did not have the heating on and most of our cooking is done in a Ninja Shark Cooker,also helps we are down at our caravan most weekends.

[Todd_is_God]

Appears to be a few clapping seals looking in the mirror not too happy with their reflection...

[DA Baracus]

9 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Appears to be a few clapping seals looking in the mirror not too happy with their reflection...

[DeeTillEhDeh]

You agree 100%?
Fair enough.
Which part of this quote from me are you saying is wrong when it comes to nuclear power?

2) The waste is extremely hazardous and difficult, if not impossible, to deal with safely on anything like a long-term basis.

Fossil fuel power stations produce more radiation than nuclear power stations.

The exact amounts depend on the source of the coal, but are usually in the range of a few parts per million. That might not sound a lot until you realise that a typical gigawatt-capacity coal power station burns several million tonnes of coal per year. That means every such station creates fly ash containing around 5-10 tonnes of uranium and thorium each year.

According to estimates by the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the world’s coal-fired power stations currently generate waste containing around 5,000 tonnes of uranium and 15,000 tonnes of thorium. Collectively, that’s over 100 times more radiation dumped into the environment than that released by nuclear power stations.

[mizfit]

Lads I’m starting to think we need to consider moving beyond protests.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

For the same GW of energy produced?

Don't have that figure at hand but do have the death and accident rates per terawatt and greenhouse gas emission figures (per gigawatthour) for all types of energy production.

The problem of any debate on nuclear power is that one side is dominated by individuals who refuse to acknowledge or even discuss the possibility that it might not be the evil incarnate destined to mutate our children into three-eyed monsters in the way that they supposed had happened in Chernobyl.

My own view is there has to be a role for nuclear (along with other energy sources) in an energy strategy - fission in the short-term but researching the possibility of fusion power in the long-term. There seems to be a black-white approach by certain people regards energy generation - when the reality is that renewables have their own associated externalities.

[Clown Job]

31 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I remember reading about a remote community in Scotland on the mainland overlooking Skye which is completely off-grid and you need a 5 mile walk from the nearest home to find them.

Quite an interesting read but can't remember the book or the author. It had "off-grid" in the title though.

Was that out of choice or necessity?

Not much profit for energy companies to build and maintain the necessary infrastructure unless they're being forced to go it by government 

[SuperSaints1877]

52 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Yes that is correct.

The argument is that it would cost too much to have to introduce a system to get the help only where it was needed. It would also take far too long to implement.

It's one of the benefits and also the downsides of any universal benefit.

Surely an easy way to receive the grant would be via a sign up process where in the questionnaire you are asked if you own multiple properties and weed them out that way? Failure to answer truthfully incurs a penalty of £1000.

It just seems wrong that those multiple household owners benefit considerably when they probably don’t need it.

Some will argue the cost of implementing such a system outweighs the savings and no doubt they are right, but it just seems morally wrong that these people with many homes gain a considerable advantage.

Edited July 28, 2022 by SuperSaints1877

[MacDuffman]

Does the money not go direct to the customers energy supplier as a credit though? Should mean that if the tennent is paying th ebills the landlord doesn't get the money from multiple properties.

[Left Back]

Just now, MacDuffman said:

Does the money not go direct to the customers energy supplier as a credit though? Should mean that if the tennent is paying th ebills the landlord doesn't get the money from multiple properties.

He's not talking about second homes that are rented out.  he's talking about people that have a holiday home that they use themselves as well as their primary dwelling.

If you're a tenant you get the grant, not the landlord.

[SuperSaints1877]

1 minute ago, MacDuffman said:

Does the money not go direct to the customers energy supplier as a credit though? Should mean that if the tennent is paying th ebills the landlord doesn't get the money from multiple properties.

In my original post on the subject of multiple home ownership I did exclude landlords where the tenants are responsible for utility bills.

I’m referring to rich b*****ds who own multiple homes that they don’t rent out.

[scottsdad]

1 hour ago, mizfit said:

Lads I’m starting to think we need to consider moving beyond protests.

We protesting the energy price hikes, the gross profits of the energy firms, the lack of help from the government, or Oaksoft's posts?