Dont Pay, Energy bills mass action?

[Bruce Spanner]

11 minutes ago, stringvest said:

 

He used to wear Trespass and shop at the Aldi
Now he’s the joker in the clubhouse at Caldy
His hair was receding, his face had descended
Now he’s been up to Rodney Street and had it all mended
He used to walk home with a chop suey roll
Now he’s in Sheldrakes devouring his soul
His mate’s got a six-berth in Kinmel Bay
And for the last week in August that’s where he’d stay
But now it’s a fortnight in tropical climes
Raising of lager and here’s to the times
But a worried demeanour as I went through his turnstile
Was clarified later when I heard the announcement

John McNamara
John McNamara
John McNamara
To the cash office please

 

 

 

Ha! 
 

I was actually listening to  CSI:Ambleside to get me in the mood. 

[Rico1304]

2 hours ago, bossy said:

Well for a start it might reveal the competition in energy provision to be exactly what it is; a sham. Energy is a corporate monopoly and companies like Octopus are there to make it look like we have real choice.  

No, it’ll reveal that there was competition until the market was allowed to be manipulated.  Martin Lewis was wanking over companies that were scamming whilst slagging off those acting within the rules.  

[VladimirIlyich]

4 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

No, it’ll reveal that there was competition until the market was allowed to be manipulated.  Martin Lewis was wanking over companies that were scamming whilst slagging off those acting within the rules.  

Rules? It's a shame there were no rules to stop what we already owned being sold off to people who already owned it. Rules? What rules.

[Furmedge]

What are the rules?

[bossy]

17 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

No, it’ll reveal that there was competition until the market was allowed to be manipulated.  Martin Lewis was wanking over companies that were scamming whilst slagging off those acting within the rules.  

Not got anything to do with Martin Lewis. The energy market is a sham, a collusion between government and the big oil companies. The monopolies commission was done away with to allow exactly this kind of faux choice. The ‘don’t pay’ action won’t happen because people are generally rule and law abiding, unlike the corporations and governments.  Scandalous theft of tax payers assets that we are now expected to pay through the teeth for. It’s fuck all to do with choice that’s for sure. 

[Trumo]

Speaking of Martin Lewis, his advice for those consumers on flexible tariffs to get their meter readings in for March 31st/April 1st (and no doubt he'll say something similar for September 30th/October 1st) actually ended up doing them a disservice. Firstly, the suppliers got inundated to the point where their systems crashed, creating a bit of needless panic for the consumers as they were concerned over what it would now cost. Secondly (and perhaps more importantly), it would actually be in the consumer's interest for their supplier to overestimate their meter readings for these dates. Since the new rates would be higher, it would make more sense for the consumers to be over-billed at the pre-increase rates, then wait until their actual readings surpass that estimates before next submitting their readings, with the difference then being billed at the new rates.

[Strontium]

2 minutes ago, Trumo said:

Secondly (and perhaps more importantly), it would actually be in the consumer's interest for their supplier to overestimate their meter readings for these dates.

 

I suppose the smart move would have been for consumers to provide a meter reading that was higher than their actual reading, essentially prepaying for energy at a lower rate. I wonder how many people did that.

[Champ]

13 hours ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Don’t talk French, C, you’ll confuse ‘em.

 

13 hours ago, TheBitch said:

 

*How many times have I told myself, read the thread before jumping in with inane comments.

 

Having now read the thread I realise I’ve let my attention slip because who of the ‘regulars’ couldn’t have predicted how, what could have been an interesting conversation, would degenerate into the usual point scoring and mud slinging. How can you be bothered?

[Rico1304]

11 hours ago, Trumo said:

Speaking of Martin Lewis, his advice for those consumers on flexible tariffs to get their meter readings in for March 31st/April 1st (and no doubt he'll say something similar for September 30th/October 1st) actually ended up doing them a disservice. Firstly, the suppliers got inundated to the point where their systems crashed, creating a bit of needless panic for the consumers as they were concerned over what it would now cost. Secondly (and perhaps more importantly), it would actually be in the consumer's interest for their supplier to overestimate their meter readings for these dates. Since the new rates would be higher, it would make more sense for the consumers to be over-billed at the pre-increase rates, then wait until their actual readings surpass that estimates before next submitting their readings, with the difference then being billed at the new rates.

I had a call with a guy at edf and they received 2m readings that week when they usually get about 50k.  Everything broke. 

[TheBitch]

12 hours ago, Champ said:

 

*How many times have I told myself, read the thread before jumping in with inane comments.

 

Having now read the thread I realise I’ve let my attention slip because who of the ‘regulars’ couldn’t have predicted how, what could have been an interesting conversation, would degenerate into the usual point scoring and mud slinging. How can you be bothered?

It’s many years of practice, Champ. 

[dockers_strike]

Current (excuse the pun!) grid watch.

 

https://gridwatch.co.uk/

[Captain Willard]

1 hour ago, dockers_strike said:

Current (excuse the pun!) grid watch.

 

https://gridwatch.co.uk/

You’d think there would be more solar today. 

[dockers_strike]

14 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

You’d think there would be more solar today. 

It's overcast and I guess the sunlight isnt enough to produce a gigawatt? Or else with demand being met by other means, the grid isnt taking any solar right now?

[Numero Veinticinco]

18% nuclear? 

[Harry's Lad]

I read something the other week on one of the news websites, possibly Sky, about using the tide as a means of generating electricity. 

 

This fella reckoned the French have been using it to a certain degree for decades and it would cost less than half the cost of nuclear plants.

 

Add in the fact that nuclear plants have a lifespan of about 50 - 60 years and tidal power plants twice that and without any nuclear waste, I wondered how seriously this has been considered here, especially seeing that we are an island nation surrounded by the sea.

 

Solar power depends on sunshine, wind power needs wind and neither are always available, but as long as there's a moon there'll always be a tide and tides are very predictable. 

 

I would have thought it made sense but what do I know.

What do our resident experts think?

 

[Captain Willard]

55 minutes ago, Harry's Lad said:

I read something the other week on one of the news websites, possibly Sky, about using the tide as a means of generating electricity. 

 

This fella reckoned the French have been using it to a certain degree for decades and it would cost less than half the cost of nuclear plants.

 

Add in the fact that nuclear plants have a lifespan of about 50 - 60 years and tidal power plants twice that and without any nuclear waste, I wondered how seriously this has been considered here, especially seeing that we are an island nation surrounded by the sea.

 

Solar power depends on sunshine, wind power needs wind and neither are always available, but as long as there's a moon there'll always be a tide and tides are very predictable. 

 

I would have thought it made sense but what do I know.

What do our resident experts think?

 

I’m working on funding a tidal scheme at the moment but it’s a slog. The sea is a tough unforgiving place. Much easier to be above the surface (getting energy from the wind) than underneath. 

[dockers_strike]

1 hour ago, Harry's Lad said:

I read something the other week on one of the news websites, possibly Sky, about using the tide as a means of generating electricity. 

 

This fella reckoned the French have been using it to a certain degree for decades and it would cost less than half the cost of nuclear plants.

 

Add in the fact that nuclear plants have a lifespan of about 50 - 60 years and tidal power plants twice that and without any nuclear waste, I wondered how seriously this has been considered here, especially seeing that we are an island nation surrounded by the sea.

 

Solar power depends on sunshine, wind power needs wind and neither are always available, but as long as there's a moon there'll always be a tide and tides are very predictable. 

 

I would have thought it made sense but what do I know.

What do our resident experts think?

 

Yeah they're called tidal barrages. I think a number were proposed in the UK but they are massive projects and you need to build in locks to allow ship entry and access to ports. To be honest, Im not convince by the guy's claim such a project to build 5 or 6 of these things would cost half the price a nuclear plant?

 

I read somewhere these barrages also slow the Earth's rotation by a tiny fraction because the transfer of energy doesnt come for free.

[Harry's Lad]

1 minute ago, dockers_strike said:

Yeah they're called tidal barrages. I think a number were proposed in the UK but they are massive projects and you need to build in locks to allow ship entry and access to ports. To be honest, Im not convince by the guy's claim such a project to build 5 or 6 of these things would cost half the price a nuclear plant?

 

I read somewhere these barrages also slow the Earth's rotation by a tiny fraction because the transfer of energy doesnt come for free.

I think he meant like for like, a barrage half the cost of a nuclear plant tbh, that's my thinking anyway.

 

I've been reading about the barrage at Rance in Brittany which is what I think he was on about.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station

 

Apparently it had paid for itself in 20 years and is still operating now and although not as productive as nuclear it's a damn sight safer, plus it's only halfway through its lifespan since commission.

 

We have some strong tides around this country,  the Severn in particular, I just think resources such as these should be looked at seriously. 

[Captain Willard]

19 minutes ago, Harry's Lad said:

I think he meant like for like, a barrage half the cost of a nuclear plant tbh, that's my thinking anyway.

 

I've been reading about the barrage at Rance in Brittany which is what I think he was on about.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station

 

Apparently it had paid for itself in 20 years and is still operating now and although not as productive as nuclear it's a damn sight safer, plus it's only halfway through its lifespan since commission.

 

We have some strong tides around this country,  the Severn in particular, I just think resources such as these should be looked at seriously. 

Planning would be near impossible. Lots of migrating birds, fish and seals live in tidal estuaries, Natural England and the RSBP would ferociously object to pretty much anything that disturbed this ecology. That’s a big part of why the wind industry has moved offshore, more wind, taller turbines and much easier to get planning. 

[Harry's Lad]

24 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

Planning would be near impossible. Lots of migrating birds, fish and seals live in tidal estuaries, Natural England and the RSBP would ferociously object to pretty much anything that disturbed this ecology. That’s a big part of why the wind industry has moved offshore, more wind, taller turbines and much easier to get planning. 

Valid points, but so is the obligation to net zero, vital to the future of future generations I'm sure you will agree.

 

As we move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, the more irons in the fire the better as far as I can see considering how power hungry modern society is. 

 

As I said earlier, solar and wind power are not available 100% of the time and nuclear is not without its risks, substantial risks at that, but again, what do I know.

 

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, Captain Willard said:

Planning would be near impossible. Lots of migrating birds, fish and seals live in tidal estuaries, Natural England and the RSBP would ferociously object to pretty much anything that disturbed this ecology. That’s a big part of why the wind industry has moved offshore, more wind, taller turbines and much easier to get planning. 

That’s the rub. Planning is a fucking nightmare. We should build 10-15 nuclear power stations and just fuck off any objections.  Switch from gas to elec in every domestic scenario and insulate with the money saved. 

[Captain Willard]

14 minutes ago, Harry's Lad said:

Valid points, but so is the obligation to net zero, vital to the future of future generations I'm sure you will agree.

 

As we move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, the more irons in the fire the better as far as I can see considering how power hungry modern society is. 

 

As I said earlier, solar and wind power are not available 100% of the time and nuclear is not without its risks, substantial risks at that, but again, what do I know.

 

Yes agree but a lot of people don’t want anything built at all. I estimate that pretty much every renewables energy project ever built in this country has had to contend with planning objections. People want green energy but they don’t want the infrastructure that produces it. It was the same with the Victorian railways though the planning  system and the ability to object was less developed then. Rich people still objected to new lines going through their estates even in Parliament. You’d never be able to build the railway system now, it would be impossible to get planning on such a scale and the same inertia will stop us getting to net zero within the next 25 years. 

[Rico1304]

27 minutes ago, Harry's Lad said:

Valid points, but so is the obligation to net zero, vital to the future of future generations I'm sure you will agree.

 

As we move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, the more irons in the fire the better as far as I can see considering how power hungry modern society is. 

 

As I said earlier, solar and wind power are not available 100% of the time and nuclear is not without its risks, substantial risks at that, but again, what do I know.

 

Nuclear is about as safe as anything gets. Imagine an industry making £3bn a day profits being able to control the narrative? Nuclear is safe.  

[Harry's Lad]

2 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Nuclear is about as safe as anything gets. Imagine an industry making £3bn a day profits being able to control the narrative? Nuclear is safe.  

I'm not knowledgeable enough to argue the point and there have only been three incidents in the last 65 years, but they were significant ones.

 

Windscale, which was before my time, Chernobyl which scared most of Europe and Fukushima after the earthquake and tsunami.

 

Modern nuclear power stations undoubtedly would be safer than those three and I'm not trying to pick holes in what you say, but when these things go off they go off big.

 

Something as dangerous as this is never completely safe. Safer maybe, but not safe. Not in my uneducated opinion.

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Nuclear is the way.