|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 2, 2023 18:27:27 GMT
It has fallen massively. The energy producers (Shell, BP etc) are making record profits. Energy providers are not, because they are being fleeced by the producers. Regulate the producers, and at the same time create a tax payer owned green energy and nuclear power company so we can wean ourselves off fossil fuels and the whims of the energy giants and cut our energy bills in half or more. Sure they're making massive profits, this year. After massive losses during the pandemic. You can check stock prices (Total, Shell, BP etc) they don't scream supernormal profits. How would you like them regulating? Were you calling for a minimum price for energy when some firms (quite literally) couldn't give the stuff away in 2020? The energy firms are all multinationals you can tinker around the edges but you can't have the state fixing prices. Otherwise the firms will just sell elsewhere. Agree that we need to wean ourselves off dirty (often imported from dubious regimes) fossil fuels. I'm just not sure it needs to be state that does it. Any individual can invest in renewable technology generation (at home or abroad). I don't see any reason for the state to be involved. If we have it your way (the tory way) and let the market decide, it will continue as is until there is more money to be made in renewables, which won’t be for some time, and by then the planet is well and truly screwed, and energy prices will be 10 times higher than they are now. My way, with cheap electricity because it is generated largely from renewable sources in our country and owned by a state company, means much cheaper prices for consumers. Your way prioritises shareholders of big companies, my way prioritises consumers.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 2, 2023 19:24:29 GMT
Sure they're making massive profits, this year. After massive losses during the pandemic. You can check stock prices (Total, Shell, BP etc) they don't scream supernormal profits. How would you like them regulating? Were you calling for a minimum price for energy when some firms (quite literally) couldn't give the stuff away in 2020? The energy firms are all multinationals you can tinker around the edges but you can't have the state fixing prices. Otherwise the firms will just sell elsewhere. Agree that we need to wean ourselves off dirty (often imported from dubious regimes) fossil fuels. I'm just not sure it needs to be state that does it. Any individual can invest in renewable technology generation (at home or abroad). I don't see any reason for the state to be involved. If we have it your way (the tory way) and let the market decide, it will continue as is until there is more money to be made in renewables, which won’t be for some time, and by then the planet is well and truly screwed, and energy prices will be 10 times higher than they are now. My way, with cheap electricity because it is generated largely from renewable sources in our country and owned by a state company, means much cheaper prices for consumers. Your way prioritises shareholders of big companies, my way prioritises consumers. I'm not sure my way is the 'Tory way'. It's how energy markets in the entire Western world operate. I don't know why you think the state can produce electricity cheaper than the market. There's already a stack of money going into renewables. Look at how the electricity generation mix has changed over the past 20 years (https://britishbusinessenergy.co.uk/blog/electricity-100-years/). That's basically private sector capital being put to work. I don't see how a state commpany run from Westminster is going to do it more efficiently. I know you think think there are crazy big profits that can be eliminated and the excess shared with the consumer but that just isn't the case. Look at the price of Shell stock over five years (https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SHEL/) the shareholders have actually made a loss (not accounting for dividends). There isn't actually anything stopping non-profit organisations entering the market either as producer/supplier or both. I believe such things are happening on a micro community level (the model is similar to how the old cooperatives societies were set up in the 19th Century) and I wish them luck. It's just not a magic bullet.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 2, 2023 19:45:13 GMT
If we have it your way (the tory way) and let the market decide, it will continue as is until there is more money to be made in renewables, which won’t be for some time, and by then the planet is well and truly screwed, and energy prices will be 10 times higher than they are now. My way, with cheap electricity because it is generated largely from renewable sources in our country and owned by a state company, means much cheaper prices for consumers. Your way prioritises shareholders of big companies, my way prioritises consumers. I'm not sure my way is the 'Tory way'. It's how energy markets in the entire Western world operate. I don't know why you think the state can produce electricity cheaper than the market. There's already a stack of money going into renewables. Look at how the electricity generation mix has changed over the past 20 years (https://britishbusinessenergy.co.uk/blog/electricity-100-years/). That's basically private sector capital being put to work. I don't see how a state commpany run from Westminster is going to do it more efficiently. I know you think think there are crazy big profits that can be eliminated and the excess shared with the consumer but that just isn't the case. Look at the price of Shell stock over five years (https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SHEL/) the shareholders have actually made a loss (not accounting for dividends). There isn't actually anything stopping non-profit organisations entering the market either as producer/supplier or both. I believe such things are happening on a micro community level (the model is similar to how the old cooperatives societies were set up in the 19th Century) and I wish them luck. It's just not a magic bullet. Your way is the status quo. Which is the tory trust the market way. Look what that has done to energy, water and trains. State owned renewable energy would be cheaper because there would be no profit and it is not a steadily declining commodity, unlike oil, coal and gas, which are only ever going to cost more and more as the supplies run lower and lower. In 50 years renewable energy will be an absolute essential. Why not start now? Otherwise electricity and gas will be a luxury for only the richest. Already many have to choose between eating and heating or lighting.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 2, 2023 20:31:41 GMT
I'm not sure my way is the 'Tory way'. It's how energy markets in the entire Western world operate. I don't know why you think the state can produce electricity cheaper than the market. There's already a stack of money going into renewables. Look at how the electricity generation mix has changed over the past 20 years (https://britishbusinessenergy.co.uk/blog/electricity-100-years/). That's basically private sector capital being put to work. I don't see how a state commpany run from Westminster is going to do it more efficiently. I know you think think there are crazy big profits that can be eliminated and the excess shared with the consumer but that just isn't the case. Look at the price of Shell stock over five years (https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SHEL/) the shareholders have actually made a loss (not accounting for dividends). There isn't actually anything stopping non-profit organisations entering the market either as producer/supplier or both. I believe such things are happening on a micro community level (the model is similar to how the old cooperatives societies were set up in the 19th Century) and I wish them luck. It's just not a magic bullet. Your way is the status quo. Which is the tory trust the market way. Look what that has done to energy, water and trains. State owned renewable energy would be cheaper because there would be no profit and it is not a steadily declining commodity, unlike oil, coal and gas, which are only ever going to cost more and more as the supplies run lower and lower. In 50 years renewable energy will be an absolute essential. Why not start now? Otherwise electricity and gas will be a luxury for only the richest. Already many have to choose between eating and heating or lighting. Ahhh shite. I'm going to spend the last night of my holiday arguing on the Oatcake about energy policy...of all things :-) Water and railways are more like a natural monopoly. Energy is different anybody can supply to the grid (although the grid itself is a natural monopoly) they aren't comparable. Clearly fossil fuels are going to become more expensive as reserves run low and it's harder to extract, this is good. Renewables will have to fill that gap. That is already happening at a very fast rate (see my earlier link). The UK, incidentally, does very well for renewables helped by the fact it's bloody windy all the time. You say, why not start now? I say, it's already happening at a very fast pace. By removing/reducing any profit incentive you're basically that investment will dry up. You seem to be arguing that, because energy prices are high, we need to nationalise and/or regulate profits away. This appears to completely overlook that the primary cause of the current problems is the stop/start demand for energy caused by the pandemic and, obviously, the war in Ukraine. It's not supernormal profits being taken by shareholders.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 2, 2023 20:35:16 GMT
I'm not sure my way is the 'Tory way'. It's how energy markets in the entire Western world operate. I don't know why you think the state can produce electricity cheaper than the market. There's already a stack of money going into renewables. Look at how the electricity generation mix has changed over the past 20 years (https://britishbusinessenergy.co.uk/blog/electricity-100-years/). That's basically private sector capital being put to work. I don't see how a state commpany run from Westminster is going to do it more efficiently. I know you think think there are crazy big profits that can be eliminated and the excess shared with the consumer but that just isn't the case. Look at the price of Shell stock over five years (https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SHEL/) the shareholders have actually made a loss (not accounting for dividends). There isn't actually anything stopping non-profit organisations entering the market either as producer/supplier or both. I believe such things are happening on a micro community level (the model is similar to how the old cooperatives societies were set up in the 19th Century) and I wish them luck. It's just not a magic bullet. I'm nodding along with most of that but get why people are nervous. First year economics warns that all the claims about markets being the best are when it's easy to get in/out, there's equal access to information etc. But that's hardly ever true - it's not like you or I or even a big cooperative could afford a whole new gas or power network to give competition. Even if regulators allowed it. I didn't stick with the economics for long so don't really know shit, but it looks like UK energy markets are kinda ok because we've been pretty careful with things like running the grid. If the government had been running the power system, what would have changed? It was government politics that killed loads of cheap power by stopping most onshore wind. If the same government had been running the grid, would they have done a 180 and gone against rural NIMBYs? EDIT: from what I can tell the conservatives have been a mixed bag on renewables and efficiency. They made some stupid decisions (getting rid of the "green crap" ended up costing us loads) and delays but offshore wind at least is doing well. The stupid decisions were made for political reasons to try and save money short term, which is probably what a government power company would be forced to do all the time.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 2, 2023 20:43:59 GMT
Your way is the status quo. Which is the tory trust the market way. Look what that has done to energy, water and trains. State owned renewable energy would be cheaper because there would be no profit and it is not a steadily declining commodity, unlike oil, coal and gas, which are only ever going to cost more and more as the supplies run lower and lower. In 50 years renewable energy will be an absolute essential. Why not start now? Otherwise electricity and gas will be a luxury for only the richest. Already many have to choose between eating and heating or lighting. Ahhh shite. I'm going to spend the last night of my holiday arguing on the Oatcake about energy policy...of all things :-) Water and railways are more like a natural monopoly. Energy is different anybody can supply to the grid (although the grid itself is a natural monopoly) they aren't comparable. Clearly fossil fuels are going to become more expensive as reserves run low and it's harder to extract, this is good. Renewables will have to fill that gap. That is already happening at a very fast rate (see my earlier link). The UK, incidentally, does very well for renewables helped by the fact it's bloody windy all the time. You say, why not start now? I say, it's already happening at a very fast pace. By removing/reducing any profit incentive you're basically that investment will dry up. You seem to be arguing that, because energy prices are high, we need to nationalise and/or regulate profits away. This appears to completely overlook that the primary cause of the current problems is the stop/start demand for energy caused by the pandemic and, obviously, the war in Ukraine. It's not supernormal profits being taken by shareholders. Shell’s global profits in October were £26bn this year. Energy prices could be significantly lower.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 2, 2023 20:44:29 GMT
Actually, one last thing.
In c.2015 Ed Milliband (then Labour leader) first mooted the 'price cap'. The idea got monstered in the Tory press. At the time I thought that was completely ridiciulous and I approved of that proposal as a justified minor market intervention. The idea of the price cap was a gentle piece of consumer protection that basically assisted consumers who, for whatever reason, weren't able to switch easily between suppliers. It wasn't a wholescale intervention in the market like some are today proposing just a solid piece of consumer protection.
Just in case anyone thinks I'm a wicked Tory ;-)
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 2, 2023 21:04:52 GMT
I'm not sure my way is the 'Tory way'. It's how energy markets in the entire Western world operate. I don't know why you think the state can produce electricity cheaper than the market. There's already a stack of money going into renewables. Look at how the electricity generation mix has changed over the past 20 years (https://britishbusinessenergy.co.uk/blog/electricity-100-years/). That's basically private sector capital being put to work. I don't see how a state commpany run from Westminster is going to do it more efficiently. I know you think think there are crazy big profits that can be eliminated and the excess shared with the consumer but that just isn't the case. Look at the price of Shell stock over five years (https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SHEL/) the shareholders have actually made a loss (not accounting for dividends). There isn't actually anything stopping non-profit organisations entering the market either as producer/supplier or both. I believe such things are happening on a micro community level (the model is similar to how the old cooperatives societies were set up in the 19th Century) and I wish them luck. It's just not a magic bullet. I'm nodding along with most of that but get why people are nervous. First year economics warns that all the claims about markets being the best are when it's easy to get in/out, there's equal access to information etc. But that's hardly ever true - it's not like you or I or even a big cooperative could afford a whole new gas or power network to give competition. Even if regulators allowed it. I didn't stick with the economics for long so don't really know shit, but it looks like UK energy markets are kinda ok because we've been pretty careful with things like running the grid. If the government had been running the power system, what would have changed? It was government politics that killed loads of cheap power by stopping most onshore wind. If the same government had been running the grid, would they have done a 180 and gone against rural NIMBYs? EDIT: from what I can tell the conservatives have been a mixed bag on renewables and efficiency. They made some stupid decisions (getting rid of the "green crap" ended up costing us loads) and delays but offshore wind at least is doing well. The stupid decisions were made for political reasons to try and save money short term, which is probably what a government power company would be forced to do all the time. Yeah. No markets are 'perfect'. What you're describing are 'barriers to entry'. The grid as in 'national grid' is a monopoly and although privately owned is very heavily regulated. That's a good thing. In principle anybody can set up and start supplying the grid with a wind turbine or whatever. I don't believe the barriers to entry are especially high. I invest (a small amount) with a renewables investment company that has about dozen solar and wind facilities that supply the grid. It's not small, but it's not on the scale of BP, Shell etc. Also, the market allows imports/exports of electricty and gas via interconnectors between UK and teh rest of Europe so it's basically a fairly well functioing market in normal times (i.e. without war in Europe and pandemic stop/start). I'm certainly not defending the government. The onshore wind thing is/was daft especially considering that turbines are actually popular with communities. But overall I think the market works well enough (in ordinary times).
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 2, 2023 21:15:54 GMT
Ahhh shite. I'm going to spend the last night of my holiday arguing on the Oatcake about energy policy...of all things :-) Water and railways are more like a natural monopoly. Energy is different anybody can supply to the grid (although the grid itself is a natural monopoly) they aren't comparable. Clearly fossil fuels are going to become more expensive as reserves run low and it's harder to extract, this is good. Renewables will have to fill that gap. That is already happening at a very fast rate (see my earlier link). The UK, incidentally, does very well for renewables helped by the fact it's bloody windy all the time. You say, why not start now? I say, it's already happening at a very fast pace. By removing/reducing any profit incentive you're basically that investment will dry up. You seem to be arguing that, because energy prices are high, we need to nationalise and/or regulate profits away. This appears to completely overlook that the primary cause of the current problems is the stop/start demand for energy caused by the pandemic and, obviously, the war in Ukraine. It's not supernormal profits being taken by shareholders. Shell’s global profits in October were £26bn this year. Energy prices could be significantly lower. 'Global' is the key word there.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 2, 2023 21:26:52 GMT
Just checking that everyone understands that the constantly updating wholesale prices of energy (e.g. Gas TTF in Amsterdam) aren't the same prices that the big producers (e.g. Shell) will be recieiving for all of their supply on any given day.
The big producers have contracts with suppliers (i.e. the companies you pay your bills to) and with some very big consumers (cutting out the middle man). It's like the fixed contracts some of you will have. Just because the wholesale price in any given day/week/month has gone bananas it doesn't mean that every last KwH is being sold for that price.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 3, 2023 9:20:39 GMT
No, pre-invasion was about 174 p/therm, it's now at 210 p/therm, down from its peak in August of about 703p/therm, it's starting to rise again as there has been an issue with the Norwegian distribution chain to the UK and winter usage will increase demand. Why won’t the government regulate to enforce the price drop since August is factored into energy prices for consumers, rather than lining the pockets of the already extremely wealthy shareholders of the multinational corporations? Fook knows, I don't know what Ofgem do, about as much use as the EA are at prosecuting polluting water companies.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 3, 2023 13:01:53 GMT
No, pre-invasion was about 174 p/therm, it's now at 210 p/therm, down from its peak in August of about 703p/therm, it's starting to rise again as there has been an issue with the Norwegian distribution chain to the UK and winter usage will increase demand. Why won’t the government regulate to enforce the price drop since August is factored into energy prices for consumers, rather than lining the pockets of the already extremely wealthy shareholders of the multinational corporations? We have just paid China £100m to pull it's 20 percent out of Sizewell C project, but the Chinese still have 33 per cent share in the EDF-led Hinkley Point C project, as well as the Bradwell site where it was aiming to build a reactor of its own design
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 4, 2023 10:32:14 GMT
Low levels of demand, high wind generation and above average temperatures all combine to drive prices lower across the near and far curve Over the Christmas and New Year period we have experienced a dramatic reduction in prices right across the near and far curve with forward prices now back to the price levels before the start of Ukraine – Russian conflict. The new February front month saw gas prices drop by 33.5 per cent with electricity experiencing similar reductions of 36.2 per cent. Sum’23 gas fell by 28.3 per cent while electricity fell by 23.1 per cent. The bearish pressure continued into the Win’23 season as gas dropped by 29.5 per cent and electricity fell by 18.9 per cent. Prices in the far curve also saw significant reductions of 19.9 per cent and 12.6 per cent respectively. The gas market throughout the holiday period experienced an almost daily price reduction as gas demand dropped due mainly to a reduction in storage withdrawals higher than average temperatures but especially a significant reduction in gas-fired generation. Gas-fired generation dropped dramatically to 5GW on a number of days as wind continued at above 15GW for almost a complete week. High nominations from Norway despite ongoing planned maintenance at the Karsto and Osberg facilities added to the bearish pressure. On the LNG front, six cargoes arrived in UK terminals during the holiday period with a further six cargoes scheduled in the first week of January. Storage levels have recovered a little during the period with UK storage levels now standing at 96 per cent while european levels are in the range 77 – 93 per cent depending on location. Wind generation throughout the Christmas period was above average peaking above 15GW in four day last week. High wind generation is expected to continue over the coming week. Solar energy had a poor performance peaking at 2GW on one day but operating mainly in the range 0.5 – 1GW on all other days. Coal fired generation dropped to zero as high wind dominated the generation mix and nuclear continued at 5.8GW. The French interconnector flipped to export mode during most of the holiday period sending a regular 3GW of electricity to the UK market. However, a few reactors have been further delayed and expect to return to service in late February or early March 2023. Brent Crude increased in value during the period as China opened its borders and relaxed its zero covid policy. Brent finished the week up $5 a barrel to finish the week at $84.3 a barrel. International coal prices followed the bearish trend in power and gas trends dropping a further $20 a tonne to finish the week at $186 a tonne for 2023 delivery.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 4, 2023 10:33:20 GMT
An Ofgem internal letter leaked out
Dear colleagues, Open letter: Good practice expectations for non-domestic suppliers on issues surrounding debt management and disconnection of customers Businesses and other non-domestic customers are continuing to feel the impacts of high energy prices and broader economic pressures. It is more important than ever that non-domestic suppliers treat their customers fairly and follow good practice in their customer interactions. This is particularly necessary in relation to debt management and disconnection practices. We do recognise that energy suppliers will be managing their own financial risk. It is in both suppliers’ and customers’ interests to have pro-active and supportive interactions when customers are facing payment difficulty. For clarity, this letter does not set any additional obligations on suppliers outside of existing license conditions. We are issuing this letter to describe some of the good practice processes we would expect suppliers to follow, at minimum, to best support their customers. We expect suppliers to adhere to their licence obligations and we will take action where necessary to protect the interest of consumers. We expect to see suppliers applying good practice for all non-domestic consumers, in particularly the following areas: • Appropriateness of security deposits and their value. • Shared occupancy of non-domestic premises with domestic consumers. • Transparency on suppliers’ collections process. • Suppliers’ debt and disconnection paths. • Helping business customers in payment difficulty. • Expectations on the timeliness of customer refunds. • Provision of information and signposting to third parties.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 5, 2023 8:02:05 GMT
Last Friday marked a new record in the UK with 87.2% of energy coming from renewable energy.
|
|
|
Post by superjw on Jan 5, 2023 8:25:59 GMT
Last Friday marked a new record in the UK with 87.2% of energy coming from renewable energy. and yet it's absolutely criminal that the price structure is done for renewables in such a way that we still pay through the nose for something that's almost "free" as renewables become more mainstream for energy, the government need to review the pricing to make it fair
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 5, 2023 8:30:08 GMT
Last Friday marked a new record in the UK with 87.2% of energy coming from renewable energy. and yet it's absolutely criminal that the price structure is done for renewables in such a way that we still pay through the nose for something that's almost "free" as renewables become more mainstream for energy, the government need to review the pricing to make it fair It's not cheap to make, install and maintain them in places like the north sea though, and these investment companies want a return and their bonuses. I agree the pricing structure does need reviewing as we move to more and more renewables.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 5, 2023 9:22:58 GMT
Last Friday marked a new record in the UK with 87.2% of energy coming from renewable energy. I’m not having that. Oggy says the only way we get renewable energy is if the government take over 😉
|
|
|
Post by raythesailor on Jan 5, 2023 9:51:34 GMT
What it really means:
I have had a tenant in my commercial property for some years who has built up a successful and thriving business.
She has today given me notice that she is ceasing trading and vacating the property as her business is no longer viable due to excessive energy bills.
Not only have I lost a very good tennant and a substantial part of my retirement income, but her employees have lost their jobs also.
Meanwhile the fat cats continue to rake it in and no doubt the local authorities will be hounding me for business rates for doing nothing on a empty shop/office.
|
|
|
Post by questionable on Jan 8, 2023 18:18:51 GMT
Just received this from British Gas;
“We'd love to know more about your recent experience receiving a bill. It would be really helpful if you can complete a quick survey about it for us”
F’in ecstatic you robbing b’stards, who in their right mind would come up with this idea, knobs
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jan 8, 2023 21:36:50 GMT
Just received this from British Gas; “We'd love to know more about your recent experience receiving a bill. It would be really helpful if you can complete a quick survey about it for us” F’in ecstatic you robbing b’stards, who in their right mind would come up with this idea, knobs I've responded to this about 3 times and absolutely rinsed them every time. Won't make a blind bit of difference but it makes me feel better. They were overestimating my usage earlier in the year so I've had a relatively mild ding ding. I've reduced my gas usage by about 2/3s which has maintained my bill at it's existing cost. The log burner is compensating for this but obviously still costs me to run. I'd rather pay my wood supplier than British Gas though.
|
|
|
Post by questionable on Jan 9, 2023 11:35:46 GMT
Just received this from British Gas; “We'd love to know more about your recent experience receiving a bill. It would be really helpful if you can complete a quick survey about it for us” F’in ecstatic you robbing b’stards, who in their right mind would come up with this idea, knobs I've responded to this about 3 times and absolutely rinsed them every time. Won't make a blind bit of difference but it makes me feel better. They were overestimating my usage earlier in the year so I've had a relatively mild ding ding. I've reduced my gas usage by about 2/3s which has maintained my bill at it's existing cost. The log burner is compensating for this but obviously still costs me to run. I'd rather pay my wood supplier than British Gas though. As it happens I’ve just txt a lad in shrewsbury chasing him up as to when he can fit a log burner for us
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jan 10, 2023 20:01:32 GMT
What happens if everyone refuses to pay it?
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jan 10, 2023 20:11:56 GMT
What happens if everyone refuses to pay it? We all come around yours and run the bill up there?
|
|
|
Post by superjw on Feb 2, 2023 8:27:10 GMT
She'll have announced their record profits this morning, DOUBLE their profits for the previous year. It's disgusting that people are forced into paying more for energy than any other time in history and these companies break records with profit margins.
and yet some still disagree with a windfall tax on these companies.
There is no energy price "challenge" for these companies, they are in full greed mode and our government is enabling it.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 2, 2023 9:01:54 GMT
She'll have announced their record profits this morning, DOUBLE their profits for the previous year. It's disgusting that people are forced into paying more for energy than any other time in history and these companies break records with profit margins. and yet some still disagree with a windfall tax on these companies. There is no energy price "challenge" for these companies, they are in full greed mode and our government is enabling it. The windfall tax is rubbish in the current form because the companies can avoid it entirely if they invest in fossil fuels. If they invest in green energy, they still have to pay the windfall tax. If we keep getting energy from the dwindling supply of fossil fuels, prices will keep rising for consumers and the energy companies will make double profits again next year. We need to tax the hell out of them, and encourage green energy investment only.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Feb 2, 2023 9:26:27 GMT
She'll have announced their record profits this morning, DOUBLE their profits for the previous year. It's disgusting that people are forced into paying more for energy than any other time in history and these companies break records with profit margins. and yet some still disagree with a windfall tax on these companies. There is no energy price "challenge" for these companies, they are in full greed mode and our government is enabling it. The windfall tax is rubbish in the current form because the companies can avoid it entirely if they invest in fossil fuels. If they invest in green energy, they still have to pay the windfall tax. If we keep getting energy from the dwindling supply of fossil fuels, prices will keep rising for consumers and the energy companies will make double profits again next year. We need to tax the hell out of them, and encourage green energy investment only. It's amazing that this government keep giving grants/money to fossil fuel companies as well, and they keep having massive profits and paying shareholder dividends
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 2, 2023 11:45:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by superjw on Feb 7, 2023 8:17:04 GMT
She'll have announced their record profits this morning, DOUBLE their profits for the previous year. It's disgusting that people are forced into paying more for energy than any other time in history and these companies break records with profit margins. and yet some still disagree with a windfall tax on these companies. There is no energy price "challenge" for these companies, they are in full greed mode and our government is enabling it. The windfall tax is rubbish in the current form because the companies can avoid it entirely if they invest in fossil fuels. If they invest in green energy, they still have to pay the windfall tax. If we keep getting energy from the dwindling supply of fossil fuels, prices will keep rising for consumers and the energy companies will make double profits again next year. We need to tax the hell out of them, and encourage green energy investment only. Green energy investment is great, but means nothing to consumers without the necessary price reduction. It's insane that energy companies are allowed to charge consumers the same unit price for electricity for renewable energy as standard electricity. We need legislation from the government that enables a proper price structure for Green energy so it's cheaper (as it should be) for consumers and separates electricity prices from the gas price. Given the record profits being announced all over the place, we need the government and OFGEM to actually do their job and properly review the energy price cap, as in the current climate can quite clearly come down and not have any hugely negative impact for the companies. But they won't, as we saw in the pandemic there are government ministers with financial interests that would prefer these things to drag on longer for their own ends
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Feb 7, 2023 8:26:02 GMT
It has fallen massively. The energy producers (Shell, BP etc) are making record profits. Energy providers are not, because they are being fleeced by the producers. Regulate the producers, and at the same time create a tax payer owned green energy and nuclear power company so we can wean ourselves off fossil fuels and the whims of the energy giants and cut our energy bills in half or more. Sure they're making massive profits, this year. After massive losses during the pandemic. You can check stock prices (Total, Shell, BP etc) they don't scream supernormal profits. How would you like them regulating? Were you calling for a minimum price for energy when some firms (quite literally) couldn't give the stuff away in 2020? The energy firms are all multinationals you can tinker around the edges but you can't have the state fixing prices. Otherwise the firms will just sell elsewhere. Agree that we need to wean ourselves off dirty (often imported from dubious regimes) fossil fuels. I'm just not sure it needs to be state that does it. Any individual can invest in renewable technology generation (at home or abroad). I don't see any reason for the state to be involved. Did they make massive losses during the pandemic? Shell Annual Gross Profit (Millions of US $) 2021 $72,500 2020 $40,354 2019 $70,331 2018 $73,847 2017 $59,826 2016 $46,917 2015 $43,698 2014 $69,804 2013 $72,736 2012 $82,656 2011 $85,626 2010 $68,482 2009 $54,575
|
|