Jump to content

Price rises 2022 ?


Observer II
 Share

Recommended Posts

Among the threats will be a rise in energy prices as caps are reviewed, no doubt forcing some to choose between heating and eating.   But in seeking to appease the green lobby, HMG has pursued a policy of importing energy whilst cutting our production from fossil fuels, so we can claim to be carbon neutral as the carbon guilt will fall on or suppliers.  So while we depend on windy or sunny days, our coal and oil will stay in the ground,  while we face the financial lottery of importations.  Methinks the great unwashed are going to suffer for the green dream of middle class liberals.   :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ninearches said:

The triple lock has been suspended but there was supposed to be a rebellion among MPs & a debate was scheduled. Heard no more though.

The debate was for Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021 which came into force on the 17th November 2021 and only applies for one year. It removes the use of the level of wages substituting it for Prices, so making it a double lock. It is possible that the government will use a different rule for calculating the increase this year  as result of the rather different text. The usual measure of price inflation would be 3.1% and the wages number would have been 8.3% but has since fallen to 4.9%. Inflation however has risen to 5.1% so whilst 8.3% as a rise was not justified neither is 3.1%. Another hot potato for Boris and sniping fodder for the opposition.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ninearches said:

There was supposed to be a debate taking place within the ten days leading up to Christmas  i believe .

I didn't ignore what you said but there did not appear to be evidence in Hansard. See link: https://hansard.parliament.uk/search?startDate=2021-12-02&endDate=2022-01-02&searchTerm=triple lock&partial=False

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the pandemic, it seems inflation is now global, so nothing to do with Brexit.   But the acute effects will occur in the energy market, which will injure the poorest disproportionately;  and the main reason imo, is the commitments to "net zero" carbon emissions, when all we are doing is buying in foreign sourced energy, which means the suppliers shoulder the responsibility for high carbon emissions rather than us.  However, such a reliance on imports places us at the whims of those suppliers in terms of costs, so we need self sufficiency in energy, which cannot be achieved by sunshine or wind.  So we clearly need to look at nuclear  and hydro; but in the meantime we need to fall back on our fossil fuels to bridge the gap.  The green dream of saving the planet may be attractive to the middle class liberals, but the costs are clearly going to be borne by the poorest as a proportion of their incomes.  😠

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

There was a Scottish woman on telly this morning that was explaining how she feeds a family of four for just £20 per week. It was quite interesting when you think about it as she was only doing what my parents did to feed me back in the fifties and I’ve half a mind to see if I could do something similar just to prove it’s still possible. Of course, people these days have more money and can’t be bothered making any effort when it comes to home economics and in any case, it’s far easier to just whinge and complain about it.

On average, we spend around £60 per week on our shopping for the two of us with a few bits and bobs picked up locally during the week. We don’t have takeout’s or dine out except on special occasions so no big expense there but as the wife’s not big on cooking we make up for it that in the cost of ready meals. So even if the basic price of food were to increase by a whopping 10% that means my bill would go up by a couple of ready meals.

Given what the Scottish woman was achieving, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that everyone could make some small changes to negate the effects of the increases.

 

Bill 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As chief crook and wottle basher i have no problem providing a meal for four people. he problem lies in providing it for two as i tend to cook like i did when i was at home and helping mum cook for the family.

Still 1 kg of 5% fat minced beef divided into four will give you four meals for a start.

a simple curry and rice, by adding some onion and whatever other veg takes your fancy. 1 boil in the bag rice and twenty minutes later it is ready to serve.

or add a bolognese sauce and whatever pasta you prefer for a quick bolognese. If you are feeling adventurous then you can always make your own bolognese sauce using tinned tomatoes and a few herbs.

I did have a chuckle the other day though in aldi one of the items on the shelf was a soup maker. I mean why do you need a special device just to make soup. It is one of the easiest things to make.

given the number of cooking shows on tv and the amount of food recipes and video tutorials. we should all be michelin tyre chefs by now.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Going back to Obs original post of heating or eating, I’ve been giving this some more thought and conclude that there’s a major flaw in the way we’re being encouraged to invest in alternate green technologies such as solar energy.

We all know the problem with solar panels, they cost thousands and it takes forever to recoup the costs, but I reason that it’s possible to make big savings without turning your home into a mini power station and at the same time get a payback in about a year.

All the installation companies want to sell you systems that meet your entire electrical energy needs, which for the average house is about 10kw hours making installations mega expensive and as a result and after many years, only 3.3% of households have done this.

If on the other hand we installed a minimal system costing about £300 with just enough to cover our daily background use, it could reduce our bills by up to 50%. For me, that would mean such a system would pay for itself in about 9 months. I’ve done the sums, and this is correct.

Now from an environmental point of view and the long-term stability and security of our power networks, we need to answer the simple question of which is best?

3.3% using nothing or 96.7% saving 50%

Food for thought, eh?

 

Bill 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or we could continue to expand existing natural gas and n/sea oil, with new hydraulic options such as estuary barriers utilising tidal power, plus some small nuclear sites.  The objective being total energy self sufficiency.   Couple this with Gov funded programmes to improve home insulation and thus cut demand levels, and we really could be cooking with gas.   However, a continued commitment to "net zero" and reliance on foreign gas, will mean ever rising energy costs for the peasants, especially if there's a war in Ukraine.   :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Build nuclear power stations? Come Obs, this is Britain we’re talking about. It’d take at least ten years of debates and protests before a spade even hit the ground on projects like that. And for the price of just one nuclear plant, we could give every household in the UK a free solar setup capable of producing 40% of our national annual power needs and we could start doing this tomorrow.

Another way on a somewhat smaller scale could be to simply give the solar equipment in place of the winter fuel allowance. It wouldn’t cost the government any more than they spend now and they’d only have to do this one time thus saving money for the exchequer, and the beneficiaries would get their bills reduced permanently. It’s a win win situation and I can’t believe nobodies suggesting this.

 

Bill 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly wouldn’t cut it if we all lived on a small island without the national grid Obs but we don't.

Forget about solar for a moment and think of this as a magical box that over a year could cut household bills in half for the entire population. Would that not be a good thing?

As I write this, our gas-powered stations are generating over 50% of our electricity because there’s no sun and not much wind, but without renewables, they would have to do that all year long. So, if you only take a short-term view then renewables don’t cut it, but annually they account for 25% of our needs. My proposal would increase this to over 50% while at the same time halving the amount of gas used. Would that not be a good thing?

 

Bill 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

I think you are suggesting using heat rather than photo-voltaic means to off load water heating demand. That would be a good thing. Using voltaic cells connected to the grid is not as good as returning to a centralised method of generation using high power nuclear heat sources. The distributed model has much higher costs than centralised with more complex control systems that can be more easily confused. We should increase the capacity of the existing grid with modular fission reactors at the existing nuclear sites and reinforce distribution from there. It would be cheaper and faster and the efficiency gains would reduce the costs of electricity. Renewable power actually increases the cost of electricity because the demand for nuclear is not guaranteed and predictable. The price of renewables is then compared with that increased power to show it is the cheaper source, which is achieved by increasing the total cost to the public. It is a con. That was the problem with the business case for Sizewell, no guaranteed market so extra guarantee price needed to make the investment. Not regarding Nuclear as green is the most stupid decision yet as the Europeans are finally finding out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Con don’t confuse that with my solar water project, I’m talking here about what could be done to help the public with inflation and the forthcoming price hike in power. We could discuss long term plans for nuclear and tidal and talk about efficiencies all day long but it won’t help the people facing the increases in the next few months, or even sooner if Russia cut of the gas in retaliation to our sanctions.🥴 I maintain that the best solution isn’t always the most efficient especially where time forms part of the equation. What I’m suggesting is a compromise between cost of implementation and the time it takes to achieve and from what I can see it’s achievable.

Here's a silly analogy. Imagine every house had a badly dripping tap that over the course of 24 hours used about as much water as we really needed. We could build additional reservoirs or desalination plants to compensate or just send everyone a free replacement washer for their tap. It’s all about finding a solution that doesn’t cost a fortune and reduces the strain on our resources. If all the dripping taps were fixed, then we’d have more than enough water and it’s exactly the same when it comes to electricity.

Since starting this thread, I’ve convinced myself to put my money where my mouth is (or fingers in this case 😊) so I’ve just spent £212 on a small-scale 320-watt solar setup. My current annual electric bill isn’t that high at just £600 per year but my calculations say I should recover my £212 investment in less than a year or even quicker when the price goes up.

 

Bill 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

The time taken to do work at millions of premises will take longer than would need to be the case to change the prices. We cannot turn fracking on to release more gas and we cannot stop our suppliers charging excessive prices in the meantime, Norway is a sovereign wealth fund. In addition the price of Liquid Natural Gas is not controlled by the UK. My problem with not taking the efficient decision is that it will not actually save time and it gives the wrong answer for the public. Connecting millions of houses in order to supply the grid would take an great deal longer than sending a set of tap washers to every home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...