Electric and Gas ultility 'price fixing' ?

[beorhthelm]

The shareholder payout of our energy companies is over £4bn - I suggest we use that.

so why would the shareholders invest in this enterprise if you are going to take all their returns and spend it?

why not find some shareholders that want to invest in the renewabls in the first place... except thats difficult when it costs so much more than regular old coal and gas. here's a plan, we can subsidise the renewables (just long enough for them to get started and commercially viable *cough*splutter*), then we can tax the coal and gas to make them less viable. we'll pay for this by adding on levies and taxes to the customers, who are the beneficiaries after all.

and here we are, bills going up.

there is an alternative, to have some of that subsidy funded from general taxation, tbf i'd back that to some degree. problem is the green lobby wanted to promote energy reduction and the only tool some governments like to use for such matters is taxation. apply a tax to discourage use. doesnt work, just makes it cost more.

 

[goldstone rocks]

The shareholder payout of our energy companies is over £4bn - I suggest we use that.

So how do you renationalise eon ( German) edf (French) dong energy yes dong energy ( doesn't sound British because it isn't) amongst others to take £4b sharehder dividend? Fascinated to know your answer or Millbrain's answer?

 

[drew]

It's not a mathematician that will ridicule you, it's you inability to read the words ... "LESS THAN"
Your example shows a 5% loss in customers AND a 5% price increase.
The breakeven for a 5% price rise is actually to not lose more than 4.762% of your customers.
If you lose LESS THAN this you will be more profitable.

Hope this clarifies ....

So if you lose 4.99% of your customers (ie less than 5%) you make a loss!

That said, they will also factor in the probability that, when the other companies put their prices up, they may well pick up customers from them

of course. and who will pay for this, for the equipment and infrastructure to be built to tap those sources of energy? (can you see where this is going yet...)

Suggest we don't do anything then and just wait for the lights to go out. Perhaps not our generation but maybe it will be the problem for the next one.

 

[beorhthelm]

Suggest we don't do anything then and just wait for the lights to go out. Perhaps not our generation but maybe it will be the problem for the next one.

doing nothing isnt an option either, and its likely the next decade this is going to be a problem. the solution lies in first rebalancing the debate away from green issues to refocus on what energy is used for - lighting, heating, industry and commerce. reduce usage through efficiency, and yeah, we want to be green if and where we can, it shouldnt be the prime driver of policy as it had become in the 00's. then we look at all the options available, nuclear and coal included. as i read last week Chinese are building new coal plants using technology developed here and europe that are 50% more efficient. but here in UK and EU coal plants are near enough outlawed even if they are more efficient because the taxes they attract simply because of the fuel type used. funny thing is, solar panels and wind turbines take large amounts of carbon burning to produce, but that doesnt show up on the balance sheet as they or the materials are manufactured in China...

 

[drew]

doing nothing isnt an option either, and its likely the next decade this is going to be a problem. the solution lies in first rebalancing the debate away from green issues to refocus on what energy is used for - lighting, heating, industry and commerce. reduce usage through efficiency, and yeah, we want to be green if and where we can, it shouldnt be the prime driver of policy as it had become in the 00's. then we look at all the options available, nuclear and coal included. as i read last week Chinese are building new coal plants using technology developed here and europe that are 50% more efficient. but here in UK and EU coal plants are near enough outlawed even if they are more efficient because the taxes they attract simply because of the fuel type used. funny thing is, solar panels and wind turbines take large amounts of carbon burning to produce, but that doesnt show up on the balance sheet as they or the materials are manufactured in China...

I agree, I'm all for renewables, not because it's green but because it makes common sense.There should be tidal barrages, off shore wind farms etc. I'm also for nuclear power. At the end of the day, we should be self sufficient in energy but that will be a long time coming.