Sir Keir’s Kerfuffle

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

We still seem to be managing to export most of our gas to continental Europe at the moment….. not for storage but for sale. Which means when we need to buy gas it will be when it is at its most expensive pushing prices even further. If only we had a way to store it. Oh wait that was mothballed

The overall level of demand would still go up come wintertime, along with prices. To some extent we are not exporting gas as such, we are merely moving it through pipelines, from our 3 LNG terminals. Germany has no LNG terminals, so has to get LNG supply using terminals in other countries and their pipelines.
The UK gas production is less than half of what we consume, so we will always be reliant on non-UK supplies.
Germany has a large gas storage capacity, and still had higher gas prices.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The overall level of demand would still go up come wintertime, along with prices. To some extent we are not exporting gas as such, we are merely moving it through pipelines, from our 3 LNG terminals. Germany has no LNG terminals, so has to get LNG supply using terminals in other countries and their pipelines.
The UK gas production is less than half of what we consume, so we will always be reliant on non-UK supplies.
Germany has a large gas storage capacity, and still had higher gas prices.

Of course you’re right that demand would go up, however the U.K. has 0 long term storage gas we’re producing now is not being stored but is being sold. Meaning when demand does as you say inevitably increase we’re forced to pay an higher price

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

A bit like the Liberal Democrats' idea of keeping the price cap as it is and not raising it. As others have said on this Forum, when is a cap not a cap, if you keep raising it all the time?

I'm sure whoever the next Prime Minister is, they will be keen to use any devices that keep inflation in single figures as that inflation rate won't be forgotten by their opponents both on their own side of the house and more importantly, on the Opposition benches as well.

They say they are going save households £1,000. but will not give out the £400. So shouldn't that be £600?

The party also said it would raise £14bn from other measures such as dropping the £400 energy rebate,

Sir Keir said his party would also reduce energy demand and lower bills in the longer term by insulating 19 million homes over the next decade.

Not much use now or in the near future, with £60bn of borrowing required. Where are they going to get the staff and materials from?

"Unless the Labour party proposing breaking international tax law, which I doubt, we can't go and tax the profits that BP and Shell make in a America in the same way we wouldn't allow the US government to tax the profits they make here," he said.
"Both those businesses make very, very little money in the UK, they are international businesses and they are held up saying 'look how much money they are making let's go and tax them and fund it' and that's why, despite that huge hike you have seen already in marginal taxation in the North Sea, it doesn't raise much money."

Spending borrowed/stolen money is easy, the problem comes with paying it back. Just look at Greece.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The UK gas production is less than half of what we consume, so we will always be reliant on non-UK supplies.

We have failed to invest sufficiently in alternatives to importing gas and the Conservative Party which has governed the country for the last 12 years and Ofgen must take a large chunk of responsibility for the situation and change tack.

If we can do that, we can reduce our reliance on overseas gas supplies and market volatility.

I'd better shut up now as this is the Starmer and not the energy price thread!

Originally Posted by nomadking

They say they are going save households £1,000. but will not give out the £400. So shouldn't that be £600?

Spending borrowed/stolen money is easy, the problem comes with paying it back. Just look at Greece.

Ok but then the cost falls on people.

There is no plan that doesn't involve the Government underwriting the wholesale cost of energy. Give cash to people? Compensate the suppliers for the difference between the current cap and the now frozen new cap? Nationalise the lot and buy the energy passing that onto the consumer at a reduced cost?

All of them involve subsidising the cost of energy. Otherwise we don't and people turn off their heating this winter and even then find they can't afford other things because they're still paying the standing charge.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

We have failed to invest sufficiently in alternatives to importing gas and the Conservative Party which has governed the country for the last 12 years and Ofgen must take a large chunk of responsibility for the situation and change tack.

If we can do that, we can reduce our reliance on overseas gas supplies and market volatility.

Investment requires MONEY to pay for it. So which country has done a better job, and is not having higher prices?
If you're not producing it, you have to import the remainder. No way around that, other than things like fracking. Using UK produced gas doesn't make it cheaper, as it's sold on the international market.
Link

Currently Gas is being used for 49% of electricity. How do you replace that?
Nuclear is 13%, Wind is 3%, Solar 9%. Not a lot of room to expand on non-Gas sources. A five-fold increase in nuclear might just work.
We're importing around 13% of our requirements.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Investment requires MONEY to pay for it.

And what’s it costing now? MONEY. Enough money to plough us into a recession.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Investment requires MONEY to pay for it.

I’m loath to agree with my lefty friends on here but the fact is, absolute shedloads of taxpayers’ MONEY are being shovelled into the utilities right now, simply to maintain the status quo. This is being done by a Conservative government which on the face of it doesn’t believe in having the activities of utility companies on the national balance sheet. Except that now they are, because they’re inevitably borrowing prodigiously to pay for it. Which of course means it’s actually future taxpayers, a.k.a. our kids, who will in time be paying to keep our lights and our hot water working.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Investment requires MONEY to pay for it.

I've gone into more depth on the other thread. But with investment, you generally get a return, with the current subsidies and bailing-out of failed energy suppliers you don't.

[nomadking]

Investment would've increased prices long before now. We would've been paying higher prices for years. Quite separate from current or future costs.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Except that now they are, because they’re inevitably borrowing prodigiously to pay for it. Which of course means it’s actually future taxpayers, a.k.a. our kids, who will in time be paying to keep our lights and our hot water working.

That’s privatisation in a nutshell though. Bringing forward future profits into a one off windfall. The boomers spaffed it up the wall and current younger generations will pay either way. The question is whether to keep the failed system going or acknowledge it for what it is now, and make the investment for the benefit of future generations or not.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Investment would've increased prices long before now. We would've been paying higher prices for years. Quite separate from current or future costs.

Bollards.

Investment (if done wisely) facilitates innovation and efficiency, leading to increased profits and, where there is sufficient competition or adequate regulation, lower prices. Consumer electronics are probably the best example of this, as the innovation and efficiency cycle is constant and rapid.

If you’re going to appeal to capitalism at least try to understand how it works.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

More concerning for the Conservatives would be this.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Ashcroft.html

Just watch the position change when she becomes PM.

I’m sorry, Den - it’s mid-term and many voters don’t really know who Truss is. There is no way Starmer will beat her. Even his own party don’t like him as their Leader.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There is no way Starmer will beat her.

The current polls say otherwise and she will likely have her term during a recession, to cap matters.

[Pierre]

There's an age old saying.

Borrow to Invest is the road to success

Borrow to Spend is the road to the end.

Unfortunately the investing bit should have been done over a decade ago and then maybe we wouldn't be pissing all our cash now.