65% rise in energy in October!

To get back to the OP, is anyone now having to choose between a fixed term tariff and a flexible one? It's a really bad time! No good fixed ones around, they are very expensive, and you would pay those high rates starting now.

If you choose a flexible tariff you pay less now but it will go up in October. You are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Anyone making that choice now and what are you going to do?

Franbern

Calendargirl

No, we don’t want a return to the 50’s when I was young, but you honestly wonder how we managed back then. Only one fire in the living room, which we all huddled round at night. No heating in bedrooms, there was a fireplace, but only lit in dire emergencies, i.e. when ill in bed with mumps. No heating in bathroom, or in the little scullery.

I’m sure the winters must have been just as cold, if not colder. We must have all wrapped up more, certainly had hot water bottles in bed at night, and just managed.

except for those that died from the cold!!!! It is all very well saying how 'we survived' back then = Yes, WE did. but thousands each year did not.

As for saying that children are okay as 'they do not feel the cold' - that is probably so as their body temperature controls are not working properly, which is why it is the duty of adults to ensure that children are in a properly heated environment. Heating the person not the room is a bad adage, breathing in cold air is very dangerous to babies, children and the old - not that good for anyone else.

Well said, Franbern.

Every single time I see the dismissive "... we all survived" comment, which is quite often here on Gransnet, I just want to shout, "Of course we did, but the many who didnt survive it aren't here to tell us their fate."

In other words, when it's used to imply that people now are snowflakes, making a fuss about nothing, it's a ridiculous and very flawed argument..

To be fair to Calendargirl, though, she didn't quite say that. Hers was a statement about we all managed. That's true enough, we did all manage, doing the best we could - though in many cases, unfortunately, just not well enough to survive.

Calendargirl

No, we don’t want a return to the 50’s when I was young, but you honestly wonder how we managed back then. Only one fire in the living room, which we all huddled round at night. No heating in bedrooms, there was a fireplace, but only lit in dire emergencies, i.e. when ill in bed with mumps. No heating in bathroom, or in the little scullery.

I’m sure the winters must have been just as cold, if not colder. We must have all wrapped up more, certainly had hot water bottles in bed at night, and just managed.

except for those that died from the cold!!!! It is all very well saying how 'we survived' back then = Yes, WE did. but thousands each year did not.

As for saying that children are okay as 'they do not feel the cold' - that is probably so as their body temperature controls are not working properly, which is why it is the duty of adults to ensure that children are in a properly heated environment. Heating the person not the room is a bad adage, breathing in cold air is very dangerous to babies, children and the old - not that good for anyone else.

RichmondPark

Whitewavemark2

Going back to the 1950s experience also means, greater respiratory illness, higher blood pressure, heart attacks, asthmatic attacks, poorer outlook for arthritis sufferers, greater levels of mould are all results of lack of adequate heating the house.

The least if our problems will be chilblains I think!

Do you think a great deal of those 1950s problems were caused by the smog created by coal fires, the majority of people smoking and cooking with lard rather than cold rooms?

No they are caused by insufficient heat, particularly for the young and old

That's true RichmondPark and we had no central heating whatsoever so rooms were generally freezing cold unless you had a coal fire or a paraffin heater (that's what we had anyway). Those were never going to heat the house or flat adequately. With central heating we can at least have a more balanced form of heating and healthier too. We will have to turn it on for a bit every day otherwise there will be problems with freezing pipes etc. but I suppose most people would turn their heating on for short periods at least to take the chill off the place. I don't think it would be as bad as the 1950s.

Whitewavemark2

Going back to the 1950s experience also means, greater respiratory illness, higher blood pressure, heart attacks, asthmatic attacks, poorer outlook for arthritis sufferers, greater levels of mould are all results of lack of adequate heating the house.

The least if our problems will be chilblains I think!

Do you think a great deal of those 1950s problems were caused by the smog created by coal fires, the majority of people smoking and cooking with lard rather than cold rooms?

Yes it does make sense. It's all well and good saying get a fixed rate deal but all Octopus have offered me was fixed at £450 a month and I really think I'm better off going on the capped rate. Short term anyway as I'm having solar panels installed in September. Octopus seem to change their deals on a daily basis at the minute.

Our deal ended and we are on the capped tariff (yes I know we should have signed up to another deal about 2 weeks ago ?).

The standing charge varies by where you live but here in Glasgow I pay 49p per day for electricity s/c plus 27p/kWh and for gas it's 26p/day s/c and 4p/kWh. So if I used no power whatsoever I would still be paying 75p/day. That is £22.50 per month with zero use.
It doesn't matter how much I economise by cutting down usage I still have to pay a minimum of £22.50 every month. Of course this affects poorer people disproportionately.

I believe this has to change. If the kWh price was higher then those who used most would pay more and the poorer households would benefit.
Does this make sense to you?

Riverwalk
I thought as much mine too was a fixed for 2 years deal , not long to wait to know for sure is it?

Going back to the 1950s experience also means, greater respiratory illness, higher blood pressure, heart attacks, asthmatic attacks, poorer outlook for arthritis sufferers, greater levels of mould are all results of lack of adequate heating the house.

The least if our problems will be chilblains I think!

Flexible I expect you'll have to pay more when your deal ends - my Octopus deal is from last October for two years.

My standing charges which I've just checked are
Gas 31 days £ 5.27 and
Electricity 31 days £6.40
I'm in London with Octopus
Are they low because I'm still on a fixed rate deal which ends at the end of this month or is that irrelevant. I honestly don't know.

None of us want a return to the 1950s but with prices this high we have no choice. It has been advised if possible to heat the person not the room which is something to consider. We can rant all we like about the prices, but as long as they are so high we have to find a way to keep warm without putting the heating on.

LizzieDrip

Chewbacca the energy companies say the standing charge is related to the energy infrastructure in different areas Also, we’re paying to bail out the many energy companies that went bust due to government encouragement of competition and Ofgem’s lack of regulation and due diligence. This increased the standing charge in April. I’m hoping the standing charge won’t go up again in Oct - don’t see why it should??? If it does, I’ll be contacting Ofgem for an explanation. As you say, I’ve ‘spent’ over £1 every day without using anything. If every appliance in the house was switched off, I’d still be charged over £30 per month Of course, energy company shareholders are still receiving their ample dividends. Nationalise!!!

£30 per month is twice what I pay - mine is £7 for gas and £8 for electricity, with Octopus, London.

Seems very unfair that charges vary by so much.

No, we don’t want a return to the 50’s when I was young, but you honestly wonder how we managed back then. Only one fire in the living room, which we all huddled round at night. No heating in bedrooms, there was a fireplace, but only lit in dire emergencies, i.e. when ill in bed with mumps. No heating in bathroom, or in the little scullery.

I’m sure the winters must have been just as cold, if not colder. We must have all wrapped up more, certainly had hot water bottles in bed at night, and just managed.

LizzieDrip

^The latest Wind and Solar installations have delayed joining the government scheme and are profiteering in the same way that gas and oil producers are, that’s how the contracts were written.^

I repeat - all energy provision should be nationalised. There should be no choice about ‘joining a government scheme’. The government should run it and end private profiteering.

The cost of energy is regulated but the government cannot control the cost of gas or other fuels so the Energy Cap has to go up.

France is in a totally different position most of their electricity is Nuclear, nationalized they have had very little impact due to high prices. The French government builds and runs the power stations, there is no middleman.
The UK is deregulated, in the name of competition it contracts with third party companies to build and run generators, Nuclear, Gas, Coal and renewable.

Personally I hate privatization of utilities but it’s a fact of life in the UK

I agree biglouis, the standing charge on my bills far exceeds my actual fuel usage. And no amount of heating the person and not the room will lower that.

Older people need to think of ways to heat the person not the room

So older people who have already done their fair share for the community should go back to the 1950s?

Howw about cutting into the excessive profits of the energy supply companies and their greedy shareholders? The standing charge is a scam.

Whitewavemark2

France has nationalised the energy supply. Consequently the price for home energy has risen by 4%

This isn’t some socialist far left government, it is politically centrist.

They are also talking about a windfall tax but didn’t get passed today because the far right said it would make investment go to other counties. I seem to have heard of this excuse somewhere else, haven’t I ?

I'm another that worries about families with babies and young children if we have very cold weather. But then we didn't have much in the way of heating back in the 1950s. Many of us woke up to ice inside the bedroom window, and we all survived. Children don't feel the cold like adults so hopefully they will be okay.

I think the problem is that we are all used to warm houses. Many people have the thermostat to 21 degrees which is pretty high. I will be keeping mine at 18 degrees and will switch it off as much as possible. Older people need to think of ways to heat the person not the room.

Families will have to live together to save fuel ... one home instead of two

The latest Wind and Solar installations have delayed joining the government scheme and are profiteering in the same way that gas and oil producers are, that’s how the contracts were written.

I repeat - all energy provision should be nationalised. There should be no choice about ‘joining a government scheme’. The government should run it and end private profiteering.

It’s true that renewable energy costs no more to produce BUT the vast majority is higher cost energy, solar and wind power generators contracted to supply power for typically 20yrs at an index linked price. Domestic producers the highest 40p a KW and more, less for large commercial generators, we have all been paying the cost of these contracts and will continue until they expire.

The latest Wind and Solar installations have delayed joining the government scheme and are profiteering in the same way that gas and oil producers are, that’s how the contracts were written.

Good question Esspee! I suggest contacting your energy provider and asking them that question. There’s a lot of profiteering going on here - at the consumers’ expense. We need to hold these companies to account.

We are on a dual fuel green tariff. The fuel we are supplied is from renewable sources and costs no more to produce this year compared to last year. Why then are we being charged more?