Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


British Gas


Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
21 Oct 2013 9:26PM

Quote:my total bill for both electric & gas for the last year came to £402.83


That`s a fair bit less than my dept with my gas supplier Smile

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

lobsterboy e2
11 14.3k 13 United Kingdom
21 Oct 2013 9:55PM

Quote:that's for a combined power supply I guess?

yup, usually you get a better deal if you do the 2 together.
DalesLass e2
3 2.2k United Kingdom
21 Oct 2013 11:29PM
Whoever you are with bills are much bigger than they used to be (blimey that makes me sound old). We haven't turned our heating on at all yet(!) though we have lit the wood burner on the odd evening.

We live in an Edwardian house with the original sash windows, which are lovely to look at but as draughty as heck! Plus you can't have insulation in the walls as this was built before they started putting in the cavity, so our bills are quite high Sad

I love this place but do sometimes dream of living in a nice new 'insulated' modern house and having the smaller fuel bills to go with it......

Jude

PS I think you'll find changing to a fixed tariff does generally put your bills up a bit but it should work out cheeper overall as you then won't get the price hikes over the length of time it runs Smile
Ted447 e2
1 81 1 United Kingdom
22 Oct 2013 8:45AM
Thanks for all your comments and after looking at some deals I have decided to stay with British Gas and have fixed my prices till March 2016 with them, I also found out that I was already paying a daily standing charge which was hidden away in the unit price, if only Ed Milliband had kept his mouth shut, the energy companies have jumped in before he could impose a freeze, if he ever wins an election???????????
22 Oct 2013 8:54AM

Quote:I'm with British Gas, just had a quote from EDF regarding a fixed tariff......no saving,in fact a few quid dearer Sad Need to start switching off one hour earlier each evening methinks.

I' m with British Gas and every year I check all the deals around.

With there just being 2 of us in the house, which is well insulated and with us being pretty frugal with the heating, the best saving I've been able to find so far was around £60, so long as we agreed to let them estimate the monthly payments we would have to make via direct debit. From memory, I think they could also raid our account by up to £1000 or so (by over-estimation of our usage) before we could claim back our money

I basically told them to get stuffed and have remained with BG, at least I know the tricks they can get up to Tongue



That is British gas all over and the main reason why I changed a number of years ago. I told them that I did not want them to be my bank! They said it would make it easier for me to make my payments. I told them I did not ever have a problem making my payments but they still refused to lower my DD so I moved away.

I much prefer to owe them money than they hold my money for me, i.e. always try to be just a little in arrears so that they do not act as your bank account.
dougv e2
10 8.4k 3 England
22 Oct 2013 11:07AM
We are with British Gas.
Not found them to bad until recently.

Our main problem was letting the wife input the readings on the web site.
One month we had a massive electric bill because she had put a digit in wrong.
The whole street couldn't have used that amount of energy, but they never queried it.

A while ago we asked if there was a cheaper tariff and they said yes.
However there would be a charge for switching to a new tariff.

I didn't take therm up on that one.
lobsterboy e2
11 14.3k 13 United Kingdom
22 Oct 2013 11:13AM

Quote:if only Ed Milliband had kept his mouth shut, the energy companies have jumped in before he could impose a freeze, if he ever wins an election???????????


They have never needed much encouragement to raise prices.
thewilliam e2
6 4.9k
22 Oct 2013 1:08PM
Ed Milliband never did seem like "Prime Minister material".

Our government has forced some of the largest coal-fired power stations, like Drax, to shut down but hasn't replaced the generating capacity. The "green" power generation is less than a fart in a hurricane so the UK is going to need to do something pretty drastic very soon or we'll run out of power. The options are:-

1. The easiest is to allow the energy companies to increase prices so that people use less. It has the secondary advantage that our politicians could well be paid a "commission".

2. The government could continue to mis-manage the economy and send us into a triple-dip recession. Economic growth will prove disastrous for our energy supply.

Isn't a free market wonderful?
brian1208 e2
11 10.6k 12 United Kingdom
22 Oct 2013 1:25PM
its the way you tell them:

from 2008


Quote:
David Porter, chief executive of the Association of Electricity Producers, said yesterday that a proposed European Union directive could force coal-fired power stations to shut down earlier than planned.

This, and the closure of ageing nuclear power plants, would force Britain to depend much more on gas imports from unreliable countries like Algeria and Russia.

There is the threat that they could hold the country to ransom if they decided to turn off the taps.

It could mean blackouts across the country within seven years, said an academic who backed Mr Porter.


By about 2020 we could be about 23 gigawatts short of power generation, which is about one-third of our total

Ian Fells, the Emeritus Professor of Energy Conversion at Newcastle University, said: “By about 2020 we could be about 23 gigawatts short of power generation, which is about one-third of our total.



and from 2009:


Quote:

Carbon capture plans threaten shutdown of all UK coal-fired power stations

Radical proposals to require existing plants, including Drax, to fit the technology would force their closure, government admits

Tim Webb and Terry Macalister

theguardian.com, Wednesday 17 June 2009 18.54 BST

All of Britain's coal-fired power stations, including Drax, the country's largest emitter of carbon, could be forced to close down under radical plans unveiled by government today.

Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, is proposing to extend his plans to force companies to fit carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) onto new coal plants – as revealed by the Guardian – to cover a dozen existing coal plants.



but of course, its all the fault of the nasty Conservative Party Tongue
lobsterboy e2
11 14.3k 13 United Kingdom
22 Oct 2013 1:39PM

Quote:All of Britain's coal-fired power stations, including Drax, the country's largest emitter of carbon, could be forced to close down under radical plans unveiled by government today.

Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, is proposing to extend his plans to force companies to fit carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) onto new coal plants – as revealed by the Guardian – to cover a dozen existing coal plants.



Got to say I don't understand why making them cleaner would force their closure. Might make them more expensive but why would it force closure ? it would still be cheaper than building a new nuclear station for instance.
keith selmes
11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
22 Oct 2013 2:21PM
If the power stations are privately owned, and they can't make a profit, why would they keep running them ?
As it is, the cost of coal has gone down, so even if the carbon tax increases, they may still be viable, and the government has offered subsidies for doing the upgrades anyway.

People who've invested in a coal fired power station doen't have any obvious reason to build a nuclear one. Even if they had the money.
keith selmes
11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
22 Oct 2013 2:26PM

Quote:of course, its all the fault of the nasty Conservative Party

Well, the coal problem seems to be caused by energy policies based on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. And we know who started that don't we ?
This is exacerbated by a shortage of suitable alternative generation, such as the failure to renew our nuclear generation.
And it probably doesn't help that we rely on private companies to do this for us at a profit, often foreign ones.
So, how did that start ?


Quote:Certainly, Mrs Thatcher was the first world leader to voice alarm over global warming, back in 1988

But her rejection of coal in this context had nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions (although she understandably found it a useful debating point) and everything to do with her well-founded distrust of the politically-motivated leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers


http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54362



Quote:The non-appearance of a new nuclear generating fleet in the ’80s might actually give us a clue as to what Thatcher’s legacy actually was to the UK energy industry.

Margaret Thatcher famously valued competition far above cooperation — it’s perhaps the defining aspect of her politics. It’s not a huge leap, I think, to see the foreign ownership of UK energy and the continuing scrap over energy generation technologies as a continuing manifestation of that outlook.


http://www.theengineer.co.uk/opinion/comment/energy-and-thatcher-a-tangled-legacy/1016018.article


Quote:Margaret Thatcher: Godmother of 'global warming'?
It was at Margaret Thatcher’s personal instigation that the UK Met Office set up its Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, which—in one of her final acts as Prime Minister—she opened in 1990. The Hadley Centre, in turn, helped to produce the primary data set which was used by the newly founded IPCC to “assess observed global warming”. Under the leadership of committed Warmist Sir John Houghton, Hadley was also responsible for selecting the lead authors for the IPCC’s scientific working group (Working Group I)—authors who, it need hardly be said, would reliably push the IPCC’s reports in the “correct” alarmist direction


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100211031/margaret-thatcher-godmother-of-global-warming/
keith selmes
11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
22 Oct 2013 2:38PM
To be fair, New Labour spent many years doing not much much at all about this, apart from Gordon Brown sharing a happy daydream that private investors would solve our problems with "green" generation.

And to be really fair, coal can be a dangerous and polluting technology, nuclear is unpopular with voters, and green energy is very appealing.
And we did have cheap gas for a long time.
And politicians until now have not really had to face up to the possibility of unavoidable energy shortage during their term.

Not much of a way to run a country though.
Fracking here we come.
lobsterboy e2
11 14.3k 13 United Kingdom
22 Oct 2013 2:39PM

Quote:If the power stations are privately owned, and they can't make a profit, why would they keep running them ?


Oh and there was me thinking that if supply was going down, prices would go up, so it would be worth running them. You know it's almost like the market is a really daft mechanism to impose on this sort of infrastructure.

Quote:
And it probably doesn't help that we rely on private companies to do this for us at a profit, often foreign ones


Well they are quite often state owned ones, apparently state ownership is OK as long as its the states of France and China Wink
keith selmes
11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
22 Oct 2013 3:14PM

Quote:apparently state ownership is OK as long as its the states of France and China
yes. nice one.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.