Where is the kWh price heading in 2022?

[ToughButterCup]

50 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

... But adding ".... and this is why we are going to force you" makes them pure evil.

 

All nation states force people to do all sorts of things. Maybe things that people don't like: going to school, pay taxes, enlist in military service, carry a passport, , require basic literacy. The list is large.

 

How does forcing  (someone) in this context  differ from the myriad requirements the state imposes on everyone - almost without remark?

Edited March 11, 2022 by ToughButterCup

[oldkettle]

1 minute ago, ToughButterCup said:

 

All nation states force people to do all sorts of things. Maybe things that people don't like: going to school, pay taxes, enlist in military service, carry a passport, , require basic literacy. The list is large.

 

How does forcing  (someone) in this context  differ from the myriad requirements the state imposes on everyone - almost without remark?

 

Have you missed "... this is for your own good" part? Apart from the school which is not for adults (another "conditional" in my statement) the rest of you examples are "we want to you do stuff for us".

The states can do a lot in our name and in some cases we even have a choice to vote on these issues. I wonder what the result of a referendum on "going green" would be. Based on what @Bitpipe said about basic numeracy of people - correctly in my view - I wouldn't be too surprised if "real zero (emissions)" (™️Greta) was an option 🙂 The next logical step would be for all those who voted yes to kill themselves ASAP.

 

Seriously, my message was not about "what laws we have". It is about people, often unelected, who believe they are allowed to lie to us (or "ignore any nuances that may make their position look weaker"), claim that there are no other options at all (there usually are), then force us into submission whether we voted for it or not while simultaneously stating they are doing it for us (they aren't).

[Marvin]

Hi @epsilonGreedy

 

Further to your original question. I think price of the kWh is heading higher.

 

Over the long term prices will rise because humans are generally greedy. Its not rocket science. 

 

[oldkettle]

33 minutes ago, Marvin said:

Over the long term prices will rise because humans are generally greedy. Its not rocket science. 

 

85' TV panels laugh out loud at this statement. Food prices are massively lower relative to incomes than they used to be even 50 years ago. Why hasn't greed raised those to exorbitant levels while world population increased massively? 

I am not sure whether you imply that "greedy is bad". In reality greed is the source of investment, innovation and general development - not to knock altruism in any way. 

Can you not imagine for a second that one of probably hundreds of research projects to find cheap(er) energy source will succeed? What are you going to say then? "It was not supposed to happen"?

 

And since you are sure the price will only go up here is an opportunity to prove the market wrong. Settlements for 4+year contracts are way below 2022 prices.

https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/energy/crude-oil/light-sweet-crude.settlements.html

You can make easy money buying calls at the current level.

https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/energy/crude-oil/light-sweet-crude.quotes.options.html#optionProductId=7574

 

There is an economics professor in the US, his name is Bryan Kaplan (https://betonit.blog/ not to be confused with any actual betting sites!) . One of many points he makes is we people don't want to support our statements with money (i.e. bets) even when we claim that we are "very certain" about something. Here is a wiki of his public bets - he's won over 20 so far, no losses. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qShKedFJptpxfTHl9MBtHARAiurX-WK6ChrMgQRQz-0/

His blog is worth reading, he used to write for econlog.org where a lot of his texts can be easily found (for those who have a lot of free time). 

[Bitpipe]

7 hours ago, oldkettle said:

 

I fully agree with the second statement (obviously, it includes me). Yet when it comes to the first one...

I would not complain about statements missing nuance if only I was not FORCED to do something based on these statements. But I was and I am and this is absolutely infuriating for me.

Somebody believes eating meat is wrong? Then stop eating it (and deal with health consequences) and leave me and my kids alone.

Someone thinks fossil fuels should not be used or even extracted? Good luck leaving without any plastics - but I won't do this.

Somebody wants to self-isolate for 5 years? Knock yourself out.

Fifth booster? Be my guest.

 

People saying "you are too stupid to know what's good for you" to an adult may well be right. But adding ".... and this is why we are going to force you" makes them pure evil.

 

Problem is when the govt wants to achieve an outcome and can't rely on individual  preference to comply. See also drink driving, seatbelts, paying tax etc..

[Bitpipe]

6 hours ago, oldkettle said:

Seriously, my message was not about "what laws we have". It is about people, often unelected, who believe they are allowed to lie to us (or "ignore any nuances that may make their position look weaker"), claim that there are no other options at all (there usually are), then force us into submission whether we voted for it or not while simultaneously stating they are doing it for us (they aren't).

 

We generally don't directly elect administrators, bureaucrats or law enforcement in the UK  - the exceptions here being metro mayors and police commissioners and there is considerable public apathy about those positions represented by low turnout. 

 

Our system, imperfect as it is, is to elect representatives to local, regional and national bodies, the majority in which administrates and appoints bureaucrats etc. The US has a more granular elective system for public bodies but it tends to over politicise appointments (personally I don't want to vote for a judge or health official, I just want someone competent in the role, hopefully independent of the administration).

 

Similarly, we don't vote on issue by issue as such plebiscites are expensive, take time to legislate and organise and most importantly try to condense complex issues into yes/no options. Brexit is a good example. Again, US states like California (and Switzerland) have 'propositions' alongside state and national elections but they tend to be narrower focus.

 

So bottom line is you vote for your representative (MP) and the biggest party gets to set the rules and enforce them.  In our case they seemingly don't need to follow them but I digress.

[Marvin]

Hi @oldkettle

In response to your thoughts:

 

I'm glad I can still make people laugh.

 

I did not take into account prices relative to income. Should I have done?

 

Greed is neither good or bad but measured by how it is used. A bit like nuclear power.

 

Sorry kWh of what exactly are we discussing?

 

If its oil, I think at the start of this year it was a bit lower than now. (although we could also be talking about suger) so at the moment I am right.

 

You may observe that Brian Kaplan's bets are all very precise, something this original question was not.

 

Not wishing to be too padantic I would also point out that electric kWh price has risen this year but as all good ads used to say, the price may go up and/or down.

[oldkettle]

33 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

 

Problem is when the govt wants to achieve an outcome and can't rely on individual  preference to comply. See also drink driving, seatbelts, paying tax etc..

Let's continue your list: using mobile phones while driving. How is compliance? What about prohibition in the US in 1920-30s?

People will ultimately only willingly do things that they find reasonable. When they don't agree with the rules compliance drops massively. The state shouldn't interfere where it can't really make a difference, otherwise it ends up hurting the cause and respect for law and law enforcement - as much as I agree with many of the causes. See idiotic covid police actions, non-crime hate incidents, covid masks etc. 

 

45 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

We generally don't directly elect administrators, bureaucrats or law enforcement in the UK  - the exceptions here being metro mayors and police commissioners and there is considerable public apathy about those positions represented by low turnout. 

Indeed. But we also don't allow any of these people more power than is written into law. If a policeman came to my door asking me to switch a TV channel my response wouldn't be very polite. My GP can suggest I do something but can't force me - until I am finally declared mentally incompetent. SAGE can advise the government and the latter can send them to hell like they did in December with Omicron and should have done in summer 2020. In any case, I know how the system is organised  I've been here long enough. I will be emaling my MP about repealing any BS green commitments the same way I emailed him about not voting for new covid restrictions.

I thought I explained what/who I dislike clearly enough. It's not "change the system", it's not "where is my referendum".

I do think though that the way things are going a referendum may turn out to be the only way to deal with "green" madness. We shall see. Right now it seems the same people say "we want net zero" and "government, do something with energy prices". At some point they are going to have to wake up, ideally before we go back to 1970s Britain.

[Bitpipe]

10 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

Let's continue your list: using mobile phones while driving. How is compliance? What about prohibition in the US in 1920-30s?

 

Drink driving and seatbelt laws were same initially, as is/was speeding. Enforcement and consequences induce compliance. 

 

10 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

People will ultimately only willingly do things that they find reasonable. When they don't agree with the rules compliance drops massively. The state shouldn't interfere where it can't really make a difference, otherwise it ends up hurting the cause and respect for law and law enforcement - as much as I agree with many of the causes. See idiotic covid police actions, non-crime hate incidents, covid masks etc. 

 

Attitudes change, I know you had a strong opposition to mask wearing but most people I know were more than happy with it.

 

10 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

Indeed. But we also don't allow any of these people more power than is written into law. If a policeman came to my door asking me to switch a TV channel my response wouldn't be very polite. My GP can suggest I do something but can't force me - until I am finally declared mentally incompetent. SAGE can advise the government and the latter can send them to hell like they did in December with Omicron and should have done in summer 2020. In any case, I know how the system is organised  I've been here long enough. I will be emaling my MP about repealing any BS green commitments the same way I emailed him about not voting for new covid restrictions.

 

But all the Covid restrictions you disliked were written into law so I'm not sure what your point is. 

 

10 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

I thought I explained what/who I dislike clearly enough. It's not "change the system", it's not "where is my referendum".

I do think though that the way things are going a referendum may turn out to be the only way to deal with "green" madness. We shall see. Right now it seems the same people say "we want net zero" and "government, do something with energy prices". At some point they are going to have to wake up, ideally before we go back to 1970s Britain.

 

I think Brexit has killed the notion of another referendum for a generation, it's a poor way to resolve a complex issue.

 

If we had a referendum on abolishing tax tomorrow it would probably succeed..

[Marvin]

35 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

If we had a referendum on abolishing tax tomorrow it would probably succeed..

That's why, in all honesty, people shouldn't be given a referendum option.

[oldkettle]

27 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

Drink driving and seatbelt laws were same initially, as is/was speeding. Enforcement and consequences induce compliance. 

Speeding is absolutely terrible everywhere - towns, country lanes, motorways. I am the village idiot who drives at the limit (OK, I allow myself 75 on M25). There is no respect for the rules and only speed cameras help a little bit.

 

29 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

I know you had a strong opposition to mask wearing but most people I know were more than happy with it.

And as I said many times, it's entirely up to you. I do hope all of you are still masked everywhere - covid is on the rise. Yet as @Onoff noted people refused to wear masks even when they were actually mandatory. And yes, there were masked people in Costco yesterday and I couldn't care less.

 

32 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

But all the Covid restrictions you disliked were written into law so I'm not sure what your point is. 

I tried and I tried and I will try again.

 

Absolute numpties from Sage have managed to scare the shit out of our government which duly decided to take away people's rights because they think they know better. Of course neither they nor "scientists" like Ferguson did. And you know that they never believed in these rules because they didn't follow them. So yes, it was written into law and this will be another thing I will be lobbing for: proper safeguards written into a proper law to prevent a group of morons from taking away our fundamental rights. Yes, leaving my house to meet my friends in person is my bloody fundamental right. We are old enough to decide for ourselves what's good for us and don't need the state to specify the distance we need to keep.

 

Now, to my point:

>>> People saying "you are too stupid to know what's good for you" to an adult may well be right. But adding ".... and this is why we are going to force you" makes them pure evil.

 

Still not clear? What they do is not illegal. It is just evil. I hate evil.

[Marvin]

2 hours ago, Bitpipe said:

People saying "you are too stupid to know what's good for you" to an adult may well be right. But adding ".... and this is why we are going to force you" makes them pure evil.

This is true if the result only effects the person making the decision, otherwise you end up with someone who choose to instruct an army to kill lots of people, because they don't care if its good for them, and certainly don't care about you or I. There's a word for a person like this.

 

Back to drink driving, I don't care if you die drink driving, as long as you don't harm other people. Unfortunately that is often not the case. So to protect the rest of us I suggest making it law that you can't drink and drive. Now who's pure evil?

[oldkettle]

47 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

I think Brexit has killed the notion of another referendum for a generation, it's a poor way to resolve a complex issue.

 

9 minutes ago, Marvin said:

That's why, in all honesty, people shouldn't be given a referendum option.

 

What I really like about US constitution is it lists right that can't be taken away from people because it's not the bloody state, not any president or a prime-minister who gave these rights to people.

If the electoral system fails to deal with what people believe is a real problem sooner or later it will blow up. It may be a populist party, a referendum or worse, but people need to know they are not completely ignored. Losing fairly is not the same as being ignored.

Specifically with energy, it may well be a scientific break-through will solve it all for us and I hope it will, but right now the picture is bleak.

[MikeSharp01]

39 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

Indeed. But we also don't allow any of these people more power than is written into law.

Hmmm I admire your general approach - I am always ready to be persuaded of new / alternative directions of  thought and am an advocate of holding two opposing ideas in my head and continuing to function. I am forced back on the idea that this may be a faulty definition of power however. Raven and French defined 5 bases of power only one of which is authority. ( @SteamyTea I am fully aware of the term power in reference to any of (P = E/t; P = F·v; P = V·I; P = τ·ω )

 

As 'these people' are highly visible they often, in my view, make frequent use of the other bases - informational, expert, referent and cohersive. So although they may be limited by the law - where its remit holds, and that not even always then, they have a wide range of tools to achieve their ends which are not so well encompassed by the laws tentacles. 

 

 

 

[oldkettle]

3 minutes ago, Marvin said:

This is true if the result only effects the person making the decision, otherwise you end up with someone who choose to instruct an army to kill lots of people, because they don't care if its good for them, and certainly don't care about you or I. There's a word for a person like this.

 

Back to drink driving, I don't care if you die drink driving, as long as you don't harm other people. Unfortunately that is often not the case. So to protect the rest of us I suggest making it law that you can't drink and drive. Now who's pure evil?

I am sure you replied to me, not @Bitpipe because this was my message you quoted

 

I don't think you fully understand what I am saying, otherwise you'd not give an example of drink-driving laws. I understand the concept of externalities at a basic level, I am not a complete moron.

[Marvin]

Hi @oldkettle

 

I apologise if you feel offended. That was not my intention.

 

However, honestly the general public do not always make the right decision, and nor do the government.

 

And now to Covid. 

 

I can only get covid from another human being (directly or indirectly) so I would appreciate it if people tried to protect me from the disease. I am not impressed when other people intentionally threaten my health and possibly my life.

 

[oldkettle]

3 minutes ago, MikeSharp01 said:

As 'these people' are highly visible they often, in my view, make frequent use of the other bases - informational, expert, referent and cohersive. So although they may be limited by the law - where its remit holds, and that not even always then, they have a wide range of tools to achieve their ends which are not so well encompassed by the laws tentacles. 

I am sure you are right. Clearly all of the above were used during covid campain. And I am sure some of them also use their "networking" power (which may be covered by this framework, I only went and did a brief reading, sorry). What I mean is it's not unheard of for the police and the judiciary to work hand in hand - people know people. I've made a reference to relative limits of what they can do to us. They can try to use all their powers but ultimately a doctor can't tell the police to force me to read a book. :-) Well, not legitimately anyway.

 

[Ferdinand]

On 09/03/2022 at 14:04, SteamyTea said:

What planet are you on.  It would take 15 years to get a gas terminal though planning, then another 5 or so to build it.

South Hook, took 6 or 7 years to build, and that was on the old ESSO refinery site what already had the infrastructure.

 

 

I think we will soon be seeing how quickly that can happen in Germany 🙂 .

 

Though I am told there is capacity to use the European gas grid to mitigate in the meantime.

 

F

[oldkettle]

3 minutes ago, Marvin said:

Hi @oldkettle

 

I apologise if you feel offended. That was not my intention.

 

However, honestly the general public do not always make the right decision, and nor do the government.

 

And now to Covid. 

 

I can only get covid from another human being (directly or indirectly) so I would appreciate it if people tried to protect me from the disease. I am not impressed when other people intentionally threaten my health and possibly my life.

 

I don't feel offended at all - I said before that I don't take myself seriously. Thank you anyway.

I don't argue with the fact that we the public can make bad decisions. But it's still better than letting "specially chosen people" make these decisions. Technocracy doesn't work, covid has demonstrated it perfectly for anybody who had any doubts.

I understand your concerns very well. I obviously have counter-examples but it doesn't matter. You have your vote and I have mine and this is how these issues get resolved. If only those who said "lets lock down" actually paid for the consequences - and those who chose not to protect themselves and ended up in a hospital paid for their treatment. My beef is not with you, it's with "the experts" and even more so with "establishment" and so called professionals, i.e. people who don't actually know much more than you and I but claim that they do and make decisions for us or pressure the government to make such decisions. I read numerous posts by former scientists who left ages ago and moved up the administrative career - it was absolutely pathetic, the only thing they do well is deal with dissent.

 

This is not a covid thread though, I really tried to get back to the energy issue.

[SteamyTea]

7 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

My beef is not with you, it's with "the experts" and even more so with "establishment" and so called professionals, i.e. people who don't actually know much more than you and I but claim that they do and make decisions for us or pressure the government to make such decisions.

Who do you trust then?

[Marvin]

Ok.

 

The energy cost issue will be guided by supply and demand. 

[oldkettle]

13 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Who do you trust then?

 

myself 🙂

 

It's really simple. I make the decision - I pay for it, my kids pay for it. I have skin in the game. I need to make the best one possible. The same applies to everyone.

[Marvin]

3 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

It's really simple. I make the decision - I pay for it, my kids pay for it. I have skin in the game. I need to make the best one possible. The same applies to everyone.

= Supply and demand in simple terms.

[MikeSharp01]

2 hours ago, oldkettle said:

doctor can't tell the police to force me to read a book

Yes and no - how are you able to confirm that you have not already read the book (or other forms of words / adopted the principles of / etc) they wanted you to read?

1 hour ago, oldkettle said:

myself 🙂

QED

[oldkettle]

20 minutes ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Yes and no - how are you able to confirm that you have not already read the book (or days other forms of words / adopted the principles of / etc) they wanted you to read?

 

It's almost midnight and I can't figure out what you mean. My brain tells me you are joking 🙂