Fuel prices hitting an eight year high

[Gyfts]

...

It's always troubled me that the green folks wanting to eliminate fossil fuels will turn their head away from nuclear energy, pretending that the fate of Chernobyl is emblematic of all nuclear energy plants. OPEC has the monopoly on oil and the R&D into green forms of energy aren't happening fast enough, especially when you eliminate nuclear as an option.

My position is as follows.
- oil and gas, in a world where its consumption will drop noticeably in the future, is now becoming a weapon, or a means of terrorism in some hands. This means that it is necessary to look for an alternative and diversify the supply of this resource, in order to reduce the effect of economic terror to zero. As you can see, on the market only 1 semi-monopolist begins to "show" what he can do if his conditions are not met, and has already exponentially inflated the gas price over $ 2,000. Such suppliers should simply be removed from the market.
- NPP is a rather controversial decision. On the one hand, it is a highly efficient source of electricity. On the other hand, over the past decades there has been a huge number of very serious accidents. Each nuclear power plant is a potential global collapse. And given that cheap and affordable electricity for some entities is an inconvenient competitor, and they have no moral principles, NPPs can become the next means of terror. It is enough to stop the nuclear power plant - and entire regions will be without electricity, the collapse of production, logistics and other things. But this may not seem enough, and people who swarmed the idea of ​​world terrorism, and who easily use chemical warfare agents against citizens of other countries, will commit a full-fledged terrorist attack at nuclear power plants without unnecessary torment of conscience. And this is already tens of thousands of lives, millions of kilometers of territories polluted for centuries ... No, this is not paranoia. This is a simple statement of what will happen if no alternative paths are found.
- Solar, tidal, wind, and other technologies - may well become the alternative that will provide the required amount of energy, without significant risks. For this, a good step would be a legislative norm - taxes on the production and sale of oil and gas for the development of more efficient green technologies. Just imagine what will happen if today's efficiency of mass-produced solar panels becomes 2-3 times more efficient and the price falls? Who will need oil and gas in such volumes?

I don't really think that nuclear is as dangerous as people think it is.

Chernobyl isn't emblematic of nuclear energy, although it's something a lot of people think about on this topic. Keep in mind, what happened in Chernobyl was during the Soviet era with low safety standards and ancient technology. We're light years ahead of what we had then, and I don't think the small risk of accidents outweigh the amount of energy you can produce.  Realistically, nuclear waste is the only downside, but oil production produces a lot of waste within itself. Oil results in larger CO2 emissions as well, so the trade off isn't that bad.

[1714828317]

1714828317

[1714828317]

1714828317

[cabron]

...

It's always troubled me that the green folks wanting to eliminate fossil fuels will turn their head away from nuclear energy, pretending that the fate of Chernobyl is emblematic of all nuclear energy plants. OPEC has the monopoly on oil and the R&D into green forms of energy aren't happening fast enough, especially when you eliminate nuclear as an option.

My position is as follows.
- oil and gas, in a world where its consumption will drop noticeably in the future, is now becoming a weapon, or a means of terrorism in some hands. This means that it is necessary to look for an alternative and diversify the supply of this resource, in order to reduce the effect of economic terror to zero. As you can see, on the market only 1 semi-monopolist begins to "show" what he can do if his conditions are not met, and has already exponentially inflated the gas price over $ 2,000. Such suppliers should simply be removed from the market.
- NPP is a rather controversial decision. On the one hand, it is a highly efficient source of electricity. On the other hand, over the past decades there has been a huge number of very serious accidents. Each nuclear power plant is a potential global collapse. And given that cheap and affordable electricity for some entities is an inconvenient competitor, and they have no moral principles, NPPs can become the next means of terror. It is enough to stop the nuclear power plant - and entire regions will be without electricity, the collapse of production, logistics and other things. But this may not seem enough, and people who swarmed the idea of ​​world terrorism, and who easily use chemical warfare agents against citizens of other countries, will commit a full-fledged terrorist attack at nuclear power plants without unnecessary torment of conscience. And this is already tens of thousands of lives, millions of kilometers of territories polluted for centuries ... No, this is not paranoia. This is a simple statement of what will happen if no alternative paths are found.
- Solar, tidal, wind, and other technologies - may well become the alternative that will provide the required amount of energy, without significant risks. For this, a good step would be a legislative norm - taxes on the production and sale of oil and gas for the development of more efficient green technologies. Just imagine what will happen if today's efficiency of mass-produced solar panels becomes 2-3 times more efficient and the price falls? Who will need oil and gas in such volumes?

I don't really think that nuclear is as dangerous as people think it is.

Chernobyl isn't emblematic of nuclear energy, although it's something a lot of people think about on this topic. Keep in mind, what happened in Chernobyl was during the Soviet era with low safety standards and ancient technology. We're light years ahead of what we had then, and I don't think the small risk of accidents outweigh the amount of energy you can produce.  Realistically, nuclear waste is the only downside, but oil production produces a lot of waste within itself. Oil results in larger CO2 emissions as well, so the trade off isn't that bad.

All countries should have nuclear energy unless they want to exploit countries' resources until it's all gone. Big countries always want to oppress the countries that are not developed and prevent them from improving by spreading the lies about what happened to Chernobyl could happen to them while their own country has their nuclear power. Did they think they are better to handle nuclear plants than the ones who have not tried yet?  It happens to Japan but it's all because of a natural event, there was a Tsunami. Yes, it's dangerous but it's only if not taken cautiously.

[Victorycoin]

The highest price of fuel will lead the world to destruction instead of fossil fuels nuclear energy can easily be promoted as an alternative energy source after the chernoby and fukushima accidents, most people are instinctively considering nuclear power to be dangerous, making it quite unpopular now. Germany and japan have shut down many nuclear power plants since the fukushima accident. Which greatly endangers the habitation of our planet nuclear power is a good option.

[peter0425]

The highest price of fuel will lead the world to destruction instead of fossil fuels nuclear energy can easily be promoted as an alternative energy source after the chernoby and fukushima accidents, most people are instinctively considering nuclear power to be dangerous, making it quite unpopular now. Germany and japan have shut down many nuclear power plants since the fukushima accident. Which greatly endangers the habitation of our planet nuclear power is a good option.

People are only looking to the devastation but not in the advantage and the good effect , this is the problem why we are still in trouble of energy when there are other sources .
Nuclear power made some mistakes and people drying , but what about those people who extend their lives because of the energy from nuclear?
and besides our world now is getting advanced so yes we can prevent such mistakes in the past by doing the right thing now.

[uneng]

The highest price of fuel will lead the world to destruction instead of fossil fuels nuclear energy can easily be promoted as an alternative energy source after the chernoby and fukushima accidents, most people are instinctively considering nuclear power to be dangerous, making it quite unpopular now. Germany and japan have shut down many nuclear power plants since the fukushima accident. Which greatly endangers the habitation of our planet nuclear power is a good option.

People are only looking to the devastation but not in the advantage and the good effect , this is the problem why we are still in trouble of energy when there are other sources .
Nuclear power made some mistakes and people drying , but what about those people who extend their lives because of the energy from nuclear?
and besides our world now is getting advanced so yes we can prevent such mistakes in the past by doing the right thing now.

If there are safer sources of energies like solar and wind, why to keep risking ourselves with nuclear energy? As everyone know it's too dangerous and nobody can predict an accident, it just happens, and once it happens there isn't anything to do besides regretting the actions which lead to that.

Green energy could be already supplying everyone, but it's not interesting for the small group who rules the world as they profit from the precariousness, so it's definitely not going to happen soon. That would be the ideal, because people would be finally autonomous in energy production paying very low costs to supply their homes and to fuel their vehicles.

[wahyu wida]

The highest price of fuel will lead the world to destruction instead of fossil fuels nuclear energy can easily be promoted as an alternative energy source after the chernoby and fukushima accidents, most people are instinctively considering nuclear power to be dangerous, making it quite unpopular now. Germany and japan have shut down many nuclear power plants since the fukushima accident. Which greatly endangers the habitation of our planet nuclear power is a good option.

People are only looking to the devastation but not in the advantage and the good effect , this is the problem why we are still in trouble of energy when there are other sources .
Nuclear power made some mistakes and people drying , but what about those people who extend their lives because of the energy from nuclear?
and besides our world now is getting advanced so yes we can prevent such mistakes in the past by doing the right thing now.

It's a normal thing where there are pros and cons about technological developments, and of course every development has its weaknesses, and those weaknesses should always be covered up, so that they are close to perfect. but in fact many people do not dare to take risks, because of various interests

[DaveF]

If you look here https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gasoline-prices and click on the 25 year chart
or here https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_m.htm you can see that we are nowhere near the high price mark of fuel.
And those charts are in unadjusted $ so the price in todays money would be higher.

Now that the worlds economies are recovering from the pandemic prices are going to go up.
Transport and logistics are a mess at the moment so prices are going to go up.

Running around looking to blame green energy or the evil oil producing countries is not giving the full answer.
I asked about costs a few posts up and stompix posted a link about Germany spending $38 billion on green energy
Which looks like a big number.

But the Renewable energy surcharge for Germany went from 23% in 2018 to 21% in 2019 and is 20% in 2021
The grid cost was about the same (my question) however the cost of acquisition for the power has gone up from 21% to 24% of the bill.

Part of that cost is the profit for the suppliers. Anyone want to check on their profit margins?  No, OK I'll save you the effort.
Although 2021 numbers are not out yet:

https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/pressreleases/2021/vattenfall--year-end-report-2020
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/RWEOY/rwe-ag/profit-margins
and so on.

Germans (and others) are paying for corporate profits. Green energy is just a scapegoat.

-Dave

[stompix]

One catastrophe is enough for me - the Chernobyl disaster. I would like to wish you with all my heart that you and your family never crossed paths with this evil ...

I did, so keep your sympathy to yourself, some parts of Eastern Europe were more affected than the east of Ukraine.

One such accident is enough for many tens of years, many millions of people to suffer.

Let's add the sufferance of those who can't afford to heat their home and live like in the dark ages to this?
Let's add the sufferance of those who are unemployed because the factory where they worked had to shut down?
Let's add the sufferance of those who will not be able to afford food with these prices?
Let's count those deaths too, shouldn't we?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/dying-cold-europe-fuel-poverty-energy-spending

Luckily for us even treehuggers seem to have 1% of their brain functional:
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-slashes-renewable-energy-tax-due-to-soaring-prices/a-59517333

Germany's electric grid operators on Friday announced a reduction of the renewable energy tax by over 40% to ease the burden on consumers coping with soaring energy prices that are affecting Europe this year.

Let's cut the subsidies and the billions spent on these garbage soylent green revolution and let's focus on solving real problems.
Imagine that, just the renewable tax on electricity is twice as much as the price of electricity in some countries!

Running around looking to blame green energy or the evil oil producing countries is not giving the full answer.
I asked about costs a few posts up and stompix posted a link about Germany spending $38 billion on green energy
Which looks like a big number.

It is a big number!
It means 500Euros per citizen, counting in normal Us prices around 5000Kwh a year per citizen, adding the average German consumption per household! at 3000 in the equation one might wonder why are we paying 3 times the bill in subsidies each year.

https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/pressreleases/2021/vattenfall--year-end-report-2020
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/RWEOY/rwe-ag/profit-margins
and so on.

Germans (and others) are paying for corporate profits. Green energy is just a scapegoat.

I just find it funny how your first example is a corporation that produces only green energy.  
Kind of ironic, isn't it?

[DaveF]

I just find it funny how your first example is a corporation that produces only green energy.  
Kind of ironic, isn't it?

It was just on a list of German energy suppliers profit from low to high.
They are all for profit companies, most of which have net profit % that other businesses can only hope for.
Don't care if it's green energy or the worst dirty coal out there, for the most part there is more money going to profit then to green.

Not saying that it does not suck. Just that green is only part of the suck. Blaming green for the entire suck is just not a good argument. You could say if the green was removed it would suck less. But you can't say if the green was removed it would not suck.

It is a big number!
It means 500Euros per citizen, counting in normal Us prices around 5000Kwh a year per citizen, adding the average German consumption per household! at 3000 in the equation one might wonder why are we paying 3 times the bill in subsidies each year.

Possibly, the 500 per citizen assumes that everyone uses the same amount. I can't speak for Germany, and for some reason can't find the numbers, but I would *think* (note think, don't know, can't find) that Germany like most industrialized countries heavy industry and commercial industry in general uses more energy then homes. At a guess, VW, Daimler, BMW, Airbus probably are using more energy then most towns. Could be wrong on that, just going by what I know in the US.

The cost does get passed along, but it's not a 1:1 ratio.

Opinion: This is why the there is so much arguing going on. It's not black and white. It's one big pool of grey. Kind of like the title of this post itself. Would it have the same impact if instead of 'Fuel prices hitting an eight year high' is was 'Fuel prices close to 70% of what they were in summer 2008'

If we could all move a bit, more might be accomplished.

-Dave

[DrBeer]

....
Chernobyl isn't emblematic of nuclear energy, although it's something a lot of people think about on this topic. Keep in mind, what happened in Chernobyl was during the Soviet era with low safety standards and ancient technology. We're light years ahead of what we had then, and I don't think the small risk of accidents outweigh the amount of energy you can produce.  Realistically, nuclear waste is the only downside, but oil production produces a lot of waste within itself. Oil results in larger CO2 emissions as well, so the trade off isn't that bad.

The problem that arose in Chernobyl, and subsequently led to a global tragedy, was not backwardness or low security. At that time, the USSR was a more or less adequate supplier of solutions in the nuclear power industry. The problem was quite different. The problem was the "security" system, reduced to idiocy. The essence of what happened was the transition of the RBMK-1000 reactor to an abnormal mode. And it turned out that the staff had no information on what to do in such a (very specific) situation. At the same time, the key problem was that the developers KNEW about this behavior, this reactor model. Moreover, this "behavior" of the reactor was described, the reasons were indicated, as well as ways of stabilization. BUT ! This part of the project documentation was classified as "secret", and, accordingly, was not used to train the personnel of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant ... This idiocy has led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people, and systemic diseases of millions.

[barbara44]

If there are safer sources of energies like solar and wind, why to keep risking ourselves with nuclear energy? As everyone know it's too dangerous and nobody can predict an accident, it just happens, and once it happens there isn't anything to do besides regretting the actions which lead to that.

Green energy could be already supplying everyone, but it's not interesting for the small group who rules the world as they profit from the precariousness, so it's definitely not going to happen soon. That would be the ideal, because people would be finally autonomous in energy production paying very low costs to supply their homes and to fuel their vehicles.

The problem is that there are people defending against green energy for ... no reason at all. Those are the problems, we are having that type of problem that people who will not make any profit at all from this end up defending. I understand if you are working in oil world then you would defend it and that would be something very important for you since if you lose then you are losing your job as well.

However when we say that the world is burning, and we are ALREADY too late and the world is keep getting burned, then we get people saying things like "everything seems fine, you keep saying it will get worse and nothing gets worse" for some reason. Like what? How the hell you are not seeing that during summers we get nations on fire everywhere around the world. THAT is the result of us not going green earlier.

We need to go to green or not only we will be doing worse, but we will literally not have any way to stay alive neither. It is really a shame honestly and I am having a bit of a problem to understand how people could defend against green energy when there is nothing that they would profit from neither.

[uneng]

The problem is that there are people defending against green energy for ... no reason at all. Those are the problems, we are having that type of problem that people who will not make any profit at all from this end up defending. I understand if you are working in oil world then you would defend it and that would be something very important for you since if you lose then you are losing your job as well.

It reminds me candle sellers were against electricity because they would lose their jobs if the world adopted a better technology, what inevitably happened anyway and these people had to find alternative ways to work for a living. That is the normal as things are constantly evolving and something that is a necessity now won't be necessary anymore when we find a more efficient method to fulfill that same objective.
What shouldn't happen is to stop evolving because some people can't adapt themselves to changes in life.

People who act corporately are blind by their own selfish that they can't see the benefits they could also have by adopting green sources of energy.

[Sithara007]

It reminds me candle sellers were against electricity because they would lose their jobs if the world adopted a better technology, what inevitably happened anyway and these people had to find alternative ways to work for a living. That is the normal as things are constantly evolving and something that is a necessity now won't be necessary anymore when we find a more efficient method to fulfill that same objective.
What shouldn't happen is to stop evolving because some people can't adapt themselves to changes in life.

People who act corporately are blind by their own selfish that they can't see the benefits they could also have by adopting green sources of energy.

Such protests may have a short term impact, but it won't block the inevitable. If something is ineffective compared to something else, then no matter how much the supporters protest, it can't be held afloat for too long. In the end, it is up to the consumers to decide whether he or she want to use it or not. The only option left here is to improve the efficacy or make it more affordable. Else, the alternative will gain acceptance. Now you can't force the people to use a commodity which is more expensive and unaffordable compared to the alternative.

[jaysabi]

You don't really have safety concerns with green energy alternatives

Compared to nuclear safety, that's not true:

(image source)

It's good to note that basically anything causes less deaths than fossil fuel.

This source has nuclear above all forms of green renewable sources.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh

Looking only at mortality though doesn't take into account the environmental drawbacks of nuclear though.  To your point, nuclear offers far more energy for far less deaths compared to fossil fuels, but that doesn't refute my point from my last post that nuclear creates hazardous materials that need to be safely secured and stored because of how dangerous it is.

[pinggoki]

You have to remember that these are non-renewable resources. Oil is generally hard to find in the first place, and very scarce as well. Not to mention the detriments that it causes in the environment in the form of pollution. PLus as more and more countries get industrialized, the need for electricity and gasoline increases which then pumps the demand of oil and similar products, with this in mind, we have to consider that if we aren't going to change our ways, the vision of a luscious future will be under the expense that oil prices increases, and that our environment is affected.

The highest price of fuel will lead the world to destruction instead of fossil fuels nuclear energy can easily be promoted as an alternative energy source after the chernoby and fukushima accidents, most people are instinctively considering nuclear power to be dangerous, making it quite unpopular now. Germany and japan have shut down many nuclear power plants since the fukushima accident. Which greatly endangers the habitation of our planet nuclear power is a good option.

People are only looking to the devastation but not in the advantage and the good effect , this is the problem why we are still in trouble of energy when there are other sources .
Nuclear power made some mistakes and people drying , but what about those people who extend their lives because of the energy from nuclear?
and besides our world now is getting advanced so yes we can prevent such mistakes in the past by doing the right thing now.

If there are safer sources of energies like solar and wind, why to keep risking ourselves with nuclear energy? As everyone know it's too dangerous and nobody can predict an accident, it just happens, and once it happens there isn't anything to do besides regretting the actions which lead to that.

Green energy could be already supplying everyone, but it's not interesting for the small group who rules the world as they profit from the precariousness, so it's definitely not going to happen soon. That would be the ideal, because people would be finally autonomous in energy production paying very low costs to supply their homes and to fuel their vehicles.

Thing about these types of resources is they are severely downplayed by big oil companies as inefficient sources of energy compared to oil and coal, which then causes manufacturers and even households to not choose these greener alternatives when in reality they are very efficient and also nature-friendly. Plus the startup price also affects the consumer's opinion over these healthier alternatives that's why among the current sources of energy that we use, the most environmentally-friendly option is nuclear energy.

[Ultegra134]

Crude oil barrel's price is steadily increasing, the average price for 95 unleaded, in my area is now €1.80, while for regular diesel is €1.50. Fuelling up your car was always an expensive procedure, but now it's a complete nightmare, in my case I'll need €70-€80 to fill up my tank from empty. On top of that, electricity costs are also spiking, which is quite logical, if you consider that most of our energy is generated by burning fossil fuels.

The question now is, how can the average consumer keep up with the increasing living costs? Fuel, electricity, products have seen increases in price, salaries on the other hand have not. Thus, the total available income is vastly shrinking.

[Sithara007]

Crude oil barrel's price is steadily increasing, the average price for 95 unleaded, in my area is now €1.80, while for regular diesel is €1.50. Fuelling up your car was always an expensive procedure, but now it's a complete nightmare, in my case I'll need €70-€80 to fill up my tank from empty. On top of that, electricity costs are also spiking, which is quite logical, if you consider that most of our energy is generated by burning fossil fuels.

The question now is, how can the average consumer keep up with the increasing living costs? Fuel, electricity, products have seen increases in price, salaries on the other hand have not. Thus, the total available income is vastly shrinking.

Don't you think that at least a part of the crude oil price rise resulted from inflation? I tried to analyze, but couldn't find any large difference between supply and demand for crude oil in the last 2-3 years. So I am suspecting that the current spike has more to do with the unlimited printing of banknotes in the name of COVID stimulus. Don't forget the fact that the M1 monetary supply of the US Dollar went up by 200%+ in the last two years. Trillions have been created out of thin air, and it is natural to have an impact on the market because of this.

[uneng]

It reminds me candle sellers were against electricity because they would lose their jobs if the world adopted a better technology, what inevitably happened anyway and these people had to find alternative ways to work for a living. That is the normal as things are constantly evolving and something that is a necessity now won't be necessary anymore when we find a more efficient method to fulfill that same objective.
What shouldn't happen is to stop evolving because some people can't adapt themselves to changes in life.

People who act corporately are blind by their own selfish that they can't see the benefits they could also have by adopting green sources of energy.

Such protests may have a short term impact, but it won't block the inevitable. If something is ineffective compared to something else, then no matter how much the supporters protest, it can't be held afloat for too long. In the end, it is up to the consumers to decide whether he or she want to use it or not. The only option left here is to improve the efficacy or make it more affordable. Else, the alternative will gain acceptance. Now you can't force the people to use a commodity which is more expensive and unaffordable compared to the alternative.

I suppose you mean the renewable sources of energy are expensive if compared to their efficiency, right?

And that is actually true, because there isn't incentive from the government to make people adopt it. There isn't any governmental propaganda to educate people regards this matter. Moreover, most equipments to set the solar system up come from another countries (they are imported), making them very expensive. The government shouldn't charge any taxes on this, because it's something we don't have access in our country and could be even considered basic need goods. As it couldn't become worse, congressmen are already passing a law to create a tax over solar energy production, so people who supply their homes with renewable energy will have to keep paying taxes to the government anyway.

The same could be said about the electrical cars which are still scarce and very expensive if compared to the traditional alcohool or gasoline cars.

However, despite all difficulties and sabotages it may still worth the investment on long run. To reach to a conclusion it's needed to get a quote of how much the solar system costs to supply your house, and next you calculate if a loan is a good idea. Sometimes the loan monthly parcel is the same amount of money you pay to your energy provider right now.

[Fortify]

Fuel prices have skyrocketed in the past few months, on a worldwide scale. Here in Greece, the average price per liter for 95 Unleaded petrol is €1.75, while for diesel it's approximately €1.45. A huge surge is also expected, in the soon-to-be launched season of heating gas oil, which is expected to start within the next few weeks, with a rumored price of at least €1.10/liter.

I've read that this spike in prices is triggered by an increase in price per barrel, due to oil companies worrying about the pandemic, while their production is limited compared to the higher demand. Have you heard anything relative? What's causing this surge in prices, could it be a one-off thing which lasts a couple of months at most?

What's the average cost of petrol/diesel in your country? Share your thoughts on what exactly is causing this crisis, which is also spiking electricity costs up, increasing the budget for the average household.

It's crazy to see that near the start of Covid the oil price actually went negative for a little while - there was so much output backed up with no one using it and all storage capacity gone, that it oil producers were essentially paying you (or people with spare capacity) to take delivery. Now over a year later we are back at record highs. Anyone with sense last year should have been buying oil company shares because they were heavily depressed due to this situation and have since rebounded substantially. For the average consumer though, like so many things right now, the supply chains have been screwed up substantially and it might take many years to return to the normal we had before.

[stompix]

Possibly, the 500 per citizen assumes that everyone uses the same amount. I can't speak for Germany, and for some reason can't find the numbers, but I would *think* (note think, don't know, can't find) that Germany like most industrialized countries heavy industry and commercial industry in general uses more energy then homes. At a guess, VW, Daimler, BMW, Airbus probably are using more energy then most towns. Could be wrong on that, just going by what I know in the US.

The cost does get passed along, but it's not a 1:1 ratio.  

It's about one-quarter of the total energy consumed, but overall at the end of the bill, it doesn't matter because if VW for example pays also a greentax the cost will be in the finished product. If a restaurant pays 10% more on electricity that cost will be seen in the menu. It's not that somehow that money paid by companies or businesses will come out of some hidden pocket, at the end of the line it will still be reflected in ours, even if the company takes it out of their profits that will impact on the money shareholders get so it will still be there.

But even if we divide that by 4 to 9 billion, it still comes at 180E per household per year, still you're paying in subsidies 50% of what the bill would look like in a normal country. And it's not a matter of purchasing power either as one could claim, why is the price per kwh in the Netlends half of that in Germany?

Opinion: This is why the there is so much arguing going on. It's not black and white. It's one big pool of grey. Kind of like the title of this post itself. Would it have the same impact if instead of 'Fuel prices hitting an eight year high' is was 'Fuel prices close to 70% of what they were in summer 2008'

Because the second won't happen unless we shut down the economy and I don't see an economic crisis happening because of low gas prices, because of high one...well it's here. Nor would we see people angry and cursing that they've filled their tank with 10$

We need to go to green or not only we will be doing worse, but we will literally not have any way to stay alive neither. It is really a shame honestly and I am having a bit of a problem to understand how people could defend against green energy when there is nothing that they would profit from neither.

Let's start counting the poeple who will die of cold in their homes because they can't pay for heating this winter, then let's see if somebody gives a fuck if the planet is destroyed 300 years from now when he is freezing to death with the gas and power cut because he couldn't pay for them.
Go on and tell those poeple they should pay all their money to survive the cold in order to save the planet.

Let's see if you would dare! Imagine having your kid freezing and crying he is cold next to you and listening to some moron on tv about how we need to put more carbon taxes or we will experience heatwaves after heatwaves.