How will we pay for the Energy Bill? With our energy bills!

Tthe policy the Government is embarking of is one that shows they have no social conscience once again the poor will pay for rich peoples energy. Massive grants are being given to rich landowners to install wind energy projects, one of my multi millionaire neighbours is now getting free energy and making money form the grid while the rest of us see increases see in our electricty bill. I believe the Government should help with research to help with new power technology but to support companies who could not survive without public subsidy is just making bad companies wore

The problem with this idea is so many of the energy companies are foriegn owned, assisting them would be similair to shovelling foriegn aid without any real controle as to how the money is spent, the fault lies originally with Maggie Thatcher whoes idea it was to sell the nationalaly owned companies off into private hands thus allowing them to gradualy be owned by investors abroard who saw a very rich gravey train in the offing

I’d prefer to blame all subsequent governments for not buying up shares here and there once the badly performing energy companies had been turned round.

William

I don’t believe that the government needs to buy shares in the companies. What it does need to do is to regulate their operation properly, and get a move on doing this.

Do you have figures which show that tourism has magically evaporated from Scotland because of “dozens of massive white monoliths scattered over the mountains.”?

I actually like the things – in a landscape so marked and changed by millenia of human activity, it’s nice to see a positive change – but I have seen NO evidence that their presence diminishes tourism, and doubt you have either , so the argument is yet another spurious one promoted by the Noel Edmonds of the world.
[PS I live in Dartmoor National Park, and would be most happy to have a turbine farm on the adjacent hillside – whilst I may not be in danger of being engulfed by rising sea levels, plenty of the most disadvantaged are].

11mm (less than half an inch!) rise in sea levels so far in years. Will anyone anywhere notice this?

What have you in mind? Perhaps an exercise bike with an alternator, in front of the TV so that ‘couch potatoes’ would have to pedal away to watch Coronation Street. 🙂

I’m thinking more along the lines of something to store up a charge, and then discharge it back into the grid, I’d hate to think a couch potato missing that crucial plot twist just cos they stopped peddling to catch their breath.

The energy companies will still need the same revenue, so overall we will be no better off. They will design a new system of tariffs to make sure they do not lose out.

You have more confidence in these organisations that I do.

I also cannot improve my insulation etc living in a modern apartment – it’s all done – but I’ll end up paying £100+ annually to support ‘green’ energy for decades to come (I believe this is only the thin end of the wedge!)

I’m not convinced we have that much effect on what’s happenning to ‘climate change’ anyway. Look back in history and see the different weather conditions they had – the river Thames froze in Tudor times.

The cost of a new system will be recouped by the money you will save using energy-saving lamps. It’s time to move on.

Whilst I’m inclined to agree with Wavechange about the system being replaced potentially costing less than the savings made by using cfl lamps, I am acutely aware that often there is no direct replacement for assistive technologies and the currently available products are often inferior to, or at least take years to become as adept at using as, the existing system.
This isn’t the place to have a debate about modern assistive technologies but it is perhaps something that the likes of Which should look into when sweeping changes (such as banning tungsten lamps) are proposed.
However, back on topic, I doubt very much that either the number of assistive technologies in use make a detectable impact on national energy use nor that upgrading all such items to new “efficient” versions will have the slightest impact on the need to either generate more or use less.

I also have a “modern” central heating system with a boiler that is now 42 years old. I have been advised for the last 30 years to have it changed for a more efficient one, but have resisted for good reasons. If I had had it replaced, I would have needed about 3 or 4 “new” ones in it’s place.
The whole busines of replacing boilers with modern, so called more efficient ones, is a total con. Millions of £ are being wasted on the advice of so called experts who convince the innocent that huge savings can be made by fitting a modern boiler.
My boiler is about 65% efficient, but the heat “wasted” is not wasted. It stays in the house. It warms the airing cupboard. Being in the center of the house, the heat that goes up the chimney also heatsthe whole of the house. If I replace it with a new one, I have to fit more radiators to compensate for the loss of heat that is not lost.
The only heat that is actually lost is around 3 to 5 % that finally exits the chimney.

There is no doubt at all that these constant pressure-sales to try to get us all to buy new appliances is a pure con.

It’s put in place purely to try to mask the real issue, and happens to make a fat profit for the manufacturers as a ‘happy’ (sarcastic tone) by-product.

My mum and I have boilers that are 35 and 33 years old respectively, and neither has ever broken down once. What’s more, we both enjoy gas bills which are considerably LOWER than many friends and neighbours who have “upgraded” to an “efficient” boiler and now find that they are using more gas.

British Gas themselves have told various people (some of whom have quoted BG’s letters on other convo’s) that new boilers will never actually use less gar, and the Energy Saving TRust wrote to me and told me that “All new [white goods] and boilers use more [electricity] and gas than their older counterparts “due to the new features”.

There is only one way to save energy and that is to be less profligate with it.

It is a parallel situation with weight loos – a person will only ever lose weight by either consuming fewer calories or by burning off more calories (or both at once for faster results). Miracle diets and magic c pills do nothing at all. Energy consumption is no different.

Wavechange makes a point elsewhere on this convo about being fed up of people blaming the government of the day and the need for all-party collaboration on this issue: he’s right but I would add that it doesn’t need all party collaboration, just a government will guts, to do some basic things that would have an overnight effect. Three such things are:
1) an outright ban on all forms of outdoors heater – of the types that you see outside pubs and so on to warm up smokers on the pavement.
2) (assuming that CFL’s – widely debated on other convo’s – are really going to save energy) an immediate change in the law so that commercial and industrial operations are forced to switch to CFL’s like domestic users have been – rather than being exempt as they are now and being allowed to continue to use tungsten lamps as much as they like.
3) a return to the “public heating seasons” for all public buildings – i.e. no heating appliances or central heating in shops, offices, libraries, schools, etc., between May 1st and October 1st – instead of the current ludicrous position where heating is often on all year round, with air con running against it in warm weather.

There’s plenty more ways that we can all reduce consumption and actually, you know what? 99% of people would not even notice the changes if they were done FOR them – it’s only because everyone has to physically DO something themselves that they even notice at all ….. and then out comes the whinge brigade.

Alternatively, as plenty of others have said already, keep on wasting gas and electricity to your hearts content, but shut up being NIMBY and accept the turbines, solar panels, nuclear poser stations, smoke stacks and all the rest outside your window.

There is no “third way”!

My 42 year old boiler has also never broken down once. I live in the knowledge that at some time it may fail by a leak in the boiler body, and a replacement will cost around £6,000 as I will not be allowed to place a new one in the center of the house, which is where it should be. The cost is inflated because of the extra plumbing needed to move the location to an outside wall.
Which? have missed the boat when they tested boilers. They were tested as individual units “in a box”, and failed to observe that the so called wasted heat was not wasted. I communicated with them but they did not understand. I have also had communications with the editor of “Gas News” who, as expected, agrees with this analysis, but accepts there is nothing that can be done to rectify the current situation. I even obtained, with some difficulty, the legislation document, all 74 pages, and it is based on the ridiculous concept of boiler efficiency in isolation from the actual installation.
But spares are not available, or difficult to find. The only working part is the gas valve, which can not be replaced with an identical one, but Honeywell have an equivalent that can be fitted.

Bert

It would be relevant for Which? to mention that the boiler installation will affect the efficiency of the system but most people wanting to replace a boiler will have little option unless they carry out major changes to their house.

Dave D. has frequently pointed out other relevant issues, such as the unreliability of modern boilers and the fact that they can have a much shorter service life than the old ones that the three of us own.

The principle of a modern condensing boiler is good but various problems need to be addressed. Installers should be aware of the need to avoid condensate freezing in cold weather, but it’s up to the manufacturers to tackle the problems of poor reliability and short life.

Condensing boilers do recover heat that is wasted by older designs but undoubtedly there is scope to recover more. Where to site a boiler is something that builders and those involved in house refurbishment should give thought to.

To all of the guys writing here regarding old gas boilers. I too have a reliable old fashioned boiler (approximately 25 years) sadly no gas fitter wanted to move it to suit alterations to the building. They all steered me towards new condensing boilers at huge expense.

A very quick calculation showed me that it would take at least twelve years to break even before I would enjoy any saving due to the claimed efficiency improvements! Naturally I was somewhat reluctant to go down that road. Casual research locally and asking friends revealed some horror stories regarding boiler failures, incapable repairmen, frozen condensate in flue outlets etc. Clearly this was not the way to go.

I have since abandoned my old gas boiler (reluctantly) and installed twin 215 litre buffer tanks heated by immersion heaters on economy 10 tariff, with the options of also connecting any or all of the following to the buffers: multi-fuel stove, heat pumps and solar thermal.
So far installation has cost me less than half of the cost of a new condensing gas boiler. I don’t have any worries regarding boiler failure / frozen flue / calling out Gas Safe repairmen / carbon monoxide poisoning / gas explosions and after six months useage I’m on target to match last years cost for running on gas! I suppose immersion heaters are inherently close to 100% efficient, and certainly more reliable than any gas boiler can be.

So don’t lose hope guys, there are viable alternatives if your ‘old faithfulls’ do eventually give up the ghost.

They do, although they’re short sighted enough not to use existing profits but rather increase the cost and use these new profits. 🙁