What can the government do now to help with energy bills this winter?

You do not mention the high capital cost of the system, especially when compared to the cost of gas boilers for standard homes. The whole conversation appears to want to inflict more regulations on everyone through CMA and Ofgem through “the government” rather than fewer regulations. More regulations mean more complicated systems as everyone knows to their cost (personal and corporate tax system). People should generally be responsible for themselves and their actions. Those who cannot help themselves for whatever reason can be assisted but the majority of people are too idle to change their supplier – hence the large number on standard tariffs.

I should have added the wasteful cost of smart metering which is clearly becoming a commercial failure as they have had to launch a very expensive marketing campaign to get people to ask for them. Consumers are paying £11 billion for this through their energy bills. Some companies are actually suggesting that having one is mandatory and that they must make an appointment now. I have no idea how they would fit one to my gas meter which is outside the house and not near an electricity supply; we wouldn’t want one anyway.

Tabloid (political) journalism, John. I’d like facts, not rhetoric. Proposals, not gripes. From Which?, that is.

I keep hoping that they will put forward well researched, well argued cases taking help from experts when looking at how to change for the better. But that is demanding on time and expertise. Perhaps they should run their proposals through Which Connect first to see what Which? Members (who are the essential funders of Which?) think and what they might suggest before going public?

Its “New Speak ” for a new age its actually normal for the new century its just part of the New Society its no different from other means of communication when looking at the “Bigger Picture ” .

Not sure what you mean duncan.

Its “key words ” that have a propagandist sales type expression its used continually in the USA , its a projection of an “commercial” type viewpoint thats expresses itself as a “knowing ” of the situation by those in a “better ” position to judge what the situation is all about spoken in a wording that makes the public “feel better ” knowing there are wise people “taking care of business ” .The US government use it night +day its just “drifted over here ” . I actually understand it spending so much time on American websites of commercial/business/ and political outlook and talking to Americans that its normal to me now . That might not make it acceptable to the regulars here but I just translate it to get the inner meaning .

Duncan, I think I am even more baffled now. My point was that much of it is just waffle and has no meaning, inner or otherwise. The fact that Americans like it is no justification!

I suspect duncan meant waffle words as well. I like to see plain straightforward language. Don’t always practice what I preach
🙁 . However when a serious argument is being put forward it should be well thought through and not dressed up with “marketing speak”. We had a less polite description of such words and phrases.

I didnt want to sound too rude John but malcolm got it right with “marketing speak ” , its a way of life in many areas of the world ,the US government have been advised for many decades by the advertising companies even how to project themselves for a bigger vote . The problem it has in this country is that too many people are down to earth (like myself ) and look for straight forward answers its a case of different cultures but Americans are “wising up ” and its becoming unacceptable to more and more as time goes on . As you both say you want facts -first-second and third I understand that but Which like other websites has to project a “modern ” image and that image like it is in many areas of the media is American as it appeals to the younger generation.

@ldeitz. Lauren, there has been a good contribution of positive suggestions. However I might not be alone in asking for more careful intros. There are a number of assertions made that many may take at face value, because Which? are the contributor. But some, as I mention above, are dubious or not totally correct. We need unbiased information to avoid misleading contributors.

The intro says “After years of price hikes, dire customer service and falling levels of trust, it’s clear that big improvements are needed. ” I looked at my energy cost over the last three years based on the suppliers I have used, and identical energy use. I have been prepared to switch andcareful to choose the cheaper fixed term deals; I am this year paying 30% less than 3 years ago. My case is nothing special, unless I am unique in shopping around, so the “price hikes” appear not to be general for everyone, or at least avoidable.

It is clear that many consumers are simply not sufficiently bothered about the amount of money they could save to make a switch, despite knowing what to do and how to do it.

Energy is energy – it does not matter who supplies it. As John said, it is does not come in high or low quality. It seems to me the main criteria are how far the energy must travel to your home, as this seems to affect transmission charges, whether you are prepared to pay a smaller or larger standing charge, and whether you might use a lot of off-peak power at lower rates. If you are “Green” you might be prepared to pay more to support renewables. I think these should be among the basic criteria for setting tariffs and the “fixed price deals” should be abolished; they are subsidised by those on standard variable tariffs which is unfair. The main tariff should therefore be based on a variable energy cost. Some may disagree, but my point is we should be highlighting what we regard as a better, fairer way of charging for energy, agree on the basis, and then campaign for that through Ofgem. Although the retail market review is pretty near a conclusion that does not mean it cannot be modified.

On the matter of energy I have just renewed my contract with the Co-op . I have said previously that I was told that there would be a price hike due to increase in fuel supply costs . After a talk with Co-op Energy (MIdlands ) they have agreed to supply me ,as before on dual fuel at exactly the same price and conditions as the previous year . I was told it was because I am a loyal customer having been brought up in everything Co-op -food- clothes-shoes- shirt-wellies -sandshoes -school uniform -watch- clock- tie-etc -etc . My mother was a member since the 30,s and I remember queuing for the “divi” along with her.

I endorse what Malcolm has said. Over the several Conversations there has been no shortage of suggestions as to what the government should do to put the energy market right. There is a sense of frustration on my part that despite the intelligent and informed contributions from many correspondents that generally point in the same direction, Which? has appeared to be quite indifferent and shown very little support for any of the proposals that would make life better for the majority of consumers. Moreover, Which? has made very few original contributions to the debate apart from a few opportunistic outbursts on populist issues [which were nonetheless valid in principle, I hasten to add]. This Conversation criticises energy suppliers for not engaging with consumers, but Which? has hardly engaged with its subscribers either, other than in a tangential way. I find the lack of dialogue with Which? in the Conversations quite disappointing, as there are opportunities to introduce facts, or challenge assumptions, ask questions, and feed in information that would improve the context in which we are commenting.

Anyway, moving on, I think this is a good opportunity to round up all the various ideas that have been put forward, over the last two years or so, prioritise them, and put them forward as a consumers’ manifesto to the government and Ofgem for attention. The CMA’s two-year-long review isn’t the end of the debate; it is really only the beginning because there are still several serious problems that have not been given much time or space in the media or political circles and they remain in the ‘too difficult’ tray. It’s still early days for the new PM’s approach to be gauged but she did mention reform of the energy market as one of the big challenges in setting out her stall at the Conservative Party annual conference yesterday. That might indicate that the she recognises – with one eye on 2020 as ever – that the last few years of posturing and fancy-dancing around the issues have not achieved the right outcomes for most voters and especially those on low incomes or with all-day heating requirements or with hard-to-heat homes [and sometimes all three]. So there is potentially a window of opportunity to look beyond the CMA review and Which? should play its part in that.

I should like to know whether Which? supports the suggestion of making available a list of all those households on a standard variable tariff to all energy suppliers so they can target them directly with mailshots. Without counting all the responses I would say this was opposed by most who commented on it in the previous Conversation. I should also like to know what Which? feels about the imposition of VAT-attracting government levies on energy bills which are widely acknowledged to be regressive in their impact. There are lots of other aspects that Which? should speak out on in the overall interests of consumers, like the smart meter roll-out, the winter fuel payment, and the vertical integration of the big energy companies that disadvantages newer entrants to the market, to name but a few.

There is one question that has routinely sparked conflicting views and that is standing charges. In this case an intelligent and responsible debate led by Which? might enable consumers to develop a policy that is equitable, honest, transparent and trustworthy and where the costs and charges are independently controlled on a sustainable formulaic basis. Perhaps Which? does not wish to go this far and only wants to react, or ask its members about it.

I support Malcolm’s proposal for abolishing the fixed-price tariffs with their long contracts and exit penalties even though I am on such a tariff at present. I don’t think there is any place for cross-subsidisation in the energy market – there are already enough perks available like discounts for paperless billing, direct debit, and dual-fuel [of which the latter discriminates against people who only have mains electricity]. Every time there is a discussion on the energy market the cry goes up for a return to nationalisation . . . and it is easy to see why even though many of the protagonists have no idea how expensive and inefficient that was. At least the deal was simple and universal within each gas or electricity board and the bill was easy to understand. I think that is what people wish to return to: a service where we don’t need to wrangle with comparison sites [in which Which? has a vested interest, let’s not forget] that are not without serious flaws and are taking money out of the market, as does excessive switching because of tariff instability, of course, and the one feeds off the other.

Thanks for your response on ‘marketing speak’, Duncan – I do recognise it when I see it and in general I feel it is best left in the world of marketing. I am afraid I cannot agree with you on the need for a Which? article on a serious subject to descend to that level. While I do agree with you that Which? should project a modern image, I cannot accept that that means it should attempt to mimic American usage, nor that the American way necessarily appeals to the younger generation except in a few specific areas. Which? is predominantly for adults over twenty-five who, in my experience are much more international in outlook. Sadly we have embraced too many American brands because we have been too lazy to learn other languages or experience other lifestyles, but things are changing now, especially in drama and cultural influences. Which? is also predominantly for a UK audience and I would suggest that it’s reputation is not helped by diluting its appeal in that direction. I certainly don’t think we need to take lessons from the Americans on the use of our mother tongue.

Do you really think we are advancing in our culture John , just look at 50,s TV programmes full of political articles , marvelous programmes on foreign countries , deep investigation of our flora+fauna , intelligent discussions etc . This country used to rule the world in programmes about other countries showing how the people lived and worked and beautiful views like a travelogue , now Germany has taken over that mantle . Just open up any UK TV mag and 99 % is complete rubbish its an insult to your intelligence , most films are the US winning every war in the world , romantic films that get 4 stars but deserve 1 more US programmes with us copying them , repeats so often that you can turn the sound down and still understand what they are saying and dont get me started on the so called “modern ” humor all it takes nowadays is for one of those “comedians” to say one word and the audiences laughs its head off . I dont see any signs of this country fighting back against the massive US media to me its crushing the culture of this country .

I completely disagree with you Duncan. The TV schedules in the 1950’s and 60’s were dominated by trashy American shows [“I Love Lucy“, “The Dick Van Dyke Show“, “77 Sunset Strip” and many others] and Hollywood movies, then Dallas and Dynasty, Hawaii Five O, and many Westerns. Today, the American content is a fraction of previous decades. Every week there are several highly enjoyable travelogues with British presenters [Michael Portillo, Joanna Lumley, Trevor MacDonald, etc] and documentaries about other countries, as well as wildlife, history, science, culture, arts, music, and architecture programmes. There are also plenty of [some say too many] political programmes with debate and analysis covering UK and overseas stories.

There is not a night when we cannot find an absorbing programme to watch on the mainstream channels and there is also an innovative strand of new British comedy that is winning audiences, does not rely entirely on offensive language, and is actually quite cerebral at times. There is no question that the current popular UK TV drama productions are world-beaters and we also have the chance to watch some of the best productions from Scandinavian and other European producers. Our PVR is loaded with dramas, documentaries, and educational programmes that we have not yet had time to watch but will catch up with one day whether it’s the Battle of the Somme, the ancient history of Egypt, the Roman Empire, China, or Italian Islands. And if the UK film and broadcasting standards are so dire how do you explain that so many actors, comedians and production personnel are a vital part of American productions? Even our chat shows knock spots off the American ones. Yes, there is a a lot of rubbish on TV here, but it is not compulsory viewing and is a minor portion of the mainstream output, so I am afraid I think your wild generalisations are very wide of the mark.

Agreed John. We can usually find an interesting or genuinely entertaining programme to watch, but of course we need to be choosy – we don’t have to watch tv all the time if there is nothing on worth watching, do we. From the USA, Mash is still a programme I enjoy after all these years, just as I find our Dad’s Army unmissable.

What, I suspect, colours our judgement about the quality of programmes is the huge number of channels now available, the vast majority churning out rubbish. However if you scan the BBC, some ITV, Dave Yesterday, some Quest, Parliament and, of course the News there is usually something to tempt. Less good during the daytime, but are there not better things to do when its daylight? I am currently reading some John le Carre and Private Eye.

Does anyone find, like we do, that whenever you change channels to see what is on we invariably find we are at the start of another lengthy session of adverts? Perhaps we could simply have one channel just devoted to them and stop them spoiling our viewing?

The advert thing is interesting. Some years ago the government’s watchdog changed the rules to allow 20 minutes of ads per hour of viewing, so the progs are actually 40 minutes long. And they’re not the money maker they once were: many companies are stopping TV ads because the evidence is that time-shift viewing is now the predominant factor, and folks are cutting the ads out. Ad firms are increasingly looking to Facebook and the like.

I like your adverts suggestion, Malcolm. That’s why we rarely watch any commercial stations in real time. Watching a programme via the PVR fifteen minutes later than from the start means we can zip through the adverts and end up in synch by the time we might wish to change to another channel. I am glad HIGNFY is back.

I’ve just read through this discussion, and I think you may be talking about something that few people in this whole debate have addressed: there are people who don’t “engage” with the energy market because they don’t think there should even BE a market. They don’t see why duplication of the effort of meter reading and billing, and the cost of advertising etc. etc. is thought to provide the most efficient way to get a standard product (the supply of which is actually done by someone else) into people’s homes, and they don’t want to spend their valuable time looking at tariffs, and weighing up prices vs. service ratings, and deciding between fixed and variable rates, and wondering whether they really want to end up £100s in credit, and then worrying about whether they’ve chosen the best deal, only to be expected to do it all again next year.

Jenny, you are right, I’m sure, that there are some who feel this way. They have the choice to do nothing but that will be to their financial detriment unless and until the market might change to their liking.

The amount of time it does take to change, as you say once a year, is relatively little, particularly if you use Which?Switch, compared to the initial savings you might make.

There are practices I might disapprove of that save me money, but I gain nothing by avoiding them. If I can reduce my AA charge, car insurance, get a better energy tariff, a discounted home appliance then I will until these practices change for the better.

No, Duncan, it’s not too controversial. We had some very impassioned Conversations a few years ago about the pros and cons of wind-farms, both on-shore and off-shore, and solar heating has also been well debated. So I am in favour of a Conversation about hydraulic fracturing [‘fracking’].

The fracking topic goes to the heart of the UK’s energy policy because it has the potential to reduce significantly the price of raw energy and reduce the reliance on foreign energy imports [but not dramatically without massive upscaling]. However, it also does have environmental implications and raises concerns about groundwater contamination and the risk of earthquakes, among other things.

The grounds on which Lancashire County Council rejected the planning application [Little Plumpton] were noise and traffic impact – the council did not rule it out for any other reasons whether technical, environmental or political. As I understand it, following the public inquiry opened as a result of Cuadrilla’s appeal against refusal of planning permission and the production of more up-to-date evidence than was available to LCC, the Secretary of State was satisfied that the noise and traffic objections were not strong enough to justify refusal of planning permission. So, we are led to believe that the decision has been made solely on planning grounds. It is convenient, of course, that that outcome aligns with government energy and national infrastructure policies. However, the Secretary of State did not approve a second application [Roseacre Wood] because of concerns about the local impact.

A particular feature of the proposal in Lancashire is for horizontal drilling to access the gas reservoirs located between the shale rock and other strata and the concern is that there is less experience with this process and that it is potentially more disturbing to the environment than vertical drilling. It is far more productive, with horizontal bores extending outwards radially to 1 km from the drill head. It requires fewer headworks but the main drill head has to be a much larger installation attracting vehicular deliveries in a much more concentrated area so it would appear to be a lot more industrialised use of the site.

The historical county of Lancashire was one of the birthplaces and powerhouses of the industrial revolution with its extensive collieries, quarries, chemical works, mills, and manufacturing plants, including some of the dirtiest and most hazardous types in the country. Many have declined but it still hosts a nuclear power station and many other major industrial complexes. No doubt the population feels that the county has made its contribution, and suffered the consequences, and should now reject the intensification of the exploitation of subterranean resources on those grounds alone.

Personally I have no objection in principle to shale gas fracking so long as equivalent controls and protections are applied to it as are applied to nuclear power generation, and in fact there are extensive UK and EU regulations already in place [although they might not be rigorous enough]. It is interesting that the GMB trade union has accused the Labour Party of ‘madness’ in pledging to ban fracking. Additionally, the National Trust and the RSPB have not opposed fracking but have called for strong controls and protections and are especially worried about the industrialisation of the countryside as the sites so far identified are virgin greenfield locations.

This subject is controversial because if we do not have fracking we might have to have something that people think is even worse in order to secure our baseline energy needs.

You have certainly put the pro side very eloquently John and even if I am not a fan of it I must give you a “thumbs up” I wonder what the views of others are ?

It’s something about which I haven’t really thought but since our youngest is heavily involved in energy distribution I might ask his views. It does seem to offer reasonably accessible energy although whether the end user will ever see ‘cheap’ energy is I suspect, something rather doubtful.

Seems it’s a contentious field, doesn’t it? Just been sent the New Scientist leader which seems heavily against fracking for several reasons. They boil down to these:

1. We already have far more fossil fuel than we can afford to burn. If we are serious about tackling climate change, we have to leave most reserves underground.
2. It’s true that if shale gas were used to replace coal, it could reduce emissions and act as a “bridge fuel” to renewable energy. But shale gas is not going to replace coal in the UK, because the country is on course to meet its pledge to phase out coal by 2025, well before shale gas production begins in earnest.
3. Over the past summer the country got more of its electricity from solar than from coal.
4. There is a risk of water supplies being contaminated by fracking wastes, as has happened in the US.
5 Fracking might not even be economically viable if gas prices remain as low as they are.

I’ll see what the pros are now.

Number -4 is where I have a lot of US info on Ian.

Future generations will need the shale to make plastics, pharmaceuticals and many other products that we take for granted. Renewable energy could make a greater contribution to our energy needs if we get the balance right rather than focus on wind power, which is not dependable.

Or don’t we care about future generations?

Yes, Wavechange – that is the most important point – you can only take the gas once. And it is still a fossil fuel. It is not a producer of ‘green energy’.

I was hoping my previous comment would not be seen as an argument in favour of fracking as I included various balancing factors, but I thought I should make my personal attitude clear that I have no objection in principle subject to controls. I agree with Malcolm’s comments below which have arrived while I have been writing this.

Now that planning permission has been granted it becomes a commercial and logistical development rather than part of a rational energy strategy. The government is in a corner and fracking is an opportunistic way out. While coal-fired power generation will end by 2025, there is not an orderly run-down and facilities are already closing ahead of a neat timeline as the economics of a reduced industry affect coal importation, transport and production. Some companies are prepared to pay penalties to exit their supply agreements rather than maintain uneconomical power plants in operation. So there is a looming baseload energy gap given that new nuclear plants keep shifting to the right on the development schedule. Fracking looks like a convenient way of plugging that gap, but, as Ian points out, we are many years away from a time when shale gas output will be enough to replace lost coal-fired production – if only because initially UK shale gas will merely substitute for imported gas if the economics so dictate. New gas-fired power plants would be needed to generate electricity. Volume production of shale gas on a significant scale and the associated power plants would require many sites each with their own opposition and planning hurdles.

I think shale gas is likely to produce cheaper electricity but by the time we get there the difference might be less than the current forecasts. In terms of energy bills this could be a positive, and could offset the negative from the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant where the government has kindly allowed EDF to charge a much higher price per megawatt of output than other sources in order to recover the cost of their investment.

I agree with Wavechange that it would be better to forge ahead on renewable energy sources. There is potential in wave power to derive energy that is more dependable than from sun and wind. Solar power is daylight-limited and not sufficiently productive when heating demand is greatest. Wind power requires enormous over-capacity in turbine arrays and many dispersed locations in order to harness sufficient power given the variability of windforce off our coasts [thirty miles off the Norfolk coast in the latest proposals]. I feel that the economics of wind power are becoming unviable as the infrastructure for its collection and transmission becomes ever more complex and expensive. Moreover we are probably reaching the natural limit of reductions in electricity demand from energy-saving initiatives, especially as we electrify the railways, install air-conditioning, run electric road vehicles, and increase the population.

You’re not related to Duncan, are you? 🙂

Well put Dr Andrews ,and I have that US wealth of information standing by including,as you say, the Professors in the US who have had their mouths shut or worse ,and as you say the mainstream media covers it up until it reaches disaster proportions for the area and community that has fracking in it. Populations left with highly populated water , crops contaminated , forced to move because land becomes like a chemical desert that you see in parts of Africa after the oil companies have left . Cancer rising 10 fold , children +babies born with defects , I could go on-and on. This isnt a minor occurrence just well covered up by the US media . But my information will not be accepted because it comes from websites/newspaper reports that the US/UK governments wont accept because it is not official channels–catch 22.

Would you explain the limitless energy source and the evidence for the the threatened professor please? Supported facts are important when promoting a case.

You know what Ian as serious as I am about this subject – how is it that you can still make me laugh ???

I try 🙂 But more seriously, I’m really interested in the “unending abundance of ‘new energy’ (that’s) been available for decades”. Do share…

Dr J M Andrews LLB(Hons) (retired) – or may we call you Jane? – while we wait for the evidence of abundant free energy and the threatened professors, can I ask how we in the UK can fill the energy gap that is appearing before us in the early 2020’s without shale gas or something just as controversial. I feel that people who rule it out without giving reasons at least have a responsibility to identify a viable alternative that is ready to go.

Duncan, luckily for us the threatened professors that Jane knows are hiding here in the UK which will make it easier for us to open a communication channel to them and find out what the problem is. It is also best to avoid quoting evidence from US sources for the reasons you have given. I am sure there are reliable reports and studies available in the UK that would enable us to grasp the issues and examine the facts. I think it is fair to say that provided it is honest and truthful you can report evidence here irrespective of whether it came through an official channel. We shouldn’t delude ourselves either that the UK government will be taking much notice of what is said in Which? Conversation so there will be no harm in bringing it forward for consideration.

John how are you privy to knowing the DR is really Jane ?? I am used to devious practices on most websites but I never took it as read that they would migrate here. I took this website to be upstanding ,straight forward and ,for the most part truthful, I try to be the same John , what you see is what you get -NO sides . I am now a bit disappointed- sounds naive , but I always give someone the benefit of the doubt , until a situation like this arises then I never trust them . Sad !

Dr Andrews has posted a few comments here today and in one she gave her name and titles but also included her first name. No devious practices were involved.

Ian – where did I say “unending abundance of new energy ” ??

duncan, have a look at JM Andrews post. I have also asked what this limitless energy source is.

You didn’t, Duncan; the original poster did, above “Absolutely NO FRACKING!!, there is no need, it is not predictably safe, and unending abundance of ‘new energy’ has been available for decades, but no-one (so far) has had either the guts or the ‘clout’ to take on the interests of those who would lose out”.

There are often stories and articles about ‘endless energy’ devices being concealed by big business and vested interests, and they even dupe otherwise intelligent individuals. But none has ever been found to work in reality. An oft quoted example is the Casimir effect and the Free Energy machine is another (https : // www . youtube . com / watch?v=A25FRpkbDxU). No one would like this to be true more than I but whenever I’ve looked into it it seems that you can’t usually get more energy out than you put in – unless you can get hold of uranium or the like.

Maybe her comment (Jane/DR ) was a bit abstract as in– unlimited wave-power ( as long as the moon exists near us ) and wind not applied to an electrical engineering power design ?

We do have a recurring source of power that could be used as I’ve said in a number of Convos – tidal and wave power of which, being an island, we have an abundance. There is a limit to how much we can harness, the construction costs are high and, of course, some would be upset at where tidal storage would be located. But once built the energy input is non-polluting and dependable.

malcom the Scottish government is in the planning stages of a massive wave power installation in conjunction with foreign industry as far as I remember from the news it will be off the Aberdeen coast.

Tidal power is not a new technology. There is a working tide mill at Woodbridge in Suffolk [first mentioned in 1170 but in its present form dating from 1792], and a major complex of tide mills at Three Mills in Bromley-by-Bow in East London [with a long history going back to Elizabethan times and possibly earlier, but in their modern form probably dating from 1727 when they changed from flour milling to a distillery;the water wheels are still in position but have been bricked up as a safety precaution.]

The first shale gas well was built in Britain in 1875 and fracking has been used offshore in UK gas fields for over thirty years.

That’s possible, of course. But the thought has occurred that if we were to use tidal power extensively, eventually there might be a pay-back in orbital terms.

There is a school of thought (quite a large one, in fact) that says we don’t need the likes of Hinckley point, which is going to cost UK consumers an awful lot on the ‘leccie bills. Technology statisticians have been examining trends in Electric car purchases, LED light sales and the move towards the increasingly affordable Heat Pumps. The latter are especially impressive. On the current cooler nights we’re sitting happily ensconced in a warm cosy house which is being heated from the extraction of ambient heat in the outside air. Almost seems like magic, and it’s costing us pennies.

But electric cars can be hooked up to feed back into the grid at peak times, and then recharge from that grid when demand is low. Led lights are coming of age, and cost a fraction of what the old tungsten types did. Yes – we do have far more gadgets than we did, but essentially electricity supplies have to become smarter, sop they can utilise spare capacity effectively.

Far be it from to keep stirring up energy subjects but I just got an email saying quote-the Scottish government has just banned a dangerous form of energy that burns coal underground called UCG . Also as far as I know the fracking legislation doesnt apply to Scotland , wel at least they have it on hold for a technical /environmental reason.

Heat pumps generally use electricity to operate them, so if they supplant gas that will be additional generating capacity. Electric vehicles need generating capacity. So if we reduce gas and fossil fuel consumption, more electricity is needed to take its place.

That is right, Duncan. The Scottish Parliament decided to suspend approvals for fracking in Scotland in January 2016. The SNP had proposed a moratorium but stopped short of an outright ban to allow for further consultation and a public health impact assessment. SNP members abstained and the resolution was passed by 32 votes to 29, with Scottish Greens and Liberal Democrats joining Labour to defeat the Conservatives.

John ,is it you with the apple mac computer ? I just got an email saying that if you have a built in web camera it has been hacked/can be hacked not directly but using an already installed app that comes into force if you use it on the web , Skype and Google Hangouts is mentioned along with others . It can watch what you do on your computer and sell your info.

As yet, no examples of this have been found; it’s currently only a theoretical possibility, but anyone with a webcam should routinely use a simple sliding cover over it. Apple webcams have a hardware LED which illuminates when the camera is on, handily, and there’s a simple tool you can download to evade the possibility of being spied upon:

https : // objective-see . com / products / oversight . html

Not if machines are becoming increasingly smarter. Heat pumps using inverter tech are a prime example. They use a quarter of the energy an electric-only heater would use to achieve the same effect.

Heat pumps do this, but if the input energy to operate it is electricity, and the heat pump replaces a gas boiler for example, then there is an increase in electrical generating capacity required. If that is locally produced by. e.g. your own solar panels, and you have storage , then fine, but many may rely on the grid.

Reducing energy consumption by better home insulation, more efficient appliances (as long as we don’t use more of them), heat pumps will help. Other gains would be from industry using energy more efficiently, and being “encouraged” to install their own solar cell arrays. I don’t see much sign of that in my area.

Ironically, however, Gas production requires Gigawatts of electrical power.

Equitably put Vynor . Hydro has been used in Scotland going back more than 70 years ( longer if you take into account the smaller ones built for Highland factories ) . Of coarse it involves flooding a valley but I can assure you that there is never a lack of rain way up there . I have fished in one or two but the water is very acidic . I visited one , when a turbine has to be serviced there is always a stand-bye one .

“Capturing water at high tide and letting it out through turbines seems a good idea”. In and/or out. This is proven technology, but not cheap. Estuaries or lochs provide the reservoirs.

There are two things you haven’t mentioned, Vynor. The first one is the increasingly common approach in Holland where serverlets (small bits of server farm) are being installed in houses to provide heat. Computer systems require a lot of cooling and one way to achieve that is to use ‘serverlets’ to heat homes and water. Certainly, it’s going well in Holland, anyway.

The other factor is Nuclear fusion. Twenty years ago the Jet project announced it would be available within 20 years. Well, obviously that hasn’t happened, but they’re making progress all the time and sooner or later one of the many international teams chasing the grail is going to find a way of producing a self-sustaining fusion reaction. That will revolutionise energy production, rendering conventional fission plants obsolete at a stroke. Since it runs on sea water, essentially, fuel supplies are unlikely to run out. The long term aim will be to provide small, portable fusion generators.

More on Nuclear Fusion: The Wendelstein 7-X research device first run at Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (IPP) in Greifswald was successfully concluded in March this year. At mean plasma densities the physicists were able to measure temperatures of 100 million degrees Celsius for the plasma electrons, and 10 million degrees for the ions. They held continuous operation for six seconds, which might not sound much but is far better than anything achieved this far.

The ITER in France should be operational by 2022 of thereabouts, and these technologies are pushing the boundaries of what’s currently possible.

Totally brilliant Ian. Bring it on. I wonder why the government don’t see this as a way forward. Perhaps the time scale is too long and they are worried about supply in the meantime. Thanks for your knowledge, I’ll look out for more on that as it develops. How long would it take to mothball a nuclear reactor and switch to this new energy source?

🙂 It’d take around 20 – 35 years to mothball conventional reactors, so it’s not a quick process, sadly. However, I don’t realistically expect fusion to be operating much before 2025 anyway.

Your talking NASA- Jet Propulsion Lab Ian ,they are centered on long distance space travel I am looking as I post on another browser of their website (NASA) and a cross-section of an Electromagnetically Driven Fusion Propulsion drive using nuclear fusion in rockets not requiring conversion to electricity as an intermediate. Solid lithium propellant ( beam me up Scotty) still working on it (2016 ) it seems , shades of the Sun regeneration .

No, Duncan: JET – Joint European Torus. The fusion experimental system established in Cambridge in 1988.

Your not going to tell me the US (as usual ) pinched the principle from us are you Ian ? . After watching the US film on the Enigma machine you would think they saved the world and ran Bletchley Park , whereas I have the original creation of it in a Wireless World edition written after the war and the decryption methods . Right enough you didnt see any German scientists at Nuremberg they all got first class travel to the US via the Von Braun Express I am sure it makes Londoners and other inhabitants of British cities/towns “happy ” after being Blitzed . Hypocrisy !

Interestingly, the first predictions about Nuclear Fusion were made by two people: a Welshman and a German/Austrian.

The Enigma machine is also very interesting, since the Enigma cryptology was first broken by the Polish, in 1939. They passed it on to the British SIS, so the real heroes were the Poles.

Ian, m’dear, last time I visited JET it was at Culham Laboratory (just a few miles south of “the other place”) and not Cambridge.

PS – I think “fusion – on our time!” devotees always regard commercial fusion power as being available in 50 years time, no matter when you ask. I think the 1st famous British fusion experiment was Zeta at Harwell (c.1957). Reputedly, that lead to the catch phrase that electricity from fusion would be “to cheap to meter”. Today we know better…

It’s amazing the way they move these labs around 🙂

Commercial fusion power is a way off – I agree. I suspect by 2025 one of the two major ‘hot’ projects will be able to generate electricity continuously, but assuming they can get the mechanics to function reliably the timescale for building new and much larger reactors would be something in the order of 30 – 60 years, I would imagine. However, new materials are appearing and we could still be surprised in the shorter term.

I like your kind of approach, Vynor. We certainly need to get things back to basics. By the time the wonder fuels of the future come along, fascinating though the technology might be, I shall probably not be a consumer.

I cannot see any justification for different supply or transmission prices for gas and electricity unless one lives in an extremely inaccessible location [and there aren’t many of those]. With gas you either have it or you can’t have it and generally they are not extending gas mains into rural areas unless they are close to one of the grid pipelines. Urban areas are generally connected to the gas grid because most towns, even small ones, that existed in the Victorian era had a gas works if they also had a railway. This is a small country and we have roads, railways, public services, and military, commercial and industrial installations in virtually all parts and they all require electricity to a greater or lesser extent, so the domestic demand is not necessarily the prime factor in the supply network. There was a time when proximity to a power station was an issue but following development of the national electricity grid that no longer applies. I don’t think there is a single power station left within the M25 but London can still put the kettle on and I doubt if the unit price of the transmission element has changed accordingly.

There is an international gas market and prices will fluctuate according to demand and supply to which American trades are subject, but Russia needs foreign currency and, in view of its abundant gas supplies, is prepared to sell gas below market prices. Because of Russia’s history of manipulating supplies for political purposes other countries are reluctant to place much reliance on Russian gas other than for a small percentage of their requirements. In its turn, this also drives down the Russian price.

John-Totally disagree on the “Russia manipulating gas prices . Why is it all the media wont tell it it like it is? Ukraine ,taken over by the US ,bought and paid for revolution -white/black/green/orange/ tartan (if they have it ) in all the previous Soviet countries , held Russia up to ransom because it wanted an extortionate price for gas transmission , it was siphoning gas off by the Billion $$ and Russia said -not on and cut the supply . Ukraine owes £ Billions to Russia- we are not paying . Russia built North Stream to counteract it , upset the US as they want a fracking high price monopoly , so “”fuel security “” -key word emblazoned on the Daily Mail etc . US blocked North Stream 2 -told EU who obey them – dont agree – Russia South Stream – US told Bulgaria and others – dont let pipes through . Turkey blocked it . US tried takeover of Turkey as it was not obeying it- fighting Kurds who are friends of US – Turkey falls out with US- US BAD Turkey !! -Turkey- enough already ! falls back in with Putin agrees new name Turkish Stream . Highly abbreviated,can vastly elaborate , dont believe what you read in the UK newspapers , its the US talking .