Update: reforming the energy market

The energy you use – units of electricity, cubic metres of gas – form only around 45% of the cost shown on your bill. The rest are transmission and connection maintenance, government levies, admin and company costs. Not a formula but an assembly of different costs.

Would you really want to put so much power over your domestic expenditure in the hands of the government, Pete? Could you trust it not manipulate the prices for political purposes? At least if I don’t like the companies that supply my energy products I can switch and mix-&-match to my heart’s content. Your idea smacks of communism to me.

Most government departments are already sub contracting out to private companies who are benefiting from taxpayers money. Civil servants are turning up at their offices every day in the role as custodians, paying our money to others to carry out the work for them ……………..and they are being paid for the privilege!

Gordon – I cannot see how on earth you are going to replace all the non-renewable energy capacity between now and 2020. That’s something like 90% of our energy supply, or worse because demand is growing faster than capacity. So that’s no gas, anywhere, for anything – power stations, home heating, heating for schools, hospitals, shops, offices, and so on. And for electricity – no oil, or gas, or coal combustion, and no nuclear power. So we are left with some hydro-electric power, wind power and solar power plus, in the distant future, some wave and tidal power. Wind power is a useful augmenter of our energy requirements but is neither available nor programmable to suit demand. Solar power is even less efficient and reliable but we could have a rule that says that all air-conditioning plant must only be run on solar energy. Commerce and industry seems to be reluctant to harness solar energy so the major contribution is coming from households and a few solar panel arrays. Probably fewer than half the homes in the UK are suitable for solar energy production due to location or orientation or both, and nobody who lives in a flat or a listed building can participate, and since the lights and heating come on when the sun goes down there is an obvious mismatch between demand and availability.

Anyway, I don’t want to dampen your enthusiasm for renewable energy so I look forward to reading how you think this could be achieved – and you can extend the timeframe if you like because I think even you would agree that 2020 is likely to be a bit tight from a standing start.

Brian – You posted your thoughts at 21:36. I presume you had the lights on while you were doing so, or was the sun shining where you are? Where do you think the power that we all need will come from when there is no sunshine – we have very little effective and economical energy storage capacity that doesn’t involve a fossil fuel. By all means let householders install solar panels and feed any surplus power into the electricity grid, but let’s not kid ourselves that that will keep the shops going, and the factories and offices working, or keep the street lights on, or keep the electric trains running.

For the record, EDF is building and will be running the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station; China General Nuclear Power Group [CGN] and China National Nuclear Corporation [CNNC] will be part-financing the project alongside EDF. The government will not be paying the Chinese to build any nuclear power stations. The construction costs will be amortised into the unit prices for electricity delivered into the grid for which the UK government has, on our behalf, kindly allowed EDF to charge an attractive premium.

What a travesty the solar pv scheme is. That’s not to say that other energy schemes are being managed any better, but I’m mightily relieved that such appallingly inefficient use of resources in this scheme isn’t more widespread. From a green perspective, no politician or householder can hold their head high with this scheme, but it does appeal to financially well off individuals who know that 48p/unit is not affordable electricity generation. Solar farms would be far better, either in the UK for energy security, or perhaps Africa, where nations would welcome some economic stimulus, and we could feel better when it comes to thinking about the best return on the energy invested in making solar panels.
On the subject of other terrible schemes, we have just had a smart meter fitted. We learned too late that you can just say No, and you may want to. In our small, modern, house, the signal barely reaches the kitchen, and it cannot pick up the gas meter signals even held up by the meter cupboard door. If your gas boiler isn’t on a service contract, you may want to consider that the meter installers state it is your problem if the boiler doesn’t relight after the new meter is fitted. After less than a week, the meter is now ignored. An incredibly wasteful investment that the Germans managed to make an easy economic case for not doing themselves. I hope it turns out to be better than the folly it appears to be at present.

One of the disappointments of moving home was inheriting a smart meter because I was going to refuse, in principle. Perhaps the government might have had the courtesy to ask if consumers were happy to pay the vast cost of the roll out of these meters. I had no objection to people paying for them and maybe getting a small discount for the savings made by their energy supplier(s). I would not mind them going to those who are struggling to pay their bills, but I still question the wisdom of imposing them on us all unless we refuse.

My view on the feed-in tariff is that the payment should be the same as it costs to buy electricity. I would not object to modest grants for solar installations.

I wonder what other schemes the government will lend their support to.

I suspect that the government of the day, having jumped on the post-Rio bandwagon, wanted to show its progressive outlook and commitment by setting up an entire government department devoted to energy and climate change. The first thing it had to do, of course, was to work out where it could best interfere in order to show itself off in the most favourable light. So any passing hare-brained or crackpot scheme was seized upon to demonstrate that the government really cared about the future of the planet. Hence the wasteful, and ridiculously expensive, smart meter policy, plus the even more environmentally-damaging manufacture of [mainly imported] solar panels and the grossly profligate enrichment of a well-off element of the population with large south-facing roofs. I would add light bulbs to the list, but that was an EU initiative – although it was zealously implemented in the UK by the DECC as soon as the ink was dry on the directive. More by the enterprise of manufacturers developing better LED’s, rather than through any government determination, we have, at last, arrived at the right place with light bulbs, but at a considerable economic and environmental cost in the meantime.

I agree, John. I do hope that history records how badly these issues have been handled.

The introduction of low energy lighting was handled appallingly. It would have been better to have provided encouragement rather than banning the inefficient lamps, so that consumers would want to change. Some even stockpiled the old bulbs.

I am still to be convinced that climate change is due to human activity to the extent that has been claimed and I am more concerned about the rate of use of fossil fuels and pollution of the environment. Negative population growth could solve a lot of problems, in time, but how do we sell that to the general public?

“I am still to be convinced that climate change is due to human activity to the extent that has been claimed ” – me too! Having said that, I favour a precautionary approach, in case we are either causing or accelerating its effects.

Even before global warming was a big issue, I was well aware of the more general adverse affects of profligate energy use on our environment. Hence, I have always favoured the efficient use of energy.

As long as we are not burning organic waste that is compostable, I do agree that we should be moving towards green energy. Rather than relying on individuals to move to green energy, perhaps the answer is to make it a requirement to move in that direction. Diesel fuel now contains biodiesel and petrol contains ethanol, which is a renewable energy source.

No one has to buy their energy from a foreign-owned supplier. There are several UK-owned companies – British Gas and The Co-operative Energy to name but two. In the twenty-first century the British people seem to like to have a choice.

Steve – a long time ago-in the 70,s a man with a Morris Minor traveller , you know, the one with the lacquered wood on it ,fitted a device that ran on water ( actually separated hydrogen ) he called the RAC who came out to look at it . I stopped my BT van and went to look too and yes , he got in and drove it , so did the RAC man after he checked it out under the bonnet .It was in all the local newspapers at the time ,speculating on the demise of the big petroleum companies , after a couple of weeks —silence , no more was heard from him or his car. Now think, what does the US use to control the world ? –thats right the Petro-dollar . Too much BB riding on it Steve.

From what I know and what I’ve seen, the promise of cars using water as a fuel is usually the domain of crackpot inventors and/or snake oil salesmen.

In short, chemistry and combustion science teach us that water is a combustion product – not a fuel.

Obviously you can use another primary energy source to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen and then use the separated hydrogen as a fuel. Nonetheless the idea of running a car on water makes no technical sense; it is about as sensible as the claims that were made for cold fusion a few years ago.

Indeed. It’s the question schoolboys always ask: “If water is Hydrogen and Oxygen, why can’t you use it to run engines?” but water is, as you say, actually a sort of fire ‘ash’, which needs a lot of energy input to separate the component chemicals. So small fusion generator in the boot might enable it to run off water, but nothing else would.

It’s simple to use electrolysis to produce hydrogen and oxygen, preferably using electricity from solar power rather than fossil fuels. The problem has always been safe storage of hydrogen. When I was a student there was much talk about use of palladium, which is effective at adsorbing hydrogen. Unfortunately, palladium is rather too expensive for use in vehicles.

Just part of a Wikipedia article on the matter

Forklifts
A fuel cell forklift (also called a fuel cell lift truck) is a fuel cell-powered industrial forklift truck used to lift and transport materials. In 2013 there were over 4,000 fuel cell forklifts used in material handling in the US,[125] of which only 500 received funding from DOE (2012).[126][127] The global market is 1 million fork lifts per year.[128] Fuel cell fleets are operated by various companies, including Sysco Foods, FedEx Freight, GENCO (at Wegmans, Coca-Cola, Kimberly Clark, and Whole Foods), and H-E-B Grocers.[129] Europe demonstrated 30 fuel cell forklifts with Hylift and extended it with HyLIFT-EUROPE to 200 units,[130] with other projects in France [131][132] and Austria.[133] Pike Research stated in 2011 that fuel cell-powered forklifts will be the largest driver of hydrogen fuel demand by 2020.[134]
Most companies in Europe and the US do not use petroleum-powered forklifts, as these vehicles work indoors where emissions must be controlled and instead use electric forklifts.[128][135] Fuel cell-powered forklifts can provide benefits over battery-powered forklifts as they can work for a full 8-hour shift on a single tank of hydrogen and can be refueled in 3 minutes. Fuel cell-powered forklifts can be used in refrigerated warehouses, as their performance is not degraded by lower temperatures. The FC units are often designed as drop-in replacements.[136][137]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

“So small fusion generator in the boot might enable it to run off water, but nothing else would.”

Personally I’d fancy one than could run off discarded househould items like food waste 😉

That was the idea used in Aardman’s Arthur Christmas animation, where the S1 futuristic ‘sleigh’ derived its fuel from milk and cookies.

Did you watch the YouTube video Derek , it wasnt by some “tinkerer ” it was built by a science degree guy in the US and showed you all the cylinders in the boot (trunk ) the production plant was in his garden ,it was small and ,as he lived in a sunny part of the US he used solar panels as, yes , it required electrical input to do the conversion so might not be so economical in the UK. You cannot buy a fusion generator in the US BUT you are allowed to build one and thats what he did , it also needed platinum but again he made it out of another metal that was corrosive resistant . Now if I said I was building a fusion generator how long would it be for me to get a “visit ” -banging on door at 2 am -heavies outside , unmarked van, dragged out , drugged , taken to “parts unknown ” , or is it legal ? I am sure those of my era can remember the photos /or seen the large containers that were used on top of cars in WW2 to power them when petrol was short , there were a lot of innovative guys then , if you pick up a file nowadays you could be in trouble.

I recall seeing pictures of vehicles with large gas tanks on the roof but I don’t know what gas was used. I think one episode of Dad’s Army featured something like that on top of their van. I can also remember pictures of a vehicle towing a trailer with some sort of plant mounted on it generating producer gas.

Where there are public tramways it surprises me that nobody has fitted up a van or lorry to collect the current in order to drive an electric motor to power the vehicle for a section of its route. I suppose getting held up by the tram in front while it sets down and picks up passengers is a drawback, but it could be useful for early morning deliveries to shops and businesses in city centres being both silent and non-polluting.

John – it was street gas -visit-lowtechmagazine.com/2011/11/gas-bag-vehicles.html

A big bag of town gas on the roof of your car might have been a slight H&S hazard when you chucked your fag-end out of the window during a blackout. Bit like the Hindenburg. Was there any Health and Safety during the WW2 – seems a bit pointless.

I can’t believe such things were ever more than an experiment; some worked, others didn’t and were quietly withdrawn. The only specific health and safety provisions during the Second World War were probably the air raid warnings, the issue of a free gas mask, and a cheap stirrup pump for putting out incendiary bombs. And the prophetic messages from Herr Hitler and Dr Goebbels, of course.

Nowadays, manufacturers of small petrol generators offer conversion kits to allow them to run on gas (LPG) and there are several benefits of doing this. Of course they don’t have to go under low bridges.

The more you think about gas bags on vehicles the more stupid the whole idea seems. I would have thought basic stability was an immediate problem. To make the whole outfit safe would probably have increased the weight of the vehicle, therefore the power required to propel it, so a bigger gas bag would have been required, and a longer wheelbase [or a trailer] to keep it within the kinetic envelope for a moving vehicle and below bridge heights, and so on ad infinitum. Wind resistance would be an additional problem and when the bag was nearly empty it would be flapping about on the roof like a sail!

There are some gas powered single-deck buses in Norwich but the gas is stored in tanks enclosed by a fairing on the roof, the wheelbase being long enough to enable a sufficient supply to be carried for the day’s operations.

I have now gone so far off-topic I can’t find a way of getting back to domestic energy.

Malcolm , it wasnt pointless when you were rationed in the amount of petrol you could buy ,have a look at the amount you were allowed in WW2 . Edinburgh corporation used them, Harrogate and a whole lot more round Britain . And then we had the very inventive –methane gas with some quite “unusual ” ways of obtaining it ( if you know what I mean ) .

duncan, I was referring to H&S not the gas bag. In a tongue-in-cheek way.

Yes we should get back to the topic but some of the diversions certainly add colour to the discussion. My Convo Nav says that we can rejoin the main road soon.

Duncan

I’m not sure what youtube video you are referring to – so I cannot watch it.

“Now if I said I was building a fusion generator how long would it be for me to get a “visit ” -banging on door at 2 am -heavies outside , unmarked van, dragged out , drugged , taken to “parts unknown ” , or is it legal ?”

I’m sure fusion research and development is legal. If, however, your fusion project required – or would produce – radioactive substances (in higher than exempted quantities) you would need to comply with appropriate health and safety rules/legislation.

Most design concepts for large scale fusion power reactors use the deuterium/tritium fusion reaction. This releases energy and neutron radiation. Lithium is then fed in the reactors radiation shielding, where it can capture neutrons; this produces more tritium (radioactive hydrogen) and alpha radiation (which is much easier to contain than neutron radiation). Deuterium can, of course, be obtained from the distillation of water, e.g. by hydro plants as featured in “the heroes of Telemark” ww2 drama.

Incidently, those familiar with the real history of those events, may recall the episode in which the Norwegian commandos commander a wood-gas powered car in order to reach the local ferry, which they then sabotage.

Yes, hydrogen has been an effective motor fuel for many years. Just tricky to decant and store 🙂 But it’s the whole “making cars run on water” thing that the snake oil folk have been doing for decades. Surprisingly, it still crops up and takes even educated people in.

There are thousands of sites and hundreds of YouTube videos purporting to show how it works, and some of these sites talk about the ‘Illuminati’ and how inventors of these technologies are murdered if they don’t accept huge sums of money to stop production. What I always find rather amusing is how those who go on about conspiracies and state agencies fail to spot the logical fallacies inherent in what they’re saying. If there are hugely expressive governmental agencies following every move and every communication made then how is it possible that there are, quite literally, billions of words about these ‘secret’ organisations freely available and claiming all this?

I was watching a James Bond documentary a few years ago and I’m sure he was trying to recover a revolutionary energy device from some criminal gang who had stolen it. It was lost again. But surely someone must know how it was made?

Ian – The best Snake Oil is only available on the internet now and there is an infinite supply it would seem. It is no longer hawked or peddled door-to-door, but it is sometimes promoted in publications, home exhibitions and car shows, and is commonly seen at open air markets and car boot sales. It is no longer the exclusive province of salesmen and many women are now involved in pushing such concepts [alongside fancy goods and novelties in most cases], even using on-line auction sites for customer reassurance. I hope this helps.

You wont find out how it was made if its a nuke -GCHQ has blocked the websites on how to build one.

Let’s just hope there aren’t any books on the subject then… 😉

Whats installed in a “smart meter ” is a network computing device which links it with the Internet and therefore control over it is remote , shutting down your electricity , changing your price paid for per unit use , etc , it also means its hackable . A woman sued in the US because ( she said ) it made her ill -she lost, It radiates RF at wi-fi frequencies . Whats the “problems ” Linda ?

Our smart meter display mostly just reports the electricity. It once showed a gas display, but that was 5 minutes in two weeks. We were told we would be getting a new display unit soon, because the current ones they supply aren’t any good. No further news, and no messages offering promotional low price energy either. If we had read up more before, we wouldn’t have had it fitted. The display will shortly be unplugged to save electricity, and forgotten about.

I like the last sentence HUD.

Trevor, the last time I looked a number of the “big 6” offered very competitive fixed price fixed term tariffs. The new small entrants also can (some of them) offer competitive prices because they buy energy at current prices, while wholesale prices are low. The bigger companies buy several years forward to even out sudden changes. When wholesale prices rise the small companies, who can’t easily buy forward, are likely to become uncompetitive. Cash in while you can.

Malcolm that doesn’t guarantee the consumer receiving the benefit of any advanced wholesale price purchases.

Shareholders, not consumers are more likely to be the overall winners in any extra profits made by private companies. Smaller companies, on the other hand, may offer a superior and more efficient service as well as competitive prices, which counts for a lot when you consider some of the energy pricing problems experienced with the ‘Big 6’ by contributors to Which?Convo.

The introduction of smaller companies, generated more competition in the energy market and prompted the ‘Big Six’ to reconsider their monopolistic pricing strategies with more people switching to alternate suppliers offering better service and deals.

The U.K government should now be focusing on updating and improving the country’s antiquated rail system with a view to reducing the congestion and emissions on the roads. Building more motorways will just encourage more vehicles to use them creating more toxic pollution. Any available money should now be invested in creating a more efficient and affordable rail system so that people will be encouraged to use their cars less, which would in turn, also help to reduce the ever increasing obesity and diabetes problem by cutting down on NHS expenditure.

Totally agree about the railways, Beryl.

Forward buying helps to even out the ups and downs in prices. Many people want relative stability which is, I suppose, why fixed term fixed price deals have become popular. Personally I would do away with them as they are subsidised by those who don’t move off variable tariffs.

Railways should certainly be improved for freight. For passenger journeys you still need transport each end to get you to a from your final destination, and many, particularly families, find it cheaper to travel in a car than to buy multiple tickets. Less “routine” travelling has to come at some point by reducing the need to commute.

Malcolm what is required in the world is long term affordable energy not just Cash in while you can that is no answer to the huge rip off prices rising all the time
Energy ought to be run by the State and FAIRLY PRICED
There is no room for PRIVATE GREED re Energy costs

“Energy is far too highly priced”

I really don’t agree.

Personally, my energy costs are quite small relative to the amount I spend on food.

If the government’s levies and obligations are stripped out of the energy bills I believe it is the case that energy prices are lower in real terms than they were before privatisation. Given that many homes now have superior insulation and energy-saving measures installed consumers’ energy costs are even lower in real terms. That’s not to say that further waste and inefficiencies should not continue to be eliminated but profits are not particularly high at around the 3-4% mark; the numbers are big because turnover is so high for the Big Six.

Apologies for typo! ……….Not Passing on Price Cuts sounds better.
I am surprised the moderator didn’t pick up on this occasion 🙂

I have also lost the ‘edit’ facility as well as my original avatar and my password is blocked. Woe is me 🙁

Beryl have you any blockers on your browser ?

More likely Beryl’s log on didn’t work properly. Happened to me today.

I did wonder about the spelling Beryl! Out of interest I’ve just changed two family houses to new energy suppliers who were almost the cheapest (the cheapest were two new little known companies). Both were among the “big 6”.

A lot of people don’t live near a railway station so trains need a blend of transport types. But why do we need to travel so much? My concern is that commuting by road or rail either causes excessive pollution or requires huge resources for only two parts of the day.

That shouldnt effect her avatar nor the indicator that she is a regular by hovering over her name

Oooooops message Beryl- it cant be ? — no it woudnt be —– that you are using the dreaded Windows 10 -are you Beryl ? If so this is the biggest bit of NON-informational “advice ” you get from -tell the customer nothing MS . IF -it is the case then Which/your browser etc has nothing to do with it but MS has everything to do with it . Hope you are going to say the oooooops ! is not a Microsoft dumb notice ??

One little issue in here is that you might appear to be logged in but in fact you’re not. If you try to log out, then log in again all might be well.

It’s necessary to take into account the environmental impact assessment of proposed schemes as well as economics. I have not read this, but it was easy to find: http://democracy.swansea.gov.uk/documents/s14927/APPENDIX%20C%20-%20LIR.pdf?LLL=1

I live within a mile of a site that had been investigated for its potential use for fracking. Having looked into the concerns I would be happier that we look at balanced use of different forms of renewable energy so that we can indeed reduce or dependence on fossil fuels. I think we were wrong to focus heavily on wind power. What most of us can do is to cut down unnecessary use of energy.

Maybe the government deserves criticism for its predictions and actions in recent years but doing nothing is not an option.

Malcolm I am obviously picking you up wrong here so please correct me ,your first two sentences following on from each other —energy bills—we must also criticise the government —“They ” currently add £64 to support low carbon generation . According to CCC.org -quote- households are currently paying around £45 ( 2015 figures ) on their electricity bills to support reduction in power sector carbon intensity . The last time I mentioned Scottish green energy and the complaint that the subsidy from Westminster to Holyrood was being removed this led to much praise of that move on this website anybody disagreeing with it was attacked vigorously. I am just trying to square a circle here malcolm and the logic escapes me if you combine the two statements they seem to oppose each other ? . This statement is plastered all over the -2015 newspapers including the Guardian

We should criticise government when they do things badly, which was the PACs stance. I’d include £11bn (and rising no doubt) to fund smart meters. We will not cut down on electricity if we promote electric vehicles.

I like your diplomatic approach duncan. I took these figures from the government select committee.
“Framework was £64 of household’s annual energy bill

The Framework sets yearly caps on the forecast costs of three government schemes to support low-carbon generation that are funded by consumers: the Renewables Obligation, Feed in Tariffs, and Contracts for Difference.

The Framework requires the Department to take early action to reduce costs if forecasts exceed the cap. The cap is £4.9 billion for 2016–17 rising to £7.6 billion for 2020–21. In 2016 Framework costs constituted £64 of the typical household’s yearly energy bill.”

I don’t recall the comments on Scottish green energy.

Its very hard to get up to date statistics on gas imports but the UK,s need is increasing as time goes on . Now while many might not like me quoting figures from Gazprom the total of natural gas imports to Europe was 80 % of 178.3 billion cubic meters . Of coarse Germany being the hub and re-exporter (at a profit ) imported nearly 50 billion /Italy/Turkey -25 billion each – UK- 18 billion -all 2016 figures. Now why do I post that ? because this country would rather pay more for imports from other countries than buy from Russia.Russian Natural gas border price in Germany -US $ /per Million Metric Thermal Unit – March -2017= 5.81 (Index Mundi ) .com -commodities . Some Eastern block countries get better rates.