ENERGY MATTERS

[Tizer]

It's looking increasingly like the UK government (whoever it is) will have to try and reverse the shift from petrol to diesel-engined cars and curb the use of diesel vehicles in general.
"Diesel cars could be banished as Britain ordered to cut air pollution. Transport experts have predicted that diesel cars will be phased out as part of government plans to cut air pollution"...Daily Telegraph, 29 April 2015. LINK

As an owner of a diesel-engined car such changes would affect me. My diesel Golf gives me around 65 mpg compared with the 40mpg of the petrol Focus I had before it, and the road tax is next to nothing. What I'd like to see done first is for all those diesel vehicles that emit visible black fumes to be banned or modified. I often see smoke coming from them and one such vehicle must be emitting 100s, probably 1000s of times more carbon particulates than my car. So the biggest and most immediate impact could be achieved by attending to those vehicles.

[Pluggy]

I haven't looked into it, but I'd suspect the heavy obvious soot deposits belched out by dirty diesels sink out of the air much quicker than the much less visible, smaller and probably more numerous particles put out by 'clean' diesels and actually cause less damage than they appear to be doing. And clean diesels emit just as much nitrous oxides as dirty diesels. What they do with diesels depends on whether they consider the nitrous oxides and particulates of the diesel are worth the saving in CO2 over the petrol. I can't honestly see buses, trucks and big vans being economically viable with petrol engines.

They can probably do something to improve the particulates of diesels but the nitrous oxides are part of the greater efficiency of the diesel cycle.. In petrols the amount of air and thus oxygen going through the engine is just enough to react with the fuel and there is little left to react with the nitrogen to form nitrous oxides. Diesels pull a lot more air through as part of the compression ignition system and there is comparatively little fuel for huge amount of air, so there is plenty left over to form nitrous oxides.

The road tax issue, is a somewhat artificial and contrived expense dreamed up to supposedly reduce the CO2 emissions of cars, its widely acknowledged as being a something of a con. As time goes on the manufacturers get better at "beating" the emission tests that get their cars into a lower tax band, but the actual figures got by drivers 'on the ground' isn't changing to any great degree. They can get a diesel Golf into the 'A' band these days, but in reality they use as much fuel as my old Skoda which is in band 'D' because it was made to fit into the earlier tax bands.

I love having a car that does 60+ miles per gallon, and I'd miss the glorious torque of a diesel but if diesel cars are going the way of the dodo bird, I could probably live with it.

[Big Kev]

I'm very reluctant to part with my 13 year old Golf TDI. 215000 miles and still gives 60 to the gallon at 60mph. I wouldn't be suprised if they started loading more tax onto it in the not too distant future, either by fuel cost or road tax...

[Stanley]

It seems to me that the driving force for getting rid of diesel vehicles is the high pollution levels in congested areas like cities. Most of the oil fuel is probably burned in other fields, construction machinery, Rail and marine propulsion. Getting pollution down in cities is a different problem and the solution probably lies in better public transport and cutting down on numbers of vehicles. It may be that a general ban on diesel cars is the wrong strategy.....

[Tizer]

Thanks for the critical analysis, Pluggy, very valuable input. You're probably right about the belchers' particles being heavier and less of an air pollution problem. Owning a Golf TDi I definitely feel like Kev does, mine's more recent and I get a genuine 70mpg at 60mph; the latest version I think gives more like 80. Stanley's right of course about the proportion of oil used in road vehicles - I think it's about 25% of the total.

Now here's something that's very interesting...
`Tesla unveils batteries to power homes'
"The system is called Powerwall, and Tesla will sell the 7kWh unit for $3,000 (£1,954), while the 10kWh unit will retail for $3,500 (£2,275) to installers. To help comparisons, Tesla provided estimates of how much energy is used by different devices in the home. A flat-screen TV uses about 0.1kWh, a tumble dryer 3.3kWh and a laptop 0.05kWh. Energy comparison firm USwitch estimates that a small family in a three-bedroom house in the UK uses about 3,200kWhs of electricity a year."
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32545081

[chinatyke]

Energy comparison firm USwitch estimates that a small family in a three-bedroom house in the UK uses about 3,200kWhs of electricity a year."
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32545081

270 kWh per month? Doesn't seem much. I know we use more like 400 kWh per month in our main 3-bedroom apartment and we're not wasteful, so that's about 50% more than their estimate.

[Pluggy]

Most homes here don't have air conditioning china....

We use more than 3200 kWh (about 4400 total, but the solar panels reduce it to about 3500) , my daughter and grandaughter are moving out soon, I'm expecting a big drop....

[Stanley]

My leccy consumption over the last two years was (April to April) 2121Kwh in 2014 and 2590Kwh in 2915. The increase was due to me being in the shed a lot more. Mind you I live on my own and have complete control. Averages are always on the high side, some houses seem to have all the lights on all the time and I expect that applies to the more heavy consumption units as well.

[Tizer]

Our latest annual consumption figure from the leccy company is about 3000 kWh; that's two people living in a big house, a lot of lamps (but going over to LED now), electric oven but gas hob, two PCs on a lot, one TV used about 2 hours a day. Washing machine, tumble drier (condensing type), fridge/freezer and dishwasher. All the heating is from oil.

[chinatyke]

Thanks for the replies, it seems their estimate is about right then and we must be an above average user. We use electric for water heating as well as air-con, and gas is only used for cooking, so my combined total energy bill is quite reasonable. You are right Stephen, air-con is probably our biggest useage of electric.

I've just finished changing the last of my incandescent tungsten bulbs to LED. I get a warm glow when I switch on the lights and realise I'm only using about 10% of the power I previously burnt.
In the supermarket last night I noticed that Philips LED bulbs are the same price as the UK, about 25 times the price of local LED bulbs in another cheap supermarket downtown. It was about 17 quid for a Philips bulb versus 70 pence for a local 7W led bulb at the cheap shop or 30 pence for a 60W tungsten bulb. What a rip-off and how can you expect to get payback in a reasonable time? Few people here will make the change and pay 17 quid, or even 70 pence, when they can pay 30 pence. The high price doesn't reflect the manufacturing cost, it more likely reflects the longer life span of the led bulb and hence the loss of future profits for Philips in replacement of failed bulbs. Obviously the UK government isn't doing much to promote changing to energy efficient led bulbs or it would be demanding the prices of the led bulbs are kept low.

This is a tip for you, Stanley: LED bulbs run cool and have a plastic envelope not a glass one and are very robust. They are ideal for workshop lamps like the sort of trailing ones engineers use with a cage around them - you don't need the cage now.

[Stanley]

Thanks to the generosity of Mick the Shed I use LED for spot lighting. For the rest I like the overall light of the fluorescents.

[Tizer]

Our local Tesco now sell 9 watt LED bulbs for about £8. Amazon UK sell Philips 9.5 watt bayonet bulbs for £8 but with just one problem they never seem to have them in stock! I waited for weeks and in the end it was they who suggested I cancel the order. Tesco also seem to run out. Mots places here selling domestic light bulbs still don't stock LED ones. A local shop-owner confirmed my belief that it's because the suppliers are still overstocked with halogen and want to sell those first.

[chinatyke]

Sorry, I got the price wrong in my previous posting, it should have been 17quid for a pack of TWO Philips 7W bulbs. I thought it sounded high and rechecked the price in the supermarket last night.

Stanley, I meant 'inspection lamps' like the ones used by motor mechanics, I just couldn't think of the correct name.

[Stanley]

I don't use them China. When I did they were always 24volts, anything else was illegal until 110V transformers came into general use.

[plaques]

Not normally given to reading 'The Telegraph' newspapers this one caught my eye.
Telegraph.co.uk
Miliband's green pledges could wreak havoc with the UK's finances.Link. The main thrust being that over the next 15 years it would cost £200bn. Then reading on we find that it is all theoretical and at best a guess.
Ref: "The UK’s route towards a zero-carbon future is, at this stage, theoretical. Any forecast of costs, including the Telegraph’s, are educated guesses at best."
There you have it a headline based on a theoretical guess. No wonder I don't often read the Telegraph.

[Stanley]

You are right P. All these 'forecasts' are more Mystic Meg than sound economics.

[Tizer]

`£25m sea 'kite' energy project launched off Holyhead' BBC LINK
"A £25m tidal energy project which works through moving "kites" underwater is being launched on Anglesey. Swedish firm Minesto wants to harness power under the sea off the coast of Holyhead. It will set up its UK offices there and hopes to become a manufacturing centre, creating more jobs there. The so-called Deep Green technology works on the principle that underwater "kites" can reach speeds 10 times faster than the current. This works in the same way a kite flies faster than the wind, and the firm says 10 times higher speed gives 1,000 times more power. Off the coast, the Deep Green device will operate at least 15m below the surface and can still create enough power to make it worthwhile, even though the current is of a low velocity."

As well as the interesting technology the article poses the question: "This project once again produces the dilemma: does it make economic sense in the long term to pay much more for our electricity as a new technology develops with the promise of jobs and investment, or is that too much of a risk? This latest project hopes to be paid £2.50 per megawatt hour for its electricity initially while the new industry develops. The company says it expects to in time be cheaper than nuclear, which is less than £1 per Mwh, without the risk or waste. The tidal lagoon project for Swansea Bay hopes to get £1.68 per Mwh."

[Stanley]

The big question, is there any public will to actually address the problem and subsidise the energy produced? At the moment the answer is no even though on a wider cost/benefit analysis it makes good economic sense it's long term and the politicos who control these matters aren't interested in 'long term'.

[Tizer]

I think we've discussed this news some time ago but it's being given another airing by the BBC in its magazine section. Dispersing cloud computing servers out to people's homes where the waste heat is used to warm the house. LINK

It sounds like a good way to get some `free' heat to our rooms at the back, northerly side of our house which need warming for most of the year, even when the rest of the house is hot. But it probably wouldn't work, because our broadband is 6Mbps at best and the phone and power connections here are not reliable.

[Stanley]

When I was wagon driving I used to muse for hours on the amount of waste heat poring out of the exhaust pipe as I drove along, 50% of the heat being wasted..... When Newton and I built the CHP plant in his backyard all those years ago we reckoned we had reached about 85% efficiency. We should have patented the idea!

[Stanley]

I can't find any report on the web but a row is brewing about energy companies installing prepayment meters for customers who are in debt. As things stand at the moment this means they can avoid cutting supplies off but the customer is charged an individual rate high enough to start repaying the debt. It is the ability to force these meters and much higher rates on customers that is causing the trouble. No doubt there will be a report on the web soon.

[chinatyke]

I can't find any report on the web but a row is brewing about energy companies installing prepayment meters for customers who are in debt. As things stand at the moment this means they can avoid cutting supplies off but the customer is charged an individual rate high enough to start repaying the debt. It is the ability to force these meters and much higher rates on customers that is causing the trouble. No doubt there will be a report on the web soon.

Why shouldn't these people be forced to pay their debts? I'm sure the electric companies can do without customers who don't pay for what they consume. Installing higher rate prepayment meters seems a good solution.

[Pluggy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32876422

Seems like a complete non event to me. I was under the impression the energy companies has been doing it for decades.

[plaques]

The surge in numbers is really pointing to an underlying problem of how some people are managing their finances. Just exactly what the overall root cause is should not be a mystery to the readers of 'Politics Corner'.

[Stanley]

Quite P! I think that's why the rise in the number of these meters is attracting attention. Like the increase in Food Banks they are evidence of a breakdown in the economic system. If you don't allow people to earn a living wage you get 'phenomena' like these. Such evidence is not welcomed by our government because it points to fundamental flaws in the 'economic miracle'.