We use internet tariffs and through the years these have had various names. The last time I looked it was called Websaver 10. Although it reached 12 in mid 2011.  Finding out the cost per watt of these tariffs is like crawling through the eye of a needle. Comparing Websaver 10 with Websaver 12 is difficult if you can actually find the detailed charges.  BG say 12 was their cheapest, yet on my calculations 10 remained cheaper for us.  As they tie you in for 12 months with a penalty charge I’m reluctant to change at the moment pending being advised of the new tariffs.

Having tried to compare them, all I can find is a blanket figure for using a set amount per year.   BG think this is simple and good enough, but I want details and how much it costs per KiloWatt.  We use very different amounts of gas in summer and winter and I want to know if their calculation factors that in.

Then what do you make of how they work out your bill. Do we really need to make such a calculation as below:

4 units on your meter is converted using a calorific volume of 38.8.  Which curiously I’ve only just noticed was 39.6 last time I checked. Does that mean the gas isn’t as hot now?

This is subject to a volume correction of 1.022640.

Then to convert to kWh it must be divided by 3.6

So a unit on your meter = 11.0225kWh.  Although they don’t tell you that.

This costs on the BG new on-line energy tariff either 8.357p if it is in the first 670kWh per quarter. Or it costs 3.827p if you’ve used more.  This adjustment that replaced the standing charge has crept up from £40 to £55.

Not to forget that sometimes prices are quoted without VAT and sometimes they might have VAT included. You can’t be sure.

BG’s new clear tariffs and billing is likely to remain as clear as a brick window. Overall this must score nil points. Just tell me the cost per kiloWatt and I’ll worry about the rest.  They talk about regulators but what good are they?

There are new companies coming onto the market and BBC Newsnight did us a favour by putting the BG Chief Executive on with a representative from OVO who I’d never heard of.  Lately the Co-op has been making louder noises about their gas supply.  So there are two interesting options away from the big companies.

Chris Huhne gets some flak for seeming to promote policies that are pushing up tariffs yet his insistence on changing suppliers probably has some validity.  My biggest reason for never changing is that all the companies are the same, at least we know BG, and the small price advantage swaps around.  My current reluctance to move is a worry the small companies might not last and might be bought out by one of the big ones. Inertia plays into BG’s hands. In my case an over simplified range of tariffs isn’t what I’m looking for, I just want to know clearly how much it costs in kiloWatt hours.

It isn’t that clear what the overall advantage of starting HS2 in the north will be except that it is probably easier as it cuts through less inhabited areas and so will make faster progress. It also creates jobs in areas that are currently suffering more.  Politically it delays decisions in sensitive areas and perhaps changes to airports will enable the southern part of the route to be adapted.  Heathrow is badly constrained by lack of runways, an airport operating at over 90% capacity is a recipe for delays and increasing cost of landing slots.

Meanwhile the UK is accelerating its slip down the league table of developed countries not helped at all by having a clogged up transport system while Asian and major EU countries are building more runways and a fast rail network to major cities.

Our state of democracy is that a few newts placed on a site or a footpath used by a few people can set back a major development by years and cost millions of pounds.  While campaigners can make all kinds of fanciful claims.

In particular articulate people close to the capital and hub of UK power have a stronger voice than those in far off regions.  This is creating a two speed Britain where a region buffered by the Chilterns is getting a disproportionate amount of investment. A few crumbs are cast out to other regions like a few miles of electrified rail between Manchester and Liverpool while London gets a £16bn pound new rail line that is about the same length.

So Heathrow’s days of operating at over 90% capacity should be numbered and a new rail line linking the major cities of the UK should be started immediately to help create an M25 effect by spreading the wealth about.

The Japanese stations are quite old and Japan is on the edge of a Tectonic Plate, so there were 2 major factors of risk.  With the natural one perhaps being of such significance that the building of the stations in that location would be questioned.

On the other side it can be said that the tsunami killed over ten thousand people and the nuclear station hasn’t killed anyone, as yet.  While the reactors aren’t likely to give off significant radiation even in a worse case.

Yet there is a lot of ignorance about nuclear power, most people have no idea what it is but it sounds worrying when headlines talk of meltdown, radiation and health risks.  So I’ll add that I know little about it either.

In the UK we are in a stable region of the earth and the physical risks to power stations primarily come from: gross human error, terrorists, meteorites, perceived possibility of a tidal wave from the Canary Islands or other random volcanic event.  None of these risks have as high a probability or impact as in Japan. The technology will use ‘passive’ safety and not the old water cooling used in Japan.

Some politicians are now stating their concerns about nuclear power in the UK and in Germany older reactors have been closed. The question then becomes; if no nuclear how do we supply enough clean power? It is said that one nuclear power station provides the same power as 1500 windmills, yet the wind often doesn’t blow on the coldest days. Others say we should use the energy in the tides and estuaries and insulate our houses more, drive smaller cars and use public transport. There is also the carbon capture and storage for coal powered stations.

Green energy is expensive. Some say building and de-commissioning nuclear power stations and storing the radio-active material is very expensive as well. Yet figures quoted in reports by the US government show that taking all that into account nuclear is significantly cheaper than coal with CCS, offshore windmills and solar. With on-shore windmills and hydro being less per kilo-watt hour.

Overall most of the green options are expensive, unreliable and require our green and pleasant land to be converted into a windmill farm with estuaries dammed.  Can’t say it appeals much and for that reason a proportion of nuclear gets my vote.

In East Europe there is a heatwave that has lasted several weeks and at the boundary of the heat wave  over Asia colder air has caused torrential rain that is flooding Pakistan. This also seems to be driven by the jetstream moving south.

Areas of the USA, South America, China and Australia are having exceptional weather and some say the change from La Nina to El  Nino in the Pacific is causing upset effecting the overall climate.

Temperatures and extreme weather events seem to be on the increase which appears to match expectations of climate change. Yet fluctuations in climate are not unusual.  Potential food shortages caused by reduced grain harvests might also manifest in greater instability in the world.  At this moment it appears there is increasing evidence to support greater investment in preventing climate change, even if the evidence isn’t conclusive. Certainly this years weather has been very unusual.

Nissan announced that their new electrically powered car, the Nissan Leaf, will be produced in Sunderland from 2013. Up to 50,000 cars a year will be made.  Nissan stated that the UK commitment to providing the infrastructure and education to operate these cars helped the decision.  The North East has agreed to fit 13,000 charging points and London 25,000. Also a novel leasing arrangement for batteries will ease the cost of ownership and another plus the batteries will be made in Sunderland as well.  Photographs of the car look quite smart with nothing to make it look different. Ironically the ‘green’ car will be produced next to the Juke urban off-roader which doesn’t sound quite as green.

Ford announced about £1.5bn investment in new efficient engine R&D and manufacturing in the UK.  A significant portion of the money will be loans from the UK Automotive Assistance Programme and the EU. Ford will test 15 electric vehicles as well as work on low carbon engines.  Ford produce 25% of their world supply of engines in the UK.

Sheffield Forgemasters received government loan support to make a 15,000 tonne forging press, making the company one of two companies in the world capable of making specific nuclear components. The government said the UK can produce 50% of the parts for a nuclear power station and the investment will take it to 70%. The government is also to support up to 1000 apprentice places a year in the nuclear industry.

It is a curious business the offering of loans to keep manufacturing in a country. Subsidising has long been illegal in the EU. However such large scale investment is often only possible with government assistance. Vice versa governments often say that infrastructure projects, for such as energy, cannot be afforded without industrial investment.  Does one balance the other out or is it just convenient to make the best of both worlds. No doubt a company has to get the best deal it can so an existing plant must count for something and make the loan required less than it would be from a place without a plant or who didn’t have other incentives to offer such as car power point infrastructure. We can only welcome this as good news.

Global Warming is said to be caused by the increased concentration of the suns heat in the atmosphere as the level of certain gases increase.  This effect can be simply created in a laboratory by heating a large container that is filled with different concentrations of gas.

There are several of these gases but Carbon Dioxide is the one most commonly quoted and it’s concentration has increased to just under 400 parts per million (ppm) an increase of about 30% in 50 years.  This is known because records have been kept.

Data from much earlier times is obtained from the air trapped in samples of arctic ice that are drilled out like removing the core of an apple. The deeper the ice the older it is. Also rates of growth of plants like trees and from fossil data show how temperature changed in the past. The carbon and temperature data is compared to give a temperature v carbon chart.

For most of the time carbon remained below 300 ppm until relatively recently and tended to go as low as 200. It seems that cold periods coincide with low levels of carbon dioxide.

The last decade has seen several years of the hottest on record and this appears to align with the carbon increase.

Experiments can be wrong, the weather is a complicated beast and humans are relatively puny in world terms.  But in terms of risk there does appear to be a good chance that the science has some substance and that if carbon dioxide continues to rise then temperatures will also rise. 

Carbon worries can be supplemented by worries about the effects of increases in population.  Also at this time large areas of forest are being cut down when we’ve always been told the Amazon forest provides the oxygen of the world.  Very large countries like China and India are significantly increasing their resource demands and emissions of gases so the levels of carbon are expected to continue to increase.  It is forecast that annual carbon emissions will increase by about 14% in the next 10 years and recent discussions were meant to reduce it by about 5% overall from that emitted now ( now 47bn tons a year, forecast 54bn tons, target 44bn tons).

The effects of increased temperature are already visible in the polar regions and on glaciers where the ice is retreating. Much of the ice is above the water and on land so more water is flowing into the sea and increasing its level. Heat is causing areas of desert like the Sahara to spread and causing famine in many countries.  Increased temperatures were also said to have created larger than usual hurricanes in the Caribbean a couple of years ago and even if this was not global warming it is a warning of what increased temperature can do.  There are a lot of forecasts about potential weather effects including a change to the Gulf Stream which will effect the UK perhaps making it colder.  Although detailed forecasts are probably one of the most uncertain parts of the debate.

So is it worth spending money now to reduce gases, slow deforestation and it’s effects.  Well I have several insurance and security measures at home and I’ve never seemed to need any of it.  But they give me peace of mind and if they weren’t there I’d probably be sorry.  In conclusion the science has so many credible aspects that, like an insurance policy, measures are worth taking to stabilise and reduce emissions. Otherwise it will be a gamble with the future of cities like London and New York and many other coastal regions including Lancashire west of Preston.

It was lost on the climate concerned delegates that one of them travelled 8000 miles in a special Boeing 747 and only stayed a few hours.  Then after 15,000 delegates had sat for 14 days, the final statement was agreed by a handful of delegates representing only themselves in a short meeting.  To temper this I’ve always been a supporter of Parkinson’s Laws relating to the number of people needed to make a decision and the time allowed to make a decision. So to have 15,000 involved in making a decision for 2 weeks sounds a recipe for disaster.

It seems Europe will reduce carbon output although the main emitting countries, the US and China, are not committed to reduce and not in absolute terms.

There is always a nagging fear that climate change measures suit the socially cossetting and spending governments of Europe who in general don’t take too much notice of the opinions of their populations.  Whereas in libertarian countries like the USA the population don’t want cossetting and if the tide washes up over their houses they just move and build elsewhere.  I do admire that, although I like my social insurance.

Also is there any truth in the Chinese stance that Europe and the USA created all the carbon and therefore they should reduce first. At least this might be an acknowledgement that carbon is man-made and therefore if that is the case then those named are guilty.  On the other side is whether having seen someone going down the wrong path would you follow them. Of all the countries China would appear to be in a good position to significantly increase it’s clean power output as it is so good at manufacturing and has cheap labour costs.

Most systems have a natural limitation and at some point break down and stop the cycle. Although sometimes the cycle stops and is irrepairably broken. How the planet reacts to increases in warming gases, population growth and the stripping of resources is to be seen.  Will the system slow down naturally or will there be a dramatic event.  COP15 didn’t do as much as it might but there is no dramatic instance yet. It seems those who might help are further away from being impacted so don’t see a need.

This sounds good but surely issuing these meters to people with home generators would be a first priority. Then a second priority will be those whose energy use exceeds the norm.

I’d be amazed if having one in our house saved a penny. There must be millions like me who keep an eye on their heating timer and setting. There is a compromise between the budget allowed and how warm the house is.   The opposite might be true as it could encourage energy use if it was cheaper off peak and more expensive at peak time.

Also we have just had our gas and electricity meters changed. What happens to these old meters? Who is making the new ones?  Should they be British made meters or will 26million electricity meters and 21 million gas meters be bought from China so save pounds but cost jobs, well-being and health.

What alternatives are there? If I was to ensure minimal peak power use the biggest savings in our house would be a timer on the electric water heater to ensure it is off at peak (there already is one).  The biggest user of fuel by far in our house is the central heating and that is already on only for a limited time as we’ve gone more into heating individual rooms around the time we use them.

How much incentive are we going to get to improve our energy use. The people on the trials with these units are like the well known Hawthorn experiment where people being watched worked harder and harder.  In reality the meter will soon just be a background item that no-one notices. Surely it will be preferable that  its introduction should come with some cost offsetting incentive like going to a new tariff or buying a wind generator to give you a new meter rather than a blanket change over. 

Who is paying for this?  It seems the government is announcing this when surely if it is so wonderful the utility companies would be launching it. I would imagine the utility companies see it as good business just fitting these new units.  Who wouldn’t with some 50m meters to change sounds like a good earner.

Overall without further education it appears the strategy for rolling out the new meters is flawed and that the benefits of their use are not as great as claimed.