Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Lordly questions | Main | Joke of the week »

Green lobbying

Energy efficiency subsidy could cut UK demand 40 per cent

New Green Alliance and WWF report calls for efficiency feed-in tariff to be part of Energy Bill ahead of crucial ministerial meeting this week

Introducing a financial incentive for energy efficiency could help the UK deliver electricity demand reductions at far lower cost than building new low carbon generation capacity, green campaigners have said.

A report to be published today says an electricity efficiency feed-in tariff (EE FiT) paying projects that can demonstrate measured electricity use savings should be introduced as part of the upcoming Energy Bill.

It comes ahead of a key meeting later this week of the coalition Quad group, comprising David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander, which is expected to decide the content of the Energy Bill, including the crucial question of whether or not to adopt a decarbonisation target for the power

From Today's Moderator

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (72)

"efficiency feed-in tariff" ... does this means there's a market for leftover concrete/steel pipe foundations, masts and composite/metal rotor blades soon in favor of compact, always-on, dependendable-output REAL energy plants (gas, coal, nuclear) ... or will the rules be written such that the mere erection of a wind turbine automatically insures its 100% efficiency ... hoping the former, fully expecting the latter.

Oct 17, 2012 at 7:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterJeroen B.

Notice that it is a Tariff does that mean that the consumer will have to pay it? Perhaps that is a rhetorial question.


Oct 17, 2012 at 7:36 AM | Unregistered Commentergrossepierre

The best decarbonisation target would be to stop building windmills.

Oct 17, 2012 at 8:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM

In my house I do not leave electrical appliances on when I am not using them except briefly, e.g. if I have a phone call. How then would a smart meter help me to cut electricity use?

Oct 17, 2012 at 8:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

So, that's another subsidy scheme for the middlemen, that makes it more expensive for the householders who've already cut heating back to the bare minimum to maintain existing levels of usage, at a a time when the plan is to reduce generation capacity. Brilliant.

Oct 17, 2012 at 8:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

From the businessGreen article, Rachel Cary, senior policy adviser at Green Alliance, states

"Energy efficiency is the huge national opportunity we have ignored for too long,"

Just which planet does she live on?

Since the late 1960's (i.e. before Global Warming was invented), both the UK's gas & electricity industries actively encouraged their customers to use less of their product.

The (British) Gas Energy Management Awards set the precedent for energy conservation.

Oct 17, 2012 at 8:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public

Sorry - GEMs began in late 1870's not late 1960's.

Oct 17, 2012 at 8:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public

DRAT! Late 1970's

Oct 17, 2012 at 8:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public

Energy efficiency subsidy could cut UK demand 40 per cent

Bollocks. I am all for energy efficiency, but the reality is that a 10% reduction in demand is the best that's achievable. I hope the ministers don't fall for the usual spin and exaggeration from the WWF and their allies.

Oct 17, 2012 at 8:38 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

Oct 17, 2012 at 8:15 AM | Roy

Apparently, the primary purpose of a smart meter is to disconnect your dwelling place from the grid when the wind stops blowing and there are no gas turbine power stations available to replace the lost electricity.

Apparently, there will be no new gas turbine power stations after West Burton is completed this month (?) because the promoters of new gas turbine power stations can not make ends meet because as more and more windmills are completed the demand for their output is reduced. Although they are compensated by National Grid for cutting back, the job of running a power station becomes too much of a hassle for them, so why bother?

Apparently, some of the recently commissioned gas turbine power stations are not even going to participate in providing baseload, the machines are just going to sit there until the price is right for their product.

Happy days.

Oct 17, 2012 at 8:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrownedoff

17 Oct: Australian: ANNABEL HEPWORTH/PIA AKERMAN Brown out in coal power squeeze
A MAJOR brown-coal power station in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley will cut production by operating only three of its four units, prompting new warnings that the federal renewable energy target is threatening the sustainability of the electricity market.
The Australian can reveal that Energy Australia will today announce it will scale back electricity generation at the Gippsland-based Yallourn power station. The company says the carbon price, which started on July 1, is driving up operating costs while wholesale electricity prices are weak and demand for electricity is plunging.
Energy Australia will also warn that the renewable energy target is suppressing wholesale power prices to uneconomic levels and point to modelling that finds the RET will cost consumers $53 billion – almost 50 per cent more than the National Broadband Network.
The decision means that more than 3000 megawatts of coal-fired power generation capacity has been cut back or closed in recent times…
Mr Combet said the RET was bipartisan, remained a “very important” part of the Clean Energy Future package and was always intended to work with the carbon price to cut emissions by making renewable and low-emissions electricity generation more competitive…

australia's nicholas stern - ross garnaut - is given an odd quote without context, tho we all know we're paying through the roof for our electricity these days:

17 Oct: SMH: Peter Hannam: Yallourn cutback proof carbon policies are working, ACF (Australian Conservation Foundation) says
“The current design of the Renewable Energy Target threatens the sustainability of Australia’s electricity market and needs to be recalibrated in line with falling demand, easing cost pressures on Australian electricity customers,” Mark Collette, group executive manager, Energy Markets, for EnergyAustralia, said in a statement…
Australia’s electricity prices have risen more in the past six years than at any similar time in the country’s history or in any comparable developed nation, Professor Ross Garnaut told a seminar in Melbourne on Monday…

Oct 17, 2012 at 8:46 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

In my house I do not leave electrical appliances on when I am not using them except briefly, e.g. if I have a phone call. How then would a smart meter help me to cut electricity use?
Oct 17, 2012 at 8:15 AM Roy

It would help you by making you turn things off when you were using them.

Oct 17, 2012 at 8:57 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

What the Greens fail to realise in their publicly funded nirvana, is that in industry where you have to pay the energy bills yourself, energy costs are paramount to profitability. Any wastage is taken out of profits and in this era of accountability this is highlighted in every meeting across the range of employee's from board to factory floor. If they think that there will be further savings of 40% then this proves that they live in a different world to the businesses that keep this country running.

Oct 17, 2012 at 9:11 AM | Registered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

What we should do is attach smart meters to the homes of everybody who participated in this report and tell them the report will only be considered when they have all achieved 40% energy savings.

Oct 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Can someone explain why we cannot adopt the same type of metering as used in parts of Europe for decades?
The standard household system in France works on a two-tier tariff which encourages folk to run heavy consumers during off-peak hours. That both cuts their costs and smooths demand (I am sure it was introduced to try and smooth the demand pattern for the huge nuclear programme).
In addition, many homes have electric heating with the immersion heater automatically set to run on off-peak power.
Looks like our "smart" meters are anything but!

A while back I asked my supplier about split tariffs. They did indeed have one which offered lower rates off-peak but the standard rate was markedly higher. I queried that and was told that it was "necessary to compensate for the lower off-peak rate"!!
I tried to reason with them that, since off-peak power is much cheaper, their argument was false: on the figures at the time they could make a greater margin on off-peak power and still charge the public lower rates. You can guess how far I got with that.

Oct 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterMikeH

Re: MikeH

We have had that for decades. It is called Economy 7 and offers cheap electricity overnight but more expensive during the day plus a larger standing charge. Unless you have storage heaters and hot water boilers that can retain the heat throughout the day it isn't worth it.

Oct 17, 2012 at 9:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Don't these chumps realise that if less electricy is necessary for one purpose it will be used for another? A growing economy, a richer society, will use more electricity - and where's the harm in that? The only way to cut demand is to very much raise the price and drive people to subtitute other types of fuel where this is possible e.g. for heating, refrigeration and lighting (not to forget eating more blubber and wearing an additional set of clothes).

It will also be necessary to create the office of a Generator Finder General to limit and licence and tax those households switching to private electrical generation.

Oct 17, 2012 at 9:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterBob Layson

Re: MikeH

Somehow, I never saw/read the second paragraph of your comment. Apologies.

Oct 17, 2012 at 9:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

"the Clean Energy Future package and was always intended to work with the carbon price to cut emissions by making renewable and low-emissions electricity generation more competitive…"

Nice warping of the language. What they're actually doing is making traditional/fossil fuel electricity generation less competitive through punitive taxation, but that's not quite a touchy feely as the above.

Oct 17, 2012 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteveW

@ Browned Off - re no more CCGT stations?

Have Scottish Power decided against going ahead with Cockenzie's replacement? They have planning permission for the new station and for the 11 miles of new gas pipeline required.

Oct 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

It comes ahead of a key meeting later this week of the coalition Quad group, comprising David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander, which is expected to decide the content of the Energy Bill, including the crucial question of whether or not to adopt a decarbonisation target for the power.......

We are caught between on the one hand the cretins - our political masters and on the other - the eco-lunatics who are far worse [I know it is difficult to believe] between energy companies who perniciously charge higher tariffs for low usage. Honestly, how is it that a single person living in a well insulated flat can pay a higher [in proportion] tariff, than such as the stockbroker belt tech savvy family who burn all the lights, have every electrical appliance working at the same time at peak hours, open windows in winter and do not care about 'usage' because the more they burn the less they pay.
A energy industry who are geared to milk you for all they are worth and are not in the least bit concerned for anyone's welfare.
Tack on to all of this, the nightmare - a foreign bureaucracy which is at this minute parcelling up northern Europe into some sort of supra national energy grid system which could only be realised by megalomaniac eco-nutters and a Nomenklatura who do not care about individual consumers and only see the impossible goal - irrespective of cost and engineering impracticalities of such a mad scheme.

Then, all the mmCO2 this and the carbon emissions that - is all based on a fiction, but that we couldn't do anything about the world CO2 emissions problem even if we switched off totally - till the next millennium and beyond.

How can we expect any sense to come out of a meeting like that?

Oct 17, 2012 at 10:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Having read about the 'negawatt' market referred to by the URL,I became suddenly very concerned about the mental stability of its proponents.

Indeed, had not Lewis Carroll died in 1898, I would have thought this barrel of low grade economic testicles to have been worthy of his more abstruse allusions to the effects of laudanum on a creative brain. Utter, complete madness.

Oct 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM

They have obviously never heard of the Jevons Paradox.
In economics, the Jevons paradox, is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.

Oct 17, 2012 at 10:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterForester126

NegaWatts. Has a nice ring to it. How would that get converted to NegaJoules?
NJ=NWxS? Or would that be NegaSeconds?
Perhaps Mankind has stumbled upon an entirely new mathematics that will link Green Science with that of the Real world and enrichen our lives!
People laughed when the concept of imaginary numbers was first mooted but look how much was gained through that seemingly lunatic action.
Cup of tea Vicar?
No thanks but I'll be obliged of you could write me a receipt for 5000 NegaJoules
You need to move with the times AlecM but, nonetheless, a very happy unbirthday to you!

Oct 17, 2012 at 10:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

Why does an organisation as morally bankrupt as the WWF have any say in the government of my country?

Oct 17, 2012 at 11:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve

Am I reading this right?

If I can prove that in theory my building will use less electricity (whatever that means) I will get paid for what I theoretically don't use?

Add it to the subsidies farmers get for not growing stuff.

How do these people dress themselves in the morning? We can't let these idiots destroy our civilisatoin, because that is what they are doing bit by bit with their idiocy.

Oct 17, 2012 at 11:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

RoyFOMR: it's negabollox.......

Oct 17, 2012 at 11:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM

I've got it! If they bring in these schemes, we pay for them with negapounds! Yes?

Oct 17, 2012 at 12:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

Oct 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM | lapogus

@ Browned Off - re no more CCGT stations?

Have Scottish Power decided against going ahead with Cockenzie's replacement? They have planning permission for the new station and for the 11 miles of new gas pipeline required.

Apparently, they have not yet decided one way or the other about the development, here is what they said on 12 March 2012:

Following the award of planning permission granted last year by the Scottish Government for a new gas plant at Cockenzie, ScottishPower is continuing to evaluate options for the development of the site.

It is possible that "continuing to evaluate options" could mean that selling the site to Tesco might be a better way forward than building a CCGT power station which could not be completed until about 3 years after they decided to go forward, by which time there will be so much wind on-line (particularly in Scotland) that their spanking new power station will be idle for most of the time getting no revenue. The shareholders would be very disappointed at such an outcome and those who took the decision would be looking to take up new opportunities elsewhere. It is not a given that Cockenzie will have a new gas turbine power station.

Many promoters of CCGT power stations have consent, but they are waiting to see what the DECC comes up with next month with their "Reforms".

Although the promoters have the mandarins by the short and curlies, they can not depend on the pols to do the right thing in a reasonable time scale, so, as dithering goes on and on, costs increase, more and more wind is commissioned, the business case evaporates.

If these reforms do not address the problem (idle plant) described above, then the only people left able to afford the risk of constructing the fleets of idle CCGTs and OCGTs needed will be the Government as they re-invent the CEGB or should that be Taxpayer Funded Electricty Generating Commission.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

Oct 17, 2012 at 12:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrownedoff

The eco-nuts are just what our lunatic government likes, it gives them an excuse for rationing. That is what this is all about. Who elected eco-nuts to govern our Country!

Oct 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterDerek Buxton

The only way out of this eco-fascist disaster, also to to meet the EU's CO2 reduction targets, is to break the Oligopoly that controls the national Grid by installing a parallel power generation system.

10 million domestic fuel cells to give CHP, saving 30-60% of the CO2 compared with windmills + CCGTs and OCGTs [the 60% is driving heat pumps]. These would also provide standby power in the day and those earnings would pay back the investment in 3 years. The economic purpose is to drive the windmill corporations out of business by slashing grid prices.

Oct 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM

Diversion tactics, there is only one way our overlords can make consumers change their ways yes you can try and price them into oblivion but this will lose you votes. Install smart meters that are able to control what is powered in a serfs home and then supply a licence to them, priced accordingly of course, if you have the correct licence you can run your washing machine, tumble dryer and dish washer at 5pm local time but if you don’t have the correct license it is the choice of only one appliance between midnight and 6am.

Simple really.

Oct 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterShevva

Is a 40% reduction in a house so improbable? If you read Mackay's "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air", you'll see that he cut his house electricity consumption by half (page 155/156 of the pdf) and his gas consumption by nearly three quarters (page 143).

Note that if electricity tariffs charged more the more you use, instead of less, then official desires to reduce consumption would be more believable.

Oct 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

Would a system of efficiency feed in tariffs produce a perverse incentive to use lots of electricity in the baseline setting phase that you can easily do without when the counting starts, and thereby rake in loads of cash?

Oct 17, 2012 at 3:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterGareth

I hope the so called "Quad group" remember that cost-efficient generation is not the same as energy efficient-distribution, which is also not the same as energy- efficient consumption.

Next up, it seems to me that this is another case of redefining "demand" as "enforced reduction of supply" [with concomitant price increases]. The logic is the same as redefining "subsidy" as "an absence of taxation".

That is pure, 24 carat, undiluted politics.

The existence of a feed-in tariff does have some merit, and I would certainly like to see widely distributed CHP systems such as domestic fuel-cells. But I get frightened by politicians/NGOs who give the impression that they think energy [consumption] should be treated as a commodity that people could comfortably live without, given the right incentive. And by incentive they mean a lot more stick than carrot.

Oct 17, 2012 at 3:26 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

I cut my domestic energy use by about 30% about two years ago. The first 15% or so was easy, made life more comfortable, and paid for itself within a few years: cavity wall insulation, more loft insulation, a chimney balloon and a new A rated fridge (larger and better than the old E rated fridge). The second 15% was significantly more difficult and expensive: double glazing and a new condensing boiler (made by Remeha, not the usual junk people install) plus solar thermal panels. Going much further would require significant lifestyle changes or major work.

Oct 17, 2012 at 3:31 PM | Registered CommenterJonathan Jones

Gareth, I have asked myself similar questions.

The existence of a feed-in tariff creates an opportunity for increased electricity-theft, because a thief has an immediate cash purchaser. I suspect this may also be an unspoken reason for enthusiasm towards "smart meters" [whatever else that may mean].

Oct 17, 2012 at 3:34 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Jonathan Jones
What was the return on the investment, and hve you maintained the reduced level of usage? Is it a bit like dieting and after a while the usage tends to drift up again?

Anyone with any sense wants to reduce their fuel bills but as you say after the easy stuff is done each step is more difficult. In the case of a ships speed there was a rule of thumb that each knot increase required a doubling of hp. have you reached the stage of each percentage reduction requiring double the investment of the previous one?


Oct 17, 2012 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered Commentergrossepierre

gp, the cavity wall insulation and the new fridge were complete no brainers: my calculations suggest that the fridge paid for itself within two years. Certain minimal forms of energy efficiency really are lying around on the floor just waiting to be picked up. The lost insulation is harder to evaluate because we also got the loft part boarded at the same time.

Beyond that first 15% it gets tougher and I doubt they made economic sense at the energy prices we were paying then, but I work on the assumption that prices are going to rise sharply, and that insecurity of future supply means that a well insulated house with a wood burning stove is well worth having!

My personal rule of thumb is that the first 15% is easy, the second 15% is expensive, and the third 15% requires lifestyle changes. Very rough but probably not too far wrong.

Oct 17, 2012 at 4:22 PM | Registered CommenterJonathan Jones

gp, oh and you asked about usage. Still low: we monitor electricity and gas usage on a weekly basis, and while there are changes from year to year related to weather patterns we have shown no obvious tendency to creep back up. The new computer (to allow the teenager to play skyrim) uses more power than the old one, but otherwise we're too mean to spend money on utilities when it is better spent on books and wine.

Oct 17, 2012 at 4:26 PM | Registered CommenterJonathan Jones

Interesting thank you, basically what I think, insulation of walls/windows/ceilings quick wins. More efficient appliances not quite so good, nor do they have an immedeately noticable impact on comfort.

Things like heavy curtains/shutters (internal) and having a kettle permanently on the woodburner can also have a surprising benefit and quick return on investement. We have a neighbour who never uses the electric kettle summer or winter. Closing the internal shutters also has an immedeate affect on room temperature at my brothers house, here we have external shutters and a heavy curtain also very effective. Although there is always a dispute as to when to close up for the night, my other half loves to watch the sun go down!!

The loss of incandesant light bulbs was a bit of a swings and roundabouts thing as virtually all the energy consumed was output as heat. I reckon in a few years LED lights will be the source of choice, we already have some for reading lights.

It's a pity Mrs Clegg and Samnatha's dad aren't the insulation energy efficiency industries.

Oct 17, 2012 at 6:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

David MacKays paper referenced above makes it clear that once you're past the Cavity wall and loft insulation, then further savings are limited. Replacing an old boiler for a condensing one is fine if you can afford it, but in older houses they are unlikely to be as efficient as claimed since the temperature difference in the piping systems will not be optimal. The boilers are also ruinously expensive and unlikely to pay back the cost over the operating lifetime. (In newer properties obviously a different matter). The rest of his savings come from turning the thermostat down, he suggests to 15C at times. Now that may be very practical for some active families, but for an older person with less mobility is a recipe for hypothermia.

I'm all for the programmes that ensure the elderly have free loft/cavity insulation provided, an absolute must. But that does not provide protection from ever increasing prices. With every subsidised scheme announced the cost of fuels increase, and this primarily hits the vulnerable. Suggesting they turn the thermostats down is not an option.

Oct 17, 2012 at 7:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

Terry S;
No problem...I should have been clearer in my description. The French system is standard (to the best of my knowledge) with a meter/switchboard unit which logs power usage against time. It also turns on the immersion heater during off-peak hours.
Maybe it has changed but Economy 7 used to involve a separate fuseboard, dedicated wiring, etc..
Lastly it always irks me that power is much cheaper in France (at least from the tariffs I have seen and compared to my costs).

Oct 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeH

Currently the user is charged at a HIGHER rate for the first xkWhr consumed then move to a LOWER rate thereafter - surely the converse would make people use less????

Either way, since any savings made by the user means a drop in profits for the supplier you can guess what the suppliers will do to compensate.......

Oct 17, 2012 at 8:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave_G

As a little aside, you need a better name than 'Smart Meters' for this proposal. Public presentation is very important.

I suggest 'Activist Rationing'....

Oct 17, 2012 at 8:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

I think most of the low hanging fruit has already been picked here. Whilst some households might be able to reduce energy consumption by 30-40%, at a very hefty financial cost, I can’t see that kind of reduction being possible across the board. For instance, my own house is 12 years old. It was built with cavity insulation, 150mm loft insulation, 50mm floor insulation and double glazing. This is pretty much the standard now on all new build in the UK. If your house is less than 25 years old, it’s likely that it’s more or less the same, though there might not be floor insulation and loft insulation might only be 100mm. Of the older housing stock, any owned by councils/housing associations is very likely to have already had most of this done too. It needs to be remembered that the push for home insulation is nothing new. Many local authorities and government quango’s have been advocating it since the mid 70s. In some areas, grants have been available to homeowners to help with the cost since around that time. My boiler, whilst not a condenser, is one of the more efficient ones available at the time the house was built and, at my time of life and as I live alone, I’m not sure it would be economically beneficial or the power savings large enough to justify spending money on a new one. Low rated appliances, whilst undoubtedly worth the small extra cost, aren’t going to be an answer in themselves, though for a family with high use of the washer/tumble drier/dishwasher the savings would certainly be noticeable.

As for physical reduction in use, as I have said before, people have already cut consumption as low as they can. If you walk through my little close of 46 dwellings at 8.00pm on a winter’s night, you will think everyone has already gone to bed. Nobody leaves unnecessary lights on anymore. People already use only what they need to whilst still maintaining at least a reasonable enjoyment of home life.

Oct 17, 2012 at 9:05 PM | Registered CommenterLaurie Childs


I think that tarrifs where the first x kWh are charged at a higher rate are usually those where there is not a standing charge, so the higher rate is used to recover the fixed costs of supply. I may be wrong but I think the tariffs I've seen recently all fit that premise.

Oct 17, 2012 at 9:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

Cumbrian Lad, what does "...but in older houses they are unlikely to be as efficient as claimed since the temperature difference in the piping systems will not be optimal." mean?

Oct 17, 2012 at 9:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

LC, has the low-hanging fruit really been picked? Mackay's savings on electricity in SEWTHA came partly (1.1kWh/day) just from turning off "vampires" - ie. things that were always on but not used.

Those houses not showing any lights may still be wasting large amounts of electricity. An uncle of mine sits all evening every evening with two, heavily shaded, lamps, each with 150W bulbs. Even then the room is not bright and from outside looks dark. And the computer runs in the corner, unused...

Companies might wish to save electricity, but in my experience many, many company computers are left on 24/7 or at least 9-5 with no power-saving activated and nobody using them. And lights that are turned on a 7 in the morning by early arrivers stay on the whole day because nobody notices that they are on. However much a company may wish to cut consumption, it is the staff that have to be persuaded - and they don't pay the bills.

Oct 17, 2012 at 9:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

Why are British Gas putting up their green tariffs 11% while their normal dual fuel prices go up 6%?

"Even with subsidies for technology such as onshore and offshore wind, which add about £20 on average to all energy bills, British Gas said it was more expensive to get electricity from UK renewables."

Oct 17, 2012 at 9:43 PM | Registered CommenterDR

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>