We need better regulations and incentives, not carbon taxes on domestic gas, to save the planet

 Whenever an economist or someone who seeks to make themselves out as being a go-ahead free market type wants to declare their interest in saving the planet from climate change, you can bet your life it will largely involve a call for hefty increases in carbon taxes. And now people are saying that is what we need to get heat pumps installed in the UK. That includes a lot of people who should know  better, judging by evidence to the House of Commons' Environmental Audit Committee recently.

But they are barking up the wrong tree. Sure, price rises affect energy behaviour, of course, but can economists point to any big green technological changes that have largely been promoted by energy tax increases? Advances in wind power, solar pv, energy efficiency in buildings, efficiency in lighting appliances etc have all been achieved almost entirely through carefully targeted regulations and incentives.

The same will be true for heat pumps; especially for heat pumps! Heat pumps are partly stymied in the UK because they are manacled by certification and building regulations that were drawn up for gas heating. See more on this at 100percentrenewableuk.org/blog. Heat pumps are very successful on the continent for two reasons, only one of which is the fact that prices for domestic gas supplies are much higher relative to electricity on the continent, making heat pumps much more cost-effective. 

The other factor is that building and certification regulations allow them to be built for the market, that is they do not have to be built as big for a given house as UK regulations insist, and they can be run without 'zoning' which, again allows them to operate much more efficiently. An especially terrible example of the disinformation and confusion spread by the big energy companies is described in one of the more useful type of consultancies, that is something commissioned by environmental groups. on the amount of self-serving nonsense spread by the gas industry trying to inflate the case for hydrogen.

But let us get back to the price argument. If you want to make the technology more cost-effective in terms of price, then do not go down the path of trying to impose large increases in gas prices through a carbon tax or something similar. That will produce massive political resistance in the case of the highly sensitive domestic heating market. Instead have incentives that work properly - like a mixture of the renewables heat incentive and installation grants together. New build housing and housing in areas not connected to the grid are good markets to establish a British heat pump industry initially. The Energy Saving Trust says as much anyway.

Of course we have to source the money for the incentives from somewhere - and here levies on energy consumption for specified purposes can usually be politically acceptable. On the other hand we should resist the pressures from the big energy companies for self-serving subsidies that are added to the costs of electricity. The roll-out of so-called smart meters is a case in point which is paid for by a levy on electricity consumers. Most of these have been given to companies who do not offer smart tariffs, yet the scheme is costing energy consumers large quantities of money just to save the companies themselves some meter reading costs. 

Then there are the subsidies for Hinkley C and then Sizewell C which will be levied just at the time when the levies used to prime-pump the renewable industries are falling. Yes, keep electricity costs down by sourcing electricity from renewable energy, not nuclear power or carbon capture and storage.

A lot of the problem results from the confusion spread by economists who are hired by the big energy companies. They know their free market theory and equations about supply and demand, and they know what the companies who commissioned them want them to say. But in fact they know little about the institutions - the regulations and the industrial practices - that act as barriers to, and ways of framing, real life markets. 

Webinar on achieving 100 per cent of Scottish energy consumption from renable energy

 Recording of webinar on how and why the Scottish Govt should set a target to achieve 100 per cent of ALL energy from renewables - see https://100percentrenewableuk.org/blog If you live in Scotland, please sign the petition! https://100percentrenewableuk.org/achieving-100pc-of-energy-in-scotland-from-renewable-energy-petition

how all or most of our energy needs can be provided using less than 7 per cent of UK waters

 Yes, you've probably guessed it! Offshore windfarms will do the trick of providing all our energy needs using around 7 per cent of UK waters. Of course it makes sense to have as much onshore wind and solar as well - it's always good to have diversity and it spreads business around and lowers cost.

You can read more about how we get this calculation by visiting the website of 100percentrenewableuk

Happy renewables!

Government slashes energy efficiency spending by 80 per cent in so-called 10 point climate package

 Andrew Warren, the Chairman of the British Energy Efficiency Federation, says that spending on energy efficiency has been slashed by 80 per cent. Meanwhile the gas and nuclear lobbies are being paid many hundreds of millions of pounds for projects that are unlikely to cut carbon emissions for many years to come, if ever. See https://100percentrenewableuk.org/blog

Join the fightback against the Government’s toadying to nuclear and gas interests and register for the FREE WEBINAR on December 3rd to support the campaign for Scotland to set a target of achieving 100 per cent of ALL energy used in Scotland from renewable energy.

Please sign the petition for Scotland to set 100 per cent renewable energy target

 Please sign the petition for Scotland to set 100 per cent renewable energy target. 

See the 100percentrenewableuk blog at https://100percentrenewableuk.org/blog and you can access the petition page directly at https://100percentrenewableuk.org/achieving-100pc-of-energy-in-scotland-from-renewable-energy-petition

Register for the free webinar (on December 3rd) on how Scotland can reach this target at https://100percentrenewableuk.org/register-for-webinar-on-how-scotland-can-get-all-of-its-energy-from-renewables-december-3rd

Is Treasury about to cave in over EDF's demand for a blank cheque for Sizewell C?

 It is looking increasingly likely that the British Government is about to cave-in to EDF's demand that the British energy consumers should pay what could be massive cost overruns for building Sizewell C nuclear power plant. But what has not been discussed so much is how the contract the Government is likely to offer EDF will reduce deployment of renewable energy schemes. 

A report in The Times signals that EDF chiefs is meeting the Chancellor to complete the details for how to dress up what is in effect a blank cheque for Sizewell C. It reported that the withdrawal of Hitachi from the Wylfa site was a 'shock'. Hitachi's move which has been expected for a year, is not a shock to people in the energy industry. It became apparent (to me at least!) long ago that new nuclear plant can only be built if they are given an effective blank cheque (that is the promise of an unlimited supply of cash) from some state-backed energy monopoly.

At the moment Hinkley C power plant is being built with the backing of the French state who will pay EDF's bills for the plant's cost overruns. But EDF has been told that the French state won't pay for another British nuclear power plant at Sizewell C. So EDF bosses are telling the Brits that they have got to have Sizewell C, and that the Government will have to promise a scheme whereby the Government will have to ensure that EDF' cost overruns are recompensed.

Of course we are treated to many press reports and consultants explaining that the costs of Sizewell C will be less than Hinkley C, but this somewhat begs the question of why it is then that EDF needs a promise that the British state will ensure payments of cost overruns. 

What, however, is less understood is that EDF will be expecting the same sort of contract as given to them for Hinkley C which allows nuclear electricity generation to crowd out production from future renewable energy plant. EDF will be given so-called 'baseload' contracts that mean that when electricity wholesale prices are low or even negative they will still get paid the same level of high premium prices. Meanwhile future wind and solar pv projects will be effectively forced offline by the nuclear power plant because they will not receive premium prices. 

This type of 'baseload' contract is another form of hidden subsidy to new nuclear power stations that raises the real price of nuclear power beyond the fictional prices quoted in government reports. Meanwhile the cost of this subsidy to nuclear power's (for generating power at a high price when the power is not needed) is borne by renewable energy, whose costs thus increase. Yet of course this hidden subsidy is entirely a creature of the biased contracts that the Government offers nuclear power. Nuclear power is given preferential contract treatment because it is called' baseload'. And yet it bears no penalty for being inflexible -that is unable to change its output to fit in which demand and supply patterns. 

Given the wealth of alternative low carbon generation options, as well as the prospect of being able to balance the electricity system better without these nuclear power plant, there is no need to build these plant given their great expense, besides any other reason. However EDF not only has immense political clout as a big multinational corporation owned by the French state, but they also have the support of a large number of civil servants - indeed there is a much larger number of civil servants dealing with nuclear power compared with renewable energy.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/frances-edf-demands-clarity-on-british-nuclear-power-plans-00t6gbmlg

Be careful what you wish for - why letting ex-pat Scots vote in an independence referendum might not give the result its protagonists want

 What started off as looking like a whakky idea - allowing a Scottish independence referendum on the proviso that all people who would be eligible for Scottish passports - has now become almost mainstream in England (at least in right wing political circles). Those promoting the idea are opposed to Scottish independence, expecting such a proposition to deliver a 'no' vote in any referendum outcome. But these 'give the vote to Scottish expats' should be careful of what they wish for.

Because it might actually backfire and produce more votes for independence than votes against.

Sure, the opinion polls suggest, now, that there would be a healthy majority for a 'no' vote among the English residing expat Scots, but that's before the campaign starts, and certainly before the potential 'no' voters are informed of the benefits of obtaining an extra (Scottish) nationality. 

These benefits are likely to be substantial given that Scotland is very likely (I would say almost certain) to quickly become a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) and therefore entitle Scottish citizens to the freedom of movement benefits that result from this. Travellers to the EU from the UK after the end of the year may well experience some irksome changes meaning people having to pay to take out health insurance cover, experiencing much greater difficulty in taking pets to the EU, re-imposition of mobile phone roaming charges and of course facing visa restrictions on the amount of time they can spend abroad. 

We don't know as yet what the arrangements may be, but what I can argue with some logical argument in support is that the ideal relationship that Scotland would have with the EU after independence is not full membership of the EU, but membership of the EEA. This would allow Scotland, as is the case of Norway who is a member of the EEA but not the EU, access to the European Single Market and all of its benefits. For sure, this would include access to health cover as it is for Brits at the moment easy movement for pets, no mobile phone roaming charges and no restrictions on access to EU countries. Scotland would be also able to negotiate a close trade agreement with the rest of the UK, something it would need but would not be able to negotiate separately to the EU if it was a full EU member.

Nobody has factored in the effect on ex-pat Scots when they realise they would get these benefits. Many of these potential referendum votes probably have no deep feelings about independence one way or another, but they may well be very keen on obtaining the useful benefits to themselves that might flow from independence. They might well suddenly warm to the blandishments of Nicolar Sturgean et al. In deed, in political science a famous theory propounded by Mancur Olson (about which political scientists have been arguing ever since) highlighted the crucial positive impact on recruitment to pressure groups of 'selective incentives'. Of course, as critics have pointed out, support for causes is very important, but so are perceived individual benefits.

A surprisingly large number of people could end up voting for the benefits given that everybody who has at least one grandparent born in Scotland would be eligible for Scottish citizenship. You might suddenly see a lot of people 'rediscovering' their Scottish identities for the sake of claiming holiday health insurance and fee mobile phone calls, even though some of them may never have actually set foot in Scotland.

Now, that might be upside. The downside however is that, in the event of a narrow 'no' vote result  if the number of expat Scots voting in a referendum exceeds the margin of a 'no' victory then the Scottish nationalists will say that the vote has been rigged. The referendum will be robbed of its legitimacy. Once that happened the door is opened to all sorts of odious extremists who are willing to put other people's lives in danger in terrorist attacks in the name of 'nationalism'. At best there will be a movement of civil resistance and civil disturbance in opposition to what will be framed as a rigged result. Things could get quite difficult.

Maybe some of the protagonists of this 'give expat Scots a vote' strategy are being a bit tongue in cheek, and will become a bit more straight-faced if and when Scottish enthusiasm for another vote increases. 

I hope so, because the consequences of such a crazy idea will almost certainly make these people regret coming up with the idea in the first place.