Pyramid Comment

This journal takes an alternative view on current affairs and other subjects. The approach is likely to be contentious and is arguably speculative. The content of any article is also a reminder of the status of those affairs at that date. All comments have been disabled. Any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Sunday, July 04, 2010

Energy: Alternative Production


Alternative energy production like wind farms could, in principle, be easily bled off into the national grid. Effective hijacking. This could then subsidise the greater revenue potential of conventional (gas, oil) sources. The approach of oil companies that attempt to illustrate how to be more energy efficient are really just protecting their own future. It is in their interest (and the shareholders) that energy is conserved. The projected rise in global population is constantly mentioned and simply observed with no attempt at suggesting it should be curtailed or reduced. The constant reminder conditions the living (growing) population into acceptance and so does nothing about reducing or slowing the growth. A growing consumer market means more potential profits.


Switching suppliers is constantly encouraged, but this can be viewed as simply an attempt to cover over the ever-increasing energy charges. The misdirection suggests that this could actually save money. Nothing much really if anything and could even lead to higher costs. You cannot know where the advice originates: possibly the energy suppliers? Change supplier and learn all about the new devil that you don't know...

...yet

What will not happen is a reduction in energy costs to the consumer. The overall reduction in energy use generally would not be expected to impact much. Progress will be located by energy companies conserving dwindling sources  and increased efficiency. Then charging a higher premium to the growing consumer population. Management of energy (gas or electricity) could involve the consumer and purchased (by the consumer) smart meters. The costs will ultimately be borne by the consumer in their totality. This is simple commercial economics. Greater waste is 'lost' before it can be used. Distribution of power from its very 'creation' is a wasteful process. This compared to any trivial individual consumer savings is staggeringly enormous.


To save energy equates

to reducing any losses

before the residue is used


This, of course, is not commercially profitable: to invest in upgrading the system when it is easier to nothing, but charge the consumer more to recover the costs caused by their ineptitude and greed. Claims are made that consumer bills are already being reduced by 10% and peak demand has been lowered to 15% (as a consequence?). The aim, it could be argued, is to maintain the reduced peak demand, but also lower the amount saved by usage. Making the limited resource go further for the business, but at the same time screwing the consumer. Effectively raising prices though using less. It's ugly.


The London School of Economics (LSE) has allegedly calculated that an investment of ¬£5bn developing a smart power grid could create or retain a quarter of a million jobs in energy and related industries. Any investment must be returned. The wages bill for the same level of employment coupled with such an investment defines a financial yield that could not involve any reductions. Regardless of any rhetoric, costs to the consumer (always the target of commercial enterprises) must in any business model be expected to only...


increase


Profits on the rise, but rather like saving money by raising VAT, it does no such thing. It simply forces the taxpaying consumer to subsidise commercial failure.