Ecotricity - Anybody with them?

lucyAM

Hello,
I am considering moving my energy supply to Ecotricity - is anybody on the forum with them and if so could you please give me an honest opinion/review on what you think of them?
Thanks.

macman

Ecotricity are a small 'green' supplier, but their pricing is linked to the regional standard tariff, so you'll be paying a very high price for your green principles. CS is good, as you would expect with such a small supplier.

lucyAM

Thanks Macman. I'm on the dreaded pre-payment meters and a check online showed I'd still pay the same amount as my current supplier so no savings at all, but that "green" energy is persuading me to change.
It's the CS and their resolving of any issues which concerns me, but your comment helps there.

penrhyn

For what its worth, the vast number of Wind Turbines are only generating 2.68% of the UK's Electricity this morning.

Gas 47%
Coal 19%
Nuclear 17 % ( plus another 5% from France)

Why not go for the cheapest deal, and spend the savings on LED bulbs?

Ref: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

owen_money

penrhyn wrote: »

For what its worth, the vast number of Wind Turbines are only generating 2.68% of the UK's Electricity this morning.

Gas 47%
Coal 19%
Nuclear 17 % ( plus another 5% from France)

Why not go for the cheapest deal, and spend the savings on LED bulbs?

Ref: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

'New statistics published today by the Department of Energy and Climate Change prove the case for wind power. The figures show that 19.4% of all the UK’s electricity mix in the first quarter of this year was generated from renewable energy sources, compared to 12.4% for the same period in the previous year. DECC says the primary reason for the increase was improved performance and greater capacity from onshore and offshore wind power.'

Its summer, there ins't much wind at the moment. Don't look at the production in isolation but please look at the bigger picture.
Wind isn't the answer I know, its a stop gap. If we do nothing now we will run out of electricity. At least at the end of their life you can knock a turbine down and return the land to its former state. Can you do that with nuclear? Yes but takes 150 years! Still a nice present for our great great great grand children

lstar337

owen_money wrote: »

Wind isn't the answer I know, its a stop gap. If we do nothing now we will run out of electricity. At least at the end of their life you can knock a turbine down and return the land to its former state. Can you do that with nuclear? Yes but takes 150 years! Still a nice present for our great great great grand children

If we hadn't used nuclear at all, the environment would be in a much worse state than it is now with regards to CO2. That is a much worse legacy to pass on. 150 years to clean up a nuclear site, try 150 Million years to return CO2 to sensible levels.

matelodave

owen_money wrote: »

'New statistics published today by the Department of Energy and Climate Change prove the case for wind power. The figures show that 19.4% of all the UK’s electricity mix in the first quarter of this year was generated from renewable energy sources, compared to 12.4% for the same period in the previous year. DECC says the primary reason for the increase was improved performance and greater capacity from onshore and offshore wind power.'

Its summer, there ins't much wind at the moment. Don't look at the production in isolation but please look at the bigger picture.
Wind isn't the answer I know, its a stop gap. If we do nothing now we will run out of electricity. At least at the end of their life you can knock a turbine down and return the land to its former state. Can you do that with nuclear? Yes but takes 150 years! Still a nice present for our great great great grand children

Yes, well they have to justify it somehow.- as we all know statistics can prove anything you want if you compile them the right way.
You still need all the other stuff for when the wind doesn't blow, otherwise all the lights would keep going out.
It's nuclear all the way as far as I'm concerned.
By the way if you live near an off-shore supply base and watch all the highspeed work-boats thrashing back and forth at all hours of the day and night burning up vast quantities of fuel oil in the process you'd be slightly more sceptical about their green credentials.

penrhyn

45 % of Electicity comes from Gas, 80% of UK homes are heated by Gas, Heavy industry, steel, glass chemical, relies Gas. and all the Ecocentrics go on about is windmills.

owen_money

matelodave wrote: »

Yes, well they have to justify it somehow.- as we all know statistics can prove anything you want if you compile them the right way.
You still need all the other stuff for when the wind doesn't blow, otherwise all the lights would keep going out.
It's nuclear all the way as far as I'm concerned.
By the way if you live near an off-shore supply base and watch all the highspeed work-boats thrashing back and forth at all hours of the day and night burning up vast quantities of fuel oil in the process you'd be slightly more sceptical about their green credentials.

Once wind turbines are more reliable they will need less support and hence less work boats. Don't forget that the wind industry is still young and has come along way from the 100kW turbines of twenty years ago, they are now at 8MW.
I did say that wind turbines are a stop gap, not the final solution. What they need to do develop is how to store the energy for when the wind isnt blowing. There was a program on BBC1 the other day about it.
I think we should look at all sources of power generation. We need a mix

owen_money

penrhyn wrote: »

45 % of Electicity comes from Gas, 80% of UK homes are heated by Gas, Heavy industry, steel, glass chemical, relies Gas. and all the Ecocentrics go on about is windmills.

They dont 'mill' anything

owen_money

lstar337 wrote: »

If we hadn't used nuclear at all, the environment would be in a much worse state than it is now with regards to CO2. That is a much worse legacy to pass on. 150 years to clean up a nuclear site, try 150 Million years to return CO2 to sensible levels.

Thank you for your very constructive comments, I have noted them