One of the new niche areas for investment in the energy sector is – no, not solar arrays, wind farms or anaerobic digestion plants, but diesel generation parks. It is one of the ironies of the current "energy crisis" that it has allowed the return of one of the most carbon-polluting technologies at a time when we are trying to tackle global warming.

How did it happen? The running-down of traditional electricity generating capacity, due to the closure of old atomic reactors and dirty coal-fired plants, has left the UK threatened by the lights going out at peak times. And so enterprising, if not green, entrepreneurs have realised there is cash to be made by assembling a load of old diesel generators in a field or industrial park and offering them as power sources when the National Grid is struggling to meet demand.

A high-profile energy specialist, who has asked to remain nameless, said he had received a steady stream of diesel-power providers over the last 12 months looking for City cash to expand, or advice on initial public offerings. These fossil-fuel projects tend to be small, but their total capacity is already in the hundreds of megawatts, which could just be the difference between lights on or blackouts as traditional capacity shrinks.

Generally, the diesel generation parks are not providing power to the grid but offering it to other businesses or organisations, allowing them to fall into the category of "demand-side response" at peak moments. National Grid is forced to operate these days on the Tesco motto of "every little helps" and last week was forced to rush out an initiative offering payments to those who could offer new capacity to the system this winter.

The original idea was that the network operator would encourage power providers such as Centrica or SSE to de-mothball some of their gas-fired or other idle electricity generating stations for the winter of 2015-16 when capacity margins – the difference between demand and supply – are expected to be at their very tightest, 2%.

The new call for more immediate assistance has come because the situation this coming winter is looking increasingly precarious, with two EDF nuclear plants at Heysham and Hartlepool offline because of a technical fault. They should be back in action by the end of December, according to the French-owned generating company, but we can't be sure. And their two gigawatts of atomic power is out of action at a time when capacity has been reduced at two coal-fired facilities, Ironbridge and Ferrybridge, because of fires.

Both the grid and the industry watchdog, Ofgem, play down the idea that we are running into a crisis and insist they are just being prudent and preparing for all eventualities.

So should we be worried? Peter Atherton, an equity analyst at Liberum Capital, is surprised by the sudden call for more capacity and questions how much can be conjured up at such short notice. But equally, he argues it is not yet time to panic: "These [nuclear and coal plants out of action] are just two unforeseen events that have arrived but it would take four or five to knock over the system." This could come via an extremely cold winter that sends demand soaring or a windless winter that leaves turbines unturned, or just a few more problems at big traditional power stations.

The government's Energy Act has provided a range of tools, such as capacity payments and contracts for difference, to deal with the wider power crunch and to stimulate investment in new capacity.

But this crisis caused by old stations going offline faster than newer – greener – ones can be constructed has been a long time in the making. If attempts to patch up the system this winter look more Heath Robinson than hi-tech then that is because they are. Where is that old diesel generator in the shed?

Autonomy's fallen idol



An email reveals that even Autonomy's finance director thought the once-soaraway Cambridge software company was heading for a financial plane crash. Or so Hewlett-Packard would have us believe. In the latest instalment of the row between HP and Autonomy founder Mike Lynch, whose management team is accused of cooking the books, a sensational piece of evidence has been made public in a court filing.

Sent from Sushovan Hussain's phone on 10 December 2010, weeks before Autonomy's former finance director was expected to wow the City with yet another quarter of double-digit growth, the email is a cry for help.

"Revenue fell away completely," wrote Hussain, referring to US sales of the key Idol search engine. Addressed to Lynch, the email says: "There are swathes of reps with nothing to do maybe chase imaginary deals." It warns that "radical action is required".

HP's lawyers say Hussain was urging Lynch to sell Autonomy. The Lynch camp says he was asking for the firing of unreliable sales reps, adding that the email has been taken out of context and the company's forecast for the quarter, even taking out deals that have been questioned, was "ahead of target". Either way, eight months later the Cambridge firm was sold to HP for $11bn.

Information revealed so far, in leaks and legal documents, is alarming. There are questionable deals with resellers: Guardian revelations last week showed Autonomy acquiring a reseller, MicroLink, which had built up a $23m debt for software not paid for; and HP claims $100m of Autonomy revenue came from often loss-making sales of hardware, while investors thought they were buying into a pure software company. Autonomy has denied wrongdoing, referring to differences between UK and US accounting standards and claiming it had been open and transparent.

The evidence so far is not proof of fraud. But the picture that emerges is of a company whose growth appears to have been unsustainable and whose disclosure to shareholders appears poor. Had some of this information been known while Autonomy was still in the FTSE 100, its shares would have crashed. Lynch is unlikely to be able to lead a publicly listed company again.

Why Glasgow should fear independence



An interesting perspective on the Scottish referendum debate has been provided by economists at Panmure Gordon.

A yes vote, they say, will mean short-term instability and business stagnation as the terms of independence are negotiated. In the longer term, they reckon the economic outcomes will be similar both inside and outside the union. The big risk is how long it takes to get from stage one to stage two. So far, so familiar.

But they raise another, far less well debated "economic tremor" – that independence would entrench an east-west divide in wealth, house prices and unemployment similar to England's north-south divide.

A yes vote, they say, would mean increased investment in Edinburgh, the administrative capital, while a focus on oil revenues would mean more investment in Aberdeen. Meanwhile industrial decline, led by less MoD spending, would be focused on Glasgow.

The costs and benefits of a yes, they make clear, would not be distributed evenly.