Efficiency elide

Debates on UK energy policy focus almost exclusively on energy generation/production and often neglect even to mention energy saving and energy efficiency. It’s always going to be cheaper to save energy and be efficient than it is to generate it - not only does it cut household bills and increase the profitability of businesses by reducing their outgoings, it also cuts pollution rapidly, is a very good job creator, can increase comfort, cut noise levels, and can sometimes be done using materials normally thrown away...So whilst we are so wasteful of energy why consider building large numbers of new power stations of any kind? Why is our primary focus not on creating a lower energy, energy thrifty culture? Basic, already existing technologies can be used but the challenge is to combine these with thrifty attitudes and behaviours.

The energy generation debate at present often zooms in on nuclear and wind. Nuclear power is low carbon emission in operation but we’ve had it since the 1950s and it has done nothing to stop climate change. The UK currently has nuclear 16 reactors in operation at 9 different sites - and it’s had more in the past. We've come to rely on fossil fuels and population has increased as has our level and intensity of consumption but expanding nuclear power for decades - and expanding power generation by all methods - has been part of unsustainable plans for industrial and economic expansion. This attitude still prevails. Until we change from unsustainable economic expansion to properly and fully applying sustainable development - including an energy policy with energy saving and efficiency as its primary focus - then we won’t tackle economic, social and environmental problems such as climate change.

The scale at which we waste energy is vast, so the scope for energy saving is huge. For example the Energy Saving Trust said that UK households waste £1.3 billion by just leaving TVs and other electronic devices switched on... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/9355870/Energy-Saving-Trust-households-waste-1.3bn-for-leaving-gadget-switched-on.html#  . In hard economic times and with energy prices rising you'd think people would be more careful with their consumption but apparently they aren't, so we’ve made little progress towards a energy thrifty culture. Research in 2006 found the UK was top of the European energy waster league. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6075794.stm

Part of the problems is the fact that my local paper can’t even write a balanced and correct piece about nuclear power, let alone cover energy issues in the round as it should do. People are often ill-informed as a result.  Here's my case against nuclear power: http://tinyurl.com/c75rvbg .Here's  a  post arguing for energy efficiency, combined heat and power and decentralised energy: http://tinyurl.com/cxagb4o.  Some thoughts on local renewable energy developments here: http://tinyurl.com/bm5m764.

Leadership lark

Head of Big Green Week,Paul Rainger  has been quoted as saying, "Bristol is an incredible place. Whether it's grassroots environmentalism, or robust political leadership, Bristol's brand of sustainability is unlike any other."  (see the story 'Bristol's best place for green electricity, says power firm' here). However, Bristol's people dont generally think we have robust political leadership and the head of Big Green Week is therefore out of touch. Many have been critical of the council for years, the turnout in local elections is low - and we have just rejected the current council leadership in favour of an Elected Mayor, albeit on a low turnout.

Also,  its not going to be hard to be the 'greenest city in the country when it comes to environmentally-friendly electricity' because the general standard at the moment is very poor. Many cities simply dont have much green electricity generation at all.

By the way its not clear to me that a fair comparison has been made by Good Energy given the figures quoted in the story. They just give a raw figure for the postcode area not green electricity per head of population or similar.

Greenest Government Grumbles

Labour MP Michael Meacher takes the Cameron Govt to task on its green claims - and makes some decent points on renewable energy, energy efficiency, the Green Investment Bank...Two days ago Ed Davey, the replacement for Huhne as Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change, repeated again the Coalition’s boast that it was the greenest government ever. Even by the standards of current self-congratulatory political rhetoric, that’s pretty vapid. It’s worth exploring the actual record. The Coalition Agreement proposed to increase the target for energy from renewable sources. In 2010 the UK was ranked third in the world for investment in green business, and investment in alternative energy and clean technology reached £7bn. However it has now been rated 13^th, mainly because investment in wind energy fell 40% last year, with only one offshore wind-farm being completed. That reflected the Chancellor’s openly stated negative attitude to green energy, supported by the letter sent by 101 Conservative MPs to the Prime Minister deploring wind-power development both onshore and offshore...Friends of the Earth in their recent report...judged that they found little or no progress in three-quarters of the government’s 77 green policies that they examined. (more)  

Efficiency drive

This sort of energy efficiency and renewable energy scheme (here) is long overdue but whilst the headline is current and active saying 'Ten-year energy efficiency drive will create jobs' the first sentence of the story immediately damps that down, referring to 'council plans to develop' the scheme.

Its good to see this project but £2.5 million over ten years, less than a quarter of a million per year, does not amount to a 'multi-million pound' scheme in my book - unless the council is going to get much more money from a range of other sources (are they?).

Work on 6000 homes and buildings is a decent start but Bristol has hundreds of thousands of homes and buildings, which gives some perspective to this. The 1500 jobs figure sounds more like hope than realism given the amount of money per year mentioned here.

Though the council setting up its own energy company to operate at arms length is a good move I'd ideally like to see many community based energy companies in the city - and I just hope the council is more dynamic than it has proved to be and gets on with it! Having said that they have been and are not helped by central govt policy, so lets see that change for the better.

These developments should be driven by our need for energy security, community resilience and what best science says about the rate at which we need to be cutting fossil fuel use and carbon emissions - if you work back from what they say to the consequent energy efficiency and renewable energy plans you get investment figures that are much higher and orders of magnitude more installations.

Sustainable suggestions

‘Creative’ and ‘exciting’ ideas sought for derelict depot land Bristol Temple Meads station. Er...its right next to Temple Meads so doesn't that strongly suggest a sustainable transport development of some kind and/or something that large numbers of people would need to get to...like an arena? Also next to a river with big water movements, which suggests a renewable energy facility...

Sustainability and action

Screencast making sustainablity clearer, more measurable, assessable - and most importantly making it action focussed.

Sustainability: some general definitions

Screencast I've put together about some of the various ways sustainability has been - or can be - defined, as well as asking how satisfactory these definitions are especially in terms their focus on action.

Future Fit Bristol: please register your support

From KWMC: Supporters help local environmental project through to second round of funding. Help to keep Future Fit Bristol in with a chance! The Future Fit Bristol project, which will support Knowle West residents and builders to make their homes more sustainable, is through to the next round for Energyshare funding. We couldn't have progressed this far without our online supporters and signatories and we’d like to thank everyone who has already supported the project. However, in order to be in with a chance of securing the funding we need more like-minded supporters.

Please support the group if you haven’t already and invite your friends to do the same. 'Likes' on Facebook aren't counted, so please visit www.energyshare.com/future-fit-bristol and click the red 'Support this Group' button.

Future Fit Bristol will:

• 'retrofit' local homes - adding new features to existing buildings to make them more environmentally friendly
• support builders to develop skills in renewable and green construction
• work with residents to encourage more sustainable living

Future Fit will make a difference to Knowle West, a South Bristol estate that ranks highly in statistics for poverty, poor health and educational under-achievement, but where, through the Carbon Makeover project, residents have already shown a commitment and determination to become more sustainable.

Every supporter counts. Thank you again for your support.

The Future Fit Bristol Team

Community Energy: 29 June Meeting in Knowle

Joining up Bristol’s local community energy groups’ - Bristol Energy Network and the Centre for Sustainable Energy Present….

A meeting to hear a talk from Dan McCallum, Awel Aman Tawe Community Energy Successes from South Wales and to discuss what community groups can learn from their experiences

· Learn from what other groups across Bristol and the South West about what they are doing to help reduce energy use in their communities
· An opportunity for groups and individuals to share their projects and experiences
· Meet people from other energy groups across the Bristol and across the South West
· Find out how the Bristol Energy Network and CSE can support your project

Wednesday 29th June 2011 6.30 to 9pm, Knowle West Media Centre, Bristol. Refreshments and light food will be provided.

To book please e-mail Kirsty Mitchel, Kirsty.mitchell@cse.org.uk or phone 0117 931 4100
www.cse.org.uk/events/
www.bristolenergynetwork.org/events
All community groups are invited

Peoples message: energy saving and renewable energy not nuclear power

Message I've just received from Friends of the Earth: 21,000 of you have now signed our petition for a safe and nuclear-free future . This fantastic support for clean, green power is backed up by a recent poll. 75 per cent of people want energy saving and renewables (like wind and solar) to be Government's top energy priorities. The petition has already travelled far and wide. But with big decisions about energy coming next month we want to organise an attention-grabbing hand-in to the Government. Please send us your ideas - as big and bold as you like. The message is clear : Energy saving and renewable resources can provide all the energy the UK needs. There's no need to gamble on nuclear. So put on your thinking caps! What's the best way to get our message across to Government?

Budget for growth - for whom? how? at what costs?

I'm watching as Chancellor George Osborne is 'setting out plans to kick start Britain's stalled economy in what he says is a "Budget for growth".' Er...growth for whom, how and at what costs? Will growth enable: current and future needs to be met; a fairer more equal society and world; a less wasteful society; a more renewable society; less polluted environments; improving health and general wellbeing? Will it make local communities stronger and more self-reliant? If George's growth does enable these things then we will genuinely have made real progress - but I'm afraid they dont even enter his head and he's not even assessing and measuring them properly. Such is his fixation with GDP growth that his only interest is more money flow through the economy.

Senator Robert F Kennedy's words on growth as measured by GNP:

"The Gross National Product includes air pollution and advertising for cigarettes and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and jails for the people who break them. GNP includes the destruction of the redwoods and the death of Lake Superior. It grows with the production of napalm, missiles and nuclear warheads.

And if GNP includes all this, there is much that it does not comprehend. It does not allow for the health of our families, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of our streets alike. It does not include the beauty of our poetry, the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. GNP measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country…"

Part of the solution to our problems is to assess and measure the right factors in our society and economy, as long as we dont at the same time get obsessed with and tied in to a rigid, narrow approach to measurement. Progress should be assessed in terms of: efficiency; renewability; respecting environmental limits; stronger local communities; meeting needs now and in the future; local and global fairness; health, wellbeing and quality of life; and the interconnection between these. An evidence-based, reasoned, systems-thinking approach needs to be taken.

http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com/2007/11/sustainability-reconciling-economy-with.html

http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-sorts-of-economic-growth-are-good.html

FT.com / House & Home - Enlightened energy

Hmmm...we have a south facing roof that might be suitable...so should we invest in solar photovoltaic panels or look into 'rent a roof' schemes? Interesting piece on this issue in the Financial Times.

“If you’ve got a bit of spare cash, it’s better to invest it in solar photovoltaic than putting your money in a building society,” says Charles Couzens, executive director of Ecos Trust, a Somerset-based charity that provides advice on sustainable building. He points out that you can get a healthy financial return of between 6 and 9 per cent, tax free.

The sea change for photovoltaic (PV) panels and other green electricity sources has come about through the introduction of feed-in tariffs in Britain in April 2010. This means that anyone installing small-scale electricity generation in homes, schools, hospitals or businesses can claim a substantial tariff – 41.3p a unit – for what they produce. And they get a further 3p a unit for any surplus electricity exported to the grid – as well as saving the cost of buying electricity in...

...in Germany, a national system of feed-in tariffs has turned a mostly cloudy country into a world leader in domestic solar panels. More than 250,000 people are employed in the industry and Germany is exporting components around the world...

...But what about people on lower incomes or those with young families who are unlikely to have enough money to spare? There is an alternative – a number of companies in the UK, and in other countries too, are offering consumers the chance to have solar panels installed and benefit from the energy they produce without having to pay a penny for them. Under most of these “rent-a-roof” schemes, the householder makes savings on their electricity bills, but gets nothing of the feed-in tariffs – these accrue solely to the panel owner...

FT.com / House & Home - Enlightened energy

New beginnings?

“Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end.” said Seneca, the stoic Roman philosopher, in the mid-1st century AD.

In this new year of a new decade can we begin the green society and bring to an end an age we can’t in any case maintain for much longer? This would mean putting the concept of sustainable development into action in place of just signing up to the concept, speaking warm words about it but carrying on essentially with business as usual!

Its long been put about that sustainable development is a slippery concept, hard to define fully and properly, not well understood. But is it really? I think many people have a decent general grasp that it’s about achieving a balance, giving as well as taking and ensuring a decent future for generations to come ie not more and more jam, for some, today but an ongoing availability and decent supply of jam, fairly shared.

The features of sustainable development are good sense and not rocket science. It’s clearly not a good idea to be wasteful, yet one bag in every three bags of food bought in the UK ends up being thrown out, many buildings rapidly leak heat and we still don’t make products to last. Efficiency must replace waste.

It’s irresponsible to rapidly squander resources, especially those whose supplies are limited or those that require careful, sensitive management if they are to remain available. Yet we remain hooked on high use of oil, coal and natural gas, build over the limited supply of green spaces and take from forests, soils and seas faster than resources are naturally replaced. Renewability must replace squandering.

Sustainable development means assessing progress through the health and wellbeing of people and their environment. Yet we continue to pollute on a scale that causes human sickness and environmental imbalance and we retain increasing the flow of money as the number one political and socio-economic aim despite coalition government warm words and research into assessing wellbeing. We must live within environmental limits and set new social and economic goals.

I assume no-one wants to see growing dependence and poor community development. Yet we see power centralised, local character and variety eroding, goods and services imported and many jobs exported and we encourage other regions and countries to do likewise, so they suffer dependence and sagging spirit too. Strong local communities need to be built.

Waste, resource squandering, pollution, money for a few before health and wellbeing, weakening community, means people and environments in this generation and those to come, the world over, are not getting their dues. Fairness is inseparable from sustainable development – in fact all the features of sustainable development are interrelated so solving problems and taking opportunities requires joined up thinking.

Enacting and practicing the required combination of behavioural and technological changes on the required scale, at all levels of societies, across the globe, in the face of entrenched vested interests, takes leadership we are just not getting however.

ENERGY Secretary Chris Huhne paved the way for a new power station at Oldbury but shelved plans for a Severn barrage for at least five years.

I'm glad to hear that the severn barrage has been shelved - its very expensive and in fact would destroy beautiful and valuable estuary ecosystems (pictured) and some land on either side too. [Interesting to read in the story below that my MP Dawn Primarolo thinks the barrage is actually a green idea - she's never understood what green action means].


The pro-nuclear stance of the Govt is wrong however because nuclear leaves an extremely expensive and extremely toxic legacy of nuclear waste for future generations. Its very much the wrong technology choice, with the prospect of large delays and cost overruns too.

While we are so very wasteful and inefficient with our energy use how can we justify building any kind of power station?

ENERGY Secretary Chris Huhne paved the way for a new power station at Oldbury but shelved plans for a Severn barrage for at least five years.

Water Words

Pairs of words that sum up a lot of water issues: life’s essential; renewable...potentially; community rooting; unevenly distributed; wasted widely; polluted commonly; rich, 100’s l; poor 10’s l; piped...UK; carried...Africa; city...leaks; extremely useful; farming, mostly; cooling, cleansing; ‘universal’ solvent; reservoirs, dams; socio-environmental havoc; community uprooting; climate changing; needs...wants; conflict prevention; modest measures; efficiency, accessibility; massive benefits!
http://blogactionday.change.org/

Cut Trident, dont replace, save £97 billion

From Greenpeace UK: Right now the government is discussing exactly what to cut from national budgets. Over the next few weeks final decisions will be made - in the firing line are schools, hospitals, housing and disability benefits and essential support for renewable energy.

At the same time they seem determined to green light spending £97bn on a new generation of nuclear weapons. Spending which is due to start at the end of this year.

How can it be that spending on building weapons of mass destruction is protected while investment in the 20 year Schools for the Future programme is scrapped?

And how can they justify giving the nuclear weapons factory at Aldermaston an extra £1billion funding every year to build new nuclear warheads - while scientific research funding is cut?

Again and again polls show that the public don't want new nuclear weapons. Weapons that the international community is working to eliminate.

Meantime senior military figures are warning against spending billions on Cold War weapons that are irrelevant to our military needs, while troop numbers face sharp cuts.

Please make your voice heard. Write to Chancellor George Osborne today. Let him know that you want to protect essential public services and cut Trident.

Louise Edge
Greenpeace Peace campaign

Please pass this message on.

More Greenpeace...on the web
We're also on Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr, del.icio.us and twitter

Energy firm 'discovers oil' off Greenland - Business News, Business - The Independent

Energy firm 'discovers oil' off Greenland - Business News, Business - The Independent

Edinburgh-based explorer Cairn Energy today hailed signs of a possible oil discovery in the untapped waters off the coast of Greenland...Greenpeace warned that Cairn's announcement was "grave news" and threatened the fragile Arctic environment.

Cairn said it was too early to gauge the potential of its find, with the well not yet drilled to its target depth.
It has been drilling in the area 110 miles (175km) off Disko Island in west Greenland since July, with plans to reach water depths of between 985ft (300m) and 1,640ft (500m) - more than twice the 500ft (152m) drilling moratorium initially imposed by US President Barack Obama after the Deepwater Horizon explosion.

Greenpeace, whose Esperanza ship is currently positioned within sight of Cairn's rigs in Greenland, claimed Cairn was risking another devastating oil spill by targeting "ever more dangerous, difficult-to-reach places".

It said tough conditions and icebergs posed a risk to operations in the region.

Campaigner Leila Deen added: "If a spill happened here, this pristine area would face an environmental catastrophe. The BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico showed what can happen when they drill in deep and remote places." ...

And of course even if oil is extracted without accident, spillage or other incident, when we use this finite fossil fuel we are: adding further to climate change and poor air quality; still hanging on to what should be our energy past and not focussing on the only energy future that is sustainable ie energy efficiency and renewables.

Also see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/23/cairn-oil-strike-arctic-fears

Nuclear New Build proposals in England and Wales: Have Your Say

Received the information below * from the Environment Agency. I'll be taking part in the consulation process and hope many others do likewise. No more nuclear stations should be built and existing ones phased out. Nuclear and its waste is environmentally, socially and economically unsustainable - we should be going for efficiency and renewables.

*Why are we writing to you?
The UK needs new and replacement energy infrastructure that can provide secure, reliable, low carbon electricity. The 2008 Nuclear White Paper said that nuclear power could play a vital role in this. Power companies are now planning to build new nuclear power stations in England and Wales and two sites potentially suitable are at Hinkley Point and Oldbury . We would like to tell you about our role in this process and highlight an opportunity for you to tell us what you think of the designs and our findings so far.

What is happening?
We regulate the nuclear industry on environmental matters and are currently working with the Health and Safety Executive to make sure that any new nuclear power stations would meet high standards of safety, security, environmental protection and waste management. Together we have implemented a new approach called ‘Generic Design Assessment’ (GDA) and have been assessing two new reactor designs from an early stage, in advance of site specific proposals coming forward. This enables us to identify any problems and influence the design at an early stage, before any major construction begins. We are currently assessing two different reactor designs: Westinghouse’s AP1000™ and the Areva/EDF designed UK EPR™.

What next?
As part of our GDA process, we are conducting a consultation on our findings so far. The consultation recently began on 28 June and will last sixteen weeks, closing on 18 October. We welcome your views. At the close of the consultation we will carefully consider the comments received before we reach a final decision on the acceptability of each of the two designs. We intend to publish the key issues raised during our consultation before the end of the year and to come to a view about the acceptability of the designs in June next year.

If a developer comes forward with proposals for a new nuclear power station at a specific site, they will still need to apply for and obtain all the safety, security, environmental, planning and other permits that are required before development can proceed. When considering any future applications for site specific environmental permits we will take into account all the work we have done on GDA.

How can you get involved?
You can take part by visiting the Environment Agency consultation on-line at:
http://www.consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/portal/ho/nuclear/gdahttps://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/portal
You can call 08708 506 506* and ask for a consultation document, or
send an email to: gda@environment-agency.gov.uk and request the consultation papers.
* Approximate call costs: 8p plus 6p per minute (standard landline). Please note charges will vary across telephone providers.

Bristol to object to Severnside mass incinerator

As Cllr Charlie Bolton reports on his blog, Bristol City Council has decided to object to the mass incinerator proposed for Severnside, S. Glos. This is great. I drafted and sent a statement (see below) for the Greens, urging the relevant Bristol City Council planning committee to send an objection to the planning application and to the application for an environmental permit to operate.

Air pollution from smoke, gases and ash from incinerators must be considered as should any heavy metals left in the ash. The cumulative air pollution impacts on people’s health, already suffering in this area, and on the health of nearby designated sites is unsustainable. S Glos should not grant planning permission and the Environment Agency should not give an operating permit to any mass incineration of waste on Severnside – this area is already heavily polluted, impacting on both human and environmental health.

Consider the effects of pollution from this area, added to the pollution already emitted, on the Severn Natura 2000 Marine site. This area was selected against rigorous scientific criteria to protect the most threatened and important species and habitats in Europe. The site is of international significance (UN RAMSAR listed, up to 100,000 birds over-winter there, Slimbridge is just upstream). It is very close to the incinerator site and is protected with tough limits for nutrient nitrogen deposition.

Because of the traffic on the M5 and the other polluting activities already in the area cumulative air pollution is already a real problem. It is our understanding that only insignificant levels of nutrient nitrogen could be permitted by the Environment Agency ie less than 1% of the critical load.

I'm opposed to mass incineration of rubbish because it encourages more waste. Incinerators need a regular feed of rubbish and authorities that have chosen incineration have correspondingly low recycling rates – this incinerator undermines waste reduction, minimisation, reuse and recycling. It offers massive over-capacity for waste facilities in Avonmouth. It runs counter to sustainable waste strategies. Contracts also tend to be very long (at least 25 years), meaning that we will have no way to adapt positively to changes in the waste make-up and volume.

In our view this mass incinerator is not part of a properly considered and appraised local/regional strategy which both acknowledges and acts on the fact that waste reduction, reuse and recycling saves far more energy than is generated by burning waste. Making fewer new things from raw materials is what makes most environmental sense because stocks of raw materials are finite. We should be doing all we can to recover and recycle valuable materials from our rubbish, rather than turn these materials into a ‘fuel’.

Incineration reduces waste to around 40% by weight, 25% by volume. It does not make waste disappear - much of the toxic ash still needs to be disposed of to hazardous landfill. Incineration does not generate renewable energy – burning plastic just substitutes one fossil fuel for another.

BBC Radio interview: biofuels for Bristol??

I've been on Radio Bristol this morning, interviewed about the biofuel power station planned for Avonmouth by company W4B. You can listen to the broadcast on BBC iPlayer by clicking here - I'm on right at the start, in the 6am news clip, then in an extended interview for 5 mins or so if you jump to approx an hour and ten minutes in (I think they used a clip from that interview on the 8am news, two hours into the program, too). Council Leader Barbara Janke and the BBCs Dave Harvey are also on the program from about 2hrs in.

Basically I've said that there are huge competing pressures for land use around the globe and that its immoral to take up land in poor countries that could be used to grow food,conserve wildlife and fight climate change, to fuel power stations in rich countries. Biofuels are not green as total carbon footprinting shows that they are more damaging as a fuel than coal and oil because of the land use changes (including mass deforestation) plus consequent emissions and the energy and chemicals used for intensive growing and processing.

There is no such thing as sustainable palm oil - and we have yet to properly define what a renewable fuel from such plants is. Plant types vary widely, from potatoes, to palm plants, to mahogany trees which no-one suggests are a renewable fuel source just because they take in carbon!! Renewability in practice is about proper and widely respected certification, inspection of plantations and processes and independent verification - this is not effectively provided by any agency at present and cant be put in place independently by a relatively small company like W4B (giant companies like Unilever are struggling with this issue, so smaller ones have little chance).