UK Energy Companies To Profit From Green Tax Cuts

The story so far: A few weeks back most of the big UK energy companies announced their latest, above inflation, fuel price increases.

To divert attention from their profiteering at a time when most Brits are feeling financially squeezed, they cunningly emphasised that a (small) part of the increase was down to 'green taxes'.

Pretty soon the newspapers were all over it and the government, desperate to cling onto their voter share, quickly announced they would be dropping the 'taxes' (Reducing the rise in the average household energy bill to 'just' £70. Big deal).

Then after talks with the energy companies, the government proudly announced that those companies had agreed to a price freeze until 2015 (election year by coincidence), er, if the wholesale gas price doesn't go up (it's being going up for the last decade).

So, basically, they've agreed that they won't put prices up next year if they can't actually justify it...

Anyway, as part of this agreement, the government said the energy firms could have 4 years instead of just 2 to reach their 'ECO' targets. ECO is a scheme that requires energy suppliers to seek out and subsidise home insulation for low-income households.

Think about that for a moment: Insulating the homes of the poor is a very good way of helping them cut their energy bills. But, for the convenience of those companies, tens of thousands of low-income households will be denied these savings for 2 or 3 more years.

How will the UK Energy Companies profit from all this? Simple. Every year a low income house goes uninsulated, it's paying bigger heating bills. Thus lining the pockets of the very companies who asked the government for a delay. Robbing the poor to pay the rich.

Lucky for the government, the poor aren't natural Conservative voters huh?

Inflatable Solar?!

Yes, it's true. Engineers are working on an idea to construct enormous, inflatable solar chimneys that will use hot rising air to drive turbines and generate electric.

The idea is a variation on Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) or, more precisely, a solar updraft tower but potentially a lot cheaper to construct.

More here.

It's ideas like this that, once world leaders finally agree on a global emissions cutting deal, can be rapidly developed to dramatically bring down the cost of renewables and be part of the solution. We have the technology.

Free On-line Climate Change Course

The University of Exeter (UK) will be providing a free, 8 week, on-line Climate Change course starting 13th January 2014. No experience or qualifications required. More information here.

Energy Saving Tips

I've been doing this blog for a while now and I thought I'd heard all the energy saving ideas I could use in our home but this website had some new ones.

It's a pretty good summary of all the things you should be thinking about if you want to save money on your bills.

I'll definately be looking into louvred vents and heat recovery fans.

Global Climate Deal Not Necessary?

According to the New Scientist's editorial for the 9th November 2013, we could be on the way to saving our planet even without a climate deal.

Really?

They base this wildly optimistic view on a report I highlighted last week. In it the writers say that annual global CO2 emissions increases are slowing down and may even start decreasing by 2020.

It's good news, but a long, long way from "job done". The gap between the commitments made by individual countries and what's actually needed to keep global warming below 2 C is huge. So, when I see the New Scientist say "...while a global deal would clearly be a good thing, we could be on the way to saving the planet without it." I'm left shaking my head. What an incredibly naiive thing to say.

Also dangerous. If the politicians start thinking this way before a global deal is reached in 2015, we're screwed.

Energy Saving Tip: Electric Showers

Electric showers use a lot of energy.

For example, our family's usage (There are 4 of us) consumes more electric in a week than the average combined use of our dishwasher, washing machine, and tumble dryer over over a similar period.

So it can be a promising area in which to cut your energy bills.

One possibility is, when you next replace your shower, look for one with a lower wattage than your current one. That could make a noticeable dent in your bills.

Another simple way is to put a timer in your shower area. You can find a variety of digital timers online which can be setup to give you a 5 minute warning. This way you can have a decent length shower without over doing it. You then save energy AND water.

I should say that we've tried 2 or 3 timers and all of them have failed after a short time. I suspect they've not been suitable for a damp environment like the bathroom. So we're now using a 5 minute 'egg-timer' from Gorilla Spoke. It's working really well - It seems to bring out everyone's competitive instincts. Expecially the kids!

I look forward to cut's in both our electric and water bills.

Energy Saving Tips: Your Chimney

Heating a house is often a major expense. Especially if it's poorly insulated or drafty.

Fortunately, you can find all sorts of advise on insulating your home and stopping heat-loss round doors and such.

However, it's very rare to find any mention of what could be the biggest source of heat-loss in a fully insulated and draft-proofed house: The chimney.

Think about it: Every fireplace you have is an opening to the outside, so part of the heat from your radiators is going out your chimney (between 5% and 15% apparently!).

Some people have no use for their fireplaces, so they either block them off or cap the chimney. But, for those of us who still occasionally use them (probably because we're losing heat through them!), it would be a good idea to stop the heat-loss in between times.

There are one or two products out there that help with this:

Fireplace Heatsaver is a transparent perspex surround that completely encloses your fireplace sealing it off. But, at £80, it's quite expensive.

Chimsoc, Chimney Balloon, and Chimney Sheep are cheaper alternatives (between £16 and £25), and are things to block the chimney off just above the fireplace.

I've even heard of people using towels etc.

What you've always got to keep in mind is: Don't forget it's there when you DO light the fire; and make sure it's not flammable just in case you do!

Recycling Heaven

Our local council have extended what they'll take in the recycling bins. Aside from the usual paper, card, foil, tins, and type 1 or 2 plastic, they now allow us to include aerosol cans, glass, Tetrapaks, and any food waste (We already use uncooked veg trimmings and teabags for compost).

This is excellent news - It's now reached the stage where we're just chucking out plastic wrappers. Barely anything.

Well done our council!

Cutting Carbon, Cutting Energy Bills?

Generally speaking, if you're cutting your household carbon footprint, you're also saving money by cutting your energy usage.

So, when I heard about the Superhomes, a website about people who've cut their carbon by 60% or more, I thought I could get some handy tips.

They do have some good advice, but the site is basically about 'retro-fitting' homes. If you've got between £12000 and £50000 lying around doing nothing then this may be for you. You may even save on those bills, but don't expect to get your investment back any time soon.

For less costly tips that will pay you back in far less time, I suggest you check out the 'Energy Savings Tips' item in my sidebar to the right under 'Common Themes'.

Are World CO2 Emissions About To Level Out?

Unbelievable as it may sound, there's a real possibility that global carbon emissions may level out and even fall by the end of this decade, even before any UN agreed CO2 cutting deal takes hold.

How so? Well, according to this report by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, world emissions grew by 'just' 1.1% in 2012, less than half the average rate for the last decade (2.9%).

The main reasons, they say, were the U.S.'s continuing switch from coal to shale gas, China's controlled economic slowdown, and the EU's decreased energy consumption.

They also say that, if China keeps to it's own targets, the U.S. maintains it's switch to shale gas (+ renewables), and the EU sorts out it's Emissions Trading System, global emissions could be falling by 2020.

Imagine how much more could be achieved with a decent UN agreement on CO2.

Green Levies: A Political Smokescreen

Over the last 10 years, energy bills have doubled for the average UK home. No wonder 1 in 4 households are in fuel poverty, and even the 'middle classes' are feeling the pinch.

So, whenever the energy companies announce their latest above-inflation annual price rises, there are howls of derision from all quarters.

This year, however, the power companies have resorted to diversionary tactics. This year, whilst announcing rises over 3 times the rate of inflation, they've emphasised that so-called green levies are part of the rise.

Suddenly the right-wing press are all over it (They hate anything 'green'). Then the Conservative's right-wing MPs join in (Guess what? They hate anything 'green' too). Now their leadership seems be taking up the call.

Cost of Living in the UK has become such a political hot-potato lately that the energy companies' seemingly cynical tactics have sparked off a feeding frenzy.

It now seems almost inevitable that the chancellor, George Osborne, will announce cuts in the green levy in his Autumn statement, as his increasingly unpopular government desperately cling to votes.

Trouble is, the green levy is not what everyone assumes it is. Sure, a small proportion is for renewables, but most of it goes towards insulating the homes of low income families - The people who can least afford the spiraling cost of energy.

Is it really necessary to screw these people over to sell newspapers, bolster votes, and make energy companies look better?

(See here for what's really going on. See here for why it's unfair. See here for why fuel poverty needs to be eliminated)

Update: The government, as predicted, have annonced the ending of the green levy on our energy bills. Thankfully it seems the government intends paying for the schemes behind it themselves.....or, at least, that's what they say. Bet they try and trim the budget anyway like everything else.

Save Water, Save Energy

There was a time when I was puzzled by the way Greens would get all worked up about saving water.

Yeah, sure, it's important not to waste it when you live in a water-stressed area (which is most anywhere these days) but what did it have to do with environmentalists?

Eventually I worked it out. There are 2 reasons basically:

• When supplies get low, the water companies tend to 'abstract' from the local rivers i.e. take it to top up their reservoirs. Unfortunately this can reduce the rivers to very low levels. Which can have a serious impact on the wildlife in and around them.
• Every litre of water we get from our taps comes with an energy footprint: It needs pumping from the river/reservoir/well; It needs treating to remove impurities; and then pumping to your home. And that energy obviously has a carbon footprint.

In short, saving water helps protect the environment and combat climate change.

On a more personal level, saving water also saves the customer money. Obvious, if you have a water meter (As we're about to get), but you can also save money on your energy bills if you use less hot water.

Yes, that water meter has got me thinking. I've heard they tend to mean increased water bills for families. Not a great prospect what with our bills generally increasing above inflation year on year (heating, electric, food, and petrol), while our income stands still.

So we'll be using every water saving trick we can: Fewer baths: shorter showers; less toilet flushing: 'hippos' in the toilet cisterns; not leaving taps running; Using water butts for the garden; etc.

I'll keep you posted on how we do.

Chinese Syngas Bad For Us All

Up to now, China has always seemed to see the big picture, whether it's economics, pollution, the environment, resources, or population pressures, they have a plan.

So it surprised me to hear that the Chinese are planning on building up to 40 huge, synthetic gas producing plants. These plants use coal to produce the syngas, meaning it produces up to 82% more carbon emissions than natural gas. This would more wipe out any gains the Chinese have made with their massive programme of renewable energy.

The plants would also use hundreds of millions of tonnes of water annually in water starved areas, and add enormously to mercury pollution.

The Chinese seem to have lost the plot with this one.

(More here)

Global Agreement On Cutting Mercury Pollution

Mercury is one of many ways we're polluting our environment.

It may seem like somebody else's problem, seeing as it's mainly a developing world issue, but it's increasingly everyone's problem.

Those coal fired power stations we still use to generate electric spew it out constantly because coal is often contaminated with it. There's so much mercury working it's way into our oceans from various human activities that the concentration of it has doubled over the last 100 years. As a result, it's working it's way up the food chain and into the fish we eat.

Mercury leads to birth defects, poisons our nervous systems, guts, kidneys and lungs, and can even kill.

So it makes sense to limit it.

And that's just what 140 countries have negotiated through the U.N. (More here).

Global Agreement On Cutting Aviation Emissions

Finally, after 15 years of negotiating, the world's governments have agreed a deal that means all airlines must join a global scheme to cut carbon emissions.

The EU is claiming that it's own Emissions Trading Scheme (They wanted all airlines flying into Europe to pay a carbon tax) has forced the lengthy negotiations over this issue to head. Whatever.

The problem is that details won't be agreed until 2016 and the result won't actually come into effect until 2020. So that'll be 22 years to come up with an emissions cutting plan for airlines. Whoopee do!

(More detail here)

When Will Hydrogen Cars Be Available?

It's long been my view that hydrogen cars are ultimately where 'green' motoring is headed.

Hybrids are the current trend, with electric vehicles (EVs) possibly set to take over, but I see hydrogen as being the final winner.

My main reason for thinking this is that hydrogen would use a similar infrastructure to petrol (Same fuel stations, similar tankers to supply them, it can even be extracted from hydrocarbons and coal, although it's hoped renewable sources will replace these). This is important, as society and, more importantly, the powers-that-be, are resistent to change.

It looks like the first hydrogen cars will made available between 2015 and 2017. Front runners in the race are Daimler, Honda, Hyundai, Toyota and VW. We even have small trials running here in Britain based on prototype vehicles from Riversimple.

However, these early arrivals are unlikely to sell in large numbers for several reasons: They use very expensive fuel cells (based on platinum); These cells can degrade quickly; and the re-fuelling network isn't there yet. Sounds a bit the like issues facing EVs doesn't it?

Whilst the re-fuelling issue is likely to go away with time, the other 2 issues need to be addressed before hydrogen cars get a reputation for being poor investments (Something that has plagued both EVs and hybrids, a little unfairly I must add).

Well, it looks like a small British company called Acal Energy may have the solution to both. They claim to have developed a fuel cell that is substantially cheaper and far more long-lived. It won't be available for the first generation of vehicles but will likely be there for the second generation come 2020 (More here).

I think it could be a game changer

Phoneblok: The Modular Phone

Does it ever annoy you when you have to throw out an electronic item because a single part has failed?
Like a cracked screen on a smart phone or no sound on your TV.

Or how about all those PCs you've got through because they gradually get slower and slower till they need replacing?

All that money blown on planned obsolescence or unrepairable (or too expensive to repair) gadgets. If only there was another way...

Well, how about this: Modular electronics.

Don't know what I mean? Then check out Phoneblok - A phone made up of easily replaceable blocks. It's just a concept at the moment but it's the way things should be going.

And here's why.

Update: Google owned Motorola have announced plans to do just this with help from the creator of Phoneblok, Dave Hakkens. Google know a good idea when they see one! More here.

Cheap Cooker That Saves Lives

Here's an update on my post about black carbon.

The BBC has reported on a cooker that costs just £40 but can save lives, slow deforestation, protect glaciers, and reduce global warming.

This simple device reduces the smoke that ruins the health of millions of women every year, helps warm our atmosphere, and actually speeds up the melting of glaciers by making them imperceptibly darker.

And since it burns wood more efficiently, less demand is put on forests.

Rolling out cookers like this to the millions of familys that depend on wood and dung burning ovens, would transform their lives and help save the planet.

The Future Of Carbon Capture?

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is thought to be a key technology in our search for ways to reduce our carbon emissions.

Unfortunately, CCS is in it's infancy and has yet to prove itself in terms of costs and scalability. Many a scheme has been abandoned before it has started, even when backed with promises of millions in subsidies from governments.

Yet it has huge potential: The company and/or country that develops a working, cost effective, large scale version of CCS will make a fortune from a world market that is desperate for a technology that means they can still get their energy from fossil fuels without producing carbon emissions.

Could U.S. company Net Power be the ones to do just that? (See here and here).

Their chief technologist, Rodney Allam, believes they can. Instead of focusing his attention on simply capturing waste CO2 from power stations after combustion (i.e. after burning the fuel), his idea is to make stations more efficient by using the CO2 in the combustion process. By doing this, they not get more energy from the same fuel, they also get much purer CO2 emissions that are far cheaper to capture.

End result: Power stations that cost no more than ones without CCS.

Net Power plan to trial the idea in Britain, with construction starting some time over the next year.


Could the revolution start here?

Norway Abandons Carbon Capture

A while ago I wrote here about Norway's attempts to become the go-to place for testing carbon capture and storage technology (CCS).

Unfortunately, that now appears to have gone belly-up due to spiralling costs and delays (See here).

That's a real shame because this is probably one of our most promising bets for stopping climate change.

I find it bizarre that the big fossil fuel companies, particularly in coal, aren't throwing everything at this technology as it may be the best hope their industry has of avoiding being phased out by the world's future attempts to tackle climate change.

Perhaps they're in denial?

Will EU Carbon Market Be Fixed?

This week the European Parliament voted to freeze the upcoming auction of up to 900 million carbon allowances, which, if it is endorsed by European governments, will finally push up the price of carbon emissions across the continent. Which should start forcing big emitters into finding ways of cutting their CO2 output the way the carbon market was intended to work,

Unfortunately there's a group of EU countries who may vote against the freeze. The main one being Poland, who are majorly commited to coal, and vote against anything that even smells of carbon cutting.

So, looks like that fix is out the window.

More here.

Update: Our Solar Panel System

I've just updated our stats for the system (See above tab entitled "Our Solar Panel System"). They now include a graph for the first 18th months.

The system is still on course to pay for itself in less than 5 months, has generated 4500 kWh, and has already saved 2.5 tonnes of carbon.

U.S. Joins The Battle Against Climate Change

Yes, it's true: President Obama has committed the States to cutting carbon emissions.

Up to now, Republicans have been blocking his every attempt, but he's now used his executive powers to bypass them altogether and bring in a bold package of measures.

I'm sure he would have preferred bi-partisan support for this but vested interests and political dogma have stopped him. So he's felt compelled to use his presidential powers. In a speech at Georgetown University in Washington DC, he said:

"As a president, as a father and as an American, I am here to say we need to act."

"While we may not live to see the full realisation of our ambition, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that the world we leave to our children will be better off for what we did."

Well put Mr. President, it's all about our children.

The measures will include: Expansion of renewable energy projects (with the aim of powering the equivalent of six million homes by 2020); emission limits on both new and existing power plants; and, crucially for me, a call for a global climate deal.

There's obviously been a storm of protest from Republicans. Senator Mitch McConnell said it was effectively "a war on coal". Well, d'uh! If you're going to get serious about climate change, the use of coal has got to be dramatically cut.

Either that, or you fit carbon capture and storage (CCS) to all coal fueled power stations. Oh, wait a minute...there's no viable CCS system available at the moment or any time soon.

Now, if only the global coal industry had read the writing on the wall and invested some of their profits in CCS years ago. Then they wouldn't have been under threat now.

Anyway, back to that speech.

Some might say the measures Obama announced don't go far enough (e.g. They will only cut emissions by 4% over 1990 levels by 2020), but they are an important start. Hopefully, the president has ability to the galvanise the American public, businesses, and universities into backing him and taking his country into a new era.

This could be a huge economic opportunity for the U.S.(See here for how) and a chance to gain a lot of respect from the rest of the world.

Don't blow it America.

Nightingales 1 Developers 0

In a previous post, I told you how Medway council's plan to build 5000 new homes on a piece of land being used by one of UK's largest nightingale populations, was under review.

Well, the government's planning inspectors have decided to reject the plan. Amongst their reasons, they said that Medway had not followed the proper procedures, making their decision without considering the impacts. They said that the environmental impacts would have been significant.

So once again, Medway are angry at a decision that's gone against them, and once again they've called upon the government to sort it out.

Medway should just quit whining and admit they've made a multi-million pound cock-up. Whether they agree with the environment winning out over housing (just for once) is irrelevant. The fact is they didn't follow the rules. Get over it councillors.

Facebook's Green Idea Saves Them Money

A few years ago, Greenpeace did some research that showed that data centres (The places that hold all that web data we store in the 'cloud' or make our searches over) used 2% of world's demand for electric.

Think about it: 2% of all the electric we use globally goes to running these huge server farms. Mind-boggling.

And that percentage has probably increased since that research was done!

The big problem with servers is that they need loads of power to both run and keep cool.

Facebook's big idea is to reduce both it's energy bill and carbon footprint by building it's latest data centre in the sub-Arctic town of Lulea, Sweden - It's first ever outside the U.S.

Why Sweden? Well, Sweden has some of the cheapest electric in the world, thanks to it's abundance of hydro-electric, and Lulea is one of the cheapest places in Sweden. This is why Facebook's new data centre is just the latest in the town.

And because the power comes from hydro, it has no carbon footprint.

The bonus for Facebook is that they can use the sub-arctic outside air to cool their servers to cut their energy bill even more.

Green and cheap. Now there's a concept!

More here.

Climate Change: Last Chance Saloon

If you've been listening to the climate scientists over recent years, they've been giving a consistent message: We need to keep global warming to a maximum of 2^o C (The lower, the better) if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change; and, to do that, carbon emissions have to peak by 2020 at the latest and fall rapidly thereafter.

Typically, the world's politicians have agreed to keep the temperature rise to 2^o, but aren't due to bring in measures to 'ensure' this until 2020. Assuming that these measures are anywhere near good enough, it seems highly unlikely that CO2 will peak that same year, or even close.

So that's it then, the planet is screwed?

Maybe not, say a team of UK scientists led by Alexander Otto of the University of Oxford (Nature Geoscience [Otto et al, 2013]). They've been looking at data from recent decades and come to the conclusion that we will hit that 2^o mark perhaps 5 or ten years later than was expected.

No, climate change hasn't gone away, it's just happening on a slightly longer timescale.

This could be good news for all of us as it means we have a chance to keep things under 2^o after all. That's providing the world agreement to be made by 2015 and implemented in 2020 is strong enough.

5 or 10 years could give us the time to get ourselves organised. Add that to the time we could buy ourselves by tackling soot (See my earlier post), and we have hope again.

Hello?

If you are a regular visitor to this blog I'd be interested in some feedback.

What do like/dislike about the blog? Are there any subjects you want me to write about? Do you find the blog useful and/or interesting?

Your comments would be appreciated.

UK Energy Bill: Why No CO2 Target?

The Energy Bill is currently going through it's various 'reading' in parliament before going into law. On Tuesday 4th June, Tim Yeo, a Conservative MP, attempted to get an amendment passed which would set a carbon emissions target for 2030.

Unfortunately, the goverment (a coalition between the Conservatives and LibDems) don't want a target and instructed their MPs to vote against the amendment. Despite that, there was a mini-rebellion, with both Conservatives and LibDems joining the opposition Labour MPs to vote in favour. The amendment failed by just 23 votes.

So why were the self-proclaimed 'greenest government ever' against this target which would have completely de-carbonised UK electicity by 2030?

Well, they argue that it would put too many restrictions on business at a time of economic difficulty. This despite the fact that many UK businesses were lobbying for the amendment to be passed.

Many, myself included, feel the government has missed an opportunity here. Setting such a target would have:

• Sent out a strong message to the rest of the World that we are serious about climate change.
• Made sure we meet our legal commitment to cut our carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 (The government has been warned that we will have to de-carbonise energy production by 2030 if we are to have any chance of meeting that 80% target).
• Sent a strong market signal to potential investors in our growing renewables industry (One of the few areas of strong growth in our economy in the last few years), providing jobs, much needed economic activity, and give the UK a chance to take a bigger slice of the enormous worldwide market in renewables.

So what's going on? Well, as I said in this post the Chancellor, George Osborne, is hell-bent on commiting the UK to a new dash-for-gas. He knows damn well that if this amendment had gone through, it would have effectively killed off his plan because no investor is going to commit to building new gas-fueled power stations if they're to be phased out by 2030.

In effect, the "greenest ever" government are giving the 2050 target the finger.

More background here.

Cheap Coal - The 21st Century Monster

Coal. It's the dirtiest form of fossil fuel going. More pollution, more carbon emissions. By far.

Coal was there at the birth of the Industrial Revolution and it's still with us well over 200 years later.

Think about it: When Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in 1818, coal had already been indispensable for decades. Yet here we are in a 21st century world that Shelley would barely recognise, and we're still dependent on it.  In fact our use of coal is actually increasing.

Now it seems the problem's getting even worse because the U.S.'s move to shale gas has resulted in the price of coal plummeting. Some countries have taken that as their cue to increase their use of coal regardless of their own carbon targets. That's what's happening in Britain and even the E.U. (See here).

To be fair, it's power companies that are making that decision for them based on the profit motive, but it amounts to the same thing when they're allowed to do what they like.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was about a monster brought to life with a jolt of electric. Today we are living in the shadow of a climate changing monster given life by our hunger for electricity: Cheap coal.

Neither are a pretty sight. Anyone got a pitch fork?

Prince Charles Says We Need To Act on Climate Change Now

Prince Charles, the future king of Britain, has told a meeting of ministers from the UK and abroad, and tropical forest scientists, that world leaders need to act on climate change now.

He says they must move based on the vast body of evidence that is already there, because the risk of doing nothing was too great.

He went on to say they must have "the courage to face down a storm of opposition from all sides" giving special mention to what he called "the incorporated society of syndicated sceptics and the International Association of Corporate lobbyists".

Wise words indeed.

CO2 Levels Reach New High: 400 ppm

Atmospheric C02 has just broken through the 400 parts per million barrier for the first time in human history reports the US government agency lab on Hawaii.

400 ppm is up 40% over pre-industrial times when it was just 280 ppm. It is the proverbial 'smoking gun' where climate change is concerned.

Will this new record wake up the politicians and give them a sense of renewed urgency?

What do you think?!

More Bad News For The Arctic

Last Summer, Arctic sea ice reached it's lowest extent since satellite records began in 1979 (and probably since the last ice age). Part of an ongoing decline, it was a real blow both to our chances of beating climate change and for the Arctic environment. Of course, the oil companies love it - They relish the chance of exploring for resources in an ice free Arctic.

Declining ice cover is, of course, thanks to global warming, but another effect of uncontrolled CO2 emissions, ocean acidification, is also rapidly increasing in the Arctic according to a new report by AMAP,

Ocean acidification is a process whereby the absorption of atmospheric CO2 by the world's oceans is slowly changing their pH from the alkaline end towards an acid one. This could seriously compromise marine creatures like shell-fish, corals, and plankton, that have calcium-based skeletons and shells. And if they're hit, there would be knock-on effects for all the other life that depends on them in one way or another.

Now it seems acidification is increasing in the Arctic at a faster rate than anywhere else. It's a big concern, but the precise effects are uncertain. One possible outcome is that it could reduce the size of the  fish stocks we take for granted. As if over-fishing and pollution weren't bad enough.

More and more it feels like the Arctic is reaching a tipping point. We could all live to regret it.

UKIP: The Climate Deniers

Farage - The UKIP leader....

Last week the UK Independence Party (UKIP) made big gains in the British local elections.

Non-Brits can be forgiven for saying "who?" because they aren't one of the 3 major parties most may have heard of.

UKIP are a right-wing party founded on the principle that they want Britain out of the European Union (EU). They are also anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage, and climate deniers. You know the sort.

The main reason they did so well was not because the British are turning into closet racists (at least, I hope not) but it's mid-term for an unpopular government and UKIP have become the home for protest votes this year. Of course, UKIP's leader, Nigel Farage, is trying to make out it's a sea-change in UK politics. We shall see.

One of the many disturbing ideas they have is that climate change is insignificant and nothing to do with us humans. No doubt that idea was encouraged by UKIP's scottish leader, Christopher Monckton, a notorious climate denier.

Not only have they got the facts about climate change wrong, they can't even get the facts about the cost to consumers of the UK's attempts to cut carbon emissions. They claim that 12% of our energy bills are down to these attempts, when the actual figure is 2%. I could quote you a litany of other mis-informed statistics they come up with but I'll leave it up to this and this article. If UKIP can't even get such basic facts straight, they're not fit for politics.

I heard one of Farage's tirades just after the results of the election came out. He said that he would fight against "wind turbines marching across this green and pleasant land". No doubt trying to invoke images of an idyllic british countryside being swamped with turbines. But I bet he's all for the coalition government's stealthy dismantling of planning laws in this country to allow developments like housing estates, roads, industrial estates, and factories to be more easily built on that exact same "green and pleasant land".

UKIP are opportunists of the worst kind and I hope the British public come to realise that before it's too late.

Scientists Warn Against Over-consumption

If we in the wealthy countries don't reduce our over-consumption, the world as a whole will suffer in the long run. That was the basic message from the Royal Society a few weeks ago. See here for more.

They warned that a growing world population combined with widespread over-consumption was going to have severe economic, socio-political, and environmental consequences.

We're talking increased demand for commodities leading to raised prices of raw materials, fuel, and food; Water shortages causing international tensions; failed crops due to freak weather; and a whole host of other problems.

The basic problem underlying all of this is that we're living beyond our planet's ability to support us.

To illustrate the point, this article says that Americans alone spend $1.2 trillion a year on stuff they don't need. I'm sure the rest of us are pretty close behind ourselves.

We are all dupes of advertisers who tell us we absolutely have to have their product, and we believe them. You call it exercising freedom of choice. I call it brainwashing.

European Parliament Screws Up Carbon Trading

As you may know, the EU supposedly leads the world in carbon cutting measures.

Lately though, they've had a series of set-backs: Increasing the levels of biofuels in our petrol tanks have actually increased carbon emissions (See here); They tried to make carbon cuts more ambitious but the plans were scuppered by Poland; and the carbon trading scheme (ETS) has lost it's teeth because it now costs just 5 Euros per tonne of carbon.

The EU wanted to put the last issue right by bringing in measures that would push up the cost of carbon to a more realistic level, thereby forcng polluters to cut their emissions. Unfortunately they had to put it to a vote in the European Parliament. The changes were narrowly defeated, effectively rendering the ETS not fit for purpose. See here for more.

Had the UK Conservative MEPs followed their own government's support for carbon trading, the measures would have been passed, instead they let their own hatred of the EU colour their judgement. Shame on them and everyone who voted with them.

Nightingales Vs. Developers

With an ever increasing population in Britain (up by 3 million from 59m just 10 years ago), it seems inevitable* that there will be times when local decisions need to be made: New houses or green spaces?

[*: Actually it's not inevitable but our government has no imagination]

How do you make that decision? Especially where rare, endangered, or declining species are in the mix.

There is a broad spectrum of choice here from 'preserving all things natural whatever the cost' through to 'everything is up for grabs'.

The current UK government has been busy relaxing planning laws lately, so whether they intend it that way or not, they're pushing towards the latter end of the spectrum. All that seems to stand in the way of large swathes of the country disappearing under the bulldozers, is land that is specifically earmarked for protection (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI's) and nature reserves).

Which brings me to the subject of nightingales. These plain little birds with a beautiful song are at the centre of political storm here in the south-east of England......

There is patch of land in Kent called Lodge Hill. It's a former Ministry of Defence training ground consisting of some 325 hectares (a hectare is 10,000 square metres) of ancient woodland and scrub. The local council (Medway) want to build 5000 new homes. Unfortunately, the country's largest population of nightingales already call it home.

Their numbers have gone into serious decline in Britain, losing 90% of their numbers in the last 40 years. It's a worrying trend and scientists believe nightingales may become extinct within another 30 years.

So the organisation charged with protecting England's natural environment, Natural England, felt compelled to make the land an SSSI.

The conservative Medway council didn't like that and will be appealing against the decision, describing Natural England as a 'quango', a particularly dirty word for Tories, and probably calculated to stir up right-wing feelings at a national level. Sure enough, PM David Cameron has told his environment minister to fix the problem.

Already, bioversity offsetting has been mentioned as a possible solution. Just about the most ridiculous idea I've heard from this useless government. Just another tool for making way for the developers.

It's ironic really, Conservative back-benchers have been whining about wind turbines spoiling the British countryside, and yet, what good is the countryside without wildlife?

Many of our most cherished species are in rapid decline. We need to stop the rot, and we need to do that right now.


More background here and here.

Race To Cut Vehicle CO2 Emissions

The EU is keen to push through proposals that would commit car manufacturers to limit new vehicles to carbon emissions of just 95g per kilometer (about the same as the current Toyota Prius) by 2020.

The proposals are still being voted on by MEPs (Not sure what the schedule is), but they are the EU's response to the US's recent commitment to 93g/km by 2025 (An enormous ask for a US car industry that has fought any and all emission cut plans for decades, but I'm sure they're up to it once they get over the denial stage).

Apart from helping out in the fight against climate change, it will also cut drivers' fuel bills, and create tens of thousands of new jobs. More here.

The only fly on the wind-screen is that car companies are becoming adept at fiddling the official emissions tests (See here). The EU need to sort that out quickly. A new test may be out by 2016 but the manufacturers are fighting it. Of course.

New Nuclear Plant Approved For UK

Hinkley B Power Station

The UK government has given the go-ahead for the first nuclear power plant to be built here for 25 years.

Although there's a lot to be sorted out before the build starts (like how much is to be paid for the electric it generates), it could be on-line by 2020.

The plant will be built by EDF at Hinkley Point in Somerset, which is already the site of 2 others. Once complete, it should provide enough power for 5 million homes, or about 20% of all homes.

Nuclear may not be ideal in many people's eyes (myself included) but it's the best, low carbon option for the job at the moment (as I explain here).

So, providing the government negotiates the right price for the energy, and the plant is delivered on schedule, I welcome it. I also hope there'll be a few more to follow.

Original news item here.

Germany: Looking For A Revolution

A few months ago I told you how Germany's rejection of nuclear power was driving it back towards coal-fired energy. Hardly ideal for such a green nation.

Now, however, it appears they are planning a green revolution by filling the gap left by nuclear with more solar and wind energy. Currently, renewables provide about a quarter of their electric. By 2050 they want it to be 80%!

That would be spectacular for renewables when you consider how intermittent some sources, like wind and solar, can be.

I was wondering how they were going to achieve this. Well, the answer may lie here, a 6 page report from German company Siemens.

Apparently the plan has the following elements:

• Make the cost of renewables competitive with coal.
• Build a network of highly efficient electricity transmission lines.
• Developing and expanding energy storage (to store the energy that can't be used immediately from solar and wind, for later use when there is demand).
• Build high-efficiency, quick start gas power stations to fill in when there's a shortage of supply from intermittent sources.
• Make coal-fired more efficient... (Ah, so there will be new coal!)
• Carbon capture and re-use.
• Smart grids (see my earlier post)
• Energy efficiency (To reduce demand in the first place).
• Balancing demand with supply (an example here)
• Cost effective financing for energy reduction

I wish the Germans luck with this bold and well thought out plan. It's nothing short of what the world will need to do if and when we decide to tackle climate change.

Geoengineering and Cirrus Clouds

The picture on the left is of cirrus clouds - The beautiful, feathery, high altitude clouds we all know and love.

Unfortunately, the more of them there are, the warmer the planet. This is because they're actually made of tiny ice crystals which trap heat in the atmosphere.

They're not the root cause of the climate change (that would be CO2) but it's been realised that, by dispersing enough of them, we could balance out all the warming effect we've had so far....

It was David Mitchell of the Reno Desert Research Institute that suggested the original cloud-busting idea back in 2009. Now Trudo Storelvmo and his team from Yale University have used climate modelling to test the idea. By adding powdered bismuth triiodide into the layer of the atmosphere where cirrus form, it greatly reduced their occurrence. Done on a global scale it would wipe out the 0.8 degrees C of man-made warming made so far.

Unfortunately, if you get the concentration wrong (always possible in something as dynamic and complex as the real atmosphere), it would have the opposite effect. Not good.

Even if we did understand enough about the atmosphere to safely achieve the effect we wanted safely: a) We'd have to continue doing it year after year; b) It wouldn't make climate change go away. It would just continue building (as CO2 levels keep increasing) until our efforts we're cancelled out; c) Ocean acidification, which could have disastrous effects on marine life, would continue to increase unabated.

So much for that idea then.

[Source: New Scientist 26th Jan 2013]

Poles Apart

Poland has been to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) arguing that the European Union's mechanism for cutting CO2 emissions across the EU was unfair to them. This is because the EU's system uses natural gas-based benchmarks whilst Poland's economy is run almost exclusively on coal (See picture).

Basically this means that, when the EU hand out allowances under it's Emissions Trading System (ETS), Poland won't be getting enough. Effectively driving up the price of their energy year after year and raising the prices of goods and services. Of all the 27 countries in the EU, they will end up being hit hardest by the ETS.

The ECJ dismissed their complaint, saying the EU had not acted unfairly.

The Poles, understandably, were dismayed by the verdict and are considering whether to appeal.

Whilst I understand their reluctance to drop coal (They have lots of it and it's very cheap), they should just accept the inevitable and do just that. The EU was already commited to dramatically cutting carbon emissions before the Poles joined. Regardless of how this was to be done, Poland would have to make big changes anyway. Or did they think they'd be exempt?

Instead of fighting it (They've already vetoed EU plans to cut emissions faster. See here), they should start working out how to make the switch now. They could begin that by talking to one of their own major energy providers, PGE, who already have ideas in that direction.

At the end of the day, whilst the transition may be painful, they can console themselves that they will be playing their part in sparing future generations of Poles the nightmare of climate change.

More background here.

Renewable Heating For Glasgow

As you may know, the Industrial Revolution started in Britain. In many ways it's what put the "Great" into Britain during the 19th century. Underpinning it all was the fact that we had huge resources of coal on which our various industries (and rail system) were based.

So the unsung heroes of the Revolution were hundreds of thousands of coal miners, who toiled away in appalling and often dangerous conditions for the benefit of the nation. Without their sacrifices I doubt we'd be the economic power we are now.

A couple of centuries after it all began, the UK has closed most of it's coal mines because they're uneconomical and with them went most of the mining jobs. This had a pretty devastating effect on many of the local communities and, sometimes, they never recovered.

But now it seems, many of the abandoned mines could gain new life and, maybe, give something back to those local communities.....

Glasgow has many such abandoned mines under it, most of which are flooded. This simple fact has an unexpected benefit: The water, cool though it is, has enough heat in it for ground source heat pump technology to provide heating for houses. In fact, it's been doing this for 17 homes in Glasgow for the last decade.

Now Glasgow city council and the British Geological Survey (BGS) have joined forces to find out if this can be extended to more homes. The BGS have been mapping the extent of the mines and believe that it's possible for them to provide up to 40% of the city's heating. Not only that but, during the summer, the heating process can be reversed to provide cooling for buildings like hospitals.

The BGS also say that, with abandoned, flooded mines underlying many towns and cities across Britain, the technology could be rolled out to them as well, cutting heating bills for thousands of people at a time when fuel costs are going out the roof.

Some more background here.

Carbon Capture Made Easy?

Carbon capture might be one of most important tools we could have to combat climate change. Problem is it's not been fully developed yet. The reason for that is basically the cost. It's perfectly feasible to capture carbon at source (i.e. At the power stations) but it costs a fortune to do it and it reduces the efficiency of power station.

However, hope maybe at hand. Scientists studying sea urchins have discovered that they are very good at absorbing CO2. And they do that using nickel.

When the scientists tried adding nano particles of the metal to a solution of water and CO2 it captured all the CO2. The result can then be easily turned into calcium carbonate (chalk).

If this scales up to an industrial level, it has a number of exciting implications: Nickel is a lot cheaper than other substances currently used for carbon capture, substantially cutting the costs of the process; By turning the CO2 into a useful, stable product like chalk instead of storing the captured gas underground (where it could escape) or in the sea (where it would acidify the water), it's removed permanently; the nickel isn't lost with the chalk, it can easily be retrieved, and used to capture more CO2, further reducing the cost.

This could be the breakthrough carbon capture desperately needs.


Background article.

Electric Cars: All You Ever Wanted To Know

The Newcastle Institution for Research on Sustainability is doing a blog that aims to answer all your questions about electric vehicles. Here are a couple of samples:

• The Real Cost of Buying
• What are they like to drive?
  

Are Electric Cars The Future?

Mitsubishi i

The other day I was watching an episode of Top Gear (A popular motoring programme hosted by 3 middle aged men who dick about whilst doing the occasional car review). One of the items was a pretty devastating assessment of electric cars.

Now, as you might guess, I've been fairly positive about electric cars in this blog (See here, here, and here) but even I had to admit after watching this, they would be a poor choice of vehicle to buy.



The headline criticisms were:

• They are considerably more expensive than a similar sized petrol engine car (Around double the price).
• Their range is poor on a full charge (100 miles or less for most), which would mean frequent 're-fuelling' stops on a long journey.
• Re-charging takes several hours (up to 13 in the review). So no quick stops like with a standard car.
• There are very few charging points around at present, so drivers risk being stranded if they don't plan their journeys carefully.
• The batteries have a short life (around 5 years according to the review) and will be even shorter if 'fast charge' outlets (which greatly reduce the charge time) are used. The cost for a replacement? In the thousands - £7000 was quoted on Top Gear.

Nissan Leaf

Of course, you could say the test was unfair as it consisted of a lengthy journey in vehicles that are clearly better suited to local commutes (You wouldn't test a family hatchback by taking it off-road, would you?). You could also say that electric vehicles (EVs) are still new technology, so you'd expect them to be expensive and have a few issues.

[Note: Top Gear got it wrong about the battery life. Nissan say that the batteries should only have lost between 20 to 30% off the full charge after 10 years. If it did fail at around 5 years it would fall under the warranty and be replaced. The battery actually consists of 48 modules, each costing about £400 to replace. Typically you'd replace the modules as they fail not the whole thing in one go. More here]

Still, as EVs stand, there's not much to recommend them. Even the zero emissions argument is a bit dodgy when you consider that the electric they use has probably been generated using mainly fossil fuels (unless you live somewhere like France where it's mostly nuclear).

This is probably why Nissan have only sold 50,000 Leafs worldwide in nearly 2 years.

So are EVs doomed to failure? Not according to this item written by the President of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Some highlights:

• EVs are inherently much more efficient than even the best vehicle based round an internal combustion engine [ICE].  EVs manage 120 miles on the energy equivalent of a gallon of petrol.
• Even when run on electric from grids that use a lot of fossil fuels, their efficiency means they still have a smaller carbon footprint than an ICE vehicle.
• Range isn't that big a deal. Most people's daily mileage is less than half the actual range of an EV. Some EVs, like the Chevy Volt and Prius Plug-in have a back-up petrol energy. Incidentally, EVs will eventually have ranges up to 10 times the current ones (Tesla already have a car that has a range of 300 miles).
• Next generation vehicles, like fuel cell based ones, will need an electric drivetrain to propel them. So they'd be EVs anyway. Only the fuel source will have changed.

Basically, the biggest problems with EVs will be worked out in the near future. Battery technology will improve to the point where they will last as long as the car, be far cheaper, and will give EVs a range most ICE vehicles will envy; Charging points will be everywhere and will fast charge without shortening the battery's life; and the price of the EVs will tumble (The Nissan Leaf is already down to around £20,000 with government grants).

I still think it's optimistic to expect EVs to make up 50% of new car sales by 2020 as some expect but there's potential for a sizeable figure if things go their way. Petrol prices could be a game changer.

20% of UK Electric Could Come From Tides

The Royal Society has written a report that says that more than 20% of Britain's electric could come from tidal sources.

They also say it would be more reliable than wind energy and are optimistic that the 2 main methods being trialled in the UK will be proven "relatively soon".

They estimate that tidal barrages could provide 15% of our energy needs when rolled out and scaled up, whilst tidal stream (which is based on a kind of like underwater turbine) would provide at least 5% and probably more as the technology is improved.

So we could be getting between 40 and 50% of our electric from renewables in the next couple of decades if the government doesn't start back-peddling (again).



More here.

Climate Change: A Chance To Buy Some Time?

One of the few achievements of the UN climate talks in recent years was when all nations agreed to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees C at all costs. Presumably they'd all realised that the consequences of going above 2 degrees would be pretty disastrous. Not just for the environment but for humans and the global economy.

This goal is achievable but climate scientists have estimated that, to make it, global CO2 emissions have to reach a peak by 2020 (at the latest) and fall steeply thereafter.

Unfortunately, whilst all nations are committed to reaching a climate change agreement by 2015, it won't be implemented until 2020 at the earliest.

Considering that the 2015 agreement is likely to be a watered-down compromise that has little chance of peaking CO2 by 2020, it looks like we're not going to keep warming below 2C after all. Not good. Not good at all.

If only we could buy ourselves enough time to do the job right.

So I read with interest that climate scientists have discovered a possible window of opportunity:

One of several contributors to global warming is so-called 'black carbon' (soot) from the likes of diesel engines and wood burning. The scientists have discovered that it's actually the second largest contributor to climate change, providing two thirds the warming effect of CO2. Twice as much as they thought when the last UN report was written back in 2007.

The implications of this are potentially enormous. If global agreement could be reached to drastically reduce these emissions, it could cut warming by half a degree C very quickly (because soot has a very short life in the atmosphere), AND improve the health of millions (Wood burning in developing countries is a serious health issue).

Half a degree C would buy us a couple of decades in which to sort out climate change properly.

Luckily, cutting black carbon emissions is already on the UN agenda. This latest news should give them the best possible incentive to come to an agreement without delay.


(Click here to read about just one of a number of cheap cookers that could help save lives and cut black carbon emissions in the developing world).

Official: Climate Change Is Not A Hoax

Current CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson

Sorry if this one's not news to you but I've only just found it....but first, some background:

It's long been said that ExxonMobil fund a lot of climate denial groups (e.g. The Heartland Institution) and much of the climate sceptic science comes from scientists with links to them too.

At least, that was the case until 2006 when the new CEO, Rex Tillerson came along. Up to that point, ExxonMobil were climate deniers, but Tillerson has since admitted that climate change is not only a reality, but it's caused by humans. He even promised that the company would stop handing out tens of millions to those climate deniers. Result!

Unfortunately, it appears ExxonMobil are still funding climate denial.

Worse still, and this brings me to the subject of this post, they're now making out that climate change won't be a big deal after all. In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations last July, Rex Tillerson basically said climate models were making things look worse than they'd actually be, and any climate effects could be adapted to, claiming that it was just an "engineering problem" (Whatever that's supposed to mean).

So they've gone from a position of "We want business-as-usual because climate change isn't happening" to "We want business-as-usual because climate change isn't going to be that bad". Big change.

And about his 2 basic claims: 

• As any climate scientist will freely tell you, climate models are not perfect. However, those same scientists will also tell you that most models are tested against past data (to check that they work), and on current form they've made pretty accurate predictions about the future climate. If anything, they've under-estimated the actual results.

• "It's an engineering problem". Since Tillerson's speech, the U.S. has suffered it's hottest summer ever, and superstorm Sandy, Australia is being pounded by record temperatures as I type this (45.8 C in Sydney yesterday), the Arctic sea ice shrank to it's lowest extent last summer, and even the UK has had it's wettest year since records began. This is with 'just' a 0.8 C warming in global temperatures. The climate models predict there's a lot more in the pipeline.How exactly do we "engineer" out way out of failed crops (through drought and flood), people dying from heat exhaustion, superstorms, and heaven knows what else in the future?

We can't "adapt" to the scale of climate change that would result from business-as-usual. Anybody who believes that just isn't listening.

More analysis here.

Up To Half The World's Food Goes To Waste

The UK's Institute of Mechanical Engineers has written a report that says 30 - 50% of the world's food production simply gets dumped (See here). That's around 2 billion tonnes, or around 280 kilos for every human being on the planet each year.

That's obscene. Especially when you consider there nearly a billion hungry people (1 in 7) on the planet.

The reasons given for this waste are numerous, including: poor storage; over-zealous sell-by dates; special offers (encouraging people to buy more than they can use); fussy consumers; supermarkets demanding veg that look perfect; poor agricultural practises; poor engineering; and inadequate transport.

Imagine if we could put this right. We could not only feed the starving, but we'd have to capacity to feed the growing world's population without using up more land, water, or energy.

It's pathetic that we've got to the stage where we're so wasteful with everything, not just food. We are truly a throwaway society in every respect. From production to processing to transport to market to consumer to the dump. Waste all the way.

It's the reason the planet's in such a mess. Climate change, deforestation, polluted air, poisoned land and water, disappearing lakes and rivers. On and on it goes.

It doesn't have to be this way. We are better than this.