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?