Getting to the CoRE

A Centre for Refubishment Excellence has been opened in Stoke. On the face of it this looks like a great initiative - the country is in desperate need of skilled craftsmen who are capable of properly refurbishing our building stock. I wish it well but worry that this will tackle just the tip of an enormous iceberg while leaving the large, lower-skilled cohort untouched.

When I was involved in up-skilling the domestic heating installation trade ahead of the 2007 Building Regulation changes it was noticeable that those volunteering to spend a day on training and acquiring the new qualification were few and far between. It was a case of preaching to the converted. We only tackled the bulk of the trade (over 30,000 trained in a year) when being accredited became more or less mandatory.

I do worry that the Green Deal will turn out to be a damp squib, and fail to be a catalist for the massive building upgrading that is actually required.

It's the Cost of Gas..............................Mainly

The CCC has recently published an analysis of domestic energy bills which clearly shows that the rise in domestic energy bills has been mainly driven by the cost of gas. Of course, this won't surprise those of us in the industry but it may, just a little, reduce the clamour for reversing those charges related to CO2 reduction. I say "just a little" because much of the popular press appears incapable of rational thought and analysis.

Anyway, the CCC's headline numbers are as follows:
Comparisons were made between 2004 and 2010 when the "typical" household bill rose from £605pa to £1060. So that's a rise of some 75% over a period when general price inflation was about 16%. The CCC suggests that about £290 of the rise was attributable to the wholesale cost of sale, £75 to C-emissions reduction policies (£30 for low-C generation and £45 for EE policies), £70 to increasing transmission and distribution costs and £20 due to VAT.

The CCC goes on to look at the possibile situation in 2010 when it suggests that a further £110 will be added for low-C measures, perhaps £175 for gas costs and £15 for transmission and distribution. The CCC goes on to argue that consumption will fall as the boiler park becomes more efficient and to reflect the severe winter of 2010. So, all-in-all it suggests a typical bill in 2010 will be £1250 (sounds low to me) of which £190 will be for low-C and EE measures.

Is 15% for environmental action justified? I think so but I guess many won't.

And Another One!

EU Crisis and the Paradigm of Loss Model

It has recently been pointed out to me that the EU crisis is playing out along the lines of Elizabeth Kubler Ross's Paradigm of Loss model. This model suggests that there are five stages of grief at a loss: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance.
EKR
Well, we've certainly had our fill of denial - a good two years of it! And the recent spats over Cameron's (admittedly mishandled) use of the so-called veto suggest that the anger stage is now in full swing. In many ways Cameron has just replaced Papandreou and Berlusconi as the principle target. However, sooner or later the German fiscal union protagonists and the French nation stage champions must realise that the whole mess is basically a result of them not sorting out that particular dichotomy in the first place. I bet they blame each other first before they eventually get down to some serious bargaining.

As to what the depression stage will look like - heaven help us. And acceptance is going to come with a very different looking Euro Zone. Will it retain all the current members? Possibly. Any country falling out of the Zone will have a particularly hard time. But will the Franco-German big boys be happy to bail out the profligate southerners, potentially accepting the likelihood of ongoing north to south value movement?

Hooray for the CCC

Yesterday the CCC finally said what a lot of have been thinking. There is a big risk of the Green Deal failing to deliver. The criticism focusses particularly on the remaining unfilled lofts and cavities, suggesting that leaving the task entirely to the market will provide only a small fraction of the required action. Anyone who has worked in the sector knows that insulation is not sexy and that the implicit hurdle rate for many householders to invest is very high (certainly very much higher than that associated with taking a foreign holiday instead). Why, after years of experience through SoP, EEC and CERT, should the higher hanging fruit suddenly be ripe for a market-led picking? It's nuts.

"Just tell us what you aim to do and for god's sake don't change your mind."

These are the reported words of Diana Montgomery, CIA commercial and policy director, castigating the Government for its inconsistency in approach to green issues and record of flip-flop policy changes. Hear, hear!

The recent furore over the FITs review is just one example of this flabby stance. That's not to say that the solar PV boys are not overstating their case. Talk of destroying the "UK solar PV industry" is a bit rich when that "industry" is mainly a bunch of installers putting in foreign produced technology. However, without a consistent line from government how can anyone bring inward investment to the country anyway?

Well, Well, Fancy That

Dyson has recently commissioned MIT to carry out a life cycle assessment of the global warming potential of a number of hand drying systems. And, guess what? Standard warm air dryers came out worst, followed by paper towels with the Dyson Airblade being the best performer. Woop-de-doop!

Cynicism aside, the study does remind us that careful thought about contributing factors is very important when comparing impacts. Paper towels, for instance, obviously have no energy-in-use impact but do, according to the study, have a whacking great embodied energy component. Traditional warm air dryers, by contrast, are the heaviest in-use energy users.

A Step Too Far

Edie recently reported that GreenBottle, the company behind the paper milk bottle (actually lined with plastic), is in talks about a paper wine bottle. Now, I'm all for CO2 reduction, and the promise is for a 10% lower footprint, but somehow wine in a paper bottle seems a step too far. Is it just that I'm influenced by the dreadful muck that is sold in bag-in-a-box form? Perhaps, a bit, but I am reconciled to the Stelvin capsule so I'm not a total Luddite.

And another thought. We still have our milk delivered to the door in glass bottles that are returned for cleaning and refilling. What are the economics and energy characteristics of doing that on a wider scale? A very quick internet search (and I mean very quick) yielded no robust argument. I guess it works in the milk bottle case because there is a single bottle configuration to work with, minimal transport on-costs and only the actual cleaning and steralising costs to compare with new bottle purchase. Does anyone know of some good research in this area?

At Last - A Serious Comment

I missed the announcement but apparently earlier this month Chris Huhne asked Ofgem to investigate whether medium- to long-term UK gas supplies are robust enough to avoid wholesale market spikes. The key concern is the likely increase in demand for gas to fuel electricity generation as the LCPD forces coal plant off the grid and further nuclear closures occur. This is an issue that has been swirling around the industry for years so it is, in a way, gratifying to see it finally surface in a (slightly) more open fashion.

Clumsy Clumsy Thames Water

We recently had Thames Water install a water meter for us (something we should have done ages ago but a case of better late than never). Our first estimated bill arrived yesterday, for the period 27 September thu' 24 October. Some bozo in TW (or more likely some badly programmed computer) estimated out usage to be 216 cubic meters and managed to generate a bill for £388.

Needless to say I was out to the meter fairly sharpish and then on the 'phone to a TW operative who didn't seem at all phased by the stupidity of it all. Our actual take over the nearly 2 months to 25 November was a massive 8 cubic meters!

Now, I can cope with bumbling doltishness like this but to someone of slender means and a more nervous disposition receiving a bill like that could have been a major worry. How often does this happen?

Boardroom Pay Fuss

Some of the recent bruhaha over boardroom pay rather smacks of the politics of envy. There is no doubting that some executives are massively overpaid but that is no reason to bash all high earners and to advocate 1970s-style command and control caps on wages. There are some good suggestions floating around (simplification of remuneration packages and publication of total pay of executives for instance) but there are also some bozo ideas (publishing highest to lowest ratios - an excellent way of mucking up industrial relations; workers on remuneration committees). On the latter, let's get this straight, it is ultimately up to the owners of a business what the CEO gets paid. It's their investment that's at risk.

So, how about a few simple changes? Annual, binding shareholder approval of board pay might be one (based on remuneration committee recommendations). More accountability to shareholders of the remuneration committee. Contracts that stipulate no golden handshake for firing of underperforming CEOs. Pay more closely related to shareholder value - so that it may go down as well as up.

How's that for a starter for ten?

A Cautionary Tale

Despite all the uncertainty surrounding the FITs consultation (or, perhaps partially because of it, if I'm truthful) I've been gathering quotes for a system to be installed at Bawden Towers.

Most offers have come in at around £3.8 - £4.2 per watt. However, one company (no name, no pack drill on this occasion - 'though why I'm being so coy I'm really not sure) came through with a whopping £6.7/w but with a guarantee to install by Dec 5 thereby pretty much ensuring a 43.3p-base FIT - provided I signed up within 2 days.

So I plugged this into my little project appraisal spreadsheet and guess what? The internal rate of return at 43.3p was no better than the best of the rest at 21p. Result? I declined their kind offer. That almost immediately triggered a revised proposal at £6.2/w.

Now this does represent a slightly better return (at 43.3p) than any of the rivals. But if the FIT was at 21p the IRR of my project would be somewhat below 1%. I would rather not be signing up with a company that either has no business at the lower FIT or is still making extraordinary profits. I declined again.

Well! Surprise, surprise! Another proposal came back lowering the unit cost to £5.2/w but without the guaranteed early installation date. That make a 22% lowering of cost over just a couple of days. These guys must have been making hand over fist if all their business has been at £6/w+.

They are difintiely NOT on my preferred provider list!

Scots Govt Doesn't Like FITs Proposals

Just look at this. It seems it's not just the industry that's getting a tad hot under the collar.

Wow! Fines Galore - But Who Pays?

Hot on the heals of npower's hefty fine comes news of British Gas having to stump up £1M for misreporting under the Renewables Obligation. Of course, this is just a drop in the proverbial ocean of BG's profits but it does make one wonder who eventually pays - the customer or the shareholder?

The FITs Debate

I've been holding off writing about the recent FITs consultation (apart from my one-liner a few days ago) but can resist the temptation no longer.

Whilst it was to be expected that FITs would come down in April - and it had been well signalled that this would be the case - DECC is in danger of shooting itself in the foot over the contents of its proposal.

Firstly, the "qualifying date". This just seems to be a rather nasty piece of proposed legislation. Now, I have to confess a personal interest here. I was planning an installation in the new year. Suddenly here is a proposed cut-off date before the end of the consultation period (thus adding to uncertainty) and suddenly imposed on an otherwise well defined timetable. This really is government acting without thinking about the reputational consequences if nothing else. But, as I said, I do have a particular beef.

Secondly, the consultation quotes a wide range of apparent installation cost reductions. It is no secret that the costs of PV have come down - but not by the upper end of DECC's range. They seem to have muddled installed cost with raw equipment cost. And there is no discussion of cheap, unproven Far East imports vs quality products. Surely they'd want to avoid people scrabbling to put up shoddy installations just to try to get an apparent reasonable return?

Which brings me to my third point. The consultation states that the proposed new FIT should provide a return of about 4.5% for homeowners installing <4kWp systems. All other bands would appear to be pitched at a 5% return. Why kick poor old Joe Public harder than anyone else? And much seems to be made in accompanying blurb about comparisons with savings accounts, cash ISAs, bonds etc. This, I believe, is an inappropriate comparison for at least 2 reasons. Firstly, the risks are different. High street savings accounts, although not risk free (FSCS not withstanding) are certainly lower risk than a PV installation (technical risk, weather risk, installation risk etc.). Furthermore there is a huge difference in liquidity. Investing in a highly liquid financial product like a cash ISA is very different to installing a piece of kit like a PV system. How could I monetise the latter? Presumably either by entering a forward contract for my output (at a lousy rate of return if current rent-a-roof schemes are anything to go by) or by selling my home! Both issues justify expectations of much better than high street returns.

A fourth problem is the possible linkage with EPC rating. A couple of options are proposed but neither really takes into account the fact that EPCs are primarily about space and water heating whereas heat from electricity use is often secondary. OK there will be spill from one's washing machine, tumble dryer or whatever but that's hardly a big contributor to space heating. Furthermore, much of the power generated will not be used in the host premises anyway. And there is an important trade-off to be considered for hard-to-treat homes. Many householders in solid-walled properties will not contemplate the enormous hassle that is likely to be involved with insulation measures whereas they just might be willing to put up with a bit of scaffolding and mucking about on the roof and in the loft. Is the trade-off not a price worth paying for just a little bit more greening of the UK's electricity supply?

There - gripes off chest at last.

Wide Variation in Solar Hot Water Performance

EST has finally published its report into solar hot water field trials (the work was going on before I left the Trust 18 months ago). It makes fascinating reading. Perhaps a few headlines are worth noting:

Some systems deliver up to 60% of the required hot water load.
The worst performing system provided only 9%.
Median performance was 39%.

What comes through very clearly is that user behaviour is all important. This is not surprising but is something that is often missing from advice from installers and, indeed, is not necessarily adequately covered by independent advisors either. It make common sense to time your hot water usage and back-up firing of the boiler to maximise the potential for harnessing solar energy but how many users have (a) been advised about this or (b) thought it through for themselves?

The same is true for those with PV installations.

So often in all things energy saving the technolgy is only part of the story - behaviour makes a huge difference.

Drop Off in Insulation Post CERT?

A recent analysis by Knauf suggests that there could be a marked drop-off in insulation retrofit measures once CERT comes to an end. Of course, one response is to comment "Well they would say that, wouldn't they?" However, my gut feeling is that there is some truth in the matter. I just can't see uptake through the Green Deal being anything like CERT uptake. As for hard-to-treat properties..................

Energy Saving Week - Where?

I used to work at the Energy Saving Trust and recall an awful lot of effort and excitment going into the annual Energy Saving Week (almost always timed to coincide with the end of BST). This is the second year when I have been "out of the loop" and I happened to be particularly busy during the week so I wasn't actively looking for adverts/blogs/offers/advice etc. However, I still think I should have been sensitised to anything that did cross my radar, so it is particularly upsetting to say that hardly anything did - and certainly not anything impactful. EST is loosing its grant funding from DECC so there has to be a big question about how energy saving and green energy production is promoted in the future. EST may not have been particularly visible a couple of weeks ago but DECC's performance hardly inspires confidence:

Act on CO2? Damp squid
RHI? Debacle
FITs? Another shot in the foot
Green Deal? Don't hold your breath.

All rather worrying.

Branson or DECC?

Branson - Invest in renewables or face the mother of all recessions.

DECC - Slash FITs

'Nuff said

Tighter Electricity Margins This Winter?

National Grid has suggested that the German nuclear moratorium could result in tighter power margins in the UK this winter if there's a cold snap. They also suggest that forward prices are indicating that coal rather than gas could be the "fuel of choice" (whatever that means) this winter. Not good for CO2 emissions then.

Peak Oil Delayed?

Just spotted a review of a book by Daniel Yergin suggesting that peak oil may be further off than many think. It's an understandable stance - scarcity (perceived or otherwise) can lead to higher prices which means that more reserves are economically recoverable. Some day, though.........

Prosperity Index

I've spent an interesting half hour viewing the Legatum Institute's Prosperity Index for 2011. Overall the UK maintains its 13th position as per 2009 and 2010. Some of the constituent rankings make interesting reading though.

On the Economy, for instance, the UK is ranked at 21, although its 2011 score is above that for 2009 and, especially, 2010. Downsides are the high rate of unemployment (rank 58) and low savings rate (one of the lowest 30 gross domestic savings rates). On the upside it is 12th for affordability of food and shelter and in the top 15 for individuals' satisfaction with their standard of living.

Interestingly on Entrepreneurship and Opportunity the UK comes in 4th. This is despite Britons perceiving the entrepreneurial environment to be below average.

Education at 19th and Health at 17th could be better.

It's fascinating stuff. One might not agree with the methodology but it's worth a little time perusing the data. And be thankful if you don't live in one of the countries at the bottom end of the scale (CAR, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia).

Any Geeks Out There?

Last month DECC published the 2009 LA CO2 emissions statistics. Not surprisingly, where there have been big falls in emissions it has been mainly through the industrial and commercial sectors and I would guess strongly attributable to the recession. However, I dipped into the data for my own LA (Waverley) and noted that all sectors have been steadily, if slowly, declining since 2005. Vaguely encouraging. So, any geeks willing to do some wizzy stats analysis to really tell us what's going on?

Shale Gas Good for UK?

Listened to an interesting argument the other day - all suggesting that in the medium term US shale gas is good for the UK.

The argument went something like this:

North Sea gas is dwindling.
So the UK is becoming more dependent upon imports.
Renewables are not coming on-stream fast enough.
So UK will remain dependent upon imports for the medium term - especially for electricity generation.
With economic shale gas discoveries US gas reserves have risen from 800 Tcf to 2800 Tcf.
So US has over 200 years of gas resources at its disposal.
So it may well flood the market in the next 5 years or so.
So prices will fall.
And the UK is best positioned to receive US exports.

Simples!

Do you believe that? And what about the enviromental cost?

Not Surprised

Just caught up with research released by EOn last month. This gave various reasons for people not having their lofts insulated including:
> can't be bothered 10%
> too much clutter 9%
> no ladder 3%
> don't know how 15%
> can't afford it 17%.
Am I surprised? No. It's been clear to anyone in or near the industry that the message just isn't getting home. Unfortunately insulation isn't sexy. Thought's on turning this around anyone?

Oil Prices and Recessions

You might like to take a look at this Paul Hodges blog. It argues that the US (and by implication it should be true of other Western economies) has suffered a recession every time that oil costs rise above 3% of global GDP. Hodges points out that oil costs are currently about 5% of global GDP and guess what the economic state of the US is? I'm no economist but Hodge's arguments strike me as a tad simplistic; and he hasn't established a causal relationship. Nevertheless, there is plenty of food for thought surrounding dwindling oil supplies, slow progress to renewable forms of energy, the high costs of the latter, an exploding global population, increasing lifestyle expectations of emerging nations (especially the BRICs) etc. Worrying times!

Nuclear vs Renewables

I've recently quickly perused the CCC's blog post on nuclear vs renewables. A few things strike me:

1) Fascinating to see how close the CCC's scenario is to one I produced when working up some background information at the start of WWF's PowerSwitch campaign. Needless to say WWF wouldn't contemplate a scenario with nuclear in it so I had to excise it from my final report. Just goes to show that power generation technology hasn't moved on a lot in the last 8 years (You wouldn't expect it to, really).

2) The CCC uses discount rates of 7.5% and 10% in its charts for all technologies. I guess that it's reasonable to assume that all the various options included in the CCC scenarios will be mature by 2030 and therefore a single discount rate is applicable. When I was undertaking this kind of analysis we tended to use technology (and project) specific discount rates better to reflect the actual risks associated with the particular scheme under investigation.

3) The CCC uses costs derived from a report by Mott Macdonald (the CCC blog link, above, will link you through to this report). I've downloaded it but not read it yet (it's fat!). However, just from the CCC charts I'm struck by the wide range of uncertainty. For example, all at 10%, solar PV is estimated to be between 11.0 and 25.0 p/kWh (2010 prices); wave power is 15.5 to 31.5; and unabated gas is 5.0 to 14.0. I'm guessing that the big spread in the last of these is down to uncertainty in the gas price. It makes the cost estimates for nuclear (5.0 to 10.0 p/kWh) look staggeringly certain.

Get Recycling but not Energy Saving?

A survey by Ipsos/MORI for INCPEN suggests that peolpe "get" recycling but are much less with it as regards energy saving. The survey was a bit wierd, though. People were asked to pick 3 things they could do to help protect and improve the environment. Some 52% chose "recycle bottles, cans, paper and other materials", whereas just 22% chose "turn down the home heating". However, I wonder if it's not just different understanding of environmental impact that's led to these results. Recycling is relatively pain free - especially with significant kerb-side collection options. On the other hand turning down the heating thermostat could force one to wear a sweater (heaven forbid) - and it seems that many of us have become accustomed to shirt-sleeve living.

Ghost Customers

I've just picked up on a press release from Moneysupermarket claimimg that some one million households are not paying for their gas and/or electricity. It appears that about half of these have tried to identify their supplier but can't! Now, I know first hand that billing organisations can be a tad chaotic but you would have thought that with every meter having a unique identifier, and there being only 6 major suppliers (plus some minnows) it wouldn't be too difficult for the industry to get it's act together. Meanwhile, each of us who is a good egg and is paying up probably has a bill that's a good 4% higher than it ought to be! Hmmm!

Reversal for an Icon

Use of plastic supermarket carriers has the status of an iconic touch-stone of sustainability, even though its reduction is not the no.1 priority. It is disturbing therefore to learn that WRAP has recently reported an increase in single-use carriers. In 2010 6.4bn (yes, that's billion!) bags were used, up by 0.3bn from the previous year. This is still way below WRAP's first recorded figure of 10.1bn in 2006 but still an unfortunate trend. Why has this occurred? Has the great British public become blase? Does each and every one of us actully need to use 8.6 bags per month? Perhaps it's time to relaunch the drive to reduce plastic bag use.

DeIndustrialisation = Greater Emissions?

Well, that's something reported in "Climate Change and Public Policy Futures" a report issued by the British Academy. It suggests that emissions arising from the creation of goods in the UK fell by 15% from 1990 but those associated with the consumption of goods produced elsewhere rose by 19% in the same period. The report argues that the UK's market-centred green growth approach to climate change is ineffective (so what's new there then?) but we are stuck in this paradigm because stating the problem is easy but finding a solution much more difficult. Nevertheless, the argument goes, a much modified green growth approach is required.

Going back to my title, one key problem is that there is no mechanism within the Kyoto or UNFCCC frameworks to account for and rectify global emission flows. The report further argues that cap-and-trade, mandated market solutions, carbon taxes and subsidies are insufficient to the task. There is a requirement for policy integration across social, economic and environmental policy which has not been recognised, let alone implemented.

Heady difficult stuff!

What's With Politicians?

Do politicians ever think?

Mr Pickles want localism but seems intent on driving refuse collection from the centre.

The "greenest government ever" wants to raise motorway speed limits.

Planning is supposed to be moving to local determination - but with a centrally imposed presumption in favour of development.

Mr Milliband defines himself via two negatives - he's not Mr Blair and he's not Mr Brown. So that's alright then isn't it?

Come on guys - get a grip!

Late But Welcome

I know I'm often behind the times but the Ecologist seems to be even worse. It has recently published a review of Fred Pearce's "When The Rivers Run Dry" which I bought and read an age ago.

However, it's no bad thing to be reminded of this work. It's a very readable account and one that should not be overlooked. I urge you to get a copy.

Mobiles and Cancer

There's yet another report on mobiles 'phones and the cancer risk reported in a recent Ecologist. This one, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, plumps for classifying mobiles as "possibly carcinogenic" (so, in the same catch-all bracket as, say, coffee). I've studied this subject quite a lot since we had a huge furore in our village a few years back over the proposal to mount a new transmission mast locally, and from everything I've read the IARC conclusion is about all one could expect right now.

So, how should one behave? The answer is, surely, to adhere to the precautionary principle. Most people would not want to be without their mobiles so moderate use, wired headphones and texting rather than calling would seem to be the answers. Meanwhile I, for one, am participating in the long-term COSMOS project - the sort of assessment that is required to provide any more definitive view.

Baaa!

Dreadful news! The "Meat Eater's Guide" reports that my favourite meat - lamb - is responsible for 39.3kg CO2e per kg eaten - the worst of all meats. Can I hide behind the fact that this is US research, that little lamb is eaten in the US and therefore the stats are likely to be biased? Or should I dig up my mint patch now?

Spiders Say - We Can Adapt

A little bit of good(ish) news. A recent study has shown that "shock" experiment on climate change may paint too negative a picture for adaptation and survival. This work suggests that the particular species studied in this case (predatory spiders), at least, did adapt to gradually changing circumstances. Perhaps catastrophe is a little bit further away than some people suggest. There's no call for complacency, of course.

Inspiring Wildlife

Just back from a longish sojourn in South Africa - yes, I know - all those air miles. But what an inspiration to see the wildlife - lion, buffalo, cheetah, rhino, croc, zebra, wildebeest, haartebeest, bush buck, water buck, nyala, kudu, leopard, impala, eland, warthog, elephant, sivet, genet, mongoose, dassie, duiker..................and the birds!!

To Hypothecate Or Not To Hypothecate, That Is The Question

The Environmental Audit Committee in its latest report rounds on the government for giving environmental taxes a bad name. The Committee claims that the govenment is using taxes to raise revenue rather than to recycle into environmental improvements. Well, yes, isn't that what taxes are for? Can't we get away from this notion that green taxes are some special class. Basically, they're not. In essence they are perhaps better than some taxes in that they are targetted at bads rather than goods. There's some education to be done all round!

I'm No Economist, But.......

Chris Huhne (he of the rather heavy right foot) says that the big six have a strangle hold on the UK domestic energy market (presumably he just means gas and electricity although the article seems to lean towards electricity alone - a not unfamiliar failing in energy discussions) and that the market should be broken up. OK - that's the standard "need for more competition" line. He says "We need more companies and more competition to keep prices as low as possible". But he also says "The UK needs to double its normal energy investment to replace old power stations". (See what I mean about electricity only?). Forgive me if I'm being naive but if we're aiming to drive down prices - presumably to nearer short-run marginal cost - then will we not be decreasing the companies ability to invest? Power stations are expensive things and investors need to know that they will make a return on their investments. The market is not particularly indusive to such investment now - and Huhne's "solution" will only make life more difficult.

Warmer Bath

I've just come across a publication entitled "Warmer Bath" which is one of the best guides to domestic energy efficiency (with or without an historic building emphasis) that I have come across. The document is lucid, does not patronise, and has a number of useful features such as a table listing in one place the carbon effectiveness, cost and hassle factor associated with many measures. It's a pity most EE publications are no where near so well written.

Full Circle

When I were a lad (and we lived in a cardboard box on the A1 etc. etc.) I recall my mother taking apart old clothing and refashioning it into something "new". Well, it's come full circle. I really like what Worn Again is doing. And well done to Virgin and Eurostart for their part.

Mattress Recycling

It's an old adage - "If you don't look, you won't find". Mattresses have always been a problem item when it comes to recycling (I guess that's why they are one of the more commonly fly-tipped items). But - the other day I found this site: JBS Fibre Recovery. So there's really no excuse now, is there? There must be many more like this.

DECC Delivery Review

Given that my old stomping ground, the Energy Saving Trust, was one of the principle subjects of DECC's Delivery Landscape Review I thought I should have a look at its findings. To be honest, I'm not overly surprised. The key statement is that EST will lose its core grant funding from 2012/13 but will be expected to bid for DECC/HMG delivery contracts.

Part of the rationale for this change is that DECC should have closer control over what is delivered and at what cost. The Review claims that such control has not be present in the past. Now, it is true that as a private company EST is not accountable to the SoS or other DECC ministers. However, certainly in my time at EST, we would have welcomed more direction from DECC (and previously Defra). We were forever being told "It's your plan, not ours, deliver it how you wish". So the Review is being, at best, somewhat disingenuous.

The document also states that EST has begun to ramp up its commercial operations to ensure that it continues to thrive in the absence of guaranteed DECC funding. True, but it's a big ask by April 2012, and it disguises the radical downsizing that has taken place (to the extent that one big leaving bash was held at the end of March because there just wouldn't be time for all the individual ones).

As a consequence a number of good people have gone elsewhere. One hopes that we are not in baby and bathwater territory.

Swift vs Red Arrow

Snapped this today. Thought it was rather fun.

CO2 Emissions Highest Ever

Latest IEA estimates of carbon dioxide emissions suggest that in 2010 they were the highest ever. And the report also suggests that 80% of emissions from the power sector for 2020 are already locked in through existing and permitted infrastructure. It all makes the 2 degrees maximum temperature rise target seem even more remote. Dust off your adaptation strategies now.

A Bit of Trumpet Blowing

Nice to see something one's worked on get published. The annual Ofgem CESP report is out.

Back to the Greenest Government Ever

I've just caught up with Jonathon Porritt's report for FoE on the first year of Cameron's "Greenest Government Ever". It's not a pretty sight (and I include the annoying little symbols that the report uses to denote progress in that evaluation!). The Government having got rid of the SDC it doesn't really have any body to check on its progress so this report has to be welcomed for filling that hole, if for nothing else.

Perhaps one just starts at the end with Porrit's concluding remarks: " Writing this Report has been a disheartening process. In an ideal world, I would have wanted to demonstrate to Friends of the Earth the usual mixed balance sheet one might expect after just one year. But the 77 individual items pretty much speak for themselves: the bad and the positively ugly indisputably outweigh the good. At this stage, the likelihood of the Coalition Government living up to its “Greenest Government Ever” pledge is vanishingly remote."

Porritt is particularly scathing about DCLG, the Treasury and DoE (back to Planet Pickles?). Certainly Cameron seems to be hiding behind a number of the Tory's "ugly beasts". Indeed, he has been practically invisible on Green issues ever since his original announcement. Why? Does he not understand? Or is he just a good PR man with no underlying commitment? Whatever, now is the time for some leadership just to prevent this Government being the beigest ever!

Carbon Neutral Bra

A new claim from M&S - the first range of carbon neutral undies. Dubbed "Autograph Leaves" the new range 'is sophisticated, elegant and glamorous' and uses 'a combination of intricate lace and dramatic embroidery, inspired by the exotic foliage of the rainforest'. Quite. The big question is will Mrs B wear them?

Seriously, this harks back to my previous post on offsetting, as that is the mechanism used in this case. It's an interesting exercise.

Voluntary offsetting in the FTSE100

Time to catch up on what's been happening over the last month (or more - given how much my nose was to the grindstone just before jolly hols - sigh).

In April Carbon Retirement published a report on offsetting by FTSE100 companies. (Follow the link in this EDIE report). The report generally chastises companies for 'pitifully low' offsetting and in a way that's fair enough but I do have a problem with looking at this issue just along the offsetting axis. If a company is putting siginificant money and effort into emissions reduction (and I'm not saying that many are) then I'd be happy to see low offsetting activity. Conversely, offsetting can compensate to a certain extent for lack of direct activity. I would like to see a more holistic report.

News from Planet Pickles

Just back from jolly hols in France where we enjoyed the excellent roads, excellent food, wonderful hospitality (quite, we were not in Paris!) and the general spaciousness. Coming back seems to have landed us on the wierd and wonderful Planet Pickles (or perhaps Planet Spelman - or maybe they're a twin system?).

Have you see the Telegraph report about a return to weekly refuse collection? HMG appears to be planning to offer subsidies to councils to return to weekly refuse collection. That's my money! What bonkers part of CLG (or was it Defra?) thought up that idea? Is there not a sufficiently highly placed civil servant with a couple of neurons to rub together who can inform his or her parliamentary master or mistress that fortnightly collections work? Rubbish disposal has reduced under such regimes; and recycling has increased.

It's not a difficult system to get one's head around. And as for the anecdotes about an increase in rats etc. - it's hard for a rat to get into a wheely bin with a closed lid - maybe the methods of refuse collection should be considered, not the frequency.

It's time Mr Cameron put his money where his greenest-government-ever mouth is and gave Pickles and Spelman a good kicking (she obviously hasn't learned from the woodlands debacle).

Wasted Food

A recent exercise by the LGA has come up with a remarkable figure of £13.7bn as the cost of buying and throwing away good food and drink last year. That cost apparently covers the cost of the food, the cost of council workers taking it to landfill (including landfill tax) etc. so there is an element of apples and pears (no pun intended) here. Whatever, it is a shocking number. LGA further suggests that each household bought £520-worth of food last year that wasn't eaten. That's a statistic that I can believe. There's a higher sum which is very difficult to calculate that include the food unnecessarily eaten - but maybe that's an argument too far!

An Ill Wind?

I've recently come across an interesting report which provides some analysis of wind intermittency, volatility and average load factor. It's been produced for a pressure group seeking to protect wild land so has to be taken with something of a pinch of salt but it does purport to show that average load factors are lower than sometimes claimed, and that geographical smoothing of volatility doesn't always occur. I don't have the time to undertake a reanalysis to check on the conclusions - has anyone out there done anything like this? If nothing else it reinforces my belief that development of good storage technology is paramount if we are to increase the proportion of wind on the grid.

How Inconsiderate Is That?

Or that?

Grrrr!

Zero Carbon Homes - Watering Down but Common Sense

The announcement that the definition of a zero carbon home now excludes emissions from the likes of cooking appliances , entertainment systems etc. has enraged many but actually, there's a deal of pragmatism tucked in here. Was it ever realistic to expect builders and developers to second guess home-owners' behaviour. I think not. Of course, this does now put the pressure back on educators, opinion formers, appliance manufacturers etc. but so be it.

King Report - A Useful Angle

The recent report from David King is a very timely call to arms to consider the totality of the UK's potential nuclear future. There is widespread agreement on the need to decarbonise the country's electricity supply and although there are many voices that would not agree with me (see the quotes from Doug Parr in a recent Grauniad, for instance), I cannot see how that is to be done without new nuclear capacity. As King points out, that entails good management of the fuel fuel production/storage/reprocessing system. Indeed - it's more than good management - it's actually re-engineering and refocussing that's required. I've not seen much from Chris Huhne and the massed ranks of DECC on this aspect but it is vital if we are not to stagger from one botched muddle to another. King's called for a holistic approach to new nuclear is one that HMG should not ignore.

Yet Another Statement of the Bleedin' Obvious!

A few more trees have disappeared to produce "Global Report on Human Settlements 2011 - Cities and Climate Change" a 250 page document from the UN telling us (apparently - I refuse to pay $58 for this) that cities are a hot bed of climate changing emissions. Well, golly gosh! We know this! We know where the emissions arise. The issue is mitigation and adaptation - as much of the former as possible and as much of the latter as necessary. There is absolutely no need for another fat report whose only value is to prop up a wonky desk leg (do people still do that?). Welcome to grumpy old man land.

It's Not What You Say, It's Who Is Saying It!

It is often said that humans are tribal animals and this appears to be true when considering "controversial" scientific issues such as climate change. Some research reported in the New Scientist appears to indicate that we are more likely to believe someone from our own "tribe" or of like mind than otherwise - no matter if the message is exactly the same. This suggests a need to be pretty savvy about who presents when and to whom.

Another Missed Opportunity

So much could have been done in the budget to boost the government's green credentials. Alas, so much wasn't done.

Perhaps the most telling aspect was hitting oil and gas companies with increased production tax and recylcing it back into lower petrol prices. This is wonderful populist politics that will do absolutely nothing to save energy, to reduce resource wasteage, to boost the green economy. Pathetic!

A New Leaf

So, the Nissan Leaf hit the showrooms, yesterday. But will it revolutionise UK motoring? 'Fraid, not yet. The £30k price tag and 110 miles range mitigate against that. However, it's a major step forward - 'cos a G-Wiz it certainly ain't. So what we need to see is
(i) steady de-carbonisation of the grid
(ii) further improvement in battery technology
(iii) economies of scale.
Point (i) does worry be somewhat - on the affordability front:
(a) nuclear is expensive (and gets, unfairly, massive negative press)
(b) renewables are expensive
(c) CCS reduces efficiency, and so will be expensive.
My poor old pension is going to be squeezed further and further!

Carbon Plan - Is It A, B or C?

I've been up to my eyeballs for the last couple of weeks so have only just got around to glancing at DECC's Carbon Plan document (apparently a "draft" - hedging bets already?). I can't say that I'm overwhelmed. If this is to be the "greenest government ever" (I bet someone is regretting those words) then we really need to see some action, not another plan pulling together existing policies, many of which were instigated by the previous government.

Perhaps that's being a little harsh. The government has, at least, not trashed those initiatives; and some are moving ahead - the document lists a whole raft of actions many of which are tagged "started". The cycnic might argue that it's easy to dream up such a list - true - but some, at least, do have some meat on them. Take, for instance, working on accreditation to back the Green Deal. Or developing a strategy for electric vehicle infrastructure. Both are needed.

There's the odd surprise, too. Such as committing the Treasury to legislate to create a minimum carbon price by next month. Mr Brown's Treasury would never have been bounced into something like that!

So I guess, once again, it's a case of 2 cheers and watch this space.

The Iconic Plastic Carrier Bag

Ever wondered if "Ban the Bag" is fully justified? Well, there's a fascinating report from the Environment Agency that goes a long way to explaining just how we should treat alternatives if our behaviour is to have a positive effect. The report assesses the lifecycle impacts of standard one-use plastic bags and a number of alternatives. It shows that the enviromnetal impact is dominated by resource use and production with transport, secondary packaging and end-of-life management having relatively minor impacts. One interesting way to grasp the impacts is given in the form of a table showing how often alternatives have to be used in order that their impact is lower than a one-use bag. For instance, assuming that the base carrier is genuinely single use (e.g. not subsequently used as a big liner) then a paper carrier would have to be used 3 times for its impact to be lower; for a low density polyethylene 'bag for life' this rises to 4 uses; then for a more durable non-woven polypropylene bag the required uses are calculated at 11; and for a cotton bag we reach an amazing 131 uses. If you assume that 40% of single use bags do actually get used for something else, such as a replacement bin liner, then re-use requirements for other bags, of course, rise. In the case of the cotton bag this is now 173! (I guess I'll just have to carry on with all those cotton bags that my wife dislikes!).

The report does not consider some impacts, such as littering, or the impacts of degradable polymers in the recycle stream. Never-the-less, from my, admittedly cursory, glance this appears to be a pretty thorough piece of work providing plenty of food for thought.

After Fuel Poverty - Water Poverty

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published an interesting report about a week ago on vulnerability to drought and heatwaves. A couple of case studies are presented, one of them being about problems facing poorer households at a time when water costs are likely to rise. As you might expect, given the source of the report, there is a strong emphasis on social justice but the report does highlight the dichotomy that arises between the need to reduce water consumption and economic incentives to do that (e.g. rising block pricing) and the inability of poorer household to access water saving technologies or fiscal support. The concent of water poverty is thus brought to the fore.

It's worth a read.

CABE and Design Council to Merge

No surprise, I guess. And quite probably a harbinger of things to come. This was clearly driven by the loss of DCMS support for CABE. Some concentration of resources to utilise diminishing government support has to be a good thing. Hopefully those resourses maintained will be the right ones.

Carillion buys Eaga

'Ey 'oop - did you spot this? After all the fuss about the float (at 181p) there could well be more angst as a result of this deal (at 120p). How are the mighty fallen.

Portfolio Theory and Energy Supply

Chris Huhne's speech at the Royal Geographical Society was, on the whole, a reasonably pragmatic and down-to-earth one.

There was one thing that jarred for me, though. He compared a portfolio of energy supply sources, in this context electricity generation technologies, with financial portfolios backing pension funds etc. And he used those famous words "energy security".

The two things are just not comparable in this way. Financial assets are, in the main, liquid; power generation assets have long lead times and are concrete (excuse the pun). One cannot play power asset the way one can play financial ones. We will build just enough generating capacity and if one technology fails, or proves to be highly expensive relative to others post hoc, then we will suffer the consequences, there's no getting away from it. Sure, a diversity of supply lessens the degree of supply upset but sure as eggs is eggs it doesn't constitue security.

Green Economy Council

The announcement and, indeed, the first meeting of the Green Economy Council is welcome in many senses but also prompts one or two negative, or perhaps I should say , critical comments.

First, just an observation. The press release says "The Council will uniquely bring together Ministers from three key departments......". Really? Does the author understand the meaning of "unique" or is this a massive damnation of previous UK governments' inabililty to operate "joined up thinking"?

And isn't there a very important department missing? Where on earth if the DfT? Transport is the source of a very significant proportion of UK emissions so why is DfT absent? (And having Ford UK represented is no substitute).

The cycnic in me also thought "Oh no - not another talking shop!".  Perhaps a tad mean, that, and if this body can get things moving then all power to its collective elbow. However, initiatives like this do have a history of non-delivery and, heaven knows we need real action in this area.

Another worry is whether the make-up is right. It's full of the great and the good, mainly from very large organisations. Only one of the many quotes contained within the press release mentioned SMEs who will be absolutely crucial in the proposed transformation. So well done Kate Craig-Wood who said "The Government, through the Council, need to understand the issues that SMEs in the high-tech sector face and the important role they can play in achieving sustainable growth".  And notice that she kept it sector-specific. The statistics are staggering - only 0.05% of UK companies (see the lilnk for the exact definition being used here) have over 1000 employees whereas about 68% are in the 0-4 employees bracket.

Another worry is that there seems to be a strong emphasis on the supply side with demand taking a back-seat. I'm no economist but I would have thought that a substantial proportion of green economy actiity has to be UK demand driven - that means, ultimately, you and me - and we know how large is the intention/action gap.

Enough of my whinging - let's hope this is not a "fiddling-while-Rome-burns" situation. It's just too important.

New Trees

Hooray! My little project to have the Parish Council plant more trees on the common land has delivered its first tranche. Not many - but more than zero. More to follow next year, hopefully, with a bit more cash in the budget (provided I'm re-elected, of course).

A Lost Opportunity

We went to see Greenland last night - oh dear! The four playwrights involved have growing reputations but this will not, I'm afraid, enhance them. It felt like a 2 hour lecture-cum-demonstration - not really what I believe a £30-a-head theatrical experience should be. Hearts were obviously in the right place but there was next to no narrative thread in the four intertwined "playlets" (a bit harsh, a couple of them did more forward to a degree). Furthermore, the playlets themselves were connected only by the common climate change theme with no other linkage making the whole thing seem something of a rag bag. Sadly this was a massive missed opportunity to engage. The best bit was audience watching. Why are the wierd still so prominent in this issue? It should be mainstream.

Apples & Pears?

The Environmental Investment Organisation has recently published an emissions ranking table giving relative carbon intensities for a whole raft of GB companies. (Carbon intensity is defined as as Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions divided by turnover). Fine, but how can I use the rankings? Is it really meaningful to show Aviva, say, as ranking a good number of places above Rolls Royce?

Have you had your energy statement?

And would you recognise it anyway?

Uswitch has recently undertaken a survey which suggests that many people have not yet received an annual energy statement, or didn't recognise it when they did. Am I surprised? Well, no. Energy Cos appear to have "ticked the annual statement box" but if mine was anything to go by they are hardly eye-catching.

Mind you, Uswitch's release on all this is hardly a paragon of clarity - there is a plethora of %ages but no detail of the size of the survey nor where it was undertaken or when. Pinch of salt required?

FITs and starts

DECC has announced an early review of FITs particularly targetting large-scale solar PV. The reasoning is that that there is evidence (DECC claim) that the budget for FITs could be swallowed by that one technology. (That budget, by the way, was set under the CSR at £900M from 10/11 to 13/14). DECC say that FITs were conceived to promote domestic- and community-scale installations, not large commercial ventures. So far the scheme has done just what was intended, the majority of the over 21k installations registered have been domestic.

The review process will begin with a formal consultation document that will be published in a couple of weeks. This will set out:

• A 'fast-track' review of the tariffs for 'large-scale' PV of over 50 kW and for farm-scale AD.
• A comprehensive review of the Feed-in Tariffs that will run until the end of 2011 and will result in changes in tariffs and scheme design to be implemented for April 2012.

It is clear that the hope is for changes to the tariff for large-scale solar from the fast-track review to be implemented by the time of the Parliamentary recess on 19 July 2011. Fast track indeed! Obviously, notwithstanding that the consultation and conclusions from it will be evidence based, DECC's expectation is that the fast track review will conclude that changes to tariffs are necessary to make large-scale solar projects much less attractive.

Installations generating and accredited for FITs will not be subject to retrospective changes. However, any projects in the pipeline as at the time of the changes will no longer be eligible for the tariff at the current rates.

Solar projects below 50 kW and all other technologies should be 'safe' from tariff changes until April 2012 - unless evidence reveals the need for greater urgency.

It is also becoming apparent that DECC is looking for  a more dynamic tariff-setting process to be one result of the longer-term review. 

This is all well and good - the desire not to have public funds being swallowed by commercial projects is understandable. However, moving the goal-posts so quickly is going to send negative messages into the market - investors hate uncertainty. It also has something of a whiff of technology picking which we know has been disasterous in the past.

We have to hope that whatever DECC concludes it does not scare the horses. The UK's ambitions for renewables growth are already in tatters and I can't see decarbonisation of the grid happening in the timescale that HMG wishes but that's not reason for stalling what green technology is being brought forward.

Green Claims

Defra has just launched a new Green Claims Guidance which aims to steer companies to making their green claims accurate and understandable. This is a relatively straight forward, no nonsense, document really just articulating common sense. It suggests that companies should ensure that their claims
> have relevant and genuine content;
> are made clearly and accurately;
> and can be substantiated.

So, all well and good. What it does do, if the public become aware of it, is provide a good tool with which to tackle poor, misleading or downright inaccurate claims.

What I found fascinating, though, was some of the background research that had been done into consumers' understanding and perceptions of "green" terms. This shows that although consumers are becoming familiar with some green terms, especially the more prevelant ones such as "recycling" and "carbon footprint", they remain confused by others such as "plastic neutral" (a dreadful term I think) and "water footprint". Furthermore familiarity with a terms does not necessarily translate into the appropriate understanding or meaning. This, of course, entails a risk that marketeers' output may not be interpreted in the way they intend.

I won't expand on the report's content any further but it's worth a read if you're at all interested in the perils and pitfalls of trying to promote green ideas or products.

Public Access to EPC Data

At long last - it's possible that EPC data will be more widely available. My ex-colleagues at EST sweated blood a couple of years ago trying to persuade CLG to frame the legislation in such a way that the data could be used to enable targetted marketing. And now - here we (possibly) go. Pity DECC is slashing EST's funding next year so there'll probably be nothing the organisation will be able to do.

Dieter Pours Cold Water on Decarbonisation Target

Well worth watching - Dieter Helm's evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Committee.  He suggests that the aim to reach the 2020 and 2030 emissions targets using only renewable energy is "absurd". He further warned of rising prices and DECC's over-arching optimisim in this area. In fact he laid out a lot of sacred cows for slaughter. Watch it!

'Tis the Season for Doom and Gloom

Now the IMechE is in on the game. In this report they don't advocate a risk czar (see my earlier tongue in cheek post), rather they advocate the following:

1. The adoption by governments of five Engineering Development Goals alongside the UN Millennium Development Goals. These are:    

Energy: Use existing sustainable energy technologies and reduce energy waste.  Don't wait for new technologies to be developed

Water: Replenish groundwater sources, improve storage of excess water and increase energy efficiencies of desalination

Food: Reduce food waste and resolve the politics of hunger

Urbanisation: Meet the challenge of slums and defending against sea-level rises

Finance: Empower communities and enable implementation

2. Provide all nations and leaders with engineering expertise. 

3. Help the developing world to ‘leapfrog’ the resource-hungry dirty phase of industrialisation.

So, more jobs for engineers then? (Sorry, unnecessarily snide comment). But seriously, are we really going to be able to engineer our way out of this problem? I know that history is littered with sceptical comments of this nature that proved false but perhaps, in this instance, history is not a guide to the future? And I'm reminded of those instances so well documented by Jared Diamond in "Collapse" when catastrophe did occur.

Quality vs Quantity

Interesting report from the Institute of Civil Engineers suggesting that local authority recycling incentives risk the production of poor quality recycled materials that cannot actually be reused. The ICE claims that "the progression to a ‘circular economy’ - where recovered and recycled materials are high enough quality to be routinely bought back into use, reducing the demand for goods made from raw materials - could see the waste industry be part of a resource efficiency drive that could contribute 10% to CO2 reduction." I must say that this plays to my prejudices - I've always thought that solely quantitative targets and incentives run the risk of creating perverse outcomes. I'm not saying such targets should not be used - they provide valuable indicators and that is the key - they are indicators. Targets and the decisions that follow need to be much smarter.

PS Proves a point?

One in Five Not Interested

Apparently a recent survey identified that 1 in 5 people are not interested in climate change. So why haven't the other 80% achieved more? It was the wrong question. How many are really doing their bit? Very few (mea culpa).

Time for a Department of Domestic Security?

Time for a little whimsy:

We're familiar with the energy security debate, we're been alerted to the food security one, and then there's water.

Is it time for a new department, or a new "czar"?

Just a thought.

Becoming Crochety

I think I'm becoming more like my father - railing against the idiocies of modern life. Take some of the recent political (and other) noises on education, for instance.

First there was Simon Hughes wanting universities to engage in a massive social engineering programme. That there is inequality in education opportunity is without doubt. However, the way to overcome it is not, I repeat not, to pile on another layer of bias by discriminating against those who have been down a particular "priviledged" education route. No, Simon, the answer is to deliver proper high class state education in the first place. I have been through this debate. I agonised long and hard before spending my hard earned post-tax pennies on sending my boys to a private school. It was against all my political leanings but in the end they received a better education. And further-more I believe society will have benefitted. Not only did I pay my share of taxes to finance the state education system while also paying school fees from post-tax income (a very painful experience as far as the pocket is concerned) but society is benefitting from two better-educated young men, both holding down responsible jobs providing much needed services.

So much for that! Then, yesterday we had all that fuss over measuring secondary schools via the so called Baccalaureate target. What's all the fuss about? One of the services I provide is the estimation of the economic worth of a company or project. Do I go and tell the owners of the same how I'm going to assess its worth? Of course not. I'll use paramaters that I or my clients think are important. So, if HMG thinks it is important to know how many pupils achieve 5 "academic" GCSEs then fine - we can ignore that statistic if we like but at least let us know.

As I said - more like my old man by the day!

That Science Museum Exhibition

Last month I noted the opening of the Science Museum's climate change exhibition. Now the Ecologist reports a spat with environmental campaigners because Shell is the exhibition's biggest sponsor. The oil company's actions are being compared with those of the tobacco firms a decade ago when they sponsored anything that moved before it became socially unacceptable for them to play this role. Well, yes and no. Shell may be a major source of CO2 but until such time as we get our combined act together to decarbonise our energy sources we need them. We never needed the tobacco companies. What is concerning is the apparent statement by the museum's director that the exhibition will not state a position on "whether or not climate change is real". Really?