Consumer Utility Services Blog: January 2007

22 January, 2007

100% Solar Powered Home Cuts Bills

The first large scale scheme to power a property with energy from entirely renewable energy sources was announced last week. Michael Strizki has made it his life’s work to devise a replicable system in which he and other property owners can conceivably modify their energy production requirements so that others can generate 100% of their own power, therefore, removing all energy utility bills.

His 3,000 square foot property is based in the western New Jersey region of the United States and contains numerous energy hungry appliances such as wide screen televisions and even a hot tub. He has implemented a solar energy solution using a 1,000 square foot roof full of photovoltaic cells, which converts the power using an electrolyser, and stores it in hydrogen tanks until required.

Although the amazing project is undoubtedly good for the environment, doubters will point to the fact that it was hardly a cost effect exercise. The project dubbed "The Hopewell Project" took four years to plan and complete the building work, and cost $500,000 ($225,000 of this was a subsidy received from the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities). Strizki counters this argument with the assertion that lessons have been learned during the initial build of his prototype system and if replicated it could be planned and built for approximately $100,000.

Strictly speaking $100,000 is still expensive when one considers that over a 25 year life cycle this works out as $4,000 per annum for energy generation which is nearly three times the average $1,500 an American homeowner will spend on energy bills. However, the exercise is certainly valid in that Strizki himself is conserving large amounts of energy and the publicity from the project is further helping to cement the importance of renewable energy technologies into the public consciousness. If US States or on a larger scale sovereign governments saw fit to provide additional grants or subsidies for projects such as these, citizens may even have a viable and cost effective way of going entirely renewable.

18 January, 2007

Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power

Advantages of Nuclear Power

Nuclear power provides an emissions free energy source
No greenhouse gasses emitted
Not a contributor to global warming
Not a contributor to acid rain
There is a lower volume of waste than traditional sources of energy generation
Nuclear plants help regions to meet standards on air pollution and help to reduce the cost of air pollution control
Nuclear energy generation is the most efficient power source per unit area
There is a very low risk of work related injury. There has not been a single fatality in the past 40 years of day-to-day running of nuclear plants.
There are no harmful pollutants are discharged into water
Areas around plants can be used for development of wetlands
There is less than 20 tons of high level waste produced per nuclear plant annually
Nuclear can leverage a high degree of future price stability as compared with fluctuating prices for fossil fuels as used, for example, in standard coal fired plants
It is easy to transport new fuel

Disadvantages of Nuclear Power

Nuclear power plants require a larger capital cost due to emergency, containment, radioactive waste and storage systems involved in the process
There needs to be a resolution of the long-term high level waste storage issue in many countries
There is a potential nuclear proliferation problem

Advantages of Nuclear Power (in more depth)

Efficiency of Uranium – Uranium-235 is the isotope of uranium that is used in nuclear reactors. Uranium-235 can produce 3.7 million times as much energy as the same amount of coal. For example, 7 trucks, each carrying 6 cases of 2-12 foot high fuel assemblies, can fuel a 1000 Megawatt-electrical (MWe) reactor for 1.5 years. During this period, ~ 2 metric tons of Uranium-235 (of the 100 metric tons of fuel - uranium dioxide) would be consumed. In order to operate a coal plant of the same output would require 1 train of 90-100 ton coal cars every day. Over 350,000 tons of ash would be produced and approximately 4 million tons of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides would be released into the atmosphere.

Fuel Costs – The use of Uranium-235 in nuclear power generation is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is a direct access to low cost fossil fuels. Also, the use of nuclear power generation removes the dependence of particular countries for fossil fuel production and the inherent volatility in the price.

Abundance of Uranium - Uranium ore is the raw material used to make the uranium fuel necessary for nuclear power generation. Countries that are rich in uranium ore are; United States, South Africa, Canada, Nigeria, Australia - with resources between 270 and 2400 thousand tons each.

Emissions free energy source - Nuclear power can be employed as part of a strategy to address carbon emissions. Nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, or nitrous oxides. In order for Europe to meet the emission targets outlined in the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global warming, the European Commission concluded that Europe would need at least 85 new nuclear power plants.

Safety - According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the number of incidents at
Nuclear power plants that may trigger any of a number of safety systems have dropped from 2.37 in 1985 to .03 in 2000. In addition, recent research shows that the frequency of accidents and the number of deaths from nuclear power production is less than for energy production from coal, oil, natural gas, or hydropower.

Fuel Reprocessing – The reprocessing of nuclear fuel reduces the waste that must be
disposed to three per cent of the original amount. If nuclear fuel is reprocessed, the
radioactivity declines to that of coal ash in 400 years. The United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and France all reprocess spent fuel, which involves separates out plutonium from the waste.

Disadvantages of Nuclear Power (in more depth)

Risk of accidents - Accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear power plants confirmed a long held fear that nuclear power was not a safe source of energy production. The result of these two accidents meant that utilities cancelled a number of proposed and partially constructed nuclear generating plants. Since the accidents, industry and government has worked to improve safety and reduce the risk of accident, but there is still the risk of catastrophe especially when one considers growing terrorist threats.

Waste storage plan – Reports by the Natural Research Council (NRC), suggest that the growing volume of nuclear waste stored on site at nuclear power plants requires attention. The NRC notes that both geological disposal and monitored storage on or near the earth’s surface are safe and feasible storage options. However, there are currently significant technical and non-governmental group opposition to this form of storage.

Costs of start-up – Although the costs to create energy from nuclear power are lower when compared to most other forms of energy production from a fuel perspective, the costs to construct, monitor, insure and ultimately decommission are higher than those from an equivalent fossil fuel based power plant.

Nuclear Power Safety

To date there have only been two major reactor accidents in nuclear power plants worldwide – Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island. The Three Mile Island accident took place in the USA in 1979 and there was containment of the radiation, whereas the accident that took place at Chernobyl, (Ukraine) in 1986 allowed significant radiation to escape as there was no provision for containment.

Details of the accidents at the respective plants are noted below:

Three Mile Island

In 1979, the number 2 reactor at the Three Mile Island plant in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA was destroyed due to a cooling malfunction, which caused the core to melt. Essentially the reactor’s core became exposed and caused up to one third of the fuel to melt. The problem was exacerbated due to a lack of training and poor tools available to the operators that were called to incident. Conflicting messages were sent to the public with regards to the incident, which resulted in panicking the public unnecessarily as there was some radiation escape, however, the releases were not serious and did not pose a heath threat. Reassuringly, the containment unit worked as designed and despite a significant core meltdown, the reactor maintained its integrity and retained the fuel within.

The 1979 accident at went on to affect utilities all over the world. Several of them were felt immediately. Any plans for further nuclear power plants were dealt a serious blow in the United States and plants that were under construction faced huge modifications in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The cost for the operators skyrocketed as they faced additional delays and increased outlays for construction.

Residents brought a lawsuit against the plant claiming injury, however, this was dismissed and the judge found that there was insufficient evidence that radioactive releases had brought about enough harm to justify the case progressing.

Regulators and the nuclear industry had to fundamentally change how they thought about safety after the Three Mile Island accident. There was a widespread culture within the NRC and the utilities companies that such an incident could not possibly happen, which in turn could have stood in the way of an effective response to the incident. The accident also showed that a combination of freak events could occur, that those individual events in themselves were not foreseeable and that the some interaction was important and determined the actual risk. Prior to the Three Mile Island accident, regulators and the industry thought about planning for accidents in a more isolated context, in other words, this pipe break or not. This overall thinking was reflected in the design of the control area at the Three Mile Island power plant. The control room had over 600 individual alarms, which were useful in tracking the performance of individual systems and very useful if one individual system developed problems. However, when the incident occurred, several of the alarms went off which overwhelmed the control room crew and contributed to a slower response time.

The complexity of a nuclear generating plant is not unrivalled, chemical plants are known to be complex. However, utilities were not used to that level of complexity. For example, fossil fuelled plants are not as complex and if a problem should occur, the plant can be shut down with little chance of an incident affecting the surrounding area.

The Three Mile Island accident shook the public’s faith in nuclear power and the government and utilities handling of it. It has been noted that the valve that had failed in the Three Mile Island plant had malfunctioned 11 times before at other nuclear plants; however, the NRC had not taken any corrective action or issued any warning to other operators.

Chernobyl

In 1986, at Chernobyl, Ukraine the most catastrophic nuclear power plant accident occurred when a test was conducted to see whether an emergency shut down could be conducted safely in the event of a loss of power. Clearly in this case it could not. Within two seconds, there were two explosions and the power in the plant quickly rose to approximately 120 times its rated capacity. The fuel rods exploded, and the cooling water flashed into steam. Throughout this the pressure from the
steam increased and it breached the reactor structure and escaped into the environment. Although Soviet reactors did not have a containment vessel, the reactor was encased in cement. This 1,000 pound slab of cement was tossed aside.

For the first time, the lethal radioactive contents of a large power reactor were exposed to the atmosphere. The graphite control rods caught fire and smouldered for seven days spewing out radioactive releases into the air. It took 11 days to extinguish the fire and cease the radioactive releases.

Approximately 30 workers died fighting the fire and another several hundred had radiation sickness. Although these people recovered, they are at risk for cancer related illnesses. Officials ordered the evacuation of 135,000 people and parents sent their children away voluntarily. The monetary costs of the incident probably reached up to $10 billion and approximately 50,000 square miles of land became contaminated due to the incident. There were isolated incidents of high radioactivity readings in food, such as reindeer in Scandinavia, sheep in Wales, and fish in Switzerland.

After the Chernobyl power plant disaster, the soil in the region contained elevated levels of radioactivity, which means that the food chain will remain contaminated for some years. An exclusion zone was created in the affected area and at least some of the wildlife that inhabits it has absorbed high levels of radiation. Approximately 100,000 residents were permanently relocated.

Despite detailed knowledge of the radioactive fallout, the health effects cannot be
Determined easily as considerable non-radiation health related impacts related to anxiety and stress have been documented by researchers of which could be partly attributable to having to relocate en masse with little or no contingency plans.

Researchers do expect higher than normal deaths from cancer for years to come and there have been some 2,000 reported cases of child Thyroid cancer. This is a highly treatable disease, however, these cases could have been avoided by the ingestion of iodine tablets. However, there were not elevated levels of leukaemia when a 1993 report was conducted. Researchers found this surprising because after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, leukaemia was the earliest sign of long-term radiation effects. Various studies contain estimates of 5,000, 14,000, 600,000, or even one million additional deaths from cancer due to the Chernobyl disaster. The most common estimates are around 10,000-50,000. Thirty-five thousand cases would mean an increase in the cancer rate of approximately one-half percent, whereas the smaller estimates are not as large as the expected number of cancer related illnesses from coal and or the probability of dying in a car accident.

An incident such as this terrible disaster raises questions as to whether an event such as this could happen in North America or Western Europe. Most analysts would not compare the Chernobyl plant with an American plant or any other commercial plant outside of Eastern Europe. The main differences are the lack of a containment structure, the unstable reactor design, faults in the reactor design, and the non-routine operation during the test.

17 January, 2007

Economics of Nuclear Power Generation

The costs of generating electricity from coal, gas and nuclear plants varies from country to country. Coal will remain economically viable in countries such as China, the USA and Australia with abundant and accessible domestic coal resources as long as carbon emissions are negligible. Gas is also competitive for base-load power in a number of places, particularly using combined cycle plants, and however, rising gas prices have removed much of this advantage.

Nuclear energy is largely competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, even taking into account relatively high capital costs and the fact that all waste disposal and decommissioning must be internalised, which produces an inherent cost. When the health, social, and environmental costs of fossil fuels is also taken into account, the nuclear power option can be compelling.

Costs external to production

The report of a major European study of the external costs of various fuel cycles, focusing on coal and nuclear released in mid 2001, showed that in monetary terms nuclear energy incurs approximately one tenth of the costs of coal. The external costs are defined as those incurred relating to health and the environment and are quantifiable but they are not built into the costs of the electricity. If these costs were included, the EU price of electricity from coal would be doubled and the production of energy from gas would increase 30%.

The European Commission (EC) launched the project in 1991 in collaboration with the US Department of Energy, and it was the first research project of its kind to put plausible financial figures against damage resulting from different forms of electricity production for the entire EU. The methodology considered dispersion, emissions, and impact. With nuclear power the risk of accidents is factored along with high estimates of radiological impacts from mine tailings (waste management and decommissioning being already within the cost to the consumer). Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, similar to that of hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind power energy generation shows up better than nuclear power, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.

Fuel Costs

Initially, the basic attraction of nuclear energy has been the low fuel costs compared with non-renewable energy sources such as coal, oil and gas fired plants. Uranium, however, has to be processed, enriched and fabricated into fuel elements, and approximately two thirds of the cost is due to said enrichment and fabrication. One must also make allowances for the management of radioactive spent fuel and the disposal of this spent fuel or the wastes that are separated from it.

However, with these included, the total fuel costs of a nuclear power plant in the OECD are approximately one third of those for a coal fired plant and between one quarter and one fifth of those for a gas combined cycle plant.

Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, in Spain nuclear electricity cost was reduced by 29% over 1995-2001. This involved boosting enrichment levels and burn-up to achieve 40% fuel cost reduction. Prospectively, a further 8% increase in burn-up will give another 5% reduction in fuel cost.

Nuclear power energy generation compared with traditional energy production sources

For nuclear power plants cost figures will normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. While usually being external for other technologies, these costs are internal for nuclear power.

Decommissioning costs are estimated at 9-15% of the initial capital cost of a nuclear power plant. However, when discounted they contribute only a few percent to the investment cost and even less to the generation cost. In the USA they account for 0.1-0.2 cent/kWh, which is no more than 5% of the cost of the electricity produced.

The back end of the fuel cycle, including spent fuel storage or disposal in a waste repository, contributes another 10% to the overall costs per kWh, - even less if there is direct disposal of spent fuel as opposed to reprocessing. The $18 billion US spent fuel program is funded by a 0.1 cent/kWh levy.

French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear power generation is favourable because of the huge, standardised plants used.

It can be said that the cost of nuclear power energy generation has been dropping over the last decade. This is due to the declining fuel (including enrichment), operating and maintenance costs, while the plant concerned has already been paid for, or at least is the process of being paid off. Generally speaking, the construction costs of nuclear power plants are significantly higher than those for coal or gas fired plants because of the need to use special materials, and to incorporate sophisticated safety features and back up control equipment. These can contribute to much of the nuclear generation costs, but once the plant is built the variables are negligible.

Construction periods have historically pushed up the financing costs. However, this is less the case in Asia where construction times have tended to be shorter, for example the new-generation 1300 MWe Japanese reactors which began operating in 1996 and 1997 were built in just over four years.

Overall, OECD studies in the 1990s showed a decreasing advantage of nuclear over coal. This was largely due to a decline in fossil fuel prices in the 1980s, and easy access to low-cost, clean coal, or gas. In the 1990s gas combined cycle technology with lower fuel prices was often the lowest cost option in Europe and North America.

Nuclear cost competitiveness in the future

The OECD does not expect investment costs in new nuclear generating plants to go up because advanced reactor designs are becoming further standardised.

The future competitiveness of nuclear power will depend largely on the additional costs, which could accrue versus coal generating plants. It is uncertain as to how the real costs of meeting targets for reducing sulphur dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions will be attributed to fossil fuel energy production plants.

Under current regulatory measures, the OECD expects nuclear power to remain economically competitive with fossil fuel generation, except in regions where there is direct access to low cost fossil fuels. For example, in Australia there are coal-fired generating plants that are close to both the mines supplying them and the main population centres, and there are large volumes of gas available on low cost, long term contracts.

A joint report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Energy Agency showed that nuclear power had increased its competitiveness over the past seven years. The principal changes since 1998 are the increased nuclear plant capacity factors and the rising gas prices. The study did not factor in costs for carbon emissions from fossil fuel generators and focused on over one hundred plants able to come on line in the years 2010-15, including 13 nuclear plants. Nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$ 1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. A cost analysis of coal plants was $1000-1500/kW, gas plants $500-1000/kW and wind capacity $1000-1500/kW.

A 1997 European electricity industry study compared the electricity costs from nuclear, coal and gas for base load plant commissioned in 2005. At a 5% discount rate nuclear (in France and Spain) at 3.46 cents/kWh (US), was cheaper than all but the lowest priced gas scenario. However, at a 10% discount rate nuclear, at 5.07 c/kWh, was more expensive than all but the high-priced gas scenario. (ECU to US$ at June 1997 rates)

A detailed study of energy economics in Finland published in mid 2000 shows that nuclear energy would be the lowest cost option for energy generation capacity. The study compared nuclear, coal, gas turbine combined cycle and peat. Nuclear has a higher capital cost than all of the others --EUR 1749/kW including initial fuel load, which is approximately three times the cost of the gas plant, however, its fuel costs are much lower, and so at capacity factors above 64% it is the cheapest option.

In 2003 the MIT published the outcome of a 2-year study of nuclear energy prospects in the USA. Adjusting its assumptions to those more in line with industry expectations ($1500/kW & 4 year construction, 90% capacity factor, interest rate 12%, and adding fees & taxes) the generation cost comes out at 4.2 c/kWh, which is the same as coal without any carbon costs.

A UK Royal Academy of Engineering report in 2004 looked at electricity generation costs from a new plant in the UK. In particular it aimed to develop "a robust approach to compare directly the costs of intermittent generation with more dependable sources of generation". This meant taking into account the cost of standby capacity for wind, as well as carbon values of up to £30 per tonne CO2 (£110/tC) for coal and gas. Wind power was shown to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power.

Generally, plant choice is likely to depend on a country's international economic situation. Nuclear power is extremely capital intensive, while fuel costs are much more significant for systems based on fossil fuels. Therefore, if a country such as Japan or France has to choose between importing large quantities of fuel or spending a lot of capital at home, simple costs may be less important than wider economic considerations.

Development of nuclear power could provide work for local industries, which build the plant and also minimise long the dependency on buying fuels abroad with the corollary of not being subject to wildly fluctuating prices. Overseas purchases over the lifetime of a new coal-fired plant in Japan, for example, may be subject to price rises which could be a more serious drain on foreign currency reserves than the less costly uranium.

Uranium factors

An advantage of Uranium is that it is a highly concentrated source of energy, which is easily and cheaply transportable. The volumes needed in nuclear energy production are much less than for coal or oil energy production. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield approximately 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal.

Uranium’s contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is quite small, so even with a large fuel price escalation this would have a little effect. For example, a doubling of the 2002 U3O8 price would increase the fuel cost for a light water reactor by 30% and the electricity cost by approximately 7% (as opposed to the doubling of the gas price which would add 70% to the price of electricity).

Summary

In summary we can take the following three broad points from this analysis of the economic aspects of nuclear power energy production:
Fuel costs for nuclear plants are of a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants.
Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is a direct access to low cost fossil fuels.
When assessing the cost competitiveness of nuclear energy, one must take into account the decommissioning and waste disposal costs.

Wind Power Versus Nuclear Power

The generation of energy and the varying methods thereof is a highly emotive and politicised area of our society, which tends to polarise individuals. For example, it would be unlikely that a proponent of wind power as a source of energy generation would also have a propensity towards nuclear power and vice versa. Therefore, as my previous couple of posts have focused on wind power the next couple will detail some of the economic, efficiency and safety based aspects of generating power through nuclear means.

16 January, 2007

Are Wind Farms a Sustainable Renewable Energy Source?

There is a segment of the UK populate that believe the answer is no. An increasingly vocal proponent against the development of wind farms in the UK is the disingenuously named Renewable Energy Foundation www.ref.org.uk whose founder and chairman is the television personality Noel Edmonds.

The Renewable Energy Foundation has a lengthy mission statement illustrating the main thrust of their arguments against wind farms at http://www.ref.org.uk/refinfull.php - the piece begins with the following statement

"We are part of a growing national consensus that the United Kingdom’s energy policy is unbalanced, and that the drive for renewable energy generation has been inadequately planned, a fact that has resulted in a developer-led industrial feeding-frenzy that is neither green nor sustainable. It is improbable that this current broad-scale industrialisation of the countryside will bring about any significant reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases or meet the long-term energy needs of the UK"

and continues

"The UK is now facing a widespread and unplanned industrialisation of the countryside and the destruction of some of our most precious heritage through the building of wind power stations. The principal motivators of this activity and its precise direction are developer convenience and landowner compliance. Ministers condone this by standing back from the market in order to foster competition, in accordance with goal four. It might be argued that Ministers are in fact abdicating responsibility for the consequences of the artificial market, which they have established through legislation."

Obviously these are serious concerns for UK citizens and future generations. However, the assertion of the Renewable Energy Foundation delineating their concern for the industrialisation of the countryside seem to loose credence when one considers that of all proposals for wind farms in the UK, both offshore and offshore, 40% have been refused. It does not strike me that we are in a "developer-led industrial feeding-frenzy", nor that "ministers are in fact abdicating responsibility for the consequences of the artificial market". The kind of bombastic misinformation promulgated by the Renewable Energy Foundation is helping towards fostering an innate distrust of wind farms and the production of energy from wind turbines from the public, which will ultimately slow down our progress in this important area and our attempts as a nation to generate 10% of all our energy production from renewal sources by 2010.

There may be some hope on the horizon due to a pledge from the Labour government to introduce legislation that will force local planning agencies to look favourably on wind farms in the planning stage and move the debate away from political discussions about the efficiency of energy production from wind power (of all forms of renewable energy production, wind energy is closest to achieving profitability) and aesthetic objections (provided that the sites proposed are not sites of special scientific interest or national parks).

Two large-scale wind farms that have passed the planning stage are based offshore in the South East of England and when combined it is estimated that they will produce enough energy to power 990,000 homes in the area. The first project called the London Array is to be sited in the Thames estuary 12 miles from the coast and will contain 270 turbines in a 95 square mile area. The turbines will be approximately 100 metres from the sea surface and will create 1000 megawatts in total, which it is estimated will power 750,000 homes.

The second smaller wind farm known as the Thanet project will be sited off the North Kent coast. It will consist of 100 turbines that will produce 300 megawatts of electricity - this should power approximately 240,000 homes in the region.

Ultimately, it is your choice to decide whether you fall into the pro wind farm or anti wind farm camp and as we are in the age of the celebrity I'll finish the piece with quotes from two game show host veterans and wind power campaigners. See if you can guess which side of the fence they sit on...

"Wind turbines are modern-day guardian angels, a stunning addition to our rural landscape and a must if we are to move toward a future powered by green energy” Chris Tarrant speaking to the BWEA (British Wind Energy Association)

"The industrialisation of our landscapes with Wind Power stations will not prevent the impending energy crisis. Wind Turbines are Weapons of Mass Distraction. The rollout of thousands of these structures is a cynical attempt by the Government to distract the public and the media from the real issue – the UK’s impending energy crisis". Noel Edmonds speaking on behalf of the Renewable Energy Foundation

10 Energy Efficiency Tips for the Home this Winter

1. You should ensure that your water tank is fitted with properly fitted insulation.

2. Always use energy efficient lighting. This will save you money in the long run and help to conserve energy.

3. Replace any old windows or doors with modern double glazed units.

4. Choose to buy energy from an eco-friendly energy supplier. There are now numerous providers offering green energy tariffs (although you will often pay more for the privilege).

5. If you are using a log burner, burn wood that has been seasoned as opposed to green wood in order to cut emissions.

6. Buy “A” rated energy efficient domestic appliances that show the "Energy Efficiency Recommended" logo.

7. Make sure that unused electrical electronics are unplugged and not simply left on standby.

8. Save energy buy washing clothes on a lower temperature and/or on a shorter wash cycle.

9. Ensure that any external lighting works on a timer.

10. When using a refrigerator or oven you should minimise opening the door on the appliances as you can loose as much as a quarter of the cooling capacity and heat respectively each time the door is opened.

15 January, 2007

Carbon Zero Homes to have Stamp Duty Exemption

As part of the new initiative from the UK government to ensure that all new homes are carbon neutral by the year 2016, it has been announced that from 2008 onwards, new homes that are deemed to be carbon neutral will be exempt from stamp duty. This is being used as an inducement for property developers to build houses with a focus on energy efficiency and will help to cut overall UK emissions of which 30% is directly attributable to housing.

The scheme, beginning in 2008, will include a ratings system that will identify the energy efficiency of a new home. The maximum "6 Star Rating" will be awarded to homes that utilise energy generation techniques from renewable sources such as solar panels, wind turbines or other energy micro generation methods and can display that they can generate enough energy to power the home rather than taking power from the national grid.

Additional details on the plans can be found at the Communities and Local Government website at Building a Greener Future

14 January, 2007

Wind Turbine Suppliers in the UK

The micro-generation of energy through small-scale wind turbine systems has been regularly in the UK news and there is an increasingly audible campaign for the wide scale introduction of wind powered solutions.

Although controversial in some quarters with fears about turbine noise, damage to wildlife and a perceived low quantity of power that can be generated on a small scale, increased media publicity and a well meant public desire for producing clean energy is beginning to incubate a small wind power industry in the UK.

If you are interested in joining the wind power revolution you may wish to visit one of the following companies that specialise in the production and installation of wind turbines for the small-scale production of electricity.

Ampair (Boost Energy Systems)
Brumac Wind Systems Ltd
Chalcroft Construction
Chiltern Future Energy Ltd
Econcern
Fortis Wind Energy
Iskra Wind Turbines Limited
Marlec Engineering Co Ltd
Proven Energy Limited
Quietrevolution
Renewable Devices Ltd
Segen Ltd
Windsave Ltd

If any readers have used one of the above companies we would love to hear of your experiences.