Consumer Utility Services Blog

Boiler Maintenance

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 07:38:00 +0000

As we've now hit October and the weather has started to well and truly take a turn for the worse, we're all going to start turning up the dial on the central heating controls and as I have credit crunchitis I'm predicting an impending sky high fuel bill and quite possibly a broken boiler.

It seems that whenever Christmas draws near I can expect a visit not only from Santa, but also from a boiler repairman - at least for the previous two winters anyway. Last winter our household had finally had enough so we took out a boiler maintenance plan. You can read my British Gas HomeCare review in our brand new "boilers" section of the site.

If you've got a temperamental boiler the HomeCare plans are pretty reasonable value. We chose the Homecare 100 plan, which happens to be the cheapest of the range, but according to British Gas the most popular boiler cover plan is the HomeCare 200. We've listed the full range of British Gas HomeCare plans so take a look and see what you think. You won't appreciate the piece of mind it gives you by having a reputable boiler maintenance plan unless you've had to deal with a (number) of cowboy engineers tutting loudly over a broken appliance while you stand freezing cold in your kitchen...

For the less serious boiler problems we have put together a boiler troubleshooting page to help diagnose and potentially remedy the more common faults, which may occur with your boiler. However, please note that we cannot more strongly recommend that you seek professional advice if you encounter a problem with your boiler. They are extremely dangerous pieces of equipment that CORGI registered engineers should maintain on your behalf.

Finally, if your boiler is beyond repair we've written guides on what types of boiler you should consider buying as well as the aspects that should be taken into account when you are seeking to have your new boiler installed.

HYmini Portable Wind Powered Charger

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Mon, 12 May 2008 11:03:00 +0000

Forget having a flat battery because the Hymini portable wind powered charger is able to charge a multitude of devices such as iPods, mobile phones, cameras, and most other portable electronic devices on the market today solely by harnessing wind power.

The novel aspect of the HYmini charger is that it is wind powered which is in contrast to the numerous solar powered chargers on the market. Based on the typical weather in the UK, the HYmini device should be a particularly appealing device!

The HYmini portable wind powered charger currently comes in three attractive colours and accessories such as bike straps, or bespoke adaptors can be purchases as necessary.

It is only necessary to have a light breeze to begin charging via the HYmini so if you are out and about during the day you can be charging your electrical gadget simply by walking or riding. Alternatively, leaving the HYmini charger out of an evening should produce a full charge ready for the next day’s activities. As a useful backup, you are also able to plug the HYmini charger directly into the mains electricity if required.

Contained in your HYmini portable wind powered charger pack you will get the following items:

1 x HYmini Portable power bank
USB transfer cable and 6 connectors for Nokia / Motorola / Sony Ericsson / Samsung / LG
AC/DC power adaptor and wall plug

The HYmini is a perfect choice if you are an outdoors person and is the ideal camping companion.

MORE INFO

Christmas Eco Gifts For All The Family

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:17:00 +0000

As you are no doubt aware Christmas is looming large, which usually means the buying of a large selection of consumer goods for members of family that will never use them.

Well fear no more because you could actually buy a gift that would be used regularly and what's more it would be eco-friendly. There are a number of retailers that are going green, but two that I could recommend as having a wide range of eco-friendly items available are Ethical Homeware and Nigel's Eco Store.

I'm usually a sucker for gadgets myself so I'd be delighted with most of the gadgets on offer at these two shops. In particular, a Sun Jar or Moon Jar and/or Glow Brick would be a very popular addition to my household. Take a look and buy yourself or your loved one an eco gift for Christmas.

57 Sustainable Living Sites You May Not Know

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:00:00 +0000

Each of the sites listed below come from the Consumer Utility Services sustainable living bookmarks. The majority of the links are from the UK and US, but there is also a number of interesting international sites included. If you are aware of any other excellent resources in this field we would love to hear from you by email or alternatively drop the links in the comments section of this post. Enjoy!

Sustainable Living Blogs

TreeHugger
Sustainablog
Shiny Shiny: Eco-Friendly Gadgets
Hippyshopper: Green gadgets
Inhabitat
Green Options
Unplugged Living
About My Planet - Green News & Environmental Community
Alternative Building Services
Alternative Energy Blog - Solar-Energy-Wind-Power.com
Earth Blog
Ecofriend
Green Trust Sustainability & Renewable Energy
Greenthinkers
GroovyGreen
JetsonGreen
The Energy Blog
Off-Grid
EcoHood
Energy Boomer
WattHead
Green Car Congress
The Big Biofuels Blog
Clean Break
Cleantech Blog
Alternative . Renewable . Energy
AutoblogGreen
Hybrid Cars Blog
HybridBlog
Environmental Economics

Sustainable Living Forums and Communities

AlternativeE
Care 2 News Network
green@work Today
Hugg 2.0
Nature Network London
Plant Change Australia
Renewable Energy
theWatt
Green Savvy Network

Sustainable Living Products

Electrisave
The Interflush Water Saving Product
Eco Kettle
GreenStamp
Gizoo
Doctor Energy
Ethical Superstore
Green and Easy
Smarter Products
Shop Eco
Nigel's Eco Store
Windtrap
ECOutlet
Ecotopia Eco Shop
Ecofreak
Pure Climates
Earthwhile
UrbanEcoInc

The Wattson

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:01:00 +0000

I would definitely say that the Wattson is one of my top energy conservation products of the year so far and it is a device that any eco-conscious householder should consider buying. Simplistically, the Wattson is a device that will tell you how much energy your domestic appliances are using, both in Watts and £'s spent.

The Wattson consists of two parts. The first is a very stylish white arch display unit, which has dimensions of 17 x 10.4 x 5.6cm, and secondly an electricity monitor that will act as a sensor and broadcaster of energy usage data. To install the Wattson you would need to clip the sensor to the two wires that run between your electricity meter and the fuse box. This will then send the information back to the main unit, which will display not only the energy currently being used in watts or pounds, but also the energy being used by individual electrical appliances. The reading can be displayed on the unit numerically or you can choose to have an ambient light read out. In other words, the more electricity being used, the brighter the ambient light will shine.

Connectivity is also a strong point of the Wattson. In order to use the device you will not need to worry about trailing wires around the house because it functions wirelessly. Also the Wattson stores energy consumption data, which can be downloaded onto your computer via the USB port whereupon historical data usage patterns can be generated. A fun element is that you can compare your home electricity usage patterns with other Wattson users and share tips on energy efficiency.

I can find literally no negative points that can be discussed in relation to the Wattson. It is stylishly designed, it will help to reduce energy consumption, it can act as an educational device for children, it is wireless and you can generate electricity usage reports. The designers at Diy Kyoto have really produced a peerless product that deserves to have pride of place in everyone’s home. The standard priced Wattson is £125 or you can choose to opt for a more eco-friendly bamboo clad Wattson for £350. Go order yourself one at www.nigelsecostore.com

Disclaimer - No references to Sherlock Holmes (such as "elementary my dear wattson") were made during the course of this post.

Recycling Guide For Householders

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:07:00 +0000

Recycling domestic waste is an important aspect of environmental living, but it is often not straightforward as to what can be recycled, what can't be recycled and how we should go about recycling. This guide will help illustrate how you should go about recycling your waste.

There are three main types of domestic waste that are commonly recyclable, these are: paper, plastic, and glass. There are specific checklists that you should be aware of when attempting to recycle waste or old items in each of these categories, as you will be given the option to sort your recyclable items into specific recycle bins. It is essential that you understand what should and should not be included in each recycle bin.

Recycling Paper

It sounds obvious, but if you are recycling paper, it should solely be paper. This means removing any extraneous items that maybe included in the paper package such as staples, sticky tape, plastic windows or metal binders. If any of these are left on the paper, it is likely that the batch will not be recycled and/or will cause the recycling machinery problems.
Laminated paper or cardboard boxes (unless they are well flattened) should not be included in paper recycling.
If paper food boxes or napkins are to be included ensure that they are clean and do not contain discarded food or grease.
Paper that has been used for faxes or till receipts are not usually able to be recycled so do not include this type of paper

Recycling Plastic

There are over 50 different types of plastic used in various types of packages so it can be very difficult to ascertain which type of plastic can be recycled and which can't. If you aren't sure, you should check the plastic packages for a recycling logo, which will contain numbering applying to a category of plastic.

The table below displays the relevant plastic recycling categories by "number", "category of plastic" and "typical packaging" it is used in

1 - PETE (polyethylene terephthalate) = Waterproof packaging
2 - HDPE (high density polyethylene) = Milk, detergent, oil bottles, plastic bags
3 - PVC (polyvinyl chloride) = Food wrap, vegetable oil bottles, bubble wrap
4 - LDPE (low density polyethylene) = Plastic bags, shrink wrap, garment bags
5 - PP (polypropylene) = Most bottle tops, some food wrap
6 - PS (polystyrene) = Throwaway utensils, meat packaging
7 - Other (mixed plastics) = No recycling potential so must be landfilled

Information courtesy of the Society of the Plastics Industry (SDI).

You should note that not all of the categories of plastic can be recycled. As a rule of thumb you will be able to recycle plastic that falls under category 1, 2 and 4 and to a limited extent category 6.

Also, bottle tops are often made from different material to the bottle itself, so it is advisable to remove bottle tops prior to recycling.

Recycling Glass

Only glass should be recycled - make sure that any metal caps or bottle tops are removed.
It is likely that you will be taking glass bottles to a bottle bank. This will involve you separating the glass into different coloured glass, e.g. brown, green, etc.
Do not attempt to recycle glass kitchenware as this is created to withstand high temperatures so they will not melt at the same temperature as standard glass bottles.
Glass is recycled at very high temperatures so it is not necessary to ensure that glass bottles are free from grease.
DO NOT under any circumstances recycle light bulbs in standard glass recycling bins. It is important that light bulbs are recycled separately as they can contain dangerous contaminants that need to be disposed of safely.

Home Energy Efficiency Grants

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:51:00 +0000

Good news! We have recently updated our home energy grants section for our readers in the UK to encompass over 40 separate home energy efficiency grants.

The grants are categorised into the following sections for your convenience -

Electrical appliances
Energy efficient Light Bulbs
Heating
Home Insulation (Cavity Wall Insulation)
Home Insulation (Loft Insulation and Draught Proofing)
Renewable energy

A number of utilities companies are even offering free installation of insulation for home owners. Perhaps it isn't the time of the year in which you would normally associate insulating one's home over in the UK, however, some of the grants are only available until the end of this month so try to get your claim in as soon as possible.

Finding Cheaper Petrol

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:41:00 +0000

We all know that here in the UK we currently suffer one of the highest prices for petrol in the western world. On the one hand, ideologically we are taxed so highly on petrol in the hope that we are forced to cut back and take shorter journeys or take public transport in order to help save the environment. On the other hand, the high tax on petrol is a way for the government to raise funds using a mechanism whereupon most typical citizens will not have any option other than to accept the increasing fuel prices because the other options such as public transport are wholly inadequate (in the UK at least).

Well, help is at hand from the people at Petrolprices. Their site uses a database that contains all petrol stations in the UK and up to date prices for unleaded, diesel and LGP fuels in your area. All you need to do is sign up for free, enter your postcode and specify how many miles you are willing to travel to obtain the petrol and the site will list the cheapest offers. Over the course of several months, the savings could really stack up.

Search Engines Go Green

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Tue, 22 May 2007 14:42:00 +0000

Yahoo and Google have been keen to emphasise their commitment to environmental issues recently by introducing new green initiatives at Yahoo! Green and Google Summer of Green that was launched last summer.

Each search engine has approached the subject in their own inimitably idiosyncratic way. Yahoo have gone the way of the all encompassing portal containing environmental news, facts and commentary, whereas the offering from Google is a typically leaner site that relies heavily on search technology in the form of mapping environmentally friendly places to stay in the US.

Great to see that two sites that can boast amongst the largest reaches on the Internet are taking environmental matters so seriously. So much so that Yahoo even employed Matt Dillon to kick off the publicity for Yahoo! Green last week in New York!

The Secret to Growing Your Green Campaign Through Traditional Media

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 09 May 2007 16:49:00 +0000

The Internet has proved the driver for many a new eco-agenda both on national and local levels due to the ease of use, speed in which a campaign can be waged, low costs and the potentially huge audience. Obviously, the upside can be massive, but on the other hand the competition for peoples attention is equally as fierce. If the Internet is not proving to be fruitful, it may be an option to target you campaign to your local area using traditional media. In order to pitch your campaign to local media you should take into account the following issues.

What is your cause?
Who is your ideal audience?
What do you hope to achieve?

These points sound obvious, but unless you have a clear-cut answers to the above questions you will not be able to run a concerted and coherent campaign.

Now that you are clear on your cause and what you hope to achieve you can target your campaign to traditional media in your area.

Options you could follow would be to:

Contact influential figures in the community or who you believe may share the ideals you wish to espouse. Possibly celebrities, council leaders, industry leaders or newspaper journalists. If possible it would be best to request a meeting with your chosen contacts, or speak on the telephone rather than using an impersonal medium such as email
Write a press release in a clear and concise fashion and send it to newspapers and journals. If possible try to obtain direct quotes from industry leaders to add influence to your campaign
Try to incorporate "hooks" into your campaign. These could include past successes, human interest stories or the benefits of a successful campaign
Organise "in-person" events or rallies and send invitations to your target audience and media figures
Attempt to build a rapport with journalists. This can lead to articles being written about your cause and may lead to radio or television interviews.

Provided that you have followed our guidelines, the public will have recognised the importance of your campaign and hopefully at this stage it will be at the forefront of the minds of your target audience.

The Case for Energy Saving Light Bulbs

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Tue, 01 May 2007 10:29:00 +0000

Last month on the 9th March it was announced by EU leaders that they sought to introduce legislation that would lead to the eradication of traditional incandescent light bulbs in favour of energy saving light bulbs by 2010. The following week, the UK government announced that they would take the lead and ban traditional incandescent light bulbs from the vast majority of domestic usage by 2011. Currently as a consequence of lighting UK homes we produce approximately 7.8 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. By introducing the ban on traditional incandescent light bulbs in favour of energy saving light bulbs we would save roughly three million tonnes worth of carbon emissions.

What are the options?

Currently over 90% of homes in the UK still use traditional incandescent light bulbs. These bulbs have a very short life compared to energy saving light bulbs and they produce light in an extremely inefficient way - only 5% of the energy used creates light, the rest is simply turned into heat.

Energy saving light bulbs use a quarter of the power of traditional incandescent light bulbs and can last up to 12 times as long. There are a number of different models, shapes and colours that one can choose from, although there are still relatively few models that can be used with dimmer switches. However, as demand grows, so will the number of options offered to the consumer. The initial cost of an energy saving light bulb is substantially more than a traditional incandescent light bulbs, but over the lifetime of the bulb it will not only pay for itself, but also actually save you money on your electricity bills. Research suggests that if one traditional incandescent light bulb is replaced with an energy saving light bulb, over the lifetime of the bulb the average consumer will save approximately £100 in heating costs. It should be noted that energy saving light bulbs contain mercury, so it is essential that they are disposed of in a responsible manner - currently IKEA offer recycling options.

Low energy LED (Light Emitting Diode) lighting offers an even longer life span than energy saving light bulbs - up to four times longer and can use as little as four watts. Initially, LED lighting was used solely in devices such as digital clocks, however, the technology is advancing rapidly. LED lighting is not comparable to energy saving light bulbs as they do not currently offer a strong enough light output to challenge energy saving light bulbs at this time, but the technology is improving quickly and they could soon be a credible alternative. At this time, they are best used for low output mood lighting.

Overall it would appear to be a no-brainer to use energy saving light bulbs in your home. It is true that the initial costs for purchase are higher, but it can be demonstrated that over time they will actually save you money on your energy bills, which in turn helps to conserve the environment. Why not join in the movement to ban traditional incandescent light bulbs and support Dr Matt Prescott over at Ban The Bulb in his campaign.

Eco-friendly open fireplace

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:40:00 +0000

Imagine those cosy nights sitting at home with a loved one in front of a roaring open fire... well guess what? An enterprising Australian company EcoGreen has developed an eco-friendly fireplace that will both save your conscience and the environment.

The rather attractive EcoGreen fire is flueless by design and does not require a utility connection to run because it is powered by denatured ethanol, which provides a carbon free burn. The manufacturers website appears to be devoid of any readily available price so in our experience that generally means that it is an exclusive consumer item (read expensive). If you do find a price or better still, you have one please let us know.

The Sexy Green Car Show

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:11:00 +0000

Yesterday saw the opening of the first ever "Sexy Green Car Show" at the Eden Project, Cornwall, UK. The show will not be devoted to the usual posturing over speed and luxury, rather it will be the green credentials exhibited by the cars that will be the star attraction.

If you are in the Cornwall area you can find more details about the show at the Sexy Green Car Show web page.

Amongst the line-up of green cars are the following top performers as highlighted by The Independent newspaper -

VW POLO BLUEMOTION 102g of CO2 produced per km
CITROEN C1 109g of CO2 produced per km
VAUXHALL CORSA 1.3CDTI 124g of CO2 produced per km
VAUXHALL TIGRA 1.3CDT 16V SPORT
124g of CO2 produced per km
CITROEN C3 1.4I 16V STOP AND START 135g of CO2 produced per km
SAAB 9-5 ESTATE BIOPOWER 214g of CO2 produced per km(reduced by 50-70% if run on E85 bioethanol)
SMART EV Zero if run on renewable electricity
FORD FOCUS FLEXI-FUEL 167g of CO2 produced per km (reduced by 50-70% if run on E85 bioethanol)
SAAB 9-3 CONVERTIBLE BIOPOWER 203g of CO2 produced per km (reduced by 50-70% if run on E85 bioethanol)
TOYOTA PRIUS 1.5 VVT-I HYBRID 104g of CO2 produced per km
LEXUS GS450H 186g of CO2 produced per km

We all have them… What’s your carbon footprint?

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:29:00 +0000

There has been a huge amount of press about the ecological damage being done to the environment by the release of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Regardless of how eco-friendly we think we are, we are all guilty of contributing (directly or indirectly) to the release of CO2 on an individual basis. This eventuality has been coined as our "carbon footprint".

To help determine whether you are a green goddess or an above average polluter, take the Carbon Footprint challenge. You will need to have a basic grasp of your energy usage patterns and perhaps a calculator. Here goes:

Central Heating

Determine whether your house is small, medium or large and use the following figures for the amount of energy expended using gas to heat the home -

Small house: 10,000kWh per year
Medium house: 20,500kWh per year
Large house: 28,000kWh per year

Once you have the amount, multiply by 0.19 to obtain the carbon output and divide that amount by the number of inhabitants in your home.

If you use coal, found out the total weight burned and multiply by 2 to find the carbon emissions.

Electricity

Determine whether your house is small, medium or large and use the following figures for the amount of electrical energy expended in the home -

Small house: 1,650kWh per year
Medium house: 3,300kWh per year
Large house: 5,000kWh per year

Once you have the amount, multiply by 0.43 to obtain the carbon output

Transport

To obtain your carbon footprint for car travel you will need to obtain the carbon emissions (per gram) specific for the model of your car per kilometre and multiply this amount by the number of kilometres you travel in one year. If the car is shared, take this into account and divide the total by the number of passengers.

If you are using public transport, again, work out the total distance over the course of a year and multiply by the following -

Km travelled by train - Multiply by 0.11 for the carbon emissions

Km travelled by bus - Multiply by 0.09 for the carbon emissions

Km travelled by ferry - Multiply by 0.47 for the carbon emissions

If you have flown anywhere in the given year, this will add amounts to your carbon footprint. The easiest way to work this out is to visit the site http://www.chooseclimate.org/flying that will work it out for you.

Services/Manufacturing/Retail

This section basically covers all of the other areas in which carbon emissions will be produced during daily life. The amount will vary hugely dependent on individual outlook and lifestyle, however, they can be broken down into three areas

For heavy shoppers who eat mainly convenience foods add 3,000kg
For average shoppers who mainly buy groceries from supermarkets add 2,000kg
For individuals that have opted out of the capitalist society in favour of an entirely organic, agrarian lifestyle add 600kg

Once you have added up the carbon emissions from all of the sections above you will be left with a final figure. Let's see how you've done.

Total

1,000-3,000kg Exceptionally eco-friendly

3,000-6,000kg Very much below the UK average for carbon emissions. Well done.

6,000-9,000kg Approaching the UK average.

9,000-12,000kg Just over the UK average. Room for improvement!

12,000-15,000kg Getting towards the higher end

15,000-18,000kg Need to cut back for the good of the planet

18,000-21,000kg Huge carbon footprint. Try not to fly as much, sell your fleet of cars and buy a bicycle

For greater detail on counting your carbon emissions see Mark Lynas's book "Carbon Counter" published by Collins.

For information on how you compare with the UK average as a whole and to check how our carbon emissions are generated per sector, see the breakdowns below.

UK consumers use a range of products and services that consume a combined carbon footprint of 648 Mtc (million tonnes CO2 per annum)

Mtc (million tonnes CO2 per annum) generated by sector

Recreation and leisure 116 Mtc

Space heating 88 Mtc

Household 82 Mtc

Food and catering 82 Mtc

Hygiene and health 80 Mtc

Clothing and footwear 59 Mtc

Commuting 48 Mtc

Aviation 40 Mtc

Education 29 Mtc

Other government 18 Mtc

Communication 6 Mtc

For addition information on the figures see the Carbon Trust

On a per person basis, the Carbon Trust state that the average Briton has a carbon footprint of 10.92 tonnes of CO2 per annum, which is almost half the carbon footprint of the average American at approximately 19 tonnes of CO2 produced per year. The figures can be broken down as follows -

Tons of CO2 generated per person per annum in the UK

Recreation 1.95 tonnes
Heating 1.49 tonnes
Food 1.39 tonnes
Household 1.37 tonnes
Hygiene 1.34 tonnes
Clothing 1.00 tonnes
Commuting 0.81 tonnes
Aviation 0.68 tonnes
Education 0.49 tonnes
Phones/Communication 0.1 tonnes

If your total carbon footprint has shocked you by its enormity, try these tips to lessen your carbon emissions.

Tips for lowering your carbon emissions

Walking to work rather than driving - over the course of a three mile car journey you will save 2kg of carbon emissions if you choose to walk.

Switching the power off at night in your home can save 30kg of CO2 emissions.

By lowering the thermostat on your home central heating system by one degree you will save 25kg of carbon emissions per year.

If you take showers rather than baths, you will save 50kg of carbon over the course of a year

36kg of carbon is emitted via the use of tumble driers over a year - use a clothesline to dry clothes instead

Offset your carbon emissions

It can be incredibly difficult to eradicate ones carbon emissions entirely, however, it is easy to "offset your carbon emissions". Bascially, this would involve calculating the amount of CO2 emitted and charities such as The World Land Trust will work out how much money would need to be spent on green projects such as such as renewable energy solutions or reforestation in order to cancel out the carbon emissions. You can use the method detailed above to calculate your carbon emissions or you can use the carbon calculator at Carbon Balanced and make a donation towards offsetting your carbon emisssions.

The Environmentally Friendly Way To Drink Tea

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:50:00 +0000

We at Consumer Utility Services are very fond of our gadgets, we're passionate about the environment and we love cups of tea. Combine all that together and you have one of our favourite gadgets on the market at the moment, The Eco Kettle.

The Eco Kettle, devised by British designer Brian Hartley, claims to save 30% of power usage compared to a standard kettle. An independent study by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) goes so far as stating that if all British households used an Eco Kettle the country would save 1,270,000,000 Watt hrs of electricity each year. The study can be found here When one takes into account the fact that when a 3kW kettle fully boils it is using the amount of energy to power 50 standard light bulbs and we often fill the kettle with far more water than is needed, the standard kettle can be considered as pretty energy inefficient.

With the Eco Kettle you can fill the kettle up to a maximum, but the twist is that you can select how much of the water needs to be boiled. This works by the user compartmentalising an amount of water required by selecting, for example, a single cup worth and the exact amount of water will be siphoned off to a chamber for boiling. In addition, the chamber is well insulated to maintain a high water temperature over time. Very ingenious!

Go buy one and be safe in the knowledge that you can enjoy a cup of tea whilst being environmentally friendly.

Buy - Eco Kettle

Environmentally Friendly Motor Vehicles

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:54:00 +0000

I don't drive a car, never have done. In most part this has been due to an ideological dislike of gas guzzling motor vehicles and not the inability to pass a driving test (this is my view and I'm sticking to it).

Thankfully there are an increasing number of options open to the environmentally friendly would-be car owners amongst us with the introduction of eco-friendly cars into mainstream production lines.

On one end of the spectrum are vehicles that are powered by entirely renewable means such as solar power, however, these vehicles are largely prototypes and certainly not in mass production at this time.

The middle ground is inhabited by what are known as "hybrid" vehicles. These are cars that still contain a petrol engine, but they are also electric powered through the use of an electric motor, a generator and a bank of batteries. Hybrid vehicles are in mass production and seem to the tour de force of the image conscious (as well as environmentally aware) celebrity. Although hybrid cars still produce some pollution as they still have a petrol-burning engine, the petrol engine is significantly smaller than a traditional car and as such will produce a fraction of the emissions.

Alternatively, you could continue to run your existing car but convert it to run on Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) in addition to its existing petrol engine. The advantages of LPG are that the fuel itself burns substantially cleaner than petrol, the car will not suffer any significant degradation in performance and it costs approximately half the price of petrol.

If you are considering joining the green motoring revolution, you may want to consider one of the 10 most highly rated environmentally friendly cars as recommended by the Independent newspaper.

1. LPG Smart
The Smart is quite green anyway, but this conversion is cleaner and cheaper to run. £6,810 + £1,996; MPG 50+; Top speed 84mph; Range between refuelling 250 miles; CO2/km 90g

2. Toyota Prius (hybrid)
Favourite of Hollywood stars and a thoroughly reliable proposition. £17,545; MPG 65.7; Top speed 102mph; Range 104 miles; CO2/km 104g

3. G-Wiz (electric)
Two seater billed as "the greenest car available" and carbon neutral. £6,999 (special offer); MPG n/a; Top speed 40mph; Range 40 miles CO2/km: nil

4. Aixam Mega (electric)
Very odd-looking vans and pick-ups. £9,590 (pick-up version); MPG n/a; Top speed 30mph; Range 62 miles; Co2/km: nil

5. Volvo V70 Bi-fuel (petrol/CNG - Compressed Natural Gas)
Often sold to local authorities. £25,708; MPG 30.1; Top speed 127mph; Range 400 miles; CO 2/km 169g/km

6. Vauxhall Corsa Dual Fuel 1.2 (petrol/LPG)
Manufacturer's own conversion. £12,015; MPG 38.2; Top speed 109mph; Range 644 miles; CO 2/km: 119g

7. Morris Minor (petrol)
Greener than it looks and ready to go on and on and on. £400 to £5,000+; MPG about 40; Top speed 75mph; Range 260 miles; CO2/km not measured

8. Lexus RX400h (hybrid)
Proof that 4x4s don't have to be gas guzzlers. Technically similar to Prius. £35,485; MPG: 34.9; Top speed 124mph; Range 490 miles; CO2/km: 192g

9. Honda Civic IMA (hybrid)
Alternative to Toyota Prius. £15,230; MPG 57.6; Top speed 108mph; Range 640 miles; CO2/km 116g

10. Citroen C2 1.4 Diesel
Standard but with low emissions. £9,095; MPG 68.9; Top speed 103mph; Range 640 miles; C02/km: 107g

European Sustainable Energy Week

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 08:42:00 +0000

Coming to a close is the first European Union Sustainable Energy Week (Eusew) organised by the European Commission.

During the week over 40 stakeholders attended the event to discuss renewable energy solutions and measures on how to be more energy efficient.

By all accounts the conference was well attended a number of important issues were discussed. For more details see the European Union Sustainable Energy Week website at http://www.eusew.eu and the programme notes Conference Programme 2007

100% Solar Powered Home Cuts Bills

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:43:00 +0000

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.

Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:45:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:57:00 +0000

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.

Economics of Nuclear Power Generation

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:23:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:14:00 +0000

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.

Are Wind Farms a Sustainable Renewable Energy Source?

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:22:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:56:00 +0000

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.

Carbon Zero Homes to have Stamp Duty Exemption

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:39:00 +0000

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