Subscribe below to recieve updates direct to your inbox
- or -
Fabulous to see this initiative launched. It''s a topic close to my heart! At PwC, we work with Baxter Storey on our in-house catering and they avoid fish on the MSC red list in line with your recommendations. In fact, this week, in celebration of National Marine Week, we are running a ''Plenty more fish'' campaign in all our UK offices to promote awareness of sustainable fish - with fish bars where our people can try new varieties, and distributing the Good Fish Guide to encourage staff to check the status of fish they choose for home or at restaurants outside the office, too.
Not a word in Gove''s long speech about energy. Will he enforce the 2012 Health and Social Care Act requirement to protect the public from exposure to nuclear radiation sea, land and air pollution? This means ruling out Hinkley C and any new nuclear in the UK, a zero emissions policy for all waste and decommissioning contracts, an immediate shut down of all the AGR reactors before they become the next preventable nuclear disaster due to progressive structural degradation.
Thank you for this useful article! As a student, I usually look for useful and handy articles. Recently, I found out an article with top reviewing websites for students, who are looking for essay or CV writers. http://britonwriters.co.uk/ occupied leadership positions and I have already ordered essay from one of these websites. I used to have unsertain attitude to professional essay writers but it changed :)
Excellent news - why don''t more of our large companies and sports clubs do the same?
Localized electricity generation will also eliminate the massive losses incurred from huge central power stations transmitting at very high voltage over long distances - sometimes as much as 33% of a station''s output is lost this way due to cable discharge.
Why should industry that has already invested in renewable or alternative power supplies - such as the aluminium works in Fort William that has been hydro powered since it was built - be forced to pay extra for their already renewable power supply?
Richard, there has been some negative press recently about anaerobic digestion due to effluent leaks. I''m interested to know how your company manages the waste products from AD and if this waste product could, itself, be someone else''s raw material or chemical feedstock. As it happens I am a supporter of bio-power from waste products rather than from virgin sources so it is of interest that you work with whisky distillers to use the leftovers as a fuel source. Makes my favourite tipple a little nicer :-)
Good to read the information. Very informative post!
Back to the 1920s, all electrical generation was local. It was made into a national coherent system by the 1926 Act. Business first, electricity efficiency and security second. Alas Richard Phillips
Hi Matt, Thank you for the interesting view. Allow me to add a few more points which are important to put your observations into context. As you are probably aware, the UK is the only country in the EU that has a domestic CO2 Carbon Support Price ( GBP 18) which is levied atop the cost of the European carbon permits, which are required for the power sector to be able to emit CO2. In other words - nowehere in Europe is the cost of CO2 emissions as high as in the UK, which naturally penalized coal fired power production in favour of gas. The result is - indeed - a highly efffective decarbonization of the UK''s power sector. Sadly, the CO2 reductions in the UK constitute a pyrrhic environmental victory. As stated, power plants and major industrial emitters in Europe are only allowed to emit CO2 if they can submit a matching number of CO2 permits issued as part of the EU emission trading scheme. As long as the UK does not reduce its quota of emission permits (supply), it "exports" the unused part of its quota to other European countries via the centralized carbon permit auction platform. The reduction of emissions in the UK will create more unsused carbon permits, i.e. oversupply, which will only lead to lower prices of CO2 permits in the rest of Europe, with the result that carbon permits will then be bought by other emitters and burned there instead of in the UK. If not this year, then next year or the year after. Every permit is valid until 2050. This means that ultimately and over time it is the total number of CO2 permits in circulation that will determine CO2 emissions from the power and industrial sectors. By reducing CO2 emissions without an equivalent reduction in CO2 permit supply, countries simply export their quota to other countries. Closing a coal fired plant or building new wind power plants, for instance, does not reduce emissions unless the matching quota is taken off the system as well. The OECD described the effect already in 2011: For example, if country A spends 100 million to subsidise the building of wind turbines to (partly) replace coal-fired power plants, this would certainly cause a reduction in CO2 emissions related to electricity generation in that country. This decrease in emissions would lower the demand of emission allowances in the EU ETS, causing the prices of these allowances to decrease and making it feasible for other firms covered by the system to emit more CO2. As long as the value of an emission allowance is positive, one or more of the other firms covered by the ETS will increase their emissions until the room under the cap is eliminated. If country A really wanted to achieve a reduction in CO2 emissions at an EU (or global) level, it would be more effective to spend the 100 million buying up emission allowances in the market and then never use them. That would guarantee a decrease in total emissions because, in effect, the cap on total emissions would be reduced (OECD (2011), Interactions Between Emission Trading Systems and Other Overlapping Policy Instruments (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/interactions-between- emission-trading-systems-and-other-overlapping-policy-instruments_5k97gk44c6vf-en) A recent report by Pyory supports these findings: " On the one hand, efficiency and renewable initiatives that reduce emissions directly add to the allowance surplus and soften the carbon price. On the other side, an ETS cap that does not change when real-world emissions are lowered weakens the case for efficiency and renewables policies, since doing them well doesn t necessarily yield more progress towards the lower cap that is also needed to meet Europe s 2050 targets and Paris commitments. P yry (June 2017), Managing the policy interaction with the EU ETS The lack of holistic and synchronized policy making between members states is economically inefficient. One could argue that subsidizing the expansion of renewable energy (reducing demand for CO2 permits) creates oversupply which lowers CO2 prices. Supply side measures, as suggested by the OECD, would make more sense to truly curb emission in Europe. The Swedish government is the only EU member state that has embraced this: The Swedish government has started a program to purchase and cancel carbon permits worth EUR 30m per year. http://www.government.se/press-releases/2016/07/real-emission-reductions-and-more- pressure-on-the-eu-due-to-new-swedish-eu-ets-policy/ At current prices of around 5 per carbon permit the program would reduce permit supply by 6m tCO per year. This relatively small 30m investment generates the same amount of annual CO reductions as Netherland s entire installed wind power capacity (3,500MW). An expert commission of the German government also recommended to rather purchase and cancel allowances and count this towards Gwermany''s climate targets than to pursue myopic domestic CO2 targets and ignore the "leakage" effect which would render them useless. https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/V/fuenfter-monitoring-bericht-energie-der-zukunft-stellungnahme.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=7 In Europe, emission reduction investments are important to drive the low carbon and energy transition. However, as long as this is not synchronized with the carbon market, their effect on the environment is almost neutralized. Governments should follow the Swedish example and the German and OECD''s recommendations, otherwise will see an environmental zero sum game.
Hi Tom, Thanks for comment, we've updated and clarified that it is biodiesel that is subjected to the 57p duty. We''ve reached out to Wyke Farms to clarify the type of fuel they would ideally trial, and how this would correspond as a tax. We should hopefully have an answer soon. Thanks, Matt
Matt, I think your article is potentially misleading as you state that biofuel use attracts duty of 57p/L. This is true for biodiesel. Unless someone can confirm otherwise (please do), Wyke Farms would be producing biomethane fuel which attracts a duty of 24.7p/kg as it is >80% methane (section 10.1 in the very same link in the article). This is substantially less than biodiesel duty as it corresponds to approx 19p/L on a diesel energy equivalent basis. Cheers Tom
Shame they were and are such avid Trump supporters. His presidency is a disaster for the environment.
There are many issues at play here, chief among which are: Built in obsolescence Customers desires to have the latest technology Equipment designed to be discarded, not repaired Given that none of the above is likely to change, manufacturers must be forced to ensure that all materials used to construct electrical and electronic equipment can be recycled in a financially viable and environmentally acceptable manner. Take back and re-use schemes are a step in the right direction, but given that this equipment will ultimately be discarded at some point, 100% recycling of all constituent components is the only way to ensure that e-waste is properly dealt with and we are not having to plunder the earth to replace the valuable elements required to manufacture new equipment.
Nigel, if I may build on your excellent article and its observations; for large companies, managing a sustainable supply chain requires a new high level of collaboration between customer and supplier and across the supply-base itself. As research by CDP Supply Chain Initiative has shown, suppliers very often need to be nudged by their customers to make sustainability a priority and then benefit enormously from sharing experience with their peers to understand how to make changes in their operations. Large scale supplier to supplier collaboration unleashes a wisdom of the crowd and accelerates a companies ability to resolve otherwise difficult challenges. However, only digital technology can enable the large scale collaboration that is required across supply chains. We can see how powerful this can be in Asda''s Sustain and Save Exchange, where peer collaboration between 500+ companies is helping to unlock 10s millions of cost cutting opportunities associated with waste, water and energy every year. Our latest development is a new digital collaboration platform, launched in March of this year. Manufacture2030.com is a single platform for multiple retailers, brands and their manufacturing suppliers to come together to collaborate cross supply-chain to cut costs, risk and impacts. It has been launched with the Co-op and its food supply chain, with Mars, William Jackson Food Group, npower and more recently Johnson and Johnson. The collective know-how that is already being convened from amongst their hundreds of engineers and HSE managers has the potential to accelerate significantly resource efficiency amongst participating companies. We are sufficiently in awe of their collective capability and technology''s ability to enable large scale sharing of data, knowledge and collaboration that we have set an ambition for the platform to enable any company that chooses to have access to the knowledge and experience required to half their resource use intensity over a 10 year period. Supply chain sustainability is indeed the new frontier, but we will only make it happen if we learn to use technology to collaborate at scale. Martin Chilcott is Founder and CEO of 2degrees, the leading collaboration platform provider for sustainable business
And what if we looked to Nature to provide inspiration for new solutions to current and future challenges? With around 4 billion years of R&D, Nature has worked out what works, what lasts and what is beautiful. The website asknature.org is a very good starting off point. I trust the Festival is a great success.
There needs to be a considered approach to which fuels offer the best environmental solution .I the instance of fossil fuels there is a distinct absence of reporting or analysis on the subject of impairment costs and the effective subsidy paid t support fossil fuels by Governments via the tax payer .On the basis of an LCA and the effective costs on, say, human human health virtually any "bio " based fuels offer a discernible benefit - i,e the true costs are identified and then compared . The same situation for electric vehicles - issues of how the power ( coal etc) is generated and the cost of end of life disposal of batteries.etc . Regardless of the urgent need to address climate change the debate in resect of impairments costs also warrants immediate attention as economies slow but costs inevitable rise , RJL
@Roger - thing is the "petrol" fraction is not just fuel for infernal combustion but one of the more useful petrochemical feedstocks. By not burning it we will have more of it available for longer and be able to have a "sustainable" petrochemical industry. Only about 45% of a barrel of oil goes to transportation (including lorries, buses, trains and shipping as well as cars) at present so the majority of a barrel already is used for petrochemicals. As for the tax question I am sure they will come up with an insanely complex system that no one understands. The obvious way is to tax the "fuel" itself. Perhaps a sliding scale so the first x units of electricity is deemed domestic and taxed at the current 5% then anything above this is taxed at a higher rate. If you use a lot of electricity then perhaps even a super rate. Charging at a charge station in town would be subject to VAT I am sure. But shush don''t want to give them any ideas :-)
Keiron, Absolutely agree with you but I feel that here will be a reduction as less petrol will be refined. The question now is how are future governments going to tax the use of EVs as they surely will
@Roger - with all the will in the world we will still be refining crude into various petroleum products for years and years to come. Imagine a world without the thousands of petrochemical based products we all take for granted. So I don''t see there being any reduction in electricity use for refining just because electric vehicles become the norm. Still need something to insulate the copper cables in the EV which is most likely to be a petrochemical plastic.
It seems pretty clear that price incentives plus smart technologies can easily achieve the two degree model. If we had a sensible night time tariff like the rest of Europe we would all be used to running stuff overnight. Also does this study take into account the reduction in the use of electricity used for refining oil which is quite considerable
Hi Michael, In response to your query about whether the use of recycled aluminium would have affected the research findings. The aluminium industry has claimed that the highest energy consumption occurs during the production of virgin aluminium from ore and that cylinder block production primarily uses recycled aluminium. The Cranfield study took this into account, adopting the best-case scenario for aluminium via infinite recycling. Hope that helps to clear things up. Thanks, George
Perhaps some manufacturers are using re-cycled aluminium or the 30% not created with fossil fuels. Would that affect the conclusion? 3D printing may also improve the energy used. There are many benefits to aluminium that go beyond energy and also have value. It is interesting though that weight is not seen to be particularly significant until high mileages are achieved. Given the weight of batteries that may be a good thing for EVs. I would hope that we would develop other lightweight and energy-efficient material solutions such as carbon fibre/ceramic/steel/aluminium composites than revert to cast iron for IC engines.
Gosh, never thought to take a magnet with me when selecting a new car. The report might make more sense if it looked at electric vehicle construction as that is probably far higher on embodied CO given the exotic materials and construction methods (and deconstruction costs). This will clearly be an important consideration when I replace my 364000km car.
And where is this extra electricity going to come from? And more importantly reliably come from? There''s no way wind turbines alone will provide this and batteries alone will not smooth out the variability in "renewable" generation. Time to seriously invest in proper energy storage solutions rather than pie in the sky belief in battery technology and to invest in other, smoother renewable generation such as hydro, river flow and tidal stream.