Subscribe below to recieve updates direct to your inbox
- or -
I completely agree with Michael Mann below. I live in a ''B'' listed early 18th Century property in Scotland. Over the past couple of years, I have worked hard to improve my homes energy efficiency and have installed fantastic British sourced sheep wool insulation, and insulating plasterboard / wooden cladding. I have also invested in a biomass boiler. The property looks much as it did when it was built in 1729, however, it is now comfortably warm and as damp free as an old building can be. More importantly, I have taken the property from an EPC energy efficiency rating of ''G'' to a far more respectful high ''D'' rating. If I invested in solar thermal / solar PV, I would be able to achieve the governments 2028 band ''C'' target for all rented accommodation. I feel I have future-proofed my home without compromising its historical beauty. There are a lot of old stone homes where I live, and they are in general cold, damp, and with a lot of rot. However, tackling the issues has made me absolutely aware of how my home was put together and what the best options for my home were.
I am really glad that the Grantham Research Institute has highlighted this important issue. I have thought for a long time that listed building status and conservation zones are impeding energy efficiency. They are a problem for disabled access measures too. I think museums are for visiting, not for living in!
Since when is any bio fuel in quantity going to be sustainable from a production perspective and burning it in internal combustion engines of any type is still going to contribute to CO, nitrides and particulates. Electric flight is still many decades off - Jet engines produce in excess of 30MW each so battery power 3000 Tesla battery packs per engine per hour - not going to happen. Electric flight will be slow! It would be much better if the airlines and airfield operators got together to reduce stacking as that is unproductive flight and focussed on electrifying / de-fossilising airport operations - no more diesel generators for starting and leaving a gas turbine running to provide air-con. Using electric airside vehicles etc. There are lots of small wins to start the ball rolling.
Really exciting to hear this progress and promise in the airline industry. Do you think similar game changes Are coming in the Cruise-liner industry which is in rapid growth?
Really informative article. Thankyou. Let s hope the pace of change keeps building so that we see real positive impact for the long term.
Windows do not save a lot... The real issues here are the floors, walls, and roofs. The government should undertake trials and promote solutions that allow and enable retrofits that do not destroy the character but make these buildings comfortable and healthy, as well as energy efficient. There are multiple issues here - radon, damp, and rot, as well as conservation officers who think their job means ''do/allow nothing contemporary''. We should accept that our world needs to modernise and that we cannot leave many hundreds of thousands of buildings to stagnate and decline whilst the world moves on (for the better). Character and appearance need not be sacrificed for lower carbon.
A bit like breakdown insurance on my boiler, in fact. Richard Phillips
Excuse the stupid question, but is this new Fairy bottle recyclable in local Council/Borough kerbside schemes? Or does the enhanced recycled content make it more difficult to recycle?
The Clean Energy Plan includes new nuclear power which is not low carbon, not safe and hugely expensive. Greg Clarke must rule out any new nuclear build and enforce a zero emissions policy on all decommissioning and waste contracts to comply with the 2012 Health and Social Care Act requirement to protect the public from exposure to nuclear radiation.
Keiron - Yes, tidal streams need no walls, but the geographically suitable areas for them are very limited. The Pentland Firth is almost ideal, but, like all tidal streams has its maxima and minima, zero. Standards of living have risen in keeping with energy availability at an economic price, I see no reason to place artificial caps on this trend. Fast reactors offer a very long term electricity generation system, using the 238 at present of little value. Long term let is hope that ITER or laser systems offer permanent solutions. Agree on the significance of the CO2 scenario. I like H.L.Mencken "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Sums it up, I think. Richard
Richard - one of the pluses of tidal stream turbines is there is no need to build a wall across an estuary so no sedimentation issue, which I agree is a major issue for any hydro scheme that relies on a dam (such as the Swansea Bay Barrage). Biggest issue really is to get everyone to accept we are all energy hogs. Our modern life relies on reliable, instantaneous energy and our demand for that energy has only increased. Up to now we have been relying on hydrocarbons of one form or another as they have been relatively easy to exploit. Trying to change the fuel source for our continuing energy demand is always going to be difficult as we have become accustomed to power being there all the time. CO2 is a convenient scapegoat as it can be measured and taxed. Energy or more accurately Heat is the problem. 7 billion people produce a lot of waste in the form of heat which thanks to the blanket of gases surrounding the planet can not escape so builds up. CO2 levels have been significantly higher throughout geological history (and significantly lower too). It is very "egocentric" to think the last 200 years represent the norm for Earth climate. In the last 425,000 years global temperature has been as much as 4 C higher than present and 8 C colder. In fact if you were to draw the average line across the last 425,000 years the global average temperature would be around 5 C colder than humans currently think is the norm. I agree and have little confidence in the politicians
Kieron - The heat input to any generating plant has be controlled, not just throttling of the turbines. This was how the system an up and down, the coal input was varied to match the turbine demand, no other way. Old stations ran at a low level (they were the most expensive), and called into play for peak demand. The power output from a modern reactor, PWR, is much more flexible that the older UK graphite moderated reactors which inevitably had a large heat capacity. The erstwhile PWR at Dounreay could be shut down by simply turning everything off, thermo syphon then cooled it down. It was regarded as a real pussycat. The locations around our coast for tidal or other marine power is very limited. River estuary schemes are subject to serious sedimentation, little mentioned. The Aswan dam is bedevilled by this problem, the drop of about a metre in the fields is because the rich fertile replacement soil is in Lake Nasser!!! Moving water has power, but it has to above a minimum. There is very little suitable geography left in the UK for hydro schemes. I have no great faith in so-called energy storage schemes, the energy density is just not in them. Try finding a way to store the energy of the combustion of a piece of coal in the same volume as the coal!! Yes, I have LPG. Air source heat pumps should be a lot cheaper, but too many in one place, a city for instance, could be an overcooling problem. Why is there such a hoo-ha over CO2, its effect is largely logarithmic. I have the feeling that it is driven as much as anything by the he amounts of money to be made by terrifying the population, who cannot answer back in scientific terms. I am sure we could agree on much, certainly on no confidence in political answers!!!! Richard
@ Richard - Fair point that in the olden days there was a degree of flexibility from coal fired stations but if memory serves me right that did not mean the furnaces were switched on and off but that the steam turbines were "throttled". The same basic principle applies to nuclear although you can increase the number of control rods to slow the reactor it still remains active (and HOT). That''s more what I meant by 24/7 running. Tidal streams are periodic but tides and associated streams vary in time around the coast so there is always a flood or ebb tide somewhere. With tidal streams in estuaries of our biggest rivers when the flood stream slows the flow of the river takes up the slack water so the water is never stationary. Moving water has power. Now I''d prefer to have new hydro plants built in the Highlands as the pipes are a lot less intrusive in the visual environment than wind turbines and I''m sure there must be a way to disguise the pipes even more (even just painting them green helps). There was an article a wee while ago about converting all the traditional hydro stations around Loch Lomond to PSH thereby increasing the national storage capacity for an average difference in water level in the loch of a couple of inches +/-. Where there is a will there is a way. What about Compressed Air Storage? The technology exists off the shelf for this. Compressors, Turbines, Pressure Vessels and valves are all readily available. This should be a viable option for large scale energy storage if only there was the desire to do the R&D. Have to agree totally with you about the cybersecurity threat. This was highlighted a little while ago when someone discovered there was absolutely no security at a wind turbine site so it was perfectly possible to hack in and override the control systems. One of the big issues facing sustainable energy is not so much generation of electricity but provision of "clean" heat. Where I live we do not have mains gas so we either use bottled propane or more commonly fuel oil for central heating and hot water. Given the distinct lack of sunlight during the winter solar heating is not viable and I''m not convinced on the viability of Air Source Heat Pumps (or for that matter Ground Source as it could be very easy to freeze the ground). Wind turbines are never going to heat my house but perhaps Loch Linnhe could through a community Water Source Heat Pump. Again this is a new(ish) technology that could benefit from this Government money. I''m sure if we scientists and engineers bang our heads together we can come up with lots of efficient, clean solutions if we were given the money.
Kieron - it is not "given" that coal, nuclear and to some extent gas run 24/7. Not so long ago all generating plant was coal fired, and was able, under manual control, to follow a fluctuating demand, quite satisfactorily. It is somewhat simpler for gas plant to operate in this fashion, its reduced heat capacity. The old UK nuclear plant is not so flexible, but modern PWRs are flexible, how did an almost totally nuclear system operate in France if this were not so? All this plant operated on a demand lead basis. No renewable is able to do this, with the exception of hydro, but this dates back to the origins of electricity and is now pretty well at saturation point, and thus of limited capacity. What are the "newer technologies"? All marine sources are periodic, and vary over both long and short time-scales. Storage on an industrial scale is not achievable with present technologies, it is still at least two orders of magnitude away. New concepts, the solid state battery MAY open up a larger scale use; but it has to be economic. The search for "satisfactory" electrical generation, waste-free and cheap and on-demand at the full scale, cannot be derived from the low energy sources provided by nature. Thermodynamics and the consequent engineering negates it. With all the elaborate computer control systems needed, have you considered the consequences of a nasty minded hacker getting into this lot?? They got into the Pentagon. Richard Phillips All renewables demand more and more complex control systems in order to try and make a little go a long way. It doesn''t. The hole gets ever deeper and more expensive, calm desperation; simply because our political masters, scientifically and engineering-wise pathetically unknowledgeable, are in the thrall of the Industry lobby.
@Richard - given coal, nuclear and to a certain extent gas generating stations run 24/7 as they are not exactly simple to switch on and off at a moments notice is this a fair comparison to make? I agree that wind and solar particularly do suffer from the vagaries of the British weather (too much wind, not enough wind, too much cloud etc) but many newer technologies could prove to be much more stable and investment in storage could give the "instant" demand response.
A long list of people representing Clean Energy with only one from Client Earth which really challenges this document as yet again "long on speech lacking in ant substantial/factual detail. As far as I am concerned the Issues of Air Quality and Global Warming caused by CO2 and other Green House Gas emissions, is not just a Tory issue or just the Government. It should be Cross Party and involve the entire population none less than those under the present voting age. On that based Brexit should not affect what is put forward and what is decided. The UK and the world cannot keep putting off decisions Hard decisions for ever, there has to be a stop to these "all talk paper" . I suggest that first and foremost they have to call out Fossil Fuels. Yes the UK and France have made a ambiguous statement regarding a Ban on the sale of new diesel and petrol vehicles 2040. Is that all diesel and petrol or just some diesel and petrol engines? This is another cop out, It should read that "The combustion of Fossil Fuels have to stop, which will include Transport and Electricity generation. The Government have brushed on going over changing the Gas Grid to Hydrogen which is the most positive statement that Houses burning Natural Methane Gas are in fact 5 times worse than the family petrol car. I am concerned that people refer to the death of the Internal Combustion Engine, it is not the engine but the Hydrocarbon fuels which is combusted. Hydrogen can and will be combusted in engines to drive generators for EVs in much the same way as a Fuel Cell generates electricity on board the EV. It concerns me that over a billion has been squandered on Carbon Capture and store. I say squandered because there is no system which works and some people making out the potential of such systems have become very rich. What really amazes me is the complete lack of a mention of Hydrogen. Hydrogen is well known as Zero emissions in use. In combustion it does not have a carbon element so it does not cause CO2 emissions when combusted So WHY are people not developing a Hydrogen Zero emissions engine????? As a person with a concept for a Hydrogen Hybrid Rotary Engine-generator, I am convinced that there is a deliberate and concerted action to stifle such concepts/projects. Not accepted for TDAP run by Advanced Propulsion Centre UK and yet 5 new/improved petrol engine projects were accepted for Technology Developer Accelorater Program. There is also a second Hydrogen Rotary Engine in Scotland and I know for a fact that he has experienced the same lack of support for Hydrogen. There is H2 ICE the adaptation of existing diesel engines as Hydrogen Hybrid engines to act as replacements for existing diesel engines. Since 2008-9 and the granting of the UK Patent covering Hydrogen supply for vehicles via batteries, I have seen that "On Demand" Hydrogen production on board the EV as the future. The 2015 improvements which brought about HyPulJet.2.0 will I believe lead to lower fuel use and once the prototype engine is running the level of fuel can be assessed and the size of an On Board system could be worked out. This Hydrogen production unit would produces hydrogen as close as possible to the needs of the engine, without the need for super High pressure storage. People reading this may be dismayed to find that such thinking is being stifled by these people who make out that they are looking for Zero emissions. Time for a New Body with the straight forward remit to develop Zero emissions Road Vehicles. For those who are not aware there are several systems on the internet which are genuine concepts which produce variations of Hydrogen Grainis Bulgaria is an excellent example. By far and away the most exciting new innovation is to be found in New Mexico US where a small team have reworked a project arrived at several years ago. This produces 99.999% Hydrogen for an exceptionally low electrical input. The H2 unit worked to produced expected results in the lab/garage however in our last contact they were having difficulty with the Fuel Cell on the road. I suggested that it was more than likely Impurities being caused in the system by the movement of the EV. I am waiting for my Global Hydrogen Ambassadors Group contact, to complete the trial/assessment and make the final appraisal. We can then discuss how he will assist in making on board Hydrogen fuel for HyPulJet.2.0 powered EVs a reality. I would point out that a H2 Fuel Cell needs 99.999% pure Hydrogen otherwise the membrane clogs up and does not produce electricity, these impurities are minute amounts of air and parts thereof. Combustion of Hydrogen in a engine will not experience any such problem, it will continue to run perfectly well. This will be a clear advantage over Fuel Cells when it comes to On board H2 production. There is a much more important benefit to be gained by going out all out to develop a hydrogen Combustion Engine. It is clear that the existing engine manufacturing industry, already has the capacity to manufacture 40 to 50 million units per year (2016 level was above 50 million.) This option would cut the need for monumental cost levels for additional infrastructure and additional generating capacity. In terms of Hydrogen, there will not be a need for a national network of H2 Filling stations, again a massive saving in funding. The result of this being, Zero Emissions Hydrogen EVs at affordable prices bringing about a major roll out of Zero Emissions Transport. Even if the cost of developing a Hydrogen engine is in the region of 5 million that is small change even if it does not work when considering that it could save Trillions over the next decade. The HyPulJet.2.0 is basically two phases, one is the combustion of hydrogen, the second which I term Hybrid is to introduce a spray of water to turn this engine into ... Internal Combustion Steam Turbine. So why is it not being supported by the Auto Industry et al? Is it perhaps that it could work and bring about complete disruption to what has developed around Fossil Fuels. Welcome to the Hydrogen Era.
"this Strategy sets out for the first time how over 2.5 billion will be invested by the Government to support low carbon innovation from 2015 to 2021" - The Clean Growth Strategy Image - https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a424210befe139337424f078caca1aa81aee040d4d9a53781bb298784021d2b2.jpg - artist''s impression of what "saving the planet with the pocket money of 2.5 bn every 6 years" gets you. Now if it had been 2.5bn of investment per week, 130bn a year, 780bn from 2015 to 2021 - I would say - "that''s above and beyond what I dared to dream of - excellent well done the Tory government!" If it had only been 2.5bn of investment per month, 30bn a year, 180bn from 2015 to 2021 - I would say - "not bad for a Tory, not really enough for the progress we could and should be making but it''s enough to make a start until a new government with more ambitious plans takes over at the next election" If it had only been 2.5bn of investment per year, 15 bn from 2015 to 2021 - I would say - "this is gross irresponsibility and dereliction of duty - I call on the the local government and people of London to arrest this Tory government as atmosphere polluters" But as it is only 2.5bn from 2015 to 2021 what I have to say is best left unsaid and to the imagination! Scottish Scientist Independent Scientific Adviser for Scotland https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/
This is a great outline of why we created the National Green Standard - the Standard is based on People, Planet, Profit and underpinned by UN Global Goals. It is independently assessed and recognition is at green or gold level based on a scoring system. The ethos is around CSR and ethical working from an end to end perspective. If you want more info email email@example.com
Although this synopsis of this Clean Growth Strategy cannot cover every aspect it is regretable that there is no mention of hydrogen powered vehicles which are far superior to battery powered EVs, as the refuelling time is the same as hydrocarbon fuels, ie a few minutes, and they don''t have to carry around a huge weight of batteries that are expensive and of limited life. The problem for hydrogen power vehicles (which do include some batteries) is the severe shortage of public filling stations when all the Government can talk about is their investment in EV charging points. This misguided strategy is demonstrated by the remarks of Minister Jesse Norman "..and the creation of one of the best charging networks in the world" when Germany and other countries are way ahead of the UK in charging networks, as well as for hydrogen filling. Its time that our Government learned a bit more about efficient clean power and what the rest of the world is doing. Where was the mention of the ITER nuclear fusion project?
Sustainable packaging is good, but as the Carbon Trust found (1), "packaging accounts for between 30-70% of the total carbon cost of the drink. Therefore the measures implemented by The University of Reading tackles only part of the problem. The ease of use of these cola dispensers (low friction payments) and the clever marketing (greenwashing) will increase purchases of the drink, negating any Co2 saving due to the better packaging. (1) https://www.carbontrust.com/media/5888/cts287-coca-cola.pdf
It might be interesting to know just what these new projects are, and whether they are of such a nature as to be able to generate electricity on demand; a characteristic hitherto totally absent from the renewable sector. A crippling disability. Richard Phillips
Poverty is the major problem faced by many countries these days. Many people around the world are affected due to the problem of poverty. Poverty is particularly intractable where people did not receive proper food, medical facilities, etc. for the betterment of their lives. People around the world are helping less fortunate people by providing them proper facilities. Joining an NGO and becoming a volunteer is another way to help the humanity for a better cause. Mission humanitaire ( http://www.mission-humanitaire-afrique.org/ ) volunteer deals with some task to help the humanity.
Don''t wait for 2018 - BUY 100% PCR PACKAGING NOW! Whilst P & G''s pledge is commendable - there is NO mention here of the fact that a UK company has ALREADY pioneered 100% packaging which consumers and operators can already buy NOW.... Delphis Eco (holder of two royal warrants) has launched its leading eco cleaning chemicals in 100% PCR packaging in a landmark move - check out www.delphiseco.com for details of the range. Caroline
What does it mean by "less established" when Greenpeace talk about "offshore wind"? Surely wind power is now established and no longer needs any government support. "Less established" means, to me at least, those opportunities that are still in their infancy or even those still very much in the experimental stage. Technologies like Water Source Heat Pumps, Tidal Stream Turbines or even the "evaporation motor" that is under development. Alternatively this money should be invested into large scale energy storage systems but not chemical batteries. We have an opportunity to really expand our sustainable power system so let''s not waste it by building more wind turbines.