You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘renewable energy’ category.
Excellent article also published in the Guardian. Biofuels just get worse and worse.
Written last week but not posted as our internet connection has been down…
The ongoing pasta crisis in Italy is in the news again this week as price hikes prompted Italy’s four biggest consumer organisations to call a nationwide pasta strike yesterday (original post on this blog here). Like good citizens we did our bit and added our 2p to the national ire, but it’s unlikely the strike will have any real effect. Wheat farmers are replanting to take advantage of the exploding demand in biofuels – a situation only likely to get worse in the medium term.
And as if the pasta crisis weren’t enough to shake Italian culture to its foundations, this year is going to be particularly bad for olives, at least in this region. Locals are uneasy as the olive trees are mysteriously bearing very few fruits. None of the farmers I’ve spoken to has been able to point to a definite cause (though this year’s drought seems a likely culprit), preferring instead to fall back on the peasant’s super weapon: mystical stoicism – ah, there are good years and bad years. Life is sacrifices. But they’re now regretting selling off last year’s surplus and worrying about how to stretch their current supply. It’s going to be a lean year – so stock up now.
(Spotted by Mel at Elemental) Cyril Sweett have published their research into the potential for improving energy performance of existing building stock. The importance of greening existing buildings is brought home by two facts:
- 44% of all CO2 emissions in the UK comes from energy use in buildings
- According to one of the report’s authors, in 2050 60% of Britain’s buildings will still pre-date the 2006 revisions to Part L
So we can look forward to the carbon reductions required by Part L being ratcheted up in future, but the overall effect will be modest, even in the long term. If we want to save carbon NOW then energy consumption in existing buildings is too important to ignore.
Predictably, the report’s top recommendation is for “brave decisions” by the government. But in a political climate where politicians would rather engage in creative accounting than be decisive on climate change, it’s hard to be hopeful.
What’s going on?
There’s been a fierce debate among energy bods this summer over the environmental effectiveness of combined heat and power (CHP) and CHP with cooling (CCHP) – a debate closely tied to assumptions about the carbon emissions associated with grid electricity in the UK.
What happened?
As noted in this blog in May, Arup associate director James Thonger opened up with a broadside aimed at the GLA policy of requiring CHP and CCHP on new developments. In particular he refuted LCCA claims that gas CHP saves 54% of carbon relative to grid electricity. The LCCA is headed up by Allan Jones, former green god of Woking and now darling of the London Mayor, who didn’t take the criticism lightly.
What the hell is wrong with people? Here’s the mission statement from the website of a green consultancy in the States:
We leverage our core competencies in business strategy, environmental science, and marketing to design and deliver comprehensive, customized solutions for each client. Whether your company is a sustainability pioneer looking to extend and leverage its leadership or a newcomer just thinking about how to integrate sustainability, our disciplined, proven approach enables us to design a solution specifically tailored to blah blah blah.
Reading that, you can’t help but flashback to the early days of the dotcom boom where a new kind of bullshit was rife. It’s spooky how similar the nonsense from a bullshit generator sounds to these corporate mission statements. I had a look around for other generators and found a corporate one here and even a landscape urbanism one here. If your corporate blurb sounds like the paragraph above, it may be time for a rethink. Maybe something like this?
We provide expert consultancy in business strategy, environmental science, and marketing to a wide range of clients. Our services are individually tailored to our clients’ needs, whether they are new to sustainability or already have extensive experience with sustainability issues.
Too radical?
Following our recent blog conversation about the energy consumption of Portcullis House, Phil at the Sustainability Blog has pointed out the recently published consumption figures for another Hopkins scheme – this time the Gibbs Building owned by the Wellcome Trust. Like Portcullis House, it’s an office building kitted out with plenty of green gear. And like its cousin, the Gibbs Building is consuming more energy than predicted at design stage. So is the green office building just a myth?
An article in the Times over the weekend claims that walking to the shops emits more CO2 than driving. It’s a sensationalist claim (even if they can back it up with calcs) that doesn’t help anyone except Daily Mail readers desperate to shore up their view that anyone who thinks about energy or the environment is a commie pinko control freak determined to spoil everyone’s fun. Chris Goodall, the man behind the claim, should have known better and is clearly more interested in headlines than making a genuine difference.
Every little helps. But all things being equal, the fight to alleviate the effects of global warming isn’t going to be won between your house and the shops. It’s much more useful to keep your eye on the crucial issues rather than handing ammunition to the folks who like nothing better than a bit of obfuscation.
Client (on seeing the staircase dominating his hall): But I didn’t want a black marble staircase, I wanted an oak one!
Lutyens: What a pity.
This is driving me nuts. There’s now a huge emphasis on sustainability in architecture but some architects still don’t get it. Aflame with good intentions at the start of projects, they enthusiastically buy into sustainability concepts. But later in the design when there’s a perceived conflict between the energy performance and the architecture, the energy performance is chucked out the window.
Last Friday afternoon in the shallows of the Gulf of Evvoia in Greece, a small unwary fish strayed near the tentacles of a jellyfish, causing hundreds of of the jellyfish’s nematocyst cells to fire their barbed stingers, paralysing and then killing the fish. The jellyfish then reeled in its prey and went to work with its four stomachs.
At the instant the fish died, I got a call from work asking if I could go to a meeting in Athens on Monday morning. It was very short notice and far from ideal but I carry guilt because I’ve got the best office in the world. So I agreed.
Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) is often put forward as part of a low-energy design strategy for homes. The principle is that you build your house air-tight to minimise air infiltration and then mechanically supply fresh air via a heat exchanger. This heat exchanger captures the heat energy in the warm outgoing air and transfers it to the fresh incoming air. Some MVHR units can reclaim as much as 90% of outgoing heat, potentially making drastic cuts to your heating load while maintaining high internal air quality (that’s the theory). All of this is part of the build tight, ventilate right strategy that you hear so much about.
But how air-tight do you have to build before MVHR makes sense? I took a look using SAP 2005, and here are the results:
Recent Comments