Our local council has just decided to split the recycling collections again, meaning on recycling day we have to put out up to five different containers. When will this lunacy end?
A short history:-
We started off with a brown bin for garden waste and cardboard, a blue box for plastics, cans and glass, a blue bag for paper and a red bag for textiles.
Very quickly the council decided that lids were needed for the boxes, so these were issued. More boxes were handed out to people as they were not large enough to hold all the recycling!
The blue boxes were then scrapped (not being made of recyclable materials!!) and blue bins were issued instead.
So far so good except that putting paper in a bag quite often meant it blew all over the place when the wind got up.
Now we have been issued with orange bags for cardboard - as with the paper collection this either becomes a sodden mess when it rains or will blow around if the wind gets up.
The situation gets worse of course because we now have four lorries on recycling day - brown bin, blue bin, paper/textiles and cardboard. How can this be good for the environment?
Add to that the fact that with the bags for paper we find a lot of them blowing away after being emptied because they are not securely returned by the refuse crews. This will now be added to by the new bags. Two problems arise here, firstly they are made of plastic so litter the country side and do not biodegrade, secondly they have to be replaced.
Some people, myself included, have reused the old blue boxes for paper. This may not work for card because the crews will not easily see the difference (lids on to prevent rubbish blowing everywhere)
Why can we not follow the lead of Europe, where recycling is collected in one bin and sorted at the recycling centre - the technology exists to do this nowadays and that which cannot be done automatically will create employment?
Showing posts with label Green Myths. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green Myths. Show all posts
Friday, December 16, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
The Wind Turbine Fallacy
As our government and environmentalists make ever greater demands for alternative power sources for when fossil fuels run out, more investment is being made in wind farms.
The recent bad weather in Scotland and northern England however is demonstrating why this won't work.
In strong winds, wind turbines have to be stopped. I believe this is achieved by both 'feathering' the blades to reduce their thrust to zero and also by applying a brake to prevent the rotor from turning.
In low winds the turbines just don't turn anyway as there is insufficient strength.
As a result we are left with a relatively narrow window of conditions in which wind turbines can produce any power. It gets worse however in that we don't have the infrastructure to take all the power they can produce when we are in the right zone so suppliers are paid to turn them off!
In the news today, I read of the wind turbines damaged by the wind! Both in Scotland, one of them has caught fire - as yet the cause is unconfirmed but it could well be that it was rotating against it's brake and hence building up heat, the second just simply blew over.
These incidents are not isolated, in the past there have been incidents of turbines losing blades whilst operating. The consequences of that striking someone or damaging property could be very serious, not to mention any further damage that may be caused by an out of balance turbine continuing to rotate.
So they are inefficient, provide power in fits and starts depending on the weather, and are potentially very dangerous.
Time to look elsewhere for our alternative energy sources I believe.
The recent bad weather in Scotland and northern England however is demonstrating why this won't work.
In strong winds, wind turbines have to be stopped. I believe this is achieved by both 'feathering' the blades to reduce their thrust to zero and also by applying a brake to prevent the rotor from turning.
In low winds the turbines just don't turn anyway as there is insufficient strength.
As a result we are left with a relatively narrow window of conditions in which wind turbines can produce any power. It gets worse however in that we don't have the infrastructure to take all the power they can produce when we are in the right zone so suppliers are paid to turn them off!
In the news today, I read of the wind turbines damaged by the wind! Both in Scotland, one of them has caught fire - as yet the cause is unconfirmed but it could well be that it was rotating against it's brake and hence building up heat, the second just simply blew over.
These incidents are not isolated, in the past there have been incidents of turbines losing blades whilst operating. The consequences of that striking someone or damaging property could be very serious, not to mention any further damage that may be caused by an out of balance turbine continuing to rotate.
So they are inefficient, provide power in fits and starts depending on the weather, and are potentially very dangerous.
Time to look elsewhere for our alternative energy sources I believe.
Friday, November 25, 2011
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The world is getting weirder by the day - I am beginning to wonder when listening to the news or reading the paper (any paper) whether everyday is now April the 1st.
Two recent news items only serve to help in this perception.
The first is a government minister who claims that despite continually rising energy prices, fed in part by taxes for renewable energy, our bills will be smaller in 2020. Who are they kidding?
This year alone most energy suppliers have had a series of price hikes, with the latest round being in the range of 10 to 20 percent. The minister supported the claim by suggesting our use of energy will fall more than enough to compensate for the increased unit costs.
Personally I cannot see how I can save 10 percent of my present energy use. I already have a well insulated home, switch electrical equipment off when not in use, have low energy light bulbs and even switch those off.
A wind turbine on the roof will be pointless and will likely never recoup it's purchase and installation costs, likewise the calculations I have done (and had from Solar Energy suppliers) indicate that that too will always run at a loss.
We need to see a return on our renewables tax in the form of cheaper, more effective renewable energy supplies otherwise there really is no point.
The second news item is even more unbelievable - the Isle of Wight is to become a self sufficient island and eco friendly.
This will be achieved by installing an army of wind turbines, acres of solar panels, geothermal energy plants. To supplement this there will be recycling on a massive scale, fleets of electric cars and doubtless houses will be insulated to the point where the inside space shrinks to nothing!
I have just looked at their brochure - it talks of plans for the period 2008 to 2010, so we should already have the EcoIsland we are promised, but somehow I doubt it.
If I were to visit the island again (having not been for over 15 years now) I suspect I would not notice any of the eco improvements - perhaps someone can prove me wrong. I believe that even the wind turbine factory has closed down, so any turbines would have to be manufactured elsewhere and imported with all the associated carbon footprint.
Two recent news items only serve to help in this perception.
The first is a government minister who claims that despite continually rising energy prices, fed in part by taxes for renewable energy, our bills will be smaller in 2020. Who are they kidding?
This year alone most energy suppliers have had a series of price hikes, with the latest round being in the range of 10 to 20 percent. The minister supported the claim by suggesting our use of energy will fall more than enough to compensate for the increased unit costs.
Personally I cannot see how I can save 10 percent of my present energy use. I already have a well insulated home, switch electrical equipment off when not in use, have low energy light bulbs and even switch those off.
A wind turbine on the roof will be pointless and will likely never recoup it's purchase and installation costs, likewise the calculations I have done (and had from Solar Energy suppliers) indicate that that too will always run at a loss.
We need to see a return on our renewables tax in the form of cheaper, more effective renewable energy supplies otherwise there really is no point.
The second news item is even more unbelievable - the Isle of Wight is to become a self sufficient island and eco friendly.
This will be achieved by installing an army of wind turbines, acres of solar panels, geothermal energy plants. To supplement this there will be recycling on a massive scale, fleets of electric cars and doubtless houses will be insulated to the point where the inside space shrinks to nothing!
I have just looked at their brochure - it talks of plans for the period 2008 to 2010, so we should already have the EcoIsland we are promised, but somehow I doubt it.
If I were to visit the island again (having not been for over 15 years now) I suspect I would not notice any of the eco improvements - perhaps someone can prove me wrong. I believe that even the wind turbine factory has closed down, so any turbines would have to be manufactured elsewhere and imported with all the associated carbon footprint.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Ban the Plastic Bag
We have been hearing a lot about banning the plastic throwaway bag so often handed out by supermarkets. At least one of the tabloid newspapers seems to think they are 'leading the way' but then don't the tabloids all jump on to whatever is the current bandwagon to try and increase their popularity?
I am not interested here in the tabloids however, more in the underlying problem of the single use plastic bag. It cannot be denied that they contribute a lot to our waste stream and thus increase the burden on landfill. They also get into the environment and cause litter and problems for wildlife.
Part of the problem is how people use the bags, not just the bags themselves.
When they were freely given out I tended to use them for bin liners in small bins, for bagging other rubbish before putting it in the wheelie bin, for separating laundry when returning from holiday, for storage of out of season clothing etc. In short I tried to get as much use as possible out of them and in doing so avoided buying other plastic bags to address those needs.
Now I use bags for life for my shopping, which means I need to buy bin liners, bags for storage etc. See the problem - in my case just a shift of bag type.
You also get the people who do see them as single use bags and just dump them. Many of those that spoil the environment are probably just thrown away casually without even being placed in a bin which is why they end up in hedgerows, on beaches, etc. Will the proposed charge for single use bags affect these people? Probably not.
Where a charge has been imposed it is likely to stop responsible people using so many bags - but those bags are the ones less likely to cause problems.
Charging is also a way of increasing the supermarkets profits - we have seen this already with a leading company who by charging for their bags cover all the costs of bag production, previously borne by themselves, and donate only the profits to charity. Thus they increase their own profits - a fact they are rather quiet about!
Could we ban them altogether and insist shoppers either use reusable bags or boxes. This is a possibility but I doubt it would go down well. In the past I have used the trolley liners which did get heavy but you simply lifted them from the trolley to the car and then to the house. Whoops, you must always take your car shopping! The best solution which a now defunct supermarket had was plastic crates - they combined this with self scanning at the point of loading your trolley. Simple checkout procedure but again you needed a car. Reusing cardboard boxes that the goods arrive at the supermarket in was once used but probably waned as goods became more palletised.
What is the solution - I don't know, perhaps my readers have some ideas.
We must also consider the impact upon industry - if we do succeed in significantly reducing bag usage - will the businesses and their employees who make them be able to redeploy their resources without loss of employment?
One final note - everyone goes on about supermarket bags - what about the vast number of charity collection bags that come through our doors every year? Most of these are likely to end up in land fill without even being taken out of their (plastic) wrapper. The solution here is perhaps to just pop a small leaflet through the door inviting people to use their own bag if they have goods to donate. The leaflet can be recycled as paper and maybe we can even reduce the frequency of these calls on our unwanted goods - frequently I have nothing to donate when a bag comes through (and before you comment - I reuse these as rubbish bags also)
I am not interested here in the tabloids however, more in the underlying problem of the single use plastic bag. It cannot be denied that they contribute a lot to our waste stream and thus increase the burden on landfill. They also get into the environment and cause litter and problems for wildlife.
Part of the problem is how people use the bags, not just the bags themselves.
When they were freely given out I tended to use them for bin liners in small bins, for bagging other rubbish before putting it in the wheelie bin, for separating laundry when returning from holiday, for storage of out of season clothing etc. In short I tried to get as much use as possible out of them and in doing so avoided buying other plastic bags to address those needs.
Now I use bags for life for my shopping, which means I need to buy bin liners, bags for storage etc. See the problem - in my case just a shift of bag type.
You also get the people who do see them as single use bags and just dump them. Many of those that spoil the environment are probably just thrown away casually without even being placed in a bin which is why they end up in hedgerows, on beaches, etc. Will the proposed charge for single use bags affect these people? Probably not.
Where a charge has been imposed it is likely to stop responsible people using so many bags - but those bags are the ones less likely to cause problems.
Charging is also a way of increasing the supermarkets profits - we have seen this already with a leading company who by charging for their bags cover all the costs of bag production, previously borne by themselves, and donate only the profits to charity. Thus they increase their own profits - a fact they are rather quiet about!
Could we ban them altogether and insist shoppers either use reusable bags or boxes. This is a possibility but I doubt it would go down well. In the past I have used the trolley liners which did get heavy but you simply lifted them from the trolley to the car and then to the house. Whoops, you must always take your car shopping! The best solution which a now defunct supermarket had was plastic crates - they combined this with self scanning at the point of loading your trolley. Simple checkout procedure but again you needed a car. Reusing cardboard boxes that the goods arrive at the supermarket in was once used but probably waned as goods became more palletised.
What is the solution - I don't know, perhaps my readers have some ideas.
We must also consider the impact upon industry - if we do succeed in significantly reducing bag usage - will the businesses and their employees who make them be able to redeploy their resources without loss of employment?
One final note - everyone goes on about supermarket bags - what about the vast number of charity collection bags that come through our doors every year? Most of these are likely to end up in land fill without even being taken out of their (plastic) wrapper. The solution here is perhaps to just pop a small leaflet through the door inviting people to use their own bag if they have goods to donate. The leaflet can be recycled as paper and maybe we can even reduce the frequency of these calls on our unwanted goods - frequently I have nothing to donate when a bag comes through (and before you comment - I reuse these as rubbish bags also)
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Always Read the Small Print
A cautionary tale - in this case involving the solar energy industry but applicable to all contracts. It happened to a colleague of my wife recently.
It all started off innocently enough with a sales call from a firm offering to install solar PV on their house for free. Sounds a reasonable deal so they invited the company to send someone round to discuss the proposal and carry out the necessary survey.
There are two ways of installing solar PV to generate electricity:
Pay for an installation and it's ongoing maintenance yourself. This way you should benefit from reduced electricity bills (depending upon how much power you use when the sun is shining) and you get the government feed in tariff for the power you generate.
Alternatively, and this is the option here, a company installs the solar panels at their expense and also maintains them. This way you don't own the panels and basically you gain from reducing your electricity bill. To pay for the installation the company that installed the system gets the revenue from the government feed in tariff.
After the survey, the company announced that the roof was suitable and came back with a figure of how much the cost savings would be. They also reported that the roof might need strengthening to handle the weight of the panels and they would send a specialist around to investigate. My understanding is that this is quite common as roofs were only ever designed to be that - and not to bolt a considerable weight of solar panels on as well (remember this is above the tiles and not instead of).
This investigation showed that the roof would need strengthening at a cost of £4,000. The householder gave the go ahead and the work was carried out.
This is where the problems started. The company who had carried out the work on the roof presented the housholder with the bill. They had assumed that this was part of the 'free' installation so suggested the roofing firm sent the bill to the solar panel company, who to their surprise rejected it.
My wife's colleague has now drafted in legal help to go through the signed contract with the solar company to see if there is any clause stating they would pay ALL costs, not just the installation costs. They felt they were given to understand that 'free installation' covered all costs associated. In reality I think that 'free installation' just covers a standard PV installation without any associated work. They may even charge more if the existing electricity supply is difficult to connect into.
As yet they have not gone ahead with the solar PV installation whilst this dispute is under way. To rub salt in the wound the solar PV company have now come back and suggested their original savings figure may have been somewhat optimistic and actual benefits may be somewhat less!
The matter may well end up in legal proceedings so I will not name the company - I believe however that with many companies joining the 'gold rush' for solar PV installations this may well not be an isolated incident with just them anyway.
A final thought on this type of solar PV installation. You are signing up for twenty five years - if you wish to sell your house the new buyer must agree to the same terms, namely giving up their right to the feed in tariff income. This has probably not yet been tested in the housing market but it may be a disincentive to prospective buyers.
Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware. Always read the small print and take legal advice if you don't understand it. It may cost in the short term but the savings could be massive.
It all started off innocently enough with a sales call from a firm offering to install solar PV on their house for free. Sounds a reasonable deal so they invited the company to send someone round to discuss the proposal and carry out the necessary survey.
There are two ways of installing solar PV to generate electricity:
Pay for an installation and it's ongoing maintenance yourself. This way you should benefit from reduced electricity bills (depending upon how much power you use when the sun is shining) and you get the government feed in tariff for the power you generate.
Alternatively, and this is the option here, a company installs the solar panels at their expense and also maintains them. This way you don't own the panels and basically you gain from reducing your electricity bill. To pay for the installation the company that installed the system gets the revenue from the government feed in tariff.
After the survey, the company announced that the roof was suitable and came back with a figure of how much the cost savings would be. They also reported that the roof might need strengthening to handle the weight of the panels and they would send a specialist around to investigate. My understanding is that this is quite common as roofs were only ever designed to be that - and not to bolt a considerable weight of solar panels on as well (remember this is above the tiles and not instead of).
This investigation showed that the roof would need strengthening at a cost of £4,000. The householder gave the go ahead and the work was carried out.
This is where the problems started. The company who had carried out the work on the roof presented the housholder with the bill. They had assumed that this was part of the 'free' installation so suggested the roofing firm sent the bill to the solar panel company, who to their surprise rejected it.
My wife's colleague has now drafted in legal help to go through the signed contract with the solar company to see if there is any clause stating they would pay ALL costs, not just the installation costs. They felt they were given to understand that 'free installation' covered all costs associated. In reality I think that 'free installation' just covers a standard PV installation without any associated work. They may even charge more if the existing electricity supply is difficult to connect into.
As yet they have not gone ahead with the solar PV installation whilst this dispute is under way. To rub salt in the wound the solar PV company have now come back and suggested their original savings figure may have been somewhat optimistic and actual benefits may be somewhat less!
The matter may well end up in legal proceedings so I will not name the company - I believe however that with many companies joining the 'gold rush' for solar PV installations this may well not be an isolated incident with just them anyway.
A final thought on this type of solar PV installation. You are signing up for twenty five years - if you wish to sell your house the new buyer must agree to the same terms, namely giving up their right to the feed in tariff income. This has probably not yet been tested in the housing market but it may be a disincentive to prospective buyers.
Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware. Always read the small print and take legal advice if you don't understand it. It may cost in the short term but the savings could be massive.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Electric Cars (2)
Recent discussions in the news and a Top Gear item have prompted me to post again on the subjetc of electric cars.
Top Gear carried out a review of two electric cars at around about twenty five to twenty seven thousand pounds AFTER the government subsidy had been applied. These are not cheap cars then. The exact models are irrelevant as it seems these are representative of those presently coming on to the market.
The manufacturer of one of the cars claimed that before the test journey the cars were not fully charged and therefore this was not representative. I have to disagree in that you may well find yourself in a situation whereby the car is not fully recharged before a journey. With petrol, diesel and lpg cars you can handle this by fuelling quickly and easily en route.
Their next comment was that the cars were run down to ensure they ran out of charge in a place where there were no public charging points. Again fair as there are very few of these in the whole of the UK especially if you are outside of the major cities.
I don't doubt that Top Gear did emphasise the negative features, but there have been mamy longer term tests over a week or more which have come to the same conclusions. Top Gear is an entertainment programme with limited time. They made the key points about electric cars well I feel.
Supporters of the electric car have said that it is all being viewed wrongly. They suggest that the electric car is primarily a city car.
Sounds good so far as the daily mileage is likely to be low. All these city car owners will then need a second car to use on longer journeys or succumb to expensive and unreliable public transport.
More of a problem however is charging. As there are very few public charge points, even in London, then you can only realistically charge your car at home. Fine if you live in a property with a drive or better still a garage (to minimise jokers and vandals tampering with the charging cable). Many people who live in cities have neither of these, and whilst those in ground floor properties could try and run a cable across the pavement to their car (Health and Safety!!) what about those on upper floors?
Someone suggested that electric cars have replaceable battery packs so you can drive into a filling station and swap your flat battery for a fully charged one. There are two big problems here. Given the weight of these battery packs a fair amount of insfratructure will have to be installed to achieve this, and a reasonable stockpile of batteries to ensure there are always some fully charged. More importantly is the design of a common battery pack - manufacturers all have their own designs tailored to their car design - the chance of a common battery for all cars, fitted in a location where it can be changed in a reasonable timescale is somewhere close to none at all.
Electric cars have only one purpose in their existence - to allow wealthy 'eco friendly' people to make a public statement.
I cannot see them being a practical solution in my lifetime.
Top Gear carried out a review of two electric cars at around about twenty five to twenty seven thousand pounds AFTER the government subsidy had been applied. These are not cheap cars then. The exact models are irrelevant as it seems these are representative of those presently coming on to the market.
The manufacturer of one of the cars claimed that before the test journey the cars were not fully charged and therefore this was not representative. I have to disagree in that you may well find yourself in a situation whereby the car is not fully recharged before a journey. With petrol, diesel and lpg cars you can handle this by fuelling quickly and easily en route.
Their next comment was that the cars were run down to ensure they ran out of charge in a place where there were no public charging points. Again fair as there are very few of these in the whole of the UK especially if you are outside of the major cities.
I don't doubt that Top Gear did emphasise the negative features, but there have been mamy longer term tests over a week or more which have come to the same conclusions. Top Gear is an entertainment programme with limited time. They made the key points about electric cars well I feel.
Supporters of the electric car have said that it is all being viewed wrongly. They suggest that the electric car is primarily a city car.
Sounds good so far as the daily mileage is likely to be low. All these city car owners will then need a second car to use on longer journeys or succumb to expensive and unreliable public transport.
More of a problem however is charging. As there are very few public charge points, even in London, then you can only realistically charge your car at home. Fine if you live in a property with a drive or better still a garage (to minimise jokers and vandals tampering with the charging cable). Many people who live in cities have neither of these, and whilst those in ground floor properties could try and run a cable across the pavement to their car (Health and Safety!!) what about those on upper floors?
Someone suggested that electric cars have replaceable battery packs so you can drive into a filling station and swap your flat battery for a fully charged one. There are two big problems here. Given the weight of these battery packs a fair amount of insfratructure will have to be installed to achieve this, and a reasonable stockpile of batteries to ensure there are always some fully charged. More importantly is the design of a common battery pack - manufacturers all have their own designs tailored to their car design - the chance of a common battery for all cars, fitted in a location where it can be changed in a reasonable timescale is somewhere close to none at all.
Electric cars have only one purpose in their existence - to allow wealthy 'eco friendly' people to make a public statement.
I cannot see them being a practical solution in my lifetime.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Supermarket Green Trickery Part Two
Previously in this blog I have discussed how supermarkets use environmental claims to enhance their image whilst in fact what they are doing benefits the supermarket more than the environment and also gives them a nice image with prospective customers.
I have downloaded a policy document from one such supermarket and would like here to address a number of the points. Don't get me wrong, some of their actions do benefit others more than themselves, but these are mixed in with many that are far from altruistic.
I have written to various people within the organisation concerned but they typically respond either by re-stating the policy document or by claiming I don't understand it correctly (making no attempt to explain it!)
An amusing starting point however is their target of reducing CO2 emissions from business travel. So far they have INCREASED emissions by 33%!
There are a number of items related to energy production, the first of which suggests generating their own electricity from anaerobic digestion plants - they now find it won't work for them so are rewriting the objective - sounds like politicians to me. Secondly they talk about on site renewables to generate power - again too hard so the objective is to be revised.
Let's move on to transport, with a couple of interesting ones here. The first relates to increasing use of bio-diesel. This has been suspended as, surprise, the production of bio-diesel is not presently sustainable because of the destruction of rain forest or diversion of land from food production in order to grow the crops from which it is produced. The second is very interesting - converting delivery fleets to cleaner EURO IV and V standard engines by 2012. This is very easy to achieve as follows: All large transport fleets regularly replace their vehicles - typically a three or four year life. They will replace their vehicles with new ones from manufacturers. Legally new vehicles MUST comply with this legislation. Ergo the fleet will automatically be upgraded to these standards anyway.
Finally for now, a couple more amusing objectives:
The objective was to label all airfreighted food. This objective has been achieved. They proudly announce that sales have not been affected - hence no benefit to anyone or the environment - pointless.
A plan has been stated to install electric charging points at stores to enable people to use so called 'environmentally friendly' electric cars. They have over seven hundred stores in the UK so how many will get charging points? Five. Again pointless, but at least when they find that no one uses them there will have been little impact on the environment installing them.
More posts on this topic to come, if I can't get the company themselves to listen to me perhaps a larger audience looking at these claims can have more impact.
Which company? If you hadn't yet guessed, they claim there is no Plan B and all the documents from which I have derived their claims are freely available from their website.
I have downloaded a policy document from one such supermarket and would like here to address a number of the points. Don't get me wrong, some of their actions do benefit others more than themselves, but these are mixed in with many that are far from altruistic.
I have written to various people within the organisation concerned but they typically respond either by re-stating the policy document or by claiming I don't understand it correctly (making no attempt to explain it!)
An amusing starting point however is their target of reducing CO2 emissions from business travel. So far they have INCREASED emissions by 33%!
There are a number of items related to energy production, the first of which suggests generating their own electricity from anaerobic digestion plants - they now find it won't work for them so are rewriting the objective - sounds like politicians to me. Secondly they talk about on site renewables to generate power - again too hard so the objective is to be revised.
Let's move on to transport, with a couple of interesting ones here. The first relates to increasing use of bio-diesel. This has been suspended as, surprise, the production of bio-diesel is not presently sustainable because of the destruction of rain forest or diversion of land from food production in order to grow the crops from which it is produced. The second is very interesting - converting delivery fleets to cleaner EURO IV and V standard engines by 2012. This is very easy to achieve as follows: All large transport fleets regularly replace their vehicles - typically a three or four year life. They will replace their vehicles with new ones from manufacturers. Legally new vehicles MUST comply with this legislation. Ergo the fleet will automatically be upgraded to these standards anyway.
Finally for now, a couple more amusing objectives:
The objective was to label all airfreighted food. This objective has been achieved. They proudly announce that sales have not been affected - hence no benefit to anyone or the environment - pointless.
A plan has been stated to install electric charging points at stores to enable people to use so called 'environmentally friendly' electric cars. They have over seven hundred stores in the UK so how many will get charging points? Five. Again pointless, but at least when they find that no one uses them there will have been little impact on the environment installing them.
More posts on this topic to come, if I can't get the company themselves to listen to me perhaps a larger audience looking at these claims can have more impact.
Which company? If you hadn't yet guessed, they claim there is no Plan B and all the documents from which I have derived their claims are freely available from their website.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Misleading Advertising
Once again I am drawn to comment on what I would describe as misleading advertising to dupe the unsuspecting public.
In the paper I saw an advert for a shower gel product, with the European Eco-Label displayed. They show on the label of the product that it contains no Parabens, Colourants, Phthalates, or Phenoxyethanol.
All very good and we are to presume these are bad for the environment so it is laudable that the product does not contain them.
It all goes wrong however when I look at my standard supermarket own brand shower gel, and guess what? Despite making no bold environmental claims, it too has none of these ingredients in the product.
What is more, it is probably between one third and one sixth of the price of the 'Eco-Label' product depending upon the offers in force and by being supplied in larger bottles it is more economical on packaging.
Beware Eco claims, they may not be all they seem!
In the paper I saw an advert for a shower gel product, with the European Eco-Label displayed. They show on the label of the product that it contains no Parabens, Colourants, Phthalates, or Phenoxyethanol.
All very good and we are to presume these are bad for the environment so it is laudable that the product does not contain them.
It all goes wrong however when I look at my standard supermarket own brand shower gel, and guess what? Despite making no bold environmental claims, it too has none of these ingredients in the product.
What is more, it is probably between one third and one sixth of the price of the 'Eco-Label' product depending upon the offers in force and by being supplied in larger bottles it is more economical on packaging.
Beware Eco claims, they may not be all they seem!
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Green Energy Misinformation
I have just received yet another card through my door telling me how I can get free electricity and make money from solar power.
As with many of the other ones, this has Government written in large bold font to try and distract you from the fact that this is simply an installer of solar power systems who is trying to get your custom.
All the claims sound so wonderful, free energy, get paid for the energy you produce and so on. These claims are based on facts, but in some cases very loosely!
Let us start off with the free electricity and massive reductions in your electricity bill. The main problem with this is our lifestyles - we use much of our power at night when the sun isn't shining. This is due in part to the fact that many people are out of the house during the day and so the home is using little power unless you set timers on wasjing machines and tumble driers to run when the sun is at is strongest. Of course the other issue is that at night we have lights on, precisely because the sun isn't shining.
This means that your electricity bill won't reduce as much as may be claimed. There are systems which can store the power generated for use later but they are significantly more expensive and they are not the prices used when trying to sell the system to you.
Now let us look at the amount of power you will generate. Typical advertising assumes you have a south facing roof at the optimal angle and not shaded by anything else such as trees. Many people don't have this and when the actual facts are in place then the output falls. You also need to factor in the typical weather in your location - the figures given are often maximums assuming full sun, and not cloudy days like today. Finally, there are issues like contamination. Dirty cells can apparently reduce the power output by as much as ten percent. How many people would clean their roof? Many don't event do the gutters.
How about installation costs? The price quoted is likely to be for an optimal installation. When they survey your house you may get the odd added extra - access is difficult so it will cost more, or the roof will need strengthening to take the weight (remember your housebuilder will have taken standard design loads such as wind, snow, roof tile weight into consideration but not the extra load of the solar collector). Perhaps they will also say that the access to your existing electricity supply is awkward so they will charge extra.
So we have a sytem that costs more than the examples, generates less electricity than the examples and relies on a government guarantee on feed in tariffs to provide the returns suggested.
So often a rate of return is quoted which exceeds keeping the money in your bank account. If you wanted to grow money you would not leave it in a plain old bank account, you would invest. Potentially you could earn a much higher return than leaving it in the bank and still keep your money safe. Furthermore, depending upon the investment chosen you could access money if the need arose, not easy to do if it is all on the roof!
I have used the figures from the supplier whose card I have just received and they tell me that the installation will have a payback period in the region of 21 years based on average installtion costs and maximum returns. Assume the returns are less than promised for the reasons given above and the installation costs more than average and you can see my worry.
Over time it will reduce my carbon footprint, but the footprint of the initial manufacture and installation is likely to mean it could be several years before even that breaks event.
Just like wind power, this is not the answer for this country.
As with many of the other ones, this has Government written in large bold font to try and distract you from the fact that this is simply an installer of solar power systems who is trying to get your custom.
All the claims sound so wonderful, free energy, get paid for the energy you produce and so on. These claims are based on facts, but in some cases very loosely!
Let us start off with the free electricity and massive reductions in your electricity bill. The main problem with this is our lifestyles - we use much of our power at night when the sun isn't shining. This is due in part to the fact that many people are out of the house during the day and so the home is using little power unless you set timers on wasjing machines and tumble driers to run when the sun is at is strongest. Of course the other issue is that at night we have lights on, precisely because the sun isn't shining.
This means that your electricity bill won't reduce as much as may be claimed. There are systems which can store the power generated for use later but they are significantly more expensive and they are not the prices used when trying to sell the system to you.
Now let us look at the amount of power you will generate. Typical advertising assumes you have a south facing roof at the optimal angle and not shaded by anything else such as trees. Many people don't have this and when the actual facts are in place then the output falls. You also need to factor in the typical weather in your location - the figures given are often maximums assuming full sun, and not cloudy days like today. Finally, there are issues like contamination. Dirty cells can apparently reduce the power output by as much as ten percent. How many people would clean their roof? Many don't event do the gutters.
How about installation costs? The price quoted is likely to be for an optimal installation. When they survey your house you may get the odd added extra - access is difficult so it will cost more, or the roof will need strengthening to take the weight (remember your housebuilder will have taken standard design loads such as wind, snow, roof tile weight into consideration but not the extra load of the solar collector). Perhaps they will also say that the access to your existing electricity supply is awkward so they will charge extra.
So we have a sytem that costs more than the examples, generates less electricity than the examples and relies on a government guarantee on feed in tariffs to provide the returns suggested.
So often a rate of return is quoted which exceeds keeping the money in your bank account. If you wanted to grow money you would not leave it in a plain old bank account, you would invest. Potentially you could earn a much higher return than leaving it in the bank and still keep your money safe. Furthermore, depending upon the investment chosen you could access money if the need arose, not easy to do if it is all on the roof!
I have used the figures from the supplier whose card I have just received and they tell me that the installation will have a payback period in the region of 21 years based on average installtion costs and maximum returns. Assume the returns are less than promised for the reasons given above and the installation costs more than average and you can see my worry.
Over time it will reduce my carbon footprint, but the footprint of the initial manufacture and installation is likely to mean it could be several years before even that breaks event.
Just like wind power, this is not the answer for this country.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Wind Power Mythology
We hear an awful lot these days about how wind turbines will be our answer to climate change by generating clean energy.
To this end, such a turbine has been installed in a local country park with the intention of reducing energy consumption, carbon footprint and cost.
To this end, such a turbine has been installed in a local country park with the intention of reducing energy consumption, carbon footprint and cost.
Shipley Country Park Turbine
All very well but this installation is nowhere near generating the amount of power that was promised or indeed required from it. The council have thoughtfully provided a display in the visitor centre of how much power has been produced since it was first turned on and also daily figures.
Since it was installed, the energy generated is only about 25% more than my household consumption over the same period. This is from a turbine that has a total height of 19.5 metres and a rotor diameter of 9 metres.
I probably do not use much energy, despite this computer. If you were to look at the electricity bills for my neighbours who have children, with the associated games consoles, multiple computers etc. I am sure you will see that the turbine only provides enough power for one household.
Should we have a wind turbine each down our street? I think everyone will acknowledge that is ridiculous. What is more it makes a mockery of the small turbines that people look to install on their houses to 'be green'.
Certainly larger installations are likely to be more efficient, and can be placed in locations where there is more wind (though that has the requirement for cabling to bring the power to the national grid) but the underlying problems are the same.
Wind is not consistent and does not always blow within the windspeed range required for turbines - too fast or too slow and no power can be generated.
No viable storage solutions have been demonstrated for large scale use to make power available when the wind isn't blowing.
The area of the country or close off shore required to build all these farms is significant and has an impact both upon the appearance of the environment and the effect on people.
The bottom line is that at present wind power is not viable.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Benefits of Recycling?
We are constantly being encouraged to recycle as muchs as we can, and to save our councils too much trouble we have to divide this up into an increeasing number of separate containers for collection.
I thought my council tax went in part to pay for the processing of my waste but I seem to have to do more of the work myself.
How green is this all though? Where I live we are lucky in that we have only five different categories: Non recyclable waste; Paper; Glass, Metal and Plastic; Textiles; Garden waste, Cardboard, Shredded Paper and Food waste.
Easy enough to separate, but requiring a fair amount of space to keep all the bins, bags and boxes necessary. The food waste is collected during the day in a sealed tub (I bought that myself) and taken out to the main bin.
Where it starts falling down is the fact that the council would like the contents of the plastic, glass and metal bin to be washed out - given that it is only emptied every two weeks that is also required to keep it from becoming too smelly - so I am now wasting water to do this.
Then we have the parade of collection lorries, with three separate vehicles coming round on the recycling week. That contributes wonderfully to pollution I guess and congestion on the roads adding yet more to the pollution.
Finally this collected material is then distributed far and wide for processing. Yet more road mileage, and I believe some waste is not even processed in this country so is shipped abroad.
Anyone see the flaws in this yet?
There also seem to be differences between what various councils will and won't process. If I get polystyrene food trays they are not accepted, despite having a recycling symbol on them, yet other councils are quite happy to accept them but will have their own exclusions that are processed here. How about a national standard on this?
I am also amazed that when man can be sent to the moon, and many countries automate separation of recyclable materials, here it is down to the householder in the first instance and then teams of people at the recycling centre.
Is this actually beneficial to the country / planet?
My final thought is one that many talk about but few seem to action - why not cut down on excessive packaging or the use of materials that cannot be reused or recycled easily at the source?
We have become a throwaway society and this is not good. Money and resources can be saved by addressing this.
I thought my council tax went in part to pay for the processing of my waste but I seem to have to do more of the work myself.
How green is this all though? Where I live we are lucky in that we have only five different categories: Non recyclable waste; Paper; Glass, Metal and Plastic; Textiles; Garden waste, Cardboard, Shredded Paper and Food waste.
Easy enough to separate, but requiring a fair amount of space to keep all the bins, bags and boxes necessary. The food waste is collected during the day in a sealed tub (I bought that myself) and taken out to the main bin.
Where it starts falling down is the fact that the council would like the contents of the plastic, glass and metal bin to be washed out - given that it is only emptied every two weeks that is also required to keep it from becoming too smelly - so I am now wasting water to do this.
Then we have the parade of collection lorries, with three separate vehicles coming round on the recycling week. That contributes wonderfully to pollution I guess and congestion on the roads adding yet more to the pollution.
Finally this collected material is then distributed far and wide for processing. Yet more road mileage, and I believe some waste is not even processed in this country so is shipped abroad.
Anyone see the flaws in this yet?
There also seem to be differences between what various councils will and won't process. If I get polystyrene food trays they are not accepted, despite having a recycling symbol on them, yet other councils are quite happy to accept them but will have their own exclusions that are processed here. How about a national standard on this?
I am also amazed that when man can be sent to the moon, and many countries automate separation of recyclable materials, here it is down to the householder in the first instance and then teams of people at the recycling centre.
Is this actually beneficial to the country / planet?
My final thought is one that many talk about but few seem to action - why not cut down on excessive packaging or the use of materials that cannot be reused or recycled easily at the source?
We have become a throwaway society and this is not good. Money and resources can be saved by addressing this.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Climate change through time
Having just experienced a very heavy downpour towards the end of June, I think it is time to talk about climate change. Once called global warming until that became old hat, we are now told that the climate is changing and it is all our fault.
First we must overcome the religious apologists who believe that as the Earth is no more than about 10,000 years old the evidence which follows cannot be true.
The problem we have is that climate change can be treated like all statistics. Choose your sample carefully so that it demonstrates your point. This link https://www.planetseed.com/node/15221 however shows both change over a short period and change over a longer period (425,000 years). Looking over the longer period it would seem that climate change is natural, and whilst we humans may have some influence on it, it will be interesting to try and work out what proportion is down to our activities.
More evidence is also available from research further afield. Scientists have found evidence of planetary warming on Mars - no 4x4 vehicles there, or power stations or any of the other 'culprits' for causing climate change.
Recent reports suggest that we may even pause the rise in temperatures currently being claimed. This is because sunspot activity is less than we would expect from the cycles we are familiar with. Surely the climate change activists cannot blame that on mankind!
Our government has signed us up to a massive reduction in CO2 emissions over the next few years. There is no viable plan as to how this will be achieved. My recent research into local wind turbines shows that benefits are massively overstated, not to mention the fact that we cannot store the power generated in windy periods for use when it is calm. Wave and tidal power systems appear to be coming along well but still have a long way to go. The use of solar water heating and PV cells is best implemented at household level but having looked at the costs of PV, I think I will be dead before I can recoup my initial investment never mind any maintenance costs.
Nuclear power is at present a sensitive subject given the events in Japan earlier this year. The problem we have here however is that our existing capacity is reaching the end of it's life and no replacement stations are under development - therefore we are likely to have a gap to fill somehow even if new nuclear stations are given the go ahead.
Maybe I should approach the government for a research grant. I can develop pedal powered generators to allow all households to generate electricity whilst sitting at home. If they generate enough they can watch the TV whilst pedalling or use a computer to read my blog!
First we must overcome the religious apologists who believe that as the Earth is no more than about 10,000 years old the evidence which follows cannot be true.
The problem we have is that climate change can be treated like all statistics. Choose your sample carefully so that it demonstrates your point. This link https://www.planetseed.com/node/15221 however shows both change over a short period and change over a longer period (425,000 years). Looking over the longer period it would seem that climate change is natural, and whilst we humans may have some influence on it, it will be interesting to try and work out what proportion is down to our activities.
More evidence is also available from research further afield. Scientists have found evidence of planetary warming on Mars - no 4x4 vehicles there, or power stations or any of the other 'culprits' for causing climate change.
Recent reports suggest that we may even pause the rise in temperatures currently being claimed. This is because sunspot activity is less than we would expect from the cycles we are familiar with. Surely the climate change activists cannot blame that on mankind!
Our government has signed us up to a massive reduction in CO2 emissions over the next few years. There is no viable plan as to how this will be achieved. My recent research into local wind turbines shows that benefits are massively overstated, not to mention the fact that we cannot store the power generated in windy periods for use when it is calm. Wave and tidal power systems appear to be coming along well but still have a long way to go. The use of solar water heating and PV cells is best implemented at household level but having looked at the costs of PV, I think I will be dead before I can recoup my initial investment never mind any maintenance costs.
Nuclear power is at present a sensitive subject given the events in Japan earlier this year. The problem we have here however is that our existing capacity is reaching the end of it's life and no replacement stations are under development - therefore we are likely to have a gap to fill somehow even if new nuclear stations are given the go ahead.
Maybe I should approach the government for a research grant. I can develop pedal powered generators to allow all households to generate electricity whilst sitting at home. If they generate enough they can watch the TV whilst pedalling or use a computer to read my blog!
Supermarket Scams
For some time now I have had issues with claims made by supermarkets that at face value look like they are trying to be very environmentally friendly. For my first post on the subject I will select just a few key points.
One of the big issues today is single use plastic carrier bags. I agree that we need to cut down on these because they not only provide a significant problem when it comes to disposal, although many biodegrade very effectively, but also in the resources they take to make and distribute.
The supermarkets therefore say that they will help reduce the number of bags used by charging per bag. The number of bags used has gone down, but how much is due to this charge is unclear. However the supermarket's profits have now gone up.
Take a look at the maths. Previously the supermarket issued a large number of bags at no cost. Therefore they bore the expense of production, storage and distribution. Now they charge the customer and take these expenses out of what they charge, donating any excess to charity in some cases. Given that the expense of a bag will be rather less than the 5 - 10p or so typically charged, they have cut their overheads significantly. Does the consumer benefit - what do you think?
Another issue, and only trumpetted by one major supermarket, is the streamlining of trailers to save fuel, reduce emissions and so help the environment. Again they fail to mention that in saving fuel they reduce their costs and so increase the bottom line profits. True, they have to buy the new trailers but transport fleets are continually renewing their trailers so this is not a case of making a massive change to the fleet, but simply choosing a different trailer when making a replacement.
It is interesting that a number of hauliers are introducing these new trailers - only one company seems to be making a big thing of it. I will return to some of their other claims in future posts.
Big claims then about how wonderfull they are, not a word about how this increases their profits. No need to wonder why that is!
One of the big issues today is single use plastic carrier bags. I agree that we need to cut down on these because they not only provide a significant problem when it comes to disposal, although many biodegrade very effectively, but also in the resources they take to make and distribute.
The supermarkets therefore say that they will help reduce the number of bags used by charging per bag. The number of bags used has gone down, but how much is due to this charge is unclear. However the supermarket's profits have now gone up.
Take a look at the maths. Previously the supermarket issued a large number of bags at no cost. Therefore they bore the expense of production, storage and distribution. Now they charge the customer and take these expenses out of what they charge, donating any excess to charity in some cases. Given that the expense of a bag will be rather less than the 5 - 10p or so typically charged, they have cut their overheads significantly. Does the consumer benefit - what do you think?
Another issue, and only trumpetted by one major supermarket, is the streamlining of trailers to save fuel, reduce emissions and so help the environment. Again they fail to mention that in saving fuel they reduce their costs and so increase the bottom line profits. True, they have to buy the new trailers but transport fleets are continually renewing their trailers so this is not a case of making a massive change to the fleet, but simply choosing a different trailer when making a replacement.
It is interesting that a number of hauliers are introducing these new trailers - only one company seems to be making a big thing of it. I will return to some of their other claims in future posts.
Big claims then about how wonderfull they are, not a word about how this increases their profits. No need to wonder why that is!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)