HOMEOWNERS WHO install energy-saving measures such as loft insulation and solar panels might save the planet, but they will probably not save any money - at least, not in the short term.
A study by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) shows that solar panels to heat water could cost £5000 to install in the typical three-bedroom terraced house. But they would knock only £24 a year off the average energy bill, which means it could take about 208 years to get a return on the investment.
Jill Craig of RICS says: "The government needs to do a lot more than just introduce a fridge-style' energy rating system to encourage people to take up energy-saving measures into their homes. RICS has been calling on the government to reduce the level of VAT applied to all energy-saving measures and to provide an attractive grant programme to aid real change. If this government is really serious about combating climate change, it has to turn its big talk into even bigger actions."
RICS looked at eight measures that are recommended for a "greener" home. The cost of all eight, including insulation, condensing boilers and double glazing, would be £23,547. But they would cut the typical fuel bill by only £486 and so would take 48 years to recoup.
It would, for example, take 124 years to earn a return on an investment of more than £9000 in double glazing. If you installed underfloor insulation, you would have to wait 54 years to cover the cost with lower energy bills. Even loft insulation would take 13 years to generate savings in utility bills, according to the study.
"People on average spend 16 years living in one property, making most of the energy-saving measures financially unattractive propositions," says RICS.
But the Energy Saving Trust (EST) disputes the findings. Keith Marsh of the EST says: "We disagree with many of the installation costs stated by RICS, partly because they make no allowance for grants and offers that are available. There are also many straightforward things that people can do straight away - such as turning down the thermostat and switching to low-energy lightbulbs."
The government has been criticised for recently capping the grants that are available under the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform's Low Carbon Buildings programme. The programme was set up in April 2006 and offers grants to people who want to generate their own power from renewable sources. But the DTI recently cut the grants available for wind turbines and solar photovoltaics (PVs) - another system that generates electricity. The maximum grant you can now get for a wind turbine is £2500, down from £15,000. The grants for PV panels have halved to £2500.
A wind turbine can cost about £12,500 to install; in some cases the price can be as high as £25,000. If you can apply for a maximum grant of only £2500, you are going to be left with a hefty bill.
A typical domestic photovoltaic system costs between £10,000 and £18,000. The panels can also generate up to half the average family's supply of electricity, saving up to £125 on the annual bill. But it would still take years to recoup the costs, even with a possible grant of £2500.
Households in Scotland might be eligible for more help with funding. The Scottish Community and Householder Renewables Initiative can award a grant of 30% of the cost of installing renewable measures up to a limit of £4000. But you cannot apply for a grant under the Scottish initiative if you have already applied for a grant from the Low Carbon Buildings Programme.
If you decide it's too pricey to generate your own power, you can still do your bit for the environment by cutting the emissions from your home.
The energy we use to heat, light and power our homes is responsible for producing 27% of the UK's CO2 emissions. So we can make a difference if we make sure we use our energy efficiently.
Insulation does not make the headlines in the same way as solar or wind power, but it's just about the best way to cut the emissions from your home. Every household in the UK creates around six tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. If you insulate your loft and walls you could save around two tonnes of CO2 a year, which is a reduction of one third.
Start at the top of your house, with the roof. You should then check your walls. If your house was built between 1930 and 1980, it will probably have cavity walls, and they will probably need to be insulated. This is not as messy as it sounds - an insulating material is simply pumped into the gap between the walls. RICS estimates the cost at £728 but calculates that you would save £145 a year on your bills. So you could recoup your capital in five years.
Double glazing keeps more of the heat in your home, so you could knock about £75 a year off the average bill. But it's expensive. You could fork out £9327 for a three-bedroom house, according to RICS, so don't expect to recoup your money any time soon.
Secondary glazing is cheaper - an extra layer of glass if fitted inside your existing frame.
You could save another tonne of CO2 a year if you fit a condensing boiler. It's not cheap - they cost about £2000 to fit, but they can cut your energy bill by about £52 a year. If a new boiler is a bit pricey, make sure you've lagged your old boiler. A standard jacket costs a mere £10.
If you need to update any other appliances, look out for goods that carry the Energy Saving logo. They don't always cost much more, but they might save you money on your bills.
And don't forget energy saving lightbulbs. They cost about £3.50 each and use up to four times less electricity than a standard 60W bulb. They also last about 12 times longer.
You can get a free energy audit for your home by contacting the Energy Saving Trust at www.est.org.uk. The website also has lots of useful energy-saving tips and information about grants.
by Naomi Caine
full article
Sunday, 2 December 2007
Saturday, 1 December 2007
Home wind turbines in UK warming the planet
Many wind turbines mounted on homes in British cities are contributing to global warming, not fighting it, according to a new study.
The study analyzed the likely performance of three of the most common household wind turbines in Manchester and Portsmouth in England and Wick in Scotland.
In many cases -- and across most of Manchester -- more climate-warming carbon dioxide is produced in the manufacture, installation and maintenance of the turbines than they save by generating "green" power over their expected lifetime.
"These studies have shown a large variation in the expected CO2 payback periods from a few months in good locations to situations where they never pay back, in poor locations," the report says.
Only those climate-conscious homeowners in the best locations in the two smaller cities studied can expect to save more carbon dioxide than their turbines are responsible for producing.
(Reporting by Daniel Fineren; editing by James Jukwey)
full article
The study analyzed the likely performance of three of the most common household wind turbines in Manchester and Portsmouth in England and Wick in Scotland.
In many cases -- and across most of Manchester -- more climate-warming carbon dioxide is produced in the manufacture, installation and maintenance of the turbines than they save by generating "green" power over their expected lifetime.
"These studies have shown a large variation in the expected CO2 payback periods from a few months in good locations to situations where they never pay back, in poor locations," the report says.
Only those climate-conscious homeowners in the best locations in the two smaller cities studied can expect to save more carbon dioxide than their turbines are responsible for producing.
(Reporting by Daniel Fineren; editing by James Jukwey)
full article
Friday, 30 November 2007
Business call for plan on climate
Global businesses have called for a legally-binding and comprehensive international deal on climate change.
A binding agreement on emissions reductions would encourage business to invest in low-carbon technologies, a statement from 150 businesses said.
The statement - backed by Prince Charles - will be sent to environment ministers and heads of state ahead of talks in Bali on climate change.
Nokia, Tesco, Lloyds TSB and Nike are among the 150 firms that made the call.
The signatories represent companies from Europe, the US, China and Australia.
full article
A binding agreement on emissions reductions would encourage business to invest in low-carbon technologies, a statement from 150 businesses said.
The statement - backed by Prince Charles - will be sent to environment ministers and heads of state ahead of talks in Bali on climate change.
Nokia, Tesco, Lloyds TSB and Nike are among the 150 firms that made the call.
The signatories represent companies from Europe, the US, China and Australia.
full article
Thursday, 29 November 2007
How solar power could become organic
Physicist Neil Greenham of Cambridge University's Cavendish Laboratory likes turning a good idea on its head. His PhD involved researching polymer light emitting diodes, since used for displays in some televisions, MP3 players and mobile phones. But then he joined a research group trying to use similar polymers to generate electricity from light. Now, more than a decade of pioneering work has resulted in an organic solar cell that doesn't use expensive silicon.
Conventional photovoltaic (PV) solar cells are made from a thin slice (around 200 microns) of silicon that is doped with chemicals to form a bilayer structure called a p-n junction. When photons of light are absorbed by the silicon, electrons flow, creating a small electric current. An organic solar cell takes a similar approach but uses an ultra-thin (100 nanometre) film mixture of two semiconducting polymers instead.
Is organic solar likely to replace silicon, then? Even though the more efficient silicon has an obvious cost penalty, Greenham doesn't think so: "There's going to have to be a lot more PV of all kinds. We want to make it cheap enough to really expand the market."
That view is shared by Professor Paul O'Brien at the University of Manchester. He's been involved with solar cells for more than 20 years, especially those that don't use silicon. "Silicon is made in a foundry and the technology is the same as we use to make silicon chips. That, of course, is far too expensive," says O'Brien, who reckons that solar cells need be no more pricey than high-performance self-cleaning glass. "Get the cost down, and the whole thing becomes viable."
Led by O'Brien and Professor Jenny Nelson at Imperial College London, a £1.5m Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council project is trying to do just that. Its target is a mass-produced hybrid solar cell with energy conversion efficiencies approaching 10%. The first laboratory prototype will be assembled next year.
"We're very interested in solar cells where we take an organic layer that's printable or sprayable containing an inorganic material like lead sulphide which will actually do the photon capture," O'Brien says. Photons knock out loose electrons, which then flow through the cell to produce electricity.
Lead sulphide (PbS) adds a new twist to silicon-free solar cells by using nanotechnology. The lead sulphide will be in the form of nanorods, 100 or so nanometres long and 20 by 20 nanometres in section. (One micron is 1,000nm.) When photons hit the rods distributed within a semiconducting polymer, electrons are released. Researchers also plan to use equally small "quantum dots" to achieve the same photovoltaic effect.
"The big driver for me is always cost reduction, not efficiency," O'Brien says. Despite falling short of silicon's efficiency, the benefit will be huge cost reductions. If all goes well, O'Brien reckons the new solar cell technology may be one hundredth of the cost of a silicon cell when in mass production - promising a solar energy revolution. "The world needs to look at alternatives to fossil fuels," O'Brien says.
The idea of solar cell research at UK universities delivering electricity as cheaply as fossil fuels do today is exciting. But waiting around for the science to become technology isn't an option, says Martyn Williams, senior parliamentary campaigner at Friends of the Earth. "We are aware of moves to find new ways to generate electricity from solar power. We have to move faster than that because every tonne of carbon we pump out is adding to the problem."
Six years ago, he installed solar PV on his Victorian terraced house when it needed a new roof. "It produced about £250 of electricity a year," says Williams, who received a £10,000 (50%) grant from the government.
Michael Pollitt
full article
Conventional photovoltaic (PV) solar cells are made from a thin slice (around 200 microns) of silicon that is doped with chemicals to form a bilayer structure called a p-n junction. When photons of light are absorbed by the silicon, electrons flow, creating a small electric current. An organic solar cell takes a similar approach but uses an ultra-thin (100 nanometre) film mixture of two semiconducting polymers instead.
Is organic solar likely to replace silicon, then? Even though the more efficient silicon has an obvious cost penalty, Greenham doesn't think so: "There's going to have to be a lot more PV of all kinds. We want to make it cheap enough to really expand the market."
That view is shared by Professor Paul O'Brien at the University of Manchester. He's been involved with solar cells for more than 20 years, especially those that don't use silicon. "Silicon is made in a foundry and the technology is the same as we use to make silicon chips. That, of course, is far too expensive," says O'Brien, who reckons that solar cells need be no more pricey than high-performance self-cleaning glass. "Get the cost down, and the whole thing becomes viable."
Led by O'Brien and Professor Jenny Nelson at Imperial College London, a £1.5m Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council project is trying to do just that. Its target is a mass-produced hybrid solar cell with energy conversion efficiencies approaching 10%. The first laboratory prototype will be assembled next year.
"We're very interested in solar cells where we take an organic layer that's printable or sprayable containing an inorganic material like lead sulphide which will actually do the photon capture," O'Brien says. Photons knock out loose electrons, which then flow through the cell to produce electricity.
Lead sulphide (PbS) adds a new twist to silicon-free solar cells by using nanotechnology. The lead sulphide will be in the form of nanorods, 100 or so nanometres long and 20 by 20 nanometres in section. (One micron is 1,000nm.) When photons hit the rods distributed within a semiconducting polymer, electrons are released. Researchers also plan to use equally small "quantum dots" to achieve the same photovoltaic effect.
"The big driver for me is always cost reduction, not efficiency," O'Brien says. Despite falling short of silicon's efficiency, the benefit will be huge cost reductions. If all goes well, O'Brien reckons the new solar cell technology may be one hundredth of the cost of a silicon cell when in mass production - promising a solar energy revolution. "The world needs to look at alternatives to fossil fuels," O'Brien says.
The idea of solar cell research at UK universities delivering electricity as cheaply as fossil fuels do today is exciting. But waiting around for the science to become technology isn't an option, says Martyn Williams, senior parliamentary campaigner at Friends of the Earth. "We are aware of moves to find new ways to generate electricity from solar power. We have to move faster than that because every tonne of carbon we pump out is adding to the problem."
Six years ago, he installed solar PV on his Victorian terraced house when it needed a new roof. "It produced about £250 of electricity a year," says Williams, who received a £10,000 (50%) grant from the government.
Michael Pollitt
full article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
