Sustainable Energy Network

Edward Hyams chairman OF The Energy Savings Trust

Good Energy doubles ‘pay back’ to 9p a unit

On 1st October Good Energy the 100% renewable electricity supplier is launching its new ‘pay-back’ tariff to its customers generating their own electricity. Good Energy will pay 9 pence for every unit their customers generate.

Good Energy, in their on going work to nudge the Government toward supporting renewable microgeneration, have taken the rumour that the Renewable Obligation Certificates may be doubled some time in 2009 and decided to offer essentially a double ROC rate from 1st October to people who sign up with their Home Generation product. Juliet Davenport, Chief Executive of Good Energy stated why the company is launching the new Home Generation product. “Good Energy believes that climate change is the biggest challenge we face as a society. 30% of the UK’s carbon emissions come from our homes - this is where we need solutions and home owners using wind, solar and wood energy are providing those solutions. Good Energy wants to actively support these home owners producing their own power and by offering the highest payment for electricity generated at home, that is exactly what we are aiming to do.”

The move to increase the support for microgeneration has been welcomed by environmental groups, John Sauven Executive Director of Greenpeace, said“Good Energy is showing the way with their new Home Generation scheme. The government is dragging its heels on climate change and its support for small scale renewables is shameful. Microgeneration in mainland Europe is booming - if they can do it so can we. The UK government should now follow the lead of Good Energy.”

One of the barriers to wide spread micro generation by home owners is the low level of return on particularly photovoltaic solar generation. Income from home generation at the moment is in three parts, firstly the cost saving, depending on your energy demands, and with wind and solar your location, the average house hold can expect to save between £90 and £120 per year off their bills, the second part is the ‘feed in’ component of selling electricity back to the grid, the third part of the Renewable Obligation Certificates were by home generators are rewarded for generating carbon free power.

Chris Goodall, in his book “How to Live a Low Carbon Life” calculates that the average return on a 2 kilo Watt system, around 12 square metres of panels, is around 4% a year. He calculates this by adding up the average amount saved by home generation, around £120 a year plus around £24 earned by feeding electricity back into the grid at present feed in prices of 4p, plus around £72 of Renewable Obligation Certificates. This gives around £216 of savings and revenue for an installation cost of £5000. Put in straight forward terms its gives around a 4% return over the 25 year life of the system based on present energy costs, ROC allowances and price, and feed in prices. With the Good Energy scheme the slight increase in ROC equivalent payments, averaging around £158, the payback rises to 5%.

According to anecdotal evidence from Solarcentury installing a solar system on a house should not just be seen as an investment in cleaner energy but also an investment in the capital worth of the building itself. The Energy Saving Trust estimate that a solar home is worth 10% more than a traditional home, Jerry Newman, COO of Solarcentury told naturalchoices in a recent interview “We already have seen that a home fitted with solar achieved an 8% higher price that an otherwise identical adjacent home”.

Which is very valuable given the Government’s vacillation on supporting home generation. Going back to Chris Goodall’s calculation the installation of a solar system, which he prices at £5,000 is in reality closer to £8,000. The price is brought down by the assumption that a grant from the Low Carbon Building Programme which has now been capped at £2,500. The programme has been suspended, played around with and is in fact barely functioning with a mere £19 million behind it this year. Seen in isolation without the increase in value to the home itself microgeneration would remain the domain of the convert and not a viable option for many who remain Return on Investment driven.

Sadly at this moment in time, despite the huge increase in interest in sustainable and low carbon homes, the Government has still to lay out a clear system of support, at a grant level, a feed in payment level or at a ROC level. Hopefully Good Energy’s initiative will go some way to providing an incentive to policy makes to pull their heads out of the sand and get behind renewable and home micro generation.

Peter Shield naturalchoices.co.uk
Good Energy press release

full article

Eco-homes moving up homebuyers wish list

Up to 85 per cent of homebuyers in the UK would consider purchasing an eco-friendly home, according to new research published by Legal and General.

On Monday the prime minister Gordon Brown pledged to build ten new 'eco-towns' in the UK - doubling the previous commitment made during his election to the leadership of the Labour party earlier this year – and demand looks set to be high.

The undertaking comes on top of a proposal to build 240,000 new homes "in places and ways that respect our green spaces and the environment" - again made during his leadership campaign.

"There is clearly a demand for the green homes proposed by Gordon Brown, showing the environmental agenda is starting to influence the choices people make with respect to their homes," commented Ruth Wilkins, head of communications for Legal & General.

According to the Changing Face of British Homes report released by Legal and General, Brits are becoming more environmentally savvy.

As many as 59 per cent of homeowners would now consider purchasing a property with solar panels, whereas 40 per cent would opt for a carbon neutral home.

A further 33 per cent said they would like a property made entirely from local materials and 32 per cent would opt for a timber framed property.

The strongest demand for these eco-improvements was among those over 45 years of age according to Legal and General.

Only 18 per cent said they were not interested in an eco-friendly home.

One further interesting trend the Legal and General research reveals is in the north-east, where 18 per cent of those questioned stated they would consider a house with livestock.
full article

Lovelock urges ocean climate fix

Two of Britain's leading environmental thinkers say it is time to develop a quick technical fix for climate change.

Writing in the journal Nature, Science Museum head Chris Rapley and Gaia theorist James Lovelock suggest looking at boosting ocean take-up of CO2.

Their idea, already being investigated by a US firm, involves huge flotillas of vertical pipes in the tropical seas.

The two scientists say they doubt that existing plans for curbing carbon emissions can work quickly enough.

"We are taking the very strong line that we are not going to save the planet by the regular approaches like the Kyoto Protocol or renewable energy," Professor Lovelock told BBC News.

"What we have to do is to look at it in a systems sense, or a Gaian sense, and see if it's curable by direct action."

Natural cycles

Professor Rapley, who has just moved to head up the Science Museum from a similar post at the British Antarctic survey, said the two men developed the ocean pipes concept during country walks in James Lovelock's beloved Devon.

Unbeknown to them, a US company, Atmocean, had already begun trials of a very similar technology.

Floating pipes reaching down from the top of the ocean into colder water below move up and down with the swell.

As the pipe moves down, cold water flows up and out onto the ocean surface. A simple valve blocks any downward flow when the pipe is moving upwards.


See how the pumps would work
Colder water is more "productive" - it contains more life, and so in principle can absorb more carbon.

One of the life-forms that might benefit, Atmocean believes, is the salp, a tiny tube which excretes carbon in its solid faecal pellets, which descend to the ocean floor, perhaps storing the carbon away for millennia.

Atmocean CEO Phil Kithil has calculated that deploying 1.3 million pipes could potentially sequester about one-third of the carbon dioxide produced by human activities each year. But he acknowledges that research is in the early stages.


The scheme could pose problems for marine creatures such as whales
"There is much yet to be learned," he told BBC News. "We need not only to move towards the final design and size (of the pipes), but also to characterise the ecological effects.

"The problem we would be most concerned about would be acidification. We're bringing up higher levels of CO2 along with the nutrients, so it all has to be analysed as to the net carbon balance and the net carbon flux."

Atmocean deployed experimental tubes earlier this year and gathered engineering data. The pipes brought cold water to the surface from a depth of 200m, but no research has yet been done on whether this approach has any net impact on greenhouse gas levels.

The company says a further advantage of cooling surface waters in regions such as the Gulf of Mexico could be a reduction in the number of hurricanes, which need warm water in order to form.

And Professors Lovelock and Rapley suggest that the ocean pipes could also stimulate growth of algae that produce dimethyl sulphide (DMS), a chemical which helps clouds form above the ocean, reflecting sunlight away from the Earth's surface and bringing a further cooling.

Ethical fix

In recent years, scientists have developed a wide range of technical "geo-engineering" ideas for curbing global warming.

Seeding the ocean with iron filings to stimulate plankton growth, putting sunshades in space, and firing sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere from a giant cannon have all been proposed; the iron filings idea has been extensively tested.

But the whole idea of pursuing these "technical fixes" is controversial.

"One has to understand what the consequences of doing these things are," commented Ken Caldeira from the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University in California, who has published a number of analyses of geo-engineering technologies.

"There are scientific questions of safety and efficacy; then there are the broader ethical, social and political dimensions, and one of the most disturbing is that if people start getting the idea that technical fixes are available and cheaper than curbing carbon emissions, then people might start relying on them as an alternative to curbing emissions.

"So I think it's worth investigating these kinds of ideas, but premature to start deploying them."

Chris Rapley does not believe ideas like the ocean pipes are complete answers to man-made global warming, but may buy time while society develops a more comprehensive response.

"It's encouraging to see how much serious effort is going into technical attempts to reduce carbon emissions, and the renewed commitment to finding an international agreement," he said.

"But in the meantime, there's evidence that the Earth's response to climate change might be going faster than people have predicted. The dramatic loss of ice in the Arctic, for example, poses a serious concern for the northern hemisphere climate."

High stakes

Professor Rapley said the letter to Nature, one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals, was intended to get people thinking about the concept of technical fixes rather than just to advocate ocean pipes.

"If you think of how the science community has organised itself," he said, "with the World Climate Research Programme, the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, International Polar Year and so on - you've got all this intensive interdisciplinary collaboration figuring out what Earth systems are up to and figuring out how they work, but we don't have a similar network working across the entire piece as to what we can actually do to mitigate and adapt."

He said there was a need for some sort of global collaboration to explore potential climate-fixing technologies.

"Geo-engineering is one of the types of thing that are worth investigating," opined Ken Caldeira, "and yes, the amount of effort going into thinking of innovative solutions is far too little.

"If we can generate 100 ideas, and 97 are bad and we land up with 3 good ones, then the whole thing will have been worthwhile; so I applaud Lovelock and Rapley for thinking along these lines."

He observed that human emissions of greenhouse gases are bringing huge changes to natural ecosystems anyway, so there was nothing morally difficult in principle about deliberately altering the same natural ecosystems to curb climatic change.

But changing patterns of ocean life could potentially have major consequences for marine species. Whales that feed on krill, for example, could find their favourite food displaced by salps.

These would all have to be investigated, James Lovelock acknowledged.

But, he said, it is time to start. "There may be all sorts of ecological consequences, but the stakes are terribly high."
full article