Energy & Nuclear

Energy savings in UK households could be up to 30% lower than previously thought, jeopardising efforts to cut the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions.

The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) blamed the miscalculation on “rebound effects” from energy-saving measures.

As people cut their bills by using more efficient devices, they tend to spend the extra money buying additional goods that cancel out some of the savings.

BBC News website: UK energy savings ‘miscalculated’

Earlier this year, ex-prime minister Tony Blair signed up to the EU target of 20 per cent of all European energy to come from renewable sources by 2020. New prime minister Gordon Brown is now likeky to be advised that the target is too expensive and difficult to meet. The UK government will hope that it will be able to work with ‘climate sceptic’ governments such as Poland and the Czech Republic in order to try and persuade German chancellor Angela Merkel to set lower binding targets, which are due to be agreed in December.

Blair had a habit of signing any document the EU put in front of him, often without thinking through the implications.

The Guardian newspaper is alarmed:

Labour’s plan to abandon renewable energy targets

Leaked documents detail strategy for climate change U-turn

I can’t work out whether ‘the environment’ is more or less important as an issue in Australia this federal election.

Both the Coalition and ALP have agreed to allow a pulp mill to be built in Tasmania, both are hell bent on buying back water licences in the Murray Darling Basin and both are ignoring the difficult issue of tree clearing in our rangelands. So there is not the polarisation and heated debate, for example on forestry or how much water is needed for the Murray River, that has so characterised previous federal elections.

The focus has changed since the last federal election from almost exclusively rural issues – where most of the Australian environment is – to what happens in our cities.

Climate change is certainly top of the agenda. The Coalition is suggesting we meet the challenge of reducing carbon emissions including through a national emissions trading scheme and developing low emissions technology including solar power, geosequestration, clean coal and even possibly nuclear.

The ALP is dealing with climate change and ‘water’ as one issue and is promising to sign Kyoto, provide rebates for the installation of rainwater tanks, loans to families that invest in solar energy and stop the building of nuclear reactors.

Apart from the issue of Kyoto – which is almost a non-issue given the Coalition plans to endorse an emissions trading scheme – nuclear seems to be the standout defining environmental issue between the major parties.

So what would it mean for Australia to go nuclear as the Coalition more-or-less propose, versus significantly cutting carbon emissions without the development of a nuclear industry as proposed by the ALP?

—————–
Liberal and Coaltion polices can found here: http://www.liberal.org.au/

ALP policies here: http://www.kevin07.com.au/fresh-ideas/climate-change-water/climate-change-water.html

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment yesterday became the first government agency in the United States to cite carbon dioxide emissions as the reason for rejecting an air permit for a proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant, saying that the greenhouse gas threatens public health and the environment.

The decision marks a victory for environmental groups that are fighting proposals for new coal-fired plants around the country. It may be the first of a series of similar state actions inspired by a Supreme Court decision in April that asserted that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide should be considered pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Read the rest of the Washington Post article ‘Power Plant Rejected Over Carbon Dioxide For First Time.’

You lucky Aussies have more potential for domestic solar energy than us poor Brits stuck in the rather dull UK. With global warming hysteria at fever pitch, and the apparent belief that we can contol the weather or climate by attempting to reduce the UK’s 2 per cent contribution to global man-made CO2 emissions, from 1 per cent of the world’s population, we are now required to provide an Energy Performance Certificate as part of a Home Information Pack when we sell our home. Currently this only applies to homes with 3 or more bedrooms (Biggs Towers has 4), but will eventually be extended to cover all homes. There are 8 measures that are needed to secure a rating of A or B, as a opposed to a poor rating of F or G. My home was only built in 2000, so has modern energy saving features such as cavity wall insulation, thick fibreglass loft insulation, double glazed UPVC windows, and polystyrene slab under the downstairs concrete floors. I’ve used compact fluorescent bulbs since they came on the market quite a few years ago, in some of our light fittings.

Today’s Times (13th October) has an article featuring a study by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors about the cost of installing energy saving measures and the time taken to recoup the investment. Apparently, installing solar panels for water heating costs around £5,000 and would save only £24 per year on average. This means it could take up to 208 years to recoup the investment. Installing all 8 measures could cost over £23,000 and take 48 years to recoup.

The Times article is entitled ‘Saving energy at home could take 200 years to repay its cost.’ Thanks to Woody for pointing it out.