We are in the process of setting up a DIY team/project to help people in Cambridge make improvements to their houses to cut down on carbon emissions. Plus I'm doing the same to my own and looking for the next affordable step.
A 'problem' with Cambridge is that most of the current housing stock is around 100 years old or more - so single skin brick which cannot be easily insulated.
However, i saw a report yesterday which said that refurbishing old houses was more nergy efficient then new build over a 50 year life span due to the carbon required to build the housev refurbishment. Links are:
resting http://www.emptyhomes.com/documents/publications/reports/New%20Tricks%20With%20Old%20Bricks%20-%20final%2012-03-081.pdf
It was reported in Sunday's Observer.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/mar/16/homeimprovements.householdbills
The report led me on to looking at the Nottingham house which is about the same age as mine (Victorian/Edwardian) and therefore I can learn from many of the steps that they took:
http://www.msarch.co.uk/ecohome/feature.html
I think the next big steps for me are:
1. Insulate inside front walls (like the above house, I don't want to spoilt the outside brick work) but insulate/redner the outside back and side
2. Solar how water heating panels on the roof
3. Maybe heat exchanger onthe extraction fan?
More work...
Monday 17 March 2008
Friday 14 March 2008
Thought on Footprinting
The recent Prof Azapagic presentation gave some figures for carbon footprinting that were different from other sources - e.g. some organic foods were worse that expected. Apparently work is almost complete on developing a British Standard for footprinting goods and processes to be published around mid year.
So we will be able to compare apples with apples
So we will be able to compare apples with apples
A Possible Way Through
Today's blog was going to be called 'avoiding the worst' but now it's only optimistic titles - my one good deed for the day.
Last night, in meeting arranged by hicca - just Google to find website, I went to hear Mark Lynas - a journalist from Oxford who wrote '6 Degrees'. It's an understandably depressing book looking at the likely effect of each degree rise in temperature. It was turned into a National Geographic film that was apparently shown on Sky recently. Luckily he just showed snippets from the film and focused mainly on questions and answer.
His main views/messages were:
1. The critical date is 11 Dec 2009 which is the next UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. We either agree on a worldwide framework with binding targets to reduce carbon emissions of it will be too late.
- he said 'yes' to a question of where people should attend the Kingsnorth, Kent Climate Camp 3-11th August. He says will be there and that these meetings look scary on the news because of the large police presence but they are friendly and peaceful.
2. He is more optimistic as he see changes happening like huge and growing investment in renewables, much more public interest, transition towns and other initiatives sweeping across the UK etc. He thinks thinks that an awareness tipping point has been reached and that we can stay below 2 Deg C - unfortunately most others that I hear say this is now unlikely but maybe we can stay within the ball park.
3. At Bali he saw no hordes of industry lobbyists swarming through the corridors - business has bought into the need for change. They just want governments to agree the framework and targets
4. He thinks carbon credits are too complicated. We already have the price mechanism to
affect behaviour so we should use that.
5. He advocates focusing on the production of fossil energy (oil/gas/coal) measuring and controlling how much is produced. The worldwide limit will be set each year and reduced over time to meet emission targets. Companies will bid for the right to produce and the funds will be used to support those countries/sectors that need help e.g. under developed/threatened lands or renewable sector etc. Meanwhile the higher price will filter down into the cost of goods that are carbon intensive
6. He reckons that this will lead to growth driven by the move other energy sources/technologies.
Some of my comments on this:
- It sounds simple and elegant. I hope the clamp that this will put on world economic activity will be offset in development in new sectors, otherwise political opposition may kill it. He says it happens over years so the world economy can adjust.
- It does not take account of other ecological pressures e.g. water, land etc. I think he would say we need to fix the carbon
- What do economists think about this? And other specialists? I will raise it in other meetings.
Last night, in meeting arranged by hicca - just Google to find website, I went to hear Mark Lynas - a journalist from Oxford who wrote '6 Degrees'. It's an understandably depressing book looking at the likely effect of each degree rise in temperature. It was turned into a National Geographic film that was apparently shown on Sky recently. Luckily he just showed snippets from the film and focused mainly on questions and answer.
His main views/messages were:
1. The critical date is 11 Dec 2009 which is the next UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. We either agree on a worldwide framework with binding targets to reduce carbon emissions of it will be too late.
- he said 'yes' to a question of where people should attend the Kingsnorth, Kent Climate Camp 3-11th August. He says will be there and that these meetings look scary on the news because of the large police presence but they are friendly and peaceful.
2. He is more optimistic as he see changes happening like huge and growing investment in renewables, much more public interest, transition towns and other initiatives sweeping across the UK etc. He thinks thinks that an awareness tipping point has been reached and that we can stay below 2 Deg C - unfortunately most others that I hear say this is now unlikely but maybe we can stay within the ball park.
3. At Bali he saw no hordes of industry lobbyists swarming through the corridors - business has bought into the need for change. They just want governments to agree the framework and targets
4. He thinks carbon credits are too complicated. We already have the price mechanism to
affect behaviour so we should use that.
5. He advocates focusing on the production of fossil energy (oil/gas/coal) measuring and controlling how much is produced. The worldwide limit will be set each year and reduced over time to meet emission targets. Companies will bid for the right to produce and the funds will be used to support those countries/sectors that need help e.g. under developed/threatened lands or renewable sector etc. Meanwhile the higher price will filter down into the cost of goods that are carbon intensive
6. He reckons that this will lead to growth driven by the move other energy sources/technologies.
Some of my comments on this:
- It sounds simple and elegant. I hope the clamp that this will put on world economic activity will be offset in development in new sectors, otherwise political opposition may kill it. He says it happens over years so the world economy can adjust.
- It does not take account of other ecological pressures e.g. water, land etc. I think he would say we need to fix the carbon
- What do economists think about this? And other specialists? I will raise it in other meetings.
Thursday 13 March 2008
Lifecycle footprinting
12 Mar 2008; Went to see Prof Adisa Azapagic of Manchester University as part of the Suatinable Development Series in Cambridge.
She stressed the need to look at the full lifecycle carbon footprint of products and production processes if we are to make informed decisions on what we consume - "what can be measured can be managed". It was very informative. Starting with an global view on Green House Gas emissions she then drilled right down to the product level. Here are the highlights:
Lifecycle approach takes into account indirectactivities not just those directly involved in production - therefore include materials and energy used plus emissions and waste e.g. for:
Fuels this inolves Extract and Refine --> convert to power (the direct bit) --> Distribute --> Use --> Waste so which energy source ismost sustainable on this measure in CO2 equiv g/kWh?
Coal 680; gas 440; nuclear negligible (agreed that this ignores other factors like radioactivity) she also looked atrenwabkesoruces and PV solar was the 3rd worst after coal and gas - due to pollution from making chips.
Transport (CO2 eq g/person/km:
Plane (longhaul) 115
Plane shiorthaul (e.g. in Europe) 325
Rail (Long dist) 10
Rail (regional 20)
Bus (120)
Car (180)
So don't use plane within Europe
Biofuels (CO2 eq g/MJ)
Petrol 95
Bioethanol (wheat) 78
Bioethanol (sugar beet) 50
Bioethanol (corn) 125
Bioethanol (Rape/canola) 76
Bioethanol (soy) 60
So don't use ethanol from corn/maize and youneed 100% of any bioethanol (not just 10% added) l to make a significant difference from petrol
Food
Xmas/Thanksgiving dinner for 8 people produces 20kg CO2 equiv; the turkey is 13kg of this - be as veggie as you can
Meat v Veg
Potatoes 0.2
Tomatoes (UK) 9.3
Pork 5.4
Chicken 4.1
Beef 14
Lamb 14.3
Turkey 5.1
Tomatoes - grown in:
UK 9.3 (we grow in heated green houses)
Netherlands 3.5
Spain 0.2
So eat from where grown naturally even if transported long distance by road
Also eat seasonal foods that don't require heated environments/refrigeration)
Packaging for a typical soft drink
Aluminium 390
Carton 40
Glass 350
PET etc (high - could not catch figures but polyethylene was next best after carton)
I assume that this says glass is not good even if broken and recycled but I asume that reused milk bottles from milkman are OK).
But Milk (CO2 equiv per litre):
700 g Methane
600g Other GHG's
-----
1300 Total
Questions after, covered amongst other things:
1. Cooking method can affect (e.g. stir fry better than roasting)
2. As we get wealthier we use more carbon - is growth policy compatible with saving the world? She does not know how we will break the growth/carbon link. If things become cheaper (in carbon terms) e.g. low energy light bulbs then we tend to leave them on longer
In summary, as this data gets published it gives useful way to make informed decisions at personal and government policy levels since lifecycle approach is the only way to look at true climate warming cost of what we consume.
She stressed the need to look at the full lifecycle carbon footprint of products and production processes if we are to make informed decisions on what we consume - "what can be measured can be managed". It was very informative. Starting with an global view on Green House Gas emissions she then drilled right down to the product level. Here are the highlights:
Lifecycle approach takes into account indirectactivities not just those directly involved in production - therefore include materials and energy used plus emissions and waste e.g. for:
Fuels this inolves Extract and Refine --> convert to power (the direct bit) --> Distribute --> Use --> Waste so which energy source ismost sustainable on this measure in CO2 equiv g/kWh?
Coal 680; gas 440; nuclear negligible (agreed that this ignores other factors like radioactivity) she also looked atrenwabkesoruces and PV solar was the 3rd worst after coal and gas - due to pollution from making chips.
Transport (CO2 eq g/person/km:
Plane (longhaul) 115
Plane shiorthaul (e.g. in Europe) 325
Rail (Long dist) 10
Rail (regional 20)
Bus (120)
Car (180)
So don't use plane within Europe
Biofuels (CO2 eq g/MJ)
Petrol 95
Bioethanol (wheat) 78
Bioethanol (sugar beet) 50
Bioethanol (corn) 125
Bioethanol (Rape/canola) 76
Bioethanol (soy) 60
So don't use ethanol from corn/maize and youneed 100% of any bioethanol (not just 10% added) l to make a significant difference from petrol
Food
Xmas/Thanksgiving dinner for 8 people produces 20kg CO2 equiv; the turkey is 13kg of this - be as veggie as you can
Meat v Veg
Potatoes 0.2
Tomatoes (UK) 9.3
Pork 5.4
Chicken 4.1
Beef 14
Lamb 14.3
Turkey 5.1
Tomatoes - grown in:
UK 9.3 (we grow in heated green houses)
Netherlands 3.5
Spain 0.2
So eat from where grown naturally even if transported long distance by road
Also eat seasonal foods that don't require heated environments/refrigeration)
Packaging for a typical soft drink
Aluminium 390
Carton 40
Glass 350
PET etc (high - could not catch figures but polyethylene was next best after carton)
I assume that this says glass is not good even if broken and recycled but I asume that reused milk bottles from milkman are OK).
But Milk (CO2 equiv per litre):
700 g Methane
600g Other GHG's
-----
1300 Total
Questions after, covered amongst other things:
1. Cooking method can affect (e.g. stir fry better than roasting)
2. As we get wealthier we use more carbon - is growth policy compatible with saving the world? She does not know how we will break the growth/carbon link. If things become cheaper (in carbon terms) e.g. low energy light bulbs then we tend to leave them on longer
In summary, as this data gets published it gives useful way to make informed decisions at personal and government policy levels since lifecycle approach is the only way to look at true climate warming cost of what we consume.
Wednesday 12 March 2008
The reason why
OK, here goes, start blogging...
I saw a presentation by Dr Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Institute on Climate Change in Oct 2007 here in Cambridge. He started by asking the audience not to blame the messenger which did not bode well. Sure enough his news was scary in that talk of making cuts in carbon emissions by 2050 was misleading. We should view the atmosphere like a bank account in which we can withdraw so much carbon absorption capacity until it is all used up. Once it's used it's gone, as emitted carbon stays around for hundreds of years. So waiting until 2049 and then turning off the lights to meet out reduction target will not work. We need to start now and only have ten years to start to make drastic cuts to bring down our emissions to 90% of our current rate by 2035. If we don't then we face disastrous climate change.
That got me interested. So I began to seek to learn more and find organisations intent on making a difference. Cambridge is a great place for doing this as there are so many talks by academics at the forefront of this issue and people who want to do something. I have learned a lot over the past 6 months but have only just started. I hope to share my thoughts and gain from others as this blog develops.
But the aim is not to spread doom and gloom. It is to become more aware and learn how to cope and adapt. See you soon, I hope
I saw a presentation by Dr Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Institute on Climate Change in Oct 2007 here in Cambridge. He started by asking the audience not to blame the messenger which did not bode well. Sure enough his news was scary in that talk of making cuts in carbon emissions by 2050 was misleading. We should view the atmosphere like a bank account in which we can withdraw so much carbon absorption capacity until it is all used up. Once it's used it's gone, as emitted carbon stays around for hundreds of years. So waiting until 2049 and then turning off the lights to meet out reduction target will not work. We need to start now and only have ten years to start to make drastic cuts to bring down our emissions to 90% of our current rate by 2035. If we don't then we face disastrous climate change.
That got me interested. So I began to seek to learn more and find organisations intent on making a difference. Cambridge is a great place for doing this as there are so many talks by academics at the forefront of this issue and people who want to do something. I have learned a lot over the past 6 months but have only just started. I hope to share my thoughts and gain from others as this blog develops.
But the aim is not to spread doom and gloom. It is to become more aware and learn how to cope and adapt. See you soon, I hope
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
