A report from the Centre for Alternative Technology concludes that a massive expansion in offshore wind, a switch to electric vehicles and steps to halve household energy demand would make the country “zero-carbon” by the end of the next decade and without the need to rely on nuclear power.

The study said energy demand in buildings could be halved if changes such as; improved insulation, eliminating draughts and improving the efficiency of heating technology came in to effect.

It will need “whole house” refurbishment to upgrade energy efficiency and for new homes to be built from natural materials such as wood and straw to lock in carbon in an effort to cut overall emissions.

The report also said there should be a switch to electric vehicles, which would generate 50% less carbon dioxide than petrol or diesel cars.

As the grid is “decarbonised”, electrical vehicles will be even more environmentally friendly, however this will raise a huge demand for electricity, so, “smart charging” will be introduced in which they are charged up overnight when power demand is low – which will limit the extra pressure on the grid.

Domestic flights would be replaced with bus or rail travel, with fewer journeys taken overall.

The American Department of Energy has announced funding for a variety of energy-efficient building technologies and training courses to create skilled environmental jobs and workers.

There will be a $76m fund that will be divided between 45 companies developing technologies to upgrade the environmental credentials of America’s buildings, there will also be 13 training courses to ensure people will be qualified to build and install them in commercial properties.

“These projects will help the United States lead the world in advancing energy-efficient technologies,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

“Energy-efficient commercial buildings will help our country cut its carbon emissions and energy costs while the training programs will upgrade the skills of the current workforce and attract the next generation to careers in the emerging clean-energy economy.”

39% of the USA’s total greenhouse gas emissions, 50% of its sulphur dioxide and 18% of its NOx emissions are released by domestic and commercial buildings.

There is a wide variety of technologies being funded; from analytic tools to building components, more insulation and better ventilation will all help lower the environmental impact.

According to a spending watch dog, after £265 million of tax payer’s money was spent to meet the climate change target, it looks likely we will miss our target.

The money which was used to fund wind, wave or solar sources to generate  more electricity doesn’t seem to be enough to match the 10% target set by the last goverment in 2000.

A report from the National Audit Office said the target is likely to be missed this year, despite direct government grants of £265 million to help energy companies develop the new technologies.

This set back has cast further doubt over the Government’s ability to meet a legally-binding EU target, which is to generate 15% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020.

The latest available data from 2008 shows that only 5.5% was obtained from renewable sources.

Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, pointed out that the Government will have to increase the amount of renewable energy in this country seven fold on 2008 levels to meet the 2020 target.

“At present the 2020 target looks optimistic,” he said.

The Government has been under heavy criticism from Environmental groups for their disappointing performance especially due to the amount of finances they have used from the tax payers.

The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) insisted the UK are confident of hitting their target and also confident about cutting green house gas by 34 per cent by 2020.

The latest figures show the UK has cut greenhouse gas emissions by 28% since 1990.

Another problem has occurred regarding the Olympics, as their plan to build a 130 metre-high wind turbine to provide 5% of the energy it needs to power the Olympic park have been cancelled, according to the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA).

The renewable energy was supposed to contribute to the commitment the ODA made. They said that they would deliver 20% of the park’s energy needs from renewable sources from 2014 onwards

Unfortunately David Higgins, Chief Executive of the ODA say it is “no longer feasible”.

Higgins said that construction of the turbine had become unfeasible due to new safety legislation, a “challenging” delivery timetable and the preferred turbine supplier pulling out all of this lead to the idea having to be scrapped.

The turbine was to be positioned in Eton Manor, the north of the Olympic park, it was intended to be the visible symbol of London 2012’s commitment to delivering a sustainable games.

Higgins, an Australian project management fixer, said: “We have a strong track record in sustainability and we remain committed to meeting the challenging renewable energy targets we have set ourselves,” he added.

“Our focus is now on researching a number of alternative renewable energy options across the Olympic park site to help contribute to these targets and complement the other state-of-the art new energy infrastructure we are building.”

On a more positive note the construction is due to be completed by the middle part of 2011, the ODA currently have 7,500 people working towards the goal.

Hackney council have also helped matter by proceeding with a plan to erect a second turbine on a nearby site at East Marsh. It is still early days any new construction will be the subject of a planning application.

Transforming the UK into a, mean, green, carbon saving machine isn’t going to happen overnight and it’s certainly not going to happen unless someone is willing to put their hand in their pocket.

The new Coalition Government is unlikely to fund it due to the deficit. Clearly renewable energy is the way forward to a low carbon future. Due to the world leaders failing to be able to reach an agreement on tackling climate change and with the continued strain on the economy the possibility of the private sector funding it doesn’t seem likely. In a new report from accountants Ernst & Young the suggested plans from the government may lead to the UK becoming an attractive place for green investment. The department giving the role of tackling climate change has already announced its first cuts.

Clean energy is crucial, the new Government intends on increasing the price of ‘dirty’ energy. “It’s a way of increasing the price of fossil fuel power generation. It’s a carbon tax, basically,” says David Kennedy, who is chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change. There is a proposal of making electricity companies which burn fossil fuels pay a minimum price for the pollution they create. Nuclear power seems likely to become one of the main sources of UK energy, in the past Liberal Democrats have openly opposed the proposal of new nuclear stations but have since decided not to block it. They have promised to support four new ‘clean-coal’ power stations, which deals with carbon dioxide by burying it underground. It appears all disagreements have been dealt with by both parties supporting every option for cleaner energy.

Regarding transport it seems aviation could be the worst affected, no extra runways and the possibility of a change in the way air tax is handled, not everyone have seen it as a negative – “We are quite supportive of the reform, so long as it’s revenue-neutral financially,” says Andrew Mconnell from Easyjet. Both parties have promised a network of electric charging points so to encourage a much greener road transport and also want to continue with the development of a high-speed rail network.

Greener homes and businesses account for just over 25% of emissions – and energy efficiency is the best way to reduce carbon emissions financially. Cash incentives will be offered for energy efficiency improvement in the home, which will be paid back using the saving in your energy bill. The Government aren’t prepared to pay for this directly though. The Coalition are also continuing the roll-out of feed-in tariffs – a way of selling electricity you generate from your own wind-turbine or solar panel through a smart grid.

Basically, there’s a lot of hype, lot of good ideas and a lot of excellent plans. There is only one problem, a pretty big problem to be honest; how the bill is to be paid for is yet to be announced. If only they could think of more ideas like BuilderScrap.

One of the first acts Chris Huhne had in his new role as the new Environment and Climate Change Secretary was to concede to Conservative pressure to create a new generation of nuclear power stations.

Lib Dems previously had dismissed nuclear power as a way to meet UK energy needs, stating “We will say no to a new generation of nuclear power stations; nuclear power is a far more expensive way of reducing carbon emissions than promoting energy conservation and renewable power.”

Now it seems there has been a huge turn around as Chris Huhne who once called nuclear power “failed technology”, has made it clear he will not stand in the way of a new generation of nuclear power stations. He does say however that it will not be funded by the state and will be up to the nuclear industry to make the call whether or not they are able to go ahead with the plan.

Under the new coalition agreement signed last week, the Lib Dems agreed not to stand in the way of the Conservatives proposal to build new plants in order to replace our aging plants we currently have.

In the last quarter of 2009 nuclear power accounted for a 20% of the countries electricity and with all but one of them due to be closed by 2025 something has to be done to replace that loss of power generated and it has to happen fast.

Huhne also said that Britain should increase the amount of renewable energy we use. Today; tidal, wave, solar and wind power account for only 6% of our over all power used.

As we thought there will definitely have to be a certain amount of compromise when it comes to the new coalition government. It is not clear what they have managed to negotiate for this change of heart. Let’s hope they’ve only negotiated what they feel is beneficial for the country and not conceded their principals on nuclear power to have a stronger position when trying to introduce more forms of renewable energy.

Having begun construction in 2006 the colossal dam, Gibe III in Ethiopia is still receiving mixed reviews.  In my opinion, those who are pro dam, understandably, seems to be those who will benefit most from the surge of electricity and those who are working on the project.  In first world countries electricity is a basic luxury denied to no one, another part of life that people expect and no longer notice, power cuts are a great inconvenience and for weeks after people will still be grumbling over work lost or television programme’s missed. However there are still millions who live daily without electricity, to these people it is a distant dream. Having never had what we take for granted they strive toward it when the opportunity is given. It is impossible for us to judge those who want and need electricity, but when that electricity comes at the price of human life can we stand back and say nothing? Gibe III would certainly provide electricity in Ethiopia with enough to begin exporting the power to neighbouring countries, 1,800 megawatts of electricity . In this way the dam would provide electricity and also a source of income. It is impossible to deny, however, that the dam which could change lives in such a positive way will also have dramatically negative affects on hundreds of thousands of lives.

There are intrigues and questions surrounding the run up to the project which are still left unanswered. Why did the government fail to conduct a feasibility study? Why were Italian company, Salini Costruttori granted a no bid contract? Furthermore, why was the work begun without an environment and social impact assessment? It was two years after work began before a study (declaring the build fit to continue) was released and there have been strong speculations that the document was biased and failed to recognise the severe risks the development threatens. In their rush to get the project underway economic, technical, environmental and social risk assessments were neglected. Importantly, there was no study into the effects of climate change which could severely alter the dam’s performance over its lifespan. It seems extremely backward that years after the project was begun, reports and assessments are finally being written, this in fact violates Ethiopian environmental law which states that prior to the commencement of construction work an impact assessment must be provided.  Known ecologist Richard Leakey has been studying the dam himself and has outlined the problems the project will cause.  Twolde Berhan Gebre who heads the Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed Leakey’s reports, saying “My experts have also examined it. They had studied the environmental impact statements. They have visited the site and I know them. I don’t know you. I trust them and I don’t care what you say.”  Sounds like someone more eager to clear their own reputation than in the welfare of his fellow Ethiopians.  Furthermore, only 93 members from four downstream indigenous communities were consulted and even this occurred in 2007, after work had begun. Despite that the project began in 2006 there has been very little local media coverage until recently after critical international coverage began to emerge in March 2009.  Could it not therefore be argued that those running the project expected bad press and negative feelings from the local people? 

Part two to follow.

Here at BuilderScrap.com we’re looking at respondents’ purchases of appliances and whether being “Energy Saving Recommended‟ had been a factor in purchases. The purpose of this the BuilderScrap blog isn’t just to help you guys save on construction costs, but to help home owners make informed decisions relating to the environment.

Respondents were presented with a list of seven household appliances and asked which, if any, they had bought in the last twelve months. As shown in Table 12, a third (32%) of respondents had bought at least one of these appliances, with the most common purchases being a washing machine (15%), fridge-freezer (9%) or a dishwasher (8%). It was less common for respondents to have purchased a tumble dryer (6%), fridge (5%), freezer (3%) or washer-dryer (2%).

A similar question was asked on the Energy Saving Trust tracker survey in August 2007. Where comparisons are possible the proportion who had bought each appliance in the last twelve months was fairly consistent, although there had been a small, but statistically significant decrease in the proportion of respondents who had bought a fridge-freezer.

We think that’s because its been really cold!

At BuilderScrap.com we’re looking at the way Home builders can you help you guys save energy. The survey asked respondents if they had or had considered installing various energy-generating items in their homes. The four items covered are shown in Table 11 with a summary of responses to these questions.

As shown in the table above, very few people have installed any of the five items (1% or less in each case). This is consistent with the 2007 Defra survey – which found less than 1% of those surveyed had installed solar panels, solar water heating or a wind turbine, and with The Energy Saving Trust‟s tracker survey in February 2008 – which found less than 1% had biomass heating.
Furthermore, the proportion who said they were contemplating installing each of the items was low. Around one in ten (12%) claimed to be contemplating installing solar panels, with a similar proportion (10%) claiming to be contemplating installing solar water heating. Smaller numbers said they were contemplating installing either a wind turbine (5%) or a ground source heat pump (3%).

For all five of the items the majority of respondents were either at the pre-contemplation stage (having never heard of the item or having not given it any consideration) or having rejected it as an option. Respondents were least likely to have contemplated installing biomass heating or a ground source heat pump – 65% and 58% of respondents respectively fell into the pre-contemplation category for these behaviours (with a high proportion stating that they had not heard of either of these). At least half of respondents had rejected the idea of installing solar panels (55%), solar water heating (50%) or a wind turbine (58%).

All respondents who had installed at least one of these items at their homes were asked what were the main reasons they had done this, though as so few people had installed the items the base sizes were too small to support any analysis.