Today’s post interests us at BuilderScrap.com simply because we’re nosey people.

All respondents were asked how they set the temperature on their heating system during the winter. They were asked to select which out of six statements best described how they set the temperature and also the current temperature setting on their thermostat (in degrees centigrade). Respondents who were unsure of the current setting were asked to check their thermostat or heating controls. The answers to both questions are provided in Table 10 (thermostat temperature was provided to the nearest degree but is presented here in bands of five degrees). Those with no central heating are excluded from the analysis.

The majority of respondents who had central heating reported that they changed the temperature setting whenever it got too hot or too cold, with 41% saying that while they did this, they often wore a jumper indoors. Around one in five (21%) said they often changed the temperature setting when it got too hot or cold and they did not like to wear a lot of layers. Around a third (37%) said that they did not change the setting often. Just 2% of respondents indicated that they did not tend to use the central heating. Detailed responses are provided above.

The mean temperature setting in respondents homes was 18.3 degrees centigrade. This calculation is based on those who had central heating, were able to control the temperature in their home and who knew what temperature the heating was set to. As in the 2007 Defra survey respondents who gave unrealistic answers (over 35 degrees centigrade) were also excluded from the analysis. In the 2007 Defra survey, the mean temperature was measured at 19.6 degrees suggesting that people were setting their heating at a slightly lower temperature in 2009. However, in 2007, respondents were not asked to check the temperature setting when responding so there was a higher level of estimation than in 2009.
More than a quarter (29%) of respondents with central heating had the temperature in their home set between 15 and 19 degrees and a similar proportion (28%) had it set between 20 and 24 degrees. It was uncommon for respondents to have the temperature either below 15 degrees (8%) or above 29 degrees (2%). Despite being asked to check the temperature setting if they were unsure, 20% of respondents said they didn‟t know what setting their heating was set to. In addition, 10% indicated that they either had no way of controlling the temperature or that the heating controls did not have a temperature scale.

We know that keeping your heating levels down is great for the environment…. big fluffy jumpers all the way! Do respondents have better home insulation, is it generally warmer or are respondents genuinely trying to not to waste energy. I’m going to write a post on Building Services to compliment this post to illustrate the point. Are people getting more work done on the home to aid heating efficiencies.

More on the frankly remarkable results from ‘home energy use’ Builders and Contractors take note. There is an opportunity here!

All respondents who had not installed cavity wall insulation, solid wall insulation or loft insulation (but were able to do so) were asked to say what the main reasons were for not doing so. Those who said they had not heard of that type of insulation and those who said it was not applicable to them were excluded from these questions.

Around 300 respondents (30% of those whose homes were constructed with cavity walls) had not installed cavity wall insulation. Respondents were most likely to say that they had not installed this form of insulation as they could not afford it (27%). Other key reasons provided included never having thought about it (14%), not knowing whether they had it already (11%), because they were waiting until they needed to do other major renovations (9%) and because it would take too long to get costs back through lower energy bills (7%).

Similar reasons were provided by the small proportion (16%) of respondents who had a loft but said they had not installed loft insulation or top-up loft insulation. Cost was the most frequently cited reason – a quarter (23%) said they could not afford to do this, 17% said they were waiting until they needed to do other major renovations, 15% had never thought about it, and 10% said that it required too much effort.

In contrast, respondents whose homes were constructed with solid walls were most likely to say that they had not installed solid wall insulation as they had never thought about it (27%). That said, cost was also a significant factor with one fifth saying that they could not afford to install this form of insulation (20%). Around one in ten indicated that they did not know if they already had it or not (11%) or that they did not know how to go about it or who to ask (8%).

This leads me to the question…. Does the government need to be more proactive when informing homeowners of energy saving options e.g. solid wall insulation. What about Government subsidies?

At BuilderScrap.com we wish our Builders Exchange site got the coverage it deserved.

Check out this post on persuading others… environmentally speaking!

The survey also included three statements to measure the extent to which respondents discussed environmental issues with people they knew, and encouraged other people to be environmentally-friendly (see Figure 4). For the first statement (“I’ve suggested improvements at my workplace/the place where I study to make it more environmentally friendly‟), analysis is limited to respondents who were working or studying at the time of the survey.

Builders Exchanges are great for recycling

Nearly half (45%) of respondents who were working or studying agreed that “I‟ve suggested improvements at my workplace/the place where I study to make it more environmentally friendly‟. A similar proportion (43%) of all respondents agreed that “I try to persuade people I know to be more environmentally friendly‟. More than one third (37%) agreed with the statement “I often talk to friends and family about the things they can do to help the environment‟, although for this statement a similar proportion (36%) disagreed. For each of the three statements around a quarter of respondents said they neither agreed nor disagreed.

In the 2007 Defra survey respondents were asked to indicate which, if any, of these three statements applied to them. In essence this is similar to expressing (any) level of agreement with the statements as presented in Figure 4. There has been an increase in the proportion of respondents who agreed with “I often talk to friends and family about the things they can do to help the environment‟ from 31% in 2007 to 37% in 2009. The results suggest a significant increase in those claiming that they try to persuade other people to be more environmentally friendly. In 2007 20% of respondents selected the statement “I try to persuade people I know to be more environmentally friendly‟ whereas in the current survey, 43% of respondents agreed with this. Similarly, in 2007 15% selected the statement “I‟ve suggested improvements at my workplace/the place where I study to make it more environmentally friendly‟, while 29% of all respondents in the current survey agreed with this (the equivalent of 45% of those who were working or studying).

Knowledge of environmental terms

More from BuilderScrap.com on attitudes and knowledge of the environment. This is a continuation of the previous post comparing 2007 to 2009 in relation to environmental terms.
As in 2007, respondents were asked to indicate how much they knew, if anything about a range of environmental terms and concepts. Knowledge of other, more specific terms (including biodiversity and carbon offsetting) is dealt with later.

There had been no real change in perceived levels of knowledge between 2007 and 2009 except for the term carbon footprint. Reported knowledge of this had increased substantially since 2007 – 48% of respondents said they knew at least a fair amount about this in 2009 compared with 25% in 2007. While in 2007, 30% of respondents claimed to have never heard of it, in 2009 this had fallen to just 6%. Levels of knowledge about climate change, global warming and CO2 emissions were very similar to those reported in 2007. The majority of respondents said they knew either a lot or a fair amount about these. Very few people claimed to know nothing about these terms.

Possible conclusions from this graphic;

We’ve hit a saturation point relating to environmental reporting on Global Warming, CO2 Emissions and Climate Change . This could mean people know just about as much they care to, and aren’t being influenced anymore by those terms.

Possibly the environmental impact studies and news reporting on the subject haven’t increased over this time period. Maybe they’ve decreased.

Carbon Footprint has been promoted as a buzz term in the media, people relate more to it. It’s seen as an actionable goal (The perception is it can be altered) therefore people believe they can make a difference.

Your thoughts?

Public atitudes and behaviours towards the environment – tracker survey.  Final Report to the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs; September 2009

Alex Thornton (2009). Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment – tracker survey: A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. TNS. Defra, London.

This research was commissioned and funded by Defra. The views expressed reflect the research findings and the authors‟ interpretation; they do not necessarily reflect Defra policy or opinions.

Beliefs and attitudes towards the environment and knowledge of environmental terms

This looks at respondents‟ beliefs and attitudes towards the environment and knowledge of environmental terms. All attitudinal measures reported here were included in the main survey 3. Where possible, findings are compared with those from previous research carried out by Defra (2007) and the Energy Saving Trust (over a series of tracker surveys between 2006 and 2008).

Perceptions of own lifestyle

Respondents were asked two questions to establish how much they felt they were doing that was environmentally-friendly and how happy they were with the amount they were doing to help the environment. The results from these two questions are presented in Table 1 compared with the equivalent results from the 2007 Defra survey.

Perceptions of own lifestyle

At BuilderScrap.com we like this type of quantitative survey as.  The numbers suggest that respondents do think of themselves as environmentally friendly, but a tiny variable wish to do more to help than were recorded in 2007

What do you guys think?

A great article from Larry West on The Benefits of Metal Recycling. All of us in the BuilderScrap.com offices had a look at this one.
The United States recycles 150 million metric tons of scrap materials annually, including 85 million tons of iron and steel, 5.5 million tons of aluminium, 1.8 million tons of copper, 2 million tons of stainless steel, 1.2 million tons of lead and 420,000 tons of zinc, according to the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI). Other metals such as brass, bronze, magnesium and tin are recycled as well.

What are the benefits of recycling all that metal?
U.S. Exports Recycled Metal

In 2008, the scrap recycling industry generated $86 billion and supported 85,000 jobs. The recycled materials that the industry processes into raw material feedstock every year are used for industrial manufacturing around the world. In 2008, the United States exported $28.6 billion—roughly 44 million metric tons—of scrap commodities, which contributed significantly to U.S. trade balances.
Metal Recycling Saves Energy

Recycling scrap metal reduces greenhouse gas emissions and uses less energy than making metal from virgin ore. The amount of energy saved using various recycled metals compared to virgin ore is up to:

– 92 percent for aluminium
– 90 percent for copper
– 56 percent for steel

Metal Recycling Conserves Natural Resources

Metal recycling also conserves natural resources. Recycling one ton of steel conserves 2,500 pounds of iron ore, 1,400 pounds of coal and 120 pounds of limestone. Recycling a ton of aluminium conserves up to 8 tons of bauxite ore and 14 megawatt hours of electricity.

Can the UK do more?

The BuilderScrap.com team have been out and about in recent weeks. We’ve been having conversions around the nature of the building industry and what is ‘green’. The Definition of a Green Building etc. Having researched, searched the web and trade papers… this seems to give the most complete list, with factors we consider to be instrumental and appropriate.

Green building is the practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building’s life-cycle from siting to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation and deconstruction. This practice expands and complements the classical building design concerns of economy, utility, durability, and comfort. Green building is also known as a sustainable or high performance building.

Impacts of the built environment:

* Siting
* Design
* Construction
* Operation
* Maintenance
* Renovation
* Deconstruction

Consumption:

* Energy
* Water
* Materials
* Natural Resources

Environmental Effects:

* Waste
* Air pollution
* Water pollution
* Indoor pollution
* Heat islands
* Stormwater runoff
* Noise

Ultimate Effects:

* Harm to Human Health
* Environment Degradation
* Loss of Resources

Green buildings are designed to reduce the overall impact of the built environment on human health and the natural environment by:

* Efficiently using energy, water, and other resources
* Protecting occupant health and improving employee productivity
* Reducing waste, pollution and environmental degradation

For example, green buildings may incorporate sustainable materials in their construction (e.g., reused, recycled-content, or made from renewable resources); create healthy indoor environments with minimal pollutants (e.g., reduced product emissions); and/or feature landscaping that reduces water usage (e.g., by using native plants that survive without extra watering).

We agree… but let us know your thoughts!

JOHANNESBURG – East Africa should tap its large cogeneration potential, burning waste from its sugar and tea output to cut reliance on hydro power, which is increasingly hit by drought, an energy analyst said on Wednesday.

Stephen Karekezi, Director of the African Energy Policy Research Network (AFREPREN), said the region was relying on hydropower to meet 80 percent of demand, but more frequent droughts had caused power cuts and forced countries to import electricity at high cost.

“When you have a drought, you lose a large portion of your capacity … and very quickly move to load shedding,” Karekezi told a cogeneration (cogen) conference in Johannesburg.

He said countries in the region were paying up to 4 percent of gross domestic product for emergency power, but could increase supply by using cogeneration and other renewable projects in their energy mix.

“When you look at the sugar industry alone, you could meet up to 5 percent of the current total power (demand)… and these are relatively conservative figures,” he said.

These would jump to 10 percent if forestry and other agricultural sectors invested in cogeneration plants, he said, and would be double that if use was made of surplus heat from the cement, steel and oil industries.

“If you could develop cogen alone, without looking at other renewables… you could deal with much of the power crises in the east African and Horn of Africa countries,” he said. Karekezi said new feedstocks for cogeneration were emerging, such as tea.

Governments had been too fixed on using one power source alone, but were trying to diversify.

A success story in Africa is Mauritius, he said, which produces 56 percent of its power from cogeneration plants.

While it initially developed plants of between 1.5 and 5 MW, the latest facility had capacity of 82 MW.

Karekezi said a clear commitment by the government, substantial technical expertise and an adequate feed-in-tariff to provide incentives were key to boost that industry.

The country had also introduced a scheme to offer higher prices to more efficient plants to spur investment.

Karekezi’s group, together with the United Nations Environment Program and the African Development Bank, is steering a “Cogen for Africa” project to promote plants in Africa.

The project aims to stimulate 40 MW in cogeneration initiatives in the six years since 2007, provide advice for an additional 20 MW after that and help install a further capacity of 200 MW in the medium to long term.

We’ve found that interesting abstact from a BASF article on Eco-Efficiency Analysis;

Life without chemicals would be inconceivable, but the potential risks and impacts to the environment associated with chemical production and chemical products are viewed critically. Eco-efficiency analysis considers the economic and life cycle environmental effects of a product or process, giving these equal weighting. The major elements of the environmental assessment include primary energy use, raw materials utilisation, emissions to all media, toxicity, safety risk, and land use. The relevance of each environmental category and also for the economic versus the environmental impacts is evaluated using national emissions and economic data. The eco-efficiency analysis method of BASF is briefly presented, and results from three applications to chemical processes and products are summarised. Through these applications, the eco-efficiency analyses mostly confirm the 12 Principles listed in Anastas and Zimmerman (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37 (5), 94A), with the exception that, in one application, production systems based on bio-based feedstocks were not the most eco-efficient as compared to those based on fossil resources. Over 180 eco-efficiency analyses have been conducted at BASF, and their results have been used to support strategic decision-making, marketing, research and development, and communication with external parties. Eco-efficiency analysis, as one important strategy and success factor in sustainable development, will continue to be a very strong operational tool at BASF.

It’s very interesting to BuilderScrap.com that generally and to stress not just in BASF’S case that environmental considerations are offset against raw data. Co-efficiency analysis including; primary energy use, raw materials utilisation, emissions to all media, toxicity, safety risk, and land use to name but a few.  To us this still indicates the environmental impact may not be the primary focus when balanced against cost, and life-cycle analysis.

Here at BuilderScrap.com we’ve been looking at some interesting information from Defra. This is an older press release from April, but we think is still relevant… Low carbon economy.   The Secretary of State for Environment Hilary Benn today welcomed the measures in the 2009 Budget which encourage investment in low carbon jobs and energy generation using organic waste.

The Chancellor announced additional funding of £10 million for anaerobic digestion and waste infrastructure and a continued increase of £8 per tonne per year to the standard rate of landfill tax up to 2013. These measures will encourage investment in sustainable waste management and will enable over 850,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent savings to be made each year, which will help towards achieving the Government’s carbon budget.

Following the Budget statement Hilary Benn said:

“The Government is committed to reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill and finding alternative sources of energy. The £10 million for food waste reprocessing will play a vital role in providing alternative energy, diverting a further 316,000 tonnes of food waste from landfill and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“In the UK we produce over 100 million tonnes of organic material every year that, through anaerobic digestion, could be used to create enough energy to heat and power over two million homes.

“And it’s not only the environment that will benefit. Increasing our anaerobic digestion capability will also stimulate a greener economy by creating skilled jobs in construction, collection and reprocessing of organic waste.”

Anaerobic digestion is the process of breaking down organic material such as food waste and farm manures and slurries to create heat and power and transport fuel.

In February Defra announced the UK’s goal to become a world leader in this innovative technology. Businesses ranging from the energy sector, water, retail and agriculture support this goal and a task group is working on a programme to implement the plans of Government and industry. The £10 million funding package announced in the budget today is in addition to the £10 million already earmarked in 2008 to build demonstration plants. From April 1 2009 Government has doubled the level of support for anaerobic digestion through the Renewable Obligation.

An increase in the UK’s anaerobic digestion capability will also help to deliver landfill targets. This was bolstered in the Budget that will continue the increase in Landfill Tax in increments of eight pounds a year up to 2013.

Mr Benn continued:

“The Landfill Tax has really helped to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill and encouraging businesses and local authorities to move towards a more sustainable approach to handling waste. In the last year alone efforts by local authorities have reduced their landfill from 18 million tonnes in 2006 to 15 tonnes in 2008, and by encouraging greater recycling, carbon emissions have fallen by 11 million tonnes– the same as taking 3.6 million cars off the road overnight.”

Notes

1. ‘Anaerobic Digestion – Shared Goals’ sets shared national ambitions for anaerobic digestion, both nationally and within individual sectors.  The document and the list of organisations which have endorsed it so far are available at: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/ad/government.htm

2. Anaerobic digestion breaks down organic matter, such as animal manure and food waste, to produce biogas which can be used as a renewable energy source for heat and power, and as a transport fuel.  It produces a nutrient-rich digestate which can be used as fertiliser, and importantly it keeps organic waste out of landfill, which cuts greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Electricity from anaerobic digestion is eligible for support in the form of ROCs (Renewable Obligation Certificates).  On 1 April 2009, the Government introduced differentiated support levels for different renewables technologies (known as “banding”).  Anaerobic digestion is among the technologies that receive additional support in the form of multiple ROCs.  Anaerobic digestion now receives 2 ROCs/MWh (Renewable Obligation Certificates per Megawatt hour).

4. In-Vessel Composting (IVC) is a process that breaks down organic matter to produce a compost while contained in a closed environment. Food Waste is subject to the Animal By-Products Regulations that require composting to take place in closed containers or buildings with no access by vermin, and meet stringent requirements for temperature and pasteurisation to kill disease causing organisms. All food waste must be processed by IVC or AD facilities.

5. Landfill targets set by the European Union are:

* By 2010 to reduce the amount of Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW) going to landfill to 75% of that produced in 1995.
* By 2013 to reduce the amount of BMW going to landfill to 50% of that produced in 1995.
* By 2020 to reduce the amount of BMW going to landfill to 35% of that produced in 1995.

6. The £10 million additional funding for anaerobic digestion projects is expected to deliver around 178,500 tonnes per year in CO2 savings.

7. Increases in Landfill Tax up to 2013 are expected to deliver around 700,000 tonnes per year in CO2 savings.