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.

I read with great interest an interview in the Sunday Times this weekend with actor Jeremy Irons; he stated his fears of the implications of continued population growth and the associated impacts upon the planet and its resources.

Jeremy Irons has propelled himself into a position as a green campaigner and in the course of the interview declared his ambition to produce a documentary about sustainability and waste disposal in much the same way as Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. He is currently seeking a wealth of expert opinion as well as seeking appropriate funding in order to produce the documentary, before stating his ambition to hopefully make it into a movie.

On the issue itself Irons told the Sunday Times “One always returns to the fact that there are just too many of us, the population continues to rise and it’s unsustainable” before continuing to add “I think we have to find ways where we’re not having to scrap our effluent junk and are a really sustainable planet”.

This made me recall a seminar I recently attended which stated that we currently consume four planets worth of resources, clearly an unsustainable level; most will agree with Irons that it is something that requires our urgent focus as a global community.

Irons went on to discuss the need for a new economic vision as a response to the global financial crisis. “I don’t think things can ever be the same again. The next generation will have to think laterally and find ways to cope with this”.

At BuilderScrap this is something that we are well aware of, the consumptive nature of society in the western world places resources under immense strain, in recent years we have seen and heard of the pressures on resources such as fossil fuels, timber and water to mention a few. We must ask how this can be achieved without damaging the economic climate and promote green initiatives and innovations.

We also recognise that this consumptive nature must be reduced; goods and materials seem to be given much shorter life spans than necessary. In some cases in the construction industry we witness manufactured materials that are sent to landfill without ever being taken out of its packaging let alone used. Part of the economic vision must be to cut out this waste and extend the life of materials and products.

With this principle in mind Irons launched his own attack on the throwaway society “Why does it make sense for us all to be buying a lot of motor cars, selling our old ones and scrapping them? Why don’t we make cars that last for 40 years? We could”. Irons himself says he runs “very old motor cars”.

Undoubtedly examples exist across most industries, our experience at BuilderScrap predominantly within the construction industry shows that it is possible to prolong the life of building material. In the past as a society we have been too quick to throw away material and buy new, clearly a more sustainable approach means that we could extend the life of this material by reusing or recycling before disposing. BuilderScrap is a platform that exists to facilitate such behavioural changes.

Irons summed up by stating that we all need to live less decadently, a need to recycle before replacing goods and the need for wealth to spread about. He concluded “There’s a long way to go”.

At 8.30pm (local time) on Saturday the 27th March 2010, 4000 cities in more than 120 countries across the world turned their lights off as part of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) organised demonstration to raise awareness about climate change and the need for an ambitious global climate deal. This was the fourth time that “Earth Hour” has taken place in an attempt to increase awareness and has been described by the organisers as “both a warning and a beacon of hope”.

Millions turned their lights off for “Earth Hour” beginning at 8.30pm local time in the Chatham Islands off the coast of New Zealand. Over the course of the day lights continued to switch off as local times reached 8.30pm plunging many famous landmarks into darkness including the Sydney Opera House, The Eiffel Tower, Big Ben and The Empire State Building.

Whilst the singe hour will do little to nothing to reduce carbon emissions, the symbolic display was to raise awareness for a longer term climate solution. Whilst critics have been quick to point out that the short term switch off would create an upsurge when lights were turned back on after a relatively quick period of time. This could in fact lead to an increase in carbon emissions for the event.

The event has received backing from Gordon Brown and the UN as well as a number of other global leaders. Let’s hope that “Earth Hour” will have demonstrated that there is support for action and the need for a climate deal is of the utmost urgency.

Another post from the newest member of the BuilderScrap Team – Mike Close.  This blog looks at the effects of vegetarianism on the planet!  

 
It has long been thought that giving up meat and turning to a vegetarian diet is not only the key to a healthy lifestyle but also a great way of reducing your carbon footprint and helping your planet. New research from the Cranford University however, has suggested that vegetarian diets that include a large number of processed meat substitutes such as Tofu might in fact be worse for the environment than eating a “meat diet”.

Past reports have made some strong claims that a vegetarian diet drastically reduces the amount of greenhouse gases that go into the environment. Farming livestock are blamed for a quarter of “man made” methane emissions and 8 % of all UK emissions. According to the University of Chicago switching to a vegetarian diet can shrink your carbon footprint by up to 1.5 tonnes of carbon.

The new research has suggested though that the benefits are heavily reliant on the types of vegetarian foods consumed, Tofu and other processed meat substitutes containing soy, chickpeas and lentils may be resulting in a higher emissions output than eating locally sourced meat. These crops are being grown overseas and imported; this is resulting in higher transport emissions and increased destruction of forests due to a high demand for arable land.

This is a very convenient report for someone like me who enjoys a nice steak every now and then but generally considers himself to be fairly “environmentally friendly”, but of course it is a simplistic view. What if I eat imported meats, what about the increased water productions in meat production, what if I eat meat from a cow which has abnormal levels of flatulence, what if I import an individual lemur steak on a 1000 tonne steamboat powered on coal, mined by children in developing countries?

So what should I be eating to do “my bit”? Just vegetables, just locally sourced meat, or maybe grass cuttings from my garden? Well I am not going to cut out meat, or vegetables; maybe one day packaging will let me know how much carbon is used in the production of foods and “they” can monitor my carbon footprint accordingly. Maybe if I stay within my individual carbon targets I could be rewarded with nectar points (or the equivalent), if I do less well I am forced to scavenge through my next door neighbours potato peelings until the next “carbon year”.

I think until such times though I will try to maintain a healthy balanced diet (with the odd Chinese takeaway thrown in) and get locally sourced products where possible. There seems to be too much questionable data and dubious assumptions to create a clear indication of the best diet to be “green”.

The first blog post by our newest member of the BuilderScrap team – Michael Close.  Mike has been with us for two weeks now, and his first blog post looks at the Copenhagen Summit in December.

I am sure it will not have escaped most people’s attention that the Copenhagen summit recently came and went without any global agreement being reached. About 45,000 people descended on Copenhagen in December with the remit of producing a global agreement on climate change. So amongst all the protests and weeks of discussion why did the conference end without any legal agreement being reached?

The Deal which was to be set in place was a political policy named the Copenhagen Accord; this deal set out a number of key goals of which the primary focus was to set a ceiling on global temperature change of a maximum of 2 °C from pre-industrial times. Also in the accord are the need for developed countries to create commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and developing countries need to submit plans on how they are planning to curb their emissions. The accord though after many days of discussion was not adopted and the final outcome was that the accord finally voted to “take note” of it. This of course means that for all the discussions there is no legal deal and without countries adopting the policy or goals there is a grey area regarding what needs to be achieved and by who.

But what does the 2°C mean and how can this be achieved? Currently the mean global temperature increase stands at around 0.7°C and rising, but CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades and many analysts believe that even at current levels this figure is set to rise to 1.5°C (BBC News).

So why the lack of agreement? Well that will depend on who you are and who you listen to.  It certainly has turned into a blame game since the treaty with the developing world blaming the developed world for not involving them; the developed countries have retaliated by blaming the developing countries for wasting time. China has been blamed by the UK and the US for trying to block any deal so as to not hinder their economic development. The US has been blamed by many for demanding concessions and going behind the UN’s back. The weather has been blamed for being too cold, protesters have been blamed for not protesting hard enough and the whole thing has ended with no treaty or legal agreement.

It seems that there are far too many agendas for a deal to be struck, I personally feel sorry for those countries that have a very real short term threat from rising sea levels as a result of global warming. It seems to be insulting that these nations appear to have nearly no voice on the global scale yet could face the most tragic outcomes. They must sit and wait for China and the US and the other leading nations to broker some sort of deal and hope that it comes soon enough.

This post reflects energy saving behaviours in the home. At BuilderScrap.com we want to inform our readers, builders and Contractors how the regular public (taken from a sample) feel about those energy saving devices in the home.

What is a water meter?

A water meter is a device that records the amount of water being used in your home for billing purposes, similar to your gas and electricity metering. Your water company checks your water meter to calculate how much to charge you.

Should I get a water meter?

If you have a water meter fitted your charges would be based on the amount of water you use, rather than being a fixed amount each year based on the rateable value (RV) of your property.

Any savings depend on how much you pay now and how much water you use.

At the time of the survey a third (33%) of respondents said they lived in homes with water meters, 63% lived in homes without a meter and 4% indicated that they did not know if there was a water meter in their home. To ensure an accurate response, respondents were given a description of what a water meter was if they were unsure. Compared with the 2007 Defra survey, the proportion of people living in homes with water meters appears to have increased slightly (from 29% in 2007).

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.

Readers, at the BuilderScrap.com offices we’ve been reading and are frankly astonished at peoples attitudes to Energy and climate change. We thought we’d share more of the findings

Respondents were asked to indicate which one of six statements best reflected their feelings with regard to energy use and climate change. Responses to the question are shown in Table 4 compared with findings from tracker surveys carried out by the Energy Saving Trust in 2007 and 2008.

Attitudes towards the environment and climate change

In total 85% of all respondents indicated that they thought climate change was caused by energy use (this is largely consistent with findings from the Energy Saving Trust Tracker surveys in 2008 and 2007). Just 4% specifically said they did not believe that there are climate change problems caused by energy use with 5% indicating they “didn’t know”.

Around one in ten respondents (9%) indicated that they were not willing or able to change their behaviour with regard to energy use. In this respect the findings from the current survey are very similar to those from the Energy Saving Trust Tracker surveys in 2008 and 2007 (10% expressed this same opinion both in 2008 and 2007).

A little more than a third (36%) of respondents said they thought that climate change was caused by energy use and they were doing either “quite a number of things‟ (27%) or “a lot of things‟ (9%) to reduce their energy use and emissions. This represents a significant increase since 2008 and 2007 (when respectively 19% and 20% said they were doing quite a number or a lot of things). There has also been a decrease in the proportion who said they were “beginning to think that I should do something‟ (17% in 2009 compared with 27% in 2008 and 29% in 2007).

“(9%) indicated that they were not willing or able to change their behaviour” . This attitude isn’t going to help us reduce our effect on the environment. If attitudes like this continue, we certainly will destroy our communities and undo the great work that the majority have undertaken.

Must try harder! get Recycling GB

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.

BuilderScrap.com looks again at climate change.

Q: What targets could industry specifically sign up to, to increase the positive impact they can have on climate change through their activities?

1. About 20% of respondents suggested industry could consider some form of energy reduction targets. Respondents also suggested that industry should be interested in the development and use of innovative products; measuring their carbon footprints; driving good practice through supply chains; procurement practices taking account of carbon emissions; consideration of Whole Life Costing in design specification; training; and signing up to development of specialist skills.

2. Almost 10% of respondents suggested that product suppliers (especially in the renewables sector) should produce verified data to support the claims made against their products. There were also suggestions of carbon league tables to name and shame.