Saving your energy

I've just watched the news on T.V., where people were being interviewed about price increases for electricity and gas. There seemed to be a lot of blame apportioned to the energy companies, but I'm not sure that's the whole story.

We could endlessly debate the merits of profit-making private energy suppliers versus the old system of public-sector gas and electricity boards. But we'd still be watching T.V. news stories about price increases.

The profits of the energy companies are the most obvious and visible aspect. The less obvious one is that the gas we use in our homes, and to fuel our power stations, is increasingly coming from abroad. The U.K. isn't self-sufficient in gas, even though we have all the North Sea oil and gas rigs. They can't meet the demand on their own, so the gas we use is being piped from further and further afield.

The longer the pipeline, the more it costs to operate and maintain it. Also, when you deal with overseas countries, you often deal in overseas currencies that can change in value - as you'll know if you've been abroad on holiday. More importantly, when the energy companies buy the gas, they're only a middleman. The foreign gas supplier can put their prices up when they want, and if the energy companies or their customers (that's you and me) aren't willing to pay the extra, then the supplier doesn't have to give it to us. But because there are limited places to obtain gas, the choice of alternative supplier is also limited.

Obviously, if the supplier's price is too high, then few energy companies would buy from them at all. But the point I'm trying to make is that your home energy supplier doesn't have as much influence on prices as you might think.

So the way to pay less for your household energy in the long term is to cut back on use. Changing supplier might also save you save you some money, but the wholesale price to your supplier will likely be the same, and it's the one thing you can't change.

You could also look at more efficient appliances when it comes time to buy replacements. For example, wood burning stoves are touted as a cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternative to a gas fire. We're still trying to figure out if a wood burner is cheaper overall though, as the cheapest log burner we can find is around £400, plus fitting and some necessary building works. When an electric fire costs around £100, and a basic electric heater is less than £20, then I'm not really sure which is the cheapest option overall. Will the increased cost of electricity outweigh the low purchase price? I don't know, but I think I'd need my calculator to work it out!

In the meantime, the cost of energy will increase, and unfortunately, none of us will have much choice but to carry on paying for it. The best we can do is try to use less, which will help the environment too.

Image: Gas Flame by George Shuklin, Public Domain. Obtained via http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gas_flame.jpg

The case of the missing blog post...

No need to call Sherlock Holmes! It's just that this weekend's intended blog post didn't make it onto the site.

I had written most of an article, but got stuck while checking my facts. I'm a bit old fashioned that way - I don't like to publish something without being reasonably sure of what I'm saying. Five minutes of fact checking before publishing is far better than spending lots of time having to apologise and correct articles afterwards.

In the commercial news media, it seems there is an ever-increasing pressure to bypass the fact-checking stage. A friend, who was close to the industry for many years, tells me that checking facts means that there's a delay in getting the news out. In today's world of instant connectivity, this means that some other media outlet might break the news before you. And that costs money.

The same friend tells me that the professional journalists he knows are keen to check their facts. But, as the documentary film "Starsuckers" shows, journalists are not always given the time to check facts by their employer, due to commercial pressures to get the news out. Accuracy, it seems, doesn't sell half as well as a good headline.

And so, as old-fashioned as it may seem, my originally intended blog post has been sent back to the drawing board because of incorrect facts.  But I hope you'll agree that it's better to have a missing post than a misleading post.

Shopping local

On a recent visit to Belgium, I noticed something was missing from the outskirts of the towns and cities I visited: large supermarkets. I began to wonder if I'd just not noticed them. After all, if they didn't exist, where did people buy their food?

I eventually saw some smaller supermarkets in the suburbs, but they were a long way from the massive American-style retail parks common to the UK.

All became clear after a visit to a small town centre cafe, where I indulged in a capuccino and some people watching. I noticed that many locals came into town on their bicycles. They bought meat from the local butcher, bread from the local baker, vegetables from the greengrocer, and bumped into friends for a chat along the way. There was a small town centre supermarket, but it didn't have a car park. Again, most customers walked or cycled. There were no massive queues, no big car park traffic jams, and no-one losing their temper.

No, I hadn't fallen asleep and started dreaming. This was real. In some respects, it was like being transported back in time 30 years, to a time when the high street was the centre of retail trade in the UK. But it was also surprising that shopping in this way could still be an easy, stress-free experience - even with today's high-speed lifestyle, and even if you had to go to several shops just to get the basic essentials.

In the process of going into several independent shops on a regular basis, you'd meet several familiar faces. Those shop owners would get to know their customers personally, without needing a computer and a loyalty card to track their regular purchases. In turn, this seems to foster a sense of community. And that's an experience that the out-of-town megastores have difficulty matching.

In the process of demanding low prices and instant availability, I wonder if we've lost something quite important at the heart of our communities.

So shop local - maybe your community needs you!

Image: adapted from Maastricht Shopping Street by Redvers, Public Domain, obtained via http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maastricht-shopping-street.redvers.jpg (yes, I know Maastricht isn't in Belgium, but I am impressed that you're reading this bit at the bottom).

How bad are bananas?

I have to admit, I don't actually like bananas. But I've just bought a book called "How bad are bananas? (the carbon footprint of everything)". And it contains far more than just musings on bendy-shaped yellow fruit.

Bananas galore!
Image: Martin Wiesheu

The author, Mike Berners-Lee, meausres carbon footprints for a living. While it's not an exact science, he does at least explain how he arrived at his figures, and is very careful with some of his results that contradict popular wisdom.

I even found the answers to the hand drier versus paper towel debate and the fruit juice dilemma :

• Using two paper towels is equivalent to using an electric hand drier. Surprisingly, there is no difference in the energy used, even though the paper towels are usually transported by truck. So if you can get away with using a single paper towel, that's the more environmentally friendly option. However, even this is trumped by a cyclonic hand drier, like the Dyson Airblade, which wins hands down.

• Fresh juice seems to beat concentrated juice. Oranges are usually transported by boat, which is fairly efficient. However, creating fruit juice concentrate uses lots of energy. So despite the fact that concentrates are made to reduce the volume and weight of the juice, so it can be transported more easily, it doesn't translate into less energy being used overall. It just means that a single boat can carry more.

I found some other surprising facts about transportation that I hadn't considered. For example, a bottle of wine imported from New Zealand to the UK could have a lower carbon footprint than one from Italy. Products from within Europe tend to be transported by road, whereas the New Zealand wine will arrive on a boat. So even though Italy is closer to the UK, it's the mode of transport that makes the biggest difference. The concept of "food miles" is beginning to look a bit suspect to me now.

By the way, the same logic applies to bananas too. They may come from far away, but they usually arrive by boat.

Which begs the question, why don't we ship more freight by sea and waterway?

Photo by Martin Wiesheu, CC-BY-SA licence, obtained via http://www.flickr.com/photos/49325640@N00/3768818

Charity collections - or are they?

We regularly get clothing collection bags pushed through our door. But I've calculated that about 90% of them aren't really charity bags, even if they have a charity logo on them.

Collection bags - can you tell the difference? *
(Image: Howard Lake)

Many of the collection schemes are run by commercial companies. They make a profit on the donated clothes, either by shredding and recycling them, or by selling them overseas in developing countries (yes, I said sell, not give away).

The charity gets a percentage of the takings, and this is usually printed on the bag. Something like £50 per tonne of clothes is not uncommon. Imagine: if the airlines gave you a 1 tonne weight limit for your luggage, how much could you take on holiday? Answer: about 50 suitcases full - and that's a lot of clothes to only be worth £50!

There are some genuine charities who rely on legitimate commercial collections. Times are hard, and it's difficult to find funding, so some charities will enter into partnerships with well-run commercial collectors. £50 is better than nothing, especially if you're a small charity.

I use the following general rules of thumb for telling the genuine charity bags from the commercial collectors' bags:

• Charities will always state their charity number. Commercial collectors will state a registration number as well - although usually in a different place. If it doesn't say the word "charity" next to the number, then you're usually dealing with a business.
• Commercial collectors working on behalf of charities will state how much of the profit they're donating. Usually the statement is not as noticeable as the charity logo or their publicity photos. Look closely.
• Look for the Charity Retail Association logo. This guarantees that the charity gets a fair share, and that no-one else is exploiting your generosity.

In addition, there are some fraudsters operating collections, who are nothing to do with any charity. So in addition to the above:

• Look for a contact address or landline telephone number. Fraudsters won't be keen on giving out details that allow them to be traced. On the other hand, an email address or mobile phone number are easier to hide behind.
• Remember that, on their own, none of the following make an organisation legitimate: photos of sad-looking children, pictures of kittens, pleas to "help the needy", promises to "help create jobs", asking for donations.

These are all just general tips that I use myself, but they're far from perfect. I find the best way around all these problems is to take old stuff straight to the charity shop ourselves. That way, the charity doesn't have to pay someone to collect it, and they'll keep more of the proceeds - up to 50 times more, according to one source.

Incidentally, thanks to the endless supply of "dodgy" collection bags, we haven't needed to buy any bin bags for nearly 2 years. There's always an upside!

* As always, the examples given above are generalisations, and are not intended to portray any particular organisation or person.

(Credit: "Donated goods bags" by Howard Lake, CC-BY licence, obtained via http://www.flickr.com/photos/howardlake/4295620371 )

Designed for the dump

Was your laptop built for this?
Image: Alex E. Proimos

This week, a certain well-known maker of computers and phones has come under criticism for launching a product that is not as environmentally friendly as it could be. According to reports, their new laptop has a battery that isn't removable or replaceable. This might not sound like a big deal, but it does have surprising implications.

The battery is often one of the first things to stop working in a laptop or other gadget. By installing a battery so that no-one can replace it (not even a computer engineer) then you're limiting the life span of the device. Which, cynics would argue, is a great way to lock people into buying the latest gadgets.

Sadly, there are many companies that seem to be doing this. Some people have called this approach "designed for the dump" - in other words, a product is designed so that it becomes useless after a couple of years, can't be repaired, and has to be thrown away.

On the one hand, this doesn't seem great for the environment. On the other hand, it causes people to buy products they wouldn't otherwise buy, and so keeps people in jobs and money in the economy.
Personally, I like shiny gadgets and new technology. But I don't like how quickly it can become unusable when it's still capable of working.

There's an interesting video about the life of electronic gadgets that goes into more detail. It's available below, and also via YouTube.



Image credit: Trash Mountain by Alex E. Proimos, licenced under CC-BY licence, obtained via http://www.flickr.com/photos/proimos/6983485707/

The public transport dilemma

I'm writing this on the train home from work. Normally I don't commute on the train, as it's slow for me and expensive. But it does give me an excuse to cycle to the station and back, and get some exercise in the process! So I try to use the train once a week.

I'd love to get public transport every day, but it's just too much hassle and expense. So I compromise. Three days a week, I drive a fuel-efficient car to the outskirts of the nearby city, then catch public transport from there to the city centre. And one day a week, I work from home.

I've never really understood why we have a public transport system based on 1950's life - when people commuted from the suburbs to the centre. Today, the offices and factories have moved out of town, but you often still have to go into the centre to come out again.

I do think that we need to end our obsession with the car. But public transport is often a poor relative of the car when it comes to commuting.

Unfortunately, it's often the case with long-distance travel too. I recently priced up a trip to Belgium for 3 people, booking 2 months in advance. The train was over £700. Taking the car, and using the Dover to Calais ferry, cost about £120 including fuel. No contest - I can't justify the £700 spend.

I think there are some possible solutions, but they need money and time.

Firstly, long-distance train travel has to be cheaper. If I need to be in London for the morning, I can go by car for about £60, by parking in outer London and getting the tube into the city. By coach, it's under £60. By air, it's about £150. By train it's £230. Why?

Secondly, since we're stuck with the "out of town" syndrome (shops, offices, healthcare) then we need to have transport hubs in these places. Travelling 12 miles into and out of the centre, in order to reach a destination 3 miles away, is not the kind of thing that promotes public transport as a viable option! We have cities with successful Park and Ride systems, but we need to build on this.

Thirdly, we need to make cycling more accessible. In Belgium and the Netherlands, many locals don't think twice about cycling to the shops or to the station. In the UK, we've embraced leisure cycling, but we charge commuters 20p per day to access the toilet, so they can change out of their sweaty cycling gear before getting on a train!

The car still has a place, and is a valuable form of transport. Trains and other forms of public transport need a chance to shine too; but this won't happen unless people start using them more.

So why not try using public transport or your bike once a week? It might not be as bad as you think.