Following the previous post ‘ Reduce your Carbon Footprint by Buying Local’, we are going to look further into how much CO2 emissions are produced for different types of food, therefore analysing the carbon footprints for food products in the UK.

Many products in the UK are flown in due to them being highly perishable. These products, like green beans, kiwi fruit and lettuces from the US have a very high carbon footprint due to them being flown into the country; these are labelled as being transported by air in many supermarkets now, and should be avoided if you have concerns about the environment or are looking to reduce your carbon footprint in general and with your food. The major benefits of buying local are highlighted in the article listed above, but to give a general idea, in a recent report it was calculated that the typical Sunday roast made with imported ingredients would have clocked up 81,000km of transport miles for the whole meal, the equivalent to two journeys around the world, producing 3,700g of CO2 for the food. This is compared to if all the food was bought within a 30 miles radius, which would produce just 58g.

Listed below is a table showing some of the most popular imported groceries sold in the UK, and their carbon emissions for transport:

There’s a good selection of many of the foods that are imported and produce most carbon dioxide. Nobody is saying to completely cut out all the foods you love that are imported, but if sometimes you refrained from buying food with a high carbon footprint it can make a really big difference. Buying in season is another great way to save on CO2 emissions, because products have to travel less distance because they are produced in the UK, and are at their freshest and best. A post will look at when groceries are in season in the future.

Previously, we looked at Feed In Tariffs, looking and what they were and their implications if they were introduced in the UK.

Recently it has been announced that a feed in tariff scheme under the name ‘Clean Energy Cashback’ will be introduced in the UK, starting in April 2010. Detailed proposals  have been release into what the feed in tariff, or clean energy cashback scheme will involve, as well as details of a ‘pay as you save’ scheme.

More detailed information into what feed in tariffs are can be found in the article ‘Feed in Tariffs - What are Feed in Tariffs’, but the clean energy cashback scheme basically involves paying individuals and businesses for the renewable energy they produce on a small scale.

People and businesses who install or already have installed renewable energy products like wind turbines and solar panels on their land can expect to be paid 36.5p per kWh for Solar PV energy and 23p per kWh for renewable energy generated by wind turbines.

In monetary terms this means that people with solar PV panels, or people looking to install them will be able to earn close to £1,000 a year from energy saving and the money received from the clean energy cashback scheme. The scheme is guaranteed to pay people and businesses for 20 years, so with an average solar PV system costing £8,000-£10,000 considerable money can be earned. In addition to this, photovoltaic panels have a lifespan of more than 25 years, so even if clean energy cashback stops, saving will still be made on electricity costs.

For wind turbines, rewards can be even higher. The Guardian stated that installation of large wind turbines are likely

Clean energy cashback can earn £6,000 a year from wind turbines

to bring in revenues of around £6,000 a year from energy savings and selling back to the national grid as part of the clean energy cashback feed-in tariff scheme. Uptake in rural areas from people with large gardens and also landowners could be very popular as an investment opportunity. Cost and installation of large wind turbines can cost around £50,000, but with the savings and money that can be made from the clean energy cashback scheme, large profits can start being made in the 10th year after installation.

With the lack of safe investments in the financial world due to the current economic climate, investment in renewable energy products are extremely attractive. Stocks and shares are very volatile at the moment, and seem to be in the medium term if not long term. Also, with interest rates low, and people’s mistrust in banks and building society’s, traditional savers previously using ISA’s to save may be tempted to invest their money into renewable energy installations instead.

The Guardian states that return rates for solar PV panels are at around 7%, and wind turbines as much as a 12% return, making them highly attractive investments for any investor. Along with the fact that this kind of an investment brings invaluable environmental benefits, uptake is expected to be very high.

If you would like any more information on this subject, or on how and where to install install renewable technologies in order to benefit from the scheme, please sign up to our newsletter in the right column, or contact us directly here. Green-Energy Saving offer renewable energy installation and consultancy services so if you are looking to install renewable technologies and take advantage of the Clean Energy Cashback Scheme we can provide everything you need. Also, please take the time to answer our poll on the home page, thanks.

It has emerged recently that world nations are considering building nuclear power stations in developing nations as part of carbon credit or carbon offsetting schemes. This would mean that when carbon credits are bought by companies and individuals, it would be legitimate under international climate change agreements that the money from the carbon credits bought could be used in the building of nuclear power stations in developing countries in order to offset carbon emissions created in developed nations. This practice is currently not allowed under the current Kyoto Agreement but is being contemplated in the run up to the next UN world summit on climate change in December in Copenhagen.

Nuclear Power Plants Could be Given Carbon Credits

If the practice was introduced it would give nuclear power stations carbon credits and could lead to rapid expansion of the building of new nuclear power stations, especially in developing nations. If nations do agree to introduce the idea, it is likely to bring a number of benefits and potential drawbacks.

Advantages

When carbon credits are purchased and the money is invested into nuclear power in developing nations this is likely to bring social and economic benefits to those countries, improving the quality of life for the people in those nations, and also bringing economic benefits to those countries. Building nuclear power stations in developing nations also brings opportunities of developing low carbon energy generation in those country’s rather than traditional fossil fuel methods. This will enable developing nations to grow economically without growth being inhibited by internationally set limits on carbon emissions. The proposed action would also enable internationally set climate targets to be met easier.

Disadvantages

The proposed idea has a number of potential disadvantages and has drawn criticism from pressure groups such as Greenpeace. Shaun Burnie, a former Greenpeace campaigner and now nuclear energy consultant was quoted in The New Scientist as saying the proposed scheme was “a survival strategy for the nuclear industry not the planet”.

Nuclear power, though low on carbon emissions, brings with it a great deal of other environmental disadvantages. What to do with the depleted uranium once it is used is a huge problem still, as there is no environmentally safe solution of how to dispose of nuclear waste as yet, making it non-eco friendly. There are also still issues around the safety of nuclear power overall and also security issues of power stations being potential terrorist targets and nuclear material falling into the wrong hands.

There is also the problem of whether any carbon will actually be offset through these methods. If new power plants are being built in developing nations that would not have necessarily been built without the capital investment from carbon offsets bought, then no carbon is actually being offset at all.

There is also the possibility of political conflicts arising. Nations like Iran are currently claiming they enriching uranium for peaceful energy generation, an act which has been widely criticised by the international community. The building of nuclear power by western nations and companies in developing nations could potentially spark conflict with countries like Iran, who claim they have a right to nuclear power as much as any other nation. How would the international community or carbon offsetting companies therefore choose which countries were ‘safe’ or eligible?

The idea will be great for the nuclear power industry, cutting the monetary cost of building nuclear power stations by 40%. But the question is whether this really should be the long term climate change strategy of the international community. There is criticism that the proposed action is cutting corners and trying to hit targets using quick fix methods like nuclear power to lower carbon emissions. Nuclear power is no match for the truly green credentials of renewable energy technologies, which should really be the only long term goal. This action may endanger this long term goal, and could damage the renewable energy industry through a lack of investment and installation of new renewable technologies like solar power, wind power and hydro power.

What will finally be decided is yet to be seen, but what is certain is that watered down measures and corner cutting in order to lower carbon emissions will only lead to more environmental and ecological problems in the future for us and the planet as a whole.

A Supergrid or Super Grid is a wide area electricity transmission network that enables large volumes of energy to be sent and traded across very long distances. Unlike normal electricity grids, supergrids can transport renewable energy (which is often unreliable with regards to generating a constant flow of electricity) more effectively. Super grid’s are also a lot more reliable, losing less energy during transmission than more commonly used systems; this is because supergrid’s generally use high voltage DC current (HVDC) compared to high voltage AC currents (HVAC). HVDC cables can also carry more than HVAC cables, making supergrid technology more efficient again. The problem with HVDC is that expensive ‘static inverters’ are needed to convert AC power, generated by most power stations, into a DC current to be sent along the super grid.

Supergrid - European Supergrid

The idea for a supergrid or super grid was first proposed in the US in the 1930’s but was rejected. There have been super grid technologies implemented in the past, with the first supergrids being built in the 1960’s. But there have not been many built at all due to impracticalities and difficulties in the past relating to the need for a supergrid compared to a standard system of electricity transport. These impracticalities however are now in the past, and the advantages that a supergrid brings could be hugely beneficial in the fight against climate change. Below we will examine the proposal of a European Supergrid and its potential climate change fighting capabilities.

There is a current proposal being considered by European nations of a huge supergrid or super grid and network of renewable technology installations that would span Europe and North Africa in order to meet the whole of Europe’s energy needs. Suggestions for vast areas of Solar Panels and Solar Thermal Collectors in North Africa, huge wind farms off the coasts of the UK, Denmark and other windy countries, and geothermal energy created in Iceland and Italy have been suggested to generate the whole of Europe’s energy. Arnulf Jaeger-Walden from the EU commissions Institute for Energy stated that only 0.3% of the Sahara alone would need to be covered in solar panels to provide the whole of Europe’s energy needs.

Using a huge European supergrid, electricity could be transported and shared between nations when it was needed as energy usage levels fluctuated in different parts of Europe. So power could be transported to northern Europe from Africa in the day, but at night time wind farms could generate and transmit the power needed for example.

Huge investment would be required in renewable energy technology installation, and a new high voltage DC supergrid network would need to be built. This is needed because compared to conventional electricity grids, supergrid’s use DC not AC currents. These lose less energy during transportation and are therefore much more efficient and suitable for renewable energy transportation, especially over long distances. There are estimates that the total cost could come to €450 billion spread over the years up to 2050, but once built, it is expected that electricity will be cheaper for consumers with use of the European supergrid idea.

There is much talk in the media on the subject of carbon offsets bought by companies and individuals to reduce their carbon emissions, but what are carbon offsets?

Carbon Offsets or a Carbon Offset is a financial instrument aimed to offset carbon emissions through the purchasing of carbon credit’s from a company or organisation who invest in projects that help to reduce or limit the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere in the short and long term. Carbon offsets are usually measured on tons of CO2.

Carbon offsets are bought by all kinds of people and organisations. On the larger scale carbon offsets are bought by large companies and governments to meet ‘caps’ on the amount of carbon emissions they are allowed to release. This is a huge market and in 2006 $5.5 billion of carbon offsets were bought. Carbon offsets are also bought on a smaller scale voluntarily by smaller companies and individuals who aim to be more eco friendly and reduce carbon emissions and their Carbon Footprint. Individuals often by carbon credit’s to offset carbon emissions from their cars and air travel. More environmentally conscious smaller companies are also choosing to offset their carbon emissions; this often improves a company’s green image, and their products and services become more desirable to the ever eco conscious consumer, increasing sales.

Carbon offsets are sometimes bought because it can be difficult to offset certain parts of an individual’s lifestyle or a contributor’s to a company’s carbon footprint. There is no substitute for a person or company implementing their own carbon reduction techniques like microgeneration technologies, but carbon offsets are very useful for reducing carbon emissions which often cannot be avoided, like carbon emissions from travel.

Once a carbon offset is bought, the money goes to a carbon offsetting company who then invest in carbon reducing measures like building renewable energy installations including wind turbines, solar panels and biomass energy projects. Renewable energy projects are the most common form of carbon offsetting, but there are many others that are used like energy efficiency projects, destruction of landfill methane (a gas much more harmful to the atmosphere that CO2), planting trees, or reforestation, and the protection of areas of rain forest.

Carbon offsets can be bought through international brokers on a larger scale, but also online for smaller businesses and individuals looking to offset their carbon emissions. www.gototallygreen.com will soon be launching a carbon offsetting service at www.green-carbonoffsets.com.

There has been some criticism of carbon offsets. Many problems have arisen with companies who are supposed to offset carbon emissions, but who’s actions do little or nothing to reduce or offset carbon emissions. An example of this has been proposed CO2 cutting schemes which have never been started or implemented, and problems with permits granted by the EU which resulted in some carbon credits being worthless and useless at offsetting carbon. The main problem is that in an often unregulated market, customers can often be misled by companies claiming exaggerated carbon cuts, charging inflated prices and selling already sold carbon offsets. Customers should therefore be vigilant and only use trusted companies. The UK government is soon to bring in set standards that hope to regulate the carbon emissions market and provide more protection to consumers looking to offset their carbon emissions and reduce their carbon footprint.

Carbon offsets are by no means a long term solution to climate change. The world will only truly be able to conquer climate change by individuals and companies reducing their carbon footprints through numerous energy saving techniques, producing their own energy and electric, and taking simple measures like Buying Local To Reduce Carbon Footprint and travelling less where possible. Although carbon offsets, used properly and from a trusted source can help to reduce or offset some of the unavoidable emissions from travel etc that we produce, and many of the measures that are implemented as a result of carbon credit purchases are great projects which will benefit the environment and future generations in the long term.

To view in more detail about the benefits of carbon offsets, read our Advantages of Carbon Credits post.

In order to assess how our daily actions affect the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and contribute to our carbon footprint it is important to know which of the fossil fuels and other fuels we release are the most harmful to our planet, we can assess this by examining which fossil fuels give off most CO2 in order to find what are the worst fossil fuels. Below is a table showing the many fossil fuels and fuels we use on a daily basis and how much CO2 they release per British thermal unit (Btu), therefore showing us which fossil fuels give off most carbon dioxide and the worst fossil fuels. Below that is a breakdown of where some of the fossil fuels in the table are used, how much fossil fuel we use, and how it furthers climate change.

Natural Gas – If you have a gas hob or oven, you are likely to see this in action every day. It is the gas that comes out and is burnt to heat and cook out food. Natural gas is also used for central heating systems.

Liquefied Petroleum – This can be used to power automobiles and is cleaner than standard automobile gasoline, but not better than hybrid vehicles. LPG is also often used as a cooking fuel in many countries like India and Brazil.

Propane – Often used in cooking on BBQ’s and portable stoves used when camping and caravanning. Due to its infrequent domestic use, this isn’t a huge carbon emitter and contributor to climate change for the general homeowner.

Aviation Fuel – For the amount of energy aviation fuel produces, it is not one of the worst CO2 emitters. The problem here is that a huge amount of aviation fuel is burnt to keep a plane flying. A return flight from London to New York for example puts almost as much CO2 into the atmosphere as a small car for a whole year!

Automobile Gasoline – Worshipped by the west, this is what runs our automobiles of all kinds.

Kerosene – Used for cooking, heating and lighting around the world.

Wood – Quite a large emitter of CO2 in relation to its Btu, however, if wood comes from sustainable sources it is renewable. All the CO2 released when burnt has already been soaked up when it was a tree and is then soaked up again when a tree is replanted in its place.

Coal – Coal is by far the dirtiest fossil fuel, and gives off most carbon dioxide which is especially worrying  as we have more coal left in the world than any other fossil fuel. You can read How much fossil fuels are left in the world by clicking here.

Petroleum Coke – Widely used to generate electricity and one of the worst CO2 emitters.

I recently came across a clever little product which can measure the electricity output of homes, it is called the OWL Energy Saving Monitor. The idea behind the product is to allow homeowners and businesses to monitor energy usage accurately and easily, thus making homeowners more aware of their electricity usage. This in turn can help to save electricity, save energy, reduce carbon emissions and ultimately allow users to save money on utility bills. Below is the OWL Energy Saving Monitor Product Review we gave.

Installation was fantastically simple, when installing the product all you have to do is attach one part of the two piece product to the wire coming from your electricity box and you’re ready to go!

Doing this measures the electricity current going through the wire and relays it to the receiver (the second

Owl Energy Meter

handheld part of this product). The receiver is a small enough size to be considered handheld, but has a big clear display as well which is great. The screen gives information on your homes current energy use per hour and overall total usage since installation in three formats; those being, pence per hour, KW usage per hour and KG of CO2 released per hour. Of which the numbers given were startling to me, especially the level of CO2 I was releasing.

I personally loved this product, after everything we read about carbon footprints in the press; this was a great way to truly assess and reduce your carbon footprint in your home. I became obsessed with running around turning lights and plugs off and watching the reading levels drop, which can only be a good thing for my wallet and the environment. The great thing about this product is seeing those reduced levels in real terms. By that I mean seeing the reducing carbon emissions when I turn my TV off standby, and seeing me save electricity and save money on electricity bills when I turn off lights in rooms I’m not using. At a cost of £24.95, I think the payback period for this product will be very fast. This is because of how well it makes you aware and shows what you are spending on electricity and your natural reaction is to try and save electricity, and therefore money.

The owl energy meter gives people the opportunity to truly see the financial and environmental benefits of saving energy at home, and it would be great one day to see these types of products expanded into other areas of our lives in order to save energy, save electricity and reduce carbon emissions.

Installation – Couldn’t be easier - 10/10

Ease of Use – Very simple and easy to use - 10/10

Features – Has some simple but great features - 7/10

Cost:Money Saving Ratio – Small initial cost and good savings potential given the user acts – 8/10

Overall Rating – 8.75/10