Watch your energy usage this Christmas

Three tips on saving on your bills over the festive period

That time of year has come around again. Christmas is just a few days away and will be a time for everyone to forget the troubles of the past year and just enjoy the day with their families. But by indulging at Christmas, many people forget to budget and spend loads of presents, food and also energy bills, leaving them going into January with less money than they were expecting.

So here are a few tips on how to make sure you don’t go overboard with your energy usage this festive season –



1. Go easy with the Christmas lights

Do you really need to light your house up like an airport runway?

(Image source - Telegraph)

Decorations are one of the best parts of Christmas. The day you go into the attic, bring everything down and put up the tree is the day Christmas really begins. Families, especially ones with young children, put up all the decorations they can fit in, and on, their house. But although the mass of lights does look pretty when you look at them, it can cost a bomb in electricity bills when January comes around, especially if you’ve had them up since late November, so think about how many lights you really need up. Also, a lot of people will keep their lights on constantly throughout the day and night. Do you really need your lights on through the night? Your neighbours aren’t going to notice them because they’ll be in bed as well. Turn them off when you aren’t there/awake to enjoy them and save yourself money on your electric bill!



2. Turn off the TV

You've probably seen all the stuff on TV before, so turn it off and just enjoy being with your family

(Image source - Telegraph)

A recent study found out that, on Christmas Day, families will watch on average 8 hours of television. Considering the day consists of opening presents (and building the presents for the kids), and having dinner, that’s a lot of TV. But how many people actually pay much attention to the TV when it’s on, especially when the kids are playing with their new toys and the adults are relaxing with a sherry or glass of wine? For most of the day, the TV is just background noise. Another study found out that you can save £100 a year just by adjusting the settings on your TV. So using that logic turning it off Christmas Day might help you save money, even just a little bit.



3. Wear those Christmas clothes

You got one as a gift, so you may as well it wear it

(Image source - BBC)

For a lot of people, Christmas means getting another year’s supply of socks and jumpers. But how many people wear those new clothes on the actual day? Most people just smile at Grandma and put them to the side. But by simply wearing that jumper and those socks you can stay warm for the day, meaning you can turn down the heating, which means saving money on the energy bill.

These ideas aren’t going to save you hundreds of pounds, but they will help in their own way and will get you thinking about how you can save money on your energy bills.

Backbench rebellion over energy bill?

'Decarbonisation target must be included' say MPs

Fears of a backbench rebellion in Parliament are growing following news that a decarbonisation target will not be included in the energy bill being put forward by the Coalition government.

Despite being seen as a crucial factor for climate change campaigners and supporters of low-carbon energy, any target on decarbonising electricity generation has been left out of the bill on the insistence of both the Chancellor George Osborne and the Prime Minister David Cameron. Tim Yeo, chairman of the energy and climate change select committee, is set to give a speech in the City this morning insisting that an amendment to the bill to include a decarbonisation target be brought forward when the bill reaches the reporting stages early next year.

The lack of a decarbonisation target is splitting Parliament

(Image source - The Guardian)

Yeo believes that a 2030 target to reduce carbon emissions from energy production is essential in encouraging investors to the UK and to give them certainty that the country’s long-term emissions-cutting targets are met. Yeo said that these issues were ‘a constant theme’ in his talks with investors, and believes that a specific decarbonisation target would ‘boost investor confidence’.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has suggested that the target should be no more than 50g of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour by 2030. Yeo said he would happily compromise with a target of 50 to 100g/kWh. The current figure is around 490g/kWh.

Another row over carbon targets is expected as Ed Davey, the secretary of state for energy and climate change, will announce the same day as Yeo whether the government will accept the advice of the CCC and include emissions from aviation and shipping in the UK's carbon targets. Many within the Conservative Party are opposed to this, but it would be damaging to the Liberal Democrats if Davey was to overrule the committee, the statutory body set up to advise ministers on how to meet long-term carbon targets, on this issue.

Fuel poverty set to rise

‘Inadequate’ Government policies blamed for increase in households struggling to pay bills

Christmas will be a difficult time for a lot of families as reports suggest another 300,000 households will be plunged into fuel poverty following recent price rises.

The independent Fuel Poverty Advisory Group has warned that nine million homes could be hit by fuel poverty by 2016 and have blamed the Coalition government for doing very little to ‘soften the blow’ of initiatives such as implementing green measures, which could add nearly £100 to the average energy bill, and getting firms to insulate the roofs of poorer customers’ homes, which will add another £100. With these measures, along with the recent price increases from the major energy companies, the average annual energy bill will be around £1,365.

More and more people are struggling to pay the bills to keep their homes warm

(Image source - The Mirror)

A policy announced by the Government which will limit the amount of tariffs energy companies can have and will force companies to offer customers the cheapest tariff has been criticised, as many believe it will actually cause prices to rise because it will effectively end competition for cheap deals and will stop customers switching tariffs regularly.

It has previously been suggested that nearly 90% of people will ‘ration’ their energy this Christmas in an attempt to save money, with elderly people more likely to do so, and more likely to suffer because of it. This Christmas, it is feared that fuel poverty will be directly responsible for over 2000 ‘excess winter deaths’, with that figure looking increasingly likely to rise as winters get colder and prices get higher.

Was Doha a success?

Did climate talks in Qatar achieve anything?

The Doha climate talks in Qatar have come to an end; and for some they were a bit of an anti-climax, as no grand, bold deal on dealing with climate change was reached. However, other commentators have stated that this was never the point of the talks, that they were just a stepping stone for the more important talks in 2015. So was Doha a success?

According to environmental organisation World Wildlife Federation, the talks were a complete failure. WWF called the deals made at Doha ‘shamefully weak’ and accused larger nations like the US, Russia and Japan of blocking any real progress. The organisation even went as far to say that many governments of developed countries are ‘out of touch with the reality of climate change’ and that at Doha they failed to deliver even the most minimum expectations of dealing with climate change.

Doha didn't produce a major climate change deal, but did pave the one for one in 2015

(Image source - Yahoo.com)

However, there are others who would disagree. Granted that no major deals on battling climate change were made at Doha, a lot of people didn’t see that as the main goal of the talks. Connie Hedegaard, environment correspondent for the Guardian, believes that Doha was simply ‘setting the stage’ for the main talks in 2015. She states that, although goals on climate change weren’t set, goals on sorting out the way future talks would go were set, and reached.

Before Doha, there were several different working groups based on the vast differences between developed and developing nations. Now, there is one negotiation forum for everyone, the Durban Platform. Before Doha, only developed nations had a legal commitment to reducing carbon emissions. Now, both developed and developing countries will make legal commitments to tackling climate change. And now, following Doha, there is now a schedule of what must be done before 2015.

So Doha may not have been the spectacular definitive moment where climate change was beaten, as some environmental groups seem to have thought it would be. But progress was made. The preparations for the major talks in 2015 were made. Now it is down to the governments to make the most of the progress made at Doha and take it into the talks in three years time. Climate change is a very serious issue, for both developing and developed nations alike, so all nations have to make sure that a proper deal is made in 2015, otherwise all of the progress made in Doha will have been for nothing.

Fracking laws needed says EU

Brussels warns UK about jumping 'headlong' into shale gas

The European parliament has warned it will regulate the shale gas industry as it claims the UK doesn’t know what it is doing with its ‘dash for gas’.

Jo Leinen MEP, a member of the parliament’s environment committee, believes the UK isn’t fully aware of the scale of environmental and health consequences that can occur from large-scale ‘fracking’, the controversial method of blasting rocks with pressurised water, sand and chemicals to force gases from them. Leinen said ‘In Great Britain they give the green light for industrial exploitation but they have to know what they are doing. I don't know if they can be so sure and clear about what they are doing”. 

The Coalition sees shale gas as a great opportunity, but may be ignoring the environmental implications of it

(Image source - The Guardian)

Recent reports on fracking from the European commission warn of the high risk of ground- and surface-water contamination, noxious air emissions, risks to biodiversity and noise pollution. However, just last week the chancellor George Osbourne announced that fracking firms would be offered tax breaks to set up in the UK, whilst energy secretary, Ed Davey, is expected to lift restrictions on a fracking site in Blackpool shortly, after it was closed when it was suggested the process may be triggered earthquakes.

Another criticism of the process is that, according to research, between 2500 and 3500 horizontal wells and 113 million tonnes of water would be needed to produce just 10% of the UK’s gas consumption over the next 20 years, with prompted Christophe McGlade, from the UCL Energy Institute who worked on a report for the European commission on the level of shale in the EU, to say, "Just because the resource is there, it does not mean that it can be produced economically."

UPDATE -

Energy secretary Ed Davey has now lifted the restrictions on fracking in the UK, allowing energy company Cuadrilla to resume its operations at the site in Blackpool. Despite protests from anti-fracking campaigners, who believe that this practice of collecting shale gas could be damaging to climate change targets and could potentially contaminate aquifers, Davey sees shale gas as a promising new energy source. Davey stated he has taken all factors into account, saying, "My decision is based on the evidence. It comes after detailed study of the latest scientific research available and advice from leading experts in the field",

Changing TV settings can save you money

Adjusting brightness level can reduce electricity bill

As we’ve said before on this site, there are so many simple, easy ways for people to save money on energy bills. Some methods, like turning the heating down and wearing a jumper, seem pretty straightforward, but there is something else you can do to save money that you would never have thought of.

Experts have carried out tests and have concluded that by simply turning down the brightness of our television can reduced your electricity bill by around £8 a month, which works out as nearly £100 a year. Vincent Teoh, editor of HDTVTest, which carried out the tests, said “Calibrating your TV is similar to washing at 30 degrees or only putting the right amount of water in the kettle - it’s more environmentally friendly and more cost effective”. 

Something as simple as pressing a few buttons on your remote can reduce your energy bill

(Image source - Daily Mail)

The reason most people have never thought of this before is because all televisions are pre-set to be display a brighter picture, as display models in a shop have to be brighter to attract customers. But when customers set them up in their homes, most don’t think to adjust the picture from its factory settings. The test found that for many HD televisions, energy consumption was reduced by as much as 40% when the settings were adjusted.

Teoh also stated that, by keeping the picture overly bright, the overall picture quality was actually reduced. He explained, “Not only is it unnecessary [the default brightness setting], but it distorts the true performance of the television, both visually and economically.’

Wales tackling climate change

Talks in Doha highlight Wales as first country to introduce unique climate law

The climate change talks in Doha, Qatar are well underway and have brought up an interesting fact. Wales, out of all the 194 countries with representatives at the talks, is the only  one to be preparing to introduce a new law that requires all public bodies, such as schools and libraries, to take into account the environmental factors of any decision.

This sustainable development bill will be law in just under a year and follows other bold actions to deal with climate change. Wales has a target of reducing carbon emissions in the country by 3% every year (which would mean a 40% reduction by 2020) and is currently leading the UK in renewable energy. The country also has plans to make improve energy efficiency in social housing by fitting homes with energy saving devices. These plans show Wales is ambitious in dealing with the issue of climate change, but one embarrassing fact is that, between 2009 and 2010, greenhouse gas emissions in the country actually increased 8%, compared to just 2% in England, although this has been attributed to economic growth and the cold winter during that period.

Wales has its sights set on becoming leader in renewable energies

(Image source - The Guardian)

John Griffiths, the Welsh assembly member who is representing them at the Doha talks, wants to get Wales utilising more onshore and offshore wind, but accepts the opposition schemes like these have faced, especially in mid-Wales. To deal with this, he wants to find a way to make energy companies benefit the local communities they operate in. "We are in discussions with companies to get more community benefit, and to provide more jobs. We need to paint a positive picture around renewables in Wales. There's a lot of benefit for us if we get it right." 

Griffiths wants more schemes to make homes in Wales energy efficient

(Image source- South Wales Argus)

Griffiths sees the importance of tackling climate change, as he blames it for the recent flooding in many parts of Wales. "We in Britain had the wettest summer for 100 years. Now we are told we will have more extremes [like this] with climate change. It was very much in line with climate change. Floods like that and the one at Talybont bring climate change home to people. It will have a severe impact."

There is potential for Wales to be seen as a small but outward-looking, progressive state, as there are scores of renewable energy companies in the country looking to help reduce the impact of climate change and, in the process, help improve the lives of the Welsh people.

Act on climate change Obama!

Campaigners call on President to commit to promises

Following his election victory last month, Barack Obama has been urged by climate change campaigners to turn his environmental promises into real working policies during his second term as President.

Environmental groups, who admitted they were reluctant to push the President on the issue during his first term, are now determined to hold him to his vague post-election promises and make sure he backs new action on climate change. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who is a strong campaigner for climate change supported these views, stating, "He passed historic healthcare legislation, now he needs to work on climate change”. He added that Sandy had changed the political dynamics of climate change. "If you are a Republican above the Mason-Dixon line is it no longer going to be possible for you to start making jokes about climate. That era is gone," he said. "Republicans now have to be more respectful of science."

Obama has talked about the impact of climate change, but will he deliver on his promises to act on it?

(Image source - The New York Times)

Markey, along with other experts at a forum event hosted by Climate Desk, offered up a list of options Obama can take to "flex his executive muscle" and push Congress and government agencies into action. Some of the recommendations on this list included:-

i) The extension of tax credits for wind farms, which are due to expire this year

ii) An adoption of a renewable electricity standard (something that 30 states have already) on a national scale, meaning every state would be required to get a share of its electricity from sources such as solar and wind

iii) A commitment from the President to use the full power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon emissions from large industrial sources

So what do you think? Should Obama commit to affirmative action on climate change? Let us know in the comments below.

US set for offshore wind farms

Areas along Atlantic coast to be 'opened up' for turbines

Large areas of land along the Atlantic coast of the United States of America will be opened up for the development of offshore wind farms by the Obama administration. 

Competitive lease sales of around 432 square miles of land off the coast of states such as Virginia, Rhode Island and Massachusetts will be offered by mid-2013, with the scheme looking to launch the country’s first offshore wind farm project. Despite hundreds of turbines being built across America over the past few years, all of them have been on the mainland, and wind farms themselves still only make up 3% of the country’s energy use.

This could be the scene across the Atlantic coast of the US within a few years

(Image source - The Guardian)

According to the US government, there is enough wind along the Atlantic coast to power up to 1.4 million homes, which is seen as ‘enormous potential’ by Kevin Salazar, the interior secretary, who sees the scheme as a way of ‘moving closer to tapping into this massive domestic energy resource to create jobs, increase our energy security and strengthen our nation’s competitiveness in this new energy frontier’.

However, whilst there is enthusiasm among many for this scheme, there may also be criticism. Building turbines offshore is much more expensive than building them on land, and there are many people opposed to turbines due to their visual impact. The proposed turbines would be 10 miles off the coast of Rhode Island and around 23 nautical miles from Virginia. Officials stated that the sites were chosen to avoid environmental concerns and backlash from locals.

Winter is coming!

Temperatures set to hit 100-year low

You may have already noticed when you went to work this morning with three layers on and spent 20 minutes trying to defrost the car, but winter is here.

Temperatures have plummeted this week and are set to drop even further throughout December, with temperatures estimated at minus 3C in many places, and even as low as minus 20C in some northern areas. 

As has been in case during the last few winters, there are fears of snow blizzards closing roads and train lines, causing chaos for travellers during the festive period. Experts have also expressed concerns that the torrential rain, that has devastated many areas of Britain this week, will return early next month, hampering recovery efforts of those who have been flooded.

Snow has already hit mountainous areas, and could be on its way to the rest of us

(Image Source - The Daily Mail)

So, with temperatures dropping, now would be the time to crank up the heating. But many people are set to go without heating for extending periods over winter due to the increases in energy bills. If only there was a way to utilise and make the most of all of the heating you pay for…

Luckily, there is!

Our innovative Home Reheater recycles the warm air in your home (particularly the heat trapped in your ceiling as it naturally rises) and recirculates it back down to the rest of the room. This allows you to turn your heating down to a lower temperature and still stay warm, as the entire room will remain at one constant temperature, instead of the ceiling being the warmest, as is currently the case in homes across the country.

So there are three options this winter; turn your heating up and face the costs in the New Year, turn it off and stay horribly cold all Christmas, or invest in a Home Reheater and stay happily warm, whilst reducing your heating bill at the same time. Surely the answer is obvious?

Go to our website now and look at the 16 different designs available to find the one that suits your home. With its simple installation process your product will be up and running and saving you money in no time. And at a cost of just £39.95 it is a cheaper alternative to paying over the odds for heating that you'll only waste as it rises to the ceiling.

So stay warm and get your own back this Christmas with

Homes set to ration energy

As average bills increase, many plan to go without heat this winter

Despite temperatures set to hit a 100-year low this winter, many people will ration their heating due to price rises.

Figures show the average heating bill has increased by 63% since 2008, putting millions in ‘fuel poverty’ and leaving them with the choice of paying for heating or having money for food. Last winter, around 75% of people asked said they would turn the heating down at key times, even if they were cold, just to save money. This year, nearly 90% claim they will do this, with elderly people more likely to go without heating.

Elderly people will be hit harder by rising energy bills over winter

(Image source - This Is Money)

This is why there is worry, as it is feared many elderly people, who are more likely to stay at home for longer periods thus using more heating, might die as a result of the cold, especially those without family who live alone. There were 25,700 ‘excess winter deaths’ last year in England and Wales, with around 2500 of them said to be as a result of ‘fuel poverty’ (where over 10% of income is needed to cover energy costs).

Energy comparison site uSwitch.com believe that further the price increases that were announced by the ‘big’ energy companies like British Gas and Scottish Power last month will ‘add £753 million onto energy bills and push another 314,000 households into fuel poverty’.

UN talks on climate change

What will happen in Doha?

The UN climate change talks in Doho, Qatar get underway today, with negotiators from 194 different countries all meeting to discuss measures on how to deal with global warming on a world-wide scale. But many people don’t see anything productive coming from these talks. So why is this? Why is there a feeling of pointlessness to these discussions on climate change?

The general (and widely accepted) consensus is that the richer nations involved in the talks, mainly the US, the UK and most of the European powers, will refuse to commit to any more cuts to emissions and won’t be willing to provide any further money, whilst the poorer nations will try to hold onto the few agreements made during the last few climate talks. The stubbornness of richer countries is seen as the main reason why global climate change policies have yet to be fully implemented and accepted by everyone. 

Climate change talks take place in Doha this week

(Source - The Guardian)

In 2009, rich countries agreed to give $100bn to poorer nations to help them combat and adapt to climate change by 2020, with a minimum of £30bn being given as a down-payment. So far, not even the down-payment has been met, with the total amount of money actually given being less than the total amount of bonuses given out in the City of London. Many nations, especially in Europe, have used the economic crisis and recession of recent years as an excuse not to commit money to climate change proposals, and there are many officials and ministers in office across the world who are still sceptical about global warming. But with events such as Superstorm Sandy hitting the US recently, alongside heatwaves, droughts and wildfires in the country, as well the UK having its wettest summer and driest spring to date and October being the 333rd consecutive month global temperatures were above the 20th century average, it is hard to ignore the reality of climate change. Especially when even the World Bank has issued its own warnings, as they announced that the world is on course for a 4C temperature rise which they believe would ruin economies as well as people’s everyday lives.

However, despite all of the warning signs that global warming is a very real threat, nobody sees any of the richer countries truly committing themselves to taking action, which is why the levels of anticipation in Doha are somewhat muted.

Why hasn't solar taken off?

Form of renewable energy isn't as popular as it could be

Earlier this week, the chief executive of Desertsec Paul van Son denied his plans for a scheme to produce 15% of Europe’s energy from solar panels in North Africa was in turmoil following the withdrawal of two major investors. Both Siemens and Bosch pulled out of the project, which would see energy produced by solar power in countries such as Tunisia and Morocco relayed to Europe via underwater cables, whilst the Spanish government has backed away from a deal to build the panels. Despite these apparent set-backs, van Son laughed off suggestions the €400 million scheme was in crisis. But does this situation suggest that solar power has still yet to really take off as a form of energy production?

An outline of the Desertsec energy proposal - which may now be in doubt

(Source - The Guardian)

Solar power seems like the ideal form of renewable energy. Even more straightforward than wind power, all you have to do is watch as the sun shines and produces electricity. But despite this seemingly simple process of producing energy, solar has yet to really go mainstream. Whereas wind power is gaining more and more momentum as the answer to the question of how to produce clean, renewable energy, solar power is getting left behind. But why is this? Why haven’t we committed to solar yet?

Cost. Installing solar panels in a home can cost nearly £9000 on average; a price a lot of people aren’t willing to pay, especially as it may also require adjustments or renovations of the roofs of houses, which adds further costs. Many people could have had help covering costs via a grant, but last year the Government cut the Feed-In Tariff (FIT) by over half, meaning people who could have earned money for merely having solar panels (up to £1000 a year in many cases), which would have helped cover the cost of the initial installation, will now earn significantly less. 

Solar power is a great form of renewable energy - but people don't like the cost

(Source - The Guardian)

On top of all this, it has been announced that energy bills will increase to cover the costs of implementing green energy schemes, such as solar power. Any form of price increase is bound to anger consumers and, despite the assurances that using renewable energy will actually decrease prices in the coming years, the new deal has been met with criticism from consumers, MPs and environmental campaigners. 

So with the current negativity surrounding renewable energy in the media – mainly focusing on the cost – it seems that solar power has an even harder task of trying to appeal to people as a realistic alternative to traditional energy production.

Are new coal plants a backwards move?

Plans for new coal-fired power plants raise questions

New research has revealed that over 1000 new coal plants are being planned in 59 countries, with China and India contributing to three-quarters of them. 

This coal expansion is going ahead despite warnings over the large amount of pollution the new plants will create, with scientists, politicians and climate change campaigners all agreeing that the world needs to move away from fossil fuels as the main energy provider. Many argue that fossil fuel assets will become worthless as action on climate change moves forward.

Coal plants are the most polluting of all types of power plants. The capacity of all 1200 proposed plants across the world will be around 1400GW, which is the same as adding another China to the world in terms of the level of greenhouse gas emissions.

A coal-fired power station in Michigan, USA

(Source - Wikipedia)

The report is said to be the most comprehensive made and was compiled by the World Resources Institute, who state that the proposed coal plants are ‘definitely not in line with a safe climate scenario’. Nick Robins, head of HSBC’s Climate Change Centre, believes it would be easier to ignore coal as an energy source, as several factors including tighter air pollution regulations, the increasing investment and commitment to renewable energies and the scarcity of water (as coal plants need massive amounts of water to operate) make coal energy not worth the hassle.

Despite these warnings however, the coal industry has seen economic rejuvenation in recent years, as global coal trade increased 13% in 2010. The UK, Germany and France are still in biggest importers, but countries like South Korea and Japan are fast-increasing their import levels. These countries, along with developing countries such as Senegal and Uzbekistan, have high numbers of coal plants but produce practically no coal of their own. Ailun Yang, of the WRI, believes that there is an issue of a lack of awareness in these countries that their energy needs can be met from sources ‘other than coal’.

Wind farms to give energy bill discounts

'Community tariff' offered to residents living near Good Energy wind farms

A new energy tariff will offer energy discounts to people living near wind farms owned by utilities company Good Energy. 

People who live within two kilometres of a Good Energy wind farm will get a 20% discount on their energy bills, which could save them around £110 a year. The new local electricity tariff will be launched next year and will only apply to the Delabole wind farm in Cornwall to start with (as this is the only farm Good Energy currently owns), but will apply to all new wind farms the company opens in the future. Good Energy expects to develop wind farms that can produce an overall capacity of around 100MW in the UK by 2016. Tariff customers will also receive an annual bonus if the wind turbines overproduce energy.

Turbines at the Delabole wind farm in Cornwall

(Source- This is North Cornwall)

The idea of a local tariff had been talked about for the past two years, according to Good Energy chief executive Juliet Davenport, who sees the idea as part of a bigger plan to ‘bring people closer to their energy source’. Davenport also believes the scheme will help wind farms get backing from people opposed to them because of their visual impact on an area, as they will be getting a ‘share of the benefit’ from the turbines, which would in some way make up for their effect on the landscape.

The new tariff will cover discounts for around 400 homes in Delabole and will cost Good Energy £25,000. Residents in Turriff in Aberdeenshire will also get the benefits of this new tariff as a wind farm is currently being planned there.

Want a good savings investment? Then go green!

Renewable energy investments can offer better returns than banks

In a climate of economic uncertainty across Europe, most people are trying to find the best ways to use their money and are looking for the right places to invest. With stock market returns erratic and inconsistent and savings accounts paying out below-inflation interest rates, there is another way to make money from investments. And it’s green.

Abundance Generation, the FSA-regulated platform for renewable energy investment, are offering people the chance to invest in energy projects that can make returns of up to 8%, whilst supporting local renewable energy schemes at the same time. The first project by Abundance – a community wind turbine in the Forest of Dean – was switched on last week after reaching its minimum funding level recently and is now generating electricity for the community, and generating returns for investors, who include locals as well as others from across the UK. Investors will receive twice-yearly payments from the project, which are their share of the profits made from generating and selling energy created by the turbine.

The turbine at Forest of Dean being constructed

(Source - This is Gloucestershire) 

Bruce Davis, co-founder and joint managing director of Abundance, argues that investing in energy projects is a much better idea than investing money in banks, who have lost a lot of public trust following the banking scandals of recent years, and is available to people of all economic backgrounds. “We are all about democratising finance” said Davis. “Why should the great returns and pleasure of investing in real, worthwhile and ethical assets like renewable energy projects only be available to the very wealthy?” 

People can invest in projects with Abundance for as little as £5 with the average investment being for 20 to 25 years. The risks from investing in Abundance projects are very low, meaning that investing in renewable energy isn't just for rich businessmen; you can do it too. And, unlike a bank, you can actually see what your investment is doing for the renewable energy industry and the local community.

Have energy companies been rigging prices?

PM threatens heavy fines for companies found to be manipulating market

David Cameron has called for heavy fines against all energy companies that are found to have rigged gas prices in the UK. 

The Prime Minister’s view comes after the Financial Services Authority announced an investigation into several major power companies that are accused of manipulating the wholesale gas market in Britain. Nick Clegg, deputy prime minister, backs Cameron’s stance, saying that consumers would be ‘rightly dismayed’ if the allegations of price rigging are found to be true.

Many of the companies accused of price rigging increased their prices last month

(Source - The Telegraph)

The FSA launched their investigation after word of ‘unusual trading patterns’ was revealed by whistle-blower Seth Freedman, who worked as price reporter at ICIS Heren, a company who set benchmark prices that wholesale gas contracts are based on. ICIS Heren reported to energy regulator Ofcom concerns about suspect trading on 28th September, which is the date of the end of the gas financial year and therefore an important influence on future gas prices.

This investigation will do little to improve the strained relationship between the energy companies and their consumers, which was already damaged following last month’s gas price hike.

Have you seen this see-through soil?

Scientists develop transparent soil that lets you watch roots as they grow

The process of how plant roots grow has been revealed in a clearer light thanks to the development of transparent soil.

Researchers from the University of Abertay Dundee and the James Hutton Institute have spent the last two years working on a see-through soil substitute made from Nafion - a synthetic material usually seen in power-generating fuel cells - that allows them to actually watch the roots of a plant as they grow. The compound acts just like regular soil and is the biggest development in the study of the rhizosphere, the world of roots, in recent history, with Lionel Dupuy, a theoretical biologist at the James Hutton Institute, saying ‘This is exciting because there are so many things to discover in soil and we don’t know yet what they are’.

See-through soil lets you watch the roots as they grow and develop

(Source - Daily Mail)

The artificial soil shares key characteristics of actual soil, such as water retention, capability of sustaining plant growth and the ability to hold nutrients. The soil isn’t transparent naturally, and only becomes see-through when treated with a special water-based solution. 

Scientists are confident that the soil can help them get a better understanding of how plants and microbes access nutrients that are present in soil, which can then help them develop and breed crops that have more efficient root systems, meaning less of a reliance on fertilizers. 

Will the President now commit to climate change action?

Expectations rise as newly re-elected Obama talks about ‘destructive power of a warming planet’

With the celebrations of his supporters still in full swing, President Barack Obama has also fueled excitement among environmental campaigners with his victory speech, in which he seemed to accept the risk that climate change poses to the world by mentioning the ‘destructive power of a warming planet’.

Whilst his Republican rival Mitt Romney turned rising sea-levels into a joke during his acceptance speech in August, and despite both candidates completely ignoring climate change during their televised election debates, campaigners feel confident that Obama will start to take action on the issue during his final term as President.

As was the case during his first term, Obama will have a tough task of pushing through any legislation on climate change due to the Republican’s continued control of the House of Representatives. However, with the impact of Hurricane Sandy still fresh in people’s minds, an endorsement from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg because of his position on climate change, and the fact that the majority of Democrats elected to the Senate and the House of Representatives owe many of their victories to the votes of environmental campaigners, Obama does have a better chance of making any climate-change based laws over the next four years than he did during the last four.

The existing Keystone pipeline and the routes of the proposed XL addition

(Source - The Guardian)

Obama has the perfect opportunity to please climate change campaigners, following news that a demonstration will be held outside the White House on 18th November protesting against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which will carry oil from Canada to be refined in Texas. The pipeline has faced heavy criticism from many people following its announcement, including Kill Bill actress Daryl Hannah, who was arrested for her role in a protest against the pipeline last month.

Does the Government really care about green energy?

Tory MPs call on PM to publicly back renewable energy investments

David Cameron’s position on the green economy has been questioned by his own party after 20 Conservative MPs sent a letter to Downing Street expressing their concern over what they believe to be attacks on renewable energy and an anti-green sentiment from across the Coalition.

The Prime Minister is set to defend the Government’s policy on the green energy economy following criticism that many figures with the Coalition, such as George Osborne, are attacking the value of the sector, despite it being worth over £120bn and supplying a third of the recent economic growth in the UK. 

Many Conservative MPs, including Peter Aldous, MP for Waveney, who organised the letter, feel that Cameron’s silence on the issue may be putting off companies from investing into renewable energy schemes in the UK, and could see them invest overseas instead. Aldous called on the PM to clearly state what the Coalition’s position on the green economy is so that they can work to ‘encourage and incentivise investment from emerging markets…for our country to be a world leader in renewable energy’. 

David Cameron is currently pushing for investment in Britain’s energy production from the Middle East, and will meet with the heads of three of the biggest sovereign wealth funds in the United Arab Emirates to secure more investment in renewables. But in the eyes of many MPs, this isn’t enough. Cameron and the Coalition must come out and publicly back investments in green energy projects and, in the words of Energy Minister Greg Barker, ‘put its money where its mouth is’.

The city of the future

Iskandar Malaysia will be totally green and model for all south-east Asian cities 

An eco-friendly, ultra-modern city the size of Luxembourg, housing 3 million people and powered completely by green energy – that is the vision of Iskandar Malaysia. 

A map of the proposed eco-city of Iskandar Malaysia

(Source - The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/02/iskandar-malaysia-green-megacity?intcmp=122 )

Across the strait of Johor, opposite Singapore, is the site for this ‘smart metropolis’ that developers hope will be template for all new cities across all of Malaysia and south-east Asia. This new city will be home to over 3 million people by 2025 and will be powered by renewable energy, will have publically provided transport and will recycle all of its waste. The city will also have green spaces to encourage social integration and improve resident’s mental well-being. Skyscrapers will share the skyline with low-rise buildings and self-contained ‘neighbourhoods’. 

This vision, described by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak as a ‘smart city template’, came about as a solution to the predicted city population growth in the region. In 2007, the world’s urban population overtook the rural population for the first time, and by 2050 the planet’s population will increase from 7bn to around 9bn, with the majority of people in south-east Asia living in major cities.

Eco-city projects have been planned in the past, in countries ranging from China to the US, and have collapsed, but with over $30bn promised to the development of the city (a third of which has come from outside the country), Iskandar Malaysia is hoping to truly become the city of the future.

How safe is nuclear?

With Hitachi investing over $1 billion into two new nuclear power plants in the UK, the issue of nuclear safety is raised once again

This week, Japanese company Hitachi bought the Horizon nuclear power project in the UK for $1.2 billion, which will create two new nuclear power plants in Anglesey, Wales and Oldbury, England, with around 12,000 jobs in constructing the sites and then 2000 permanent jobs once they are completed. Hitachi took over the project from German companies RWE and E.ON after they pulled out following the decision by Angela Merkel to phase out nuclear energy in Germany by 2022. This decision by one of Europe’s leading industrial powers to renounce nuclear energy in favour of renewables was made following the disaster at Fukushima, with fears raised about the safety of nuclear power. Now, with Hitachi opting to invest in this type of energy and start a ‘100 year commitment to the UK’ that question is brought up once again.

A typical nuclear power plant - but is it really that safe?

(Source - http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/NuclearEnergy.php)

Safety is the biggest factor in debates about nuclear power. Anti-nuclear campaigners state that the potential risk of a nuclear disaster (such as a complete nuclear meltdown – a nuclear explosion similar to an atomic bomb is a complete myth, as the uranium isn’t enriched enough in a power plant to explode) outweighs any benefits of nuclear power, as the damage that could be caused by a disaster would be catastrophic. That fear is understandable; a worst-case scenario would be a complete meltdown that contaminates the ground and water supply in the surrounding area, which would cause explosions as a result of radioactive material reacting with water and widespread exposure to radiation that could result in deaths. 

However, in nearly 15,000 cumulative nuclear reactor years, only three major accidents have occurred; Three Mile Island (USA, 1979), Chernobyl (Ukraine, 1986) and Fukushima (Japan, 2011), with only Chernobyl resulting in loss of life. These accidents weren’t caused by the nuclear power process itself, but by a series of specific factors. Three Mile Island was a result of human error, Fukushima was caused by damage from both an earthquake and a tsunami, and Chernobyl was the result of poor reactor design in an environment where safety regulations and security were a low priority. Nuclear energy is so much safer now with security measures and tight safety regulations in place.

The devastating aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster - but events like these are extremely rare

(Source - Liverpool Echo)

In terms of safety, renewable energy is much better than nuclear, as the only risk of damage or death from a wind turbine is if it fell over, which wouldn’t affect as many people as a nuclear meltdown would. With Germany looking to phase out nuclear power by 2022 in favour of renewable energy, they are showing they are willing to commit and support the development of renewable power (as nuclear energy currently provides a quarter of the country’s energy usage), which is a good thing, as it shows the country is prepared to move forward and is thinking about the future. 

However, nuclear power shouldn’t be ignored completely. There is always the worry that something could go terribly wrong with nuclear and, however safe nuclear energy can be made, the actual process of working with radioactive materials and the science behind it will always carry some level of risk. But with safety measures as tight and important as they currently are, the chances of something bad happening are very low. Nuclear power is still important to the world, as it is very efficient in terms of energy production. An average-size nuclear plant would produce the same amount of energy as around 2000 wind turbines. 2000 turbines would take up an area of land around 60,000 acres, whereas a power plant would take up only 1500 acres.

Hopefully in the future there will be a form of renewable energy so efficient and effective, with absolutely no risks, that nuclear power won’t be needed anymore. But until such a time, nuclear energy is still important, and still necessary. 

Britain doesn't need any more wind farms?

Political row as Tory minister claims UK has 'enough' turbines

The Coalition Government has clashed once again after a Conservative minister claimed that the country doesn’t need any more wind farms.

John Hayes told a newspaper that the country is ‘peppered’ with an ‘extraordinary’ amount of wind turbines which have been ‘imposed on communities’. He intended to include these comments in a speech Tuesday night but was told to remove them by Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat energy secretary, who took control of renewable energy strategy from Hayes earlier this year.

This latest row is yet another in a long line of Lib Dem/Tory confrontations over renewable energy. In February, 101 Tories signed a letter demanding an end to onshore wind farm subsidies, and in the summer Davey had to fight to win a 10% cut in the level of subsidies, as George Osbourne had wanted a 25% cut.

Many people, including leading global wind and nuclear power companies, are worried that the continued in-fighting of the Coalition and political uncertainty could threaten millions of pounds worth of investment in energy projects in the UK.