Imagine walking through a city where every building is a testament to sustainability, resilience and innovation. A city built by – and now serving – a prosperous, diverse and cohesive society.   

This vision of Europe is not a distant dream.   

It’s an achievable reality if the European Commission delivers on advancing its sustainable building policy – plans for which should be firmly at the top of President Ursula von der Leyen’s inbox when she returns from summer recess later this month.  

In just a few short weeks, her second term will begin in earnest, as will her second push at keeping Europe’s green transition alive – a five-year marathon to cement both her and the bloc’s environmental legacy. 

The Commission’s activity to date has been commendable. The revision of the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) and the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) were key steps towards accelerating climate action in the sector and driving plans under the Renovation Wave to boost energy efficiency in both public and private buildings.   

Renewable-energy carbon credits rejected by high-integrity scheme

In the “Political Guidelines released shortly after her re-election, von der Leyen has shown promising signs of continuing to champion sustainable buildings as a climate solution. There is a pledge to create the first EU commissioner with direct responsibility for housing, while our sector awaits with interest the new “Circular Economy Act”, designed to create market demand for reused and recycled materials. 

This is promising – but von der Leyen must go further both in implementing existing policies and in developing new ones to maximise the holistic benefits of sustainable buildings for everyone. 

We know already that sustainable buildings have huge greenhouse gas reduction potential. Buildings are responsible for about 40% of total energy consumption in the EU and 36% of greenhouse gas emissions from energy, so they can help improve energy security, reducing the bloc’s exposure to geopolitical shocks and reliance on fossil fuels.     

Creating jobs, lowering energy costs 

What isn’t spoken about enough is that they have the potential to address other issues facing Europe today: the cost of living and the unemployment crises.   

For me, these less-discussed issues in the context of buildings are just as, if not more, important due to their co-benefits for people and society.    

Take the energy efficient renovation of buildings, for example. The widespread availability of well-insulated buildings that keep out the heat during summer but retain the warmth during winter will significantly cut energy costs across the continent.   

The benefits of this will be far-reaching, but particularly for vulnerable or low-income households. Given soaring energy bills, improving energy efficiency across buildings would not only reduce associated costs, but also enhance living conditions.   

The benefits of renovating buildings do not stop here.   

Q&A: What you need to know about clean energy supply chains

This task alone could create millions of employment opportunities across Europe: 18 jobs are created for every €1 million invested in this type of renovation.   

Bearing in mind figures from the European Commission, which calculated that €275 billion will be needed annually to bridge the building renovation gap in the EU, this level of investment could lead to nearly 5 million extra jobs across the bloc.   

Not only that, there is a real financial incentive for national governments to look towards investing in the building sector to save in the long run. Data from the Spanish government showed that while supporting one person through unemployment cost €20,000, funding a new construction role amounted to €14,000, a significant decrease. These statistics show a real-world example of how buildings can both address governmental issues and create better prospects for individuals.   

Blueprint ready to go 

Europe is at a significant moment in its history.   

We are only five years away from 2030, a deadline by which Europe committed to slash half its emissions, determining whether it will be on track to become the first climate-neutral continent. Yet the recent parliamentary elections showed a record number of seats from parties that could make the path to net zero more challenging. 

Von der Leyen has a real chance to confirm her legacy of green policies by driving an energy-efficient, regenerative and just transition in the built environment. World Green Building Council’s Europe Regional Network stands ready to continue to build momentum with the Commission over the next five years and create tangible benefits at the individual, societal and national levels.   

Let’s create a brighter, equitable and more sustainable future for all of Europe. The blueprint is ready; we just need to turn it into reality.   

The World Green Building Council leads BuildingLife, a project that drives the Commission’s EU Green Deal across the bloc by working to eliminate the whole-life carbon impact of buildings. 

The post How better buildings can help von der Leyen maintain her green legacy    appeared first on Climate Home News.

However, the plan has no binding measures, which runs in contradiction with a new regulation adopted by EU countries a week ago.

“The watchword is clear: general mobilisation,” energy transition minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher said at a press conference announcing the plan.

The measures are the result of four months of discussion, following prime minister Élisabeth Borne’s June announcement of an energy saving programme for each sector of the French economy in response to the energy crisis and vulnerabilities in the national electricity network.

To reduce energy consumption by 10% in two years, the government has slated 15 key measures, from reducing heating to a maximum of 19C (66F) in offices to encouraging people to carpool.

The plan also includes specific measures for each of the nine economic and social sectors targeted: the state, companies and labour organisations, establishments open to the public and supermarkets, industry, accommodation, transport, digital and telecommunications, sport, and local authorities.

Additionally, private individuals will be advised to practice “eco gestures”, from reducing shower time to switching off household appliances when they are on standby for too long.

For the prime minister, it is a matter of acting “on the whole range of energy savings”.

No binding measures

While the government insists on the particular need to reduce energy consumption during peak hours – between 8am and noon and between 6-8pm – it does not set binding targets.

“There will not be such thing as a temperature police,” Pannier-Runacher told local radio RTL on Thursday.

However, in its roadmap presented on 14 September, the EU Commission laid out a binding target of a 5% reduction in electricity consumption during peak hours. And in July, EU member states also agreed to a 15% reduction in gas consumption following Russia’s military aggression in Ukraine.

The electricity demand reduction target was formally adopted on Thursday evening after a political agreement was reached last Friday among the EU’s 27 energy ministers. And although member states will remain free to choose the appropriate means of enforcement, the 5% objective is legally-binding.

Only Malta and Cyprus have been exempted.

“We are not on track”

While Pannier-Runacher argued on RTL that high energy prices would provide the impetus for companies and households to act, Thierry Bros, a professor of energy at Science-Po Paris was less optimistic.

Bros told Euractiv that despite high prices, TotalEnergies’ service stations had still seen a rush of customers, both accelerating tensions in supply and maintaining levels of consumption.

Energy-saving measures tend to be unpopular, he explained, especially if the reduction is to be maintained over two years. A 10% reduction in primary energy consumption would be equivalent to the drop in consumption seen during the Covid-19 lockdowns when the economy was slowing down.

Bros also pointed out that France’s rate of reducing consumption has been 1% annually over the last ten years. If France intends to reach the targets it has set itself, “we will have to go five times faster over the next two years,” he said.

“We are not on track,”  said the professor, concluding that without binding measures, meeting the 10% objective “is not possible”.

According to the government, the package of measures should nevertheless reduce consumption by around 50 terawatt hours (TWh) per year.

This is also a first step towards carbon neutrality, which will require a 40% reduction in energy consumption by 2050, Pannier-Runacher said on RTL.

The government, moreover, insists that measures will not have a negative effect on the economy.

“Energy saving does not mean […] choosing to reduce production”, Borne said at the press conference.

This article was first published in Euractiv. It has been lightly amended for clarity.

The post Turn down the heating: France unveils ‘ambitious’ energy saving plan appeared first on Climate Home News.

LED world map (Flickr/Chris Dlugosz)

By Megan Darby

The term “energy productivity” was coined by British economist William Jevons in 1865.

Long before coal’s impact on the climate was known, Jevons was concerned about the UK’s reliance on a finite resource.

The country’s prosperity and global dominance was based on this miracle fuel, he argued – but constraints on its supply threatened that happy position. Curbing demand was desirable.

Today, climate analysts and campaigners are trying to revive the concept, with different constraints in mind.

It is the amount of fossil fuel that can be safely burned for energy production that is limited. Greenhouse gas emissions risk heating the planet beyond people’s capacity to adapt.

But no country is prepared to sacrifice its economic growth for the common good of a less hostile climate. Severing the link between wealth and high carbon energy use is essential.

Repackaging efficiency

At a conference in London on Wednesday, speakers made the case for putting energy productivity at the heart of that effort.

Essentially, it is about repackaging energy efficiency – the unsung hero of decarbonisation – in a way that appeals to business and across the political spectrum.

For the Washington DC-based Alliance for Saving Energy, the poser was how to stay relevant as the US entered an era of abundant shale gas.

In strategic consultations, it proposed a 25% national energy saving target – a number analysts had found this to be feasible and cost-effective.

That didn’t go down well with Republicans, the NGO’s president Kateri Callahan revealed. After all, a surefire way to cut consumption is an economic downturn – not what they wanted to see.

Energy productivity – the GDP generated for each unit of energy consumed – presented a more positive story.

Data showed the US wrung twice as much wealth out of each joule of energy in 2010 as 1980. That was partly down to a shift away from heavy industry in the economy, but efficient technology played a bigger part.

“This notion of doing more with less and doubling energy productivity really caught the attention of the American government,” said Callahan.

Repeating the trick by 2030 is projected to create 1.3 million jobs, save US$327 billion a year in energy costs and slash greenhouse gases by a third.

“These are things, if you are only talking about energy efficiency, you are not able to get a handle on.”

President Barack Obama agreed, endorsing the target in his 2013 state of the union address.

Report: Green urban infrastructure could save $17trn by 2050

It is an approach that can work for corporations and city authorities, according to speakers at the B4E London conference.

Eric Rondolat, chief executive of Philips Lighting, made a passionate case for solar lamps to bring light to Indian villages.

“If we lift out of darkness these people, we will also boost economic growth,” he said.

Mark Watts, executive director of C40, a network of 80 megacities for climate action, hailed Shenzhen’s electric bus fleet.

Amid the enthusiasm for efficiency, there was less talk of how relative improvements could lead to the absolute emission cuts needed to tackle climate change.

That is not a given.

As Jevons observed, technical progress on efficiency can actually increase demand for a resource – the Jevons Paradox.

He was talking about the coal-fired steam engine, a case in which the spike in train travel completely cancelled out the efficiency benefits.

For most advances, the rebound effect is more subtle. A household might spend cash saved on energy bills from a new boiler on a short-haul flight, say.

This can be avoided if the cost of fuel rises ahead of or in line with efficiency gains, perhaps driven by a carbon price.

That takes us back to the political problem “energy productivity” advocates are trying to sidestep.

Dan Hamza-Goodacre, director of energy efficiency at ClimateWorks Foundation, said: “We have purposefully gone for productivity rather than absolute energy reduction because it is just a very difficult conversation to have politically.

“The trick is to make sure you have a sufficiently ambitious energy productivity target.”

The post Why ‘energy productivity’ is making a comeback appeared first on Climate Home News.

It’s certainly iconic, but could Notre Dame cathedral be greener? (Flickr/Giorgos~)

By Megan Darby

“The words ‘energy efficiency’ are very boring to most people – they fall asleep by the third syllable.”

That, for Farhana Yamin, is one of the main reasons green building initiatives have yet to take off in a big way.

She wants to see iconic buildings get a low carbon makeover, to capture the public imagination: “In emissions terms they may not be so significant, but in communications terms they are very big.”

The head of Track Zero, a think-tank advocating a long term global net zero emissions target, is at a round table with construction executives.

As part of Climate Week Paris, they are trying to pull together a “buildings day” at UN climate negotiations in December.

This would showcase the potential to slash emissions from new and existing buildings – but where to start?

There is some support for the idea of eye-catching refurbishment projects. It has been done, most notably with the Empire State Building in New York.

The Gherkin has not lived up to energy efficient design claims (Flickr/Davide D’Amico)

RTCC asks which structures people in the room would most like to get their hands on.

Notre Dame, a cathedral 800 years in the making and top Paris attraction, is one suggestion.

London’s “Gherkin”, a 41-storey office block, is another. Built just over a decade ago, it was supposed to use half the energy of a traditional skyscraper, but the reality was different. Tenants eschewed the natural ventilation on offer, preferring energy-hungry air conditioning.

Or how about the Taj Mahal? Most of the world’s new buildings in the coming decades will crop up in Asia. There more than anywhere low carbon pioneers need to get the message across.

“It depends what story you want to communicate,” says Alistair Guthrie, of engineering consultancy Arup.

“The Taj Mahal is a great story but it doesn’t use much energy at all, so from an energy efficiency point of view it is not the best example.”

Choked in smog, could the Taj Mahal become a low carbon beacon? (Pic: Jaymis Loveday/Flickr)

Guthrie favours a more down-to-earth approach: “Forget buildings that look like Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory. People don’t relate to those buildings.”

The largest sub-sector is housing, points out Pascal Eveillard, head of sustainable construction at Saint-Gobain. “Putting the residential sector high on the agenda should be a priority.”

James Drinkwater from the World Green Building Council agrees, citing the revamp of a township in Durban. “A radical improvement of the Empire State Building is nice, it gets public attention, but the message for me has to be better buildings change quality of life,” he says.

Cato Manor township in Durban got a green retrofit ahead of UN climate talks in 2011 (Green Building Council of South Africa)

In California, revenue from selling emissions permits to big polluters has been funnelled into green improvements for homes and small businesses. A quarter of the budget is reserved for low income communities, says Mary Nichols, head of the California Air Resources Board.

“The number of small businesses involved in this is amazing,” she says. “This is a way to get to grassroots.”

There is general agreement that to succeed, a drive for zero carbon buildings must be about more than emissions.

“It’s about energy security, it’s about less reliance on imports, it’s about more money in people’s pockets,” says Arup’s Guthrie.

Public communications aside, the building sector itself is “not very innovative,” Eveillard says.

Those in the room may be keen to do more, but the wider industry is slow to adopt green materials and technology.

Sandrine Dixson-Decleve, director of the Prince of Wales Corporate Leaders Group and co-host of the discussion with Track0, urges advocates to face up to the challenge.

“If everyone says energy efficiency is the low hanging fruit, why the hell haven’t we got where we wanted to?” she asks. “We have to rally ourselves behind a narrative.”

The post Low carbon experts mull iconic buildings for green makeovers appeared first on Climate Home News.

Energy efficiency in EU steel production has not improved since 2008 (Pic: colink/Flickr)

By Gerard Wynn

EU leaders met this week to discuss how to improve the region’s energy security, but seem unaware that the energy efficiency of key industrial sectors is falling.

A new assessment by the European Environment Agency (EEA) shows that the energy efficiency of European heavy industry has fallen since the financial crisis, for the first time in a decade. The assessment is supported by data showing declining energy efficiency in Britain among sectors including food, chemicals and steel.

The data show that it is vital that the EU invests in energy efficiency, to arrest manufacturing declines.

The decline in industrial efficiency contrasts with a brighter picture among other sectors, where residential energy use, for example, has seen consistent falls over the past two decades.

Industry is the third biggest consumer of energy in the EU (at 26 percent of the total), behind transport (32 percent) and buildings (40 percent), the EEA report says.

Energy efficiency is important in the European Union, to maintain cost competitiveness compared with economic rivals including the United States, many of which have much lower gas and electricity prices. It is also the lowest cost way to cut carbon emissions and reduce dependence on fossil fuel imports for example from Russia.

The prospect of declining industrial efficiency should be a concern for EU leaders who met on Thursday and Friday to discuss their latest “energy union” strategy, which is principally targeted at boosting the region’s energy security.

Report: Business leaders call for low carbon EU energy union

But the energy union strategy focuses on the efficiency of transport and buildings; the European Commission ignores industrial efficiency, in its communication on the energy union. Commission analysis refers to improvements in energy efficiency since 2001, which misses the deteriorating trend since 2008.

In a blog posted on Wednesday, the European Commissioner for energy and climate, Miguel Arias Canete, wrote: “Between 2001 and 2011 EU companies improved their energy intensity by 19% compared to 9% in the US. This has allowed them to maintain the same level of energy costs per million euro of added value as their US competitors, despite the latter benefiting from much lower energy prices.”

One measure of energy efficiency is energy intensity, which is defined as energy consumption per unit of output.

There are various explanations why energy intensity is actually rising in certain industrial sectors, after a decade or more of falls.

One significant factor is that these industries have fixed costs and energy use, which did not fall in proportion to a slump in output during the financial crisis, leading to an overall rise in energy intensity.

That drop in output has persisted since the end of the recession.

In addition, the recession led to a drop in investment, for example in equipment upgrades and new factories, which are usually a major opportunity for improving energy efficiency. This is an area that the energy union strategy can address – Europe’s heavy industry must invest in efficiency to compete, as well as meet carbon emissions targets. Ignoring the sector in the Commission’s main communication on energy union does not bode well.

Comment: How significant is news that CO2 energy emissions stalled in 2014?

As Karsten Neuhoff, who has published widely on this topic, told me in correspondence for this blog:

“The significant reduction of demand has resulted in lower utilisation rates, which explains some level of lower efficiency. Historically most improvements have occurred with addition of new or replacement of old plants, and during major refurbishments.

“With falling demand and very low margins linked to the economic crisis (steel demand is still 20% below pre crisis level and expected to not recover), very limited such investments will have occurred.”

The EEA assessment reported in January: “Since 2008, in the steel, cement and chemicals industries there were no more improvements (in energy intensity), and even a reverse trend with an increasing specific consumption.”

The data did not disaggregate industrial sectors, but showed that falls in the energy intensity of industry overall had slowed since the onset of the financial crisis, and had failed to match continuing falls in the household and transport sectors (see following chart).

Energy intensity of industrial sectors in EU28 (Source: EEA)

Britain’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) also published efficiency data in January, in its report, “Energy Efficiency Statistical Summary 2015”. The DECC report showed that energy intensity was flat or rising in the “iron and steel”, “food, drink and tobacco” and “chemicals” sectors (see chart below).

Rising energy intensity in these sectors contributed to a broader rise across industry as a whole.

DECC attributed the problem to falling output following the onset of the financial crisis. “Industrial energy intensity can be affected by changes in the volume of output. Increases in energy intensity can be seen in many industries during the recession as the volume of output fell faster than the energy use.”

The idea of an energy union, where EU countries exploit indigenous energy resources while cutting consumption, is a good one. However, at present the strategy has failed to recognise the new threat of falling industrial energy efficiency, and is directing resources into sectors which are already performing better. The EU must invest in the efficiency of industry, too, where its manufacturing competitiveness is at stake.

This article was first published on the Energy and Carbon Blog

The post EU energy union fails to tackle falling industrial efficiency appeared first on Climate Home News.

Insulate for Europe: IPPR argues energy efficiency should be a priority to reduce reliance on Russian gas (Pic: Flickr/Jack Amick + UN Photos)

By Megan Darby

Europe should set an ambitious energy efficiency target to slash reliance on Russian gas, a think-tank has recommended.

A target to improve energy efficiency 35% by 2030 would cut EU dependence on gas by a third, IPPR said in a report. That is equivalent to the proportion of demand met by Russia.

The European Commission has proposed a 30% energy efficiency target as part of the 2030 climate and energy framework. The package, which also targets 40% emissions reduction and 27% renewable energy share, is to be finalised in October.

IPPR, a centre-left policy research group based in London, called on European leaders to crank up all three targets, with a particular focus on energy saving.

Joss Garman, IPPR associate fellow, said: “The crisis in Ukraine has reignited the debate in Europe over whether the package of energy policies that the continent’s leaders are aiming to agree in October should include a binding 2030 target on energy efficiency.

“This is because the countries that are most dependent on Russian gas are also the least fuel-efficient, and improvements in energy efficiency could vastly reduce the scale of our dependency on Russia.”

Ukraine conflict

Out of 28 EU member states, 24 import gas from Russia, the report highlighted. Half of that flows through the Ukraine, which for the past five months has been a conflict zone.

The UN estimates 3,000 people have died in the violence between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian government forces.

The EU blames Russia for stoking the conflict – a charge the Kremlin denies – and is imposing sanctions on Russian energy producers.

Given that the bloc spends around €31 billion a year with Russia on gas imports alone, the energy sector is an important target for economic sanctions.

However, Brussels’ ability to penalise Russia through its energy sector is limited by its heavy reliance on the country for oil and gas supplies. Six member states count on Russia for all their gas.

The Ukraine crisis has boosted energy security up the European agenda. Proposals for an energy efficiency target formed part of that drive.

Strong signal – also to Putin – EU Commission proposes to increase #energyefficiency to 30% in #EU2030

— Connie Hedegaard (@CHedegaardEU) July 23, 2014

Garman said: “The European Commission did not initially propose a 2030 energy efficiency target, but at least seven European governments – including Germany but also crisis-hit countries such as Greece and Portugal – strongly favour setting one.

“It is both the cheapest means of cutting carbon output, and essential for improving European energy security.”

Neil Morissetti, former UK climate envoy and rear admiral, endorsed the report and even suggested going further.

He said: “Recent events in Ukraine and the Middle East have served to highlight the vulnerability of our energy supplies and the political straitjacket that results from our over-dependence on fossil fuel imports from these volatile regions.

“The quickest and most effective form of energy security is to use less. EU leaders are currently discussing whether to mandate energy efficiency improvements of 30% by 2030; studies show that we can go to 40% without incurring economic penalties, and Ukraine shows that we must.

“Investing in energy efficiency and domestic sources of energy like wind, solar, wave and nuclear power will also improve the EU’s competitiveness with the US and China, and bring health benefits by reducing air pollution.”

In a separate report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) described energy efficiency as a “hidden fuel” that was “routinely and significantly undervalued”.

Under existing energy efficiency policies, two thirds of economically viable measures between now and 2035 will not happen, it said.

Bridging this gap will boost the global economy by US$18 trillion over that period, the IEA estimated. That is more than the combined annual output of the USA, Canada and Mexico.

Carbon price

Not everyone agrees an energy efficiency target is the way forward. The UK government, for one, has consistently pushed for a single 2030 carbon reduction target, with measures to strengthen the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS).

Its line is that the ETS will make sure carbon cuts are achieved at the lowest cost. Specific renewable and energy efficiency targets undermine that carbon price signal, the UK government argues.

Advocates for those low carbon sectors, on the contrary, say the carbon price is too low and volatile to base investment decisions on. Targets provide more long term certainty.

The UK should review its position in light of the Ukraine crisis, according to Garman: “Britain should overcome its aversion to an energy efficiency target as part of its broader response to Russian aggression.”

The IPPR also recommended increasing the 2030 carbon cutting target to 50% and the renewable energy target to 30%.

A tranche of pollution allowances under the ETS should be cancelled and the proposed “market stability reserve” brought in by 2016, the report said.

Energy union

It rejected the “energy union” solutions proposed by Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister and European Council president elect. Dealing with the security threat from Russia will be one of Tusk’s top priorities in his new role.

Tusk’s vision is built around fossil fuels: rehabilitating coal, which generates 90% of Poland’s electricity, and diversifying supplies of gas.

Europe’s strategy will also be shaped by the commissioners appointed to energy and climate change, due to be announced by Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker this week. A leaked organisation chart tipped Latvia’s Valdis Dombrovskis and UK representative Jonathan Hill for these portfolios.

IPPR said any increase in coal burning, the most carbon-intensive form of power generation, would be “completely inconsistent with any efforts to build a low carbon economy”.

What is more, Europe buys almost a third of its coal from Russia.

Developing new gas routes would be costly and do little to reduce exposure to price volatility, the report argued. The role of fracking new shale gas resources will be “marginal”.

Instead, the think-tank wants Europe to protect its first-mover advantage in green industries.

Europe’s 2030 package will be signed off too late to present at the Ban Ki-moon climate summit on 23 September, which Garman said was “frustrating”. The one-day meeting in New York is an opportunity for heads of state to pledge action on climate change.

However, it will be a vital input to the global climate deal set to be agreed in Paris next year.

The US and China are “making the running in global climate talks” and renewed leadership from Europe could make a positive outcome more likely, the report said.

The post EU efficiency push could counter Russian energy dominance appeared first on Climate Home News.

Pic: MOD

By Sophie Yeo in Newport

NATO has continued to acknowledge that climate change poses a security threat to its 28 member states, but has offered no significant revisions to its previous statements on the topic.

The military alliance published the Wales Communique today, reflecting two days of intense discussions between heads of state and defence staff in Newport, South Wales.

“Key environmental and resource constraints, including health risks, climate change, water scarcity, and increasing energy needs will further shape the future security environment in areas of concern to NATO and have the potential to significantly affect NATO planning and operations,” reads the only mention of climate change.

It is exactly the same as the paragraph which appeared in NATO’s last communique, released in 2012 at the Chicago Summit.

While NATO recognised climate change as an emerging security concept in 2010, it fell by the wayside at the Newport summit as world leaders faced the urgent military threats of Russia, Afghanistan and ISIS.

Jamie Shea, deputy assistant secretary general for emerging security threats at NATO, said that its inclusion in the Communique sent a good signal for more significant consideration of the topic in the future, and that it “implies the need for NATO to keep this under close monitoring.”

He said: “It’s there and I know that sometimes in the NGO community people may not be very impressed by that, but it’s important for us because it gives us a so-called hook that we can use to put these issues more into the agenda.”

The Communique also built on NATO’s previous commitments towards energy security, saying that the organisations would “continue to work towards significantly improving the energy efficiency of our military forces.”

The EU in particular has focused on the security benefits that energy efficiency and home grown renewable energy resources can bring—a connection that has been thrust on to the agenda by political tensions with Russia, which controls around a third of EU gas supplies.

The communique instructed the North Atlantic Council to produce a progress report on energy security by the next summit, which will take place in Poland in 2016.

The post NATO recycles old commitments on climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Source: Flickr/European Parliament)

By Megan Darby

Europe should aim for energy efficiency savings of 30% by 2030, leading officials in Brussels say.

The European Commission proposed the target, which is set against business-as-usual projections, in a review published on Wednesday.

The goal is the last element of a three-part climate policy package for 2030 to be developed.

Draft proposals in January called for a 40% cut in carbon emissions and a 27% renewable energy target. The framework is still subject to negotiation and due to be finalised by October.

As well as playing a role in climate policy, energy efficiency has come to the fore in recent months as a means to reduce European reliance on Russian fossil fuel imports.

Tensions in the Ukraine, exacerbated by the shooting down of Malaysian airliner MH17 last week, have called into question a major supply route for oil and gas.

Strong signal – also to Putin – EU Commission proposes to increase #energyefficiency to 30% in #EU2030

— Connie Hedegaard (@CHedegaardEU) July 23, 2014

Energy commissioner Gunther Oettinger said: “Our proposal is the basis to drive the EU towards increased security of supply, innovation and sustainability, all in an affordable way.

“It is ambitious and at the same time it is realistic. The energy efficiency strategy will complete the 2030 framework on energy and climate which has been presented in January 2014.

“Our aim is to give the right signal to the market and encourage further investments in energy saving technologies to the benefit of businesses, consumers and the environment.”

The announcement was delayed due to last-minute wrangling over the level of ambition.

Climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard backed savings of 30% to 35% on 1990 levels.

Jean-Claude Juncker, who takes up the Commission presidency in November, also expressed his support for a target of 30% or more.

Current Commission president Manuel Barroso, on the other hand, favoured a target of 27% to 29%. He argued a higher target would undermine the emissions trading system – a market-based approach to cutting emissions through carbon pricing.

Marcus Ferdinand, head of EU carbon analysis at Thompson Reuters, explained: “A higher energy efficiency target would result in lower emissions. With lower emissions, European carbon prices would not incentivize the desired amount of abatement in the traded sectors. This bears the potential to downgrade the European carbon market from being the central pillar of European climate policy.”

According to Ferdinand’s projections, the 30% target will lead to an average carbon price of €15 a tonne between 2021 and 2030, 19% lower than under business as usual. This rises to €25/t if the Commission implements plans for a “market stability reserve” to combat an over-supply of carbon allowances.

He concluded: “The market stability reserve is outweighing by far the slightly bearish impact of the proposed energy efficiency target by supporting European carbon prices until the end of the next decade.”

EU Greens: don’t fall for EU Commission spin that 30% EE ‘ambitious’. NGOs: 30% EE is only business as usual. #EU2030 #EnergyEfficiency

— StollmeyerAlice (@StollmeyerEU) July 23, 2014

For every 1% energy saving, the Commission estimates EU gas imports will decrease by 2.6%, helping with energy security.

The announcement also highlighted the potential for energy bill savings from lower consumption and to create business opportunities in construction and equipment manufacture.

As well as proposing a level of ambition for future energy savings, the Commission reviewed member states’ performance.

At current rates of progress, the EU will miss its non-binding 2020 target of 20%. It is on course to achieve 18% or 19%, but the Commission said it would “act decisively” to get the bloc back on track.

However it has succeeded in breaking the link between economic growth and energy consumption.

Energy consumption stayed roughly flat across Europe between 1995 and 2013 while GDP grew by 34%.

New buildings today use half the energy of those built in the 1980s, according to the Commission. Energy intensity of European industry fell 19% between 2001 and 2011.

The post Europe proposes 30% energy savings target for 2030 appeared first on Climate Home News.

Pic: Lisbon Council/Flickr

By Sophie Yeo

Designated European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker supported a 30% minimum target for energy efficiency across the EU in a speech before the Parliament today.

Confirmed as the next Commission president by MEPs today, Juncker called for a binding energy efficiency target and more renewable energy across the 28-state bloc.

“A binding 30% energy efficiency target is for me the minimum,” he said.

The EU is currently working on a package of measures guiding climate policy up to 2030.

These proposals, put forward by the Commission and due to be finalised by the Council in October, set a 40% target for greenhouse gas reductions and a 27% target for renewable energy.

An energy efficiency target is still pending. The EU is not on track to meet its current efficiency goal of 20%, which is non-binding for member states.

The formal legislation will be drawn up under Juncker’s mandate after he starts his tenure as Commission president in November, following the approval of the general principles in October.

Energy efficiency has received greater attention in recent months as a means to boost the EU’s energy security by reducing the need to import gas from Russia – an argument that could help to win around eastern European countries that are concerned about the costs of upgrading to a more efficient infrastructure.

Some green groups have called for a 40% binding energy efficiency target. Analysis by consultants at Ecofys suggests that this higher target could mean the EU’s overall greenhouse gas emissions goal is more easily achieved.

“I find it encouraging that Juncker has made this commitment, but the number is something that still has to be discussed,” said Stefan Scheuer, head of the Brussels-based Coalition for Energy Savings, which supports a 40% target. “We believe 30% is a number that would represent a continuation of existing policies.”

Energy Union

In a document setting out his policy agenda for the EU, Juncker said that he would also support a European Energy Union, which would see a common energy policy implemented by member states.

Key to this energy union would be renewables, he said, adding that Europe should be “number one” in this field.

“This is not only a matter of a responsible climate change policy. It is, at the same time, an industrial policy imperative if we still want to have affordable energy at our disposal in the medium term. I strongly believe in the potential of green growth,” he writes.

He added that the EU should continue to lead in the international climate negotiations, which are supposed to conclude next year in Paris with a global deal that will keep global warming below dangerous levels. “We owe this to future generations,” he says.

Last week, Juncker told Green party MEPs that he was opposed to fracking – a controversial method of extracting shale gas condemned by many green groups and some member states. France has a moratorium on the technology.

Mark Breddy, Greenpeace EU spokesperson, welcomed Juncker’s remarks: “Some of Juncker’s statements are encouraging. He recognises the importance of renewables and energy efficiency to make Europe more competitive and less dependent on imported energy. He also realises that Europe’s credibility on climate change depends on progress in these areas.

“But speeches are one thing, action is something else. We’ll judge Juncker on his political record.”

The post Juncker supports 30% energy efficiency target for EU appeared first on Climate Home News.

By Megan Darby

Do energy efficiency targets work?

At the current rate of improvement, Europe is on course to miss its goal of a 20% energy efficiency saving by 2020.

All the same, officials are developing plans for a 2030 energy efficiency target.

Tensions in the Ukraine have highlighted the need to reduce Europe’s reliance on fossil fuel imports, but there is still disagreement over how ambitious to be on energy saving.

We asked two experts for their views.

Simon Moore, senior research fellow for environment and energy, Policy Exchange

Energy efficiency has often looked neglected among the options for tackling climate change.

Although efficiency improvements are generally far cheaper as a way of cutting carbon than new generation investments, efficiency has been low in the order of policy priorities.

The ‘aspirational’ energy efficiency portion of the 20-20-20 package contrasts with the fully binding status accorded to the targets on renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions.

Still, the question policymakers face with the 2030 package is not whether energy efficiency is in principle desirable, but whether a target (binding or not) is the best way to achieve it.

Within the sectors already capped by the emissions trading system (ETS), there’s little extra environmental effect that an energy efficiency target can have. The cap determines emissions.

Where an efficiency target could be of more use is in the remaining parts of the economy – heating, transport and so on. Current carbon pricing arrangements either neglect these areas completely, or treat them in a disjointed and haphazard fashion.

Energy efficiency requirements in these sectors may be less helpful than carbon pricing in finding the optimal mix of improvements in these areas, and if efficiency is as cost effective at cutting carbon as its advocates claim, it should be able to prevail in a carbon priced world without additional target-setting.

But an economy-wide carbon price has proven elusive, and in the near term targets may be more politically attainable and more easily applied. Still, if Europe wants to make energy efficiency a separate priority out to 2030, it should focus on the areas outside the ETS.

Ingrid Holmes, associate director, E3G 

What is the value of targets? Certainly targets on their own won’t deliver the energy efficiency investment needed. To find meaning in targets we need to look wider at issues of communication and motivation.

First: communication.

Targets are important for businesses investing in the energy efficiency goods and services supply chain. Targets signal the potential size of the market: important when considering whether to invest in a skilled workforce and in factories.

They are also important to Europe signalling its ambition on climate action globally. December 2015 is the deadline for a new global deal on climate action with legal force and ambition.

The EU needs to put an ambitious offer on the table if we are to stand a chance of catalysing the shift in country stances on climate action to the point where we can avoid dangerous climate change. Are non-binding targets enough?

To answer this we need to think about my second point: motivation.

Political motivation is needed to develop the new market frameworks that will unlock energy efficiency at scale and delivering the end investment needed.

Tony Robson CEO of Knauf Insulation sums up the issue neatly when he said “Unfortunately, we live in a world where, without legislation, energy efficiency does not ‘just happen’”.

He goes on to state that in the absence of discussion of a binding target for energy efficiency he is looking outside the EU for investment opportunities in areas such as Turkey, the US and Malaysia. Need I say more?

What next?

The European Commission is set to formally adopt a position on the 2030 energy efficiency target later this month. This will combine with goals to cut greenhouse gas emissions and grow the renewable energy sector as part of a 2030 package, which is expected to be signed off in October.

The post Energy efficiency targets: what are they good for? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Pic: European Parliament/Flickr

By Megan Darby

European leaders have directed officials to come up with an energy efficiency target for 2030, prompted by ongoing tensions between Russia and Ukraine.

The conflict over one of Europe’s key gas supply routes has given fresh impetus to the drive to cut energy consumption and dependence on imported fuels.

The European Commission is considering an energy saving target of between 27% and 35% by 2030, with the final proposals due out later this month. There are reportedly internal divisions over the level of ambition to recommend.

The leaders of European member states stressed the importance of energy efficiency at a European Council meeting last Friday.

A note on the conclusions of the talks stated: “Geopolitical events, the worldwide energy competition and the impact of climate change are triggering a rethink of our energy and climate strategy. We must avoid Europe relying to such a high extent on fuel and gas imports.

“To ensure our energy future is under full control, we want to build an Energy Union aiming at affordable, secure and sustainable energy. Energy efficiency is essential, since the cheapest and cleanest energy is that which is not consumed.”

Internal divisions

Despite the endorsement from national leaders, some parties are reluctant to commit to an ambitious target as this could undermine the role of carbon pricing.

Sources close to the matter say climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard is pushing to cut energy consumption by 30% to 35% compared to business as usual projections.

These two options are included in a draft proposal seen by RTCC, although commission president Jose Manuel Barroso is arguing for a 27% target.

According to the draft proposal, the 30% option would maintain the momentum from this decade’s drive for a 20% energy efficiency saving.

ANALYSIS: Why the EU’s climate targets matter beyond Brussels

The bloc is presently on track to deliver 18% to 19% by 2020, but officials say in the draft document: “After years of hesitation, Europe’s energy efficiency policy is starting to deliver.”

An alternative wording recommended increasing the rate of effort, “taking into account the increased importance of energy efficiency in the context of the European Energy Security Strategy, and the important role that energy efficiency can play in promoting growth and jobs”. That line was dropped from a later draft.

The 27% figure, meanwhile, is closer to the indicative level in the 2030 climate and energy framework documents published in January.

That package targeted a 40% cut in greenhouse gas emissions and a 27% share of renewables in the energy mix. It did not specify an energy efficiency target but suggested that the most cost-efficient level of savings was 25%.

Carbon price trade-off

One reason given for aiming lower on energy efficiency is that a high target would undermine the carbon price set by the emissions trading system (ETS).

There are separate measures under development to make the ETS more effective. A proposed market stability reserve would withhold pollution permits from the market at times of surplus, boosting the price.

The carbon market was intended to reduce emissions as efficiently as possible. Yet the price of allowances is chronically low, at around €5, making it a weak signal for low carbon investment. Advocates of the ETS blame the industry-specific renewables and energy efficiency targets for undermining the market.

Brook Riley, director of EU climate policy for Friends of the Earth, acknowledged the trade-off, but said energy savings and renewables should not be sacrificed to focus on the ETS.

“Why not do the smart thing and go for a higher greenhouse gas target which would require all the policy options to pull their weight?” he said.

The post Brussels divided on 2030 energy saving target appeared first on Climate Home News.

By Gerard Wynn

Nearly half of European United countries have decided against a large scale rollout of smart meters, calculating that the new technology can be poor value for money.

Digital smart meters are a big innovation over present analogue versions, allowing grid operators and utilities to view power consumption at the household level, but they also involve a significant upfront cost.

EU member states were supposed to replace at least 80% of all electricity meter with “smart” versions by 2020, provided that they found smart meters saved money in the long run, under the Energy Efficiency Directive.

Only 16 out of 28 countries in the bloc found a conclusive net benefit, however, according to a new report from the European Commission.

The European Commission painted an upbeat view of the rollout proceeding in those countries, but acknowledged the set back.

“The business case for rolling out smart metering is not yet overwhelming throughout Europe,” the Commission said, in its report, “Benchmarking smart metering deployment in the EU-27”.

“Sixteen Member States will proceed with large-scale roll-out of smart meters by 2020 or earlier, or have already done so.”

“In seven Member States, the cost-benefit analysis for large-scale roll-out by 2020 were negative or inconclusive. In Germany, Latvia and Slovakia smart metering was found to be economically justified for particular groups of customers. For four Member States, the cost benefit analysis or rollout plans were not available at the time of writing.”

COST

The Commission report found a huge range of values for costs and benefits per smart meter across the different member states.

Costs ranged from 77 to 766 euros per meter, and benefits from 18 to 654 euros.

Some of the differences in cost were down to technical accounting issues, such as the assumed lifetime of the meter, rather than actual differences such as in installation or labour costs.

The smart meter rollout is part of the EU’s 2009 “third energy package” meant to achieve an internal energy market targeting secure and affordable energy.

Other measures under the package include linking cross-border markets, so that electricity flows from cheaper to more expensive countries.

Smart meters allow two-way communication between a house and utility, whether by cable or wireless, replacing present meters which simply measure household electricity consumption.

Utilities benefit by reading meters remotely, rather than manually at present.

And they would allow grid operators to balance power demand and supply better, by having real-time data on electricity consumption at the household instead of electricity sub-station level.

Where the meters can communicate with individual plugs or appliances in the home, they would also allow utilities to shut down power supply for households in return for cheaper tariffs.

Such “demand response” could revolutionise grid management, giving operators an alternative tool for managing surges in electricity demand, as well as variable wind and solar power supply.

Instead of investing in new power generation, they could pay consumers not to use electricity during demand surges. Such so-called “peak load shifting” could save billions of euros by allowing countries to avoid investing in new power generation, much of which is presently kept idle.

But not all smart meters have such demand response functionality yet.

Smart meters could also help consumers to monitor their energy use and even control appliances remotely by smart phone.

But the European Commission report found that smart meters in seven of the 16 countries proceeding with a large scale rollout did not have the functionality to report consumption data back to consumers.

Some consumer groups are concerned at the amount of detailed household data which smart meters give to utilities, including how many people are in the house in real time. The EU’s efficiency law protects such consumer data, the Commission report said.

“A high level of personal data protection must remain a central concern in the development of smart standards.”

“An intensive communication effort is required to help consumers understand their rights, the benefits of installing smart meters and participating in demand response programmes. Consumers should be informed about the functionalities, what data will be collected, and what these data will be used for.”

The post Smart meters are poor value, find 10 EU countries appeared first on Climate Home News.

By Gerard Wynn

Russia will have to liberalise energy prices, upgrade its infrastructure, curb domestic demand and appeal to foreign investors to reap the benefit of its oil and gas resources, the International Energy Agency said.

Such measures would boost the country’s competitiveness, turn around a sluggish economy, and help cut carbon emissions to tackle climate changes which would impact Russia, the IEA added.

Russia would have to attract foreign investors, to develop unconventional oil and gas resources and maintain output, where western condemnation of Moscow’s annexation of Crimea may not have helped.

“These challenges will require large investments in a range of USD 100 billion per year over the next 20 years, mainly from private domestic and foreign sources,” the IEA said in its report, “Russia 2014”.

“Infrastructure in the electricity and heat sectors is ageing and needs rapid replacement and modernisation: This poses risks to the country’s energy security (especially for heat and power supplies), as well as its competitiveness and well‐being.”

SLUGGISH

Russia’s economy is sluggish even while hitting record oil production and enjoying prices consistently above $100 a barrel.

“In spite of record high liquids production (close to 11 million barrels per day) and oil price levels (about USD 110 per barrel for the Urals), Russia’s oil and gas sectors are no longer sufficient to ensure steady and robust economic growth as the economy has slowed since the end of 2012 to growth levels of around 1.5%.”

Regulated power and heating prices and the absence of residential heat metering were not helping, by boosting energy consumption.

“The government’s recent decision to freeze regulated tariff increases may have limited a loss in competitiveness in the short term and inflation, but is sending the wrong signal for energy efficiency and is likely to slow down infrastructure investments as well as end‐use energy efficiency investments.”

The IEA highlighted energy waste as a key threat, given the country was using twice as much energy per unit of GDP compared with OECD countries, of which Russia is not a member.

“Energy efficiency investments in the industrial sector, but also in the residential sector, have not occurred at the required pace. Russia’s energy‐intensive goods are facing increasing global competition in domestic and export markets.”

“A strong and effective energy efficiency policy would foster the competitiveness of the Russian economy, help diversify economic activity, increase energy exports and enhance energy supply security.”

“The modernisation of the Russian economy and energy sector depends to a large extent on energy efficiency deployment as the potential is huge in the industrial, residential, transport sectors and especially in the district heating and power generation sectors. In most of these areas, it can be achieved at relatively low cost.”

The post Russia failing to reap benefit of oil and gas – IEA appeared first on Climate Home News.

By Gerard Wynn

Only three European Union member states have made sufficient steps to meet annual energy savings targets under the bloc’s recent revised efficiency law, a report found on Wednesday.

The findings followed a warning by the EU’s executive that more than half of the 28 member states had failed to adopt efficiency standards for buildings, under an additional, buildings performance law.

Under the Energy Efficiency Directive, countries have to achieve energy savings equivalent to 1.5 percent of annual consumption from 2014 to 2020.

EU countries have until the end of this month to show how they intend to achieve the goal, under their National Energy Efficiency Action Plans.

Many have opted to require electricity utilities to make the savings, for example by upgrading home insulation and passing the extra costs to energy consumers.

Most EU countries would fail to meet the target, the Coalition for Energy Savings said in a report published on Wednesday.

“Only three plans, Denmark, Ireland and Croatia, out of the 27 published, provide a credible and meaningful case for how the governments will achieve their savings targets,” the lobby group said.

“Overall, the plans are a weak start for implementation. A lot more needs to be done rapidly to ensure commitments to energy efficiency are honoured and legal requirements are respected.”

“The most common problems concern incorrect calculation of the savings target; eligibility of measures, in particular, energy taxation; additionality of the savings (such as savings from buildings standards which may not be above the EU minimum requirements); and double counting of the same savings resulting from different measures.”

The Energy Efficiency Directive has set an overall, non-binding target for the bloc to improve its energy efficiency by 20 percent by 2020 compared with 1990 levels.

The European Commission may make recommendations for additional targets through 2030, in a review of the present directive which it is due to publish in June.

Buildings

Efficiency has acquired extra significance in the wake of the Ukraine crisis, which has shown how energy-dependent the EU is on Russia.

The EU does not have access to the fossil fuel resources of economic rivals including the United States and China. In 2012, its oil and gas import bill was more than €400 billion, far exceeding China and the United States. The International Energy Agency projects rising import dependency.

Wednesday’s report came the day after an announcement by the European Commission that it was taking Belgium and Finland to court over their failure to adopt into national law measures under the EU’s Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.

Under the EU law, member states had to establish and apply minimum energy performance requirements for all buildings; ensure the certification of buildings’ energy performance; and require the regular inspection of heating and air conditioning systems.

In addition, the directive requires that Member States ensure that all new buildings are so-called nearly zero-energy buildings by 2021.

“Using less energy is paramount for ensuring security of supply in Europe,” said Günther Oettinger, the EU Energy Commissioner.

“40% of EU energy consumption is in the buildings’ sector and it is here where the most energy can be saved.”

In addition to Belgium and Finland, the Commission said that it had concerns over the implementation of the buildings directive by another 13 EU countries.

The post Just three EU countries on track to meet energy savings target – report appeared first on Climate Home News.

Source: Flickr/eyeweed

By Gerard Wynn

Britain’s falling energy consumption is now a continuing trend which contrasts with the United States, and shows how countries can boost competitiveness by investing in efficiency as well as curbing energy prices.

The European Union is much concerned about the fact that its energy prices are rising faster than almost any other region or country in the world, with an implied threat to the bloc’s competitiveness.

In particular, European energy-intensive industry points out that US gas prices are now a fraction of those in Europe, as a result of US shale gas extraction.

However, energy costs and competitiveness are a function of consumption as well as price.

The latest energy data show that energy consumption is going in different directions in the United States and Britain, rising in one and falling in the other.

That is good news for the EU, because the bloc, like Japan, has limited fossil fuel resources and so depends on efficiency to compete in energy-intensive sectors including metals, chemicals and cement.

Of course, any comparison with the United States should take account of the possibility that it is not only superior British efficiency which is curbing national energy consumption, but higher energy prices driving industry out of business, or offshore.

Falling demand

Britain published its 2013 energy data at the end of last month.

Both primary and final energy consumption are declining, on a weather-adjusted basis after taking into account fluctuations for example when a cold winter increases heating demand.

Primary energy consumption records all use, including the energy used to convert fuels into final energy carriers or products such as electricity and gasoline. Final energy consumption measures only final use, and so excludes losses in power generation and oil refining.

Total British primary energy consumption has now fallen year on year since 2005.

That is a remarkable feat, showing how consumption is falling even as the national economy grew immediately before and since the global financial crisis.

The British statistics showed that in 2013 demand for oil, gas and electricity all fell.

In the United States, by contrast, there has been a far less consistent trend since the global financial crisis.

Before the crisis, primary energy consumption rose steadily almost year on year, but since then the trend has been broadly flat, since the US economy started growing again.

Trend

In the early release version of its 2014 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2014), the US Energy Information Administration forecast that US energy consumption would rise steadily through 2040.

“Total primary energy consumption grows by 12% in the AEO2014 Reference case, from 95 quadrillion Btu in 2012 to 106 quadrillion Btu in 2040,” it said.

By contrast, Britain has forecast continuing falls in total energy demand through the early 2020s, reflecting the impact of energy saving policies, in its “Updated energy and emissions projections 2013”.

“Final energy demand is projected to fall until 2022. The projections then increase … as existing policies run out and new policies are not yet shown. However, the projected level of final energy demand in 2030 still remains below that for 2010.”

“The absence by assumption of new energy saving programmes is the key reason for the increase (after 2022).”

The implication is that British energy consumption will continue to fall after 2022, assuming new, equivalent energy saving policies are introduced.

Important among those policies will be the extension of the present Energy Efficiency Directive (EED), which sets energy consumption limits through 2020 across EU member states.

The European Commission is expected to announce further proposals to support efficiency through 2030, in its review of the EED, due in June.

Recent energy consumption trends in Britain and the United States suggest that a continued focus on energy savings can help maintain EU competitiveness, even as its energy prices rise.

The post Efficiency measures pay off as UK energy use falls appeared first on Climate Home News.

LED lighting display in Kings Cross, London (Source: RTCC)

By Gerard Wynn

The cost of ultra efficient LED lamps will more than halve by the end of the decade, and their efficiency almost double, the US Department of Energy said on Wednesday.

Such advances would further cement the technology’s transformation of the world lighting market.

Light emitting diode (LEDs) are taking over because of their greater efficiency, longer lifetimes and adaptability to smart digital services including remote wireless control.

European companies presently lead in the manufacture of LEDs, with two of the top four producers in Netherlands-based Philips and Germany’s OSRAM, in an increasingly crowded market with about 6,000 competitors, according to the independent analysts Frost & Sullivan.

Such rising competition reflects the scale of opportunity, with LEDs making rapid inroads in the $100 billion annual global lamp market.

Halved cost

LEDs are made of semiconductors that convert electrical current into light. Light bulb efficiency is measured in light output per unit of power consumption, defined as lumens per watt.

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) is the statistical arm of the Department of Energy, and reported its projections for LED prices and efficiency through the rest of the decade, in an early release of its set-piece Annual Energy Outlook which will be published in full in April.

LEDs would produce more than 150 lumens per watt by 2020, compared with present performance of about 83 lumens, the EIA said.

That would put LEDs further ahead of the competition. Traditional incandescent lamps presently produce only 16 lumens of light output per watt, while halogen incandescent lamps produce nearly 20 lumens and equivalent compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) provide about 67 lumens, the EIA said.

LEDs are more expensive than their rivals, but prices have plummeted 85% since 2008, according to the Department of Energy.

The EIA projected that costs would continue to fall, more than halving to less than $5 in 2020, from about $10 now for an LED-equivalent to a traditional 60 watt incandescent bulb.

The EIA was unclear whether it was referring to the cost of production, or retail price of LEDs; online suppliers are presently retailing 60W-equivalent LEDs for as little as $10 each.

LEDs have the additional advantage of a longer lifespan: the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that LEDs presently last 30,000 to 50,000 hours, compared with 8,000 to 10,000 hours for CFLs and 1,000 hours for a typical incandescent bulb.

Competition

LEDs presently account for about a fifth of global annual lighting sales and this will rise to nearly half in 2017, with sales growing around 32% annually, according to Frost & Sullivan.

LED lamps are an example of the potential for efficiency technologies to address both competitiveness and climate goals, two agendas sometimes considered at loggerheads.

Leadership in the LED market confers huge export opportunities, while their superior efficiency could also help meet targets to curb carbon emissions, given that lighting accounts for about 15% of global electricity consumption, most of which is generated from burning fossil fuels.

“As efficiency increases, residential electricity consumption for lighting declines over time,” the EIA said on Wednesday.

The United States has introduced efficiency standards for lighting which ratchet over time under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. At the start of this year traditional 40W-60W incandescent bulbs were withdrawn from sale, following 75W-100W bulbs. The EU has phased out incandescent bulbs.

Asia narrowly leads in LED market penetration, a recent report by the analysts McKinsey shows, suggesting that the EU can be more ambitious on efficiency, as European leaders met in Brussels on Thursday to discuss energy and climate targets through 2030.

The post LED costs to halve as efficiency doubles by 2020 – US Dept of Energy appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Source: Flickr / motiqua)

By Gerard Wynn

This week’s European Council meeting will discuss how to spur Europe’s flagging economy, boost jobs and growth, all while debating targets for energy and climate through 2030.  

Energy efficiency is one of the few tools that can address all these, as well as the Ukraine crisis, by cutting costs and reducing fossil fuel demand.

Cutting energy costs is a no-brainer for an economic union with some of the world’s highest power and gas prices.

But there are signs that the EU is falling behind China in some sectors like cement, confounding European industry rhetoric that tough environmental regulations may force them to relocate to more polluting, emerging economies.

Meanwhile, efficiency can also cut fossil fuel demand, with vital spin-off benefits including fewer costly imports, lower carbon emissions and better local air quality.

The EU has the opportunity to raise its ambition on efficiency, both at the March 20-21 European Council, and when the European Commission publishes its review of the recently revised Energy Efficiency Directive, in June.

EU leaders can back efficiency with simple steps like harmonising building codes across all EU member states, thus exploiting the single market, while the Commission can propose explicit efficiency targets and support, from 2020 to 2030, under its energy and climate framework.

Under the present directive, EU member states agreed energy consumption limits through 2020 but are expected to exceed these.

Competitive gain

Energy efficiency can be viewed both at the macro level, say across an entire economy, and at the micro level, for example in home insulation.

At the macro level, the term energy intensity is more relevant, and refers to the amount of energy consumed per unit of output.

Navigating the data on energy intensity is treacherous, depending on the metrics used, for example energy consumed per dollar or per tonne of output, and from different sources, for example the EU and China.

At the very top level, however, it is clear the EU is less energy intensive than most of the world.

For example, comparing publicly available data for economic output (GDP, from the World Bank) and energy consumption (in oil equivalent, from BP), the EU consumes just 0.12 kilogrammes of oil per dollar of GDP, compared with 0.16 kg in the United States and 0.25 kg in China.

The reason why the EU has a lower energy intensity is more complicated, and includes a less energy-intensive, service economy, producing higher value added goods, as well as greater efficiency.

Costs

Given that the EU has higher energy prices than most of its economic rivals, it is imperative that the bloc maintains a lead in efficiency.

A recent report published by the research group, Climate Strategies, found India and China were now both more efficient producers of cement, with energy consumption on average 1-12% above the best available technology, compared with the EU at more than 20% above.

That finding is echoed by a European Commission study, “Energy prices and costs report”, published in January, which found that the efficiency of some European sectors was trailing the United States, China and Japan, while energy prices were rising faster.

“With scarce natural and energy resources and ambitious social and environmental goals, EU companies cannot compete on low price and low quality products,” the Commission concluded in its report, “For a European Industrial Renaissance”, published in January.

“They must turn to innovation, productivity, resource-efficiency and high value-added to compete in global markets.”

Fossil fuel demand

Energy efficiency is as relevant for security benefits.

The EU does not have access to the fossil fuel resources of China and the United States: in 2012, its oil and gas import bill was more than €400 billion, as reported in the World Energy Outlook (WEO) of the International Energy Agency.

The Ukraine crisis has shown the danger of pinning the EU’s future energy supply on Russia.

But the IEA’s WEO projected that EU energy dependency would rise over the next two decades, to 80% from 60% for gas, and to 90% from 85% for oil.

Curbing fossil fuel demand has the important spin-off of cutting carbon emissions, which is important given the evident slow pace of replacing global fossil fuels with low carbon energy sources. Less fossil fuel consumption can also cut local pollution such as ozone from burning gasoline.

Rebound

When making these confident, optimistic predictions regarding the benefits of efficiency, however, it is important to take into account a rebound effect.

That effect, also called the Jevons Paradox after the British nineteenth century economist, Stanley Jevons, refers to the problem where some of the savings from improved efficiency are simply spent on more energy consumption.

An example is where a car driver buys a more efficient vehicle, and uses the resulting savings simply to drive the car further, more often.

The big question is not whether the rebound effect exists, but its significance.

The Oxford University economist, Dieter Helm, this week dismissed the energy security benefit of improvements in energy efficiency, in a note on the European energy implications of the Crimea crisis.

In Helm’s view, curbing energy costs would simply increase demand – in other words, he assumed an almost perfect rebound effect.

“Energy efficiency is a good policy in its own right, but unfortunately is of limited consequence for security of supply,” he said.

However, reviews of the academic literature conclude that the rebound effect is far from a deal breaker.

One such recent review, published in the journal Nature in January 2013, concluded that the rebound effect was exaggerated.

“Rebound effects are small and are therefore no excuse for inaction,” the authors concluded, in a comment article, “The rebound effect is over-played”.

“Peo­ple may drive fuel-efficient cars more and they may buy other goods, but on balance more-efficient cars will save energy.  Energy-efficiency measures should be on the policy menu to curb energy use and to address global warming.”

That priority appears most urgent of all in the EU, given its rising dependence on imported oil and gas; the value it places on leading in the fight against climate change; and the imperative to maintain – or claw back – its competitive edge.

The post Analysis: efficiency can be at the heart of EU energy policy appeared first on Climate Home News.

By Jeff Beyer

We’re told that the best Christmas gifts are free.

So the second-best gifts must be those that have fast paybacks. If that’s the case, energy efficiency is the most cheerful present your business can receive this holiday season.

While they’re often overlooked, energy efficiency improvements are one of the safest and easiest opportunities for businesses to save money on their energy bills and reduce their carbon footprint.

The context of each business is different, but the Carbon Trust has found that on average, the most profitable options have been simple behaviour changes like opening or closing windows and turning off lights (changes that are very low cost), then installing basic controls like well-programmed thermostats and lighting sensors (payback less than one year).

Next best is maintaining or replacing heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration equipment (payback less than 1.5 years), then lighting and motors (under 2-year payback). With the price of LED lights continuing to tumble, their paybacks could be just a few months depending on what they’re replacing.

That’s the surprising thing about energy efficiency: the game changes really quickly as technology advances and prices fall. So even if you had an energy audit a few years ago, it might be time for another one.

IEA: energy efficiency is world’s ‘hidden’ fuel

The Carbon Trust has over a decade of experience helping businesses navigate their way through the entire energy efficiency journey.

We’ve helped over 30,000 companies identify energy efficiency opportunities, prioritise options, secure finance, buy and install equipment using accredited suppliers, and monitor and verify their success.

The results have been impressive. Organisations in the UK and elsewhere have saved £5 billion off their energy bills and over 53 million tonnes of carbon dioxide with the help of our programmes. That’s roughly as much CO₂ as is absorbed by 1.7 billion Christmas trees.

Now we’re taking that experience to emerging markets.

In November, the Carbon Trust helped launch a Private Sector Energy Efficiency programme in South Africa aimed at commercial and industrial companies that replicates our proven approach to accelerating the uptake of energy efficiency improvements.

Supported by the South African Department of Energy, implemented by the National Business Initiative, and funded by the UK Department for International Development, this programme is expected to yield lifetime energy savings worth nearly £240 million while costing less than £9 million to implement over two years, and will save about 3.6 million tonnes of GHGs from the carbon-intense South Africa economy.

Saving money and carbon through energy efficiency is an opportunity that’s available to all businesses, big and small, in all countries. It might not be the hottest thing to find under your tree this Christmas, but rest assured, energy efficiency really is the gift that keeps on giving.

The post Energy efficiency: the gift that keeps on giving appeared first on Climate Home News.

By Nilima Choudhury

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has approved a five-year strategy to limit financing coal projects and increase investment in clean technology and energy efficiency.

The multilateral development bank will limit financing coal fired power generation projects to “rare and exceptional circumstances in which there is no feasible alternative energy source.”

“We cannot use carbon without having a thought about what the impact of climate change is going to be,” EBRD managing director for energy and natural resources, Riccardo Puliti told Bloomberg. “There is a climate-change problem, and there are actions to be undertaken in order to solve it.”

Since 2006 the bank has invested $8.6 billion in energy and power projects, of which $2.75 billion has been directed to renewables and $717m towards coal.

The EBRD joins other financial institutions like the World Bank and the European Investment Bank and the US, UK and Norway in cutting spending on coal plants, which collectively are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Growing trend

Campaign groups like WWF welcomed EBRD’s strategy saying the time is ripe for other public financial institutions, in particular multilateral development banks, to follow suit immediately and shape the world’s shift to energy savings and sustainable energy.

“The move by the EBRD is positive, but to have a serious chance of keeping global warming below 2°C, the EBRD needs to strengthen its standards and eventually phase out its support for all power supply based on fossil fuels,” Sebastien Godinot, an economist at WWF’s European Policy Office said.

In the past the bank has stressed coal is a small part of its overall funding strategy.

“It is actually a small part (about seven projects over the last seven years) of our activities in this sector and for most of our countries of operation it simply isn’t an issue,” a spokesperson told RTCC recently.

“By comparison we financed around 57 renewable energy projects in the same period for a value of approximately €2 billion and renewable financing is by far the fastest growing segment of our activity in the power sector.

We have also done a lot of less glamorous work in areas such as smart grids and energy efficiency more generally. This doesn’t get the headlines in the same way but there are huge opportunities here to improve efficiency and this is really our bread and butter work.”

EBRD’s first test will come in the form of a new 600MW lignite plant project in Kosovo which the bank may be asked to co-finance.

“In the coming months, we will be closely monitoring how the EBRD is implementing its new ‘anti-coal policy’ and if the Bank actually walks the talk,” Godinot added.

“The Bank must stand firm on its ‘anti-coal policy’ and support clean alternatives for Kosovo and elsewhere.”

VIDEO: Heffa Schücking, CEE Bankwatch Network on the role banks play in financing coal production. 

The post Coal blow as major European bank cuts funding appeared first on Climate Home News.

Source: Flickr/Jose Miguel Calatayud

By Sophie Yeo

Over 31,000 people died last winter because of the cold weather, which has led to frustration over the UK government’s threatened rollback of energy efficiency policies.

The number of deaths is 29% higher than last year, and the majority of those who died were aged over 75.

The increase is likely to be a result of badly insulated homes, rather than particularly cold weather conditions, according to the Office of National Statistics, which released the figures today.

“If we accept the reason we have so many winter fuel deaths compared to Europe is that our buildings are less good, why would you roll back on the only policy looking at addressing that problem?” Emma Lucy Pinchbeck, an energy policy consultant at Micropower Council told RTCC.

In countries across Scandinavia and Northern Europe, where winter temperatures are particularly cold, the number of winter deaths tends to be lower, it said. Countries with milder conditions are among those with the highest mortality rates, as the houses are poorly equipped for the cold.

The number of deaths is the highest since its previous peak in 2008/09. In March, the mortality rate was 14% higher than average, with 1,582 excess deaths recorded each day.

There were 19.6% more deaths in the winter months compared to the rest of the year, up from 15.5% from 2011/12.

In 2009, Liam Donaldson, the UK chief medical officer, argued that many winter deaths are still preventable and more needed to be done to protect vulnerable people during the cold winter months.

Friends of the Earth Fuel Poverty Campaigner Sophie Neuburg said: “It’s scandalous that in a country like Britain in 2013, thousands of people die prematurely every winter because they live in housing that leaks heat.

“And this winter, as bills rise further and the number of homes being insulated falls, more people will perish.”

Green levies rollback

The UK government has introduced a ‘Green deal’ project, where householders can have insulation and heating improvements installed, which they then pay back through energy bill savings.

In January, the Energy Companies Obligation (ECO) scheme was introduced, which funds energy efficiency improvements worth around £1.3 billion every year for low income households.

But there has been rising speculation that Chancellor George Osborne could scale back the program in the autumn budget statement, due out next week.

Paul King, Chief Executive of the UK Green Building Council, said: “The Prime Minister should be in no doubt that these shocking figures are a direct result of how poorly insulated our homes are.

“If there is any rolling back of energy efficiency schemes such as ECO in the Autumn Statement, these disgraceful numbers are only going to get worse. How much more obvious could that be?”

The post UK insulation rollback could leave thousands to die in cold homes appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Pic: The Daring Librarian)

Energy efficiency should be treated as the world’s first fuel according to a new report by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Global energy efficiency investments hit the $300 billion mark in 2011, on par with renewables and traditional forms of energy, highlighting its importance the Paris-based agency says.

It adds that without new efficiency measures consumers in 11 IEA member countries would now be using two-thirds more energy than current levels, saving $420 billion from 2005-2010.

“Energy efficiency has been called a ‘hidden fuel’, yet it is hiding in plain sight,” IEA executive director Maria van der Hoeven said as she presented the report at the World Energy Congress in Korea.

“Indeed, the degree of global investment in energy efficiency and the resulting energy savings are so massive that they beg the following question: is energy efficiency not just a hidden fuel but rather the world’s first fuel?”

New policies and the high price of energy have driven growth in the energy efficiency market, according to the IEA.

And it praised the USA for taking steps to become one of the most energy efficient members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) by 2020.

The post IEA: energy efficiency is world’s ‘hidden fuel’ appeared first on Climate Home News.

Pic: Flickr / Terry Hassan

By Sophie Yeo

Global emissions could be cut to 50% of current levels using available technology says a new report, which estimates this would cost less than 1% of the total GDP in 2050.

By keeping emissions at 15 gigatonnes per year, instead of the 31.6 Gt that the International Energy Agency predicted was emitted in 2011, the world would be broadly on track to stay beneath 2C, the level beyond which the planet can expect catastrophic change.

These are the findings from scientists at Imperial College London, who, looking only at technologies that are currently or soon to be available at a commercial level, calculated exactly what would need to be done to provide for future energy demand without tipping the world into climate disaster.

“The way we did it at Imperial was to take a very bottom-up perspective, which was to look in detail from a very technological perspective at what would be required to get there, but to superimpose on that a geographical context, because different solutions are likely to be relevant in different parts of the world,” said lead author Professor Nilay Shah.

“We looked at three sectors, so those sectors were what goes on in buildings, industry, and the transport systems, and by using projections of population and GDP in those regions, we were about to predict what would be the demand for the energy services associated with those sectors.”

The study comes nine days ahead of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of its fifth assessment on climate science, where it is expected to warn that carbon dioxide emissions are set to contribute to rising sea levels, melting polar ice caps and extreme weather events.

Decarbonisation

Their calculations mean that the necessary cuts could be achieved without any significant reductions in the services that current energy production makes possible.

The best way of achieving the 15 Gt/yr target is decarbonising the electricity sector through use of near-zero-carbon generation technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, nuclear and renewables.

But, the report adds, there will need to be a shift towards electrifying current industrial manufacturing processes, building heating systems, and vehicles.

Investment in the technology that will allow this to develop will need to begin soon, if it is going to be able to penetrate the market in time to allow the world to reach its 2050 targets.

Economy

Despite the dramatic upheaval of industry that such a large scale introduction of low carbon technology would involve, the proportion of the GDP that it would demand remains surprisingly low – $2tn per annum of a projected 2050 GDP of $235tn – because of the side effects of the technology.

“A large part of the transformation comes from deploying new technologies which save energy, avoid increasingly expensive fossil fuels, and in many cases are projected to fall in cost over time,” write the authors in the report, published on Tuesday by the Grantham Institute for Climate Change.

And, they add, these costs could fall further to around $400bn per year under a scenario in which fossil fuels prices become much more expensive.

In such a scenario, the transition to a low carbon economy could pay for itself in the long run, they say, citing the relatively high prices of oil since the onset of the global financial crisis in 2008 as a strong economic impetus for reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

Without a range of mechanisms to increase energy efficiency and limit the use of fossil fuels, the researchers predict that, by 2050, the world will be emitting 50 Gt/yr of CO2.

“The nature of the challenge is that if we don’t take concerted action, we might be in that region, which is probably consistent with a 4-6C temperature rise,” said Shah.

They add that the 15 Gt/yr target will only limit global warming to the level needed if certain pathways are taken to achieve this target, and if emissions remain low thereafter.

The post Halving global CO2 emissions will cost less than 1% of GDP – report appeared first on Climate Home News.

Simply switching off lights could increase a companies energy efficiency. (Pic: R/DV/RS

By Nilima Choudhury

The UK’s energy efficiency market has defied economic downturn, reaching sales of £17.6 billion in 2010/11, but a coherent governmental policy is needed if this upward spiral is to continue.

A report from the UK’s Confederation of British Industry (CBI) says that reducing the amount of electricity used by businesses has been overshadowed by energy generation even though energy efficiency has the potential to deliver a triple win for UK companies.

“The government should assess all energy efficiency policies that affect business and come up with a simpler approach, where any new initiatives truly add value,” said Rhian Kelly, CBI director for business environment policy at a round table meeting today.

“Meanwhile businesses also need to step up to the challenge. We have seen progress from many companies but others need to make the leap, showing strong leadership at the top with robust structures put in place to manage energy use.”

The conclusions in this report were drawn from a survey of 100 CBI members, in-depth interviews with over 20 members, and round table meetings with a small group of businesses.

Michelle Hubert, CBI principle policy advisor on energy and climate change, said: “The recommendations we’ve set out are deliberately focused at both business and government because we don’t think this is something that we can lay all the blame at the government’s door – we think there’s certainly a role for government to play – but business has to step up itself and also take charge of that.”

Private sector

The role of business in implementing best practice for energy efficiency is to “make it everyone’s business” said the report.

Accountability should not lie solely with the sustainability team or the energy manager, but awareness should be spread across all employees. From the boardroom to the finance department, everyone needs to play their part.

Hubert said the sustainability and financial teams need to “work closely together to make sure that the best case possible is put forward to CEOs because I think a lot of the more senior people in the organisation probably underestimate the value of energy efficiency investments.”

The report cited retailer Waitrose’s “local champions” initiative which encouraged staff to get involved. The company offers employees prizes for the best suggestions to improve energy efficiency.

The CBI also recommends that the private sector needs to establish robust processes to measure their energy use – with methods ranging from state of the art systems to simple spreadsheets in order to select the most cost-effective solutions as well as to assess the effectiveness of the energy efficiency measures chosen.

Government

The CBI states the government needs to re-double its efforts to deliver a coherent energy efficiency policy framework, which businesses have so far been lacking, according to the report.

Last year, the Energy Efficiency Deployment Office (EEDO) was set up to support the delivery of policies to businesses.

However, interviewees for the report said EEDO has yet to fulfil its raison d’être.

In order to deliver on its potential and become a truly effective body, the CBI states EEDO should step up its efforts in three key areas.

Firstly, it must deliver on its mandate to ensure that energy efficiency policies are coordinated across government. For example, it remains the case that heat and electricity policies sit in different teams with little crossover. EEDO could help to bridge that gap.

Simple policy delivery is also recommended. The report states that businesses have too often been hindered by overly complex policies which often overlap, adding extra cost and burden with little environmental benefit.

Finally, EEDO should look to strengthen its engagement with business during each stage of the design, implementation and communication phases of the policy process.

Hubert concluded: “Where previously energy efficiency was just seen as cutting costs and managing risks, increasingly businesses are seeing this as an opportunity to improve their productivity, getting a competitive edge and grow their market.”

The post Energy efficiency is on 80% of UK businesses’ agendas appeared first on Climate Home News.

Nanocrystals of indium tin oxide (shown here in blue) embedded in a green glassy matrix of niobium oxide (Pic: Berkeley Lab)

A window spray has been developed in the USA to respond to changing weather conditions, reducing the need for heating and air conditioning.

Scientists say tiny crystals applied to windows and activated by a small electric charge can either block radiation from outside or inside.

They report in the journal Nature that when ‘jolted’ with a charge, nanoscale molecules of indium tin oxide can absorb as much as 35% of heat.

When embedded in a glassy substance the composite material can stop around 50% of heat and 70% of visible light, and remains stable after being switched on and off 2,000 times.

The coating can be sprayed onto the inside of a glass pane. But turning the coating off and on requires applying a voltage directly to its surface.

In the lab scientists generated the voltage by incorporating the material into a battery. Out in the real world, thin, transparent films layered on top of the coating will be needed to supply that voltage.

Such modifications will make smart windows expensive, says Brian Korgel, a materials chemist at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of a News & Views article on the research.

If the technology is to be adopted, “the overall cost of the system cannot be prohibitively high”, he warns.

Energy savings could help to offset the large price tag, but developers are looking for ways to cut costs. One option may be to replace the expensive indium tin oxide with cheaper zinc-based crystals, which have already shown promise in the lab.

Around 4% of all energy consumed in the United States is used to cool or warm buildings to compensate for heat transfer through windows, according to the US Department of Energy.

In some cases the use of air conditioning can increase a building’s energy consumption and carbon emissions by up to 100%, while heating can account for 60% of your total energy use.

“The ability to perform well in hot and cold climates could mean big energy savings,” says Delia Milliron, a materials chemist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, who led the team that developed the material.

The post Smart windows could spark energy efficiency revolution appeared first on Climate Home News.

The UK has been the world leader in offshore wind since October 2008, with the most installed capacity in the world (Pic: Vattenfall)

The UK is set to break its own record for the world’s largest offshore windfarm after a 288 turbine 1,200MW project was unveiled by energy chief Ed Davey.

Located off the Lincolnshire and Norfolk coast, the Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm will cost £3.6 billion, creating over 1,000 jobs and providing power to 820,000 homes.

The project would surpass the 175 turbine London Array, which was officially opened by UK Prime Minister David Cameron last week.

The UK is frequently described as the ‘Saudi Arabia’ of offshore wind, although critics point to high capital costs and say energy from wind can be irregular, placing stress on the grid.

Construction has also started on the 76 turbine Pen y Cymoedd Wind Farm in South Wales. Costing £400 million, it could one day be the largest onshore wind site in England and Wales.

“Offshore and onshore wind is an important contributor to our energy mix,” said Energy Secretary Ed Davey in a statement. “We have provided certainty early to onshore and offshore wind investors and now see significant investment decisions being made that will benefit the UK’s economy for years to come.”

The news comes in a week where a report by think tank IPPR accused the government of undermining the offshore wind sector, and backtracking on an ambition to secure 18GW offshore wind by 2020.

The report argues that as a result the industry risks missing out on an additional 15,000 jobs that could be created by 2020.

“The industry should be given the long-term clarity that it needs, and which has been provided in other countries,” said Will Straw, associate director at IPPR.

“A 2030 target for the carbon intensity or share of renewables in the power sector is a necessary condition as are long-term 20 year contracts. But developers must be expected to drive down costs with a subsidy regime that reduces the strike price over time.”

In other news, a report from the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change claims the UK could gain a £1.9 billion boost if energy efficiency measures were employed by large companies

It says UK companies that invest in energy efficiency measures could see savings of £56,400 per year on their electricity bills.

Firms with 250 of more employees will be required to undertake energy saving assessments.

Effective energy efficiency means cutting out waste and increasing profits,” said Energy and Climate Change Minister Greg Barker.

“These new energy saving assessments will help our largest firms identify where money can be saved by installing energy efficiency measures.”

The post UK reveals plans for world’s largest offshore wind farm appeared first on Climate Home News.

US energy researchers have devised a new way to save billions: tailor the air-conditioning to the needs of the people in the room.

Scientists at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in the state of Washington have calculated that they could boost energy efficiency by 18% simply by customising air movement according to whether the room is empty or full.

A sensitive detector that could “count” the people in a room could turn down – or turn up – fan speed to the right levels automatically. Occupancy sensors already turn off needless lighting in offices: the next step would be ventilation, says the new report.

“This is the reason you often feel cold when you’re in a big space like a conference room or cafeteria without a lot of people. Technology today doesn’t detect how many people are in a room, and so air flow is at maximum capacity nearly constantly”, said Guopeng Liu, lead author.

Researchers have devised a way to tailor air-conditioning to the needs of the people in the room. (Source: tpsdave)

He and colleagues focused on a typical office block 12 stories high and with a basement, covering an area almost as big as a football field. Such buildings in the US cover 4.4 billion square feet, at least 40,000 hectares, of urban space.

They calculated that advanced ventilation controls could save $40,000 a year in costs in such a building in 13 of the US’s 15 climate regions.

In two cities in very different climates, Baltimore, Maryland and Fairbanks, Alaska, savings could be more than $100,000 a year per building. The only catch so far is that the technology has yet to be perfected – and of course must then be installed.

The same laboratory has just delivered a new report on ways to make the most of wind power by “storing” energy for use later.

In the region, the wind often drives turbines at times when demand is low. But it should be possible when demand is low to use the surplus power to compress air and tuck it away in an underground geological storage structure: as the wind dies away and the power demand rises, the stored air could be released to the surface, where it would warm up, expand and drive the turbines.

Compressed air storage plants – one already exists in an old salt mine in Alabama, another in Germany – could return as much as 80% of the energy they take in: energy that would otherwise be wasted.

Aiming for the heights

But, of course, subterranean technology offers yet another solution to the energy challenge, according to a recent paper in Science.

Two scientists from the University of Utah point out that geysers in California already deliver 850MW to the grid; steam from an Italian volcano at Lardarello turns out nearly 600MW and 90% of homes in Reykjavik in Iceland are heated by geothermal water piped from the rocks.

The hard bit is getting at the subterranean heat. Just 2% of the thermal energy trapped at depths of 3.5 to 10 kilometres would, the researchers calculate, yield 2,000 times the current annual energy use of the United States.

Meanwhile, in Switzerland, energy research is looking up: at an experimental power plant flown like a kite, at heights of 300 metres. Wind turbines right now reach no more than 100 metres.

Researchers from Empa, the Swiss Federal laboratories for materials science, and other institutes, reason that the most reliable and powerful wind currents are at higher altitudes. So they have begun to develop Twingtec – a high technology kite fastened to a reel at a ground station.

As the kite soars, the line tenses and the reel unwinds: the movement gets converted to current by electromagnetic induction. Once the kite gets to its maximum height, the reel tugs it in so it can rise again. The prototype has already been tested in the Jura mountains, not far from Bern.

This article was produced by the Climate News Network.

The post Smart air conditioning could save business $100k a year appeared first on Climate Home News.

Ambitious energy efficiency policy makes sense.

Various assessments point to sufficient cost-effective energy savings potential in the EU to meet the EU’s 20 per cent target for energy savings. The benefits to society that arise from greater levels of energy efficiency, not least of which are reduced CO2 emissions and job creation, are legion.

But EU policy interventions and those in Member States – such as the UK Green Deal – often result in only slow or marginal behavioural change on the ground.

A cultural shift is required to facilitate the necessary levels of investment. Policy makers are learning all the time, and a decade of sustained experimentation and effort may be required before a tipping point is reached.

Selling the energy efficiency message is hard despite the financial logic (Source: Flickr/jeici1)

In 2008, the EU set itself an objective of achieving 20% primary energy savings in 2020. Member States took on non-binding targets, and set out plans to achieve the required savings accordingly.

Several EU regulatory initiatives have been introduced requiring increasing efficiency standards for electronic goods, cars and buildings. The Energy Efficiency Directive, agreed in 2012, further requires energy suppliers to deliver 1.5% annual savings among end users.

These initiatives have been complemented Member State initiatives to promote investment in efficiency, as set out in their National Action Plans. Measures such as tax breaks, grants, and advice and information programmes, were focused in particular in the building sector, but also on industrial and transport to a lesser extent.

Despite this frontal assault to promote investment in efficiency, current estimates indicate that Member States are not on track to achieve the 20 per cent target. They are projected to achieve 16% savings on business as usual if all plans to promote efficiency are implemented effectively.

Stakeholders argue that the EU and Member States could be doing more. The Coalition for Energy Savings, an EU-wide lobby group, have pointed out that many countries have set unambitious targets.

The subtext is that harder binding EU targets are required for Member States. This is part of an ongoing debate about EU energy and climate policy for 2030: are binding targets required for efficiency, renewables and CO2?

Grants to Financial Engineering

Arguably, more important than target setting, is coming to ever more nuanced understandings of why investors do not spend more on energy saving technologies, and to address these issues with discrete policy interventions.

A central issue surrounds the shortage of upfront investment cash, sometimes referred to as a financial barrier to energy efficiency investment. This barrier interacts with a number of complicating behavioural, cultural, social and informational barriers.

EU interventions to address this issue are discussed in an interesting recent report by the Commission. It has traditionally focused on providing grant support for investment projects under EU cohesion policy.

The extent to which it was effectively targeted at energy efficiency has been questioned. Nonetheless, grant-aided funding which targets energy efficiency will continue to grow in the coming budgetary period.

Grant-aided support has a number of limitations – not least the level of public funding available, the increased competition for increasingly scarce public resources, and the potential for grants to result in market distortions.

For these reasons, the European Commission is increasingly promoting measures that create value for energy savings through market mechanisms. So-called financial engineering instruments (FEIs) have the potential to put investments in energy efficiency on a more sustainable footing. These instruments can be particularly effective in promoting larger scale energy efficiency projects in the commercial and industrial sectors.

One example is the London Green Fund, which combines EU and City of London funding with finance from the private sector. It then lends money to urban retrofit projects within the greater London area.

Efforts by the Commission to promote these approaches in Member States have not always been entirely successful. Difficulties have included the complexity and financial engineering skills required to establish funds, the time they take to establish, and the unfamiliarity with funds compared to grants among potential clients (Member State authorities).

Due to this information and expertise deficit on the demand side, the supply or availability of funding alone is not a sufficient condition for overcoming the financial barrier to energy efficiency. The provision of information and development of expertise in relevant Member State authorities via the European Investment Bank and other institutions, is also of considerable importance.

It is likely that EU activity in promoting the use of FEIs will grow in the coming years, and this is arguably the correct focus in policy.

The UK Green Deal

For the residential building sector, however, FEIs are less appropriate. A more promising alternative is being trialled in the UK: the much-discussed Green Deal. The Green Deal attempts to address the financing barrier by providing up-front funding to interested homeowners who want to invest in efficiency. They repay the loan as they save money on energy bills over the years.

The slow start to the programme has led commentators to write it off.

Just as predicted: government’s #GreenDeal has been a total failure. http://t.co/uq2XChicA3 by @dpcarrington #climatechange

— GeorgeMonbiot (@GeorgeMonbiot) May 30, 2013

Sounding the death knell for the Green Deal is premature. Nevertheless, there are real issues. Survey data published by the UK Department of Energy and Climate (DECC) shows that the most popular way of financing a refurbishment in the UK is still savings/regular income. Homeowners who have had a Green Deal assessment were still citing finance as the biggest barrier to follow through.

While homeowners will take time to get used to the Green Deal concept, the terms of the financing on offer has been widely criticized. Ensuring that funds available are attractive to early adopters is key, and subsidized money might initially be necessary. The boost to Government coffers should justify the expense, and assuming the market alone will deliver is naïve.

A tipping point will eventually be reached, where financing a deep retrofit will be as common as financing the purchase of a new vehicle. This may take a decade. Success is dependent on the continued and determined focus of policy makers, and the willingness to trial, test, and refine policy interventions.

A raft of supporting measures to overcome the inherent status quo bias among homeowners will likely be required. The Irish Government, who are also in the process of establishing a scheme similar to the Green Deal, recently published an excellent analysis of supporting measures which could be considered.

There are positive developments which can be leveraged. For example, homeowners and renters in the UK and Ireland are coming to increasingly value the energy efficiency of their properties, and to pay a premium for higher efficiency.

If the UK and Ireland can succeed, others will follow.

Joseph Curtin is Senior Research Associate with the Institute of International and European Affairs. He has worked for the OECD, NESC (an advisory body to the Irish Prime Minister), and the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, on climate and energy policy-related issues.

The post Analysis: where is all the money for energy efficiency? appeared first on Climate Home News.

The world is currently heading for between 3.6°C and 5.3°C of warming, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned.

The watchdog has issued four energy policy guidelines that could keep the world within the 2°C limit of warming recommended by climate scientists and agreed upon by politicians at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen.

Speaking at the launch of the IEA’s new report, Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map, executive director Maria van der Hoeven said politicians had the tools needed to stay within the limit they themselves signed up to.

“Climate change has quite frankly slipped to the back burner of policy priorities. But the problem is not going away – quite the opposite,” she said.

The IEA predicts four energy policy changes could cut emissions by 3 giga tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2020 (Source: Flickr/he-sk)

“This report shows that the path we are currently on is more likely to result in a temperature increase of between 3.6 °C and 5.3 °C but also finds that much more can be done to tackle energy-sector emissions without jeopardising economic growth, an important concern for many governments.”

The report claims its recommendations for energy policy changes could cut emissions from the sector by 3.1 gigatonnes by 2020.

It calls for investment in energy efficiency for buildings, industry and transport at a rate over and above the value of the energy savings.

It suggests limiting the construction of coal power stations to only the most efficient, halving the volume of methane release into the atmosphere by the oil and gas industry and a partial phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies that make them cheaper for consumers.

Global action

Rising energy related emissions played their part in atmospheric CO2 passing the 400 parts per million mark earlier this year.

China’s contribution continues to grow with another 300 million tonnes of CO2 added in 2012 from the energy sector.

The USA’s switch from coal to cleaner gas powered generation saw a fall in energy emissions of 200 million tonnes.

UN talks in Bonn towards a new global emissions reduction treaty by 2015 have been pushing through a stalemate this month as governments look to deliver on the 2°C goal. Despite calls for the target to be ditched, it is considered unlikely, at least until the new treat is agreed.

“The IEA report comes at a crucial moment for the UN Climate Change negotiations and for global efforts to address climate change at all levels,” said Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN climate change agency the UNFCCC.

“Once again we are reminded that there is a gap between current efforts and the engagement necessary to keep the world below a 2°C temperature rise. Once again we are reminded that the gap can be closed this decade, using proven technologies and known policies, and without harming economic growth in any region of the world,” she added.

The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), which represents €7.5 trillion of investments said the economic consequences of missing the 2°C target were dire.

“This scenario threatens to have severe physical impacts and puts the investments and savings of millions of people at risk,” said Stephanie Pfeifer, chief executive of the IIGCC.

“Investors support strong and concerted climate action now to bring emissions down. The measures in this report could save trillions in future adaptation costs, but they will not be achieved without tough policy decisions including putting a high price on carbon, phasing out billions in fossil fuel subsidies and introducing frameworks which stimulate investment in low-carbon energy,” said Pfeifer.

World leaders will meet next week for the G8 summit in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland with climate change back on the agenda have initially being blocked by an advisor to UK Prime Minister, and G8 host, David Cameron.

Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund said the IEA report should be “required reading” for those attending the summit.

“We are already seeing the early-warning signs of climate change in extreme weather events around the world. This report, coming from the world’s leading experts on energy, sends a very clear message: We have the tools we need to make the turn toward climate safety. What is needed is the political will to act,” said Krupp.

The post IEA: World heading for 3.6°C of warming appeared first on Climate Home News.

By John Bell

When it comes to actually making changes to the way we live to lessen the impact we have on the climate, I can typically see both sides of the argument. Take wind farms as an example.

As a child I used to look round at the views on Anglesey and strain and struggle to find any view that did not contain signs of human activity. Even looking into the skies did not help as I realised that the slowly dissipating stringy clouds were produced by planes soaring across the heavens.

So I totally get why people would not want our beautiful landscapes further derided by human structures with the erection of turbines.

What I don’t understand and really can’t abide is where people needlessly waste energy and pollute.

In particular: idling cars.

I have at times resolved to ask people, or confront them. I’ve tried a lot of different tactics.

Transition Town Berkhamstead member John Bell

I might open with “Excuse me, I hope you don’t mind me asking, what is the reason for you having your engine on at the moment?”

“What’s it to you?” would come the rather indignant reply.

“I’m worried about the fumes and the effect on the climate, not to mention that it’s wasting your money”

“Good point, thank you,” was a recent response from someone sitting in a sports centre car park in their car. They left the engine running. I left them to it.

I might say: “Excuse me, could you please turn your engine off? My children are walking past your car and I’d rather they didn’t have to breathe in the fumes”. More success with that one, but people can still get a little uppity.

Not many people realise that you only need to be stationary for 10 seconds or more before you would have saved money had you switched the engine off. It is almost always worth switching off your motor if you stop at a traffic light (other than a pedestrian crossing – you don’t get much time to walk across the road), let alone when you are waiting outside someone’s home, or in a car park.

Petrol in the UK cost around £6.36 a gallon. If you stop at a traffic light 10 times a day, and sit idle for 20 minutes a day on average, you would save between £180 and £632 per year on your petrol bill, depending on the efficiency of your car of course. And your engine would last longer. Imagine how much taxis could save.

I know at some times of the year people have the engine on to run the air conditioning or the heater. Seems utterly daft to me – running a large petrol engine to heat a car? Imagine doing that in your home, you’d feel a little daft. But it’s when people leave the car running for no reason at all that really gets under my skin.

Oh, and by the way, it is illegal in the UK to have your car running while being on the mobile, even if it isn’t moving. You need to switch it off and take the key out.

Thoughts on how (or whether) I should approach people much appreciated.

Get in touch with John and follow his progress on his website – we’ll be featuring a column from him on RTCC every month

The post Energy efficiency: Do it for your wallet appeared first on Climate Home News.

Energy independence rather than the benefits of cutting carbon emissions, could be the key to persuading some US shoppers to invest in energy efficiency, according to a new study.

Conservative-minded voters were put off by labelling promoting the environmental credentials of products such as more efficient light bulbs.

“A popular strategy for marketing energy efficiency is to focus on its environmental benefits,” said Dena Gromet, the lead author of the research.

“But not everyone values protecting the environment. We were interested in whether promoting the environment could in fact deter some individuals from purchasing energy efficient options that they would have otherwise selected,” added Gromet.

Some US shoppers are likely to be deterred by environmental labelling (Source: Flickr/fotograf-zahl)

The paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that this was indeed the case.

The first study surveyed 657 US adults, 49% men, ranging in age from 19-81 about how they valued energy efficiency, reducing CO2 emissions and cutting dependence on foreign oil.

The more conservative the respondent, the less value they placed on energy efficiency.

Energy independence was universally popular.

Lightbulb

In the second half of the research, 210 participants were given $2 to spend on a lightbulb and told they could keep the change. They were given the choice of an incandescent bulb costing 50¢ and a fluorescent bulb costing $1.50.

The energy saving bulb was selected in large numbers however when a label was added to it saying “protect the environment”, conservatives were less likely to choose it.

“These findings demonstrate that a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful for making energy-efficient products appealing to consumers,” said Larrick.

“People have different energy-related values which can influence their choices, including leading them to reject options that they recognize as having long-term economic benefits. In many cases, a tailored message may be needed to reach different market segments.”

The post US consumers respond to energy independence not efficiency appeared first on Climate Home News.

From batteries to desalination, a new carbon aerogel derived from graphene, could have a big role to play in improving a number of existing low carbon methods.

Carbon aerogels have been around for a while but the latest to be revealed has broken the record as the world’s lightest  material and is far easier to manufacture than some of its predecessors.

Professor Gao Chao of Zhejiang University who led the research, recently published in Nature, said he expects a number of environmental applications for the new substance.

Graphene, one atom thick sheets of carbon, has made a name for itself in its own right. Aerogels fuse graphene oxide and carbon nanotubes together to create a tiny scaffolding like structure that may look flimsy but is actually incredibly strong.

Professor Gao Chao of Zhejiang University who led the study photographs a limp of his carbon aerogel balancing on a blade of grass (Gao Chao)

The super absorbent material could also be used to mop up oil spills as it can hold 900 times its own weight in liquid.

Here’s a summary of some of the key low carbon opportunities for the new material:

Desalination

As climate change adds additional stress to the existing water crisis, many are forced to turn to desalination to extract salt from sea water with electricity.

Using porous carbon aerogels as the electrodes increases the surface area and makes the process more energy efficient. Industrial scale desalination plants churn out thousands of tons of CO2 a day. Even a small improvement could be significant.

Batteries

Early aerogels have already been used to develop large capacitors, electrical components that store up charge then release it in a short burst (that’s the buzzing noise you’ll here as a camera flash recharges).

The improving technology is helping capacitors to catch up with traditional batteries in terms of how much energy they can store in a given volume.

Next generation capacitors powered by ever improving aerogels could be used in hybrid vehicles and even mobile phones. The supply might not last as long but charging could be done in seconds.

Insulation

Silicon based aerogels, which have been around since the 1930s have long been used for thermal insulation and in time as the material becomes cheaper, carbon aerogels could replace them and improve performance.

Coating hot water pipes, boilers, ovens, furnaces and engines can not only save energy but also defends against fire.

Solar

Carbon aerogels are right down on the ‘black end’ of the infra-red spectrum, that basically means they are very good at absorbing solar energy and good have potential as solar energy collectors.

The post Weightless carbon gel offers major clean tech boost appeared first on Climate Home News.

Arthur Rosenfeld of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California and former advisor to the US Department of Energy, claims that every 100 square metres of black roofing painted white, could save 10 tonnes of CO2 during its lifetime.

White roofs reflect more energy from the sun back into the atmosphere. Black roofs absorb the energy which also means more air conditioning is needed, which increases CO2 output.

“On a clear day, a conventional dark roof can get 40°C to 50°C hotter than the outside air. A clean white roof, by comparison, runs only 5°C to 10°C warmer than the ambient air,” writes Rosenfeld in the Journal of International energy Agency (IEA).

Volunteers paint a roof in Harlem white (Source: Flickr/350.org)

“With roofs accounting for roughly 25% of urban surface area and with cities occupying 1% to 2% of global land area, converting most flat roofs in warm cities to white would cancel warming from more than one gigatonne of CO2 per year for the average lifetime of the roofs,” claims Rosenfeld, a nuclear physicist who turned his focus to energy efficiency more than 30 years ago.

“In terms of emissions, it’s equivalent to taking half the world’s cars off the road for 20 years,” said Rosenfeld.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg set up a scheme to hire young people to paint the city’s roofs white with more than 330,000 square metres already covered.

The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has been responsible for a number of energy efficiency breakthroughs and has also shared much of its work with China.

The Lab’s Mark Levine worked in energy efficiency projects in China since the 1980s.

“I went to China to advise them on the establishment of their first energy efficiency ratings for appliances,” says Levine. “Once standards were in place for fridges and air conditioners they were able to make annual energy savings equivalent to twice the annual output of the Three Gorges Dam.”

The IEA has identified energy efficiency has a vital tool to reduce dependence on fossil fuels calling it “the hidden fuel”.

The post Paint the town white to keep warming cities cool appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Environment Protection Agency’s (EPA) list of cities with the most Energy Star rated buildings is an indicator of how serious each is taking efforts to cut energy use.

California held six places in the top 25 including Los Angeles in the number one spot and San Francisco at number six.

Washington DC, Chicago, New York and Atlanta made up the rest of the top five.

Commercial buildings that earn the EPA’s Energy Star must perform in the top 25% of similar buildings nationwide.

1999 Broadway office tower in Denver has held an Energy Star since 2006 (Source: Flickr/Payton Chung)

Energy Star certified buildings use an average of 35% less energy and are responsible for 35% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than average buildings.

During 2012, 20,000 buildings were certified nationally saving a total of $2.7bn in their utility bills and enough electricity for two million homes for a year.

The EPA regulates pollutants in the USA including CO2 which was controversially certified as a pollutant in 2009. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 allocated $94bn for energy efficiency measures.

In addition to monitoring energy efficiency in buildings, the EPA has also set limits on emissions from the US electricity generation sector.

More than 50GW of coal power capacity has closed or is scheduled to.

The switch to cheaper gas and the cost of upgrades to bring dirtier coal plants in line with regulations contributed to a cut in emissions from US power stations of 4.6% in 2011.

The Top 25 Energy Star Cities

CLICK TO EXPAND

The post US energy efficiency league tables revealed appeared first on Climate Home News.

An example of Machine to Machine communication is texting your TV box to record a programme. This could be extended so you could tell your boiler to turn off the central heating.

Increasing the number of networked devices that can talk to each other and be operated and adjusted via the internet will underpin the development of the smart grid with potential saving of 2Gt by 2020 from that sector alone, according to the Machine to Machine Technologies research.

Despite the large potential gains from the technology, there are still several barriers holding up adoption of M2M tech.

The sectors big players now need to tackle if they are to open up an industry worth an estimated $1 trillion, according to the report.

“We’ve seen the great potential in this technology and made aggressive investments to capitalize on that potential,” said John Schulz, Director of Sustainability at AT&T, who funded the report.

machine to machine technology could cut emissions through smart grids, intelligent buildings and more efficient transport planning. (Source: Flickr/StuckInCustoms)

“We pursued this work with Carbon War Room to tap into their expertise to understand the relationship between this revenue opportunity and potential environmental benefits. This study looks into ways that we can scale that expected huge adoption curve to achieve the benefits faster.”

The latest UNEP Emissions gap report estimates that global greenhouse gas output needs to fall to 44Gt a year by 2020 to limit warming to the 2°C that scientists have recommended as a relatively safe limit. In 2010 this figure was 50.1Gt and headed for 58Gt without series changes to policy.

In order to ensure as wide as possible implementation of M2M technology it needs to be uniform so all the machines are effectively talking the same language.

Other opportunities to control the heating and cooling of buildings, improving the efficiency of supply chains, making sure planes and ships take the shortest smartest route and monitoring agriculture to reduce water and fertiliser use and even to tag cattle so those from ranches that have cleared forests are clearly labelled.

RTCC Video: China’s climate chief calls for increase in low carbon technology transfer

The post Machine networking vital to meet climate targets appeared first on Climate Home News.

Imagine it’s is the middle of winter, but instead of battening down the hatches you wedge the front door open, and put the heating on full blast.

Simply bonkers. And quite simply happening in a street near you.

Thousands of shopkeepers in London are doing just that today, hours after a layer of snow descended on the capital.

As I shivered my way down Regent Street at lunchtime I was struck by the hurricanes of hot air gushing out open doorways.

In the space of a few steps shoppers wrapped up in fleeces, hats and thick woolly coats can experience Caribbean temperatures created by fan heaters blasting hot air around huge stores.

Not only is this seemingly unnecessary – it’s clearly a massive waste of energy.

A Saturday in Bath: Crew keeps its door open on a freezing day, but nextdoor neighbours Oska seals out the cold

Research from Cambridge University in 2010 revealed shops who kept their doors open consumed twice as much electricity as those who did not.

Put it another way. Shops that shut their doors could save up to 10 tonnes of CO2 and cut their energy bills in half.

It’s significant. Figures from the UK’s Department of Energy reveal  the service sector accounted for 19% of final energy consumption; of that 20% relates to retail.

And perhaps more pertinently for shopkeepers, on 2010 prices it costs them over £1 billion a year.

Jeannie Dawkins runs the Close The Door campaign, which started in Cambridge a decade ago and now has the backing of London Mayor Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary William Hague together with high-street chains Tescos and John Lewis.

“Most independents are good, and very close to their energy bills, but it’s the chain stores that are the problem, and they are the majority these days in Britain,” she says.

Burberry’s Regent St store gets a 5/10 for keeping two doors closed

“Going back to the 70s and 80s, a lot of stores think that people will be like marbles, will bounce off the doors and won’t go in if the door is shut.

“But it is clear that there are so many places that do keep the door shut and are trading successfully. People do go through doors.”

Not everyone agrees. Tony Reilly works for retail display specialists Triplar – and he holds a more orthodox view of shopper’s habits: “It is mainly to entice customers into a store as they can see the store is open without looking at signs on the doors.

“If stores are fitted with an air curtain the warmth felt when walking past can also entice them in. Food stores, especially bakeries, will sometimes leave them open as the smell of fresh baking will also bring customers in.

“And believe it or not, customers will sometimes walk by a store because they cannot be bothered to open doors – it is as simple as that.”

Over the weekend I asked one of the staff at the Bath branch of Milletts why their door was open when the temperature was just above freezing?

“It’s crazy” they told me, but “it’s company policy so we appear welcoming to customers”.

They agreed with Dawkins that smaller independent retailers keep their doors shut to save on energy bills – a cost that does not appear to affect larger stores.

Hot ‘n’ cold

This is not simply a winter issue.

The ‘air curtains’ above doorways can be turned to pump out freezing air in the summer, enticing customers in from the heat.

That policy was targeted by New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg in 2008, when he passed legislation banning many stores from leaving their doors open during the summer.

Dawkins says Toronto City Council have followed suit, giving her hope that the movement can build momentum worldwide.

Nothing comes between me and my Calvins. Not even a door. 0/10

“It’s going well, much better than it was. And the research from Cambridge makes it much easier for people to relate to. You wouldn’t do it at home, so don’t do it in the store,” she said.

“We also found a real decline in shoplifting when the stores are shut – that’s worth a lot of money to stores.”

But while the likes of Tescos, Wickes, Selfridges, Rymans and John Lewis have bought into the concept, Dawkins reveals that some stores that market themselves as ‘green’ appear to be less willing to play ball.

“There are a lot of companies who are using a lot of greenwash in their sales, and what they have done is to devolve all responsibility onto their individual managers who say – off the record – that they cannot take the risk, because if their sales go down it will be on their head,” she says.

“The head office if they will not get behind the policy it means nothing – and they are well aware that it means nothing.

“So you have ludicrous situations where Lush is running the Climate Revolution campaign, where it says ‘what’s good for the climate is good for the economy’ – it’s blatant greenwash.

“And quite often the effect is to make customers question what the message is. It’s like saying ‘save water’ with a hose running.”

Few would bet against Lush or the equally recalcitrant Body Shop changing their policy in the next year.

In London, Kingston and Croydon town centres recently joined the cause, together with Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith, which makes Dawkins believe they could be at a ‘tipping point’

“Ideally we’d like to bring 10 more major chains over the next 12 months, which will be hard work, but also to get more going in individual locations,” she says.

“We have somebody in Beijing, Sweden, there’s a Malaysian University campus and Toronto City Council asked for our findings, so there is a good interchange with other places.”

RELATED VIDEO: Campaigning to stop shops wasting energy

The post Closing the door on energy efficiency appeared first on Climate Home News.

Cutting working hours by 0.5% could help to reduce the warming impact of future emissions by one quarter to one half according to a new study.

A US switch to a “more European approach” with shorter working weeks and more vacation time could significantly limit warming according to the Centre for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), a liberal Washington-based think tank.

“The direct cost of a reduction in work hours is at worst very small,” writes David Rosnick, an economist at CEPR.

“In standard neoclassical models, the loss of consumption due to working less is offset in large part by an increase in leisure. In fact, a reduction in work hours may increase hourly productivity or (when employment is depressed) increase the employed share of the population.

Shutting offices and factories down would save emissions but working smarter could be just as good (Source: Flickr/juhansonin)

“These effects may offset aggregate income losses, with higher levels of employment having the additional effect of lowering the cost of unemployment benefits.”

Before our US readers get ready to embrace a European working week, siestas and all, the proposal’s are unlikely to prove universally popular.

It’s had a cold reception.

Republicans have interpreted the research as anti-capitalist and it would probably make it a hard sell many business leaders too, regardless of how many hours its advocates worked to promote it.

Right wing news blog NewsBusters links the research to the liberal ‘degrowth’ and stretches the report’s conclusion slightly by intimating the recommendations would include “preventing people from getting second jobs if their first job isn’t enough, perhaps forcing one of the members of a two-income couple to quit their job, etc”.

Climate change zealots want US to adopt European work schedules to stop global warming. Of course, they want to work less. Next on @630khow

— Michael D Brown (@MichaelBrownUSA) February 5, 2013

Hmm, maybe I’ll go green. #tlot #tcot How to stop global warming? Work less, liberal think tank claimsbit.ly/11nk42K via @mailonline

— Michael J Hession (@he88ion) February 5, 2013

Dear Lord, save us from Liberfals. Liberal think tank says 2 combat global warming work less. They should think less.

— Don Beavers (@donsspencer) February 5, 2013

The Utah State government experimented with four day working week between 2008 and 2011 but plummeting energy costs surpassed the expected efficiency savings and the public complained about not having services available on Friday.

There are other ways to reduce the impacts of work places such as telecommuting.

Studies estimate that 45% of jobs are suitable for remote working while 83% of Americans already do some work remotely.

Cutting business travel and improving the efficiency of office buildings and promoting sustainability to employees can all help to curb emissions without sacrificing output.

The post New study: Work less, fight climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.

The country already has ambitious renewable energy and emission reduction goals but the Scottish Government was required to stipulate how it would meet these through specific policies.

“Having stated our ambition for a largely decarbonised electricity supply by 2030, the Scottish Government is now setting a specific target to guide our overall policy approach and set the context for decisions on applications for electricity generation,” said First Minister Alex Salmond.

“We will now consult with stakeholders on the implementation of this ambitious target. I join the industry, again, in urging Westminster to follow suit.”

The North Sea provides Scotland with more than just oil and gas resources. (Source: REPower)

A UK decarbonisation target was removed from an early draft of a key new energy bill with a decision postponed to 2016.

Scotland will reduce the amount of CO2 per unit of power generated from the current level of 347g to 50g of CO2kWh.

This is the same level recommended to the UK government by its independent advisor the Climate Change Committee (CCC).

“Scotland is at the top of the European league table for emissions reductions, such as Germany and Denmark,” said Scotland’s Minister for Environment and Climate Change Paul Wheelhouse.

“Our commitment to tackling climate change and maintaining our position as a global leader is clear and underlined by the actions we have set out today. We are taking strong action on renewables, zero waste, peatlands and tackling fuel poverty with ambitious new plans to decarbonise production of electricity and heat,” added Wheelhouse.

Scotland is rich in renewable energy potential with large hydropower and onshore wind both well-established giving it a head start on its renewable energy goals.

Scottish Climate Change Policy at a Glance

New decarbonisation target to cut carbon emissions from electricity generation by more than four-fifths by 2030

Commitment to deliver the equivalent of at least 100% of gross electricity consumption from renewables by 2020

National Retrofit Programme to transform older and colder homes into energy efficient homes

A £50m Warm Homes Fund providing grants and loans for renewable energy measures to heat homes

New domestic Heat Strategy including publication of a Draft Outline Heat Vision which sets our ambition for a largely decarbonised heat sector by 2030

Measures to reduce the impact of transport through active travel, low carbon vehicles and congestion reduction with over £200 million investment on top of our on-going investment in public transport

Ambitious proposals to maximise emissions benefits of restoring degraded peatland

Increasing woodland creation rates to 10,000 hectares per year

Phased introduction of bans on materials that may be landfilled, including a ban on biodegradable waste to landfill be the end of 2020, the first of its kind in the UK

RTCC Video: Paul Wheelhouse on Scotland’s ambitious renewable energy targets

The post Scotland the brave reveals new climate targets appeared first on Climate Home News.

There’s nothing sexy about solid wall insulation or lagging a boiler.

It’s a major part of the reason why energy efficiency is such a tough sell for policymakers. It’s a challenge befitting Don Draper, Mad Men’s main antagonist and advertising genius.

And it’s safe to say one glance at the UK government’s latest attempt to market their efficiency revolution called the Green Deal would make Don drive his Buick Invicta Convertible into the nearest river. At full speed.

But we’d better just #GreenDealWithIt.

The trouble with mocking the #GreenDeal is that it’s vital. It’s our “best bet after Kyoto” to stave off 2°C according to the IEA’s Fatih Birol, while consultancy Ecofys estimate 40% of energy use and carbon emissions are related to buildings.

“Advertising is based on one thing, happiness. And you know what happiness is? Happiness is the smell of a new car. It’s freedom from fear” (Photo: Michael Yarish, Mad Men)

In Don Draper’s absence, the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change is relying on a £3m advertising campaign and the ministerial duo of Greg Barker and Ed Davey to launch the policy.

It officially starts today, but the charm offensive kicked-off last week with a near two-hour briefing for journalists.

“We want energy efficiency to be the new scatter cushion. Less grey boiler suit and more Linda Barker,” Greg Barker said, with a tongue-in-cheek reference to a TV interior designer, before reminding his captive audience that they can also “grab a grand” via the cash back scheme that will run in the early phase to encourage take-up.

The Mad Men are alive and well. MT @gregbarkermp 1st #GreenDeal advert: “Hate Rising Energy Costs? GREEN DEAL WITH IT”

— Greg Barker (@GregBarkerMP) January 25, 2013

While Barker was putting in the hard sell to the media, the creative team at DECC were adding the final touches to the print campaign. We won’t speculate on whether they celebrated its conclusion by downing Old Fashioneds in a Whitehall watering hole.

Back at the media briefing Davey compared Barker to a QVC salesman. While Barker’s delivery was certainly that befitting of a sequent-jacketed TV shopping host, the message was very different.

TV shopping is about conspicuous consumption, sowing and exploiting the whims of its viewers.

Hard sell

Energy efficiency is of course about a much longer term investment. This is part of the problem.

While renewable energy can generate money, money saved is more abstract and a harder sell.

In the past, energy efficiency schemes have typically been grant-based with governments’ ring-fencing a pot of money on a first-come, first-served basis.

Government-backed loan schemes meanwhile have been reliant on the personal credit history of the applicant. This puts some people off applying and makes others, often those that would benefit most from cutting their bills, ineligible.

One of the two print ads running to promote the Green Deal (DECC)

The Green Deal saw a few UK laws tweaked to enable the finance to be set up outside the usual routes and with repayments made through electricity bills, not through standard loan repayments with credit history on the line.

This is where the scheme’s Golden Rule comes into play. Repayments will not exceed the savings made meaning that to all intents and purposes, you don’t feel the effect of the repayments in your household income.

When you leave the house, the Green Deal repayments stay attached to the property and in theory, the next resident takes over the payments, and receives the benefits.

There is of course another layer of complexity beneath this.

You need an accredited assessment of your home before you start and if you haven’t made the basic energy efficiency improvements, you’re not likely to get help installing new whizz-bang boiler. There are ombudsmen and kite marks, and training programmes. Consumers will not be exposed to the majority of this however.

The change in the financing makes this a big improvement on grant schemes. The more people sign up for the scheme, the bigger it gets.

The government hopes that the repayment system will create a new market for energy efficiency that takes the risk out of an up-front investment. Accredited suppliers, installers and assessors will benefit, become competitive, bring down prices and help more people to take part. They predict 35,000 jobs in the sector to be created by 2015.

The interest rate that the Green Deal will charge, 6.9%, has been criticised as too high to encourage participation. It is higher than had been anticipated but energy bills in the UK are rising at around 10% a year.

Some critics claim it is a scheme to line the pockets of the financial institutions that will provide the money in the background. Even if this were the top objective of the policy, those without £10,000 to spend on energy efficiency improvements up front (most of us) will never be able to make those changes without finance. Vilifying anything touched by the banking sector is easily done.

An unsecured Green Deal loan that doesn’t exceed your current household outgoings is surely preferable to standard personal loan through a bank, and more likely to encourage wide participation.

High prices, easy sell

Selling energy efficiency in the UK, where bills are soaring should be easier than it has been so far. It’s no coincidence that markets with heavily subsidised, cheap fossil fuels also have abysmal efficiency records.

The argument is strong for all parties. Less emissions, lower bills, job creation, improved house value.

The difficulty is capturing all of these in a straightforward policy that doesn’t send the public to sleep and works for all households regardless of income.

Germany has tried subsidised loans, grants, increasing building standards and it has had some success toward its contribution to meeting the EU 20% efficiency target for 2020.

A recent audit of EU efficiency funding for public sector projects found that only 10% of the €5bn was being used appropriately and that some installations would never recoup their full value during their lifespan.

Press reports of only five homes having taken up the offer were a bit of a red herring. The scheme had not yet been advertised and was running in a tentative pilot mode.

Of the three EU 20:20:20 targets renewable energy use and emissions reductions are on track, but efficiency is falling behind.

The Green Deal is a different approach but it remains to be seen if it will prove straightforward enough to attract widespread adoption. There’s more at stake than DECC’s reputation with 2017’s 2°C deadline approaching ever closer.

With some keen to write it off before the ads have even rolled, even Mr Draper could be out of his depth.

RELATED VIDEO: Don Draper’s so good he can sell cereal – drunk.

The post Could Don Draper sell energy efficiency? appeared first on Climate Home News.

China will slash the rate of its greenhouse gas growth by 2030 but its emissions will still rise, according to the latest BP Energy Outlook report.

BP predicts that as China continues to restructure its economy it will put the brakes on its growth in coal demand with the 9% rate seen in 2000-2010 0.4% in 2020-2030.

This will be driven by a combination of energy efficiency improvements and the reduction of coal-intensive heavy industry in the country.

Emissions will continue to rise according to the BP analysis.

The EU and the US will both see their greenhouse gas output fall between 2010-2030 by around 1% and 0.5% respectively. In the same time period China’s emissions will grow by more than 2%.

CLICK TO EXPAND

This compares to 6% increases in emissions during each of the previous 20-year periods (1970-1990 and 1990-2010) suggesting that its current climate policy package is expected to have an impact.

China currently has no binding international commitment to reduce its total CO2 emissions but it does have a target to reduce its carbon intensity (CO2 emissions per unit of GDP) by 40-45% by 2050, compared to 2005 levels.

Last week the country’s lead climate change negotiator Su Wei announced a drop in intensity of 3.5% for during 2012, keeping the country on schedule to meets its next milestone.

China is also working with the EU to develop regional carbon trading trials as a precursor to a national scheme.

The post China clean energy drive is working, says BP appeared first on Climate Home News.

China has outperformed its carbon intensity reduction targets with a 3.5% cut in 2012, the government has announced.

The country has a target to reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP by 17% during 2011-2015 with a 2050 goal of cutting by 40-45% compared to 2005 levels.

“The situation last year was relatively good. Based on a preliminary estimate, China could achieve a more than 3.5% fall in carbon intensity,” said Su Wei, director general of climate change department of National Development and Reform Commission.

Despite this progress however, the country’s absolute emissions more than doubled in the first eight years of this century making it the largest single emitter, ahead of the US, EU, India and Russia.

Xie Zhenua, the minister responsible for climate action, said last year that he expected this situation to continue until the country’s GDP per capita has increased by a factor of five, bring it in line with developed nations.

China’s lead negotiatior Su Wei says the 3.5% is cut represents a good prerformance. (Source: Flickr/World Resources)

The country has announced a $372bn investment in energy efficiency as it looks to curb its energy demand during its ongoing development.

“Both carbon intensity and energy intensity are very important metrics to track in China. If China had not achieved significant reductions in energy intensity in the 1980s and 1990s, it would be using far more energy and emitting far more carbon than it is today,” said Joanna Lewis, an assistant professor of Science, Technology and International Affairs (STIA) and specialist in China at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.

China’s latest five-year plan details move to shift the nation away from heavy industry towards a knowledge-based economy, a process that will contribute to the cuts in carbon intensity.

“The reported 3.5% reduction in carbon intensity in 2012 illustrates China’s ability to emit gradually less carbon per unit of economic output, which is crucial to its transition to a low carbon economy,” she told RTCC.

“But while it is extremely important, a carbon intensity goal alone is unlikely to achieve substantial emissions reductions. Further commitments to reducing dependence on coal, increasing the use of renewable energy, and improving energy efficiency will all be important factors in reducing emissions in China,” she added.

China’s rapid economic expansion has seen it increase its coal consumption with 79% of its electricity produced by coal.

The Communist Party’s new leader Xi Jinping spoke of the importance of creating “a beautiful environment” during his acceptance speech, a move welcomed by UN climate change chief Christiana Figueres.

The post Chinese carbon intensity drops 3.5% in 2012 appeared first on Climate Home News.