Why I'd turn off the lights

Went to a talk about Dublin city energy last night, given by sustainability engineer Joe Hayden of Codema as part of the city library science week programme.

I'd heard about Codema before (City of Dublin Energy Management Agency), but hadn't realised the company was set up by Dublin City Council, and that there were some 15 other similar companies, set up by local authorities around the country.

Joe Hayden gave an interesting presentation about Ireland's energy use and our dependence on imported fossil fuels: 90% of our electricity, for instance, is generated from imported oil, gas and coal. As a result, Joe argued that 'peak oil' has major implications for Ireland, and arguably of more immediate importance than climate change. Especially as Ireland is the last customer at the end of a very long oil and gas pipeline, making our supplies increasingly vulnerable.

Dublin city spends (if took Joe's figure down right), €20,000,000 a year on energy alone. But an estimated 20% of all our energy use in Ireland is 'wasted'. That's a lot of money, and it doesn't include the money and fuel 'wasted' or lost, because of the inefficiencies involved in converting oil and gas to electricity, and the inevitable losses that happen when electricity is piped down the National Grid.

So, it was reassuring to see the ILAC library staff turning off all the PCs and lights as we left. Even if, 200 metres away on O'Connell Street, Dublin's new Christmas lights tree was left burning night.

It's made of very low energy LEDs -- cheaper and even more energy-efficient than the compact fluorescent lights being championed by the Minister for the environment. But that's another story.

Image: from http://www.dublinblog.ie/

Who do you buy your electricity from?

Veteran environment journalist Fred Pearce has started a new Green Wash column at The Guardian.

His opening salvo examines the question of green electricity supply, and green energy tariffs -- the scheme that lets British energy customers pay a premium for green energy. But, as Pearce reveals, there is no guarantee that the extra money is used to generate green energy, or to pay for the installation of additional renewable generators (e.g. wind turbines).

What's more, some companies can apparently sell their "green energy" several times (ie sell more than they generate).

In Ireland, we can choose from two electricity suppliers: ESB and airtricity . The latter owns several wind farms and, as a result, claims its electricity is 79% renewable. But, given that all of Ireland's electricity is distributed down the same national grid, how can airtricity customers know that their supply is indeed 79% renewable?

Does switching to airtricity really help to drive the move to renewables in Ireland, or just make us feel good?

What's green, and earning money?

Expect to hear more about the Danish island of Samsø which, thanks to a massive community effort over the past decade, is now self-sufficient in renewable energy.

The 4,000 inhabitants spent €54 million (raised in local taxes and investment), to install nearly a dozen wind turbines on land, and the same again offshore, plus banks of solar panels, and some biomass generators.

The scheme has been so successful it is selling electricity to the mainland and generating an income for the locals -- albeit about €68 per household a year.

Shows what can be done. Looks pretty idyllic too -- we predict a boom in ecotourism there.

Do you count your carbon?

If you knew a product's carbon footprint, would it influence what you buy? Could carbon-labelling help reduce a country's greenhouse gas emissions?

Tesco and other British high street multiples are introducing carbon labelling on selected products, and the Japanese government recently announced something similar.

But, I'm not convinced that this carbon labelling will work.

First, counting carbon (and the other greenhouse gases) isn't easy: accurate calculations are difficult to come by, and specific to each context (change what you feed the chickens on a particular farm, and the carbon count for the supermarket chicken korma dinner changes dramatically). Then, there is the problem of what to include -- only carbon? Other greenhouse gases? And how do we take account of the 'virtual water' contained in products?

Food product labels are already littered with data (calories, 'nutritional' information, and 'may contain nuts' allergy warnings . . .) and at a time when shoppers are probably most interested in what something costs.

Printing calorie information on food products hasn't exactly stemmed the rise in obesity. And if we can't as a nation manage a lo-cal diet, what chance for a lo-CO2 one? Meanwhile, Tesco has just announced a big drive to introduce yet more cheap ranges of low-cost products. Guess we can say goodbye to the organic aisle.