Natural Environment Blog

Small businesses will always strive for ways to reduce their outgoings, particularly in an unfavorable economic climate such as the one we find ourselves in. One good way to reduce expenditure is to look at utilities; switching suppliers or reducing usage can help with energy bills, although it can often be a complicated task.

One way that small businesses are beginning to benefit from attempting to reduce their outgoings is through generating their own electricity. Previously the costs associated with generating electricity prohibited small businesses from considering this option, but  generating your own power is becoming a relatively affordable thing to do.

Increasingly generating electricity is becoming a viable option for small businesses, who can pocket the reduced utility bills, and even selling surplus energy back to the National Grid. Here are three ways in which small businesses can generate their own electricity.

Solar Panels

There are two ways in which solar power can be used to generate electricity. Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) uses the sun’s energy to boil some water, while Photo-Voltaic (PV) solar panels convert the energy directly into electricity.

Photo-Voltaic solar panels are still reasonably expensive, but can generate a significant amount of electricity. These are solar panels which use light, so they can still generate power even on grey, overcast days although obviously not as much as long, sunny days.

One problem with solar panels is that they tend to mean power is only available during the day, when the sunlight is casting onto the panels. For domestic properties this can mean that solar panels are not appropriate, but for many businesses the majority of energy use takes place during office hours, when the sun is shining.

Either way, it will be useful to store the energy being generated, so most PV systems come with batteries which can be charged.

Another solution is to sell your energy surplus back to your electrical supplier (as long as you are still connected to the National Grid) and then paying them for your electricity when the sun goes down and you’re no longer generating power.

Wind Turbines

Wind turbines are experiencing a rise in popularity recently, particularly due to the shrinking price of micro-turbines in DIY stores.

While it may seem like the perfect solution, with the wind blowing all day and night, the amount of electricity which can actually be gleaned from these wind turbines is often negligible, depending on the specific location.

Wind speeds are always faster above ground level, at heights above an average house. The wind disturbance caused by other buildings around it further decreases the amount of electricity which can be generated.

A large turbine on the edge of a building where it can receive clean, fast air is more likely to generate a decent amount of energy, but there is also the annoyance of the noise of the blades spinning around.

Combined Heat & Power Units

Another method of generating electricity which is bound to become more widely available in the future is the use of Combined Heat and Power units (CHPs).

While they were previously only suitable for large buildings like factories and universities now small CHP generators are on the market, running on natural gas. The heat generated is channeled to provide heating and hot water for the building and is no less efficient than a modern gas boiler.

Future Benefits

While the technology required to generate electricity may still require a sizable initial outlay, the benefits should be apparent for years and years for a small business, with greatly reduced energy bills. As fossil fuels become scarcer the price of energy is bound to keep rising, so it’s no surprise that forward-thinking businesses are beginning to attempt to run under their own steam.

While these opportunities for businesses to save money on their energy use are still worth investigating, many of the technologies are not yet developed appropriately for businesses, and should probably be considered as future prospects rather than immediate changes.

Save Money Now

Most small businesses could be saving money now by switching business electricity supplier and employing energy-saving measures such as using natural light and ventilation where possible, avoiding leaving equipment on standby and turning off lights in rooms that aren’t in use.

This article was written by Adam Cairn on behalf of uSwitch for Business, a price comparison website, helping small and medium-sized businesses save money on their energy costs.

I recently wrote about an “Online Treehouse”, where you could find furniture and every day items that are certified by the Rainforest Alliance. Well, along the same theme, here’s another way of finding eco-friendly furniture.

The Sustainable Furnishings Council (SFC) is a non-profit industry association, which was established to promote sustainable practices within the furniture industry.

Well, its original focus was on the furniture industry when it was first established in October 2006, when it was called the Sustainable Furniture Council. However, since then, it has changed it’s name to Sustainable Furnishings Council, to better reflect it’s more diverse membership base. Its 250+ members include suppliers, manufacturers, importers, and designers of accessories, lighting, rugs and other categories.

The goals of the SFC are:

• To raise awareness of the sustainability issue
• To assist companies in adopting good practices
• To serve as an information clearing house
• To create a symbol of assurance for consumers

Earth Hour 2009 will be at least 3 times bigger than 2008 with more than 76 cities officially participating. These before/after photos were taken during Earth Hour 2007 in Sydney. Photo: madradish.

Earth Hour 2009 stands to be the biggest Earth Hour to date. Last year, 26 cities officially participated in Earth Hour. The current count for 2009 is almost 3 times that figure - and we’re still more than 3 months away from the event.

Furthermore, organizers anticipate that over 1 billion people will take part in 2009 - up from 50 million in 2008. This is largely due to China’s involvement in 2009, where populous cities such as Beijing and Shanghai will participate

The official number of cities to participate in Earth Hour 2009 currently stands at 76 cities.

Official Cities To Particpate In Earth Hour 2009

Here are the cities currently listed for participation in Earth Hour 2009. Note that this figure is sure to increase over the coming months as more cities are announced.

Australia

• Adelaide
• Brisbane 
• Canberra 
• Darwin 
• Hobart 
• Melbourne 
• Perth
• Sydney

Bolivia

• Santa Cruz de la Sierra 

Bulgaria

• Sofia

Canada

• Toronto 

China

• Beijing
• Hong Kong
• Shanghai

Costa Rica

• San Jose

Denmark

• Aalborg
• Copenhagen
• Odense

Federated States of Micronesia

• Ponphei

Fiji

• Suva

Finland

• Espoo
• Helsinki

Guatemala

• Guatemala City

Italy

• Bologna
• Florence
• Milan
• Naples
• Palermo
• Rome
• Turin
• Venice

Jordan

• Amman

Mexico

• Mexico City

New Zealand

• Auckland
• Christchurch
• Hamilton

Norway

• Oslo
• Tromso
• Trondheim

Phillipines

• Manila

Poland

• Gdansk
• Lodz
• Poznan
• Torun
• Warsaw

Portugal

• Lisbon

Russia

• Moscow
• Petropalovsk-Kamchatsky

Singapore

• Singapore City

South Africa

• Cape Town

Sweden

• Ekero
• Gothenberg
• Kalmar
• Kiruna
• Lilla Edet
• Malmö
• Mullsjo
• Nassjo
• Norrkoping
• Orebro
• Sodertalje
• Ulricehamn
• Vaxjo
• Ystad

Turkey

• Istanbul

United Arab Emirates

• Abu Dhabi
• Dubai
• Fujairah
• Sharjah

United Kingdom

• London

United States

• Chicago
• Las Vegas
• Los Angeles
• San Francisco
• Miami 
• Nashville

Note that China has already indicated that more chinese cities will be announced in the future.

About Earth Hour 2009

Earth Hour is a global WWF climate change initiative. Individuals, businesses, governments and communities are invited to turn out their lights for one hour on Saturday March 28, 2009 at 8:30 PM to show their support for action on climate change.

On Monday, WWF officially announced that China will participate in Earth Hour in 2009.

Back in April,  WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) indicated that China would have more involvement in Earth Hour next year, but the extent of its involvement was largely unknown.

Hong Kong is already on the list of cities to take part in Earth Hour 2009. On Monday it was announced that Beijing and Shanghai would also participate.

WWF has also indicated that more Chinese cities will be announced in the future. 

2009 To Be Bigger Than 2008

In 2008, 26 cities were officially part of Earth Hour (although more than 370 cities, towns and councils took part unofficially). 

For 2009, the official count currently stands at 76 cities across 62 countries. It is anticipated that more than 1,000 cities, towns and councils will participate unofficially in 2009.

About Earth Hour

Earth Hour is a global WWF climate change initiative. Individuals, businesses, governments and communities are invited to turn out their lights for one hour on Saturday March 28, 2009 at 8:30 PM to show their support for action on climate change.

The event began in Sydney in 2007, when 2 million people switched off their lights. In 2008, more than 50 million people around the globe participated. In 2009, it is anticipated that more than 1 billion people in 1,000 cities will participate in Earth Hour.

Masdar city's compact and shaded design will encourage walking and cycling. Photo: Foster + Partners.

A brand new city is being built in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates which, when finished, will be the world’s first zero carbon, zero waste city.

Masdar City, a completely self sustaining city, will be powered by renewable energy and all waste will be recycled or reused. 

The city will be built in the most energy efficient way possible. Because of this, its power requirements will be about a quarter of that of a similar sized city.

A solar-powered desalination plant will provide the city’s water. As with its power, Masdar will be extremely water efficient. Masdar’s water requirements will be 60 percent lower than other similar sized cities. 

The city will cover an area of roughly 6 square kilometers and will eventually be home to around 1,500 businesses and 50,000 residents. As many as 60,000 people will commute to the city on a daily basis via a light rail line.

The name Masdar translates into “the source” in Arabic. 

Designed by Foster + Partners, Masdar City is due for completion in around 8 or 9 years. The first stage of development will be complete in 2009.

Artist's impression of Masdar city, the world's first zero carbon, zero waste city. Photo: Foster + Partners.

A World First

This is the first time a city has ever been built with the aim of producing zero carbon and zero waste.

“The environmental ambitions of the Masdar Initiative – zero carbon and waste free – are a world first.” said Norman Foster Chairman of Foster + Partners.

“They have provided us with a challenging design brief that promises to question conventional urban wisdom at a fundamental level. Masdar promises to set new benchmarks for the sustainable city of the future.”

No Cars

Instead of using cars, Masdar residents can use eco-friendly travel pods, like the one above, that run on magnetic tracks.

Masdar city will be completely car-free. 

Instead of cars, residents will be able to use travel pods running on magnetic tracks. To use a travel pod, a passenger will simply locate a pod station, get into the pod, and program where they want to go.

And the stations will be plentiful. With around 1,500 stations, no point in the city will be more than 200 meters from a transport link.

But, due to the city’s layout, it is anticipated that many residents will cycle or walk to most destinations. Walkways will be shaded to make walking more bearable in the region’s extreme heat.

A solar-powered light rail system will connect Masdar city with other nearby cities.

Masdar’s Initiatives

Because of the ambitious goals of the Masdar initiative, the project includes a number of supporting initiatives to assist in acheiving the ultimate outcome. In particular, the Masdar initiative will include the following:

• substantial investment in innovative and renewable energy technologies
• the fostering of talent, expertise, and knowledge sharing in renewable energy disciplines
• the construction of local and regional green power production facilities that complement and balance fossil fuel production
• the reduction of carbon emissions through active participation in carbon markets
• the creation of a model, zero carbon, zero waste city that demonstrates the practical viability and appeal of living in alternative energy environments

The Masdar Initiative is currently seeking suitable partners from around the world to help achieve its ambitious goal.

For more on the initiative, see the official Masdar Initiative website.

As environmentalists push for “green” energy, the coal industry continues to emphasize the fact that coal is cheaper than its greener alternatives. 

But is coal really as cheap as we think it is?

Greenpeace has released a report that reveals the true cost that coal is having on the world at large.

Entitled The True Cost Of Coal: How people and the planet are paying the price for the world’s dirtiest fuel, the report shows that coal is costing the world around €360 billion per year.

Over the next ten years this would translate into €3.6 trillion - roughly $US4.6 trillion. 

The Hidden Costs

In calculating the figure, Greenpeace looked at the external costs of coal, such as costs arising from mining accidents, acid rain, and more.

The report says:

Traditionally considered the cheapest fuel around, the market price for coal ignores its most significant impacts. These so-called “external costs” manifests themselves as damages such as respiratory diseases, mining accidents, acid rain, smog pollution, reduced agricultural yields and climate change.

Greenpeace explains that the the harm caused by mining and burning coal is not reflected in its price per tonne or its costs for a kWh of electricity, but the world at large is nevertheless paying for it.

Coal’s Impact On Climate Change

The report also explains that coal burning contributes more to climate change than any other fossil fuel, and that coal-fired power stations produce 11 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. 

Greenpeace emphasizes that our decisions regarding coal is not something we should take lightly:

As the single largest source of CO2 emissions, the manner in which we deal with coal in the coming years will determine whether we can respond adequately to the climate crisis.

And, our decisions of today, will have an ongoing impact for years to come:

A coal plant built today will emit CO2 pollution for at least the next 40 years.

Dirty Coal vs Clean Coal?

And Greenpeace is not impressed by so called “clean coal”, where carbon from the burning coal is captured and stored underground.

Greenpeace says that, even if it were a feasible option, there isn’t enough time to deploy Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) plants.

The earliest possibility for deployment of CCS at a useful scale is not expected until at least 2030, while global greenhouse gas emissions must start falling after 2015 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change 

Greenpeace believes that CCS is providing an unwelcome distraction in the discussion on reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

Those peddling technological fixes – such as carbon capture and storage which claims to make coal clean and safe for the climate – create a dangerous distraction as the world seeks truly sustainable solutions that will reduce emissions and protect our climate. It is only by quitting coal and increasing energy efficiency and production of renewable energy that we will prevent catastrophic climate change. 

Coal Must Be Phased Out

The strong message in the report is that coal must be phased out, and proposed coal-fired power stations must not go ahead.

Instead, Greenpeace emphasizes that renewable energy and energy efficiency must be the way forward:

Given the availability of alternatives such as renewable energy and energy efficiency, which can meet our energy needs in a safe and climate-friendly way, there is no need to continue relying on coal. We must reduce our dependence on this dirty fuel and abandon plans to build new coal-fired power stations. 

So, given the true cost of coal, the report makes the argument for renewable energy even more compelling.

Full Report [PDF document]

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) remanded a PSD permit on Thursday for a proposed coal plant addition near Vernal, Utah.

EPA says that it cannot grant such permits until it decides what to do about limiting the CO2 emissions that the plant will produce.  

The decision will essentially delay any new coal plant in the United States for at least a couple of years.

The Sierra Club went before the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) in May this year requesting that the air permit for Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s proposed waste coal-fired power plant be overturned because it failed to require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution. Once the 110 MW Bonanza plant was in operation, it would have emitted 3.37 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. 

On Thursday, the permit was overturned.

Significant Decision

The ruling will make it much harder for companies to receive permits for new coal plants. This could have a significant impact on the US coal industry as over 100 coal plants are in various stages of development around the country. 

“They’re sending this permit — and effectively sending every other permit — back to square one,” said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club. 

“It’s minimum a one to two year delay for every proposed coal-fired power plant in the United States.”

The ruling makes reference to the landmark Massachusetts v. EPA decision last year that declared carbon dioxide a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Until Thursday’s decision, the EPA had not yet acted on this ruling.

Coal Plants are Huge Carbon Emitters

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits are for construction projects that may significantly increase air pollutant emissions. Part of the process for granting a PSD permit is determining what Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to use in order to minimize pollutant emissions.

“Coal plants emit 30% of our nation’s global warming pollution. Building new coal plants without controlling their carbon emissions could wipe out all of the other efforts being undertaken by cities, states and communities across the country,” said Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign. “Everyone has a role to play and it’s time that the coal industry did its part and started living up to its clean coal rhetoric.”

Good News for Low-Carbon Technologies

Thursday’s decision helps pave the way to making solar, wind, nuclear and other low-carbon technologies more competitive.

“Instead of pouring good money after bad trying to fix old coal technology, investors should be looking to wind, solar and energy efficiency technologies that are going to power the economy, create jobs, and help the climate recover,” said Nilles.

View the ruling [PDF document, 69 pages]

Two North Dakota farmers fighting for the right to grow industrial hemp, have had their case heard in the United States court of appeals. 

The farmers sued the DEA in June last year because it was preventing them from planting hemp, despite the fact that they had received state licences to grow the plant. 

Although the state of North Dakota has granted the farmers with licences to grow hemp, the federal law claims that industrial hemp is a drug and therefore prohibits them from doing so.

Initial Ruling

The U.S. District Court of North Dakota had initially dismissed the farmers’ case in June 2007, ruling that that hemp and marijuana are the same.

Contrary to this ruling, scientific evidence actually shows that not only are oilseed and fiber varieties of Cannabis genetically distinct from drug varieties, but there are absolutely no psychoactive effects gained from eating it.

Wednesday’s Hearing

The farmers, represented by attorneys Joe Sandler and Tim Purdon, argued to the court that there is no possibility the hemp crop could be diverted into the market for drugs.

“Given North Dakota’s unique regulatory regime, nothing leaves the farmer’s property except those parts of the plant Congress has already decided should be exempt from regulation: hemp stalk, fiber seed and oil. The question is whether there is any rational basis for Congressional regulation of the plant itself growing on the farmer’s property. The answer is no — because industrial hemp is useless as drug marijuana and there’s no danger of diversion, so there’s no possible impact on the market for drug marijuana.” Mr Sandler argued to the court.

The government argued that the plaintiffs should apply to the DEA for permission to grow hemp and that the court didn’t have jurisdiction over the issues raised by the farmers.

Melissa Patterson, representative for the Justice Department, said “The plaintiffs should await the DEA’s decision on their application,”

In response, Judge Michael Milloy asked, “Isn’t it true the DEA will not rule on the farmer’s applications to grow hemp, you’ve had eleven months?”

Ms. Patterson answered, “The DEA has not replied out of respect to the pending proceedings.”

In response to the jurisdictional objections made by the DEA, Judge Lavenski Smith said, “When there is a legitimate constitutional issue brought before us we can hear the case.”

The court is expected to make a written decision next year.

Benefits of Hemp

Hemp is an environmentally friendly fiber, often referred to as a “super fiber” due to it’s enormous versatility.

A new agency will be formed in early 2009 to act as a driver for renewable energy on an international level.

Although there are other international energy agencies, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), which was initially driven by Germany, Spain and Denmark, will be the first worldwide agency dedicated to renewable energy.

IRENA says,

There is an urgent need for renewable energy to play a stronger part in international political processes – whether they deal with trade, investment, environment, energy or other issues. Its aim will be to generate momentum for renewable energy on an international level.

Large-Scale Adoption of Renewable Energy

IRENA’s objective is to foster and promote the large-scale adoption of renewable energy worldwide. 

The agency plans to break the objective down into the following tangable targets:

• Improved regulatory frameworks for renewable energy through enhanced policy advice 
• Improvements in the transfer of renewable energy technology 
• Progress and improvements on renewable energy skills and know-how; a scientifically sound information basis through applied policy research 
• Better financing of renewable energy

Greenpeace has published the second edition of their Energy [R]evolution report, which has been updated with the latest economic, technical and population data. 

The report provides a blueprint that the world can use to cut emissions, phase out nuclear power, save money and maintain global economic development - all without fuelling catastrophic climate change.

The report shows how the planet can get from where we are now, to where we need to be.

Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Currently, developed countries use much more energy per capita than developing countries. 

The report explains that by 2020 developed countries such as USA, Europe and Australia are projected to use two to  three times more energy per capita than China or India. And because of this, those developed countries need to reduce their carbon emissions much earlier than developing countries. 

Greenpeace say,

In the global fight against catastrophic climate change, global greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector must have peaked by 2015 and have returned to current levels by 2020.

The report says that industrialized economies such as the USA, the European Community and Australia, have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30% below 1990 levels.

It also says that developing countries need to stabilize their carbon emissions by 2020, then start reducing emissions. 

3 Step Approach

The blueprint provides a 3 step approach:

Step 1: Electrical efficiency

• Exploit all technical potential for electrical efficiency via technical standards

Step 2: Structural changes

• Change the way we produce energy in large centralised power stations towards a decentralised energy system, using large-scale renewable resources that use locally available energy sources such as wind, sun or geothermal.
• Cogeneration – end the huge amounts of waste energy via cooling towers

Step 3: Energy-efficient transport

• Build up efficient public transport systems

Implement efficient cars, trucks, etc.

5 key Principles

Greenpeace say that the report is based on proven technologies the following key principles:

1. Equity and fairness
2. Respect natural limits
3. Phase out dirty, unsustainable energy
4. Implement renewable solutions and decentralise energy systems
5. Decouple growth from fossil fuel use

Greenpeace’s Message to the World Governments

In the report, Greenpeace makes a plea to governments around the world to:

1. Phase out all subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy
2. Internalise the external (social and environmental) costs of energy production through “cap and trade” emissions trading
3. Mandate strict efficiency standards for all energy-consuming appliances, buildings and vehicles
4. Establish legally binding targets for renewable energy and combined heat and power generation
5. Reform the electricity markets by guaranteeing priority access to the grid for renewable power generators
6. Provide defined and stable returns for investors, for example by feed-in tariff programmes
7. Increase research and development budgets for renewable energy and energy efficiency

The Report

The Energy [R]evolution was developed in conjunction with specialists from the Institute of Technical Thermodynamics at the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) and more than 30 scientists and engineers from universities, institutes and the renewable energy industry around the world.

View a Summary (PDF, 16 pages) | View the  Full report (PDF, 212 pages.