Saving through energy and resource efficiency
Saving businesses, consumers and the Government money through energy efficiency
More efficient use of energy and other resources could save businesses and consumers in Britain billions of pounds every year. Much of this can be achieved from simple and cheap actions. The savings made could be quickly channelled into new investment.
Greater resource efficiency has a fundamental role to play in increasing the productivity and competitiveness of UK business and it is also increasingly becoming a selling point for both UK and international customers. A national shift to greater resource efficiency would also support the creation of tens of thousands of jobs for businesses in this sector.
Despite the clear economic case for undertaking energy efficiency measures, lack of information and lack of finance – especially in the current economic climate – can prevent businesses from taking them up. Government has a clear role in removing these barriers and already provides advice and low cost finance, including through the Carbon Trust and Regional Development Agencies. While this assistance has been very successful, our ambition is to go further. This includes making it easier for businesses to access advice and support through Business Link (www.businesslink.gov.uk) under Solutions for Business, the Government’s streamlined portfolio of business support products, and the Real Help campaign being offered during the downturn, so as to help them make simple changes to reduce their resource use and save money.
The public sector has to demonstrate leadership in the move to a low carbon economy. The public sector could save a significant proportion of the £4 billion it spends on energy each year through energy efficiency measures. The public sector could also boost demand for innovative low carbon products and services as part of the £175 billion it spends annually on providing public services.
We have two objectives on energy efficiency for our Low Carbon Industrial Strategy: to facilitate a comprehensive step change in the number of businesses and public sector operations making the shift to greater energy efficiency, and to make sure that an active industrial policy means UK firms have the skills to advise and carry out this work, and to bring new energy efficiency technologies to market.
- What are the main barriers in the UK to business and the public sector realising the full benefits of energy efficiency?
Share:
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
StumbleUpon
I’m an Energy/Carbon/Utility manager for a large local authority, a qualified mechanical engineer with a professional teaching qualification and 20 years experience of hard nosed commercial energy management. There are only two ways you can improve energy efficiency, change the consumer’s attitude or invest in better technology. Much research is showing that consumer change is not so easy or assured for the longer term. So, we are left with technology which requires finance. Unfortunately in local government a financial incentive, understanding or interest in delivering a low carbon economy is severely lacking. Unless local government is mandated, penalised for non compliance and resourced, the lighter shade of very pale green will continue. I know the opportunities at the authority I work for are there to save between 20% to 30% in the next 10 years with existing technologies and about £10 million,. But….apart from the cost, the leadership, urgency the priority are just not where they need to be.
I would like to reinforce Andrew Gillies’ comments. The role of local authorities is critical but they do not have the resources, (financial or human), the motivation, the powers or, in many instances, even the understanding of what needs to be done. A comment made elsewhere on this strategy dismisses district heating because there is not enough biomass to achieve the carbon savings. I think it is generally accepted that there is no single technology to address the challenges of the reductions in emissions that are required.
It is because of this that I believe that Local Authorities need to adopt binding reduction targets in their local development frameworks and take on the task of assessing what is the best mix of efficiency savings, behaviour change and low carbon technologies to suit their communities’ circumstances. To do this they need to conduct ecological footprint surveys so they know where they are starting from and can monitor progress. They need to undertake energy planning to bring together the most appropriate mix of solutions. Most of all they need to be given the powers they need over all these elements - a particular problem here is transport where lack of powers is commonly cited as a reason why no change can be included in the development frameworks.
A simple illustration of the integrated approach that is needed is solar thermal grants. These are currently handed out from national and regional schemes with no consideration if these incentives are being directed at areas which might be suitable for district heating. Maintaining a good year round heat load factor is key to the viability of DH schemes so it may not make sense to encourage this load to be served by other means in areas where DH offers the best solution. Without overall planning at the local level inefficient allocation of resources would seem to be inevitable.
My family and I have recently taken out a bank loan in order to install solar panels to heat all our water. We received a grant towards the cost and are proud of our investment. However, as our aspect is North facing, we have to raise the panels, meaning that they show above the roof of the house. Consequently, we have been contacted by our local authority (Oxford City Council) and told that we have contravened planning restrictions. We are currently contesting this with them.
This is an issue that clearly needs to be addressed by Central Government in order to join up the message. If we were to lower our solar panels to make them comply with local planning requirements, we will only be using 30% of the solar capacity, which defeats the object of installing them. As a society we will need to resolve this issue so that we become as used to seeing (and content to see) solar panels above our rooftops as we are to see telephone masts, arials and satelite dishes.
I recently got a quotation for solar panels. There is sufficient space on our south facing roof for enough panels to produce all our electicity needs and sell some back to the grid to offset our gas costs. But the cost is over £16,000 and the payback from microgeneration is unclear. As green as i want to be the Government have to understand that, in the current economic climate, most people can’t afford this outlay even though it would resuce my household’s carbon emmissions substantially.
We have a company that has access to a technology that will reduce domestic energy consumption by 25-35%. The ‘black box’ can be fitted in less than 1hr by an electrician. This is an ideal solution to sit along side, and greatly enhance, the proposed smart meter roll out in 2010-2020. Please can we discuss this?
Smart meters should be used to power heaters such as storage heaters at times when renewable power is available. Investment is required in control systems to ensure these work well enough for consumers to adopt them in preference to more controllable alternatives.
The existing regulatory frameworks for a number of UK utility industries present a host of barriers to the comprehensive uptake and of low carbon and energy/resource efficient technologies and processes. Not least of these are the structure and focus of the periodic review planning periods and price control setting mechanisms. These barriers need to be identified and removed, in addition to measures which increase knowledge and awareness of emerging technologies.
Such changes may pave the way for the introduction of low carbon technologies without the need for early adopter grants or low cost financing.
The Innovation Funding Incentive introduced by Ofgem to the electricity distribution industry has been incredibly successful in bringing technology developments forward, but the regulatory framework also need to ensure that these developments are rolled out into business as usual so that the benefits are realised. Similar changes need to be made in other regulated utility frameworks, such as that of the UK water industry which itself is a significant energy-intensive industry.
One of the most helpful things that could be done in public procurement is to ensure that buildings and plant are evaluated on a whole life costing basis. Although this is supposed to happen (Green Book etc) it clearly does not, as evidenced by a recent report co-ordinated by Policy Connect on the matter. Government agencies and local government still are not sufficiently encouraged (often because they are given absolute spending limits) to pursue more capital expensive projects that have a better financial and environmental payback because they are more energy efficient.
Similar disincentives exist in the private sector, sometimes because purchasers are still motivated by lowest initial cost rather than making slightly more sophisticated calculations and purchase decisions. Efforts to educate purchasers about whole life costing and to discover the reasons why rational purchasers still do not use this method universally could be one approach. After all this method is used in presenting the net present value of projects in the financial domain.
With regard to promoting the merits of energy efficiency, governments would be well advised to first give consideration to the problem of ‘Jorvans Paradox’ which states that resource use is accelerated in direct proportion to any increase in efficiency.
The opportunities to reduce of energy dependency through greater efficiency are staggering. A major barrier is the fragmented construction industry in the UK with the majority of the 250,000 businesses numbering less than 10 employees. Incorporating the best available insulation technology is difficult in such a landscape.
The recent Ecovacuum project conducted in Brussels has suggested new targets in energy saving that vacuum cleaner manufacturers will be expected to meet. However the Government have still failed to take an interest in a project that can save over 75 % of the power used by Vacuum Cleaners.
Air recycling technologies exist and could make a 250 Watt cleaner work as efficiently as a 1,400 watt vacuum cleaner; as shown in tests conducted for the Market Transformation Program.
This could save 1.5 Terawatt of electricity each year in the UK alone that is about £225,000,000 worth of electricity at 15p a unit and 650,000 Tons of CO2. Emissions Annually.
You would think that projects of this value would at least get a good hearing. But I am sorry to tell you that although working prototypes exist and tests have been made projects are still gathering dust. It seems that everyone is shouting about saving energy but not prepared to lift a finger to help.
There is much truth in the saying “there are none so blind as those that do not want to see”.
Air recycling can also remove the health hazard caused by the air that is normally blown from a VC disturbing allergens, causing them to become suspended in the air. With respiratory diseases on the increase this is another reason why the Government should investigate this technology and ensure manufacture.
This new technology could open up the potential of an EU market in the floor care industry of over Four Billion Pounds annually.
In recent years government has reduced or removed funding aimed at supporting smaller businesses to become more resource efficient. While the Carbon Trust will provide advice to businesses over a certain size, there are hundreds of thousands of smaller businesses that are below their threshold. Business Link provides advice to only a small fraction of these businesses and in our area rarely makes referrals for environmental advice. As a university-based, not-for-profit organisation, we have been providing low-cost, practical advice and support for small businesses who would not otherwise engage with the government’s resource efficiency agenda. To date we have been able to provide this for free to the businesses, thanks to funding from Envirowise, SEEDA, the BREW Centre and our County Council. Now all those funding sources have dried up and we - and other units like ours - are in danger of having to close down. This is in spite of the fact that our unit alone has succeeded in helping over 1,000 organisations in our area to improve their resource efficiency. We have evidence of having saved many tonnes of CO2 as well as diverting thousands of tonnes of waste from landfill. Surely this is an area that the government should be continuing to fund, not pulling resources from.
TUC GreenWorkplaces Project 2006–7: Objectives and outcomes report, TUC 2007.
Unions, the workplace and climate changes, Labour Research Department/TUC, 2009 (forthcoming).
Energy efficiency at work
The Government should ensure that energy efficiency initiatives in the workplace feature prominently in its LCIS.
As Stern and colleagues argued, energy efficiency measures for buildings and industry are among the most effective ways to combine environmental outcomes with a fast economic stimulus. Their report rates these measures highly given that they are quick to implement, time-limited and offer long-term social and environmental impacts and immediate job creation opportunities.
The Stern Review itself identified three key policies to tackle climate change:
• carbon pricing;
• investment in new technology; and
• “The removal of barriers to behavioural change is the third essential element, one that is particularly important in encouraging the take-up of opportunities for energy efficiency”, (Stern Review, page 20).
The TUC’s Greening the Workplace report (2005) stated: “Because workplaces burn energy, consume resources and generate waste, the challenge of climate change is a fundamental issue for trade unionists.” A TUC evaluation of the first 12 workplaces covered by the projects found that union-led committees, surveys, green events and other initiatives had helped the organisations reduce carbon emissions and making other breakthroughs. The report found a high level of staff engagement with the issues and enthusiasm to tackle climate change (TUC GreenWorkplaces Project 2006–7: Objectives and outcomes report, TUC 2007).
In 2009, a further TUC study revealed the dramatic extent to which this idea has taken root among unionised workplaces across the UK, with 1,300 responses to a new survey. The study found extensive evidence of union involvement in climate change measures in the workplace. The testimony of union reps identified some of the key mechanisms utilised to secure these changes. Negotiated agreements, climate committees, audits and inspections and training are all ways in which union reps act as catalysts on climate change in the workplace.
In order to raise the general level of awareness and the role that everybody can play within their place of work to help make it a low carbon operation the Government should ensure green workplace initiatives feature in the LCIS.
Energy efficiency measures in businesses should be accompanied by water efficiency measures. These will save on energy bills through the heating of less wasted water, and will also save on water bills: simple fixes such as switching from urinals that flush throughout the day and night to new technologies that flush far less if at all can save businesses up to 40% of their water bills. Water efficiency measures are unique in that they help both climate change mitigation and adaptation.
using better insulation or smart meters are sertantly good ways to save energy. But the controlling of the energy which a building uses can only be controled through BMS (building managment system)The turning off of unwanted lighting and heating can be done through this sort of system. People tend not to turn lights off in offices when bright sun light is shineing through the windows in the afternoon, such systems will do this automaticly with the use of light sensors.