One of the drawbacks of taking global warming seriously is that you can come across as something of a nutter. This isn't a great problem for me because I already have other claims to nuttiness, like having a GCSE in Esperanto. However, this post is about my obsession with making-do and mending.
Recently I repaired a couple of pairs of wellington boots. Wellies, I find, have a habit of splitting when my partner wears them. She got me some new ones for my birthday a year or so ago but took to borrowing them with the inevitable result - a split that let the water in. I now had two pairs of leaky wellies, one of which I had tried to mend before.
The secret, I find, is to stick a cloth patch over the split and put adhesive over the top of the patch to seal it in. Bostik all-purpose adhesive seems to do the job OK but I found a better product called Stormsure. Combined with the cloth patch the Stormsure did a superb job on one of the split wellies, but I wasted the rest of it trying to mend the split on the other without a patch. Having run out of Stormsure (it comes in small tubes) I have redone the job with a cloth patch and some rather old Bostik and it seems to have worked. If that repair doesn't last I'll get some more Stormsure.
The question is: what energy have I saved by mending my wellies rather than buying a new pair? For guidance on this, I have turned to my usual source: David MacKay's Sustainable energy - without the hot air. According to this (p 325), the embodied energy in plastics (wellies aren't made of rubber these days) is generally about 25 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per kilogram. Each welly weighs about one kilogram, so if I have stopped myself buying two pairs of replacement wellies, that would seem to represent an energy saving of about 100 kWh. OK, I have ignored the rest of the energy involved in manufacturing, transporting and retailing wellies, but I have also left out the embodied energy in the adhesive.
100 kWh is the energy I would on average use as gas and electricity in my flat over a period of about 14 days (see my post of August 31st). It's also equivalent to driving about 52 miles in a car that does 33 miles per gallon (83km at 12 km/litre or 8.3 litres per 100 km, see MacKay p29). Not a spectacular saving, but, as David MacKay says, every little helps a little.
What I missed out of the calculation may be important. By not buying new wellies I have declined to support the manufacturers, transporters and retailers of wellies. As a result, these people will have less to spend on things like new wellies and there will be energy and emissions savings as a result. My money has stayed in my modest, private hoard and has failed to help the economy out of recession. That gives me some satisfaction. I have to be cruel to be kind. To save our civilisation from a future catastrophe from global warming, I think we in the developed world need to give up our hopes of economic growth and get used to a steady-state or even a receding economy. My make-do-and-mend obsession is part of my contribution to that much-needed recession.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
"Last chance to change our behaviour"
I found an interesting article yesterday by David Hillyard of Earthwatch Institute which can be seen here, along with a comment from me (among many). Much of his article was about our failure so far to shift from the path of environmental destruction and how the pursuit of economic growth seems to trump sustainability. I supported him on this and in fact both our posts were mainly cries from the heart for us to mend our ways.
His closing comment is "In a world driven by a market economy, business has vital role to play in moving to this new future and can step up and play a leadership role in creating a sustainable future."
My own final sentences were rather non-committal:- "Our economic infrastructure - our companies, capital markets, company law, taxation etc - were designed for an age when the case for economic growth was much stronger. It will be very interesting to see whether leadership towards true sustainability emerges from within the economic infrastructure itself, as David Hillyard suggests it might."
Here is my post in full (edited very slightly):-
"My own reading of the science and economics of climate change, and of other environmental issues, strongly suggests that material living standards in the developed world must fall if the environmental threats are to be effectively confronted. I think we have strong grounds to hope that we can nevertheless enhance our health and happiness.
"The recession we may soon emerge from was unplanned. What we now need is a planned long-term recession that reconciles enhanced health and happiness with falling material living standards. We will obviously need to confront difficult questions such how to pay for health care, honour pension commitments and give people opportunities for purposeful activity in the context of a possibly shrinking formal economy.
"The Government and most of the political class clearly don't see it this way. Political leadership towards a truly sustainable economy is conspicuously lacking. In the media, contributions such as this by David Hillyard still seem to belong in the fringe of public discourse. The desirability of economic growth is treated as a truth universally recognised.
"Our economic infrastructure - our companies, capital markets, company law, taxation etc - were designed for an age when the case for economic growth was much stronger. It will be very interesting to see whether leadership towards true sustainability emerges from within the economic infrastructure itself, as David Hillyard suggests it might."
His closing comment is "In a world driven by a market economy, business has vital role to play in moving to this new future and can step up and play a leadership role in creating a sustainable future."
My own final sentences were rather non-committal:- "Our economic infrastructure - our companies, capital markets, company law, taxation etc - were designed for an age when the case for economic growth was much stronger. It will be very interesting to see whether leadership towards true sustainability emerges from within the economic infrastructure itself, as David Hillyard suggests it might."
Here is my post in full (edited very slightly):-
"My own reading of the science and economics of climate change, and of other environmental issues, strongly suggests that material living standards in the developed world must fall if the environmental threats are to be effectively confronted. I think we have strong grounds to hope that we can nevertheless enhance our health and happiness.
"The recession we may soon emerge from was unplanned. What we now need is a planned long-term recession that reconciles enhanced health and happiness with falling material living standards. We will obviously need to confront difficult questions such how to pay for health care, honour pension commitments and give people opportunities for purposeful activity in the context of a possibly shrinking formal economy.
"The Government and most of the political class clearly don't see it this way. Political leadership towards a truly sustainable economy is conspicuously lacking. In the media, contributions such as this by David Hillyard still seem to belong in the fringe of public discourse. The desirability of economic growth is treated as a truth universally recognised.
"Our economic infrastructure - our companies, capital markets, company law, taxation etc - were designed for an age when the case for economic growth was much stronger. It will be very interesting to see whether leadership towards true sustainability emerges from within the economic infrastructure itself, as David Hillyard suggests it might."
Monday, September 7, 2009
The 10:10 pledge
Last Tuesday (1st September) I went to Tate Modern and signed up to the 10:10 pledge - ie to reduce my greenhouse gas emissions by 10% in 2010, and collected a little pendant recycled from an old Boeing 747 to prove it.
The 10:10 campaign is organised by Franny Armstrong, of Age of Stupid fame. I think it's a brilliant idea as it brings home the need to make substantial cuts in emissions in the near future and not be lulled into thinking we can go at a leisurely pace towards an 80% reduction by 2050.
Signing up was a rash move for me. My domestic energy consumption is already down to 31% of the national average for 2008 (see my last post) and I don't really have much of a clue about how I can get it down to 28%. For a start, I'll be more precise in the way I fill my electric kettle and I'll try and keep better track of the minutes I spend under a hot shower every morning.
Outside the home I'm always looking at ways I waste energy, such as by pressing the button at a pedestrian crossing. I reckon stopping a car weighing 1 tonne and travelling at 30 mph (about 48 kph) wastes about 25 watt-hours of usable energy (and a lot more unusable energy because of the inefficiency of a petrol or diesel engine), enough to keep an 18W energy-saving lightbulb (100W incandescent equivalent) alight for about an hour and twenty minutes. It's also enough to bring water to the boil to make one cup of tea (a quarter of a litre).
If I stop a 40-tonne articulated lorry (or 40 1-tonne cars), then the usable energy wasted is about 1 kilowatt-hour - nearly one seventh of my daily domestic energy consumption.
The trouble is, I've been alive to all this for a number of years and I already try not to stop traffic at pedestrian crossings so I don't think extra care here will get me far towards my 10% target.
Incidentally, I thought The Guardian did the campaign proud - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/10-10
The 10:10 campaign is organised by Franny Armstrong, of Age of Stupid fame. I think it's a brilliant idea as it brings home the need to make substantial cuts in emissions in the near future and not be lulled into thinking we can go at a leisurely pace towards an 80% reduction by 2050.
Signing up was a rash move for me. My domestic energy consumption is already down to 31% of the national average for 2008 (see my last post) and I don't really have much of a clue about how I can get it down to 28%. For a start, I'll be more precise in the way I fill my electric kettle and I'll try and keep better track of the minutes I spend under a hot shower every morning.
Outside the home I'm always looking at ways I waste energy, such as by pressing the button at a pedestrian crossing. I reckon stopping a car weighing 1 tonne and travelling at 30 mph (about 48 kph) wastes about 25 watt-hours of usable energy (and a lot more unusable energy because of the inefficiency of a petrol or diesel engine), enough to keep an 18W energy-saving lightbulb (100W incandescent equivalent) alight for about an hour and twenty minutes. It's also enough to bring water to the boil to make one cup of tea (a quarter of a litre).
If I stop a 40-tonne articulated lorry (or 40 1-tonne cars), then the usable energy wasted is about 1 kilowatt-hour - nearly one seventh of my daily domestic energy consumption.
The trouble is, I've been alive to all this for a number of years and I already try not to stop traffic at pedestrian crossings so I don't think extra care here will get me far towards my 10% target.
Incidentally, I thought The Guardian did the campaign proud - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/10-10
Monday, August 31, 2009
MY DOMESTIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION 31% OF NATIONAL AVERAGE
Last week I did an analysis of my energy bills for the last year. The results in terms of average power consumption over the past year are:-
Gas: 205 watts, 4.9 kilowatt-hours per day
Electricity: 99 watts, 2.4 kilowatt-hours per day
Total: 305 watts, 7.3 kilowatt-hours per day
These figures are adjusted to take into account the time I am away from the flat, when no gas is used and very little electricity.
According to my calculations, the UK average for total domestic energy consumption per person in 2008 was 992 watts or 23.8 kWh per day. That makes my consumption about 31% of the national average per person when I am in my London flat.
It is tempting to think that if my figures became the national average and similar savings were made in the non-domestic sectors (eg transport, industry and commerce), then the UK could achieve a 69% reduction in its carbon emissions without any switch to renewables. However, there are some special factors.
Firstly, my flat is only about 2 km from the centre of London. With the urban heat-island effect, this means that I must be living in one of the warmest parts of the UK.
Secondly, last winter I was probably "free-riding" on my neighbours' heating. I used my central heating very sparingly - not at all for many weeks - and aimed only to keep the temperature in my living room at or above 15C, often resorting to a body warmer over my sweater. I have three exterior walls and I am largely isolated by a staircase from the next-door flat but I have a flat above and below me. If the occupants of these two flats kept their living-room temperatures at a more normal 20C, say, then they will have been paying their heating bills partly to keep me warm. Serves them right for not being eco, but if they adopted my practice of living at 15C, I would probably need to use more gas to keep up to that temperature. All in all, 69% probably overstates the amount by which domestic energy consumption could be reduced if people adopted my lifestyle - but by how much I don't know.
A few boring details - for enthusiasts only
The exterior walls of the flat are 11 inch cavity walls, both leaves of which are dense brick, with internal plastering. The cavity is filled with rockwool. Additional wall insulation would cost me a lot of floorspace. The windows are double glazed, the frames being UPVC over aluminium, and in my living room, where I spend most of my indoor waking hours, there is secondary glazing in addition, giving me triple glazing in effect. Practically all my light bulbs are compact fluorescent. My boiler is nine years old and not a condensing boiler, so further economies are possible there. I have a fridge but not freezer and use my television and hi-fi very little. The main calls on my electricity are fridge, lighting, computer and an electric kettle.
My calculation of the national average domestic energy consumption is as follows:-
Total domestic energy consumption in 2008: 45,985 thousands of tonnes of oil equivalent (Source: Office for National Statistics, Monthly Digest of Statistics, July 2009, Table 8.2)
Multiply by 11,630 x 1,000 to convert to kilowatt-hours (kWh) - the conversion factor of 11,360 is given in Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2008, p17
Divide by 366 (2008 was a leap-year) to give consumption per day
Divide by 61,383,000 - 2008 mid-year estimate for UK population (Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=6, accessed 31 August 2009)
Daily energy consumption = 45,985 x 11,630 x 1,000 / 366 / 61,383,000 = 23.8 kWh / day
Multiply by 1000/24 to give power consumption in watts = 23.8 x 1000 / 24 = 992 watts
Gas: 205 watts, 4.9 kilowatt-hours per day
Electricity: 99 watts, 2.4 kilowatt-hours per day
Total: 305 watts, 7.3 kilowatt-hours per day
These figures are adjusted to take into account the time I am away from the flat, when no gas is used and very little electricity.
According to my calculations, the UK average for total domestic energy consumption per person in 2008 was 992 watts or 23.8 kWh per day. That makes my consumption about 31% of the national average per person when I am in my London flat.
It is tempting to think that if my figures became the national average and similar savings were made in the non-domestic sectors (eg transport, industry and commerce), then the UK could achieve a 69% reduction in its carbon emissions without any switch to renewables. However, there are some special factors.
Firstly, my flat is only about 2 km from the centre of London. With the urban heat-island effect, this means that I must be living in one of the warmest parts of the UK.
Secondly, last winter I was probably "free-riding" on my neighbours' heating. I used my central heating very sparingly - not at all for many weeks - and aimed only to keep the temperature in my living room at or above 15C, often resorting to a body warmer over my sweater. I have three exterior walls and I am largely isolated by a staircase from the next-door flat but I have a flat above and below me. If the occupants of these two flats kept their living-room temperatures at a more normal 20C, say, then they will have been paying their heating bills partly to keep me warm. Serves them right for not being eco, but if they adopted my practice of living at 15C, I would probably need to use more gas to keep up to that temperature. All in all, 69% probably overstates the amount by which domestic energy consumption could be reduced if people adopted my lifestyle - but by how much I don't know.
A few boring details - for enthusiasts only
The exterior walls of the flat are 11 inch cavity walls, both leaves of which are dense brick, with internal plastering. The cavity is filled with rockwool. Additional wall insulation would cost me a lot of floorspace. The windows are double glazed, the frames being UPVC over aluminium, and in my living room, where I spend most of my indoor waking hours, there is secondary glazing in addition, giving me triple glazing in effect. Practically all my light bulbs are compact fluorescent. My boiler is nine years old and not a condensing boiler, so further economies are possible there. I have a fridge but not freezer and use my television and hi-fi very little. The main calls on my electricity are fridge, lighting, computer and an electric kettle.
My calculation of the national average domestic energy consumption is as follows:-
Total domestic energy consumption in 2008: 45,985 thousands of tonnes of oil equivalent (Source: Office for National Statistics, Monthly Digest of Statistics, July 2009, Table 8.2)
Multiply by 11,630 x 1,000 to convert to kilowatt-hours (kWh) - the conversion factor of 11,360 is given in Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2008, p17
Divide by 366 (2008 was a leap-year) to give consumption per day
Divide by 61,383,000 - 2008 mid-year estimate for UK population (Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=6, accessed 31 August 2009)
Daily energy consumption = 45,985 x 11,630 x 1,000 / 366 / 61,383,000 = 23.8 kWh / day
Multiply by 1000/24 to give power consumption in watts = 23.8 x 1000 / 24 = 992 watts
Friday, July 31, 2009
Update on coppicing
You may remember that back in January I started coppicing and pollarding a few of the trees around our perimeter. Pollarding was a precautionary measure - at the time I wasn't sure that coppiced trees would survive the attentions of rabbits, deer and horses. So I coppiced a couple of hazels and pollarded a couple of others, along with an ash tree that was getting rather big and mature.
I don't think I needed to worry about coppicing the hazel. Here's a visual progress report. You can click on any photo to see a larger version.
Here is one of the coppiced stools as it looked in March.
By early May, pink buds were beginning to appear.
This is how it was looking in late July. In the foreground you can see the top of the dead hedge I piled up round the coppiced stool to hide and protect it particularly from deer and horses. So far there is little sign of damage from rabbits. If we can get through to winter without damage from animals, I'll dispense with pollarding hazels and only coppice them.
Here is one of the hazels I pollarded.
I don't think I cut nearly enough wood in my coppicing / pollarding activity back in January and February. The idea was to cut enough for to keep the wood-burning stove fed during the winter after next, allowing two summers for it to season. Part of the problem was that I got diverted on to pruning some apple trees. This produced some extra firewood but not enough to to make up for the coppicing I didn't get round to doing.
Fortunately the supply will be supplemented because a big oak branch came down in early May.
We got a man with a chainsaw to cut the branch up into logs that I can split to the right size to feed the stove. I'm about half-way through that job. I'm hoping that the logs are seasoning well even before I have split them. This stack is in a very sunny spot and all the big logs are off the ground.
The woodpiles are growing. By the end of the summer I hope we will have enough for the winter after next. For this coming winter we will probably have to buy in some extra wood for the stove. Green wood needs to season for two summers and as I only started coppicing last January we won't have the benefit of it this coming winter. The two piles on the left are for this winter. They are mainly from an oak branch that came down in the spring of last year and from a dead oak we had felled a few years ago.
I don't think I needed to worry about coppicing the hazel. Here's a visual progress report. You can click on any photo to see a larger version.
Here is one of the coppiced stools as it looked in March.
By early May, pink buds were beginning to appear.
This is how it was looking in late July. In the foreground you can see the top of the dead hedge I piled up round the coppiced stool to hide and protect it particularly from deer and horses. So far there is little sign of damage from rabbits. If we can get through to winter without damage from animals, I'll dispense with pollarding hazels and only coppice them.
Here is one of the hazels I pollarded.I don't think I cut nearly enough wood in my coppicing / pollarding activity back in January and February. The idea was to cut enough for to keep the wood-burning stove fed during the winter after next, allowing two summers for it to season. Part of the problem was that I got diverted on to pruning some apple trees. This produced some extra firewood but not enough to to make up for the coppicing I didn't get round to doing.
Fortunately the supply will be supplemented because a big oak branch came down in early May.
We got a man with a chainsaw to cut the branch up into logs that I can split to the right size to feed the stove. I'm about half-way through that job. I'm hoping that the logs are seasoning well even before I have split them. This stack is in a very sunny spot and all the big logs are off the ground.
The woodpiles are growing. By the end of the summer I hope we will have enough for the winter after next. For this coming winter we will probably have to buy in some extra wood for the stove. Green wood needs to season for two summers and as I only started coppicing last January we won't have the benefit of it this coming winter. The two piles on the left are for this winter. They are mainly from an oak branch that came down in the spring of last year and from a dead oak we had felled a few years ago.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Biochar - a magic bullet?
Today, as often happens, I got carried away in my reading about matters relevant to climate change and peak oil. The trail started with an article I ripped out of The Independent a few weeks ago about how burying charcoal could be an effective way both to sequester carbon and increase the fertility of soil. I first looked up "biochar" in Wikipedia, then "terra preta" (terra preta is the fertile, black soil found on land inhabited in former centuries by Amazonian Indians) and that led me to an article from Nature (2006) entitled Black is the new green. As it happens, the Independent article is about an initiative involving Craig Sams, one of the founders of Green & Black's chocolate.
According to the Nature article, burying charcoal offers a triple gain - as well as sequestering its own carbon and improving soil fertility, the charcoal provides a favourable environment for living organisms within the soil so causing even more CO2 to be captured. It all looks too good to be true but I have no good reason to be sceptical.
For permaculturalists, who prefer not to till the soil but to plant directly, there is a problem - how do you bury the charcoal? No doubt someone will come up with an answer. How do I know about permaculturalists? I have just read Permaculture in a nutshell by Patrick Whitefield - a very slim volume but it seems like an excellent introduction to the subject leaving me eager to learn more.
While reading particularly the Wikipedia articles I was glad that I had recently taken steps to fill some appalling gaps in my scientific education. Until just over a year ago I knew very little about chemistry, never having studied it at school. My first activity following my giving up paid work was to take the Open University Discovering Science course (S103, since replaced by S104, Exploring Science). I can't call myself a scientist on the basis of that one eight-month course but I now feel a lot happier reading science literature.
According to the Nature article, burying charcoal offers a triple gain - as well as sequestering its own carbon and improving soil fertility, the charcoal provides a favourable environment for living organisms within the soil so causing even more CO2 to be captured. It all looks too good to be true but I have no good reason to be sceptical.
For permaculturalists, who prefer not to till the soil but to plant directly, there is a problem - how do you bury the charcoal? No doubt someone will come up with an answer. How do I know about permaculturalists? I have just read Permaculture in a nutshell by Patrick Whitefield - a very slim volume but it seems like an excellent introduction to the subject leaving me eager to learn more.
While reading particularly the Wikipedia articles I was glad that I had recently taken steps to fill some appalling gaps in my scientific education. Until just over a year ago I knew very little about chemistry, never having studied it at school. My first activity following my giving up paid work was to take the Open University Discovering Science course (S103, since replaced by S104, Exploring Science). I can't call myself a scientist on the basis of that one eight-month course but I now feel a lot happier reading science literature.
More on coppicing
The day before yesterday I spent half a day doing a free taster course on coppicing at the Brinsbury campus of Chichester College, between Billingshurst and Pulborough, West Sussex. I have now been actively coppicing and pollarding for the last six weekends, interspersed with pruning (ie cutting up to six-inch thick branches off) apple trees.
The course reassured that what I was doing was broadly right and gave me some extra guidance on various points. I was particularly interested in how to protect the "stools" (what is left after coppicing) from deer. At Brinsbury they build little "wigwams" of brushwood over the stool. The wigwam erected by a fellow student and myself is probably more elaborate than is necessary but it was fun to build and reminded me of my one-time life as an architect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)