Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.
Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
 Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




Products: 'Green' Electricity supplier LoCO2 says no CO2

Bottom of Page

1 to 30 of 37

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
    • CommentAuthorSteveZ
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2011
     
    Reading some of the comments about my switch to the above provider in another thread, it appears that some people are not impressed by the claims of electricity suppliers to provide green tariffs. If you check with switch comparison sites, pretty well all green tariffs seem to be given a blanket rating of only 20% renewables sourced.

    The extract below is from the LoCO2 website so, unless they are telling lies, it appears to be green to me:

    "Our Pocket+ tariff is our second 100% renewable electricity product. The electricity comes from a wider range of new renewable sources:

    hydro
    wind
    solar
    Anaerobic digestion
    Landfill gas
    Biofuels

    No CO2 is emitted or produced."

    Have a look - http://www.loco2energy.com/Switch_My_Home_to_Renewable_energy/Our_renewable_energy_tariffs.asp

    Usual disclaimer - no connection with the company, just a customer hoping to have made the right decision.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJSHarris
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2011
     
    It's an interesting marketing concept, selling "zero CO2" electricity, but is it really anything more than a marketing gimmick?

    The electricity marketplace is such that retailers (i.e.the company selling you the electricity) buy on the wholesale market and have little, if any, influence over generators (i.e. the people that make electricity by whatever means). Whilst I'm sure that many people feel more comfortable buying from a company that only buys its electricity in from zero CO2 sources, does this actually mean that the country is a "greener" place as a result, or does it just mean that "green" electricity resellers have a higher profit margin? Does the premium people pay for "green" electricity directly fund more "green" generating capacity? The answer to the latter point is probably no in practice, due to the wholesale market dictating prices and margins. I'm unaware of a mechanism for passing the premium paid for "green" electricity to the"green" generators, as the pricing arrangements don't seem to allow for it.

    Of course, the other practical point is that you may well pay for "zero CO2" electricity, but the power that arrives at your house will have come from many sources, all feeding the grid, not just those with low or zero CO2. emissions
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2011
     
    Posted By: SteveZ
    Anaerobic digestion
    Landfill gas
    Biofuels


    These fuels when combusted produce CO2, hydro does to in some circumstances (or CO2 equivalent). CO2 (or equivalent 'green house gasses') must be separated from Carbon sequestration, if not then it is perfectly acceptable to burn coal, natural gas (most of it anyway), oil and peat as this is just old plants and animals that have been stored for a few years, quite a few years really.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2011
     
    I've just been onto uSwitch to check if I'm on the best tariff. I am, but interestingly according to OVO Energy their "100% renewable energy" tariff works out only 6% more than the cheapest fossil fuel tariff I can find.

    Begs the question...do we really need to subsidise renewable energy as much as we are doing?
  5.  
    My feeling is that while 'green tariffs' are far from perfect, by choosing them we are sending out a message to the market that there is demand for cleaner electricity.
    However, distinguishing between the green and the greenwash is also not as simple as it should be. There is now a scheme for accrediting 'green' schemes which you can find here: http://www.greenenergyscheme.org/index.php?page=suppliers/index, but the fact that all but one of the accredited tariffs are offered by the big six rather puts me off. If you're interested in reading more of my views on this, here's a blog I wrote when the scheme came out: http://www.yougen.co.uk/blog-entry/1445/How+to+buy+renewable+electricity/
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2011 edited
     
    "My feeling is that while 'green tariffs' are far from perfect, by choosing them we are sending out a message to the market that there is demand for cleaner electricity."

    On the basis that the generating and distribution companies are commercial operations in it for the profit (a legal requirement for any company issuing shares), by choosing those "green tariffs" despite knowing they're a con, you're actually "sending out a message", and a pretty clear one at that, that you're prepared to accept their marketing hype at face value.
  7.  
    Posted By: Joinerby choosing those "green tariffs" despite knowing they're a con, you're actually "sending out a message", and a pretty clear one at that, that you're prepared to accept their marketing hype at face value.


    I buy my electricity from Good Energy, which only sells renewably generated electricity. I don't buy it from any of the big six, because I'm not convinced that they are doing any more than they have to under the RO. I should have chosen my words more carefully ... but I still believe there are a number of small companies offering green tariffs that are not a con, and that the green energy scheme has set a useful standard as a starting point for the big six - although there's plenty of room for improvement.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    But Cathy, if 'Good Energy' is connected to the grid how can it possibly claim to sell only renewably-generated electricity?

    It's like someone totally obsessed with the virtues of nuclear energy saying "I only buy my electricity from Fizz-Power because it only sells electricity generated at Sellafield."
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    Isnt it the way that the generation market works. What they should be saying is that they only buy and resell zero carbon energy. Though we could then get into the debate about what zero carbon means, does it allow for sequestration, embodies energy, land use change, people employed and their lifestyles...
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    Posted By: JoinerBut Cathy, if 'Good Energy' is connected to the grid how can it possibly claim to sell only renewably-generated electricity? "


    What matters is that in theory a new customer signing up for green energy eventually leads to someone building or running new green generating capacity that wouldn't otherwise exist or be used on the grounds of cost.

    I'd like to see evidence that's happening and that it's not just a way for someone with a 50 year old dam to sell electricity at a higher price.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    That is a very good point, especially when you take into account the 'incentives' though ROCs that we all pay for one way or another. Really is time that they just slapped a high tax on non renewable and/or GHG producing generation, then let the market run free.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDamonHD
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    If you buy from a supplier such as Ecotricity (or Good Energy) they commit to building new (or buying only from) renewable sources, depending on tariff.

    So I do it anyway, to get more stuff built. I've saved 90% of my electricity bill by conservation and can afford to spend an extra 5% on the remaining in the hope that it helps.

    Excessive cynicism isn't helpful here, if you actually use one of the smaller suppliers.

    Rgds

    Damon
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    "Excessive cynicism isn't helpful here" - Define "excessive". If I expressed anything it was healthy scepticism.

    Healthy scepticism because I question the unquestioning acceptance of the claimed moral purity of electricity that shares a transmission line with the impure kind.

    The claims of the "eco" electricity suppliers are an example of what MacKay calls "twaddle emissions".
    •  
      CommentAuthorDamonHD
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    Nope, I don't agree with MacKay: Ecotricity puts the money into building turbines that the Big Six put into paying dividends basically, and operates as a not-for-profit. I know which is likely to get more RE stuff built.

    Rgds

    Damon
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    No nuclear then, so their commitment to meaningful reduction in CO2 with consistent supply is suspect? Leaving it for others to sort out so that they can go on piggy-backing?
    •  
      CommentAuthorDamonHD
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    You can have a mix with nukes, or an all-green mix.

    Ecotricity doesn't like nukes, but you can either pay standard rates and get a standard-ish mix, or pay a small premoum and get all green. Either way the profit goes to build new windmills.

    So, not in any way suspect.

    ~50% of all the electricity they supply actually comes from their own turbines, year-round.

    Rgds

    Damon
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011 edited
     
    Joiner, if ea green electron was fitted with a homing device to your in-tray as it left Ecotricity's out-tray, would you be happy for your ones to travel in the same bag with lots of other brown electrons? Why exactly is it different? Do you doubt that Ecotricity dispatch exactly the same no of green electrons as you've contracted to receive, no more, no less?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011 edited
     
    Posted By: fostertomgreen electron


    There is a theory that there is only 1 electron in existence (why they all seem to be the same mass and charge). So it can be green, or not, depending on who you talk to. So when I am on here, mine is green, when I talk to EDF, it is the dirtiest and cheapest.
    "A knotty problem Dr. Feynman"
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011 edited
     
    As it's AC the electrons don't really go anywhere anyway, they just shuffle back and forth 50 times a second.

    Even if you look closely electrons only move back and forth very slowly. About as fast as a snail! On the order of 0.002 cm/second which is equivalent to a few meters a day. This doc has the maths showing how to calculate the speed of electrons flowing back an forth through a 100W bulb..

    http://www.radioelectronicschool.net/files/downloads/howfast.pdf
    •  
      CommentAuthorDamonHD
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    Don't get all sciencey on us, CW! B^>

    Rgds

    Damon
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    Science will get you nowhere, speculation with flowery language always wins the day :wink:
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    :tongue:
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    I'll pull the other one if you like, ST.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    Watch Prof Brian Cox try to explain it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006ml0g
    • CommentAuthorGavin_A
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    Posted By: Joiner"Excessive cynicism isn't helpful here" - Define "excessive". If I expressed anything it was healthy scepticism.

    Healthy scepticism because I question the unquestioning acceptance of the claimed moral purity of electricity that shares a transmission line with the impure kind.

    The claims of the "eco" electricity suppliers are an example of what MacKay calls "twaddle emissions".

    that's largely true of the 'eco' offerings of the big suppliers that basically just repackage the green energy portion of their supplies they have to make anyway, so have no impact beyond the profit margins of the companies.

    It's not true of either good energy or ecotricity, which have no none green energy customers to offset, so at worst with good energy it's sucking green energy out of the grid that may otherwise have gone to make up the big energy companies low carbon quota, and forcing the big suppliers into actually investing in additional production, and in ecotricity#s case it's more direct investment in renewables IIRC.

    There may no be other decent offerings, it's been a while since I looked.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    So if a 100% 'eco/green/renewable' supplier has a contract to deliver say 500MWh/month, and demand during that month is greater, are they allowed to 'offset' to a quieter period?
    • CommentAuthorGavin_A
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    Posted By: SteamyTea
    Posted By: SteveZ
    Anaerobic digestion
    Landfill gas
    Biofuels


    These fuels when combusted produce CO2, hydro does to in some circumstances (or CO2 equivalent). CO2 (or equivalent 'green house gasses') must be separated from Carbon sequestration, if not then it is perfectly acceptable to burn coal, natural gas (most of it anyway), oil and peat as this is just old plants and animals that have been stored for a few years, quite a few years really.

    of course it's all the same.

    no really, I can't possibly think of a single reason why adding carbon to the atmosphere that was last in the atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago could possibly have a greater impact than carbon from food waste that was sucked from the atmosphere earlier in the year, and would have been emitted back to the atmosphere as methane or CO2 anyway if it hadn't been either used in an anaerobic digestor, or collected as landfill gas.

    Nope, I'm stumped, let's just burn coal instead and let all that methane and carbon dioxide from the decomposing food waste / sewage / garden waste just head on up into the atmosphere as well and forget all this bioenergy nonsense.
    • CommentAuthorGavin_A
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011 edited
     
    Posted By: SteamyTeaSo if a 100% 'eco/green/renewable' supplier has a contract to deliver say 500MWh/month, and demand during that month is greater, are they allowed to 'offset' to a quieter period?

    As I understand it, Good Energy contract directly with several thousand small to medium suppliers to supply the bulk of their requirements, then buy the rest from larger green energy suppliers on the wholesale markets as required to ensure that they've bought as much renewable electricity in total as they've supplied each quarter / month / year (not sure which they use).

    As described above, the mechanism really by which this can impact on overall renewables levels is firstly by meaning that instead of a target of 15% of their customers electricty having to be met by renewables, 100% of it does, and secondly it removes this renewable generation from the market place so that it can't be used by the big generators to meet their 15% targets, so they need to invest in additional renewable generation to meet their targets. Either way, more renewable generation capacity has to be added, and less fossil fuel electricity generated as a direct result of customers buying their leccy from a company that purchases 100% renewable generated leccy rather than one that aims for 15% by 2015.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    So there is possibly a time lag between the MWh delivered and installing/buying capacity, which rather answers the original question.
    • CommentAuthorGavin_A
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2011
     
    Posted By: SteamyTeaSo there is possibly a time lag between the MWh delivered and installing/buying capacity, which rather answers the original question.

    being as the customers aren't forced to have real time metering, it couldn't possibly be done any other way. The result is still more renewable generation, and less fossil fuel generation, which is the aim as I understand it.

1 to 30 of 37

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press