A British government office has taken a radical step to reduce energy usage by installing timing switches in their toilets. In itself there is nothing unusual about this but staff in the West Midland reported that they have been often left in the dark after ten minutes when all the lights are switched off automatically in the cubicles.

The government workers explained that they feel humiliated and degraded as they often have to fumble and stumble in the dark struggling to make themselves decent before they can make their way back to the switch located near the entrance. The government employees complained that this is going too far since they were already complying with requests to switch the lights off in the toilets as they were leaving. The government bureaucrats believe that this is an undignified and possibly unsafe practice implemented in a misguided attempt to reduce energy use.

In response to their concerns a government spokesperson defended the timed toilet light switches; stating that they save both money and energy. She asserted that the government has introduced a range of measures across government buildings in order to reduce avoidable energy consumption and are continuing with similar works elsewhere. It is expected that these energy saving measures will be applied to all health, justice and education buildings in the Midlands. (Reported in the Daily Telegraph and reproduced in MX 31st March 2010).

Is this going a little too far? We will let you make up your own mind. However, we would probably recommend occupancy sensors in similar situations that could detect people’s movement or sensors that combine sound detection as well to avoid unexpected surprises. Toilet lights are one of the most pointless energy wasters in many buildings as the lights remain on all day or even 24/7 if forgotten. Numerous sites -especially government buildings- that we have audited implemented this strategy without complaints.

Last month ABARE, the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics released its Australian energy projections to 2029-30.

The blow dried picture of a wind turbine on the front page is unfortunately very misleading.

The projections take into account the likely effects of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (if it ever comes in), the Renewable Energy Target, and other measures designed to reduce Australia’s carbon footprint.

ABARE predicts that the amount of electricity generated in Australia will increase by nearly 50% on 2007-08 values, or a growth rate of 1.8 percent per year. That’s only just below our projected population growth rate of 2.1%.

Total energy consumption is projected to grow 35% (1.4% a year). Its expected that in 2029-30 coal and oil will still be supplying the bulk of Australia’s energy needs. Renewable energy is expected to supply just 8% of total energy in 2029-30.

Assuming that the emissions factors for coal, oil and natural gas are similar to what they are today (for example that 1 GJ of black coal still produces around 88.43 kg of GHG when combusted), a quick calculation shows that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions from the use of fossil fuels are likely to be 21% higher in 2029-30 than they were in 2007-08.

The table below shows the maths, using the data in the ABARE report and emissions factors from the Department of Climate Change website.

I find this data deeply disturbing - it appears as though emissions from fossil fuels will increase from 398 million tonnes to 483 million tonnes. Climate change scientists say we need to reduce emissions. Yet Australia’s emissions from the use of fossil fuels appear to be set to increase, with measures such as the CPRS appearing tokenistic.

Which begs the questions, if the CPRS is supposed to reduce emissions by 5% by 2020, how come my calculations show that our emissions from the use of fossil fuels will be higher in 2030? Or is it expected that the emissions factors will lower for coal (for example via “clean coal” technologies)? Or will the emissions reduction come from international carbon trading? As a developed country with one of the highest per capita emissions in the world is this really the best we can do?

Energy conservation (choosing to waste less energy) and energy efficiency (using less energy to achieve the same outcome) have the potential to decrease our energy use if widely uptaken. The climate change science demands a step change in our ability to save energy if we are to avoid ABARE’s disturbing projections.

delamping demonstration

Brett Muncton (City of Melbourne) and Jake Hallas (Sustainability Victoria) gave a entertaining demonstration of how the workbook can be used. The photos above and below show them demonstrating delamping (step two in the workbook) and setting up power saving settings on a PC (step six).

setting computer power management settings

Written by CarbonetiX, the workbook is based on our successful Greenhouse Gossip program, which was launched in 2008. City Switch signatories in the City of Melbourne and City of Port Philip will also be offered a structured mentoring process, aka the Greenhouse Gossip program.

Presentations by Gadens Lawyers, Telstra and Toyota at the launch showed how its possible to achieve significant energy savings in tenancies. In the case of Gadens Lawyers, a 22% saving was achieved over 12 months at no cost. This was achieved by improving switch off practices, step one of the City Switch Workbook.

city switch work book

Details of the City Switch program can be found here. If you aren’t a tenant in one of the City Switch cities and want to participate in a structured mentored program to achieve guaranteed energy savings please inquire about our Greenhouse Gossip program. Its also suited to those who own their own office building in addition to tenants.