Reports recently published in newspapers indicate that the government’s mandatory energy star rating schemes of homes is rather inaccurate. The scheme has been heavily-criticised by the building industry (HIA and MBA) and they are calling on scientists and the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to review the way the star rating is calculated for new houses.

Applying the same software to the whole continent is not the right approach either. Most importantly there is another fundamental issue that relates to the way a home is used –which has more to do with the occupants than the actual construction of the house itself.

The main problem cited by the building industry involves the three government-approved tools used to award the star six star rating. Basically it means that there are unacceptable differences between the star ratings produced by the various software tools when assessing the same house. The flaws in the star rating system were discovered after industry representatives, private companies and scientists commissioned independent studies to test the software tools on identical houses. For example the independent testing showed that the same Brisbane house had a variation of 3.2 stars when different software tools were used to audit it. In addition the software tools are easy to manipulate to get the desired results. A side issue is the under-qualified assessors who don’t operate under any quality programs.

The second issue relates to the fact the same software tools are used Australia-wide. Since the software tools mainly deal with heating and cooling to deliver a star rating they don’t take into consideration the varying climates found in Australia. In each part of Australia there will be different contributions of heating and cooling and we have little real data to help us in our understanding of by how much, or whether at all, star ratings will help reduce consumption. A respected scientist explained that the star rating doesn’t actually measure the electricity demand in a given house. So basically there is no correlation between the stars and GHG emissions.

It has been suggested that end-use metering study should be commissioned to determine overall home energy use, energy use by home appliances and the assessment of the thermal performance of the building shell for different housing types. Also, the overall performance of the recently-built six star homes should be assessed to create a valid database to establish if the star rating scheme has in fact helped reduce energy consumption.

The third observation was expressed by a university professor who explained that in reality the behaviour of the occupants of a house dictate the energy consumption. It doesn’t matter how many stars a home has if the occupants don’t use it responsibly. It could be stacked with electrical appliances like LCD screens, fridges or with inefficient halogen lighting. The software tools merely calculate the potential savings based on the fabric of the house, insulation, wall materials and of course the likely heating and cooling. Therefore, it is really up to the individual to act responsibly and to have an interest in reducing greenhouse emissions and of course their electricity bills.

For more detailed information and pdf file go to this site: https://carbonetix.com.au/why_your_5_star_energy_efficient_home_isnt.php

(Ref: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/eco-threat-to-house-prices/story-e6frg6z6-1225904124270 and
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/energy-star-ratings-in-disarray/story-fn6tcs23-1225899270215 )

I’ve been invited to comment on a recent article by Hunter Richards of Software Advice on greenwash. The article calls for an improvement to environmental accounting infrastructure through software, so that consumers can have greater confidence in claims of carbon neutrality.  Financial accounting methods, standards, auditing procedures and tools are well developed, but not so with carbon accounting. By way of example Richards highlights how a well known company that stated it was carbon neutral hadn’t accounted for its scope 3 emissions.

Scope 3 emission are “indirect” emissions that are embodied in products and services that a company may use. For example scope 3 emissions for a drinks manufacturer would be the carbon emission embodied in the aluminium the drinks company makes its cans out of. However the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, the major global carbon accounting standard in use, hasn’t yet prescribed inclusion of scope 3 emissions in carbon accounting practices

Scope 3 emissions are challenging to measure, and ultimately can only be accurately tracked if every product is labelled with its embodied carbon emissions. Financial accounting practices rely on everything having a price. For example, the sale price of a car is comprised of the cost of everything that goes into making the car, down to the wheel nuts. The price of the wheel nuts in turn depends on the price of the steel used to make the nuts, and the amortised cost of the tooling used to make the nuts. The price of the steel depends on the ingredients in the steel, for example its molybdemum  content, amongst others. The price of molybdemum depends on the cost of energy and labour and amortised machinery used to mine it, process it and transport it. The amortised price of mining machinery depends on many factors as well. Ultimately there are probably well over a million prices that come together to make up the price of a car. In the same way complete carbon accounting also relies on every product or service having emissions associated with it accounted for.

This is complex to do. Daniel Goleman’s book Ecological Intelligence gives the example of glass, which typically has over one hundred ingredients in it in addition to sand. To provide thorough scope 3 carbon accounting requires being able to identify the emissions arising from each ingredient. Thorough scope 3 accounting for something like a computer or a mobile phone is thus very hard to do if the embodied emissions of each constituent part is not known. In the absences of mandated carbon labelling for all products and services, voluntary carbon reporting of scope 3 emissions is very challenging.

This is where emissions databases, and associated software, are useful. “Generic” emission factors could be developed for a particular type and size of product or service, in the absence of actual numbers, and applied when estimating scope 3 emissions. Global sharing of this information via on-line databases could make scope 3 carbon accounting much easier. However generic emission factors will only ever be rough approximations. Ultimately if accuracy is the aim everything in the economy needs to be labelled with its carbon emissions.

Standards, auditing standards, certification schemes and clear rules are needed for accurate carbon accounting. In the absence of complete carbon labelling of everything there needs to be transparency around methodologies and recognition that scope 3 carbon accounts will at best be estimates with a long list of assumptions behind them.

Last week I had the pleasure of interviewing Christopher Ong, Vice President Business Development, First Choice & GoGreen for DHL Asia Pacific , Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa. The express division has cut its emissions by 19%, an impressive achievement given the large size of DHL. Globally DHL employs around half a million people.

How has it achieved these savings?

Firstly the chairman identified that it was important for the company to reduce its emissions, as part of being a good corporate citizen.
Secondly, it set a carbon reduction target, of globally reducing emissions by 30% per kg delivered, by 2015.

Third it put in place a measurement and tracking system. Unlike many organisations which centralise their data collection for the purpose of tracking emissions, DHL developed a system where the data entry is decentralised system.

Fourth it got staff using the system. Initially it was hard to motivate staff to do this. However with strong management support, monthly data entry into the system is now the norm. Each month each facility fills in a on-line questionnaire, entering in information such as the litres of diesel used. This only takes a few minutes.

Fifth, graphs and reports from the system are printed out at each facility, and put on the facility noticeboard where they are prominent to staff and drivers.

Sixth, it has fostered competition, encouraged ideas that reduced energy consumption, and empowered staff to take actions to reduce their energy use. For example, in their facilities in Singapore DHL now practices “lights off at lunchtime”, an idea suggested by a staff member.

Chris highlighted the fact that saving energy saves money, and that the Global Financial Crisis has actually accelerated their savings.  He said that their total savings to date of 19,000,000 kgs have come from lots of people each saving a few kgs each day. Financial savings so far total ten million euros. His advice to other organisations:

1. Be able to measure your emissions accurately.
2. Give power to the people on the ground. Give them the information they need – what their emissions are now, what they were, how much they have saved. The results can be very immediate, and this reinforces what more can be done.

DHL provide a inspiring example for other organisations to follow. This good news interview with Christopher Ong can be found at https://carbonetix.com.au/wwx/good-news-interviews.

After a $100 million smart grid trial in July this year, the Australian Government released the Australia smart grid guideline on the 30^th September.

“With this investment, Australia will showcase the world’s best practice when it comes to investing in smart grid technologies, helping industry get on with the job of rolling out these technologies and supporting clean energy jobs,” Mr. Garrett said.

The potential benefits of a full smart grid implementation are dramatic. Some studies have suggested that savings of between 10% and 25% in electricity demand are achievable.

In contrast, the USA Department of Energy delayed to reveal the smart grid standards last month. “Basically because the development of smart grids is a larger task than the electricity utilities can handle. There is also a lack of understanding and willingness by them to investigate how to best form partnerships with the rest of the industry.” Paul Budde posted.

This has not slowed some big names to rush into the market including Microsoft, Google, IBM, Cisco and AT&T, who are all eager to rock and roll.

My concern is the communication ability of smart grid and smart meters. At present, the meters only store 30 minute intervals of data and transmit the data bi-monthly or quarterly. If Australia has to replace all the electricity meters again after 5 years, who would pay for it?

What smart grids will Australia get? We will just have to wait and see!

image from www.greentechmedia.com

You may have come across this news item a couple of months ago but it is worth taking another look. Although, the study was conducted by a major spam-ware corporation, it is clear that junk e-mails have a huge carbon footprint.

(image: www.fotolia.com)

Anything powered by electricity emits greenhouse gases. Recently research was conducted in the US to find out the amount of energy needed to transmit, process and filter spam globally. The results were startling. According to the ‘Carbon Footprint of Spam’ report the average greenhouse gas emission of a single spam message is 0.3 grams of CO2. Is this a lot? Well, if you multiply this by the number of spam sent annually it translates into a huge figure.

It is estimated that there are 62 trillion junk e-mails sent each year. In terms of energy this equals to the energy needed to drive a car around the planet 1.6 million times. If looking at the electricity needed to power these spam it equals to 33 billion kWh. This amount of electricity could power 2.4 million homes for a year! Spam-related emissions for all e-mail users around the world in 2008 totalled 17 million tons of CO2 or about the same as the emissions produced by 3.1 million passenger cars. That’s 0.2% of the total global emissions.

The report found that about 85 to 91% of all e-mails globally is spam. Nearly 80% of the spam-related GHG emissions came from the energy used by the PC users viewing, deleting and searching for legitimate e-mails amongst the junk e-mails. But spam filtering itself accounts for about 16% of spam-related energy use. To view and trash a piece of spam takes about 3 seconds.

If every inbox were protected by spam filters, organisations and individuals could reduce today’s spam energy by 75% or by 25 billion kWh per year. This would save the same amount of greenhouse emissions as produced by 2.3 million cars. In late 2008 a major source of online spam was taken off line and global spam volumes dropped by 70%. However, there are always new ones to take its place.