Energy Reduction not Energy Efficiency

Energy companies earn money by selling us energy. The more wasteful we are, the more profits they make. So why would the government give them such a big role in the energy efficiency and renewable programmes in the UK? The energy companies goals are not a reduction in energy consumption. They don't encourage energy reduction but just focus on selective 'energy efficiency' measures. That may sound like the same thing but it isn't.

If you replace your old boiler with a more efficient one, the new boiler may be 20% more efficient. This means it uses 20% less fuel to produce the same amount of heat. It may sound like this will lead to a 20% reduction in energy consumption and heating bills, but research has shown that some of that saving is used to make our homes warmer. In other words reducing our heating bills encourages us to use more heat so that we have a warmer more comfortable home. There may still be a reduction in the overall heating energy used, but it is unlikely to be the full 20% that one might hope for.

Replacing an old fridge for a more efficient fridge will reduce electricity consumption, so long as you don't opt for a larger fridge than the one you had before (or keep the old fridge running in the garage as a spare). Buying a more efficient telly, which is then double the size is another false saving. Research has proven that energy efficiency measures do not significantly reduce our energy consumption. It just makes it cheaper, allowing us to use more.

Even with renewable energy there isn't always the savings. People who have PV panels installed can sometimes feel that their electricity is free, so become less careful with their energy consumption. In the UK they generate a relatively small amount of electricity, and very little in winter when the days are short and overcast. Yet there are cases of people ripping out their gas heating boiler and replacing it for electric heating, thinking that free energy from the sun will be enough to heat their homes in winter. Lack of understanding of technology can be a major factor.
 
Of all the energy efficiency measures, insulating the walls and roof of your home have to come out as the most effective. They are simple as people can understand the logic of wrapping your home in a blanket to keep it warm, and it can be retrofitted to existing homes. The insulation can last for 40 years or more without need for maintenance, and it still works during a power cut. It doesn't require the owner to change their habits either, they still put the heating on when they feel cold and turn it off when they are warm enough.

There has been a lot of energy efficiency drives in the UK since the 1980's, so we really should have reduced our energy consumption significantly since then, right? The graph below shows "Total primary energy consumption, unadjusted and temperature corrected, UK (1970 to 2013)" and is taken from Energy Consumption in the UK (2014) report, from Department of Energy and Climate Change. It includes energy used for transport, heating, generating electricity and manufacturing goods.

Energy consumption really doesn't seem to have been going down since the 1980's. In fact it is only since the recent recession hit that there has been any significant signs of energy reduction. The government tend to use the year 2000 as the base year, so compared to that energy consumption in 2013 has reduced by 12%, but if we compare to 1980 it is still an increase.

I realise that this is against a background of a growing population, but at the same time we have shipped many of our industries abroad. The energy consumed to produce clothes, furniture, electronic gadgets and cuddly toys, is some other country's problem now, namely China's. Take a look at the graph above taken from ChinaFAQs (originally from the US EIA) which shows that industry, the grey area on the graph, is by far China's largest energy consumption and their domestic use, shown in green, is still very small. The column on the right shows the equivalent energy breakdown in the USA. China may now be the World's biggest energy consumer, but the largest part of that is manufacturing goods for the West. China has 19% of the Worlds population whereas the USA has 4%, making their energy consumption look rather modest. A chunk of that grey area on the graph is for making products that end up in the UK. If we could account for that, then our energy consumption would clearly still be rising.

And if we think about the goods, we can see another trend. Instead of having just one landline phone per household, people generally have several handsets on their landlines, and a mobile phone for every family member. No longer do kids have one cherished toy but multiple fads. The volume of 'stuff' we have has been increasing.

Also international flights generally aren't included in the government transport figures. There was always a disagreement over what to include, so conveniently nothing was included. For example, if a British tourist flies to Sri Lanka with Singapore airlines and stops at Athens en route, do you include just the leg of the journey originating in the UK which ends at Athens, or all the way to Sri Lanka but not the return journey which would be Sri Lanka's problem, or the whole journey both ways, or none of the journey because it is with a non-British company?

Energy efficiency hasn't made a dent on world energy trends either, as seen in the graph above from Gail Tverlberg's blog Our Finite World. What does make a difference is high energy prices or recession, which lowers our ability to afford to pay for energy. One way to reduce energy consumption without the hardship of a recession or the pain of high energy prices is by introducing energy rationing. You can bet that the energy companies won't be supporting that one ;-) Fossil fuels are becoming harder to find and more expensive to extract and if we don't start rationing supplies ourselves, then nature will do it for us and in a way that is not fair and rather ugly.

What I found when I looked at the energy consumption in schools for my work, was that the new schools that were well-insulated with highly efficient systems were not necessarily the lowest energy consumers. They were designed with bright lighting that looked as good as daylight (so people didn't think to switch it off) and had extra technology in every classroom. However the schools that had a penny-pinching caretaker, generally one that is a bit fierce and grumpy so that the teachers would rather wear a jumper than ask him to turn the heating up, generally had lower energy bills. The new school would have a fancy metering system that no one understood or needed regular input from a support desk, whereas the caretaker would traditionally walk round and read the meters himself.

What I am saying is that if you want to really reduce your energy consumption it helps to have a frugal mindset. Think about the energy you are using and the cost - financial and environmental, personal and global - and then make wise energy choices. It is vital to know how much energy you use each year and how much it is costing. The best thing that energy companies could do to reduce energy consumption for very little money, would be to make their bills simple and clear. Instead they hide the facts behind monthly direct debits or fancy tariffs. They should show people a graph of their energy consumption compared to the year before or better still compared to the average for their neighbourhood. Then we might start to see some real energy reductions.

Waking up to shortages

There have been two articles recently that have demonstrated that more and more people are becoming aware of the looming energy crisis. The first was in the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) Journal called 'When The Lights Go Out' by Bill Wright (May 2014, page 34). It focuses on the national issue in the UK of a shortage of electricity generation. It is clear that since privatisation in 1990 there has been an under-investment in new power generation. Now we are in a situation where power stations are reaching the end of their useful lives or will not meet tighter EU pollution regulations so have been shutdown, without new power stations coming online to replace them.

Ofgem (the gas and electricity regulatory body in the UK) have been warning of this for some time and I have written about it previously here. Writing for a commercial market, Bill explains the impact of even a short period of power cuts and encourages engineers to be prepared by having backup diesel generators and uninterruptible power supplies (UPS). Articles like this help to plant seeds in peoples minds and as it is aimed specifically at engineers who are responsible for implementing these backup measures, it will hopefully lead to better preparedness. It would take a major power cut or severe warnings from government to result in full-scale preparedness, but it is still a sign that concern is building.

It is the peak demand times when we are at the greatest risk of power cuts, other than from storm damage or severe weather. On a very cold winters evening, around 4 to 5pm, when many people are getting home from work and switching on heating, ovens, kettles etc., is the peak demand in the UK. In warmer parts of the world the peak demand comes in extreme hot weather, from air-conditioning use, but air-conditioning is uncommon in homes in the UK.

The UK's electricity network has been so robust, that power cuts are extremely rare. The last blackout I experienced was in 1987 from the Great Storm, and the blackouts since then have been mainly localised from extreme weather events. The next major power cut may come as a shock to many. Very few people have a back-up system or are off-grid. If you have solar PV panels that are linked in to the electricity grid they will be off in a powercut too, so would not provide a safety net.

The main thing that individuals can do to be prepared is to monitor and reduce their energy consumption at all times, but especially during the peak times. It is also prudent to have working torches with spare batteries or candles and matches on hand. I like head torches, because they leave your hands free and I also use mine instead of a bedside light. I have modelled one for you below, and they do look rather silly, but are so practical for jobs, such as changing light bulbs, that they are a worthy investment. You can give them as gifts to friends and family too.

If your heating is from a gas-fired boiler system, the controls will be electric, so it may be worthwhile ensuring you have some back up heating that doesn't need an electric ignition to start it. This is harder to do unless you have a wood stove, but having a gas hob and hot water bottles you can fill is a start. If you have a cordless telephone these won't work without electricity, so have a traditional landline phone with a cord just in case. You can pick these up cheaply from carboot sales or charity shops. Keeping some spare cash, including coins could be useful too as cash machines and credit cards won't be working in a powercut. Some rural areas may also lose water supply in a powercut, so storing bottles of drinking water may also be necessary.

When electricity is tight, it will force a reduction in consumption. In peak demand periods energy companies buy more electricity from Europe at a premium, so increasing prices. Power cuts will add pressure for further investment in electricity generation, so again increasing prices. Whichever way you cut it, prices will go up, making renewable energy systems more attractive and encouraging businesses and homeowners to seriously reduce their energy consumption. High energy prices have a significant effect on reducing consumption.

The other article was on the BBC News website entitled UK 'Needs More Home-grown Energy', based on a report by the Global Sustainability Institute.

"In just over five years Britain will have run out of oil, coal and gas, researchers have warned."

This again isn't anything new, but who else remembers being told that there was enough gas to last until 2030 and 200 years worth of coal at current consumption? Well countless UK mines have been closed, leaving no option but to rely on imports. UK oil production peaked in 1999 and UK gas production peaked soon afterwards in 2001. They now contribute an ever decreasing percentage of our annual consumption, with UK produced gas providing less than 50% of our total gas consumption for 2013. Rising imports may well have contributed to the increasing prices we have seen.

The report also goes on to claim that Russia has 50 years of oil, more than 100 years of gas and 500 years of coal left based on current consumption levels. As with most fossil fuel predictions you have to be aware that they are based upon current levels of consumption. If countries like the UK are increasingly running out of gas and oil, and are being left with little alternative than to turn to Russia to supply them, then the Russian exports may well increase. If you take into account that this week has also seen Russia sign a deal to supply gas to China for the next 10 years, you can see that the level of consumption is not static. If production increases then the fossil fuels will be used up far more quickly.

China have been exploring the possibilities of fracking. I'm not sure that they would have signed this new deal with Russia if there was any real prospect of fracking meeting their energy requirements. The US have been fracking for a while, but they are still gas importers according to Gail Tverberg in her post The Absurdity of US Natural Gas Exports. The UK government thinks fracking will fill our gap for natural gas, but I think they are deluded. At best it may delay the very real prospect of running out of UK-drilled gas, but at a very high price financially and environmentally.

Russia has some of the remotest landscapes, making drilling for gas or oil, and transporting it long distances, relatively expensive. This could be why they have more fossil fuels remaining than other countries, as when prices were low it was not cost effective to produce. There are clear signs that the highly militarised countries, that are addicted to fossil fuels, are preparing for a power struggle to ensure they have control over the remaining fossil fuel resources.

It would be really good to not be so dependent on fossil fuels right now. Making simple lifestyle changes now, before we are forced by circumstances to make lifestyle changes under pressure, is a good idea. John Michael Greer a leading Peak Oil writer and blogger has used the phrase "Collapse now and avoid the rush" to describe this idea, and he gives a good justification for it. I prefer to think of it as Downshifting. The point is that it is harder to prepare and make changes when everyone is in the same boat and trying to do the same. It is far better to put plans into action now.

"To give yourself a new life, you've gotta give the other one away." (words of a Sara Bareilles song, December) That is what Barry (who's ecohome I discussed in the last post) has done. He has chosen to turn his back on the pursuit of money and some of life's luxuries, like running water and a car, and created a new life where he can manage fairly well without them. What part of our business-as-usual lifestyles would you be prepared to give away?

The sunny stuff

I didn't show the full extent of my roof in the last post because of this....

Just over a month ago we had solar photo-voltaic panels (PV) fitted to our roof. PV panels convert energy from sunlight into electricity. They aren't our PV panels technically, we have just rented the air above our roof to A Shade Greener, who have covered it with PV panels. This may sound bizarre, but it is all to do with a government scheme in the UK called Feed-In-Tariffs or FiTs.

A few years ago PV panels cost so much to install for a dwelling, that the energy saved wouldn't even cover the cost of installing them in their 30 year lifetime. There were 3 reasons for this. Firstly it was a fairly new technology and did not benefit from the economies of scale that mass production does. Secondly the UK is pretty cloudy, so you wouldn't produce as much electricity from them here, as you would if they were somewhere sunny like Spain. Thirdly the cost of electricity in the UK was relatively cheap, so the small amount of electricity that you gained from the PV wasn't worth a lot.

The government decided to follow Germany's lead and incentivise renewables, by offering a generous payment for every unit of electricity generated. By encouraging a bigger take up of PV systems, the economies of scale would kick in and the price of installing PV would drop. This has been pretty successful as prices for a domestic PV system have dropped from around £11,500 to around £4,500.

The FiT amount you receive when you install the PV system is guaranteed to be paid for the next 25 years at that rate. When the scheme started this rate was 43.3 pence per kWh, but has since been reduced (in line with the reduced installation costs) and is currently 14.9 pence per kWh. Investing in PV panels can give a 7% return with the FiTs, far better than the banks are offering at present. So the FiTs mean that installing PV makes good financial sense, if you have an unshaded, southerly facing roof.

I have been looking at ways to reduce my energy consumption, but didn't have money to invest. The PV panels have been installed at no cost to me. The company will maintain them and insure them for 25 years, but they will also receive all the FiT payments. However we do get to use all the electricity the PV produces at no cost, thereby reducing the grid electricity we consume. No upfront cost, no risk and free energy was enough to persuade me :-)

We were very pleased with the whole installation process. There was absolutely no sales pressure or salesmen sent round, they went through the wording of the contract with us line by line, it was well organised so that the scaffolding was up for less than a week, the installation was only 2 or 3 hours and within 2 days we had an online account showing the energy that had been generated. I have copied the table from A Shade Greener's website below.

So far 203 kWh have been produced (about £21 worth), but then it has been a stormy month with several overcast days. What we don't know is how much of that energy we have actually used and how much has gone into the grid, as this is not metered.

 

To gain from having PV, we need to use the electricity when it is being generated - in the middle of the day when the sun is shining. For the average household, where people work outside of the home during the day, they are expected to only use 35% of the energy produced. Working from home means that we have PCs on during the day and it also gives me the opportunity to switch the washing machine on when the sun comes out. Our average daily consumption is 15 kWh, so in winter we shouldn't have a problem using all the electricity from the PV, but we will have to wait and see how we get on in summer when more electricity is produced.

I have my electricity monitor set up on my desk, which displays the electricity that we are using from the grid every 30 seconds. If it drops to zero, I know that I need to switch on my appliances that are loaded and ready, or charge some batteries. If I don't use the electricity it will go into the grid and be used by someone else, but if I can use it, then I will reduce my electricity consumption.

I have been debating whether to include PV in my series of energy saving measures. My aim for the series is to give sound, specific, how-to advice for simple and cheap energy saving measures. I am benefiting from PV for free, but this opportunity won't last forever and my readers from other countries can't benefit from it. However your governments may have similar schemes that you can benefit from, and it is always worth asking. There may be grants or opportunities available that you haven't realised.

My reluctance with PV is because it is always important to spend money on insulating your house first, which will give far better energy savings in the UK and make your home warmer. The government has tried to address this within the FiTs, and domestic properties need to achieve at least a D rating to receive the top FiT rate.

The government should be focusing far more on energy saving measures first, but because reducing energy consumption would reduce profits for the energy companies and VAT (tax) for the government, it isn't much of a priority for them. Not at least until there are enough voices pushing for action. So for the sake of saving energy, reducing carbon emissions and limiting energy company profits, I have included PV.

Energy saving no.4: Install photo-voltaic panels to convert energy from the sun into electricity
For anyone based in the UK who is interested in finding out more, checkout the Energy Savings Trust website for its PV calculator, or the FiTs website for advice. There are only a couple of companies offering to install panels on your roof for free and I used A Shade Greener, who are the largest I think. You have to have a large enough unshaded roof facing roughly south to qualify. I can only tell you about my experience with them which has been good, and I haven't received any payment or incentives from them to promote them. If you decide you want to sign up with them, they are offering £50 for you and the person who recommended you. Please mention that I recommended you and I will donate my £50 to Shelter, a charity that helps homeless people in the UK. If you are local to Loughborough and have money to invest in PV, the Transition Group has a scheme for buying PV panels with a local supplier. Other Transition Groups may have something similar.

Is there anything else you need to know? I will keep you updated on my electricity savings in future posts. I would love to hear from you if you decide to install PV panels, or if you have already had them installed then let me know what you think of them.

90% energy correction

So I have got it wrong! I have just found the original 'Riot for Austerity' Rules as laid out by Sharon Astyk, and it gives all the average US consumption figures to compare with. Of course it would have been good to have found this earlier :)

It turns out that when the US Energy Information Administration gives a figure for domestic energy consumption it is just heating energy and doesn't include electricity. No wonder it was all in BTUs! So if you look back to Part 1: Choices in March you will see the following table comparing my energy consumption with the average US consumption. If we add in the additional 11,000kWh per year of electricity consumption for the average household that I inadvertently missed off, it changes everything. I'm sorry if I have misled anyone with my mistake.

	Average Household Energy Consumption kWh	Average Household Energy Consumption Btu
US 2009	26,259 (Actually 40,587)	89,600,000 (Actually 138,500,000)
UK 2009	19,020	64,900,000
My home 2009	25,813	88,100,000
My home 2012	22,594	77,100,000
90% reduction target	2,626 (Actually 4,058)	10,260,000 (Actually 13,850,000)

I am somewhat relieved to find that our household consumption is already only 56% of the average US household, rather than 86%, and it certainly makes the target seem much more achievable. Whilst I am not prepared to give up my fridge and use a coolbox as Sharon did, I have got plans for further energy reductions, including installing solar PV panels to generate electricity and reduce my grid-supplied electricity by around 40%.

The relief didn't last long because I started thinking about the average person in the US. I had found it incredibly daunting to contemplate an 86% reduction in energy consumption. It is not easy to achieve without significant investment or losing some luxuries, like a warm home and a fridge. Yet on the other hand how can we justify the vast amount of energy we use when millions of people get by with very little at all. And here's me fretting about giving up my fridge!

Here is a graph that I spotted in the UK Energy Trends for September 2013 from the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Though not about the domestic energy consumption it shows the disparity in consumption for crude oil across OECD countries, and I think demonstrates the point. It is showing the proportion of crude oil supply that is produced at home on the vertical 'self-sufficiency' axis. The 'diversity index' along the horizontal axis is showing the stability of the supply. Neither of these features interests me though. It is the size of the bubbles which are used to represent the actual consumption of each of the countries, which made this graph stand out for me. The big blue bubble represents the US crude oil consumption and the red dot on top of it represents the UKs consumption.

This disparity doesn't make reductions any easier, but it just amazes me how the differences can be so large. I can't really get to grips with what it all means, and all sense of outrage or guilt has been suspended. It seems like the choices we make now are even more important than ever.

I have posted the Riot for Austerity rules below in case anyone would like to have a go. It is copied from here I have just inserted a few conversions in to make it easier for us Europeans to compare.

Here are the 7 categories:

1. Gasoline. Average American usage is 500 gallons (2,273 litres) PER PERSON, PER YEAR. A 90 percent reduction would be 50 gallons (227 litres) PER PERSON, PER YEAR.

-No reduction in emissions for ethanol or biodiesel.
-Public transportation and Waste Veggie Oil Fuel are deemed to get 100 mpg, and should be calculated accordingly.

2. Electricity. Average US usage is 11,000 kwh PER HOUSEHOLD, PER YEAR, or about 900 kwh PER HOUSEHOLD PER MONTH. A 90% reduction would mean using 1,100 PER HOUSEHOLD, PER YEAR or 90 kwh PER HOUSEHOLD PER MONTH

- Solar Renewables are deemed to have a 50% payback – that is, you get twice as many watts.
- Hydro and Wind are deemed to have a 4 to 1 payback over other methods – you get 4 times as many.

3. Heating and Cooking Energy – this is divided into 3 categories, gas, wood and oil. Your household probably uses one of these, and they are not interchangeable. If you use an electric stove or electric heat, this goes under electric usage.

- Natural Gas (this is used by the vast majority of US households as heating and cooking fuel). For this purpose, Propane will be calculated as the same as natural gas. Calculations in therms should be available from your gas provider.
- US Average Natural Gas usage is 1000 therms  (29,307kWh) PER HOUSEHOLD, PER YEAR. A 90% reduction would mean a reduction to 100 therms (2,930kWh) PER HOUSEHOLD PER YEAR
- Heating Oil (this is used by only about 8% of all US households, mostly in the Northeast, including mine).
- Average US usage is 750 Gallons (3,410 litres) PER HOUSEHOLD, PER YEAR. A 90% cut would mean using 75 gallons PER HOUSEHOLD, PER YEAR. Biodiesel is calculated as equivalent.
- Wood. This is a tough one. The conventional line is that wood is carbon neutral, but, of course, wood that is harvested would have otherwise been absorbing carbon and providing forest. There are good reasons to be skeptical about this. So I’ve divided wood into two categories.
- Locally and sustainably harvested, and either using deadwood, trees that had to come down anyway, coppiced or harvested by someone who replaces every lost tree. This is deemed carbon neutral, and you can use an unlimited supply. This would include street trees your town is taking down anyway, wood you cut on your property and replant, coppiced wood (that is, you cut down some part of the tree but leave it to grow), and standing and fallen deadwood. You can use as much of this as you like.
- Wood not sustainably harvested, or transported long distances, or you don’t know. 1 cord of this is equal to 15 gallons of oil or 20 therms of natural gas.

4. Garbage – the average American generates about 4.5 lbs (2kg) of garbage PER PERSON, PER DAY. A 90% reduction would mean .45 lbs (0.2kg) of garbage PER PERSON, PER DAY.

5. Water. The Average American uses 100 Gallons (450 litre) of water PER PERSON, PER DAY. A 90% reduction would mean 10 gallons (45 litres) PER PERSON, PER DAY.

6. Consumer Goods. The best metric I could find for this is using money. A Professor at Syracuse University calculates that as an average, every consumer dollar we spend puts .5 lbs (0.2kg) of carbon into the atmosphere. This isn’t perfect, of course, but it averages out pretty well.

The average American spends 10K (£6,200 or 7,400 Euros) PER HOUSEHOLD, PER YEAR on consumer goods, not including things like mortgage, health care, debt service, car payments, etc… Obviously, we recommend you minimize those things to the extent you can, but what we’re mostly talking about is things like gifts, toys, music, books, tools, household goods, cosmetics, toiletries, paper goods, etc… A 90% cut would be 1,000 dollars (£620 or 740 Euros) PER HOUSEHOLD, PER YEAR

~_ _+ Used goods are deemed to have an energy cost of 10% of their actual purchase price. That is, if you buy a used sofa for $50, you just spent $5 of your allotment. The reason for this is that used goods bought from previous owners put money back into circulation that is then spent on new goods. This would apply to Craigslist, Yardsales, etc… but not Goodwill and other charities, as noted below. This rule does not apply if you know that the item would otherwise be thrown out – that is, if someone says, “If you don’t buy it, I’m going to toss it.” Those items are unlimited as well, because they keep crap out of landfills.
~_ _+ Goods that were donated are deemed to be unlimited, with no carbon cost. That is, you can spend all you want at Goodwill and the church rummage sale. Putting things back into use that would otherwise be tossed should be strongly encouraged.

7. Food. This was by far the hardest thing to come up with a simple metric for. Using food miles, or price gives what I believe is a radically inaccurate way of thinking about this. So here’s the best I can do. Food is divided into 3 categories.

1- is food you grow, or which is produced *LOCALLY AND ORGANICALLY* (or mostly – it doesn’t have to be certified, but should be low input, because chemical fertilizers produce nitrous oxide which is a major greenhouse contributor). Local means within 100 miles to me. This includes all produce, grains, beans, and meats and dairy products that are mostly either *GRASSFED* or produced with *HOME GROWN OR LOCALLY GROWN, ORGANIC FEED.* That is, chicken meat produced with GM corn from IOWA in Florida is not local. A 90% reduction would involve this being AT LEAST 70% of your diet, year round. Ideally, it would be even more. I also include locally produced things like soap in this category, if most of the ingredients are local.

#2 is is *DRY, BULK* goods, transported from longer distances. That is, *whole, unprocessed* beans, grains, and small light things like tea, coffee, spices (fair trade and sustainably grown *ONLY*), or locally produced animal products partly raised on unprocessed but non-local grains, and locally produced wet products like oils. This is hard to calculate, because Americans spend very little on these things (except coffee) and whole grains don’t constitute a large portion of the diet. These are comparatively low carbon to transport and produce. Purchased in bulk, with minimal packaging (beans in 50lb paper sacks, pasta in bulk, tea loose, by the pound, rather than in little bags), this would also include things like recycled toilet paper, purchased garden seeds and other light, dry items. This should be no more than 25% of your total purchases.

#3 is Wet goods – conventionally grown meat, fruits, vegetables, juices, oils, milk etc… transported long distances, and processed foods like chips, soda, potatoes. Also regular shampoo, dish soap, etc… And that no one should buy more than 5% of their food in this form. Right now, the above makes up more than 50% of everyone’s diet.

Thus, if you purchase 20 food items in a week, you’d use 14 home or locally produced items, 5 bulk dry items, and only 1 processed or out of season thing

6 month roundup

Back in March, having read "Depletion and Abundance: Life on the New Home Front" by Sharon Astyk, I started comparing my lifestyle with the average American, and the average Brit, and looking at the possibility of reducing our consumption by 90%. Ploughing through the figures made me realise really how difficult a 90% reduction in anything was going to be. My assumption that compared to the Americans we consumed less, so we would have a massive headstart, only panned out to be a small headstart. Still it was worth looking at what could be achieved, and it prompted a change in habits.

Reducing my impact in the food category, has involved increasing my home grown produce, shopping more locally and trying to avoid excess packaging. Free food has been available from growing more produce in my garden, helping at the Transition community allotment and sharing the harvest, and gifts or exchanges from family and friends. Along with my normal food foraging forays, I have been introduced to food rescued from supermarket skips. One bad pear in a bag of 6, results in the whole bag being thrown away. I am certainly learning and improving in this area, and there is far more potential for reducing the impact of our food than I had originally thought. Having only a small garden and little spare time have not been the limiting factors that I had expected. The image above shows all the free food from last weekend :)

Certainly on the 'stuff' level we have really achieved quite a big change. Looking back at the 'One Month Stuff' project, I can see several items that I have found ways to obtain for free. Some of it requires a bit of time and effort, or an exchange of goods with others, which is very sociable and can lead to making new friends. The local car boot sale has been a great source of low cost secondhand goods, and I have even managed to get myself clothes from there, which have quickly become my comfortable favourites. Cheaper and more fun than ebay! No fur or fringes like Macklemore yet :) I have never been one to rummage, but I am learning new tricks and really enjoying it too.

New stuff for the kids is a difficult area to tackle. Recently there have been new shoes, clothes and sports equipment, as it is the start of a new school year. Overall, questioning whether things are really necessary and if they can be bought more ethically elsewhere has been an easy habit to pick up. If I have to buy new, then there may still be ethical options, but they tend to have a higher pricetag, like this georgeous handcrafted cherry wood chopping board that I bought from the local Woodfair event. (Ok - impulse buy!)

Recycled waste has dropped by a third and non recyclable waste has reduced further. The recycled waste savings are partly business, with a reduction in cardboard scraps. Changing from liquid soap to bars of soap, and buying more goods from the market has cut packaging too. We only have about 2 carrier bags of non-recyclable waste each week, which is pretty good for a large family and 2 businesses. More food scraps and cardboard is now going into the compost bin. I was wondering if old cotton rags can be composted too, as I really can't put them in the textile recycling. Does anyone know?

My hubby has also been very good at repairing broken goods this month, such as replacing an iphone screen, which has saved on getting new stuff and reduced waste. He didn't even have any random parts or odd screws leftover at the end ;) What a pro!

Transport, though I never got round to comparing the figures, did show some improvement for a while over the summer. My youngest son started biking to school and tennis club, and I was walking to school with my youngest daughter. It seemed great, but then my son went over his handlebars...on two occasions! No serious injuries luckily, but I'm a bit concerned about a third time. The walking has been cut back too as it seems a bit cruel walking to school and back without bringing Lottie our dog, who is stuck at home.

Sitting in the car reading my book whilst my daughter is at dance lessons, halves the travelling back and forth, and we also give lifts to 3 other girls, reducing our share of emissions. But then add in the additional trips driving to the carboot sale, farm shop, weekly market, and community allotment, which are all further away, so I doubt there has been any reduction in driving habits over the last 6 months. Still, with no daily commute and most facilities close at hand we were already below the average mileage. Just a lot still to do to reach the 90% target.

Energy is my hot topic, and I was gobsmacked that the electricity company reduced our direct debit payments by 10%! Electricity consumption is so difficult to cut back on. All efficiency measures tend to be wiped out by the increase in number or size of gadgets. For instance, 15 years ago we had one landline phone that wasn't plugged in, but now everyone in the house has their own mobile too. I checked my energy data and we have only seen a 3% reduction in electricty consumption over the last year. This is dismal, especially since I was expecting savings whilst my eldest daughter was at Uni. The graph below shows the actual energy consumption as the red line, and the green columns show the cost. (The big column in 2009 shows how energy companies increase the price of your tariff
if you don't compare and switch every 2 years!)

We have been making small improvements, like disconnecting the modem at night, (although I always forget to plug it back in in the morning and wonder why there are no emails) switching off the landing light and having a very efficient nightlight (the kids bedroom is right in front of the stairs, so if they get up at night they could fall - safety before efficiency!) and more recently replacing some of the lights for LEDs. We have tried LEDs before and the light was so bad that we ended up taking them out again. The light from LEDs has improved greatly over the last couple of years, and these ones in our office should pay for themselves in about 2.5 years. Thank goodness, because they are awfully expensive to buy compared to standard lamps. Hopefully we will see reductions in consumption longer term.

Gas consumption for heating has increased, mainly due to the long winter. Adjusting for degree days the consumption would be about the same as the trend for the last few years, so there still would have been no reduction in consumption had the winter been milder. Actual annual consumption is shown below by the dark blue line, whilst the columns show the actual cost.

Super-insulating the house has got to be the best solution to reduce the need for heating. That way not only do you substantially reduce heating costs, but in the event of a supply failure you are better prepared to survive without heating. Dr Tina Holt is our local hero, for retro-fitting her 1930's house to passive house standards and promoting the work as part of the Hobbs report for Transition West Bridgford. It may be far more appealing to consider a new home built from scratch, but it is perfectly possible to retofit if you pay attention to the details. It certainly has the potential to give a significant proportion of the energy saving we are looking for.

What is quite clear is that these relatively small incremental steps can only take me so far towards a 90% reduction in carbon emissions, and a far more significant change is required to get anywhere near the 90% target. This could come about by moving to somewhere with more land and a woodburner, leading us to become more self-sufficient for food and heating, as Sharon Astyk has. Or by retro-fitting our current home, so it is super-insulated, with solar water heating and PV for electricity generation. These are the voluntary options, but there is also the possibility of rocketing fuel prices or financial collapse putting us in a position where we are forced to go without some of the luxuries we are accustomed to. If energy prices are high do you choose to keep your fridge running or watch x-factor? Do you heat your home or have a hot bath? Many people round the World live without any of these luxuries in the first place.

Personally I prefer the voluntary options don't you? Reducing my consumption levels now, may help to cushion the shock of changes that are coming. Even the small changes are adaptions that bring us closer.

It is so nice writing a good news post and sharing achievements, but I am warning you now that this isn't going to continue. It is a wonderful distraction to discuss my garden or secondhand bargains, but it is not the reason that I started this blog.

We are on the brink of massive changes and upheavals, peak everything from peak energy and peak debt to peak pensioners, climate change altering everything we thought we knew about seasons and weather patterns, and the massively unfair distribution of wealth sparking social discontent. Although we feel as if changes happen slowly and incrementally, history has been much more a series of necessary rapid adaptions to a sudden change in circumstances. It's scary and challenging and there is plenty to discuss in future posts to help become better prepared.