There’s a new gas supplier in town and the raw material is human waste.

And although it’s a new gas supplier, there’s some familiar faces behind the project. British Gas, Thames Water and Scotia Gas Networks are hoping to introduce the project to more locations throughout the country.

Residents of Oxfordshire village Didcot are the first to use gas from their own ‘poo’ to power their cookers and heating systems.

The gas is called biomethane and is a clean gas manufactured from the discharges of human waste.

The gas is extracted from the waste and then goes through a number of cleaning processes before being pumped into the national grid.

Although regarded by some as a novelty, there is a real motivation behind such projects as a EU directive has stipulated that 15% of the UK’s energy must come from renewable sources by 2020.

And this has become a priority for British Gas whose head of energy, technology and innovation, Martin Orrill, said that the Didcot project, as well as other ones like it, are a natural step to making full use of renewable resources. As to whether the residents of Didcot might be perturbed by the use of human waste gas, he said:
“They will not notice any difference as the renewable energy source has no odour, and the infrastructure to deliver the gas is already in place.”

The human waste to useable gas process makes use of existing anaerobic digesters which already exploit bacteria to generate electricity, but now also removes a by-product called biogas which is then turned into biomethane. The cycle of the process from flushed toilet to gas into the grid is only 23 days.

British Gas has installed the collection and cleaning equipment at the Didcot sewage works operated by Thames Water. Around £2.5 million has been invested in the scheme.

Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said:
“This is an historic day for the companies involved, for energy from waste technologies, and for progress to increase the amount of renewable energy in the UK.”

Experts point to the project as a great example of what can be achieved with clean technology, although it’s admitted that it’s still on a very small scale. Figures suggest that if all of the country’s sewage plants were fitted with such equipment (and there nearly 10,000 plants currently operating), then the resulting renewable gas would only be enough to power 350,000 properties. This is based on the fact that the country produces nearly two million tonnes of sewage every year, with the average person contributing 30kg every 12 months.

There is also some debate as to the financial validity of this new gas supplier, with the Department of Energy and Climate Change being quoted as saying:
“Clearly there are benefits to the scheme, but we must also consider the impact of the cost, particularly given the financial constraints we must work within and the potential impact that funding options could have on vulnerable people.”

Martin Baggs, chief executive officer at Thames Water has the last word:
“Every sewage works in Britain is a potential source of local renewable gas waiting to be put to use.”

Guest Article by Neil Camp 

One of the UK’s largest manufacturers of heating devices, Worcester Boilers, has described the new Chancellor’s budget as tough and fair.

But Worcester Boilers did express some concern at the lack of discussion over the Renewable Heat Incentive.

In response to George Osborne’s emergency budget on June 22, Neil Schofield, head of sustainable development at Worcester Boilers said:
“After a great deal of speculation and trepidation, on the whole we agreed with the tough but fair description that was promised. There were some concerns that Osborne’s strategy would cause a double dip, but all in all we don’t feel that this will be the case.

“On the business side, obviously the VAT increase to 20% isn’t going to be welcomed by anyone but generally most predicted this was on the way and will find it an acceptable necessity. The fact that it has been delayed until January 2011 is positive, because in the second half of this year we could see consumers make that large purchase sooner rather than later to avoid the increase. For some this may mean a new heating system, which will be a boost for the industry.”

But whereas the emergency budget’s main issues were welcomed, Worcester Boilers has called for greater clarity on the fate of the Renewable Heat Incentive. The company recognised the talk of green policies, but said such talk was nothing new. It welcomed the idea of The Green Investment Bank and the Green Deal for Households, but lamented the lack of detail about both initiatives, saying the: “devil will be in the detail.”

What was very conspicuous by its absence says Worcester Boilers, was the Renewable Heat Incentive which didn’t receive any mention in either the budget speech, or within the budget document itself.

Indeed, Worcester Boilers points out that there has been no mention of the Renewable Heat Incentive since the new coalition Government took over.

Neil Schofield, head of sustainable development at Worcester Boilers, takes up the story again:
“Speculation is now rife but what we need as a business and for the whole industry is certainty, so that we can plan. If it’s in, then great, we can plan for it. If it’s out, we’ll be disappointed but at least we can move forward knowing what steps to take. We would urge the new Government to be honest and tell us one way or another, sooner rather than later.”

Many in the heating industry believe that the Renewable Heat Incentive is being deliberately overlooked and that is bad news for all concerned.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

Elements of the media continue to question the viability of wind energy, questioning its very essence.

The Sunday Telegraph devoted a whole broadsheet page to the viability of wind energy.

It questioned the premise that wind farms are a good way of harnessing nature’s power.

One of the main problems of course is not so much how efficient they are at creating energy, but at their presence on the UK landscape. It’s said that there are now over 2,500 land-based wind turbines ‘polluting’ some of the country’s finest landscapes.

The Sunday Telegraph article reminded its readers of how the previous Government considered planning objections to the building of wind farms. Mr John Prescott, the former deputy prime minister, once said: “We cannot let the squires and the gentry stop us meeting our moral obligation to pass this world on in a better state to our children. So let me tell them loud and clear: it’s not your backyard any more – it’s ours!”

But aesthetics aside – wind farms are now moving offshore – the central issue remains as to the viability of wind energy.

The arguments on one side are clear. The UK is the windiest country in Europe and this ‘free’ energy could provide enough juice to power the country several times over. Furthermore, for every unit of electricity generated by a wind turbine, the equivalent amount is not needed from a conventional power stations. And that existing wind turbines now in use have the capacity to stop the emission of nearly four million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year.

Great, the argument for the viability of wind energy.

Now the alternative argument. The key word is capacity. Wind turbines have the capacity, only if they operate at 100% all the time. In other words, they must operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in a optimum wind speed window of between six miles an hour to 55 miles an hour (when they have to shut down for safety’s sake) to achieve full capacity.

No wind turbine operates at 100%. The wind does not blow to order and Government and even industry figures suggest that the best they can hope for is a measly 30%. The problems comes down to storage. The power generated has to be used when it’s being generated. Massive storage of electricity is not possible with the current infrastructure, so when demand peaks, the power stations have to up their capacity and meet the demand then and there. Even if the wind blows on a good day, the power cannot then be stored for later use.

The Sunday Telegraph concludes that there will soon be 7,000 wind turbines operating in the UK and many of those will be offshore, and that this sheer number speaks more for the case of the politicians actually being seen to do something positive, rather than a sound economic argument.

But even this may be missing the point when considering the viability of wind energy. Wind turbines are part of a bigger strategy that will pull in renewable technologies which will in turn gradually make a difference to the C02 emissions. There is no quick-fix and that if a renewable industry has to be in effect subsidised, then so be it.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

Comments from the Government’s new Chief Scientific Advisor have not gone down well with top boiler manufacturer Worcester.

They were dismayed by Professor’s David Mackay’s first public comments, on his first day in his new job as chief scientific adviser at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which were designed to set out his vision for Britain’s energy future which centre on a significant increase in nuclear power capacity.

Worcester saw the advisor’s words as a: “…a thinly veiled attack on the use of gas in domestic heating.”

They were particularly irked at the Professor’s words which said:
“Setting fire to chemicals like gas should be made a thermodynamic crime. If people want heat they should be forced to get it from heat pumps. That would be a sensible piece of legislation.”

Neil Schofield, head of sustainable development at Worcester, Bosch Group, said:
“Professor Mackay’s comments set out a vision for Britain’s energy future based upon electricity, but it does not reflect the reality on the ground that domestic heat is predominantly gas powered in the UK. The logistics of replacing all gas-fired boilers with heat pumps, even in the medium term, would be an enormous undertaking significantly dwarfing the conversion from town gas to natural gas in the 1960s and 1970s.
“Professor Mackay has issued a new series of far flung objectives, bearing in mind that nuclear technology will take at least 20-30 years to come on stream, with no thought to the short term, the next 10 years. There is still no clear roadmap for either consumers or the heating industry of how we are going to meet the near term objectives.”
“Professor Mackay talks of people being forced to install heat pumps, but gives no indication of how consumers will be helped with the capital cost or what they should do if heat pump technology is not suitable for their own home. Our experience at Worcester, Bosch Group is that heat pump technology is not suitable for all applications. I would like to ask Professor Mackay how he heats his own house.”

Schofield makes it clear that he believes that the Professor’s comments are a further example of the Government and its advisers contradicting themselves in key policy areas.

He went on to say:
“On the one hand the Government is trying to encourage the uptake of renewable technologies with its proposals for the Feed-in Tariff for the Renewable Heat Incentive, but it is providing no upfront capital help for consumers to install the equipment and is now seriously considering taxing any monies generated. This will inevitably take away a major incentive for renewable technologies and make the Feed-in Tariff very unattractive to consumers.”

No doubt this rift between one of the country’s largest gas boiler manufacturers and a key Government advisor will play out over a long period of time.

Guest Article by Neil Camp 

Geothermal heating is a new greener way to heat your home. It takes advantage of the earth’s constant temperature below the frost line and harnesses the heat to use in your house, office or commercial building. Experts say that a full geothermal heating system can save you up to 40% on your energy bills while decreasing your household emissions dramatically. On the surface it sounds like the best thing since electricity but how does it really work and are the benefits worth the rather large investment?

The Principles Behind Geothermal Heating Systems

The idea behind this great new energy source involves harnessing the Earth’s heat and using it to warm your house. This is done by drilling a series of boreholes close to your property and inserting looped pipes filled with a conductive fluid, such as water with added antifreeze. The average property needs 2 or 3 boreholes to provide adequate geothermal energy and they need to be between 150-300ft deep to be effective! Once the looped pipes are in place, they can then be linked up with a Ground Source Heat Pump which circulates the fluid around the pipe. As it circulates, the fluid absorbs the earth’s heat, which is a constant 57 degrees Fahrenheit below the frost level, and brings it to the surface where it is extracted by a heat exchanger. From here the heat goes to each of the rooms in the house via a suitable heating system.

Obviously this description is a simplification but it gives the general idea behind the process. Once in the house, the heat is distributed to where it is needed by means of individual heat pumps in each room. So for example, if you want more heat in a specific room then you simply turn up the thermostat and more heat is pumped from the Ground Source Heat Pump into the room.

The Benefits of Geothermal Heating

As already mentioned, geothermal heating systems can reduce your heating costs by up to 40% however the average household sees savings of around 25%. Also, once installed the system virtually cares for itself and problems are very rarely encountered. You can vary the amount of heat released into each individual room and easily turn rooms off when not in use. In the warmer months, the main ground pump can be used in reverse so that it pumps heat out of the house and back into the ground which means that it effectively acts as a cooling system for the entire home.

The Downside

Unfortunately there is always a downside with new concepts and geothermal heating is no exception. The entire heating system is required to get the best from this type of energy source and with a starting price of around £6000 it doesn’t come cheap. Based on the average annual savings that you could attain, it would still take you a very long time to recoup your investment however if money is no object then this is definitely one of the better renewable energy sources to go for.

Guest Article by Clare Lynock