Reports relating to energy consumption and the environment are often far from being clear, specific and unbiased. Some are unreadable.

In contrast The Royal Academy of Engineering report Heat: degrees of comfort?, Options for heating homes in a low carbon economy, gives a comprehensive overview of the current and future needs of domestic heating in the UK.

It highlights several challenges including the fact that “there is no possibility that the UK could meet its 2050 target for CO2 emissions without a fundamental change to the way in which homes are heated.”

The report is available free, from the Royal Academy of Engineering website.

Lufthansa is getting in on the act with a press announcement and a micro-site covering their experimental use of biofuels (see Practical trial of biosynthetic fuel at Lufthansa successful ). The success is not that they are going to use biofuels, or indeed that they have agreed any long-term use of biofuels. It’s just that they’ve verified that biofuels work as a partial replacement to kerosene. Something that other airlines have already proven.

In fact the ‘experiment’ relates to a 50% mix on one engine of an A3211 on the Hamburg-Frankfurt route. If we unpick that we find that 75% of the fuel is kerosene and that biofuels “emit about 50 per cent less CO2 than conventional fossil fuels”, so it could result in a 12.5% reduction is CO2 emissions. This figure isn’t given; the press announcement preferring to cite “According to initial calculations, CO2 emissions were reduced by 1,471 tonnes” which, of course, sounds much more impressive.

The fact that the Hamburg-Frankfurt route is probably serviced by a much more environmentally friendly rail route, which would be a better comparison, is not mentioned since the objective is to show aviation in a better light, not to reduce emissions.

Later the press release says “Biosynthetic kerosene is just as reliable as conventional jet fuel but the environmental effects are more positive”. Great piece of spin. More positive sound so much better than less negative. Since the environmental effects are positive, the more we fly the better it will be for the environment… Perhaps I should be generous and assume something is lost in the translation.

One example is Shell’s survey below. The question is loaded: ‘Which new natural gas technology do you see contributing most to meeting the world’s rising demand for cleaner energy?’ The answers are somewhat immaterial. The message has already been communicated – natural gas is a clean fuel.

Shell – natural gas is so clean

Only the second option in Shell’s survey is a renewable solution. The others are not clean energy sources and may well not be cleaner energy sources. As this research shows, natural gas brings with it some penalties. One issue is that natural gas is largely composed of methane. Whilst not poisonous, it has a global warming potential of 11-72! That’s its greenhouse gas (GHG) effect compared to CO2. During the extraction and conversion of natural gas, leaks are inevitable. Of course, to give the full picture I should add that methane from natural gas production is only one of the many sources of methane in the atmosphere.

Chevron – we’re the good guys

Here’s a slightly different example from Chevron. There’s nothing wrong with supporting good causes, but the real positive impact that oil companies could have is in supporting legislation to reduce GHG emissions. Their clout in this area would have much more impact than from siphoning off a small proportion of their profits to support a few ‘good causes’. They won’t do that because that would impact their profits. I am not suggesting that they should become anti-capitalist NGOs, only that they should not try to con the reader into thinking they are good for society and the environment.

What should a good oil company do? Well apart from supporting legislation to reduce GHG emissions, as suggested above, it is a difficult question. Companies like BP have attempted to build a business in renewable energy but in reality, it is extremely difficult for a large multinational to make enough money from small-scale investments. Pumping oil into a thirsty cash-rich market is so much easier.

The charity (1st) is encouraging individuals (2nd) to petition President Obama (3rd) to raise fuel efficiency targets for car and truck builders (4th). [OK perhaps it's four steps away.] When, in fact  the power lies in the hands of the individuals to STOP buying large/large engined/thirsty vehicles.

My understanding is that vehicle manufacturers do not have a vested interest in producing thirsty vehicles, but they will do so if people buy them. Purchasing power would have a much more direct and almost immediate effect compared to the long term legislative route. And, as we now from the rise in SUV popularity, manufacturers and purchasers will find a way round the legislation if it suits them.

So what the message?  Well unfortunately it’s not them that is the problem and needs to take action. It’s us!

PS The report also cites a Consumer Federation of America commissioned a poll which shows that a “large majority (59 percent) said that the government should set the standard at 60 mpg by 2025″. The report also say that “the technologies necessary to achieve the goal of a 60 mpg by 2025 standard are already in hand, or soon will be” but unfortunately does not reference this claim. Of course you can buy cars now that do 60mpg but they may not be the type of cars preferred by the survey respondents. Asking people if they would like a benefit without citing the cost is not really evidence for a real world preferences.

There are certainly technical developments that will deliver reduced fuel consumption (harder throttle springs?)  but these are incremental. The biggest reductions are from the choice of vehicle and mileage. It’s the duty of technologists to tell people that (future) technology isn’t always the solution.

The article, which appears to recreate a Boeing press release gives a different picture. It starts off by saying “Boeing’s 747-8 was the first commercial airliner to fly across the Atlantic powered on all four engines by biofuel produced from the Carmelina plant”. The truth is somewhat different. A new 747-8 has flown the Atlantic using a 15-85 mix of biofuel and conventional jet fuel. Again the headline states that “Boeing may soon win official approval for a 50-50 blend”; it’s not there yet. The article then goes on to describe what might happen in the future with words like ‘could’ and ‘Morgan reckons’.

The fact that bio-fuels require significant energy input in their production, which means the results are sometimes marginal in terms of carbon emissions reduction is only recognised towards the end of the article with the statement that “biofuels could achieve a 50% to 80% reduction in the carbon footprint”. So the airlines industry is still going to be a major emitter even in the best case. I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t be carrying out the research, but please don’t announce you’re green when you’re 85% carbon.

If a plane doesn’t fly then the emissions are reduced by 100%. So a little less encouragement to fly and a few less flights would have a much greater effect now- no ‘could’, no ‘reckons’, no greenwash.

Siemens probably has a good track record in sustainability, but the person who linked the banner to the video did them no favours.

We should have learnt from the past that putting all our eggs in one basket is not a good policy (dash for gas). Although many renewables are currently be more expensive, they do have several advantages. For example they may be more sustainable, more flexible (it’s a group of technologies that don’t rely on access to water or places to store sequestrated carbon dioxide), and more socially acceptable. Nuclear falls on the last hurdle. Carbon Capture (CCS) is unproven and reduces efficiency, although in practice we’ll need to use all these options, including CCS.

Industry can remain competitive if the government doesn’t offshore carbon intensive industries, as it has done since Kyoto (which largely accounts for why the UK has met it’s emissions targets) and ensures we require imported goods to have the same carbon footprint better compared to those manufactured in the UK [fair competition, not protectionism].

The global software and services company SAP recently announced its Quaterly Sustainability Update  headlined “SAP Saves Millions By Becoming More Sustainable”. SAP uses its own software to monitor its environmental performance, so it has an advantage and incentive to do so. The announcement goes on to explain that  ’emissions for the first quarter of 2011 rose by six percent compared with the first quarter of 2010.’ This is not good news. It is explained: ‘This can be attributed to a five percent increase in the number of employees in combination with increased air travel activities.’ Er.. that’s ok then. So as long as we track it and we know why it’s rising we continue as normal. Clearly this wouldn’t happen if the figure was related to sales or profitability!

The announcement finishes by stating that ‘Despite the six percent year-over-year quarterly increase, the company is still on track to meet its year-end emissions target of 465 kilotonnes (not including Sybase) – in line with its long-term strategy to reduce GHG emissions to year-2000 levels by 2020.’ I’m not trying to knock SAP, I am sure this is relatively good corporate practice and am just using it as an example but we’re going to have to be more radical than returning to 2000 if we are to make a real impact in reducing emissions.

And letting ourselves slip in one quarter, for no good reason, is not going to help.

ecoConnect is a CIC, a limited liability company designed for social enterprises. It’s aim is to promote collaboration between the various stakeholders involved in cleantech.  It has a growing website that will eventually build into a collaboration platform but it currently focuses on some interesting and high profile networking events, usually in London.

Greenbang is a sustainability media and marketing consultancy which has a good newsletter featuring news and comment. They produce some specialist reports, mainly around smart energy, metering and grids.

Verdantixis an ‘independent analyst firm’ which produces in-depth research and reports on companies approach to sustainability, energy and carbon management, very much in the Forrester/Gartner tradition, although I am sure they’d hate to hear that. They are providing a critical eye where it’s needed.

Each of these companies provides an interesting insight into the commercial environmental landscape.