<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Carbon Commentary &#187; technology</title>
	<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com</link>
	<description>A critical appraisal of issues in the move to a low-carbon economy</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Energy efficiency of home phones</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/22/80</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/22/80#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:32:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[BT]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #9]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[carbon reduction initiatives]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[domestic]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[energy efficiency]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/22/80</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/phone.bmp" alt="BT low energy power supply phone" align="absmiddle" height="463" width="303" />
BT announced that it was bringing out a new range of home phones with much improved energy efficiency. The claim is that ‘the new handsets boast power units designed specifically to consume around half the power of previous units’. BT said that almost all its extensive home phone range would contain the new energy-saving technology by mid-2008. Its press release gave very precise figures for the amount of CO2 saved – comparing the savings if all home phones incorporated the new technology to taking ‘57,000 cars off the road for a year’.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/phone.bmp" alt="BT low energy power supply phone" align="absmiddle" height="463" width="303" /><br />
BT announced that it was bringing out a new range of home phones with much improved energy efficiency. The claim is that ‘the new handsets boast power units designed specifically to consume around half the power of previous units’. BT said that almost all its extensive home phone range would contain the new energy-saving technology by mid-2008. Its press release gave very precise figures for the amount of CO2 saved – comparing the savings if all home phones incorporated the new technology to taking ‘57,000 cars off the road for a year’.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/22/80#more-80" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/22/80/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Household batteries</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/63</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/63#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Mioxa]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #7]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[USBCell]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[domestic]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/63</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/USBCell-batteries.jpg" align="left" height="260" width="260" />Inventions that take the breath away with their simplicity and elegance are rare. The new rechargeable batteries from USBCell qualify for this honour. As their name indicates, they are AA batteries that are recharged by the USB port on a laptop or other powered device. They are not cheap, but will repay the investment by being far easier to recharge than conventional rechargeable AAs.

The carbon savings from these batteries are not large. My calculation is that they might save 10kg of CO2 a year in a household full of portable devices. But they will, of course, reduce the waste going into landfill.

The company that makes the batteries has won some important awards for its innovation. More importantly, it also has some extremely interesting views on the evolution of home electricity demand. It correctly points out that a larger and larger fraction of home energy is used in 12V, not 240V appliances. We waste a lot of energy switching 240V AC down to 12V DC. Its next products include a box that will allow all DC devices (phones, handheld consoles, laptops) to be efficiently charged. Eventually, it will be possible to use cheap(-ish) solar power collectors to charge all the battery DC devices in the home. The savings in carbon would be worthwhile (but probably outweighed by the purchase of one extra TV).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/USBCell-batteries.jpg" align="left" height="260" width="260" />Inventions that take the breath away with their simplicity and elegance are rare. The new rechargeable batteries from USBCell qualify for this honour. As their name indicates, they are AA batteries that are recharged by the USB port on a laptop or other powered device. They are not cheap, but will repay the investment by being far easier to recharge than conventional rechargeable AAs.</p>
<p>The carbon savings from these batteries are not large. My calculation is that they might save 10kg of CO2 a year in a household full of portable devices. But they will, of course, reduce the waste going into landfill.</p>
<p>The company that makes the batteries has won some important awards for its innovation. More importantly, it also has some extremely interesting views on the evolution of home electricity demand. It correctly points out that a larger and larger fraction of home energy is used in 12V, not 240V appliances. We waste a lot of energy switching 240V AC down to 12V DC. Its next products include a box that will allow all DC devices (phones, handheld consoles, laptops) to be efficiently charged. Eventually, it will be possible to use cheap(-ish) solar power collectors to charge all the battery DC devices in the home. The savings in carbon would be worthwhile (but probably outweighed by the purchase of one extra TV).</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/63#more-63" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/63/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Conservative Party policy on local generation of electricity and heat</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/64</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/64#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #7]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[power generation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/64</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Conservatives.gif" align="right" height="44" width="271" />The Conservative Party published a policy paper in early December on decentralised production of energy. It argues for heavy subsidy for small-scale generation of electricity. The report is useful in focusing on the need to minimise the finance and administrative burdens on small generators. However, it omits any consideration of the costs of the scheme it proposes. It is woefully ill-informed about developments in other countries. The Conservatives have subscribed to a romantic view about micro-generation and are choosing to ignore the huge costs of subsidising inefficient local generators. If they want large-scale low-carbon generation they should either back nuclear, remove the planning problems with wind, subsidise tidal or biomass power, or invest in CO2 capture.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Conservatives.gif" align="right" height="44" width="271" />The Conservative Party published a policy paper in early December on decentralised production of energy. It argues for heavy subsidy for small-scale generation of electricity. The report is useful in focusing on the need to minimise the finance and administrative burdens on small generators. However, it omits any consideration of the costs of the scheme it proposes. It is woefully ill-informed about developments in other countries. The Conservatives have subscribed to a romantic view about micro-generation and are choosing to ignore the huge costs of subsidising inefficient local generators. If they want large-scale low-carbon generation they should either back nuclear, remove the planning problems with wind, subsidise tidal or biomass power, or invest in CO2 capture.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/64#more-64" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/64/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Smart metering</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/67</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/67#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:30:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #7]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[domestic]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[energy efficiency]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/67</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/smart-meter.jpg" align="left" height="206" hspace="5" width="157" />The world understands ‘smart metering’ in many different ways. Gordon Brown used the expression in his first speech on climate change. He meant devices that give visual real-time indication of electricity consumption, largely in homes. To the UK Conservative Party (see <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/64">this issue of Carbon Commentary</a>) it means conventional meters that can record the export of electricity from a house, as well as its use.

Smart meters are much more useful than either of these two definitions suggest. Their primary value will be to adjust the price of electricity depending on the level of demand. This frightens politicians because they fear the backlash from users complaining of the horrendous cost of peak-time electricity use. But if we are to increase the percentage of electricity coming from intermittent and/or unreliable sources, smart meters are a necessity.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/smart-meter.jpg" align="left" height="206" hspace="5" width="157" />The world understands ‘smart metering’ in many different ways. Gordon Brown used the expression in his first speech on climate change. He meant devices that give visual real-time indication of electricity consumption, largely in homes. To the UK Conservative Party (see <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/64">this issue of Carbon Commentary</a>) it means conventional meters that can record the export of electricity from a house, as well as its use.</p>
<p>Smart meters are much more useful than either of these two definitions suggest. Their primary value will be to adjust the price of electricity depending on the level of demand. This frightens politicians because they fear the backlash from users complaining of the horrendous cost of peak-time electricity use. But if we are to increase the percentage of electricity coming from intermittent and/or unreliable sources, smart meters are a necessity.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/67#more-67" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/67/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gordon Brown’s first speech on climate change</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/57</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/57#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:18:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #6]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[carbon capture]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[carbon reduction initiatives]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[power generation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/57</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Brown.jpg" alt="Gordon Brown" title="Gordon Brown" align="right" height="225" hspace="10" width="180" />The environmental community tends to think that Gordon Brown doesn’t understand the complexity and size of the climate challenge. His first speech on the subject gave more detail than expected and reassured some that the prime minister does recognise the severity of the challenge. He moved towards an 80% reduction in GHGs by 2050, but even under optimistic assumptions his plans will not result in emissions reductions on the scale required. All his proposals were pain-free. He does not yet believe that the electorate is ready to face the real challenges of emissions reduction.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Brown.jpg" alt="Gordon Brown" title="Gordon Brown" align="right" height="225" hspace="10" width="180" />The environmental community tends to think that Gordon Brown doesn’t understand the complexity and size of the climate challenge. His first speech on the subject gave more detail than expected and reassured some that the prime minister does recognise the severity of the challenge. He moved towards an 80% reduction in GHGs by 2050, but even under optimistic assumptions his plans will not result in emissions reductions on the scale required. All his proposals were pain-free. He does not yet believe that the electorate is ready to face the real challenges of emissions reduction.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/57#more-57" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/57/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
