Solid Wall Insulation – Ins & Outs

There is a lot of media attention around Cavity Walls and the benefits of having Cavity Wall Insulation injected into the cavity gap in a property. It is regarded as one of the biggest energy saving areas that can be undertaken on a property and is the focus of many subsidised schemes and grants around the country.

That’s all fine for Cavity Walls, but what if you have solid walls? Are you excluded from having any form of insulation on your property? Well, the answer is no. There are types of wall insulation available to people who have a Solid Wall property.

First off, what is a Solid Wall? There are many types of solid wall out there. Solid Wall can be brick, concrete or stone, or just any material where the entire wall is solid with no gaps in the structure. If you aren’t sure if you have Solid Walls we would always advise you to get professional advice to confirm if it is or is not.

There are two types of standard Solid Wall insulation available and these are Internal and External Wall insulations. If you are undertaking this type of insulation you will have to seek the relevant permissions and you should ensure that the works, if permitted, are done to the most recent building regulations approval.

Internal insualtion involves battening out the internal walls to a minimum depth of 50 millimetres or two inches. Within this battening there will an insulation lining placed, normally some form of waterproofing, to stop the transmission of moisture from the outer solid brick to the insulation. There are many types of insulation from rubberised foam boards to fibrous insulation. Once everything is in place and correct then plasterboards are fitted to the battening and the room is available to be used again.

So what’s the benefit of Internal Solid Wall insulation? Well, obviously, primarily the insulation will help to prevent energy loss through the walls, helping to cut utility bills, save money and keep the property warmer for longer. This might be the only type of wall insulation open to you in a conservation area.

The downside is that you will have lost some internal wall space from all the external walls in the property. You will also have to be careful with the hanging of pictures and internal decorations, to make sure they are securely attached to the battening, not loose on the plasterboard.

This process is very similar to the Internal Wall Insulation, involving fitting a frame to the exterior of the property and placing insulation inside. There are various different types of both external insulation and technique, but the end result is that the original outside is covered with insulation and there a new outer weatherproof skin, which normally simulates either brickwork or pebbledash.

The External Insulation won’t continue right to the ground, there is a gap between the floor and the start of the insulation, sometimes several inches, to prevent covering the damp course, or obstructing drainage. Because there is now an external frame over the property, the windows will tend to look ‘set back’ compared to normal windows, but that is normal for External Wall Insulation. There may also be some remedial roof work needed, including guttering and services movement, to ensure the External Wall Insulation is correctly installed.

The benefits are identical to the internal insulation. It provides thermal efficiency savings throughout the property. Again building regulations approval and, probably, planning permission will be required before this can be agreed. The level of work involved should really only be undertaken by those professionally qualified to do so. They will be able to ensure the work is completed to the correct standard and issue warranties and guarantees!

Overall, the negative with Solid Wall Insulation is that it just isn’t as simple or inexpensive as Cavity Wall Insulation to install. Some schemes may offer subsidies or grants towards Solid Wall Insulation but it is labour intensive and it will by necessity cost more. Costs may come down slightly over time but it is never going to reach the levels of the current values of Cavity Wall Insulation, plus you will have permanent Internal or External changes to the property.

If you are keen to spend the money to save money on an ongoing basis then Solid Wall Insulation is an excellent idea. However, you will need to commit time and research into making sure that it is right for you. In the long term you will save money and energy in a similar way to having Cavity Walls and that can’t be bad!

Written By Symon Silvester, MD of SAS EPC Limited

Related posts:

Loft insulation – Filling the VoidSimple Insulation – Top Tips

View the original article here

Renewable Technologies: Ground Source Heat Pumps

You might have heard of many of the new green technologies that are starting to become better known in the UK heating systems market. Technologies like Heat Pumps, Solar panels and Renewable fuels promise to help cut not only the reliance on our limited resources of oil and natural gas, but also help to cut the utility bills of the home owner. Are these promises justified? Can the home owner save money by using these new technologies? This article aims to look at one of the most prominent of the new technologies, Ground Source Heat Pumps.

Ground Source Heat Pumps are very much at the vanguard of the modern heating technologies but how does it work? Well, a Ground Source Heat Pump works by pumping and circulating a mixture of water and anti-freeze around a loop which is buried under the ground at a depth of around two meters down. At that depth, regardless of the weather conditions at the surface, the ground remains at a more or less constant temperature.

This loop is also called a ground loop. It can be laid in various ways, depending on the amount of land available and how much heat is required by the system. The longer the length the more heat that will be absorbed into the fluid that passes around the loop. The loop can be laid flat or coiled in trenches around the land, or in some cases depending on space, can be dug down vertically. As the fluid in the pipes passes through the loop it picks up the latent heat from the ground and absorbs it into the liquid.

When the liquid returns to the Heat Pump it is passed through a heat exchanger. Because this heat is only the same temperature as under the ground it is considered low grade. This heat alone would not be enough to heat the property sufficiently. So when it is passed through the heat exchanger it is compressed which helps to make the liquid hotter and therefore able to be utilised in heating water for use in heating and hot water. The original fluid which is now cooler passes back into the loop to repeat the process indefinitely.

Sounds easy? It is a surprisingly effective technology. It utilises the environment to generate heat and there is an indefinite supply. It can help to cut fuel bills considerably, especially if you are swapping from electric heating. It doesn’t require oil or gas fuels and it certainly doesn’t need much in the way of maintenance.

What about the drawbacks? Let’s be blunt here. This is not an entirely ‘green’ technology. It won’t eliminate your use of utilities as it does require electricity to keep the unit running. It also doesn’t heat your property to the kind of levels that you have come to expect with traditional heating systems. Because the latent heat, even when passed through the heat exchanger, tends to be a lower temperature than with a standard system the radiators tend to feel warm rather than hot. This means during the coldest periods the heating system will have to run continuously to maintain the overall ambient temperature.

The other factors which should be considered involve the level of insulation currently in the property. A Ground Source Heat Pump works best in conjunction with the correct level of insulation to supplement the heating system and to prevent the loss of the heat. The size of the land available is also a consideration as well as access for diggers that will be required to put in the trenches.

The biggest drawback is the expense of installing a system. Installing a new Ground Source Heat Pump, along with all the associated works, is much more expensive that installing a modern standard boiler system. Estimates give the average cost as somewhere between £5,000 to £20,000. This will put it out of the reach of most home owners and at the moment it is not on any particular grant or subsidy scheme for home owners. By necessity retro fitting this on an existing building will be more expensive than installing this when a building is being constructed. So expect more new buildings in the future to start using this technology. If you are considering installing the system you should always consult with your local authority as to what permissions, if any, you might require.

In time the costs will come down as the hardware becomes cheaper and more cost effective, but it will always remain at the higher end because of the labour intensive ground loops required. However, if you have the money and the option, then this is a great green technology to look at providing low cost and permanent heating and hot water, without the need to burn gas or oil.

Related posts:

Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP) – the BasicsRenewable Heat Incentive (RHI) detailsInterested in the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)?Grants and Funding Options for Commercial and Residential Geothermal Heat PumpsHow To Avoid Being Ripped Off By Renewable Energy Installers

View the original article here

How to be a Greener Tourist

Christmas and New Year have come and gone and it’s that time of year when we start to think about booking our summer holidays to give us something to look forward to through the months ahead.

No one is saying that we don’t all deserve a holiday now and then but we are all under a moral duty to consider to the environmental impact of everything we do and holidays are a major contributor to many peoples’ carbon footprint. So what can we do to lessen the impact?

International travel, because of the sheer distances involved, adds greatly to our carbon footprints. Although it is tempting to escape to a better climate, there are many interesting and fun places to visit right here in the UK if you want to take a holiday while keeping down your carbon miles.

Although we tend to take it for granted, we really do have some of the most beautiful countryside in the world. Why not hire a cottage in the Lake District, take a beach holiday in Devon or Cornwall, hire a barge and cruise the Norfolk Broads, go camping in the Dales or visit the Highlands of Scotland?

If you prefer a faster pace, remember that people from every continent on Earth visit London for its culture, shopping, architecture and nightlife and have it right on our doorstep. What about Edinburgh, which has the perfect combination of modern vitality and ancient culture, or Dublin?

Some of these places don’t necessarily lend themselves to a fortnight’s stay so why not combine a few mini-breaks? It won’t take more than a few hours to get from one place to the next and there’s no flights or border controls to worry about.

If you are staying in the UK and if it is practical; try to travel by coach or train rather than by car.

Flying is easily the most damaging form of travel in terms of carbon emissions. Unfortunately when it comes to travelling outside of the UK is it usually the quickest and most convenient. Remember though that you are on holiday; are you really in such a rush to arrive? Travelling by road, rail or sea can be just as much fun as the destination itself. You’ll get to see so much more and it can be like a mini holiday in itself.

Travelling 1,000 miles by air (about the distance from Manchester to Rome) will increase your personal carbon footprint by around 0.68 tonnes. Travelling the same distance on a diesel engine train would cost just 0.25 tonnes. It would be significantly less on an electric train. Even travelling by coach would be a big improvement on air travel.

Most of Western Europe can be easily reach by train via the Channel Tunnel and it will often be cheaper and more comfortable.

How you travel to your destination is the most important factor but there are other considerations. The more weight a vehicle, any vehicle, has to carry the more fuel it will need to use and the more carbon it will produce, so keeping your luggage to a minimum will make a difference.

It is tempting to pack way more than you need when you go on holiday. Not only will this be more inconvenient for you, and possibly lead to you paying an excess if you exceed your baggage allowance, there will be an environmental cost. Try to pack only the things you will actually use and remember that the UK is not the only country that has shops!

If you are going to a holiday resort then you will almost certainly be able to buy things like sun cream, insect repellent and toiletries when you arrive. Besides possibly being cheaper than in the UK, you will no doubt want to explore and get your bearings when you arrive anyway and let’s face it, would you rather be fighting your way round the supermarket on a Saturday afternoon back home to get the things you need or strolling though sunny shopping precinct or colourful market on holiday?!

Some hotel rooms will have things like hair dryers and irons in the room so check this with your travel agent before packing these items. Sandals and flip flops are often best bought abroad.

If you have things like toiletries, footwear, towels or any other items that you don’t think you’ll use again, don’t just throw them away, or worse, pack them to be thrown away when you get home. Give them to the hotel staff. Particularly in the poorer countries these items will often be very much appreciated.

If you don’t feel comfortable approaching the staff because you are afraid you might offend then just leave items in your room.

When on an all inclusive holiday it is tempting to go over the top and pile up a plate with way more than you can realistically expect to eat. Remember that you can go back to the food as often as you like so why not try getting a little bit of something at a time?

Whatever you do, particularly if you do have to fly, your holiday will have some kind of impact on your carbon footprint. This effect can however be offset by investing money in a project that reduces carbon emissions. Offsetting should only be used as last resort, after you have exhausted other options such as avoiding or reducing emissions.

There are a number of projects around the world which look to offset emissions. You should look for the ones with the Government’s Quality Assurance Mark. These schemes have been investigated to ensure that they actually reduce emissions at the levels claimed. Some schemes that claim to be carbon offsetting are sufficiently profitable that they would go ahead anyway and these should not qualify.

For a list of approved carbon offsetting schemes see the Act On CO2 website.

Related posts:

Considering Carbon Offsetting ?

View the original article here

Global Renewable Energy Trends

Renewable energy has come a long way from the early days, when most people thought global warming was nothing more than scaremongering and when the fossil fuel giants used their power and influence to block research and silence anyone who dared question the feasibility of our continued reliance on oil, gas and coal. Climate change (the new and more accurate term for global warming, and peak oil is now accepted as fact by most if not all governments, even the United States which has traditionally denied any link between carbon emissions and climate change.

There is still a long way to go, but the fact that the problem has been widely recognised has allowed for the creation of whole new industries, focussing on how best to shift away from traditional energy sources to cleaner, more sustainable alternatives. At a time when the global economy is struggling to emerge from the worst recession in decades, the renewables industry appears to be booming.

There are three reasons for the drive toward renewable energy – the environment, energy security and economics. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere acts like insulation in that it prevents heat from escaping back into space. Once the rate of release of carbon dioxide exceeded the rate at which the Earth could reabsorb it, the Earth was obviously going to heat up, causing draught, flooding and many other damaging environmental effects. That point has passed and we are seeing the predicted effects now.

As well as the environmental issues, fossil fuels are clearly a finite resource. Experts argue about how long reserves might last but noone can deny that they will run out eventually. Such is our reliance on fuel for every aspect of our daily lives that it is difficult to see how society as we know it could continue without it. Imagine if you could only travel as far as you could walk. You had to grow your food, find your own water, make fired for heat and light, make your own clothes. There are no hospitals or doctors, no teachers or schools. No police and no courts. We would be cast back into the Stone Age but the vast majority would lack all of the essential skills to survive in that environment.

Since its invention, money has always been a driving force for technological advancement. Well before the oil eventually runs out, any economy which relies solely on it will collapse because of spiralling prices. Already, many experts say that the current global recession has been made deeper and longer as a result of record oil prices. As demand increases and supply decreases the major oil producing nations, most of whose ideologies are at odds with Western culture and politics, will become more and more powerful.

At one time, nuclear power seemed to be the answer. To many it still is. After all a small amount of fuel can produce an incredible amount of energy with no harmful emissions. The problems though are threefold. First, there is the potential for another Chernobyl. Nuclear accidents are relatively rare but when they do occur the potential consequences are unthinkable. Second, uranium itself is a finite resource, so nuclear can never be the final solution since uranium will eventually run out. Third, if nuclear power were to replace fossil fuels as the world’s major energy source then no longer could certain countries be prevented from developing their own nuclear technology. This in turn would mean it would be only a matter of time before an unstable regime developed a nuclear weapon. Imagine if Hussein or Gadaffi had had nuclear weapons? The threat to the security of the rest of the world would simply be too great to tolerate.

Perhaps surprisingly, in terms of kilowatt hours of electricity produced, the world’s largest producer is China. Historically criticised for its spiralling carbon emissions as its industrial sector boomed, China has clearly realised the potential of the renewable energy sector and now produces 576.1 terrawatt hours of renewable electricity per year, which equates to 17.88% of total consumption. Brazil, another recently industrialised nation that has been accused of not pulling its weight in the battle against climate change, is 3rd in the global list, with the United States 2nd.

These countries are however also among the largest consumers, so this only half the story. In terms of the percentage of total electricity consumed coming from renewable sources, most African nations are in the high eighties or nineties. This is probably more to do with the fact that many of these are third world countries and do not have a mature electricity network. Of the industrialised nations, Interestingly Albania, which produces all of its electricity from renewables, leads the way. Of the major global economies, Brazil is streets ahead of the rest with 88.88% of its electricity coming from renewable sources. China is on 17.88%, India manages 14.58%, the USA just 10.05% and the UK lags behind most of the world on a pretty poor 6.18%.

Hydro electricity accounts for the vast majority of the renewable energy produced by 9 out of the top ten renewable energy producing countries. The only exception is Germany. Hydro electricity accounts for around 20% of its production, with wind power (approx. 36%) and biomass (approx. 33%) accounting for the majority of its production. It also produces around 12% from solar power.

Hydro electricity is often criticised for the dramatic and often adverse effect it has on the local environment and on the natural habitat of the wildlife in the area. It is however one of the most reliable alternatives to fossil fuels. Unlike solar or wind power electricity production can continue at a stable rate irrespective of any prevailing weather conditions and whether it is night or day. Unlike biomass it does not require fuel to be grown and transported. There will always be water and water and water will always flow so barring a burst dam or similar catastrophe hydro power can be relied upon indefinitely.

Wind power is the next most prolific. Solar power ranks quite low, however this may have plenty to do with the fact that the countries best placed to exploit it, those on the equator and in or around the Sahara desert, are least able to summon the necessary resources. Expect that to change over the next decade or so as international consortia begin to invest in solar farms in these countries.

The majority of the new money in the renewable energy sector is being invested in wind and solar power. China leads the world, with $54.4 billion invested in 2010, an increase of 39% on 2009. The majority, $45 billion, was invested in wind, with $4.7 billion spent on solar energy. Germany is the world’s second largest investor with $41.2 billion, a 100% increase for 2010. $36.1 billion was channelled into solar power projects.

The USA, despite increasing investment by 51%, moved down to third in the 2010 list with $36 billion worth of investment mostly in biofuels and wind. Brazil, with $7.6 billion, ranked 6th, also splitting its money between biofuels (40%) and wind (31%). The UK dropped to 13th, with investment totalling $3.3 billion, a 70% decrease in investment. The majority, 52%, was spent on offshore wind farms. Uncertainty around government energy policies has been blamed for the decrease in investment.

Related posts:

Desertec Solar Energy FarmRenewable Fuels: Low down on Bio FuelThe Future of Nuclear Power in the UKFeed in Tariff – The Effect on Green Energy ProductionInterested in the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)?

View the original article here

Is Large Scale Biomass Energy a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

Biomass energy means energy generated from burning living or recently living organisms such as wood, as opposed to fossilised organisms (also known as fossil fuels). The energy production process is just the same as with a coal or oil fired power station. Biomass fuel is burned to heat water which creates steam which turns turbines which produces electricity. Its supporters claim that it is an effective way of reducing carbon emissions but are they right?

It is not immediately obvious to most people why burning wood would be good for the environment, after all this releases carbon into the atmosphere, right? So what are the benefits of biomass as a fuel and should be moving toward large scale use?

Those in favour of biomass claim that it helps to reduce carbon emissions but how can this be when burning wood releases carbon? First of all the argument depends on the alternative being to be burn fossil fuels, which in fairness at present it most probably is. As trees and plants live they absorb carbon from the atmosphere. When they die and rot some carbon is released and some is trapped in the ground. As layer upon layer of trapped carbon builds up over millions of years we end up with oil and coal deposits. When fossil fuels are burned, this carbon which has been trapped for millennia is released into the atmosphere.

The theory behind biomass is that, instead of mining fossil fuels, you plant an area of woodland. As the trees grow they take carbon out of the atmosphere. When they are burned they release it back but they only release the same amount which they absorbed during life, so in very simple terms the net carbon emissions from biomass fuels are zero. If therefore the whole world suddenly switched to using biomass there would be no new carbon emissions from electricity production and the world’s natural forests and plants could absorb what was already there and so the levels of carbon in the atmosphere would eventually reduce.

Critics of large scale biomass use argue that this is far too simplistic a view and ignores several important factors. Firstly, they point out that the immediate of effect of switching from fossil to biomass fuel is an increase in emissions and that it could take decades or even centuries for the offset effect of planting new trees to have an impact. They point out that we do not have that long to solve the emissions problem. Secondly, they stress the need to look at what the land was used for previously. If it was a brownfield industrial site then turning it into forest will have a positive impact but in reality meadows and farmland are likely to be used. Since the plants in these areas absorb carbon and are not subsequently burned, they are net consumers of carbon.

There are question marks over the sustainability of biomass on a large scale. Is there enough spare space to actually grow all of the trees necessary to fuel the power stations? Licences have already been granted to destroy areas of rainforest and turn them into trees farms. As more and more power stations are constructed and demand for fuel increases there is a fear more and more natural forests and plains will be wiped out, thus reducing the Earth’s ability to absorb carbon and actually bring down the levels currently in the atmosphere.

Economically there are question marks too. Presently wood for biomass is relatively cheap but as its value to the consumer increases, so does its price. In the UK we have relatively low capacity to produce fuel therefore if we are to rely on biomass on a large scale we will need to import. This means the UK government will not be able to exercise any control on prices and we could end up being held to ransom in the same way as we are with oil.

Biomass fuel is not carbon neutral. Although it is true that when burned it releases only the carbon it has absorbed during life, there is a cost associated with its production and transportation, particularly if it is imported from as far a field as South America. Also, waste has to be disposed of.

Biomass is seen in some areas as a simple short term solution to the carbon problem. On a small scale the advantages probably outweigh the disadvantages however on a larger scale it could be a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Related posts:

Installing a Biomass Boiler at Your HomeAnaerobic Digestion and BiogasRenewable Fuels: Low down on Bio FuelDesigning an Energy Efficient HomeGlobal Renewable Energy Trends

View the original article here

Renewable Technologies: Ground Source Heat Pumps

You might have heard of many of the new green technologies that are starting to become better known in the UK heating systems market. Technologies like Heat Pumps, Solar panels and Renewable fuels promise to help cut not only the reliance on our limited resources of oil and natural gas, but also help to cut the utility bills of the home owner. Are these promises justified? Can the home owner save money by using these new technologies? This article aims to look at one of the most prominent of the new technologies, Ground Source Heat Pumps.

Ground Source Heat Pumps are very much at the vanguard of the modern heating technologies but how does it work? Well, a Ground Source Heat Pump works by pumping and circulating a mixture of water and anti-freeze around a loop which is buried under the ground at a depth of around two meters down. At that depth, regardless of the weather conditions at the surface, the ground remains at a more or less constant temperature.

This loop is also called a ground loop. It can be laid in various ways, depending on the amount of land available and how much heat is required by the system. The longer the length the more heat that will be absorbed into the fluid that passes around the loop. The loop can be laid flat or coiled in trenches around the land, or in some cases depending on space, can be dug down vertically. As the fluid in the pipes passes through the loop it picks up the latent heat from the ground and absorbs it into the liquid.

When the liquid returns to the Heat Pump it is passed through a heat exchanger. Because this heat is only the same temperature as under the ground it is considered low grade. This heat alone would not be enough to heat the property sufficiently. So when it is passed through the heat exchanger it is compressed which helps to make the liquid hotter and therefore able to be utilised in heating water for use in heating and hot water. The original fluid which is now cooler passes back into the loop to repeat the process indefinitely.

Sounds easy? It is a surprisingly effective technology. It utilises the environment to generate heat and there is an indefinite supply. It can help to cut fuel bills considerably, especially if you are swapping from electric heating. It doesn’t require oil or gas fuels and it certainly doesn’t need much in the way of maintenance.

What about the drawbacks? Let’s be blunt here. This is not an entirely ‘green’ technology. It won’t eliminate your use of utilities as it does require electricity to keep the unit running. It also doesn’t heat your property to the kind of levels that you have come to expect with traditional heating systems. Because the latent heat, even when passed through the heat exchanger, tends to be a lower temperature than with a standard system the radiators tend to feel warm rather than hot. This means during the coldest periods the heating system will have to run continuously to maintain the overall ambient temperature.

The other factors which should be considered involve the level of insulation currently in the property. A Ground Source Heat Pump works best in conjunction with the correct level of insulation to supplement the heating system and to prevent the loss of the heat. The size of the land available is also a consideration as well as access for diggers that will be required to put in the trenches.

The biggest drawback is the expense of installing a system. Installing a new Ground Source Heat Pump, along with all the associated works, is much more expensive that installing a modern standard boiler system. Estimates give the average cost as somewhere between £5,000 to £20,000. This will put it out of the reach of most home owners and at the moment it is not on any particular grant or subsidy scheme for home owners. By necessity retro fitting this on an existing building will be more expensive than installing this when a building is being constructed. So expect more new buildings in the future to start using this technology. If you are considering installing the system you should always consult with your local authority as to what permissions, if any, you might require.

In time the costs will come down as the hardware becomes cheaper and more cost effective, but it will always remain at the higher end because of the labour intensive ground loops required. However, if you have the money and the option, then this is a great green technology to look at providing low cost and permanent heating and hot water, without the need to burn gas or oil.

Related posts:

Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP) – the BasicsRenewable Heat Incentive (RHI) detailsInterested in the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)?Grants and Funding Options for Commercial and Residential Geothermal Heat PumpsHow To Avoid Being Ripped Off By Renewable Energy Installers

View the original article here

Considering Carbon Offsetting ?

These days we all know we need to try and reduce the size of our carbon footprint. The best way to do this is to look at each of our activities which produce emissions (driving, heating cooking etc) and either avoid or reduce them.

This might mean walking instead of driving for short journeys (avoiding) or using public transport (reducing). Another option is carbon offsetting. Offsetting should be a last resort, ideally offsetting measures should be taken as well as and not instead of reduction or avoidance.

Unfortunately it is not always possible avoid or reduce emissions and if that is the case, offsetting can be a useful option.

Every activity that we do which involves using energy generated using coal or oil increases the size of our carbon footprint. There are many calculators available on the internet which allow us to calculate the size of our carbon footprint, which is the amount of carbon, measured in tonnes, which we produce as a result of our activities.

Carbon offsetting means doing something which reduces another’s carbon emissions. This can mean for example installing solar panels or a wind turbine and selling any excess energy produced back to the National Grid (so that the electricity companies need to produce less electricity) or, as is more common, donating money to projects which aim to reduce carbon emissions. When making a donation you purchase “credits” which are worth a certain amount of carbon.

There are a number of sites on the internet which can be used to calculate your carbon footprint, such as Act On CO2 and this is the first step towards offsetting. You will need to input all of your energy usage including heating, lighting, cooking, driving, public transport and air travel. By knowing how much your gross carbon emissions are you know how much you need to offset. You will not necessarily want to offset all of your emissions, for example you might be taking a plane journey and want to just offset that.

Anything from wind farms in Cyprus, methane gas extraction from landfill sites in South Africa, providing people with solar cookers in Indonesia or generating electricity from sugar mills in Ecuador might qualify as an offsetting project. The main requirements are that the emissions reductions are calculable and that the project would not have gone ahead without funding from the purchase of carbon offsetting projects.

Some projects are profitable enough to go ahead anyway and these would not qualify as offsetting. As well as the environmental benefits of course, offsetting projects can have other benefits such as improving conditions for people in developing nations and creating jobs and new investment.

It is important to choose the right project. There is a big market for the purchase of carbon credits and inevitably this leads to a number of rogue projects which exaggerate or even falsify the effect they have on reducing emissions. There may be also be projects where the managers genuinely believe they good projects but they are not.

In any event, you want to make sure your donation is put to good use. The United Nations, through its Clean Development Mechanism, compiles a list of projects which are compliant with the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

It is based on this UN list that our own Government has developed its Quality Assurance Scheme. This scheme provides a list of approved offsetting schemes with the Government verify will provide genuine emissions reductions. The list of approved carbon offsetting scheme providers can be found here.

This obviously depends on the chosen scheme and the amount that you need to offset, but it is probably much cheaper than you think. For example, a return flight from Heathrow to Barcelona for two passengers, a distance of 1,147 km One way), would increase your carbon footprint by 0.36 tonnes. To offset this by donating via British Airways, who sponsor a portfolio of approved schemes, would cost just £4.30. To offset a return flight to Bangkok, a distance of 9,547 km one way would cost £20.30.

Related posts:

How to be a Greener TouristCutting the Carbon Cost of Christmas

View the original article here