OneWorldLightbulbs.co.uk

Project:OWLB

The latest project of mine is developing a website around LED light bulbs. LED light bulbs are the future and if I am honest I am a super fan type geek of them. I bought one of these halogen replacement bulbs and frankly they are just sexy. Even better they use just 3.6w of power compared to the old bulbs which used 50w. Plus they last so much longer as well, the old bulbs you had to replace every year, these may last up to ten years. OK so they are quite expensive but you will soon make your money back especially if electricity prices keep rising. You are also saving the world, less electricity means less CO2, you really cant go wrong.

So the idea is that I am going to build a web site at first concentrating on led bulbs that can replace all your existing bulbs. Much better than Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs they don't contain mercury, last longer, use less electricity, are easy to dispose of and are instantly bright. Its a win / win for the consumer, the difficulty for the consumer is knowing which ones to buy. Hopefully, my new website will solve that as it will contain my personal recommendations which have been tried and tested.

At first the website is going to be links to other stores such as Amazon where you can buy such bulbs but over time I would like to start selling my own bulbs and developing new product lines in this market place.

For now the website is just a collection of amazon product links which will start to build traffic as I develop the site. Next up will be a blog to build up some articles and different pages for different types of bulbs eg, bayonet replacement and halogen replacement.

Watch this space as they say.

Save our forests

Over 230,000 people have put their name to a petition calling on the government to save our national forest for future generations. If you haven't already signed the position, do so now, come back and read the rest of this article later.

The Tory government have as usual gone for the privatise everything that moves method of politics, the fact that they can do so under the guise of essential cuts is all the better. Basically they have already sold off 15% of the Forestry Commission land (the maximum they can do without new legislation) without asking or consulting with the public and now they want to sell of the other 85%. Unfortunately they do have to put it into legislation in order to get rid of the remaining woodland.

I like many others are absolutely disgusted that David Cameron can sell off the nations heritage. David will sell anything worth selling to greedy private investors who are not capable stewards working in the public interest. David and the investors just see cash instead of trees, they have no interest in nature, no thought of nurture, no interest in public access and no regard for a sustainable future. They want to steal our woodland and David Cameron is basically holding the gate open while they drive off with it.

As well as signing the petition you should write / email your MP, it is what they are there for, to represent the will of the people.

My MP already has my email, we shall see what he has to say.

State of Fear by Michael Crichton

I re-read this book recently, it is a work of fiction which introduces the premise / theory that the environmental lobby is just another method by the establishment to keep us in a perpetual state of fear, following on from the cold war came global warming. This state of fear creates spending and political power but the book using scientific references to support the fictional plot suggests that global warming is at best inconclusive and suggests that we are yet to learn so much about are environment that any theory about global warming is little more than a guess.

However as the character in the book suggests just because you don't agree with global warming doesn't mean that you don't want pollution controls and CO2 reduction. I have to say Michael Crichton creates a compelling argument. One of the best simple comparisons is that despite all the investment and technology we cannot accurately predict the weather beyond 5-10 days so how can we consider a prediction for a 100 years hence to be accurate.

There are loads of other rational arguments in the book but with the alternative view I find it difficult to believe that global warming is a global conspiracy. I suppose one of the problems is that until it happens we wont know whether everyone is right or wrong.

The precautionary principle also mentioned in the book means that if there is the slightest change of the catastrophic scenario occurring then we should not take the action that would cause it. Therefore the precautionary principle would suggest that because scientists have found a potential risk we should do everything to eliminate it. However you could use the precautionary principle to say we should live 50 ft underground all the time because every time you go outside there is a risk of a plane falling on your head.

Then I reach the thought in my head that says "Do I believe in global warming?". Then my second thoughts kicks in and realises the framing of the question suggests there is a belief factor rather than relying on cold, hard, undeniable facts and truths.

"Do I believe in doing something to protect the environment?". No facts required this time but how do you protect an environment, again it raises in the book that you can only manage an environment and we still don't know how to manage land to protect something. The ecosystems around us are ever changing we cant protect and preserve but we can manage it in a direction. In the books it talks about nature not having a balance but oscillating between different factors as species rise and fall.

Finally the book finishes with the premise that they should set up a new environmental group which basically looks for problems and fixes it, so take land management, you accept you do not know how to do it, so you take 8 similar parcels of land, have a different management policy in each one. Try things out get them evaluated by outside consultants and by trial and error find out what land management policies work and don't work.

One character talks about scientific journal authors talking about simulations as if they were real world data and suggest that such articles should be labelled "Warning: Computer Simulation - May be erroneous and unverifiable" and then suggests a label for newspaper articles as well "Warning speculation - may be fact free".

I have long argued about labels for news articles, some kind of evaluation of the source:

How about this the Zephryist- Morton coding
(the highest number would be taken in each code)

8 - Video evidence
7 - Sound evidence
6 - Multiple eye witness accounts
5 - conflicting eye witness accounts with some commonality
4 - Single eye witness account
3 - written evidence
2 - Multiple eye witness conflicting accounts
1 - 2nd hand source no eye witness accounts
0 - opinion only no verifiable witness 1 or second hand

4 - Known as giving previously reliable evidence
3 - No previous record of evidence
2 - Questionable record of giving reliable evidence
1 - interpretation of known facts with own opinion on conclusions or extrapolation
0 - own opinion - few known facts with open interpretation.

3 - Expert / professional in field
2 - Media expert in field
1 - Amateur in field
0 - Unknown knowledge status in field.

So with this you could evaluate any news source such as the BBC news website which would be a 8 by 4 by 2 site, one of the highest rating with video evidence, known to give reliable evidence in the past, and with media experts.

You could also rate a blog, my highest rating would be a 4 by 4 by 1 unless you felt I was merely giving opinion where my blog would be rated 4 by 1 by 1. Of course with a fully functioning system the ratings would be given by peers.

The beauty of the system is that the lower the number the more questionable the source, it would help any reader instantly be able to separate fact from fiction without having to read pages of previous articles and compare them with other sources to determine the reliability, with a peer reviewed system other people have already done the leg work.

You could go further and break down the rating system more by breaking each section into a series of questions almost an acid test of reliability.

I may return to this some day or like many other posts on my blog it may just be a random thought that sits on the shelf collecting dust.

Earth Day - 22 April

Today April 22 is Earth Day and in the usual way I find out about these things it was because Google has redesigned their logo for the day.

According to wikipedia earth day is a day to inspire awareness and appreciation for the earth's environment. First observed in 1970 now it hardly breaks the news (at least round here, except google of course).

So lets take a second and think of something beautiful in our environment that we might want to protect for future generations.

For me the humble cherry tree and the humble bumble bee, two things that are natures marvels and without protection, life would be a little bit less bearable. I for one would not want to be old telling my grandchildren that in my youth we had cherry trees with blossom just like confetti and we had bees that went buzz and made honey. If that future comes to pass, as an old man I could not bear to speak of what precious things we took for granted and lost on the tarmac path to progress. In my old age I want to sit under the cherry tree letting the blossom fall against my wrinkled skin as the bees buzz round the granchildren and me. I would want to reflect on the sea change in the first few years of the 21st century that lead to sustainable growth policies which worked in harmony with nature.

And Finally: Nice work Mr Beaver (BBC)

It is a tradition in some countries including the UK / US to have an "And finally" story which is usually some cute or funny story to make the hellish world that has just been covered in the main news more bearable.

It is also tradition at least in the UK for the classic film called "The Great Escape" to be shown on tv at Christmas. This film tells the story of a daring escape of British prisoners of war escaping from a prison camp in Germany during World War 2.

Both of these thoughts will help me round off 2008 with the story of the Beaver great escape. In October 3 Beavers escaped from a farm in Devon, UK. Two were apprehended quite quickly but the third male beaver remains on the loose.

From the pictures on the news article he has really gone to town on some local trees. In a sense you have to admire his workmanship, he has done a better job than a man with a large chainsaw.

Apparently the beavers are licensed and are generally part of a wildlife photography business. They escaped through an electric fence and although the exact escape plan is unknown it is assumed the fence failed during local flooding allowing the beavers to escape.

"The names Beaver, James Beaver, licensed to log trees."

-Escaped Beaver talking to the local press.

They know where the beaver lives and are currently trying to entrap it with "honey pots" which are laced with female beaver scent and a gin & tonic shaken not stirred.

The interesting point that this does raise is that originally Beavers were native in the UK, so this is an interesting case study into what might happen if beavers were re-introduced. Although the area of release would have to be carefully chosen as the video suggests that many land owners would not be happy with a beaver on their land.

Well Mr Beaver, I salute you, keep up the good work.

2010 switch-on for wave project (BBC)

Cornwall may not be the centre of the universe but it is now going to be the centre for wave energy projects at least from 2010. A great big adapter is being laid on the sea bed so wave projects can just plug into the grid. Over 30 projects can be plugged into the socket.

The £28 million projects is currently in the planning stage but is expected to go live in 2010. It will be used as a test bed to see if ideas work. The benefit is there will no need to be create some expensive grid connection for a project that may not even work as the infrastructure will already be in place.

So good news for the environment, renewable energy, the UK and Cornwall.

Palin, republicans, other animals and national forests (New Scientist)

In this weeks New Scientist two short news articles caught my eye.

"Alaska's beluga whales should be keeping their flippers crossed that Sarah Palin won't make it to the White House."

Apparently Sarah is not the whales best friend, she has made strenuous efforts to ensure that the beluga whales in the Cook Inlet in Alaska were not given enhanced protection and put on the endangered species list. She originally tried to claim there wasn't enough evidence to put them on the list but only managed to delay the listing for 6 months while a recount took place.

This was following on from the outrage she expressed when the polar bear was put on the endangered list. Alaska has even unsuccessfully sued for loss of revenue from oil and gas development resulting from putting the polar bear list.

So this year's Cruella De Vil 2008 award for a person most likely to have a stone heart when it comes to protecting the environment and clearly putting financial benefits above environmental concerns goes to Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Give it up for the wicked witch of the north!

In the interests of political balance Sarah may feel that the local economy of Alaska which is heavily dependant on the oil and gas industry should not be put last below animal welfare. Maybe she feels that in Alaska the rights of humans should be put first.

The other reason not to vote republican is because thanks to George Bush "roadless" areas of national forest totalling 230,000 square kilometres which is an area virtually the size of the UK is under threat from development such as phosphate mining or logging.

So if you care for the environment, really, don't even bother thinking about voting for Mcain and Palin.

The Folly of Growth (New Scientist)

What I love about New Scientist is that they are not just a pure science magazine. With the recent credit crunch they ran a special issue on "The Folly of Growth - How to stop the economy killing the earth".

You see Capitalism is based on a false premise, that we must have continuous growth. The problem with that is with finite resources you cant have continuous growth as at some point resources run out, prices rise and you get shrinkage. This is the fundamental nature of boom and boost, the credit crunch and everything else that is wrong with the economy at the moment.

It means Gordon Brown is wrong, without infinite resources we cant beat the boom and bust cycle. All because of this one simple premise, which everyone can quite clearly see is wrong but no one wants to admit it because to do so would be to admit that capitalism which has worked for 200 years no longer works. A modern tale of the emperors new clothes.

It would suggest that Capitalism is just as flawed as Communism, in fact you could argue that it is more flawed than Communism as to solve the current credit crisis the governments had to move towards communism by part nationalising the banks and increasing government control of the banking system.

Of course with finite resources the logical economic system would be one that is based on efficient use of resources or more precisely sustainable development. So why do we not have a sustainable or steady-state economy already?

Well,such an economy would mean we would have to live within our own means, no more large debts, greatly reduced oil based travel, less hours worked, the redistribution of wealth from the poor, no benefits to saving and investing, and finally greater control over all aspects of our lives.

The transition period would be much harder as well, just think if tomorrow you were told you could no longer own a car, you had restrictions on the electronics you could buy and only 200 air miles for the year for your holidays. Ouch!

Of course there would be an upside, the end of consumerism, the end of boom and bust, less work, less stress, less inequality, living in harmony with nature rather than against it, better public transport, less pollution, stable prices, no income tax (tax would be on inputs and outputs to the environment), less road congestion, the end of global warming, the end of inflation, no more credit crunch, no more tax havens for the rich, stable population and much much more.

So lets look to the sustainable future and lets hope for the better tomorrow becoming reality.

I have to say all the articles in the new scientist special edition were great and are well worth reading, I may even post some more articles about sustainable development soon.

Project 10 to the 100th

I saw this ages ago on the google home page, Google are running a competition, in their words:

"Project 10¹⁰⁰ is a call for ideas to change the world by helping as many people as possible."

I have entered one entitled:

"Help local people develop local sustainable energy projects through local resident run co-operatives."

You never know, one day it might just change the world.

If you have a world changing idea why not swing by google and submit it.

Camping for yummy mummies (The Guardian)

Don't let the title of the article put you off. This is the halfway house between a tent and a cottage, a rather posh tent with wooden floors and wood burning stove.

It looks very luxuriousness and has a bit of the Arabian nights about it. My only criticism is that it is aimed at families, hence the yummy mummy connection. Personally I think it would make a very reasonably priced romantic get away for a young professional couple.

The other good thing about this is that it is a good diversification project for farmers, if you look on the website you will find that the whole concept can be franchised out to a farmer. There are the usual key concepts to each site but from a farmers point of view well organised and a strong well behaved target market.

Quite an interesting concept and quite an interesting holiday.

Britain tries to block green energy laws (The Guardian)

The article is about Britain trying to water down language in new EU legislation. Basically the EU wants to give renewable energy projects priority access to the transmission grid where as the UK government isn't so keen.

Some interesting facts come out of the article though. According to a recent report 9.3 GW of wind power is waiting to be connected to the grid. This seems to be me to be a bit of a crime, get the turbines connected, according to the guardian that is the equivalent of a new generation of nuclear power stations. I know which ones I would rather have.

There is hints in the article that certain industrial lobby groups have put pressure on the government to water down the legislation. The suggestion is that the nuclear power lobby are pushing hard for these new reactors and want to make sure the economic and political justification is not water down.

I wrote previously in 2007 about generating capacity caught up in the planning system for wind power. It would seem that the renewables sector is hobbled continuously by bureacuracy. The government should do the responsible thing and sort things out. If we got everything on the drawing board cleared, built and connected to the grid we could forget about nuclear power and even start looking towards closing some of the dirty coal stations. No need to worry about renewables target by 2020 either as it would be happily smashed.

Tidal power with a twist ( New Scientist)

New Scientist, 5 July 2008 p 40-43

Another week, another New Scientist article about a new renewable technology to generate electricity and maybe contribute to saving the world.

That may sound slightly sarcastic and to some extent it is. Every week I read about a really great technology that I can feel really positive about which could really save the planet. Then the pragmatist in me kicks in and asks if it is really a viable technology and when will it change the world.

This week it is about electromagnetic pumps which is basically the caterpillar drive in reverse as seen in the very great film and book "The Hunt for Red October" by Tom Clancy.

In the caterpillar drive electricity was pumped into the drive which had superconducting magnets and it is then propelled through the water.

With this technology a clever Japanese physicist called Takeda reversed the engine and using tidal power pushed water through to generate electricity. The technology has great potential as a underwater turbine. No moving parts, so little servicing required and can be sited out the way on the sea bed.

Although very positive the technology has a long way to go, the lab prototype has so far only generated a fraction of a watt. So not even enough to light up a very low wattage bulb.

The other interesting part of this article was about the funding for projects such as this one with interesting but unproven potential, potential lets face it to save the world.

Takeda has two assistants and only limited funding from a state ministry, luckily he has been successful in being awarded more funding but it is very much still small scale. As he puts it he can only look at the next small development step.

So funding wise why isn't there the "International Fund for Saving the Planet Through Technology" (IFSPTT - you have to have an acronym). I would support that, it might even be something where I would give £5 a month to.

A charity which gave funding to develop renewable technologies and bring them to market. That would be a worthwhile cause, maybe I should set it up. Of course it wouldn't have to be for new technologies, it could be for revitalising old ones or bring a technology from the design phase through to production. I remember reading years ago about a company that was working on using blimps as slow but cost efficient cargo lifters.

Why should science funding be left to entrepreneurs, academic institutions or government. Why not fund them for the greater good by donations from the public. By the people, for the people, for the planet.

Of course there might already be such a charitable fund, I just haven't heard about it yet. In which case why don't they market themselves more.

Littering- For **** sake people

Littering really annoys me, how hard is it for people to either find a nearby bin or take it home with you. There really is no excuse. You wouldn't do it in your own home so why do it in the outside world.

After all I bet you are the first to complain when your town is dirty, conveniently forgetting that it is people like you that made it so dirty in the first place.

The wombles of Wimbledon Common had it right, pick up your litter, reuse and recycle.

I have been reading 'Freakonomics' so I was thinking about the economics of littering.

The reason people litter is because there is effectively no penalty for littering, there is ineffective social pressure to litter and somebody will clear it up anyway.

Of course there is an indirect cost in the taxes we pay to clear up the mess, but again the non-litterer ends up paying just as much as the litterer. If you do the right thing you still cant avoid the cost.

Then how can we get rid of litter without imposing draconian punishments for those who litter. I think it is a question of ring fencing, set up a community litter team made up of people that litter. There will always be people to add to the team and they can then clear up their own mess.

Think about it a cash fine does not work because there is no chance of getting caught but 25 hours of boring litter picking will put you off if you get caught, and put you off if a friend gets caught and tell you about it.

Find me the teenager that would like to do 25 hours boring service like that, once a few got caught littering would so decrease.

Reports, Nuclear Power and Scare Mongering

The Story

This is the kind of story that gets the media dancing round the room in glee. They can scare everybody into thinking they will be glowing in the dark shortly. More about that later, firstly what are the facts behind the story.

According to the BBC article as part of the continuing begrudging acceptance that nuclear power will continue to have a place in electricity generation at least until renewable or other energy sources can take over a list has been drawn up of potentially suitable sites.

All of the sites are at existing nuclear generation sites to take advantage of existing infrastructure.

Now in my opinion it looks like nuclear will continue to be an important electricity source for the next 50-100 years so utilising existing sites seems like the best way forward.

The media view

For the media the story just isn't scary enough. Replace existing nuclear stations with nuclear stations. A report that lists 14 sites but freely admits that it will be up to the nuclear industry to build them and they may actually build none.

There has to be something we can scare people with in this report.

The Result

The Oxford mail kicks off with one of the worst examples of scaremongering:

County could get nuclear station (Oxford Mail)

(For those who like a bit of background the Oxford Mail is a red top local paper who are anti everything and allegedly pro-consumer)

Myth Busting

Myth: "Didcot area emerged as likely site"

Truth: It does not appear on the top 14 sites list.

The fact is Didcot appears once in the whole report to illustrate a power station with cooling towers. It was probably chosen as they are very visible to the general population or anyone that has ever travelled through Didcot.

The actual quote from the report is:

"It would be possible to site reactors inland and construct cooling towers as used by conventional coal and gas fired generating stations such as Didcot-A and Didcot-B in Oxfordshire, although cooling towers are very large structures which substantially damage the local amenity value from visual intrusion, causing significant difficulties with local public acceptance and obtaining planning consents, as well as adding to the cost of construction of the nuclear power station and reducing the station's power output by around 3-5%36."
Footnote 36 just refers to a foot note on the 5% energy loss.

The report does suggest a hierarchy of sites for further use which starts with nuclear facilities at the top, going to other nuclear facilities such as Harwell, then to conventional power stations site like Didcot (still not specifically mentioned and would be one of 60 sites identified) and then finally greenfield sites.

The report only considers existing nuclear power stations and their suitability for development, no development considerations are made for existing non nuclear power station sites or other nuclear sites such as Harwell.

It would be a tenuous link indeed to suggest that at this stage anyone in Didcot should be concerned. The quote above would suggest that an inland power station is infeasible due to the power loss and especially one sited in an area which suffers from drought.


Myth: "Harwell "a key opportunity for nuclear development""
"Harwell best available location"

Truth: Still not on the top 14 sites list but is in the second rank of the hierarchy of potential sites but again this site is probably even behind Didcot which has better infrastructure.

The report only considers existing nuclear power generation sites for future development, Harwell is mentioned as being an other nuclear site, it is included in some of the statistics or figures but no serious discussion of the sites suitability takes place.

It should be noted that perhaps the best location quote actually refers to it being the best location in the 1940's or that it has the best grid connection given its location in the south-east.

The reason the Oxford mail can include it is because the report mentions that it is an existing nuclear site which is already licensed and government owned. The report itself has included it in calculations as an other nuclear site.

The Summary

So comparing the two articles, the BBC wins with responsible reporting where the Oxford mail goes for a sensationalist story and then loosely arranges the facts around the angle.

What I also like about the Oxford Mail is they then door step local people to gather opinions. The questions are always clearly loaded and the responses predictable but the editors feel the need to get people to add support to their tall tales.

Special mention should go to Craig Simmonds, leader of the green party who clearly has not read the report and is quoted as saying.

"This suggests that Oxfordshire is the most likely inland site for a nuclear power station."

-Craig Simmonds, Leader of the Green Party,
Oxfordshire County Council.

There is nothing in the report to substantiate that fact. Yes, Didcot would be a suitable site but it is inland, Harwell is an other nuclear suitable site with good grid connectivity and is also inland, but importantly no sites in the UK are mentioned as being a suitable inland site for a new power station. The report only considers existing nuclear power generating sites, only the 14 sites are listed by suitability and Didcot and Harwell are not on the list.

Special mention also to Ed Vaizey who needs to read the report:

"It does not surprise me that Didcot and Harwell have been put in the frame for the next generation of nuclear power stations."

-Ed Vaizey, Conservative MP for Didcot and Wantage.

The report does not mention Didcot or Harwell as a potential development site. It only considers the 14 sites where nuclear energy is already used to generate electricity. Harwell falls into one of five secondary sites and Didcot falls into one of 60 tertiary sites. Harwell is also one of the least suitable secondary sites.

The report also specifically states there are large infrastructure and economic barriers to building an inland nuclear power station.

Sources: Jackson consulting report

Party packs of ice cubes

Whilst stuck behind a man at the supermarket buying his party pack of ice cubes, a thought struck me. How environmentally friendly are the party ice packs?

I am guessing not very. First you have a big factory making the packs, hopefully although not certainly they make them with water filling up lots of little ice bags (just like the ones you can buy in the supermarket to make your own without the need of an ice tray). If they freeze them at the factory and then transport them to the supermarket in temperature controlled lorries it would be a highly irresponsible act.

Then once you have your 100 little bags of water inside the big bag they have to be transported to the supermarket. Here they are put in the freezer to freeze over night and then you buy it in the shop and take it home.

This almost seems like a criminal waste of energy and effort not to mention the environmental impact. Perhaps selling ice in the supermarket should be banned, although obviously large trade sales would be allowed to continue.

For a party the alternative would be to buy loads of ice cube bags and make your own. I guess many people would argue they just don't have the time. Plus as a society we still don't always think of the environment first in all aspects of our life.

It does seem that we worry so much about the big things in life such as global air travel but then turn a blind eye to the little things like energy efficient light bulbs, recycling and ice cubes simply because it takes a bit more work.