Green Future Solutions Starts mywaterbottle Campaign to Encourage the Use of Refillable Water Bottles and Reduce Single-Use Bottled Water

Green Future Solutions started its first green campaign called mywaterbottle on 22 April 2010, Earth Day. mywaterbottle is a non-profit campaign to encourage more Singaporeans to use their own refillable water bottles, instead of buying or taking single-use bottled water.

mywaterbottle Goals

mywaterbottle aims to achieve the following goals:

1. Create awareness on the environmental impacts of single-use bottled water and encourage people to use refillable water bottles.

2. Show that tap water is safe to drink and tastes just as good as bottled water.

3. Make it easy to choose and buy affordable refillable water bottles that are safe for both environment and health.

4. Build a map of mywaterbottle refillers (water coolers, cafes, restaurants, food and beverage outlets, etc) for easy and free refilling of water bottles.

5. Showcase events that encourage participants to bring their own refillable water bottles. Read more

Winds of Change – East Asia’s Sustainable Energy Future

The Sustainable Energy Association of Singapore (SEAS) organised a lunchtime seminar at Thomson Reuters yesterday, where The World Bank presented its flagship study report, Winds of Change – East Asia’s Sustainable Energy Future. Dr Wang Xiaodong, Senior Energy Specialist, East Asia & Pacific (EAP) region of the World Bank, gave a summary of the report findings, which incorporates the lessons learned from the World Bank in advocating policies and programs for clean energy investments in East Asia and Pacific countries.

The study covers six countries – China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, and has the following key messages:

… large-scale deployment of energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies can simultaneously stabilize East Asia’s CO2 emissions by 2025 and significantly improve the local environment and enhance energy security, without compromising economic growth.

… accelerating the speed and scaling up the efforts are needed to get onto a sustainable energy path. The window of opportunity is closing fast, because delaying action would lock the region into a long-lasting high-carbon infrastructure.

This shift to a clean energy revolution requires major domestic policy and institutional reforms. Governments can adopt climate smart domestic policies now to deploy existing low-carbon technologies while a global climate deal is negotiated … To fully realize the huge energy efficiency potentials in the region requires the removal of fossil-fuel subsidies and incorporation of environmental externalities into energy pricing as well as a concerted strategy to tackle market failures and barriers with effective regulations, financial incentives, institutional reforms, and financing mechanisms.

Developed countries need to transfer substantial financing and low-carbon technologies. To achieve this sustainable energy path, a major hurdle is to mobilize financing for the net additional investment of $80 billion per year over the next two decades. It is estimated that approximately $25 billion per year would be required as concessional financing to cover the incremental costs and risks of energy efficiency and renewable energy. In addition, substantial grants are also needed to build capacity of local stakeholders. The technical and policy means exist for such transformations, but only strong political will and unprecedented international cooperation will make them happen.

Source and image credit: Winds of Change – East Asia’s Sustainable Energy Future by The World Bank

The Rebound Effect Happening for Earth Hour?

A shorter version of our previous article, Earth Hour – The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect, was sent to the various newspapers before Saturday’s Earth Hour (attached below).

The reason why we wrote the letter and sent it to the media is because we worry that The Rebound Effect could be happening with more people switching to other substitute activities that consume more energy during Earth Hour. We wanted to remind everyone that we must take action to conserve energy daily and ensure that our actions do not contribute to the problem we are trying to solve.

Unfortunately, it seems that our worries came true. Today Online reported today that:

This year, the 400 Earth Hour participants in Singapore contributed to electricity consumption falling by 23 megawatts on Saturday – a drop that represented a mere 0.021 per cent of average electricity consumption for Saturdays, according to the Energy Market Authority (EMA).

The total reduction was only roughly half that of last year’s Earth Hour, when power consumption fell 42 megawatts.

World Wide Fund for Nature’s Earth Hour campaign manager Ms Carine Seror said: “There could a number of factors – people could have turned off the lights but not the air-conditioning. We’ll be asking EMA to help us interpret the numbers.”

This year’s Earth Hour saw more participants and organisations taking action with electricity consumption dropping by 23 MW, but this was half of last year’s 42 MW drop. Why is this happening? This is serious and has deep implications for future actions. The organisers must find out what’s wrong.

Is it due to The Rebound Effect?

Our letter to the media:

Earth Hour is back again and takes place this Saturday. Earth Hour is not just about switching off lights; it’s about two key forces at work – The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect.

The Asymmetry Principle as described by the energy economist Peter Tertzakian, states that a unit of energy saved at the consuming end (lighting a light bulb) amplifies into multiple units of energy saved at the source (at the natural gas well). This is due to the inefficiencies and energy losses in fuel production, electricity generation, electricity transmission, and conversion to useful work.

When you switch off your lights or appliances during Earth Hour, it is not merely the act of pressing a switch but the amplifying effects of conserving the energy resources upstream. However, energy conservation must be done by everyone daily to make a significant difference such that The Asymmetry Principle plays out. Annual Earth Hour actions will be insufficient to effect an actual change in the reduction of energy resources.

The Rebound Effect refers to the behavioral responses to the introduction of energy efficiency measures, which tend to offset the actual benefits of the measures. For example, if you replace a 20W light bulb with a 10W energy efficient bulb, the energy saving should be 50%. However, the actual energy saving is usually less than 50% because as you pay less for lighting, you tend to be less concerned with switching it off. The increased usage thus eats away the energy savings from the more efficient bulb.

The Rebound Effect can be adapted to explain that actual energy savings could be less than expected savings from energy conservation. When you reduce energy from one activity but use more energy by switching to other substitute activities, the actual savings is less than expected savings. Everyone should support Earth Hour but we have to remind ourselves that the Earth Hour activities we take part in should not be using more energy as compared to our usual activities.

We need to see more of The Asymmetry Principle and less of The Rebound Effect. We need more people to switch off their lights and reduce their energy consumption daily so as to amplify the energy savings at the source. We need less people to switch to other substitute activities that consume more energy. So remember for this year’s Earth Hour, everyone must take action to conserve energy daily and ensure that our actions do not contribute to the problem we are trying to solve.

my paper published an edited version of our letter today:

Today published an edited version of our letter on 30 Mar.

Earth Hour – The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect

Earth Hour Singapore is back again and takes place this Saturday, 27 March 2010. Individuals, organisations and businesses are encouraged to switch off their lights for one hour from 8.30pm to 9.30pm, or longer. Earth Hour is organised by WWF and is “a call to stand up, to take responsibility, to get involved and lead the way towards a sustainable future.”

The switching off of lights is a symbolic act for everyone to take responsibility and fight climate change. Find out more about what you can do and pledge your support for Earth Hour.

Earth Hour has been successful in gaining support and participation over the past few years. For this year’s Earth Hour, we would like to remind everyone that Earth Hour is not just about switching off lights, it’s about two key forces at work – The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect:

The Asymmetry Principle

In his book, The End of Energy Obesity: Breaking Today’s Energy Addiction for a Prosperous and Secure Tomorrow, energy economist Peter Tertzakian describes The Asymmetry Principle as:

the lopsided relationship between how much raw energy is available at the primary source — for example, at a natural gas well — and the small fraction of energy that is actually put to useful work at the consuming end — for example, in lighting a light bulb. The principle states that a unit of energy saved at the consumer level amplifies into multiple units of energy saved at the source. In effect, the asymmetry principle exposes the high levels of inefficiency in society’s energy systems and highlights the tremendous leverage offered by efficiency gains and conservation in mitigating source energy consumption.

He gave the example of a light bulb:

1. 100 energy units of natural gas at source
2. 40 energy units remaining due to conversion to electricity
3. 35 energy units remaining due to transmission losses
4. 2 energy units remaining due to conversion to light

In this example of a light bulb, reducing the consumption of one unit of energy (as light) actually saves the production of 50 units of energy (as natural gas) if you account for the inefficiencies and energy losses in fuel production, electricity generation, electricity transmission and thermal conversion to light.

To put it simply, when you switch off the lights and save X units of energy, you are actually saving more than X units of energy as the energy savings amplify back to the energy source.

Therefore, energy conservation or reducing your energy consumption plays an important role in reducing carbon emissions. When you switch off your lights or appliances at home during Earth Hour, it is not merely the act of pressing a switch but the multiplying and amplifying effects of conserving the energy resources upstream.

However, energy conservation must be done by everyone daily to make a significant difference such that The Asymmetry Principle plays out. Take the example of last year’s Earth Hour:

In Singapore, turning off lights and electrical appliances during Earth Hour saw a 42-megawatt drop in electricity demand. This is equivalent to 40 per cent of the electricity demand in Ang Mo Kio for that hour, said Energy Market Authority (EMA).

However, there was no real decrease in carbon emissions.

Since we only used 1 per cent less electricity as we normally would have in that hour, the generation companies (gencos) burnt just as much fuel as usual, said EMA.

- The New Paper

For actual reduction in the fuel usage and carbon emissions, everyone in Singapore (households and organisations) must play a part in energy conservation on a daily basis to reduce Singapore’s energy demand. Ad hoc or yearly Earth Hour actions will not be sufficient to effect an actual change in the reduction of energy resources and carbon emissions.

The Rebound Effect

The Rebound Effect usually refers to the behavioral responses to the introduction of new energy efficiency technologies or measures, which tend to offset the actual benefits of the new technology or measures. In other words, actual energy savings is less than expected savings.

For example, if you replace a 20W incandescent light bulb with a 10W energy efficient compact fluorescent bulb, the energy saving should be 50%. However, the actual energy saving is usually less than 50% because as you find that you pay less for lighting, you tend to be less concerned with switching it off. The increased usage thus eat away some of the energy savings from the more efficient light bulb.

Here, we will adapt The Rebound Effect to explain that the actual energy or carbon emission savings could be less than the expected savings from energy conservation. When you reduce energy or carbon emissions from one activity but use more energy or generate more emissions by switching to other substitute activities, then the actual savings is less than expected savings.

For example, you usually read a book on a Saturday night. But to support Earth Hour, you switch off your lights, thus saving X units of energy. In the dark, you can’t read so you switch on the TV and watch it for the whole night. The actual energy savings is thus less than the expected X units of energy savings.

Or instead of staying at home, you decide to drive your car to an event that celebrates Earth Hour. The additional carbon emissions could be more than the expected emission savings from switching off the lights.

You should still support Earth Hour but remember The Rebound Effect and remind yourself that the Earth Hour activities you take part in should not be causing more energy consumption or carbon emissions as compared to your usual activities.

The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect

Earth Hour is really about The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect. We need to see more of The Asymmetry Principle and less of The Rebound Effect.

We need more people to switch off their lights and reduce their energy consumption daily so as to amplify the energy savings at the source. We need less people to switch to other substitute activities that consume more energy or generate more emissions.

So remember for this year’s Earth Hour, everyone must take action to conserve energy daily and ensure that our actions do not contribute to the problem we are trying to solve.

Government Needs to Come Clean on Coal

Grace Chua of the Straits Times wrote an article today on “Reign of old king coal is not necessarily over“, exploring the upsides and downsides of using coal.

Here is Eugene’s reply letter to the ST Editor:

I refer to the article, “Reign of old king coal is not necessarily over” by Grace Chua (ST Mar 19).

The article highlighted several environmental and technological uncertainties associated with the use of coal, which would be best answered by the government. The public needs to know the pros and cons of using coal, and it would help if the government openly and clearly explains its decision to use coal, while anticipating the coming carbon-constrained world, maintaining our clean and green image, and achieving our aim to be a clean energy hub.

For a start, the government could clarify the following:

1. Has the government assessed the environmental impacts of using coal or conducted a life cycle assessment study of coal? How does it compare with natural gas?

2. Would the government require the upcoming coal and biomass-fired power plant by Tuas Power or new power plants using coal, to conduct an environmental impact assessment before going ahead to construct?

3. Would the use of coal lead to more carbon emissions as compared to using natural gas, and undermine the government’s own efforts to reduce emissions by 16% from 2020 business-as-usual levels?

4. Is the government funding research on carbon capture and storage, or technology to reduce coal emissions so that they are on par with those from natural gas?

5. Would the use of coal tarnish Singapore’s reputation as a clean and green city?

6. Would the use of coal without carbon capture and storage technology contradict Singapore’s vision to be a clean energy hub?

7. Would the use of coal reduce the demand for LNG and challenge the viability of the government’s new LNG terminal?

« Previous Page — Next Page »