Green Deal failure – what a waste of energy and money!

Posted by Ross Lammas

So Green Deal, the Government’s big attempt to get households to cut their emissions, has ended up costing us £17,000 for each home that signed up. And worse still the reduction in CO2 is negligible. No surprise there. Well-intentioned maybe, but misguided and to me the maths just didn’t add up.

Green_deal

Green Deal ran from 2013 to mid-2015, at a cost of £240 million. The idea was that people could get a loan to pay for energy efficiency improvements to their home, such as ground source heat pumps, double glazing, photovoltaics or improved insulation. These loans would then be paid back through their electricity bill, with the promise that they would never pay back more than they were saving. So, for example, if cavity wall insulation was set to save a householder £200 in a year, that would be the most they’d pay towards the loan that year.

As regular readers will know, I’ve had issues with the Green Deal since the start. It always seemed like an initiative that was doomed to fail. Don’t get me wrong, some of the thinking behind it made sense. Enabling people to spread the cost of energy efficient and renewable solutions over time is a great idea. Early birds were even offered a cashback ‘sweetener’ of up to £1000.

However, Green Deal didn’t cover lighting or appliances. The running costs of electricals, such as fridges, freezers, washing machines etc, accounts for around 20% of a home’s energy bill. There are big CO2 savings to be made by switching to more energy efficient models. When money is tight, however, it can be difficult to justify replacing an old washing machine or fridge freezer with a more efficient one, even if it could save money in the long run. Offering people the chance of a Green Deal loan spread over a few years could really have helped people to upgrade.

Energy-consuption-fridges-1

Lightbulbs could also have been included. Replacing all the old halogen bulbs in someone’s home with LED ones wouldn’t cost that much, and a scheme whereby you could be sent the bulbs and pay for them over a few years out of your electricity bills, could have proved very popular.

And that cashback offer would have made more sense if the government had used the £1000 to offer homeowners additional ways to make their homes more energy efficient. They could have been offered a choice of free loft insulation, double glazing for two windows, or scrappage scheme for old white goods with vouchers to spend on super energy efficient appliances and lightbulbs, for example.

See what your electricals cost to run

There was also no real encouragement for people to make any changes to the way they run their homes. There’s little point in installing loft insulation if you then leave the heating on when you go out for the day, or constantly have the thermostat set higher than it needs to be.

One of my main gripes is that Green Deal didn’t do enough to help those in fuel poverty. Instead it focused on people who could afford to borrow the money needed to improve their home.

It just wasn’t sexy enough, I mean, who wants to take out a 25 year loan for something as dull as loft insulation? And the loans were attached to homes, rather than the owners. While that sounds good in principle, imagine telling a potential seller, “Yep the double-glazing is four years old, but you’ll need to pay for it through your electricity bills for the next 21 years.

In all, the scheme wasn’t fully thought out and there was little real incentive for people to bother taking it up. (In the end, only 14,000 homes benefited.) The National Audit Office (NAO) report criticised the Government for failing to test the Green Deal sufficiently with householders, before it launched. Yet they knew that even when loft insulation was installed free uptake was low. Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, said: ‘The Department [of Energy and Climate Change] now needs to be more realistic about consumers’ and suppliers’ motivations when designing schemes in future to ensure it achieves it aims.’

Perhaps that is why they are taking so long to come up with a replacement scheme. Meanwhile – we all Twitter whilst the planet burns! Do you agree, or are you one of the 14,000 homeowners who benefited? Leave a comment below, or Tweet me @Sust-it.

Best replacements for GU10 Halogens, LED review – branded or unbranded?

Posted by Ross Lammas

Replacing your halogen GU10 bulbs for LED equivalents is a great place to start saving on your energy bills. Halogen spotlights became a real trend in the noughties, and they still are judging by kitchen design magazines. The big problem with halogen spotlights is that, whilst being marginally more energy efficient than filament bulbs, they still consume a lot of energy! Especially as they tend to be grouped in larger numbers in kitchens and bathrooms. Having just ten feature lights could cost you £100 per year. Replacing them with modern compact LED bulbs can cut your bills down by 80/90%, plus, because they last so much longer, the lifetime savings should well payoff the upfront cost of the bulbs in the long-term. See our ‘How long do bulbs last?’ calculator.

Are LED replacements as bright as Halogens?

LED lighting technology has moved on rapidly in recent years; Whilst early bulbs did lack brightness and tended to be on the cool side of the colour spectrum, modern-day bulbs certainly are as bright as Halogens and come in a wide range of colours for every situation within your home or office. Studies carried out in Denmark and Sweden in 2014 confirmed that consumers are happy with the light quality when compared with the tungsten filament lamps they have been replacing.

Choosing the correct brightness of bulbs is now more confusing with the switch for interpreting light output from ‘watts’ to the term ‘lumens’ – which is a more accurate way of measuring light. To help with this we’ve created an interactive tool to demonstrate how much brighter LED lighting is when compared to halogens and old filament bulbs. Roughly speaking a 50w Halogen bulb should be replaced with a 5w to 8w equivalent GU10 LED. Saying that there are differences in performance between brands; and, unlike the US, in Europe there is no regime for checking the measurement of lumens claimed made by manufacturers.

See the most energy efficient...

← SWIPE →

Lumens to Watts – how to choose light bulbs

Should you go for well-known LED lighting brands?

Now this is where the real value judgement has to be made, yes we know LEDs use far less energy (which is better for the environment) but cost miles more than cheap Halogens. So LEDs only makes sense – from a financial standpoint – if they last as long as suggested. Now this is trickier; from our experience – we installed LEDs within our office and they have either lasted nowhere near their claimed life expectancy, or have started to flicker, (this can happen as a result of poor design or manufacture). However, these were first generation LEDs and have been replaced with modern equivalents that have proved to be far more reliable.

A report commissioned by the EU into the LED lighting market, highlighted that brands such as Philips claim to hold 70% of all patents on LED applications. It almost seems impossible for rival brands to manufacture bulbs without paying a licence fee, or infringing on Philips patents.

The influx of cheaper, imported LED bulbs could be an indication of the quality of the designs and how long they may last. Our advice would be to look for long warranties from the retailers or manufacturers. Guarantees of 5 years are not uncommon – bulb being left on for 25,000 hours (5 years 8 months). One thing to consider is that housing the LED bulbs in an enclosed space with less 10 mm gap around the product will affect its longevity and could make your guarantee void. Above all keep your receipts!

Branded V Own Labelled GU10 LED bulbs?

The pictures below illustrate the difference in brightness between three different LED GU10 bulbs compared to an Eco Halogen. Each bulb was photographed at the same exposure and colour balance settings. Surprisingly all the LEDs appear brighter than Eco Halogen, even though the Halogen had a higher quoted lumens level of 380.

Both the PHILIPS and DIALL (B&Q) have a narrower beam angle (36°) compared to LUMiLIFE which has 60° beam. The beam angle is important to bear in mind when replacing bulbs, a wider beam spreads the light more evenly, especially useful if your light fittings are widely spaced. In terms of brightness all the bulbs produce a clean bright light to the naked eye and seemed very similar in brightness. However, what was really noticeable was the difference between warm coloured bulbs (2770K) when compared to cool white LED’s (5000) The cooler temperature bulbs (bluer) appears much brighter, so would be much more suited to areas such as lighting kitchen worktops. The warmer coloured bulb would be more suited to rooms that need a more relaxed atmosphere.

The build quality of all the bulbs seems very good, the only difference being that the PHILIPS bulb appear to have small cooling vents. This should help dissipate any excess heat that can affect the longevity of bulbs.

Overall the quality of light from each bulb was very impressive, certainly better than the halogen tested.

GU10 Bulbs tested

LUMiLIFE (LEDHut) LED GU10 5W = 45w (320 lumens) Colour temperature 2700K
Expected life 25000 hrs Beam Angle 60° Retailing at £3.49*

PHILIPS LED GU10 5W = 50w (350 lumens) Colour temperature 2700K
Expected life 15000 hrs Beam Angle 36° Retailing at £6.00*

DIALL (B&Q) LED GU10 4.8w = 50w (345 lumens) Colour temperature 3000K
Expected life 15000 hrs Beam Angle 36° Retailing at £4.00* each (twin pack)

DIALL (B&Q) Eco Halogen GU10 40w = 50w (380 lumens) Colour temperature 2700K Expected life 2000 hrs Beam Angle 36°Retailing at £1.00*

•Prices March 2016

Colour temperature comparison

LUMiLIFE LED GU10 5W = 45w 320 lumens Colour temperature 2700K
LUMiLIFE LED GU10 5W = 45w 330 lumens Colour temperature 4000K
LUMiLIFE LED GU10 5W = 45w 330 lumens Colour temperature 5000K

Camera: Nikon D750 Exposure 1/50 F8 ISO 2500 Colour balance 5000K. No image manipulation or exposure/colour corrections.

See the most energy efficient...

← SWIPE →

Why switch energy supplier?

Posted by Ross Lammas

Due to the current energy market situation, we’d recommend not switching until prices stabilise!

The easiest way to reduce your energy bills is to minimize usage in the first place! Next is to switch supplier, which is as easy as entering your postcode. So why aren’t consumers doing this? Is it complacency? A lack of time? No access to the internet? The hassle of changing banking details? Or not knowing how big the savings can be? We expect all the above are contributing to us not switching enough.

Dual Fuel

Electricity

Gas

Should you switch?

Yes. Your current supplier is not going to tell you if their tariffs are uncompetitive – why should they? You can’t complain about high energy bills if you don’t take action today both by saving energy and by switching. This is how we can encourage a more competitive energy market. The chances are if you’ve never switched or haven’t switched in past 12 months, you’re paying a hefty price! Here’s Sust-it’s guide to switching…

How to switch energy supplier

Before you start to make a comparison having a previous utility bill to hand will help you provide the following information:

your postcode.
your current gas and electricity supplier;
your tariff, which should be on your bill;
how much you spend or the amount you use in kilowatt-hours

(you can switch without this, however, having the above information will ensure you get the best possible deal)

Enter this information into your chosen switching service and it will show you the cheapest deals based on energy usage. Pick the tariff/supplier you want and enter your bank details to set up a direct debit (this gives you the cheapest deals). The chosen supplier will arrange the changeover process; you’ll be asked to submit meter readings, and then your existing supplier will send a final bill. The whole process takes between two and six weeks – hopefully, Government pressure will speed this process up soon!

Switch with Sust-it here…

Dual Fuel

Electricity

Gas

See the most energy efficient...

← SWIPE →

Plug-in hybrids – Petrol Prius v Diesel Volvo V60 Polestar

Posted by Ross Lammas

A like-for-like comparison between cars with very different purchase prices is never going to be fare – unless you ignore brand image and the level of trim. For this review I’m going to disregard the showroom price tag and look at the driving experience, practicality and frugalness of the petrol Toyota Prius, and Volvo’s diesel V60 plug-in hybrids.

volvo_v60_hybrid_test

Let’s start with practicality; – something normally synonymous with Volvo and you’d expect the V60 to win hands down. However, lift-up the rear hatch and the reality kicks in of converting an existing model to electric propulsion. The boot floor level has been raised to accommodate the batteries and electric motor that cleverly drive the rear wheels, the front wheels are driven by the diesel engine. This has completely compromised the load lugging potential of the V60. Thankfully, cabin space isn’t compromised at all by the batteries or the additional electric motor and there’s plenty of room for four large adults and a smaller person in the middle.

From the outside you’d expect the Prius not to have much room in the back with its aerodynamically raked rear hatch, yet, surprisingly, there’s a reasonable amount of space to be had. Front passenger room in Prius are on a par with the Volvo, both being equally spacious with plenty of legroom. The seats on the Volvo offer better support than the Prius. Driver’s visibility isn’t as compromised in the Volvo by oversized window pillars which feature in the Prius. They are both pretty good on the ergonomics of the controls, storage cup holders and driving position. The Volvo had the edge in terms of ease of use of information systems, dials and switchgear. A more uniformed design, perhaps a more European influenced approach appealed to me.

Driving experience – are you a keen driver? Or is driving a means of getting from A to B? If you’re the later the Prius could be for you. The Prius is a very easy car to drive, that’s if you ignore all the buttons and dashboard information overload! It seems to encourage a frugal, relaxed driving style, which is what this car is about. Either pounding up and down the motorway, or running in stealth electric mode around town, whichever, you’ll arrive with minimal fuss and expense. My only dislike on the Pruis is the eCVT (electronic continuously variable transmission), which sometimes – on steep inclines – makes the engine race like your cars clutch is slipping. The transition from pure electric to petrol is very good, almost seamless. You can certainly see where many years of Toyotas R&D has paid dividends. Again, the handling is good, although not as sharp as the Volvo.

Electric Car Journey Cost Calculator

Now lets take a look at the Volvo, this is a very different beast to drive! It’s more of a ‘ON or OFF’ car. In pure electric mode it’s as relaxed as you like, quiet limousine qualities spring to mind, akin to its excessive price tag. Put your foot down, or press the sports button and it’s off like a shot! The rather gruff torque of the diesel motor rattles into action combined with the even torque electric motor, to catapult you up the road – Jekyll and Hyde… here we go! The performance is exciting and great fun, it’s just a little crude when compared to petrol hybrids. The transition from diesel to electric isn’t as smooth as the Prius and the noise is more noticeable compared to it’s quiet electric mode. Motorway journeys are more relaxed and comfortable as the diesel engine noise is much less noticeable. The handing and braking are first-rate, it clings on round corners with no body roll. PoleStars racing influence on the suspension set up certainly makes for an entertaining drive! Yet in normal driving it’s very smooth, not harsh at all. The car is packed with the latest safety features; this is, afterall, a Volvo. These include lane deviation, collision, blind spot detection, self-dipping and steering headlights. One potential safety issue I spotted on the V60, which had a sunroof fitted, was that the when the sun shone through the roof it hit the chrome logo badge on the steering wheel, reflecting sunlight directly into my eyes! It happened on enough occasions to be annoying as well as dangerous! Suggest smaller less reflective logos please Volvo, miles cheaper than all the techy safety gizmos.

volvo_v60_review

Petrol vehicles running costs

So, what about saving money and the planet? Well, frugalness or fuel efficiency of cars with any plug-in hybrid is down to your driving patterns and lifestyle. If you do lots of short runs that can be done in pure electric mode they are incredibly cheap to run – just a few pence per mile! On longer trips we found both cars to be pretty economic, with the Prius, surprisingly, having a slight edge over the Volvo. However, the problem with the Prius is that it only has around a 10 miles range in pure electric mode, compared to the 20 miles in the Volvo. This made the Volvo a much better option for our general running around. My advice, if your considering a plug-in hybrid, would be to monitor your journey patterns overtime to see if a plug-in is practical for your lifestyle. You may find that a pure electric car may even suit your driving habits, especially if you’ve a second car for longer journeys. The main advantage with the plug-in hybrids, apart from the generous tax breaks and subsidies – which may end soon – is the flexibility to do longer journeys without the associated anxiety of taking an electric car beyond its battery range.

Plug-in Diesel Hybrids running costs

prius_engine_plug-in

Diesel or Petrol Hybrid? My preference would be for petrol hybrids as they’re quieter, lighter and have less NOx tailpipe emissions than diesels. Plus I can’t stand the smell of diesel on my hands after filling-up!

Plug-in Petrol Hybrids running costs

Electric Radiators or Storage Heaters are they energy efficient?

Posted by Ross Lammas

The papers seem full of ads for electric radiators claiming to be cheap to run and energy efficient. Let’s take a look at the cheap to run element first – no pun intended!

electric-raditors

Electricity is one of the most expensive forms of heating in the UK and emits the most CO2 emissions – unless you’re currently on a green tariff. If you’ve bought or sold a house in the last eight years, you will know that it’s a legal requirement to have an energy rating for the property. This takes the form of an EPC (Energy Performance Certificate), and provides an A-G energy rating much the same as appears on your washing machine. The EPC crudely predicts the running costs of your house based on the levels of insulation, lighting systems, glazing, your heating system and controls. An EPC for a property fitted with an electric heating system will almost always be penalised, and have a lower A to G energy rating than the same as those fitted with a gas or even an oil boiler. Why? Well, simply because electricity is more expensive per kW hour to heat your home. Ironically, even if you had a super efficient ground or air source heat pump running your home, the EPC assessment would see a modern gas combi-boiler as being the more energy efficient. Even an up-to-date oil boiler would give a better EPC rating, and, at current oil prices, cost considerably less to run!

Storage Heaters Cost Calculator

So, getting back to the adverts, how can claims be made that electric radiators are energy efficient? Let’s take a look at what electric heating does; it converts electrical energy to heat (thermal energy). Electric space heating is almost 100% efficient as almost all purchased energy (15.5p per kW) is converted to heat, this applies to convector heaters, oil filled radiators and most portable electric heaters. However, what if that energy is more expensive in the first place? Electricity is nearly three times as expensive to use as gas! Top rated gas-condensing combi boilers are about 88% efficient, with the gas only costing 4.3p per kW. Electricity isn’t the most cost efficient way to heat your home.

Unlike energy efficient LED lighting where you can put in less electricity and get more light out, electric heating doesn’t allow you to get more thermal energy out than you put in the first place. This makes 1kW electric convector heaters as energy efficient as electric radiators, the only difference will be in how good the thermostatic controls and timer are at regulating their heat output. And more importantly how well insulated your home is!

Electric Heating Cost Calculator

The main difference between Electric Radiators and Storage Heaters is that the later use Economy 7, which is cheaper off peak electricity – usually about half the price of standard tariffs. Storage heaters store thermal energy in clay blocks overnight and then slowly release this during the day. Sounds good? The only problem is that come the evening, when you’re about to snuggle up in front of the tv, they tend to run out puff! So you’ll need backup heating of some kind. Now there’s a sting in the tail of Economy 7; the energy companies charge you more for daytime use of electricity. Plug in an electric fire and you’ll being paying double what your non Economy 7 neighbour is paying for their energy.

See the most energy efficient...

← SWIPE →

So, are electric radiators a good choice? If you’ve got gas, or room for an oil tank, they are probably not for you. If your only choice is electricity then take a hard look at your energy usage and what you’re paying for your energy, then do the maths. Please remember to add on the cost of heating water with an immersion heater too. We’ve got lots of energy usage calculators to help with this. One thing that is worth factoring in is that electric heating doesn’t require yearly servicing like a boiler – saving you some cash and hassle. More importantly, stop loosing the heat you are paying for and insulate your home as best you can.

Electricity Cost Calculator