The fuel mix is published for the main UK suppliers on electricityinfo.org, and it also tells you the amount of carbon dioxide emitted when generating each unit of electricity in kilograms of carbon dioxide per kiloWatt-hour (kgCO₂/kWh).

We were supplied by Powergen (E.ON), who at 0.575 kgCO₂/kWh have slid to the bottom of the table since I started looking at my options. I notice that the proportion of renewable energy used has dwindled to almost nothing in the latest figures.

My baseline was originally 0.377 kgCO₂/kWh, and the goal of this exercise was to reduce this further. There are significantly better performing suppliers out there and we decided that a modest increase in the bill was acceptable.

My guiding principles.

There seem to be three main approaches used by suppliers when trying to provide a greener tariff.

1. Buying carbon offsetting and environmental investment funds.
2. Mixing traditional and renewable power generation to dilute the overall impact.
3. Using power entirely from renewable sources: principally wind, hydro and solar.

Now the first option seems pointless to me. I’m perfectly capable of offsetting my own carbon emissions, I decided to do just that this year, and that way I can choose exactly how my offset money is spent.

The point of this exercise is to avoid offsetting and channel my money into fostering the development of renewable energy. Either of the last two options would help to achieve this goal, but clearly the latter is the most effective by excluding fossil fuels entirely.

Finally, I’m a big fan of a diverse approach to just about everything. In my experience these solutions tend to be far more robust: it might be that one type of renewable technology becomes dominant in the future, but at this point there isn’t enough operational experience to tell which one.

Assessing my options.

Most of the mainstream suppliers offer green energy tariffs, but these appear to heavily depend upon the carbon offsetting route to gain these green credentials: failed at the first hurdle.

One company taking the middle route is Ecotricity who still use a diverse range of power generation methods, including renewable and more traditional sources. As you now know, I like diversity, but unfortunately Ecotricity are entirely focused on investment in wind turbines for their renewable power.

Wind power is the focus of renewable attention in the UK, but it’s not the only game in town. I’m not convinced that I want to help fund wind power technology to the deficit of all other renewable sources. I don’t believe wind power is the answer many seem to think it is.

What remains are the top performing green alternatives, both relatively small companies: Good Energy and Green Energy. Both support a range of renewable generation technologies, both have price plans that are entirely based on renewable sources, both are committed to supporting smaller power producers, and both cost about the same.

So why did I settle on Good Energy? Two reasons really: I’d read favourable reviews of the switching process, and more importantly, their close involvement with the supply of grid attached domestic solar systems and the purchase of the subsequent excess electricity.

I suspect that this use of British roof-tops may have valuable contributions to make to meeting our power demand and energy security needs in the future, and it’s something I’m considering for another day.

I long considered tactics such as carbon offsetting and buying my electricity from a supplier that uses renewable sources, whilst piping it through the same old wires, to be cheating: you’re not really reducing anything.

A recent review of our Carbon Account, and the fact that 30% of our carbon emission is due to electricity, prompted me to re-examine my gut rejection.

In the end we all have to realise that zero environmental impact is a fantasy, nothing is without side-effects. Eventually we reach a point where we can’t reduce anymore, and I’m at that point with our electricity demand.

It occurred to me that just as carefully choosing the manner of carbon offsetting can still yield environmentally helpful results, the same is true for greening your electricity tariff.

Markets respond to the demands of users, and the higher the demand for renewables (wind, solar, hydro and biomass) based electricity, the more incentive generators have to invest in these technologies. Switching to a green tariff isn’t about making my emissions profile look better, it’s about using my influence on the energy market.

Being comfortable with the principle is one thing, but which of the many suppliers to choose? That’ll have to wait for next time…

So, I organised three sessions for all the employees on site that day, and was impressed to see that everyone did turn up for the sessions.  Only one person asked if they could miss it (I obviously said no as they are the biggest sceptic that I know and believe that climate change is just a government scare tactic to introduce more taxes).  I also (admittedly a bit belatedly) sent an email to other departments and sites inviting them to send someone over if they wanted (I had only one response, and everyone else ignored me) – this is obviously not currently a priority within the Company – although I believe this may be about to change with the requirements for the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC).

How did the training go?  Well, it was not the most dynamic of deliveries I have ever come across.  There were some interesting facts and figures about the cost of leaving appliances on standby, which did seem to be news to some people in the room, but other than that there did not seem to be very much content and certainly nothing that I thought would influence many people to change their habits.  There was also a large concentration of effort about the Carbon Reduction Commitment, despite my assurances that there really was nothing that I could do about it at my lowly level.  Maybe I was a little prejudiced though, because it wasn’t news to me, but apparently some people did not know that leaving their mobile on charge for longer than required was wasting money.

So, results of the training, no immediate effects were noticeable, although it did get some people talking about it.  I have since discovered that more warehouse staff are turning lights off as they leave the room (I discovered this second hand due to a comment from maintenance that they are having to replace more bulbs).  Most disappointing though is that people in the office are still leaving lights and IT equipment on – one of our biggest wastes of energy.  So, although it did not change the world, it was probably worthwhile as it did what it said on the tin and raised employee awareness with regards to energy usage – now it is up to me to start getting them into new, better habits.

About a month after the audit I received a report which was followed by a feedback session.  The report gave an overview of the findings, and detailed a number of carbon reduction opportunities with their pay-back time.

Two sites had been audited, and it wasn’t always perfectly clear which data and suggestions related to one or both of these sites. There were some useful (and relatively cheap) suggestions.

The report, as expected, concentrated on the use of gas and electricity at the site.  A breakdown of the electricity use for the site was provided; unsurprisingly it is the Plant itself and the lighting which constitute the biggest proportion.

The recommendations for the site vary in magnitude and expenditure from a pay-back time of less than 6 months to approximately 2 years.

The top three suggestions anticipate reducing the carbon footprint of the site (currently estimated at 642 tCO₂e) by 41.3 tCO₂e: a reduction of approximately 6%. The top three priorities were listed as:

1. Implement the findings of the report with regards to our energy management.
2. Improve lighting.
3. Shutdown of IT equipment.

The other changes require an expenditure in excess of £10k, but expected to produce a carbon footprint reduction closer to 10%.  These are also changes that will take longer to implement and so, if deemed appropriate, may be saved for next year.

The report concluded with an energy management matrix, summarising their view of our energy management practices (to be honest, this is not very good reading).

The matrix looked at the following: Energy Policy, Organisation, Training, Performance Measurement (improvement in this area is underway — more about this in a later blog), Communication (as with most companies, we have already realised that this is an area where much improvement can be made) and Investment (this is perceived as our best performing area).

I will publish a series of posts over the coming months with the detailed verdict; planned improvements, and how I am dealing with the fact that the actual cost savings are quite minimal compared with total expenditure and our profitability.