Somewhere upstairs, my wife is sitting in bright light beside a warm radiator,
sipping tea, flicking through glossy magazines as she blow-dries her hair,
and consuming in 30 minutes about half the energy used by the typical
Bangladeshi all day. And I’m trying to make up for that. I’m sitting in the
dark. The heating is off. I’m wearing two jumpers, a hat and a scarf and a
pair of fingerless gloves I improvised out of old socks that had gone at the
ankle. I’m writing this on an ancient manual typewriter. It’s not easy.
Unlike a computer, it doesn’t let you move blocks of text around, and
there’s no word count. You can’t switch to the internet to look something
up. It’s also bone-shakingly hard work, a bit like a workout at the gym.
But I’m enjoying myself. There is no junk e-mail. And I’m extremely happy to
think of all the electricity I’m saving. Because recent calculations suggest
that IT will very soon overtake aviation as a guzzler of energy. All these
videos on YouTube and unread blogs take up space on servers that suck
ever-increasing amounts from the grid. An avatar on the online game Second
Life uses as much energy as the average Brazilian.
Then there are all the gadgets we can’t seem to live without. All the
batteries that need recharging. In fact, it was the batteries going on my
mouse that got me thinking about using this typewriter. Now I’m planning to
de-escalate my digital life altogether. Out with the computer unless
strictly necessary, in with the typewriter. Out with the Palm Pilot, in with
the paper diary.
The planet is heating up, the weather turning ever more unpredictable. Forests
are dying, and animal species too – at such a rate that it’s been described
as the sixth great extinction (or was it the fifth? If I were online, I
could look it up).
On top of that, it is now accepted that world oil production will peak in as
little as three years, if it hasn’t already, and go into terminal decline.
For both these reasons it is imperative to save as much energy as we can –
reducing emissions and preserving valuable fuels to help make the transition
to a renewable energy infrastructure. And to do this we need a target. James
Hansen, the Nasa scientist who has done so much to raise the issue of global
warming, argues that we should focus on the safe level of CO2 in the
atmosphere – 350 parts per million. He may be right, but it doesn’t work for
me. More helpful is research from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
that identifies the energy use each of us must stick to if we’re to keep the
planet hospitable: precisely 2,000 watts.
As a rate of consumption, 2,000W would keep a two-bar electric fire running
constantly, or 20 not-very-eco incandescent light bulbs. (Or, if you prefer,
it’s the power you’d get from 22 humans trudging endlessly on a
treadmill.)
Watts are like the rate at which water flows out of a tap. The total energy
used is measured by timing the flow (how long the tap has been running at
that rate). This gives the total amount of water in the bath, or rather the
watt-hours for which your utility company bills you. Thus, over 24 hours,
consumption at a rate of 2,000W totals 48,000 watt-hours (48 kilowatt-hours
or kWh). In a year, as I’ve tried to explain rather desperately to my wife,
that comes to 17,520kWh.
Twenty light bulbs doesn’t sound much, considering that it must cover all our
needs, in every part of our lives: not only energy we consume at home but
our individual share of infrastructure such as road-building and sewage, and
the energy that goes into everything we buy. So if you want to run the oven
or drive a car, you must turn off several light bulbs.
In theory, it shouldn’t be difficult, because 2,000W is what the average human
uses already. But that’s an average. In practice, consumption varies
enormously. The typical Bangladeshi uses just 300W. Across Europe the figure
is about 5,400W. And in the US it’s a stonking 11,400W.
The Swiss have calculated that 2,000W is sustainable only as long as the whole
world sticks to it. But the disparity between nations is unsustainable, they
say. It’s a basic issue of fairness. That said, increasing energy use in
developing countries beyond 2,000W would be catastrophic – so we must learn
to use less.
The Swiss minister for the environment, transport, energy and communications, Moritz
Leuenberger, concedes that the target seems, initially, unrealistic. “But
the necessary technology already exists.”
Indeed, the Swiss have taken the 2,000 Watt Society into the mainstream. A
large pilot scheme involving co-operation between industry, universities,
research institutes and government bodies has been going for seven years in
Basel. Zurich joined the project in 2005 and Geneva declared its interest in
2008.
Roland Stulz, the project’s director, insists: “It’s not about starving; it’s
not about having less comfort or fun.” Indeed, he tells me one of his
colleagues has already attained the 2,000W life. “It’s about a creative
approach to the future.”
The three big areas of energy use are food, transport and the home, accounting
for roughly a third each. On the first two I’ve made progress.
I get my food from local, seasonal suppliers (including my own allotment). I
don’t eat a lot of meat, and I often eat food raw. As for transport, I
have an electric car but usually cycle or take the bus. (I work at home, so
don’t travel that much – just as well, because it’s hard to live the 2,000W
life if you drive or fly much, or even at all.)
Home is a leaky Victorian terraced house in north London. Hoping to make
savings here, I recently got my hands on several eco books. The most
comprehensive is probably The Carbon-Free Home, by Stephen and Rebekah Hren,
which has much to say about saving energy, including the suggestion that we
install composting loos to save all the pumping and purification of water
(to drinking standard) that we then simply flush away.
The typical Briton uses 160 litres a day. But rather than install a composting
loo yet, I fix two interruptible flush kits from Interflush inside my
cisterns. Now I can flush exactly what I need to clear the pan – a tiny bit,
a bit more, or the lot.
As to the heating, I turn it off when I’m on my own. There are statistics on
the internet about how much energy you save every degree you lower the
thermostat. But turning the whole thing off is a lot more effective than
saving the odd degree.
To get to grips with my needs, I acquired an Electrisave monitor and wandered
round the house turning on lights and appliances to see how much they all
used. After a day or so I felt that I had got all I needed from it. Now it
was just another pointless gadget, I felt responsible for all the “embodied”
energy that had gone into making it. I decided to give it away so that
someone else could benefit. I had discovered by myself the 2,000 Watt
Society dictum that “using, rather than owning” is the way forward.
I didn’t really need the Electrisave anyway. With a tiny bit of physics –
which I missed at school – I could have conducted my own energy audit. If
you know this already, forgive me: the consumption (in watts) of any given
item can be calculated by multiplying the volts by the amps, and both are
usually to be found on the plug. The Carbon-Free Home recommends making an
inventory of every device in the house, then recording every time you turn
an appliance on and off: “You may be thinking, ‘Wow, that would take too
much time!’ If so, you’re probably using way too many appliances and your
need for an energy diary is that much greater.”
It recommends, unsurprisingly, that nothing be left on standby. The authors
don’t much approve of devices that merely amuse: “Is there ever such a thing
as an efficient use of a video console, or does it always represent a
failure of imagination?” Clothes should be left to dry in the sun, or at
least in the air, because tumble dryers eat up to 6 kilowatts. Indeed,
“Appliances that use electric resistance heat must go.”
I see what they mean. The iron uses 3,250W. The kettle uses a relatively
modest 2,300W, so I decide henceforth to make tea using a Storm Kettle,
designed for camping, which boils a whole litre using a few scraps of
newspaper and two small sticks. Alas, this is not fast, and with the heating
off I’m in constant need of hot drinks.
Then there’s my wife’s hairdryer. This uses 3,250W, like the iron. “Instead of
using a hairdryer,” the book’s authors suggest, “get a less
maintenance-intensive haircut, shower in the evening, or dry hair with a
towel or in sunshine”.
They have obviously not met my wife, who has what she calls “bonkers” hair. If
she doesn’t blow-dry it straight, it goes weirdly frizzy, which is why she
does that every morning. I’ve tried suggesting that she grow it a bit
longer, so that the hair’s weight pulls it into some order, but she refuses
to believe it would work. I’ve refrained, for now, from suggesting that she
eliminate the problem altogether by shaving it all off. Mercifully, we can
make enormous savings without yet banning hairdryers. Scientists estimate
that roughly two-thirds of the primary energy used today is wasted, mostly
in the form of heat that nobody wants or uses. (Primary energy is the energy
contained in a lump of coal, whereas “useful” energy is the light emitted by
a bulb once the coal has been burnt to make steam, the steam has powered a
turbine, and the resulting electricity has been transmitted over the grid.)
With currently available technologies we can reduce that waste
significantly, according to the man who supplies electricity to my house.
In the early 1990s, Dave Vincent was a hippie living in an old military
vehicle and surviving off-grid with his own minimal energy arrangements,
including a tiny windmill. It was this that gave him the idea of dropping
back into the mainstream, where he set up Ecotricity, the first wind-powered
electricity company in Britain. Today Vince lives in a house with all the
usual fridges, freezers and so on, and he thinks it’s impractical to give
them all up. Instead, we should buy the most efficient models when upgrading
and put as much as possible of our domestic load into evenings and even the
middle of the night.
The national grid has massive spikes in demand and must run at a big surplus;
a lot of energy is also wasted by running the grid down when demand is low.
Some plants come on only to meet peaks – generally the dirtiest ones. We
could save a lot of energy if we flattened the peaks and troughs. “If we put
a chunk of electric demand into the night-time,” says Vince, “we could save
the equivalent of all the nuclear power, or about 20% of the entire grid.”
So just by setting the washing machine – or the oven when I’m baking bread –
to work in the middle of the night, I can significantly reduce my share of
national energy use.
But is behavioural change, which Vince prescribes, really so simple? If I tell
Harriet that she has left the lights on, or left doors open, she reacts as
if I have poked her in the eye.
Colin Mather, chair of North Yorkshire’s Esk Valley Community Energy Group,
shares my experience of people being unwilling to change behaviour. His
group was set up three years ago to promote simple things like insulation.
“We did a survey of 600 homes and had a 50% response, which is extremely
good. Then we targeted people and told them about grants – it’s difficult
to find out what’s available. And they started to be taken up. But I still
see people who say, ‘I know I should, but I haven’t got round to it yet.’
People are very hard to change.”
It might help if people knew how much they could save. This year the average
domestic fuel bill reached £1,000 for the first time. By reducing
consumption to 2,000W per person, households could save more than £600 a
year.
The 2,000 Watt Society says that, as well as reducing consumption, it’s
imperative that we move quickly towards generating three-quarters of our
energy renewably. But Mather’s group, like so many around the country, is
experiencing great frustration. Several sites in the Esk valley have been
identified as suitable for generating hydropower, but the Environment Agency
is opposed, because the river is good for salmon. “They’re not interested in
energy, only fish.”
A community group nearer me is Transition Belsize, part of the nationwide
Transition Town movement preparing for life after cheap oil and amid climate
chaos. One of the members I meet is Alexis Rowell, a journalist turned Lib
Dem eco champion on Camden council. He tells me that 890 people looked round
the Camden Eco Home, a show house, in a single weekend in September – “proof
that people want to see how a Victorian property can be refurbished to
reduce carbon emissions and energy bills by 80%”.
I went to see the Camden Eco Home for myself. Builders had put thick
insulation on the inside of exterior walls, because the house is in a
conservation area and its appearance can’t be changed. I couldn’t see
Harriet agreeing to that. We would have to move the ceiling mouldings and
several bookcases, and lose a hefty chunk of floor space. But alas, it makes
a lot more sense to do the walls, roof and floor than double glazing – about
six times the energy saving at half the cost.
On my way home, I bought insulation to put round the doors and windows, and a
brush to cut draughts below the front door. I’m happy to report that the
effect was perceptible at once, and without any high-tech measuring device.
After that, I went to a dinner party in a part of London where everyone seems
to drive a 4x4. I sat next to a woman who listened politely as I described
the steps I’d taken towards the 2,000W life. She wondered if I’d hit the
target. Honestly, I had no idea: the online tool for assessing this is
available only in German.
Regardless, she said there was “no point”. I would be better off
lobbying the UN or the government. Then she admitted that climate change and
energy issues leave her feeling hopeless. “Look at India and China,” she
said, meaning that they use more energy all the time.
This was demoralising. For some time people had received no replies to the
e-mails they sent me, and found my phone was usually turned off. Had I lost
friends for nothing? No: her point was easy enough to refute. If we do
nothing, we are in real trouble, whereas we might make a difference by
taking action. If your car is heading for a cliff and the prospect of
falling alarms you, you don’t say there’s no point applying the brake – far
less lobby the government to tell you to apply it.
Like many people, this woman was paralysed by the scale of the problem
combined with the urgency. But we can’t do everything at once. And the good
news is that we don’t need to. The 2,000 Watt Society points out that
infrastructure needs replacing at a rate of 2% a year anyway, so we can make
a great deal of change incrementally.
As for India and China, we don’t need to go round the world to find people who
make our task more difficult. The person who does most to hold me up in my
mission to save the world is Harriet, with her crazy hairdryer habit.
But as I looked away from my miserable, paralysed neighbour, I glimpsed my
wife talking animatedly, her hair immaculately straight and shiny, and
remembered that, though she may not like the idea of insulating interior
walls, or sticking polythene sheets over the windows as a budget alternative
to double glazing, she has put up with me talking about composting loos,
turning the heating down, wagging my finger at her about leaving the lights
on, and making tea out of rainwater with a pair of damp sticks.
She’s my wife, she uses far too many kilowatts, but I love her and we’re in
this together. Anyway, I rather like the way she does her hair.
