GREENer HOUSE

GreenerHouse has made the short list for the 2008 South African Blog Awards in the category of Green Blogs. If you think this is the best environmental blog in South Africa, and believe that more South Africans should be exposed to the ideas and information found on Greenerhouse, click on the button to the right. A nomination will bring this site to the attention of many people who might not otherwise hear about it. There’s no money in it for me, but the posts I write for Greenerhouse are only worth the time I spend on them if lots of South Africans get to read them.

The voting process is simpler than the rather tricky nominating process, I promise. Voting concludes on the 19th of March.

One is greener than the other

This week I took delivery of a 48 kg cylinder of liquid propane gas. This may seem odd, because I only use gas for heating in the winter. (I wrote about this here.)

But it was all part of a plan. Because burning LPG purchased in the summer may be about the only way to use a fossil fuel at virtually no cost to the environment. That’s right, no net carbon dioxide emissions, sulfur dioxide or any other nasties will be released into the atmosphere as I stay warm burning this gas in the coming winter.

The logic is this: LPG is a byproduct of the refining process. Wherever petrol is made from oil, gas or coal in South Africa, some LPG is produced. As a friend a Sasol first told me, in the summer, when LPG demand is down, these plants run out of storage capacity for LPG and frequently flare it. So if I work on the assumption that my new bottle of gas would have been flared into the atmosphere anyway, I can burn it with a clean conscience.

I planned ahead for this moment back in August, when one gas bottle was depleted. I always have one spare 48 kg cylinder on hand, and replace an empty as soon as I switch over. But two weeks into August I did some quick calculations and figured there was no way my new bottle would run out before warm weather arrived.

Of course, if South Africa had a rational, competitive market, LPG prices would come down in the summer, everyone would have a financial incentive to plan ahead and buy gas in the summer, and flaring of LPG would come to an end. But anyone who buys bread or has a bank account in this country knows that we do not have a rational, competitive market.

So should I buy more LPG bottles to get me through the winter? I don’t know. I worry that South Africa could run into a gas-cylinder shortage this winter. So many people are switching to gas for cooking because they no longer trust Eskom. I will try to investigate the gas-bottle supply situation before winter arrives. If it looks good, I will buy an extra bottle and let you know.

My article on televisions and electricity consumption is now available on the Mail & Guardian website at this link. The previous post contains all of the practical advice that a television buyer could glean from the article, but the original text does provide more context. It also includes a salient comment by Professor Ernst Uken, head of the Energy Institute at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology.

Uken says households play a larger role in the South African power crisis than their overall consumption would suggest. The morning and evening spikes in power usage are caused by the domestic sector, he says, “and spikes are the reason for the power outages. The tail is wagging the dog.”

Perhaps you have heard of Moore’s Law. Named after the founder of Intel, Gordon Moore, it states that computing power of integrated circuits doubles every two years. In the latest issue of the Mail & Guardian, I have introduced what shall heretofore be known as Boroughs’s Law. Named after the founder of Greenerhouse, Don Boroughs, it states that for each additional ten inches in flat-panel television screen size, its electricity consumption approximately doubles.

I discovered this law by plotting the consumption of TVs sold in South Africa on a graph, and it’s the most important thing you need to know when buying a television. Because just to look at it, you might think that a 50 inch TV—manufacturers measure these things on the diagonal in inches—would use 20 percent more electricity than a 40 inch TV. You would be wrong.

Forty-inch TVs shouldn’t use more than 250 watts. (The worst ones use more.) Fifty-inch TVs typically use 500 watts, more than six 60-watt lamps. Boroughs’s Law works all the way through the range of television sizes available in South Africa, from 20 inches to 60 inches.

This tells you that the first thing to do is when buying a television is to convince your partner—or yourself—that you can get by with a TV one size smaller than the one you have been considering. A 32-inch LCD TV, which would have been considered large not many years ago, should use a reasonable 150 watts. That’s not much more than the average large CRT TV—the kind of TV we’ve all been using for the past few decades—and even less than the least efficient CRTs. (Cathode Ray Tubes.) Sony sells a 20-inch LCD which uses an amazing 60 watts. The incredible efficiency of LCD screens at small sizes—and only at small sizes—explains why they are the greenest choice for computer screens.

Once you have decided on a size, there is still a wide range of power consumption, even within the same brand of television. Thirty-two inch TVs, for example, vary in consumption from 132 watts to 380 watts. Televisions should come with big labels stating their consumption, and one day they will. In the meantime, there are only two ways of learning the wattage of a television: through the internet or checking the label on the back of the TV. If you are researching from home, try these websites:

www.philips.co.za
www.sony.co.za
www.samsung.co.za

Once you find a TV that interests you on the web page, click on “technical specifications,” or similar wording. The wattage is usually hidden near the bottom of the list.

You should be able to find a 32-inch TV using 140 watts, a 42-inch screen using 240 watts, or a 46-inch model using 270 watts. LCD TVs tend to use less electricity than plasma TVs. If you really feel that you must have a larger TV, the only models that use acceptable amounts of power are rear-projection TVs. Experts say that their picture quality is as good as flat-panels, they cost a lot less, and the Sony models use about 200 watts, all the way up to a 60-inch screen. They are bulkier, however, and will not be available for too much longer, as they are losing the battle for market share. This may lead to close-out bargains.

If you don’t want to sift through a hundred models, I suggest starting with the Philips brand, as they tend to be more energy efficient. I would avoid LG, as they tend to be more power-hungry and they often don’t state the wattage on the label at the rear of the TV. If you like Sony, and money isn’t much of an object, the European Imaging & Sound Association gave its most recent Green Television of the Year award to the Sony KDL-40D3000. That exact model isn’t available in South Africa, but its local equivalent is the 40-inch D Series Bravia model KLV-40D300A, which uses 180 watts.

Their voting panel looks at ease of recycling and other environmental issues in addition to electricity consumption, so this should be an all-around good choice if you need a big TV.

Or of course you could just stick with your existing CRT television. I checked my 2-year-old, 29-inch Philips CRT television, and it uses 73 watts. If you use an older TV, it is doubly important that you switch it off at the box, rather than using the remote to put it into stand-by. (This also reduces the chance of damage from a lightning strike.) Almost all new flat-panel TVs use one watt or less in stand-by, but older TVs draw enough power in stand-by that in a day you may use more electricity not watching TV than you do watching it.

Any golden white elephants—or rhinos—in your house?

In recent days, the gold price is breaking record after record. Add to that the somewhat weaker rand, and your jewelry box is starting to look like, well, a gold mine.

If you decide to take some profits on a rarely worn bracelet, as I recently did, the environment will benefit even more than your bank account. In November, dozens of South African corporations released data on their greenhouse-gas emissions as part of the South African Carbon Disclosure Project. They should be commended for their effort. Knowing your emissions is a critical first step toward reducing them. Two of the companies were gold miners, and their disclosure came as a shock to me. For each ounce of gold produced by Harmony Gold Mining, 2.1 tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere. Yes, read it again, 2.1 tons of CO₂ for an ounce of gold. If you don’t believe me, see here.

AngloGold Ashanti had significantly lower figures, probably because it is less dependent on deep underground mines in South Africa, but the average of the two companies still comes out at 1.14 tons per troy ounce. This is not far off from a figure I got using data for the South African gold mining industry as a whole in the year 2000, 1.3 tons of CO₂ per troy ounce for electricity usage alone.

Using the 1.14 figure, by my calculations, I would have to drive my Honda Jazz from Johannesburg to Cape Town and back about three times to emit the carbon dioxide contained in a Krugerrand. (And I’m leaving aside the water pollution, local air pollution, and landscape scarring that gold mining causes.)

This might give you some pause when your anniversary next comes up, but it does make the current high gold price a perfect opportunity to recycle some gold and prevent further mining emissions. I found a medal that had no real sentimental value and my wife found a clunky bracelet that she hadn’t worn in more than 20 years. Yesterday, a gold and coin dealer paid me more than R4,000 for the two, thereby saving 783 kilograms of CO₂ using to the Anglo/Harmony average. It was like buying a carbon offset, except I got paid for it. I’m considering going back with a pair of silver candlesticks.

I remember that driving all the way to Bedfordview just to sell a little gold gave me a twinge of green guilt. Not anymore. I now realize I could have driven all the way to Bulawayo.

My article on Collect-a-Can is now available on the Mail & Guardian website at this link.

Why are these men smiling? A wheelbarrow full of cans will only get them R2.86 at Collect-a-Can.

My article in the current issue of the Mail & Guardian points out that Collect-a-Can is not living up to its reputation as an energetic catalyst for recycling in South Africa. Instead of paying a premium price to the hawkers who clean up our trash looking for recyclables, Collect-a-can is paying less than the market price and profiting on the export of cans to steel mills in Pakistan.

So where does that leave the consumer who wants to do the right thing with his or her cans? One lesson I have learned is that food cans are actually somewhat more recyclable than drink cans. The food tins that make it to Collect-a-Can have their tin removed for reuse and are melted back into high-quality steel here in South Africa. Drink cans are not likely to end up as new drink cans. They meet a variety of fates, including being used to process cobalt in Botswana and going into lower-quality steels.

I know that the temptation is stronger to throw out a food tin, because of food stuck inside. I pulled one out of my kitchen bin just yesterday. Resist. All of your tins are worth recycling. Aluminium tins, including some deodorant and hair-care aerosols, are by far the most recyclable of all. I have written about this before.

I will continue to recycle drink cans as well. I would prefer “cradle-to-cradle” recycling, which means that the end product is of the same quality as the original, but this is not always possible. Converting hiqh-quality South African steel into lower-quality steel in Pakistan or even into a flux used to process cobalt in Botswana is better than wasting the resource entirely. Since global warming is indeed “global,” it doesn’t matter too much whether the energy is saved in Pakistan or Vanderbijlpark. (From the point of view of Eskom’s crisis, it does matter, but there is little you or I can do to resolve technical steelmaking issues.)

At the shops, if you must decide between disposable plastic, glass and steel packaging for beverages, there is not a strong reason to choose one over the other, so buy the one that is easiest for you to recycle. You might experiment by leaving a bag of each next to your dustbins on collection morning and see which (if any) a hawker will take. I know they will take aluminium and office paper, but in my neighbourhood, the ordinary bottles and cans are usually left alone. So I deliver them to my municipal Pikitup depot when I take grass clippings and leaves for composting. Please report back to Greenerhouse what the street collectors will take in your suburb.

Glass collection bins are becoming easier to find, thanks to The Glass Recycling Company, which has a list of bottle banks here. PET is more valuable per kilogram than any of them, though a kilogram of PET takes up a lot more space. Better by far is to find returnable glass bottles, which are available for the most popular brands from SAB Miller and Coca-Cola. And best of all, of course, is tap water.

The Mail & Guardian has now put the full, uncut version of my diesel article on their website. Click here to read it.

If you’ve read my article in today’s Mail & Guardian, you already know that diesel is not quite the panacea to South Africa’s environmental problems that the advertisers would have you believe. South African diesel fuel is still much dirtier than the diesel available elsewhere, and so are our diesel cars. So they play a large part in the smog and particulate pollution in South African cities. The last two-fifths of the article were supposed to explain why diesel vehicles are also not quite the solution to global warming that some think they are, either. But that part of the article was lopped off at the last minute before printing, for some reason. Here’s the rest of the story . . .

. . . These problems are all local, however, and some would argue that the far-reaching impact of global warming means that some diesel pollution must be tolerated. But diesel’s potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is regularly overstated. BMW’s X5 brochure, for example, notes that their diesel model uses “up to a quarter less fuel than its competitors,” including the equivalent petrol X5. It adds that this “of course, means a reduction in the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming.”

One little-known reason for diesel’s superior efficiency, however, is that the fuel is denser than petrol, with more carbon. As a result, litre-for-litre it gives off more earth-warming carbon dioxide when burned. So in measuring the grams of CO₂ per kilometre, Britain’s Vehicle Certification Agency finds that the X5 3.0sd diesel is only 11 percent better for the atmosphere than the petrol version, despite having 25 percent better fuel economy. Fuel consumption “is only really useful in terms of amount of money you’re going to spend on fuel,” notes Frank Schwegler, president of South Africa’s National Association for Clean Air, “but greenhouse-gas emissions is quite a big factor to consider.”

For now, finding a car’s CO₂ emissions per kilometre at a dealership requires scrutinizing the fine print of a technical specifications sheet, if the figure is there at all. Starting in mid-2008, however, all new cars in South Africa will have to display this number—as well as litres per 100 kilometres—based on standardized measurements that can be compared between brands.

In the meantime, the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests that car shoppers should adjust a diesel car’s litres-per-100-km figure upward by 18 percent. Comparing the resulting figure with the fuel economy of a petrol vehicle puts the two on an equal footing as far as greenhouse-gas emissions are concerned.

Even after those adjustments, diesel engines remain somewhat more efficient than their petrol counterparts. And with cleaner Euro 3 and Euro 4 compliant vehicles arriving now in showrooms, some environmentally conscious consumers may decide to tolerate diesel’s local pollution—or the high cost of effective emission controls—in exchange for the lower greenhouse gas emissions. As if that decision was not complicated enough, a more vexing quandary faces diesel buyers at the filling station.

Since Sasol’s coal-to-liquids plant in Secunda is the largest source of ultra-low-sulphur diesel in South Africa, opting for 50 ppm sulphur diesel over ordinary 500 ppm actually quadruples the chances that the fuel in the pump is coal-based.

Sasol’s Fischer Tropsch coal-to-liquids process is an incredibly dirty way to make an incredibly clean fuel. Every drop of diesel that the company makes from coal is so low in sulphur—approximately 10 ppm—that it could be sold in virtually any country in the world.

But the Secunda facility emits about 60 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. That’s barely less than the greenhouse gas emissions for all of Israel and its 7 million people. In making a litre of coal-to-liquids diesel or petrol, Sasol sends well over three kgs of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, far more than a car will emit while driving on that litre.

Sasol already supplies half of all the ultra-low-sulphur diesel sold in South Africa, and it is the best situated to increase supply as demand rises. Bizarrely, Sasol has to sell most of its clean diesel as regular 500 ppm sulphur diesel for a lower price; demand for 50 ppm is not yet high enough. As sales of “green” diesel cars grow, Sasol can sell that same fuel for more money as ultra-low-sulphur to take a dominant market share in the 50 ppm segment.

It will be a sad irony when most of the millions of tons of greenhouse gases spewed by Sasol to make diesel is paid for by the drivers who bought the most “environmentally friendly” cars.

Even the complete version of my article on diesel fuel leaves some open questions. Before you ask, here are my answers:

So which car should I buy?

If the answer were simple, I would have fit it into the article. The conundrum is this:

Diesel cars emit somewhat less carbon dioxide. (Not as much less as you thought, but less nonetheless.) But diesel cars emit more local pollutants. But the newest, clean, Euro 4 diesels driving on ultra-low-sulphur fuel emit acceptable levels of local pollutants. But half of all the ultra-low-sulphur diesel in South Africa is made in a way that emits huge amounts of carbon dioxide.

You can’t win.

You also can’t use diesel as an excuse to buy a bigger, more powerful vehicle than you need. That’s exactly what the car companies are trying to get you to do. (See question below: “Why are SUVs cleanest?”) I think that most city dwellers, especially those on the Highveld, should buy the most fuel-efficient petrol car they can find that suits their needs. If you can afford it, the Toyota Prius is ultra-clean for both local pollutants and greenhouse gases.

If you live in a rural area in the Highveld, where local air pollution from traffic is not as much of an issue, you might consider buying a diesel vehicle and running it on normal, 500 ppm sulphur diesel. You are most likely to avoid coal-based fuel that way and will reduce your contribution to global warming. (Note that if your manufacturer says you must use ultra-low-sulphur fuel, it could damage your vehicle to use 500 ppm sulphur diesel.)

If you live in KwaZulu-Natal, most of your fuel comes from petroleum. With the coal issue set aside, diesel makes more sense. Look for the vehicle—petrol or diesel—with the lowest CO2 emissions that suits your needs. In KZN cities, you should only buy a diesel if it meets Euro 3 or Euro 4 specifications and fill it with ultra-low-sulphur diesel.

Cape Town is even more complicated. Fuel retailers generally buy from the nearest refinery, but Sasol transports ultra-low-sulphur diesel all the way from Secunda to its filling stations in Cape Town. I wouldn’t buy it. BP stations get their ultra-low-sulphur diesel from the Durban refinery that BP owns with Shell. I don’t know about the others.

Does a diesel make economic sense?

The Diesel Dilemma, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, concludes that:

Gasoline vehicles are more cost-effective than diesel for reducing oil use and lowering global warming pollution.

By that, they mean that if the extra expense it takes to make a clean diesel engine were put toward greater efficiency in petrol vehicles, the petrol vehicles would save more oil and greenhouse gases than diesel cars. Unfortunately, other than hybrids like the Prius, few petrol cars have benefited from that kind of attention toward fuel economy.

Looking at clean diesels available in South Africa, the BMW X5 sd costs an astounding R68,000 more than its petrol equivalent the X5 si. Even after 150,000 kms, you would be R47,000 poorer, at October’s fuel prices. The diesel Honda CRV, which has perhaps the most advanced diesel engine on earth, emits 10 percent less carbon dioxide than a similar petrol CRV and costs R20,000 more. After 150,000 kms, you would be only halfway toward recouping that differential.

I’m not a great believer that every expenditure for the sake of the environment must pay for itself. If someone in Durban really needs a 4×4 soft-roader and is willing to pay the extra money for the sake of the earth, they should buy a diesel CRV. I’m just not sure how many people out there really need a 4×4 soft-roader.

Smaller diesel cars may have a smaller price differential, but few if any small diesels in South Africa today are clean enough to meet Euro 4 emissions standards. In 2008, some will be available, and perhaps they will pay for themselves over time. They certainly will make more sense for the environment than a 3-litre diesel powerhouse with a lot of emissions controls on it.

Why are diesel SUVs cleanest?

The cleanest diesel engine BMW has brought to South Africa is in its giant X5. Honda’s cleanest diesel is on the 4×4 CRV. VW’s only Euro 4 vehicle in South Africa so far is the Touareg SUV. Volvo has put its best diesel emissions controls on the 4×4 XC. What’s going on here?

I put this question to Jan Lotter, the product planning manager for BMW South Africa. He laughed, and said that I had made a good observation. Then he said:

There’s a growing awareness of SUV consumption; people are talking about carbon footprints, environmental impact. This is a little more of an investment to make them more acceptable.

I think he’s right. It’s a last-ditch effort to keep people who are starting to feel that it’s environmentally unacceptable to drive a 4×4 to Sandton City from buying a smaller, less expensive car.

Lotter made another salient comment:

The unfortunate thing about diesel is that it is still expensive. With the invention of common rail diesel technology, and going to higher and higher pressures [to make diesel engines cleaner] it becomes difficult to introduce entry-level diesels.

BMW has a small, Euro 4 diesel car that can even beat Toyota’s Prius in fuel efficiency, the 118d. But it isn’t sold in South Africa.

Does it really make a difference whether I buy coal-based fuel?

One could argue that avoiding coal-based ultra-low-sulphur diesel from Sasol’s Secunda plant does nothing for the environment. Fuel is in short supply in this country and Sasol will keep producing to capacity. The company may end up selling the fuel as regular diesel and it may end up selling the diesel somewhere else, but Secunda’s emissions are not going to decline just because fewer people buy ultra-low-sulphur diesel in the interior.

This argument has some validity, but I would make three counter-arguments:

1. Sasol makes more profit selling their diesel as ultra-low-sulphur diesel. The more profit they make on diesel, the more likely they are to go ahead with the second coal-to-liquids plant, which is now in the feasibility-study stage. Such a plant would be a disaster for South Africa’s greenhouse gas emissions.
2. If ultra-low-sulphur diesel becomes in short supply, the government may be more favourably inclined toward another coal-to-liquids plant.
3. It might just bother your conscience to think that the source of all those greenhouse gas emissions killing polar bears and ruining the crops of African farmers is sloshing around in your fuel tank.

Don’t you have anything nice to say about Sasol?

Sasol does an impressive job of reporting emissions data and was willing to let some of its experts talk to me openly for this story. The refinery owned by BP and Shell, by contrast, would only answer questions by email and mostly didn’t answer questions at all. Sasol’s greenhouse gas emissions are edging down relative to their total production, partly because they are using more gas from Mozambique, which is less polluting than coal. There, I managed to say something nice about Sasol. (But if you haven’t read the M&G article yet, their Secunda plant has roughly the same greenhouse-gas emissions as Israel.)

Don’t you have anything nice to say about BMW?

I’m afraid that BMW’s marketers set themselves up for criticism by portraying a big SUV as a solution to global warming. That said, the company is working on some very interesting technologies for improving the fuel consumption of both petrol and diesel vehicles. In 2008 we may see the first BMWs that cut the engine instead of idling at a stop light and use the energy from braking to recharge the battery.