Army of eco warriors

Army of eco warriors

Newhaven Enterprise Centre

St Luke’s Primary

First published in News by

PEOPLE are continually coming up with weird and wonderful ways of eco-friendly living.

From efforts in the home to all-out green revamps by business, Sussex is home to an army of eco warriors.

At the Community Stars Awards in Brighton on November 1, we want to crown a winner of the Green Project or Person of the Year.

This category is open to any individual, project, group or business with the environment at its heart.

With a Green council and MP in Brighton there are plenty of environmental schemes in the city.

But nominees could be a business working hard on green initiatives, or a resident or business which recycles everything.

Nominees could include St Luke’s Primary School in Brighton and Goldstone Primary, Hove, which have both picked up Eco-Schools Green Flag awards for their work in sustainability.

Pupils of all ages have worked to transform their schools’ daily routines into ones that benefit the environment and save money.

Students, staff and parents have worked together to cut the school’s energy use, develop areas in the school grounds as havens for wildlife, reuse and recycle as much as possible and fundraise to install solar panels on the roof.

Teachers have also ensured that eco topics are integrated into lessons such as maths, English, science and geography.

In the world of business, a Newhaven company’s green credentials saw it scoop a prize at business awards. The Basepoint operated Newhaven Enterprise Centre won the Green Business prize at the Sussex and Hampshire Business Matters Award on July 29.

The centre has installed solar panels that have generated 86,004kw/h since 2007 – saving 36,981 kilos of carbon dioxide.

It uses rainwater to flush loos and has an intelligent lighting system fitted in all corridors, bike racks and showers to encourage cycling and walking to work plus video conferencing to cut travel to meetings.

Who deserves the Green Project or Person of the Year award?

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:48pm Sat 16 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

Brighton energy cooperative definitely deserve an award as they have raised substantial funds for local renewables schemes and delivered thousands of square metres of PVs in the city this year.

Well done BEC!
Brighton energy cooperative definitely deserve an award as they have raised substantial funds for local renewables schemes and delivered thousands of square metres of PVs in the city this year. Well done BEC! HJarrs
  • Score: -2

11:18am Sun 17 Aug 14

G Wiley says...

HJarrs wrote:
Brighton energy cooperative definitely deserve an award as they have raised substantial funds for local renewables schemes and delivered thousands of square metres of PVs in the city this year.

Well done BEC!
@HJarrs - no - BEC is purely an investment opportunity that as a by-product results on less CO2 being used for electricity generation.

The FIT payments for the power generated are provided directly by the energy companies that you detest and hence result in increased energy prices for everyone else.

Overall the total energy production infrastructure (i.e. power stations) can not be reduced as power still needs to be provided overnight and especially in the longer darker, colder winter nights.

This is similar to Bill Randall putting solar panels on blocks of flats that then only provides for reducing electricity to run the shared lighting circuits (i.e. not at night when they are really required). There has been no benefit to the residents of the blocks of flats in reducing their energy needs from fitting the panels.

As such I would recommend eOn getting an award for the forthcoming wind farm in the channel that should really be able to help reduce emissions, and also for Cuadrilla for encouraging provision of methane to reduce emissions from public service diesel vehicles and replacing coal fired power stations.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Brighton energy cooperative definitely deserve an award as they have raised substantial funds for local renewables schemes and delivered thousands of square metres of PVs in the city this year. Well done BEC![/p][/quote]@HJarrs - no - BEC is purely an investment opportunity that as a by-product results on less CO2 being used for electricity generation. The FIT payments for the power generated are provided directly by the energy companies that you detest and hence result in increased energy prices for everyone else. Overall the total energy production infrastructure (i.e. power stations) can not be reduced as power still needs to be provided overnight and especially in the longer darker, colder winter nights. This is similar to Bill Randall putting solar panels on blocks of flats that then only provides for reducing electricity to run the shared lighting circuits (i.e. not at night when they are really required). There has been no benefit to the residents of the blocks of flats in reducing their energy needs from fitting the panels. As such I would recommend eOn getting an award for the forthcoming wind farm in the channel that should really be able to help reduce emissions, and also for Cuadrilla for encouraging provision of methane to reduce emissions from public service diesel vehicles and replacing coal fired power stations. G Wiley
  • Score: 3

11:51am Sun 17 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Brighton energy cooperative definitely deserve an award as they have raised substantial funds for local renewables schemes and delivered thousands of square metres of PVs in the city this year.

Well done BEC!
@HJarrs - no - BEC is purely an investment opportunity that as a by-product results on less CO2 being used for electricity generation.

The FIT payments for the power generated are provided directly by the energy companies that you detest and hence result in increased energy prices for everyone else.

Overall the total energy production infrastructure (i.e. power stations) can not be reduced as power still needs to be provided overnight and especially in the longer darker, colder winter nights.

This is similar to Bill Randall putting solar panels on blocks of flats that then only provides for reducing electricity to run the shared lighting circuits (i.e. not at night when they are really required). There has been no benefit to the residents of the blocks of flats in reducing their energy needs from fitting the panels.

As such I would recommend eOn getting an award for the forthcoming wind farm in the channel that should really be able to help reduce emissions, and also for Cuadrilla for encouraging provision of methane to reduce emissions from public service diesel vehicles and replacing coal fired power stations.
Eon will be entitled to be considered when Rampion is built. BEC has made great strides this year by getting large PVC arrays up and running, I understand that they have also been active in the community (energy audits I believe). They are a cooperative owned by their mostly local membership, so dividends are largely recycled in the local economy.

Don't worry about backing up solar and wind by fossil fuels, a problem when we get to around 20% of generation by the sources, storage technology is available and more on the way.

As for nominating a fossil fuel company involved in fracking (and it seems that it is oil not gas under the Downs), locking us into fossil fuel use, that is truly bonkers!
[quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Brighton energy cooperative definitely deserve an award as they have raised substantial funds for local renewables schemes and delivered thousands of square metres of PVs in the city this year. Well done BEC![/p][/quote]@HJarrs - no - BEC is purely an investment opportunity that as a by-product results on less CO2 being used for electricity generation. The FIT payments for the power generated are provided directly by the energy companies that you detest and hence result in increased energy prices for everyone else. Overall the total energy production infrastructure (i.e. power stations) can not be reduced as power still needs to be provided overnight and especially in the longer darker, colder winter nights. This is similar to Bill Randall putting solar panels on blocks of flats that then only provides for reducing electricity to run the shared lighting circuits (i.e. not at night when they are really required). There has been no benefit to the residents of the blocks of flats in reducing their energy needs from fitting the panels. As such I would recommend eOn getting an award for the forthcoming wind farm in the channel that should really be able to help reduce emissions, and also for Cuadrilla for encouraging provision of methane to reduce emissions from public service diesel vehicles and replacing coal fired power stations.[/p][/quote]Eon will be entitled to be considered when Rampion is built. BEC has made great strides this year by getting large PVC arrays up and running, I understand that they have also been active in the community (energy audits I believe). They are a cooperative owned by their mostly local membership, so dividends are largely recycled in the local economy. Don't worry about backing up solar and wind by fossil fuels, a problem when we get to around 20% of generation by the sources, storage technology is available and more on the way. As for nominating a fossil fuel company involved in fracking (and it seems that it is oil not gas under the Downs), locking us into fossil fuel use, that is truly bonkers! HJarrs
  • Score: -2

12:20pm Sun 17 Aug 14

G Wiley says...

@HJarrs - you seem to understand quite a lot; know a bit; and are appreciated by very few of us rate paying moanerati that frequent the Argus discussion groups.

Just keep 'banging the drum' - someone might show an interest in your 'progressive eco-activist sound bites'.

It is great to hear you talk about others being 'bonkers' - as they say 'it takes one to spot one'.

Perhaps Tom and your capitalist financiers can teach you naïve ideologists to be a bit more pragmatic and realistic before you get chucked out of office in May 2015.
@HJarrs - you seem to understand quite a lot; know a bit; and are appreciated by very few of us rate paying moanerati that frequent the Argus discussion groups. Just keep 'banging the drum' - someone might show an interest in your 'progressive eco-activist sound bites'. It is great to hear you talk about others being 'bonkers' - as they say 'it takes one to spot one'. Perhaps Tom and your capitalist financiers can teach you naïve ideologists to be a bit more pragmatic and realistic before you get chucked out of office in May 2015. G Wiley
  • Score: 1

4:20pm Sun 17 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

G Wiley wrote:
@HJarrs - you seem to understand quite a lot; know a bit; and are appreciated by very few of us rate paying moanerati that frequent the Argus discussion groups.

Just keep 'banging the drum' - someone might show an interest in your 'progressive eco-activist sound bites'.

It is great to hear you talk about others being 'bonkers' - as they say 'it takes one to spot one'.

Perhaps Tom and your capitalist financiers can teach you naïve ideologists to be a bit more pragmatic and realistic before you get chucked out of office in May 2015.
What is a rate payer?
[quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: @HJarrs - you seem to understand quite a lot; know a bit; and are appreciated by very few of us rate paying moanerati that frequent the Argus discussion groups. Just keep 'banging the drum' - someone might show an interest in your 'progressive eco-activist sound bites'. It is great to hear you talk about others being 'bonkers' - as they say 'it takes one to spot one'. Perhaps Tom and your capitalist financiers can teach you naïve ideologists to be a bit more pragmatic and realistic before you get chucked out of office in May 2015.[/p][/quote]What is a rate payer? HJarrs
  • Score: 0

8:37pm Sun 17 Aug 14

Nikski says...

G Wiley wrote:
@HJarrs - you seem to understand quite a lot; know a bit; and are appreciated by very few of us rate paying moanerati that frequent the Argus discussion groups.

Just keep 'banging the drum' - someone might show an interest in your 'progressive eco-activist sound bites'.

It is great to hear you talk about others being 'bonkers' - as they say 'it takes one to spot one'.

Perhaps Tom and your capitalist financiers can teach you naïve ideologists to be a bit more pragmatic and realistic before you get chucked out of office in May 2015.
Hey Smiley Gwiley how do you know HJarrs isn't a rate payer..?
Better to be a naive ideologist than an ignorant climate change denying moaner!
[quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: @HJarrs - you seem to understand quite a lot; know a bit; and are appreciated by very few of us rate paying moanerati that frequent the Argus discussion groups. Just keep 'banging the drum' - someone might show an interest in your 'progressive eco-activist sound bites'. It is great to hear you talk about others being 'bonkers' - as they say 'it takes one to spot one'. Perhaps Tom and your capitalist financiers can teach you naïve ideologists to be a bit more pragmatic and realistic before you get chucked out of office in May 2015.[/p][/quote]Hey Smiley Gwiley how do you know HJarrs isn't a rate payer..? Better to be a naive ideologist than an ignorant climate change denying moaner! Nikski
  • Score: 0

8:38pm Sun 17 Aug 14

Nikski says...

HJarrs wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
@HJarrs - you seem to understand quite a lot; know a bit; and are appreciated by very few of us rate paying moanerati that frequent the Argus discussion groups.

Just keep 'banging the drum' - someone might show an interest in your 'progressive eco-activist sound bites'.

It is great to hear you talk about others being 'bonkers' - as they say 'it takes one to spot one'.

Perhaps Tom and your capitalist financiers can teach you naïve ideologists to be a bit more pragmatic and realistic before you get chucked out of office in May 2015.
What is a rate payer?
It's an old-fashioned term for ill-informed whingebag
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: @HJarrs - you seem to understand quite a lot; know a bit; and are appreciated by very few of us rate paying moanerati that frequent the Argus discussion groups. Just keep 'banging the drum' - someone might show an interest in your 'progressive eco-activist sound bites'. It is great to hear you talk about others being 'bonkers' - as they say 'it takes one to spot one'. Perhaps Tom and your capitalist financiers can teach you naïve ideologists to be a bit more pragmatic and realistic before you get chucked out of office in May 2015.[/p][/quote]What is a rate payer?[/p][/quote]It's an old-fashioned term for ill-informed whingebag Nikski
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Mon 18 Aug 14

G Wiley says...

Nikski wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
@HJarrs - you seem to understand quite a lot; know a bit; and are appreciated by very few of us rate paying moanerati that frequent the Argus discussion groups.

Just keep 'banging the drum' - someone might show an interest in your 'progressive eco-activist sound bites'.

It is great to hear you talk about others being 'bonkers' - as they say 'it takes one to spot one'.

Perhaps Tom and your capitalist financiers can teach you naïve ideologists to be a bit more pragmatic and realistic before you get chucked out of office in May 2015.
Hey Smiley Gwiley how do you know HJarrs isn't a rate payer..?
Better to be a naive ideologist than an ignorant climate change denying moaner!
@Nikski - nice try with the name calling - unfortunately I call myself as a sceptical realistic pragmatist. I question claims from all sides - businesses, economists and scientists (including ecologists and geologists, etc.).

I do, however, almost immediately reject any comments from HJarrs as most of his are just sycophantic green party supporting incompetent eco-activist propaganda. 90% of the time I am right, but (very) occasionally he does come up with some good points.

I do believe that climate is changing, and that this is almost certainly due to man, but what I disagree with is the ideologists that promote changes without determining whether they really do any good and without determining the economics and overall effect of their proposals.

We also need to make changes globally and these have to be made on a large scale, and fast enough, to make any real difference to CO2 and NO levels. I do not see how putting solar panels on a school roof or encouraging butterflies into gardens will be sufficient to make the required major changes. This is where is question 'ideology' versus 'pragmatism'.

Solar panels are great - I have 14 PV on my roof and 2 solar hot water panels and they were a great investment as I am getting over 8% ROI index-linked tax free. The also result in me reducing my carbon footprint.

In terms of what I pay for the gas and electricity they are a great benefit - I use little gas in the summer for hot water and I can try to time using my dishwasher, washing machine, tumble dryer and cooker so that I use them when I am generating power rather than taking it from the grid.

However, in terms of the unit price of power, the solar panels result in increased charges to everyone - reason being that the FIT payments come directly from the energy companies and they have to pay for infrastructure for peak usage which tends to be in evenings when the sun isn't shining. As such, as had been seen in the US, the energy companies still need to provide power station capacity for overnight, but with a smaller amount of power being consumed in total leading to increased charges being required.

Due to this, as an example, putting solar panels on a council block of flats, allegedly to ease fuel poverty, will actually lead to increased energy charges for the residents over time. The big saving to tenants would be from improving insulation and using more energy efficient devices.

I also think switching from oil and coal to natural gas (CH4) as a mitigation route to reduce CO2 and NO emissions is very sensible. Where we get the CH4 is debatable - the greens think it should come from biomass, the energy companies seem to favour fracking, but it can also come from what's left in the North Sea, shipped by sea from the middle east, or we can ask the Russians nicely to do the fracking for us.

Similarly I agree the use of wind and wave power are excellent alternative energy sources.

BTW - rate payers or council tax payers - us poor s*ds that have to subsidise the various eco-vanity projects that the green-led council implements badly.
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: @HJarrs - you seem to understand quite a lot; know a bit; and are appreciated by very few of us rate paying moanerati that frequent the Argus discussion groups. Just keep 'banging the drum' - someone might show an interest in your 'progressive eco-activist sound bites'. It is great to hear you talk about others being 'bonkers' - as they say 'it takes one to spot one'. Perhaps Tom and your capitalist financiers can teach you naïve ideologists to be a bit more pragmatic and realistic before you get chucked out of office in May 2015.[/p][/quote]Hey Smiley Gwiley how do you know HJarrs isn't a rate payer..? Better to be a naive ideologist than an ignorant climate change denying moaner![/p][/quote]@Nikski - nice try with the name calling - unfortunately I call myself as a sceptical realistic pragmatist. I question claims from all sides - businesses, economists and scientists (including ecologists and geologists, etc.). I do, however, almost immediately reject any comments from HJarrs as most of his are just sycophantic green party supporting incompetent eco-activist propaganda. 90% of the time I am right, but (very) occasionally he does come up with some good points. I do believe that climate is changing, and that this is almost certainly due to man, but what I disagree with is the ideologists that promote changes without determining whether they really do any good and without determining the economics and overall effect of their proposals. We also need to make changes globally and these have to be made on a large scale, and fast enough, to make any real difference to CO2 and NO levels. I do not see how putting solar panels on a school roof or encouraging butterflies into gardens will be sufficient to make the required major changes. This is where is question 'ideology' versus 'pragmatism'. Solar panels are great - I have 14 PV on my roof and 2 solar hot water panels and they were a great investment as I am getting over 8% ROI index-linked tax free. The also result in me reducing my carbon footprint. In terms of what I pay for the gas and electricity they are a great benefit - I use little gas in the summer for hot water and I can try to time using my dishwasher, washing machine, tumble dryer and cooker so that I use them when I am generating power rather than taking it from the grid. However, in terms of the unit price of power, the solar panels result in increased charges to everyone - reason being that the FIT payments come directly from the energy companies and they have to pay for infrastructure for peak usage which tends to be in evenings when the sun isn't shining. As such, as had been seen in the US, the energy companies still need to provide power station capacity for overnight, but with a smaller amount of power being consumed in total leading to increased charges being required. Due to this, as an example, putting solar panels on a council block of flats, allegedly to ease fuel poverty, will actually lead to increased energy charges for the residents over time. The big saving to tenants would be from improving insulation and using more energy efficient devices. I also think switching from oil and coal to natural gas (CH4) as a mitigation route to reduce CO2 and NO emissions is very sensible. Where we get the CH4 is debatable - the greens think it should come from biomass, the energy companies seem to favour fracking, but it can also come from what's left in the North Sea, shipped by sea from the middle east, or we can ask the Russians nicely to do the fracking for us. Similarly I agree the use of wind and wave power are excellent alternative energy sources. BTW - rate payers or council tax payers - us poor s*ds that have to subsidise the various eco-vanity projects that the green-led council implements badly. G Wiley
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree