Disgruntlement with EV charging services

I could not resist this blog post I was so charmed by the concept of user disgruntlement as a quantitative measure of service quality. Disgruntlement is measured as the difference between scores for the expectation of a service provision and the actual delivery scores. For example, do users of EV charging points expect the ability to buy refreshments while they are waiting for their car to charge? If refreshments are important to them and lacking, then it would probably be worthwhile to provide such things. However if this service is not important or costly to provide then probably not. The underlying scores for importance and delivery are given on a likert scale (1-5). If delivery score exceeds expectation then users are well satisfied and the disgruntlement is negative whereas if expectation exceeds delivery score then disgruntlement is positive (i.e. users are disgruntled)).

Should I use an electric bike?

Electric bikes can be very clean in terms of GHG emissions. They use electricity which can be zero carbon; making the batteries are the main source of emissions in most cases. In comparison, using cars, tyre wear is a major source of microplastic pollution - the tyres wear out as do the lines of paint on the road which flake off but bicycles are much lighter so there is less wear both on tyres and paint. In particular an electric bike can enable carbon savings compared to alternative transport options. A small group from Transition Cambridge were talking about this yesterday.

One of our number was recently recovered from knee problems which prevented them from using a conventional push bike for long or hilly journeys. Using an electric bike allowed them to make longer journeys (e.g. 20 miles) without 'range anxiety' due to the dodgy knees. Assuming the journey was necessary, alternative transport modes (such as car or bus) would have had higher GHG emissions due to use of fossil fuels as well as additional microplastic pollution from tyre/road wear [1]  Using the electric bike reduces your climate change impact.

You could save even more emissions by not using the battery power to assist your movement. However, that would mean more food consumption and more range anxiety.

The European Cycling Federation has reported a comprehensive life cycle analysis calculation comparing different transport modes: pushbike, ebike and walking in terms of emissions per km travelled [2]. The ebike comes out best by some margin. The differences are dominated by emissions from food. Walking requires the most food, then the pushbike, then the ebike. The food emissions can be reduced if the human consumes a carbohydrate rich diet - or it can be hugely increased if the dietary energy is mainly meat. The chart below shows the GHG emissions they calculate. They have used 383 g CO2e per/Wh for electricity and 1.4 gCO2e/Wh for food: typical for Europe. The emissions for UK electricity are less 177 g CO2e/Wh [3]: Overall the DESNZ/DEFRA emissions factors for EVs [3] are typically about 40 g/CO2e/km so between cycling and walking estimates.

Data from [2]

[1] Bike-to-Work Day: Keep the Car in Park to Reduce Microplastic Pollution (oceandiagnostics.com) 

[2] How green is cycling? Riding, walking, ebikes and driving ranked (bikeradar)

[3] UK Government GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting 

Review: Shared Prosperity in a Fractured World: Dani Rodrik

Yesterday I went to a seminar about economic policy relating to climate change which was basically a book launch for Shared Prosperity in a Fractured World. I was sufficiently impressed to buy the book. Here are some key takeaways from the seminar and the first few chapters of the book which I have read today.There are 3 primary challenges to address and they are to some extent linked with tradeoffs.

1. Climate change - failure to address this has severe consequences for global health as well as the global economy and we are already experiencing more frequent and worse extreme weather. The main way to address climate change is to promote green industry based on renewable energy.
2. Reducing global poverty - this is always a good thing. The usual way out of poverty is economic growth but that is quite strongly linked to increasing energy use and GHG emissions which is bad for (1). Also people living in poverty do not buy much so markets shrink which makes it more difficult to address (3)
3. Rebuilding the middle class - When the middle class feels insecure they tend to react with a retreat to populism and fear of immigrants or automation 'taking their jobs'. The main way to rebuild the middle class is to ensure they can have good jobs. So we need growth in job friendly sectors such as retail and health care. In this context good jobs means security and satisfaction and/or good remuneration.

(There seems to be something magic about '3'. I am reminded of the 3 requirements for energy provision that it is cheap, clean and reliable. However these three are more obviously in tension. It is easy to satisfy any two simultaneously but all three is hard.)

Achieving good energy efficiency in buildings

This post is largely based on the article Advances Toward a Net-Zero Global Building Sector in Annual Review of Environment and Resources 2020 [1] The article is open access so anyone can access it for free. It explores why energy efficiency is important for net zero emissions, what sort of target to aim for and policies for achieving them. The focus is on the UK although much of the evidence comes from elsewhere, primarily Europe.


Energy efficiency is critical but health must be protected.
Energy efficiency is critical on the path to net zero emissions because our current needs are considerable and replacing current building energy use with new renewable generating capacity (not using gas), energy storage and transmission capacity would be even more expensive. Efficiency is also beneficial in other ways including improving health and reduction of energy poverty. For example, in the past efficiency measures have contributed to sick building syndrome – to avoid this air tightness must be accompanied by adequate ventilation. Also temperatures below 18°C can trigger health problems in vulnerable adults directly; there is evidence that 18°C is warm enough for most people [2].


Stringent energy efficiency standards make homes cheap to heat.
The PassivHaus energy standards are widely used for social housing as they reduce the energy bills for tenants. Lower bills and healthier tenants reduce costs for landlords too as tenants are less likely to fall into arrears with the rent [3]


Passivhaus standards for new build are achievable in all regions of the world. 

There are many examples of Passivhaus certified buildings in the northern hemisphere where winters are cold but relatively few in the south where the main requirement is cooling[1]. The requirement for Passivhaus certification is that total heating and cooling energy demand should be no more than 15 kWh/m2.year. For a 90 m2 home that means 1350 kWh/year - comparable with typical UK homes where energy demand is typically 11,500 kWh/year for gas alone, plus another 2,900 for electricity  (according to British Gas) total 4,250 kWh/year

Air conditioning will be more widespread by 2050.

Very few homes are cooled with air conditioning, at the moment. However, climate change will make cooling more essential by 2050 [4]. Passivhaus standards are a challenge in hot humid regions. In regions where the main requirement is for cooling, even very efficient buildings can use 90-180 kWh/m2/year for cooling compared to 15 kWh/m2/year for heating. The heating requirement can be reduced by super insulation and ventilation with heat recovery to avoid wasting heat. Cooling that does not increase energy demand is best achieved by shading (such as deep eaves over windows) and stack effect natural ventilation. Sadly these are hard to retrofit. Also dehumidification may be needed as cooling humid air can lead to condensation which allows mould to grow. 

Energy Efficiency in buildings has improved substantially since 2000 as shown by Figure 2 from [1]

Figure 2 from [1] showing decreasing energy use intensity for home energy since 2000.

However, much of this improvement has been offset by increasing building size, especially outside Europe. 

The best time to install energy efficiency is at build time or when maintenance is required. 

Retrofitting energy efficiency measures into existing buildings is often very expensive as well as a major hassle for residents. In comparison, the marginal cost for efficient components such as windows are often quite small in comparison to the anyway cost of replacement. 

Energy efficiency retrofits can easily take 10-20 years for payback in lower bills and this is too long for most home owners or landlords. Hence financing packages are needed. Also these retrofits are a major hassle, requiring planning permission and contractors to be hired and managed. During the retrofit, parts of the building may be unusable or at least need to be emptied of furniture. Temporary accommodation may be needed. (We conducted our retrofit in phases, with each phase requiring some furniture moved into storage but we never moved out. This was possible because we live in a large home that is arguably under-utilised.) 

One stop shops such as Action on Energy Cambridgeshire can reduce the hassle and facilitate access to funding schemes.

One stop shops can reduce the hassle, providing planning advice, project management and often access to finance. We used an architect for project management but there are also specialist firms such as Ecofurb. Some local councils offer a one-stop-shop service through a partner. Cambridgeshire uses Action on Energy 

[1]  Diana Ürge-Vorsatz, Radhika Khosla, Rob Bernhardt, Yi Chieh Chan, David Vérez, Shan Hu, and Luisa F. Cabeza, 2020 (2020) Advances toward a Net-Zero Global Building Sector, Annual Review of Environment and Resources (https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012420-045843) 

[2] R. Wookey, Dr. A. Bone, C. Carmichael, A. Crossley, 2014) Minimum home temperature thresholds for health in winter – A systematic literature review (Public Health England) online. (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c5986f8ed915d045f3778a9/Min_temp_threshold_for_homes_in_winter.pdf) 

[3] Sustainable Homes (2016) Touching The Voids: The impact of energy efficiency on social landlord income and business plans (2016, online) (https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/UserFiles/File/PH%20Social/touching-the-voids---Sustainable%20Homes.pdf) 

[4] J. Crawley, S. Ogunrin, S. Taneja, I. Vorushlyo and X. Wang (UKERC, 2020) https://ukerc.ac.uk/publications/domestic-air-conditioning-in-2050/

Paludiculture for the Fens

The Fens are wetlands but when drained for agriculture the peat becomes a major source of GHG emissions. Waterlogged soil supports microbes that produce methane which has intensive GHG effects. Even worse, drained peat can harbour underground fires which release GHG emissions as well as being a huge danger to wildlife [1]. Farming in wetland is called paludiculture [2].

Paludiculture can produce a wide variety of useful crops including food (not just fish, though in medieval times the fenlands were renowned for producing a large quantity of fish [3]), fibre and growing media to replace peat.

In the UK, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology has trialled growing rice and the Wildlife Trusts are exploring a range of wet farming techniques [5].

Here is a range of useful products [4] including many listed by a project in Germany called Greifswald that aims to promote peatland as a vital ecosystem.  In the UK the fens are mainly used to grow food but there is potential for many other products.

Comparing plant based yogurts

Vegetarian versions of high protein foods are often much less nutritious than the 'normal' versions. I have compared a number of plant based yogurts, all from Sainsbury's, mainly in terms of protein per calorie and find a huge range - a factor of 9. Since protein rich foods are generally more 'satisfying' this could help you reduce your calorie consumption, at least a little.

This is not the 'Christmas' blog post for this year - the only relationship to Christmas that I can think of is that it is about food. Having said that, if you have an intention to try a more climate friendly diet in the new year this could be relevant to implementing your resolution. The Christmas one is the one about good news in 2025 (https://energy-surprises.blogspot.com/2025/12/good-news-in-2025.html). It was published earlier this month.

Good news in 2025

It's nice to end the year on a positive note. Despite my ongoing brain function issues my main concern remains climate change and the clean energy transition. Every little helps but the big changes help more. So I have collated some news which shows progress we have made this year.