Consumer group identifies 10 products, including a voltage optimisation device and an eco shower head, that it thinks might not be the best ways to save money
Rebecca Smithers, consumer affairs correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 July 2011 07.15 BST
With energy prices on the rise consumers may well be tempted by dozens of so-called eco products which claim to slash their energy, heating or water bills.
But an investigation by Which? magazine has identified 10 products which the consumer group claims might not offer worthwhile savings, including one they say could actually increase your energy use.
Some of the products went to the Which? laboratory for testing, while others went to a user panel for assessment. During the tests researchers found that one product actually did the opposite of what it claimed to do.
The investigation, 10 Eco Products You Don't Need, is published in the August issue of Which? later this week. By avoiding the products, it says, consumers will avoid wasting up to £535.
The most expensive product is a £300 VPhase voltage optimisation device, which claims to cut about 10% from your annual electricity bill by dropping the voltage in your home to 220V. Which? said it was "pricey and will take a long time to pay for itself".
Another voltage optimisation device, the Ecotek Energy Wizard, plugs into any socket in the home and also claims to cut up to 10% off your electricity bill (a saving of £60 on average). Which? said it was not worth spending £25 on it as: "Our lab test showed it didn't reduce the power used, and actually increased it when it was linked to a plasma TV, a hi-fi or an energy-saving light bulb."
The Mira Eco Shower Head, which costs £35, was another product highlighted by Which?. One user who didn't have high water pressure found that the water-saving shower head only provided a disappointing trickle of water. Which? said there were cheaper ways to save water, including spending less time in the shower and manually reducing the flow of the shower by not using it at the maximum setting.
An £8 window insulation kit from Stormguard, which claims to help reduce heat loss and provide "an economical alternative to double glazing" in the form of a transparent film was also on the list.
It said: "Our lab test found that the film made minimal difference … The film may need to be re-stretched periodically (with a hairdryer) which can be inconvenient. It can easily tear and you would have to buy a new pack if it did."
Which? also offered some alternatives. For example, it said the most cost-effective way to save heat was to stop it escaping in the first place by installing effective loft and wall insulation, which can even be installed free if you are in a priority group.
Vphase disputed the findings and defended its green claims. Head of marketing Matthew Cody said: "We can fully substantiate all our claims. The technology itself is proven to work and commercial versions are in use throughout the UK, used by companies such as Tesco, Asda, the NHS and DECC. The VPhase device is a domestic version of this technology, based on exactly the same principles."
Which? energy expert Syvia Baron said: "For the product to truly make a difference in terms of carbon savings, it will need to save more carbon when in use than it consumes during its production and disposal. And this is quite complicated to work out.
"As a general rule, if you buy an eco product and don't use it much, it is likely that you will have contributed to more carbon being burned than saved."
The 10 Eco Products Which? says consumers don't need
1. Freeloader Classic £40
2. Vphase Voltage Optimisation Device £300
3 + 4. Disposable Battery Chargers – Battery Wizard Deluxe and Battery Charger for Alkaline Disposable Batteries £30-£35
5. Ecotek Energy Wizard £25
6. Treegreen Energyegg £40
7. Standby Saver £17
8. Mira Eco Shower Head £35
9. Nordic Galant Shower Head £40
10. Window Insulation Kit £8
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
Biofuel demand in US driving higher food prices, says report
Government support for ethanol has led to an increase in corn production and a steep rise in soybean imports
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 July 2011 19.23 BST
Demand for biofuels in the US is driving this year's high food prices, a report has said. It predicts that food prices are unlikely to fall back down for another two years.
The report, produced by Purdue University economists for the Farm Foundation policy organisation, said US government support for ethanol, including subsidies, had fuelled strong demand for corn over the last five years.
A dramatic rise in Chinese imports of soybeans was also putting pressure on prices and supply, the report said.
Since 2005, a growing number of US farmers have switched to corn and soybeans from other crops. Farmers in other countries have also switched to corn but, the report said, the demand kept growing.
"In 2005, we were using about 16m acres [6.4m hectares] to supply all of the ethanol in the United States and Chinese soybean imports," Wallace Tyner, one of the authors said. It took 18.6m hectares (46.5m acres) last year, just to satisfy that demand.
The US department of agriculture reported earlier this month that US ethanol refiners were for the first time consuming more corn than livestock and poultry farmers.
It took 27% of last year's corn crop to meet the demand for corn ethanol. Only about 10% went to make ethanol in 2005, Tyner said.
The Centre for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University has estimated that 40% of the US corn crop now goes to make ethanol. But Tyner said the cobs and husks of corn used to make ethanol would go on to be used for animal feed.
The other driver of rising food prices was China, which has been building up its soybean reserves since the last big global food price rises of 2008.
But the report focused strongly on a US government mandate for ethanol production and $6bn (£3.7bn) in annual subsidies for ethanol refineries. Others have also been putting the corn ethanol industry in the spotlight.
In an interview with the Financial Times, General Mills, which produces Cheerios cereal, Häagen-Dazs ice-cream and other major brands, also blamed ethanol subsidies for driving up food prices. Ken Powell the company's chief executive said the price of corn and oats was up by 30 to 40% over last year.
"We're driving up food prices unnecessarily," Ken Powell, chief executive of General Mills, said in the interview. "If corn prices go up, wheat goes up. It's all linked."
Even if US ethanol production plateaus, as the report predicts, food prices are unlikely to recede – at least within the next year – because global soybean and corn crops are now in relatively tight supply.
The authors warned there just was not enough cropland available to shift to corn and soybeans.
"We don't think these prices are going to come down in a year," said Tyner. "It's going to take at least a couple of years to see a significant reduction in price."
The report warned that US corn and soybean stocks were also dangerously low, with the department of agriculture projecting supplies at about half typical levels.
"These are scary, scary numbers," said Christopher Hurt, another author. "The cupboard is absolutely bare. We just are going to get out of this, at least on the basis of crops for this year."
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 July 2011 19.23 BST
Demand for biofuels in the US is driving this year's high food prices, a report has said. It predicts that food prices are unlikely to fall back down for another two years.
The report, produced by Purdue University economists for the Farm Foundation policy organisation, said US government support for ethanol, including subsidies, had fuelled strong demand for corn over the last five years.
A dramatic rise in Chinese imports of soybeans was also putting pressure on prices and supply, the report said.
Since 2005, a growing number of US farmers have switched to corn and soybeans from other crops. Farmers in other countries have also switched to corn but, the report said, the demand kept growing.
"In 2005, we were using about 16m acres [6.4m hectares] to supply all of the ethanol in the United States and Chinese soybean imports," Wallace Tyner, one of the authors said. It took 18.6m hectares (46.5m acres) last year, just to satisfy that demand.
The US department of agriculture reported earlier this month that US ethanol refiners were for the first time consuming more corn than livestock and poultry farmers.
It took 27% of last year's corn crop to meet the demand for corn ethanol. Only about 10% went to make ethanol in 2005, Tyner said.
The Centre for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University has estimated that 40% of the US corn crop now goes to make ethanol. But Tyner said the cobs and husks of corn used to make ethanol would go on to be used for animal feed.
The other driver of rising food prices was China, which has been building up its soybean reserves since the last big global food price rises of 2008.
But the report focused strongly on a US government mandate for ethanol production and $6bn (£3.7bn) in annual subsidies for ethanol refineries. Others have also been putting the corn ethanol industry in the spotlight.
In an interview with the Financial Times, General Mills, which produces Cheerios cereal, Häagen-Dazs ice-cream and other major brands, also blamed ethanol subsidies for driving up food prices. Ken Powell the company's chief executive said the price of corn and oats was up by 30 to 40% over last year.
"We're driving up food prices unnecessarily," Ken Powell, chief executive of General Mills, said in the interview. "If corn prices go up, wheat goes up. It's all linked."
Even if US ethanol production plateaus, as the report predicts, food prices are unlikely to recede – at least within the next year – because global soybean and corn crops are now in relatively tight supply.
The authors warned there just was not enough cropland available to shift to corn and soybeans.
"We don't think these prices are going to come down in a year," said Tyner. "It's going to take at least a couple of years to see a significant reduction in price."
The report warned that US corn and soybean stocks were also dangerously low, with the department of agriculture projecting supplies at about half typical levels.
"These are scary, scary numbers," said Christopher Hurt, another author. "The cupboard is absolutely bare. We just are going to get out of this, at least on the basis of crops for this year."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
