Wind Farms

[Bolton Midnight]

What is the point of them?

Stupid we are forced to buy their over priced power, we should pull out of that agreement as it is costing us money we can't afford.

Plus they kill birds and look awful.

[Mark]

I think they look fantastic. But the rest of your post is accurate.

[Bolton Midnight]

Out at sea maybe but not on hillsides, can't see why any area would accept them, they don't create power, don't create jobs (well not in this country) - utterly pointless.

[Knock-on]

I thought we were talking about Brussels Sprouts. You don't want to be within 20 miles of here tomorrow afternoon ;)

[Bolton Midnight]

Brussels Sprouts

spawn of satan

FACT

[Sonic]

I think they look fantastic. But the rest of your post is accurate.

Me too. I love driving through Northern France watching each new white tower appear on the horizon.

[Bolton Midnight]

But they just don't work and are not cost effective. Green loonies are costing normal folk money.

[ioan]

But they just don't work and are not cost effective. Green loonies are costing normal folk money.

Don't work?!
As for cost effective, sure they are not as cost effective as burning oil and/or coal. But then again, how costly is that we destroy the environment by burning all the fossil fuel available just because it's cheaper?!
Green energy is more expensive, everyone knows it, it is only the irresponsible and the cheapo who complain though.

[MrMetro]

I personally think we should invest more in nuclear power...or something like that

[ioan]

I personally think we should invest more in nuclear power...or something like that

A bit more specific?

[donKey jote]

thorium reactors, for example

[driveace]

Spoke to a guy who was doing cavity wall insulation for me,and he told me they had 27 vans parked up,they were bought to fit wind turbines on peoples property,BUT people realised that it would take them nearly 30 years to recover the cost of installing the wind turbine.Also now the government is cutting the subsidy to people who have electricity panels on their roofs,from November that type of business will drop off.That also tell me all the panels are produced in China
,

[raybak]

Spoke to a guy who was doing cavity wall insulation for me,and he told me they had 27 vans parked up,they were bought to fit wind turbines on peoples property,BUT people realised that it would take them nearly 30 years to recover the cost of installing the wind turbine.Also now the government is cutting the subsidy to people who have electricity panels on their roofs,from November that type of business will drop off.That also tell me all the panels are produced in China
,

WE have similar things happen in Australia, the governments in each State keep changing the Solar subsidy, friends of mine who have been in the Solar industry for over 15 years have decided to walk away from the industry over the uncertainty of government decisions.

Wind Farms in the right spot can be very effective, but you have to remember the cost of building them. This often negates the carbon saving. We have some quite large windfarms in the Capital region and more being built all the time. We have a new 140 turbine farm being built down past Cooma.

Going to be interesting to see what the % of green electricity our region will produce over the coming years.

Ray

[Valve Bounce]

WE have similar things happen in Australia, the governments in each State keep changing the Solar subsidy, friends of mine who have been in the Solar industry for over 15 years have decided to walk away from the industry over the uncertainty of government decisions.

Wind Farms in the right spot can be very effective, but you have to remember the cost of building them. This often negates the carbon saving. We have some quite large windfarms in the Capital region and more being built all the time. We have a new 140 turbine farm being built down past Cooma.

Going to be interesting to see what the % of green electricity our region will produce over the coming years.



Ray

There have been complaints that these things affect the health of those living nearby and within hearing of the wooshing noise they make. I really don't know, one way or the other, how serious these health issues are. I know that if I hear loud pounding music these days (something I loved 20 years ago), I do feel really lousy as my heart starts pounding.

Renewable energy is a very hot topic in Australia because the current Labor Party got in with the help of the Greens and two wacky Independents, and these three guys are demanding all sorts of stuff like renewable energy or they will threaten to bring down the Government. If I had a house in Northern NSW, I would definitely install heaps of solar panels on my roof as they not only supply all the electricity required to run the air conditioners in summer, but they provide a very good source of income as the power they generate is paid back to the home owners at the highest electricity rates. (or it used to be). I live in an apartment in Victoria and solar panels are not possible for me. :(

[ioan]

thorium reactors, for example

That's also a nuclear reactor.

[ioan]

There have been complaints that these things affect the health of those living nearby and within hearing of the wooshing noise they make. I really don't know, one way or the other, how serious these health issues are. (

Can't be worse than living near a road with high traffic, or an airport, or what about near a nuclear reactor?!

[donKey jote]

That's also a nuclear reactor.

yep, something like that :p

[ioan]

yep, something like that :p

The difference is the fuel used. It is still a nuclear reaction that is producing the energy. So it's exactly that, a nuclear reactor! ;)

[ioan]

The carbon footprint of manufacturing each windmill means they take decades to become environmentally friendly.

A coal/oil burner can never achieve that.
A nuclear power plant needs thousands of years to become environment friendly, that is thousand of years after being shut down.
Just putting things into perspective.

[ioan]

I know.
You were pointing out only the slightly negative side of a wind turbine. I just put the very same side of it into perspective compared with what some might call to be financially viable alternatives.

[Robinho]

Wind power is a valuable part of a portfolio of energy sourcesand contributes a certain amount of "green" energy. It is very useful for powering more outlying areas that locally rather than with a connection to a central grid, but conversely any excess power produced tha is fed back into the grid will tend to require extensive infrastructure as the wind farnms are predominantly located off shore, on the coast or in rural hilly locations. They are not the sole answer to replacing fossil fuels, but they will form a part of that answer

[donKey jote]

The difference is the fuel used. It is still a nuclear reaction that is producing the energy. So it's exactly that, a nuclear reactor! ;)
it's not exactly like our "standard" commercial nuclear reactors now is it? It's something like them, in that it's also nuclear, ;) :p

[ioan]

it's not exactly like our "standard" commercial nuclear reactors now is it? It's something like them, in that it's also nuclear, ;) :p

As you say it is nuclear, which makes something like that superfluous. ;)
As for "standard" commercial, maybe you should have used the quotation marks for commercial too. :p

[donKey jote]

Maybe, unless there are indeed some non-standard commercial nuclear reactors out there... :p

[ioan]

Maybe, unless there are indeed some non-standard commercial nuclear reactors out there... :p

None of them is commercial per se.

[Kneeslider]

Few people actually know the true, incremental cost per megawatt of power produced by a wind farm.

Because of the subsidy provided to the wind farm operators by the government (called a Renewable Obligation Certificate, or ROC) the effective incremental cost is a negative number, unlike conventional fossil fuel power stations.

This has an interesting consequence.

When the wind blows, power is produced in far flung parts of the grid, a long way from where the power is needed, which leads to awkward constraints on the energy distribution network. When the wind blows a lot, there is often more generation than can be used in that instance, so the system operator has to 'constrain' the wind generation, by making it switch off, to keep the balance of supply and demand preserved.

Now, if you were a wind farm operator, and you were told to switch off your turbine, naturally, you wold expect to be paid for doing so, because you would miss out on your subsidy by switching off. This has led to wind farm operators being paid up to £300/MW NOT TO GENERATE ANY POWER. This compares to an average cost of about £55/MW for power delivered to the grid over the last year or so.

Where does all this cash come from you might reasonably ask... Well, the wind farmer is paid by the system operator, who then recovers the costs from all the market participants (those who put the power into, and take it out of the grid) in proportion. For example, the supply companies have to make sure that they can forecast these costs, and pass them through to their customers, thus protecting their margins. This charge is known as the BSUoS, or Balancing Services Use of System charge.

So, broadly speaking, we all have to pay for the excessive prices of wind powered electricity. To avoid these constraint prices in the future, there needs to be massive investment in grid infrastructure, again, paid for ultimately by the customers.

Finally, the unpredictable nature of wind power forces cheap, flexible (in flexible, I mean, able to change load to meet supply and demand) power off the system, to be replaced by more expensive, flexible generation, which is forced to run partly loaded, at its least efficient rate, therefore the plant operators will only sell power into the market at much higher costs.

Industry estimates for meeting EU climate change targets by the end of the decade will involve the spending of some £200Bn. Work that out in terms of all the people in the country, and how much per year. How much do you think that this will impact upon the competitiveness of industry globally? How many more people will be forced into Fuel Poverty (where a household will have to spend greater than 10% of its disposable income on fuel)

So, do you still think that wind power is going to be a good idea?

Well Chris Huhne (Minister for Energy and Climate Change) clearly does, because he has publicly stated that he thinks that energy bills will be LESS in 2020 then they are now as a result of his policies. The man is probably the most deluded fool who has ever held public office in decades.

If you care to check out any of these numbers, I can assure you that they are correct, Im an analyst with a large power company. No one within the industry believes Huhne.

[Bolton Midnight]

Don't work?!
As for cost effective, sure they are not as cost effective as burning oil and/or coal. But then again, how costly is that we destroy the environment by burning all the fossil fuel available just because it's cheaper?!
Green energy is more expensive, everyone knows it, it is only the irresponsible and the cheapo who complain though.

What is the point in the UK going for wind farms when other countries are still using coal? None.

Wind farms are not cost effective, full stop. Take away the commitment to purchase X % of renewable energy and there would be no need for these white elephants.

Hurrah for Philip! Wind power is the most ruinous folly of our age | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2064081/Hurrah-Philip-Wind-power-ruinous-folly-age.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

Wind farms produced 'practically no electricity' during Britain's cold snap - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/6957501/Wind-farms-produced-practically-no-electricity-during-Britains-cold-snap.html)

[Mark]

How much of this unpredictable wind energy can be used to power the likes of hydro storage which can be released at peak times?

[SGWilko]

The difference is the fuel used. It is still a nuclear reaction that is producing the energy. So it's exactly that, a nuclear reactor! ;)

China Syndrome like chain reactions not possible with thorium. So why don't we use it? Because you cannot get weapons grade uranium/plutonium as a by product of fission when using thorium.

Wind turbines are hugely inneficient - something like 9% of the energy from the wind is captured. Then there is the carbon overhead to make, ship and install the things, the unpredictableness of wind, then the infrastructure required to transport the power generated to where it is needed.

[SGWilko]

We should be harnessing the power of the sun from all this benign space in deserts...........

[Steve Boyd]

But in order to do that you would need pro-western goverments in the desert countries. You'd have to have NATO supported coups across North Africa . . . . . . .

[Sonic]

But in order to do that you would need pro-western goverments in the desert countries. You'd have to have NATO supported coups across North Africa . . . . . . .

Not to worry. All this global warming and we'll have a nice little sahara in our back yards... ;)

[BleAivano]

Ioan, the problem with wind power is that its wind power does not guarantee that it will generate enough power when needed the most.

In Sweden (and the other nordic countries) can suffer from very cold weather in the winter.
The coldes temperature where i live was -26 degrees celsius the past winter and in the northerns parts the temperature dropped below -40 C.
Those kind of temps are a result of powerful high pressures, that can park themselves over the country for several weeks, and the hps' results in
clear weather, very cold temperatures and no wind.

there is no wind you can cover the entire country with wind farms but it won't help since
they need wind to generate power. In Sweden the lack of winds is solved by Nuclear power and hydropower. However despite that Hydropower generated quite allot of power
it still requires that there is plenty of water in the hydro powerplant's reservoirs. If there have been a short dry autumn followed by a long cold winter there is a risk that
the won't be enough water.

Thus the only reliable weather independent power that we have is the nuclear powerplants.

The same scenario can happen in the summer, a long period of dry high pressure dominated summer
weather means no winds and not much water in the reservoirs.
Luckily with hydroplants there is a possibility to save water in the reservoirs when the demand for power is lower.

So tell me ioan how do you solve the power production in those scenarios if you don't have Nuclear power?
How do solve that the wind might not blow when you need it to and that it might blow when you might not need it and then you
have no possibility to save it for later.

Wind Power imo is not a permanent solution to the power demands but will work as a complement to other power sources.

[anthonyvop]

Don't work?!
As for cost effective, sure they are not as cost effective as burning oil and/or coal. But then again, how costly is that we destroy the environment by burning all the fossil fuel available just because it's cheaper?!
Green energy is more expensive, everyone knows it, it is only the irresponsible and the cheapo who complain though.


As long as we have people who think like you we will have our money taken by force and wasted away for no valid reason except for political pay back of special interests groups.

[SGWilko]

Wave power seems to be a fairly reliable prospect - so long as the moon doesn't fall out the sky.......

Being an island, the UK is well positioned to harness a vast shorelines' worth of free wave power.....

[SGWilko]

Don't work?!
As for cost effective, sure they are not as cost effective as burning oil and/or coal. But then again, how costly is that we destroy the environment by burning all the fossil fuel available just because it's cheaper?!
Green energy is more expensive, everyone knows it, it is only the irresponsible and the cheapo who complain though.

Surely, you meant to say inefficient green energy?

[Mark]

But in order to do that you would need pro-western goverments in the desert countries. You'd have to have NATO supported coups across North Africa . . . . . . .

The USA has plenty desert of it's own!

[anthonyvop]

Don't work?!
Green energy is more expensive, everyone knows it, it is only the irresponsible and the cheapo who complain though.

Really?

So I am not suppose to complain when MY MONEY is taken from me and given to other private industries to support a business that cannot do otherwise without it?
I am not suppose to complain when their excuse for it is based on a widely discredited theory?
I am not suppose to complain when we have Cheap, Clean, Plentiful and economically viable Oil and Coal available?

It is easy to be generous with other people's hard earned money.

[anthonyvop]

Interesting Article about how NASA has turned to Nuclear power instead of Solar to power the new Mars Rover

Nuclear 'space battery' bests solar in Curiosity Mars mission | Cutting Edge - CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57329365-76/nuclear-space-battery-bests-solar-in-curiosity-mars-mission/?ttag=fbw)

Seems that Nukes are more reliable and efficient than Solar even with a Government Budget.....Go Figure!

[ioan]

How much of this unpredictable wind energy can be used to power the likes of hydro storage which can be released at peak times?

A lot of it, but then again it costs money to transport it, so better not use green energy.
The problem is that some people want to eat their cake and keep it at the same time.

There is always a solution to every thing, if there is enough will to implement it.

What if we used less energy and renewable enrgy sources would be suddenly enough for our needs? I guess some people will go out of business and that they don't want to happen.

[ioan]

Ioan, the problem with wind power is that its wind power does not guarantee that it will generate enough power when needed the most.

In Sweden (and the other nordic countries) can suffer from very cold weather in the winter.
The coldes temperature where i live was -26 degrees celsius the past winter and in the northerns parts the temperature dropped below -40 C.
Those kind of temps are a result of powerful high pressures, that can park themselves over the country for several weeks, and the hps' results in
clear weather, very cold temperatures and no wind.

there is no wind you can cover the entire country with wind farms but it won't help since
they need wind to generate power. In Sweden the lack of winds is solved by Nuclear power and hydropower. However despite that Hydropower generated quite allot of power
it still requires that there is plenty of water in the hydro powerplant's reservoirs. If there have been a short dry autumn followed by a long cold winter there is a risk that
the won't be enough water.

Thus the only reliable weather independent power that we have is the nuclear powerplants.

The same scenario can happen in the summer, a long period of dry high pressure dominated summer
weather means no winds and not much water in the reservoirs.
Luckily with hydroplants there is a possibility to save water in the reservoirs when the demand for power is lower.

So tell me ioan how do you solve the power production in those scenarios if you don't have Nuclear power?
How do solve that the wind might not blow when you need it to and that it might blow when you might not need it and then you
have no possibility to save it for later.

Wind Power imo is not a permanent solution to the power demands but will work as a complement to other power sources.

Who said that there aren't extreme cases like yours where nuclear might be the only solution?
And I also never said that wind power is the only solution, so let's not go down the extremes road.
Then again there are places on Earth where they could do very well with a mix of solar power,wind power, hydro power, geothermal energy, tidal wave power and so on.

From what kneeslider wrote it is obvious that the system is flawed if they pay wind turbine operators to stop them, why not diversify and start to stop more often the polluting energy sources?
Because it's all about who has more leverage on the lawmakers.
That's also why we are still predominantly use internal combustion engines that run on fossil fuel for our cars.

This is the same game as the one that is depleting all of our resources just to produce crap that no one needs in reality, but we have to make it and someone has to buy it because this is how our stupid economic model works.
In the end what do you need all that power for?

[ioan]

Really?

So I am not suppose to complain when MY MONEY is taken from me and given to other private industries to support a business that cannot do otherwise without it?

Who gives a rat's arse about your ****in' money?
can you buy your health and that of your children and your grandchildren with money? How stupid can you be?!

[BDunnell]

Who gives a rat's arse about your ****in' money?

ioan's finest hour!

[ioan]

ioan's finest hour!

His limitless ignorance got me there.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I seem to remember Professor Brian Cox saying that it was possible to produce nuclear power without any waste.

I still believe that the potential of nuclear power is so high that it would be foolish to throw in the towel now.

[rah]

Interesting Article about how NASA has turned to Nuclear power instead of Solar to power the new Mars Rover

Nuclear 'space battery' bests solar in Curiosity Mars mission | Cutting Edge - CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57329365-76/nuclear-space-battery-bests-solar-in-curiosity-mars-mission/?ttag=fbw)

Seems that Nukes are more reliable and efficient than Solar even with a Government Budget.....Go Figure!

Did you even read the article? Reliability was not a factor. Mission time was a factor.

Those unreliable solar powered mars rovers finished their mission on 2004 and one is still going. Maybe when the nuc rover goes for that long you could say it is more reliable.

[rah]

I seem to remember Professor Brian Cox saying that it was possible to produce nuclear power without any waste.

I still believe that the potential of nuclear power is so high that it would be foolish to throw in the towel now.

From memory, fast breeders actually use the waste as fuel so there is little to no waste. Nuclear power has a long way to go, but it is not the solution many people think it is.

[ioan]

I seem to remember Professor Brian Cox saying that it was possible to produce nuclear power without any waste.

I still believe that the potential of nuclear power is so high that it would be foolish to throw in the towel now.

That is highly possible, however we might just want to keep it at research level until we can take advantage of it as a clean energy source.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

That is highly possible, however we might just want to keep it at research level until we can take advantage of it as a clean energy source.

And who is going to fund the research?

[ioan]

And who is going to fund the research?

Those who want to pioneer clean energy.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

That sounds promising.

[anthonyvop]

Who gives a rat's arse about your ****in' money?

I do! Unlike you I earned it and I want to keep it. Believe it or not I know better what to do with my money than you do.


can you buy your health and that of your children and your grandchildren with money? How stupid can you be?!

Of course you can!

It is called Doctors and Medicines.
When everybody ate organic and practiced natural cures we were lucky to live to 35. Today, with the free market, we average into the 70's.

And you call me Stupid? Jeez!

[anthonyvop]

Those who want to pioneer clean energy.


Go ahead. Fund it all you want.

Just stop demanding that the Government takes my money by force to fund your Global warming agenda. The Agenda that has widely been discredited and continues to be so.

Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II! (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/)


Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the "scientists" at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they'd like it to be.

In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower 'FOIA 2011' (or "thief", as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

[BDunnell]

Go ahead. Fund it all you want.

Just stop demanding that the Government takes my money by force to fund your Global warming agenda. The Agenda that has widely been discredited and continues to be so.

You needn't worry, Tony. You'll be able to fight them off with your arsenal of firearms, as apparently brought and brandished illegally on your famous visit to Europe, when the time comes.

[BDunnell]

I do! Unlike you I earned it and I want to keep it.

Tell me, and everybody else, why you believe ioan has not earned any money of his own.

[Ranger]

Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II! (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/)

The author of that blog, which you used as evidence, describes himself as:

"James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything."

Amazing.

[raybak]

All we need is a Flux Capacitor. Will solve all energy problems.

Ray

[555-04Q2]

There is no such thing as green energy / clean energy. At some stage there is the production of pollution. So called green/clean energy is actually very un-green/clean.

[SGWilko]

There is no such thing as green energy / clean energy. At some stage there is the production of pollution. So called green/clean energy is actually very un-green/clean.

Indeed, but the idea I guess is that, once installed, 'green' energies do not actually release 'greenhouse gases' as they function.

That's the theory, anyway. Wind farms do however produce noise and other localised climate altering pollution, they can be said to destroy beautiful vistas, not only with the actual generators but with the infrastructure required to transport the electricity to where it is needed.

[SGWilko]

One has to admit however, that we have come a long way since the days of 'town gas' and when every house had solid fuel heating.

Maybe we should continue to burn coal for power, but concentrate in trapping the emmissions???

[BDunnell]

Indeed, but the idea I guess is that, once installed, 'green' energies do not actually release 'greenhouse gases' as they function.

That's the theory, anyway. Wind farms do however produce noise and other localised climate altering pollution, they can be said to destroy beautiful vistas, not only with the actual generators but with the infrastructure required to transport the electricity to where it is needed.

The appearance thing should not even be brought into consideration, in my view, unless the area being considered for the siting of a wind farm truly is one of outstanding beauty. I say this purely because the whole matter is so subjective.

[BDunnell]

One has to admit however, that we have come a long way since the days of 'town gas' and when every house had solid fuel heating.

We have — but progress can always continue. Some seem frightened of it.

[SGWilko]

The appearance thing should not even be brought into consideration, in my view, unless the area being considered for the siting of a wind farm truly is one of outstanding beauty. I say this purely because the whole matter is so subjective.

I agree - the sad fact is, however, that most land based areas suitable for wind farms is, by definition, open land free of obstructions. This tends to be green land, often noted for its beauty and home to wildlife as it is generally free from human habitation.

Wildlife, of course, does not have a say about their habitat - we'll take it without so much as a buy your leave.

[SGWilko]

We have — but progress can always continue. Some seem frightened of it.

Progress and scientific advances are to be embraced and applauded. Inefficient so called 'green' initiatives should be best left on the drawing board.

Every new house should have;

Photo voltaic solar panels for power creation for home use, and for feeding back to the grid when not required by the home,

Solar heating, to minimise the reliance on gas/electricity to heat water during the day.

New estates should have bore holes for use when watering the garden, flushing loo's etc, a communal ground source heat pump.

Towns/cities should utilise biomass generators.

Where is the planning will to facilitate all this????

[BDunnell]

Progress and scientific advances are to be embraced and applauded. Inefficient so called 'green' initiatives should be best left on the drawing board.

How will anyone know they don't work if they're left on the drawing board?

Other than that, excellent points.

[anthonyvop]

The author of that blog, which you used as evidence, describes himself as:

"James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything."

Amazing.

Dispute the facts....Not the author's attempt at Humor.

[BDunnell]

Dispute the facts....Not the author's attempt at Humor.

Er... why shouldn't we dispute his attempt at humour?

[Dave B]

The author of that blog, which you used as evidence, describes himself as:

"James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything."

Amazing.
James Dellingpole is known as somewhat of a joke on this side of the pond. Loud and opinionated, but not particularly bright.

[BDunnell]

James Dellingpole is known as somewhat of a joke on this side of the pond. Loud and opinionated, but not particularly bright.

We have been told not to dispute his attempt at humour. Why don't we just obey orders?

[ioan]

There is no such thing as green energy / clean energy. At some stage there is the production of pollution. So called green/clean energy is actually very un-green/clean.

As long as it is cleaner and without virtually everlasting negative effects (see nuclear waste) than what we previously had it can be considered green.

Nothing is 100% environment friendly, see for example cows who produce huge amounts of greenhouse gases.

[ioan]

Every new house should have;

Photo voltaic solar panels for power creation for home use, and for feeding back to the grid when not required by the home,

Solar heating, to minimise the reliance on gas/electricity to heat water during the day.

New estates should have bore holes for use when watering the garden, flushing loo's etc, a communal ground source heat pump.

Towns/cities should utilise biomass generators.

Where is the planning will to facilitate all this????

I wholeheartedly agree.

[ioan]

We have been told not to dispute his attempt at humour. Why don't we just obey orders?

Maybe he wasn't trying to be funny. ;)

[ioan]

Cow energy farms.. :D

I'd rather go with less cattle. We don't need so much meat.
Producing meat is a highly energy consuming branch. And most of it gets thrown away before getting on plate.

[Dave B]

Meat does taste good though regardless of what Morrissey says, and even at the age of 29 I still chuckle when I hear a cow fart.

I'm 10 years older and I can't recall ever having heard a cow fart. I feel like I'm missing out.

[donKey jote]

I'm 15 years older and apart from Billy's missus... nope!

[anthonyvop]

I'd rather go with less cattle. We don't need so much meat.
Producing meat is a highly energy consuming branch. And most of it gets thrown away before getting on plate.


So?

The free market is the only thing fit to decide....Not you are any other Nanny State Fascist.

So lets get back on subject:

With the idea of man made global warming totally disproved and the fact that these "Alternative" energy sources like Wind, solar and nuclear are extremely unprofitable and inefficient combined with the fact that both oil and coal are cheap, clean and plentiful why are we listening to these self-appointed protectors from ourselves?

[Ranger]

the fact that both oil and coal are cheap, clean and plentiful why are we listening to these self-appointed protectors from ourselves?

...Clean? :\

[schmenke]

Cleaner than you think.
More modern coal gereration plants use clean coal technology and scrubbers which eliminate much of the sulphur dioxides and other greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is that these are largely used only in the construction of new power plants where mandated by environmental legislation. Retrofitting existing plants often is not covered under law, not to mention very expensive.

[ioan]

So?

The free market is the only thing fit to decide....Not you are any other Nanny State Fascist.

So lets get back on subject:

With the idea of man made global warming totally disproved and the fact that these "Alternative" energy sources like Wind, solar and nuclear are extremely unprofitable and inefficient combined with the fact that both oil and coal are cheap, clean and plentiful why are we listening to these self-appointed protectors from ourselves?

:rotflmao:

[anthonyvop]

Cleaner than you think.
More modern coal gereration plants use clean coal technology and scrubbers which eliminate much of the sulphur dioxides and other greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is that these are largely used only in the construction of new power plants where mandated by environmental legislation. Retrofitting existing plants often is not covered under law, not to mention very expensive.


And car exhausts are so clean that in some cities the exhaust escaping the engine is cleaner than the air going it.

[BDunnell]

The free market is the only thing fit to decide....Not you are any other Nanny State Fascist.

If you are going to insult people, at least include all the words required to render your comments a proper sentence, Tony.

[donKey jote]

Cleaner than you think.
More modern coal gereration plants use clean coal technology and scrubbers which eliminate much of the sulphur dioxides and other greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is that these are largely used only in the construction of new power plants where mandated by environmental legislation. Retrofitting existing plants often is not covered under law, not to mention very expensive.

I read recently that SO2 actually has a short-term cooling effect that could have been balancing the warming effects of CO2... so the introduction of these cleaner technologies, while obviously positive against acid rain, could actually make warming rocket. Go figure! :p

[Ranger]

Cleaner than you think.
More modern coal gereration plants use clean coal technology and scrubbers which eliminate much of the sulphur dioxides and other greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is that these are largely used only in the construction of new power plants where mandated by environmental legislation. Retrofitting existing plants often is not covered under law, not to mention very expensive.

I am aware of that.

But it still isn't cleaner than aforementioned technologies. Cheaper: yes. More efficient: yes, at present.

I'm not telling people what they should or shouldn't do. I just don't think funding for research into other types of energy should be ignored because it is easier to do so.

Because most importantly, coal and oil are finite resources.

[ioan]

I am aware of that.

But it still isn't cleaner than aforementioned technologies. Cheaper: yes. More efficient: yes, at present.

I'm not telling people what they should or shouldn't do. I just don't think funding for research into other types of energy should be ignored because it is easier to do so.

Because most importantly, coal and oil are finite resources.

:up:

[schmenke]

...Because most importantly, coal and oil are finite resources.

Agreed but there is also far more recoverable fossil fuel deposits in the world than most people think. I for one am more concerned with depletion of fresh water than petroleum resources.

[ioan]

Cleaner than you think.
More modern coal gereration plants use clean coal technology and scrubbers which eliminate much of the sulphur dioxides and other greenhouse gas emissions.

What about the coal extraction, is that clean?

Food for thought:

Hall of Shame | People's Congress (http://peoplescongress.org/corporate-hall-of-shame/)



There is no greater threat to the future habitability of the earth than coal. And there is no human being more singularly focused on getting coal out of the ground, no matter the human or environmental cost, than Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy Co.

Massey is the biggest and most aggressive practitioner of mountaintop-removal mining, which is just what it sounds like. More than 3 million pounds of explosive are detonated under the southern Appalachians every day, blowing off several ridgetops a week. The Appalachians are some of the world’s oldest mountains, and home to what may be the greatest biodiversity of any temperate region in the world.

The coal is stripped from underneath with gigantic steam shovels that tower 20 stories tall and can lift 100 tons of dirt with each scoop. Everything that isn’t coal (“overburden&#8221 ;) is dumped into the hollows and valleys below. More than 460 mountains and well over 1,000 miles of stream have been lost this way. And those figures, which are probably low given the age of the available data, are likely to double in the next decade, according to the EPA.

Some blast sites are “recovered,” hastily covered over with a layer of fast-growing grass, but the destruction is so deep that no forest will ever take root again.

Gigantic trucks carry the coal away to be washed with corrosive chemicals in nearby plants, a process that leaves behind toxic, tarry black sludge called slurry. In West Virginia alone, there are over 100 billion gallons of slurry stored in open ponds or abandoned underground mines, often less than a mile from houses and schools. The slurry seeps into groundwater and occasionally breaks from behind earthen dams to flood the towns below.

Southern Appalachians are regularly showered with coal dust, flooded with runoff, and forced to endure black, brackish public water unfit for consumption or bathing. Illness of every kind is ubiquitous.


And there's more, just read the full article.

As far as I know wind is far less of a nuisance.

[anthonyvop]

What about the coal extraction, is that clean?

Food for thought:

Hall of Shame | People's Congress (http://peoplescongress.org/corporate-hall-of-shame/)



And there's more, just read the full article.

As far as I know wind is far less of a nuisance.

The people's congress?




Seriously?




Why don't you just quote the wackos from the Sierra Club or the King of all Hypocrisy the Reverend Al Gore?

[schmenke]

"steam shovels"...?

Seriously?

[555-04Q2]

The people's congress?




Seriously?




Why don't you just quote the wackos from the Sierra Club or the King of all Hypocrisy the Reverend Al Gore?

To be fair to Al Gore, his private jet does run on Eco Friendly Bullsh!t :p :

[ioan]

The people's congress?




Seriously?




Why don't you just quote the wackos from the Sierra Club or the King of all Hypocrisy the Reverend Al Gore?

I don't see you quoting anyone who supports your views, I wonder why is that.

[BDunnell]

I don't see you quoting anyone who supports your views, I wonder why is that.

Because, as stated elsewhere, he has forgotten more than any of the rest of us will ever know.

Allegedly.

[ioan]

Because, as stated elsewhere, he has forgotten more than any of the rest of us will ever know.


Good one! ;)

[anthonyvop]

I don't see you quoting anyone who supports your views, I wonder why is that.

So I am suppose to look for somebody who has gone out of their way to rebuke the baseless lies and silly conspiracy theories your "Source" spewed?

Lets play.

Liberalism is a mental Illness.
Now post some research refuting that statement.

[airshifter]

"steam shovels"...?

Seriously?

They tried to get explosives from Wiley Coyote, but as usual the Road Runner blew them up in his face. Faced with no other option they got steam shovels from another cartoon and pressed on.

[ioan]

So I am suppose to look for somebody who has gone out of their way to rebuke the baseless lies and silly conspiracy theories your "Source" spewed?

Lets play.

Liberalism is a mental Illness.
Now post some research refuting that statement.

And me thinking this place is about discussing with grown up people.

[anthonyvop]

And me thinking this place is about discussing with grown up people.

Some of the dumbest people I know are Adults.(See above)

[555-04Q2]

Some of the dumbest people I know are Adults.(See above)

Pity I can only "like" your post once :p :

[Bagwan]

I'm building a house for myself and my family off-grid .

My renewable energy expert asked me one question when I asked how much power I needed .
It was how many refrigerators and/or freezers i wanted to run .

That's our biggest draw on the system .
That's everyone's biggest draw .
Refrigeration .

Amongst all the other foibles for wind , this becomes one of the biggest issues .
When it is stinking hot , and we need our food , and no doubt , ourselves , cooled with air conditioners , fridges and freezers , turbines typically aren't spinning .
It's hot , and there is no wind , making it worse .

With no turbine spin , the back-up generators burn the fossils .

The general public thinks it's all green , when in fact , it's pretty black and white .


On the other hand , photovoltaics make power when we need it .
That's what my house will run for power .
I will have batteries storing the power , and will run a generator about once a month , on bio-diesel , to equalize the bank .

The big power guys know what's going on .
It's a huge scam ; a really huge scam .

[anthonyvop]

The big power guys know what's going on .
It's a huge scam ; a really huge scam .

And what scam is that?

A Scam where they provide, cheap, clean and reliable energy on demand?

[Bolton Midnight]

Nice to see what happens to wind turbines when it is windy, the fall apart and burst into flames..........it's the future

Complete white elephant and should be banned.

[Bagwan]

And what scam is that?

A Scam where they provide, cheap, clean and reliable energy on demand?

Long before a corridor to carry the potential power of the turbines in my area was created , the nearby nuke plant was throttled back to provide space .
The company putting up the local turbines was a gas company , now calling itself an energy company , and immediately after the turbines were up , talk of gas fired generating stations being required to back up the unreliable power of those turbines .

We get brown-outs and expensive power , not clean , cheap , reliable power .


I have loads of friends working hard over at that nuke plant , and they do a good job , but the government sold the golden goose , formerly known as Ontario Hydro a while ago .

The big power guys to which I referred , are not performing the scam , Anthony , but rather putting up with it .

It doesn't take a a brain surgeon to figure out that those turbines don't do anything but screw up the grid when they can't store the power they make , to be used when we need it .
It would make a lot more sense to have mechanical wind turbines elevating water into a tower or reservoir , to be used when needed via hydro-electrics .

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Nice to see what happens to wind turbines when it is windy, the fall apart and burst into flames..........it's the future

Complete white elephant and should be banned.

Banned? Even if you don't agree that the government should subsidise them, who are you to stop a private firm from building one on their own land?

[Bolton Midnight]

They kill birds of prey, that in itself justifies them being outlawed. Let alone the fact they are not cost effective and are costing us all a fortune to produce next to no power. Plus are dangerous as they explode/fall apart in wind!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

They kill birds of prey, that in itself justifies them being outlawed. Let alone the fact they are not cost effective and are costing us all a fortune to produce next to no power. Plus are dangerous as they explode/fall apart in wind!

Cars kill birds, should they be outlawed?
Treesfall over in the wind, should thery be outlawed?

[SGWilko]

Treesfall over in the wind, should thery be outlawed?

Ah, yes, but if no-one is around, do they make a noise?

[ioan]

On the other hand , photovoltaics make power when we need it .

I guess you turn off the fridge at night! ;)

[ioan]

Cars kill birds, should they be outlawed?
Treesfall over in the wind, should thery be outlawed?

Let's start with outlawing the human species, that might give a chance to survive for other species inhabiting the Earth.
Now we get +10 degrees Celsius in December, yet some human beings keep saying that there is no global warming.

And what the F with the Canadians chickening out of a new global climate agreement?

[anthonyvop]

Let's start with outlawing the human species, that might give a chance to survive for other species inhabiting the Earth.
Now we get +10 degrees Celsius in December, yet some human beings keep saying that there is no global warming.

We are saying there is no such thing as MAN MADE global warming


And what the F with the Canadians chickening out of a new global climate agreement?

It is the other Countries who were chicken by blindly following the Eco-Socialist path laid out by the UN.

[BDunnell]

We are saying there is no such thing as MAN MADE global warming

Tony, let me ask you this. If vehicles do not pollute, how come exhaust gases are such an effective suicide method?

[Bolton Midnight]

Cars kill birds, should they be outlawed?


Cars do what they are meant to though, wind farms don't. They are ineffective and cost way too much, unlike cars - scrap them all.

[Bolton Midnight]

Now we get +10 degrees Celsius in December, yet some human beings keep saying that there is no global warming.

And what the F with the Canadians chickening out of a new global climate agreement?

-1 here, plus we're due another ice age, global warming schwarming

They have more sense. It's all a load of crap made up to fool the gullible.


Tony, let me ask you this. If vehicles do not pollute, how come exhaust gases are such an effective suicide method?

Pop a plastic bag on your head and then gaffer tape it round your neck - no car involved and you'd still be dead for exactly the same reason a hosepipe attached to an exhaust into a car will kill you. But if you don't believe me try it by all means, you need removing from the gene pool, and you claim to be intelligent!.

[BDunnell]

Pop a plastic bag on your head and then gaffer tape it round your neck - no car involved and you'd still be dead for exactly the same reason a hosepipe attached to an exhaust into a car will kill you. But if you don't believe me try it by all means, you need removing from the gene pool, and you claim to be intelligent!.

Lovely.

And you might like to reflect on the fact that your post suggesting that I am inferior in the intelligence department ends with an exclamation mark followed by a full stop — not an error a clever person would make. I know I went to a much worse school than you claim to have attended, but even I was taught that this was wrong.

[Bagwan]

I guess you turn off the fridge at night! ;)

Now , I know you must know this , but , firstly , it tends to cool off at night , and secondly , that's what we have batteries for .

Only people with glass fridges really know if the light goes off when they close the door .

[Bagwan]

And what the F with the Canadians chickening out of a new global climate agreement?

I am ashamed of this . Sorry .

I didn't vote for them .

[Bolton Midnight]

Lovely.

And you might like to reflect on the fact that your post suggesting that I am inferior in the intelligence department ends with an exclamation mark followed by a full stop — not an error a clever person would make. I know I went to a much worse school than you claim to have attended, but even I was taught that this was wrong.

Bravo you're a typist who doesn't make typos, bully for you.

now then deal with the matter in hand, put the bag on your head, no car involved so you'll be fine by your logic

see no capital at the start and no full stop, cba and added bonus it seems to madden you, go on pop the bag on your head, you'll be doing the world a favour and nobody will miss you

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Cars do what they are meant to though, wind farms don't. They are ineffective and cost way too much, unlike cars - scrap them all.

In my original post I said private firms developing them. If they are ineffective how come households with private wind turbines have lower energy bills?

[Bolton Midnight]

Tony, let me ask you this. If vehicles do not pollute, how come exhaust gases are such an effective suicide method?

Well tried the bag on your head yet, go on, put your faith in your intelligence

no cars so has to be perfectly safe, go on you know you're desperate to be proved right, you need that attention, go for it

[Bolton Midnight]

In my original post I said private firms developing them. If they are ineffective how come households with private wind turbines have lower energy bills?

Be subsidies won't it, as it clearly doesn't work, if it did they would not be subsidised would they?

It's just a bunch of loony Greens giving our cash to their mates - corruption by any other name.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Be subsidies won't it, as it clearly doesn't work, if it did they would not be subsidised would they?

It's just a bunch of loony Greens giving our cash to their mates - corruption by any other name.

How does a government subsidy at the point of purchase mean a house uses less electricity from the National Grid? :confused:

[Bolton Midnight]

Less than the cost of the turbine? Not a saving if they save £5 a month on elec yet spent 10k building the bloody thing in the first place is it?

They'll fudge the figures anyroad to make it look viable, all this global warming things is about lies damn lies and statistics.

If it really worked it would not need any subsidy whatsoever it does QED it's a white elephant.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Less than the cost of the turbine? Not a saving if they save £5 a month on elec yet spent 10k building the bloody thing in the first place is it?



Based on your statistics it would pay for itself after 166 years.

[Bolton Midnight]

Based on your statistics it would pay for itself after 166 years.

Maintenance?? Make it a round 200 years, mega bargain eh?

Nope it is a complete white elephant and only takes in the terminally gullible.

[Dave B]

So we should do nothing?

The first lightbulbs were hopelessly inefficient, using huge power to give out almost no light, and lasting hours rather than years. I accept that the current generation of turbines aren't the most efficient machines in the world, but surely it's only by mass-producing and refining the technology that they'll improve.

[Mark]

That's our biggest draw on the system .
That's everyone's biggest draw .
Refrigeration .

On electricity perhaps, but the biggest draw by far on energy is for heating.

[Mark]

So we should do nothing?

The first lightbulbs were hopelessly inefficient, using huge power to give out almost no light, and lasting hours rather than years. I accept that the current generation of turbines aren't the most efficient machines in the world, but surely it's only by mass-producing and refining the technology that they'll improve.

And it looks like LED technology is coming of age and in around 10 years time we'll be able to buy ordinary household bulbs which give out the same light as current CFT bulbs but use around 1% of the energy.

[Bagwan]

Less than the cost of the turbine? Not a saving if they save £5 a month on elec yet spent 10k building the bloody thing in the first place is it?

They'll fudge the figures anyroad to make it look viable, all this global warming things is about lies damn lies and statistics.

If it really worked it would not need any subsidy whatsoever it does QED it's a white elephant.

Here are some figures for you :
Bringing in power from the grid , I was quoted $15,500.00 .
Solar panels cost me $18,200.00 to do the job with the best equipment available right now .
I opted for panels because I didn't want the maintenance issues associated with turbines .
I may have to replace my batteries in 10 years , presently at a cost of $3,000.00 . They are guaranteed for that long .

I won't get any electrical bills before then .

The government here gives no incentive to wind or solar off grid .
But they do help you insulate and seal up your house .

[SGWilko]

So we should do nothing?

The first lightbulbs were hopelessly inefficient, using huge power to give out almost no light, and lasting hours rather than years. I accept that the current generation of turbines aren't the most efficient machines in the world, but surely it's only by mass-producing and refining the technology that they'll improve.

We should stop;

Food waste. All these BOGOF deals is a simple money spinner for the big chains, and results in shameful waste by the consumer. Also, we should all learn to visit our local butcher more often. Ask advice and purchase cheaper cuts. Keep bones to use to make stock etc. The less we waste, the less has to be transported to re-stock the shelves.

Recycle more. Food, clothing, heat, energy. It can all be recycled if the will is there.

Walk more. Uses less fossil fuels, has a health benefit and saves a shed load of money.

Insulate More. Whether this be wearing more layers so that the house needs less heating, or double glazing, or better loft insulation. Use cork wall tiles, or polystyrene lining paper on the walls. We'd use a heck of a lot less energy and again save a shed load of money.

Buy Efficient White Goods. A rated fidges, freezers cookers, dishwashers etc. Less anergy use means less energy production required.

Just a drop in the ocean of what ALL of us can and SHOULD do to lessen the use of fossil fuels.

Local wind power production, along with ground source heat pumps and photo-voltaic cells will all help to become that step closer to self sufficiency.

Grow your own veg - it's surprisingly easy and very satisfying.

Rainwater harvesting to water plants etc.

As a family, we are embracing a lot of the things above (the ones we can afford). A large chunk of the garden is used to grow veg. We've invested in replacement Double Glazing (and this has made a MASSIVE difference). I topped up loft insulation in the first six months after moving in - again made a very significant and noticeable differance.

Whilst this may be a little off-topic, all these things help to reduce energy consumtion.

[Bagwan]

On electricity perhaps, but the biggest draw by far on energy is for heating.

A friend of mine went to Shanghai recently , and never saw a single roof that didn't have a set of solar-thermal heat tubes producing hot water for heating .
Heating with solar is easy , but not with electrical energy production .

[SGWilko]

Here are some figures for you :
Bringing in power from the grid , I was quoted $15,500.00 .
Solar panels cost me $18,200.00 to do the job with the best equipment available right now .
I opted for panels because I didn't want the maintenance issues associated with turbines .
I may have to replace my batteries in 10 years , presently at a cost of $3,000.00 . They are guaranteed for that long .

I won't get any electrical bills before then .

The government here gives no incentive to wind or solar off grid .
But they do help you insulate and seal up your house .

Baggy, unless you have any privacy concerns - which I would completely understand - do you have any pictures of your set-up?

[SGWilko]

A friend of mine went to Shanghai recently , and never saw a single roof that didn't have a set of solar-thermal heat tubes producing hot water for heating .
Heating with solar is easy , but not with electrical energy production .

One imagines that in Shanghai, they employ someone with a brain to head up their planning dept!!!

Have you ever, on an overcast day, listened to the sound of rapidly heatng black uPVC guttering on your house going 'click clack' as it expands in the heat from the sun as it comes out from the clouds - it takes moments to start once in the sunlight. Shows how effectiove this heat hervesting can be even when there is only a little sun.

[Bagwan]

And it looks like LED technology is coming of age and in around 10 years time we'll be able to buy ordinary household bulbs which give out the same light as current CFT bulbs but use around 1% of the energy.

The price of those bulbs is rocketting into the basement as we speak .

[Bolton Midnight]

So we should do nothing?

The first lightbulbs were hopelessly inefficient, using huge power to give out almost no light, and lasting hours rather than years. I accept that the current generation of turbines aren't the most efficient machines in the world, but surely it's only by mass-producing and refining the technology that they'll improve.

Yes by all means let the firms that make them carry on refining them until they create more power than the cost but not at the taxpayers expense. I don't expect to have to pay every Tom, Dick and Harry's R&D costs.

[SGWilko]

Yes by all means let the firms that make them carry on refining them until they create more power than the cost but not at the taxpayers expense. I don't expect to have to pay every Tom, Dick and Harry's R&D costs.

I agree that, at present, wind farms are a white elephant. However, if in say, 10 years time, they become THE defacto source of electricity production, then you could easily argue that today's high prices are money well spent.

What if the very first car was as efficient as todays frugal 1.4 litre turbo's? We'd've used a lot less oil.....

[Bolton Midnight]

Thought solar panels have to be facing a certain direction (N from memory) besides we in the UK don't get much sun even in July/August !

Wind doesn't work, solar not enough sun, tidal I'd have thought would work but in the mean time nuclear seems to tick all the boxes. Other than that V8s all round as who really cares about Anglia?

[Bagwan]

One imagines that in Shanghai, they employ someone with a brain to head up their planning dept!!!

Have you ever, on an overcast day, listened to the sound of rapidly heatng black uPVC guttering on your house going 'click clack' as it expands in the heat from the sun as it comes out from the clouds - it takes moments to start once in the sunlight. Shows how effectiove this heat hervesting can be even when there is only a little sun.

It's economics , not the planning dept.

[Bolton Midnight]

What if the very first car was as efficient as todays frugal 1.4 litre turbo's? We'd've used a lot less oil.....

Was Gottlieb Daimler subsidised? And were those using steam forced to subsidise this new fangled combustion engine?

[Bagwan]

I agree that, at present, wind farms are a white elephant. However, if in say, 10 years time, they become THE defacto source of electricity production, then you could easily argue that today's high prices are money well spent.

What if the very first car was as efficient as todays frugal 1.4 litre turbo's? We'd've used a lot less oil.....

If they do not have the capability to store the potential power , they are useless to us .

[Dave B]

Thought solar panels have to be facing a certain direction (N from memory)
Interesting grasp of geography...

[SGWilko]

Thought solar panels have to be facing a certain direction (N from memory) besides we in the UK don't get much sun even in July/August !?

Indeed. But, if you join up the thinking with the planners, you could;

Build houses with roofes that face the correct direction,

Mandate that ALL new housing HAS to have solar power, solar heating to compliment the boiler,

Ground source heat pumps,

Bore holes for grey water use.

It is, after all, not rocket science, is it.

Now, if the governments invested in the appropriate technologies, a tidy profit that could suppliment tax income.............

[Bagwan]

Thought solar panels have to be facing a certain direction (N from memory) besides we in the UK don't get much sun even in July/August !

Wind doesn't work, solar not enough sun, tidal I'd have thought would work but in the mean time nuclear seems to tick all the boxes. Other than that V8s all round as who really cares about Anglia?

Point it towards the sun .

[SGWilko]

If they do not have the capability to store the potential power , they are useless to us .

Agreed - but as has already been suggested, the excess power can be used to store the energy potential in a resovoir ready to be converted back to power using hydro.....

Or, you ship the power abroad where it is needed.

[SGWilko]

Point it towards the sun .

:up: :laugh:

[Mark]

Thought solar panels have to be facing a certain direction (N from memory) besides we in the UK don't get much sun even in July/August !

North? Where did you go to school? Australia?



Wind doesn't work, solar not enough sun, tidal I'd have thought would work but in the mean time nuclear seems to tick all the boxes. Other than that V8s all round as who really cares about Anglia?

Agreed!

[Mark]

Agreed - but as has already been suggested, the excess power can be used to store the energy potential in a resovoir ready to be converted back to power using hydro.....

That's true, however hydro schemes are monstrously expensive to construct - however less so than nuclear stations and they don't harbour radioactivity for thousands of years.

[Bagwan]

Agreed - but as has already been suggested, the excess power can be used to store the energy potential in a resovoir ready to be converted back to power using hydro.....

Or, you ship the power abroad where it is needed.

Yes , but when I suggested that , it was to use mechanical energy , rather than using the electrical energy that the turbines currently employ .

It is not efficient to convert the spin of the turbine to electrical and then back to mechanical .


In the states , there is governmant incentive for small turbine producers to produce small wind .
But , the result has flooded the market with loads of poor quality , under-tested turbines on the market , destroying some of the faith in the idea itself .

Line loss prevents shipping power too far .

The grid , itself , is a large part of the issue .
Power yourself .

[Bagwan]

That's true, however hydro schemes are monstrously expensive to construct - however less so than nuclear stations and they don't harbour radioactivity for thousands of years.

Build a water tower with a turbine atop .
That's not so hard .

[Bolton Midnight]

Interesting grasp of geography...

Northern roof facing South is it then, whatever, I looked into these grants etc - but was a load of rubbish and of course they keep on moving the goalposts.


Indeed. But, if you join up the thinking with the planners, you could;

Build houses with roofes that face the correct direction,

Mandate that ALL new housing HAS to have solar power, solar heating to compliment the boiler,

Ground source heat pumps,

Bore holes for grey water use.

It is, after all, not rocket science, is it.

Now, if the governments invested in the appropriate technologies, a tidy profit that could suppliment tax income.............

Free?

No course not.


Point it towards the sun .

Nope, 90 degrees to sun, the sun moves of course.

[Bagwan]

Nope, 90 degrees to sun, the sun moves of course.

The sun comes up and the sun goes down , and that illusion is brought to you by the spinning of the earth , sunshine .

My panels are fixed in position , and will do just fine .
I could have put them on a tracker , but those are being installed for about $30,000.00 right now .
And extra panel or two , for far less the cost will do just fine to take up the slack .

I pointed them at the sun .

[Bolton Midnight]

Rises in E sets in W but you don't set panels up facing E or W you'd need two to cover it, whereas from what I can make out 1 facing S does the trick, so not actually facing the sun, yes??

Yes we spin around Sun but relative to a fixed panel it moves, yes??

[schmenke]

That's true, however hydro schemes are monstrously expensive to construct ....

The capital cost of hydro installations are huge, but operation and maintenance costs are peanuts per kW-hour.

[schmenke]

Rises in E sets in W but you don't set panels up facing E or W you'd need two to cover it, whereas from what I can make out 1 facing S does the trick, so not actually facing the sun, yes??

Yes we spin around Sun but relative to a fixed panel it moves, yes??


In the northern hemisphere, the general direction to point solar panels to maximize effeciency is South, unless, as Baggy mentions, you want to invest in an expensive mechanism that tracks the sun’s movement.

[Bagwan]

A couple of posts back , I wrote "power yourself" .

I should have written "empower yourself" .


Methane is the real answer here .
We all , even the Pope , sh!t .

Every septic tank and waste treatment facility in every house , hamlet , village , town , and city has burnable volatiles going into the air all the time .
A few years ago , when we had a large volume pig factory farm applying for a permit to build on the windward side of town , and everyone was either on the "pig" or "no pig" sides , I decided it would be foolish not to try to find a way to keep both sides happy .

A little web surfing had me find my way to to couple of pertinent sites .

One was about an apartment block in Hungary where people had to fuel it's heating , but couldn't afford the gas to do it , or couldn't get it at all .
They piped the crap into a digester , and now heat and cook with free gas they produce themselves .

Another related site was one that quantified exactly how many animals of just about any kind domesticated are required to heat a 1,500sq/ft house at any given latitude , based on the amount of methane that could be extracted by the digester from the scat produced by each .

From cattle to chinchillas , you have a base number you can rely on .

Having free fuel from this method is not the only gain .
Methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide/monoxide .

That means that if that pig factory beside town has any scent at all , it's methane , or better said , profit , out the window .
Ask any farmer if they would be happy to have all thier fuel for free , to heat the house , barn , and fuel all the machinery .
Ask them if they'd like it if they didn't have to worry about polluting the rivers and streams .

It's easy , cheap , and hugely environmentally friendly .

But , the fossil guys don't want you to know methane is "friendly" natural gas .

As said by the French soldiers in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" , "I fart in your general direction ."



When I suggested that I might like to use a digester at my new home , thier little heads just about exploded .
They couldn't deal with a "new" technology like this ; a technology that's regularly used where there are only dirt floors in this world .

I was forced to put in an $18,000.00 septic bed , or no go , because I couldn't afford the engineering degrees that had to sign off any responsibilty for the local government departments involved .

[schmenke]

^
Totally agree with you Baggy, but…
The problem with methane, or any other combustible gas, is that it’s, well, combustible.
Build-up of excessive methane can be explosive, hence the need for an expensive(? :s ) engineering degree to design a fail-safe operation that can alleviate any unused gas. This is the reason, for example, all petroleum production facilities have a flare-stack… burning off the build-up of combustible gases, a by-product of any refinery process.

[Bagwan]

Rises in E sets in W but you don't set panels up facing E or W you'd need two to cover it, whereas from what I can make out 1 facing S does the trick, so not actually facing the sun, yes??

Yes we spin around Sun but relative to a fixed panel it moves, yes??

Well , if you really want to get into it , facing a panel directly south is best , if it's fixed .
The more atmosphere through which the radience travels , the less the energy available on the ground . Thus , directly south it is .
There is also a loss caused by the angle of the sun in winter , thus , many solar arrays are adjustable to extract gains , changing the angle up or down to keep a direct face to the solar radiation .

High cost for a tracker had me size my array to cope with fixed positioning , and size my inverter to cope with miscalculation , allowing for a couple of additional panels , if I find it necessary .

The sun does appear to cross the sky , but I must assure you that this is generally thought to be because the earth rotates .
It's also round , by the way .

[Bagwan]

^
Totally agree with you Baggy, but…
The problem with methane, or any other combustible gas, is that it’s, well, combustible.
Build-up of excessive methane can be explosive, hence the need for an expensive(? :s ) engineering degree to design a fail-safe operation that can alleviate any unused gas. This is the reason, for example, all petroleum production facilities have a flare-stack… burning off the build-up of combustible gases, a by-product of any refinery process.

The simplest set-up I've seen is a big bag that has crap in it , blowing methane all day long .
I have farms all around me that have grid-floor pens that evacuate sh!t automatically , into a big tank .

Warm that tank with some of the gas extracted , and put a bladder over top , or a slip tank inside , and you have a natural gas plant on every farm .

If you really couldn't trust the general public to get it right , then truck or pipe the the raw sewage to facilities that can , using some of the gas once again .



I've seen examples of heating and cooking in the "third world" , where the sh!tter is essential for more than just the regular urges .

[Bolton Midnight]

A couple of posts back , I wrote "power yourself" .

I should have written "empower yourself" .


Methane is the real answer here .
We all , even the Pope , sh!t .

Abbeystead disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbeystead_disaster)

Remember this all too well.

[SGWilko]

Abbeystead disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbeystead_disaster)

Remember this all too well.

With the greatest of respect - the methane explosion in your example above was due to an unforseen build up of and unexplained ignition of methane. Using the methane given off from excrament is, by definition, expecting and even relying upon a build up of methane.

[Bagwan]

With the greatest of respect - the methane explosion in your example above was due to an unforseen build up of and unexplained ignition of methane. Using the methane given off from excrament is, by definition, expecting and even relying upon a build up of methane.

The methane in that example is also fossil sourced , just like the gas that the wind turbine company around here sells .

Perhaps that disaster partially inspired the "oh so clever" "fracking" that the gas guys are using on shale deposits now .
There's an environmental disaster looming , if I ever saw one .

[Bolton Midnight]

Fracking could lead to a lot of wealth/jobs up here, so am all for it, sod what the Greens/scaredy cats say about it.

[schmenke]

The risks of shale fracking are slim but the effects can be disastrous.
Still, President Obama seems to be forging ahead with this technology.

[Bagwan]

Fracking could lead to a lot of wealth/jobs up here, so am all for it, sod what the Greens/scaredy cats say about it.


Ok , how do you propose to make solid prediction about where the methane comes up , when you shatter the shale ?
That's been the prblem so far .
People are finding farms to be suddenly sulphurous smelling . Don't light a match .
Get them out building digesters , and leave the methane in the shale where it's been for millenia .

There's plenty on the surface to develop ways to capture . Much more than we need

[Bolton Midnight]

The risks of shale fracking are slim but the effects can be disastrous.
Still, President Obama seems to be forging ahead with this technology.

Let them find the pit falls then we'll improve on it, job done.

[Dave B]

So wind technology is bad because it's expensive, unproven and potentially dangerous (to wildlife at least, or the tiny risk of being in the vacinity if an overloaded turbine explodes).

But on fracking - which is expensive, unproven and potentially dangerous (in that it may or may not case minor earthquakes) - you're all for it.

Interesting dichotomy you've got going on there.

[Bolton Midnight]

I'm for what a) works and b) doesn't cost me anything

what is hard to follow with that?

[Bagwan]

I'm for what a) works and b) doesn't cost me anything

what is hard to follow with that?

Non-fossil methane a) works and b) costs much less to capture than any fossil source .

Are you finding that hard to follow ?

[Bolton Midnight]

Non-fossil methane a) works and b) costs much less to capture than any fossil source .

Are you finding that hard to follow ?

Didn't say otherwise did I? Oh no, but hey what have facts got to do with owt?

If it works and doesn't need subsidies then why isn't it bigger than crappy wind farms ruining the view and killing birds.

[Bagwan]

Didn't say otherwise did I? Oh no, but hey what have facts got to do with owt?

If it works and doesn't need subsidies then why isn't it bigger than crappy wind farms ruining the view and killing birds.

Where did I say you did ?
You are finding this hard to follow , aren't you ?

You must have oil in your ear .

We have a gas company putting up wind turbines , so they justify the back-up generation they need .

All the while , that same fuel is all around us . It is in us .

If you can figure out why big oil doesn't want you to know this , you are probably smart enough to figure out why they called methane "natural gas" .

[Bolton Midnight]

Non-fossil methane a) works and b) costs much less to capture than any fossil source .

Are you finding that hard to follow ?

Ahh so when you quoted me you weren't actually addressing me, of course you weren't

Fail

[BDunnell]

Ahh so when you quoted me you weren't actually addressing me, of course you weren't

Fail

Ah, yes, so that wins the argument.

[Bolton Midnight]

No it doesn't, I was just wondering why Bagwan decided to lie?

[BDunnell]

No it doesn't, I was just wondering why Bagwan decided to lie?

You are going down a highly hypocritical path in accusing others of lying, if I may say so.

[Bolton Midnight]

You are going down a highly hypocritical path in accusing others of lying, if I may say so.

No you may not as you are terminally dull answer my questions on the other thread as I'm dying to know what made you like you are.

[Bagwan]

No it doesn't, I was just wondering why Bagwan decided to lie?

Did I lie ?

Explain , could you ?

[Bolton Midnight]

Did I lie ?

Explain , could you ?


Non-fossil methane a) works and b) costs much less to capture than any fossil source .

Are you finding that hard to follow ?

When you claimed this wasn't meant for me, that was a blatant lie wasn't it?

[BDunnell]

When you claimed this wasn't meant for me, that was a blatant lie wasn't it?

No-one cares. Go away.

[Bolton Midnight]

No-one cares. Go away.

see even Bumdell knew it was a lie

ahh diddums

[Bagwan]

When you claimed this wasn't meant for me, that was a blatant lie wasn't it?

Perhaps you could tell me when I said that wasn't for you , as it most certainly was .

[Bagwan]

No-one cares. Go away.

You are wrong , sir .
I care .

I am most interested to find out when I lied .

[BDunnell]

You are wrong , sir .
I care .

I am most interested to find out when I lied .

A fair comment. My apologies.

[Bagwan]

A fair comment. My apologies.

Accepted . Thank-you .

Have you any idea when it was that I lied ?

[BDunnell]

Accepted . Thank-you .

Have you any idea when it was that I lied ?

Genuinely not a clue.

[Bolton Midnight]

Perhaps you could tell me when I said that wasn't for you , as it most certainly was .

changed your tune


Where did I say you did ?





Genuinely not a clue.

Agreed 100%, first sensible thing you've ever said, you are clueless all right.

[Dave B]

Here's a question for our resident Guardian basher. The Sunday Times commissioned a poll on public opinion of various renewables, but decided not to publish the results which showed 56% in favour of more government use of wind farms and 60% saying that government is right to subsidise wind power.


Over at BusinessGreen, James Murray describes the survey results as "explosive", especially given that they "follow months during which the right-wing press has waged an increasingly virulent campaign against climate change, wind farms, renewable energy, and the green levies that pay for it". (See Duncan Clark's assessment of how "UK newspaper coverage is skewed against renewables".)

Unbiased reporting?

Source: British public strongly support renewable energy, survey says | Leo Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/dec/14/british-public-support-renewable-energy)

[Bolton Midnight]

Rather depends where they polled doesn't it?

Out in the countryside where these monstrosities will be put or was it in Islington outside a health food shop?

And were they told how much it costs us all to support these green ventures?

[Dave B]

Read my link, there's a link to the raw polling data. In fact, for the lazy, the link is here (http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/gm4jg0973n/Sunday%20Times%20Results%20111125%20VI%20and%20Tra ckers.pdf) (PDF) - the respondents are broken down by age, voting intention, social class, region... I don't know how much more you'd like.

Interesting that when you ask for evidence I can actually provide it.... ;)

[BDunnell]

changed your tune








Agreed 100%, first sensible thing you've ever said, you are clueless all right.

Reading more of your posts and bearing in mind what you say about having attended university, I'm thinking it must have been Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard. Am I warm?

[Bolton Midnight]

Reading more of your posts and bearing in mind what you say about having attended university, I'm thinking it must have been Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard. Am I warm?

nice pic on facebook of you ha ha

[Bagwan]

changed your tune

Did I ?
How so ?

[Bagwan]

I see you're here , Mr. Midnight .
Are you going to answer ?

[donKey jote]

nice pic on facebook of you ha ha

Hey Ben you've got a stalker :laugh:

Bolton must be bored :dozey:

[donKey jote]

He should get a useless job as a forum troll... except I doubt Mark would pay him enough :p

[schmenke]

The childish squabbling between Baggy, BM and others is quite distracting :s . Perhaps it can be continued in the PM playpen?

[Bagwan]

The childish squabbling between Baggy, BM and others is quite distracting :s . Perhaps it can be continued in the PM playpen?

Gosh , sorry to get in your way .

[anthonyvop]

Hmmmmm.....

Wonder how our European Friends who love the government subsidized "alternative energy" ideal feel about this bit of news?
BP turns out lights at solar business (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/21/us-bp-solar-idUSTRE7BK1CC20111221)

[Bagwan]

Hmmmmm.....

Wonder how our European Friends who love the government subsidized "alternative energy" ideal feel about this bit of news?
BP turns out lights at solar business (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/21/us-bp-solar-idUSTRE7BK1CC20111221)

So , on the face of it , it looks like solar is a failure .
But , isn't that a petroleum company saying that ?

A few years ago solar panels were running at $15-20/watt .
I have recently seen panels coming out of China at $.48/watt .

No need for any alternative energy subsidy when the cost drops that far .

[anthonyvop]

So , on the face of it , it looks like solar is a failure .
But , isn't that a petroleum company saying that ?



No


It is a FOR PROFIT company saying that. If BP thought it could still make $$$ in Solar they wouldn't be abandoning it.

[BDunnell]

No

Er... no, the statement that 'it is a petroleum company saying that' is entirely factually accurate. You can't just answer 'No' to it. The rest of your statement I agree fully with, but for you to deny that BP is a petroleum company is sheer madness.

[Bagwan]

No


It is a FOR PROFIT company saying that. If BP thought it could still make $$$ in Solar they wouldn't be abandoning it.

It is a company that cannot compete with panels at $.48/watt .
It is a company that has invested millions to appear green , now abandoning the project , making green look like a bad thing because of it .

Pump that oil .

[anthonyvop]

Er... no, the statement that 'it is a petroleum company saying that' is entirely factually accurate. You can't just answer 'No' to it. The rest of your statement I agree fully with, but for you to deny that BP is a petroleum company is sheer madness.

BP exists for one thing and one thing only.

It isn't to drill for oil.
It isn't to sell oil.
It isn't to provide Jobs.
It isn't to sell solar Power.
It isn't to sell Wind Power.


BP exists to Make money. ergo BP is a For Profit Company before it is a petroleum company

[BDunnell]

BP exists for one thing and one thing only.

It isn't to drill for oil.
It isn't to sell oil.
It isn't to provide Jobs.
It isn't to sell solar Power.
It isn't to sell Wind Power.


BP exists to Make money. ergo BP is a For Profit Company before it is a petroleum company

So now you are arguing that BP is not, and should never be described as, a petroleum company?

[Dave B]

So now you are arguing that BP is not, and should never be described as, a petroleum company?
In fairness do see his point. BP's revenue does of course come from petrochemicals, but if tomorrow they suddenly discovered they could make more profit from renewables, or even making shoes, they'd add that to their business in a flash.

[BDunnell]

In fairness do see his point. BP's revenue does of course come from petrochemicals, but if tomorrow they suddenly discovered they could make more profit from renewables, or even making shoes, they'd add that to their business in a flash.

I agree, but, to me, saying that BP is not a petroleum company is like saying that Ford is not a car company. As I said, I have no doubt that profit is at the root of its withdrawal from the windpower sector.

One little gem to lighten the mood, courtesy of the late Clement Freud: 'Windpower is an anagram of 'downwiper', which is pretty interesting.'

[race aficionado]

I first heard about this on a "60 minutes" piece many years ago and it made perfect sense.

The Saudi Oil magnates are not dumb and are always looking for ways to continue the existence of their rich powerful empire. if Oil is eventually going to dry out, what's next for them to sell that the world needs?

Solar Power Comes to Saudi Arabia in a Big Way as Peak Oil Looms

Solar Power Comes to Saudi Arabia in a Big Way as Peak Oil Looms | Fast Company (http://www.fastcompany.com/1728619/saudi-arabia-looks-to-alternative-energy-as-peak-oil-looms-heavily)


"Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil exporter and it has to become the leading exporter of solar energy," said engineering student Ammar Madani. "Oil has good yields and the cost of production is low, but it is not a renewable source of energy."

[Bagwan]

BP exists for one thing and one thing only.

It isn't to drill for oil.
It isn't to sell oil.
It isn't to provide Jobs.
It isn't to sell solar Power.
It isn't to sell Wind Power.


BP exists to Make money. ergo BP is a For Profit Company before it is a petroleum company

The main business for British Petroleum is petroleum , unsurprisingly .
It is , therefore , also unsurprising , that such companies would use the green label for marketting in the face of environmental disaster , whilst using the opportunity to cast doubt on rival energy technology .

Big oil and gas put up big wind turbines that don't work to show the public they are the only way forward , as long as they can supply the back-up . Good scam , backed by green-faced governments .
Now we have them saying solar won't work , and it's a big surprise ?

The refineries keep pumping , and almost nobody is the wiser .

[anthonyvop]

So now you are arguing that BP is not, and should never be described as, a petroleum company?

No.

I am pointing out that the reason BP is dropping the Solar power division is because there is no money in it not because of some silly, conspiracy theory notion that they want discredit solar power sell more oil which people like Bagwan are suggesting.

[MrMetro]

The main business for British Petroleum is petroleum , unsurprisingly .


BP does not stand for British Petroleum, it legally changed its name to BP in 2001.

[Bagwan]

No.

I am pointing out that the reason BP is dropping the Solar power division is because there is no money in it not because of some silly, conspiracy theory notion that they want discredit solar power sell more oil which people like Bagwan are suggesting.

Calling it a "silly, conspiracy theory notion" does not make it so .

BP is right to drop the idea of making solar panels if it cannot compete with Asia .

But , simply dropping the idea , "because there is no money in it" doesn't quite tell the whole story , does it ?
Many companies , for better and for worse , have made the decision , rather than drop an idea because of the economics involved in local labour , to outsource the manufacture of thier designs , often in China .

Currently , BP panels can be had for just under $3.00/watt . I've seen others from Asia at $.48/watt .
Obviously , there's no money in solar power .

Whether it's wind turbines or photovoltaics , it's about making your own power .

Carefully crafted small wind incentive programs in the US have thrown a vicious curve into the industry .
Large Wind creates discord amongst locals , again seemingly carefully crafted to do so , whilst justifying necessary back-up with fossils .
Large Solar , run by large oil , says there's no money in it .

Small wind was given incentive to create new industry in the US , they said , and it sounded good on the surface .
It resulted in a lot of poorly tested turbines on the market , with heavily overstated power ratings , to take advantage of the program .
The consumer was not amused , and the industry was hurt badly .

One example was a company producing a turbine a friend of mine bought .
It's a great design , but was rushed to market with a fatal flaw .
The company took on an investor when the incentive program came in , and the investor pushed , and eventually insulted the original designers and , then the original owners out the door .

It went to market , made now in China , with the original design .
The seals fail within a year , and the inverter , sealed in the nacelle , gets immersed in water .
Inverters tend to disagree with this kind of treatment .

More testing would have seen this turbine as a huge advance , but not now for the US .

It's now , with the necessary improvements , being sold direct , and cheaper , from at least two other companies from China .

[ioan]

We should stop;

Food waste. All these BOGOF deals is a simple money spinner for the big chains, and results in shameful waste by the consumer. Also, we should all learn to visit our local butcher more often. Ask advice and purchase cheaper cuts. Keep bones to use to make stock etc. The less we waste, the less has to be transported to re-stock the shelves.

Recycle more. Food, clothing, heat, energy. It can all be recycled if the will is there.

Walk more. Uses less fossil fuels, has a health benefit and saves a shed load of money.

Insulate More. Whether this be wearing more layers so that the house needs less heating, or double glazing, or better loft insulation. Use cork wall tiles, or polystyrene lining paper on the walls. We'd use a heck of a lot less energy and again save a shed load of money.

Buy Efficient White Goods. A rated fidges, freezers cookers, dishwashers etc. Less anergy use means less energy production required.

Just a drop in the ocean of what ALL of us can and SHOULD do to lessen the use of fossil fuels.

Local wind power production, along with ground source heat pumps and photo-voltaic cells will all help to become that step closer to self sufficiency.

Grow your own veg - it's surprisingly easy and very satisfying.

Rainwater harvesting to water plants etc.

As a family, we are embracing a lot of the things above (the ones we can afford). A large chunk of the garden is used to grow veg. We've invested in replacement Double Glazing (and this has made a MASSIVE difference). I topped up loft insulation in the first six months after moving in - again made a very significant and noticeable differance.

Whilst this may be a little off-topic, all these things help to reduce energy consumtion.

Not really off topic, and great post! :up:
I can only wish everyone would be so efficient. The world would be a much better place to live, and we would have had snow this winter like it use to be many years ago.

[ioan]

Thought solar panels have to be facing a certain direction (N from memory) ...

Are you living in Oz by chance?!

[ioan]

No


It is a FOR PROFIT company saying that. If BP thought it could still make $$$ in Solar they wouldn't be abandoning it.

So if you can't make money out of it it's BAD?!

[anthonyvop]

So if you can't make money out of it it's BAD?!

For a FOR PROFIT COMPANY...YES..It is bad.
They have to answer to stock holders and if I was one I would be livid if they were wasting money on something that has been in development for decades and yet has neither been made cost effective nor will be in the future.

[Malbec]

For a FOR PROFIT COMPANY...YES..It is bad.
They have to answer to stock holders and if I was one I would be livid if they were wasting money on something that has been in development for decades and yet has neither been made cost effective nor will be in the future.

Funny that you mentioned BP specifically because I sat next to one of their execs at a dinner party a few years ago. She was involved in the friendly green BP rebranding campaign a few years ago, part of which included a rise in green tech investment. After a few drinks when she was describing her job she told me that the trick was to spend enough money on serious projects to convince the public and environmentalists that BP were serious about alternative energy sources without spending enough to come up with something truly viable that would threaten their core business. Food for thought.

[anthonyvop]

Funny that you mentioned BP specifically because I sat next to one of their execs at a dinner party a few years ago. She was involved in the friendly green BP rebranding campaign a few years ago, part of which included a rise in green tech investment. After a few drinks when she was describing her job she told me that the trick was to spend enough money on serious projects to convince the public and environmentalists that BP were serious about alternative energy sources without spending enough to come up with something truly viable that would threaten their core business. Food for thought.

Gotta love that unverifiable, anonymous, anecdotal evidence

Food for thought? Bacon Bits have more intellectual honesty than your story.

[Bagwan]

Gotta love that unverifiable, anonymous, anecdotal evidence

Food for thought? Bacon Bits have more intellectual honesty than your story.

Yeah , it's gotta be hogwash , since it backs up a silly conspiracy theory .
Do you have reason to believe that he is lying about the encounter ?

It should surprise nobody the lengths to which a company , or , indeed , an industry will go to scuttle a rival .

Thank-you , Malbec , for your first-hand account of your experience .

[Malbec]

Yeah , it's gotta be hogwash , since it backs up a silly conspiracy theory .
Do you have reason to believe that he is lying about the encounter ?

It should surprise nobody the lengths to which a company , or , indeed , an industry will go to scuttle a rival .

Thank-you , Malbec , for your first-hand account of your experience .

thanks bagwan for leaping to my defence but really there is no need, my social life is indeed unverifiable.

Anthony, you may wish to criticise her logic, something you didn't ask about.

Bp invested most of its green budget on cleaning up existing projects and taking environmental factors more seriously when considering future projects. This had implications in that bp might avoid or reduce fines and taxes that could be introduced on environmental factors such as carbon emissions.

bp had no interest in developing new means of producing electricity. Electricity production is a mature market with many well established competitors and new startups with different regulations and state subsidies in different markets. Entering this market was unlikely to lead to profit and therefore was ignored.

As for finding a replacement for petrol, it was felt that whatever system replaced it couldn't be predicted at the time (six years ago) and that the end result could not be influenced significantly by energy suppliers, car makers or governments. If the winner was electric power, bp would be doubly uncompetitive as existing electricity utilities would be I'm the driving seat. Hence why invest money in a field where that investment would be unlikely to bring bp an advantage?

[ioan]

Funny that you mentioned BP specifically because I sat next to one of their execs at a dinner party a few years ago. She was involved in the friendly green BP rebranding campaign a few years ago, part of which included a rise in green tech investment. After a few drinks when she was describing her job she told me that the trick was to spend enough money on serious projects to convince the public and environmentalists that BP were serious about alternative energy sources without spending enough to come up with something truly viable that would threaten their core business. Food for thought.

Too much food for too little thought! ;)

[ioan]

For a FOR PROFIT COMPANY...YES..It is bad.
They have to answer to stock holders and if I was one I would be livid if they were wasting money on something that has been in development for decades and yet has neither been made cost effective nor will be in the future.

The question was directed to you not to BP, then again the answer would have been the same, as you like Bolton Midnight and a few others have only one goal in life: MONEY, no mater the price we all have to pay for your need for money.

[Bagwan]

Now we have the Canadian Auto Workers union trying to put up a turbine close to me , so the "stop the turbines" signs all around again .

Curious that a whole fleet of the damned things were sent packing a few years ago , from the very same municipality .
And , now the CAW wants to erect one .

I'm in what's called "cottage country" around here , and when the tourists arrive , they see the shiny white wind turbines in the distance , and see nothing but green .
They grin in awe , until they meet us locals , who give them more of the story .

They have no idea how it affects us .
Nor do they have any idea about how far from being green they actually are .

Here , wind , itself , aids in showing the hypocracy .

The chain is as follows :
Gas company changes name to energy company , and lobbies government to support turbines .
Energy company puts up subsidized turbines .
Energy company takes carbon credits , and enables more gas sales .
Companies up wind burn it , and the wind patterns take it across the lake , to me .

My cottage country , with wind turbines in sight , had the air tested , and showed some of the worst toxin levels to be found in Ontario .


Without some sort of storage for the power , wind is not green at all .
If the entire statement of this fact was made , the public would understand , as it is not hard to fathom .

But , the statement goes without the caveat about storage , and the public is swayed towards the second half of the words , that "wind is not green at all" .


With this attempt at scuttling the wind and solar ships , we fall further behind .

On a recent trip to Shanghai , a friend of mine went on a high-speed train ride across the city to visit the factory that was making the electric tricycles he had ordered .
He saw , on every rooftop , a solar-thermal evacuated tube set-up , heating water .
Shanghai heats it's water for free .

But , we don't over here . We seem to prefer gas , oil , or electric hot water heaters .

Solar seems too radical for us .
$1,500 bought my solar thermal system , and from here on , I'll get my water heated to 180degrees by the sun , for free .

[airshifter]

Solar seems too radical for us .
$1,500 bought my solar thermal system , and from here on , I'll get my water heated to 180degrees by the sun , for free .

Bagwan,

Do you have any links to the systems you ended up using? I've looked into some of the water heating systems locally and they are crap on return for the money. Anything that might lead me in the right direction would be helpful and appreciated.

[Bagwan]

Bagwan,

Do you have any links to the systems you ended up using? I've looked into some of the water heating systems locally and they are crap on return for the money. Anything that might lead me in the right direction would be helpful and appreciated.

I sourced my evacuated tubes from , ironically , a local Mennonite guy , who doesn't have a phone .
When I recieve an e-mail , it's hand-written , and faxed to a computer , and then sent to me .

So , no link , but they should be easy to find .

I'll be backing my system on a propane water heater , and the tubes will be set heating a larger reservoir , pre-heating the water entering the conventional tank . I may use an old freezer for this .
If I have it set right , the propane should rarely flow , but the hot water should , freely .

The two choices are tube or plate collector .
The only real issue with which you need to deal comes up when you produce too much heat .
My house has a radiant floor , set with pipes into the floor , which will act as a heat sink in winter , and I will likely have to shutter it in summer if the heat goes too high .

Most of the guys installing these things recommend that you have a hot tub , just in case .

I had a couple of guys estimate me a system at $18,000.00 .
That's why I chose to do it myself .


Subscribe to Home Power magazine .


I'll try to get a few shots of a few aspects of both this and the photovoltaics on here soon .

[race aficionado]

That is a nice situation you have created for yourself Baggy.
Perfect sense, wonderful results. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bagwan]

That is a nice situation you have created for yourself Baggy.
Perfect sense, wonderful results. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks , Race .

I've just gotta get it finished now .
It's a lot of work building a house .

But then , with work being what you are doing if you're not having fun , I guess it isn't work at all .

[anthonyvop]

, as you like Bolton Midnight and a few others have only one goal in life: MONEY, no mater the price we all have to pay for your need for money.

As long as one doesn't violate the rights of others then yes, Money is high on the list of priorities.
As long as BP doesn't violate your rights then you have no standing to tell them how they make or spend money.

[BDunnell]

As long as one doesn't violate the rights of others then yes, Money is high on the list of priorities.
As long as BP doesn't violate your rights then you have no standing to tell them how they make or spend money.

Why do you categorise money in this God-like way, immune from all criticism except under special circumstances?

[anthonyvop]

Why do you categorise money in this God-like way, immune from all criticism except under special circumstances?

God-Like? No Freedom is God-Like. When it comes right down to it freedom is all that matters. You want to live on a commune in a house made out of old soda bottles and tires with power from solar cells and wind generators go ahead. Just don't think for a minute you have a right to demand that I subsidize it.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I do like how BP changed it's logo about a decade ago form being a shield - which is very powerful and manly and 80's- to being a flower. This makes us think that a huge multinational oil corporation is like a flower :)

[schmenke]

BP is not a utility company. It is a petroleum exploration and development company. Petroleum is a commodity that can be produced and sold, hence providing a profit stream.
Wind and solar are not marketable commodities, hence no profit to be made, which is why most petroleum producers invest little in this industry (despite what their logo may resemble).

[Bagwan]

BP is not a utility company. It is a petroleum exploration and development company. Petroleum is a commodity that can be produced and sold, hence providing a profit stream.
Wind and solar are not marketable commodities, hence no profit to be made, which is why most petroleum producers invest little in this industry (despite what their logo may resemble).

I agree with the gist of what you say , Schmenke , but it's more complicated than that .

In BP's case , they used solar power as a very effective marketting tool , to distract the public from spilly problems .
Then , when they couldn't compete with off-shore , cast the panels in the role of the bad guy , economically not viable .

In Enbridge's case , they create a need for natural gas , simply by putting up turbines .

And both inspire much heated debate , distracting us all from the real issue , that these people are working against us , in the sense that they are actively moving to keep us from replacing them with clean energy .

You cannot fault an industry for trying to sustain itself .
However , if that self interest is detrimental to the entire planet , one must question the ethics of the decision to do so .

[ioan]

I agree with the gist of what you say , Schmenke , but it's more complicated than that .

In BP's case , they used solar power as a very effective marketting tool , to distract the public from spilly problems .
Then , when they couldn't compete with off-shore , cast the panels in the role of the bad guy , economically not viable .

In Enbridge's case , they create a need for natural gas , simply by putting up turbines .

And both inspire much heated debate , distracting us all from the real issue , that these people are working against us , in the sense that they are actively moving to keep us from replacing them with clean energy .

You cannot fault an industry for trying to sustain itself .
However , if that self interest is detrimental to the entire planet , one must question the ethics of the decision to do so .

:up:

[BDunnell]

I agree with the gist of what you say , Schmenke , but it's more complicated than that .

In BP's case , they used solar power as a very effective marketting tool , to distract the public from spilly problems .
Then , when they couldn't compete with off-shore , cast the panels in the role of the bad guy , economically not viable .

In Enbridge's case , they create a need for natural gas , simply by putting up turbines .

And both inspire much heated debate , distracting us all from the real issue , that these people are working against us , in the sense that they are actively moving to keep us from replacing them with clean energy .

You cannot fault an industry for trying to sustain itself .
However , if that self interest is detrimental to the entire planet , one must question the ethics of the decision to do so .

And, in the process, going against the principles of a truly free market that some so fiercely espouse.

[airshifter]

And, in the process, going against the principles of a truly free market that some so fiercely espouse.

I don't think that this has any effect on free market efforts of any other company. It's not uncommon for companies to look into other sectors then bail out. They will by nature stick to the areas where they generate the higher profits. But that is not to say any company that outperforms them in regards to alternative sources couldn't take away from their markets.

[Bagwan]

The industry is large enough to purposely fail at alternative technologies , so that it can boost it's own .

While this doesn't directly interfere with a free market , it does introduce fundamental lies that the public take as facts .

"Yes , we at BP have given it our all to try and work with this new "wheel" discovery , but , look what happens when you push it sideways . It just falls over . It'll never work ."
"And , here we were , thinking that it was going to be the best thing since our diesel bread slicer ."

And the public thinks , "They spent all that money , and that damned wheel thing just fell over . I need some smelly toast ."

[SGWilko]

The industry is large enough to purposely fail at alternative technologies , so that it can boost it's own .

While this doesn't directly interfere with a free market , it does introduce fundamental lies that the public take as facts .

"Yes , we at BP have given it our all to try and work with this new "wheel" discovery , but , look what happens when you push it sideways . It just falls over . It'll never work ."
"And , here we were , thinking that it was going to be the best thing since our diesel bread slicer ."

And the public thinks , "They spent all that money , and that damned wheel thing just fell over . I need some smelly toast ."

Their ramjet sanwich toaster is nice though... ;)

[Bagwan]

God-Like? No Freedom is God-Like. When it comes right down to it freedom is all that matters. You want to live on a commune in a house made out of old soda bottles and tires with power from solar cells and wind generators go ahead. Just don't think for a minute you have a right to demand that I subsidize it.

It sounds like you're insulted that I should not want to subsidize your life , by staying on the grid .

Incidentally , no tires or old soda bottles were used in building my house .

There is no government incentive involved either .

And , as far as I am aware , no communists were involved in the construction .


The cost of your power , and the drop in price of solar cells made my decision easy .
The money I will save , not paying you for power , will not leave my pocket , so , in a way , you have subsidized it .

That's freedom , sunshine .
Sunshine is free .

[chuck34]

The industry is large enough to purposely fail at alternative technologies , so that it can boost it's own .

While this doesn't directly interfere with a free market , it does introduce fundamental lies that the public take as facts .

"Yes , we at BP have given it our all to try and work with this new "wheel" discovery , but , look what happens when you push it sideways . It just falls over . It'll never work ."
"And , here we were , thinking that it was going to be the best thing since our diesel bread slicer ."

And the public thinks , "They spent all that money , and that damned wheel thing just fell over . I need some smelly toast ."

I bet very similar statements were made by buggy manufacturers about the automobile, oil lamp manufacturers about the electric light, passenger train people about air travel. People aren't as stupid as you seem to want to give them "credit" for. The market will find the right solution. Maybe not as fast as some would like, but we get there eventually. Look at you, you did your own research and found out that living "off the grid" is more economical for you. If that is truely the right direction others will follow, and eventually companies like BP, Exxon-Mobil, etc. will either have to adjust their business or go out of business. That's the way the system works.

[chuck34]

There is no government incentive involved either .


and the drop in price of solar cells made my decision easy .

Are you sure those two statements aren't in direct conflict with one another?

[Bagwan]

I bet very similar statements were made by buggy manufacturers about the automobile, oil lamp manufacturers about the electric light, passenger train people about air travel. People aren't as stupid as you seem to want to give them "credit" for. The market will find the right solution. Maybe not as fast as some would like, but we get there eventually. Look at you, you did your own research and found out that living "off the grid" is more economical for you. If that is truely the right direction others will follow, and eventually companies like BP, Exxon-Mobil, etc. will either have to adjust their business or go out of business. That's the way the system works.

Stupid is not the word that is applicable for the public .
Although , sometimes it's hard to think otherwise , when , for example , a person walks up to my coffee shop door having been exposed to five signs saying "closed" , seeing no lights inside , and still pulls the handle to see if we're open .

People are ignorant , in regards to renewable energy .

Stupid is terminal .
Ignorance can be treated .

The big power propagandists will do everything to keep you on the teat .

[Bagwan]

Are you sure those two statements aren't in direct conflict with one another?

Do tell , Chuck .
The price of off-shore panels made the biggest difference , as far as I know .
I paid taxes on all the purchases , and got no incentives from the government , as there are none available for either new or off-grid applications .

So , where is this conflict to which you allude ?

[chuck34]

Do tell , Chuck .
The price of off-shore panels made the biggest difference , as far as I know .
I paid taxes on all the purchases , and got no incentives from the government , as there are none available for either new or off-grid applications .

So , where is this conflict to which you allude ?

By off-shore panels I am assuming that you are refering to those made in other countires such as China? Do you think the government of China has no support program for it's solar panel manufacturers? Or for that matter the Canadian, US, or any other government? The big thing right now is for governments to support "green" tech. Therefore I would wager (a small wager to be sure) that there are no solar panel manufacturers that are not recieving some form of government incentives.

So yes, you personally probably did not directly recieve any government incentive. But the fact that the manufacturer did, allowing them to sell their panels at an artificially lower cost, for you to receive the benefit of said lower price, means that you did indirectly recieve a government incentive.

[schmenke]

... The big thing right now is for governments to support "green" tech. ....

It is?

[Bagwan]

By off-shore panels I am assuming that you are refering to those made in other countires such as China? Do you think the government of China has no support program for it's solar panel manufacturers? Or for that matter the Canadian, US, or any other government? The big thing right now is for governments to support "green" tech. Therefore I would wager (a small wager to be sure) that there are no solar panel manufacturers that are not recieving some form of government incentives.

So yes, you personally probably did not directly recieve any government incentive. But the fact that the manufacturer did, allowing them to sell their panels at an artificially lower cost, for you to receive the benefit of said lower price, means that you did indirectly recieve a government incentive.

You'd win that bet , sort of .

The Chinese government , in 2009 , started the "golden sun incentive program" , giving money to solar projects , both on-grid and off .
My understanding of it is that the money went to the projects themselves , not the manufacturers .
They were left to compete .

Given that there are over a million households without electrical service in the country , they looked for ways to power them for the least amount of money , and chose renewables .

My panels are American-made Sharps , and the price was , I'm assuming , greatly affected by this program .

The Chinese now produce about a third of the world's panels , effectively making solar affordable to the average me .

[Bagwan]

It is?

In China's case , yes .
In the case of others , the big thing is to appear that way , whilst catering to big power .

[ioan]

That's freedom , sunshine .
Sunshine is free .

For now!

[race aficionado]

For now!

There is a futuristic movie script right there! A scary one too.

[ioan]

There is a futuristic movie script right there! A scary one too.

How long before bottled air?! Depends how long the lunatics will be allowed to continue destroying the Earth.

[Bagwan]

There is a futuristic movie script right there! A scary one too.

There's an episode of The Simpsons , where Mr. Burns casts a shadow across Springfield .

It was scary .

Essentially , Race , they would do it if they could .

[schmenke]

...
In the case of others , the big thing is to appear that way , whilst catering to big power .

I question if the government of Canada’s strategy is to provide any realistic "green" incentives.
Providing incentives for manufacture of “green” technology conflicts with the recent marketing of the abundant resources in our “oil patch” :mark:

Burn baby, burn!

[Bagwan]

I question if the government of Canada’s strategy is to provide any realistic "green" incentives.
Providing incentives for manufacture of “green” technology conflicts with the recent marketing of the abundant resources in our “oil patch” :mark:

Burn baby, burn!

It is only appearing green that matters .

[ioan]

There's an episode of The Simpsons , where Mr. Burns casts a shadow across Springfield .

It was scary .

Essentially , Race , they would do it if they could .

They could do it by introducing a fixed tax for it. Might happen sometime in the future when the governments will need a new tax to level out the budget! ;)