Now why does tha noty surprise me?
I have never bought a round of drinks in an edinbrugh pub, Complete waste of money.
But as we know, you don't count.
Why not work out how much CO2, is emitted,water and energy used, and good food wasted, by malting barley and brewing a pint..
Which is probably enough or three years of conventional ho tw ter heated by and existing installation.,
...
How do you estimate the above for a 'conventional' modern system?
Or an older system?
All installations have costs.
Mary
List all the cost variables associated with the economic, political, social and environmental aspects of production and consumption. You can do this with any system installed at any time, although the data may be more difficult to estimate if you're looking at older systems.
Two key problems usually arise. One is the notion that costs for some people are benefits for others. You can do a bit of 'cancelling out', but this leads to the second problem. Not all aspects of production and consumption (making and using) can be quantified. For example, solar heating has certain tangible environmental dimensions that can't be measured, and there's also the "smug-self-satisfied-my-conscience-is-clear'' aspect - priceless :-)
It does seem to me that the eco-homes thing is driven by payback in pounds. This misses at least two points. Firstly, some of the benefits in particular are discounted because they can't be measured with numbers. Secondly, it appears to me that people/industry are concerned with at the very least maintaining current levels of consumption. Daft.
I do understand that people like the Natural Philosopher only have one life, and such consideration is meaningless in that context. Just thought I'd mention it though :-)
Rob
Ah - ha - spotted you! You are Drivel in disguise ! Only he uses phrases like 'You don't count'.so I can now add you to my kill file and ignore all the trash you produce.
In message , Sunny writes
Do you have evidence to back up the claim that it "adds property value" ?
The usual one is they fit a windmill or solar panels so they can justify their 4x4 as they have saved the pollution caused by their other excesses. Net saving zero or a huge deficit.
You are talking about Dynamo Hansen I presume ?
He admitted it himself up there ^ .
DG
Mary,
Still a rather expensive waste of time though installing these things (along with windmills stuck on the roof or huge windfarms in the countryside) - and you still have to rely on nuclear/coal/gas/oil fired power stations to maintain a reliable and constant supply of electricity. Try powering a factory with wind or solar power and see what happens!
BRG
Ah, but I use it in a much more SUBTLE way than drivel.
Indeed the humour was so dry, it appears to have passed right by your wet behind ears..;-)
double entendre
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 21:44:09 -0000 someone who may be "BRG" wrote this:-
Ah,proof by assertion.
The idea that any source of electricity generation is reliable is mildly amusing. For example a little over a year ago one of the largest coal fired plants in Europe had to be shut down suddenly after a conveyor belt fell down.
One of the reasons for connecting local electricity systems together from say the 1930s was to allow excess standby plant to be shut down while increasing overall reliability. Any connected source of electricity feeds into this common system. Ignoring this simple fact leads one to make foolish statements and come up with ridiculous costs, as the Royal Academy of Engineering have demonstrated.
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:11:50 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-
Indeed.
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:14:51 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-
Excellent, personal abuse. Do keep it up.
We don't think so.
Aye, well there's the rub. Folk want constant power but not what they consider to be unsightly sources.
It used to be done stisfactory with water power.
Why not try doing without most of the things the factories produce?
Mary
I haven't come across that, what I have come across is the opinion (with no proof) that alternative power supplies are worthless.
Yes, and that's a pity.
Worse than daft. It's irresponsible.
Mary
Evidence?
We haven't a 4 x 4 - we have a scooter. Its battery is topped up by a pv panel.
What's your vehicle?
Mary
Faintly OT, but ...
Quelle suprise.
The message from David Hansen contains these words:
No more so that the stuff you rely on.
And not so long ago two turbines self destructed. The conveyer belt was no doubt quickly repaired. Not so the turbines.
Take a conventional generator out of service for a whole month in a year and you would still have a load factor in excess of 90% if the demand was there. With wind turbines the system allows for the demand always to be there but the average load factor was under 30% last time I looked with some turbines under 20%. Relying on wind for more than a small proportion of total capacity is a recipe for disaster. Even the proponents of wind power were saying until recently that 20% was the practical limit and even for that you need an installed capacity of circa two thirds of total demand.
If you think that shutting down power plants because of lack of demand or even for routine maintenance or repair is on a par with the weather shutting down wind turbines either because of oversupply or under supply of wind you really do deserve your reputation for not thinking things through.
It shouldn't need it.
Whatever happened to your "Large car", a "Capacious" Renault Laguna wasn't it ?
An Eco 2 / ISO 14,001 compliant people mover.
DG
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:14:59 GMT someone who may be Roger wrote this:-
Even if the two turbines had a rated capacity of 2MW that left rather less of a hole in the electricity supply than the failure of IIRC a 2400MW coal fired station.
It is over 8% in Scotland now.
Incorrect. What people have said is that, at the costs of the time the reports were done, accommodating more than around 20% was possible, but the costs of doing so would make it uneconomic.
Section 3.5
"It should now be clear that accommodating significant amounts of wind capacity on the electricity system is not likely to pose any major operational challenges, and this view has been confirmed by the GB system operator, National Grid Company. It is also the conclusion of a comprehensive report on this issue commissioned by the Carbon Trust and DTI25. At higher wind penetrations, the capacity value of wind is indeed reduced, and this does lead to additional balancing requirements. However, this represents a cost rather than a barrier, as additional reserve requirements will lead to an increase in systems costs ? this is explained further in Chapter 4."
Excellent, personal abuse.
In fact all power plants shut down or are shut down from time to time due to sudden unexpected failures, either of the plant itself or the connection from the plant to the rest of the system. Cracks in nuclear stations and broken coal conveyors for example. Before say the 1930s it was typical of councils/electricity companies to maintain capacity at least double the maximum demand, to cover sudden failures. By linking the stations together it was possible to pension off some elderly capacity, without affecting the loss of load probability.
There was a similar programme in the (Scottish) Highlands later on to link the formerly islanded electricity systems. For example the Kyle of Lochalsh was fed exclusively from a station at Morar. In this case it allowed a higher level of supply to be provided while maintaining the same reliability. It also allowed greater flexibility for maintenance.
Those who wish to inform themselves on this subject before launching into statements on it would do well to first study and understand the report which can be downloaded from
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:01:33 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" wrote this:-
Mackies and Michelin get at least some of the electricity for their production from the wind
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.