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 :-)
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.