I?m not wriggling. It?s not MY plan. I?ve never said anything about a fully renewable power future as I can?t see it working yet.
Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels seems a laudable goal. Where applicable it seems like a good idea to use renewables.
And I don?t disagree with that.
Tim
From a renewables marketing point of view though, that bit is brilliant.
It will allow a huge swathe on non questioning folks to assume that those few panels are all that you need to power the entire charging station and its batteries!
Does that 80 years include the re-manufacturing of the ones that wear out during the time it takes to built it in the first place?
(and is that 5 days of current grid consumption, or 5 days with all road transport and domestic space heating added in?)
No, that's just current grid consumption.
Well it is not applicable *anywhere*. Except somewhere with a lot of hydro and not enough rain but some wind. New Zealand perhaps.
That's the point.
And how much does it really reduce our dependence on fossil fuel? Germany emits more CO2 per country, per capita and Per MWh generated than any other EU nation. Its electricity is three times the price of the cheapest nation, and it has the most 'renewable' energy generation.
Let me put it simply, 'renewable' energy does not actually reduce the overall emissions of carbon dioxide, and it doesn't even reduce the amount of fossil fuel used. By the time you have built all the other bits you need to make it work reliably you have negated any gains there night have been. Germany would have done far better to keep its nukes and burn Russian gas.
What Exxon knew was not only that man made climate change was bunk - they have tame geologists and the geologic record gives the lie to CAGW
- but that renewable energy would *increase* their profits by driving up energy prices overall, whilst oil and gas consumption stayed flat.
Its not *a* solution, Its the *only* long term solution with no real cost increase we have that actually works.
But they are the only people who seem to have the ability to get up at 5AM and get to a construction site at 07:30 without throwing sickies or duvet-days.
Or let Covid-19, Covid-20, Covid-21 and Covid-22 impose Darwinism and those that are left will generate far less pollution anyway (numbers) and the problem of "climate emergency" will just evaporate.
They're going to have to massively improve thermal building regs standards, and hopefully enforce them properly too, something that doesn't seem to happen at the moment (unless the local authority are doing the building control).
That would be for new build, I assume. So what happens with all teh existing stock?
Two points. (i) The building regulations are already so severe that the primary cause of loss of heat from a new build is ventilation. I did this calculation on my own house back when I built it in 2000-2001
Without heat recovery ventilations the specs on air changes per hour accounted for the majority of the heat loss.
Even with HRV, its a moot point as to how much heat loss mandatory ventilation imposes on new builds. We have picked the low hanging fruit.
(ii) the regulations with respect to old houses are crap. The letter of the regulations insist that if you start putting in insulation it *must* be to latest standards. There is no halfway house, so that e.g. it is not legal to take a solid brick wall house and line it with 20mm of celotex faced with plasterboard. Its 60mm or whatever is the standard or NOTHING.
So old stock will either be condemned, reduced in practicality or left as is and have heat poured into it.
Its an area the law needs to change
Anyway the main conclusions is that we have picked the low hanging fruit of insulation and what's left are tricky properties and that's it. What can be done mostly has been done.
unfortunately those 2 are fools' goals. You only find that out by doing the maths.
NT
Tricky, but not impossible, depending on the properties age, location and construction. One thing they could do is make it a legal requirement for every property sold at auction to inform the LA to make sure whatever renovation work done, meets thermal building regs.
All they then need to do is educate roofers that slapping some insulation on *top* of the deck of a flat roof that is being re-felted, when the roof was built as a 'cold' roof, and still has cross ventilation *under* the insulated deck is a total waste of time.
In fact even the energy saving trust had this daft example on their website.
You probably need a new calculator then.
The primary loss of heat from a new build by a national chain using NHBC or whatever for building conrol, is the complete lack of adherence to the thermal regs when it suits them.
At some time in the future, we will run out of fossil fuels as we know them. So best to wait until then?
Goof Tory thinking. Never do anything until too late.
There's at least 200 years worth of coal under Yorkshire alone.
Bill
But we have to open the door to come in and out, and we have to have ventilation. At night with doors and windows closed this house loses very little heat. During the day it loses far more, especially if people and dogs are coming and going.
Bill
What makes you think that independent approved inspectors are less thorough than local authority inspectors?
We froze here first winter after moving in. Turned out all the double-glazed windows weren't sealed properly. Cue new DG throughout. Combined with a lot more attic insulation, that's helped a lot. But there's a fairly recent (15 years ago) new 2nd story on one side of the property. Due to foundation limitations, that was built as stud work with hanging tiles on the north-facing wall. Any winter wind on that part and it's very chilly; air is getting in somewhere and without untiling that north-facing wall and examining
*why* air gets in, not a lot can be done. then there's the 1930's wooden floors downstairs. I'm buggered if I'm lifting those to put in under-floor insulation, even though it's needed.
Is that 200 years worth that could be mined? Are any of the pits on care an maintenace or have they been abandoned and the pumps switched off? Reopening an abandoned mine can be interesting reopening a flooded one nigh on impossible. Digging new pits and keeping a "safe distance" from abandoned/flood workings would mean coal having to be left.
The alternative thinking seems to be totally relying on solar or wind in the next 30 years (maybe 10 if the green lobby get their way) and totally cutting off the current alternatives.
There appears to be no plan B if the power for air sourced heat pumps for domestic heating, electric cars and the demands of whole of the UK industry cannot be met from wind and solar, especially when the wind doesn't shine and the sun doesn't blow.
There is a large risk that there will not be UK alternatives in 10 to 30 year's time because all incentives to exploit reserves of traditional fuel and the investment in traditional power generation are currently being actively discouraged.
How long has it it been in the planing and the completed building of replacement Nuclear?
While its laudable to consider "green" energy for some of our current demands and for when alternatives get scare the policy putting all the eggs in one basket seems to be a very short sighted.
When I see any green energy figures reported it's always quoting peak performance or the performance of, say, heat pumps in the most favourable operating conditions rather than real world figures that may occur in a UK winter when the need for (domestic) energy is at its highest.
And how green is green if most of the current technology is being produced in the far east where the burning of more low grade coal is used in order to provide the energy for the ongoing production demand?
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.