Wind Power (OT)

Is your local council playing around with schemes to install wind turbines to provide power for some pet project?
Isn't it more efficient to install large wind turbine installations in ideal sites and then to use the National Grid to distribute the power than to have many 'less than ideal' installations merely doing a bit of off-setting of consumption in a few buildings?
(We did away with local Electricity Generating Stations and Gas Works years ago when we developed the grid systems.)
Any expert views?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

turbines
in ideal

to have

off-setting of

Works years

No no no, you miss the point. The objective is to be seen to be doing something rather than actually do something. This is politics not technology, no point in putting them in remote locations where the mass of voters won't see them <G>
AWEM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is just what I was thinking.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Um - the "4WD" tax is just a high CO2 band VED. And only applies to recent stuff. Ie if you're running a 15 yo one, nothing has changed.
And if less than 2 quid a week will cripple you financially, than I suggest it's more than the extra VED which needs looking at...
clive
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Clive George wrote:

well excise duty went up on my cars no matter how old they were.

Car expenses are - after heating - the single biggest item on my budget.
Living green means not using fuel wherever you can..the cars don;t run that much, but when they do, they need to be 4WD largely.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

For pre-2001 one ones, 170 to 175 quid, a 3% raise? That's pretty much an inflation increase - that doesn't seem unreasonable at all.
That's 10p per week raise for your "4WD" tax on a 15 year old vehicle. (Which I pay as well for 2WD.)

I think ours is more like heating < car < food.

But the tax isn't on 4WD. And the new band G for the guzzlers only applies to cars new since March 2006 - and you said yourself anybody running one that new can afford it.
For running round a farm, wouldn't a pre-73 landie be most appropriate? No VED then at all..
clive
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
message

This is the problem with these projects. As someone above posted it's just appearing to do something. We should not be using wind generators, we should be using less electricity. We should not be recycling, we should be buying less things that need recycling etc. etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

town brand

it will

to recent

I suggest

it's
Case in point:- We now have three dust carts collecting our rubbish gobbling up diesel. One for household waste, one for glass & tins, and one for paper. All the waste has to be in plastic bags so how green is that? All the bottles and cans have to be washed in warm water - how green is that?
Think of the eco cost of junk mail: Tree -> paper = energy. Paper -> printing = energy. Sorting & delivery = energy. Collecting the waste paper = energy. All for something you don't want !!!!! If the government was really serious about the green issue, junk mail would be illegal by now.
AWEM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
nafuk wrote:
message

Absolutely.
Tax fuel, tax new articles. To the hilt.
Discard income tax.
Lifestyles will just *change*.
Taxation, not legislation.
And direct taxation of the input you are trying to control, not some arbitrary derivative of it.
If the same fuel duties were applied to aviation, industrial and domestic fuels as are applied to road fuels, and indirectly to nuclear fuels, suddenly banks would be rushing to fund wind farms and nuclear power stations, people would be falling over themselves to insulate their houses and switch to LCD monitors and TVs....and getting bank loans on the basis of straight cost benefit analysis.
Councils would discover that turning off street lighting after 2am saved them enough for a million minority interest workshops
etc. etc.
AND if you then say that it will mean that imports from countries that don't do this will be cheaper, well tax the bloody imports then. And eliminate income tax. That will knock the relative cost of local labour down a lot.
If the cost of imported steel then exceeds the cost of taking a scrap car and recycling it, you won't see a single old banger on the streets..be worth more as scrap!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:31:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

negative taxation in their case since it's you & I who get to pay for disposing of their radioactive waste
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Stumbles wrote:

Actually not. THEY pay. They pay a huge amount into a decomissioning pot..
WE pay for tey damage done by C02 emissions, which are NOT taxed.
Imagine if every gas power station had to incorporate the cost of taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere again once it was finished with..or never letting it out in the first place.
Thats the point. Nuclear power is penalised because its perceived ass having an expensive waste disposal problem, whereas fossil fuel plants get away scot free.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:15:05 +0000 someone who may be The Natural

Incorrect.
The financing model for the NDA was essentially based on Windscale making money. Even under that model you and I were to pay a lot of money as well, but given the failure of Windscale you and I are paying even more to clear up the mess.
The "private" nuclear electricity generators were once again bailed out by you and I a few years ago.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2007-03-21 07:40:00 +0000, David Hansen

The argument is specious.
If one takes the goal as a reduction of CO2 emissions from human causes, enough of a debate in itself then one way or another it's going to cost a lot of money, whether it is in this form or throughthe impact on competitiveness of economy through other means.
The argument about who pays is also specious, because that really only has a time factor in it. Sooner or later, costs filter through to wherever they will naturally go in the same way that water runs down hill.
Given all of that, it is far better to take a broad view of the whole thing and invest in nuclear generation now, simply because of its low and demonstrable CO2 emission in comparison with the burning of fossil fuel.
In this sense, energy saving in the long game can only be regarded as a short term palliative to reduce CO2 emissions (or rather the rate of increase) while new nuclear capacity is brought into service. As economies grow, so does the demand for energy - one only has to look at India and China to figure that one out.
Nobody is seriously going to take the decision to throw economic growth into reverse and scale down industry, so in the broadest sense, demand for energy will increase.
Instead of titting around with whether or not Windscale is an economic success, and wasting time on fringe technologies like windmills which realistically don't have much chance of making any meaningful impact on the energy requirements of world economies, we should be encouraging India and China to build nuclear generation rather than a new coal fired power station every week and replacing our fossil fuel generating capacity as the French have done.
Then perhaps we;ll find out whether mankinds additions to CO2 emission are actually having any impact on climate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:31:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Not unless they renegotiated the terms of the unmetered supply that street lighting uses...
--
Cheers snipped-for-privacy@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is this true? Who pays for the supply? Do we pay for this via our Council Taxes, or through our Electricity Bills?
--

Brian



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They agree how many lights are installed and which type they are and pay accordingly. This is why broken lights need fixing as the council is paying for the electric even though they are not working. (Part of the adoption process on new developments)
Lamp Posts are usually tapped into a convenient source - not metered.
I guess with the advent of photocells there is one master cell that keeps track of the number of "switched on hours" and then multiply this by the number of lamps and their wattages.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hmm; thanks! it makes sense of something that occured near me .... I observed a 'kerfuffle' in the street where a gang had dug-up a huge trench exposing a n-ginormous cables leading into and out of a buried box. The trench was fenced off with plastic fencing and warning triangles in the road. Over the next few days a bunch of helmeted hi-vis tabarded folks were observed looking into the pit, measuring things etc. etc.; after the elapse of a further bunch of days a truck delivered a big box (plastic) complete with lengths of cables protuding from both ends .... (on Thursday the ... man came) , several days elapsed before some workers came - and I asked them 'what you're doing?- they told me they were about to splice the junction box into the electricty supply cables. When I asked if my supply would be distrupted they told me 'No. we've spliced into the street lighting - indicating, with a jerk of the head, the illuminated street lamps and we'll do this 'live' " I responded ' You're a braver man than me ... I hope you've got rubbergloves " He responded "Bloody thick rubber gloves!". Anyway with the junction box by-passed by the street lighting supply, the old box was isolated and extracted the new box inserted and its tails spliced onto the existing cables. Apparently there's a rolling programme of replacing such junction boxes and each one has to be dug-up and inspected before its replacement can be defined. 'The whole exercise lasted for weeks - albeit there was activity, on-site, for perhaps twenty hours.

So we are being charged for the lamps staying illuminated all day because some seagull has crapped on the photocell? Where's my Councillor?
--

Brian



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most utility cable jointing is done live. They also often work on the high voltage overhead lines live too. Pretty dangerous job from both a shock and blast-injury perspective. The "bloody thick" rubber gloves comment was probably because the things are so thick it's pretty hard to work in them.
--
Clive Mitchell
http://www.bigclive.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No in such cases it would be the electricity board that would be losing out.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

At a guess it'll be like economy 7 - power stations keep running all night because it's not a quick or easy thing to turn them off, so the electricity would otherwise be going to waste, so it might as well be used for street lighting.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.