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?
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>
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...
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.
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..
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:15:05 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
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
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.