Wind turbines

Cardew

Mankysteve wrote: »

Non Fits Pv can still payback within 25 years. Most people who install Pv are not after the money.

The latter statement cannot be proven, but IMO you are completely mistaken - the money(FIT) is overwhelmingly the main incentive.

"Not FITs PV can pay back in 25 years"? - No way!!!(IMO)

Let us assume you get a very cheap 4kWp system for £12,000.

Even in these days of low interest rates you can get 5% interest(4% after tax) so you are giving up £480 a year(initially) interest; and that is compounded.

So can you please state your assumptions that pay back the £12,000 in 25 years without FITs

celerity

Cardew wrote: »

"Not FITs PV can pay back in 25 years"? - No way!!!(IMO)

Completely agree for domestic users, the numbers don't even come close to stacking up.

For some businesses I'd be willing to believe it is just about possible from electricity savings alone though. Especially when you factor in that the panels would be an expensable cost against tax, and you could possibly get a decent installation cost per watt if you had a larger array installed (remove the FiT and you also remove the artificial 4kWp cap*)

Cardew wrote: »

the money(FIT) is overwhelmingly the main incentive.

Splitting hairs, I would dispute the wording of this statement. I would say that for many people, the money is what makes the prospect possible, rather than being the driving incentive.

Speaking for myself for example, I've always wanted solar panels and a wind turbine. The FiT has made the solar panels a reality, but if I wasn't interested in the environmental angle, would I really have sunk a sizeable amount of cash into something that won't see any return for 10-12 years? (and has the risk that a future government will shaft me royally by reneging on the FiT scheme?). Honestly, I don't think I would have.

Also, to get back on topic , I have for the time being not been tempted in an expensive 5m+ mast mounted wind turbine, even with the FiT. I have a potentially suitable site too - but the technology on that scale just isn't proven to my liking, for afore-mentioned reasons.

/\dam

* OK, I know it's not a cap, but you get my point!

PeterZ_2

grahamc2003 wrote: »

You'll be telling us next that there hasn't, until recently, been a very successful and vociforous campaign against Nuclear power for decades, once the devastating effects of that campaign become clear in a few years.

Much like devastating effects of your vociforous campaign against renewables?

Most people I know who are concerned about the environment support both nuclear and renewables. Nuclear aside from the cost, safety and waste issues provides low carbon energy for us.

The campaign against nuclear had pretty much died out in recent years, although the tragic events in Japan have now caused a backlash against nuclear.

Japan have now scrapped their plans to expand nuclear and are going for renewables instead:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/10/japan-nuclear-renewables

Vestas the wind turbine manufacturer looking to create 2000 new jobs in the UK:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/11/vestas-jobs-energy-policy

This is exactly what we need, an increase in UK manufacturing. Maybe we could build and sell some turbines to Japan? Hows that for turning things around, the Uk exporting to Japan!

PeterZ_2

celerity wrote: »

Ok, but that's a hydro storage facility - a casual reader of the thread would be forgiven for thinking you were talking about a wind farm

I see your point though I think. You're saying that excess wind energy could be sent to somewhere like Dinorwig to store the energy?

/\

Other solutions are already being progressed as well as pumped storage:

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/11/26/uks-biggest-battery-destined-for-isles-as-part-of-sse-scheme-to-improve-local-grid

"Shetland is set to get the UK’s biggest battery as part of Scottish and Southern Energy’s radical plans to improve the local electricity grid and take more power from windfarms."

The solutions do exist and we have the technical capability to put them in place.

PeterZ_2

This is an interesting read, look at where Japan and Germany are heading, two countries who have an excellent base of technical and engineering knowledge:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/may/11/nuclear-renewables-japan-germany

"
If the third and fourth biggest economies in the world believe they can cut their carbon emissions and keep the lights on without building nuclear power stations, then why can't the sixth? That's the question I am asking after Japan (3rd) yesterday followed Germany (4th) in
abandoning their plans for a new generation of nuclear reactors in the aftermath of the catastrophe at Fukushima. In contrast, the UK (6th) remains committed to building a new fleet of reactors.
The question may soon become even more stark if a referendum in Italy (7th) next month also cancels their future nuclear programme."

celerity

PeterZ wrote: »

In contrast, the UK (6th) remains committed to building a new fleet of reactors.

Is this painting the National Grid's plans in a fair light though?
Take a look at this page, http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Operating+in+2020/ and in particular, this PDF: Initial Consultation: Operating the Electricity Transmission Networks in 2020

If it is a genuine proposal, I for one think it looks quite promising.

/\dam

PeterZ_2

celerity wrote: »

Is this painting the National Grid's plans in a fair light though?
Take a look at this page, http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Operating+in+2020/ and in particular, this PDF: Initial Consultation: Operating the Electricity Transmission Networks in 2020

If it is a genuine proposal, I for one think it looks quite promising.

/\dam

The "Gone Green for 2020" report produced by the national grid is also worth a read:

http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/9A4B4080-3344-4C6D-8A19-411A867682F2/26834/GoneGreenfor2021.pdf

Under their "gone green scenario" they state:

"Renewable wind plays a much larger role with about 19 GW of total transmission connected offshore wind and 11 GW of total
onshore wind. We think that a further approximately 3 GW in total of other transmission connected renewables is also plausible."

The usual suspects will be along shortly to tell us that the national grid have got it all wrong and that renewables are a waste of time.

Mankysteve

celerity wrote: »

Ok, but that's a hydro storage facility - a casual reader of the thread would be forgiven for thinking you were talking about a wind farm

I see your point though I think. You're saying that excess wind energy could be sent to somewhere like Dinorwig to store the energy?

/\

The wording was deliberate.

Cardew

PeterZ wrote: »

Most people I know who are concerned about the environment support both nuclear and renewables. Nuclear aside from the cost, safety and waste issues provides low carbon energy for us.

The campaign against nuclear had pretty much died out in recent years,

Friends of the Earth are still very much anti-nuclear

http://www.foe.co.uk/

As are Green Peace

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/hsbc-backs-nuclear-power-indian-earthquake-zone-20110511

as is Ralph Nader

http://www.citizen.org/CMEP/


Even CND get in on the act - sadly no Greenham Common for ladies of a certain persuasion;)

http://www.cnduk.org/

Here is a list of hundreds of anti-Nuclear websites

http://www.prop1.org/prop1/azantink.htm

keith_r59

Mankysteve wrote: »

If someone is installing solar Pv to make money there much better investments out there with much better pay back periods.

Non Fits Pv can still payback within 25 years. Most people who install Pv are not after the money.

It all depends on your personal circumstances. For example if you are looking for growth or income, what tax rate you are paying on your investments etc. etc. I treat my own installation as an index-linked annuity and the income I am getting is far greater than any mainstream insurance provider can offer.

With regards whether people are installing solar PV for money or not you just need to look at the take-up pre and post the introduction of FITs to get your answer.