Can we treat the governments policies on saving energy seriously?

cepheus

I doubt if they would be popular, but it might be possible to use flexible hanging plastic strips which the fork lift can get though.

Anyway these doorways were designed for people, were not very busy, and the fan heaters were on during a cold misty morning, without any sun.

BTW The air flow dynamics of a cooler on top of a doorway would be vastly different to a heater which would be blowing down against the upward buoyancy of the hotter lower density air, possibly causing seperation of the flow and greater turbulence. This sounds like a US idea designed for air conditioning.

zeupater

cepheus wrote: »

I doubt if they would be popular, but it might be possible to use flexible hanging plastic strips which the fork lift can get though.

Anyway these doorways were designed for people, were not very busy, and the fan heaters were on during a cold misty morning, without any sun.

BTW The air flow dynamics of a cooler on top of a doorway would be vastly different to a heater which would be blowing down against the upward buoyancy of the hotter lower density air, possibly causing seperation of the flow and greater turbulence. This sounds like a US idea designed for air conditioning.

Hi

The plastic strips you mention are what I referred to as the 'plastic strip curtains' in the previous post ... they can & do cause visibility issues in fork-lift environments which H&S sometimes seem to take a dim view of, especially if the material yellows or becomes scratched and/or dirty .....

Regarding the doorways being open as described, the issue is either one of a deliberate marketing ploy to entice custom or a local store management decision, but at least the overall energy efficiency should be better with an air-curtain than without ...

HTH
Z

cepheus

There is a pro-business friendly campaign on this issue now, called close the door. I'm not sure what pro-business means precisely. Reading between the lines suggests to me other campaigns have attempted to name and shame?

There are few stores participating and it would be interesting to check if all their branches actually do it. I would also like to see more evidence that closed doors don't affect sales rather than having to take their word for it.

Surely this is something which is more likely to be successful if everyone in the town centre agrees to do it rather than individual shops taking the moral high line whilst their neighbours cash in?

This campaign seems to have been going for four years at least

why is Jaeger no longer on the list?

Cardew

cepheus wrote: »

This is the full abatement curve for CO2. I don't think solar is even on the chart for UK conditions, it is ruinously expensive on a social level!

Couldn't agree more!

However George Monbiot is not exactly popular on this Board;)

The solar 'enthusiasts' would want you to believe that their personal PV systems, attracting close to 50p/kWh income for some - without the need to export anything, is the most efficient use of a subsidy.

Suggest you take up the fight! - Don't use logic though!

Martyn1981 is your boyo!

The_Green_Hornet

Cardew wrote: »

The solar 'enthusiasts' would want you to believe that their personal PV systems, attracting close to 50p/kWh income for some - without the need to export anything, is the most efficient use of a subsidy.

I can't speak for other solar 'enthusiasts' but if the Government is going to pay me 50p/kWh income then I will gladly bite their hand off to offset the ever increasing energy costs I have to endure.

That is what I like about politicians, they always enact poorly thought out schemes where intelligent people can take advantage to make a few quid.

cepheus

Cardew wrote: »

Couldn't agree more!

However George Monbiot is not exactly popular on this Board;)

The solar 'enthusiasts' would want you to believe that their personal PV systems, attracting close to 50p/kWh income for some - without the need to export anything, is the most efficient use of a subsidy.

Suggest you take up the fight! - Don't use logic though!

Martyn1981 is your boyo!

Never been able to work it out, it's not incompetence since it's very obviously poor value for the government. Offshore wind is another poor value generating system, although not nearly as ruinously expensive as photovoltaics.

There is certainly a political component. Offering the illusion of energy self sufficiency with photovoltaics is far more popular than installing large onshore turbines in windy locations which is at least vaguely competitive. If they had offered wind as a commercial concern for the local community rather than an earner for a private company, then things might be different.

Regard Monbiot, a read for the right wing greenies on the seriously cost effective way of reducing carbon (other than closing doors of course!).

Cardew

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

I can't speak for other solar 'enthusiasts' but if the Government is going to pay me 50p/kWh income then I will gladly bite their hand off to offset the ever increasing energy costs I have to endure.

That is what I like about politicians, they always enact poorly thought out schemes where intelligent people can take advantage to make a few quid.

Agree completely!

If there is a stupid scheme to exploit, then there is no blame on those taking advantage of that scheme; and that includes the 'rent a roof' firms making £millions in subsidies paid for by the 98%? who do not/cannot have solar PV.

However this board is full of nonsensical and disingenuous arguments, that sub 4kWp PV systems on the roofs of houses dotted all over the country is the most efficient way to generate solar power.

Martyn1981

cepheus wrote: »

Never been able to work it out, it's not incompetence since it's very obviously poor value for the government. Offshore wind is another poor value generating system, although not nearly as ruinously expensive as photovoltaics.

There is certainly a political component. Offering the illusion of energy self sufficiency with photovoltaics is far more popular than installing large onshore turbines in windy locations which is at least vaguely competitive. If they had offered wind as a commercial concern for the local community rather than an earner for a private company, then things might be different.

Never let the truth get in the way of anti-PV propaganda I see!

Whilst I'm a big fan of wind, especially on-shore, it does face huge battles with those NIMBY's that don't want to see where their leccy comes from.

Also, and whilst, off-shore wind is more expensive than on-shore, it's larger scale potential can't be dismissed, and, like PV before it, it has the potential for substantial cost reductions, which should be explored, not dismissed. This constant focus on today instead of tomorrow does us no favours in the long run.

Regarding costs, if you look at the recently announced CfD's, you will see that large scale PV is much cheaper than off-shore wind, and is knocking on the door of on-shore wind.

It further closes that gap towards the end of this decade. So that appears contrary to your claims, since the true disparity between the two is not great!

In fact the Solar Trade Association (STA) has queried the governments PV CfD for the later part of this decade, as it is higher than they suggest is needed. They have asked if this is to keep it just above the recently announced nuclear CfD for political reasons.

Also if you care to check the FiT rates (for smaller scale deployments) you'll notice that PV is far cheaper than wind and hydro, and has been for some time.

So it appears that in the UK, where solar resources are lower than average, and wind resources higher than average, PV has now, and is continuing to become one of the cheapest of the renewables and is a major success story (nationally and more importantly internationally) ....

... not that you'd know it listening to those still stuck in 2010, regurgitating the same old nonsense and trying to save face.


Regarding your interest in the close the door campaign, I'm 100% with you. Unfortunately though it may need 'nanny state' interference to protect those shops taking part from any losses to those that don't.

A similar thing is needed to force/require the use of doors on all chiller units in shops and supermarkets, where doors are seen as possibly reducing the amount of goods customers take. Fitting such doors can reduce the leccy needs of supermarkets by 20%, which given that they consume about 5% of national leccy, could reduce total demand by 1%.

Mart.

Cardew

cepheus wrote: »

Never been able to work it out, it's not incompetence since it's very obviously poor value for the government. /QUOTE]

Just a comment on this point.

The subsidy for Solar PV(FIT) was cost neutral for the Government as it was paid for by the so called 'Green Levy' on all electricity consumers.

That of course included tenants in flats, of people with unsuitable roofs etc. As Monbiot put it:

Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives, and nobody notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes.

Thank goodness this farcical situation is getting some public awareness at last.

cepheus

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Never let the truth get in the way of anti-PV propaganda I see!

Whilst I'm a big fan of wind, especially on-shore, it does face huge battles with those NIMBY's that don't want to see where their leccy comes from.

Also, and whilst, off-shore wind is more expensive than on-shore, it's larger scale potential can't be dismissed, and, like PV before it, it has the potential for substantial cost reductions, which should be explored, not dismissed. This constant focus on today instead of tomorrow does us no favours in the long run.

Regarding costs, if you look at the recently announced CfD's, you will see that large scale PV is much cheaper than off-shore wind, and is knocking on the door of on-shore wind.

It further closes that gap towards the end of this decade. So that appears contrary to your claims, since the true disparity between the two is not great!

In fact the Solar Trade Association (STA) has queried the governments PV CfD for the later part of this decade, as it is higher than they suggest is needed. They have asked if this is to keep it just above the recently announced nuclear CfD for political reasons.

Also if you care to check the FiT rates (for smaller scale deployments) you'll notice that PV is far cheaper than wind and hydro, and has been for some time.

So it appears that in the UK, where solar resources are lower than average, and wind resources higher than average, PV has now, and is continuing to become one of the cheapest of the renewables and is a major success story (nationally and more importantly internationally) ....

... not that you'd know it listening to those still stuck in 2010, regurgitating the same old nonsense and trying to save face.


Regarding your interest in the close the door campaign, I'm 100% with you. Unfortunately though it may need 'nanny state' interference to protect those shops taking part from any losses to those that don't.

A similar thing is needed to force/require the use of doors on all chiller units in shops and supermarkets, where doors are seen as possibly reducing the amount of goods customers take. Fitting such doors can reduce the leccy needs of supermarkets by 20%, which given that they consume about 5% of national leccy, could reduce total demand by 1%.

Mart.

Developing large scale PV in countries with plenty of Sun has it's merits, sticking PV on roofs in the UK and Germany is most definitely not. A growing and largely fixed proportion of the cost are labour costs for fitting, this tends to be proportionally greater on small scale installations.

Even the more economic renewables are only competitive for low penetration. Once they start to supply more than ten to twenty percent, then the stand by requirement becomes excessive and expensive. Whilst there are some ways around this it requires large scale collaboration and regulations, especially at a continental level, of the type which are an anathema to government ideology.