Green Technologies

The_Green_Man_2

Is anyone else feeling disillusioned about the various green technologies that are available?

I've looked at rainwater harvesting, solar heating, solar PIR, ground and air sourced heat pumps, heat banks/thermal stores, etc. and none of them seem to work very well. None of them really have a decent payback period, with some having a service life less than the payback.

The only products that seems to have any sort of worth is insulation and energy efficient products. Energy saving seems to be far in advance of micro energy production.

Scratching the surface, the one technology that pays is solar PIR and only then with FiTs that I find to be morally wrong, raising everyone's energy prices in order to reward the few.

Does anyone have any success stories to help restore my interest in these technologies?

EricMears

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Is anyone else feeling disillusioned about the various green technologies that are available?

......

Scratching the surface, the one technology that pays is solar PIR and only then with FiTs that I find to be morally wrong, raising everyone's energy prices in order to reward the few.

Does anyone have any success stories to help restore my interest in these technologies?

Why "morally wrong" ? People without kids might equally say that being asked to pay through income tax for other peoples kids to be educated is wrong. The healthy might begrudge paying taxes to build hospitals. Pacifists might not want to fund the army. Etc. . .

I count our solar PV as a success - it's returning more than 13% on some of our savings compared to less than 3% on the rest.

Rainwater harvesting saves me around a third on my metered water charges. Installation was a DIY effort utilising scrap components and some pipework that cost very little. Not too impressed with some of the commercially available systems though : no way some would ever give a real ROI

Our septic tank wasn't really a 'green investment' - it simply wasn't an option to connect to a public sewer over a mile away ! - but investing a couple of grand has meant that my water & sewage bills became water-only so a more than 50% reduction.

WestonDave

In a number of those cases the costs of retrofitting make them uneconomic because of the extent of work required to fit them into and around an existing set up. Ripping out a gas fired wet central heating system for a heat pump system won't make sense, but if you are building from scratch and constructing the property with high levels of insulation akin to passive haus standards then maybe a low level heat pump system to top up the heat might be worthwhile.

Similarly rain water harvesting - digging an extra hole to put a tank in, re working all the pipe runs as required (to get the most out of it) and then redecorating etc is a big expensive job. If you are building a house, a few minutes with the digger whilst doing the foundations gets you a tank hole, bit of extra pipe and you've got a properly integrated system.

That's generally the way with most green technology - its really viable only when replacement is required, rather than being economic to replace something already working. Modern cars are much more efficient, but scrapping a working older car and buying a new one will use more carbon in the production process than will be saved through lower emissions.

The_Green_Man_2

EricMears wrote: »

Why "morally wrong" ? People without kids might equally say that being asked to pay through income tax for other peoples kids to be educated is wrong. The healthy might begrudge paying taxes to build hospitals. Pacifists might not want to fund the army. Etc. . .

I count our solar PV as a success - it's returning more than 13% on some of our savings compared to less than 3% on the rest.

The examples you gave all have reciprocal benefits for taxpayers. Educated kids are the future doctors, dentists, mechanics, engineers, nurses, etc. that benefit us all. Hospitals benefit everyone, even the healthiest can have an accident. An army is used for many other reasons than to wage war (think of the floods last year, security for the Olympics, deterent against invasion) and it benefits us all.

Solar FiTs only benefit the people in receipt of them. The power generated that gets back to the national grid is insignificant and even then some people are trying to divert all their excess power into immersion heaters (and still receive the FiT for power generation).

Solar can only produce appreciable amounts of energy in summer and in daylight, a period when there is much less demand on the national grid. As a national power source it's not worth the investment. The Fits money would have been better spent on larger renewable projects.

spgsc531

The_Green_Man wrote: »

The examples you gave all have reciprocal benefits for taxpayers. Educated kids are the future doctors, dentists, mechanics, engineers, nurses, etc. that benefit us all. Hospitals benefit everyone, even the healthiest can have an accident. An army is used for many other reasons than to wage war (think of the floods last year, security for the Olympics, deterent against invasion) and it benefits us all.

Solar FiTs only benefit the people in receipt of them. The power generated that gets back to the national grid is insignificant and even then some people are trying to divert all their excess power into immersion heaters (and still receive the FiT for power generation).

Solar can only produce appreciable amounts of energy in summer and in daylight, a period when there is much less demand on the national grid. As a national power source it's not worth the investment. The Fits money would have been better spent on larger renewable projects.

German PV was kicking out 21.8 GW midday today...

EricMears

The_Green_Man wrote: »

The examples you gave all have reciprocal benefits for taxpayers.

Solar FiTs only benefit the people in receipt of them.

Don't lets start up this nonsense again.

It's government policy (well EU policy really I guess) to encourage the establishment of SP and the FIT scheme is their chosen vehicle.

Doesn't really matter whether an individual likes it or not (which is why I included the 'silly' examples); it has been ordained and will continue to happen unless or until a future government changes things. No point in telling us here whether you like it or not - lobbying your MP might be (slightly) more effective.

EricMears

WestonDave wrote: »

Similarly rain water harvesting - digging an extra hole to put a tank in, re working all the pipe runs as required (to get the most out of it) and then redecorating etc is a big expensive job. If you are building a house, a few minutes with the digger whilst doing the foundations gets you a tank hole, bit of extra pipe and you've got a properly integrated system.

Digging a hole can indeed be quite expensive - but even a basic tank will cost the thick end of a grand !

My scheme uses 'Transi-tanks' (IBCs) on a 'shelf' at the back of the basement garage. As it happens, my original 4 x 1 cu m tanks cost me nothing at all but I have since bought an extra one for garden use for £6 from fleabay.

House was a new self-build so putting in pipe-runs was a minimal cost.

The_Green_Man_2

EricMears wrote: »

Digging a hole can indeed be quite expensive - but even a basic tank will cost the thick end of a grand !

Then there is the electricity to pump the water to the toilets. I'm sure I read somewhere that the repayment was something like 30 years on rainwater recycling, and most tanks are warrantied upto 25 years?

Agree that retrofitting costs more, but even new build costs are significant when you include the costs of digging the hole, the tank, pipework, electricity and any maintenance.

There is obviously the satisfaction that you're not using potable water to flush a toilet, wash clothes or water a garden, but it costs a lot of money for that satisfaction.

The_Green_Man_2

spgsc531 wrote: »

German PV was kicking out 21.8 GW midday today...

guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/mar/11/solar-power-germany-feed-in-tariff

"Solar PV has failed in Germany and it will fail in the UK

Our tariff plan is near-identical to Germany's – that's the one that produced woeful amounts of energy, jobs and innovation."

The_Green_Hornet

The_Green_Man wrote: »

guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/mar/11/solar-power-germany-feed-in-tariff

"Solar PV has failed in Germany and it will fail in the UK

Our tariff plan is near-identical to Germany's – that's the one that produced woeful amounts of energy, jobs and innovation."

I'm not too sure of your green credentials but you certainly know how to recycle stuff as that particularly insightful Guardian article has been quoted numerous times on here.

Doesn't make it any more accurate though.

spgsc531

The_Green_Man wrote: »

guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/mar/11/solar-power-germany-feed-in-tariff

"Solar PV has failed in Germany and it will fail in the UK

Our tariff plan is near-identical to Germany's – that's the one that produced woeful amounts of energy, jobs and innovation."

Well done, quoting out of date info.

Is that really your argument? A years old guardian article from one person?

I'll say it again.. German PV was kicking out 21.8 GW midday today...