Green Technologies

spgsc531

I smell one of the 2 VERY anti FiT people posting anew..

Funny..

EricMears

The_Green_Man wrote: »

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.

Well you obviously didn't read my earlier post. Try reading this one.

There was no tank - I used recycled transi-tanks. Cost Zero.
There was no hole. Cost Zero.
Electric pump was also recycled. Cost Zero.
Very little in the way of electrical costs. I run a 1kW pump for 5mins per day so approx 0.5kWh /week. From now to November I'll be doing that in the daytime at Zero Cost. When self-generation a bit harder to find I use off-peak electricity before 8am Cost less than 3p per week
There's a little bit more infrastructure in our house than most - mainly a cold water header tank which most jerry builders leave out these days. However, if you've ever wanted to use a lavatory whilst the water mains have failed you'd always include a header tank in the WC system so I don't don't count that as an additional cost. An extra pipe run from basement to loft obviously cost a few bob - but I ordered my plastic piping in huge quantities (for UFH) and still have a fair bit left over.

My 'repayment period' was therefore a few months. Ever since then I've enjoyed a third off my water bills.

And yes, it gives great satisfaction to think that I'm not using mains water for flushing lavatories. It's always struck me as ludicrous that we go to great expense to treat water to drinking standard then flush a third of it away.

I really think all new houses should be built this way and I also think that many people could retro-fit a DIY system like mine and make it pay.

SailorSam

WestonDave wrote: »

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.

That reminds me of, last year i had a new combi fitted, the one that was taken out was only about about 8yrs old but they couldn't get the parts any more. The fitter told me the new one would be much more efficient though and save me money. I told him the boiler in my previous house was about 25/30 yrs old and hardly ever went wrong. He agreed the old boilers never went wrong 'cos they were more basic so less to go wrong.
So i've got to ask how can it save money to have a modern efficient boiler if it needs replacing every 8yrs rather than a less efficient one that lasts 30yrs.

zeupater

spgsc531 wrote: »

I smell one of the 2 VERY anti FiT people posting anew..

Funny..

Hi

I doubt that's the case .... however, it possibly is yet another alter-ego of someone we've seen before who's intent on inflaming argument for argument's sake, if so he(/she)'s making a pretty poor effort so-far ....

Obviously not quite as green as the profile name chosen, obviously not quite done enough investigation to post .... perhaps a little more real research (as opposed to reading a newspaper) and the viewpoint might change ...

Z

Martyn1981

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.

Welcome. 'Reciprocal benefits' & 'the future', a bit like investing in renewables, including PV.

The_Green_Man wrote: »

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).

As above, you could argue that only those receiving them benefit, or that in the long-term we all benefit. That's the purpose / goal of any subsidy.

You've got to start somewhere, even coal, oil, nuclear etc, started off small way, way back. PV on a large scale is still incredibly young, but as posted above is generating large amounts in Germany now. 5% of their whole electricity demand last year.

The_Green_Man wrote: »

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.

PV FIT rates are still falling, but are already comparable to off-shore wind and nuclear (on-shore wind is much cheaper, but the NIMBY's don't want that either!), so given the choice off householders subsidies going to some households (PV) or only to companies (wind and nuclear), why is PV rejected as morally wrong, but 'normal' practice is ..... well .... accepted?

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."

Sadly, this (and other) G. Monbiot PV articles from early 2010 were riddled with horrific errors. His claims that Germany was turning it's back on PV did not pan out. Instead Germany not only went on to install more PV, but they also went on to set new records for the amount installed each year. They are now up to 32GWp and intend to install another 20GWp.

If GM's false claims that Germany was turning away from PV were supposed to convince us that PV is 'bad', then what should we deduce from reality?

Mart.

PS. Absolutely agree that insulation and energy efficiency should come first. Better not to need a unit of energy, than to produce one cleanly. M.

Silent_Dancer

Thanks to PV and turning their back on nuclear Germany now has the most expensive electricity in Europe.

grahamc2003

Silent_Dancer wrote: »

Thanks to PV and turning their back on nuclear Germany now has the most expensive electricity in Europe.

Inevitable, given the duplication of capacity which a high intermittent penetration forces. 11% more coal was burnt by rwe as more wind and solar went online.

RWE AG (RWE) emitted 11 percent more carbon last year than in 2011 as output from plants fueled by hard coal and lignite increased, the utility said in its annual report published today. Coal-fired plants in Germany were earning 7.82 euros ($10.20) a megawatt-hour for next-year power as of 5 p.m. Berlin time, while gas-fired plants were losing 14.83 euros a megawatt- hour, according to calculations based on coal, power, gas and emissions prices.

In terms of the future, Germany is belatedly started building many more coal fired stations, necessary to maintain their grid security in the face of too high a penetration of wind and solar.

Germany will this year start up more coal-fired power stations than at any time in the past 20 years as the country advances a plan to exit nuclear energy by 2022.

New coal plants with about 5,300 megawatts of capacity will start generating power this year, the Muenster-based IWR renewable energy institute said in an e-mailed statement today, citing data from the German regulator. About 1,000 megawatts of coal-fired capacity are expected to come offline, it said.

The apparent dream many seem to have of closing Nuclear and coal stations and replacing them with wind and solar is simply impossible. In Germany's case, closing their (co2 free) Nuclear has forced them to build more co2 producing coal, even though they have very large capacity of wind and solar. The Uk's situation is even more ridiculous - closing coal and Nuclear, and, as well as building lots more wind and solar, is also having to build lots of small inefficient gas plants, which will rely on imported gas which could be witheld at any time.

Martyn1981

Silent_Dancer wrote: »

Thanks to PV and turning their back on nuclear Germany now has the most expensive electricity in Europe.

Very true. Regardless of whether you like or dislike nuclear, the majority of the cost is in building and then de-commissioning the plant. Fuel costs are quite small. So Germany's decision to shut their plants early is counter-productive since they've already got the bulk of the costs, and all the clean up to do, so they might as well have milked the plants for their remaining economic lifetime.

Germany's (and Italy and Spain) decision to invest big in PV, in the early expensive years has hit their bills hard. But thanks to their investment, we are now able to install 'domestic' PV today at costs comparative to off-shore wind and new nuclear.

As to European prices, this is really tricky. Germany has relatively transparent prices, but we and France (mostly nuclear) don't. Comparisons of prices that claim to include taxes don't include hidden subsidies (general taxation) or in the case of France (having asked a french resident for advice) the numerous local taxes paid for having a connection to the grid. So real French prices are much higher.

In the UK we have a mix, with extremely transparent prices for renewables by funding the subsidies from energy bills via the 'Green Tariff', but our bills don't include (yet) carbon costs, perhaps 3p/kWh. Nor do our energy bills reflect nuclear subsidies hidden in general taxation. Try finding out the subsidy per unit of generation, it's not available, but probably about 5p/kWh of nuclear generation, so about 1p to 2p/kWh per total generation.

Also, de-commissioning is not included in our bills. The NDA's annual budget is approx £2.5bn. Applying 35% of costs to domestic consumers, then dividing by an average of about 3,600kWh's per household would add another 1p to the cost of all leccy units (not just nuclear).

If the government gives in to EDF demands, then the subsidy for new nuclear is expected to be somewhere in the region of 6p to 15p per kWh. This does not include insurance and de-commissioning. In fairness to nuclear, as it's low carbon, the first 3p or so of subsidy isn't really a subsidy due to 'true' carbon costs. The same of course applies to renewables, who should probably be excused 5p/kWh of subsidy (against today's prices) to reflect both carbon costs and hidden nuclear subsidies.

Mart.

The_Green_Man_2

I didn't realise there had been such argument about Fits, or I would not have made the original 'throwaway' remark about how I find them morally wrong. Clearly a lot of people on here are making a lot of money from the subsidies of others and are feeling defensive about that fact.

Reminds me of child benefits and how the rich happily took those too. I'm glad that those have been stopped. Though they're still moaning about it.

It does beg the question of whether the taxpayer should pay people to own other green technologies - well those people wealthy enough to install them in the first place.

The_Green_Man_2

EricMears wrote: »

Well you obviously didn't read my earlier post. Try reading this one.

I think you need to wind your neck back in and re-read my post, perhaps concentrating on the bit of your post that I "quoted"?

I was agreeing with you.