Green Technologies

Cardew

spgsc531 wrote: »

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

Funny..

I really find it ironic that you of all people should make that statement.

grahamc2003

Cardew wrote: »

I really find that ironic that you of all people should make that statement.

I think he suffers a conceptual disconnect between his own standards of behaviour and others'. Z's observation aligned with mine, although I expect the subtlety of Z's delivery will simply mean his underlying message will mostly be missed.

But on the subject of irony, I find it quite ironic that the green government in Germany originally set out to lower their co2 emissions with wind and solar, and yet last year co2 from coal fired power stations increased quite rapidly, and with their planned large coal build, will obviously do so for several more years.

All predictable, and predicted, of course.

EricMears

The_Green_Man wrote: »

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.

You may have quoted it - but why bother to go on from that saying that even for a new build, digging a hole etc would be expensive when I'd already said those costs can easily be avoided ?

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

I really find it ironic that you of all people should make that statement.

I find it even more ironic that you didn't get my joke at you.

spgsc531

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I think he suffers a conceptual disconnect between his own standards of behaviour and others'. Z's observation aligned with mine, although I expect the subtlety of Z's delivery will simply mean his underlying message will mostly be missed.

But on the subject of irony, I find it quite ironic that the green government in Germany originally set out to lower their co2 emissions with wind and solar, and yet last year co2 from coal fired power stations increased quite rapidly, and with their planned large coal build, will obviously do so for several more years.

All predictable, and predicted, of course.

Why are you comparing apples with oranges?

The_Green_Man_2

EricMears wrote: »

You may have quoted it - but why bother to go on from that saying that even for a new build, digging a hole etc would be expensive when I'd already said those costs can easily be avoided ?

Easily avoided? I'd imagine that having large tanks sat in a garage wouldn't be most people's preferred option. It's a slight step up from rainwater butts, I'll grant you, but apart from the loss of space there is a risk of the water going stale when it's not stored in a cool underground environment. There can also be a problem with algae growth if light can get at the tank. Not something you'd want to wash your clothes in or have sat in your toilet bowl.

Perhaps not a problem for you as I guess your basement garage is relatively daylight free, but very few people have this option. You also still have the issue of pumping the water to your upstairs toilets and to the washine machine, which can make it more expensive than mains water depending on your electricity costs and usage.

zeupater

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Easily avoided? I'd imagine that having large tanks sat in a garage wouldn't be most people's preferred option. It's a slight step up from rainwater butts, I'll grant you, but apart from the loss of space there is a risk of the water going stale when it's not stored in a cool underground environment. There can also be a problem with algae growth if light can get at the tank. Not something you'd want to wash your clothes in or have sat in your toilet bowl.

Perhaps not a problem for you as I guess your basement garage is relatively daylight free, but very few people have this option. You also still have the issue of pumping the water to your upstairs toilets and to the washine machine, which can make it more expensive than mains water depending on your electricity costs and usage.

Hi

Placing FiT's aside for the moment - why exactly do you consider yourself as being green and therefore post under ' The_Green_Man' profile? .... is it to make money? .... is it to provide a payback? .... is it to save money? ... is it to provide a better environment for future generations? ... is it to save the planet? ... is it a moral issue? - I am interested because the profile name and the posts made so far don't really stack-up, neither does the thread of the arguments made, as evidenced by the exchange with EricMears above ....

Let's quickly look at the relative cost of water vs pumping water raised above .... Roughly speaking, ~1Wh will raise ~10litres of water either from a storage tank to a holding tank in the loft or for direct delivery to a cistern etc .... if electricity costs 10p/kWh, then £1 will pump 100cubic metres((10x10x1000)/1000) of rainwater, which, depending on where in the country the mains water is delivered, would have cost somewhere around £200-£300 ... looks like a decent cost saving ratio to me ....

HTH
Z

EricMears

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Easily avoided? I'd imagine that having large tanks sat in a garage wouldn't be most people's preferred option. It's a slight step up from rainwater butts, I'll grant you, but apart from the loss of space there is a risk of the water going stale when it's not stored in a cool underground environment. There can also be a problem with algae growth if light can get at the tank. Not something you'd want to wash your clothes in or have sat in your toilet bowl.

Perhaps not a problem for you as I guess your basement garage is relatively daylight free, but very few people have this option. You also still have the issue of pumping the water to your upstairs toilets and to the washine machine, which can make it more expensive than mains water depending on your electricity costs and usage.

Yes, very easily avoided. I happen to have lots of space in a basement garage so have the tanks raised to ceiling level with a 5' space below for other storage.

If I hadn't, I would put them outdoors and use either the black IBCs sold for that purpose or simply box them in with wood or even cover with black sheeting as sold for dpc use. I'm sure that would inhibit algal bloom but if not a few 'channel blocks' would do the job (we don't use rainwater for laundry purposes).

It would even be an option to dig a hole, reinforce the sides, place IBCs then cover with something that would allow grass to grow through it. Or even have a dual-purpose garden pond and filter any water extracted from it.

There are in fact a myriad of low-cost approaches that any competent DIYer could adopt without needing a commercial installation.

I'm sure Z has the physics correct but would be a bit pushed to find a 100% efficient water pump.
From my earlier posting

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.

That 3p per week would deliver approx 100 l/day or 700litres. Call that 5p / cu m or 40 !!! per pound sterling

I think you'll find that the cheapest domestic mains water is charged at a rate of at least £1.50 per cu m ; £2 is nearer average and £5 or more not unheard of. My 5p per cu m is cheap enough anyway but pumping it free whist sun shines is even more attractive

Martyn1981

The_Green_Man wrote: »

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.

Further to Zeupater's comments, I am also confused over your green title and particularly the use of the word morally (above).

Morally wrong, is a statement oft used against FITs, which I find intriguing. Can I ask you a question, following some assumptions, feel free to disagree with any or all of them:

1. Can we assume that CO2 emissions are a problem. If so,

2. We need to replace CO2 emissions from power stations with zero, or low carbon generation. If so,

3. We need (without arguing over individual technologies and their pro's and con's) some combination of renewables, CCS, and nuclear. If so,

4. These lower carbon technologies are currently more expensive than fossil fuels. If so,

5. Then we need to subsidise these technologies. If so,

6. Energy consumers will have to pay more for their more expensive energy. If so,

7. Subsidies are to be paid to a small number of huge powerstations. If so,

then why does paying subsidies to a huge number of small powerstations suddenly become morally wrong?

I apologise if you think I'm singling you out, I'm not. But I find this point absolutely fascinating. We seem to take subsidies such as nuclear on the chin, with households seeing none of it. Then along came FITs (for various technologies) and some of the Green Tariff money started to flow towards households instead of huge corporations. Yet this apparent 'plus' has by many, been seized upon to create a 'morally wrong' rallying call, much to my bemusement.

Thanks.

Mart.

The_Green_Man_2

The thread is about whether you get enough 'bang for your buck' with green technologies. It might be that Germany are generating several megawatts using solar, but if that power costs 10 times as much as other technologies then what is the point?

Well, I guess it's fine as long as you are the one generating the electricity and receiving the FiTs. If you're the one footing the bill with your raised energy bills, then it's not so fine.

Microgeneration can't possibly work for a nation of 60 million people. All that is happening is a few lucky people get to have reduced electricity costs and a nice investment return and the rest of us pay the bill.

As to my green credentials. I think the FITs money would be better spent in reducing our consumption rather than increasing our generation. End of.