Green Technologies

The_Green_Man_2

spgsc531 wrote: »

Bit confused by your maths:

1. £800+£200=£1000

2. £800+£200=£1000

3. £1000-£200=£400????

You really don't seem very good with maths/units, perhaps Cardew who seems to be supporting it so strongly can explain?

I think you need to re-look at the point of the example rather than worry about the figures.

It isn't £1000-£200 = £400. The FiT receiver not only gets the £200 green tax (in the form of a FiT payment) he also benefits from a £200 drop in his electricity bill because (and this might surprise you) solar panels produce electricity. A few people are being advantaged disproportionately by receiving FiTs from green taxes paid by us all. The point is that the rest of us stay on £1000 and a very few enjoy a reduction to £400 (Note to pedants: these numbers are purely symbolic and do not represent real green tax figures, real fit payment figures or real PIR electricity generation figures) . Hence why the government is sensibly making changes.

I see that you're happy to play silly beggars with EXAMPLE numbers, but you refuse to debate whether the tax money is better spent reducing consumption than increasing production, benefitting the many rather than the few.

The_Green_Man_2

EricMears wrote: »

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

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

I think we are talking at cross purposes and so apologies if I'm not explaining myself very well. I'm not saying that individuals can't get green technologies to pay for themselves. I applaud people like yourself who are keen to give it a go and recycle stuff they have available. If someone can get hold of free or cheap tanks, have access to (or friends with) diggers or have space to store large tanks above ground, can get hold of pipework at low cost, then naturally it will pay off. Similarly if someone works for the PIR industry and can get factory rejects or returns that he has the skill to fix and fit to his roof, or someone who works for the forestry commision and gets free wood for a wood gasification boiler, they all pay off.

The point is that for the wider population of the UK, these technologies can't and won't pay off. Especially if measure have not first been undertaken to reduce consumption rather than to increase supply. Whether it's water, heat or electricity, it's more cost effective to reduce consumption.

I dont have access to IBCs and I don't really want tanks above ground for asthetic reasons as well as the other ones I mentioned. I also don't think that if I wanted to sell my house, too many buyers would be keen on some amateur contraption being used to flush toilets. I do think they would be interested in a professional system, but then we're back to it not paying off the installation costs for decades.

I hope that explains my standpoint a little better. As I said, I admire people who are willing (and have the skills and facilities) to give these technologies a go, but most people don't.

spgsc531

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I think you need to re-look at the point of the example rather than worry about the figures.

It isn't £1000-£200 = £400. The FiT receiver not only gets the £200 green tax (in the form of a FiT payment) he also benefits from a £200 drop in his electricity bill because (and this might surprise you) solar panels produce electricity. A few people are being advantaged disproportionately by receiving FiTs from green taxes paid by us all. The point is that the rest of us stay on £1000 and a very few enjoy a reduction to £400 (Note to pedants: these numbers are purely symbolic and do not represent real green tax figures, real fit payment figures or real PIR electricity generation figures) . Hence why the government is sensibly making changes.

I see that you're happy to play silly beggars with EXAMPLE numbers, but you refuse to debate whether the tax money is better spent reducing consumption than increasing production, benefitting the many rather than the few.

I don't understand how you expect anyone to take your 'point' seriously when it's so obviously flawed.

Why don't you use much more accurate (real) numbers than using ones that imply energy green 'taxes' are 25% of just the gas bill? or that electricity bill reduction would be £200/equal to that green tax.

your EXAMPLE numbers are so far from truth, they are just ridiculous, which makes your post ridiculous.

Your maths makes no sense either..£1000-£200-£200=£400??? Still doesn't add up..

What do you mean by the Government is sensibly making changes?

zeupater

The_Green_Man wrote: »

.... Fuel poverty is a terrible thing and it's only going to get worse, especially as we seem to be getting colder winters again. A program of subsidized fitting of insulation, draft proofing, energy efficient boilers, glazing would be better use of green taxes than FiTs. It seems that the old folks can freeze in their beds as long as a few people get cheap energy and an inflation busting investment return.

They keep demanding that I answer their loaded questions but none seem capable of responding to my question of whether green taxes are better spent on programs to reduce consumption or to increase generation. I'd imagine that they know they can't win that discussion so they try to distract with these rabid tag-team multi-post inquisition. The amount of energy saved by millions being able to turn down their thermostats by a couple of degrees dwarfs the small amount of extra energy generated by a few thousand, and by a massive amount.

I'd love to know how many of these guys spouting on about their green credentials would have installed PIR without the FiTs.

Cheers though, you've restored my faith that some people 'get it'.

Hi

I think the issue revolves around the way a new member landed in the forum, asked some basic questions and then immediately went on the 'attack' when established members like EricMears offered-up their experiences in reply.

I do note that Eric provided information on how to create a low-cost RWH system, something which has absolutely nothing to do with FiTs, ROCs or any other form of subsidy, yet that didn't prevent serious disbelief on what had been posted and open-argument against his solution ....

Regarding subsidising draughtproofing, insulation and efficient boilers .... where do you think the subsidies for cavity wall insulation, loft insulation and the boiler trade-in schemes have come from in recent years ? ....

Looking at solar photovoltaic systems and the associated FiT, the subsidy is temporary and designed to provide encouragement to swiftly develop a mature market and volume based manufacturing base. FiT schemes are currently in place in many (/most) of the developed countries and have acted to drive the cost of pv down from around £5/Wp installed a little over three years ago to about a quater of that today. Whatever you would read regarding the cost efficiencies of solar electricity, make sure that it's up-to-date, as so much 'evidence' available to quote is simply outdated ....

The question regarding 'how many of these guys spouting on about their green credentials would have installed PIR [sic] without the FiTs.', well Eric doesn't get FiTs for his RWH for one, then there's all of the members who have made various energy saving improvements on their properties .... my family has had solar thermal for almost 40 years, but that's not 'spouting on about' green credentials, in fact all I can see is a new member 'ranting on' in a pretty anti-everything way and I'm simply left asking myself 'why ?'.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Phew a lot of anger in here. The tag-teaming and multi-quote interrogations are amazing. Does this happen to everyone who doesn't tow the party line?

As I said, much better to use green taxes to help everyone reduce their consumption instead of allowing a tiny minoprity of people to generate additional energy without any regard to whether they have already done as much as they can to reduce their consumption first.

I don't think anger is the right word. Perhaps boredom is more accurate. Unfortunately for you, most on here have dealt with these arguments for years, as they've been posted many, many times by Graham and Cardew. You may not be aware of this but Graham repeatedly criticised the use of subsidies whilst supporting nuclear, work that one out! And also claimed PV was morally wrong, just before installing PV to beat the March deadline last year!

By telling people they are wrong but posting numerous errors, what do you expect in response?

You claim pumping water is as expensive as buying it, (despite being advised beforehand on the correct figures) but are out by a factor of 100+.

You post an extract from a 3 year old article to criticise German PV, despite that article being wrong when it was written.

You claim PV is 10 times more expensive than other technologies, but are out by a factor of 5 or more, and PV is still falling.

You claim Germany generates several megawatts (despite being advised beforehand on the correct figures) so you are out by a factor of 10,000.

You claim PV works in the summer, but my system (an off south shallow panel summer specialist) averages 8kWh's per day in early March (2 weeks short of the end of Winter), did 5 today, and 14 yesterday. Ask the steep roof south facing PV'ers how much they are generating at the moment!

You claim leccy demand in the summer is much lower, check out the National Grid for actual figures. You'll see that daytime demand (8am to 4pm) is way above baseload throughout the summer, as well as the winter.

You suggest green taxes on energy bills of approx 25%, when they are actually 10% on leccy and 4% on gas. [Edit: I note that you've clarified these numbers now, by saying they are just symbolic, but why use extremely exaggerated symbols, when the real numbers are easily available?]

You repeatedly argue for money to be spent on reducing demand, and also claim that this point isn't being addressed, despite the fact that energy savings schemes are part of the Green Tariff. No single item will do the job, not energy savings, not PV, not wind, not nuclear. We need them all, so setting up singular arguments, just to knock one technology down (at a time) won't work, it's been tried (on here) too many boring times already.

So you repeatedly dismiss informed, accurate information, as 'defensive PV'ers' but justify your provocative 'morally wrong' statement as 'throwaway'.

I don't think you should take correction as anger, after all, many people are showing an interest in your comments, so why not learn some up to date numbers.

And I should add, that whilst I don't speak for anyone else, I personally don't see PV as the great saviour in the UK, but I also don't see any other technology doing it alone, so a 5% to 10% contribution from PV is great. A similar percentage from energy savings, also great, especially if these two can be achieved relatively cheaply, and that is certainly possible if you look at where PV is already. The big money is going to be spent on wind, and almost certainly nuclear.

Mart.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Looking at solar photovoltaic systems and the associated FiT, the subsidy is temporary and designed to provide encouragement to swiftly develop a mature market and volume based manufacturing base. FiT schemes are currently in place in many (/most) of the developed countries and have acted to drive the cost of pv down from around £5/Wp installed a little over three years ago to about a quater of that today. Whatever you would read regarding the cost efficiencies of solar electricity, make sure that it's up-to-date, as so much 'evidence' available to quote is simply outdated ....

HTH
Z

Hiya Z, I realise I run the risk of being Cardew'd for agreeing with you, but do you remember some time back stating that FIT style subsidies have worked, where other subsidies have failed?

I mention this, because there are a lot of articles looking at US PV costs which are considerably higher than German (or UK) costs. In fact US 'farm' costs per kWp, are about the same as German domestic costs.

It seems that pumping money into larger companies, or simply offering flat cash sums (or tax credits) doesn't work very well in bringing down costs. Who'd have thunk it!

Mart.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Z, I realise I run the risk of being Cardew'd for agreeing with you, but do you remember some time back stating that FIT style subsidies have worked, where other subsidies have failed?

I mention this, because there are a lot of articles looking at US PV costs which are considerably higher than German (or UK) costs. In fact US 'farm' costs per kWp, are about the same as German domestic costs.

It seems that pumping money into larger companies, or simply offering flat cash sums (or tax credits) doesn't work very well in bringing down costs. Who'd have thunk it!

Mart.

Hi

That's exactly why the product and the market needed to be consumerised .....

Pump loads of cash into technology corporations and they simply say 'Thank you' and increase their dividends, even if they have yet to make a profit. The missing issue is that having done this there is still no consumer market to take the goods, therefore a vertically integrated market structure develops where either the pv manufacturers own large scale generating facilities, or existing generators buy manufacturing capacity ... either way there is no incentive to reduce costs & prices as whatever subsidy is available (state or federal) is open to be 'farmed' through 'shaping' the market .... this really does seem to be what has happened in the US ...

This happens in many sectors if you sit back and have a think, but the energy sector seems to be pretty good at vertical integration as it particularly suits their needs to compartmentalize & segregate the overall level of profitability ....

HTH
Z

EricMears

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I dont have access to IBCs and I don't really want tanks above ground for asthetic reasons as well as the other ones I mentioned. I also don't think that if I wanted to sell my house, too many buyers would be keen on some amateur contraption being used to flush toilets.

Actually, you do have access to IBCs. Absolutely anybody can search for them on eBay, select one at reasonable cost and bid a small amount for it. If you're not in a rush, you might buy one at 99p (if nobody else bids); I saw several changing hands at £6 when I bought the one and only one I needed to pay for; the 'average price' for a competed auction is only about £30. Most of mine were donated by a grateful employer who found it more economical to give them to me than to pay a 'special waste contractor' to take them away. There are still some companies who are paying to dispose of them and might be amenable to somebody offering to take them away gratis.

They don't have to be installed in a basement garage - although since I have one I'm obviously going to choose that location. I did explain several different ways that they could be installed differently but still economically. There's nothing 'un-aesthetic' about a few tanks cloaked in a wooden jacket or buried under the lawn and a few cubic metres of garden pond could be an attractive feature. And digging a one metre (and a bit) deep hole doesn't need a JCB and operator - just an individual with a bit of energy.Think of traditional gravediggers who would dash off half a dozen holes 2m deep by 2m long by 1m wide every day.

I don't have 'an amateur contraption' flushing my lavatories. It's a perfectly conventional loft based tank feeding ordinary WC reservoirs by gravity - just like every house in the country would have had 50 years ago before some cowboy builder decided he could make a few pounds more profit by feeding them directly from the mains.

Anyone who has ever had a two day water mains failure will tell you what a brilliant idea that isn't ! They'll rue the day that building regs permitted that.

EricMears

As I said in post #4, payment of FITs is a government policy. Installing the gear to qualify for them was open to anybody with the spare cash or a credit rating good enough to borrow the capital cost.

You may see that as discriminating against the poor - but so too is making them queue to catch a bus whilst the more fortunate sail past them in a Rolls Royce.

If you don't like the scheme, have a go at your MP, MEP or whatever. Railing at the people who have accepted the government offer isn't going to change anything.

spgsc531

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I think the issue revolves around the way a new member landed in the forum, asked some basic questions and then immediately went on the 'attack' when established members like EricMears offered-up their experiences in reply.

I do note that Eric provided information on how to create a low-cost RWH system, something which has absolutely nothing to do with FiTs, ROCs or any other form of subsidy, yet that didn't prevent serious disbelief on what had been posted and open-argument against his solution ....

Regarding subsidising draughtproofing, insulation and efficient boilers .... where do you think the subsidies for cavity wall insulation, loft insulation and the boiler trade-in schemes have come from in recent years ? ....

Looking at solar photovoltaic systems and the associated FiT, the subsidy is temporary and designed to provide encouragement to swiftly develop a mature market and volume based manufacturing base. FiT schemes are currently in place in many (/most) of the developed countries and have acted to drive the cost of pv down from around £5/Wp installed a little over three years ago to about a quater of that today. Whatever you would read regarding the cost efficiencies of solar electricity, make sure that it's up-to-date, as so much 'evidence' available to quote is simply outdated ....

The question regarding 'how many of these guys spouting on about their green credentials would have installed PIR [sic] without the FiTs.', well Eric doesn't get FiTs for his RWH for one, then there's all of the members who have made various energy saving improvements on their properties .... my family has had solar thermal for almost 40 years, but that's not 'spouting on about' green credentials, in fact all I can see is a new member 'ranting on' in a pretty anti-everything way and I'm simply left asking myself 'why ?'.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ....

HTH
Z

I suppose many will be wondering why cardew and grahamc2003 were so vocal to defend/support his posts. Funny, they seem to have gone quiet now.

Oh well, we can all wait a few days before the next lot of irrelevant noise starts again..