Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

zeupater

markin wrote: »

To go full passive house someone on the green building forum worked it out at around 30K once economies of scale kick in. Thats the number in my head so im sticking to it.

And that number seems to match what happens on the tv show "The £100k House" if they try to push for it.

Hi

Maybe, if the goal was to achieve passivhaus standards as opposed to making significant headway towards zero carbon/carbon neutral properties ...

From memory, an influential report I read a while back suggested a build on-cost above current build costs in a range from ~£2.5k/unit for new flats & apartments through to ~£8-10k for large detached properties with somewhere around £5k providing both the cost for a typical semi-detached/terraced property and average for all properties .... this is the increase in cost above current building specification in order to achieve a zero carbon (/near to zero carbon) property ...

The requirement for Passivhaus standards to be met are questionable, especially so considering the additional energy benefits are marginal (above zero carbon) compared to the required additional cost as well as consideration of the issue of what constitutes active & passive heat source provision within the overall passivhaus energy budget since device & appliance efficiencies have improved!

HTH
Z

GreatApe

pile-o-stone wrote: »

The use of multiple user ids by the same poster is also frustrating. Again, something I really don’t understand the point of, especially on a small forum of friendly like-minded people.

If you are accusing me of this I don't post with multiple IDs at the same time I never have

I did have a different ID a long long time ago but I deleted it as I didn't want to spend time on this forum (not this sub section I use other sections more frequently) and I went away a bit. When I returned I stared a new ID as the old one was dead

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Without storage, nuclear is too expensive as it can't load follow, and simply ramping down is a waste of money* (same costs, less generation). But if you add storage, then you remove the need for nuclear in the first place as you reinforce cheaper RE. So we have a Catch 22 for expensive, slow and unpopular nuclear.

There is a clear pathway for a 100% nuclear world/country

The UK could get to 100% nuclear with as little as 50GW of nuclear power and 100GW of nuclear heat (the nuclear heat can be from the waste heat from the 50GW of electricity reactors)
That would provide for electricity, for heating and for EVs

No 'waste' as it becomes a long life fuel for the heating grid
Such infrastructure would have a design life if at least 60 years and would realistically get two 20 years life extension taking it to 100 years

silverwhistle

JKenH wrote: »

Some threads have gone on and on and my response has been to stop reading them after a while.

Well, it's very unusual for people to put others on ignore, so perhaps you should be asking yourself why this is?



I have certainly stopped reading that poster's contributions as they add nothing to the discourse, are fanciful in the extreme and add nothing to any realistic debate. I'd agree that we need a range of views, but they are not it and, as another poster pointed out, never address current news such as recent contract pricing news, successes and failures of different technologies.

Reed_Richards

JKenH wrote: »

... Some threads have gone on and on and my response has been to stop reading them after a while. (Apparently it is possible to put someone on “ignore”.......

I read this forum regularly and I have learned to value the comments of some contributors whilst finding others of little interest. If I value a contributor I will read their comments in detail. If I don't value another contributor I will skim or ignore their contributions. I have a terrible memory for names but even I don't need an automated feature to do this; it's something we all do naturally anyway. The "ignore" feature would only be of use if I read comments here so infrequently that I could not remember from one visit to the next who I did not rate.

I don't agree that the long threads are not worth reading; some (like this one) certainly are.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Let’s not jump to conclusions. There may be a logical explanation for this. I am unable to use the multi quote facility. I don’t know why but possibly because I use a tablet not a pc. If I want to make comments on several points raised in the same post I need to do separate posts to address them individually.

But as you've said before, you value personal opinion above facts. Sadly, some posters will repeat their personal opinions long after they've been debunked. I assumed that those reading these threads want to learn facts, not be mislead.

On the energy board we had this poster spend years defending coal on the grounds that all the arguments about the health implications are false or over-stated. The result was that most folk simply ignored that account. Now we have endless posts and multiple threads on a Green and Ethical Board promoting nuclear options long after all the facts, figures, and evidence turned against it (I'd suggest the turning point was roughly 2010-2015).

A while back many of us objected strongly to the offensive posts on this thread (racially and religiously intolerant about US shale gas), but that resulted in the deletion of our posts and a change of name to the thread. So, dare I say out of despair, that was when many started to opt for the ignore option.

Previously, many of the oldies, lived with 10yrs of anti-PV posts, many every day calling the support 'immoral', from one nuclear supporter, and my personal views on demand side PV was falsely misrepresented for 5+yrs before that nuclear supporter was reined in by MSE. Though he still pops on to 'thank' posts (such as yours a while back) that argue against me.

BTW, a simple option for multi posting, just click quote, then copy and past the whole text as many time as necessary, then delete the unwanted text from each quote part you wish to respond to.

Martyn1981

"The end of the beginning", perhaps?

Remember how legal action finally broke big tobacco, well, perhaps this is the start of the AGW version. A long road, but you have to start somewhere.

Little Rhody Hits The Climate Change Litigation Big Time

pile-o-stone

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But as you've said before, you value personal opinion above facts. Sadly, some posters will repeat their personal opinions long after they've been debunked. I assumed that those reading these threads want to learn facts, not be mislead.

On the energy board we had this poster spend years defending coal on the grounds that all the arguments about the health implications are false or over-stated. The result was that most folk simply ignored that account. Now we have endless posts and multiple threads on a Green and Ethical Board promoting nuclear options long after all the facts, figures, and evidence turned against it (I'd suggest the turning point was roughly 2010-2015).

A while back many of us objected strongly to the offensive posts on this thread (racially and religiously intolerant about US shale gas), but that resulted in the deletion of our posts and a change of name to the thread. So, dare I say out of despair, that was when many started to opt for the ignore option.

Previously, many of the oldies, lived with 10yrs of anti-PV posts, many every day calling the support 'immoral', from one nuclear supporter, and my personal views on demand side PV was falsely misrepresented for 5+yrs before that nuclear supporter was reined in by MSE. Though he still pops on to 'thank' posts (such as yours a while back) that argue against me.

BTW, a simple option for multi posting, just click quote, then copy and past the whole text as many time as necessary, then delete the unwanted text from each quote part you wish to respond to.

Wow, I didn't realise that this board was such a hotbed of intrigue . I must have joined during a period of calm and assumed that this was the norm, so when our nuclear poster (re)appeared, I assumed this was the first time the tranquility had been disturbed. Now it appears that he has a track record for this sort of thing, and after disappearing and licking his wounds he's back for another round of trolling. Oh well, hopefully he'll get bored. He's probably been loving the attention, so apologies to all for my having raised it. I'll go back to pushing my mouse wheel past his multiple off-topic posts to find interesting green energy news posted by others.

JKenH

Reed_Richards wrote: »

I read this forum regularly and I have learned to value the comments of some contributors whilst finding others of little interest. If I value a contributor I will read their comments in detail. If I don't value another contributor I will skim or ignore their contributions. I have a terrible memory for names but even I don't need an automated feature to do this; it's something we all do naturally anyway. The "ignore" feature would only be of use if I read comments here so infrequently that I could not remember from one visit to the next who I did not rate.

I don't agree that the long threads are not worth reading; some (like this one) certainly are.

Well obviously I am still reading this one but others I am not.

pile-o-stone

https://www.energylivenews.com/2019/08/06/forget-green-energy-low-carbon-power-is-going-blue/

"Blue energy, which refers to the energy released when freshwater mixes with the ocean, could harness as much as 2TW of clean electricity"