FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Wind generating about
Wind generating about
Jump to: Newest in thread
Britain has 43.2 gigawatts of installed capacity in wind and solar. Currently they are generating 1.4 gigawatts. Gas (28.6 gigawatts) is making up the difference. What happens in 2035 (or 2030 if Labour win) when gas has been removed?
Wind generating 2% of heat today.
This is why the cost of gas NEEDS to be in the cost of generating electricity through green. Its an opportunity cost.
We would need another 450k wind turbines to ensure we could be green today |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Wind is an intermittent energy source, so the solution is not really about installed capacity, it is about energy storage. As battery technology improves it will be feasible to build mega energy banks. Alternatively, pumped hydro storage or pumped thermal storage in old mines. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are you suggesting that the government needs to stop wasting time opening new oil and gas fields and start getting on with the transition to renewables?"
The opposite.
For yesterday , to guarantee electricity to be generated 100% green which I think is labour's plan for 2035?/ they'd have had to have 40* Netherlands number of wind turbines the uk currently has
Better off switching to nuclear and other sources. Maybe even investing in more gas since we are using it anyway |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wind is an intermittent energy source, so the solution is not really about installed capacity, it is about energy storage. As battery technology improves it will be feasible to build mega energy banks. Alternatively, pumped hydro storage or pumped thermal storage in old mines."
The technology being discussed is decades away sadly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are you suggesting that the government needs to stop wasting time opening new oil and gas fields and start getting on with the transition to renewables?
The opposite.
For yesterday , to guarantee electricity to be generated 100% green which I think is labour's plan for 2035?/ they'd have had to have 40* Netherlands number of wind turbines the uk currently has
Better off switching to nuclear and other sources. Maybe even investing in more gas since we are using it anyway"
Nuclear is a good idea. But again it doesn't protect the profits of the fossil fuel companies, so we can't have any of that woke far left nonsense round here thank you.
We must ensure we pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible, no matter the cost to energy users or the planet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nuclear is a good idea. But again it doesn't protect the profits of the fossil fuel companies, so we can't have any of that woke far left nonsense round here thank you."
Most of the opposition to nuclear comes from the eco movement, who have consistently campaigned against it. Even today, when it's the only carbon-free method that can deliver the necessary power 24/7, many of them are still ideologically opposed to it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are you suggesting that the government needs to stop wasting time opening new oil and gas fields and start getting on with the transition to renewables?
The opposite.
For yesterday , to guarantee electricity to be generated 100% green which I think is labour's plan for 2035?/ they'd have had to have 40* Netherlands number of wind turbines the uk currently has
Better off switching to nuclear and other sources. Maybe even investing in more gas since we are using it anyway
Nuclear is a good idea. But again it doesn't protect the profits of the fossil fuel companies, so we can't have any of that woke far left nonsense round here thank you.
We must ensure we pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible, no matter the cost to energy users or the planet."
It's parliament opposition and pressure groups that have stopped nuclear investment since the early 00s |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are you suggesting that the government needs to stop wasting time opening new oil and gas fields and start getting on with the transition to renewables?
The opposite.
For yesterday , to guarantee electricity to be generated 100% green which I think is labour's plan for 2035?/ they'd have had to have 40* Netherlands number of wind turbines the uk currently has
Better off switching to nuclear and other sources. Maybe even investing in more gas since we are using it anyway
Nuclear is a good idea. But again it doesn't protect the profits of the fossil fuel companies, so we can't have any of that woke far left nonsense round here thank you.
We must ensure we pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible, no matter the cost to energy users or the planet.
It's parliament opposition and pressure groups that have stopped nuclear investment since the early 00s"
Quite right. How are the oil companies supposed to keep making billions upon billions if we start to transition away. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Nuclear is a good idea. But again it doesn't protect the profits of the fossil fuel companies, so we can't have any of that woke far left nonsense round here thank you.
Most of the opposition to nuclear comes from the eco movement, who have consistently campaigned against it. Even today, when it's the only carbon-free method that can deliver the necessary power 24/7, many of them are still ideologically opposed to it."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are you suggesting that the government needs to stop wasting time opening new oil and gas fields and start getting on with the transition to renewables?"
We will need oil even if we are not burning it so new oil in my opinion is not a bad thing and it will be years before lorrys are EV.
Would be better not to be reliant on importing oil but possibly exporting it.
And more development into the recycling of old oil. As in textile. Most at the moment Is burnt in house hold waste.
The total percentage of waste sent for incineration has risen from 9% in 2001/01 to 48.2% in 2020/21 (a 435% increase in the proportion of waste sent for incineration).
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are you suggesting that the government needs to stop wasting time opening new oil and gas fields and start getting on with the transition to renewables?
We will need oil even if we are not burning it so new oil in my opinion is not a bad thing and it will be years before lorrys are EV.
Would be better not to be reliant on importing oil but possibly exporting it.
And more development into the recycling of old oil. As in textile. Most at the moment Is burnt in house hold waste.
The total percentage of waste sent for incineration has risen from 9% in 2001/01 to 48.2% in 2020/21 (a 435% increase in the proportion of waste sent for incineration).
"
Yes, oil company profits are the main concern.
We don't need to worry about climate change or ever increasing energy prices. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *appyPandaMan
over a year ago
Kilkenny, but Dublin is more fun |
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that the modern world as we view it now just has no prospect of a good future.
Climate change isn't THE problem, just like topsoil erosion, ocean acidification, ecological degradation and major chemical imbalances disrupting natural regulatory mechanisms aren't. They're merely symptoms of the real underlying issue: overshoot.
Our species' rapid growth and advancement has been marvelous, but it comes with many huge costs and we currently consume far more energy and resources than is anyway sustainable. The delusion of infinite growth on a finite planet is ridiculous, but that's how our current economic ideologies are structured.
I don't blame folk for distrusting our self serving political systems that prioritise the interests of elites and are obsessed with more and more imaginary money flowing through our financial sector, but the polycrisis is happening above our silly little human centric fantasy world humans imagined around themselves.
We need major systematic changes of how we organise our societies, especially when it comes to the elites who consume resources and influence policy far more than normal people do.
No more private jets would only be a start in knocking them down to size and is very necessary, but unfortunately our politicians seem incapable of facing the biggest culprits.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The only guaranteed source of free energy in the UK is tidal"
Except that tidal only generates useful power for about 20 hours in the day, and not the same 20 hours each day. Of course barrier systems only produce power for about 10 hours a day.
Oh, and there's the difficulty in getting investment, due to the large number of tidal power schemes that have gone bankrupt after the sea smashed the equipment to bits.
Oh, and there's the eco problems of damaging marine habitats (for stream systems), and land habitats (for barrier systems).
Oh, and the fact that's it's really expensive, and requires a large amount of maintenance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We would need another 450k wind turbines to ensure we could be green today
No we don't,we need wind.
The only guaranteed source of free energy in the UK is tidal"
The genuine solution is a combination of nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, wave, etc to generate electricity.
Reduction in home and commercial usage through efficiencies.
Other such as home insulation, geothermal water heating, roof mounted solar etc.
And innovative storage solutions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We would need another 450k wind turbines to ensure we could be green today
No we don't,we need wind.
The only guaranteed source of free energy in the UK is tidal
The genuine solution is a combination of nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, wave, etc to generate electricity.
Reduction in home and commercial usage through efficiencies.
Other such as home insulation, geothermal water heating, roof mounted solar etc.
And innovative storage solutions."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The genuine solution is a combination of nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, wave, etc to generate electricity.
Reduction in home and commercial usage through efficiencies.
Other such as home insulation, geothermal water heating, roof mounted solar etc.
And innovative storage solutions."
Agreed.
But there will be occasional periods when we are relying on just nuclear and storage. The problem there is that we don't have anywhere near enough nuclear, and we have even less storage. We need to get on with improving both of those things quickly.
Sadly, nuclear is really difficult and expensive to do, and storage currently doesn't exist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple
over a year ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
"The only guaranteed source of free energy in the UK is tidal
Except that tidal only generates useful power for about 20 hours in the day, and not the same 20 hours each day. Of course barrier systems only produce power for about 10 hours a day.
Oh, and there's the difficulty in getting investment, due to the large number of tidal power schemes that have gone bankrupt after the sea smashed the equipment to bits.
Oh, and there's the eco problems of damaging marine habitats (for stream systems), and land habitats (for barrier systems).
Oh, and the fact that's it's really expensive, and requires a large amount of maintenance."
Actually theres pretty much constant tidal flow around the UK coast. High water time is different at every port
How many hours a day if "useful" wind is there ?
Wind power doesn't require expensive maintenance
Wind farms haven't caused environmental damage ?
Wind isn't and never will be a solution. Tidal "could " be
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"
We would need another 450k wind turbines to ensure we could be green today
No we don't,we need wind.
The only guaranteed source of free energy in the UK is tidal
The genuine solution is a combination of nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, wave, etc to generate electricity.
Reduction in home and commercial usage through efficiencies.
Other such as home insulation, geothermal water heating, roof mounted solar etc.
And innovative storage solutions."
I agree that there are a number of solutions, but I was hoping we would have moved forward quicker than we have with SMR's. They seem a perfect answer to power and offer resilience in the network by having them local.
It seems SMR's fell out of favour and kicked into the long grass for larger offerings, but are now being picked up again.
We need to stop stalling and get building to bring stability into our energy requirements, and you wont hear me say this very often, our energy production should be state owned. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The only guaranteed source of free energy in the UK is tidal"
"Except that tidal only generates useful power for about 20 hours in the day, and not the same 20 hours each day. Of course barrier systems only produce power for about 10 hours a day.
Oh, and there's the difficulty in getting investment, due to the large number of tidal power schemes that have gone bankrupt after the sea smashed the equipment to bits.
Oh, and there's the eco problems of damaging marine habitats (for stream systems), and land habitats (for barrier systems).
Oh, and the fact that's it's really expensive, and requires a large amount of maintenance."
"Actually theres pretty much constant tidal flow around the UK coast. High water time is different at every port"
And that's great if we have 300-400% capacity installed, so that those areas with flow can cover for those that that don't have flow. Of course, all that extra capacity will just sit there idle once the high/low tide has passed, so it's not very cost effective.
"How many hours a day if "useful" wind is there ?"
Often 24 hours, sometimes none at all. But I wasn't claiming that wind was infallible.
"Wind power doesn't require expensive maintenance"
It does require lots of expensive maintenance, but it's much easier to send a man up to the top of a tall ladder than it is to send divers down into the sea, or to haul equipment up from the depths.
"Wind farms haven't caused environmental damage ?"
Some claim they have, but again, I'm not suggesting that wind is better.
"Wind isn't and never will be a solution. Tidal "could " be"
I agree with the first bit. I never claimed that it was a solution. I disagree with the second bit because tidal isn't ever going to be a complete solution for the whole of the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I agree that there are a number of solutions, but I was hoping we would have moved forward quicker than we have with SMR's. They seem a perfect answer to power and offer resilience in the network by having them local."
Unfortunately the 'S' in SMR stands for Small, and being small means that we would need dozens of them, possibly hundreds.
Finding even a single plot in the UK to build a new nuclear reactor is impossible due to people being terrified of evil radiation. Finding sites for dozens of them, some needing to be in the middle of cities, just isn't going to happen.
Which is a shame because the new Thorium based reactors are inherently safe, produce little in the way of waste material, and can be made very compact. They're also relatively cheap, which means that building dozens of them is still cheaper than building just a few standard reactors. They're an ideal solution, but ignorance means that we'll never be allowed to build them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We would need another 450k wind turbines to ensure we could be green today
No we don't,we need wind.
The only guaranteed source of free energy in the UK is tidal
The genuine solution is a combination of nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, wave, etc to generate electricity.
Reduction in home and commercial usage through efficiencies.
Other such as home insulation, geothermal water heating, roof mounted solar etc.
And innovative storage solutions.
I agree that there are a number of solutions, but I was hoping we would have moved forward quicker than we have with SMR's. They seem a perfect answer to power and offer resilience in the network by having them local.
It seems SMR's fell out of favour and kicked into the long grass for larger offerings, but are now being picked up again.
We need to stop stalling and get building to bring stability into our energy requirements, and you wont hear me say this very often, our energy production should be state owned. "
I don't know much about SMR technology or where it's at right now.
I agree with the rest of your post. In my opinion, state owned energy production would bring us closer towards energy independence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Your main problem with tidal energy is the same problem as wind. It was estimated to cost £150 a mwh and eventually go down tk £90 a mwh but they've not come close to proving these efficiencies. The same problem the wind sector has. The estimates of reducing costs of capital and improving efficiencies of generation won't materialise. They were simply dreamt.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your main problem with tidal energy is the same problem as wind. It was estimated to cost £150 a mwh and eventually go down tk £90 a mwh but they've not come close to proving these efficiencies. The same problem the wind sector has. The estimates of reducing costs of capital and improving efficiencies of generation won't materialise. They were simply dreamt.
"
This is what happens when, as you pointed out in your OP, the government dilly dallies and doesn't take enough action.
Plus, you know there are more reasons than just economic to transition? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages
Housing alone,poor energy performance ratings
Dwellings in England and in Wales have median energy efficiency rating in band D, four in five dwellings use mains gas as a main fuel source for central heating.
Of all dwellings built before 1930 in England and in Wales, more than 80% EPC rated in bands D to G. 22% (5M) of uk dwellings constructed pre 1918.
Green Homes Grant was announced in March 2022 and terminated by sunak less than a year after launching
Add other consumption; commercial properties, transport etc.
Conversation needs to be on reducing usage as well as energy sources |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages"
Because it's bloody expensive. Fitting floor, wall, and roof insulation, upgrading windows, adding solar panels and fitting a heat pump will cost around £30k-£40k for an average house, and that will save you maybe £800 per year in energy costs. People don't have the money to make all those changes, and even if they did, it's just not worth it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages
Because it's bloody expensive. Fitting floor, wall, and roof insulation, upgrading windows, adding solar panels and fitting a heat pump will cost around £30k-£40k for an average house, and that will save you maybe £800 per year in energy costs. People don't have the money to make all those changes, and even if they did, it's just not worth it."
That's one theory.
Another is that doing this isn't in the interests of the fossil fuels industry. So why would the government want to promote this approach. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages
Housing alone,poor energy performance ratings
Dwellings in England and in Wales have median energy efficiency rating in band D, four in five dwellings use mains gas as a main fuel source for central heating.
Of all dwellings built before 1930 in England and in Wales, more than 80% EPC rated in bands D to G. 22% (5M) of uk dwellings constructed pre 1918.
Green Homes Grant was announced in March 2022 and terminated by sunak less than a year after launching
Add other consumption; commercial properties, transport etc.
Conversation needs to be on reducing usage as well as energy sources "
I don't see homes as large consumers of energy. Businesses use so much it puts housing on such a small % of consumption. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages
Because it's bloody expensive. Fitting floor, wall, and roof insulation, upgrading windows, adding solar panels and fitting a heat pump will cost around £30k-£40k for an average house, and that will save you maybe £800 per year in energy costs. People don't have the money to make all those changes, and even if they did, it's just not worth it."
Is 12-14% (30-40k) of the value of the average home not a worthwhile investment to save £800 a year for the next 100-150 years
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages
Because it's bloody expensive. Fitting floor, wall, and roof insulation, upgrading windows, adding solar panels and fitting a heat pump will cost around £30k-£40k for an average house, and that will save you maybe £800 per year in energy costs. People don't have the money to make all those changes, and even if they did, it's just not worth it.
Is 12-14% (30-40k) of the value of the average home not a worthwhile investment to save £800 a year for the next 100-150 years
"
Brits move on average every 23 years, so they'll spend 30-40k to save 18400 over 23 years. Doesn't really add up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages
Because it's bloody expensive. Fitting floor, wall, and roof insulation, upgrading windows, adding solar panels and fitting a heat pump will cost around £30k-£40k for an average house, and that will save you maybe £800 per year in energy costs. People don't have the money to make all those changes, and even if they did, it's just not worth it.
Is 12-14% (30-40k) of the value of the average home not a worthwhile investment to save £800 a year for the next 100-150 years
Brits move on average every 23 years, so they'll spend 30-40k to save 18400 over 23 years. Doesn't really add up. "
Owners may do
Renters move on average every three years (ons)
Savings passed on to subsequent tenants
Home ownership has fallen from 71% in 2001 to B 62% now. Private rented has increased to 5 million
Many funding options from govt/ energy companies, incentivised but to let mortgage rates for more energy efficient homes
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your main problem with tidal energy is the same problem as wind. It was estimated to cost £150 a mwh and eventually go down tk £90 a mwh but they've not come close to proving these efficiencies. The same problem the wind sector has. The estimates of reducing costs of capital and improving efficiencies of generation won't materialise. They were simply dreamt.
This is what happens when, as you pointed out in your OP, the government dilly dallies and doesn't take enough action.
Plus, you know there are more reasons than just economic to transition?"
They didn't dilly dally on wind...and as stated. It doesn't generate the low costs advertised and tbe capital expenditure went up, not down and the efficiency didn't improve. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages
Because it's bloody expensive. Fitting floor, wall, and roof insulation, upgrading windows, adding solar panels and fitting a heat pump will cost around £30k-£40k for an average house, and that will save you maybe £800 per year in energy costs. People don't have the money to make all those changes, and even if they did, it's just not worth it.
Is 12-14% (30-40k) of the value of the average home not a worthwhile investment to save £800 a year for the next 100-150 years
Brits move on average every 23 years, so they'll spend 30-40k to save 18400 over 23 years. Doesn't really add up.
Owners may do
Renters move on average every three years (ons)
Savings passed on to subsequent tenants
Home ownership has fallen from 71% in 2001 to B 62% now. Private rented has increased to 5 million
Many funding options from govt/ energy companies, incentivised but to let mortgage rates for more energy efficient homes
"
Do you genuinely believe landlords are gonna shell out money for zero return? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your main problem with tidal energy is the same problem as wind. It was estimated to cost £150 a mwh and eventually go down tk £90 a mwh but they've not come close to proving these efficiencies. The same problem the wind sector has. The estimates of reducing costs of capital and improving efficiencies of generation won't materialise. They were simply dreamt.
This is what happens when, as you pointed out in your OP, the government dilly dallies and doesn't take enough action.
Plus, you know there are more reasons than just economic to transition?
They didn't dilly dally on wind...and as stated. It doesn't generate the low costs advertised and tbe capital expenditure went up, not down and the efficiency didn't improve."
... And why did that happen?
You know there are more reasons than just economic to transition? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages
Because it's bloody expensive. Fitting floor, wall, and roof insulation, upgrading windows, adding solar panels and fitting a heat pump will cost around £30k-£40k for an average house, and that will save you maybe £800 per year in energy costs. People don't have the money to make all those changes, and even if they did, it's just not worth it.
Is 12-14% (30-40k) of the value of the average home not a worthwhile investment to save £800 a year for the next 100-150 years
Brits move on average every 23 years, so they'll spend 30-40k to save 18400 over 23 years. Doesn't really add up.
Owners may do
Renters move on average every three years (ons)
Savings passed on to subsequent tenants
Home ownership has fallen from 71% in 2001 to B 62% now. Private rented has increased to 5 million
Many funding options from govt/ energy companies, incentivised but to let mortgage rates for more energy efficient homes
Do you genuinely believe landlords are gonna shell out money for zero return?"
There was talk (before the govt recently cancelled the 2025 band C Epc minimum requirement) that lenders would not be allowed to lend on properties that don’t meet Epc standards. Currently you can’t get a buy to let mortgage on a property below min E minimum |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages
Because it's bloody expensive. Fitting floor, wall, and roof insulation, upgrading windows, adding solar panels and fitting a heat pump will cost around £30k-£40k for an average house, and that will save you maybe £800 per year in energy costs. People don't have the money to make all those changes, and even if they did, it's just not worth it.
Is 12-14% (30-40k) of the value of the average home not a worthwhile investment to save £800 a year for the next 100-150 years
Brits move on average every 23 years, so they'll spend 30-40k to save 18400 over 23 years. Doesn't really add up.
Owners may do
Renters move on average every three years (ons)
Savings passed on to subsequent tenants
Home ownership has fallen from 71% in 2001 to B 62% now. Private rented has increased to 5 million
Many funding options from govt/ energy companies, incentivised but to let mortgage rates for more energy efficient homes
Do you genuinely believe landlords are gonna shell out money for zero return?
There was talk (before the govt recently cancelled the 2025 band C Epc minimum requirement) that lenders would not be allowed to lend on properties that don’t meet Epc standards. Currently you can’t get a buy to let mortgage on a property below min E minimum "
The band C min wouldn't have done anything but have people subletting on 'illegal' mortgages. Band E is easy to achieve. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't see homes as large consumers of energy. Businesses use so much it puts housing on such a small % of consumption."
The government's "Energy Consumption in the UK" report says that domestic usage is approximately the same as business. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages"
"Because it's bloody expensive. Fitting floor, wall, and roof insulation, upgrading windows, adding solar panels and fitting a heat pump will cost around £30k-£40k for an average house, and that will save you maybe £800 per year in energy costs. People don't have the money to make all those changes, and even if they did, it's just not worth it."
"Is 12-14% (30-40k) of the value of the average home not a worthwhile investment to save £800 a year for the next 100-150 years"
No.
Because the owner won't get to live in it for the next 150 years. They'll die long before that.
And spending that money on those things doesn't increase the value of your house by £40,000, because buyers don't value those things. They know that they also won't be living in it for the next 150 years, so their money is better spent on the bigger house next door, even though it does have higher annual heating bills. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages"
"Because it's bloody expensive. Fitting floor, wall, and roof insulation, upgrading windows, adding solar panels and fitting a heat pump will cost around £30k-£40k for an average house, and that will save you maybe £800 per year in energy costs. People don't have the money to make all those changes, and even if they did, it's just not worth it."
"Is 12-14% (30-40k) of the value of the average home not a worthwhile investment to save £800 a year for the next 100-150 years"
"Brits move on average every 23 years, so they'll spend 30-40k to save 18400 over 23 years. Doesn't really add up."
"Owners may do
Renters move on average every three years (ons)
Savings passed on to subsequent tenants"
Now you're being silly. Why would a landlord pay £40,000 to reduce his tenants energy bills? They won't be able to increase the rent much, because renters don't value cheaper bills enough to make it worthwhile.
In addition, it's major building work that makes the house uninhabitable for several weeks, so it costs a landlord even more in lost income. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your main problem with tidal energy is the same problem as wind. It was estimated to cost £150 a mwh and eventually go down tk £90 a mwh but they've not come close to proving these efficiencies. The same problem the wind sector has. The estimates of reducing costs of capital and improving efficiencies of generation won't materialise. They were simply dreamt.
This is what happens when, as you pointed out in your OP, the government dilly dallies and doesn't take enough action.
Plus, you know there are more reasons than just economic to transition?
They didn't dilly dally on wind...and as stated. It doesn't generate the low costs advertised and tbe capital expenditure went up, not down and the efficiency didn't improve.
... And why did that happen?
You know there are more reasons than just economic to transition?"
Why did efficiencies not improve?
Because the technology maxed out and they were never as efficient as advertised.
Their prices were determined on uk gov subsidies.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages
Because it's bloody expensive. Fitting floor, wall, and roof insulation, upgrading windows, adding solar panels and fitting a heat pump will cost around £30k-£40k for an average house, and that will save you maybe £800 per year in energy costs. People don't have the money to make all those changes, and even if they did, it's just not worth it.
Is 12-14% (30-40k) of the value of the average home not a worthwhile investment to save £800 a year for the next 100-150 years
No.
Because the owner won't get to live in it for the next 150 years. They'll die long before that.
And spending that money on those things doesn't increase the value of your house by £40,000, because buyers don't value those things. They know that they also won't be living in it for the next 150 years, so their money is better spent on the bigger house next door, even though it does have higher annual heating bills."
Agreed same as conservatories. They don't Improve the value of a home. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages
Because it's bloody expensive. Fitting floor, wall, and roof insulation, upgrading windows, adding solar panels and fitting a heat pump will cost around £30k-£40k for an average house, and that will save you maybe £800 per year in energy costs. People don't have the money to make all those changes, and even if they did, it's just not worth it.
Is 12-14% (30-40k) of the value of the average home not a worthwhile investment to save £800 a year for the next 100-150 years
Brits move on average every 23 years, so they'll spend 30-40k to save 18400 over 23 years. Doesn't really add up.
Owners may do
Renters move on average every three years (ons)
Savings passed on to subsequent tenants
Now you're being silly. Why would a landlord pay £40,000 to reduce his tenants energy bills? They won't be able to increase the rent much, because renters don't value cheaper bills enough to make it worthwhile.
In addition, it's major building work that makes the house uninhabitable for several weeks, so it costs a landlord even more in lost income."
Brilliant reply |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages
Because it's bloody expensive. Fitting floor, wall, and roof insulation, upgrading windows, adding solar panels and fitting a heat pump will cost around £30k-£40k for an average house, and that will save you maybe £800 per year in energy costs. People don't have the money to make all those changes, and even if they did, it's just not worth it.
Is 12-14% (30-40k) of the value of the average home not a worthwhile investment to save £800 a year for the next 100-150 years
"
That's about 2.5% return if there is not a fault in the time it takes to get you money back I can get a better return with investing that amount of money.
And if you borrow to do it then it would not even cover the interest?
So no not a god investment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't see homes as large consumers of energy. Businesses use so much it puts housing on such a small % of consumption.
The government's "Energy Consumption in the UK" report says that domestic usage is approximately the same as business."
I find that really hard to belive when you look at the energy consumed in manufacturing just on compressed air. Let alone the energy used on heating offices, shops, hospitals, schools, factory's. I have worked in around manufacturing and it is astounding the size of the gas and electricity supply to this buildings. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't see homes as large consumers of energy. Businesses use so much it puts housing on such a small % of consumption.
The government's "Energy Consumption in the UK" report says that domestic usage is approximately the same as business.
I find that really hard to belive when you look at the energy consumed in manufacturing just on compressed air. Let alone the energy used on heating offices, shops, hospitals, schools, factory's. I have worked in around manufacturing and it is astounding the size of the gas and electricity supply to this buildings."
I dont think you'd include hospitals and schools as businesses unless private? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages
Because it's bloody expensive. Fitting floor, wall, and roof insulation, upgrading windows, adding solar panels and fitting a heat pump will cost around £30k-£40k for an average house, and that will save you maybe £800 per year in energy costs. People don't have the money to make all those changes, and even if they did, it's just not worth it.
Is 12-14% (30-40k) of the value of the average home not a worthwhile investment to save £800 a year for the next 100-150 years
That's about 2.5% return if there is not a fault in the time it takes to get you money back I can get a better return with investing that amount of money.
And if you borrow to do it then it would not even cover the interest?
So no not a god investment. "
Solar panels become less and less efficient over time. Their life expectancy is 25 years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are priorities producing more energy instead of mitigating expensive outages
Because it's bloody expensive. Fitting floor, wall, and roof insulation, upgrading windows, adding solar panels and fitting a heat pump will cost around £30k-£40k for an average house, and that will save you maybe £800 per year in energy costs. People don't have the money to make all those changes, and even if they did, it's just not worth it.
Is 12-14% (30-40k) of the value of the average home not a worthwhile investment to save £800 a year for the next 100-150 years
That's about 2.5% return if there is not a fault in the time it takes to get you money back I can get a better return with investing that amount of money.
And if you borrow to do it then it would not even cover the interest?
So no not a god investment.
Solar panels become less and less efficient over time. Their life expectancy is 25 years."
I looked a a wind turbine but would take 15 years to pay fir it self and the gearbox had a garenty of 5 years, so did not bother. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't see homes as large consumers of energy. Businesses use so much it puts housing on such a small % of consumption."
"The government's "Energy Consumption in the UK" report says that domestic usage is approximately the same as business."
"I find that really hard to belive when you look at the energy consumed in manufacturing just on compressed air. Let alone the energy used on heating offices, shops, hospitals, schools, factory's. I have worked in around manufacturing and it is astounding the size of the gas and electricity supply to this buildings."
"I dont think you'd include hospitals and schools as businesses unless private?"
The report breaks the UK down into 4 sectors, Transport, Industry, Services, and Domestic.
Services and Industry consume roughly the same amount, and the two of them combined are approximately the same as Domestic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think we are not far from where it's going to be more economical to take care of our own power generation.
With Biomass, solar, wind, hydro and thermal recovery we could all reduce our bills and help improve the planet. But annoyingly the capital cost of setting it up is increasing with the price of Energy so it's restricted to the higher earners. The solution in my opinion is for property developers to start designing their builds to be as off grid as is possible.
This country is nonsense with regard to this though. Most of the tech that would help do this was banned. Stirling motors on boiler flues, thermal recovery on waste water. It winds me up no end because I can kind of put it in my house, but I definitely couldn't in a customers.
As for putting batteries in houses, that's just fashion and not really a good idea. Thermal storage is cheaper, safer and lasts as long as it's used. It drives me insane the way things like this get marketed as positive for you and the planet when actually it's the opposite and there's a cheaper solution that doesn't have the risk or harm attached. Individuals should not be installing battery banks. Entire estates should be installing thermal energy storage (its basically heated up sand).
Another thing that I find interesting. I used to do a lot of power analysis, which is looking at the actual waveform of the electricity. Near to solar farms and wind farms the wave is not always of decent quality and causes issues with electronics. That's another issue though which has solutions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This country is nonsense with regard to this though. Most of the tech that would help do this was banned. Stirling motors on boiler flues, thermal recovery on waste water. It winds me up no end because I can kind of put it in my house, but I definitely couldn't in a customers."
What makes you think either of those has been banned? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This country is nonsense with regard to this though. Most of the tech that would help do this was banned. Stirling motors on boiler flues, thermal recovery on waste water. It winds me up no end because I can kind of put it in my house, but I definitely couldn't in a customers.
What makes you think either of those has been banned?"
I was involved in a feasibility study for the CHP boilers. We were binned mid project by legislation that made them unlawful to install domestically. I was contracting to a company that tends to bully the Government so I thought that was quite final. Pleased to see I'm wrong on that one (I did check now)
The heat recovery I don't know the ins and outs. My colleagues project was domestic heat recovery from bath water. The Company just couldn't get it out in the UK for legal reasons but had the design sold and installed in Europe and America without issue. Again I'm pleased to see I got that one wrong too.
My mistake was saying stuff I knew 15 years ago without checking. Thanks for pointing out  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
