Because Marlow’s Energy is it’s People. (From Bucks Free Press)
Send your news, photos and videos by texting bucksfreepress to 80360 or email
Meet Dave Hampton, ‘the carbon coach’, family man, 50 years old, living in Marlow, in a refurbished energy efficient home. He keeps a low ‘footprint’. Dave rowed for Great Britain in 1982, studied engineering at Cambridge and went on to become one of the UK’s most dedicated climate change campaigners, influencing businesses, families and the rich and famous to cut their carbon. Dave often appears on TV and in newspapers, and his work as the carbon coach has attracted much international interest.
10,000 Marlow homes – £50million pounds a year - up in (invisible) smoke?
3:07pm Tuesday 30th March 2010
Marlow is, as local readers will know, a beautiful Thames-side town with plenty of good history: a bit of a ‘gem’ on the UK tourist trail, being a popular destination for US visitors. It wins awards like ‘Best Kept Village’ and is rather photogenic. Pictures of the town, and its famous suspension bridge, appear as icons on chocolate boxes etc.
Its people are generally quite lucky. If nothing else, just to live in such a lovely place. People are attracted here, and maybe, if truth be told, some perceive a status value in the Marlow name.
For some, Marlow has a connotation with simply messing about in boats in the summer, rowing regattas, Sir Steve Redgrave. For some it is the quintessential or quaint English architecture, cricket greens, open space, playgrounds, crazy golf and leafiness of Higginson Park.
Marlow is well served by transport, with one of the most delightful rail (donkey) journeys imaginable to and from Bourne End, and beyond to the Great Western. These are some of the reasons why I love the place: for what it is, and for what it isn’t. Why I settled here, a boy from deepest, darkest Essex stock, and put roots down in its rich watery soil. Generally speaking there is an energy and vibrancy to Marlovians.
There’s good community spirit, good schools, and people develop common bonds, through sport and through community groups. Whether they meet in Churches, or the ‘temples’ where they congregate are river banks, allotments, book clubs, playing fields, or other spaces of common interest, Marlow has a strong sense of community.
10,000 Marlow homes – £50million pounds a year - up in (invisible) smoke?
I would not be surprised if Marlow’s average energy bills are higher than UK average, which is £1400 per annum. For electricity, my guess is that the annual spend per household will vary from £200 to £2000. For heating there will be a similar range, let’s say £300 to £3000 a year. Where are you? Let’s guess a £1500 p.a. overall Marlow average, bearing in mind some are much lower, and some much higher.
What we spend on fuelling our cars probably ranges from £10 a week up to £100 a week or more. Let’s hazard a guess at £1500 p.a.
Finally, holiday air travel. Let’s make a wild guess of £1000 overall average spend per home per year. (I know some never fly, and some fly quite a lot.) You are of course free to use your own best guesstimates, reader, and do your own ‘back-of-an-envelope’ calculations, but I don’t think I will be far out here.
So just supposing the average annual fuel bills per household were: Electricity £700 Heating £800 Petrol £1500 Flights £1000 then the total energy spend per Marlow home would be about £4000 per year. Even if this were an overestimate by 100%, even half this amount, or £2000, would be a sizeable chunk of the average Marlow household income... and a big chunk of power to waste.
And the really funny thing?
We don’t need to be paying this. Or leaving this con-trail for the kids.
Our town could be a nett generator of energy. No, not a power station, but a highly organised and efficient network of home energy generating ‘cells’ interconnected like the internet. Clever, new, local, renewable energy technology; not central, dirty, old fossil.
Imagine all the existing big fat (invisible) power cables, the invisible oil pipeline (steroid injection), the night-time oil tanker deliveries, and the safely buried gas mains into Marlow ALL severed and redundant. Breaking free from the grid. Off grid.
That’s not quite true. We’d still need an electrical cable – a smaller one - to carry the excess power – the spare that we may be able to export! Less of an ‘umbilical cord’ of addictive dependency, and more of a ‘power accord’ of inter-dependence. And the people of Marlow £50 million a year richer. Making some cash selling our home-grown energy too.
We could cut our dependency on (and the fortunes we pay annually to) ‘those in power’.
This is, of course, controversial, and deeply unpopular with those currently in power and those who defend them. But we would be 500,000 empty oil drums lighter, and 300,000 tons of CO2 cleaner and more respectable.
Just like that!
Except of course it isn’t quite ‘just like that’. We’d have to work hard for it. We’d have to insulate our homes, install solar panels, build small community wind farms, small community heat and power stations (e.g. powered from sewage) and much increase our use of the bike and foot. We’d have to kick some pretty engrained ‘oil-addict’ habits.
But a High Street where most people are biking or walking could be THE proud status of the Marlow future, not a relic of the past. We can happily take more ‘stay-cations’ – even take one EVERY weekend of the year – in one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world: Marlow, UK. Luxury.
Surely the kids are worth it?
If we pulled it off it wouldn’t make one iota of difference to USA or China’s footprint, but then we can’t really force them to do what we don’t do anyway, can we?
But we can inspire them to follow our first carbon-free footsteps, can’t we?
Even if we failed, we’d still end up with lower bills, less pollution, higher house prices (for their higher energy efficiency rating), healthier kids walking more, bike lanes, less traffic congestion, a better railway, and more community spirit in the park in the summer, instead of a mass exodus of Marlow people for the Maldives (by then underwater).
Comments(131)
dave hampton
says...
2:27pm Wed 31 Mar 10
I will keep people posted on that, and intend to make available other helpful feedback and experience that will emerge from my and others installations, as part of the www.transitionmarlow
.org 100 Solar Panel project.
We had a Prof. attend last night's public meeting, from Hurley, who offered to share his weekly output data from his PV installation - over the last >5 years. He is fully satisfied, despite only being paid a tiny fraction of what 'new' generators will be paid under 'feed in tariff' (41.3p kWh) and he assured people that PV also generates useful power when weather is overcast - like today.
Bill Williams
says...
2:44pm Wed 31 Mar 10
.
I would be very interested to see this and your output.
.
I would be truly amazed if, on a day like today, your Prof can be powering his house, an inverter and selling excess to the grid.
demoness
says...
2:58pm Wed 31 Mar 10
dave hampton
says...
3:05pm Wed 31 Mar 10
.
Thanks for your positive contribution.
.
He isn't 'my Prof' by the way.
.
I don't recall saying he was powering his house and exporting today?
.
However, it is perfectly possible that he is. Very likely in fact. Perhaps BFP will do a feature on it?
.
If his home is half as energy efficient as mine, he will be exporting plenty as we speak Bill, plenty.
Bill Williams
says...
3:22pm Wed 31 Mar 10
.
Also, do you know where I can get hold of the Prof's data at all?
dave hampton
says...
3:32pm Wed 31 Mar 10
Not cheap is ultimately the honest answer. Ideally we wouldn't be starting from here as the expression goes. But if it's £50 million a year going up in smoke for Marlow, it will of course be a much bigger sum for Wycombe, and overall it would be a good investment for the community - spend to save and all that. The council is up for this. It has been described by others as a 'Green New Deal'. Jobs are created fixing things so we waste less in future, going back to old houses one street at a time and renovating them for improved energy efficiency. It's a win win win - (apart from for the power companies of course, and the governments they sponsor.)
New homes are being built now with a tenth of the energy neediness of old ones, but that's no comfort.
There is however an excellent local service called Cocoon, in case your home insulation needs a top up?
http://www.cocoonyou
rhome.co.uk/
They can put you in touch with grants, best prices, and trusted installers.
I'd also recommend you look at a previous blog of mine about 'high energy light bulbs'.
It cost me a staggeringly high £120 to replace the six downlighter bulbs in our kitchen - but these were the ones that we need to use the most.
These now cost us 50p for every 100 hours instead of £5. Over their lifecycle they will save us £500. We will be quids in by the end of the year.
It all adds up.
The more general point of the article was that we don't necessarily need to assume that we are powerless to do anything about the bills we pay, individually or collectively, I hope you liked that.
dave hampton
says...
3:38pm Wed 31 Mar 10
I won't though.
Because historically your 'out of interest' comments have proved to have been consistently negative, energy draining, time wasting and frequently - blatantly distorted - as above.
But I will do what I said I will do.
Dave
Bill Williams
says...
3:41pm Wed 31 Mar 10
dave hampton
says...
3:55pm Wed 31 Mar 10
TTFN
"I will keep people posted on that, and intend to make available other helpful feedback and experience that will emerge from my and others installations, as part of the www.transitionmarlow
.org 100 Solar Panel project.
Red Fred
says...
4:00pm Wed 31 Mar 10
Increased insulation - yes, low energy lightbulbs - yes, and even A to AAA rated appliances, we've done all these and hope to save money quite quickly with all.
BUT therin lies the problem. We looked at solar panels of different makes, types and designs and couldn't justify the incredibly long time they would take to pay for themselves. In the end it just wasn't worth even considering.
Bill Williams
says...
4:01pm Wed 31 Mar 10
.
Do you not have a link for the Prof's data where I can take a look at the long term yeild?
Bill Williams
says...
4:01pm Wed 31 Mar 10
dave hampton
says...
4:20pm Wed 31 Mar 10
You are free to believe what you like - but that's untrue. Free clean electricity from the sun flowing into my house and being exported is deeply inspiring to me. I feel lucky to have it.
The reason is that I am actually very busy getting on with cutting my and others carbon, and prefer to do that than to debate it with a cynic and sceptic.
I have spent too long on this blog already, and am unwilling to supply Mr W with just one cloudy weeks data - just because he asks for it without so much as a please.
My PV panel is a 20 year investment and I don't propose to let a self declared sceptic - although he claims to work in the PV industry - (maybe in the sales demand reduction dept?) - evaluate it for me - and try and rubbish it - after one cloudy week.
I am glad you have done all those sensible things: so have we, and we have saved money quite quickly as you say.
I have also got a solar hot water panel too: I have had it for 6 years, and am delighted with it. It even works during power cuts. It has saved us around £1000 to date looks good, is consistent with my beliefs and the advice i give, and helps me 'lighten up' when the kids want baths instead of showers. Priceless. When I shower the water feels 'cleaner' - less pollution involved - but i don't expect u to buy that!
At the public meeting last night someone from the audience pointed out that the rate of return expected from a 2kWp PV installation, with the government's new FeedInTariff deal, worked out better than you can get from an ISA... index linked, and guaranteed for 25 years.
You are at liberty not to be inspired by this prospect. But there are plenty who are.
And that's without counting the more important benefits than money alone.
dave hampton
says...
4:25pm Wed 31 Mar 10
Here's what I said - for the 3rd time:
"I will keep people posted on that, and intend to make available other helpful feedback and experience that will emerge from my and others installations, as part of the www.transitionmarlow
.org 100 Solar Panel project."
Bill Williams
says...
5:39pm Wed 31 Mar 10
.
If you scroll upwards you will see my previous post which reads....
.
"Bill Williams, says...
3:22pm Wed 31 Mar 10
So, can you tell me how much your panels have produced today then, please?"
.
I take it from your several references to "one cloudy weeks data"(sic) that you are unwilling to provide a reading today as it would be, I assume, rather low due to cloud cover. This seems rather contradictory to your earlier assertions that you can generate plenty of power from photovoltaics on cloudy days.
.
Again, out of interest, how much per year do you sell back to the grid, please?
.
With regard to me "not understanding" in my previous post, I was inferring more to your apparent inability to read your panel output. However, your reply to Red Fred has cured my confusion in that it is quite clear you are just denying me the data because I might scrutinise it.
dave hampton
says...
5:41pm Wed 31 Mar 10
.org 100 Solar Panel project.
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
5:43pm Wed 31 Mar 10
Red fred, by the sounds of it you’ve been over quoted and if I were you I would look harder to buy a solar pv system that DID pay back. Any installer worth their salts and not just a double glazing turned solar pv salesman will be able to offer you a quote that will gain you more interest than leaving your savings in most banks.
Dave you should post some links to reputable local PV installers.
Bill Williams, you should look into the figures with a few local solar PV companies in the area, they will help with figures, when you have all the facts, you are sure to see installing Solar PV is a no-brainer and sure to join the club.
Would be interesting to have more data on your solar panels, cost, peak output, amount produced. I shall look out on this link www.transitionmarlow
.org/index.php?p=1_2
_Solar
Good luck with making Marlow a bit more self sufficient in energy!
Bill Williams
says...
5:43pm Wed 31 Mar 10
.
I have contacted PV-fitting companies in the past and they have told me some truly remarkable whoppers in order to avoid giving out the real-world data. One of them even told me that the efficiency of the cells "did not matter" since the Sun is "effectively infinite".
.
I can only suppose it makes sense if you have an infinite amount of time to wait for the kettle to boil.
dave hampton
says...
5:53pm Wed 31 Mar 10
None atall.
I will chose to share it when I chose to share it, and not before. I don't take kindly to being bullied. I said 'no'.
Last time I looked it was my home, my PVs, my money, my data, my blog and my meters.
All will be revealed, as I have stated 4 times.
If you have anything positive or constructive to say I'd be delighted to hear it.
Bill Williams
says...
5:59pm Wed 31 Mar 10
.
Obviously in the UK we don't get clear sky conditions and in fact the average insolation for London is 198W/m^2 (from NASA). So any manufacturer "peak values" are rather useless to working out the actual yield one will get in the UK.
.
Even solar installers who have apparently "accounted" for this fact have (grudgingly) revealed their data sources for their insolation values and I've found them to use interpolated values from irradiance models which, again, are based on the assumption of 1000W/m^2 and assume clear sky conditions year round. Again, rather misleading.
.
My honest intention was to get some real-world data to put an actual, empirical value on the thing once and for all but because Dave is a bit shy I guess I will have to keep looking.
.
I would honestly be very, very interested to get hold of the Prof's data if he claims he can power his house on cloudy days such as today.
Bill Williams
says...
6:01pm Wed 31 Mar 10
.
Dave, no need to throw all of your toys out of the pram, I was only asking.
dave hampton
says...
6:05pm Wed 31 Mar 10
The Marlow scheme has the backing of 100s of people in Marlow, along with ethical business multi award winning company Good Energy.
Bill's comments really are very tedious, but I am used to them.
I have asked the 'Prof' who attended last night's meeting if and how he wants to release his data - and I will get back on that too.
Onwards and carbon downwards..
Bill Williams
says...
6:08pm Wed 31 Mar 10
.
Thank you.
dave hampton
says...
6:17pm Wed 31 Mar 10
If he doesn't want a panel, that's his perfect right, but please reader notice that he is hell-bent on dissuading you from doing something - something that you might actually feel is to your benefit, without all his slurs.
I did not say "the Prof's claims he can power his house on cloudy days such as today" as he well knows. (He might be able to on some days, but I didn't say that.)
I said (look above) that it was "very likely that he was exporting power as we speak"
There is a difference, as Mr W well knows.
dave hampton
says...
6:51pm Wed 31 Mar 10
"My honest intention was to get some real-world data to put an actual, empirical value on the thing once and for all."
What he doesn't say: "and slur the technology, its proponents, and the industry as best I can"
There are thousands of case studies of highly successful PV installations in UK and all over the world. Perhaps Mr W hasn't noticed.
Here comes the sun
dave hampton
says...
7:11pm Wed 31 Mar 10
If you have any doubts, then please don't bother considering getting your own panel. No one is asking you to.
Wait until it becomes the norm, as it will, and local people have direct experience. Soon no-one will be gullible enough to entertain your attempts at sabotage - of our best money, energy and planet saving efforts.
Bill Williams
says...
7:36pm Wed 31 Mar 10
.
What I am interested in is just how much power people are getting out of their domestic panels in the UK. I hear lots of fantastic stories but no-one seems too willing to share actual values (beyond the previously mentioned).
.
Your statement of...
.
"If his home is half as energy efficient as mine, he will be exporting plenty as we speak Bill, plenty."
.
...inferred to me that, even though it was extremely cloudy at that point (indeed, during similar days this week we were reading very low on our calibrated solarimeter at work), the Prof was not only powering his house but also pumping power back into the grid. Unless of course you mean he was just putting the power from the panels straight back onto the grid to make money.
.
Considering the maximum panel efficiency is something like 19% (disregarding the obvious caveats) and the average UK insolation for March/April is somewhere around 90-100 W/m^2, that would still mean he's only getting around 17-19W per square meter of panel.
.
The field studies I have come across where data are given (e.g. for the DTI*) actually suggest that these rough calculations using actual insolation values are more realistic than the "peak power" values given by industry.
.
Something doesn't quite add up, which is why I was enquiring about the output from your panels. You seemed to be achieving useful output (as is the Prof). Obviously, an empirically observed value is going to give a much more useful answer on this which is why I'm so interested.
.
I apologise if you interpreted this as a "provocation".
.
*(http://www.bis.gov
.uk/files/file44416.
pdf)
Dave Hampton
says...
8:07pm Wed 31 Mar 10
You will get your answers and so will others.
It all adds up.
If a household is consuming say, 200 watts, and panels are generating, say 500 watts, that is export.
In any case Feed in Tariff rewards total generation, regardless of whether consumed on site or not.
Bill Williams
says...
9:56pm Wed 31 Mar 10
.
Yes I understand the concept, thanks. But you would have to be doing very well to generate excess power from photovoltaics in the uk (I would imagine, looking at the monthly insolation data that you could get by in a good summer summer, if anyone remembers them, but the winter is going to be hopeless).
.
FIT seems to be a nice subsidy for the whole venture, sure, but it is not particularly relevant to the issue of whether a uk household is capable of generating all their electricity requirements from photovoltaics.
Red Fred
says...
10:46pm Wed 31 Mar 10
As for our experience, we did truly consider solar panels. Who wouldn't if you believe you are going to get free electricity?
However when we researched the costs more closely, our installation would have cost over £15,000. The quoted annual generation was in the region of 1800kwh which would have saved us between £160 and £250 per year depending on price and subsidies.
So this system would take anywhere between 60 and 90 years to pay for itself, lasting probably for a maximum of 30 years with declining efficiency towards the end.
Now I am aware that this assumes stable current price and the absence of grants for installation (you just try getting one) but 60-90 years???
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
1:31am Thu 1 Apr 10
Solar pv is a simple technology that makes electricity from the suns rays hitting the crystals. Simple but clever.
You have to remember that you may need electricity at night, when there is no solar, so you either use batteries for storage, or feed in to the grid and use the grid as storage. Bottom line is if you have enough space on a south facing roof, you CAN be self sufficient in Electricity.
Bill you seem to have many questions on solar and want to know how much power people get from their solar pv array so I suggest an informative web site
www.solarcentury.co.
uk especially http://www.solarcent
ury.co.uk/case-studi
es/127/mr-mrs-colqho
un/
Installing Solar PV on your roof at the moment is really a no-brainer, as long as it faces south or thereabouts and (assuming you don’t fall for any over zealous salesmen from unscrupulous companies) you don’t pay too much!
Red Fred - 60-90 years payback is absolute cobblers, take away a 0, you did well not to be suckered into buying that solar pv system!
Incidentally there is NO PAYBACK on buying electricity from the grid without producing any for yourself.
If you want to understand a bit more about the finances about UK feed in tariffs and how to earn money from renewables see this web link http://bit.ly/b26Sz9
Bill Williams
says...
9:23am Thu 1 Apr 10
.
Incidentally, it was solar century who tried to sell me the "the efficiency doesn't matter" line I mentioned earlier. Similarly, your suggestion that one is only limited by the size of your roof is, while blindingly obvious, quite true.
.
However, the problem with this rather simplistic statement comes when you consider that the average insolation for London in December is 22W/m^2. You are going to need 240m^2 of panels just to generate 1kW of power (again, assuming you have top of the range efficiency panels of 19%). So that's my kettle taken care of. I guess I'll just add more panels when I want to turn my PC on.
.
My roof isn't that big.
.
If you want to understand more about the seasonal variation in UK insolation there is a lot of data available from NASA
.
http://eosweb.larc.n
asa.gov/cgi-bin/sse/
sse.cgi?+s01#s01
dave hampton
says...
9:36am Thu 1 Apr 10
The only 'cynic and sceptic' i was referring to was Mr W.
Thanks for offering your historical price information. As Sidmouth has commented, you have been badly misinformed. It's a shame you missed the Marlow Solar public meeting. 100's of local people are now looking very seriously at solar panels with good reason.
Up to date figures are more like £12,000 for a system that will deliver 1800kW a year. (if you are part of the Marlow scheme you will get a end of year price rebate between £1000 - £2400)
Over the course of the year the combined income and savings - with FIT - will be in the region of £800.
That's better than any ISA, as someone commented at the meeting. Plus it is index linked and guaranteed for 25 years. So at least worth another look surely? But don't feel pressure, there are plenty already going ahead.
Bill, you distort things badly, yet again. This is so tedious.
No one has ever suggested that "a uk household is capable of generating all their electricity requirements from photovoltaics"
(Although some can, and some do).
Sidmouth: thanks for the positivity and links.
dave hampton
says...
9:50am Thu 1 Apr 10
Before I start getting 'hourly demands' from Mr W to share my (private) PV power output value, to support his conspiracy theory that the sun is not as bright as he is, here is an update.
My PV panel isn't actually connected to the grid at the moment.
That was the reason I was 'shy' as Mr W leapt to conclude.
It will be connected very shortly. I am missing out on valuable savings.
The reason?
A worldwide (temporary) supply shortage hiccup of 'inverters'.... because SO MANY people are installing solar PV globally at the moment... sensibly...
That is why I didn't share my data.
But don't be fooled. It's not as if i am the first person ever to have a solar roof. There are tens of millions in China and thousands of systems in UK all documented, proven, successful and now, with FIT tariff, highly economically attractive.
dave hampton
says...
9:52am Thu 1 Apr 10
Bill Williams
says...
10:17am Thu 1 Apr 10
.
"Bottom line is if you have enough space on a south facing roof, you CAN be self sufficient in Electricity."
.
I would say that that is someone suggesting a uk household is capable of generating all their electricity requirements from PV.
Red Fred
says...
10:42am Thu 1 Apr 10
I'll keep it simple, £15000 outlay to optimistically generate 1800kwh per year. At the rate of return at the time we would be getting 9 PENCE per kwh (£162 per year) and the system would have taken 92.6 years to pay for itself !!!
If you don't believe me, get a calculator and work it out.
Dave, thanks for the comments. At least you didn't slag me for disagreeing. Though if I had gone ahead at the time I would only be getting 9p per kwh and not eligible for the FIT of 41.3p now on offer. So who wants to be a pioneer eh?
I would say that whilst more attractive, the FIT rate would see my system pay for itself in just over 20years. Still not that good, considering you have to trust the government not to move the goalposts for that period, believe all the output figures and all your outlay is at the front end.
demoness
says...
10:47am Thu 1 Apr 10
Perhaps gentlemen if you stopped trying to be clever with each other with all the stats and verbal sparring, you might consider that you are putting readers off.
Bill Williams
says...
10:58am Thu 1 Apr 10
.
Hahaha, are you going to tell on me, Dave? Oh no!
.
I'm sure I can dig it out the email for you at some point. Not that it matters since they even carry the assertion that "efficiency doesn't matter" on their website FAQ section, so it appears to be company policy.
.
http://www.solarcent
ury.co.uk/about-sola
r/faqs/
.
"The 'efficiency' of solar panels is less relevant than you might imagine, because the sun contains an incredible amount of energy!"
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
11:05am Thu 1 Apr 10
Surely you should know the power that is produced by solar, can easily boil a kettle or run a computer.
Solar century are a reputable installer of Solar PV arrays and I am sure you have misunderstood or taken the ’efficiency doesn’t matter’ out of context.
The bottom line is, that anyone in the UK that has a south facing roof and is careful with how much they pay per KW installed, WILL make a safe return on their investment, they WILL be helping the pollution problem from dirty fuels, they WILL be helping with the UK’s energy security issues and they WILL be helping kick-start the UK solar manufacturing industry.
It’s fair enough if you can’t understand the benefits of solar PV, financial or environmental, but the facts are obvious for anyone clear minded enough to look into it.
240m2 for 1kw??!? I think your calculator is broke it’s actually 8 square meters for a 1kw system producing 850kWhs per annum.
So the amount of electricity that you want to produce is only limited by the space and finances you have available to invest into a technology that will produce ‘FREE’ electricity for 25+ years, which the government will pay you a ‘FEED-IN-TARIFF’ premium to do. A No-brainer.
Also for your clarification Bill if anyone does the sums, anyone lucky enough to have a large roof space and the finances to install solar PV, could be self sufficient in Energy, ie they could earn more producing electricity from the sun than they spend on it.
RED fred. It was good of you to share figures, but those figures given to you or worked out by you of a 60-90 years payback ARE absolute cobblers and your were right not to go with that quote, somebody was trying it on. As your obviously interested in solar I would get a couple more quotes.
Even mighty Tesco are selling Solar PV panels so you may want to quiz them on the payback and if it makes financial sense. See this link http://bit.ly/blgP1x
Red Fred
says...
11:11am Thu 1 Apr 10
If you count the number of posts and words written overall, I think the phrase, pot/kettle is apt.
Don't worry I'm sure there will soon be a suitable blog on things like, whether Ivor is real or not, the demise of frogmoor and a day's shopping at the complex, good or bad?
Bill Williams
says...
11:35am Thu 1 Apr 10
.
"240m2 for 1kw??!? I think your calculator is broke it’s actually 8 square meters for a 1kw system producing 850kWhs per annum."
.
If you look at the calculation, it's based on the average insolation in London for December. With 22W/m^2 and a generous, continuous panel efficiency of 19% you get.
.
22x0.19=4.18W per square meter of panel.
.
If we are trying to achieve 1kW total from my imaginary roof, then we will need.
.
1000/4.18= 239.234 square meter panels.
.
Okay, okay, I admit I rounded up when it should have been down. I wanted a bit of overhead for my electric toothbrush.
.
The problem with taking the 850kWhs per annum value is that you are taking the average over the year. The majority of that production is going to be in the summer when you least need it (and that's assuming it's not a summer like the last two we've had). When winter comes round and the cloud rolls over, photovoltaics don't do much.
.
Red Fred - Thanks for the chuckle.
motco
says...
11:36am Thu 1 Apr 10
Is it not more cost effective to collect solar heat to pre-warm domestic hot water or the input water to a heat pump? I seem to recall picking up a leaflet from the Alternative Technology Centre in Wales some time in 1978 which detailed how to make very cheap water solar panels from central heating radiators (painted matt black) in timber/glass housings. The only way a pay-back period can be reduced given the measly amount of solar energy we receive on average is to dramatically reduce the capital outlay. A large water storage tank, heavily insulated (by being buried?) collecting grey and rainwater, which is supplied with solar heat from home made panels, in concert with a heat pump installation would be a better bet for an economic way to use solar energy. Alright so there would be civil engineering costs involved in installing the tank, but it would act as a reservoir for heat which is not available to the PV panel user.
Bill Williams
says...
12:09pm Thu 1 Apr 10
.
Yeah, from what I've seen this is a very good use of solar. And it works on cloudy days too!
Dave Hampton
says...
12:14pm Thu 1 Apr 10
I am sorry there is so much nonsense to wade through.
Dave Hampton
says...
12:22pm Thu 1 Apr 10
"The 'efficiency' of solar panels is less relevant than you might imagine, because the sun contains an incredible amount of energy! More important is the kWh/kWp (kilo watt hours (or 'units') per kilo watt peak) you will generate."
(Solar Century website)
and
"One of them even told me that the efficiency of the cells "did not matter" since the Sun is "effectively infinite". (Bill Williams)
For someone so pedantic with others, the creative liberties he gives himself are incredible - like he is.
But that is my last reply to Bill W.
Promise.
Bill Williams
says...
12:29pm Thu 1 Apr 10
.
It's not so much taking creative liberties as ignoring nonsense written by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Plus, if the inference is that I was trying to somehow "hide" that part of the FAQ, why would I then put a full link directly to it in my post?
.
The email I received which regurgitated this actually read..
.
"The efficiency is around 20% - although this not really a relevant metric
since you are converting daylight, which is free, into power. I.e. As long a
you have the roof space you can generate whatever amount of power you need."
.
... which is pretty much what I inferred off the top of my memory. They are claiming that...
a) efficiency is not relevant, and b) that this is because the Sun is a continual source.
.
Both of these assertions are absolute nonsense.
motco
says...
12:36pm Thu 1 Apr 10
Dave Hampton
says...
12:44pm Thu 1 Apr 10
The modest panels on my roof will meet a good chunk of my annual elec demand, and I will be paid for generating renewable energy too.
Without resort to football pitch, stadium or garden, I can do my bit, and be rewarded with an overall rate of return that's as good as any ISA.
Interested?
No worries if not, many others are.
demoness
says...
12:49pm Thu 1 Apr 10
Red Fred wrote:Hey Fred.... I should have said that I was talking about Mr W and Dave - not you.
Thanks for that Demoness. If you count the number of posts and words written overall, I think the phrase, pot/kettle is apt. Don't worry I'm sure there will soon be a suitable blog on things like, whether Ivor is real or not, the demise of frogmoor and a day's shopping at the complex, good or bad?
I bothered to read your posts because they were in plain English - not gobbledy gook and you speak as someone who has thought about it and is not just fond of his own rhetoric.
Anyway sir - how very dare you?? I can assure you I never talk anything but the highest quality sense...
Well it is April fool's day. ;)
demoness
says...
1:02pm Thu 1 Apr 10
Well IMO you are an environmental bully - an idealist who thinks he knows best and uses the lame "think of the children" (sorry goats have kids) excuse.
I am just an ordinary person . I do not want your "Utopia" and I am sure that most people are the same as me.
Surely instead of going on and on about all these expensive and life changing things, you should be encouraging us to do small things ( like fred said).
Ordinary people CANNOT afford the initial outlay of PV panels.
I certainly wouldn't fork out £120 for kitchen light bulbs no matter what it might save me in a year.
Dave Hampton
says...
1:18pm Thu 1 Apr 10
I'll think twice about offering you detailed tailored helpful tips again and bothering to answer the query you raiosed in good faith? Call me a bully if you like. You seem to see bullies out there often, i wonder what that ssays about you. Obviously you don't have to save your own money.
You don't have to save yourself £500 over 5 years by investing £120. There are much cheaper low energy light bulbs available too, but they aren't as good and don't save as much overall!!! Your choice.
You don't have to look at the 'cocoon' website link I gave you either. That would have helped you stay comfortable in future winters - for lower fuel bills - the site connects you to best info on govt grants for insulation top ups.
The words kettle black again Hades.
Dave Hampton
says...
1:19pm Thu 1 Apr 10
I'll think twice about offering you detailed tailored helpful tips again and bothering to answer the query you raiosed in good faith? Call me a bully if you like. You seem to see bullies out there often, i wonder what that ssays about you. Obviously you don't have to save your own money.
You don't have to save yourself £500 over 5 years by investing £120. There are much cheaper low energy light bulbs available too, but they aren't as good and don't save as much overall!!! Your choice.
You don't have to look at the 'cocoon' website link I gave you either. That would have helped you stay comfortable in future winters - for lower fuel bills - the site connects you to best info on govt grants for insulation top ups.
The words kettle black again Hades.
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
1:30pm Thu 1 Apr 10
The majority of humans love the earth they live on and want to preserve it. Most parents do want their children to inherit a healthy planet.
People have the choice to spend their money on whatever they want. Having the knowledge that our consumer choices affect the planet is important for most ordinary folk.
I would agree most folk go for what appears to be the cheapest option regardless of long term financial or environmental benefits.
Solar is not expensive, it is similar to buying your food in bulk its cost more initially but is cheaper in the long run.
How long is the payback for paying monthly direct debit to an energy company for 25 years?
LED lamps are the future of lighting.
Solar is the future of Electricity production.
Even TESCO say so http://bit.ly/blgP1x
Bill - I will send you a new solar calculator.
Nice Sunny day here in Devon!
Red Fred
says...
1:37pm Thu 1 Apr 10
If I seemed over-sensitive(usual
ly highly unlike me), then I apologise.
It's probably cos we really did do a lot of research into this so-called free electricity and were bombarded even then by contradictions at every turn. We just want some plain simple facts from a trustworthy source. And so it goes on! x
Bill Williams
says...
1:40pm Thu 1 Apr 10
Nice Sunny day here in Devon!"
.
Can you show me how 19% efficiency panels can get 1kW from 8m^2 using just 22W/m^2 of insolation, please?
.
After you've done that, I will pay you good money to do my tax return if you're interested?
demoness
says...
1:58pm Thu 1 Apr 10
Dave Hampton wrote:Ohh you really do not like being critisised do you?
Thanks so much Demoness. I'll think twice about offering you detailed tailored helpful tips again and bothering to answer the query you raiosed in good faith? Call me a bully if you like. You seem to see bullies out there often, i wonder what that ssays about you. Obviously you don't have to save your own money. You don't have to save yourself £500 over 5 years by investing £120. There are much cheaper low energy light bulbs available too, but they aren't as good and don't save as much overall!!! Your choice. You don't have to look at the 'cocoon' website link I gave you either. That would have helped you stay comfortable in future winters - for lower fuel bills - the site connects you to best info on govt grants for insulation top ups. The words kettle black again Hades.
Everytime someone challenges you you snap..
I don't have to save my own money? Perhaps you could substantiate that remark a little because it is highly provacative? Please do not dare to make assumptions about my lifestyle.
You preach Dave - no one likes being preached at. You also come across as being highly patronising and knowing best - may be you don't mean to, but that is how it is.
I found your whole blog coming across as a south american religious zealot.
You are chosing to do something that you believe in and feel passionate about. Good for you.
BUT this does not give you the right to try and inflict your views forcibly on anyone else and then attack them for daring to disagree with them.
I am sure this will bring forth another load of abuse from you, but there we are...:)
demoness
says...
2:07pm Thu 1 Apr 10
Kaieteur Sidmouth wrote:Kaieteur.
Demoness The majority of humans love the earth they live on and want to preserve it. Most parents do want their children to inherit a healthy planet. People have the choice to spend their money on whatever they want. Having the knowledge that our consumer choices affect the planet is important for most ordinary folk. I would agree most folk go for what appears to be the cheapest option regardless of long term financial or environmental benefits. Solar is not expensive, it is similar to buying your food in bulk its cost more initially but is cheaper in the long run. How long is the payback for paying monthly direct debit to an energy company for 25 years? LED lamps are the future of lighting. Solar is the future of Electricity production. Even TESCO say so http://bit.ly/blgP1x Bill - I will send you a new solar calculator. Nice Sunny day here in Devon!
Yes you have a point and thank you for realising that most of us do want to do our bit.
Perhaps if I was thinking of changing my heating, I might look at PV like Fred did,. But I am not and I can't afford to at the moment. So I do small things - like not having my heating on a timer and only turning it on when I need to. Yes I have double glazing and yes my cottage is insulated.
I would think more of our so called carbon coach if he were to write about stuff like that.
Small things when everyone does them can make a difference. To make a large change you need to start with the small things first.
Sadly Mr Hampton does not seem to realise this and thinks that we should all drastically change our lifestyle at a great expense to live in his world.
dave hampton
says...
2:28pm Thu 1 Apr 10
Mr Hampton does realise this, that's why I mentioned Cocoon to you, and other things that could have served you well.
For the last 5 years I have been doing exactly what you suggest, re 'small things first', as well as putting my own house in order. Just not here on BFP, which is a new thing.
But I have been sharing tips, free, things we can all do for free, and things that cost a few quid - successfully for years, thanks.
My newsletter is free, and i have 1000s of followers globally. Just google carboncoach.
So I do write about stuff like that.
Sorry I can't please everyone.
678
says...
2:35pm Thu 1 Apr 10
1) are you personally making any money out of this solar scheme?
2) do you make any money from any other environmental issues and /or schemes?
3) are you set up to sell power back to the grid?
4)how much did you sell back last month, how much did you earn.
5) with the current output how long will it take to pay back the investment in the panels in months
6) is the production of the panels environmentally sound (unlike say a Toyota Prius?)
dave hampton
says...
2:35pm Thu 1 Apr 10
motco
says...
2:42pm Thu 1 Apr 10
dave hampton
says...
2:48pm Thu 1 Apr 10
(Perhaps i too could be anonymous)
I will assume your comments are in good faith (despite your previous form)
Dave, can you answer me a few questions....
.
1) are you personally making any money out of this solar scheme?
NO. Not one penny. It is consuming my personal time energy and money. Its a community thing.
2) do you make any money from any other environmental issues and /or schemes?
Yes thanks. Not much of one. I make a living doing what I do and believe in as the carbon coach. See
www.carboncoach.com
3) are you set up to sell power back to the grid?
I soon will be.
4)how much did you sell back last month, how much did you earn.
See 3.
5) with the current output how long will it take to pay back the investment in the panels in months
With the expected output and FIT tariff it will be the equivalent of around 8% return on investment. I don't live all my life on simple payback alone but i could be looking at 8 years or so, on savings alone. It's a necessary cost for me too, to practice what i (err) preach!
6) is the production of the panels environmentally sound
Broadly Yes. And they will do around 10 - 20 times more environmental good over their lifecycle than any harm done in their production and transit.
Hope that helps 678, but I am sure it won't.
Checkout Good Energy, FreeSource and Transition Marlow if you want more.
dave hampton
says...
2:55pm Thu 1 Apr 10
"We just want some plain simple facts from a trustworthy source."
Try www.transitionmarlow
.org
Try Good Energy
Get a free no obligation survey and quote from Freesource. You never know might be pleasantly surprised.
demoness
says...
4:46pm Thu 1 Apr 10
dave hampton wrote:I looked at your website.
Demoness, Just read your previous 'go' at me. Thanks for the 'lesson'. I think you are being unfair, but I thank you none the less as your comments are at least trying to help. Unlike some.
Nice line in self promotion... just my opinion.
I am sure you make a good living out of your coaching etc.
As I said... you are a zealot Dave.
Sadly I am completely and utterly not convinced and if your way of inspiring people is by attacking them then excuse me if I remain cynical.
hondo
says...
4:55pm Thu 1 Apr 10
Caught a lot of people though!
motco
says...
4:56pm Thu 1 Apr 10
demoness
says...
5:12pm Thu 1 Apr 10
That is all anyone can ask for - well most people..;)
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
6:15pm Thu 1 Apr 10
Demoness – You are right, small things done by individuals matter. Especially when you multiply it by the population of the UK, about 61 million.
I think Dave’s passionate; I wouldn’t call him a zealot, but he obviously believes in the urgency for humanity to lower their carbon footprint. The joyous thing with solar panels is they do help lower individual’s pollution and make some money at the same time.
Bill - you are right about one thing solar pv panels work best in the summer, and we all use electricity in the summer too.
Wind and water turbines are excellent sources of clean energy in the winter. If you haven’t the land to make your own, you could always by from any of the numerous companies producing from wind and wave. I am sure tidal energy will soon be captured on a much larger scale.
motco
says...
6:21pm Thu 1 Apr 10
dave hampton
says...
6:32pm Thu 1 Apr 10
I did not attack anyone. I posted up several things that were genuinely trying to help you. Then you attacked me.
I have not even attacked Mr W, despite intense provocation. If you bothered to look carefully at his claims twists and demands you would see he is consistently causing trouble, twisting things, and in my opinion, working hard to stop people like you from making any progress in reducing the fuel bills that you are currently stuck with, keeping you paying bills to 'those in power'.
You, I have been consistently polite to, had good chats with, offered help etc etc.
You truly do live up to your name don't you.
I don't "make a good living" doing what I do, I make a living: and I am proud of what I do and believe passionately in it.
If ever you'd like my opinion on what you do, you know where I am.
Although you are of course anonymous, I know very little about you. Except how difficult you are.
dave hampton
says...
6:35pm Thu 1 Apr 10
"Is solar power a bright investment?
It costs £12,500 to install solar cells on your roof, but new tariffs should give you a return of at least £25,000. So what's the catch? There isn't one, says Miles Brignall"
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/money/2010/feb
/06/solar-power-brig
ht-investment
Also there is plenty of evidence that a PV panel adds to asset value ie house price. Why wouldn't people pay extra for a home with very low elec bills.
dave hampton
says...
6:56pm Thu 1 Apr 10
Perhaps you can enlighten me how the 28 'testimonials' to my work - from various well known people - (bottom left yellow box) are self-promotion?
demoness
says...
7:21pm Thu 1 Apr 10
dave hampton wrote:*huge sigh*
One more thing Demoness. Perhaps you can enlighten me how the 28 'testimonials' to my work - from various well known people - (bottom left yellow box) are self-promotion?
I am difficult because I challenge you am I?
So you have testimonials do you? Is that supposed to impress me?
You are just not getting this are you?
I am questioning the way you are going about this.
For my pains I am told that obviously I do not save money because I cannot afford, from my monthly salary £120 to spend on light bulbs.
You also do not like it when other people disagree with you and it is not me who is being overly aggressive - it is you.
The minute someone challenges you, you go into immediate attack mode.
You then point us to your website which basically says... "look at me, aren't I wonderful?"
Then you cannot see why someone says... well actually no, you do not impress me.
And no, you do not know much about me, because that is my democratic right of choice to remain anonymous.
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
10:33pm Thu 1 Apr 10
I would agree with Dave, adding £10000 worth of pv to your house, earns the house / owner an income and some free electricity. It adds value to a property.
Priestly
says...
10:36pm Thu 1 Apr 10
Dave Hampton
says...
12:14am Fri 2 Apr 10
I really don't know why you still ignore my mention of e.g. the cocoon link etc - when i first started trying to assist you and genuinely trying to answer the question you asked me.
And I genuinely think I may have failed to communicate my point about light bulbs - that so irritated you.
I offered you this:
"It cost me a staggeringly high £120 to replace the six downlighter bulbs in our kitchen - but these were the ones that we need to use the most.
These now cost us 50p for every 100 hours instead of £5. Over their lifecycle they will save us £500. We will be quids in by the end of the year."
You came back with
"I certainly wouldn't fork out £120 for kitchen light bulbs no matter what it might save me in a year."
To which I replied:
"You don't have to save yourself £500 over 5 years by investing £120. There are much cheaper low energy light bulbs available too, but they aren't as good and don't save as much overall!!! Your choice."
I did not say, and certainly didn't intend to imply that:
"For my pains I am told that obviously I do not save money because I cannot afford, from my monthly salary £120 to spend on light bulbs."
.
Demoness - if I thought you might accept, I would offer to buy you £50 worth of quality new light bulbs, to show you how serious I am about all this, so you can see for yourself that you don't have to be trapped by the perpetual running cost drain of the old ones - but i am sure I will be told i have missed the point again.
Let me know if you'd like me to try and help; that's all i set out to do.
Dave Hampton
says...
12:27am Fri 2 Apr 10
Anyone who has rowed or spent time on an ergo will know it's not an easy sport.
But compared to being mauled by a sniping hoarde of anon rotweilers taking chunks out of you it was easy.
dave hampton
says...
9:11am Fri 2 Apr 10
Happy Easter to you.
I've read through everything above, and I owe you an apology, if I may.
You *did* mention that your cottage was insulated. (There are still good grants for insulation 'top-ups' - just in case that is relevant to you, it may not be.)
Just to clarify my offer:
.
I appreciate your anonymity is important to you. Tell me if ANY energy saving device or light bulbs could be of use to you, from e.g. the Good Energy Shop.
http://www.goodenerg
yshop.co.uk
I'll then buy it for you, as an Easter gift, up to £50, and I will leave it for you at any location you like, e.g. a shop or office or library you trust, BFP office maybe, for you to collect at your leisure. I will include the receipt, to show I used my own money to buy it.
Perhaps you will accuse me of trying to buy you off? But the offer is in good faith. I want you to see why I get so cross with people who's covert cynicism and lies hold us back from getting a good taste of the lower energy future that could be such a win win win for the whole community - and only a 'loss' for 'those in power' and fighting dirty to cling onto their huge energy profits by slagging off anything good and energy saving.
It doesn't have to be this way.
We don't have to give so much of our hard earned money to the power companies....
Which was the point of my article.
Which, interestingly, I don't think has itself sparked a single comment?
Happy holidays everyone.
Bill Williams
says...
12:30pm Fri 2 Apr 10
.
Surely after all the abuse you've hurled at me over the years I should get a cut? At least a tenner for the brilliantly petulant "my home, my PVs, my money, my data, my blog..." outburst?
.
I promise I won't spend it on petrol.
dave hampton
says...
1:15pm Fri 2 Apr 10
More than happy to settle up with you.
Where should I send the cheque?
Dave
Bill Williams
says...
1:38pm Fri 2 Apr 10
dave hampton
says...
2:12pm Fri 2 Apr 10
Some readers might not find this quite so funny:-
http://www.greenpeac
e.org/usa/campaigns/
global-warming-and-e
nergy/polluterwatch/
koch-industries
"Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine"
But then Greenpeace are a huge trillion dollar dark empire, and poor little big oil is just a few brave misunderstood souls trying to do what's right for us all.
dave hampton
says...
2:22pm Fri 2 Apr 10
http://weblog.greenp
eace.org/climate/201
0/03/the_industry_of
_doubt.html
I'll spare you all time and post up the (detailed) report's conclusion.
dave hampton
says...
2:25pm Fri 2 Apr 10
(From 25 page referenced Greenpeace investigation, PDF download available as link above)
"Climate change is happening now, is caused by people and will have catastrophic consequences. Those three assertions are backed by the most rigorous scientific undertaking in history. Indeed, as this report was being written, the UK Meteorological office published a review of 100 different science papers, concluding that it was ‘even more likely’ that climate change is happening and that we are causing it.223
This briefing outlines the lengths to which the fossil fuel industry has been willing to go to prevent these
conclusions from being accepted. It provides just a flavour – a few examples of some of the more virulent attacks aimed at undermining public confidence in the climate science, and preventing government action to fight the climate crisis.
All of which means, the correct response to attacks on climate science is scepticism."
demoness
says...
2:33pm Fri 2 Apr 10
We are on the same side you know - I guess I just feel that you perhaps are not in touch with us ordinary folk lol.
I am all for energy conservation and will look up the website as suggested.
I just don't like your vision of the future - hate it in fact. I am not a "peoples person" and the idea of one big happy community being very green together feels me with fear and gloom.
I much prefer plants and animals to people which is why I am getting involved with the horrendous scheme of the fast speed train link cutting through AOUNB. I know this sounds bizarre but the thought of trees being cut down and wildlife being driven out fills me with such despair.
So no I am not poo pooing your passion - just commenting that we are not all white, middle class intelligent people from Marlow.
I think you need to engage with others - you may well be preaching to the converted otherwise.
Melanie1
says...
3:30pm Fri 2 Apr 10
demoness wrote:Oh I'm so glad someone else is as confused as I am whilst reading this blog.
What an absolute load of waffle - you could probably heat a family house for 10 years with all the hot air spouted on here. Perhaps gentlemen if you stopped trying to be clever with each other with all the stats and verbal sparring, you might consider that you are putting readers off.
.
My husband and I looked into solar panels and a wind turbine for our 17th century barn. The initial outlay is offputting especially as we only stay in a property for around 7 years so for the meantime we recycle and have gradually replaced all our lightbulbs to energy saving. Perhaps if we ever get round to building our own property we will be able to instal solar panels etc.
.
Incidentally around 8 years ago we were looking to move to rural Spain and lots of the properties there have solar panels, wind turbines etc but I did notice that the lights were all dim fluorescent tubes. Is that because the system was out of date or is it the norm?
Eachban
says...
3:41pm Fri 2 Apr 10
.
I am glad you realised your histrionics with demoness were excessive. Perhaps you will appreciate that you do adopt this as something of a default position, as she correctly identified. It doesn't make you wrong necessarily, but it does make your position very inaccessible.
.
Now my beef. All this dismissal of payback time on the one hand and espousing of free electricity on the other is 'cobblers' to quote from above. Let me explain, in my best attempt at being equally patronising.
.
A consumer buys grid electricity as a service. They then choose to install PV, at an initial investment cost. Until that investment cost is recouped, they are paying a proportion of their investment for every kWh generated by the PV array. This is usually valued at the market rate of a kWh of grid electricity - perfectly reasonably. So PV electricity is free only after the end of the payback period. FIT affects the calculation, and should bring payback date forward, but the fact remains the PV electricity is not free until after this date. QED.
.
Now anybody posting on here who has twittered on about how PV power is simply 'free' has a simple choice - either
A) acknowledge you don't know what you are talking about (commercially) or
B) acknowledge you have deliberately and wilfully tried to (commercially) mislead people on this thread.
.
As to payback period, I recently examined a PV proposal at a commercial scale measured in hundreds of sq metres of south roof area (part of the GLA planning process), and guess what - payback period in excess of 19 years (and a fractional CO2 reduction, I mean truly tiny as a percentage of the building production). EVERY other carbon reducing/energy efficiency option considered was better in both commercial and CO2 reduction terms. (BER calculated at >30% reduction on TER, FYI)
.
The PV industry needs greater take up to fund R&D to improve products and efficiency (or greater grants from governments but in this economic climate....) in order to make them truly viable. So the better off (like some Marlovians) and the committed (like friend DH) will be required to lead and help fund this necessary product development to make the things work at a level that starts to make (commercial) sense for the less well off and less committed.
.
And none of that addresses BW's (correct) point(s) on the insolation available in the SE UK.
.
And Dave, if the main reason you initially didn't want to share data was because your grid feedback connection is awaited (without an inverter I am struggling to understand how you are running your AC house on DC output, but never mind) why didn't you just say so to start with? Honestly, it makes you look like one of those East-Anglian email-gate numpties.
.
PS - K-Sidmouth - In case it isn't obvious from what I posted here, I am an engineer, and understand everything you do, perhaps even better than you do, so no need to post any primary school basics like you did for BW ;-))
.
Dave Hampton
says...
4:17pm Fri 2 Apr 10
To others, who are (now) getting confused about simple PV economics, (after all the highly negative posts from armchair experts who don't want change) please try this:
Is solar power a bright investment?
It costs £12,500 to install solar cells on your roof, but new tariffs should give you a return of at least £25,000. So what's the catch? There isn't one, says Miles Brignall"
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/money/2010/feb
/06/solar-power-brig
ht-investment
I don't believe everything I read in the Guardian but this analysis seems about right to me.
Also try the successful ethical award wining company Good Energy.
Dave Hampton
says...
4:24pm Fri 2 Apr 10
I am very lucky, to be able to borrow the money to fund my expensive PV installation.
It makes me proud. I like the way it looks and glistens in the sun. There will be satisfaction in every unit of energy it contributes. It will likely add to my house price one day. It will generate good income over a long time. It will save > 10 tons of CO2 (being added into the air we all share) over its lifecyle. It will change the way we think about the electricity we'll still have to import. It will educate us about what is possible and what isn't - direct - hands on - seeing is believing. Young people are unlikely to criticise me for doing it - in 10 yrs time. I will be living in keeping with what I believe. I am happy to be doing something about the energy resource waste and carbon crisis ahead. I am happy that in doing it I may become more a part of the solution, and less a part of the pollution. That's just me. My choice. My beliefs. I am at peace with me.
motco
says...
4:40pm Fri 2 Apr 10
demoness
says...
5:44pm Fri 2 Apr 10
dave hampton
says...
6:39pm Fri 2 Apr 10
...if my house is worth £5000 more on the market that an identical one without solar panels... and if the savings in what i need to import, plus if the payments i get (export payment and FIT generation payment) have, by then, fully repaid the entire initial installation cost (£10000)... and if I still have 15 years useful life left (the panels, not me!) of not just free electricity but a decent quarterly cheque coming in to pay me for all my FIT generation..a supplement to my pension... IF all that happens, I hope you doubting Thomas' won't be too 'green', or ask me "why didn't i tell you?"
The Guardian Money article suggests a £25k return on a £12.5k investment.
For some of you, apparently that's not good enough 'business sense'.
What some other, perhaps more entrepreneurial and prescient people are saying, is that with advent of FIT tariff... that if you *have* the money, in the bank, it makes better sense now to 'put it on the roof'.
If the Guardian's rate of return is considered poor, compared with some form of 'get rich quick at all cost' activities, then that's up to you.
Personally I am confident the positive financials stack up, and even more confident it's the right thing to do.
After the shock of the initial cost of installation, each and every sunny hour will nett me 75p or more. Cloudy days will be less, but not zero.
After it's paid for itself, which could be much quicker than many of you seem to think, it may feel more like a one armed bandit stuck in 'jackpot' mode.... spewing out £1 coins.
OK I can't promise all that, there are loads of factors, but I believe in it myself... enough to have gambled my own money, and I will be living with consequences of that choice.
Many locally are doing the same, having heard the full story, and not just the reasons to stay stuck in the past.
Melanie1
says...
6:48pm Fri 2 Apr 10
dave hampton
says...
7:05pm Fri 2 Apr 10
The advice I would give you, if you live in a 17th century barn, and if you usually move house every 7 years or so, is that solar may not be right for you.
For one thing there is planning, which may be troublesome if barn is listed or in conservation zone etc. And depending where you are in the 7 year move cycle, the biggest unknown quantity or 'gamble' would be whether, and how much, prospective buyers of the barn would consider the PV panels added to the house price than the (initial cost minus savings repaid to date). In other words how attractive they found the barn plus panels.
So as you say, perhaps its safest to wait until you build your own property one day.
To be sure, why not take avail of the free no-obligation survey that Freesource are currently offering under the Marlow project.
www.transitionmarlow
.org
Hope that helps
Melanie1
says...
8:30pm Fri 2 Apr 10
.
Perhaps our next house we will instal them as soon as we move in and then we may gain some benefit from them.
.
When we looked into it for this property we discovered that we would 'probably' be able to install them as our south facing roof doesn't overlook any of the other barns but it would depend on which planning dept officer got the case. A wind turbine would be a better bet as we have a very open and windy garden due to being surrounded on 3 sides by fields but I was slightly put off because we would be able to see it. If that makes sense.
.
You didn't however answer my comment about the solar panels in Spain and I am interested in the answer. I'd have thought that Spain with it's gorgeous sunny weather would have been perfect for solar panels but it was a huge disappointment.
dave hampton
says...
8:52pm Fri 2 Apr 10
Wind is interesting, there's a great little device from 'Better Generation' Ltd that you can install to check out the viability before you go for it.
Spain. This will be an issue of quality of the national and regional grid (and being out of date as you say) i suspect, as well as distances from sub-stations etc I very much doubt it's anything to do with solar.
Some of the early (cheap nasty imitations of) compact florescent bulbs were poor quality too. Especially the 'seconds' that power companies tended to give away, hoping that people would reject them and conclude they were rubbish.
re Spain
Melanie1
says...
9:04pm Fri 2 Apr 10
.
I do think it's a shame that the information is out there but for 'normal' non-technie people it's so hard to understand.
.
I've seen some people on programmes like Grand Designs who have rainwater storage systems installed and underground heat source pumps but the figures quoted for installation are quite horrific.
motco
says...
10:30am Sat 3 Apr 10
dave hampton
says...
10:28pm Sat 3 Apr 10
Exactly this question was raised at the public meeting at Borlase's, and it was pointed out that this would be a matter for the European Court if govt reneged on its 25 year promise. (Which is index linked and effectively better than a govt bond.) I share your scepticism in general, but in this case i doubt govt would back-track. It is actually more likely they introduce (even) better deals for later adopters.
motco
says...
8:18am Sun 4 Apr 10
gpn01
says...
1:22pm Tue 6 Apr 10
dave hampton
says...
7:36pm Tue 6 Apr 10
Well that's possible, but that would be a complete reversal of current trends, decade on decade. That would also prevent UK govt from meeting its global and EU commitments, so incurring penalties. The 'guaranteed' FIT tariffs will not be easy for Govt to wriggle out of. Surely it's more likely that govts continue to apply taxes with the 'polluter pays' principle. It's likely they continue to increase tax breaks on energy efficiency, EE homes, cars, etc. It's likely the price of old fossil and nuclear generated electricity will increase, so making homes with solar even more 'low regrets' and attractive. So the cost justification *could be* even better...
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
12:40pm Fri 9 Apr 10
The sun is abundant, so when a solar pv panel is made it takes time, money and effort to do so, it then harness energy from the sun for FREE.
Compare this to a coal, gas or nuclear generator that is made, which also takes time, money and effort to do so. These all need a bought in finite fuel to power them, making them non renewable. We also have the pressing and urgent point about the pollution these non renewable technologies cause.
Wind, water turbines and many other renewable energy technologies, harness energy for FREE, once the time, money and effort has been put into their production.
Solar PV harnesses the suns energy for FREE and as is said in an earlier post after the system has earnt back its initial cost (8ish years, depending on price paid) it is then also financially producing electricity for no outlay, for FREE.
PAYBACK
A spend of £10000 on solar panels will mean in 8 years they would have made £10000 worth of electricity through the feed in tariffs scheme see link:
http://www.decc.gov.
uk/en/content/cms/ne
ws/pn10_010/pn10_010
.aspx
On average producing 8 units per day or x 0.413p £3.30 per day
That’s about £1200 per year
Extra bonus *** Even if you use the electricity produced you are still paid a sum of 0.39 per unit with the feed in tariffs. In effect earning ‘some FREE electricity.
Extra Extra *** bonus The money earnt from harnessing FREE energy from the sun is tax free
Extra Extra Extra *** bonus The energy harnessed from the sun is clean (no polluting) renewable energy.
So if you have a south ish facing roof and a bit of money to invest it really should be a no brainer.
Compare this to spending £500 per year purchasing all electricity from an energy company for 10 years = £5000. This money is gone; it will not be paid back. There is no payback from buying electricity from an energy company.
The tariff levels for the electricity financial incentives, calculated to offer between 5-8% return on initial investment in the technology are in this link:
http://nds.coi.gov.u
k/Content/Detail.asp
x?ReleaseID=410754&N
ewsAreaID=2&ClientID
=416
PS For those interested in Hacked East-Anglian emails. This is a Report of an investigation into the emails : http://bit.ly/cR59fj
Bill Williams
says...
1:41pm Fri 9 Apr 10
.
He also admits that not sharing data in climate science is "standard practice".
.
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=AK0oGnqtV
Xo
.
Also, in this BBC interview* he states that his evidence that the 20th century warming is anthropogenic is based on "The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing". Which is somewhat amusing since we are continually told that the science is "settled" yet the "overwhelming evidence" appears to be merely an argument from ignorance and based on little more than speculation.
.
He even admits in the same interview that the MWP is, actually, still under debate and that the 20th century warming is not exceptional.
.
*http://news.bbc.co.
uk/1/hi/sci/tech/851
1670.stm
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
3:16pm Fri 9 Apr 10
“Anybody that is a global-warming denier at this point in time has got their head so deeply up their **** I’m not sure they could hear me.”
http://bit.ly/9E9tyS
Doh! Its so obvious humans cause pollution. To care or not to care is the only debate.
Bill Williams
says...
5:20pm Fri 9 Apr 10
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
5:28pm Fri 9 Apr 10
Bill Williams
says...
5:29pm Fri 9 Apr 10
dave hampton
says...
9:41am Sat 10 Apr 10
Bill appears to do this 'for a living'.
(Some would be less polite.)
I offered to send him a cheque for £10 but he declined, saying
"Excellent. Any Exxon or BP garage would be fine. I'll have one of my 'Big Oil' minions drop by and pick it up."
(That's me being as ridiculous, 'selective', economical with truth and deliberately trying to mis-lead - as Mr W does, time after time. But he did say that!)
I'd leave it with your James Cameron quote - that's about as far as some heads are ever gonna get ;o)
None so blind as them that will not see.
Meanwhile, my solar hot water panel is working well today. Plenty of free hot water again... no gas burnt today.
This 'denial' business is costing a lot of people dear - putting then off doing something worthwhile - keeping them in the dark about the attractiveness of living off the sun.
Still, it keeps 'those in power' in fossil burning profits I suppose.
Bill Williams
says...
10:44am Sat 10 Apr 10
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
12:35pm Sat 10 Apr 10
I found the comments from bill amusing, he shows such contradiction or lack of understanding to what human pollution is!
To quote bill…
“Has anyone ever argued that humans don't cause pollution?”
Then….
“Considering the context, I would say the next step is to define the term ‘pollution’.”
Excellent sunny day in Devon, perfect for anyone forward thinking enough to have installed solar pv or solar thermal.
Bill Williams
says...
2:04pm Sat 10 Apr 10
.
"Doh! Its so obvious humans cause pollution."
.
...which you made after quoting James Cameron who was talking about how he believes the theory of anthropogenic global warming to be proven.
.
The inference I took from your statement was that you were effectively saying, 'it is obvious AGW theory is true because humans cause pollution'. Such an argument is incorrect on multiple levels, the two largest errors being that carbon dioxide and pollution are two separate things entirely and that the debate surrounding AGW theory has nothing to do with whether humans produce CO2 or not (the latter point assuming for a moment that 'pollution' would be an acceptable synonym for 'carbon dioxide' in your statement).
.
My request for you to define what you meant by 'pollution' was required so that I could understand what the point you were trying to make was. If you are indeed going to argue that CO2 is a 'pollutant' then that is a separate debate that should be made before we get on to debating the AGW theory itself.
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
3:07pm Sat 10 Apr 10
No I do not want to enter into a childish argument with you, over the facts of carbon dioxide being emitted by humans being a pollutant. It is a pollutant bill.
CO2 and other pollutants emitted by human activities are having a detrimental affect on the planet.
Doh!
dave hampton
says...
3:26pm Sat 10 Apr 10
And hence that CO2 is not "pollution"
when invisible smoke - products of combustion from humans burning hydrocarbon fossil fuel ("ancient stored life and sunlight") ...to the tune of 25 billion tons a year, of fresh CO2, approx 4 tons each, on average, for every human on the planet, per year... is released into the thin layer of finely balanced atmosphere on which all life depends. (Incorrect.)
Exxon sponsored an advert in the USA called
"CO2: They call it pollution, we call it life" (CO2 is our friend - they said)
Well worth watching:
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=0_VmMIbWK
oo
Newsnight came back with:
"CO2, they call it life, we call it a greenhouse gas"
Jeremy Paxman at his best:
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=YyKUblhXJ
w8&feature=related
Arguing that CO2 is not pollution is comparable to running an advert, (before cigarette advertising was banned) saying that a thin coating of tar is good for the lungs. The only true thing about it is that it would be true it would prolong tobacco industry profitability.
Most people would call such a cigarette ad 'morally bankrupt'.
The fossil industry and their mates (quite a large powerful beast) are currently attacking the USA Environmental Protection Agency - for classifying CO2 as a pollutant.
Then again.. it would be handy to believe that burning fossil fuel does no harm whatsoever wouldn't it...
dave hampton
says...
3:33pm Sat 10 Apr 10
...and so the loop continues...
(The equivalent of course of agreeing that cigarette smoking is harmful, but denying that the tar it leaves in the lungs is bad for you. No, the tar in the lungs is natural and good for life, and it is a vast scientific hoax and a lie to link tar in lungs with smoking... completely and utterly untrue...)
Bill Williams
says...
3:53pm Sat 10 Apr 10
.
Well, not really, because tar doesn't naturally occur in the lungs and is not required for lungs to function. It's a very emotive argument, evoking the whole tobacco lobby thing, but the logic doesn't really follow I'm afraid Dave.
.
In fact, by the same tokens that you and Kaieteur employ, you would have to also say that water vapour, methane and ozone are all pollutants as well. Which would be, quite obviously, absolutely ridiculous.
.
Mr Weeden makes the very good point in one of his letters this week that industrial greenhouse operators artificially increase the PPM of CO2 to 1000+ because plants hugely increase their rate of growth in response to it.
.
There is much information on the recent blooming of the Earth's biosphere due to the increased CO2 and 20th century warming from NASA
.
http://modis.cn/pubs
/PERS_2007_Liang.pdf
.
As much as you want to label it "pollution" for political reasons, CO2 is undeniably a fundamental, naturally occurring greenhouse gas that is a requirement for life on Earth. Plants need it for photosynthesis which keeps us in O2 and, further to immediate respiration, we also need it to keep the Earth from turning into a snowball.
.
To argue otherwise is to fail at understanding even the most basic facts of the Earth's chemistry.
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
4:30pm Sat 10 Apr 10
Humans emit carbon dioxide as well as many other pollutants from the burning of fossil fuels. This IS pollution we are emitting.
Bill you really have a distorted view on how nature works if you feel we are actually doing the planet a favour by burning everything!
You agree humans cause pollution, but you think that this pollution we emit is actually a good thing for preserving and enhancing life!
Would you say that the natural world is a better place after the many years of pollution humans have emitted?
dave hampton
says...
10:06pm Sat 10 Apr 10
It was corrupt politics, (lobbied by oil industry $billions naturally enough) that - for several decades - conveniently *prevented* CO2 from being labelled pollution - until now. (Because it would have dented oil profits... naturally enough..)
Most sane onlookers, were it not for the barrage of misinformation, might suggest that the onus of proof rests with the polluter to prove that *anything* emitted into the atmosphere in this sort of quantity (25 billion tons a year) is harmless.
If anyone injected a ton of something into an ocean they'd certainly have to justify themselves to regulators, but somehow pumping 25 billion tons of CO2 into the ocean of air we all swim in is, er, just fine thanks chaps?
Do I miss Mr W's point?
He considers that igniting a kilo of fossil fuel (and the products of combustion that result) to be a natural process. Well it has been a 'natural' enough practice - for just the last 100 years. And it's been fun and we've had a great time thanks.
Fossil fuel is 100s of millions of years worth of assorted lifeforms' living breathing dying and being compressed below the earth's surface, for 100's of millions of years. Then homo sapiens starts the industrial revolution, and it all gets ignited, clever us, (just the last 5 or so generations of humans) triggering another cycle - the anthropocene era. We are burning our own planet.
Mr W may not think that humans are doing anything wrong, or foolish, setting fire to the entire global store/harvest of 100s of millions of years worth of precious compacted life energy and 'ancient sunlight' - releasing the safely sequestered (underground) solid or liquid carbon back, into gas, CO2, into our air.
We humans are disgorging tens of billion tons of invisible smoke into our thin layer of atmosphere, each year, unregulated, unseen, unnoticed, unattended, in the quiet hope that it goes away. It doesn't.
It's accumulates.
From half a million years of background (natural) CO2 being between 200 and 300ppm, these levels took a hike south, round about the same time we started burning fossil, and in just 100 years have rocketed right off the previous scale as never ever before.
Just 30 years ago when I was 20, they were below 340. They are now hitting 390. But it's ok folks - keep burning the fossil... please...
Perhaps this rise in background CO2 levels is the work of politicians?
Or - perhaps it is the greenhouse gases that occur when we burn billions of tons of hydrocarbons each year. I'll plump for the latter.
Whoever is right about this, it's crystal clear that stating that CO2 is not a pollutant is at best, a lethally dangerous gamble of life itself - on a 100 to 1 shot.
And at worst a convenient but morally bankrupt lie.
Bill Williams
says...
9:15pm Mon 12 Apr 10
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
10:21pm Mon 12 Apr 10
But Bill, in your little bubble, all your opinions have described this pollution humans emit as a good thing that actually makes the world a better place!
Same question applies: Would you say that the natural world is a better place after the many years of pollution humans have emitted?
Bill Williams
says...
11:00pm Mon 12 Apr 10
.
I will ask my question again, though, since it requires no further detail and is very simple to answer (a yes or no would suffice). If you believe CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, would you agree that atmospheric CO2 should be reduced to 0 PPM?
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
11:58am Tue 13 Apr 10
As you missed it earlier I will remind you, humans emit huge quantities of C02 from the inefficient burning of fossil fuels (surely you know this). This CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, this is not a belief, it is a fact and as I said there is no need to have a childish argument over this fact.
Yes, humans should reduce all the pollutants we emit, including CO2 and yes I agree we should reduce the amount of CO2 humans put into the atmosphere. What safe level of PPM (Parts per million) are you suggesting Bill?
And please tell me you don’t think that the natural world is a better place after the many years of pollution humans have emitted?
Bill Williams
says...
8:29pm Tue 13 Apr 10
.
I didn't request a popular definition of a pollutant/pollution. I requested, specifically, your definition since you seem to be lumping fossil fuel combustion byproducts known to be immediately damaging (aerosols, mercury etc.) along with greenhouse gases (which is why I made the initial reference to ozone and water vapour). For the purpose of breaking from the iterative loop we are entering, I'll take it that from your previous post you define a pollutant as a " dangerous, harmful or poisonous substance" and that you therefore extend this term to also apply to greenhouse gases.
.
Firstly, the most simple consideration to take is to analyse this statement on purely a biological level. When this is done we can only conclude that CO2 can be considered neither harmful, nor poisonous. Since 0.038% of the atmosphere is CO2, we are therefore continually breathing it in. 4-5% of the air we breathe out is CO2. We even put it in our soft drinks. We suffer no ill effects from exposure to CO2.
.
The second angle to consider it from is the "overexposure" argument. In this context the argument would be "well, water isn't a pollutant but if the room you're sitting in became 100% water you'd die". The argument being, therefore, that increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere from anthropogenic emissions can be considered "pollution" because it moves the concentration to "harmful and poisonous" levels.
.
What is required here is a rational consideration of two related points.
.
A) at what concentration does CO2 become "harmful and poisonous"? And...
.
B) is it possible for anthropogenic CO2 emissions to achieve this concentration?
.
For point A we know that continually breathing air around 2-3% (30,000 PPM) CO2 will make us drowsy. 5% (50,000 PPM) and above will be toxic.
.
Plants will respond very well in terms of growth to 1-1.2% CO2 (12,000 PPM) concentration. Experiments have shown that around 1.8% can be toxic to plants.
.
So, let us take the lower tolerance value of 1.2% or 12,000 PPM CO2 as the point which CO2 becomes "harmful or poisonous" in that the Earth's plant life could be arguably at risk.
.
Now let us consider part (B).
.
The current atmospheric CO2 concentration is 387 PPM or 0.0387%.
.
If we were to burn all the fossil fuels on Earth, it is estimated by NASA that this would increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration to 450 PPM (0.0487%).
.
The conclusion to part B is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cannot increase the overall global CO2 concentrations to the point where they are "harmful or poisonous". In fact what we have seen with regard to the biosphere during the modern warming is an increase in global plantlife due to, in part, increased CO2. This is based on empirical observation from satellite data. The citation for the paper is in my relevant post.
.
Finally your argument can take refuge under the "climate change" banner. The theory here being that, while the basic laws of physics (due to the logarithmic law of "diminishing returns" that atmospheric CO2 follows as a result of the small absorption bands it is active in) will only allow ~1°C global temperature increase from a doubling of present CO2 levels (using a basic radiative forcing, not accounting for all other factors, known and unknown), our climate system is highly sensitive and primarily based on positive feedback relationships that amplify this insignificant initial warming into several whole degrees (predictions ranging anywhere from 4-12°C, such is the guessing game).
.
It is the predictions based on these amplified temperature increases that provide us the proposed future catastrophes with which we then determine CO2 as "harmful", since it would be (in such a system) the reason for the destabilisation of the climate. This is probably what you meant by CO2 being "dangerous". If it is, I'm afraid that you are wrong. It is not a fact.
.
This is, obviously, the anthropogenic global warming theory as assumed by the IPCC et al. The problems that have been identified (and ignored) for a long time with this theory, with particular reference to our debate regarding CO2 as "pollution" can be defined as:
.
a) There is no evidence to suggest that our climate is highly sensitive to small temperature changes of several tenths of a degree. One has to only look at the lack of evidence presented by the IPCC on this key area and the caveats surrounding the 2 papers that they do cite. Climate computer model predictions based on this assumption have all failed to predict the temperature plateau seen over the last decade and the atmospheric thermal trends they predict have not been observed. This has been primarily due to their inability to model clouds, aerosols or long term oscillations in ocean currents (because they are not fully understood scientifically).
.
b) It can also be seen in the instrumental and paleoclimate record that the modern warming is non-exceptional in both rate and scale. The increase in atmospheric CO2 from the industrial revolution cannot be said to have increased the rate of the modern warming event, nor to have raised the temperature to levels that the Earth has not been warmer than previously without the addition of anthropogenic CO2. There is also the issue that global temperatures have not increased for over a decade despite CO2 concentrations increasing in that time.
.
c) The "grey" literature cited by the IPCC to back their many predictions of future climate catastrophe have been found to be drawn from newspapers, non-scientific (and most certainly non-peer reviewed) articles from groups such as greenpeace and in some cases a rock climbing magazine (!) or even entirely fabricated. Predictions of the "melting" Himalayas, the reduction of rain-fed yields in African countries, global ice loss from mountains, coral reef degradation have all been found to be based on references to "grey" literature.
.
When we consider the first two points, we can see that the basis for this argument is entirely theoretical. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, even Phil Jones, a huge advocate of the AGW theory, has admitted that his only evidence for the modern warming being anthropogenic is that he cannot explain it with natural factors alone. This is to suggest that Phil Jones knows what all the natural factors are, can accurately calculate their "value" and perfectly understands how every single one of these variables interacts with one another. As is noted in point A, some of the most key variables (clouds, for example) are not fully understood, let alone capable of being modeled.
.
Finally and to conclude (thank god) when we look at point C in relation to point A and B, it is quite obvious that the catastrophic predictions based on nothing more than theory are, themselves, little more than speculation.
.
To argue that CO2 is a pollutant from a speculation balanced on top of a baseless theory is not particularly convincing. It is also far from being "a fact".
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
11:36pm Tue 13 Apr 10
It is absolute codswallop to suggest that we can allow the CO2 concentration to rise up around the 12000 PPM before we start to worry.
It is a fact that CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is a pollutant and if you cannot see that, or for whatever personal reasons you prefer not to see that, then really I feel you may as well wallow in your own world of regurgitated nonsense.
Honestly to suggest we should all live in your world of pollution, because it makes plants grow is such drivel it’s boring!
I still like this quote from James Cameron;
“Anybody that is a global-warming denier at this point in time has got their head so deeply up their **** I’m not sure they could hear me.”
The point of this thread is to embrace Solar PV technology. You say you worked in the photovoltaic industry for over 10 years, yet you cannot grasp how much electricity they produce, how it is fed into the grid, or the financial benefits of them. Yet everyone who has them installed has figures which prove they are financially very attractive.
Bill Williams
says...
5:09pm Wed 14 Apr 10
.
You seem to be having trouble separating the concept of a pollutant and a byproduct. Burning fossil fuels to generate electricity produces byproducts and, as you correctly identified, some of these are pollutants (these are not good and, of course, we should reduce our output of these as much as possible). CO2 is also a byproduct of the process, but that does not therefore make it a pollutant.
.
To take the point a step further, radioactive waste is a pollutant byproduct of generating electricity from nuclear fission (again, this is not good and, of course, we should reduce our output of this as much as possible). Water vapour is also a byproduct of the same process. This does not mean water vapour is a radioactive pollutant.
.
With regard to the 12000 PPM figure I used, if you read the post carefully, you will see that it is raised in the context of an "overexposure" argument for CO2 being a pollutant (i.e. that anthropogenic CO2 could lead to asphyxiation). To be honest, it is a very simplified example. Over the past 200m years CO2 has ranged from ~300PPM to ~3000PPM (and >4000PPM nearly 450m years ago in the middle of an ice age!) so we know that plants are actually capable of surviving such CO2 levels. But such time scales provide much more thought towards evolution than the debate at hand and as such I thought the 1200 PPM level proved the "overexposure" point sufficiently.
.
Also, the 1200PPM figure, in regard to the poorly named greenhouse effect, is fairly redundant. Due to the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing in the atmosphere, every 20PPM increase after ~280PPM only causes a further direct temperature increase of about 0.03° C. So with regards to the direct radiative forcing, even if mankind were able to pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to achieve 1200PPM (we've already seen that all the fossil fuels in the world being burnt can only achieve ~450PPM) it would only directly increase the temperature by 1.38° C (from pre-industrial levels).
.
Finally, yes, I agree, the point of this thread was regarding solar power. I believe it was you who initially brought up the point of "pollution" and CO2.
.
My work in photovoltaics is technical, not financial and as such I have no interest in the government grants available or, to a large extent, the return times. My interest is in the "self sufficient" goal that is claimed by some (indeed, in the blog post itself) as achievable (and even purported by yourself). As I mentioned before, doing the extremely basic maths (above) of taking the average measured insolation for my area of the UK and the top panel efficiency available suggests that I am not going to be generating anything useful for the majority of the year, let alone enough to be self sufficient.
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
5:08pm Thu 15 Apr 10
Sorry but burning fossil fuels inefficiently creates pollution NOT ‘by-products’. ‘By-products’ suggests innocence and the vast quantities of pollutants (including CO2) that are emitted from the fossil fuels are certainly not innocence.
Your childish argument goes deeper, from stating CO2 is not a pollutant, then insidiously suggesting we have improved the state of the planet by burning fossil fuels, to this latest false claim that CO2 is an innocent ‘by-product’ from the burning of fossil fuels.
For you to try and claim that burning fossil fuels is actually a good thing is not only silly, but also dangerous bill. You are advocating humanity carry on burning fossil fuels because it’s good for the environment. That’s utter nonsense. I accept the burning of fossil fuels is financially good business, but intellectually we are a clever species that has developed cleaner technologies for energy production and should put more effort into bringing these technologies to fruition. As many businesses and individuals are doing with Solar PV panels.
Bill, radioactive waste is a pollutant; water is a powerful solvent which carries radioactive waste, so yes the water is polluted. It is not an innocent ‘by-product’.
You’re on your own in the world of 12000 PPM of CO2 Bill.
I did not bring up the co2 issue but retorted to Eachban’s derogative post about the illegally hacked emails from East Anglia University. This is the link I posted on the matter http://bit.ly/cR59fj
This seemed to spin you into a dizzy twirl about CO2 as a pollutant and how you wrongly argue that it is somehow good for the environment and advocate we all carry on burning fossil fuels.
This link to the FT is about the theft of those emails http://bit.ly/bpKH9M Police quiz climate change sceptics…. Police investigating the alleged theft of e-mails behind the recent “Climategate” uproar have been telephoning climate change sceptics to question them about their political and scientific beliefs.
The Norfolk Constabulary was called in by the University of East Anglia after thousands of its climate scientists’ confidential e-mails were published online last November. The documents appeared to show the scientists concealing information and manipulating data to fit their theories, although two independent inquiries have cleared the university of wrongdoing.
Self sufficient solar pv installation.
‘Bottom line is if you have enough space on a south facing roof, you CAN be self sufficient in Electricity.’
Bill anyone who installs solar pv CAN be self sufficient in electricity. They can be a micro electricity producer, helping their own pocket, helping the national issue of energy security and putting fewer pollutants into the environment.
If a household annual electricity bill is normally £400 and the financial savings and returns of a solar PV system is £1900 per annum. £400 saved on electrical charges and £1500 towards the purchase of the solar PV panels.
This is being self sufficient in electricity.
Bill Williams
says...
5:39pm Thu 15 Apr 10
.
Firstly, it's important to clarify that I haven't advocated that "humanity carry on burning fossil fuels". That is just something you have inferred. I have made no such statements and, in fact, all I have tried to do is point out how arguing that CO2 as a "pollutant" is void of logic.
.
The same can be said for your interpretation of my argument as trying to prove that we have "improved the state of the planet by burning fossil fuels". Again, I have made no such statements. All I have pointed out is that an increase in CO2 has assisted in an increase in the Earth's biosphere. This is an empirical observation (i.e. not a model or a prediction or interpolation) and, when considered in terms of basic plant biology, makes perfect sense since most of the time, CO2 is the primary limiting factor in photosynthesis.
.
I referenced this study because it clearly shows that CO2 has beneficial effects and, quite patently, is needed in order for the world as we know it to exist. This presents some rather obvious problems for the "CO2 is a dangerous pollutant" argument.
.
As for water vapour emitted by nuclear power stations, you seem to be confused about where the water vapour is released during this process. It is actually emitted from the cooling towers and at no point is it introduced to radioactive material. So I'm not quite sure what your point on this is.
.
Finally you have also failed to understand the concept of "self sufficient" with regard to my previous comments on photovoltaics. To be "self sufficient" in electricity via photovoltaics would require one to generate all their required electricity via photovoltaics. Energy bills, FIT's, huge government subsidies and payback times have nothing to do with this. It is purely based on two factors. Average insolation and solar cell efficiency.
.
I can provide you with data and explanations in both of these areas if you need help.
Kaieteur Sidmouth
says...
12:30pm Fri 16 Apr 10
There is no confusion in 99% of the population who understand that the inefficient burning of fossil fuels produces pollutants one main one is CO2. It’s a fact that this happens. It is a fact that CO2 from these sources IS a pollutant. The only debate is what to do about it. Carry on burning fossil fuels inefficiently, create cleaner more efficient ways to burn them or carry on the advancement of the many technologies which produce energy in a clean and safe manner.
Bill. Water used in a nuclear power station as a coolant or for energy production as steam (vapour) is polluted and becomes radioactive, polluted with radionuclides. This is a FACT.
Bill, the context of the blog post is to use solar PV panels tying it to the national grid, or ‘feeding electricity into the grid’. To be self sufficient in electricity the sums obviously include; cost of the system, feed in tariffs, savings on energy bills, tax savings
Because the system feeds electricity into the national grid during the day, a home with solar PV on its roof may find that it is earning money all day. Then at night the home may be purchasing electricity from the grid. Bottom line is if you have enough space on a south facing roof, you CAN be self sufficient in Electricity.
To be self sufficient ‘off the national grid’ is another route which requires batteries to store the energy produced from the PV panels, again many people are currently very happy in this position and are ‘self sufficient’ in electricity production.
Thanks for the offer of more of your wacky interpretation of DATA, but I’ve seen enough thanks.
Anyhow bill since its just you and i disagreeing with each other, may I suggest you live in your world of 12000ppm CO2 which burns fossil fuels to make life more productive. And I will take the solar PV and other clean technologies route, heading for a non polluted environment.
Bill Williams
says...
3:35pm Fri 16 Apr 10
.
I'm beginning to think you can't. That you consider all byproducts of combustion "pollutants" doesn't bode well for the progress of the debate. By sticking to your argument so far, you are claiming that water vapour is a pollutant since it is also a byproduct of combustion.
.
Water vapour is quite patently not a pollutant and thus the logic of your argument is shown to be lacking.
.
Finally to veer slightly off topic, the nuclear plant was a crude example that served only to reduce my point to a (I thought) more concise description. My intention was not to discus nuclear power stations, but we seem to be caught on it. To put the issue to bed, the water vapour coming out of a nuclear cooling tower never has contact with the reactor. The water used to transport the heat from the reactor (yes, the steam) is a separate system and, yes, it does have contact with the reactor and yes, it is radioactive. This is not the water that is pumped to the cooling tower and, as a general rule of thumb, is not released into the atmosphere.
.
But if this example is causing more confusion than it is worth let's try, as mentioned above, considering the chemical equation for the combustion of any hydrocarbon. Let me know if you can balance the equation without getting CO2 and H2O on the right hand side.
.
Remember, the right hand side are all "pollutants".
.
All this talk of water has made me thirsty. I'm off for a tall, cool glass of condensed pollution.
My solar panels soak up the sun's free clean energy
People power - Marlow '350' cycle ride
Transition Town Marlow - coming off carbon dependency together
The unseen cost - the equivalent of 500,000 discarded oil barrels a year underpins Marlow's fossil habit
Bill Williams says...
9:46am Wed 31 Mar 10