Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 11th October 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

'Home-made' energy will match output of five nuclear plants



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 June 2008
SOLAR panels and other small-scale home energy devices could save the same amount of carbon dioxide as taking all lorries and buses off UK roads within 12 years, according to a new report.
The research found that up to nine million gadgets, from wind turbines to solar panels, could be installed on homes by 2020, if new policies are put in place.

This would generate as much energy as five nuclear power stations. But the report said much greater policy support and financial incentives are needed to turn home energy devices, known as microgeneration, into a mass market.

Legally binding targets for the number of units installed could boost the industry, according to the independent report commissioned as part of the UK government's microgeneration strategy.

So far, there are almost 100,000 units which householders use to generate their own energy in the UK, most of which are solar panels, used to heat water.

This could rise to as many as nine million microgeneration units installed by 2020 if ambitious steps are taken, such as "feed-in tariffs" that pay consumers a set fee for the electricity they feed back into the grid.

Such incentives would be needed because currently consumers do not value the cheap power compared with the high installation costs of the technology, the research found.

The report by independent consultancy Element Energy, which comes ahead of a decision by ministers on whether to set a target for installation of small-scale energy sources in the UK, said targets backed by policy would encourage investors to develop the market.

Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks welcomed the report, called The Growth Potential for Microgeneration in England, Wales and Scotland, and said ministers would be considering its findings as part of the Renewable Energy Strategy.

"Microgeneration has the potential to make a significant contribution to overall energy use in the UK and, combined with energy efficiency measures, will help towards reducing our carbon emissions," he said.

"The concerned individual can take an active role in the battle against climate change."

In the wake of the report, industry and energy groups called for the setting of legally binding targets and strong policies to boost investment in the sector.

Philip Sellwood, chief executive of the Energy Saving Trust, which is part of the consortium that commissioned the report, said: "We would urge government to set targets for microgeneration and put in place the right combination of policies to achieve these targets.

"We are now ready to work with government and industry to put in place a raft of measures to help achieve these targets and make the purchase of microgeneration a viable and desirable option for every household in the UK."

Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, called on the UK government to amend its Energy Bill.

"We have long pushed for an enhanced role for household and community renewable power – not just to cut emissions, but to protect householders from rising energy bills," he said.

"The UK government should urgently amend the Energy Bill to provide incentives to allow those installing household renewables to sell energy to the grid for a fair price.

"The Scottish Government has increased capital funding for such technologies and introduced planning rules to require their use on most new homes."

Alan Duncan, shadow business secretary, said: "The government has been dithering around this issue for months, whereas microgeneration has been a central part of our energy policy for well over a year."

FACT BOX

THE key microgeneration types include:

SOLAR PANELS: Can provide about a third of a home's hot water.

WIND TURBINES: Free from emissions and waste products, they can either be free-standing next to a home or mounted on the roof.

GROUND-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS: A buried loop transfers heat from the ground into the home. The system does not require any fuel and can heat the whole building.

A typical system costs approximately £8,000 and can save up to £800 on annual heating bills.

BIOMASS BOILERS: These burn organic materials – such as wood chips – to produce energy.

They release the same amount of that the wood absorbed while growing, making them carbon neutral.


The full article contains 707 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

The Strategist,

03/06/2008 00:23:24
FACT BOX ....... Not one of those microgeneration systems is made in Scotland apart from a small wind turbine which is just about the least effective system you could buy.
2

Guga II,

Rockall 03/06/2008 03:46:51
If the government were genuine about such micro-generation, they would do things such as bulk-buying small wind turbines so that they could sell them on to the public cheaply.

Incidentally, if burning wood is "carbon neutral", isn't burning coal also carbon neutral?
3

W Smith,

Middle East 03/06/2008 04:45:26
"They release the same amount of that the wood absorbed while growing, making them carbon neutral'.

Just when you think you seen it all, read it all and heard it all.

So we plant trees to absorb CO2 then burn them!

Coal is 50% carbon by weight, so we burn the coal and it only releases the same amount that is "absorbed while growing" or developing over millions of years.

So coal is carbon neutral!

Brilliant! In daft eco-nutter sort of way.

BTW
Who voted for Ducan McLaren anyway?

Is he elected?

Funny how The Scotsman is always prepared to give this man what Thatcher called the 'oxygen of publicity'.

Its time to turn this man's 'oxygen' off and let those who are sick of eco-taxes on their cars and petrol speak!
4

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 03/06/2008 07:26:59
Fossil fuels are NOT carbon neutral. Burning them adds CO2 to the air which is not then absorbed again by other fossil fuels.

Wood is carbon neutral since other trees absorb and lock up that CO2 load.

The more wood we grow and use (not burn) the better. Build all houses of wood from huge new forests and lock up tonnes of CO2. Avoid concrete/cement as each bag produces its own weight in excess CO2. Use lime instead whenever possible.

The Proven 6kw turbine I'm considering installing costs £30k installed. It sells surplus energy to the grid. Whether it earns its keep depends on its running costs, the wind and my usage. It intrudes on the landscape and is not silent. Hardly an attractive proposition except to a greenie like me with an electric car and bike and outboard! Lucky there are no neighbours. Solar electricity is even less cost-effective, but things are getting better as oil shoots up.
5

Unimpressed one,

03/06/2008 07:55:51
#1 Fact Box, none of these technologies would be much good in Scotland. Certainly passive solar collectors can make a reasonable contribution to reducing heating bills but of course this mainly happens at the wrong time of year. As for the rest - a total waste of space literally. Just imagine millions of windmills on city roof tops, eventually working there way loose and the amount of damage they would cause both to the buildings themselves and any hapless souls unlucky enough to be underneath at the time. The whole report is total drivel dreamt up by the usual technically challenged numpties.
6

traprain,

03/06/2008 08:02:43
"Such incentives would be needed because currently consumers do not value the cheap power compared with the high installation costs of the technology, the research found"

Says it all, the economics of the madhouse. As for daft 4 Rulesbutnotrulers £30k would deliver £1800/A at 6%. More than enough to supply two French homes with nuclear generated electricity. Plus micro generation is not without maintenance costs and replacement every 8 to 10 years due to wear and or obsolescence.
7

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 03/06/2008 08:12:10
#6 Traprain
Daft Rules? a. he allowed for running costs which include the things you mentioned, so why remention them.
b. if you know anything about economics then you would know that thanks to waste, security and maintenance costs, nuclear electricty costs FAR more than the price the consumer pays. Cheap nuclear today will be paid for by our descendants for a 100 generations. Not one nuclear power station has ever paid its way. All require huge, but hidden, public subsidies. Wind power is free for the taking: ask any sailor.
8

traprain,

03/06/2008 08:27:09
7
£30k for purchase and installation. £300/A maintenance. £1800/A in lost interest and £3000/A depreciation/replacement.
The economics of the madhouse!
9

11+failed,

the pans 03/06/2008 08:34:48
8 traprain
In addition a nuclear station is still required to provide supply when the wind ain't blowing.
10

drew 33,

03/06/2008 09:00:51
#7 Rulesbutnotrulers,
"Wind power is free for the taking: ask any sailor"
Sailors all tell me that sailing ships became increasingly uneconomic from c.1900.
11

Alexander,

Edinburgh 03/06/2008 09:18:09
My sail boat runs on "free" wind. Curiously the cost per mile is about five times the cost of running my wife's BMW X5.
12

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 03/06/2008 09:20:33
It certainly makes sense. Many years ago Sweden had a moratorium on nuclear power, and now derives over 30 percent of its energy from similar schemes. The rest is obtained from hydro-power, it's remaining coal-powered stations, and imported oil and gas from Norway. Yet, Sweden lies much further North than the U.K. and much of it's landmass is within the Arctic Circle.

However, it's unlikely to happen here because the
nuclear industry is in thrall of the government?

The cost of decommissioning old U.K. nuclear power stations was recently estimated at £73 billion but experts now believe this figure could rise by tens of billions!

France has more nuclear-powered stations than anywhere else in Europe but it is now finding that the decommissioning and waste clear up and storeage will eventually cost more than the original construction costs! Electricity prices in France are only slightly less than the European average.
13

Irn-Bruce,

Edinburgh 03/06/2008 09:31:38
All these microgeneration systems seem to require space - far more than there is available, especially in urban environments.

Some ideas on what tenement dwellers can do, would be useful.
14

Alexander,

Edinburgh 03/06/2008 09:43:07
12 Mr. Lachie Todd,
Where did you dream up that rubbish?
May 2008, "Sweden has 10 nuclear power reactors providing half of its electricity."
15

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 03/06/2008 09:54:01
All of these 'solutions' are focused on the wrong end of the energy flow - production. It is the 'consumption' end where we should be looking - reducing use. Scottish houses are the worst insulated in Europe - fuel poverty has been in the headlines every winter for the last 30 years; next winter will be the same.
Back in 1993 Gaia Architects won the 'House of the Year' design competition for a wooden house they built at Tressour Wood, Aberfeldy.
Take a look at the websiteL
http://www.gaiagroup.org/Architects/individual-houses/tressour/index.html

This house requires virtually no heating wahtever. The single small woodstove was included for 'comfort' and for exceptionally cold winters. The house is heated by large south facing windows - passive solar gain - and serious 'Swedish standards' of insulation. No high-tech machines - just good design and boring old cellulose insulation. So why don't we simply change the building codes to demand all houses are like this? Energy demand would drop by 90% - you could close half the power stations immediately. Of course the answer is - there's nae money for the vested interests in boring old insulation.
16

Saoghal Beag,

03/06/2008 10:24:39
Tweedmouth, i almost agree with you! We do need decent building standards that are enforced and the purchaser is fully protected from sub-standard work. Passiv Haus standards should be adopted.

Traprain, 11+ and the nuclear ludite fraternity. It's already been pointed out to you that nuclear is the most expensive option. Currently in Scotland it is also the most unreliable, giving intermittent supply through unplanned and planned outages (though many of the planned outages are to retify problems) and before you witter on about them being old. The construction of the newest French reactor has been halted and they are now going back to rectify unacceptable faults. Build is very capital heavy for nuclear and any delays add significantly to the cost. nuclear plants are only built with a massive discounted interest rate (that's a subsidy really) and, as is the case fo the new Finnish reactor, offered gauranteed purcahse of its power at gauranteed prices. WHen those gaurantees were removed from BE at Torness the government had to wade in to bale them out.
17

BK,

Cyberspace 03/06/2008 10:35:01
#12 and #14. That's the beauty of the internet. You can quote any "facts" you like to back up your case, whether they are true or not. If you want statistics, just invent them. Just like politicians do.
18

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 03/06/2008 10:59:00
Wind power IS free!

OK, you pay for the machines that make use of this fact. Not that much though necessarily. My Mirror dinghy cost me £120 on eBay and that's with road and launching trailers.

The wind turbine at £30k is far more, but it gives a return (unlike a diesel generator) as it has no rising fuel costs. I can buy electricty cheaper off the mains, of course, but only because that is subsidized by the environmental and other costs. Besides that, my wind turbine gives me £30k of pleasure and is paid for by cutting out various vices. (Two beers a night for ten years cost around £18k alone, and that's before inflation!)
19

DocScooter,

UK 03/06/2008 12:01:47
I always hate these debates because they end up with the same tit for tat. This is why the UK has made so little advancement on climate challenges.

Renewables are expensive but clean, you dont buy them to save money
Nuclear is riddled with safety and economic issues but offers high load factors
The carbon cycle of wood buring can be challenged but it is a sustainable fuel if managed correctly

We can pick fault with every form of energy production and methods of cutting Co2

The fact is we all have a duty to do something positive rather than say nothing suits me and it is someone else's problem.

Find what works for you and take that step - for me I fitted extra home insulation, bought a wood stove, changed my car to do more mpg, cycle and walk when I can, recyle and compost about 80% of all my waste.
Not one penny saved but I am doing something........



20

Alexander,

Edinburgh 03/06/2008 12:27:09
17 BK
No invention on my part! You should check your facts before handing out puerile insults.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf42.html
21

11+failed,

the pans 03/06/2008 12:43:10
16 Saoghal Beag,
"Traprain, 11+ and the nuclear ludite fraternity. It's already been pointed out to you that nuclear is the most expensive option."
I guess if Rules says it is more expensive it must be right!
We have a cable across the Channel for exchange of power. amazingly it is nearly one way traffic, to the UK. Nice of the French to subsidise electricity for their UK friends. UK nuclear stations are mainly of an expensive design chosen by the generating genius Tony Benn. I should further point out that we all pay extra for our electricity because conventional generators are required to subsidise the so-called renewables.
22

hertscot,

03/06/2008 12:48:39
I would love to have solar panels, a turbine etc. but my "green" local council won't give me planning permission because "we don't like the way they look", even though they have accepted that none of my neighbours or passers by would even be able to see them!
Guess I'll just have to chop down trees for a multi fuel stove and fire then?
23

Turkey Jerky,

03/06/2008 13:08:16
Another alternative that would save approx. %30 over the current centralised power generation model would be distributing high efficiency combined cycle micro-turbines (gas turbines i.e. jet engines are gas turbines, NB not wind turbines).

Localising these in areas of higher power consumption would reduce the losses of transmission which can be as high as 40%.

They provide heating and hot water as well as electricity at up to 60-80% energy efficiency from natural gas or distillate fuel.

You see you don't create much heat(energy loss) by running gas through pipes, but you do lose heat (energy) along the whole length of power lines all the time.
24

Geomac 1,

Scotland 03/06/2008 13:31:51
Here we go again - a technically and economically illiterate report from an organisation who don't appear to have any engineers on their staff nor who have no idea of the cost/benefit ratio of the technologies they are advocatong. Reasonably sized solar panels and windmills cost at least £5000 apiece - so where's the £45 billion for the 9 million installations to come from?? The UK plc is bankrupt!
Then there will be the technically impossible task of connecting all 9 million units to the Grid! This latter suggestion is a non starter - the grid is destablised enough with the few hundred windmills we already have connected!!
I despair at this sort of nonsense being published without question or comment by an allegedly leading class paper like the Scotsman.
Reports such as this are ten a penny and most are correctly ignored. This Element Energy consultancy are obviously cashing in on the vast amounts of loot being thrown at "climate change". What a waste!
25

Unimpressed one,

03/06/2008 13:32:25
When the rest of the UK gets cheaper and more reliable energy from a new generation of nuclear stations, we in an 'independent' Scotland will have one of the highest energy costs anywhere generated intermittantly from wind and tide, with the accompanying blackouts. First to move out will be industry then large retailers. The last to move will not need to put the lights out. But at least we'll be happy when the wind blows.
26

Geomac 1,

Scotland 03/06/2008 14:04:34
Element Energy and Jenny Haworth obviously didn't read the following quote from The Guardian (2 June 2008)

""The energy regulator Ofgem is preparing to rewrite the rules governing access to Britain's electricity network in a bid to cut the queue of renewable generators seeking access. But proposals to make the rules more flexible to allow wind farms quicker access to the network could face opposition from existing power generators.""
Now exactly how ill we get 9 million new generators connected???????????????????
27

Boggle fey the Bog,

03/06/2008 14:51:34
25 Unimpressed one,03/06/2008 13:32:25
"When the rest of the UK gets cheaper and more reliable energy from a new generation of nuclear stations, we in an 'independent' Scotland will have one of the highest energy costs anywhere generated intermittently from wind and tide, with the accompanying blackouts."

I suppose it is very hard to impress anyone who is challenge in the cranial capacity dept, but someone obviously has, insofar as 'Nucular Energy' is concerned, to the extent that you feel it is the Great Panacea to all our 'energy' problems.

So here we go, electricity per unit produced, is more expensive when produced by 'nucular generation'.
This is due to the huge amounts of money involved in building safe nuclear reactors, the 'safe' disposal of spent nuclear fuel rods and other low, medium and high risk contaminated materials, then after 30 years or so the exorbitant cost of 'decommissioning' the aforementioned nucular power stations (current nuclear power stations are decommissioned at the 'taxpayers' expense, not the 'shareholders', this gives a totally inaccurate picture of the true cost per KWh).

However, in an Free Scottish Nation, the abundance of, natural, renewable resources,such as water and finite resources, such as coal will enable the construction of small to medium hydro, 'clean coal' and other sources of electrical generation, at a reasonable construction cost and end user cost, without the need to build highly expensive and dangerous nucular power stations.

If the present bunch of cowboys in Westminster had 'grasped the nettle', the building of very low emission coal fired power stations, would almost be a reality now, and some would probably be under construction. Thereby alleviating our dependence on the uncertain and irregular supply of, and very expensive LNG, coming down the pipelines from the East.

But APU they had their collective heads so far up the 'Oil Barons' rears that the did not see the obvious, and by the time the
28

Boggle fey the Bog,

03/06/2008 14:52:21
Cont; from#27

But APU they had their collective heads so far up the 'Oil Barons' rears that the did not see the obvious, and by the time they did it was to late to recover their position.

As for the story, Photo-electric energy cells will have to come down drastically in price before they make any real inroads into the reduction of emissions, as currently it takes about 25 years to recover the cost of installing them.

However there are other alternatives, like decent insulation, heat exchangers fitted to fridges and freezers (these are the most expensive domestic appliances to power, as they are 'running 24/7'), and an often overlooked simple method of reducing emissions, 'area heating systems', these are more fuel efficient and provide massively cheaper heating than conventional CH systems.
29

Geomac 1,

Scotland 03/06/2008 15:03:56
#27! Here we go again. Nuclear is NOT more expensive. Capital costs per kWh are similar to that for offshore wind and half that of tidal and wave energy. This has been demonstrated by many reports including Royal Scoiety of Engineers and the House of Lords! And, before you blow a gasket, their cost comparisons include nuclear clean up!!
Low emission coal buring technology has not yet been developed so it's not really possinble as you suggest for Westminster to get on and build such power stations. I suspcet what you are alluding to is the test programme by BP, advocated and dbuilt up into a war with Westminster by the SNP, to develop such a technology - a long way to go!!
30

JoeMcT,

BlairsFantasyIsland 03/06/2008 16:13:24
Who needs Coal, Nuclear, Wind or Solar power?

Google Stan Meyer and find out about Stan's amazing water powered car.

Yep, Stan Meyer came up with a method of Electrolysis which is cost effective and can power a car or any generator.
31

Saoghal Beag,

03/06/2008 16:53:50
21 11+, they english import energy from france and from scotland, both connections are pretty much one way. Alll that proves is that england does not generate as much power as it needs.

With the downtime of the scottish plants it is thankful that we have enough current generation to cover their absence, in fact have you noticed the lights going out in scotland this past 18 months?

THe economics of new build nuclear are tenious at the best. Not just something Rules came up with.

Nuclear is the option for the spineless, moving from one finite source to another, heaping problems on future genrations because they lack foresight and consideration for those who will follow us.

£74B and rising in decommissioning and that does not consider the repositry if they ever get round to that. But that isn't added to the sums for the build, oops, easy to forget.

Less than 3% of R&D budget has been spent on renewables, the rest was allocated to nuclear, another subsidy.

Like i pointed out Torness went to the wall when the market gaurantees were removed.

Unaffordable, unsafe, unviable nuclear, for fools and the Leibour.


32

Saoghal Beag,

03/06/2008 16:56:46
Geomac, perhaps almost as illitrate as you? Solar panels at £5k way out.

Evacuated tubes approx 3.5k
Plates approx 2.5k
Photovoltaics approx 10k

Above prices are indicative of typical domestic installations.
33

Saoghal Beag,

03/06/2008 17:04:02
29 geomac, if you ignore decommisioning, transfer adn storage of waste, construction of a final store for the waste, security, the list goes on.

Not only does dispersed and diverse generation mean that load is gnareated at point of need it automatically saves about 30% of transmission losses.

34

11+failed,

the pans 03/06/2008 17:27:23
31 Saoghal Beag
"the english import energy from france and from scotland, both connections are pretty much one way. Alll that proves is that england does not generate as much power as it needs."
The connection was intended to exchange power at peak demand which occurs at a different time in France from the UK. Import of power into England is only required during heavy demand periods. Power is regularly imported from France outwith peak times because the price is lower than much of the UK generating capacity. The French certainly do not subsidise power to the UK market. It is supplied on a strictly commercial(profitable) basis. Over 80% of French electricity is nuclear sourced.
35

Saoghal Beag,

03/06/2008 18:15:27
11+ you have your fingers in your ears going nah nah nah if you honestly think that the french generation is not subsidised. Like the UK industry they enjoy many state interventions to displace costs. the french can import at lower cost cos the french government is picking up many of the costs. good on the english. but the argument doesn't apply to scotland.

The newest finnish reactor is a french lead project and that is only getting built because the finns have offered seriously discounted loan rates and gauranteed market share and prices.

the newest french build is plagued with poor workmanship.

France is only a utopia for the deluded.
36

11+failed,

the pans 03/06/2008 19:27:23
35 Saoghal Beag
You would be a little more credible if you didn't resort to insult, the last bastion of the lost argument! France isn't in the business of subsidising electricity to its neighbours. While we fiddle with simplistic faith in wholly uneconomic and heavily subsidised toy generation the situation in France is:-
* France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
* France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
* France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
37

11+failed,

the pans 03/06/2008 19:35:26
France's nuclear power program has cost some FF 400 billion in 1993 currency, excluding interest during construction. Half of this was self-financed by Electricité de France, 8% (FF 32 billion) was invested by the state but discounted in 1981, and 42% (FF 168 billion) was financed by commercial loans. In 1988 medium and long-term debt amounted to FF 233 billion, or 1.8 times EdF's sales revenue. However, by the end of 1998 EdF had reduced this to FF 122 billion, about two thirds of sales revenue (FF 185 billion) and less than three times annual cash flow. Net interest charges had dropped to FF 7.7 billion (4.16% of sales) by 1998.

In 2006 EdF sales revenue was EUR 58.9 billion and debt had fallen to EUR 14.9 billion - 25% of this.

TThe cost of nuclear-generated electricity fell by 7% from 1998 to 2001 and is now about EUR 3 cents/kWh, which is very competitive in Europe. The back-end costs (reprocessing, wastes disposal, etc) are fairly small when compared to the total kWh cost, typically about 5%.

From being a net electricity importer through most of the 1970s, France now has steadily growing net exports of electricity, and is the world's largest net electricity exporter, with electricity being France's fourth largest export. (Next door is Italy, without any operating nuclear power plants. It is Europe's largest importer of electricity, most coming ultimately from France.) The UK has also become a major customer for French electricity.

France's nuclear reactors comprise 90% of EdF's capacity and hence are used in load-following mode and are even sometimes closed over weekends, so their capacity factor is low by world standards, at 77.3%. However, availability is almost 84% and increasing.

38

truthsleuth,

03/06/2008 19:36:39
# 36 11+failed,
'France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.'
Only because the full costs of nuclear are never declared ie research development recovery.

The Company dismantling UK nuclear stations has already declared how costs for doing so have more than doubled.

39

John Blackley,

Florida 03/06/2008 20:57:02
So where would I put my solar panel, windmill and garbage boiler if I lived on the third floor or the Red Road flats?
40

Saoghal Beag,

03/06/2008 22:25:27
11+ i have seen figures that state that fuel costs are around 5% of running costs, but to state that tail costs are in that same order is complete lunacy. 75B is nowhere near 5% of the build costs of our current nuclear capacity. It is on complete lies like this that the white elephant of nuclear is sold.

Where you sing the praises of france exporting power it does so through necessity. Nuclear plants run on an even keel they do not meet surge demands, therefore if you have a nuclear based generation portfolio the maximum percentage of peak demand has to be based on the lowest base demand in the dead of night. This means that France may export to meet peak demands in neighbouring countries but must import high cost power to meet its own peak demands. The cost of this was such that france dusted down its oil fired reactos in 2006.


The commitment to build nuclear will divert finance from other generation, basically put all our eggs in one basket. Again lunancy. this is the time to establish a diverse and dispersed generation portfolio.
41

Saoghal Beag,

03/06/2008 22:26:56
39 John, the red road flats are GHA property, you look to them to install a community heating system. It's about appropriate solutions to fit local needs.
42

Colin, Glasgow,

05/06/2008 21:57:22
The same nonsense was in the Guardian with a few more facts but an even more ridiculous headline.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/02/renewableenergy.alternativeenergy

The cost of this is £2.2 billion per year. You could build a new nuclear plant every year for that money, yet it only generates the output of 5 powerstations.

And the _vast_ majority of the systems in this scenario are micro-CHP boilers running on gas, so they are not renewable. The article spins the story to make it seem like this is all coming from renewable micro-generators, but in reality it is using dirty fossil fuel and even dirtier biomass for the bulk of the supply. Micro-wind and PV-solar make a tiny impact.

Not only is the propsal far more expensive than nuclear, it is also far more polluting.

The only part that makes good sense is the thermal solar and the ground source heat pumps. With a heat pump you get 3kW heat out for every kW of electricity input. Run them off nuclear power and our domestic heating is solved at a stroke.
43

ferrand,

ludlow 08/06/2008 23:23:17
May I suggest that the firat priority for expansion of the UK Countryside's potential is to start dealing with it's energy imbalance. In about 1980 ADAS reported that for every 100 calories of food exported from UK farms 240 calories of energy had to be imported, and that did not include labour and sunlight. I do not know today's figure but by copy of this message am asking ukagriculture.com if they do.

Given the Govenment's fixation with centralised energy - nuclear et al - little attention I think has so far been paid to decentralised energy, albeit there have been some useful reports recently from BERR, see http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/sources/renewables/policy/renewable-heat/page15963.html
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file45238.pdf
http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/sources/sustainable/microgeneration/strategy/page27594.html

The Countryside is well placed to make use of decentralised energy :-

1/. To make it's own biodiesel, Wealth from Waste, non crop biodiesel manufacture from waste including agricultural waste. [diagram attached]
Waste disposal after being used to produce electricity and heat, produces Carbon Dioxide, which can be converted to biodiesel via Algae. A form of "agriculture"
Information on the Algae to Biofuel processes can be seen on http://www.algaefuelmaking.com/ and http://algaeatwork.com/. http://www.globalgreensolutionsinc.com/s/Home.asp are reporting a cost of $36/barrel for Biodiesel, at present, with the probability of this going lower. :UK office Global Green Solutions Ltd 5th Floor 9 Kingsway, London WC2B 6XF Telephone: +44 (0) 20 8123 9701
E-mail:info@globalgreensolutions.co.uk

Anaerobic Digestion data is available from www.greenfinch.co.uk which has a plant at Ludlow operating on Food Waste. Any biodegradeable waste will do I think, so countries with lush vegetation should be able to make their own electricty and biodiesel from local non food biological raw materials. Plus any available waste from food production,
44

Colin, Glasgow,

12/06/2008 18:57:17
This is a link to the actual BERR report:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46003.pdf

As I suspected the bulk of the microgeneration energy would come from non-renewable gas-fired CHP boilers; it requires colossal subsidy (of the order of £5.5 billion per year); and only produces a fractional reduction in CO2 (around 1-2%). The amount of _renewable_ electricity from this microgeneration scenario equals about half a nuclear powerstation. The rest is dirty fossil fuel power.

The Register dissects it further:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/04/microgeneration_report/
45

solarwindwavepower,

UK 24/06/2008 16:32:58
This if the first time in our history where business and the consumer can be the creator of our energy needs.

The reality is this is coming at us faster than most of us think.

Solar Power, Wind Power, Wave Power, Tidal Power & Hydro Power are big business. They are also something that the individual can do for the world. Together we can sort out Peak oil and Global warming, by investing in our children's future with the cleanest greenest renewable alternatives: Solar Power, Wind Power, Wave Power, Tidal Power & Hydro Power to power our electric vehicles.

Don't let the big Oil, Coal and Nuclear fool you. If they do it will be to the determent of our children.

Common sense says go for what is the cleanest long term option against peak oil and Global warming and get on with it.

There are people who are already carbon neutral and have created a positive cash flow from solar alone. So anyone who doubts the technology is a dinosaur.

Big business is already pouring billions in renewables. We can sit and watch or we can help.

This is one list I just goggled and there are thousands more. So let wake up and get to work and sort with the solutions we already have.

http://www.ecomall.com/biz/solarcat.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLcYgtd1Yw8&feature=related

http://www.kobashi.co.uk/environment.shtml
46

solarwindwavepower,

UK 24/06/2008 18:40:09
There are so many new sustainable devices out there already. Their numbers are growing by the minute.

One company LDK solar had 1 billion in revenue this year 2008 from solar ingot and wafer sales and they have only been going for 3 years.

A small wind company from Canada WWEI shows how much money they start to make in 3 years on only 49 megawatt.

http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/080611/144455.html

The Adelaide City Council has raised the standard in International sustainability with the introduction of the world’s first solar-powered electric bus.

http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/scripts/nc.dll?ADCC:STANDARD:1678481829:pc=PC_151048
47

Chris W,

16/08/2008 21:58:36
#46: Solar powered electric bus? In Scotland? Hahahahahahahaha!
Let us know when you return from cloud cuckoo land.
48

solarwindwavepower,

20/08/2008 11:43:26
Seeing the future is hard for some.

Fighting any sustainable solution to our energy problem is crazy.

By the way in only 10year you will be able to have a solar bus in Scotland.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUKN3145191020080731

http://finance.yahoo.com/video_iframe/1/8347523/Why%20IBM%20Is%20Hot%20on%20Solar

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.