Wind Turbine experience

[mross]

The total Feed-in-Tariff payments between July and September 2016 were (approximately) £396,486,552.38p

This is for all kinds of renewables.  

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/feed-tariff-fit-levelisation-report-july-september-2016

The solar PV on my roof netted me about £1,200 in cheques and reduced my energy bill at the same time.

Edited March 5, 2017 by mross

[I Spartacus]

Grants and subsidy help run the renewables market, We managed to secure a £10 million pound grant to install two 5MW chp plants, there is money to be made in renewables for business 

[MtB]

15 minutes ago, Neil2 said:

As we speak about 20% of our electricity is being generated by "renewables".  That's the metered stuff, we don't know about the unmetered.  Does anyone know what is the total annual subsidy being paid out to the owners of these power generators?  A friend of mine just had a biomass boiler installed for which he says he receives a £4000 pa subsidy.  How much then for a full blown power station converted to biomass, such as Drax?

 

It's worth noting how 'renewables' are only viable due to the govt subsidies. Were they commercially viable in their own right carbon fuels like gas and oil would never have gained ascendency in the first place. 

The subsidies are unsustainable in the long term, so people who think renewables are The Answer in the long term are kidding themselves (and everyone else). Nuclear is the only truly viable alternative to fossil fuels so far. (Other than a massive reduction in the energy demands of the human race.)

[rusty69]

2 minutes ago, mross said:

The solar PV on my roof netted me about £1,200 in cheques and reduced my energy bill at the same time.

Was that the same time frame? 

[mross]

I must, respectfully, disagree.  Costs are falling rapidly.  Germany sees a future in renewables and has decided against nuclear in the future.  I'm sure they have costed it.

1 minute ago, rusty69 said:

Was that the same time frame? 

Sorry, I see my post was ambiguous,  No, my £1200 was per year.

[I Spartacus]

2 minutes ago, mross said:

I must, respectfully, disagree.  Costs are falling rapidly.  Germany sees a future in renewables and has decided against nuclear in the future.  I'm sure they have costed it.

Yes they can all work when the sun is out and the wind blowing but when it in not you still need a back-up to supply the power that is the big problem.

[mross]

We share with other countries through the interconnectors.  This extends the hours of availability.  Also, electricity can be stored by hydro projects and Tesla has a massive business in batteries for homes and businesses.  China is now a world leader in solar.

[WotEver]

10 minutes ago, mross said:

... (approximately) £396,486,552.38p

I love that 38p at the end of 396 and a half billion for an 'approximate' figure

[mross]

9 minutes ago, WotEver said:

I love that 38p at the end of 396 and a half billion for an 'approximate' figure

I forgot the TIC emoticon!

[I Spartacus]

I agree in renewable projects anything that helps is well worth it, I spent 4 years working with renewably technology's on some very interesting projects. here is an interesting link that makes good reading on a project my friend was working on where it does actually work

 http://www.tongapower.to/OurBusiness/RenewableEnergy/OuterIslandsRenewableEnergyProject.aspx

[MtB]

37 minutes ago, mross said:

I must, respectfully, disagree.  Costs are falling rapidly.  Germany sees a future in renewables and has decided against nuclear in the future.  I'm sure they have costed it.

I would suggest they are going for renewables for reasons other than cost. Fear of a nuclear accident leading to bias towards renewables and the consequent political pressure being the obvious one.

[mross]

Yes, but they clearly think it affordable.

[Neil2]

None of the individuals or companies that install renewables are doing so because they want to save the planet, it's an investment decision.  Witness the scores of houses in my village that have solar panels where the sun hardly ever puts in an appearance.  These are retired folk with money in the bank making a financial judgement.

It's all the wrong way round.  We need to cut consumption not increase production.  

I agree the renewables strategy is unsustainable  - look at the furore that erupted when the government cut the subsidies for solar power installations.  That's why I fully expect to see energy rationing in my lifetime. 

[I Spartacus]

9 minutes ago, mross said:

Yes, but they clearly think it affordable.

Yes but Germany have invested  billions of euros in this and PV development, and most of it is made in China under licence, Like the UK and Holland have invested in wind turbine technology and promote offshore farms, it is all international trade at the end of the day, always back your investment

[mross]

4 minutes ago, Neil2 said:

None of the individuals or companies that install renewables are doing so because they want to save the planet, it's an investment decision

You are right.  But the subsidies were to meet our Renewables Obligation and that was an international consensus.  In artificially stimulating the industry we drive down unit costs and invest for future generations.  No bad thing I say although i choose not to have children.

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, Neil2 said:

None of the individuals or companies that install renewables are doing so because they want to save the planet, it's an investment decision.  Witness the scores of houses in my village that have solar panels where the sun hardly ever puts in an appearance.  These are retired folk with money in the bank making a financial judgement.

It's all the wrong way round.  We need to cut consumption not increase production.  

I agree the renewables strategy is unsustainable  - look at the furore that erupted when the government cut the subsidies for solar power installations.  That's why I fully expect to see energy rationing in my lifetime. 

 

Bang on. But as we both accept, this is not going to happen. The 'elephant in the room' (I hate that phrase but can't think up a better one) is the human race needs to stop and reverse population growth or energy demand will continue to rise indefinitely. Same for food supply.

Unless and until the Human Race takes effective steps to limit its size, energy demands (and food and water demands) will continue to rise.

[mross]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

It's all the wrong way round.  We need to cut consumption not increase production.  

We can do both

[I Spartacus]

7 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Bang on. But as we both accept, this is not going to happen. The 'elephant in the room' (I hate that phrase but can't think up a better one) is the human race needs to stop and reverse population growth or energy demand will continue to rise indefinitely. Same for food supply.

Unless and until the Human Race takes effective steps to limit its size, energy demands (and food and water demands) will continue to rise.

Yes I agree with both of you, But people are not being educated. I try my best, grow my own food on an allotment, changed all of my lighting to led,s and heat my water in the summer with solar,

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, mross said:

We can do both

I am more cynical than you then. 

Given the industrialisation and creation of the Third World middle class, along with continued population growth, I do not expect the human race to reduce consumption in the foreseeable. Or anything like it.

[Neil2]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

I am more cynical than you then. 

Given the industrialisation and creation of the Third World middle class, along with continued population growth, I do not expect the human race to reduce consumption in the foreseeable. Or anything like it.

Absolutely.  

Making cars more fuel efficient means more cars on the road.  

As for an international consensus nothing worthwhile was ever decided by a committee. 

At the moment it's all short term-ism.  The reality is the world is hoping and praying that in the next 50 years someone will come up with a revolutionary form of cheap energy creation.  After all, it's not that long ago that no-one could think of a useful purpose for crude oil.

But I'm cynical too, I think we're heading for the buffers.  

[Jess--]

Very recently we were looking at what it would require to take our house completely off the electric grid.

with the roof space we have and the direction it faces we could (just) fit 15kw of panels where they would receive unbroken sun from dawn to dusk (losing the last hour in summer as the sun goes past west)
Batteries were to be an 8,000 - 10,000Ah bank @48v and  240v was to be supplied via a pair of 10 KVa inverters 
Because the system would be used to cut off from the grid there would be no feed in tariff or subsidies

total parts cost would be in the order of £22,000 - £25,000 (depending on minor changes and exchange rates)

based on our current annual electric bill and allowing for that bill to increase by 5% each year the system would have to perform perfectly (including batteries) for 19-24 years to be able to hit the break-even point, any failure in the system that required new parts would push this date back by years.

given that most panels will start to lose efficiency long before that time, batteries would almost certainly not last and I doubt that the inverters would last that long I suspect that with replacement / maintenance costs added in the system struggle to hit break-even in my lifetime

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, Neil2 said:

Absolutely.  

Making cars more fuel efficient means more cars on the road.  

As for an international consensus nothing worthwhile was ever decided by a committee. 

At the moment it's all short term-ism.  The reality is the world is hoping and praying that in the next 50 years someone will come up with a revolutionary form of cheap energy creation.  After all, it's not that long ago that no-one could think of a useful purpose for crude oil.

But I'm cynical too, I think we're heading for the buffers.  

 

Me too. 

Two things illustrate to me how poor a grasp of the big picture most people have.

1) People persistently believe 'energy efficiency' is all about saving money on fuel bills. The media encourages this belief.

2) I heard a woman the other day saying she had just bought a car that was, and I quote, "good for the environment". She genuinely thinks by driving her new car around she is helping save the planet. I despair.
 

I agree we are heading for the buffers. The only light in the tunnel is the fact that as oil gets more difficult to get out, the price will rise. Rising fuel costs will make speculative research into new energy sources more attractive. People/companies seeking infinite riches will throw ever more effort into finding a new cheap energy source. And somehow, I think they might succeed.

Edited March 5, 2017 by Mike the Boilerman

[mross]

11 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

As for an international consensus nothing worthwhile was ever decided by a committee. 

Nonsense!  There are many international conventions which are good.

SOLAS, Geneva, COLREGS, Montreal were all produced by committee.  There are many more.

[system 4-50]

I'm optimistic. The next plague will cut the world population by a factor of ten sometime in the next 50 years, giving us (the ones that are left) more time to save the planet.

[mross]

The world population will probably top out at 11 billion.  We can feed 11 billion.  Anyone who looks forward to a plague that killls 90% of the population is a psychopath!  I hope you did not mean that?