Pre-Budget Report

[NT]

Personal transport is already a partly solved issue. Schemes have been proposed using ovehead roadways with small 2 seat electric vehicles that are hired to go from anywhere to anywhere, and return to base by themseves after youve used them. They use systems to avoid collisions, implement security and so on.

The other option with personal transport is to let people use gocarts in towns, with lanes for them separated from cars by physical barriers for safety.

The 3rd option which must come about if sense ever reigns is to permit affordable electric pavement riders. Maybe little mopeds, maybe limited to 10mph and with number plates, but whatever it is the present gross inefficieny needs to end if were to do better as a society.


NT

 

[NT]

flyfisher:

> All this talk about saving the planet is completely
> misleading; it's really about saving ourselves.

not really, there will always be land. Its a subject riddled with myth and bull, which is a big reason why most people are thrashing about and getting nowhere.


> There are simply too many people living on the borrowed
> time of fossil fuels and I see little action being taken
> to figure out how to we're going to survive without
> them, just a lot of political posturing and tinkering. I
> suspect that people who think they know the answers
> don't actually understand the problems.

Energy techs have advanced a lot in the last 20 or 30 years. Lots of research is ongoing, and this is really what will solve our problem. Wind generation has come down so much in price it is now being rolled out. Solar electric reseach is ongoing and has produced an almost viable system. Wave energy research continues, and has brought the costs down considerably. Australia's solar tower looks like it'll get built. Domestic boilers are now mostly condensers. Electronic programmable stats are now in common use thanks to the numerous advances that have made such electronics affordable. and so it goes on. If you havent noticed it, you havent been paying attention.

Research is the answer. In the long run there will be no need to reduce energy consumption. Energy will be cheap and derived from non-fossil sources, and we can safely use as much as we like. A rooftop can capture 10s of guilt-free kilowatts when the right technology is finally developed. An ocean of mills and wave machines can develop far more, once the cost per watt becomes competitive.


NT

PS If you want to fast forward into the distant future, beyond any of our lifetimes, it may even be that one day energy will be so cheap that cavity insulation will be seen as a foolish waste of materials.

 

[biffvernon]

Here's Ruth Kelly's announcement:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1002882&PressNoticeID=2320

 

[Penners]

A zero carbon home is one with ‘zero net emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO²) from all energy use in the home’. The definition encompasses all energy use in the home (including energy for cooking, TVs, computers and other appliances) rather than just those energy uses that are currently part of building regulations (space heating, hot water, ventilation and some lighting). It means that over a year there are no net carbon emissions resulting from the operation of the dwelling. This could be achieved either through steps taken at the individual dwelling level or through site wide strategies. So it will not be necessary for each dwelling to have its own microgeneration capacity where development level solutions would be more appropriate.

At last, a definition.

I should have thought that it will be difficult to achieve this, though. Won't it be entirely dependent upon the type of person who buys the home? A sizeable family of profligate home heaters, cookers, washers, dishwashers, TV watchers, computer users, etc. are going to use a great deal more energy than, say, a retired couple.

How will the system allow for such variables? Or will the differences in energy consumption simply be averaged out?

 

[NT]

What makes you think the govt's claimed position is for real?
To put it another way, what would it take, what would it cost, and what would be the consequences?


NT

 

[Penners]

what would it take, what would it cost, and what would be the consequences?

For goodness sake - you can't go asking the government questions like that. Don't bother them with detail.

 

[Flyfisher]

Furthermore it takes approx 40 years (at current maximum efficiency of around 15%) of constant use to pay back in energy terms the cost of manufacture. The average life expectancy of photo voltaic cells is currently 20 years.

Therefore every solar cell installed, if used until destruction with zero defects or maintenance will only repay back HALF the energy it cost to produce it. Making its carbon imprint at least DOUBLE that of energy produced by any other method. Very, very un green.

Sorry to drag this old topic back to life, but the above quote has been bothering me ever since I read it. So, not being able to sleep tonight, I finally got around to having a look for some verification and it seems it is probably not actually true - which I find reassuring!

This report suggests that "PV systems mounted on rooftops produce the amount of energy needed to recover their energy content in the range of 1.6 to 3.3 years, and generate (during their service life) between 17.9 and 8 times their initial energy content."

This 1997 report concludes that "Most important, however, is that it seems feasible to achieve a future decrease of the energy/CO2 payback time for grid-connected PV systems to two years or less in case of c-Si modules and to one year or less for thin film modules"

This website is all about PV economics, including details on energy payback times (EPBT) and this wikipedia page is an interesting discussion about EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). It does occur to me, though, that anyone going to the trouble to install a PV system really ought to have it connected to grid to ensure that all its energy output is always used, as any 'lost' energy output will certainly extend its overall EPBT.

One a different, albeit related subject, one rather alarming thing I read was that "when oil was originally discovered, it took on average one barrel of oil to find, extract, and process about 100 barrels of oil. That ratio has declined steadily over the last century to about three barrels gained for one barrel used up in the U.S. (and about ten for one in Saudi Arabia).", which is a rather sobering thought when this article suggests that the EROEI of current wind power technology is 20-25x with future expectations of 50x.

OK, oil provides vastly more energy than wind power but an EROEI efficiency of 3x seems precariously low to me. I've always thought that oil would last much longer than alarmists suggest because new but expensive-to-exploit reserves would become economically viable - but I was thinking in money terms not energy terms. If it eventually takes one barrel of oil to extract one barrel of oil then it won't really matter how much is acually left because it will be effectively unreachable. These are complex matters indeed.

Still, I can go to bed now without worrying that PV technology is actually working against the planet :wink:

 

[biffvernon]

Well done Flyfisher, you've realised why Peak Oil is such an important idea. We will never run out of oil but we will soon be producing oil at a positive EROEI at a declining rate NO MATTER what the price of oil is.

Have you looked at The Oil Drum or PowerSwitch?

 

[Penners]

Have you looked at The Oil Drum or PowerSwitch?

Yes.

Now I'm going to have trouble sleeping, too.

 

[Flyfisher]

I was aware of the Peak Oil concept and some of the reasons for arguments over its precise timing (not all though and the Oil Drum article was very interesting in this respect), but it always seemed to be a purely monetary issue, i.e. oil will run out sometime and after the peak it will steadily become more expensive etc etc.

But I hadn't thought about the EROEI angle before, where oil is still actually available (and maybe even still affordable?) but is no longer an overall energy resource. At this point I suppose it becomes a 'natural' resource like, say, aluminium - there's plenty of it but it consumes energy to get at it.

I know the 'gold standard' that underpins world currencies (or used to) is a lost concept these days but perhaps an 'energy standard' should be introduced whereby the sum of human wealth is measured in energy units rather than dollars or pounds or euros. That might change G8 politicians' views about how to continue expanding their 'economies'.

As Penners said, none of this is going to help me sleep :?

 

[biffvernon]

Oil will never run out. Even the very first American oil well is still oozing a dribble. Rather than focussing on how much oil there is, it is more useful to consider at what rate the oil can be produced (with a positive EROEI). Presently, the world produces about 85 million barrels per day. For a host of reasons, it seems likely that this will increase only marginally in the near future and then decline. Business as usual economic growth would hope for continued increase in the rate of production. Indeed it relies on it. But this will not happen, even if the price rises. So business as usual will not happen. Things will change. Predicting just how they will change is trickier. How we use fossil fuel in our old houses could be part of the change.

 

[Flyfisher]

I agree with all of that except, maybe, the last sentence. Can the fossil fuel consumption of period property owners really make any significant difference in the grand scheme of things?

Even Bliar recently acknowledged that the UK as a whole can have little influence on global warming and we might just as well continue flying to the Carribean for our holidays, so what chance have a relatively few PP owners got of making any difference?

 

[Penners]

Bliar

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Nemesis]

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1986570,00.html

 

[Lime]

This report suggests that "PV systems mounted on rooftops produce the amount of energy needed to recover their energy content in the range of 1.6 to 3.3 years, and generate (during their service life) between 17.9 and 8 times their initial energy content."

Out of interest I followed up the references and was surprised to find that only 260 installations are recorded over a period of 14 years throughout the world.
The information from the UK is extremely small amounting to perhaps a dozen over 14 years.

It appears to be information entered into a data base by owners or installers of installations with little or no verification.

I hope you had a good night's sleep because if I was relying on those figures I'd be up all night!

Am I being obtuse?
Are these figures for real?
Can references like this be taken seriously?

What appears to be lacking are any hard figures.

However suggesting (as this report does) that the results from Perth Australia have any relevance at all to those obtained in the UK is being disingenuous at best or being downright dishonest.

 

[Flyfisher]

While I certainly agree with the principle of questioning anything on the web, indeed anything anywhere, there comes a point where the information available seems more likely to support one side of an issue than the other, at which point it's reasonable to form a conclusion.

The statement in question was that PV systems are inherently 'un-green' in the sense that they could never possibly even return the amount of energy needed to manufacture them.

I found this hard to believe so I looked for more information. OK, I didn't carry out exhaustive, independent, peer-reviewed research but I looked a various different sources and all of them refuted the statement in question. I found nothing to suggest that the statement in question was even nearly true.

I agree that the figures I found had a wide range and were therefore 'soft' rather than 'hard', but none of them even came close to suggesting that PV systems cannot payback their embedded energy over their operational lifetime, so I think it's a fair conclusion that the statement in question is incorrect.

Are you saying that the statement in question is correct and that these references are all wrong? I'd be very interested to read anything to support such a view. Perhaps the original poster of the statement could supply his original sources?

 

[biffvernon]

...significant difference in... ...little influence on...

These sort of arguments are often made but completely lacking in integrity. I will continue beating my wife as any change in my behaviour will have little influence on the lot of the world's women.

Actually, rather a lot of our energy is used in our homes and we have a better chance of happy survival in the future if we learn how to manage with less while we still have the opportunity to do it voluntarily.

 

[Nemesis]

If you continue beating your wife however I may be forced to intervene, although I agree with you about attempting as individuals to try to modify our profligate ways.

We can carry on wasting earth's resources or we can be a tad more prudent with them.

 

[Lime]

Flyfisher, of what I have read from the references no conclusion should be derived from the data as it is sparse, supplied by those with a vested interest, is not country/region specific and is very, very woolly!

 

[Flyfisher]

...significant difference in... ...little influence on...

These sort of arguments are often made but completely lacking in integrity. I will continue beating my wife as any change in my behaviour will have little influence on the lot of the world's women.

Which is precisely my point, so where's the lack of integrity? It might make you feel better to stop beating your wife, which of course has some value in itself, but you're right that it makes virtually no difference globally.

Actually, rather a lot of our energy is used in our homes and we have a better chance of happy survival in the future if we learn how to manage with less while we still have the opportunity to do it voluntarily.

Qualitatively, you are right, of course, but try considering the quantitative implications and I suggest there are more productive things we could be worrying about.