Solar panels on a Grade II listed house

[Alex F]

In many cases it would seem currently mircro renewable energy use is not good for ones wallet but is good for ones sense of moral.

However encouraging less dependancy on fossil fuels can only be a good thing even if the energy it generates is less than the energy used to produce it.

An increase in the number of households adopting renewable energy (whether on a macros or micro scale) will encourage further investment in the renewable industries and hopefully more efficient and effective systems than currently available.

We should support that process.

 

[biffvernon]

Yes. My point about kitchens and home cinemas is that us good folk will argue endlessly about the efficiency and payback times of various energy sources - and then think very little about spending fortunes on toys that consume more energy

 

[Flyfisher]

I personally regard the current experiments with micro generation as a self funded field trial. If you have the money and will to take part then you can contribute to the process of discovering which technologies are suitable and stimulate demand to improve efficiency and product development. Even the infamous B&Q wind turbines are going to contribute to the overall knowledge base of what does and doesn't work in the UK.

I think that's a very astute observation. I suspect most people dabbling in such things are already fortunate enough not to actually need them, which is slightly odd if you think about it. I suppose it's the capital costs that prevent those that most need lower energy costs from using such technologies.

It's also made me think about my own project. Here I am trying to work out how best to heat a large, draughty, badly insulated house when, in actual fact, the existing 'system' (oil-fired Rayburn for DHW and four rads + open fires + electric blankets) probably has a lower carbon footprint than anything new I could come up with.

I suspect it's our expectations that might be the real problem, not the technology. Hmm.

 

[skier-hughes]

It's also made me think about my own project. Here I am trying to work out how best to heat a large, draughty, badly insulated house when, in actual fact, the existing 'system' (oil-fired Rayburn for DHW and four rads + open fires + electric blankets) probably has a lower carbon footprint than anything new I could come up with.

I suspect it's our expectations that might be the real problem, not the technology. Hmm.

Yep, best to start with these two... fix draughts and insulate, far cheaper than anything else and will save more in energy useage than a new system!!!!

Why install nice new high power boiler when there's the gaping hole in the roof :wink:

Though chuck the electric blankets, much cheaper to cuddle :lol:

Graham

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes. My point about kitchens and home cinemas is that us good folk will argue endlessly about the efficiency and payback times of various energy sources - and then think very little about spending fortunes on toys that consume more energy

I read somewhere recently (in a link provided by NT I think) that there is a high correlation between money and energy and that all money ends up being converted into energy, eventually.

I haven't quite got my head around it yet, but it seems to me it might make lot of sense. If it really is true, though, then it raises some interesting issues. For example, a recent thread discussed flagstones (or similar) and the fact that cheap imports from Indian quarries was hardly 'green' because of the transportation costs. But consider why it is cheaper in money terms . . . presumably because of the lower wages and lower standard of living of Indian quarry workers than their western counterparts - and a lower standard of living will almost certainly translate into lower personal energy consumption, so maybe it really is 'greener' to buy cheap goods from abroad? It's all very confusing.

 

[Flyfisher]

It's also made me think about my own project. Here I am trying to work out how best to heat a large, draughty, badly insulated house when, in actual fact, the existing 'system' (oil-fired Rayburn for DHW and four rads + open fires + electric blankets) probably has a lower carbon footprint than anything new I could come up with.

I suspect it's our expectations that might be the real problem, not the technology. Hmm.

Yep, best to start with these two... fix draughts and insulate, far cheaper than anything else and will save more in energy useage than a new system!!!!

Why install nice new high power boiler when there's the gaping hole in the roof :wink:

Though chuck the electric blankets :lol:

Fair comment about the priority of work, but my basic point (maybe not well articulated) was that the very concept of central heating is not really 'green', even though it is pretty much the accepted norm these days. Why heat a whole house when only a few rooms are occupied at any one time. Indeed, our pattern of open-fire usage seems quite efficient in many respects - we only light it around tea time and just use the room in the evening. Of course, it's not too comfortable walking from the baking drawing room to the freezing bedroom but something's got to give if we want to reduce our fossil fuel dependency.

As for electric blankets, I'd argue they could be the ultimate 'low-carbon' heating solution as they only heat the bare minimum required and the rest of the room can remain cold and even frosty (and does!).

 

[Penners]

Putting PV cells / micro wind generation into a house is wrong and very non green IF the energy it generates is less than the energy used to produce it.

And that's the nub of the whole problem.

But, as Biff points out, the question that we have to ask ourselves about every single aspect of our occupation of the planet (kitchens and home cinemas included) is: "Can I find some way of living with reasonable comfort, but ensuring that I am (cradle-to-grave) carbon neutral?"

The depressing answer is - probably not.

 

[Nemesis]

There's no law which says because you have central heating it has to be on in every room all the time.

We have valves, which are useful. Even small rads on very low keep the chill away.

I agree about leccy blankets... priceless really.

 

[NT]

Biff:

I doubt whether we will see much price reduction of systems in the next few years but EROEI is certainly on a downward path. Probably little point in delaying purchase till next year in the hope of a lower price.

I'm puzzled how EROI could be on a downward path. Surely one can always install yesterdays system to get yesterdays EROI, thus avoiding any downward trend. But more significantly, as the technologies improve EROI steadily climbs. That's been the case so far for all the major techs, and I dont see how it would reverse.

I expect there will come a day when ROI is high - and it has come for some types of solarthermal technology. But not for any home elec gen yet.


NT

 

[NT]

I personally regard the current experiments with micro generation as a self funded field trial. If you have the money and will to take part then you can contribute to the process of discovering which technologies are suitable and stimulate demand to improve efficiency and product development.

Absolutely. This is something of serious value to society. To do this one has to trial a new design not yet used, one with figures that look promising, monitor its output and performance, and publish the results.

Or using the same design in a different situation (e.g. location)?

I guess thats true in principle. Regrettably there are few examples of it occurring. All the main technologies such as flat plate, vac tubes, PV etc have been tried all over the place already.


NT

 

[NT]

Google has that article cached perhaps you would like to read it before condeming it?

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:LCCeHjYghNIJ:www.energybulletin.net/17219.html+energybulletin.net+17219.html&hl=en&strip=1

great, thank you. I've read it and its exactly what I expected. The article even openly acknowledges the major problem with the figures and analyses:
"Another factor that previous studies commonly fail to account for is human inputs, e.g. skilled education, labour, administration, maintenance etc. In order for any embodied energy calculation to be complete, all inputs must be accounted for."

I can only hope you're right and we have infinite supplies of oil, gas and coal and that the weather patterns of the planet aren't changing rapidly and we don't have to do anything at all to our patterns of energy consumption. It will be a whole lot rosier than the future I'm reaonably convinced is around the corner.

Well, I've never claimed all that, nor do I believe it, nor is it even realistic.

Whatever our future, it is counterproductive to do counterproductive things, and unfortunately theres a lot of it going on. I'm all for energy efficiency and home gen, but only in those cases where it gives more than it takes - and too often thats not how the numbers actually are.


If instead of running headlong into doing all the things that are being done today, people stopped and said, hang about, a lot of this is valueless, then there would be a lot more interest in the techs that actually do pay their way, both money and energy wise, and the results would be far better.


MdB:

Unfortunately, "being green" has become a fad and people are installing inappropriate technologies thinking they are doing the right thing when in fact they are doing the opposite.

Sums it up perfectly. The 'green' movement is so far removed from being truly green that theyre against nuclear power, the greenest of all the large scale gen techs. Fact can be stranger than fiction.


AlexF:

However encouraging less dependancy on fossil fuels can only be a good thing even if the energy it generates is less than the energy used to produce it.

 

[NT]

An increase in the number of households adopting renewable energy (whether on a macros or micro scale) will encourage further investment in the renewable industries and hopefully more efficient and effective systems than currently available.

We should support that process.

If that occurs, it developes the market for unsuccessful energy generation systems, or net energy consumers. There will be a mass of people paying good money to flush energy, material resources, and human labour time down the toilet.

In such a system there ceases to be any incentive to develop the techs that really can pay, because what people are actually paying for is ones that dont.

If OTOH we stay with the capitalist idea we have already, that encourages the market for successful energy generation systems, or net energy savers & producers.

The incentive is already there for development of a successful system. A system someone can buy and save money with is something that can see a very large market, and in most cases reap its developer huge licensing fees. Developing a marketplace for junk systems isnt going to help that.

And the truth is the development costs are minimal. Home gen tech is at such an early & crude point in its development today that anyone that understands the subject can make most things at home with no investment, and the remaining items that cant be made at home usually require very small budgets to assemble and try. Most home gen is as about as hi tech as the horse & buggy today.


NT

 

[NT]

Yes. My point about kitchens and home cinemas is that us good folk will argue endlessly about the efficiency and payback times of various energy sources - and then think very little about spending fortunes on toys that consume more energy

Yes, quite. And that tells us something about what people really care about, how high an agenda energy saving is, how important they really think the energy problem is.


NT

 

[NT]

Yes. My point about kitchens and home cinemas is that us good folk will argue endlessly about the efficiency and payback times of various energy sources - and then think very little about spending fortunes on toys that consume more energy

I read somewhere recently (in a link provided by NT I think) that there is a high correlation between money and energy and that all money ends up being converted into energy, eventually.

I haven't quite got my head around it yet, but it seems to me it might make lot of sense. If it really is true, though, then it raises some interesting issues. For example, a recent thread discussed flagstones (or similar) and the fact that cheap imports from Indian quarries was hardly 'green' because of the transportation costs. But consider why it is cheaper in money terms . . . presumably because of the lower wages and lower standard of living of Indian quarry workers than their western counterparts - and a lower standard of living will almost certainly translate into lower personal energy consumption, so maybe it really is 'greener' to buy cheap goods from abroad? It's all very confusing.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

I'll be brave and say 'All money is spent on energy in the end.'

But the tail comes round to bite a 2nd time. Is this the way we want to go? Do we really want to reduce the worldwide living standards, our own included, to reduce energy consumption? That's where buying cheap goods abroad is taking us.


NT

 

[biffvernon]

I'm puzzled how EROI could be on a downward path.
NT

Sorry, that should, of course read 'upward path'.
Just testing

 

[Flyfisher]

I'll be brave and say 'All money is spent on energy in the end.'

But the tail comes round to bite a 2nd time. Is this the way we want to go? Do we really want to reduce the worldwide living standards, our own included, to reduce energy consumption? That's where buying cheap goods abroad is taking us.

I'm not sure that buying cheap goods from abroad does reduce worldwide living standards. Surely all the money flowing to the 'third world' must increase their standard of living. Maybe it averages things out a bit more, which of course would be a reduction from our privileged perspective.

But if it's reasonable to equate energy consumption with standards of living, which seems reasonable, then the only long term (maybe medium term!) solution is to find an effective and plentiful source of renewable energy - assuming that energy consumption per se is not a bad thing, only fossil fuel consumption.

 

[Nemesis]

I don't think a home cinema or a new kitchen every few years would mean my standard of living has increased.

I feel my quality of life will be reduced by all the beautiful unspoilt countryside around me being covered in massive windfarms.

It's what you think is important I suppose.

 

[sarahj]

An endless supply of 'green' energy is certainly not the way forward - this will only lead to the increase in the consumption of consumer goods, perhaps produced using green energy but still using non renewable resources. Free and green fuel for our cars wouldn't solve the gridlocks, or stop the car market and yet more and more cars on the road and the resources used to make them. consuming more goods also makes for more things to dispose of - another waste problem.

We need to reduce our consumption of energy and resources so that there is enough for everyone to have a good enough standard of living, and not to measure that standard of living on the type of car we drive, the size of our house, the number of holidays or the size of our tv screen.

We are (probably) the most creative species on this planet, as well as (definitely!) the most destructive, and we need to exploit that creativeness to the benefit of every living and non living thing on this planet.

Sermon over.

 

[Flyfisher]

It's what you think is important I suppose.

Of course, one's standard of living is a personal judgement and we all spend our money on a different mix of things based on those preferences. But I think it's reasonable to assume that, on a macro level at least, the more money you have, the better your standard of living is likely to be. And if money is equivalent to energy then it follows that higher standards of living require more energy.

 

[Nemesis]

No, I don't think, beyond a certain basic level, that the more cash you have equates with a higher 'standard of living'. That's only in material terms.