Tax relief on sustainability

[Penners]

Whoever did the photoshopping* isn't exactly expert, eh? My area of modest expertise.

Oops - wasn't you was it?


* For Mrs P's area of expertise, please delete the letters p-h-o-t-o.

 

[worms]

solar generation is intermittent, but it is fairly predictable, and broadly matches the load

Hmmm...we are already into the part of the year when I don't get to see my house in daylight, so I'm guessing my use wouldn't match the generation from solar pv panels on my roof!

 

[oldfella]

Erm, excuse me but are threads on this site always hijacked and the original poster of a serious question ignored? :?

 

[Nemesis]

It wasn't me - but it's a worry.


http://www.saynotowindfarm.co.uk/

 

[Nemesis]

The answer to the original post -

YES/NO

Take your pick!

Blimey - look at the trouble you've caused and you have the nerve to expect an answer!

Humph!


Look - it keeps them off the streets and mugging old ladies and worse. Be gentle with them.

 

[Penners]

Erm, excuse me but are threads on this site always hijacked and the original poster of a serious question ignored? :?

Like any conversation between people, the subject does tend to wander, I'm afraid. And I'm probably as much to blame as anyone. Apologies.

Do feel free to nudge it back to the original question at any time.

 

[gsport george]

solar generation is intermittent, but it is fairly predictable, and broadly matches the load

Hmmm...we are already into the part of the year when I don't get to see my house in daylight, so I'm guessing my use wouldn't match the generation from solar pv panels on my roof!

No, but even in the dead of winter in most of this country you will get SOME power, and I am guessing that you also have the heating on... so using the "high value" heat from the top of that (instead of simply degrading it for heating) to generate your extra electricity, is a good match.

This can be in a woodchip boiler with a stirling engine, or biogas or ethanol from household waste and/or use surplus solar power in the summer to generate hydrogen. Even using natural gas is better than the current situation...

Also in the Winter it tends to be windier and there are bigger waves and more rainfall.

Sure. Nuclear is the only SINGLE solution to our energy needs, but there is absolutely nothing that dictates we cant use a combination of other technologies to solve the problem in a more intelligent way.

It is also worth remembering that this is not a problem that only afflicts us here in the UK. The ENTIRE PLANET needs energy. There is no way that Nuclear Fission can be considered a realistic solution for everyone, wheras Solar PV and other renewables do have that potential.

Nuclear Fission has HAD it's chance and failed, from promises of "electricity to cheap to meter" we have cracked cores that produce some of the most expensive energy in use... (when you factor ALL the costs in)

G.

 

[Lime]

If several large nations took up nuclear power seriously there would only be about 20-30 years supply of fuel available in the whole world.
Nuclear fuel is finite and very limited.
The ores are not at all plentiful in the earth's crust.

Also much of the radioactive material we now have in the world will still be radioactive and dangerous when we get swallowed up by the Sun regardless of the more common short half-life isotopes.

As much as I wish otherwise nuclear power does not hold the solution for energy in the future even if it is used.

 

[wobs]

If several large nations took up nuclear power seriously there would only be about 20-30 years supply of fuel available in the whole world.
Nuclear fuel is finite and very limited.
The ores are not at all plentiful in the earth's crust.

Nonsense. There's enough uranium on Earth to last millions of years. You seem to be confusing resources with reserves.

Also, don't forget thorium, of which India has oodles of. If you'll forgive the technical jargon.

Also much of the radioactive material we now have in the world will still be radioactive and dangerous when we get swallowed up by the Sun regardless of the more common short half-life isotopes.

Already answered that one earlier.

As much as I wish otherwise nuclear power does not hold the solution for energy in the future even if it is used.

Its a significent part of the equation.

 

[Penners]

much of the radioactive material we now have in the world will still be radioactive.

Lime - I've never understood why it is that radioactive fuel is regarded as "spent" when it is still highly radioactive. Why will it not still generate a chain reaction and therefore be useable as fuel?

 

[biffvernon]

Should our Goverment be considering providing grants or tax relief to us people who use sustainable building materials during the process of maintaining our old homes. In my case I am having my roof re-thatched next year. Please discuss.

Wonderful how a thread on tax relief for sustainable building materials can wander off to a become a course in nuclear physics. But, no, I won't be tempted, further than pointing out that Lime is quite right to point out that supplies of uranium that can be used as fuel are very limited. Yes, there is a lot of uranium in the earth, even some in seawater, but mostly the concentration is so low that it would take more energy to extract it than the energy released when it is used in a power station. And the whole fuel cycle uses a great deal of CO2 releasing fossil fuels. There is simply no way that nuclear power can ever fill the gap left by the vanishing oil, nor is it the answer to global warming.

 

[Nemesis]

Our regional telly news last night had a feature on new 'green' coal fired power stations, although those require mining... and open cast isn't too pretty either...

 

[Penners]

Should our Goverment be considering providing grants or tax relief to us people who use sustainable building materials during the process of maintaining our old homes. In my case I am having my roof re-thatched next year. Please discuss.

If the exchequer is going to be flush with all these new carbon taxes, presumably they would have the resources to do so. However, as always with these things, there will be clamours from every quarter for a share in the extra money. NHS, police, education... you name it.

You could argue that carbon tax money should be used for carbon friendly purposes, but when was the road tax last used for roads?

 

[Nemesis]

Historic buildings don't feature too importantly either on the horizons of this government...

 

[oldfella]

Ah well it was a good try maybe?

Was rather hoping Gordon may have been a registered member :lol:

Still prompted a discussion and as my roof is being re-thatched next year I had better not get my hopes up for a little bit of help from the Goverment. But as I am sure you fine peeps have discussed before, England has many fine buildings which will attract financial assistance for repairs, so thanks for small mercy in that it will continue to do so.

 

[Nemesis]

The grant aid dosh that is given to EH to help has been hugely reduced, and VAT relief on repairs to historic buildings is an ongoing sore point and campaign by heritage organisations. led by Heritage Link.

Gordon missed the opportunty this year to do something, via EU legislation, and the latest from our dear leaders is in the Gov response to the Commons Select Committee Report on Heritage, where it says reduction on VAT on repairs to historic buildings won't help employment... which is an interesting perspective...

But so much of the response is ... well, rubbish really.

 

[biffvernon]

Yeah, but if they knocked the VAT off old buildings they'd have to do the same with the Olympics (apparently).

 

[wobs]

Sorry, quite a long post:

Lime is quite right to point out that supplies of uranium that can be used as fuel are very limited. Yes, there is a lot of uranium in the earth, even some in seawater, but mostly the concentration is so low that it would take more energy to extract it than the energy released when it is used in a power station. And the whole fuel cycle uses a great deal of CO2 releasing fossil fuels. There is simply no way that nuclear power can ever fill the gap left by the vanishing oil, nor is it the answer to global warming.

Its often a misconception that we have a limited amount of uranium that is extractable. What this is based on is the amount that is available from the current sources. The truth is that there hasn't been any need to prospect for any new sources, as the demand currently doesn't demand it. Despite this, there has been work on extracting uranium from seawater, and when the need arises, there will be further searching for new sources, but until then there isn't the need.

Here:

.....the actual recoverable uranium supply is likely to be enough to last several hundred (up to 1000) years, even using standard reactors. With breeders, it is essentially infinite. Hundreds of thousands of years is certainly enough time to develop fusion power, or renewable sources that can meet all our power needs.

From here: http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html

Also, there is the material from decommissioned weapons, and fuel that the US hasn't reprocessed - this amounts to about 25years (well, since the Carter administartion) worth of spent fuel stored in large water tanks.

The argument that nuclear will not help combat climate change or global warming due to the energy involved in the process is evidence of a lack of understanding of the process. There's a UK Government report on this online comparing the carbon cost of all the major forms of energy generation. Wind and nuclear come out about the same level (this includes mining and decommissioning). Solar comes out worse due to the high energy cost of production currently.

The figure for British Energy's Torness nuclear power plant in 2002 was 5.05 g/kWh. Compare that with wind which can be 5.5-29g/kWh. It varies for all depending upon which site you look at, but all site specific studies I've seen puts nuclear on a par to wind.
Gas and coal are between 470 and 980g/kWh

Nuclear should be major contributing factor to cutting carbon emissions if we want to maintain our standard of living. We won't die or get sick from the radiation, and we don't have any other energy source that will deliver the quantity we need in the way we want it.

As for taxing period property restoration..... Hard to see how it would be implemented. Would be nice to get more help from the government for energy efficiency and materials that are more eco friendly. Possibly a sliding scale of tax depending upon its (potential) impact on the environment, but the cost and complication of it maybe be prohibitive.

 

[Penners]

England has many fine buildings which will attract financial assistance for repairs

If only....

 

[Nemesis]

Yeah - from whom?


Do tell!!!!