|
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| The Feed in Tariffs seem to have been protected by the spending review at least till 2013. Once signed up income is guaranteed so its worth investing now if you have a suitable roof. Solar PV is more efficient at cooler temperatures so our temperature will offset the reduced sunlight at this latitude.
See this link for details of spending review and also see the rest of the site for schemes for free installation whereby you or your school get the free electricity and the company gets the feed in tariff money.
http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/breaking_news_coalition_gove... | |
| | |
Regular
Posts: 80
| I wonder if that would work for a community charity. Where buy the charity pays for the installation of PV on suitable roofs, recoups the cost from FIT and any furture profit fed back into the community.
Even paying for the PV, charging 1/2 price for energy used in exchange for renting the roof space?
Do any of the schemes actually encourage me to reduce the amount of energy I use? | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| If the charity has sufficient capital that might work although you are talking about a payback of about 10 years for photovoltaic even with feed in tariffs so its a long investment. The rate for export 3p is now less, so there is more incentive to use it yourself, but this could be on something like charging an electric bike like we've done replacing fuel. You get the feed in tariffs for what you generate not what you use but obviously if you use less you don't have to pay so much for importing electricity. | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 275
| David's point about encouragement of reduce energy (or rather the lack of such encouragement) is a good one. In some circumstances householders can get subsidised insulation, but generally the only incentive to reduce consumption is the prospect of lower bills. I think that's probably consistent with the skewed logic of the politicians, that it's possible to continue the quest for economic growth, but fuel it with renewables rather than fossil fuel. If that's the starting point, then reduced consumption isn't desirable! | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| And David Cameron going off to try to persuade the Chinese to buy more from us to balance out all the junk we buy from them. Doesn't seem to fit with his supposed green credentials somehow. | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| The UK government seems to be determined to reduce green ambitions http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/03/coalition-dilute-...
Meanwhile Germany is benefiting from being 20 years ahead in renewable energy generation which is mainly owned by individuals and communities. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/30/germany-renewable... | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 275
| Anne, I don't think the first link there works.
The second article is a bit one-sided, I think. I hadn't realised how much of Germany's renewables are owned by individuals and communities, that is certainly eye-opening. And I certainly wouldn't suggest that the UK approach to climate change and energy is particularly advanced - but the fact that the 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 is legally binding in the UK should count for something. Also, note that German electrical generation now is twice the UK's, with a population about 30% greater, so it seems they have some way to go in reducing consumption... or maybe that just reflects the fact they still have a manufacturing industry?
The projected increase in UK electrical demand reflects the plan to switch most road transport and domestic heating to electricity, that doesn't constitute an increase in energy demand, rather a switch from oil and gas to electricity (for better or worse!), so we shouldn't necessarily beat ourselves up about that. I don't think there is actually a target for future energy usage in the UK, which is a more serious issue.
The German decision to phase out nuclear has, I believe, led to a significant increase in their GHG emissions in the short term at least. And the target of 35% electricity from renewables is quite challenging without a lot of fossil-fuel powered generation as back up. The capacity factor of German wind turbines, last time I looked, was less than 30%, so assuming most of the renewable generation is from wind, if they have capacity to generate 35% of their consumption from renewables, at times the renewables will produce more than the national demand.
The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that renewables are only a small part of the solution, and even then only if we can come up with a good way of storing surplus electricity. And the more convinced I am that journalists are really rubbish at producing balanced, well-researched, articles!
As is often the case, my conclusions are that (1) it's more complicated than the article makes out, and (2) we should be putting much more effort into reducing consumption than substituting generation. | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| I think I've fixed the link now. Yes the situation is much more complicated than most journalists make out, but Germany has less renewable resource than the UK. I think I read that Scotland has about 25% of the renewable resource potential. Wave and tidal seem to be now going in and should make an important contribution to base load. Off shore wind turbines seems to be more like 50% efficient, I think. The fossil fuel lobby complaining that wind turbines are only 30% efficient when it is 30% of a free resource seems a bit ridiculous as is their claim that it is too expensive when American wind farms are now producing electricity at a comparable price to gas and the price is coming down whereas fossil fuel prices are rising inexorably. Wind power is more expensive in the UK partly due to the length of time in planning. I do think we need to be careful how many wind turbines we put up and where. The German system of more smaller locally owned turbines may be less efficient but may actually be more acceptable.
I think most of the things I've read suggest reducing demand by about 50% is achievable and the cheapest option but won't be at all easy. | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| I put together sheet on wind power for the election as it was something that often came up on the doorstep. Comments/ corrections welcome.
Wind Power Myths and Facts
Myth: wind farms damage the landscape permanently
FACT Before construction begins, arrangements are made with The Highland Council for decommissioning and reinstatement works.
After construction, the wind farm will be operated for up to 25 years. At the end of this time, the wind farm will be decommissioned and the land returned to its previous state. Wind farms are a truly reversible form of energy development. This cannot be said for the alternatives. Fossil fuels will permanently damage the world's delicate temperature regulation system and we are already in the danger zone. When the atmosphere last had this amount of carbon dioxide in it the sea level was seven metres higher than it is today. Even the one metre rise predicted this century together with increasing storms and flooding will devastate many coastal communities.
MYTH: Wind farms are ugly and unpopular
FACT: Whether you think a wind turbine is attractive or not will always be your personal opinion. A recent study by Friends of the Earth showed that 85% of the public supported producing our power from renewable sources such as wind rather than dirty fossil fuels.
MYTH: Wind farms won’t help climate change
FACT: Wind power is a clean, renewable source of energy and just one modern wind turbine can save 5,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually. Fossil fuel power stations are the largest contributor to UK carbon emissions. Extracting and using fossil fuels is increasingly damaging to the environment. Thousands of tonnes of methane is currently being released from the Total’s Elgin platform. Methane is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
MYTH: Wind farms don’t produce when the wind doesn’t blow
True, but, In the UK the wind always blows somewhere. An Oxford University study found that the UK was never entirely becalmed, and that a range of wind power developments would deliver electricity during all hours. Solar energy generation is now increasing and is often stronger in the troughs in wind production. Wave and tidal energy will help provide base load in the future, hydro and pump storage and sub-sea cables with Europe are also going to help balance out supply and demand.
MYTH: Wind farms are inefficient generators of electricity, they only generate electricity 30% of the time
FACT: A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs dependent on wind speed. Over the course of a year, it will generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output. This is known as its load factor. The load factor of conventional power stations is on average 50% 5. A modern wind turbine will generate enough to meet the electricity demands of more than a thousand homes over the course of a year. For a particularly windy site the capacity factor could be as high as 42%.
MYTH: Wind energy needs back-up to work
FACT: All forms of power generation require back up, or reserve, as no energy technology can be relied upon 100%. The UK’s transmission system already operates with considerable reserve in order to manage the significant fluctuations in demand that occur throughout the day, as well as the instantaneous loss of a large power station. Variations in wind farms outputs are barely noticeable over and above the normal fluctuation in supply and demand. At present there is no need for additional back-up because of wind farms.
MYTH: Wind farms are noisy
FACT: Modern wind turbines are remarkably quiet. Changes to turbine technology mean that mechanical noise from turbines is now considered to be almost undetectable. The main sound is the swoosh of the blades turning and this can generally only be heard close by. Standing at the foot of a turbine you would not have to raise your voice to hold a conversation. Government guidelines on wind turbines and noise emissions set noise thresholds to ensure the protection of people living nearby. However, the best way to find out is to go and visit an operating wind farm.
MYTH: The UK should invest in other renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency instead of wind power
FACT: The UK is investing in other renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures to meet our energy needs. Renewables Obligation Certificates and Feed in Tariffs are available to a wide range of renewable technologies. These are providing a financial stimulus to the renewable industry but are being reduced as it becomes cheaper to install. Onshore wind is one of the most cost effective and efficient renewable energy sources available at present and, accordingly, it is the leading provider of new renewable generation capacity. It is already as cheap as fossil fuels in some parts of the world.
MYTH: Wind farms kill birds
The RSPB stated in its’ 2004 information leaflet ‘Wind Farms and Birds’, that “in the UK, we have not so far witnessed any major adverse effects on birds associated with wind farms”. RSPB therefore support wind farms that are well sited. Moreover, a report published in the journal ‘Nature’ confirmed that the greatest threat to bird populations in the UK is climate change.
MYTH: Wind farms should all be put out at sea like the two Beatrice Turbines
FACT: We will need a mix of both onshore and offshore wind energy to meet the UK’s challenging targets on climate change. At present, onshore wind is more economical than development offshore and offshore wind farms take longer to develop, as the sea is a more hostile environment.
Obviously it is important that the planning process is robust so that wind farms are well sited. But wind is bringing economic prosperity and cleaner energy production to this country.
| |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 275
| The concept of efficiency isn't really a good one to use with wind turbines, the issue is more to do with capacity factor, i.e. the average output as a proportion of the turbine's maximum output. If we talk about efficiency, then we end up comparing with the 40% or so efficiency of typical fossil-fuel powered generators, which is to do with how much of the energy in the fuel is converted to electricity - a very different concept.
Capacity factor is linked with the fundamental problem with renewables, which is intermittency. Calling intermittency a myth is a bit OTT! So:
Wind farms don't produce when the wind doesn't blow - clearly not a myth, although with turbines geographically distributed widely, the issue becomes a bit less significant.
Wind farms need back-up to work - This is a big topic! There is only a very limited correlation between wind speed and demand for electricity, so wind farms do need to be supported by other, controllable, forms of generation, or by some form of storage. It's true that other forms of generation also need back up, but not on the same scale as renewables. (It's also worth bearing in mind that the amount of back-up required depends on the whole balance of different types of generation and demand, you can't really talk about wind generation in isolation). Nevertheless, it's worth thinking about wind turbines in isolation to give an idea of the problem. Big on-shore turbines have a capacity factor of 30% or so - the figure can be higher, but the more widely the turbines are distributed, the more turbines are sited in less advantageous sites, and the average comes down. Big off-shore turbines can be over 40%, and the current record in the UK is an on-shore turbine on Shetland with a capacity factor of over 50%, but then on the other hand, small domestic turbines typically have a capacity factor of around 15%. Taking a (slightly generous) overall figure of 33%, that means if, on average, we want 100 MW, we have to install 300 MW capacity, and the actual output will vary, uncontrollably, between 0 MW and 300 MW. That isn't a problem when wind generation is only a small proportion of the overall picture, because the variation in demand is much greater than the variation in wind power. But, at the other extreme, if we relied 100% on wind power for our electricity, obviously there would be a big problem. The scale of the problem, in simple terms, varies with the square of the use of wind power - so as the proportion of wind in the grid increases, the intermittency problem increases much more quickly.
Demand for electricity in the UK varies between about 20 GW and 60 GW. The average is about 40 GW, so if we wanted 30% of our electricity to come from wind, with a 30% capacity factor, we'd need to install 40 GW of wind capacity. That would mean that when it was windy and demand was low, the turbines could be producing twice as much as was being used, and when it was calm and demand was high, the turbines wouldn't be much help. That's over-simplifying, but it's pretty close to the real picture! | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| Solar does fill in some of the troughs in wind generation as when it's very sunny there is often little wind and vice versa. We've needed to import very little since we've had both. According Wikipedia this spring there was about 6500MW of wind capacity and 1,000MW of solar but the plan is for 28GW to 22GW by 2020 so it will be much closer. Obviously there is no solar at night but less demand. If the troughs are less then it should be easier to fill them with pump storage, smart grid, smart charging of electric cars etc. | |
| | |
Regular
Posts: 85
| Have had the exciting news that not only has my C listed house been given listed building consent for solar PV on my S facing roadside roof but I have also, thanks to insulation previously done got a D Energy Performance certificate !
The D EPC means I will qualify for the feed in tariff.
And thats not all the good news-- my quote for the work is reduced by £1000--origional quote was last autumn.
Onwards and upwards! | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 275
| That's great news, Maggie. Meanwhile, we find that we could fix solar PV on our new house as it's being built, which is the sensible thing to do as the scaffolding will already be up. But we can't register for FITs until the house is finished and we have an EPC - to demonstrate that it's D or better. Once the decision had been made to link solar PV FITs to energy efficiency, there is a certain logic that the house can't be demonstrated to be energy efficient until it's built - but, on the other hand, we had to get an EPC based on design before we could get a building warrant to start building. And as the design is rated A for energy efficiency, it's difficult to see what sort of a mess we could make of it to end up with an E. Hey, ho. | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| Still trying to see if we can get Hilton Church to a D. Just had a response from DECC as the EPC software is rubbish for such buildings (throws up various anomalies) and they say they are aware there is a problem and that Scottish buildings are less likely to get a D but it's up to Ofgem to grant exemptions. | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 275
| Just going back to the comparison between UK and German renewable ambitions, this article is quite interesting http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/06/renewa... .
I have some reservations about the figures in the tables - e.g. they don't seem to include hydro-electric, and I think the UK and USA are transposed in the last table, but the overall picture is that the G20 nations as a whole are making almost no progress in increasing the proportion of electricity generated from renewables (NB where the article talks about energy, they mean electricity!). In this context, the UK appears to be doing moderately well, but that's damning with faint praise.
It would be more interesting to see figures for fossil-fuel-powered generation - ultimately the object is to reduce that, increasing renewables isn't an end in itself. I suspect the increase in total demand will have been much greater than the increase in renewable generation! | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| Definitely need to reduce demand. I read somewhere that we managed a 7% drop last year, probably mainly due to the milder winter but that is then regarded as bad for GDP. | |
| | |
Regular
Posts: 80
| Recent figures for 2011 CO2 in the US suggest that may have fallen. With jobs being cut ( or sometimes just working hours) and the high price of tranport fuels, as well as high insurance costs for new and young driver, Americans are driving less. Also low Natural gas prices saw utilities companys switching from coal to Gas ( but this is starting to swing the other way as the number of wells "fracking" is being reduced, to increase the price of Natural gas).
The truth is economic collapse is good for the enviroment and climate. You can't grow your ecomony without increasing the amount of energy you use.
Building Wind turbines or Solar PV or Tidal power all still require fossil fuels. If you can match the increase in these, so called, 'Green' industries with a decline in others then you have a fighting chance of flat lining your energy use.
The truth is we all have to start accepting that "austerity" is the new normal.
We need to be smart monkeys and choose to live on a lot less energy, because waiting until it is forced upon you is just too dangerous.
Edited by David Franklin 2012-06-15 15:40
| |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 275
| This is wildly off-topic, but very interesting (I think). As David says, "you can't grow your economy without increasing the amount of energy you use" - well maybe you can a bit, and western economies, in isolation, claim to, but mainly that's through exporting manufacturing processes. But just stopping economic growth seems to cause dreadful consequences - on the face of it, if there's been less than 1% economic growth per annum, in Europe since 2008 (I'm guessing the number), that's still growth. And even if there's contraction, the amount of contraction is so small, how come it causes such howls of outrage?
I think the answer is in our banking system, and the general level of indebtedness. We need growth, to pay the interest on borrowings, just to stand still. And at some stage the capital amount of the borrowings also needs to be repaid, although often that's financed by new loans. So in order to have a moderately comfortable existence with no growth, we need to dramatically reduce the level of debt. But how can we do that without growth? Yikes! | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| Some interesting thoughts on that here:
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/2012/04/tedx-talk-changing-the-rule...
It sort of makes sense but I don't think changing things is going to be very easy.
Currently we either have less money or less debt. There is no alternative unless we change the system. | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 275
| The TED talk is pretty much correct, I think, although I don't agree that no-one out there in the banks and governments understands this. There is some very good work being done in this field, see http://www.neweconomics.org/ in the UK and http://steadystate.org/ (mainly) in the USA. And I agree changing things isn't going to be easy, but I think the system will ultimately collapse, because it needs never-ending growth, which is impossible on a finite planet. The tricky bit is whether we can get off the train before it hits the buffers! | |
| |
|
Feed in Tariffs