PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

HSE Iterim Report: no concerns for UK nuclear industry
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
clv101 wrote:
In my opinion, AIC has demonstrated an ideological opposition to ...
pretty much anything that's sensible or true, but that is the role of the troll. By the way, my 'uneconomic' solar panel looks set to easily exceed it's projected 9% return on capital in the first year of operation, thanks of course to the government decreed transfer payment from other electricity consumers to me via the FiT. But that's to take the narrow view of economics and not include the externalised cost of a wrecked planet owing to fossil fuel burning, an externality unacknowledged by AGW deniers.


9% return? After the first year(?), of what will be a 15 -20 year project life, you can claim a 9 % return?



How?

This is so like all those tedious disciples of solar thermal - "a snip at £4,000" - "since we installed it we haven't turned the hot water heating on all summer".


But then, troll that I am for UK prosperity, I thought we were all concerned about the greater human good here? What's the return for UK PLC buying your power for £500/MWh?

It's all to easy to see you as Farmer (careful) Tucker from Den Brook Dale, and isn't he just the sort of role model you PeakerOilers want?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12463
Location: York

PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:
Solar PV is being subsidised at the moment with a view to bringing the price down for the future (remember "the future"?), and from what I've seen locally, this is beginning to happen. The subsidies (from next year) are beginning to tail off accordingly.
Oh really? To the tune of 10 times the current market price? Well, for that let's have one of your local examples.
I was commenting on the trand ("downwards") rather than the size ("large") of the present subsidy. It is serving its purpose. And you don't need my local examples: there are figures quoted widely in the trade press too.

An Inspector Calls wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:
Jury's still out about Hydro chez Renewable: it's a matter of whether or not too much methane is produced when flooded vegetation rots. Apparently it's better at higher latitudes than lower...so I'm not always anti-large-hydro.

Oh really? Now you're considered a bit of a smartie about this forum.
Yes, a bit. Probably at least partly because if I don't know my stuff I don't resort to being gratuitously vile. As for working out the masses of Methane, isn't it kind-of obvious that I'd need to know the mass of the vegetation first? To do that, I'd have to be an ecologist, or be recipient of the relevant data by someone I trust. As I am blatently neither, I say the jury's still out.

An Inspector Calls wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:

And heat pumps, whatever their other benefits or drawbacks, are not, strictly speaking, a form of renewable energy.

Oh really? Now where do you think they get the extra energy they deliver to my house from?
From your garden. In some cases the heat in the soil doesn't get re-stocked from year to year (this is known from the fact that many heat-pumps which are also used "in reverse" for cooling in the summer, deliver better performance in the winter). Do you know for sure yours is not one of these? Does anyone (without proper soil temperature measurements)? That's why it's not, necessarily, renewable.

An Inspector Calls wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:
with the very-obvious difference that the performance of windmills have been comprehensively documented.
as crap.
Well there's a thorough quantitative anal-isys if ever I saw one Smile

And windmills (well I'm sure you're beginning to get it by now)...
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6457
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
An Inspector Calls wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:
with the very-obvious difference that the performance of windmills have been comprehensively documented.
as crap.
Well there's a thorough quantitative anal-isys if ever I saw one Smile

I think you could argue that crap is pretty renewable, if you have a compost loo. You eat food, create crap, compost it, grow food, eat food........ Wink
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
An Inspector Calls wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:
Solar PV is being subsidised at the moment with a view to bringing the price down for the future (remember "the future"?), and from what I've seen locally, this is beginning to happen. The subsidies (from next year) are beginning to tail off accordingly.
Oh really? To the tune of 10 times the current market price? Well, for that let's have one of your local examples.
I was commenting on the trand ("downwards") rather than the size ("large") of the present subsidy. It is serving its purpose. And you don't need my local examples: there are figures quoted widely in the trade press too.
Oh come on, never one to hold your fangs in reserve, let's have the examples.


RenewableCandy wrote:
An Inspector Calls wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:
Jury's still out about Hydro chez Renewable: it's a matter of whether or not too much methane is produced when flooded vegetation rots. Apparently it's better at higher latitudes than lower...so I'm not always anti-large-hydro.

Oh really? Now you're considered a bit of a smartie about this forum.
Yes, a bit. Probably at least partly because if I don't know my stuff I don't resort to being gratuitously vile [don't do yourself down, you're doing very well in the 'vile' stakes]. As for working out the masses of Methane, isn't it kind-of obvious that I'd need to know the mass of the vegetation first? To do that, I'd have to be an ecologist, or be recipient of the relevant data by someone I trust. As I am blatently neither, I say the jury's still out.
So your not capable of making an order-of-magnitude attempt at the calculation . .



RenewableCandy wrote:
An Inspector Calls wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:

And heat pumps, whatever their other benefits or drawbacks, are not, strictly speaking, a form of renewable energy.

Oh really? Now where do you think they get the extra energy they deliver to my house from?
From your garden. In some cases the heat in the soil doesn't get re-stocked from year to year (this is known from the fact that many heat-pumps which are also used "in reverse" for cooling in the summer, deliver better performance in the winter). Do you know for sure yours is not one of these? Does anyone (without proper soil temperature measurements)? That's why it's not, necessarily, renewable.
What utter piffle.
Do I know if my heat pump can operate "in reverse"?
Hey, I'll just go and check 'cos that could be it (whatever the 'it' in your thinking is supposed to be)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hey, guess what: it doesn't.
And our ground loop isn't under our garden, it's under our field.
    Which our cow and calf graze and shit on.
    And our AVOID SCAMMERS chuckle thereon.
    And the sun shines, and the rain falls.
And lo: the incoming brine temperature at the beginning of this year t'was as warm as the previous year, even though we've had two cold winters in a row.

Of course, you could be right. We'll have to get the heat sprayer man round once year (as they do in Scandinavia) to give us a fossil fuel top-up, however that's done - I expect you know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12463
Location: York

PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Do I know if my heat pump can operate "in reverse"?

You misunderstood the question. Which was, How do you know the heat's replenished each year?
An Inspector Calls wrote:
And our ground loop isn't under our garden, it's under our field.

Oh right so they only work at their best if you have a sodding great field near enough to pipe heat from. Hardly a universal solution then, is it?
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Still no insights into the economics of PV (we've explored the 'massive' economic improvements in PV previously), nor the methane emissions of large hydro . . .

RenewableCandy wrote:
Quote:
Do I know if my heat pump can operate "in reverse"?

You misunderstood the question. Which was, How do you know the heat's replenished each year?

See answer to 'misunderstood question' in my previous reply:
Quote:
And lo: the incoming brine temperature at the beginning of this year t'was as warm as the previous year, even though we've had two cold winters in a row.


RenewableCandy wrote:
Oh right so they only work at their best if you have a sodding great field near enough to pipe heat from. Hardly a universal solution then, is it?


No petal, you can provide the heat from boreholes (and a borehole is a better heat source than a ground loop), and there's even air-source heat pumps (ubiquitous in NZ, Australia and Japan). You could have one in deepest suburbia.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12463
Location: York

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not all rosy on the Heat Pump front...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/08/heat-pumps-green-heating
Quote:
But the Trust's peer-reviewed study, the largest of its kind in the UK, found the 83 devices it monitored for a year were underperforming. About 87% didn't achieve a system efficiency of 3 which the Trust considers the level of a "well-performing" system... And 80% failed to meet 2.6, the level being considered under the EU Renewable Energy Directive for classification as a renewable source of energy.

Obviously the performance from borehole-based HPs is better than for loopy ones, but they need suitable geology (and lots of cash) to install, so back to my previous comment, not exactly universally applicable.

As for the "economics of PV", I got curious and thought I'd work it out as if we were selling to the grid at what we normally buy for, and were neither paid nor charged for units we generate and then instantly use. Round here that would give us a return of about 2.5% on our investment. Nothing to write home about, but in these times of low interest it's not too terrible, especially if it's something you wanted to do anyway.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Installing heat pumps needs care and skill, that's all it means; that's made quite clear in the title lines of the article you posted. And modern heat pumps, such as the Danfoss Opti range, will easily get a CoP of 3.

Bore holes can be put in almost anywhere, it would be rare to be defeated by geology.

They cost about £6,000.

As for your 2.5 % (we've done all this before), allowing for declining output with age, 100 % usage of on-site generated energy charged at current prices, no DCF, no operational problems whatsoever (no new inverter), and a 25 year life, you might make 1.5 % .

My heat pump will pay for itself in seven years, with DCF applied; somewhat better than PV!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group