Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:41:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

During the day there is always light. If we covered all roofs with

cheap plastic PVs we'd have all the energy we need.
No, we wouldn't.
You would need about 30-50 square meters per household.

The average roof isn't far from those figures. One south facing pitch
here is roughly 10m x 6m...

But what do you do in the winter when it's dark for 18hrs...

shiver in the dark?

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:04:58 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

I've been considering it myself. By gov. edict you get £0.53/unit
even if you use it yourself plus there is more money for what you
export plus what you save.

Highest FITs rate for PV is 41.3p/unit for retrofit systems up to
4kW. If you actually manage to generate more than you use then you
get an extra few pence. I guess you are arriving at 53p/unit by
adding in what you are not spending on imported powe?

How ever a 2kW rated PV installation only manages about 300W over a
year, load factor of about 15%. Check the figures from a real
installation that are online somewhere, the URL was posted recently.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:10:43 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On 22 Oct, 08:26, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:41:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
During the day there is always light. If we covered all roofs with
cheap plastic PVs we'd have all the energy we need.

No, we wouldn't.
You would need about 30-50 square meters per household.

The average roof isn't far from those figures. One south facing pitch
here is roughly 10m x 6m...

But what do you do in the winter when it's dark for 18hrs...

--
Cheers
Dave.

PV could be used for "peak lopping" of the electricity demand, ie to
meet the electricity demanded by commerce through the day. That
leaves conventional to meet the base load. Could in fact be very
suitable compared with wind.

Except that peak demand isn't in the middle of the day when solar
output is at its peak. The peaks are in the morning and evening when
PV outpu will be low in the summer and non-existent in the winter.

On 21/10/2010 20:58, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:50:41 +0100 someone who may be Peter Scott
wrote this:-



Dounreay is the place where they lobbed materials which included
sodium down a shaft near the sea. They had no proper records of what
had been lobbed into the thing. The subsequent explosion was played
down for 18 years [1].

Scientists sometimes tend (or perhaps did) to be cavalier in handling
dangerous materials. It's a kind of macho attitude. Happily the much
vilified H and S has changed this to a large degree.



I do remember that security was at the forefront some years back.

So-called security. They were not really interested in security,
otherwise they would not have assembled a collection of tanks in
Windscale which must be constantly cooled otherwise the contents
will boil and the probable subsequent explosion will scatter the
contents over the countryside [2]. They are also a great target for
"terrorists". These dangers are why the HSE has spent at least a
decade trying to get the amount of highly radioactive nitric acid
stored in these tanks vastly reduced by turning it into glass
blocks, so far with little to show for it as the equipment
constantly breaks down.

Intense radiation isn't good for machinery, as was demonstrated at
Chernobyl. All the expensive western machinery sent there soon broke
down in the intense radiation, with the result that the military
were forced to use "bio-robots" [3] to do the work machines could
not do. This work consisted of things like picking up irradiated
fuel rods, which had been blown out of the reactor, with a pair of
tongs and throwing the rods back into the hole, or shovelling other
debris back into the hole. These bio-robots ran out onto the roof,
did their task and ran back. They were then treated for the effects
of radiation with vodka and a medal. I salute them for their amazing
courage, if any are still alive. Given the explosion the deliberate
sacrifice of people was the only way to make the aftermath as least
bad as possible, they are true Heroes of the Soviet Union. Their
immediate superior officers were even braver, repeatedly going back
to extremely hazardous places, as did the scientists and engineers
who explored what had happened to the bits of reactor which had
melted through the bottom. Similar courage was demonstrated by those
fighting the Windscale fire, though that was over a lot more
quickly.


Couldn't agree more. Some of these surviving men were interviewed on BBC
TV a while back. One described how he turned a corner round the broken
concrete shielding. He said there was a blue beam pointing out into the
atmosphere from the hole in the ground, presumably ionised nitrogen, and
nothing else. He stood dumbfounded for about half a minute, then his
mate dragged him back behind the shield, saving his life. No real
protective clothing of course. Many of his colleagues died of course.
Very noble.

Yes, of course the word security is abused now. Its too easy an excuse.
But I meant it in the sense of not wanting less stable groups round the
world getting hold of fissile material more easily.

Peter Scott

I've been considering it myself. By gov. edict you get £0.53/unit
even if you use it yourself plus there is more money for what you
export plus what you save. It works out to about 8% return on
capital. Which is good compared with getting bugger all interest for
any money the bank stores for you.
However PV panel efficiency is going up all the time, is it better to
wait?
People are trying to beat the 20% VAT deadline too.

I think it's much too soon. The present cost and efficiencies don't make
it viable. You can't rely on governments to maintain subsidies. The
technologies and the sums are changing all the time however. That's why
I suggested a couple of decades for maturity. We need both more
efficient and cheaper (probably non-silicon) cells and better batteries.
A lot of work is going into batteries for cars, which at the moment are
hopeless. This will spin-off into PV installations. As we insulate our
houses *much* better and a lot of our electrical equipment becomes less
energy demanding we can make new judgements about the viability of PV.
There probably never will be one source that will satisfy all of our
needs. A mix is inevitable, but I still think PV will be a major one.
Yes, there is a problem for northern countries in the winter. Who knows,
perhaps they will top up with PV energy from the Sahara carried by
superconducting cables? There is a pilot there at present with a
conventional cable to be built across Tunisia to Europe. The last of the
hundred historical objects is a solar lamp and phone charger that is
revolutionising life in off-grid communities in Africa and India.



Peter Scott

On 22/10/2010 09:04, harry wrote:
....
I've been considering it myself. By gov. edict you get £0.53/unit
even if you use it yourself plus there is more money for what you
export plus what you save. It works out to about 8% return on
capital. Which is good compared with getting bugger all interest for
any money the bank stores for you.

You can get better than 8% by buying a factory unit with a long term
tenant and you get something that is only likely to improve in value
with time. I'm sure there must be other investments out there that will
do much the same for smaller outlays.

Colin Bignell

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember David Hansen
saying something like:

Certainly Scottish Hydro Electric has a number of sub 5 MW
turbines in remote areas. I don't suppose they are connected by
anything more beefy than a small 11 kV line of the sort which also
feeds a few farms.

It's a delight to bimble along some N.of Scotland back roads and find a
small hydro installation. Most of the ones I've found look as though
they date back to the 30s, 40s or 50s. I suppose many of them were put
in for local estate and village use, either privately or part of the
NoSHB rural electrification project.

None of this has anything to do with commercial nuclear power as
understood in the West, however. The Chernobyl type stations are being
phased out as unsafe and quite right too - they have no containment
building and are graphite moderated.

Further, which kit broke down? There was a Horizon (IIRC) a few years
ago showing extensive footage taken by robot TV cameras inside and
underneath the sarcophagus at Chernobyl.

Damn. I didn't see that.

Did kit break down? I thought it was the result of experimenting with
the reactor. I bow to your obvious superior knowledge of the risks
inherent in western reactors. They do have accidents of course, but
commendably few. Some are questioning our safety limits on radiation as
well, saying they are too low. This was discussed in an earlier thread.
In that one I mentioned the 'black box' mini reactors that are now
available where reliable but limited energy is needed.

Peter Scott

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

But not as outrageously expensive as useless windmills.

Correct. Nor as dangerous.

**** off to Hawick, there's a place for you.
http://news.scotsman.com/nuclearinci...as-.6057554.jp

On Oct 22, 12:54*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
On 22/10/2010 09:04, harry wrote:
...

I've been considering it myself. *By gov. edict you get £0.53/unit
even if you use it yourself plus there is more money for what you
export plus what you save. *It works out to about 8% return on
capital. *Which is good compared with getting bugger all interest for
any money the bank stores for you.

You can get better than 8%

With a bit of effort my spare time business generates up to 150% (60%
margin) on direct sales. Less through distis. Problem is lack of time
to be able to scale it to convert all spare cash that way.

MBQ

On 22/10/2010 14:16, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:54 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
On 22/10/2010 09:04, harry wrote:
...

I've been considering it myself. By gov. edict you get £0.53/unit
even if you use it yourself plus there is more money for what you
export plus what you save. It works out to about 8% return on
capital. Which is good compared with getting bugger all interest for
any money the bank stores for you.

You can get better than 8%

With a bit of effort my spare time business generates up to 150% (60%
margin) on direct sales. Less through distis. Problem is lack of time
to be able to scale it to convert all spare cash that way.

If you have got it right, a business will always be the best return on
investment. The problem is how to get the best return on all the profit
it makes.

Colin Bignell

Peter Scott wrote:


I've been considering it myself. By gov. edict you get £0.53/unit
even if you use it yourself plus there is more money for what you
export plus what you save. It works out to about 8% return on
capital. Which is good compared with getting bugger all interest for
any money the bank stores for you.
However PV panel efficiency is going up all the time, is it better to
wait?
People are trying to beat the 20% VAT deadline too.

I think it's much too soon. The present cost and efficiencies don't make
it viable. You can't rely on governments to maintain subsidies. The
technologies and the sums are changing all the time however. That's why
I suggested a couple of decades for maturity. We need both more
efficient and cheaper (probably non-silicon) cells and better batteries.
A lot of work is going into batteries for cars, which at the moment are
hopeless. This will spin-off into PV installations. As we insulate our
houses *much* better and a lot of our electrical equipment becomes less
energy demanding we can make new judgements about the viability of PV.
There probably never will be one source that will satisfy all of our
needs. A mix is inevitable, but I still think PV will be a major one.
Yes, there is a problem for northern countries in the winter. Who knows,
perhaps they will top up with PV energy from the Sahara carried by
superconducting cables? There is a pilot there at present with a
conventional cable to be built across Tunisia to Europe. The last of the
hundred historical objects is a solar lamp and phone charger that is
revolutionising life in off-grid communities in Africa and India.



All uyou have to do is multiply the average insolation of the UK, times
teh efficiency of PVS times the actual power requirements of the UK to
see that PV has not, never had, and never will have any hope of a
significant impact on UK power generation.

You don't even need to **** yourself looking at the costs.

Putting every single acre of land under a PV is not an option. It would
be too dark, and we would need all the power just to light it up again.


PV exists as a technology solely because of subsidy: which may be
withdrawn at a whim, and hopefully will be.



Peter Scott

Peter Scott wrote:


None of this has anything to do with commercial nuclear power as
understood in the West, however. The Chernobyl type stations are being
phased out as unsafe and quite right too - they have no containment
building and are graphite moderated.

Further, which kit broke down? There was a Horizon (IIRC) a few years
ago showing extensive footage taken by robot TV cameras inside and
underneath the sarcophagus at Chernobyl.

Damn. I didn't see that.

Did kit break down? I thought it was the result of experimenting with
the reactor. I bow to your obvious superior knowledge of the risks
inherent in western reactors. They do have accidents of course, but
commendably few. Some are questioning our safety limits on radiation as
well, saying they are too low. This was discussed in an earlier thread.
In that one I mentioned the 'black box' mini reactors that are now
available where reliable but limited energy is needed.


There have been three major reactor incidents in all the time of nuclear
power.

Windscale, which was pure madness, and is totally unrepresentative,
three mile island, which killed no one, and released no significant
amount of radioactivity although it damaged the reactor beyond repair,
and chernobyl, which was bad design, worse maintenance and opaertional
madness.

And killed directly 70 people.

Including all that lot, the death rate from the nuclear industry is the
lowest of ANY power generation industry per unit generated, Including
windpower.

The anomalous situation that exists with regard to waste, where e.g.
coal flyash is allowed to be made into bricks, but io it had originated
from the nuclear industry it would be considered too hazardous for such
use, and would need to be buried for a thousand years, is 'interesting'
to say the least.


Peter Scott

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Peter Scott wrote:


None of this has anything to do with commercial nuclear power as
understood in the West, however. The Chernobyl type stations are being
phased out as unsafe and quite right too - they have no containment
building and are graphite moderated.

Further, which kit broke down? There was a Horizon (IIRC) a few years
ago showing extensive footage taken by robot TV cameras inside and
underneath the sarcophagus at Chernobyl.

Damn. I didn't see that.

Did kit break down? I thought it was the result of experimenting with
the reactor.

I was referring to Mr Hansen's remarks about western kit breaking down
at Chernobyl - I assume he was talking about kit sent there to help with
the aftermath.

I bow to your obvious superior knowledge of the risks inherent in
western reactors. They do have accidents of course, but commendably
few. Some are questioning our safety limits on radiation as well,
saying they are too low. This was discussed in an earlier thread. In
that one I mentioned the 'black box' mini reactors that are now
available where reliable but limited energy is needed.

Re the reactors at Chernobyl, I should have said that they are graphite
moderated *and* water cooled. This is apparently the dangerous combination.

Its not that dengerous if operated within design limits.

It wasn't. Also, there was no secondary containment vessel (mandatory in
the West).

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

But not as outrageously expensive as useless windmills.

Correct. Nor as dangerous.

**** off to Hawick, there's a place for you.
http://news.scotsman.com/nuclearinci...as-.6057554.jp
why. There is no place for windmills.


THEY DO NOT WORK. Period. They save no carbon whatsoever, overall. What
is the point of having them at all?

All uyou have to do is multiply the average insolation of the UK, times
teh efficiency of PVS times the actual power requirements of the UK to
see that PV has not, never had, and never will have any hope of a
significant impact on UK power generation.

You don't even need to **** yourself looking at the costs.

Putting every single acre of land under a PV is not an option. It would
be too dark, and we would need all the power just to light it up again.


PV exists as a technology solely because of subsidy: which may be
withdrawn at a whim, and hopefully will be.


Perhaps you are right. But how is it then that people can go off grid
using only PV arrays in their own land? I don't have the data to allow
me to calculate whether we could power anything other than homes. Fact
is PV and storage is going to come down dramatically in cost and will
become easier to install, so as I said above it will be one of several
sources of 'clean' energy. The exact percentage I don't know.

Peter Scott

In article , Peter Scott
scribeth thus


All uyou have to do is multiply the average insolation of the UK, times
teh efficiency of PVS times the actual power requirements of the UK to
see that PV has not, never had, and never will have any hope of a
significant impact on UK power generation.

You don't even need to **** yourself looking at the costs.

Putting every single acre of land under a PV is not an option. It would
be too dark, and we would need all the power just to light it up again.


PV exists as a technology solely because of subsidy: which may be
withdrawn at a whim, and hopefully will be.


Perhaps you are right. But how is it then that people can go off grid
using only PV arrays in their own land? I don't have the data to allow
me to calculate whether we could power anything other than homes.


Fact
is PV and storage is going to come down dramatically in cost and will
become easier to install, so as I said above it will be one of several
sources of 'clean' energy. The exact percentage I don't know.

Peter Scott

Umm ... do you think they'll invent a way of shifting that Grey clag
above the UK so we can see the sun sometimes;?...
--
Tony Sayer

On 22 Oct, 10:10, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:04:58 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
I've been considering it myself. *By gov. edict you get £0.53/unit
even if you use it yourself plus there is more money for what you
export plus what you save.

Highest FITs rate for PV is 41.3p/unit for retrofit systems up to
4kW. If you actually manage to generate more than you use then you
get an extra few pence. I guess you are arriving at 53p/unit by
adding in what you are not spending on imported powe?

How ever a 2kW rated PV installation only manages about 300W over a
year, load factor of about 15%. Check the figures from a real
installation that are online somewhere, the URL was posted recently.

--
Cheers
Dave.

There is a number which is 700 for this country. It indicates the
number of Kwh per year for every Kw (peak) of installed PV panels. So
a 2Kw panel would generate 1400 Kwh annually. For California it's
1000.
Obviously this is an average, depending on weather and locality.

On 22 Oct, 12:10, Peter Scott wrote:
I've been considering it myself. *By gov. edict you get £0.53/unit
even if you use it yourself plus there is more money for what you
export plus what you save. *It works out to about 8% return on
capital. *Which is good compared with getting bugger all interest for
any money the bank stores for you.
However PV panel efficiency is going up all the time, is it better to
wait?
People are trying to beat the 20% VAT deadline too.

I think it's much too soon. The present cost and efficiencies don't make
it viable. You can't rely on governments to maintain subsidies. The
technologies and the sums are changing all the time however. That's why
I suggested a couple of decades for maturity. We need both more
efficient and cheaper (probably non-silicon) cells and better batteries.
A lot of work is going into batteries for cars, which at the moment are
hopeless. This will spin-off into PV installations. As we insulate our
houses *much* better and a lot of our electrical equipment becomes less
energy demanding we can make new judgements about the viability of PV.
There probably never will be one source that will satisfy all of our
needs. A mix is inevitable, but I still think PV will be a major one.
Yes, there is a problem for northern countries in the winter. Who knows,
perhaps they will top up with PV energy from the Sahara carried by
superconducting cables? There is a pilot there at present with a
conventional cable to be built across Tunisia to Europe. The last of the
hundred historical objects is a solar lamp and phone charger that is
revolutionising life in off-grid communities in Africa and India.

Peter Scott

The efficiency of the very latest PV is almost 40%, the ones they are
installing now is about 7%. The high efficiency ones have multi-lsyer
crystals. Each layer working on a different wavelength.
The subsidy is paid by the power companies (which means you), is
inflation linked and is guaranteed for the next 25 years.
The efficiency of the panels falls as they get older. Loses 25% in
ten years apparently.

On 22 Oct, 12:54, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 22/10/2010 09:04, harry wrote:
...

I've been considering it myself. *By gov. edict you get £0.53/unit
even if you use it yourself plus there is more money for what you
export plus what you save. *It works out to about 8% return on
capital. *Which is good compared with getting bugger all interest for
any money the bank stores for you.

You can get better than 8% by buying a factory unit with a long term
tenant and you get something that is only likely to improve in value
with time. I'm sure there must be other investments out there that will
do much the same for smaller outlays.

Colin Bignell

You also have to pay council tax if it's empty.

Umm ... do you think they'll invent a way of shifting that Grey clag
above the UK so we can see the sun sometimes;?...

Sound point but sunlight isn't necessary. Light is. Of course the PV
will produce a lot less leccy. There are much more efficient PVs on the
way.

Harry's comment about cost is of course correct at present. I'm looking
at one supplier's site which says much the same and that 1 kWp costs
about £4k to £5k. The kWp baffled me at first but its the output
produced by 1000 W/m2 (apparently the average for Bavaria). Allowing for
lower outputs this makes the cost for a sensible size setup of say 7 kWp
about £30k. This would produce perhaps (?) 6000 kWh. Hopelessly unviable
with a 50 year pay-back using 10p a unit, especially as there's no
storage in that price to allow you to go off-grid. However costs will
tumble with volume and research, and this would be encouraged by
short-term priming money. We could be producing the panels. There's a
factory in Wales somewhere.

A neighbour has put in a big array of panels at ground level. Must try
to find out more. I live in the country so we have more space. City and
town dwellers have more limited options.

Peter Scott

On 22/10/2010 19:00, harry wrote:
On 22 Oct, 12:54, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 22/10/2010 09:04, harry wrote:
...

I've been considering it myself. By gov. edict you get £0.53/unit
even if you use it yourself plus there is more money for what you
export plus what you save. It works out to about 8% return on
capital. Which is good compared with getting bugger all interest for
any money the bank stores for you.

You can get better than 8% by buying a factory unit with a long term
tenant and you get something that is only likely to improve in value
with time. I'm sure there must be other investments out there that will
do much the same for smaller outlays.

You also have to pay council tax if it's empty.

Investment in commercial property is always an excellent choice. Look at
how well people have done out of it over the years, or ask a bishop...

Yes, there will be exceptions, but unless you're either lucky or
prepared to put in a great deal of effort, what do you reckon the
chances are of finding them?

Peter Scott wrote:


All uyou have to do is multiply the average insolation of the UK, times
teh efficiency of PVS times the actual power requirements of the UK to
see that PV has not, never had, and never will have any hope of a
significant impact on UK power generation.

You don't even need to **** yourself looking at the costs.

Putting every single acre of land under a PV is not an option. It would
be too dark, and we would need all the power just to light it up again.


PV exists as a technology solely because of subsidy: which may be
withdrawn at a whim, and hopefully will be.


Perhaps you are right. But how is it then that people can go off grid
using only PV arrays in their own land?

By using very very little power indeed, and not expecting that all the
stuff they buy ois manufactured and/or delivered in the same way.

The per capita burn of energy in this country is about 3KW per head,
from memory. Oh, David Mackay reckons 120Kwh/day, which I make 5Kw.


UK average insolation is about 1Mwh/year meter squared or about 2.7Kwh
per day. Almost nothing is received in the winter months.
http://www.contemporaryenergy.co.uk/solarmap.htm

At 20% efficiency (highly optimistic) with 100% efficient winter and
night storage that is 550wh per sq meter per day

a single person would need about 240 square meters to meet *all* their
energy requirements. To supply all UK energy needs, assuming we had
100% winter and overnight storage.

There are 60 million people in the UK

England is 130,000 sq kilometers.
Its population is 50M or so.


That's 12,000 square kilometers of panels.
So half of wales...

And it only works properly in summer at midday, and we have to store all
that for the middle of winter.

Yeah. Its only waiting for the price to come down.

Right. And I am Elvis.

Green**** ecobollox mate.



I don't have the data to allow
me to calculate whether we could power anything other than homes. Fact
is PV and storage is going to come down dramatically in cost and will
become easier to install, so as I said above it will be one of several
sources of 'clean' energy. The exact percentage I don't know.


It will never be more than ****ing in the wind and it will never compete
with proper large scale projects.

Its only value is where the cost of running a mains cable is higher.

There is no point connecting any PV top the grid at all, except to
provide by insane legislation.

Solar energy ion this country, and windmills are TOTAL FRAUDS on you,
the public. Wake up. Smell the coffee. They do nothing but divert cash
into the pockets of Dynamo Hansen and his ilk, and make not one jot of
difference to our carbon emissions.

Denmark has a higher per capita greenhouse gas emissions than we do,
despite using less energy per capita.*

(UNDP Human Development report 2007)

So much for windpower .

There is only one form of green energy generation that meets UK
requirements that is current stable and mature and cost effective, and
doesn't eat up acres of valuable land space, and emits no carbin, and
that's nuclear.

Bite the bullet. Swallow the pill,. Its the ONLY answer on the table
whatsoever.

You may not like it. I may not like it. The fact remains that it is the
only viable option for the vast majority of our energy needs at sane costs.

And since its pretty inescapable, why **** around with silly windmills
and PVs at all? when at best they might be 1% of the total solution
before the costs of integrating such wildly fluctuation sources into the
grid become totally prohibitive.

There is no justification, in cost, in lack of carbon emissions, or in
any way whatsoever for all renewable energy generation, bar hydro, and
burning of organic waste.

On 22/10/2010 19:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:


All uyou have to do is multiply the average insolation of the UK, times
teh efficiency of PVS times the actual power requirements of the UK to
see that PV has not, never had, and never will have any hope of a
significant impact on UK power generation.

You don't even need to **** yourself looking at the costs.

Putting every single acre of land under a PV is not an option. It would
be too dark, and we would need all the power just to light it up again.


PV exists as a technology solely because of subsidy: which may be
withdrawn at a whim, and hopefully will be.


Perhaps you are right. But how is it then that people can go off grid
using only PV arrays in their own land?

By using very very little power indeed, and not expecting that all the
stuff they buy ois manufactured and/or delivered in the same way.

The per capita burn of energy in this country is about 3KW per head,
from memory. Oh, David Mackay reckons 120Kwh/day, which I make 5Kw.


UK average insolation is about 1Mwh/year meter squared or about 2.7Kwh
per day. Almost nothing is received in the winter months.
http://www.contemporaryenergy.co.uk/solarmap.htm

At 20% efficiency (highly optimistic) with 100% efficient winter and
night storage that is 550wh per sq meter per day

a single person would need about 240 square meters to meet *all* their
energy requirements. To supply all UK energy needs, assuming we had 100%
winter and overnight storage.

There are 60 million people in the UK

England is 130,000 sq kilometers.
Its population is 50M or so.


That's 12,000 square kilometers of panels.
So half of wales...

And it only works properly in summer at midday, and we have to store all
that for the middle of winter.

Yeah. Its only waiting for the price to come down.

Right. And I am Elvis.

Green**** ecobollox mate.



I don't have the data to allow
me to calculate whether we could power anything other than homes. Fact
is PV and storage is going to come down dramatically in cost and will
become easier to install, so as I said above it will be one of several
sources of 'clean' energy. The exact percentage I don't know.


It will never be more than ****ing in the wind and it will never compete
with proper large scale projects.

Its only value is where the cost of running a mains cable is higher.

There is no point connecting any PV top the grid at all, except to
provide by insane legislation.

Solar energy ion this country, and windmills are TOTAL FRAUDS on you,
the public. Wake up. Smell the coffee. They do nothing but divert cash
into the pockets of Dynamo Hansen and his ilk, and make not one jot of
difference to our carbon emissions.

Denmark has a higher per capita greenhouse gas emissions than we do,
despite using less energy per capita.*

(UNDP Human Development report 2007)

So much for windpower .

There is only one form of green energy generation that meets UK
requirements that is current stable and mature and cost effective, and
doesn't eat up acres of valuable land space, and emits no carbin, and
that's nuclear.

Bite the bullet. Swallow the pill,. Its the ONLY answer on the table
whatsoever.

You may not like it. I may not like it. The fact remains that it is the
only viable option for the vast majority of our energy needs at sane costs.

And since its pretty inescapable, why **** around with silly windmills
and PVs at all? when at best they might be 1% of the total solution
before the costs of integrating such wildly fluctuation sources into the
grid become totally prohibitive.

There is no justification, in cost, in lack of carbon emissions, or in
any way whatsoever for all renewable energy generation, bar hydro, and
burning of organic waste.




A very convincing set of calculations that even a household can't supply
all of its current needs with PV. Actually elsewhere in this thread I
said that PV is one useful part of where we might get our energy from. I
agree with you that nuclear must be a part of that too. Less dangerous
than fossil burning and reliable. However viable uranium will run out
and there is a large energy/carbon dioxide cost in building the plants,
extracting and purifying the fuel and finally decomissioning. Each
method has its overhead. I just think we should not ignore any method at
present before we have seen what we can do with them. PV is very clean
and is likely to become more efficient and cheap. Hopefully we will see
fusion one day, but shouldn't hold our breaths. The crystals won't take
it captain!

Peter Scott

Peter Scott wrote:
On 22/10/2010 19:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:


All uyou have to do is multiply the average insolation of the UK, times
teh efficiency of PVS times the actual power requirements of the UK to
see that PV has not, never had, and never will have any hope of a
significant impact on UK power generation.

You don't even need to **** yourself looking at the costs.

Putting every single acre of land under a PV is not an option. It would
be too dark, and we would need all the power just to light it up again.


PV exists as a technology solely because of subsidy: which may be
withdrawn at a whim, and hopefully will be.


Perhaps you are right. But how is it then that people can go off grid
using only PV arrays in their own land?

By using very very little power indeed, and not expecting that all the
stuff they buy ois manufactured and/or delivered in the same way.

The per capita burn of energy in this country is about 3KW per head,
from memory. Oh, David Mackay reckons 120Kwh/day, which I make 5Kw.


UK average insolation is about 1Mwh/year meter squared or about 2.7Kwh
per day. Almost nothing is received in the winter months.
http://www.contemporaryenergy.co.uk/solarmap.htm

At 20% efficiency (highly optimistic) with 100% efficient winter and
night storage that is 550wh per sq meter per day

a single person would need about 240 square meters to meet *all* their
energy requirements. To supply all UK energy needs, assuming we had 100%
winter and overnight storage.

There are 60 million people in the UK

England is 130,000 sq kilometers.
Its population is 50M or so.


That's 12,000 square kilometers of panels.
So half of wales...

And it only works properly in summer at midday, and we have to store all
that for the middle of winter.

Yeah. Its only waiting for the price to come down.

Right. And I am Elvis.

Green**** ecobollox mate.



I don't have the data to allow
me to calculate whether we could power anything other than homes. Fact
is PV and storage is going to come down dramatically in cost and will
become easier to install, so as I said above it will be one of several
sources of 'clean' energy. The exact percentage I don't know.


It will never be more than ****ing in the wind and it will never compete
with proper large scale projects.

Its only value is where the cost of running a mains cable is higher.

There is no point connecting any PV top the grid at all, except to
provide by insane legislation.

Solar energy ion this country, and windmills are TOTAL FRAUDS on you,
the public. Wake up. Smell the coffee. They do nothing but divert cash
into the pockets of Dynamo Hansen and his ilk, and make not one jot of
difference to our carbon emissions.

Denmark has a higher per capita greenhouse gas emissions than we do,
despite using less energy per capita.*

(UNDP Human Development report 2007)

So much for windpower .

There is only one form of green energy generation that meets UK
requirements that is current stable and mature and cost effective, and
doesn't eat up acres of valuable land space, and emits no carbin, and
that's nuclear.

Bite the bullet. Swallow the pill,. Its the ONLY answer on the table
whatsoever.

You may not like it. I may not like it. The fact remains that it is the
only viable option for the vast majority of our energy needs at sane
costs.

And since its pretty inescapable, why **** around with silly windmills
and PVs at all? when at best they might be 1% of the total solution
before the costs of integrating such wildly fluctuation sources into the
grid become totally prohibitive.

There is no justification, in cost, in lack of carbon emissions, or in
any way whatsoever for all renewable energy generation, bar hydro, and
burning of organic waste.




A very convincing set of calculations that even a household can't supply
all of its current needs with PV. Actually elsewhere in this thread I
said that PV is one useful part of where we might get our energy from. I
agree with you that nuclear must be a part of that too. Less dangerous
than fossil burning and reliable. However viable uranium will run out

in 700 years or so,.

which is longer than we have been using coal.

And may JUST be long enough to develop fusion..

and there is a large energy/carbon dioxide cost in building the plants

no more so than the 100,000 wind,ills that would be needed oetherwise.

FAR less concrete in the nukes.

,
extracting and purifying the fuel and finally decomissioning. Each
method has its overhead. I just think we should not ignore any method at
present before we have seen what we can do with them. PV is very clean
and is likely to become more efficient and cheap. Hopefully we will see
fusion one day, but shouldn't hold our breaths. The crystals won't take
it captain!


All I am saying is that if the renewables won't do the job, and every
calculation shows they wont, why throw OUR money at them that would be
better spent on more cost effective measures, like insulation, and
levelling the playing field for nuclear, which WILL work.

All teh policy of RO and FITs assumes that renewables will work. No one
has ever actually asked, let alone answered the question 'but will they?'

The Danish experience is that they haven't worked at all.
They have more CO2 emissions per capita than we do, despite using less
energy. And paying three times the price for electricity that we do.




Peter Scott

On 22/10/2010 21:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:
On 22/10/2010 19:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:


All uyou have to do is multiply the average insolation of the UK,
times
teh efficiency of PVS times the actual power requirements of the UK to
see that PV has not, never had, and never will have any hope of a
significant impact on UK power generation.

You don't even need to **** yourself looking at the costs.

Putting every single acre of land under a PV is not an option. It
would
be too dark, and we would need all the power just to light it up
again.


PV exists as a technology solely because of subsidy: which may be
withdrawn at a whim, and hopefully will be.


Perhaps you are right. But how is it then that people can go off grid
using only PV arrays in their own land?

By using very very little power indeed, and not expecting that all the
stuff they buy ois manufactured and/or delivered in the same way.

The per capita burn of energy in this country is about 3KW per head,
from memory. Oh, David Mackay reckons 120Kwh/day, which I make 5Kw.


UK average insolation is about 1Mwh/year meter squared or about 2.7Kwh
per day. Almost nothing is received in the winter months.
http://www.contemporaryenergy.co.uk/solarmap.htm

At 20% efficiency (highly optimistic) with 100% efficient winter and
night storage that is 550wh per sq meter per day

a single person would need about 240 square meters to meet *all* their
energy requirements. To supply all UK energy needs, assuming we had 100%
winter and overnight storage.

There are 60 million people in the UK

England is 130,000 sq kilometers.
Its population is 50M or so.


That's 12,000 square kilometers of panels.
So half of wales...

And it only works properly in summer at midday, and we have to store all
that for the middle of winter.

Yeah. Its only waiting for the price to come down.

Right. And I am Elvis.

Green**** ecobollox mate.



I don't have the data to allow
me to calculate whether we could power anything other than homes. Fact
is PV and storage is going to come down dramatically in cost and will
become easier to install, so as I said above it will be one of several
sources of 'clean' energy. The exact percentage I don't know.


It will never be more than ****ing in the wind and it will never compete
with proper large scale projects.

Its only value is where the cost of running a mains cable is higher.

There is no point connecting any PV top the grid at all, except to
provide by insane legislation.

Solar energy ion this country, and windmills are TOTAL FRAUDS on you,
the public. Wake up. Smell the coffee. They do nothing but divert cash
into the pockets of Dynamo Hansen and his ilk, and make not one jot of
difference to our carbon emissions.

Denmark has a higher per capita greenhouse gas emissions than we do,
despite using less energy per capita.*

(UNDP Human Development report 2007)

So much for windpower .

There is only one form of green energy generation that meets UK
requirements that is current stable and mature and cost effective, and
doesn't eat up acres of valuable land space, and emits no carbin, and
that's nuclear.

Bite the bullet. Swallow the pill,. Its the ONLY answer on the table
whatsoever.

You may not like it. I may not like it. The fact remains that it is the
only viable option for the vast majority of our energy needs at sane
costs.

And since its pretty inescapable, why **** around with silly windmills
and PVs at all? when at best they might be 1% of the total solution
before the costs of integrating such wildly fluctuation sources into the
grid become totally prohibitive.

There is no justification, in cost, in lack of carbon emissions, or in
any way whatsoever for all renewable energy generation, bar hydro, and
burning of organic waste.




A very convincing set of calculations that even a household can't
supply all of its current needs with PV. Actually elsewhere in this
thread I said that PV is one useful part of where we might get our
energy from. I agree with you that nuclear must be a part of that too.
Less dangerous than fossil burning and reliable. However viable
uranium will run out

in 700 years or so,.

which is longer than we have been using coal.

And may JUST be long enough to develop fusion..

and there is a large energy/carbon dioxide cost in building the plants

no more so than the 100,000 wind,ills that would be needed oetherwise.

FAR less concrete in the nukes.

,
extracting and purifying the fuel and finally decomissioning. Each
method has its overhead. I just think we should not ignore any method
at present before we have seen what we can do with them. PV is very
clean and is likely to become more efficient and cheap. Hopefully we
will see fusion one day, but shouldn't hold our breaths. The crystals
won't take it captain!


All I am saying is that if the renewables won't do the job, and every
calculation shows they wont, why throw OUR money at them that would be
better spent on more cost effective measures, like insulation, and
levelling the playing field for nuclear, which WILL work.

All teh policy of RO and FITs assumes that renewables will work. No one
has ever actually asked, let alone answered the question 'but will they?'

The Danish experience is that they haven't worked at all.
They have more CO2 emissions per capita than we do, despite using less
energy. And paying three times the price for electricity that we do.




Peter Scott

I dare say people once said that about powered flight.

The sun is a huge and reliable energy source. We get radiant energy
which we can turn into leccy or hydrogen through PV, hydro or wind which
can turn turbines and produce waves, gravitational energy which makes
tides and evaporated water which can be dammed. It makes no sense not to
use as many of these as are viable. Just because something isn't viable
with current technology doesn't mean it can't ever be. Nuclear is good
but it too has large energy input costs, so it isn't as 'clean' as it
looks. In the end we *must* use as much solar energy as we can.

Peter Scott

Peter Scott wrote:
On 22/10/2010 21:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:
On 22/10/2010 19:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:


All uyou have to do is multiply the average insolation of the UK,
times
teh efficiency of PVS times the actual power requirements of the
UK to
see that PV has not, never had, and never will have any hope of a
significant impact on UK power generation.

You don't even need to **** yourself looking at the costs.

Putting every single acre of land under a PV is not an option. It
would
be too dark, and we would need all the power just to light it up
again.


PV exists as a technology solely because of subsidy: which may be
withdrawn at a whim, and hopefully will be.


Perhaps you are right. But how is it then that people can go off grid
using only PV arrays in their own land?

By using very very little power indeed, and not expecting that all the
stuff they buy ois manufactured and/or delivered in the same way.

The per capita burn of energy in this country is about 3KW per head,
from memory. Oh, David Mackay reckons 120Kwh/day, which I make 5Kw.


UK average insolation is about 1Mwh/year meter squared or about 2.7Kwh
per day. Almost nothing is received in the winter months.
http://www.contemporaryenergy.co.uk/solarmap.htm

At 20% efficiency (highly optimistic) with 100% efficient winter and
night storage that is 550wh per sq meter per day

a single person would need about 240 square meters to meet *all* their
energy requirements. To supply all UK energy needs, assuming we had
100%
winter and overnight storage.

There are 60 million people in the UK

England is 130,000 sq kilometers.
Its population is 50M or so.


That's 12,000 square kilometers of panels.
So half of wales...

And it only works properly in summer at midday, and we have to store
all
that for the middle of winter.

Yeah. Its only waiting for the price to come down.

Right. And I am Elvis.

Green**** ecobollox mate.



I don't have the data to allow
me to calculate whether we could power anything other than homes. Fact
is PV and storage is going to come down dramatically in cost and will
become easier to install, so as I said above it will be one of several
sources of 'clean' energy. The exact percentage I don't know.


It will never be more than ****ing in the wind and it will never
compete
with proper large scale projects.

Its only value is where the cost of running a mains cable is higher.

There is no point connecting any PV top the grid at all, except to
provide by insane legislation.

Solar energy ion this country, and windmills are TOTAL FRAUDS on you,
the public. Wake up. Smell the coffee. They do nothing but divert cash
into the pockets of Dynamo Hansen and his ilk, and make not one jot of
difference to our carbon emissions.

Denmark has a higher per capita greenhouse gas emissions than we do,
despite using less energy per capita.*

(UNDP Human Development report 2007)

So much for windpower .

There is only one form of green energy generation that meets UK
requirements that is current stable and mature and cost effective, and
doesn't eat up acres of valuable land space, and emits no carbin, and
that's nuclear.

Bite the bullet. Swallow the pill,. Its the ONLY answer on the table
whatsoever.

You may not like it. I may not like it. The fact remains that it is the
only viable option for the vast majority of our energy needs at sane
costs.

And since its pretty inescapable, why **** around with silly windmills
and PVs at all? when at best they might be 1% of the total solution
before the costs of integrating such wildly fluctuation sources into
the
grid become totally prohibitive.

There is no justification, in cost, in lack of carbon emissions, or in
any way whatsoever for all renewable energy generation, bar hydro, and
burning of organic waste.




A very convincing set of calculations that even a household can't
supply all of its current needs with PV. Actually elsewhere in this
thread I said that PV is one useful part of where we might get our
energy from. I agree with you that nuclear must be a part of that too.
Less dangerous than fossil burning and reliable. However viable
uranium will run out

in 700 years or so,.

which is longer than we have been using coal.

And may JUST be long enough to develop fusion..

and there is a large energy/carbon dioxide cost in building the plants

no more so than the 100,000 wind,ills that would be needed oetherwise.

FAR less concrete in the nukes.

,
extracting and purifying the fuel and finally decomissioning. Each
method has its overhead. I just think we should not ignore any method
at present before we have seen what we can do with them. PV is very
clean and is likely to become more efficient and cheap. Hopefully we
will see fusion one day, but shouldn't hold our breaths. The crystals
won't take it captain!


All I am saying is that if the renewables won't do the job, and every
calculation shows they wont, why throw OUR money at them that would be
better spent on more cost effective measures, like insulation, and
levelling the playing field for nuclear, which WILL work.

All teh policy of RO and FITs assumes that renewables will work. No one
has ever actually asked, let alone answered the question 'but will they?'

The Danish experience is that they haven't worked at all.
They have more CO2 emissions per capita than we do, despite using less
energy. And paying three times the price for electricity that we do.




Peter Scott

I dare say people once said that about powered flight.


I am sorry, wishful thinking about advances in technology cant break
basic physical laws.


Flight doesn't break physical laws. Green claims for renewables do,
The sun is a huge and reliable energy source.

Its a large highly dangerous and radiating nuclear fusions reactor.


I am sure we could put a moon sized mirror somewhere in orbit and focus
it on a steam boiler, but I would consider hat about ten thousand times
more dangerous than any reactor.


And similarly more expensive.


We get radiant energy
which we can turn into leccy or hydrogen through PV, hydro or wind which
can turn turbines and produce waves, gravitational energy which makes
tides and evaporated water which can be dammed.

Yes, at an average energy density of about 100W per square meter. At
these latitudes If nature doesn't concentrate that for us, as in hydro
power, we have to use a vast area to get sod all. That area is also
needed for people and wildlife to live in daylight, fly planes in, send
radio signals through, sail boats and ships in grow crops in and
generally have a life. You may think that turning the whole earth's
surface into one bloody great energy collection machine is the answer. I
do not.

Besides, there aren't enough minerals in the earths crust to build that
amount of structure.




It makes no sense not to
use as many of these as are viable.

Completely false logic. Why not use horse drawn trams as well as buses?
Because they are utter crap,. expensive,. polluting and bloody dangerous
and bloody slow.

You never proliferate uncompetitive inappropriate technology just
because you can.

Unless you are a Greenwasher or a politician of course.


Just because something isn't viable
with current technology doesn't mean it can't ever be.

Tell me how something that needs six times as much materials to produce
less reliable and the same amount of power can EVER be competitive?

And that's not a feature of 'clever design' it because any advances in
turbines for example, could equally apply to any other mechanical
electrical generator.

Its this stupid-think that pervades the whole greenwash movement: More
intelligent green party people accept that nuclear is the *only* way
forward, if you want reliable cheap carbon neutral 24x7 energy at
anythung approaching current demand levels..


Nuclear is good
but it too has large energy input costs,

No it doesn't. It has very LOW energy input costs. The whole cost is in
building teh bloody things. After that the actual energy unoput is
trivial,. And watt fir watt, they are three to six times cheaper than
wind and about 40 times cheaper than PV, and they work 24x7, which no
renewable does. Apart from hydro and biomass burning.



so it isn't as 'clean' as it
looks. In the end we *must* use as much solar energy as we can.

No, its actually a lot cleaner And uses a LOT less copper, iron and
steel than wind power,. Which still needs conventional power stations to
back it up anyway, as does PV.

kly the sae amount of fuel to keep them working, and they use more
materials (in te case of wind) to be usable at all.

In every engineering and cost accounting sense they are a complete utter
disaster. A fact that has been noted by recent studies in both Denmark
and Germany. They have done less than nothing to reduce the carbon
emissions of both countries, at enormous costs to the consumer, have
diverted skilled personnel away from more productive work and money away
from more appropriate solutions, and put the while climate change agenda
back 10 years..

A resounding success for stupid-think.

John Rumm wrote:
On 22/10/2010 16:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:


None of this has anything to do with commercial nuclear power as
understood in the West, however. The Chernobyl type stations are being
phased out as unsafe and quite right too - they have no containment
building and are graphite moderated.

Further, which kit broke down? There was a Horizon (IIRC) a few years
ago showing extensive footage taken by robot TV cameras inside and
underneath the sarcophagus at Chernobyl.

Damn. I didn't see that.

Did kit break down? I thought it was the result of experimenting with
the reactor. I bow to your obvious superior knowledge of the risks
inherent in western reactors. They do have accidents of course, but
commendably few. Some are questioning our safety limits on radiation
as well, saying they are too low. This was discussed in an earlier
thread. In that one I mentioned the 'black box' mini reactors that are
now available where reliable but limited energy is needed.


There have been three major reactor incidents in all the time of nuclear
power.

Windscale, which was pure madness, and is totally unrepresentative,
three mile island, which killed no one, and released no significant
amount of radioactivity although it damaged the reactor beyond repair,
and chernobyl, which was bad design, worse maintenance and opaertional
madness.

plus the odd Russian military cockup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-19


Good point. Russians, teh doyens of socialism, never were very hot on
Elfin safety..

John Rumm wrote:
On 21/10/2010 17:17, Peter Scott wrote:
On 21/10/2010 16:22, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 21/10/2010 14:29, Peter Scott wrote:
On 21/10/2010 14:18, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:56:11 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

If the waste from conventional reactors is processed in a fast
reactor,

These were promised for decades. They were not used because they are
even more outrageously expensive than the nuclear plant we already
have.


I thought that another reason for them not being used is the problem of
the plutonium that they produce and re-use as fuel. There were feelings
that, because of its use in weapons, the less of it there is in the
civilian area the better. Wasn't Dounreay a fast breeder?

Weapons grade plutonium has to be a fairly pure grade of one particular
isotope and early fast breeder reactors were optimised to produce that.
Modern ones produce a mix of isotopes that are not particularly useful
for making weapons.

Colin Bignell

I didn't know that. Let's hope that the costs and risks are re-assessed.
As uranium becomes scarcer, we will need to use it as efficiently as
possible. That was one of the selling points of breeders I seem to
remember

I have never quite understood the non proliferation argument against
*us* having breader reactors anyway... we already have weapons (and for
that matter, dedicated military reactors for making more should we want)

Its more about when them towel heads rush in, declare a reactor a
mosque, and a holy site, and ship the stuff back to the Taliban. While
human rights lawyers argue over their right to do it.
Allegedly.

I.e. less weapons grade material is better.

But none of the nuclear policy makes sense, any more than the renewables
obligation or feed in tariffs makes sense.

Its all about meeting the perceptions of the electorate, not about
actually telling the truth and working out the best policy.

Its what happens when stupid think elects stupid talk and you get stupid
government. Hamstrung by stupid electoral opinion, they just stick their
noses in the troughs, spend ever ever-increasing budgets on buying more
votes..and the rest, as they say, is history.

Bureaucracy is like a cancer on the state.

On 22 Oct, 19:10, Peter Scott wrote:
Umm ... do you think they'll invent a way of shifting that Grey clag
above the UK so we can see the sun sometimes;?...

Sound point but sunlight isn't necessary. Light is. Of course the PV
will produce a lot less leccy. There are much more efficient PVs on the
way.

Harry's comment about cost is of course correct at present. I'm looking
at one supplier's site which says much the same and that 1 kWp costs
about £4k to £5k. The kWp baffled me at first but its the output
produced by 1000 W/m2 (apparently the average for Bavaria). Allowing for
lower outputs this makes the cost for a sensible size setup of say 7 kWp
about £30k. This would produce perhaps (?) 6000 kWh. Hopelessly unviable
with a 50 year pay-back using 10p a unit, especially as there's no
storage in that price to allow you to go off-grid. However costs will
tumble with volume and research, and this would be encouraged by
short-term priming money. We could be producing the panels. There's a
factory in Wales somewhere.

A neighbour has put in a big array of panels at ground level. Must try
to find out more. I live in the country so we have more space. City and
town dwellers have more limited options.

Peter Scott

Kwp is just the output you would get in the best possible condtions,
ie at the equator on a clear day and light striking the panel at
90degrees. Virtually never achieved in practice.
Most people have them fitted to the roof because there is the
available space and convenience.
However if you had space you can have them at ground level. They
need a frame to support them. There is also the possibilty of having
a steerable array, ie always pointed at the sun.

On 22/10/2010 19:00, harry wrote:
On 22 Oct, 12:54, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 22/10/2010 09:04, harry wrote:
...

I've been considering it myself. By gov. edict you get £0.53/unit
even if you use it yourself plus there is more money for what you
export plus what you save. It works out to about 8% return on
capital. Which is good compared with getting bugger all interest for
any money the bank stores for you.

You can get better than 8% by buying a factory unit with a long term
tenant and you get something that is only likely to improve in value
with time. I'm sure there must be other investments out there that will
do much the same for smaller outlays.

Colin Bignell

You also have to pay council tax if it's empty.

That is why you don't look at property that does not have a long term
tenancy agreement in place.

Colin Bignell

On 22/10/2010 19:17, Clive George wrote:
On 22/10/2010 19:00, harry wrote:
On 22 Oct, 12:54, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 22/10/2010 09:04, harry wrote:
...

I've been considering it myself. By gov. edict you get £0.53/unit
even if you use it yourself plus there is more money for what you
export plus what you save. It works out to about 8% return on
capital. Which is good compared with getting bugger all interest for
any money the bank stores for you.

You can get better than 8% by buying a factory unit with a long term
tenant and you get something that is only likely to improve in value
with time. I'm sure there must be other investments out there that will
do much the same for smaller outlays.

You also have to pay council tax if it's empty.

Investment in commercial property is always an excellent choice. Look at
how well people have done out of it over the years, or ask a bishop...

You do, however, like most investments, need to take a long term view.
Commercial property values have dropped 33% since the start of the
recession, although, to my mind, that only makes it a good choice
against when the recovery comes.

Colin Bignell

In article
..com, harry scribeth thus
On 22 Oct, 19:10, Peter Scott wrote:
Umm ... do you think they'll invent a way of shifting that Grey clag
above the UK so we can see the sun sometimes;?...

Sound point but sunlight isn't necessary. Light is. Of course the PV
will produce a lot less leccy. There are much more efficient PVs on the
way.

Harry's comment about cost is of course correct at present. I'm looking
at one supplier's site which says much the same and that 1 kWp costs
about £4k to £5k. The kWp baffled me at first but its the output
produced by 1000 W/m2 (apparently the average for Bavaria). Allowing for
lower outputs this makes the cost for a sensible size setup of say 7 kWp
about £30k. This would produce perhaps (?) 6000 kWh. Hopelessly unviable
with a 50 year pay-back using 10p a unit, especially as there's no
storage in that price to allow you to go off-grid. However costs will
tumble with volume and research, and this would be encouraged by
short-term priming money. We could be producing the panels. There's a
factory in Wales somewhere.

A neighbour has put in a big array of panels at ground level. Must try
to find out more. I live in the country so we have more space. City and
town dwellers have more limited options.

Peter Scott

Kwp is just the output you would get in the best possible condtions,
ie at the equator on a clear day and light striking the panel at
90degrees. Virtually never achieved in practice.
Most people have them fitted to the roof because there is the
available space and convenience.
However if you had space you can have them at ground level. They
need a frame to support them. There is also the possibilty of having
a steerable array, ie always pointed at the sun.





I think if I wanted to put any solar collectors on my roof, I'd simply
use them for pre heating cold water, not bother with PV leccy..

I'd rather they'd just get on with building more nuclear stations ...
--
Tony Sayer

no more so than the 100,000 wind,ills that would be needed oetherwise.


Its an ill wind that blows no good then;?..

FAR less concrete in the nukes.

Theres a lot of concrete holding up the average windmill so a ready mix
operator told me the other day, seems they are keeping them in
business;!...

--
Tony Sayer

John Rumm wrote:
On 23/10/2010 12:02, tony sayer wrote:

no more so than the 100,000 wind,ills that would be needed oetherwise.


Its an ill wind that blows no good then;?..

FAR less concrete in the nukes.

Theres a lot of concrete holding up the average windmill so a ready mix
operator told me the other day, seems they are keeping them in
business;!...

not surprising when you think the blades may well have the "wingspan" of
a jumbo jet, and they are stuck on the end of a 200m+ long lever.

I wonder how much CO2 "free" power you need generate just of offset the
concrete?

Its about a year of power IF you don't take into account the fossil fuel
backup and the enhanced grid you need to absorb the power when it blows,
and back it up when it doesn't. Not forgettng all the machinery that
needs to be used to install and maintain them, especially at sea.

If you take those into account, in general, they never pay back at all.

In fact they are overall carbon negative: Better off building a new
efficient CCGT station.

That is the inconvenient truth. Wind power meets NONE of its claims at
all. Its not clean, its not green, and its bloody expensive.

On 23 Oct, 11:58, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus





On 22 Oct, 19:10, Peter Scott wrote:
Umm ... do you think they'll invent a way of shifting that Grey clag
above the UK so we can see the sun sometimes;?...

Sound point but sunlight isn't necessary. Light is. Of course the PV
will produce a lot less leccy. There are much more efficient PVs on the
way.

Harry's comment about cost is of course correct at present. I'm looking
at one supplier's site which says much the same and that 1 kWp costs
about £4k to £5k. The kWp baffled me at first but its the output
produced by 1000 W/m2 (apparently the average for Bavaria). Allowing for
lower outputs this makes the cost for a sensible size setup of say 7 kWp
about £30k. This would produce perhaps (?) 6000 kWh. Hopelessly unviable
with a 50 year pay-back using 10p a unit, especially as there's no
storage in that price to allow you to go off-grid. However costs will
tumble with volume and research, and this would be encouraged by
short-term priming money. We could be producing the panels. There's a
factory in Wales somewhere.

A neighbour has put in a big array of panels at ground level. Must try
to find out more. I live in the country so we have more space. City and
town dwellers have more limited options.

Peter Scott

Kwp is just the output you would get in the best possible condtions,
ie at the equator on a clear day and light striking the panel at
90degrees. Virtually never achieved in practice.
Most people have them fitted to the roof because there is the
available space and convenience.
However if you had space you can have them at ground level. *They
need a frame to support them. *There is also the possibilty of having
a steerable array, ie always pointed at the sun.

I think if I wanted to put any solar collectors on my roof, I'd simply
use them for pre heating cold water, not bother with PV leccy..

I'd rather they'd just get on with building more nuclear stations ...
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I made my own. Works OK.

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:18:36 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On 23 Oct, 11:58, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus





On 22 Oct, 19:10, Peter Scott wrote:
Umm ... do you think they'll invent a way of shifting that Grey clag
above the UK so we can see the sun sometimes;?...

Sound point but sunlight isn't necessary. Light is. Of course the PV
will produce a lot less leccy. There are much more efficient PVs on the
way.

Harry's comment about cost is of course correct at present. I'm looking
at one supplier's site which says much the same and that 1 kWp costs
about £4k to £5k. The kWp baffled me at first but its the output
produced by 1000 W/m2 (apparently the average for Bavaria). Allowing for
lower outputs this makes the cost for a sensible size setup of say 7 kWp
about £30k. This would produce perhaps (?) 6000 kWh. Hopelessly unviable
with a 50 year pay-back using 10p a unit, especially as there's no
storage in that price to allow you to go off-grid. However costs will
tumble with volume and research, and this would be encouraged by
short-term priming money. We could be producing the panels. There's a
factory in Wales somewhere.

A neighbour has put in a big array of panels at ground level. Must try
to find out more. I live in the country so we have more space. City and
town dwellers have more limited options.

Peter Scott

Kwp is just the output you would get in the best possible condtions,
ie at the equator on a clear day and light striking the panel at
90degrees. Virtually never achieved in practice.
Most people have them fitted to the roof because there is the
available space and convenience.
However if you had space you can have them at ground level. *They
need a frame to support them. *There is also the possibilty of having
a steerable array, ie always pointed at the sun.

I think if I wanted to put any solar collectors on my roof, I'd simply
use them for pre heating cold water, not bother with PV leccy..

I'd rather they'd just get on with building more nuclear stations ...
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I made my own. Works OK.

Your own nuclear station? Wow!

--
Frank Erskine

harry wrote:
On 23 Oct, 11:58, tony sayer wrote:


I'd rather they'd just get on with building more nuclear stations ...
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I made my own. Works OK.
nuclear station? go on, tell us how...

On 23 Oct, 20:21, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On 23 Oct, 11:58, tony sayer wrote:

I'd rather they'd just get on with building more nuclear stations ...
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I made my own. Works OK.

nuclear station? go on, tell us how...

Solar panel.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:17:40 +0100 someone who may be Tim Streater
wrote this:-

Further, which kit broke down? There was a Horizon (IIRC) a few years
ago showing extensive footage taken by robot TV cameras inside and
underneath the sarcophagus at Chernobyl.

Not sure why you felt the need to quote the whole of my posting. I
seldom read postings where someone has quoted more than a screenful.
People who don't trim often don't have anything useful to say.

According to a television programme a few years after the event, all
the western robots sent in to clean up, as I typed. I have it on
video tape somewhere. Robots have got better since then, though
moving a camera around is a little easier than cutting and moving.

I imagine the failure of the robots at Chernobyl acted as a spur to
do better. They are being used to clean up the nuclear mess in
places.

Robots isn't quite the right word, remotely controlled machines is
the more accurate but unwieldy term.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54