In article
..com, harry scribeth thus
On Nov 2, 9:12*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 01:36:30 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
Small PV arrays reduce the size needed on th grid as electricity is
produced locally.

So when the sun sets (or is clouded out) you sit in the dark? Don't
watch telly or use any other electrical appliance?

I think that power generators will take into account sunlight
intensity and national cloud patterns to predict needs.

Not with the total installed capacity of less than 1% of demand. ISTR
they work with a 20% margin of spinning reserve. So if a nuke station
and a big coal fired station fall off line at the same time (say
3,400,000 kW) the grid struggles but doesn't collapse.

They already look at weather forecasts.

Mostly for the temperature, if it gets cold the demand for space
heating shoots up.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Solar PV can be only part of the plan. We need all these renewables,
tidal, wave, geothermal etc.
But with PV, everyone can participate.

Go on then give us some realistic figures!...


Also if my PV packs in, it is not a national disaster as it would be
if a major primary substation/power station had problems.

Umm .. when did that happen last with serious consequences?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus
On Nov 1, 7:29*pm, Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:
On Nov 1, 8:37 am, Andy *wrote:

Given they've cut the subsidy much further and earlier than was planned,
here's hoping they cut the duration from 25 years to 10 or less.

Ah more envy/sour grapes. I bet you sit in the house *on benifits.

Not at all, I could afford to fit (ha, ha) PV to half the houses in the
street, but I choose not to do my own as I don't agree with the scheme
(and have no faith it will remain in existance).

But I bet you will want your Old Age Pension and child benefit, and
Winter fuel allowance and other taxpayer funded money.

It is the future you daft old bugger. Fossil fuels will be reserved
for agriculture, heavy transport, aviation and similar.

While you have sat on your arse, procrastinating and stuck in the mud,
I at least have done something for the future. And though you have
known all about and coould have particpated, the boat has passed you
by. (Well nearly) A nieghbour of mine has had a recent PV quotation,
the prices are falling rapidly.


Umm .. so what are you going to do in the very overcast UK winter months
when the snow lies deep and even ?..

--
Tony Sayer

harry wrote:

I bet you will want your Old Age Pension and child benefit, and
Winter fuel allowance and other taxpayer funded money.

I'll take them as and when they're offered, just like I "take" my tax
allowance now.

I at least have done something for the future.

Ignoring the payments for once, what fraction of your consumption is
your generation?

And though you have known all about and coould have particpated, the
boat has passed you by. (Well nearly)

I shall let it sail on ...

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 02:15:00 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

I will let youknow the grand total.

I'm sure you will. B-)

In fact it's getting real world figures that is important rather than
back of a fag packet guesstimations.

I wanted to put heat meters on each source here, log the data and
bung graphs on the web. The thermal solar panels have one in the
controller but I'd have to fit something for the wood burner, oil
boiler and CH zones, to see where (most of) the heat is going. Snag
is heat meters are expensive at a few hundred quid each and there is
some doubt about having one in the gravity loop of the wood burner,
it might stop the circulation. The oil and CH zones are pumped so
they wouldn't be a problem. So this isn't happening but may at some
future date.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Nov 2, 10:25*am, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus





On Nov 2, 9:12*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 01:36:30 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
Small PV arrays reduce the size needed on th grid as electricity is
produced locally.

So when the sun sets (or is clouded out) you sit in the dark? Don't
watch telly or use any other electrical appliance?

I think that power generators will take into account sunlight
intensity and national cloud patterns to predict needs.

Not with the total installed capacity of less than 1% of demand. ISTR
they work with a 20% margin of spinning reserve. So if a nuke station
and a big coal fired station fall off line at the same time (say
3,400,000 kW) the grid struggles but doesn't collapse.

They already look at weather forecasts.

Mostly for the temperature, if it gets cold the demand for space
heating shoots up.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Solar PV can be only part of the plan. *We need all these renewables,
tidal, wave, geothermal etc.
But with PV, everyone can participate.

Go on then give us some realistic figures!...

Also if my PV packs in, it is not a national disaster as it would be
if a major primary substation/power station had problems.

Umm .. when did that happen last with serious consequences?..
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ask the people of Hull when the towrags stole the Substation earthing
copper.
(Of course Karl Turner got in on the act and convinced the REC to
stump up for replacement electrical equipment for the consumers who
couldn't be bothered to insure their possessions)

tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus
On Nov 2, 9:12 am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 01:36:30 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
Small PV arrays reduce the size needed on th grid as electricity is
produced locally.
So when the sun sets (or is clouded out) you sit in the dark? Don't
watch telly or use any other electrical appliance?

I think that power generators will take into account sunlight
intensity and national cloud patterns to predict needs.
Not with the total installed capacity of less than 1% of demand. ISTR
they work with a 20% margin of spinning reserve. So if a nuke station
and a big coal fired station fall off line at the same time (say
3,400,000 kW) the grid struggles but doesn't collapse.

They already look at weather forecasts.
Mostly for the temperature, if it gets cold the demand for space
heating shoots up.

--
Cheers
Dave.
Solar PV can be only part of the plan. We need all these renewables,
tidal, wave, geothermal etc.
But with PV, everyone can participate.

Go on then give us some realistic figures!...


Also if my PV packs in, it is not a national disaster as it would be
if a major primary substation/power station had problems.

Umm .. when did that happen last with serious consequences?..

I'm not sure of the exact date, but half of the Potteries was without
power for most of a day a couple of years ago when the main substation
dealing with the North of the area blew up. As in exploded due to an
internal fault.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 02/11/2011 09:37, harry wrote:

Well I had more than £600 for the first quarter of use.
The only thing that worries me is the reliabilty of the technolgy.
It's guaranteed for five years but the firm may be bust by then,
especially after the recent announcemnt.

However fault finding looks to be easy enough I could probably fix it
myself.

What happens to the FIT entitlement if you have to replace panels? Would
one continue to get the higher FIT if it was necessary to replace them
all? How does that differ from a new installation which would be at the
lower FIT?

"harry" wrote in message
...


The PV panel could be fitted to at least 50% of all houses, there are
few sites for windmills and micro-hydro power. There are FIT payment
for these too but few sites.

These schemes use zero fossil fuel and will be market viable to in the
near future.

that is rubbish.

they use lots of fossil fuel in the manufacture of the panels, and
associated fittings.
they use fossil fuel in their shipping.
they use fossil fuel in their fitting and maintenance.

There is little chance that they will actually return more energy than was
used over their life time.
This is especially true of windmills.

Anyone that thinks they don't use fossil fuels is living in a different
world to the rest of us.
The ones that claim so are just lying and are probably using carbon offsets
to back it up.
Carbon offsets are just a mythical product invented so they can lie about
being green.

The FIT scheme is about bringing the technology forward
and inculcating the public with it'svalue. In fifty years it will be
the major/only producer of domestic power.

So we are going dark then.


Stuff like heat pumps and co-generation still needs fossil fuel.

They can use solar!
But you are correct.
Even nuclear uses fossil fuels.

Everything uses fossil fuels, there is no substitute being used.
Until everything is electric and we are generating it all using nuclear we
will still be using fossil fuels.


My own thing (insulation) needs no further fuel once installed and I
have zero energy use/export power. I export enough electric power for
two other houses (assuming them to use the same power as I do.)

BTW I have got time switches for my freezers so they won't come on at
night and only use free electricity by day. I estimate this will cut
my electric bill by a further 5%.

tony sayer wrote:

harry scribeth thus

Also if my PV packs in, it is not a national disaster as it would be
if a major primary substation/power station had problems.

Umm .. when did that happen last with serious consequences?..

Depends what you mean by serious, I suppose?

http://legacy.london.gov.uk/assembly...v/powercut.pdf

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 01/11/2011 12:54, RobertL wrote:

Anyone on this group that didn't get on the bandwagon has only
themselves to blame. It has been made perfectly clear it was a good
deal.-

Some of us chose not to, because we felt the scheme was unethical.

It was a scheme that the Government was desperately anxious to promote
so they offered incentives.

That is not true.
What SEEMS to have happened us that a political 'solution' to 'climate
change' was required so a bunch of lobby groups bent their ears and
said 'renewable energy, but it will cost a lot, but you can spin that
into 'green jobs'

The fact is of course that renewable energy costs a bloody fortune and
makes almost no difference to carbon emissions whatsoever, costs
anything up to a million euros per job created, and displaces 2.5 people
from more useful work they could be doing.

The only people who benefit are the manufacturers and installers and the
harry's of this world who don't give a **** as long as they are making
money out of government and green**** gullibility.




Taking them up on that is no different to
accepting say child allowance.


No, it IS different. Child allowance says - rightlt or wrongly ' we want
you to breed, have a cash incentive' It does what it sets out to do.

Renewable energy does not ..it says 'we want to save carbon, have a cash
handout for ONLY this technology or that technology' In short it doesn't
even work for the reasons its promoted. That is the true state of affairs.


Ethics these days depends very much on where you are coming from:


It always has, mate.

To the fundamentalist Moslem interest is unethical but killing apostates
is a sacred duty.

To a parent privileges such as child allowance are an inalienable right
but how ethical is taxing the childless poor so that someone who already
has a larger income and a more comfortable existence is further rewarded
for a particular lifestyle choice.


Exactly.

Iniquitous.

Adam Aglionby wrote:
On Nov 1, 9:25 am, harry wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:44 pm, Adam Aglionby wrote:







On Oct 31, 4:42 pm, Adrian C wrote:
On 31/10/2011 16:18, Dave Liquorice wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15507750
Down to 21p/kWHr for installations completed after 12th Dec 2011.
It is to everyones interest that the panel prices come down to as cheap
as possible to everyone. As I see it the current subsidy is just
encoraging manufacturers to keep the panels priced high, and spread
unhealthy bonuses in the pockets of ex-double glazing salesmen.
I don't see a lot of difference material handling wise between solar
panels and flat panel TV sets. Perhaps a redundant factory or two of
Phillips can be converted?
--
Adrian C
Oversupply in the panel market already, strangely enough PV and double/
triple glazing seem to be same people...
Cheers
Adam- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's more too successful not over supply.

Nope , oversupply, bearing in mind have to have the cash to invest up
front to reap the 10%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/m...mps-on-warning

No point in blaming the Chinese, they are aware and relying on growing
their domestic market

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90...0/7302559.html


No, they are banging in a nuclear power station every 9 months or so,
and coal even faster.

The Other Mike wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 02:35:51 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

The electricity I have generated so far has paid back 8% of capital
already in two quarters. Obviously the next two quarters will be much
reduced.
As it is tax free that's worth even more.

They shoudl force parasitic c*nts like you to go off grid. You'll be
able to keep warm by running on a treadmill linked to a generator.


+1

Tim Watts wrote:
The Other Mike wrote:

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 02:35:51 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

The electricity I have generated so far has paid back 8% of capital
already in two quarters. Obviously the next two quarters will be much
reduced.
As it is tax free that's worth even more.
They shoudl force parasitic c*nts like you to go off grid. You'll be
able to keep warm by running on a treadmill linked to a generator.


I agree that the FIT scheme was superficially stupid and unfair[1]

But I don't agree with bashing harry for the sake of it. If EDF came round
and left a bar of gold on my doorstep with a note saying "it's yours", I'd
be all over it like a ferret on a rabbit that fell into a jug of Bisto.


I wouldn't. Not if I knew for a fact it was stolen from my neighbours.

John Rumm wrote:
On 01/11/2011 14:49, Tim Watts wrote:
The Other Mike wrote:

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 02:35:51 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

The electricity I have generated so far has paid back 8% of capital
already in two quarters. Obviously the next two quarters will be much
reduced.
As it is tax free that's worth even more.

They shoudl force parasitic c*nts like you to go off grid. You'll be
able to keep warm by running on a treadmill linked to a generator.


I agree that the FIT scheme was superficially stupid and unfair[1]

But I don't agree with bashing harry for the sake of it. If EDF came
round
and left a bar of gold on my doorstep with a note saying "it's yours",
I'd
be all over it like a ferret on a rabbit that fell into a jug of Bisto.

Yup I would concur. I have no hard feelings for folks who went for these
schemes. So long as one accepts that they are nothing more than
investment opportunities that take advantage of poorly thought through
"incentives" etc, and ones does not get sucked in by the green wash etc.

I am a little distressed that the people funding the "return" on these
investments are yet another variation of joe tax payer (or in this case
joe energy user - although the difference is moot), but that is a
criticism of the creators of the scheme in the first place.

One has to accept that governments will concoct various schemes that
will fail to achieve their stated goals, and instead be ruthlessly
exploited by canny investors etc, in much the same way as they will also
concoct ways of dipping their hands into your pockets without warning.
One could argue you may as well roll with the punches and stick your
snout in the trough as and when the need or opportunity provides itself.

Obviously a market led approach would have been far more sensible. Set
an incentive rate based on what one is prepared to pay to encourage
micro generation schemes, and let the system figure out what
technologies return the best bang for your buck (i.e. the most useful[1]
electricity for the lowest cost). The ultimate goal however should be
that any generation scheme will ultimately move to a point where it is a
net contributor and self funding and hence attractive on its own merits.

[1] Useful being generation that can work 24/7 and not require expensive
warm backup.

[1] There is an argument that a kickstart like this would drive down
panel
costs, but water-solar panels seem to be doing fine by themselves and I
really would like to see the net sum energy input of one of these
including
associated inverter, material transport costs and fitting vs a realistic
lifetime energy output averaged over the area where FIT was available.

Indeed, however they seem to have taken the step of finding the lest
productive micro gen system available, also the one least suitable for
our climate, and then incentivised its use the most. The chances that it
could ever reach the point of being self supporting seem slim to none.
The irony is that the FiT rates for hydro plant are the lowest of all of
them, and that is probably the most effective option we have.


The point is that microgeneration is a stupid bloody idea anyway.
The whole renewable biznai is concocted by cynical marketing men to
appeal to green dipsticks and politicians. It doesn't have to actually
work, and it doesn't.

harry wrote:

The PV panel could be fitted to at least 50% of all houses,

And would still make **** all difference to national carbon footprint.

And treble the price of electricity.

there are
few sites for windmills and micro-hydro power. There are FIT payment
for these too but few sites.

All useless.

These schemes use zero fossil fuel

No, they use almost the same fossil fuel. Over the entire country, as te
gas backup still has to stay in hot standby mode.

and will be market viable to in the
near future.


No, they will never be viable vis a vis nuclear.

The FIT scheme is about bringing the technology forward
and inculcating the public with it'svalue. In fifty years it will be
the major/only producer of domestic power.

Complete ******** that only a person with no understanding of
engineering or cost benefit accounting could state.

Stuff like heat pumps and co-generation still needs fossil fuel.


No it doesn't. It needs nuclear fuel.

RENEWABLE energy is the thing that still needs fossil fuel. It depends
on it. Nothing else can back it up fast enough in the UK (albeit at such
huge inefficiencies that at least one study has concluded we will in
fact use MORE gas with renewable energy, than without).

My own thing (insulation) needs no further fuel once installed and I
have zero energy use/export power. I export enough electric power for
two other houses (assuming them to use the same power as I do.)


Not midnight in winter you dont.

BTW I have got time switches for my freezers so they won't come on at
night and only use free electricity by day. I estimate this will cut
my electric bill by a further 5%.


That and insulation are the only things you have done that make a
positive difference nationally. But you should run freezers at might on
low cost baseload power and scrap the solar panels. That would do the
country MORE good.
..

cynic wrote:


Ask the people of Hull when the towrags stole the Substation earthing
copper.
(Of course Karl Turner got in on the act and convinced the REC to
stump up for replacement electrical equipment for the consumers who
couldn't be bothered to insure their possessions)

And so they bloody should.

It may not be the REC's direct fault that pikey's nick the copper, but it is
even less the fault of the customers who are contracted to be provided power
at 230 V +10% ˆ’6%

The question here is whether the REC could have reasonably done more to
provide redundant earthing in other locations to mitigate such faults (and
if the pikeys did not steal the copper, what would happen if the bonding in
question went faulty of its own accord)?

--
Tim Watts

Ummm, the problem with the PV systems is not so much the panel
reliability (which is ok), nor the panel decline in efficiency (which
is quite small), it is the cost of inverters which is high &
reliability which is low. That is not properly factored into the
figures, even three inverters over 25yrs is quite a substantial cost.
PV is great for southern spain and africa, indeed cheaper PV merely
aids the improvement in foreign economies - back to the old 1$ spend
in the West creates 3$ GDP elsewhere and 0.9$ GDP here. From
1990-2000-2010 the West is increasingly spinning its wheels to go
nowhere in terms of GDP.

Likewise the ONLY way for the UK to get out of its debt problem is
high inflation of 7-11%/yr which makes the return on FiTup not so good
as it first appears. The UK is not cutting its deficit, merely the
rate at which it increases - it is cutting it relative to inflation,
but long term much of the West has a problem of Stagflation.

BoE is already going for QE3 and USA will go for QE3 within a few
months, the Fed however does not see inflation as a solution unlike
the UK. The UK is *absolutely* *terrified* of the global bond market
pushing up UK interest rates because it would utterly implode the
housing market and destroy the banks and "housing as ATM machine" of
1986 onwards. I do mean absolutely terrified because the whole ponzi
scheme would implode, good for the young, but would shunt the UK
overnight back to pre 1650s.

FiT was a welfare program for DG companies, the average fitter was
making about £32-35,000/yr and the companies were a quick springboard
to 1M/yr for the directors. They wanted a free ride and New Labour
gave them one - at the expense of the poor! DG is drying up and the EU
does not like plastic rubbish and wants longer life sustainable DG
solutions. Much of the DG has improved, but the UK has a serious DG
landfill problem negating the green drivel they came out with.

Melons!

dennis@home wrote:


But you are correct.
Even nuclear uses fossil fuels.


No, it doesn't dennis.
It uses uranium.
No fossilised animals are involved in making uranium.
Renewable energy is after all really fossil fuel, if you say that
uranium is. The sun is just an unshielded out of control nuclear reactor
that kills 3000 people a year in the UK, alone, from skin cancer, after
all.


Everything uses fossil fuels, there is no substitute being used.
Until everything is electric and we are generating it all using nuclear
we will still be using fossil fuels.


True.
Except we can in fact synthesise hydrocarbon fuels (albeit inefficiently).

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 02:28:22 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

But with PV, everyone can participate.

Er no, only those with a spare 10k+ sloshing about that they can
spend. I don't think taking outa loan would be a sensible option. I
guess you could argue they could get one of the "free" systems but
then someone else gets the FIT payments.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:25:06 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

Also if my PV packs in, it is not a national disaster as it would
be
if a major primary substation/power station had problems.

Umm .. when did that happen last with serious consequences?..

Sizewell B and Longannet going off line in quick succesion with the
loss of 1,510,000 kW generation gave the grid summat to think about
in May 2008. Load was shed, ie people had power cuts and most of the
country noticed the dip in voltage and then further voltage
reductions.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 02/11/2011 11:23, dennis@home wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...


The PV panel could be fitted to at least 50% of all houses, there are
few sites for windmills and micro-hydro power. There are FIT payment
for these too but few sites.

These schemes use zero fossil fuel and will be market viable to in the
near future.

that is rubbish.

they use lots of fossil fuel in the manufacture of the panels, and
associated fittings.
they use fossil fuel in their shipping.
they use fossil fuel in their fitting and maintenance.

There is little chance that they will actually return more energy than
was used over their life time.

Wrong - even at our unfavourable latitude the lifetime energy return on
a PV array should be something like 4x that used in its manufacture. It
would be nearer 7x if installed at a more sensible latitude. See:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w.../page_41.shtml

This is especially true of windmills.

Even more untrue. Any decent large scale windfarm will reach energy
payback inside the first year of operation and with a trailing wind
inside the first six months.


Anyone that thinks they don't use fossil fuels is living in a different
world to the rest of us.

They use fossil fuels to make them but they deliver a leverage of 4-7x
for solar PV depending where they are installed and 20-50x for large
scale wind turbines. The latter is a respectable figure of merit.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


But you are correct.
Even nuclear uses fossil fuels.


No, it doesn't dennis.
It uses uranium.

Don't talk ********.
What do the diggers, trucks, concrete mixers, mining equipment, workers
cars, etc. run on?
A hint it isn't uranium!

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 09:50:51 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote:

Meanwhile the govt. gets a free ride convincing the public that energy
conservation is important.

Energy conservation *is* important. Far more energy could be saved by
getting places properly insulated and draft proof than a few tiddly
little PV systems are ever going to generate. 15k would go a long way
to pay for the insulation I'm installing. Insulation that will
hopefully reduce my energy consumption by a significant amount not to
mention last and cost nothing for the next 30+ years.

Am I getting any assistance from the government (or anyone else) for
this insulation? No. But if I'd spent that 15k on a PV system I would
be making money in the long term but not "saving" anything like as
much energy. I should get the £300 RHPP and be eligable for the RHI
but with the way things are going I'm not booking the holiday in
Barbados yet.

Ugh, that grape was sour...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 12:27:23 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Renewable energy does not ..it says 'we want to save carbon, have a cash
handout for ONLY this technology or that technology' In short it doesn't
even work for the reasons its promoted. That is the true state of
affairs.

Quite agree, if HMG was serious about saving energy they would be
spending the cash on things that save far more energy over longer
times spans. Like making sure all properties had good insulation and
glazing, not just the ones that are easy and cheap to do, ie those
with cavity walls. Maybe even giving similar incentives and the
guaranteed returns to renewable heat systems. The RHPP doesn't really
encourage people to install solar ho****er, the RHI is still very
much up in the air and the payments significantly less than PV.

/soapbox

--
Cheers
Dave.

I should add, the Dragons Den soon jumped on a FiT startup when
presented with it. Moan continually about gov't spending, until it
sloshes guaranteed return in their direction under the guise of
"business".

Sort of like giving a "Sir" the right to remove all the gravel from in
front of a seaside village and pocket the money - then leaving the
people to be obliterated by the next winter storm.

It is quite likely the poor will end up needing higher subsidies to
pay for the impact of FiT and other green & oil price measures as we
go forward to 2020. The UK is following the same path of USA lobbyists
writing policy and simply sitting with hand at the other end to catch
the profit. From Part P to FiT-up.

Ask the people of Hull when the towrags stole the Substation earthing
copper.
(Of course Karl Turner got in on the act and convinced the REC to
stump up for replacement electrical equipment for the consumers who
couldn't be bothered to insure their possessions)

That was a very localised outage not something like a transformer on the
supergrid going shorted turns and taking out most of south England with
it.

That example above is rather like saying that the great Heck rail crash
was something wrong with the railways;!....
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Tim Watts
scribeth thus
cynic wrote:


Ask the people of Hull when the towrags stole the Substation earthing
copper.
(Of course Karl Turner got in on the act and convinced the REC to
stump up for replacement electrical equipment for the consumers who
couldn't be bothered to insure their possessions)

And so they bloody should.

It may not be the REC's direct fault that pikey's nick the copper, but it is
even less the fault of the customers who are contracted to be provided power
at 230 V +10% 0
The question here is whether the REC could have reasonably done more to
provide redundant earthing in other locations to mitigate such faults (and
if the pikeys did not steal the copper, what would happen if the bonding in
question went faulty of its own accord)?


I rather doubt it was an earthing situation as such, we just don't quite
know what they did there whilst they were nicking the copper they could
have done most anything..

Take copper theft further, can the railways do anything to stop them
nicking the return cables on the OHLE system?..

Or signalling cable going missing?..

Or BT cables coming out of their ducts?...
--
Tony Sayer

On 02/11/2011 08:04, Roger Chapman wrote:

*Government's standard assessment procedure apparently but that is
little more than pie in the sky. Only with hindsight will it become
clear how big the margin is between optimistic prediction and cold hard
fact. By way of comparison the endowment I took out in the early 80s
with Government approved predictions was supposed to pay out just over
200% of the assured sum. In the event it paid out just under 100% on
maturity 20 years later.

I don't think the two are remotely comparable.

In article , Andy
Burns scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:

harry scribeth thus

Also if my PV packs in, it is not a national disaster as it would be
if a major primary substation/power station had problems.

Umm .. when did that happen last with serious consequences?..

Depends what you mean by serious, I suppose?

http://legacy.london.gov.uk/assembly...v/powercut.pdf


Interesting reading that. Not so much to do with the national grid but
London underground's management and systems leaving a lot to be
desired;!..


--
Tony Sayer

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice scribeth thus
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 09:50:51 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote:

Meanwhile the govt. gets a free ride convincing the public that energy
conservation is important.

Energy conservation *is* important. Far more energy could be saved by
getting places properly insulated and draft proof than a few tiddly
little PV systems are ever going to generate. 15k would go a long way
to pay for the insulation I'm installing. Insulation that will
hopefully reduce my energy consumption by a significant amount not to
mention last and cost nothing for the next 30+ years.

Am I getting any assistance from the government (or anyone else) for
this insulation? No. But if I'd spent that 15k on a PV system I would
be making money in the long term but not "saving" anything like as
much energy. I should get the £300 RHPP and be eligable for the RHI
but with the way things are going I'm not booking the holiday in
Barbados yet.

Ugh, that grape was sour...

--

+1 to all that!....


Cheers
Dave.




--
Tony Sayer

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice scribeth thus
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:25:06 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

Also if my PV packs in, it is not a national disaster as it would
be
if a major primary substation/power station had problems.

Umm .. when did that happen last with serious consequences?..

Sizewell B and Longannet going off line in quick succesion with the
loss of 1,510,000 kW generation gave the grid summat to think about
in May 2008. Load was shed, ie people had power cuts and most of the
country noticed the dip in voltage and then further voltage
reductions.


Very rare incident tho...
--
Tony Sayer

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2011 11:23, dennis@home wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...


The PV panel could be fitted to at least 50% of all houses, there are
few sites for windmills and micro-hydro power. There are FIT payment
for these too but few sites.

These schemes use zero fossil fuel and will be market viable to in the
near future.

that is rubbish.

they use lots of fossil fuel in the manufacture of the panels, and
associated fittings.
they use fossil fuel in their shipping.
they use fossil fuel in their fitting and maintenance.

There is little chance that they will actually return more energy than
was used over their life time.

Wrong - even at our unfavourable latitude the lifetime energy return on a
PV array should be something like 4x that used in its manufacture. It
would be nearer 7x if installed at a more sensible latitude. See:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w.../page_41.shtml

This is especially true of windmills.

Even more untrue. Any decent large scale windfarm will reach energy
payback inside the first year of operation and with a trailing wind inside
the first six months.


Anyone that thinks they don't use fossil fuels is living in a different
world to the rest of us.

They use fossil fuels to make them but they deliver a leverage of 4-7x for
solar PV depending where they are installed and 20-50x for large scale
wind turbines. The latter is a respectable figure of merit.

I don't believe that and there are no definitive explanations of what energy
is used in order to make that comparison.
I especially don't believe a paper that claims "Wind turbines with a
lifetime of 20 years have an energy yield ratio of 80".

Dave Liquorice wrote:

Quite agree, if HMG was serious about saving energy they would be
spending the cash on things that save far more energy over longer
times spans. Like making sure all properties had good insulation and
glazing, not just the ones that are easy and cheap to do, ie those
with cavity walls.

The proposed new terms for FIT include a requirement that the
property is at least band C for energy efficiency, otherwise the
lowest possible tariff applies.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:04:34 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 12:27:23 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Renewable energy does not ..it says 'we want to save carbon, have a
cash handout for ONLY this technology or that technology' In short it
doesn't even work for the reasons its promoted. That is the true state
of affairs.

Quite agree, if HMG was serious about saving energy they would be
spending the cash on things that save far more energy over longer times
spans. Like making sure all properties had good insulation and glazing,
not just the ones that are easy and cheap to do, ie those with cavity
walls. Maybe even giving similar incentives and the guaranteed returns
to renewable heat systems. The RHPP doesn't really encourage people to
install solar ho****er, the RHI is still very much up in the air and the
payments significantly less than PV.

/soapbox

Ah, Jethro's "if it really mattered" test being applied !

Chris J Dixon wrote:

The proposed new terms for FIT include a requirement that the
property is at least band C for energy efficiency, otherwise the
lowest possible tariff applies.

And for the 'rent a roof' schemes to only be paid at 80% of the FIT
rate, so about 17p/kWh.

On Nov 2, 10:27*am, tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus









On Nov 1, 7:29*pm, Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:
On Nov 1, 8:37 am, Andy *wrote:

Given they've cut the subsidy much further and earlier than was planned,
here's hoping they cut the duration from 25 years to 10 or less.

Ah more envy/sour grapes. I bet you sit in the house *on benifits.

Not at all, I could afford to fit (ha, ha) PV to half the houses in the
street, but I choose not to do my own as I don't agree with the scheme
(and have no faith it will remain in existance).

But I bet you will want your Old Age Pension and child benefit, and
Winter fuel allowance and other taxpayer funded money.

It is the future you daft old bugger. *Fossil fuels will be reserved
for agriculture, heavy transport, *aviation and similar.

While you have sat on your arse, procrastinating and stuck in the mud,
I at least have done something for the future. *And though you have
known all about and coould have particpated, the boat has passed you
by. (Well nearly) *A nieghbour of mine has had a recent PV quotation,
the prices are falling rapidly.

Umm .. so what are you going to do in the very overcast UK winter months
when the snow lies deep and even ?..

--
Tony Sayer

Obviously output is much reduced. I think snow will slide off the
panels very easily especially as air can circulate beneath them.

On Nov 2, 10:37*am, Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:
I bet you will want your Old Age Pension and child benefit, and
Winter fuel allowance and other taxpayer funded money.

I'll take them as and when they're offered, just like I "take" my tax
allowance now.

I at least have done something for the future.

Ignoring the payments for once, what fraction of your consumption is
your generation?
Well I take what's offered too.
Don't you read? I generate three times what I consume.

In article
,
harry wrote:

[Snip]

Obviously output is much reduced. I think snow will slide off the
panels very easily especially as air can circulate beneath them.

If it is cold when the snow falls heavily, it will quickly seal the air
gaps at the top & sides of the panel; and unless the top surface is
treated in some way, snow will settle on it without difficulty.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On Nov 2, 11:03*am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,









*harry wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:29*pm, Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:
On Nov 1, 8:37 am, Andy *wrote:

Given they've cut the subsidy much further and earlier than was planned,
here's hoping they cut the duration from 25 years to 10 or less.

Ah more envy/sour grapes. I bet you sit in the house *on benifits..

Not at all, I could afford to fit (ha, ha) PV to half the houses in the
street, but I choose not to do my own as I don't agree with the scheme
(and have no faith it will remain in existance).

But I bet you will want your Old Age Pension and child benefit, and
Winter fuel allowance and other taxpayer funded money.

All paid for out of our taxes.

It is the future you daft old bugger. *Fossil fuels will be reserved
for agriculture, heavy transport, *aviation and similar.

You have no idea what the future will bring any more than the rest of
us. So don't appeal to that, OK?

While you have sat on your arse, procrastinating and stuck in the mud,
I at least have done something for the future.

Try not to be more of an ace bull****ter than you already clearly are.
What you've done, is something for *yourself*, at the expense of other,
mostly poorer, electricity consumers.

And though you have known all about and
could have particpated, the boat has passed you by.

Tell you what, harry old boy. How about you keep us a

What I do is legal. Are you too stupid to see that?

If you're poor it's your own fault.
It arose out of decisions you made in the past.
Eg, not doing your homework, bunking off school, not paying attention
and failing your exams. General intellectual idleness in fact. (It
shows here too.)
Stop whinging. You made your bed yourself. Now just lie in it.

On Nov 2, 11:02*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 02:15:00 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
I will let youknow the grand total.

I'm sure you will. *B-)

In fact it's getting real world figures that is important rather than
back of a fag packet guesstimations.

I wanted to put heat meters on each source here, log the data and
bung graphs on the web. The thermal solar panels have one in the
controller but I'd have to fit something for the wood burner, oil
boiler and CH zones, to see where (most of) the heat is going. Snag
is heat meters are expensive at a few hundred quid each and there is
some doubt about having one in the gravity loop of the wood burner,
it might stop the circulation. The oil and CH zones are pumped so
they wouldn't be a problem. So this isn't happening but may at some
future date.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Too complex. Complex ideas often fail. Keep It Supid Simple is
always best. (KISS)
It's hard enough trying to determine what's happening at my house and
all I have is massive insulation.
But it works though there have been a few failures.

But don't tell anyone here you have done something. Some of them
prefer to sit on their arses and get envious of people who don't.