Much is being said about climate change and there is debate as to how much of this is natural and how much is a result of our lifestyles.
We can see that analysing data shows the climate does indeed change over time. Historical evidence show that there have been cycles of change in planetary temperature and we are at some point in one of these.
Whilst we cannot determine how much change would have occurred without mankind, I think we can assume that we may have an effect on the climate, be it with our demand for electricity, heating, transport or even food (think methane from cattle for example).
Steps are being taken to reduce our impact by making vehicles more efficient, generating power from renewable energy sources, using heat from solar panels and ground heat systems.
One area however that has a significant impact but is not often mentioned to my knowledge is population growth.
If we kept the population of the planet fixed (impossible I know!) and reduced their energy requirements then the impact on climate could be reduced.
However the population of the planet continues to grow. As it does so there are more people requiring transport, using power and wanting to keep warm. Total energy requirements therefore will go up as a result of this.
Should we not be looking at controlling population growth as part of our attempt to minimise our impact on the climate. There are other ways in which growing populations impact upon the climate, such as clearing of trees to make room for housing or food growing.
We need to look at the total picture - not just pick the low hanging fruit.
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Saturday, April 14, 2012
The Environmentalists Are Running The Asylum
It seems more and more that our politicians are bowing down to the environmentalists. It is bad enough when politicians try and run the country themselves, but when they start listening to environmentalists the whole situation gets much worse.
In making these claims I must point out that I am accusing all the political parties, so this covers the present government and it's predecessors.
At various climate summits our politicians have signed us up to reductions in CO2 emissions which are not achievable. This is just like a salesman saying his product will do things it clearly does not. Before agreeing these reductions perhaps our representatives should have taken expert advice on what can and cannot be done!
The same climate summits see other countries agreeing to far less severe reductions in CO2, with some such as China even suggesting they cannot reduce CO2 but are likely to increase.
This leads to unsustainable plans for wind farms, solar farms and so on to produce a fraction of the reduction we are committed to.
So the government attack the issue in different ways by trying to force us out of our cars and make us install ever greater levels of insulation in our homes.
The latest scheme however has to take the biscuit, whereby if you wish to carry out certain changes to your home you will be inspected and presented with a list of other work to be carried out - at your own expense - if you wish to go ahead. Don't worry though as they will offer you a loan so that any possible savings will be lost when you repay this.
Two examples quoted so far have been boiler replacement and building a conservatory (and perhaps any type of extension).
The first will affect me, and many others. as boilers have a finite life. My house was built in accordance with the building regulations and insulation standards of the time, but would now fall short and I have no doubt I would be expected to top up the loft insulation at the very least. My loft insulation is the depth of the joists so in some areas I have boarded the loft for storage space. This will presumably have to be taken up and more insulation added such that I can no longer use the loft for storage unless I raise the floor in some areas.
Perhaps I should just leave my old boiler in place longer, OK it is less efficient than a more modern boiler but the savings from the boiler are already hard to justify against the cost of installing it, let alone when it comes to the additional expense.
Madness!
What about people in older properties, particularly those with solid walls? Their insulation factors may well be low. Do they get forced to insulate the inside of the walls and make the rooms smaller and lose the character of the building, or perhaps insulate the outside, again losing the character.
The lunatics really are taking over the asylum.
In making these claims I must point out that I am accusing all the political parties, so this covers the present government and it's predecessors.
At various climate summits our politicians have signed us up to reductions in CO2 emissions which are not achievable. This is just like a salesman saying his product will do things it clearly does not. Before agreeing these reductions perhaps our representatives should have taken expert advice on what can and cannot be done!
The same climate summits see other countries agreeing to far less severe reductions in CO2, with some such as China even suggesting they cannot reduce CO2 but are likely to increase.
This leads to unsustainable plans for wind farms, solar farms and so on to produce a fraction of the reduction we are committed to.
So the government attack the issue in different ways by trying to force us out of our cars and make us install ever greater levels of insulation in our homes.
The latest scheme however has to take the biscuit, whereby if you wish to carry out certain changes to your home you will be inspected and presented with a list of other work to be carried out - at your own expense - if you wish to go ahead. Don't worry though as they will offer you a loan so that any possible savings will be lost when you repay this.
Two examples quoted so far have been boiler replacement and building a conservatory (and perhaps any type of extension).
The first will affect me, and many others. as boilers have a finite life. My house was built in accordance with the building regulations and insulation standards of the time, but would now fall short and I have no doubt I would be expected to top up the loft insulation at the very least. My loft insulation is the depth of the joists so in some areas I have boarded the loft for storage space. This will presumably have to be taken up and more insulation added such that I can no longer use the loft for storage unless I raise the floor in some areas.
Perhaps I should just leave my old boiler in place longer, OK it is less efficient than a more modern boiler but the savings from the boiler are already hard to justify against the cost of installing it, let alone when it comes to the additional expense.
Madness!
What about people in older properties, particularly those with solid walls? Their insulation factors may well be low. Do they get forced to insulate the inside of the walls and make the rooms smaller and lose the character of the building, or perhaps insulate the outside, again losing the character.
The lunatics really are taking over the asylum.
Friday, December 9, 2011
The Wind Turbine Fallacy
As our government and environmentalists make ever greater demands for alternative power sources for when fossil fuels run out, more investment is being made in wind farms.
The recent bad weather in Scotland and northern England however is demonstrating why this won't work.
In strong winds, wind turbines have to be stopped. I believe this is achieved by both 'feathering' the blades to reduce their thrust to zero and also by applying a brake to prevent the rotor from turning.
In low winds the turbines just don't turn anyway as there is insufficient strength.
As a result we are left with a relatively narrow window of conditions in which wind turbines can produce any power. It gets worse however in that we don't have the infrastructure to take all the power they can produce when we are in the right zone so suppliers are paid to turn them off!
In the news today, I read of the wind turbines damaged by the wind! Both in Scotland, one of them has caught fire - as yet the cause is unconfirmed but it could well be that it was rotating against it's brake and hence building up heat, the second just simply blew over.
These incidents are not isolated, in the past there have been incidents of turbines losing blades whilst operating. The consequences of that striking someone or damaging property could be very serious, not to mention any further damage that may be caused by an out of balance turbine continuing to rotate.
So they are inefficient, provide power in fits and starts depending on the weather, and are potentially very dangerous.
Time to look elsewhere for our alternative energy sources I believe.
The recent bad weather in Scotland and northern England however is demonstrating why this won't work.
In strong winds, wind turbines have to be stopped. I believe this is achieved by both 'feathering' the blades to reduce their thrust to zero and also by applying a brake to prevent the rotor from turning.
In low winds the turbines just don't turn anyway as there is insufficient strength.
As a result we are left with a relatively narrow window of conditions in which wind turbines can produce any power. It gets worse however in that we don't have the infrastructure to take all the power they can produce when we are in the right zone so suppliers are paid to turn them off!
In the news today, I read of the wind turbines damaged by the wind! Both in Scotland, one of them has caught fire - as yet the cause is unconfirmed but it could well be that it was rotating against it's brake and hence building up heat, the second just simply blew over.
These incidents are not isolated, in the past there have been incidents of turbines losing blades whilst operating. The consequences of that striking someone or damaging property could be very serious, not to mention any further damage that may be caused by an out of balance turbine continuing to rotate.
So they are inefficient, provide power in fits and starts depending on the weather, and are potentially very dangerous.
Time to look elsewhere for our alternative energy sources I believe.
Friday, November 25, 2011
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The world is getting weirder by the day - I am beginning to wonder when listening to the news or reading the paper (any paper) whether everyday is now April the 1st.
Two recent news items only serve to help in this perception.
The first is a government minister who claims that despite continually rising energy prices, fed in part by taxes for renewable energy, our bills will be smaller in 2020. Who are they kidding?
This year alone most energy suppliers have had a series of price hikes, with the latest round being in the range of 10 to 20 percent. The minister supported the claim by suggesting our use of energy will fall more than enough to compensate for the increased unit costs.
Personally I cannot see how I can save 10 percent of my present energy use. I already have a well insulated home, switch electrical equipment off when not in use, have low energy light bulbs and even switch those off.
A wind turbine on the roof will be pointless and will likely never recoup it's purchase and installation costs, likewise the calculations I have done (and had from Solar Energy suppliers) indicate that that too will always run at a loss.
We need to see a return on our renewables tax in the form of cheaper, more effective renewable energy supplies otherwise there really is no point.
The second news item is even more unbelievable - the Isle of Wight is to become a self sufficient island and eco friendly.
This will be achieved by installing an army of wind turbines, acres of solar panels, geothermal energy plants. To supplement this there will be recycling on a massive scale, fleets of electric cars and doubtless houses will be insulated to the point where the inside space shrinks to nothing!
I have just looked at their brochure - it talks of plans for the period 2008 to 2010, so we should already have the EcoIsland we are promised, but somehow I doubt it.
If I were to visit the island again (having not been for over 15 years now) I suspect I would not notice any of the eco improvements - perhaps someone can prove me wrong. I believe that even the wind turbine factory has closed down, so any turbines would have to be manufactured elsewhere and imported with all the associated carbon footprint.
Two recent news items only serve to help in this perception.
The first is a government minister who claims that despite continually rising energy prices, fed in part by taxes for renewable energy, our bills will be smaller in 2020. Who are they kidding?
This year alone most energy suppliers have had a series of price hikes, with the latest round being in the range of 10 to 20 percent. The minister supported the claim by suggesting our use of energy will fall more than enough to compensate for the increased unit costs.
Personally I cannot see how I can save 10 percent of my present energy use. I already have a well insulated home, switch electrical equipment off when not in use, have low energy light bulbs and even switch those off.
A wind turbine on the roof will be pointless and will likely never recoup it's purchase and installation costs, likewise the calculations I have done (and had from Solar Energy suppliers) indicate that that too will always run at a loss.
We need to see a return on our renewables tax in the form of cheaper, more effective renewable energy supplies otherwise there really is no point.
The second news item is even more unbelievable - the Isle of Wight is to become a self sufficient island and eco friendly.
This will be achieved by installing an army of wind turbines, acres of solar panels, geothermal energy plants. To supplement this there will be recycling on a massive scale, fleets of electric cars and doubtless houses will be insulated to the point where the inside space shrinks to nothing!
I have just looked at their brochure - it talks of plans for the period 2008 to 2010, so we should already have the EcoIsland we are promised, but somehow I doubt it.
If I were to visit the island again (having not been for over 15 years now) I suspect I would not notice any of the eco improvements - perhaps someone can prove me wrong. I believe that even the wind turbine factory has closed down, so any turbines would have to be manufactured elsewhere and imported with all the associated carbon footprint.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Always Read the Small Print
A cautionary tale - in this case involving the solar energy industry but applicable to all contracts. It happened to a colleague of my wife recently.
It all started off innocently enough with a sales call from a firm offering to install solar PV on their house for free. Sounds a reasonable deal so they invited the company to send someone round to discuss the proposal and carry out the necessary survey.
There are two ways of installing solar PV to generate electricity:
Pay for an installation and it's ongoing maintenance yourself. This way you should benefit from reduced electricity bills (depending upon how much power you use when the sun is shining) and you get the government feed in tariff for the power you generate.
Alternatively, and this is the option here, a company installs the solar panels at their expense and also maintains them. This way you don't own the panels and basically you gain from reducing your electricity bill. To pay for the installation the company that installed the system gets the revenue from the government feed in tariff.
After the survey, the company announced that the roof was suitable and came back with a figure of how much the cost savings would be. They also reported that the roof might need strengthening to handle the weight of the panels and they would send a specialist around to investigate. My understanding is that this is quite common as roofs were only ever designed to be that - and not to bolt a considerable weight of solar panels on as well (remember this is above the tiles and not instead of).
This investigation showed that the roof would need strengthening at a cost of £4,000. The householder gave the go ahead and the work was carried out.
This is where the problems started. The company who had carried out the work on the roof presented the housholder with the bill. They had assumed that this was part of the 'free' installation so suggested the roofing firm sent the bill to the solar panel company, who to their surprise rejected it.
My wife's colleague has now drafted in legal help to go through the signed contract with the solar company to see if there is any clause stating they would pay ALL costs, not just the installation costs. They felt they were given to understand that 'free installation' covered all costs associated. In reality I think that 'free installation' just covers a standard PV installation without any associated work. They may even charge more if the existing electricity supply is difficult to connect into.
As yet they have not gone ahead with the solar PV installation whilst this dispute is under way. To rub salt in the wound the solar PV company have now come back and suggested their original savings figure may have been somewhat optimistic and actual benefits may be somewhat less!
The matter may well end up in legal proceedings so I will not name the company - I believe however that with many companies joining the 'gold rush' for solar PV installations this may well not be an isolated incident with just them anyway.
A final thought on this type of solar PV installation. You are signing up for twenty five years - if you wish to sell your house the new buyer must agree to the same terms, namely giving up their right to the feed in tariff income. This has probably not yet been tested in the housing market but it may be a disincentive to prospective buyers.
Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware. Always read the small print and take legal advice if you don't understand it. It may cost in the short term but the savings could be massive.
It all started off innocently enough with a sales call from a firm offering to install solar PV on their house for free. Sounds a reasonable deal so they invited the company to send someone round to discuss the proposal and carry out the necessary survey.
There are two ways of installing solar PV to generate electricity:
Pay for an installation and it's ongoing maintenance yourself. This way you should benefit from reduced electricity bills (depending upon how much power you use when the sun is shining) and you get the government feed in tariff for the power you generate.
Alternatively, and this is the option here, a company installs the solar panels at their expense and also maintains them. This way you don't own the panels and basically you gain from reducing your electricity bill. To pay for the installation the company that installed the system gets the revenue from the government feed in tariff.
After the survey, the company announced that the roof was suitable and came back with a figure of how much the cost savings would be. They also reported that the roof might need strengthening to handle the weight of the panels and they would send a specialist around to investigate. My understanding is that this is quite common as roofs were only ever designed to be that - and not to bolt a considerable weight of solar panels on as well (remember this is above the tiles and not instead of).
This investigation showed that the roof would need strengthening at a cost of £4,000. The householder gave the go ahead and the work was carried out.
This is where the problems started. The company who had carried out the work on the roof presented the housholder with the bill. They had assumed that this was part of the 'free' installation so suggested the roofing firm sent the bill to the solar panel company, who to their surprise rejected it.
My wife's colleague has now drafted in legal help to go through the signed contract with the solar company to see if there is any clause stating they would pay ALL costs, not just the installation costs. They felt they were given to understand that 'free installation' covered all costs associated. In reality I think that 'free installation' just covers a standard PV installation without any associated work. They may even charge more if the existing electricity supply is difficult to connect into.
As yet they have not gone ahead with the solar PV installation whilst this dispute is under way. To rub salt in the wound the solar PV company have now come back and suggested their original savings figure may have been somewhat optimistic and actual benefits may be somewhat less!
The matter may well end up in legal proceedings so I will not name the company - I believe however that with many companies joining the 'gold rush' for solar PV installations this may well not be an isolated incident with just them anyway.
A final thought on this type of solar PV installation. You are signing up for twenty five years - if you wish to sell your house the new buyer must agree to the same terms, namely giving up their right to the feed in tariff income. This has probably not yet been tested in the housing market but it may be a disincentive to prospective buyers.
Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware. Always read the small print and take legal advice if you don't understand it. It may cost in the short term but the savings could be massive.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Electric Cars (2)
Recent discussions in the news and a Top Gear item have prompted me to post again on the subjetc of electric cars.
Top Gear carried out a review of two electric cars at around about twenty five to twenty seven thousand pounds AFTER the government subsidy had been applied. These are not cheap cars then. The exact models are irrelevant as it seems these are representative of those presently coming on to the market.
The manufacturer of one of the cars claimed that before the test journey the cars were not fully charged and therefore this was not representative. I have to disagree in that you may well find yourself in a situation whereby the car is not fully recharged before a journey. With petrol, diesel and lpg cars you can handle this by fuelling quickly and easily en route.
Their next comment was that the cars were run down to ensure they ran out of charge in a place where there were no public charging points. Again fair as there are very few of these in the whole of the UK especially if you are outside of the major cities.
I don't doubt that Top Gear did emphasise the negative features, but there have been mamy longer term tests over a week or more which have come to the same conclusions. Top Gear is an entertainment programme with limited time. They made the key points about electric cars well I feel.
Supporters of the electric car have said that it is all being viewed wrongly. They suggest that the electric car is primarily a city car.
Sounds good so far as the daily mileage is likely to be low. All these city car owners will then need a second car to use on longer journeys or succumb to expensive and unreliable public transport.
More of a problem however is charging. As there are very few public charge points, even in London, then you can only realistically charge your car at home. Fine if you live in a property with a drive or better still a garage (to minimise jokers and vandals tampering with the charging cable). Many people who live in cities have neither of these, and whilst those in ground floor properties could try and run a cable across the pavement to their car (Health and Safety!!) what about those on upper floors?
Someone suggested that electric cars have replaceable battery packs so you can drive into a filling station and swap your flat battery for a fully charged one. There are two big problems here. Given the weight of these battery packs a fair amount of insfratructure will have to be installed to achieve this, and a reasonable stockpile of batteries to ensure there are always some fully charged. More importantly is the design of a common battery pack - manufacturers all have their own designs tailored to their car design - the chance of a common battery for all cars, fitted in a location where it can be changed in a reasonable timescale is somewhere close to none at all.
Electric cars have only one purpose in their existence - to allow wealthy 'eco friendly' people to make a public statement.
I cannot see them being a practical solution in my lifetime.
Top Gear carried out a review of two electric cars at around about twenty five to twenty seven thousand pounds AFTER the government subsidy had been applied. These are not cheap cars then. The exact models are irrelevant as it seems these are representative of those presently coming on to the market.
The manufacturer of one of the cars claimed that before the test journey the cars were not fully charged and therefore this was not representative. I have to disagree in that you may well find yourself in a situation whereby the car is not fully recharged before a journey. With petrol, diesel and lpg cars you can handle this by fuelling quickly and easily en route.
Their next comment was that the cars were run down to ensure they ran out of charge in a place where there were no public charging points. Again fair as there are very few of these in the whole of the UK especially if you are outside of the major cities.
I don't doubt that Top Gear did emphasise the negative features, but there have been mamy longer term tests over a week or more which have come to the same conclusions. Top Gear is an entertainment programme with limited time. They made the key points about electric cars well I feel.
Supporters of the electric car have said that it is all being viewed wrongly. They suggest that the electric car is primarily a city car.
Sounds good so far as the daily mileage is likely to be low. All these city car owners will then need a second car to use on longer journeys or succumb to expensive and unreliable public transport.
More of a problem however is charging. As there are very few public charge points, even in London, then you can only realistically charge your car at home. Fine if you live in a property with a drive or better still a garage (to minimise jokers and vandals tampering with the charging cable). Many people who live in cities have neither of these, and whilst those in ground floor properties could try and run a cable across the pavement to their car (Health and Safety!!) what about those on upper floors?
Someone suggested that electric cars have replaceable battery packs so you can drive into a filling station and swap your flat battery for a fully charged one. There are two big problems here. Given the weight of these battery packs a fair amount of insfratructure will have to be installed to achieve this, and a reasonable stockpile of batteries to ensure there are always some fully charged. More importantly is the design of a common battery pack - manufacturers all have their own designs tailored to their car design - the chance of a common battery for all cars, fitted in a location where it can be changed in a reasonable timescale is somewhere close to none at all.
Electric cars have only one purpose in their existence - to allow wealthy 'eco friendly' people to make a public statement.
I cannot see them being a practical solution in my lifetime.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Supermarket Green Trickery Part Two
Previously in this blog I have discussed how supermarkets use environmental claims to enhance their image whilst in fact what they are doing benefits the supermarket more than the environment and also gives them a nice image with prospective customers.
I have downloaded a policy document from one such supermarket and would like here to address a number of the points. Don't get me wrong, some of their actions do benefit others more than themselves, but these are mixed in with many that are far from altruistic.
I have written to various people within the organisation concerned but they typically respond either by re-stating the policy document or by claiming I don't understand it correctly (making no attempt to explain it!)
An amusing starting point however is their target of reducing CO2 emissions from business travel. So far they have INCREASED emissions by 33%!
There are a number of items related to energy production, the first of which suggests generating their own electricity from anaerobic digestion plants - they now find it won't work for them so are rewriting the objective - sounds like politicians to me. Secondly they talk about on site renewables to generate power - again too hard so the objective is to be revised.
Let's move on to transport, with a couple of interesting ones here. The first relates to increasing use of bio-diesel. This has been suspended as, surprise, the production of bio-diesel is not presently sustainable because of the destruction of rain forest or diversion of land from food production in order to grow the crops from which it is produced. The second is very interesting - converting delivery fleets to cleaner EURO IV and V standard engines by 2012. This is very easy to achieve as follows: All large transport fleets regularly replace their vehicles - typically a three or four year life. They will replace their vehicles with new ones from manufacturers. Legally new vehicles MUST comply with this legislation. Ergo the fleet will automatically be upgraded to these standards anyway.
Finally for now, a couple more amusing objectives:
The objective was to label all airfreighted food. This objective has been achieved. They proudly announce that sales have not been affected - hence no benefit to anyone or the environment - pointless.
A plan has been stated to install electric charging points at stores to enable people to use so called 'environmentally friendly' electric cars. They have over seven hundred stores in the UK so how many will get charging points? Five. Again pointless, but at least when they find that no one uses them there will have been little impact on the environment installing them.
More posts on this topic to come, if I can't get the company themselves to listen to me perhaps a larger audience looking at these claims can have more impact.
Which company? If you hadn't yet guessed, they claim there is no Plan B and all the documents from which I have derived their claims are freely available from their website.
I have downloaded a policy document from one such supermarket and would like here to address a number of the points. Don't get me wrong, some of their actions do benefit others more than themselves, but these are mixed in with many that are far from altruistic.
I have written to various people within the organisation concerned but they typically respond either by re-stating the policy document or by claiming I don't understand it correctly (making no attempt to explain it!)
An amusing starting point however is their target of reducing CO2 emissions from business travel. So far they have INCREASED emissions by 33%!
There are a number of items related to energy production, the first of which suggests generating their own electricity from anaerobic digestion plants - they now find it won't work for them so are rewriting the objective - sounds like politicians to me. Secondly they talk about on site renewables to generate power - again too hard so the objective is to be revised.
Let's move on to transport, with a couple of interesting ones here. The first relates to increasing use of bio-diesel. This has been suspended as, surprise, the production of bio-diesel is not presently sustainable because of the destruction of rain forest or diversion of land from food production in order to grow the crops from which it is produced. The second is very interesting - converting delivery fleets to cleaner EURO IV and V standard engines by 2012. This is very easy to achieve as follows: All large transport fleets regularly replace their vehicles - typically a three or four year life. They will replace their vehicles with new ones from manufacturers. Legally new vehicles MUST comply with this legislation. Ergo the fleet will automatically be upgraded to these standards anyway.
Finally for now, a couple more amusing objectives:
The objective was to label all airfreighted food. This objective has been achieved. They proudly announce that sales have not been affected - hence no benefit to anyone or the environment - pointless.
A plan has been stated to install electric charging points at stores to enable people to use so called 'environmentally friendly' electric cars. They have over seven hundred stores in the UK so how many will get charging points? Five. Again pointless, but at least when they find that no one uses them there will have been little impact on the environment installing them.
More posts on this topic to come, if I can't get the company themselves to listen to me perhaps a larger audience looking at these claims can have more impact.
Which company? If you hadn't yet guessed, they claim there is no Plan B and all the documents from which I have derived their claims are freely available from their website.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
HS2 - My View
There has been a lot of talk about the new high speed rail link (HS2) and whether it offers a benefit or not.
It also seems there are contradictory views in the environmental camp. In theory HS2 has the capability to reduce air travel within the UK. This reduces the need to expand airports and cuts the CO2 emissions and noise from the flights that are either cut or extra flights that are no longer needed. On this basis you would expect the evironmentalists to be positively encouraging HS2. But no, they don't want this solution. It isn't clear what they want unless we are all to stop travelling but at the moment the broadband infrastructure is still inadequate as a replacement for face to face meetings and is never likely to replace conferences and business exhibitions.
What is the answer? The existing rail network is already creaking at the seams so there is very little scope for adding more trains. Speaking as someone who has had to stand on a number of reasonably long journeys in dangerously overcrowded trains I feel we must do something if we are not to force people in to their cars (again much hated by environmentalists).
Based on this we should go ahead and build HS2, making sure it covers enough of the country to provide benefit which means it must ultimately go to Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and other such key centres.
From an environmental impact point of view in many areas it is being built into tunnels and cuttings so reducing noise and visual disturbance. Maybe more of the route has to be built in this way but that depends on where it is passing.
Given the recent furore about Bombardier surely there must be good reason for going ahead - jobs could be saved and created. Not only jobs directly related to building the trains, but also construction jobs for the track and infrastructure and jobs at the new stations, drivers, maintenance staff and so on.
Of course a number of people in the south have complained about the line. An interesting solution was provided for this, put a station near them - improved links to London will send their house prices rocketting and they will suddenly change their minds.
We live in the 21st century and increasing population and work diversity means we must travel. Let us not be rated the poor relative to Europe when it comes to transport systems.
It also seems there are contradictory views in the environmental camp. In theory HS2 has the capability to reduce air travel within the UK. This reduces the need to expand airports and cuts the CO2 emissions and noise from the flights that are either cut or extra flights that are no longer needed. On this basis you would expect the evironmentalists to be positively encouraging HS2. But no, they don't want this solution. It isn't clear what they want unless we are all to stop travelling but at the moment the broadband infrastructure is still inadequate as a replacement for face to face meetings and is never likely to replace conferences and business exhibitions.
What is the answer? The existing rail network is already creaking at the seams so there is very little scope for adding more trains. Speaking as someone who has had to stand on a number of reasonably long journeys in dangerously overcrowded trains I feel we must do something if we are not to force people in to their cars (again much hated by environmentalists).
Based on this we should go ahead and build HS2, making sure it covers enough of the country to provide benefit which means it must ultimately go to Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and other such key centres.
From an environmental impact point of view in many areas it is being built into tunnels and cuttings so reducing noise and visual disturbance. Maybe more of the route has to be built in this way but that depends on where it is passing.
Given the recent furore about Bombardier surely there must be good reason for going ahead - jobs could be saved and created. Not only jobs directly related to building the trains, but also construction jobs for the track and infrastructure and jobs at the new stations, drivers, maintenance staff and so on.
Of course a number of people in the south have complained about the line. An interesting solution was provided for this, put a station near them - improved links to London will send their house prices rocketting and they will suddenly change their minds.
We live in the 21st century and increasing population and work diversity means we must travel. Let us not be rated the poor relative to Europe when it comes to transport systems.
Green Energy Misinformation
I have just received yet another card through my door telling me how I can get free electricity and make money from solar power.
As with many of the other ones, this has Government written in large bold font to try and distract you from the fact that this is simply an installer of solar power systems who is trying to get your custom.
All the claims sound so wonderful, free energy, get paid for the energy you produce and so on. These claims are based on facts, but in some cases very loosely!
Let us start off with the free electricity and massive reductions in your electricity bill. The main problem with this is our lifestyles - we use much of our power at night when the sun isn't shining. This is due in part to the fact that many people are out of the house during the day and so the home is using little power unless you set timers on wasjing machines and tumble driers to run when the sun is at is strongest. Of course the other issue is that at night we have lights on, precisely because the sun isn't shining.
This means that your electricity bill won't reduce as much as may be claimed. There are systems which can store the power generated for use later but they are significantly more expensive and they are not the prices used when trying to sell the system to you.
Now let us look at the amount of power you will generate. Typical advertising assumes you have a south facing roof at the optimal angle and not shaded by anything else such as trees. Many people don't have this and when the actual facts are in place then the output falls. You also need to factor in the typical weather in your location - the figures given are often maximums assuming full sun, and not cloudy days like today. Finally, there are issues like contamination. Dirty cells can apparently reduce the power output by as much as ten percent. How many people would clean their roof? Many don't event do the gutters.
How about installation costs? The price quoted is likely to be for an optimal installation. When they survey your house you may get the odd added extra - access is difficult so it will cost more, or the roof will need strengthening to take the weight (remember your housebuilder will have taken standard design loads such as wind, snow, roof tile weight into consideration but not the extra load of the solar collector). Perhaps they will also say that the access to your existing electricity supply is awkward so they will charge extra.
So we have a sytem that costs more than the examples, generates less electricity than the examples and relies on a government guarantee on feed in tariffs to provide the returns suggested.
So often a rate of return is quoted which exceeds keeping the money in your bank account. If you wanted to grow money you would not leave it in a plain old bank account, you would invest. Potentially you could earn a much higher return than leaving it in the bank and still keep your money safe. Furthermore, depending upon the investment chosen you could access money if the need arose, not easy to do if it is all on the roof!
I have used the figures from the supplier whose card I have just received and they tell me that the installation will have a payback period in the region of 21 years based on average installtion costs and maximum returns. Assume the returns are less than promised for the reasons given above and the installation costs more than average and you can see my worry.
Over time it will reduce my carbon footprint, but the footprint of the initial manufacture and installation is likely to mean it could be several years before even that breaks event.
Just like wind power, this is not the answer for this country.
As with many of the other ones, this has Government written in large bold font to try and distract you from the fact that this is simply an installer of solar power systems who is trying to get your custom.
All the claims sound so wonderful, free energy, get paid for the energy you produce and so on. These claims are based on facts, but in some cases very loosely!
Let us start off with the free electricity and massive reductions in your electricity bill. The main problem with this is our lifestyles - we use much of our power at night when the sun isn't shining. This is due in part to the fact that many people are out of the house during the day and so the home is using little power unless you set timers on wasjing machines and tumble driers to run when the sun is at is strongest. Of course the other issue is that at night we have lights on, precisely because the sun isn't shining.
This means that your electricity bill won't reduce as much as may be claimed. There are systems which can store the power generated for use later but they are significantly more expensive and they are not the prices used when trying to sell the system to you.
Now let us look at the amount of power you will generate. Typical advertising assumes you have a south facing roof at the optimal angle and not shaded by anything else such as trees. Many people don't have this and when the actual facts are in place then the output falls. You also need to factor in the typical weather in your location - the figures given are often maximums assuming full sun, and not cloudy days like today. Finally, there are issues like contamination. Dirty cells can apparently reduce the power output by as much as ten percent. How many people would clean their roof? Many don't event do the gutters.
How about installation costs? The price quoted is likely to be for an optimal installation. When they survey your house you may get the odd added extra - access is difficult so it will cost more, or the roof will need strengthening to take the weight (remember your housebuilder will have taken standard design loads such as wind, snow, roof tile weight into consideration but not the extra load of the solar collector). Perhaps they will also say that the access to your existing electricity supply is awkward so they will charge extra.
So we have a sytem that costs more than the examples, generates less electricity than the examples and relies on a government guarantee on feed in tariffs to provide the returns suggested.
So often a rate of return is quoted which exceeds keeping the money in your bank account. If you wanted to grow money you would not leave it in a plain old bank account, you would invest. Potentially you could earn a much higher return than leaving it in the bank and still keep your money safe. Furthermore, depending upon the investment chosen you could access money if the need arose, not easy to do if it is all on the roof!
I have used the figures from the supplier whose card I have just received and they tell me that the installation will have a payback period in the region of 21 years based on average installtion costs and maximum returns. Assume the returns are less than promised for the reasons given above and the installation costs more than average and you can see my worry.
Over time it will reduce my carbon footprint, but the footprint of the initial manufacture and installation is likely to mean it could be several years before even that breaks event.
Just like wind power, this is not the answer for this country.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Wind Power Mythology
We hear an awful lot these days about how wind turbines will be our answer to climate change by generating clean energy.
To this end, such a turbine has been installed in a local country park with the intention of reducing energy consumption, carbon footprint and cost.
To this end, such a turbine has been installed in a local country park with the intention of reducing energy consumption, carbon footprint and cost.
Shipley Country Park Turbine
All very well but this installation is nowhere near generating the amount of power that was promised or indeed required from it. The council have thoughtfully provided a display in the visitor centre of how much power has been produced since it was first turned on and also daily figures.
Since it was installed, the energy generated is only about 25% more than my household consumption over the same period. This is from a turbine that has a total height of 19.5 metres and a rotor diameter of 9 metres.
I probably do not use much energy, despite this computer. If you were to look at the electricity bills for my neighbours who have children, with the associated games consoles, multiple computers etc. I am sure you will see that the turbine only provides enough power for one household.
Should we have a wind turbine each down our street? I think everyone will acknowledge that is ridiculous. What is more it makes a mockery of the small turbines that people look to install on their houses to 'be green'.
Certainly larger installations are likely to be more efficient, and can be placed in locations where there is more wind (though that has the requirement for cabling to bring the power to the national grid) but the underlying problems are the same.
Wind is not consistent and does not always blow within the windspeed range required for turbines - too fast or too slow and no power can be generated.
No viable storage solutions have been demonstrated for large scale use to make power available when the wind isn't blowing.
The area of the country or close off shore required to build all these farms is significant and has an impact both upon the appearance of the environment and the effect on people.
The bottom line is that at present wind power is not viable.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Climate change through time
Having just experienced a very heavy downpour towards the end of June, I think it is time to talk about climate change. Once called global warming until that became old hat, we are now told that the climate is changing and it is all our fault.
First we must overcome the religious apologists who believe that as the Earth is no more than about 10,000 years old the evidence which follows cannot be true.
The problem we have is that climate change can be treated like all statistics. Choose your sample carefully so that it demonstrates your point. This link https://www.planetseed.com/node/15221 however shows both change over a short period and change over a longer period (425,000 years). Looking over the longer period it would seem that climate change is natural, and whilst we humans may have some influence on it, it will be interesting to try and work out what proportion is down to our activities.
More evidence is also available from research further afield. Scientists have found evidence of planetary warming on Mars - no 4x4 vehicles there, or power stations or any of the other 'culprits' for causing climate change.
Recent reports suggest that we may even pause the rise in temperatures currently being claimed. This is because sunspot activity is less than we would expect from the cycles we are familiar with. Surely the climate change activists cannot blame that on mankind!
Our government has signed us up to a massive reduction in CO2 emissions over the next few years. There is no viable plan as to how this will be achieved. My recent research into local wind turbines shows that benefits are massively overstated, not to mention the fact that we cannot store the power generated in windy periods for use when it is calm. Wave and tidal power systems appear to be coming along well but still have a long way to go. The use of solar water heating and PV cells is best implemented at household level but having looked at the costs of PV, I think I will be dead before I can recoup my initial investment never mind any maintenance costs.
Nuclear power is at present a sensitive subject given the events in Japan earlier this year. The problem we have here however is that our existing capacity is reaching the end of it's life and no replacement stations are under development - therefore we are likely to have a gap to fill somehow even if new nuclear stations are given the go ahead.
Maybe I should approach the government for a research grant. I can develop pedal powered generators to allow all households to generate electricity whilst sitting at home. If they generate enough they can watch the TV whilst pedalling or use a computer to read my blog!
First we must overcome the religious apologists who believe that as the Earth is no more than about 10,000 years old the evidence which follows cannot be true.
The problem we have is that climate change can be treated like all statistics. Choose your sample carefully so that it demonstrates your point. This link https://www.planetseed.com/node/15221 however shows both change over a short period and change over a longer period (425,000 years). Looking over the longer period it would seem that climate change is natural, and whilst we humans may have some influence on it, it will be interesting to try and work out what proportion is down to our activities.
More evidence is also available from research further afield. Scientists have found evidence of planetary warming on Mars - no 4x4 vehicles there, or power stations or any of the other 'culprits' for causing climate change.
Recent reports suggest that we may even pause the rise in temperatures currently being claimed. This is because sunspot activity is less than we would expect from the cycles we are familiar with. Surely the climate change activists cannot blame that on mankind!
Our government has signed us up to a massive reduction in CO2 emissions over the next few years. There is no viable plan as to how this will be achieved. My recent research into local wind turbines shows that benefits are massively overstated, not to mention the fact that we cannot store the power generated in windy periods for use when it is calm. Wave and tidal power systems appear to be coming along well but still have a long way to go. The use of solar water heating and PV cells is best implemented at household level but having looked at the costs of PV, I think I will be dead before I can recoup my initial investment never mind any maintenance costs.
Nuclear power is at present a sensitive subject given the events in Japan earlier this year. The problem we have here however is that our existing capacity is reaching the end of it's life and no replacement stations are under development - therefore we are likely to have a gap to fill somehow even if new nuclear stations are given the go ahead.
Maybe I should approach the government for a research grant. I can develop pedal powered generators to allow all households to generate electricity whilst sitting at home. If they generate enough they can watch the TV whilst pedalling or use a computer to read my blog!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)