Think-tank the New Local Government Network has called for additional incentives to be given to householders to install renewable energy equipment, over and above those which government minister Ruth Kelly is consulting over.
Joe, you're shielded from the wind by the Pennines! Believe me, there are parts of the country where even domestic turbines would produce useful power. Because they can supply power where it is wanted, there is little transmission loss, which is the case with wind-farms connected to the national grid.
Also, the cost of solar panels is coming down - the pay-back time is down below 20 years, I believe.
I agree with you about direct solar heating of water, but surely after that - and optimum insulation - has been paid for, there is scope for additional incentives.
Yes, I agree rooftop turbines deliver in some location - which is why I said most. Go to the Centre for Alternative Technology site for more details.
The question to ask is which support or subsidies give most bang for the buck. A policy of feed-in tariffs can be agnostic between different renewables - so if PV works in some places, or if some people want to buy it before it is cost-effective, they can do so.
Transmission losses from the grid are only a few percent, and a grid is needed to transport power from where the wind is blowing to where it isn't - so I don't see much point in considering bypassing the grid to be a virtue. Larger turbines may be more capital-efficient, even considering transmission losses. Feed-in tariffs, again, don't need to prejudge the issue.
Joe, I was hoping to find figures to rebut your posting, but haven't found authoritative figures for transmission losses yet.
I have seen assessments varying between 7% (which favours your case) and 35% (where I certainly would not concede). It is not clear whether any were averages, or per length of cable.
A loss of around 65% is often quoted, but that includes the inefficiency of the process of burning fuel to raise steam and run a turbine. if 65% is lost, then only 35% is used - could that be the source of the other figure?
Posts
5 comments:
Rooftop turbines don't deliver in most locations. Solar hot water is good. Solar electricity is not cost-effective.
Let's have more incentives, but only for stuff that works well.
Joe, you're shielded from the wind by the Pennines! Believe me, there are parts of the country where even domestic turbines would produce useful power. Because they can supply power where it is wanted, there is little transmission loss, which is the case with wind-farms connected to the national grid.
Also, the cost of solar panels is coming down - the pay-back time is down below 20 years, I believe.
I agree with you about direct solar heating of water, but surely after that - and optimum insulation - has been paid for, there is scope for additional incentives.
I refer you to Donnachadh McCarthy's web pages.
- Frank Little
Yes, I agree rooftop turbines deliver in some location - which is why I said most. Go to the Centre for Alternative Technology site for more details.
The question to ask is which support or subsidies give most bang for the buck. A policy of feed-in tariffs can be agnostic between different renewables - so if PV works in some places, or if some people want to buy it before it is cost-effective, they can do so.
Transmission losses from the grid are only a few percent, and a grid is needed to transport power from where the wind is blowing to where it isn't - so I don't see much point in considering bypassing the grid to be a virtue. Larger turbines may be more capital-efficient, even considering transmission losses. Feed-in tariffs, again, don't need to prejudge the issue.
Joe, I was hoping to find figures to rebut your posting, but haven't found authoritative figures for transmission losses yet.
I have seen assessments varying between 7% (which favours your case) and 35% (where I certainly would not concede). It is not clear whether any were averages, or per length of cable.
Clearly, more research is needed.
- Frank Little
The 7% figure is the one that comes to my mind.
A loss of around 65% is often quoted, but that includes the inefficiency of the process of burning fuel to raise steam and run a turbine. if 65% is lost, then only 35% is used - could that be the source of the other figure?
Post a Comment