The cost of going Green - is it worth it? Options

[spartacus]

June 2007
Newbury Town Council announce the switching on of 26 solar panels in an effort to Go Green. At a not-insignificant cost of £28,000 it is anticipated that the panels will help pay for themselves by selling electricity back to the national grid.
http://www.newbury.gov.uk/solarpanelswitchon.htm

(Wind forward to July 2009)
To date the panels have earned the princely sum of £70 annually by selling back to the National Grid.
They HAVE apparently saved approx £620 in energy bills (surely this is difficult to quantify because other measures such as low energy bulbs and other initiatives would have been brought in too don't you think?)

Based on the report in the NWN, NTC is looking at a pay back period of 17 years....
(given the sort of summer we've been having the solar energy repayment may take 27 years...)

Chances of the panels lasting 17 years without need for replacement? (Zilch)
Chances of the panels being declared obsolete, in need of 'upgrade' or a major (and costly) overhaul within the next 5 years? (High)

It's all about 'saving the planet' I know, but while it's still so expensive then as far as the common man is concerned it's just token gestures made by local govt... And I'd question whether this has been a wise use of tax-payers funds in truth....


Anyway, pass me that 100W bulb would you......

[JeffG]

In fact as I look out of my window I can see a browny layer of smog towards LA that surely can't be helping anyone.

Not much has changed then. Many years ago I drove from San Diego to Los Angeles via the mountains (I wanted to visit the Mt Palomar telescopes), and on the home run driving down the Pomona Freeway, which is pretty much dead straight, there on the horizon 50 miles ahead was a dark cloud showing where LA was. Blue skies everwhere else.

[GMR]

I would much rather act on reducing the effects of climate change now, whether man made or not (which I believe they probably are because as a species we manage to pollute the planet in an immeasurable number of ways every single day and that must have an effect), than gamble on Strafin's "What a load of bollocks" attitude which could lead to possible planetary extinction of many life forms including our own.

If he's right, it doen't matter, if he's wrong it most certainly does.

I think you do make a good point here. Reducing the effects of climate change wouldn’t hurt; whether it actually causes damage or not.

As I said I’ve read both sides of he argument and they both make good points.

[Iommi]

I think you do make a good point here. Reducing the effects of climate change wouldn’t hurt; whether it actually causes damage or not.

Economically, it might.

[GMR]

Economically, it might.

Not in the long run it wouldn’t. That is the trouble with governments; they are more interested in staying in power, than making plans for the future.

[dannyboy]

I am not an expert on this subject; both sides can produce expert scientists to say they are right. I’ve watched excellent programmes that say one thing so I am ready to join the revolution, and then another excellent programme gives the opposing views. Even emanate people like Nigel Lawson (and others) have written articles to say that man made climate change is bunkum.

What or who gives you the authority to say you are right? Stafin could be right, then again he could be wrong.

If scientists can’t agree amongst themselves then your criticism of Strafin was a bit unfair.

Ahh, the media. You forget that all media has an agenda. Far better to make your own mind up.
Whilst climate change is not man made, the rate of climate change is

[dannyboy]

Economically, it might.

no, it would not

[Iommi]

Not in the long run it wouldn’t. That is the trouble with governments; they are more interested in staying in power, than making plans for the future.

That's why I said might!

no, it would not

I very much doubt you are qualified to make that statement with authority. Besides, I said might.

[GMR]

Ahh, the media. You forget that all media has an agenda. Far better to make your own mind up.
Whilst climate change is not man made, the rate of climate change is

That maybe true, but we are not talking abut media here but what other well respecting scientists say on the subject.


Who are you following? The media?

[Strafin]

Think about all the scientists, quangos, ministers and universities making a fortune from taxpayers out of all this.

[Iommi]

That maybe true, but we are not talking abut media here but what other well respecting scientists say on the subject.

That cuts both ways. 20/30 years ago well respecting scientists were predicting a new ice age.

[Strafin]

That didn't happen, so how much was spent on the research and preparations? It's the same thing that's happening now.

[GMR]

That cuts both ways. 20/30 years ago well respecting scientists were predicting a new ice age.

That proves somebody’s point

[dannyboy]

That maybe true, but we are not talking abut media here but what other well respecting scientists say on the subject.


Who are you following? The media?

Unless you actually read the papers ( by which I mean the scientific papers & not newspapers ) written by the 'well respecting scientists' that you are following the media.
Newspapers print stories that -
1) sell papers
2) reflect the political stance of the paper's owner
3) fulfill any agenda the editor / owners might have
4) fit with advertisers political agendas

they do not print stories for the edification of the readers.

[GMR]

Unless you actually read the papers ( by which I mean the scientific papers & not newspapers ) written by the 'well respecting scientists' that you are following the media.
Newspapers print stories that -
1) sell papers
2) reflect the political stance of the paper's owner
3) fulfill any agenda the editor / owners might have
4) fit with advertisers political agendas

they do not print stories for the edification of the readers.

I think you missed what I said; I listen to what scientists say, not the media. People in the know. I am not an expert and I certainly wouldn't turn to somebody who isn't in the profession; i.e. scientist in that particular field. Scientists give out conflicting reports.