IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The cost of going Green - is it worth it?
spartacus
post Jul 30 2009, 08:09 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,807
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



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......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Jul 30 2009, 09:00 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,921
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



And where's global warning anyway? Of course now it's looking bleak again it will be called "climate change" again!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Torchy
post Jul 30 2009, 09:57 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 23-July 09
Member No.: 218



If you want to take a factual rather than emotional look at sustainable energy, take a look at

www.withouthotair.com

Written by David MacKay, a Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Cambridge, it actually crunches the energy numbers.

BTW, I once tried 'low energy' bulbs - one developed an internal fault, overheated and melted the lampholder. I'm not at all convinced of their safety. Never seen that happen with a traditional bulb...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Jul 30 2009, 10:37 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



QUOTE (Torchy @ Jul 30 2009, 10:57 PM) *
BTW, I once tried 'low energy' bulbs - one developed an internal fault, overheated and melted the lampholder. I'm not at all convinced of their safety. Never seen that happen with a traditional bulb...

You were unlucky then. Apart from one or two rarely-used ones, all the lights in my house have been low energy for a long time without a single problem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jul 31 2009, 07:22 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



I have found CFLs to be slow to illuminate - and I use branded ones also. They have blown-up on me as well - which ain't good. They last a bit longer, but I still get bulbs blow early.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
J C
post Jul 31 2009, 08:55 AM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 30



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jul 31 2009, 08:22 AM) *
I have found CFLs to be slow to illuminate - and I use branded ones also. They have blown-up on me as well - which ain't good. They last a bit longer, but I still get bulbs blow early.


When I moved into my home 5 years ago the previous owners had put a low energy bulb into the bathroom and it is still going strong today!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jul 31 2009, 09:29 AM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jul 31 2009, 08:22 AM) *
I have found CFLs to be slow to illuminate - and I use branded ones also. They have blown-up on me as well - which ain't good. They last a bit longer, but I still get bulbs blow early.


Try using GU10s, they are like lemmings.

I had a toaster catch fire once.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lordtup
post Jul 31 2009, 07:52 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 552
Joined: 27-June 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 164



It has to be said that if the European Union was serious about alternative energy it would have built a bank of solar panels across the whole of the Sahara Desert.This would have supplied all of Northern Europe's energy needs for as long as the sun shines at nominal outlay.
But like all things radical, it requires the political expediency to succeed,and unfortunately we don't have leaders with vision.


--------------------
Rem tene verba sequentur
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jul 31 2009, 08:11 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (lordtup @ Jul 31 2009, 08:52 PM) *
It has to be said that if the European Union was serious about alternative energy it would have built a bank of solar panels across the whole of the Sahara Desert.This would have supplied all of Northern Europe's energy needs for as long as the sun shines at nominal outlay.
But like all things radical, it requires the political expediency to succeed,and unfortunately we don't have leaders with vision.

you mean -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...power.windpower

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/06/22/half-a...comment-page-1/

only downside is the possibility of another Suez Crisis...............
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lordtup
post Aug 1 2009, 05:50 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 552
Joined: 27-June 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 164



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jul 31 2009, 09:11 PM) *
you mean -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...power.windpower

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/06/22/half-a...comment-page-1/

only downside is the possibility of another Suez Crisis...............

You will never please the locals,so we will give them somewhere else to live.........
Bradford.


--------------------
Rem tene verba sequentur
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blake
post Aug 4 2009, 03:09 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 507
Joined: 19-May 09
Member No.: 75



Climate change is a hard scientific fact. The Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has peer reviewed research into the crisis.

It is certainly worth doing our utmost to defeat climate change. If we do not, it will destroy life as we know it.

We need lots of wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear power, ground source heat pumps, air source heat pumps and far greater energy efficiency to stop this nightmare. We also need to have far small populations so that the earth can recover.

I cannot understand why some choose to bury their heads in the sand on climate change. It may just be because it is an inconvenient truth and will requires us all to change.

I wholeheartedly recommend reading Heat; How to Stop the World from Burning by the journalist George Monbiot. West Berks Library has a copy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Aug 4 2009, 03:21 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



Man-made Climate Change is not a fact, Climate Change is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Aug 4 2009, 04:14 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,921
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



QUOTE (Blake @ Aug 4 2009, 04:09 PM) *
Climate change is a hard scientific fact. No it isn't, it's a theory that has been dicredited by many The Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has peer reviewed research into the crisis. Crisis? calm down!

It is certainly worth doing our utmost to defeat climate change. If it exists If we do not, it will destroy life as we know it. So it's going to destroy all life in the next 60 years is it? Most of "us" will be long gone by then anyway

We need lots of wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear power, ground source heat pumps, air source heat pumps and far greater energy efficiency to stop this nightmare. We also need to have far small populations so that the earth can recover. Far small populations??

I cannot understand why some choose to bury their heads in the sand on climate change. I can't believe how many hippy drippy idiots can't see the truthIt may just be because it is an inconvenient truth and will requires us all to change. Or just a big old myth

I wholeheartedly recommend reading Heat; How to Stop the World from Burning by the journalist George Monbiot. West Berks Library has a copy.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blake
post Aug 4 2009, 09:52 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 507
Joined: 19-May 09
Member No.: 75



Strafin, you are proof of the observation. You choose to pour cold water on science fact and call those who accept it as "hippies".

I am not a hippy. Man made climate change is too far too risky to be debated by cynics and then dismissed as lies. IT IS HARD SCIENTIFIC FACT! Period.

It is time to stop foot dragging. We need to fight a war on climate change and its causes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Aug 4 2009, 10:18 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Blake @ Aug 4 2009, 10:52 PM) *
Strafin, you are proof of the observation. You choose to pour cold water on science fact and call those who accept it as "hippies".

I am not a hippy. Man made climate change is too far too risky to be debated by cynics and then dismissed as lies. IT IS HARD SCIENTIFIC FACT! Period.

It is time to stop foot dragging. We need to fight a war on climate change and its causes.



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Aug 4 2009, 10:33 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Blake @ Aug 4 2009, 10:52 PM) *
Strafin, you are proof of the observation. You choose to pour cold water on science fact and call those who accept it as "hippies". I am not a hippy. Man made climate change is too far too risky to be debated by cynics and then dismissed as lies. IT IS HARD SCIENTIFIC FACT! Period. It is time to stop foot dragging. We need to fight a war on climate change and its causes.

Many of us have heard so many scientific scare stories that turn out to be false, we start to treat all of it as baloney. Climate Change is a fact. Always was a fact and always will be a fact. It's something the world does.

Regardless of whether ACC is real, I think it is important that we seek alternative energy sources, preferably, renewable. I don't think things like windmills are the answer, we need something much more substantial.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy
post Aug 4 2009, 11:57 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 318
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 26



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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Newbury Expat_*
post Aug 5 2009, 12:11 AM
Post #18





Guests






QUOTE (Andy @ Aug 4 2009, 04:57 PM) *
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.


Agreed Andy. I don't know 100% for certain one way or the other - facts have been presented on both side by people way smarter than me, and dare I say it smarter than Glenn too laugh.gif .

The world goes through natural heating and cooling cycles. Eventually we'll hit another ice age without our intervention. Whether we are accelerating this is not something I can intelligently comment on.

However, I do feel we are pumping all kinds of rubbish into the atmosphere and whether it causes climate change or not, surely it's sensible to address this. 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. My motivation though isn't climate change, it's air purity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Aug 5 2009, 12:27 AM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



I'm cynical because, as far as I can tell, the changes we would have to make, to make a difference, are so large, I don't think we can achieve it. We'll have to half our enthusiasm for flight for starters and cut way down on electronic goods. I also think there are too many of us on this planet and I don't think CC is our biggest problem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Aug 5 2009, 08:52 AM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,921
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



Blake - let's have your proof then! And I mean proof not references to someones opinion piece in the liberal media. Everybody else, you have a point, there is of course natural climate change as there has been for thousands and thousands of years, which I don't believe is really a problem. The sun is going to burn out anyway right at some point if the scientists are to be believed? So civilisation as we know it is doomed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd September 2019 - 06:13 AM