Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ The cost of going Green - is it worth it?
Posted by: spartacus Jul 30 2009, 08:09 PM
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......
Posted by: Strafin Jul 30 2009, 09:00 PM
And where's global warning anyway? Of course now it's looking bleak again it will be called "climate change" again!
Posted by: Torchy Jul 30 2009, 09:57 PM
If you want to take a factual rather than emotional look at sustainable energy, take a look at
http://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...
Posted by: JeffG Jul 30 2009, 10:37 PM
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.
Posted by: Iommi Jul 31 2009, 07:22 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.
Posted by: J C Jul 31 2009, 08:55 AM
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!
Posted by: dannyboy Jul 31 2009, 09:29 AM
Try using GU10s, they are like lemmings.
I had a toaster catch fire once.
Posted by: lordtup Jul 31 2009, 07:52 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.
Posted by: dannyboy Jul 31 2009, 08:11 PM
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/jul/23/solarpower.windpower
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/06/22/half-a-trillion-dollars-to-build-huge-desertec-plan/comment-page-1/
only downside is the possibility of another Suez Crisis...............
Posted by: lordtup Aug 1 2009, 05:50 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower.windpower
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/06/22/half-a-trillion-dollars-to-build-huge-desertec-plan/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.
Posted by: Blake Aug 4 2009, 03:09 PM
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.
Posted by: Iommi Aug 4 2009, 03:21 PM
Man-made Climate Change is not a fact, Climate Change is.
Posted by: Strafin Aug 4 2009, 04:14 PM
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.
Posted by: Blake Aug 4 2009, 09:52 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.
Posted by: GMR Aug 4 2009, 10:18 PM
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.
Posted by: Iommi Aug 4 2009, 10:33 PM
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.
Posted by: Andy Aug 4 2009, 11:57 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.
Posted by: Newbury Expat Aug 5 2009, 12:11 AM
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
.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.
Posted by: Iommi Aug 5 2009, 12:27 AM
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.
Posted by: Strafin Aug 5 2009, 08:52 AM
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.
Posted by: JeffG Aug 5 2009, 08:53 AM
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.
Posted by: GMR Aug 5 2009, 09:19 AM
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.
Posted by: Iommi Aug 5 2009, 09:21 AM
Economically, it might.
Posted by: GMR Aug 5 2009, 09:31 AM
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.
Posted by: dannyboy Aug 5 2009, 10:10 AM
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
Posted by: dannyboy Aug 5 2009, 10:10 AM
no, it would not
Posted by: Iommi Aug 5 2009, 10:54 AM
That's why I said might!
I very much doubt you are qualified to make that statement with authority. Besides, I said might.
Posted by: GMR Aug 5 2009, 10:58 AM
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?
Posted by: Strafin Aug 5 2009, 12:21 PM
Think about all the scientists, quangos, ministers and universities making a fortune from taxpayers out of all this.
Posted by: Iommi Aug 5 2009, 12:24 PM
That cuts both ways. 20/30 years ago well respecting scientists were predicting a new ice age.
Posted by: Strafin Aug 5 2009, 12:31 PM
That didn't happen, so how much was spent on the research and preparations? It's the same thing that's happening now.
Posted by: GMR Aug 5 2009, 02:27 PM
That proves somebody’s point
Posted by: dannyboy Aug 9 2009, 12:33 PM
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.
Posted by: GMR Aug 9 2009, 02:20 PM
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.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)