Kitchen Garden Forum

Someone from the National Trust seemed to be using the same argument (ugly pylons) against windfarms on Question Time a few weeks ago, but as DiG says, it does apply to any generation technology.

I have to say, I have come to accept pylons as part of the landscape, but the sight of
the Trawsfynydd magnox reactors in Snowdonia took me aback. Whoever gave permission for that to be built there ?

Putting cables underground is not the simple option you might think. The reason the cables are on such big pylons to start with is to reduce the leakage through capacitive coupling to ground, not just for insulation. You could easily increase the transmission losses several times.

I actually find modern wind turbines quite attractive and enhance the landscape - even the 'unspoilt' - in moderation. However, the facts about wind power are that as a economic and sensible source of energy it is not a viable option for all the many reasons that have been given here and elsewhere - wind doesn't blow during winter time high pressure requiring enormous backup, in the wrong place requiring new infrastructure, etc., etc. Then there is the issue of the enormous subsidies that the companies are being offered - at the taxpayers expense. Mind you, the same can be said about the small scale Solar PV installations. Am currently wondering whether it is morally justifiable to cash in on that at others expense!

Thorium reactors are theoretically a good idea. More Thorium than Uranium available, the waste products less difficult to deal with. More development is needed before they could become commercially viable. Who is going to pay for that investment? My recollection (stand to be corrected-I've not checked) is that India is working on them. The only point I would make is that they are not available now and, without being alarmist, we need to do something very quickly, given the construction lead-time, if we are not to see power cuts. The fact is that the only available means of production of the power we will need in the near future is coal, oil, gas or nuclear. Personally I don't like the thought of being dependent on Kazhkstan or the middle east for our power supply, particularly given current events so the only proven way forward is nuclear. Or do we believe that there are still sufficient coal reserves in Britain to be useful? I don't know the answer to that.

As I said in my first post - let's do what we can to use less power, let's develop solar, water (tidal probably more viable than conventional hydroelectric) but none of this will get us over the upcoming short/medium term problem.

Incidentally, does anyone know of a successful tidal barrage scheme? I visited one on the River Rance in Northern Brittany a few years ago and my recollection is that seaweed/algal growth became so much of an issue it was shut down for maintenance as much as it was open.

The link between childhood leukaemia and nuclear power has been investigated time after time. There is evidence of small clusters of leukaemia near some of the nuclear sites. There are far more clusters remote from nuclear sites. The last "most likely cause" was population mixing where a large population of "outsiders" move to a remote area to build/operate the plant and there is some viral infection of the small local population who have been isolated from the virus and so have less immunity. This model also explains clusters found around other, non-nuclear, large develpoments.

Regards

Ian

Of course we (UK) don't have uranium mines either. Principle sources Australia, Canada and ... Kazhkstan.

You're right of course Tony but we do have a huge quantity of Uranium Dioxide from reprocessed used fuel which could be enriched and re-used. We also have a huge quantity of Plutonium Oxides which could equally be used if we chose to go down the Mixed-Oxide reactor route. The current plan seems to be to declare these as "waste" which would allow their "direct disposal" ie burying. Not a good idea in my view from either a financial or an ecological point of view.

Regards

Ian

What puzzles me is if the government are so keen on being green, why aren't all new houses where suitable, have solar panels installed when the house is being built.

Absolutely right. All new industrial builds should have them as well. The increase in demand would have the knock-on effect of making manufacture cheaper and mean that eventually it would be economic to choose to install them on existing buildings without the rest of us subsidising it. Having said all that I don't know how "green" solar is if manufacture transport and final disposal is taken into account.

Regards

Ian

It seems that you do no like subsidies. What you are actually saying is that they should make it compulsory for houses and industrial buildings to have these solar panels fitted at quite enormous extra costs to the person building an industrial building or new house. This would mean that the nation benefits but doesn't pay for it they do. I cannot see this happening.
So a couple building a new house have to have a larger mortgage to subsidise the nations electricity supplies. Simply not on in my opinion.
For wind turbines, which the intention of generating electricity for sale as a profit making venture as the sole aim there maybe some cause to reduce the subsidies.
JB.

Johnboy. But isn't the surplus feed back into the grid with a payment to the Householder .

Hi Shallot Man,
The payments back to the householder would be so small that the extra they would have to pay for their mortgage would not be paid by the contribution from the power companies and that is if they are connected to the grid at all. Power companies like to charge you and I for electricity used but when it comes to buying they are less than generous.
There has to be a lot more thought put into this before they even begin to think of making it part of the building law.
Knowing the government that we have at present they are just as likely to make it law without exploring all the facts. By the time they are ousted there are going to be an enormous amount of footless ex ministers
claiming disability allowance.
JB.

Spot on Shallotman. The current (pun not intended!) scheme means that, in broad terms, the property owner gets 43p per unit generated. This is guaranteed to be index linked for the next 25 years. Assuming no breakdowns (there is generally a 10 yr guarantee), with a South facing pitched roof etc, the consensus seems to be a return of 8% to 12% on capital cost so the installation should generally pay for itself over about 10 yrs. Anything after that is pure profit. So who pays for this subsidy? Well, the electricity supply company forced to pay 43p/unit to sell it at around 10p/unit pays initially but they of course pass it on to their customers. The theory is that if sufficient solar power is generated from homes and businesses, the generating company will not need to build new capacity, thereby reducing costs.

So why have I decided not to shell out for a 10% return?. Sometime in the 25yrs (probably just as the 10yr guarantee runs out) the invertor in the system will fail. This is the device which converts the DC generated to AC for use in the premises or for export. These are devices which have been in use in industry for years and the failure rate is well documented - 10years is what we would have used when I was working. They cost around £1000 to replace. The panels themselves are a less known quantity in terms of life. They are a relatively new device and I don't think reliable data is available. On top of this I think my tiled roof is likely to need replacing sometime in the next 25yrs. This would entail removing and replacing the panels. This is why I only suggested building the requirement for fitting into new-build. The increase in mortgage will be more than offset by the revenue from year 1.

Overall whether you think this is a good idea is a personal view. It depends what you are trying to achieve. If your aim is to reduce cost to all, I don't think the numbers stack up. If your aim is to reduce the number of large power stations, (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) with their attendant hazards and impact then I think it is a good idea.

Johnboy -I'm in agreement with you regarding governments making laws without considering all the facts. They also fail to consider the unintended consequences of the laws they make.

Regards

ian

Hi Ian,

Thanks. Looks like you have saved me from the moral dilemna. But with your contacts can you perhaps discover more about the Invertor shelf life? Have they improved them, the current cost? I would assume that the cost would have dropped.

We installed Solar Water panels 5 years ago and paid far too much for it - company currently being chased for misselling but doubt if we would get anything back. Did it with an eye for the very long term future - maybe passing the house on, etc. However, after 3 years a seal failed which kind of wiped out the savings. On the other hand we usually have plenty of hot water - too much in the summer - and they work even in depths of winter.

To answer my own question to Ian see

http://www.nrel.gov/pv/pdfs/38771.pdf

and look at the overall summary page where the answer seems to be that it is difficult to achieve a life greater than 15 years and cost reduction by 2020 won't be achieved with government (US) support.

So I guess that Ian's comments hold for any installations for a few years yet.

Hi Ian,
Thank you for putting me right. Is there an easy way to put the power into the grid for an individual household in a rural area?
I Bishops Castle in Shropshire they are/were/have building a system that burns waste wood products and turns them into electric power. The costs for them to connect to the grid were incredibly high. Would this because of the amount of power produced?
I am afraid that with all governments I have an inbred scepticism because with a stroke of a pen they drop people right in the kacky.
Certainly by what you say about the amount is adequate but I do not and will not trust politicians or power companies for that matter.
Before even entertaining a project I would want a cast iron assurance and I bet I would not be able to get one!
JB.

Hello JB

I sense a fellow sceptic regarding government but leaving that aside....... If the property is connected to the grid ie it gets its electricity from a supplier rather than their own generator it can go down the solar generation route I described. The max generation to get the 43p/unit is 4kW. This is around 16 panels (which is quite a size) and would cost £12k to £16k from what I hear - I've not had a quote myself, I decided against it on the basis I described before. If you install more than 4kW then you become what I think is called something like "an industrial (commercial?) generator" in which case the price paid to you is less. The only way there would be a cost to connect to the grid would be if the property were not already connected, or the power generated was more than the incoming cable could take - this is not relevant for a house but might be for a factory for example. Hope this helps

Regards

ian