Nuclear power , not that cheap or safe it appears

Hedating is indeed only a part of domestic, commercial and idustrial energy use.

You know all those “economy” light bulbs you were given, they’re really quite greedy, as well as being very irritating because they take ages to warm up and are never as bright as you’d like. I’ve replaced most of ours with LEDs that consume abut a third, come on instantly and have a light colour I prefer.

Solar hot water heaters are low tech and work great. Supply the washing machine (and dish washer if you really must have one) direct with solar-heated water on the fill cycle and your washing machine uses 80% less energy.

Do you really need that freezer or would the freezer box in your fridge do?

I’ve quoted my consumption figures, families in passive houses achieve similar figures without any compromises in terms of lifestyle or comfort. These savings can be made in all buildings, not just domestic property. If we all make an effort there won’t be enough demand to justify the nuclear reactors.

It amazes me that people are still advanmcing intermittency as an argument against wind, as if the national grid haven’t thought of it! They’ve already said that they can accommodate up to 20% of total supply from wind without too much difficulty.

The point is surely that we keep fossil fuels in reserve for days when renewables aren’t operating at a high enough capacity.

But the fundamental issue is that we need to use much less.

Solar hot water heaters are low tech and work great. Supply the washing machine (and dish washer if you really must have one) direct with solar-heated water on the fill cycle and your washing machine uses 80% less energy.

Only if your machine has a hot-fill, and most don’t. On average, domestic solar hot water will save a household around £50 worth of gas per year. Not a big deal, really.

Not a big deal, really.

You could be right on that one, best not waste my time, energy or money on anything then, thanks for the tip.

Won’t happen ransos, Power stations are very expensive to turn up/down. So much so that dynamic demand is becoming more popular.
Consuming less is the absolute key, however edukators points cannot be transferred to commercial buildings.

You could be right on that one, best not waste my time, energy or money on anything then, thanks for the tip.

No problem.

Won’t happen ransos, Power stations are very expensive to turn up/down. So much so that dynamic demand is becoming more popular.

It’s not me telling you this, it’s the national grid. I think they know a thing or two about balancing supply and demand.

My parents had solar hot water and got far more than that even in west coast Scotland.

however edukators points cannot be transferred to commercial buildings.

Why not?

My parents had solar hot water and got far more than that even in west coast Scotland.

The Energy Savings Trust did a long term trial. From their website:

“Solar water heating systems can achieve savings on your energy bills. Based on the results of our recent field trial, typical savings from a well-installed and properly used system are £55 per year when replacing gas heating and £80 per year when replacing electric immersion heating; however, savings will vary from user to user.”

When set against the cost of the system, it’s absolutely not worth it.

A typical household gets through about £250’s worth of gas just for hot water. The bill will be higher if you use electricity.

My own experience at 43°N is that the solar hot water heater produces 100% fo our hot water for between five and six months, makes a significant contribution for another four and takes the chill off the water for a month either side of the winter solstice. I suggest a saving of between £100 and £200 is more realistic than £50.

Thats the sort of number my parents got in West coast Scotland – a couple of hundred pounds a year

When set against the cost of the system, it’s absolutely not worth it.

Show me any system that’s worth it when looked at from a purely financial payback point of view.

I’ve replaced most of ours with LEDs that consume abut a third

Efficiency of LEDs is similar to CFLs, so that seems unlikely unless you’ve improved the distribution of the light at the same time. I’m replacing our CFLs when they fail (which is usually long before their expected lifetime) as otherwise I would be wasting the embedded energy of production as well as creating unnecessary waste and pollution. If you’re replacing them when they still work you’re most likely wasting energy, not saving it. I agree that the CFLs are crap as a light source though.

Because washing machines and dishwashers aren’t areas for reduction.
PV isn’t financially viable and unsuitable for many buildings (aspect, shading, planning etc), biomass is unreliable and still contributes carbon and solar thermal has little application with the exception of DHW (which generally is gas fired) and there is often insufficient heat available here in the UK.
All sounds very anti, but this is my experience. There are better ways to make buildings consume less energy.

Ah – I thought you meant passive heating standards.

there is certainly a huge amount that can be done in commercial buildings. Local CHP is one good one I believe and better control of lighting and heating would help .

😆

Control is the most often neglected TJ, you are absolutely correct.
CHP can be good but must be sized according to heating load (great for swimming pools). Modern buildings are so efficient thermally and densely populated that many still have the chillers running even now, in November!

A typical household gets through about £250’s worth of gas just for hot water. The bill will be higher if you use electricity.

The Energy Saving Trust say you’re wrong.

As an aside, my last two quarters were a total of £85, and that includes cooking, but the heating was turned off. Family of three.

Show me any system that’s worth it when looked at from a purely financial payback point of view.

Insulating my walls and loft. Replacing light bulbs with CFLs.

If someone asks me for advice on energy efficiency, I would never advise them to spend several thousand poinds on a system that will save them less than £100/ year. Maybe that’s just me.

What are the un-subsidised costs and payback periods of those, in financial terms?
Let’s not forget, it’s not just about the money.

wreacker – if they are thermally efficient they wouldn’t need chillers!

What are the un-subsidised costs and payback periods of those, in financial terms?
Let’s not forget, it’s not just about the money.

Irrelevant diversion. You asked me for examples that payback and I gave them to you.

Next!

wreacker – if they are thermally efficient they wouldn’t need chillers!

What’s your proposed solution?

Irrelevant diversion. You asked me for examples that payback and I gave them to you.

You actually haven’t, have you? Anything that is subsidised is going to have an unfair advantage.

Maybe we could have an extra bit tagged on to the end of the weather forecast? “well everyone, its going to be windy tonight, so don’t forget to turn your washing machines on when you go to bed”

Why not?

We already set our dishwasher and washing machines to come on during the middle of the night, not because it saves us money, but because we know that all of that important “base load” generation isn’t really doing much at that time, so that it is probably better for us all in the long run to try and help run it efficiently.

What annoys me about all the short sighted people who trot out the usual line about wind/renewables being intermittent and that we therefore need all this back up capacity to replace them when it is not windy, is that they conveniently forget that demand isn’t constant either.

The smart way to use electricity is to use more of it for non time critical things at times when there is more of it available. No?

Control of passive / solar gain, decent ventilation systems.

Not necessarily TJ. The sensible and latent heat gains from occupation, lighting and equipment are huge and since the fabric U-values are so high low and there is no natural ventilation due to air tightness, the heat must be mechanically removed. In most cases, the mech vent isn’t man enough to do this as it’s sized to supply the fresh air and not as the primary heating/cooling source.

We already set our dishwasher and washing machines to come on during the middle of the night, not because it saves us money, but because we know that all of that important “base load” generation isn’t really doing much at that time, so that it is probably better for us all in the long run to try and help run it efficiently.

This is dynamic demand as I mentioned earlier. Companies are currently being paid (per kWh switched) to turn their machinery on at low loads so that the power companies don’t have to turn the power stations down as it’s expensive.

Control of passive / solar gain, decent ventilation systems.

Details, how?

Do you mean high or low for the U-values, wrecker?

So provide some natural ventilation in a size that will do the job? Vents that open when it hot and close to return to the air tightness when cold.

I am sorry – building a “passive” building that requires air con is summer is missing the point and target by a mile

Well spotted DS. Low!

mcboo said,

If the events in Fukushima did anything they proved that even if you have a reactor that is decades out of date and of questionable safety you can site it right on a major geological faultline and hit it with a massive tsunami…..and it still doesnt do anything like the damage that Greenpeace would lead you to believe.

I just find this attitude unbelievable.

80,000 people have been evacuated from their homes and are unlikely ever to be allowed to return.

What would be your threshold for seeing a problem?

You actually haven’t, have you? Anything that is subsidised is going to have an unfair advantage.

You asked for examples of measures that pay back in pure financial terms. And I gave them to you. If you want a different answer, ask a different question.

This is dynamic demand as I mentioned earlier. Companies are currently being paid (per kWh switched) to turn their machinery on at low loads so that the power companies don’t have to turn the power stations down as it’s expensive.

And we can all do it domestically right now at zero cost.

What’s your excuse?

So provide some natural ventilation in a size that will do the job? Vents that open when it hot and close to return to the air tightness when cold.

I am sorry – building a “passive” building that requires air con is summer is missing the point and target by a mile

Get designing TJ, I’ve not seen one that the occupier is happy with yet!

So provide some natural ventilation in a size that will do the job? Vents that open when it hot and close to return to the air tightness when cold.

That’s where everyone’s been going wrong. The solution really is that simple, I wonder why no-one has already thought of that. You should be ashamed of yourself wrecker.

Got the design in my head right now 🙂 YOu able to get it out?

Again of course it needs energy to be much more expensive so people have more of an incentive to save it – possibly a sliding tarrif so the more yo use teh more expensive it gets

First the LED bulbs:

I’ve got a bathroom mirror that came with 3 x 40w bulbs. I replace with 3 x 9w “economy” which were dimmer so put one 40w back. I then replaced the 40w with a 3w LED and found it to be brighter than both the 40w and 9w economy. Logically there are now 3 x 3w LEDs.

You asked for examples of measures that pay back in pure financial terms. And I gave them to you. If you want a different answer, ask a different question.

I just don’t see that financial payback is relevant (unless you don’t have the money) – the main thing is that it makes sense in carbon terms.

Most of what we spend our money on isn’t financially sensible.

At the time you spend your money on a Rolex you are trading a lot of money for some sort of satisfaction at a rate that you set and that is personal to you. You could just buy a cheap Casio to get the same functionality. Financially it makes no sense. We’re currently having some walls internally insulated as part of a refurbishment project and I haven’t even bothered to work out the extra financial cost – it probably won’t pay back in pure financial terms, but I am sure it will save carbon, and that will make me feel good, which is why I don’t mind spending money on it.

which is why I don’t mind spending money on it.

It’s great that you are in that position, but for the majority I suspect the financial aspect of installing solar heating, insulating a home etc is a fairly important factor.

My gas consumption for the first year I occupied this house was 602m3, about 800e at current prices including the standing charge. Last year I cut the gas off. There has been an increase in the elecricity bill due to topping up the hot water in winter, say 50e and the wood I burn would be worth about 120e if I had to pay for it. Saving: 630e/year.

So 630e a year saved thanks to all the money invested (pesimistic guesstimates):

Roof insulation 750e
Solar hot water heater (home made) 1100e
Wall insulation 900e so far
secondary double/triple glazing and insulating doors/shutters 400e
Under floor insulation (in progress) 700e
More economical appliances 450e
Wood burner 1000e
Tools (I owned them but the ones you’d need) 750e

Total 6050e. Time to pay for all the investments 6050/630 = Under 10 years. If you DIY it is economically viable.

I haven’t included the photovoltaïque which will pay for itself in 6.5 years.

I like making things so I’ve enjoyed doing it. It’s also nice walking across a warm floor barefoot and not having clothes go mouldy in the wardrobe.