Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)


Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!

widget @ surfing-waves.com

Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.

    • CommentAuthorJeff B
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2017
    Not sure I understand everything in this article but it sounds good!

    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2017 edited

    "the technology has become so cheap that developers could deliver turbines for a guaranteed price of power so low that it would be effectively subsidy-free in terms of the impact on household energy bills."

    "Onshore windfarms could be built in the UK for the same cost as new gas power stations and would be nearly half as expensive as the Hinkley Point C"

    “It looks increasingly absurd that the Conservatives have effectively banned Britain’s cheapest source of new power.”
    • CommentAuthorgravelld
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2017
    Broadly speaking more batteries would be good.

    But it's interesting how they pick what they will back with money.

    They go on about being about competition and free markets, but then they make up some competition. What's wrong with the existing competition -> the market?

    So you might say "government needs to encourage or seed the market" which I agree with, but why this one? Home energy production was on course for being a competitive market until they wrecked it a few years ago.

    Meanwhile, markets which are totally and utterly broken, like housing performance, are ignored.

    I think I know the reasons:

    - Politicians love going goo-ey eyed over "technology" - they think there's a silver bullet waiting to be discovered.
    - Money.
    I don't see why the government should persist with onshore wind generation when it's a divisive issue for many people. Off shore generation is becoming more innovative so why not use technologies which have the support of more people.

    • CommentAuthorDarylP
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2017
    ... because 'people' don't always know what is best for them, society, the country, the world.....? :devil:
    Ahh, dictatorial world domination that's what we need!! The North Korean leadership knows what's best for their subjects and I'm sure the people love it.
    • CommentAuthorDarylP
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2017
    how about a benign dictatorship model perhaps...?:cool:
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2017
    Fergeddit - to some people Trump is just that - so who defines it?
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2017
    Gravelled said, Broadly speaking more batteries would be good. -- but they are only 80% efficient and as I have pointed out elsewhere this cannot be describes as good, 20 % waste is not good.
    • CommentAuthorgravelld
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2017
    Depends what would have happened to the 'wasted' (and stored for that matter) energy otherwise.
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2017
    Energy that isn't generated (e.g. 'curtailed' wind farms) is bad. 80% of some energy that wouldn't otherwise exist is good. Avoiding spinning up and or loading reserve gas generators by shaving peaks saves more than 20% I expect.
    • CommentAuthorTimSmall
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2017
    "about 65% of respondents to the survey supported the use of onshore wind. While this was enough to beat biomass (63%), support for onshore wind lagged offshore wind (73%), wave and tidal power (74%) and solar power (81%)."


    In order of cost per kWh we have approximately cheapest to most expensive in the UK:

    Onshore wind
    Offshore wind

    With wind you get another 8% of people on board by putting it off shore and doubling the price. Now if only they'd hurry up with kitegen. New nuclear is somewhere between future offshore wind (i.e. contracts being signed now for new offshore wind farms - not just predictions) and Tidal. One of the largish channel wind farms was turned down on aesthetic grounds.
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2017
    Great graphic inside-story of the booming wind bandwagon:

    And first mention I've seen that wind, like the ocean and the atmosphere, are not bottomless resources that we can raid with impunity:
    "A wind power station that size “would be a climate change in itself”. For one thing, “pulling that much energy out of the sky shifts the direction of wind”."
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2017
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2017 edited
    If Tom is referring to the theoretical study I read about last week, this it is possible to change weather patterns with very large windfarms. Whether that is a real problem or not I don't know. But I very much doubt if they would put a million 7 MW turbines a few miles South West of the Scilly Isles.
    Though having said that, at least it would be a reversible, robust and repeatable scientific method to test out climate change idea.

    341,320, the number of wind turbines working globally at the end of last year.
    104,934, the number at the end of last year in China alone.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeOct 16th 2017
    People prefer offshore wind farms because they know the turbines won't be close to their houses. If there was some form of compensation for those forced to live close to onshore wind farms the more people would support them. Currently nobody even admits they affect house prices. The only compensation available is a few ÂŁ100ed off electricity bills. Where as land owners that may live miles away get enough to retire on.
    • CommentTimeOct 16th 2017
    Posted By: CWattersIf there was some form of compensation for those forced to live close to onshore wind farms the more people would support them.
    Alternatively you could deny people a fixed amount of power if they don't want to have a turbine near them i.e. only allow then 1 MWh/year.
    Or they could offer to buy the land that the turbine was going to go on, or pay the landowner compensation.

    If we had more onshore turbines, we would all benefit from the lower installation costs and the reduced pollution, but some people want it all.

    I think part of the problem is that in the past we had a lot of small turbines put up willy nilly. I looked up the sub 100 kW turbines in Cornwall about 5 years ago and realised that they could have all be replaced by just 1 1MW turbine. it would have been cheaper to install, produced more and offered a greater return on investment.
    • CommentTimeOct 16th 2017
    From the article:
    "Progress has been so fast that this year saw the first decommissioning of an offshore windfarm, Vindeby, in Denmark. At 25 years old, it is practically ancient, its entire output exceeded by that of a single 8MW Vestas turbine."
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   

© Green Building Press