Going Green

[evilater]

Mmmm, ok point taken.
However then it is also a question of how much energy the 'average' family uses and REALLY needs. that it is down to lifestyle... with the considerations of using solar, it would prompt people to considder this.
I know of someone who has just had this equipment set up at her house so will follow the progress.
Also as a consideration I know and work with a stage and bar that travels around festivals which runs entirely off solar energy, as far as i know with this it works incrediably efficiently... if you can power all that on solar then surely the average household would be ok.
I also know someone in the process of working on the development of solar power so will discuss this with him and get some feedback there.

good food for thought, thanks

[John_M]

Reduction in the average persons energy usage is certainly a very good way ahead, and it isn't inconcievable that most peoples energy needs could be supplied largely, if not entirely, from renewable sources, but I am yet to be convinced that small scale generation by individuals or small groups is really a viable proposition, given that we would need to produce considerable numbers of whatever type of system is to be employed, compared to producing far fewer numbers of large scale generating plant. As technology improves it may be possible to generate enough power for, say, a medium sized town, locally. That only(!) leaves the problem of industry; many industrial plants consume huge amounts of current as their motors start up, and the power grid must be capable of supplying these currents, even if the demand for them is fairly brief in any particular period. There are techniques that can reduce this startup load, but they are far from being universally implemented. I think that it is at least as useful to change the way we use energy as it is to change the way we produce it.

[evilater]

Yes I agree there,
But surely if the industries have their own power supply then
a it will prompt them to use less or implement more environmental methods
b it wont be taking from the domestic supply

they have enough roof space.

this forwards the idea of self sufficiency.

[John_M]

Originally Posted by evilater

Yes I agree there,
But surely if the industries have their own power supply then
a it will prompt them to use less or implement more environmental methods
b it wont be taking from the domestic supply

they have enough roof space.

this forwards the idea of self sufficiency.

In principle, yes, but the power supply they install would have to be capable, in many cases, of supplying a current of hundreds of amps, which is either not achievable or would require enormous expense. Many industries are installing 'soft start' control gear which requires much lower currents, but is expensive. They already have an incentive to do this because they are charged a premium depending on their peak demand from the national grid. Ultimately it's all down to money of course.
I still think fewer large power plants is more efficient than a (very) large number of small plants. Contrary to what is believed by some, the losses aren't that great in the distribution network, because the electricity is distributed at high voltages and low currents (in a simplified model, losses are proportional to current - I²R) and is then transformed down to a useable voltage on site or at a substation.
Solar panels supply a DC voltage which would then have to be converted to AC because nearly all large industrial motors are 3 phase AC.

[evilater]

If there are many smaller plants then this reduces the amount owned/controlled by one or few companies/organisations.

For example at the end of each street...owned by the community?

more self sufficient,
shared responsibility,
its on your doorstep so more care taken to what you use?

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by evilater

If there are many smaller plants then this reduces the amount owned/controlled by one or few companies/organisations.

For example at the end of each street...owned by the community?

more self sufficient,
shared responsibility,
its on your doorstep so more care taken to what you use?

That is a very simplistic way of looking at energy requirements, and doesn’t take into consideration many salient points.

Each of the “local” generating plants would need to be capable of supplying peak load demand for that “community”. This dictates that in order to avoid repeated power failures, the plants would need to be built with considerable excess capacity – costing more to manufacture, and more to run. (As they would seldom be operating at maximum output efficiency).

The carbon footprint of designing, procuring the raw materials for, manufacturing components, building, maintenance, and operational labour costs of each of these local plants would far exceed that of carrying out the same exercise for larger centralised power plants. (Economies of scale).

There is also the problem of provision of back-up supply for all of these “local” plants. The national grid system ensures that where one generating plant fails, or is off-line for maintenance etc., then its customers are provided for by existing capacity supplied from elsewhere in the network. If one of these “local” plants failed, then its customers would lose power until it was back on-line.

I concur with the advice given by John D in post 2 above. There is a plethora of information regarding this subject on WAB, and you will gain much insight by reading the many excellent threads already posted on the subject.

Regards,
Mike.

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by evilater

Mmmm, ok point taken.

Also as a consideration I know and work with a stage and bar that travels around festivals which runs entirely off solar energy, as far as i know with this it works incrediably efficiently... if you can power all that on solar then surely the average household would be ok.
I also know someone in the process of working on the development of solar power so will discuss this with him and get some feedback there.

good food for thought, thanks

Festivals tend to be held in Summer do they not? Solar power wouldn't have been much cop this Winter just past

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

Festivals tend to be held in Summer do they not? Solar power wouldn't have been much cop this Winter just past

also festival power requirements are relatively low amperage and wattage - lights, sound systems etc dont draw anything like the same power as for example a three phase table saw

A freind of mine has a solar array on his roof (full coverage) which outputs 5kw at 13amp 240v - this is enough to power his ground source heat pump (thus running his heating) with a little over for domestic needs , and sale back to the grid when needs are low - however when needs are high (e.g cooking etc) he still has to draw from the grid, also at night and on cloudy days.

However the guy concerned is a full time cabinet maker and his highest consuming machine is a 6hp 3 phase table saw - 1hp is 0.75kw, so the draw from this machine when running is 4.5kw at 30amp - 400v so the solar array couldnt hope to run that.

[animartco]

Originally Posted by artdemole

Fossil fuels are not scant. People could not be bothered to put money into the mines in the coal fields.They would have lasted many a year and given employment to many plus a lot more to outside suppliers and the industry as a whole.Even gas would be a cheaper source to energy supplies.Many people would be happy with gas in homes as an economical alternative to all the pylons and turbines. Especially with cutbacks and all the unemployment.

If fossil fuels aren't scant how come they are drilling lower and lower with more and more danger to the environment, to find them? There might be plenty of gas and oil six seven miles down but there comes a point at which it is no loner economic to retrieve it. I would say that that point is being reached NOW.

[John_M]

Originally Posted by animartco

If fossil fuels aren't scant how come they are drilling lower and lower with more and more danger to the environment, to find them? There might be plenty of gas and oil six seven miles down but there comes a point at which it is no loner economic to retrieve it. I would say that that point is being reached NOW.

They are drilling deeper because technology is improving. There has been a huge improvement in the techniques used in exploration, in particular seismic acquisition techniques, and massive advances in the interpretation of the acquired data; this gives a much greater understanding of the structure of hydrocarbon reservoirs, and the increase in resolution allows imaging of more complex geology and also a much greater probability of striking hydrocarbons once the decision to drill has been made. There have also been improvements in technology which allows deeper drilling and drilling in deeper waters.
The increase in the price of oil has made fields that were previously not thought worth exploiting more viable, and there are quite a few fields that have been reopened because they are now economically viable.
Many people believe that there are more hydrocarbons, in the form of methane hydrates, than in all the other hydrocarbon provinces combined. The big challenge, of course, would be to extract them safely; much easier said than done!
Drilling deeper is not, per se, more damaging to the environment. The majority of the environmental damage we have seen has come from relatively shallow wells. It could be argued that a blowout is more likely from a shallow well than a deep one. One of the biggest dangers to a new well is from shallow gas.