I agree with Nexxo completely. I have to say i don't think 10,000 is an awful lot to spend to take yourself off the grid, i guess that depends an awful lot on how much space you have to implement the proposed solution. Its not all about saving the future home owner money either. As energy prices continue to increase ('cos the russians have us over a barrel WRT energy supply - particulaly gas) the more desirable it is to have an alternative. It would add to resale value of the property also, in the same way that spending £5,00 on replacement windows does. Green sells, and it will continue to sell more and more. Look at all the Celebs that drive Priuses. It doesn't take long for people to follow their leads just to be like them.
I heard something about these h20 generators you can get or something, might just of been rambling in the pub, but apparently you can generate electricity off of it and any excess you make you can sell on to the leccy companies. Also did anyone see the Jonathan Ross interview with Ricky Gervais and Chris Rock? Chris Rock was dam funny, he goes "I hope that Live Earth can do for global warming what Live 8 did to get rid of poverty". Then he goes on to say "It's getting so hot in America that these white folk are getting deep tans, they're so dark they're going round calling each other N***er!" Then Ricky and Jonathan's faces was priceless! I overall think this event was pointless, it is gonna do little to change the situation, we need more government plans put in action and better recycling.
The mass implementation of renewable sources is at best several decades away due to the need for a infrastructure to be built around proposed renewable energy sites along with a multitude of other things that need to be considered, planned, funded and properly executed. For example, e-on are developing one of Europe's largest off-shore wind farms and construction is said to begin in 2008. This initial step is a move forward to creating a framework to deploy renewable energy sources across the country and will be used as a "how-to" guide for the country. But, a single wind farm, no matter how vast, or productive it is will not stifle our needs for energy. We need a larger, vaster implementation of renewable energy resources that rely on many different sources, such as wind, solar, tidal and hydroelectric. These are all projects that can be developed and produced, but great change will only take place in the next two decades. Due to the fact that the planning, development, the infrastructure and other vital parts of switching to renewable sources are not yet in place. To stop using vast quantities of gas from Asia and Russia and to stop relying on fuels that is not 100% secure or the delivery of said fuels is not guaranteed nuclear power is the easiest and cleanest option for the next twenty years and will allow the UK to be less dependent on fossil fuels from abroad until renewable energy is able to deliver the majority of our energy needs.
Well, as has been pointed out several times now the reason that it's not done is cost. And what would be the point of that? The national grid would barely benefit, the power produced would be absolutely laughable. Wembley wouldn't benefit at all because the cost of the solar panels would probably never be fully recovered, and if it did it would take 15-20 years with no random problems or faults in order to do so. Don't take me as anti-renewable folks, I'm not. But the idea that we should force everyone to spend another 10k on houses that people can already just barely afford isn't a good one, and the idea that we should force all big business or venues to generate power on a tiny and highly expensive scale is unjust. Increasing power efficiency is certainly a good thing to be doing, and it should obviously be the aim of all humanity to continually increase our efficiency, but that's not a short term solution that'll take care of 60% of our power needs. It's a long term thing that'll steadily improve the world, and should be viewed as such.
Now who is thinking black and white (again)? The average house price in Britain is, what? £170.000,--? Definitely £250.000,-- in London. An extra £10.000,-- on that is peanuts. I am not saying that all homes in Britain need to be retrofitted in the next few decades, that would be crazy talk. But if it became standard practice to fit new private-owned homes with better insulation and self-generated energy over the next century, we'd make a serious dent in our consumption. As the market takes off, technology becomes cheaper and can be fitted on all the new council housing that the government says we so badly need. And then there is public infrastructure. Parking lots? Great ground-heat sinks, really. You may laugh at the idea of solar panels on Wembley stadium, but just how much heat does its roof absorb on a warm day? And its pitch? Again, I'm not the one who is thinking black-and-white on this. There is much, much more to renawable energy than inefficient solar panels or big noisy turbines --a lot of it is clever, low-tech, cheap and invisible. I know it will take time, and I know that nuclear energy may be an inevitable temporary solution. But that is what it should be: temporary, and on a contained scale. Spend the energy wiser, claw it back from every nook and cranny possible, and over a century it all adds up. But transfer all your eggs from the old basket into a single new basket (first fossil, now nuclear) and within a century we will simply have a nuclear crisis like we have a fossil crisis now. Very funny. But I work in a hospital and I can tell you that every heart monitor and ventilator (as all vital electrical equipment) comes equipped with its own internal battery. Good thing too. Recently we had a power failure (Sellafield notwithstanding) and our pesky Diesel generator refused to kick in for 15 minutes. The same person who can afford £170.000,-- to buy a house in Britain. Although building your own is actually much cheaper. And because you generate your own energy, you save on power bills and the £10.000,-- installation earns itself back in five years --after that the grid actually pays you for what you put back in.
Well actually there is by far enough renewable power to server the entire world, but try getting someone to invest in it. One example would be the Himalyan Mountains - if we could harness most of its hydroelectric power there would be enough power for the entire UK. Thats one mountain range and only 1 source of power. The problem isn't that there isn't enough renewable power, its that people arent willing to invest billions into it. Saying this I am also a pro Nuclear person, though storage is a bit of a tricky subject for the moment (despite there being several good ways to store nuclear material all need supervision which is a species-time commitment). edit: specofdust you dont seem to get it - one stadium packed to the rafters with solar panels does barely benefit the grid you're right - but what if then they build them on the next new development, and the next, and the next? Eventually you get a whole load of them which will make a differance.
Who said I wanted nuclear power for ever and ever? I didn't. When we deal with energy supplies we of course look to the future, but as I said we cannot take a solution that will be ready in 10, 50 or 100 years and apply it to our current circumstances. You accuse me of thinking in black and white but I fully accept that renewables and efficiency have their place. But that place is not the majority answer to our energy question. You seem to refuse to accept nuclear as the answer there, so what do you suggest? Look at the numbers if you want, we need either more nukes or more fossil fuels for the next few decades. We need something to take care of a large chunk of our power generation untill renewables are a serious option for that. You say things like "as the market takes off"...well that's great when it does, but what about the period between it taking off and becoming standardised everywhere and the period which occurs several years earlier where we do not have enough power to meet our needs? Anyway, I think given your latest post and the qualifications (or perhaps clarifications) you give leads us to the same basic standpoint if perhaps with a slightly different focus. We both agree that we need more power generation ability, I think we both agree that we can't expect renewables to take care of say, 60-70% of our power generation needs yet, and that in the mean time we will need another option. We both agree that saving energy is beneficial and that renewables are going to become an increasingly important part of our energy production. I guess the arguement is reasonably irrelevent anyway. If we do not meet our own short term needs with nuclear power we'll just end up buying power of France for years that they've made with nuclear reactors. Who is this "they" that you talk of when you say "what if then they build them"?
