Articles
Observer - Why aren't we warming to solar? - Good question, and start to kick off with.
Observer - Solar so good for our house - It doesn't look like Nevada, so what's good enough for him...? Note the caveat, mind.
Guardian - Keep on the sunny side - Concentrating Solar Power
Junkk (et all) - o-solar-mi-o-mi
Got this in a forum: Is $339,000 For This Green Solar-Roof Home In Chicago Affordable? - Kind of depends what one means by 'affordable', I guess.The maths is pretty well laid out in the piece, though there are of course imponderables on future costs/values that make them best guesses. There's also whether you are 'affording' it to save and/or make money on operational costs & added value at resale over the duration of habitation, or 'affording' it to reduce one's emissions (after construction contribution) on an enviROI+ measure, without being so worried about money.
Greenbang - Carrot wins, Aussies go solar - It's worth repeating...'Carrot wins'
Indy - Solar panels 'not cost effective' - Hmnn. Do, should they mean yet? enviROI?
In reply - Letters
Greenbang - 208 years to pay back cost of solar panels? - Of course, making money need not be an issue at all to some, but this does seem to suggest the numbers on any count are hard to come by to make an informed decision.
Telegraph - What's the point of solar panels?
Mongabay.com - Solar cells, flat-panel screens are source of potent greenhouse gas - certainly a potential back-of-mind aspect in enviROI calculations
Indy - Solar panels 'take 100 years to pay back installation costs' - making a good choice is certainly not easy. Maybe procrastination pays.
Times - Greenhouse effects: Smarter Energy PV panels - Useful!
Times - Solar panels in the Sahara 'could power the whole of Europe' - I'd love to go along, but there's that word again. Promising, but I had read about this before, and there was some debate about the scouring effect of sand on the mirrors and the drop of inefficiency over distance the 'leccy gets sent. Any mention of that?
Guardian - Starving UK plc's green energy shoots - Normally I wouldn't link to such as this, as I share some thread posters' disquiet about the medium handing over an admittedly commentary-oriented piece to an author with a clearly subjective view, at least with no mention of what it might be. However, there are some interesting points, and numbers, especially in the thread.
Guardian - Concentrated solar power could generate 'quarter of world's energy' - Note my favourite word in that headline.
Telegraph - NEW - Why Whitehall hates solar panels - Perversely, part of me would wish they were actually smart enough to be that venal in support of their own petty interests. The piece, and some comments, does make me keen to see how solar has progressed to be viable on these shores which, let's face it, are not that sunny.
Grants
lowcarbonbuildings.org.uk
Information
Smart Planet - NEW - How does a solar cell work? - I miss Tomorrow's World.. and Look & Learn.
Trendhunter - Top 100 Solar Inventions - Part I: Gadgets & Fashion (SUPER GALLERY) - heck of a start, I'd say!
Part II - Though how what gets in does and what doesn't hasn't I have no clue. I'll keep looking for more 'down to earth' examples as they come by.
Suppliers
Solartrac
Solartwin
Solarventi
trianco -
windandsun.co.uk -
See labels below, especially under 'Alt. Energy' for previous notes. If you have anything to add to the headings above... share 'em! Direct to info[at]junkk.com or via the comments on the blog.
Showing posts with label SOLAR POWER. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SOLAR POWER. Show all posts
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Friday, December 19, 2008
Solar Powered Ship Launches In Japan
When I saw that headline, I thought to myself, wow, way to go; on opening the article from CBCNews, I have to admit that I felt a little crestfallen. Seems that the photovoltaics used to provide supplementary power to the vessel's 440V electrical system are capable of providing just 0.2% of the ship's energy consumption.
Ahhh so, grasshopper, remember that big trees from little acorns grow.
Ahhh so, grasshopper, remember that big trees from little acorns grow.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Probably the best explantion in the world?
You know those A5 sales flyers for gizmos you can get?
Most headlines propose an absolute claim but sort of get out of a challenge by making it a question: 'Could this be the best electric toenail buffer in the world?'.
I was minded of this when I read an ASA ruling on a topic I am interested in, namely regrading solar and the claims made by manufacturers.
As one still considering solar, though dubious about the efficiency and hence payback period in our climate, I am not sure I am too encouraged by what the consumer is left with here.
FWIW, I have looked at my exploding collection of packaging junkk and have in mind a S/SW wall structure made out of them by way of a solar experiment. Watch this space.
Most headlines propose an absolute claim but sort of get out of a challenge by making it a question: 'Could this be the best electric toenail buffer in the world?'.
I was minded of this when I read an ASA ruling on a topic I am interested in, namely regrading solar and the claims made by manufacturers.
As one still considering solar, though dubious about the efficiency and hence payback period in our climate, I am not sure I am too encouraged by what the consumer is left with here.
FWIW, I have looked at my exploding collection of packaging junkk and have in mind a S/SW wall structure made out of them by way of a solar experiment. Watch this space.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
PROF's POSER - Solar, so long...?
Just watched a series of BBC Brekky slots on solar.
Here's a pretty bald statement: 'It's not going to save your bank balance so you'll just be doing it to save the planet'. That'll have them rushing to sign up at B&Q, for sure.
In fact, in a later piece with two commentators, a chap from the Green Alliance (Pro) and a Prof. James Woudhuysen (less so) the knives were pretty much out for any financial sense involved in advocating the things... at least as good ROIs. The GA guy at least was flying the flag for 'better than nothing', at least in an enviro sense.
So in mitigation the talk turned to subsidies.
It was a pity not to have a government spokesperson present (who are scarcer than hen's teeth on anything these days, as it is all pretty much falling down around them and the bunker boys seem to have decided that absence makes the voter grow forgetful) to actually discuss why the support to help such microgeneration is so woeful.
I had to disagree with the good Prof. on one point, where he said that what we do at home doesn't matter at it all takes place at the power stations. True, but if we are not drawing from the power stations then we are surely acting in some mitigation on an individual level where the big boys seem to be failing at every turn on the big stuff?
But there is still one area that still troubles me. And I can't yet get a handle on it from guys paid, a lot, to deal in this area of expertise.
That is the enviROI. What if the planet doesn't get saved either? I don't know, but before committing to what seems a poor financial choice for sure, I'd certainly like to be more certain it is helping the kids' futures if I choose to take the hit for other reasons.
The point was made that these things currently only pay back over a few decades... but that is also their lifespan. What are the consequences in pure eco terms of their being made, shipped, installed, operated, maintained and then being disposed of, when weighed against the obvious benefits of their producing 'free', clean, solar energy through their lifespans?
Is solar heating sensible on any measure in the UK?
ADDENDUM:
Following Dave's suggestion of where I should go in the comments section, OK, I should clarify, and hence have added the key word heating in the last sentence above.
Because here I am referring to the major rooftop installations that are touted, and were featured in the slot, to heat your water and/or home.
My Solarventi dehumidification system does a pretty good job and today, despite it being chilly, is whirring away in the sun, at least for the last few hours, and with luck, a few hours more. I recall we sat down and figured out beforehand the pros and cons based on the purchase costs and operational logistics in comparison, in this case, to an electric dehumidifier running essentially 24/7, 365/365.
I believe we assessed a payback period of around 3 years, which is way within the lifespan of the unit, and therefore a worthy investment simply on cost grounds. I actually think we may need to extend the time period to account for our rather dire national delivery of sun, and the simple problems of getting it on panel when it shines around trees and neighbours' houses (especially when the angle is lower in the winter months). But even so I consider it well worth it. In addition, thanks to the relative lack of moving parts (though many other solar installations are relatively free as well) the maintenance is essentially zero and the lifespan hence very long.
Hence I am pretty confident that both the ROI and enviROI are in the + column.
But this is my point. Especially with stonking great outlays required on the major efforts, the lack of government support and very vague guidance, householders need to get to these figures quickly, easily and with confidence that they are doing right, if not by their pockets but also by the future, too. Do these exist, and if so where?
If our national broadcaster, who is by no means shy when it comes to green advocacy and often none too challenging to all the considerations pro and con, can pretty much damn 'solar' in all its forms in such a piece with the faint praise of 'only being good for the planet', and tar all beneficial aspects with the near certainty of being a financial negative (probably inaccurately, even for some solar rooftop systems - the Germans seem to be doing OK), it seems clear to me that where these things are worthwhile we need clear means to find out and reply upon.
Hence as this is a Prof's Poser I'd welcome information that can be shared to counter this view.
Here's a pretty bald statement: 'It's not going to save your bank balance so you'll just be doing it to save the planet'. That'll have them rushing to sign up at B&Q, for sure.
In fact, in a later piece with two commentators, a chap from the Green Alliance (Pro) and a Prof. James Woudhuysen (less so) the knives were pretty much out for any financial sense involved in advocating the things... at least as good ROIs. The GA guy at least was flying the flag for 'better than nothing', at least in an enviro sense.
So in mitigation the talk turned to subsidies.
It was a pity not to have a government spokesperson present (who are scarcer than hen's teeth on anything these days, as it is all pretty much falling down around them and the bunker boys seem to have decided that absence makes the voter grow forgetful) to actually discuss why the support to help such microgeneration is so woeful.
I had to disagree with the good Prof. on one point, where he said that what we do at home doesn't matter at it all takes place at the power stations. True, but if we are not drawing from the power stations then we are surely acting in some mitigation on an individual level where the big boys seem to be failing at every turn on the big stuff?
But there is still one area that still troubles me. And I can't yet get a handle on it from guys paid, a lot, to deal in this area of expertise.
That is the enviROI. What if the planet doesn't get saved either? I don't know, but before committing to what seems a poor financial choice for sure, I'd certainly like to be more certain it is helping the kids' futures if I choose to take the hit for other reasons.
The point was made that these things currently only pay back over a few decades... but that is also their lifespan. What are the consequences in pure eco terms of their being made, shipped, installed, operated, maintained and then being disposed of, when weighed against the obvious benefits of their producing 'free', clean, solar energy through their lifespans?
Is solar heating sensible on any measure in the UK?
ADDENDUM:
Following Dave's suggestion of where I should go in the comments section, OK, I should clarify, and hence have added the key word heating in the last sentence above.
Because here I am referring to the major rooftop installations that are touted, and were featured in the slot, to heat your water and/or home.
My Solarventi dehumidification system does a pretty good job and today, despite it being chilly, is whirring away in the sun, at least for the last few hours, and with luck, a few hours more. I recall we sat down and figured out beforehand the pros and cons based on the purchase costs and operational logistics in comparison, in this case, to an electric dehumidifier running essentially 24/7, 365/365.
I believe we assessed a payback period of around 3 years, which is way within the lifespan of the unit, and therefore a worthy investment simply on cost grounds. I actually think we may need to extend the time period to account for our rather dire national delivery of sun, and the simple problems of getting it on panel when it shines around trees and neighbours' houses (especially when the angle is lower in the winter months). But even so I consider it well worth it. In addition, thanks to the relative lack of moving parts (though many other solar installations are relatively free as well) the maintenance is essentially zero and the lifespan hence very long.
Hence I am pretty confident that both the ROI and enviROI are in the + column.
But this is my point. Especially with stonking great outlays required on the major efforts, the lack of government support and very vague guidance, householders need to get to these figures quickly, easily and with confidence that they are doing right, if not by their pockets but also by the future, too. Do these exist, and if so where?
If our national broadcaster, who is by no means shy when it comes to green advocacy and often none too challenging to all the considerations pro and con, can pretty much damn 'solar' in all its forms in such a piece with the faint praise of 'only being good for the planet', and tar all beneficial aspects with the near certainty of being a financial negative (probably inaccurately, even for some solar rooftop systems - the Germans seem to be doing OK), it seems clear to me that where these things are worthwhile we need clear means to find out and reply upon.
Hence as this is a Prof's Poser I'd welcome information that can be shared to counter this view.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
A neat idea for encouraging the take up of solar.
It seems rare to find a local authority coming up with a really sensible idea for encouraging people to adopt solar technology, but I think that this one is a cracking idea.
Now before you get all excited, its not here in the UK, but in the city of Berkeley, California.
The city is planning to finance the installation of photovoltaic arrays and solar water heating systems and will place an additional annual assessment surcharge onto the customer's property tax (the equivalent of our council tax) to finance the repayments.
"some preliminary calculations show that a $15,000 solar array might add $1,300 to a homeowners’ annual tax bill"
"When you sell your home the solar array and the tax surcharge stays with the property, passing on to the new owner. In other words, there’s little risk that you’ll lose money by going solar."
The great thing is that the homeowner retains ownership of the installed equipment - it is viewed as a lien on a property so that in the event of any foreclosure, this is paid off first.
"as a property tax the solar assessment is a deductible on your federal income tax return". Oh how I wish we had a system like that here in the UK!
The full story can be found on GreenWombat.
What chance any of the UK's local authorities daring to try anything similar? My guess is zero.
____________
Just for comparative fun, here's an example of the really radical thinking that our local authorities are coming up with - switching off street lamps - from Auntie Beeb.
Now before you get all excited, its not here in the UK, but in the city of Berkeley, California.
The city is planning to finance the installation of photovoltaic arrays and solar water heating systems and will place an additional annual assessment surcharge onto the customer's property tax (the equivalent of our council tax) to finance the repayments.
"some preliminary calculations show that a $15,000 solar array might add $1,300 to a homeowners’ annual tax bill"
"When you sell your home the solar array and the tax surcharge stays with the property, passing on to the new owner. In other words, there’s little risk that you’ll lose money by going solar."
The great thing is that the homeowner retains ownership of the installed equipment - it is viewed as a lien on a property so that in the event of any foreclosure, this is paid off first.
"as a property tax the solar assessment is a deductible on your federal income tax return". Oh how I wish we had a system like that here in the UK!
The full story can be found on GreenWombat.
What chance any of the UK's local authorities daring to try anything similar? My guess is zero.
____________
Just for comparative fun, here's an example of the really radical thinking that our local authorities are coming up with - switching off street lamps - from Auntie Beeb.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
OH, SOLAR MIO
This could be a help in my quest to decide on the merits, ROI and enviROI, of solar: Solar photovoltaic panels could lead to cheques from your electricity supplier
It comes from a post in Treehugger, which has other worthy info.
Nice to see the UK on top of such issues, and with our weather that it can seem to work!
It comes from a post in Treehugger, which has other worthy info.
Nice to see the UK on top of such issues, and with our weather that it can seem to work!
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
So does it eat cheese?
Every now and again along comes a gadget that makes you think 'what a great idea'. This is one such, from Product-Reviews.Net, a solar powered wireless computer mouse.
However, most computer mice are in heaviest use during the daytime, and it does need direct sunlight to gain sufficient charge; so perhaps the only solution might be to buy two and alternate their use, using mouse 1 whilst mouse 2 is on charge on the windowsill? (Clever bit of marketing or what?)
Don't leave it charging while the cat's about though!
However, most computer mice are in heaviest use during the daytime, and it does need direct sunlight to gain sufficient charge; so perhaps the only solution might be to buy two and alternate their use, using mouse 1 whilst mouse 2 is on charge on the windowsill? (Clever bit of marketing or what?)
Don't leave it charging while the cat's about though!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)