Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Maybe we are not doomed after all

145791016

Posts

  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,497
    laurentian wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    laurentian wrote:
    3) There is a limit as to how much solar energy a domestic property can generate - we had as large a panel array as permitted - this seems at odds with a genuinely green governmental policy. Why can't I pay for the infrastructure (panels) and generate electricity that I'm not going to use to go back into the grid? (I guess the cynical answer is that I would be getting paid to generate electricity rather than the energy and fossil fuel companies who are "in cahoots" with the government).

    You are limited by the grid's capacity. No conspiracy. You could have applied to see if there was spare capacity.

    Thanks for that but not sure what you mean by being limited by the grid's capacity. If my neighbour wanted to install similar, presumably they could - or am I missing your point? Apologies if so

    A domestic supply is limited to 60 or 100A @ 240V. If you installed panels capable of supplying <15kW (about 110m2 of panels, so quite big) you'd cause some problems. Ditto if the whole street is supplying a few kW each the infrastructure needs to be able to cope.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • FocusZingFocusZing Posts: 4,373
    rjsterry wrote:
    laurentian wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    laurentian wrote:
    3) There is a limit as to how much solar energy a domestic property can generate - we had as large a panel array as permitted - this seems at odds with a genuinely green governmental policy. Why can't I pay for the infrastructure (panels) and generate electricity that I'm not going to use to go back into the grid? (I guess the cynical answer is that I would be getting paid to generate electricity rather than the energy and fossil fuel companies who are "in cahoots" with the government).

    You are limited by the grid's capacity. No conspiracy. You could have applied to see if there was spare capacity.

    Thanks for that but not sure what you mean by being limited by the grid's capacity. If my neighbour wanted to install similar, presumably they could - or am I missing your point? Apologies if so

    A domestic supply is limited to 60 or 100A @ 240V. If you installed panels capable of supplying <15kW (about 110m2 of panels, so quite big) you'd cause some problems. Ditto if the whole street is supplying a few kW each the infrastructure needs to be able to cope.

    I guess that's another positive of electric cars they could take some of this capacity. Also If the car is used infrequently a percentage of the capacity could be used to help out the grid.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,497
    Here's a link to the upgrade of a victorian terraced house to Enerphit standards.

    http://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/news/ ... QFLnmnTU0M

    And another.

    http://www.peterwarm.co.uk/2011-princedale-road-london/

    The latter was for a housing association. From memory it was a house that needed refurbishment anyway and the premium for the Enerphit standard over basic Building Regs compliance was 30-40%. Quite a big increase but that's for a one-off.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,725
    rjsterry wrote:
    laurentian wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    laurentian wrote:
    3) There is a limit as to how much solar energy a domestic property can generate - we had as large a panel array as permitted - this seems at odds with a genuinely green governmental policy. Why can't I pay for the infrastructure (panels) and generate electricity that I'm not going to use to go back into the grid? (I guess the cynical answer is that I would be getting paid to generate electricity rather than the energy and fossil fuel companies who are "in cahoots" with the government).

    You are limited by the grid's capacity. No conspiracy. You could have applied to see if there was spare capacity.

    Thanks for that but not sure what you mean by being limited by the grid's capacity. If my neighbour wanted to install similar, presumably they could - or am I missing your point? Apologies if so

    A domestic supply is limited to 60 or 100A @ 240V. If you installed panels capable of supplying <15kW (about 110m2 of panels, so quite big) you'd cause some problems. Ditto if the whole street is supplying a few kW each the infrastructure needs to be able to cope.

    I wasn't quite right on this. This is how the network works for larger generators, but the limit on household generators is not 60/100A, but 16A instead.

    On the face of it, if every house exported at 16A when they have the capacity to import at 60/100A it is hard to see the problem. Digging around a bit it seems that the limitation is set by law. The reason for the law seems to be many fold including a grid network that wasn't designed for voltage increases, but I suspect the real reason is the lack of regulation of and control over the generator.

    If you connect at higher than 16A, which you can do subject to capacity being available, you need a different connection agreement and to meet a different set of standards. This is likely to cost more and I suspect is outside the skillset of your rooftop installer.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,497
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    laurentian wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    laurentian wrote:
    3) There is a limit as to how much solar energy a domestic property can generate - we had as large a panel array as permitted - this seems at odds with a genuinely green governmental policy. Why can't I pay for the infrastructure (panels) and generate electricity that I'm not going to use to go back into the grid? (I guess the cynical answer is that I would be getting paid to generate electricity rather than the energy and fossil fuel companies who are "in cahoots" with the government).

    You are limited by the grid's capacity. No conspiracy. You could have applied to see if there was spare capacity.

    Thanks for that but not sure what you mean by being limited by the grid's capacity. If my neighbour wanted to install similar, presumably they could - or am I missing your point? Apologies if so

    A domestic supply is limited to 60 or 100A @ 240V. If you installed panels capable of supplying <15kW (about 110m2 of panels, so quite big) you'd cause some problems. Ditto if the whole street is supplying a few kW each the infrastructure needs to be able to cope.

    I wasn't quite right on this. This is how the network works for larger generators, but the limit on household generators is not 60/100A, but 16A instead.

    On the face of it, if every house exported at 16A when they have the capacity to import at 60/100A it is hard to see the problem. Digging around a bit it seems that the limitation is set by law. The reason for the law seems to be many fold including a grid network that wasn't designed for voltage increases, but I suspect the real reason is the lack of regulation of and control over the generator.

    If you connect at higher than 16A, which you can do subject to capacity being available, you need a different connection agreement and to meet a different set of standards. This is likely to cost more and I suspect is outside the skillset of your rooftop installer.

    So about 4kW; 60 or 100A is the main fuse on a domestic supply - physical limits rather than regulations. If everyone is supplying 4kW simultaneously on a sunny day, that's still quite a load, so pretty obvious why there's a limit. The network isn't built to supply every house at 100A/15kW simultaneously - they have to plan for everyone just turning their kettles on at the same time.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • laurentianlaurentian Posts: 1,876
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    laurentian wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    laurentian wrote:
    3) There is a limit as to how much solar energy a domestic property can generate - we had as large a panel array as permitted - this seems at odds with a genuinely green governmental policy. Why can't I pay for the infrastructure (panels) and generate electricity that I'm not going to use to go back into the grid? (I guess the cynical answer is that I would be getting paid to generate electricity rather than the energy and fossil fuel companies who are "in cahoots" with the government).

    You are limited by the grid's capacity. No conspiracy. You could have applied to see if there was spare capacity.

    Thanks for that but not sure what you mean by being limited by the grid's capacity. If my neighbour wanted to install similar, presumably they could - or am I missing your point? Apologies if so

    A domestic supply is limited to 60 or 100A @ 240V. If you installed panels capable of supplying <15kW (about 110m2 of panels, so quite big) you'd cause some problems. Ditto if the whole street is supplying a few kW each the infrastructure needs to be able to cope.

    I wasn't quite right on this. This is how the network works for larger generators, but the limit on household generators is not 60/100A, but 16A instead.

    On the face of it, if every house exported at 16A when they have the capacity to import at 60/100A it is hard to see the problem. Digging around a bit it seems that the limitation is set by law. The reason for the law seems to be many fold including a grid network that wasn't designed for voltage increases, but I suspect the real reason is the lack of regulation of and control over the generator.

    If you connect at higher than 16A, which you can do subject to capacity being available, you need a different connection agreement and to meet a different set of standards. This is likely to cost more and I suspect is outside the skillset of your rooftop installer.

    So about 4kW; 60 or 100A is the main fuse on a domestic supply - physical limits rather than regulations. If everyone is supplying 4kW simultaneously on a sunny day, that's still quite a load, so pretty obvious why there's a limit. The network isn't built to supply every house at 100A/15kW simultaneously - they have to plan for everyone just turning their kettles on at the same time.

    RJS and BB

    Thank you for your explanations. A little clearer now (a little!) I guess the point of my original comment was that the more people that install solar with excess power at times (which would be most people I think), the more clean energy is available for someone, somehwere to use. The obvious (and oft heard) question being why all new build houses are not required to be built with solar panels. If we're going to meet net zero emmissions by 2050, this needs to change and quickly . . .

    Thanks again.
    Wilier Izoard XP
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,497
    It's not always appropriate to fit PV or solar thermal panels if the roof has the wrong orientation or is overshadowed, but there is certainly a lot of roofs that could have panels. Most new social housing seems to have it, presumably as housing associations aren't as profit focused.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,725
    Contracts for difference prices were announced this morning. Winning bids from offshore wind were £47/MWh in today's money. This is fairly stunning given that long term power forecasts are mostly higher than this. It is becoming increasingly likely that offshore wind is the cheapest way to generate electricity all else equal, so maybe we are not all doomed.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... esults.pdf
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,725
    Some positive forecasts.

    World-solar.gif

    Solar.gif
  • FocusZingFocusZing Posts: 4,373
    FocusZing wrote:
    Dyson cars.
    The company best known for its vacuums and domestic appliances bought the disused airfield at Hullavington two years ago.
    Dyson has already renovated two hangars built in 1938 at the 517-acre site.
    That redevelopment has cost £84m and the next phase of the airfield's development would take Dyson's total investment to £200m.
    About 400 automotive staff are now based at Hullavington and a further three buildings will open in the coming months, offering an additional 15,000 sq m of testing space.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45345778

    Interesting development. Hope they can pull it off.

    Dyson have announced they are pulling out of creating an electric car now. A big move considering how much money they will have ploughed into it via R&D. Probably sensible with regards how strongly the big players are moving towards electric too!
  • morstarmorstar Posts: 4,663
    FocusZing wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    Dyson cars.
    The company best known for its vacuums and domestic appliances bought the disused airfield at Hullavington two years ago.
    Dyson has already renovated two hangars built in 1938 at the 517-acre site.
    That redevelopment has cost £84m and the next phase of the airfield's development would take Dyson's total investment to £200m.
    About 400 automotive staff are now based at Hullavington and a further three buildings will open in the coming months, offering an additional 15,000 sq m of testing space.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45345778

    Interesting development. Hope they can pull it off.

    Dyson have announced they are pulling out of creating an electric car now. A big move considering how much money they will have ploughed into it via R&D. Probably sensible with regards how strongly the big players are moving towards electric too!

    Interesting how they state that it was only ever going to be a niche (expensive) product but they are still going to pursue a step change in battery performance.

    I'd have thought the battery R&D is the main cost as surely sticking a body and chassis together is a relatively predictable cost. Maybe the 'actually making a car' bit is proving to be un-necessary distraction from the core development. The cash cow would be being the car battery equivalent of what intel are to computer processing.
  • FocusZingFocusZing Posts: 4,373
    morstar wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    Dyson cars.
    The company best known for its vacuums and domestic appliances bought the disused airfield at Hullavington two years ago.
    Dyson has already renovated two hangars built in 1938 at the 517-acre site.
    That redevelopment has cost £84m and the next phase of the airfield's development would take Dyson's total investment to £200m.
    About 400 automotive staff are now based at Hullavington and a further three buildings will open in the coming months, offering an additional 15,000 sq m of testing space.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45345778

    Interesting development. Hope they can pull it off.

    Dyson have announced they are pulling out of creating an electric car now. A big move considering how much money they will have ploughed into it via R&D. Probably sensible with regards how strongly the big players are moving towards electric too!

    Interesting how they state that it was only ever going to be a niche (expensive) product but they are still going to pursue a step change in battery performance.

    I'd have thought the battery R&D is the main cost as surely sticking a body and chassis together is a relatively predictable cost. Maybe the 'actually making a car' bit is proving to be un-necessary distraction from the core development. The cash cow would be being the car battery equivalent of what intel are to computer processing.

    I can understand that batteries could be used in their current products improved upon and externally sold, but to be honest it`s not exactly a market which isn't already filled with competition from the big boys!
  • morstarmorstar Posts: 4,663
    FocusZing wrote:
    morstar wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    Dyson cars.
    The company best known for its vacuums and domestic appliances bought the disused airfield at Hullavington two years ago.
    Dyson has already renovated two hangars built in 1938 at the 517-acre site.
    That redevelopment has cost £84m and the next phase of the airfield's development would take Dyson's total investment to £200m.
    About 400 automotive staff are now based at Hullavington and a further three buildings will open in the coming months, offering an additional 15,000 sq m of testing space.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45345778

    Interesting development. Hope they can pull it off.

    Dyson have announced they are pulling out of creating an electric car now. A big move considering how much money they will have ploughed into it via R&D. Probably sensible with regards how strongly the big players are moving towards electric too!

    Interesting how they state that it was only ever going to be a niche (expensive) product but they are still going to pursue a step change in battery performance.

    I'd have thought the battery R&D is the main cost as surely sticking a body and chassis together is a relatively predictable cost. Maybe the 'actually making a car' bit is proving to be un-necessary distraction from the core development. The cash cow would be being the car battery equivalent of what intel are to computer processing.

    I can understand that batteries could be used in their current products improved upon and externally sold, but to be honest it`s not exactly a market which isn't already filled with competition from the big boys!
    Fair point. But maybe it's all in the marketing. He'll name them 'Digital' batteries and increase the price.
  • Wasn't the government funding it anyway, so it's not their money lost.

    Or perhaps gov pulled out so Dyson pulled the plug, so to speak.
  • rjsterry wrote:
    It's not always appropriate to fit PV or solar thermal panels if the roof has the wrong orientation or is overshadowed, but there is certainly a lot of roofs that could have panels. Most new social housing seems to have it, presumably as housing associations aren't as profit focused.

    And they might as well make the physical building as ugly as the residents.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,497
    Good news: we've got CO2 emissions down to levels last seen in 1888. Bad news: we need to make the same cut again + a bit more in the next 10 years. And that is still only half way to carbon neutral.

    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • pinnopinno Posts: 42,474
    Is it design or default? I mean, we really have no heavy industry left and if we did, would we be plugging a different mantra?
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • One chinese man eating bat soup has done more to lower Chinese emissions than all the truancy you can orchestrate
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,497
    Think you've posted in the wrong thread, mate.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,725
    rjsterry said:

    Think you've posted in the wrong thread, mate.

    China's heavy industry has shut down, so emissions have dropped substantially. I might have phrased it differently though.
  • focuszing723focuszing723 Posts: 2,501
    I'm struggling to understand this. Do we need to forget about a vegan diet now and start eating bat soup to save the planet?
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,674
    I'm slightly surprised that I haven't yet seen anything from the Anti-Natalist tendency rejoicing in the prospect of a cull. I'm sure it will come.
  • john80john80 Posts: 2,313

    I'm struggling to understand this. Do we need to forget about a vegan diet now and start eating bat soup to save the planet?

    It is certainly a method of reducing the numbers on the planet but with all these schemes I will let you go first.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,497
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,725
    rjsterry said:
    It's actually not that good. Gas prices have fallen significantly and combined with lower demand, wholesale prices are crazily low. The existing renewables generators are hurting really badly, but won't stop generating due to the existing subsidies. The problem is that it will make it really hard to deploy any more renewables, because right now gas is the cheapest way to generate, and the government doesn't really want to provide any more subsidies.

    The good news is that the current gas prices are supposed to be unsustainable.

  • focuszing723focuszing723 Posts: 2,501



    It's a sad sight seeing the oil spill in Mauritius.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,725
    That needs to go in a doomed thread

    In other news, even Ireland is getting some solar and more wind.
  • pinnopinno Posts: 42,474
    I hope the company that owns that ship pays for the clean up. The Japanese government did say they would put money towards it but the people of Mauritius have been forking out for stuff out of their own pocket.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 56,710 Lives Here
    edited August 2020
    pinno said:

    I hope the company that owns that ship pays for the clean up. The Japanese government did say they would put money towards it but the people of Mauritius have been forking out for stuff out of their own pocket.

    Ah, welcome to the supply side of petchems.

    Do you want to go after the firm who's oil it is (either the buyer or the seller), the shipping firm who owns the actual boat, the firm who put the crew onboard the ship?
  • shirley_bassoshirley_basso Posts: 4,471
    The shipping firm probably don't own the boat, it's probably owned by someone else and chartered by them.
Sign In or Register to comment.