[BBC News] Calls to harness natural energy

[Sebrof]

You could probably squash Sulby into a circle with a diameter of 400m. That gives an area of 1.26 sq km.

on my map there is a rectangle 300m by 700m with two tails east + west total 600m by 150m - maybe 0.35 sq km

a circle area is pi r squared r = 200m or 0.2 km 0.2km squared = 0.04 sq km x 3 = 0.12 sq km

 

You're absolutely right. It's a long time since I was at school.

 

S

[Frances]

You're absolutely right. It's a long time since I was at school.

I realised that when you mentioned slide rule - I doubt if anyone under 50 can use one these days (& of course out by factor of 10 is a common mistake! - only astronomers worked to accuracy of half an order error )

[Tugger]

Proffitt is a genius. The main problem with renewable energy is affordability, and he has made conventional electricity so expensive with his MEA antics that renewable energy now looks relatively cheap. What an environmental pioneer he is!

[Skeddan]

Often there's more mileage to be had from reducing energy consumption. It wouldn't cost much to introduce price bands for domestic electricity and gas (a bit like tax bands). Excessive users would then pay heavily, while a user whose consumption remains within a carbon footprint would pay only a low basic rate charge. That differential is likely to encourage more diligent energy consumption planning and consumption avoidance.

 

It's also worth looking at what energy is being used for, and alternative ways of achieving that - not just 'generic electricity'. Example, heating a swimming pool maybe currently requires traditional non-renewable energy. Rather than substituting with renewable source electricity (e.g hydro, wind etc.), this could be done by ground source heat pump. Such tailored meeting of requirements can be a more efficient solution.

 

It would also be worth thinking of more innovative energy retailing models. Example, MEA (or whoever) might own and pay for the installation and maintenance of a ground source heat pump, and charge the user(s) for kilojoules this provides. (Same with installing solar panels or whatever). A lot of power is used for heating water and for central heating. Hydro and wind turbines with power lost over grid is not necessarily the best way to meet this need. If these might be better alternatives, why not invest in a very localised energy infrastructure like this?

[ai_Droid]

Often there's more mileage to be had from reducing energy consumption. It wouldn't cost much to introduce price bands for domestic electricity and gas (a bit like tax bands). Excessive users would then pay heavily, while a user whose consumption remains within a carbon footprint would pay only a low basic rate charge. That differential is likely to encourage more diligent energy consumption planning and consumption avoidance.

 

 

You'd have to get into a complicated system of credits though for multiple occupancy etc. Hardly fair to charge a family of four a premium when they live in the same house and so have some economies in sharing vs a guy living by himself.

 

It would also be worth thinking of more innovative energy retailing models. Example, MEA (or whoever) might own and pay for the installation and maintenance of a ground source heat pump, and charge the user(s) for kilojoules this provides. (Same with installing solar panels or whatever). A lot of power is used for heating water and for central heating. Hydro and wind turbines with power lost over grid is not necessarily the best way to meet this need. If these might be better alternatives, why not invest in a very localised energy infrastructure like this?

 

Agree.

[Skeddan]

You'd have to get into a complicated system of credits though for multiple occupancy etc. Hardly fair to charge a family of four a premium when they live in the same house and so have some economies in sharing vs a guy living by himself.

Would you? Why not just per person? It might not seem fair to the guy living by himself, but he's using energy to do that (and could encourage economies such as shared ground source heat pumps for flats etc.). Isn't it better to have simple system that's effective in reducing consumption rather than worry over quibbles that some might pay a bit more than they think fair? However basic rate ought to be sufficient for people living alone - provided they don't go into heavy use.

 

If the guy has a mansion with a big indoor swimming pool, floodlighting etc. why shouldn't his use of energy for luxuries be charged at a higher rate?

 

What it should also do is cut out is senseless and extravagent waste - using a clothes dryer 2hrs a day for towels used to mop up water from shower because they haven't got round to fixing shower door (seriously!). Using a dishwasher for 2 plates and a couple of glasses, etc.

 

Raising prices has an effect, but having bands would make people more energy conscious still. It may not be 'ideally fair' but better than nought. (consider the unfairness of the economic and environmental cost of catering for energy squandering).

[ai_Droid]

Would you? Why not just per person? It might not seem fair to the guy living by himself, but he's using energy to do that (and could encourage economies such as shared ground source heat pumps for flats etc.). Isn't it better to have simple system that's effective in reducing consumption rather than worry over quibbles that some might pay a bit more than they think fair? However basic rate ought to be sufficient for people living alone - provided they don't go into heavy use.

 

Even going from per building to per person is increasing the complexity of the system a great deal. And then it's still odd, does a baby get charged the same rate as a teenager?

 

If the guy has a mansion with a big indoor swimming pool, floodlighting etc. why shouldn't his use of energy for luxuries be charged at a higher rate?

 

That's a different issue though. He does get charged more, because he uses more. What's to say he's using it on luxuries or it's an old couple in a mansion that's using that for heating to stay alive?

 

What it should also do is cut out is senseless and extravagent waste - using a clothes dryer 2hrs a day for towels used to mop up water from shower because they haven't got round to fixing shower door (seriously!). Using a dishwasher for 2 plates and a couple of glasses, etc.

 

Yep, I agree here, we do need to cut the waste, but I don't see banded charging being effective. Higher prices overall does encourage people to save engergy though as you said. I'm just not convinced you could implement a higher rate effectively.

[Sebrof]

Would you? Why not just per person? It might not seem fair to the guy living by himself, but he's using energy to do that (and could encourage economies such as shared ground source heat pumps for flats etc.). Isn't it better to have simple system that's effective in reducing consumption rather than worry over quibbles that some might pay a bit more than they think fair? However basic rate ought to be sufficient for people living alone - provided they don't go into heavy use.

 

Even going from per building to per person is increasing the complexity of the system a great deal. And then it's still odd, does a baby get charged the same rate as a teenager?

 

If the guy has a mansion with a big indoor swimming pool, floodlighting etc. why shouldn't his use of energy for luxuries be charged at a higher rate?

 

That's a different issue though. He does get charged more, because he uses more. What's to say he's using it on luxuries or it's an old couple in a mansion that's using that for heating to stay alive?

 

What it should also do is cut out is senseless and extravagent waste - using a clothes dryer 2hrs a day for towels used to mop up water from shower because they haven't got round to fixing shower door (seriously!). Using a dishwasher for 2 plates and a couple of glasses, etc.

 

Yep, I agree here, we do need to cut the waste, but I don't see banded charging being effective. Higher prices overall does encourage people to save engergy though as you said. I'm just not convinced you could implement a higher rate effectively.

 

Intelligent meters that know the time and could automatically log off-peak usage, and charge less for it without all the hassle of a separate system would be good - and feasible.

 

S

[Skeddan]

Even going from per building to per person is increasing the complexity of the system a great deal. And then it's still odd, does a baby get charged the same rate as a teenager?

Yes. everyone has the same. (simpler than single person's allowance, married allowance, familiy allowance, child credit etc.) Also having a baby will lead to increase in power consumption.

 

If the guy has a mansion with a big indoor swimming pool, floodlighting etc. why shouldn't his use of energy for luxuries be charged at a higher rate?

That's a different issue though. He does get charged more, because he uses more. What's to say he's using it on luxuries or it's an old couple in a mansion that's using that for heating to stay alive?

 

he gets charged more because he uses more - but this is all at the same rate - £ per kilowatt (which is very affordable for his extravagent use of energy). Basically put the price up for this 'excess' use so that price elasticity effects demand from excessive users.

 

An old couple in a mansion using heating would not or should not be heating the whole mansion. They could not only stay alive, but would have all the electricity needed for a good standard of living - and this would be charged at basic rate. If they wanted to heat the whole mansion with dozens of rooms - then they would probably pay very high rate - and would be expensive. (more so than getting the ground source heat pump). If they want to dry towels used to mop up in the shower, and did this every day, then this would also get into high rate and get very very expensive. Simple - don't do it, or pay through the nose if you want to be extravagent and careless with natural resources.

 

I'm just not convinced you could implement a higher rate effectively.

 

Fair comment - I'm not convinced either - there'd be a lot more to consider - but it could work. If it was kept simple, there was a very reasonable basic allowance, and one doesn't try to make it 'ideally fair' it could well be implemented effectively.

 

As a start base it on 80% falling within basic allocation, and set the initial limit at this. Suppose (for sake of argument) 80% of the domestic energy consumed is being used by the remaining 20%. Should a new power station have to be built because of their excessive use? (4 - 16 times more than average person) If so, then they will be paying for it - user pays. What would happen if they cut their use down by 50%? On this model, it would reduce domestic energy demand by 40%.

 

Of course need to see what the numbers actually are, but I'd bet a significant amount is 'excessive' use - and demand would be reduced signficantly if this were priced in a way that penalises these consumers. (just 5% reduction in domestic energy use would be signifcant).

 

Target the 20% who are most extravagent in their use of energy with a middle rate, and top 4% with very very high rate, and it's a safe bet that there would be big reduction in demand very rapidly.

[Frances]

charging based on any criteria other than the true cost implies some political judgement by others re the user's lifestyle - maybe they traded a petrol car for an electric vehicle, should they be penalized ?. The true cost should reflect the cost to wider society (eg a carbon tax) as well as the energy cost, which for electricity is almost certainly dependent on time of day. Industrial users are commonly charged on a usage + also a peak demand basis - if you go above the agreed demand then additional units are charged at a much higher rate (sometimes 10x your average rate) - smart domestic meters that could turn off some loads to reduce peaks would help but if electric vehicles beome common then the battery of the vehicle could be used as a local energy storage system to peak lop.

[triskelion]

Personal energy allowances have now been largely discredited. Mostly this is because they would be extremely complicated to administer, and not nearly as redistributive as some people think. Like droid said, people already pay more if they use more. Making them pay even more for using more is unlikely to be effective.

 

Furthermore, they increase uncertainty. There are some important variables that would either make a quota system extremely unfair, or much more difficult to administer - eg. a colder/longer winter or a wetter year (more clouds= darker and more likely to be at home).

 

Perhaps the best way forward re: wind turbines would be to start off selling the electricity to the UK rather than using it ourselves? Isn't there a premium for green electricity? Could be a way to start building towards less volatile energy infrastructure without having to solve all the problems at once.

[Slim]

Worth remembering that this is now a very fast moving area, Sharp has recently announced new solar panels that are expected to be produced at half the current panels, wind turbines have become far cheaper due to economies of scale.

 

Here's an interesting article about 2nd gen tidal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...renewableenergy

 

Tidal has to be a win for us, we've two very strong tidal races on the island.

[Sebrof]

Worth remembering that this is now a very fast moving area, Sharp has recently announced new solar panels that are expected to be produced at half the current panels, wind turbines have become far cheaper due to economies of scale.

 

Here's an interesting article about 2nd gen tidal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...renewableenergy

 

Tidal has to be a win for us, we've two very strong tidal races on the island.

 

Tidal energy is fine in calm waters, but the cost of making it storm-proof in these waters would, I should imagine, be considerable.

 

S

[Stu Peters]

Always seems to be a strong current in The Sound - couldn't some sort of bi-directional fish mincer be installed there?

[Joe Public]

“It is currently very expensive to generate electricity in an island environment, due to the high cost of imported fuel oil. Bermuda has an excellent wave regime and there are several sites which we believe would be suitable for a CETO wave farm. There is also the added advantage of being able to provide desalinated water with the CETO technology, which is another benefit of deploying our technology on islands,” said Mike Proffitt, CEO of REH.

 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=53256

 

He could have told us earlier.