Can We Live "sustainably"?

[Green_not_greed]

In response to a post by Rheghead here is a new posting to see if its possible to live sustainably without the need for windfarms (and I presume all other forms of power from the National Grid).

Someone (I think it was Nick In the North but am prepared to be corrected) posted that they lived off their own wind turbine for several years without having to rely on the National Grid. How easy would it be to do this - and what would people be prepared to go without in order to do so?

I've seen homes in the North African desert that run entirely off 12 volt car batteries, charged by solar power. All electrics in the home were based on car or caravan parts (lights, TV, stereo, fridge etc). I presume it would be possible to do the same in Caithness running off a wind or water driven alternator to charge a battery. Has anyone any experience in this area?

Finally, to be truly "sustainable" any transport would have to be powered from the home. Has anyone any experience in this area?

Does anyone think that you can truly live a "sustainable" lifestyle, or is it all hogwash, spin and buzzphrases?

GNG

[northener]

Windpower has been available on a single domestic user basis for a long time now.

The technology is straightforward but relies on rather large battery banks to make maximum use of available wind energy. This isn't a problem, but could raise questions about whether it's truly a 'green' energy source. I would guess the biggest expense/bugbear would be the life of the batteries.

As you say, 12v lighting is now very efficient, it's been around on boats for years and is easy to rig up, plus you won't get electrocuted by it.

Its easy to convert 12v batt power up to 240v for light usage such as PC's, tellys etc using an inverter, but heavy use equipment such as washing machines tend to be run off a genny. Although I wouldn't be suprised if you can now get washers efficient enought to run off a 12v inverter.

I heard £16k -ish being quoted recently fo an all singing, all dancing new set-up. It then depends how long the system will work for, I suppose.

I don't see any reason why a single domestic house cannot power itself in Caithness.

There's a firm on Shetland that make leccy cars, it would be interesting to find out if the recharging requirements could be met by a domestic wind turbine set-up. I'll try and chase them up after the hols.

.

[Rheghead]

We can live sustainably but it needs central Governmental action to provide those conditions, the individual is totally incapable of living sustainably as we are all the frogs sitting comfy in the warming kettle and are out for ourselves and ourselves alone.

The government needs to take action to stop new developments like new runways and unwanted golf courses. We need clear signals from the top that they mean business on carbon emissions but all too often the message gets lost by them sanctioning something that is totally unnecessary.

We can do our part by lobbying local Government to approve local renewable energy schemes.

[orkneylass]

One has to ask how much energy etc is consumed in manufacturing the windmills?

[northener]

One has to ask how much energy etc is consumed in manufacturing the windmills?

Exactly. That's the point I was making about the batteries. They're big and take a lot of energy (and chemicals) to make, so whether the system is truly 'green' or not depends on a lot of variables.

But looking at it from purely a self-sufficiency - (and not wanting to line the power company shareholders pockets) - point of view, then it is certainly within realistic reach.

.

[Rheghead]

One has to ask how much energy etc is consumed in manufacturing the windmills?

It depends on the size of turbine.

[j4bberw0ck]

Can we live sustainably? Absolutely! We just need to follow the Top 10 examples of some of the inspired ecological warriors below:


1. Get rid of humans.

Greenpeace co-founder Paul Watson insists we "reduce human populations to fewer than one billion".

2. Put a carbon tax on babies.

Prof Barry Walters, of the University of Western Australia, says families with more than, say, two children should be charged a carbon tax on their little gas emitters.

3. Cull babies.

Toni Vernelli, of green group PETA, says she killed her unborn child because of its potential emissions: "It would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world."

4. Sterilise us all.

Dr John Reid, a former Swinburne University academic, gave a lecture on ABC radio recommending we "put something in the water, a virus that would be specific to the human reproductive system, and would make a substantial proportion of the population infertile".

5. Ban second children.

Says Melbourne University population guru Prof Short: "We need to develop a one-child family policy because we are the global warmers."

6. Feed babies rats' milk.

PETA campaigner Heather Mills, ex-wife of Paul McCartney, says cows' burps are heating up the world and we should use milk from other animals: "Why don't we try drinking rats' milk and dogs' milk?"

7. Eat kangaroo, not beef.

Greenpeace says kangaroos don't belch like cows, so are greener and should be eaten first.

8. Shut industries.

Greens leader Bob Brown says we must scrap all coal-fired power stations and our $23 billion export trade in coal.

9. Wash less.

Says actor Cate Blanchett: "I have little races with myself, thinking: 'Oh no, I'm not washing my hair, I only need a two-minute shower'."

10. Sweat more.

The green-crusading editor of the (airconditioned) Age says we should turn off airconditioners in summer: "Our consumer society has long abandoned the fan or the cold bath as the way to keep summer at bay."


And if those don't show you what a bunch a swivel-eyed dangerously lunatic half-wits are pushing the debate, I don't know what will. The source, by the way, is >>>here<<< (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22945744-5000117,00.html).

There's another group trying to persuade Jews (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546797524&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull) to "Save the Planet!!" by each burning one less candle at Hanukkah.

Oh yes. And someone better tell Antarctica that it's being a very, very naughty continent and just not playing the game (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N51/C1.jsp) at all. And so soon after that bunch of freeloaders in Bali wibbling ineffectively about "Kyoto 2" was treated to the Secretary General of the UN claiming Antarctica is positively hot. 10,000 return trips'-worth of jetfuel CO2..... was it worth it?

I don't deny climate change of some sort is occurring. But it always does, always has, and always will. And we're just entering a stage in the sun's history where sunspot levels are extremely low; not only is that bad for sightings of the Merry Dancers, but historically, it's always coincided with extremely cold winters. Won't it be interesting to see what happens over the next few winters? :lol:

Windmills are, on the available evidence and economics, just another tax on stupidity.

[karia]

Yup!

what?..you want more?

He's right.

[johno]

Now then, if that was possible, think of the growing dole queues .
all those electricity workers. fitter,s riggers ,meter readers,
cable jointers.etc etc ? the list go,es on & on.:roll:
Yep for every upside there,s a downside:~(

[northener]

........Windmills are, on the available evidence and economics, just another tax on stupidity.


But that's a 'Green' issue, not a sustainability or self-sufficient issue.

.

[j4bberw0ck]

Eyoop, Northener..... put that way you may be right but I'm afraid I tend to view the whole sustainability argument as stemming from the need to do it to (allegedly) defer or reverse climate change, not the desire to do it just for its own sake. Economically, it's hugely damaging.

[Rheghead]

Economically, it's hugely damaging.

How is it economically damaging?

[j4bberw0ck]

Aaaahh! A twitch of the net curtain....... a rustle barely heard in the background........ and Rheggers is out!

It's simple. Government gets involved with things and (very expensively) gums up the works. The Carbon Trust is a useless quango wasting £103 million p.a. which could otherwise have been spent on something else - preferably by never having been taken off us in tax in the first place.

Windmills are only viable because of ROCs. We pay for ROCs in our electricity bills. So does industry, more damagingly. In the private sector, increased costs = fewer jobs. WE pay 10% more for power than we need to solely because of ROCs. And of course it hits the poorest hardest.

The government agrees ludicrous targets for "renewable" energy by 2020 despite its advisers saying it can't be done. Then they have to try and make it happen so they legislate the market and distort it, making it expensive and inefficient. Trade happens because of specialisation; specialisation provides a price gradient as a result of efficiency. Globalisation is the best possible force for good in the future.

So those Kenyan green beans might have "carbon miles" but the plane would have flown anyway, and the lack of fertiliser needed to force yields in the UK compared with Kenya reduces the addition of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere - 300 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

If you want to understand the effect on the economy of the diversion of effort into "sustainability" for no good or proven reason, I refer you to the writings of Frederic Bastiat (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/BasEss1.html), a French economist who was active at much the same sort of time as Adam Smith (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.adamsmith.org/), the rather famous Scottish economist :lol:.

[Rheghead]

If you want to understand the effect on the economy of the diversion of effort into "sustainability" for no good or proven reason, I refer you to the writings of Frederic Bastiat (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/BasEss1.html), a French economist who was active at much the same sort of time as Adam Smith (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.adamsmith.org/), the rather famous Scottish economist :lol:.

I think Stern will have a better view on things.

[j4bberw0ck]

That's where we differ. Stern has been progressively discredited. Bastiat and Smith haven't. And you clearly can't be bothered to tackle them.

[Rheghead]

That's where we differ. Stern has been progressively discredited. Bastiat and Smith haven't. And you clearly can't be bothered to tackle them.

Discredited by who?

[thebigman]

Well for this time of year I'd have to grow my own grapes for red wine and agave for my tequila :-)

[EDDIE]

This is going of the subject a little bit but i often wonder whos got the right idea us who go out and have to work for living in order to live or a aboriginey or someone in a tribe were all they worry about is there next meal who are not awnserable to anyone just living of the land i always wonder who has the right idea?

[luskentyre]

Perhaps it's just me, but a lot of those ideas aren't as bizarre as some might think.

For a start a reduction in the world population has to be a good thing. In a real sense, most of us contribute nothing, and basically use resources and create waste.

I've always thought that having more than two children was indulgent at best. Why should the state pay for anything more? Child benefit was only introduced after WW2, so why do we need it now?

Why is it considered strange to consider milk from species other than cows? Cows milk is for (surprise, surprise) calves, not humans. Why don't we market human milk for consumption?

Kanagroos? Cows? What's the difference? Why is killing one for food any less acceptable than the other?

Sometimes I think we just accept the "norm" without question, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

[scorrie]

Why don't we market human milk for consumption?

Kanagroos? Cows? What's the difference? Why is killing one for food any less acceptable than the other?



How many pints can you get from a wifie? How many fairmers would be willing to milk a wifie every morning?

Apparently, Coos fart more than Kangaroos do.

My solution is Marvel and Corks. Basic, but don't knock it til it's been tried and proven ineffective in a multi-million pound University study.

[Highland Laddie]

Does anyone think that you can truly live a "sustainable" lifestyle, or is it all hogwash, spin and buzzphrases?
GNG


Why would you !!!!!

[Ricco]

Of course, one solution (though totally impractical) would be to change the National Grid to 110v instead of the current (excuse the pun) 240v. Completely out of the question, of course. ;)

[luskentyre]

How many pints can you get from a wifie? How many fairmers would be willing to milk a wifie every morning?

Apparently, Coos fart more than Kangaroos do.

My solution is Marvel and Corks. Basic, but don't knock it til it's been tried and proven ineffective in a multi-million pound University study.

I guess it depends on the wifie!

My point was just that most people would baulk at the thought of drinking a strangers breast milk - yet it would be much more natural than cows milk.

[j4bberw0ck]

Of course, one solution (though totally impractical) would be to change the National Grid to 110v instead of the current (excuse the pun) 240v. Completely out of the question, of course. ;)

I know, I know, it's pedantic, but the National Grid runs at hundreds of kV to reduce heating effects and transmission losses. Domestic supply is at 240V; but how would reducing it to 110V change anything? That'd increase the current demand........

.....or am I missing a good joke? Apologies if I am......

@Rheghead, I decline, thank you, to play the classic Rheghead "one enigmatic question at a time" game. I recognise it as a tool of debate and one I've used many times, admittedly, but either you have the courtesy to make an argument and present information, as I attempt to do, or you accept - as I now reluctantly do - that you have nothing worthwhile to say on the subject. Byeee! :mad:

@luskentyre, wealth and economic growth aren't about how many people make things, they're about how many consume things. So a larger population means a larger economy, means more wealth. Certainly there are upper limits, just as there are lower limits, on sustainable population sizes but we're nowhere near either limit. Centrally planned economies like the USSR worked on the supply side; dictating how much of a product or service would be created. It didn't work for them, and it doesn't work for the two remaining centrally-planned activities in the UK, which are Health and Education. Both are black holes for money, and neither respond in any measurably positive way to the money thrown in.

As for people telling you what to eat, what not to eat, and how to live your life, you might be comfortable with that but I'd rather they didn't. I've read too much George Orwell to believe it could ever work, and seen it proved as I lived through the 60's, 70's. 80's and 90's watching successive governments taking more and more powers unto themselves and achieving less and less at greater and greater expense.

[Green_not_greed]

I thought J4bberwock's top 10 was a great post!

Nutters aside (and no I'm not inferring that J4bberwock is one!), there are things which could be done to cut down carbon emissions without impinging on lifestyle. Most are well known, such as:

- better insulation for houses
- turning home heating thermostats down 1-2 degrees
- better grants to encourage use of home renewable systems (solar panels, ground source heat pumps, roof top turbines, etc)
- mandatory incorporation of such systems in new build homes and industrial buildings

But how about:
- banning fireworks and the Nov 5th bonfires?
- encouraging car sharing through reduced road taxes?
- encouraging better use of public transport through tax credits or similar?
- implementing a cap on business travel (flights per employees or miles per employee not using public transport)?

I'm sure there are many others.....

[j4bberw0ck]

My point was just that most people would baulk at the thought of drinking a strangers breast milk - yet it would be much more natural than cows milk.

The method of delivery would be interesting, too - no more milkman, eh? And would a premium price be demanded for, ahh, superior packaging, like "luxury" mince pies in Tesco? And such scope for additional value-added services... :eek::lol:

[orkneylass]

Be careful now...we don't want to have a "my wife farts less than yours" debate. That might get too intellectual for some....


How many pints can you get from a wifie? How many fairmers would be willing to milk a wifie every morning?

Apparently, Coos fart more than Kangaroos do.

My solution is Marvel and Corks. Basic, but don't knock it til it's been tried and proven ineffective in a multi-million pound University study.

[Rheghead]

Windmills are, on the available evidence and economics, just another tax on stupidity.

It seems to me that a few windmills is more socially acceptable than those draconian methods.

[j4bberw0ck]

I thought J4bberwock's top 10 was a great post!

Nutters aside (and no I'm not inferring that J4bberwock is one!)

Thank you, on both counts.


things which could be done to cut down carbon emissions without impinging on lifestyle
- better insulation for housesYes, indeed. But in doing so you need to recognise that the business of supplying affordable homes gets harder because the costs increase. One of the reasons for the present housing numbers crisis is that John Prescott pushed through all sorts of planning regulations while he was creating havoc as the country's Mascot Fool, in the name of energy efficiency. All those measures are aimed at reducing the loss of heat measured basically in Watts per m2. They take no account whatever of the production methods and any emissions from that. Lunacy.


- turning home heating thermostats down 1-2 degreesYep, and the best thing is it doesn't need a department of 15,000 civil servants to make it work (or not, more usually). Simple economics and direct reward to the twiddler of the thermostat.


- better grants to encourage use of home renewable systems (solar panels, ground source heat pumps, roof top turbines, etc)No, no, no, no, no, no. Grants distort the market and hugely reward the producers at the expense of the rest of us. Example: in Australia, it used to cost (c.2000) about A$3000 to install a rainwater run-off tank to store rainwater for toilet-flushing and suchlike. Government thinks "Ooohh what a great eco-friendly wibble!" and announces a grant to encourage people to do it. Result: it now costs around A$7000 to install a tank because of the grant. Grants only remove competitive pricing and cause prices to remain high, transferring the cost to the taxpayer, and hitting the poor hardest etc etc.


- mandatory incorporation of such systems in new build homes and industrial buildingsAww nooooooooooo.............. see comments (both) about price, above.


But how about:
- banning fireworks and the Nov 5th bonfires?Wow! Dontcha just luuurve that bansturbation????? Power to the politicians! Imagine the Daleks: "Reg-you-late!" "Reg-you-late!" G-n-G, it isn't banning things that's going to work. Look what happened when the Europoliticians decreed that all old refrigerators had to be processed to stop CFC's being lost to the atmosphere and destroying the ozone layer. There would, they said, be a charge levied but oh, so worth it to save the planet. Result? Half the country lanes in Europe became filled with abandoned refrigerators. Same with fly tipping, when the landfill tax was passed. It now costs more to clear up fly-tipping that the landfill tax raises! Ban bonfires, and people'll have them anyway. Where were you when the police were banning raves in the eighties and nineties, and every field in the country had one going on?

- implementing a cap on business travel (flights per employees or miles per employee not using public transport)?Hah. Bansturbation again. The government can't even manage its own business, much less tell the private sector how to do its. Business travel is an essential part of economic activity. Try telling 10,000 bootlickers and functionaries not to travel to Bali for a jolly and see what they say.

G-n-G, I'm not just having a go (believe it or not). Global warming, whether man-made, man-assisted, or caused by the Flying Spaghetti Monster will be sorted by the market, left to its own devices, because it will become in its interests to sort it.

Add to that apparently simplistic statement this little thought - or sequence of thoughts:

1. Moore's Law says computers double in power and half in price every 18 months. There's a similar relationship with the sum of human knowledge; currently, it is said to doubles every 25 years or so and the period over which it doubles is reducing. Assume it stays the same.

2. The planet's average long-term economic growth is about 3.5% p.a. If you assume 2% net growth for the future than by the time that that prize pillock Al Gore says we'll have 600-foot rises in sea level (in 2600AD) then:

>>>>>the sum of human knowledge will be 8,388,608 times greater than it is now

>>>>>the world economy will be 123,400 times wealthier than it is now.

If you doubt the figures, check 'em on an Excel spreadsheet or compound interest calculator.

I reckon that for future generations armed with that lot, our pathetic and misguided efforts in guessing at causes and guessing at solutions will look (a) naive, and possibly (b) damaging, but certainly (c) ineffectual.

[Green_not_greed]

Well J4bberwock some really good points there. And I am in complete agreement against "bansturbation", tho' that seems to be the way of this government. I'm not cruising for an argument, just trying to provoke some discussion.

The only thing I am in some disagreement about is grants to promote more use of renewables by the public. The government has signed up to promoting renewables in a truly ridiculous way - through the ROC system - where only landowners and the investors gain out of it. And gain very considerably, at a cost to us all. I do agree that financial incentives can distort market forces, but surely you'd agree that investment in grants for the public - allowing ordinary people to benefit from using renewables - would be far better than the current ROC system which only benefits the rich and multinationals?

[orkneylass]

But all these systems you propose would require huge amounts of bureacracy to administer them. every time you look at a subsidy, incentive or tax you need to consider this.

[Tristan]

I know, I know, it's pedantic, but the National Grid runs at hundreds of kV to reduce heating effects and transmission losses. Domestic supply is at 240V; but how would reducing it to 110V change anything? That'd increase the current demand........



I don't know if it would result on any savings but it would make things much safer as well as cause less wear and tear on the wiring in the house.
North America manages on 240 (give or take) to the house. The cooker and dryer get a 240v feed and the rest of the house steps down to 120v for things like lighting were there is not as much of a current demand.

[j4bberw0ck]

I am in complete agreement against "bansturbation", tho' that seems to be the way of this government.

They do like it, don't they? 3,000 new crimes on the statute book, was it?


I do agree that financial incentives can distort market forces, but surely you'd agree that investment in grants for the public - allowing ordinary people to benefit from using renewables - would be far better than the current ROC system which only benefits the rich and multinationals?Complicated argument. Let's look at it a bit more closely:

Option 1. As it is - ROCs etc.

Benefit: by incenting the private sector who have resources to build windmills, lots get built. Government gets to boast about how it's saving us all.
Cost: Costs the government very little because the burden is borne by the taxpayer, Because our tax system is a nightmare, and the lowest paid see the highest proportions of their income disappear in tax (direct and indirect) it hits the poorest hardest. In other words, ROCs are an indirect tax on consumption. In economic terms, anything that reduces consumption reduces economic activity. Because the Government legislated the changes, the tax is unavoidable and is being sunk into an activity that generates power very inefficiently. Ergo, it's a drag on the economy.

Option 2. Grants to individuals
Benefit: As you say, transfers the benefits of lower power bills to individuals rather than corporations
Cost: >>Loss of economies of scale on development of large windfarms (if one were to assume that they're actually a good thing, which I dispute entirely).
>>As Orkneylass says, grants to individuals means another damned government department which needs paying, so again it's in effect a tax.
>>Grants will mean that installation prices are inflated - anyone who's had a local authority grant for windows or doors knows that the first question from the fitter is "Is it a grant job?" so that the price you pay reflects some benefit to you but the fitter rips off the council. Who get their money from? Yep. You and me.
>>There's recent evidence suggesting that the power generation capabilities of small windmills attached to houses are insufficient to offset the emissions from their own manufacture!

(This last point is a classic example of how government spin and grants distort a market. They create a demand for a product which is then supplied by the market; only after does anyone giving the grant money work out that actually, they've damaged the economy by taking the tax to pay the grant, and then by paying the grant, further damaged the thing they thought they were protecting!)

Option 3: Let the market sort it
Actually, to explore this fully would take a doctoral thesis which I'm in no position to write. But get the government out of it. If one accepts the anthropogenic argument, set a fuel tax to deter unthinking use of excess resource and then just sod off. And by the way, our fuel taxes are already hugely greater than even Rheghead's friend Stern recommended.

Allied with a shakeup of taxation to transfer the burden to consumption and not income, going say for a flat rate income tax with a tax-free earnings limit of say £16,000 - £18,000 p.a. would do more to take people out of tax and poverty than all the complicated Brownian garbage which costs billions to administer.

That way, the poor won't pay the disproportionately high marginal rates of tax and will keep what they earn, so they won't need benefits. Then they can choose how to allocate income, like those who qualify as "not poor" and have an incentive to earn more - because they won't lose benefit if they do.

I'm sorry if it sounds as though I've started on a green topic and meandered into a governance and tax issue, but what governments don't or won't see is that they are indeed closely intertwined.

However, at this point I have to declare that Mrs J has seized me firmly by the ear and reminded me that we're late for seeing some friends, so I must go..... sorry.... more later, I hope.

[JAWS]

I am a little puzzled why so many electrical products need to run at such high voltages. Is it really necessary to have even 110 volts to light a light bulb? Many TVs are capable of running in caravans using 12 volts. Does the average PC really need a 240 volt system? OK, I realise that a 12 volt electric cooker would mean you would probably starve to death before your egg boiled but surely most things could run quite adequately on reduced power.

I am the first to admit that I am not even a good amateur electrician but somebody must have some idea of what is feasible and what is not.
it's just a thought to bounce around.

Is there any decent information on the small domestic turbines? I've read lots of claims about them but only from either manufacturers or biased Government Sponsored enthusiasts. There seems to be very little information from people who have personal experience of them.

[Bobinovich]

Well considering how many of our electrical devices require step-down transformers - either internally or externally - the answer to that is defiantely no!

[Ricco]

Well considering how many of our electrical devices require step-down transformers - either internally or externally - the answer to that is defiantely no!

... and, of course, that will be a reduced strain on the generating station and thereby a reduction in emissions. Back to Jabberwock's earlier question... no, you weren't missing the point. I did say that it would be completely a no-no because all of our electrical devices would need to be changed and that would, of course, require new products which in turn would make matters worse through their production.

[Bobinovich]

LOL or it would make a great market for step-up transformers in the meantime :eek:

[badger]

I've just bought a new jug kettle as my old one seemed to be taking longer to boil and when in London recently I used a kettle which turned itself off as soon as the water boiled. Usually I stand by mine to switch it off and not leave it boiling but thought it would be nice (and economical) to have one that switched off quickly and rather naively assumed new kettles would do this. Apparently not so. The one I have is apparently faulty and is being replaced but the company (Morphy Richards) could not tell me how long it should take to turn off so I googled energy labels and found to my suprise that kettles do not have to be rated (like washing machines etc.). Considering most of us probably use electric kettles more than any other appliance, I was a bit shocked. The EST are closed today so I'm planning to phone them tomorrow but the only kettle they recommend is the Eco Kettle, which doesn't cost much more than the one I've bought.

Has anyone used one of these? And why are kettles not rated? I'm sure I read somewhere that more energy is used when boiling than leading up to it. Also that it's cheaper to boil water in a kettle and putting that water in a saucepan for cooking on the hob. Is this true?

[Riffman]

Ah a nice little wind turbine in the back garden, sound lovely.

Except when you want to use the microwave and you computer at the same time. Fizz. Not enough power I'm afraid.

I personally believe that all this global warming stuff is crap. Yes the world climate goes through changes, that can be easily seen, but can we control it? Get real.....

If every CO2 emitting thing in the world was switched off now it would do sod all to stop the climate change, sometimes people think they are so powerful that they can control nature, errr no.

The only reason I would consider generating my own energy is cost and reliability. As as the payback costs on small scale are about 70 years, that is not worth it, and in the end the grid is just as reliable.

We could all live more sustainably, meaning that we consume less and waste less. Not easy in a country whose economoy is based wholely on consumerism. The problem is that even if Britain (centre of the universe didn't you notice?) was to stop all carbon emissions, a couple of hours from China or the USA would more than make up for it.

Waste could be reduced, importing goods thousands of miles could be stopped, why bother flying beans from kenya when we can grow them here?

At home we recycle:

Paper
Cardboard
Metals
Glass
Vegetable waste (for our own use)

Bin:

Plastic

Which really annoys me! The one thing that we cannot recycle or dispose of safely has to be buried underground to sit there leaching chemicals for decades!

And why when I buy mincepies do they use such stupid packaging?

Cardboard box
Plastic Tray
Plastic wrap
Metal casings

For 6 mp that is crazy!!

Gah......

[northener]

Ah a nice little wind turbine in the back garden, sound lovely.

Except when you want to use the microwave and you computer at the same time. Fizz. Not enough power I'm afraid.




There's hundreds of narrowboats that are kitted out with 12v systems coupled up to an inverter to ramp the power up to 240v. The trick is to have the battery capacity to deal with the load. Most are fitted out with a couple of deep-cycle 100amp/hour batts. They're more than capable of dealing with the load. But yes, taken directly off the turbine - it wouldn't hack it.


Bear in mind that the domestic wind generators we are talking about are not the ones you see bolted to the back of a yacht or a narrowboat - these are much bigger. I've been ferreting around for my book on domestic wind turbines, but I can't find the bloody thing - otherwise I'd be able to quote actual figures regarding loads/capacity/watts etc.

You'd still need battery back-up for the system to work consistently.



.

[NickInTheNorth]

We can certainly all live a more sustainable lifestyle.

However I seriously doubt that anyone in the developed world today anyone can lead a totally sustainable lifestyle. The major obstacle to doing so would seem to me to be the need for money. Where money is a requirement of existing the so is commerce, and as long as we require commerce then the need for greed is exhibited and we cannot live sustainably.

Should that stop each and everyone of us doing what we can to live a more sustainable lifestyle? No - it should not.

Try taking a look at the energy saving trust website (http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/) and see what small changes you can make. Yes it can help to reduce carbon emissions, but if that is not sufficient motivation it can also help to save you money. Surely no-one on here is so wealthy that saving maybe 20% on your annual fuel bill would not be a pleasant bonus?

[j4bberw0ck]

You'd still need battery back-up for the system to work consistently.

I'd always thought that the 240V AC supply was because AC doesn't have the same heating effect on conductors that DC current does.... but in his point here, Northener has put his finger on the nub of the problem, which has been stated and re-stated in these pages.

Whether your wind turbine develops 12V DC or 2.3MW,
You'd still need battery back-up. And there you have it. You have to be able to store power if you're generating from renewable sources (the only one I can think of offhand that's different is geothermal, such as the Icelanders are blessed with). The technology to store power long term, for immediate use, has not been invented.

And of course you can't run useful machinery off 12Vdc......

Let's just stick to nuclear and coal, huh? We've got coal for 500 years in the UK alone and uranium for more than that worldwide. And as I said further up, in 600 years:


>>>>>the sum of human knowledge will be 8,388,608 times greater than it is now

>>>>>the world economy will be 123,400 times wealthier than it is now.What that means is that those people of 2600AD will in effect be gods as far as you and I are concerned; further away from us in knowledge terms than we are from people in the First Century. Economics will take care of them using that knowledge to generate limitless power for free.

Even we more humble specimens are thought to be only 30 years away from reliable fusion power generation; it's a shame the government won't stop grandstanding for a year or three, abandon windmill "initiatives" and put serious money into fusion research. At the moment, according to Parliament (thank you Google) the entire UK spends £14 million a year of domestic fusion research and £23.5 million as its share of the EU fusion programme. For scale comparison, there are, apparently, 3,700 Civil Servants whose personal pension funds are equivalent to £1 million + .