Why aren't all new homes in the UK built with small wind turbines and solar panels as standard?
It annoys me that developers aren't forced to do this where possible. People would get used to seeing the turbines as people get used to seeing TV aerials and satellite dishes on houses. I realise that they probably wouldn't be able to to supply enough power required, but even if they supplied 25-50% surely it would be worth it?
Does anyone know if the government has plans to force/encourage developers to do anything like this in the future?
To be fair the idea has been mooted around for several years. Solar power has been used to heat water in pensioners bungalows for awhile. The mechanics takes up a room the length of the property and it only works efficiently in the summer. By the time you calculate cost and maintenance against performance, it's little more than an expensive gimmick. If granny isn't on the roof cleaning the panels with her shammy leather then somebody else is.
Wind turbines is a whole different set of problems. They cured the wind pattern issue with a conical, witches hat shaped harvester, but it isn't as efficient as windmill sails. The only way it can work is one large unit supplying an estate, the electronics that would allow a home unit to kick from the mains to battery power are too complicated and bulky for the average house. The cost of replacement batteries and their carbon footprint is also prohibitive.
At the turn of the millenium when literally millions of pounds of lottery money and European grants was being thrown at environmental projects all the community energy ideas had a try out. The only one that worked was energy from waste, but that hits NIMBY, because nobody wants a house next door to an incinerator.
The biggest problem though is people. Your tree is blocking my solar panel two hours per day, your gable end is diverting the wind from my turbine :o)
There is no such plans with solar panels as we do not get enough sunshine to justify the cost, wind turbines are an eyesore and as with solar panels do not justify the cost either. Nuclear is the way forward..clean cheap and safe
References :
Comment by Facile Princeps — June 27, 2009 @ 12:59 am
Green building concept is mandatory in future..Don't worry
References :
Comment by patnana — June 27, 2009 @ 2:45 am
It's too expensive!
In built up areas the wind gets disrupted, which is rubbish for turbines. If you look up the Barratt Homes testbed near Manchester, they tried out micro wind turbines and they didn't work very well. There's newer turbines designed to work at lower wind speeds that might work out though! Like the Honeywell turbine:
http://blog.greenenergytv.com/blog/greenenergytv/0/0/honeywell-wind-turbine-by-earthtronics
However, wind's energy density depends on its velocity cubed, so a turbine starting up at 2mph would only generate 1/27 of the energy of a turbine that's going in 6mph wind.
Solar electricity panels are too expensive - they take decades to pay back in the UK, but solar heating panels seem more sensible (according to Barratt Homes tests)
The best way to do it is to invest in large scale renewables like wind farms, which only require a subsidy of 1p or less per unit of electricity to be profitable. Solar power requires something like 20p/unit. So if you have a load of money to spend, you can either afford a LOT of wind farm power or just a little bit of solar power on roofs - it's best for the environment if you go for lots of renewable energy with your money.
References :
Comment by MTRstudent — June 27, 2009 @ 3:26 am
To be fair the idea has been mooted around for several years. Solar power has been used to heat water in pensioners bungalows for awhile. The mechanics takes up a room the length of the property and it only works efficiently in the summer. By the time you calculate cost and maintenance against performance, it's little more than an expensive gimmick. If granny isn't on the roof cleaning the panels with her shammy leather then somebody else is.
Wind turbines is a whole different set of problems. They cured the wind pattern issue with a conical, witches hat shaped harvester, but it isn't as efficient as windmill sails. The only way it can work is one large unit supplying an estate, the electronics that would allow a home unit to kick from the mains to battery power are too complicated and bulky for the average house. The cost of replacement batteries and their carbon footprint is also prohibitive.
At the turn of the millenium when literally millions of pounds of lottery money and European grants was being thrown at environmental projects all the community energy ideas had a try out. The only one that worked was energy from waste, but that hits NIMBY, because nobody wants a house next door to an incinerator.
The biggest problem though is people. Your tree is blocking my solar panel two hours per day, your gable end is diverting the wind from my turbine :o)
References :
Comment by Marcus — June 27, 2009 @ 4:15 am
cause of the cost of it,
wind turbines are very expensive and take a long time before they will pay for them selves. and there is the fact that you might not just get enough wind through out the year. Also birds have a habbit of flying into them, they are unsightly and are really only an option for people living in the country side.
As for solar energy, it is not cost effective, they just dont pay for them selves. They are really only good for heating water and even at that they only get the water to about 60 degrees.
The government needs to promote wind power ( the big wind turbines you see in the mountains) and hydro electricity on a major scale. But also the people them selves need to make a conscious descion to switch to green energy companies like ecotricity
References :
Comment by John — June 27, 2009 @ 6:55 am
Muddled thinking! The authorities don't seem able to comprehend what is needed. Sad state of affairs. Woe!
References :
http://www.the-alternative.org.uk
Project it
& Chapter 6
Comment by jillionsings — June 27, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
All new homes getting planning permission from 2016 have to be carbon neutral in construction and use - ie Code 6 of the code for sustainable homes http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/code_for_sust_homes.pdf.
Affordable homes (ones getting government grant) already have to meet code 3 which is 25% more efficient than open market houses, many of these now have solar water heating.
Most people are not prepared to pay the extra on a new house for energy saving designs even if it saves them money in the long run, so developers are reluctant to build them. You can see examples of code 6 homes at the Buildings Research Establishment in Watford http://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=962 The Stewart Milne Sigma Home at BRE had turbines on the roof but they broke off and could have been dagerous
Turbines on roofs are not very efficient due to the air turbulence around buildings, also the noise and vibration that can damage the building are difficult to avoid.
Much better to be in a field than near homes
References :
Comment by fred — June 28, 2009 @ 5:03 am
The technology to produce efficient solar panels ,wind turbines that work to produce enough energy to pay the costs in the U.K. More efficiency must be achieved to be able to use them there. put up a wind turbine which only is enough to produce enough energy for 2 light bulbs is not efficient.
References :
Comment by jon — June 28, 2009 @ 5:39 am