One of the things that's been on my 'radar' lately has been battery storage for our solar panels.
Think about it - For much of the year in the Britain, a decent-sized solar array on your roof probably produces more energy in daylight hours than you can use. So the 'spare' electric goes back to the grid. But what if you could store that spare power until you could use it? That could save you some money and reduce your carbon footprint.
The way to do this is to install a solar battery storage system.
The batteries can be Lead-Acid or Lithium-Ion but the latter are supposed to be the better choice (in terms of weight and battery life). However, they are expensive - Despite the cost of Lithium-Ion batteries coming down dramatically (> 80% since 2010) - with prices in the UK currently starting at £3000 for a 6.5 kWh battery.
So, is it worth it at today's prices? Well, I did some rough calculations for our own panels.....
Example 1:
If I take a Solax 3.3 battery, costing £4000 for 3.5kWh with a 10 year warranty. I'd need to get £400 a year's worth of stored electric out of it just to break even (Assuming the battery only lasts as long as it's warranty). If I assume it stores the maximum 3.5kWh every day, it will give me 1277 kWh a year. Based on the price per kWh from my electric company of £0.1617, that gives me a saving of £204.40 per year. Just over half what I'd need to break even. But it would cut our carbon footprint by 0.69 tonnes.
However, assuming the battery stores 3.5kWh every day is a bit optimistic. Even in the height of Summer you can get days were the panels generate less than 3.5, that gets worse in Winter. So, the savings in electric and carbon would be even less (maybe half?).
Example 2:
Tesla Powerwall, costing £5500 for 13.5 kWh with 10 year warranty. Here, I'd need a return of £550 per year to break even. However, the larger capacity of the battery means I could get an increased return. Maybe as much as 2/3rds of the energy we generate of around 2000 kWh a year. This would give us a return of £328.40 a year and a saving of 1.08 tonnes a year of carbon.
An improvement, but still only around 60% of what I'd need to break even.
Bottom-line: Solar battery prices would need to halve before they become cost effective in the UK. I'm guessing that's not too far off now.
Sunday, 24 February 2019
Wednesday, 20 February 2019
School Chidren Want Action on Climate Change - NOW
Last week (15th Feb 2019), tens of thousands of young people in the UK walked out of school to join protests calling on the UK government for radical action on climate change. See here.
This was part of rolling, worldwide protests by school kids that have been going on for weeks.
They were first begun by a Swedish girl called Greta Thunberg who did a solo protest outside the Swedish parliament back in August, and it's snow-balled ever since.
The media have variously described these protesters as truants, naïve, and dupes of adults pushing an agenda.
I'm sure some of the children were truants, but I'm betting this was a very small percentage of them. If there's anything I've learnt about teenagers nowadays, it's that they are lot more worldly wise than we were back in the 20th century. This generation are lot better informed than back then and, as a consequence, care deeply about the injustices they see all around them. They haven't been duped, they know their own minds. They are concerned about their own futures and the world they'll have to live in.
Maybe they are naïve though. Naïve to think that politicians are quick to act and do the right thing.
As long ago as 1992, with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, all countries signed up to a treaty that had a stated aim of curbing dangerous greenhouse gas emissions. 27 years later, politicians are still trying to thrash out the details of how to do that. All the way along, scientists have been warning we need to act fast or face dire consequences, and yet the politicians continue to act as if they have all the time in the world. They love procrastinating, and kicking the can down the road where difficult decisions are needed.
Radical change will be needed, and that's what they can't face. The solutions are available and well-known. They just need the political will, of which, they have none.
It looks very much like nothing will be done until 2020 when the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement supposedly comes into effect. Even then, I'm sure no sense of urgency will suddenly appear.
Pity the poor children. Pity us all.
This was part of rolling, worldwide protests by school kids that have been going on for weeks.
They were first begun by a Swedish girl called Greta Thunberg who did a solo protest outside the Swedish parliament back in August, and it's snow-balled ever since.
The media have variously described these protesters as truants, naïve, and dupes of adults pushing an agenda.
I'm sure some of the children were truants, but I'm betting this was a very small percentage of them. If there's anything I've learnt about teenagers nowadays, it's that they are lot more worldly wise than we were back in the 20th century. This generation are lot better informed than back then and, as a consequence, care deeply about the injustices they see all around them. They haven't been duped, they know their own minds. They are concerned about their own futures and the world they'll have to live in.
Maybe they are naïve though. Naïve to think that politicians are quick to act and do the right thing.
As long ago as 1992, with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, all countries signed up to a treaty that had a stated aim of curbing dangerous greenhouse gas emissions. 27 years later, politicians are still trying to thrash out the details of how to do that. All the way along, scientists have been warning we need to act fast or face dire consequences, and yet the politicians continue to act as if they have all the time in the world. They love procrastinating, and kicking the can down the road where difficult decisions are needed.
Radical change will be needed, and that's what they can't face. The solutions are available and well-known. They just need the political will, of which, they have none.
It looks very much like nothing will be done until 2020 when the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement supposedly comes into effect. Even then, I'm sure no sense of urgency will suddenly appear.
Pity the poor children. Pity us all.
Tuesday, 12 February 2019
How Green Are Wood Burners?
We bought a wood burner about a year ago. Basically we wanted something better looking than our dated, inefficient gas fire (with fake coal). It was a bit expensive, taking into account lining the chimney and so on, but it's worked out well.
It looks stylish, has a touch of nostalgia about the flames, the fuel is relatively cheap, and it's very cosy. I also think it's helping to reduce our heating bill. This, and the fact that using wood for fuel is carbon neutral, makes it a nice way to reduce our carbon footprint.
Currently, there are 1 million wood burners in the UK with 175,000 being added each year. It's thought that they will account for 10% of the government's carbon reduction target by 2020, cutting our emissions by 2 million tonnes a year.
All good right? So why did the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, want to ban them?
Well, burning wood releases soot/smoke. In environmental terms, these are known as particulates. And particulates from diesel cars, industry, and, apparently, wood burning are responsible for thousands of deaths a year in the UK's urban areas.
The problem is that a lot of people are burning the wrong sort of wood and in inefficient ways.
The government is bringing in legislation to ensure all wood burners are at least 80% efficient which greatly reduces the soot produced, and wood suppliers are providing wood with < 20% moisture (the wetter the wood, the more smoke is produced).
This will greatly reduce the amount of particulates. In addition, wood burner owners need to learn what they can burn safely. We shouldn't burn treated wood and we shouldn't burn anything other than wood and plain paper (as kindling). Anything else would be unhealthy.
It looks stylish, has a touch of nostalgia about the flames, the fuel is relatively cheap, and it's very cosy. I also think it's helping to reduce our heating bill. This, and the fact that using wood for fuel is carbon neutral, makes it a nice way to reduce our carbon footprint.
Currently, there are 1 million wood burners in the UK with 175,000 being added each year. It's thought that they will account for 10% of the government's carbon reduction target by 2020, cutting our emissions by 2 million tonnes a year.
All good right? So why did the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, want to ban them?
Well, burning wood releases soot/smoke. In environmental terms, these are known as particulates. And particulates from diesel cars, industry, and, apparently, wood burning are responsible for thousands of deaths a year in the UK's urban areas.
The problem is that a lot of people are burning the wrong sort of wood and in inefficient ways.
The government is bringing in legislation to ensure all wood burners are at least 80% efficient which greatly reduces the soot produced, and wood suppliers are providing wood with < 20% moisture (the wetter the wood, the more smoke is produced).
This will greatly reduce the amount of particulates. In addition, wood burner owners need to learn what they can burn safely. We shouldn't burn treated wood and we shouldn't burn anything other than wood and plain paper (as kindling). Anything else would be unhealthy.
Friday, 8 February 2019
The Car That Runs on Air
Over 9 years ago, I came across news of a car that would run on nothing more than air.
Sounds like a hoax doesn't it? But it's actually possible.
The basic principle is that you fill the tank with compressed air, which is effectively a form of stored energy, and this is what's used to run the car.
Back then, the prototypes were being built by a French company called MDI (https://www.mdi.lu/) and Tata Motors were looking to launch a car based around MDI's compressed air engine in 2011.
It never happened. Ever since, launch of these so-called Air Cars has always been imminent but has never actually taken place. Apparently, there have been numerous issues to overcome, such as limited range, technical challenges, and safety concerns.
But these all seem to have been overcome as....
Currently Tata are saying they'll launch by 2020, Zero Pollution Motors (https://zeropollutionmotors.us/), a U.S. licensee for MDI is saying mid-2019 for the AirPod 2.0 model. This is priced at $10,000 dollars and they've already been taking deposits.
The claim is that it does 50 mph, has an 80 mile range, and can be 'charged' in 4 minutes.
If this turns out to be true then it's a pretty cheap way to drive clean. I look forward to the reviews.
Sounds like a hoax doesn't it? But it's actually possible.
The basic principle is that you fill the tank with compressed air, which is effectively a form of stored energy, and this is what's used to run the car.
Back then, the prototypes were being built by a French company called MDI (https://www.mdi.lu/) and Tata Motors were looking to launch a car based around MDI's compressed air engine in 2011.
It never happened. Ever since, launch of these so-called Air Cars has always been imminent but has never actually taken place. Apparently, there have been numerous issues to overcome, such as limited range, technical challenges, and safety concerns.
But these all seem to have been overcome as....
Currently Tata are saying they'll launch by 2020, Zero Pollution Motors (https://zeropollutionmotors.us/), a U.S. licensee for MDI is saying mid-2019 for the AirPod 2.0 model. This is priced at $10,000 dollars and they've already been taking deposits.
The claim is that it does 50 mph, has an 80 mile range, and can be 'charged' in 4 minutes.
If this turns out to be true then it's a pretty cheap way to drive clean. I look forward to the reviews.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)