Man city go green: new deals in pipeline

[GXCity]

not at work so i haven't got the quote to hand but i think about 82k , the schools finance director cant understand why all schools and public buildings haven't got it!

Probably because other technologies have lower capital costs and quicker payback!

It was considered for the academy and campus but when you consider a potential electrical baseload of 10MW, solar PV is a drop in the ocean. CHP also has the by product of heat and wind turbines have far higher electrical output.

What you need to remember is that the campus would never export electricity so the feed in tariff is irrelevant. It could also dramatically reduce depending on the government in power. Has your School finance director taken that into account?

totally understand your stand point but 1. how much you export is largely irrelevant, ive argued for a long time it should be called a generation payment, in the last 12 months my roof has paid me £1250 approx (for kwh generated) and my feed in tarriff payment was £80 my bill saving was approx £250 so my total benefit was £1580 (£6000 installed), so as the campus would use almost all the energy generated they would actually do better than i do!
point 2. the tariff is not set by the government in power but an all party body linked with the decc and is on a pre set decreasing scale dependent upon uptake, the last quarter it was left the same at 15.4p per kwh and is available for 20 years in a binding legal contract, so with all that cleared up they are going ahead , 82k spend, approx 6k generation tariff approx 6k bill reduction per year for 20 years, total payback £240,000 profit of £158,000 and its index linked to inflation, whats not to like?

The feed in tariff is only available for installations under 50kW output and does only apply for exported electricity.

Are you by any chance a salesman?

Extensive feasabilty study's have been carried out for the campus developments and PV was dropped a while back. Might be ok on domestic and small public or commercial properties but this is on a different scale.

Anyway we are in danger of ending up in the cellar as we are so far off subject!

 

[Plaything of the gods]

Not necessarily wind turbine(s). You can have power stations that sell discounted electricity to the local residents and businesses.

CHP systems....combined heat & power.

In industry these are used to give steam to local production facilities. Whilst that's excellent for sustainibility, I don't get how that's useful for residents.

The steam can be used for district heating by heat exchange with domestic systems - radiators and hot water.

I'd like to see scrubbed CO2 passed through polytunnels or giant greenhouses so as to increase vegetable production. That would seem more sensible than trying to develop technology to 'bury' it underground.

Very unlikely to happen though, any of this. The UK's energy policy has been pants for decades. Hence the panic about the lights going out and the dash to built 57 nuclear power stations in 20 years. (It is reckoned that just by everyone unplugging electricals rather than having them on standby, two nuclear power stations could be taken offline, but that isn't as sexy as big government-sponsored - using our money, not theirs of course - building projects.)

 

[cjhaz1969]

Probably because other technologies have lower capital costs and quicker payback!

It was considered for the academy and campus but when you consider a potential electrical baseload of 10MW, solar PV is a drop in the ocean. CHP also has the by product of heat and wind turbines have far higher electrical output.

What you need to remember is that the campus would never export electricity so the feed in tariff is irrelevant. It could also dramatically reduce depending on the government in power. Has your School finance director taken that into account?

totally understand your stand point but 1. how much you export is largely irrelevant, ive argued for a long time it should be called a generation payment, in the last 12 months my roof has paid me £1250 approx (for kwh generated) and my feed in tarriff payment was £80 my bill saving was approx £250 so my total benefit was £1580 (£6000 installed), so as the campus would use almost all the energy generated they would actually do better than i do!
point 2. the tariff is not set by the government in power but an all party body linked with the decc and is on a pre set decreasing scale dependent upon uptake, the last quarter it was left the same at 15.4p per kwh and is available for 20 years in a binding legal contract, so with all that cleared up they are going ahead , 82k spend, approx 6k generation tariff approx 6k bill reduction per year for 20 years, total payback £240,000 profit of £158,000 and its index linked to inflation, whats not to like?

The feed in tariff is only available for installations under 50kW output and does only apply for exported electricity.

Are you by any chance a salesman?

Extensive feasabilty study's have been carried out for the campus developments and PV was dropped a while back. Might be ok on domestic and small public or commercial properties but this is on a different scale.

Anyway we are in danger of ending up in the cellar as we are so far off subject!

you are correct i am in the renewable sector, which is why i am passionate about mis information, i have double checked with my business partner and above 50kw attracts 11.5p per kwh generation payment ant 4.5p per kwh export (fit) any way back on topic, up the blues and lets stuff everton for a change!!

 

[without a dream]

CHP systems....combined heat & power.

In industry these are used to give steam to local production facilities. Whilst that's excellent for sustainibility, I don't get how that's useful for residents.

The steam can be used for district heating by heat exchange with domestic systems - radiators and hot water.

I'd like to see scrubbed CO2 passed through polytunnels or giant greenhouses so as to increase vegetable production. That would seem more sensible than trying to develop technology to 'bury' it underground.

Very unlikely to happen though, any of this. The UK's energy policy has been pants for decades. Hence the panic about the lights going out and the dash to built 57 nuclear power stations in 20 years. (It is reckoned that just by everyone unplugging electricals rather than having them on standby, two nuclear power stations could be taken offline, but that isn't as sexy as big government-sponsored - using our money, not theirs of course - building projects.)

I know of at least one factory that does this and uses the cooling water to heat the greenhouse... It's not viable in terms of scale though.

I went to a CCS debate a couple of weeks ago, it does seem that unless someone can come up with a genius chemical pathway to efficiently turn carbon dioxide into something valuable then burying it is the only viable option. For the UK this would appear to be a good thing (assuming there's not catastrophic failure of the storage) as we have the space to store 100 years worth of European emmisions and therefore could make a hell of a lot of money, it can also be used to get the lat 10% or so of oil out of 'dead' oil fields giving a boost to the North Sea oil companies.