Plan for huge solar farm in shape of a dog (From Daily Echo)

"shocking proposal" as he goes home, puts kettle on, watches tv with no real concern where his power comes from presently

Vorsprung durch Technik

What does Green Party and Friends of Earth think of this proposed project? Their input in this consultation could be of immense value.

Plenty of dogs already in Fareham

Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

As I've got Solar Panels I know it can work.
To work at peak output yes they need bright sunny days but will still produce power when we have cloudy or wet days as long as there's light ( day time)
I can't wait for the opponents of this to raise their thick heads.
No noise & as a farmer has already proven animals can quite safely graze amongst the banks of panels.
In Thailand the King had these installed in villages with Batteries to store electricity to give power all night.
So why can't we do this?
Why is it Shocking?

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

You'd better let IB Voigt know straight away - obviously they haven't realised this.

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

Its not the sunshine that creates the electricity - its the UV rays. And those still pass through cloud. Mirrors can even be installed to reflect more light as they have done in other places.

The problems that make it unworkable are the people who wont look at their specs properly and insist on the status quo. And the people who moan about "loss of countryside" and yet have supported road building, house building.. etc.

The point is - this has to happen.

Whilst this may seem a good scheme on first thoughts, I myself have never appreciated the electricity pylons that desecrate the view of the countryside. Surely if EVERY building had solar panel roofing there would be no need for solar farms.

downfader wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

Its not the sunshine that creates the electricity - its the UV rays. And those still pass through cloud. Mirrors can even be installed to reflect more light as they have done in other places.

The problems that make it unworkable are the people who wont look at their specs properly and insist on the status quo. And the people who moan about "loss of countryside" and yet have supported road building, house building.. etc.

The point is - this has to happen.

Thanks for the info, I wrongly assumed solar meant sun. Though politically, and to get the locals onside, solar sounds far better and less of an issue than UV ray panels.

As a member of the green party I obviously support in principle use of solar as part of a sustainable mix of power generation.

I don't know if the proposed site is the right one. The planning process and consultation is important in bringing together the facts on that matter. I do think that the point made that the public need to understand the power they take for granted needs to come from somewhere is a strong one.

If you want my personal opinion from what I know of the area I am minded to support the scheme.

hulla baloo wrote:

downfader wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

Its not the sunshine that creates the electricity - its the UV rays. And those still pass through cloud. Mirrors can even be installed to reflect more light as they have done in other places.

The problems that make it unworkable are the people who wont look at their specs properly and insist on the status quo. And the people who moan about "loss of countryside" and yet have supported road building, house building.. etc.

The point is - this has to happen.

Thanks for the info, I wrongly assumed solar meant sun. Though politically, and to get the locals onside, solar sounds far better and less of an issue than UV ray panels.

Hulla Baloo you can get Solar panels plus a UV strip one for electricity one for Hot water they both only need UV rays.
Solar is usually thought of as bright light days but as downfader has written you don't have to have direct sunlight on them.
I'm seriously considering going all electric & doing away with Gas heating & hot water.
Especially now we have standing charges for both meters

SotonGreen wrote:
As a member of the green party I obviously support in principle use of solar as part of a sustainable mix of power generation.

I don't know if the proposed site is the right one. The planning process and consultation is important in bringing together the facts on that matter. I do think that the point made that the public need to understand the power they take for granted needs to come from somewhere is a strong one.

If you want my personal opinion from what I know of the area I am minded to support the scheme.

Soton Green I would help you if you would educate the populace about exactly what Solar Panels are ( leaflet if required delivering that is)

Yet another prattish councillor who doesn't know what he is talking about and is playing to what he thinks may be a nimby audience.
Nothing shocking about these plans at all. Noisleless, little agricultural land will be lost, public views would still be there. And solar farms are needed. Stupid man.

Yes, InformAl, it would be better visually if we all had solar roof panels rather than pyloned electricity but that is but a dream.
Until the Government that Mr Woodward supports is prepared to make it a reality for everyone in financial terms it will remain a dream.

Incidentally, is this not the man who may be Hampshire's first elected police commissioner??

Inform Al wrote:
Whilst this may seem a good scheme on first thoughts, I myself have never appreciated the electricity pylons that desecrate the view of the countryside. Surely if EVERY building had solar panel roofing there would be no need for solar farms.

The problem comes from energy companies that like to ring fence customers. They realistically speaking have too much sway with Government policy. Hence the cuts in subsidies to renewables research and investment.

Looking at the business premises around the city centre I strongly feel there is space for such panels.

loosehead wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

downfader wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

Its not the sunshine that creates the electricity - its the UV rays. And those still pass through cloud. Mirrors can even be installed to reflect more light as they have done in other places.

The problems that make it unworkable are the people who wont look at their specs properly and insist on the status quo. And the people who moan about "loss of countryside" and yet have supported road building, house building.. etc.

The point is - this has to happen.

Thanks for the info, I wrongly assumed solar meant sun. Though politically, and to get the locals onside, solar sounds far better and less of an issue than UV ray panels.

Hulla Baloo you can get Solar panels plus a UV strip one for electricity one for Hot water they both only need UV rays.
Solar is usually thought of as bright light days but as downfader has written you don't have to have direct sunlight on them.
I'm seriously considering going all electric & doing away with Gas heating & hot water.
Especially now we have standing charges for both meters

Dont do away with the gas just yet. The solar water heaters only really save you 30-50% energy off the gas or electric supply (from what the vloggers on youtube have said).

But still a 30% saving on the bill for hot water is pretty big

Going on youtube and you can see how people have built solar air heaters and water heaters themselves. I made a miniature air heater a while back and it does work quite well.

We have photo-voltaic cells on our 3 bedroom house and our electricity bill is a quater of what we payed to run a 2 bedroom flat.Even on dark dull days we have enough power to run triple a rated appliances for next to nothing.

downfader wrote:

Inform Al wrote:
Whilst this may seem a good scheme on first thoughts, I myself have never appreciated the electricity pylons that desecrate the view of the countryside. Surely if EVERY building had solar panel roofing there would be no need for solar farms.

The problem comes from energy companies that like to ring fence customers. They realistically speaking have too much sway with Government policy. Hence the cuts in subsidies to renewables research and investment.

Looking at the business premises around the city centre I strongly feel there is space for such panels.

Yes, my own speciallity is social housing and due to the efforts Camoron has made to help his rich property owning party donors, at the expense of ordinary folk, it is unlikely that I will ever vote Tory again. The holding back on pushing solar panels for general use in order to put finance into the powewr companies therefore rings true to me.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
What does Green Party and Friends of Earth think of this proposed project? Their input in this consultation could be of immense value.

Why would we be interested in what those numpties say? All they are interested in is in raising funds to support their own existence.

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

hulla baloo says how can this ever be workable?



hulla baloo, the14,000 homes could be 35,000 if there's any truth in the below 3D solar cells generate 2,5 times more electricity than normal solar cells.


-

3D solar cell generates significantly more energy increasing efficiency by 150%.

Posted by Greener Tomorrow on September 10th, 2012.

New tests suggest that the world’s first 3D solar cell generates significantly more energy then was assumed. The company behind the new solar cell, Solar 3D, has published a statement saying that they have manufactured and tested the first 3D solar cell. The new solar cell is made from silicon and can generate 2,5 times as much electricity than normal solar cells.

Next to the effective way of catching the sunlight, the design of the chambers gives the 3D solar cell the ability to generate electricity all day round. This is a significant improvement over traditional solar panels which heavily depend on the angle of the sun to generate electricity.


-

http://www.tomorrowi
sgreener.com/3d-sola
r-cell-generates-sig
nificantly-more-ener
gy-increasing-effici
ency-by-150/

Velleity wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
What does Green Party and Friends of Earth think of this proposed project? Their input in this consultation could be of immense value.

Why would we be interested in what those numpties say? All they are interested in is in raising funds to support their own existence.

Because I believe when it comes to the issue of environment most of them are well informed and honest about this very important subject.

Obviously you have differnt opinion, which is your right.

Dan Soton wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

hulla baloo says how can this ever be workable?



hulla baloo, the14,000 homes could be 35,000 if there's any truth in the below 3D solar cells generate 2,5 times more electricity than normal solar cells.


-

3D solar cell generates significantly more energy increasing efficiency by 150%.

Posted by Greener Tomorrow on September 10th, 2012.

New tests suggest that the world’s first 3D solar cell generates significantly more energy then was assumed. The company behind the new solar cell, Solar 3D, has published a statement saying that they have manufactured and tested the first 3D solar cell. The new solar cell is made from silicon and can generate 2,5 times as much electricity than normal solar cells.

Next to the effective way of catching the sunlight, the design of the chambers gives the 3D solar cell the ability to generate electricity all day round. This is a significant improvement over traditional solar panels which heavily depend on the angle of the sun to generate electricity.


-

http://www.tomorrowi

sgreener.com/3d-sola

r-cell-generates-sig

nificantly-more-ener

gy-increasing-effici

ency-by-150/

Thanks, it is most interesting info.

Pity our establishment can waste billions upon wars, on Trident, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers without any planes, but is reluctant to properly fund research in such areas, which my help in saving the Earth.

If this does go ahead I'd like to see it connected directly to 14000 homes and those homes disconnected from the national grid and then see how they cope in the dark cold winter.

Some good points raised on an interesting subject. Shame the Echo seems to think that the shape of the proposed site is of such importance.

The Green Party funds it's existence purely through the voluntary contributions of its members and donations from supporters.

We campaign for a fairer Britain based on social and environmental justice and do so on a shoestring lacking the Tories big business donations or Labour's support from the Unions.

Criticise for being naive or idealistic, criticise or policies or ideas if you wish but to claim we are out for money is an utter joke.

I am looking into the Roof Panels, but came across this from WHICH?
http://www.which.co.
uk/news/2012/04/mort
gage-risk-on-rent-a-
roof-solar-panel-sch
emes-284238/

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

hulla baloo says how can this ever be workable?



hulla baloo, the14,000 homes could be 35,000 if there's any truth in the below 3D solar cells generate 2,5 times more electricity than normal solar cells.


-

3D solar cell generates significantly more energy increasing efficiency by 150%.

Posted by Greener Tomorrow on September 10th, 2012.

New tests suggest that the world’s first 3D solar cell generates significantly more energy then was assumed. The company behind the new solar cell, Solar 3D, has published a statement saying that they have manufactured and tested the first 3D solar cell. The new solar cell is made from silicon and can generate 2,5 times as much electricity than normal solar cells.

Next to the effective way of catching the sunlight, the design of the chambers gives the 3D solar cell the ability to generate electricity all day round. This is a significant improvement over traditional solar panels which heavily depend on the angle of the sun to generate electricity.


-

http://www.tomorrowi


sgreener.com/3d-sola


r-cell-generates-sig


nificantly-more-ener


gy-increasing-effici


ency-by-150/

Thanks, it is most interesting info.

Pity our establishment can waste billions upon wars, on Trident, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers without any planes, but is reluctant to properly fund research in such areas, which my help in saving the Earth.

Without a nuclear deterrent, with what is going on in an Iran, currently run by lunatics, our bit of the Earth could soon become beyond saving.

IronLady2010 wrote:
I am looking into the Roof Panels, but came across this from WHICH?
http://www.which.co.

uk/news/2012/04/mort

gage-risk-on-rent-a-

roof-solar-panel-sch

emes-284238/

Ironlady ask some one who has them already installed like me.
in the daytime we've looked at our meter & no electricity is used come the evening we see a red light flash which flashes more often when it becomes dark.
The problem we have is we've leased our roof so any excess electricity gets put into the National Grid & the company makes money from it.
Buy your own research into Battery storage & get the best & you would see an even greater saving than I get.
If some smart alec tells me there's no such battery then please explain to me how they have such a thing in Thailand?

Bowmore wrote:
If this does go ahead I'd like to see it connected directly to 14000 homes and those homes disconnected from the national grid and then see how they cope in the dark cold winter.

Bowmore if you buy the most modern panels with the latest Battery/storage device you will produce power in the Winter & will have it through the night.
Do you ever watch TV?
there's a guy in the New Forest who has panels with batteries plus small wind Turbines ( very small) & he has no mains connection at all so sorry to burst your bubble but it can be done

loosehead wrote:
As I've got Solar Panels I know it can work.
To work at peak output yes they need bright sunny days but will still produce power when we have cloudy or wet days as long as there's light ( day time)
I can't wait for the opponents of this to raise their thick heads.
No noise & as a farmer has already proven animals can quite safely graze amongst the banks of panels.
In Thailand the King had these installed in villages with Batteries to store electricity to give power all night.
So why can't we do this?
Why is it Shocking?

would be nice to know the start up cost, and lifespan of panels

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
I am looking into the Roof Panels, but came across this from WHICH?
http://www.which.co.


uk/news/2012/04/mort


gage-risk-on-rent-a-


roof-solar-panel-sch


emes-284238/

Ironlady ask some one who has them already installed like me.
in the daytime we've looked at our meter & no electricity is used come the evening we see a red light flash which flashes more often when it becomes dark.
The problem we have is we've leased our roof so any excess electricity gets put into the National Grid & the company makes money from it.
Buy your own research into Battery storage & get the best & you would see an even greater saving than I get.
If some smart alec tells me there's no such battery then please explain to me how they have such a thing in Thailand?

I'm agreeing with you. It was yourself which made me look into them.

But If a contract states 25 years I would be wary as I can't guarantee I'll be in this house for that long.

I will of course look into the contract, before making any agreement.

If I come to sell and NO Mortgage Company will lend on the property due to the panels then I'm stuck.

It also depends on the terms they may offer a 25 year contract with a 5 year guarantee as an example. I need to research much more.

Inform Al wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

hulla baloo says how can this ever be workable?



hulla baloo, the14,000 homes could be 35,000 if there's any truth in the below 3D solar cells generate 2,5 times more electricity than normal solar cells.


-

3D solar cell generates significantly more energy increasing efficiency by 150%.

Posted by Greener Tomorrow on September 10th, 2012.

New tests suggest that the world’s first 3D solar cell generates significantly more energy then was assumed. The company behind the new solar cell, Solar 3D, has published a statement saying that they have manufactured and tested the first 3D solar cell. The new solar cell is made from silicon and can generate 2,5 times as much electricity than normal solar cells.

Next to the effective way of catching the sunlight, the design of the chambers gives the 3D solar cell the ability to generate electricity all day round. This is a significant improvement over traditional solar panels which heavily depend on the angle of the sun to generate electricity.


-

http://www.tomorrowi



sgreener.com/3d-sola



r-cell-generates-sig



nificantly-more-ener



gy-increasing-effici



ency-by-150/

Thanks, it is most interesting info.

Pity our establishment can waste billions upon wars, on Trident, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers without any planes, but is reluctant to properly fund research in such areas, which my help in saving the Earth.

Without a nuclear deterrent, with what is going on in an Iran, currently run by lunatics, our bit of the Earth could soon become beyond saving.

With nuclear weapons there could very easily be no bit of the earth to save.

Do a search on youtube for "water powered car" and you'll find videos of cars that supposedly run on water going through a petrol or diesel engine and then claiming that the inventors were "silenced" by the greedy oil companies, I can't quite believe you could run a combustion engine on water but I can believe that the oil companies don't want alternative energy sources to be found because all they're interested in is themselves and money.

Stillness wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

hulla baloo says how can this ever be workable?



hulla baloo, the14,000 homes could be 35,000 if there's any truth in the below 3D solar cells generate 2,5 times more electricity than normal solar cells.


-

3D solar cell generates significantly more energy increasing efficiency by 150%.

Posted by Greener Tomorrow on September 10th, 2012.

New tests suggest that the world’s first 3D solar cell generates significantly more energy then was assumed. The company behind the new solar cell, Solar 3D, has published a statement saying that they have manufactured and tested the first 3D solar cell. The new solar cell is made from silicon and can generate 2,5 times as much electricity than normal solar cells.

Next to the effective way of catching the sunlight, the design of the chambers gives the 3D solar cell the ability to generate electricity all day round. This is a significant improvement over traditional solar panels which heavily depend on the angle of the sun to generate electricity.


-

http://www.tomorrowi




sgreener.com/3d-sola




r-cell-generates-sig




nificantly-more-ener




gy-increasing-effici




ency-by-150/

Thanks, it is most interesting info.

Pity our establishment can waste billions upon wars, on Trident, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers without any planes, but is reluctant to properly fund research in such areas, which my help in saving the Earth.

Without a nuclear deterrent, with what is going on in an Iran, currently run by lunatics, our bit of the Earth could soon become beyond saving.

With nuclear weapons there could very easily be no bit of the earth to save.

They say we learn from our mistakes but obviously we didn't learn from the mistake of the US when they built 2 prototype design atom bombs and then dropped them on Japan.

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

hulla baloo says how can this ever be workable?



hulla baloo, the14,000 homes could be 35,000 if there's any truth in the below 3D solar cells generate 2,5 times more electricity than normal solar cells.


-

3D solar cell generates significantly more energy increasing efficiency by 150%.

Posted by Greener Tomorrow on September 10th, 2012.

New tests suggest that the world’s first 3D solar cell generates significantly more energy then was assumed. The company behind the new solar cell, Solar 3D, has published a statement saying that they have manufactured and tested the first 3D solar cell. The new solar cell is made from silicon and can generate 2,5 times as much electricity than normal solar cells.

Next to the effective way of catching the sunlight, the design of the chambers gives the 3D solar cell the ability to generate electricity all day round. This is a significant improvement over traditional solar panels which heavily depend on the angle of the sun to generate electricity.


-

http://www.tomorrowi





sgreener.com/3d-sola





r-cell-generates-sig





nificantly-more-ener





gy-increasing-effici





ency-by-150/

Thanks, it is most interesting info.

Pity our establishment can waste billions upon wars, on Trident, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers without any planes, but is reluctant to properly fund research in such areas, which my help in saving the Earth.

Without a nuclear deterrent, with what is going on in an Iran, currently run by lunatics, our bit of the Earth could soon become beyond saving.

With nuclear weapons there could very easily be no bit of the earth to save.

They say we learn from our mistakes but obviously we didn't learn from the mistake of the US when they built 2 prototype design atom bombs and then dropped them on Japan.

The mistake was not learning that intelligence is of no use without wisdom.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
What does Green Party and Friends of Earth think of this proposed project? Their input in this consultation could be of immense value.

Why? Their input to the Southampton woodchip power station project has been inaccurate, and littered with absurd dogma.
A child could ask the question how many of those "14000 homes" are going to be powered by this installation at night, and upon coming to the obvious answer will wonder which other power station will have to be built to supply the houses when this waste of money is not delivering any energy. So we end up building two or even three power stations instead of one, thanks to green policies.

Stillness wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

hulla baloo says how can this ever be workable?



hulla baloo, the14,000 homes could be 35,000 if there's any truth in the below 3D solar cells generate 2,5 times more electricity than normal solar cells.


-

3D solar cell generates significantly more energy increasing efficiency by 150%.

Posted by Greener Tomorrow on September 10th, 2012.

New tests suggest that the world’s first 3D solar cell generates significantly more energy then was assumed. The company behind the new solar cell, Solar 3D, has published a statement saying that they have manufactured and tested the first 3D solar cell. The new solar cell is made from silicon and can generate 2,5 times as much electricity than normal solar cells.

Next to the effective way of catching the sunlight, the design of the chambers gives the 3D solar cell the ability to generate electricity all day round. This is a significant improvement over traditional solar panels which heavily depend on the angle of the sun to generate electricity.


-

http://www.tomorrowi






sgreener.com/3d-sola






r-cell-generates-sig






nificantly-more-ener






gy-increasing-effici






ency-by-150/

Thanks, it is most interesting info.

Pity our establishment can waste billions upon wars, on Trident, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers without any planes, but is reluctant to properly fund research in such areas, which my help in saving the Earth.

Without a nuclear deterrent, with what is going on in an Iran, currently run by lunatics, our bit of the Earth could soon become beyond saving.

With nuclear weapons there could very easily be no bit of the earth to save.

They say we learn from our mistakes but obviously we didn't learn from the mistake of the US when they built 2 prototype design atom bombs and then dropped them on Japan.

The mistake was not learning that intelligence is of no use without wisdom.

True, even the inventor of those bombs realised that they were weapons that should never be used in any way due to the devastation they cause, yet in this day and age there are thousands of nuclear weapons, personally I think they should all be sent into space on a course towards the sun along with greedy oil barons.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
What does Green Party and Friends of Earth think of this proposed project? Their input in this consultation could be of immense value.

Why? Their input to the Southampton woodchip power station project has been inaccurate, and littered with absurd dogma.
A child could ask the question how many of those "14000 homes" are going to be powered by this installation at night, and upon coming to the obvious answer will wonder which other power station will have to be built to supply the houses when this waste of money is not delivering any energy. So we end up building two or even three power stations instead of one, thanks to green policies.

burning woodchip still produces many thousands of tonnes of carbon when done on that scale, it sounds good on paper but in the end it's no better than burning fossil fuels and as others have said, charging and storage devices could be used on homes to keep them switched on for the few hours at night before everyone goes to bed.

IronLady2010 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
I am looking into the Roof Panels, but came across this from WHICH?
http://www.which.co.



uk/news/2012/04/mort



gage-risk-on-rent-a-



roof-solar-panel-sch



emes-284238/

Ironlady ask some one who has them already installed like me.
in the daytime we've looked at our meter & no electricity is used come the evening we see a red light flash which flashes more often when it becomes dark.
The problem we have is we've leased our roof so any excess electricity gets put into the National Grid & the company makes money from it.
Buy your own research into Battery storage & get the best & you would see an even greater saving than I get.
If some smart alec tells me there's no such battery then please explain to me how they have such a thing in Thailand?

I'm agreeing with you. It was yourself which made me look into them.

But If a contract states 25 years I would be wary as I can't guarantee I'll be in this house for that long.

I will of course look into the contract, before making any agreement.

If I come to sell and NO Mortgage Company will lend on the property due to the panels then I'm stuck.

It also depends on the terms they may offer a 25 year contract with a 5 year guarantee as an example. I need to research much more.

Ironlady a three bedroom house in Lordshill up for sale for £140,000 another house in the same close up for sale at £145,000 SOLD the difference was that the higher priced one had Solar Panels.
The ones I have you have to have permission from the mortgage lender to have them installed.
the cost from Southern Electric is £5,450 so you know you can get them cheaper.
So you have no worries about Selling on .if you're buying you now get 12p per therm instead of 21p a therm.
if you don't store your waste electricity to use at night you can earn money towards the cost of installation.
It's a pity the Government cut the rebate as the more people doing it the less need for new power stations.
They are looking at new batteries for Electric cars? I wonder if the new technology can be used as storage for solar panel electricity & if it can how more efficient will it be than the present batteries?
Ironlady I will be giving my first meter reading since panels were installed this month & I will let you know how much I've saved.
Did you know if you're an existing Southern Electric customer you don't have to have standing charges on you're meters?
That's what they've told me anyway

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

hulla baloo says how can this ever be workable?



hulla baloo, the14,000 homes could be 35,000 if there's any truth in the below 3D solar cells generate 2,5 times more electricity than normal solar cells.


-

3D solar cell generates significantly more energy increasing efficiency by 150%.

Posted by Greener Tomorrow on September 10th, 2012.

New tests suggest that the world’s first 3D solar cell generates significantly more energy then was assumed. The company behind the new solar cell, Solar 3D, has published a statement saying that they have manufactured and tested the first 3D solar cell. The new solar cell is made from silicon and can generate 2,5 times as much electricity than normal solar cells.

Next to the effective way of catching the sunlight, the design of the chambers gives the 3D solar cell the ability to generate electricity all day round. This is a significant improvement over traditional solar panels which heavily depend on the angle of the sun to generate electricity.


-

http://www.tomorrowi


sgreener.com/3d-sola


r-cell-generates-sig


nificantly-more-ener


gy-increasing-effici


ency-by-150/

Thanks, it is most interesting info.

Pity our establishment can waste billions upon wars, on Trident, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers without any planes, but is reluctant to properly fund research in such areas, which my help in saving the Earth.

Paramjit Bahia says Pity our establishment can waste billions.


apart from wasting billions they think different.. Cllr Sean Woodward said the Newlands solar farm covers an area the size of 50 football pitches.

I say that's approx 87 acres of arable land, is there nowhere in Hampshire more suitable for a solar farm?
　
the New Forest covers approx 140,800 acres, the Forestry Commission has over 21,003 acres of New Forest land turned over to fenced off tree plantations.

-

http://www.forestry.
gov.uk/website/fores
try.nsf/byunique/inf
d-6c2fdh

-

best case scenario, ( hypothetically, not all south facing and if there's any truth in 3D solar cells generating 2,5 times more electricity ) if all the tree enclosures were turned over to solar that land could provide power for 8,449,482 million homes.

given no Politician would approve such an obvious Earth saving scheme I'd push for a measly 500 acres or 2.3% of the enclosures.

funny enough 500 acres could power 200,00 homes the exact same number as Helius's pollution generating timber/grass incinerator.

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
I am looking into the Roof Panels, but came across this from WHICH?
http://www.which.co.




uk/news/2012/04/mort




gage-risk-on-rent-a-




roof-solar-panel-sch




emes-284238/

Ironlady ask some one who has them already installed like me.
in the daytime we've looked at our meter & no electricity is used come the evening we see a red light flash which flashes more often when it becomes dark.
The problem we have is we've leased our roof so any excess electricity gets put into the National Grid & the company makes money from it.
Buy your own research into Battery storage & get the best & you would see an even greater saving than I get.
If some smart alec tells me there's no such battery then please explain to me how they have such a thing in Thailand?

I'm agreeing with you. It was yourself which made me look into them.

But If a contract states 25 years I would be wary as I can't guarantee I'll be in this house for that long.

I will of course look into the contract, before making any agreement.

If I come to sell and NO Mortgage Company will lend on the property due to the panels then I'm stuck.

It also depends on the terms they may offer a 25 year contract with a 5 year guarantee as an example. I need to research much more.

Ironlady a three bedroom house in Lordshill up for sale for £140,000 another house in the same close up for sale at £145,000 SOLD the difference was that the higher priced one had Solar Panels.
The ones I have you have to have permission from the mortgage lender to have them installed.
the cost from Southern Electric is £5,450 so you know you can get them cheaper.
So you have no worries about Selling on .if you're buying you now get 12p per therm instead of 21p a therm.
if you don't store your waste electricity to use at night you can earn money towards the cost of installation.
It's a pity the Government cut the rebate as the more people doing it the less need for new power stations.
They are looking at new batteries for Electric cars? I wonder if the new technology can be used as storage for solar panel electricity & if it can how more efficient will it be than the present batteries?
Ironlady I will be giving my first meter reading since panels were installed this month & I will let you know how much I've saved.
Did you know if you're an existing Southern Electric customer you don't have to have standing charges on you're meters?
That's what they've told me anyway

That's great but who would live in Lordshill lol. Only jesting mate. It was thought as a posh area when I was youffff.

Dan Soton wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

hulla baloo says how can this ever be workable?



hulla baloo, the14,000 homes could be 35,000 if there's any truth in the below 3D solar cells generate 2,5 times more electricity than normal solar cells.


-

3D solar cell generates significantly more energy increasing efficiency by 150%.

Posted by Greener Tomorrow on September 10th, 2012.

New tests suggest that the world’s first 3D solar cell generates significantly more energy then was assumed. The company behind the new solar cell, Solar 3D, has published a statement saying that they have manufactured and tested the first 3D solar cell. The new solar cell is made from silicon and can generate 2,5 times as much electricity than normal solar cells.

Next to the effective way of catching the sunlight, the design of the chambers gives the 3D solar cell the ability to generate electricity all day round. This is a significant improvement over traditional solar panels which heavily depend on the angle of the sun to generate electricity.


-

http://www.tomorrowi



sgreener.com/3d-sola



r-cell-generates-sig



nificantly-more-ener



gy-increasing-effici



ency-by-150/

Thanks, it is most interesting info.

Pity our establishment can waste billions upon wars, on Trident, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers without any planes, but is reluctant to properly fund research in such areas, which my help in saving the Earth.

Paramjit Bahia says Pity our establishment can waste billions.


apart from wasting billions they think different.. Cllr Sean Woodward said the Newlands solar farm covers an area the size of 50 football pitches.

I say that's approx 87 acres of arable land, is there nowhere in Hampshire more suitable for a solar farm?
　
the New Forest covers approx 140,800 acres, the Forestry Commission has over 21,003 acres of New Forest land turned over to fenced off tree plantations.

-

http://www.forestry.

gov.uk/website/fores

try.nsf/byunique/inf

d-6c2fdh

-

best case scenario, ( hypothetically, not all south facing and if there's any truth in 3D solar cells generating 2,5 times more electricity ) if all the tree enclosures were turned over to solar that land could provide power for 8,449,482 million homes.

given no Politician would approve such an obvious Earth saving scheme I'd push for a measly 500 acres or 2.3% of the enclosures.

funny enough 500 acres could power 200,00 homes the exact same number as Helius's pollution generating timber/grass incinerator.

The plantations are there to grow timber, Dan, which is a crop that should be expanded, not contracted. We are struggling to make any impact on our balance of trade yet we import huge amounts of timber when we could be self sufficient. Instead, and thanks to a misguided and innacurate media campaign by Greens and others we are now likely to produce even less timber than before and instead waste thousands of acres doing nothing more than the forced planting of oak, birch and other "amenity" species. The point about the Helius station is that it produces power when power is needed. What is the point of unreliable solar power (riddled with taxpayer subsidies which was a criticism of biomass) that cannot be relied on to produce any power at all and so has to be backed up with conventional thermal (eg biomass) stations anyway?
Thermal power is cheaper than solar because its output is flexible controllable and predictable, and most important of all, it doesn't kill people by failing to produce when it is needed. This is not some silly Pinky Green game. It is life and death and Green policies will kill people.

loosehead wrote:

Bowmore wrote:
If this does go ahead I'd like to see it connected directly to 14000 homes and those homes disconnected from the national grid and then see how they cope in the dark cold winter.

Bowmore if you buy the most modern panels with the latest Battery/storage device you will produce power in the Winter & will have it through the night.
Do you ever watch TV?
there's a guy in the New Forest who has panels with batteries plus small wind Turbines ( very small) & he has no mains connection at all so sorry to burst your bubble but it can be done

I have no doubt that it is possible to exist using only solar and wind energy if you install enough generation and storage capacity. There is however no mention of any storage capacity being included in this scheme. They have also used an average annual domestic consumption value of 3350kwh the average for Hampshire is 4100Kwh. In winter electricity consumption is slightly higher and production from solar panels is considerably lower than the average for the year. To keep the 14000 homes supplied during the winter they would need an installed capacity in the region of 165Mw considerably more than the 47Mw proposed. They would additionally need to install 25000Kwh to 30000Kwh of storage. That would require 750 tonnes of lead acid batteries, (the cheapest option), which would need to be replaced every 4 to 5 years.

Bowmore wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Bowmore wrote:
If this does go ahead I'd like to see it connected directly to 14000 homes and those homes disconnected from the national grid and then see how they cope in the dark cold winter.

Bowmore if you buy the most modern panels with the latest Battery/storage device you will produce power in the Winter & will have it through the night.
Do you ever watch TV?
there's a guy in the New Forest who has panels with batteries plus small wind Turbines ( very small) & he has no mains connection at all so sorry to burst your bubble but it can be done

I have no doubt that it is possible to exist using only solar and wind energy if you install enough generation and storage capacity. There is however no mention of any storage capacity being included in this scheme. They have also used an average annual domestic consumption value of 3350kwh the average for Hampshire is 4100Kwh. In winter electricity consumption is slightly higher and production from solar panels is considerably lower than the average for the year. To keep the 14000 homes supplied during the winter they would need an installed capacity in the region of 165Mw considerably more than the 47Mw proposed. They would additionally need to install 25000Kwh to 30000Kwh of storage. That would require 750 tonnes of lead acid batteries, (the cheapest option), which would need to be replaced every 4 to 5 years.

As someone who obviously has knowledge of the subject why are you suggesting the use of lead acid batteries? A bit last century I would have thought.

Stillness wrote:

Bowmore wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Bowmore wrote:
If this does go ahead I'd like to see it connected directly to 14000 homes and those homes disconnected from the national grid and then see how they cope in the dark cold winter.

Bowmore if you buy the most modern panels with the latest Battery/storage device you will produce power in the Winter & will have it through the night.
Do you ever watch TV?
there's a guy in the New Forest who has panels with batteries plus small wind Turbines ( very small) & he has no mains connection at all so sorry to burst your bubble but it can be done

I have no doubt that it is possible to exist using only solar and wind energy if you install enough generation and storage capacity. There is however no mention of any storage capacity being included in this scheme. They have also used an average annual domestic consumption value of 3350kwh the average for Hampshire is 4100Kwh. In winter electricity consumption is slightly higher and production from solar panels is considerably lower than the average for the year. To keep the 14000 homes supplied during the winter they would need an installed capacity in the region of 165Mw considerably more than the 47Mw proposed. They would additionally need to install 25000Kwh to 30000Kwh of storage. That would require 750 tonnes of lead acid batteries, (the cheapest option), which would need to be replaced every 4 to 5 years.

As someone who obviously has knowledge of the subject why are you suggesting the use of lead acid batteries? A bit last century I would have thought.

Because in a situation like this where weight is not a problem lead acid chemistry is one of the cheapest options especially used in a large flow battery where the electrolyte is stored in external tanks an is pumped through the electrodes to charge or discharge. Two or three of these would be enough for a scheme of this size. The types of batteries used in electric cars etc. would be prohibitively expensive for storing this amount of energy.

I will point out that a) this is obviously not to power homes at night, this is to offset daytime consumption (eg where it will be at peak), and

b) homes and private premises can use batteries to store power. Some do use lead acid, but many have been switching to the new NEC gel-based batteries as their more efficient, keep their charge longer and lighter in weight.

downfader wrote:
I will point out that a) this is obviously not to power homes at night, this is to offset daytime consumption (eg where it will be at peak), and

b) homes and private premises can use batteries to store power. Some do use lead acid, but many have been switching to the new NEC gel-based batteries as their more efficient, keep their charge longer and lighter in weight.

I doubt if weight is an issue. I would have thought that resistance to loosing capacity due to continues charge and discharge would have been more of a concern.

Bowmore wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Bowmore wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Bowmore wrote:
If this does go ahead I'd like to see it connected directly to 14000 homes and those homes disconnected from the national grid and then see how they cope in the dark cold winter.

Bowmore if you buy the most modern panels with the latest Battery/storage device you will produce power in the Winter & will have it through the night.
Do you ever watch TV?
there's a guy in the New Forest who has panels with batteries plus small wind Turbines ( very small) & he has no mains connection at all so sorry to burst your bubble but it can be done

I have no doubt that it is possible to exist using only solar and wind energy if you install enough generation and storage capacity. There is however no mention of any storage capacity being included in this scheme. They have also used an average annual domestic consumption value of 3350kwh the average for Hampshire is 4100Kwh. In winter electricity consumption is slightly higher and production from solar panels is considerably lower than the average for the year. To keep the 14000 homes supplied during the winter they would need an installed capacity in the region of 165Mw considerably more than the 47Mw proposed. They would additionally need to install 25000Kwh to 30000Kwh of storage. That would require 750 tonnes of lead acid batteries, (the cheapest option), which would need to be replaced every 4 to 5 years.

As someone who obviously has knowledge of the subject why are you suggesting the use of lead acid batteries? A bit last century I would have thought.

Because in a situation like this where weight is not a problem lead acid chemistry is one of the cheapest options especially used in a large flow battery where the electrolyte is stored in external tanks an is pumped through the electrodes to charge or discharge. Two or three of these would be enough for a scheme of this size. The types of batteries used in electric cars etc. would be prohibitively expensive for storing this amount of energy.

The idea of using batteries is ludicrous for several reasons. It simply shows that those advocating it have no concept of the amount of material required or the amount of energy to be stored. Electricity supply is a national not a local concern. The best way to "store" electricity is either a) pump storage, such as Dinorwig, or peak hour hydro schemes such as Loch Tummel. The concept of battery storage is only for those who think power generation is a parlour game. There has been no attempt to disguise the fact that Biomass is thermal power generation, but that is not an issue. You compare the fuel source with a comparable alternative, not chalk with cheese. Compare wood chip with coal and you have quite a good alternative. Compare it with this nonsensical pie in the sky rubbish and wood chip is far superior. You try running a hospital or a data centre that relies wholly on solar power with or without batteries and see how far you get before power cuts start killing people. The very young, the very old, and the very ill, all people who cannot speak against this absurd green folly. , The answer is you will get about 8 hours, then machines fail and people start dying. As I say over and over again on this subject, it is not a game of chance.

Watched two TV programs today one had Stobarts transporting household waste from a factory where it was sorted & baled to be shipped to Sweden to a power station that burns such waste to produce electricity could not the Bio Mass burn this?
The next program was on China & how only 10% have cars & if they all had cars the world couldn't produce enough Petrol for them to drive the cars.The pollution would be horrendous.
It's about time people woke up to the fact we have to invest in Solar & wind,wave & tidal plus Bio generators.
Plus we have to look at developing Electric powered cars quickly or as the program showed they will export them to us.
My horse gets scared going past a wind turbine or I can hear the noise shouldn't cut mustered in giving planning consent or can I stop cars or lorries driving on the roads at night because I can hear them.
let's set up Solar Farms & all other forms of green technologies or all start using candles again as prices will rocket & can we afford to drive cars or use to much power?

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Bowmore wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Bowmore wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Bowmore wrote:
If this does go ahead I'd like to see it connected directly to 14000 homes and those homes disconnected from the national grid and then see how they cope in the dark cold winter.

Bowmore if you buy the most modern panels with the latest Battery/storage device you will produce power in the Winter & will have it through the night.
Do you ever watch TV?
there's a guy in the New Forest who has panels with batteries plus small wind Turbines ( very small) & he has no mains connection at all so sorry to burst your bubble but it can be done

I have no doubt that it is possible to exist using only solar and wind energy if you install enough generation and storage capacity. There is however no mention of any storage capacity being included in this scheme. They have also used an average annual domestic consumption value of 3350kwh the average for Hampshire is 4100Kwh. In winter electricity consumption is slightly higher and production from solar panels is considerably lower than the average for the year. To keep the 14000 homes supplied during the winter they would need an installed capacity in the region of 165Mw considerably more than the 47Mw proposed. They would additionally need to install 25000Kwh to 30000Kwh of storage. That would require 750 tonnes of lead acid batteries, (the cheapest option), which would need to be replaced every 4 to 5 years.

As someone who obviously has knowledge of the subject why are you suggesting the use of lead acid batteries? A bit last century I would have thought.

Because in a situation like this where weight is not a problem lead acid chemistry is one of the cheapest options especially used in a large flow battery where the electrolyte is stored in external tanks an is pumped through the electrodes to charge or discharge. Two or three of these would be enough for a scheme of this size. The types of batteries used in electric cars etc. would be prohibitively expensive for storing this amount of energy.

The idea of using batteries is ludicrous for several reasons. It simply shows that those advocating it have no concept of the amount of material required or the amount of energy to be stored. Electricity supply is a national not a local concern. The best way to "store" electricity is either a) pump storage, such as Dinorwig, or peak hour hydro schemes such as Loch Tummel. The concept of battery storage is only for those who think power generation is a parlour game. There has been no attempt to disguise the fact that Biomass is thermal power generation, but that is not an issue. You compare the fuel source with a comparable alternative, not chalk with cheese. Compare wood chip with coal and you have quite a good alternative. Compare it with this nonsensical pie in the sky rubbish and wood chip is far superior. You try running a hospital or a data centre that relies wholly on solar power with or without batteries and see how far you get before power cuts start killing people. The very young, the very old, and the very ill, all people who cannot speak against this absurd green folly. , The answer is you will get about 8 hours, then machines fail and people start dying. As I say over and over again on this subject, it is not a game of chance.

Andy sorry but your wrong whole villages in Thailand are powered this way so why can't we use Storage?
As I've said the Government are looking into making a better form of electric battery for cars ( Electric cars) so why can't this technology be used for storing electricity from Solar Panels?

I know there's a modern version of the water mill which is used to produce electricity & by continuously allowing water into the storage area to then be used to turn the wheel the production is continuous so if we have this technology as well as Solar why aren't we using it?
River Severn development got stopped by surfers who ride the rip tide once a year?
We need renewable power sources when are you people going to realise that when the lights go out?

loosehead wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Bowmore wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Bowmore wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Bowmore wrote:
If this does go ahead I'd like to see it connected directly to 14000 homes and those homes disconnected from the national grid and then see how they cope in the dark cold winter.

Bowmore if you buy the most modern panels with the latest Battery/storage device you will produce power in the Winter & will have it through the night.
Do you ever watch TV?
there's a guy in the New Forest who has panels with batteries plus small wind Turbines ( very small) & he has no mains connection at all so sorry to burst your bubble but it can be done

I have no doubt that it is possible to exist using only solar and wind energy if you install enough generation and storage capacity. There is however no mention of any storage capacity being included in this scheme. They have also used an average annual domestic consumption value of 3350kwh the average for Hampshire is 4100Kwh. In winter electricity consumption is slightly higher and production from solar panels is considerably lower than the average for the year. To keep the 14000 homes supplied during the winter they would need an installed capacity in the region of 165Mw considerably more than the 47Mw proposed. They would additionally need to install 25000Kwh to 30000Kwh of storage. That would require 750 tonnes of lead acid batteries, (the cheapest option), which would need to be replaced every 4 to 5 years.

As someone who obviously has knowledge of the subject why are you suggesting the use of lead acid batteries? A bit last century I would have thought.

Because in a situation like this where weight is not a problem lead acid chemistry is one of the cheapest options especially used in a large flow battery where the electrolyte is stored in external tanks an is pumped through the electrodes to charge or discharge. Two or three of these would be enough for a scheme of this size. The types of batteries used in electric cars etc. would be prohibitively expensive for storing this amount of energy.

The idea of using batteries is ludicrous for several reasons. It simply shows that those advocating it have no concept of the amount of material required or the amount of energy to be stored. Electricity supply is a national not a local concern. The best way to "store" electricity is either a) pump storage, such as Dinorwig, or peak hour hydro schemes such as Loch Tummel. The concept of battery storage is only for those who think power generation is a parlour game. There has been no attempt to disguise the fact that Biomass is thermal power generation, but that is not an issue. You compare the fuel source with a comparable alternative, not chalk with cheese. Compare wood chip with coal and you have quite a good alternative. Compare it with this nonsensical pie in the sky rubbish and wood chip is far superior. You try running a hospital or a data centre that relies wholly on solar power with or without batteries and see how far you get before power cuts start killing people. The very young, the very old, and the very ill, all people who cannot speak against this absurd green folly. , The answer is you will get about 8 hours, then machines fail and people start dying. As I say over and over again on this subject, it is not a game of chance.

Andy sorry but your wrong whole villages in Thailand are powered this way so why can't we use Storage?
As I've said the Government are looking into making a better form of electric battery for cars ( Electric cars) so why can't this technology be used for storing electricity from Solar Panels?

Go check the demand for power from one of these villages compared to the demand from a typical British house Loosehead. We are talking about thousands of KwH per day even in a village the size of Stubbington. The fact also remains that whereas a village in Thailand may have no choice, we do, and to see a thousand years of progress thrown away in one generation through technological and political ignorance is criminally stupid. I was watching the news today where Prince WIlliam was in the Solomon Islands when a power cut suddenly darkened the civic reception. If the Greens, liberal democrats and other dogma driven idiots get anywhere close to our energy policy our country will lose everything it has and be reduced to this level in 5 years. Solar power has limitations in not just one but in every single critical aspect of electricity generation that should be obvious. It worries me that people on this thread are happy to vote for this kind of insanity without thinking they are sending this country and our children back to a world of third world living standards disease and poverty.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Bowmore wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Bowmore wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Bowmore wrote:
If this does go ahead I'd like to see it connected directly to 14000 homes and those homes disconnected from the national grid and then see how they cope in the dark cold winter.

Bowmore if you buy the most modern panels with the latest Battery/storage device you will produce power in the Winter & will have it through the night.
Do you ever watch TV?
there's a guy in the New Forest who has panels with batteries plus small wind Turbines ( very small) & he has no mains connection at all so sorry to burst your bubble but it can be done

I have no doubt that it is possible to exist using only solar and wind energy if you install enough generation and storage capacity. There is however no mention of any storage capacity being included in this scheme. They have also used an average annual domestic consumption value of 3350kwh the average for Hampshire is 4100Kwh. In winter electricity consumption is slightly higher and production from solar panels is considerably lower than the average for the year. To keep the 14000 homes supplied during the winter they would need an installed capacity in the region of 165Mw considerably more than the 47Mw proposed. They would additionally need to install 25000Kwh to 30000Kwh of storage. That would require 750 tonnes of lead acid batteries, (the cheapest option), which would need to be replaced every 4 to 5 years.

As someone who obviously has knowledge of the subject why are you suggesting the use of lead acid batteries? A bit last century I would have thought.

Because in a situation like this where weight is not a problem lead acid chemistry is one of the cheapest options especially used in a large flow battery where the electrolyte is stored in external tanks an is pumped through the electrodes to charge or discharge. Two or three of these would be enough for a scheme of this size. The types of batteries used in electric cars etc. would be prohibitively expensive for storing this amount of energy.

The idea of using batteries is ludicrous for several reasons. It simply shows that those advocating it have no concept of the amount of material required or the amount of energy to be stored. Electricity supply is a national not a local concern. The best way to "store" electricity is either a) pump storage, such as Dinorwig, or peak hour hydro schemes such as Loch Tummel. The concept of battery storage is only for those who think power generation is a parlour game. There has been no attempt to disguise the fact that Biomass is thermal power generation, but that is not an issue. You compare the fuel source with a comparable alternative, not chalk with cheese. Compare wood chip with coal and you have quite a good alternative. Compare it with this nonsensical pie in the sky rubbish and wood chip is far superior. You try running a hospital or a data centre that relies wholly on solar power with or without batteries and see how far you get before power cuts start killing people. The very young, the very old, and the very ill, all people who cannot speak against this absurd green folly. , The answer is you will get about 8 hours, then machines fail and people start dying. As I say over and over again on this subject, it is not a game of chance.

Andy sorry but your wrong whole villages in Thailand are powered this way so why can't we use Storage?
As I've said the Government are looking into making a better form of electric battery for cars ( Electric cars) so why can't this technology be used for storing electricity from Solar Panels?

Go check the demand for power from one of these villages compared to the demand from a typical British house Loosehead. We are talking about thousands of KwH per day even in a village the size of Stubbington. The fact also remains that whereas a village in Thailand may have no choice, we do, and to see a thousand years of progress thrown away in one generation through technological and political ignorance is criminally stupid. I was watching the news today where Prince WIlliam was in the Solomon Islands when a power cut suddenly darkened the civic reception. If the Greens, liberal democrats and other dogma driven idiots get anywhere close to our energy policy our country will lose everything it has and be reduced to this level in 5 years. Solar power has limitations in not just one but in every single critical aspect of electricity generation that should be obvious. It worries me that people on this thread are happy to vote for this kind of insanity without thinking they are sending this country and our children back to a world of third world living standards disease and poverty.

Wrong again! Villages in Thailand most have air conditioning most all have TV's.All have fridge freezers so exactly what do our houses use they don't use?
We either embrace Wind,Wave,Tidal & Solar energy or how soon is it before many can't afford to have electricity?

loosehead wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Bowmore wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Bowmore wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Bowmore wrote:
If this does go ahead I'd like to see it connected directly to 14000 homes and those homes disconnected from the national grid and then see how they cope in the dark cold winter.

Bowmore if you buy the most modern panels with the latest Battery/storage device you will produce power in the Winter & will have it through the night.
Do you ever watch TV?
there's a guy in the New Forest who has panels with batteries plus small wind Turbines ( very small) & he has no mains connection at all so sorry to burst your bubble but it can be done

I have no doubt that it is possible to exist using only solar and wind energy if you install enough generation and storage capacity. There is however no mention of any storage capacity being included in this scheme. They have also used an average annual domestic consumption value of 3350kwh the average for Hampshire is 4100Kwh. In winter electricity consumption is slightly higher and production from solar panels is considerably lower than the average for the year. To keep the 14000 homes supplied during the winter they would need an installed capacity in the region of 165Mw considerably more than the 47Mw proposed. They would additionally need to install 25000Kwh to 30000Kwh of storage. That would require 750 tonnes of lead acid batteries, (the cheapest option), which would need to be replaced every 4 to 5 years.

As someone who obviously has knowledge of the subject why are you suggesting the use of lead acid batteries? A bit last century I would have thought.

Because in a situation like this where weight is not a problem lead acid chemistry is one of the cheapest options especially used in a large flow battery where the electrolyte is stored in external tanks an is pumped through the electrodes to charge or discharge. Two or three of these would be enough for a scheme of this size. The types of batteries used in electric cars etc. would be prohibitively expensive for storing this amount of energy.

The idea of using batteries is ludicrous for several reasons. It simply shows that those advocating it have no concept of the amount of material required or the amount of energy to be stored. Electricity supply is a national not a local concern. The best way to "store" electricity is either a) pump storage, such as Dinorwig, or peak hour hydro schemes such as Loch Tummel. The concept of battery storage is only for those who think power generation is a parlour game. There has been no attempt to disguise the fact that Biomass is thermal power generation, but that is not an issue. You compare the fuel source with a comparable alternative, not chalk with cheese. Compare wood chip with coal and you have quite a good alternative. Compare it with this nonsensical pie in the sky rubbish and wood chip is far superior. You try running a hospital or a data centre that relies wholly on solar power with or without batteries and see how far you get before power cuts start killing people. The very young, the very old, and the very ill, all people who cannot speak against this absurd green folly. , The answer is you will get about 8 hours, then machines fail and people start dying. As I say over and over again on this subject, it is not a game of chance.

Andy sorry but your wrong whole villages in Thailand are powered this way so why can't we use Storage?
As I've said the Government are looking into making a better form of electric battery for cars ( Electric cars) so why can't this technology be used for storing electricity from Solar Panels?

Go check the demand for power from one of these villages compared to the demand from a typical British house Loosehead. We are talking about thousands of KwH per day even in a village the size of Stubbington. The fact also remains that whereas a village in Thailand may have no choice, we do, and to see a thousand years of progress thrown away in one generation through technological and political ignorance is criminally stupid. I was watching the news today where Prince WIlliam was in the Solomon Islands when a power cut suddenly darkened the civic reception. If the Greens, liberal democrats and other dogma driven idiots get anywhere close to our energy policy our country will lose everything it has and be reduced to this level in 5 years. Solar power has limitations in not just one but in every single critical aspect of electricity generation that should be obvious. It worries me that people on this thread are happy to vote for this kind of insanity without thinking they are sending this country and our children back to a world of third world living standards disease and poverty.

Wrong again! Villages in Thailand most have air conditioning most all have TV's.All have fridge freezers so exactly what do our houses use they don't use?
We either embrace Wind,Wave,Tidal & Solar energy or how soon is it before many can't afford to have electricity?

No I am not wrong. Not only is that a different climate with predictable weather patterns but you are not thinking systemically. Are those Thai houses free to consume as much as they want when they want? No they are not. Solar power only exists as a concept in the UK because the National Grid effectively bails out its massive unsuitabilities. If this was a closed system these "14000 houses" (a rubbish calculation btw) would be in blackout all night and most of the winter, so they are getting most of their power from coal, gas and nuclear and will continue to do so whether we have to subsidise this lunatic scheme or not. This solar farm will produce electricity for the grid when the grid doesn;t need it, and produce nothing when the grid needs it most, It is a waste of taxpayers money. As for the maths, a house in the UK demands around 5000KwH pa but demand is not level, which is where amateurs and journalists fall prey to the artificial hype put out by those looking to making a fast buck out Lib dem environmentalists anxious to throw taxpayers money at pointless inneficient schemes. A UK house might experience peak demand of 20KwH per day and a community average might be 15KWh per day, so work out how much panel area (and battery capacity if you will) this idea would need. Remember that even the best most expensive panels are only around 20% efficient (and will they still be that efficient in 5 years time? No they won't).
We have over 6 months of heat defecit at the very time when solar power would be unproductive and unreliable. Where will these houses get their power during a long cold January anticyclone? That's not a rhetorical question - I'd like to know where you think people will get the power to survive in comfort, rather than scrabbling for warmth in medaeval semi darkness. BTW if you moot large scale battery use there are around a dozen reasons why it would be madness in an advanced western economy. These crazy ideas will sell our children down the river and all for nothing.

"We either embrace Wind,Wave,Tidal & Solar energy or how soon is it before many can't afford to have electricity?"
- the reason electricity is so expensive is we are paying to subsidise some of the dumb wind and solar schemes you mention! Tidal is good but a lot of the rest is just pointless.
Modern next generation Nuclear power renders all these other schemes (except tidal schemes) unnecessary and wasteful.

If we could convert some of the bullsh*t from this scheme's supporters to produce methane we wouldn't need the stupid thing anyway.

MisterGrimsdale wrote:
If we could convert some of the bullsh*t from this scheme's supporters to produce methane we wouldn't need the stupid thing anyway.

I have been advocating building a Methane extraction unit & a methane power plant at Sewage farms for ages but how many people would oppose such a project?

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Bowmore wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Bowmore wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Bowmore wrote:
If this does go ahead I'd like to see it connected directly to 14000 homes and those homes disconnected from the national grid and then see how they cope in the dark cold winter.

Bowmore if you buy the most modern panels with the latest Battery/storage device you will produce power in the Winter & will have it through the night.
Do you ever watch TV?
there's a guy in the New Forest who has panels with batteries plus small wind Turbines ( very small) & he has no mains connection at all so sorry to burst your bubble but it can be done

I have no doubt that it is possible to exist using only solar and wind energy if you install enough generation and storage capacity. There is however no mention of any storage capacity being included in this scheme. They have also used an average annual domestic consumption value of 3350kwh the average for Hampshire is 4100Kwh. In winter electricity consumption is slightly higher and production from solar panels is considerably lower than the average for the year. To keep the 14000 homes supplied during the winter they would need an installed capacity in the region of 165Mw considerably more than the 47Mw proposed. They would additionally need to install 25000Kwh to 30000Kwh of storage. That would require 750 tonnes of lead acid batteries, (the cheapest option), which would need to be replaced every 4 to 5 years.

As someone who obviously has knowledge of the subject why are you suggesting the use of lead acid batteries? A bit last century I would have thought.

Because in a situation like this where weight is not a problem lead acid chemistry is one of the cheapest options especially used in a large flow battery where the electrolyte is stored in external tanks an is pumped through the electrodes to charge or discharge. Two or three of these would be enough for a scheme of this size. The types of batteries used in electric cars etc. would be prohibitively expensive for storing this amount of energy.

The idea of using batteries is ludicrous for several reasons. It simply shows that those advocating it have no concept of the amount of material required or the amount of energy to be stored. Electricity supply is a national not a local concern. The best way to "store" electricity is either a) pump storage, such as Dinorwig, or peak hour hydro schemes such as Loch Tummel. The concept of battery storage is only for those who think power generation is a parlour game. There has been no attempt to disguise the fact that Biomass is thermal power generation, but that is not an issue. You compare the fuel source with a comparable alternative, not chalk with cheese. Compare wood chip with coal and you have quite a good alternative. Compare it with this nonsensical pie in the sky rubbish and wood chip is far superior. You try running a hospital or a data centre that relies wholly on solar power with or without batteries and see how far you get before power cuts start killing people. The very young, the very old, and the very ill, all people who cannot speak against this absurd green folly. , The answer is you will get about 8 hours, then machines fail and people start dying. As I say over and over again on this subject, it is not a game of chance.

Andy sorry but your wrong whole villages in Thailand are powered this way so why can't we use Storage?
As I've said the Government are looking into making a better form of electric battery for cars ( Electric cars) so why can't this technology be used for storing electricity from Solar Panels?

Go check the demand for power from one of these villages compared to the demand from a typical British house Loosehead. We are talking about thousands of KwH per day even in a village the size of Stubbington. The fact also remains that whereas a village in Thailand may have no choice, we do, and to see a thousand years of progress thrown away in one generation through technological and political ignorance is criminally stupid. I was watching the news today where Prince WIlliam was in the Solomon Islands when a power cut suddenly darkened the civic reception. If the Greens, liberal democrats and other dogma driven idiots get anywhere close to our energy policy our country will lose everything it has and be reduced to this level in 5 years. Solar power has limitations in not just one but in every single critical aspect of electricity generation that should be obvious. It worries me that people on this thread are happy to vote for this kind of insanity without thinking they are sending this country and our children back to a world of third world living standards disease and poverty.

Andy you must know by now that I'm Pro Bio Mass.
but you show how little you know about Thailand.
Sun up at 07-00 dark at 18-00 hours no longer daylight hours in their summer.
here in Winter 07-00-08-00 sun up 16-00-17-00 darkness for what 2-3 months?
Summer time 06-00 sun up 21-00-22-00 night falls?
exactly who gets the most daylight?

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

hulla baloo says how can this ever be workable?



hulla baloo, the14,000 homes could be 35,000 if there's any truth in the below 3D solar cells generate 2,5 times more electricity than normal solar cells.


-

3D solar cell generates significantly more energy increasing efficiency by 150%.

Posted by Greener Tomorrow on September 10th, 2012.

New tests suggest that the world’s first 3D solar cell generates significantly more energy then was assumed. The company behind the new solar cell, Solar 3D, has published a statement saying that they have manufactured and tested the first 3D solar cell. The new solar cell is made from silicon and can generate 2,5 times as much electricity than normal solar cells.

Next to the effective way of catching the sunlight, the design of the chambers gives the 3D solar cell the ability to generate electricity all day round. This is a significant improvement over traditional solar panels which heavily depend on the angle of the sun to generate electricity.


-

http://www.tomorrowi




sgreener.com/3d-sola




r-cell-generates-sig




nificantly-more-ener




gy-increasing-effici




ency-by-150/

Thanks, it is most interesting info.

Pity our establishment can waste billions upon wars, on Trident, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers without any planes, but is reluctant to properly fund research in such areas, which my help in saving the Earth.

Paramjit Bahia says Pity our establishment can waste billions.


apart from wasting billions they think different.. Cllr Sean Woodward said the Newlands solar farm covers an area the size of 50 football pitches.

I say that's approx 87 acres of arable land, is there nowhere in Hampshire more suitable for a solar farm?
　
the New Forest covers approx 140,800 acres, the Forestry Commission has over 21,003 acres of New Forest land turned over to fenced off tree plantations.

-

http://www.forestry.


gov.uk/website/fores


try.nsf/byunique/inf


d-6c2fdh

-

best case scenario, ( hypothetically, not all south facing and if there's any truth in 3D solar cells generating 2,5 times more electricity ) if all the tree enclosures were turned over to solar that land could provide power for 8,449,482 million homes.

given no Politician would approve such an obvious Earth saving scheme I'd push for a measly 500 acres or 2.3% of the enclosures.

funny enough 500 acres could power 200,00 homes the exact same number as Helius's pollution generating timber/grass incinerator.

The plantations are there to grow timber, Dan, which is a crop that should be expanded, not contracted. We are struggling to make any impact on our balance of trade yet we import huge amounts of timber when we could be self sufficient. Instead, and thanks to a misguided and innacurate media campaign by Greens and others we are now likely to produce even less timber than before and instead waste thousands of acres doing nothing more than the forced planting of oak, birch and other "amenity" species. The point about the Helius station is that it produces power when power is needed. What is the point of unreliable solar power (riddled with taxpayer subsidies which was a criticism of biomass) that cannot be relied on to produce any power at all and so has to be backed up with conventional thermal (eg biomass) stations anyway?
Thermal power is cheaper than solar because its output is flexible controllable and predictable, and most important of all, it doesn't kill people by failing to produce when it is needed. This is not some silly Pinky Green game. It is life and death and Green policies will kill people.

David Cameron says Britain is open for business.

-

Andy drop the passion and look over these numbers with a business eye.

　
-
　

1) The New Forest covers approx 140,800 acres, The Forestry Commissions has over 21,003 acres of New Forest land turned over to fenced off tree plantations which produce approx 50,000 tonnes of timber per annum.

　

2) Helius's biomass incinerator needs 800,000 tonnes of timber/grass per annum to power 200,000 homes... that's 336,048 acres or more the 2 x the size of the New Forest !!!..

　

3) A measly 500 acres or 2.3% of The Forestry Commissions tree plantations turned over to solar can also power for 200,000 homes.

　
-


Back in June I put some of these numbers past a member of Helius management team, he said, subsidies will allow Helius to source timber/grass materials from Canada, South Africa, South America and Australia.


Unfortunately for Helius the EU is applying the brakes to biomass/biofuels subsidies to stop land grabbing in developing countries, saving us Taxpayers over €17 billion a year in the process.

-

http://www.euractiv.
com/climate-environm
ent/eu-legislation-l
imit-use-crop-ba-new
s-514714

-


I can only conclude.. Helius is heading for bankruptcy..

Dan you are hopelessly wrong on many counts. You are starting from an outcome and trying to reverse engineer a number of random situations which is disingenuous and unscientific. The whole question of burning wood was never even an issue until it became politicised by rampant Nimbyism. Had the Millbrook station been natural gas the opposition would have focussed on that instead and woodchip/biomass would never have been discussed on these pages, so let's not be hypocritical on the environmental concern eh? Wood chip (biomass) is a perfectly good way to turn a waste product into something useful. The ignorance on the economics of supply and demand is staggering. You are trying to force solar energy and thermal energy into becoming alternatives to each other which they never were and are not now. If you don't understand that you should not even be in the energy debate. You cannot consider solar energy as an alternative to steam generated power for reasons that should be obvious to you. And New Forest plantations as I have said are there primarily for timber, not fuel which is also obvious. Biomass would be a "free" byproduct of that production. But we need timber, so if unused all the the residual root and branch brash is wasted unless it can be burnt for electricity. It sits on the ground and rots or is burnt on site. Why would you take a controllable, flexible cheap commodity and throw it away in favour of a weak unreliable unpredictable part time commodity that has to be backed up with thermal alternative anyway? Your 200,000 homes figure is a joke , by the way. If you stood on a stage and tried to justify it mathematicallly I would pull it to pieces in a minute. If that is an example of the standard of accuracy you allow you might as well generate power from the moon. Finally this 800000 tonnes pa story - I doubt whether the Millbrook station would actually consume that because the initial price would limit its use to peak hour generaiton only, but I'm happy to use it anyway as it has been seized on by Nimbies and all the caveats have been sneakily dropped. This would be sourced initially overseas because you don't supply (as opposed to produce) a commodity until there is a market for it. Domestic sources of supply will grow slowly over time from secondary production (eg timber, or cereal waste), and will be good for the UK economy and its citizens. You are proposing third world solutions on a first world economy and you would ruin it with stupidity, misunderstanding biassed thinking, nimbyism disguised as environmentalism, and plain dogmatic stubbornness. Helius's financial viability is not even a concern for you unless you are a shareholder so what is your point?

Andy you must know by now that I'm Pro Bio Mass.
but you show how little you know about Thailand.
Sun up at 07-00 dark at 18-00 hours no longer daylight hours in their summer.
here in Winter 07-00-08-00 sun up 16-00-17-00 darkness for what 2-3 months?
Summer time 06-00 sun up 21-00-22-00 night falls?
exactly who gets the most daylight?
Loosehead it's not hours of daylight it's the strength of the sunlight. In the UK the angle of the sun is lower than Thailand (or anywhere closer to the equator, which reduces power pythoragically, but more importantly the angle of the sun through the atmosphere both reflects and disperses energy with the result that a) UK winter sun is less than 25% as energetic as UK summer sun and UK sun generally is always less potent than Thailand. In winter you might reckon full UK sunlight to be perhaps 1:8 as effective as the sun in Thailand.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Dan you are hopelessly wrong on many counts. You are starting from an outcome and trying to reverse engineer a number of random situations which is disingenuous and unscientific. The whole question of burning wood was never even an issue until it became politicised by rampant Nimbyism. Had the Millbrook station been natural gas the opposition would have focussed on that instead and woodchip/biomass would never have been discussed on these pages, so let's not be hypocritical on the environmental concern eh? Wood chip (biomass) is a perfectly good way to turn a waste product into something useful. The ignorance on the economics of supply and demand is staggering. You are trying to force solar energy and thermal energy into becoming alternatives to each other which they never were and are not now. If you don't understand that you should not even be in the energy debate. You cannot consider solar energy as an alternative to steam generated power for reasons that should be obvious to you. And New Forest plantations as I have said are there primarily for timber, not fuel which is also obvious. Biomass would be a "free" byproduct of that production. But we need timber, so if unused all the the residual root and branch brash is wasted unless it can be burnt for electricity. It sits on the ground and rots or is burnt on site. Why would you take a controllable, flexible cheap commodity and throw it away in favour of a weak unreliable unpredictable part time commodity that has to be backed up with thermal alternative anyway? Your 200,000 homes figure is a joke , by the way. If you stood on a stage and tried to justify it mathematicallly I would pull it to pieces in a minute. If that is an example of the standard of accuracy you allow you might as well generate power from the moon. Finally this 800000 tonnes pa story - I doubt whether the Millbrook station would actually consume that because the initial price would limit its use to peak hour generaiton only, but I'm happy to use it anyway as it has been seized on by Nimbies and all the caveats have been sneakily dropped. This would be sourced initially overseas because you don't supply (as opposed to produce) a commodity until there is a market for it. Domestic sources of supply will grow slowly over time from secondary production (eg timber, or cereal waste), and will be good for the UK economy and its citizens. You are proposing third world solutions on a first world economy and you would ruin it with stupidity, misunderstanding biassed thinking, nimbyism disguised as environmentalism, and plain dogmatic stubbornness. Helius's financial viability is not even a concern for you unless you are a shareholder so what is your point?

David Cameron says Britain is open for business.



Andy after supporting Helius you've gone to a lot of trouble knocking their figures.


As for Solar panels on Forestry Commission land that's only a matter of time.. where appropriate wind up North and Solar South.

-


Energy companies have been given the go ahead to explore Forestry Commission land for renewable energy projects.

22 February 2011 Last updated at 13:52.

"This initiative should add to the diversity of use, and increase returns for the public.

"Energy Companies have been given the go ahead......." Again so what? Anybody can explore now as they did before. How do you think any wind farm ever got built? And you know what? In the summer The Office of Rail Regulation reduced proposed increases in railfreight access charges for biomass transport. Do you want to make something out of that as well? The truth is that these things are part of the normal industrial regulatory ebb and flow only now a bunch of silly naiive protesters are seizing on ordinary regulation like clues in a Dan Brown novel.As for your other points - firstly if your concern was simply the environment that would be all you would focus on but you and the others masquarading as eco warriors are attacking and smearing aspects of the project that are totally irrelevant to the project. Would you feel better if it was National Power and not Helius building the power plant? Of course not, so why don't you can the hypocrisy when we are debating because both you and I know what your agenda is here. I did go and check the website (again) and yes it definitely says "Up to" 800ktonnes. That's "Up to". remember? Like I said. And what I said was that the station like many plants will probably operate at morning and evening peaks because that is when the grid pays most per Kw. Something that I am sure has been a long way from what you might mistakenly call "research" but most people know better as "google".
You have a lot to learn about energy supply but you should start by forgetting things that are not germane to your apparent concern, like Helius for instance, and start learning something about the needs of the UK energy market itself.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Dan you are hopelessly wrong on many counts. You are starting from an outcome and trying to reverse engineer a number of random situations which is disingenuous and unscientific. The whole question of burning wood was never even an issue until it became politicised by rampant Nimbyism. Had the Millbrook station been natural gas the opposition would have focussed on that instead and woodchip/biomass would never have been discussed on these pages, so let's not be hypocritical on the environmental concern eh? Wood chip (biomass) is a perfectly good way to turn a waste product into something useful. The ignorance on the economics of supply and demand is staggering. You are trying to force solar energy and thermal energy into becoming alternatives to each other which they never were and are not now. If you don't understand that you should not even be in the energy debate. You cannot consider solar energy as an alternative to steam generated power for reasons that should be obvious to you. And New Forest plantations as I have said are there primarily for timber, not fuel which is also obvious. Biomass would be a "free" byproduct of that production. But we need timber, so if unused all the the residual root and branch brash is wasted unless it can be burnt for electricity. It sits on the ground and rots or is burnt on site. Why would you take a controllable, flexible cheap commodity and throw it away in favour of a weak unreliable unpredictable part time commodity that has to be backed up with thermal alternative anyway? Your 200,000 homes figure is a joke , by the way. If you stood on a stage and tried to justify it mathematicallly I would pull it to pieces in a minute. If that is an example of the standard of accuracy you allow you might as well generate power from the moon. Finally this 800000 tonnes pa story - I doubt whether the Millbrook station would actually consume that because the initial price would limit its use to peak hour generaiton only, but I'm happy to use it anyway as it has been seized on by Nimbies and all the caveats have been sneakily dropped. This would be sourced initially overseas because you don't supply (as opposed to produce) a commodity until there is a market for it. Domestic sources of supply will grow slowly over time from secondary production (eg timber, or cereal waste), and will be good for the UK economy and its citizens. You are proposing third world solutions on a first world economy and you would ruin it with stupidity, misunderstanding biassed thinking, nimbyism disguised as environmentalism, and plain dogmatic stubbornness. Helius's financial viability is not even a concern for you unless you are a shareholder so what is your point?

Andy my UV panels produce electricity through daylight & yes if it's a bright day produce more than on a dull day.
If you used Solar alongside Wind & wave plus Tidal & had Bio Mass stations as merely back ups to these types of energy producers It would be better for the planet surely you must agree with that?
With my panels if I can afford an electric car I would not be putting any pollutants into the atmosphere at all

Hi Loosehead I also think Tidal power is a good idea because it is predictable and the water can be held back to act as kind of natural battery, if you will. Solar and wind I don'y like because they are unpredictable, and they produce a lot of low voltage DC power which won't go anywhere without being transformed. The infrastructure needed to carry low power to a collection point is always written off but it is estimated that home generation infrastructure will cost the UK £30bn - which is why our bills have gone up so steeply. These are hidden charges that Chris Huhne introduced while at thesame time telling everyone that he didn't believe in subsidising nuclear power! You are right that solar power direct to car battery is good - except that on a national scale usually the car is out and about when the sun is, hence you are back to chemical battery storage which increases costs and reduces efficiency.

Dan Soton wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

hulla baloo says how can this ever be workable?



hulla baloo, the14,000 homes could be 35,000 if there's any truth in the below 3D solar cells generate 2,5 times more electricity than normal solar cells.


-

3D solar cell generates significantly more energy increasing efficiency by 150%.

Posted by Greener Tomorrow on September 10th, 2012.

New tests suggest that the world’s first 3D solar cell generates significantly more energy then was assumed. The company behind the new solar cell, Solar 3D, has published a statement saying that they have manufactured and tested the first 3D solar cell. The new solar cell is made from silicon and can generate 2,5 times as much electricity than normal solar cells.

Next to the effective way of catching the sunlight, the design of the chambers gives the 3D solar cell the ability to generate electricity all day round. This is a significant improvement over traditional solar panels which heavily depend on the angle of the sun to generate electricity.


-

http://www.tomorrowi





sgreener.com/3d-sola





r-cell-generates-sig





nificantly-more-ener





gy-increasing-effici





ency-by-150/

Thanks, it is most interesting info.

Pity our establishment can waste billions upon wars, on Trident, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers without any planes, but is reluctant to properly fund research in such areas, which my help in saving the Earth.

Paramjit Bahia says Pity our establishment can waste billions.


apart from wasting billions they think different.. Cllr Sean Woodward said the Newlands solar farm covers an area the size of 50 football pitches.

I say that's approx 87 acres of arable land, is there nowhere in Hampshire more suitable for a solar farm?
　
the New Forest covers approx 140,800 acres, the Forestry Commission has over 21,003 acres of New Forest land turned over to fenced off tree plantations.

-

http://www.forestry.



gov.uk/website/fores



try.nsf/byunique/inf



d-6c2fdh

-

best case scenario, ( hypothetically, not all south facing and if there's any truth in 3D solar cells generating 2,5 times more electricity ) if all the tree enclosures were turned over to solar that land could provide power for 8,449,482 million homes.

given no Politician would approve such an obvious Earth saving scheme I'd push for a measly 500 acres or 2.3% of the enclosures.

funny enough 500 acres could power 200,00 homes the exact same number as Helius's pollution generating timber/grass incinerator.

The plantations are there to grow timber, Dan, which is a crop that should be expanded, not contracted. We are struggling to make any impact on our balance of trade yet we import huge amounts of timber when we could be self sufficient. Instead, and thanks to a misguided and innacurate media campaign by Greens and others we are now likely to produce even less timber than before and instead waste thousands of acres doing nothing more than the forced planting of oak, birch and other "amenity" species. The point about the Helius station is that it produces power when power is needed. What is the point of unreliable solar power (riddled with taxpayer subsidies which was a criticism of biomass) that cannot be relied on to produce any power at all and so has to be backed up with conventional thermal (eg biomass) stations anyway?
Thermal power is cheaper than solar because its output is flexible controllable and predictable, and most important of all, it doesn't kill people by failing to produce when it is needed. This is not some silly Pinky Green game. It is life and death and Green policies will kill people.

David Cameron says Britain is open for business.

-

Andy drop the passion and look over these numbers with a business eye.

　
-
　

1) The New Forest covers approx 140,800 acres, The Forestry Commissions has over 21,003 acres of New Forest land turned over to fenced off tree plantations which produce approx 50,000 tonnes of timber per annum.

　

2) Helius's biomass incinerator needs 800,000 tonnes of timber/grass per annum to power 200,000 homes... that's 336,048 acres or more the 2 x the size of the New Forest !!!..

　

3) A measly 500 acres or 2.3% of The Forestry Commissions tree plantations turned over to solar can also power for 200,000 homes.

　
-


Back in June I put some of these numbers past a member of Helius management team, he said, subsidies will allow Helius to source timber/grass materials from Canada, South Africa, South America and Australia.


Unfortunately for Helius the EU is applying the brakes to biomass/biofuels subsidies to stop land grabbing in developing countries, saving us Taxpayers over €17 billion a year in the process.

-

http://www.euractiv.

com/climate-environm

ent/eu-legislation-l

imit-use-crop-ba-new

s-514714

-


I can only conclude.. Helius is heading for bankruptcy..

Helius would go bankrupt in Scotland.. no Combined Heat and Power, not close to local Biomass supplies.




Sorry Andy Lock it's Solar for me Helius is heading for bankruptcy.




Helius's Southampton pollution generating timber/grass incinerator lacks Combined Heat and Power (CHP), Helius to source timber/grass materials from Canada, South Africa, South America and Australia.

-


Summary.. Scotlands vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible, 10MW that are not good quality combined heat and power( CHP) stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013.

-


Scottish Government tightens rules on Biomass power.

Posted on DateSeptember 15, 2012 by AuthorAlly.

the Scottish Government conducted a consultation into the way biomass subsidies for low carbon energy operate - and after doing some research, and listening to a lots of consultation responses, including our own, Fergus Ewing announced yesteday in parliament his Government's conclusions.

Here's what he said about biomass:

"On biomass generation, we asked for views on whether to restrict or remove support for large-scale wood-fuelled electricity-only and combined heat and power stations. A significant majority responded in favour of such restrictions, although others argued that biomass generation has an important role to play in meeting Scotland’s electricity and heat targets.

"I accept that role, but I also believe that our concerns over competition for the finite supply of wood and our concerns about the strategic value of biomass heat over electricity merit the introduction of a new control.

"I am therefore proposing that wood-fuelled stations with a total installed capacity that is greater than 10MW and that are not good quality combined heat and power stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013. That will not apply to stations that commission after April 2013, but which received consent or planning permission before our consultation was published.

"Our vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible."

-

http://www.greenerle
ith.org/greener-leit
h-news/2012/9/15/sco
ttish-government-tig
htens-rules-on-bioma
ss-power.html

Dan Soton wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Given that hampshire has on average 1750 sunshine hours a year, just under 5 a day ( and considerably less during winter months) how can this ever be workable?

hulla baloo says how can this ever be workable?



hulla baloo, the14,000 homes could be 35,000 if there's any truth in the below 3D solar cells generate 2,5 times more electricity than normal solar cells.


-

3D solar cell generates significantly more energy increasing efficiency by 150%.

Posted by Greener Tomorrow on September 10th, 2012.

New tests suggest that the world’s first 3D solar cell generates significantly more energy then was assumed. The company behind the new solar cell, Solar 3D, has published a statement saying that they have manufactured and tested the first 3D solar cell. The new solar cell is made from silicon and can generate 2,5 times as much electricity than normal solar cells.

Next to the effective way of catching the sunlight, the design of the chambers gives the 3D solar cell the ability to generate electricity all day round. This is a significant improvement over traditional solar panels which heavily depend on the angle of the sun to generate electricity.


-

http://www.tomorrowi






sgreener.com/3d-sola






r-cell-generates-sig






nificantly-more-ener






gy-increasing-effici






ency-by-150/

Thanks, it is most interesting info.

Pity our establishment can waste billions upon wars, on Trident, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers without any planes, but is reluctant to properly fund research in such areas, which my help in saving the Earth.

Paramjit Bahia says Pity our establishment can waste billions.


apart from wasting billions they think different.. Cllr Sean Woodward said the Newlands solar farm covers an area the size of 50 football pitches.

I say that's approx 87 acres of arable land, is there nowhere in Hampshire more suitable for a solar farm?
　
the New Forest covers approx 140,800 acres, the Forestry Commission has over 21,003 acres of New Forest land turned over to fenced off tree plantations.

-

http://www.forestry.




gov.uk/website/fores




try.nsf/byunique/inf




d-6c2fdh

-

best case scenario, ( hypothetically, not all south facing and if there's any truth in 3D solar cells generating 2,5 times more electricity ) if all the tree enclosures were turned over to solar that land could provide power for 8,449,482 million homes.

given no Politician would approve such an obvious Earth saving scheme I'd push for a measly 500 acres or 2.3% of the enclosures.

funny enough 500 acres could power 200,00 homes the exact same number as Helius's pollution generating timber/grass incinerator.

The plantations are there to grow timber, Dan, which is a crop that should be expanded, not contracted. We are struggling to make any impact on our balance of trade yet we import huge amounts of timber when we could be self sufficient. Instead, and thanks to a misguided and innacurate media campaign by Greens and others we are now likely to produce even less timber than before and instead waste thousands of acres doing nothing more than the forced planting of oak, birch and other "amenity" species. The point about the Helius station is that it produces power when power is needed. What is the point of unreliable solar power (riddled with taxpayer subsidies which was a criticism of biomass) that cannot be relied on to produce any power at all and so has to be backed up with conventional thermal (eg biomass) stations anyway?
Thermal power is cheaper than solar because its output is flexible controllable and predictable, and most important of all, it doesn't kill people by failing to produce when it is needed. This is not some silly Pinky Green game. It is life and death and Green policies will kill people.

David Cameron says Britain is open for business.

-

Andy drop the passion and look over these numbers with a business eye.

　
-
　

1) The New Forest covers approx 140,800 acres, The Forestry Commissions has over 21,003 acres of New Forest land turned over to fenced off tree plantations which produce approx 50,000 tonnes of timber per annum.

　

2) Helius's biomass incinerator needs 800,000 tonnes of timber/grass per annum to power 200,000 homes... that's 336,048 acres or more the 2 x the size of the New Forest !!!..

　

3) A measly 500 acres or 2.3% of The Forestry Commissions tree plantations turned over to solar can also power for 200,000 homes.

　
-


Back in June I put some of these numbers past a member of Helius management team, he said, subsidies will allow Helius to source timber/grass materials from Canada, South Africa, South America and Australia.


Unfortunately for Helius the EU is applying the brakes to biomass/biofuels subsidies to stop land grabbing in developing countries, saving us Taxpayers over €17 billion a year in the process.

-

http://www.euractiv.


com/climate-environm


ent/eu-legislation-l


imit-use-crop-ba-new


s-514714

-


I can only conclude.. Helius is heading for bankruptcy..

Helius would go bankrupt in Scotland.. no Combined Heat and Power, not close to local Biomass supplies.




Sorry Andy Lock it's Solar for me Helius is heading for bankruptcy.




Helius's Southampton pollution generating timber/grass incinerator lacks Combined Heat and Power (CHP), Helius to source timber/grass materials from Canada, South Africa, South America and Australia.

-


Summary.. Scotlands vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible, 10MW that are not good quality combined heat and power( CHP) stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013.

-


Scottish Government tightens rules on Biomass power.

Posted on DateSeptember 15, 2012 by AuthorAlly.

the Scottish Government conducted a consultation into the way biomass subsidies for low carbon energy operate - and after doing some research, and listening to a lots of consultation responses, including our own, Fergus Ewing announced yesteday in parliament his Government's conclusions.

Here's what he said about biomass:

"On biomass generation, we asked for views on whether to restrict or remove support for large-scale wood-fuelled electricity-only and combined heat and power stations. A significant majority responded in favour of such restrictions, although others argued that biomass generation has an important role to play in meeting Scotland’s electricity and heat targets.

"I accept that role, but I also believe that our concerns over competition for the finite supply of wood and our concerns about the strategic value of biomass heat over electricity merit the introduction of a new control.

"I am therefore proposing that wood-fuelled stations with a total installed capacity that is greater than 10MW and that are not good quality combined heat and power stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013. That will not apply to stations that commission after April 2013, but which received consent or planning permission before our consultation was published.

"Our vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible."

-

http://www.greenerle

ith.org/greener-leit

h-news/2012/9/15/sco

ttish-government-tig

htens-rules-on-bioma

ss-power.html

Why the hell have you destroyed a great debate between Andy & myself with this ?
you have it on every subject & any point you were trying to get over will have been lost.
on my Solar Panels in 4 months I've saved £35 off my bill

As an active member of Hampsire FOE I'm broadly in favour but like any other planning proposal need to see the detail before complete approval. The company has wide experience of mass solar installations and hardly going to invest money is a scheme that's not viable

Green, Brown Pink and whatever Claptrap from the soapboxers aside, and keeping to the immediate thread, I heard there might be a public meeting or local exhibition on this solar farm/park-anybody able to shed any light? No pun intended.

lowe esteem wrote:
Green, Brown Pink and whatever Claptrap from the soapboxers aside, and keeping to the immediate thread, I heard there might be a public meeting or local exhibition on this solar farm/park-anybody able to shed any light? No pun intended.

an inventor has developed a viable liquid air engine & they are now saying Wind & Solar Farms energy can be stored in it so this would provide energy at night or when the wind doesn't blow.
So making both forms of energy very viable & very green