Why does every one think that Toyota and Honda are funding these so called green projects when ti si the TAXPAYER that is funding them. The government pay these companies to install these so called green energy devices. On top of this they are paid again for the power that they put into the national grid so at the end of the day it costs them nothing to be green but costs thew taxpayer at fortune!
Seems strange that over on your side of the Channel people are complaining that the taxpayer is funding such projects and over here people are complaining that the government isn't putting enough money into the same.
Lutz said:
Where do you think the government the other side of the channel gets its money, but I get your drift?
For those of you who dislike my lengthy correspondence dont read this.
Its seems very easy to reduce the argument for or against wind farms or solar panel arrays to who's for and who's against, but that sadly is a gross over simplification of the issues involved.
I don't for one minute believe that Honda's future in the UK is dependant on the granting or otherwise of planning for the wind farm. But I have come to respect Honda's integrity as a company, and whilst it may not be British owned, it provide employment of British people, it has earned a reputation as a good employer, (don't forget that when other car companies were laying off employees, Honda kept contracts of employment open for several monthes during the last downturn) and it is respected as a world class producer of quality products sold around the globe.
For accuracy the government are not paying these companies to install these systems, they offer grants to reduce the cost of installation, so the lowest cost is not to build at all. So there must be some some perceived benefit for the companies to wan't to spend on these projects. Financial gains may not be the only goal.
There are Pro's & cons to all these schemes, but the balance of these issues will changes with time, as fossil fuels become increasing scarce and we are held to ransom by the producers, the generation of power becomes more expensive and ultimately limited. We have got face these facts, and find alternative methods of managing our resources and energy needs.
The obvious first route has to be to reduce our energy needs. The vast majority of our power consumption is used to heat things, so a major contributor to this end must be to make things more efficient and to reduce unessential heat loss by better insulation, and heat recovery systems that collect process waste heat and re-use it.
By reducing our energy needs, a smaller local supply of energy may become a practical and better financial proposition.
I am convinced there is no single method of solving this basic requirement, I am sure It will need to be wide range of methods, that may include wind farms, solar arrays, Ground source and air source heat recovery, wave and tidal power, etc.
The biggest challenge to all these systems is the availability of primary energy sources, that are out of sync with the usage patterns we have, so another area of necessary development has perhaps to more flexible working patterns and the systems to store energy.
As caravanner's we know about batteries, but there are other chemical process that should be developed, including the production of hydrogen gas
Pressure can also be used as an energy store, as can gravity (DINORWIG POWER STATION in Wales, and heat in solid mass or molten salts heat storage systems.
We must not forget the opportunities for renewable sources such a vegetable harvest producing direct heat or conversion to bio fuels etc
Not only do we need storage solutions but we need to also look at higher efficiency conversions, and matching energy solutions to the best applications.
Inevitably we will need mechanical power to be produced, so further improvements in fuel efficiencies in engines are needed, but we must also look at alternatives to Internal combustion such as external combustion engines. (sterling cycle,or steam engines,) Matching engine size to the power needed to do a job. (Do we need cars with 150+HP engines?) - trains and canals for the transport of goods.
I think it is inevitable that we will have to change our energy expectations and usage habits. Speed isn't everything, apart from travelling slower, cooking for longer at slightly lower temperatures etc is a good way of reducing fuel consumption,
It wont be easy, but we cant afford to bury our heads in the sand, because we need to find solutions so we can transfer from our current energy systems to the replacement systems in a orderly manner.
There are numerous opportunities out there for new ideas in this field, and it needs ALL of us to work together to find and prove those that will work.
Its seems very easy to reduce the argument for or against wind farms or solar panel arrays to who's for and who's against, but that sadly is a gross over simplification of the issues involved.
I don't for one minute believe that Honda's future in the UK is dependant on the granting or otherwise of planning for the wind farm. But I have come to respect Honda's integrity as a company, and whilst it may not be British owned, it provide employment of British people, it has earned a reputation as a good employer, (don't forget that when other car companies were laying off employees, Honda kept contracts of employment open for several monthes during the last downturn) and it is respected as a world class producer of quality products sold around the globe.
For accuracy the government are not paying these companies to install these systems, they offer grants to reduce the cost of installation, so the lowest cost is not to build at all. So there must be some some perceived benefit for the companies to wan't to spend on these projects. Financial gains may not be the only goal.
There are Pro's & cons to all these schemes, but the balance of these issues will changes with time, as fossil fuels become increasing scarce and we are held to ransom by the producers, the generation of power becomes more expensive and ultimately limited. We have got face these facts, and find alternative methods of managing our resources and energy needs.
The obvious first route has to be to reduce our energy needs. The vast majority of our power consumption is used to heat things, so a major contributor to this end must be to make things more efficient and to reduce unessential heat loss by better insulation, and heat recovery systems that collect process waste heat and re-use it.
By reducing our energy needs, a smaller local supply of energy may become a practical and better financial proposition.
I am convinced there is no single method of solving this basic requirement, I am sure It will need to be wide range of methods, that may include wind farms, solar arrays, Ground source and air source heat recovery, wave and tidal power, etc.
The biggest challenge to all these systems is the availability of primary energy sources, that are out of sync with the usage patterns we have, so another area of necessary development has perhaps to more flexible working patterns and the systems to store energy.
As caravanner's we know about batteries, but there are other chemical process that should be developed, including the production of hydrogen gas
Pressure can also be used as an energy store, as can gravity (DINORWIG POWER STATION in Wales, and heat in solid mass or molten salts heat storage systems.
We must not forget the opportunities for renewable sources such a vegetable harvest producing direct heat or conversion to bio fuels etc
Not only do we need storage solutions but we need to also look at higher efficiency conversions, and matching energy solutions to the best applications.
Inevitably we will need mechanical power to be produced, so further improvements in fuel efficiencies in engines are needed, but we must also look at alternatives to Internal combustion such as external combustion engines. (sterling cycle,or steam engines,) Matching engine size to the power needed to do a job. (Do we need cars with 150+HP engines?) - trains and canals for the transport of goods.
I think it is inevitable that we will have to change our energy expectations and usage habits. Speed isn't everything, apart from travelling slower, cooking for longer at slightly lower temperatures etc is a good way of reducing fuel consumption,
It wont be easy, but we cant afford to bury our heads in the sand, because we need to find solutions so we can transfer from our current energy systems to the replacement systems in a orderly manner.
There are numerous opportunities out there for new ideas in this field, and it needs ALL of us to work together to find and prove those that will work.
"For accuracy the government are not paying these companies to install these systems, they offer grants to reduce the cost of installation, so the lowest cost is not to build at all. So there must be some some perceived benefit for the companies to wan't to spend on these projects. Financial gains may not be the only goal."
So giving a company a grant is not the same as paying them. I think you need to think again as that is rather controveresial remark to make. You make no mention of the kick back that the company will get annually from the government for the installation of wind turbines. Why do you think people are installing solar panels where they will never recoup the cost within their life time and they only save about £70 in electric costs over a year?
So giving a company a grant is not the same as paying them. I think you need to think again as that is rather controveresial remark to make. You make no mention of the kick back that the company will get annually from the government for the installation of wind turbines. Why do you think people are installing solar panels where they will never recoup the cost within their life time and they only save about £70 in electric costs over a year?
Hello Surfer,
I cannot see how my comment could be constued as being any more contoversial than your own, The way I read your comment it gave me the distinct impression that you were suggesting that there was no cost to these companies. I was pointing out there is still a cost and it wont be small even with Government grant aid..
You have now introduced another suggestion of 'kick backs', as far as I know this is not a recognised term, and I certainly do not know how it can be applied to these situations, perhaps you can explain please.
Regardless of the details above, the thrust of my post was not so much about the specifics of the Honda or Toyota plans but more about the need for a coherent and joined up energy policy for the future, which needs to include a variety of solutions, and the need for our usage to become more attuned to the availability of different supplies.
You can bury your head in the sand if you want to, but two things are IMO certain, cost of oil based fuels will continuue to rise, and the supply is finite, so it will run out in the end.
I cannot see how my comment could be constued as being any more contoversial than your own, The way I read your comment it gave me the distinct impression that you were suggesting that there was no cost to these companies. I was pointing out there is still a cost and it wont be small even with Government grant aid..
You have now introduced another suggestion of 'kick backs', as far as I know this is not a recognised term, and I certainly do not know how it can be applied to these situations, perhaps you can explain please.
Regardless of the details above, the thrust of my post was not so much about the specifics of the Honda or Toyota plans but more about the need for a coherent and joined up energy policy for the future, which needs to include a variety of solutions, and the need for our usage to become more attuned to the availability of different supplies.
You can bury your head in the sand if you want to, but two things are IMO certain, cost of oil based fuels will continuue to rise, and the supply is finite, so it will run out in the end.
Prof John L said:
As you probably already know the government pays entities an annual amount and this includes domestic if they have funded the installation themselves so in essence the taxpayer pays for windmill. It is almost certain fact that ther are alternatives to fossil based fuels but to use them would be very bad for the economy of any country.
Hello Surfer,
Despite searching I have not been able to find any reference to government subsidiesor grants paid on an annual basis to owners of small generation systems. Perhaps you could give us the web site address where you found this information.
What is easy to find are the schemes where effectivly the grid pays for any excess power generated, which can derive an income to the small generator.This not a subsidy but a commercial arrangment.
The UK is a net importer of fuels, this is demonstrated by our sensitivity to world market trends and the price we pay, which fluctuates, and seems to be on an upward trend.
You write:-
" It is almost certain fact that ther are alternatives to fossil based fuels but to use them would be very bad for the economy of any country."
It is difficult to see how becomming more self sufficient for fuels would be bad for our economy, perhapse you could explain your comment?
Despite searching I have not been able to find any reference to government subsidiesor grants paid on an annual basis to owners of small generation systems. Perhaps you could give us the web site address where you found this information.
What is easy to find are the schemes where effectivly the grid pays for any excess power generated, which can derive an income to the small generator.This not a subsidy but a commercial arrangment.
The UK is a net importer of fuels, this is demonstrated by our sensitivity to world market trends and the price we pay, which fluctuates, and seems to be on an upward trend.
You write:-
" It is almost certain fact that ther are alternatives to fossil based fuels but to use them would be very bad for the economy of any country."
It is difficult to see how becomming more self sufficient for fuels would be bad for our economy, perhapse you could explain your comment?
Prof John L said:
If a cheap alternative to fossil based fuels or the combustion engine as we know it is found, millions of people would be out of work which is bad for any country. Why do you think there is no rush to market an alternative?
I think that is a rather over simplified view:-
I never said it would be cheap.
Effectively if you are considering the demise of the IC engine,, then as a standalone event that would be pretty disastourus to the car industry, but it is more likely that if the conventional IC engine were forgotten, that alternatives would take its place, which will need people to develope and manufacture etc.
Also it is likely that alternative fuels to the ground sourced hydrocarbons will become available which will still allow IC engines to be used, probably somewhat changed being smaller and more efficeint.
When conventional fuels become restricted either by supply or price it is almost certain we will have to reconsider out use of personal transport, so motor ownership and production is likley to shrink anyway. This won;t be a sudden collapse, more of a wasting away over several decades.
I beleive that we have already started to see these changes occuring, There is over capacity in car manufacturing, which is why companies are shrinking, cars have become much more fuel efficeint (even lareg luxury cars are getting teh efficencey treatments now) over the last ten years, a trend that will continue, and government are keen to push the price of motoring up as we see with the fuel tax escalator and road fund tax increases, and no meaningfull control on fuel prices at the pumps, more restrictions of parking and access to cities, some cities charging you to keep a car even if its on your land. road tolls etc.
I never said it would be cheap.
Effectively if you are considering the demise of the IC engine,, then as a standalone event that would be pretty disastourus to the car industry, but it is more likely that if the conventional IC engine were forgotten, that alternatives would take its place, which will need people to develope and manufacture etc.
Also it is likely that alternative fuels to the ground sourced hydrocarbons will become available which will still allow IC engines to be used, probably somewhat changed being smaller and more efficeint.
When conventional fuels become restricted either by supply or price it is almost certain we will have to reconsider out use of personal transport, so motor ownership and production is likley to shrink anyway. This won;t be a sudden collapse, more of a wasting away over several decades.
I beleive that we have already started to see these changes occuring, There is over capacity in car manufacturing, which is why companies are shrinking, cars have become much more fuel efficeint (even lareg luxury cars are getting teh efficencey treatments now) over the last ten years, a trend that will continue, and government are keen to push the price of motoring up as we see with the fuel tax escalator and road fund tax increases, and no meaningfull control on fuel prices at the pumps, more restrictions of parking and access to cities, some cities charging you to keep a car even if its on your land. road tolls etc.
Good post John. My view is that fuel cells may be the way forward as they can also power a household and are environmental friendly although I am not sure of the process to re-charge or activate them. Apparently very little modification is required for the IC engine to accept these fuel cells.
It would be interesting to have your take on these fuel cells? For a caravan they would be ideal and are being used already.
It would be interesting to have your take on these fuel cells? For a caravan they would be ideal and are being used already.
Fuel cells are already available for mobile use in caravanning and camping applications:
http://www.efoy-comfort.com/
http://www.efoy-comfort.com/
Hello Surfer,
Fuel cells are fundamentally devices for combining hydrogen and oxygen and in the process producing electriciy, heat and water. They do not produce a fuel suitable for IC (Internal Combustion) engines.
Fuel cells have been around for a number of decades, extensivly used on the Apollo and later maned space flights. They have subsequently been developed for operations where conventional fuels and engines pose a problem, there are numerous militatry uses where cost is not a major constraint but sadly they are stillquite esoteric and exspensive to buy for normal mortals.
There have been prototype vehicles powered by fuel cells,but so far they still cost to much to implement on a commercial basis. One of the particular difficulties, is the cost of producing the hydrogen rich fuel to run the cells. However I am convinced that with enough commitment many of the technical issues could be overcome, and with the economies of scale, costs could be brought down, but how far and how long - who knows.
On the other side of the balance, the breakeven point will approach sooner if hydrocarbon fuel costs continue to rise.
Fuel cells are fundamentally devices for combining hydrogen and oxygen and in the process producing electriciy, heat and water. They do not produce a fuel suitable for IC (Internal Combustion) engines.
Fuel cells have been around for a number of decades, extensivly used on the Apollo and later maned space flights. They have subsequently been developed for operations where conventional fuels and engines pose a problem, there are numerous militatry uses where cost is not a major constraint but sadly they are stillquite esoteric and exspensive to buy for normal mortals.
There have been prototype vehicles powered by fuel cells,but so far they still cost to much to implement on a commercial basis. One of the particular difficulties, is the cost of producing the hydrogen rich fuel to run the cells. However I am convinced that with enough commitment many of the technical issues could be overcome, and with the economies of scale, costs could be brought down, but how far and how long - who knows.
On the other side of the balance, the breakeven point will approach sooner if hydrocarbon fuel costs continue to rise.
Facebook
Twitter