22 Mar 2009
Does "turnover" translate as "capital invested" ? I would guess that that must be the case. What, however, I very seldom see, is any figures for the return on this investment. Particularly the return given by the equipment itself - NOT the encouragement hand-outs which all come from what I might call "fossilized technology" .
E.g. The site swea.co.uk in their column "Wind energy - The Basics" recently would have us believe that the annual return from yer average "windfarm" was somewhere between 300% and 200% per annum !! This must leave the lies known as "statistics" stranded and gasping for breath.
I can hear music !
Gold diggers ! - come home ! Gold is a joke, Windpower is IT !
Don't fret Mr. Chancellor - nor you BoS. Simply invest your last quid in my "windfarm" and in ten years we can give you --- - - er -- - 2.5 to the power ten er --- -- 9,500 ! leave it with us another 2.5 years and you have the 8.7 bN right back in your account.
Hmm. Hang-on, I seem to remember promises like that got us INTO this mess. Promises.
I am suggesting that, even at this late stage in the "game", there MUST be legislation akin to the annual vehicle test - but more of a one-off event - to certify that the return from a given system, in its particular site, over its working life, is sufficient to return the cost (which represents expenditure of Energy) by some mandatory factor. At least twice, for example.
The installation of random pipework and architecture must not be seen as some guarrantee that we are doing anything other than the suppliers, a favour.
There IS hope, I am sure. I, for instance, have the design for a Wind-energy system which has demonstrated around 5% p.a. of cost returned. It appears to me that this is unlikely to be improved-upon, except by deploying in an Enviable site, where possibly as much as 10 or 15 may be achieved. The design is "freeware"
Likewise Solar hot-water is a MUST here in Bulgaria - if you can do it well yourself, or "know a man that can" I saved myself two bottles of gaz from May to endd of September with about 40m of 30mm hose coiled-up on a 2m x 2m ? piece of board, and covered by two 2 x 1 - ish sheets of "PETG"
or similar, clear 2mm plastic. It worked on the direct Fill - leave to hot-up - flush-thro' cycle.
As simple as it can get.
My neighbours, meanwhile, have a "professionally installed" system - that I haven't seen - but which no-one has much idea how it is supposed to work. It is not an anti-freeze filled primary circuit, I gather that much, and I'm assured won't come to harm in the severe frost here - so long as you have the "petchka" blazing well, which apparently trickles hot water thro it. Day and night, I guess.
So, have I made my point ?
08 May 2009
Hello, it's me again. This time I want to point-out that "economic benefit" seems to need either defining - or re-defining. E.g. If I make a Thing, and it creates me a jpb of "maintenance", then this job is actually of negative benefit to me. It subtracts from the "economic benefit" of the "Thing".
I want the "Thing" to help - to supply me with something for the effort which I have invested in it. This would be true "economic benefit". My time can then be used making further helpful things. Can anyone explain why "my economy" should work somehow differently to "Scotland's economy" ?