New Solar Park coming to UK

stephendavion · Post by **stephendavion** » 11 Jun 2013, 06:12

Do you know :

UK is going to get 15MW Solar Park? and it will be developed by Dulas near Bedford.

Do you think this solar park will help UK's energy crisis ????

Just read this article and comment your views whether it is really helpful to UK or not ...

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 11 Jun 2013, 07:22

How do you define the "UK's energy crisis"?

The project will produce electricity which, had it been produced by burning carbon would have emitted almost 7 tonnes of CO2 per year. So that is a real help towards global warming mitigation.

Of course it's only a small help, but big helps are made up of small helps.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 11 Jun 2013, 08:46

biffvernon wrote:How do you define the "UK's energy crisis"?

The project will produce electricity which, had it been produced by burning carbon would have emitted almost 7 tonnes of CO2 per year. So that is a real help towards global warming mitigation.
.

It will do nothing of the sort. It just means the FF will be burnt somewhere else. Approximately 50 acres of food producing land will be wasted to provide for a mere 6% of the houses in Bedford borough. Why not make use of land already wasted, and put them on roofs, if you have to have the idea that it might possibly provide some benefit.

They also having an incinerator not far away.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 11 Jun 2013, 09:09

To which of my two sentences,

"The project will produce electricity which, had it been produced by burning carbon would have emitted almost 7 tonnes of CO2 per year."

or

"So that is a real help towards global warming mitigation."

does your comment

"It will do nothing of the sort."

apply?

In as much as fossil fuel burning is constrained by supply rather than demand, you are right to point out that carbon not burnt in one situation will be burnt somewhere else. That's why we need TEQs.

Post by **adam2** » 11 Jun 2013, 09:23

It will very slightly reduce the risk of power cuts due to a likely impending natural gas shortage.
Every MWH of electricity generated thus is a corresponding amount of gas not burnt, and therefore still available for later use.

It does seem a waste of land rather than placing PV on new or existing building, or over car parks.

It MIGHT reduce carbon dioxide emmissions, but as posted above it is more likely that the FF will be burnt somewhere else rather than being left in the ground.

It wont help at all with meeting peak electricity demand as it is dark at that time.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 11 Jun 2013, 09:34

Since I didn't differentiate, you can assume it applies to both, as I intended. TEQ traders will be the fuel equivalent of bankers, with all the attendant problems. They will be used as a fudge to confuse and give an unwarranted impression that the planet is being cared for.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 11 Jun 2013, 12:06

woodburner wrote:Since I didn't differentiate, you can assume it applies to both, as I intended. TEQ traders will be the fuel equivalent of bankers, with all the attendant problems. They will be used as a fudge to confuse and give an unwarranted impression that the planet is being cared for.

Ok, the first sentence
"The project will produce electricity which, had it been produced by burning carbon would have emitted almost 7 tonnes of CO2 per year."
is a pretty straightforward statement of fact. I cannot see how you think it can be wrong.

However the second
"So that is a real help towards global warming mitigation."
does rest on such things as Jevons' Paradox and so is open to debate. But that debate applies to pretty much any attempt to PowerSwitch.

I'm sorry you don't understand how TEQs would work. Perhaps you would care to re-read the literature. http://www.teqs.net/

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 11 Jun 2013, 13:49

you wrote the two sentences as a complete entity, I assume. My reply was to the piece as written. Your petantry seems to be an attempted smoke screen.

As for TEQs, the link may be the intention, but there are many intended plans which fail miserably. This will be another.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 11 Jun 2013, 14:22

woodburner wrote:you wrote the two sentences as a complete entity, I assume. My reply was to the piece as written. Your petantry seems to be an attempted smoke screen.

As for TEQs, the link may be the intention, but there are many intended plans which fail miserably. This will be another.

You mean pedantry? No smoke screen; I try to be as clear as I can. The two sentences each have their own meaning and, being in the same paragraph, are intended to compliment each other.

TEQs are the way round the Jevons's Paradox type issues because the scheme actually limits the supply of available carbon for burning, giving every additional solar pv panel a real chance at global warming mitigation.