babble is's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

green power

71 replies [Last post]


Boom Boom
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Thanks. I think Hydro should make these available at cost, if the utility truly wants to get customers to cut down on demand.

Joined: Oct 24 2007

It is a funny thing that Right Wing types are in favor of nuclear power, because no nuclear power plant has ever been built without massive GOVERNMENT FUNDING. Nuclear power is just not economical when construction, decommisioning, and the waste problem is included. It is ONLY the basic operation of an existing nuclear power plant that is profitable.

Hypocracy abounds...

Boom Boom
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Provinces should mandate solar panels on every new structure built from now on as part of the provincial power grid, and retrofit solar panels on every existing structure - homes, businesses, manufacturing, banks, you name it.

Boom Boom
Joined: Dec 29 2004

My suggestion (above) is already a reality in the UK:  A Shade Greener

Take advantage of the new Legislation, and you will have daily periods of FREE electricity all year round, with up to 17 hours each day in the summer. You will also be helping the planet.

A Shade Greener is a Renewable Electricity Generator that is utilising the Government initiated FIT Scheme, which commenced on 1st April this year, in order to install FREE solar panel systems onto domestic properties in parts* of Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Humberside. We were initially looking for only 2000 homes, however due to huge demand we are now looking for at least 6000 homes.

How can we do this? We don't give the panels to the Homeowner, not initially (see FAQs). We simply install our panels on the Homeowner's roof and let them use all the electricity that they generate for free, because under the FIT Scheme we will be paid a Generation Tariff for ALL the electricity that our panels generate whether that electricity is used, or not. This Tariff is guaranteed for 25 years. This means that we can let the Homeowner use this electricity entirely FREE OF CHARGE for 25 years too, as we will be paid for generating it.

Our own scheme is particularly suitable for people who want Solar PV, but who can't afford it, or for those who CAN afford it but would rather spend their money on another home improvement.


So, if this can be done in the UK, why not here???

Boom Boom
Joined: Dec 29 2004

More from my UK friend on A Shade Greener:

"We are due to have them fitted, all free. All electric they produce is ours to use, and any not used is piped into the National Grid. The National Grid have to pay you for any electric you give them, but the money goes to the firm that supplied the panels. They are still very costly here, and if you do buy them yourself, the money paid out by the National Grid is yours. It is estimated it takes about 10 years for you to recoup the original outlay costs. We are just waiting for approval from our mortgage company, should get them fitted in 6 to 8 weeks time. There are a few criteria you have to meet first, your roof has to point South, or very close to, the slope of the roof has to be a certain degree, no big trees or buildings nearby. the panels are maintained by the company who fits them for 20 years."

Boom Boom
Joined: Dec 29 2004

(posted to another thread earlier, but also a good fit here)

Innovalight Develops Liquid Solar Cells   (being developed for commercial use as "solar paint")

The technology that enables this process is understandably hush-hush. Still, it looks like the California based Innovalight company has created a way to produce solar cells in liquid form.

According to EcoGeek, the process involves "silicon nanoparticles that get mixed up in a solvent, and then poured onto a substrate. The solvent is then extracted and what you're left with is a solar cell of whatever shape you poured." The company calls their gooey invention the 'silicon ink' and promises that the substance will revolutionize the solar panel industry and help Innovalight grab a big share of the booming green energy market.

Innovalight's silicon ink may well be the first production-level solar liquid. However, using nanotechnology to create fluid solar materials has been explored before. A Cal Tech scientist Nathan Lewis has been working with what he calls "solar paint" - a nano-solution that could one day turn the entire surface of your house into a solar cell. You can learn more about Nathan Lewis from a PBS Nova report Saved by the Sun.

Joined: Apr 16 2003
The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson

If someone told you there was a way you could save 2.5 million to 3 million lives a year and simultaneously halt global warming, reduce air and water pollution and develop secure, reliable energy sources – nearly all with existing technology and at costs comparable with what we spend on energy today – why wouldn't you do it?

According to a new study coauthored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, we could accomplish all that by converting the world to clean, renewable energy sources and forgoing fossil fuels.

"Based on our findings, there are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources," said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will."

M. Spector
Joined: Feb 19 2005

The Base Load Fallacy
and other Fallacies disseminated by Renewable Energy Deniers

Dr Mark Diesendorf
Energy Science Coalition

Abstract: The Base-Load Fallacy is the incorrect notion that renewable energy cannot supply base-load (24-hour) electric power. Alternatives to base-load coal power can be provided by efficient energy use, solar hot water, bioenergy, large-scale wind power, solar thermal electricity with thermal storage, and geothermal, with gas power playing a transitional role. In particular, large-scale wind power from geographically distributed sites is partially reliable and can be made more so by installing a little additional low-cost peak-load back-up from gas turbines. Other fallacies are refuted concisely in the appendix.

Fallacy 1: Wind power has negligible reliability

Fallacy 2: Renewable energy cannot provide sufficient power to run an industrial society.

Fallacy 3: Wind power in Denmark is not the great success story it is portrayed to be, because (the renewable energy deniers claim) most Danish wind power is exported and because Danish wind power is very costly to Danish taxpayers and electricity consumers.

Boom Boom
Joined: Dec 29 2004
Joined: Dec 21 2008

Policywonk wrote:

George Victor wrote:

You pay more to promote "green" sources like wind and solar and "low-impact" hydro.  I would join up if that included nuclear.


I'd discontinue my participation if it included nuclear.


Brian White
Joined: Jan 26 2005

Does anyone remember the environmental damage to fish stocks in 600 ad?  Archiologists have found evidence of tide mills (tidal power plants) in both northern ireland and southern ireland at that time!   If it was in Ireland, we can be fairly sure tidal power was all across the Roman Empire from England to Persia at that time!  How much tidal power do we have now?  Just above Zero.  I worked in a mill in Ireland that was at least a thousand years old.  Every 2 miles or so on that river there are ruins of water mills or mill races. But the salmon only disappeared in about 1980. So from at least that time there was small head hydro power in most of the rivers from England to Egypt and to the borders of India. How come it is only now that they are killing off the fish. When did we become so stupid and wasteful that we don't know how to use this power without killing fish.

So how did they survive 1500 years of low head hydropower?  That may not be a huge amount of energy but it would replace a lot of coal or  gas if used again.  And it could be used again! shows how. It is a power plant with a built in fish pass!  This could get hundreds of thousands of water power sites in eastern Canada into use again. In this country, nobody has even tried it yet! There is a difference between scepticism and ignorance. But our renewable energy "sceptics" do not have a clue.  Pretty much every year in the last 5 he has won awards for this back in Europe. How come we in Canada are in practically total ignorance about it?

Coming back to Austria, how come they use so little energy in their houses compared to us?  Why do we use so much?   I am involved in "windowfarms" and I thought it was a bit hokey until recently. Tony in Chicago grew a pepper in january 2011, and when  it started producing it gave him one to 2 peppers per week.  So what is the big deal?  He calculated how much electricity his airlift bubble pump used to produce the peppers   About 7 cents worth!!! And the pepper is still growing! And still producing peppers! Over a year later!  One amateur windowfarmer grows one pepper plant, first attempt! Imagine how much imports and transport could be cut with that system when it gets a few more years under its belt!    We will not succeed until we try and as far as i can see in Canada, defeatism rules. (Windowfarms did not even exist 3 years ago)  Tony has produced 40 or 50 peppers from one plant. There are canadian windowfarmers but none here on babble as far as i know.  Why not?  We need to do more than type to solve our problems.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments