Is green energy supposed to mean cheaper energy?

Member 639844

Ive been looking at our electricity bills here in Spain and we are getting higher bills than we did in the UK, and not by a small amount. Its offset by the fact the gas bill is peanuts in comparison, but electricity is considerably more expensive than the UK. The other night I had a look on line to see what I could find out about it because Ive never seen a country with so many wind farms. Turns out Spain is a leader in green/renewable energy, leading the way in wind farm installations and things like solar farms etc. This had me wandering why the electricity we pay for seems so much more expensive. Anyone know why this is, maybe we are subsidising the construction of this with higher bills, but I thought that if anything, it would be cheaper here.

EarthRod

I think this might help explain things:

£250bn wind power industry could be the greatest scam of our age | Mail Online

The Danes, who have built more wind turbines per head than anyone, have realised the idiocy of a policy that has given them the highest electricity prices in Europe, while they have to import much of their power from abroad.

In Spain, their rush for wind and solar power has proved a national disaster. In Germany, having built more turbines than any other country in the world, they are now building new coal-fired stations like crazy.

In Holland, meanwhile, they have now given two fingers to the EU by slashing all their renewables subsidies.

Only in Britain is our political class still so imprisoned in its infatuation with wind that it is prepared to court this dangerously misguided pipedream.

Member 639844

I guess the short answer then, is absolutely not.

EarthRod

Unfortunately so. Green energy in theory is an excellent idea.

In reality it is expensive to install, expensive to maintain and doesn't provide enough power to run industry.

Member 639844

Reading a little more into it, its not even all that green either, once you account for the wanton destruction of the countryside, manufacturing pollution, poor inefficient overall performance, and the fact traditional plants have to be built alongside them to pick up the slack when they arent producing energy. These things sound worse than a Prius.

I dont get why Nuke plants dont just keep getting built.

EarthRod

The simple reason is because a nuclear plant, when it reaches the end of it's life, has highly toxic nuclear waste which needs to be safely disposed of somehow. BIG problem.

Also, nuclear plants are very expensive to install and very expensive to dismantle.

Other than that - great for providing the power needs for the country!

johntheexpat

Its very possible to create a convincing argument that coal fired power stations, over their lifetime, are a bigger nuclear hazard.  For every million tonnes of coal burnt, on average one tonne of uranium is released into the environment.  Then there are all the other radioactive elemnets that are present, plus many times that in heavy metals.  Drax burns about 9 million tonnes of coal per year and has done since 1986.  The ash is then sold on to the construction industry.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_power_station"]Drax power station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

So they are knowingly allowed to dispose of toxic and radioactive material because it is deemed, presumably, to be of low activity.  So when dealing with decommisioning nuclear plant, why is disposing of the radioactive waste by dilution into the environment not acceptable?  Take the core and highly reactive waste and dump it into one of the really deep bits of the ocean.  By the time we notice any effects, the radioactivity will be so dilute as to not be a problem.  Why is it that what is good for the coal power stations is not good for nuclear?

johntheexpat

But back on topic.  The greenest energy is the energy you don't use.  The only truely green policy is a reduction in consumption.  Energy efficient lights, more insulation, more efficient cookers, fridges, tvs etc.  Always turning things off if stand-by uses noticable amounts of power.  Drive more efficiently, (or get a more efficient car) wear an extra vest.  All the usual stuff.  Then, not only are you truely green, you are better off because you aren't giving money away for wasted electricity.

(I wonder if IronGiant ever got round to installing his free loft insulation?)

EarthRod

So true!

Moved into a newly-built house little over a year ago and the difference in energy saving between my old house (built 1967) and this new one is incredible. Even though the old house had refitted double-glazing, cavity wall insulation and loft insulation.

Saved £190 in gas and electricity bills over the year in the new house - without trying!

The new house is of course built to the new housing spec - has double cavity insulation in the outside walls and the foundations has deep cavity insulation. The loft insulation is so deep we cannot use it to store stuff!

Excuse my enthusiasm, but the old and the new houses are roughly the same square footage and we didn't deliberately cut back on heating or cooking etc.

Next winter we intend to cut back the background temperature from 22 deg C to about 18 deg C - see if we can live comfortably under those conditions (no more wandering about in shirt sleeves!).

Member 639844

I still dont really see why Nuke power isnt still the main source of energy, when all things are considered, it just seems the actual best way.

Ive never been that big on changing my life about to be green, but then Ive never been that big on having heating on, even in winter. Gas isnt an issue over here, ive probably only spent about 80 on it in the last year. I have however started turning things off at night so as to help reduce my electric bills, the last one was 330 euros for two months.