Solar panels and turbines for NE schools

SOLAR panels and wind turbines will be installed at ten new schools across the region to help the fight against global warming. via The Northern Echo

[Coolmind]

Cool! Good idea!

[MDJ]

Coolmind wrote:

Cool! Good idea!

The money could be better spent on better teachers salaries and more computers. Soar panels and wind turbines only return the investment when they are properly located. NE is too far north with variable weather patterns o make the small unit they plan a good investment. They are little more than "warm fuzzy".

[engineer]

Why worry about educating our children? Spend money on feel-good crap, but not teachers, books, or computers. Great idea!!!

[NJTransplant]

I think this is great. In fact the UK is one of the strongest supporters of alternate fuel because it has to import most of its fuel. The UK has been developing and using solar, wind, water and wave power for over 20 years now.

Could we point out to the respondent in FL that this story is from the north of England, and they are very far north indeed, but they can STILL use solar power.

Also the standard of education in the UK is one of the highest in the western world so the whining about better funding for teachers is pointless. The UK schools are well funded and University admissions as a percentage of population is much higher than the US.

Anyway a great idea and lots of luck to all in the sunny north east of England.

[Bob in Massachusetts]

We've been through the solar panel thing here in New England and when I live in NJ before. I will grant that with the new generation of amorphous photoconverters, the efficiencies are higher than they were in the 1970's, but the same problem presents itself like the invisible elephant in the room: We just don't get enough strong and direct sunlight to make large scale use of photovoltaics economical. They cost too much per kW-hr to be used by small units, such as single homes and schools, without either a huge tax credit or direct government funding. Until the product becomes so efficient and useful that it can survive on its own in the free market - keep it in the lab and keep working on it.

But the GW response to that will be the whiney "...but its reducing the carbon "footprint" of the schools, and cutting their emissions by xx.xx%...".

Back to economics and production: I'm not convinced until I see the figures from the plants and the engineers. I know that producing silicon photovoltaics is extremely expensive nad very dirty: based on the number of kW a unit of these panels can produce in dark and cold northern England, and how many of them it will take to replace a given quantity of oil or coal to heat the buildings and run the lights - I would guess that, at BEST, its a break even only after several years. Early in the substitution, I bet the "clean energy" is extremely expensive ecologically speaking.

Why doesn't the UK simply get its act together and go nuclear?