Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: tonyhow do you define carbon emissions?
    I would define them as streams of carbon being added to the biosphere (atmosphere, plants and animals, top-soil, top few hundred metres of the oceans, etc).

    belting out CO2 (and pollutants) from a chimney and calling it zero is not right
    Indeed, it wouldn't be. Is there any indication that that's happening here? They say a reduction of 45% which seems plausible to me. Basically, you lose the roughly 60% wastage of a non-CHP plant (up the cooling towers) but use a smaller so probably slightly less efficient generator instead. Sounds roughly plausible to me.

    and do the health costs get added into the cost side?
    I assume you mean the local health costs of emissions from the plant? With gas power (as used in Aberdeen) that shouldn't be too much of a problem, I'd have thought.

    I like the idea of reduced cost but would prefer to see reduced energy use.
    I too like reduced cost. However, is see little benefit to reduced energy use as such - only reduction in the harmful effects of harvesting and transforming energy. Using a bit less energy but getting it from a more harmful source is not a win.

    The downside to schemes like the Aberdeen one is that they're building new largish infrastructure based around better but still far too high levels of carbon emissions. The upside is that at least the technology to do the basic energy transformation is fairly centralized so future replacement can be expected to be a quicker and easier process. I hope they've designed the purpose built buildings with this in mind.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2012
     
    I shall let others investigate the Aberdeen plant, but just a thought on emissions.
    Assuming that the difference is because of using the waste heat, how does that account for the end user using more than necessary? If someone offered me water at 80°C at a third of the price, I would probably end up using more. I would have a very well ventilated house and a very large bath.
  1.  
    Any more info to allow an informed opinion to be expressed, Will?


    No sorry, I just pasted the text off their website. I'm not on this heating network, no connections to them, etc etc. I just drive past it each morning.

    IIUC the concept is to link the hetaing systems of a large Academy (secondary school) and several swimming pools, to supply heat to the tower blocks. The comment is made that the heat demand profile of the school/pools is different from the flats, this allows the CHP to run for more of the time. Linking together all these heat systems gives resiliance/backup if any one of them is broken down.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2012
     
    An integrated system makes even more sense, as long as the particle emission issue is addressed at source - which would be a first in the UK.
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press