While the increase in small-scale self-sufficiency is admirable, it won’t power a city. And the ever-widening road to growth won’t help save energy. The answer lies simply in reduced consumption, writes Russell Hall.
Once upon a time cities had coal-to-gasworks and coal-to-electricity power stations within the city proper, usually built beside water access. The grand buildings that housed them, once the stations were closed down, were converted by sensible countries into excellent public facilities. Other countries wasted energy to destroy the embodied energy of these magnificent buildings.
Their destruction became prime-time TV fodder; governments saw fit to dynamite the bases of these magnificent structures and have them smash into the earth in an explosion of debris and dust, leaving just rubble. Then more energy was expended to dump the rubble.
The sources of power then moved, initially from the city to the periphery, and then well away from cities for rural residents to suffer the pollution of the city dwellers’ consumption. The further away from the user, the more expensive the supply infrastructure.
Photovoltaics and wind generators
At the point of installation, photovoltaics and wind generators produce no greenhouse pollution. And when located close to the users the distribution infrastructure can be relatively frugal.
A house with generous solar panels, back up battery and no grid connection is a small scale example. However, this small-scale self-sufficiency won’t power a city.
Industrial estates with large, low-pitched roof areas, nowadays usually established on city outskirts, are ideal for installation of photovoltaics. Like paddocks filled with row upon row of panels, they can incorporate sun tracking for greater yield.
High-rise buildings also provide immense surface areas suitable for photovoltaics.
Over the seasons the sun shines from different quarters. So, to gain the most energy all year, it is necessary (and possible) to have panels on all elevations. Naturally, these panels would be fixed at the best angles according to the orientation of the elevation; that is, north—horizontal at the latitude angle; south—almost vertical on all other elevations.
Crown’s Barangaroo building in Sydney and the so-call “tower of power” in Brisbane are examples of having all elevations available for energy collection. However, they are versions of the present day ubiquitous bare glass buildings which, even when sun control is added, are not photovoltaics.
Photovoltaics installed at the optimum angles on all the available elevations on these buildings would act as a heat-gain reduction element.
And with their substantial height, these buildings could also have had a water storage tank at the top for off-peak hydro power generation.
Savonius or Darrieus wind turbines could also have been installed on the top of the tank for wind energy.
Reducing consumption
A building’s ability to generate energy must be part of the initial design. This raises post installation for existing buildings.
Rooftop solar on existing buildings may be sufficient to supply users for up to two storeys. Any users of buildings past that height must be allowed to install solar on their facades to reduce their power costs. It is up to governments to enable this to happen so these residents can reduce their power costs.
However, with all the current skiting by governments of all the wind farms, photovoltaics and pumped hydro that will result in the nirvana of net-zero pollution never once mention reduced consumption.
It seems, for them, past ways are never the answer. But we need to ban, destroy, eliminate all clothes driers from every private residence. Our grandparents didn’t have them and managed to dry clothes. These energy suckers were once only available at a laundromat.
We need to mandate clotheslines to be installed externally on every residence and existing buildings, no matter how high. The result? No energy wasted on drying clothes.
We need to get rid of streetlights in all but essential areas. Car lights are efficient and sufficient for night-time travel. Why unnecessarily use electricity when the sun doesn’t shine on photovoltaics?
But possibly the best means of reduction in energy consumption by the public would be to install the wind turbines offshore of Bondi and in front of harbour-side mansions with a sign saying, “When you use less one may be removed”.
As an aside, I was involved in a windmill display in Toowoomba, consisting of mostly water lifting mills. Eventually a 3 m diameter, 3 bladed Dunlite electric mill was added. Dead birds were found at the base. Modern mills can be 120 m diameter. So, based on the circumference they can kill 40 times more birds or, if on the swept area, 1500 times more birds. Bob Brown was correct to object to mills being installed in areas adjacent to wilderness. There is also research to make these monsters more silent by the application of owl wing technology.
Spinifex is an opinion column open to all our readers. We require 700+ words on issues related to sustainability especially in the built environment and in business. Contact us to submit your column or for a more detailed brief.
There are many more unnecessary behaviours that we engage in that would save energy if eliminated. However, our increasing populations ensure infinite consumption.
We need a stable population to regulate and reduce consumption: no more new schools, hospitals, roads, offices, government buildings and housing for all. We have more people now to attend to the family, the elderly, education, health, the environment; whatever is needed for a civilised humanity rather than a consumptive growth economy.
The monumentality we now esteem is the ever-widening road of growth.
Such a pity we cannot learn from the ancients and have public use buildings of magnificence.