Talk:Microgeneration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Energy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

Suggested merger of Wind Turbines (UK domestic) and Microgeneration[edit]

Microgeneration seems a little more neutral point of view Inwind 14:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate since one article is dealing with a UK topic and the other with an international topic. Could perhaps be merged into a new topic of Microgeneration in the United Kingdom, if anyone has the time to write it... Gralo 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Gralo here FWIW, Wind Turbines (UK Domestic) should be in microgeneration but in a UK specific article. --BMT 19:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

small windpower is a subset of microgeneration and would be confusing to the reader. www.onetoremember.co.uk 10:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the articles should be kept separate. Johnfos 03:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

micro-combined heat and power technology is fundamentally different for microgeneration. One is high efficiency form of energy utilization, the other is just the generation of electric power on a small scale. Most regulatory agencies recognize the distinction and the fundamental benefits of micro combined heat and power while the advantage of just reducing the scale of power genertaion machines in not always clear, espeically on account of the offsetting loss of efficiency of scale.

Full ACK, please do not merge. Micro generation is not per se better than doing it on a larger scale. As heat cannot be as easily transported as electricity, the micro scale of cogeneration avoids heat losses during transport and capital expenses for the district heating grid. This is crutial in non-urban areas or residential areas with a low density of heat demand. --Gunnar.Kaestle 17:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree Keep them seperate. TM

I also agree, keep them separate. Microgeneration is a more general topic whcich should link to this topic, and not go into too much detail on individual generation technologies. DMW

I agree as well. There are a variety of potential types of micro generation which aren't covered at all in this article including anaerobic digestion. To merge would get too confuding and limiting. JBF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer.b.flowers (talkcontribs) 17:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Extra sections microgeneration-article[edit]

Following sections need to be included; leave them on the talk page for the time being to allow quick reference and general guideline on how to improve the main article.

Types of systems[edit]

needs to be described and should include

Complete off-grid-systems[edit]

-->no connection regular power grid -->energy stacking is best -->extra equipment: deep cycle batteries, ... -->totally self-sufficient (even over long duration)

Partial off-grid-systems[edit]

-->connection regular power grid -->energy stacking is not required -->extra equipment: deep cycle batteries, ... -->partially self-sufficient (over short duration)

Regular system connected to grid with net metering[edit]

-->connection regular power grid -->energy stacking is not required -->extra equipment: deep cycle batteries is not required -->not (at all) self-sufficient

describe special type: vehicle-to-grid (blend of the above)

Pricing of a microgeneration system[edit]

Depending on power source, average pricing needs describing. The pricing should be calculated from both

  • Commercial equipment/power sources:
    • Regular equipement/designs
    • Special equipment designs that increase output (eg wind turbines -->motorwave wind turbines

Yearly saving of microgeneration system[edit]

Also needs describing

KVDP (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Debate[edit]

I've tagged this article as lacking a neutral point of view, because frankly, it stinks of ultra-left wing hippy nonsense. The section on costs completely disregards that it realistically costs in the Western world, primarily by overlooking construction costs. Statements such as "There is considerable resistance to microgeneration from many governments, local authorities and energy companies. Current incentives discourage energy suppliers and grid operators from bringing energy generation to the point of demand." is also heavily indoctrinated: that it has never been a traditional energy source due to issues of economies of scale, there simply isnt the existing legislature to encourage this kind of thing (that is to say, there is no big energy conspiracy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.196.132 (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why this article is branded "ultra-left wing hippy nonsense". There is resistance to microgeneration and the fact that many governments have legislated or are now legislating to force utility companies to provide grid-connection set-ups with financial compensation, net metering or net purchase and sale options validates this argument. More and more consumers are choosing to install microgeneration equipment in their homes and is proof of the increasing interest in this field. The technology is available, but is overpriced due to low sales and production because of resistance and lack of government financial incentives and legislation. Germany is a leader in this field purchasing microgenerated electricity at a higher premium than the utility companies as incentive to consumers to go on-line.
Norway, an oil producing country, has little or no legislation or incentives for this kind of project even though almost all electricity in the country is produced by green hydro-means. The electricity supply market in Norway was privatised some years ago and has now stabalised into the hands of a few large producers and suppliers, the government also having a major stake. Existing legislation favours these large companies through heavy bureaucratic konsession laws which preclude individuals from connecting to the grid with no financial incentive or compensation schemes. Norway exports significant amounts of electricity, but when demand outstrips supply especially in winter when hydro-production is often lower they are a net importers of electricity forcing sudden hikes in cost to the domestic consumer.
I agree that the article could be more detailed, but the committed reader can find an abundance of inforation in the references and links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GraCor (talkcontribs) 16:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Basically the article reads more like an essay, or article from Mother Earth News. I can see why it was branded "left wing hippy", but frankly that is not a reason for labeling it disputed. Here are seven statements that can be improved:
  • the start-up cost for this equipment is generally too high,
  • A major issue with off-grid solar and wind systems is that the power is often needed when the sun is not shining or when the wind is calm, this is generally not required for purely grid-connected systems:
  • the household expenditure can be extremely low-cost
  • However, if matters are handled less economically (using more commercial systems/approaches), costs will be dramatically higher.
  • indicates that most are extremely expensive methods of carbon abatement
  • Both are subject to misinformation. Buyer beware. (note - the entire notes column can be deleted - its only purpose is to include this extraneous comment)
  • There is considerable resistance to microgeneration from many governments, local authorities and energy companies.
Delphi234 (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is just wrong: Microgeneration is the generation of zero or low-carbon heat and power by individuals, small businesses and communities to meet their own needs

The carbon output of microgeneration doesn't define it. One could easily create a microgeneration facility that has poor carbon characteristics.

This faulty opening paragraph accurately predicts the agenda that's been set for this article. IMHO the whole article should be deleted.

Dan K —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkelly1966 (talkcontribs) 22:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This definition may well be different in other countries. Perhaps the definition does need qualifying a bit. The UK ”Government defines microgeneration as the production of heat and/or electricity on a small-scale from a low carbon source.” The National Archives. DTI information on microgeneration. Buried deep inside there somewhere it should also state that it covers electrical output of =< 50kWe or a thermal output of =< 45kWt. Anything above that would not be 'Micro'--Aspro (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone moving this along[edit]

The microgeneration topic is important and the insertion of political points of view (and the accusation of such) is a silly tangent

My assertions: microgeneration is a broad topic that includes micro-reactors being marketed by Toshiba as well as wind, solar and water and gas generators. The article should have sections dealing with:

1. Each of the above listed methods of microgeneration

2. Implications for the developed world in terms of integration with smart grid technology

3. Implications for developing countries in which grids do not exist and decentralized generation may be more practical

Does anyone have ways to improve this schema?

VLC17 (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is overly generous with alternative power solutions and overly critical of standard power solutions, solar/wind/hydro are all good choices as freely accessable energy, but in the same thread those resources do not provide a continuous supply of reliable energy. Especially when it is mentioned in terms of maintainance, if your solar panel goes offline, you lose some energy, if a centralised power station goes offline, several thousand people lose their supply, this is not reflected within the table and if you consider that if an off-grid home loses several watts, its loses the ability to supply a light, whereas a centralised power company loses a signifiant amount of resourses, the comparisons credability falls far beyond reasonable levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.14.5 (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

valuable resource underutilized[edit]

As we build more and more distributed residential power generation in the US, it is a shame that the current standard is for it to all totally shut down (due to safety concerns) when it is most needed -- when the main grid stops working.-96.237.79.6 (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

include all small-scale power generation alternatives[edit]

The article should be broadened to include all small-scale power generation alternatives to traditional centralized grid-connected power.-96.237.79.6 (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

divorcing the grid[edit]

Connecting Microgeneration to the grid has advantages: no need for local storage or other aspects of a fully self-sufficient system, and the potential to make helpful contributions to the grid system no matter what size the microgenerator. It has the disadvantage of usually not being usable when the grid fails.

Another significant issue is the monthly service charge. In the US, each utility service charges about $10/month even if no energy is used. $10/month for electricity. $10/month for natural gas... (What is the situation in other countries?) For small, efficient households this monthly service charge may be as large as the energy charge, and reduces the incentive to use less energy. This connection charge makes microgeneration at about the level of individual usage economically unattractive (no charge for the energy but still paying too much just to receive the paperwork) unless the switch is made to full electricity independence disconnected from the grid.-96.237.79.6 (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I'm proposing to merge microgeneration and distributed generation. There's a lot of overlap, and this section even says that they're synonymous. I'm undecided as to which title the merged article should have. --Article editor (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Words used here are important. 'Micro' implies small, unimportant. 'Distributed' implies not centralised. The discussions around this topic can be polemic, and difusing this with neutral language is important. Generation sources for distributed generation can be small, but don't have to be. Indeed, many of the models suggest that the efficiencies required by the system (economic and physical) require facilities that are not 'small'. I suggest a merger use the title 'distributed generation'.DrMattGray (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I would be opposed to such merge. Large generation versus small generation. --J. D. Redding 14:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I definitely oppose. Distributed generation is not microgeneration. Gas engine based CHP can be used for distributed generation in the size range of up to 40MW - definitely not microgeneration and a different logic to distributed power.Alex Marshall (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)