On 26/03/13 14:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 13:21 dennis@home wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 26/03/2013 11:44, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:31 Martin Brown wrote in uk.d-i-y:


There is a rearguard action by US coal, Exxon and it's deniers for hire
to prevent the general public hearing what scientists have to say. They
honed their disinformation skills working for big tobacco manufacturing
doubt to keep the suckers smoking. And it is a very effective tactic.

With everyone talking ******** and running with an agenda (both ways) how
do *I* know who to believe?

My position is to carry on as normal until the nonsense can be sorted
out.


The logically way is to ignore the arguments as none of them can be
proven as the system is chaotic and the data is poor.

+1


This means reacting to what is really happening, like insulate your
house to save money as energy prices rise.

Indeed.

From the UKIP energy document I posted a link to earlier:

"The 2008 Climate Change Act: This Act is one of the most expensive ever
passed in peace time, threatening costs of £18 billion a year for forty
years. We must repeal this Act as it underpins all these damaging taxes and
red tape policies."


Now - that is one claim I'd like to research in detail. Seems a bit
"headliney". But if it is true, let's see what else we could do with 18
billion in one year.

Cost of triple glazing a house - dunno for sure, but if we run on a double
glazing job is perhaps £10k for an average house and triple is 50% more,
then we could re-glaze 1.2 million aaverage houses in a year.

In 18 years we could have the whole country done.

BUT it wouldn't save as much energy as building a nuclear power station
for that money would generate.


picking the low hanging fruit of wildly lossy houses and grossly gas
guzzling cars is easy. But there comes a point where there are only slim
pickings left. My house is already pretty well insulated and short of
heat recovery ventilation and a massively expensive heatpump
installation its hard to know how to save more.

we may be able to shave 30% off energy use. Maybe 50%, but that's it.

If that costs more than building an entire fleet of nuclear **** that
will run the whole grid - 30% of our energy goes into the grid - we are
achieving less for more cost.


Assume perhaps we target all single glazed houses - and make it a grant
system where everyone gets some fraction, enough to induce most people to do
it and put the difference into free roof insulation and grants for
"difficult" roofs that may need celotex between the rafters.

Then perhaps wall lining for solid wall houses.

And keep going in the order of best return at the instant.



well put double glazing at the bottom. This house is fully compliant
with 2001 insulation standards and it was built single glazed. It is
packed the the gills with rockwool and celotex tho.


Draughtproof first, the loft insulation, then cavity wall, then boiler
upgrade, then insulate the ground floor.

Only when you have done that is it worth double glazing -0 and a set of
heavy triple lined curtains does more and costs less, anyway.





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.