On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:00:05 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

How do you collect something which isn't there in adequate amounts to
begin with?

You are asserting that there is not an adequate amount. This is
based on one twenty year old system that you have experience of (and
perhaps you are disappointed with).

On the other hand one can see what people with more modern systems
have to say. You asserted that the two comments on the Solartwin web
site could not be relied on (but your assertions could be relied
on).

Well, the comment below has not been put on the Solartwin web site
and neither is there a link from Solartwin to the pages concerned.
They are http://www.drstephentaylor.plus.com/page4.html and
http://www.drstephentaylor.plus.com/page14.html from which the
following comment is taken, "On a sunny day in mid June when the
system was first running it heated a full tank to 70oC".

So, even if your particular system does not collect adequate amounts
of energy that does not mean that all solar water heating systems
don't collect adequate amounts of energy.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:39:33 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:00:05 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

How do you collect something which isn't there in adequate amounts to
begin with?

You are asserting that there is not an adequate amount.

Yes.

This is
based on one twenty year old system that you have experience of (and
perhaps you are disappointed with).

Please read this slowly as I've now said it three times and you seem
to have difficulty comprehending it.

The measured results I obtained were consistent with the measured
results obtained by the DTI when they tested "more modern" systems
(including your pet Solartwin). There was no appreciable
performance difference between the system I installed then and
systems being installed now. Moreover the control system was
considerably more capable than most of the rather noddy ones which
seem to come with commercial systems these days.

I wasn't "disappointed" in it - it behaved exactly as predicted and
was an interesting experiment. However, it ultimately saved nothing.
Despite the very low installation cost (because of the source of the
materials) over its whole life it never recouped even that low cost.

"More modern" in this field is in many respects no different from
"more modern" of 20+ years ago. The collector tubes I had then were
producing the same performance as identical "modern" ones.

On the other hand one can see what people with more modern systems
have to say.

I'm really not interested in perceptions, only reality. The
measurements I took over ten years were in line with those obtained
by the DTI - the performance was measured - why do you find it so
difficult to understand this simple fact?

You asserted that the two comments on the Solartwin web
site could not be relied on (but your assertions could be relied
on).

I said the two comments you quoted were possible made up, that if
they were true were selectively quoted and in any case were
subjective. My statements are based upon objective, reproducible
measurements. Why do you have this aversion to measurement?

Well, the comment below has not been put on the Solartwin web site
and neither is there a link from Solartwin to the pages concerned.
They are http://www.drstephentaylor.plus.com/page4.html and
http://www.drstephentaylor.plus.com/page14.html from which the
following comment is taken, "On a sunny day in mid June when the
system was first running it heated a full tank to 70oC".

On a sunny day in mid June my system could do likewise, it couldn't
(nor can his) in mid December.

So, even if your particular system does not collect adequate amounts
of energy that does not mean that all solar water heating systems
don't collect adequate amounts of energy.

There wasn't an adequate amount of energy to collect all the year
around. The technology had nothing to do with it. Again you show
this distaste for figures.

The maximum amount of energy in ideal situations in the UK varies
from about 0.5kWh/m2 in the winter to 5kWh/m2 a day in the summer. A
solar hot water system has a total collection efficiency of around 30
to 70%. Let's assume the higher figure. That equates to 350W/hr of
energy per sq/m per day. For a typical 2sqm panel installation
that's 700W/hr a day.

Assume a daily household requirement of about 100L of water at 60degC
and an input temperature of 10degC in the winter. The specific heat
of water is 4.2Joules per gram per deg C so the energy required (in
kJ) is 4.2 x volume in litres x temperature rise in deg C. In our
example 4.2 x 100 x (60-10) = 21MJ or 5,800W/hr a day. In the winter
therefore the solar heater can provide no more than 12% of the
required energy. This is for an absolutely perfect site. If the
panel isn't aligned due south it can drop by 50%. If the panel isn't
cleaned frequently it can drop by another 5-10%.

In the summer the same collector can manage 7,000W/hr a day, more
than is needed and of course the excess cannot be stored. Each day
you throw away the equivalent of nearly two days worth of winter
energy gain.

Heating water in the summer is simple - I've achieved higher
temperatures than 70degC with plastic bag. Heating adequate amounts
of water to acceptable temperatures all the year around is completely
beyond the capability of a modern commercial domestic solar heater.

Compare Tony's figure of GBP15 energy saving per year with other
yearly energy savings you could make :-

Double Glazing - GBP82
Energy Efficient dishwasher - GBP13
Energy efficient Fridge Freezer - GBP35
Energy efficient Fridge - GBP15
Upgrading ;loft insulation - GBP58
Replacement condensing boiler - GBP 256
(Figures from the Energy Saving Trust)

Overall Solar water heating saves trivial amounts of energy and
money. In energy terms the cost of manufacture, shipping the major
components around the world and installation probably comfortably
exceed the useful energy they collect in their lifetimes. The only
thing they do is help the crazy political game - if you move
manufacturing to China you "save" CO2 from the UK's "balance sheet".
You actually contribute far more CO2 to the world supply of course
but if it's CO2 made in China it doesn't matter and it doesn't count
in the fairyland of Kyoto - absolute insanity.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Peter Parry wrote:
On 25 Nov 2005 05:48:12 -0800, wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:

How do you collect something which isn't there in adequate amounts to
begin with? Or are you suggesting it should have a heat store with
several days reserve capacity?

You're effectively asking me what are the deficiencies of the system
you measured, when I havent seen it, have no figures etc. So its very
difficult to say where your particular system would be deficient.

You made the statement that it was inadequately for the job. Whilst
it was being monitored it achieved results which were broadly similar
to those achieved from the 7 commercial systems tested by the DTI in
their report DTI/Pub URN 01/1202 (available at
http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/pub...load=01%2F1292)

These are listed in Annex C to the report.

From the fact that the results I measured on my system and those
obtained by the DTI in their tests of commercial systems were similar
I conclude that my installation and design was quite adequate. I was
puzzled as to why you considered it to be inadequate

IIRC you said it did not provide a satisfactory supply of hot water,
and did not pay back its installation cost. That would seem to me to
make it inadequate on both grounds.


- if it was then
it makes all the commercial systems tested by the DTI also
inadequate.

I would very much expect so, yes. If I had to generalise, I would
generally say forget about commercial solar systems if youre serious
about solar. Commercial setups seem to appeal more to people that just
want the feelgood factor and dont want any hassle like maths, ROI,
building a system or anything like that.

If you want a serious system design, alt.solar.thermal is the place to
go. But expect a lot of reading and thinking before coming to a
decision on design, be clear what your goals are, and listen to Mr
Pine.


NT

Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:39:33 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

So, even if your particular system does not collect adequate amounts
of energy that does not mean that all solar water heating systems
don't collect adequate amounts of energy.

There wasn't an adequate amount of energy to collect all the year
around. The technology had nothing to do with it. Again you show
this distaste for figures.

I agree with a lot of what you say, if not this bit. What you say
further down does not support this conclusion either. It only tells us
that your system, and many others with similar performance, arent upto
it for winter use.


The maximum amount of energy in ideal situations in the UK varies
from about 0.5kWh/m2 in the winter to 5kWh/m2 a day in the summer. A
solar hot water system has a total collection efficiency of around 30
to 70%. Let's assume the higher figure. That equates to 350W/hr of
energy per sq/m per day. For a typical 2sqm panel installation
that's 700W/hr a day.

theres a key problem right there, 2sqm. 2sqm is ok for summer, but not
winter. For winter one needs more area and more efficiency. Not 10x as
much though, as will be explained below.


Assume a daily household requirement of about 100L of water at 60degC

But recognise that that is not a necesarily true figure. Household
water consumption can vary widely depending on whether the householder
wants to conserve or not. Aeration, turning water off while soaping up
in the shower, and a shower or whole house drain heat exchanger will
all make a significant difference to hot water consumption.

and an input temperature of 10degC in the winter.

will be higher if a drain heat exchanger is used.


The specific heat
of water is 4.2Joules per gram per deg C so the energy required (in
kJ) is 4.2 x volume in litres x temperature rise in deg C. In our
example 4.2 x 100 x (60-10) = 21MJ or 5,800W/hr a day. In the winter
therefore the solar heater can provide no more than 12% of the
required energy. This is for an absolutely perfect site.

ONLY if you install an inadequate panel of course! And do nothing to
conserve energy use in the first place.
You might just as well install a half square metre panel and then
complain theres not enough sun for summer solar hot water.


If the
panel isn't aligned due south it can drop by 50%.

one does not normally install them that far off, so thats not a real
world problem with installed solar systems.


If the panel isn't
cleaned frequently it can drop by another 5-10%.

In the summer the same collector can manage 7,000W/hr a day, more
than is needed and of course the excess cannot be stored.

it can and there are systems that do it, but I would fully agree it
isnt worth doing.


Each day
you throw away the equivalent of nearly two days worth of winter
energy gain.

a non problem


Heating water in the summer is simple - I've achieved higher
temperatures than 70degC with plastic bag. Heating adequate amounts
of water to acceptable temperatures all the year around is completely
beyond the capability of a modern commercial domestic solar heater.

Yes... but note how you slipped the word 'commercial' in there. You
might as well have said competent performance is beyond the ability of
any incompetent system.


Compare Tony's figure of GBP15 energy saving per year with other
yearly energy savings you could make :-

Double Glazing - GBP82
Energy Efficient dishwasher - GBP13
Energy efficient Fridge Freezer - GBP35

one woud have to be upgrading from something fairly ancient to achieve
that sort of saving.

Energy efficient Fridge - GBP15

ditto

Upgrading ;loft insulation - GBP58
Replacement condensing boiler - GBP 256
(Figures from the Energy Saving Trust)

I dont see how a condensing boiler will save me the entire annual spend
on gas.


Overall Solar water heating saves trivial amounts of energy and
money.

agreed! At least when applied to single domestic dwellings anyway.

In energy terms the cost of manufacture, shipping the major
components around the world and installation probably comfortably
exceed the useful energy they collect in their lifetimes. The only
thing they do is help the crazy political game - if you move
manufacturing to China you "save" CO2 from the UK's "balance sheet".
You actually contribute far more CO2 to the world supply of course
but if it's CO2 made in China it doesn't matter and it doesn't count
in the fairyland of Kyoto - absolute insanity.

It does something very sensible. Selling solar DHW makes a market with
money available for businesses. This makes it more attractive, and
provides funds for a business to develop the technology further, and
that is what is needed today. You have to have a market for anyone to
invest funds, and you have to invest funds to develop better
technology. Its all part of the process.

I quite agree with your core message: solar domestic DHW is not
something to invest in today.


NT

On 28 Nov 2005 11:28:53 -0800, wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

From the fact that the results I measured on my system and those
obtained by the DTI in their tests of commercial systems were similar
I conclude that my installation and design was quite adequate. I was
puzzled as to why you considered it to be inadequate

IIRC you said it did not provide a satisfactory supply of hot water,
and did not pay back its installation cost. That would seem to me to
make it inadequate on both grounds.

You will have to blame celestial mechanics for that I am afraid.
There simply isn't enough solar energy available in the UK for much
of the year to make solar water heating worthwhile.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 17:19:07 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

On a sunny day in mid June my system could do likewise, it couldn't
(nor can his) in mid December.

So, even if your particular system does not collect adequate amounts
of energy that does not mean that all solar water heating systems
don't collect adequate amounts of energy.

There wasn't an adequate amount of energy to collect all the year
around.

An interesting swerve. Now there isn't an adequate amount of energy
all year round to fully heat the hot water cylinder. Gosh!

Actually, that isn't news.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 28 Nov 2005 12:06:58 -0800, wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

The maximum amount of energy in ideal situations in the UK varies
from about 0.5kWh/m2 in the winter to 5kWh/m2 a day in the summer. A
solar hot water system has a total collection efficiency of around 30
to 70%. Let's assume the higher figure. That equates to 350W/hr of
energy per sq/m per day. For a typical 2sqm panel installation
that's 700W/hr a day.

theres a key problem right there, 2sqm. 2sqm is ok for summer, but not
winter. For winter one needs more area and more efficiency. Not 10x as
much though, as will be explained below.

More area = more cost = more CO2 used in manufacture and shipping
across the globe. The equation never balances.

Assume a daily household requirement of about 100L of water at 60degC

But recognise that that is not a necesarily true figure. Household
water consumption can vary widely depending on whether the householder
wants to conserve or not. Aeration, turning water off while soaping up
in the shower, and a shower or whole house drain heat exchanger will
all make a significant difference to hot water consumption.

Of course you can reduce water consumption dramatically. There is no
requirement to wash at all, it has little health benefit. I've
spent many weeks living on one or two litres of pretty disreputable
water a day with no harmful effect.

Whether you can convince Sun readers to become even more malodorous
is of course a different matter and when you start looking at trying
to add a waste water heat exchangers to an existing build the sums
get silly.

The specific heat
of water is 4.2Joules per gram per deg C so the energy required (in
kJ) is 4.2 x volume in litres x temperature rise in deg C. In our
example 4.2 x 100 x (60-10) = 21MJ or 5,800W/hr a day. In the winter
therefore the solar heater can provide no more than 12% of the
required energy. This is for an absolutely perfect site.

ONLY if you install an inadequate panel of course!

I'm not sure how you reach this conclusion - 70% overall efficiency
is beyond most systems. You can keep adding panels of course but the
economics stay the same.

And do nothing to
conserve energy use in the first place.
You might just as well install a half square metre panel and then
complain theres not enough sun for summer solar hot water.

Not really - just spend the money you were going to waste on solar
panels on more effective ways of conserving and gaining energy.

If the
panel isn't aligned due south it can drop by 50%.

one does not normally install them that far off, so thats not a real
world problem with installed solar systems.

One does if the roof is in the wrong direction as most are.

Heating water in the summer is simple - I've achieved higher
temperatures than 70degC with plastic bag. Heating adequate amounts
of water to acceptable temperatures all the year around is completely
beyond the capability of a modern commercial domestic solar heater.

Yes... but note how you slipped the word 'commercial' in there. You
might as well have said competent performance is beyond the ability of
any incompetent system.

Most people are not going to make their own - so it is the
performance of commercial systems which matters. I can make a solar
heating system which will give me hot water 365 days of the year. To
do so makes no economic sense whatsoever and no sense at all from an
energy point of view.

Compare Tony's figure of GBP15 energy saving per year with other
yearly energy savings you could make :-

Double Glazing - GBP82
Energy Efficient dishwasher - GBP13
Energy efficient Fridge Freezer - GBP35

one woud have to be upgrading from something fairly ancient to achieve
that sort of saving.

Not really, quite a few Fridge/Freezers of 5 years old or more can be
replaced by modern equivalents to give this sort of saving.

Replacement condensing boiler - GBP 256
(Figures from the Energy Saving Trust)

I dont see how a condensing boiler will save me the entire annual spend
on gas.

Did seem high I must admit.

The only
thing they do is help the crazy political game - if you move
manufacturing to China you "save" CO2 from the UK's "balance sheet".
You actually contribute far more CO2 to the world supply of course
but if it's CO2 made in China it doesn't matter and it doesn't count
in the fairyland of Kyoto - absolute insanity.

It does something very sensible. Selling solar DHW makes a market with
money available for businesses. This makes it more attractive, and
provides funds for a business to develop the technology further, and
that is what is needed today.

Funnily enough that was exactly what was said in about 1975. In the
meantime the "technology" (there really isn't that much involved) has
progressed minimally and costs have stayed high. Exactly the same has
happened in countries where solar energy has long been far more
attractive than it ever will be here. There is a well established
worldwide market in solar heating and it hasn't driven development or
cost reduction to any significant extent so this argument does seem
rather implausible.

You have to have a market for anyone to
invest funds, and you have to invest funds to develop better
technology. Its all part of the process.

The market has existed in many countries for centuries, you simply
can't develop what isn't there to develop. In countries with lots of
sun, solar water heating has existed for years and uses crude and
quite adequate technology. In countries like the UK nothing is going
to make up for thee fact there simply isn't adequate solar energy for
most houses for most of the year.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On 28 Nov 2005 12:06:58 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

But recognise that that is not a necesarily true figure. Household
water consumption can vary widely depending on whether the householder
wants to conserve or not.

Agreed. That is one of the issues the Sustainable Development
Commission's report on micro generation covered.

One of the long-standing failings of the training of engineers in
the UK is that we tend to have an over-reliance on figures and try
and airily dismiss such "social" arguments.

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/news...KMFYS8-5OZZIS2


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 28 Nov 2005 12:06:58 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

But recognise that that is not a necesarily true figure. Household
water consumption can vary widely depending on whether the householder
wants to conserve or not.

Agreed. That is one of the issues the Sustainable Development
Commission's report on micro generation covered.

One of the long-standing failings of the training of engineers in
the UK is that we tend to have an over-reliance on figures and try
and airily dismiss such "social" arguments.


http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/news...e&article_id=F
K7OVZ8-BV9MRDZ-HKMFYS8-5OZZIS2

Best to only use machines as a last resort. All proven and a part of the
design:
http://tinyurl.com/bhxxp Since 1961 A school near Liverpool has been
heating itself.

In article ews.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/news...e&article_id=F
K7OVZ8-BV9MRDZ-HKMFYS8-5OZZIS2

Best to only use machines as a last resort. All proven and a part of the
design:
http://tinyurl.com/bhxxp Since 1961 A school near Liverpool has been
heating itself.

Is it warm yet?
--
SAm.

Hi Graham,

I have looked extensively at solar water heating. I could bore you to
death with figures and calculations but my opinion is that at todays
prices you will never see payback on a commercially installed system.
I have looked at DIYing it and worked out a payback of 20 years (not
counting running and maintenance costs) and that is comparing it to oil
which is comparatively expensive.
As a commercialy installedl system (even with a grant) is much more
expensive than DIY then your payback time is even greater than that.
I should also mention I am in central Scotland so I guess you might
have more sun than me and perhaps a better payback...

As energy prices increase, the payback time gets better so my advice to
you is to revisit this in a few years.

You didn't mention your motivation for looking at this. If
environmental then it maybe makes sense but I don't know the energy
costs in the manufacture of these.

You also didn't mention how many people you are looking to heat water
for or if this is a retrofit or part of a new build. Payback is better
on a larger system and installation cheaper on a new build.

Alan.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:34:43 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:


Agreed. That is one of the issues the Sustainable Development
Commission's report on micro generation covered.

Strong on issoooes they are. Short on facts unfortunately. Pity
they don't seem to know what "sustainable" actually means.

One of the long-standing failings of the training of engineers in
the UK is that we tend to have an over-reliance on figures and try
and airily dismiss such "social" arguments.

That's because the "social arguments" are largely nonsense spouted by
agenda driven propagandists who don't have a sustainable argument.

How does importing machines made from materials made in heavily
polluting plants and manufactured by poorly paid, almost slave,
labourers help socially?

How do we reduce carbon emissions by buying vast quantities of
equipment which in their lifetime save far less energy than was
involved in their manufacture?

The "social argument" is one of desperate foolhardiness; save (insert
country here) from Kyoto and screw the world.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Alan" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi Graham,

I have looked extensively at solar water heating. I could bore you to
death with figures and calculations but my opinion is that at todays
prices you will never see payback on a commercially installed system.
I have looked at DIYing it and worked out a payback of 20 years (not
counting running and maintenance costs) and that is comparing it to oil
which is comparatively expensive.

How about using cheap Navitron equipment. They have dropped the price of
Solar equipment like a stone.

As a commercialy installedl system (even with a grant) is much more
expensive than DIY then your payback time is even greater than that.
I should also mention I am in central Scotland so I guess you might
have more sun than me and perhaps a better payback...

As energy prices increase, the payback time gets better so my advice to
you is to revisit this in a few years.

You didn't mention your motivation for looking at this. If
environmental then it maybe makes sense but I don't know the energy
costs in the manufacture of these.

You also didn't mention how many people you are looking to heat water
for or if this is a retrofit or part of a new build. Payback is better
on a larger system and installation cheaper on a new build.

Alan.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:24:06 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

Strong on issoooes they are. Short on facts unfortunately.

Strong on all sorts of facts about how micropower influences
people's attitudes to energy.

That's because the "social arguments" are largely nonsense spouted by
agenda driven propagandists who don't have a sustainable argument.

A mildly amusing assertion, but incorrect.

How does importing machines made from materials made in heavily
polluting plants and manufactured by poorly paid, almost slave,
labourers help socially?

That is one of my concerns about evacuated tubes. As currently most
are made in China that is not in alignment with the local production
agenda of many environmentalists.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:34:01 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:24:06 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

Strong on issoooes they are. Short on facts unfortunately.

Strong on all sorts of facts about how micropower influences
people's attitudes to energy.

So it's attitude that influences the amount of CO2 emitted by energy
generation is it? Hadn't realised that.

That's because the "social arguments" are largely nonsense spouted by
agenda driven propagandists who don't have a sustainable argument.

A mildly amusing assertion, but incorrect.

Hardly, look at the makeup of your "Sustainable Development
Commission". Led by Baron Porritt, Eton educated lawyer and son of
the ex Governor General of New Zealand. Green Party founder and well
known campaigner against almost anything. Closest he has been to
"social housing" is studying a photograph of one.

Of the 14 other members of this so called "independent" commission
one is an unsuccessful Labour party parliamentary candidate, one a
paid consultant for a company that makes money promoting
"environmental awareness", one a Media Studies lecturer, one a
teacher of tourism and non-formal education. Another heads a company
designing "sustainable energy" equipment, yet another is an expert in
consumer behaviour and a professional playwright. One is apparently
an expert in "facilitator networks" using "community visioning" and
runs a company selling the service (whatever it may be).

More than a half of them are members of one or more of the Labour
Party, the Green Party, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other
groups with vested interests. More than a quarter run companies
selling the services or products they are promoting.

Oh, it does also have a token scientist.

Independent?

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:59:37 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

More than a half of them are members of one or more of the Labour
Party,

Is that a crime now?

the Green Party, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other
groups with vested interests.

What vested interests to Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have?
Is being a member of either a crime now?

More than a quarter run companies
selling the services or products they are promoting.

So, even if these were all involved just to promote their services
or products they would not have an overriding influence. Thank you.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Yes, Navitron prices make it at least close to practical but it is
still expensive. I'd love to know how good they are - how can Navitron
be so cheap? Is there a catch?
Anyway, my calculations are done using Navitron pricing -
£395 for the collector + £100 delivery then £200 for a dual coil
cylinder then a controller, temp sensors, pipes, pump etc you are
looking at the best part of a grand for the bits.
I recon I can save £50/year with SDHW which is where I get the 20 year
payback without including maintenance costs.
Yes, spiraling fuel costs will reduce this and I am sure I could save
some of the costs for instance by using a solar panel to drive the pump
- no need for the diff controller/sensors or even by making my own
controller.
Any commercially installed systems I have seen are twice this price
although maybe using Navitron panels will reduce this but even with a
grant this will still be more expensive so not a short term
proposition. It is criminal that grants are not available to DIY'ers.
There should be a law against DIY-ism.

On 30 Nov 2005 05:40:02 -0800 someone who may be "Alan"
wrote this:-

Any commercially installed systems I have seen are twice this price

ISTM that the premium for such systems is £1000. Against this is a
grant and reduction in VAT.

It is criminal that grants are not available to DIY'ers.

I entirely agree, as well as the discrimination over VAT. I think
this is another example of the administrators taking over and
driving out those who know what they are talking about. All very
much "New" Labour claptrap.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:27:11 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:59:37 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

More than a half of them are members of one or more of the Labour
Party,

Is that a crime now?

Hardly, although they may be working on making not being a member of
it a crime to go with the crime they have invented of fitting a
telephone extension in your kitchen. The pork barrel politics don't
do much for the claim of "impartiality" though.

the Green Party, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other
groups with vested interests.

What vested interests to Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have?

Promoting their own narrow agenda. Greenpeace in particular have a
long history of dishonesty and trying to suppress and sabotage work
and studies which may reach conclusions that don't suit them.

Is being a member of either a crime now?

Now making that so is quite tempting. Making deliberately publishing
misinformation a crime would certainly get rid of both of them pretty
quickly. It would get rid of all politicians as well so
unfortunately it's never going to happen.

More than a quarter run companies
selling the services or products they are promoting.

So, even if these were all involved just to promote their services
or products they would not have an overriding influence.

Oh I think they could rely upon their like minded mates to help :-).

How does this motley collection of unqualified political placemen and
serial part time committee sitters count as impartial? Or has
impartial been redefined as not allowing preconceptions to be
affected by facts? This group of entertainers may not be faced with
that problem of course as they assiduously avoid anything factual.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:01:18 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

Making deliberately publishing
misinformation a crime would certainly get rid of both of them pretty
quickly.

It would get rid of the nuclear lobby rather more quickly.

It would get rid of all politicians as well so
unfortunately it's never going to happen.

Most of them perhaps, but not all. However, I agree that for this
reason they will never go for it.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Peter Parry wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005 12:06:58 -0800, wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:

The maximum amount of energy in ideal situations in the UK varies
from about 0.5kWh/m2 in the winter to 5kWh/m2 a day in the summer. A
solar hot water system has a total collection efficiency of around 30
to 70%. Let's assume the higher figure. That equates to 350W/hr of
energy per sq/m per day. For a typical 2sqm panel installation
that's 700W/hr a day.

theres a key problem right there, 2sqm. 2sqm is ok for summer, but not
winter. For winter one needs more area and more efficiency. Not 10x as
much though, as will be explained below.

More area = more cost = more CO2 used in manufacture and shipping
across the globe. The equation never balances.

Its really not that simple. 'More area = more cost' only if we use the
same kind of panels, and more of them. That isnt the way to go. Firstly
we need different types of panel in the one install to optimise
cost/return and performance. Some of these will be lower, and only some
vacuum tube.

Second, solar DHW badly needs much cheaper collectors than are common
today, cheap enough that much larger areas can be used at lower cost
than now. I've come up with an approach to do this, though I havent
built and tested them. In short these panels would be made from layers
of a long life thermoplastic film (there is of course more to it than
that), and would be attached by feeding strips under tiles/slates and
screwing in place. These can be much larger and cheaper than todays
glazed boxes or vacuum tubes.

Shipping plastic film round the globe, if one goes that route, is
remarkably cheap compared to shipping vacuum tubes or traditional flat
panels. A much larger panel contains far less embodied energy, less
cost, way less material, and takes up a fraction of the shipping
volume.


Of course you can reduce water consumption dramatically. There is no
requirement to wash at all,

There you go off on something neither sensible nor relevant.


and when you start looking at trying
to add a waste water heat exchangers to an existing build the sums
get silly.

The sums are more impressive for new builds, so thats where they'll
make inroads.


The specific heat
of water is 4.2Joules per gram per deg C so the energy required (in
kJ) is 4.2 x volume in litres x temperature rise in deg C. In our
example 4.2 x 100 x (60-10) = 21MJ or 5,800W/hr a day. In the winter
therefore the solar heater can provide no more than 12% of the
required energy. This is for an absolutely perfect site.

ONLY if you install an inadequate panel of course!

I'm not sure how you reach this conclusion - 70% overall efficiency
is beyond most systems. You can keep adding panels of course but the
economics stay the same.

To make a good system does not mean just adding more of the same
panels. And of course the figures arent the same with a system with
different cost and different payback.


just spend the money you were going to waste on solar
panels on more effective ways of conserving and gaining energy.

I agree with that. But the interest is almost exclusively with DHW for
some reason, and has been for decades. It has a market, and in time I
think it will pay, once the sleeping industry is roused by a competent
competitive team. And I think it will be at some point. Rising energy
costs will help as well.


If the
panel isn't aligned due south it can drop by 50%.

one does not normally install them that far off, so thats not a real
world problem with installed solar systems.

One does if the roof is in the wrong direction as most are.

in bad alignment cases one does not install solar DHW. Not if sensible
anyway. Inappropriate systems may get installed today for a few buyers
with no real understanding of the figures involved, by companies
unconcerned by whether their product works, or how much the customer
loses. That tells us nothing much about solar technology of course.


Heating water in the summer is simple - I've achieved higher
temperatures than 70degC with plastic bag. Heating adequate amounts
of water to acceptable temperatures all the year around is completely
beyond the capability of a modern commercial domestic solar heater.

Yes... but note how you slipped the word 'commercial' in there. You
might as well have said competent performance is beyond the ability of
any incompetent system.

Most people are not going to make their own - so it is the
performance of commercial systems which matters.

Then we're coming from 2 quite different places. I'm not interested in
todays commercial systems since theyre a waste of time and money. What
I am interested in is a newer generation of design that will both
perform and pay, and put todays valueless junk peddlers out of
business.


I can make a solar
heating system which will give me hot water 365 days of the year. To
do so makes no economic sense whatsoever and no sense at all from an
energy point of view.

using your design, I agree. Using any now popular commercial design, I
agree.


Compare Tony's figure of GBP15 energy saving per year with other
yearly energy savings you could make :-

Double Glazing - GBP82
Energy Efficient dishwasher - GBP13
Energy efficient Fridge Freezer - GBP35

one woud have to be upgrading from something fairly ancient to achieve
that sort of saving.

Not really, quite a few Fridge/Freezers of 5 years old or more can be
replaced by modern equivalents to give this sort of saving.

I dont know any recent FFs that eat that plus the energy consumption of
a new one. I think you'll find that figure only true for faulty
machines and oddball cases.

Replacement condensing boiler - GBP 256
(Figures from the Energy Saving Trust)

I dont see how a condensing boiler will save me the entire annual spend
on gas.

Did seem high I must admit.

A jump from 65% to 91% is 26% more efficiency. So one's annual gas
spend would have to be fairly extreme to achieve that sort of saving.
These are not realistic figures, or even close.


It does something very sensible. Selling solar DHW makes a market with
money available for businesses. This makes it more attractive, and
provides funds for a business to develop the technology further, and
that is what is needed today.

Funnily enough that was exactly what was said in about 1975. In the
meantime the "technology" (there really isn't that much involved) has
progressed minimally

If you review the patents granted since then I think you'll find there
are many new technologies. There have also been some significant trials
since then.

I dont evaluate solar technology by looking at junk commercial systems,
any more than I'd evaluate car technological progress by looking at the
latest Trabant, or medical progress by looking at quacks who can do a
little and charge a lot.

Solar tech still needs more progress. It has certainly progressed since
75, but it will take some time yet before the industry gets where I
want to see it get to. And its fair to say that DHW is not the hottest
area of solar research, since there are bigger fish to catch elsewhere.


and costs have stayed high.

For most systems, sure. The challenges are both to make systems that
work well, and to make systems that pay well. But again, the state of
commercial systems really has little to do with it. Good designs do not
mirror such systems.


Exactly the same has
happened in countries where solar energy has long been far more
attractive than it ever will be here. There is a well established
worldwide market in solar heating and it hasn't driven development or
cost reduction to any significant extent

Read some patents.

so this argument does seem
rather implausible.


You have to have a market for anyone to
invest funds, and you have to invest funds to develop better
technology. Its all part of the process.

The market has existed in many countries for centuries, you simply
can't develop what isn't there to develop.

There is more than enough insolation on lots of house roofs to heat DHW
with a 50% efficient system. You keep saying there isn't enough over 2
sqm, but I'm not sure that tells us a great deal, except that the
commercial systems you refer to are basically expensive novelty
products.

The fact that the roofing material behind the solar panels can be
cheaper is also a plus for new builds. Strips of fibre cement board
save time and money over tiles and slate. This isnt worth doing with 2
sqm, but can be with larger areas.


NT

David Hansen wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 05:40:02 -0800 someone who may be "Alan"
wrote this:-

Any commercially installed systems I have seen are twice this price

ISTM that the premium for such systems is £1000. Against this is a
grant and reduction in VAT.

It is criminal that grants are not available to DIY'ers.

I entirely agree, as well as the discrimination over VAT. I think
this is another example of the administrators taking over and
driving out those who know what they are talking about. All very
much "New" Labour claptrap.

We live in a society where commercial solar DHW installers either dont
know what theyre doing, or dont care, or both, where Administratum
doesnt either, but naively assumes the pros are clueful and gainful,
and the DIYers not to be trusted with a barge pole.

IOW we live in a society where the lie becomes the truth, and the truth
the lie.

Unfortunately society pays the price over and over for this
foolishness.


NT

The message . com
from contains these words:

Replacement condensing boiler - GBP 256
(Figures from the Energy Saving Trust)

I dont see how a condensing boiler will save me the entire annual spend
on gas.

Did seem high I must admit.

A jump from 65% to 91% is 26% more efficiency. So one's annual gas
spend would have to be fairly extreme to achieve that sort of saving.
These are not realistic figures, or even close.

On those figures the underlying gas bill would be a very large £896 pa.

If Dribbles favourite figure of 55% is used the underlying gas bill
would be a slightly more reasonable £647 but still much more than my gas
bill (cast iron heat exchanger).

Go the other way of course and the figures get very very silly indeed.
76% - £1553. 80% -£2118.

Only goes to shown you shouldn't trust those who have an axe to grind.

--
Roger Chapman

On 1 Dec 2005 00:02:31 -0800, wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

Of course you can reduce water consumption dramatically. There is no
requirement to wash at all,

There you go off on something neither sensible nor relevant.

It is both. The last time solar water heating enjoyed a burst of
popularity it was because of forecasts of even more draconian hikes
in energy prices than are being predicted today. By now, according
to those prediction, we should be on one candle a day (and don't
forget the 12 people per house caused by the world overpopulation
predictions of the same era).

Whilst I agree there is scope for considerable improvement in new
house constriction there is no sign of it being planned, never mind
realised and even if it happens it will have negligible overall
effect for many decades.

In the meantime people are using more energy. In the 70's there were
still quite a few taking only a weekly bath and showers were both
relatively unusual and very anaemic. Hot water use per person was
about 30% less than it is today. It is possible to reduce water
consumption - there is no indication that people would accept it
happily and despite Nulabors efforts to make it difficult they can
still be voted out.

At the same time there is a huge growth in appliances using
electricity. Society is showing no significant sign of becoming less
energy hungry and any savings due to efficiency will be neutralised
by expanding energy use.

The only way to make a severe impact on energy use is to put fuel
prices up three or fourfold and any government that was in power when
that happened wouldn't be shortly thereafter. The threat of being in
opposition next week is far more potent than that of global decline
next year as far as a politician is concerned.

The sums are more impressive for new builds, so thats where they'll
make inroads.

A great deal could be done (at a cost) to new buildings but much of
what could be done requires room - which runs directly against the
present policy of trying to cram as much as possible into as small a
space as possible. It's all very well promoting a noisy windmill for
every home but when you don't have anywhere to put it except against
your bedroom window it isn't terribly practical.

just spend the money you were going to waste on solar
panels on more effective ways of conserving and gaining energy.

I agree with that. But the interest is almost exclusively with DHW for
some reason, and has been for decades.

Probably because it is the only practical system which can be
retrofitted and can be demonstrated to "work" in that it produces hot
water in the summer.

It has a market, and in time I
think it will pay, once the sleeping industry is roused by a competent
competitive team. And I think it will be at some point. Rising energy
costs will help as well.

That's what was said 30 years ago :-). Competition only works if
there is some. Solar water heating is a niche market with prices all
at the same sort of level and everyone involved making a comfortable
living out of it. That isn't a market where significant price
competition develops. 30 years ago there actually was some limited
price competition and one or two national companies with aspirations
to become very large invested a lot in marketing themselves. They
fell by the wayside. There simply isn't a commercial incentive to
try to do better.

A jump from 65% to 91% is 26% more efficiency. So one's annual gas
spend would have to be fairly extreme to achieve that sort of saving.
These are not realistic figures, or even close.

The figures came from the Energy Saving Trust - an "independent"
Government funded body providing "independent evidence-based policy
analysis" just like the "Sustainable Development Commission". Surely
you are not suggesting that these independent organisations would put
out blatantly incorrect information? :-)

Funnily enough that was exactly what was said in about 1975. In the
meantime the "technology" (there really isn't that much involved) has
progressed minimally

If you review the patents granted since then I think you'll find there
are many new technologies. There have also been some significant trials
since then.

The effectiveness at gathering energy is not going to increase
significantly, systems in 1975 were about 70-90% effective, the
figures are not much changed at the present and getting much above
that figure in the future is unlikely. Different manufacturing
techniques and materials may lower the production cost after a time
but not in the short term if R&D costs are to be recovered. Moreover
most companies in a non-price sensitive market will use lower
production costs to boost profits - not to lower prices.

And its fair to say that DHW is not the hottest
area of solar research, since there are bigger fish to catch elsewhere.

For new builds especially - at least if the problem of shedding
excess heat in the summer can be solved :-). What you do with
existing housing stock is a different problem.

The market has existed in many countries for centuries, you simply
can't develop what isn't there to develop.

There is more than enough insolation on lots of house roofs to heat DHW
with a 50% efficient system. You keep saying there isn't enough over 2
sqm, but I'm not sure that tells us a great deal, except that the
commercial systems you refer to are basically expensive novelty
products.

The 2sq/m is representative of typical retrofit installations. With
present systems there are minimal economies of scale - if you go for
10sqm you have hot(ish) water most of the year but the installation
cost rises proportionately and you just lose more money.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Peter Parry wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 00:02:31 -0800, wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:

Of course you can reduce water consumption dramatically. There is no
requirement to wash at all,

There you go off on something neither sensible nor relevant.

It is both.
- snip -

I dont think we're about to come to that, or anywhere near, so I dont
think it is myself. Sure there are challenges and increased energy
costs ahead, but not so much increased that we'll consider no longer
bathing. So lets leave that one alone.


Whilst I agree there is scope for considerable improvement in new
house constriction there is no sign of it being planned, never mind
realised and even if it happens it will have negligible overall
effect for many decades.

fwiw here, retrofitting energy saving measures seems to be a real gain
area. High efficiency boilers, programmable thermostats, TRVs,
draftproofing, double glazing is debated, cavity insulation is big
business, loft insulation, etc

In the meantime people are using more energy. In the 70's there were
still quite a few taking only a weekly bath and showers were both
relatively unusual and very anaemic. Hot water use per person was
about 30% less than it is today. It is possible to reduce water
consumption - there is no indication that people would accept it
happily

since it can be done without any loss of function, I think they will.
As more people go over to metered supplies, the interest in water
saving measures is gradually increasing.


At the same time there is a huge growth in appliances using
electricity. Society is showing no significant sign of becoming less
energy hungry and any savings due to efficiency will be neutralised
by expanding energy use.

yes, more or less for now. But the current drive for energy efficiency
will become much hotter as the decades roll by and those bills climb
ever higher. There is plenty of scope for improvement yet. When
electric bills double, more people will switch to CFLs, more will
replace their 500w halogen garden lights with 20w CFLs, 18w sodiums, or
100w filaments. Etc, there is much yet undone.


The only way to make a severe impact on energy use is to put fuel
prices up three or fourfold and any government that was in power when
that happened wouldn't be shortly thereafter.

Price increase will be taken care of by capitalism, nothing to do with
government. As long as future energy consumption is kept down to what
is available, we'll manage. And that will occur due to capitalism.


A great deal could be done (at a cost) to new buildings but much of
what could be done requires room - which runs directly against the
present policy of trying to cram as much as possible into as small a
space as possible.

I'm not sure what youve got in mind. There are also things that dont.

But paying for a house is such a stretch here, due to our barmy
planning laws, that noone wants to invest another x,000 in energy
saving features when buying. Later, when the mortgage is lower and the
person wealthier, many do.


just spend the money you were going to waste on solar
panels on more effective ways of conserving and gaining energy.

I agree with that. But the interest is almost exclusively with DHW for
some reason, and has been for decades.

Probably because it is the only practical system which can be
retrofitted and can be demonstrated to "work" in that it produces hot
water in the summer.

solar space heating is a far better investment.


It has a market, and in time I
think it will pay, once the sleeping industry is roused by a competent
competitive team. And I think it will be at some point. Rising energy
costs will help as well.

That's what was said 30 years ago :-).

and its still true. Perhaps some thought it would happen within those
30 years.


Competition only works if
there is some.

Capitalism will work when there is the _opportunity_ for competition.
Today there is opportunity. It will be discovered and commercialised,
when I dont know. Its not a very hot market. But there's money in it
for the right approach, and some are working on it.


Solar water heating is a niche market with prices all
at the same sort of level and everyone involved making a comfortable
living out of it. That isn't a market where significant price
competition develops.

This cant be true. There are plenty of people who would like to make a
comfortable living. If SDHW does, they will enter, and companies will
compete. I havent seen company accounts, so I cant know, but I honestly
doubt those companies are making a comfortable living. Its the same old
pattern of many people chasing a dream, one they can never catch,
because there just arent the customers there for it. Not at their high
prices, which come with the territory of their poor designs.


30 years ago there actually was some limited
price competition and one or two national companies with aspirations
to become very large invested a lot in marketing themselves. They
fell by the wayside. There simply isn't a commercial incentive to
try to do better.

So if I can produce a solar system for half the price that gives warm
water in winter, and hot in summer, greater payback at lower cost, you
think theres no commercial incentive?


Funnily enough that was exactly what was said in about 1975. In the
meantime the "technology" (there really isn't that much involved) has
progressed minimally

If you review the patents granted since then I think you'll find there
are many new technologies. There have also been some significant trials
since then.

The effectiveness at gathering energy is not going to increase
significantly, systems in 1975 were about 70-90% effective, the
figures are not much changed at the present and getting much above
that figure in the future is unlikely. Different manufacturing
techniques and materials may lower the production cost after a time
but not in the short term if R&D costs are to be recovered.

This is the classic confusion imho. Firstly energy efficeincy is the
always quoted figure of merit for solar DHW, and it is the WRONG
figure. Entirely. It doesnt matter one hoot whether your system covers
the entire roof at 20% efficient, or 20% of the area at 100%. No
difference whatever.

The one and only figure of merit with solar DHW is ROI. There is lots
of room for systems that cost less and pay back more.

I'm also curious as to how you would achieve 90% energy efficiency in a
practical DHW system, or more to the point, why you'd want to. That
implies high cost collectors, and using the energy gathered more or
less all the time the sun shines. That implies a steady increase in
stored water temp through the afternoon, maxing out at final use temp.
Since a lot of water use occurs in in the morning, this implies 2 water
stores with overnight heat storage. It sounds like a horrid way to
design things. And a simple demo of why the energy efficiency figure is
not the relevant figure of merit. Regrettably too many solar designers
simply continue designing financially hopelessly inefficient systems,
concentrating on energy efficiency instead of financial efficiency.


Moreover
most companies in a non-price sensitive market will use lower
production costs to boost profits - not to lower prices.

Solar DHW is price sensitive. It is a market with few customers because
of price. If system cost dropped substantially, the market would wake
up, it would grow to maybe 100x the size.


And its fair to say that DHW is not the hottest
area of solar research, since there are bigger fish to catch elsewhere.

For new builds especially - at least if the problem of shedding
excess heat in the summer can be solved :-)

thats all known science.

What you do with
existing housing stock is a different problem.

The market has existed in many countries for centuries, you simply
can't develop what isn't there to develop.

There is more than enough insolation on lots of house roofs to heat DHW
with a 50% efficient system. You keep saying there isn't enough over 2
sqm, but I'm not sure that tells us a great deal, except that the
commercial systems you refer to are basically expensive novelty
products.

The 2sq/m is representative of typical retrofit installations. With
present systems there are minimal economies of scale - if you go for
10sqm you have hot(ish) water most of the year but the installation
cost rises proportionately and you just lose more money.

I addressed this in another post earlier today. Your statement there
contains erroneous assumptions.


NT

Peter Parry wrote:

8----
The 2sq/m is representative of typical retrofit installations. With
present systems there are minimal economies of scale - if you go for
10sqm you have hot(ish) water most of the year but the installation
cost rises proportionately and you just lose more money.


Just a thought.
When planning a solar system do consider the surroundings. In 10 years they
can change significantly. That small shrub next door suddenly becomes a
tree shading your collector in summer.

I the last couple of years our greenhouse has come under the shade of a
neighbour's oak and the tomato crop has reduced significantly.

Edgar

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:13:51 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

.........and don't forget the 12 people
per house caused by the world overpopulation
predictions of the same era

For about 1/6 of the world's population that's not too far away from
the truth.


--

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:01:18 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

What vested interests to Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have?

Promoting their own narrow agenda. Greenpeace in particular have a
long history of dishonesty and trying to suppress and sabotage work
and studies which may reach conclusions that don't suit them.

Greenpeace really have that amount of power? Fascinating.

Or has
impartial been redefined as not allowing preconceptions to be
affected by facts?

I suspect an excellent description of Mr Liar's energy "review". It
certainly doesn't fit the SDC.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:34:01 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

Hardly, look at the makeup of your "Sustainable Development
Commission". Led by Baron Porritt, Eton educated lawyer and son of
the ex Governor General of New Zealand. Green Party founder and well
known campaigner against almost anything. Closest he has been to
"social housing" is studying a photograph of one.

Kevin Cahill, in his book Who Owns Britain, accuses Friends of the Earth as
fronts for large landowners. He picks out Porrit, who comes out with overt
lies.

We don't need high levels of social housing. The private sector can cope if
the population is allowed to build on the 92.5% of the land that is not
settled, and much of it subsidised to do nothing. People are priced out of
housing because land accounts for 2/3 of the value; an artificial shortage
has been created.

"Except for the few surviving commons, the high roads, the lands of the
National Trust, a certain number of parks, and the sea shore below high-tide
mark, every square inch of England is `owned' by a few thousand families.
These people are just about as useful as so many tapeworms. It is desirable
that people should own their own dwelling houses, and it is probably
desirable that a farmer should own as much land as he can actually farm."
- George Orwell

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:13:00 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:01:18 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

What vested interests to Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have?

Promoting their own narrow agenda. Greenpeace in particular have a
long history of dishonesty and trying to suppress and sabotage work
and studies which may reach conclusions that don't suit them.

Greenpeace really have that amount of power?

I didn't say they had any power (despite their attempts at getting
it); merely that they are a thoroughly dishonest association with an
established record of deception and sabotaging scientific studies
whose results they don't want published.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:13:00 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:01:18 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

What vested interests to Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have?

Promoting their own narrow agenda. Greenpeace in particular have a
long history of dishonesty and trying to suppress and sabotage work
and studies which may reach conclusions that don't suit them.

Greenpeace really have that amount of power?

I didn't say they had any power (despite their attempts at getting
it); merely that they are a thoroughly dishonest association with an
established record of deception and sabotaging scientific studies
whose results they don't want published.

Greenpeace set the environment agenda. Without them your lungs would be
even worse than what they are now.

The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

Kevin Cahill, in his book Who Owns Britain, accuses Friends of the Earth as
fronts for large landowners. He picks out Porrit, who comes out with overt
lies.

There's a thought. Dribble and Porrit cast from the same mould.

ISTR that Dribble (or Adam as he then was) actually complained to my ISP
about personal abuse when I publicly criticised a fawning review of that
book written by a certain John Burns-Curtis. Didn't get him anywhere of
course.

We don't need high levels of social housing. The private sector can cope if
the population is allowed to build on the 92.5% of the land that is not
settled, and much of it subsidised to do nothing. People are priced out of
housing because land accounts for 2/3 of the value; an artificial shortage
has been created.

Dribble has been coming out with this rubbish for a long time without
changing the ratio. I doubt whether it is true even now for the average
new build but if it were true when he first expounded it the ratio by
now should be at least 7/8ths. How much does the average 3 bed detached
matchbox cost to build excluding the cost of the land? If it is on an
estate the cost of new roads and services could easily eat up a third of
the cost so would the house itself cost absolutely nothing to design and
build?

"Except for the few surviving commons, the high roads, the lands of the
National Trust, a certain number of parks, and the sea shore below high-tide
mark, every square inch of England is `owned' by a few thousand families.
These people are just about as useful as so many tapeworms. It is desirable
that people should own their own dwelling houses, and it is probably
desirable that a farmer should own as much land as he can actually farm."
- George Orwell

I wouldn't put it past Dribble to make up quotes to suit his purpose but
accepting for the moment that it is a real quote it wasn't true even
when first made (presumably some time in the 30s). (So our current PM is
by no means the first B.Liar).

The middle classes and farmers families have always had a significant
proportion of owner-occupiers and these days owner occupation is
probably somewhere around that 2/3rd figure that he is so fixated on.

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger" wrote lots of Rogerness in message
k...
The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

Kevin Cahill, in his book Who Owns Britain,
accuses Friends of the Earth as
fronts for large landowners. He picks out
Porrit, who comes out with overt lies.

actually complained to my ISP
about personal abuse

Roger, your Rogerness is getting the better of you. If you are implying I
complained to an ISP, well I have never ever complained to any ISP about
anyone. Pointing out your Rogerness is enough for people to see your
idiocy.

We don't need high levels of social housing. The private sector can cope
if
the population is allowed to build on the 92.5% of the land that is not
settled, and much of it subsidised to do nothing. People are priced out
of
housing because land accounts for 2/3 of the value; an artificial
shortage
has been created.

I doubt whether it is true even now for the average
new build but if it were true when he first
expounded it the ratio by now should be at
least 7/8ths.

** snip silly Rogerness **

"Except for the few surviving commons, the high roads, the lands of the
National Trust, a certain number of parks, and the sea shore below
high-tide
mark, every square inch of England is `owned' by a few thousand
families.
These people are just about as useful as so many tapeworms. It is
desirable
that people should own their own dwelling houses, and it is probably
desirable that a farmer should own as much land as he can actually
farm."
- George Orwell

I wouldn't put it past

** snip babbling, stupidity, silliness and most of all overt Rogerness ***

Sad but true.

The Navitron panels are cheap for these reasons:

1. We are trying to promote renewable energy first and foremost. We
make a profit on our sales, but we do not profiteer like most of the
companies in the industry
2. We buy in bulk quantities - this keeps the costs of transportation
to a minimal level
3. We buy direct from the largest manufacturers in the world, cutting
out the european middlemen.

The quality is the same as the much more expensive 'German' and 'Swiss'
brands (in fact many are made in the exact same factory!). If you are
unsure, please feel free to visit and see for yourself. We have
demonstration units available.

Shipping solar panels is costly due to the fragility of shipping glass
items (and the heavy-handedness of couriers!). However, if you collect
from Monmouth, there is no shipping charge, making the panel even more
affordable.

For more information, including technical and downloadable info, please
see our website www.navitron.org.uk which has full details.

Ivan
Navitron Ltd.

"ivan" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Navitron panels are cheap for these reasons:

1. We are trying to promote renewable energy first and foremost. We
make a profit on our sales, but we do not profiteer like most of the
companies in the industry
2. We buy in bulk quantities - this keeps the costs of transportation
to a minimal level
3. We buy direct from the largest manufacturers in the world, cutting
out the european middlemen.

The quality is the same as the much more expensive 'German' and 'Swiss'
brands (in fact many are made in the exact same factory!). If you are
unsure, please feel free to visit and see for yourself. We have
demonstration units available.

Shipping solar panels is costly due to the fragility of shipping glass
items (and the heavy-handedness of couriers!). However, if you collect
from Monmouth, there is no shipping charge, making the panel even more
affordable.

For more information, including technical and downloadable info, please
see our website www.navitron.org.uk which has full details.

Ivan
Navitron Ltd.

Nice helpful info from a supplier. Thanks.

"David" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

"ivan" wrote in message
groups.com...
The Navitron panels are cheap for these reasons:

1. We are trying to promote renewable energy first and foremost. We
make a profit on our sales, but we do not profiteer like most of the
companies in the industry
2. We buy in bulk quantities - this keeps the costs of transportation
to a minimal level
3. We buy direct from the largest manufacturers in the world, cutting
out the european middlemen.

The quality is the same as the much more expensive 'German' and 'Swiss'
brands (in fact many are made in the exact same factory!). If you are
unsure, please feel free to visit and see for yourself. We have
demonstration units available.

Shipping solar panels is costly due to the fragility of shipping glass
items (and the heavy-handedness of couriers!). However, if you collect
from Monmouth, there is no shipping charge, making the panel even more
affordable.

For more information, including technical and downloadable info, please
see our website www.navitron.org.uk which has full details.

Ivan
Navitron Ltd.

Nice helpful info from a supplier. Thanks.

Yes John, make sure you keep a copy so that you can cut and paste it
into future postings as evidence of what a great company they are.

Bertie, that is a good idea. How long have you been into this idea thing?