Just come back from Tenerife and it looks like Solar Panels are being
encouraged with a 30% government grant over there.Fair dues,but are
they a prospect in our climate?
Has anyone got any unbiased opinions regarding installing Solar Panels
in UK ?

michaelangelo7 wrote:
Just come back from Tenerife and it looks like Solar Panels are being
encouraged with a 30% government grant over there.Fair dues,but are
they a prospect in our climate?
Has anyone got any unbiased opinions regarding installing Solar Panels
in UK ?

Are you talking solar pv or solar thermal? Solar pv is the most hyped
dead duck around today, while solar thermal _can_ be made to pay, but
normally doesnt due to inadequate design skill.


NT

wrote in message
ups.com...
michaelangelo7 wrote:
Just come back from Tenerife and it looks like Solar Panels are being
encouraged with a 30% government grant over there.Fair dues,but are
they a prospect in our climate?
Has anyone got any unbiased opinions regarding installing Solar Panels
in UK ?

Are you talking solar pv or solar thermal? Solar pv is the most hyped
dead duck around today, while solar thermal _can_ be made to pay, but
normally doesnt due to inadequate design skill.

Yep, well designed using a solar thermal store and simple control system to
prioritise solar gained water, and some DIY will make the whole thing cost
effective.

wrote:
michaelangelo7 wrote:
Just come back from Tenerife and it looks like Solar Panels are being
encouraged with a 30% government grant over there.Fair dues,but are
they a prospect in our climate?
Has anyone got any unbiased opinions regarding installing Solar Panels
in UK ?

Are you talking solar pv or solar thermal? Solar pv is the most hyped
dead duck around today, while solar thermal _can_ be made to pay, but
normally doesnt due to inadequate design skill.

Solar-PV can also be made to pay - but probably not in the UK, unless
getting mains electricity or gas would cost tens of thousands.

In sunnier places, possibly.

On 3 Mar 2006 15:31:26 -0800 someone who may be "michaelangelo7"
wrote this:-

Just come back from Tenerife and it looks like Solar Panels are being
encouraged with a 30% government grant over there.Fair dues,but are
they a prospect in our climate?

They are more than a prospect. Whether you are talking about hot
water or electricity generating panels they are already fitted to
some houses. One of the companies offering such things is
http://www.imaginationsolar.com

Grants in England and Wales are currently in what might be called a
state of flux. http://www.solartwin.com will explain the fears of
one installation company.

Has anyone got any unbiased opinions regarding installing Solar Panels
in UK ?

Unbiased? Unlikely, we are all biased in many ways.

Views? Use a search engine on this newsgroup and uk.environment and
you will get a whole range of views.


--
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

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
wrote:
michaelangelo7 wrote:
Just come back from Tenerife and it looks like Solar Panels are being
encouraged with a 30% government grant over there.Fair dues,but are
they a prospect in our climate?
Has anyone got any unbiased opinions regarding installing Solar Panels
in UK ?

Are you talking solar pv or solar thermal? Solar pv is the most hyped
dead duck around today, while solar thermal _can_ be made to pay, but
normally doesnt due to inadequate design skill.

Solar-PV can also be made to pay - but probably not in the UK, unless
getting mains electricity or gas would cost tens of thousands.

In sunnier places, possibly

Could someone explain what solar PV means and what solar .thermal means.
For what its worth I saw a solar panel mounted on the roof of a University
in Edinburgh heating a water tank and it was demonstrated to me that even
on a cloudy day the water was warm to feel due to radiation.
Blair

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:22:50 -0000 Blair wrote :
Could someone explain what solar PV means and what solar .thermal means.

PV is photo-voltaic: the panel generates electricity. Solar thermal is a
panel that produces heat.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:19:30 +0000 David Hansen wrote :
Grants in England and Wales are currently in what might be called a
state of flux. http://www.solartwin.com will explain the fears of
one installation company.

If you read it all it's special pleading par excellence. Their
average system costs £3,000 but 90% of people buy because they are
getting a £400 grant, reducing the cost to £2600. Given recent
increases in energy prices if it was worth doing for £2600 last year
it's more than worth £3000 now but ...

From their website "We estimate that for mains gas (not more
expensive bottled gas) you are unlikely to exceed £60 on fuel savings
and perhaps save another £10 or so per annum on boiler life
extension. For electricity (peak rate) the savings can be well over
£100 P.A"

It may give you a good feeling but the economics don't stand up.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:19:30 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On 3 Mar 2006 15:31:26 -0800 someone who may be "michaelangelo7"
wrote this:-

Just come back from Tenerife and it looks like Solar Panels are being
encouraged with a 30% government grant over there.Fair dues,but are
they a prospect in our climate?

They are more than a prospect. Whether you are talking about hot
water or electricity generating panels they are already fitted to
some houses. One of the companies offering such things is
http://www.imaginationsolar.com

Grants in England and Wales are currently in what might be called a
state of flux. http://www.solartwin.com will explain the fears of
one installation company.

Has anyone got any unbiased opinions regarding installing Solar Panels
in UK ?

Unbiased? Unlikely, we are all biased in many ways.

Views? Use a search engine on this newsgroup and uk.environment and
you will get a whole range of views.

I live in central Scotland and I'm beginning to see a lot of solar
panels on domestic roofs. Living here, I see months of grey skies or
long periods of brilliant blue winter skies, perhaps depending on how
I'm feeling. Can all these local fitters of solar panels be mistaken
or misinformed. Trouble is, there are no views that are more
entrenched than those of vested interest or pseudo-expertise. Only
wish I could get invited into the comforting embrace of either group.
:-)
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the EGG to email me.

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:43:10 GMT someone who may be Tony Bryer
wrote this:-

It may give you a good feeling but the economics don't stand up.

Are you trying to personalise the discussion for some reason? Does
it matter whether I get a good feeling or not?

In terms of simple payback solar water heating is certainly not the
best way to invest money. The payback period is at best long.
However, simple payback is not the only way of looking at things and
even if just considering money there are rather more sophisticated
ways of evaluating things. In addition to money there are other ways
of looking at an investment, such as reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions. Some people wish to do their bit, not just personally but
to encourage the industry. That is also why some people will do
things like use sustainable electricity or recycle things.

There are also other factors to consider. A well designed system
will mean that a boiler does not need to be run for 4-6 months a
year just to provide domestic hot water. This has advantages,
including prolonging the life of the boiler.


--
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 Sat, 04 Mar 2006 18:05:58 +0000 David Hansen wrote :
Are you trying to personalise the discussion for some reason? Does
it matter whether I get a good feeling or not?

The 'you' was generic not personal.

However, simple payback is not the only way of looking at things and
even if just considering money there are rather more sophisticated
ways of evaluating things. In addition to money there are other ways
of looking at an investment, such as reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions.

Well yes. So the government should spend its money (our money)in ways
that maximise the CO2 reduction per £ spent. Given that for the most
part we are talking gas (either burned directly or in power stations)
cost saved is a pretty good proxy for CO2 reduction.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

michaelangelo7 wrote in message
oups.com...
Just come back from Tenerife and it looks like Solar Panels are being
encouraged with a 30% government grant over there.Fair dues,but are
they a prospect in our climate?
Has anyone got any unbiased opinions regarding installing Solar Panels
in UK ?



my biased opinion is that at this moment in time the commercial made/fitted
versions are still not economically viable in England.
However I have a Heath Robinson diy job on my roof
Today clear sky and some sunshine; outside temp was 5c, water from the mains
was 7c, water from the solar panels 18c
Not a huge gain but still worth while, summer time temp can be anything
upto 60c +.
Ive also got eight 6ft panel's that heat the swimming pool in the summer, in
July 2004 the temp reached 40c and people were complaining it was too Hot
!




-

On 4 Mar 2006 19:09:13 -0800, wrote:

Mike Halmarack wrote:

I'm feeling. Can all these local fitters of solar panels be mistaken
or misinformed.

yes, obviously. We spend our lives in ignorance in most areas, it would
take numerous lifetimes to learn everything in the world. And many make
no attempt to learn any of it.

So, if this is the case, those agencies paying out grants to encourage
this alternative energy use are equally ignorant and deluded?
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the EGG to email me.

Thanks Mark, that's what I always thought.Recken I could build my own
panelst too.
Could you post a few pointers please on basic requirements,or tell me
where to get info.

On 4 Mar 2006 23:50:59 -0800 someone who may be "michaelangelo7"
wrote this:-

Could you post a few pointers please on basic requirements,or tell me
where to get info.

You could start by looking at the thread entitled, "Solar water
heating", that is running in this group at the moment. In there you
will find a recommendation to visit http://www.cat.org.uk which has
information sheets on this and you can buy their booklets.


--
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

Mike Halmarack wrote:
On 4 Mar 2006 19:09:13 -0800, wrote:
Mike Halmarack wrote:

I'm feeling. Can all these local fitters of solar panels be mistaken
or misinformed.

yes, obviously. We spend our lives in ignorance in most areas, it would
take numerous lifetimes to learn everything in the world. And many make
no attempt to learn any of it.

So, if this is the case, those agencies paying out grants to encourage
this alternative energy use are equally ignorant and deluded?

Are you going to tell us that political decisions cant be wrong? That
would be ignorant and deluded.

A look at the basic relevant concepts quickly shows that offering
grants for solar PV or HW is an unsuccessful practice in terms of
either money or energy saving.

It does however get votes and win popular approval, from the large
numbers of folk that dont know much about it.

For which of those reasons are the grants made? I couldnt tell you, but
since the cost/energy equation is fairly clear to anyone famiilar with
the skills to asess such, each of us can draw our own conclusions as to
where the politicians are at.


What I always find so puzzling is depsite the fairly obvious fact that
none of us are expert in any more than a few areas in life, and most in
none, people find it so hard to admit ignorance! Either in themselves,
those they put on pedestals, or even the general public.

For most subject areas, an expert can spend their whole life studying
the field and still not know it all. And there are masses and masses of
such subject areas. The result of this is not hard to work out.


NT

On 5 Mar 2006 07:48:31 -0800, wrote:

Mike Halmarack wrote:
On 4 Mar 2006 19:09:13 -0800, wrote:
Mike Halmarack wrote:

I'm feeling. Can all these local fitters of solar panels be mistaken
or misinformed.

yes, obviously. We spend our lives in ignorance in most areas, it would
take numerous lifetimes to learn everything in the world. And many make
no attempt to learn any of it.

So, if this is the case, those agencies paying out grants to encourage
this alternative energy use are equally ignorant and deluded?

Are you going to tell us that political decisions cant be wrong? That
would be ignorant and deluded.

Considering events over the last few years it seems clear to me that
political decisions can't be wrong, whether I believe so or not. In
fact I've never witnessed and rarely read of such a consistent level
of infallibility. Perfection like this can only have a divinely
inspired source. Flack jackets and tin hats all round eh?


A look at the basic relevant concepts quickly shows that offering
grants for solar PV or HW is an unsuccessful practice in terms of
either money or energy saving.

It does however get votes and win popular approval, from the large
numbers of folk that dont know much about it.

For which of those reasons are the grants made? I couldnt tell you, but
since the cost/energy equation is fairly clear to anyone famiilar with
the skills to asess such, each of us can draw our own conclusions as to
where the politicians are at.


What I always find so puzzling is depsite the fairly obvious fact that
none of us are expert in any more than a few areas in life, and most in
none, people find it so hard to admit ignorance! Either in themselves,
those they put on pedestals, or even the general public.

For most subject areas, an expert can spend their whole life studying
the field and still not know it all. And there are masses and masses of
such subject areas. The result of this is not hard to work out.

That depends on whether you believe in reincarnation, with the
ability to carry over the balance.

--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the EGG to email me.

On 5 Mar 2006 07:48:31 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

A look at the basic relevant concepts quickly shows that offering
grants for solar PV or HW is an unsuccessful practice in terms of
either money or energy saving.

In terms of money saving, hot water will be a relatively long term
investment and electricity a very long term investment. Both at
current prices.

In terms of energy saving, it will be a much better investment
especially hot water. Of course some claim that the energy used in
construction and installation is never recovered. Much the same
claims are made about wind farms, but these claims are false too.

The same is also true of carbon dioxide savings.


--
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:
On 5 Mar 2006 07:48:31 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

A look at the basic relevant concepts quickly shows that offering
grants for solar PV or HW is an unsuccessful practice in terms of
either money or energy saving.

In terms of money saving, hot water will be a relatively long term
investment and electricity a very long term investment. Both at
current prices.

In terms of energy saving, it will be a much better investment
especially hot water. Of course some claim that the energy used in
construction and installation is never recovered. Much the same
claims are made about wind farms, but these claims are false too.

The same is also true of carbon dioxide savings.


The same stuff seems to get rehashed every time this comes up. I cba to
rewrite it.


NT

On 5 Mar 2006 13:43:35 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

In terms of energy saving, it will be a much better investment
especially hot water. Of course some claim that the energy used in
construction and installation is never recovered. Much the same
claims are made about wind farms, but these claims are false too.

The same is also true of carbon dioxide savings.

The same stuff seems to get rehashed every time this comes up. I cba to
rewrite it.

The same false claims do indeed tend to come up with some
regularity, whether about wind farms or solar hot water heating.


--
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, 06 Mar 2006 09:16:23 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On 5 Mar 2006 13:43:35 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

In terms of energy saving, it will be a much better investment
especially hot water. Of course some claim that the energy used in
construction and installation is never recovered. Much the same
claims are made about wind farms, but these claims are false too.

The same is also true of carbon dioxide savings.

The same stuff seems to get rehashed every time this comes up. I cba to
rewrite it.

The same false claims do indeed tend to come up with some
regularity, whether about wind farms or solar hot water heating.

I never cease to be amazed by human behavior. I know I'm repeating
myself here but I remember 40 odd years ago, a prospective nuclear
industry worker being interviewed on the radio. He was asked
"Aren't you concerned that your children's health might be seriously
damaged by nuclear contamination and their children for generations to
come"
The answer was "It's a job."

--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the EGG to email me.

"Mike Halmarack" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 09:16:23 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On 5 Mar 2006 13:43:35 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

In terms of energy saving, it will be a much better investment
especially hot water. Of course some claim that the energy used in
construction and installation is never recovered. Much the same
claims are made about wind farms, but these claims are false too.

The same is also true of carbon dioxide savings.

The same stuff seems to get rehashed every time this comes up. I cba to
rewrite it.

The same false claims do indeed tend to come up with some
regularity, whether about wind farms or solar hot water heating.

I never cease to be amazed by human behavior. I know I'm repeating
myself here but I remember 40 odd years ago, a prospective nuclear
industry worker being interviewed on the radio. He was asked
"Aren't you concerned that your children's health might be seriously
damaged by nuclear contamination and their children for generations to
come"
The answer was "It's a job."

Yep. When it comes to the weekly pay packet, people will lie, betray their
principles and tell themselves lies. Look at the local villages who make
their living serving the local squire. They defend the squire and all the
system that surrounds him to the hilt. The fact is they would be better off
with out him. But they can't see further than the next pay packet.

On 2006-03-06, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Yep. When it comes to the weekly pay packet, people will lie, betray their
principles and tell themselves lies. Look at the local villages who make
their living serving the local squire. They defend the squire and all the
system that surrounds him to the hilt. The fact is they would be better off
with out him. But they can't see further than the next pay packet.

that's a fairly normal cognitive dissonance behaviour, you won't
manage to budge it (think: religion).
My favourite are the people who are fanatical conservationists
until they have kids. Then it's straight into the 4x4 for school
runs.

Pete



--
.................................................. .........................
.. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
.. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
.. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................

"Peter Lynch" wrote in message
...
On 2006-03-06, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Yep. When it comes to the weekly pay packet, people will lie, betray
their
principles and tell themselves lies. Look at the local villages who make
their living serving the local squire. They defend the squire and all
the
system that surrounds him to the hilt. The fact is they would be better
off
without him. But they can't see further than the next pay packet.

that's a fairly normal cognitive
dissonance behaviour, you won't
manage to budge it (think: religion).
My favourite are the people who are
fanatical conservationists
until they have kids. Then it's straight
into the 4x4 for school runs.

Usually the MPV, which does make environmental sense when carrying kids and
lots of people.

I have a neighbour with a very expensive 4x4. he justifies it saying it is
environmentally friendly as it only does 2,000 miles a year. I told him to
get a cardboard cut-out and put that next to his house.

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 22:46:50 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Peter Lynch" wrote in message
...
On 2006-03-06, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Yep. When it comes to the weekly pay packet, people will lie, betray
their
principles and tell themselves lies. Look at the local villages who make
their living serving the local squire. They defend the squire and all
the
system that surrounds him to the hilt. The fact is they would be better
off
without him. But they can't see further than the next pay packet.

that's a fairly normal cognitive
dissonance behaviour, you won't
manage to budge it (think: religion).
My favourite are the people who are
fanatical conservationists
until they have kids. Then it's straight
into the 4x4 for school runs.

Usually the MPV, which does make environmental sense when carrying kids and
lots of people.

I have a neighbour with a very expensive 4x4. he justifies it saying it is
environmentally friendly as it only does 2,000 miles a year. I told him to
get a cardboard cut-out and put that next to his house.



Why does he need to justify it? If he can a) afford to run it, b) it
does the job he wants to do and c) he likes it, then that's it.

The rest is fluff.



--

..andy

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 22:46:50 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Peter Lynch" wrote in message
...
On 2006-03-06, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Yep. When it comes to the weekly pay packet, people will lie, betray
their
principles and tell themselves lies. Look at the local villages who make
their living serving the local squire. They defend the squire and all
the
system that surrounds him to the hilt. The fact is they would be better
off
without him. But they can't see further than the next pay packet.

that's a fairly normal cognitive
dissonance behaviour, you won't
manage to budge it (think: religion).
My favourite are the people who are
fanatical conservationists
until they have kids. Then it's straight
into the 4x4 for school runs.

Usually the MPV, which does make environmental sense when carrying kids and
lots of people.

I have a neighbour with a very expensive 4x4. he justifies it saying it is
environmentally friendly as it only does 2,000 miles a year. I told him to
get a cardboard cut-out and put that next to his house.



Why does he need to justify it? If he can a) afford to run it, b) it
does the job he wants to do and c) he likes it, then that's it.

I think that an increasing number of people are coming to the conclusion
that the above arguments are becoming unacceptable


--
geoff

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 23:58:48 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 22:46:50 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


Usually the MPV, which does make environmental sense when carrying kids and
lots of people.

I have a neighbour with a very expensive 4x4. he justifies it saying it is
environmentally friendly as it only does 2,000 miles a year. I told him to
get a cardboard cut-out and put that next to his house.



Why does he need to justify it? If he can a) afford to run it, b) it
does the job he wants to do and c) he likes it, then that's it.

I think that an increasing number of people are coming to the conclusion
that the above arguments are becoming unacceptable

That's fine, but is something that can probably only be addressed by
various forms of taxation to adjust the affordability.

If it really is a problem, then moral pressure from neighbours (or
anybody else) is not going to be all that effective to make changes.

--

..andy

Andy Hall wrote in message

I have a neighbour with a very expensive 4x4. he justifies it saying it
is
environmentally friendly as it only does 2,000 miles a year. I told him
to
get a cardboard cut-out and put that next to his house.



Why does he need to justify it? If he can a) afford to run it, b) it
does the job he wants to do and c) he likes it, then that's it.

The rest is fluff.


Oh so none of this matters to you or the trendy town people with 4x4
vehicles.
http://www.itv.com/news/climate_355371.html



-

In message , Mark
writes

Andy Hall wrote in message

I have a neighbour with a very expensive 4x4. he justifies it saying it
is
environmentally friendly as it only does 2,000 miles a year. I told him
to
get a cardboard cut-out and put that next to his house.



Why does he need to justify it? If he can a) afford to run it, b) it
does the job he wants to do and c) he likes it, then that's it.

The rest is fluff.


Oh so none of this matters to you or the trendy town people with 4x4
vehicles.
http://www.itv.com/news/climate_355371.html

Except

"His journey will be carbon neutral as ITV News will buy carbon credits
to offset his and his team's carbon-dioxide emissions generated by his
air travel around the globe. These credits will be used to invest in
low-carbon technologies and plant trees."

is a load of ********


--
geoff

raden wrote in message
...
In message , Mark
writes

Andy Hall wrote in message

I have a neighbour with a very expensive 4x4. he justifies it saying
it
is
environmentally friendly as it only does 2,000 miles a year. I told
him
to
get a cardboard cut-out and put that next to his house.



Why does he need to justify it? If he can a) afford to run it, b) it
does the job he wants to do and c) he likes it, then that's it.

The rest is fluff.


Oh so none of this matters to you or the trendy town people with 4x4
vehicles.
http://www.itv.com/news/climate_355371.html

Except

"His journey will be carbon neutral as ITV News will buy carbon credits
to offset his and his team's carbon-dioxide emissions generated by his
air travel around the globe. These credits will be used to invest in
low-carbon technologies and plant trees."

is a load of ********


True, but how would you convince the 4x4 type people the error of thier
ways.
it seems to me that far to many people think Climate Change will not effect
them, and is not anyway related to their lifestyle.
Im no Eco warrior but I do believe if we are not prepared to change our
energy usage.

We're DOOMED !




-

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:42:30 GMT, "Mark" wrote:


Andy Hall wrote in message

I have a neighbour with a very expensive 4x4. he justifies it saying it
is
environmentally friendly as it only does 2,000 miles a year. I told him
to
get a cardboard cut-out and put that next to his house.



Why does he need to justify it? If he can a) afford to run it, b) it
does the job he wants to do and c) he likes it, then that's it.

The rest is fluff.


Oh so none of this matters to you or the trendy town people with 4x4
vehicles.
http://www.itv.com/news/climate_355371.html

I didn't say that.

The point is that no amount of media coverage and especially
neighbours telling people how to run their lives will make a
difference if they want to do something.

People should be honest. Drivel's neighbour has his 4x4 for the
reasons I listed above. The story that he fed Drivel was fluff of
the same type as Drivel suggesting a cardboard cut out.
Neither the story nor the suggested solution had any value whatsoever.

We are faced with dishonesty all the way around the climate change
debate with motivations ranging from political to economic to media
hype to scientific bandwagon. Note that I am being very careful here
to include as many of the interested parties that I can think of - I
am not taking sides in any direction because it distorts one of the
key aspects. That is that regardless of whether one believes that
there is a problem or not and the degree of that problem, the most
vociferous arguments in any direction come from people or groups with
an agenda or vested interest.

That alone discredits much of the whole issue in the minds of Joe
Public. It is the reason that Drivel's neighbour finds it necessary
to come up with a lame "justification" for his 4x4. The reality for
the neighbour is the three points I mentioned above and he feels
mildly guilty about it. Does it mean he will sell his 4x4 or get
something else next time? Almost certainly not.

There are two things that would alter the neighbour's behaviour. One
is to legislate specific types of vehicle off of the road. The other
is to apply selective taxation to make them unaffordable and reduce
the numbers.

The government is just as dishonest. A few million here and there
spread among various homeowner energy saving grants is a drop in the
bucket. The motivation isn't to make a big difference, it's to be
able to say qualitatively what has been done at the next world energy
conference and to give those who are in receipt of said grants a feel
good factor and hopefully buy their votes. Had it been genuine it
would have been on a much grander scale and the money wouldn't have
run out with a whisper as it has.

The right approach would be to focus first on those things which will
have the biggest improving effect on the environment once effort
expended and financial investment ae taken into account.

That won't begin to happen in any meaningful way until there is a
greater degree of honesty over the whole issue. It is not to say
that I think that this is a reason to do nothing. Far from it. In
some areas, there is undoubtedly a need for urgent action. However,
we should not kid ourselves or allow ourselves to be kidded into
thinking that all initiatives that are claimed to be in support of the
environment are immediately worth pursuing or have that as the primary
objective.



--

..andy

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:57:20 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Mark
writes

Andy Hall wrote in message

I have a neighbour with a very expensive 4x4. he justifies it saying it
is
environmentally friendly as it only does 2,000 miles a year. I told him
to
get a cardboard cut-out and put that next to his house.



Why does he need to justify it? If he can a) afford to run it, b) it
does the job he wants to do and c) he likes it, then that's it.

The rest is fluff.


Oh so none of this matters to you or the trendy town people with 4x4
vehicles.
http://www.itv.com/news/climate_355371.html

Except

"His journey will be carbon neutral as ITV News will buy carbon credits
to offset his and his team's carbon-dioxide emissions generated by his
air travel around the globe. These credits will be used to invest in
low-carbon technologies and plant trees."

is a load of ********


That's really my point. With that line they are trying to do one or
both of two things. a) pre-handle a possible objection to the
exercise that few would have spotted. b) provide a pseudo-story that
sounds vaguely good to the uninitiated.

Had they been honest, they could have talked around the mechanisms -
i.e. air travel causing CO2, trading in credits and technologies and
tree planting as totally separate subjects. That doesn't make a
story.

I won't bother to watch this because they have started from a
dishonest position which is very obvious and therefore puts anything
else they present in the questionnable category.


--

..andy

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:24:46 GMT, "Mark" wrote:


raden wrote in message

"His journey will be carbon neutral as ITV News will buy carbon credits
to offset his and his team's carbon-dioxide emissions generated by his
air travel around the globe. These credits will be used to invest in
low-carbon technologies and plant trees."

is a load of ********


True, but how would you convince the 4x4 type people the error of thier
ways.
it seems to me that far to many people think Climate Change will not effect
them, and is not anyway related to their lifestyle.
Im no Eco warrior but I do believe if we are not prepared to change our
energy usage.

We're DOOMED !


I think the point is that each and every one of us has some things
that we do that are environmentally good and some that are not. Some
can be measured, others are a matter of opinion as to how much
difference they really make.

It's very easy to single out specific issues such as the kind of car
that someone drives because it is very visible. Personally, I could
care less about them. Mine stays dirty through the winter. One of my
neighbours washes and polishes his twice weekly.


It's rather harder to know about other things that also make a
difference. Does he have cavity insulation? Condensing boiler? Loft
insulation? Thermostat setting? Heating on all day and all night?
etc. etc.

People are driven by cost, convenience and what they like.


--

..andy

Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:42:30 GMT, "Mark" wrote:


Andy Hall wrote in message

I have a neighbour with a very expensive 4x4. he justifies it saying it
is
environmentally friendly as it only does 2,000 miles a year. I told him
to
get a cardboard cut-out and put that next to his house.



Why does he need to justify it? If he can a) afford to run it, b) it
does the job he wants to do and c) he likes it, then that's it.

The rest is fluff.


Oh so none of this matters to you or the trendy town people with 4x4
vehicles.
http://www.itv.com/news/climate_355371.html

I didn't say that.

The point is that no amount of media coverage and especially
neighbours telling people how to run their lives will make a
difference if they want to do something.

People should be honest. Drivel's neighbour has his 4x4 for the
reasons I listed above. The story that he fed Drivel was fluff of
the same type as Drivel suggesting a cardboard cut out.
Neither the story nor the suggested solution had any value whatsoever.

We are faced with dishonesty all the way around the climate change
debate with motivations ranging from political to economic to media
hype to scientific bandwagon. Note that I am being very careful here
to include as many of the interested parties that I can think of - I
am not taking sides in any direction because it distorts one of the
key aspects. That is that regardless of whether one believes that
there is a problem or not and the degree of that problem, the most
vociferous arguments in any direction come from people or groups with
an agenda or vested interest.

That alone discredits much of the whole issue in the minds of Joe
Public. It is the reason that Drivel's neighbour finds it necessary
to come up with a lame "justification" for his 4x4. The reality for
the neighbour is the three points I mentioned above and he feels
mildly guilty about it. Does it mean he will sell his 4x4 or get
something else next time? Almost certainly not.

There are two things that would alter the neighbour's behaviour. One
is to legislate specific types of vehicle off of the road. The other
is to apply selective taxation to make them unaffordable and reduce
the numbers.

The government is just as dishonest. A few million here and there
spread among various homeowner energy saving grants is a drop in the
bucket. The motivation isn't to make a big difference, it's to be
able to say qualitatively what has been done at the next world energy
conference and to give those who are in receipt of said grants a feel
good factor and hopefully buy their votes. Had it been genuine it
would have been on a much grander scale and the money wouldn't have
run out with a whisper as it has.

The right approach would be to focus first on those things which will
have the biggest improving effect on the environment once effort
expended and financial investment ae taken into account.

That won't begin to happen in any meaningful way until there is a
greater degree of honesty over the whole issue. It is not to say
that I think that this is a reason to do nothing. Far from it. In
some areas, there is undoubtedly a need for urgent action. However,
we should not kid ourselves or allow ourselves to be kidded into
thinking that all initiatives that are claimed to be in support of the
environment are immediately worth pursuing or have that as the primary
objective.


Sure is nice to read some clarity on this.


NT

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:42:30 GMT, "Mark" wrote:


Andy Hall wrote in message

I have a neighbour with a very expensive 4x4. he justifies it saying it
is
environmentally friendly as it only does 2,000 miles a year. I told him
to
get a cardboard cut-out and put that next to his house.



Why does he need to justify it? If he can a) afford to run it, b) it
does the job he wants to do and c) he likes it, then that's it.

The rest is fluff.


Oh so none of this matters to you or the trendy town people with 4x4
vehicles.
http://www.itv.com/news/climate_355371.html

I didn't say that.

The point is that no amount of media coverage and especially
neighbours telling people how to run their lives will make a
difference if they want to do something.

People should be honest. Drivel's neighbour has his 4x4 for the
reasons I listed above. The story that he fed Drivel was fluff of
the same type as Drivel suggesting a cardboard cut out.

It would be cheaper to have a cardboard cutout than an expensive lump of
metal on the drive.

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

4x4s are commercial vehicles, not domestic, so why should
people put up with them clogging the streets any more than having the
streets clogged up with JCB diggers every morning and afternoon on the
school run (just got to take the kids to school in the bucket).

Though I can't stand the sodding things, most 4x4s are comparable in
road-footprint to Mondeo sized cars.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:19:30 +0000 David Hansen wrote :
Grants in England and Wales are currently in what might be called a
state of flux. http://www.solartwin.com will explain the fears of
one installation company.

If you read it all it's special pleading par excellence. Their
average system costs £3,000 but 90% of people buy because they are
getting a £400 grant, reducing the cost to £2600. Given recent
increases in energy prices if it was worth doing for £2600 last year
it's more than worth £3000 now but ...

I think the government grant has now finished. What's more, if you installed
it yourself the government wouldn't pay the grant.

We installed our own in February, it cost just over £2,000 including a lot
of plumbing, more than conventional systems would need.


It may give you a good feeling but the economics don't stand up.

It's nothing to do with feeling good and economics aren't the only
criterion.

What's more, the panel can move house with you for up to three moves, and
keep its guarantee.

Mary

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:43:10 GMT someone who may be Tony Bryer
wrote this:-

It may give you a good feeling but the economics don't stand up.

Are you trying to personalise the discussion for some reason? Does
it matter whether I get a good feeling or not?

In terms of simple payback solar water heating is certainly not the
best way to invest money. The payback period is at best long.
However, simple payback is not the only way of looking at things and
even if just considering money there are rather more sophisticated
ways of evaluating things. In addition to money there are other ways
of looking at an investment, such as reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions. Some people wish to do their bit, not just personally but
to encourage the industry. That is also why some people will do
things like use sustainable electricity or recycle things.

There are also other factors to consider. A well designed system
will mean that a boiler does not need to be run for 4-6 months a
year just to provide domestic hot water. This has advantages,
including prolonging the life of the boiler.

Well said.

Mary

"Blair" wrote in message
...


For what its worth I saw a solar panel mounted on the roof of a
University
in Edinburgh heating a water tank and it was demonstrated to me that even
on a cloudy day the water was warm to feel due to radiation.

Yes, ours is over 30C today and it's overcast and raining.

Mary

wrote in message
oups.com...

What I always find so puzzling is depsite the fairly obvious fact that
none of us are expert in any more than a few areas in life, and most in
none, people find it so hard to admit ignorance!

Indeed.