On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 09:16:30 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

steam of 500C plus at the start and 30C or less at the end nets you over
60%...

Siemens are claiming a net efficiency of 46% at the moment, rising
to 51% in the future, according to
http://www.energy-focus.com/pdfs/POWER/STEAM.pdf

I am pleased to see that they have now developed turbines that will
actually work for an extended period under these steam conditions.

Another factor is nuclear: IF we are considering CO2 emissions, then
since 25% of electricity is nuclear, the net effect of heating by
electricity on C02 is mitigated by 25%..

Only if nuclear power emits zero carbon dioxide. However, despite
the incorrect claims of the likes of Bernard Ingham, it does emit
carbon dioxide. While it emits relatively low amounts of carbon
dioxide compared to some forms of generation, it emits more than
some other forms of generation.



--
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, 05 Jul 2006 08:21:39 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Do tell us about this perfect heating system, installed in a perfect
house.

Its called a 'thermostat'

I'm sure the heating industry will beat a path to your door if you
have developed the perfect thermostat. The problems with the various
schemes of control are well known and, although things are
improving, perfection is still a long way away.

How a perfect thermostat in say the hall reacts to heat emitted in a
bedroom/office I'm not sure.

The thermostat is only one part of the heating system and no part of
the house in this respect.

And since the conversion efficiency of the power station and
transmission is pretty similar to the central heating boiler,

That will be why all houses are heated by electricity then.

No, because the electricity costs more..but that all about capital costs
of power stations and the costs of running it in terms of labour, not
teh costs of the actual fuel.

There are no capital and running costs of domestic boilers and their
fuel supplies?

Electric heating is always going to be cheaper in initial
and installation cost, if its running costs were low enough it would
be very popular.

Costs are not just energy costs.

That is why I was careful to point out the areas where electric
heating has cost advantages.


--
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, 5 Jul 2006 11:00:21 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

It takes 3 mini-globe bulbs, which are rather shorter than anything I
saw on lightbulbs direct.

At the moment there may be nothing available for it.

And that is a location where I'd otherwise accept a cfl. Great!

Sorry, I'm not a party politician and so don't bull**** people.

I do not intend to change my lounge lamps, though it might be possible.
I'd need to replace 18 * 40w bulbs.

There are usually 5 bulbs lit at any one time.

What sort of bulbs in what sort of fittings?

However, to me it sounds like a lot of bulbs in total and lit.


--
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 typed


At the moment there may be nothing available for it.

And that is a location where I'd otherwise accept a cfl. Great!

Sorry, I'm not a party politician and so don't bull**** people.

Well, what I mean is that the hall would be right for a cfl. Light
quality is not critical and lamps are on for quite a long time.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the above anyway.
This light fitting takes 3 small globes. Cfls are too long. I need good
illumination as my balance depends on it, due to my MS. Dropping the
light intensity makes me move even more slowly.

I do not intend to change my lounge lamps, though it might be possible.
I'd need to replace 18 * 40w bulbs.

There are usually 5 bulbs lit at any one time.

What sort of bulbs in what sort of fittings?

The lounge is two rooms knocked together. Each room has a central
ceiling fitting which takes 5 standard 40w bulbs, with bayonet caps.
These are switched from the lounge doorway.
Each room also has two wall-mounted fittings, each of which takes 2
standard 40w bulbs; these are switched at the wall and seldom used.

However, to me it sounds like a lot of bulbs in total and lit.

Maybe it does, but I cannot safely enter a poorly lit room and would
hate to sit and read by ghastly cfl light.

I don't have a TV and am careful to switch off lights when I leave a room.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 20:54:50 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 09:16:30 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

steam of 500C plus at the start and 30C or less at the end nets you over
60%...

Siemens are claiming a net efficiency of 46% at the moment, rising
to 51% in the future, according to
http://www.energy-focus.com/pdfs/POWER/STEAM.pdf

I am pleased to see that they have now developed turbines that will
actually work for an extended period under these steam conditions.

Another factor is nuclear: IF we are considering CO2 emissions, then
since 25% of electricity is nuclear, the net effect of heating by
electricity on C02 is mitigated by 25%..

Only if nuclear power emits zero carbon dioxide. However, despite
the incorrect claims of the likes of Bernard Ingham, it does emit
carbon dioxide. While it emits relatively low amounts of carbon
dioxide compared to some forms of generation, it emits more than
some other forms of generation.

Possible, but are these forms that allegedly emit less economically viable
and scalable to present and increasing future demand?

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 22:25:05 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

Well, what I mean is that the hall would be right for a cfl. Light
quality is not critical and lamps are on for quite a long time.

Then at the moment the only way to have compact fluorescent bulbs
there is to replace the fitting.


--
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 Wed, 5 Jul 2006 22:25:05 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

Well, what I mean is that the hall would be right for a cfl. Light
quality is not critical and lamps are on for quite a long time.

Then at the moment the only way to have compact fluorescent bulbs
there is to replace the fitting.

the other only way is to put the minimim power filament bulbs in, and
add another background cfl light to make up the light level.


NT

yped


David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 22:25:05 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

Well, what I mean is that the hall would be right for a cfl. Light
quality is not critical and lamps are on for quite a long time.

Then at the moment the only way to have compact fluorescent bulbs
there is to replace the fitting.

the other only way is to put the minimim power filament bulbs in, and
add another background cfl light to make up the light level.


NT

That would need an additional light fitting, with all attendant wiring
hassle.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 08:26:16 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

the other only way is to put the minimim power filament bulbs in, and
add another background cfl light to make up the light level.

That would need an additional light fitting, with all attendant wiring
hassle.

This is a do it yourself group:-)


--
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

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
yped
David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 22:25:05 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

Well, what I mean is that the hall would be right for a cfl. Light
quality is not critical and lamps are on for quite a long time.

Then at the moment the only way to have compact fluorescent bulbs
there is to replace the fitting.

the other only way is to put the minimim power filament bulbs in, and
add another background cfl light to make up the light level.


NT

That would need an additional light fitting, with all attendant wiring
hassle.

Of course. But there are other only ways there too. Plug in light, or
put a cover round a central cfl in a chandelier so it lights upwards
only, and let the arms take the filaments.

NT

On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 20:54:50 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:


Only if nuclear power emits zero carbon dioxide. However, despite
the incorrect claims of the likes of Bernard Ingham, it does emit
carbon dioxide. While it emits relatively low amounts of carbon
dioxide compared to some forms of generation, it emits more than
some other forms of generation.

How does Nucleur power generation emit CO2? Unless your just thinking
about the construction of the power station.

Mark

yped



That would need an additional light fitting, with all attendant wiring
hassle.

Of course. But there are other only ways there too. Plug in light, or
put a cover round a central cfl in a chandelier so it lights upwards
only, and let the arms take the filaments.

Still means changing or getting additional light fittings.

I certainly don't want anything else plugged in my hallway.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

David Hansen typed


On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 08:26:16 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

the other only way is to put the minimim power filament bulbs in, and
add another background cfl light to make up the light level.

That would need an additional light fitting, with all attendant wiring
hassle.

This is a do it yourself group:-)


Yebbut who says I want to *do* anything?

The point is that my lights are satisfactory, if wasteful of electricity.

I won't do anything unless I get a marked improvement of some sort. I'd
better slink back to the Shedde...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

So much of what we do we do because its cheap and simple, and very
inefficient. If energy prices rise, it all becomes economic.

The trouble with that view is that the goods we purchase come primarily
down to energy cost and human time cost. IOW as energy prices rise, so
do the costs of the energy saving equipment. Regrettably this wont make
every measure affordable. What it will do is make currently affordable
technologies pay back much more, thus start to be used when now we dont
bother.


That is only so if the energy saving equipment uses more energy (or far
more labour) to make.


If the former is true, its not energy saving is it?

If the latter is true, then it needs better design.

We stopped using canals, because although very energy efficient, they
were very SLOW. We stopped using steam trains because although they wer
very energy inefficient, they were more relevantly HUGELY labour
intensive to maintain vis a vis diesels. We fly jet aircraft rather than
pistons engines for the same reasons.

In each case pure economics - labour versus energy costs - rules. Up the
energy costs and that shifts the balances.

Those who peruse the FT will have noticed the extreme rise in activity
in agricultural futures on energy raw materials - cereals for ethanol -
rape for biodiesel. These are now break even or profitable ways to
generate fuel. With oil at $75 a barrel.



What will imho, as it already has done over time, make more and more be
done is the ever falling real cost of goods, due to more manufacturing
efficiency, sleeker business models, and increasing wealth.


That is why letting or forcing high fossil fuel price rises will in the
end make us energy efficient: The market itself and the individual
consumers own judgment will drive the usage down.

If annual heating bills were - say - £5000 instead of £500, and the cost
of fuel in terms of the prices of manufactured items that are energy
intensive were to ripple through, the pattern of energy usage and
generation would in time reflect that: No need to be 'ecologically
minded' - straight cost benefit analysis would dictate that it would be
worth installing a £20,000 integrated energy management system, in a
house, if it saved £3000 a year....in fuel bills.

Perhaps its nothing but an economic decision anyway. With wind and
nuclear sources, the carbon emissoins question isnt that relevant, our
energy use level simply comes down to economics. (politics too of
course)

Its economics biassed by politics as well.

Despite the fact that both rely on fossil fuel, a fully battery electric
car is infinitely cheaper to RUN (as opposed to make) because
electricity is not subject to swingeing road fuel taxes.

Running your vehicle off domestic heating oil at 35p a litre illegally
is an option not a few people have adopted..


NT

David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 09:16:30 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

steam of 500C plus at the start and 30C or less at the end nets you over
60%...

Siemens are claiming a net efficiency of 46% at the moment, rising
to 51% in the future, according to
http://www.energy-focus.com/pdfs/POWER/STEAM.pdf

I am pleased to see that they have now developed turbines that will
actually work for an extended period under these steam conditions.

Another factor is nuclear: IF we are considering CO2 emissions, then
since 25% of electricity is nuclear, the net effect of heating by
electricity on C02 is mitigated by 25%..

Only if nuclear power emits zero carbon dioxide. However, despite
the incorrect claims of the likes of Bernard Ingham, it does emit
carbon dioxide. While it emits relatively low amounts of carbon
dioxide compared to some forms of generation, it emits more than
some other forms of generation.

I don't see how or why it does that.

Please expand..

David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 08:21:39 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Do tell us about this perfect heating system, installed in a perfect
house.
Its called a 'thermostat'

I'm sure the heating industry will beat a path to your door if you
have developed the perfect thermostat. The problems with the various
schemes of control are well known and, although things are
improving, perfection is still a long way away.

How a perfect thermostat in say the hall reacts to heat emitted in a
bedroom/office I'm not sure.


Try a TRV on the radiator in the office/bedroom..

And a basic read up on 'conduction' 'convection' and all teh other ways
that heat spreads around till it meets an 'insulator'

The thermostat is only one part of the heating system and no part of
the house in this respect.


Sheesh, are you deliberately thick? In this office. loaded up with
electronic kit, the local heating system never comes ON until the
absolute depths of winter.

Its well insulated and as the door is left open mostly heats via the
corridoors (ungheated) most of this part of the house..

And since the conversion efficiency of the power station and
transmission is pretty similar to the central heating boiler,
That will be why all houses are heated by electricity then.
No, because the electricity costs more..but that all about capital costs
of power stations and the costs of running it in terms of labour, not
teh costs of the actual fuel.

There are no capital and running costs of domestic boilers and their
fuel supplies?

Yes, but they are not as high in many cases as the grid infrastructure
per capita needed to bring electricity to your door, also the house
itself is a HUGE per capita cost...which you neglect - wheras the
housing for a power station is a direct cost, nit one buried somewhere
else in the opportunity cost calculations.


Electric heating is always going to be cheaper in initial
and installation cost, if its running costs were low enough it would
be very popular.
Costs are not just energy costs.

That is why I was careful to point out the areas where electric
heating has cost advantages.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

So much of what we do we do because its cheap and simple, and very
inefficient. If energy prices rise, it all becomes economic.

The trouble with that view is that the goods we purchase come primarily
down to energy cost and human time cost. IOW as energy prices rise, so
do the costs of the energy saving equipment. Regrettably this wont make
every measure affordable. What it will do is make currently affordable
technologies pay back much more, thus start to be used when now we dont
bother.

That is only so if the energy saving equipment uses more energy (or far
more labour) to make.


If the former is true, its not energy saving is it?

I suggest its slightly more complex in that the real energy figures we
make decisions on are not primarily the energy embodied in manufacture,
but the energy used to run a business. This is why mass produced goods
are so much cheaper than low volume goods, the embodied manufacturing
energy might be the same (not always) but the energy used running the
manufacture business and distribution chain varies hugely on a per item
basis. It is this extra overhead on low volume sales that often blocks
adoption of what would be energy saving goods if you look at
manufacturing energy alone.

Rising energy prices will not improve this overhead any. They may, or
may not, reduce our standard of living, if they do we will be able to
invest in less energy saving expenditure rather than more. Maybe there
are too many unknowns to know which way it goes. We cant even assume
energy costs will rise in the longer term, though they are doing so in
the short term.

One thing thats clear is that we will have abundant cheap energy at
some point, but we dont know when, and whether or not it will occur in
our life time. Its likely it wont, but it may.


In each case pure economics - labour versus energy costs - rules. Up the
energy costs and that shifts the balances.

yes, absolutely. And money is some kind of guide to the real embodied
energy as opposed to hte more often discussed manufacturing-only
embodied energy. Money isnt an accurate measure short term, but fairly
accurate longer term, once initial blips have settled down to a
steadyish state.


Those who peruse the FT will have noticed the extreme rise in activity
in agricultural futures on energy raw materials - cereals for ethanol -
rape for biodiesel. These are now break even or profitable ways to
generate fuel. With oil at $75 a barrel.

There are energy options with costs not too far above that of oil, and
this will cap the rise of energy costs. The future is not as bleak as
some seem to think.


NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
David Hansen wrote:

How a perfect thermostat in say the hall reacts to heat emitted in a
bedroom/office I'm not sure.


Try a TRV on the radiator in the office/bedroom..

IME these are not very effective, nor can they ever be. Rad temp
inevitably has some effect on sensor temp, therefore the best they can
be made to do is change throughput gradually in response to changing
room temp. Thus inevitably there is a fairly wide swing of regulated
temp in cold weather versus mild.

In practice they appear to work ok simply because theyre not needed in
the first place, thus their poor attempts at regulation go unnoticed,
and theyre generally set to well above the wanted temp, effectively not
giving significant regulation. But in an unbalanceable system they just
do not work well, and can not. The only way to temperature regulate a
room is to measure the temp away from the rad, not next to it.


NT

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

We stopped using canals, because although very energy efficient, they
were very SLOW.

I reckon I've always wanted a Steptoe and Son type rag and bone cart -
complete with Hercules.

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

The message om
from contains these words:

In practice they appear to work ok simply because theyre not needed in
the first place, thus their poor attempts at regulation go unnoticed,
and theyre generally set to well above the wanted temp, effectively not
giving significant regulation. But in an unbalanceable system they just
do not work well, and can not. The only way to temperature regulate a
room is to measure the temp away from the rad, not next to it.

I suppose if you want to be posh you'll have to have a motor valve for
each room, controlled by the roomstat drawing hot from a manifold.

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

Guy King wrote:
The message om
from contains these words:

In practice they appear to work ok simply because theyre not needed in
the first place, thus their poor attempts at regulation go unnoticed,
and theyre generally set to well above the wanted temp, effectively not
giving significant regulation. But in an unbalanceable system they just
do not work well, and can not. The only way to temperature regulate a
room is to measure the temp away from the rad, not next to it.

I suppose if you want to be posh you'll have to have a motor valve for
each room, controlled by the roomstat drawing hot from a manifold.


I have hot air blowers with a thermostat controlling the fan, fairly
remote, in each upstairs room. The biggest problem is as the temperature
on every room gets close to optimum, the boiler tends to short cycle.


TRV's have their problems, but they are infinitely better than nothing
at all, or just a master thermostat.

I agree that a zone valve and thermostat in every room, all coupled into
the boiler on an OR basis, is the best. I may yet do that.

The whole purpose of temperature control is simply to prevent gross
heating beyond what is necessary for any particular area that has an
outside (heat losing) wall or floor or ceiling.

Then any additional heat generated by e.g. electrical equipment simply
reduces the call on the CH system.

In the periods of spring through autumn, MOST of the house heating is in
fact generated by waste heat from the electrical equipment..a typical
large room here is adequately heated with about 300W, and it takes that
much to LIGHT them, without CFLS..the smaller rooms need only about
50-100W..

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:56:24 +0100 someone who may be Mark
wrote this:-

How does Nucleur power generation emit CO2?

Fairly obviously. What is mined is not fuel rods. Converting the ore
into fuel rods is an energy intensive operation.

After it has been "burnt" that is not an end to it, especially if it
is "reprocessed" (another energy intensive operation).



--
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 Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:22:49 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Try a TRV on the radiator in the office/bedroom..

Very far from perfect.

And a basic read up on 'conduction' 'convection' and all teh other ways
that heat spreads around till it meets an 'insulator'

No need to. I have designed, installed and maintained all sorts of
heating systems in all sorts of buildings.

More importantly I have written computer software to model such
things. If anyone thinks they understand something trying to model
it on a computer will soon indicate whether they really do
understand it. One bit of software worked out the angle of the sun
to the windows, so that the amount of sunlight falling on the floor
could be followed across the floor and thus the heat gain worked
out. Yes, the software did allow for the heat emitted by humans and
gadgets.

Yes, but they are not as high in many cases as the grid infrastructure
per capita needed to bring electricity to your door, also the house
itself is a HUGE per capita cost...which you neglect - wheras the
housing for a power station is a direct cost, nit one buried somewhere
else in the opportunity cost calculations.

Gas arrives at houses without infrastructure? Fascinating.

In all those large boiler houses I once looked after the gas just
appeared by magic, those booster stations and large pipes were just
a figment of my imagination? Fascinating.



--
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 Thu, 6 Jul 2006 09:16:36 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

The point is that my lights are satisfactory, if wasteful of electricity.

I won't do anything unless I get a marked improvement of some sort.

One of the marked improvements is that your electricity meter will
spin round less, or the red light will not flash so often if it is a
relatively new meter.



--
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 Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:56:24 +0100 someone who may be Mark
wrote this:-

How does Nucleur power generation emit CO2?

Fairly obviously. What is mined is not fuel rods. Converting the ore
into fuel rods is an energy intensive operation.

After it has been "burnt" that is not an end to it, especially if it
is "reprocessed" (another energy intensive operation).

As long as nuclear contributes more energy to the grid than it uses, it
is eliminating carbon emissions.


NT

Guy King wrote:
The message om
from contains these words:

In practice they appear to work ok simply because theyre not needed in
the first place, thus their poor attempts at regulation go unnoticed,
and theyre generally set to well above the wanted temp, effectively not
giving significant regulation. But in an unbalanceable system they just
do not work well, and can not. The only way to temperature regulate a
room is to measure the temp away from the rad, not next to it.

I suppose if you want to be posh you'll have to have a motor valve for
each room, controlled by the roomstat drawing hot from a manifold.

Yes. Or a standard trv controlled via a separate programmable
thermostat, which has some advantages such as very easy to retrofit,
and continues working ok if it fails. I'm fairly convinced this is the
way heating will go. As progstats steadily come down in price the case
for turning off the bedroom rad for much of the day will become
compelling.


NT

David Hansen wrote:

No need to. I have designed, installed and maintained all sorts of
heating systems in all sorts of buildings.

More importantly I have written computer software to model such
things. If anyone thinks they understand something trying to model
it on a computer will soon indicate whether they really do
understand it. One bit of software worked out the angle of the sun
to the windows, so that the amount of sunlight falling on the floor
could be followed across the floor and thus the heat gain worked
out. Yes, the software did allow for the heat emitted by humans and
gadgets.


Have you ever contemplated writing a bit of software that monitors a
few temp sensors in a house and controls a few fans in order to
maximise temp gain during spring/autumn and cool the house in summer?
Its certainly needed.

Small heat gains and largish cooling can be done this way with low
equipment cost and even lower energy use. Happy to give you more
details if you like, though I presume you know the strategies I mean.


NT

wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:56:24 +0100 someone who may be Mark
wrote this:-

How does Nucleur power generation emit CO2?
Fairly obviously. What is mined is not fuel rods. Converting the ore
into fuel rods is an energy intensive operation.

After it has been "burnt" that is not an end to it, especially if it
is "reprocessed" (another energy intensive operation).

As long as nuclear contributes more energy to the grid than it uses, it
is eliminating carbon emissions.

Reducing, not eliminating.

If all the ore processing/reprocessing were done using nuclear generated
electricity, then you might be said to be zero carbon..

Although SOMETHING has to oxidise..since you start with uranium oxide
and end up with uranium..so you are adding a little oxygen to the air.


NT

David Hansen typed


On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 09:16:36 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

The point is that my lights are satisfactory, if wasteful of electricity.

I won't do anything unless I get a marked improvement of some sort.

One of the marked improvements is that your electricity meter will
spin round less, or the red light will not flash so often if it is a
relatively new meter.



Given my disabilities, I don't think I can replace my hall lamp fitting
for less than about £100.

How long would it take for me to recoup that expenditure? (Currently
120w, maybe 6 hours/day. New fitting maybe 20w or so) We are talking
several years if it saves 10p per day, aren't we?

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
David Hansen typed


On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 09:16:36 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

The point is that my lights are satisfactory, if wasteful of electricity.

I won't do anything unless I get a marked improvement of some sort.

One of the marked improvements is that your electricity meter will
spin round less, or the red light will not flash so often if it is a
relatively new meter.



Given my disabilities, I don't think I can replace my hall lamp fitting
for less than about £100.

How long would it take for me to recoup that expenditure? (Currently
120w, maybe 6 hours/day. New fitting maybe 20w or so) We are talking
several years if it saves 10p per day, aren't we?


Now you are just being sensible. Stop it. :-)

If you are using the lights in winter, don't forget that the
incandescent lamps will make a contribution to the heating, so some of
the savings made by using CFLs are negated by the increased cost of
additional space heating needed to make up the deficit. Unless you are
heating by electricity, this should be cheaper than running the
incandescent lamps, but it will reduce the cost saving.

Sid

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 06:39:18 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

Given my disabilities, I don't think I can replace my hall lamp fitting
for less than about £100.

How long would it take for me to recoup that expenditure? (Currently
120w, maybe 6 hours/day. New fitting maybe 20w or so) We are talking
several years if it saves 10p per day, aren't we?

Well, the difference is 100W and so in 10 hours you will save one
unit, say 10p. Assuming 300 days in a year, to compensate for your 6
hours rather than 10, that is a saving of thirty pounds a year. That
assumes no gear losses, something the manufacturers are somewhat
quiet about. As there are gear losses and they are not (AFAIK) in
the stated figures then your saving will reduce to say 20 pounds a
year.

What this shows is how worthwhile compact fluorescents are compared
to GLS bulbs, provided that they are a simple replacement. The extra
costs of having an electrician replace a fitting are real, but no
different from having someone else do all sorts of other jobs.


--
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 6 Jul 2006 14:08:17 -0700, wrote:

Small heat gains and largish cooling can be done this way with low
equipment cost and even lower energy use. Happy to give you more
details if you like, though I presume you know the strategies I mean.

Please do...

Mark

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 02:03:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:56:24 +0100 someone who may be Mark
wrote this:-

How does Nucleur power generation emit CO2?
Fairly obviously. What is mined is not fuel rods. Converting the ore
into fuel rods is an energy intensive operation.

After it has been "burnt" that is not an end to it, especially if it
is "reprocessed" (another energy intensive operation).

As long as nuclear contributes more energy to the grid than it uses, it
is eliminating carbon emissions.

Reducing, not eliminating.

If all the ore processing/reprocessing were done using nuclear generated
electricity, then you might be said to be zero carbon..

Although SOMETHING has to oxidise..since you start with uranium oxide
and end up with uranium..so you are adding a little oxygen to the air.

So a positive outcome, then, and since there is no carbon output, no
temptation to burn it.

It's a great shame that successive governments in many countries have wasted
more than a generation (probably two) through not pursuing nuclear power
generation and the technology behind it.

On 6 Jul 2006 23:48:15 -0700, wrote:

How long would it take for me to recoup that expenditure? (Currently
120w, maybe 6 hours/day. New fitting maybe 20w or so) We are talking
several years if it saves 10p per day, aren't we?

120W? I thought this fitting had 5 x 40W bulbs but I could be getting
confused by a lounge somewhere that seemed to have an awful lot of bulbs
in it...

If you are using the lights in winter, don't forget that the
incandescent lamps will make a contribution to the heating,

I really feel this is a red herring with ordinary and "normal" sized
domestic lighting. Take our lounge which did have 6 x 40W bulbs changed
to 6 x 9W CFL. Difference in heat input(*1) per hour is (6 * 40) - (6 *
9) = 0.186kWhr. I bet more heat escapes when the front door is opened
than that. I can't say I've noticed a 6%(*2) increase in our oil
consumption since we changed over.

(*1) Ignoring the bit that comes out as light, though I'll guess you'll
argue that turns to heat when it is absorbed somewhere.

(*2) On the basis the room needs 3kWHr to maintain temperature. Solid
stone walls and drafty windows. If your home is a modern, heavily
insulated, rabbit hutch then there will be bigger effect but then you'll
be using considerably less energy in the first place, 3kWHr to heat the
whole house not just one room...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:56:24 +0100 someone who may be Mark
wrote this:-

How does Nucleur power generation emit CO2?
Fairly obviously. What is mined is not fuel rods. Converting the ore
into fuel rods is an energy intensive operation.

After it has been "burnt" that is not an end to it, especially if it
is "reprocessed" (another energy intensive operation).

As long as nuclear contributes more energy to the grid than it uses, it
is eliminating carbon emissions.

Reducing, not eliminating.

If nuke reduces total carbon output, then it eliminates some carbon
output.


NT

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 09:27:41 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 06:39:18 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

Given my disabilities, I don't think I can replace my hall lamp fitting
for less than about £100.

How long would it take for me to recoup that expenditure? (Currently
120w, maybe 6 hours/day. New fitting maybe 20w or so) We are talking
several years if it saves 10p per day, aren't we?

Well, the difference is 100W and so in 10 hours you will save one
unit, say 10p. Assuming 300 days in a year, to compensate for your 6
hours rather than 10, that is a saving of thirty pounds a year. That
assumes no gear losses, something the manufacturers are somewhat
quiet about. As there are gear losses and they are not (AFAIK) in
the stated figures then your saving will reduce to say 20 pounds a
year.


What this shows is how worthwhile compact fluorescents are compared
to GLS bulbs, provided that they are a simple replacement.

No it doesn't. For six months of the year, the heat contribution within
the house means that the alleged saving is reduced to half.

If the appearance in the fitting and the quality of the light are
unacceptable then even that "financial incentive" makes the whole exercise of
using these things pointless.

The arguments are very unconvincing unless one has a greeny agenda.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 09:27:41 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 06:39:18 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

Given my disabilities, I don't think I can replace my hall lamp fitting
for less than about £100.

How long would it take for me to recoup that expenditure? (Currently
120w, maybe 6 hours/day. New fitting maybe 20w or so) We are talking
several years if it saves 10p per day, aren't we?
Well, the difference is 100W and so in 10 hours you will save one
unit, say 10p. Assuming 300 days in a year, to compensate for your 6
hours rather than 10, that is a saving of thirty pounds a year. That
assumes no gear losses, something the manufacturers are somewhat
quiet about. As there are gear losses and they are not (AFAIK) in
the stated figures then your saving will reduce to say 20 pounds a
year.

What this shows is how worthwhile compact fluorescents are compared
to GLS bulbs, provided that they are a simple replacement.

No it doesn't. For six months of the year, the heat contribution within
the house means that the alleged saving is reduced to half.

If the appearance in the fitting and the quality of the light are
unacceptable then even that "financial incentive" makes the whole exercise of
using these things pointless.

The arguments are very unconvincing unless one has a greeny agenda.




For me the chief reason to go CFL has been to reduce the cost of
replacing bulbs. And sometimes the INCONVENIENCE.


With a supermarket bulb being something like 60p, and lasting in winter
less than three months, and generally being replaced twice a year
overall, thats £1.20 a year. A £5 CFL that least 5 years is worth it on
that basis alone.

wrote:
Mark wrote:
On 6 Jul 2006 14:08:17 -0700, wrote:

Small heat gains and largish cooling can be done this way with low
equipment cost and even lower energy use. Happy to give you more
details if you like, though I presume you know the strategies I mean.
Please do...

Mark

ok. The main effect one takes advantage of is thermal storage in the
house structure. This means the indoor temp doesnt swing up and down as
much as outdoors does. Outdoor temps are higher in daytime than
nighttime, and of course vary from day to day. This gives us 2
opportunities for free heating and cooling.

1. In spring/autumn one can ventilate the house during afternoons to
raise interior temp, closing ventilation at other times. The simple
system I used could gain 2C this way.

2. In summer one can ventilate at night, when it might be 10-15C
outdoors. This cools the structure down. During the following day the
house wont heat up as much. The max result of this system was 10C
cooling, with 4-6C being typical. 4-6C is a lot of comfort gain.

Compared to conventional heating and cooling this approach takes very
little energy to run, saving money and energy and improving comfort,
especially in summer.


Essentially this is how we actually work.

That, plus opening the curtains by day except in summer maximises solar
gains..I have been TRYING to indicate to SWMBO that keeping the windows
SHUT in summer actually keeps the house cooler...along with the fact in
winter that thermostats do not control how FAST a house heats up, juts
how hot it is when it stops..and that opening windows if its too hot
doesn';t make it cooler, just sends the oil bill through the roof..




Then theres the concept of stratification, the fatc that indoor air
tends to separate to warmer air up and cooler air down. This can be
used for another degree C of gain. For best cooling, the hottest air
should be ejected. For best heating, replace the coolest air.

Theres also loft ventilation, which would be controlled separately for
best cooling. One can also expand on this system with other low cost
low energy heat and cool options that all add a bit more gain to the
system.


Loads more that can be done as well, like heat exchanger ventilation..

You could also make something like a passive fridge, utilising heat from
direct sunlight to heat a refrigerant, and then cooling it again on the
north side of the house.


NT

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 02:03:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:56:24 +0100 someone who may be Mark
wrote this:-

How does Nucleur power generation emit CO2?
Fairly obviously. What is mined is not fuel rods. Converting the ore
into fuel rods is an energy intensive operation.

After it has been "burnt" that is not an end to it, especially if it
is "reprocessed" (another energy intensive operation).
As long as nuclear contributes more energy to the grid than it uses, it
is eliminating carbon emissions.

Reducing, not eliminating.

If all the ore processing/reprocessing were done using nuclear generated
electricity, then you might be said to be zero carbon..

Although SOMETHING has to oxidise..since you start with uranium oxide
and end up with uranium..so you are adding a little oxygen to the air.

So a positive outcome, then, and since there is no carbon output, no
temptation to burn it.

It's a great shame that successive governments in many countries have wasted
more than a generation (probably two) through not pursuing nuclear power
generation and the technology behind it.



Blame the populations. And the media. It was simply too much of a
political hot potato. Now Global warming is a bigger bogey man in the
public eye than the nuclear industry, progress can be made.

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:56:24 +0100 someone who may be Mark
wrote this:-

How does Nucleur power generation emit CO2?
Fairly obviously. What is mined is not fuel rods. Converting the ore
into fuel rods is an energy intensive operation.

After it has been "burnt" that is not an end to it, especially if it
is "reprocessed" (another energy intensive operation).
As long as nuclear contributes more energy to the grid than it uses, it
is eliminating carbon emissions.

Reducing, not eliminating.

If nuke reduces total carbon output, then it eliminates some carbon
output.


Eliminate means 'entirely remove'

It's a strange tautology to entirely remove some of a quantity..


NT