Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#122
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#123
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#124
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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. |
#125
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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? |
#126
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#127
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#129
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#130
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#131
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#132
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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. |
#133
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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. |
#134
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
|
#135
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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.. |
#136
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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. |
#137
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#138
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#139
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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. |
#140
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
|
#141
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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.. |
#142
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#143
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#144
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#145
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#146
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#147
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#148
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
|
#149
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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. |
#150
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#151
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#152
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
|
#153
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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. |
#154
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#155
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#156
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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. |
#157
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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. |
#158
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
#159
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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. |
#160
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
DIY roof mount wind power? anyone? | UK diy |