I nipped down to Reading to seen, amongst other things, the Enviro Home at
the St James Kennet Island development.

I noticed a couple of inconsistencies and figures I didn't recognise.

12-40% from solar PV, 7-25% savings from hot water depending which sign you
read....

So I grabbed my camera and blogged it:

http://www.digitaltoast.co.uk/enviro...saving-claims/

Feel free to correct me or post comments in the blog, too. But for a
"showhome", I see a lot of inconsistencies...

Jonathan wrote:
I nipped down to Reading to seen, amongst other things, the Enviro Home at
the St James Kennet Island development.

I noticed a couple of inconsistencies and figures I didn't recognise.

They're not really inconsistencies.

12-40% from solar PV, 7-25% savings from hot water depending which sign you
read....
....
http://www.digitaltoast.co.uk/enviro...saving-claims/

: This envirohome emits 70% less carbon than a typical UK terrace house.

They are saying that this home uses less energy than a typical UK
terrace house. Also, since the energy that it doesn't use would
come from carbon emitting sources then it must also, ultimately,
send less carbon into the air as well.

All the percentages on that sign are referring to the amount of
carbon emissions avoided by saving energy.

: Solar photovoltaic cells on the roof of this house collect the
: sun's energy and turn it into electricity. This unit provides the
: envirohome with about 30%-40% of it's electricity.

This is not all that high. A 3kW array could produce this much
electricity without breaking the bank, especially since it's
integrated into the roofing tiles.

: The Solar PV tiles on this roof will provide up to 40%
: of the annual electricity requirements of this house.

30% to 40% is within the 'up to 40%' so I don't see any major
discrepancy there. Sure, it's likely to be closer to 30% but
it's all estimates anyhow.

Now the solar hot water. 13% less carbon emissions than a comparable
home and 25% lower gas bills do not have to be incompatible figures.
I don't know how gas is billed but 25% lower bills may not mean 25%
less gas used.

Anthony

The message
from "Jonathan" contains these words:

I noticed a couple of inconsistencies and figures I didn't recognise.

Hang on, you can't add up percentages like that.

Example.

I save 50% of my electricity bill and 50% of my gas bill. Wow, I've
saved 100% - so why do I keep getting bills?

As for the spelling, typography and punctuation, dire, isn't it. The
worst place I know for that is the Secret Hills Centre in Craven Arms -
I was fuming when I left the place. Expensive, shallow and full of
errors.

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

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Jonathan" contains these words:

I noticed a couple of inconsistencies and figures I didn't recognise.

Hang on, you can't add up percentages like that.

Example.

I save 50% of my electricity bill and 50% of my gas bill. Wow, I've
saved 100% - so why do I keep getting bills?

As for the spelling, typography and punctuation, dire, isn't it.

Well, that made me look!

The
worst place I know for that is the Secret Hills Centre in Craven Arms -
I was fuming when I left the place. Expensive, shallow and full of
errors.

Oh I've been like that too. I thought it was just me, well known for being
picky. There are always floods of justifications though ...

Mary
er - what's the Secret Hills Centre?

The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

er - what's the Secret Hills Centre?

An idea with plenty of potential - there's an area of hills south of
Shrewsbury called the Long Mynd. It's a very strange place, more like
Scotland than Shropshire. Open moorland with lots of hidden valleys and
the like. Used to have substantial mineral deposits, too, being
volcanic. The idea of having a place that explains to anyone who's
interested why it's like that and all about the ecology etc. is a good
one, but utterly and irredeemably[1] let down by the presentation which
is aimed at a the junior school level.

There's nothing wrong with pitching exhibits low like that provided that
more in-depth information is readily to hand for those who might be
interested. Perhaps on pull-out drawers or flip-up things, or maybe even
(stand by for a really old idea) on a bit of paper. But when the only
information available at all is superficial, and asking the curators
gets either a "don't know" or in one case a response that was utterly
wrong then it's failed completely.

I was similarly seething when I left the painfully expensive Exploratory
in Birmingham. At least a third of the exhibits weren't working, several
of those that were were incorrectly labled, and the Hurricane[2] hanging
from the ceiling was labled as a Spitfire[2]. Just thinking about it
still makes me cringe.

[1] Short of a satisfying fire.
[2] May have been the other way round - it was five years ago and for
fairly obvious reasons I've never been back.

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

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

er - what's the Secret Hills Centre?

An idea with plenty of potential - there's an area of hills south of
Shrewsbury called the Long Mynd. It's a very strange place, more like
Scotland than Shropshire. Open moorland with lots of hidden valleys and
the like. Used to have substantial mineral deposits, too, being
volcanic. The idea of having a place that explains to anyone who's
interested why it's like that and all about the ecology etc. is a good
one, but utterly and irredeemably[1] let down by the presentation which
is aimed at a the junior school level.

There's nothing wrong with pitching exhibits low like that provided that
more in-depth information is readily to hand for those who might be
interested. Perhaps on pull-out drawers or flip-up things, or maybe even
(stand by for a really old idea) on a bit of paper. But when the only
information available at all is superficial, and asking the curators
gets either a "don't know" or in one case a response that was utterly
wrong then it's failed completely.

I was similarly seething when I left the painfully expensive Exploratory
in Birmingham.

Ah yes, that replaced the lovely Museum of Science and Technology, I
believe, which had some great exhibits but which was a bit tatty and not at
all flash. A sad loss


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:10:20 +0100, Guy King wrote:

I was similarly seething when I left the painfully expensive
Exploratory in Birmingham. At least a third of the exhibits weren't
working, several of those that were were incorrectly labled, ...

I think Exploratory's are great for giving kids a kick start intrest in
science, much better than rows of static exhibits behind glass.

*BUT* they do have to be maintained and have knowledable staff on hand
who can tolerate 50 coach loads of kids intent on destroying the place
everyday. That costs money. Trouble is you can get grants and funding to
set up these wonderful things but nothing to keep 'em running once you
have, 'em bleedin' daft.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Now the solar hot water. 13% less carbon emissions than a comparable
home and 25% lower gas bills do not have to be incompatible figures.
I don't know how gas is billed but 25% lower bills may not mean 25%
less gas used.

Alternatively, the 13% refers to carbon emissions and the 25% refers to gas.
There are also carbon emissions from electricity, so it makes complete
sense. You could completely eliminate the gas consumption of the house and
still only halve the carbon emissions, as the house still uses electricity,
which is unaffected.

Christian.

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

er - what's the Secret Hills Centre?

An idea with plenty of potential - there's an area of hills south of
Shrewsbury called the Long Mynd. It's a very strange place, more like
Scotland than Shropshire. Open moorland with lots of hidden valleys and
the like. Used to have substantial mineral deposits, too, being
volcanic. The idea of having a place that explains to anyone who's
interested why it's like that and all about the ecology etc. is a good
one, but utterly and irredeemably[1] let down by the presentation which
is aimed at a the junior school level.

Ah, it's educashonal! You mustn't demand too much of the little darlings, it
might spoil their understanding if they're stretched.

There's nothing wrong with pitching exhibits low like that provided that
more in-depth information is readily to hand for those who might be
interested. Perhaps on pull-out drawers or flip-up things, or maybe even
(stand by for a really old idea) on a bit of paper.

Oh come ON! That would be hard work, you'd have to DO something and not have
it made easy.

But when the only
information available at all is superficial, and asking the curators
gets either a "don't know" or in one case a response that was utterly
wrong then it's failed completely.

We've found that at one or two places and at the Chippenham Town Museum on
Monday we thought we'd come across another because the three ancient (even
older than us) volunteers couldn't answer any of our questions. Nobody had
asked before.

But they did eventually ask a member of staff about something and she was
very helpful, taking us behind the scenes to talk about our questions. Later
we asked about some exhibits which weren't labelled (argh!) and they're
going to be labelled and we'll be e-mailed to give a full explanation of
them.

As always, I suspect it was because I was pushy that we got beyond the desk
staff We ended up offering a couple of our belongings for a Time-Line
exhibit. We should have stopped being surprised about our house being full
of things which we see in museums and 'antique' shops. We use most of them
too.

I was similarly seething when I left the painfully expensive Exploratory
in Birmingham. At least a third of the exhibits weren't working, several
of those that were were incorrectly labled, and the Hurricane[2] hanging
from the ceiling was labled as a Spitfire[2]. Just thinking about it
still makes me cringe.

[1] Short of a satisfying fire.

:-) That's given me an idea ...

[2] May have been the other way round - it was five years ago and for
fairly obvious reasons I've never been back.

I bet it was as you say, many people haven't heard of the Hurricane and they
are rather similar in shape. But it shouldn't happen. All the glamour went
to the Spit ...

Mary

The message
from "Bob Mannix" contains these words:


Ah yes, that replaced the lovely Museum of Science and Technology, I
believe, which had some great exhibits but which was a bit tatty and not at
all flash. A sad loss

The Science Museum in London still has all the old cabinets with those
intricate models you could move with a knob or a button. They're stored,
and some lucky sods get to look round them. I almost wangled a visit -
but not quite.

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

The message
from Guy King contains these words:

labled

Ooops! How did that happen? Twice?

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

"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
. ..
Jonathan wrote:

: Solar photovoltaic cells on the roof of this house collect the
: sun's energy and turn it into electricity. This unit provides the
: envirohome with about 30%-40% of it's electricity.

This is not all that high. A 3kW array could produce this much
electricity without breaking the bank, especially since it's
integrated into the roofing tiles.

: The Solar PV tiles on this roof will provide up to 40%
: of the annual electricity requirements of this house.

30% to 40% is within the 'up to 40%' so I don't see any major
discrepancy there. Sure, it's likely to be closer to 30% but
it's all estimates anyhow.

Well, the most high efficiency tile they make needs 8m² per kiloWatt, peak.
http://www.solarcentury.com/products...oof_tile_black

So you'd need 24m² of roofspace for your 3kW, and as the house I saw, in the
middle of a hot sunny day, was making about 450W of non-storable energy,
this is why I am skeptical about the 40%

So you'd need 24m² of roofspace for your 3kW,

That sounds perfectly reasonable. I'm surprised you can get so much from a
small area.

middle of a hot sunny day, was making about 450W of non-storable energy,
this is why I am skeptical about the 40%

450W would usually easily cover my electrical usage. Wouldn't help at night,
or for brief peak usage when the washing machine element fires. It would,
however, cover my lighting and electrical goods.

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
...
So you'd need 24m² of roofspace for your 3kW,

That sounds perfectly reasonable. I'm surprised you can get so much from a
small area.

middle of a hot sunny day, was making about 450W of non-storable energy,
this is why I am skeptical about the 40%

450W would usually easily cover my electrical usage. Wouldn't help at
night, or for brief peak usage when the washing machine element fires. It
would, however, cover my lighting and electrical goods.

Interesting - how many lightbulbs are you running between 10am-5pm during
bright sunny summer days?
You're right - it wouldn't cover even the spin cycle of the washing machine.
It would run a pc and monitor though.

Now, there IS the possibility of "buy back" into the grid, which would make
the whole thing much more effective, BUT the last time I could find any info
on it (and info is scarce - any links appreciated!) the buyback tarrif was
very low, the interconnect expensive, and the wait time over a year.

I could be wrong, if so, correct me!

In alt.solar.thermal Christian McArdle
wrote:
So you'd need 24m? of roofspace for your 3kW,

Do you know that it used 24sm, or that it is a 3kwp AC system?

That sounds perfectly reasonable. I'm surprised you can get so much from
a small area.

My Kyocera flat panels would need 26 sm for a 3kwp AC system.

middle of a hot sunny day, was making about 450W of non-storable
energy, this is why I am skeptical about the 40%

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/codes_al...ATTS/version1/
Projects a "3kw AC" rated system delivering 5783kWh/yr in San
Francisco, CA, USA; 3163kWh/yr in London.

On that basis, I would expect the peak AC watts to be 55% of my peak. I've
recently seen of 450 (adjusted) watts at 10:30am, with a peak for that same
day at 1548 (adjusted) watts. My panels are not due south, nor are they
elevated optimally.

450W would usually easily cover my electrical usage. Wouldn't help at
night, or for brief peak usage when the washing machine element fires. It
would, however, cover my lighting and electrical goods.

Since it is only claiming to provide 40% of the energy, it must be grid
tied, so the washing machine can still draw as it needs.

If the system was 3kwp-AC, it could deliver 3163kWh per year.
250kWh per month might be 40% of an efficient home's needs.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from Guy King contains these words:

labled

Ooops! How did that happen? Twice?


I assumed you were just testing ... or perhaps you're a Muslim. Only God is
perfect.

Mary

Guy King wrote:
The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

er - what's the Secret Hills Centre?

An idea with plenty of potential - there's an area of hills south of
Shrewsbury called the Long Mynd. It's a very strange place, more like
Scotland than Shropshire. Open moorland with lots of hidden valleys and
the like. Used to have substantial mineral deposits, too, being
volcanic. The idea of having a place that explains to anyone who's
interested why it's like that and all about the ecology etc. is a good
one, but utterly and irredeemably[1] let down by the presentation which
is aimed at a the junior school level.

There's nothing wrong with pitching exhibits low like that provided that
more in-depth information is readily to hand for those who might be
interested. Perhaps on pull-out drawers or flip-up things, or maybe even
(stand by for a really old idea) on a bit of paper. But when the only
information available at all is superficial, and asking the curators
gets either a "don't know" or in one case a response that was utterly
wrong then it's failed completely.

I was similarly seething when I left the painfully expensive Exploratory
in Birmingham. At least a third of the exhibits weren't working, several
of those that were were incorrectly labled, and the Hurricane[2] hanging
from the ceiling was labled as a Spitfire[2]. Just thinking about it
still makes me cringe.

[1] Short of a satisfying fire.
[2] May have been the other way round - it was five years ago and for
fairly obvious reasons I've never been back.

Seems to me something wrong with our culture, where people that dont
know and dont care are so pervasive that even information services are
staffed by them, and this is considered prefectly ok. At least there
are some good places around, but it is disappointing to see the junk
exhibits.

Also I dont know how dumbed down sites / places are supposed to kindle
any interest when theyre dumbed to primary school level. Surely its not
hard to have a mix of exhibits aimed at people with a basic
understanding of things as well as the lost.


NT

The message .com
from contains these words:

but it is disappointing to see the junk exhibits.

If you happen to go to Craven Arms, skip the Secret Hills centre and go
instead to see a /real/ junk exhibit.

The Land of Lost Content is a tiny (on the outside) place in a side
street. An old chapel by the looks of it, it's bulging at the seams with
all the things that don't make it into museums. Things you remember
having as a kid - the trivia and ephemera of bygone days.

Things like cheap plastic toys, cosmetics (sniffing the display reminded
me of being about three and the smell of Mum's dressing table), old
fireworks (deactivated, but wow they were so tiny - an entire selection
box smaller than a single modern bang), Bakelite, old tools, car
things[1], Kilner jars of goosberries unopened since the late 40s,
pressure cookers that look like Mills bombs, clothings, lamp shades of
the sort you thought (hoped?) you'd never see again, 1960s Daleks, BOAC
approved hand luggage suitcases...

Quite the most baffling and remarkable and absorbing place I've been to
in ages. I'd love to go back without the kids some time just to see it
all rather more slowly. Not that you ever could see it all - it's just
not that sort of place.

http://www.lolc.org.uk/ (truly dire site - truly amazing museum)

[1] Including a thing for extracting your caravan from muddy sites - a
set of skis for the wheels.

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

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message .com
from contains these words:

but it is disappointing to see the junk exhibits.

If you happen to go to Craven Arms, skip the Secret Hills centre and go
instead to see a /real/ junk exhibit.

The Land of Lost Content is a tiny (on the outside) place in a side
street. An old chapel by the looks of it,

It says it's a redundant C12th church! Worth visiting for that :-)

it's bulging at the seams with
all the things that don't make it into museums. Things you remember
having as a kid - the trivia and ephemera of bygone days.

Sounds wonderful!

Things like cheap plastic toys, cosmetics (sniffing the display reminded
me of being about three and the smell of Mum's dressing table),

And her wet hankie?

old
fireworks (deactivated, but wow they were so tiny - an entire selection
box smaller than a single modern bang), Bakelite, old tools, car
things[1], Kilner jars of goosberries unopened since the late 40s,
pressure cookers that look like Mills bombs, clothings, lamp shades of
the sort you thought (hoped?) you'd never see again, 1960s Daleks,

I have one of those, red plastic.

BOAC
approved hand luggage suitcases...

Quite the most baffling and remarkable and absorbing place I've been to
in ages. I'd love to go back without the kids some time just to see it
all rather more slowly. Not that you ever could see it all - it's just
not that sort of place.

It sounds wonderful! And like our 'ouse ...


http://www.lolc.org.uk/ (truly dire site - truly amazing museum)

Yes, the site is, um, disappointing ...

[1] Including a thing for extracting your caravan from muddy sites - a
set of skis for the wheels.

LOL! We've always found a handy tractor.

Thanks, Guy,

Mary

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
...
So you'd need 24m² of roofspace for your 3kW,

That sounds perfectly reasonable. I'm surprised you can get so much from
a
small area.

middle of a hot sunny day, was making about 450W of non-storable
energy,
this is why I am skeptical about the 40%

450W would usually easily cover my electrical usage. Wouldn't help at
night, or for brief peak usage when the washing machine element fires.
It
would, however, cover my lighting and electrical goods.

Interesting - how many lightbulbs are you running between 10am-5pm during
bright sunny summer days?
You're right - it wouldn't cover even the spin cycle of the washing
machine.
It would run a pc and monitor though.

Now, there IS the possibility of "buy back" into the grid, which would
make
the whole thing much more effective, BUT the last time I could find any
info
on it (and info is scarce - any links appreciated!) the buyback tarrif was
very low, the interconnect expensive, and the wait time over a year.

I could be wrong, if so, correct me!


good energy provide a "buy back" without the need to have to "give it up"
They pay 4.5p/Kwh for total generation, that's not the difference between
what you make and what you use and what you sell.
http://www.good-energy.co.uk/