Tony Bryer wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:48:48 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :

When it comes to solar panels whose economics are questionable,
personal choice IMO. Though the argument might be made that making
them compulsory on all new homes would create a market that would
bring the price down to an economic level (as with condensing
boilers).

I daresay this may work. Mass produced panels would be significantly
cheaper. The result of this nannyism would be widespread implementatoin
of systems that barely pay their way, all too often paid for by people
who have far more pressing things to spend on and far bigger issues to
resolve in their lives. Most such systems would be neither appreciated
nor cared for, and would not be maintained or repaired. Note that in
this system, since everyone buys solar panels, there is no economic
incentive to develop the technology, either for lower cost or higher
return, so the payback stays poor for evermore.

Lets look at the other option, which is permitting private market
forces to address the problem. In the short term we'll see few systems
because they mostly dont pay and are expensive. Once a company comes up
with a design that can be sold at a third the price, ie one with much
better payback performance, interest will increase. The next generation
of design, with lower cost nd more return, will see widespread
interest, be implemented up and down the country, and give quite large
savings to the country as a whole, both of money and energy. And
whoever starts such a company should make some very nice money.

Which do you want? Nannied borderline systems, many of which will cease
even functioninng, or to let the market develop the technology so that
it has genuine and signifcant value?


NT

On 26 Sep 2006 11:27:39 -0700, wrote:

The science behind solar space heating is quite basic. You've got
insolation and insulation. With enough insolation, which we have even
in winter, and enough insulation, which is down to panel design, there
is nothing difficult about getting space heating to work. Most house
roofs and walls are big enough to capture a whole lot of heat, even in
winter. Again, how much of the heating bill a real world system chops
off is down to design of system (effectiveness, size) and the
design/insulation of the house itself.

Absolutely. But insulation, passive solar gain and building
occupancy/equipment gains are more useful, more efficient, more
economical and more reliable over the long term than any panel based
solar collector.

On a new build with freedom to change or incorporate design
modifications of say a few thousand pounds (actually the spend is
immaterial) there is no way I would even contemplate solar (hydronic)
space heating. For the hot water a cautious yes, but the majority of
my spend would be on insulation, controlled ventilation/heat recovery
and most importantly quality assurance during the build.


--

wrote:

Once a company comes up
with a design that can be sold at a third the price, ie one with much
better payback performance, interest will increase.

I can't believe the Chinese aren't already making them.

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Once a company comes up
with a design that can be sold at a third the price, ie one with much
better payback performance, interest will increase.

I can't believe the Chinese aren't already making them.

How do you know they're not?

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Once a company comes up
with a design that can be sold at a third the price, ie one with much
better payback performance, interest will increase.
I can't believe the Chinese aren't already making them.

How do you know they're not?

Mary



That's what I mean. I think the equipment is already available cheaply.
It's all over the place in southern Europe, so mass production must be
happening somewhere.
I wonder about solar fence panels. Looking around here, fences represent
a vast area, and no one much cares what they look like. The cat would
approve I'm sure

On 2006-09-27 13:37:10 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

wrote:

Once a company comes up
with a design that can be sold at a third the price, ie one with much
better payback performance, interest will increase.

I can't believe the Chinese aren't already making them.

Even they need to see a worthwhile volume market.

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Once a company comes up
with a design that can be sold at a third the price, ie one with much
better payback performance, interest will increase.
I can't believe the Chinese aren't already making them.

How do you know they're not?

Mary

That's what I mean. I think the equipment is already available cheaply.
It's all over the place in southern Europe, so mass production must be
happening somewhere.
I wonder about solar fence panels. Looking around here, fences represent a
vast area, and no one much cares what they look like. The cat would
approve I'm sure

That's a thought! But they could be vulnerable to malicious damage. Some
people think they're ugly - goodness knows why. Then there would be
maintenance - keeping growth down without damaging the panels. And there
could be a long way for the hot water to travel and there might be shade on
the panels .. hmmm. It was a nice idea while it lasted :-)

Mary

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-09-27 13:37:10 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

wrote:

Once a company comes up
with a design that can be sold at a third the price, ie one with much
better payback performance, interest will increase.

I can't believe the Chinese aren't already making them.

Even they need to see a worthwhile volume market.



Every hotel and holiday home in southern Europe isn't a bad start

Matt wrote:
On 26 Sep 2006 11:27:39 -0700, wrote:

The science behind solar space heating is quite basic. You've got
insolation and insulation. With enough insolation, which we have even
in winter, and enough insulation, which is down to panel design, there
is nothing difficult about getting space heating to work. Most house
roofs and walls are big enough to capture a whole lot of heat, even in
winter. Again, how much of the heating bill a real world system chops
off is down to design of system (effectiveness, size) and the
design/insulation of the house itself.

Absolutely. But insulation, passive solar gain and building
occupancy/equipment gains are more useful, more efficient, more
economical and more reliable over the long term than any panel based
solar collector.

I was wondering why you said that until I read further

On a new build with freedom to change or incorporate design
modifications of say a few thousand pounds (actually the spend is
immaterial) there is no way I would even contemplate solar (hydronic)
space heating. For the hot water a cautious yes, but the majority of
my spend would be on insulation, controlled ventilation/heat recovery
and most importantly quality assurance during the build.

Space heating and hydronic are concepts that mix badly imho. Hot air
systems are a fraction the material cost and installation cost of
hydronics, much more reliable, and much more efficient.

You may be right if considering hydronic systems, which I dont hold in
high regard, mainly due to excessive install cost and weak payback. But
if we compare hot air panels with passive solar gain, the picture is
somewhat different. Passive solar gain comes at the price of winter
heat loss, or high dg/tg install cost, and large areas of glass are
needed to get good gain. But the prime problem is poor control.
External panels are easy to control, their output can be switched on or
off at any time, simply by powering a fan or dampers. IOW a well
designed system would normally be thermostatic. Another plus with
separate panels is cheaper glazing can be used. Glass or plastic outer
and mylar film inner glazing are practical with panels, but not really
with building windows.

Its a curious thing that the lowest cost best payer version of solar
power is so little known.


NT

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Once a company comes up
with a design that can be sold at a third the price, ie one with much
better payback performance, interest will increase.

I can't believe the Chinese aren't already making them.

I think solar power is not acepted here yet, since commercial systems
do not so far give enough payback to be considered worthwhile by most
of the population. Hence it makes more sense to manufacture TVs than
solar kit. Today anyway, I'm sure it'll change in time.

How do you know they're not?

That's what I mean. I think the equipment is already available cheaply.
It's all over the place in southern Europe, so mass production must be
happening somewhere.
I wonder about solar fence panels. Looking around here, fences represent a
vast area, and no one much cares what they look like. The cat would
approve I'm sure

I like that one. But it would only work well for unobstructed south
facing fences that run right upto the house. Not sure what size market
that is. Plus rented accom would be generally unlikely to purchase.

That's a thought! But they could be vulnerable to malicious damage.

Yes, but then so are shed windows, and they seem ok in most areas

Some
people think they're ugly - goodness knows why.

yes, but again it depends on design. The only given with solar panels
is they'll be a dark colour. They could be made to look like slates, or
imitate any other dark stone, or be midnight blue. Even mid colours
will work, if not as well, so looking like dark or even medium wood is
perfectly workable.

Then there would be
maintenance - keeping growth down without damaging the panels.

I dont know what sort of glazing would be wanted, but this point would
be a lot easier if the bottom foot of the panels were decorative only,
and not used for solar gain.


And there
could be a long way for the hot water to travel

Use hot air. A hydronic system would bring many downsides, especially
on price.


and there might be shade on
the panels

limitation to south and unobstructed does limit things somewhat, but
2nd generation panels only need a couple of percent market penetration
to succeed. And with respectable payback, commercial use would
flourish.

Still many details to resolve though, and the market perception is a
block.


NT

wrote:
Passive solar gain comes at the price of winter
heat loss, or high dg/tg install cost, and large areas of glass are
needed to get good gain. But the prime problem is poor control.
External panels are easy to control, their output can be switched on or
off at any time, simply by powering a fan or dampers. but not really
with building windows.

Wrong.

Its a curious thing that the lowest cost best payer version of solar
power is so little known.


Yup. Its called a south facing picture window and plenty of thermal mass
with heavy lined curtains that are drawn at night. Or in fact on hot
summer days.

Its attractive, effective, and the control is so simple even my wife can
do it.




NT

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:37:10 GMT someone who may be Stuart Noble
wrote this:-

Once a company comes up
with a design that can be sold at a third the price, ie one with much
better payback performance, interest will increase.

I can't believe the Chinese aren't already making them.

They already are. Try buying an evacuated tube that is not made in
China. However, they are not making complete panels for the whole
world.


--
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

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:

Passive solar gain comes at the price of winter
heat loss, or high dg/tg install cost, and large areas of glass are
needed to get good gain. But the prime problem is poor control.
External panels are easy to control, their output can be switched on or
off at any time, simply by powering a fan or dampers. but not really
with building windows.

Wrong.

Its a curious thing that the lowest cost best payer version of solar
power is so little known.


Yup. Its called a south facing picture window and plenty of thermal mass
with heavy lined curtains that are drawn at night. Or in fact on hot
summer days.

Its attractive, effective, and the control is so simple even my wife can
do it.

I prefer a system that controls itself thermostatically, and where one
doesnt need to close the curtains during much of the summer days to
control it. But you can have your prefered system if you want.

Before you say overhangs, there are many locations where they cant be
installed, and when they are theyre not thermostatic..


NT

On 2006-09-27 18:28:16 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-09-27 13:37:10 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

wrote:

Once a company comes up
with a design that can be sold at a third the price, ie one with much
better payback performance, interest will increase.

I can't believe the Chinese aren't already making them.

Even they need to see a worthwhile volume market.



Every hotel and holiday home in southern Europe isn't a bad start

Perhaps people have more taste though....

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:

Passive solar gain comes at the price of winter
heat loss, or high dg/tg install cost, and large areas of glass are
needed to get good gain. But the prime problem is poor control.
External panels are easy to control, their output can be switched on or
off at any time, simply by powering a fan or dampers. but not really
with building windows.
Wrong.
Its a curious thing that the lowest cost best payer version of solar
power is so little known.


Yup. Its called a south facing picture window and plenty of thermal mass
with heavy lined curtains that are drawn at night. Or in fact on hot
summer days.

Its attractive, effective, and the control is so simple even my wife can
do it.

I prefer a system that controls itself thermostatically, and where one
doesnt need to close the curtains during much of the summer days to
control it. But you can have your prefered system if you want.


Well put a thermostat on the curtains then

Before you say overhangs, there are many locations where they cant be
installed, and when they are theyre not thermostatic..

No, but they work.


NT

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-09-27 18:28:16 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-09-27 13:37:10 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

wrote:

Once a company comes up
with a design that can be sold at a third the price, ie one with much
better payback performance, interest will increase.

I can't believe the Chinese aren't already making them.

Even they need to see a worthwhile volume market.



Every hotel and holiday home in southern Europe isn't a bad start

Perhaps people have more taste though....



Part of the landscape in Greece. I doubt people will stop going there
because every little bungalow has a shiny tank on the roof. "Taste"
seems a rather quaint concept in the big scheme of things.

On 2006-09-28 20:55:51 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:



Every hotel and holiday home in southern Europe isn't a bad start

Perhaps people have more taste though....



Part of the landscape in Greece. I doubt people will stop going there
because every little bungalow has a shiny tank on the roof. "Taste"
seems a rather quaint concept in the big scheme of things.

It is, however, a major reason for buying or not buying something.
People do buy (or not) on impression and appearance.

If one takes an economically marginal at best proposition and it is
then also visually an eyesore, it is not a winning combination.

I am reminded of the dreadful solar hot water heating systems which
adorn many rooftops in Tel Aviv.
These consist of a metal canister to store some water plus a collection
of tubes and pipes connected to a solar panel on an angled stand on the
flat roof. They are absolutely hideous. Fortunately there it
doesn't matter quite so much because it is customary not to complete
construction but to leave steel reinforcing rods sticking out. I
believe there is a tax dodge for doing this.
There of course there is no question of lack of sun either.

Howver, try to transport the concept to a country where people do care
more about aesthetics and where solar energy is substantially less and
it is not going to sell. Fortunately.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:37:10 GMT someone who may be Stuart Noble
wrote this:-

Once a company comes up
with a design that can be sold at a third the price, ie one with much
better payback performance, interest will increase.

I can't believe the Chinese aren't already making them.

They already are. Try buying an evacuated tube that is not made in
China.

The Chinese invented them. Over 50% of all solar panels in the world are in
China.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-09-27 13:37:10 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

wrote:

Once a company comes up
with a design that can be sold at a third the price, ie one with much
better payback performance, interest will increase.

I can't believe the Chinese aren't already making them.

Even they need to see a worthwhile volume market.

Like over 50% of all panels in the world.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-09-28 20:55:51 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:



Every hotel and holiday home in southern Europe isn't a bad start

Perhaps people have more taste though....



Part of the landscape in Greece. I doubt people will stop going there
because every little bungalow has a shiny tank on the roof. "Taste"
seems a rather quaint concept in the big scheme of things.

It is, however, a major reason for buying or not buying something.
People do buy (or not) on impression and appearance.

If one takes an economically marginal at best proposition and it is then
also visually an eyesore, it is not a winning combination.

I am reminded of the dreadful solar hot water heating systems which
adorn many rooftops in Tel Aviv.
These consist of a metal canister to store some water plus a collection
of tubes and pipes connected to a solar panel on an angled stand on the
flat roof. They are absolutely hideous. Fortunately there it
doesn't matter quite so much because it is customary not to complete
construction but to leave steel reinforcing rods sticking out. I
believe there is a tax dodge for doing this.
There of course there is no question of lack of sun either.

A bonus for tourism in Greece where, because there is no winter season,
the system only ever has to heat bathroom water. No boilers, no
maintenance, or health and safety considerations.

Howver, try to transport the concept to a country where people do care
more about aesthetics and where solar energy is substantially less and
it is not going to sell. Fortunately.

I think maybe you're on thin ice with aesthetics. When something is
obviously beneficial to society, we tend to accept it visually.
Telegraph poles, electricity pylons etc. It could become viable here if
prices drop far enough and we'll have to learn to love the new
landscape. We could paint faces on the water tanks and give them names

wrote in message
ps.com...

Which do you want? Nannied borderline systems,

Nannied? What are you babbling about?

wrote in message
oups.com...

You shouldn't think that I have changed my tune on this, I was
involved in active and passive solar design of buildings in the
1980s.

I dont know if that was without any formal qualifications or with. I'm
also aware the general level of solar design has come a fair way since
then. Either way, I find your position hard to agree with, sometimes on
fairly basic principles..

To dismiss hyronic solar space heating systems out of hand is a bit silly.
OK, with a nice site and new design, a new superinsulated house designed
properly and built to passive solar principles can work.

If you have an existing house and renovating then matters become different.
Solar air heaters knock cobs off a wet system, but a conservatory is really
needed and heat is difficult to store. A south facing roof that is made
into one complete wet panel, using a large 2,000 litre plus thermal store
and very low temp UFH is feasible indeed, and in winter too as it can store
a couple days heat when cloudy.

The cost when doing a renovation is not that great, as probably the roof
needed doing anyway, you were installing UFH anyway, etc. So, the cost over
and above what you would have paid is the cost.

Don't dismiss hydronic systems.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 25 Sep 2006 18:07:53 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

ok child.

Excellent, personal abuse.

Feel free to tell us how it is that hundreds of watts of insolation per
square metre can either fail to be capured by a mesh absorber panel,
fail to be retained by adequate insultion, or fail to be transferred to
the house somehow.

All these have been discussed before. But to recap. Solar energy, in
the UK, is at a maximum when it is not needed. It is not possible to
store this energy for say five months until it is needed.

It is. CAT did this in an interseasonal store. Not cost effective for the
average house.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-09-25 14:57:03 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:54:22 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Not to existing buildings. However, there is an argument that it
should be compulsory in new buildings.

No there isn't. That would be a dreadful thing to do.

Why?

Because they are ugly and virtually useless and because it is not
appropriate to compel people to fit them to their properties unless you
are proposing a totalitarian system of course.



You'll be suggesting windmills on roofs next

It is an excellent idea to fit a wind turbine or two to the roof.

Tell you what. You can fit one on your house on my behalf.

However, unlike solar panels they are not suitable on all houses, so
I would advocate selecting from a range of alternative forms of
engineering to produce electricity.

Nuclear energy is a great way to cover that issue.

Matt, is the forces of evil itself.

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...


I think maybe you're on thin ice with aesthetics. When something is
obviously beneficial to society, we tend to accept it visually. Telegraph
poles, electricity pylons etc.

I agree. Most of the technology we see around us is not aesthetically
pleasing, there are very few beautiful cars, commercial vans and lorries and
the like are ugly. Even most houses aren't pretty. Nor are the people who
live in them ... Attempts to make washing machines beautiful by having
rounded corners doesn't really cut the mustard. One wouldn't put up a mobile
phone mast just to adorn one's plot.

All those things are in full view of people almost all the time. Solar water
heating panels are usually on the roof, they are more of less part of the
roof. They look like Velux windows - if you bother to look upwards and most
people don't. If you do look upwards you'll see some of the ugliest
creations of Man - civil aircraft.

At worst SWH panels are aesthetically neutral, at best novel.

PV panels, on the other hand, are astonishingly beautiful in my opinion,
like CDs. IMO.

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...


I think maybe you're on thin ice with aesthetics. When something is
obviously beneficial to society, we tend to accept it visually. Telegraph
poles, electricity pylons etc.

I agree. Most of the technology we see around us is not aesthetically
pleasing, there are very few beautiful cars, commercial vans and lorries
and the like are ugly. Even most houses aren't pretty. Nor are the people
who live in them ... Attempts to make washing machines beautiful by having
rounded corners doesn't really cut the mustard. One wouldn't put up a
mobile phone mast just to adorn one's plot.

All those things are in full view of people almost all the time. Solar
water heating panels are usually on the roof, they are more of less part
of the roof. They look like Velux windows - if you bother to look upwards
and most people don't. If you do look upwards you'll see some of the
ugliest creations of Man - civil aircraft.

At worst SWH panels are aesthetically neutral, at best novel.

PV panels, on the other hand, are astonishingly beautiful in my opinion,
like CDs. IMO.

Mary

This woman has style.

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:07:26 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...


I think maybe you're on thin ice with aesthetics. When something is
obviously beneficial to society, we tend to accept it visually. Telegraph
poles, electricity pylons etc.

I agree. Most of the technology we see around us is not aesthetically
pleasing, there are very few beautiful cars, commercial vans and lorries and
the like are ugly. Even most houses aren't pretty. Nor are the people who
live in them ... Attempts to make washing machines beautiful by having
rounded corners doesn't really cut the mustard. One wouldn't put up a mobile
phone mast just to adorn one's plot.

All those things are in full view of people almost all the time. Solar water
heating panels are usually on the roof, they are more of less part of the
roof. They look like Velux windows - if you bother to look upwards and most
people don't. If you do look upwards you'll see some of the ugliest
creations of Man - civil aircraft.

This just goes to show how invisible technology becomes. When you
talked about looking up I was certain you were going to refer to
TV aerials.

The thing is, it is perfectly possible to make household appliances
look pretty, but people aren't prepared to pay. When it comes to the
crunch, most people don't mind what their hoovers/cars/houses look
like provided next-door's looks the same.

Pete

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

"Peter Lynch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:07:26 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...


I think maybe you're on thin ice with aesthetics. When something is
obviously beneficial to society, we tend to accept it visually.
Telegraph
poles, electricity pylons etc.

I agree. Most of the technology we see around us is not aesthetically
pleasing, there are very few beautiful cars, commercial vans and lorries
and
the like are ugly. Even most houses aren't pretty. Nor are the people who
live in them ... Attempts to make washing machines beautiful by having
rounded corners doesn't really cut the mustard. One wouldn't put up a
mobile
phone mast just to adorn one's plot.

All those things are in full view of people almost all the time. Solar
water
heating panels are usually on the roof, they are more of less part of the
roof. They look like Velux windows - if you bother to look upwards and
most
people don't. If you do look upwards you'll see some of the ugliest
creations of Man - civil aircraft.

This just goes to show how invisible technology becomes. When you
talked about looking up I was certain you were going to refer to
TV aerials.

There are too many uglinesses to choose from but aircraft are doubly ugly
because of their noise. Triply because of their pollution but that's another
story.

The thing is, it is perfectly possible to make household appliances
look pretty,

How?

but people aren't prepared to pay. When it comes to the
crunch, most people don't mind what their hoovers/cars/houses look
like provided next-door's looks the same.

Our house and its appliances aren't pretty but they're not the same as the
neighbours'. They were decades ago .. :-)

Mary

Pete

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

On 2006-09-29 14:56:34 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


Matt, is the forces of evil itself.

That's a bit strong. He's never been that unkind about you.

On 2006-09-29 14:08:27 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:


I think maybe you're on thin ice with aesthetics.

Absolutely not.

When something is obviously beneficial to society, we tend to accept
it visually.

Except that this isn't.

Secondly, people don't make purchasing decisions based on things being
"beneficial to society". They do so based on their pocketbooks and
that's it.

Telegraph poles, electricity pylons etc. It could become viable here
if prices drop far enough and we'll have to learn to love the new
landscape. We could paint faces on the water tanks and give them names

Yeeessssss......

On 2006-09-29 14:05:22 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...
On 2006-09-27 13:37:10 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

wrote:

Once a company comes up
with a design that can be sold at a third the price, ie one with much
better payback performance, interest will increase.

I can't believe the Chinese aren't already making them.

Even they need to see a worthwhile volume market.

Like over 50% of all panels in the world.

and.....

Mary Fisher wrote:

There are too many uglinesses to choose from but aircraft are doubly ugly
because of their noise. Triply because of their pollution but that's another
story.


Mmm. Per passenger mile they generate less noise and pollution than any
other form of transport bar possibly a sailing ship.

If you want ugly, how about overweight daft minded old hags stalking te
Internet ;-)


The thing is, it is perfectly possible to make household appliances
look pretty,

How?

Cover then in chintz cosies, like they used to do to piano legs?



but people aren't prepared to pay. When it comes to the
crunch, most people don't mind what their hoovers/cars/houses look
like provided next-door's looks the same.

Our house and its appliances aren't pretty but they're not the same as the
neighbours'. They were decades ago .. :-)

All I want is that houses and technology don't leap out and hit you in
the middle of the countryside.

In towns - well they are visually ****ed anyway.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-09-29 14:08:27 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:


I think maybe you're on thin ice with aesthetics.

Absolutely not.

When something is obviously beneficial to society, we tend to accept
it visually.

Except that this isn't.

Secondly, people don't make purchasing decisions based on things being
"beneficial to society". They do so based on their pocketbooks and
that's it.


Radiators spring to mind. Horrible things. Spawn of the devil. Another
wall where you cant pout a bookcase or a sofa.



Telegraph poles, electricity pylons etc. It could become viable here
if prices drop far enough and we'll have to learn to love the new
landscape. We could paint faces on the water tanks and give them names

Yeeessssss......

Bloody ugly things water towers. Why they just don;t heap up household
rubbish into a sort of long barrow, and put a tree ringed reservoir on
top beats me.

"AJH" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:47:43 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

All these have been discussed before. But to recap. Solar energy, in
the UK, is at a maximum when it is not needed. It is not possible to
store this energy for say five months until it is needed.

It is. CAT did this in an interseasonal store. Not cost effective for the
average house.

My recollection was that it was neither cost effective or effective at
all.

It did work after a few amendments here than there.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-09-29 14:56:34 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


Matt, is the forces of evil itself.

That's a bit strong. He's never been that unkind about you.

Matt??

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-09-29 14:05:22 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-09-27 13:37:10 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

wrote:

Once a company comes up
with a design that can be sold at a third the price, ie one with much
better payback performance, interest will increase.

I can't believe the Chinese aren't already making them.

Even they need to see a worthwhile volume market.

Like over 50% of all panels in the world.

and.....

Matt, like over 50% of all panels in the world.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Peter Lynch wrote:
The thing is, it is perfectly possible to make household appliances
look pretty, but people aren't prepared to pay. When it comes to the
crunch, most people don't mind what their hoovers/cars/houses look
like provided next-door's looks the same.

Mine used to look the same until I discovered stencils and spray-paint.

Ooh, Owain, you've compromised the selling price now!

:-)

Mary

Owain

On 2006-09-29 21:49:03 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...
On 2006-09-29 14:05:22 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...
On 2006-09-27 13:37:10 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

wrote:

Once a company comes up
with a design that can be sold at a third the price, ie one with much
better payback performance, interest will increase.

I can't believe the Chinese aren't already making them.

Even they need to see a worthwhile volume market.

Like over 50% of all panels in the world.

and.....

Matt, like over 50% of all panels in the world.

Great. That's really important to know...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

There are too many uglinesses to choose from but aircraft are doubly ugly
because of their noise. Triply because of their pollution but that's
another story.


Mmm. Per passenger mile they generate less noise and pollution than any
other form of transport bar possibly a sailing ship.

If you want ugly, how about overweight daft minded old hags stalking te
Internet ;-)

Oh about senile dopes from snotty uni's?

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
... most people don't mind what their hoovers/cars/houses look
like provided next-door's looks the same.
Mine used to look the same until I discovered stencils and spray-paint.
Ooh, Owain, you've compromised the selling price now!

The appliances, not the house! I lurve my Magic Roundabout fridge!!

I'd luve to see a picture!

Mary

Owain