wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:

... you would admittedly need a very large additional thermal mass -
a ton or two of water probably, to keep the heating on overnight,
with a 10-20C drop.

A decently designed solar space heating system would not be using water
in the first place. Picking hydronic for space heating is pretty much a
design death blow.

Secondly, an entirely different method would be used to maintain temp
after dark. There is a comfort zone, not just one fixed temp at which
people are cosy. Heat to as high in that zone as solar power provides,
and you have n hours after sundown of sufficient warmth. N depends on
design details.

Watching you wave your hands about solar heating is like watching
a 2-year-old draw a 300' tree with a 1" diameter trunk or hearing
an earthy-crunchy person say he can heat his house by running
rainwater from his roof through his microhydro plant :-)

Numbers give a sense of perspective in this energy newsgroup.

Nick

On 2006-11-18 11:20:51 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:15:43 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

I wonder how much the sales people focus on any of the others than the
possibility that the customer might save money. Maybe.

Are you expecting those of us in favour of such things to apologise
for the way some salespeople try and sell them?

Not at all. It just further demonstrates how thin the tangible
arguments actually are.

If people want to spend their money on fashion, positioning, looking
good, toys, whatever, that's perfectly fine and it's also perfectly
fine for sales people to sell to them on that basis.

However, when taken to the realities of

- Does it save money with all factors taken into account?

- Does it save the planet with all factors taken into account?

The answers become very thin indeed.



In terms of worthiness, I suppose it depends on what one means by worthiness.
Incrementalism is a poor argument at the best of times and one might have
hoped that people would be smart enough to realise that they won't save
the world through installing a solar panel.

People said much the same sort of thing to a very great man when he
took on the largest empire in the world over the salt tax. As events
proved they were wrong and the largest empire the world has ever
seen was humbled.

Quite. However, the two scenarios are not at all comparable. That
is a very weak argument.
David and Goliath would have been a better one than Gandhi. Besides,
government policy hasn't changed. They are still trying to discourage
people from consuming too much salt.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 12:15:45 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

However, when taken to the realities of

- Does it save money with all factors taken into account?

Part of the answer is that it depends on the wind resources
available at the particular site. Another part of the answer is that
it is usually better (in financial as well as environmental terms)
to save energy than generate it. Both these are things groups like
Friends of the Earth have said for a long time.

- Does it save the planet with all factors taken into account?

The question is does it reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The answer
to this question is yes, in nearly all cases. However, there may
well be other ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions more, which is
why Friends of the Earth Scotland say, "Done what you can to make
your home more energy efficient? Made the switch to a green energy
supplier? Want to do more to support green energy? If you own your
own home then you may be in a position to generate your own energy.
In some cases you could even get paid for the energy you produce."
http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/natio...enewables.html

Will one wind turbine "save the planet" is a question the antis like
to ask, presumably because they think it is a killer question.
However, the answer to this question is the same as it is on many
other things, a lot of little things add up to a lot.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2006-11-18 12:52:22 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 12:15:45 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

However, when taken to the realities of

- Does it save money with all factors taken into account?

Part of the answer is that it depends on the wind resources
available at the particular site. Another part of the answer is that
it is usually better (in financial as well as environmental terms)
to save energy than generate it. Both these are things groups like
Friends of the Earth have said for a long time.

A bit woolly....




- Does it save the planet with all factors taken into account?

The question is does it reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The answer
to this question is yes, in nearly all cases. However, there may
well be other ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions more, which is
why Friends of the Earth Scotland say, "Done what you can to make
your home more energy efficient? Made the switch to a green energy
supplier? Want to do more to support green energy? If you own your
own home then you may be in a position to generate your own energy.
In some cases you could even get paid for the energy you produce."
http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/natio...enewables.html

Will one wind turbine "save the planet" is a question the antis like
to ask, presumably because they think it is a killer question.
However, the answer to this question is the same as it is on many
other things, a lot of little things add up to a lot.

OK. Let's say (to pick a number) that 20% of UK households installed
solar panels and or personal windmills.

What would be the estimates for energy saved and reduction in CO2
emission, assuming
that the energy replacement was of the highest CO2 emitting means of
power generation?

I am thinking of these as a realistic maximum of households (make it
some other percentage if you like) and that it would be addressing the
most affecting energy sources. In reality, the existing power
generators would take the most expensive production out of service
first rather than the dirtiest, but let's be generous and leave that
aside as well.

Then extrapolate the figures for a) Western Europe and b) Kyoto participants.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 13:13:43 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Part of the answer is that it depends on the wind resources
available at the particular site. Another part of the answer is that
it is usually better (in financial as well as environmental terms)
to save energy than generate it. Both these are things groups like
Friends of the Earth have said for a long time.

A bit woolly....

Simplistic answers, particularly in marketing leaflets, are
something you criticised in other posts. Non-simplistic answers can
be called woolly, but most interesting questions cannot be answered
with sound bites.

On your other question, I'm not jumping to requests for ever more
detailed figures. Information has been produced by others should
people wish to follow it up, though there is still much work to do
on the subject.

People could also wait for the evidence given to the "enquiry" on
the subject by the DTI. At the moment they are calling for evidence.
I see that OFGEM are doing something similar.





--
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

wrote:
wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:

... you would admittedly need a very large additional thermal mass -
a ton or two of water probably, to keep the heating on overnight,
with a 10-20C drop.

A decently designed solar space heating system would not be using water
in the first place. Picking hydronic for space heating is pretty much a
design death blow.

Secondly, an entirely different method would be used to maintain temp
after dark. There is a comfort zone, not just one fixed temp at which
people are cosy. Heat to as high in that zone as solar power provides,
and you have n hours after sundown of sufficient warmth. N depends on
design details.

Watching you wave your hands about solar heating is like watching
a 2-year-old draw a 300' tree with a 1" diameter trunk or hearing
an earthy-crunchy person say he can heat his house by running
rainwater from his roof through his microhydro plant :-)

Numbers give a sense of perspective in this energy newsgroup.

Nick

This house stays within comfort zone temp swing overnight. If you wish
to add some figures to this, take things forward another informational
step, great.


NT

On 2006-11-18 14:18:39 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 13:13:43 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Part of the answer is that it depends on the wind resources
available at the particular site. Another part of the answer is that
it is usually better (in financial as well as environmental terms)
to save energy than generate it. Both these are things groups like
Friends of the Earth have said for a long time.

A bit woolly....

Simplistic answers, particularly in marketing leaflets, are
something you criticised in other posts.

Correct.

Non-simplistic answers can
be called woolly, but most interesting questions cannot be answered
with sound bites.

Also correct. Verifiable figures produced by a disinterested party
would serve very well.



On your other question, I'm not jumping to requests for ever more
detailed figures. Information has been produced by others should
people wish to follow it up, though there is still much work to do
on the subject.

Mmmm.....


People could also wait for the evidence given to the "enquiry" on
the subject by the DTI. At the moment they are calling for evidence.
I see that OFGEM are doing something similar.


Even more mmmmm......

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 12:15:45 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

However, when taken to the realities of

- Does it save money with all factors taken into account?

Part of the answer is that it depends on the wind resources
available at the particular site. Another part of the answer is that
it is usually better (in financial as well as environmental terms)
to save energy than generate it. Both these are things groups like
Friends of the Earth have said for a long time.

- Does it save the planet with all factors taken into account?

The question is does it reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The answer
to this question is yes, in nearly all cases. However, there may
well be other ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions more, which is
why Friends of the Earth Scotland say, "Done what you can to make
your home more energy efficient? Made the switch to a green energy
supplier? Want to do more to support green energy? If you own your
own home then you may be in a position to generate your own energy.
In some cases you could even get paid for the energy you produce."
http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/natio...enewables.html

Will one wind turbine "save the planet" is a question the antis like
to ask, presumably because they think it is a killer question.
However, the answer to this question is the same as it is on many
other things, a lot of little things add up to a lot.





--
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

well
the best way in regard to my point of view would to use effeicently
designed wrought iron structure in the top of the roof its lets u to
make the panels face where ever u like. and the expert in your area
would definetely know what is the angle the panel should be put for
getting maximum energy out of it.
hope this works!
Will wrote:
We moved into our two storey, reconstituted stone-built, pitched-roof
house in April.

We decided early on to get as much of our energy as possible from
renewables.

A couple of weeks ago we signed up for a solar heating system. I've
looked at a few and this seems like a very good system.

The marketing wonk who visited us (who had obviously been in the pub
first) declared that our directly west-facing roof would be perfectly
adequate to site the panels. It is a very clear prospect as it faces a
flat field, and there are no trees in the line of sight.

However, when their surveyor came to measure up he said that the
west-facing roof was inadequate and the panels would have to be sited
on the gable-end wall (facing south).

I can't see how this would be an improvement. Even though the panels
would be angled away from the wall (mimicing the roof's pitch) they
would certainly be obscured by the angle of the roof for at least part
of the morning and part of the evening.

Am I wrong? The alternative, according to the surveyor, would be double
the number of panels with half on the east pitch and the other on the
west.

Many thanks

Will.

In message , OldNick
writes
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:09:03 +0800, OldNick
wrote:

Actually I am not sure I _do_ agree. Still interested in your basis.

Nick - the fact that you live upside down doesn't mean that you have to
top post

it's just a sign of being mentally retarded - err .. like a septic



On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:12:22 GMT, raden wrote:

Well, having done a few quick calcs, I tend to agree, unless you had a
HUGE heating panel to get it active the next morning.

However, I would be interested in your calcs and figures, as you seem
to feel strongly about this G

Like ...

what time the sun rises in winter, how big a thermal store you would
need to store sufficient heat overnight

it's just not very realistic for heating


--
geoff

Will wrote:

We moved into our two storey, reconstituted stone-built, pitched-roof
house in April.

We decided early on to get as much of our energy as possible from
renewables.

A couple of weeks ago we signed up for a solar heating system. I've
looked at a few and this seems like a very good system.

The marketing wonk who visited us (who had obviously been in the pub
first) declared that our directly west-facing roof would be perfectly
adequate to site the panels. It is a very clear prospect as it faces a
flat field, and there are no trees in the line of sight.

However, when their surveyor came to measure up he said that the
west-facing roof was inadequate and the panels would have to be sited
on the gable-end wall (facing south).

I can't see how this would be an improvement. Even though the panels
would be angled away from the wall (mimicing the roof's pitch) they
would certainly be obscured by the angle of the roof for at least part
of the morning and part of the evening.

Am I wrong? The alternative, according to the surveyor, would be double
the number of panels with half on the east pitch and the other on the
west.

Many thanks

Will.


I installed a system a few weeks ago. My vacuum tube array collector is
vertical on the gable end. I was faced with a cylinder replacement and
decided to go solar rather than stay limited to fossil.
The whole batch of kit and pipes came to £1100. I was dubious about
the effectiveness of having the panel vertical so I have used 4 "L"
brackets to mount it to the wall. If I find it lacks performance when
the spring comes round I can simply extend the bottom brackets with
mild steel bar.
with the present dull weather we do notice an elevation of the
temperature of the cylinder bottom by about 15 to 20 degree C on many
days (the sensor is about 300mm above the base of the cylinder) It will
be interesting to see what happens to our energy bill over the next
twelve months.
Obviously I would like a decent saving but its an experiment with a
potential for economy

John

"cynic" wrote in message
oups.com...
Will wrote:

We moved into our two storey, reconstituted stone-built, pitched-roof
house in April.

We decided early on to get as much of our energy as possible from
renewables.

A couple of weeks ago we signed up for a solar heating system. I've
looked at a few and this seems like a very good system.

The marketing wonk who visited us (who had obviously been in the pub
first) declared that our directly west-facing roof would be perfectly
adequate to site the panels. It is a very clear prospect as it faces a
flat field, and there are no trees in the line of sight.

However, when their surveyor came to measure up he said that the
west-facing roof was inadequate and the panels would have to be sited
on the gable-end wall (facing south).

I can't see how this would be an improvement. Even though the panels
would be angled away from the wall (mimicing the roof's pitch) they
would certainly be obscured by the angle of the roof for at least part
of the morning and part of the evening.

Am I wrong? The alternative, according to the surveyor, would be double
the number of panels with half on the east pitch and the other on the
west.

Many thanks

Will.


I installed a system a few weeks ago. My vacuum tube array collector is
vertical on the gable end. I was faced with a cylinder replacement and
decided to go solar rather than stay limited to fossil.
The whole batch of kit and pipes came to £1100. I was dubious about
the effectiveness of having the panel vertical so I have used 4 "L"
brackets to mount it to the wall. If I find it lacks performance when
the spring comes round I can simply extend the bottom brackets with
mild steel bar.
with the present dull weather we do notice an elevation of the
temperature of the cylinder bottom by about 15 to 20 degree C on many
days

Yes, so do we. Today, with the outside temperature at 6C (and overcast sky)
we had water at 25C. That's not hot enough for Spouse's washing up or my
baths but it's fine for hand washing and it means that the boiler won't need
to be on as long to raise the water temperature to his acceptable level.

Mary

In message , John Beardmore
writes

I don't see what my folks signed for as being economically viable

No, but I think our clients divide into at least four categories.

People that want to save the world.

Well, they really aren't going to, are they

They've been taken in by the con

The reality is that the total energy demand of the UK is insignificant
when compared to that of the USA and the potential consumption of China,
India and other fast developing nations

One thing which I have not come across is anyone publishing the
manufacturing footprint i.e. energy require and CO2 created in
manufacturing the system, keeping the factory open, maintaining reps
cars, etc


People that like interesting toys.

FSVO interesting


People that want to set an educational example.

probably


People that want to save money.

Given that the only realistic saving is in hot water (an optimistic
70%), not house heating (when it's REALLY required) or cooking

and seeing the cost of these systems (£5k) I fail to see how most
people would see a payback in less than 10 years



All three seem worthy in one respect or another.

Not really

Another category may
also creep in.

People that follow fashion.

I remember hearing last week "Solar heating is the double glazing of the
21st century"

.... sounds about right to me

--
geoff

In message , Joe Fischer
writes
On Sat, Andy Hall wrote:

All of this is focus in completely the wrong area. All the time that
the U.S. continues
not to make much of a federal effort in terms of emissions control

The federal government doesn't own many fossil
fuel power plants. But both the coal industry and the
power plants have been spending fortunes cleaning up
coal to reduce pollution.

Reducing demand might help too


and
China is opening
a new coal fired power station weekly, all of this other stuff makes so
little difference
that it is a waste of time on environmental grounds.

There is a lot of USA bashing, but other than the
French nuclear industry, I see very little about what other
countries are doing to reduce CO2 emissions.

Mainly because the USA is by far he most energy hungry country


I would
suggest that efforts are turned
towards dealing with the major issues, and that does not include
getting GW Bush to sign up
for silly politicised nonsense like Kyoto, but for serious efforts for change.

Actually, the only really viable change can only come
from alcohol production from bio sources, there can be some
CO2 sequestration but not on the scale that would be needed
to make a difference.

Even if the case for CO2 induced global warming could
be demonstrated clearly and proven beyond doubt, there is
nothing much that can be done without people freezing

How did mankind survive 200 years ago ?

or
giving up income.

Well that's the rub - when you're living beyond your (ecological) means,
you have to cut back

The same as is happening to North Sea cod - over-fishing means that
we're reaching the tipping point from which it seems unlikely that the
stocks will recover. Factory farming will be useful in the future, but
there's a chasm between then and now

similarly with energy consumption

.... which needs a cunning plan, not people turning off their TVs and
disconnecting phone power supplies

--
geoff

On Sat, OldNick wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 04:17:39 -0500, Joe Fischer
wrote:
There is a lot of USA bashing, but other than the
French nuclear industry, I see very little about what other
countries are doing to reduce CO2 emissions.

Well, coming from Australia I certainly cannot talk. We are right up
there for energy usage.

But a lot of countries might be saying "well we don't need to clean up
so much because we simply use /produce less."

I wasn't aware of any world central government
coming into power. :-)

And I am not convinced there is a problem,
about the only pollution that may spread outside
North America is from forest fires, and everything
possible is being done to prevent them and put
them out.

As far back as the early 1970s, I know that
a lot of money was being spent on cleaning up
metallurgical coal (used to make coke), and I
am pretty sure the power plants have had
a lot of equipment installed over the years.
I know there is a huge mountain of flue
ash at the closest power plant, and it is being
sold to the cement plant right across the road,
but I don't know for sure how much of it is
calcium, and how much of it is carbon.

If anybody wants me to freeze to reduce
energy use, I can only say, "kiss my grits". :-)

Joe Fischer

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 09:39:44 GMT, Anthony Matonak
wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:
A house built for solar heat, or any type of efficient
heating, should have a triple wall construction, in contrast
to present common designs, a well insulated outer wall,
a thick masonry wall (concrete block), and either face brick
on the inside, or furring strips and plaster (drywall).
There are many concrete block houses, but almost
all have the block on the outside.

Perhaps because the block is much more durable and resistant to
the weather than insulation. Myself, I would have to run the numbers
but I have a feeling that if you have a well (even super) insulated
house then the typical contents of that house, drywall, furniture,
collections of brick a brack, would have more than enough thermal
mass to do the job.

Not even close to the mass of concrete blocks,
in fact, a double row of blocks with concrete poured
between them would pay for itself in 5 years in
energy savings. When current construction
design was made, energy was not much of
a consideration.
It is really hard to break bad habits.

This is as bad as all the industrial buildings having
north facing windows.

There is a good reason for this. South facing windows would have
direct sunlight shining in and this would be much too intense
and uneven for work. North facing windows, if there are enough
of them, provide more than enough diffuse light without 'hot spots'.
Anthony

South facing windows do not allow direct sunlight
in summer if there is much overhang at all, this is something
that needs to be taught in the first grade.
And it would be easy and low cost to have a
swinging overhang that could be set for seasons
and unusually warm days in spring and fall.

Joe Fischer

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 10:09:37 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
.. .
snip
roofs don't usually last more than 15 or 20 years,

WHAT?

Our house was built in 1937 and has its original roof (plus solar water
heating panel). Most of the others houses on this estate are the same, the
few who have newer roofs have replaced them for reasons other than failure.
Mary

What kind of roof, slate or terra cotta tile, or metal?

I guess there are places where a kind of concrete
tiles are the most used.

Joe Fischer

On 18 Nov 2006 02:47:08 -0800, wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:
On 17 Nov 2006 wrote:
A typical brick or block house should be big enough, assuming its
decently insulated. Mine doesnt lose a whole lot of temp overnight. One
simply sets the solar heating stat to above the temp of the gas CH,
make use of that comfort zone.
NT

A house built for solar heat, or any type of efficient
heating, should have a triple wall construction, in contrast
to present common designs, a well insulated outer wall,
a thick masonry wall (concrete block), and either face brick
on the inside, or furring strips and plaster (drywall).
There are many concrete block houses, but almost
all have the block on the outside.

This is as bad as all the industrial buildings having
north facing windows.
Joe Fischer

It would be a lot more material efficient to have 2 wall leafs than 3,
with the inner being thicker than the outer, eg 2.5" outer leaf, 1"
uninsulated cavity, 6" insulated cavity then 6" inner leaf. SS wall
ties would give the 2.5" leaf good stability.

Triplewall construction only gives a 2nd cavity, and this can be
achieved at far lower cost in other ways.
NT

I was thinking of getting more mass inside the insulation,
masonry only has a specific heat about half that of water, but
100,000 pounds of concrete inside the insulation would mean
that 50,000 BTU would have to be lost for the temperature
to drop one degree.

The latest thing seems to be thick foam core walls,
which gives excellent insulation if thick enough, but
doesn't have the mass to buffer temperature changes.

Joe Fischer

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 11:01:44 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
. ..
He's posting from the US.

And it's different there?

Most buildings, yes, roofs are asphalt shingles,
with a little glass fiber in them now that asbestos is
banned.
Most houses here have been built since WWII,
mostly to house all the people coming here from Europe. :-)

In the UK, roof life between significant maintenance events has
normally been around 70 years (so you've got 1 year to go Mary;-).

Ours hasn't needed any maintenence and my father back-pointed the (rosemary)
tiles when the house was new. Nothing has shifted - we keep an eye on it but
apart from a bit of flaunching round the chimney (not really the roof)
nothing needs doing.

If only the rest of the house were as good :-)
Mary

There are very few rosemary roofs here, and with
tile roofs, the construction would have to be much different,
at least double the wood in rafters, and maybe a lot of
shorter spans, plus better ties to keep the walls from
spreading under the load.

I just put a new roof on, but the insurance company
paid for it even though it was near it's life, the hail storm
in 2002 made a couple of holes in each span and saved
me $3000. Maybe you don't have hail storms,
tornados, hurricanes or earthquakes? ;-)

Joe Fischer

"cynic" wrote:

I installed a system a few weeks ago. My vacuum tube array collector is
vertical on the gable end. I was faced with a cylinder replacement and
decided to go solar rather than stay limited to fossil.
The whole batch of kit and pipes came to £1100.

How many square feet did that 1100 pounds buy?

I was dubious about
the effectiveness of having the panel vertical so I have used 4 "L"
brackets to mount it to the wall. If I find it lacks performance when
the spring comes round I can simply extend the bottom brackets with
mild steel bar.
with the present dull weather we do notice an elevation of the
temperature of the cylinder bottom by about 15 to 20 degree C on many
days (the sensor is about 300mm above the base of the cylinder) It will
be interesting to see what happens to our energy bill over the next
twelve months.
Obviously I would like a decent saving but its an experiment with a
potential for economy
John

It sounds like excellent planning, you might even
want to make the angle adjustable for each season.

Vacuum tube arrays could possibly be produced
fairly cheap, just as 4 foot fluorescent tubes only cost
99 cents the last time I bought them, but I don't have
much hope of seeing them sold to the DIY gang in
small quantities at a good price.

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer wrote:

I was thinking of getting more mass inside the insulation,
masonry only has a specific heat about half that of water, but
100,000 pounds of concrete inside the insulation would mean
that 50,000 BTU would have to be lost for the temperature
to drop one degree.

Are phase-change materials currently a cost-effective way of improving thermal
mass?

Toby

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:46:10 -0500 Joe Fischer wrote :
With fuel prices apparently retaining the
high prices, there could be a huge market for
things like solar air heaters for inside windows,
just a decorative black pattern or simple venetian
blinds black on one side and white on the other.

We already have this: it's called low-E glass - Kappafloat is one
trade name. A microscopic coating on the inside of the outer pane
of a DG unit reflects heat back into to room instead of letting it
escape. Over the heating season, a high-spec window on a south
elevation will let in more heat than it lets out.

www.bfrc.org has more for anyone interested.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 raden wrote:

In message x Joe Fischer
writes
On Sat, Andy Hall wrote:
All of this is focus in completely the wrong area. All the time that
the U.S. continues
not to make much of a federal effort in terms of emissions control

The federal government doesn't own many fossil
fuel power plants. But both the coal industry and the
power plants have been spending fortunes cleaning up
coal to reduce pollution.

Reducing demand might help too

That's why we buy everything from China and
Asia now, so we don't use so much energy in factories. :-)

and
China is opening
a new coal fired power station weekly, all of this other stuff makes so
little difference
that it is a waste of time on environmental grounds.

There is a lot of USA bashing, but other than the
French nuclear industry, I see very little about what other
countries are doing to reduce CO2 emissions.

Mainly because the USA is by far he most energy hungry country

And the biggest energy producing country.

But if the A-380 is ever used by airlines, fuel
use all over the world will go up.

I would
suggest that efforts are turned
towards dealing with the major issues, and that does not include
getting GW Bush to sign up
for silly politicised nonsense like Kyoto, but for serious efforts for change.

Actually, the only really viable change can only come
from alcohol production from bio sources, there can be some
CO2 sequestration but not on the scale that would be needed
to make a difference.

Even if the case for CO2 induced global warming could
be demonstrated clearly and proven beyond doubt, there is
nothing much that can be done without people freezing

How did mankind survive 200 years ago ?

Depends on where, eskimos wore skins, and
ate lots of blubber for energy.
Rural Eastern Europe lived in shacks with
dirt floors, and on real cold nights invited the cattle
and pigs in, and cuddled with them.
I guess maybe in the UK, coal was being
burned for heat.

or
giving up income.

Well that's the rub - when you're living beyond your (ecological) means,
you have to cut back

Unless Saudia Arabia keeps selling oil.

The same as is happening to North Sea cod - over-fishing means that
we're reaching the tipping point from which it seems unlikely that the
stocks will recover. Factory farming will be useful in the future, but
there's a chasm between then and now

I don't think the energy crisis is exactly analogous
to over fishing, but I like the idea of fish farms.
In 1958 I experimented with raising guppies in
salt water until they were adults, they were sterile in
ocean water, bur when slowly accustomed back to
fresh water, they were extremely healthy and prolific.
If the number of young I got from 15 pairs were
to be extrapolated over 10 years, there would be enough
to feed the world.

similarly with energy consumption

I am all for planting every square acre in sugar cane,
potatoes, beets, water melon, and everything that can be
used to make ethanol.
But that may not work in every country.

... which needs a cunning plan, not people turning off their TVs and
disconnecting phone power supplies

There is time, at least in the US, but I see Europe
in a critical situation, with an urgent need to do something
to assure that people don't freeze.

Even if there is a crisis, action will be fast, and
a solution will be worked out (unless you are talking
about sea level rise, which is going to happen anyway).
My problems are just keeping warm in 2 rooms
and bath (the rest of the house is not heated), and
trying to keep from being bored.

Joe Fischer

On Sat, Toby Kelsey wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:
I was thinking of getting more mass inside the insulation,
masonry only has a specific heat about half that of water, but
100,000 pounds of concrete inside the insulation would mean
that 50,000 BTU would have to be lost for the temperature
to drop one degree.

Are phase-change materials currently a cost-effective way
of improving thermal mass?
Toby

I haven't priced them, eutectic salts can be custom
mixed to any temperature phase change and they are
much better than passive mass like concrete because
energy is transferred without a change in temperature
of the salts (in the selected range).

But even so, the extra thick walls of a house is
an advantage that works several ways as a buffer to
temperature changes.

I lived in a permanent barracks near San Antonio
in 1948 that had walls two feet thick, and outdoor
temperature changes were hardly noticed without
any heat or air conditioning, and temperatures
could swing 60 degrees from 4 AM till 2 PM.

The problem with salts is where to put them,
maybe a DIYer could put them in used 2 liter bottles
and stack them in unused space, but most existing
houses don't have a good place to put them.
They need to be in fairly small containers or
pipes so that room air can be circulated through
them to get a rate of heat transfer high enough.

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer wrote:

"cynic" wrote:

I installed a system a few weeks ago. My vacuum tube array collector is
vertical on the gable end. I was faced with a cylinder replacement and
decided to go solar rather than stay limited to fossil.
The whole batch of kit and pipes came to £1100.

How many square feet did that 1100 pounds buy?

The array is approximately five feet by five feet but this is
interspaced by the gaps between the tubes so meaningless really. The
tubes are about five feet long and 2.5 inches diameter

I was dubious about
the effectiveness of having the panel vertical so I have used 4 "L"
brackets to mount it to the wall. If I find it lacks performance when
the spring comes round I can simply extend the bottom brackets with
mild steel bar.
with the present dull weather we do notice an elevation of the
temperature of the cylinder bottom by about 15 to 20 degree C on many
days (the sensor is about 300mm above the base of the cylinder) It will
be interesting to see what happens to our energy bill over the next
twelve months.
Obviously I would like a decent saving but its an experiment with a
potential for economy
John

It sounds like excellent planning, you might even
want to make the angle adjustable for each season.

I'm not so much concerned about the angle of incidence of the solar
radiation since the net effect of having the tube angled or square on
to the sun is minimal, its still illuminated. What I was concerned
about was degradation of the convection currents within the reduced
pressure fluid inside the fairly narrow copper collector core tubes.
As I said I am treating this as an experiment and may alter things
around to see how it responds

Vacuum tube arrays could possibly be produced
fairly cheap, just as 4 foot fluorescent tubes only cost
99 cents the last time I bought them, but I don't have
much hope of seeing them sold to the DIY gang in
small quantities at a good price.

e-bay is your friend!

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:25:16 -0500, Joe Fischer wrote:

Maybe you don't have hail storms, tornados, hurricanes or earthquakes?

We have all of those apart from hurricanes, our surrounding sea surface
temperature isn't high enough. As for tornados the UK gets more than the
US, how ever they are normally only T1 not the T5 monsters that have
tennis ball sized hail associated...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On 18 Nov 2006 wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:
On Sat, Andy Hall wrote:
All of this is focus in completely the wrong area. All the time that
the U.S. continues
not to make much of a federal effort in terms of emissions control

The federal government doesn't own many fossil
fuel power plants.

The US govt does control policy/law though.

Only to a certain extent, on most things the federal
government only has authority for things crossing state lines,
and exerts some control over states by withholding funds
if some goal is not met.

But both the coal industry and the
power plants have been spending fortunes cleaning up
coal to reduce pollution.

Less toxins is nice, but wont have any effect on CO2 output tho.

Frankly, except for Al Gore and this newsgroup,
I never see any mention of CO2.

and
China is opening
a new coal fired power station weekly, all of this other stuff makes so
little difference
that it is a waste of time on environmental grounds.

There is a lot of USA bashing, but other than the
French nuclear industry, I see very little about what other
countries are doing to reduce CO2 emissions.

This is because US uses a lot more energy per person than other
coutries. Where the european drive is more toward efficient use of more
limited resources, the US approach is still generally excess and waste.

Most countries in Europe have no choice, the only
thing different is they have pipelines, the US needs boats
to bring the oil.

Believe me, the cars in use in Europe are not
adequate for US highways, I drove my Alfa Romeo
4 door sedan 6 miles each way to have tires fixed,
and I hate driving it so much I took a wheel off
and took it to have it fixed.
Call me chicken, but I am afraid to be on
the road in it.

I confess, I did drive a big car about 40 miles
today, and the cars I drove only get about 14 miles
per gallon, but I was trying to get help to move one
of my cars that has been parked 5 years.

If there was a way I could reduce the energy
use in space heating, I would.

Even if the case for CO2 induced global warming could
be demonstrated clearly and proven beyond doubt, there is
nothing much that can be done without people freezing or
giving up income.

Oh, there is.

First bear in mind convincing evidence would cause many more people to
make greener decisions.

So convince me.

1 National new build energy policies can switch from gas and coal to
nuke and wind.

The stoppage of nuke plant building was not a policy
decision, it was a failure of contractors and labor to produce
at contract prices, or even at double contract prices.
Also, when nukes were being built there was a
power producer policy of encouraging "all electric"
houses, and they anticipated a constant increase in
electric use that did not materialize, and that made
the failure of nuke contractors and labor more critical.

Wind is probably moving along as fast as possible,
where it is feasible.

2 New build houses can be required to have 6" insulation instead of 2".
Saves people money

Where? The ceilings probably have at least 10 inches
now, but it is difficult to put more than 3.5 inches with 3.5 inch
wall studs.

3 New CH systems can be required to have a programmer for each room, so
time and temp can be set for each. Saves people money

With forced air? Easy, but expensive with existing
hot water systems, but forced air central furnaces would
need powered shutoffs for large ducts, and I have never
seen any for sale.
I do have thermostats in each room, but I also use
switches so I can do the work of the programmable thermostat.

4 A quality BS can be set up for cfls so the decent ones are recognised
by buyers, and marked properly instead of the nonsense equivalence
claims now common. People knowing they can buy quality cfls would mean
many more sales. Saves people money

That would be up to the stores and bulb makers
to advertise and display (in a free country).

5 filament bulbs can be taxed to prod people to move to cfl - the
amount of tax would be low enough not to have much real effect on
anyone's purse, and there is little need to buy filament bulbs anyway.

There are lots of places where cfl will not work,
even where I do use them, they are too long.

Moving to cfl saves money.

I think it is good, even though the first couple
I bought didn't seem to last long.

6 Legalise car engine conversion for greater mpg. The simplest way to
do this is to close off one or more cylinders by removing rocker arms.
Saves people money

You're kidding? The average ICE barely has
enough power to run on all cylinders.

7 Heavily tax hungry cars at point of sale. Moving people to leaner
vehicles reduces costs. Saves people money

Congressmen like to get reelected, and raising taxes
too much might get them lynched.
There are simply too many old cars here to change
faster than they are doing, people earning less than $10
an hour can't afford a modern efficient car.

8 Increase VED for low mpg cars (annual tax disc), while at the same
time offering a free VED bracket for the 5% highest mpg vehicles (this
would be a moving target, moved annually to keep it to the top 5%).
This could together not change total revenue, though we all know how
it'll go in practice. Saves people money by reducing total fuel
consumption.

There is little or no choice for the majority of drivers
in the US, they buy used cars, drive them till they quit,
junk them and buy another used car.
There are 240 million vehicles here, at 20 million
new cars a year, it will take another 8 years for everybody
to get a 2000 model or newer.

10 Govt to offer a nice fat prize to the person who can design the best
of various categories of energy reduction equipment. Eg:
- solar space heating
- solar dhw
- any other enrgy saving tech
and so on. The requirements would include good ROI, little or minimal
maintnance, and practical diy fitting.

All that is easy on new construction, but difficult
on existing houses, and it only works for young people
who own a home and can count on payback for 20 years.

Theres plenty more. The main barriers are lack of genuine belief in the
need for it and general ignorance regarding energy saving options,
solar design and so on.

For space heating, economics has a bad effect, many
people are using electric heaters in outlets and extension
cords that are not rated for the amperage.
And they are using unvented kerosene heaters,
and even torpedo kerosene heaters without adequate
ventilation.
For both space heating and gasoline, economics
is the determining factor, people are hurting, and have
no way to do much. They really can't afford to
change cars, they owe on the one they are driving.

There are ways to reduce energy use, like having
people move close to where they work, but there isn't
a power that can accomplish that.

Fuel taxation would, but I'm not sure this would be productive anyway.
More tax incentives for home workers, making up for it with tax on
non-homers would also skew the picture and reduce energy use.

There isn't any "home work" to speak of, except
a very few computer users.
Most jobs require a person to do something physical,
and they need to go to work.

Solar energy is primarily a sub-tropic region
energy source, and is not being guided in the right
direction. Solar panels on the roof, especially
retrofitted, is not a good idea, on walls facing the
equator is a much better idea.
Just one leak caused by installing panels
on the roof, and all the savings for 10 years is lost,

Kit mounted atop single storey flat roofs has significant advantages.

We have no single story flat roofs, we don't really
have a good roofing material for nearly flat roofs.
I have tried to buy what is called "selvage" roll
roofing, which is 36 inch material with aggregate only
on 18 inches, and no nails showing with 18 inch overlap,
but the roofers never heard of it, and the supply houses
don't stock it.

FWIW its quite possible to use a controller that detects leaks and
shuts off one section of a parallelled system. This would improve
reliability, reduce ongoing costs, and extend system lifetimes. But
this is only going to be cost effective when the equipment reaches mass
production.

I wasn't talking about the system leaking, it is
the roof leaks that is a problem, roofing __MUST__
be done so that gravity drain without cement or caulking
is accomplished, and it is difficult to do that and still
put screws through the roof to mount panels.

roofs don't usually last more than 15 or 20 years,
so installing panels on a 10 year old roof is not
a good idea.

In Britain average roof lifetime is mesured in centuries.

I need to check out what new homes are roofed
with, I can't believe there can be that much difference
in available materials.

Bee-hive apartments may be energy efficient
with less outside walls, but not everybody is willing
to live in an apartment.

Many are though. New build programs could become more apartment block
oriented. The British planning system makes extending existing
buildings difficult to impossible, and this could also be improved.
Larger buildings house more people more energy efficiently.

British planning can do a lot, because of the times
when the labor party is in control, many accept central
government more than in the US.

Really old buildings may be the most difficult
to heat, and the trend in the US is larger homes,
so nothing is moving in the right direction to save
energy.

Its not too hard to retroinsulate old houses.

It is a nightmare in some cases, my house was
built in 1895, and mu aunt had insulation blown in
the attic without properly sealing all the cracks.
So I have 10 inches of insulation, and dust
in the house.
The walls are a special problem, they have no
insulation, and drilling holes and blowing it in is
not usually satisfactory, so anything done is expensive.

It seems evident that for solar energy to
be affordable by the masses, there has to be a
large Do-it-Yourself effort, with the right ideas,
and a modular approach that can be done a
little at a time is better both for time, and the
up front cost.
Joe Fischer

Yes, and its doable. As the real cost of energy increases, and
knowledge spreads, courtesy of the www, we see more of it being done.
NT

The www is full of misinformation, and the different
types of housing make it difficult to devise a workable
energy saving solution.

Chances are the high cost of energy will cause more
people to do things than any talk of global warming, rising
sea levels, or even shortage scares.
It is important to work on these problems without
getting too concerned about the pace things are moving,
the majority of people simply do not have the money to
do much of anything, and if it costs money to save money,
they don't have the money unless they are in a position
to borrow the money.

Joe Fischer

In message , Joe Fischer
writes
On Sat, OldNick wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 04:17:39 -0500, Joe Fischer
wrote:
There is a lot of USA bashing, but other than the
French nuclear industry, I see very little about what other
countries are doing to reduce CO2 emissions.

Well, coming from Australia I certainly cannot talk. We are right up
there for energy usage.

But a lot of countries might be saying "well we don't need to clean up
so much because we simply use /produce less."

I wasn't aware of any world central government
coming into power. :-)

And I am not convinced there is a problem,

There we are, that's the problem

Septics who (in the face of overwhelming evidence) aren't convinced
there's a problem


--
geoff

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 raden wrote:

In message x Joe Fischer
writes
And I am not convinced there is a problem,

There we are, that's the problem

Septics who (in the face of overwhelming evidence) aren't convinced
there's a problem

I hope there is a problem with your spelling ability.

But if the problem is global warming due to something
man is doing, then the thing to do is get the news media to
give the current world average or mean temperature on
the news and weather every day so everybody is aware
of the increase in real time.

Joe Fischer

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:25:16 -0500, Joe Fischer
wrote:


|
| Most buildings, yes, roofs are asphalt shingles,
|with a little glass fiber in them now that asbestos is
|banned.

No doubt that is why American houses burn down when "wild fires" occur, UK
houses have slate, tile, stone and other incombustible materials for roofs

The fire regulations in the UK would not allow such combustible stuff on
roofs. (not sure about thatch) Fire regulations started with the Great
Fire of London, 1666. It is surprising that the USA is 300+ years behind
the UK
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:25:16 -0500, Joe Fischer
wrote:
|
| Most buildings, yes, roofs are asphalt shingles,
|with a little glass fiber in them now that asbestos is
|banned.

No doubt that is why American houses burn down when "wild fires" occur, UK
houses have slate, tile, stone and other incombustible materials for roofs

The fire regulations in the UK would not allow such combustible stuff on
roofs. (not sure about thatch) Fire regulations started with the Great
Fire of London, 1666. It is surprising that the USA is 300+ years behind
the UK

Asphalt and tar composite roofs aren't as flammable as you might think.
They are, for instance, nowhere near as combustible as thatch and wood
shingle roofs which were common in 1666 London.

What you might view as advancement in regulations others might view as
over-regulation. You may view our (USA) regulations as behind the times
while others may view it as offering more freedom and a less intrusive,
even totalitarian, government.

Of note is the fact that while uk.d-i-y and uk.environment are UK
newsgroups, alt.energy.renewable is not.

Anthony

Joe Fischer wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 raden wrote:
In message x Joe Fischer
writes

And I am not convinced there is a problem,

There we are, that's the problem

Septics who (in the face of overwhelming evidence) aren't convinced
there's a problem

I hope there is a problem with your spelling ability.

But if the problem is global warming due to something
man is doing, then the thing to do is get the news media to
give the current world average or mean temperature on
the news and weather every day so everybody is aware
of the increase in real time.

Joe Fischer

How that has much to do with the solution I dont know. But one thing's
for sure, its always someone elses fault.


NT

Anthony Matonak wrote:

What you might view as advancement in regulations others might view as
over-regulation. You may view our (USA) regulations as behind the times
while others may view it as offering more freedom and a less intrusive,
even totalitarian, government.

I had heard, though its not my area of knowledge, that US codes
dictated certain ways buildings could be built, and nowt else was
permitted. In the UK otoh, no building method is stipulated, one only
has to meet an excessive amount of performance regulations, and with
the more esoteric building types, prove one has met them.

Roofs and flammability are a real issue here, with a lot of house fires
and terraces being very popular. If we had cedar roofs there would be
many more deaths - we learnt that the hard way in 1666. The US has
several times the land per person, making this much less of an issue
there I would expect.


NT

On 18 Nov 2006 02:39:29 -0800, wrote:

6 Legalise car engine conversion for greater mpg. The simplest way to
do this is to close off one or more cylinders by removing rocker arms.
Saves people money

A friend of mine once had a large old Cadillac which did this. It
was as I recall a straight 8 6 litre engine which had the option of
selection "ecomode" from the dashboard by switching to 4 or 6
cylinders which activated valve depressors. (

In true American car fashion the car had the handling of a barge and
a shiny front bench seat, so a seat belt was necessary not for crash
protection but to hold the driver in place when cornering. As
America doesn't have roundabouts I don't think the designer
considered corners to be important.

When using the ecomode with 4 valves selected the car would gradually
slow down if being driven on level roads so you had to adopt a
coast/burn technique. On gentle hills it would eventually come to a
stop if 6 cylinder mode was selected. There was no discernable
difference in fuel consumption between any of the modes but the
vibration in anything other than 8 cylinder mode made driving it a
different experience.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...

But a lot of countries might be saying "well we don't need to clean up
so much because we simply use /produce less."

I wasn't aware of any world central government
coming into power. :-)

And I am not convinced there is a problem,
about the only pollution that may spread outside
North America is from forest fires, and everything
possible is being done to prevent them and put
them out.

Oh thank you, thank you!

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:25:16 -0500, Joe Fischer wrote:

Maybe you don't have hail storms, tornados, hurricanes or earthquakes?

We have all of those apart from hurricanes,

We've had the odd one .... and several tail ends.

our surrounding sea surface
temperature isn't high enough. As for tornados the UK gets more than the
US, how ever they are normally only T1 not the T5 monsters that have
tennis ball sized hail associated...

Give it time.

Mary

"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
...

... You may view our (USA) regulations as behind the times
while others may view it as offering more freedom and a less intrusive,
even totalitarian, government.

Less intrusive?

Tell that to the Iraqis.

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 10:09:37 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
. ..
snip
roofs don't usually last more than 15 or 20 years,

WHAT?

Our house was built in 1937 and has its original roof (plus solar water
heating panel). Most of the others houses on this estate are the same, the
few who have newer roofs have replaced them for reasons other than
failure.
Mary

What kind of roof, slate or terra cotta tile, or metal?

Clay pantiles are the fashion round here.

Mary

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...


Believe me, the cars in use in Europe are not
adequate for US highways, I drove my Alfa Romeo
4 door sedan 6 miles each way to have tires fixed,
and I hate driving it so much I took a wheel off
and took it to have it fixed.
Call me chicken, but I am afraid to be on
the road in it.

All my American friends drive small, economical cars. In America. Washington
state and California.

But most of them are women so they drive with confidence.

Joe Fischer wrote:
On 18 Nov 2006 wrote:
Joe Fischer wrote:
On Sat, Andy Hall wrote:

All of this is focus in completely the wrong area. All the time that
the U.S. continues
not to make much of a federal effort in terms of emissions control

The federal government doesn't own many fossil
fuel power plants.

The US govt does control policy/law though.

Only to a certain extent, on most things the federal
government only has authority for things crossing state lines,
and exerts some control over states by withholding funds
if some goal is not met.

so it does have power. But I accept the political setup is not nearly
as easy there in this respect.


But both the coal industry and the
power plants have been spending fortunes cleaning up
coal to reduce pollution.

Less toxins is nice, but wont have any effect on CO2 output tho.

Frankly, except for Al Gore and this newsgroup,
I never see any mention of CO2.

Thats hard to understand, since CO2 is supposed to be the big player in
global warming.


and
China is opening
a new coal fired power station weekly, all of this other stuff makes so
little difference
that it is a waste of time on environmental grounds.

There is a lot of USA bashing, but other than the
French nuclear industry, I see very little about what other
countries are doing to reduce CO2 emissions.

This is because US uses a lot more energy per person than other
coutries. Where the european drive is more toward efficient use of more
limited resources, the US approach is still generally excess and waste.

Most countries in Europe have no choice,

yes. But today the US does have a choice, and can do things more this
way if it chooses. But US people arent choosing.


Believe me, the cars in use in Europe are not
adequate for US highways, I drove my Alfa Romeo
4 door sedan 6 miles each way to have tires fixed,
and I hate driving it so much I took a wheel off
and took it to have it fixed.
Call me chicken, but I am afraid to be on
the road in it.

Yes, I know. But there are 2 factors, one is car size, the other is
engine power. Most cars on our roads today are overpowered to the point
of silly. New cars having lower power engines would improve fuel
economy. Taxation according to tested mpg would swing consumer choice.


If there was a way I could reduce the energy
use in space heating, I would.

insulation, secondary glazing, draughtproofing, replacing electric
resistance heat with electric heatpumps, and most of all insulation.
Perhaps you've done all you can , but lots havent, especially on older
properties.


Even if the case for CO2 induced global warming could
be demonstrated clearly and proven beyond doubt, there is
nothing much that can be done without people freezing or
giving up income.

Oh, there is.

First bear in mind convincing evidence would cause many more people to
make greener decisions.

So convince me.

No, you missed what I meant. We dont have anything convincing, if/when
we do, people may take more notice.


1 National new build energy policies can switch from gas and coal to
nuke and wind.

The stoppage of nuke plant building was not a policy
decision, it was a failure of contractors and labor to produce
at contract prices, or even at double contract prices.
Also, when nukes were being built there was a
power producer policy of encouraging "all electric"
houses, and they anticipated a constant increase in
electric use that did not materialize, and that made
the failure of nuke contractors and labor more critical.

Wind is probably moving along as fast as possible,
where it is feasible.

One can always skew the playing field some. Nuke is not the only non
CO2 gen tech of course.


2 New build houses can be required to have 6" insulation instead of 2".
Saves people money

Where? The ceilings probably have at least 10 inches
now, but it is difficult to put more than 3.5 inches with 3.5 inch
wall studs.

I'm talking about new build Joe, not retrofit. Building walls with 6"
cavities is hardly rocket surgery.


3 New CH systems can be required to have a programmer for each room, so
time and temp can be set for each. Saves people money

With forced air? Easy, but expensive with existing
hot water systems, but forced air central furnaces would
need powered shutoffs for large ducts, and I have never
seen any for sale.
I do have thermostats in each room, but I also use
switches so I can do the work of the programmable thermostat.

Forced air is almost unheard of here in UK. Most use a hydronic
radiator CH system, with the less well off typically having a wall
mounted gas fire. Room by room programming is suited to hydronic rather
than air.

Fitting room programming is not expensive, though of course its no
freebie. Per room one needs: programmer £40, wallwart £2, resistance
wire to wrap round sensing element on trv £ next to nothing. So a 7
room house would cost 6x42 = £250. Savings would vary, but over the
life of the system would typically be several times £250.


4 A quality BS can be set up for cfls so the decent ones are recognised
by buyers, and marked properly instead of the nonsense equivalence
claims now common. People knowing they can buy quality cfls would mean
many more sales. Saves people money

That would be up to the stores and bulb makers
to advertise and display (in a free country).

No, I didnt explain that one very much. Previously I've proposed a BS
(British Standard) for quality CFLs. Compliance would be voluntary. The
BS would cover all the issues that people are unhappy about with many
cfls. This includes proper power equivalance mrking, tip to base size
marking, CCT, CRI, ave lifetime, etc. If people knew they could buy
decent cfls, many would. Today most dont even realise that there are
good and iffy ones.


5 filament bulbs can be taxed to prod people to move to cfl - the
amount of tax would be low enough not to have much real effect on
anyone's purse, and there is little need to buy filament bulbs anyway.

There are lots of places where cfl will not work,
even where I do use them, they are too long.

There are few such places in reality. Some are too long for old
fittings, some arent.


6 Legalise car engine conversion for greater mpg. The simplest way to
do this is to close off one or more cylinders by removing rocker arms.
Saves people money

You're kidding? The average ICE barely has
enough power to run on all cylinders.

Thats not even remotely true.


7 Heavily tax hungry cars at point of sale. Moving people to leaner
vehicles reduces costs. Saves people money

Congressmen like to get reelected, and raising taxes
too much might get them lynched.

One has to start with people wanting it. The US doesnt seem to have
that.


There are simply too many old cars here to change
faster than they are doing, people earning less than $10
an hour can't afford a modern efficient car.

thats a non issue. The point is to influence new car purchases. I'm
surprised you havent said anything about distorting the market yet


8 Increase VED for low mpg cars (annual tax disc), while at the same
time offering a free VED bracket for the 5% highest mpg vehicles (this
would be a moving target, moved annually to keep it to the top 5%).
This could together not change total revenue, though we all know how
it'll go in practice. Saves people money by reducing total fuel
consumption.

There is little or no choice for the majority of drivers
in the US, they buy used cars, drive them till they quit,
junk them and buy another used car.

still a non issue.

There are 240 million vehicles here, at 20 million
new cars a year, it will take another 8 years for everybody
to get a 2000 model or newer.

thats fairly quick.


10 Govt to offer a nice fat prize to the person who can design the best
of various categories of energy reduction equipment. Eg:
- solar space heating
- solar dhw
- any other enrgy saving tech
and so on. The requirements would include good ROI, little or minimal
maintnance, and practical diy fitting.

All that is easy on new construction, but difficult
on existing houses, and it only works for young people
who own a home and can count on payback for 20 years.

No, you missed it again. I have no interest for systems that barely pay
their way in 20 years, those are no use to anyone. The point is to
offer a fat prize for the first design that meets sensible targets. One
of the key targets would be good ROI, lets say at least 10% pa.


Theres plenty more. The main barriers are lack of genuine belief in the
need for it and general ignorance regarding energy saving options,
solar design and so on.

For space heating, economics has a bad effect, many
people are using electric heaters in outlets and extension
cords that are not rated for the amperage.

This often comes down to ignorance. Replace the resistance heater with
an air source heatpump ac style unit, and your energy use goes down
60%.


And they are using unvented kerosene heaters,
and even torpedo kerosene heaters without adequate
ventilation.

Oh. Those things went the way of the dodo in the 70s here.


For both space heating and gasoline, economics
is the determining factor, people are hurting, and have
no way to do much. They really can't afford to
change cars, they owe on the one they are driving.

what does a rock bottom ac unit cost? How much does it save per year on
heating, using it as a winter heat pump? Sure some cant stump up the
$200, but also some can. Increasing awareness improves things, even if
only some do it.

I dont see any reason for anyone to change cars.


There are ways to reduce energy use, like having
people move close to where they work, but there isn't
a power that can accomplish that.

Fuel taxation would, but I'm not sure this would be productive anyway.
More tax incentives for home workers, making up for it with tax on
non-homers would also skew the picture and reduce energy use.

There isn't any "home work" to speak of, except
a very few computer users.
Most jobs require a person to do something physical,
and they need to go to work.

Yes, hence increasing the taxation skew would make businesses more
interested in finding ways to get more people working from home. Its
doable in some cases.


Solar energy is primarily a sub-tropic region
energy source, and is not being guided in the right
direction. Solar panels on the roof, especially
retrofitted, is not a good idea, on walls facing the
equator is a much better idea.
Just one leak caused by installing panels
on the roof, and all the savings for 10 years is lost,

Kit mounted atop single storey flat roofs has significant advantages.

We have no single story flat roofs, we don't really
have a good roofing material for nearly flat roofs.

I thought these were standard in hot dry regions in the US?


I have tried to buy what is called "selvage" roll
roofing, which is 36 inch material with aggregate only
on 18 inches, and no nails showing with 18 inch overlap,
but the roofers never heard of it, and the supply houses
don't stock it.

IIUC this would be a lot more damage prone in your severe weather than
shingles. Our flat roofs are rolls of shingle like material glued down
onto a flat wood roof. And they dont last so well, hence are not well
regarded.


FWIW its quite possible to use a controller that detects leaks and
shuts off one section of a parallelled system. This would improve
reliability, reduce ongoing costs, and extend system lifetimes. But
this is only going to be cost effective when the equipment reaches mass
production.

I wasn't talking about the system leaking, it is
the roof leaks that is a problem,

right ok.

roofing __MUST__
be done so that gravity drain without cement or caulking
is accomplished, and it is difficult to do that and still
put screws through the roof to mount panels.

Oh, we do that without any difficulty. Steelwork is slipped under the
slates and secured on the inside. But of more significant is new build,
where any type of panel can be integrated into the roof, and replace
some of the roofing cover material.


roofs don't usually last more than 15 or 20 years,
so installing panels on a 10 year old roof is not
a good idea.

In Britain average roof lifetime is mesured in centuries.

I need to check out what new homes are roofed
with, I can't believe there can be that much difference
in available materials.

I think its more choice than availability. Most new houses have
concrete tiles, most old houses, of which there are a great number, use
real slate. US style shingles are rarely seen here. Millions of 1800s
houses still have their original roof.


Bee-hive apartments may be energy efficient
with less outside walls, but not everybody is willing
to live in an apartment.

Many are though. New build programs could become more apartment block
oriented. The British planning system makes extending existing
buildings difficult to impossible, and this could also be improved.
Larger buildings house more people more energy efficiently.

British planning can do a lot, because of the times
when the labor party is in control, many accept central
government more than in the US.

Yes, sadly. It does great damage to our overall housing stock. Both
main parties support the planning system, despite the complaints from
the people.


Really old buildings may be the most difficult
to heat, and the trend in the US is larger homes,
so nothing is moving in the right direction to save
energy.

Its not too hard to retroinsulate old houses.

It is a nightmare in some cases, my house was
built in 1895, and mu aunt had insulation blown in
the attic without properly sealing all the cracks.
So I have 10 inches of insulation, and dust
in the house.

sealing the cracks is difficult? Today one would use rockwool roll, not
blown insulation or lofts.


The walls are a special problem, they have no
insulation, and drilling holes and blowing it in is
not usually satisfactory, so anything done is expensive.

youre lucky enough to have cavity walls there? Here theres a big
national drive to retroinsulate cavity walls, and unsatisfactory
results are rare.

For older houses that dont have cavity walls, battens, rockwool and
plasterboard/sheetrock is the usual way to go.


It seems evident that for solar energy to
be affordable by the masses, there has to be a
large Do-it-Yourself effort, with the right ideas,
and a modular approach that can be done a
little at a time is better both for time, and the
up front cost.
Joe Fischer

Yes, and its doable. As the real cost of energy increases, and
knowledge spreads, courtesy of the www, we see more of it being done.
NT

The www is full of misinformation, and the different
types of housing make it difficult to devise a workable
energy saving solution.

Sorry, but its been done. Its old news here.


Chances are the high cost of energy will cause more
people to do things than any talk of global warming, rising
sea levels, or even shortage scares.

yes... but I dont think they'll rise anything like as much as is hyped.


It is important to work on these problems without
getting too concerned about the pace things are moving,
the majority of people simply do not have the money to
do much of anything, and if it costs money to save money,
they don't have the money unless they are in a position
to borrow the money.

Yes, thats a common problem. Reality is there are very cheap ways to do
things when needed. At one house I saw cardboard cavities on solid
walls, that can be done for peanuts. Borax fire retardant £1, knife
£1, wallpaper glue £1. Plastic film secondary glazing is fairly
cheap, though reuse of old glass is a much better bet. Poverty equals
lack of time for such extras, but when theres savings to be had, some
will do it, once they know it can be done.


NT