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.

So how many % fewer kg of CO2 do they produce now per kWh ?


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.

Well - I understand that the UK is on track to meet its Kyoto targets
which is a start.


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,

Not sure that these are the ONLY things that can contribute.


there can be some
CO2 sequestration but not on the scale that would be needed
to make a difference.

Yes - I'm inclined to agree with this until we see the proof of the
pudding.


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.

On the other hand, if we simply fail to react and just wait to run out
of fuel, then what ??

I'd rather give up some income now than have us be in an untenable
position in a few decades time.


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.

Except planning law.


Retired people could move closer to the equator,
and many do, but most can't afford to.

Indeed. But there's always insulation...


Solar energy is primarily a sub-tropic region
energy source, and is not being guided in the right
direction.

How do you mean ? If it works in the UK, which experience suggests it
does, why shouldn't we use it ? This isn't guiding it in the wrong
direction. It's not as 'we' use it or 'they' use it, (unlike oil !).


Solar panels on the roof, especially
retrofitted, is not a good idea, on walls facing the
equator is a much better idea.

If you mean the panels need to face the sun I guess we agree, though
this is scarcely an argument against retrofit.


Just one leak caused by installing panels
on the roof, and all the savings for 10 years is lost,

So do it right. I don't recall how many systems we've installed and
we've never had a significant leak !


roofs don't usually last more than 15 or 20 years,

Hmmm... Our roof was built in the 30s and is still going strong. Oddly
enough the only significant leak it's had has been in the new extension
bit, and nothing to do with the solar panel.


so installing panels on a 10 year old roof is not
a good idea.

Well - the panels themselves only have a 20 or 25 year design life. I
think my roof will see them out.


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

Indeed.


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.

It's not so much the size as the density of users I guess.


But it is not the US that is most at risk,
countries with no energy reserves are in a crisis
condition, and have few options but to continue
to import almost all their energy needs.

Sounds quite like the US to me.

What fraction of their energy is imported ?


It seems evident that for solar energy to
be affordable by the masses, there has to be a
large Do-it-Yourself effort,

Possibly - that's certainly how I got started, though the commercial
kit is better than you can easily make yourself.

Oddly enough though, I'm the only person I know in this area who has
made a useful system from scratch themselves.

Most people value their time highly, and many don't have the practical
skills - but are willing to pay for commercial kit.


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.

Well - yes, you can always add another panel to get a quicker warm up
time, but to make optimum use of the extra panel area you may need a
bigger heat store, and incremental additions to heat storage may be less
trivial.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On 2006-11-18 02:51:00 +0000, John Beardmore
said:
In message , raden

writes

Solar panels have a reasonably well spec'd return
Agreed, but some people buy them for other reasons.

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.
People that like interesting toys.
People that want to set an educational example.
People that want to save money.
All three seem worthy in one respect or another. Another category
may
also creep in.
People that follow fashion.

I think that that is probably a fair assessment of reasons to purchase.

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

No doubt good sales people instinctively tune into the purchasers
motivations.


In terms of worthiness, I suppose it depends on what one means by
worthiness. Incrementalism is a poor argument at the best of times

I'm not sure I agree. Small changes can still be worth while, even if
they
are only a small part of some larger required outcome.


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.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it.


Still - I suppose their CO2 is as bad as anybody elses, and every
little helps !

Well, hmmm... isn't that Tesco's tag line as they report their latest
set
of profits?

Asda I think ? But does mean that there's no truth in it ?


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 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. 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.

Hmmm... In essence this seems to be an argument in favour of using the
car for small trips, leaving the lights on, not using low energy
lighting and
failing to insulate buildings.

My own view is that other peoples error don't excuse our own.

The control we have over the US and China is limited, and our 'moral
authority' is diminished if we take no action locally.

I'd have some more sympathy for your position if you toured the US and
China trying to get change of one sort or another, but I'd be the first
to
admit that this would be the hell of a commitment - but in the absence
of
such, I strongly favour us doing the best we can personally.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message .
com, writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message , raden
writes
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.

People that like interesting toys.

People that want to set an educational example.

People that want to save money.


All three seem worthy in one respect or another.

The world savers will achieve nothing by fitting solar dhw, as its
counterproductive.

In a general sense or just when people try to save the world ?

Life cycle analysis seems to disagree with you by the way.


To understand that

To understand that, you'd need to be right. I don't think you are.


they'd need to see the connection
between supply & fit cost and the energy input in supplying and fitting
it. Very briefly, money is a form of measure of energy.

It may be an indicator, but not a very good one !

Consider for example the case where a system is installed by one
installer who charges 3000, and another installer installs it for 6000.
Which system has the higher embedded energy ?

To answer that you have to look at what the installer does with the
money. One might plough it back into his company and achieve facility
for
further environmental improvement. The other might fly off one a huge
foreign holiday, but which is which ??

I'd say that price was a very weak indicator of embedded energy.


Without
financial payback It just wont pay back in energy terms either.

There may be a week correlation, but Life Cycle Analysis might be a
better tool to make this determination.


As for education, I doubt theres a single person on the planet -
counting only those in any position to pay for a solar system - who
will be educated to any significant extent by seeing 1 more solar
system in the world.

There are many communities where once one system has been installed,
other people have seen them and chosen to install them.


There are well desgined systems that pay back,

Yes....


but most purchases still
come down to those that fail to properly understand the reasons for
purchase.

Even where this is so, I don't see that it either precludes the
financial
savings or the CO2 mitigation.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message .com,
writes
Joe Fischer wrote:

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.

Hmmm... Flat roofs are notorious for their leaks. As an installer they
make me nervous as it's much harder to satisfy your self that the roof
is intact before work starts and after you've finished. You neither
want to do damage, or be a scapegoat !


FWIW its quite possible to use a controller that detects leaks and
shuts off one section of a parallelled system.

I think Joe meant leak in the roof envelope rather than leak for the
system that somehow gets through the roof ??


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.

Probably better to make kit that won't leak in the first place ?


The British planning system makes extending existing
buildings difficult to impossible,

Not really... Though granted it depends what you want and where you
are.


and this could also be improved.

Yes !!


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.

Depends how far you want to go. It's certainly not as good as making
them better in the first place.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Mary Fisher
writes
"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.

!


I must admit that unless US highways are much worse than those in
Canada, I can't see what the problem is.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , raden
writes
....

with energy consumption

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

I must admit - I can't get excited about phone power supplies, but TVs
on standby are another matter if they are dissipating 10 watts or more.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Joe Fischer
writes
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 raden wrote:

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

Fuel per passenger will come down.

Are you sure this isn't just a weak attempt at a protectionist argument
?


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.

Hmmm... My family were never keen on getting a sheep...


I guess maybe in the UK, coal was being
burned for heat.

Never very efficiently.


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.

For how long ?


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.

What proportion of US energy demand would that meet ?


... 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.

So why is the US situation so much better ?


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

Well - solar DHW meets out bathing needs directly for about 6 months of
the year. I commend it to you !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

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.

The answers seem to be yes and yes with UK domestic systems typically
pulling in 1 to 4 MWh per year depending on panel area and hot water
use.

Granted the more prolific users will displace the most CO2 with them.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

"John Beardmore" wrote in message
news
In message , Mary Fisher
writes
"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.

!


I must admit that unless US highways are much worse than those in Canada,
I can't see what the problem is.

My experience in Canada (British Columbia) is that most of the highways are
pretty empty. My friends in Wa live in and around Seattle and I've been
through there with them during rush hour. It's a bit like London before the
Mayor's tax but with more interesting scenery.

Mary

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:53:01 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

roofs don't usually last more than 15 or 20 years,

Hmmm... Our roof was built in the 30s and is still going strong.

Indeed. The life of a roof rather depends on what the roof is made
of and how well it is looked after.


--
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

"John Beardmore" wrote in message
...

Well - solar DHW meets out bathing needs directly for about 6 months of
the year. I commend it to you !

It meets ours for longer than that and it meets the needs of almost all our
sink and washbasin needs and the washing machine too.

Mary

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 10:24:50 -0000, Mary Fisher wrote:

We have all of those apart from hurricanes,

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

I guess it depends how you define "hurricane". Is it the simple Beaufort
Scale sustained winds of over 72mph (*not* gusts) at a given place or a
real hurricane or typhoon, driven by warm Sea Surface Temperatures.

26C is about the lowest SST required for huricanes to maintain
themselves having formed over warmer water. The waters around the UK are
pushed to get above 15C. Also bear in mind hurricanes are *HUGE*, thier
sheer size never really comes across in the news reports.

If the eye of yer average hurricane passed over Manchester, you would
have sustained winds 72mph from the South Lakes to North Birmingham and
Tropical Storm force winds (39mph) from Glasgow to London. The
destruction this would bring to the UK would be treemendous. It would
make the '87 look like a gentle breeze.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In message , Mary Fisher
writes
"John Beardmore" wrote in message
news

My experience in Canada (British Columbia) is that most of the highways are
pretty empty. My friends in Wa live in and around Seattle and I've been
through there with them during rush hour. It's a bit like London before the
Mayor's tax but with more interesting scenery.

I was thinking of Toronto and north, but I was also thinking of road
build quality rather than the need for armour.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Mary Fisher
writes
"John Beardmore" wrote in message
...

Well - solar DHW meets out bathing needs directly for about 6 months of
the year. I commend it to you !

It meets ours for longer than that

Ours too, but let's not over sell it...


and it meets the needs of almost all our
sink and washbasin needs

Same here.


and the washing machine too.

Couldn't get a hot fill washing machine, even the A rated ones seem to
be cold fill / heat electric.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message .com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message ppk7h.30$JQ.26@trnddc06, SJC writes

Solar thermal panels for space heating is one of the ways we can
save lots of fossil fuels in the future.

I really doubt it !


Cheers, J/.

Whys that?

Because I strongly suspect that there will be cheaper ways to achieve
the same thing, because the UK doesn't have that many cold but bright
days, because the sun doesn't shine when we need space heating, because
passive solar design is more cost effective.


http://www.builditsolar.com/
&
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects...ce_Heating.htm

Yes - and there has been some good work done at one of the Glasgow
universities, and there is a Nu Aire system on sale in the UK that we
have looked at installing for somebody, and the Carbon Trust have waxed
a bit lyrical in some of their training about merging all sorts of
streams of low grade heat to heat space, but all of these things seem to
require a lot of capital cost and super insulated buildings to be
viable, and they also require buildings to use, in some cases, whole
walls as solar collectors which again rather begs the question, would
passive solar be cheaper ?
It also raises planning issues, which knowing the UK, may take decades
to resolve.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Joe Fischer
writes
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. :-)

Aha problem shifting

these Ameristanis think of everything


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.

Yeah ... the idea is to sort of reduce energy


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

Errrrrr ...

compared to Septics who fly like we take the bus ?




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.

Well, when I was a kid, there was no central heating (or air con), yes,
a couple of coal / wood fires in the house

Strangely I'm still here to tell the tale


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.

Not exactly, but in some ways, a good parallel (of course, you can eat
fish when you set fire to them)

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

No, there will be an eleventh hour panic whuich will be too late

(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.

Which is where I'm going to have to sign off and go for my solution

upstairs awaits

--
geoff

In message , Ian
Stirling writes
In uk.d-i-y John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Ian
Stirling writes
In uk.d-i-y raden wrote:
In message , Eric Sears
writes

I think the usual assumption is that the building will have significant
thermal mass internally, in the form of an insulated concrete slab, or
something.



That's not a standard feature of the solar water heating systems we
install. You are getting into the realm of the Hockerton Housing
Project design strategy here, but this has been criticised because of
the environmental impact if making the concrete. Ultra low thermal
capacity buildings also have something to commend them as long as they
can dump heat when required.

I'm not convinced it has no place - 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.

This is not of itself very expensive, though the places it can be easily
installed are of course going to be very limited.

Yes - Our architect dissuaded me from putting a few cube under the
extension of our house.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message .com,
writes
Ian Stirling wrote:
In uk.d-i-y John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Ian
Stirling writes

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.

I suspect the notion was that the water would be a heat store.


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.

If you go down the high thermal capacity route.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On 2006-11-19 14:05:05 +0000, "Dave Liquorice" said:

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 10:24:50 -0000, Mary Fisher wrote:

We have all of those apart from hurricanes,

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

I guess it depends how you define "hurricane". Is it the simple
Beaufort Scale sustained winds of over 72mph (*not* gusts) at a given
place or a real hurricane or typhoon, driven by warm Sea Surface
Temperatures.
26C is about the lowest SST required for huricanes to maintain
themselves having formed over warmer water. The waters around the UK
are pushed to get above 15C. Also bear in mind hurricanes are *HUGE*,
thier sheer size never really comes across in the news reports.

If the eye of yer average hurricane passed over Manchester, you would
have sustained winds 72mph from the South Lakes to North Birmingham
and Tropical Storm force winds (39mph) from Glasgow to London. The
destruction this would bring to the UK would be treemendous. It would
make the '87 look like a gentle breeze.

Ah, but if you've ever had the misfortune to watch local TV in the U.S.
you would have seen that anything more than the gentlest breeze is a
storm and that a tree falling over is major destruction.

On 2006-11-19 13:55:43 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes

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.

The answers seem to be yes and yes with UK domestic systems typically
pulling in 1 to 4 MWh per year depending on panel area and hot water
use.

Granted the more prolific users will displace the most CO2 with them.


Cheers, J/.

I did say with *all* factors taken into account.

In message . com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:

To be honest, while what you say was true 10 years ago, the difference
in cost per area is now pretty small, and the prices we quote to end
users are much the same per area for FP and ET, because while ET is
slightly more expensive, installation is easier and safer in lifting and
handling terms, if not actually quicker.


Cheers, J/.

I suppose thats true of professional installs on rooftops, I'm thinking
more of diy installs, where the cost for a decent area of tubes is way
above that of flat panels,

But that's my whole point. At least in the UK, the prices are now
pretty similar.


Flat panels can give much better performance at ground level or on a
flat roof, as 1 or 2 reflectors are easily added to give anything from
1-2 suns.

Not sure why the same can't be true of ET systems ?


Equipment on a flat roof ditto, mounting the panel either at
an angle from roof to wall or else flat on the wall, reflector below.

I guess the bug bear with that is getting end users to keep the
reflectors clean, especially if they are flat.


I guess the ultimate is a 3 zone system, with a drain heat exchanger
providing the 1st stage of heat input,

Maybe. My understanding is that the people who have tried these in the
UK have not found them cost effective, and I'm not sure what the
regulatory position is either.

Guess energy prices may have changed the first of those at least !


flat panels the 2nd (with
reflectors for best performance), and vac tubes the last.

Possibly. We've done cylinders / heat stores that go

Oil

Wood

Solar

and have also considered

Oil

Solar

Heat pump


Perhaps one
day the equipment will be cheap enough for this to be the done thing.

Or more likely, energy prices will be high enough to justify it.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message .com,
cynic writes

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.

OK. Reflector below ?


The whole batch of kit and pipes came to £1100.

Does that include pump, controller, antifreeze etc ?

What's the collector area ? Who made the panel ?


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.

You should certainly be able to boost it some.


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)

Where is that relative to the solar coil ?


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

Let us know how it goes !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Joe Fischer
writes
"cynic" wrote:

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.

It's getting better, mostly thanks to the Chinese !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , raden
writes
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

They certainly aren't going to save it single handed, and no doubt they
appreciate that, but they'd rather move towards solving the problem,
than gratuitously make it worse.


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

Well - obviously we should all invest in patio heaters then !


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

I've not got an LCA to hand, but my understanding is that they have been
done for various renewables and they have been favourable.

I can't speak for other installers, but the ones I know of which are
small and local don't use reps, though the national ones that do,
presumably do so because it is more efficient financially - I can't say
if it's better environmentally.

One development in the UK is state intervention in the market to
accredit installers and equipment. Accredited products and installers
are listed centrally, so this cuts down on advertising and some other
overheads, and facilitates comparisons between installers and products,
as well as helping consumers identify who is local to them. Although
there are aspects of state intervention that are a pain in the bum such
as keeping some capable people out of the market place, for those of us
that are accredited, it does make us easy to find and reduce some of our
overheads.


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

I don't think we've ever charged more than £3,700 for a domestic system,
and that was 7.2 sqm of evacuated tubes which is on the large side after
all.


All three seem worthy in one respect or another.

Not really

Well - ymmv.


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

Well - in the sense that some installers are trying to sell systems in
the 6,000 to 12,000 range I agree, but how many people these days would
choose to revert to single glazing, especially given recent fuel price
increases ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message . com,
writes
Joe Fischer wrote:
On 18 Nov 2006 wrote:
Joe Fischer wrote:
On Sat, Andy Hall wrote:

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,

I'm not quite sure in what sense ?


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.

Seems to me that some people need more convincing than others.

Polar ice melt, measured temperature increase, CO2 emission rates and
the properties of CO2 will do for me for now. No doubt our
understanding will improve in due course.


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.

Think they cost a lot more than that in the UK.


I dont see any reason for anyone to change cars.

But replacing with better ones is good !


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.

Even the caulking approach has its place.


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.

Evacuated tubes ??


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.

We'll have to see !


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.

Yes - but I'm not sure that such insulation will last too long ?


Plastic film secondary glazing is fairly
cheap, though reuse of old glass is a much better bet.

But needs some sort of frame making.


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.

Yes, but it still takes some skill and money, and an ability to assess
what will work in given circumstances.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

John Beardmore wrote:
In message .
com, writes

To understand that
they'd need to see the connection
between supply & fit cost and the energy input in supplying and fitting
it. Very briefly, money is a form of measure of energy.

It may be an indicator, but not a very good one !

I wrote about / explained the money -energy connection in detail just
recently, so I dont want to again.


NT

Joe Fischer wrote:
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

Metal roofs are generally considered fit only for outbuildings here. I
dont agree, but I'm not the majority. The only folk putting metal roofs
on houses here are people with ancient buildings that have had them in
the past, and where the character is to be preserved. Having lived with
a corrugated metal roof I dont see a problem with them, and didnt mind
the rain noise, but few agree.


NT

In message , Joe Fischer
writes

It is important to work on these problems without
getting too concerned about the pace things are moving,

So best not to do much at all then really ?


the majority of people simply do not have the money to
do much of anything,

Best not do anything much then.


and if it costs money to save money,
they don't have the money unless they are in a position
to borrow the money.

So leave it to the masterly inactivity of market forces as usual
then !


J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Joe Fischer
writes
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.

I hope not - where ?


--
geoff

Peter Parry wrote:
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.

Heh, it didnt sound too healthy. I've driven such an engine, and it was
fine on less cylinders, though certainly not as smooth.


NT

John Beardmore wrote:
In message . com,
writes

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.

Evacuated tubes ??

I meant flat panels, whether for hot water, space heating or even pv.
I'd say space heating is much more the way to go than hw.


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.

Yes - but I'm not sure that such insulation will last too long ?

Many decades, though probably not a century. I've unearthed card boxes
from the 1940s before and they were still strong enough to not have
collapsed in such a situation. Including some bicarb in the fire
retardant neutralises free acid and makes them last longer.


Plastic film secondary glazing is fairly
cheap, though reuse of old glass is a much better bet.

But needs some sort of frame making.

No, frames just look nicer. Basic plastic framing glass is also very
simple and cheap.


NT

In message , John Beardmore
writes
In message , Joe Fischer
writes
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 raden wrote:

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

I certainly didn't


Fuel per passenger will come down.

Are you sure this isn't just a weak attempt at a protectionist argument
?


--
geoff

In message , John Beardmore
writes
In message , raden
writes
...

with energy consumption

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

I must admit - I can't get excited about phone power supplies, but TVs
on standby are another matter if they are dissipating 10 watts or more.

And then you go out nd see all the office blocks and shops with their
lights on all night, the road lighting etc ...

--
geoff

John Beardmore wrote:
In message .com,
writes
Joe Fischer wrote:

Kit mounted atop single storey flat roofs has significant advantages.

Hmmm... Flat roofs are notorious for their leaks. As an installer they
make me nervous as it's much harder to satisfy your self that the roof
is intact before work starts and after you've finished. You neither
want to do damage, or be a scapegoat !

Yes, it is poss though to mount panels on the wall without climbing
onto the roof itself, and use a white roof surface to add reflection.
Access costs go right down this way. Many diyers dont mind doing this,
but would say no to climbing onto the tile/slate roof 2 or 3 floors up.


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.

Probably better to make kit that won't leak in the first place ?

There is no such thing as kit that can never leak. And youre making an
assumption there, sometimes it is better to use cheaper materials and
work around their shortcomings. 3rdly payback depends on system
lifetime. And 4thly, hot air panels avoid all these problems in the
first place.


Its not too hard to retroinsulate old houses.

Depends how far you want to go. It's certainly not as good as making
them better in the first place.

2 different things, both of which need to be done.


NT

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:44:52 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

One development in the UK is state intervention in the market to
accredit installers and equipment.

A great pity the accreditation didn't involve actual testing of
devices to prove they worked and that their performance was at least
close to the sellers invariably vastly overstated claims.

Neither of the only two "accredited" toy windmills in the UK has had
to pass any performance test at all and the makers hopelessly over
inflated performance claims for them now come appear to come with
government approval (which of course may well be a poisoned chalice
in its own right).

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

On 19 Nov 2006 01:36:41 -0800, wrote:

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

The solution really needs to focus on renewable
energy, and that should help with any global warming
problem, if there is one.

But there is likely to be no solution to rising
sea level, even without undersea volcanos or mountain
building, sediment runoff from the worlds rivers will
eventually cause sea level to rise, it is inevitable.

In the immediate future, global warming is
not the scary thing, volcanic activity on the continent
of Antarctica should be the most feared thing by
property owners in low lying coastal areas.

And second, maybe volcanic activity in Greenland.

Joe Fischer

In message .com,
writes
raden wrote:
In message ppk7h.30$JQ.26@trnddc06, SJC writes

Solar thermal panels for space heating is one of the ways we can
save lots of fossil fuels in the future.

Sorry, this is UK.d-i-y, not alt.bad jokes

as practical, as they say, as a chocolate teapot

where are you going to get meaningful heat from at 7am ?

from the gas CH system. Why do you think a solar system would have to
output heat 24 hrs a day to save fuel?

I see 7am or thereabouts, as the time when you really need heating to be
working - bringing the house up to a liveable temperature for the day


--
geoff

On 19 Nov 2006 01:43:53 -0800, wrote:

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.

I am not aware of any "US" code, the federal government
must leave certain things native to individual states up to those
states and local government, according to the constitution.

There is a national electrical code, and a number of
things the federal government is involved in, but local
codes control buildings, and local (city, usually) government
issues the building permits.

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.

Outside city limits in the US, people are often free
to build anything, but the power companies may not
turn power on in new construction without an inspection.

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.

My, you have a long memory. :-)

Cedar "shakes" are popular in the southwest US,
but fire insurance is extra.

The US has
several times the land per person, making this much less of an issue
there I would expect.
NT

In row houses, there is a problem, and I guess
it is row houses or buildings built to the lot line and
in contact or close enough for fire to jump is likely
the reason for the problems in 1666.

Most local governments here require a certain
distance between houses, and inspection and performance,
so that there is not a lot of buildings unfinished.

At the moment, a number of places are in
turmoil, with some organization like a league of
cities exerting influence and pressure to get some
standardization in not only construction, but also
maintenance and appearance, with nuisance
ordinances as leverage.

Connecting buildings can save energy,
but a good designer will put a fire wall all the
way up from the ground to well above the roof.

Joe Fischer

John Beardmore wrote:
In message .com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message ppk7h.30$JQ.26@trnddc06, SJC writes

Solar thermal panels for space heating is one of the ways we can
save lots of fossil fuels in the future.

I really doubt it !

Whys that?

Because I strongly suspect that there will be cheaper ways to achieve
the same thing,

I'm all ears as to what those are. I've not yet found anything cheaper
or with better payback than solar flat plate speace heating. (with one
possible exception that I dont like)


because the UK doesn't have that many cold but bright
days,

No need, we have enough insolation to make it work and pay its way.
Space heating performs significantly differently to the more well known
dhw because the output temp is much lower, and much more efficient mesh
absorber panels can be used.

because the sun doesn't shine when we need space heating,

the sun shines every day, and there is a simple way to use it to
provide evening heat.

because
passive solar design is more cost effective.

Unfortunately that one is too vague to know what you mean


http://www.builditsolar.com/
&
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects...ce_Heating.htm

Yes - and there has been some good work done at one of the Glasgow
universities, and there is a Nu Aire system on sale in the UK that we
have looked at installing for somebody, and the Carbon Trust have waxed
a bit lyrical in some of their training about merging all sorts of
streams of low grade heat to heat space, but all of these things seem to
require a lot of capital cost and super insulated buildings to be
viable,

maybe, but none of that is applicable to the solar space heating I'm
referring to.


and they also require buildings to use, in some cases, whole
walls as solar collectors which again rather begs the question, would
passive solar be cheaper ?

would what passive solar design be cheaper than what? Cheaper to
install, run, or what?


It also raises planning issues, which knowing the UK, may take decades
to resolve.

Perhaps in some circumstances, but not across the board.


NT

John Beardmore wrote:
In message .com,
writes

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.

I suspect the notion was that the water would be a heat store.

Thats a dead duck way to design solar space heating, so no.


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.

If you go down the high thermal capacity route.

Brick/block houses typically have enough, and we've got lots of those
here.


NT