If you are improving your patio area then you may be considering
investing in an expensive gas powered patio heater.

The problem is with gas powered patio heaters is that they do burn a
lot of gas if you are enjoying sitting outside with friends for
several hours.

The last thing you want is to be consious of the amount of propane you
are using and not wanting to get the full benefit of it for fear of
having to lug home another bottle!

Up until now electric patio heaters have not been very economical or
effective but the latest Quartz Halogen heaters make you feel very
warm well into the evening whilst consuming only 1300W of electricity.

I've posted more information about these new kind of patio heater on
my blog at http://householdproductreviews.blogs...0w-quartz.html
with pictures.

In message . com,
Gadget Man writes
If you are improving your patio area then you may be considering
investing in an expensive gas powered patio heater.

The problem is with gas powered patio heaters is that they do burn a
lot of gas if you are enjoying sitting outside with friends for
several hours.

The last thing you want is to be consious of the amount of propane you
are using and not wanting to get the full benefit of it for fear of
having to lug home another bottle!

Up until now electric patio heaters have not been very economical or
effective but the latest Quartz Halogen heaters make you feel very
warm well into the evening whilst consuming only 1300W of electricity.

I've posted more information about these new kind of patio heater on
my blog at
http://householdproductreviews.blogs...our-patio-warm
-with-1300w-quartz.html
with pictures.

That's a **** of a lot of electricity

Why not just go indoors instead, or put on thicker clothing ?

****


--
geoff

Or put a jumper on or go inside

"SJP" wrote in message
...

Or put a jumper on or go inside

Or build a bread oven, fire it up before you intend sitting outside, cook
the bread and enjoy it and the residual heat for yourself and family and
friends.

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"SJP" wrote in message
...

Or put a jumper on or go inside

Or build a bread oven, fire it up before you intend sitting outside, cook
the bread and enjoy it and the residual heat for yourself and family and
friends.

If you insulated the bread oven you wouldn't need as much fuel and would
reduce your CO2 emissions.
However it wouldn't warm you as much.

"raden" wrote in message
...

http://householdproductreviews.blogs...our-patio-warm
-with-1300w-quartz.html
with pictures.

That's a **** of a lot of electricity

Why not just go indoors instead, or put on thicker clothing ?

Its quite cheap compared to bottled propane.
However most propane heaters are several kw so I fail to see how a 1300W
heater would keep you as warm anyway.

A coat is the best bet.

dennis@home wrote:
"raden" wrote in message
...

http://householdproductreviews.blogs...our-patio-warm
-with-1300w-quartz.html
with pictures.

That's a **** of a lot of electricity

Why not just go indoors instead, or put on thicker clothing ?

Its quite cheap compared to bottled propane.
However most propane heaters are several kw so I fail to see how a 1300W
heater would keep you as warm anyway.

A coat is the best bet.

I'm sure most people would put on extra clothing first then only
switch the heater on when necessary.

The 1300w heater I've found produces more heat than a conventional
1300w coil type heater because of the new quartz halogen technology.
It gives greater warmth per watt than a standard electric heater.

In message . com,
Gadget Man writes

dennis@home wrote:
"raden" wrote in message
...

http://householdproductreviews.blogs...our-patio-warm
-with-1300w-quartz.html
with pictures.

That's a **** of a lot of electricity

Why not just go indoors instead, or put on thicker clothing ?

Its quite cheap compared to bottled propane.
However most propane heaters are several kw so I fail to see how a 1300W
heater would keep you as warm anyway.

A coat is the best bet.

I'm sure most people would put on extra clothing first then only
switch the heater on when necessary.

FSVO "necessary"


--
geoff

On 7 May, 20:36, raden wrote:
In message . com,
Gadget Man writes





dennis@home wrote:
"raden" wrote in message
...

http://householdproductreviews.blogs...our-patio-warm
-with-1300w-quartz.html
with pictures.

That's a **** of a lot of electricity

Why not just go indoors instead, or put on thicker clothing ?

Its quite cheap compared to bottled propane.
However most propane heaters are several kw so I fail to see how a 1300W
heater would keep you as warm anyway.

A coat is the best bet.

I'm sure most people would put on extra clothing first then only
switch the heater on when necessary.

FSVO "necessary"

--
geoff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You guys are funny. Post a comment on my blog at
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?bl...4480345029 31

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"SJP" wrote in message
...

Or put a jumper on or go inside

Or build a bread oven, fire it up before you intend sitting outside, cook
the bread and enjoy it and the residual heat for yourself and family and
friends.

If you insulated the bread oven you wouldn't need as much fuel and would
reduce your CO2 emissions.
However it wouldn't warm you as much.

Ours is so well insulated that you can hardly feel any heat on the outside
skin. It has to be well insulated to work.

But you're reckoning without radiant heat ... which is what you get from
patio heaters. From a bread oven you get the radiant heat after the bread
has baked and the door is left off.

As for CO2 emissions, wood is used for the fire so the effect is neutral
over far less time than it is from gas - and there's no processing except
for sawing the limbs off the tree, which is what we do.

Mary

"Gadget Man" wrote in message
ups.com...

The 1300w heater I've found produces more heat than a conventional
1300w coil type heater because of the new quartz halogen technology.
It gives greater warmth per watt than a standard electric heater.


No they don't, they produce the same amount of heat.
If anything a quartz halogen one would produce more light and less heat but
its irrelevant as the light gets converted to heat anyway.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

As for CO2 emissions, wood is used for the fire so the effect is neutral
over far less time than it is from gas - and there's no processing except
for sawing the limbs off the tree, which is what we do.

You actually believe that because its wood burning its carbon neutral?
Even if you plant a tree now it will take tens of years before it absorbs
the carbon so you are at least polluting the world with CO2 for a few
decades.

In message . com,
Gadget Man writes
On 7 May, 20:36, raden wrote:
In message . com,
Gadget Man writes





dennis@home wrote:
"raden" wrote in message
...

http://householdproductreviews.blogs...our-patio-warm
-with-1300w-quartz.html
with pictures.

That's a **** of a lot of electricity

Why not just go indoors instead, or put on thicker clothing ?

Its quite cheap compared to bottled propane.
However most propane heaters are several kw so I fail to see how a 1300W
heater would keep you as warm anyway.

A coat is the best bet.

I'm sure most people would put on extra clothing first then only
switch the heater on when necessary.

FSVO "necessary"

--
geoff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You guys are funny. Post a comment on my blog at
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?bl...4480345029 31

Sorry - CBA, and you've prolly got a sweary word filter, or you'd get
upset at my direct language

I just find the whole idea of patio heaters pointless and in a world
where we should be making insignificant gestures to reducing global
warming, a really pointless waste of energy

So -**** off

--
geoff

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"SJP" wrote in message
...

Or put a jumper on or go inside

Or build a bread oven, fire it up before you intend sitting outside, cook
the bread and enjoy it and the residual heat for yourself and family and
friends.

If you insulated the bread oven you wouldn't need as much fuel and would
reduce your CO2 emissions.
However it wouldn't warm you as much.


Just going slightly off topic a moment.
There was a bod on the radio this morning talking about the new energy
surveyors that the government are training and he said, that some of the
measures to get a persons house upto the specified standard would be quite
expensive but would pay for themselves within 9 years.
The interviewer said, well, what happens if a person can't afford to pay for
the work that needs to be done.
The reply was deafening silence!!
--
the_constructor

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

As for CO2 emissions, wood is used for the fire so the effect is neutral
over far less time than it is from gas - and there's no processing except
for sawing the limbs off the tree, which is what we do.

You actually believe that because its wood burning its carbon neutral?
Even if you plant a tree now it will take tens of years before it absorbs
the carbon so you are at least polluting the world with CO2 for a few
decades.


" the effect is neutral over far less time than it is from gas"

Read before you jump in.

Mary

On Mon, 7 May 2007 21:00:37 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

You actually believe that because its wood burning its carbon neutral?
Even if you plant a tree now it will take tens of years before it
absorbs the carbon so you are at least polluting the world with CO2 for
a few decades.

Look in the other direction, the tree you cut down to burn absorbed CO2
over the last 50 odd years. It is not releasing fossil carbon which is the
*real* problem. Dumping back into the atmosphere tonnes of carbon that had
been safely locked up for millions of years.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

As for CO2 emissions, wood is used for the fire so the effect is neutral
over far less time than it is from gas - and there's no processing
except for sawing the limbs off the tree, which is what we do.

You actually believe that because its wood burning its carbon neutral?
Even if you plant a tree now it will take tens of years before it absorbs
the carbon so you are at least polluting the world with CO2 for a few
decades.


" the effect is neutral over far less time than it is from gas"

Read before you jump in.

The reality is that it is not neutral and probably never will be.
Do you own a forest and make sure you don't burn more than you grow?
If you do how are you going to ensure it is never cut down?
Maybe you can grow trees and dump them in an ocean trench at a faster rate
than you burn them?

Gadget Man wrote:
If you are improving your patio area then you may be considering
investing in an expensive gas powered patio heater.

The problem is with gas powered patio heaters is that they do burn a
lot of gas if you are enjoying sitting outside with friends for
several hours.

The last thing you want is to be consious of the amount of propane you
are using and not wanting to get the full benefit of it for fear of
having to lug home another bottle!

Up until now electric patio heaters have not been very economical or
effective but the latest Quartz Halogen heaters make you feel very
warm well into the evening whilst consuming only 1300W of electricity.

I've posted more information about these new kind of patio heater on
my blog at http://householdproductreviews.blogs...0w-quartz.html
with pictures.


The best alternative to a gas patio heater is *not* car body filler.

It is cheaper to move to the tropics than use a gas patio heaters, and
move the entire circle of friends rather than use an electric heater.

Cheapest of all is to go indoors and fetch a fleece and put it on.

Gadget Man wrote:

Up until now electric patio heaters have not been very economical or
effective but the latest Quartz Halogen heaters make you feel very
warm well into the evening whilst consuming only 1300W of electricity.

What's "the latest" about something that my granny had to keep her
bathroom warm in 1967?

We keep out patio warm with zero net CO2 emissions by burning logs in a
log burner. And that lets us do arrosticini in the embers which is
impossible with a pathetic 1300W electric fire.

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Gadget Man wrote:
If you are improving your patio area then you may be considering
investing in an expensive gas powered patio heater.
The problem is with gas powered patio heaters is that they do burn a
lot of gas if you are enjoying sitting outside with friends for
several hours.
The last thing you want is to be consious of the amount of propane
you
are using and not wanting to get the full benefit of it for fear of
having to lug home another bottle!
Up until now electric patio heaters have not been very economical or
effective but the latest Quartz Halogen heaters make you feel very
warm well into the evening whilst consuming only 1300W of electricity.
I've posted more information about these new kind of patio heater on
my blog at
http://householdproductreviews.blogs...your-patio-war
m-with-1300w-quartz.html
with pictures.


The best alternative to a gas patio heater is *not* car body filler.

It is cheaper to move to the tropics than use a gas patio heaters, and
move the entire circle of friends rather than use an electric heater.

Cheapest of all is to go indoors and fetch a fleece and put it on.

Do you think that the OP is detecting a pattern here ?


--
geoff

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

As for CO2 emissions, wood is used for the fire so the effect is
neutral
over far less time than it is from gas - and there's no processing
except for sawing the limbs off the tree, which is what we do.

You actually believe that because its wood burning its carbon neutral?
Even if you plant a tree now it will take tens of years before it
absorbs
the carbon so you are at least polluting the world with CO2 for a few
decades.


" the effect is neutral over far less time than it is from gas"

Read before you jump in.

The reality is that it is not neutral and probably never will be.
Do you own a forest and make sure you don't burn more than you grow?
If you do how are you going to ensure it is never cut down?
Maybe you can grow trees and dump them in an ocean trench at a faster rate
than you burn them?


What if, like me, you use wood from trees that have either beeen blown down
or chopped down by the the local property developers? That way it is
relatively eco-friendly as the wood was only going to burnt on a bonfire if
I hadn't got some use out of it.

Although to be honest I don't much care for the eco-friendly or not
arguements - there is something deeply satisfying about prodding a fire with
a stick whilst drinking a beer and if I can do it at liitle or no cost by
using free wood then that's a bonus.

Cheers

Mark

On 7 May, 19:31, Gadget Man wrote:

If you are improving your patio area then you may be considering
investing in an expensive gas powered patio heater.

The problem is with gas powered patio heaters is that they do burn a
lot of gas if you are enjoying sitting outside with friends for
several hours.

The last thing you want is to be consious of the amount of propane you
are using and not wanting to get the full benefit of it for fear of
having to lug home another bottle!

Up until now electric patio heaters have not been very economical or
effective but the latest Quartz Halogen heaters make you feel very
warm well into the evening whilst consuming only 1300W of electricity.

I've posted more information about these new kind of patio heater on
my blog athttp://householdproductreviews.blogspot.com/2007/05/keep-your-patio-w...
with pictures.

Theres nothing new about this silly game. People have been trying to
sell overpriced halogen and ceramic element heters for years. 1300w
gives you 1300w of heat for all types of electric heater, regardless
of element type.

1300w isnt much for a patio heater of course. And the whole concept of
patio heating is a bit daft.


NT

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Mon, 7 May 2007 21:00:37 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

You actually believe that because its wood burning its carbon neutral?
Even if you plant a tree now it will take tens of years before it
absorbs the carbon so you are at least polluting the world with CO2 for
a few decades.

Look in the other direction, the tree you cut down to burn absorbed CO2
over the last 50 odd years. It is not releasing fossil carbon which is the
*real* problem. Dumping back into the atmosphere tonnes of carbon that had
been safely locked up for millions of years.

If you believe CO2 is the problem it doesn't matter if its from fossil fuels
or if its from brewing beer.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...


We keep out patio warm with zero net CO2 emissions by burning logs in a
log burner.

No you don't (I can say that with almost 100% certainty.. just do the sums).
I bet you didn't plant a forest 20 years ago just to save some CO2 so you
could burn it now.
If not then what you said isn't true and will probably never be true.

Gadget Man wrote:
If you are improving your patio area then you may be considering
investing in an expensive gas powered patio heater.

Every time someone mentions the phrase "patio heater" in this ng, it
draws an instant torrent of abuse - "go inside" "put a jumper on" etc etc.

I was tempted to write a 'fake' post asking for help on how to solve a
problem with my hot air balloon, just to see what the response would be.
I am sure I'd have had the usual helpful comments on how to solve the
problem. I think can I can pretty well guarantee that not one person
would have mentioned the quantity of energy they use - apparently these
things use up propane at a rate of 3,500 kW (http://tinyurl.com/39fow9),
ie around 300-1000 times more than a patio heater. So, better get those
banned sharpish, eh?

If Fred can get his entertainment by tearing up the skies in his hot-air
balloon (or going for a fun drive in his Ferrari or Harley Davidson)
then why shouldn't Joe (who doesn't go ballooning, travels only by
public transport, take his holidays in the UK and has 12" of Kingspan in
his roof) be allowed to burn some propane outside once in a while, if
that's how *he* likes to enjoy himself?

OK, I'm playing Devil's advocate here - I don't think patio heaters are
a great idea; I just think the diatribe which they alone invoke each
time they are mentioned here is somewhat hypocritical.

David

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

As for CO2 emissions, wood is used for the fire so the effect is
neutral over far less time than it is from gas - and there's no
processing except for sawing the limbs off the tree, which is what we
do.

You actually believe that because its wood burning its carbon neutral?
Even if you plant a tree now it will take tens of years before it
absorbs the carbon so you are at least polluting the world with CO2 for
a few decades.


" the effect is neutral over far less time than it is from gas"

Read before you jump in.

The reality is that it is not neutral and probably never will be.
Do you own a forest and make sure you don't burn more than you grow?
If you do how are you going to ensure it is never cut down?
Maybe you can grow trees and dump them in an ocean trench at a faster rate
than you burn them?

You're straying a bit.

You said that a planted tree will take tens of years ... we only use trees
fromour own garden or others' (not forests) which would otherwise be
landfill. the alternative to baking bread using wood is baking it using
electricity, oil or gas.

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Gadget Man wrote:
If you are improving your patio area then you may be considering
investing in an expensive gas powered patio heater.

Every time someone mentions the phrase "patio heater" in this ng, it draws
an instant torrent of abuse - "go inside" "put a jumper on" etc etc.

I was tempted to write a 'fake' post asking for help on how to solve a
problem with my hot air balloon, just to see what the response would be. I
am sure I'd have had the usual helpful comments on how to solve the
problem. I think can I can pretty well guarantee that not one person
would have mentioned the quantity of energy they use - apparently these
things use up propane at a rate of 3,500 kW (http://tinyurl.com/39fow9),
ie around 300-1000 times more than a patio heater. So, better get those
banned sharpish, eh?

There aren't many easy alternatives to a hot air ballon are there?
There are plenty of alternatives to patio heaters that don't work very well
at all.
I am quite sure you would have got sensible (if not safe) answers.


If Fred can get his entertainment by tearing up the skies in his hot-air
balloon (or going for a fun drive in his Ferrari or Harley Davidson) then
why shouldn't Joe (who doesn't go ballooning, travels only by public
transport, take his holidays in the UK and has 12" of Kingspan in his
roof) be allowed to burn some propane outside once in a while, if that's
how *he* likes to enjoy himself?

OK, I'm playing Devil's advocate here - I don't think patio heaters are a
great idea; I just think the diatribe which they alone invoke each time
they are mentioned here is somewhat hypocritical.

Well you would probably get many negatives about the Harley and the Farrari
and rightly so.

Gadget Man wrote:

You guys are funny. Post a comment on my blog at
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?bl...4480345029 31

WTF?
What's so important about your ****ing blog, ****!

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

The reality is that it is not neutral and probably never will be.
Do you own a forest and make sure you don't burn more than you grow?
If you do how are you going to ensure it is never cut down?
Maybe you can grow trees and dump them in an ocean trench at a faster
rate than you burn them?

You're straying a bit.

You said that a planted tree will take tens of years ... we only use trees
fromour own garden or others' (not forests) which would otherwise be
landfill. the alternative to baking bread using wood is baking it using
electricity, oil or gas.

So you are taking CO2 trapped in wood and releasing it into the atmosphere..
how is that carbon neutral?
Even if you replant that tree the CO2 is there for years and then released
again when you decide to burn it again.
Also it may well be more green to use gas or electricity in a better oven
(say at a bakery).

I get annoyed by these so called greens saying how they are carbon neutral
and that I should do my bit too.

On 2007-05-08 10:40:41 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Gadget Man wrote:
If you are improving your patio area then you may be considering
investing in an expensive gas powered patio heater.

Every time someone mentions the phrase "patio heater" in this ng, it draws
an instant torrent of abuse - "go inside" "put a jumper on" etc etc.

I was tempted to write a 'fake' post asking for help on how to solve a
problem with my hot air balloon, just to see what the response would be. I
am sure I'd have had the usual helpful comments on how to solve the
problem. I think can I can pretty well guarantee that not one person
would have mentioned the quantity of energy they use - apparently these
things use up propane at a rate of 3,500 kW (http://tinyurl.com/39fow9),
ie around 300-1000 times more than a patio heater. So, better get those
banned sharpish, eh?

There aren't many easy alternatives to a hot air ballon are there?

The first level answer is the same, which is don't.

A hot air balloon isn't a *necessary* form of transport any more than a
patio heater is *necessary* either.

Therefore the discussion becomes about what people would *like* to do.

As Lobster says, a question/discussion about the balloon would probably
not have resulted in criticism but in some helpful comments, whereas
the mention of a patio heater results in criticism as to why one might
want a patio heater in the first place.

I wouldn't particularly want to have a patio heater either, but only
because I don't care for the radiant heat beamed down from them.

However, one does see them used at restaurants etc. in nominally sunny
places where it gets chilly after dark but people would *like* to
continue sitting outside. Personally I ask for one where I am
sitting to be turned off, but because I don't like it, but I don't
expect the restaurant or other customers to do without.

It does seem that there is a tendency to single out individual
contributing sources of CO2 emission (e.g. patio heaters, 4x4s,
Ferraris) in a way that is out of proportion to the overall picture
while ignoring others.

People go ballooning because they *like* to. Most probably don't do
it every week, but I know a couple of regular balloonists. Everybody
else sees these things floating across the sky early in the morning or
the evening, thinks that that they are really quite attractive and
would like a go at some point. I wonder what would happen if a press
campaign were started to demonise them. Suddenly they would become an
eco-bete-noir and beyond the pale.

dennis@home wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...


We keep out patio warm with zero net CO2 emissions by burning logs in a
log burner.

No you don't (I can say that with almost 100% certainty.. just do the sums).
I bet you didn't plant a forest 20 years ago just to save some CO2 so you
could burn it now.

No, I planted most of it 15 to 5 years ago. But the wood I use is growth
from about three to ten years old, and is (some of) the three tonnes of
prunings I take each year.

If not then what you said isn't true and will probably never be true.

You're talking out of your arse, HTH.

dennis@home wrote:

So you are taking CO2 trapped in wood and releasing it into the atmosphere..
how is that carbon neutral?

Because the carbon in wood is absorbed from the atmosphere.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...


Also it may well be more green to use gas or electricity in a better oven
(say at a bakery).

I prefer to eat real bread.

I get annoyed by these so called greens saying how they are carbon neutral
and that I should do my bit too.

We'd never have guessed.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

So you are taking CO2 trapped in wood and releasing it into the
atmosphere..
how is that carbon neutral?

Because the carbon in wood is absorbed from the atmosphere.

But you release it now and reabsorb it in a few years time.
The net effect is an increase in the CO2 in the air.
It is not carbon neutral.

Its the same with wind power, etc.
It isn't carbon neutral.. it only saves CO2 when compared to other methods.
Once all electricity is wind/wave/solar it will not /save/ any CO2.

The reality is that you can only save CO2 by not using the energy.

It will take a large scale move to actually removing CO2 before anything is
actually carbon neutral.

On 08/05/2007 12:42, dennis@home wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

So you are taking CO2 trapped in wood and releasing it into the
atmosphere..
how is that carbon neutral?
Because the carbon in wood is absorbed from the atmosphere.

But you release it now and reabsorb it in a few years time.
The net effect is an increase in the CO2 in the air.
It is not carbon neutral.

Alternate way of looking at it, it /was/ absorbed from the air over the
last x years, during which period it was carbon negative, it is then
release by burning and becomes carbon neutral.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
On 08/05/2007 12:42, dennis@home wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

So you are taking CO2 trapped in wood and releasing it into the
atmosphere..
how is that carbon neutral?
Because the carbon in wood is absorbed from the atmosphere.

But you release it now and reabsorb it in a few years time.
The net effect is an increase in the CO2 in the air.
It is not carbon neutral.

Alternate way of looking at it, it /was/ absorbed from the air over the
last x years, during which period it was carbon negative, it is then
release by burning and becomes carbon neutral.


Yes if you want to smirk about how green you are.
However I could say the same about fossil fuel it was absorbed by plants in
the past and buried for a few million years then burnt.

However if you actually believe we are causing GW then its of no use
whatsoever as both increase the CO2..

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

....


Yes if you want to smirk about how green you are.


Sounds to us as though you're the one who's smirking.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 May 2007 21:19:35 +0100 The_constructor wrote :
There was a bod on the radio this morning talking about the new energy
surveyors that the government are training and he said, that some of the
measures to get a persons house upto the specified standard would be
quite expensive but would pay for themselves within 9 years.
The interviewer said, well, what happens if a person can't afford to pay
for the work that needs to be done.
The reply was deafening silence!!

There's not much to be said: you just put your property on the market
as-is with an E F or G rating. It is noticeable though that depending on
their agenda, newspapers say one of two things:

(a) this is terrible; owners of older houses are going to get dreadful
ratings which will render their homes unsellable.

(b) the whole exercise is a waste of effort as no one is going to take any
notice of the energy certificate anyway. It's the kitchen units that
matter!

both of which cannot be true.

They can.
The man won't buy it because the certificates cr@p.
The woman won't buy it because the kitchen units are the wrong colour.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

...


Yes if you want to smirk about how green you are.


Sounds to us as though you're the one who's smirking.


What about?
I am not the one who keeps claiming they are carbon neutral even when its
obviously untrue.

On 2007-05-08 14:53:30 +0100, Tony Bryer said:

On Mon, 7 May 2007 21:19:35 +0100 The_constructor wrote :
There was a bod on the radio this morning talking about the new energy
surveyors that the government are training and he said, that some of the
measures to get a persons house upto the specified standard would be
quite expensive but would pay for themselves within 9 years.
The interviewer said, well, what happens if a person can't afford to pay
for the work that needs to be done.
The reply was deafening silence!!

There's not much to be said: you just put your property on the market
as-is with an E F or G rating. It is noticeable though that depending on
their agenda, newspapers say one of two things:

(a) this is terrible; owners of older houses are going to get dreadful
ratings which will render their homes unsellable.

(b) the whole exercise is a waste of effort as no one is going to take any
notice of the energy certificate anyway. It's the kitchen units that
matter!

both of which cannot be true.

Most people ought to be able to figure out that an older property with
solid walls is going to have a poorer rating than a newer one and that
there is little that can be done apaprt from a bit of loft insulation
and perhaps some double glazing, assuming that that hasn't been done
already.

They may be interested in the heating costs, but they depend on the
size of the building anyway.

I suspect that there may be some small short term influence on prices,
but don't see that unless it is demonstrated what the actual *cost*
will be of heating a given property that they will rank this as a high
priority.

Location, school catchment area and perhaps the kitchen rise further to
the surface.

Houses won't become unsaleable and nor will energy requirement be
totally ignored. Whether this exercise will influence purchases and
prices, I rather doubt.