Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
"Derek Geldard" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:04:39 +0100, "Mary Fisher" wrote: "Jonathan" wrote in message groups.com... ... "An Inconvenient Truth", which was cleared to be shown in UK schools after axe-grinding truck driver and political activist Stewart Dimmock failed in his case to have the film banned. Although the judge A renowned expert ... As if Al Gore knows any better ... He knows America is on to the fact that he is a fool; so he now courts international glory, hoping for a more gullible public. Of course, the folks here in the US are pretty much the world's leaders in stupidity. In fact, with Al Gore, it has now become a major export. DG |
#42
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 19:11:45 +0100, Eeyore
wrote: Jonathan wrote: Mike has somehow managed to knacker OE so it doesn't put the quotes properly, so I've re-inserted them to avoid confusion.... On 14 Oct, 12:12, "Mike" wrote: "Jonathan" wrote in message I would need to alter the loft to take the weight of the solar panels too, I've never come across this - unless your loft is of extremely poor or degraded construction. OR you may have been looking at a combination of "old-tech" flat panels AND a weak roof. Plenty of Victorian era houses wouldn't meet today's building regs. They, *may*, probably, be alright. ;-)) But a modern trussed roof (As opposed to what builders call a "Proper" roof) is only designed to support the weight and wind loadings of the roof itself and the ceiling that hangs from it. DG |
#43
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:09:35 +0100, D Moodie wrote:
Jonathan wrote: On 14 Oct, 10:41, Eeyore wrote: Jonathan wrote: £755 for loft insulation? I can certainly believe that one with today's health and safety requirements. Maybe £300 in materials and £455 labour ? Sorry, but not even close to a cigar! Ours was £150 for a complete replacement. The figures are he http://www.oxford.gov.uk/environment/insulation.cfm For convenience, the figures a 250mm loft insulation where NONE at present Installation: £210-230 (installer) From £170 (DIY) Annual saving on fuel bills £80-100 Cost recovered : 2-3 years (installer) Around 2 years (DIY) Yes, the ones quoted in the weekend papers tend to be out by about 150% in a lot of cases, and in the case of central heating replacement don't take into account that you may well be changing the system in any case. However I find the figures quoted in the website you reference equally misleading. Every item seems to have an asterix, but no corresponding explaination.. I wonder if this is the cost after some sort of grant. For example cavity wall insulation installed for £280..!!!! alternative green sites even suggest this is closer to £500 http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/article89.html They are suggesting that labour for installing loft installation will be less than 100 quid, I find that suspect. They suggest that diy underfloor installtion will be less than £100... I'd really like to know where all their materials come from... that would be genuinely useful information. People can make these numbers come up with whatever they want... a bit like those charlatan windmill salemen. For credible results, more information is certialy required.. as you note..and you should never let journalists free with this sort of stuff as they are incapable of any sort of critical analysis. But how about your own ethical figures for a solar thermal installation what does that come out with? wild ass guess install 1500-2000, saving 75-100, payback potenially 20years.? I had cavity wall insulation put into a three-bed semi about three years ago (Manchester area) - cost was around two hundred and fifty quid. SteveW |
#44
Posted to alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
Eeyore wrote:
Jonathan wrote: On 14 Oct, 17:04, "Bob Eager" wrote: On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:31:33 UTC, Jonathan And hey, 9 inconclusive statements in a 2 hour film looks a bit better than 8 out of 8 entirely inaccurate and misleading figures in a report! But a lot of them aren't inaccurate, are they? They represent reasonable costs. Or, show me where you can get a good quality TRV installed for £9 all in. Assuming a labour cost of £80 per hour, even a chimp could replace 4 valves an hour, allow an hour for drain-down, an hour for test, and an hour for a fag and for a 10 rad house you have £100 for the valves+ £360 for the labour = £460. Tell me how you'd bump that up to £2,240? We've already disproved the loft insulation and tank lagging costs, Where did you disprove the loft insulation costs ? I just looked at some loft insulation in one of the DIY stores. It's ~ £14 for a 4m roll of 200mm thick insulation, 370mm wide. http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav/na...&isSearch=true Calculating the celing area for my house, I'd need 5m x 8m for the main roof, another 2.5m x 3m for the remainder of the L shaped bit, and about another 3m x 4m for a single storey extension. That's 59.5m2 Each roll is 1.48m2. So that's 40 rolls. At £14 ea that's £560 ! And that's BEFORE labour ! I live in a small house, 3 bedrooms and it cost me less than £150-00 to add an extra 4 inch of batten to the base and fill with another 4 inch of insulation. The only stuff I bought from the sheds was the plastic covered insulation that goes around the edges at the front and back of the house, where I was liable to get bitten by the insulation. Dave |
#45
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
Jim wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message oups.com... On 14 Oct, 15:37, Eeyore wrote: Par for the course. Even the Nobel comittee were ignorant enough to get taken in by Al Gore's comedy film. Hmmm, I didn't know he made a comedy film, but the film the Nobel comittee were concerned with was the Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth", which was cleared to be shown in UK schools after axe-grinding truck driver and political activist Stewart Dimmock failed in his case to have the film banned. Although the judge commented that there were 9 inconclusive statements in the two hour film... "[...] it is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth - that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases So, if it's not solar insolation causing global warming, which is not necessarily a bad thing, why are the Martian ice caps melting? The emissions from that damned little robot NASA has running around???? Some people are beyond help. LOL Sanity at last :-) Dave |
#46
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:57:46 -0700, Jonathan
wrote: I work very hard to market ethically, using the "safest low figures" as provided by the Energy Saving Trust and guidelines from the Solar Trade Association You consider them to be reliable sources? The very, very minimum saving on an appropriate solar thermal installation is £75 per annum per panel, in the real world it's many times more. Actually in the real world it's usually less, and the "per panel" figure is twaddle because in the few peak months you simply make more water than you can use with multiple panels. The gain of the extra panels only occurs at either end of the summer and during winter and is very small compared with their cost. I'm sure even the most sceptical person in this group can see all of the figures are utter nonsense. But what to do about an ignorant public? The ignorant public have been mislead by various proponents of greenwash for decades. I haven't noticed installers and the Solar Trade Association doing anything about countering the ludicrous claims made on behalf of their industry. -- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/ |
#47
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:58:06 -0500
"Jim" wrote: So, if it's not solar insolation causing global warming, which is not necessarily a bad thing, why are the Martian ice caps melting? The emissions from that damned little robot NASA has running around???? Oh now that is wonderful - do you have a cite I can hit people with ? -- C:WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see | http://www.sohara.org/ |
#48
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
Jonathan wrote:
9 inconclusive statements But the judge didn't refer to them as "inconclusive statements" did he? The judge used the terms "inaccurate", "alarmist" and "exaggeration." He also stated: "It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film - although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion - but that it is a political film." And he didn't jsut pass it for exhibition in schools, he only permitted its release with the proviso that it be issued with guidance notes to balance Gore's "one sided views". So it looks like Al Gore doesn't have a monopoly on untruths, you're up there giving him a hand. |
#49
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 06:12:46 -0700, Jonathan
wrote: The big problem with the CAT is that it is ALTERNATIVE not MODERN technology. The last time I looked, they were using inefficient flat panels from the 70's. Actually the "modern" vacuum tubes being sold at inflated prices pre-date the 70's by a considerable margin and were in domestic use in the mid-70's at least. They are not exactly "high tech", their advantage from an salesman's point of view is they look it and can be used to fool the gullible. The problem is that in the UK they are not all that much more effective than the flat panel. For some unbiased data the DTI report ETSU S/P3?00275/REP/2 DTI/Pub URN 01/1292 gives the figures for vacuum tube and flat panel systems which were monitored over 7 months. They found little difference between the overall system performance of flat panel and evacuated tube systems. In general the systems produced 75% or more of the domestic hot water requirement during May Jun and Jul, between 50 and 75% in Aug and Sept, Less than 30% in Oct, and about 10% from Nov to Jan rising to 20% in Feb and 40% in Mar. For most people that doesn't produce a saving of £75 per year much less "many times more". Indeed your favoured Energy Saving Trust in their report "Potential for Microgeneration Study and Analysis Final Report 14th November 2005" say "[Solar water heating is] Currently the largest microgeneration industry, installing 2000 units annually. Generally, solar water heating is not cost effective at present. The technology is most effective if replacing electric heating systems." "Solar water heating (active solar): reductions in generated energy cost are required for break even with electrical water heating. Break-even is not predicted for gas (or oil) boiler water heating. This is because of high capital costs combined with low oil and gas prices. Approximately 50% capital cost reduction is necessary for break-even with electrical water heating by 2015 –2020." "Solar water heating does not break-even with gas boiler water heating, and will require large cost reductions to break-even with electrical water heating by 2015 –2020." -- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/ |
#50
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
Eeyore wrote:
John Rumm wrote: Huge wrote: This one is £35,000 installed. http://www.energyenv.co.uk/WindPowerKits_20Kw.asp Payback time; 35+ years. Waste of money. Only if you get your 20kW - few places in the UK have a consistent wind speed of 12m/sec or better. You're lucky to get 9m/s anywhere never mind 12 ! About 5-6m/s in much of the South East from when I looked at it last week. Which brings you power down to 5kW tops - so only a 140 year payback... -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#51
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 14:07:20 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message ... A new tank would be required in the bathroom for the hot water as a further heating coil is required. Don't you have a boiler? To get one with two coils inside is more expensive. You can do your own. I'm reading this in uk.d-i-y. If you can't do it yourself you should have deleted the group from the cross-posting. Correct me if I'm wrong Mary but you seem to be suggesting that (a) you don't need an extra coil for solar heating if you have a boiler (b) that any d-i-yer worth their salt should be able to make a coil and install it in their existing tank themselves. More details please. (I can't make sense of what you're saying even allowing for the fact that you have a solartwin system.) -- John Stumbles Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. |
#52
Posted to alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
Jonathan wrote:
Assuming a labour cost of £80 per hour, even a chimp could replace 4 valves an hour, allow an hour for drain-down, an hour for test, and an Like to see the chimp... Some are easy, however it is also easy to find one that takes a couple of hours titting about - especially when you need to get the floor up to move rad tails etc. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#53
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
Eeyore wrote:
John Rumm wrote: Jonathan wrote: The figures in the graphic are in cloud cuckoo land. £761 to lag the tank? £755 for loft insulation?? £2,240 for It says on the graphic "hot water cylinder and pipework cover" - if this involves lagging all the pipes in the house then the cost seems a little low, when you consider all the making good that would be required after. thermostatic radiator valves? At £9 per valve that's a pretty big house!. All of the costs are between 5-20x exaggerated over real world Close to £40 per valve with fitting I would have thought. Wouldn't you need to drain the system to fit them ? Probably... if doing a whole house certainly. That is another task that can vary in difficulty and time taken as well. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#54
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On 14 Oct, 23:25, Peter Parry wrote:
low oil and gas prices. Wow..someone doesn't pay the bills in their household Yup, those low oil prices are the bane of my life....17p to 37.5p per litre in 3 years. They're just giving it away, right? As the OPEC report for Friday 6th July 2007 says: "The OPEC Reference Basket, the main benchmark for crude oil prices, reported a rise from $58.47/barrel, on average for March, to $66.77/ barrel by the close of June. There are a number of short-term factors which have impacted upon and augmented the long-term underlying trend of rising oil prices, caused by world demand outstripping supply." And it's only going to get cheaper, and what with the rising cost of the sun.....are we actually having a sensible discussion here, or are people just going to keep throwing out of date figures around? |
#55
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:57:46 -0700, Jonathan wrote:
There was a graphic in the Times, illustrating some figures. http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...ic_smaller.jpg The figures in the graphic are in cloud cuckoo land. Well what do you expect from a newspaper artist? £761 to lag the tank? £755 for loft insulation?? £2,240 for thermostatic radiator valves? At £9 per valve that's a pretty big house!. But that's not £761 *just* to lag the tank or £2,240 *just* for TRVs is it? As you should know if you'd spent a few minutes following the link (in the "Building" page you link to) to the spreadsheet which gives the quoted figures. Most of the figures may seem unreasonably high but they say "All costs sourced from the BCIS Housing Repair Cost Guide 2006" so presumably they're the costs a RICS member would charge for a job, i.e. including a substantial cut for the surveyor on top of the tradespeople's labour. So for example the £2,240 figure is made up of: Digital programmer £785 Delayed start thermostat £275 Thermostatic radiator valves 6off at £97 £582 Booster Pump (Assumed). £450 Uplift to Current Costs 7.08% £148 In the case of, for example, the cost for TRVs their figure is perhaps closer to a realistic installed figure than your parts-only price. -- John Stumbles I'm less competitive than you |
#56
Posted to alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:21:29 -0700, Jonathan wrote:
Tell me how you'd bump that up to £2,240? See my earlier post pointing out that the quoted £2,240 is not just for TRVs, and that the figures are given in a spreadsheet to which there is a link in one of the articles *you* gave a link to in your original post (but which you obviously didn't bother to read). You may not agree with the figures given but to invent your own (equally if not more fanciful) ones suggests that you're more interested in rhetoric than factuality. But then you're a doubleglaz^H^H^H^H^H^Hsolar water heating salesman, aren't you? -- John Stumbles I forgot to take my amnesia medecine again |
#57
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:58:06 -0500 "Jim" wrote: So, if it's not solar insolation causing global warming, which is not necessarily a bad thing, why are the Martian ice caps melting? The emissions from that damned little robot NASA has running around???? Oh now that is wonderful - do you have a cite I can hit people with ? You could always use Google... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html As with just about every "fact" in this debate (on both sides) its not as simple nor clear cut as it fits appears. VH. |
#58
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words: Ours cost us £2000 two years ago. Our gas bills (the only other water heating we had) were reduced by almost £300 in the first year. There was a salesman extolling the virtues of solar heating on BBC television news this am. Claimed installition costs was in the region £3500 - £5000 and a saving of 10 - 15% of heating bills could be expected. On that basis I expect Mary's gas bill would have been in the region of £2000 - £3000 prior to the installation of solar heating. -- Roger Chapman |
#59
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:09:35 +0100 someone who may be D Moodie
wrote this:- For example cavity wall insulation installed for £280..!!!! A few years ago the gas board were offering to pay part of the cost, which brought the cost for a three bedroom house to something like 150-200 pounds. -- 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 |
#60
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Helpneeded!
Mary Fisher wrote: What struck me in particular was this paragraph: "But the study from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors shows that some of the measures, such as solar panels to heat water, would cost £5,000 to install but reduce average bills by only £24 a year and would take about 208 years to pay back." Ours cost us £2000 two years ago. Our gas bills (the only other water heating we had) were reduced by almost £300 in the first year. So you were paying OVER £300 a year for gas to provide hot water only ? That's a LOT of hot water. Graham |
#61
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:20:32 +0100 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:- Even if is saves you £100/year that would still be a 50 year payback. Simple payback period is not the only reason for doing something. What is the simple payback period on a new kitchen, or replacing fluorescent kitchen lights with downlighters? This is one of those things that can make much more sense if you can DIY it as it brings the capital costs way down. That is true, as it is with most things. -- 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 |
#62
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:37:52 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:- Par for the course. Even the Nobel comittee were ignorant enough to get taken in by Al Gore's comedy film. The committee awarded the prize to the IPCC and Mr Gore for their work in raising knowledge of the issue. Even those who believe the science is all junk should be grown up enough to accept that they have both raised knowledge of the issue. -- 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 |
#63
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:43:10 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:- Considering it's stuffed full of outright LIES, it damn well should have been banned. Mr Gore's film contains more than two thousand statements. In the recent court case they were no doubt all crawled over. None of them were found to be lies, but nine of them were found to have been more incomplete than they should have been. For example, on the total melting of ice caps the film should have added the timescale for this to happen. Only nine statements which could be expressed more completely out of over two thousand statements is a resounding approval of the film, no matter how loudly some shout that it has been discredited. -- 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 |
#64
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:02:37 -0700, Jonathan
wrote: On 14 Oct, 23:25, Peter Parry wrote: low oil and gas prices. Yup, those low oil prices are the bane of my life....17p to 37.5p per litre in 3 years. They're just giving it away, right? They are actually very close to the EST figures - I suggest you read their report before jumping to ill informed conclusions. And it's only going to get cheaper, and what with the rising cost of the sun.....are we actually having a sensible discussion here, or are people just going to keep throwing out of date figures around? It was you who said you used the EST as a source of information, are you saying their report was wrong? If so on what figures do you base that presumption? Do you do the "ethically correct" thing and inform your clients that according to the EST they will never even break even on a commercial active solar system? I am well aware that facts and figures are something most peddlers of alternate energy hate more than anything else, and for good reason, but if you have credible alternative sources please tell us what they are. -- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/ |
#65
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:03:22 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:- I am well aware that facts and figures are something most peddlers of alternate energy hate more than anything else, and for good reason, It is those who try and ridicule "alternate energy" who appear to be the ones who dislike figures. Some of these are people who tried "alternate energy" at an earlier stage of its development and now attack it with the zeal of a reformed smoker attacking smoking. -- 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 |
#66
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:57:46 -0700, Jonathan wrote:
I opened my paper yesterday to see the following wildly inaccurate, misleading and sensationalist report regarding home energy saving and renewable energy. It was in several of the papers, here are some links. From the Reading Freecycle Cafe list: Alan Parker wrote: I opened my paper yesterday to see the following wildly inaccurate, misleading and sensationalist report regarding home energy saving and renewable energy. It was in several of the papers, here are some links. ---8--- cut&pastery snipped ---8--- Now I know wise minds think alike (etc :-) but so alike it's word-for word throughout each posting? -- John Stumbles Who's *really* behind all these conspiracy theories? |
#67
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Helpneeded!
David Hansen wrote: John Rumm wrote this:- Even if is saves you £100/year that would still be a 50 year payback. Simple payback period is not the only reason for doing something. What is the simple payback period on a new kitchen, or replacing fluorescent kitchen lights with downlighters? Neither of those are done for payback unless you count count keeping the wife happy as payback. Will your wife be happier with solar water heating over nice decoration might seem to be the right question to ask. Graham |
#68
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Helpneeded!
David Hansen wrote: On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:37:52 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore wrote this:- Par for the course. Even the Nobel comittee were ignorant enough to get taken in by Al Gore's comedy film. The committee awarded the prize to the IPCC and Mr Gore for their work in raising knowledge of the issue. Even those who believe the science is all junk should be grown up enough to accept that they have both raised knowledge of the issue. Hopefully enough that some real science and truth (rather than spin) might enter the equation ! Graham |
#69
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Helpneeded!
David Hansen wrote: On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:43:10 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore wrote this:- Considering it's stuffed full of outright LIES, it damn well should have been banned. Mr Gore's film contains more than two thousand statements. In the recent court case they were no doubt all crawled over. None of them were found to be lies, but nine of them were found to have been more incomplete than they should have been. For example, on the total melting of ice caps the film should have added the timescale for this to happen. IIRC, Gore said that the hottest years on record were in the last decade. Those ARE outright LIES as it now turns out. Also, the suggestion that CO2 causes temperature rise IS a lie in the historic context. The idea that it's the other way round 'this time' is as yet an unproven hypothesis. As for suugesting that his exaggerations and biased analysis aren't effectively lies, it seems to be a poor show that's the best defence you can offer. Graham |
#70
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
"John Stumbles" wrote in message ... (I can't make sense of what you're saying .... :-) I'm sorry you have a problem ... Mary |
#71
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Helpneeded!
David Hansen wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:03:22 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry wrote this:- I am well aware that facts and figures are something most peddlers of alternate energy hate more than anything else, and for good reason, It is those who try and ridicule "alternate energy" who appear to be the ones who dislike figures. Some of these are people who tried "alternate energy" at an earlier stage of its development and now attack it with the zeal of a reformed smoker attacking smoking. Probably because they have enough experience of it to see where the flaws lie. Graham |
#72
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Mary Fisher wrote: "Jonathan" wrote ... "An Inconvenient Truth", which was cleared to be shown in UK schools after axe-grinding truck driver and political activist Stewart Dimmock failed in his case to have the film banned. Although the judge A renowned expert ... A judge doesn't have to be a (scientific) expert. The suggestion he should have been is a classic disingenuous attempt to dumb down the ruling by greenies. The job of a judge is to weight the evidence. It's clear to me he did that job well. And to others that he didn't. Which is right? Mary |
#73
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
"Roger" wrote in message k... The message from "Mary Fisher" contains these words: Ours cost us £2000 two years ago. Our gas bills (the only other water heating we had) were reduced by almost £300 in the first year. There was a salesman extolling the virtues of solar heating on BBC television news this am. Claimed installition costs was in the region £3500 - £5000 and a saving of 10 - 15% of heating bills could be expected. On that basis I expect Mary's gas bill would have been in the region of £2000 - £3000 prior to the installation of solar heating. It was nothing like that.. But we don't have a television either ... Mary |
#74
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
"David Hansen" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:20:32 +0100 someone who may be John Rumm wrote this:- Even if is saves you £100/year that would still be a 50 year payback. Simple payback period is not the only reason for doing something. What is the simple payback period on a new kitchen, or replacing fluorescent kitchen lights with downlighters? Or a bottle of wine or bar of chocolate - or a newspaper - or almost anything people choose to have. Mary |
#75
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:09:35 +0100 someone who may be D Moodie wrote this:- For example cavity wall insulation installed for £280..!!!! A few years ago the gas board were offering to pay part of the cost, which brought the cost for a three bedroom house to something like 150-200 pounds. Exactly the point... the sentence you snipped directly before this read.. Every item seems to have an asterix, but no corresponding explaination.. I wonder if this is the cost after some sort of grant. cheers David |
#76
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:56:24 +0100, David Hansen
wrote: Mr Gore's film contains more than two thousand statements. In the recent court case they were no doubt all crawled over. None of them were found to be lies, but nine of them were found to have been more incomplete than they should have been. I suppose the statement that polar bears numbers are falling and they are drowning left right and centre was "more incomplete than [it] should have been" because it omitted the fact that it was completely untrue? What does a false statement have to be to become a lie? Falsely presenting two graphs to attempt to show an "exact fit" between rise in CO2 and rise in temperature isn't a lie? The most telling statement from the Judge was "[The]errors were made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming." "I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act" It is a professional piece of greenwash, of that there is no doubt. It is a pity that its proponent (who has a personal carbon hoofprint the size of a small town) felt so uncertain of the quality of his information that he felt it necessary to make a propaganda rather than an educational film. -- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/ |
#77
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... David Hansen wrote: John Rumm wrote this:- Even if is saves you £100/year that would still be a 50 year payback. Simple payback period is not the only reason for doing something. What is the simple payback period on a new kitchen, or replacing fluorescent kitchen lights with downlighters? Neither of those are done for payback unless you count count keeping the wife happy as payback. Will your wife be happier with solar water heating over nice decoration might seem to be the right question to ask. Aye, that just about sums up all your arguments. |
#78
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:52:16 +0100, David Hansen
wrote: Even those who believe the science is all junk should be grown up enough to accept that they have both raised knowledge of the issue. In Gores case he may have raised awareness but certainly not knowledge. Science, unlike politics, is all about learning. Conclusions and suppositions are often superseded by new findings. This is exactly why this glossy bit of polemic has no place in schools other than in politics lessons. Children should be taught to question based on facts, not to accept spoon feed misinformation from celebrities. They should learn that science is about continually finding things out and in doing so it will always create new areas of uncertainty as well as resolving problems. Real learning is of course an anathema to a government intent on promoting superstition and installing increasing numbers of "faith" schools so it isn't surprising that their ministers probably believe Gores green propaganda is science, but it isn't and shouldn't go unchallenged when presented as being so. -- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/ |
#79
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:43:10 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore wrote this:- Considering it's stuffed full of outright LIES, it damn well should have been banned. Mr Gore's film contains more than two thousand statements. In the recent court case they were no doubt all crawled over. None of them were found to be lies, but nine of them were found to have been more incomplete than they should have been. For example, on the total melting of ice caps the film should have added the timescale for this to happen. Only nine statements which could be expressed more completely out of over two thousand statements is a resounding approval of the film, no matter how loudly some shout that it has been discredited. Unless you were in court to hear the arguments thats a leap of logic you can't make. VH. |
#80
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.solar.thermal,alt.energy.homepower
|
|||
|
|||
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Helpneeded!
Mary Fisher wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Mary Fisher wrote: "Jonathan" wrote ... "An Inconvenient Truth", which was cleared to be shown in UK schools after axe-grinding truck driver and political activist Stewart Dimmock failed in his case to have the film banned. Although the judge A renowned expert ... A judge doesn't have to be a (scientific) expert. The suggestion he should have been is a classic disingenuous attempt to dumb down the ruling by greenies. The job of a judge is to weight the evidence. It's clear to me he did that job well. And to others that he didn't. Which is right? Where do you think the judgement was flawed ? I have looked into all the issues in great depth and I was delighted to see a court judgement that actually looked at the facts for once. Gore's film is an utter POS. FYI, there are 3 further areas where I'd like to see it challenged further. Graham |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
thermal store with solar help needed | UK diy | |||
FRICS MRICS or tech RICS | UK diy | |||
Solar hot air assist design needed. | Home Repair | |||
American standard faucet - warranty is nonsense | Home Repair | |||
RICS Homebuyer Report - advice needed with two or the recommendations | UK diy |