Mary Fisher wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
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.

Your inability to see my comment other than absolutely literally speaks volumes.
I'd say you 'fell for it'.

Graham

Mary Fisher wrote:

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 ...

They don't run on gas these days, so I doubt that would have made any
difference.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:17:50 +0100 someone who may be D Moodie
wrote this:-

I wonder if this is the cost after some sort of grant.

Others have pointed out that they got insulation for a similar
price, without any grant.

The gas board scheme I mentioned was at the behest of government, a
little of every one's fuel bills were used to pay for the subsidy
and no-doubt the price was racked up by a suitable amount as well.


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

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:47:56 GMT someone who may be John Stumbles
wrote this:-

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

Mary was responding to a posting which appeared to claim that a new
hot water cylinder would be needed for solar water heating. Whether
one is needed or not depends on the precise situation.

As well as the Solartwin approach you mentioned, Navitron offer a
heater battery that replaces an immersion heater. In both cases a
replacement cylinder is not needed. However, it may be desirable to
replace the cylinder anyway, because it is old and doesn't have
modern insulation or because the insulation is damaged or because
the insulation is not thick enough to make the best use of solar
(double and triple insulated cylinders stay warm for days), or the
cylinder does not have high recovery boiler coil. If replacing a
cylinder the cost of a solar coil is relatively small and one can
argue about the proportion of the cost which is due to solar heating
and the spend which would be desirable anyway.

The other possibility is that the original poster thought that a
second hot water cylinder was necessary, to pre-heat water going
into the main cylinder. Such an approach was advised in the past as
a way of avoiding replacing the main cylinder.



--
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

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:47:56 GMT someone who may be John Stumbles
wrote this:-

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

Mary was responding to a posting which appeared to claim that a new
hot water cylinder would be needed for solar water heating. Whether
one is needed or not depends on the precise situation.

Also, for the solar system we have no secondary coil is needed.

Mary

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.

That sounds like people saying, after a judgement against them, that there
was no justice.

Or, if the judgement was for them, that they were happy that justice was
done.

Mary

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Mary Fisher wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
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.

Your inability to see my comment other than absolutely literally

If you don't mean something why say it?

speaks volumes.
I'd say you 'fell for it'.

Fell for what?

Graham

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:07:10 +0100 someone who may be
(Steve Firth) wrote this:-

But the judge didn't refer to them as "inconclusive statements" did he?
The judge used the terms "inaccurate", "alarmist" and "exaggeration."

Those who have an open mind may wish to download the two files from
http://www.cpi.cam.ac.uk/gore/about/...urt_rulin.aspx

One is the court ruling itself, which reads rather differently to
the spin much of the mass media put on it. The other file is a
commentary on the ruling, from which the following is taken.


================================================== ========================

Press reports have mostly presented the High Court judgement of 10
October 2007 as a defeat for Al Gore. However, the judge stated that
(in his opinion) the film was "broadly accurate", and decided that
the film could continue to be shown in schools "in the context of...
discussions facilitated by the guidance note" provided by the
Department for Children, Schools and Families (of which an updated
version is already available). He also identifies a number of
deficiencies which he refers to as "nine scientific errors", and
which have been seized on by the media: these are discussed below In
fact the judgement systematically refers to "errors" (using inverted
commas, which the media have generally ignored), and has some wise
words to say on the distinction between presenting and promoting
partisan views, and the balanced presentation of controversial
issues (which he decides does not require equal "air-time" for views
which are held only by small minorities). However, in his analysis
of the "errors" the judge has also expressed unwarranted confidence
on several issues which are still the subject of considerable
uncertainty among the scientific community. It would be fair to say
that Al Gore presents the more extreme (concerned) end of the range
of scientific opinion on several issues, and implies stronger
evidence than is fair on several others. However, overall the film
still achieves an exceptionally high standard of scientific
accuracy, and it is regrettable that the judge has triggered a media
storm by the injudicious use of the term "errors". Lawyers know not
to rely on ordinary commas to make their meaning clear; now judges
must learn not to rely on inverted commas either.

[big snip]

In only three cases (numbers 6, 7 and 8) can it realistically be
argued that the film presents an overstated or unreasonable
argument, and in only one case (hurricanes) is that in relation to a
major issue. In no case is there a scientific "error" as such. In
three cases (1, 3 and 5) Gore presents a view which represents the
more extreme end of the range of scientific uncertainty. In the
remaining three cases the Gore presentation is essentially correct.
To refer to "nine scientific errors" is therefore itself a very
considerable misrepresentation of the facts.

================================================== ========================




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

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:53:11 GMT someone who may be Van Helsing
wrote this:-

Unless you were in court to hear the arguments thats a leap of logic you
can't make.

I wasn't in court. However, I have read the whole judgement and I
have read opinions from all sides of the subsequent discussion.


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

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:54:37 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

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

Precisely my point.



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

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:03:16 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

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.

You appear to be asserting that anyone with "enough experience" will
be against "alternate energy". If that is the case then it is an
interesting assertion, but a false one.


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

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:00:15 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

IIRC, Gore said that the hottest years on record were in the last decade. Those ARE
outright LIES as it now turns out.

Incorrect, unless you are only considering the data for North
America.



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

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:03:51 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

I have looked into all the issues in great depth

You appear to assume that anyone who disagrees with you has not
looked into these issues at all and is simply parroting the
"propaganda" of Mr Gore and the IPCC.



--
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

David Hansen wrote:

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:07:10 +0100 someone who may be
(Steve Firth) wrote this:-

But the judge didn't refer to them as "inconclusive statements" did he?
The judge used the terms "inaccurate", "alarmist" and "exaggeration."

Those who have an open mind

That automatically excludes you, and it is noticeable that you fail to
quote from the judgement but instead quote from a subjective, biased
assesment of the judgement.

Within the judgement we find Justice Burton observing:

"However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the
mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition,
do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his
political thesis."

And in his requirement to draft appropriate guidance for teachers, the
following was inserted;

"they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence
critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and
to point out where Gore 's view may be inaccurate or departs from that
of mainstream scientific opinion; "


On the specific objections to the film:

(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying
factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with
insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication
that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading
use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and
one-sidedness.
(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils
meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an
independent understanding as to how reliable it is.
(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the
demonisation of opponents and their motives.
(iv) The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences
requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in
order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."

J. Burton held these comments to be useful, and the judgement makes it
clear that these objections are upheld.

Furthermore of the nine points raised, the judgement is explicit:

1. Sea level rise of 20ft ... in the near future

Judgement: "Distinctly alarmist" "not in line with the scientific
consensus"

2. ... Pacific atolls are being inundated ... (that's why the citizens
... have all had to evacuate ...)

Judgement: "There is no evidence of any such evacuation"

3. Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor"

Judgement: "It is very unlikely" [i.e. it is incorrect, a lie, false]

4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in
temperature ...

Judgement: " the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts."
[i.e. it is incorrect, a lie, false]

5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. [recede because of man-made global warming]

Judgement: " it cannot be established"

6. Lake Chad [drying up]

Judgement: " far more likely to result from other factors,"

7. Hurricane Katrina

Judgement: "insufficient evidence "

8. Death of polar bears

Judgement: "it plainly does not support Mr Gore 's description."

9. Coral reefs.

Judgement: "The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report,
is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,
there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality"

[i.e. Gore's assertion that this is happening *now* is incorrect.




So much better to refer to the source, rather than biased opinion, eh?

Mary Fisher wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Mary Fisher wrote
"Eeyore" wrote

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.

That sounds like people saying, after a judgement against them, that there
was no justice.

It sounds nothing like that to me.


Or, if the judgement was for them, that they were happy that justice was
done.

Can I ask again, "Where do you think the judgement was flawed ?" ?

Graham

Mary Fisher wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
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.

Your inability to see my comment other than absolutely literally

If you don't mean something why say it?

Let's say I meant it with my tongue in my cheek.


speaks volumes.
I'd say you 'fell for it'.

Fell for what?

Fell for my trap.

Graham

In uk.d-i-y D Moodie wrote:
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..

An asterix no less! Is there a vercingetorix and a few Roman soldiers
there too? (Asterix is a fictional Gaul, I think you meant asterisk).


I wonder if this is the cost after some sort of grant.

cheers

David



--
Chris Green

David Hansen wrote:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:54:37 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

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

Precisely my point.

So, claiming an economic case for such 'alternative energy' measures is, you
admit, fraudulent ? It is in fact just to give one that rosy green glow.

Graham

David Hansen wrote:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:03:16 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

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.

You appear to be asserting that anyone with "enough experience" will
be against "alternate energy". If that is the case then it is an
interesting assertion, but a false one.

I've taken an active interest in the subject since about 1972.

I've yet to see any example of 'alternative energy generation' make as much as an
ounce of financial sense for anyone 'on-grid'. Every single time, it'll be
massively outperformed by equivalent energy efficiency and insulation measures when
total energy requirements are examined truthfully.

Graham

David Hansen wrote:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:00:15 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

IIRC, Gore said that the hottest years on record were in the last decade. Those ARE
outright LIES as it now turns out.

Incorrect, unless you are only considering the data for North
America.

He was quoting the figures for NA.

Either present evidence to the contrary or SHUT UP and accept that Gore is a liar.

Graham

David Hansen wrote:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:03:51 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

I have looked into all the issues in great depth

You appear to assume that anyone who disagrees with you has not
looked into these issues at all and is simply parroting the
"propaganda" of Mr Gore and the IPCC.

They would appear to be.

I've been looking at the issues for a mere 35 years ! What would I know - LOL ?

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:
David Hansen wrote:

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:07:10 +0100 someone who may be
(Steve Firth) wrote this:-

But the judge didn't refer to them as "inconclusive statements" did
he? The judge used the terms "inaccurate", "alarmist" and
"exaggeration."

Those who have an open mind
snip

So much better to refer to the source, rather than biased opinion, eh?

I expect all you'll get in reply is a mass of pdfs to read and the normal
'read this' etc.....

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:02:15 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

If you don't mean something why say it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

--
John Stumbles

Things don't like being anthropomorphised.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:51:09 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

The other possibility is that the original poster thought that a
second hot water cylinder was necessary, to pre-heat water going
into the main cylinder. Such an approach was advised in the past as
a way of avoiding replacing the main cylinder.

It is still advised as a method of getting the most from an active
solar system.

"neither [flat panel nor evacuated tube] system can be guaranteed to
continue to give the maximum possible output once more intrusive
auxiliary heating schedules are introduced. Operation of the system
in preheat mode removes this potential source of performance
degradation, and will generally be a more robust configuration."

FURTHER TESTING OF
SOLAR WATER HEATING SYSTEMS
ETSU S/P3/00275/00/REP/3
DTI/Pub URN 02/1402
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Steve Firth wrote:

snip

"However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the
mainstream, by Mr Gore

snip


and
to point out where Gore 's view may be inaccurate or departs from that
of mainstream scientific opinion; "

snip

[i.e. Gore's assertion that this is happening *now* is incorrect.


Interesting discussion. Folks, keep one thing in mind...

Gore is a politician. Politicians only want one thing: Power over you.

Bend your knee and supplicate yourselves before Gore, Savior of
humankind and the earth.

If a politician told me it was raining outside, I would have to stick
my arm out the door to see if it actually got wet from rain.

Truth, Lies, or any combination thereof. Politicians will say (and
do) whatever it takes to get power over you. Just the grin caused by
the phrase "campaign promises" should make the point clear.

Global Warming is such a serious and dire event that you mere peasants
shouldn't be discussing it on the internet.

Politicians DON'T WANT political discourse such as you all are having
in this thread. Why you all might find a ground up, economical
solution that is palatable to the people (or find that it's not a
human caused problem after all).

God forbid if that happens, there wouldn't be room for, or need of, a
top down (pseudo) solution imposed by Gore and his cronies. Even if
Global Warming is 100% real and 100% caused by greenhouse gasses, does
the world want to allow that as an excuse for the enviro-nazis to take
over the world?

Eeyore wrote:


Either present evidence to the contrary or SHUT UP and accept that Gore is a liar.


Gore is a politician...

Oh, that's the same thing.

Nevermind.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:02:17 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

Those who have an open mind may wish to download the two files from
http://www.cpi.cam.ac.uk/gore/about/...urt_rulin.aspx

One is the court ruling itself, which reads rather differently to
the spin much of the mass media put on it. The other file is a
commentary on the ruling, from which the following is taken.

A commentary from the "Al Gore Training Initiative" by an
alumnus of Al Gore’s Climate Project Training Programme and an ex
science advisor to Al Gore during the Climate Project Training
Programme might perhaps not be entirely unbiased?

The judgment itself is well worth reading and makes it clear that the
original aim was propoganda:-

"It is plain that the original press releases of February were
enthusiastically supportive of the film, and did initially indicate
an intent to "influence". However there is no mention at that stage
of any accompanying Guidance Note. When the film was actually sent
out, it was accompanied by the reference to the website where the
Guidance could be found, and to that extent some discussion was
facilitated. However the Guidance had the flaws to which I have
referred in paragraphs 34 to 36 above. As Mr Downes has pointed out,
if it has taken this hearing to identify and correct the flaws, it is
impossible to think that teachers could have done so untutored. I am
satisfied that, because insufficient attempt was made to counter the
more one-sided views of Mr Gore, and, to some extent, by silence
in the Guidance Note, those views were adopted, or at any rate
discussion of them was not facilitated (and no adequate warning was
given), there would have been a breach of ss406 and 407 of the Act
but for the bringing of these proceedings and the conclusion that has
now eventuated."
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:03:31 -0500, Dale E
wrote:

If a politician told me it was raining outside, I would have to stick
my arm out the door to see if it actually got wet from rain.

Now that's gullible :-) Personally I'd want the liquid analysed
first.

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

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:02:15 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

If you don't mean something why say it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

Ah, Wiki. Yes, the Ultimate Truth.

Dale E wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

snip

"However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the
mainstream, by Mr Gore

snip

and
to point out where Gore 's view may be inaccurate or departs from that
of mainstream scientific opinion; "

snip

[i.e. Gore's assertion that this is happening *now* is incorrect.

Interesting discussion. Folks, keep one thing in mind...

Gore is a politician. Politicians only want one thing: Power over you.

Bend your knee and supplicate yourselves before Gore, Savior of
humankind and the earth.

If a politician told me it was raining outside, I would have to stick
my arm out the door to see if it actually got wet from rain.

Truth, Lies, or any combination thereof. Politicians will say (and
do) whatever it takes to get power over you. Just the grin caused by
the phrase "campaign promises" should make the point clear.

Global Warming is such a serious and dire event that you mere peasants
shouldn't be discussing it on the internet.

Politicians DON'T WANT political discourse such as you all are having
in this thread. Why you all might find a ground up, economical
solution that is palatable to the people (or find that it's not a
human caused problem after all).

God forbid if that happens, there wouldn't be room for, or need of, a
top down (pseudo) solution imposed by Gore and his cronies. Even if
Global Warming is 100% real and 100% caused by greenhouse gasses, does
the world want to allow that as an excuse for the enviro-nazis to take
over the world?

All that British politicians have on offer right now are 'green taxes' and
restrictions on one's freedom of action (including possibly freedom of speech)

I faul to see how either of those can tackle ANY problem.

Time for a REVOLUTION !

Graham

Mary Fisher wrote:

"John Stumbles" wrote
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:02:15 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

If you don't mean something why say it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

Ah, Wiki. Yes, the Ultimate Truth.

Ah yes. Denigrating Wikipedia. The last resort of a loser with nothing of
substance to offer.

Sorry, you lose.

Graham

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:43:32 +0100
John Rumm wrote:

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...

A 5kW average for 24 hours a day delivers about 44000 kWhr per year
- Call it £4000 per year of electricity. I make that about 9 years, long
but not too painful.

Hmm looks at site - at 5-6m/s the power output of that thing is
close to non-existent! It rises sharply between about 9 and 15 m/s. It
looks like you need to be able to count on about 9 m/s to get that much
power, and at 11 m/s you'd be above 10Kw.

Still it only needs to make about 1.25kW to make that 35 year
payback

--
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/

Mary Fisher wrote:
"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:02:15 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

If you don't mean something why say it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

Ah, Wiki. Yes, the Ultimate Truth.


Its certainly no worse than most of the other sources quoted here so
far... and you always have the remedy of correcting it if you do not
believe its accurate.

VH.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:18:32 GMT
Van Helsing wrote:

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.

Even better - my position has for some time been agnostic - "I
don't know and I haven't seen anything convincing, by all means convince
me". But I am often beset by true believers.

--
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/

On 2007-10-15 12:35:57 +0100, John Rumm said:

Mary Fisher wrote:

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 ...

They don't run on gas these days, so I doubt that would have made any
difference.

I'm not so sure. There's plenty coming from them.

Van Helsing wrote:

Mary Fisher wrote:
"John Stumbles" wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:02:15 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

If you don't mean something why say it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

Ah, Wiki. Yes, the Ultimate Truth.

Its certainly no worse than most of the other sources quoted here so
far... and you always have the remedy of correcting it if you do not
believe its accurate.

Speaking as someone who has both edited Wikipedia articles and even started new
ones, I'll add that their editing history is readily available to anyone
interested. It's entirely transparent.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

Dale E wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

snip

"However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the
mainstream, by Mr Gore
snip

and
to point out where Gore 's view may be inaccurate or departs from that
of mainstream scientific opinion; "
snip

[i.e. Gore's assertion that this is happening *now* is incorrect.
Interesting discussion. Folks, keep one thing in mind...

Gore is a politician. Politicians only want one thing: Power over you.

Bend your knee and supplicate yourselves before Gore, Savior of
humankind and the earth.

If a politician told me it was raining outside, I would have to stick
my arm out the door to see if it actually got wet from rain.

Truth, Lies, or any combination thereof. Politicians will say (and
do) whatever it takes to get power over you. Just the grin caused by
the phrase "campaign promises" should make the point clear.

Global Warming is such a serious and dire event that you mere peasants
shouldn't be discussing it on the internet.

Politicians DON'T WANT political discourse such as you all are having
in this thread. Why you all might find a ground up, economical
solution that is palatable to the people (or find that it's not a
human caused problem after all).

God forbid if that happens, there wouldn't be room for, or need of, a
top down (pseudo) solution imposed by Gore and his cronies. Even if
Global Warming is 100% real and 100% caused by greenhouse gasses, does
the world want to allow that as an excuse for the enviro-nazis to take
over the world?

All that British politicians have on offer right now are 'green taxes' and
restrictions on one's freedom of action (including possibly freedom of speech)

I faul to see how either of those can tackle ANY problem.

Time for a REVOLUTION !

I've always seen a modern Spartacus in you. Watch not to finish
like him.

Erdy

"Van Helsing" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:02:15 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

If you don't mean something why say it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

Ah, Wiki. Yes, the Ultimate Truth.


Its certainly no worse than most of the other sources quoted here so
far...


I know, but that isn't a recommendation.

I believe my own experience. Others won't, that's their problem, not mine.

It's still a wonder why they seem so keen to prove me wrong though when they
can't. Still, everyone needs a hobby :-)

Mary

"Steve O'Hara-Smith" wrote in message
...
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 ?

I'm puzzled. Are you not aware that the Martian ice caps are melting?



--
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/

"Van Helsing" wrote in message
...
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.

I'm telling you; it's that freaking robot. I have it on good authority
from Al Gore....


VH.