"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.

Some people bathe quite a bit. Even when not necessary..... Or wear
clothes for one hour and wash the hell out of them!


Graham

"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.

LOL! Are you married????


Will your wife be happier with solar water heating over nice
decoration might seem to be the right question to ask.

Graham

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.

Some people bathe quite a bit. Even when not necessary..... Or wear
clothes for one hour and wash the hell out of them!

Some hardly bathe at all, thus not spending much on gas. And some people
don't eat at home so don't need to wash dishes, pans etc.

And of course the price of gas differs from place to place, but that fact
might be a trifle obvious for someone determined to attempt being smart.

Mary




Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.

I recall seeing somewhere that it has been hypothesized that the
increasingly cleanliness of autmotive emissions has lessened the reflective
properties of the atmosphere, leading to more insolation, in addition to
that causing the Martian ice cap melting.



Graham

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.




http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/


WikiScanner FAQ


Why did you create WikiScanner?

To create a fireworks display of public relations disasters in
which everyone brings their own fireworks, and enjoys.

To improve virgil.gr 's Google pagerank for the query ' virgil '
Update: I am fluctuating between #1 and #2.

To see what "interesting organizations" are up to.

Every time I hear about a new security vulnerability, I look to
see if it can be done on a massive scale and indexed.


Do you think Wikipedia is reliable?

Overall--especially for non-controversial topics--Wikipedia seems
to work. For controversial topics, Wikipedia can be made more reliable
through techniques like this one. As for other approaches, I think
colored text is a promising direction for combating disinformation in
wikipedia.

What does Wikipedia have to say about WikiScanner?

As far as I know, the reaction from the Wikimedia Foundation has
been wholly positive. The Wikipedians are good people -- they don't
mind the light of day. Also see the Wikipedia entry on WikiScanner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiScanner


How did you come up with this idea? How long have you been at it?

I came up with the idea when I heard about Congressmen getting
caught for white-washing their wikipedia pages. Every time I hear
about a new security vulnerability, I think about whether it could be
done on a massive scale and indexed. I had the idea back then, I've
been busy with scientific work so I sat on it until a few weeks ago
when I started working on the WikiScanner.


Is something like WikiScanner required to keep people honest? Is
anonymous editing bad for Wikipedia?

The low barrier to entry for adding new content is vital to
Wikipedia's rapid growth. Drastically increasing the effort and
commitment required to add new information would be disastrous.
Instead of stopping anonymous contributions, Wikipedia should
(continue to) use various back-end analyses (such as WikiScanner) that
will help counteract disinformation while keeping the low barrier to
contribution. Overall--especially for non-controversial
topics--Wikipedia already works. For controversial topics, Wikipedia
can be made more reliable through techniques like this one.


How does WikiScanner work?

When you make an edit to Wikipedia, you have two choices. First,
you can register and leave your username, or you can edit anonymously.
But, when you edit anonymously, it uses your IP address, a number
which identifies what computer network are you from, in lieu of a
username. Wikipedia does this for convenience to distinguish your
anonymous edits from someone else's anonymous edits. In essence,
WikiScanner combines two databases: (1) The list of all IP adresses
that have made edits to Wikipedia, and (2) What IP addresses belong to
which companies. So with WikiScanner you can type a company name, and
it shows you what edits have come from IP addresses owned by that
company.
http://virgil.gr/31.html

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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
We are supposed to agree that liberals in general have a double standard
between themselves and conservatives.
If a conservative done what Gore,Jefferson,Kennedy ,Clinton ,Edwards
,Reid,or the rest of them have done .
It would be a crime ,etc.,but because it was them.....it was expected.And a
crime...... that you noticed that .
In this case, noticed that a documentary is supposed to be accurate and with
correct detail.Not with Hollywood fiction to prop it up .That would make it
proganda.....like with a dictator support film,socialist film
in support of russia/china,etc.And they can't shut up or you will see it for
what is it .




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.

Al Gore a liar? How can you even consider using the Internet, which he
invented, to say that? Tut, tut.... Poor form.



Graham

"Dale E" wrote
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?

"The world" wants it, but the other people, those of us who have IQ's
above double digits, do not.

"Dale E" wrote in message
...


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.

Apology accepted! LOL!!

"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... and you always have the remedy of correcting it if you do not
believe its accurate.

VH.

As a former Wikipedian, there is nothing that can fix WP; its
presupposition, that people are inherently good and truthful, is flawed.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.

Yes Graham, so you can see precisely which anonymous foole has wasted
everyone's time with his BS.
I used to spend hours daily w/WP, but it's a losing battle....

Graham

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.

Some people bathe quite a bit. Even when not necessary..... Or wear
clothes for one hour and wash the hell out of them!

Some hardly bathe at all, thus not spending much on gas. And some people
don't eat at home so don't need to wash dishes, pans etc.

And of course the price of gas differs from place to place, but that fact
might be a trifle obvious for someone determined to attempt being smart.

Mary

Graham is quite bright, but can be ill-tempered from time to time. I
can't smell his breath so I'm not sure if it's an alcohol surplus or
deficiency! LOL!!!
All in all, a nice chap.
Cheers, Jim




Graham

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:55:28 GMT
"Jim" wrote:


"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?

That little snippet had passed me by.

--
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 Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:29:45 +0000, John Stumbles wrote:

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?

More useful in this whole thread would IMHO be:

What is the maximum outlay for a solar assisted water heating at current
gas/oil prices.

It might _just_ be possible that a diy approach is just about possible if
you value your time as nothing and make some/all of the equipment yourself.

Professionally installed we are off by a multiple at present.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:

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.

24 hrs a day, you would be lucky! I wonder what it costs to service a
£35k turbine?

Remember you also need to pay for grid capacity to cope with when there
is no (appropriate) wind.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Jim wrote:
Al Gore a liar? How can you even consider using the
Internet, which he invented, to say that? Tut, tut....
Poor form.

He didn't invent it, of course, but did help in promoting
its use:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10...erf_recognise/


#Paul

Jim wrote:

"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?

They melt and refreeze seasonally; see e.g.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011206molaice.html

Have you a reference claiming a long-term trend in a significant
change in their overall size?

#Paul

On 2007-10-15 20:48:30 +0100, said:

Jim wrote:
Al Gore a liar? How can you even consider using the
Internet, which he invented, to say that? Tut, tut....
Poor form.

He didn't invent it, of course, but did help in promoting
its use:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10...erf_recognise/


#Paul

This is a lot more honest than his latest "efforts"

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:

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.

24 hrs a day, you would be lucky! I wonder what it costs to service a £35k
turbine?

Remember you also need to pay for grid capacity to cope with when there is
no (appropriate) wind.


--
Cheers,

John.
Maybe they glue silcon tiles like beta voltiacs all over the windmill to
make up for advertised capacity.
Or derate the wind capacity to real world numbers.....
Ad guys would not like to plug 5Kw power for 35K dollars ....but more real.
A fellow might go to home depot and get a 5kw generator and convert it to
biomass gasification in a third
world country instead.After all we need to think about the windmill
companies bottom line here,instead of our own.
Or take a look at ChunKing Water Turbine Works Ltd. item at
http://www.utilitywarehouse.com/vnd/...drogenset.html .
and wonder which one is going to have a faster payback in the investment
from electricity sold on the grid.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Arnold Walker" wrote in message
...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:

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.

24 hrs a day, you would be lucky! I wonder what it costs to service a
£35k turbine?

Remember you also need to pay for grid capacity to cope with when there
is no (appropriate) wind.
Of course ,the difference in operating expense between the windmill in
question and hydroplant
You could run damless hydropower with ganged double acting rams for a 500ft
head on the hydroelectric turbines.
And still come out better than that windmill.
Of course ,there might be a danger of drowning around a hydro electric site
..
Among other things, which might have lawyers opposed to your actions.
It is well known how disasterous water can be ,at times ,to public health
and safety.
So would not be surprised to find that there is an anti-water lobby looking
after our best interest in Washington.


--
Cheers,

John.
Maybe they glue silcon tiles like beta voltiacs all over the windmill to
make up for advertised capacity.
Or derate the wind capacity to real world numbers.....
Ad guys would not like to plug 5Kw power for 35K dollars ....but more
real.
A fellow might go to home depot and get a 5kw generator and convert it to
biomass gasification in a third
world country instead.After all we need to think about the windmill
companies bottom line here,instead of our own.
Or take a look at ChunKing Water Turbine Works Ltd. item at
http://www.utilitywarehouse.com/vnd/...drogenset.html .
and wonder which one is going to have a faster payback in the investment
from electricity sold on the grid.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In message , Mary Fisher
writes

"Jim" wrote in message
t...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.

Some people bathe quite a bit. Even when not necessary..... Or wear
clothes for one hour and wash the hell out of them!

Some hardly bathe at all, thus not spending much on gas. And some people
don't eat at home so don't need to wash dishes, pans etc.

And of course the price of gas differs from place to place, but that fact
might be a trifle obvious for someone determined to attempt being smart.

So how did you even manage to spend the amount you claim to have SAVED
on hot water in the first place ?

--
geoff

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:06:53 +0100
John Rumm wrote:

Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:

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.

24 hrs a day, you would be lucky! I wonder what it costs to service a
£35k turbine?

Not enough to push that 9 years to 140 I think.

Remember you also need to pay for grid capacity to cope with when there
is no (appropriate) wind.

I'm just assuming you cost all the electricity it produces at
10p/kWhr. I agree a wind turbine on this scale is not a great deal, but
it's not as bad as some people have been making it seem.

--
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/

"Arnold Walker" wrote in message
...

"Arnold Walker" wrote in message
...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:

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.

24 hrs a day, you would be lucky! I wonder what it costs to service a
£35k turbine?

Remember you also need to pay for grid capacity to cope with when there
is no (appropriate) wind.
Of course ,the difference in operating expense between the windmill in
question and hydroplant
You could run damless hydropower with ganged double acting rams for a
500ft head on the hydroelectric turbines.
And still come out better than that windmill.
Of course ,there might be a danger of drowning around a hydro electric
site .
Among other things, which might have lawyers opposed to your actions.
It is well known how disasterous water can be ,at times ,to public health
and safety.
So would not be surprised to find that there is an anti-water lobby
looking after our best interest in Washington.


--
Cheers,

John.
Maybe they glue silcon tiles like beta voltiacs all over the windmill to
make up for advertised capacity.
Or derate the wind capacity to real world numbers.....
Ad guys would not like to plug 5Kw power for 35K dollars ....but more
real.
A fellow might go to home depot and get a 5kw generator and convert it to
biomass gasification in a third
world country instead.After all we need to think about the windmill
companies bottom line here,instead of our own.
Or take a look at ChunKing Water Turbine Works Ltd. item at
http://www.utilitywarehouse.com/vnd/...drogenset.html .
and wonder which one is going to have a faster payback in the investment
from electricity sold on the grid.

Of course,there would also be a cogeneration product of municiple/irrigation
water
sold to area residents.If you were using ganged ram pumped storage to a 50
or 100 ft
tower or pond at that elevation above the final stage of a double acting
ram for that 500ft head
needed on your ChunKing turbine 200 Kw genset from the creek that you are
installed on.
Now I wonder ,if the government would grant me the same EV income tax credit
on a hydroelectric plant
as the combined total of all the EV's using my plant electricity.Since the
government is interested in green
power....plans to support green power to the best of their ability.Maybe
while we are at I could that credit on
my biomass steam that is already built and running .Or TXU could claim that
same credit on their coal plants
that is still built and running.Maybe even thier nuke plant as well could
get that EV tax credit.
Boy this sound like a boom to energy independence and green energy support
from the government.
Can smell that cleaner air already.....
Maybe we could all get grants for our energy ideas and research.
This could easily be better than Thomas Ellisons' work on the EV battery at
turn of the century.
Came out with a nickel -iron akeline battery to improve on the EV range of
lead acid batteries
in the early 1900's.Don't think the government gave him a EV tax credit or
grant either.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:52:05 +0100, kinslerp wrote:

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

Have you a reference claiming a long-term trend in a significant change
in their overall size?

Someone posted it earlier in this thread
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

--
John Stumbles

Seagull Management
Management technique characterised by flying in, making a lot of noise,
crapping on everything, and then leaving.

John Stumbles wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:52:05 +0100, kinslerp wrote:

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

Have you a reference claiming a long-term trend in a significant change
in their overall size?

Someone posted it earlier in this thread
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Ta. Maybe I misread the context of the comment, but I wouldn't say that
the content of that article (esp. the only three summers data) gives much
in the way of support to global warming sceptics.

#Paul

In alt.solar.thermal Van Helsing wrote:
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.

... Solar energy
... From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... This page is currently protected from editing until October 15, 2007 (UTC)
... or until disputes have been resolved.

A little too much correction going on?

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

geoff wrote:

Mary Fisher writes
"Jim" wrote
"Eeyore" wrote
Mary Fisher wrote:

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.

Some people bathe quite a bit. Even when not necessary..... Or wear
clothes for one hour and wash the hell out of them!

Some hardly bathe at all, thus not spending much on gas. And some people
don't eat at home so don't need to wash dishes, pans etc.

And of course the price of gas differs from place to place, but that fact
might be a trifle obvious for someone determined to attempt being smart.

So how did you even manage to spend the amount you claim to have SAVED
on hot water in the first place ?

This was what puzzled me too.

Graham

wrote:

In alt.solar.thermal Van Helsing wrote:
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.

.. Solar energy
.. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.. This page is currently protected from editing until October 15, 2007 (UTC)
.. or until disputes have been resolved.

A little too much correction going on?

A little too much wishful thinking about soalr energy going on perchance ?

Graham

On 2007-10-16 04:59:51 +0100, Eeyore
said:



geoff wrote:

Mary Fisher writes
"Jim" wrote
"Eeyore" wrote
Mary Fisher wrote:

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.

Some people bathe quite a bit. Even when not necessary..... Or wear
clothes for one hour and wash the hell out of them!

Some hardly bathe at all, thus not spending much on gas. And some people
don't eat at home so don't need to wash dishes, pans etc.

And of course the price of gas differs from place to place, but that fact
might be a trifle obvious for someone determined to attempt being smart.

So how did you even manage to spend the amount you claim to have SAVED
on hot water in the first place ?

This was what puzzled me too.

Graham

Look, it's the *cause* that matters. The facts are unimportant.

Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:
geoff wrote:
Mary Fisher writes
"Jim" wrote
"Eeyore" wrote
Mary Fisher wrote:

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.

Some people bathe quite a bit. Even when not necessary..... Or wear
clothes for one hour and wash the hell out of them!

Some hardly bathe at all, thus not spending much on gas. And some people
don't eat at home so don't need to wash dishes, pans etc.

And of course the price of gas differs from place to place, but that fact
might be a trifle obvious for someone determined to attempt being smart.

So how did you even manage to spend the amount you claim to have SAVED
on hot water in the first place ?

This was what puzzled me too.

Graham

Look, it's the *cause* that matters. The facts are unimportant.

With respect to the 'green religion' that is so, so true. They don't want to be
encumbered by mere facts when belief will suffice.

The genuinely sad thing is that most allegedly 'green' ideas for alternative
energy actually have a net negative impact when compared with a more measured
scientific approach of equivalent cost. It's the classic story of the road to
hell being paved with good intentions.

Graham

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:41:58 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

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.

If the "intrusive auxiliary heating system" is controlled separately
from the solar system. However, if they are controlled together, by
the same controller or controllers which speak to each other, then
any such problem does not arise.


--
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 15:25:38 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

The judgment itself is well worth reading

Indeed, which is why I bought it to people's attention.


--
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 14:10:11 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

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.

I have yet to see a publication by say Friends of the Earth on
energy which does not say that one must first reduce energy
consumption by things like insulation and only then consider
"alternative" methods of generation.

Your point is moot.


--
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 14:11:23 +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.

It is interesting that in one posting you state "if I remember
correctly" and in a subsequent posting you state something as a
certainty.

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

Excellent.


--
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 14:12:20 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

I've been looking at the issues for a mere 35 years !

Yet you are unable to put up convincing arguments.


--
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 Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:12:59 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:41:58 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

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.

If the "intrusive auxiliary heating system" is controlled separately
from the solar system. However, if they are controlled together, by
the same controller or controllers which speak to each other, then
any such problem does not arise.

Apparently they do as it has little to do with control and more to do
with patterns of usage. Most people want hot water in the morning so
auxiliary heating (for most of the year) kicks in before they rise as
the storage tank will have been depleted by evening use (the other
peak period). Temperature stratification in the relatively small
storage tanks typical of domestic installations is fairly poor so the
solar system for the rest of the day is trying to preheat already
warm water. Giving the solar system its own pre-heat tank means that
at the start of the day the pre-heat tank is invariably cold (as most
domestic hot water usage is evening and morning) and during the day
the solar panel can work at its best. For those with room for a
pre-heat tank it allows them to get the most from a solar hot water
system and makes the system overall relatively immune to the usage
pattern.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

David Hansen wrote:
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.


Apparently so, personally I don't know the full details of any of these ...
and I'm not really that interested in chasing them up either. But any decent
reference I come across still puts the costs at close to £500, for example.

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/...ll_insulation/

http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/article89.html

Sure people may have paid much less than this either with a grant included
up front as in your case or simply as a hidden part of the deal by the
installer.

So my conclusion, from any information I've come across, rather than just
hearsay, would still tend to be that the cost is close to £500, and an
installer may well charge in the region of £300 after they've claimed the
appropriate grant.

"DM" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
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.


Apparently so, personally I don't know the full details of any of these
... and I'm not really that interested in chasing them up either. But any
decent reference I come across still puts the costs at close to £500, for
example.

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/...ll_insulation/

http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/article89.html

Sure people may have paid much less than this either with a grant included
up front as in your case or simply as a hidden part of the deal by the
installer.

So my conclusion, from any information I've come across, rather than just
hearsay, would still tend to be that the cost is close to £500, and an
installer may well charge in the region of £300 after they've claimed the
appropriate grant.

In January 1993 we paid something over £300 for cavity wall insulation,
accompanied by the mocking of neighbours (just as they did in January 2005
when installed solar water heating). They said it wouldn't make any
difference to anyone except the company which did it.

SWI was quite rare in those days and we weren't eligible for a grant. We
felt the difference in comfort immediately, we didn't measure any money
saving but that wasn't the purpose.

In the last year all those mocking neighbours (people rarely leave this
street except in a box) have had CWI installed - because they don't have to
pay for it. I wonder if it's making a difference to anyone other than the
company which did it ...

Mary

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:38:55 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

If the "intrusive auxiliary heating system" is controlled separately
from the solar system. However, if they are controlled together, by
the same controller or controllers which speak to each other, then
any such problem does not arise.

Apparently they do as it has little to do with control and more to do
with patterns of usage.

Only if the system is not properly sized, just as it will not work
properly if the controls are not properly designed or any number of
other things are not done.

Of course sizing the system properly does generally involve more
than adding some bits, which pushes the cost up.



--
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

Eeyore wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:
geoff wrote:
Mary Fisher writes
"Jim" wrote
"Eeyore" wrote
Mary Fisher wrote:

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.
Some people bathe quite a bit. Even when not necessary..... Or wear
clothes for one hour and wash the hell out of them!
Some hardly bathe at all, thus not spending much on gas. And some people
don't eat at home so don't need to wash dishes, pans etc.

And of course the price of gas differs from place to place, but that fact
might be a trifle obvious for someone determined to attempt being smart.

So how did you even manage to spend the amount you claim to have SAVED
on hot water in the first place ?
This was what puzzled me too.

Graham
Look, it's the *cause* that matters. The facts are unimportant.

With respect to the 'green religion' that is so, so true. They don't want to be
encumbered by mere facts when belief will suffice.

The genuinely sad thing is that most allegedly 'green' ideas for alternative
energy actually have a net negative impact when compared with a more measured
scientific approach of equivalent cost. It's the classic story of the road to
hell being paved with good intentions.

Graham


Once I met a fat girl turned thin. And pretty gorgeous with it.

"Whats the secret?"

EAT LESS. came the response.

No fancy diets. Just eating less.

We burn fuel because we can afford to.

And its easier to burn it than do the efficient thing.

Make fuel more expensive, and we will find ways to save it.