Mary Fisher wrote:

In January 1993 we paid something over £300 for cavity wall insulation,

So about £450 in today's money allowing for inflation...

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.

It ought to make some difference to comfort. You might even get it to
pay given long enough. It certainly more effective in this respect than
double glazing for example.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

David Hansen wrote:

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.

It's highly relevant to the wider issue of building expensive alternative energy
generation when half our homes aren't insulated to the the latest standards.

The money should be spent on *giving* us the insulation for free or at notional cost
IMHO.

Graahm

DM wrote:

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.

To insulate my loft space with 200mm fibreglass, I calculated the material cost alone from B&Q to be
£500. And it's not even a very large house.

Graham

Mary Fisher wrote:

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.

I don't have much in the way of cavities to fill since my house is mostly of solid 9 inch brick wall
construction.

I did however notice the diference after it was painted with 'masonry paint'. It had previously suffered
from penetrating damp which results in higher heat losses. It 'feels' nicer too.

Graham

John Rumm wrote:

Mary Fisher wrote:

In January 1993 we paid something over £300 for cavity wall insulation,

So about £450 in today's money allowing for inflation...

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.

It ought to make some difference to comfort. You might even get it to
pay given long enough. It certainly more effective in this respect than
double glazing for example.

On the subject of double glazing, a neighbour has it and keeps his house
virtually 'hermetically sealed'. As a result it's always unpleasantly damp
inside. He seems incapable of understanding why too.

Allowing some airflow is *very important*.

Graham

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:49:48 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

To insulate my loft space with 200mm fibreglass, I calculated the material cost alone from B&Q to be
£500.

No comment, other then to observe that they are not the cheapest
supplier of many things.

However, I happened to be in a large orange tin shed on Saturday and
I noticed that they were offering two for the price of one on rolls
of loft insulation made from recycled plastic bottles. I recall
various offers on insulation, at this time of the year, previously.
I was told, it would be two years ago, that everyone was buying
insulation due to the offers.



--
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

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...


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.

Was it a new house then?
I had cavity wall insulation in 1980.
Being a physicist I was able to work out how much it would save me in gas
whatever the neighbors said.
I do not have solar heating, nor will I unless I DIY it as it doesn't make
economic sense and it won't help global warming either.

dennis@home wrote:
| "Mary Fisher" wrote in message
| t...
|
||
|| 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.
|
| Was it a new house then?
| I had cavity wall insulation in 1980.
| Being a physicist I was able to work out how much it would save me
| in gas whatever the neighbors said.
| I do not have solar heating, nor will I unless I DIY it as it
| doesn't make economic sense and it won't help global warming either.

Hmm. A physicist in Germany who might have the skills to DIY...

It might make economic sense if you took it as a challenge to your
abilities as a physicist - Think of it as a challenge to design a
one-way black/gray body aperture. I think you have everything you need
to /make/ it have economic sense, even in your climate (BICBW).

It _is_ a physics problem, you know. :-D

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...


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.

Was it a new house then?

It was built in 1937.

I had cavity wall insulation in 1980.
Being a physicist I was able to work out how much it would save me in gas
whatever the neighbors said.

I would have been able to do it but I didn't think it was worth the effort.

I do not have solar heating, nor will I unless I DIY it as it doesn't make
economic sense and it won't help global warming either.

It's made economic sense to us.

Mary

In message , Mary Fisher
writes

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...


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.

Was it a new house then?

It was built in 1937.

I had cavity wall insulation in 1980.
Being a physicist I was able to work out how much it would save me in gas
whatever the neighbors said.

I would have been able to do it but I didn't think it was worth the effort.

I do not have solar heating, nor will I unless I DIY it as it doesn't make
economic sense and it won't help global warming either.

It's made economic sense to us.

Must be good if it saves you more than you were paying for hot water in
the first place

Have you got one of those machines that turns blank paper into £20 notes
as well ?

--
geoff

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
| "Mary Fisher" wrote in message
| t...
|
||
|| 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.
|
| Was it a new house then?
| I had cavity wall insulation in 1980.
| Being a physicist I was able to work out how much it would save me
| in gas whatever the neighbors said.
| I do not have solar heating, nor will I unless I DIY it as it
| doesn't make economic sense and it won't help global warming either.

Hmm. A physicist in Germany who might have the skills to DIY...

UK actually, you can't trust usenet servers to give an indication of the
country of origin.
I could have used my US account and then you would think I was an American.
..
And no if you have to buy the stuff it at current prices it doesn't make
sense.
Just look at the $3000 a large DIY chain is asking for a crude solar panel.


It might make economic sense if you took it as a challenge to your
abilities as a physicist - Think of it as a challenge to design a
one-way black/gray body aperture. I think you have everything you need
to /make/ it have economic sense, even in your climate (BICBW).

It _is_ a physics problem, you know. :-D

No its economics.
You either save cash or you believe in global warming and save energy.
Neither of those is clear cut in the case of solar heating in the UK.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...


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.

Was it a new house then?

It was built in 1937.

I had cavity wall insulation in 1980.
Being a physicist I was able to work out how much it would save me in gas
whatever the neighbors said.

I would have been able to do it but I didn't think it was worth the
effort.

I do not have solar heating, nor will I unless I DIY it as it doesn't
make economic sense and it won't help global warming either.

It's made economic sense to us.

Mary
The general trend on gw cycle is 10 years away then we have a cooling period
on
earth and all the planets similar to the 1930's in your area as far local
weather.
I don't know what your local weather was in the 30's,but I would be scoping
it out.
I believe you are on track with insulating now instead of waiting
........because my local weather
in East Texas was much cooler during the 30's with some the rare snow days
that we got in the
20th century.







----== 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 =----

wrote in message
...
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:

That's like helping to promote sex; some things don't require promotion,
or claiming credit for doing so.



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


#Paul

wrote in message
...
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?

Uh, yeah. I was kinda under the impression that anyone who knew anything
about the subject was quite well aware of it. This is why Al Gore and the
greenies are such loons....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html


#Paul

On Oct 14, 10:57 am, 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.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...rycode=3097491...

There was a graphic in the Times, illustrating some figures.http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...es_RICS_graphi...

The figures in the graphic are in cloud cuckoo land.
£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!. All of the costs are between 5-20x exaggerated over real world
prices. I'd be interest in seeing the actual report, but of course,
there is no link to it.

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."

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

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. 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?

Nonsense like this ruins years of hard work rebuilding the reputation
of an industry which has already had hard times due to mis-selling.

I've written to the RICS asking to the see full report, where the data
came from, and how they worked their figures out. But meantime, does
anyone have any thoughts on what the agenda of this report might be,
apart from to spread lies and mis-information?

Dear Jonoyhan,

very good from you that you do this. dissapointing that this like this
keep happening!

lots of sucees
Peter, Netherlands

On 2007-10-16 22:48:30 +0100, "Jim" said:


wrote in message
...
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:

That's like helping to promote sex; some things don't require promotion,
or claiming credit for doing so.

I understand that he has done that as well.......

wrote in message
...
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.

Define global warming skeptic;
a person who believes it's not happening? or,
a person who believes it is happening, but mankind has nothing to do
with it and can't do anything about it?
or...?



#Paul

wrote in message ...
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?

LOL! That's why I gave up. Anything worth bothering with is in dispute
by fools who know nothing about it....



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

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.

In the eastern US, I was spending quite a bit more than $300 US for
propane gas. Hot water is neither free or cheap, except in Iceland.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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 ?

The greenies smoking their organically raised, low carbon footprint
marijuana and editing WP in their spare time. When they're not out cruising
for cheap tawdry sex with questionable types.



Graham

"Andy Hall" wrote
Look, it's the *cause* that matters. The facts are unimportant.

It's Al Gore!!!! Right here on Usenet!

"Eeyore" wrote
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.

Ann Coulter wrote a marvelous article some time ago about all the new
mfg plants, mining, plastics, and transport costs of the new green tech
being implemented. What a nightmare!


Graham

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-15, Ed Sirett wrote:


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.

Hear, hear.

Personally, I'm not sure I would trust someone else to do this sort of
thing to my home. I think very few people would. Most alt energy things I've
seen are insane, bordering on scams, and definitely waaaaay overpriced.


--
"Religion poisons everything."
[email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org dot uk]

"Mary Fisher" wrote
In January 1993 we paid something over £300 for cavity wall insulation,

I am not familiar with this term. In the US, I have always used
paper-faced rolls of fiberglass stapeled between the wall studs. What is
CWI? The same? Sprayed foam/cellulose?
Thanks,
Jim

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


David Hansen wrote:

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.

It's highly relevant to the wider issue of building expensive alternative
energy
generation when half our homes aren't insulated to the the latest
standards.

The money should be spent on *giving* us the insulation for free or at
notional cost
IMHO.

The money shouldn't be spent by the govt. It should be spent by the
people who want whatever it is; alt. energy, or more insulation. Otherwise,
you have a Nanny State.


Graahm

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Mary Fisher wrote:

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.

I don't have much in the way of cavities to fill since my house is mostly
of solid 9 inch brick wall
construction.

I did however notice the diference after it was painted with 'masonry
paint'.

Yes, that works wonders. We painted our home with a pale greenish-blue
paint originally designed for use in concrete swimming pools to seal the
pool. It lasts forever too!

It had previously suffered
from penetrating damp which results in higher heat losses. It 'feels'
nicer too.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


John Rumm wrote:

Mary Fisher wrote:

In January 1993 we paid something over £300 for cavity wall insulation,

So about £450 in today's money allowing for inflation...

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.

It ought to make some difference to comfort. You might even get it to
pay given long enough. It certainly more effective in this respect than
double glazing for example.

On the subject of double glazing, a neighbour has it and keeps his house
virtually 'hermetically sealed'. As a result it's always unpleasantly damp
inside. He seems incapable of understanding why too.

Masonry paint candidate????

Allowing some airflow is *very important*.

Or buy a dehumidifier; they are essential in many parts of the states.


Graham

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:16:59 -0500, Jim wrote:

"Mary Fisher" wrote
In January 1993 we paid something over £300 for cavity wall insulation,

I am not familiar with this term. In the US, I have always used
paper-faced rolls of fiberglass stapeled between the wall studs. What is
CWI? The same? Sprayed foam/cellulose?

It's applicable to walls constructed of two skins of masonry (bricks or
blocks) with an air gap between them. When retrofitted, holes are drilled
in one skin (usually the outer) and fibrous or granular insulating material
blown into the gap. In USAnia I think you generally have timber-frame and
other constructions where this wouldn't work.

--
John Stumbles

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:57:49 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

I understand that he has done that as well.......

Unlike Clinton who did NOT have sex with that woman.

And he didn't inhale the wacky baccy at Oxford either, did he? :-)

--
John Stumbles

Who's *really* behind all these conspiracy theories?

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:01:03 -0500, Jim wrote:

Define global warming skeptic;
a person who believes it's not happening? or,
a person who believes it is happening, but mankind has nothing to do
with it and can't do anything about it?
or...?

Somebody who experiences absolutely no increase in the temperature of the
sand surrounding their head.

--
John Stumbles

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:16:59 -0500, Jim wrote:

"Mary Fisher" wrote
In January 1993 we paid something over £300 for cavity wall insulation,

I am not familiar with this term. In the US, I have always used
paper-faced rolls of fiberglass stapeled between the wall studs. What is
CWI? The same? Sprayed foam/cellulose?

It's applicable to walls constructed of two skins of masonry (bricks or
blocks) with an air gap between them. When retrofitted, holes are drilled
in one skin (usually the outer) and fibrous or granular insulating
material
blown into the gap. In USAnia I think you generally have timber-frame and
other constructions where this wouldn't work.

Thank you; I have seen parallel brick walls with a space between, tied
together with an extra long brick every so often, in buildings hundreds of
years old. I don't know anyone in the US who lives in a home like that....

--
John Stumbles

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:57:49 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

I understand that he has done that as well.......

Unlike Clinton who did NOT have sex with that woman.

And he didn't inhale the wacky baccy at Oxford either, did he? :-)

If you are a decent sort of chap who does =not= smoke pot, what are you
doing =faking= it to impress people who do?! Makes no sense at all.... I
used to smoke pot; I faked =not= smoking it, but I never faked smoking it.
Clinton is a foole.
Jim


--
John Stumbles

Who's *really* behind all these conspiracy theories?

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:01:03 -0500, Jim wrote:

Define global warming skeptic;
a person who believes it's not happening? or,
a person who believes it is happening, but mankind has nothing to do
with it and can't do anything about it?
or...?

Somebody who experiences absolutely no increase in the temperature of the
sand surrounding their head.

To clear the air, I believe it is happening, slowly and inexorably, man
has precious little to do with it, can't stop it if he tried, and every
proposal to prevent it basically calls for a return to the Stone Age, i.e.,
the destruction of Western Civilization as we know it.
Until you can get India and China on board to do something about it, you
are wasting your breath, IMO. =IF= it really even is something man can
affect at all......
Meanwhile, the Martian Ice caps continue to shrink and the sun keeps
hurling CME's at us.


--
John Stumbles

Jim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
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.

Ann Coulter wrote a marvelous article some time ago about all the new
mfg plants, mining, plastics, and transport costs of the new green tech
being implemented. What a nightmare!

Talking of which, are you familiar with the 'fallout' from the EU's demand for
lead-free electronics

Apparently no-one considered the impact of the additional tin mining. Mostly tin
mining isn't in the EU as it happens so they simply exported some new
environmental problems. Oh, except there weren't actually any 'environmental
problems' from leaded solder to begin with ! Well, actually let's say that
no-one (in the Comission) considered very much actually other than making a
supposedly 'green' statement. It's accepted that 'lead-free' will reduce the
reliability of electronics and hence its useful lifetime (which is rather
un-green to my way of thinking) but apparently that's OK as long an illusion of
'green-ness' is achieved.

And the next cracking joke is this one !

As the demand for green 'carbon neutral' bio-fuel increases, palm oil production
in Asia is being increased. To do this they BURN OFF more of their rainforest !
Carbon-neutral my ass !

So, a green political whim in Europe results in wholesale rainforest
destruction. BRILLIANT !

Graham

Jim wrote:

"Mary Fisher" wrote
In January 1993 we paid something over £300 for cavity wall insulation,

I am not familiar with this term. In the US, I have always used
paper-faced rolls of fiberglass stapeled between the wall studs. What is
CWI? The same? Sprayed foam/cellulose?

Firstly it's worth noting that building construction is very different in the
UK. We still use a lot of traditional brick for building (at least for exterior
walls) together with building block.

Homes made of wooden stud construction are rare in the UK.

Older buildings like mine dating from the Victorian era are typically made of
brick 2 layers thick (solid 9 inch walls). More recent buildings have a cavity
wall which consist of an internal wall made of building block tied to a single
layert outer wall made of brick. The air gap provides additional insulation.

More recently it's become the norm to install insulation material in that air
gap, either fron new or retrospectively with blown or foamed insulation to
improve the thermal properties further.

Graham

Jim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
David Hansen wrote:
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.

It's highly relevant to the wider issue of building expensive alternative
energy generation when half our homes aren't insulated to the the latest
standards.

The money should be spent on *giving* us the insulation for free or at
notional cost IMHO.

The money shouldn't be spent by the govt. It should be spent by the
people who want whatever it is; alt. energy, or more insulation. Otherwise,
you have a Nanny State.

Because the 'Average Joe' can't be relied upon to do sensible things, I regret
that occasionally the state does need to provide some incentives.

Yes, it seems a little 'nannying' may be in order.

Graham

Jim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Mary Fisher wrote:

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.

I don't have much in the way of cavities to fill since my house is mostly
of solid 9 inch brick wall
construction.

I did however notice the diference after it was painted with 'masonry
paint'.

Yes, that works wonders. We painted our home with a pale greenish-blue
paint originally designed for use in concrete swimming pools to seal the
pool. It lasts forever too!

Maybe not forever. 10 years on it's wearing quite well aside from a couple of
patches where the material condition underneath was marginal.

It is very effective though. A similar improvement may be achieved on buildings
with bare brick exteriors by applying a silicone based spray which rejects water
penetration yet still allows the masonry to 'breathe'.

Graham

Jim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
John Rumm wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:

In January 1993 we paid something over £300 for cavity wall insulation,

So about £450 in today's money allowing for inflation...

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.

It ought to make some difference to comfort. You might even get it to
pay given long enough. It certainly more effective in this respect than
double glazing for example.

On the subject of double glazing, a neighbour has it and keeps his house
virtually 'hermetically sealed'. As a result it's always unpleasantly damp
inside. He seems incapable of understanding why too.

Masonry paint candidate????

He's used the silicone treatment on the exterior but he's trapping all the water
vapour in his house by not allowing the air to change much. He even had a mould
outbreak in an unused spare bedroom !


Allowing some airflow is *very important*.

Or buy a dehumidifier; they are essential in many parts of the states.

I have one because my place was 'soaking' with damp when I bought it. I ran it
for about TWO YEARS non-stop ! The amount of water it collected was awesome. Now
it's nice and dry. So simple to fix (I also had a new silicone damp proof course
installed) and I don't need the dehumidifier any more.

Graham

Jim wrote:

"John Stumbles" wrote
Jim wrote:
"Mary Fisher" wrote
In January 1993 we paid something over £300 for cavity wall insulation,

I am not familiar with this term. In the US, I have always used
paper-faced rolls of fiberglass stapeled between the wall studs. What is
CWI? The same? Sprayed foam/cellulose?

It's applicable to walls constructed of two skins of masonry (bricks or
blocks) with an air gap between them. When retrofitted, holes are drilled
in one skin (usually the outer) and fibrous or granular insulating
material
blown into the gap. In USAnia I think you generally have timber-frame and
other constructions where this wouldn't work.

Thank you; I have seen parallel brick walls with a space between, tied
together with an extra long brick every so often, in buildings hundreds of
years old. I don't know anyone in the US who lives in a home like that....

Here we used zinc ? plated steel ties to hold the 2 layers together. Your method
of cunstruction is certainly cheaper but I'd like to see comparative thermal
performance figures.

Graham

On 2007-10-17 06:49:05 +0100, Eeyore
said:



Jim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
David Hansen wrote:
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.

It's highly relevant to the wider issue of building expensive alternative
energy generation when half our homes aren't insulated to the the latest
standards.

The money should be spent on *giving* us the insulation for free or at
notional cost IMHO.

The money shouldn't be spent by the govt. It should be spent by the
people who want whatever it is; alt. energy, or more insulation. Otherwise,
you have a Nanny State.

Because the 'Average Joe' can't be relied upon to do sensible things, I regret
that occasionally the state does need to provide some incentives.

Yes, it seems a little 'nannying' may be in order.

Graham

There is virtually *never* a legitimate reason for state nannying -
certainly not with this. If the case is compelling, then people will
implement. This is an indication that it is not.