UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
"Tony Bryer" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:04:49 +0100 Doctor Drivel wrote : For the average UK home the whole idea if building two walls is an expensive luxury. Building two wall were one can do. A highly insulated single wall is the best way. A cavity wall lets you use durable and aesthetically pleasing facing bricks economically and much cheaper (but no less fit for purpose) blockwork for the inner skin. If you insulate the cavity you increase the thermal mass (and thus comfort) within the house. They tend to use 4" lightweight insulating blocks, maybe some 2" insulation bats inside, a 2" cavity and an outer 4" brick leaf. This makes a very "thick" wall about 12" thick. If you want thermal mass: cheaper dense concrete blocks can be used no more than 4" thick, a layer of 6" or 7" of insulation and then thin brick slips (very thin bricks of say 1" thick) to get the brick affect. The wall will be no thicker, yet the thermal qualities are "vastly" superior. The inner blocks can be plastered right over and the plaster will not crack when drying. The plaster also makes the wall air-tight. |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On 2007-10-17 09:38:31 +0100, Eeyore
said: Andy Hall wrote: On 2007-10-17 08:04:11 +0100, Eeyore said: I'd rather see public money spent on reduction of energy use than tokenist 'green generation'. I would rather see a decline in "public money" and for individuals to make their own arrangements as they choose. Experience shows that many individuals spent their money unwisely. Or simply maybe they are unaware of better sensible options. That may be, but it is their money unless you fancy yourself in the role of Alastair Wotshisname. I agree with you regarding most "green generation" The better solutions would be to address generation by investment in nuclear capacity rather than to cripple economic development via foolhardy exercises having minimal effect. I agree with the idea about nuclear generation. I think it's the best, simplest, fastest option to reduce fossil fuel based energy usage and if nothing else that will have a positive result for 'energy security' issues. On could then discuss Indian and Chinese takeaways of coal fired power stations. I'm sorry, but with the average IQ at 100, most people simply aren't smart enough to behave in their own best interests much of the time. That is their choice You would apparently have the idiots hold sway. Idiots, some people may be, perhaps we should remove their vote also. An interesting point. I'd make politicians have to pass an exam for intellectual competency too. There are few who would pass that - particularly on the government benches. |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
Doctor Drivel wrote:
If you want thermal mass: cheaper dense concrete blocks can be used no more than 4" thick, a layer of 6" or 7" of insulation and then thin brick slips (very thin bricks of say 1" thick) to get the brick affect... Or nail diagonal dark face boards to SIPs for an outdoor Tudor effect and hang shiny water-filled platforms under a shiny ceiling for higher temp thermal mass that stores 7 times more heat than room temp mass, with better room temp control. Nick |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On 2007-10-17 11:44:26 +0100, David Hansen
said: On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:28:09 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- He did not have sexual intercourse with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. Apparently it is something to do with making words imply something they don't mean. Just like greenwash then..... Greenwash is objectionable, which is why it is criticised by groups like Friends of the Earth. A questionable organisation if ever there was one. See for example their criticism of the greenwash claims of most "green" electricity suppliers. However, that does not mean that everything which some claim to be greenwash is in fact greenwash. That may be true. The problem is that it only takes a few rotten apples in the barrel. The whole spectrum of this is not interesting enough to most people to make them feel inclined to investigate the detail, and sort the wheat from the chaff. The remainder are influenced by sensationalism and open to exploitation by charlatans whether it be for their money or their hearts and minds. For example there are some green electricity suppliers whose claims are verifiable. I am sure, but how many people have time or inclination to waste on this? I haven't looked at the market reports lately but would suspect that this would come a distant third after price and service. |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years torepay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
The Natural Philosopher wrote: How hve I reduced my energy usage? snip I run open fires that burn wood I cut from my land. Every little helps. OPEN fires are are phenomenal waste of energy. About 90% of the heat goes straight up the chimney. A proper stove such as I have will fix that. Graham |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
Andy Hall wrote:
It can certainly be inproved, not least with new wall plasters believe it or not. Dry lining can make serious improvements too. Graham The improvement is not substantial until one starts putting in a reasonable thickness of insulation. This can be ameliorated to some extent with materials such as Kingspan, but still involve issues such as reduction in room size, how to handle window and door reveals without making a pig's ear and redecorating etc. This is not trivial for most people. and for many would negate the purpose of buying the place in the first place - i.e. its period features, cornices, mouldings etc. It is very hard to preserve all these when dry lining the inside of a room. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years torepay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Suddenly, when a two year old car is 1/3rd the price of a new one, we wouldn't be changing em every two years..we would FIX them. I'm not aware of ANYONE not fixing their cars because their value hasn't dropped enough ! Graham |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years torepay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Eeyore wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim wrote: 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. The average joe CAN in his sphere of influence: No one would e.g. actually burn expenisve furniture if they could e.g. sell it and buy more fuel than is in the furniture.. global warming is a bit like that..we are burning the global furniture because it is plentiful and free.. We don;t need legislation, we need taxation. If the trip to Tescos cost £50 you would think twice about getting in the car to do it. Heck, you could afford to pay a *rickshaw* to do it for you, at that price. As I have said elsewhere, whether you achieve this by a tax or a subsidy, overall in the total scheme of things, it makes little difference. They're just names for redirecting the flow of money. Some names may be more palatable than others. I don't have a problem with that at all. I DO have a problem with LEGISLATION. This makes it look like you are doing something, when you are not, and has loads of unintended consequences. That would only be true of * TOKEN * legislation. Direct financial bias by the sensible application of taxes and subsidies goes straight to the heart of the problem. Don't ban 4x4's - Tax fuel Don't force people to recycle. Tax *new* stuff. Don't ban incandescent light bulbs. Tax electricity. I'm sorry but taxing electricity to the point where people couldn't afford to run incandescents would simply be ridiculous and get i the way of alot of sensible use of electricity. I'd simply put a tax of say £1 / $2 on inefficient light bulbs. Graduated perhaps by wattage and luminous efficiency. Don't enforce a minimum wage. Remove income tax. And subsidise EVERYONE. History shows this just hurts the poor. Don't susbidise windmills either, just tax fossil fuel. If windmills are cost effective, people will build em. If they are not, they won't. I agree with that bit. Graham |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
Mary Fisher wrote: "John Stumbles" wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:33:31 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote: The ones used by magpies to build a nest in one of our trees were ss. I was surprised because I'd only ever seen galvanised. They were obviously up with the regs :-) Building regs perhaps - but they were awarded ASBOs because of their attitude and behaviour towards other residents in the tree. Seriously, I'd never have believed such a collection of metal could have been concreted together by a couple of birds ... I have a picture somewhere. They are CONCRETED together ? Graham |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years torepay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Morris Dovey wrote: Eeyore wrote: | The Natural Philosopher wrote: || But essentially what has to happen at government level is simple: || just tax oil. More and more, Until its usage is under control. You || can use the revenues to fund all sorts of useful stuff. | | Not going to happen in the USA is it ? Good guess. Don't be so sure. First of all with an oilman in the seat of power, no. not yet. Not until they work out that swingeing margins on more expensive fuel make just as much profit. However is ultimately a PR thing: Hence Al Gore. If the thought gets stuck in the voters brain that paying $10 a gallon of gas is the way to stop their towns being devastated by storms, it might well be the that gets someone elected. Ah ! The wonderful smell of dumbing down. Graham |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years torepay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Eeyore wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Eeyore wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Eeyore wrote: John Stumbles wrote: (c) the consequences could be disastrous for all humankind Potential consequences in hundreds of years time. There is no immediate danger Tell that to to N Orleans. The flooding of New Orleans was due to defective flood defences. I guess teh rain and storms urges were simply no relevant then? If the defences had been built properly ... NO. So basically the answer to gun crime is to fore everyone to walk around in armour plate that can stand a .45 at 2 yards range? I think you should promote this sort of logic. It might catch on. In the UK we have something crazy like about 1/400 th the number of gun deaths/murders in the USA ? Why ? At least largely because gun ownership isn't either widespread, routine or encouraged by a gun lobby. There has been a recent trend towards increasing (illegal) gun ownership in certain criminal groups and that's been causing a worrying increase in deaths. Draw your own conclusions. Guns don't make you safe. And where legal guns exist it's that much easier for illegal ownership too. Graham |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
wrote in message ... Doctor Drivel wrote: If you want thermal mass: cheaper dense concrete blocks can be used no more than 4" thick, a layer of 6" or 7" of insulation and then thin brick slips (very thin bricks of say 1" thick) to get the brick affect... Or nail diagonal dark face boards to SIPs for an outdoor Tudor effect and hang shiny water-filled platforms under a shiny ceiling for higher temp thermal mass that stores 7 times more heat than room temp mass, with better room temp control. SIP panels are brilliant. They are gaining acceptance here, but that will take eons as the British construction industry does not like anything new. They are also still expensive, yet the increased insulation required by current building regulations means they are becoming feasible. Brick slips can be fitted to the outside of SIP panels too. The problem with SIPs is gaining thermal mass as you have hit upon. You can use pugging. Sand or ash over the ceiling plasterboards. I thought water only held around 4 times more heat than best masonry which is dense concrete, not 7 times. I don't get what you are hanging here..... "shiny water-filled platforms under a shiny ceiling", would you please elaborate here. I know plastic water pipes filled with water embedded in pugging does add thermal mass too. The pipes do not have to be fully covered by the sand or ash. The ceiling has to take the weight which can be substantial. The mass in the ceiling also helps in soundproofing as well. The German timber frame house maker Huf Haus, use a cement screed over a wooden floor to add thermal mass and soundproofing and give a solid feel to the house too. Laying carpets ruins the thermal qualities of the house. |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
Andy Hall wrote: Eeyore said: Andy Hall wrote: Eeyore said: I have no problem seeing why at least some expectation of reasonable performance shouldn't be made of older ones, especially if accompanied by grants to help.. Of limited value. On older properties with 230mm solid walls, A minority of properties. There is still a very substantial stock in this category. That's certainly true a very large proportion of total heat produced goes out through the walls. There is very little that can reasonably be done about that. It can certainly be inproved, not least with new wall plasters believe it or not. Dry lining can make serious improvements too. The improvement is not substantial until one starts putting in a reasonable thickness of insulation. This can be ameliorated to some extent with materials such as Kingspan, but still involve issues such as reduction in room size, how to handle window and door reveals without making a pig's ear and redecorating etc. This is not trivial for most people. I agree. The reduction in size needn't be huge though. I'm thinking of doing this *selectively* on some of my outside walls. Graham |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On 2007-10-17 11:44:26 +0100, David Hansen said: On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:28:09 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- He did not have sexual intercourse with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. Apparently it is something to do with making words imply something they don't mean. Just like greenwash then..... Greenwash is objectionable, which is why it is criticised by groups like Friends of the Earth. A questionable organisation if ever there was one. Far too many land owners give them money. |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Helpneeded!
Doctor Drivel wrote: The German timber frame house maker Huf Haus, use a cement screed over a wooden floor to add thermal mass and soundproofing and give a solid feel to the house too. Why do they start with a wooden floor at all ? Laying carpets ruins the thermal qualities of the house. How so ? Graham |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On 2007-10-17 22:36:29 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On 2007-10-17 11:44:26 +0100, David Hansen said: On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:28:09 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- He did not have sexual intercourse with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. Apparently it is something to do with making words imply something they don't mean. Just like greenwash then..... Greenwash is objectionable, which is why it is criticised by groups like Friends of the Earth. A questionable organisation if ever there was one. Far too many land owners give them money. Well, quite. |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Morris Dovey wrote: Eeyore wrote: | The Natural Philosopher wrote: || But essentially what has to happen at government level is simple: || just tax oil. More and more, Until its usage is under control. You || can use the revenues to fund all sorts of useful stuff. | | Not going to happen in the USA is it ? Good guess. Don't be so sure. First of all with an oilman in the seat of power, no. not yet. Not until they work out that swingeing margins on more expensive fuel make just as much profit. However is ultimately a PR thing: Hence Al Gore. If the thought gets stuck in the voters brain that paying $10 a gallon of gas is the way to stop their towns being devastated by storms, it might well be the that gets someone elected. One fault with your logic ....Gore is an oilman ,too. And if why didn't he use all these really good ideas when he was VP. I mean he had two terms to try and didn't ..... Helped Clinton cut the miltary in half .... Drain the miltary oil reserves..... Help put the economy in a tail spin....which Bushanomics recovered from. Incouraged Hillary care to insurance the entire country enjoy the of blessing VA system type care health care and service. Any many more great achievements. Trade agreements with a country with more lead recalls than I remember ....hell they should add "with lead" to the label made in China. Another trade with agreement with Mexico that would have most taxpayers wondering, what was he thinking when he did that. And anyway OPEC and Bushanomics* is doing it for them. Except the money doesn't end up in the govt, it ends up in Q'ran toting islamic fundamentalists pockets instead. Of it course it happening during wasn't during Clinton's two terms..... *seen the dollar valuation recently? ----== 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 =---- |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:38:31 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
I agree with the idea about nuclear generation. I think it's the best, simplest, fastest option to reduce fossil fuel based energy usage and if nothing else that will have a positive result for 'energy security' issues. Yup, plenty of uranium mines in the UK, unlike wind and waves which we have to import from dodgy forriners. -- John Stumbles Pessimists are never disappointed |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:43:10 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:
The improvement is not substantial until one starts putting in a reasonable thickness of insulation. This can be ameliorated to some extent with materials such as Kingspan, but still involve issues such as reduction in room size, how to handle window and door reveals without making a pig's ear and redecorating etc. This is not trivial for most people. No but there's a constant stream of renovations of such properties going on and it seems a shame that the regs and/or incentives aren't in place to take the opportunity when such places are done up. Prolly regs: most developers CBA unless you paid them a truckload of lolly more than it actually costs to do it. -- John Stumbles Fundamentalist agnostic |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years torepay...nonsense!Help needed!
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:37:04 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
(d) we're socially advanced[1] enough to act responsibly and ameriorate the effects of our actions And how would that be ? By: - conserving those resources which are obviously in most limited supply (such as fossil fuels, which are in vastly shorter supply than solar-derived energy such as solar, wind and wave; and geothermal) - avoiding polluting our (children's) environment with substances which cause/contribute to global warming or are toxic to life and difficult or impossible to clean up. At a more socially advanced level we could tackle some of the consequences of our past and present behaviour such as helping restore communities and environments which have been degraded by exploitation. -- John Stumbles I used to think the brain was the most interesting part of the body - until I realised what was telling me that |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:37:45 +0000, Ed Sirett wrote:
If the kit was just a couple of hundred quid (which is what it would be if it were mass produced like radiator/pumps/time controls etc.) The may be it would be worth me doing it. Of course that a long way from doing for someone else.... 8-( I think that's just what it is in Greece: you buy a package with a collector and plumbing all connected up and stick it on your (flat) roof. Cheap as chips over there and AFAIK not a gov't subsidy in sight. -- John Stumbles Bob the builder / it'll cost 'yer Bob the builder / loadsa dosh |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
John Stumbles wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:38:31 +0100, Eeyore wrote: I agree with the idea about nuclear generation. I think it's the best, simplest, fastest option to reduce fossil fuel based energy usage and if nothing else that will have a positive result for 'energy security' issues. Yup, plenty of uranium mines in the UK, unlike wind and waves which we have to import from dodgy forriners. We have good friends like the Australians with plenty of uranium. Graham |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
John Stumbles wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:37:45 +0000, Ed Sirett wrote: If the kit was just a couple of hundred quid (which is what it would be if it were mass produced like radiator/pumps/time controls etc.) The may be it would be worth me doing it. Of course that a long way from doing for someone else.... 8-( I think that's just what it is in Greece: you buy a package with a collector and plumbing all connected up and stick it on your (flat) roof. Cheap as chips over there and AFAIK not a gov't subsidy in sight. Probably no gov't regulations either ! Graham |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
Eeyore wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Eeyore wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim wrote: 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. The average joe CAN in his sphere of influence: No one would e.g. actually burn expenisve furniture if they could e.g. sell it and buy more fuel than is in the furniture.. global warming is a bit like that..we are burning the global furniture because it is plentiful and free.. We don;t need legislation, we need taxation. If the trip to Tescos cost £50 you would think twice about getting in the car to do it. Heck, you could afford to pay a *rickshaw* to do it for you, at that price. As I have said elsewhere, whether you achieve this by a tax or a subsidy, overall in the total scheme of things, it makes little difference. They're just names for redirecting the flow of money. Some names may be more palatable than others. I don't have a problem with that at all. I DO have a problem with LEGISLATION. This makes it look like you are doing something, when you are not, and has loads of unintended consequences. That would only be true of * TOKEN * legislation. Is there any other sort these days? Direct financial bias by the sensible application of taxes and subsidies goes straight to the heart of the problem. Don't ban 4x4's - Tax fuel Don't force people to recycle. Tax *new* stuff. Don't ban incandescent light bulbs. Tax electricity. I'm sorry but taxing electricity to the point where people couldn't afford to run incandescents would simply be ridiculous and get i the way of alot of sensible use of electricity. You don't tax to the point where they can't afford to run them: You tax to the point where enough people don't run them to achieve the lowering of energy use you want to achieve. Or since they make **** all difference to anything, to the point where people start switching OFF lights they are not using. Or stop using electricity in some other way. Heck it works with monetary supply - raise interest rates and people stop borrowing money. Not ban loans. I'd simply put a tax of say £1 / $2 on inefficient light bulbs. Graduated perhaps by wattage and luminous efficiency. Don't enforce a minimum wage. Remove income tax. And subsidise EVERYONE. History shows this just hurts the poor. No, it would actually improve matters. Instead of cheap labour being in China,it would be right there on your doorstep. If everyone is getting a pension regardless of age, then there are o more poor, just a cheap subsidised labour pool Make people cheaper than machines, and soak up all those who can;t do much more than use their muscles. Income tax plus unemployment subsidies plus minimum wage legislation makes it cost effective to stay out of work unless you can achieve a fairly substantial wage, and means employers simply cannot get certain low paying jobs done. Remove all labor taxes, and all minimum wages, and give people unemployment beneft (now called we dont care if you work or not benefit) REGARDLESS of whether they work or not, and suddenly there is no reason not to employ someone,and no reason not to work. This is already a de facto sitiation in the OAP market. Heaps of OAPS work for low wages to 'top up' their pensions. much of it on a cash in hand basis .. Don't susbidise windmills either, just tax fossil fuel. If windmills are cost effective, people will build em. If they are not, they won't. I agree with that bit. Graham |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
Arnold Walker wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message And anyway OPEC and Bushanomics* is doing it for them. Except the money doesn't end up in the govt, it ends up in Q'ran toting islamic fundamentalists pockets instead. Of it course it happening during wasn't during Clinton's two terms..... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You can always tell a Bush supporter by the inability to construct a comprehensible sentence. Bush: The man who made stupidity cool. |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-10-17 09:33:18 +0100, Eeyore said: Andy Hall wrote: Eeyore said: I have no problem seeing why at least some expectation of reasonable performance shouldn't be made of older ones, especially if accompanied by grants to help.. Of limited value. On older properties with 230mm solid walls, A minority of properties. There is still a very substantial stock in this category. a very large proportion of total heat produced goes out through the walls. There is very little that can reasonably be done about that. It can certainly be inproved, not least with new wall plasters believe it or not. Dry lining can make serious improvements too. Graham The improvement is not substantial until one starts putting in a reasonable thickness of insulation. This can be ameliorated to some extent with materials such as Kingspan, but still involve issues such as reduction in room size, how to handle window and door reveals without making a pig's ear and redecorating etc. This is not trivial for most people. Building regs however will force all refurbs to take such buildings up to scratch. And those issues are no worse than e.g. fitting DG windows, or rewiring. Not hard, juts need redecorating afterwards. I probably wouldn't buy a property without a SAP report these days frankly. And would knock off a lot for a poor rating. |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
John Rumm wrote:
Andy Hall wrote: It can certainly be inproved, not least with new wall plasters believe it or not. Dry lining can make serious improvements too. Graham The improvement is not substantial until one starts putting in a reasonable thickness of insulation. This can be ameliorated to some extent with materials such as Kingspan, but still involve issues such as reduction in room size, how to handle window and door reveals without making a pig's ear and redecorating etc. This is not trivial for most people. and for many would negate the purpose of buying the place in the first place - i.e. its period features, cornices, mouldings etc. It is very hard to preserve all these when dry lining the inside of a room. In such case build a new skin OUTSIDE the house. I don;t mind people ****ing energy away on living in a museum: I just object to them not paying through the nose for it ;-) |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Help needed!
John Stumbles wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:38:31 +0100, Eeyore wrote: I agree with the idea about nuclear generation. I think it's the best, simplest, fastest option to reduce fossil fuel based energy usage and if nothing else that will have a positive result for 'energy security' issues. Yup, plenty of uranium mines in the UK, unlike wind and waves which we have to import from dodgy forriners. Indeed. Mostly buried around windscale I believe.. |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
Eeyore wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: How hve I reduced my energy usage? snip I run open fires that burn wood I cut from my land. Every little helps. OPEN fires are are phenomenal waste of energy. About 90% of the heat goes straight up the chimney. A proper stove such as I have will fix that. hats teh upper part of the house, those chimbleys. Graham |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
Eeyore wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Suddenly, when a two year old car is 1/3rd the price of a new one, we wouldn't be changing em every two years..we would FIX them. I'm not aware of ANYONE not fixing their cars because their value hasn't dropped enough ! Really? you must live in a different world. Loads of people trade in relatively new cars because its actually better than paying to even get them serviced. It was standard company policy in at least one place I worked. Graham |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
John Stumbles wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:37:04 +0100, Eeyore wrote: (d) we're socially advanced[1] enough to act responsibly and ameriorate the effects of our actions And how would that be ? By: - conserving those resources which are obviously in most limited supply (such as fossil fuels, which are in vastly shorter supply than solar-derived energy such as solar, wind and wave; and geothermal) - avoiding polluting our (children's) environment with substances which cause/contribute to global warming or are toxic to life and difficult or impossible to clean up. At a more socially advanced level we could tackle some of the consequences of our past and present behaviour such as helping restore communities and environments which have been degraded by exploitation. Yep Nuke Birmingham and start over. |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On 2007-10-18 02:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:
John Rumm wrote: Andy Hall wrote: It can certainly be inproved, not least with new wall plasters believe it or not. Dry lining can make serious improvements too. Graham The improvement is not substantial until one starts putting in a reasonable thickness of insulation. This can be ameliorated to some extent with materials such as Kingspan, but still involve issues such as reduction in room size, how to handle window and door reveals without making a pig's ear and redecorating etc. This is not trivial for most people. and for many would negate the purpose of buying the place in the first place - i.e. its period features, cornices, mouldings etc. It is very hard to preserve all these when dry lining the inside of a room. In such case build a new skin OUTSIDE the house. I don;t mind people ****ing energy away on living in a museum: I just object to them not paying through the nose for it ;-) Sort of like stone cladding, you mean? A row of Edwardian and Victorian houses with most but not all having a kind of Celotex stucco. The windows can be removed and replaced with uPVC DG at the same time. |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote: Eeyore wrote: | The Natural Philosopher wrote: || But essentially what has to happen at government level is simple: || just tax oil. More and more, Until its usage is under control. You || can use the revenues to fund all sorts of useful stuff. | | Not going to happen in the USA is it ? Good guess. Don't be so sure. First of all with an oilman in the seat of power, no. not yet. Not until they work out that swingeing margins on more expensive fuel make just as much profit. However is ultimately a PR thing: Hence Al Gore. If the thought gets stuck in the voters brain that paying $10 a gallon of gas is the way to stop their towns being devastated by storms, it might well be the that gets someone elected. I can not see a large tax increase on gas. It just won't happen. Even Al Gore couldn't do it. And anyway OPEC and Bushanomics* is doing it for them. Except the money doesn't end up in the govt, it ends up in Q'ran toting islamic fundamentalists pockets instead. *seen the dollar valuation recently? It's amazing how little Americans care about the value of the dollar. Not even to the point of realizing that much of oils rise has been due to the dollars fall. This is a consumption driven economy and no amout of good sense will change that. Who is even talking about the Hubbert Peak? Oddly, it is the insurance companies that will drive global warming investments. Those guys are no longer sitting on the sidelines, their business is dependant on either alleviating the risk or charging a whole lot more for it. There's a lot on the plate for the next president. All the issues that George W Bush made worse. Jeff |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On 2007-10-17 22:53:58 +0100, John Stumbles said:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:43:10 +0100, Andy Hall wrote: The improvement is not substantial until one starts putting in a reasonable thickness of insulation. This can be ameliorated to some extent with materials such as Kingspan, but still involve issues such as reduction in room size, how to handle window and door reveals without making a pig's ear and redecorating etc. This is not trivial for most people. No but there's a constant stream of renovations of such properties going on and it seems a shame that the regs and/or incentives aren't in place to take the opportunity when such places are done up. Prolly regs: most developers CBA unless you paid them a truckload of lolly more than it actually costs to do it. It's one of these things that sounds easy to do in theory but the devil is in the detail. In smaller types of house of this ilk - you can think of large numbers of these if you cast your eye down the hill from where you are - there are several issues: - Small to begin with so not wanting to make smaller - First house or affordable house so hoping to make some money on it to step up the ladder - Impression or being told that this might detract from appearance and value. Result is that downside or perceived risk plus cost to implement saving. |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
On 2007-10-17 23:26:13 +0100, John Stumbles said:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:37:45 +0000, Ed Sirett wrote: If the kit was just a couple of hundred quid (which is what it would be if it were mass produced like radiator/pumps/time controls etc.) The may be it would be worth me doing it. Of course that a long way from doing for someone else.... 8-( I think that's just what it is in Greece: you buy a package with a collector and plumbing all connected up and stick it on your (flat) roof. Cheap as chips over there and AFAIK not a gov't subsidy in sight. The Israelis have these as well . It makes the skyline of Tel Aviv really picturesque. The packages cost about $300. Very basic. No insulation and a header tank out on the roof as well. |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years torepay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Eeyore wrote: Don't enforce a minimum wage. Remove income tax. And subsidise EVERYONE. History shows this just hurts the poor. No, it would actually improve matters. Instead of cheap labour being in China,it would be right there on your doorstep. Do you seriously think reducing western labour rates to a couple of dollars a DAY would help the poor ? You're utterly MAD. This is where right wing thinking goes completely berserk. Graham |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!
In uk.d-i-y Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-10-18 02:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said: John Rumm wrote: Andy Hall wrote: It can certainly be inproved, not least with new wall plasters believe it or not. Dry lining can make serious improvements too. Graham The improvement is not substantial until one starts putting in a reasonable thickness of insulation. This can be ameliorated to some extent with materials such as Kingspan, but still involve issues such as reduction in room size, how to handle window and door reveals without making a pig's ear and redecorating etc. This is not trivial for most people. and for many would negate the purpose of buying the place in the first place - i.e. its period features, cornices, mouldings etc. It is very hard to preserve all these when dry lining the inside of a room. In such case build a new skin OUTSIDE the house. I don;t mind people ****ing energy away on living in a museum: I just object to them not paying through the nose for it ;-) Sort of like stone cladding, you mean? A row of Edwardian and Victorian houses with most but not all having a kind of Celotex stucco. The windows can be removed and replaced with uPVC DG at the same time. That'll really improve the 'period character'! :-) -- Chris Green |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
Eeyore wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Eeyore wrote: Don't enforce a minimum wage. Remove income tax. And subsidise EVERYONE. History shows this just hurts the poor. No, it would actually improve matters. Instead of cheap labour being in China,it would be right there on your doorstep. Do you seriously think reducing western labour rates to a couple of dollars a DAY would help the poor ? Yup. If they and everyone else are getting $150 a day anyway to do nothing. And whatever they get doesn't affect that, nor does it get taxed.. Paid for out of taxes on consumption of luxury goods with a high energy of manufacture.. In the end what a country produces and what proportion goes to whom is one issue: Socialism today redistributes it all by state handouts to the supposedly needy, and subsidisng basic services, paid fr out of tacing the people who ARE doing something constructive. This is complex and expensive. All I propose is that the redistribution mechanism simply cuts through te bull****, and shifts the tax burden away from working, to consumption. Then everybody* gets a payment, yea right up to bill gates, of a basic living wage. Thenet result would be that any income-for-work would be tax free, so employment is de facto completely casual, and can run almost unregulated: If you don't like it, walk away. In a country like the USA, the net effect would be to raise the prices of imported new goods and make them relatively cheaper to produce locally. A good thing. The final effect is to reduce consumption of things people want, but increase production of what people need, and also the overall productivity of the country, since a huge parasitic bureaucracy would be wiped out. There would BE no personal tax at all. Just personal benefits. stick your citizens ID cash card in the wall and draw your weekly stipend. If you tax something, yuou make it less economically desirable: Taxing work makes it less economically desirable. Subsidising work makes it very desirable. Cutting out parasitic bureaucracies merely forces unproductive bureaucrats to find something more useful to do. * who is actually a citizen of the country of course. Illegal immigrants may not get it. You're utterly MAD. This is where right wing thinking goes completely berserk. Graham |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
Jeff wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Morris Dovey wrote: Eeyore wrote: | The Natural Philosopher wrote: || But essentially what has to happen at government level is simple: || just tax oil. More and more, Until its usage is under control. You || can use the revenues to fund all sorts of useful stuff. | | Not going to happen in the USA is it ? Good guess. Don't be so sure. First of all with an oilman in the seat of power, no. not yet. Not until they work out that swingeing margins on more expensive fuel make just as much profit. However is ultimately a PR thing: Hence Al Gore. If the thought gets stuck in the voters brain that paying $10 a gallon of gas is the way to stop their towns being devastated by storms, it might well be the that gets someone elected. I can not see a large tax increase on gas. It just won't happen. Even Al Gore couldn't do it. Not yet, but t will de fact happen anyway as you point out.. And anyway OPEC and Bushanomics* is doing it for them. Except the money doesn't end up in the govt, it ends up in Q'ran toting islamic fundamentalists pockets instead. *seen the dollar valuation recently? It's amazing how little Americans care about the value of the dollar. Not even to the point of realizing that much of oils rise has been due to the dollars fall. Indeed, and the very real danger that the dollar will cease to be the de facto unit fr international transactions. That ll be a huge loss to the USA, since in a sense they prnt all the dollars, and take a cut n the dollar transactions. If China unlinks the Yuan remnimbi from the dollar...by bye cheap chinese imports, hello cheap USA produced stuff. This is a consumption driven economy and no amout of good sense will change that. Who is even talking about the Hubbert Peak? But a rapidly rising energy price and huge inflation will. If you cannot afford a new car, you will run the old one. It's that simple. Oddly, it is the insurance companies that will drive global warming investments. Those guys are no longer sitting on the sidelines, their business is dependant on either alleviating the risk or charging a whole lot more for it. Indeed. They make their livings out of common sense and analysing statistics. There's a lot on the plate for the next president. All the issues that George W Bush made worse. Yup. The man who made stupidity kewl. Borrow and spend..sooner or alter is payback time. Today, it looks sooner. Jeff |
UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years torepay...nonsense!Helpneeded!
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Eeyore wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Eeyore wrote: Don't enforce a minimum wage. Remove income tax. And subsidise EVERYONE. History shows this just hurts the poor. No, it would actually improve matters. Instead of cheap labour being in China,it would be right there on your doorstep. Do you seriously think reducing western labour rates to a couple of dollars a DAY would help the poor ? Yup. I'm sorry, but you've totally 'lost the plot'. In the likes of China or India a couple of dollars a day is a liveable wage because of the low cost of basic goods and services in these highly managed economies. Without those ARTIFICIALLY low costs, such wages are unsustainable. Graham |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter