"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.

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.

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

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.

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

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 |
\================================================= ================/

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

"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.

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

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.

"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 =----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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 ;-)

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..

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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