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...cle2648540.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...13/nhip213.xml
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...de=3097491&c=0

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

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?

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 08:57:46 UTC, Jonathan
wrote:

I opened my paper yesterday to see the following wildly inaccurate,
misleading and sensationalist report regarding home energy saving and
renewable energy.

Well, there are plenty of those but they're usually biased the other
way...

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!.

You're assuming zero labour cost, though. A TRV may cost £9 (although
that may be a 'cheap' one) but there can be significant labour to fit
it. Partial drain-down, pipework alterations if old valve is a different
size, etc. Certainly, when we had ours fitted, some of them were very
quick but some took a long time.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On 2007-10-14 09:57:46 +0100, Jonathan said:

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...cle2648540.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...0/13/nhip213.x
ml
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...?in_article_id
=487394&in_page_id=1770
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...code=3097491&c
=0

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

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?

Clearly the figures for insulation, TRVs and so on are incorrect and
demonstrably so.

Unfortunately for you, it is going to be difficult to do anything about
the mis-selling of solar equipment and the bodged job horror stories.
You have an industry tarred with the same brush as double glazing at
best, but closer to that of spray on foam for roofs.

Moreover, you have a technology for sale in a country where the
perception is that the sun doesn't shine very much and that therefore
there will be little heat from these things. I can appreciate that it
doesn't require full sunshine to do at least something, but Joe Public
believes that that is the situation. You are then trying to sell
something that is dependent or perceived to be dependent on the British
weather. If the weather isn't good, the payback may not be there.
it's the same reason that windmills aren't perceived to be interesting.

Moreover, your product is aesthetically ugly. There is no way in
hell that I would put solar panels on the roof of my house - they wreck
the appearance completely. I have enough space that I suppose that I
could put them in the garden somewhere. Maybe. But the visual
problem doesn't go away. You may think that your products are
attractive visually and that the claimed saving is worth the visual
inconvenience, or even have some misguided notion about rescuing the
planet, but I'm afraid I don't.

So you are not dealing with a situation of a public which is ignorant,
but one which is not convinced by your claims or by those of your
industry. it's completely worthless to have reports from
organisations like Energy Saving Trust and the Solar Trade Association
because these organisations have either a political agenda, a
commercial one or both. That actually discredits your offering
further.

Sorry, but you have a very long way to go. It's possible that
solar panels will begin to appear in new builds and if they attract the
attention of the likes of Benn, who really has no clue, then there
could even be legislation for new builds 10 years from now. As to
the retrofit market, if you are depending on that, I think that you are
going to struggle for a very long time to make significant growth.

Either way, several things would need to happen.

- The products need to be made to look attractive. That is the most
difficult.

- Significant money would need to be spent on marketing in all of its
forms including getting people like RICS and other similar building
industry organisations on side.

- There would need to be political lobbying. Be careful with that one
though because people are seeing through that.

However, if the economics of all of this really are as good as you say,
then there should be plenty of money coming in, good profit margins for
manufacturers and suppliers and plenty to spend on said marketing.

I suspect though, that the books don't quite add up to do all of this.

You may have something of interest to the eco-enthusiast, but you don't
have something with a compelling value proposition. If you did, the
jobs would be rolling in and the products flying off the shelves.

Jonathan wrote:

I opened my paper yesterday to see the following wildly inaccurate,
misleading and sensationalist report regarding home energy saving and
renewable energy.

What do you expect from journalists ? Even their 'science correspondents' seem to be utterly clueless
these days. It's no doubt all to with dumbing down, political spin and the give-away degrees that
Universities now offer..

Graham

Jonathan wrote:

£761 to lag the tank?

That's clearly nonsense.

£755 for loft insulation?

I can certainly believe that one with today's health and safety requirements. Maybe £300 in materials
and £455 labour ?

Graham

On 2007-10-14 10:38:43 +0100, Eeyore
said:



Jonathan wrote:

I opened my paper yesterday to see the following wildly inaccurate,
misleading and sensationalist report regarding home energy saving and
renewable energy.

What do you expect from journalists ? Even their 'science
correspondents' seem to be utterly clueless
these days. It's no doubt all to with dumbing down, political spin and
the give-away degrees that
Universities now offer..

Graham

Mainly to politicians like Hilary Benn, who as has been said, have
never done a real job in their lives.

Jonathan wrote:

£2,240 for
thermostatic radiator valves?

Actually it said "heating controls including thermostat and radiator valves". There are some high end
'intelligent' control systems out there that might just cost that much installed, at least in the high
labour cost South East.

Graham

Bob Eager wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

I opened my paper yesterday to see the following wildly inaccurate,
misleading and sensationalist report regarding home energy saving and
renewable energy.

Well, there are plenty of those but they're usually biased the other
way...

That was what I was expecting actually.

Graham

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:41:45 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


Jonathan wrote:

£761 to lag the tank?


If VAT was charged at the standard rate the chancellor would get
£113.40 of that.

That's clearly nonsense.

Probably not. If they are going to save the earth with a hot water
cylinder they will need to achieve the best result possible (no point
settling for any less) probably replacing a cheap builder's quality
cylinder with a high spec. high recovery cylinder, IME some of the
pipes will need to be moved and access might be difficult in a small
cylinder cupboard.

Around here a plumber would charge £230 / day. Also for this sort of
costing exercise the cost of making good / redecoration would have to
be factored in, even though a D-I-Y er might leave the redecoration
until the next routine redecoration.

DG

On 14 Oct, 10:41, Eeyore
wrote:
Jonathan wrote:

£755 for loft insulation?

I can certainly believe that one with today's health and safety requirements. Maybe £300 in materials
and £455 labour ?

Sorry, but not even close to a cigar! Ours was £150 for a complete
replacement. The figures are he
http://www.oxford.gov.uk/environment/insulation.cfm
For convenience, the figures a

250mm loft insulation where NONE at present
Installation: £210-230 (installer) From £170 (DIY)
Annual saving on fuel bills £80-100
Cost recovered : 2-3 years (installer) Around 2 years (DIY)

On 14 Oct, 10:54, Huge wrote:

For example, in "It isn't easy being green", the couple with the new eco-build
have spent GBP45,000 on a windmill which will supposedly supply all their
electricity. I imagine they use a similar amount of electricity to us, and our
power bill is GBP800 per annum. It's going to take 56 years to repay the cost of
the windmill, and it will wear out long before that; ergo it isn't worth doing.

(Oh, and there was a couple I saw on the Beeb web site recently who said that
their windmills generated a fraction of their rated output, and had been a waste
of money - they wish they'd bought more photovolatic instead.)

But that's just nuts - home wind energy simply doesn't work, and
there's evidence that the little "rooftop" ones not only don't do
anything, but can vibrate brickwork loose. No-one with anything up top
would spend £45,000 on a home wind turbine!

Jonathan wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jonathan wrote:

£755 for loft insulation?

I can certainly believe that one with today's health and safety requirements. Maybe £300 in materials
and £455 labour ?

Sorry, but not even close to a cigar! Ours was £150 for a complete
replacement. The figures are he
http://www.oxford.gov.uk/environment/insulation.cfm
For convenience, the figures a

250mm loft insulation where NONE at present
Installation: £210-230 (installer) From £170 (DIY)

Even their £170 (DIY) is more than the £150 you said it cost you. I assume you have a small home and costed
your labour at zero.


Annual saving on fuel bills £80-100
Cost recovered : 2-3 years (installer) Around 2 years (DIY)

I'd love to know where you can get loft insulation installed for £60 in labour ! (£230 - £170).

A typical daily rate for 'half-skilled' labour is in the £200 - £250 region these days.

Graham

Jonathan wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

For example, in "It isn't easy being green", the couple with the new eco-build
have spent GBP45,000 on a windmill which will supposedly supply all their
electricity. I imagine they use a similar amount of electricity to us, and our
power bill is GBP800 per annum. It's going to take 56 years to repay the cost of
the windmill, and it will wear out long before that; ergo it isn't worth doing.

(Oh, and there was a couple I saw on the Beeb web site recently who said that
their windmills generated a fraction of their rated output, and had been a waste
of money - they wish they'd bought more photovolatic instead.)

But that's just nuts - home wind energy simply doesn't work, and
there's evidence that the little "rooftop" ones not only don't do
anything, but can vibrate brickwork loose. No-one with anything up top
would spend £45,000 on a home wind turbine!

I rather imagine they got a 'real' one. £45,000 will buy a decent turbine. I agree entirely about the joke
turbines for roof fitting.

This one is £35,000 installed.
http://www.energyenv.co.uk/WindPowerKits_20Kw.asp

Graham

"Jonathan" wrote in message
ups.com...
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...cle2648540.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...13/nhip213.xml
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...de=3097491&c=0

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

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.


It depends on where you live in the UK. I recently arranged for cavity wall
insulation and loft insulation, tank insulation AND a new boiler to be
fitted. It was through the Warmfront Grant and never cost a penny, it also
includes two years of free services/checks. They only allow up to £2800 and
even give some of those awful low energy bulbs that take 10mins to warm up
and stay dim!
The wall insulation and loft insulation only cost a few hundred pounds. The
radiator valves were not changed but wouldn't take long, including draining
the system and refilling. There was still a lot left over from the £2800
and all work was by 3 local companies.
The lagging jacket for the tank wasn't expensive, you can get them in B&Q or
Wickes.


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 looked at solar heating and electric panels. Unfortunately the companies
selling the equipment have inflated prices after publicity, even B&Q. I
would like a solar water heating system right now and contacted a few
companies then shopped around. The cheapest was £3000 to install, if I
tried to do it myself it would would out about £500 less. I would need to
alter the loft to take the weight of the solar panels too, so that is added
cost from a builder and it would need to be inspected. You also need
planning permission. A new tank would be required in the bathroom for the
hot water as a further heating coil is required. To get one with two coils
inside is more expensive. So add the cost of that and fitting. I would say
a TOTAL of £5000 is very realistic when everything is added to make a
working system.
Considering the weather in the UK and where I live, I doubt the system would
provide even warm water apart from during 4 months of the year. Probably
when I don't need it. So it wouldn't be used for most of the year anyway.
I might aswell save the £3000 and put it towards bills.



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?

I asked about this at the Alternative Technology Centre in Wales. They have
a number of systems on display is actual houses. They don't get anywhere
near those savings, even with 2ft of insulation on the walls. My gas
heating system was already fitted but the bills add up to approximately £275
after changing from British Gas who doubled their prices a few years ago,
then reduced them slightly.
If I was to pay £3000 to fit a solar heating system and it only saved me £75
a year, you need to look at how many years I would need to save £75 in order
to pay back the £3000 initial cost. I get it to about 40 years and
probably longer owing to future increases in costs of gas and inflation.
If as I think, and the Technology Centre seemed to suggest, around £30 per
year per panel - if hot water ws normally required - is more sensible, that
would take around 100 years. You can't say it will save money if you
wouldn't normally be using gas heating on hot summer days. I've never seen
a solar system heating water to an acceptable temperature on a winter day or
when it's freezing, raining or snowing outside.


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

It doesn't. If companies would stop trying to rip people off by getting
rich quick and vanishing when products fail it might be better. Everyone
hates a sales person as they know most will lie to get the most commission.
That is why most people only buy from a company direct - when they want to.
People who need to lie for a living can't be trusted.

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?


It's to make people aware what the real position is and not to fall for wild
claims and/or false advertising. By the time you add up the saving the
company will be trading under a different name.

I would fit a solar heating system if it was a reasonable price and it
worked all year - and offered immediate noticeable savings. Sort that out
first!

"Jonathan" wrote in message
ups.com...

....


What struck me in particular was this paragraph:

"But the study from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors shows
that some of the measures, such as solar panels to heat water, would
cost £5,000 to install but reduce average bills by only £24 a year and
would take about 208 years to pay back."

Ours cost us £2000 two years ago. Our gas bills (the only other
water heating we had) were reduced by almost £300 in the first year.


.... 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?

There are some you can't convince, they'll have to continue having
higher bills than they need.

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 think, looking at the number of companies now in the solar water
heating business, that they can't be having such hard times. There are still
many of us around who are prepared to put our money where our mouths are.
And we're the winners!

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?

It would be interesting to see their reply but I do think that
newspaper, television and radio reports aren't usually to be believed. They
dwell on the sensational and alter reports to suit their 'newsworthiness'.

We stopped buying newspapers many years ago because of this (must
have saved quite a bit in that time!), we don't have a television but I've
seen it in others' houses and we're very sceptical about even the erstwhile
respectable and trustworthy Radio 4.

Mary

"Mike" wrote in message
...



I looked at solar heating and electric panels. ... I would need to alter
the loft to take the weight of the solar panels too,

? The panel doesn't put any weight on the loft, only on the roof!

... You also need planning permission.

Not for a solar water heating panel on the roof. Ours is on the front roof
(facing south) and we didn't need it. I haven't heard of anyone, anywhere in
this country, who has needed planning permission for such a panel.

A new tank would be required in the bathroom for the hot water as a
further heating coil is required.

Don't you have a boiler?

To get one with two coils inside is more expensive.

You can do your own. I'm reading this in uk.d-i-y. If you can't do it
yourself you should have deleted the group from the cross-posting.


Considering the weather in the UK and where I live, I doubt the system
would provide even warm water apart from during 4 months of the year.

The one we use was designed and tested in Scotland. We're in Yorkshire. It
works.

Probably when I don't need it.

? You don't use hot water in warm weather?

So it wouldn't be used for most of the year anyway.

It would. The water temperature is raised even if it's not warm enough for
use at the sink. That means that not as much energy is needed to raise the
temperature to a usable one.

I might aswell save the £3000 and put it towards bills.

And use more fossil fuel.


I asked about this at the Alternative Technology Centre in Wales. They
have a number of systems on display is actual houses. They don't get
anywhere near those savings, even with 2ft of insulation on the walls. My
gas heating system was already fitted but the bills add up to
approximately £275 after changing from British Gas who doubled their
prices a few years ago,

DOUBLED???

then reduced them slightly.
If I was to pay £3000 to fit a solar heating system and it only saved me
£75 a year, you need to look at how many years I would need to save £75 in
order to pay back the £3000 initial cost. I get it to about 40 years and
probably longer owing to future increases in costs of gas and inflation.
If as I think, and the Technology Centre seemed to suggest, around £30 per
year per panel - if hot water ws normally required - is more sensible,
that would take around 100 years.

I can't believe that CAT said that but if they did they're wrong.

You can't say it will save money if you wouldn't normally be using gas
heating on hot summer days. I've never seen a solar system heating water
to an acceptable temperature on a winter day or when it's freezing,
raining or snowing outside.

The day we installed ours the outside temperature was 4C. within a few hours
the water coming from the tap was 32C. That's usable but even if it isn't it
means that the gas or electricity doesn't have to heat the tankful to that
temperature before it goes higher. The water in the tank has never gone
below 29C in all that time.

We know because there's a display thermometer and we're still keen on
looking at it :-)


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?


It's to make people aware what the real position is and not to fall for
wild claims and/or false advertising. By the time you add up the saving
the company will be trading under a different name.

I'm not sure about that. I discovered, after we fitted ours, that a company
only a mile away has been making a similar system for at least ten years
before that.

I would fit a solar heating system if it was a reasonable price and it
worked all year - and offered immediate noticeable savings. Sort that out
first!

It does. I know because we have one.

You can't know that it doesn't because you don't have one.

Mary

Mike has somehow managed to knacker OE so it doesn't put the quotes
properly, so I've re-inserted them to avoid confusion....

On 14 Oct, 12:12, "Mike" wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message

I would need to alter the loft to take the weight of the solar panels too,

I've never come across this - unless your loft is of extremely poor or
degraded construction. OR you may have been looking at a combination
of "old-tech" flat panels AND a weak roof.

so that is added
cost from a builder and it would need to be inspected.

You also need planning permission.

IF you live in a listed building AND and conservation area OR the
panels need to be bracketed (standing out from the roof) because there
is no convenient south/southwest/southeast facing roof then you MAY
need to check for planning permission. About 1 in 10 installations
needs to check for planning.

A new tank would be required in the bathroom for the
hot water as a further heating coil is required. To get one with two coils
inside is more expensive. So add the cost of that and fitting. I would say
a TOTAL of £5000 is very realistic when everything is added to make a
working system.

For a fully fitted, insured and guaranteed twin panel vacuum tube
system including all parts, labour, insurance, new tank etc, that is
about at the upper limit, yes.

Considering the weather in the UK and where I live, I doubt the system would
provide even warm water apart from during 4 months of the year. Probably
when I don't need it. So it wouldn't be used for most of the year anyway.
I might aswell save the £3000 and put it towards bills.

I bet you got your figures from the....uh-oh!

I asked about this at the Alternative Technology Centre in Wales. They have
a number of systems on display is actual houses. They don't get anywhere
near those savings, even with 2ft of insulation on the walls.

The big problem with the CAT is that it is ALTERNATIVE not MODERN
technology. The last time I looked, they were using inefficient flat
panels from the 70's.
Fortunately, from their website: "Our solar heating display is
currently being renewed". So I can only hope that something a bit more
realistic is being put it.

If as I think, and the Technology Centre seemed to suggest, around £30 per
year per panel - if hot water ws normally required - is more sensible, that
would take around 100 years.

See above. Tech from the 70's!

I would fit a solar heating system if it was a reasonable price and it
worked all year - and offered immediate noticeable savings. Sort that out
first!

If you can make any sort of shadow, you can warm water. On a semi-
overcast winter's day, you can get about 30 degrees of water, meaning
30 degrees less that the boiler has to heat.

Some data on vacuum tube reflector technology
http://www.schott.com/solarthermal/e...parameter.html
http://www.rayotec.com/solar_heating/technical.html

Huge wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

For example, in "It isn't easy being green", the couple with the new eco-build
have spent GBP45,000 on a windmill which will supposedly supply all their
electricity. I imagine they use a similar amount of electricity to us, and our
power bill is GBP800 per annum. It's going to take 56 years to repay the cost of
the windmill, and it will wear out long before that; ergo it isn't worth doing.

(Oh, and there was a couple I saw on the Beeb web site recently who said that
their windmills generated a fraction of their rated output, and had been a waste
of money - they wish they'd bought more photovolatic instead.)

But that's just nuts - home wind energy simply doesn't work, and
there's evidence that the little "rooftop" ones not only don't do
anything, but can vibrate brickwork loose. No-one with anything up top
would spend £45,000 on a home wind turbine!

I rather imagine they got a 'real' one. £45,000 will buy a decent turbine. I agree entirely about the joke
turbines for roof fitting.

This one is £35,000 installed.
http://www.energyenv.co.uk/WindPowerKits_20Kw.asp

Payback time; 35+ years. Waste of money.

If you're on-grid and receive no subsidy they make zero sense financially. They make a strong statement FWIW. A
costly one too.

Graham

Huge wrote:

Mike wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote

Mike,

Can you please fix your newsreader so we can tell what Jonathan wrote and what
your responses are? It all looks the same here.

It's customary to use "" to quote the previous posters text.

Outlook Express according to his headers. It can be persuaded to work correctly.

Graham

Mary Fisher wrote:

"Jonathan" wrote

What struck me in particular was this paragraph:

"But the study from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors shows
that some of the measures, such as solar panels to heat water, would
cost £5,000 to install but reduce average bills by only £24 a year and
would take about 208 years to pay back."

Ours cost us £2000 two years ago. Our gas bills (the only other
water heating we had) were reduced by almost £300 in the first year.

... 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?

Par for the course. Even the Nobel comittee were ignorant enough to get taken in
by Al Gore's comedy film.

Graham

On 14 Oct, 15:37, Eeyore
wrote:

Par for the course. Even the Nobel comittee were ignorant enough to get taken in
by Al Gore's comedy film.

Hmmm, I didn't know he made a comedy film, but the film the Nobel
comittee were concerned with was the Oscar-winning documentary "An
Inconvenient Truth", which was cleared to be shown in UK schools after
axe-grinding truck driver and political activist Stewart Dimmock
failed in his case to have the film banned. Although the judge
commented that there were 9 inconclusive statements in the two hour
film... "[...] it is important to be clear that the central arguments
put forward in An Inconvenient Truth - that climate change is mainly
caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious
adverse consequences - are supported by the vast weight of scientific
opinion," he said.

And hey, 9 inconclusive statements in a 2 hour film looks a bit better
than 8 out of 8 entirely inaccurate and misleading figures in a report!

"Jonathan" wrote in message
oups.com...


... "An
Inconvenient Truth", which was cleared to be shown in UK schools after
axe-grinding truck driver and political activist Stewart Dimmock
failed in his case to have the film banned. Although the judge

A renowned expert ...

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:31:33 UTC, Jonathan
wrote:

On 14 Oct, 15:37, Eeyore
wrote:

Par for the course. Even the Nobel comittee were ignorant enough to get taken in
by Al Gore's comedy film.

Hmmm, I didn't know he made a comedy film, but the film the Nobel
comittee were concerned with was the Oscar-winning documentary "An
Inconvenient Truth", which was cleared to be shown in UK schools after
axe-grinding truck driver and political activist Stewart Dimmock
failed in his case to have the film banned. Although the judge
commented that there were 9 inconclusive statements in the two hour
film... "[...] it is important to be clear that the central arguments
put forward in An Inconvenient Truth - that climate change is mainly
caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious
adverse consequences - are supported by the vast weight of scientific
opinion," he said.

And hey, 9 inconclusive statements in a 2 hour film looks a bit better
than 8 out of 8 entirely inaccurate and misleading figures in a report!

But a lot of them aren't inaccurate, are they? They represent reasonable
costs. Or, show me where you can get a good quality TRV installed for £9
all in.

Or is that really an inconvenient truth?

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Jonathan wrote:
On 14 Oct, 10:41, Eeyore
wrote:
Jonathan wrote:

£755 for loft insulation?
I can certainly believe that one with today's health and safety requirements. Maybe £300 in materials
and £455 labour ?

Sorry, but not even close to a cigar! Ours was £150 for a complete
replacement. The figures are he
http://www.oxford.gov.uk/environment/insulation.cfm
For convenience, the figures a

250mm loft insulation where NONE at present
Installation: £210-230 (installer) From £170 (DIY)
Annual saving on fuel bills £80-100
Cost recovered : 2-3 years (installer) Around 2 years (DIY)



Yes, the ones quoted in the weekend papers tend to be out by about 150%
in a lot of cases, and in the case of central heating replacement don't
take into account that you may well be changing the system in any case.

However I find the figures quoted in the website you reference equally
misleading. Every item seems to have an asterix, but no corresponding
explaination.. I wonder if this is the cost after some sort of grant.


For example cavity wall insulation installed for £280..!!!! alternative
green sites even suggest this is closer to £500
http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/article89.html


They are suggesting that labour for installing loft installation will be
less than 100 quid, I find that suspect.

They suggest that diy underfloor installtion will be less than £100...

I'd really like to know where all their materials come from... that
would be genuinely useful information.

People can make these numbers come up with whatever they want... a bit
like those charlatan windmill salemen. For credible results, more
information is certialy required.. as you note..and you should never let
journalists free with this sort of stuff as they are incapable of any
sort of critical analysis.

But how about your own ethical figures for a solar thermal installation
what does that come out with? wild ass guess install 1500-2000, saving
75-100, payback potenially 20years.?

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:04:39 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Jonathan" wrote in message
roups.com...


... "An
Inconvenient Truth", which was cleared to be shown in UK schools after
axe-grinding truck driver and political activist Stewart Dimmock
failed in his case to have the film banned. Although the judge

A renowned expert ...


As if Al Gore knows any better ...

DG

Jonathan wrote:

The figures in the graphic are in cloud cuckoo land.
£761 to lag the tank? £755 for loft insulation?? £2,240 for

It says on the graphic "hot water cylinder and pipework cover" - if this
involves lagging all the pipes in the house then the cost seems a little
low, when you consider all the making good that would be required after.

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

Close to £40 per valve with fitting I would have thought. So those alone
could easily be £500. Add a couple of hundred for converting to a fully
pumped operation and adding decent room and tank stats etc. So an OTT
assessment certainly - but could be as little as 2x - 3x

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."

Could be right for some users. Much depends on if you have a usable roof
slope etc. Even if is saves you £100/year that would still be a 50 year
payback.

This is one of those things that can make much more sense if you can DIY
it as it brings the capital costs way down.

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

Somehow I doubt jo public with have any more trust in those
organisations particularly anyway.

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 doubt it makes that much difference really. You don't buy solar water
heating on a whim, it is something that you are going to have to analyse
carefully first. So your customers are going to come from the "detail
people" who are prepared to do the analysis. Just on personality types
alone that will limit you to about 20% of the populous in the first place.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 14 Oct, 17:04, "Bob Eager" wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:31:33 UTC, Jonathan

And hey, 9 inconclusive statements in a 2 hour film looks a bit better
than 8 out of 8 entirely inaccurate and misleading figures in a report!

But a lot of them aren't inaccurate, are they? They represent reasonable
costs. Or, show me where you can get a good quality TRV installed for £9
all in.

Assuming a labour cost of £80 per hour, even a chimp could replace 4
valves an hour, allow an hour for drain-down, an hour for test, and an
hour for a fag and for a 10 rad house you have £100 for the valves+
£360 for the labour = £460. Tell me how you'd bump that up to £2,240?

We've already disproved the loft insulation and tank lagging costs,
and have heard from owners of solar panels.
Next?

Or is that really an inconvenient truth?

Not really. I prefer to stick to facts.

Huge wrote:

This one is £35,000 installed.
http://www.energyenv.co.uk/WindPowerKits_20Kw.asp

Payback time; 35+ years. Waste of money.

Only if you get your 20kW - few places in the UK have a consistent wind
speed of 12m/sec or better.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:21:29 UTC, Jonathan
wrote:

Assuming a labour cost of £80 per hour, even a chimp could replace 4
valves an hour, allow an hour for drain-down, an hour for test, and an
hour for a fag and for a 10 rad house you have £100 for the valves+
£360 for the labour = £460. Tell me how you'd bump that up to £2,240?

I thought it was about £700 quoted for the valves. and 4 an hour is
rather fast; valves often differ in size and pipework has to be
modified.

Or is that really an inconvenient truth?

Not really. I prefer to stick to facts.

Well, your idea of the facts according to the 'Greenwash Dictionary'.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Mary Fisher wrote:

| It does. I know because we have one.

[ Posting from alt.solar.thermal ]

Greetings! Long time no read...

Have thought many times of you and yours - and would like to know if
your son has returned safe and sound...

Have you kept records of your panel performance?

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

Mary Fisher wrote:

Could you fix your quoting so we can work out what you are saying please
Mary?

(google for "OE quotefix")



--
Cheers,

John.

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

Jonathan wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Par for the course. Even the Nobel comittee were ignorant enough to get taken in
by Al Gore's comedy film.

Hmmm, I didn't know he made a comedy film, but the film the Nobel
comittee were concerned with was the Oscar-winning documentary "An
Inconvenient Truth", which was cleared to be shown in UK schools after
axe-grinding truck driver and political activist Stewart Dimmock
failed in his case to have the film banned.

Considering it's stuffed full of outright LIES, it damn well should have been banned.

Graham

Mary Fisher wrote:

"Jonathan" wrote

... "An
Inconvenient Truth", which was cleared to be shown in UK schools after
axe-grinding truck driver and political activist Stewart Dimmock
failed in his case to have the film banned. Although the judge

A renowned expert ...

A judge doesn't have to be a (scientific) expert. The suggestion he should have
been is a classic disingenuous attempt to dumb down the ruling by greenies.

The job of a judge is to weight the evidence. It's clear to me he did that job
well.

Graham

Derek Geldard wrote:

"Mary Fisher" wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message

... "An
Inconvenient Truth", which was cleared to be shown in UK schools after
axe-grinding truck driver and political activist Stewart Dimmock
failed in his case to have the film banned. Although the judge

A renowned expert ...

As if Al Gore knows any better ...

Judging by his carbon footprint he must think the whole thing is a big joke. A
very profitable joke for him with his carbon trading investments. Maybe that
should have been the name of the film ? A Profitable Joke.

Graham

John Rumm wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

The figures in the graphic are in cloud cuckoo land.
£761 to lag the tank? £755 for loft insulation?? £2,240 for

It says on the graphic "hot water cylinder and pipework cover" - if this
involves lagging all the pipes in the house then the cost seems a little
low, when you consider all the making good that would be required after.

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

Close to £40 per valve with fitting I would have thought.

Wouldn't you need to drain the system to fit them ?

Graham

Jonathan wrote:

On 14 Oct, 17:04, "Bob Eager" wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:31:33 UTC, Jonathan

And hey, 9 inconclusive statements in a 2 hour film looks a bit better
than 8 out of 8 entirely inaccurate and misleading figures in a report!

But a lot of them aren't inaccurate, are they? They represent reasonable
costs. Or, show me where you can get a good quality TRV installed for £9
all in.

Assuming a labour cost of £80 per hour, even a chimp could replace 4
valves an hour, allow an hour for drain-down, an hour for test, and an
hour for a fag and for a 10 rad house you have £100 for the valves+
£360 for the labour = £460. Tell me how you'd bump that up to £2,240?

We've already disproved the loft insulation and tank lagging costs,

Where did you disprove the loft insulation costs ?

I just looked at some loft insulation in one of the DIY stores. It's ~ £14 for a
4m roll of 200mm thick insulation, 370mm wide.
http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav/na...&isSearch=true

Calculating the celing area for my house, I'd need 5m x 8m for the main roof,
another 2.5m x 3m for the remainder of the L shaped bit, and about another 3m x
4m for a single storey extension. That's 59.5m2

Each roll is 1.48m2.

So that's 40 rolls. At £14 ea that's £560 !

And that's BEFORE labour !

Graham

John Rumm wrote:

Huge wrote:

This one is £35,000 installed.
http://www.energyenv.co.uk/WindPowerKits_20Kw.asp

Payback time; 35+ years. Waste of money.

Only if you get your 20kW - few places in the UK have a consistent wind
speed of 12m/sec or better.

You're lucky to get 9m/s anywhere never mind 12 ! About 5-6m/s in much of the
South East from when I looked at it last week.

Graham

Jonathan wrote:

Mike has somehow managed to knacker OE so it doesn't put the quotes
properly, so I've re-inserted them to avoid confusion....

On 14 Oct, 12:12, "Mike" wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message

I would need to alter the loft to take the weight of the solar panels too,

I've never come across this - unless your loft is of extremely poor or
degraded construction. OR you may have been looking at a combination
of "old-tech" flat panels AND a weak roof.

Plenty of Victorian era houses wouldn't meet today's building regs.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Huge wrote:

Mike wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote

Mike,

Can you please fix your newsreader so we can tell what Jonathan wrote and
what
your responses are? It all looks the same here.

It's customary to use "" to quote the previous posters text.

Outlook Express according to his headers. It can be persuaded to work
correctly.

Yes, but can =he=?

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Mary Fisher wrote:

"Jonathan" wrote

What struck me in particular was this paragraph:

"But the study from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors shows
that some of the measures, such as solar panels to heat water, would
cost £5,000 to install but reduce average bills by only £24 a year and
would take about 208 years to pay back."

Ours cost us £2000 two years ago. Our gas bills (the only other
water heating we had) were reduced by almost £300 in the first year.

... 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?

Par for the course. Even the Nobel comittee were ignorant enough to get
taken in
by Al Gore's comedy film.

Many people who claim to have no religion have made global warming etc
their religion; and they are too stupid to see it......


Graham

"Jonathan" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 14 Oct, 15:37, Eeyore
wrote:

Par for the course. Even the Nobel comittee were ignorant enough to get
taken in
by Al Gore's comedy film.

Hmmm, I didn't know he made a comedy film, but the film the Nobel
comittee were concerned with was the Oscar-winning documentary "An
Inconvenient Truth", which was cleared to be shown in UK schools after
axe-grinding truck driver and political activist Stewart Dimmock
failed in his case to have the film banned. Although the judge
commented that there were 9 inconclusive statements in the two hour
film... "[...] it is important to be clear that the central arguments
put forward in An Inconvenient Truth - that climate change is mainly
caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases

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????
Some people are beyond help.


and will have serious
adverse consequences - are supported by the vast weight of scientific
opinion," he said.

And hey, 9 inconclusive statements in a 2 hour film looks a bit better
than 8 out of 8 entirely inaccurate and misleading figures in a report!