On 10 Dec, 23:15, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:52:49 +0000, David Hansen

wrote:
A 23% saving in gas. Most interesting.

Most interesting indeed. He has a single solar collector virtually
identical to the Thermomax one used in the DTI test (DTI/Pub URN
01/1292) tilted at a similar angle and with slightly less optimal
alignment yet managed to get 5,400kWh in a year wheras the Energy
Monitoring Company Ltd for the DTI could only manage 1,010 kWh from an
identical panel in one year.

It would be really useful to find out how he achieved the fivefold
increase in performance over a fully instrumented and monitored system
especially as it appears to be about twice the amount of energy even
falling on the panel in one year (from Navitrons figures which are
similar to the DTI ones).

Global warming must be much more advanced than we thought.

A Navitron 20 tube panel is about 2.5m2. The average insolation on
2.5m2 in the UK is about 0.25kW. Over the year that gives about
2.2MWh. The very best possible yeild from such a panel, attached to a
system designed to absolutely minimise losses will be half that. Thus
1.0MWh is a believable figure, giving a reduction of 40 pounds on your
annual gas bill, so long as you can store the energy with zero losses,
and don't have to dump any heat.

It is beyond the laws of physics to claim 5MWh from a 2.5m2 panel in
the UK. At 40 quid a year, it will only take 30 years for the 1.2k
system to pay for itself, by which time it will be scrap.

T

On 9 Dec, 11:59, "Mary Fisher" wrote:
"Peter Parry" wrote in message

...
snip stuff



If you are heating your water by mains gas a single panel will save
you about £40 per year.

Ours has saved us far more than that. Far more.

And it;'s not just the little woman who enthuses about our system, I didn't
even make the initial decision.

Your assumptive dismissals discredit everything else you say - although some
of it might be true it's hard to pick out the good bits.

It is not physically possible for a 2.5m2 panel to save you more than
40pounds compared to gas. Solartwin only claim 1MWh, and if you read
the technical Q+A on their website they suggest only 25pounds per
annum payback.

So, I think you are fooling yourself if you believe yours "has saved
far more than [40 quid per year]"

T

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:27:59 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On 9 Dec, 11:59, "Mary Fisher" wrote:
"Peter Parry" wrote in message

...
snip stuff



If you are heating your water by mains gas a single panel will save
you about £40 per year.

Ours has saved us far more than that. Far more.

And it;'s not just the little woman who enthuses about our system, I didn't
even make the initial decision.

Your assumptive dismissals discredit everything else you say - although some
of it might be true it's hard to pick out the good bits.

It is not physically possible for a 2.5m2 panel to save you more than
40pounds compared to gas. Solartwin only claim 1MWh, and if you read
the technical Q+A on their website they suggest only 25pounds per
annum payback.

So, I think you are fooling yourself if you believe yours "has saved
far more than [40 quid per year]"

Is it really just a question of payback? I thought the whole idea was
to save dwindling resources of gas and oil.

--
Frank Erskine

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:42:23 -0800 (PST), Pete C
wrote:

Yes, you asked "It would be really useful to find out how he achieved
the fivefold
increase in performance"

and I answered, or at least pointed you to the answer.

The problem is the inconsistency of that answer. It simply isn't
possible for the solar panel to contribute the amount of heat saved.
However, nor is it likely that the control changes could amount for
the unexplained 80% of the saving which cannot be attributed to the
solar panel.

If the control changes alone _did_ make this difference then that
makes them a much more worthwhile investment than would normally be
thought to be the case. The alternative is there is ome of factor or
factors which have led to the saving or its calculation and we don't
know what they are.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:36:00 +0000, Frank Erskine
wrote:


Is it really just a question of payback? I thought the whole idea was
to save dwindling resources of gas and oil.

For most households the budget is limited. If you spend it on totally
useless things like wind turbines or marginally effective things like
solar water heating it usually leaves less to spend elsewhere.
Spending the money elsewhere will invariably produce greater savings
of energy than overhyped "alternatives" manage.

If the cost isn't known (both financial and energy) then you cannot
make rational decisions. There are some who believe that is a good
thing and that irrationality is the way forward.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:04:30 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

I think you are being a bit generous with your payback times.

I'm not particularly bothered with such crude figures. If we used
simple payback periods very few new things would be built.

However, I have been just bothered enough to calculate such things,
in order to rebut the assertions of the antis. I don't think I am
being generous.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:21:37 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

The only thing missing from these kits is pipework (10mm microbore
is ideal) which depends on location, a few fittings for this pipe
and a few bits of electrical equipment (possibly extra cable and an
isolator). One may also need some more insulation for longer pipe
runs.

I don't think they recommend microbore because of the heat losses.

Heat losses are minimised by having a smaller pipe. The reduction in
heat losses can be dramatic for relatively small reductions in pipe
diameter. Elementary heat transfer theory.

Also, you have to get the right sort of insulation as the pipes can
get quite hot.

Navitron sell insulation rated for continuous operation at ISTR
170C. One can see it in the photographs I referred to earlier, it is
the black insulation.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 11 Dec, 15:47, David Hansen
wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:04:30 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

I think you are being a bit generous with your payback times.

I'm not particularly bothered with such crude figures. If we used
simple payback periods very few new things would be built.

However, I have been just bothered enough to calculate such things,
in order to rebut the assertions of the antis. I don't think I am
being generous.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

As you can't be bothered to share your method with us, I will just
have to assume you are making it up. I'm not an anti - in fact I'm
going to install solar thermal. I won't however buy the system from
anyone who claims I can get more than a MWh from a 2.5m2 panel, for
they would be a bullsh*ter. I also won't be buying from Navitron as
their roof mounts are rubbish. I'll be getting a professional install
with top quality kit - it money was an issue I wouldn't be doing it
anyway would I?

T

T

On 9 Dec, 13:59, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Michael Shergold wrote:
Does anyone have good or bad experiences with any UK Solar Heating
suppliers/installers.. This is not really a DIY project but the total house
energy project is really DIY with, and often without, the help of
professionals. Any recommendations or people I should avoid?.

I'd also recommend going the DIY route. The kit I have used is a heat
bank from Dedicated Pressure Systems Ltd (DPS) with a Resol Controller
and three 20 tube thermal solar panels bought from eBay. Sadly the
supplier of the panels based in Bristol seems to have ceased trading -
he's no longer registered as a trader. However the design is a common
one so spare vacuum tubes are available from Navitron and other
suppliers.

http://www.heatweb.com/

Installation is perfectly simply if you are happy with working on a roof
and the DPS system comes complete with an excellent installation guide.
The purchase cost was £2000. Installation took three days but I was
hardly working flat out to do it. It could have been done easily within
a day.

Preparation was important, the thermal store was installed in the roof
void above a new bathroom constructed with block walls and a reinforced
concrete roof. The heat bank also takes hot water from a log burning
stove, and LPG boiler and in the near future we will probably add a
boiler using chipped wood as fuel.

One potential problem for us is that on a realy good day we can collect
ar more heat than we can use. So before next summer I'm going to install
a heat dump of some sort. The quick and dirty solution is a radiator to
dump the heat to atmosphere, a more sensible solution is to put the heat
into a large store of water. I was thinking of placing a 2 tonne store
into the ground and using this as a pre-heater for incoming water in
winter.

I've been interested in the Navitron stuff and was thinking of a 10
ton heat store underground.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:26:15 -0800, Pete C wrote:

On Dec 10, 11:15 pm, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:52:49 +0000, David Hansen

wrote:
A 23% saving in gas. Most interesting.

Most interesting indeed. He has a single solar collector virtually
identical to the Thermomax one used in the DTI test (DTI/Pub URN
01/1292) tilted at a similar angle and with slightly less optimal
alignment yet managed to get 5,400kWh in a year wheras the Energy
Monitoring Company Ltd for the DTI could only manage 1,010 kWh from an
identical panel in one year.

Hi Peter,

You need to read on a little, quote:

"Actual cost saving works out to around £120 year-on-year. But, also
consider that as part of the package I spent a further £300 to improve
the exisiting CH/DHW controls to meet full Part-L specification so not
alll the saving can be attributable to the solar installation. However
this included dual cylinder stats on separately timed zones to maximise
the solar gain vs boiler operation."

My experience of fitting heating systems and controls would suggest that
improving the controls a good standard would save around £50-100 a year
on most systems depending on the boiler and how crude the system was
before hand.
On a large house the control improvments could save £120 /year.

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

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:35:19 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

As you can't be bothered to share your method with us,

Nice try, but incorrect.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:35:19 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

As you can't be bothered to share your method with us,

Nice try, but incorrect.

You seem to have forgotten to post the figures that would justify that
denial...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 2007-12-11 14:13:18 +0000, Huge said:

On 2007-12-11, Frank Erskine wrote:

Is it really just a question of payback? I thought the whole idea was
to save dwindling resources of gas and oil.

Oh, dear. The price of a commodity is information about the availability of
that commodity, as well as the means of exchange. If oil/gas/WHY is so cheap
that it isn't worth seeking alternatives, then it simply isn't worth doing.

Obviously, in the long term, the price of fossil fuel will rise and seeking
alternatives will become economic, at which point it will be done.

This is (one of the reasons) why markets are superior to command economies; the
flow of information conveyed by the prices of things.

I was just on a flight lasting 3hrs and there was nothing in English to
read apart from today's copy of the Guardian.

Now I wouldn't normally give this rag house room let alone read it
because it is largely nonsense; however, there were several energy
related articles that caught my eye:

- Some nitwit in the leader section suggesting that the way to reduce
carbon emission would be to leave fossil fuel in the ground. He
didn't spell out the outcome, but one can figure that this is the only
way to drive up prices and hence eventually allow alternative energy to
pay.

- A discussion about the Chinese opening up yet more coal fired power
stations because they can't do anything else quickly enough to meet the
demands of their economy

- An article admitting that alternative energy generation over the next
two decades could not meet significant demand and correcting the
ministerial announcement from late last week

- Shell and BP quietly selling off their alternative energy assets
because they can't be made to pay in less than geological time.

On 2007-12-12 08:30:32 +0000, Huge said:

On 2007-12-12, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-12-11 14:13:18 +0000, Huge said:

On 2007-12-11, Frank Erskine wrote:

Is it really just a question of payback? I thought the whole idea was
to save dwindling resources of gas and oil.

Oh, dear. The price of a commodity is information about the availability of
that commodity, as well as the means of exchange. If oil/gas/WHY is so cheap
that it isn't worth seeking alternatives, then it simply isn't worth doing.

Obviously, in the long term, the price of fossil fuel will rise and seeking
alternatives will become economic, at which point it will be done.

This is (one of the reasons) why markets are superior to command economies; the
flow of information conveyed by the prices of things.

I was just on a flight lasting 3hrs and there was nothing in English to
read apart from today's copy of the Guardian.

Oh, you poor thing. I flew back from Delhi on Saturday (Jet Airlines Business
Premium - fabulous.) They ran out of proper newspapers before they got to me,
but even I couldn't bring myself to read the Guardian. It makes me want to
vomit. Or punch people. Or something.

You would have at least expected the Delhi Telegraph........




- Shell and BP quietly selling off their alternative energy assets
because they can't be made to pay in less than geological time.

That one I didn't know... Bit short-sighted, though.

They aren't exactly advertising it for obvious reasons. The rest of
the article talked about projects with tar sands.

On 2007-12-12 10:06:31 +0000, Huge said:

On 2007-12-12, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-12-12 08:30:32 +0000, Huge said:

Oh, you poor thing. I flew back from Delhi on Saturday (Jet Airlines Business
Premium - fabulous.) They ran out of proper newspapers before they got to me,
but even I couldn't bring myself to read the Guardian. It makes me want to
vomit. Or punch people. Or something.

You would have at least expected the Delhi Telegraph........

Boo! Hiss!!!! You swine!

- Shell and BP quietly selling off their alternative energy assets
because they can't be made to pay in less than geological time.

That one I didn't know... Bit short-sighted, though.

They aren't exactly advertising it for obvious reasons. The rest of
the article talked about projects with tar sands.

I'd have expected them to be getting into wind power in a big way, though.
There's all that Government subsidy to be hoovered up.

Exactly

Minister 1 gives story on Sunday about massive increase in offshore windmills

Minister 2 blathers about subsidy for hard to get fossil fuels.

I think that the energy calculator on the BBC web site is the most
useful. There are sliders for fossil, nuclear and alternative.

Simply slide the nuclear slider to the top, leaving all the rest at
zero and there is plenty of energy and no carbon emission.

Easy. Done. Next.

Now all that we have to do is to have a word with the Chinese and Indians.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-12-11 14:13:18 +0000, Huge said:

On 2007-12-11, Frank Erskine wrote:

Is it really just a question of payback? I thought the whole idea was
to save dwindling resources of gas and oil.

Oh, dear. The price of a commodity is information about the
availability of
that commodity, as well as the means of exchange. If oil/gas/WHY is so
cheap
that it isn't worth seeking alternatives, then it simply isn't worth
doing.

Obviously, in the long term, the price of fossil fuel will rise and
seeking
alternatives will become economic, at which point it will be done.

This is (one of the reasons) why markets are superior to command
economies; the
flow of information conveyed by the prices of things.

I was just on a flight lasting 3hrs and there was nothing in English to
read apart from today's copy of the Guardian.

Now I wouldn't normally give this rag house room let alone read it
because it is largely nonsense; however, there were several energy
related articles that caught my eye:

- Some nitwit in the leader section suggesting that the way to reduce
carbon emission would be to leave fossil fuel in the ground. He
didn't spell out the outcome, but one can figure that this is the only
way to drive up prices and hence eventually allow alternative energy to
pay.

- A discussion about the Chinese opening up yet more coal fired power
stations because they can't do anything else quickly enough to meet the
demands of their economy

- An article admitting that alternative energy generation over the next
two decades could not meet significant demand and correcting the
ministerial announcement from late last week

- Shell and BP quietly selling off their alternative energy assets
because they can't be made to pay in less than geological time.

Unusual for the Guardian to get the facts essentially correct..

Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-12, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-12-12 08:30:32 +0000, Huge said:

Oh, you poor thing. I flew back from Delhi on Saturday (Jet Airlines Business
Premium - fabulous.) They ran out of proper newspapers before they got to me,
but even I couldn't bring myself to read the Guardian. It makes me want to
vomit. Or punch people. Or something.
You would have at least expected the Delhi Telegraph........

Boo! Hiss!!!! You swine!

- Shell and BP quietly selling off their alternative energy assets
because they can't be made to pay in less than geological time.
That one I didn't know... Bit short-sighted, though.
They aren't exactly advertising it for obvious reasons. The rest of
the article talked about projects with tar sands.

I'd have expected them to be getting into wind power in a big way, though.
There's all that Government subsidy to be hoovered up.


Nothing in their business model allows them to be remotely skillful at
such an enterprise.

On Dec 12, 8:30 am, Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-12, Andy Hall wrote:





On 2007-12-11 14:13:18 +0000, Huge said:

On 2007-12-11, Frank Erskine wrote:

Is it really just a question of payback? I thought the whole idea was
to save dwindling resources of gas and oil.

Oh, dear. The price of a commodity is information about the availability of
that commodity, as well as the means of exchange. If oil/gas/WHY is so cheap
that it isn't worth seeking alternatives, then it simply isn't worth doing.

Obviously, in the long term, the price of fossil fuel will rise and seeking
alternatives will become economic, at which point it will be done.

This is (one of the reasons) why markets are superior to command economies; the
flow of information conveyed by the prices of things.

I was just on a flight lasting 3hrs and there was nothing in English to
read apart from today's copy of the Guardian.

Oh, you poor thing. I flew back from Delhi on Saturday (Jet Airlines Business
Premium - fabulous.) They ran out of proper newspapers before they got to me,
but even I couldn't bring myself to read the Guardian. It makes me want to
vomit. Or punch people. Or something.

- Shell and BP quietly selling off their alternative energy assets
because they can't be made to pay in less than geological time.

That one I didn't know...

Perhaps because it's not correct?

Headline in today's Torygraph "Shell plans to produce fuel from
algae", quote "The pilot project, announced yesterday, continues
Shell's efforts to develop new-generation fuels".

Not quite the same as "Shell and BP quietly selling off their
alternative energy assets because they can't be made to pay in less
than geological time", is it?

MBQ

On 2007-12-12 15:26:30 +0000, "Man at B&Q" said:

On Dec 12, 8:30 am, Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-12, Andy Hall wrote:


- Shell and BP quietly selling off their alternative energy assets
because they can't be made to pay in less than geological time.

That one I didn't know...

Perhaps because it's not correct?

Headline in today's Torygraph "Shell plans to produce fuel from
algae", quote "The pilot project, announced yesterday, continues
Shell's efforts to develop new-generation fuels".

Not quite the same as "Shell and BP quietly selling off their
alternative energy assets because they can't be made to pay in less
than geological time", is it?

MBQ

Granted that anything printed in the Guardian is not worth the paper
it's written on.

However, you may wish to read through

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/dec/11/oil.bp

and to follow up the links to the sell offs plus the comments of Shell's CEO

Needless to say, both companies, like governments, speak out of both
sides of their mouths.

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Dec 12, 8:30 am, Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-12, Andy Hall wrote:





On 2007-12-11 14:13:18 +0000, Huge said:
On 2007-12-11, Frank Erskine wrote:
Is it really just a question of payback? I thought the whole idea was
to save dwindling resources of gas and oil.
Oh, dear. The price of a commodity is information about the availability of
that commodity, as well as the means of exchange. If oil/gas/WHY is so cheap
that it isn't worth seeking alternatives, then it simply isn't worth doing.
Obviously, in the long term, the price of fossil fuel will rise and seeking
alternatives will become economic, at which point it will be done.
This is (one of the reasons) why markets are superior to command economies; the
flow of information conveyed by the prices of things.
I was just on a flight lasting 3hrs and there was nothing in English to
read apart from today's copy of the Guardian.
Oh, you poor thing. I flew back from Delhi on Saturday (Jet Airlines Business
Premium - fabulous.) They ran out of proper newspapers before they got to me,
but even I couldn't bring myself to read the Guardian. It makes me want to
vomit. Or punch people. Or something.

- Shell and BP quietly selling off their alternative energy assets
because they can't be made to pay in less than geological time.
That one I didn't know...

Perhaps because it's not correct?

Headline in today's Torygraph "Shell plans to produce fuel from
algae", quote "The pilot project, announced yesterday, continues
Shell's efforts to develop new-generation fuels".

Of course shell are quietly selling off the neverwazzas and trumpeting
every new 'give a bloke in a white coat a salary for a year, you never
know' initiative.



Not quite the same as "Shell and BP quietly selling off their
alternative energy assets because they can't be made to pay in less
than geological time", is it?


Actually it is. Due the the triumph of marketing spin.

MBQ

In message , Huge
writes
On 2007-12-12, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-12-12 08:30:32 +0000, Huge said:

Oh, you poor thing. I flew back from Delhi on Saturday (Jet Airlines
Business
Premium - fabulous.) They ran out of proper newspapers before they
got to me,
but even I couldn't bring myself to read the Guardian. It makes me want to
vomit. Or punch people. Or something.

You would have at least expected the Delhi Telegraph........

Boo! Hiss!!!! You swine!

- Shell and BP quietly selling off their alternative energy assets
because they can't be made to pay in less than geological time.

That one I didn't know... Bit short-sighted, though.

They aren't exactly advertising it for obvious reasons. The rest of
the article talked about projects with tar sands.

I'd have expected them to be getting into wind power in a big way, though.
There's all that Government subsidy to be hoovered up.

Shell had a (photo-voltaic) solar panel factory in Aylesbury 25 years
ago - mainly for oil rigs and installations, it's been gone a while now

--
geoff

"Alan" wrote in message
...

....

If I had time to do it myself cost would have been about half that.

Alan.

But you haven't, apparently, so what's your point?

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 11:56:49 -0000 Mary Fisher wrote :
Why on Earth are people so antagonistic towards something
of which they have no personal experience?

Because lots of us know

KNOW?

that in a significant number of cases
solar water heating is a mechanism for transferring money from
well meaning but gullible householders to smooth talking
salesmen. And if they spend their commission on big cars the
environmental benefit is nil.

We're anything but gullible and weren't approached by any salesmen. In fact
they gave very sound advice when we approached the company.

It may make economic sense if you use a lot of hot water, can
DIY, and use a fuel other than mains gas, otherwise probably not.

That's what you think. We're extremely happy with our installation.

I suggest that you are antagonistic without knowing the facts. It's just an
opinion and I still don't un derstand it - but I don't need to.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:57:02 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

Why on Earth are people so antagonistic towards something of which they
have
no personal experience?

Why do you assume questions are antagonistic?

Some of the people concerned have given this impression many times
in the past.

Some people may genuinely
want to know if a similar system would be worthwhile for them.

The answer to that question has not changed since the last time it
was discussed. Although I'm not noted for spoon feeding I will make
an exception for once.

There is a question of how one measures things. Some people will
spend 10,000 pounds on a new kitchen, for which they will get a
financial return of nothing, for various reasons which they think
are important to them. Some people will install double glazing,
knowing that it has a number of advantages but saving lots of money
on heating bills is not one of these advantages.

In the case of solar water heating people install it for a variety
of reasons they find acceptable, reducing carbon footprint being an
example.

To generalise, in terms of just pound notes, at current fuel prices,
a "professionally" installed system is unlikely to pay for itself
over anything but the long term, possibly longer than it will last.
At current fuel prices a DIY system, using new components, is likely
to pay for itself over the medium term, say 10 years. As a result
one should always do simple energy saving measures, like insulation,
first and only progress to things like solar water heating after
that.

As usual, well said.

Mary

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:41:11 -0000 Mary Fisher wrote :
I suggest that you are antagonistic without knowing the facts. It's
just an opinion and I still don't un derstand it - but I don't need
to.

I am interested in hard facts: I write SAP Rating software. Yes, of
course there are ethical firms selling systems, equally there have
been more than a few media reports of high pressure salesman making
totally untrue claims as to what people will save. The plain fact is
that for most people, if you heat your hot water by gas, the economics
of a professionally installed system do not make sense. It's about a
feelgood factor, being seen to do some, whereas if you want to save
the planet, paying to have an old person's loft insulated would make
more sense.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:41:11 -0000 Mary Fisher wrote :
I suggest that you are antagonistic without knowing the facts. It's
just an opinion and I still don't un derstand it - but I don't need
to.

I am interested in hard facts: I write SAP Rating software. Yes, of
course there are ethical firms selling systems, equally there have
been more than a few media reports of high pressure salesman making
totally untrue claims as to what people will save. The plain fact is
that for most people, if you heat your hot water by gas, the economics
of a professionally installed system do not make sense. It's about a
feelgood factor, being seen to do some, whereas if you want to save
the planet, paying to have an old person's loft insulated would make
more sense.

I am more an more coming round to that way of thinking too. The more
actual real sums I do, the less most of all the more popular greeny
******** makes any kind of sense.
For this country, there are only two viable ways to get carbon
emmissions down to what I feel are sfae levels.,

Crash the population to about 30% of what it is today, and go back to a
17th century pre-industrial lifestyle.

Or build nuclear power stations and go to an 'all electric' society.

Nothing else is remotely feasible to achieve the sorts of reductions we
seem to need.

Everything else is just paddling in the shallows of the problem.

The greeny ******** relies on te fact that Nu Laber has been in power so
long, that no one can actually DO sums anymore, and its really gone out
of fashion to use mathematics and reason and logic to solve problems.
Religion has take its place instead, trust in ideology, slash the tyres
of a 4WD and you Will Be Saved.

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:15:31 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
The greeny ******** relies on te fact that Nu Laber has been in
power so long, that no one can actually DO sums anymore, and its
really gone out of fashion to use mathematics and reason and logic
to solve problems.

Well it's the Eton-educated Mr Cameron who decided to put a wind
turbine on his Notting Hill house, and a Conservative MP has just
introduced a private members Bill to "enshrine in law the right of
councils to set policies which insist on a minimum level of power
for a development to be generated by on-site renewable energy."

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...de=3101667&c=1

... although in many cases insisting on triple glazing would
probably achieve more environmental benefit at less cost.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:15:31 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
The greeny ******** relies on te fact that Nu Laber has been in
power so long, that no one can actually DO sums anymore, and its
really gone out of fashion to use mathematics and reason and logic
to solve problems.

Well it's the Eton-educated Mr Cameron who decided to put a wind
turbine on his Notting Hill house, and a Conservative MP has just
introduced a private members Bill to "enshrine in law the right of
councils to set policies which insist on a minimum level of power
for a development to be generated by on-site renewable energy."

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...de=3101667&c=1

.. although in many cases insisting on triple glazing would
probably achieve more environmental benefit at less cost.

Indeed. By I don't think Mr Camerons education goes as far as Si-ense.

He's a marketing man: To do anything, first you have to get elected. I
guess he feels he has to go along with greeny ******** to do that.

The real issue is that if he does get elected, will he make the
transition from marketing director to managing director.

And employ people who *can* do sums, and listen to them.

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:35:14 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The real issue is that if he does get elected, will he make the
transition from marketing director to managing director.

And employ people who *can* do sums, and listen to them.

He appears to employ one Zac Goldsmith, a fervent gambler and ex-owner
of the perhaps aptly named Drones Club as his advisor. Zacharius, as
befits a Green Guru who lectures all and sundry, has no qualifications
or experience but is a member of a family whose carbon footprint is
bigger than that of some third world countries.

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:35:14 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
The real issue is that if he does get elected, will he make the
transition from marketing director to managing director.

We just have to hope he does better than the one who made the
transition from Financial Director g

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

The only energy source that is totally reliable and predictable is
either tidal - as long as the moon stays in orbit! - or less
predictable wave energy. The amount of power that can be harnessed
from tidal and wave movement is huge. I visited a site on Pico,
Azores where a simple concrete box with an air tubine (Oscillating
Water Column) produces 400kW from the waves.

Otherwise, the world needs to loose 3-4bn people fast. We are no
different to the population cycle of lemmings.

In message
, CS
writes
The only energy source that is totally reliable and predictable is
either tidal - as long as the moon stays in orbit!

There was a TV programme on BBC 4 on Monday evening in which it was
mentioned that the moon is slipping out of orbit at around 5cm/year.

- or less
predictable wave energy. The amount of power that can be harnessed
from tidal and wave movement is huge. I visited a site on Pico,
Azores where a simple concrete box with an air tubine (Oscillating
Water Column) produces 400kW from the waves.

Otherwise, the world needs to loose 3-4bn people fast.

that could be quite chatic.

We are no
different to the population cycle of lemmings.

--
Si

In message , Si
$3o&m writes
In message
, CS
writes
The only energy source that is totally reliable and predictable is
either tidal - as long as the moon stays in orbit!

There was a TV programme on BBC 4 on Monday evening in which it was
mentioned that the moon is slipping out of orbit at around 5cm/year.

There's one on now (power of the planet) where the person who actually
does the measurement every day says 4cm / year

(splitting hairs mode)


- or less
predictable wave energy. The amount of power that can be harnessed
from tidal and wave movement is huge. I visited a site on Pico,
Azores where a simple concrete box with an air tubine (Oscillating
Water Column) produces 400kW from the waves.

Otherwise, the world needs to loose 3-4bn people fast.

that could be quite chatic.

that's a good word


We are no
different to the population cycle of lemmings.


--
geoff

In message , geoff
writes
that could be quite chatic.

that's a good word

it was spelled in chaotic mode

--
Si

CS wrote:
The only energy source that is totally reliable and predictable is
either tidal - as long as the moon stays in orbit! - or less
predictable wave energy. The amount of power that can be harnessed
from tidal and wave movement is huge. I visited a site on Pico,
Azores where a simple concrete box with an air tubine (Oscillating
Water Column) produces 400kW from the waves.


Now how many for the 160GW we need as a nation?

I make that 400,000 of em.

Worse than ****ing windmills.

get real.

Whereas 50 nuclear power plants can do the job. All of it.


Otherwise, the world needs to loose 3-4bn people fast. We are no
different to the population cycle of lemmings.

The short answer is either that, yes, or use other than solar energy,
direct, indirect, biomass, fossil, wave power, hyrdolelectric or wind
power or whatever.

Because at any conversion rate we can reasonably attain, there simply
ain't enough solar energy falling on the country to give us the
gigawatts we need..especially if we are going to combat the effects of
the climate change that is - whether man made or not - an inescapable fact.


Only one energy source exists that fits the bill right now. Nuclear
fission. Love it or hate it, its all we have.

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:58:25 GMT someone who may be Tony Bryer
wrote this:-

I am interested in hard facts: I write SAP Rating software.

Then you will presumably know that SAP is a somewhat simplified
process, which may just be adequate to compare one building to
another under a standardised set of conditions, but which is not any
good at working out the actual energy consumption of a particular
building. I have written and maintained thermal modelling software,
so have a little idea of what is involved.

You will presumably also know that SAP has been dramatically dumbed
down because it is "too complicated", in order that it can be
carried out by the sort of "inspectors" employed by those involved
in selling houses, in order to meet the foolish ideas of the UK and
EU about energy "performance" "certificates". In actual fact all
this does is bring thermal modelling into disrepute.

Yes, of
course there are ethical firms selling systems, equally there have
been more than a few media reports of high pressure salesman making
totally untrue claims as to what people will save.

I don't recall the "green lobby" welcoming the activities of people
who appear to have formerly been double glazing salesmen but who are
now promoting a false prospectus on solar water heating systems. If
you can offer some evidence of this there is nothing stoping you.

The plain fact is
that for most people, if you heat your hot water by gas, the economics
of a professionally installed system do not make sense.

Not if one is only considering simple payback period. However, if
one only considered that one would not install double glazing, a new
kitchen or many new cars.

It's about a feelgood factor, being seen to do some,

Incorrect. I note that the reasons for doing so have not been
countered by a convincing argument.

whereas if you want to save
the planet, paying to have an old person's loft insulated would make
more sense.

http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/campaigns/micropower/ asks for four
things. The first of these is, "tighter building regulations to
ensure that buildings waste less energy"

Next contestant please.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:14:04 +0000 David Hansen wrote :
You will presumably also know that SAP has been dramatically dumbed
down because it is "too complicated", in order that it can be
carried out by the sort of "inspectors" employed by those involved
in selling houses, in order to meet the foolish ideas of the UK and
EU about energy "performance" "certificates". In actual fact all
this does is bring thermal modelling into disrepute.

The program I author, SuperHeat, is the full SAP implementation, not
RDSAP. For my own home, the estimated energy usage is pretty close
to the actual - DHW cost about £75p.a. (condensing combi)

Yes, of
course there are ethical firms selling systems, equally there have
been more than a few media reports of high pressure salesman making
totally untrue claims as to what people will save.

I don't recall the "green lobby" welcoming the activities of people
who appear to have formerly been double glazing salesmen but who are
now promoting a false prospectus on solar water heating systems. If
you can offer some evidence of this there is nothing stoping you.

I didn't say that the "green lobby" welcomed such firms. But it has
been happening, a situation probably made worse by government grants.

"Solar panel suppliers exposed by Financial Mail as the cause of scores
of consumer complaints have been convicted of seven offences under the
Trade Descriptions Act.

Simplee Solar was fined £40,000 with £27,000 costs at Bournemouth Crown
Court on Friday for distributing flyers, claiming its solar heating
panels could cut fuel bills by 40%.

Ivan Hancock of Dorset Trading Standards told Financial Mail that the
case was a major victory and should be a warning to both companies and
consumers.

'The judge said that Simplee was still fitting more than 200 panels a
month,' he said. 'It charges between £6,000 and £10,000 a time, while
the trade association website suggests a more reasonable price would be
up to £4,500."

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/consume...1&in_page_id=5

The plain fact is
that for most people, if you heat your hot water by gas, the economics
of a professionally installed system do not make sense.

Not if one is only considering simple payback period. However, if
one only considered that one would not install double glazing, a new
kitchen or many new cars.

True, but double glazing gives you other benefits apart from cash saved,
such as improved comfort, and possibly less maintenance or greater
security. The only real benefit of solar panels are saving money; if
people want to spend money saving the planet then spend it in a way that
maximises benefit for money expended.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:03:15 GMT someone who may be Tony Bryer
wrote this:-

The program I author, SuperHeat, is the full SAP implementation,

With the problems I outlined.

While you may be close to it on DHW that doesn't tell us much.

I don't recall the "green lobby" welcoming the activities of people
who appear to have formerly been double glazing salesmen but who are
now promoting a false prospectus on solar water heating systems. If
you can offer some evidence of this there is nothing stoping you.

I didn't say that the "green lobby" welcomed such firms. But it has
been happening,

It has, but is this due to inadequacies of sustainable energy or the
commercial world?

The only real benefit of solar panels are saving money;

Incorrect.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2007-12-19 18:14:04 +0000, David Hansen
said:


http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/campaigns/micropower/ asks for four
things. The first of these is, "tighter building regulations to
ensure that buildings waste less energy"

All of them involve more bureaucracy, more regulation, less individual
freedom and more spending of money by people other than FoE.

Not a compelling position.


Next contestant please.

Indeed.

How many other pointless charities do you know about?

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:54:03 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , Si
$3o&m writes
In message
, CS
writes
The only energy source that is totally reliable and predictable is
either tidal - as long as the moon stays in orbit!

There was a TV programme on BBC 4 on Monday evening in which it was
mentioned that the moon is slipping out of orbit at around 5cm/year.

There's one on now (power of the planet) where the person who actually
does the measurement every day says 4cm / year

(splitting hairs mode)


Quite so. The tidal energy is in fact coming from the minute rotational
slowing of the earth. In fact quite a bit of the energy is being
transferred to the moon kinetic energy as its orbit slightly increases
year on year.

So in true hair splitting mode tidal power is not sustainable. However
if you said it was good until the moon doubled it's orbit then that would
be 400,000,000 m / 4cm = 10,000,000,000 years which is longer than the
Sun should last!

The energy of the Earth's rotation is truly an immense source of power.
The speed is slow (and that's squared) but the moment of inertia is over
whelming.

If I remember my applied maths correctly then the energy of a rotating
sphere is 2mr²w²/5 = 0.4 x 6x10^(24) x (2 x PI / 86,400)² x (6,378,000)²
= 5 x 10 ^ 29 J = an infinitesimal fraction of which is more than all
the energy from the sun in an entire year.






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