Hi,

I have some questions regarding solar heating / power / wind power and
UK grants. I'm interested in experiences rather than straight facts as
many of these are on the internet:

(1) We're considering ploughing some money into some a renewable power
source for our home. I knew of government grants, but I also recall
reading recently that the grants were either being cancelled or cut
back substantially. Has anyone taken advantage of such a grant
recently? Does the installation company sort it all out or does the
consumer have to claim it back themselves?

(2) Of the various options available (I can think of at least three)
has anyone any experience across each type? Are some more effective
than others in terms of energy return for a UK home? Are some more
problematic regards installation?

(3) Installation companies are many, I know that BP have a solar
business and will more than likely have a list of contractors on their
books. I would feel a little safer dealing with a large organisation
but I don't expect they will be as cheap as others. Again if anyone
has any experience I would appreciate this.

Thanks,
Mark.
---
www.treboona.co.uk

wrote:
Hi,

I have some questions regarding solar heating / power / wind power and
UK grants. I'm interested in experiences rather than straight facts as
many of these are on the internet:

(1) We're considering ploughing some money into some a renewable power
source for our home. I knew of government grants, but I also recall
reading recently that the grants were either being cancelled or cut
back substantially. Has anyone taken advantage of such a grant
recently? Does the installation company sort it all out or does the
consumer have to claim it back themselves?

(2) Of the various options available (I can think of at least three)
has anyone any experience across each type? Are some more effective
than others in terms of energy return for a UK home? Are some more
problematic regards installation?

All I can say is that IMHO the consensus among those here that can count
beyond ten without taking their socks off, is that none of them will
ever realistically pay for themselves in this country. Even WITH a grant.


(3) Installation companies are many, I know that BP have a solar
business and will more than likely have a list of contractors on their
books. I would feel a little safer dealing with a large organisation
but I don't expect they will be as cheap as others. Again if anyone
has any experience I would appreciate this.


Since I can see no significant cost savings in using any technology
based on (domestic) wind or solar in this country, I haven't even
bothered to see who is painting themselves green by selling it.

It really doesn't matter who you buy it from. Or if it works or not. Its
money down the drain. Just a sop to your conscience. And a show off to
the neighbours.




Thanks,
Mark.
---
www.treboona.co.uk

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:18:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Hi,

I have some questions regarding solar heating / power / wind power and
UK grants. I'm interested in experiences rather than straight facts as
many of these are on the internet:

(1) We're considering ploughing some money into some a renewable power
source for our home. I knew of government grants, but I also recall
reading recently that the grants were either being cancelled or cut
back substantially. Has anyone taken advantage of such a grant
recently? Does the installation company sort it all out or does the
consumer have to claim it back themselves?


The Nat Ural Phil Horse Offer has covered the basics.

I'd just like to go on to say that IMHE of these grant aided schemes
the sole Benny Fishery of the grant money in every case has been the
contractors doing the installation. The stable market cost of the
project that the market will bear just gets inflated by the
contribution from the grant.

DG

wrote:


(2) Of the various options available (I can think of at least three)
has anyone any experience across each type? Are some more effective
than others in terms of energy return for a UK home? Are some more
problematic regards installation?

You might want to look at things like air or ground source heat pumps.
These do have a reasonable chance of giving you a return on your
investment.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
John Rumm writes:
wrote:


(2) Of the various options available (I can think of at least three)
has anyone any experience across each type? Are some more effective
than others in terms of energy return for a UK home? Are some more
problematic regards installation?

You might want to look at things like air or ground source heat pumps.
These do have a reasonable chance of giving you a return on your
investment.

If the retailer can be bothered with the extra paperwork,
heat pump technology heating for domestic use should only
attract 5% VAT.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:03:18 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

You might want to look at things like air or ground source heat pumps.
These do have a reasonable chance of giving you a return on your
investment.

Maybe depends how much alteration has to be done to the heating system.
The heat they produce is "low grade" suitable for underfloor heating but
not for, AIUI, heating domestic hot water or conventional, radiator based
space heating.

The Natural Philosopher is an accountant; the *only* thing that matters is
the bottom line. Whilst that is a factor it is not the overiding one for
many.

Grants can help the costs but generally you are then tied to using
"approved" installers and systems. You don't get much, if any, flexabilty
to design a system to suit your requirements, property or have a
combination of energy sources. Personally I don't like being told which
contractors I can use, particulary when I'm not in control of the project.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:18:20 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

I have some questions regarding solar heating / power / wind power and
UK grants. I'm interested in experiences rather than straight facts as
many of these are on the internet:

One of the facts that can be found on Internet is that there are no
UK grants for such things in the domestic sphere. If you tell us
which country/province/principality you live in then we may be able
to help you more.

(1) We're considering ploughing some money into some a renewable power
source for our home.

Before doing that make sure you have done as much as reasonable to
reduce energy losses. Lagging hot water pipes, loft and wall
insulation, energy saving lamps, no fancy lighting schemes designed
to make your meter spin round like a catherine wheel and so on.

I knew of government grants, but I also recall
reading recently that the grants were either being cancelled or cut
back substantially.

The ones in England were still in a mess the last time I checked,
which was some months ago.

The approach is generally that the householder applies for the
grant, perhaps with the help of a supplier. However, the precise
approach depends on the country/province/principality someone lives
in and the precise grant.

Note that the grants discriminate against DIY. They are only
available for "professionally" installed systems. There is also a
discriminatory regime on VAT, again discriminating against DIY.

If you have the skills and time it is likely to be cheaper to DIY,
despite the discrimination. www.navitron.org.uk is a good source of
parts for DIY.

(2) Of the various options available (I can think of at least three)
has anyone any experience across each type? Are some more effective
than others in terms of energy return for a UK home? Are some more
problematic regards installation?

In terms of energy they are likely to be solar thermal, wind and
solar electric in your list. However, it does depend on your site.

Do a bit of research and you may find a local organisation which
offers help to wade through the options http://www.devondare.org/ is
an example.

http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/campa...ropower/guide/ is a
guide to some of the options. You may be able to rule some of them
out quickly, but others may be worth investigating.

What installation problems there are depends on your particular
house. For example fitting solar thermal to a house which has a
combination boiler which cannot accept warm water is rather
different to fitting a Solartwin panel http://www.solartwin.com/ to
a well insulated existing hot water cylinder.






--
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 08 Jan 2008 08:57:25 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

If the retailer can be bothered with the extra paperwork, heat pump
technology heating for domestic use should only attract 5% VAT.

And presumably the power that the heat pump uses as well?

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:18:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

(1) We're considering ploughing some money into some a renewable power
source for our home. I knew of government grants, but I also recall
reading recently that the grants were either being cancelled or cut
back substantially. Has anyone taken advantage of such a grant
recently? Does the installation company sort it all out or does the
consumer have to claim it back themselves?

Grant availability is inconsistent but some companies are particularly
adept at managing the grant process. It is fairly straightforward and
they seem to be able to get approval quickly. The only problem is
that the companies approved under the grant schemes have almost
universally inflated their prices by at least the value of the grant
so the end user gets no benefit from them.

(2) Of the various options available (I can think of at least three)
has anyone any experience across each type? Are some more effective
than others in terms of energy return for a UK home? Are some more
problematic regards installation?

For most of the UK roof mounted wind turbines are useless other than
as a green fashion statement, There is an ongoing project in
Warwickshire (The Warwickshire Wind Energy Project) assessing their
effectiveness and although little factual information is being
released so far the monetary saving has been in the order of a few
pence a day. Typically in an urban environment you will generate
electricity worth about £4 in one year. The problem is the lack of
wind in urban environments coupled with the inescapable cube law on
energy produced against wind speed. A figure often bandied about is
that the "average" windspeed in the UK is 5.6m/s . Assuming that
produced 100W output from a generator if the wind speed dropped to
3m/s (higher than that being measured on houses in the Warwickshire
trial) the electricity generated falls to about 12W.

Hot water systems are simple but generally have inflated installation
prices, they only make economic sense if done as a DIY project. I had
one for some years and it was an interesting experiment but not much
more. The DTI carried out a 12 month trial of various panels and
found that a single solar panel of any type if optimally sited would
collect about 1MWh of energy in one year, equivalent to a saving of
about £40 if you use gas to heat your water. It would cost between
£2,000 and £8,000 to install commercially. Vacuum tube collectors are
more efficient than flat panel but tend to be made into smaller panels
so generally there isn't much difference between panels. There is
very little difference between manufacturers. Navitron are worth
looking at for DIY bits as their prices for the vacuum tubes are quite
good.

Solar PV is useful in remote sites where there is no mains
electricity. Its cost is prohibitively high except in these locations
or to power individual low consumption devices. The roughly 1sqm BP
panel I have as an experimental setup originally cost nearly £1,000
and produces about 60W in bright sunlight but today for example, with
a very dull overcast, is producing about 3W. It makes no economic
sense if grid electricity is available as the payback period is much
longer than the panel life.

A problem with solar energy in the UK is that there isn't much sun
when its needed and most comes at the time of least energy usage.

(3) Installation companies are many, I know that BP have a solar
business and will more than likely have a list of contractors on their
books. I would feel a little safer dealing with a large organisation
but I don't expect they will be as cheap as others.

The great majority of "alternative" energy companies are out and out
fraudsters. Almost universally they make vastly inflated claims for
the capability of their products. The skill levels generally in this
sector are poor and although there are some enthusiasts who are also
competent it is difficult to find them.

In financial terms none of the three common technologies make sense.
Air source heat pumps (inverter air conditioners) can. Ground source
heat pumps are beginning to make sense especially if you have a lot of
land and are planning major works anyway but don't work too well
unless you have underfloor heating. They are also no better than a
good condensing boiler in terms of heating costs or carbon emissions.

There is some data on ground source heat pumps from the Barratt
Chorley experiment (which used a 30M borehole rather than a widespread
network of pipes so is better suited to urban environments) which
indicates a payback period of about 15 years.
http://www.barratt-investor-relation...t.aspx?id=1318

What is universal about all the ecotechnologies is that the potential
energy generation or saving is invariably grossly overstated and this
is becoming clearer now actual measurements are beginning to be made
public.

There is no doubt that if you spent the money you were contemplating
spending on alternative energy on insulation and better and more
controlled ventilation and heating you would get better value for
money.

John Rumm wrote:
wrote:


(2) Of the various options available (I can think of at least three)
has anyone any experience across each type? Are some more effective
than others in terms of energy return for a UK home? Are some more
problematic regards installation?

You might want to look at things like air or ground source heat pumps.
These do have a reasonable chance of giving you a return on your
investment.


Yes indeed they might.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:03:18 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

You might want to look at things like air or ground source heat pumps.
These do have a reasonable chance of giving you a return on your
investment.

Maybe depends how much alteration has to be done to the heating system.
The heat they produce is "low grade" suitable for underfloor heating but
not for, AIUI, heating domestic hot water or conventional, radiator based
space heating.

The Natural Philosopher is an accountant; the *only* thing that matters is
the bottom line. Whilst that is a factor it is not the overiding one for
many.

I resent that. I am an engineer,who has learnt the hard way that the
recipe for good engineering is to do the difficult sums. The ones with
pound signs in them.

The fact that these technolofies do NOT pay for themselves, in an era
when the cost of fuel tends to dominate the price of anything
manufactured, shows that if they are not cost effective, they likley are
not fuel efficient either.


Grants can help the costs but generally you are then tied to using
"approved" installers and systems. You don't get much, if any, flexabilty
to design a system to suit your requirements, property or have a
combination of energy sources. Personally I don't like being told which
contractors I can use, particulary when I'm not in control of the project.

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:18:20 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

I have some questions regarding solar heating / power / wind power and
UK grants. I'm interested in experiences rather than straight facts as
many of these are on the internet:

One of the facts that can be found on Internet is that there are no
UK grants for such things in the domestic sphere. If you tell us
which country/province/principality you live in then we may be able
to help you more.

(1) We're considering ploughing some money into some a renewable power
source for our home.

Before doing that make sure you have done as much as reasonable to
reduce energy losses. Lagging hot water pipes, loft and wall
insulation, energy saving lamps, no fancy lighting schemes designed
to make your meter spin round like a catherine wheel and so on.

I knew of government grants, but I also recall
reading recently that the grants were either being cancelled or cut
back substantially.

The ones in England were still in a mess the last time I checked,
which was some months ago.

The approach is generally that the householder applies for the
grant, perhaps with the help of a supplier. However, the precise
approach depends on the country/province/principality someone lives
in and the precise grant.

Note that the grants discriminate against DIY. They are only
available for "professionally" installed systems. There is also a
discriminatory regime on VAT, again discriminating against DIY.

If you have the skills and time it is likely to be cheaper to DIY,
despite the discrimination. www.navitron.org.uk is a good source of
parts for DIY.

(2) Of the various options available (I can think of at least three)
has anyone any experience across each type? Are some more effective
than others in terms of energy return for a UK home? Are some more
problematic regards installation?

In terms of energy they are likely to be solar thermal, wind and
solar electric in your list. However, it does depend on your site.


You will do better to make a huge double glazed south facing set of
windows, in terms of overall cost benefit, than anything else.

Insulation and draughtproofing aside.


Do a bit of research and you may find a local organisation which
offers help to wade through the options http://www.devondare.org/ is
an example.

http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/campa...ropower/guide/ is a
guide to some of the options. You may be able to rule some of them
out quickly, but others may be worth investigating.

What installation problems there are depends on your particular
house. For example fitting solar thermal to a house which has a
combination boiler which cannot accept warm water is rather
different to fitting a Solartwin panel http://www.solartwin.com/ to
a well insulated existing hot water cylinder.

In article , says...
All I can say is that IMHO the consensus among those here that can count
beyond ten without taking their socks off, is that none of them will
ever realistically pay for themselves in this country. Even WITH a grant.

While that's almost certainly true of commecially available systems, if
you can make your own solar HW system with scrounged bits you could
probably save a bit of money - but it's not going to be a lot.

--
Skipweasel.
Never knowingly understood.

In article , says...
You will do better to make a huge double glazed south facing set of
windows, in terms of overall cost benefit, than anything else.

Passive solar gain can make quite a difference in the autumn and spring.
Since finishing the conservatory we've noticed we can do without the
heating until it's quite a bit colder outside (on sunny days) than we
could before. Opening the door allows the conservatory to heat the whole
house during the day and, with a sunlit concrete floor, for a couple of
hours after dark, too.
--
Skipweasel.
Never knowingly understood.

On 8 Jan, 12:13, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:18:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

(1) We're considering ploughing some money into some a renewable power
source for our home. I knew of government grants, but I also recall
reading recently that the grants were either being cancelled or cut
back substantially. Has anyone taken advantage of such a grant
recently? Does the installation company sort it all out or does the
consumer have to claim it back themselves?

Grant availability is inconsistent but some companies are particularly
adept at managing the grant process. It is fairly straightforward and
they seem to be able to get approval quickly. The only problem is
that the companies approved under the grant schemes have almost
universally inflated their prices by at least the value of the grant
so the end user gets no benefit from them.

(2) Of the various options available (I can think of at least three)
has anyone any experience across each type? Are some more effective
than others in terms of energy return for a UK home? Are some more
problematic regards installation?

For most of the UK roof mounted wind turbines are useless other than
as a green fashion statement, There is an ongoing project in
Warwickshire (The Warwickshire Wind Energy Project) assessing their
effectiveness and although little factual information is being
released so far the monetary saving has been in the order of a few
pence a day. Typically in an urban environment you will generate
electricity worth about £4 in one year. The problem is the lack of
wind in urban environments coupled with the inescapable cube law on
energy produced against wind speed. A figure often bandied about is
that the "average" windspeed in the UK is 5.6m/s . Assuming that
produced 100W output from a generator if the wind speed dropped to
3m/s (higher than that being measured on houses in the Warwickshire
trial) the electricity generated falls to about 12W.

Hot water systems are simple but generally have inflated installation
prices, they only make economic sense if done as a DIY project. I had
one for some years and it was an interesting experiment but not much
more. The DTI carried out a 12 month trial of various panels and
found that a single solar panel of any type if optimally sited would
collect about 1MWh of energy in one year, equivalent to a saving of
about £40 if you use gas to heat your water. It would cost between
£2,000 and £8,000 to install commercially. Vacuum tube collectors are
more efficient than flat panel but tend to be made into smaller panels
so generally there isn't much difference between panels. There is
very little difference between manufacturers. Navitron are worth
looking at for DIY bits as their prices for the vacuum tubes are quite
good.

Solar PV is useful in remote sites where there is no mains
electricity. Its cost is prohibitively high except in these locations
or to power individual low consumption devices. The roughly 1sqm BP
panel I have as an experimental setup originally cost nearly £1,000
and produces about 60W in bright sunlight but today for example, with
a very dull overcast, is producing about 3W. It makes no economic
sense if grid electricity is available as the payback period is much
longer than the panel life.

A problem with solar energy in the UK is that there isn't much sun
when its needed and most comes at the time of least energy usage.

(3) Installation companies are many, I know that BP have a solar
business and will more than likely have a list of contractors on their
books. I would feel a little safer dealing with a large organisation
but I don't expect they will be as cheap as others.

The great majority of "alternative" energy companies are out and out
fraudsters. Almost universally they make vastly inflated claims for
the capability of their products. The skill levels generally in this
sector are poor and although there are some enthusiasts who are also
competent it is difficult to find them.

In financial terms none of the three common technologies make sense.
Air source heat pumps (inverter air conditioners) can. Ground source
heat pumps are beginning to make sense especially if you have a lot of
land and are planning major works anyway but don't work too well
unless you have underfloor heating. They are also no better than a
good condensing boiler in terms of heating costs or carbon emissions.

There is some data on ground source heat pumps from the Barratt
Chorley experiment (which used a 30M borehole rather than a widespread
network of pipes so is better suited to urban environments) which
indicates a payback period of about 15 years.http://www.barratt-investor-relation...ses/Content.as...

What is universal about all the ecotechnologies is that the potential
energy generation or saving is invariably grossly overstated and this
is becoming clearer now actual measurements are beginning to be made
public.

There is no doubt that if you spent the money you were contemplating
spending on alternative energy on insulation and better and more
controlled ventilation and heating you would get better value for
money.

I'm still to be totally convinced by heatpumps. COPs of 4 and even 5
are advertised by manufacturers, yet the only real world figures I've
been able to find are 2 or a bit better - and that's ground source
with UFH and plenty of insulation. I know that with green technologies
in the home it's compulsory to exaggerate about their performance, but
I simply couldn't buy a heat pump from someone who I know is lying to
me. Also, when it comes to payback, the additional cost of UFH etc. is
not factored in. I know some manufacturers say you can use radiators,
but they already lied about the COP, so I don't believe them.

What sort of COP can air source heat pumps really achieve on average
throughout a heating season, with radiators, and supplying hot water?

T.

In article ,
Skipweasel writes:
In article , says...
You will do better to make a huge double glazed south facing set of
windows, in terms of overall cost benefit, than anything else.

Passive solar gain can make quite a difference in the autumn and spring.
Since finishing the conservatory we've noticed we can do without the
heating until it's quite a bit colder outside (on sunny days) than we
could before. Opening the door allows the conservatory to heat the whole
house during the day and, with a sunlit concrete floor, for a couple of
hours after dark, too.

More attention to both desirable and undesirable solar gain in
house design would probably bear more fruit than many of the
pointless energy saving schemes which currently have the public
attention.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 06:15:14 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I'm still to be totally convinced by heatpumps. COPs of 4 and even 5
are advertised by manufacturers, yet the only real world figures I've
been able to find are 2 or a bit better - and that's ground source
with UFH and plenty of insulation.

I'd agree, they only really make sense in a new build where you are
installing underfloor heating and you don't have mains gas and don't
want an oil tank or are worried about future oil price. Compared with
bulk Propane or electricity they would be a good choice but not
otherwise.

On 8 Jan, 09:51, Huge wrote:
On 2008-01-08, John Rumm wrote:

wrote:

(2) Of the various options available (I can think of at least three)
has anyone any experience across each type? Are some more effective
than others in terms of energy return for a UK home? Are some more
problematic regards installation?

You might want to look at things like air or ground source heat pumps.
These do have a reasonable chance of giving you a return on your
investment.

But before you do *any* of this; insulation, insulation, insulation. Treble
glaze. Line the walls. 1000mm (I made this figure up) of insulation in the loft.
Heat recovery ventilation. Insulate the hot water pipes.

--
* * * * * "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
* * * * * * * * *and presumptuous desire for a second one."
* * * * * * * *[email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org dot uk]

i SECOND HUGE on this
the best return is on insulation and design

I have - as a matter of interest - also installed a heat pump and did
most of it myself but got the contractor to fill up with glycol and to
switch it on and on that basis can apply via him for a grant
Chris

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 23:51:34 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

wrote:
Hi,

I have some questions regarding solar heating / power / wind power and
UK grants. I'm interested in experiences rather than straight facts as
many of these are on the internet:

(1) We're considering ploughing some money into some a renewable power
source for our home. I knew of government grants, but I also recall
reading recently that the grants were either being cancelled or cut
back substantially. Has anyone taken advantage of such a grant
recently? Does the installation company sort it all out or does the
consumer have to claim it back themselves?

(2) Of the various options available (I can think of at least three)
has anyone any experience across each type? Are some more effective
than others in terms of energy return for a UK home? Are some more
problematic regards installation?

All I can say is that IMHO the consensus among those here that can count
beyond ten without taking their socks off, is that none of them will
ever realistically pay for themselves in this country. Even WITH a
grant.


(3) Installation companies are many, I know that BP have a solar
business and will more than likely have a list of contractors on their
books. I would feel a little safer dealing with a large organisation
but I don't expect they will be as cheap as others. Again if anyone has
any experience I would appreciate this.


Since I can see no significant cost savings in using any technology
based on (domestic) wind or solar in this country, I haven't even
bothered to see who is painting themselves green by selling it.

It really doesn't matter who you buy it from. Or if it works or not. Its
money down the drain. Just a sop to your conscience. And a show off to
the neighbours.


It might /just/ be possible to make a cost effective solar assisted HW
system if /all/ the following are true.

1) You need to replace the HW cylinder.
2) You have the time and skills necessary to make and install
solar collectors.
3) You have the time and skills needed to make the control system.
4) You have access to the scrap raw materials needed to make system.
e.g. discarded CH pump, discarded CH radiators.

What is clear is that at current prices there is no way that a system can
be built using either manufactured parts or professional installation let
alone both.

--
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, 08 Jan 2008 14:16:24 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
Skipweasel writes:
In article , says...
You will do better to make a huge double glazed south facing set of
windows, in terms of overall cost benefit, than anything else.

Passive solar gain can make quite a difference in the autumn and
spring. Since finishing the conservatory we've noticed we can do
without the heating until it's quite a bit colder outside (on sunny
days) than we could before. Opening the door allows the conservatory to
heat the whole house during the day and, with a sunlit concrete floor,
for a couple of hours after dark, too.

More attention to both desirable and undesirable solar gain in house
design would probably bear more fruit than many of the pointless energy
saving schemes which currently have the public attention.

So true. Along with appropriate and thoughtfully set heating (and
cooling) controls.


--
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, 8 Jan 2008 19:22:59 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ed Sirett
wrote this:-

It might /just/ be possible to make a cost effective solar assisted HW
system if /all/ the following are true.

1) You need to replace the HW cylinder.
2) You have the time and skills necessary to make and install
solar collectors.
3) You have the time and skills needed to make the control system.
4) You have access to the scrap raw materials needed to make system.
e.g. discarded CH pump, discarded CH radiators.

If, for the sake of argument, one takes the claims of the antis of
only a £40 saving in gas per year at face value, assume no fuel
price increases and ignore the (low) electricity cost then a
simplistic simple payback period calculation for the Navitron Budget
Solar Kit http://www.navitron.org.uk/pricelist.htm is about 22 years
(£800 plus £100 delivery, if one doesn't collect it).



--
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, 8 Jan 2008 19:22:59 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ed Sirett
wrote this:-

It might /just/ be possible to make a cost effective solar assisted HW
system if /all/ the following are true.

1) You need to replace the HW cylinder.
2) You have the time and skills necessary to make and install
solar collectors.
3) You have the time and skills needed to make the control system.
4) You have access to the scrap raw materials needed to make system.
e.g. discarded CH pump, discarded CH radiators.

If, for the sake of argument, one takes the claims of the antis of
only a �40 saving in gas per year at face value, assume no fuel
price increases and ignore the (low) electricity cost then a
simplistic simple payback period calculation for the Navitron Budget
Solar Kit http://www.navitron.org.uk/pricelist.htm is about 22 years
(�800 plus �100 delivery, if one doesn't collect it).



And assuming you didn't have to borrow the money, in which case its a
net loser forever.

Better idea. Put the money on a bank paying 4% and have it earn you 236%
return over 22 years.

The ROI of your investment is 2.72% p.a.. I think it would be hard to
find WORSE payback for cash anywhere in the financial market..

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:50:39 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

If, for the sake of argument, one takes the claims of the antis of
only a £40 saving in gas per year at face value,

Oh dear, there we go again with the propaganda. The only thing I'm
anti is the dishonesty of the greenwashers.

A single solar panel collects about 1MWh of energy per year if ideally
placed - that's real data collected for the DTI. The gas to produce a
similar amount of energy cost somewhat less than £40 at current
prices.

Why do you feel you can't take such an established fact at face value?
Do you have more credible data?

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:50:39 +0000, David Hansen wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:22:59 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ed Sirett
wrote this:-

It might /just/ be possible to make a cost effective solar assisted HW
system if /all/ the following are true.

1) You need to replace the HW cylinder. 2) You have the time and skills
necessary to make and install solar collectors.
3) You have the time and skills needed to make the control system. 4)
You have access to the scrap raw materials needed to make system. e.g.
discarded CH pump, discarded CH radiators.

If, for the sake of argument, one takes the claims of the antis of only
a £40 saving in gas per year at face value, assume no fuel price
increases and ignore the (low) electricity cost then a simplistic simple
payback period calculation for the Navitron Budget Solar Kit
http://www.navitron.org.uk/pricelist.htm is about 22 years (£800 plus
£100 delivery, if one doesn't collect it).

That's exactly the case I was making. You've filled in the numbers.
22 years.


--
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

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:22:59 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ed Sirett
wrote this:-

It might /just/ be possible to make a cost effective solar assisted
HW system if /all/ the following are true.

1) You need to replace the HW cylinder.
2) You have the time and skills necessary to make and install solar
collectors.
3) You have the time and skills needed to make the control system.
4) You have access to the scrap raw materials needed to make system.
e.g. discarded CH pump, discarded CH radiators.
If, for the sake of argument, one takes the claims of the antis of
only a 0 price increases and ignore the (low) electricity cost then a
simplistic simple payback period calculation for the Navitron Budget
Solar Kit http://www.navitron.org.uk/pricelist.htm is about 22 years
(0
And assuming you didn't have to borrow the money, in which case its a
net loser forever.

Better idea. Put the money on a bank paying 4% and have it earn you
236% return over 22 years.

4% ?

a bit NFN



--
geoff

On Jan 8, 10:28*pm, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:50:39 +0000, David Hansen

wrote:
If, for the sake of argument, one takes the claims of the antis of
only a £40 saving in gas per year at face value,

Oh dear, there we go again with the propaganda. *The only thing I'm
anti is the dishonesty of the greenwashers. *

A single solar panel collects about 1MWh of energy per year if ideally
placed - that's real data collected for the DTI. *The gas to produce a
similar amount of energy cost somewhat less than £40 at current
prices.

Why do you feel you can't take such an established fact at face value?
Do you have more credible data?

Hello everyone,

I'm pulling the plug on any of our ambitions wrt solar/wind schemes.

Natural Philosopher et al, thanks for the financials - that is
disappointing, not your replies that is - just the prospect that (at
present) this technology does not pay for the consumer, and we haven't
(at present!) got money for just showing off. BTW I read an article
about 'solar paint' on a website. I was half suspecting a wind-up.
Perhaps that's the sort of advance (if it's for real) that will one
day make it pay.

John Rumm et al, I've seen those heat pump arrangements, in every
example the garden they are deployed in looks sizeable - which ours is
not (maybe 10m square) - so I'm doubtful it is going to work for us.

David Hansen / Huge et al, we are in the UK, we are in a modern house
and it has all the quick-wins you mention (even the new three pronged
light-bulb housings which are a real pain as hardly anyone sells the
bulbs!).

We are atop a small hill and it can get quite windy, so I half
suspected a small wind generator might be semi-viable (until reading
Peter Parry's post! - thanks Peter). My only additional worry with
this was if the thing goes a wrong, the prop spins off and hits
somebody - it's quite a densely populated area where we live. BTW
Ed / Peter I'm no DIY buff, I half zapped myself with some mains leads
once and it put me off for good.

As fossil fuels depleat and the cost of energy increases, perhaps that
is the time when these technologies will come into their own.

For now we'll continue with the basics.

Regards,
Mark.
---

www.treboona.co.uk

wrote:

I'm still to be totally convinced by heatpumps. COPs of 4 and even 5
are advertised by manufacturers, yet the only real world figures I've
been able to find are 2 or a bit better - and that's ground source
with UFH and plenty of insulation. I know that with green technologies
in the home it's compulsory to exaggerate about their performance, but
I simply couldn't buy a heat pump from someone who I know is lying to
me. Also, when it comes to payback, the additional cost of UFH etc. is
not factored in. I know some manufacturers say you can use radiators,
but they already lied about the COP, so I don't believe them.

A heat pump can be quite a nice simple solution when the only easily
installable alternative source of heat is electric only, and you also
want air conditioning in the summer. For example, one unit to heat and
cool a outbuilding without needing to plumb it into your domestic
heating or gas supply.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

wrote:
On Jan 8, 10:28�pm, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:50:39 +0000, David Hansen

wrote:
If, for the sake of argument, one takes the claims of the antis of
only a �40 saving in gas per year at face value,
Oh dear, there we go again with the propaganda. �The only thing I'm
anti is the dishonesty of the greenwashers. �

A single solar panel collects about 1MWh of energy per year if ideally
placed - that's real data collected for the DTI. �The gas to produce a
similar amount of energy cost somewhat less than �40 at current
prices.

Why do you feel you can't take such an established fact at face value?
Do you have more credible data?

Hello everyone,

I'm pulling the plug on any of our ambitions wrt solar/wind schemes.

Natural Philosopher et al, thanks for the financials - that is
disappointing, not your replies that is - just the prospect that (at
present) this technology does not pay for the consumer, and we haven't
(at present!) got money for just showing off. BTW I read an article
about 'solar paint' on a website. I was half suspecting a wind-up.
Perhaps that's the sort of advance (if it's for real) that will one
day make it pay.

John Rumm et al, I've seen those heat pump arrangements, in every
example the garden they are deployed in looks sizeable - which ours is
not (maybe 10m square) - so I'm doubtful it is going to work for us.

David Hansen / Huge et al, we are in the UK, we are in a modern house
and it has all the quick-wins you mention (even the new three pronged
light-bulb housings which are a real pain as hardly anyone sells the
bulbs!).

We are atop a small hill and it can get quite windy, so I half
suspected a small wind generator might be semi-viable (until reading
Peter Parry's post! - thanks Peter). My only additional worry with
this was if the thing goes a wrong, the prop spins off and hits
somebody - it's quite a densely populated area where we live. BTW
Ed / Peter I'm no DIY buff, I half zapped myself with some mains leads
once and it put me off for good.

As fossil fuels depleat and the cost of energy increases, perhaps that
is the time when these technologies will come into their own.

For now we'll continue with the basics.

Spend your money on thermal underwear and turn the stat down two degrees.

Its the most cost effective thing to do.

And I must be off to divorce my wife, having woken up with a splitting
headache to once again find that she has opened the bedroom window and
the hot air heaters are flapping full bore..

Cost benefit analysis shows its cheaper to be single ;-)




Regards,
Mark.
---

www.treboona.co.uk

John Rumm wrote:
wrote:

I'm still to be totally convinced by heatpumps. COPs of 4 and even 5
are advertised by manufacturers, yet the only real world figures I've
been able to find are 2 or a bit better - and that's ground source
with UFH and plenty of insulation. I know that with green technologies
in the home it's compulsory to exaggerate about their performance, but
I simply couldn't buy a heat pump from someone who I know is lying to
me. Also, when it comes to payback, the additional cost of UFH etc. is
not factored in. I know some manufacturers say you can use radiators,
but they already lied about the COP, so I don't believe them.

A heat pump can be quite a nice simple solution when the only easily
installable alternative source of heat is electric only, and you also
want air conditioning in the summer. For example, one unit to heat and
cool a outbuilding without needing to plumb it into your domestic
heating or gas supply.


I suspect once there are enough nuclear power stations. it will be the
'modern' way to go..

Just think. No more condensing boilers, no more oil tanks, no more flues
and fumes and flameouts, no bloody great lump of space taken up with a
clanky 18th century device. No more CORGI. No more annual service..

Just a nice coil under the front or back yard. And an electric motor

In message
,
writes
We are atop a small hill and it can get quite windy, so I half
suspected a small wind generator might be semi-viable (until reading
Peter Parry's post! - thanks Peter). My only additional worry with this
was if the thing goes a wrong, the prop spins off and hits somebody -
it's quite a densely populated area where we live.

Since your epiphany are you going to remove this from your www-site?
"Wind generation is often described as being intermittent because of
days when the wind doesn't blow. This suggests a supply that is on-off
which is misleading. Whilst available wind varies, it rarely (if at all)
goes completely to zero, nor to maximum output. It is also possible to
'fill in the gaps' by storing excess electricity generated when demand
is low."

--
Si

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Spend your money on thermal underwear and turn the stat down two degrees.

Its the most cost effective thing to do.

And I must be off to divorce my wife, having woken up with a splitting
headache to once again find that she has opened the bedroom window and
the hot air heaters are flapping full bore..

I find it's when SWMBO *closes* the bedroom window that I wake up with a
splitting headache that lasts all day. Fresh air is wonderful!!!

Cost benefit analysis shows its cheaper to be single ;-)

Yup, research confirms that men live longer if married so being single
will involve less expenditure due to your earlier demise.

--
Si

In article ,
says...
More attention to both desirable and undesirable solar gain in
house design would probably bear more fruit than many of the
pointless energy saving schemes which currently have the public
attention.

Hard to do when people still want mock-Georgian houses.

A nice glass fronted[1] house with a good thick slab of something heavy
behind it, equipped with blinds and vents should be able to do both
heating and cooling if used properly. And there may be the rub - some
occupiers will hate it simply because they don't understand how to use
it or have fuddled the design up by building cupboards over the vents.

However popular it is, the whiners will generally get the press and what
could be a super design with real benefits in reducing energy costs will
become unfashionable again (if it ever gets started) because of
ignorance and the media's hunger for sensational stories.

[1] For front, read "south elevation".

--
Skipweasel.
Never knowingly understood.

In article ,
says...
What is clear is that at current prices there is no way that a system can
be built using either manufactured parts or professional installation let
alone both.

DIY is the only way to go at the moment.

I had friends in the 60s who had some old radiators in glass boxes on
the roof of an extension. Their boiler wasn't on at all from late spring
to early autumn, and the system cost very little to run - just the power
for a small CH circulator run at its lowest setting, and even that was
only on when there was sufficient available heat relative to the tank.

When I last drove by the house it was still there - I guess it's paid
for itself in the intervening forty years even if they had to scrounge
some more radiators to replace rusted units at some point.

I suspect the only way this will change is if house builders start
equipping whole estates at the time of building. The extra cost then
would be considerably less than retrofit systems, with the added
advantage that several hundred houses with identical systems will mean
the local plumbers have some chance to learn what's going on.

--
Skipweasel.
Never knowingly understood.

In article , says...
And I must be off to divorce my wife, having woken up with a splitting
headache to once again find that she has opened the bedroom window and
the hot air heaters are flapping full bore..

Luckily mine doesn't object to having the bedroom radiators off and the
window open except on /very/ windy nights. She just has a thicker duvet
than me.

Does everyone else have their heating off over night? I used to think
this was fairly normal, but looking out over the rooftops on a not
particularly cold night recently I noticed that many houses still had
plumes from their chimneys. Now, if they were houses with grannies in, I
could probably understand it, but several of them I know have families
with a couple of fit adults and a few school age kids.

I wouldn't like their gas bills.

--
Skipweasel.
Never knowingly understood.

In article , says...
Just a nice coil under the front or back yard. And an electric motor

And leaks.
--
Skipweasel.
Never knowingly understood.

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:37:40 UTC, Skipweasel wrote:

Does everyone else have their heating off over night? I used to think
this was fairly normal, but looking out over the rooftops on a not
particularly cold night recently I noticed that many houses still had
plumes from their chimneys. Now, if they were houses with grannies in, I
could probably understand it, but several of them I know have families
with a couple of fit adults and a few school age kids.

Ours goes off every night about an hour before we go to bed. Comes on
half an hour before we get up, then off again once the edge has been
taken off the cold and we are off to work a bit later.

I wouldn't like their gas bills.

Gas bills are OK, especially since the new condensing boiler, all the
sludge cleared out, the pump-over finally fixed, and TRVs on some
radiators.

We have to save there...electricity bill is still horrendous what with
all the computers, some 24/7...!

--
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 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:37:40 GMT, Skipweasel wrote:

Does everyone else have their heating off over night?

Yes, but principally because of the noise from expanding pipes and rads
wakes us up... Even if it was on the programmable stat would set quite low
(15C in the living room say) for the night period.

As for people leaving the heating on, I think you are over estimating the
abilty of many to understand how heating systems work.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On 9 Jan 2008 09:55:32 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

We have to save there...electricity bill is still horrendous what with
all the computers, some 24/7...!

Aye, I'm thinking of replacing the ones here with mini ATX based things.
The 750VA UPS is normally running at a good 80% capacity for 18hrs/day.
Call that 600W * 18 = 10.8 units FECK ME! Naw that can't be right, can it?

Where did I put my plug in power meter...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:54:21 UTC, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On 9 Jan 2008 09:55:32 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

We have to save there...electricity bill is still horrendous what with
all the computers, some 24/7...!

Aye, I'm thinking of replacing the ones here with mini ATX based things.

Did you mean mini ITX? I'm using two of those in always-on servers, and
one in the small communal PC in the living room. I'll be converting the
Asterisk box (to-be) to one soon; currently it's running voicemail for
the dedicated PBX.

The 750VA UPS is normally running at a good 80% capacity for 18hrs/day.
Call that 600W * 18 = 10.8 units FECK ME! Naw that can't be right, can it?

Haven't added it up on all the UPSes, but the other always-on machines
are mostly 300MHz PIIs (the most economical PII CPU). One of the
mini-ITX machines runs off a CF card and has no hard disk. Another, at
30 watts, replaced a 150 watt machine on 24/7.

Where did I put my plug in power meter...

Never without mine right now...
--
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 Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:28:39 +0000 Peter Parry wrote :
Oh dear, there we go again with the propaganda. The only thing I'm
anti is the dishonesty of the greenwashers.

A single solar panel collects about 1MWh of energy per year if
ideally placed - that's real data collected for the DTI. The gas
to produce a similar amount of energy cost somewhat less than £40
at current prices.

But the cost of additional panels does not double the installation
cost. There probably is an economic rationale for installing solar
panels where you have a family house with 4+ occupants and where mains
gas is not available. My place (single occupancy, condensing combi)
has a roof ideally suited to a solar panel. According to SAP2005 and
doubling the notional fuel cost of 1.73p/kWh, a 2m2 panel would save
me about £20p.a. Needless to say, it's not on the to-do list.

But nearly every week I talk to people who have come up against the
'Merton Rule' which requires new developments of any size to show that
10% of energy comes from renewables - so solar panels are the usual
way round, although on flats it makes little sense to do this. This
requirement is imposed by planner, not Building Regs. Spending the
money on (say) triple glazing would not be acceptable. And this is not
NuLab at work: councils of all persuasions have fallen over themselves
to copy Merton.

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