Thought my website: www.heatmyhome.co.uk may come in handy for you DIY
solar enthusiasts.

Simply put, 'direct' solar tubes are the most efficient solar
technology available. This is based on a 2001 study of all solar
technologies by the Department of Trade and Industry. (Now Dept of
Business).

Since then solar tubes have evolved further, and now we are proud to
showcase the latest in ‘direct’ heat solar tubes, which have improved
solar efficiency even further, using only the highest quality
components available in the solar industry. This gives the advantage
of better performance and peace of mind but with no heat exchange
required, this can free up your twin coil (when applicable) for other
applications such as under floor heating/bio mass stoves etc.

1. If you have a traditional ‘gravity feed’ system, with a southerly
facing roof space, then you home is ideal.
2. If you have a ‘vented’ thermal store with twin/solar coil, then
your home is suitable too.
3. If you have a Combi Boiler, then you will need to replace this at
the end of it’s life for a condensing boiler with ‘vented’ tank.
4. If you have a ‘high pressure’ system with gauges, then you will
need to replace this with a ‘vented’ tank.

Find more information at: www.heatmyhome.co.uk/diy-solar-panel-kits.htm

"Sunny" wrote in message
...
Thought my website: www.heatmyhome.co.uk may come in handy for you DIY
solar enthusiasts.

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install solar
panels in the uk ?

"woodglass" wrote in message
.uk...

"Sunny" wrote in message
...
Thought my website: www.heatmyhome.co.uk may come in handy for you DIY
solar enthusiasts.

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install solar
panels in the uk ?

Financial cost isn't the only consideration.

To:

[79.72.219.76] Tiscali user - commercial posting abuse
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 01:36:08 -0800 (PST)

Hi Folks,

The Tiscali user identified above and in the sample header and message
below is abusing your service by posting commercial advertising to the
usenet group uk.d-i-y which has a strict no commercial advertising
policy.

The advertising policy of the group may be viewed he
http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/#can

If you could discourage this user from this practice in future I would
be greatly obliged.

Regards,

quote
Path: core-phx-easynews!news-in-01-phx.easynews.com!news.easynews.com!en
236!core-easynews!news-in-02.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews
!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!news.glorb .com!postnews.google.c
om!34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Sunny
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y
Subject: New easy to install DIY solar panels technology
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 01:36:08 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 26
Message-ID:
s.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 79.72.219.76
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1256
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1204364168 5387 127.0.0.1 (1 Mar 2008
09:36:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 09:36:08 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: 34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=79.72.219.76;
posting-account=MpGvIwoAAAAP0FFm21g-2wymRqx6wSHb
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB;
rv:1.8.1.12)
Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: core-phx-easynews uk.d-i-y:776602

Thought my website: www.heatmyhome.co.uk may come in handy for you DIY
solar enthusiasts.

Simply put, 'direct' solar tubes are the most efficient solar
technology available. This is based on a 2001 study of all solar
technologies by the Department of Trade and Industry. (Now Dept of
Business).

Since then solar tubes have evolved further, and now we are proud to
showcase the latest in €˜direct heat solar tubes, which have improved
solar efficiency even further, using only the highest quality
components available in the solar industry. This gives the advantage
of better performance and peace of mind but with no heat exchange
required, this can free up your twin coil (when applicable) for other
applications such as under floor heating/bio mass stoves etc.

1. If you have a traditional €˜gravity feed system, with a southerly
facing roof space, then you home is ideal.
2. If you have a €˜vented thermal store with twin/solar coil, then
your home is suitable too.
3. If you have a Combi Boiler, then you will need to replace this at
the end of its life for a condensing boiler with €˜vented tank.
4. If you have a €˜high pressure system with gauges, then you will
need to replace this with a €˜vented tank.

Find more information at: www.heatmyhome.co.uk/diy-solar-panel-kits.htm
/quote
--
fred
Plusnet - I hope you like vanilla

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install solar
panels in the uk ?

Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one. The idea that anything
should have a simple payback period of five minutes (to exaggerate
for effect) is not clever.

However, simple payback period is not the only reason for doing
something. If it was few would have new kitchens installed, to take
just one example.


--
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

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"woodglass" wrote in message
.uk...

"Sunny" wrote in message
...
Thought my website: www.heatmyhome.co.uk may come in handy for you DIY
solar enthusiasts.

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install
solar panels in the uk ?

Financial cost isn't the only consideration.


Exactly !!!

"woodglass" wrote in message
.uk...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"woodglass" wrote in message
.uk...

"Sunny" wrote in message
...
Thought my website: www.heatmyhome.co.uk may come in handy for you DIY
solar enthusiasts.

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install
solar panels in the uk ?

Financial cost isn't the only consideration.


Exactly !!!

?

On 01/03/2008 10:48, David Hansen wrote:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install solar
panels in the uk ?

Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one.

Even the spammed site made that clear.

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:48:03 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install solar
panels in the uk ?

Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one. The idea that anything
should have a simple payback period of five minutes (to exaggerate
for effect) is not clever.

Run it past us again without the exaggeration.


However, simple payback period is not the only reason for doing
something.

IOW Dave doesn't do numbers.

If it was few would have new kitchens installed, to take just
one example.

Not the case. I changed mine when the hinges and fittings were
starting to pull out of the chipboard carcasses and doors, the bottoms
were pushing out of the drawers, and the runners had failed. Not to
mention the finish was deteriorating and the sink unit was damaged by
condensed water dripping off cold pipes and fittings.

I can't understand your point, if the kitchen is dropping to bits it
has to be changed. Where does the "simple payback period" come
into it ?

DG

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:48:03 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install solar
panels in the uk ?
Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one. The idea that anything
should have a simple payback period of five minutes (to exaggerate
for effect) is not clever.

Run it past us again without the exaggeration.

However, simple payback period is not the only reason for doing
something.

IOW Dave doesn't do numbers.


For some* things it's impossible to drill down and produce figures to
inform an accurate cost/benefit analysis. Solar energy is one example.

If it was few would have new kitchens installed, to take just
one example.

Not the case. I changed mine when the hinges and fittings were
starting to pull out of the chipboard carcasses and doors, the bottoms
were pushing out of the drawers, and the runners had failed. Not to
mention the finish was deteriorating and the sink unit was damaged by
condensed water dripping off cold pipes and fittings.


I know many people who've changed perfectly good (IMO) kitchens just for
a new look.

I can't understand your point, if the kitchen is dropping to bits it
has to be changed. Where does the "simple payback period" come
into it ?


Exaggerating for effect at all?

:-)

Rob

* I'd argue that it's impossible in any event

woodglass wrote:
"Sunny" wrote in message
...
Thought my website: www.heatmyhome.co.uk may come in handy for you DIY
solar enthusiasts.

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install solar
panels in the uk ?


Not me, unless your time is costed at zero, and you make em out of scrap
radiators and black paint..

Even the cost of copper to plumb them in these days..is pretty massive.

Mary Fisher wrote:
"woodglass" wrote in message
.uk...
"Sunny" wrote in message
...
Thought my website: www.heatmyhome.co.uk may come in handy for you DIY
solar enthusiasts.

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install solar
panels in the uk ?

Financial cost isn't the only consideration.



But its strange how money pretty much equates to energy emplyed to
make/install, and materials employed to make/install

I cant think of anyione who thinks such things are beuatiful..


The only other reason would be psychological. A nice bit of conscience
easing self deception.

I try not to go there tho.

Rob wrote:
Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:48:03 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install
solar panels in the uk ?
Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one. The idea that anything
should have a simple payback period of five minutes (to exaggerate
for effect) is not clever.

Run it past us again without the exaggeration.

However, simple payback period is not the only reason for doing
something.

IOW Dave doesn't do numbers.


For some* things it's impossible to drill down and produce figures to
inform an accurate cost/benefit analysis. Solar energy is one example.


On the contrary, solar energy is one thing is VERY easy to do a cost
benefit excercise on.

A fitted kitchen is not really, since its hard to see what the
alterntives are to having a kitchen, fitted or otherwise. Always eating
out? say at £100 a day for tow of you? tat makes the £10,000 'fitted
kitchen' pay for itself in about 3 years if it saves you ALL that, maybe
5 years if you still have to buy food. Harder to quantify, but still
possible.




If it was few would have new kitchens installed, to take just
one example.

Not the case. I changed mine when the hinges and fittings were
starting to pull out of the chipboard carcasses and doors, the bottoms
were pushing out of the drawers, and the runners had failed. Not to
mention the finish was deteriorating and the sink unit was damaged by
condensed water dripping off cold pipes and fittings.


I know many people who've changed perfectly good (IMO) kitchens just for
a new look.

Ive not seen many people fit new solar panels for that reason. Rip them
out and sell them for scrap, possibly..

I can't understand your point, if the kitchen is dropping to bits it
has to be changed. Where does the "simple payback period" come
into it ?

Exaggerating for effect at all?

:-)

Rob

* I'd argue that it's impossible in any event

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 11:22:58 +0000 someone who may be Rob
wrote this:-

For some* things it's impossible to drill down and produce figures to
inform an accurate cost/benefit analysis. Solar energy is one example.

There is a difficulty with heating and ventilating of buildings,
because it is difficult to adequately allow for the weather in
making detailed calculations. There are crude things like
degree-days to make a stab with, but they are crude. If one was to
install weather recording devices at a property one could be rather
more accurate. There is also the question of usage patterns. We know
that sustainable energy installations make many think about their
usage.

If someone installs a condensing boiler the usual suspects do not
demand ever more detailed figures about it. Their double standards
are mildly amusing, but the problem is that they may put off those
who cannot see through their bluster. Anyway, no matter how detailed
the figures are they are unlikely to be accepted, they would
probably just ask for ever more figures, a well known tactic.

Some solar systems are fitted with more customer feedback than
others, though this is generally more than some other energy systems
I can think of. Some only measure the temperature of the cylinder,
IIRC Solartwin provide a digital thermometer display as part of
their kit for installers. This is a good indication in itself,
though some are foolish enough to imply that those who quote such
figures are either lying or too stupid to read the display. Other
solar systems provide additional information, which may include the
kWh the system has produced over various periods (this needs to be
calibrated, but measuring kWh in hot water is a well known technique
used in many places). http://www.navitron.org.uk/page.php?32 third
drawing/photograph shows a screen shot of one (actually taken from
the ethernet software). The kWh figures from a calibrated real
system make an interesting comparison to the assertions of the usual
suspects.

I know many people who've changed perfectly good (IMO) kitchens just for
a new look.

So do I. I doubt if any of them thought of the simple payback
period.




--
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 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:17:23 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

But its strange how money pretty much equates to energy emplyed to
make/install, and materials employed to make/install

Ah, so you think that there are never any rip-offs where excessive
charges which have nothing to do with the cost of materials and
labour are made.


--
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 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:15:22 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Even the cost of copper to plumb them in these days..is pretty massive.

A 25m coil of 10mm copper tube is £33.21 according to Screwfix
http://www.screwfix.com/prods/17717/Plumbing/Copper-Tube-Accessories/Microbore-Copper-Tube-10mm-25m
I have spent more on a round of drinks in an Edinburgh pub.

It is unlikely that many solar installations will need as much as
this, but let's be generous and say it is all used.

There will be some other copper components in the plumbing, but not
many. A few reducers to convert to the probably 22mm of the header,
pump valves, air vent, pressure relief valve, a couple of tees (air
vent and filling/expansion vessel/ pressure relief valve
connections). Let's be generous and say that takes the total to
£60.00.


--
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 in message
news
....

If someone installs a condensing boiler the usual suspects do not
demand ever more detailed figures about it. Their double standards
are mildly amusing, but the problem is that they may put off those
who cannot see through their bluster.

Thinking people wouldn't be put off by unthinking bluster.


IIRC Solartwin provide a digital thermometer display as part of
their kit for installers.

It does.

This is a good indication in itself,
though some are foolish enough to imply that those who quote such
figures are either lying or too stupid to read the display.

Yes, but that says more about the accusers than the accused.

Mary

David Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:17:23 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

But its strange how money pretty much equates to energy emplyed to
make/install, and materials employed to make/install

Ah, so you think that there are never any rip-offs where excessive
charges which have nothing to do with the cost of materials and
labour are made.


Well in the building tarde generally,not that much.

For so called 'green' products all bets are off. A with all fashion
statements.

Mary Fisher wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message
news
...
If someone installs a condensing boiler the usual suspects do not
demand ever more detailed figures about it. Their double standards
are mildly amusing, but the problem is that they may put off those
who cannot see through their bluster.

Thinking people wouldn't be put off by unthinking bluster.

But people who are convinced they can think when they can't, are easy
meat for any kind of bull****.



IIRC Solartwin provide a digital thermometer display as part of
their kit for installers.

It does.

This is a good indication in itself,
though some are foolish enough to imply that those who quote such
figures are either lying or too stupid to read the display.

Yes, but that says more about the accusers than the accused.

Mary

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Rob wrote:
Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:48:03 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to
install solar panels in the uk ?
Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one. The idea that anything
should have a simple payback period of five minutes (to exaggerate
for effect) is not clever.

Run it past us again without the exaggeration.

However, simple payback period is not the only reason for doing
something.

IOW Dave doesn't do numbers.


For some* things it's impossible to drill down and produce figures to
inform an accurate cost/benefit analysis. Solar energy is one example.


On the contrary, solar energy is one thing is VERY easy to do a cost
benefit excercise on.


Ah, OK!

The economic costs should be easy to calculate if you can get hold of
the data.

How do you estimate the environmental and social costs of production
(inc raw and manufactured materials), distribution, sale, marketing,
installation, maintenance and disposal? That's relatively
straightforward up to a point. It's the benefits I really have trouble
with. Obviously, electricity/gas saving is a relatively trivial
calculation. The benefits to human existence/experience and the 'planet'
in the longer term would be tricky to calculate, I think. Also, it's not
known whether costs are recouped on sale (a future and discounted
benefit). Some sales bluster seems to suggest 'yes, and some', but no
reviewed research has been carried out to my knowledge.

There is also the political aspect of costs and benefits, and the notion
that nobody will know until these products have been through at least
one life cycle.

Perhaps you can do/accommodate all of this. Is this your professional
field? I have done some work on 'whole impact', but nothing like enough
to come close to what you feel to be a trivial exercise.


A fitted kitchen is not really, since its hard to see what the
alterntives are to having a kitchen, fitted or otherwise. Always eating
out? say at £100 a day for tow of you? tat makes the £10,000 'fitted
kitchen' pay for itself in about 3 years if it saves you ALL that, maybe
5 years if you still have to buy food. Harder to quantify, but still
possible.


A considerable variable to consider when choosing a new kitchen to
replace a perfectly functional old kitchen is fashion related. This is
calculated (for want of a far better word) as, variously, a form of
rationality through to system legitimacy, in my book. There may be
technical variables (drawer closers, durable hygenic surfaces
perhaps?)), although in my sad little world a drawer is a drawer :-)

Obviously, if your kitchen does not function then your calculation may
hold to the point of choice - what are the costs and benefits of a £1000
kitchen when compared to say a £10000 kitchen?

Rob

David Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:15:22 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Even the cost of copper to plumb them in these days..is pretty massive.

A 25m coil of 10mm copper tube is £33.21 according to Screwfix
http://www.screwfix.com/prods/17717/Plumbing/Copper-Tube-Accessories/Microbore-Copper-Tube-10mm-25m
I have spent more on a round of drinks in an Edinburgh pub.

Now why does tha noty surprise me?

I have never bought a round of drinks in an edinbrugh pub, Complete
waste of money.

But as we know, you don't count.

Why not work out how much CO2, is emitted,water and energy used, and
good food wasted, by malting barley and brewing a pint..




It is unlikely that many solar installations will need as much as
this, but let's be generous and say it is all used.

There will be some other copper components in the plumbing, but not
many. A few reducers to convert to the probably 22mm of the header,
pump valves, air vent, pressure relief valve, a couple of tees (air
vent and filling/expansion vessel/ pressure relief valve
connections). Let's be generous and say that takes the total to
£60.00.

Which is probably enough or three years of conventional ho
tw ter heated by and existing installation.,

"Rob" wrote in message
...


....


On the contrary, solar energy is one thing is VERY easy to do a cost
benefit excercise on.


Ah, OK!

The economic costs should be easy to calculate if you can get hold of the
data.

How do you estimate the environmental and social costs of production (inc
raw and manufactured materials), distribution, sale, marketing,
installation, maintenance and disposal? That's relatively straightforward
up to a point. It's the benefits I really have trouble with. Obviously,
electricity/gas saving is a relatively trivial calculation. The benefits
to human existence/experience and the 'planet' in the longer term would be
tricky to calculate, I think. Also, it's not known whether costs are
recouped on sale (a future and discounted benefit). Some sales bluster
seems to suggest 'yes, and some', but no reviewed research has been
carried out to my knowledge.

There is also the political aspect of costs and benefits, and the notion
that nobody will know until these products have been through at least one
life cycle.

Perhaps you can do/accommodate all of this.

How do you estimate the above for a 'conventional' modern system?

Or an older system?

All installations have costs.

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

...
On the contrary, solar energy is one thing is VERY easy to do a cost
benefit excercise on.

Ah, OK!

The economic costs should be easy to calculate if you can get hold of the
data.

How do you estimate the environmental and social costs of production (inc
raw and manufactured materials), distribution, sale, marketing,
installation, maintenance and disposal? That's relatively straightforward
up to a point. It's the benefits I really have trouble with. Obviously,
electricity/gas saving is a relatively trivial calculation. The benefits
to human existence/experience and the 'planet' in the longer term would be
tricky to calculate, I think. Also, it's not known whether costs are
recouped on sale (a future and discounted benefit). Some sales bluster
seems to suggest 'yes, and some', but no reviewed research has been
carried out to my knowledge.

There is also the political aspect of costs and benefits, and the notion
that nobody will know until these products have been through at least one
life cycle.

Perhaps you can do/accommodate all of this.

How do you estimate the above for a 'conventional' modern system?

Or an older system?

All installations have costs.

Mary



List all the cost variables associated with the economic, political,
social and environmental aspects of production and consumption. You can
do this with any system installed at any time, although the data may be
more difficult to estimate if you're looking at older systems.

Two key problems usually arise. One is the notion that costs for some
people are benefits for others. You can do a bit of 'cancelling out',
but this leads to the second problem. Not all aspects of production and
consumption (making and using) can be quantified. For example, solar
heating has certain tangible environmental dimensions that can't be
measured, and there's also the
"smug-self-satisfied-my-conscience-is-clear'' aspect - priceless :-)

It does seem to me that the eco-homes thing is driven by payback in
pounds. This misses at least two points. Firstly, some of the benefits
in particular are discounted because they can't be measured with
numbers. Secondly, it appears to me that people/industry are concerned
with at the very least maintaining current levels of consumption. Daft.

I do understand that people like the Natural Philosopher only have one
life, and such consideration is meaningless in that context. Just
thought I'd mention it though :-)

Rob

On 1 Mar, 16:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:15:22 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Even the cost of copper to plumb them in these days..is pretty massive.

A 25m coil of 10mm copper tube is £33.21 according to Screwfix
http://www.screwfix.com/prods/17717/Plumbing/Copper-Tube-Accessories/....
I have spent more on a round of drinks in an Edinburgh pub.

Now why does tha noty surprise me?

I have never bought a round of drinks in an edinbrugh pub, Complete
waste of money.

But as we know, you don't count.

Why not work out how much CO2, is emitted,water and energy used, and
good food wasted, by malting barley and brewing a pint..



It is unlikely that many solar installations will need as much as
this, but let's be generous and say it is all used.

There will be some other copper components in the plumbing, but not
many. A few reducers to convert to the probably 22mm of the header,
pump valves, air vent, pressure relief valve, a couple of tees (air
vent and filling/expansion vessel/ pressure relief valve
connections). Let's be generous and say that takes the total to
£60.00.

Which is probably enough or three years of conventional ho
tw ter heated by and existing installation.,



Ah - ha - spotted you! You are Drivel in disguise ! Only he uses
phrases like 'You don't count'.so I can now add you to my kill file
and ignore all the trash you produce.

In message
,
Sunny writes
Thought my website: www.heatmyhome.co.uk may come in handy for you DIY
solar enthusiasts.

Do you have evidence to back up the claim that it "adds property value"
?


--
geoff

"Rob" wrote in message
news
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

...
On the contrary, solar energy is one thing is VERY easy to do a cost
benefit excercise on.

Ah, OK!

The economic costs should be easy to calculate if you can get hold of
the data.

How do you estimate the environmental and social costs of production
(inc raw and manufactured materials), distribution, sale, marketing,
installation, maintenance and disposal? That's relatively
straightforward up to a point. It's the benefits I really have trouble
with. Obviously, electricity/gas saving is a relatively trivial
calculation. The benefits to human existence/experience and the 'planet'
in the longer term would be tricky to calculate, I think. Also, it's not
known whether costs are recouped on sale (a future and discounted
benefit). Some sales bluster seems to suggest 'yes, and some', but no
reviewed research has been carried out to my knowledge.

There is also the political aspect of costs and benefits, and the notion
that nobody will know until these products have been through at least
one life cycle.

Perhaps you can do/accommodate all of this.

How do you estimate the above for a 'conventional' modern system?

Or an older system?

All installations have costs.

Mary

List all the cost variables associated with the economic, political,
social and environmental aspects of production and consumption. You can do
this with any system installed at any time, although the data may be more
difficult to estimate if you're looking at older systems.

Two key problems usually arise. One is the notion that costs for some
people are benefits for others. You can do a bit of 'cancelling out', but
this leads to the second problem. Not all aspects of production and
consumption (making and using) can be quantified. For example, solar
heating has certain tangible environmental dimensions that can't be
measured, and there's also the
"smug-self-satisfied-my-conscience-is-clear'' aspect - priceless :-)

The usual one is they fit a windmill or solar panels so they can justify
their 4x4 as they have saved the pollution caused by their other excesses.
Net saving zero or a huge deficit.

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 11:22:58 +0000, Rob
wrote:

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:48:03 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install solar
panels in the uk ?
Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one. The idea that anything
should have a simple payback period of five minutes (to exaggerate
for effect) is not clever.

Run it past us again without the exaggeration.

However, simple payback period is not the only reason for doing
something.

IOW Dave doesn't do numbers.


For some* things it's impossible to drill down and produce figures to
inform an accurate cost/benefit analysis. Solar energy is one example.

If it was few would have new kitchens installed, to take just
one example.

Not the case. I changed mine when the hinges and fittings were
starting to pull out of the chipboard carcasses and doors, the bottoms
were pushing out of the drawers, and the runners had failed. Not to
mention the finish was deteriorating and the sink unit was damaged by
condensed water dripping off cold pipes and fittings.


I know many people who've changed perfectly good (IMO) kitchens just for
a new look.

I can't understand your point, if the kitchen is dropping to bits it
has to be changed. Where does the "simple payback period" come
into it ?


Exaggerating for effect at all?

:-)

You are talking about Dynamo Hansen I presume ?

He admitted it himself up there ^ .

DG

Mary Fisher wrote:
"woodglass" wrote in message
.uk...

"Sunny" wrote in message
...
Thought my website: www.heatmyhome.co.uk may come in handy for you
DIY solar enthusiasts.

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install
solar panels in the uk ?

Financial cost isn't the only consideration.

Mary,

Still a rather expensive waste of time though installing these things (along
with windmills stuck on the roof or huge windfarms in the countryside) - and
you still have to rely on nuclear/coal/gas/oil fired power stations to
maintain a reliable and constant supply of electricity. Try powering a
factory with wind or solar power and see what happens!

BRG

robgraham wrote:
On 1 Mar, 16:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:15:22 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-
Even the cost of copper to plumb them in these days..is pretty massive.
A 25m coil of 10mm copper tube is £33.21 according to Screwfix
http://www.screwfix.com/prods/17717/Plumbing/Copper-Tube-Accessories/...
I have spent more on a round of drinks in an Edinburgh pub.
Now why does tha noty surprise me?

I have never bought a round of drinks in an edinbrugh pub, Complete
waste of money.

But as we know, you don't count.

Why not work out how much CO2, is emitted,water and energy used, and
good food wasted, by malting barley and brewing a pint..



It is unlikely that many solar installations will need as much as
this, but let's be generous and say it is all used.
There will be some other copper components in the plumbing, but not
many. A few reducers to convert to the probably 22mm of the header,
pump valves, air vent, pressure relief valve, a couple of tees (air
vent and filling/expansion vessel/ pressure relief valve
connections). Let's be generous and say that takes the total to
£60.00.
Which is probably enough or three years of conventional ho
tw ter heated by and existing installation.,



Ah - ha - spotted you! You are Drivel in disguise ! Only he uses
phrases like 'You don't count'.so I can now add you to my kill file
and ignore all the trash you produce.

Ah, but I use it in a much more SUBTLE way than drivel.

Indeed the humour was so dry, it appears to have passed right by your
wet behind ears..;-)

hintdouble entendre/hint

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 21:44:09 -0000 someone who may be "BRG"
wrote this:-

Still a rather expensive waste of time though installing these things (along
with windmills stuck on the roof or huge windfarms in the countryside)

Ah,proof by assertion.

you still have to rely on nuclear/coal/gas/oil fired power stations to
maintain a reliable and constant supply of electricity.

The idea that any source of electricity generation is reliable is
mildly amusing. For example a little over a year ago one of the
largest coal fired plants in Europe had to be shut down suddenly
after a conveyor belt fell down.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2007/01/22/newsstory9203741t0.asp

One of the reasons for connecting local electricity systems together
from say the 1930s was to allow excess standby plant to be shut down
while increasing overall reliability. Any connected source of
electricity feeds into this common system. Ignoring this simple fact
leads one to make foolish statements and come up with ridiculous
costs, as the Royal Academy of Engineering have demonstrated.



--
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 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:11:50 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

But people who are convinced they can think when they can't, are easy
meat for any kind of bull****.

Indeed.


--
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 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:14:51 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

But as we know, you don't count.

Excellent, personal abuse. Do keep it up.


--
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

"BRG" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"woodglass" wrote in message
.uk...

"Sunny" wrote in message
...
Thought my website: www.heatmyhome.co.uk may come in handy for you
DIY solar enthusiasts.

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install
solar panels in the uk ?

Financial cost isn't the only consideration.

Mary,

Still a rather expensive waste of time though installing these things

We don't think so.

(along with windmills stuck on the roof or huge windfarms in the
countryside) - and you still have to rely on nuclear/coal/gas/oil fired
power stations to maintain a reliable and constant supply of electricity.

Aye, well there's the rub. Folk want constant power but not what they
consider to be unsightly sources.

Try powering a factory with wind or solar power and see what happens!

It used to be done stisfactory with water power.

Why not try doing without most of the things the factories produce?

Mary

"Rob" wrote in message
news
... there's also the "smug-self-satisfied-my-conscience-is-clear''
aspect - priceless :-)

I haven't come across that, what I have come across is the opinion (with no
proof) that alternative power supplies are worthless.

It does seem to me that the eco-homes thing is driven by payback in
pounds.

Yes, and that's a pity.

This misses at least two points. Firstly, some of the benefits in
particular are discounted because they can't be measured with numbers.
Secondly, it appears to me that people/industry are concerned with at the
very least maintaining current levels of consumption. Daft.

Worse than daft. It's irresponsible.

Mary

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


The usual one is they fit a windmill or solar panels so they can justify
their 4x4 as they have saved the pollution caused by their other excesses.
Net saving zero or a huge deficit.

Evidence?

We haven't a 4 x 4 - we have a scooter. Its battery is topped up by a pv
panel.

What's your vehicle?

Mary

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

Still a rather expensive waste of time though installing these things
(along
with windmills stuck on the roof or huge windfarms in the countryside)

Ah,proof by assertion.

No more so that the stuff you rely on.

you still have to rely on nuclear/coal/gas/oil fired power stations to
maintain a reliable and constant supply of electricity.

The idea that any source of electricity generation is reliable is
mildly amusing. For example a little over a year ago one of the
largest coal fired plants in Europe had to be shut down suddenly
after a conveyor belt fell down.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2007/01/22/newsstory9203741t0.asp

And not so long ago two turbines self destructed. The conveyer belt was
no doubt quickly repaired. Not so the turbines.

Take a conventional generator out of service for a whole month in a year
and you would still have a load factor in excess of 90% if the demand
was there. With wind turbines the system allows for the demand always to
be there but the average load factor was under 30% last time I looked
with some turbines under 20%. Relying on wind for more than a small
proportion of total capacity is a recipe for disaster. Even the
proponents of wind power were saying until recently that 20% was the
practical limit and even for that you need an installed capacity of
circa two thirds of total demand.

One of the reasons for connecting local electricity systems together
from say the 1930s was to allow excess standby plant to be shut down
while increasing overall reliability. Any connected source of
electricity feeds into this common system. Ignoring this simple fact
leads one to make foolish statements and come up with ridiculous
costs, as the Royal Academy of Engineering have demonstrated.

If you think that shutting down power plants because of lack of demand
or even for routine maintenance or repair is on a par with the weather
shutting down wind turbines either because of oversupply or under supply
of wind you really do deserve your reputation for not thinking things
through.

--
Roger Chapman

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:05:21 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


The usual one is they fit a windmill or solar panels so they can justify
their 4x4 as they have saved the pollution caused by their other excesses.
Net saving zero or a huge deficit.

Evidence?

We haven't a 4 x 4 - we have a scooter. Its battery is topped up by a pv
panel.

It shouldn't need it.

Whatever happened to your "Large car", a "Capacious" Renault Laguna
wasn't it ?


What's your vehicle?


An Eco 2 / ISO 14,001 compliant people mover.

DG

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:14:59 GMT someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

And not so long ago two turbines self destructed.

Even if the two turbines had a rated capacity of 2MW that left
rather less of a hole in the electricity supply than the failure of
IIRC a 2400MW coal fired station.

Relying on wind for more than a small
proportion of total capacity is a recipe for disaster.

It is over 8% in Scotland now.

Even the
proponents of wind power were saying until recently that 20% was the
practical limit

Incorrect. What people have said is that, at the costs of the time
the reports were done, accommodating more than around 20% was
possible, but the costs of doing so would make it uneconomic.
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/Wind_Energy-NovRev2005.pdf
Section 3.5

"It should now be clear that accommodating significant amounts of
wind capacity on the electricity system is not likely to pose any
major operational challenges, and this view has been confirmed by
the GB system operator, National Grid Company. It is also the
conclusion of a comprehensive report on this issue commissioned by
the Carbon Trust and DTI25. At higher wind penetrations, the
capacity value of wind is indeed reduced, and this does lead to
additional balancing requirements. However, this represents a cost
rather than a barrier, as additional reserve requirements will lead
to an increase in systems costs – this is explained further in
Chapter 4."

If you think that shutting down power plants because of lack of demand
or even for routine maintenance or repair is on a par with the weather
shutting down wind turbines either because of oversupply or under supply
of wind you really do deserve your reputation for not thinking things
through.

Excellent, personal abuse.

In fact all power plants shut down or are shut down from time to
time due to sudden unexpected failures, either of the plant itself
or the connection from the plant to the rest of the system. Cracks
in nuclear stations and broken coal conveyors for example. Before
say the 1930s it was typical of councils/electricity companies to
maintain capacity at least double the maximum demand, to cover
sudden failures. By linking the stations together it was possible to
pension off some elderly capacity, without affecting the loss of
load probability.

There was a similar programme in the (Scottish) Highlands later on
to link the formerly islanded electricity systems. For example the
Kyle of Lochalsh was fed exclusively from a station at Morar. In
this case it allowed a higher level of supply to be provided while
maintaining the same reliability. It also allowed greater
flexibility for maintenance.

Those who wish to inform themselves on this subject before launching
into statements on it would do well to first study and understand
the report which can be downloaded from
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/ResearchProgrammes/TechnologyandPolicyAssessment/TPAProjectIntermittency.aspx


--
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 Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:01:33 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

Try powering a factory with wind or solar power and see what happens!

It used to be done stisfactory with water power.

Mackies and Michelin get at least some of the electricity for their
production from the wind
http://www.good-energy.co.uk/gyo_ppa_case_mackies
http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/projects/plan_michelin.html



--
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 Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:04:23 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

I haven't come across that, what I have come across is the opinion (with no
proof) that alternative power supplies are worthless.

it is interesting that those who ask for ever more detailed figures
from others are often not too hot on backing up their strongly
expressed opinions.



--
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