Up a ladder this afternoon, hanging insulation on the new barn when a
couple of random brain cells fired up....

If PV arrays capture energy from the Sun which would otherwise be
re-radiated back to the sky, from a global warming POV have we actually
improved matters? Any electrical energy produced will still mostly end
up as heat in the atmosphere.

The other thought relates to the American propellor trolley discussed
back in February. ISTR the proponents insisting that testing the device
on a conveyor is the same as testing on a surface with real wind. Umm.
Surely the system frictional losses will be supplied by the conveyor
motor and hence ignored in the calculations?

regards
--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:
If PV arrays capture energy from the Sun which would otherwise be
re-radiated back to the sky, from a global warming POV have we actually
improved matters? Any electrical energy produced will still mostly end
up as heat in the atmosphere.

Yes, because the alternative is burning (say) coal, which releases CO2 which
acts like 'loft insulation' in the atmosphere. That reduces the radiation
of heat back into space, and re-radiates some back to earth.

And you aren't using PV arrays to replace a mirror. So some proportion of
the solar input captured would be absorbed anyway. The PV arrays just use
a small amount of it to do useful work before it's converted to heat.

Once burnt, the CO2 from coal/gas/etc stays in the atmosphere a lot longer
and so has a more potent effect than the tiny change in albedo from fitting
a PV panel (consider if every house on the planet fitted a PV panel: what
proportion of surface area would that affect?). Though I haven't done the
numbers on this.

Theo

On May 11, 10:03*pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
Up a ladder this afternoon, hanging insulation on the new barn when a
couple of random brain cells fired up....

If PV arrays capture energy from the Sun which would otherwise be
re-radiated back to the sky, from a global warming POV have we actually
improved matters? Any electrical energy produced will still mostly end
up as heat in the atmosphere.

The other thought relates to the American propellor trolley discussed
back in February. ISTR the proponents insisting that testing the device
on a conveyor is the same as testing on a surface with real wind. Umm.
Surely the system frictional losses will be supplied by the conveyor
motor and hence ignored in the calculations?

regards
--
Tim Lamb

IANA(physicist) but think the equation is quite complicated. Some or
all of the infrared incoming heat could be reflected away at the same
wavelength as you say, particularly for shiny metal (or white
paint ?), The rest is absorbed and (i) some heats the panel which
then radiates secondary infrared at a different wavelength, (ii) some
gets carried away as in a water-based system or (iii) is converted to
electricity in PV cells.

Check out its temperature with an IR thermometer when it has got hot
in the sun. One way to reduce global warming is to paint all house
roofs white.

rusty

Theo Markettos wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:
If PV arrays capture energy from the Sun which would otherwise be
re-radiated back to the sky, from a global warming POV have we actually
improved matters? Any electrical energy produced will still mostly end
up as heat in the atmosphere.

Yes, because the alternative is burning (say) coal, which releases CO2 which
acts like 'loft insulation' in the atmosphere. That reduces the radiation
of heat back into space, and re-radiates some back to earth.

Sadly PV is no alternative to anything, without storage we haven't got
and probably never will have.

Its a hugely expensive fuel saving device that might on a good year
knock 5-10% off your fuel bill and thats as far as any intermittent
renewable can go.

Intermittent Renewable energy is half of a solution with the other half
missing.

It is in fact almost completely useless.

On May 11, 10:03*pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
Up a ladder this afternoon, hanging insulation on the new barn when a
couple of random brain cells fired up....

If PV arrays capture energy from the Sun which would otherwise be
re-radiated back to the sky, from a global warming POV have we actually
improved matters? Any electrical energy produced will still mostly end
up as heat in the atmosphere.

The other thought relates to the American propellor trolley discussed
back in February. ISTR the proponents insisting that testing the device
on a conveyor is the same as testing on a surface with real wind. Umm.
Surely the system frictional losses will be supplied by the conveyor
motor and hence ignored in the calculations?

regards
--
Tim Lamb

Most arrays are only around 10% efficient and the net effect is
totally negliable.

On May 12, 4:35*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Theo Markettos wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:
If PV arrays capture energy from the Sun which would otherwise be
re-radiated back to the sky, from a global warming POV have we actually
improved matters? Any electrical energy produced will still mostly end
up as heat in the atmosphere.

Yes, because the alternative is burning (say) coal, which releases CO2 which
acts like 'loft insulation' in the atmosphere. *That reduces the radiation
of heat back into space, and re-radiates some back to earth.

Sadly PV is no alternative to anything, without storage we haven't got
and probably never will have.

Its a hugely expensive fuel saving device that might on a good year
knock 5-10% off your fuel bill and thats as far as any intermittent
renewable can go.

Intermittent Renewable energy is half of a solution with the other half
missing.

It is in fact almost completely useless.

Well mine have run for 21 days now and generated £200 worth of
electricty, which you are subsidising,

Thank you.

As we are retired, we have been able to cut our electricity
consumption by 85% by organising our energy using activities around
the array's output, ie middle of the day..
This will be reduced in Winter of course.

If I lie in the garden and close my eyes,I can imagine pound notes
floating down from the sky and being sucked up by my array and
transferred to my bank. They are sucked out of TurNiPs bank account
really of course.
But my need is more deserving than his.

On May 12, 6:11*pm, harry wrote:
On May 11, 10:03*pm, Tim Lamb wrote:





Up a ladder this afternoon, hanging insulation on the new barn when a
couple of random brain cells fired up....

If PV arrays capture energy from the Sun which would otherwise be
re-radiated back to the sky, from a global warming POV have we actually
improved matters? Any electrical energy produced will still mostly end
up as heat in the atmosphere.

The other thought relates to the American propellor trolley discussed
back in February. ISTR the proponents insisting that testing the device
on a conveyor is the same as testing on a surface with real wind. Umm.
Surely the system frictional losses will be supplied by the conveyor
motor and hence ignored in the calculations?

regards
--
Tim Lamb

Most arrays are only around 10% efficient and the net effect is
totally negliable.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BTW, If anyone is contemplating PV solar power, I can indicate some of
the pitfalls. I have found most of them the hard way.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 12, 6:11 pm, harry wrote:
On May 11, 10:03 pm, Tim Lamb wrote:





Up a ladder this afternoon, hanging insulation on the new barn when a
couple of random brain cells fired up....

If PV arrays capture energy from the Sun which would otherwise be
re-radiated back to the sky, from a global warming POV have we actually
improved matters? Any electrical energy produced will still mostly end
up as heat in the atmosphere.

The other thought relates to the American propellor trolley discussed
back in February. ISTR the proponents insisting that testing the device
on a conveyor is the same as testing on a surface with real wind. Umm.
Surely the system frictional losses will be supplied by the conveyor
motor and hence ignored in the calculations?

regards
--
Tim Lamb

Most arrays are only around 10% efficient and the net effect is
totally negliable.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BTW, If anyone is contemplating PV solar power, I can indicate some of
the pitfalls. I have found most of them the hard way.

What are they?
I might be tempted when the new batch of more efficient panels arrive next
month.
According to the figures they give about 15-20% more per m2.

On May 12, 6:39*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...





On May 12, 6:11 pm, harry wrote:
On May 11, 10:03 pm, Tim Lamb wrote:

Up a ladder this afternoon, hanging insulation on the new barn when a
couple of random brain cells fired up....

If PV arrays capture energy from the Sun which would otherwise be
re-radiated back to the sky, from a global warming POV have we actually
improved matters? Any electrical energy produced will still mostly end
up as heat in the atmosphere.

The other thought relates to the American propellor trolley discussed
back in February. ISTR the proponents insisting that testing the device
on a conveyor is the same as testing on a surface with real wind. Umm.
Surely the system frictional losses will be supplied by the conveyor
motor and hence ignored in the calculations?

regards
--
Tim Lamb

Most arrays are only around 10% efficient and the net effect is
totally negliable.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BTW, If anyone is contemplating PV solar power, I can indicate some of
the pitfalls. I have found most of them the hard way.

What are they?
I might be tempted when the new batch of more efficient panels arrive next
month.
According to the figures they give about 15-20% more per m2.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mitsubishi.
Depends how much space you have. If space is limited you might go for
the more efficient ones, if plenty of room go for the cheaper ones.
Obviously the limit is 4Kwp for most people. (Assuming you are going
for the FIT thingy)

The big job is making the fixings to the roof. Also scope for the most
cockups.

harry wrote:
On May 12, 4:35 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Theo Markettos wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:
If PV arrays capture energy from the Sun which would otherwise be
re-radiated back to the sky, from a global warming POV have we actually
improved matters? Any electrical energy produced will still mostly end
up as heat in the atmosphere.
Yes, because the alternative is burning (say) coal, which releases CO2 which
acts like 'loft insulation' in the atmosphere. That reduces the radiation
of heat back into space, and re-radiates some back to earth.
Sadly PV is no alternative to anything, without storage we haven't got
and probably never will have.

Its a hugely expensive fuel saving device that might on a good year
knock 5-10% off your fuel bill and thats as far as any intermittent
renewable can go.

Intermittent Renewable energy is half of a solution with the other half
missing.

It is in fact almost completely useless.

Well mine have run for 21 days now and generated £200 worth of
electricty, which you are subsidising,


yes, but you are a ****.

I am talking about the nation, not harry's private bank account.

May the Saharan dust storms etch it and pigeons **** all over it.

On 12/05/2011 18:22, harry wrote:


BTW, If anyone is contemplating PV solar power, I can indicate some of
the pitfalls. I have found most of them the hard way.

Go on then. I'm not seriously contemplating it - but I'd like to know,
anyway!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

"harry" wrote in message
...


Mitsubishi.
Depends how much space you have. If space is limited you might go for
the more efficient ones, if plenty of room go for the cheaper ones.
Obviously the limit is 4Kwp for most people. (Assuming you are going
for the FIT thingy)

There is no point unless you are going for the ca$h, they aren't going to
save any carbon so they aren't suitable for greens.


The big job is making the fixings to the roof. Also scope for the most
cockups.

I don't see what they could do wrong with plain concrete tiles.
I am sure they can though.

In message
,
harry writes
On May 11, 10:03*pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
Up a ladder this afternoon, hanging insulation on the new barn when a
couple of random brain cells fired up....

If PV arrays capture energy from the Sun which would otherwise be
re-radiated back to the sky, from a global warming POV have we actually
improved matters? Any electrical energy produced will still mostly end
up as heat in the atmosphere.

The other thought relates to the American propellor trolley discussed
back in February. ISTR the proponents insisting that testing the device
on a conveyor is the same as testing on a surface with real wind. Umm.
Surely the system frictional losses will be supplied by the conveyor
motor and hence ignored in the calculations?

regards
--
Tim Lamb

Most arrays are only around 10% efficient and the net effect is
totally negliable.

Hmm.. Half the agricultural barn roofs in the country were about to be
plastered with arrays until the new Gov. saw sense:-)

BG have kindly supplied me with a prediction of gas use for the next
year. There has been a dramatic reduction in energy used. I must tease
out the figures so we can discuss how much is due to additional loft
insulation and how much due to the new log burner.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On May 12, 6:58*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 12, 4:35 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Theo Markettos wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:
If PV arrays capture energy from the Sun which would otherwise be
re-radiated back to the sky, from a global warming POV have we actually
improved matters? Any electrical energy produced will still mostly end
up as heat in the atmosphere.
Yes, because the alternative is burning (say) coal, which releases CO2 which
acts like 'loft insulation' in the atmosphere. *That reduces the radiation
of heat back into space, and re-radiates some back to earth.
Sadly PV is no alternative to anything, without storage we haven't got
and probably never will have.

Its a hugely expensive fuel saving device that might on a good year
knock 5-10% off your fuel bill and thats as far as any intermittent
renewable can go.

Intermittent Renewable energy is half of a solution with the other half
missing.

It is in fact almost completely useless.

Well mine have run for 21 days now and generated £200 worth of
electricty, which you are subsidising,

yes, but you are a ****.

I am talking about the nation, not harry's private bank account.

May *the Saharan dust storms etch it and pigeons **** all over it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are a nasty fellow.
The glass is allegedly self cleaning.

On May 12, 10:28*pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message
,
harry writes





On May 11, 10:03*pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
Up a ladder this afternoon, hanging insulation on the new barn when a
couple of random brain cells fired up....

If PV arrays capture energy from the Sun which would otherwise be
re-radiated back to the sky, from a global warming POV have we actually
improved matters? Any electrical energy produced will still mostly end
up as heat in the atmosphere.

The other thought relates to the American propellor trolley discussed
back in February. ISTR the proponents insisting that testing the device
on a conveyor is the same as testing on a surface with real wind. Umm.
Surely the system frictional losses will be supplied by the conveyor
motor and hence ignored in the calculations?

regards
--
Tim Lamb

Most arrays are only around 10% efficient and the net effect is
totally negliable.

Hmm.. Half the agricultural barn roofs in the country were about to be
plastered with arrays until the new Gov. saw sense:-)

BG have kindly supplied me with a prediction of gas use for the next
year. There has been a dramatic reduction in energy used. I must tease
out the figures so we can discuss how much is due to additional loft
insulation and how much due to the new log burner.

regards

--
Tim Lamb- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They are only making changes to the 50kw plus arrays. The normal
domestic ones are 4kw or less.

On May 12, 7:35*pm, Roger Mills wrote:
On 12/05/2011 18:22, harry wrote:



BTW, If anyone is contemplating PV solar power, I can indicate some of
the pitfalls. I have found most of them the hard way.

Go on then. I'm not seriously contemplating it - but I'd like to know,
anyway!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

They are many to recount.The best thing you can do is research up and
post any unanswered questions.
The main reason people go for it is that if you have any money where
to put it?
No interest and high inflation. The income from the panels is
allegedly between 8 and 10 %.
They are popping up allover the place round where I live.
As for how much carbon you save, who knows, the panels are supposed to
have a life of more than 30 years. People are doing it for the money.

harry wrote:
On May 12, 6:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 12, 4:35 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Theo Markettos wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:
If PV arrays capture energy from the Sun which would otherwise be
re-radiated back to the sky, from a global warming POV have we actually
improved matters? Any electrical energy produced will still mostly end
up as heat in the atmosphere.
Yes, because the alternative is burning (say) coal, which releases CO2 which
acts like 'loft insulation' in the atmosphere. That reduces the radiation
of heat back into space, and re-radiates some back to earth.
Sadly PV is no alternative to anything, without storage we haven't got
and probably never will have.
Its a hugely expensive fuel saving device that might on a good year
knock 5-10% off your fuel bill and thats as far as any intermittent
renewable can go.
Intermittent Renewable energy is half of a solution with the other half
missing.
It is in fact almost completely useless.
Well mine have run for 21 days now and generated £200 worth of
electricty, which you are subsidising,
yes, but you are a ****.

I am talking about the nation, not harry's private bank account.

May the Saharan dust storms etch it and pigeons **** all over it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are a nasty fellow.

No I am not. Just not as selfish as you.

The glass is allegedly self cleaning.

Renewable energy allegedly works

harry wrote:
On May 12, 7:35 pm, Roger Mills wrote:
On 12/05/2011 18:22, harry wrote:



BTW, If anyone is contemplating PV solar power, I can indicate some of
the pitfalls. I have found most of them the hard way.
Go on then. I'm not seriously contemplating it - but I'd like to know,
anyway!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

They are many to recount.The best thing you can do is research up and
post any unanswered questions.
The main reason people go for it is that if you have any money where
to put it?
No interest and high inflation. The income from the panels is
allegedly between 8 and 10 %.
They are popping up allover the place round where I live.
As for how much carbon you save, who knows, the panels are supposed to
have a life of more than 30 years. People are doing it for the money.

Pass me the Purdey, Patricia!

On 13/05/2011 08:52, harry wrote:

No interest and high inflation. The income from the panels is
allegedly between 8 and 10 %.

But you can't compare that with investing money somewhere where you can
get your capital back at the end, can you?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

Roger Mills wrote:
On 13/05/2011 08:52, harry wrote:

No interest and high inflation. The income from the panels is
allegedly between 8 and 10 %.

But you can't compare that with investing money somewhere where you can
get your capital back at the end, can you?

Is there such a place these days? :-)

It's the usual fraudulent renewable energy apples and oranges bit.

If the panel last 12.5 years at 8% ROI it's just paid for itself with no
actual net benefit whatsoever.

Same BS pervades the wind follies. 'Fully competitive on cost with other
technologies' 'need 100% subsidies'

If you do the accounting properly, the reason why is obvious.

On Fri, 13 May 2011 09:10:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

harry wrote:
On May 12, 7:35 pm, Roger Mills wrote:
On 12/05/2011 18:22, harry wrote:



BTW, If anyone is contemplating PV solar power, I can indicate some of
the pitfalls. I have found most of them the hard way.
Go on then. I'm not seriously contemplating it - but I'd like to know,
anyway!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

They are many to recount.The best thing you can do is research up and
post any unanswered questions.
The main reason people go for it is that if you have any money where
to put it?
No interest and high inflation. The income from the panels is
allegedly between 8 and 10 %.
They are popping up allover the place round where I live.
As for how much carbon you save, who knows, the panels are supposed to
have a life of more than 30 years. People are doing it for the money.

Pass me the Purdey, Patricia!

Have some madeira, m'dear.

Nick

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 13/05/2011 08:52, harry wrote:

No interest and high inflation. The income from the panels is
allegedly between 8 and 10 %.

But you can't compare that with investing money somewhere where you can
get your capital back at the end, can you?

But if you want some income for retirement it looks a lot better than
annuities.

Roger Mills wrote:
On 13/05/2011 08:52, harry wrote:

No interest and high inflation. The income from the panels is
allegedly between 8 and 10 %.

But you can't compare that with investing money somewhere where you can
get your capital back at the end, can you?
But you can compare it to an annuity of sorts - one where you last for
25 years, and is RPI linked.

Bob

On May 13, 9:30*am, Roger Mills wrote:
On 13/05/2011 08:52, harry wrote:

No interest and high inflation. The income from the panels is
allegedly between 8 and 10 %.

But you can't compare that with investing money somewhere where you can
get your capital back at the end, can you?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

True. But if you leave your capital in the bank/Building society,
there will be bugger all left in a few years. The income is tax free,
inflation linked & guaranteed for 25 years. 8-12% return. Where else
can you get that?

On May 13, 3:32*pm, Bob Minchin
wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:
On 13/05/2011 08:52, harry wrote:

No interest and high inflation. The income from the panels is
allegedly between 8 and 10 %.

But you can't compare that with investing money somewhere where you can
get your capital back at the end, can you?

But you can compare it to an annuity of sorts - one where you last for
25 years, and is RPI linked.

Bob

And tax free. How are you doing with your's BTW?

I expect I'll be dead in 25 yrs. So, no worries there then.

On May 13, 1:10*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Roger Mills" wrote in message

...

On 13/05/2011 08:52, harry wrote:

No interest and high inflation. The income from the panels is
allegedly between 8 and 10 %.

But you can't compare that with investing money somewhere where you can
get your capital back at the end, can you?

But if you want some income for retirement it looks a lot better than
annuities.

The problem is, have you got the right site for max. efficiency?
Mine is near perfect.

On May 13, 9:09*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 12, 6:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 12, 4:35 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Theo Markettos wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:
If PV arrays capture energy from the Sun which would otherwise be
re-radiated back to the sky, from a global warming POV have we actually
improved matters? Any electrical energy produced will still mostly end
up as heat in the atmosphere.
Yes, because the alternative is burning (say) coal, which releases CO2 which
acts like 'loft insulation' in the atmosphere. *That reduces the radiation
of heat back into space, and re-radiates some back to earth.
Sadly PV is no alternative to anything, without storage we haven't got
and probably never will have.
Its a hugely expensive fuel saving device that might on a good year
knock 5-10% off your fuel bill and thats as far as any intermittent
renewable can go.
Intermittent Renewable energy is half of a solution with the other half
missing.
It is in fact almost completely useless.
Well mine have run for 21 days now and generated £200 worth of
electricty, which you are subsidising,
yes, but you are a ****.

I am talking about the nation, not harry's private bank account.

May *the Saharan dust storms etch it and pigeons **** all over it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are a nasty fellow.

No I am not. Just not as selfish as you.

The glass is allegedly self cleaning.

Renewable energy allegedly works- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I can see them working right now.

harry wrote:
On May 13, 9:30 am, Roger Mills wrote:
On 13/05/2011 08:52, harry wrote:

No interest and high inflation. The income from the panels is
allegedly between 8 and 10 %.
But you can't compare that with investing money somewhere where you can
get your capital back at the end, can you?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

True. But if you leave your capital in the bank/Building society,
there will be bugger all left in a few years. The income is tax free,
inflation linked & guaranteed for 25 years. 8-12% return. Where else
can you get that?

****ed if I tell you, ansti-social asshole.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember harry saying
something like:

Well mine have run for 21 days now and generated £200 worth of
electricty, which you are subsidising,

Thank you.

As we are retired, we have been able to cut our electricity
consumption by 85% by organising our energy using activities around
the array's output, ie middle of the day..
This will be reduced in Winter of course.

If I lie in the garden and close my eyes,I can imagine pound notes
floating down from the sky and being sucked up by my array and
transferred to my bank. They are sucked out of TurNiPs bank account
really of course.

You bad man.
Keep it up.

On May 14, 12:53*am, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember harry saying
something like:

Well mine have run for 21 days now and generated £200 worth of
electricty, which you are subsidising,

Thank you.

As we are retired, we have been able to cut our electricity
consumption by 85% by organising our energy using activities around
the array's output, ie middle of the day..
This will be reduced in Winter of course.

If I lie in the garden and close my eyes,I can imagine pound notes
floating down from the sky and being sucked up by my array and
transferred to my bank. *They are sucked out of TurNiPs bank account
really of course.

You bad man.
Keep it up.

I just love to wind him up :-)
Easy to do.

In message , Roger Mills
writes
On 13/05/2011 08:52, harry wrote:

No interest and high inflation. The income from the panels is
allegedly between 8 and 10 %.

But you can't compare that with investing money somewhere where you can
get your capital back at the end, can you?

You turn them into coffee tables and sell them to american tourists



--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , Roger Mills
writes
On 13/05/2011 08:52, harry wrote:

No interest and high inflation. The income from the panels is
allegedly between 8 and 10 %.

But you can't compare that with investing money somewhere where you
can get your capital back at the end, can you?

You turn them into coffee tables and sell them to american tourists



Wait 100 years and they will be 'period features' on your all nuclear
heat pumped home.

"Oh! Can we have one with plastic tiles and windows and solar panels,
it's so CUTE".