On 18/10/2014 18:28, Clive George wrote:
On 18/10/2014 16:32, Bod wrote:

Because if you let the Gas Safe engineer do those things and let him
commission it, you can get the Gas Safe certificate and have peace of
mind as well. It is important to keep this certificate as it may be
needed if you sell your home or if you choose to remortgage. The
certificate belongs with the property so if you sell your home then the
certificate will need to be passed on to the next owner.l.

There's been plenty of tales on this group of people responding to the
buyers requests for certificates etc with "No" and no problems resulting.

Probably also worth reading:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...as_fitting_FAQ

That was written by a (at the time) CORGI registered fitter.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 18/10/2014 10:28, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2014 09:55, newshound wrote:
On 17/10/2014 10:56, Bod wrote:
On 17/10/2014 10:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Cap wrote:
It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are the
cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

You make it sound like all non condensing boilers never gave problems
and
had a long life. This is not so. Low end boilers have always been a
source
of problems.

Hmm! I installed what you would call a low end boiler, we sold the
house 28 years after the install and that boiler (Ideal WRS40) was still
working 100%. All that ever went wrong in that period was about 6
thermocouples which cost about a fiver each and 10 minutes to change
also 2 pump changes. I installed a Combi in this house 10 years ago and
don't expect it to last more than 15 years or so.
Combis are always breaking down and are generally MUCH more expensive to
fix.

My view of Combis is similar to the NGs view of 'Saniflo's, but not
comparing like for like. I'd expect a quality "condensing" to last as
well as a cast iron Ideal type.

I beg to differ.
As for saving on the cost of gas. Our yearly gas bills are just under
£400 per year for CH and hot water plus cooking. I can't see me saving
much more by installing a condensing boiler. Our last bill(summer) was £23.

With bills of that level there is little point in changing boiler for
gas savings - its unlikely to ever pay pack. At £1400/year for gas the
sums are different.

If your boiler fails and is beyond repair, then obviously it makes sense
to fit a quality boiler of the best available efficiency if you plan to
carry on living there. I can't see any logic in trying to fit a non
condenser in those circumstances.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 18/10/2014 19:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/10/2014 16:32, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2014 15:51, tony sayer wrote:
So you qualified and have a Gas Safe certificate then?

You don't need that for working on gas appliances in your own
property.

Yes you do

http://www.uswitch.com/boilers/guides/gas-safety/

2. Always check that an engineer is Gas Safe registered.
It is against the law for anyone to do work on gas appliances in the
United Kingdom, Isle of Man or Guernsey unless they are on the Gas
Safe
Register. Always check that an engineer is Gas Safe registered
before
you let them work in your home on the Gas Safe Register website or by
calling 0800 408 5500.


You like many other's miss out the bit about charging them for it,
doing
it for yourself is another matter so sez my Gas safe friend who's been
the in the bizz for a very long time....

If you do it yourself, you should let a Gas Safe engineer to do the gas
connection and the flue plus set the gas rate etc to cover your back if
nothing else.


Why?...

Because if you let the Gas Safe engineer do those things and let him
commission it, you can get the Gas Safe certificate and have peace of
mind as well.

What would give _you_ the most confidence?:

1) Gas fitter says he has checked the gas connection and its ok, or

2) You have calculated the pressure drop allowances for the pipework
yourself and specified the required diameters to achieve the required
1 mBar drop at the boiler. You have tested the existing installation for
gas soundness and for main gas valve "let by" prior to installation, and
again after completion of work. You have even tested the test nipple on
the meter with leak detector after replacing the test screw.
You have commissioned the boiler fully in accordance with the makers
instructions, and measured the flue gases with your own calibrated
equipment. You have checked the gas rate and dynamic pressure drop under
a range of boiler loads. You remember and have checked that every
required flue retaining screw has been fitted, that the outlet is the
required distance from building openings etc.

Personally I find 2 reassuring, while 1 needs to be taken on trust and
and lots of assumptions made.


Fair points.....and you sound like you know your stuff.

In article , John Rumm
wrote:
On 18/10/2014 10:28, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2014 09:55, newshound wrote:
On 17/10/2014 10:56, Bod wrote:
On 17/10/2014 10:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Andy
Cap wrote:
It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are
the cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

You make it sound like all non condensing boilers never gave
problems and had a long life. This is not so. Low end boilers have
always been a source of problems.

Hmm! I installed what you would call a low end boiler, we sold the
house 28 years after the install and that boiler (Ideal WRS40) was
still working 100%. All that ever went wrong in that period was about
6 thermocouples which cost about a fiver each and 10 minutes to
change also 2 pump changes. I installed a Combi in this house 10
years ago and don't expect it to last more than 15 years or so.
Combis are always breaking down and are generally MUCH more expensive
to fix.

My view of Combis is similar to the NGs view of 'Saniflo's, but not
comparing like for like. I'd expect a quality "condensing" to last as
well as a cast iron Ideal type.

I beg to differ. As for saving on the cost of gas. Our yearly gas
bills are just under £400 per year for CH and hot water plus cooking. I
can't see me saving much more by installing a condensing boiler. Our
last bill(summer) was £23.

With bills of that level there is little point in changing boiler for
gas savings - its unlikely to ever pay pack. At £1400/year for gas the
sums are different.

If your boiler fails and is beyond repair, then obviously it makes sense
to fit a quality boiler of the best available efficiency if you plan to
carry on living there. I can't see any logic in trying to fit a non
condenser in those circumstances.

can you, legally, buy a non-condensing boiler these days?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 18/10/2014 19:40, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/10/2014 18:28, Clive George wrote:
On 18/10/2014 16:32, Bod wrote:

Because if you let the Gas Safe engineer do those things and let him
commission it, you can get the Gas Safe certificate and have peace of
mind as well. It is important to keep this certificate as it may be
needed if you sell your home or if you choose to remortgage. The
certificate belongs with the property so if you sell your home then the
certificate will need to be passed on to the next owner.l.

There's been plenty of tales on this group of people responding to the
buyers requests for certificates etc with "No" and no problems resulting.

Probably also worth reading:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...as_fitting_FAQ

That was written by a (at the time) CORGI registered fitter.


Indeed, an interesting and sensibly written webpage.

On 18/10/2014 19:34, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2014 19:15, John Rumm wrote:

I estimate mine is saving about £300 - £400 a year. So should pay for
itself in about another 6 months to a year.

You say it saves you £300 to £400 per year, but our whole years gas
consumption is just shy of £400.
What boiler did you say you had?

Originally (i.e. it came with the house) it was an Ideal Mexico RS80
(efficiency at worst probably about 65% according to SEDBUK, possibly as
good as 80% some of the time with some of the model variations).
Conventional balanced flue floor stander. The system controls were also
relatively crude - digital timer that lost its settings with every power
cut, and a traditional honeywell rotary stat. TRVs on some rads but not
all (about 20 rads in total). Hot water was a conventional gravity fed
system heated by the boiler using a fully pumped S plan system. The
cylinder was again also fairly normal one with a relatively low rate of
transfer coil (probably about 5kW).

Gas costs were typically in the £1200 to £1500 / year (heating and hot
water only - cooking is electric) - and that was getting on for 8 years
ago. After the shock of the first years costs, I managed to tweak things
a bit better with a prog stat, some balancing and making more use of the
open fire etc. However no amount of fiddling round the edges were going
to fix the main problems, which we

The hot water system was feeble - being a converted bungalow with rooms
in the original roof space, there was insufficient head of water to make
a gravity system work well. Lift the shower head on the bath upstairs to
4' and the water stopped flowing! A bath took half an hour to run.

Reheat times were slow, and capacity limited.

The heating was just about ok, but fairly crude at maintaining a stable
temperature and some areas were difficult to get warm enough. It was
also heavily affected by changing weather conditions (exposed location)

I did consider just revamping the hot water system and keeping the
boiler, while also improving the controls etc, but while just about
doable, its a pain to convert a mexico to sealed system operation, plus
it was already getting on a bit old at that time. Instinct also
suggested that there was enough "low hanging fruit" in the energy saving
department that one should be able to make at least the boiler pay for
itself in time even if not the rest of it. (not to mention I did not
really fancy the upheaval of having all the plumbing about twice)

Se we scrapped the existing hot water system and fitted a 210L unvented
unistor. Split the heating into two zones (the upstairs is both better
insulated and a smaller floor space than the downstairs - so they have
different heating needs). Added weather compensating controls with an
external temperature sensor. Upgrade all rads (bar those in the hall) to
have TRVs if they did not already. Finally played musical rads -
increasing output in those places that were hard to heat in the past.

The boiler needed to be capable of using weather compensation and also
operating split temperature so that it can run at 75 deg output for
water heating, but then follow a heating curve when slaved to the
external temperature. In the end I went for a Vaillant Ecotec 624HE,
with their own "s-bus" controls for the upstairs and downstairs stats /
programmers.

The results have been very pleasing. A much more comfortable all round
temperature. A bath you can fill quickly and a shower that can hose your
skin off it that's what you want. Adequate water to cope with showers in
sequence etc, and space back in our ensuite where I can build another
shower later (used to house the cold water and heating header tanks).
The gas usage is down, and the gas bill is also down a little bit in
spite of all the price rises.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 18/10/2014 19:59, charles wrote:
In article , John Rumm
wrote:
On 18/10/2014 10:28, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2014 09:55, newshound wrote:
On 17/10/2014 10:56, Bod wrote:
On 17/10/2014 10:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Andy
Cap wrote:
It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are
the cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

You make it sound like all non condensing boilers never gave
problems and had a long life. This is not so. Low end boilers have
always been a source of problems.

Hmm! I installed what you would call a low end boiler, we sold the
house 28 years after the install and that boiler (Ideal WRS40) was
still working 100%. All that ever went wrong in that period was about
6 thermocouples which cost about a fiver each and 10 minutes to
change also 2 pump changes. I installed a Combi in this house 10
years ago and don't expect it to last more than 15 years or so.
Combis are always breaking down and are generally MUCH more expensive
to fix.

My view of Combis is similar to the NGs view of 'Saniflo's, but not
comparing like for like. I'd expect a quality "condensing" to last as
well as a cast iron Ideal type.

I beg to differ. As for saving on the cost of gas. Our yearly gas
bills are just under £400 per year for CH and hot water plus cooking. I
can't see me saving much more by installing a condensing boiler. Our
last bill(summer) was £23.

With bills of that level there is little point in changing boiler for
gas savings - its unlikely to ever pay pack. At £1400/year for gas the
sums are different.

If your boiler fails and is beyond repair, then obviously it makes sense
to fit a quality boiler of the best available efficiency if you plan to
carry on living there. I can't see any logic in trying to fit a non
condenser in those circumstances.

can you, legally, buy a non-condensing boiler these days?

Yes, and you can legally fit them as well in certain restricted
circumstances.

You need to go through an assessment procedure to work out if its
acceptable to fit a non condenser:

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/upl...CONDBOILER.pdf




--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 18/10/2014 11:29, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 17/10/2014 19:17, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:55:50 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname here wrote:

On 17/10/2014 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 16/10/2014 19:56, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631



A report by a consultancy that specialises in promoting renewable
energy
says that it is cheapest. What a surprise. However, it is
noteworthy that,
even after factoring in as many intangibles as possible, the report
still
can't make it cheaper than nuclear power.

Nope.Cheaper than nuclear too.


From the article you provided a link to:

'Nuclear power, offshore wind and solar energy are all comparably
inexpensive generators, at roughly €125 per MW/h.'

And Harry keeps telling us how expensive nuclear power is!

I do sometimes wonder why he posts links to articles that it is obvious
he has not read properly, if at all.

A tendency to confirmation bias, coupled with a low attention to detail
perhaps?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2014 14:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bod wrote:
So you qualified and have a Gas Safe certificate then?

Why would I need one?

I only asked because it is technically against the law if you aren't
qualified.

No it's not. You need to be competent to work on the gas supply in your
own home and I am.

This *may* invalidate any insurance payout if a fire or flood is caused
by a boiler fault and you haven't got the installers Gas Safe proof of
installing the boiler.

Far less chance of fire or flood when installed by a *competent* DIYer in
his own home. They tend to take far more care than many pros.

You know that insurance companies will dig deep to find a way to pay
out, especially on a large claim.

I'll have to print off a gas safe certificate then. Be just as useful as
a
real one.


http://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/adv...tificates.aspx

You really must stop believing every word you read on that sort of site.

I have my own experiences to back their claims up.

Your own experiences are irrelevant to what is legal.

In article ,
Bod wrote:
You say it saves you £300 to £400 per year, but our whole years gas
consumption is just shy of £400.
What boiler did you say you had?

There's not a large difference in the efficiency between modern boilers.
But there is a big difference in house sizes, how well they are insulated,
and hot water consumption. And so on.

--
*Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 19/10/2014 00:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bod wrote:
You say it saves you £300 to £400 per year, but our whole years gas
consumption is just shy of £400.
What boiler did you say you had?

There's not a large difference in the efficiency between modern boilers.
But there is a big difference in house sizes, how well they are insulated,
and hot water consumption. And so on.

Also worth noting I was moving several generations of boiler rather than
just a single step.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 19/10/2014 00:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bod wrote:
You say it saves you £300 to £400 per year, but our whole years gas
consumption is just shy of £400.
What boiler did you say you had?

There's not a large difference in the efficiency between modern boilers.
But there is a big difference in house sizes, how well they are insulated,
and hot water consumption. And so on.

Agreed.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:58:49 +0100, Bod wrote:

Illegal gas fitters can put your life at risk - Gas Safe Register

I'd rather trust myself than a registered fitter... I might be more
inclined to trust a fitter if they showed in converstaion during the
site visit they understood the pipe sizing requirements, static and
dynamic pressure drop requirements, etc and for my installation
produced the calculations.

Of the gas explosions in recent years I think only one was down to
poor DIY all the rest where down to "registered fitters".

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 19/10/2014 11:46, Huge wrote:
On 2014-10-18, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2014 19:40, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/10/2014 18:28, Clive George wrote:
On 18/10/2014 16:32, Bod wrote:

Because if you let the Gas Safe engineer do those things and let him
commission it, you can get the Gas Safe certificate and have peace of
mind as well. It is important to keep this certificate as it may be
needed if you sell your home or if you choose to remortgage. The
certificate belongs with the property so if you sell your home then the
certificate will need to be passed on to the next owner.l.

There's been plenty of tales on this group of people responding to the
buyers requests for certificates etc with "No" and no problems resulting.

Probably also worth reading:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...as_fitting_FAQ

That was written by a (at the time) CORGI registered fitter.


Indeed, an interesting and sensibly written webpage.

Your admission of error and apology are accepted.


It's certainly opened my eyes to the laws.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:08:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

I only asked because it is technically against the law if you aren't
qualified.

Nope, you only have to be "competent".

This *may* invalidate any insurance payout if a fire or flood is caused
by a boiler fault and you haven't got the installers Gas Safe proof of
installing the boiler.

Not having to argue with insurance companies in the event of claim
that may involve the gas work is about the only valid resson for
useing a registered fitter. Assuming you are "competent" and can
demonstrate that all the regulations and fitting instructions were
followed.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:37:55 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

There would have to be some time elements involved, no point in
asking Drax for 4 GW in two hours, when the fires are out... but
for
wind they could have liquid air plant that would run up in
minutes.
They produce the liquid air with the energy they produce when the
grid doesn't want it or, as they are now dispatchable, by choosing
when to sell to the grid. Being a quick reacting source they could
sell at best prices to the grid.

Unless of course you have a subsidy deal ...

No subsidy deal, they distort the "free market". Generators have to
stand or fall based on undistorted enconomics, driven by the
requiremnets for a stable grid and energy security.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
This *may* invalidate any insurance payout if a fire or flood is
caused by a boiler fault and you haven't got the installers Gas Safe
proof of installing the boiler.

Not having to argue with insurance companies in the event of claim
that may involve the gas work is about the only valid resson for
useing a registered fitter. Assuming you are "competent" and can
demonstrate that all the regulations and fitting instructions were
followed.

Quite. An insurance company can't get out of its responsibilities simply
for the lack of a piece of paper. They might well try, of course.

--
*Why do the two "sanction"s (noun and verb) mean opposites?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Bod wrote:

I installed what you would call a low end boiler, we sold the
house 28 years after the install and that boiler (Ideal WRS40) was still
working 100%. All that ever went wrong in that period was about 6
thermocouples

My house came with an Ideal WRS440 which was hardly new at that time, in
the 24 years since it has required one thermocouple and some fire clay,
I have zero intention of replacing it while spares are available.

On 19/10/2014 15:39, Andy Burns wrote:
Bod wrote:

I installed what you would call a low end boiler, we sold the
house 28 years after the install and that boiler (Ideal WRS40) was still
working 100%. All that ever went wrong in that period was about 6
thermocouples

My house came with an Ideal WRS440 which was hardly new at that time, in
the 24 years since it has required one thermocouple and some fire clay,
I have zero intention of replacing it while spares are available.

A wise move.

On 19/10/2014 13:17, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:37:55 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

There would have to be some time elements involved, no point in
asking Drax for 4 GW in two hours, when the fires are out... but
for
wind they could have liquid air plant that would run up in
minutes.
They produce the liquid air with the energy they produce when the
grid doesn't want it or, as they are now dispatchable, by choosing
when to sell to the grid. Being a quick reacting source they could
sell at best prices to the grid.

Unless of course you have a subsidy deal ...

No subsidy deal, they distort the "free market". Generators have to
stand or fall based on undistorted enconomics, driven by the
requiremnets for a stable grid and energy security.

I agree. Just highlighting how these things get to exist in a free market.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article , Andy
Burns scribeth thus
Bod wrote:

I installed what you would call a low end boiler, we sold the
house 28 years after the install and that boiler (Ideal WRS40) was still
working 100%. All that ever went wrong in that period was about 6
thermocouples

My house came with an Ideal WRS440 which was hardly new at that time, in
the 24 years since it has required one thermocouple and some fire clay,
I have zero intention of replacing it while spares are available.


We've got a 34 year old Gloworm boiler in a rented house. Our Gas tester
reckons it was a superb design in its simplicity and it's in fine fettle
having only required a new thermostat in all that time!.

Because we used to receive some rather delicate FM signals there once, I
changed the switch that controls the Gas valve to two back to back
Thyristors in around 1980 and they work fine still with no RF
interference either..
--
Tony Sayer

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2014 13:17, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:37:55 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

There would have to be some time elements involved, no point in
asking Drax for 4 GW in two hours, when the fires are out... but
for
wind they could have liquid air plant that would run up in
minutes.
They produce the liquid air with the energy they produce when the
grid doesn't want it or, as they are now dispatchable, by choosing
when to sell to the grid. Being a quick reacting source they could
sell at best prices to the grid.

Unless of course you have a subsidy deal ...

No subsidy deal, they distort the "free market". Generators have to
stand or fall based on undistorted enconomics, driven by the
requiremnets for a stable grid and energy security.

I agree. Just highlighting how these things get to exist in a free market.

If you rely on the "free market" alone you end up in the ****.
As we are right now with power stations.

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2014 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 16/10/2014 19:56, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631


A report by a consultancy that specialises in promoting renewable energy
says that it is cheapest. What a surprise. However, it is noteworthy
that,
even after factoring in as many intangibles as possible, the report
still
can't make it cheaper than nuclear power.

Nope.Cheaper than nuclear too.


From the article you provided a link to:

'Nuclear power, offshore wind and solar energy are all comparably
inexpensive generators, at roughly €125 per MW/h.'

Nobody knows the cost of nuclear power because nobody knows the cost of
dealing with the waste.
Ongoing and increasing.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2014 18:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bod wrote:
Even so you're not comparing like for like. And a modern condensing
boiler must have saved you a fortune in gas bills over a back boiler
type - which was about the most inefficient around.

I removed the back boiler immediately on moving in and I did say earlier
that I deliberately didn't choose a condensing boiler. They are more
expensive to buy and are notorious for having a much shorter life.

But use less gas? You need to consider the overall costs of the system
for a like for like performance.

You've been taken in by all the hype.
Have a read of this:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/b...-of-money.html

A drivel article.
The answer to the problem is to drain the condensate to an internal drain,
ie not exposed to frost.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2014 19:15, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/10/2014 07:10, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2014 01:53, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/10/2014 00:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bod wrote:
But use less gas? You need to consider the overall costs of the
system
for a like for like performance.

You've been taken in by all the hype.

I've not. Sounds like you have, though.

Have a read of this:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/b...-of-money.html




Won't load here.

However, my top of the range self installed condenser (bought at the
best
price by shopping around) paid for itself in approximately 4 years.
And
the previous boiler and controls were by no means primitive.

I estimate mine is saving about £300 - £400 a year. So should pay for
itself in about another 6 months to a year.


So you qualified and have a Gas Safe certificate then?

No. Why do you ask?


You say it saves you £300 to £400 per year, but our whole years gas
consumption is just shy of £400.
What boiler did you say you had?

If you get enough insulation, you don't need any boiler.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2014 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 16/10/2014 19:56, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631


A report by a consultancy that specialises in promoting renewable
energy
says that it is cheapest. What a surprise. However, it is noteworthy
that,
even after factoring in as many intangibles as possible, the report
still
can't make it cheaper than nuclear power.

Nope.Cheaper than nuclear too.


From the article you provided a link to:

'Nuclear power, offshore wind and solar energy are all comparably
inexpensive generators, at roughly €125 per MW/h.'

Nobody knows the cost of nuclear power because nobody knows the cost of
dealing with the waste.
Ongoing and increasing.

You can keep chanting that pathetic little mantra until you
are blue in the face if you like, it remains a bare faced lie.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 19:58:42 +0100, harryagain wrote:

You've been taken in by all the hype.
Have a read of this:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/b...e-1710224/Are-
condensing-boilers-a-waste-of-money.html

A drivel article.
The answer to the problem is to drain the condensate to an internal
drain, ie not exposed to frost.

Very true.

Quite how the flying ****erigar people think condensing boilers work in
countries with proper winters, if they can't cope with our wimpy wussy UK
ones, I have no idea.

But, then, it is a Daily Mail article on a topic that they can spin as
being the EU's fault, so what can we expect?

On 20/10/2014 19:53, harryagain wrote:


Nobody knows the cost of nuclear power because nobody knows the cost
of dealing with the waste. Ongoing and increasing.



Well they know the cost better than with solar and wind where you can't
predict the weather a week in advance let alone 20 years.
So you don't know how much either will cost or how much you need to build.

What we do know is that you *need* the same amount of generating
capacity in the form of fossil or nukes as you need in wind and solar or
some super efficient storage system that doesn't exist.

On 20/10/2014 19:53, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2014 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 16/10/2014 19:56, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631


A report by a consultancy that specialises in promoting renewable energy
says that it is cheapest. What a surprise. However, it is noteworthy
that,
even after factoring in as many intangibles as possible, the report
still
can't make it cheaper than nuclear power.

Nope.Cheaper than nuclear too.


From the article you provided a link to:

'Nuclear power, offshore wind and solar energy are all comparably
inexpensive generators, at roughly €125 per MW/h.'

Nobody knows the cost of nuclear power because nobody knows the cost of
dealing with the waste.
Ongoing and increasing.

You have two choices Harry:

1) The article you linked to has got its facts wrong about nuclear
power, in which case nothing in the article can be trusted to be
accurate, or;

2) The article has got all of its facts right and nuclear is no more
expensive than wind or solar.

To help you decide, here is the latest government report on the costs of
different generation technologies:

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-_24_07_13.pdf

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 20/10/2014 19:53, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2014 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 16/10/2014 19:56, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631


A report by a consultancy that specialises in promoting renewable
energy
says that it is cheapest. What a surprise. However, it is noteworthy
that,
even after factoring in as many intangibles as possible, the report
still
can't make it cheaper than nuclear power.

Nope.Cheaper than nuclear too.


From the article you provided a link to:

'Nuclear power, offshore wind and solar energy are all comparably
inexpensive generators, at roughly €125 per MW/h.'

Nobody knows the cost of nuclear power because nobody knows the cost of
dealing with the waste.
Ongoing and increasing.

You have two choices Harry:

1) The article you linked to has got its facts wrong about nuclear power,
in which case nothing in the article can be trusted to be accurate, or;

2) The article has got all of its facts right and nuclear is no more
expensive than wind or solar.

To help you decide, here is the latest government report on the costs of
different generation technologies:

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-_24_07_13.pdf

--
Colin Bignell

They don't know the cost of nuclear waste disposal either.
They have never done it.
No-one has.
Some are/have tried.

Ergo any prices given are conjecture.

harryagain wrote:

If you get enough insulation, you don't need any boiler.

When it's cold you just take a blowtorch to the celotex?

On 21/10/2014 07:40, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 20/10/2014 19:53, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2014 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 16/10/2014 19:56, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631


A report by a consultancy that specialises in promoting renewable
energy
says that it is cheapest. What a surprise. However, it is noteworthy
that,
even after factoring in as many intangibles as possible, the report
still
can't make it cheaper than nuclear power.

Nope.Cheaper than nuclear too.


From the article you provided a link to:

'Nuclear power, offshore wind and solar energy are all comparably
inexpensive generators, at roughly €125 per MW/h.'

Nobody knows the cost of nuclear power because nobody knows the cost of
dealing with the waste.
Ongoing and increasing.

You have two choices Harry:

1) The article you linked to has got its facts wrong about nuclear power,
in which case nothing in the article can be trusted to be accurate, or;

2) The article has got all of its facts right and nuclear is no more
expensive than wind or solar.

To help you decide, here is the latest government report on the costs of
different generation technologies:

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-_24_07_13.pdf

--
Colin Bignell

They don't know the cost of nuclear waste disposal either.
They have never done it.

I was rather under the impression that the government had more than half
a century of experience in the field.

No-one has.
Some are/have tried.

Ergo any prices given are conjecture.


So, your choice is that the article you posted a link to is completely
unreliable and should be ignored.


--
Colin Bignell

In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2014 19:15, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/10/2014 07:10, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2014 01:53, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/10/2014 00:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bod wrote:
But use less gas? You need to consider the overall costs of the
system
for a like for like performance.

You've been taken in by all the hype.

I've not. Sounds like you have, though.

Have a read of this:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/b...re-condensing-
boilers-a-waste-of-money.html




Won't load here.

However, my top of the range self installed condenser (bought at the
best
price by shopping around) paid for itself in approximately 4 years.
And
the previous boiler and controls were by no means primitive.

I estimate mine is saving about £300 - £400 a year. So should pay for
itself in about another 6 months to a year.


So you qualified and have a Gas Safe certificate then?

No. Why do you ask?


You say it saves you £300 to £400 per year, but our whole years gas
consumption is just shy of £400.
What boiler did you say you had?

If you get enough insulation, you don't need any boiler.



Harry, just Get REAL will you, you may have room to add as much
insulation as you like..

Now every other house flat etc in the UK has such an opportunity!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Quite how the flying ****erigar people think condensing boilers work in
countries with proper winters, if they can't cope with our wimpy wussy
UK ones, I have no idea.

The installation instructions for my Viessmann recommend the condensate
drain tube - which is a flexible plastic hose - goes inside a larger rigid
PVC pipe (outside the house) to the drain.

Of course being central London we don't usually get very cold temperatures
here, but being a German design perhaps they're allowing for the worst of
their winters?

--
*Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , harryagain
writes

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2014 13:17, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:37:55 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

There would have to be some time elements involved, no point in
asking Drax for 4 GW in two hours, when the fires are out... but
for
wind they could have liquid air plant that would run up in
minutes.
They produce the liquid air with the energy they produce when the
grid doesn't want it or, as they are now dispatchable, by choosing
when to sell to the grid. Being a quick reacting source they could
sell at best prices to the grid.

Unless of course you have a subsidy deal ...

No subsidy deal, they distort the "free market". Generators have to
stand or fall based on undistorted enconomics, driven by the
requiremnets for a stable grid and energy security.

I agree. Just highlighting how these things get to exist in a free market.

If you rely on the "free market" alone you end up in the ****.
As we are right now with power stations.


Nonsense. The free market is hamstrung by dithering politicians and EU
bureaucracy
--
bert

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 19:51:18 +0100, harryagain wrote:

No subsidy deal, they distort the "free market". Generators have
to
stand or fall based on undistorted enconomics, driven by the
requiremnets for a stable grid and energy security.

I agree. Just highlighting how these things get to exist in a free

market.

If you rely on the "free market" alone you end up in the ****.
As we are right now with power stations.

Most of the problems with the electricity market are due to
distortions introduced by greenies (Large Combustion Plant Directive)
or subsidies for unreliable and intermiitent "green" technologies.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 20/10/2014 22:49, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 20/10/2014 19:53, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2014 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 16/10/2014 19:56, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631



A report by a consultancy that specialises in promoting renewable
energy
says that it is cheapest. What a surprise. However, it is noteworthy
that,
even after factoring in as many intangibles as possible, the report
still
can't make it cheaper than nuclear power.

Nope.Cheaper than nuclear too.


From the article you provided a link to:

'Nuclear power, offshore wind and solar energy are all comparably
inexpensive generators, at roughly €125 per MW/h.'

Nobody knows the cost of nuclear power because nobody knows the cost of
dealing with the waste.
Ongoing and increasing.

You have two choices Harry:

1) The article you linked to has got its facts wrong about nuclear
power, in which case nothing in the article can be trusted to be
accurate, or;

2) The article has got all of its facts right and nuclear is no more
expensive than wind or solar.

Let me guess, he will go for option 3:

All the bits that support my argument are self evidently correct,
anything that does not, must be an error!


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In message , harryagain
writes
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...wer-is-cheapes
t-energy-unpublished-eu-analysis-finds?CMP=EMCENVEML1631

Getting back to the original subject - GREAT NEWS!

This morning I heard on the radio that, yesterday, wind power exceeded
nuclear. WOW!

However, was then added that several nuclear power stations were
presently off-line for maintenance and refurbishment.


--
Ian

On 22/10/2014 10:34, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , harryagain
writes
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...wer-is-cheapes
t-energy-unpublished-eu-analysis-finds?CMP=EMCENVEML1631

Getting back to the original subject - GREAT NEWS!

This morning I heard on the radio that, yesterday, wind power exceeded
nuclear. WOW!

However, was then added that several nuclear power stations were
presently off-line for maintenance and refurbishment.


And...... it coincided with a day of low power demand.

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 22/10/2014 10:34, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , harryagain
writes
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...wer-is-cheapes
t-energy-unpublished-eu-analysis-finds?CMP=EMCENVEML1631

Getting back to the original subject - GREAT NEWS!

This morning I heard on the radio that, yesterday, wind power exceeded
nuclear. WOW!

However, was then added that several nuclear power stations were
presently off-line for maintenance and refurbishment.

And...... it coincided with a day of low power demand.

And it probably lasted for about 5 minutes. Perhaps Ian could explain
how this makes up for wind producing sod-all during most of September
and most of June this year.

Don't ask me. It's a mystery!
--
Ian