B&Q Solar

Working it back the other way, RMSolar claim you can save up to 70% of your DHW costs and that the system could pay for itself in 6 years..

So..saving £1600 over six years equates to £266 per year. Therefore the total DHW cost per year is 266/70*100=£380.

So, their figures are certainly based on a large house but they are not completely out of the water.

It should also be remembered that if gas prices coninue to rise then you'll obviously recoup your investment quicker.

In addition remember that it's not just about saving money..it's about saving resources too..

Yes, but some people will always want to knock both systems and intentions. There's no point in arguing with them, they'll always come up with some reason you shouldn't do it.

We just have to try harder to make up for their lack of action.

Mary

harry

Reply to
Mary Fisher
Loading thread data ...

You been taking economics lessons from Hansen?

Providing the externalities of something have been properly included, the money includes the costs of the resources. The price of something contains information about that thing, as well as means of exchange.

Of course, greenies are happy to slap huge values on those "down-side" externalities which are impossible to price and completely ignore the "up-side".

If you cannot recover your costs with windmills and solar panels, it simply isn't worth doing, not just economically, but ecologically also.

Reply to
Huge

Start listing them then so we may all benefit but don't expect them to go unanalysed.

Reply to
dennis

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:32:18 GMT someone who may be "dennis@home" wrote this:-

Depends on the home and water usage.

As insulation standards are increased so water heating becomes a greater and greater proportion of home energy use.

Reply to
David Hansen

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:14:39 +0100 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" wrote this:-

That is what those who only consider such things in terms of simple payback either ignore or fail to grasp.

Reply to
David Hansen

On 10 Oct 2006 15:21:12 GMT someone who may be Huge wrote this:-

Excellent, more personal abuse. Do keep it up.

That is a big if. What you typed after that fails at that hurdle.

Reply to
David Hansen

The figures came from the data collected for ETSU S/P3/00275/00/REP/3 ETSU S/P3/00275/00/REP/3 during the evaluation of the panels. There was some difference between the flat panel and evacuated tube systems

Thermomax (evacuated tube - similar to Navitron) 1707MJ/m2 AES (Flat plate) 1361MJ/m2 ZEN (Flat plate)1208MJ/m2 Solar Twin (Flat plate) 1215 MJ/m2

However the greater efficiency per sq/m seems to be used by the manufacturers to produce smaller panels so the panel output remains consistent :-

Thermomax (evacuated tube - similar to Navitron) aperture area

2.267m2 annual panel output 3,870MJ

AES (Flat plate) 1361MJ/m2 aperture area 3.068 annual panel output

4,177MJ

ZEN (Flat plate)1208MJ/m2 aperture area 2.755m2 annual panel output

3,606MJ

Solar Twin (Flat plate) 1215 MJ/m2 aperture area 2.828m2 annual panel output 3,436MJ

There would be an annual difference between the Solartwin and Thermomax/Navigon panels of 434MJ or 120kWh or GBP3.60 (using gas).

Lots of houses happen to have one of those fitted "just in case" of course.

almost certainly necessary.

They will indeed.

Reply to
Peter Parry

Reply to
Peter Parry

I have two bridges to sell you and a genuine Mona Lisa.

If you are using gas to heat your water a single RM panel will produce the equivalent of a GBP30 saving per year. To save GBP266 you would need to fit 9 panels at a cost of say GBP9,000. Now by any method of calculation 266x6 does not come to 9,000.

Errr..they are so far out they have become desiccated. They are simply impossible.

Ah, the religion argument - that one is certainly true for some people and avoids one having to deal with logic and facts.

Reply to
Peter Parry

Well in my case, I'd say that for the larger part of the year, this house is heated by electricity - with so many routers bridges printers TV's and mobiles on charge..the wast heat is about a couple of hundred watts per room.

Water heating can be saved by not washing.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Whiffy TNP! Water heating can be saved by washing in not very much water.

Owain

Reply to
Owain

If you chose something because it is pink and you like pink that is a decision one may disagree with but hardly argue against as ultimately it is personal and irrational.

Much of the "alternative" debate has turned into a new religion, with zealots using the language and mechanisms of religion to try to stifle debate. In religion there can be no rationality nor science - it is a matter of belief without evidence. There is now an irrational belief that "doing something green" is unquestionably "good" and can displace objective analysis. That is fine so long as the believers keep their faith to themselves. If they don't they can expect to have the fallacy of their irrationality exposed.

The majority of vendors of these technologies are promoting them (wind, pv and water heating) with advertising material and sales techniques which are simply dishonest and they are supported in this dishonesty by the propaganda organisations such as Greenpeace who would advocate burning kippers to heat houses as long as they were not nuclear kippers.

I was talking this morning with someone who is going to put a B&Q windmill on his roof. He has been told it will generate up to a kilowatt at a time, be silent, have no vibration and will safely mount on his house wall. He has been told it will save 30% of his electricity bill.

I've been measuring wind speed at roof level here for a few months now. The average is just over 1m/s. The windmill will certainly be silent and generate no vibration because it will rarely move, never mind generate electricity. This is fortunate as his wall wouldn't stand the vibration and the neighbours the noise if it did.

When I asked him how fast the wind had to be blowing to generate all this electricity he said he was told it was "officially classed as a breeze".

Now the latter is true - sort of. The generator produces its full output at 12.5m/s, a "strong breeze" on the Beaufort scale. When I asked him what 12m/s wind was in MPH he said "If its a breeze - I suppose 5 or 6 MPH". He was a bit put out to discover it's nearly

30MPH and almost never experienced here.

He is still going to buy his useless windmill because it is "doing something", he has caught the new religion. Some people put a little metal fish on a car to advertise their religion, some now have a windmill on their roof instead.

Could anyone explain to me just what the "something" he is doing is and how it will save the planet?

Reply to
Peter Parry

Is that it?

Why on earth is there even a discussion?

Complete waste of time and resource.

Next.

Reply to
Andy Hall

ROTFL.

To create a sizeable market something has to make money or save money.

If it doesn't, it's a "nice to have", meaning that it's all very nice if there is spare money and it makes me happy.

That's OK, but it doesn't make for a viable long term business.

This stuff will only become interesting if and when one of the first two criteria are met.

Reply to
Andy Hall

Well a "Light Breeze" covers that. B-)

Quite. We are at 1400' on the North Pennines and exposed to the prevailing South Westerlys. We do get F6 "Strong Breeze" fairly often but they don't last long. The average is more like F3 "Gentle Breeze" say

10mph (4.5m/s). There might be the odd period every month were it blows a steady F4/5 20mph (9m/s) for a day or three.

Most people who come up to visit comment on the wind even those from the town below. Our normal response is what wind? You can stand up can't you? B-)

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

But not always from what Mary has said I think she has a direct system. =

I've seen bumpf from

formatting link
collector, PV cell on roof, P= V cell powers small pump that circulates the secondary water in the cylinder through the collector. All you need to do is bung in a couple o= f T's into the cold feed (to collector) and the expansion pipe (from collector).

It's simple (KISS rules) but not cheap (=A32,500 DIY kit, =A33,400 insta= lled) and I have my doubts, the sales puff doesn't cover things like what stop= s the pump circulating your expensive traditionaly heated hotwater through= the panel, thus cooling that water? Oh and if you are in a hardwater are= a you'll need a softener another =A3800 thank you very much. Who said sola= r doesn't make money?

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

In yesterday's Times there was a full page advert from an organisation called SPURT.

formatting link

Taken at face value, it sends up a lot of this nonsense. I was almost ready to make a donation in the name of common sense until it turned out to be a spoof from Greenpeace. Quite clever, but does illustrate the nonsense.

Reply to
Andy Hall

Why bother heating the water, you can use as much as you want then. B-)

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

It is cheap, it just costs a lot. The internal construction of the panel is simply two sheets of thin aluminium riveted together in a few places with a length of silicon rubber pipe run between them three times lengthways so it is slightly squashed by the aluminium. It works quite well although I doubt if it will last the 25 years it is supposed to.

Nothing, it is "extensively insulated" by a twinwall polycarbonate front though :-).

you very much.

Yes - they spring that one a bit late.

Reply to
Peter Parry

Odd thing to say.

NT

Reply to
meow2222

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.