I don't think scientific opinion is divided at all.
Political opionion may be as is opinion from various interest who have axes to grind.
Independent scientists however are finding far too much accurate correlation to be completely wrong.
Welcome to Drivels idiocies.
Unless you also install heatr excahnges in a forced air ventilatotion system, you are already beyind what is necessary - air changes alone will wreck the insulation levels.
Until nucelar power gets to be the sort of penny a Kwh it ought to be, you are stuck with buring fossil fuels of some sort.
Install a wet heating system, and change to electric boiler when they build the power stations.
If in the sticks, wood burbning fires and stves are somewhat 'greener' and you can add plenty of nxious dioxins to the atmosphere as well.
If you take a look at previous postings from Dr Evil/IMM you'll find that a fair bit of what he claims is beyond many people :-)
Cheers,
John
Is THAT who it is!
I hadn't realised ... doh ...
Mary
I did think about mentioning it, but it isn't really a viable alternative - how much of our energy could realistically come from wind?
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote [oil tanks] | You can build follies round em too.
But if the folly has the purpose of concealing the oil tank, does it not then cease to be a folly?
| Best form of central heating is a lot of different ones. | Ive got a gravity feed aga, and electric pumped boiler, | two open fires and a wood stove. | One way or another we keep from hypothermia.
Cats are a pretty useful back-up too.
Owain
Oh yes. In fact there have been suggestions that he's got a couple of other sock puppets that he uses when posting here. For some reason his use of various disguises put me in mind of the Unigate(?) adverts from years ago. "Watch out, watch out, there's an IMM about"
:-)
Cheers,
John (Emphatically not Adam/IMM/Dr Evil/etc.)
Such as?
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download
The government aims for 20-25% and around 30% of homes (not 30% of power) to have a Stirling engine mCHP boiler giving distributed power generation. The first 500 are being installed now.
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download
Your comments about electronic de-scalers in the "Hard water" thread about five days ago spring immediately to mind.
Cheers,
John
Depends how many birds you're prepared to chop up! They're just installing a load of them (wind turbines, not birds) out to sea right here...
Come to that, what about hydro?
Well as they run the place you better take not of what they say.
Look at the 20-25% bit. That is a clue.
Natural gas, which is 80% efficient when creating power locally, which electricity is about 35% efficient from the station.
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download
First off, I don't give a crap what the government aims for - it is meaningless.
Second - please tell me what your statement has to do with wind.
Third - what fuel will these mCHP boilers run off? Nuclear?
I always thought it best to use wind to pump water to a mountain top lake and use the water for hydro power on-demand. Wind may produce a lot during the night when demand is low.
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download
The government aims for all sorts of things, but doesn't even seem to be able to manage to do so correctly in the toilet.
My objection to wind is a purely logical one - how much of the country would need to be covered by turbines to provide say 80% of our energy?
It's a better option than wind, certainly, but still not really a solution.
The problem is this. The only way to reduce CO2 emissions (whether we need to is another matter) in any real sense over the next 50 years is by switching to nuclear. But the same people who get worked up about climate change (mostly) also get worked up about nuclear power.
I have one and it works. Look at this. A major maker has them on their kit.
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download
You don't get it, do you? It still increases the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
If you stick a pipe up your arse and live on lentils and sprouts, quite a bit.
You have been told! No more than 25% and most will be offshore.
We don't have enough high mountains to create dams.
What balls!!!! Energy efficient appliances can be made mandatory. microCHP boilers are now feasible and are available and being installed. Houses can be made to superinsulation standards, which is no big thing. Passive solar orientation of homes can be mandatory. It all adds up. Or you can use the Testatika machines in every house, that produces 3-4kW of electricity and consume no energy whatsoever. Energy problem solved and no buying oil from Middle Eastern governments, who sue the money to wage terror on the people they took the money from.
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download
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.