On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:01:18 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry wrote this:-
It would get rid of the nuclear lobby rather more quickly.
Most of them perhaps, but not all. However, I agree that for this reason they will never go for it.
Its really not that simple. 'More area = more cost' only if we use the same kind of panels, and more of them. That isnt the way to go. Firstly we need different types of panel in the one install to optimise cost/return and performance. Some of these will be lower, and only some vacuum tube.
Second, solar DHW badly needs much cheaper collectors than are common today, cheap enough that much larger areas can be used at lower cost than now. I've come up with an approach to do this, though I havent built and tested them. In short these panels would be made from layers of a long life thermoplastic film (there is of course more to it than that), and would be attached by feeding strips under tiles/slates and screwing in place. These can be much larger and cheaper than todays glazed boxes or vacuum tubes.
Shipping plastic film round the globe, if one goes that route, is remarkably cheap compared to shipping vacuum tubes or traditional flat panels. A much larger panel contains far less embodied energy, less cost, way less material, and takes up a fraction of the shipping volume.
There you go off on something neither sensible nor relevant.
The sums are more impressive for new builds, so thats where they'll make inroads.
To make a good system does not mean just adding more of the same panels. And of course the figures arent the same with a system with different cost and different payback.
I agree with that. But the interest is almost exclusively with DHW for some reason, and has been for decades. It has a market, and in time I think it will pay, once the sleeping industry is roused by a competent competitive team. And I think it will be at some point. Rising energy costs will help as well.
in bad alignment cases one does not install solar DHW. Not if sensible anyway. Inappropriate systems may get installed today for a few buyers with no real understanding of the figures involved, by companies unconcerned by whether their product works, or how much the customer loses. That tells us nothing much about solar technology of course.
Then we're coming from 2 quite different places. I'm not interested in todays commercial systems since theyre a waste of time and money. What I am interested in is a newer generation of design that will both perform and pay, and put todays valueless junk peddlers out of business.
using your design, I agree. Using any now popular commercial design, I agree.
I dont know any recent FFs that eat that plus the energy consumption of a new one. I think you'll find that figure only true for faulty machines and oddball cases.
A jump from 65% to 91% is 26% more efficiency. So one's annual gas spend would have to be fairly extreme to achieve that sort of saving. These are not realistic figures, or even close.
If you review the patents granted since then I think you'll find there are many new technologies. There have also been some significant trials since then.
I dont evaluate solar technology by looking at junk commercial systems, any more than I'd evaluate car technological progress by looking at the latest Trabant, or medical progress by looking at quacks who can do a little and charge a lot.
Solar tech still needs more progress. It has certainly progressed since
75, but it will take some time yet before the industry gets where I want to see it get to. And its fair to say that DHW is not the hottest area of solar research, since there are bigger fish to catch elsewhere.For most systems, sure. The challenges are both to make systems that work well, and to make systems that pay well. But again, the state of commercial systems really has little to do with it. Good designs do not mirror such systems.
Read some patents.
There is more than enough insolation on lots of house roofs to heat DHW with a 50% efficient system. You keep saying there isn't enough over 2 sqm, but I'm not sure that tells us a great deal, except that the commercial systems you refer to are basically expensive novelty products.
The fact that the roofing material behind the solar panels can be cheaper is also a plus for new builds. Strips of fibre cement board save time and money over tiles and slate. This isnt worth doing with 2 sqm, but can be with larger areas.
NT
We live in a society where commercial solar DHW installers either dont know what theyre doing, or dont care, or both, where Administratum doesnt either, but naively assumes the pros are clueful and gainful, and the DIYers not to be trusted with a barge pole.
IOW we live in a society where the lie becomes the truth, and the truth the lie.
Unfortunately society pays the price over and over for this foolishness.
NT
The message from snipped-for-privacy@care2.com contains these words:
On those figures the underlying gas bill would be a very large £896 pa.
If Dribbles favourite figure of 55% is used the underlying gas bill would be a slightly more reasonable £647 but still much more than my gas bill (cast iron heat exchanger).
Go the other way of course and the figures get very very silly indeed.
76% - £1553. 80% -£2118.Only goes to shown you shouldn't trust those who have an axe to grind.
It is both. The last time solar water heating enjoyed a burst of popularity it was because of forecasts of even more draconian hikes in energy prices than are being predicted today. By now, according to those prediction, we should be on one candle a day (and don't forget the 12 people per house caused by the world overpopulation predictions of the same era).
Whilst I agree there is scope for considerable improvement in new house constriction there is no sign of it being planned, never mind realised and even if it happens it will have negligible overall effect for many decades.
In the meantime people are using more energy. In the 70's there were still quite a few taking only a weekly bath and showers were both relatively unusual and very anaemic. Hot water use per person was about 30% less than it is today. It is possible to reduce water consumption - there is no indication that people would accept it happily and despite Nulabors efforts to make it difficult they can still be voted out.
At the same time there is a huge growth in appliances using electricity. Society is showing no significant sign of becoming less energy hungry and any savings due to efficiency will be neutralised by expanding energy use.
The only way to make a severe impact on energy use is to put fuel prices up three or fourfold and any government that was in power when that happened wouldn't be shortly thereafter. The threat of being in opposition next week is far more potent than that of global decline next year as far as a politician is concerned.
A great deal could be done (at a cost) to new buildings but much of what could be done requires room - which runs directly against the present policy of trying to cram as much as possible into as small a space as possible. It's all very well promoting a noisy windmill for every home but when you don't have anywhere to put it except against your bedroom window it isn't terribly practical.
Probably because it is the only practical system which can be retrofitted and can be demonstrated to "work" in that it produces hot water in the summer.
That's what was said 30 years ago :-). Competition only works if there is some. Solar water heating is a niche market with prices all at the same sort of level and everyone involved making a comfortable living out of it. That isn't a market where significant price competition develops. 30 years ago there actually was some limited price competition and one or two national companies with aspirations to become very large invested a lot in marketing themselves. They fell by the wayside. There simply isn't a commercial incentive to try to do better.
The figures came from the Energy Saving Trust - an "independent" Government funded body providing "independent evidence-based policy analysis" just like the "Sustainable Development Commission". Surely you are not suggesting that these independent organisations would put out blatantly incorrect information? :-)
The effectiveness at gathering energy is not going to increase significantly, systems in 1975 were about 70-90% effective, the figures are not much changed at the present and getting much above that figure in the future is unlikely. Different manufacturing techniques and materials may lower the production cost after a time but not in the short term if R&D costs are to be recovered. Moreover most companies in a non-price sensitive market will use lower production costs to boost profits - not to lower prices.
For new builds especially - at least if the problem of shedding excess heat in the summer can be solved :-). What you do with existing housing stock is a different problem.
The 2sq/m is representative of typical retrofit installations. With present systems there are minimal economies of scale - if you go for
10sqm you have hot(ish) water most of the year but the installation cost rises proportionately and you just lose more money.
- snip -
I dont think we're about to come to that, or anywhere near, so I dont think it is myself. Sure there are challenges and increased energy costs ahead, but not so much increased that we'll consider no longer bathing. So lets leave that one alone.
fwiw here, retrofitting energy saving measures seems to be a real gain area. High efficiency boilers, programmable thermostats, TRVs, draftproofing, double glazing is debated, cavity insulation is big business, loft insulation, etc
since it can be done without any loss of function, I think they will. As more people go over to metered supplies, the interest in water saving measures is gradually increasing.
yes, more or less for now. But the current drive for energy efficiency will become much hotter as the decades roll by and those bills climb ever higher. There is plenty of scope for improvement yet. When electric bills double, more people will switch to CFLs, more will replace their 500w halogen garden lights with 20w CFLs, 18w sodiums, or
100w filaments. Etc, there is much yet undone.
Price increase will be taken care of by capitalism, nothing to do with government. As long as future energy consumption is kept down to what is available, we'll manage. And that will occur due to capitalism.
I'm not sure what youve got in mind. There are also things that dont.
But paying for a house is such a stretch here, due to our barmy planning laws, that noone wants to invest another x,000 in energy saving features when buying. Later, when the mortgage is lower and the person wealthier, many do.
solar space heating is a far better investment.
and its still true. Perhaps some thought it would happen within those
30 years.
Capitalism will work when there is the _opportunity_ for competition. Today there is opportunity. It will be discovered and commercialised, when I dont know. Its not a very hot market. But there's money in it for the right approach, and some are working on it.
This cant be true. There are plenty of people who would like to make a comfortable living. If SDHW does, they will enter, and companies will compete. I havent seen company accounts, so I cant know, but I honestly doubt those companies are making a comfortable living. Its the same old pattern of many people chasing a dream, one they can never catch, because there just arent the customers there for it. Not at their high prices, which come with the territory of their poor designs.
So if I can produce a solar system for half the price that gives warm water in winter, and hot in summer, greater payback at lower cost, you think theres no commercial incentive?
This is the classic confusion imho. Firstly energy efficeincy is the always quoted figure of merit for solar DHW, and it is the WRONG figure. Entirely. It doesnt matter one hoot whether your system covers the entire roof at 20% efficient, or 20% of the area at 100%. No difference whatever.
The one and only figure of merit with solar DHW is ROI. There is lots of room for systems that cost less and pay back more.
I'm also curious as to how you would achieve 90% energy efficiency in a practical DHW system, or more to the point, why you'd want to. That implies high cost collectors, and using the energy gathered more or less all the time the sun shines. That implies a steady increase in stored water temp through the afternoon, maxing out at final use temp. Since a lot of water use occurs in in the morning, this implies 2 water stores with overnight heat storage. It sounds like a horrid way to design things. And a simple demo of why the energy efficiency figure is not the relevant figure of merit. Regrettably too many solar designers simply continue designing financially hopelessly inefficient systems, concentrating on energy efficiency instead of financial efficiency.
Solar DHW is price sensitive. It is a market with few customers because of price. If system cost dropped substantially, the market would wake up, it would grow to maybe 100x the size.
thats all known science.
I addressed this in another post earlier today. Your statement there contains erroneous assumptions.
NT
Just a thought. When planning a solar system do consider the surroundings. In 10 years they can change significantly. That small shrub next door suddenly becomes a tree shading your collector in summer.
I the last couple of years our greenhouse has come under the shade of a neighbour's oak and the tomato crop has reduced significantly.
Edgar
For about 1/6 of the world's population that's not too far away from the truth.
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:01:18 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry wrote this:-
Greenpeace really have that amount of power? Fascinating.
I suspect an excellent description of Mr Liar's energy "review". It certainly doesn't fit the SDC.
Kevin Cahill, in his book Who Owns Britain, accuses Friends of the Earth as fronts for large landowners. He picks out Porrit, who comes out with overt lies.
We don't need high levels of social housing. The private sector can cope if the population is allowed to build on the 92.5% of the land that is not settled, and much of it subsidised to do nothing. People are priced out of housing because land accounts for 2/3 of the value; an artificial shortage has been created.
"Except for the few surviving commons, the high roads, the lands of the National Trust, a certain number of parks, and the sea shore below high-tide mark, every square inch of England is `owned' by a few thousand families. These people are just about as useful as so many tapeworms. It is desirable that people should own their own dwelling houses, and it is probably desirable that a farmer should own as much land as he can actually farm."
- George Orwell
I didn't say they had any power (despite their attempts at getting it); merely that they are a thoroughly dishonest association with an established record of deception and sabotaging scientific studies whose results they don't want published.
Greenpeace set the environment agenda. Without them your lungs would be even worse than what they are now.
The message from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:
There's a thought. Dribble and Porrit cast from the same mould.
ISTR that Dribble (or Adam as he then was) actually complained to my ISP about personal abuse when I publicly criticised a fawning review of that book written by a certain John Burns-Curtis. Didn't get him anywhere of course.
Dribble has been coming out with this rubbish for a long time without changing the ratio. I doubt whether it is true even now for the average new build but if it were true when he first expounded it the ratio by now should be at least 7/8ths. How much does the average 3 bed detached matchbox cost to build excluding the cost of the land? If it is on an estate the cost of new roads and services could easily eat up a third of the cost so would the house itself cost absolutely nothing to design and build?
I wouldn't put it past Dribble to make up quotes to suit his purpose but accepting for the moment that it is a real quote it wasn't true even when first made (presumably some time in the 30s). (So our current PM is by no means the first B.Liar).
The middle classes and farmers families have always had a significant proportion of owner-occupiers and these days owner occupation is probably somewhere around that 2/3rd figure that he is so fixated on.
"Roger" wrote lots of Rogerness in message news: snipped-for-privacy@nospam.zetnet.co.uk...
Roger, your Rogerness is getting the better of you. If you are implying I complained to an ISP, well I have never ever complained to any ISP about anyone. Pointing out your Rogerness is enough for people to see your idiocy.
** snip silly Rogerness **** snip babbling, stupidity, silliness and most of all overt Rogerness ***
Sad but true.
The Navitron panels are cheap for these reasons:
The quality is the same as the much more expensive 'German' and 'Swiss' brands (in fact many are made in the exact same factory!). If you are unsure, please feel free to visit and see for yourself. We have demonstration units available.
Shipping solar panels is costly due to the fragility of shipping glass items (and the heavy-handedness of couriers!). However, if you collect from Monmouth, there is no shipping charge, making the panel even more affordable.
For more information, including technical and downloadable info, please see our website
Ivan Navitron Ltd.
Nice helpful info from a supplier. Thanks.
In article , Doctor Drivel writes
Yes John, make sure you keep a copy so that you can cut and paste it into future postings as evidence of what a great company they are.
Bertie, that is a good idea. How long have you been into this idea thing?
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.