Solar Heating?

[Tony Bryer]

We just have to hope he does better than the one who made the transition from Financial Director

[CS]

The only energy source that is totally reliable and predictable is either tidal - as long as the moon stays in orbit! - or less predictable wave energy. The amount of power that can be harnessed from tidal and wave movement is huge. I visited a site on Pico, Azores where a simple concrete box with an air tubine (Oscillating Water Column) produces 400kW from the waves.

Otherwise, the world needs to loose 3-4bn people fast. We are no different to the population cycle of lemmings.

[Si]

In message , CS writes

There was a TV programme on BBC 4 on Monday evening in which it was mentioned that the moon is slipping out of orbit at around 5cm/year.

that could be quite chatic.

[geoff]

In message , Si writes

There's one on now (power of the planet) where the person who actually does the measurement every day says 4cm / year

(splitting hairs mode)

that's a good word

[Si]

In message , geoff writes

it was spelled in chaotic mode

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:58:25 GMT someone who may be Tony Bryer wrote this:-

Then you will presumably know that SAP is a somewhat simplified process, which may just be adequate to compare one building to another under a standardised set of conditions, but which is not any good at working out the actual energy consumption of a particular building. I have written and maintained thermal modelling software, so have a little idea of what is involved.

You will presumably also know that SAP has been dramatically dumbed down because it is "too complicated", in order that it can be carried out by the sort of "inspectors" employed by those involved in selling houses, in order to meet the foolish ideas of the UK and EU about energy "performance" "certificates". In actual fact all this does is bring thermal modelling into disrepute.

I don't recall the "green lobby" welcoming the activities of people who appear to have formerly been double glazing salesmen but who are now promoting a false prospectus on solar water heating systems. If you can offer some evidence of this there is nothing stoping you.

Not if one is only considering simple payback period. However, if one only considered that one would not install double glazing, a new kitchen or many new cars.

Incorrect. I note that the reasons for doing so have not been countered by a convincing argument.

asks for four things. The first of these is, "tighter building regulations to ensure that buildings waste less energy"

Next contestant please.

[Tony Bryer]

The program I author, SuperHeat, is the full SAP implementation, not RDSAP. For my own home, the estimated energy usage is pretty close to the actual - DHW cost about £75p.a. (condensing combi)

I didn't say that the "green lobby" welcomed such firms. But it has been happening, a situation probably made worse by government grants.

"Solar panel suppliers exposed by Financial Mail as the cause of scores of consumer complaints have been convicted of seven offences under the Trade Descriptions Act.

Simplee Solar was fined £40,000 with £27,000 costs at Bournemouth Crown Court on Friday for distributing flyers, claiming its solar heating panels could cut fuel bills by 40%.

Ivan Hancock of Dorset Trading Standards told Financial Mail that the case was a major victory and should be a warning to both companies and consumers.

'The judge said that Simplee was still fitting more than 200 panels a month,' he said. 'It charges between £6,000 and £10,000 a time, while the trade association website suggests a more reasonable price would be up to £4,500."

True, but double glazing gives you other benefits apart from cash saved, such as improved comfort, and possibly less maintenance or greater security. The only real benefit of solar panels are saving money; if people want to spend money saving the planet then spend it in a way that maximises benefit for money expended.

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:03:15 GMT someone who may be Tony Bryer wrote this:-

With the problems I outlined.

While you may be close to it on DHW that doesn't tell us much.

It has, but is this due to inadequacies of sustainable energy or the commercial world?

Incorrect.

[Andy Hall]

All of them involve more bureaucracy, more regulation, less individual freedom and more spending of money by people other than FoE.

Not a compelling position.

Indeed.

How many other pointless charities do you know about?

[Ed Sirett]

Quite so. The tidal energy is in fact coming from the minute rotational slowing of the earth. In fact quite a bit of the energy is being transferred to the moon kinetic energy as its orbit slightly increases year on year.

So in true hair splitting mode tidal power is not sustainable. However if you said it was good until the moon doubled it's orbit then that would be 400,000,000 m / 4cm = 10,000,000,000 years which is longer than the Sun should last!

The energy of the Earth's rotation is truly an immense source of power. The speed is slow (and that's squared) but the moment of inertia is over whelming.

If I remember my applied maths correctly then the energy of a rotating sphere is 2mr²w²/5 = 0.4 x 6x10^(24) x (2 x PI / 86,400)² x (6,378,000)² = 5 x 10 ^ 29 J = an infinitesimal fraction of which is more than all the energy from the sun in an entire year.

[Tony Bryer]

What other benefits are there? Impressing gullible neighbours with your green credentials?

If someone wants to spend £4-5K saving the planet, then locate some old person with an old clunker of a boiler (there are probably millions of them) and buy them a new one. Don't give the money to a solar salesman.

[John Rumm]

Which is a straw man argument, since each of the other things you quote have many other selling points, that result in people wanting them. Hot water is just that regardless of the source. Solar heated water won't get you cleaner in a shower, or make your whites brighter etc. It's only real benefit is if it can save you money.

Well if overall it is going to increase your costs, can you think of any other reason one might opt for it?

[Peter Parry]

The next is to make it easy to put up a wind turbine on your house when it won't even recover its manufacturing costs in its lifetime.

After that is yet more subsidies for completely ineffective urban wind turbines.

After that is make urban wind turbines compulsory

After that is - guess what - set "ambitious targets" for urban wind turbines.

Why this enormous waste? Well its because "A key part of the revolution of micropower lies in its potential to stop people feeling powerless". That's really going to help reduce energy use isn't it. Mind you - if they get all these wind subsidy collectors then the inhabitants of the houses involved really are going to be powerless for most of the time.

[Huge]

So why *would* you piss away money to do this? You say it's not about economics or "feel good", so why esle do it? (Especially given that it is utterly pointless by any meaningful measure). To make the likes of you happy?

[Tony Bryer]

There's a revision of SAP in hand which adds in electricity generated by wind turbines. Let's just say that the numbers will not encourage anyone to install one in an urban situation.

[Donwill]

What about the noise pollution? one can imagine say 20 or 30 of these things whirring away in a small estate, sleep might become impossible on a windy night. Don

[Pete C]

Have you or anyone bought a boiler for an old person for any reason?

Maybe there should be a granite worktop/halogen downlight levy to raise funds for old people's heating improvements ;)

cheers, Pete.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Don't get me started.

I had a HELL of a job meeting silly 'disabled access' regulations.

Then I went yo hel a freind who is totally disabled - polio got the legs

- move house.

HE had to spend £15,000 on getting his 'totally to disabled regs' flat suitable to live in.

Why not simply charge a levy on every new house, put it in a pot, and give it to disabled people to convert their accomodation?

We had a guy visit who is evem MORE totally disabled.Spine snapped between the shoulder blades. Nothing below the arms works. He managed to negotiate the gravel and get over the illegally high non ramped door step(the 'disabled' access door is round the side), easily.

Typical 'one size fits all' Nu Laber bollox legislation.

Special needs mens SPECIAL needs. Not this solution enforced universally.

The same crap is happening with eco-greeny bollocks.

If you want to save the planet, build nuclear power stations. Period.

And give government grants to install electric heating in all OAPs houses.

ALL this energy saving bollocks is predicated on the assumption that we can't generate heat light and power without burning fossil fuels.

We can.

[John Rumm]

Can't see them whirring away for long then before someone "adjusts" them.

[Dave Liquorice]

From the BBC website and about the only referrence I can find to his own education level:

"He has described his 12 O-levels as "not very good", but he gained three As at A-level, in history, history of art and economics with politics."

No he'll pay someone, with our money, to look at doing the sums by asking selected people (who might have done some half relevant sums) a few carefully worded questions to get the answer they want. Just like happens now.

Operative word "listen". They need listen *and take action*, even if that action isn't going to go down well with the press or electorate.

As you say Cameron is a marketing man, marketing himself and his collection of friends.