solar panels

[Tony Bryer]

No, what we need is a touch of Voltaire: "I do not like your solar panel but I will defend to the death your right to have one".

[Andy Hall]

OK. Fit one and see what happens.

I think that it is highly unlikely to enhance the resale value of your property.

I think that it is quite likely to reduce it.

[Andy Hall]

I wonder why.

Perhaps it's that salesmen need to earn a living and realise that this isn't a viable business opportunity even among the gullible.

[Andy Hall]

Because they are ugly and virtually useless and because it is not appropriate to compel people to fit them to their properties unless you are proposing a totalitarian system of course.

Tell you what. You can fit one on your house on my behalf.

Nuclear energy is a great way to cover that issue.

[Andy Hall]

Pistols at dawn.

Who wins?

Planning?

Building control?

Conservation?

[Huge]

You're a little thin skinned for one so fond of authoritarian politics. As well as a tad predictable in your responses.

[David Hansen]

On 25 Sep 2006 21:40:58 GMT someone who may be Huge wrote this:-

It is indeed predictable that you have nothing to say on the subject under discussion, but appear only capable of mounting personal attacks. Others can make their own minds up about what that tells us.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:44:46 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

Only in the minds of some. Even fewer are of this opinion when they see an integrated one.

An assertion that has been debunked before.

I presume you think that compelling people to fit time and temperature controls on central heating is an example of a totalitarian system.

An assertion that has been debunked before.

[Steve Firth]

It tells me that he's right, and you are a lover of rule by diktat who hopes that appeals to the gallery will cover up your lack of a credible argument.

[meow2222]

ok child.

Feel free to tell us how it is that hundreds of watts of insolation per square metre can either fail to be capured by a mesh absorber panel, fail to be retained by adequate insultion, or fail to be transferred to the house somehow.

NT

[Andy Hall]

Evidence?

The economics in terms of ROI are marginal at best.

In that example, there is a clearly demonstrable ROI.

Once someone takes something for which the justification is extremely weak and then suggests that it should be mandated, it certainly smacks of totalitarianism (or something for which a reasoned argument can't be made). Choose which you like.

[David Hansen]

On 25 Sep 2006 18:07:53 -0700 someone who may be [e-mail] wrote this:-

Excellent, personal abuse.

All these have been discussed before. But to recap. Solar energy, in the UK, is at a maximum when it is not needed. It is not possible to store this energy for say five months until it is needed. It is different in a location that has a climate with much the same conditions all year round. Thus, in the UK, solar space heating can be useful in spring and autumn, but will only supply part of the heating in winter. Provided one accepts these limitations, which you appear to be slowly doing, then it can be useful.

As for transfer to the house, this depends on whether the house is a barn or a series of rooms. If the latter then the heat must be transferred by things like fans and ducts. All these things can be done, but cost money and the "simple, cheap" system is then not as proponents claim.

You shouldn't think that I have changed my tune on this, I was involved in active and passive solar design of buildings in the

1980s.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:13:38 +0100 someone who may be Steve Firth wrote this:-

Ah, mind reading again.

I leave it to readers of the group to make up their minds on who has the credible arguments and who has no arguments at all.

[Andy Hall]

That's a very big set of limitations which weaken the justification even further.

Wasn't very successful then was it? :-)

I don't think you know what your tune actually is apart from wanting to force people to have things that they neither want nor need because it suits some agenda about which even you are not really convinced.

[Andy Hall]

I think that that's become pretty clear.

[Mary Fisher]

I did, some time ago. That's why I don't see some posts unless you reply to them :-)

Mary

[Tony Bryer]

When it comes to solar panels whose economics are questionable, personal choice IMO. Though the argument might be made that making them compulsory on all new homes would create a market that would bring the price down to an economic level (as with condensing boilers).

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:04:37 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

I note that you are again trying to troll by discussing me rather then the issues. You won't get very far in convincing others of your viewpoint with this trolling.

[Andy Hall]

THe boot is really on the other foot here.

You have a known weak justification for something and introduce the idea that it should be compulsory.

Hardly a position of strength, is it?

[Andy Hall]

The 21st century version of Blaenau Ffestiniog on a wet Sunday afternoon....