New easy to install DIY solar panels technology

Thought my website: www.heatmyhome.co.uk may come in handy for you DIY solar enthusiasts.
Simply put, 'direct' solar tubes are the most efficient solar technology available. This is based on a 2001 study of all solar technologies by the Department of Trade and Industry. (Now Dept of Business).
Since then solar tubes have evolved further, and now we are proud to showcase the latest in direct heat solar tubes, which have improved solar efficiency even further, using only the highest quality components available in the solar industry. This gives the advantage of better performance and peace of mind but with no heat exchange required, this can free up your twin coil (when applicable) for other applications such as under floor heating/bio mass stoves etc.
1. If you have a traditional gravity feed system, with a southerly facing roof space, then you home is ideal. 2. If you have a vented thermal store with twin/solar coil, then your home is suitable too. 3. If you have a Combi Boiler, then you will need to replace this at the end of its life for a condensing boiler with vented tank. 4. If you have a high pressure system with gauges, then you will need to replace this with a vented tank.
Find more information at: www.heatmyhome.co.uk/diy-solar-panel-kits.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thought my website: www.heatmyhome.co.uk may come in handy for you DIY solar enthusiasts.
Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install solar panels in the uk ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Financial cost isn't the only consideration.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly !!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mary Fisher wrote:

But its strange how money pretty much equates to energy emplyed to make/install, and materials employed to make/install
I cant think of anyione who thinks such things are beuatiful..
The only other reason would be psychological. A nice bit of conscience easing self deception.
I try not to go there tho.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:17:23 +0000 someone who may be The Natural

Ah, so you think that there are never any rip-offs where excessive charges which have nothing to do with the cost of materials and labour are made.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Hansen wrote:

Well in the building tarde generally,not that much.
For so called 'green' products all bets are off. A with all fashion statements.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mary Fisher wrote:

Mary,
Still a rather expensive waste of time though installing these things (along with windmills stuck on the roof or huge windfarms in the countryside) - and you still have to rely on nuclear/coal/gas/oil fired power stations to maintain a reliable and constant supply of electricity. Try powering a factory with wind or solar power and see what happens!
BRG
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 21:44:09 -0000 someone who may be "BRG"

Ah,proof by assertion.

The idea that any source of electricity generation is reliable is mildly amusing. For example a little over a year ago one of the largest coal fired plants in Europe had to be shut down suddenly after a conveyor belt fell down. <http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2007/01/22/newsstory9203741t0.asp
One of the reasons for connecting local electricity systems together from say the 1930s was to allow excess standby plant to be shut down while increasing overall reliability. Any connected source of electricity feeds into this common system. Ignoring this simple fact leads one to make foolish statements and come up with ridiculous costs, as the Royal Academy of Engineering have demonstrated.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No more so that the stuff you rely on.

And not so long ago two turbines self destructed. The conveyer belt was no doubt quickly repaired. Not so the turbines.
Take a conventional generator out of service for a whole month in a year and you would still have a load factor in excess of 90% if the demand was there. With wind turbines the system allows for the demand always to be there but the average load factor was under 30% last time I looked with some turbines under 20%. Relying on wind for more than a small proportion of total capacity is a recipe for disaster. Even the proponents of wind power were saying until recently that 20% was the practical limit and even for that you need an installed capacity of circa two thirds of total demand.

If you think that shutting down power plants because of lack of demand or even for routine maintenance or repair is on a par with the weather shutting down wind turbines either because of oversupply or under supply of wind you really do deserve your reputation for not thinking things through.
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:14:59 GMT someone who may be Roger
Even if the two turbines had a rated capacity of 2MW that left rather less of a hole in the electricity supply than the failure of IIRC a 2400MW coal fired station.

It is over 8% in Scotland now.

Incorrect. What people have said is that, at the costs of the time the reports were done, accommodating more than around 20% was possible, but the costs of doing so would make it uneconomic. <http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/Wind_Energy-NovRev2005.pdf Section 3.5
"It should now be clear that accommodating significant amounts of wind capacity on the electricity system is not likely to pose any major operational challenges, and this view has been confirmed by the GB system operator, National Grid Company. It is also the conclusion of a comprehensive report on this issue commissioned by the Carbon Trust and DTI25. At higher wind penetrations, the capacity value of wind is indeed reduced, and this does lead to additional balancing requirements. However, this represents a cost rather than a barrier, as additional reserve requirements will lead to an increase in systems costs this is explained further in Chapter 4."

Excellent, personal abuse.
In fact all power plants shut down or are shut down from time to time due to sudden unexpected failures, either of the plant itself or the connection from the plant to the rest of the system. Cracks in nuclear stations and broken coal conveyors for example. Before say the 1930s it was typical of councils/electricity companies to maintain capacity at least double the maximum demand, to cover sudden failures. By linking the stations together it was possible to pension off some elderly capacity, without affecting the loss of load probability.
There was a similar programme in the (Scottish) Highlands later on to link the formerly islanded electricity systems. For example the Kyle of Lochalsh was fed exclusively from a station at Morar. In this case it allowed a higher level of supply to be provided while maintaining the same reliability. It also allowed greater flexibility for maintenance.
Those who wish to inform themselves on this subject before launching into statements on it would do well to first study and understand the report which can be downloaded from <http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/ResearchProgrammes/TechnologyandPolicyAssessment/TPAProjectIntermittency.aspx
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Hansen wrote:

1/. Its not the 1930's 2/. The average load factor o IUS nuclear sets was 90%. They don't have conveyor belts..
The average load factor of windfarms is 16%.
These are facts. not 'wouldhavebeens/couldbesf we speent the money etc etc.
I can see how your inability to do maths makes these sort of facts constantly open to challenge, but please accept that for the rest of us, despite all the blatherings about 'cost benefit not being the only issue' for most of us cost benefit rules power station technology, and its easy enough to factor in a CO2 as a cost if thats the way you want it.
Do that, and as I have said time and time again, there is only one answer, And its not windmills.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:12:09 +0000 someone who may be The Natural

I note that you are no longer arguing about the advantages of linking generating plant together.

In the 1930s:-)

Indeed, but US coal fired plants no doubt have.

As usual this assertion is not referenced. The UKERC report I have referred to gives the average capacity factor of British wind farms as 27%-30%, paragraph 2.3.2. The figure is from the Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2005.

Excellent, more abuse. Do keep it up.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Hansen wrote:

I have to say, that your post have,over he last three months, managed to make me aware the fact that windmills are an expensive waste of time. And that most of their supporters are manifestly innumerate.
Being somewhat uncommitted before, you can congratulate yourself on a job well done.
Keep spouting more nonsense: then we can consign windmills to history where they belong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:01:25 +0000 someone who may be The Natural

Excellent, more personal abuse. Do keep it up.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Hansen wrote:

http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/enquiries/energy/evidence/Kelly.pdf
Whilst I will grant you that the average output is around 28%, the realities of the situation,..that probably for more than half the time the windfarm isn't producing ANYTHING, means that for large scale deployment the full capacity cannot be used reliably. In terms of overall usability, a figure of 16% seems about right.
That is,even when the windfarm is producing its twice as expensive electricity, at full power, the cost of the infrastructure to enable all that power to get to where its actually needed, makes it infeasible with large scale adoption of windfarms, that one could do 'the whole job' with anything like a 28% load factor at anything approaching sane costs.
Windmills are entirely driven by politics, not by cost benefit.
Their impact on global CO2 emmissions is negligible.
To make an impact of any real value would involve the country in costs and order of magnitude more than any other technology.
Windmills are not a solution to real world problems of zero carbon power generations.They are and expensive politically driven distracttion, and are ugly, and potentially dangerous, to boot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:20:39 +0000 someone who may be The Natural

Ah I see. Take a figure and the massage it into another one.
I'll stick with measuring the capacity factor of wind turbines in the same way as the capacity factor of other plant is measured.

An unreferenced figure.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Hansen wrote:

You didn't bother to read te scottish engineers report then?
Oh, I forgot, you don't 'do numbers' so you?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:17:42 +0000 someone who may be The Natural

The document you referred to contains no mention of the name or background of the author.

Excellent, personal abuse.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.