I nipped down to Reading to seen, amongst other things, the Enviro Home at the St James Kennet Island development.
I noticed a couple of inconsistencies and figures I didn't recognise.
12-40% from solar PV, 7-25% savings from hot water depending which sign you read....So I grabbed my camera and blogged it:
They're not really inconsistencies.
...
They are saying that this home uses less energy than a typical UK terrace house. Also, since the energy that it doesn't use would come from carbon emitting sources then it must also, ultimately, send less carbon into the air as well.
All the percentages on that sign are referring to the amount of carbon emissions avoided by saving energy.
: Solar photovoltaic cells on the roof of this house collect the : sun's energy and turn it into electricity. This unit provides the : envirohome with about 30%-40% of it's electricity.
This is not all that high. A 3kW array could produce this much electricity without breaking the bank, especially since it's integrated into the roofing tiles.
: The Solar PV tiles on this roof will provide up to 40% : of the annual electricity requirements of this house.
30% to 40% is within the 'up to 40%' so I don't see any major discrepancy there. Sure, it's likely to be closer to 30% but it's all estimates anyhow.Now the solar hot water. 13% less carbon emissions than a comparable home and 25% lower gas bills do not have to be incompatible figures. I don't know how gas is billed but 25% lower bills may not mean 25% less gas used.
Anthony
The message from "Jonathan" contains these words:
Hang on, you can't add up percentages like that.
Example.
I save 50% of my electricity bill and 50% of my gas bill. Wow, I've saved 100% - so why do I keep getting bills?
As for the spelling, typography and punctuation, dire, isn't it. The worst place I know for that is the Secret Hills Centre in Craven Arms - I was fuming when I left the place. Expensive, shallow and full of errors.
That's because a substantial proportion of Greens are innumerate and functionally illiterate. That's OK, though, because they're saving the planet. [Derisive snort]
Well, that made me look!
Oh I've been like that too. I thought it was just me, well known for being picky. There are always floods of justifications though ...
Mary er - what's the Secret Hills Centre?
>The message from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:
An idea with plenty of potential - there's an area of hills south of Shrewsbury called the Long Mynd. It's a very strange place, more like Scotland than Shropshire. Open moorland with lots of hidden valleys and the like. Used to have substantial mineral deposits, too, being volcanic. The idea of having a place that explains to anyone who's interested why it's like that and all about the ecology etc. is a good one, but utterly and irredeemably[1] let down by the presentation which is aimed at a the junior school level.
There's nothing wrong with pitching exhibits low like that provided that more in-depth information is readily to hand for those who might be interested. Perhaps on pull-out drawers or flip-up things, or maybe even (stand by for a really old idea) on a bit of paper. But when the only information available at all is superficial, and asking the curators gets either a "don't know" or in one case a response that was utterly wrong then it's failed completely.
I was similarly seething when I left the painfully expensive Exploratory in Birmingham. At least a third of the exhibits weren't working, several of those that were were incorrectly labled, and the Hurricane[2] hanging from the ceiling was labled as a Spitfire[2]. Just thinking about it still makes me cringe.
[1] Short of a satisfying fire. [2] May have been the other way round - it was five years ago and for fairly obvious reasons I've never been back.
Ah yes, that replaced the lovely Museum of Science and Technology, I believe, which had some great exhibits but which was a bit tatty and not at all flash. A sad loss
I think Exploratory's are great for giving kids a kick start intrest in science, much better than rows of static exhibits behind glass.
*BUT* they do have to be maintained and have knowledable staff on hand who can tolerate 50 coach loads of kids intent on destroying the place everyday. That costs money. Trouble is you can get grants and funding to set up these wonderful things but nothing to keep 'em running once you have, 'em bleedin' daft.
Alternatively, the 13% refers to carbon emissions and the 25% refers to gas. There are also carbon emissions from electricity, so it makes complete sense. You could completely eliminate the gas consumption of the house and still only halve the carbon emissions, as the house still uses electricity, which is unaffected.
Christian.
Ah, it's educashonal! You mustn't demand too much of the little darlings, it might spoil their understanding if they're stretched.
Oh come ON! That would be hard work, you'd have to DO something and not have it made easy.
We've found that at one or two places and at the Chippenham Town Museum on Monday we thought we'd come across another because the three ancient (even older than us) volunteers couldn't answer any of our questions. Nobody had asked before.
But they did eventually ask a member of staff about something and she was very helpful, taking us behind the scenes to talk about our questions. Later we asked about some exhibits which weren't labelled (argh!) and they're going to be labelled and we'll be e-mailed to give a full explanation of them.
As always, I suspect it was because I was pushy that we got beyond the desk staff We ended up offering a couple of our belongings for a Time-Line exhibit. We should have stopped being surprised about our house being full of things which we see in museums and 'antique' shops. We use most of them too.
:-) That's given me an idea ...
I bet it was as you say, many people haven't heard of the Hurricane and they are rather similar in shape. But it shouldn't happen. All the glamour went to the Spit ...
Mary
The message from "Bob Mannix" contains these words:
The Science Museum in London still has all the old cabinets with those intricate models you could move with a knob or a button. They're stored, and some lucky sods get to look round them. I almost wangled a visit - but not quite.
The message from Guy King contains these words:
Ooops! How did that happen? Twice?
Well, the most high efficiency tile they make needs 8m² per kiloWatt, peak.
That sounds perfectly reasonable. I'm surprised you can get so much from a small area.
450W would usually easily cover my electrical usage. Wouldn't help at night, or for brief peak usage when the washing machine element fires. It would, however, cover my lighting and electrical goods.Christian.
Interesting - how many lightbulbs are you running between 10am-5pm during bright sunny summer days? You're right - it wouldn't cover even the spin cycle of the washing machine. It would run a pc and monitor though.
Now, there IS the possibility of "buy back" into the grid, which would make the whole thing much more effective, BUT the last time I could find any info on it (and info is scarce - any links appreciated!) the buyback tarrif was very low, the interconnect expensive, and the wait time over a year.
I could be wrong, if so, correct me!
Do you know that it used 24sm, or that it is a 3kwp AC system?
My Kyocera flat panels would need 26 sm for a 3kwp AC system.
On that basis, I would expect the peak AC watts to be 55% of my peak. I've recently seen of 450 (adjusted) watts at 10:30am, with a peak for that same day at 1548 (adjusted) watts. My panels are not due south, nor are they elevated optimally.
Since it is only claiming to provide 40% of the energy, it must be grid tied, so the washing machine can still draw as it needs.
If the system was 3kwp-AC, it could deliver 3163kWh per year.
250kWh per month might be 40% of an efficient home's needs.
I assumed you were just testing ... or perhaps you're a Muslim. Only God is perfect.
Mary
Seems to me something wrong with our culture, where people that dont know and dont care are so pervasive that even information services are staffed by them, and this is considered prefectly ok. At least there are some good places around, but it is disappointing to see the junk exhibits.
Also I dont know how dumbed down sites / places are supposed to kindle any interest when theyre dumbed to primary school level. Surely its not hard to have a mix of exhibits aimed at people with a basic understanding of things as well as the lost.
NT
The message from snipped-for-privacy@care2.com contains these words:
If you happen to go to Craven Arms, skip the Secret Hills centre and go instead to see a /real/ junk exhibit.
The Land of Lost Content is a tiny (on the outside) place in a side street. An old chapel by the looks of it, it's bulging at the seams with all the things that don't make it into museums. Things you remember having as a kid - the trivia and ephemera of bygone days.
Things like cheap plastic toys, cosmetics (sniffing the display reminded me of being about three and the smell of Mum's dressing table), old fireworks (deactivated, but wow they were so tiny - an entire selection box smaller than a single modern bang), Bakelite, old tools, car things[1], Kilner jars of goosberries unopened since the late 40s, pressure cookers that look like Mills bombs, clothings, lamp shades of the sort you thought (hoped?) you'd never see again, 1960s Daleks, BOAC approved hand luggage suitcases...
Quite the most baffling and remarkable and absorbing place I've been to in ages. I'd love to go back without the kids some time just to see it all rather more slowly. Not that you ever could see it all - it's just not that sort of place.
It says it's a redundant C12th church! Worth visiting for that :-)
Sounds wonderful!
And her wet hankie?
I have one of those, red plastic.
It sounds wonderful! And like our 'ouse ...
Yes, the site is, um, disappointing ...
LOL! We've always found a handy tractor.
Thanks, Guy,
Mary
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.