Has anyone here had domestic solar water heating installed? I know this is
the DIY group but I'm looking for someone to do it for me. Googling has
produced a number of companies and trade associations but there's nothing
like a personal recommendation (or warning).

I'm on the Somerset/Wiltshire border (some companies only seem to work in
certain parts of the country).

Thank you.

Graham Harrison wrote:
Has anyone here had domestic solar water heating installed? I know this is
the DIY group but I'm looking for someone to do it for me. Googling has
produced a number of companies and trade associations but there's nothing
like a personal recommendation (or warning).

I'm on the Somerset/Wiltshire border (some companies only seem to work in
certain parts of the country).

Thank you.

Commercial solar HW systems are a great way to throw your money away.
Suggest looking at solar flat plate space heating, less cost, more heat
gain. Try alt.solar.thermal for info & expertise.

NT

wrote in message
ups.com...
Graham Harrison wrote:
Has anyone here had domestic solar water heating installed? I know this
is
the DIY group but I'm looking for someone to do it for me. Googling has
produced a number of companies and trade associations but there's nothing
like a personal recommendation (or warning).

I'm on the Somerset/Wiltshire border (some companies only seem to work in
certain parts of the country).

Thank you.

Commercial solar HW systems are a great way to throw your money away.
Suggest looking at solar flat plate space heating, less cost, more heat
gain. Try alt.solar.thermal for info & expertise.

NT


Looks like I've got quite a lot of research to do. Thanks.

On 22 Nov 2005 14:54:03 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Commercial solar HW systems are a great way to throw your money away.

They are certainly not going to have a short payback period.
However, the same is true of double glazing. There are plenty of
other reasons for installing solar hot water systems than payback
period.

Suggest looking at solar flat plate space heating, less cost, more heat
gain.

Far more expensive if one is going to produce enough heat for a
house. A major problem is that the heat is available in the summer,
but needed in the winter. It might make a contribution in spring and
autumn, when there are relatively sunny days and cold nights. Such
heating is ideal in warm places with cold nights, such as deserts.


I suggest the original poster looks at two companies:

1) if they have no requirement for extra water storage and their
existing cylinder is well lagged. www.solartwin.com which involves
less work.

2) if they want extra water storage or their existing cylinder is
not well lagged. http://www.imaginationsolar.com/ which involves
more work but produces a better result.

Both avoid mains powered pumps, which has many advantages.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:59:43 +0000 (UTC), "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

Has anyone here had domestic solar water heating installed?

My parents house had it (self install - DIY cost about GBP500 in
total using some very expensive glass vacuum collectors found in a
scrap yard - it was finding the collectors which caused the thing to
be built!) and a neighbour later had a commercial one fitted. Over
20 years neither broke even or got remotely near doing so. Both
houses had virtually ideal south facing roofs of appropriate pitch.

Two reports worth looking at are

http://www.broadband.gov.uk/energy/r.../sp300275r.pdf

and

http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/pub...load=01%2F1292

These do at least put some figures on the likely effects of these
units (something the manufacturers studiously avoid doing).

From those tests the amount of energy from the panels tested came to
roughly in the range 3,400 to 4,800 MJ per year. 1kw/hr (1 unit of
electricity) = 3.6 MJ so that is between 945 and 1,330 kw/hr per year
in ideal locations. If they are not south facing and at the right
angle that figure can reduce by 50%.

Assuming 1,100 kw/hr is contributed per year the equivalent fuel
costs are roughly:-

Gas (2p per kW/hr) = GBP22
Electricity (9p peak rate) = GBP99
Electricity (3p off peak rate) = GBP33

(These figures do not include any standing charge)

The saving achieved by using solar water heating in ideal situations
is therefore in the order of only GBP22 to GBP100 per annum.

As the installed cost of commercially fitted solar panels is in the
region of GBP3,000 to GBP5,000 or more it is not surprise that the
manufacturers so carefully avoid any mention of how much energy the
things actually (don't) produce and the fact they can never pay for
themselves as the payback period is considerably greater than the
system life.



--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:41:15 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

These do at least put some figures on the likely effects of these
units (something the manufacturers studiously avoid doing).

Incorrect.

Solartwin make quite a lot of one of the reports you mentioned.

http://www.solartwin.com/questions_a...s.htm#evidence

"Where's the evidence of this 20%?

"A recent UK government-funded study of eight solar water heating
systems at Milton Keynes confirmed what has long been suspected:
that the environmental benefits of solar can be substantially
improved by eliminating mains electricity. ( Side by side testing of
eight solar water heating systems 2001 DTI/Pub URN 01/1292)

"In this study, flat plate solar hot water systems negated an
average of 17% of their potential global warming benefits (i.e. CO2
savings) by using mains electricity.

"For partial-vacuum tubes ("solar tubes"), their loss averaged even
higher, at 23%.

"In other words, if you run mains-powered solar for ten years, its
electricity consumption deletes its CO2 saving by about two years.

"Solartwin’s environment-centred solar water heating design brief
specifies a solar electric pump. So your CO2 savings won’t retreat
two steps after advancing ten."

As the installed cost of commercially fitted solar panels is in the
region of GBP3,000 to GBP5,000 or more it is not surprise that the
manufacturers so carefully avoid any mention of how much energy the
things actually (don't) produce and the fact they can never pay for
themselves as the payback period is considerably greater than the
system life.

Solar water heating is much like double glazing. If you do it just
to save money then you are not going to do very well out of it.
However, if you do it for a whole range of other reasons then the
investment makes perfect sense.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On 22 Nov 2005 14:54:03 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Commercial solar HW systems are a great way to throw your money away.

They are certainly not going to have a short payback period.
However, the same is true of double glazing. There are plenty of
other reasons for installing solar hot water systems than payback
period.

Suggest looking at solar flat plate space heating, less cost, more heat
gain.

Far more expensive if one is going to produce enough heat for a
house.

far cheaper in fact. They do not produce all the heat for a house, but
a substantial percentage. Far more than a commercial DHW panel ever
would.


A major problem is that the heat is available in the summer,
but needed in the winter.

heat is available in winter too, and it is this level the system is
designed for.


I suggest the original poster looks at two companies:

Both avoid mains powered pumps, which has many advantages.

it makes payback even poorer.


NT

David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:41:15 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

"A recent UK government-funded study of eight solar water heating
systems at Milton Keynes confirmed what has long been suspected:
that the environmental benefits of solar can be substantially
improved by eliminating mains electricity. ( Side by side testing of
eight solar water heating systems 2001 DTI/Pub URN 01/1292)

"In this study, flat plate solar hot water systems negated an
average of 17% of their potential global warming benefits (i.e. CO2
savings) by using mains electricity.

"For partial-vacuum tubes ("solar tubes"), their loss averaged even
higher, at 23%.

"In other words, if you run mains-powered solar for ten years, its
electricity consumption deletes its CO2 saving by about two years.

It would take a not especially well designed system to waste 17% or 23%
on electricity. What you dont mention here is that using a solar panel
to provide power means more embodied energy used in manufacturing the
thing, plus more cost to pay back.


"Solartwin's environment-centred solar water heating design brief
specifies a solar electric pump. So your CO2 savings won't retreat
two steps after advancing ten."

no, but you start from a position further back, due to embodied energy
in the panel. Youre also further back financially.


Solar water heating is much like double glazing. If you do it just
to save money then you are not going to do very well out of it.

correct

However, if you do it for a whole range of other reasons then the
investment makes perfect sense.

it doesnt, for one simple reason: you can spend less, invest less
embodied energy, and receive greater returns with solar space heating.


NT

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:05:37 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:41:15 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

These do at least put some figures on the likely effects of these
units (something the manufacturers studiously avoid doing).

Incorrect.

Solartwin make quite a lot of one of the reports you mentioned.

Indeed they do - most misleadingly. As with all other manufacturers
they also, as I stated, avoid real figures like the plague and have
no link to download the report they quote. Instead there is a
rambling missive about vague greenery and a wholly ridiculous claim
that the value of your house will go up by at least GBP1,000 and your
boiler get two years of extra life.

http://www.solartwin.com/questions_a...s.htm#evidence

"Where's the evidence of this 20%?

20% of what? They present it as if it is a huge saving, in fact the
performance of their product is pretty middle of the road in a bunch
which collectively are dire.

"In this study, flat plate solar hot water systems negated an
average of 17% of their potential global warming benefits (i.e. CO2
savings) by using mains electricity.

Which fails to mention that the benefits are minimal to begin with -
17% of 2/3 square root of sod all is still sod all.

"For partial-vacuum tubes ("solar tubes"), their loss averaged even
higher, at 23%.

The loss was exactly the same - this is simple dishonest use of
percentages to make a marketing point.

Solar water heating is much like double glazing. If you do it just
to save money then you are not going to do very well out of it.
However, if you do it for a whole range of other reasons then the
investment makes perfect sense.

It is nothing like double glazing. Double glazing brings with it a
number of other advantages such as better noise insulation, less
condensation and improved comfort within rooms by eliminating
draughts. Solar water heating has no advantages at all over any
other form of water heating, however, as well as making no economic
sense is visually unattractive and also a very unreliable heating
source.

Solar water heating will never make sense in the vast majority of
situations in the UK.



--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

wrote in message
ups.com...
Graham Harrison wrote:
Has anyone here had domestic solar water heating installed? I know
this is
the DIY group but I'm looking for someone to do it for me. Googling
has
produced a number of companies and trade associations but there's
nothing
like a personal recommendation (or warning).

I'm on the Somerset/Wiltshire border (some companies only seem to work
in
certain parts of the country).

Thank you.

Commercial solar HW systems are a great way to throw your money away.
Suggest looking at solar flat plate space heating, less cost, more heat
gain. Try alt.solar.thermal for info & expertise.

It is best to look here as the prices are highly competitive:
http://www.navitron.org.uk/

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 22 Nov 2005 14:54:03 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Commercial solar HW systems are a great way to throw your money away.

They are certainly not going to have a short payback period.
However, the same is true of double glazing. There are plenty of
other reasons for installing solar hot water systems than payback
period.

Suggest looking at solar flat plate space heating, less cost, more heat
gain.

Far more expensive if one is going to produce enough heat for a
house. A major problem is that the heat is available in the summer,
but needed in the winter. It might make a contribution in spring and
autumn, when there are relatively sunny days and cold nights. Such
heating is ideal in warm places with cold nights, such as deserts.

Try the Thermomax panels from Navitron - I gave the link. An array of those
and a large thermal store supplying very low temp UFH and it may be viable.

The UK has about half the sun of north America in winter. The most cost
effective way to save energy is:

1. Insulate as much as possible: cavity wall, 1 foot in the loft, foam
against the side of the foundations (easy to do, just digging).

2. Make the house as air-tight as possible: spay-in Warcell in the loft,
sealed triple glazing and doors, ect. Seal up chimney breast.

Then use solar as DHW only.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:59:43 +0000 (UTC), "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

Has anyone here had domestic solar water heating installed?

My parents house had it (self install - DIY cost about GBP500 in
total using some very expensive glass vacuum collectors found in a
scrap yard - it was finding the collectors which caused the thing to
be built!) and a neighbour later had a commercial one fitted. Over
20 years neither broke even or got remotely near doing so. Both
houses had virtually ideal south facing roofs of appropriate pitch.

Two reports worth looking at are


http://www.broadband.gov.uk/energy/r...s/sp300275r.pd
f

and


http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/pub...pdf?pubpdfdloa
d=01%2F1292

These do at least put some figures on the likely effects of these
units (something the manufacturers studiously avoid doing).

As energy has taken a price hype, the figures may be rather out of date.
These 20 year old systems may start to pay for themselves big-time.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:05:37 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:41:15 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

These do at least put some figures on the likely effects of these
units (something the manufacturers studiously avoid doing).

Incorrect.

Solartwin make quite a lot of one of the reports you mentioned.

Indeed they do - most misleadingly. As with all other manufacturers
they also, as I stated, avoid real figures like the plague and have
no link to download the report they quote. Instead there is a
rambling missive about vague greenery and a wholly ridiculous claim
that the value of your house will go up by at least GBP1,000 and your
boiler get two years of extra life.

http://www.solartwin.com/questions_a...s.htm#evidence

"Where's the evidence of this 20%?

20% of what? They present it as if it is a huge saving, in fact the
performance of their product is pretty middle of the road in a bunch
which collectively are dire.

"In this study, flat plate solar hot water systems negated an
average of 17% of their potential global warming benefits (i.e. CO2
savings) by using mains electricity.

Which fails to mention that the benefits are minimal to begin with -
17% of 2/3 square root of sod all is still sod all.

"For partial-vacuum tubes ("solar tubes"), their loss averaged even
higher, at 23%.

The loss was exactly the same - this is simple dishonest use of
percentages to make a marketing point.

Solar water heating is much like double glazing. If you do it just
to save money then you are not going to do very well out of it.
However, if you do it for a whole range of other reasons then the
investment makes perfect sense.

It is nothing like double glazing. Double glazing brings with it a
number of other advantages such as better noise insulation, less
condensation and improved comfort within rooms by eliminating
draughts. Solar water heating has no advantages at all over any
other form of water heating, however, as well as making no economic
sense is visually unattractive and also a very unreliable heating
source.

Solar water heating will never make sense in the vast majority of
situations in the UK.

It will if it is designed and built into new homes, renovations and
extensions. If it is made mandatory the capital cost will plummet and it
will be viable.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:29:53 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

Try the Thermomax panels from Navitron - I gave the link.

Oddly enough, I find myself almost agreeing with Drivel. I've no idea
who Navitron are, but Thermomax make a good product. If they can get
them to work cost-effectively in Northern Ireland, they ought to work in
Somerset!

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Try the Thermomax panels from Navitron - I gave the link. An array of those
and a large thermal store supplying very low temp UFH and it may be viable.

The UK has about half the sun of north America in winter. The most cost
effective way to save energy is:

1. Insulate as much as possible: cavity wall, 1 foot in the loft, foam
against the side of the foundations (easy to do, just digging).

2. Make the house as air-tight as possible: spay-in Warcell in the loft,
sealed triple glazing and doors, ect. Seal up chimney breast.

Then use solar as DHW only.

Tell us something. Why install an array of highly priced commercial
panels/tubes, plus plumbing system, plus UFH, when you could just as
well install panels that are nothing more than glazed frames with black
cloth, add holes in the wall and dampers, and harvest stacks of heat
directly without all that nonsense in the way. You'd get twice the
output for half the money.

Re storage, you dont use any. Theres a temperature comfort range, the
day time heating takes it to however high your comfortable with, and
temp drops very slowly in the evening. If it drops to the lower end of
your chosen range, the CH tops up.


NT

Dramatic price reduction is the one barrier with SDHW, and one thats
addressable in the years ahead imho.

Mass produced freezeproof moulded panels can be fitted into the roof so
that they replace an area of tiling, thus cutting their effective cost
for new builds.
Add suitable control as part of some standard CH controllers and the
control costs drop.
Instead of one collector per house, install a large bank of panelling
on flats to supply a communal HW source, and the paperwork and
organisation costs per flat drop, and diversity kicks in, ensuring
quick recovery.
Include a set of minimum cost unglazed panels for prewarming cold
incoming water.

Etc.

If solar cost 1/4 the price it would be worth it today. Energy costs
are on the up, and there are many ways to cut solar costs once it gets
out of the gimmick league. Also manufactured goods costs are coming
down every decade. I reckon they might well become widespread in time.


NT

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:01:06 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

It is nothing like double glazing. Double glazing brings with it a
number of other advantages

Something I said in my posting.

Solar water heating has no advantages at all over any
other form of water heating,

Really. So not burning gas or electricity and thus reducing
greenhouse gas emissions is not an advantage? Not running a boiler
all the year round is not an advantage? Fascinating.

as well as making no economic
sense is visually unattractive

I suspect we are getting to your real motives now. Do you think that
a panel built into a roof www.imaginationsolar.com is unattractive?

and also a very unreliable heating source.

Owners of modern systems seem happy with them, perhaps you are
thinking of some of the earlier systems (still sold, sadly) with
pre-heating cylinders and the like.

Solar water heating will never make sense in the vast majority of
situations in the UK.

As others have said, mass production and installation in new
buildings will even change the economics. Meanwhile the other
advantages remain.

Perhaps you would like to study the recent report on sustainable
heating systems by the Sustainable Development Commission. This
gives the best view on the subject recently.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

wrote in message
oups.com...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Try the Thermomax panels from Navitron - I gave the link. An array of
those
and a large thermal store supplying very low temp UFH and it may be
viable.

The UK has about half the sun of north America in winter. The most cost
effective way to save energy is:

1. Insulate as much as possible: cavity wall, 1 foot in the loft, foam
against the side of the foundations (easy to do, just digging).

2. Make the house as air-tight as possible: spay-in Warcell in the
loft,
sealed triple glazing and doors, ect. Seal up chimney breast.

Then use solar as DHW only.

Tell us something. Why install an array of highly priced commercial
panels/tubes, plus plumbing system, plus UFH, when you could just as
well install panels that are nothing more than glazed frames with black
cloth, add holes in the wall and dampers, and harvest stacks of heat
directly without all that nonsense in the way. You'd get twice the
output for half the money.

You are on about an air heater in a conservatory. Good choice and v good.
But you need a conservatory.

Re storage, you dont use any. Theres a temperature comfort range, the
day time heating takes it to however high your comfortable with, and
temp drops very slowly in the evening. If it drops to the lower end of
your chosen range, the CH tops up.

The Navitron Thermomax panels are cheap and will produce heat when the flat
plates will not.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:59:43 +0000 (UTC), "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

Has anyone here had domestic solar water heating installed?

My parents house had it (self install - DIY cost about GBP500 in
total using some very expensive glass vacuum collectors found in a
scrap yard - it was finding the collectors which caused the thing to
be built!) and a neighbour later had a commercial one fitted. Over
20 years neither broke even or got remotely near doing so. Both
houses had virtually ideal south facing roofs of appropriate pitch.

I don't believe it. If you spent £500 20 years ago and you haven't recouped
the cost? Do some sums. That is £25 a year. A DHW solar setup will save
more than £25 in energy costs a year, unless they don't use much DHW at all.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I don't believe it. If you spent £500 20 years ago and you haven't
recouped the cost? Do some sums. That is £25 a year.

'Sums' is all it is - like a five year old could do. An adult brain would
consider things like interest.

500 quid invested 20 years ago could have given a return of far more that
25 quid a year in the early years.

Get your nurse to explain it to you when she gives you your medication
before putting you outside in your bathchair. And make sure she gives you
an extra blanket.

--
*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 05:12:38 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:01:06 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

Solar water heating has no advantages at all over any
other form of water heating,

Really. So not burning gas or electricity and thus reducing
greenhouse gas emissions is not an advantage?

No, because it is trivially insignificant. If every house in the UK
went to solar water heating tomorrow it would have a negligible
effect upon world greenhouse gas emissions. Indulging in posture
politics and switching off brain as soon as "global warming" is
mentioned simply distracts from the real problem which isn't in the
UK or capable of being solved by the UK.

Not running a boiler all the year round is not an advantage?

No, because the solar supply is unreliable - you still need
conventional water heating available. If you switch off the boiler
for the summer and rely upon a daytime immersion heater for the times
the solar water heating is inadequate the small saving it makes is
wiped out in a few days.

as well as making no economic sense is visually unattractive

I suspect we are getting to your real motives now.

Try not to be a prat all your life.

Do you think that
a panel built into a roof www.imaginationsolar.com is unattractive?

Actually, yes, nearly all the examples shown are pretty awful. Not
all roofs are dull grey.

Solar water heating will never make sense in the vast majority of
situations in the UK.

As others have said, mass production and installation in new
buildings will even change the economics.

Possibly, but we are talking about retrofitting today - not built in
tomorrow.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:07:39 -0000, "Doctor Dribble"
wrote:



I don't believe it.

I'm sure you don't. Elementary understanding of physics and maths
has always been rather beyond your meager abilities.

If you spent £500 20 years ago and you haven't recouped
the cost? Do some sums.

I did, and it was monitored for much of its life. It saved an
average of GBP 18 per year. If the money had been put in a savings
account it would have earned far more than that.




--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On 23 Nov 2005 17:32:26 -0800, wrote:

Why install an array of highly priced commercial
panels/tubes, [...]

Because a passive system really needs to be designed into the building
when it's built (or extended).

Because a flat panel system works well in wam weather but very badly in
cold sunny weather. It may still capture plenty of solar heat, but it
also has losses too high for effective use in our climate, year-round.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 05:12:38 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:01:06 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

Solar water heating has no advantages at all over any
other form of water heating,

Really. So not burning gas or electricity and thus reducing
greenhouse gas emissions is not an advantage?

No, because it is trivially insignificant. If every house in the UK
went to solar water heating tomorrow it would have a negligible
effect upon world greenhouse gas emissions.

But a hell of lot locally. Imagine London full of solar panels on every
roof. The air quality would rise substantially. If the roofs were full of
PV panels then even more.

If regs are introduced to implement solar then prices will come down and
everyone benefits and many ways.

Indulging in posture
politics and switching off brain as soon as "global warming" is
mentioned simply distracts from the real problem which isn't in the
UK or capable of being solved by the UK.

You are burying your head in the sand.

Not running a boiler all the year round is not an advantage?

No, because the solar supply is unreliable - you still need
conventional water heating available. If you switch off the boiler
for the summer and rely upon a daytime immersion heater for the times
the solar water heating is inadequate the small saving it makes is
wiped out in a few days.

Nonsense. Over the whole years solar may produce substantial heat, and who
in their right mind used an electric immersion when cheaper oil or gas is
available.

as well as making no economic sense is visually unattractive

I suspect we are getting to your real motives now.

Try not to be a prat all your life.

That is right. Do you occasionally have a day off?

Do you think that
a panel built into a roof www.imaginationsolar.com is unattractive?

Actually, yes, nearly all the examples shown are pretty awful. Not
all roofs are dull grey.

Panels from gutter to apex look good.

Solar water heating will never make sense in the vast majority of
situations in the UK.

As others have said, mass production and installation in new
buildings will even change the economics.

Possibly, but we are talking about retrofitting today - not built in
tomorrow.

If it is DIYed using Navitron panels, then it IS viable.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

I don't believe it. If you spent £500 20 years ago and you haven't
recouped the cost? Do some sums. That is £25 a year.

'Sums' is all it is

Yes he knows sums. Probably into take-ways by now.

*** snip senility **

"Peter Parry" plehead extrodanaire wrote in message
...

I don't believe it.

I'm sure you don't. Elementary understanding of physics and maths
has always been rather beyond your meager abilities.

If you spent £500 20 years ago and you haven't recouped
the cost? Do some sums.

I did, and it was monitored for much of its life. It saved an
average of GBP 18 per year. If the money had been put in a savings
account it would have earned far more than that.

£18 a year? It must be facing north, or poorly and inefficiently
installed - must be if you had anything to do with it.

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On 23 Nov 2005 17:32:26 -0800, wrote:

Why install an array of highly priced commercial
panels/tubes, [...]

Because a passive system really needs to be designed into the building
when it's built (or extended).

Because a flat panel system works well in wam weather but very badly in
cold sunny weather. It may still capture plenty of solar heat, but it
also has losses too high for effective use in our climate, year-round.

Scotland has a long heating season, right into June. Because purchased heat
is required for 9 to 10 months of the year, the more you can claw from solar
the better. Surprisingly, solar, passive and active, in Scotland makes more
sense than anywhere else in the UK. Probably the same for NI too.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
But a hell of lot locally. Imagine London full of solar panels on
every roof. The air quality would rise substantially.

Why? We'd burn less gas, but gas burns to CO2 and water. I'm not disputing
that reducing CO2 is probably a good thing but it doesn't affect air
quality.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:37:36 -0000, "Doctor Dribble"
wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote

No, because it is trivially insignificant. If every house in the UK
went to solar water heating tomorrow it would have a negligible
effect upon world greenhouse gas emissions.

But a hell of lot locally. Imagine London full of solar panels on every
roof. The air quality would rise substantially.

How so?

If regs are introduced to implement solar then prices will come down and
everyone benefits and many ways.

You mean in the same way that if you approach a firm offering the
government grants for solar water heating you have to pay GBP2,000
over the odds for the installation to qualify for a GBP400 grant? Or
the way Part P has "lowered" the price charged by electricians for
domestic work?

Not running a boiler all the year round is not an advantage?

No, because the solar supply is unreliable - you still need
conventional water heating available. If you switch off the boiler
for the summer and rely upon a daytime immersion heater for the times
the solar water heating is inadequate the small saving it makes is
wiped out in a few days.

Nonsense. Over the whole years solar may produce substantial heat,

It may, however it doesn't, there are many summer days where the
output is negligible.

Panels from gutter to apex look good.

They do?

If it is DIYed using Navitron panels, then it IS viable.

So when are you installing yours to go with the hot air heating you
worship (but don't have)?


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:42:35 -0000, "Doctor Dribble"
wrote:


£18 a year? It must be facing north, or poorly and inefficiently
installed - must be if you had anything to do with it.

OK, I'll give you clue as it is unlikely you would ever work it out
and yet again you demonstrate your inability to read. The rest of
the heating system was very efficient. As it was efficient the cost
of heating water was low and the saving from the solar water heating
was therefore also low. The amount of energy available for the
solar panels to collect is unalterable. If they had been 100%
effective they would still have been a poor investment.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Peter Parry" aka Mr wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:37:36 -0000, "Doctor Dribble"
wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote

No, because it is trivially insignificant. If every house in the UK
went to solar water heating tomorrow it would have a negligible
effect upon world greenhouse gas emissions.

But a hell of lot locally. Imagine London full of solar panels on every
roof. The air quality would rise substantially.

How so?

My God, Mr Pot can't figure that out.

If regs are introduced to implement solar then prices will come down and
everyone benefits and many ways.

Not running a boiler all the year round is not an advantage?

No, because the solar supply is unreliable - you still need
conventional water heating available. If you switch off the boiler
for the summer and rely upon a daytime immersion heater for the times
the solar water heating is inadequate the small saving it makes is
wiped out in a few days.

Nonsense. Over the whole years solar may produce substantial heat,

It may, however it doesn't, there are many summer days where the
output is negligible.

"over the whole year". Has it sunk in yet?

Panels from gutter to apex look good.

They do?

They do.

If it is DIYed using Navitron panels, then it IS viable.

So when are you installing yours

May be sooner than you think.

to go with the hot air heating you
worship (but don't have)?

I wish I had it.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:52:09 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

Surprisingly, solar, passive and active, in Scotland makes more
sense than anywhere else in the UK. Probably the same for NI too.

It makes more sense - but it's also more demanding on how you do it.

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:52:09 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

Surprisingly, solar, passive and active, in Scotland makes more
sense than anywhere else in the UK. Probably the same for NI too.

It makes more sense - but it's also more demanding on how you do it.

Just follow the golden rules and it will all work.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:23:28 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

No, because it is trivially insignificant. If every house in the UK
went to solar water heating tomorrow it would have a negligible
effect upon world greenhouse gas emissions.

As the old Chinese proverb says, the longest journey starts with a
single step. Saying that it is all too difficult and there is
nothing I can do is common, but not useful.

Not running a boiler all the year round is not an advantage?

No, because the solar supply is unreliable - you still need
conventional water heating available.

If the solar system is sized properly then the number of times a
boiler is run will be negligible.

If you switch off the boiler for the summer

Who said anything about doing this?

as well as making no economic sense is visually unattractive

I suspect we are getting to your real motives now.

Try not to be a prat all your life.

Excellent, personal abuse. Usually the resort of those with no
better arguments.

Actually, yes, nearly all the examples shown are pretty awful. Not
all roofs are dull grey.

http://www.imaginationsolar.com/Gallery/v_panels.htm does not
involve a dull grey roof and neither does
http://www.imaginationsolar.com/Gallery/new_dev2.htm both of which
don't look in the least awful to me.

As others have said, mass production and installation in new
buildings will even change the economics.

Possibly, but we are talking about retrofitting today

Given that Mr Prescott wants to build huge numbers of houses in
England over a relatively short period of time, over and above what
the volume builders are providing, we are talking about changing the
economics over a period of, say, five years.

Early adopters retrofitting houses will undoubtedly bring the price
down, as we see in other fields.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:23:28 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

No, because it is trivially insignificant. If every house in the UK
went to solar water heating tomorrow it would have a negligible
effect upon world greenhouse gas emissions.

As the old Chinese proverb says, the longest journey starts with a
single step. Saying that it is all too difficult and there is
nothing I can do is common, but not useful.

Not running a boiler all the year round is not an advantage?

No, because the solar supply is unreliable - you still need
conventional water heating available.

If the solar system is sized properly then the number of times a
boiler is run will be negligible.

If you switch off the boiler for the summer

Who said anything about doing this?

as well as making no economic sense is visually unattractive

I suspect we are getting to your real motives now.

Try not to be a prat all your life.

Excellent, personal abuse.

This man knows no better.

Usually the resort of those with no
better arguments.

That is the man.

Actually, yes, nearly all the examples shown are pretty awful. Not
all roofs are dull grey.

http://www.imaginationsolar.com/Gallery/v_panels.htm does not
involve a dull grey roof and neither does
http://www.imaginationsolar.com/Gallery/new_dev2.htm both of which
don't look in the least awful to me.

And:
http://carfaxlibdems.org.uk/pages/ecohouse.html

It is clear Mr Pot has no idea of design whatsoever.

As others have said, mass production and installation in new
buildings will even change the economics.

Possibly, but we are talking about retrofitting today

Given that Mr Prescott wants to build huge numbers of houses in
England over a relatively short period of time, over and above what
the volume builders are providing, we are talking about changing the
economics over a period of, say, five years.

Early adopters retrofitting houses will undoubtedly bring the price
down, as we see in other fields.

Yep.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:13:59 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

Over the whole years solar may produce substantial heat,

It may, however it doesn't, there are many summer days where the
output is negligible.

So you assert. Others can decide how valid your assertions are on
this subject. Perhaps you are claiming that the comments at
http://www.solartwin.com/comments.htm are all made up?

"My family has been the beneficiaries of Solartwin hot water for the
past three years and we cannot speak highly enough about the
company and its equipment. Even in the middle of the winter the pump
gets triggered and our tank fills with warm water. Living in an
isolated spot with bottled gas as our energy source the cost of
heating the water was astronomical and a year round expense. Now
however we turn off the gas for three to four months in the summer
and enjoy enough hot water for all our washing needs. We have never
needed any service or help since installation and recommend
Solartwin both for its technology and helpful and friendly service"

“23 December 2004 - My Solartwin was happily whirling away in the
bright winter sunshine yesterday morning at around 11 o’clock.”




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 13:05:44 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:23:28 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

No, because it is trivially insignificant. If every house in the UK
went to solar water heating tomorrow it would have a negligible
effect upon world greenhouse gas emissions.

As the old Chinese proverb says, the longest journey starts with a
single step.

Old Chinese proverb also says starting the journey in the wrong
direction and wearing a blindfold makes sure you don't get very far.

Saying that it is all too difficult and there is
nothing I can do is common, but not useful.

Who said that? I said it was the wrong answer and contributed
nothing to solving the problem. The problem may be solved but not by
political and making token ineffective gestures.

If you switch off the boiler for the summer

Who said anything about doing this?

You did "Not running a boiler all the year round is not an advantage?
Fascinating." You obviously meant it differently.

Excellent, personal abuse. Usually the resort of those with no
better arguments.

I noticed that in your first rather weak attempt.

http://www.imaginationsolar.com/Gallery/v_panels.htm does not
involve a dull grey roof and neither does
http://www.imaginationsolar.com/Gallery/new_dev2.htm both of which
don't look in the least awful to me.

Some people think Tracy Eminem produces art, there is no accounting
for taste.

As a matter of interest an oft touted figure (by the manufacturers of
course) is that putting solar panels on a house increases its selling
price by GBP1,000 over neighbouring houses - has anyone any evidence
this has ever happened? I'm aware of one person locally who had some
trouble selling a house with commercially fitted solar heating
because it looked so awful and buyers wanted to reduce the price by
the amount needed to take it out and rebuild the roof but I've never
come across anyone actually reporting a higher selling price being
achieved.

Given that Mr Prescott wants to build huge numbers of houses in
England over a relatively short period of time, over and above what
the volume builders are providing, we are talking about changing the
economics over a period of, say, five years.

How many of the plans for those houses currently mandates solar water
heating?

Early adopters retrofitting houses will undoubtedly bring the price
down, as we see in other fields.

"Early adopters" of this have been around since 1970 all chanting
"price will come down any day now - honest Guv". It still hasn't.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

In article , David Hansen
wrote:
Living in an
isolated spot with bottled gas as our energy source the cost of
heating the water was astronomical and a year round expense.

If you're using bottled gas then solar heating may make sense. If you
run a typical mains gas heated 108m2 detached house built to 2001-
standards with a condensing boiler through the SAP-2001 model you get a
total energy cost for heating and DHW of £173 (2001 prices) which
reduces to £158 if you add a 4m2 solar panel.

The new Part L Approved Document which comes into force next April
might just increase interest in solar heating since it sets a total CO2
target for a new dwelling: if you add solar heating (etc) you have the
potential to reduce insulation levels elsewhere. Truth be told it would
be far more useful to ensure that *every* loft in the country had 100mm
of insulation.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

David Hansen wrote:

8--------
Early adopters retrofitting houses will undoubtedly bring the price
down, as we see in other fields.


So it's sensible to watch and wait about solar hot water until either a rise
in fuel prices or lowering costs of solar or both make the idea viable.
I've been doing that since about 1977 when I was planning to build and
install a very cheap home made system using old radiators and suchlike for
fun (I had a big south facing garden so they didn't need to go on the
roof). It never happened for other reasons but I've continued to consider
solar. I like the idea, but so far I've not been able to see a financial
benefit even on a DIY installation.

So I'll just wait a bit longer.

Edgar

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 13:50:41 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:13:59 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

Over the whole years solar may produce substantial heat,

It may, however it doesn't, there are many summer days where the
output is negligible.

So you assert.

So I have measured over many years. On a cloudy, rainy summer day
the output was very low and inadequate by itself to provide hot
water. Those conditions sometimes prevailed for several days on the
run between late spring and early autumn.

Perhaps you are claiming that the comments at
http://www.solartwin.com/comments.htm are all made up?

It isn't that uncommon for such comments to be entirely made up - a
glance at any national double glazing or kitchen fitting companies
web site will provide you with examples.

However, assuming they are real, do you really think they represent
the full range of responses or do you think there is just a slight
possibility the company selling the gizmos and also publishing the
letters would only select the favourable comments to publish?


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/