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 it’s 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

"Sunny" wrote in message
...
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 ?

"woodglass" wrote in message
.uk...

"Sunny" wrote in message
...
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 ?

Financial cost isn't the only consideration.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"woodglass" wrote in message
.uk...

"Sunny" wrote in message
...
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 ?

Financial cost isn't the only consideration.


Exactly !!!

"woodglass" wrote in message
.uk...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"woodglass" wrote in message
.uk...

"Sunny" wrote in message
...
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 ?

Financial cost isn't the only consideration.


Exactly !!!

?

Mary Fisher wrote:
"woodglass" wrote in message
.uk...
"Sunny" wrote in message
...
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 ?

Financial cost isn't the only consideration.



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.

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:17:23 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

But its strange how money pretty much equates to energy emplyed to
make/install, and materials employed to make/install

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
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:17:23 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

But its strange how money pretty much equates to energy emplyed to
make/install, and materials employed to make/install

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.


Well in the building tarde generally,not that much.

For so called 'green' products all bets are off. A with all fashion
statements.

Mary Fisher wrote:
"woodglass" wrote in message
.uk...

"Sunny" wrote in message
...
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 ?

Financial cost isn't the only consideration.

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

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 21:44:09 -0000 someone who may be "BRG"
wrote this:-

Still a rather expensive waste of time though installing these things (along
with windmills stuck on the roof or huge windfarms in the countryside)

Ah,proof by assertion.

you still have to rely on nuclear/coal/gas/oil fired power stations to
maintain a reliable and constant supply of electricity.

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
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

Still a rather expensive waste of time though installing these things
(along
with windmills stuck on the roof or huge windfarms in the countryside)

Ah,proof by assertion.

No more so that the stuff you rely on.

you still have to rely on nuclear/coal/gas/oil fired power stations to
maintain a reliable and constant supply of electricity.

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

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.

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.

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

David Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 21:44:09 -0000 someone who may be "BRG"
wrote this:-

Still a rather expensive waste of time though installing these
things (along with windmills stuck on the roof or huge windfarms in
the countryside)

Ah,proof by assertion.

When the wind stops, the electricity stops *and* they even have to be
'turned off' in 'high winds' - so an expensive waste of time wouldn't you
say?

you still have to rely on nuclear/coal/gas/oil fired power stations
to maintain a reliable and constant supply of electricity.

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.

True, problems will occur that will shut down a single power station - they
even close for maintenance and some are even 'mothballed' in the summer
months - but the electricity can still be generated from other stations.
Remember, when the wind stops, the whole windfarm stops generating *AND*
that loss *CANNOT' be replaced by other windfarms from different parts of
the country - or even another country.

But there are more o

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.

Agreed, but to get to this reliabilty from windfarms, then you would
physically have to have huge windfarms on every exposed place in this
country *AND* offshore - and that would still not be enough to power the
whole country reliably.

Ignoring this simple fact
leads one to make foolish statements and come up with ridiculous
costs, as the Royal Academy of Engineering have demonstrated.


Lies, damn lies and statistics that can even make 2 + 2 appear to add up to
5 - and that's what many resort to just to to make an impossible scenario
appear possible!

Not a foolish statement as the technology stands today - wind is factually
incapable of supplying sufficient electrical energy to run both industry and
domestic needs 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 52 weeks a year without
the help of power stations that are coal/gas/oil or nuclear powered - even
taking into consideration hydro-electric power generation.

If that were possible, it is unlikely that this government would noe even be
considering building new nuclear stations - let alone drawing up the
constructions plans and putting systems (changing the planning laws) into
place to legally prevent the tree huggers from being able to voice their
objections!

Never mind, the real fact is that 'global warming/cooling" had been taking
place for millions of years before life and the 'human' race ever evolved on
this planet (and even as humans were evolving) and will continue to do so
even if man resorts to living in caves again and eating and clothing himself
from whatever he can hunt and kill on that particular hot or cold day.

To stop weather pattern changes is just like the legendary king Canute
standing on the seashore and telling the tide to get back - impossible -
whatever we insignificant, ignorant. capitalistic and blood-thirsty humans
try to do.

Old mother nature wants her revenge on the human race, and she will get her
way - either through weather changes or plain and simple hunger (biofuel
production will start that off), disease and pestilence!

And *SHE* *WILL* ultimately get her way - as she did with the dinosaurs - no
matter what man does! Dig out the old animal skins for clothes, sharpen the
wooden spears and learn how to hunt and live without electricity, computers,
the corner shop, cars and to keep the old cave warm using animal skins for a
door and bits of wood for a fire to cook on - or shiver and eat raw meat!
:-)

Am I really making light of the subject - or will it happen? I
wonder........
BRG

"BRG" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"woodglass" wrote in message
.uk...

"Sunny" wrote in message
...
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 ?

Financial cost isn't the only consideration.

Mary,

Still a rather expensive waste of time though installing these things

We don't think so.

(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.

Aye, well there's the rub. Folk want constant power but not what they
consider to be unsightly sources.

Try powering a factory with wind or solar power and see what happens!

It used to be done stisfactory with water power.

Why not try doing without most of the things the factories produce?

Mary

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:01:33 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

Try powering a factory with wind or solar power and see what happens!

It used to be done stisfactory with water power.

Mackies and Michelin get at least some of the electricity for their
production from the wind
http://www.good-energy.co.uk/gyo_ppa_case_mackies
http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/projects/plan_michelin.html



--
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

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"BRG" wrote in message
...
.....
Try powering a factory with wind or solar power and see what happens!

It used to be done stisfactory with water power.

Water power is very predictable and, in the absence of anything better, the
poor efficiency had to be accepted.

Why not try doing without most of the things the factories produce?

There seems to be no particular reason to do so. The past 12 months seems to
support what the Russians have been saying all along - that solar activity
is a far stronger driver of climate change than anything man can come up
with. Much reduced solar activity has seen global temperatures drop by at
least 0.65C, the biggest recorded change in either direction in a 12 month
period, while the ice caps have almost recovered to the point they were
before people decided they were shrinking. The problem is that the Russians
are also predicting a significant period of global cooling in the near
future, which is potentially far more damaging than having global warming
continue.

Colin Bignell

Mary Fisher wrote:
"BRG" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"woodglass" wrote in message
.uk...

"Sunny" wrote in message
...
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 ?

Financial cost isn't the only consideration.

Mary,

Still a rather expensive waste of time though installing these things

We don't think so.

Where there muck there's brass eh?

(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.

Aye, well there's the rub. Folk want constant power but not what they
consider to be unsightly sources.

But the other 'rub' is that it's *NOT* a constant source of power - even if
you cover your small holding with the damn things!

Try powering a factory with wind or solar power and see what
happens!

It used to be done stisfactory with water power.

Not "satisfactory" Mary, there are recorded instances of factories using
water power having to close in times of drought - and that's why they *ALL*
converted to steam-power and then progressed to electricity or simply went
bankrupt!

Why not try doing without most of the things the factories produce?

Could you live without the textiles to produce your clothes, the
manufacturing systems that are used to produce the bulk of the food you eat
and all the medicines you use when you are ill - and that's just the
basics - what about life's little luxuries, the ability to sit at your
computer and converse with the world at large, or the fridge and the freezer
in the corner, or the car that you use to nip out for an evenings
socialising - or just to pop out and mechanically milk the odd cow or two?
(For the single minded here, I mean cattle and nowt else)! :-)

BRG

Huge wrote:

Faintly OT, but ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7270218.stm

"No impact from Energy Saving Day".

Quelle suprise.



"The event also received very little publicity".

So little I never heard about it...

Andy

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install solar
panels in the uk ?

Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one. The idea that anything
should have a simple payback period of five minutes (to exaggerate
for effect) is not clever.

However, simple payback period is not the only reason for doing
something. If it was few would have new kitchens installed, to take
just one example.


--
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 01/03/2008 10:48, David Hansen wrote:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install solar
panels in the uk ?

Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one.

Even the spammed site made that clear.

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:48:03 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install solar
panels in the uk ?

Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one. The idea that anything
should have a simple payback period of five minutes (to exaggerate
for effect) is not clever.

Run it past us again without the exaggeration.


However, simple payback period is not the only reason for doing
something.

IOW Dave doesn't do numbers.

If it was few would have new kitchens installed, to take just
one example.

Not the case. I changed mine when the hinges and fittings were
starting to pull out of the chipboard carcasses and doors, the bottoms
were pushing out of the drawers, and the runners had failed. Not to
mention the finish was deteriorating and the sink unit was damaged by
condensed water dripping off cold pipes and fittings.

I can't understand your point, if the kitchen is dropping to bits it
has to be changed. Where does the "simple payback period" come
into it ?

DG

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:48:03 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install solar
panels in the uk ?
Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one. The idea that anything
should have a simple payback period of five minutes (to exaggerate
for effect) is not clever.

Run it past us again without the exaggeration.

However, simple payback period is not the only reason for doing
something.

IOW Dave doesn't do numbers.


For some* things it's impossible to drill down and produce figures to
inform an accurate cost/benefit analysis. Solar energy is one example.

If it was few would have new kitchens installed, to take just
one example.

Not the case. I changed mine when the hinges and fittings were
starting to pull out of the chipboard carcasses and doors, the bottoms
were pushing out of the drawers, and the runners had failed. Not to
mention the finish was deteriorating and the sink unit was damaged by
condensed water dripping off cold pipes and fittings.


I know many people who've changed perfectly good (IMO) kitchens just for
a new look.

I can't understand your point, if the kitchen is dropping to bits it
has to be changed. Where does the "simple payback period" come
into it ?


Exaggerating for effect at all?

:-)

Rob

* I'd argue that it's impossible in any event

Rob wrote:
Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:48:03 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install
solar panels in the uk ?
Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one. The idea that anything
should have a simple payback period of five minutes (to exaggerate
for effect) is not clever.

Run it past us again without the exaggeration.

However, simple payback period is not the only reason for doing
something.

IOW Dave doesn't do numbers.


For some* things it's impossible to drill down and produce figures to
inform an accurate cost/benefit analysis. Solar energy is one example.


On the contrary, solar energy is one thing is VERY easy to do a cost
benefit excercise on.

A fitted kitchen is not really, since its hard to see what the
alterntives are to having a kitchen, fitted or otherwise. Always eating
out? say at £100 a day for tow of you? tat makes the £10,000 'fitted
kitchen' pay for itself in about 3 years if it saves you ALL that, maybe
5 years if you still have to buy food. Harder to quantify, but still
possible.




If it was few would have new kitchens installed, to take just
one example.

Not the case. I changed mine when the hinges and fittings were
starting to pull out of the chipboard carcasses and doors, the bottoms
were pushing out of the drawers, and the runners had failed. Not to
mention the finish was deteriorating and the sink unit was damaged by
condensed water dripping off cold pipes and fittings.


I know many people who've changed perfectly good (IMO) kitchens just for
a new look.

Ive not seen many people fit new solar panels for that reason. Rip them
out and sell them for scrap, possibly..

I can't understand your point, if the kitchen is dropping to bits it
has to be changed. Where does the "simple payback period" come
into it ?

Exaggerating for effect at all?

:-)

Rob

* I'd argue that it's impossible in any event

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 11:22:58 +0000 someone who may be Rob
wrote this:-

For some* things it's impossible to drill down and produce figures to
inform an accurate cost/benefit analysis. Solar energy is one example.

There is a difficulty with heating and ventilating of buildings,
because it is difficult to adequately allow for the weather in
making detailed calculations. There are crude things like
degree-days to make a stab with, but they are crude. If one was to
install weather recording devices at a property one could be rather
more accurate. There is also the question of usage patterns. We know
that sustainable energy installations make many think about their
usage.

If someone installs a condensing boiler the usual suspects do not
demand ever more detailed figures about it. Their double standards
are mildly amusing, but the problem is that they may put off those
who cannot see through their bluster. Anyway, no matter how detailed
the figures are they are unlikely to be accepted, they would
probably just ask for ever more figures, a well known tactic.

Some solar systems are fitted with more customer feedback than
others, though this is generally more than some other energy systems
I can think of. Some only measure the temperature of the cylinder,
IIRC Solartwin provide a digital thermometer display as part of
their kit for installers. This is a good indication in itself,
though some are foolish enough to imply that those who quote such
figures are either lying or too stupid to read the display. Other
solar systems provide additional information, which may include the
kWh the system has produced over various periods (this needs to be
calibrated, but measuring kWh in hot water is a well known technique
used in many places). http://www.navitron.org.uk/page.php?32 third
drawing/photograph shows a screen shot of one (actually taken from
the ethernet software). The kWh figures from a calibrated real
system make an interesting comparison to the assertions of the usual
suspects.

I know many people who've changed perfectly good (IMO) kitchens just for
a new look.

So do I. I doubt if any of them thought of the simple payback
period.




--
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 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 11:22:58 +0000, Rob
wrote:

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:48:03 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install solar
panels in the uk ?
Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one. The idea that anything
should have a simple payback period of five minutes (to exaggerate
for effect) is not clever.

Run it past us again without the exaggeration.

However, simple payback period is not the only reason for doing
something.

IOW Dave doesn't do numbers.


For some* things it's impossible to drill down and produce figures to
inform an accurate cost/benefit analysis. Solar energy is one example.

If it was few would have new kitchens installed, to take just
one example.

Not the case. I changed mine when the hinges and fittings were
starting to pull out of the chipboard carcasses and doors, the bottoms
were pushing out of the drawers, and the runners had failed. Not to
mention the finish was deteriorating and the sink unit was damaged by
condensed water dripping off cold pipes and fittings.


I know many people who've changed perfectly good (IMO) kitchens just for
a new look.

I can't understand your point, if the kitchen is dropping to bits it
has to be changed. Where does the "simple payback period" come
into it ?


Exaggerating for effect at all?

:-)

You are talking about Dynamo Hansen I presume ?

He admitted it himself up there ^ .

DG

On Mar 1, 10:48*am, David Hansen
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install solar
panels in the uk ?

Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one. The idea that anything
should have a simple payback period of five minutes (to exaggerate
for effect) is not clever.

However, simple payback period is not the only reason for doing
something. If it was few would have new kitchens installed, to take
just one example.

In other words, domestic solar power is a fashion statement, just like
a new kitchen.

QED

MBQ

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Mar 1, 10:48 am, David Hansen
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install
solar
panels in the uk ?

Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one. The idea that anything
should have a simple payback period of five minutes (to exaggerate
for effect) is not clever.

However, simple payback period is not the only reason for doing
something. If it was few would have new kitchens installed, to take
just one example.

In other words, domestic solar power is a fashion statement, just like
a new kitchen.

If you think that it says a lot about you.

Ours can't be seen ...

Mary

QED

MBQ

On Mar 4, 2:06*pm, "Mary Fisher" wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...
On Mar 1, 10:48 am, David Hansen
wrote:





On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to install
solar
panels in the uk ?

Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one. The idea that anything
should have a simple payback period of five minutes (to exaggerate
for effect) is not clever.

However, simple payback period is not the only reason for doing
something. If it was few would have new kitchens installed, to take
just one example.

In other words, domestic solar power is a fashion statement, just like
a new kitchen.

If you think that

It's what Dynamo dave seems to think.

MBQ

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 05:39:55 -0800 (PST) someone who may be "Man at
B&Q" wrote this:-

However, simple payback period is not the only reason for doing
something. If it was few would have new kitchens installed, to take
just one example.

In other words, domestic solar power is a fashion statement, just like
a new kitchen.

I made no comment on the many reasons why someone might install a
new kitchen. I simply pointed out that there is more than one reason
for doing something.


--
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

woodglass wrote:
"Sunny" wrote in message
...
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 ?


Not me, unless your time is costed at zero, and you make em out of scrap
radiators and black paint..

Even the cost of copper to plumb them in these days..is pretty massive.

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:15:22 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Even the cost of copper to plumb them in these days..is pretty massive.

A 25m coil of 10mm copper tube is £33.21 according to Screwfix
http://www.screwfix.com/prods/17717/Plumbing/Copper-Tube-Accessories/Microbore-Copper-Tube-10mm-25m
I have spent more on a round of drinks in an Edinburgh pub.

It is unlikely that many solar installations will need as much as
this, but let's be generous and say it is all used.

There will be some other copper components in the plumbing, but not
many. A few reducers to convert to the probably 22mm of the header,
pump valves, air vent, pressure relief valve, a couple of tees (air
vent and filling/expansion vessel/ pressure relief valve
connections). Let's be generous and say that takes the total to
£60.00.


--
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 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:15:22 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Even the cost of copper to plumb them in these days..is pretty massive.

A 25m coil of 10mm copper tube is £33.21 according to Screwfix
http://www.screwfix.com/prods/17717/Plumbing/Copper-Tube-Accessories/Microbore-Copper-Tube-10mm-25m
I have spent more on a round of drinks in an Edinburgh pub.

Now why does tha noty surprise me?

I have never bought a round of drinks in an edinbrugh pub, Complete
waste of money.

But as we know, you don't count.

Why not work out how much CO2, is emitted,water and energy used, and
good food wasted, by malting barley and brewing a pint..




It is unlikely that many solar installations will need as much as
this, but let's be generous and say it is all used.

There will be some other copper components in the plumbing, but not
many. A few reducers to convert to the probably 22mm of the header,
pump valves, air vent, pressure relief valve, a couple of tees (air
vent and filling/expansion vessel/ pressure relief valve
connections). Let's be generous and say that takes the total to
£60.00.

Which is probably enough or three years of conventional ho
tw ter heated by and existing installation.,

On 1 Mar, 16:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:15:22 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Even the cost of copper to plumb them in these days..is pretty massive.

A 25m coil of 10mm copper tube is £33.21 according to Screwfix
http://www.screwfix.com/prods/17717/Plumbing/Copper-Tube-Accessories/....
I have spent more on a round of drinks in an Edinburgh pub.

Now why does tha noty surprise me?

I have never bought a round of drinks in an edinbrugh pub, Complete
waste of money.

But as we know, you don't count.

Why not work out how much CO2, is emitted,water and energy used, and
good food wasted, by malting barley and brewing a pint..



It is unlikely that many solar installations will need as much as
this, but let's be generous and say it is all used.

There will be some other copper components in the plumbing, but not
many. A few reducers to convert to the probably 22mm of the header,
pump valves, air vent, pressure relief valve, a couple of tees (air
vent and filling/expansion vessel/ pressure relief valve
connections). Let's be generous and say that takes the total to
£60.00.

Which is probably enough or three years of conventional ho
tw ter heated by and existing installation.,



Ah - ha - spotted you! You are Drivel in disguise ! Only he uses
phrases like 'You don't count'.so I can now add you to my kill file
and ignore all the trash you produce.

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:14:51 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

But as we know, you don't count.

Excellent, personal abuse. Do keep it up.


--
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

To:

[79.72.219.76] Tiscali user - commercial posting abuse
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 01:36:08 -0800 (PST)

Hi Folks,

The Tiscali user identified above and in the sample header and message
below is abusing your service by posting commercial advertising to the
usenet group uk.d-i-y which has a strict no commercial advertising
policy.

The advertising policy of the group may be viewed he
http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/#can

If you could discourage this user from this practice in future I would
be greatly obliged.

Regards,

quote
Path: core-phx-easynews!news-in-01-phx.easynews.com!news.easynews.com!en
236!core-easynews!news-in-02.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews
!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!news.glorb .com!postnews.google.c
om!34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Sunny
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y
Subject: New easy to install DIY solar panels technology
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 01:36:08 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 26
Message-ID:
s.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 79.72.219.76
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1256
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1204364168 5387 127.0.0.1 (1 Mar 2008
09:36:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 09:36:08 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: 34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=79.72.219.76;
posting-account=MpGvIwoAAAAP0FFm21g-2wymRqx6wSHb
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB;
rv:1.8.1.12)
Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: core-phx-easynews uk.d-i-y:776602

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
/quote
--
fred
Plusnet - I hope you like vanilla

In message
,
Sunny writes
Thought my website: www.heatmyhome.co.uk may come in handy for you DIY
solar enthusiasts.

Do you have evidence to back up the claim that it "adds property value"
?


--
geoff