Siting of panels for solar water heating

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-18 02:51:00 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.de>mon.co.uk said: In message , raden raden@kateda.org writes
Solar panels have a reasonably well spec'd return Agreed, but some people buy them for other reasons.
I don't see what my folks signed for as being economically viable No, but I think our clients divide into at least four categories. People that want to save the world. People that like interesting toys. People that want to set an educational example. People that want to save money. All three seem worthy in one respect or another. Another category may also creep in. People that follow fashion.
I think that that is probably a fair assessment of reasons to purchase.
I wonder how much the sales people focus on any of the others than the possibility that the customer might save money. Maybe.

No doubt good sales people instinctively tune into the purchasers motivations.

In terms of worthiness, I suppose it depends on what one means by worthiness. Incrementalism is a poor argument at the best of times

I'm not sure I agree. Small changes can still be worth while, even if they are only a small part of some larger required outcome.

and one might have hoped that people would be smart enough to realise that they won't save the world through installing a solar panel.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it.

Still - I suppose their CO2 is as bad as anybody elses, and every little helps !
Well, hmmm... isn't that Tesco's tag line as they report their latest set of profits?

Asda I think ? But does mean that there's no truth in it ?

All of this is focus in completely the wrong area. All the time that the U.S. continues not to make much of a federal effort in terms of emissions control and China is opening a new coal fired power station weekly, all of this other stuff makes so little difference that it is a waste of time on environmental grounds. I would suggest that efforts are turned towards dealing with the major issues, and that does not include getting GW Bush to sign up for silly politicised nonsense like Kyoto, but for serious efforts for change.

Hmmm... In essence this seems to be an argument in favour of using the car for small trips, leaving the lights on, not using low energy lighting and failing to insulate buildings.
My own view is that other peoples error don't excuse our own.
The control we have over the US and China is limited, and our 'moral authority' is diminished if we take no action locally.
I'd have some more sympathy for your position if you toured the US and China trying to get change of one sort or another, but I'd be the first to admit that this would be the hell of a commitment - but in the absence of such, I strongly favour us doing the best we can personally.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message <1163835127.443384.291590@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>, Meow2222@care2.com writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , raden <raden@kateda.org writes In message , John Beardmore writes
I don't see what my folks signed for as being economically viable
No, but I think our clients divide into at least four categories.
People that want to save the world.
People that like interesting toys.
People that want to set an educational example.
People that want to save money.
All three seem worthy in one respect or another.
The world savers will achieve nothing by fitting solar dhw, as its counterproductive.

In a general sense or just when people try to save the world ?
Life cycle analysis seems to disagree with you by the way.

To understand that

To understand that, you'd need to be right. I don't think you are.

they'd need to see the connection between supply & fit cost and the energy input in supplying and fitting it. Very briefly, money is a form of measure of energy.

It may be an indicator, but not a very good one !
Consider for example the case where a system is installed by one installer who charges 3000, and another installer installs it for 6000. Which system has the higher embedded energy ?
To answer that you have to look at what the installer does with the money. One might plough it back into his company and achieve facility for further environmental improvement. The other might fly off one a huge foreign holiday, but which is which ??
I'd say that price was a very weak indicator of embedded energy.

Without financial payback It just wont pay back in energy terms either.

There may be a week correlation, but Life Cycle Analysis might be a better tool to make this determination.

As for education, I doubt theres a single person on the planet - counting only those in any position to pay for a solar system - who will be educated to any significant extent by seeing 1 more solar system in the world.

There are many communities where once one system has been installed, other people have seen them and chosen to install them.

There are well desgined systems that pay back,

Yes....

but most purchases still come down to those that fail to properly understand the reasons for purchase.

Even where this is so, I don't see that it either precludes the financial savings or the CO2 mitigation.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

Joe Fischer wrote:
Solar energy is primarily a sub-tropic region energy source, and is not being guided in the right direction. Solar panels on the roof, especially retrofitted, is not a good idea, on walls facing the equator is a much better idea. Just one leak caused by installing panels on the roof, and all the savings for 10 years is lost,
Kit mounted atop single storey flat roofs has significant advantages.

Hmmm... Flat roofs are notorious for their leaks. As an installer they make me nervous as it's much harder to satisfy your self that the roof is intact before work starts and after you've finished. You neither want to do damage, or be a scapegoat !

FWIW its quite possible to use a controller that detects leaks and shuts off one section of a parallelled system.

I think Joe meant leak in the roof envelope rather than leak for the system that somehow gets through the roof ??

This would improve reliability, reduce ongoing costs, and extend system lifetimes. But this is only going to be cost effective when the equipment reaches mass production.

Probably better to make kit that won't leak in the first place ?

The British planning system makes extending existing buildings difficult to impossible,

Not really... Though granted it depends what you want and where you are.

and this could also be improved.

:) Yes !!

Really old buildings may be the most difficult to heat, and the trend in the US is larger homes, so nothing is moving in the right direction to save energy.
Its not too hard to retroinsulate old houses.

Depends how far you want to go. It's certainly not as good as making them better in the first place.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Mary Fisher writes

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
Believe me, the cars in use in Europe are not adequate for US highways, I drove my Alfa Romeo 4 door sedan 6 miles each way to have tires fixed, and I hate driving it so much I took a wheel off and took it to have it fixed. Call me chicken, but I am afraid to be on the road in it.
All my American friends drive small, economical cars. In America. Washington state and California.
But most of them are women so they drive with confidence.

:) !
I must admit that unless US highways are much worse than those in Canada, I can't see what the problem is.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , raden writes ....

with energy consumption
... which needs a cunning plan, not people turning off their TVs and disconnecting phone power supplies

I must admit - I can't get excited about phone power supplies, but TVs on standby are another matter if they are dissipating 10 watts or more.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Joe Fischer writes

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 raden wrote:
if the A-380 is ever used by airlines, fuel use all over the world will go up.

Fuel per passenger will come down.
Are you sure this isn't just a weak attempt at a protectionist argument ?

How did mankind survive 200 years ago ?
Depends on where, eskimos wore skins, and ate lots of blubber for energy. Rural Eastern Europe lived in shacks with dirt floors, and on real cold nights invited the cattle and pigs in, and cuddled with them.

Hmmm... My family were never keen on getting a sheep...

I guess maybe in the UK, coal was being burned for heat.

Never very efficiently.

or giving up income.
Well that's the rub - when you're living beyond your (ecological) means, you have to cut back
Unless Saudia Arabia keeps selling oil.

For how long ?

similarly with energy consumption
I am all for planting every square acre in sugar cane, potatoes, beets, water melon, and everything that can be used to make ethanol. But that may not work in every country.

What proportion of US energy demand would that meet ?

... which needs a cunning plan, not people turning off their TVs and disconnecting phone power supplies
There is time, at least in the US, but I see Europe in a critical situation, with an urgent need to do something to assure that people don't freeze.

So why is the US situation so much better ?

Even if there is a crisis, action will be fast, and a solution will be worked out (unless you are talking about sea level rise, which is going to happen anyway). My problems are just keeping warm in 2 rooms and bath

Well - solar DHW meets out bathing needs directly for about 6 months of the year. I commend it to you !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

However, when taken to the realities of
- Does it save money with all factors taken into account?
- Does it save the planet with all factors taken into account?
The answers become very thin indeed.

The answers seem to be yes and yes with UK domestic systems typically pulling in 1 to 4 MWh per year depending on panel area and hot water use.
Granted the more prolific users will displace the most CO2 with them.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

"John Beardmore" wrote in message

In message , Mary Fisher mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> writes "Joe Fischer" wrote in message
Believe me, the cars in use in Europe are not adequate for US highways, I drove my Alfa Romeo 4 door sedan 6 miles each way to have tires fixed, and I hate driving it so much I took a wheel off and took it to have it fixed. Call me chicken, but I am afraid to be on the road in it.
All my American friends drive small, economical cars. In America. Washington state and California.
But most of them are women so they drive with confidence.
:) !
I must admit that unless US highways are much worse than those in Canada, I can't see what the problem is.

My experience in Canada (British Columbia) is that most of the highways are pretty empty. My friends in Wa live in and around Seattle and I've been through there with them during rush hour. It's a bit like London before the Mayor's tax but with more interesting scenery.
Mary

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:53:01 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wrote this:-

roofs don't usually last more than 15 or 20 years,
Hmmm... Our roof was built in the 30s and is still going strong.

Indeed. The life of a roof rather depends on what the roof is made of and how well it is looked after.
-- 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

"John Beardmore" wrote in message

Well - solar DHW meets out bathing needs directly for about 6 months of the year. I commend it to you !

It meets ours for longer than that and it meets the needs of almost all our sink and washbasin needs and the washing machine too.
Mary

Anthony Matonak wrote:

What you might view as advancement in regulations others might view as over-regulation. You may view our (USA) regulations as behind the times while others may view it as offering more freedom and a less intrusive, even totalitarian, government.

I think a comparison of the IEE Wiring Regulations and the US (various) National Electric Codes would show which is over-regulation.
Owain

On 18 Nov, OldNick wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 01:12:45 GMT, raden wrote:
So stop arguing about this shit and stay with your topic. I post as I see fit, and try to make it reasonable.
Bottom posting when someone leaves the whole bloody thread on top is in my mind the worst crime. If I have done it I don't remember.
Otherwise, unless I get sniped at I live and let live.
OK?

Plonk
-- B Thumbs Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 10:24:50 -0000, Mary Fisher wrote:

We have all of those apart from hurricanes,
We've had the odd one .... and several tail ends.

I guess it depends how you define "hurricane". Is it the simple Beaufort Scale sustained winds of over 72mph (*not* gusts) at a given place or a real hurricane or typhoon, driven by warm Sea Surface Temperatures.

26C is about the lowest SST required for huricanes to maintain themselves having formed over warmer water. The waters around the UK are

pushed to get above 15C. Also bear in mind hurricanes are *HUGE*, thier sheer size never really comes across in the news reports.
If the eye of yer average hurricane passed over Manchester, you would have sustained winds >72mph from the South Lakes to North Birmingham and Tropical Storm force winds (>39mph) from Glasgow to London. The destruction this would bring to the UK would be treemendous. It would make the '87 look like a gentle breeze.
-- Cheers new5pam@howhill.com Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In message , Mary Fisher writes

"John Beardmore" wrote in message
My experience in Canada (British Columbia) is that most of the highways are pretty empty. My friends in Wa live in and around Seattle and I've been through there with them during rush hour. It's a bit like London before the Mayor's tax but with more interesting scenery.

I was thinking of Toronto and north, but I was also thinking of road build quality rather than the need for armour.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Mary Fisher writes

"John Beardmore" wrote in message
Well - solar DHW meets out bathing needs directly for about 6 months of the year. I commend it to you !
It meets ours for longer than that

Ours too, but let's not over sell it...

and it meets the needs of almost all our sink and washbasin needs

Same here.

and the washing machine too.

Couldn't get a hot fill washing machine, even the A rated ones seem to be cold fill / heat electric.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore