Re: UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!

[Mary Fisher]

....


What struck me in particular was this paragraph:

"But the study from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors shows
that some of the measures, such as solar panels to heat water, would
cost £5,000 to install but reduce average bills by only £24 a year and
would take about 208 years to pay back."

Ours cost us £2000 two years ago. Our gas bills (the only other
water heating we had) were reduced by almost £300 in the first year.


.... I'm sure even the most sceptical person in this group can
see all of the figures are utter nonsense. But what to do about an
ignorant public?

There are some you can't convince, they'll have to continue having
higher bills than they need.

Nonsense like this ruins years of hard work rebuilding the reputation
of an industry which has already had hard times due to mis-selling.

I think, looking at the number of companies now in the solar water
heating business, that they can't be having such hard times. There are still
many of us around who are prepared to put our money where our mouths are.
And we're the winners!

I've written to the RICS asking to the see full report, where the data
came from, and how they worked their figures out. But meantime, does
anyone have any thoughts on what the agenda of this report might be,
apart from to spread lies and mis-information?

It would be interesting to see their reply but I do think that
newspaper, television and radio reports aren't usually to be believed. They
dwell on the sensational and alter reports to suit their 'newsworthiness'.

We stopped buying newspapers many years ago because of this (must
have saved quite a bit in that time!), we don't have a television but I've
seen it in others' houses and we're very sceptical about even the erstwhile
respectable and trustworthy Radio 4.

Mary

 

[Eeyore]

What struck me in particular was this paragraph:

"But the study from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors shows
that some of the measures, such as solar panels to heat water, would
cost £5,000 to install but reduce average bills by only £24 a year and
would take about 208 years to pay back."

Ours cost us £2000 two years ago. Our gas bills (the only other
water heating we had) were reduced by almost £300 in the first year.

... I'm sure even the most sceptical person in this group can
see all of the figures are utter nonsense. But what to do about an
ignorant public?

Par for the course. Even the Nobel comittee were ignorant enough to get taken in
by Al Gore's comedy film.

Graham

 

[Mary Fisher]

... "An
Inconvenient Truth", which was cleared to be shown in UK schools after
axe-grinding truck driver and political activist Stewart Dimmock
failed in his case to have the film banned. Although the judge

A renowned expert ...

 

[Bob Eager]

Par for the course. Even the Nobel comittee were ignorant enough to get taken in
by Al Gore's comedy film.

Hmmm, I didn't know he made a comedy film, but the film the Nobel
comittee were concerned with was the Oscar-winning documentary "An
Inconvenient Truth", which was cleared to be shown in UK schools after
axe-grinding truck driver and political activist Stewart Dimmock
failed in his case to have the film banned. Although the judge
commented that there were 9 inconclusive statements in the two hour
film... "[...] it is important to be clear that the central arguments
put forward in An Inconvenient Truth - that climate change is mainly
caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious
adverse consequences - are supported by the vast weight of scientific
opinion," he said.

And hey, 9 inconclusive statements in a 2 hour film looks a bit better
than 8 out of 8 entirely inaccurate and misleading figures in a report!

But a lot of them aren't inaccurate, are they? They represent reasonable
costs. Or, show me where you can get a good quality TRV installed for £9
all in.

Or is that really an inconvenient truth?

 

[Derek Geldard]

A renowned expert ...

As if Al Gore knows any better ...

DG

 

[Bob Eager]

Assuming a labour cost of £80 per hour, even a chimp could replace 4
valves an hour, allow an hour for drain-down, an hour for test, and an
hour for a fag and for a 10 rad house you have £100 for the valves+
£360 for the labour = £460. Tell me how you'd bump that up to £2,240?

I thought it was about £700 quoted for the valves. and 4 an hour is
rather fast; valves often differ in size and pipework has to be
modified.

Not really. I prefer to stick to facts.

Well, your idea of the facts according to the 'Greenwash Dictionary'.

 

[John Rumm]

Mary Fisher wrote:

Could you fix your quoting so we can work out what you are saying please
Mary?

(google for "OE quotefix")



--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

 

[Eeyore]

Hmmm, I didn't know he made a comedy film, but the film the Nobel
comittee were concerned with was the Oscar-winning documentary "An
Inconvenient Truth", which was cleared to be shown in UK schools after
axe-grinding truck driver and political activist Stewart Dimmock
failed in his case to have the film banned.

Considering it's stuffed full of outright LIES, it damn well should have been banned.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

A renowned expert ...

A judge doesn't have to be a (scientific) expert. The suggestion he should have
been is a classic disingenuous attempt to dumb down the ruling by greenies.

The job of a judge is to weight the evidence. It's clear to me he did that job
well.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

As if Al Gore knows any better ...

Judging by his carbon footprint he must think the whole thing is a big joke. A
very profitable joke for him with his carbon trading investments. Maybe that
should have been the name of the film ? A Profitable Joke.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Assuming a labour cost of £80 per hour, even a chimp could replace 4
valves an hour, allow an hour for drain-down, an hour for test, and an
hour for a fag and for a 10 rad house you have £100 for the valves+
£360 for the labour = £460. Tell me how you'd bump that up to £2,240?

We've already disproved the loft insulation and tank lagging costs,

Where did you disprove the loft insulation costs ?

I just looked at some loft insulation in one of the DIY stores. It's ~ £14 for a
4m roll of 200mm thick insulation, 370mm wide.
http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav/n...refview=search&ts=1192384926054&isSearch=true

Calculating the celing area for my house, I'd need 5m x 8m for the main roof,
another 2.5m x 3m for the remainder of the L shaped bit, and about another 3m x
4m for a single storey extension. That's 59.5m2

Each roll is 1.48m2.

So that's 40 rolls. At £14 ea that's £560 !

And that's BEFORE labour !

Graham

 

[Owain]

Considering it's stuffed full of outright LIES, it damn well should have been banned.

Would this film be shown in the same schools which by law must have
religious assemblies?

Owain

 

[Steve O'Hara-Smith]

So, if it's not solar insolation causing global warming, which is not
necessarily a bad thing, why are the Martian ice caps melting? The
emissions from that damned little robot NASA has running around????

Oh now that is wonderful - do you have a cite I can hit people
with ?

 

[Steve Firth]

9 inconclusive statements

But the judge didn't refer to them as "inconclusive statements" did he?
The judge used the terms "inaccurate", "alarmist" and "exaggeration."

He also stated: "It is now common ground that it is not simply a science
film - although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific
research and opinion - but that it is a political film."

And he didn't jsut pass it for exhibition in schools, he only permitted
its release with the proviso that it be issued with guidance notes to
balance Gore's "one sided views".

So it looks like Al Gore doesn't have a monopoly on untruths, you're up
there giving him a hand.

 

[John Rumm]

Assuming a labour cost of £80 per hour, even a chimp could replace 4
valves an hour, allow an hour for drain-down, an hour for test, and an

Like to see the chimp...

Some are easy, however it is also easy to find one that takes a couple
of hours titting about - especially when you need to get the floor up to
move rad tails etc.



--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

 

[Roger]

The message <[email protected]>

Ours cost us £2000 two years ago. Our gas bills (the only other
water heating we had) were reduced by almost £300 in the first year.

There was a salesman extolling the virtues of solar heating on BBC
television news this am. Claimed installition costs was in the region
£3500 - £5000 and a saving of 10 - 15% of heating bills could be
expected. On that basis I expect Mary's gas bill would have been in the
region of £2000 - £3000 prior to the installation of solar heating.

 

[Eeyore]

What struck me in particular was this paragraph:

"But the study from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors shows
that some of the measures, such as solar panels to heat water, would
cost £5,000 to install but reduce average bills by only £24 a year and
would take about 208 years to pay back."

Ours cost us £2000 two years ago. Our gas bills (the only other
water heating we had) were reduced by almost £300 in the first year.

So you were paying OVER £300 a year for gas to provide hot water only ? That's a
LOT of hot water.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:37:52 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore


The committee awarded the prize to the IPCC and Mr Gore for their
work in raising knowledge of the issue. Even those who believe the
science is all junk should be grown up enough to accept that they
have both raised knowledge of the issue.

Hopefully enough that some real science and truth (rather than spin) might enter the
equation !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:43:10 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore


Mr Gore's film contains more than two thousand statements. In the
recent court case they were no doubt all crawled over. None of them
were found to be lies, but nine of them were found to have been more
incomplete than they should have been. For example, on the total
melting of ice caps the film should have added the timescale for
this to happen.

IIRC, Gore said that the hottest years on record were in the last decade. Those ARE
outright LIES as it now turns out. Also, the suggestion that CO2 causes temperature rise
IS a lie in the historic context. The idea that it's the other way round 'this time' is as
yet an unproven hypothesis.

As for suugesting that his exaggerations and biased analysis aren't effectively lies, it
seems to be a poor show that's the best defence you can offer.

Graham

 

[Mary Fisher]

A judge doesn't have to be a (scientific) expert. The suggestion he should
have
been is a classic disingenuous attempt to dumb down the ruling by
greenies.

The job of a judge is to weight the evidence. It's clear to me he did that
job
well.

And to others that he didn't.

Which is right?

Mary