Solar water heater

[Nemesis]

No idea what it looks like as I can't find it via the link, but this may prove of interest to some:

Up on the roof
16 May 2008

A solar water heater designed to sit within the roofscape has been launched in the UK.

Aimed at the housing sector, one unit of Redland’s flat-plate solar thermal system can provide up to 70% of the average three-bed household’s hot water needs. It can be easily installed by roofing contractors, and offers good wind uplift security. It is backed by a 15-year weathertight roof system guarantee.

http://www.redland.co.uk

From:

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=453&storycode=3113713&c=1

 

[GeoffP]

This is what it looks like....

http://www.monier.co.uk/index.php?id=532&tx_ttnews[backPid]=3178&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=473&cHash=1aed31a533

....it's what it costs that bothers me. Can't find any prices.

Geoff

 

[Mark]

The link faerie says hello!

 

[Nemesis]

Thank you both!

Rather neater than most I've seen - sits in the roof rather than on it, in a similar manner to a rooflight.

 

[Flyfisher]

Very neat indeed, but surely only of any real use on a new build. To use such a device on an existing property would require (presumably) quite a bit of roof alteration. The advantage of the 'traditional' solar water heaters is that they can sit on the roof with very little alteration to the original fabric - just a few mounting brackets and pipe holes.

I think it's a pity this technology doesn't seem to be in the news as much as small domestic wind turbines because, from what I've read, it's a very efficient energy collector and can really replace a lot of fossil fuel usage. 70% (or even only 50%) of DHW across the nation would represent a huge saving on fossil fuel consumption.

I wonder how long it will be before LBC is forthcoming for such things?

 

[Nemesis]

I think it would depend - it may be able to be incorporated into a re-roof. Not all buildings are listed either. I suggest too that LBC is on a building by building basis, as ever.

As far as turbines - well, not everyone maybe will want one, and they won't be much use in some places.

 

[skier-hughes]

As far as turbines - well, not everyone maybe will want one, and they won't be much use in some places.

Which makes Fly's comments more valuable, why aren't peorple talking aobut stuff that is of use and not stuff that's of no use??????

 

[Nemesis]

why aren't peorple talking aobut stuff that is of use and not stuff that's of no use??????skier-hughes

Em - wasn't this what this thread was about?

More talking:

http://www.landorconferences.co.uk/conference_files/co271.pdf

http://www.ewht.org.uk/Energy-Heritage-Project.aspx

 

[skier-hughes]

But this thread isn't in the newspapers, on tv or radio, which is what I assumed Fly implyed. Good that BDonline may be, I shouldn't think it is too widely read by members of the general public.

 

[Nemesis]

I have twice recently had a leaflet sent via my local authority telling me about solar panels and grants.

http://www.ewht.org.uk/Gilmours-Close-Project-.aspx

That's a GSHP in the middle of a city.


As with all things - the technology is improving, and hopefully costs reducing.

 

[Flyfisher]

But this thread isn't in the newspapers, on tv or radio, which is what I assumed Fly implyed.

Yes, correct assumption. Where's the real public debate about this sort of technology? You'd think think that something that could potentially cut domestic fossil fuel consumption by around 50% would attract a lot of attention, even active government promotion. Oh, sorry, they're all busy trying to ban plastic bags at the moment in favour of bulkier, heavier paper bags that will result in more carbon emissions from the increased transport burden :roll:

 

[Nemesis]

Are they? Banning of single use plastic bags is a good plan, IMHO.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/may/12/uknews.waste

I have a collection of re-usable bags - the National Trust currently has a special offer on its 'green' bags.

Rather chic dahling.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/03/03/easolar102.xml

http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/721541

 

[skier-hughes]

If they ban the use of single use plastic bags, why are they banning the carrier bag?
I use them again for more shopping, cost less to produce than lifetime bags.
I use them again for putting rubish in.
I use them again for things like putting in litter bins.

All things I'd have to buy a single use bag for.........

In favour, as Fly says for paper bags, which are far more single use than a plastic carrier bag :roll:

Plastic carrier bags are even biodegradable these days.

Supermarkets take them back.

 

[Nemesis]

I understand the issue is a little wider than that. The carriers being mooted for banning are usually referred to as 'single use' I believe. I appreciate some re-use them, but in general they are flimsy and not able to be re-used a great many times. I think large numbers of them are not re-cycled either, but end up in landfill. Those that are re-cycled, some have been shown to be shipped off to third world countries where re-cycling has not been of the best type.

I assume you are aware of the worldwide issues regarding these, and the wildlife hazards they have created. Even Taiwan has banned them I seem to recall.

China too I think is in the process of banning them.

Can you show me information which shows where they are being banned in favour of single use paper carriers?

Also - the whole biodegradable issue isn't quite as simple as it first appears either.

I wonder how we ever managed without them? I recall we did though.


But I'm sure you must know all these things.

Waste expert rubbishes plan to tax plastic bags

Date: 18 May 2008
By Nicholas Christian

MOVES to ban or charge for single-use plastic bags are a diversion from real environmental issues, according to one of the Government's green advisers.

Waste and recycling expert Professor Chris Coggins said such a policy allowed the supermarkets to pass on the responsibility to be green on to customers. He said supermarkets should be helping to lessen the amount of packaging they use.

Coggins added: "Supermarkets have a much bigger role to play in influencing the packaging they use.

"They have power in terms of what they buy and how it's packed. The problem is, by focusing on the consumer end, they are to some extent diverting attention from what they should be doing.

Environment minister Joan Ruddock admitted single-use bags were only a small part of the waste stream.

However, she added: "We know that the public is on our side. They want action. It's very symbolic of our throw-away society and so we do need to do something quite dramatically to curb their use."

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Waste-expert-rubbishes-plan-to.4095374.jp


http://www.recyclenow.com/what_more_can_i_do/can_it_be_recycled/carrier_bags.html

http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/acci/web/site/CouncilNews/pr/pr_bagplastic_020508.asp

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/waste_and_recycling_booklet.pdf

 

[skier-hughes]

I understand the issue is a little wider than that. The carriers being mooted for banning are usually referred to as 'single use' I believe. I appreciate some re-use them, but in general they are flimsy and not able to be re-used a great many times.
How often could one reuse a paper bag? How long does a paper bag last in the rain?
I think large numbers of them are not re-cycled either, but end up in landfill.
But you could say that about most things
Those that are re-cycled, some have been shown to be shipped off to third world countries where re-cycling has not been of the best type.
None of south staffs council recycling leaves the country, not sure about plastic bags, not seen any evidence to say where it goes.

I assume you are aware of the worldwide issues regarding these, and the wildlife hazards they have created. Along with hundreds of other things like cigarettes which when tossed carelessly onto a dry area can cause horrendous damage to fauna and flora, let alone human life Even Taiwan has banned them I seem to recall.

China too I think is in the process of banning them.

Can you show me information which shows where they are being banned in favour of single use paper carriers?

I wasn't referring to single use paper carriers, but single use paper bags, and bags for life appear popular "While 45% of us have a reusable "bag for life", only 12% use them regularly."

Also - the whole biodegradable issue isn't quite as simple as it first appears either.

I wonder how we ever managed without them? I recall we did though.

I wonder how much energy it takes to prdce the bags for life and what happens to them when they have reached their useful life's end, ok jute etc is ok, but what about Tesco's plastic ones?


But I'm sure you must know all these things.

Waste expert rubbishes plan to tax plastic bags

I think the banning of plastic carriers bags is mad, it's a knee jerk reaction to a problem, instead of considered debate. I'm all for looking at ways of reducing useage, and as is said below, looking at ways of reducing packaging in total, as this is a much wider issue, as I'm sure you know.

Date: 18 May 2008
By Nicholas Christian

MOVES to ban or charge for single-use plastic bags are a diversion from real environmental issues, according to one of the Government's green advisers.

Waste and recycling expert Professor Chris Coggins said such a policy allowed the supermarkets to pass on the responsibility to be green on to customers. He said supermarkets should be helping to lessen the amount of packaging they use.

Coggins added: "Supermarkets have a much bigger role to play in influencing the packaging they use.

"They have power in terms of what they buy and how it's packed. The problem is, by focusing on the consumer end, they are to some extent diverting attention from what they should be doing.

Environment minister Joan Ruddock admitted single-use bags were only a small part of the waste stream.

However, she added: "We know that the public is on our side. They want action. It's very symbolic of our throw-away society and so we do need to do something quite dramatically to curb their use."

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Waste-expert-rubbishes-plan-to.4095374.jp


http://www.recyclenow.com/what_more_can_i_do/can_it_be_recycled/carrier_bags.html

http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/acci/web/site/CouncilNews/pr/pr_bagplastic_020508.asp

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/waste_and_recycling_booklet.pdf

 

[Flyfisher]

In a BBC interview, Prof Coggins, who also works on the sustainable urban environment (waste) programme, said: "Plastic bags are a very visible form of litter but in reality they are a very small proportion of waste and oil use.

"So in overall resource terms, it's a visual rather than mainstream issue."

Environment minister Joan Ruddock admitted single use bags were only a small part of the waste stream.

But she added: "We know that the public is on our side. They want action. It's very symbolic of our throw-away society and so we do need to do something quite dramatically to curb their use."

Precisely my point - it's all symbolic and will have no significant impact. I don't care if they ban plastic bags or not, what annoys me is that the self-righteous green lobby seize on it as some sort of wonder solution and anyone seen with a supermarket plastic bag will soon be vilified as aiding and abetting planetary destruction. Just like 4x4 owners.

In the face of impending doom, if you believe such things, surely the only reasonable actions are dramatic ones that stand a chance of making a real difference? But, of course, no-one wants to really put themselves out and governments are too short sighted to see beyond the next election anyway. So, yes, let's ban plastic bags, blame the big bad supermarkets for excess packaging and pretend we're making a difference.

Meanwhile (and getting back to the original subject of this thread), things like solar water heating that could really make a big dent in domestic fossil fuel consumption take the back seat because it would need significant investment and coordinated action - in other words, it's too much trouble. But the number-crunching is interesting: 22m households in the UK (I believe) and £40bn quickly found from somewhere to save Northern Wreck. That's about £1800 per household that could be spent on solar water heating for all (and just think of the bulk discount the government could negotiate for buying 22m units!).

A less cynical person might think that the apparent threat of global climate change catastrophe might warrant a similar level of action as that required to save a fairly minor bank from going bust. The only other explanation is that no-one in authority really takes all this climate change stuff seriously. Hmm - surely not?

 

[Nemesis]

I gather you don't count as one of the 'self-righteous green lobby' then.

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/experts/leohickman/story/0,,1660008,00.html

Me, I like my string bags.


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh5dseGnhoo

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ktLG5Iw_kC8&feature=related

 

[Flyfisher]

Well, I try to look beyond the feel-good headlines (and string bags).

 

[Nemesis]

I presume you've lobbied your MP of course. Being the great philospher and deep thinker you obviously are I'm surprised you aren't running for leader of the world by now, actually. Or writing for the Daily Mail.

Nothing wrong with string bags, either. Re-usable many times over. Cheap, cheerful, and can be recycled without any problems at all. Make good compost.

I quite like turtles, too.

http://www.turtlebags.co.uk/_wsn/page6.html

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, I like turtles too. Here's a couple I snapped earlier:

Didn't see any plastic bags though.