"Martin Sykes" wrote in message ...
at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical
household income.

Blimey. Maybe where you live. I think the typical household income elsewhere
is significantly less than 100K per annum.

Martin.

Oops - juggling too many figures. I was thinking a typical household
income was 50000. Anyway, point is, it's not that much.


Warwick Dumas

prospective future accountant ( .... )

"anton" wrote in message ...
Warwick Michael Dumas wrote in message
. ..

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an
individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and
should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy
at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical
household income.
(sic)

Please explain this comment. How do you heat your home
and use electricity using only renewable energy for £100?

I'm assuming you wait until at least your boiler's knackered, so
there's not much opportunity cost involved in the one-off expenses of
making the switch to decent electric heating. Then given that
renewable costs about 5% more (with regional variations) and your
original electric bill might have been 200 pounds, the statement is
equivalent to saying that (the actual bills for) electric heating
might cost you about 86 pounds more than gas. So it looks like I'm
guessing that electric is about 50% more expensive, if someone's gas
heating bill might be of the order of 170. Hmm, sounds reasonable.

I don't actually know because I haven't got around to actually doing
it yet, (even though this boiler certainly already looks like it's
seen better days!). It took me six months to get the electricity
sorted out and it turned out to be the same price with Unit-e (an
all-renewable firm so I know it's not pretend, like the British Gas
scheme apparently is) as with PowerGen. It would have cost 20 pounds
extra if my electric bill had been 300 instead of 160.


Warwick Dumas

www.members.tripod.com/ecuqe

"If Adolf Hitler were here today, they'd send a limousine anyway."
- the late Joe Strummer

Warwick Michael Dumas wrote:

"anton" wrote in message ...
Warwick Michael Dumas wrote in message
. ..

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an
individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and
should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy
at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical
household income.
(sic)

Please explain this comment. How do you heat your home
and use electricity using only renewable energy for £100?

I'm assuming you wait until at least your boiler's knackered, so
there's not much opportunity cost involved in the one-off expenses of
making the switch to decent electric heating. Then given that
renewable costs about 5% more (with regional variations) and your
original electric bill might have been 200 pounds, the statement is
equivalent to saying that (the actual bills for) electric heating
might cost you about 86 pounds more than gas. So it looks like I'm
guessing that electric is about 50% more expensive, if someone's gas
heating bill might be of the order of 170. Hmm, sounds reasonable.

How do you know that the electricity you are buying is really from genuine renewable resources ?

There are plenty of unscrupulous energy companies about that will happily take an extra £100 per year
off you and give you a little certificate to salve your green conscience. Using electricity for space
heating in any way shape or form is incredibly wasteful. Even with the gain from heat pumps it still
isn't remotely efficient.

It was briefly just about plausible in the mid 60's "white heat of technology" nuclear power will be
too cheap to meter pipe dream era - but it proved to be a bulky, messy and unprofitable business.

Combined heat and power systems where the electricity is generated and the waste low grade heat is used
to heat water and nearby buildings is reasonable. But using electricity to generate bulk heating is
*not* environmentally friendly even if it was produced by renewable means.

If you are really serious about renewable carbon neutral heating have a wood burning stove and cut your
own wood. Either way insulating your loft and cavity walls will probably do much more to help with GW.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Warwick Michael Dumas" wrote in message
om...
Mike wrote in message
...
In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso
ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes

He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international
terrorists were causing global warming.
--

Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly.
Which
will be you and me typing these messages in, for example.

Not me though. Unless I count as using fossil fuels by using up
calories which I got by eating food which was delivered to a
supermarket by a lorry ...

Of course it counts. I also presume you use electricity and or gas? And
manufactured products?


'anyone who uses fossil fuels'.

It is being said time and time again that anyone who uses fossil fuels
add to Global Warming. Right?

Well that depends whether you think it's their fault they used fossil
fuels. An awful lot of people could decide to use an awful lot less,
but the fact remains that many things are quite hard for an individual
to avoid if s/he wishes to have a "normal" economic and home life.

Indeed. We could go back to the middle ages and possibly avoid GW (I say
possibly as that is by no means certain) but that would seem to be worse
than the potential consequences of GW.

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an
individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and
should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy
at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical
household income. Short air journeys are pretty unnecessary and iirc,
each flight is about as pollutive as a year of car use by all the
passengers - I don't think anyone's got an excuse for that.

I like going on holiday. Thats one excuse. Another excuse is that the damage
that would be caused to people through stopping tourism would almost
certainly be far worse (and immediate) than the predicted damage caused by
predicted global warming at some predicted time in the future. Apparently,
as far as I can see from anti-GW literature and writings there seems to be
no downside at all to taking anti-GW measures, whatever they are, and it
also appears that whatever measures are taken they will have no negative
impact on anyone at all and certainly not on people in 3rd world countries.
Strange that. Somehow I dont think the whole truth is being told on either
side.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)

"Carol Russell" wrote in message
...

I still haven't heard a public recantation from those who told
us all that a new ice age was coming upon us; that Iraqui
oil fires would deposit soot on the Himalayas and flood
Bangladesh; and that limits to growth would make us run out
of a large number of basic raw materials and make us choke
on our own refuse.

--
Anton



At least one prediction is that in a warming of the north pole, the
meting ice cools the north Atlantic, this stops the gulf stream from
coming to Europe ( a significant factor ). Hence a warmer world could
mean a European ice age!!!

Arthur

And oft repeated, except its a poor prediction because the Gulf Stream isnt
responsible for more than about 2 degrees of our winter warth. Most of it is
because the prevailing winds come across a relatively warm ocean.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)

Warwick Michael Dumas wrote in message
.. .
"anton" wrote in message
...
Warwick Michael Dumas wrote in message
. ..

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an
individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and
should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy
at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical
household income.
(sic)

Please explain this comment. How do you heat your home
and use electricity using only renewable energy for £100?

I'm assuming you wait until at least your boiler's knackered, so
there's not much opportunity cost involved in the one-off expenses of
making the switch to decent electric heating.

Dubious proposition 1.

Then given that renewable costs about 5% more (with
regional variations) and your
original electric bill might have been 200 pounds, the statement is
equivalent to saying that (the actual bills for) electric heating
might cost you about 86 pounds more than gas. So it looks like I'm
guessing that electric is about 50% more expensive, if someone's gas
heating bill might be of the order of 170. Hmm, sounds reasonable.


All sounds very low for a house. Are you talking about a flat?


I don't actually know because I haven't got around to actually doing
it yet, (even though this boiler certainly already looks like it's
seen better days!). It took me six months to get the electricity
sorted out and it turned out to be the same price with Unit-e (an
all-renewable firm so I know it's not pretend, like the British Gas
scheme apparently is) as with PowerGen. It would have cost 20 pounds
extra if my electric bill had been 300 instead of 160.


I've just had a look at unit-E. Their website refers to many
MW of wind-powered electricity generation, and a few
hundred kW of hydro. That's a very unbalanced mix, and
frankly means that they are, imho, either so small that they
are taking piffling amounts, or full of bullshit.

However, I welcome the general approach- buying power
from specified sources- you are putting your money where
your mouth is. Well done.

--
Anton

"Tumbleweed" wrote in
message ...

"Carol Russell" wrote in
message
...

I still haven't heard a public recantation from those who told
us all that a new ice age was coming upon us; that Iraqui
oil fires would deposit soot on the Himalayas and flood
Bangladesh; and that limits to growth would make us run out
of a large number of basic raw materials and make us choke
on our own refuse.

--
Anton



At least one prediction is that in a warming of the north pole, the
meting ice cools the north Atlantic, this stops the gulf stream from
coming to Europe ( a significant factor ). Hence a warmer world
could
mean a European ice age!!!

Arthur

And oft repeated, except its a poor prediction because the Gulf Stream
isnt
responsible for more than about 2 degrees of our winter warth. Most of
it is
because the prevailing winds come across a relatively warm ocean.

--
Tumbleweed

I thought 2 degrees would make a big difference. And if the prevailing
winds come across a colder ocean!!

Art

"anton" wrote in
:

Then given that renewable costs about 5% more (with
regional variations) and your
original electric bill might have been 200 pounds, the statement is
equivalent to saying that (the actual bills for) electric heating
might cost you about 86 pounds more than gas. So it looks like I'm
guessing that electric is about 50% more expensive, if someone's gas
heating bill might be of the order of 170. Hmm, sounds reasonable.


All sounds very low for a house. Are you talking about a flat?

170 quid to heat the house for a year? Or even 256 pa? If only...
I pay just under 100 quid a month for our Calor gas (heating and water
only). If electric is that much cheaper - where do I sign???

Victoria

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from HaaRoy contains these words:

Authors of both new papers said they were concerned that such
significant ecological changes had already been detected even though
global temperatures had risen only about one degree in the last
century.
They noted that projections of global warming by 2100 ranged from 2.5
to 10 degrees above current levels, should concentrations of carbon
dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, which flow mainly from
smokestacks and tailpipes, continue to rise.

What a pity those USA scientists can't convince your President of that.

Janet.


Don't confuse global warming with the greehouse effect, they are related but
not to the extent most people think.

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@mys
ockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes
What a pity those USA scientists can't convince your President of
that.

Janet.

And if they could, what difference would that make?

He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international
terrorists were causing global warming.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.


Seems to me that guy in Iraq made quite a big contribution to greenhouse
gasss when burn't the oil wells.

"Mike" wrote in message
...
In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso
ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes

He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international
terrorists were causing global warming.
--

Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly.
Which
will be you and me typing these messages in, for example.


'anyone who uses fossil fuels'.

It is being said time and time again that anyone who uses fossil fuels
add to Global Warming. Right?

Can someone please explain to a simple bloke like me, why the
temperature of this globe didn't go sky high during the Industrial
Revolution and well into the last century?

Factories in the Midlands belching out smoke from coal fired boilers.
Kilns in the Potteries belching out smoke,
Even ships at sea. Take a look at the Grand Fleet when steaming, could
be seen for miles from the coal fired boilers.

We now have more efficient house heating methods, how often do you see a
coal fired chimney smoking on a house.

More efficient cars and commercial transport, OK more of it, but look at
a motorway hold up, dozens of cars, not much of a smoke screen over it
;-)

Are we being conned?

Mike

To a large extent yes but for other reasons we must reduce our rate use of
carbon fuels and in reality there is only two ways that can happen either
more nuclear or less people on plant and neither are options that are on
the table.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Alan Gould wrote:
In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso
ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes

Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly.
Which
will be you and me typing these messages in, for example.

Agreed.

You mean your computer isn't pedal-powered? :-)


The Intel Pentium is actually a central heating booster --- more seriously
in large office blocks the explosion in the number of computers has had a
major effect on electricty consumption, I did the engery auditing for a
major airport and the consumption in the rented office space went up year
on year due to the increased use of computers and other office equipment.

"anton" wrote in message
...

Warwick Michael Dumas wrote in message
. ..

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an
individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and
should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy
at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical
household income.

Please explain this comment. How do you heat your home
and use electricity using only renewable energy for £100?

--
Anton


Practical steps = move to California, more seriously an extra 3 inch of
insulation can work wonders as can a modern boiler better "smart" room
thermostat controls on the the central heating.. These measure can save
engergy which isn't quite the same thing as saving money.

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...

"Warwick Michael Dumas" wrote in message
om...

I like going on holiday. Thats one excuse. Another excuse is that the
damage
that would be caused to people through stopping tourism would almost
certainly be far worse (and immediate) than the predicted damage caused by
predicted global warming at some predicted time in the future. Apparently,
as far as I can see from anti-GW literature and writings there seems to be
no downside at all to taking anti-GW measures, whatever they are, and it
also appears that whatever measures are taken they will have no negative
impact on anyone at all and certainly not on people in 3rd world
countries.
Strange that. Somehow I dont think the whole truth is being told on either
side.

--
Tumbleweed

Reminds me of how the German Greens bounced every other country in the EU to
fitting cat convertors to cars when "Lean Burn" engines would have been a
better more environmentally friendly engineering solution.

"Carol Russell" wrote in message
...

"Tumbleweed" wrote in
message ...

"Carol Russell" wrote in
message
...

I still haven't heard a public recantation from those who told
us all that a new ice age was coming upon us; that Iraqui
oil fires would deposit soot on the Himalayas and flood
Bangladesh; and that limits to growth would make us run out
of a large number of basic raw materials and make us choke
on our own refuse.

--
Anton



At least one prediction is that in a warming of the north pole, the
meting ice cools the north Atlantic, this stops the gulf stream from
coming to Europe ( a significant factor ). Hence a warmer world
could
mean a European ice age!!!

Arthur

And oft repeated, except its a poor prediction because the Gulf Stream
isnt
responsible for more than about 2 degrees of our winter warth. Most of
it is
because the prevailing winds come across a relatively warm ocean.

--
Tumbleweed

I thought 2 degrees would make a big difference. And if the prevailing
winds come across a colder ocean!!

Art

Well, if the temperature rises 2 degrees due to GW, then it will put us back
to the status quo.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)