Think Solar!
Lamumba
Passive Solar is very cost effective.
visit; The Solar Pathfinder
--
Karma, What a concept!
Rod Speed
> It's just about the only source of all of our energy.
Wrong, as always. Pity about nukes.
> Passive Solar is very cost effective.
Wrong, as always.
> visit; The Solar Pathfinder
Go and fuck yourself.
Charmin
Might work good for you if you paste them over the leaks in the roof
of that mobile home you live in.
Gordon
@mid.individual.net:
> Lamumba wrote
>
>> It's just about the only source of all of our energy.
>
> Wrong, as always. Pity about nukes.
Nukes and dry cell batteries. Everything else can be
traced back to solar.
>
>> Passive Solar is very cost effective.
>
> Wrong, as always.
Depends on how it's implemented. A conventional house,
properly oriented, with large south facing windows (or
north facing for those of you down under) can be very
cost effective. Since the house is being constructed
anyway, there is no additional cost to take advantage
of solar gain.
a real cheapskate
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote in news:8sag10F3efU1
>
> - Show quoted text -
they are known as passive homes, superinsulated heated by 1500 watts
in maine in winter.
theres a new tv show, this new house with amy matthews and a fellow
from this old house. appears to be a this old house offshoot.
a home that really needs little heat is very appealing, gas bills are
expensive
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Lamumba wrote
>>> It's just about the only source of all of our energy.
>> Wrong, as always. Pity about nukes.
> Nukes and dry cell batteries. Everything else can be traced back to solar.
Nope, geothermal cant.
>>> Passive Solar is very cost effective.
>> Wrong, as always.
> Depends on how it's implemented.
Its hardly ever very cost effective.
> A conventional house, properly oriented, with large south facing windows
> (or north facing for those of you down under) can be very cost effective.
Depends on the location. It can be not very cost effective.
> Since the house is being constructed anyway, there
> is no additional cost to take advantage of solar gain.
Thats just plain wrong. I did that myself and the massive
great patio doors on that side of the house cost a lot
more than the conventional wall thats the alternative.
Rod Speed
>>>> It's just about the only source of all of our energy.
>>> Wrong, as always. Pity about nukes.
>> Nukes and dry cell batteries. Everything else can be traced back to solar.
>>>> Passive Solar is very cost effective.
>>> Wrong, as always.
>> Depends on how it's implemented. A conventional house,
>> properly oriented, with large south facing windows (or
>> north facing for those of you down under) can be very
>> cost effective. Since the house is being constructed
>> anyway, there is no additional cost to take advantage
>> of solar gain.
>>>> visit; The Solar Pathfinder
>>> Go and fuck yourself.
> they are known as passive homes, superinsulated heated by 1500 watts in maine in winter.
That has a substantial additional cost.
And I dont care to 'live' like that myself.
Yes, I could live very cheaply in used cool room, but its not my idea of a viable house design.
I wouldnt even choose to 'live' like that just in the winter either.
> theres a new tv show, this new house with amy matthews and a
> fellow from this old house. appears to be a this old house offshoot.
> a home that really needs little heat is very appealing, gas bills are expensive
Still not prepared to 'live' like that myself.
Gary Heston
Lamumba <geor...@toast.net> wrote:
>It's just about the only source of all of our energy.
>Passive Solar is very cost effective.
>visit; The Solar Pathfinder
The best application of passive solar energy is growing plants--food
crops, trees, flowers, and grass. Much more efficient and less polluting
than any other approach.
Gary
Rod Speed
> Lamumba <geor...@toast.net> wrote
>> It's just about the only source of all of our energy.
>> Passive Solar is very cost effective.
>> visit; The Solar Pathfinder
> The best application of passive solar energy is
> growing plants--food crops, trees, flowers, and grass.
Thats very arguable, particularly with some stuff like trees.
> Much more efficient and less polluting than any other approach.
Thats just plain wrong when compared with nukes.
Agriculture fucks over the environment very comprehensively indeed.
What pollution you get with nukes is much more concentrated
and doesnt fuck over anything like as much of the environment.
Gordon
> Gordon wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Lamumba wrote
>
>>>> It's just about the only source of all of our energy.
>
>>> Wrong, as always. Pity about nukes.
>
>> Nukes and dry cell batteries. Everything else can be traced back to
>> solar.
>
> Nope, geothermal cant.
One for you. I forgot about that one.
>
>>>> Passive Solar is very cost effective.
>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>
>> Depends on how it's implemented.
>
> Its hardly ever very cost effective.
Depends on how it's implemented.
>
>> A conventional house, properly oriented, with large south facing
>> windows (or north facing for those of you down under) can be very
>> cost effective.
>
> Depends on the location. It can be not very cost effective.
True. But with a good location, it would be stupid to not
make some attempt at passive solar heating. As with any
design one must look at the cost/benefit ratio.
>
>> Since the house is being constructed anyway, there
>> is no additional cost to take advantage of solar gain.
>
> Thats just plain wrong. I did that myself and the massive
> great patio doors on that side of the house cost a lot
> more than the conventional wall thats the alternative.
I would say that you went a bit above and beyond "conventional".
If that wall was not facing north(?)(You're down under right?)
you wouldn't have included the patio doors. So they are
additional cost to capture the sun.
The house I lived in for 4 years had several large (about 4x6)
windows in it's south wall. Not optimal for solar gain. But,
conventional. The house was built for esthetics and cost. It
just happened to be well sited and oriented for passive solar
gain. And it worked. On sunny winter days we could turn off
the central heat and just depend on the sun to keep the house
warm.
<<< Deleted link to troll site >>>
Jeff Thies
> "Rod Speed"<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in news:8sag10F3efU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
> Depends on how it's implemented. A conventional house,
> properly oriented, with large south facing windows (or
> north facing for those of you down under) can be very
> cost effective. Since the house is being constructed
> anyway, there is no additional cost to take advantage
> of solar gain.
The nightime heat loss can easily exceed the solar gain. And then you
have to worry about summer heat gain.
Active solar is often much cheaper and more effective. There are a
number of solar add ons possible.
Whatever you do, think it through. Find someone who has some real
experience with this. That old law of unintended consequences.
As far as superinsulating, provided you are insulating all the way
around, rather than just adding in the attic, can have a great return in
comfort and energy saving.
Jeff
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Gordon wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Lamumba wrote
>>>>> It's just about the only source of all of our energy.
>>>> Wrong, as always. Pity about nukes.
>>> Nukes and dry cell batteries. Everything else can be traced back to solar.
>> Nope, geothermal cant.
> One for you. I forgot about that one.
It aint the only one, tidal power cant either.
>>>>> Passive Solar is very cost effective.
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>> Depends on how it's implemented.
>> Its hardly ever very cost effective.
> Depends on how it's implemented.
Nope, its very difficult for it to be very cost effective.
Even just hyperinsulation is generally much more cost effective
basically because its now so cheap to hyperinsulate.
>>> A conventional house, properly oriented, with large
>>> south facing windows (or north facing for those of
>>> you down under) can be very cost effective.
>> Depends on the location. It can be not very cost effective.
> True.
Particularly where its cold enough to need triple glazing
and fancy shuttering etc for when the sun isnt around.
> But with a good location, it would be stupid to
> not make some attempt at passive solar heating.
Yes, and thats why I did it myself, but it was much more
expensive than just the conventional wall there instead
and I dont even have double glazing, just single.
> As with any design one must look at the cost/benefit ratio.
Yes, but the original didnt say that.
>>> Since the house is being constructed anyway, there
>>> is no additional cost to take advantage of solar gain.
>> Thats just plain wrong. I did that myself and the massive
>> great patio doors on that side of the house cost a lot
>> more than the conventional wall thats the alternative.
> I would say that you went a bit above and beyond "conventional".
Nope, less in fact because its only single glazing.
> If that wall was not facing north(?)(You're down under right?)
> you wouldn't have included the patio doors.
Thats wrong too. I have almost as many on the south side.
They are for the summer because I prefer an outside inside effect
in summer. There are no conventional windows at all except in the
bathrooms and toilets and above the kitchen sinks. The kitchens
are both on one side of massive big open plan main rooms.
> So they are additional cost to capture the sun.
So your no additional cost is just plain wrong.
> The house I lived in for 4 years had several large (about 4x6) windows in it's south wall.
Mine are 10x8 The biggest main room has 5 of those, 3 on the north side.
> Not optimal for solar gain.
Yeah, nothing like it.
> But, conventional. The house was built for esthetics
I recon my esthetics leave it for dead.
> and cost. It just happened to be well sited and oriented for passive
> solar gain. And it worked. On sunny winter days we could turn off
> the central heat and just depend on the sun to keep the house warm.
Yeah, I do too. I bask in the sun quite literally on sunny winter days.
I dont bother with central heat anymore, use what we call a heated
throw, basically an electric blanket used on the deep armchair.
All that glass was nothing like no cost tho, it actually cost more than the rest of the walls.
And its only single glazing. Our winters arent all that cold, we do occassional get a day
that doesnt get above 0C all day but they are rare, only a couple a year at most.
Gets pretty cold overnight tho.
Lamumba
> It's just about the only source of all of our energy.
> Passive Solar is very cost effective.
> visit; The Solar Pathfinder
EcoBroker®: The Green Designation
EcoBroker is the premiere green designation for real estate
professionals.
EcoBroker is your resource for real estate opportunities and energy
and environmental information. Professionals and consumers use EcoBroker
to conveniently find expert information, property listings, real estate
agents, and
other proven product and service providers.
Founded in 2002 EcoBroker is the first and largest provider of green
designation for the Real Estate industry. Our real estate professionals
help their clients take advantage of environmentally friendly home
orientations. i.e. southern exposures.
Explore your property's solar potential and earn a premium price for it.
Google ; Solar Pathfinder
no, I am not a shill for Eco-broker?