SteamyTea

Does seem that you value convenience over energy costs. Look at a new printer, they are still pretty cheap. I have a tiny wireless router that connects to all the RPis. The energy usage is really too small to measure, may try to measure it again now I have a better meter. Later today I shall have a look at last week's zero power draw (less than 1 Wh), think the last time I looked it was over 60% of the time. Not having stuff on is the real secret.

Did this exercise over a decade ago. I have virtually no parasitic loads now. Rather than look to power it renewably, is there anything that can be properly switched off i.e. printer. How about a bit of electronics that senses one half of a co dependant bit of equipment that turns on the other bit i.e TV and satellite box or sound system. As nice as it is to have everything instantaneously available all the time, a few seconds wait is not a killer. Was only 45 years ago we had to warm up the TV.

Or worse, Micklefield.

I took my driving test in High Wycombe, so ever start was a hill start. I failed first time, must get around to redoing it.

Not just silly company names. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Hunt-10

Or Uber

The W [watt] is the power, kWh [mega joules] is the energy required. If the W is 'on' for 1000 hours, then that is 1 kWh of energy [kWh or MJ] is just power multiplied by time (the k just means multiplied by 1000).

3m³/m².hour @50Pa and 3 ACH are not the same thing (something I forgot earlier) The first is based on total area and the other is on total volume if I remember correctly.

Must watch Dante's Inferno before I go there.

Wash your mouth out with soap, we all really know that ill informed opinion is the ultimate truth.

I thought JFC was a fried chicken shop.

Also worth noting that if you wear cloths, they are insulation you to a certain extent from the radiative heating. One also breaths in cooler air, so your body has to work harder to keep the core temperature up. Yes, so often forgotten. Why the sun does not fry the Earth, we are a long way off and only getting a very small fraction of the power it radiates. If you can see an element glowing, it is in the visible light part of the spectrum. IR is invisible to the human eye. The shorter the wavelength, the more power there is. So may be better off putting in sunbed lamps, they emit UV, so higher up the spectrum. And you will get a 'healthy' tan after 40 minutes. So it was acting as a convection heater.

Getting into the territory that walls that are colder than the air temperature, and body temperature, can actually efficiently heat people up via IR wavelengths. Many people think it works and claim it is a good reason to have 'lots of thermal mass'. See here: energy and light

More to the point.

We see similar problems on here ever week. Is gas cheaper than ASHP, Radiators or UFH. A day studying very, very basic thermodynamics and energy production would solve that problem for ever.

There are around 28 million homes in the UK. Has anyone come across many with IR heating? Not as if Physics has changed any, even if you allow for the difference between Newtonian and Quantum modelling methods.

What is there to stop someone falling down to the lower, more sloped, level from the upper, less slopped, level? Road crossings use a textured surface to help the blind.

I did see something the other day about not having children as we 'inherit' half our children's resource costs. Not something I subscribe to, except I dislike children, and don't have them. So inadvertantly saving the planet for further generation of idiots to make mistakes.

Why wait till Christmas. Guy Fawkes night tonight, so will need good plumbing to put a Catholic out.

I think you have actually hit the nail on the head. Except that population is used as a catchall as the problem, not the solution. I was talking to a St. Agnes resident yesterday about the latest sewage spill. The problem, according to them, is the increase in housing, and associated people. I pointed out that, as we were outside of a holiday period, the population was as low as it goes, so that can't be the problem. I then pointed out that over August Bank holiday, the same thing happened (actually told a well known actor to take his family to another beach). I also pointed out that the existing sewage system is no 'listed' and could be improved. So population, time of year is NOT the problem, it is inadequate infrastructure. Infrastructure is a political issue (may be local or national, but it is a human decision). Infrastructure costs often seem out of proportion to the local benefits. Ask each resident of St. Agnes to pay £1000 each to improve the sewage system and you will get a flat 'No Way'. They think it is the SW Water's job to do it. They think that SW Water should 'just get on with it'. So a £10m pound project, that would improve the environment, needs to have the load spread across many people paying, which requires people, lots of people, each paying a little. If you go back to historical times, villages, small towns and cities were highly polluted and horrible places to live (people moved out in the summer), but by spreading the load nationally, these places became nicer. So reducing population will only lead to lack of facilities, not better ones. It is all to do with distribution, there are no lack of resources.

The principles apply, but the surface area to volume does not scale in a linear fashion. Except it is wrong.

Yes, humidity can be a problem, but a much more manageable one. You can leave a notch around the trickle vents, it is only plastic and wood than needs shaping.

You are right, except you are totally wrong. Thomas Robert Malthus (1766–1834) Club of Rome (1968) Paul Ralph Ehrlich (born May 29, 1932) They are just the well known ones, and they have all been proved wrong. Now distribution of resources is a totally different matter, and this is what you are probably on about, without realising it. Just done a quick calculation, which may be wrong somewhere. But if we say that a m2 of land can produce constant 3W of power, and each person on Earth has access to a mean of 3 kW (currently about 2 kW), then we need an area of 1000 km2 to produce that for a population of 9bn people. So an area the size of France and Spain combined will do it. But it would, of course, need to be distributed around the globe. But it is not a huge amount of land and it does not have to be used exclusively for energy production, unlike nuclear and thermal combustion, and to a certain extent hydro.