SteamyTea

Strange, I used to have my location up, but it has vanished. Can you put an HTML tag in there?

She is right.

Not sure, I was doing it in a hurry, but I think the overall temperature is okay to use. There will be more losses at the top than the bottom, but on average it evens out. It should be the mean temperature I think. As the probes are on the outlet pipe at the top (as close to the tank as I can get, and under pipe insulation) and the lower probe is on a bare patch at the base, the median temperature is the same as the mean temperature (technically it should be the geometric median, but treating it as a 2D problem, our CET weather temperatures use the median temperature at 9AM and 9PM I think). Any water I draw off is from the top half of the cylinder, so the hotter part, that will reduce the overall losses thereafter. But even of the losses where up to a kWh a day, still pretty low in reality. Shows that insulating the cupboard around the cylinder helps. What is interesting to me, is that the cylinder has fully stabilised after 1.5 hours after taking, the the majority of the turbulence being in the lower half of the tank, which isn't a surprise as that is where the element is.

Can't really do that, but it is possible to see the temperature loss over the day, bearing in mind that from 10AM to about 9PM (short after work shower, there is a steady loss. That loss is around 5°C. Taking the median temperature (only have two probes on it), the losses are less than 1°C. May seem odd that, but it s probably down to turbulence caused by the bottom element heating, hot water usage and being replaced with cold water base temperature can actually increase by 3°C or so. So how much energy is actually lost. 4.18 [J.kg-1.K-1] x 200 [kg] x 1 [K] = 836 kJ [0.23 kWh] Now I am probably at the lower end of energy usage (my water is not that hot as I only need enough for me, though my system can do 4 people i needed) So call it 0.3 kWh.day-1 losses. At 15p.kWh-1 (about what E7 is now), that is £16.50 a year. I replaced my cylinder after 32 years, cost less than £300. Oh, forgot the chart of a days cooling off.

@MikeSharp01 Right, hope this is understandable. This year, I have always been away on a Sunday and Monday (get back late Monday or more usually a Tuesday), usually travel up on a Saturday, so turn the DHW off, but leave the heating on. Now as I am on E7, there is a time shift of a few hours, but my E7 is limited to 3 AM to 7AM (to get the most out of LC generation and less standing losses). So a chart of all energy usage and top of cylinder temperature (water is probably higher temperature as I have only taped a sensor to the output pipe). On a Monday I have not been at home, so there has been no E7 recharge (heating is on though). Generally the same on a Tuesday, think I have had only 1 Tuesday at home. This is when I turn the DHW back on, but it does not recharge till Wednesday morning (3AM to 7AM, or when enough is in the tank). Wednesday though to Friday I am at home as normal. I usually leave Saturday morning, really early, so DHW is used first thing, but I turn it of so there s no recharging on a Sunday. Now you would think that the usage and temperatures would be more in sync, but I suspect that when I return, the DHW is at a lower temperature, and my 4 hour window is not enough to heat it up fully. So maybe I need to look a bit more closely at what is happening when I first turn the DHW back on i.e. how low has the temperature dropped, how much extra energy have I used. Off to cook some lunch now.

I can probably do more than that as have been away quite a bit, so can see when the tank is on and off, no draw days which are also no heat input days), normal days, and my general usage. The chart above is all usage between the stated dates, usually had a bath by 10 AM when I am there. Shall see if I can have a play with the data later, got niece and her children visiting (actually visiting my Mother) soon, so that is my day buggered.

Sometimes I miss it, but mostly not. If I had a 'proper' 9-5 at the moment I would have been sacked for the amount of time I have had to have off this last 4 months.

Have you done the same calculation using an ordinary E7 hot water cylinder? May find that the lower initial cash outlay easily offsets the thermal losses (which do not have to be high in an insulated cupboard). Excel does it for me.

Not just atmospheric CO2 levels we need to worry about. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-ocean-acidity Climate Change Indicators: Ocean Acidity This indicator describes changes in the chemistry of the ocean that relate to the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in the water. Figure 1. Ocean Carbon Dioxide Levels and Acidity, 1983–2018 This figure shows the relationship between changes in ocean carbon dioxide levels (measured in the left column as a partial pressure—a common way of measuring the amount of a gas) and acidity (measured as pH in the right column). The data come from two observation stations in the North Atlantic Ocean (Bermuda and Canary Islands), one in the Caribbean Sea (Cariaco), and one in the Pacific (Hawaii). The up-and-down pattern shows the influence of seasonal variations. Data sources: Bates, 2016;7 González-Dávila, 2012;8 University of South Florida, 2021;9 University of Hawaii, 202110 Web update: April 2021

Excess CO2 emission, and that is the difference. It would also be nice to see the original source of that 3% figure. I see it a lot, but never been able to track it down. For a start there will be seasonal and yearly variations, for a number of reasons. But, whether you like it or not, anthropogenic climate change is happening.

Last year I drove just over 18k miles, at not much over £1/litre. Last few months I have alreaded done 20k miles at close to £1.45. And I am loosing two extra days work every week. Still January us almost over and we have more than an hour's worth of extra daylight.

Most definitely Did I post this up. Not read it yet. Columnist Pollution is the forgotten global crisis and we need to tackle it now Leon Werdinger/Alamy Stock Photo IN THE lead-up to Christmas, my household began to feel like a badly managed waste-processing facility. We planned to spend time with vulnerable relatives, so were keeping a close eye on our covid-19 status. Each lateral flow test generated seven items of non-recyclable waste, which piled up in the bathroom until I bit the plastic bullet and binned the lot. They are now, presumably, in landfill. The pandemic may have temporarily cut global consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, but from a pollution perspective, it has spawned an almighty mess. It became clear early on that large quantities of discarded masks and other medical detritus were finding their way into the wild. Recent research has revealed the shocking scale of the covid-19 waste heap. It estimates that by August 2021, the pandemic had generated 8.4 million tonnes of plastic waste, which has been dumped into the environment rather than disposed of properly. Such mismanaged waste is the main source of ocean plastic. Before the pandemic, we collectively fly-tipped about 32 million tonnes of it a year. The extra 8.4 million tonnes “intensifies pressure on an already out-of-control global plastic waste problem”, write the researchers (PNAS, doi.org/gnct34). This is no exaggeration. Last year, the United Nations declared that waste and pollution is a planetary crisis on a par with climate change and biodiversity loss, and that we must tackle all three together. However, until recently, this crisis was a distant third in the global pecking order. That, in part, was down to a lack of data. Quantifying waste and pollution is hard. But if there was any doubt about the scale of the problem, new research dispels it. It contends that waste and pollution have crossed a Rubicon called a “planetary boundary”, and are now a threat to the habitability of Earth. We are literally choking on our own detritus. The concept of a planetary boundary dates back to 2009, when a group of researchers led by Johan Rockström at Stockholm University in Sweden tried to define what they called a “safe operating space for humanity”. They picked nine global parameters that have stayed remarkably stable for the past 10,000 years, including climate, biodiversity, land degradation and pollution. These collectively create a life-support system for us, but are being pushed out of whack by our dominance of the planet. For each of them, they attempted to set a boundary that we breach at our peril. In 2015, the team declared that four of the nine boundaries – biosphere integrity, climate change, land use, and the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles – had been breached. And two of them were still undefined, including “novel entities” – mostly chemicals released into the environment by human activities. In other words, waste and pollution. The new paper attempts to fill this knowledge gap. It defines the boundary as the global capacity to run safety tests on these novel entities and monitor them in the environment. The authors say global production of chemicals has increased 50-fold since 1950, and there are 350,000 synthetic chemicals on the market today. Most haven’t been properly assessed for environmental toxicity (see page 44). The team estimates we have overshot the boundary by about 200 per cent, roughly as much as for biosphere integrity and worse than climate change (Environmental Science & Technology, doi.org/gn6rsw). The timing of the research is both fortuitous and strategic. Next month, the fifth UN Environment Assembly – the world’s highest-level decision-making body on environmental issues – will meet in Nairobi, Kenya. On the table is a resolution to set up a global science body for chemicals, waste and pollution, modelled on the ones for climate and biodiversity. This is the culmination of a campaign that began last year and has been gathering support. It is no coincidence that many of the researchers on the planetary boundaries paper are involved. Even without the covid-19 waste, it is clear that the campaign needs to succeed. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has done more than any other group to cajole world leaders into taking the climate crisis seriously. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, created in 2012, has elevated awareness of the biodiversity crisis to a new level. Waste and pollution deserve no less. We aren’t going to step back inside the boundary any time soon. Global chemical production is forecast to triple again by 2050. But when our covid-19 waste has become an archaeological record of the first great pandemic of the 21st century, maybe we will have learned to stop fouling our own nest. If we are still around at all. Graham’s week What I’m reading The self-styled poet laureate of punk John Cooper Clarke’s memoir I Wanna Be Yours. What I’m watching Archive 81 on Netflix. Isn’t everyone? What I’m working on My wardrobe. Honest. This column appears monthly. Up next week: Annalee Newitz Graham Lawton

If the loft space is thermally isolated from the rooms below, I think it is a good idea. If you add up all the flow rates you can work out how much cold air will get drawn into the loft.

Have to be a very big and clever fraud. Larger in scale than the moon landings. What you remember was misreporting by the media. The reason you remember it was because that scenario was different from all the ones that said warming was happening. And to put it into perspective, it was one scenario, out if many, that got copied into 3 reports. There are still people that think the virgin birth was real. Some stories stick because they are so different, not because they are true.

Big one off payments to plant trees coming (in England not sure if Scotch farming is different). May be worth looking into circa £10k/hectare and £300/hectare.annum. You must be up near Ed Davies.

If it got wet, and then the GRP was layed up before it was dry, that could cause a bonding problem. Means that the interface is uncured, and still sticky. Would have thought you would smell it in a sunny day. Cut a circle out and have a look.

If this site was not so set against commercialism, I think Screwfix would be a good sponsor.

You could tap the GRP lightly and listen out for a hollow sound. Not, as you say, usual for GRP to delaminate from a substrate. Having said that, I have known some MDF board to not bond, does not happen with ply very often. It may be a case of a release agent used when the SmartPly was manufactured. I don't know the product well enough. Even if the GRP has delaminated around the screws, it will probably be a long time before the material fails. One way around it would be to use a hole cutter, with the screws as the centre. Cut a circle if GPR out and repair locally with some flexible additive added to the polyester resin (assuming that is what was used). You may need to replace some screws.

Looks like you are an Economy7 user. Fix the drips. There used to be a thick, clear silicone in a yellow tube, LSX or something it was called. Used some on a leaky joint and it worked ok.

I grew up by oil refineries, you have made me feel quite homesick.

Not much, more of a swap or one of my NFT. I shall upload an image, when you transfer your NFT to me, I shall put it into the blockchain I have created and send you mine in return. So no cash involved between us, but if we want to sell the 'rights' we can. Here is my SHA-512 f744623c59319631320570a773661c2bac876844803447d3e26af4ab956df5375cfe727884f5953f12f7a7df408e07709c9963c465f366e97fc601843366df08

Been trying to get one of those badges for years. Make an NFT for it and flog it to me.

Not heard of it either. How think is the GRP, thickness is often referred to as 'layers', ounces or gm.m-2. Also what are the screws holding together, could that be expanding and contracting more than the design parameters?

Or most likely sequester into the soil. Partly how soil is made after all.

That will depend on how, and what, you measure. Exploring for, drilling, extracting, refining, transporting and storing oil will have a relatively small carbon footprint. But burn it in a car and it becomes horrendously high. So is it the oil company or the car company that is (ir)responsible? Or the end user. I have just driven 34 miles to read my weekly comic and have a coffee. Could have done both from home.