Are solar panel installs now free ?

[ericmark]

I did work with some pneumatic hand lamps for use in confined spaces. Small air turbine generated 12 volt and powered a quartz lamp. Also hydraulic water pumps they uses swash plates so one could alter speed to match liquid being pumped. The idea of changing power method is still something to be considered with solar panels. Which will work best electric panels and immersion heater or direct water heating?

Problem is point where transfer threshold is reached. To take the water at 30°C and feed it to a heat pump (Sterling engine of course) to raise it to 60°C so it can be used for domestic water and not have problems with legionnaires is much harder than taking electric power at 30 volts turning in into AC transforming up to 230 volts and feeding an immersion heater.

For easier also consider cheaper. Manchester did have a power delivery system using hydraulics to work lifts and films of USA shows steam raising from the road so it would seem they used steam power. Working in a steel works my dad's job was to control power from a power station. This was steam, air, blast furnace gas, coke oven gas, and electricity, it was a real power station not simply an electric generating station. There has been a lot of thought into the idea of using excess heat at the moment wasted to heat homes. It is done in some places. Mount Pleasant on the Falkland Islands uses the waste heat from power station which is boosted a little then heats the accommodation block and also heats the fresh water because it was too cold for the chemical to clean the peat from the water.

We already have central heating boilers with sterling engines which turn excess heat into electric power which is fed into grid same way as solar. As to how good external combustion engines are I don't know, but again the wispergen is used with boats.

 

[bernardgreen]

is much harder than taking electric power at 30 volts turning in into AC transforming up to 230 volts and feeding an immersion heater.

Even easier method is to have 30 volt immersion heaters. Or even a ring of high wattage resistors fixed with themally conductive paste to the outside of the tank and inside the thermal insulation jacket.

Area heating schemes are very common in mailand Europe and Scandinavia using waste heat from power stations or from purpose built highly efficient boilers.

 

[JohnW2]

the "QUALY" is sometimes used to estimate the value/return on competing treatments. ... "If we spend £1,000 on this treatment, or on that treatment, which of them gives the most quality years of life?"

Not just 'sometimes' - QALYs (no 'U') are widely used (e.g. by NICE), but are there is also considerable controversy and concern about their use for making healthcare resource decisions, since the technique tends towards the implementation of the (generally sociologically distasteful, even if 'practical'/realistic) utilitarian approach I mentioned in my previous post. The use of QALYs will inevitably tend to disadvantage those who, because of age, underlying disease or whatever, already have a limited life expectancy.

More to the point, the 'QA' ('quality-adjusted') part of QALYs imposes a viewpoint/attitude which may well not be shared by many, maybe not even most, recipients of the healthcare. The concept depends upon the assumption that X years of 'poor health' are equivalent to Y years of 'good health', and individual views about that will obviously vary considerably, and determining the values of X and Y in a given situation is obviously a very subjective issue. As most commonly implemented, QALYs would, for example, say that 2 years of good health (followed by death) was a 'better outcome' that 5 years bedridden. Whilst some patients would agree with that viewpoint, many would probably regard it as preferable to live longer, even if in much poorer health. Similarly, the arithmetic of the QALY approach would probably say that giving treatment which resulted in a young person surviving to have decades of very poor health would be a 'better outcome' than would be achieved by a treatment which resulted in a much older person surviving for a few years of good health. Again, it's very much 'a matter of opinion'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Judging by the first couple of pages, most of that is about aircraft. Is 400 Hz perhaps used in that scenario to reduce size/weight of trannys etc.?

Precisely the reason.

films of USA shows steam raising from the road so it would seem they used steam power

Some cities (e.g. New York) piped the waste steam from power plants under the streets to provide heating in buildings, like your Falkland Islands example.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As populations get older and medical sciences advance, lifespan is going to become an increasingly questionable realistic measure of healthcare. Particularly if we make major inroads into preventing/delaying deaths due to cancer and/or heart disease (which, between them, currently account for the majority of deaths), 'increased lifespan' will increasingly mean 'keeping people alive' beyond the point at which they can have meaningful independent lives - so it not necessarily an 'outcome' to strive for.

We are also going to have to grasp the nettle which is the realisation (already perfectly clear for those who wish to see) that carrots are not enough, and we are going to need sticks, some of them blooody great heavy ones, e.g. sugar taxed through the roof so that Mars Bars cost £10's of pounds.

However, one cannot really look at this in impassionate utilitarian terms. A very disproportionate amount of healthcare expenditure goes into giving very high-tech and expensive treatment to a relatively small number of patients. A utilitarian would presumably simply "allow those 'few' to die", without treatment, releasing a lot of resources which could be used to improve the quality of healthcare for 'the many'.

We already do that - that's what NICE do, and what the Cancer Drugs Fund have recently had to admit they have to do. Without a bottomless pit of money there is no alternative to deciding that some treatments just aren't "worth it". Cures are one thing, but extending the life of someone in their 90's by 6 months at a cost of many £'000s? In an ideal world, yes, but when society is determined that it is disabled people with a spare room for a carer to stay overnight who have to pay for greedy reckless bankers to continue to receive their bonuses, then no.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

waste steam from power plants

One of the factors which stopped the Thames from freezing in 1962/63 was warm effluent water from Battersea and Bankside power stations. They are both now shut down - it will be interesting to see what this winter brings, if some of the predictions are right. And not that I want to be a seaweed and pine cone waving superstition monger, but neither I nor Mrs Sheds can escape noticing that the squirrels in our garden have been getting significantly fatter than normal over the last few months, as if they know something....

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Even easier method is to have 30 volt immersion heaters.

I am not convinced that installing 25 or 35mm² cables in a domestic dwelling counts as "easy".

 

[JohnW2]

We are also going to have to grasp the nettle which is the realisation (already perfectly clear for those who wish to see) that carrots are not enough, and we are going to need sticks, some of them blooody great heavy ones, e.g. sugar taxed through the roof so that Mars Bars cost £10's of pounds.

I don't personally agree with such imposed restrictions on 'lifestyle choices' - whether achieved by 'bans', draconian taxation or whatever. What, given the realities, one might contemplate is denying people treatment at NHS cost for the consequences of poor 'lifestyle choices'. However, to attempt that would be to open a massive can of worms. For a start, establishing a causal relationship between those 'choices' and diseases would be next-to-impossible in individual cases - people with almost ideal 'lifestyles' can, and do, develop diabetes, heart disease, cancer etc. More to the point, where would one stop? Would NHS-funded treatment be denied to anyone who had chosen to participate in sports etc. etc. ... and, probably the biggest issue, would our society really accept a situation in which people were 'left to die' if they were being denied NHS treatment and couldn't afford any other?

We already do that - that's what NICE do, and what the Cancer Drugs Fund have recently had to admit they have to do. Without a bottomless pit of money there is no alternative to deciding that some treatments just aren't "worth it". Cures are one thing, but extending the life of someone in their 90's by 6 months at a cost of many £'000s?

Of course we do it, and always have done it, whether 'formally' or 'informally' - as you say, it is inevitable in any real-world healthcare system which has finite resources. The issue is about how the 'prioritisation' is done.

However, the point I was making about the use of QALYs is that reliance on them can result in anomalies (in many people's eyes) in what might be regarded as 'the other direction' - e.g. as I suggested, the arithmetic of QALYs could well say that giving a 20 year-old decades of very poor health (rather than a fairly swift death) was a 'better outcome' (hence more justifying of using healthcare resources) than giving 5 or 10 years of extra life 'in relatively good health' to a 40, 50 or 60 year-old. Some might agree with that, but many wouldn't.

I presume you will have read "Brave New World" at some time in your life?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

For a model of how the sick, aged or otherwise non-contributing members of society can be helped to become useful to others, I recommend Soylent Green.

 

[JohnW2]

For a model of how the sick, aged or otherwise non-contributing members of society can be helped to become useful to others, I recommend Soylent Green.

Indeed - but if they had gone down the Brave New World route, they wouldn't have (m)any "sick, aged or otherwise non-contributory members of society" to concern themselves about - near perfect health, and fully contributory, until they reached a certain age and then, IIRC (it's many years since I last read it), (consensually) turned into fertiliser!

Looked at in terms of QALYs, that approach is effectively saying that once one ceases to be (economically/sociologically) contributory, and/or is going to start needing healthcare, ones 'utility' falls to zero - so no matter how many chronological years one survives beyond that point, that period of survival will compute as zero QALYs.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I personally find it hard to understand some of the ideals from other societies. I am told every Muslim should should try to visit Mecca at least once in their life time. I am told to die while at Mecca means you go straight to heaven. So if many die due to crushes at Mecca is that good or bad? Personally I would consider it as bad. However not sure what a Muslim would think?

Maybe because I have lived abroad for much of my life I have some odd ideas. The for the good of few or for good of many is always going to be a bone of contention. Do you save a baby if by saving that baby you will cause over crowding and suffering in later life?

I am not really going off the subject here as solar panels may save the planet, but could also cause suffering to mankind. I attended a lecture about diesel under the wire. It was talking about after electrifying a railway still using diesel locomotives which is common where during part of the run there is no electric power. The point is with electric nuclear power means that we are not releasing any CO2. So electric trains seem to be the future. The question was raised why not use bio-fuels to power the diesel locos? The answer was simple. It would need 5 times the area of the UK to grow the plants to produce the bio-diesel which means either eat or travel can't have both.

It is not simple. It seems growing some food in Israel releases less CO2 than growing same food in UK, so eating local food is not always best option. As to cane sugar v beet sugar this is a hard one. Beet is local so less problems to the environment, but cane sugar gives money to a community which if not producing sugar would produce drugs. So we have "Fair Trade" which in real terms is unfair trade as we are giving small business more money for same produce as large business.

So we sit in the cafe and argue white or brown, white means no transport, and brown means supporting anti drug systems.

So back to solar panels. Lets assume they are no real benefit, do you support as it means employment for a host of people installing them? or do you not support as in real terms no benefit? It is clearly political rather than any other forces so what it comes down to is what wins votes. The government knows the problems, my wife had a job making emails available under data protection and it was clear government knows what is really going on, but it makes jobs, so good or bad does not really matter we need employment so solar panels are good.

 

[JohnW2]

So back to solar panels. Lets assume they are no real benefit, do you support as it means employment for a host of people installing them? ... it makes jobs, so good or bad does not really matter we need employment so solar panels are good.

Yes, but that's inefficient. If, sticking with your assumption that the panels provide no real benefit, there are people out there who are nevertheless prepared to spend money, some of which the companies concerned pass on to others as wages/salaries, it would be more efficient if the people concerned simply paid into a fund which paid people (for doing 'non-jobs'), rather than waste a substantial proportion of their money on the cost of materials (which provided no benefit).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Tell some one we are paying you to do nothing or we are paying you to benefit mankind is really a huge gap. Even if both are true we are human and so telling some one what they are doing will benefit mankind will at the end of the day give that man much more job satisfaction. So even if not true it is better to lie.

 

[JohnW2]

Tell some one we are paying you to do nothing or we are paying you to benefit mankind is really a huge gap. Even if both are true we are human and so telling some one what they are doing will benefit mankind will at the end of the day give that man much more job satisfaction. So even if not true it is better to lie.

Maybe, but it's worse than just lying - it's also wasting money (which could otherwise be used to benefit mankind further) on unnecessary components/materials and all the overheads associated with the installation company. It would be better to pay the workers concerned to keep the streets cleaner, do shopping/gardening/whatever for the elderly, or whatever!

If technology and automation continue the way they are going, sooner or later there will probably have to be a major sociological/ psychological change which makes it acceptable for a substantial proportion of the 'working age' population to be 'paid for doing nothing' - or, more realistically, paid for doing things that aren't really 'necessary', or which are 'luxuries'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Aren't there already thousands of people being paid to do completely non-productive jobs? Quite a few of them work in Whitehall.....