[Closed] Carbon capture project cancelled

Well I was going to go mountain biking and then I started reading this thread 😆

I don't know where to start but I'm glad Kit and Stu turned up!

I'd love to see wave power working, but it isn't. There isn't a commercial watt produced. You are hard over on it, yet the industry seems to struggle with that commercial step up.

This would still be going if it wasn't for Babcock going under in the recession: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agu%C3%A7adoura_Wave_Farm

http://www.wavegen.co.uk/news_press%20release%208%20july%202011%20mutriku%20opening.htm

Tidal - proven and low tech? Why on earth is there still not a single watt produced commercially by tidal if it is so easy and proven? Because it is harder than people think!

http://www.marineturbines.com/

[i]SeaGen - the world's only commercially operational tidal turbine: feeding 10MWh per tide into the UK grid[/i]

And have a read of http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/energy/ to get an idea of what the near future holds.

Yes it is really simple.

In a listed building any new windows must be replicas of the original- ie in my case they must be mullioned wooden sash and case.

The slimline sealed units I have fitted are the only possible double glazed replacement windows that meet this criteria.

Unlike you I have discussed this issue with the regulators and have investigated every possible avenue.

So, in response to your statement of doing everything you can in your fight to insulate you attic, the answer is you are not and you have not produced anything to demonstrate otherwise except for your typical "you don't understand" crap.

Well don - but you don't understand as you clearly demonstrate or you wouldn't keep telling me I can do things that are not allowed. How can you fit triple glazing in a wooden sash and case window of identical profile to the originals?

Have you discussed this with historic Scotland? I have. Have you discussed it with planning dept? I have. Have you investigated all possible avenues to improve the thermal performance of my flat? I have.

Its outrageously arrogant of you to keep telling me there is more I can do when I actually know what is allowed and you do not. You keep telling me to do stuff that is not allowed.

Wahts your experience of listed buildings in the Edinburgh conservation area?

Show me where it says that you can not, I have produced a document that states Edinburgh allows triple glazing. I ask you again to produce tangible evidence to contradict the document I posted.
Common sense determines that the planning regs are guidelines and not set in stone, experience tells me that planning regs can be changed for the greater good.
Please I ask you to either show me documentary evidence prohibiting you from adding triple glazing, or, and of course this depends on previous build, prevents you from using window shutters.
You simply can't and are wasting your time and effort. The facts are irrefutable and it doesn't matter how stupid you think I am, the documents do not support your opinion and it is just that, your opinon.

Wahts your experience of listed buildings in the Edinburgh conservation area?

At the end of the day, we can't have 100% renewable without invasive hydropower or tidal projects which are very expensive and very ecologically damaging

Nice dream - your selective belief of politicians is a beautiful thing to behold. It won't be.

If you are referring specifically to Scotland don't think that all renewable energy means building new developments, we already have an extensive large scale hydro infrastructure thats been in place for decades and is already part of the reason why Scotland is a net exporter of energy. Salmond's renewables-based future scottish economy does concern me though, unless he walks the walk and supports UK developers it ain't gonna happen.

Also don't associate tidal power with big projects like the Severn barrage - look at the developments actually happening and how they work. Environmental impacts of tidal turbines have been studied extensively and the information is freely available, I'm not sure what your reference for being very ecologically damaging is, but in terms of marine mammals there has been some very interesting recent long term research by SMRU. http://www.smru.co.uk/marine-renewable-energy/strangford-lough.aspx

The electrification of energy is coming

Great news! I will look forward to binning my petrol powered laptop then! 😕

I think there is more to the future of UK energy than Jeremy's windows 😆

I think there is more to the future of UK energy than Jeremy's windows

Just thought I'd add my tuppenceworth as someone who actually works in the carbon capture "industry".

Given the sheer quantity of energy we currently use (and will potentially use in the future), we're up the swannie and, unless we do something quickly, we're are going to be in serious trouble.

Carbon capture isn't THE solution but is a pretty vital part of it until someone comes up with a way to provide power with significant environmental impacts. It is currently the only way we can produce power from hydrocarbons without further contributing to climate change. Some of the other posters have raised concerns about how it is energy intensive (25% of the rated output of a power station isn't too far off the mark) and there is a chance it won't work (leakage back from the saline aquifers or depleted oil and gas fields where it is stored) but, to be honest. Sticking in the ground offshore is better than continuing to pump it in to the atmosphere. From a technical perspective, CO2 storage underground does work. They've been doing it in the States for the past 60 years (for other reasons) without leakage back to the atmosphere.

Put simply, we need clean, reliable base load power and, with the best will in the world, wind and tidal energy just isn't going to be able to provide that (there are some scary stats out there about wind power, have a swatch at how much of their rated output the windfarms in the UK are actually producing).

One parting thought though, why not invest heavily in hydro power? We in Scotland have large tracts of unpopulated land with high rainfall and plenty of elevetion. It something we could do and we don't skills/materials from other countries to help us (like so may other "renewable" energy schemes out there).

So Don Simon - are you going to tell historic Scotland they are wrong?

You see unlike you I have asked them and I know what is allowed and waht is not. Windows must only be replaced with replicas of the original. this is the fact.

I do find it amusing that someone who does not even live in the UK thinks he knows better than historic Scotland what would be allowed in my building and what would not.

The same as every other conservation area in that logic and common sense win.

You see unlike you I have asked them and I know what is allowed and waht is not. Windows must only be replaced with replicas of the original. this is the fact.

so you know nothing then.

Wind turbines are both ugly and noisy.

I'd say ugly is a personal decision, Enercons are beautiful pieces of engineering IMO. I find some windfarms really interesting in the landscape, if you know the one on the way to Thurso, I think it really fits the landscape and really enjoy looking at it. They are noisy, but if they are put somewhere where no one can hear them, its not such an issue. The real future of wind in the UK is offshore, and most sites are significantly far offshore, many of them beyond the 35km horizon visibility.

You don't give a flying **** about the visual pollution then? Top stuff.

Quite a sentence in many ways, especially in relation to a lickle 330-500kW turbine! Anyway - they can be fun to look at:

[URL= http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/1389/img8733rg.jp g" target="_blank">http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/1389/img8733rg.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

You have just told me that Historic Scotland will only allow replicas of the original, yet your double glazed windows are not replicas of the original, are they?

yes they are - they are the only windows that meet the requirement to be a replica of the original.

Evidently Historic Scotland do allow more modern structures

as I said much, much, much earlier you can not change the look or character, again something you have done by using modern glass and ......,

No I have not - because they are heritage spec windows that are exact replicas of the original.

Now you're trying to tell me that single glazing is the same as double glazing, are you? And modern smooth glass is the same as the original galss?
I'm still waiting for the prohition document.

No I have not - because they are heritage spec windows that are exact replicas of the original.

Don - I cannot be bothered arguing with you any more.

Have you discussed this with Historic Scotland? I have and I know what they will allow and what they will not.

Have you discussed this with Historic Scotland? I have and I know what they will allow and what they will not.

Don - to educate you need to talk some sense and have some knowledge. You keep insisting that it is possible to do things that are not allowed.

Now I have lived here for 20 years and have had a lot of discussions with historic Scotland. You have not.

Now who knows best? Historic Scotland or you?

Any replacement window must be a replica of an original. there is no triple glazed unit that will fit in a replica window. there is only one manufacturer in the world that makes a double glazed unit that is compatible.

there are commercial operations running both wave and tidal power.

Links please - I'm very interested.

its you that has the blind spot thinking we can increase energy usage - we cannot - we have to decrease energy usage. You also follow the false premise about nuclear - it cannot be the solution - we don't have the fuel.

I'm saying that to compensate for the oil burned and the gas burned, we need to increase electricity. You really miss that point. I agree - we need to reduce the energy used. How would you cope with the replacement for gas and oil?

Newer generations of reactors would use what we now call 'nuclear waste' as fuel. We have fuel.

Its still small scale - more plant is being installed all the time.

tidal - for example
http://www.seageneration.co.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station
There are others as well including some in Norway

Wave
http://www.pelamiswave.com/our-projects/agucadoura
http://www.wavegen.co.uk/

Again there are others out there and more going in off the scottish coast.

What will be interesting to see is how many of the scottish ones survive the winter.

Newer generations of reactors would use what we now call 'nuclear waste' as fuel. We have fuel.

We need things to be installed now - and using waste as fuel - thats a new one on me.

Or do you mean breeder reactors - a failed tech.

we only have fuel for a few decades espcially with the massive expansion you want. That is a fact

Its no good saying the tech will come along - the pro nuke folk have been promising us that for decades.

I do not miss the point. We can reduce our c02 output by reducing energy consumption. You need to look a the whole country and its total energy usage. Electricity cannot replace much fossil fuel anyway. Its reducing this usage that will reduce c02 emissions.

You need to read your links:

SeaGen - the world's only commercially operational tidal turbine

Your wave power isn't producing commercially. Sorry.

Do you really think the UK can reduce consumption enough to cope with no gas and no oil? You are proving your lack of the subject or your own madness.

Any replacement window must be a replica of an original. there is no triple glazed unit that will fit in a replica window. there is only one manufacturer in the world that makes a double glazed unit that is compatible.

TooTall - look at my posts at the top of the page, SeaGen is tidal not wave power.

Some developers have also been looking into the possibility of putting tidal turbines on the supporting structures of wind turbines in the areas with high tidal currents which is quite interesting but adds another level of complexity to things and I wonder if it will ever happen. The next ten years will be very exciting for marine renewables as the big developments are implemented.

What will be interesting to see is how many of the scottish ones survive the winter.

Its the source of much amusement for some of the boat operators in Orkney - I was up a few weeks ago and one of them reckoned Wello would break free first and then take out Pelamis and Oyster on the way to getting minced on the shore 😆 . I'm not sure if Wello will be out by winter though. I think Oyster faces a big challenge in survivability just from where and how it works, being a big flap in relatively shallow water, Pelamis needs to be in deeper water which is a safer place to be. I'd better watch my words though as one of the aquamarine guys is on here!

Shutters on the inside TJ. They can't stop you doing that. Just as effective at cutting heat loss.

Yes, I own a 20-year-old car, or more precisely madame and I own a car and a van. The company you rent from owns lots of vehicles so one is avaiable for you when you use it TJ.

As you wish to compare greenhouse gasses emitted by our transport use I'll give you all the information you need. My wife and son use the vehicles more than me but I'll count all the fuel used as mine to make things simpler. I won't include kms in other people's vehicles I car share with as I save them at least as much fuel when they travel with me. You should include all the distance you cover in other people's vehicles, as you can't reciprocate.

Over the last 10 years:

0 air kms/year.

Up to 2000km by train per year but only about 1000 on average.

2500km by bus or coach per year for the last three years.

between 400 and 700 litres of motor vehicle fuel per year.

To help you: two people travelling to Australia and back in a 747 consume:

2 x 16983 x 2 x 0.03l = 8151 litres.

Shutters on the inside TJ. They can't stop you doing that. Just as effective at cutting heat loss.

EDIT; There are generally no issues surrounding the installation or reinstatement of internal shutters, not a widely known fact.
[url= http://www.changeworks.org.uk/uploads/83096-EnergyHeritage_online1.pdf ]http://www.changeworks.org.uk/uploads/83096-EnergyHeritage_online1.pdf[/url]

I'll agree with TJ on the Edinburgh planning regs being pretty strict, hence why at least half of the team in the council responsible for them being suspended over potential mis-management and fraud.

However, to go back on topic

Hide it in the ground and pretend it doesn't exist? need a better answer than that please

Thanks for checking and editing, Don. If anything internal shutters reduce condensation problems (which mainly concern the thermal bridge area around the window once the window is double glazed), cracking glass isn't a problem and even if not as good as external shutters for keep the dwelling ccol in summer they are better than nothing.

Clearly the internal is better than nothing and I'm sure glass technology has moved on a bit since 1980 too. 😀
[url= http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/bpn/17_e.pdf ]http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/bpn/17_e.pdf[/url]

I would have to apply for listed building consent to fit shutters which would be unlikely to be granted, as it is a listed building in a conservation area. Most of my windows could not have them fitted due to the construction of the window frame and surrounds as there would be nowhere for them to go or be fixed to.

You see guys - unlike you I know what my building is, I know what the regulations are and I know what is permissible and possible and I know what can be done and what cannot - And I have done everything I can practically do in most cases.

If you had asked me " can you do this" or "have you considered that" I could have told you - however you have kept trying to tell me I can do things that are not allowed or possible.

Tootall - pelarmis has been producing electricity on a commercial scale off the Portuguese coast for a few years now.

Ottawa get somewhat colder than Edinburgh too, Don. 😉

Until you can produce a refused planning application for internal shutters we'll have to rely on general policy statements, TJ. And that says internal shutters are fine and even encouraged as they were original features that have been removed in many cases.

Until you can produce something to prove otherwise I assume that national policy applies and I can walk along your street, TJ.

You are inventing problems that don't exist. Your roof insulation must be lousy too if you have to heat. What's above your head, TJ? In my case there are 400mm of wood, rockwool and fibre glass. It was the first insulating I did. If I had to do it now I'd use a combination of recycled polyester, hemp, wood fibre or multi-layer stuff depending on space, the objective being R=7 or higher. You can get R=7 with three layers of 30mm multi-layer these days (100mm total).

If you had asked me " can you do this" or "have you considered that" I could have told you - however you have kept trying to tell me I can do things that are not allowed or possible.

forum-big-hitter-bashing aside, to be fair to TJ, the diagram below of current consumption against a (massively optimistic) theoretical maximum UK 'green' energy production bar chart- crossed out indicatively after "public consultation" shows that home heating is only part of the massive amount of carbon produced by our energy consumpttion.....
there's obviously the argument as to whether nuclear is green or not.
[img] [/img]

all more clearly set out and debated from all aspects in this book (downloadable in full free) [url= http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html ]without hot air[/url]

apologies if the above book has been discussed and rubbished by more intelligent forumites.
just a soundbite from the above that I found staggering is that for every second an average car is driven, you may as well leave your phone charger on for an entire day 😐

whether carbon caputre or even carbon is the issue, it seems crazy to me, as mentioned earlier that we don't have CHP or district heating more commonly

Well you see edukator - you do understand the issues - there is nowhere to put the shutters - no space above and below the window - no space at each side. Nor were shutters ever fitted. I don't know if planing would be granded but I doubt it as it would mean major restructuring of the windows which would not be allowed,

As for insulation above me - thats one of the issues. I have just at great expense had 100mm put in. There is no way of putting anymore in. You see its a 130 yr old building with a flat roof. That is however to to the the latest specs and should improve things.

The worst area is the area on the cheeks of the dormer windows - lath an plaster, air gap, wood, slates. No possible way of putting any insulation in there. I have tried.

Its the structure of the building that is the issue - but of course you know things about my building that are not known to others.

I have put in as much insulation as possible as I have repeatedly told you

Also if you read what I put earlier there is no heat from below most of the time.

He once watched a staged 25-minute TV programme, Don, all your years of hands-on experience and success, and university studies that support your view just don't stack up in TJ's world.

Don - If you wopuld just accept that you know nothing about listed buildings and that what youa re telling me is not what historic scotladn have told me.

Its pointless engaging with you as you keep on trying to tell me to do things that are impossible because of you lack of knowledge about my building and your lack of understanding of listed building regs as applied to my building - something I have a lot of experience of having worked with them for 20 years.

What's the R value of the 100mm you put in, TJ? If did a bit of research it would be R=7. So is it three layers of 30mm 25-layer aluminium foil/polyester/foam (total thickness 90mm) which would keep your place warm or 100mm of rockwool or hemp or fibreglass or wood fibre with R=2 - woefully inadequate..

Edukator - the issue is he does not know or understand the constraints I am working under. he does not ( as you don't) understand the building nor the regulations and how they are applied. Hence he and you keep coming to erroneous conclusions and state that I must do things that cannot be done.

Have either of you discussed this with Historic Scotland? I have. At length. Looking for ways to further improve the thermal performance of the building. Non of the things you have suggested can be done. None of them.

Maybe you could just move to somewhere more eco-friendly?

apologies if the above book has been discussed and rubbished by more intelligent forumites.

More intelligent? Maybe, but its certainly been rubbished by those who have made an emotional commitment to "green" energy and refuse to countenance any data or argument that maybe its not a practical solution to our future energy needs without us all changing our lives completely by living in inner city bubbles or living next door to where we work and reducing our travelling to the extreme unless its by bike or public transport. Its really not worth arguing with these people. They've climbed up the metaphorical loft ladder pulled it up after themselves and are sitting there with their fingers in their ears.

Don - If you wopuld just accept that you know nothing about listed buildings and that what youa re telling me is not what historic scotladn have told me.

Its pointless engaging with you as you keep on trying to tell me to do things that are impossible because of you lack of knowledge about my building and your lack of understanding of listed building regs as applied to my building - something I have a lot of experience of having worked with them for 20 years.

Have either of you discussed this with Historic Scotland? I have. At length. Looking for ways to further improve the thermal performance of the building. Non of the things you have suggested can be done. None of them.

Maybe you could just move to somewhere more eco-friendly?

Which leaves behind an "eco-unfriendly building to be inhabited by someone else. Hardly a solution unless the planning rules are relaxed to allow sensible insulating measures.

So what's the R rating of the isulating material you used, TJ? A description of the material is all we need to work it out if you don't know.

Once again you make the assumption that other forum contributors "know nothing", TJ. Before long you'll be telling us "we haven't got a clue". Other forum readers just see you refusing to reveal your gas, electricity and transmort use, and dissing pdfs published by the competent authorities.

Why should I accept your presumption that I know nothing about listed buildings or the authorities that deal with them?

Well its fairly clear to me that you don't know anything much as you keep telling me to do things that are not possible and you keep showing your ignorance of it

I ask you again - what is your experience of insulation of 130 yr old listed buildings in a conservation area in Scotland?

Your experience of working with Historic Scotland is?

Its not my ignorance don - its your inability to accept that I know my building, what is allowed and what is not.

Edukator - the insulation was put in by contractors working for the council so I do not know what it was - its a green ( I think) semi rigid board 100 mm thick - it meets building regs suposedly. Looked like polyurethane foam

I do not refuse to reveal my energy consumption - I do not have the numbers. Its high - I can tell you that. A consequence of living in a building that is hard to insulate well - although its one of the best locally - as the snow stays on it a lot more than neighbouring buildings. All my external walls are lath and plaster to timeber to either slate or lead or roofing felt.

Those PDFs are general guidance. I know the specifics for my building because I have discussed it with historic Scotland. I know that in Edinburgh I can only replace the windows with replicas which precludes the use of triple glazing

It does amuse me that two people who don't even live in the same country and have had no dealings with the authorities know more about the building I own that I do and they know all these things that are possible to do despite historic Scotland refusing to allow them or it not being possible due to the construction of the building.

So yes - clearly neither of you know or understand the issues I have and have no desire to know. I know I have done as much as is possible

"Salmond is hopping"

now that I would like to see

Well he is a toad 🙂

I've rubber stamped a lot more British planning applications than you, TJ.

Anyhow we've now assertained that the energy consumption of you home is very high and the insulation woefully inadequate. We also know that you are much keener on finding excuses than doing anything about it - much like the power company you started this thread about.

Tandem, why should I answer your questions when you've refused to answer mine? But I will. My experience with CWI and loft insulation in 130 a year old building is zilch. But then again I have never claimed any thing different, so I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with that. But if it makes you happy, who am I to complain?
And unlike Edukator's experience you'll just have to keep guessing on mine, it's more fun that way.

So its established then - neither of you know anything about my building, my situation, or the regulations I have to work with.

Nothing either of you have suggested is a possible way to achieve a better thermal performance. You have also missed the most obvious one - secondary glazing. ( of which I have some)

We also know that you are much keener on finding excuses than doing anything about it

🙄

so spending many thousands and many many hours fitting the best insulation I can is finding excuse rather than doing anything.

If either of you actually had something relevant and possible to suggest it would be useful. Instead yo just want to be ignoarnat and unpleasnat trolls. byee to both of you

So its established then - neither of you know anything about my building, my situation, or the regulations I have to work with.

Nothing either of you have suggested is a possible way to achieve a better thermal performance. You have also missed the most obvious one - secondary glazing. ( of which I have some)

unpleasnat trolls.

don simon - Member

My experience with CWI and loft insulation in 130 a year old building is zilch.

🙄

You are both ignorant and stupid - too stupid to understand the limits of your knowledge and experience.

What's CWI and loft insulation got to do with windows? Zero experience in these areas will mean that I don't give advice here and if you care to look back you'll see that I haven't spoken about CWI or loft insulation because I do know the limits of my experience, unlike some. You're too easy Tandem. 😆
TJ in another not listening shocker!! 😯

This thread is really ****ing embarrassing to be associated with 🙁

sorry kit - I forgot "don't feed the trolls"

So we're both ignorant and stupid now, TJ. Time for bed I think.

The thermometer on my wall reads 19.2°C; the heat from three people, the TV and a computer has raised it by 0.2°C on a cold, star-lit evening. It'l still be nice and warm in the morning. Think about that as you get out of bed in your freezing attic, or do you leave the heating on greenhousing the planet all night?

In case anyone reading this is still interested in actual thread topic, this opinion piece is interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/carbon-capture-uk-european-funding

In case anyone reading this is still interested in actual thread topic, this opinion piece is interesting:

Don - which is why I live a lower carbon lifestyle than many and why I have insulate my house as much as possible.

Jeez TJ and Edukator. I thought all you eco-warriors were on the same side.

DenDennis - That diagram is pretty meaningless as far as I can see by itself, maybe it might makes some sense in the context of its accompanying chapter. I don't understand why its crossed out eg shallow offshore wind with the line 'not near my birds' when offshore windfarms are being built having gone through the planning process where impacts on birds would have been assessed in EIA.

I had a quick look at the link and the first chapter I looked at on offshore wind was a bit alarmingly written:

Conven-
tional wisdom seems to be that shallow offshore wind (depth less than 25–
30 m), while roughly twice as costly as land-based wind, is economically
feasible, given modest subsidy; and deep offshore wind is at present not
economically feasible. As of 2008, there’s just one deep offshore windfarm
in UK waters, an experimental prototype sending all its electricity to a
nearby oilrig called Beatrice.

Starting a paragraph with the phrase [i]"Conven-
tional wisdom seems to be"[/i] is a bit worrying and I would suggest a lot of the technical aspects of that chapter are looking a bit dated already when you look at the depths of Round 3 zones and projects like Hywind II.

I've not read the rest but based on that I would bear in mind that it might be a bit dated already.

I'm sorry that you don't think that indivuals taking responsinbility for reducing their own consumption is important. But hey, each to their own.

If you say so.

In other 'edge of the seat as it happens' related insulation and efficiency news, the wife n me bought 7 rolls of wool for the loft and the FIL fixed a buggered hallway window that was draughty and noisy to boot.

As you were Eco Soldiers.

Chapeau for Don Dimon on this thread.

TJ, as per usual, ignores the evidence that doesn't suit his argument and resorts to insulting the intelligence of those that disagree with him.

wwaswas - what evidence that does not suit my argument?

The kept trying to tell me I could do stuff that is specifically excluded because of their ignorance of my position.

Don Simon and Edukator - neither of them live in the UK. Neither of them know my building, neither of them have had any experience of dealing with historic Scotland.

I have specifically asked historic Scotland about replacing windows and the only acceptable replacements for my flat are wooden sash and case windows that are replicas of the original which completly precludes the use of triple glazing.

The two of them arrogantly assumed they could point out where I could do more and then could not accept that I know more about what is possible in my building than they do.

I have fitted as much insulation as is possible[i] within the constraints of the listed building in a conservation area.
[/i]
They were both extremely offensive towards me if you read the thread.

Don Simon and Edukator - neither of them live in the UK. Neither of them know my building, neither of them have had any experience of dealing with historic Scotland.

They were both extremely offensive towards me if you read the thread.

[i]wwaswas - what evidence that does not suit my argument?[/i]

A link to about 8 different suppliers of 'approved' double glazing where you insisted there was only one?

wwaswas -
Thats because there is only the one manufacturer who makes the type of DG units [i]that can be fitted into the type of windows I have to have fitted[/i].

Who is this mysterious manufacturer? And what are the specifications of the DG units?
Bearing in mind I've already linked to 9 manufacturers on a Historic Scotland document.

[i]that can be fitted into the type of windows I have fitted[/i]

well you would say that, wouldn't you.

on the other hand;

You've clearly done a lot to insulate where you feel it's possible.

But to be so absolutist about stuff is just asking for people to come along and say 'but what about 'x' or 'y'?'

It may be that there is no more to be done but your approach to being quizzed tends to lead people to believe that you've got the blinkers on and believe that chez TJ is incapable of further improvement and that your mind is not going to be swayed by discussion - you'll subsequently just defend the position you currently have until everyone gets bored and moves on.

wwaswas

They came on and told me I could do more without knowing what I had done, when asked for specifics told me I could do things that are not allowed or possible and then got very offensive towards me. They did not ask what I had done nor sugest things I could do - they told me I could do things that re specifically excluded and / or not possible due to the construction - then got all offensive when told it was not possible

In the 20 years I have been here I have done my best. For two people who do not know the building and do not understand the regulatory environment to tell me that I can do more and accuse my of lying and hypocrisy is a bit much.

Just ask yourself - who is likely to know more about what is possible in a specific building? the person who has lived there for 20 years and have discussed improvements with the rregulators of two people who have never even seen the building?

I'm not saying you're wrong TJ, just that your somewhat, errmm, forthright way of dealign with what were, initially at least, fairly reasonable questions and comments tends to lead to lead to escalation.

wwaswas - "fairly reasonable questions and comments" this was their opening sallies

Edukator - Member

What TJ does know is that for an attic flat which if properly insulated would be heated by the people living below his energy bills are embarrassing and would demonstrate just how hypocritical he is on this thread - moaning about others not doing anything to cut their carbon emissions when his own home is greenhousing the planet.

don simon - Member

"My attic is as well insulated as possible -"

I wager it's not.
I'd put good money on your windows only having a u value of about 1,5W/m2ºC and don't take full advantage of solar gain... And your walls not being 0,35W/m2ºC... And your roof....

Jumping straight in to the attack with a load of wrong assumptions.

No one lives below me. I have as much insulation fitted as possible, I have fitted the best windows I can. Because they do not know either my building or the regulatory environment....................

Jumping straight in to the attack with a load of wrong assumptions.

TJ - step away now, seriously...

I'm pretty sure that your two main tormentors are having a good giggle at you with this thread since I'm fairly sure their aim is simply to turn your 'show me proof' stance on every other thread back at you.

FWIW, despite my reckoning that you're probably right about the potential for any (practical/realistic) further improvements to your home wrt to this discussion, reading your responses to Don and Edukator does not show you in a good light IMO. You are rude and insulting where there's no real reason to be. I'd suggest that considering the way you deal with other people, you should have thicker skin to deal with the apparent slights headed your way.

clubber - Member

TJ - step away now, seriously...

I'm pretty sure that your two main tormentors are having a good giggle at you with this thread since I'm fairly sure their aim is simply to turn your 'show me proof' stance on every other thread back at you.

I am sure your right - I only replied to wwaswas - those two are now on my killfile so I don't have to see any more posts from them.

FWIW, despite my reckoning that you're probably right about the potential for any further home improvement wrt to this discussion, reading your responses to Don and Edukator does not show you in a good light IMO. You are rude and insulting where there's no real reason to be.

Only in reply to insults from them - questioning my integrity, calling me a liar and a hypocrite.

Teh insults came from them first

 

[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/carbon-capture-project-cancelled/page/4#post-3087652 ]

TandemJeremy - Member

don - you don't know what you are talking about.

Only in reply to insults from them - questioning my integrity, calling me a liar and a hypocrite.

😆

I think Iwas really trying to say what clubber said, perhaps just less succinctly.

That's kind of my point though TJ - you read some comments as insults which as an independent observer I don't believe are or were directly intended to be.

This for example

don simon - Member

"My attic is as well insulated as possible -"

I wager it's not.
I'd put good money on your windows only having a u value of about 1,5W/m2ºC and don't take full advantage of solar gain... And your walls not being 0,35W/m2ºC... And your roof....

It's not an unreasonable comment in itself. Most people I reckon could have replied "you might think so but I've checked it all out and spent a fortune on it and can't find anything else to do. If you know something I've missed, please let me know" rather than take is as a grave insult.

And I'd also consider that it was a hook to get you into a position where you're unable to provide 'proof' to your own standards on other threads which might be something to think about too. Not being able to provide a link to proof is not the same as saying that something isn't correct.

Oh aye - I was stupid to bite on the hook and thats clearly what it was.

Its pretty offensive to be told I am wrong and hypocritical about something where they know nothing about the situation.

But the insults were intended to reel me in and I fell for it

ps I've just added a "TJ goes into orbit " tag as I thought it was appropriate here 🙂 Seriously, take a step back and wonder why it's always you.

was the one I quoted REALLY an insult? To call you to task considering your stance which comes across as an absolute isn't unreasonable is it?

Saying that someone may be wrong isn't an insult in itself - you should hope not as it seems to be a common accusation you make. Hypocritical is maybe more insulting but then you often talk in absolutes which basically makes a hypocrite of almost everyone in some way so I'd take that as more a comment on that than a direct insult...

Saying that someone may be wrong isn't an insult in itself - you should hope not as it seems to be a common accusation you make. Hypocritical is maybe more insulting but then you often talk in absolutes which basically makes a hypocrite of almost everyone in some way so I'd take that as more a comment on that than a direct insult...

Take a step back clubber, we'd hate to lose you.
😀