The Grass is Greener

Electric Cars - Part of the Solution, or just delaying the Problem a bit?

2015-10-03T14:31:00.000-07:00

Nissan Leaf - the most popular electric car in the UK.

Electric cars.
Love them or hate them, they look like they are here to stay.

With the recent changes proposed to the system for taxing motor vehicle ownership in the UK, hybrids will be taxed much more than currently, while "true" electric cars will pay no annual tax (like the rest of us do - I pay about 145 pounds (about 225 dollars, about 195 euros) a year for my "diesel" motorcar).

So how practical are electric cars?
The best-selling electric car in the UK seems to be the Nissan Leaf (although, to be fair, I did spot a pair of Teslas in a carpark in Southampton earlier in the year (Spring 2015)).
The Leaf has a renge of about 70 to 80 miles, depending on model - the earlier ones are quited at about 70 miles, while the later ones are quoted at just over 80 miles.
Given that we live about 46 miles from the centre of London (where the Leaf is exempt from paying the extra tax for pollution in the central area), that 80 mile range is a bit short ...

Some service areas on motorways (expressways/autobahns) have already got recharging points intalled for electric cars:

Electric charging pooint at Cullumpton Services, just off the M5, England

Seems there is more than one standard for charging connections too (I'm thinking VHS vs Beta all over again!), so the charging points have TWO sets of cables, one on either side. On the pump shown, the "Nissan" cable is on the right, looking in the direction I took the photo.
For that trip I suggested to central London, there is a pair of charging terminals at "London Gateway" services on the M1 (It used to be called "Scratchwood Services", but I'm guessing the image consultants thought they could make it sound more important!).
London Gateway services are about 33 miles from where we live, so, for safety, if we had a Leaf, we would have to stop on both the way to London, AND the way back ...
Not so practical, methinks.

So what about the owner of the Leaf shown at the top of this piece?
Turns out he drives about 25 miles each way a day, as he works in another town, and there is a carpark near his workplace where he puts it on charge while he is at work.
Even better, electric cars in that carpark don't have to pay the normal charge for parking either!
Win, Win.

And at home?

Electic vehicle charging point on the side of a house

Well, he has had a charging point installed on the wall of his house, so, in the evenings, he just plugs it in.

Electric cars, then, seem handy for some, but not so good for others.
If we bought one and wanted to visit my father (about a 250 mile trip each way), we'd have to stop at least 4 times each way on the journey - while, if driven carefully, our diesel car will get there and back without refuelling (and a bit further, too!).

And then we must ask ourselves if electic cars are actually the solution, or is it better to use cars (of all types) less.

we don't use our car much, instead making almost all of our jouneys on foot, by bicycle, or in our daughter's case, by bus.
Is this a better answer than us replacing our car with an electric one?

Our town has a rail system that connects us to London quite quickly and efficiently.
If the subsidies that are being used to promote electric car ownership were used to subsidise bus and rail travel instead, then we might not even need a car at all.
Certainly heavy subsidies for the public transport systems has caused a significant drop in motor traffic before (I'm old enough to remember the "Fare's Fair" policy adopted by London up until the mid-1980's, when it was cut on political grounds, rather than economic ones - actually, that whole tier of local government of London was abolished without a vote! All part of the "Thatcher" legacy that lead to her being the first leader in 350 years where some folks held street parties to rejoice at her eventual death (but, of course, by then, she had become an irrelevance) - the politist form of description of Thatcher would be to describe her as "devisive" - she wasn't voted out either - she was replaced in a political coup by the political party of which she was the leader, so even half "her side" hated her).
Anyway, enough of the political memoir - I only put it in as a historical note for folks under 30 that belive the rubbish the right-wing print media spout about it being unworkable - it worked 35 years ago (and, as a further aside, the trains got a lower subsidy under national ownership that they do now in a "privatised" rail system, and the tickets are STILL rather expensive. But, of course, now there are shareholders who want a "profit" - even though only onle line in the country genuinely breaks even, and that is the London to Cambridge route!)
There I go with another historucal footnote.

But as they say, those who fail to learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them ...

Our town, Aylesbury, is well connected by train, and with the proposed EastWest rail link it will be even better.
But the trains are often a pricey way to travel, especially for two or more people who could share a car instaed!

Our town, Aylesbury, is pretty well connected by bus, too, but the tickets are not very cheap, and the routes tend to be long and circuitous - I can cycle the 25-ish miles (about 40km) from Aylesbury to Oxford in only a bit longer than the time the bus takes to get there!
And I'd save myself the price of the ticket too! (about 8 quid, 13 dollars, 11 euros)

But as I have mentioned before, the relatively high price of public transport means that many trips are cheaper for us by car, if they are unsuitable for walking or cycling, which would be our first two choices.

Electric vehicles have their place - commercial delivery vehicles, for example:

The "classic" British milk float - not many left now!
They will go maybe 20 ,ph (32 kph) flat out, but usually travel slower.

So that's by tuppence worth.
What do you think?

Should tax subsidies be given for electric car purchase/ownership, or should the money be used to subsidize public transport (buses and trains) instead?
Or should transport in general not be subsidized at all, and the money spent on something else (like Health, for example,), Or should it just be "given back" as a tax cut (which usually means the richest get the most back, but some folks would argue that they paid the most in the first place, and other folks would argue that they gain more from the system, so they should pay more)

What say you?
Electric cars and/or the subsuidies that go with them - Good or Bad

Red, Golden Arches, and Green

2015-07-30T11:14:00.000-07:00

MacDonald's sign in Cornwall, England, powered by solar and wind.
The sky was rather grey that day, but the wind was blowing nicely (it was raining, too!).
Pretty typical weather for Cornwall, and that wind generator was spinning like crazy!
There are so many illuminated signs in non-city areas where a panel and small turbine can be mounted near an illuminated sign or on the roof of the building.
So easy, so obvious, and a drop in the ocean for the budget of a major company.
Yet, if everyone did it, the effect would be HUGE!
Good on you McDonalds!

Nature Grows the Seed

2015-07-30T11:05:00.000-07:00

Home-grown potatoes

Early in the year (about three months ago), Anna planted a potato, cut into twp parts, with each part already starting to sprout.
Now, three months later, the crop is ready for harvesting.
The crop is small, but then again, we started off with just ONE smallish potatoes, and now we have a pot full.

Our growing area - about 7 feet wide and 3 feet deep (215cm by 90cm)

The potato halves were planted in the large plant pot between the two green tiered racks.


The potato pot - most of the foliage from the potatoes has died back by now.

Starting to empty the pot ...

Hey - a potato!

Look - another one

"Gold" from the soil

Well, that's 4.
Wonder how many more there are?

Ooh - a bunch more of them

A tray full of fresh potatoes.

All that is left of one of out two original potato pieces we planted three months ago.
We didn't find the remains of the other piece

We started with a potato about the size of the one shown, which we cut into two.

The original potato weighed about 30 grams (one ounce-ish)

Our harvest weighs in at 914 grams net of the tray (about 2 pounds)

So, there you have it.
Not that many potatoes, but remember we only started with one small-ish potato.
30 grams to 914 grams.
Anna has more experience than me, and she says that she remembers the time that she started with a half-bucket of special "seed" potatoes, and ended up with about 13 buckets worth of crop (they were planted in the ground, though, not in a plant pot like this time!
So a yield of 25 to 30 times is certainly possible from a three month growing period.

We are especially pleased with our result because we used a plain old left-over potato that had been in the cupboard a bit too long and had started to sprout!

Remember we did this in just a plant pot, using regular "compost" we bought from our local "big box" DIY store, so if you only have a patio or a balcony you could do this too.
But the season is moving on.
Planting at the end of April to harvest at the end of July is going to have to wait for next year!

Kids will love this, too.
Remember food comes from Nature, with a bit of nurture, not from shops!

How much energy does YOUR house use?

2015-04-03T10:01:00.000-07:00

A while back, I wrote a piece about the energy ratings on British houses, and I estimated our own house as being at the bottom of Band C, given our double-glazing, low-power lights, and recent condensing boiler.

So, with all that, how much energy do we actually use?

Our electricity usage is fairly constant, but our gas usage shows a seasonal cycle (there is a delay in the usage and the data, as we are billed every three month, so the "Winter Bill" appears in the data just as the weather is warming up.

In order to know whether any energy-saving upgrades are succesful, one has to know what the relative usage over time is.
Of course, as we have "gas" heating, the biggest factor in our usage is the temeratures that a particular winter brings.

That's me.
What about you?
Do you use more or less than us
(we have a "modern", in other words "small", 2-bed semi with a conservatory, and we live in the South of England)

Urban Deliveries - The Humble British Milk Float

2014-12-24T16:45:00.000-08:00

The humble British Milk float,
The most successful electric vehicle ever built?

Discussing urban infrastructure with some friends, it occurred to me that folks outside the UK may not be aware of the humble British milk float.
I remember growing up in the early 1970s and seeing these on the streets then.

There are a couple of variations in the design, including some with only one front wheel, and one headlight, and a more ponted front end than the squarer milk float shown above.
Sometimes petrol (gasoline) powered vehicles are used for milk delivery, particularly in rural areas, but the "classis" milk float is a battery-powered vehicle, with a string lower frame (to take the weight of the batteries!) and a lightweight upper body.
Some have plastic/grp bodywork, and some have metal bodywork, and some have side door (or no doors at all!) rather than the rear-entry cab shown above.

Such vehicles have a top speed of about 20 mph (32 km/h) and I remember cycling to work about 30 years ago on an unlit road being chased by this eerie light, I cycled faster and faster and was able to stay well in front of it. When we got to the next section of raods that had streetlights, I saw that I was being followed by a milk float (a single-headlight model).

So what is the relevance of this now?
Well, two things really:
Firstly, the electric milk float is probably THE most successful electric vehicle ever made;
Secondly, when we are thinking about how our towns and cities should be planned in the future, we need to think about what services (if any) we wish to provide.
For example, should we allow milk floats into cuty centre areas, but only before, say, 7 am?
In my experience, milk floats usually deliver somwhere between about 5 am and 7 am, 6 days a week.
Is that what we want in our cities?
Does having door-to-door milk (or whatever) deliveries mean that urban citizens cut down on car use as a result?
We discuss such things over on the Car-Free Cities community, and there is a currently a survey about ... (wait for it) ... milk floats.
Why not join us, and share your views!

Reducing Energy Usage - A Practical Experiment

2014-12-13T23:32:00.000-08:00

Hi all.
I thought I would share with you my thoughts on reducing energy usage.
First of all, you have to know what you are actually using.

I like tea.
A lot.
But how much energy does it cost to heat enough water for a mug of tea?

Time for an experiment.
Starting with a cold kettle, my daughter and I measured out 500ml of room-temperature (20 C, 68F) water and put it in the kettle. That is enough for two mugs of tea.
We then timed how long it takes to boil (the kettle as a "auto cut-off", so we used that to end the test).
It took us 68 seconds.
A few hours later, when everything was cool and stable again, I repeated the experiment with 250ml of water (still at 20 C, 68F)
Now it took 40 seconds.

We have a 3KW "flat plate" kettle.
On the assumption that the full 3 KW was being drawn for the time the kettle was on:
3KWx 40s = 2KWmins = 1/30 KWh.
My electricity tariff charges 13.53p per KWh
so 13.53 divided by 30 = 0.451p per cup of tea.

Now that assumes that I boil just the "right amount" of water each time.
What actually happens is that I don't measure the water with a graduated jug (as I did for the experiment), but I estimate the amount needed.
So I actually put more like the "two-cup" amount in for one cup.

In reality then, I use approx 3 kW x 68seconds x 13.53p/KWh
Which is 0.7667p per cup.

So, providing I only boil a cup or two of water each time I make tea, that really isn't going to be much of a usage.

Must do some more experiments on how much it costs to boil, say, a half-full kettle of water, rather than just one or two cups worth.

The great advantage of a "jug" kettle is that the user can boil just a small amount of water, and that small amount is reduced even further if the kettle has a flat element in the bootom, rather than the "traditional" coil that needs to be covered.

But, as even the one-cup/two-cup experiment above demonstrates the ACTUAL energy saving depends on the way the kettle is used as well as its intrinsic design features.

So why not try out a similar experiment with your kettle?
What will you discover?

Update 8th January 2015:
I filled the same kettle with a measured 750 ml of water at room temperature.

The water is measured out ...

... and poured into our "flat plate"
jug kettle

Being January, although our house has the heating on, the kitchen may be a bit colder than it was when I did the experiments mentioned above.
Anyway, I came up with the figure of 102 seconds for the 750 ml of water.
So, with three data pairs, I have enough to draw a graph:

What could be done to improve the experiment?
Well, for a start the various tests could be repeated many times, just to check the results are consistent.
I could also have formally measured the water temperature in the jug, just to make sure it is at the 20C (68F) I have assumed.
But this isn't about me - it is about you doing your own experiments, and hopefully saving energy as a result of what you learn.

Domestic Solar Electricity - does anyone actually fit it?

2014-12-13T10:40:00.001-08:00

Just a typical English street - except for the house at the back with the solar panels

New Wind Turbine On The Edge Of Town

2014-12-13T10:34:00.001-08:00

I was cycling out on the edge of town today, and I saw this.

It sure looks like a wind turbine mast.
I was out on the new link road that joins Berryfields to Buckingham Park (Aylesbury), when I saw it.
A quick trawl on the internet suggests that a 2KW wind turbine was approved in March 2012, so I guess that it what is!
The wind turbine is mentioned in a document called Vale Trends, which is full of planning information for our area - but, be honest, how many folks do you think actually read such publications :-)
Iirc, about 50% of all generated electricity in the UK is lost during transport over the nation's power lines, so a modestIy-sized wind turbine close to a housing development should be quite efficient by comparison - the shorter the distance from generation to consumption, the less is lost!
The 2KW turbine is expected to supply the power to 1500 homes, but with about 75,000 folks being recorded as living in the "Aylesbury Urban Area", and I guess somewhere in the region of 30,000 to 40, 000 homes, it's not that many really!

But every bit helps.
1500 homes powered by the turbine is 1500 less from gas/oil/coal/nuclear!

And it has to be better than living next to a "regular" power station!

Update 21st December 2014:
Two more views of the turbine I took about half-an-hour ago.

The view of the turbine from the North-East side of town.
You can see the turbine in a zoomed-in picture, but on a grey day you have to know where to look!

A wider scene from exactly the same position as the shot above.
Can you see the turbine?

Update 22nd December 2014:
It seems that the turbine is the tallest in England!
Our local paper reports that the turbine is 149m tall (that's 488 feet), and, additionally will have blades (although they call them "sails") that are 87 metres (285 feet) each.

Most folks seem shocked that it just "appeared" without them knowing much about it, and opinions seem to vary from the positive to the "it ruins the view from my house".
But, if we all want all our electrical and electronic gadgets, we have to have power generation SOMEWHERE, and I certainly don't want to live near a power station like, say, Didcot!
(Didcot is where most of our local electricity currently comes from).

So purely on pragmatic grounds, I welcome the turbine.

Indeed, personally, I see the turbine as emblematic of our "town looking to the future", and that is something I welcome.
Long may it continue!

Update 27th December 2014:
Two days ago, while doing my Christmas visiting, we happened to pass the power station at Didcot.
Remember, this is the main power station that produces our local power.
Small it isn't.

The remaining three large towers of the now-defunct
Didcot A 2000MW power station. The other three large towers
were demolished earlier in 2014.

Didcot from the hills to the South. The large towers are visible on the left.
The tall, narrower, chimney is actually taller than the height of the mast
and turbine for our local new wind turbine.
Compare that with the tiny houses to the right of the chimney.

Back in 2003, the readers of Country Life, a monthly magazine for the upper-middle class, voted windfarms as the biggest "eyesore" in Britain. In third place was ... (wait for it) ... Didcot power station!
So the same folks who don't like living near wind turbins certainly don't want to live near a "proper" power station, either.
And yet we all seem to have a desire for power all the time, so we have to have power stations SOMEWHERE!
And, because of transmission losses, it makes sense for them to be as close to where the power is used as is practicable - just like, for example, the new wind turbine on the edge of town.

Good Choices and Bad Choices

2014-12-07T00:59:00.000-08:00

The rear entrance to the British Museum -
still pretty imposing, with the stone lions and all!

Life has a lot of "real" choices in it.
Sometimes we would like to do the "right" thing, but it is just too expensive!

Last weekend, we (Anna, Katya, and myself) wanted to visit the British Museum in the centre of London.

So, given that we live (according to Google Street Maps) about 42 miles away, walking is out, and, to be honest, it is a bit far for us to cycle! I did cycle 100 miles in a day in the Summer, but that is the furthest I have ever been, and it took me all day! For the keen, however, Google estimates you CAN walk it in a bit more than 13 hours each way (!), and cycle it in 3 hours 35 each way, although I suspect that their "cyclist" gets up the climb to cross the Chilterns a lot faster than I do (!) With a stop for a rest and a break half-way, I guess I might be able to do it on my bike in 4 1/2 to 5 hours each way, but I don't think Anna and Katya could manage this distance yet. My bike, although cheap, still cost to build more than their two bikes put together, and their bikes are optimised for urban utility, rather than "audax"!

The "realistic" options for us were therefore car, train, or bus.

I didn't seriously explore the bus route, as, from here, it is rather a multi-stage journey.
I know there is a bus from Aylesbury to Watford, and there is a bus from Watford to Brent Cross (North-West London), and I have even used this Watford to Brent Cross bus route once, but then it would be at least one more bus into the centre - probably to Trafalgar Square. The Aylesbury to watford bus is not exactly quick, taking an hour or so for that route, as it stops in a lot of places on the way. Iirc, the expected jouney time is about an hour. The Watford to Brent Cross route also stops a lot, and takes about an hour. The last part of the route will probably also take that sort of time as well, as it is likely to have a lot of stops on the way into London. So we can say it is at least three hours for the bus "option", plus 30 minutes at our end to walk to the bus station and get tickets, with a bit of time to spare in case there is a queue. It is likely to be another 30 minutes at the other end to get from Trafalgar Square to the British Museum on foot, what with it being 14 years since I left London, and 20-odd years since I used to spend a lot of time in the central part!
So I estimate that the bus option would be about 4 hours EACH WAY.

Now the train option, which I explored in depth.
There is a train from Aylesbury to Marylebone Station in London, with 2 or 3 an hour. the trip takes a bit more than an hour.
Then we would have to get a "Tube"/Subway/Metro train to a station nearer to the Museum.
Never mind the routing that Google maps likes - for me, the best route would be to walk from Marylebone to Baker Street (not as far as it looks on the "Tube" map, which is schematic, rather than geographical!), then catch the "Tube" to Euston Square, then walk down and across, and into the rear entrance to the British Museum.
Google estimates that their routing would take between 1 hr 30 mins and 1 hr 48 mins. My routing probably takes the same sort of time.
Then there is the time from our house to the train station in Aylesbury - it is near the bus station, so I will add on 30 minutes for that.
So that is (rounded off) a total of 2 - 2 1/4 hours by train each way.

Now the least "green" option.
What if we simply just drove?
Google Maps suggests a time of just over an hour - but, remember I used to live in London, and I know what the traffic is like (!). So I estimated about 1 hour 30 minutes for a drive (given that we usually drive at 10 - 15 mph or so BELOW the speed limit on major roads - that's us, just keeping up with the trucks, rather than screaming down the outside lane!) that would get us there for about 10 am (when the Museum opens), so we actually avoid the bulk of the traffic by being earlier. (remember, this was a weekend, not a weekday trip, so the "usual" 9 am "rush hour" doesn't apply!)

What then of cost?

Having ruled out walking, cycling, and bus, all on the grounds of journey time, that left car and train.
So how much is a ticket for 2 adults and a child to London from Aylesbury, including a permit to use the Tube (Subway/Metro) once we arrive in London?
Our train route is run by Chiltern Railways, and runs pretty reliable trains - all in all, it is a highly regarded train company. German-owned, if that means anything!
The "regular" weekend fare is £58 ($92.80), but as there are three of us, we can get a family group ticket for £45.90 ($73.44)

And driving?
Parking, if you get there early enough on a Sunday morning (before it all fills up!) is "free" in the streets arounf the Museum.
If you miss the surface parking spaces, there is an underground car park below a small-ish nearby shopping centre, where 4 to 24 hours (any day of the week) costs £19.30 ($30.88)
Central London has a "congestion charge"vehicle tax of £11.50 ($18.40) per day for casual visitors, but that only applies in the week, and in the day, not after 6pm in the evening, and not at all at the weekend,
The fuel cost varies depending on how much traffic you get, and how much inefficient start-stop driving you do.
Three is also the matter of how you calculate your costs - once you own a car (a big expenditure), the "marginal cost" of one extra trip isn't as much as the costs of the car divided by the total number of miles you do - most of those costs would still be similar (insurance, depreciation, parts and servicing, tax, safety test, etc. etc.). We actually average (our car has a fuel computer) a bit more than 60 mpg (Imperial gallon) that's circa 50 mpg (US gallon), and the route to London is fast dual carriageway (divided highway) then motorway (expressway), then major urban road to London Zoo, then minor roads in the park, then major urban road, then turn right, go down to blocks, and voila! Off-peak, we probably still manage about our average, as we are well above it on the fast sections at the start (I tend to drive at 55-60 mph, rather than the 70 mph speed limit on such roads).
Somewhere in the region of 20p per mile covers the "marginal cost" fuel and wear-and tear, and if we round up the mileage a bit to allow for any detours, and come to a figure of 100 miles (rather than Google Map's figure of about 85 miles), we still only get £20 ($32) for driving.

It is hard for public transport to compete with "free" parking

So, what did we do?

We drove.
It took us about 1 hour 15 minutes to get there, and about 2 hours to get back.
We parked "free" within 5 minutes walk of the rear of the Museum - we actually parked in Russell Square.

Russell Square is very close to the British Museum -
turn left for the "main" entrance, and turn right for the
"rear" entrance.

Had we made the journey on a weekday morning, we may well have taken the train.
But on a Sunday morning, the economics means that even for someone wanting to do the "right" thing, the car is a hard proposition to argue with!

Energy Ratings for Houses

2014-11-23T06:50:00.001-08:00

In the UK, houses have to have an energy rating certificate if they are being rented out or sold.
Our house doesn't have one, as we bought it before the current rules were introduced.

However, we can estimate our house's energy rating by using the certificate of the house next door, and then making adjustments for the differences.

The house next door has a rating of just 55 (right at the bottom of Band "D" on the Government's A-G rating system).
Their certificate recommends a condensing boiler (we had one a few years ago!), with more modern heating controls (we have that too!), and suggests that those improvements would be worth 7 and 3 rating points respectively,
Then we have double-glazed windows, and they don't. So that is another 3 or 4 points.
Low-energy lighting throughout gives us another rating point,

So we get about 55 (next door's rating) + 7 (condensing boiler) + 3 (modern heating controls) + 3 or 4 (double glazing) + 1 (low-energy lighting), giving us an estimated energy rating of 69 or 70 points, which takes us to the bottom of Band "C" - a whole rating band above our neighbour!

our condensing boiler

our modern, digital, wireless, thermostat.
our heating is optimised for the hamster!

One of our LED table lamp bulbs

Are there any other neighbours we can check "our" assumed rating against?

Yes - another house in our street, which is being rented out, also has a certificate.
Remember, all the houses in our street were built at about the same time by the same property developer, and although the vary in layout and size a bit, they are all built to a similar standard using similar construction tecniques and materials.

So, this second house has a rating of 60 - still Band "D", but better than the first house we looked at!
The values for improvements have changed a bit, too (the energy report for the second house was issued four years later than that for the first house).
So here we go.
60 (for the second house) + 5 (condensing boiler) + 2 (modern heating controls) + 2 (low-energy lighting), giving us an estimated energy rating of 69 points, which takes us to the bottom of Band "C" - so we scrape into a rating band above that neighbour too!

How efficient is your house?In the next 10 years or so, I expect to have solar panels on the roof, too, and that'll be worth a further 15 (first report) or 13 (second report) rating points, and would lift us into Band "B"!
Interestly, the inspector for both energy reports was the same man (!), so I suspect that the guidelines about the rating points have been altered a bit in the four years between the two reports.

A Few Ideas to Make the World a Better (Greener) Place - Part 2 - Condensing Boilers

2014-11-23T05:55:00.001-08:00

We have a modern condensing boiler.

Our boiler hangs on the wall in our kitchen.

It is a Worcester-Bosch Greenstar 30si model, with a rated efficency of 90.1%.
Our previous boiler (a late '80s Glow-worm model) had an efficiency of just 68%.
As things these days have an energy rating, our current boiler is rated as an "A" (the best), while our pevious boiler was rated as a "G" (the worst).
So, what does it mean?

Well, moving from an effiency of 68% to 90% means the boiler will use about one-third LESS FUEL, while still providing the SAME HEAT OUTPUT.

How is such an improvement possible?
Is the technology that much different?

Yes, it is.
A condensing boiler uses waste heat from the combustion to pre-heat the incoming water.
The heat-exchanger inside the boiler also has to be made of a more expensive corrosion-resistant material, due to the mildly corrosive nature of the condensed waste liquid inside the boiler, which is then drained off.
Read more about it here.

Of course, since the boiler is modern, it is also available with modern heating controls - so we got a wireless remote thermostat.
It is great, because you can put it where you want, and if you want to be sure that one part of the house has a particular temperature, then just put the thermostat there!
(in the picture, we are regulating the temperature of our house to keep our hamster warm! Of course, we also have TRV valves on our radiators)

The boiler has a snazzy little remore thermostat.
Here we are using it to keep our hamster warm enough.

So there you have it.
The same amount of heat, but from a third less gas.
That's good for my wallet, and, if not entirely good, is at least less bad for the planet!
Every little helps!

What direction should transport policy take in YOUR town/city?

2014-11-23T02:05:00.000-08:00

I am now a "moderator" on the "Car-Free Cities" community.

Why not share your views with my survey on "What one change would make folks cycle more and drive less?"

We all love cycling.

But what about taking it one stage further, and thinking about whether we should change the "Car-first" situation that exists in our towns and cities.

Does your town have a "pedestrianised" area?
How could it be made better?
Dou you use buses or trains much?

Do you prefer coffee shops to drive-thrus?

Why not share your ideas and experiences with me and a wider audience?

Go on and give us a try!

Update 23 Nov 2014
Another survey: What should YOUR local government concentrate on FIRST?
Are more cycle paths the best priority in your area?
Or would you prefer more trains, or better bus services, or something else?
Let us know over on Car-Free Cities

Phased out - how should signal-controlled pedestrian crossing be phased?

2014-11-23T01:15:00.001-08:00

I first came across all-pedestrian phase lights in Edinburgh, Scotland.
There is a phase on the traffic lights (signals) where ALL vehicles lights are at "stop", and ALL pedestrian lights are at "go".
This allows folks on foot to cross as they wish during this phase.
I have subsequently come across the same phasing in Newquay, Cornwall, England.

I believe it was introduced after the success of similar schemes in Japan.

So, it is universally accepted as an improvement?

Apparently not.
In the "land of the car" (the USA), there seems to be moves to change some of the crossings back to "regular" phases.

Wikipedia also has a long piece on this issue here

How does your town/city rate for non-car infrastructure?

2014-11-22T23:52:00.000-08:00

Map from "OpenStreetMap", but the annotations are mine.
Blue = schools for under 11s ("primary"), Red = supermarkets, Black = train stations,
Green = bus stations, Purplr Line = Bourg Walk bridge

For those of you that want to know what it is like living in a compact town ... (there is a scale, bottom left). To put it in context, the urban area of Aylesbury shown on the map above has a population of in the region of 75000. (new housing is still going up, so the census number from 2011 is like to be on the low side!)
This is where I live - Aylesbury. I live near the big "x" on the north-east side of town.
The blue dots are schools for the under 11s (three are "special schools" for those who, due to learning disabilities etc. need lots of extra support - and tbh, I think one of the three I have marked is for the older kids - so that's two for the younger kids).
The red squares are the supermarkets - EVERY major British supermarket chain is represented in Aylesbury. There are, of course, local, smaller, food stores on top of that.

Gotta be copyright of Chiltern railways, but I'm sure they won't mind me sharing their route map.
the map is about 7 years old, and there is now a second railway station in Aylesbury that is not shown.
It is Aylebury Vale Parkway, which is just a bit further up the spur that leads to Aylesbury.

The two black marks are the two railway stations - both connect to London (Marylebone), which is VERY close to Baker Street and the Madam Tussaurds waxworks venue. There is an alternative route that connects (via a change) to Birminham, and thus, to the rest of the country's rail network.

Map copyright Arriva, showing the Places one can get to with
an "All Zones" pass.

The green square near one of the railway stations is the Bus Station.
The purple line near the Bus Station is the "Bourg Walk", the $12.8 million walking and cycling bridge that was built a few years ago as the centrepiece of the town's cycle program.

Can I go to a recycling centre on foot or on a bike?

2014-11-02T05:54:00.001-08:00

As a lot of you know, I live in Aylesbury, a designated "cycle town".
Things are slowly getting sorted out to make more and more things possible by bike.

But what about recycling?
A rider can obviously cycle to the bottle banks that are pretty common in the corner of supermarket carparks, and we have a fortnightly "mixed" recycling collection from our houses in the "blue bin".

But what about the bigger stuff, or the odd stuff?

There is a recycling centre on the edge of town (the Rabans Lane site), and another just out of town, on the other side (the Aston Clinton site).

Can I go there on a bicycle to do my recycling?
First place to look is the council website, as they own the sites.
And, indeed, there is much helpful advice available there.

But there is nothing on bikes!

So today I went to the Raban's Lane recycling centre and asked the staff.
Apparently folks arriving on foot need a (free) permit from Bucks County Council - indeed this is hinted at, but not explicitly spelled out on the pdf download the council have on their website.
According to the recycling centre staff a few folks DO already visit on foot, and DO have the (free) permits.

But what of bikes?

The helpful staff said that a cyclist, with or without a trailer, would be treated like a pedestrian, and would need a (free) permit,
The good news is that cyclist are actually allowed at all, as I have heard some distressing reports from other parts of the country that only motor vehicles are allowed into their local recycling centres, with apparently no exceptions or exemptions.

Solar Panels at IKEA

2014-10-30T02:58:00.001-07:00

We were in IKEA (Milton Keynes) yesterday, and ...
... there was an in-store display about IKEA's tie-up with HanEnergy to supply domestic Solar Panels.

Their guide price was £5100 for a typical 3-bed semi, and the advisor there suggested that a 2-bed semi like ours would be closer to £4000, as it would only take 16 panels on the roof, rather than the 24 panels that the £5100 price includes.

That was about HALF what I thought the cost would be (and half what it was a few years back!)

Price is for panels and fitting, and all wiring etc. etc., so it should be a "fully inclusive" price!

Interested?
Visit their website here

Saving fuel with careful driving

2014-08-17T07:39:00.000-07:00

The car we use for hypermiling - a 1300kg 1600cc turbo-diesel

Apologies for not blogging much on hypermiling for quite some time.
As I mentioned in my last post, I don't drive much, having moved my workplace during an internal re-organisation in the company I work for.
This has left me with a one mile cycle to work, rather than a twenty-five mile (each way) drive.
Saving fuel with careful driving isn't the entire answer, but it is easy enough to do, and makes a real difference, at least until better transport solutions emerge in the future.

We still use our car for some journeys, particularly the longer ones.
Recently I made three long-ish journeys in our car, and it is these that I will share with you now.
Just to remind you what we drive, there is a picture of our car at the top of this article.
It is a 2006 Citroen Berlingo Multispace "Desire", with the 1.6L 90 hp turbo-diesel engine.
The "official" fuel economy is as follows:
Urban (that's town driving) 42.2 mpg (imp), 35.14 (mpg US), 6.7 l/100 km
Extra-Urban (out of town, including motorways/expressways) 60.1 mpg (imp), 50.04 (mpg US), 4.7 l/100 km
Overall (a typical mix of driving) 52.3 mpg (imp), 43.54 (mpg US), 5.4 l/100 km.

In case you are thinking "my those are good fuel-mileage figures for what is essentially a very short station-wagon" - then, yes, you are right.
Part of the secret of getting good fuel mileage is to get a pretty economical car in the first place!
And the Peugeot/Citroen 1.6L turbo-diesel is a pretty efficient engine!
Our car is not modified, "chipped", or in any way altered from the "standard" specification.
We even run the tyres at "normal" pressure, although they are special, low-rolling resistance tyres (which are on the "standard" specification for our car!)
It does have a full, factory, service record, carried out at the appropriate manufacturer's recommended intervals by a "main dealer", and it had about 70,000 miles "on the clock", and that's about it.
The fuel is just normal diesel from whichever garage is selling it cheapest, and we don't add any strange additives, or anything else for that matter, to the fuel.

1. The Holiday
A long motorway drive down to Cornwall, followed by not-very-busy main roads. Same sort of thing on the way back. we made a couple of diversions due to long tailbacks notified on the overhead displays on the motorway (expressway/freeway), and even went through the middle of Bristol on the "normal" roads, before picking up the M32 and resuming our normal journey.
Pretty good fuel/gas mileage, I'm sure you will agree.
Our "special techniques" were only really smooth driving, and keeping the speed down to 60-odd mph.
We actually drove the trip a few days before, but as I was about to go on the next trip, I took pics of the computer readouts, and then reset the computer for the next trip/

Recent picture!

distance until estimated refuel

overall trip distance

72,5 mpg (imp) for the trip!

Average speed on the trip.

2. The Airport Run
Just a 70 mile run, there and back.
Main roads, then motorways, then up three leves at slow speed in the airport car park. Out again before the engine had cooled down much (I was only stopped for about 20 minutes).
Modest speed driving - mostly about 50 mph, except on the M25, when the usually heavy congestion had us down to 30 mph or less for a while.
The usual techniques were employed - smooth driving, leaving a big gap to the next car in front, and trying to average out the surges in traffic speed that occur in congestion. then a similar trip back, with the same sort of congestion.
Really pleased with this one.
I think 80.7 mph (imp), 67.2 (US), 3.50 L/100km is the best airport run we have yet done!

The date of the airport run

Distance to refuelling

overall trip distance - it is 70 miles
from our house to the airport and back

An incredible 80.7 mpg (imp)!

Average speed on the airport run - 31 mph

3. The Funeral.
A former colleague of mine, Alan, died recently.
Alan was just 54.
Alan was a very much larger-than-life character, both in his appearance and sense of humour.
Alan will be missed by all who knew him.
Anyway, i'm not much of a one for going to office funerals of folks I used to work with several years ago, but, as I hope I have outlined above, Alan was an exception.
The timing was tight, as I had to go to work in the morning, and then get to the funeral for mid-afternoon (Twenty-past Two).
I drove to work in the morning - only the third time I have driven in the three years I have worked locally - because the extra time to cycle home and get the car would biye into my driving time, and I did not want to be late for Alan's funeral.
I finished work early enough to be able to drive out of town at a moderate pace, onto the nice dual-carriage that links out town with the M25.
17 miles on a half-empty dual carriageway with "motorway-style" junctions is a good time to get some decent fuel mileage, even if I did have to cross The Chilterns (a major range of hills in Southern England) to get to the infamous M25 (the London Orbital motorway).
The traffic was in my favour, and I was able to just cruise round the five or so junctions (intersections) to wher I had to turn off - then a short stretch of urban dual-carriageway (with traffic lights!) to the funeral.
I made it with 20 minutes to spare - just enough time to be comfortable.
Again, steady driving, and keeping the speed down to the lorry (truck) speed (about 56 mph) were the "special techniques" I used.

Alan's funeral was on the 8th Augusr 2014

It was an 87 mile "round trip" to the funeral and back

Pretty impressed with the 78.5 mpg (imp)

Average speed for the trip was 37 mph.

4. The other trips I did in that time that I haven't mentioned.
I didn't do any!
Even when I got a load of parts for my bike, the car just sat on the drive.
I even get my groceries by bike.
And that's the best way of all to save fuel - don't take the car on short trips !!!
It really doen't take that much diesel/petrol to pay for the cost of a cheap bike plus some panniers, and it keeps you fit, too!

getting a new bike wheel - by bike, of course!

Panniers are handy for shopping on a bike

All that goes in one little
(17litre rated capacity) pannier!

Bresser solar/crank camping light/radio, with USB charging-output

2014-06-04T07:44:00.001-07:00

The Bresser camping lantern has 6 LEDs and a small solar panel on top.
The black buttons on the front control the on/off for the light and the FM radio,
the radio channel scan (a simple "scan up" or "scan down" affair,
and the volume setting for the radio (up/down).
The light is decent enough, and the FM radio is fine, but not exactly high fidelity!
But, hey, it all works!

The crank handle folds out ready for use

At the back of the lantern is a crank handle
for extra power.

A regular smartphone/tablet USB charging cable will plug
into the USB "socket" cable that comes with the lantern.
Only downside is that you need to crank the handle to get
the lantern to charge the attached device, so it is a long,
hard job, best kept for emergency use. But it is nice to
know that you can recharge your phone if you need to!

A connection lead is provided with
a USB socket on the end

Facts and Figures: Just how many cars do Americans own?

2014-05-09T23:04:00.003-07:00

According to the most recent figures released by the World Bank, the number of "passenger cars" owned by Americans is LESS than in many European countries, as well as less than in Japan.
USA 401
Japan 455
UK 454
Switzerland 526
Austria 536
Netherlands 471
France 482
Germany 531
Greece 460
(the numbers are expressed as "passenger cars" per 1000 population.
Yet our intuitive answer to such a question would be that the USA has more cars per head than any other country of a significant size (I am ruling out tiny places like Monaco and suchlike here, because they do not reflect the conditions of a "normal" country, and very few folks live in them anyway).
How can this be?
The World Bank also has another measure of vehicle ownership, a more general measure which includes passenger cars, buses and freight vehicles, but not motorcycles,
Those figures come in at:
USA 786
Japan 588
UK 516
Switzerland 573
Austria 585
Netherlands 531
France 582
Germany 588
Greece 580
(numbers are expressed as "motor vehicles" per 1000 population)

Now I am sure we can agree that the second set of figures is much more like our expectations.

The country with the biggest jump between the two sets of figures is the USA.
the other countries add between about 50 and 130 (vehicles per 1000 population) when including trucks and buses, but the figure for the USA jumps by 385 - in fact it almost doubles!

So, are 49% of vehicles in the USA really freight vehicles and buses?

I suspect what is happening is that the love of some Americans for the pick-up truck is distorting the figures.
The best selling pick-up in the USA is consistently the Ford F150.
Many folks drive them as cars.
So is the F150 a "passenger car" or a "freight vehicle"?
I believe that many households use them as substitute "passenger cars" or as "dual-use" vehicles.
The same analysis would also apply to other pickups.

So that appears to be the explanation that "squares the circle" of how the USA can apparently have less "cars" than Europe (adjusted for population size), and yet actually have more at the same time.

A Few Ideas to Make the World a Better (Greener) Place - Part 1 - Light Bulbs

2014-04-20T05:26:00.001-07:00

Our table lamp with a 4 watt LED bulb.
A decent light for working near on the compter,
while giving a decent saving on electricity over our previous lamp.

We all want to pay a little less for electricity and/or cause a little less CO2, and help to do our bit, but most of us aren't ready to "put on the hair-shirt" just yet.

We want our luxuries, and see them as one of the hallmarks of our civilisation.
Indeed, for me, the three great marks of civilisation where I live are
1. The water that comes from the taps (faucets) is safe to drink

2. There is a decent public health system, so I can see a decent doctor if I am ill, without worrying about the cost.
3. Electricity is available at the flick of a switch, and it pretty much almost always works - our power locally is down for less, on average, than one hour per YEAR (based on only one decent power cut of 4 hours, and a few brief interruptions at night that cause the microwave clock to reset itself(!) in the 14 years I have lived in this town).

Still, we do all want to do our bit for "Global Warming" and/or save a bit of money on our electricity bills.

So here are a few ideas for you to think about, based on what we are doing.

Idea number 1: LED light bulbs.

We have started fitting LED light-bulbs into our various lamps. We had pretty much all of them fitted with Compact Flourescent tubes anyway, with just our rarely used interior porch light (there is a street light opposite our house!) having a "regular" spotlight bulb in it, and our table lamp next to this computer having a Halogen-type minature bulb with a wierd fitment.
Anyway, we decided to "make the switch", and have started purchasing LED bulbs.
As a result, that porch light now has an LED bulb (down from 60 watts to just 8 watts), and I use it more now, as I tend to switch the main room light (20 watts CF) off when I am putting my shoes on, using the porch light instead.

We have noticed that more powerful LED bulbs that would replace a 20 watt CF bulb (or a 100 watt "old-fashioned" filament bulb) are not very readily available, so this will be a long, slow upgrading process for us. As the CF bulbs fail, they will get replaced a few at a time by LEDs!

After the porch light, the other "old technology" bulb we had was the 10W bulb in that table lmap on the computer desk. It failed before Christmas, and a new bulb didn't fix the problem. After maybe 20 years, and a few falls, that lamp had had enough.
So a new lamp, bulb and fixture, it was, then.
An ideal time to switch to LED.
Now we run a 4 watt LED bulb in the new table lamp, and it is just as bright (if not brighter) than the "old" table lamp.
That lamp gets quite a bit of use, too, even in daylight, as the computer desk is in a shady part of the house!
So that's 10 watts down to 4 watts, with usage at between two and 10 hours a day.
Soon adds up!

4 watt LED bulb from our table lamp

So why are LED light bulbs better than the old light bulbs or the compact flourescent bulbs.?
The answer is easy - heat.
When I switch a light on I want it to make light with the electricity, not heat. the more the bulb heats up, the more light I am not getting for my electricity!

The old-type ("filament") bulbs (perfected, although not invented, by Edison - know your history!) work by heating a filament so hot that it glows white, and emits the light we see. So the bulbs get hot. Anyone who has even briefly touched a 60W bulb when it is on knows what I am talking about.
I used to have an old 16mm film projector with a 500 watt bulb in it, and that could heat a small room by itself when I was running film through it!

Halogen bulbs use essentially the same basic principle as the filament bulbs - a hot wire, so hot that it emits light. Where they differ is that a halogen bulb bas a special gas inside the bulb, and the "glass" is made from quartz. The combination of the special gas (usually argon on krypton) and the quartz glass means that the bulb can run EVEN hotter. The extra heat of the filament means that more of the energy is emitted as light, and less as heat, and these bulbs look whiter (or even blue-white) compared with "regular" bulbs. Vehicle headlight bulbs switched to Halogen types 40-odd years ago.
For "domestic" household bulbs, the quartz glass of the bulb is ofetn enclosed in a regular glass bulb as well, as the sweat on skin can affect the quartz. Smaller bulbs, like the miniature ones fitted to some table lamps and reading lights don't have the outer glass cover, and a pair of cotten gloves (or similar) should be used when handling the bulb.
From an energy saving point of view, Halogen bulbs are about twice as efficient as "regular" filament bulbs.

Compact Flourescent (CF aka CFL) lights use MUCH less energy than "filament" (Edison-type) bulbs, but some folks don't like the greenish tint they often give to the light, some folks are upset by the flickering that some CF bulbs seem to undergo, some folks don't like the way that many CF bulbs start off dim, then brighten up after a bit, and to be honest, they still get quite warm!
A 20 watt CF bulb gets quite a hot tube, but nowhere near as hot as a "filament" bulb of the same light output. The different spectrum of light output means that to the eye, the difference between a "filament" bulb and a CF bulb is big, but not quite as big as a lightmeter would show - the reason being that the human eye is more sensitive to yellow light than other colours, and the "old" bulbs produce a "yellower" light!

The common energy saving quoted for CF bulbs vs "filament" bulbs is 5:1, but, in practice, I have found that my eyes prefer a 4:1 ratio.
That means a 60 watt "old" bulb should be replaced with a 15 (-ish) watt replacement, rather than the 12 watts that bulb makers generally claim.

But 4:1 is still a CONSIDERABLE saving on electricity!

LED lights produce a more yellow colour of light, and with their almost instant start-up they produce pretty much full light as soon as switched on.
LED lights tend to have an efficiency improvement on the "old" type lights of 5:1 to 6:1, but because of their more "yellow" light output, they can be replace an "old" bulb at that ratio (i.e. 8 watts replaced 40 watts, rather athn a 10 or 11 watt CF bulb) The problem is that LED lights in higher wattages aren't commonly available yet.

We use LED lights in our lower power applications, and have several. Three have "regular" bulb shapes, and are interchangeable with CF or "filament" bulbs.

4 watt dual-LED bulb as used in our table lamp

We have a 10 watt LED bulb in our floor lamp, an 8 watt LED lamp in our porch, and a 4 watt LED bulb in the table lmap next to this computer.
We also have several reading lamps that each have a non-replaceable 3 watt LED light in them, and they have a tightly focussed beam, and are great for reading in bed! The brightness of light that illuminates my book from that little 3 watt LED lamp is actually more than that from the main light in the room, but then, of course, the little reading lamp is only trying to light one small area, while the bigger lamp has to light an entire room!

Summary:

For the same amount of light, as perceived by the human eye, the approximate efficiency of the various types of lights are as follows:
Regular, filament, bulb: 60W (the reference level!)
Halogen bulb: 30W
Compact Flourescent bulb: 15W
LED: 10 to 12 W

In each case, I have given an equivalent for the same usage of the bulb.
A spotlight gives a more focussed beam, and should be considered against other designs of spotlights, rather than "general" lights, or the bulbs for "table" lamps.
Of course, part of the solution is to choose the most appropriate light fitting in the first place - a little reading light at the bedside is a much better way to read in bed than lighting the whole room to the same level of illumination!

The Sinclair C5 - the "green" vehicle that was way ahead of its time

2013-11-23T12:05:00.000-08:00

The Sinclair C5 - shown here superinposed with a "Mini" for size comparison.
Picture from the official press release that accompanied the launch of the C5 on 10th January 1985
(and, therefore, as it was part of a press release,
my use of it in this article would appear to be both legal and ethical)

Read my C5 review here.

The Sinclair C5 was released in Britain on the 10th of January 1985, and initailly priced at about 400 pounds (640 dollars, 480 euros, at current exchange rates, but not allowing for inflation!).

Although it was a commercial failure, it is a very good case study of a "green" vehicle.

I remember the original release (I'm nearly 50 years old!), and later, the C5s being sold at half-price to get rid of the stock.

I didn't buy one, as back in January 2005, I was a clerk at the Ministry of Defence (if you're an American, think Department of Defense, and you're pretty close!), and iirc, my MONTHLY wage was about 400 pounds before taxes etc. and about 300 pounds by the time it actually reached my bank account, so being priced at five-and-a-half weeks pay, the Sinclair C5 (at the original price) wasn't exactly cheap!

Iirc, about 10 or 15 years, some C5s were uprated to have solar panels on them and were sold in iirc California.

I am posting this article because it might inspire someone to design a practical, modern, "green" vehicle, but do read my review first, for my comments on actually driving (riding?) the Sinclair C5!
Anyway, onto the dimensions.
There are a few link at the end of this piece where you can go to download manuals etc. for the Sinclair C5.

Size

Overall length: 1.744m (5' 9")
Overall width: 0.744m (2' 5")
Overall height: 0.795m (2' 7")
Wheelbase: 1.304m (4' 3")
Rear track: 0.630m (2' 1")

Weight

Empty weight (without battery): 30kg (66lbs)
Battery weight (each - one or two could be fitted): 15kg (33lbs)
Maximum recommended gross weight (including rider): 150kg (330lbs)

Powerchain

Chainwheel: 42 tooth
Rear chain sprocket: 20 tooth
Cranks: 130mm
Chain: 1/8", 181 links
250W motor driving a 13:1 gearbox
Max motor revs: 4100 rpm, giving 315 rpm at the rear wheels
Battery rating: 36 Ah, @ 5 hour rate
Battery rating (in operation): 15 to 28 Ah, depending on motor load
Front wheel size: 12 1/2 inch (203mm), with a 2 1/4 inch tyre fitted NB: caution - please read notes and comments below
Rear wheel size: 305mm, with a 2 inch tyre fitted NB: caution - please read notes and comments below

Carrying capacity

Rear boot(trunk): 28 litres (1 cu. ft.)
Maximum recommend cargo weight: 10kg (22lbs)

Performance

Maximum speed:
motor only: 15 mph (24 km/h)
pedal gearing is too low to allow pedal assistance to get much above the speed quoted above
maximum speed (motor only) can fall to 12.5 mph (20 km/h) in cold weather
Acceleration (motor only - "average" weight driver):
0 - 5 mph (8 km/h): 1.8s
0 - 10 mph (16 km/h): 6.9s
Range:
1 battery, motor only: c. 13 miles (c. 21 km)
2 batteries, used sequentially (that is to say, using one battery only first, then using just the second battery), motor only: c. 25 miles (c. 40 km)
2 batteries, wired in parallel, motor only: c. 33 miles (c. 52 km)
range can be doubled in all three cases by using the pedals to move away from stationary, and by using the "burn and coast" technique
range could fall by up to 50% from the above values in cold weather.

Notes:

Information is taken from several sources:

the "Sinclair C5 Owners Handbook" by Sinclair Vehicles, 1985, the handbook supplied with all new C5s, particularly page 32
the Sinclair C5 original marketing brochure "Sinclair C5. A new power in personal transport."
information about performance and battery characteristics is primarily drawn from the work of P. Milner and P. Newman, who both worked for various Sinclair companies, and were both heavily involved in the development of the C5. Their data has been published in "The Unofficial C5 Service Manual", to which they both contributed, and elsewhere.
additional information about cold weather performance is drawn from an Automobile Association report from 1985, quoted in "Sinclair and the Sunrise Technology" by Ian Adamson and Richard Kennedy, Penguin Books, London, 1986.

The wheel sizes can be confusing as they are listed by Sinclair as different sizes in different places!
NB: caution - please read comments below:

The front wheel is listed in the Owners Handbook as being 12 1/2 inch diameter, while the rear wheels are listed as being 16 inch diameter, while they are listed in the brochure as being 317mm and 12 1/2 inch diameter for the front, with 406mm and 16 inch diameter being quoted for the rear pair, despite their actual diameters being 203mm and 305mm !!!
The "normal" "modern" bicycle convention is to list a 317mm diameter wheel as a 16 x 1 3/4 inch wheel (a size apparently popular on older Schwinn children's bikes), while a 406mm diameter wheel is a "decimal" 20 inch wheel size, and is the same as the wheel size on my folding bike! Such 20 inch wheels are fitted to BMX bikes, children's bikes, folding bikes, trailers and some recumbent cycles
The brochure (presumably prepared by an external advertising agency) seems to have assumed that Sinclair followed a different sizing convention for stating wheel size than was the case. Sinclair list the wheel sizes as 12 1/2 inch and 16 inch, but the brochure has assumed that they would be more generally known as 16 inch and 20 inch wheels in the bicycle world - indeed a 16 inch (actual) diameter wheel with a two inch tyre on it would be 2+16+2 = 20 inches in total diameter! AND 16 inches in metric is 406.4mm, so the brochures conclusion is not irrational.
However, the TRUE rear wheel size is a 12 inch (actual diameter) wheel with two inches of tyre at the top and bottom, giving 2+12+2 = 16 inches!
Buy tyre sizes by the ISO size, not the "inch" size" - tyre sizes (according to the brochure) are 203mm x 57mm (front), and 305mm x 51mm (rear) NB: caution - please read comments section below
The late, great, bicycle mechanic Sheldon Brown has a feature article on wheel sizes on his website - worth a look to give you an idea about how different measurement systems can be confusing (and confused!), and reminds us all why the "modern" ISO (previously known as ETRTO) measurement system is so popular!
The conflict between the C5 having 2 inch tyres on 16 inch (actual diameter - i.e. 406mm) wheels, as suggested by the brochure, or having 2 inch tires on 12 inch (actual diameter - i.e. 305mm) wheels can be resolved by dicussion with an owner, visiting a C5 in a museum (I believe there is one in Manchester), or careful comparitive measurement of available photos.

Links:
The Sinclair C5 brochure
C5 Alive user group
SinclairC5.com user site

If you wish to thank me for this article, then please comment or click on one of the advertisers' links - you might like some of the "green" related stuff (I know I do!)

It is easier to be "Green" if the law enforcement officers leave you alone ...

2013-10-18T22:28:00.001-07:00

This story was brought to my attention by the estwhile folks at Sky News.

It appears that a cyclist, while carrying out a lawful manoeuvre (maneuver, for those on the othe side of the Pond), upset a policeman, who was carrying out an unlawful manoeuvre (maneuver).
Luckily, the cyclist was equipped with a helmet cam to capture the exchange.

I know that the saying goes that as you get older, the policemen start to look younger, but not only is this policeman younger than me, he seems to have less knowledge of the basic aspects of cycle law and road design as well.

While many policeman carry out a difficult job in difficult circumstances, and face many situations where whatever they do or don't do, someone will thing they are wrong, some policemen in every country in the world seem to think they are "above" the law.

At the very least, policemen (and women) should be adequately trained, and well paid, so that the best candidates are attracted and available for selection - but we all know that cutting the costs of the Police force and privatising the forensics function are the UK Governments priorities at the moment, and wages and training are ideal targets for "quick fix" budget cuts.

I guess there is an element of "you get what you pay for".
It is said "if you have a cheap head, then get a cheap helmet", but I guess you can add "if you want policeman to do less than a proper job, then pay less than a proper wage to policemen".

I live at the other end of the country, and I must say that my personal experience of the local police force is excellent. I'm not doing anything too dodgy (maybe my back brake could be adjusted a bit better?, but I'm nit-picking, and occasionally I cycle on the off-road cyclepath with dim lights, but tbh, I'm not sure what the lighting requirements are for cycling on an off-road cycle path ...), and they leave me alone, and get on with "real" policing, which is how it should be, and I happily pay my local taxes for just that.

ONE of my colleagues at work, whom, like me, cycles to work daily, had a problem with over-aggressive policing locally, ONCE, but that was resolved as being due to an officer that had recently transferred to the lovely area where I live from a large, and sometimes troubled, city. After my colleague complained, the local police force said that the policeman in question needed to adjust his policing style to the "Softly, Softly" approach that is usually more appropriate locally.

But, as I said, my personal experience of local policing, having lived here for 13 years, is excellent.

How many wind farms is too many?

2013-10-12T23:48:00.000-07:00

As brought to my attention by the BBC, some politicians think that there are too many applications to build wind farms in Scotland.

So how many is too many?

2500 applications in 18 months is too many for the Conservative Party (the main partner in the ruling coalition that currently governs the United Kingdom).

On the other hand, as anyone who has been there will tell you, Scotland is a pretty windy place.
Also, Scotland's geographical position (to the north of England) makes it not a first-choice site for solar power.
I'm no weather expert, but I would suspect that having the Gulf Stream passing up the west of Scotland, with colder, North Sea, water on the east of Scotland, combined with the relative narrowness of the country (the two main Scottish cities, Edinburgh, on the eastern coast, and Glasgow, almost on the western coast, are just 52 miles (84km) apart) is a contributor to the "breeze".

Lots of oil comes through Scotland.
How much of it is "Scottish" gets into a debate about where the limits of sea territory lie.
12 miles (about 20km)?
or half-way to the nearest neighbour? (England to the South, Scandinavia to the East).

Scotland is right to think about its energy policy.
"Fossil" fuels made Glasgow an unhealthy place to live, long before anyone thought of deep-fried Mars bars.

The Westminster (aka "London" government) has "devolved" powers to an independent Scottish parliament.
What is the point of allowing Scotland to decide local matters for itself (like where to put wind farms, and how many to have), if the Westminster government doesn't want them to make any decisions they don't like.

Also, Scotland needs a more diversified economy.
It's main economic drivers seem to be oil and unemployment.
That's not much of an economic base.

More wind farms would allow exports of electricity at certain times to the "Auld Enemy" - England, producing useful revenues whilst doing so.
Certainly England already imports energy (primarily from French nuclear power stations, via a REALLY big cable under the English Channel, but also from compressed natural gas brought in by sea).
So it is difficult to see why imported Scottish wind power would be bad for England.
There is even a way to store some of it, for use later - the "rechargeable" hydro-electric power station at Dinorwig - yes, I know it is in Wales, not England, but most of its power gets used in "English" places like Liverpool and Manchester.

Sounds to me like certain politicians are trying to make points for the upcoming Scottish referendum, rather than looking at a sensible energy policy.

Car (Automobile) Sharing (Pooling) - Half the Work, Half the Congestion!

2013-10-03T09:26:00.000-07:00

We have recently started car (automobile) sharing when my daughter goes to her dancing lessons.
There is another family whose daughter also goes, and they live about half a mile from us (about 800 metres/meters).

So, that mum takes the two girls (our daughter and theirs), and my wife goes to to assist them with changing etc. etc., and, about an hour later, I pick them all up.
So, my daughter goes dancing, and I only have to drive the second of the two trips, which allows me time to work late (which is almost every wednesday!), while the other mum does the first trip, then goes to work straight after.
A win:win situation.
And, because each car is only used once, not twice, it helps cut the number of cars on the road, and saves fuel and CO2 emmisions as well.
Sorted!

Cycling on the increase in the UK !

2012-10-04T01:16:00.002-07:00

Bicycling is on the up!Halfords, a large retail chain that sells cycles and cycling accessories as well as autombile parts and accessories, has reported a rise in sales in the last three months.
halfords claims to be the biggest cycle retailer in the UK, with sales of one million cycles a year.
The BBC attributes the rise in Halfords' sales to the interest generated by having a Britain win the Tour de France and the success of British cyclists at the recent London Olympics.

sources:
BBC
Halfords

Trixie Biker Set de Luxe - bike set (Google Affiliate Ad)