Perhaps it would be easier (and use much fewer words) to simply
state. "Yes, there is a section on trackers" or "No, there is not
a section on trackers".
I believe your opinion, as stated earlier, was that trackers are
no good. One might infer from this that you do not have a section
on trackers but have rather summed it up into a single line saying
"Don't do it" or "You'll be sorry" or even both.
It seems a minor enough detail that you could enlighten the masses
here in public about how you (generally) deal with the topic in
your book.
Want to know? Buy the book. The number of pages exceeds you IQ.
I'll wait for the review in Homepower Magazine. They seem to have
some level-headed reviewers. If they've already reviewed it, please
tell me the issue number and I'll take a look at the review.
Perhaps, if you wished, you could post one or two pages from the
book. Maybe the introduction. This would be small enough that you
would not have to worry terribly much about copyright infringement
and yet large enough to give readers an idea of how the book is
written.
People can buy the book or not, as they see fit. It is a good book for
people who are new to renewable energy.
Since there is a conflict of interest here, the opinion of the author,
publisher and advertiser are all suspect. Even more so if they are all
the same person.
This is the same kind of conflict of interest that happens with any
kind of selling. You can't take the word of a used car salesman at
face value because they get rewarded for the sale, not their honesty.
This is also why getting second options from doctors and priests are
good things.
Your opinion, well lets see.
Several years of being unable to explain the simple matter of two days
autonomy.
There is a difference between being able to explain a simple matter and
being able to explain a simple matter to your satisfaction.
If, for arguments sake, you have a person who will never be satisfied,
ever, with any amount of explanation, no matter how clear, then it's
completely impossible to explain it enough for that person. Being unable
to do the impossible is a pretty common trait for a human being. It
would be a pretty mixed up person who would be ashamed of being human.
I would be willing to go out on a limb here and suggest that Wayne
might be human.
There is also a difference between being able to do something and being
willing to do something.
I may, for instance, be able to (with some difficulty) walk through
walls. I am certainly not going to demonstrate this ability gratuitously
for the delight of simpletons or at the whim and demand of anyone that
will endlessly shout out "Do it again!". If I were to do so then I would
make myself the slave to anothers will and I'm generally against that
kind of thing.
I'm not against doing things for appropriate compensation though.
Anyone interested, I do parties, reasonable rates.
Solar Power and Lifestyle are a mix of available resources. For heat you
cant beat combustion of fuel for efficiency.
It depends on how you count efficiency. All fuels (except nuclear) can
be traced back to Sunlight at their origin. The conversion of sunlight
to wood is less than 1% efficient, for example, and then using wood for
heating is significantly less than 100% efficient. Ultimately, using
wood for heat means a Sunlight to Usable Heat efficiency of a small
fraction of one percent. Very inefficient.
Fossil fuels are even worse in terms of Sunlight to Usable Energy
efficiency.
Now, if you count the fuel as being free and unencumbered with embodied
energy then efficiency is simply a question of the cost of harvesting,
mining, drilling, pumping or otherwise acquiring the stuff. In this
sense efficiency means less because you are already ignoring a huge
section of the question. Economics (and environmentalism) play a much
greater role.
That is to say, wood, gas, coal, oil, clubbed skinless baby seals, all
can be cheaper to burn and heat your home as long as they are commonly
available and don't cost much.
Not more efficient, just cheaper.
Electricity is a high quality energy source. From beginning to end use
is several steps, each with associated losses.
Gas is a low quality energy source. It is suited to heating, few
conversion steps, higher efficiency in end use.
I don't think you can compare "quality" in this manner. One is not a
higher or lower quality. They are different things and work best at
doing different jobs. Despite what you may believe, there are a lot
of steps to getting Gas to a consumer and the efficiency of any fossil
fuel is questionable. Mainly, do you count the millions of years it
took to make it?
If one wanted the best efficiency then I suppose a solar thermal
collector would be top of the list. Air heaters can run upwards of
70 to 80% efficiency and aren't terribly costly to make. They only
work during the day, of course, but some form of heat storage isn't
unheard of.
Anthony