Cyprus-Forum.com

[georgios100]

Perhaps steel framed houses are the answer, easier to insulate.

http://www.elysianfieldsproperties.com/ ... v-concrete

I have never understood why rusty steel wire/rods wrapped in concrete has ever been accepted as a durable building practice. The ancient Greeks used to wrap iron reinforcing bars in lead to avoid corrosion.

Cypriot houses can be better built by…

1. Not using the Cypriot Vassiliko cement because it contains seawater (which they get for free) resulting in efflorescence during winter.

2. Not using the standard Cyprus brick for external walls which is far too porous and soaks up water like a sponge.

3. Using plastic caps on the ends of steel reinforcement bars to provide room for steel expansion/contraction during changes in climate.

Sounds like you have engineering now-how GR, item number 3 is so true.

[Get Real!]

Perhaps steel framed houses are the answer, easier to insulate.

http://www.elysianfieldsproperties.com/ ... v-concrete

I have never understood why rusty steel wire/rods wrapped in concrete has ever been accepted as a durable building practice. The ancient Greeks used to wrap iron reinforcing bars in lead to avoid corrosion.

Cypriot houses can be better built by…

1. Not using the Cypriot Vassiliko cement because it contains seawater (which they get for free) resulting in efflorescence during winter.

2. Not using the standard Cyprus brick for external walls which is far too porous and soaks up water like a sponge.

3. Using plastic caps on the ends of steel reinforcement bars to provide room for steel expansion/contraction during changes in climate.

Sounds like you have engineering now-how GR, item number 3 is so true.

I had researched every stage of house building in Cyprus while building my own between 2004 and 2008 so I speak from experience. I even used waterproof plaster (used in swimming pool construction) internally for external walls just in case!

[georgios100]

Perhaps steel framed houses are the answer, easier to insulate.

http://www.elysianfieldsproperties.com/ ... v-concrete

I have never understood why rusty steel wire/rods wrapped in concrete has ever been accepted as a durable building practice. The ancient Greeks used to wrap iron reinforcing bars in lead to avoid corrosion.

Cypriot houses can be better built by…

1. Not using the Cypriot Vassiliko cement because it contains seawater (which they get for free) resulting in efflorescence during winter.

2. Not using the standard Cyprus brick for external walls which is far too porous and soaks up water like a sponge.

3. Using plastic caps on the ends of steel reinforcement bars to provide room for steel expansion/contraction during changes in climate.

Sounds like you have engineering now-how GR, item number 3 is so true.

I had researched every stage of house building in Cyprus while building my own between 2004 and 2008 so I speak from experience. I even used waterproof plaster (used in swimming pool construction) internally for external walls just in case!

Better safe than sorry... but your original profession is not in engineering...right?

Few people would go the extra mile to ensure good solid construction... most of us try to save as much money as possible, compromising quality which always pays in the long run.

[repulsewarrior]

the best houses are built with mud...

stone houses with an organic (wood) insulating material on their exterior is another choice.

styrofoam, fiberglass, and polyurethanes are imitations of natural products, which emulate, but do not surpass the qualities of materials from nature; something to think about.

[cyprusgrump]

Countries and scientists from all over the world are actively looking for alternative energy solutions. The investment in R&D is in the billions.

And yet, a few forumers already came to the conclusion, the effort is useless and too expensive. For the moment, yes, renewable energy equipment are costly and need government subsidies. As the technology advances, the cost will be reduced parallel with the increase of oil prices.

I won't be alive, neither will you, to answer our kids, why alternative fuels were not pursued earlier.

A typical phenomenon of unqualified forumers discarding green technology is the lack of vision towards long term energy needs. But we must plan for 50-100 years down the road, if we are to survive on this planet. This is the only reason, green technology is examined, tested and applied.

Of course, we all have our opinions which should be respected, right or wrong.

Georgios100

Then we will have Nuclear Fusion!

Hopefully yes, thanks for your input CBBB. Nuclear fusion is definitely very promising but... there is a but... alternative energy solutions implies by definition, more that one(1), just in case nuclear fusion is proven unreliable or inadequate to satisfy the total needs of a growing population.
Therefor, the R&D continues in all areas of green potential resources.

Where is cyprusgrump? I am sure, he will blow a gasket, reading the above comments as he hates green energy with passion.

Hey grump... are you still with us?

You're wrong...

I don't hate green energy - I'm all for cheaper cleaner energy sources...

What I hate is having expensive, dirty solutions forced on the population under some green banner.

As I posted earlier, Denmark has thousands of wind turbines and has no net reduction in emissions - just much more expensive electricity. That is ignoring the massive cost in energy and resources needed to manufacture, transport and install the turbines...

Government subsidies (I hate that too - taxpayer's subsidies is much more accurate) simply skew the market and are often influenced by outside sources ensuring that the cash doesn't go where it might do most good...

Imagine for instance if all the money wasted on wind turbines had been invested in research into fusion?

Here is an interesting article for you to read - Five Myths About Green Energy

Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of "energy sprawl," including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.

Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn't always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind's unreliability. The result is minimal -- or no -- carbon dioxide reduction.

[Jerry]

Perhaps steel framed houses are the answer, easier to insulate.

http://www.elysianfieldsproperties.com/ ... v-concrete

I have never understood why rusty steel wire/rods wrapped in concrete has ever been accepted as a durable building practice. The ancient Greeks used to wrap iron reinforcing bars in lead to avoid corrosion.

Cypriot houses can be better built by…

1. Not using the Cypriot Vassiliko cement because it contains seawater (which they get for free) resulting in efflorescence during winter.

2. Not using the standard Cyprus brick for external walls which is far too porous and soaks up water like a sponge.

3. Using plastic caps on the ends of steel reinforcement bars to provide room for steel expansion/contraction during changes in climate.

Some interesting informatiom on Wiki about concrete/steel construction; -

Carbonation, or neutralisation, is a chemical reaction between carbon dioxide in the air with calcium hydroxide and hydrated calcium silicate in the concrete. The water in the pores of Portland cement concrete is normally alkaline with a pH in the range of 12.5 to 13.5. This highly alkaline environment is one in which the embedded steel is passivated and is protected from corrosion. According to the Pourbaix diagram for iron, the metal is passive when the pH is above 9.5.[3] The carbon dioxide in the air reacts with the alkali in the cement and makes the pore water more acidic, thus lowering the pH. Carbon dioxide will start to carbonate the cement in the concrete from the moment the object is made. This carbonation process will start at the surface, then slowly move deeper and deeper into the concrete. The rate of carbonation is dependent on the relative humidity of the concrete - a 50% relative humidity being optimal. If the object is cracked, the carbon dioxide in the air will be better able to penetrate into the concrete. When designing a concrete structure, it is normal to state the concrete cover for the rebar (the depth within the object that the rebar will be). The minimum concrete cover is normally regulated by design or building codes. If the reinforcement is too close to the surface, early failure due to corrosion may occur. The concrete cover depth can be measured with a cover meter. However, carbonated concrete only becomes a durability problem when there is also sufficient moisture and oxygen to cause electro-potential corrosion of the reinforcing steel.

[Get Real!]

Perhaps steel framed houses are the answer, easier to insulate.

http://www.elysianfieldsproperties.com/ ... v-concrete

I have never understood why rusty steel wire/rods wrapped in concrete has ever been accepted as a durable building practice. The ancient Greeks used to wrap iron reinforcing bars in lead to avoid corrosion.

Cypriot houses can be better built by…

1. Not using the Cypriot Vassiliko cement because it contains seawater (which they get for free) resulting in efflorescence during winter.

2. Not using the standard Cyprus brick for external walls which is far too porous and soaks up water like a sponge.

3. Using plastic caps on the ends of steel reinforcement bars to provide room for steel expansion/contraction during changes in climate.

Some interesting informatiom on Wiki about concrete/steel construction; -

Carbonation, or neutralisation, is a chemical reaction between carbon dioxide in the air with calcium hydroxide and hydrated calcium silicate in the concrete. The water in the pores of Portland cement concrete is normally alkaline with a pH in the range of 12.5 to 13.5. This highly alkaline environment is one in which the embedded steel is passivated and is protected from corrosion. According to the Pourbaix diagram for iron, the metal is passive when the pH is above 9.5.[3] The carbon dioxide in the air reacts with the alkali in the cement and makes the pore water more acidic, thus lowering the pH. Carbon dioxide will start to carbonate the cement in the concrete from the moment the object is made. This carbonation process will start at the surface, then slowly move deeper and deeper into the concrete. The rate of carbonation is dependent on the relative humidity of the concrete - a 50% relative humidity being optimal. If the object is cracked, the carbon dioxide in the air will be better able to penetrate into the concrete. When designing a concrete structure, it is normal to state the concrete cover for the rebar (the depth within the object that the rebar will be). The minimum concrete cover is normally regulated by design or building codes. If the reinforcement is too close to the surface, early failure due to corrosion may occur. The concrete cover depth can be measured with a cover meter. However, carbonated concrete only becomes a durability problem when there is also sufficient moisture and oxygen to cause electro-potential corrosion of the reinforcing steel.

Luckily, plastic spacers to keep the steel from setting too close to the edge of the formwork are widely used in Cyprus Jeff. See “Circular Bar Spacers” and “Clip Chair Spacer” from this site…

http://www.rainhamsteelreinforcement.co ... pacers.asp

[georgios100]

Countries and scientists from all over the world are actively looking for alternative energy solutions. The investment in R&D is in the billions.

And yet, a few forumers already came to the conclusion, the effort is useless and too expensive. For the moment, yes, renewable energy equipment are costly and need government subsidies. As the technology advances, the cost will be reduced parallel with the increase of oil prices.

I won't be alive, neither will you, to answer our kids, why alternative fuels were not pursued earlier.

A typical phenomenon of unqualified forumers discarding green technology is the lack of vision towards long term energy needs. But we must plan for 50-100 years down the road, if we are to survive on this planet. This is the only reason, green technology is examined, tested and applied.

Of course, we all have our opinions which should be respected, right or wrong.

Georgios100

Then we will have Nuclear Fusion!

Hopefully yes, thanks for your input CBBB. Nuclear fusion is definitely very promising but... there is a but... alternative energy solutions implies by definition, more that one(1), just in case nuclear fusion is proven unreliable or inadequate to satisfy the total needs of a growing population.
Therefor, the R&D continues in all areas of green potential resources.

Where is cyprusgrump? I am sure, he will blow a gasket, reading the above comments as he hates green energy with passion.

Hey grump... are you still with us?

You're wrong...

I don't hate green energy - I'm all for cheaper cleaner energy sources...

What I hate is having expensive, dirty solutions forced on the population under some green banner.

As I posted earlier, Denmark has thousands of wind turbines and has no net reduction in emissions - just much more expensive electricity. That is ignoring the massive cost in energy and resources needed to manufacture, transport and install the turbines...

Government subsidies (I hate that too - taxpayer's subsidies is much more accurate) simply skew the market and are often influenced by outside sources ensuring that the cash doesn't go where it might do most good...

Imagine for instance if all the money wasted on wind turbines had been invested in research into fusion?

Here is an interesting article for you to read - Five Myths About Green Energy

Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of "energy sprawl," including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.

Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn't always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind's unreliability. The result is minimal -- or no -- carbon dioxide reduction.

Hi grump,

When posting a link, please copy/paste all the positive notes about green solutions, not just the negatives.

The green industry is not doing us any favors. It's like any other money making business. Governments may subsidize certain services or products deemed too expensive for the population to afford, no need to list them, you know. Green energy is one of them.

You are in favor of nuclear fusion, so I'm I. When perfected, this technology would worth billions. All the countries of the planet would have to pay dearly to "buy" nuclear fusion equipment & now how. Governments will be forced to subsidize once again. In essence, not different from the green technology as seen and practiced today. So, why are you arguing?

Get my drift?

Georgios100

[cyprusgrump]

Countries and scientists from all over the world are actively looking for alternative energy solutions. The investment in R&D is in the billions.

And yet, a few forumers already came to the conclusion, the effort is useless and too expensive. For the moment, yes, renewable energy equipment are costly and need government subsidies. As the technology advances, the cost will be reduced parallel with the increase of oil prices.

I won't be alive, neither will you, to answer our kids, why alternative fuels were not pursued earlier.

A typical phenomenon of unqualified forumers discarding green technology is the lack of vision towards long term energy needs. But we must plan for 50-100 years down the road, if we are to survive on this planet. This is the only reason, green technology is examined, tested and applied.

Of course, we all have our opinions which should be respected, right or wrong.

Georgios100

Then we will have Nuclear Fusion!

Hopefully yes, thanks for your input CBBB. Nuclear fusion is definitely very promising but... there is a but... alternative energy solutions implies by definition, more that one(1), just in case nuclear fusion is proven unreliable or inadequate to satisfy the total needs of a growing population.
Therefor, the R&D continues in all areas of green potential resources.

Where is cyprusgrump? I am sure, he will blow a gasket, reading the above comments as he hates green energy with passion.

Hey grump... are you still with us?

You're wrong...

I don't hate green energy - I'm all for cheaper cleaner energy sources...

What I hate is having expensive, dirty solutions forced on the population under some green banner.

As I posted earlier, Denmark has thousands of wind turbines and has no net reduction in emissions - just much more expensive electricity. That is ignoring the massive cost in energy and resources needed to manufacture, transport and install the turbines...

Government subsidies (I hate that too - taxpayer's subsidies is much more accurate) simply skew the market and are often influenced by outside sources ensuring that the cash doesn't go where it might do most good...

Imagine for instance if all the money wasted on wind turbines had been invested in research into fusion?

Here is an interesting article for you to read - Five Myths About Green Energy

Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of "energy sprawl," including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.

Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn't always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind's unreliability. The result is minimal -- or no -- carbon dioxide reduction.

Hi grump,

When posting a link, please copy/paste all the positive notes about green solutions, not just the negatives.

The green industry is not doing us any favors. It's like any other money making business. Governments may subsidize certain services or products deemed too expensive for the population to afford, no need to list them, you know. Green energy is one of them.

You are in favor of nuclear fusion, so I'm I. When perfected, this technology would worth billions. All the countries of the planet would have to pay dearly to "buy" nuclear fusion equipment & now how. Governments will be forced to subsidize once again. In essence, not different from the green technology as seen and practiced today. So, why are you arguing?

Get my drift?

Georgios100

There are no positives from the link I provided that I excluded... Read the link and you will see all the negatives...

Are you suggesting I should make my point then search the intermong for a different view and argue against myself?

No, I don't get your drift...

Of course you would have to buy a fusion power plant once it is available...

But we are forced to buy wind farms due to the green lobby and EU diktats - not because it is the best solution, not because it is greenest, not because it is most efficient and not because it is cheapest....

It is a huge unnecessary red herring...

[georgios100]

Countries and scientists from all over the world are actively looking for alternative energy solutions. The investment in R&D is in the billions.

And yet, a few forumers already came to the conclusion, the effort is useless and too expensive. For the moment, yes, renewable energy equipment are costly and need government subsidies. As the technology advances, the cost will be reduced parallel with the increase of oil prices.

I won't be alive, neither will you, to answer our kids, why alternative fuels were not pursued earlier.

A typical phenomenon of unqualified forumers discarding green technology is the lack of vision towards long term energy needs. But we must plan for 50-100 years down the road, if we are to survive on this planet. This is the only reason, green technology is examined, tested and applied.

Of course, we all have our opinions which should be respected, right or wrong.

Georgios100

Then we will have Nuclear Fusion!

Hopefully yes, thanks for your input CBBB. Nuclear fusion is definitely very promising but... there is a but... alternative energy solutions implies by definition, more that one(1), just in case nuclear fusion is proven unreliable or inadequate to satisfy the total needs of a growing population.
Therefor, the R&D continues in all areas of green potential resources.

Where is cyprusgrump? I am sure, he will blow a gasket, reading the above comments as he hates green energy with passion.

Hey grump... are you still with us?

You're wrong...

I don't hate green energy - I'm all for cheaper cleaner energy sources...

What I hate is having expensive, dirty solutions forced on the population under some green banner.

As I posted earlier, Denmark has thousands of wind turbines and has no net reduction in emissions - just much more expensive electricity. That is ignoring the massive cost in energy and resources needed to manufacture, transport and install the turbines...

Government subsidies (I hate that too - taxpayer's subsidies is much more accurate) simply skew the market and are often influenced by outside sources ensuring that the cash doesn't go where it might do most good...

Imagine for instance if all the money wasted on wind turbines had been invested in research into fusion?

Here is an interesting article for you to read - Five Myths About Green Energy

Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of "energy sprawl," including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.

Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn't always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind's unreliability. The result is minimal -- or no -- carbon dioxide reduction.

Hi grump,

When posting a link, please copy/paste all the positive notes about green solutions, not just the negatives.

The green industry is not doing us any favors. It's like any other money making business. Governments may subsidize certain services or products deemed too expensive for the population to afford, no need to list them, you know. Green energy is one of them.

You are in favor of nuclear fusion, so I'm I. When perfected, this technology would worth billions. All the countries of the planet would have to pay dearly to "buy" nuclear fusion equipment & now how. Governments will be forced to subsidize once again. In essence, not different from the green technology as seen and practiced today. So, why are you arguing?

Get my drift?

Georgios100

There are no positives from the link I provided that I excluded... Read the link and you will see all the negatives...

Are you suggesting I should make my point then search the intermong for a different view and argue against myself?

No, I don't get your drift...

Of course you would have to buy a fusion power plant once it is available...

But we are forced to buy wind farms due to the green lobby and EU diktats - not because it is the best solution, not because it is greenest, not because it is most efficient and not because it is cheapest....

It is a huge unnecessary red herring...

here is my drift...
There are a lot of positive links out there but you only choose the negatives and no, don't argue with yourself but with me & other CF members. This is why CF was made available,sharing opinions while posting both negative & positive so everyone can judge...

Warm regards,
Georgios100