# Energy Saving



## The Sheriff (27 Oct 2021)

I have been trying to get my better half to fill the kettle just after it has boiled, so the water gets to room temp ready for the next brew and thus save electricity; or so I thought !

Last night I measured 2 pints of water into the kettle and left overnight. The next morning I timed it to boil and auto shutoff - 2 minutes 41 seconds.

Later I remeasured same amount of water straight from the tap and timed it to auto shut off - 2 minutes 43 seconds !!!

Amazed at how little difference, I was expecting it to be much longer.

ANY THOUGHTS / COMMENTS ON MY FINDINGS


----------



## doctor Bob (27 Oct 2021)

I suspect the top floors are warmer, why not fill it night before and take it to the bedroom, better still put it in the bed. Maybe you and the mrs could cuddle it between you, may raise it to 30 ish degrees, may save you up to 10p over a year.


----------



## Myfordman (27 Oct 2021)

Just boil what you need. For 2 mugs 500ml is plenty


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (27 Oct 2021)

I think someone should do the sums. Not me though. I've done enough sums today.

I reckon the water comes out of the tap at 5-10°C. Room temperature is for the sake of argument 20°C, and let's say the kettle takes it all the way to 100°C. If anyone can remember the SHC of water and knows the power output of a typical kettle...


----------



## Woody2Shoes (27 Oct 2021)

You will save vastly more energy only boiling the water you actually need.

As suggested above, letting mains tap water warm to room temp probably takes it from 8C to 18C - the national grid (at your, and to a lesser degree the polar bears' expense) takes it from say 18C to say 98C. You've perhaps saved an eighth of the energy needed to get the water from underground temp to boiling. If you boil twice as much as you need, three times a day, any 'saving' you get from pre-warming pales into insignificance.

A better approach might be to fill a large jug with water and let that warm to room temp, then fill the kettle as needed from that (best of luck!!).

I find it hard enough to persuade my co-habitees to only boil what is required!!


----------



## Yojevol (27 Oct 2021)

These arguments about 'only boiling what you need' doesn't apply in the winter when you've got the heating going. Any heat left over in the kettle will transfer to the house environment and, if you've got thermostat control, the CH output will reduce in accordingly.
Brian


----------



## Droogs (27 Oct 2021)

Myfordman said:


> Just boil what you need. For 2 mugs 500ml is plenty


your a teeny weeny wood elf aren't you! My mug holds 900ml on its own and I have around 8 mugs a day of tea not coming round yours bob for a cuppa, I'd die of thirst


----------



## Terry - Somerset (27 Oct 2021)

Google - the fount of all knowledge says:

_The energy required to change water from a liquid to a solid is 333.7 kJ/kg while the energy required to boil water is *2257 kJ/kg*. The amount of energy needed to change the phase of water to a gas from a liquid is 540 times the amount of energy needed to raise the same amount of water 1° C._

Boiling involves a phase change from liquid to gas. So most of the energy is the last degree, not the total temperature change!


----------



## John Brown (27 Oct 2021)

Yojevol said:


> These arguments about 'only boiling what you need' doesn't apply in the winter when you've got the heating going. Any heat left over in the kettle will transfer to the house environment and, if you've got thermostat control, the CH output will reduce in accordingly.
> Brian


While that is true, if you have gas central heating, it's still way cheaper than electricity per therm, or whatever measurement is currently used.
So I suppose the idea could work, to the extent that the initial heating of the water to room temperature would be at gas rates, as opposed to the kettle, at electricity rates.

I tried to persuade my wife to leave the bathwater to cool before emptying the tub. She thinks I'm crazy, but my father used to talk about having heat exchangers in the sink wastes, to capture all the wasted heat from the vegetable boiling water... Those Yorkshire genes are strong...


----------



## Fitzroy (27 Oct 2021)

Measurement accuracy, voltage differences or both. Internal heat transfer in the kettle will be fixed in both cases. A 10


Terry - Somerset said:


> Google - the fount of all knowledge says:
> 
> _The energy required to change water from a liquid to a solid is 333.7 kJ/kg while the energy required to boil water is *2257 kJ/kg*. The amount of energy needed to change the phase of water to a gas from a liquid is 540 times the amount of energy needed to raise the same amount of water 1° C._
> 
> Boiling involves a phase change from liquid to gas. So most of the energy is the last degree, not the total temperature change!


Only if you boil the kettle dry. In reality only a tiny fraction of the water will change phase before the kettle turns off


----------



## Suffolkboy (28 Oct 2021)

Or. Just drink cold brew coffee and iced tea.


----------



## Droogs (28 Oct 2021)

Iced tea uses boiled water, the tea would take about 4 days to diffuse otherwise, before using even more energy to become cold.


----------



## Krome10 (28 Oct 2021)

Does it require the same amount of energy to heat water throughout the range of temperatures? So does 20 to 30c take the same energy as 90 to 100c?

Sorry if that's an obvious or stupid question but I really don't know!

I'm curious because I've got one of those kettles where you can select the desired temp...


----------



## Suffolkboy (28 Oct 2021)

Droogs said:


> Iced tea uses boiled water, the tea would take about 4 days to diffuse otherwise, before using even more energy to become cold.



Tea bags in a bottle of water, leave it in the fridge for four days. Four bottles on rotation, bottle a day. 

Sell your kettle on ebay and buy a second hand plane with the proceeds then just watch the energy savings pile up.


----------



## Droogs (28 Oct 2021)

Ah but I only drink tea and if I waited 4 days I'd be dead


----------



## Droogs (28 Oct 2021)

Krome10 said:


> Does it require the same amount of energy to heat water throughout the range of temperatures? So does 20 to 30c take the same energy as 90 to 100c?
> 
> Sorry if that's an obvious or stupid question but I really don't know!
> 
> I'm curious because I've got one of those kettles where you can select the desired temp...


The below graph from the great courses plus shows it is fairly linear in terms of energy needed to rise in temp until you get to boiling point and then it is an exponential jump to get a change of state phase


----------



## stuart little (28 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> While that is true, if you have gas central heating, it's still way cheaper than electricity per therm, or whatever measurement is currently used.
> So I suppose the idea could work, to the extent that the initial heating of the water to room temperature would be at gas rates, as opposed to the kettle, at electricity rates.
> 
> I tried to persuade my wife to leave the bathwater to cool before emptying the tub. She thinks I'm crazy, but my father used to talk about having heat exchangers in the sink wastes, to capture all the wasted heat from the vegetable boiling water... Those Yorkshire genes are strong...


I use the veg h2o to make gravy!


----------



## hairy (28 Oct 2021)

1 We have a plastic kettle because it's light. I bought a similar kettle for my Nan years back and was amazed at the difference in kettle weights available. She could then make tea much more easily. More weight means more material needs heating as well as the water.

2 I bought a new thermos earlier this year, a Thermos Ultimate series. It's the best flask I've ever had. If I leave it in the shed overnight I can still make tea on day two, I'm fussy with tea too. But more to the point, it's supposed to be more energy efficient to fill the kettle totally up then use it from a flask whenever you want a brew. I started doing this a wee bit, and also discovered that you are obviously no longer waiting for the kettle to boil, you just pour the flask and there's your tea. Weirdly satisfying to not be waiting.

3 Also, kind of almost related, I had always thought it was a thing that an upright fridge or freezer was wasteful because the air you had paid to chill falls out every time you open the door. I read someones experiment to see if that was the case and it was so tiny as to not be bothering with. They calculated, for comparison, after a warm or hot bath do you pull the plug? You would save many times more money than the fridge loses by leaving the water in the bath when you have finished until it had given up it's excess heat to the house then drain it, or you are paying to heat your drains! You do get more condensation though.


----------



## Vann (28 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> ...I tried to persuade my wife to leave the bathwater to cool before emptying the tub. She thinks I'm crazy...



Same here. I tell her that we've paid for all that heat - leave it to warm the house. But no, she's got to drain all the water down the plug hole and then turn on a heater. I don't know if she doesn't understand (or if she thinks I'm an old tight-a$$).

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Fitzroy (28 Oct 2021)

@Krome10 to all intents and purpose yes it is constant (roughly 4.18 kilojoules per kilograms per degree Celcius)*. In theory it varies with temperature, between a minimum of 4.1796 and a maximum of 4.2199, less than a 1% variation.

You can actually get a clever shower drain that is a heat exchanger, heating the cold supply to your shower such that it takes less hot water to achieve the desired temperature.

* this is actually the definition of a kilocalorie, the heat require to raise 1 kilogramme of water by 1 degree celcius.


----------



## artie (28 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> my father used to talk about having heat exchangers in the sink wastes, to capture all the wasted heat from the vegetable boiling water..


Can't believe a Yorkshire man pouring all those nutrients down the drain so he could recapture a little heat.

Much better made into gravy.


----------



## artie (28 Oct 2021)

Yojevol said:


> These arguments about 'only boiling what you need' doesn't apply in the winter when you've got the heating going. Any heat left over in the kettle will transfer to the house environment and, if you've got thermostat control, the CH output will reduce in accordingly.
> Brian


Just like I've always questioned the reasoning of replacing old style incandescent bulbs with low energy types. The CH just has to work harder.


----------



## MARK.B. (28 Oct 2021)

Switched to a Breville(other makes available) kettle that only boils enough for single cuppa some years ago.


----------



## Spectric (28 Oct 2021)

In all these examples you need to include pressure, it has a fundamental input on freezing and boiling points.


----------



## Cabinetman (28 Oct 2021)

hairy said:


> 1 We have a plastic kettle because it's light. I bought a similar kettle for my Nan years back and was amazed at the difference in kettle weights available. She could then make tea much more easily. More weight means more material needs heating as well as the water.
> 
> 2 I bought a new thermos earlier this year, a Thermos Ultimate series. It's the best flask I've ever had. If I leave it in the shed overnight I can still make tea on day two, I'm fussy with tea too. But more to the point, it's supposed to be more energy efficient to fill the kettle totally up then use it from a flask whenever you want a brew. I started doing this a wee bit, and also discovered that you are obviously no longer waiting for the kettle to boil, you just pour the flask and there's your tea. Weirdly satisfying to not be waiting.
> 
> 3 Also, kind of almost related, I had always thought it was a thing that an upright fridge or freezer was wasteful because the air you had paid to chill falls out every time you open the door. I read someones experiment to see if that was the case and it was so tiny as to not be bothering with. They calculated, for comparison, after a warm or hot bath do you pull the plug? You would save many times more money than the fridge loses by leaving the water in the bath when you have finished until it had given up it's excess heat to the house then drain it, or you are paying to heat your drains! You do get more condensation though.


 Interesting about the fridge, I’ve always wondered. Do you not find you get a strange taste to your tea using a flask?
There is a lot on the Internet about not having a plastic kettle – it not being at all good for you (BPA). Leave you to look it up. Ian


----------



## John Brown (28 Oct 2021)

artie said:


> Just like I've always questioned the reasoning of replacing old style incandescent bulbs with low energy types. The CH just has to wo
> rk harder.


We currently pay 20p for a kWh of electricity. 3.41p for the equivalent in gas. There's no way I'm replacing all the LED lighting with incandescent, in the vain hope of saving money on heating bills...


----------



## John Brown (28 Oct 2021)

artie said:


> Can't believe a Yorkshire man pouring all those nutrients down the drain so he could recapture a little heat.
> 
> Much better made into gravy.


We always used veg water for gravy as well, but generally didn't make half a gallon of the stuff.


----------



## nickds1 (28 Oct 2021)

We fill our kettle from the hot tap which is at a steady 50C (from the GSHP). It's drinking water and is going to get boiled anyway, plus we only fill the kettle with what is needed.

I've no idea why more folk don't fill from the hot tap? 50% (*) of the work has already been done. Solar tea, anyone?

(*) I know that's not quite right before the physics police get hold of this post. I just can't be bothered to do the maths right now!


----------



## Ozi (28 Oct 2021)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> I think someone should do the sums. Not me though. I've done enough sums today.
> 
> I reckon the water comes out of the tap at 5-10°C. Room temperature is for the sake of argument 20°C, and let's say the kettle takes it all the way to 100°C. If anyone can remember the SHC of water and knows the power output of a typical kettle...


4.2 kJ/kg.K but I'm to bored to work it out 


oh hell here goes 

The tap water if straight from the mains will be about 8° 
100 - 8 = 92

92 x 0.5 x 4.2 = 193.2 kJ to boil half a liter

from 20°

80 x 0.5 x 4.2 = 168 kJ

should save about 13% BUT some of the water was probably in the pipe inside the house unless you run the tap till it's cold' I'm guessing that's the reason or using a tap fed from a tank not direct from the mains


----------



## Ozi (28 Oct 2021)

Does anyone else make tea in the micro wave. Not all the time you understand because that would be odd but I think it tastes better, don't nuke the tea just the water and be careful when you add it as it can over boil. I believe boiling the water in the kettle reduces the oxygen content and that effects the taste. 

Why are so many of the people I meet sleep deprived?


----------



## doctor Bob (28 Oct 2021)

Surely to calculate accurately we need to know how high above sea level the house is.


----------



## John Brown (28 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> We currently pay 20p for a kWh of electricity. 3.41p for the equivalent in gas. There's no way I'm replacing all the LED lighting with incandescent, in the vain hope of saving money on heating bills...


On these tariffs, we would need an air or ground source heat pump to have a COP of nearly 6 to break even on heating costs. Since they seem to average out at almost 3 over the year, from what I've read, our heating bills will double. Much as I'd like to be greener, doubled heating bills are not much of an incentive.
Maybe there's a mistake in my figgering?


----------



## Just4Fun (28 Oct 2021)

nickds1 said:


> I've no idea why more folk don't fill from the hot tap?


I don't fill the kettle from the hot tap because I have seen the inside of an old hot water tank. Not a pretty sight.


----------



## Woodchips2 (28 Oct 2021)

Droogs said:


> your a teeny weeny wood elf aren't you! My mug holds 900ml on its own and I have around 8 mugs a day of tea not coming round yours bob for a cuppa, I'd die of thirst


Wow Droogs that is one big mug and to drink 8 mugs a day is awesome! I'm guessing you're the Scottish tea drinking champion 
Regards Keith


----------



## Spectric (28 Oct 2021)

nickds1 said:


> I've no idea why more folk don't fill from the hot tap?


Probably because not everyone has a hot water system that is classed as potable, many used to have open header tanks in the loft that would contain dust and dead insects, etc etc and if you have ever replaced one of these you often found there is a lot of sludge at the bottom.


----------



## Flynnwood (28 Oct 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Google - the fount of all knowledge says:


Google indexes other peoples information/education, that other people created. 
Google Search does not create the content  Just saying.


----------



## Vann (28 Oct 2021)

nickds1 said:


> ...I've no idea why more folk don't fill from the hot tap?...



Obviously every tap is different but, I experimented with one hot water tap in our house that took ages to warm. I measured 7 pints before the flowing water changed from cold to warm. That means every time the hot tap was turned off 7 pints of hot water was left in the pipes to cool off. Wasted heat!

Also, when I was young and impressionable, my BIL (an Englishman, and therefore a tea expert) taught me to always use cold water to fill the jug as it effects the taste.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## John Brown (28 Oct 2021)

Vann said:


> Obviously every tap is different but, I experimented with one hot water tap in our house that took ages to warm. I measured 7 pints before the flowing water changed from cold to warm. That means every time the hot tap was turned off 7 pints of hot water was left in the pipes to cool off. Wasted heat!


Which is, I believe, why washing machines and dishwashers only have cold feeds these days.


----------



## Terrytpot (28 Oct 2021)

My wife’s contribution to saving energy is to ensure that the glade plug in air freshener she bought is first of all plugged into a timer so that it can only operate inside a 30 minute window early in the morning…no sense in it working more than once a day apparently


----------



## Adam W. (28 Oct 2021)

I installed an insulated hot water circulation ring in our place, as the boiler is quite a way from the kitchen tap. Instant hot water for the small cost of a 5w circulator pump.


----------



## Cabinetman (28 Oct 2021)

Adam W. said:


> I installed an insulated hot water circulation ring in our place, as the boiler is quite a way from the kitchen tap. Instant hot water for the small cost of a 5w circulator pump.


 That’s interesting, do you have it running all the time or every other five minutes or something? Wouldn’t work with my Combi boiler I shouldn’t think. Seriously thinking of changing next time to a hot water tank again, really fed up with running the tap and wasting all that water whilst the boiler fires up and delivers -eventually – also the future Swmibo hasn’t got into the habit of not running the hot tap for a few seconds, it doesn’t give you any hot water and it eventually beggers up the boiler (According to my Plumber). Ian


----------



## hairy (28 Oct 2021)

Cabinetman said:


> Interesting about the fridge, I’ve always wondered. Do you not find you get a strange taste to your tea using a flask?
> There is a lot on the Internet about not having a plastic kettle – it not being at all good for you (BPA). Leave you to look it up. Ian


It would be sacrilege to put tea in a flask obviously! Stick to just hot water then make cuppa soup, tea, hot chocolate whatever in the mug.
That particular flask keeps the water so hot it seems no different to just boiled from the kettle. Brodies do Earl Grey in a pocket friendly sachet if out and about, then I don't need milk.


----------



## hairy (28 Oct 2021)

Vann said:


> Obviously every tap is different but, I experimented with one hot water tap in our house that took ages to warm. I measured 7 pints before the flowing water changed from cold to warm. That means every time the hot tap was turned off 7 pints of hot water was left in the pipes to cool off. Wasted heat!
> 
> Also, when I was young and impressionable, my BIL (an Englishman, and therefore a tea expert) taught me to always use cold water to fill the jug as it effects the taste.
> 
> Cheers, Vann.



We bought a dishwasher in a previous house because running the tap to get hot water wasted more water than a dishwasher used in the entirety of a full cycle! More than 20 litres IIRC! Some mad plumbing going on there.


----------



## dannyr (29 Oct 2021)

double-walled kettles - anyone use these? 

Should be able to do one boil for the morning's tea


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (29 Oct 2021)

On the money-saving-and-tea combo front, has anyone considered wearing PVC trousers with wellies, and putting a teabag under each foot, then going for a long run?


----------



## MarkAW (29 Oct 2021)

The Sheriff said:


> ANY THOUGHTS / COMMENTS ON MY FINDINGS


Yeah, you have too much time on your hands


----------



## nickds1 (29 Oct 2021)

Spectric said:


> Probably because not everyone has a hot water system that is classed as potable, many used to have open header tanks in the loft that would contain dust and dead insects, etc etc and if you have ever replaced one of these you often found there is a lot of sludge at the bottom.



I realise that - which is why I mentioned the GSHP - the hot water we get from that is potable and sterilised weekly (2-hour heated > 60C) and there is no header tank - ours is a pressurised sealed system.

Older properties with vented HW systems are indeed ghastly.



Vann said:


> Obviously every tap is different but, I experimented with one hot water tap in our house that took ages to warm. I measured 7 pints before the flowing water changed from cold to warm. That means every time the hot tap was turned off 7 pints of hot water was left in the pipes to cool off. Wasted heat!



We have a circulating HW system as it's a large property - there is no cold water run-out from the hot tap - it's hot pretty much instantly. Again, older and smaller properties are unlikely to have this.

But if you can, filling the kettle with potable hot water saves more energy...


----------



## Krome10 (29 Oct 2021)

Droogs said:


> The below graph from the great courses plus shows it is fairly linear in terms of energy needed to rise in temp until you get to boiling point and then it is an exponential jump to get a change of state phase
> 
> View attachment 120614



Well, that's two things I've learnt today, the other being that you can heat water above 100c. Didn't realise that!! That's for posting the graph.

As for saving heat from hot water that goes down the drain, as @hairy points out, there's the issue of condensation. Does that not bother people? Guess it depends what kind of set up you have for heat and ventilation...


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2021)

hairy said:


> We bought a dishwasher in a previous house because running the tap to get hot water wasted more water than a dishwasher used in the entirety of a full cycle! More than 20 litres IIRC! Some mad plumbing going on there.



the dishwasher can be bettered, but it takes sort of the old time soak and then quick wash and rinse method. And it's probably a difference of a gallon. 

I am very stingy, and that makes me passively eco. But I cannot convince my spouse to line dry or skip the drying cycle on the dishwasher. Many of the articles expounding on the efficiency of dishwashers forget to mention the long needless heated dry and they compare the dishwasher to someone allowing the water to run continuously for 20 minutes. 

The other benefit of hand washing, if one actually adheres to it, is the racks and shelves are rarely short of cups and spoons.


----------



## Spectric (29 Oct 2021)

Krome10 said:


> Well, that's two things I've learnt today, the other being that you can heat water above 100c.


The water in your car cooling system can exceed 100 °C because it is pressurised, thats why if you just release the cap you get a blast of steam because water cannot exist above 100 °C at atmospheric pressure, so releasing the cap releases the pressure and that water almost instantly changes state into steam.


----------



## Just4Fun (29 Oct 2021)

Adam W. said:


> I installed an insulated hot water circulation ring in our place, as the boiler is quite a way from the kitchen tap. Instant hot water for the small cost of a 5w circulator pump.


I did this but used a heating circulation pump. I have had 2 or 3 of these fail. How long has your pump lasted? Do you have a link to the type of pump you use?


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2021)

dannyr said:


> double-walled kettles - anyone use these?
> 
> Should be able to do one boil for the morning's tea



yessir, but it's the pot of coffee here that it's keeping hot. Hard to live without once you've used one as the coffee is hot for at least 6 hours and it never gets cooked on a burner (so it actually tastes fresh all day).


----------



## Stevekane (29 Oct 2021)

Going back to the water temp at startup,,my son uses electric showers for hairwashing sinks in his hairdressers, in the winter he has to switch to the higher power setting ( not the water flow) to get the correct temp because the mains water temp is that much lower, I suppose the temp difference is exaggerated in a situation where the water is just passing over a heating element. 
steve.


----------



## John Brown (30 Oct 2021)

nickds1 said:


> I realise that - which is why I mentioned the GSHP - the hot water we get from that is potable and sterilised weekly (2-hour heated > 60C) and there is no header tank - ours is a pressurised sealed system.
> 
> Older properties with vented HW systems are indeed ghastly.
> 
> ...


How does it save energy? You're still preheating it with energy.


----------



## Fitzroy (30 Oct 2021)

Spectric said:


> The water in your car cooling system can exceed 100 °C because it is pressurised, thats why if you just release the cap you get a blast of steam because water cannot exist above 100 °C at atmospheric pressure, so releasing the cap releases the pressure and that water almost instantly changes state into steam.


Interestingly water can exist in the liquid state at atmospheric pressure above 100Celcius. It can also exist below 0 Celsius. Both boiling and freezing require nucleation sites for the process to begin. In either ultra pure water or water that has already been boiled these are missing so it can be heated or cooled (under the correct conditions) to above or below the boiling/ freezing points. However, it is not a stable condition and upon disturbing it will instantly freeze/boil. 

It’s actually one of the risks of reheating tea in a microwave. 

Fitz.


----------



## nickds1 (30 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> How does it save energy? You're still preheating it with energy.


Perhaps it would have been better to say "save more polluting energy" as obviously the same number of joules are required to boil a given amount of water regardless of how those joules are produced. However in our case a chunk of those joules are solar and produced by a GSHP with a COP of around 3.5 and "green electricity" driving that.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (30 Oct 2021)

I've decided that the concept of a dishwasher as a home appliance is a complete fabrication. There is no such thing. Firstly I don't have any dishes in my house - plates, bowls, saucepans etc, but no dishes. This may just be an accident of geography, but annoying none the less. Why isn't it a plate washer?

Then there is the whole idea of actually "washing" the plates: they need rinsing before you put them in, then they more often than not need scraping and scouring to remove the baked on crud afterwards. Does all this extra water and energy get added to the balance when they decide how much water a dishwasher uses? I think not.

The only thing it does do, even on a quick 35°C wash, is steam/bake everything afterwards. It ought to be called a plate steamer, as that's about the only job it manages competently.


----------



## Chris152 (30 Oct 2021)

If it's tea you're making, this might be useful (from The perfect water temperature for brewing tea | Tealovers.com )

General Guidelines
Manufacturers will usually provide temperature guidelines for you to follow but if these are not available the following general guidelines can be used:
Pu’er teas: 200° to 212°F (93°to 100°C)
Black teas: 190° to 200° Fahrenheit (88° to 93°Celsuis)
Oolong teas: 180° to 200°F (82°to 93°C)
Yellow teas: 175°F (79°C)
White teas: 160° to 185°F (71° to 85°C)
Green teas: 140° to 190° F (60° to 88° C)

What's more: 
"When the water starts bubbling furiously and great volumes of steam are rising, the water is no longer suitable for making tea. Using boiling water can make the tea bitter. You may not notice this if you are using cheap industrial tea where the subtle leaf flavors are not noticed but it will be evident with a better tea."

Plus, if it's boiling away like that (if memory of o-level physics serves me) you're wasting energy converting water at 100C to vapour (latent heat of vaporization). This has stuck in my head for decades, and I've always tried to manually switch off the kettle just before it starts to vaporize - I'm quite sure I've saved a fortune and already done my bit to prevent glbal warming.

So if you're boiling the water in your kettle to make tea (or coffee) you're already wasting energy and, worst of all, spoiling your tea.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (30 Oct 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Then there is the whole idea of actually "washing" the plates: they need rinsing before you put them in,



New dishwashers (last ten years' worth at least) do a better job if you don't rinse first.


----------



## hairy (30 Oct 2021)

Krome10 said:


> As for saving heat from hot water that goes down the drain, as @hairy points out, there's the issue of condensation. Does that not bother people? Guess it depends what kind of set up you have for heat and ventilation...


Opening the window fixes that


----------



## Adam W. (30 Oct 2021)

@Cabinetman
I have a system boiler with a 30L tank and the pump runs all the time. The tap is at least 20M from the boiler, so there was a huge amount of water lost and also loads of heat energy lost too with hot water in the pipe cooling off before the tap was run again. So it was a win for the small amount of energy to run the pump and the pipe is very well insulated along the whole length of the loop.

The loop runs under the sink and I just took off a short spur at the kitchen tap and for the bathroom. In the bathroom the pipe runs along the edge of the heated slab too, so there's minimal water waste.

Denmark has very high water costs and our water use is minimal compared to other Danish households. I really wanted to use grey water for flushing the loo too, but it was epic setting it up, so I didn't bother in the end. If I convert the loft with a bathroom upstairs, I'll put that in for the downstairs toilet.

@Just4Fun

It's a Grundfos Alpha1 N stainless steel pump which has been going for about 7 years.









ALPHA1 N


ALPHA1 N is a high-efficiency circulator pump with stainless-steel pump housing suitable for domestic hot-water systems. Featuring integrated differential-pressure control as well as constant-curve mode.




product-selection.grundfos.com





A regular heating pump will corrode when used for DHW circulation and it's probably why yours failed.


----------



## Krome10 (30 Oct 2021)

hairy said:


> Opening the window fixes that



I presume the smiley face at the end means you're comment's tongue in cheek? Just checking....


----------



## John Brown (30 Oct 2021)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> New dishwashers (last ten years' worth at least) do a better job if you don't rinse first.


That's interesting. I'll look it up.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (30 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> That's interesting. I'll look it up.



There's a thingy called a turbidity sensor (apologies if I've spelled that wrong). If it doesn't detect enough "stuff" coming off the plates and so on it'll reduce the wash strength. All you need to do is maybe scrape off any big lumps, but pre-rinsing is actually counterproductive.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (30 Oct 2021)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> There's a thingy called a turbidity sensor (apologies if I've spelled that wrong). If it doesn't detect enough "stuff" coming off the plates and so on it'll reduce the wash strength. All you need to do is maybe scrape off any big lumps, but pre-rinsing is actually counterproductive.


Does this mean that instead of washing up, you need to regularly go pearl diving into the dishwasher filter? I hardly ever have to look at my dishwasher (which is 15 years old) - except when the tourists abuse it...


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (30 Oct 2021)

I have not needed to in all the time I've had a dishwasher.


----------



## Sandyn (30 Oct 2021)

artie said:


> Just like I've always questioned the reasoning of replacing old style incandescent bulbs with low energy types. The CH just has to work harder.


I am of the same opinion. It just seemed like common sense to me that incandescent lamps are just heaters which give off some light, 10% light and 90% heat, so if you change to LED, 60% light 40% heat (that's overall efficiency) you are reducing the amount of heat produced. If the house temperature is controlled and remains the same, the CH will have to supply the difference, so savings will be minimal.
In a hotter climate, it's a different story, there would be a bigger saving because the air conditioning would run less to remove the extra heat from the incandescent bulbs. 
I did some calculations on my usage and the total power consumption has gone up slightly, converting everything to LED. The reason is, I have much higher lighting levels in and around the house with incandescent, 21500 total lumens for Incandescent and 64700 total lumens for LED. 

I'm not suggesting we go back to incandescent. I love LED lighting, but they didn't give the whole picture. I would like to see how much energy it takes to make an LED bulb compared to incandescent, the whole life cost of both, including disposal and recycling.


----------



## John Brown (30 Oct 2021)

Sandyn said:


> I am of the same opinion. It just seemed like common sense to me that incandescent lamps are just heaters which give off some light, 10% light and 90% heat, so if you change to LED, 60% light 40% heat (that's overall efficiency) you are reducing the amount of heat produced. If the house temperature is controlled and remains the same, the CH will have to supply the difference, so savings will be minimal.
> In a hotter climate, it's a different story, there would be a bigger saving because the air conditioning would run less to remove the extra heat from the incandescent bulbs.
> I did some calculations on my usage and the total power consumption has gone up slightly, converting everything to LED. The reason is, I have much higher lighting levels in and around the house with incandescent, 21500 total lumens for Incandescent and 64700 total lumens for LED.
> 
> I'm not suggesting we go back to incandescent. I love LED lighting, but they didn't give the whole picture. I would like to see how much energy it takes to make an LED bulb compared to incandescent, the whole life cost of both, including disposal and recycling.


All of which might be relevant if you heat your house with electricity, and live in a climate where you need to heat your house all year round. Otherwise, apart from the energy involved in manufacturing and recycling/disposal, it makes no sense in a place where electricity is so much dearer than gas.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (31 Oct 2021)

Even in the UK it can be both dark (so you need lighting) and warm (so you don't need to waste energy on excess heat). Same argument could also apply to hot water cylinders.

This thread has rightly explored expensive ways to save energy and cost - eg: ASHP, GSHP, but there may be some cheaper interventions with quicker payback.

I have been having a look at wi-fi controlled thermostatic radiator valve. Wi-fi because I assume thay can be individually set (time and temp) without having to continually visit each radiator. 

Easy if app or central controller based to override standard daily settings - with a little thought could turn on/off having regard for external temperatures.

Cost looks like it may be below £1k for controllers + approx 12 radiators. With gas costs of ~£1200pa, payback insde 1 or 2 yers may be feasible.

Does anyone have any experience of these - reliability, frequency of battery replacement, recommendations (or to avoid) etc.


----------



## Oakay (31 Oct 2021)

Cabinetman said:


> That’s interesting, do you have it running all the time or every other five minutes or something? Wouldn’t work with my Combi boiler I shouldn’t think. Seriously thinking of changing next time to a hot water tank again, really fed up with running the tap and wasting all that water whilst the boiler fires up and delivers -eventually – also the future Swmibo hasn’t got into the habit of not running the hot tap for a few seconds, it doesn’t give you any hot water and it eventually beggers up the boiler (According to my Plumber). Ian


Our gas combi is in the upstairs bathroom, we have quick hot water there but long run-off for the kitchen but as we have hard water, to minimise scale we use a jug filter to fill the kettle. We fill that jug from another jug which we use to collect the run off previously collected while waiting for hot water to come through to the kitchen tap. Saves wasting the run-off water.


----------



## Oakay (31 Oct 2021)

The Sheriff said:


> I have been trying to get my better half to fill the kettle just after it has boiled, so the water gets to room temp ready for the next brew and thus save electricity; or so I thought !
> 
> Last night I measured 2 pints of water into the kettle and left overnight. The next morning I timed it to boil and auto shutoff - 2 minutes 41 seconds.
> 
> ...


There will be a bigger differential when we get frosty weather.


----------



## Oakay (31 Oct 2021)

hairy said:


> 1 We have a plastic kettle because it's light. I bought a similar kettle for my Nan years back and was amazed at the difference in kettle weights available. She could then make tea much more easily. More weight means more material needs heating as well as the water.
> 
> 2 I bought a new thermos earlier this year, a Thermos Ultimate series. It's the best flask I've ever had. If I leave it in the shed overnight I can still make tea on day two, I'm fussy with tea too. But more to the point, it's supposed to be more energy efficient to fill the kettle totally up then use it from a flask whenever you want a brew. I started doing this a wee bit, and also discovered that you are obviously no longer waiting for the kettle to boil, you just pour the flask and there's your tea. Weirdly satisfying to not be waiting.
> 
> 3 Also, kind of almost related, I had always thought it was a thing that an upright fridge or freezer was wasteful because the air you had paid to chill falls out every time you open the door. I read someones experiment to see if that was the case and it was so tiny as to not be bothering with. They calculated, for comparison, after a warm or hot bath do you pull the plug? You would save many times more money than the fridge loses by leaving the water in the bath when you have finished until it had given up it's excess heat to the house then drain it, or you are paying to heat your drains! You do get more condensation though.


A 0.9L Thermos Ultimate costs £30 How many months of using it to save boiled water will it take to see £30 knocked off my electricity bill at today's prices? (I appreciate that will vary depending according to contract and the proportion of the daily standing charge within each contract, but a rough figure would be useful for anyone with the time to work it out).


----------



## Oakay (31 Oct 2021)

artie said:


> Just like I've always questioned the reasoning of replacing old style incandescent bulbs with low energy types. The CH just has to work harder.


If you have electric heating maybe, but gas is much cheaper....also bear in mind most lighting is near the ceiling and heat rises.


----------



## croft36 (31 Oct 2021)

Droogs said:


> your a teeny weeny wood elf aren't you! My mug holds 900ml on its own and I have around 8 mugs a day of tea not coming round yours bob for a cuppa, I'd die of thirst


I know of someone who drank a lot, he didn’t know he had diabetes until it was too late. Just saying (lol).


----------



## John Brown (31 Oct 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I have been having a look at wi-fi controlled thermostatic radiator valve. Wi-fi because I assume thay can be individually set (time and temp) without having to continually visit each radiator.
> 
> Easy if app or central controller based to override standard daily settings - with a little thought could turn on/off having regard for external temperatures.
> 
> ...


No, but I am also interested in this, as we have a sprawling house with some rooms that are unoccupied all day. So any real world experience would be welcome.


----------



## Sideways (31 Oct 2021)

Krome10 said:


> Does it require the same amount of energy to heat water throughout the range of temperatures? So does 20 to 30c take the same energy as 90 to 100c?
> 
> Sorry if that's an obvious or stupid question but I really don't know!
> 
> I'm curious because I've got one of those kettles where you can select the desired temp...


Interestingly no.
As explained on a popular R4 science prog a couple of days ago, the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of water by 1 degree DOES vary with temperature but by less than 1%. An interesting question of cause or coincidence that the body temperature of most mammals is close to the point where water requires the least energy to raise it's temperature. So when we get cold, it's very slightly easier to warm us up than if we all ran at much higher or lower temperatures.
Thx to Quora for the chart below


----------



## John Brown (31 Oct 2021)

Sideways said:


> Interestingly no.
> As explained on a popular R4 science prog a couple of days ago, the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of water by 1 degree DOES vary with temperature but by less than 1%. An interesting question of cause or coincide that the body temperature of most mammals is close to the point where water requires the least energy to raise it's temperature. So when we get cold, it's very slightly easier to warm us up than if we all ran at much higher or lower temperatures.
> Thx to Quora for the chart below
> View attachment 120827


I didn't know that. Is this behaviour observed in other materials, or is it an anomaly of water, like its non-linear temperature/volume characteristics?


----------



## Jacob (31 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> I didn't know that. Is this behaviour observed in other materials, or is it an anomaly of water, like its non-linear temperature/volume characteristics?


It's called "specific heat" Specific heat capacity - Wikipedia


----------



## Stevekane (31 Oct 2021)

Chris152 said:


> If it's tea you're making, this might be useful (from The perfect water temperature for brewing tea | Tealovers.com )
> 
> General Guidelines
> Manufacturers will usually provide temperature guidelines for you to follow but if these are not available the following general guidelines can be used:
> ...


Interesting, I knew about the coffee but not the tea water temps, and weve just bought an Aldi elect kettle that allows you to preset the temp, there is a digital readout on the top and it switches off automatically,,,,however our impression of well brewed supermarket teabag tea is that using water thats been allowed to go off the boil gives it a horrible taste! Maybe we need to experiment with it.
Steve.


----------



## John Brown (31 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> It's called "specific heat" Specific heat capacity - Wikipedia


Thanks, Jacob, I knew that, but always believed it to be a constant. I guess it's close enough to a constant for most practical purposes.


----------



## Droogs (31 Oct 2021)

croft36 said:


> I know of someone who drank a lot, he didn’t know he had diabetes until it was too late. Just saying (lol).


They discovered I had the dreaded type 2 while they treated me for osteomyelitis in the summer. Apparently my pancreas had packed in due to the massive liver damage caused by my hemochromatosis and had been that way for a couple of years. Also explained why I keep needing to have a massive pee every time I get to the wksp due to the temp change when you go in.


----------



## Jacob (31 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> It's called "specific heat" Specific heat capacity - Wikipedia





John Brown said:


> Thanks, Jacob, I knew that, but always believed it to be a constant. I guess it's close enough to a constant for most practical purposes.


Yes, until you hit "phase changes" of ice at 0º to water at 0º, or water at 100º to steam at 100º, and a very large amount of heat is required, known as "latent heat". x 79.7 for ice to water and x 533 for water to vapour. Latent Heat of Water


----------



## hairy (31 Oct 2021)

Opening the window was indeed a tongue in cheek comment on reducing condensation if leaving the bath water in until it dropped to room temperature. But that is the reality because it makes the bathroom too moist IMHO. But I was just thinking if I cut something like a bin bag to the water surface outline then the heat could escape but condensation wouldn't while the plastic floated on the surface? I'll try that next month.

We currently have a cheap, lightweight plastic kettle so combined with the £30 flask is not expensive compared to an insulated kettle. The biggest benefit that still makes me smile to realise it is I'm not waiting for the kettle every time I make a brew. A full kettle is two brews in the flask for later and one mug full now.

But it seems I've been making tea wrong all this time from Chris152 so I need to buy a temperature varying kettle immediately! How long will another £50 on a kettle that does that take to pay for itself if I only heat water to 80 dgrees C instead of boiling?

Another thing I do is always have a super strong filter coffee in the morning plus a tea. I make them both at the same time, the coffee using an MSR mugmate or the equivalent cheaper knock off filter in the mug. That goes in an insulated mug so that by the time I've finished the tea the coffee has cooled to just right  I did buy a Melita coffee maker with an insulated pot which works well but doesn't make as nice a drink. I also discovered that I shouldn't have that coffee before going to the Drs because otherwise he thinks my blood pressure requires medication!


----------



## Droogs (31 Oct 2021)

Tea is amazing stuff, I have to drink it as I eat as it's tannin content reduces my absorbtion of iron by as much as 30%, it has been used as a preservative for specimens in glass jars and according to a very interesting documentary I saw years ago is basically responsible for Britain leading the industrial revolution and not any other european power. Down to the fact they all drank coffee and we drank tea, which meant we were boiling our drinking water and they weren't. This then actually allowed us to create much denser conurbations with less risk of disease and that meant we had a more concentrated industrial workforce/base in much larger cities. Apparently by the time of the Franco-Prussian war London was 4 times the size and Birmingham twice as large as any other cities and all down to drinking tea.

I really wish I could find that programme again.

OOH OOH found it





__





Tea and the Industrial Revolution






www.alanmacfarlane.com













BBC Two - Why the Industrial Revolution Happened Here, The Consumer Revolution


An 18th century porcelain tea service




www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Stevekane (31 Oct 2021)

hairy said:


> Opening the window was indeed a tongue in cheek comment on reducing condensation if leaving the bath water in until it dropped to room temperature. But that is the reality because it makes the bathroom too moist IMHO. But I was just thinking if I cut something like a bin bag to the water surface outline then the heat could escape but condensation wouldn't while the plastic floated on the surface? I'll try that next month.
> 
> We currently have a cheap, lightweight plastic kettle so combined with the £30 flask is not expensive compared to an insulated kettle. The biggest benefit that still makes me smile to realise it is I'm not waiting for the kettle every time I make a brew. A full kettle is two brews in the flask for later and one mug full now.
> 
> ...



But it seems I've been making tea wrong all this time from Chris152 so I need to buy a temperature varying kettle immediately! How long will another £50 on a kettle that does that take to pay for itself if I only heat water to 80 dgrees C instead of boiling?
Lidls plastic kettle with temp selection, were very pleased with it and it was £19.99 with a 3 yrs g/tee,,,
Steve.


----------



## Spectric (31 Oct 2021)

Adam W. said:


> I have a system boiler with a 30L tank and the pump runs all the time.


I assume you are talking about hot water recirculation where due to long pipe runs there is a noticable delay from opening the tap to getting hot water with an associated waste of water. Running a pump constant is not ideal, have you thought about adding some control like a temperature sensor so the pump only runs when the pipe temperature falls below a threshold or a pressure sensor that detects when the tap is opened.


----------



## Adam W. (31 Oct 2021)

That's right.

The pump uses 5W, so it's not a problem compared to the waste in water and heat. It might even be on a timer which switches it off between 11pm and comes on at 5:30 am, but I can't remember if it is or not.

If it's on a pressure sensor, we'd still be wasting the water and heat. A temperature sensor would be a good option, but it's not something I've thought about and as the run is long it'd probably be on all the time anyway.

We were wasting about 2.5L of hot water every time we ran the hot kitchen and bathroom tap, now we waste none. That worked out to be a saving of about 50L of hot water, which was just thrown away per day for our family of 4.


----------



## Ozi (31 Oct 2021)

Adam W. said:


> That's right.
> 
> The pump uses 5W, so it's not a problem compared to the waste in water and heat. It might even be on a timer which switches it off between 11pm and comes on at 5:30 am, but I can't remember if it is or not.
> 
> ...


While we are worrying about the third decimal place of a penny it's worth noting that some of the 5W goes to heat the water so not all is lost


----------



## Adam W. (31 Oct 2021)

Let's also take into account that water and gas prices are much higher in DK than they are in the UK.

Infact, gas is twice the price and DK has one of the highest water prices in the world.

I reckon I save £250 or more per year, including the running of the pump but my maths might be off a bit.
Re worked it a bit.


----------



## John Brown (31 Oct 2021)

Droogs said:


> Tea is amazing stuff, I have to drink it as I eat as it's tannin content reduces my absorbtion of iron by as much as 30%, it has been used as a preservative for specimens in glass jars and according to a very interesting documentary I saw years ago is basically responsible for Britain leading the industrial revolution and not any other european power. Down to the fact they all drank coffee and we drank tea, which meant we were boiling our drinking water and they weren't. This then actually allowed us to create much denser conurbations with less risk of disease and that meant we had a more concentrated industrial workforce/base in much larger cities. Apparently by the time of the Franco-Prussian war London was 4 times the size and Birmingham twice as large as any other cities and all down to drinking tea.
> 
> I really wish I could find that programme again.
> 
> ...


William Cobbett thought that tea drinking ushered in an age of reduced productivity, since people sat round waiting for the kettle to boil, instead of just drinking beer, as they had hitherto done.


----------



## John Brown (31 Oct 2021)

Jacob said:


> Yes, until you hit "phase changes" of ice at 0º to water at 0º, or water at 100º to steam at 100º, and a very large amount of heat is required, known as "latent heat". x 79.7 for ice to water and x 533 for water to vapour. Latent Heat of Water


Thanks, Jacob, that has been mentioned before, although I also remembered it from skool. It was the graph showing the specific heat variation with respect to temperature that surprised me.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (31 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> It was the graph showing the specific heat variation with respect to temperature that surprised me.



It's worth pointing out again that the SHC varies by less than 1% - I think it's about 0.72%. For most applications you can regard it as a constant.


----------



## Sandyn (31 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> electricity is so much dearer than gas.


I still have the original gas pipe work for some of the gas lighting in my house, but I'm not going back to gas lighting


----------



## John Brown (31 Oct 2021)

Sandyn said:


> I still have the original gas pipe work for some of the gas lighting in my house, but I'm not going back to gas lighting


Yes, I had the pipe work in my last house. I wouldn't go back to it either. I honestly have no idea as to the relative efficiency/economy of gas lantel lighting versus incandescent electric. Obviously the gas is more dangerous and a giant hassle. Dimmable though...


----------



## Sandyn (31 Oct 2021)

John Brown said:


> I honestly have no idea as to the relative efficiency/economy of gas lantel lighting versus incandescent electric.


apparently, about 2 lumens/W for a gas mantle lamp and 1 lumen/W for an open flame gas lamp. A candle is about 12.5 lumens.


----------



## John Brown (31 Oct 2021)

Sandyn said:


> apparently, about 2 lumens/W for a gas mantle lamp and 1 lumen/W for an open flame gas lamp. A candle is about 12.5 lumens.


Ok. So LED is apparently 30 to 90 lumens per watt.
I think I I'll stick with LED lighting and gas heating for now.


----------



## Misterdog (31 Oct 2021)

Sandyn said:


> It just seemed like common sense to me that incandescent lamps are just heaters which give off some light, 10% light and 90% heat, so if you change to LED, 60% light 40% heat (that's overall efficiency) you are reducing the amount of heat produced. If the house temperature is controlled and remains the same, the CH will have to supply the difference, so savings will be minimal.



True but if you install underfloor heating you are heating the area you inhabit and not the ceiling.


----------



## Sandyn (1 Nov 2021)

Misterdog said:


> if you install underfloor heating you are heating the area you inhabit and not the ceiling.


But, if you have a room upstairs, the ceiling lights act as underfloor heating .
I always considered heat from lighting units to go into the fabric of the house, so not a bad thing, but generally, it's better if you don't have energy pollution, where one system interferes with another such as light and heat, then each can be controlled better. 
I do believe that a lot of companies made an absolute fortune from the forced introduction of LED. I suppose that worldwide they do save power??? I'm very cynical about new technology as a way of saving the planet. There is too much money involved for the truth to be revealed. Electric cars are an example. I am not convinced it is a solution. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a champion of clean air and renewable energy, was interviewed on the BBC . Quote the site...." Mr Schwarzenegger also believes technology is delivering solutions and cites his Hummer - a massive military style off-road vehicle - that he switched from diesel to battery power as evidence, given *the electric version goes faster with more horsepower*. " I think he moved from about 400Hp to 1000hp. That may be fine in CA where they have 95% renewable energy, but he has increased pollution by going electric! World wide, only about 28% of energy is renewable, so this kind of thinking is not going to solve problems.


----------



## Sandyn (1 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> So LED is apparently 30 to 90 lumens per watt.


 Getting well above that now with Samsung apparently 220 lumens per watt!!


----------



## Misterdog (1 Nov 2021)

Sandyn said:


> I'm very cynical about new technology as a way of saving the planet. There is too much money involved for the truth to be revealed.



I agree entirely, the issue is not how we heat our homes or power our cars, more that we use both too much.

though regarding the light issue, I only heat the downstairs living rooms. And I insulated the ceilings of these.

Much of this new technology is just to provide something new to sell us in my opinion. The stop start system in my car adds 20Kg to it's weight. 
All the components add a fortune in cost for repairs.
If you drive mainly medium/long journeys the additional weight of the car is actually creating pollution.

During the oil crisis in the 1970's we were told to reduce the weight carried in our cars to improve economy.
Now we are 'told' that carrying that extra weight is 'saving the planet'.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (1 Nov 2021)

Sandyn said:


> I think he moved from about 400Hp to 1000hp. That may be fine in CA where they have 95% renewable energy, but he has increased pollution by going electric!



I don't think that necessarily follows, for a number of reasons:

We don't know that he was previously regularly using 400hp, or that he is now regularly using 1000hp
The silly-sounding power levels of some electric cars is less about accelerating, and more about regenerative braking - to achieve lots of the latter you inherently end up with lots of the former; a Hummer is very heavy so can make use of a lot of regenerative braking
Generating electricity is almost always cleaner than delivering the same amount of energy as petrol - refining the latter is very energy intensive



Misterdog said:


> During the oil crisis in the 1970's we were told to reduce the weight carried in our cars to improve economy.
> Now we are 'told' that carrying that extra weight is 'saving the planet'.



There is an obvious difference between, say, 80kg of just-more-car, and 80kg of hybrid system that is used to store the energy that would otherwise be lost to heat when braking so it can instead be used to accelerate the car again. The former definitely hurts energy efficiency (more energy taken to accelerate, more energy lost in braking); the latter, especially in stop-start traffic, definitely improves it.


----------



## Misterdog (1 Nov 2021)

The number of cars on UK roads has risen by 5.5 million in the last 20 years, so in 20 years time it will be more a case of stop/stop rather than stop/start.

As people will be just driving around trying to find somewhere to park.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (1 Nov 2021)

We don't know that that rate of increase will continue, just as it turned out that disposable razors didn't result in a singularity in 2015, when they'd have an infinite number of blades (as predicted by curve-fitting the Gillette Safety Razor, the Trac II, Mach3, Quattro, and Fusion).


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2021)

Sandyn said:


> ......... I'm very cynical about new technology as a way of saving the planet. .....


Agree. There will be new technology but the big issue is the massive change of life style without fossil fuel. In the meantime chatter about EVs and heat pumps is so much hot air and barely relevant. Worse than that it's a distraction from the real issues.
We'll know that things are taking a turn when we start hearing about fuel rationing, 50mph speed limits, high taxation on meat products, bans on import/export of all manner of products particularly meat, and fuels, no new coal mines or oilfields etc etc


----------



## Misterdog (1 Nov 2021)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> We don't know that that rate of increase will continue, just as it turned out that disposable razors didn't result in a singularity in 2015, when they'd have an infinite number of blades (as predicted by curve-fitting the Gillette Safety Razor, the Trac II, Mach3, Quattro, and Fusion).





The population of the UK is projected to increase by 3.0 million (4.5%) in the first 10 years of the projections, from an estimated 66.4 million in mid 2018 to 69.4 million in mid 2028.
So the number of vehicles is likely to continue to grow, I suspect at a similar rate.

Razor blade sales will probably also grow.


----------



## cowtown_eric (1 Nov 2021)

and here I am trying to convince my wife that we need two dishwashers.....onne for dirty dishes, and the other having clean dishes in it. Saves putting them into the cupboards!!!!!


----------



## Spectric (1 Nov 2021)

Misterdog said:


> The population of the UK is projected to increase by 3.0 million (4.5%) in the first 10 years of the projections, from an estimated 66.4 million in mid 2018 to 69.4 million in mid 2028.


Have you taken into account the governments acceptable covid deaths, upto 200 a day is ok so that will reduce numbers by about 70,000 a year and then some of those could have reproduced so could be higher.


----------



## Misterdog (1 Nov 2021)

Swings and rowing boats.



> More than 1,100 people made the perilous journey across the Channel in small boats on Friday and Saturday, as France accused Britain of failing to provide funds promised to tackle the problem.











1,100 migrants cross Channel on small boats to UK in two days


Crossings take place as French minister accuses UK of failing to pay promised £55m to tackle the problem




www.theguardian.com





There were at least 20,000 deaths from influenza in one year under Tony Blair



> Very high levels of flu were seen in 1999/00, when there were 48,000 excess winter deaths



Highest number of excess winter deaths since 1999/2000 - Office for National Statistics

The figures I quoted for population increase were from the ONS.


----------



## hairy (1 Nov 2021)

I recently watched Jordan Peterson and Michael Shellenberger talking about the latters book Apocalypse Never.

Hopefully it was within that it was said it's not so much big industry eating the rainforest for instance but the very poor on the edges hacking a subsistance lifestyle. The poor consume proportionally more energy, so the faster their standard of life is improved the less pollution and wood burning will happen. Therefore e.g. all the coal in India should be burnt as soon as possible to lift everyone out of poverty as fast as possible to get to a position of polluting less. Not what will be imminently coming from Glasgow I am sure, an interesting thought however.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2021)

This is total nonsense - the opposite of the truth.


hairy said:


> ..... it's not so much big industry eating the rainforest for instance but the very poor on the edges hacking a subsistance lifestyle. The poor consume proportionally more energy, so the faster their standard of life is improved the less pollution and wood burning will happen. .....


The big problem is pasture and cattle feed. The poor are _*losing*_ their _*low carbon*_ livelihood as a result.








Deforestation in the Amazon


Background on why the Amazon is being deforested




rainforests.mongabay.com




CO2 production is very much due to the wealthier parts of the population.
n.b. Shellenberger and Peterson are widely regarded as idiots
Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger » Yale Climate Connections


----------



## John Brown (1 Nov 2021)

Misterdog said:


> The population of the UK is projected to increase by 3.0 million (4.5%) in the first 10 years of the projections, from an estimated 66.4 million in mid 2018 to 69.4 million in mid 2028.
> So the number of vehicles is likely to continue to grow, I suspect at a similar rate.
> 
> Razor blade sales will probably also grow.


I suspect you might have missed the point with regards to the razor blade reference.


----------



## Chris152 (1 Nov 2021)

hairy said:


> Therefore e.g. all the coal in India should be burnt as soon as possible to lift everyone out of poverty as fast as possible to get to a position of polluting less. Not what will be imminently coming from Glasgow I am sure, an interesting thought however.


Isn't that a bit like driving as fast as possible in search of a petrol station because you're running out of fuel?


----------



## Sandyn (1 Nov 2021)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> I don't think that necessarily follows, for a number of reasons:


Yes, I understand and agree, my point was more that we are focusing too much on getting vehicles electric without putting any limit of the power they consume. Who *really* needs a 1000hp heavy Hummer apart from the army? 
Electric vehicles have a comparatively long charge time, so a lot of people will just have a spare car, so one is always charged. As I said before. There is HUGE money involved. The car companies must be rubbing their hands in glee. Just like LED lighting, electric cars have been thrown in the ring as a solution. I don't think they are. It's just paying lip service to the real problem and takes attention away from better solutions....Think I've been listening to wee Greetin Greta too much!! I have grown to admire her.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (1 Nov 2021)

I absolutely agree that the focus should be on reducing consumption. But a 1000hp electric car can be more efficient than a 100hp electric car, because the larger motors scavenge more energy in regenerative braking. The problem with the hummer isn't the 1000hp, its the 3500kg.

We may be agreeing in different directions!


----------



## Misterdog (1 Nov 2021)

Though if you drive conscientiously you maintain momentum and this regenerative braking that you are so fond of has far less effect.

Advanced Driving Courses | Improve your road skills with BSM

Though cycling/walking/public transport has an even more beneficial effect.


----------



## John Brown (1 Nov 2021)

Misterdog said:


> Though if you drive conscientiously you maintain momentum and this regenerative braking that you are so fond of has far less effect.
> 
> Advanced Driving Courses | Improve your road skills with BSM
> 
> Though cycling/walking/public transport has an even more beneficial effect.


That's true, but most people don't they accelerate fast and brake late and hard.


----------



## Sandyn (1 Nov 2021)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> But a 1000hp electric car can be more efficient than a 100hp electric car, because the larger motors scavenge more energy in regenerative braking.


yes. I appreciate that, but it would need to be one hell of an inefficient 100hp motor to use more than the 1000hp.  that's getting in the combustion engine range!!


----------



## Droogs (1 Nov 2021)

This is interesting


----------



## Just4Fun (2 Nov 2021)

Vann said:


> Obviously every tap is different but, I experimented with one hot water tap in our house that took ages to warm. I measured 7 pints before the flowing water changed from cold to warm.


I am currently having some issues with my hot water system. As part of my diagnostics I have today measured the hot water temperature at the kitchen tap. I drew off 1 litre and measured its temperature, drew off another litre and measured its temperature, and so on. I did this first thing in the morning before any taps had been used. The first litre was 19.9 degrees celsius. I had to draw off 21 litres before the temperature reached 36.6 celsius which I regarded as body temperature.
The kitchen tap is a mixer tap (a real one which actually mixes hot & cold water, not the imitations you get in the UK). I had it fully left to get just hot water but I wonder if it is nevertheless mixing in some cold water. I will try again tomorrow morning with the cold supply turned off to check that.

The really depressing thing is that our hot water is on a loop, and the kitchen tap is the first outlet on the loop. Other outlets are progressively further around the loop so will require more water to be drawn off before getting warm.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (2 Nov 2021)

Misterdog said:


> Though if you drive conscientiously you maintain momentum and this regenerative braking that you are so fond of has far less effect.



No fondness, just correcting some woolly thinking.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (2 Nov 2021)

Sandyn said:


> yes. I appreciate that, but it would need to be one hell of an inefficient 100hp motor to use more than the 1000hp.  that's getting in the combustion engine range!!



It's not that it's using more. It's that the larger motor recovers more, so in a heavy vehicle the overall efficiency is likely to be better with a more powerful motor. Perhaps 500hp vs 1000hp might be a better comparison, or 100hp vs 200hp.


----------



## Krome10 (2 Nov 2021)

Chris152 said:


> Isn't that a bit like driving as fast as possible in search of a petrol station because you're running out of fuel?



Seeing as we're dreaming up hyperbolic unrealistic scenarios just to illustrate a point, I've got another one....

People chasing oil tankers and/or visiting umpteen petrol stations to top up their tanks.

Oh, hang on...


----------



## hairy (2 Nov 2021)

Chris152 said:


> Isn't that a bit like driving as fast as possible in search of a petrol station because you're running out of fuel?


But if when you get to the petrol station they swap you for a better less poluting model then the sooner you get there the sooner your pollution output will drop and your standard of living may increase. 
If India stop burning wood and dung and turn to coal the suggestion is less pollution will result in the long term, less time spent gathering the fuel (and you don't need as big a family labour source to do all these hard menial jobs), more time to improve their lives to a point where they can maybe connect to a grid which generates electricity cleanly.


----------



## hairy (2 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> This is total nonsense - the opposite of the truth.
> The big problem is pasture and cattle feed. The poor are _*losing*_ their _*low carbon*_ livelihood as a result.
> 
> 
> ...


I said pollution not CO2. That book and another Peterson discussed, "Ten global trends that every smart person needs to know" by Bailey, at least paint some aspects of todays world in a positive light. Depressed emotional teenagers may not win over the majority, the msm have not shown themselves in the best light recently to many, a more positive opinion wouldn't hurt perhaps?


----------



## Jacob (2 Nov 2021)

hairy said:


> But if when you get to the petrol station they swap you for a better less poluting model then the sooner you get there the sooner your pollution output will drop and your standard of living may increase.
> If India stop burning wood and dung and turn to coal the suggestion is less pollution will result in the long term, less time spent gathering the fuel (and you don't need as big a family labour source to do all these hard menial jobs), more time to improve their lives to a point where they can maybe connect to a grid which generates electricity cleanly.


Nonsense again. Third world economies are always very low carbon. The big issue is the wealthy part of the world and massive per capita energy use from coal and oil generated electricity and oil base fuel.


----------



## hairy (2 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Nonsense again. Third world economies are always very low carbon. The big issue is the wealthy part of the world and massive per capita energy use from coal and oil generated electricity and oil base fuel.


Pollution not CO2.
Thrid World countries do not want to be low carbon, they will burn every source of energy to get to where we are. The quicker they get there in the least poluting way the better surely?


----------



## Jacob (2 Nov 2021)

hairy said:


> I said pollution not CO2. That book and another Peterson discussed, "Ten global trends that every smart person needs to know" by Bailey, at least paint some aspects of todays world in a positive light. Depressed emotional teenagers may not win over the majority, the msm have not shown themselves in the best light recently to many, a more positive opinion wouldn't hurt perhaps?


Pollution isn't the issue except in dense populated areas or immediate vicinity of industrial scale fuel use.
Yes there's all sorts of positives in many ways life has never been better for most people.
This is another optimistic book well worth reading Humankind: A Hopeful History by Rutger Bregman review – a tribute to our better nature.
But everything is overshadowed by climate change - this is the big issue.


----------



## Jacob (2 Nov 2021)

hairy said:


> Pollution not CO2.
> Thrid World countries do not want to be low carbon, they will burn every source of energy to get to where we are. The quicker they get there in the least poluting way the better surely?


No - because of the CO2. More likely that the sooner we get back to 3rd world levels of energy consumption, the better. Not necessarily 3rd world standards of living we have all sorts of other advantages.


----------



## Chris152 (2 Nov 2021)

hairy said:


> But if when you get to the petrol station ...


My point was that speeding up to get to the petrol station makes it more likely you'll run out of fuel and not get there. 

But on the bigger point, keep burning fossil fuels as fast as possible until the 1/10th of the world's population that lives in extreme poverty (to take just the very poorest, as a start) are no longer in extreme poverty? How long is that going to take, and how much more damage will it do? I've not watched the video as I find Peterson rather annoying - he doesn't search for the truth in matters so much as attempt to cook up arguments that support his politics. Not a good way to proceed.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (2 Nov 2021)

I need some help with energy storage. I have many solar panels looking for a use, but I want to store energy for use after dark. Batteries would be logical, but they cost an arm and a leg and don't last forever. I have space for a contraption and lots of height (say 20 metres) for using gravity. I'm looking for 10 kWh of storage with perhaps 1kw of power required at any given time, although I would want to store up to 10kW of power input if possible (you would think a 10kw motor required, which is pretty big) - any ideas? I'm thinking of a motor/generator lifting several tons of rocks and cement on a railway track, then running backwards downhill to generate power. Or water, but you need 18 cubic metres of water per kWh plus a seperate 10kW pump to get it back up the hill. I already have one 250 cubic metre pond and it is huge - don't want another one.

The problem with electricity is that we don't really comprehend just how much power we use with gay abandon and how difficult it is to both create and store.


----------



## Jacob (2 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> I need some help with energy storage. I have many solar panels looking for a use, but I want to store energy for use after dark. Batteries would be logical, but they cost an arm and a leg and don't last forever. I have space for a contraption and lots of height (say 20 metres) for using gravity. I'm looking for 10 kWh of storage with perhaps 1kw of power required at any given time, although I would want to store up to 10kW of power input if possible (you would think a 10kw motor required, which is pretty big) - any ideas? I'm thinking of a motor/generator lifting several tons of rocks and cement on a railway track, then running backwards downhill to generate power. Or water, but you need 18 cubic metres of water per kWh plus a seperate 10kW pump to get it back up the hill. I already have one 250 cubic metre pond and it is huge - don't want another one.
> 
> The problem with electricity is that we don't really comprehend just how much power we use with gay abandon and how difficult it is to both create and store.


Good idea!
Known as"gravity battery"









Technology - Gravity energy storage system | Gravitricity technology


Gravitricity’s gravity energy storage system is based on a simple principle: raising and lowering a heavy weight to store and release energy. See it in action




gravitricity.com










Gravity battery - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




.


----------



## Cabinetman (2 Nov 2021)

I hadn’t realised how far on and clever some of this stuff is, even more delighted to see that it’s so simple!
Lets just hope we don’t run out of gravity!
Quite ironic using coal mine shafts.


----------



## woodieallen (2 Nov 2021)

Krome10 said:


> Seeing as we're dreaming up hyperbolic unrealistic scenarios just to illustrate a point, I've got another one....
> 
> People chasing oil tankers and/or visiting umpteen petrol stations to top up their tanks.
> 
> Oh, hang on...


Or watching a WVM (white van man) crazily cutting in and out, forcig into tiny gaps, watching all the cars behind having to brake, a danger to all and sundry.....only to see the silly person pull into a garage for petrol 3 miles down the road.


----------



## Oakay (2 Nov 2021)

Sandyn said:


> But, if you have a room upstairs, the ceiling lights act as underfloor heating .
> I always considered heat from lighting units to go into the fabric of the house, so not a bad thing, but generally, it's better if you don't have energy pollution, where one system interferes with another such as light and heat, then each can be controlled better.
> I do believe that a lot of companies made an absolute fortune from the forced introduction of LED. I suppose that worldwide they do save power??? I'm very cynical about new technology as a way of saving the planet. There is too much money involved for the truth to be revealed. Electric cars are an example. I am not convinced it is a solution. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a champion of clean air and renewable energy, was interviewed on the BBC . Quote the site...." Mr Schwarzenegger also believes technology is delivering solutions and cites his Hummer - a massive military style off-road vehicle - that he switched from diesel to battery power as evidence, given *the electric version goes faster with more horsepower*. " I think he moved from about 400Hp to 1000hp. That may be fine in CA where they have 95% renewable energy, but he has increased pollution by going electric! World wide, only about 28% of energy is renewable, so this kind of thinking is not going to solve problems.


"I'm very cynical about new technology as a way of saving the planet." Sandyn, do you ride a horse or have a car these days? Could you imagine all the horse poo on the roads if everybody had a horse instead of a car  New technology is relative for each generation.


----------



## Sandyn (2 Nov 2021)

Oakay said:


> "I'm very cynical about new technology as a way of saving the planet." Sandyn, do you ride a horse or have a car these days?



I have nothing against new technology. I just don't think electric cars will be the saviour that a lot of people think they will be, unless there is a limit on the power they can consume. I think electric cars are great. I don't have a horse, but look here you might be on to something


----------



## CornishWoodworker (3 Nov 2021)

I use a table top hot water machine. Have been using for over 5 years.
Can select 35, 55,85 or 100 degrees and 100,200,300ml or continous.
No wasted water or boiling surplus
Still have a kettle if I need larger one off quantities.


----------



## okeydokey (3 Nov 2021)

Now a VW Golf is about 147 horsepower - perhaps we should give up electric/petrol/diesel cars and have a Golf pulled by 147 horses - or perhaps and maybe I've got it a bit wrong somewhere?


----------



## Misterdog (3 Nov 2021)

The original postwar production VW air-cooled engine displaced 1,100cc and made 25 horsepower. VW soon enlarged the engine to 1,200cc and *36 horsepower*. VW later boosted the 1,200cc engine to 40 horsepower. 

Maybe we need too many horses these days, My long wheelbase hi roof Transit van has 90BHP.

Warmer homes, faster cars, more exotic holidays abroad, fresh strawberries and roses flown in from Africa for Xmas.

We need technology to fix the climate crisis, because we deserve all of the above.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (3 Nov 2021)

Car engine power is measured by break horse power. 147 broken horses probably equates to 20 fit ones. A small yard tractor would be 20 to 30hp, which gives some idea of how mechanisation improved farming productivity. The good news is that Cop21 is banning agriculture, so we won't need horses any more.


----------



## Fitzroy (3 Nov 2021)

hairy said:


> Opening the window was indeed a tongue in cheek comment on reducing condensation if leaving the bath water in until it dropped to room temperature. But that is the reality because it makes the bathroom too moist IMHO. But I was just thinking if I cut something like a bin bag to the water surface outline then the heat could escape but condensation wouldn't while the plastic floated on the surface? I'll try that next month.
> 
> We currently have a cheap, lightweight plastic kettle so combined with the £30 flask is not expensive compared to an insulated kettle. The biggest benefit that still makes me smile to realise it is I'm not waiting for the kettle every time I make a brew. A full kettle is two brews in the flask for later and one mug full now.
> 
> ...



Heating a cup (300ml) of water to 100C vs 80C uses 25kJ more energy, which at 20pence/kWhr costs 0.14pence per cup. Paying off your kettle depends on how many cups of tea you drink and if you over fill your kettle or not. 
- 1 cup per day, heating just 300ml each time= 98yrs
- 3 cups per day, heating just 300ml each time = 32yrs 
- 1 cup per day, heating full kettle (1700)ml each time= 17yrs
- 3 cups per day, heating full kettle (1700)ml each time = 6yrs 

Now as others have stated, the excess heat from the kettle bleeds into the house so perhaps it offsets your heating bill, but your heating is likely gas which is cheaper than electric, but the heat may bleed in once you've left for work and the heating is not on so it is wasted, or perhaps your better half appears 5mins later and boils the kettle for themselves and the water is already hot so it saves some energy................ Overall though it is clear heating the minimum amount of water to lowest required temperature is the most efficient thing to do.


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2021)

Misterdog said:


> .......
> 
> Maybe we need too many horses these days, .....


Certainly do! 
I've had two diesels in recent years which have gone into "safe" mode - one because of an air filter the other particulate filter. Both times it meant loss of power and no RPM above 30k. One was on a long motorway trip - couldn't reach 70 except on downhills so max was about 60 average and slow acceleration. Result - got home half hour late but fuel consumption gone from 50mpg to nearly 70! Suits me fine I could do with a permanent safe mode vehicle and nobody else would lose anything much if we all had them too.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (3 Nov 2021)

We are simply profligate with energy because it is so cheap. Understand cheap in the context of how long it takes to earn the money at (say) £10 per hour after tax (a fairly modest income).

drive car and passengers totalling 2000kg 40 miles - cost ~£6, time ~36 mins
boil 1 litre of water when only 0.5 is needed - cost ~£0.02, time ~<1 min
cut short the morning shower by 5 minutes - cost ~£0.15, time ~1-2 min
filling the dishwasher efficiently to reduce by 1 load - £0.30, time ~2 mins
get the kids to walk a mile to school - cost ~£0.15, time ~2 mins
Compare the cost with other routine expenditure - eg: buy a shirt for £20 - time ~2 hours, meal out for 2 £40, time ~4 hours, Netflix sub ~£80 pa, time ~8 hours.

Reducing energy consumption will only come through a fundamental change in behaviour and habits. The individual cost of day to day energy use is completely trivial. But saving £1 a day through the accumulation of the trivial becomes worthwhile.

Reducing consumption is a win-win - it will result in either lower investment costs for new green energy, or lower emisssion from existing sources if green aspirations are unfulfilled.

How to do it - take lessons from the tobacco industry:

extensive marketing and information promoting the benefits of quitting energy - not health but community, humanity, pollution, for the kids etc
massive tax increases (2,3,4 times) on energy with balancing reductions in other taxes.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (3 Nov 2021)

Another way of looking at the energy in oil: HUMAN ENERGY

1 Barrel of Oil = 5,800,000 BTUs
Source: Louisiana Oil and Gas Association

1 Gallon of Gas = 125,000 BTUs
Source: US Department of Energy

1 Barrel of Oil thus contains the energy contained in 46.4 gallons of gas
(5,800,000 divided by 125,000 = 46.4 )

1 Gallon of Gas = 500 hours of human work output
Source: Calculations Done Above.

1 Barrel of Oil = 23,200 Hours of Human Work Output
(Energy equivalent of 46.4 gallons of gas per barrel of oil x 500 hours of human work output per gallon of gas = 23,2000 hours)
________________

I don't know if the above info is correct, but it makes the point regardless. Oil contains ludicrous amounts of energy. Replacing it is difficult, because nothing else has the same energy density. Not using oil is going to make us poorer, by definition. Poorer means reduced life expectancy. 

The equation comes down to:

How many people do you want to die now, to save how many lives at what point in the future?


----------



## Spectric (3 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> The problem with electricity is that we don't really comprehend just how much power we use with gay abandon and how difficult it is to both create and store.


The biggest problem is that we cannot create energy, we will always need energy to convert into some other form, ie electricity.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (3 Nov 2021)

Spectric said:


> The biggest problem is that we cannot create energy, we will always need energy to convert into some other form, ie electricity.


Yes of course! The laws of thermodynamics apply. 

Having said that, you know what I meant ;-)

All our energy is solar energy at its root. Even tidal energy, which could be construed as lunar, can be traced back to the sun. The abiotic oil theory is interesting, and apparently the reason why Russia has found so much oil in places it shouldn't exist, but it is definitely not subscribed to in the west. Not my area of expertise.


----------



## Geriatrix (3 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> 1 Barrel of Oil = 5,800,000 BTUs
> Source: Louisiana Oil and Gas Association
> 
> 1 Gallon of Gas = 125,000 BTUs
> ...



I assume this is tongue in cheek? I believe that sweet crude can produce a maximum of around 40% gasoline. Sour crude yields very little. The conversion is carried out in a refinery cracking plant. The principle is essentially distillation (as in whisky etc.) and requires a significant heat energy input. Many direct and indirect products are drawn from the cracking process. It's difficult to look around and not see at least several examples of day to day products originating from that barrel of crude. Much of that product ends up in landfill or the sea and stays there. You might get the energy for 500 hours of lifting a finger out of a gallon of gas, but I doubt if the energy would be available after the calories required to keep the human body alive for that period of time.

I don't believe we can turn the clock back (sadly), but unless humankind takes radical action we are all on a slippery slope to oblivion. So whilst I don't glue myself to the M25 with the crazies, I just hope that COP26 can achieve something a bit more creative than electric cars powered by energy stored in chemical batteries which are charged with energy from power stations using natural gas, oil or coal to power the generators. If you follow the energy conversion losses from the original chemical source through refinement, to heat energy for the refinery to electrical energy with the backwards and forwards paths and associated conversion and transmission losses, a gallon of gasoline from crude isn't going to keep your electric pride and joy motoring very far. So yes, let's go wind, wave and nuclear power based, but that's not the end of the story.... Corporate and human greed has to be defeated and COP26 is not likely to defeat that.


----------



## baldkev (3 Nov 2021)

8 pages?!?!?
I read page 1 before posting this, but it'll probably be a new comment...

If you are serious about saving electricty, see if your neighbour has an outdoor socket. Even if you have to buy an extension lead you will make your money back after about 300 kettle boils


----------



## baldkev (3 Nov 2021)

Geriatrix said:


> Corporate and human greed has to be defeated and COP26 is not likely to defeat that.



That was a heavy post! Very true though, one of the biggest problems these days is consumerism and our greed as well as corporate greed. By that i nean big companies wanting money and us just wanting 'stuff'.

I am a perfect example. When i am sat down at night, i often find myself searching for 'stuff'..... usually things i can live without or dont really need so now when i notice im doing it, i close down google ( or ebay )

The sheer list of things available now is absolutely crazy. Makita for instance do 4 or 5 battery mowers, a few different battery hedge cutters, 4? Battery Chainsaws, 721 different drills ( ok i made that up ) and now 18v coffee makers, fans, radios and who knows what else. We dont need all that choice.

Unfortunately I cant see an end to the impact we have on the planet.


----------



## baldkev (3 Nov 2021)

Ozi said:


> Does anyone else make tea in the micro wave. Not all the time you understand because that would be odd but I think it tastes better, don't nuke the tea just the water and be careful when you add it as it can over boil. I believe boiling the water in the kettle reduces the oxygen content and that effects the taste.
> 
> Why are so many of the people I meet sleep deprived?




You'll murder your microwave. A customer had a cleaning firm for their holiday let that used to put a cup of water in the microwave and buzz it until steaming, to make cleaning the microwave easier. It rusted out fairly quickly


----------



## Sandyn (3 Nov 2021)

Geriatrix said:


> It's difficult to look around and not see at least several examples of day to day products originating from that barrel of crude


One site says there are more than 6000 products derived from crude oil. I assume very little is wasted. When we move to electric vehicles and the consumption of petrol plummets, oil production will be cut. will that mean a shortage of plastics, butumen, lubricants??


----------



## Sandyn (3 Nov 2021)

This is interesting to watch. oil production by country 1965 to 2018.


----------



## Droogs (3 Nov 2021)

Sandyn said:


> One site says there are more than 6000 products derived from crude oil. I assume very little is wasted. When we move to electric vehicles and the consumption of petrol plummets, oil production will be cut. will that mean a shortage of plastics, butumen, lubricants??
> 
> 
> View attachment 121175


The sooner we get out of the Plastic age the better


----------



## Spectric (3 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Yes of course! The laws of thermodynamics apply.


It proves there is more inteligent people with common sense on these forums than in our government, they ignore scientist, re-arrange statistic's to suit their argument and come up with ideas without any concept of reality or feasability as to implementation. 



Geriatrix said:


> Corporate and human greed has to be defeated and COP26 is not likely to defeat that.


That is why such an easy problem to solve, ie global warming has become such a challenge, many people know what needs to be done but they just do not have the stamina or willpower. Be interesting to see if bumbling Borris leads by example or waits to follow, proposed new oilfield off Shetland and a coal mine in West Cumbria, neither should proceed if people are taking global warming seriously so if Borris lets them proceed then game on for everyone else.


----------



## Sandyn (3 Nov 2021)

Droogs said:


> The sooner we get out of the Plastic age the better


Wooden TV cabinets ?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (4 Nov 2021)

Spectric said:


> many people know what needs to be done but they just do not have the stamina or willpower.


I'm not convinced people do know what needs to be done. I'm between work this week so I watched the inestimable Boris explain that the UK will be fossil fuel free by some alarmingly close date to now. "What needs to be done" is effectively no more heating, no more fertiliser (no more green farming revolution), certainly no more travel for the untermensch (those still alive, anyway). Either the UK will just import more of everything from countries still using fossil fuels (with what wealth?) or do without. Doing without heat kills people. Doing without food kills people. Not doing the above means keep using fossil fuels, because there is no alternative. The amount of energy required to replace our current lifestyles is mind boggling, and not doable without oil. Allegedly (did I read this here or elsewhere?) a windmill produces enough energy over its lifetime to make two new windmills. Therefore you can double the number of windmills every 20 years or so, providing you don't use the energy for _anything_ else. 

To quote Sixth Sense, "I see dead people".


----------



## Ozi (4 Nov 2021)

baldkev said:


> You'll murder your microwave. A customer had a cleaning firm for their holiday let that used to put a cup of water in the microwave and buzz it until steaming, to make cleaning the microwave easier. It rusted out fairly quickly


Must have been a really cheep microwave, the inside of mine is stainless - I have been boiling water, cooking rice and pastor etc for years without a problem. 

When my son was about 8 he put pizza on a plastic plate in and left it running for 25 minutes - the fire didn't do that machine any good


----------



## baldkev (4 Nov 2021)

Ozi said:


> Must have been a really cheep microwave, the inside of mine is stainless - I have been boiling water, cooking rice and pastor etc for years without a problem.
> 
> When my son was about 8 he put pizza on a plastic plate in and left it running for 25 minutes - the fire didn't do that machine any good



Stainless?? Wow. All of ours have always been a coated thin steel, some last better than others. We had a morphy richards which got rusty because we had one of the microwave sterilisers for baby bottles.
I think the most ive ever spent on a microwave was about 180 quid and i wasnt too happy at that


----------



## Trainee neophyte (4 Nov 2021)

Geriatrix said:


> I assume this is tongue in cheek? I believe that sweet crude can produce a maximum of around 40% gasoline. Sour crude yields very little. The conversion is carried out in a refinery cracking plant. The principle is essentially distillation (as in whisky etc.) and requires a significant heat energy input


What you are talking about is energy return on energy invested (or eroi). If you set fire to an entire barrel of oil you will get an amount of heat energy; x number of BTUs, which will be the total amount of energy available. If you choose to perform complicated chemical reactions to make various different products, then yes the energy available is less because you threw some away to perform the alchemy. 

Our current pinnacle of achievement is dependent on a ratio of about 15 barrels of oil equivalent made available for every barrel of oil equivalent used in its extraction, refining and transport to end use. We are apparently achieving somewhat less than 15, and it's going to get a lot worse. This means there isn't enough energy left over for growth of the economy - hence all the expansion based on financial shenanigans and debt. Now that the green lobby has forced all the alternative energy into the system, along with turning the world economy off for a year, oil companies haven't looked for new fields to develop. We are going to run out of oil just because depleted fields won't be replaced. An enforced, artifical scarcity in other words. The talk is of $200 a barrel oil next year. World recession is guaranteed at about $80 per barrel. What could possibly go wrong?

The current gas price crisis is a good example of incompetence causing scarcity. There will be more of this. Fun times ahead.

On a brighter note, green energy storage might be closer than we think: These Concrete Gravity Trains May Solve the Energy Storage Problem

Low tech, therefore cheap and easy to make. It's a million to one chance, etc.


----------



## Fitzroy (4 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> I'm not convinced people do know what needs to be done. I'm between work this week so I watched the inestimable Boris explain that the UK will be fossil fuel free by some alarmingly close date to now. "What needs to be done" is effectively no more heating, no more fertiliser (no more green farming revolution), certainly no more travel for the untermensch (those still alive, anyway). Either the UK will just import more of everything from countries still using fossil fuels (with what wealth?) or do without. Doing without heat kills people. Doing without food kills people. Not doing the above means keep using fossil fuels, because there is no alternative. The amount of energy required to replace our current lifestyles is mind boggling, and not doable without oil. Allegedly (did I read this here or elsewhere?) a windmill produces enough energy over its lifetime to make two new windmills. Therefore you can double the number of windmills every 20 years or so, providing you don't use the energy for _anything_ else.
> 
> To quote Sixth Sense, "I see dead people".


Utter guff regards embodied energy in wind turbines. Most of the studies come back with an energy payback period of 7-9 months, vs a life span of 20+ yrs. So each turbine makes c. 28 times is embodied energy during its lifetime.


----------



## Ozi (4 Nov 2021)

baldkev said:


> Stainless?? Wow. All of ours have always been a coated thin steel, some last better than others. We had a morphy richards which got rusty because we had one of the microwave sterilisers for baby bottles.
> I think the most ive ever spent on a microwave was about 180 quid and i wasnt too happy at that


If you can spend a bit more and they last years, I'm on my 3rd since we got married, the first I gave away as we needed a bigger one than I'd had when single, fire took the second and I'm still using the 3rd - that covers 26 years of use.


----------



## Jacob (4 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> .... no more fertiliser (no more green farming revolution),....


The green farming revolution _means_ no more fertiliser. It's the solution, not a problem. "Regenerative Agriculture" is the future, with variations. Why Regenerative Agriculture? - Regeneration International


----------



## Ozi (4 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> I'm not convinced people do know what needs to be done. I'm between work this week so I watched the inestimable Boris explain that the UK will be fossil fuel free by some alarmingly close date to now. "What needs to be done" is effectively no more heating, no more fertiliser (no more green farming revolution), certainly no more travel for the untermensch (those still alive, anyway). Either the UK will just import more of everything from countries still using fossil fuels (with what wealth?) or do without. Doing without heat kills people. Doing without food kills people. Not doing the above means keep using fossil fuels, because there is no alternative. The amount of energy required to replace our current lifestyles is mind boggling, and not doable without oil. Allegedly (did I read this here or elsewhere?) a windmill produces enough energy over its lifetime to make two new windmills. Therefore you can double the number of windmills every 20 years or so, providing you don't use the energy for _anything_ else.
> 
> To quote Sixth Sense, "I see dead people".


This is a really hazy memory and may be wrong but I think the two windmills info came from an Island community who had previously generated electricity from Diesel until installing a wind turbine. They then payed for their electricity at a price intended to pay back the loan or possibly grant and pay for two replacements within the projected life of the first unit. My main memory was a reporter leaning into the wind struggling to interview two of the locals saying what happens when it's not windy and getting a look of complete incomprehension.


----------



## Jacob (4 Nov 2021)

Ozi said:


> If you can spend a bit more and they last years, I'm on my 3rd since we got married, the first I gave away as we needed a bigger one than I'd had when single, fire took the second and I'm still using the 3rd - that covers 26 years of use.


The stainless sink in my last house had been there for 20 years or so. The buyers did over the kitchen and I reclaimed it and used it for another 20 years. Eventually it was redundant and I had to scrap it but it was still usable. I could have put it outside behind the shed but I already had a huge catering double drainer double sink which is still there, probably 50 years old. Useful for gardening, paint stripping, other things.
Which brings me to my point - we are going to need something like wartime "Utility" standards for products, with no more throwaway consumerism. Stuff costing twice as much but lasting 10 times as long








Utility furniture - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## hairy (4 Nov 2021)

I've read that with both turbines and solar panels, most of which are made in China mostly using coal power, will produce the same amount of power in their lifetime as their manufacture requires. Big turbines have a very large oil lubrication requirement changed annually. The blades supposedly can't be recycled so will be chopped up and landfill. Even if a big turbines moving parts could be swapped out when it's worn out I bet 100 to 1 a bigger shinier one will be available so old will be binned.

I don't dispute that the above may be cobblers, and that there are very definitely alternative "facts" out there. You do not have to look very far to find experts disputing the MSM experts, all with accredited science behind them. My facts are better than your facts is about what it boils down to, and things like the infamous hockey stick graph don't give much weight to the MSM articles promoting that kind of "science".


----------



## Jacob (4 Nov 2021)

hairy said:


> I've read that with both turbines and solar panels, most of which are made in China mostly using coal power, will produce the same amount of power in their lifetime as their manufacture requires. Big turbines have a very large oil lubrication requirement changed annually. The blades supposedly can't be recycled so will be chopped up and landfill. Even if a big turbines moving parts could be swapped out when it's worn out I bet 100 to 1 a bigger shinier one will be available so old will be binned.


Cost and efficiency of renewable tech is improving in leaps and bounds - the future looks good. Looks Chinese as well come to think. 
They are now world leaders in sustainable technology and are winding back on coal. They needed it for the tech leap forwards. They are also the world leader in hydro electric generation Hydroelectricity in China - Wikipedia


> I don't dispute that the above may be cobblers, and that there are very definitely alternative "facts" out there. You do not have to look very far to find experts disputing the MSM experts, all with accredited science behind them. My facts are better than your facts is about what it boils down to, and things like the infamous hockey stick graph don't give much weight to the MSM articles promoting that kind of "science".


It boils down to who is right, not just a choice between options. 99% of the science community is behind climate change science and as science has an astonishing track record so far, these are obviously the people to listen to.
I agree it isn't easy to know what to think - there are a lot of opinionated people out there, not all nutters but still wrong about things.
MSM has always been behind the curve and the main source of CC scepticism. They are catching up slowly - we are seeing stuff on the TV now which would have provoked riots only a few years ago. Even David Attenborough was holding fire until quite recently.


----------



## hairy (4 Nov 2021)

This is an intersting picture with nice colours. It is titled as an energy flow chart for the UK in 2020 so I don't know if the figure for petroleum for instance is only including that imported to produce energy rather than made into something else?

But, as shown in nice big blocky shapes, to replace the UK gas and petroleum portions with hydro, wind and solar (shown currently as I think 3.3%) means planting many, many more windmills.



https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1006380/Energy_flow_chart_2020.pdf


----------



## Jacob (4 Nov 2021)

hairy said:


> This is an intersting picture with nice colours. It is titled as an energy flow chart for the UK in 2020 so I don't know if the figure for petroleum for instance is only including that imported to produce energy rather than made into something else?
> 
> But, as shown in nice big blocky shapes, to replace the UK gas and petroleum portions with hydro, wind and solar (shown currently as I think 3.3%) means planting many, many more windmills.
> 
> ...


Right! That looks interesting I'll have a look later!
Many more windmills and solar panels and insulation et etc but the big one will be change of behaviour e.g. the days of energy consuming personal transport are ending, get your bus pass now! Or roller skates?


----------



## hairy (4 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Cost and efficiency of renewable tech is improving in leaps and bounds - the future looks good. Looks Chinese as well come to think.
> They are now world leaders in sustainable technology and are winding back on coal. They needed it for the tech leap forwards. They are also the world leader in hydro electric generation Hydroelectricity in China - WikipediaIt boils down to who is right, not just a choice between options. 99% of the science community is behind climate change science and as science has an astonishing track record so far, these are obviously the people to listen to.
> I agree it isn't easy to know what to think - there are a lot of opinionated people out there, not all nutters but still wrong about things



China winding back on coal?? Winding back on their rate of expansion maybe!

The thing is that truth is not a majority sport. 99% can be wrong, science requires that it only takes one to be right. Today I don't see how a layman can know which is right if both sides of any argument are proven experts, especially if one lot quite clearly have their career on the line and are spouting the "facts" that happily tie in to their employers theme. Neil Ferguson as a good example who should have been put in a very deep dark hole after BSE. What he comes out with is given way too much weight, is also talking mostly cobblers but someone who peddles such cobblers is at the forefront of the UK Govt persuasion of the masses, and he all by himself undermines the official 99% we're correct view. Fauci the same, a proven under oath liar (edited to add, according to Sen. Paul at least) but still the official spokespronoun.


----------



## hairy (4 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> The green farming revolution _means_ no more fertiliser. It's the solution, not a problem. "Regenerative Agriculture" is the future, with variations. Why Regenerative Agriculture? - Regeneration International


Gabe Brown is well worth listening to. Creating soil with no dig, no weedkiller, no funghicide, combining continuous live root structure with cash crops and grazing giving more profit for less input. Also Dr Elaine Ingham on how to build soil health.


----------



## Droogs (4 Nov 2021)

Ozi said:


> I have been boiling water, cooking rice and pastor etc for years without a problem.
> 
> When my son was about 8 he put pizza on a plastic plate in and left it running for 25 minutes - the fire didn't do that machine any good


I hate to think what you do when the JW come round!


----------



## Ozi (4 Nov 2021)

Droogs said:


> I hate to think what you do when the JW come round!


Ooops


----------



## Spectric (4 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> The green farming revolution _means_ no more fertiliser. It's the solution, not a problem.


That was the way farming used to be done, it worked because enough food could be produced to support the population of the time but now we are so heavily overpopulated we rely on intensive farming. This is farming in overdrive, working under stress to meet required volumes whilst trying to be cost effective.



Trainee neophyte said:


> I'm not convinced people do know what needs to be done. I'm between work this week so I watched the inestimable Boris explain that the UK will be fossil fuel free by some alarmingly close date to now.


A lot of people are playing osterich with their heads in the sand and buttocks in the air pretending all is well and that some miracle in technology will come along and solve the issue overnight. Borris does have the advantage that a former prime minister wiped out the coal industry and that the UK is no longer an industrial giant with huge power demands so that gives him a head start unlike China where as an industrial power house they will have much bigger problems.


----------



## Valhalla (4 Nov 2021)

The Sheriff said:


> I have been trying to get my better half to fill the kettle just after it has boiled, so the water gets to room temp ready for the next brew and thus save electricity; or so I thought !
> 
> Last night I measured 2 pints of water into the kettle and left overnight. The next morning I timed it to boil and auto shutoff - 2 minutes 41 seconds.
> 
> ...


Have you tried putting it in the airing cupboard overnight?


----------



## hairy (4 Nov 2021)

Spectric said:


> That was the way farming used to be done, it worked because enough food could be produced to support the population of the time but now we are so heavily overpopulated we rely on intensive farming. This is farming in overdrive, working under stress to meet required volumes whilst trying to be cost effective.



I would be interested in your reaction to the Gabe Brown vid I linked to above?

One of the Permaculture type books I read talked about when Paris was entirely self sufficient for food. I can't remember how long ago but 18thC maybe? As more people wanted to live in the city the land for growing was sold and used for housing, food production moved out to cheaper land further away. That was also when horses would be providing the fertiliser. But at a point when it was a bustling city it could operate with all it's food production within it. What if the authorities at the time allowed the city to grow with the same proportion of horticultural land to people? It could perhaps be like that now with inner city regeneration to arable as a sustainable proportion?

It's all ok when the threat of no solid fuel stove, £20K for a heat pump or even more for a new EV is just over the horizon rather than here today. What I can't see is where we will end up, or even where "they" think we're supposed to be heading for. If minimum (not minimal and according to your wallet) travel for us, food and everything is 100% the future then no-one can live rurally. Everyone will have to be in a city, foot traffic and pushbikes if you're lucky. The planet has thrived with much higher CO2 levels, what level of CO2 will be judged by others to be acceptable?


----------



## Jacob (4 Nov 2021)

hairy said:


> I would be interested in your reaction to the Gabe Brown vid I linked to above?
> 
> One of the Permaculture type books I read talked about when Paris was entirely self sufficient for food. I can't remember how long ago but 18thC maybe? As more people wanted to live in the city the land for growing was sold and used for housing, food production moved out to cheaper land further away. That was also when horses would be providing the fertiliser. But at a point when it was a bustling city it could operate with all it's food production within it. What if the authorities at the time allowed the city to grow with the same proportion of horticultural land to people? It could perhaps be like that now with inner city regeneration to arable as a sustainable proportion?
> 
> It's all ok when the threat of no solid fuel stove, £20K for a heat pump or even more for a new EV is just over the horizon rather than here today. What I can't see is where we will end up, or even where "they" think we're supposed to be heading for. If minimum (not minimal and according to your wallet) travel for us, food and everything is 100% the future then no-one can live rurally. Everyone will have to be in a city, foot traffic and pushbikes if you're lucky.





> The planet has thrived with much higher CO2 levels,


Homo Sapiens hasn't


> what level of CO2 will be judged by others to be acceptable?


For CO2 levels ask the science. They say 1.5 temp rise max. Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

1 Some food production moving back to the city in very unlikely places





How the future of farming lies in our inner-cities


Farming, it almost goes without saying, is not typically associated with cities. In fact, it’s near enough the opposite: very much a rural pursuit, rather




citymonitor.ai






innercityfarms.com










Keep Growing Detroit







detroitagriculture.net




2 But masses of work can be done from the country on-line as we have discovered.
3 Work may have to come back to small towns and villages - used to be that every village in UK had a post office, a grocer, local craft workers working locally etc etc. Much local produce available locally. Only 50 years ago. Post office and village stores both disappeared here only 4 years ago.


----------



## Spectric (4 Nov 2021)

hairy said:


> It's all ok when the threat of no solid fuel stove, £20K for a heat pump or even more for a new EV is just over the horizon rather than here today. What I can't see is where we will end up, or even where "they" think we're supposed to be heading for.


It is like the captain of the Titanic, initially going all out to get to his destination as fast as possible and then came the oh shiete moment when they hit the iceberg, we are in a slightly better position in that we are still really going all out to get somewhere but the iceberg is in clear sight, to close to steer round but apply the brakes and at worst you will just bump into it. This is really nothing more than control system theory, the earlier you detect a deviation from setpoint and react the less energy will be needed to correct, allow it to overshoot and fail to react soon enough then you will need vast energy to correct.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (4 Nov 2021)

The technology already exists to enable a zero carbon future, although some elements could clearly benefit from development. The issues to be overcome:

how to stimulate people to modify behaviours - rationing, legislation, force, taxation policies, market forces, etc. It may be a mix of strategies - but time is now of the essence making more extreme mandated measures more likely.
global populations continue to expand and seriously stress any transition. Without action to stabilise/reduce populations, efforts towards zero carbon and preserving the environment will be compromised.
applying significant resources to a zero carbon transition will deny funds to other activities. Short term needs and desires will need to be sacrificed for the long term goals.
Covid has demonstrated that when presented with a real and immediate threat, most (not all) people will make significant personal sacrifices in the interests of the community.

Zero carbon transition will take one or two decades, not one or two years. The community is global, not local/national. The UK, US, Western Europe etc have the infrastructure and wealth to adapt and mitigate (up to a point). Large parts of the world do not.

It's not looking good - we are on an optimistic critical path to a solution which ignores any (very likely) delays or foul ups. Were I a betting man I would be looking for odds of 3:1 in favour of a successful outcome!


----------



## Trainee neophyte (4 Nov 2021)

Fitzroy said:


> Utter guff regards embodied energy in wind turbines. Most of the studies come back with an energy payback period of 7-9 months, vs a life span of 20+ yrs. So each turbine makes c. 28 times is embodied energy during its lifetime.


2 points. 

1. You are right.

2. I did say "allegedly", which of course is shorthand for "I've read this somewhere on the internet but can't be bothered to check if it is sensible, because life is just too short". It also means no embarrassment when I point out that you are right.

Did I mention that you are right? The payback does appear to be less than a year, so you are right.


----------



## Jacob (4 Nov 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> ......global populations continue to expand and seriously stress any transition. Without action to stabilise/reduce populations, efforts towards zero carbon and preserving the environment will be compromised.


It would need to be USA, China, Europe and other first world countries needing to restrain their population growth as they have biggest CO2 footprint by far. The Chinese did lead the field on this with their one child policy but were berated by one and all, including their own people


> ......Covid has demonstrated that when presented with a real and immediate threat, most (not all) people will make significant personal sacrifices in the interests of the community


.I think the general population are ahead on this and awaiting progress from the politicians.


> Zero carbon transition will take one or two decades, not one or two years. The community is global, not local/national. The UK, US, Western Europe etc have the infrastructure and wealth to adapt and mitigate (up to a point).


Really? How, without making things worse? I think it's the other way around - we are more vulnerable to collapse of a very complex infrastructure and have little to fall back on.


----------



## Yojevol (4 Nov 2021)

The aspect that does not seem to be discussed is that we are probably past a tipping point and we're in a +ve feedback situation already. As we engineers know +ve feedback systems are notoriously difficult to control. 
As temperatures continue to rise the icecaps melt causing less solar energy to reflected, thus driving up temperatures even faster. Also permafrost will melt releasing long held methane which a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Recently we've huge forest fires burning down trees thus reducing their ability to absorb CO2. All examples of +ve feedback.
Brian


----------



## baldkev (4 Nov 2021)

We must be on number 3.... for about 12 years use. My biggest gripe is the defrost always seems to be useless, either it doesnt work much or the food comes out patially cooked


----------



## Terry - Somerset (4 Nov 2021)

Jacob:

The highest population growth rates tend to be in areas with the most poverty and the lowest CO2 emissions. Europe and US have low, and in some cases falling birth rates.

One could conclude that population growth amongst those so poor they are unable to afford to emit greenhouse gasses is unimportant. Rightly they should enjoy the benefits we have become accustomed to - clear water, sanitation, adequate food, decent housing etc. 

Europe and US need to reduce emissions. Reducing population would help. 

I think some of the population will accept the sacrifices they will need to make to avert climate change. Most Is an exaggeration when they find foreign travel constrained, no airfreighted food, plastics banned bar essential uses, public services compromised to build wind turbines etc etc.

You are however right in terms of western reliance on a complex infrastructure. The power goes out for an hour and we panic. Food rots in freezers, communication ceases, businesses using just in time models rapidly cease trading etc etc. But a high standard of living (albeit green) is only possible with an infrastructure to match.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (4 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> The green farming revolution _means_ no more fertiliser. It's the solution, not a problem. "Regenerative Agriculture" is the future, with variations. Why Regenerative Agriculture? - Regeneration International


I already do quite a lot of that - mob grazing, soil construction, manure etc. 

I still use bulk oil based fertiliser, because it works. Not putting it on makes a colossal difference to yields, and I get paid for production not for making the place look pretty for weekend city dwellers wanting a picnic. Also the 30% methane pledge means no animal farming, yet animals are an intrinsic part of the symbiotic system. Can't be all future proofed without manure, but vegans demand animal free farming. 

Isn't it ironic?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (4 Nov 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Europe and US need to reduce emissions. *Reducing population would help.
> 
> I think some of the population will accept the sacrifices they will need to make*


Those two sentences put together are quite scary. Would you put your hand up to be part of the population reduction, "for the public good"? It wouldn't suprise me if somewhere some bureaucrat is putting together the logistics for a "voluntary population reduction scheme" to save Greta Thunberg's potential grandchildren.


----------



## Jacob (4 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> I already do quite a lot of that - mob grazing, soil construction, manure etc.
> 
> I still use bulk oil based fertiliser, because it works. Not putting it on makes a colossal difference to yields, and I get paid for production not for making the place look pretty for weekend city dwellers wanting a picnic. Also the 30% methane pledge means no animal farming, yet animals are an intrinsic part of the symbiotic system. Can't be all future proofed without manure, but vegans demand animal free farming.
> 
> Isn't it ironic?


 There's hundreds of veggie initiatives going I doubt there would be a problem at all, it's normal in some communities.
For a start there will be all that land freed from growing animal food or pasture, could be used for "green manure". Animals aren't an essential part of the food cycle at all.




__





Vegan organic agriculture - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




If I was a farmer I'd be looking hard at vegetarian farming and being ahead of the zeitgeist.
Come to think we haven't put any artificial or animal sourced fertiliser on out garden for years. No prob. Just household stuff and garden waste going into the compost bin.


----------



## Jacob (4 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Those two sentences put together are quite scary. Would you put your hand up to be part of the population reduction, "for the public good"? .......


Yes I agree. Those who think that lifeboat-world is overpopulated should do the noble and decent thing and jump overboard!


----------



## heimlaga (4 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> The stainless sink in my last house had been there for 20 years or so. The buyers did over the kitchen and I reclaimed it and used it for another 20 years. Eventually it was redundant and I had to scrap it but it was still usable. I could have put it outside behind the shed but I already had a huge catering double drainer double sink which is still there, probably 50 years old. Useful for gardening, paint stripping, other things.
> Which brings me to my point - we are going to need something like wartime "Utility" standards for products, with no more throwaway consumerism. Stuff costing twice as much but lasting 10 times as long
> 
> 
> ...


I agree!
Disposability and throwaway consumerism fits together with sustainability like eyeglasses on an elk........ (Finnish saying)
They are just not compatible and we will need to come up with whole new ways of doing things.

One of the first things to to is to plant trees because that is probably one of the parts that has the longest lead time. We must necsessarily reforest every square metre of countryside that is not used for food production or other production. Every back yard in town should have at least one tree on it. Trees are at present the only efficient method we have for absorption and long time storage of carbon dioxide. From what I have been able to find out most of the Scottish highlands were forested until medieval times. Time to shoot some red deer and plant new forests. Dartmoor and Exmoor and the other high moors of England were heavily forested until neolithic farmers cut down the trees. The moors and hills of Ireland largely forested as late as the Viking age. The heaths of northern Germany were dense forests still in the late roman era. 40% of Iceland was forested as late as the 9th century. The forest line in the Norwegian mountains receded on average 100 height metres due to large scale brunost production from the late 18th century and onwards. The woodlands of Finland and Sweden have been too heavily logged and though there are trees everywhere the timber volume is small and the quality awful.
All those trees would over time reach an age when they have to be cut down before they rot. Tops and branches can be used for firewood. The timber can be used to build good quality wooden houses and furniture and bridges and just about anything where the carbon is tied up for centuries or at least decades more. Replacing steel and concrete which both emit lots of carbon dioxide in their production. 
To keep up food production while reducing the areas of low grade pastures would require better mantainance of the soil on remaining pastures. We need to bring back organic matter and animal manure to the soil.


----------



## Jacob (4 Nov 2021)

heimlaga said:


> I agree!
> Disposability and throwaway consumerism fits together with sustainability like eyeglasses on an elk........ (Finnish saying)
> They are just not compatible and we will need to come up with whole new ways of doing things.
> 
> ...


Actually peat is a bigger carbon store than even the Amazon rain forest. UK highlands fell to peat not de-forestation and peat is the biggest above ground world reserve of carbon. Peatlands and climate change
Peat burning and use as fertiliser has not yet been banned in Britain, which is insane.
But yes plant trees and manage water run off to slow it down and flood more of the highlands. This in the end produces peat as sphagnum moss slowly takes over. Peat bogs in UK conceal 8000 year old tree roots from the post ice-age forest, felled by nature not by man.
The biggest clearance of woodland came with the clearances and sheep farming. When timber was in high demand it was conserved. Ireland was heavily forested but cleared by the planted landowners for agricultural exploitation, then as now in other parts of the globe.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (4 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Yes I agree. Those who think that lifeboat-world is overpopulated should do the noble and decent thing and jump overboard!



Or just not have kids, which is the single greenest act open to normal people.


----------



## Misterdog (4 Nov 2021)

Droogs said:


> The sooner we get out of the Plastic age the better



We can't , without plastic packaging food would not last anything like as long so we would all starve to death, as the planet cannot produce enough food.

Though obesity levels would decline .


----------



## Misterdog (4 Nov 2021)

hairy said:


> I've read that with both turbines and solar panels, most of which are made in China mostly using coal power, will produce the same amount of power in their lifetime as their manufacture requires. Big turbines have a very large oil lubrication requirement changed annually. The blades supposedly can't be recycled so will be chopped up and landfill. Even if a big turbines moving parts could be swapped out when it's worn out I bet 100 to 1 a bigger shinier one will be available so old will be binned.
> 
> I don't dispute that the above may be cobblers, and that there are very definitely alternative "facts" out there. You do not have to look very far to find experts disputing the MSM experts, all with accredited science behind them. My facts are better than your facts is about what it boils down to, and things like the infamous hockey stick graph don't give much weight to the MSM articles promoting that kind of "science".



I remember when North Sea oil was first discovered, it was claimed at the time, that as gas was a by product of the oil extraction, that the gas would be free   

When government and experts put enough spin on bullshit ----it sticks.


----------



## baldkev (5 Nov 2021)

Misterdog said:


> We can't , without plastic packaging food would not last anything like as long so we would all starve to death, as the planet cannot produce enough food.
> 
> Though obesity levels would decline .



True, although there have been advances in biodegradable packaging and even making bags from starch etc. I don’t think it is beyond us, but the problem is cost. If the ( lets just say starch bags ) cost 3p more per unit, even though we pay bag tax ( and do they actually do anything good with my bag tax? ) the shops are reluctant to move across to them in case the public mian. They should of course be bag tax free and made available alongside the regular bags and slowly phase out the plastic. So if you can make a starch bag, you can make starch packaging


----------



## Chris152 (5 Nov 2021)

heimlaga said:


> Trees are at present the only efficient method we have for absorption and long time storage of carbon dioxide.


A boff interviewed on Channel 4 last night was saying that the oceans and their ecosystems play the biggest role.
Eg - The ocean and climate change :
"Coastal ecosystems like mangroves, salt marshes and seagrasses play a vital role in carbon storage and sequestration. Per unit of area, they sequester carbon faster and far more efficiently than terrestrial forests. When these ecosystems are degraded, lost or converted, massive amounts of CO2 – an estimated 0.15-1.02 billion tons every year – are released into the atmosphere or ocean, accounting for up to 19% of global carbon emissions from deforestation."

It doesn't get much of a mention as far as I can tell, but the oceans are also possibly the biggest threat in the form of changing patterns of global ocean currents.
Not that we can sort that as easily as planting trees, but we could stop industrial vacuuming of life forms from the sea, pouring all kinds of waste into them and so on.


----------



## Jacob (5 Nov 2021)

Chris152 said:


> A boff interviewed on Channel 4 last night was saying that the oceans and their ecosystems play the biggest role.
> Eg - The ocean and climate change :
> "Coastal ecosystems like mangroves, salt marshes and seagrasses play a vital role in carbon storage and sequestration. Per unit of area, they sequester carbon faster and far more efficiently than terrestrial forests. When these ecosystems are degraded, lost or converted, massive amounts of CO2 – an estimated 0.15-1.02 billion tons every year – are released into the atmosphere or ocean, accounting for up to 19% of global carbon emissions from deforestation."
> 
> ...


About a third of fishing vacuumed from the sea goes to animal feed for meat, and fish food for farmed fish. Both should be off the menu.


----------



## Jacob (5 Nov 2021)

Misterdog said:


> I remember when North Sea oil was first discovered, it was claimed at the time, that as gas was a by product of the oil extraction, that the gas would be free
> 
> When government and experts put enough spin on bullshit ----it sticks.


Unfortunately North sea oil came on under a free-market govt. Profit should have been re-invested UK industry and infrastructure but instead it was frittered away. The Norwegians had more sense.


----------



## Jacob (5 Nov 2021)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> Or just not have kids, which is the single greenest act open to normal people.


The "Richest 1% will account for 16% of total emissions by 2030" ‘Luxury carbon consumption’ of top 1% threatens 1.5C global heating limit
That is where de-population should start, not necessarily by doing them in but much kinder to take their riches and re-distribute them.
PS They are over populating London as we speak! Return of super-rich to central London fuels house price surge


----------



## heimlaga (5 Nov 2021)

Yep. The sea plays a vital role. The reason why I talked about planting trees is that they have the longest lead time and also make an easy starting point.
Just as Chris and Jacob say we must do things about the sea too as well as lakes and bogs and other watery places.
I rekon that all fish that is good enough for humans to eat should be reserved for humans. You have to fish many tons of wild fish to farm a ton of salmon or breed a ton of pork. If we eat the wild fish instead we can get more calories into the human body per ton of fish caugt. Of cause there are always less edible parts on every fish such as the head and intestines that is best ground up for animal fodder but then it should be reserved for animals on land. In a fish farm a much greater percentage of the fodder just floats away than in a poultry barn.
If we use the fish more efficiently we can catch less of it and that in turn does mean that the ecosystem can be rebuilt.

We must change the system with fishing quotas from the bottom up. At the moment a huge part of the fish caught is thrown overboard dead because it cannot be landed without exceeding the quota for that species or because it is considered a by catch. Trawls are so large and are towed so fast that whatever it's tightness is in theory even smaller fish are caught but as there are minimum sizes for many species the smaller fish are thrown overboard dead.
I rekon we should follow the example of the Faroes. Their fishing quotas are given in the form of "havdagar" that is "sea days". The number of days a year each boat is allowed to spend at sea fishing. Every fish caught during those days must be brought ashore whatever size or species it is. Nothing is allowed to go to waste. Smaller boats with simpler gear get a larger number of havdagar while large trawlers get a smaller number. This favours more dicerning smaller scale fishing methods closer to home where such methods are practicable.

We must stop all pollution that isn't totally unavoidable. Already now most baltic herring goes to animal fodder because it is too high in fire retardants to be healthy to eat as it is. We have poisoned our own fish soup for the sake of cheap electronics. A delicate fish with very good nutritious values goes to waste.

Then comes the question of restoring salt marches, reed beds, peat bogs and so in......... However many coastal dikes are there to keep farmland dry and we cannot cut down the area of farmland too much.

Edited bad spelling


----------



## Trainee neophyte (5 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> For a start there will be all that land freed from growing animal food or pasture, could be used for "green manure".


Most of that land isn't good quality, which is why it is used for animal pasture. Good luck growing tomatoes on moorland farms etc.


Jacob said:


> Animals aren't an essential part of the food cycle at all.


They may not be essential to you, but they are an integral, essential part of the biosphere. How about we reforest the UK, bring back the Wild Wood with its bears and wolves, reduce the human population to a few hundred thousand and declare the planet saved?


----------



## Jacob (5 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Most of that land isn't good quality, which is why it is used for animal pasture. Good luck growing tomatoes on moorland farms etc.


Is that what you would do? Sounds like you could do with some professional advice!


> They may not be essential to you, but they are an integral, essential part of the biosphere. How about we reforest the UK, bring back the Wild Wood with its bears and wolves, reduce the human population to a few hundred thousand and declare the planet saved?


Yes you have put your finger on it - that is the way we are going under unconstrained climate change, whether we like it or not.
What is under discussion is how to avert this. You obviously haven't been listening to the news. Missed the point 100%!


----------



## heimlaga (5 Nov 2021)

Animals have their place in the future supply system though significantly less dominant than now. There are plenty of areas where grass can be grown for animal fodder while the soil is too poor or the climate to harch or the conditions otherwise unsuitable to allow for any greater production of oat or barley to feed people.
For instance most of the part of Sweden that is north of Sundsvall and most of the part of Finland that is north of Karleby. Shetland, parts of Orkney and parts of the Scottish highlands. Some areas on the German and Dutch coasts especially the Friesian Halligen islands. Some flood plains and flood prone coastal areas.
There must also be some animals kept in all farming districts because with less artificial fertilizers and less pesticides there will be a need for animal dung and also grass must be part of a sound crop rotation. Clover used as green fertilizer looses little by taking a detour through a cow before the fertlizer is ploughed down.
The best thing we can do with that grass is to keep cattle and sheep. To feed them with grass and not with corn or soy which in turn will make them yeild significantly less than the cattle and sheep of today. A cow subsisting on grass and twigs and reeds produces at best half as much milk as a cow eating modern fodder. Though if choosing suitable low yeilding breeds such cows can be healthy and well fed. A lamb takes more time to grow to butcherable size. There will be animals just a bit fewer and yeilding significantly less.
THOUGH we need to really make use of those animal from nose the cloof. Leather for shoes. Wool for clothes. Milk. A bit of beef and mutton though in smaller rations than the insane meatindulgence of our time.


----------



## Jacob (5 Nov 2021)

Yes we used to eat it nearly all when we were kids - liver, tongue, heart, kidney, tripe, chitlings, sweetbread (pancreas), oxtail, whole pigs head, brains.
Poultry was not intensively reared and a slightly expensive luxury for special occasions, except for "broilers" - tough old birds
PS and rabbit, pigeon, etc. You name it, we ate it! Never did us any harm!
Steak and kidney suet pudding - absolute top of the charts!


----------



## Thingybob (5 Nov 2021)

D_W said:


> the dishwasher can be bettered, but it takes sort of the old time soak and then quick wash and rinse method. And it's probably a difference of a gallon.
> 
> I am very stingy, and that makes me passively eco. But I cannot convince my spouse to line dry or skip the drying cycle on the dishwasher. Many of the articles expounding on the efficiency of dishwashers forget to mention the long needless heated dry and they compare the dishwasher to someone allowing the water to run continuously for 20 minutes.
> 
> The other benefit of hand washing, if one actually adheres to it, is the racks and shelves are rarely short of cups and spoons.


Your neighbers must wonder about you if your wife was to line dry the crockery


----------



## Trainee neophyte (6 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Yes we used to eat it nearly all when we were kids - liver, tongue, heart, kidney, tripe, chitlings, sweetbread (pancreas), oxtail, whole pigs head, brains.
> Poultry was not intensively reared and a slightly expensive luxury for special occasions, except for "broilers" - tough old birds
> PS and rabbit, pigeon, etc. You name it, we ate it! Never did us any harm!
> Steak and kidney suet pudding - absolute top of the charts!


The Guardianistas are gleefully extolling more poverty, less everything else, endless reduction and constraint - even rationing and forced changes. How may here are actually walking the walk? Lots of CO2 filled hot air about how everyone else should do something, but who is actually making a difference? Given that the planet is due to spontaneously combust next Wednesday, who here is actually trying to make a difference before everyone dies of heat prostration?

FWIW, my carbon footprint is allegedly similar to a third worlder, and if I offset the electricity from my solar panels then I am carbon negative. Note that I don't include my agricultural output, because other people eat that, so it goes on their account, not mine. Same for the tourists - it's their awful, destructive flying that causes the problem, not mine. I just give them somewhere to live when they get here. I do wish they wouldn't use the air conditioning, though.

So does anyone actually curtail their lifestyles for the good of the future? Or are we all waiting to be forced into it by Boris?


----------



## Rustic Mike (6 Nov 2021)

Chris152 said:


> A boff interviewed on Channel 4 last night was saying that the oceans and their ecosystems play the biggest role.
> Eg - The ocean and climate change :
> "Coastal ecosystems like mangroves, salt marshes and seagrasses play a vital role in carbon storage and sequestration. Per unit of area, they sequester carbon faster and far more efficiently than terrestrial forests. When these ecosystems are degraded, lost or converted, massive amounts of CO2 – an estimated 0.15-1.02 billion tons every year – are released into the atmosphere or ocean, accounting for up to 19% of global carbon emissions from deforestation."
> 
> ...


But they are now saying the earth is slowing down, so gravity will be gone we will all be floating away, and if pigs can fly the price of bacon will go up, so there’s no need to worry as that will be the end of the world.


----------



## Jacob (6 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> .....
> 
> So does anyone actually curtail their lifestyles for the good of the future? Or are we all waiting to be forced into it by Boris?


Many people are in a small way but it takes massive government intervention to do what's necessary on such a scale on so many fronts. The most useful thing is probably political pressure.
It's a bigger threat than, say, WW2, which nobody thought would be won by public spirited citizens voluntarily forming themselves into little platoons or little dads armies having a go at invading France.


----------



## Droogs (6 Nov 2021)

The only way in which anything will be done at governmental level that really does have a meaningful impact is if those in the positions of privilege and power feel that their ability to remain so is seriously threatened. Until then all they do will be too little too late.


----------



## Jacob (6 Nov 2021)

Droogs said:


> The only way in which anything will be done at governmental level that really does have a meaningful impact is if those in the positions of privilege and power feel that their ability to remain so is seriously threatened. Until then all they do will be too little too late.


Yep. They'll do as little as possible except to look for whom to blame.


----------



## John Brown (6 Nov 2021)

Rustic Mike said:


> But they are now saying the earth is slowing down, so gravity will be gone we will all be floating away, and if pigs can fly the price of bacon will go up, so there’s no need to worry as that will be the end of the world.


Why do you think gravity will be gone??


----------



## Droogs (6 Nov 2021)

@Rustic Mike Gravity works independently of the earths rotation. It is dependent on mass and is strong enough to overcome the centrifugal force of the earths rotation to keep us on the surface, we would all go flying off otherwise. Even if the Earth were a tidally locked planet i.e had not rotation at all and had the same hemisphere face the sun all the time, it's mass would be sufficient to allow us to walk around and not float away.


----------



## John Brown (6 Nov 2021)

Droogs said:


> @Rustic Mike Gravity works independently of the earths rotation. It is dependent on mass and is strong enough to overcome the centrifugal force of the earths rotation to keep us on the surface, we would all go flying off otherwise. Even if the Earth were a tidally locked planet i.e had not rotation at all and had the same hemisphere face the sun all the time, it's mass would be sufficient to allow us to walk around and not float away.


Good news for bacon lovers.


----------



## Droogs (6 Nov 2021)

indeed as it would be very easy to get crispy bacon


----------



## heimlaga (6 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> The Guardianistas are gleefully extolling more poverty, less everything else, endless reduction and constraint - even rationing and forced changes. How may here are actually walking the walk? Lots of CO2 filled hot air about how everyone else should do something, but who is actually making a difference? Given that the planet is due to spontaneously combust next Wednesday, who here is actually trying to make a difference before everyone dies of heat prostration?
> 
> FWIW, my carbon footprint is allegedly similar to a third worlder, and if I offset the electricity from my solar panels then I am carbon negative. Note that I don't include my agricultural output, because other people eat that, so it goes on their account, not mine. Same for the tourists - it's their awful, destructive flying that causes the problem, not mine. I just give them somewhere to live when they get here. I do wish they wouldn't use the air conditioning, though.
> 
> So does anyone actually curtail their lifestyles for the good of the future? Or are we all waiting to be forced into it by Boris?


I am doing a bit. Still not enough but as much as my very fragile private economy can withstand at the moment.
My next big step withing a few years will be to move my part time workshop home to reduce commuting. At the moment I am squrreling together secondhand and leftover materials and windfallen timber for the build.

I do not fly.
I have no motor in the boat.
I go by bicykle instead of car when the distance is short enough and not too much stuff has to be brought and the weather allows.
I use axe intsead of chainsaw for most limbing in the woods. Saving about 2/3 of the chainsaw fuel. Felling and bucking would take too much time by hand so for that I use the chainsaw.
I repair and repair and repair just about everything far beyond the point where others give up.
I avoid buying unecsessary things and buy a lot secondhand and make stuff from secondhand materials.
I have no motordriven toy vehicles of any sort. 
And so on


What governments should first start doing is to enable us to be more energy efficient. There is way too much forced consumption at the moment and too many who just cannot afford to mind their environmetal footprint in the struggle top make ends meet.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (6 Nov 2021)

Some (possibly many) people will individually make small changes to lifestyles and behaviours to contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Overall these voluntary efforts will be inconsequential - eg: locally grown not imported food, slightly more economical car, kids walk rather than drive to school, turn-off lights etc.

These are not worthless actions - it allows folk to feel personally virtuous and able to better comprehend and accept the much larger changes necessary.

The big changes will come from government - eg: banning sales of ICE from 2030, banning gas boilers from 2035 would not have happened without legislation. 

IMHO the government needs to go much further to have any prospect of zero carbon - mandating better new build standards, increasing (2, 3, 4 fold) taxes on energy consumption and plastics to influence consumer decisions, taxing embedded imported energy etc.

Additional consumption taxes should be matched with reduced direct taxes to ensure changes are fiscally balanced, although there will be winners and loser (who will bitterly complain).

Invoking the wartime spirit of we're all in it together, rationing, etc will not work - in WW2 occupation by the Nazis was an immediate and real threat, climate change is a slow burn which impacts mainly future generations long after most of us will be dead.


----------



## Sandyn (6 Nov 2021)

We are doing small things such as eating less red meat, but that's for health reasons as well, we have a small petrol car and a bigger one for the trailer, but don't drive all that much, but that's because we don't work any more. We only really heat two rooms in the house. We would still fly somewhere for a holiday. We won't get an electric car until forced, I might get a hybrid if it was cheaper to run. We have a 35 year old gas boiler. I won't replace that until I am forced. I re-purpose things all the time. There are some amazing data here, and here. Lots of maps with date sliders at the bottom, so you can view data per country over time.


----------



## Jacob (6 Nov 2021)

heimlaga said:


> .....
> 
> Invoking the wartime spirit of we're all in it together, rationing, etc will not work - in WW2 occupation by the Nazis was an immediate and real threat, climate change is a slow burn which impacts mainly future generations long after most of us will be dead.


Climate change is here now. It's already affecting people in the UK with unprecedented flooding in many areas, which is likely to be the new normal and increasing in severity, although nothing compared to the effects being experienced in other parts of the world. The biggest local threat to the UK is change in the gulf stream, which could be sudden and produce a massive change of climate.









Climate crisis: Scientists spot warning signs of Gulf Stream collapse


A shutdown would have devastating global impacts and must not be allowed to happen, researchers say




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Chris152 (6 Nov 2021)

I feel sorry for the richest 1%, I'm sure they'll be doing all they can to help out.









‘Luxury carbon consumption’ of top 1% threatens 1.5C global heating limit


Richest 1% will account for 16% of total emissions by 2030, while poorest 50% will release one tonne of CO2 a year




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Sandyn (6 Nov 2021)

gravity is just an illusion!! it's curved spacetime


----------



## Just4Fun (6 Nov 2021)

Sandyn said:


> We are doing small things such as eating less red meat, but that's for health reasons as well ...


There is a profound truth hidden in that comment: motives are often difficult to discern and often overlap. I could argue that many things I do are good for the environment but do I really do them because I am green or because I am mean? Difficult to say and I will of course claim to be highly virtuous rather than stingy. Perhaps a better measure is "what is the worst thing you do environmentally?". That might present a very different picture. It certainly does in my case and you might conclude that I just don't give a toss.


----------



## Sandyn (6 Nov 2021)

Just4Fun said:


> There is a profound truth hidden in that comment: motives are often difficult to discern and often overlap.


I think so. and there is a profound truth in what you say 


Just4Fun said:


> do I really do them because I am green or because I am mean?


I think I will do things as long as it doesn't cost me too much money or alter my lifestyle too much and I have a fairly simple lifestyle. I just don't believe in some of the bad science of high tech solutions, that are around just now. I'm not going to throw my money at bad solutions. I would at a really good solution.
If the government said everyone has to replace their old boilers next month..... It's the law, I would have to do it, but until then, I won't. For the amount of gas I use the improved efficiency would make next to no difference. 
It's up to the government to force change, but it has to be a well proven solution that really will make a difference. I would support that 100%


----------



## Terry - Somerset (6 Nov 2021)

> Perhaps a better measure is "what is the worst thing you do environmentally?". That might present a very different picture



This may actually be a far more insightful measure - we can all point to things we do or don't do to demonstrate how environmentally aware and virtuous we are.

Carbon zero will change what we do - air travel, home heating, diet, walk vs drive, food mles etc. The extent of the sacrifice we are prepared to make is in those things we have little intention of stopping, short of legislative mandate.


----------



## Sandyn (6 Nov 2021)

Chris152 said:


> I feel sorry for the richest 1%, I'm sure they'll be doing all they can to help out.


You don't have to earn a huge amount to be in that 1%. According to this site How rich am I , if your post tax income is 70k, and only 2 in the house, you hit the 1%. Not sure if it's accurate? 1% of worlds population is about 79 million. According to the article you quoted each 'rich' person will generate 70 tonnes of CO2, so that's about 5 billion tons, the annual output of the US,. The figures just don't add up to me, but I think it highlights a problem. Not sure I agree with the scale of it.


----------



## D_W (6 Nov 2021)

top 1% globally and top 1% in a first world country are *Drastically* different things. I'm in the top 1% globally, but not close to it in the US. Not remotely close.


----------



## heimlaga (6 Nov 2021)

Just4Fun said:


> (....)Perhaps a better measure is "what is the worst thing you do environmentally?"(....)


I agree.
The worst thing I do is driving approximately 12000 kilometres a year by car.
That is a good example where I wait for government intervention as I cannot change it myself. We need functional bus lines in the countryside as well as a diversified job market where everything doesn't necsessarily happen in town!

What are your worst ecological sins chaps?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (6 Nov 2021)

heimlaga said:


> What are your worst ecological sins chaps?


I drive to the beach. It's only 3km each way, but what can you do? Entirely unnecessary and profligate misuse of resources.


----------



## Sandyn (6 Nov 2021)

D_W said:


> top 1% globally and top 1% in a first world country are *Drastically* different things


Yes, but the figures are all related to the global population. Not just the U.S. or first world.
If you earn £70k in the U.K., or $100K post tax in the U.S. you are in the richest 1% of the global population and by 2030 the top 1% will account for 16% of emissions. I find the figures hard to believe actually. I'm sure there a lot of people on this site who according to "How rich am I" will be in the top 1% globally, but won't be producing anything near 70 tonnes of CO2 by 2030.


----------



## Sandyn (6 Nov 2021)

heimlaga said:


> What are your worst ecological sins chaps?


I suppose annual holiday flights and cruise are the worst. That's what I worked for for 40+ years and I will continue to do it. It is necessary for my wellbeing and if I was home I probably would produce more CO2 by having the heating on  Most of the other things I do are necessary for existence.


----------



## Droogs (6 Nov 2021)

golly looks like I need to up my game by 63K to be a top 1%er, going by the last 3 years average of income


----------



## baldkev (6 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> So does anyone actually curtail their lifestyles for the good of the future? Or are we all waiting to be forced into it by Boris



Not really. We recycle, we went with green electricty supplier over the others, we are trying to eat more veg ( although allegedly thats not as eco friendly as it could be ) but i love my weekly fry up, i love beef and i absolutely love cider  

To be honest though, my generation ( im 40 ) has no idea of hardship. We have millions of things to buy, stuff to watch, etc and the world is now aimed at selling you stuff and getting your money. Instagram, facebook etc are all pushing glamorous lifestyles and roducts based on your recent online activity at us, showing what we are missing and cant have etc, and yet, in reality, we are so very lucky not to be born in africa or Afghanistan or china etc.... what would we all do if we were faced with a real problem? Ring for a chinese i guess.


----------



## D_W (6 Nov 2021)

Sandyn said:


> I suppose annual holiday flights and cruise are the worst. That's what I worked for for 40+ years and I will continue to do it. It is necessary for my wellbeing and if I was home I probably would produce more CO2 by having the heating on  Most of the other things I do are necessary for existence.



I think you have nothing to be ashamed of traveling unless you're literally running around with the henny penny act telling everyone else how bit of a problem there is. We see a little too much of that. I don't believe anything is a real problem to someone if they don't act on it themselves.

Vegans have it all over climate change nutballs (note, i believe climate change is occurring - but if you think it's an enormous problems and you aren't making less carbon than you have previously in ways you can control, you're just a nutball).

Vegans tend to practice what they preach pretty well (well, I guess they have to by definition). 

I don't think anyone who flies by discretion and claims that they care about climate change really cares about it at all.


----------



## John Brown (6 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> I drive to the beach. It's only 3km each way, but what can you do? Entirely unnecessary and profligate misuse of resources.


Walk? Cycle?


----------



## Terry - Somerset (6 Nov 2021)

Many seek to justify their use of energy - often it is just a weak excuse for the non-essential.

I drive a modest 3 year old hatch covering ~10k pa. We could walk or cycle to shops, and use trains and buses for some other journeys. But a comfortable (not large) income means it would take either energy tax increases or legislation to change behaviours.

We travel by air typically once or twice pa - usually short haul to Europe. I thoroughly value escaping a UK winter for 10-12 weeks on the Med, but it is hardly essential. Train or coach may be alternatives - less energy, but currently more time and money. I am disinclined (without legislation/taxes) to change.

Two of us live in a 1800sq ft house. It provides space for visiting family. Downsizing is possible. Energy saving measures are as likely to be based on the economic, not environmental.

I do the easy things without question - LED lighting, recycling where possible, don't buy plastic rubbish or consumer durables (TV, washing machine etc etc) unless necessary. This is as much because I am mean as environmentally motivated.

Because I have a comfortable income (not large by UK standards) I will only change behaviours when it is economically unavoidable (tax and legislative changes). In that I am honest enough to acknowledge I am as selfish and thoughtless as most of the rest of the population.

I would welcome a government which had the political courage to make the environmental and financial choice unambiguous - not the case at present!


----------



## Rustic Mike (7 Nov 2021)

Droogs said:


> @Rustic Mike Gravity works independently of the earths rotation. It is dependent on mass and is strong enough to overcome the centrifugal force of the earths rotation to keep us on the surface, we would all go flying off otherwise. Even if the Earth were a tidally locked planet i.e had not rotation at all and had the same hemisphere face the sun all the time, it's mass would be sufficient to allow us to walk around and not float away.


Mmm elementary my dear Watson.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (7 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> Walk? Cycle?



It's not quite as simple as you might think:


----------



## ian33a (7 Nov 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Because I have a comfortable income (not large by UK standards) I will only change behaviours when it is economically unavoidable (tax and legislative changes). In that I am honest enough to acknowledge I am as selfish and thoughtless as most of the rest of the population.



I think that this statement sums up the situation well for a reasonable proportion of the UK, myself included. 

I would like to do my bit but I don't want it to cost me a fortune and for the payback to be ridiculously long - especially when I sense that the really large polluters (countries as well as large businesses) seem to be paying lip service to what is being asked. The cynical side of me struggles to separate statement from action in much of what I see in the media. Far too many large organisations are saying the right thing and actually doing something completely different. Only when there is a mechanism to independently measure the change that they bring will their actual contribution become apparent.

Perhaps, in my younger days, I may have had a more generous perspective but, working hard all my life, it becomes natural to protect what I have accumulated in the same way that I sense the big polluters are doing. In this regard, it is totally selfish and I am not proud of it. However, it's just how it is.


----------



## Jameshow (7 Nov 2021)

I think we do change our behaviours....

Think how we all rushed out and brought diesel engine cars!!

If we all rushed out to buy electric cars then

A) there wouldn't be the infrastructure to support them,

B) the manufacturing emissions would actually increase.

C) The manufacturing capacity isn't there to make them

D) most of us cannot afford them new and will wait for them to drip feel into the used market. Especially the more exciting ones.

E) They are not yet suitable for some applications - motorhomes, towing duties etc.

Cheers James


----------



## Sideways (7 Nov 2021)

heimlaga said:


> What are your worst ecological sins chaps?


1.5 million miles
Half by car
Half by air
Thankfully no more.

I suspect that there's truth in the assertion that moving your pension fund to an ecologically sound provider will have 20x more impact than anything else you can do.


----------



## Ozi (7 Nov 2021)

Sandyn said:


> gravity is just an illusion!! it's curved spacetime


You could try to straighten it out but it keeps pulling itself together


----------



## Woody2Shoes (7 Nov 2021)

Jameshow said:


> I think we do change our behaviours....
> 
> Think how we all rushed out and brought diesel engine cars!!
> 
> ...


So what should we do?
a) Nothing
b) As much as possible, as quickly as possible, to reverse the fossil-burning trend.
c) Engage in mass-debate (!) about how to do b) while doing a) by default?

There are huge vested interests in carrying on 'business as usual' - and we are all 'vested' to a greater or lesser degree - as earlier comments indicate. Personally, I see huge opportunities for those with the imagination and tenacity to change things for the better.


----------



## Blackswanwood (7 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> It's not quite as simple as you might think:
> 
> View attachment 121335


Come on - make an effort …


----------



## Fitzroy (7 Nov 2021)

I love this conversation, it’s civil, honest and with many opinions all that are being respected.

I work for a company in the middle of the fossil fuels agenda and have witnessed it honestly thinking about its role in the future, and making huge changes and structure and strategy. It is unrecognisable from the company of a few years ago. Now of course it is financially motivated knowing FFs are a self fulfilling prophecy and change or long term die, but it is also one individual’s passion to make a big difference through the resources they control. It shows me there is motivation for change at all levels of society and business. Government need to incentivise business to drive change as fast as they dare. 

I also reflect on the acid rain problem that Europe ‘solved’. I remember as a kid the news stories and everyone knowing we had to act. I can’t help thinking that I’d the internet had existed at that time it would have slowed the process. Critical thought is very important, but I think the internet enables the amplification of any opinion especially negative ones.

Personally my biggest env impact that I would hope I could impact with minimal personal change is heating my house. It’s an old granite building with zero wall insulation. We have a pretty low temperature at 18degC and jumpers are the norm in the house. But for all my research there is no solution to insulating the walls that does not involve gutting the place. Historic poorly insulated housing stock need to be a focus in this problem.


----------



## baldkev (7 Nov 2021)

Jameshow said:


> D) most of us cannot afford them new and will wait for them to drip feel into the used market. Especially the more exciting ones.



The issue with this will be battery life. If it costs 10k for a new tesla battery ( i looked on google, no solid prices, but some claim it can be 22k dollars )
then who would bother risking it? The have ( apparently ) a 6 to 7 year life expectancy...... hopefully by the time 8 can afford an electric vehicle, that will have improved. But i would only buy new being as a large part of the value is tied in with the battery. I would love an electric van. I often work within a few miles of where i live and so could easily cope with an electric for work miles.


----------



## baldkev (7 Nov 2021)

Fitzroy said:


> Government need to incentivise business to drive change as fast as they dare.



The biggest issue being the incentive. Which costs money. So then its raise taxes even more which people will hate, especially if the rest of the world is dawdling....
Then there's the government, who are particularly susceptible to 'lobbying' and unless the incentives make those lobbying lots of money ( which wouldnt be fair ) then it would fail. 
I actually think a lot of people are waiting for scientists to magically solve it



Fitzroy said:


> I also reflect on the acid rain problem that Europe ‘solved’. I remember as a kid the news stories and everyone knowing we had to act. I can’t help thinking that I’d the internet had existed at that time it would have slowed the process. Critical thought is very important, but I think the internet enables the amplification of any opinion especially negative ones.



A great point 
The internet has made us all busier than ever. I tried contacting a couple of government departments about the u.n sdg goals that we 'championed' and got no reply at all. One of the 'goals' is life on land ( number 15) and we are supposed to be working to improve and restore our eco system, but it doesnt seem like theres anyone actually there to be doing any of it


----------



## baldkev (7 Nov 2021)

baldkev said:


> Then there's the government, who are particularly susceptible to 'lobbying



P.s i was trying to tread carefully so as not to ignite a political ( or sharpening ) argument.... and to be clear, i voted tory, so im not bashing for a point


----------



## Droogs (7 Nov 2021)

@baldkev going by the info that is available, unless they have been ragged stupid by constant 0 - 100% rapid charges every day, the batteries in most EVs will outlast the actual car.


----------



## Fitzroy (7 Nov 2021)

Science has already ‘magically’ solved it, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, hydro etc. But we consume enormous amounts of energy and the infrastructure for any of these technologies will cost trillions of dollars/pounds to install. Someone has to pay for this, either through tax on individuals(us), company investments that cost shareholders (us), company price rises(us). In the end WE must pay today to protect the future. People hate paying for something they personally will not, or may not, benefit from.


----------



## Droogs (7 Nov 2021)

In answer to the question of "What is the most positive and greatest impact I can have about climate change?" It is really quite simple given most people lack the will to do something fundamental about their lifestyles themselves but all agree something needs to be done but wont do anything until forced to by law.

Vote in the Green Party. I even suggested to one of them that their next campaign slogan should be "We know you love your car but if you love your children too, vote Green"


----------



## baldkev (7 Nov 2021)

Fitzroy said:


> Science has already ‘magically’ solved it, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, hydro etc




Hmmmm.... yeah but no but! 
All of those things require factories and processes that take large amouts of energy to produce, then theres the recycling issues.... so i guess more specifically, the waiting game is more about science solving methane and re using carbon dioxide instead of trying to store it etc.... its mostly about reversing the things we pump into the atmosphere to effect a relatively quick halt in global warming ( as far as i understand it )



Droogs said:


> @baldkev going by the info that is available, unless they have been ragged stupid by constant 0 - 100% rapid charges every day, the batteries in most EVs will outlast the actual car.



From what I have read, the tesla batteries are expected to last between 100k and 150k depending on model. So if you do 15k a year......


A quick google shows the newest batteries they put in them are expected to drop to 70% capacity over 100k. Theres a tesla on electrek which has the highest known mileage for an electric car, with 400k on it. And $29k repairs. Which is what the car originally cost.


----------



## baldkev (7 Nov 2021)

This is interesting: 








A look at Tesla battery degradation and replacement after 400,000 miles


In this new installment of our series on the highest-mileage Tesla Model X (and one of the highest mileage EVs in the world), we look into battery degradation and replacement on a Tesla with over 400,000 miles. Earlier this year, I bought one of the cheapest and most high-mileage Tesla Model X...




electrek.co





After 300k miles it had a new battery. The new pack has lost just 10% capacity after 100k miles....


----------



## Fitzroy (7 Nov 2021)

baldkev said:


> Hmmmm.... yeah but no but!
> All of those things require factories and processes that take large amouts of energy to produce, then theres the recycling issues.... so i guess more specifically, the waiting game is more about science solving methane and re using carbon dioxide instead of trying to store it etc.... its mostly about reversing the things we pump into the atmosphere to effect a relatively quick halt in global warming ( as far as i understand it )
> 
> 
> ...


You’re fighting thermodynamics unfortunately, CO2 is stable and results from oxidation, to ‘use’ CO2 is energy unfavourable so you’ll end up using lots of energy to sequester it. Natural processes like rock weathering that form part of the long carbon cycle take lots of energy still but over a long period. The second problem is the sheer volume of atmosphere you would need to process to scrub out the CO2, the energy to drive such a large process would be huge. They can be done scientifically but it comes back to clean energy to drive the processes, and to build the infrastructure initially. 

I’ve been involved in crisis management for a while and I’m always amazed and what can be done in a short period of time when economics are removed. We could solve this problem easily in a short time period if we as a globe diverted all spend on defence into clean energy infrastructure, the world’s governments spent $2 trillion on this in 2020, 10yrs of that and you could build sufficient wind infrastructure to cover most global energy needs.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (7 Nov 2021)

> We could solve this problem easily in a short time period if we as a globe diverted all spend on defence into clean energy infrastructure, the world’s governments spent $2 trillion on this in 2020, 10yrs of that and you could build sufficient wind infrastructure to cover most global energy needs.



This sums it up nicely - the problem can be fixed - it is just a question of what sacrifices need to be made to do so, and what the consequences are.

On a personal level most seem disinclined to sacrifice anything of consequence - so it is for government to force sacrifice - taxation, legslation, increased public spending etc.

For a government keen on the prospect of re-election, forcing sacrifice directly upon the electorate has its risks. So they consider sacrificing those things which impact indirectly, but are very much the prime responsibility of government.

This may include (for instance) defence, law and order, international aid and relations, support of the vulnerable and elderly etc. Most won't notice until its absence affects them directly. The truth is that day to day we care more about the refuse being collected than the threat of invasion or loss of influence on the world stage.


----------



## Ozi (7 Nov 2021)

Jameshow said:


> I think we do change our behaviours....
> 
> Think how we all rushed out and brought diesel engine cars!!
> 
> ...


Good points and all being worked on. I assume you saw the report issued by Volvo (a well known Chinese Company) comparing the life cycle emissions of one of their electric vehicles with it's IC version. The basic conclusion for those who didn't was that if the electricity used to charge it is produced with the current European average emissions it breaks even in comparison to the IC at 70,000 km


Droogs said:


> @baldkev going by the info that is available, unless they have been ragged stupid by constant 0 - 100% rapid charges every day, the batteries in most EVs will outlast the actual car.


True and the resistance to rapid charging damage is improving, it's no different to IC vehicles if you abuse a machine it deteriorates, if you know your clients are going to abuse it you make it stronger. The problem reduces for smaller cheaper vehicles, they tend to be used for shorter journeys. If commuting 20 miles each way and doing a bit of local shopping etc. is your use then slow charge at home on cheap rate electricity, which hopefully is coming from a cleaner source and the battery can be repurposed when the car is beyond repair, you may loose top end performance but most of us drive cars capable of 110mph plus loose 20% of that and personally I'd never know. If you have 200 miles range and loose a bit of that as well for most of the journeys we make again no issue.


----------



## Ozi (7 Nov 2021)

I have posted this vehicle before, they now make a van version. It's not quite there yet but get the speed up to 50 mph and let me change the battery in the same way as cordless mower. One person too and from work in the dry without dragging 4 empty seats and a tonne of steal around to no good purpose.





__





The SMALLEST van in Britain: Citroen's electric Ami Cargo will be sold in the UK next year - the £6,000 single-seat vehicle has a range of just 47 MILES






www.msn.com


----------



## Ozi (7 Nov 2021)

Just thought I'd post this, it's from MyGridGB. Not often you see the carbon intensity drop below 100 but it does happen (I know it's a Sunday but it's still good to see).


----------



## Fitzroy (7 Nov 2021)

Ozi said:


> Good points and all being worked on. I assume you saw the report issued by Volvo (a well known Chinese Company) comparing the life cycle emissions of one of their electric vehicles with it's IC version. The basic conclusion for those who didn't was that if the electricity used to charge it is produced with the current European average emissions it breaks even in comparison to the IC at 70,000 km
> 
> True and the resistance to rapid charging damage is improving, it's no different to IC vehicles if you abuse a machine it deteriorates, if you know your clients are going to abuse it you make it stronger. The problem reduces for smaller cheaper vehicles, they tend to be used for shorter journeys. If commuting 20 miles each way and doing a bit of local shopping etc. is your use then slow charge at home on cheap rate electricity, which hopefully is coming from a cleaner source and the battery can be repurposed when the car is beyond repair, you may loose top end performance but most of us drive cars capable of 110mph plus loose 20% of that and personally I'd never know. If you have 200 miles range and loose a bit of that as well for most of the journeys we make again no issue.


I was reading an analysis of embodied carbon breakeven distance for EVs the other day. 70k is pessimistic compared to those analysis, of course I can’t find the analysis now to link, but honest! I think more important is in the input assumptions on what is the emissions of the energy used to manufacture the batteries and the ongoing charging, once moved to EV any greening in electricity generation is instantly captured through the vehicle stock.


----------



## Misterdog (7 Nov 2021)

Though when there is insufficient wind.









UK fires up coal power plant as gas prices soar


An old coal plant has had to be brought back online after a spike in the price of natural gas.



www.bbc.co.uk





We will need fossil fuel or nuclear back up for decades. Unless we are prepared to tolerate power cuts.
Electricity is currently 5 times the cost of gas per Kwh, only when the price of electricity drops will people be able to afford air source heat pumps to heat their homes. (ignoring the installation/running costs including all new bigger radiators)
You would have to tear my 1865 house apart to fit such.


----------



## Misterdog (7 Nov 2021)

The biggest irony of the year so far.









Why is there a CO2 shortage and how will it hit food supplies?


The UK's food industry has been told it must pay five times more for carbon dioxide in future.



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Blackswanwood (7 Nov 2021)

The electric vehicle question is interesting.

I think a major factor that will accelerate the move over the next couple of years will be as the large car fleets make the change.

I also think the concept of car ownership will change. Driverless cars are the real game changer.


----------



## baldkev (7 Nov 2021)

Fitzroy said:


> if we as a globe diverted all spend on defence into clean energy infrastructure, the world’s governments spent $2 trillion on this in 2020, 10yrs of that and you could build sufficient wind infrastructure to cover most global energy needs.




How much has the world spent on coronavirus?
In feb 2021, forbes put it at 24 trillion ( google search )


----------



## Ozi (7 Nov 2021)

Fitzroy said:


> I was reading an analysis of embodied carbon breakeven distance for EVs the other day. 70k is pessimistic compared to those analysis, of course I can’t find the analysis now to link, but honest! I think more important is in the input assumptions on what is the emissions of the energy used to manufacture the batteries and the ongoing charging, once moved to EV any greening in electricity generation is instantly captured through the vehicle stock.


That was their point, Europe in general is not making the improvements in generation that need to be. The biggest offenders are Poland and Germany, we are one of the better examples with France doing very well due to nuclear.


----------



## Skydivermel (7 Nov 2021)

I've been in the construction industry for 30 years as a mechanical engineer designing large heating and ventilation systems. On the global warming/carbon neutral issue there are a couple points that baffle me. 1st one is Govt pushing heat pumps. 70% of our housing stock is pre 1950 (cold and draughty) Gov is promoting heat pumps with an incentive of £5K if you choose to install one, or RHI at circa 21p/kWh. The heat pump equipment cost for an average 3 bed semi is around £5-7K so the £5k Gov grant might just about cover the eqpt cost. The RHI is only payable for 7 years at a max of 20K kWh PA. It's unlikely that an air source heat pump for a 3bed semi will generate 20K kWh. Even if it did your maximum payment over the 7 years would be just over £9K. However you cant have both the Gov grant and the RHI. It's either £5K or the RHI. 

On top of the equipment costs is the need to uprate the plumbing system. It's highly likely you'll have to increase the pipe sizing to 22mm on the primary side and you will have to increase the radiators to just about double their current size to accommodate the low flow temperature's. This adds to the equipment costs especially on the radiator sizes. Also add to that the plumbers labour to upgrade the plumbing system, and the electricians labour costs to wire it all in. It's around £350 a day for a plumber & mate and sparks around £250 day. 3-4 days for the plumbers and a day for the sparks, so labour costs to install will be about £1,650 + materials circa £150. Upgrading the radiators to to accommodate the lower water temperatures *will* have to be done, typically the mean water temperature from an ASHP is 50deg C. As an example, Delta T, or ∆T, refers to the difference in temperature between the water circulating in the central heating system and that of the ambient temperature. If the ambient temperature is 20ºC and the mean water temperature inside the radiators is 70ºC, the ∆T value is 70 - 20 = 50º. The heat output of a radiator is proportional to the temperature of the water inside it. The hotter the water inside the radiator, the greater the heat output of the radiator. So, with a ∆T of 50º, the radiator might give off 1000 Watts (3400 BTUs), but reduce the temperature of the water inside so that the ∆T is 30º and the same radiator gives just 510 Watts (1700 BTUs).

Now you could upgrade your radiators to cast iron which work more efficiently with lower water temperatures but these can be prohibitively expensive. Don't forget you'll also need to increase your insulation and draught proofing also. So to sum up point 1 ASHP's (and having done an exercise for a client). A typical 3 bed semi ASHP install will cost circa £11 - 12K. Once installed the running costs are much more than a gas boiler. with electricity be circa 15p kWh (and rising) and gas being circa 4p kWh (and rising). So to upgrade it's going to cost you. Not everyone can afford to shell out £12k and be drip fed back £9K over a period of 7 years. Only people lucky enough to have that sort of money laying around will benefit whilst those on the energy breadline will suffer. 

Point 2. Can someone please tell my why every new build house in the UK isn't built with solar PV panels on the roof, and/or why every industrial building on every industrial estate in the UK doesn't have solar PV installed on them?


----------



## Spectric (7 Nov 2021)

Jameshow said:


> most of us cannot afford them new and will wait for them to drip feel into the used market. Especially the more exciting ones.


No one really knows how the secondhand market for EV's will develop because for non main dealers the risk may be to high, having to replace the batteries could cost more than the car is worth and they are dealing with new technology. Think how many decades the garages have been dealing with ICE vehicles. It may be at least initially people will be hesistant about second hand and will feel more comfortable with new from the main dealer so second hand prices will be low.


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2021)

Skydivermel said:


> I've been in the construction industry for 30 years as a mechanical engineer designing large heating and ventilation systems. On the global warming/carbon neutral issue there are a couple points that baffle me. 1st one is Govt pushing heat pumps.


Government inertia and incompetence. They are willing to make token noises and gestures but that's it so far. They will hope to blame other factors or people when things go wrong. It's a bigger problem than this lot can handle, not least because they are only slowly recovering from deeply rooted CC scepticism.


> Point 2. Can someone please tell my why every new build house in the UK isn't built with solar PV panels on the roof, and/or why every industrial building on every industrial estate in the UK doesn't have solar PV installed on them?


Good idea! Same 'reasoning' plus it'd mean raising taxation - which is now and always has been top of the tory agenda, in fact their single issue from early days. To start taxing and spending, however urgently it is needed, is against their deepest instincts


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> The electric vehicle question is interesting.
> 
> I think a major factor that will accelerate the move over the next couple of years will be as the large car fleets make the change.
> 
> I also think the concept of car ownership will change. Driverless cars are the real game changer.


Public transport an even bigger game changer. Big car toys for boys will be a thing of the past.


----------



## heimlaga (7 Nov 2021)

I don't think electic vehicles are an immediate solution to the traffic caused carbon dioxide problem. Not in their current shape.

To charge the number of electric vehicles necsessary to keep our car-based society going we need a massive increase in power generation and an entirely new electric grid capable of transfering all that power without any voltage drops. Surely that can be done but only at tremendously high costs. Many of us not very well paid workers and underfinanced small business owners cannot possibly afford an electic vehicle. For a car to be affordable to me it has to be either severely damaged by fire or collision or over 20 years old. And yet I am dependant on a car for earning my small income. The electric cars that are on the market at the moment are designed to be impossible to rebuild after a fire or a collision and the lifespan of the batteries is 6 or 7 years. Out of question for me and many million other Europeans.
The only way to afford owning an electric car would be to buy one with useless batteries and power it from a home built diesel generator towed on a trailer behind the car. I cannot possibly see where the environmental gain would be in running an old Perkins P4.212 (you need a motor with RPM regulator) taken out of a scrapped combine harvester powering a home built generator to feed the electic car. Though that is what a ban on cars with combustion engines would lead to.
Wood gas would be a renewable opportunity but as we all know the efficiency is very low in a woodgas powered motor. Most of the energy in the wood becomes heat in the gasifyer. The heat is cooled away before the gas even reaches the motor. There are better ways of using the world's limited timber resources.
Methane produced from organic waste (sewer and maunure) will certainly be a very good alternative fuel but there will not be enough of it.
Unemployment would be another solution to the problem but as we all know a society where everybody lives off benefits is not going to last.
Quadrupled minimum wages would be another solution but I wonder what big business and the right wingers would say about that.
In short we are stuck with fossil fueled cars for now. Whatever the car manufacturer and dealer lobby says.
So what to do then?

I rekon that the first step must necesserarily be to reduce the dependency on cars and lorries. More transports must be carried on railways and on ships. A new syncronized transport network must be deviced where goods is carried by ship and then loaded onto trains in the harbours and offloaded onto loading docks in every town the railway passes so that the distance it has to be carried by lorry becomes as short as possible. Small harbours must be modernized and put to use and coastal trade by ship revived. Unnecssessary transports back and forth for "logistic reasons" must be either banned or taxed to death. "Just in time" delivery systems must become a thing of the past. Your components come with the weekly packet from Germany and if the parcel didn't get to the harbour in time to be loaded it will arrive a week later. Anyone whining about lead times can fetch his parcel from the DHL facility in Hamburg himself. By rowboat.
Supply chains must be shortened so cope with longer lead times. More production in Europe.

We must all learn to travel by bus, train, and ship when going on longer journeys. We must all say goodbye to winter holidays in Greece and visits with relatives in USA. From now on travelling will take time!
To make the best we can of the new limitations we need ferries (or packets if you like) running on timetables syncronized with the railway which in turn is syncronized with bus lines.
To reduce commuter traffic we need to break up the distinction between residential and industrial areas so that small business owners can live and work in one place. We need to set up bus lines everywhere and to distribute industries and businesses mere evenly. We also need to improve data networks and electric grids to allow more people to work from home.

When all this is done car and lorry traffic will probably be reduced enough to make it viable to go electric or methane with the rest..... or at least I hope so.....


----------



## Just4Fun (7 Nov 2021)

Skydivermel said:


> Upgrading the radiators to to accommodate the lower water temperatures *will* have to be done, typically the mean water temperature from an ASHP is 50deg C.


Yes, but ... 
*If* the water temperatures are lower then the radiators will need to be upgraded, but water temperatures are *not *inevitably lower with a heat pump. Our radiators ran at a maximum temperature of 55C when we had an oil burner for heating and we did not not need to change the radiators when we fitted a heat pump. (We fitted a GSHP not an ASHP but the principle still holds). The heat pump runs the rads at the same temperatures as the oil burner used to. When we changed we installed the heat pump and that was it. Still expensive of course, but no rad upgrades, pipe changes or other system modifications.


----------



## Misterdog (7 Nov 2021)

So your rads were specked correctly to start with, though 95% of homes are not.
Many homes cannot even cope when the outside temperature falls below zero.


----------



## Just4Fun (7 Nov 2021)

Misterdog said:


> So your rads were specked correctly to start with,


OK.


> though 95% of homes are not.


I would not know what percentage of homes have under-sized radiators. I do know that my own experience proves that it is not inevitable that rads will need to be upgraded when fitting a heat pump.



> Many homes cannot even cope when the outside temperature falls below zero.


If true, that is ridiculous. Even in the UK the temperature gets below zero often enough that all houses should cope with it.


----------



## Flynnwood (7 Nov 2021)

Ozi said:


> This is a really hazy memory and may be wrong but I think the two windmills info came from an Island community who had previously generated electricity from Diesel until installing a wind turbine. They then payed for their electricity at a price intended to pay back the loan or possibly grant and pay for two replacements within the projected life of the first unit.
> My main memory was a reporter leaning into the wind struggling to interview two of the locals saying what happens when it's not windy and getting a look of complete incomprehension.



I recall having an online conversation with someone a long time ago who had retired from BP. His words:

"Windmills are just sitting there doing sweet FA cos the wind ain't blowing or they're clogged up with snow or summat.

Barometric pressure tends to be high in the winter in Blighty. High pressure means no wind. No wind, no leccy from windmills.

When I look at windmills, especially on a day when the horrible things are sitting there motionless like the fighting machines in Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds after the bacteria did for 'em, I just think that there's not enough energy there to pull the skin off a rice pudding.

Shell (and BP) used to be in the windmill biz in Blighty until a few years ago, but sold out completely because the underlying economics just weren't right.

Clearly, if you've got a bunch of built windmills sitting ruining the view somewhere, there will be a price at which any 12 year old spreadsheet jockey can make out an investment case for 'em"


----------



## RobinBHM (7 Nov 2021)

Skydivermel said:


> . 1st one is Govt pushing heat pumps



Well they did try insulation first…..but that failed miserably and people are having to remove it…..so heat pumps will be the next failure.

oh, apart from smart meters, another failure.


none of these things are a failure if you are running businesses getting these contracts…….


----------



## RobinBHM (7 Nov 2021)

Skydivermel said:


> Point 2. Can someone please tell my why every new build house in the UK isn't built with solar PV panels on the roof, and/or why every industrial building on every industrial estate in the UK doesn't have solar PV installed on them



good points.


----------



## RobinBHM (7 Nov 2021)

The simple fact is only the well off will be able to afford the capital investment to install renewables like solar power or buy Tesla cars.

So when energy prices ramp up to force people to go green, the poor will suffer the most.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (7 Nov 2021)

Skydivermel said:


> Point 2. Can someone please tell my why every new build house in the UK isn't built with solar PV panels on the roof, and/or why every industrial building on every industrial estate in the UK doesn't have solar PV installed on them?


Where I live it is impossible to install a new solar system to supply the grid: it's full up. The system can't cope with any more randomly variable, only working for 30% of the time energy. A solar panel on every roof would cause chaos across the grid as the power and voltage leapt about according to the vagaries of any passing cloud.

Imagine the Sahara desert covered in solar panels supplying all of Europe (and Africa? ) with all the energy they need...and then the sun goes down. How do you balance it all? The simple answer is that you don't, currently. It may be that someone comes up with a cunning plan, and gravity batteries _might_ be it, but for now it's just not possible.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (7 Nov 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> So when energy prices ramp up to force people to go green, the poor will suffer the most.


The choice is to fix the problems as they come up, _if_ they arise - or fix the problems now in anticipation of the dire consequences of the runaway Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Emergency etc, so on and so forth.

As I see it the equation is simple: how many people must die now, in order to save how many potential people at some point in the future? No one likes to talk about it though.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (7 Nov 2021)

If the intention is that eventually all grid energy is zero carbon, why does it make sense to install PV on domestic or other buildings:

is a domestic roof a better location - probably not unless aligned for maximum efficiency.
do the economics favour 4KW arrays rather than 100KW++ arrays in a field - probably not due to economies of scale in installation and associated kit - cabling, inverters etc etc
is it cheaper for the consumer to have their own panels - depends entirely on government subsidies
does home PV reduce the maximum load on the distribution networks - unclear
do home PV transfer the funding of investment from energy companies/national grid to the consumer - yes
So it looks like there is little or no fundamental environmental case for domestic installations - for most it will be an economic decision. It is however clear why the government may chose to encourage home installation.

There may be a self sufficiency aspect to the decision which is neither environmental or economic - particularly if combined with battery storage.


----------



## heimlaga (7 Nov 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> If the intention is that eventually all grid energy is zero carbon, why does it make sense to install PV on domestic or other buildings:
> 
> is a domestic roof a better location - probably not unless aligned for maximum efficiency.
> do the economics favour 4KW arrays rather than 100KW++ arrays in a field - probably not due to economies of scale in installation and associated kit - cabling, inverters etc etc
> ...


To my understanding it is about spreading the risk. If you have 40 hectares f solar panels in one place and a cloud passes by you get a significant dip in production. If you have a few square metres here and there it is less likely that a disturbance happens everywhere at once.
It may also be about not wasting valuable farmland or woodland which we have other uses for. You don't normally farm much on a roof...... not since it went out of fashion to have goats grazing on turf roofs.
This is my understanding. I may be wrong though.


----------



## Misterdog (7 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> As I see it the equation is simple: how many people must die now, in order to save how many potential people at some point in the future? No one likes to talk about it though.



It took 60 years to remove lead from petrol used in cars, ( July 2021)









Leaded petrol is gone – but lead pollution may linger for a very long time


The world recently celebrated the end of leaded petrol, as sales ceased in Algeria.




theconversation.com





How many have/will die as a result of that ?

Thinking that we can control the worlds Carbon output in 20/30 years is a bit laughable in my opinion.


----------



## TominDales (7 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> On these tariffs, we would need an air or ground source heat pump to have a COP of nearly 6 to break even on heating costs. Since they seem to average out at almost 3 over the year, from what I've read, our heating bills will double. Much as I'd like to be greener, doubled heating bills are not much of an incentive.
> Maybe there's a mistake in my figgering?


Hi just seen this post. My look into the crystal ball of future energy costs is a follows. Cost of electricity will rise more slowly than gas, for 3 reasons, i) electricity currently takes the hit for climate change levys and for upgrade costs to the national grid, both elec and gas grids, government policy will swap this over putting more fixed costs into gas and less onto elect. (it was policy to put the cost onto elect as it suited the government to have cheap gas as its was from the North sea and so gas infrastructure was prioritised and subsidised), I expect that to go into revers with gas subsidising the electric grid in future. 2) Off-shore wind costs will fall as turbines get even bigger. 3) gas will become scares and hence a bit more expensive. one way or another the government will fix the prices of elec and gas to get us onto GSHP


----------



## TominDales (8 Nov 2021)

hairy said:


> It would be sacrilege to put tea in a flask obviously! Stick to just hot water then make cuppa soup, tea, hot chocolate whatever in the mug.
> That particular flask keeps the water so hot it seems no different to just boiled from the kettle. Brodies do Earl Grey in a pocket friendly sachet if out and about, then I don't need milk.


Black tea is best brewed below boiling point, between 90 and 98c depending on type, so a good flask may well have water at 90c. Early grey is better at 90c than 98/100c.


----------



## TominDales (8 Nov 2021)

nickds1 said:


> I realise that - which is why I mentioned the GSHP - the hot water we get from that is potable and sterilised weekly (2-hour heated > 60C) and there is no header tank - ours is a pressurised sealed system.
> 
> Older properties with vented HW systems are indeed ghastly.
> 
> ...


A good brew of tea needs oxygen in the water, does the water in the hot tap have enough? I suspect you would not have continued if the tea tastes bad so I presume it has enough. I suspect most houses will move to a system like yours as we rip out our gas boilers to prepare for a heat pump future.


----------



## TominDales (8 Nov 2021)

Sandyn said:


> I am of the same opinion. It just seemed like common sense to me that incandescent lamps are just heaters which give off some light, 10% light and 90% heat, so if you change to LED, 60% light 40% heat (that's overall efficiency) you are reducing the amount of heat produced. If the house temperature is controlled and remains the same, the CH will have to supply the difference, so savings will be minimal.
> In a hotter climate, it's a different story, there would be a bigger saving because the air conditioning would run less to remove the extra heat from the incandescent bulbs.
> I did some calculations on my usage and the total power consumption has gone up slightly, converting everything to LED. The reason is, I have much higher lighting levels in and around the house with incandescent, 21500 total lumens for Incandescent and 64700 total lumens for LED.
> 
> I'm not suggesting we go back to incandescent. I love LED lighting, but they didn't give the whole picture. I would like to see how much energy it takes to make an LED bulb compared to incandescent, the whole life cost of both, including disposal and recycling.


You raise a number of intersecting points. firstly with LED you have added more light, it is more affordable so we use more, that is always a problem with advances in technology, they tend to increase consumption. Our household is the same, my wife and I need a lot more lumens to see than the kids so we have increased the number of lumens in the home with LED and also added a lot more outside lights. That said, LED use 10x less electricity than incandescent so you are still winning, I'm surprised you electricity bill hasn't fallen, I'd expect you lighting to use on 1/3 of the electricity of the incandescent even at 64k lumens. Maybe they are left on longer? or the kettle or washer dryer, which are the dominant users in our household have outweighed the light saving.
Overall LEDs have reduced the world's office electricity bill by 25% that is a lot of CO2 saved. Its a genuine win win, less CO2 and less cost.

The other question you asked was life cycle analysis of LEDs vs Incandescent bulbs. In this case LEDs win hands down:
1. Firstly they use 90% less electricity whilst running and that is by far the biggest impact on the environment.
2. Secondly they last longer, on average about 15 times longer. Some last 50,000 hours, but although the semiconductor will last for 50,000 or more hours its usually the ballast that gives up, anytime from 10,000 to 25,000 hours. So you need 10 to 25 (say 15 on average) times more bulbs for one LED.
3. Finally LEDs use less harmful materials. They use a small amount of semiconductor (silicon, Nitrogen, gallium Phosphorus) and quite a lot of aluminium in the heat sink, but aluminium is 100% recyclable. Incandescent are made with glass which uses heat to form and also contain tungsten which is a scares metal, although Gallium is also a metal that is getting hard to source. The amount of gallium in a LED is tiny 0.025g vs 1g of Tungsten in an incandescent so gram for gram there is 400 times less rare metal. However even at these low concentrations, people are beginning to look at ways to recycle the metals. I should add a CFL contains 0.004g of mercury, not enough to harm us if one breaks but another win from switching to LEDs.


----------



## ian33a (8 Nov 2021)

Skydivermel said:


> 1st one is Govt pushing heat pumps.



I think they see an opportunity for a growth industry and positive PR: Loads of UK companies making heat pumps and flying the national flag and even more companies installing them, all wrapped in a green agenda and with an opportunity to generate revenue through taxation. It comes across as a PR win. As I see it though, the idea is big on ideas and small on implementation strategy.



Skydivermel said:


> Point 2. Can someone please tell my why every new build house in the UK isn't built with solar PV panels on the roof, and/or why every industrial building on every industrial estate in the UK doesn't have solar PV installed on them?



Because the financial cost to install them dilutes the profit that the house builder would otherwise make. Buyers are not seduced by the advantages of PV, in part because the FIT incentives aren't there anymore and the pay back is still relatively long.

Industrial buildings, again, short term cost vs. long term gain. So many businesses don't look beyond the end of the current financial year.


If the cost of install for both 1 and 2 was properly subsidised so as to slot into a joined up green agenda then, maybe, the take up would be better. Few of us fork out the money to really promote a green agenda if it's going to cost us big time in the short term - even if we say we will. 

BTW, we have PV on our house, just for context.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (8 Nov 2021)

I can see no reason why new builds are not mandated to be at the highest possible level of energy efficiency. It will increase costs, but the absence of legislation is wholly down to the success of housebuilders in lobbying government in pursuit of profit.

The car industry - ICE sales banned from 2030, and gas boiler manufacturers - market shrinking quickly post 2035 are evidence of the ability of government to act when they want to.

Currently gas and electricity serve two fundamental purposes. Somewhat simplisticaly, gas can only provide heat, electricity can provde all energy needs - heat and light. 

Generating electricity from gas creates losses, as do all energy conversion processes. It is typically ~60% efficient. Burning gas in a domestic boiler is ~90% efficient. Measured on a cost per KWH basis electricity will always be more expensive than gas unless the distribution costs are markedly different.


----------



## TominDales (8 Nov 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I can see no reason why new builds are not mandated to be at the highest possible level of energy efficiency. It will increase costs, but the absence of legislation is wholly down to the success of housebuilders in lobbying government in pursuit of profit.
> 
> The car industry - ICE sales banned from 2030, and gas boiler manufacturers - market shrinking quickly post 2035 are evidence of the ability of government to act when they want to.
> 
> ...


I would add to this wind energy, North sea wind is on a fast learning curve (experience curve) so the cost is falling fast. Government forecast (in 2020) is cost will be £47mWhr by 2030, UK Government halves offshore wind cost forecasts personally I think it will fall faster having seen the plans for even bigger turbines. North sea gas cost 3.8p kwh that is £38mWhr. So by 2030 there will be a 1p difference in cost. Factor in that the cost of the gas grid is largely paid through our electricity bill and this will surely be reverssed in the next few years and I predict that electricity will be cheaper than gas, especially if you factor in a wack of carbon taxes on gas.

On your original point, I sure you are right that its ridiculous that new builds are not required to be net zero, its so much simpler to insulate a house when its build than a retrofit. Most of the cost of housing is the land charge, adding in sensible PV, a huge amount of insulation and a heat pump should be done at build stage.
I'm sure your are correct that the colossal lobbying by the housebuilders and developers (more millionaires than any other sector in the UK and more donations to the governing party than any other sector). Even now the developers seem to get away with their old planning tricks, a new build in our area - Bishop Monkton was supposed to be 50% affordable homes, but the developer put in the roads and then all work stopped and they waited until the covenant expired so that they could build 100% £500k 4 beds, they got away with in and this is in the past 5 years.


----------



## Just4Fun (8 Nov 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Generating electricity from gas creates losses, as do all energy conversion processes. It is typically ~60% efficient.


Not quite right. It is at best ~60% efficient. In the combined cycle mode, the new “H class” Gas turbines with a triple pressure HRSG (heat recovery steam generator) and steam turbine can run at 60 % efficiency at ISO conditions. (Source: www.brighthubengineering.com among many others). Older plants in the simple cycle mode, only Gas turbines running, have an efficiency of 32 % to 38 %.

Coal-fired plants are in the range 32% to 42% (same source).

An improvement would be combined heat & power production (CHP) where the heat wasted by a conventional plant in heating the cooling towers is used to heat a local town or for local industry. Overall CHP efficiencies for gas turbines are typically in the range of 65% to 70%, although higher efficiencies can be achieved depending on site specific conditions and engineering design configurations. (Source: US Dept of energy).

Here in Finland where I live CHP efficiencies are typically higher. For example, burning 100 MJ fuel in a CHP plant generates 36 MJe usable electricity and 51 MJ heat. (Source: cleanfi.fi). Other plants achieve over 90% efficiency (Source: power-technology.com).

CHP is all but unknown in the UK I believe. If it raised power plant efficiency from 60% (absolute best at the moment) to 80% (comfortably below the efficiencies already reached by CHP) its adoption could have a really significant effect. The EU has estimated that District Heating and Cooling (DHC) alone could reduce European CO2 emissions by nearly 10% using mainly renewable sources and industrial waste heat. (Source: power-technology.com). Once again, the barrier is the up-front infrastructure costs.


----------



## TominDales (8 Nov 2021)

Droogs said:


> Tea is amazing stuff, I have to drink it as I eat as it's tannin content reduces my absorbtion of iron by as much as 30%, it has been used as a preservative for specimens in glass jars and according to a very interesting documentary I saw years ago is basically responsible for Britain leading the industrial revolution and not any other european power. Down to the fact they all drank coffee and we drank tea, which meant we were boiling our drinking water and they weren't. This then actually allowed us to create much denser conurbations with less risk of disease and that meant we had a more concentrated industrial workforce/base in much larger cities. Apparently by the time of the Franco-Prussian war London was 4 times the size and Birmingham twice as large as any other cities and all down to drinking tea.
> 
> I really wish I could find that programme again.
> 
> ...


----------



## TominDales (8 Nov 2021)

and beer, 

I've read that because the British drank beer and tea it enabled towns to grow beyond the point where cholera epidemics limited size. Both use boiled water. Even babies and children were given beer instead of water, it was about 2% abv. 

Staying with my old granny in the 1980s, I offered her some water after dinner to dilute down the bottle of wine we had just drunk. Water! she exclaimed. I've lived hear for 55 years and never drank a drop, I don't intend to start. She ran on tea as did most of her generation.


----------



## TominDales (8 Nov 2021)

Sandyn said:


> I'm very cynical about new technology as a way of saving the planet. There is too much money involved for the truth to be revealed. Electric cars are an example. I am not convinced it is a solution.


I agree with you, it hard to see the wood from the trees. Given the PR spewing out of the oil majors, you would think their business was green energy. However new technology will be needed as so much old tech uses CO2. Electric cars will make a big difference when the grid is low carbon. So eclectic cars in France and Nordics with a low carbon grid makes sense, but not in Poland where they use brown coal. By 2030 the UK will have a low carbon electric grid, so electric cars will make sense. Even now they are a good way to reduce Nox in town.

However you almost have to be an expert to see through all the noise as Misterdog has just commented, car stop start is just playing around the edges.

Without new Tech we dont stand a chance of reaching net zero, although people will cut back on profligate consumption to a small degree in reality its hard to see people giving up on travel, central heating, etc. So new tech that provides means for ordinary people to be forced to net zero is the only way its going to happen, a bit like 'being forced to adopt LED bulbs' we will be forced to change the fuel used in transport and central heating. I can see EVs being the dominant technology for cars. But sustainable aviation fuel and other alternative fuels will probably be needed for air-travel and maybe for central heating. However the technology its a lot more expensive than diesel refining at the moment, not sure we as a population are ready to see these fuels at 200% to 300% the cost of diesel /kerosene. Presumably the costs will fall as the new manufacturing routes become established.


----------



## TRITON (8 Nov 2021)

TominDales said:


> But sustainable aviation fuel and other alternative fuels will probably be needed for air-travel


Back to sailing ships and hot air balloons.


----------



## RobinBHM (8 Nov 2021)

I wonder how soon jumbo jets will go Li-on 

will they choose Makita double 18v or Dewalt flex volt……


----------



## Sandyn (8 Nov 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> I wonder how soon jumbo jets will go Li-on


I would put a pedal powered generator in every seat!!!


----------



## Sandyn (8 Nov 2021)

This is interesting:





Just a development unit just now. The only problem is they had to limit the size of the fuel tank to stop it floating away.


----------



## Droogs (8 Nov 2021)

A bit more useful than their electric version


----------



## TominDales (9 Nov 2021)

Misterdog said:


> The number of cars on UK roads has risen by 5.5 million in the last 20 years, so in 20 years time it will be more a case of stop/stop rather than stop/start.
> 
> As people will be just driving around trying to find somewhere to park.


Maybe or maybe not. I feel we are approaching max car ownership in the UK. Ownership of cars in cities is down, Paris is turning its underused underground car parks into alternative's even aquiculture. Two or three new trends, use of social media means the younger generation don't travel as much. The pandemic has caused a rise in home working, and less travel to meetings, reducing the number of commutes. Autonomous vehicle will allow for vehicle share. Finally there is a possibility than future efficient recyclable and rather bland cars will reduce the apparel to own them.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (9 Nov 2021)

TominDales said:


> Finally there is a possibility than future efficient recyclable and rather bland cars will reduce the apparel


There will still be multimillion pound super cars for those that deserve them. One of the overriding themes of COP26 is how the super wealthy have congregated to explain how everyone except them must make sacrifices and reduce consumption and energy use. It's rather touching that they take an interest in the little people, don't you think?


----------



## Misterdog (9 Nov 2021)

TominDales said:


> Paris is turning its underused underground car parks into alternative's even aquiculture.



Though that is because traffic has been banned from half the city centre, not because there are less cars.

Cars can only pass on my road by driving onto the pavement, which is a little disconcerting when I am a pedestrian.


----------



## Lonsdale73 (9 Nov 2021)

hairy said:


> 3 Also, kind of almost related, I had always thought it was a thing that an upright fridge or freezer was wasteful because the air you had paid to chill falls out every time you open the door. I read someones experiment to see if that was the case and it was so tiny as to not be bothering with. They calculated, for comparison, after a warm or hot bath do you pull the plug? You would save many times more money than the fridge loses by leaving the water in the bath when you have finished until it had given up it's excess heat to the house then drain it, or you are paying to heat your drains! You do get more condensation though.



Last week, I had a smart meter fitted. It came with a 'smart' monitor that shows me how much is being used at any one time. I have separate fridge and freezer and obviously they need to be on all the time. I wondered just how much that cost and the monitor shows me that they run at about 1p per hour. Sometimes the display shows 1p per hour for both and sometimes even 0p, I guess when they're at their optimum temperature and therefore aren't drawing any power. The (new) kettle, is about 25p per minute and the toaster a whopping 46p per minute. The oven is quite interesting in that it draws c43p when heating up but next to nothing when at temperature. I had always assumed that when switched on, things like ovens and fridges drew power constantly. And the washing machine was a pleasant surprise at about 1p per hour throughout a three hour cycle.

I still don't see how they save me money as I still need to turn these appliances on in order to use them. Hopefully they will insofar as not having to pay the wildly inaccurate guesstimates utilities companies come up with. Between end of January this year and end of July, I received two refunds totalling over £400.


----------



## John Brown (9 Nov 2021)

We had smart meters fitted a few months back. Main advantage is I don't have to submit readings every month. Not so smart, either, as the electricity display is incapable of displaying negative values, so when the sun is shining on our PV panels the display sticks at zero.
I think their main function is one of prompting anxiety, especially since the big hike in electricity prices.


----------



## Misterdog (9 Nov 2021)

Smart meters are also to stop people from 'bypassing' the meter...


----------



## John Brown (9 Nov 2021)

Misterdog said:


> Smart meters are also to stop people from 'bypassing' the meter...


Anyone remember stories of people placing massive piles of old copper pennies on top of electricity meters to slow them down? Did it work, or was it an urban myth?

I used to have an interest in a surplus electronics (mainly transformers) shop in Paddington. We had people asking for a particular type of transformer, that we found out was being used in some sort of electric meter slowing/reversing circuit. Once again, no idea if it worked. We did refuse a few people, though, who looked, to us, like "that type". Mind you, about half the walk in customers around Paddington seemed to be borderline crazy.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 Nov 2021)

Lonsdale73 said:


> The (new) kettle, is about 25p per minute and the toaster a whopping 46p per minute.



Assuming you're paying 25p per kWh and your kettle is 3kWh (which is a big kettle) it would use 1.25p per minute


----------



## robgul (9 Nov 2021)

Lonsdale73 said:


> Last week, I had a smart meter fitted. It came with a 'smart' monitor that shows me how much is being used at any one time. I have separate fridge and freezer and obviously they need to be on all the time. I wondered just how much that cost and the monitor shows me that they run at about 1p per hour. Sometimes the display shows 1p per hour for both and sometimes even 0p, I guess when they're at their optimum temperature and therefore aren't drawing any power. The (new) kettle, is about 25p per minute and the toaster a whopping 46p per minute. The oven is quite interesting in that it draws c43p when heating up but next to nothing when at temperature. I had always assumed that when switched on, things like ovens and fridges drew power constantly. And the washing machine was a pleasant surprise at about 1p per hour throughout a three hour cycle.
> 
> I still don't see how they save me money as I still need to turn these appliances on in order to use them. Hopefully they will insofar as not having to pay the wildly inaccurate guesstimates utilities companies come up with. Between end of January this year and end of July, I received two refunds totalling over £400.



Take the readings on the SMART monitor with a large pinch of salt - they are notoriously unreliable. 

We had one in our previous house for a couple of years and have one at this house since June - I did get a bit concerned when we were allegedly burning gas at the rate of £35,000.00 per hour (yes, 35 thousand quid) - and the electricity side shows no consumption when a tumble drier and bread machine were running. It does tell you what time it is though!

"Saving money with Smart meters" simply isn't true - the saving is that being aware of the consumption it frightens you and you switch stuff off. The ONLY upside I can see is that the meter readings go to the supplier (our billing matches the readings I take each month) for billing.


----------



## Lonsdale73 (9 Nov 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Assuming you're paying 25p per kWh and your kettle is 3kWh (which is a big kettle) it would use 1.25p per minute


 You know, I'd never really given any thought to the power of a kettle so I've just checked the label and it says 2250-3000w. I'm not entirely convinced as to how accurate they are so not taking the readings too seriously. For example, at 7am it said I had used 40p for the day so I want to know who broke in while I was tucked up in bed and stole some watts!


----------



## Lonsdale73 (9 Nov 2021)

robgul said:


> Take the readings on the SMART monitor with a large pinch of salt - they are notoriously unreliable.
> 
> We had one in our previous house for a couple of years and have one at this house since June - I did get a bit concerned when we were allegedly burning gas at the rate of £35,000.00 per hour (yes, 35 thousand quid) - and the electricity side shows no consumption when a tumble drier and bread machine were running. It does tell you what time it is though!
> 
> "Saving money with Smart meters" simply isn't true - the saving is that being aware of the consumption it frightens you and you switch stuff off. The ONLY upside I can see is that the meter readings go to the supplier (our billing matches the readings I take each month) for billing.



It saves the utility companies as they no longer employ meter readers. I've been querying this assertion for years and never had a straight answer from any company on the subject. I've only had this one fitted as I've not long moved in and the previous owner faced a £70k gas bill for a house that had stood empty for a few months through the better part of summer! So far lectric only as engineer took one look at the gas meter and stated it was above his pay grade to even contemplate tackling it. He did say it was still possible to bypass them and in my neighbourhood the going rate for this service is £50.


----------



## Donald Sinclair (9 Nov 2021)

Having a digestive biscuit with your tea will further reduce your iron stores.


----------



## baldkev (9 Nov 2021)

Donald Sinclair said:


> Having a digestive biscuit with your tea will further reduce your iron stores.



Eh?
It'll reduce the change in your pocket i guess.... what about chocolate digestives?


----------



## Droogs (9 Nov 2021)

@baldkev I think Donald's post was in answer to mine about tea helping lower my iron intake. Re Choccy Ds sadly no, too much sugar


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 Nov 2021)

Lonsdale73 said:


> . He did say it was still possible to bypass them and in my neighbourhood the going rate for this service is £50.



I read the other day that there is more electricity stolen in one Indian State than all but eight of the highest consuming Countries in the world use.


----------



## Ozi (10 Nov 2021)

I have found my smart meter both accurate and useful. I can see at a glance when my kids have left their rooms switched on and that's hundreds of Watts, it even tells me who's awake as each consume different (excessive) amounts, it's prompted me to change all our lights to LED. Sad but I enjoy turning something unnecessary off that I wouldn't have known about when it's been left on and seeing the current usage light go from orange to green.


----------



## Dave Moore (10 Nov 2021)

Just4Fun said:


> Not quite right. It is at best ~60% efficient. In the combined cycle mode, the new “H class” Gas turbines with a triple pressure HRSG (heat recovery steam generator) and steam turbine can run at 60 % efficiency at ISO conditions. (Source: www.brighthubengineering.com among many others). Older plants in the simple cycle mode, only Gas turbines running, have an efficiency of 32 % to 38 %.
> 
> Coal-fired plants are in the range 32% to 42% (same source).
> 
> ...


Hi,
There are lots of CHP gas stations in the uk and I ve worked on the building of some. In fact ones that were built over 25 yrs ago and at end of life. The waste heat is used differently as it heats a waste heat boiler that drives a steam turbine generator as well as the gas turbine. Only problem is you cannot switch these on or off like you can with simply a gas turbine. Gas turbines as individual generators have been built at Lincoln (it’s now owned by Siemens) for around 50 years at least and exported all over the world. The newer gas stations are a newer design and I believe are recycling the turbine waste heat differently.
Regards,
Dave


----------



## Just4Fun (10 Nov 2021)

Dave Moore said:


> There are lots of CHP gas stations in the uk and I ve worked on the building of some. In fact ones that were built over 25 yrs ago and at end of life. The waste heat is used differently as it heats a waste heat boiler that drives a steam turbine generator as well as the gas turbine.


Do you regard that as CHP or waste heat recovery? I view it as the latter if it is using heat that would otherwise be wasted. By contrast, CHP sets out to produce both heat and power. (In that sense my explanation was not really clear.) So CHP relies on a synergy between heat production and power production so that both are more efficient than they would be on their own. 

The heat produced is typically used for district heating schemes, so individual homes, businesses etc do not have their own heaters they just connect to the district heating system to tap the heat from the power plant. The heat can also be provided to industry in the form of steam. One recently-completed (2017) unit here produces 146 MW of electricity and 250 MW of heat and 50 MW steam, at 92% efficiency. I assume that it takes over from easiler units on the same site (that I am more familiar with) and the steam is mainly piped to a factory about 10 km away. Is there anything like that in the UK? Are there many district heating systems?


----------



## baldkev (10 Nov 2021)

Droogs said:


> @baldkev I think Donald's post was in answer to mine about tea helping lower my iron intake. Re Choccy Ds sadly no, too much sugar


Ahh, that makes more sense


----------



## baldkev (11 Nov 2021)

Just4Fun said:


> Do you regard that as CHP or waste heat recovery? I view it as the latter if it is using heat that would otherwise be wasted. By contrast, CHP sets out to produce both heat and power. (In that sense my explanation was not really clear.) So CHP relies on a synergy between heat production and power production so that both are more efficient than they would be on their own.
> 
> The heat produced is typically used for district heating schemes, so individual homes, businesses etc do not have their own heaters they just connect to the district heating system to tap the heat from the power plant. The heat can also be provided to industry in the form of steam. One recently-completed (2017) unit here produces 146 MW of electricity and 250 MW of heat and 50 MW steam, at 92% efficiency. I assume that it takes over from easiler units on the same site (that I am more familiar with) and the steam is mainly piped to a factory about 10 km away. Is there anything like that in the UK? Are there many district heating systems?


Yarp.....




__





Viridor | UK's Recycling, Resource & Waste Management Company







www.viridor.co.uk





Its about an hour from me


----------



## Woody2Shoes (11 Nov 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I can see no reason why new builds are not mandated to be at the highest possible level of energy efficiency. It will increase costs, but the absence of legislation is wholly down to the success of housebuilders in lobbying government in pursuit of profit.
> 
> The car industry - ICE sales banned from 2030, and gas boiler manufacturers - market shrinking quickly post 2035 are evidence of the ability of government to act when they want to.
> 
> ...


I agree about the house builders, I think they've got away with murder for far too long. I think you're overstating the government's power/determination with respect to phasing out ICE cars - the industry is making the change (and some of the old, particularly US, big names will disappear to be replaced by Chinese ones). I see a move to domestic ASHPs as potentially fraught - especially if we don't make much better progress de-carbonising our grid.


----------



## Ozi (14 Nov 2021)

Rely on wind, water and solar? These islanders show how


As the world slowly moves away from using fossil fuels for electricity, a tiny Scottish island has shown it’s possible to rely almost entirely on renewables.



www.bbc.co.uk





Saw this today, thought you might be interested. The big difference of course is that for these people it was a step forward but a lot of us are going to have to think about rationing power consumption.

On the subject of CHP Jaguar and Aston Martin use this on their Gaydon site.


----------

