Did you see the report that boilers sales are to stop 2025

[devonwoody]

So what can house holders of 90 year pensioners do in 2026?

 

[Sachakins]

Not strictly true.
Gas boilers are to be banned in new build properties from then on.
Existing boilers can and will still be serviceable and replaceable in existing installations.

 

[pe2dave]

And power generation will increase to compensate? Sounds ... odd?

 

[John Brown]

And power generation will increase to compensate? Sounds ... odd?

I think the idea is that people will use ground or air source heat pumps, and that a lot of electricity will be renewable.
I can't say if this is viable or not, but I believe that's the thinking.

 

[Spectric]

This sounds like another government attempt at scoring green brownie points, ideas thought up by nerds in dark corners of government without any input from engineering or reality. If this was a real attemp to reduce greenhouse gases by changing the way we are heating our homes then why are we still building thousands of cheap and nasty houses all over the countryside with paper thin walls to allow them to cram in more per area. If they made the walls much thicker using polysterene insulation blocks and similar construction methods then they could reduce the amount of energy needed to keep them warm, but this would reduce the number of hen coups (houses) they can cram into a field and reduce their profit margins which would upset property developers, who I dare say are government backers when it comes to finance.

So we reduce the amount of gas used in domestic property but need to increase gas usage in power stations to meet the demand in electrical usage from both charging our EV's and heating our homes, one day the government will wake up and realise it is a hopeless situation because the fundamental problem is population growth, leading to more homes, more consumption, more pollution and all whilst natural resources diminish. So once you get to a certain age you wake up and realise this so you know there is no solution and just get on with living, the problem is that many of our leaders are also of this age and know the same so they don't waste their time banging their head against a wall knowing they can in reality do or achieve nothing that can provide a long term solution so accept that the ship will eventually capsize and we go the way of the dinosaurs.

 

[eribaMotters]

Roy you are a bit out on a few points. Modern house building does produce far more efficient houses that need less energy to keep them warm
Electricity production is also moving to greener means. We now produce a lot of our energy without burning fossil fuels and the % is on the rise.
We are going in the correct direction, I just fear the infrastructure will not keep up with the changes being made.

Colin

 

[pe2dave]

I've the same concerns as Colin. Our generation of green energy may not keep up with all the 'green' transitions promised.

 

[Spectric]

They may be more efficient but they are not efficient enough, there are huge improvements that can be made but need to become a legal requirement under building regulations.

 

[Sachakins]

Whenever you set a minimum standard for anything, manufacturers will race to the bottom to meet them.

There should be at least a three standards, with incentives for the higher standards on new build affordable homes.

There is no incentive for builders to do anything more than minimum.

So either tier it or raise the bar a lot higher in the minimum standards.

 

[LJM]

Whenever you set a minimum standard for anything, manufacturers will race to the bottom to meet them.

There should be at least a three standards, with incentives for the higher standards on new build affordable homes.

There is no incentive for builders to do anything more than minimum.

So either tier it or raise the bar a lot higher in the minimum standards.

Or simply raise the minimum Standards

 

[D_W]

This is occurring in california here, too. I don't have a real hard thought about it (not just as a badge of being politically independent). California is looking to phase out thermal generation (gas stoves, gas dryers, etc) at the point of use level with the expectation that overall emissions are cleaner and lower if the power is generated centrally and then devices (like a heat pump ground sourced or electric dryer or stove) used at point of use.

They are probably right, most notably, that leaking of unburned gas and incomplete combustion bits are far higher in point of use appliances than they are at a giant turbine.

(I have a gas furnace - old one - love it. It's relatively inefficient and here in the states in the northeast/midwest where cold isn't freezing, but 25C below from time to time, it's a dandy contraption. I'm sure it emits more than a gas power plant would, though, and it does a lovely trick that I like - it sends about 15% or so of the heat value up the chimney so that the condensation goes to the atmoshphere and not in the stack or back into a drip pan. I will miss it when it finally gives up.

Gas is monstrously cheap here, but ground source heat pumps - or geothermal - are similar - just far more expensive to install. Air source heat pumps aren't totally uncommon here, but struggle when it's really cold.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Banning gas boilers in new builds makes good environmental sense (probably). We are capable technically of designing and building houses which even in the UK can be close to energy neutral.

What is unforgiveable is that councils still approve construction which fails to meet (or even get close to) what can be achieved. Assuming they understand the issue, they are often under pressure from developers keen to minimise costs and maximise revenue.

I have a good friend who is a local councillor. He acknowledges a basic truth - property companies have more clout than the council.

When push comes to shove the council run scared as they can't (or don't want to) afford the expensive lawyers needed to battle property company expensive lawyers. Roll over and give in is the order of the day!

 

[AJB Temple]

I think the developer / council power imbalance as described above is incorrect. Developers and councils are both under pressure to produce a lot of housing. And for a lot of it to be affordable. Councils have a huge amount of power over new build sites.

However, making passive houses is a LOT more expensive than a more ordinary house just built to regs. It needs better design, a lot of expensive insulation, very high build quality to achieve absence of air leakage, tends to take more space for the same internal area (insulated walls are thicker), uses more expensive materials that achieve higher insulation values (not all PIR foam is the same), ducting systems that normal houses no not have, much more expensive glazing, and so on. Not viable for affordable housing built for profit and without subsidy.

 

[doctor Bob]

i think it's a good thing.

 

[AJB Temple]

Agree. When I eventually build my next and final house it will be a passive house. No boilers. Pumping gas around the country is pretty daft when you think about it.

 

[treeturner123]

The issue of how and to what standard housing is built comes under the remit of Building Control whether council or consultant operated. All housing must comply to the Building Regulations. It is therefore down to the Government to update, alter and amend.

The issue therefore is on interpretation and whether the material suppliers are telling the truth or not. This has been amply demonstrated with cladding.

If the government wants to ban the use of gas fired boilers, it will need to amend the relevant part of the regulations. and fairly soon so that all manufacturers know what technical requirements there are.

The main problem with ground source systems is that, at present, any radiators need to be somewhat bigger than at present because the heat of the water in the pipes is lower. This is added to the fact that the space for the equipment externally is greater.

Phil

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The aim is to be carbon neutral by 2050. Apparently the only in depth study and costing of this has been done by New Zealand, and extrapolating these figures to suit our much larger population, this will cost the UK £440,000,000,000 every single year until then. Go figure.

 

[John Brown]

“In the space of one hundred and seventy six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over a mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oölitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-pole. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo [Illinois] and New Orleans will have joined their streets together and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

Mark Twain's view on extrapolation.

 

[Warksworker]

It’s interesting how much electricity is now renewable.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysi...-electricity-than-fossil-fuels-for-first-time
I did read an article a week or two back about converting to hydrogen gas. We can use excess electricity to generate hydrogen, store it, use it to replace methane.

Imagine, hydrogen to your home. Now how about replacing your petrol (or electric as I have) with a hydrogen cell. Starts to make sense to me.

Wonder how many remember the conversion from town to natural gas in the early 70‘s. Wonder if we will go through that again

 

[Sachakins]

Or simply raise the minimum Standards

I did say that at the end.