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

[Jake]

i think it's a good thing.

I can't see the argument against it really. Unless you are a gas or oil producer.

 

[Jake]

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.

The trouble with hydrogen is that its promises just cannot keep pace with battery development, so far at least. The cost-efficiency target just keeps outstripping it for most things. HGVs were assumed to be a natural big target market, but those are beginning to look like they will tip over towards batteries on cost-efficiency.

 

[Sachakins]

Ground source heat pump systems

In theory, seemingly great idea, especially if you have the land space.

There is one glaringly obvious problem with them when used enmasse, like entire housing estates.

If you continually extract the ground heat on a large scale, then obviously the ground temp will decrease over time in that area, affecting the local habitat greatly, even to the local extinction of insects first, then the obvious knock on effects.

On earth you don't get something for nothing, see first law of Thermodynamics.

The only energy we can ever use that will have no impact on this planet is that which eminates off planet, ie solar.

Even then the impact on resources to make solar systemd and batteries is still a drain on finite resources.

 

[Nigel Burden]

A colleague of my wife lived in New Zealand for a number of years. The property they lived in had heating provided via a ground heat pump. In her opinion, it just about took the chill off the house.

IIAC, if a developer builds less than four hundred houses, they are not under any obligation to provide any addition to the local infrastructure.

Nigel.

 

[gcusick]

…..

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

That’s not strictly true, Phil.

About 9 years ago, we built a new house. It’s timber framed, with plenty of foam insulation in the walls, lots of mineral wool in the tiny roof space, but only ordinary double glazing. It’s about 270 m^2 (3000 square feet, in old money). We heat it with a ground-source heat pump (GSHP), but have no radiators! Underfloor heating throughout works perfectly with the GSHP’s output temperature, about 35C. And the UFH was cheaper to install at build time than reasonable radiators.

The problem over the last 10 years is the government’s deliberate move to weaken the regulations, and the effective dismantling of the inspection and enforcement regime. The higher energy efficiency standards proposed in the mid-2000’s for implementation in 2016 were abandoned, and, at one point, there was a suggestion of allowing developers to build “affordable” homes without insulation!

The simple fact is that energy efficiency is pretty cheap to incorporate at build time, but would add little to house prices. So every pound spent on energy efficiency is a pound less profit for Persimmon (or whoever). So, the only way to achieve this is through regulation, and that requires enforcement. Which, in turn, means that it’s a matter for government.

 

[doctor Bob]

My house is heated / hot water via a GSHP, bloody brilliant.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

IIAC, if a developer builds less than four hundred houses, they are not under any obligation to provide any addition to the local infrastructure.
Nigel.

That's why a developer I know owns (with his family) a couple of dozen different companies.

edit - it's one reason.

 

[gcusick]

Ground source heat pump systems

In theory, seemingly great idea, especially if you have the land space.

There is one glaringly obvious problem with them when used enmasse, like entire housing estates.

If you continually extract the ground heat on a large scale, then obviously the ground temp will decrease over time in that area, affecting the local habitat greatly, even to the local extinction of insects first, then the obvious knock on effects.

On earth you don't get something for nothing, see first law of Thermodynamics.

The only energy we can ever use that will have no impact on this planet is that which eminates off planet, ie solar.

Even then the impact on resources to make solar systemd and batteries is still a drain on finite resources.

In fact, the energy extracted by a GSHP is principally solar - the sun warms the earth. And large areas are not required. We heat 270m^2 of house off about 300m^2 of garden by using bore holes. Designed properly, the effect on the ground temperature is negligible, as the thermal conductivity of the ground is taken into account when laying out the bore hole locations.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I read a comment in the Press the other day from someone who said the government is going to have to do something about electricity pricing if they expect everyone to accept electricity instead of mains gas when the standard B. G. tariff for electricity is 19p per kwh and for gas 3.5p per kwh.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Where I live the bungalow would probably disappear down a hole if I put anything larger than a beanpole in the ground.

 

[Spectric]

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.

The property developers are only interested in selling a very cheap box for maximum profit and have no interest in the buyer, but why do councils allow them to build on known flood plains! It is true property companies have more clout than the local council, brown envelopes speak and they just destroy whole communities by excessive developement on green fields rather than brownfield sites.

 

[D_W]

I read a comment in the Press the other day from someone who said the government is going to have to do something about electricity pricing if they expect everyone to accept electricity instead of mains gas when the standard B. G. tariff for electricity is 19p per kwh and for gas 3.5p per kwh.

A little chuckle here when we decided that we'd make up for high energy costs with lots of caulk.

ground source heat pump will provide some of the difference in cost there, but it's not inexpensive to install, not always cheap to maintain (there is some lifetime limitation for the ground source wells here and then they need to be relocated), and still more expensive than gas.

 

[Sachakins]

In fact, the energy extracted by a GSHP is principally solar - the sun warms the earth. And large areas are not required. We heat 270m^2 of house off about 300m^2 of garden by using bore holes. Designed properly, the effect on the ground temperature is negligible, as the thermal conductivity of the ground is taken into account when laying out the bore hole locations.

Negligible in isolation, but massive when upscaled to 100s of properties in close proximity.
Saying "principally solar" is missing the point altogether. If we remove heat from soil there will be a price to pay environmentally.

Using pure sunlight solar energy is the only way to go, as it is available to excess.

Even onshore wind turbines have environmental impact, if you put enough in place it will eventual impact the environment behind them, if you extract all the wind energy, then the area of habit behind will change, as seeds and pollen will cease to be blown around causing imbalances to insects and everything else up the food chain.

Off shore windfarms don't suffer this, but they do disturb the sea life equilibrium as they introduce a low frequency hum into the water, which affects seaside over large distances.

 

[Blackswanwood]

A colleague of my wife lived in New Zealand for a number of years. The property they lived in had heating provided via a ground heat pump. In her opinion, it just about took the chill off the house.

IIAC, if a developer builds less than four hundred houses, they are not under any obligation to provide any addition to the local infrastructure.

Nigel.

I’m not sure what IIAC means Nigel but that is not correct. All local councils have the right to apply a Community Infastructure Levy And do. I think it came in from 2010 for developments that add more than 100 square metres of dwelling space. There are exemptions such as when affordable or social housing is included in the development.

 

[Blackswanwood]

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.

Things can always be made better but the changes made to Building Regulations over the years have already materially improved the thermal efficiency of properties.

 

[D_W]

I'll tell you what gets us a further measure - heating only part of the living space in winter. Who's going there? My MIL can detect 2 degrees drop in the far corners of a house, no problem, and raise cain.

I'll bet we use more energy per capita than we did 60 years ago. By far. we pat ourselves on the back all the time with special light bulbs, etc, and then proceed to travel twice or four times as far, climate control ourselves into a tiny comfort range (but we do it with efficiency) and then travel all over the world separate just from work and leisure travel- to take holiday.

If I didn't live with my wife, I'd be setting records in winter.

 

[Ozi]

Looking for one answer to the problem is unnecessary. We will almost certainly have some hydrogen fueled transport, some hydrogen heating produced when wind energy exceeds demand. Some solar, some tidal etc. Some reduction in consumption, work from home one day a week or work four ten hour days and cut travel cost and pollution by slightly more than 20% due to reduced congestion. (personally I would love to work 4 days a week x ten hours, imagine a three day weekend every week). Also stop heating our homes to 20°C all year round and buy a jumper like we used too. I grew up in a house with single glazing and one gas fire, it wasn't a hardship I'd bet many of you did as well

 

[Phil Pascoe]

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.
..................................
... "One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

Mark Twain's view on extrapolation.



Certainly. It's rather like one that said New York was going to be 2000' deep in horse doodah by 1900.
Nevertheless, it's scary if it's 10% of that.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

(personally I would love to work 4 days a week x ten hours, imagine a three day weekend every week).

A large local firm tried to introduce that about forty years ago, the idea being that as most of their people were regularly doing overtime it would allow either a three day weekend or for the overtime to be done on the Friday thus still leaving the weekend. Most of the men (mining machinery, it was virtually all men) though it was a great idea, but the unions involved wouldn't have it.

 

[Happy amateur]

I thought it was only a suggestion by the International Energy Agency (IEA) not a government statement.