Use of coal, oil and fossil fuels

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

As I've said before, these aren't 'mistakes', it's by design. It's managed decline with a cover story.

Martin.

[John Doe 2Participant @johndoe2]

Posted by Graham Meek on 03/08/2023 12:20:14:

I don't know if any of the members saw the two programs on the BBC recently about the change to Electric cars and Heat Pumps.

To iterate some of the posts here we are totally ill prepared.

An estimate of the current fitting of Heat pumps means it will take 400 years to complete. A system that produces three times the heat for the energy put in (????) and uses electricity which is three times as expensive as gas. I don't think I will be fitting one anytime soon. The latest Nuclear plant is still being held up in the planning stages and has been for 10 years. The national grid cannot cope with the off shore electricity produced, so the companies are paid to turn the generators off.

A more efficient means of carbon capture from the burning of coal would be my way forward, and I don't mean pumping the stuff into disused oil wells. Carbon is one of the building blocks of life it's removal from the emissions means it could be used for other things. It just requires a bit of thinking outside the box.

Unfortunately big money runs the current thinking which is all electric.

Regards

Gray,

The 400 year "estimate" is by idiots who do not understand what a bell curve is: The initial uptake will be very small but then will rise exponentially, before starting to fall off after about 50% take-up. The future growth rate cannot be extrapolated linearly from the initial very low rate of a typical bell curve.

Heat pumps use about a quarter of the electricity than an electrical heater would use for the same heat output. This is because the heat produced by a heat pump comes from the air or the ground, NOT the electricity, which only runs pumps and fans, not the heating elements.

We keep hearing all these arguments, such as 'the grid can't cope', as if that is a good reason not to bother with new energy sources in the first place. Did they say that during WW ll when the Nazis started an airborne attack campaign? No, they just got on with it and built more fighters and bombers…….and beat them back and won !

We just need to get on with it now.

 

.

 

Edited By John Doe 2 on 03/08/2023 13:25:44

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Nigel Graham 2 on 02/08/2023 22:10:34:

You are right of course about petroleum but trying to get that Petroleum is not a "fossil fuel" into the heads of politicians of all flavours, campaigners, journalists and the General Public is probably akin to rolling a whole barrel of the stuff up Ben Nevis.

…

Can you explain please Nigel?

For all practical purposes Petroleum is a fossil fuel. Though it's possible to make petroleum from vegetable and animal sources, almost all petroleum is cracked and refined from Crude Oil, which most definitely is a fossil-fuel. Never mind politicians, campaigners, journalists and the General Public, the definition of petroleum comes from geologists (formation of rocks and minerals) and chemists (hydrocarbons).

Difficult to match the volume of petroleum currently made from crude oil by synthesising it. As reserves of crude-oil are depleted over the next 20 to 30 years, the cost of petroleum will rise sharply. Won't disappear entirely, just become too expensive for the ordinary motorist to burn in an engine.

Dave

 

 

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 03/08/2023 13:53:22

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by John Doe 2 on 03/08/2023 13:22:17:

Posted by Graham Meek on 03/08/2023 12:20:14:

I don't know if any of the members saw the two programs on the BBC recently about the change to Electric cars and Heat Pumps.

To iterate some of the posts here we are totally ill prepared.

An estimate of the current fitting of Heat pumps means it will take 400 years to complete. A system that produces three times the heat for the energy put in (????) and uses electricity which is three times as expensive as gas. I don't think I will be fitting one anytime soon. The latest Nuclear plant is still being held up in the planning stages and has been for 10 years. The national grid cannot cope with the off shore electricity produced, so the companies are paid to turn the generators off.

A more efficient means of carbon capture from the burning of coal would be my way forward, and I don't mean pumping the stuff into disused oil wells. Carbon is one of the building blocks of life it's removal from the emissions means it could be used for other things. It just requires a bit of thinking outside the box.

Unfortunately big money runs the current thinking which is all electric.

Regards

Gray,

The 400 year "estimate" is by idiots who do not understand what a bell curve is: The initial uptake will be very small but then will rise exponentially, before starting to fall off after about 50% take-up. The future growth rate cannot be extrapolated linearly from the initial very low rate of a typical bell curve.

Heat pumps use about a quarter of the electricity than an electrical heater would use for the same heat output. This is because the heat produced by a heat pump comes from the air or the ground, NOT the electricity, which only runs pumps and fans, not the heating elements.

We keep hearing all these arguments, such as 'the grid can't cope', as if that is a good reason not to bother with new energy sources in the first place. Did they say that during WW ll when the Nazis started an airborne attack campaign? No, they just got on with it and built more fighters and bombers…….and beat them back and won !

We just need to get on with it now.

.

Edited By John Doe 2 on 03/08/2023 13:25:44

How much is a heat pump installation, plus a new EV, plus a home charger?

I need to know how much to budget before I 'just get on with it'.

Martin.

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

15K + 35K or more +1K4

Today I saw an article which said that if I went down the heat pump route I could "save" £150+ on my annual bill, well that is a non starter with the interest on the cost rather more than that £150

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Gray –

Heat-pump efficiency.

I heard that misleading figure suggesting [energy out = 3 X energy in], as well.

I suspected a muddling of Heat and Temperature, in the same way I heard one correspondent on the radio using Latent when he meant Specific Heat; but I turned to one of my old text-books. I recalled it describing not "heat-pumps" as we call them now, but A Reversed Heat-Engine As A Warming Machine, in a chapter on refrigerators. That terminology had me foxed for a time, as i was looking for "heat-pump" !

These things are not new, but the book describes the principles of commercial plant, not domestic appliances, though the physics would be the same.

.

What we call a "heat-pump" relies on the amount of Heat moved being many times greater than the Work Done, which it will be if the Temperature change is low.

If H = the heat energy taken from the atmosphere at temperature t,

h = heat delivered to the room at temperature T,

W = work expended in heat units:

H/W = h / [ h-H] = T / [T -t ]

. The text then gives a worked example, presumably a real case though un-named, a refrigerator used for cooling an auditorium in Summer but reversed to warm it in Winter. The machine was driven by an oil-engine. (The book's latest impression was in 1942, hence that motive-power and all-British units.)

The temperature range ( T-t ) = (55 – 40) ºF.

The engine, we are told, used 0.5lb of oil per BHP per hour; at 20 000 Bt.H.U. / lb. .

After some sums, we have 69,900 BtHU of heat delivered to the auditorium, whereas burning that oil directly, in a lamp, would yield only 10 000 Bt.H.U. over that hour.

The text also calculates the system's efficiency, that of the engine being about 25%, the "warming machine" 80%.

It also points out more heat is available from the engine's exhaust and cooling-water, to 7460 Bt.H.U. – making the total for heating the theatre 77,360Bt.H.U. / H.P. hour.

So although not very intuitive, and I found it hard to grasp, the heat-pump transfers more energy than it consumes, by working over a modest temperature-range. That though, is one factor limiting the output temperature.

.

The above is for air-air transfer; and at 40ºF, not especially cold for a British Winter day! I don't know the effect of heating water, with its different specific heat.

Also of various experiences aired on the radio, some have reported very good results from installing a heat-pump, others wish they had not, with high installation and running costs making it a loss. Some of the running-cost will presumably be the immersion-heater tank necessary to raise the water temperature to what it should be, about 55ºC.

.

Reference:

Wright Baker, H. (rev. & ed. by), Inchley's Theory of Heat Engines, Longmans, Green & Co., 1st pub. 1913, last imp. 1942. pp.317-318.

[Graham MeekParticipant @grahammeek88282]

I regret to say the point I was trying to make is that we are totally ill prepared.

The laying of high voltage cables beneath London was I was told because the Grid cannot cope.

The installation of the heat pump on the program was costing £18,000.00 pounds according to the owner. At 71 years of age I am not going to lay out £18,000.00 just to get perhaps £5,000.00 from the Government.

As regards the efficiency again this is what was quoted on prime time TV by the BBC. It is of no consequence to me as I shall not be fitting one. (There is no room in my house for the rather large storage tank, for one thing).

Getting rid of coal before there was something viable to replace it is madness in my book. There are Carbon capture plants already in use around the world.

Regards

Gray,

[Bill PhinnParticipant @billphinn90025]

Posted by Chuck Taper on 03/08/2023 10:35:36:

The problem is not energy its our unwillingness to embrace and make the necessary changes to how we live.

Politicians only reflect our aggregate demand as a collective. We voted for them. i.e. its not them its us.

Posted by Graham Meek on 03/08/2023 18:34:28:

The installation of the heat pump on the program was costing £18,000.00 pounds according to the owner. At 71 years of age I am not going to lay out £18,000.00 just to get perhaps £5,000.00 from the Government.

Chuck Taper, Graham has nicely illustrated for us here that, for the individual citizen, an unwillingness to embrace the necessary changes is often based on common-sense economic principles, obedience to which is fundamental to that individual's short- and long-term economic survival.

No politicans I'm aware of, of any political stamp, have provided guarantees that making the necessary changes will actually be affordable for the individual on a limited budget, i.e. 99% of the electorate.

Until the necessary changes are viably affordable alternatives to the way we as individuals do things at present, then those necessary changes will not in most cases be made, and understandably so.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Bill Phinn on 03/08/2023 19:00:14:

Posted by Chuck Taper on 03/08/2023 10:35:36:

The problem is not energy its our unwillingness to embrace and make the necessary changes to how we live.

…

Chuck Taper, Graham has nicely illustrated for us here that, for the individual citizen, an unwillingness to embrace the necessary changes is often based on common-sense economic principles, obedience to which is fundamental to that individual's short- and long-term economic survival.

No politicans I'm aware of, of any political stamp, have provided guarantees that making the necessary changes will actually be affordable for the individual on a limited budget, i.e. 99% of the electorate.

Until the necessary changes are viably affordable alternatives to the way we as individuals do things at present, then those necessary changes will not in most cases be made, and understandably so.

'Common Sense' has little to do with economic principles. For example, plenty of posts in this thread assume the cost of fossil fuel sourced energy will stay low forever! Alas, it is not so, unless magic can be made to work, or the people who believe such stuff know of an enormous new source. Or believe 'they' will find more oil, not realising that 'they' will have to be a fairy godmother.

Always better to tackle problems before they turn into a crisis. Denial and self-interest are strategies, but they're not smart. Today, Silly Old Grandad might safely rely on dying before big bills start arriving, but his children will have to deal with life no matter what the old man believed.

No politicians I'm aware of, of any political stamp, have provided guarantees that not making the necessary changes will be affordable for the individual on a limited budget. Worse, my understanding of the oil and gas problem is that individuals on a limited budget are going to suffer unless something is done. The issue is that fossil fuel energy is about to become irreversably expensive.

Given oil and gas are depleting, our job is to reduce the pain by finding alternatives to them. Pretending it's not happening will only cause more difficulties. Kicking the can down the road may be easy, but it's cowardly, and never ends well.

Regretfully true that: 'Until the necessary changes are viably affordable alternatives to the way we as individuals do things at present, then those necessary changes will not in most cases be made, and understandably so'. Slow movers always risk being left behind to sort themselves out. In 10 years time, perhaps sooner, I shall be a vulnerable pensioner. There won't be much help available for me if the whole country is struggling with an ongoing energy crisis. Therefore I'm against negligence.

Anyone study history? Today's high expectation levels are not justified by the history of human affairs. Human affairs are never stable in the long run. All previous civilisations have collapsed. Nations don't remain top dog forever. Wealth and liberty wax and wane. No society is immune to famine, disease and war. And on a personal level death is inevitable. Turns out large numbers of historic disasters were caused by avoidable human error. Not just the blunders of rulers, but whole populations choosing to believe in utter nonsense rather than deal with uncomfortable truths. I fear the same is happening to us. Too many heads in the sand.

Climate change and rising energy costs are manageable, but only if we get stuck in and deal with them. Faced with serious physical and practical problems, denial, wishful thinking, vested interests and conspiracy theories are, and always have been, pointless time-wasters. They have a rotten success record.

Dave

 

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 03/08/2023 20:30:38

[VicParticipant @vic]

Posted by duncan webster on 03/08/2023 10:51:40:

Putting solar farms on fields which could be used to produce food seems a little short sighted to me. Of course not all open land is very productive, but all new builds, residential or industrial, should be covered in solar panels, and we should be investigating retrofits (structure might not be strong enough in some cases)

And why do southerners always want to cover the north of England and Scotland in trees? They will grow equally well in the south, in fact as it's warmer they'll grow better.

Some land can be dual use.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Didn't a ship loaded with EV's burn for days when one of them caught fire last week? I think that's the second such event in less than two years. Think of the pollution too.

They're proving to be a real safety hazard and quite impractical when compared with what we already have.

Martin.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by Vic on 03/08/2023 21:04:47:

Posted by duncan webster on 03/08/2023 10:51:40:

Putting solar farms on fields which could be used to produce food seems a little short sighted to me. Of course not all open land is very productive, but all new builds, residential or industrial, should be covered in solar panels, and we should be investigating retrofits (structure might not be strong enough in some cases)

And why do southerners always want to cover the north of England and Scotland in trees? They will grow equally well in the south, in fact as it's warmer they'll grow better.

Some land can be dual use.

It might be a nice sun shade but the grass won't grow as well surely.

[Bill PhinnParticipant @billphinn90025]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 03/08/2023 20:30:17:

Always better to tackle problems before they turn into a crisis. Denial and self-interest are strategies, but they're not smart.

I agree entirely, as I do with probably everything else in your post.

What I was chiefly attempting to explain was simply the reason why so many people, acting as individuals, choose certain still perfectly legal solutions to a particular problem [in this case heating their home] that may be worse for the environment than equally legal, but significantly more expensive, alternatives.

When the immediate financial cost to the individual of choosing the environmentally more friendly option is so high, [perhaps in many cases so high as to be unaffordable] surely it's unfair to label everyone who chooses the environmentally less friendly but still perfectly legal option as unsmart denialists etc.

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Making steel without carbon is impossible but do you have to use coal to to add the carbon into high carbon steel? We are mining and importing coal for the steel works in Wales.

Simply not true. The one percent of carbon (only in some steels) is nowt compared to the blast furnace fuel consumption.

trying to get that Petroleum is not a "fossil fuel" into the heads of politicians of all flavours, campaigners, journalists and the General Public is probably akin to rolling a whole barrel of the stuff up Ben Nevis.

Correct. Petroleum should only be used for making plastics, etc, not for burning – for heating or in inefficient engines to transform energy to another form (often motive force for doing work).

ASHP

Not particularly cost effective to replace a fossil fuel burner until that boiler is in need of replacement.heat pump installation is very much cost-prohibited without a large subsidy and will not show any (or much) financial gain when running (unless, of course, installed in an electric-only residence) when there is likely no government scheme for the 5 grand subsidy as it is not replacing a fossil fuel burner! The health issues of urban dwellers will be improved by both fewer fossils being burned (for space heating) and less pollution from vehicles burning liquid fuels quite inefficiently.

GSHP

Expensive to install unless lots of land or a handy stream. Boreholes are far more costly, but should last a lifetime. GSHP systems will show a much improved COP over an AHSP. No need for heating the cold-side heat exchanger like when an ASHP system freezes over.🙂

As the grid becomes less reliant on fossil fuels, the heat pumps will become a better option from all perspectives.

LUBE OIL

A minor usage of mineral oil. It can often be recycled. Plant based oils can be developed (Castrol R was a superb lubricant for racing engines in the past).

Ethanol is much lower mass than normal petrol or diesel

Is it? There was me thinking that one kilogram of ethanol had precisely the same mass as one kilogram of anything else!

Mass had little to do with M-G. The energy of a fuel depends on the ratio of Carbon to Hydrogen atoms in the fuel. The Oxygen in ethanol is slready part way to making water – is it not? Some chemistry bondig energies to consider when burning different compounds.🙂

Plastics

​​​​​​​Recycle, up-cycle or whatever. It ix a shame that some has to be burned to avoid ever-larger wate tips. Remember that man-made fibres are actually plastics. Cotton clothing is dead out of fashion due to cost, ease of washing, etc. cotton would not be adding to the micro-plastic particles in our environment.

And so it goes on. Petroleum should really only be used as a base for compounds/materials that are really necessary – not for burning. Coal likewise – but not for burning.

Much of the the current problem is the unrest in the world and over-population. Only when energy can be converted for all the human requirements – without the need for either coal or oil – will we prevent/reduce the current global temperature increase. Likely there will still be too many humans on the planet … but that is another matter…

Edited By not done it yet on 03/08/2023 22:47:11

[Chris MateParticipant @chrismate31303]

My arguments and the only reason I think I need to say something about todays world, is based from how humans wants & desire to live in an "organised way" in relation to MONEY(It does not matter what replaces it) & RESOURCES from Earth(Closed system). I feel very few people understand the relation between MONEY(Our main control system) and RESOURCES(Basic), money is not a resource in the greater picture in a closed system like earth.
So if you does not have basic resources, money means nothing, you can print as much as you want, you cannot survive on money if theres not basic resources and your ability to deal with it.

If you find difficuilt to understand this, or think about it in such a way, imagine you are on an island isolated and solely depend on your resources, your inteligence to work with it, your population growth, which is an inverse pyramid for the most time, and getting to your imagination of a better life from on your feet with no clothes your future in, yes thats how difficult it is if you not later borned into a lifestyle.

Another base of my arguments are from the fact that if your low down basic resources like, Water, Energy(Oil Coal, Gas for now, whatever it may be) is relatively to Money creations, Population numbers,… are expensive, everything upwards depending from it, is loaded and get loaded exponentially over time also like an inverse pyramid, and this shorter and shorter cycles makes monetary sysems over the globe binds up no matter how much money you print for some the end is near, for others if population numbers don't go down to 3 Billion the same fate will follow over time as a result.

Now theres a new man made basic resource being embedded in our lives, systems, everywhere, and that is Digital Binary code and what comes from it. It is deeply abstract in many ways/directions and effects everything.
Now this is new to mankind(1992+ from the early 80-Ties). This is prone to security issues, and Abstract forms of corruption, unlike any older analog/paperbased corruption(Which were dealt with and tolerated), it can be extremely parasitic, the next cost is just a digital click away, its that easy and fast. There are some great positive advantages, but theres also a lot of evil going with it which seems to grow in uncontrolable ways, and this ideology is 100% dependant on power/electricity supply, no power , you may have no mone in your hands, no live, you may starve to death literall(With money "in the bank&quot.

Young positive people today think you can just print money, you can just pluck it from a tree or from the net, or from the clouds, and everything will be ok, I disagree strongly. We must be carefull about "Parasitic Jobs/Incomes) versus basic very important jobs/incomes. Parasitic jobs cannot exist if the basic jobs does not exist due to the resources and population number thing. The other problem is digital never matures, and the cycles getting shorter and shorter and we just cannot afford these increasing changes for the sake of change ignoring a few exceptions as always. I want to guess because of digital we wasted the next 500 years of resources over the last 30 years. This is not an ideology that can continue as it is currently going.
Think about Digital developments & storage and the ability to read it, I think in future the history bon the panet may be stored, but not readable with no printed books, there may be holes in history in a 50 years time.

So my point is, if you do whatever in the future on this planet, you have to understand the above, or run out of life so to speak. Todays people are all born into going circuimstances, and its very difficult to imagine a fresh start from nothing…….Projecting a new way as "cheap"(Costs go down", is not enturely true, it may be subsidised, it may be cheap initially, but costs to maintain it, or live with it, may just kill the operations over TIME..

Note: About Digital power consumption:
I know about crypto's bizarre reasons(Abstract-Mining) for cunsuming lots of power, but I don't think it consumes as yet as much as the rest of the complete net, from server buildings to all the little things at home or work. Digital also has a minimum draw of power even at "idle".

[IanTParticipant @iant]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 03/08/2023 20:30:17:

'Common Sense' has little to do with economic principles. For example, plenty of posts in this thread assume the cost of fossil fuel sourced energy will stay low forever! Alas, it is not so, unless magic can be made to work, or the people who believe such stuff know of an enormous new source. Or believe 'they' will find more oil, not realising that 'they' will have to be a fairy godmother.

Climate change and rising energy costs are manageable, but only if we get stuck in and deal with them. Faced with serious physical and practical problems, denial, wishful thinking, vested interests and conspiracy theories are, and always have been, pointless time-wasters. They have a rotten success record.

Dave

Cannot agree that common sense has little to do with economic principles Dave – after all the opposite of that is stupidity does (which on reflection may actually be true given our current fiscal leadership). What I am sure of is that if something makes good economic sense to people, then folk will adopt it without needing government 'encouragement'

I'm also afraid that Climate Change and Rising Energy costs are not "manageable". It's too late. Neither the public nor the government has the money to make the current alternatives to fossil fuels viable. Frankly, we (and most western economies) are broke. The real costs of moving off fossil fuels are enormous and the short timescales simply unrealistic. I certainly agree with you that rising consumption of oil and decreasing avaialbility will lead to shortages of supply and higher costs but that will just increase global financial pressures, essentially lessening everyones ability to fund workable low carbon replacements. The real "Wishful Thinking" is believing that we are not going to need oil and gas for several decades to come, probably much longer.

Unfortunately, the same people who block roads and climb on roofs today are pretty much the same type who objected to Nuclear power 30-40 years ago when we could have made a sensible transition to a reliable base-load alternative to coal. We didn't and here we are…

Regards,

IanT

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

We're making some big mistakes with trees at the moment

The open parkland near me gets grants via the council and they're planting them in useless clumps for speed and efficiency purposes. Stick 'em in the deck and get yer save-the-world cash asap.

They should be planting them boulevard style so that as people move about they are in permanent shade

Trees absorb massive amounts of sunlight and heat and this needs to be taken advantage of

[DiogenesIIParticipant @diogenesii]

Trees are better growing in clumps, they more quickly establish an active working community of other organisms and a local microclimate that contributes to their establishment and ameliorates the threat of windblow as well as providing a more useful habitat for other forms of life.

Boulevard planting always delivers higher rates of tree mortality and has much less cooling affect as clump planting.

 

Edited By DiogenesII on 04/08/2023 06:46:44

[Speedy Builder5Participant @speedybuilder5]

We installed our own air/air heat pump. We specified the contents of the kit based on room sizes and insulation values (graph supplied ranging from poor to excellent insulation). Part of the purchase included a technician visit to make all gas connections, evacuate the pipes and charge with gas (The units are pre gassed and no extra gas normally required). We installed for a 2 bed house for £3,000 against £10,000 for a complete install ! AND where we live, we often experience -12 deg C sometimes dipping lower. Although not helping the climate, the system is reversible and can be used as air con in summer when the temp last year reached 42 degrees. Our installation price included the cost of laying a small concrete pad, providing the isolated mains supply cable, isolator switch and fuse box etc.

Our friends replaced their gas boiler with an air/water system. No change made to the old radiator system and installation was done in less than a day.

On the BBC doc, it stated that all rads need replacing with larger ones etc, that the old hot water cylinder had to be replaced. I can see why, the cylinder was replaced with a "Heat store" but if the system could produce heat enough for domestic hot water, I don't see the need to increase the size of the rads ??

Bob

[BaldricParticipant @baldric]

Nearly 3 years ago, we had an air source heat pump, after we moved to a 1960s detached bungalow. There are several reasons we went for this, no gas in the village, oil tanks was in the way of a new workshop, old boiler was approaching end of life. The cost was about £10,000 I think, that included replacing some radiators, but not all as some were big enough, a new water tank, the old one was end of life as well amd all controls, pumps etc. Apart from an issue with the controller failing, exactly the same controller that can be used with any other system, we have not had an issue. We have felt warm, with the heat on 24hrs a day, we have solid concrete floors but do have cavity wall insulation.

We also now have solar panels, with batteries, we don't make a profit from that over the year, our 4kw system does mean we generated 3000kwh so far this year, but as an electric only household who work.from home, we do see a big difference in import. The amount you can get for export does seem to vary quite a lot, now we are with Octopus, we are getting 16p for each kwh exported, better than we first got with another supplier, so this year may show a better return.

Are these for everyone, probably not, but these are my real-world experiences, are we happy, yes. Would I go for an electric car, not at the moment, but then I regularly go to the office 130 miles away so to get a car with the range I want means it will be big, expensive car as I don't want to stop on that journey.

Baldric

[Bob WorsleyParticipant @bobworsley31976]

Read my way through all of this thread, what seems to be missing is some real, hard, numerical evidence that heat pumps actually work. By that I mean that the COP really is 3+, even in the middle of winter when the heating is actually needed.

I have bought several air con units from sales. These are a heat pump and are easily converted to a heating type heat pump by simply swapping the air flow through the unit, what was the cold output is now the air input etc. My measured conclusion is that the various compressors and fans take as much energy as the heat pump produces. There is a gotcha here of course, reading books on heat pumps and you finally find that if you want heat output then the air input radiator has to be at least twice the are of a similar rated cold output radiator. So these fancy heat/cool heat pumps you can buy are simply not up to scratch. There is very little heat in a cu m of air, and the air flow rate is a gale. You see these photos of ASHP installations on houses and they have a fan about 500mm in diameter, with the house wall only 100mm away. Why not bolt the ASHP to the wall 3m off the ground and facing into the wind, normally west, so the fan doesn't need to run to get quite a bit of air movement by default. Oh, sorry, looks ugly so the planning department won't allow it.

In the UK a GSHP seems a much better bet. We simply don't get sub-zero temperatures much, even a frost is a rarity. So the ground pipes only need to be 400mm or so underground and at 400mm spacing using 10mm bore pipe. The ground heat rises up from deeper down, gain from sun in winter is zero.

Keep replying, useful info.

[Ex contributorParticipant @mgnbuk]

I don't see the need to increase the size of the rads ??

Beacuse heat pump systems operate at lower water temperatures than gas/oil boilers to get anywhere near the quoted COP valuues quoted ?

My gas powered wet CH runs the rads at 70 C. The rads were apparently sized by the house builder 34 years ago to provide the required room temps at that temperature – and they don't have a lot in hand ! So attempting to run them at the lower temps used by heat pumps (40-45 C ) won't adequately heat the house. Plus the system installed uses 10mm microbore piping which, according to accounts I have read, isn't great for use with a heat pump.

So it would appear that to get adequate heating with a heat pump solution, I will have to replace all the rads and the piping – pretty well gut the house to put that in & I may not have sufficient wall space to get big enough rads in. I suppose I could rip up the floors to install underfloor heating, though. A £5K "incentive" isn't really much of one in this case.

And that is before the issue of heart pump reliability comes in – my direct and indirect knowledge of the reliabilty of these things is not positive. Of 3 systems installed in offices at work, one failed under warranty & one has stopped generating heat out of warranty (not repaired). All freeze the oustide unit in cold, damp weather (typical Autumn / Winter conditions in the Vale of York) – the built-in reverse cycling to heat the outside unit to prevent it becoming a solid block of ice proving inadequate. I had to buy a fan heater to supplement the heat pumps in cold damp waether in the main office . My former employer had a house built in an area without mains gas & this was specified from the outset to use an air source heat pump – lots of insulation & underfloor heating etc. for such a system to work efficiently. When it worked it was, apparently, effective and cheap to run. But the heat pump failed after a couple of years (out of warranty) and repair cost almost as much as a new unit – wiping out any savings. This happened twice to my former employer & once to the new owner of the property after he sold it. When the sytem failed again on the new owner, he had it replaced with a gas boiler operated from an LPG tank in the garden.

I had a wood burning fire installed this Spring (latest spec. suitable for use in smoke controlled areas), so I can heat at least one room independant of gas or electricty.

Nigel B.

[Graham MeekParticipant @grahammeek88282]

A couple of years back Cinderford was engulfed in smoke due to Forest England burning off loads of felled trees. This was not a one off occurrence and went on for nearly a week. This was part of another ill thought out plan, introducing non native trees.

As regards freedom of choice concerning the fitment of Heat Pumps or Hydrogen heating and cooking systems. The residents of Whitby in Cheshire have a different story to tell. Apparently they were going to be changed over to Hydrogen as part of an experiment whether they wanted to, or not. No freedom of choice there and the implications of such a move are legally mind boggling.

The cheapest form of renewables is "on shore" Wind Turbines. Yet it took 7 years for the one in Bristol to be erected due to the planning nightmare. I wonder if those people who oppose them would think the same when they cannot watch their favorite TV program, or charge their electric car because we do not have enough capacity.

The use of Modular Nuclear plants is another non starter in my book. Not that I am opposed to Nuclear. It is just that I feel no one will want one in their back yard. It could be however that like Whitby in Cheshire, those concerned don't get a say in the matter.

Regards

Gray,

[John Doe 2Participant @johndoe2]

Posted by blowlamp on 03/08/2023 21:08:03:

Didn't a ship loaded with EV's burn for days when one of them caught fire last week? I think that's the second such event in less than two years. Think of the pollution too.

They're proving to be a real safety hazard and quite impractical when compared with what we already have.

 

Martin.

How many instances of conventional vehicle roadside fires have you noticed over the years – a car sized patch of black burnt melted plastic and mess on the hard shoulder, caused by fires in ICE vehicles – before electric vehicles were available? And how many traffic reports on the radio mentioned a vehicle fire? I notice probably a couple every year – saw one just the other day.

Yes, electric vehicles also have safety issues – as does any machine. Not a reason to condemn them out of hand.

Re the £18,000 price of heat pump installation: Yes, totally agree that is a ridiculous figure. I suspect that plumbers are cashing in on the intelligent rich part of the population who will the first to look into this and have it fitted. Prices will come down as more companies join in and competition increases. Ditto electric cars, which are frankly an obscene price.

But as SoD says; oil and gas will not always cost what it costs today. The price is going to rise and rise, at which point, those who converted to electric, (or hydrogen, or whatever), will be very thankful that they did so.

Like everything in life, it will require a cost – benefit analysis. If I was in my 70's, I would probably not reap the benefit of shelling out £18,000. Although, having said that, it would only be a grand a year if you lived to 88 – or actually, much less than that, because you would not have to pay for 18 years' worth of oil or gas heating.

.

Edited By John Doe 2 on 04/08/2023 11:36:04

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

The Politicians headlong rush into legislating for electric vehicles and the banning of the sales of new petrol and diesel engined vehicles is beginning to come back and bite them. Analysis of the carbon footprint of the production and use of electric vehicles has shown that they are in fact overall more polluting and damaging to climate change than the conventional petrol engined vehicles that they will replace. This has been established by more than one independent source, so far from slowing climate change then ev’s may well accelerate it. The goal of being Carbon Neutral is a hoax, I doubt that any country will be able to demonstrate that they achieve it without seriously fraudulent statistics being created. Any of Mankind’s activities will have an impact on the growth of climate change, the main problem creating climate change is the rate of population growth, the only way of effectively reducing climate change is to reduce the 9 Billion population on earth to a reasonable 4 or 5 Billion, I don’t see that happening anytime soon. The only reason we have an ever expanding problem of climate change is down to the population growth and each additional human will contribute to an ever increasing global temperature. Do we realistically believe that if we constrain our countries activities to reduce climate change all the third world countries will voluntarily conform to reduce climate change, I don’t think so. I realise my posting may seem doom laden but I am being realistic and coming to my conclusion based on the 76 years of experience that I have gained throughout my life, I fear for the way things will be at 2050 and beyond, it’s not the world I desire for my descendants to live in. Dave W

[Author]

Posts