A bunch of raging gammons would be better. Just show them a Daily Wail headline and you'll have unlimited glowing heat.
No real alternatives to fossil fuels ..
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
Sponsored Links
It states that heat removed from the environment goes into the house.
That is what a heat pump does and supporters / sales staff / manufacturers of air sourced heat pumps use that to sell them, conveniently ignoring the fact that a few kWs of electrical energy is involved to move that heat.
the heat does not stay in the house.
That's why iron will not melt in my house, even though I have put hundreds of thousands of kWh of heat energy into it over the years.
Which is another fact that supporters / sales staff / manufacturers of air sourced heat pumps ignore
Sponsored Links
There is a loss - the power needed to do it.
Ground source can work but deep holes are currently expensive and the super duper freezer working backwards is too. Have to wonder what the long term effects would be as well.
Best answer really is a 20m span wind turbine in the back garden plus some storage. There is a UK company that has been working on storage for that sort of use for rather a long time. Sodium sulphur batteries. Interesting beasts, the sulphur is molten so need plenty of insulation to limit the power needed to keep it like that. Putting fires out with water would prove interesting if one lit up. This is the sort of thing that is needed for intermittent sources of electricity. We appear to be aiming to use nuclear for that but say there is zero or not enough wind anywhere in the country or off shore.. How big does the nuc need to be / how many? This area to my mind is what RR are about not domestic units. Some countries are phasing nuclear out. Sweden more or less done it, France on the way. We didn't build enough in the first place. Other local sources were cheaper. Gas, oil and coal which ever was flavour of the month. Chinese coal proved to be of better quality at one point and cheaper.
We have some "interesting" storage already. Efficiency can't be great so related to the market and turbines really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
In the early nuclear days there was talk of everybody having a generator buried in their back garden. It's pretty obvious why it didn't happen. An old book I read reckoned they could last for 100years and provide all of the power needed. An early form of click bait. Write a book instead of collecting pennies per click on some web site. Or collect clicks for fun / to show you have followers - pundits in other words. There are obviously a fair number of click bait fans posting on here. Click voters too along with toxic politics followers.
LOL Insulated houses. Compared with what can be done on new builds the vast majority of housing stock just doesn't compare to a ridiculous extent. Reduce window size, add 100mm or so of insulation to every wall and they might get close. Don't forget the ground floor either. The current building regs don't really achieve what could be done.
It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out date wise. They have a target of 2035 for any new installation not to be gas. So if they stick to this, it'll still be legal (although maybe not financially sensible) to install a gas combi right up until whatever deadline is set in 2035. So I wonder when they will then ban gas outright for residential properties? 2040, 2045, 2050? Will they start to make gas prohibitively expensive to indirectly force people to transition?
I saw someone on a tv prog earlier essentially saying saving the planet through greener homes can no longer be the preserve of the middle class, everyone now has to play their part. Interesting concept, however depending on what the full cost is for an average home to transition to heat pumps or other solutions, a significant percentage of the population might struggle, even with grants.
As usual, the forward planning is pants. Just one example, how energy efficient are new cookie cutter homes in terms of thermal efficiency etc to ensure heating doesn't need to be used as much?
I saw someone on a tv prog earlier essentially saying saving the planet through greener homes can no longer be the preserve of the middle class, everyone now has to play their part. Interesting concept, however depending on what the full cost is for an average home to transition to heat pumps or other solutions, a significant percentage of the population might struggle, even with grants.
As usual, the forward planning is pants. Just one example, how energy efficient are new cookie cutter homes in terms of thermal efficiency etc to ensure heating doesn't need to be used as much?
As you say, an interesting beast, with a lot of high risk considerations when in the owner ship of the average home owner
Simple answer - absolutely not, not without a major building program starting right now to increase generating and distribution capacity massively. I just cannot see that happening.
I remember them saying that nuclear power generation would be so good that it would result in free electricity for everyone.
No. Because they didn't.
Someone said it about fusion.
"too cheap to meter" was sometimes said, in the early years of nuclear generation.
Of course, the true reason for building them was to produce fissile materials that could be used in nuclear bombs.
While concealing the cost as "electricity generation."
If you look at the countries that built nuke electricity, and the countries that built nuke bombs, you will find a correlation.
Funnily, UK used to offer reprocessing of nuclear fuel from other countries without such facilities.
Analysis of the fuel that was returned finds that all the fissile material has been extracted from it.
Of course, the true reason for building them was to produce fissile materials that could be used in nuclear bombs.
While concealing the cost as "electricity generation."
If you look at the countries that built nuke electricity, and the countries that built nuke bombs, you will find a correlation.
Funnily, UK used to offer reprocessing of nuclear fuel from other countries without such facilities.
Analysis of the fuel that was returned finds that all the fissile material has been extracted from it.
Again, it wasn't. It was a frequently mis-applied quote, when in fact it was about fusion.
Fission is our best and safest source of baseload supply.
Last edited:
Sponsored Links