Heat Pumps & Hydrogen Powered Boilers Book

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, Gone West said:

I would be very surprised if using an open coal fire was considered healthy.

May be more of a case that getting older is unhealthy.

[SimonD]

15 hours ago, willbish said:

Any piece of tech or equipment has lifetime impacts to consider, I don't see anything to suggest that a heat pump has substantially greater lifetime impacts which counter their major benefit of running on (ever greener) electricity?

 

I'm not sure low temp UFH has higher total impacts either. Conventional steel rads inevitably rust and go out of fashion requiring replacement. UFH pipes have the potential to work for a generation at least. Also many gas boilers use UFH as emitters.

 

Still confused by this statement

 

 

 

My point is that there are trade-offs and no easy answers whatever technologies we decide to employ to reach some kind of suitable environmental balance (I'm personally cautious about using the tired net-zero phrase here. I think it's problematic because in a lot of environmental science, the term 'environmental impact' has come to mean only a consideration of greenhouse gas and/or global warming potential, but our use of resources has many other consequences that unfortunately get ignored - until it comes back and bites us further down the road).

 

It's very easy to be dudious about statements without backup figures and one of the real problems we face is a lack of transparency so it's almost impossible to make a fully informed decision beyond some headline figures, or a simplistic single goal.

 

Whilst on an individual level, a heat pump using, for instance (see this example study for figures), almost 10 times the amount of copper (40kg v 3kg), twice the amount of other metals, including aluminium and steel, almost 3 times the energy derived from natural gas (ca. 1400MJ v just under 500MJ), and nearly 2x the amount of electricity (504MJ v 294MJ), may not seem like much, as soon as you multiply that by lets say a rough 1.5 million units a year in the UK, not including the rest of the world, then you potentially end up with consequent issues elsewhere in the eco system.

 

Regarding the greening of the grid, yes it has made significant steps, but just as with EVs, its a mistake to simply look at point of use figures because there is still a significant proportion of the heat pump efficiency that merely makes up for the inefficiencies of the grid. But again knowledge an understanding of this is lacking, even in some circles where, in my view, people should know better, they simply brush it off as irrelevant to the overall goal. Sometimes they even go as far as to allude to renewable energy being free so we should just build massive over capacity - yet this ignores the energy and environmental cost of the infrastructure and activity required to build and maintain the over-capacity.

 

Much of this simply goes back to the principle that we should first be reducing consumption and improving efficiencies, then looking at what remains to deal with using technologies. This would ultimately be the most environmentally friendly way to do it, surely?

[JamesP]

1 hour ago, SimonD said:

Much of this simply goes back to the principle that we should first be reducing consumption and improving efficiencies, then looking at what remains to deal with using technologies. This would ultimately be the most environmentally friendly way to do it, surely?

This.

[IanR]

2 hours ago, SimonD said:

Whilst on an individual level, a heat pump using, for instance (see this example study for figures), almost 10 times the amount of copper (40kg v 3kg), twice the amount of other metals, including aluminium and steel, almost 3 times the energy derived from natural gas (ca. 1400MJ v just under 500MJ), and nearly 2x the amount of electricity (504MJ v 294MJ), may not seem like much, as soon as you multiply that by lets say a rough 1.5 million units a year in the UK, not including the rest of the world, then you potentially end up with consequent issues elsewhere in the eco system.

 

I'm not sure how helpful the analysis and conclusions of this report are to a net zero discussion. The benefit of framing the discussion as net zero is that most people understand it to mean achieving an economy with net zero CO2 emissions by 2050, and what part power generation, and in this particular discussion, domestic heating can play a part.

 

The linked study uses figures from 2010/2011, when renewables made up 5% of electricity generation and coal 28%. Electricity generation was nowhere near net zero at that point in time, and even now we are only at the start of the journey towards net zero electricity generation in 2050. The decisions being made now for technology selection is intended to put building heating at net zero in 2050. 

 

It's a bit of an aside, but I'm not sure why the study includes UFH for the ASHP analysis, but chooses to exclude any heat emitters for the gas boiler analysis. It also compares a 10kW ASHP to a 10kW gas combi boiler. I'm not sure that's a useful comparison , I would have thought a gas combi boiler would have needed to have been a higher output to be equivalent. But I haven't read the entire study, so maybe it gives its reasons. The study was funded by a research grant to look into pollutants, so maybe that partially explains how they've framed their analysis.

 

My biggest issue though is they haven't weighted their findings, in terms of environmental damage. Buildings generate 19% of the UKs CO2 emissions, beaten only by transport and equal to "industry".  A significant reduction in emissions from heating buildings can therefore have a significant effect on the UKs total emissions.

I have no idea where heating systems come in the hierarchy of steel and aluminium usage, but compared to transport, civil engineering etc. I'm sure it barely moves the needle. Emissions reductions v. raw material usage can not therefore be treated as equal. Without any attempt to weight the analysis we are left not knowing what it means. It maybe that an increase in one deleterious attribute is worth a decrease in another, for an overall benefit, but without that analysis we don't know.

[SteamyTea]

24 minutes ago, IanR said:

I have no idea where heating systems come in the hierarchy of steel and aluminium usage, but compared to transport, civil engineering etc. I'm sure it barely moves the needle

First rule of statistics: Is the number big.

 

It was our old mate @Ed Davies who pointed out that the UK produces more 'area' of cars than housing.

Edited August 15, 2021 by SteamyTea

[Dave Jones]

there is no math that will make a heat pump more economical than mains gas.

 

The eco argument is a separate issue.

[SimonD]

1 hour ago, IanR said:

I'm not sure how helpful the analysis and conclusions of this report are to a net zero discussion. The benefit of framing the discussion as net zero is that most people understand it to mean achieving an economy with net zero CO2 emissions by 2050, and what part power generation, and in this particular discussion, domestic heating can play a part.

 

That is part of my point: that the net zero discussion tends to miss the wider environmental impact, often to the detriment of the environment and then requiring fundamental policy change at subsequent significant cost. Recent examples are European policy on diesel cars and current European (and UK) policy on biomass for energy and home heating (if haven't already read up on biomass use you will find that it is now causing net carbon emissions as opposed to its intended net carbon reduction and we haven't even seen critical mass yet). Each of these policies are based on a single narrow goal, as I believe 'net zero' is doing and I think it's a mistake. What I said:

 

5 hours ago, SimonD said:

(I'm personally cautious about using the tired net-zero phrase here. I think it's problematic because in a lot of environmental science, the term 'environmental impact' has come to mean only a consideration of greenhouse gas and/or global warming potential, but our use of resources has many other consequences that unfortunately get ignored - until it comes back and bites us further down the road).

 

1 hour ago, IanR said:

The linked study uses figures from 2010/2011, when renewables made up 5% of electricity generation and coal 28%.

 Indeed, but I didn't use the figures in that study as examples of Global Warming Potential, instead I clearly acknowledged this has changed in the last 10 years.

 

1 hour ago, IanR said:

The study was funded by a research grant to look into pollutants, so maybe that partially explains how they've framed their analysis.

Again, exactly my point which is about taking a wider view to really understand the environmental impact of technologies being proposed. That is why I used this study as a mere example.

 

2 hours ago, IanR said:

Emissions reductions v. raw material usage can not therefore be treated as equal.

 

Who says? The production and processing of raw materials creates vast emissions, and also wider environmental damage. And if we decide to use technologies on a large scale that demand ever more raw materials and their processing, this will have a direct impact on emissions, but then it's even worse because those emissions come from areas that are much harder to decarbonise due to their energy intensity. I believe Herman Scheer covered this in his book A Solar Manifesto back in the 1990s.

 

2 hours ago, IanR said:

It maybe that an increase in one deleterious attribute is worth a decrease in another, for an overall benefit, but without that analysis we don't know.

 

5 hours ago, SimonD said:

one of the real problems we face is a lack of transparency so it's almost impossible to make a fully informed decision beyond some headline figures, or a simplistic single goal

 

Generally, I think you may have missed my point(s) ?

[dpmiller]

5 hours ago, Dave Jones said:

there is no math that will make a heat pump more economical than mains gas.

 

The eco argument is a separate issue.

 

I'd need a 7 mile long pipe to get mains gas to our house.  What do you reckon the payback time would be on that vs the ASHP?

[Declan52]

13 minutes ago, dpmiller said:

 

I'd need a 7 mile long pipe to get mains gas to our house.  What do you reckon the payback time would be on that vs the ASHP?

I think firmus will love getting that phone call!!!

[SteamyTea]

6 hours ago, Dave Jones said:

there is no math

Are you an American?

It has an s on the end.

[IanR]

6 hours ago, SimonD said:

That is part of my point: that the net zero discussion tends to miss the wider environmental impact,

 

I believe that's intentional. Fixing everything that's wrong with the planet in one go might just take longer than we have to fix climate change.

 

6 hours ago, SimonD said:

Again, exactly my point which is about taking a wider view to really understand the environmental impact of ...

 

I feel we're disagreeing with which is "the wider view"

 

6 hours ago, SimonD said:

Who says?

 

Context. A discussion titled "Heat Pumps & Hydrogen Powered Boilers", is clearly focused on CO2 emissions. Doesn't really matter what any individual believes is "the wider view", the agenda has been set by the Government, and it appears combating climate change by reducing CO2 is the point. It also appears that gas boilers are not one of the selection options, so its rather pointless comparing them for anything other than a baseline day-to-day cost for heating homes.

 

6 hours ago, SimonD said:

Generally, I think you may have missed my point(s) ?

 

I'm quite sure I am ?

[SteamyTea]

16 hours ago, SimonD said:

Each of these policies are based on a single narrow goal, as I believe 'net zero' is doing and I think it's a mistake

I am taking this a little bit out of context (of HPs or gas), but am interested in narrow goals.

Is it not a case that the UK is not working in isolation, we are part of a global species.  Most countries will be taking a different approach, but with the same aim of net zero.

There will come a time, possibly in the not to distant future, where only goods and services must meet a minimum criteria of carbon emissions or they cannot be purchased.  As long as this is audited correctly, then there should not be a problem.  There will always be odd ball situations that skew the figures i.e. County A may have higher agricultural emissions than country B, but lower industrial emissions.  But the idea is to get divergence to, initially, net zero.  Carbon negative can come later, but not too late.

I don't think we need to particularly do this via austerity i.e. heat your house to 16°C rather than 20°C, but we will need to be careful of marginal gains i.e. a factory that makes heat pumps that have embodies carbon at say 10 units per HP, overproducing to get the unit value down to 8 units and they then just sit on a shelf (we used to have 'food mountains').

How each country does this is rather irrelevant i.e. nuclear, RE, efficiency gains, tree planting, CCS, the idea is to get to net zero.

Also worth pointing out that land is only around 30% of the earths area, there are huge carbon sinks in the oceans and seas.  There are also huge risks of acidification, rising temperatures, overall sea level rises and the more devastating storm surges.

 

So I don't think a narrow goal is the problem.  The problem is getting the ball into the goal.

Edited August 16, 2021 by SteamyTea

[Des Ingham]

On 14/08/2021 at 09:28, Gone West said:

For my part I was in the niche camp for the last few years but am now living in a converted old stone cottage. I designed and built my own house to PH standards and heated it with electric towel rails and an EASHP through the MVHR system. It was extremely comfortable and a cheap form of space heating and DHW heating. I now live in an old bungalow with solid stone walls which is heated with an oil fired rayburn and standard wet radiator system. I wouldn't dream of trying to heat this house with an ASHP as I am fully aware of the pros and cons of such a system.

Thanks Gone West, yes it`s been quite a response hasn`t it?! Been very useful and informative though. I will use your quote above in the book i you don`t mind 

[Gone West]

1 hour ago, Des Ingham said:

I will use your quote above in the book i you don`t mind 

No problem.

 

[SimonD]

On 15/08/2021 at 23:50, IanR said:

I believe that's intentional. Fixing everything that's wrong with the planet in one go might just take longer than we have to fix climate change.

 

That's not what I'm suggesting, it's that we need to take a systemic approach to net zero, which considers the ramifications of the decisions and pathways chosen, so that we actually understand what damage, or benefit, might emerge as a result of those decisions and pathways.

 

It may be more helpful for me to quote a document published by the Royal Academy of Engineering which highlights the importance of taking a systemic approach:

 

"This helicopter view of decarbonisation of homes raises the wider sustainability and environmental impacts that result from a positive policy such as net zero, including:
• Material resource related to mass production of components such as batteries and solar panels.
• Circular economy, though the recycling and disposal of redundant components like gas boilers.
• Biodiversity, which is significantly impacted by housing and infrastructure deployment strategies.

 

While it does not necessarily provide simple or easy answers, understanding systems is vital for identifying all the trade-offs associated with decisions. It can help to identify potential leverage points, or points of influence that can be used to design effective, future-proofed policy interventions across this complex landscape."

 

On 15/08/2021 at 23:50, IanR said:

I feel we're disagreeing with which is "the wider view"

 

Yes, perhaps we are. In wider view, I'm referring to a systems perspective, encapsulated very well by the above quote, but also that it isn't all about just CO2 emissions. For example, the global company NovoNordisk recognises this by having an environmental strategy that not only targets the reduction of CO2 emissions, but also waste and resource use and they realise this makes perfect sense from both an environmental and business sense. They clearly recognise these things go hand in hand:

 

"We consider use of resources, CO2 emission and waste to be our most material impacts on the environment across the value chain."

 

On 15/08/2021 at 23:50, IanR said:

Context. A discussion titled "Heat Pumps & Hydrogen Powered Boilers", is clearly focused on CO2 emissions. Doesn't really matter what any individual believes is "the wider view", the agenda has been set by the Government, and it appears combating climate change by reducing CO2 is the point. It also appears that gas boilers are not one of the selection options, so its rather pointless comparing them for anything other than a baseline day-to-day cost for heating homes.

 

This statement goes right back to my point. How can you reasonably ignore policy decisions that potentially have the opposite effect, or where you don't have sufficient knowledge to know whether it is actually going to provide that outcome? Because that is what you're doing here. What I'm highlighting is that whilst heat pumps are a great technology, their mass production may not be as universally benign as is popularly promoted, especially on forums like this.

 

Given that you say the discussion is about CO2 and that the OP asks about the likely future of heating, gas boilers, in their context of CO2 emitters, absolutely fit in with the discussion as otherwise you remove part of the context of discussion. If the point as you say is about reducing CO2, then why is the baseline cost for day-to-day heating only relevant?

 

You may have read about the recently published report on blue hydrogen, taking a life-cycle approach (as per the original paper I referenced), suggesting that blue hydrogen production may actually be more damaging in terms of global warming potential than burning methane in gas boilers. Interesting that this now starts to question the basis of the UK government's hydrogen strategy, due to taking a wider approach to understanding potential impacts of new technology.

 

Now we're even seeing that research suggests methane may not be the 'second' most important GHG, but maybe the 1st most important due to its short term GHG potentency.

 

On 16/08/2021 at 09:42, SteamyTea said:

I am taking this a little bit out of context (of HPs or gas), but am interested in narrow goals.

 

On 16/08/2021 at 09:42, SteamyTea said:

So I don't think a narrow goal is the problem.  The problem is getting the ball into the goal.

 

My view is that narrow goals can often be counterproductive and may, particularly when dealing with large complex systems, reduce innovation, vision and flexibility. Narrow goals may also prevent both individuals and organisations from seeing or recognising other more valuable opportunities. The definition of net zero is really about finding a balance between output of emissions and sinking emissions. And it is clear from most of the formal definitions out there that one side of this equation is about capturing/storing/sinking CO2 that's too difficult to cut from emissions.

 

The Carbon Trust, For example:

‘To reach a state of net zero emissions for companies implies two conditions:

1. To achieve a scale of value-chain emission reductions consistent with the depth of abatement achieved in pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot and;
2. To neutralise the impact of any source of residual emissions that remains unfeasible to be eliminated by permanently removing an equivalent amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

To risk being simplistic, but this may and already is in some spheres naturally focussing attention in that specific direction, one of those being the obsession with finding and developing carbon sinks so that the world can continue as it is and, like one Nobel winning economist suggested, GDP can continue to grow even with global warming up to 4 degrees C so not much to worry about. This represents probably the greatest risk - it may be possible to find technologies, but it's recently moved into the bizarre and rather concerning area of geoengineering where we actually have no idea of the potential ramifications of those activities were they to be conducted at the scale required.

 

Thankful there are many people looking at it from a wider perspective, including more systemically, that may find solutions in other areas, not necessarily constrained by singular focus. As I quoted above, it is already recognised by those far more qualified and experienced than me that net zero policy does not necessarily cover "wider sustainability and environmental impact" and that it is essential these are baked into the mix, along with flexibility as insights and environmental effect emerge through the process.

 

Drawing from the Royal Academy of Engineers paper again:

 

"Challenges such as decarbonisation appear smaller and more manageable when broken down into constituent sectors and challenges. Without an over-arching system
architecture or system transition strategy in place, there is a risk of failing to adequately account for the knockon effects that changes in one sector will have on each
other. For example, transport decarbonisation strategies will make assumptions about, and have ramifications for, requirements for houses, workplaces, energy infrastructure and vice versa."

 

[ProDave]

The move to net zero won't be achieved simply by swapping gas boilers for heat pumps, and then all the extra electricity needed to power all these heat pumps being provided by gas fired power plants.  It is just one part of the solution, and it relies on an increase in carbon neutral electricity production.

[SteamyTea]

8 hours ago, SimonD said:

My view is that narrow goals can often be counterproductive and may, particularly when dealing with large complex systems, reduce innovation, vision and flexibility. Narrow goals may also prevent both individuals and organisations from seeing or recognising other more valuable opportunities

How about picking the right balls and shooting at a number of narrow goals.

The ball is either the problem or the solution, and the goal is the target.  You may miss, but the overall effect will be closer to where you need to be than just leaving it up to fate and the free market.

An example if this sort of policy is the Landfill tax.  Companies and individuals don't want to pollute the environment, they want to do the right thing, as long as it is cheaper to do so.  The problem with the LFT is that it is now very expensive, and the chances of getting caught, and the associated fines, are relatively small.  So the ball is waste, the goal is proper disposal.  Make it easy to dispose of it, and it will be disposed of correctly.

Edited August 17, 2021 by SteamyTea

[SimonD]

On 17/08/2021 at 22:25, SteamyTea said:

How about picking the right balls and shooting at a number of narrow goals.

The ball is either the problem or the solution, and the goal is the target.  You may miss, but the overall effect will be closer to where you need to be than just leaving it up to fate and the free market.

An example if this sort of policy is the Landfill tax.  Companies and individuals don't want to pollute the environment, they want to do the right thing, as long as it is cheaper to do so.  The problem with the LFT is that it is now very expensive, and the chances of getting caught, and the associated fines, are relatively small.  So the ball is waste, the goal is proper disposal.  Make it easy to dispose of it, and it will be disposed of correctly.

 

I would look at this problem differently. First I'd suggest that the psychological aspect is more complex because if you look at the systems of product design, production, supply and then waste, it is very difficult for end users to do the right thing and that disposal isn't really the problem.

 

LFT simply targets one small dimension of how we deal with waste at one point in the system, not the system of how we create and reuse waste. For example, the Cambridge Judge Business School quotes on its page on Circular Economy and Sustainability Strategy executive education that "90% of raw materials used in manufacturing in Europe become waste before the product leaves the factory" and "80% of products made in Europe get thrown away in the first six months of their existence." Both these quotes point to the larger problem of waste lying elsewhere in the system, and unless you look there, you're going to miss it and spend/waste loads of money on a pointless policy that doesn't produce the intended outcomes, even if it does produce a false belief that it has progessed things in the right direction.

 

In construction, the waste situation is pretty horrific as the industry produces about 1/3 of the UK's annualwaste. The responsibility for waste management is often pushed down the chain to the contractor/builder to deal with, just as recycling seems to be pushed down to the individual consumer or end user company. Looking at it systemically is much better as it can push responsibility up the whole chain. Positive steps in this area include manufacturers of EPS insulation providing a waste collection service from building sites, although this isn't as well publicised as it should be and thus we still see loads of it chucked into skips. To me manufacturers must be held more to account for the products they make and how they make them to ensure they're not wasteful and the product is easily recycled/reused rather than expecting the client and contractor to deal with a product that's difficult to dispose of properly.

 

For me, it's not just about correct disposal and making that easy for the end user, it's more important not creating the waste in the first place. LFT I think has done Sweet FA to deal with that ?

[SteamyTea]

4 hours ago, SimonD said:

90% of raw materials used in manufacturing in Europe become waste before the product leaves the factory

I find that an unbelievable figure.  I will have to look into it.

 

Today, at work, I weighed the waste, worked out at about 25% of perfectly good food was thrown away.  The really staggering thing is milk.  Probably 75% thrown away.

In the olden days, we would have just rejugged it.  Not allowed to do that now.

We also wrap our cutlery in paper napkins.  A good 20% get picked up by customers, not used, and we have to unwrap them and wash them, then wrap them again.

We are, according to a certificate, 'carbon neutral'.

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by SteamyTea

[SimonD]

6 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

I find that an unbelievable figure.  I will have to look into it.

 

Indeed it is. From referencing, this figure appears to originate from a book by Richard Girling called Rubbish! Dirt on our Hands and Crisis Ahead. Originally published 2005 and then subsequent editions it seems. https://www.richardgirling.com/ It may be published a while ago, but it's interesting how long it takes for some figures to change. When I was at Uni studying energy and thermodynamics, power stations where maybe 15% efficient, take away grid inefficiencies, the figure which I can't remember was pretty bad. Despite developments, today I think the electricity grid has only made it up to about 40%, maybe nudging a bit more? I'm sure someone here can give the exact figure

 

Anyway, it's gaining prominence due to the growing calls for urgent revision of the take-make-waste production and economic model that has been the default for far too long. For example How bad design is driving the ‘take-make-waste’ economy.

 

6 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Today, at work, I weighed the waste, worked out at about 25% of perfectly good food was thrown away.  The really staggering thing is milk.  Probably 75% thrown away.

In the olden days, we would have just rejugged it.  Not allowed to do that now.

We also wrap our cutlery in paper napkins.  A good 20% get picked up by customers, not used, and we have to unwrap them and wash them, then wrap them again.

We are, according to a certificate, 'carbon neutral'.

 

That really is scary, even just on a small scale.