Heat pump latest government offers

[SteamyTea]

@George

You are only talking about price.

The costs of running an ASHP take into account external prices such as carbon dioxide reduction, security of energy supply.

If we swapped the proportion of taxes placed on electricity production into gas, coal and oil, the consumer price would be very different.

 

"The price of everything, the value of nothing"

[Ferdinand]

On 23/10/2021 at 19:00, joth said:

That article reads like "we doubled the efficiency of our land rover by replacinging the engine! Oh Btw we also rebuilt the chassis in carbon fibre and redeisgned the body for aerodynamics in a wind tunnel, but never mind that"

 

Successfully insulating a grade 2 listed building sounds the main story really. It needs to mention what the savings in oil heating that made on it's own. The change to ASHP is a side note to that. 

 

 

Quite interesting.

Exactly the sort of people who should be investing in their own property.

 

[George]

2 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

@George

You are only talking about price.

The costs of running an ASHP take into account external prices such as carbon dioxide reduction, security of energy supply.

If we swapped the proportion of taxes placed on electricity production into gas, coal and oil, the consumer price would be very different.

 

"The price of everything, the value of nothing"

I agree but that is quite an 'if' . Most people can only afford to make choices based on cost. 

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, George said:

I agree but that is quite an 'if' . Most people can only afford to make choices based on cost. 

True, it is why I don't drive a Tesla Long Range of some sort.

Thing is change happens, and that change can be costed in to a certain extent today.

[epsilonGreedy]

On 21/10/2021 at 22:10, Temp said:

 

Cold Fusion now called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions or LENR still rumbles on. This was latest project I've been reading about..

https://www.cleanplanet.co.jp/en/science/

 

 

After a 45 second speed read, the project team does look credible. Their roadmap claims they are just 3 years away from commercial scale demonstration which is a vast improvement on anything to do with nuclear fusion power.

[epsilonGreedy]

On 20/10/2021 at 14:32, oldkettle said:

I hope there is a healthy share of sarcasm or tongue in cheek in this message.

 

 

I have been rumbled. I did not believe what I wrote, my intention was to illustrate the viewpoint of an IB protester.

 

One response above did expose the complacency of those who subscribe to climate change alarmism as a fashion statement but don't want to be truly inconvenienced. Those who subscribe to climate alarmism must by definition believe the world will be a horrible place by the end of the century given current climatic trends, we are talking about 1930's dust-bowl america on a global scale. The world population has risen 3 fold since the 1930s and it is unlikely a dust bowl Earth could support 7.2 billion humans in the year 2100. In this context we are predicting a world where 10s or 100s of millions or even a billion humans have met an untimely end to their lives by 2100. If so IB actions to effect urgent change are reasonable and rational.

 

I actually think the world community is making impressive changes to de-carbonize and we will get to net zero within 80 years. By that time ppm will be 500 and the climate will be exhibiting a few minor reactions to high co2, some beneficial and some negative.

 

What concerns me with the current over hyped hysteria re. climate change is that when we try but fail to reduce co2 emissions within 10 years and the climate continues to skip merrily along, people will reject the whole premise of co2 reduction. A counter culture might develop as people across the globe reject the economic hardships of an authoritarian panic response to climate change. In a scenario of rising co2, economic hardship and a pleasant climate the whole net zero mission might be shelved as a discredited early 21st century scientific snake-oil.

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

Those who subscribe to climate alarmism must by definition believe the world will be a horrible place by the end of the century given current climatic trends, we are talking about 1930's dust-bowl america on a global scale.

You just don't get climate science at all do you.

You think it is just weather.

[epsilonGreedy]

38 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

You just don't get climate science at all do you.

You think it is just weather.

 

By now most Britons are unable to distinguish weather from climate change because of the main stream media. Your philosophical alarmist mates in the main stream media attribute every flood, gale, snowstorm or black cloud to climate change.

 

Anyhow you clearly consider yourself to be an expert on climate change. Why not enlighten us and describe what the climate will be like in 2100 if co2 ppm climbs to 500 over the next 80 years and the world only just achieves net zero by the end of the century.

[SteamyTea]

39 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

Anyhow you clearly consider yourself to be an expert on climate change

Not at expert, only got a Higher Degree in it. But as I went through the scientific route, rather than the social media one, what would I know.

Now stop being a twat.

[Onoff]

A piece in The Times today about a Nick Palmer and his 200 year old farmhouse. How his 6kW Aeromax heat pump, installed in 2012 doesn't work properly, annual leccy bill of £2K, in his opinion the original calcs were wrong etc, etc.

 

I'm just loving what looks like a sash window in the background!

 

Elsewhere I do like the Wunderhaus...just not the price.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Onoff

[SimonD]

2 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

What concerns me with the current over hyped hysteria re. climate change is that when we try but fail to reduce co2 emissions within 10 years and the climate continues to skip merrily along, people will reject the whole premise of co2 reduction.

 

I have to say I have some sympathy for this perspective. One of the biggest concerns I have right now is that a small number of extremely rich technocrats, like Bill Gates, are going to take it upon themselves to intervene using geo-enginering when they actually understand very little, and cannot in any way predict, its effects on a global scale. The fact that some people are taking this approach seriously is just bonkers. I mean, would you really trust the global climate to the guy responsible for Windows?

 

For me another problem is that very few understand the extend to which things have to change to reach the current goals and to do that while maintaining the holy grail of exponential GDP growth is a sign that the current crop of policy makers have their heads stuck somewhere rather dark.

 

From another perspective entirely, there are number of environmental scientists who are not bought into the hysteria but have a more moderate view based on the planet's complex self-organising behaviour. I've only seen a small handful of those published and maybe right now they're pressured into remaining largely silent.

 

A lot of the fear is because we simply don't know what's going to happen and cannot actually predict it, despite the rhetoric. Frankly, we don't know if the changes to our climate might self-organise in a way that subsequently cools the planet down, or not, or the timescales involved, and we don't have either the tools or knowledge to model these effects. We already know there are serious problems with existing models because from a systems perspective, they have failed to predict that some climate change patterns will accelerate faster as the existing system adapts - yet from a system theory perspective this type of acceleration within a reorganising system is already understood to happen.

 

As I think I may have said in another thread, I think what is going on is serious but I think the hysteria is the wrong way to approach it and will often lead to detrimental short-term knee-jerk reactions. I actually think the idea of replacing all the UK's and possibly the world's boilers with a/w heatpumps is up there with those.

[SteamyTea]

4 minutes ago, SimonD said:

there are number of environmental scientists who are not bought into the hysteria but have a more moderate view

Most of the ones I know are very moderate.

You have to remember that climate models create predictions and projections.

These tend to show the extremes that are highly unlikely. It is why we use results from lots of models and see where the overlaps are.

 

[Ferdinand]

35 minutes ago, Onoff said:

A piece in The Times today about a Nick Palmer and his 200 year old farmhouse. How his 6kW Aeromax heat pump, installed in 2012 doesn't work properly, annual leccy bill of £2K, in his opinion the original calcs were wrong etc, etc.

 

I'm just loving what looks like a sash window in the background!

 

Elsewhere I do like the Wunderhaus...just not the price.

 

Link?

[Ferdinand]

Also the Times ... older story.

 

When the temperature plummeted to minus 6C in January, Reuben Shaw had a stack of logs ready for the fire in case his decision to rip out his family’s gas boiler and replace it with an electric heat pump left them freezing. He had read warnings that older homes, such as his, would need expensive underfloor heating and extra insulation to stay warm with a heat pump.

 

Having chosen not to heed the warnings, because of the cost and disruption of the additional measures, Shaw, 44, then found the heat pump immediately tested by the coldest January for a decade ...

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/home-is-where-the-hydrogen-boiler-or-heat-pump-is-j23r2ps2p

[Onoff]

3 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

 

Link?

 

Oh, sorry, bought a paper copy and it's in Bricks & Mortar section.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/my-heat-pump-cost-me-thousands-and-no-one-will-repair-it-w7ps6n57n

 

&

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/house-of-the-week-britains-first-off-the-shelf-eco-house-that-can-actually-earn-you-money-hvbz9gkzv

[SimonD]

2 minutes ago, Onoff said:

 

Oh, sorry, bought a paper copy and it's in Bricks & Mortar section.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/my-heat-pump-cost-me-thousands-and-no-one-will-repair-it-w7ps6n57n

 

&

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/house-of-the-week-britains-first-off-the-shelf-eco-house-that-can-actually-earn-you-money-hvbz9gkzv

 

It's behing a paywall for me but reading as far as I could of the second I'm wondering wtf " eco-conscious property developers and self-builders will be able to buy an intellectual property (IP) package for the house from £320,000." means?

[SimonD]

15 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Most of the ones I know are very moderate.

You have to remember that climate models create predictions and projections.

These tend to show the extremes that are highly unlikely. It is why we use results from lots of models and see where the overlaps are.

 

 

I'm aware of that, but my point was more that the field of science, including many of the fields responsible for climate change outputs, are still operating from a mechanistic approach to the environment and ecosystems. And the problem with this is that we're left with lots of missing information about the relationships and their implications between disparate fields. The focus on co2 is, for me, a case in point.

[joth]

59 minutes ago, SimonD said:

 

It's behing a paywall for me but reading as far as I could of the second I'm wondering wtf " eco-conscious property developers and self-builders will be able to buy an intellectual property (IP) package for the house from £320,000." means?

 

IP = copyright + patents.

First, I doubt they're "selling" the IP as it can only have one owner and so it'd hardly be a business model by making only one such sale. The article should really say "buy a license to an IP package".

 

But then, the price is insane. This is just plans, blueprints, rights to build a house. It doens't get you the plot, materials or labour. There maybe some implied warranty with an IP license, but I'm sure it'd be caveated to the eyeballs around "change so much as the colour of the paint and you are on your own, matey".

 

someone could trawl all the posts on buildhub to gather a lot of the "IP" needed to build an energy positive home and not pay a penny for it. If they wrote it up in a book and tried selling it, you'd be violating the copyright of the authors of the posts on here, and in violation of the site terms 

 

 

It is trendy to form companies that license IP rather than build actual stuff, as you don't need to scale operations linearly to scale up sales, and you can offshore the IP ownership to a country with favourable tax regime and still sell it globally.   I cannot see this taking off in domestic property construction, and especially not in the UK where ever damn street has it's own planning code and special cases.

 

 

By way of analogy (for anyone familiar with software development),  they're trying following a closed-source mode to license out the "source code" needed to build a house, but at an insane price. If you actually want to solve climate change, open-sourcing it would be the way to go.  Much like other open-sourced hardware projects such as open energy monitor. And a bit like telsa providing free licenses to a lot of their EV patents

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by joth

[ProDave]

I guess to "make" £250 per year you just need solar PV on an export tariff which pays about 5p per kWh exported.  So to earn £250 that would be 5000kWh export, so that would be a big PV system.

 

Or are they counting RHI payments as "earning" money?

[Ferdinand]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

I guess to "make" £250 per year you just need solar PV on an export tariff which pays about 5p per kWh exported.  So to earn £250 that would be 5000kWh export, so that would be a big PV system.

 

Or are they counting RHI payments as "earning" money?

 

Not a *very* big system.

If  it is all exported that is a medium sized system.

I love that the self-promoting architectural chap is (or was):

"Chairman of the Gettorf local association"

(https://www.ju-rd-eck.de/personen/nico-rensch-0)

which is what HMQ says to overexcited corgis.

I think it is the same chap - the ears match exactly. OCICBW.

The marketing bollocks quotient appears to be about 8 out of 10:

“Wunderhaus is the opportunity to embrace a paradigm shift to energy positive, carbon negative, sustainable contemporary living”

Presumably it can be heated with electric panel heaters.

 

Lord, forgive my unforgivable cynicism, but not yet. *

 

* Prayer inspired by St Augustine's view of celibacy.

 

[SteamyTea]

4 hours ago, SimonD said:

are still operating from a mechanistic approach to the environment and ecosystems

Can you think of a better approach?

4 hours ago, SimonD said:

the problem with this is that we're left with lots of missing information about the relationships and their implications between disparate fields

Not as much as you think.  Just today there was a man on the radio talking about coral and how it is affected.  Last week there was someone talking about breeding and conditioning of coral polyps to make them better able to withstand temperature swings.

Then there are the thousands and thousands of agricultural scientists.  This lot see the impacts before most and are working, and releasing suitable 'systems' that are better at coping with weather extremes.

Then there are the meteorologists, they observe, log, model and put huge computing resources into long term predictions.  They would laugh at Excel or Calc.

And we have the social scientists, including anthropologists (the only ones I like) that collect data from dispersed and often isolated, communities, across the globe.

Then the oceanologists, they have been keeping records for hundreds of years.

Geologists are pretty clever to, they can 'look back in time' and see what has happened when the Earth was experiencing similar, and different, conditions.

I could go on, but what you want to know is how this lot share their findings.  Usually at conferences, of which there are thousands a year.  Then there are the academic journals.  Most 'scientists' will read up about stuff that, on the face of it, is unrelated, but they often find links.  Just look at the winners of Noble Prizes, they are not always 2 or 3 people from the same discipline.

Most of these groups are often not looking for the actual cause of climate change, they are looking at the effects (or is it affects, I never know without looking it up).  They then publish, get it peer reviewed and then other scientists look at their work and see what connections there are, or not.

It is all horribly slow, complicated and convoluted.

But all but a handful agree where the problem is and know what to do about it.

[ProDave]

3 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

Not a *very* big system.

If  it is all exported that is a medium sized system.

Yes but in order for the house to "make" you £250, in my book that means it generates your entire usage AND exports enough to get you paid £250.

[epsilonGreedy]

19 hours ago, SimonD said:

-I have to say I have some sympathy for this perspective. One of the biggest concerns I have right now is that a small number of extremely rich technocrats, like Bill Gates, are going to take it upon themselves to intervene using geo-enginering when they actually understand very little, and cannot in any way predict, its effects on a global scale. The fact that some people are taking this approach seriously is just bonkers.

 

 

It could be argued that humanity is already mid way through a planetary engineering experiment when looking at the gradient of the co2 ppm graph. I do agree with your main point that we still have a limited understanding of the whole climate model. Water vapour is the most influential atmospheric component that effects the earth's temperature, though few of the new-age me-too climatologists appreciate that fact.

 

19 hours ago, SimonD said:

From another perspective entirely, there are number of environmental scientists who are not bought into the hysteria but have a more moderate view based on the planet's complex self-organising behaviour. I've only seen a small handful of those published and maybe right now they're pressured into remaining largely silent.

 

 

Western academia has descended into a Dark Age as the concept of freedom of inquiry has been purged. All climate scientists believe in global warming because it is now impossible to maintain employment in that role without outwardly subscribing to the new religion.

 

The climate alarmists are also crafty with their interpretation of the collective expressed belief of climate scientists. If I was a climate scientist responding to proper survey I would answer as follows:

 

Is anthropocentric global warming occurring now?

Yes human activity has had an observable effect on the earth's climate for the past 10,000 years dating back to when agriculture was invented and caused a significant release of methane.

 

Does the rise in atmospheric co2 ppm that is occurring now and the projected rise concern you?

Yes atmospheric co2 ppm is a vital global statistic and human activity has caused this graph to go haywire to a degree which concerns me. There is only one earth and it is not equipped with lifeboats and so as a precautionary measure humanity should endeavour to bring co2 emissions under control promptly.

 

Has human activity triggered a significant effect on the climate to-date?

No. There is some recent data which indicates a hint of change but no observable effects give a cause for concern at this point in time. Some graphs that suggest otherwise are the product of statistical manipulation by those with a political agenda for example these graphs have selective start dates that coincide with global dips in temperature such as the Little Ice Age and the cold spell in the 1970s.

 

Given current projections for the rise in co2 ppm will a worrying degree of global warming occur?

In geological time for sure, we can trust the geologists on that one. Geologists are the only scientists with any demonstrable credibility on the subject of global temperature prediction. Human history of the past 10,000 years and the geological record of the past 200,000 years indicate the earth can warm a couple of degrees above the present level for 100's or 1000's of years without adverse effect on the climate or sea level, so I think we have more important things to worry about.

 

What concerns you most about global warming?

It is being adopted as a new 21st century religion which licences authoritarians to institute tyrannical population control. The equivalent has not been seen in Europe since the wars of religion 500 years ago. Of more concern is the fear being placed in the minds of the earth's children many of whom now suffer diagnoseable mental health problems over a worst case climate scenario that will not adversely affect human society for 200 or 2000 years.

 

Edited October 30, 2021 by epsilonGreedy

[SteamyTea]

26 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

Water vapour is the most influential atmospheric component that effects the earth's temperature, though few of the new-age me-too climatologists appreciate that fact

You are a (expletive deleted)ing idiot that just does not understand the science.

Of cause climatologist know about water vapour.

And particulates. And volcanoes, methane, ozone, nitrogen oxides (there is more than one), sulphur dioxide.

They know about dimming affects, and reflection (called albedo).

Where the (expletive deleted) do you get your opinions from.

26 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

If I was a climate scientist responding to proper survey I would answer as follows:

You have just stated old tropes, falsehoods, bullshit and ignorant opinion.

 

I really don't know what your problem is with science, scientific research and methods, reporting of science and individual scientists (except you are scared to put the work in to find out about it). 

To me you just seem to be a very ignorant, argumentative, self opinionated moron. The kind of (expletive deleted) that spout our the same drivel all the time. Very few will agree with you, but the ones that do, you elevate to stardom, and use that as proof that you were always right, and the rest of the world's population have been duped.

 

Go and read some fantast books, they will suit your viewpoints better.

Edited October 30, 2021 by SteamyTea

[oldkettle]

4 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

You are a (expletive deleted)ing idiot that just does not understand the science.

Of cause climatologist know about water vapour.

And particulates. And volcanoes, methane, ozone, nitrogen oxides (there is more than one), sulphur dioxide.

They know about dimming affects, and reflection (called albedo).

Where the (expletive deleted) do you get your opinions from.

You have just stated old tropes, falsehoods, bullshit and ignorant opinion.

 

I really don't know what your problem is with science, scientific research and methods, reporting of science and individual scientists (except you are scared to put the work in to find out about it). 

To me you just seem to be a very ignorant, argumentative, self opinionated moron. The kind of (expletive deleted) that spout our the same drivel all the time. Very few will agree with you, but the ones that do, you elevate to stardom, and use that as proof that you were always right, and the rest of the world's population have been duped.

 

Go and read some fantast books, they will suit your viewpoints better.

Do you feel a better person having written this? A happier one? 

 

By the way, Judith Curry is a better scientist than you ever were. Somehow she and quite a few others are very clear on what we don't need to worry about. 

Any sane person knows that the Earth will be fine should the temperature rise another 2 degrees (which it may not do). And so will the humanity. Nothing to fear but the fear itself.