Heat Pump vs Gas Boiler: Relative Climate Impact

[SimonD]

13 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Even that is is not as good as just leaving a field to grow whatever happens there naturally, usually trees.

 

I know, I was being slightly facetious because as per usual the elephant in the room is being avoided - it's all about consumption.

13 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

There is so much bollocks

 

13 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Seems mad when we already have the technology we need.

 

Yes and yes. I'm still completely bemused by the continued circular rhetoric. The problem isn't technology, it's the political, cultural, economic, social and behavioural systems we've constructed and they seem to have more inertia than anything else we've come across.

 

2 hours ago, joe90 said:

? Grass land is used for grazing animals or mowing fir silage etc. I think there is more to be done with gas collection from slurry pits etc on farms .

 

I agree. I also knew a farmer who harvested a lot of heat by burying pipework within the mounds of manure - used to get a reliable 60C all year round coming out of those pipes.

 

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, SimonD said:

I was being slightly facetious

I had my Corona Booster yesterday, now I am sure I have the Coronas, every one of them, all at once, with some new ones brewing for not so safe keeping.

6 minutes ago, SimonD said:

it's the political, cultural, economic, social and behavioural systems we've constructed and they seem to have more inertia than anything else we've come across.

Yes.

[Green Power]

The issue with biogas is that there isn't every going to be enough of it to take a large % of the total gas demand. To do so would require a lot of land use.  But doing it as an individual in the right way can work I think.

[Green Power]

3 hours ago, ProDave said:

That deserves some scrutiny.

 

You replace your gas boiler with an air source heat pump.  You don't burn any gas any more?  WRONG.

 

At the moment, we do not have anything like 100% non carbon electricity production, a scarily high percentage of electricity is generated in a gas fired power station.  So you add a new ASHP to the electricity grid and it is an indisputable fact that will increase the load on a gas fired power station.

 

So now the question becomes does that burn more or less gas than a gas boiler heating the same house?  One would hope less but does anyone have any figures?   

Well using gas directly is using 100% gas and using the electricity grid means using only 40% gas. And that will decline over the lifetime of the heat pump so you can call it maybe 25% gas. So that's 4x better.

 

However, heat pumps use electricity 4x more efficiently (350% efficient) that burning gas directly (80-90% efficient).

 

So 4x and 4x again and we're at 16x better.

 

But we still need to factor in efficiency losses to generate the electricity so it's not really 16x better.

 

But clearly a lot better.

[Ralph]

24 minutes ago, SimonD said:

Yes and yes. I'm still completely bemused by the continued circular rhetoric. The problem isn't technology, it's the political, cultural, economic, social and behavioural systems we've constructed and they seem to have more inertia than anything else we've come across.

This, I think may be at the bottom of a lot of issues. I've had weird, bordering on hostile, reactions to fitting a heat pump. People convinced that I'll be freezing in winter and ripping it out next year, kind of like some reactions to Greggs doing vegan food the other year. On the other hand I've had an ASHP installer telling me that it will be roasting warm in the house and there's no way I should be even thinking about a things like a wood burner. 

Turns out both are talking shite. 

 

[Carrerahill]

On 04/11/2022 at 22:57, Green Power said:

Comparison to Other Life Choices
The annual emissions of this heat pump are about the same as the dietary emissions of a vegan growing their own vegetables and composting, whereas the gas boiler is about the same as someone who eats an above average amount of meat with a high food wastage.

A heat pump's annual emissions are similar to an electric car, whereas a gas boiler is similar to a petrol car.

I think a heat pump may be the biggest reduction you can achieve in the UK with a single decision. The reductions are about the same as each of driving an electric car or going vegan or deciding not to fly, but that's only true if you stick to such commitments for a very long time. You may decide to go back to a petrol car, or meat, or flying. In reality, vegetarian meals, not flying etc are a sequence of many decisions. Whereas buying a heat pump locks in savings virtually guaranteed since you are very unlikely to decide to rip it out and go back to a fossil fuel boiler. Those savings are also locked in for your whole family, not just you.

And these numbers are for a 2-bed end terrace at 71 square metres. If you have a large detached house, opportunity for carbon savings will be bigger.

 

This is ridiculous - was this lifted from a primary school Eco project?

 

There are some very arbitrary facts and figures being thrown about these days and a lot of them don't drill down deep enough to consider all the data.

 

What we must understand, is where the energy comes from to run an ASHP or electric car. We cannot just randomly make statements about emissions if the power you actually use is from a coal fired plant, or a plant burning biomass from the pacific coast of Canada that was felled for no other reason to be burnt 4500miles away... 

 

 

[Carrerahill]

On 05/11/2022 at 09:12, ProDave said:

No the biggest reduction would be remove yourself from the planet.  But nobody talks about population growth.

I do, I bang on about this one all the time and often tell the virtue signallers how they can help the world. 

[markc]

1 minute ago, Carrerahill said:

I do, I bang on about this one all the time and often tell the virtue signallers how they can help the world. 

And here! Reduce the population and you make a very big difference. 

[Ralph]

 

1 minute ago, markc said:

5 minutes ago, Carrerahill said:

I do, I bang on about this one all the time and often tell the virtue signallers how they can help the world. 

 

1 minute ago, markc said:

And here! Reduce the population and you make a very big difference. 

We don't have any children, have not been on an aeroplane for years and don't commute. We could probably heat the house by burning pandas and have less impact on the environment than someone who has kids.

That's not to say I'm not going to do my best to reduce my impact further but I'm not going to beat myself up if I'm not knitting my own tofu. 

[SteamyTea]

4 minutes ago, Ralph said:

We could probably heat the house by burning pandas and have less impact on the environment than someone who has kids.

Part of that is the way future generations emissions are counted.

Say you and a partner have two kids, and we each use 1 unit of energy.

It is assumed that you inherit half the children's emissions and half their child's emissions.

So that will be 3.5 units.

But bonkers as it assumes nothing will change in 2 generations.

But if you take yourself out the equation, you only save 1 unit.

But your descendants are, under the current counting scheme, responsible for 2.5 units.

 

So killing children is a better thing to do, not yourself.

[markc]

14 minutes ago, Ralph said:

That's not to say I'm not going to do my best to reduce my impact further but I'm not going to beat myself up if I'm not knitting my own tofu. 

I agree with you, I’ve had people trying to shame me for living in a fairly draughty old railway property, but compared to many I use very little gas or electricity because I’m usually at work. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by markc

[AliG]

I don't see a lot of room for argument here.

 

ASHPs are way more efficient than gas boilers 3-400% (lower if you include grid losses) vs 75-90% and a large proportion of electricity is generated by renewables, nuclear and hydro so there is not even a shadow of a doubt that they reduce carbon emissions. The assumption is actually that a kWh of gas and electricity have around the same carbon output, with electricity falling.

 

Fair arguments regard costs. At current gas prices running costs are similar. Installation costs for ASHPs are higher, although most numbers I see quoted for ASHPs seems crazy high and I think include all the initial work putting in pipes, tanks etc in a new house. Still they cost a few thousand more than boilers and I would not expect people to be considering installing one unless they needed to install a boiler anyway either in a new build or replacement.

 

By far the worst thing you can do for the environment actually is fly. Electricity produces around 0.2kg of carbon per kWh. Flying produces around 75kg per hour. The price cap is based on 12000kWh of gas and 2900kWh of electricity. That is around 2800kg a year of CO2. So 37 hours of flying is equal to one house, taking the whole family to Disneyworld would produce more CO2 than their house does in a year. I do wish people would ask climate protestors if they ever go on holiday. It seems to me that they love to protest cars, especially large expensive ones (including large EVs with low carbon output) suggesting it is nothing to do with climate.

 

UK emissions have already fallen dramatically and  with almost all new electricity production being renewable this should continue. This will also have the happy consequence of reducing our reliance on imported energy.

 

McKinsey have put out a few useful pieces on this. There is some summary info here. Global oil demand is expected to peak around 2025 and natural gas around 2035. There is a very clear path to lower emissions, however, at the moment the world is not meeting the targets to limit warming to 1.5C.

 

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-and-gas/our-insights/global-energy-perspective-2022

 

A few people have also mentioned population growth. UN population growth forecasts have been too high for some time and are being consistently revised down. I am extremely suspicious that the creators of these forecasts need them to look alarming. They are full of assumptions that are already wrong. The US for example has had considerably less growth than expected in the last five years. Developed countries in general are heading towards 1-1.5 children per woman and seeing populations begin to fall. China will start to fall soon. Extrapolating this out, the world population will probably peak around 2065 then start to decline. Elon use has been banging on about this for some time now.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/15/world-population-in-2100-could-be-2-billion-below-un-forecasts-study-suggests

 

 

[JohnMo]

9 minutes ago, AliG said:

worst thing you can do for the environment actually is fly.

Tell that to the numpty politicians all flying in their private jets to COP every year.  It all nonsense that could, should, be done via video conferencing from their own countries.

[SteamyTea]

14 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Tell that to the numpty politicians all flying in their private jets to COP every year.  It all nonsense that could, should, be done via video conferencing from their own countries.

Best way to have a relationship, hard to have kids down a digital line.

 

I don't actually agree, while most meetings are pointless and often used to kick a can down a road, when it comes to important stuff, face to face is best.

Why we send kids to school.

 

The emissions from flying, in total, are pretty small.

Even if every country sent a 747, it would, as a fraction of the whole, be too small to measure.

Edited November 8, 2022 by SteamyTea

[AliG]

There is an argument for face to face meetings, but private jet use is laughable in terms of CO2, roughly 2000kg per hour, so 27x a commercial jet.

 

I am not actually against flying. The only way to travel long distances efficiently is to fly.There is no alternative. ASHPs on the other hand are a readily available alternative to gas boilers, albeit more expensive. I would focus on fixing what is easily fixed first. Note this does mean that I would probably restrict flights under 500 miles where you could probably take the train instead.

 

In the long run once most electricity is zero carbon then what should happen is we use this to produce synhetic fuels and run aircraft using these to eliminate the carbon. This is the kind of thing we will need to do to eliminate the last of the CO2 output after we all have EVs and ASHPs etc.

 

 

[Green Power]

Having a child means you give someone an entire life. The corresponding carbon emissions might cause one year's worth of life loss or suffering. It is a net win by far.

 

Whereas getting another gas boiler will cause some emissions but with no real positive side or net benefit since it will overall work out (in the long run) about the same hassle and probably same lifetime cost or more than a heat pump (in some/most cases)

 

A couple halve their emissions by going vegan and not flying which causes the same effect as them having one less child. That is far less of a sacrifice (arguably little to no sacrifice) than a person not getting to be born and live their life.

 

Also, if you are responsible for your kids' emissions, does that mean your parents are responsible for yours? That doesn’t seem to make sense. We can’t be responsible for everything our children do. In fact, apart from climate change, no-one suggests we assign blame or credit for our children’s activities in other areas. Why do we do this purely on climate change?

 

It's weird that this population argument ONLY crops up in the context of climate change. No one ever says "the best way to reduce plastic is to have one less child" or "the best way to fix the crisis of affordable housing is to have one less child". This argument NEVER comes up in ANY other area where it would equally apply. There is no good reason for this and it is simply an illustration of the climate denialism permeating society that such a silly argument is allowed to stand.

 

Whether you have a child or not is up to you, as is whether you get another gas boiler. But connecting the two is almost always just a way to avoid talking about reducing your own emissions, it's more whatsaboutism and denialism.

Edited November 8, 2022 by Green Power

[Green Power]

To elaborate:

 

"You are punching a young child in the face for no reason. Please stop."

"Ah yes, but I did not have children. Had I done so, my children would inevitably have got into fights and punched children in the face a few times at least. By avoiding having children, I have stopped at least ten fights from happening. So surely that is more important than just this one fight. You had three children, so you caused many fights to occur. Much more than me."

"But you can get a punchbag or join a boxing club. It requires a change in how you do things but it's really just as good or better. Here, check out this leaflet about our local free boxing club."

"Shut up! You are making me mad by proposing a change in how I do things. I do not like change and people telling me what to do. Population is the real problem. There are too many of us. Can you honestly dispute the inevitable fact that with half the population gone people being punched in the face would occur half as often? There is no way you can ever achieve the same gains by stopping one little fight at a time. This fight is negligible in the context of all the violence in the world. My contribution to that total is miniscule."

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Green Power

[SteamyTea]

42 minutes ago, Green Power said:

It's weird that this population argument ONLY crops up in the context of climate change. No one ever says "the best way to reduce plastic is to have one less child" or "the best way to fix the crisis of affordable housing is to have one less child". This argument NEVER comes up in ANY other area where it would equally apply.

Except in just about every topic to do with resources.

21 minutes ago, Green Power said:

You are punching a young child in the face for no reason.

Am I allowed to do that now.

 

'Yonder stands your orphan with his gun'  Dylan 1965

[HughF]

7 hours ago, markc said:

A company we know has been asked to supply a further 1000 (over next 2 years) 0.5MW diesel and gas generators to ease demand on the grid.

If you chp those, they’re actually pretty efficient 

[HughF]

Interesting discussion…. Keep on 🤣

[Ralph]

I'm being slightly facetious regarding not having any children and my own carbon footprint although I do think population is absolutely a factor when it comes to emissions and resources.  

If all 8 billion of us lived a low emission, low consuming life then the problem would not be as severe as it now seems to be. But we don't.  Even in developing countries, where people don't consume like an American on a bender in Vegas, they have a massive impact on local resources. 

[Green Power]

3 hours ago, Green Power said:

"You are punching a young child in the face for no reason. Please stop."

 

 

3 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Am I allowed to do that now.

 

Not yet but once Donald Trump has become President in 2025 you can but only for children of journalists, illegal immigrants or democrats.

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Green Power