Heat pump questions

[SteamyTea]

5 hours ago, SimonD said:

 

Doesn't most of it come from the DRC?

No.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production

 

Kazakhstan, Namibia and Canada produce about 70% of it.

 

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

wave

Forget that one, no system has survived long once out at sea, or bolted to the rocks.

Tidal stream is the most promising, but it minces up small whales and cuddly dolphins.

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

Today in my area (NE Scotland) the electric grid consists of 10% hydro and 90% wind. Scotland is mostly zero carbon already

Gridwatch shows how much travels in and out of Scotland, never taken much notice if it, but may be interesting to see how close Scotland us to being 100% independent.

[Dillsue]

3 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

, but may be interesting to see how close Scotland us to being 100% independent.

We produce annually way more than we use but I'd never consider myself independent. What does Scotland do when the weather is calm?

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, Dillsue said:

What does Scotland do when the weather is calm

That is what the data should show, as I said, I have never looked at that side if it.

[Mr Blobby]

33 minutes ago, Dillsue said:

What does Scotland do when the weather is calm?

 

Burns gas like everyone else.  This last Thursday for example, at 7 am peak, Scotland was at about 35% gas generation. 20% nuclear.

 

But most of the time it is mostly wind. Which is very good of course.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Mr Blobby

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, Dillsue said:

What does Scotland do when the weather is calm?

Mix of hydro, gas and import, I give it few Watts free of charge

[Crofter]

I'm not completely opposed to nuclear, but it's had a long time to prove itself and frankly it hasn't managed to do that, in the UK at least.

It seems that other countries (e.g. France, India) have been able to make it work.

There's a lot of hype about new types of reactor and small modular reactors, but I remain pretty sceptical.

Solar and wind have become almost ridiculously cheap, so it makes sense to maximise that first.

[SteamyTea]

7 minutes ago, Crofter said:

It seems that other countries (e.g. France, India) have been able to make it work.

One is connected to a large, well regulated network, and the other just cuts power.

Don't think they can be compared to us really.

Now if that EU super grid gets built, they may let us connect to it at a price.

[Beelbeebub]

27 minutes ago, Crofter said:

I'm not completely opposed to nuclear, but it's had a long time to prove itself and frankly it hasn't managed to do that, in the UK at least.

It seems that other countries (e.g. France, India) have been able to make it work.

There's a lot of hype about new types of reactor and small modular reactors, but I remain pretty sceptical.

Solar and wind have become almost ridiculously cheap, so it makes sense to maximise that first.

The UKs problem is lack of political will. 

 

The time to have ordered the new plants was the late 90's.

 

The tech is pretty mature now and the majority of the cost comes from the insane amount of regulation we have around nuclear. To be clear I think that is a good thing, but as someone who has dabbled on the periphery of UK nuclear power, nobody in that industry does anything without commissioning a dozen in depth and exhaustive reports on whether or not changing toilet paper brand in the staff toilets is safe or not. 

 

 

(clearly hyperbole but honestly not far off) 

[Beelbeebub]

Nuclear is costly, but mainly because we piss about "shall we shan't we". That add cost and uncertainty to suppliers who then have to pass thar cost on to the end unit price. 

 

I have a friend who used to work for the consortium(s) hoping to build a replacement plant at Wylfa on Anglesey. Hundreds of millions were spent on that project for it to be canned. The next lot will look at that and add a few hundred million into their calculations. 

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, Beelbeebub said:

The UKs problem is lack of political will. 

 

The time to have ordered the new plants was the late 90's.

We have had, since 1997, a Tory government, a New Labour Government, a Coalition Government, Tory Government and a couple of loonies in charge, not to mention Brown and Cameron.

We vote them in, so I don't think the real problem is political will, more that the general public is politically naive and we get what we voted for.

[Beelbeebub]

13 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

We have had, since 1997, a Tory government, a New Labour Government, a Coalition Government, Tory Government and a couple of loonies in charge, not to mention Brown and Cameron.

We vote them in, so I don't think the real problem is political will, more that the general public is politically naive and we get what we voted for.

It's not a party thing, they were all content to kick the problem into the long grass as our nuclear fleet aged out. 

 

The obsession with private enterprise running things was also an issue. The new labour Gov was as bad as the Cons for this and the coalition and post 2015 (and I use the term loosely) government were as bad if not worse.

 

A nuclear fleet needs to be commissioned, overseen and owned by the state as a national resource. Faffing about trying to come up with some way you can make private enterprise responsible for something that needs half a century of concerted attention and where cost cutting in the name of "efficency" is the name of the game is always going to end in tears. 

 

Still water under the bridge now, and we are where we are. 

 

We need to massively ramp up wind and solar and (this is the controversial bit) state owned CCGT plants and gas storage as a national resource to cover any generation gaps as we transfer demand from gas to electricity and to provide cover for the time when wind/solar aren't sufficient 

[Onoff]

5 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

We need to massively ramp up wind and solar and (this is the controversial bit) state owned CCGT plants and gas storage as a national resource to cover any generation gaps as we transfer demand from gas to electricity and to provide cover for the time when wind/solar aren't sufficient 

 

Pointless if you're pi$$ing heat out of plasterboard tents. 

[Beelbeebub]

37 minutes ago, Onoff said:

 

Pointless if you're pi$$ing heat out of plasterboard tents. 

Well yes. But it's a false dichotomy. 

 

There is absolutely nothing to stop us upgrading our plasterboard tents whilst also switching to HPs. 

[Onoff]

40 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Well yes. But it's a false dichotomy. 

 

There is absolutely nothing to stop us upgrading our plasterboard tents whilst also switching to HPs. 

 

It's got to be fabric first as that makes the best of whatever heat source. Well insulated with well considered airtightness and 15 cats in a cage would probably work. 

[JamesPa]

23 minutes ago, Onoff said:

 

It's got to be fabric first as that makes the best of whatever heat source. Well insulated with well considered airtightness and 15 cats in a cage would probably work. 

I think, sadly, we have passed the point where we can do things 'first'.  We need to do everything we can do as quickly as we can.  Had we been serious about climate change when the experts first told is it was serious, we might have had the luxury of 'fabric first'.  But we ignored them and in many circles still ignore them.

 

If the 'green' message is too nuanced, the carbon lobby will simply exploit it, claiming division and using it to sow confusion in a largely ignorant (or Ill  intentioned) political class and public.

 

So to my mind the message is simple.  Insulate your home, get a heat pump, get an electric car and fit solar panels.  If you can only do some of them, then do those.  End.

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by JamesPa

[joth]

On 17/10/2023 at 15:30, IanR said:

Then the heating industry are fools. 80/20 gas/hydrogen mix was an attempt to bluff the government. Thankfully it has now as good as failed.

 

 

Very timely, and relevant report from the NIC today

https://www.building.co.uk/news/infrastructure-body-backs-massive-heat-pump-roll-out-but-spurns-hydrogen/5125834.article

 

Tl'dr electrifying heating is the  most important national infrastructure project of our time, and hydrogen boilers are BS.

 

[Onoff]

41 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

So to my mind the message is simple.  Insulate your home, get a heat pump, get an electric car and fit solar panels.  If you can only do some of them, then do those.  End.

 

See how you subconsciously put insulate first? 😂 

[Beelbeebub]

A gas boiler puts out 200g/kwh of co2 at best. So you might halve the total co2 output from the house. 

 

The carbon intensity of the grid is roughly 200g/kwh at the moment. Basically the same as a direct gas boiler. 

 

So if you took an averagely crap UK house that uses a gas boiler and improved the fabric, you might cut the demand in half and thus the co2 in half also. 

 

If you swapped out a heatpump and maybe upgraded a radiator or two to lower the flow temp to below 50C, you coukd easily achive a SCOP better than 2 which would more than halve the carbon output. 

 

Of course doing both woukd be better and upgrading the worst parts (uninsulated lofts and single glazed windows) would make it easier to fit a heat pump anyway. 

 

I was a "fabric first" fan. I still am a fan of improving insulation. But we have got to the point now where we need to do multiple things at the same time. 

 

[Onoff]

6 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

But we have got to the point now where we need to do multiple things at the same time.

 

Like a hybrid heat pump?

[JamesPa]

5 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

 

 

I was a "fabric first" fan. I still am a fan of improving insulation. But we have got to the point now where we need to do multiple things at the same time. 

 

Funny how 'fabric first' conveniently helps the fossil fuel lobby.  Just like 'hydrogen ready'.  Just saying of course.

[JamesPa]

4 minutes ago, Onoff said:

 

Like a hybrid heat pump?

If its a heat pump with a backup 3kW resistance electric heater to cover the very few days when it's really cold, why not?  There is some evidence to suggest this is actually more efficient than a heat pump sized to meet demand extremes.

Edited October 18, 2023 by JamesPa

[DanDee]

4 hours ago, JamesPa said:

If its a heat pump with a backup 3kW resistance electric heater to cover the very few days when it's really cold, why not?  There is some evidence to suggest this is actually more efficient than a heat pump sized to meet demand extremes.

 

Let's not ignore that the same climate change makes/changes the extremes to the point of normal.

[Beelbeebub]

8 hours ago, Onoff said:

 

Like a hybrid heat pump?

Absolutely. 

 

I think air to air systems should be pushed alot more. They can be added fairly simply to houses without needing to touch the existing heating system. 

 

They also tend to offer higher efficency than water units. To the point that hitting the magic SCOP, where the HP is cheaper to run than a gas boiler (somewhere around 350%) is achievable. 

 

The occupant can then choose which system suits them at any given time.

 

The problem is our regulatory setup which disincentives hybrid and A2A systems in favour of compete air to water replacement systems. 

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by Beelbeebub

[JamesPa]

5 hours ago, DanDee said:

Let's not ignore that the same climate change makes/changes the extremes to the point of normal.

Yes, but if you want to take that into account you do so by adjusting the design load and the same principle, that there are extremes beyond the design load, still applies.  Basically its always going to be a bell curve and the decision to be made is how to deal with the extremes.

 

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

9 hours ago, Onoff said:

 

Like a hybrid heat pump?

Absolutely. 

 

I think air to air systems should be pushed alot more. They can be added fairly simply to houses without needing to touch the existing heating system. 

 

They also tend to offer higher efficency than water units. To the point that hitting the magic SCOP, where the HP is cheaper to run than a gas boiler (somewhere around 350%) is achievable. 

 

The occupant can then choose which system suits them at any given time.

 

The problem is our regulatory setup which disincentives hybrid and A2A systems in favour of compete air to water replacement systems. 

 

I agree that A2A needs to be made easier and has a valid part to play.  Combinations of A2A and A2W ditto.  The regulatory barriers should IMHO be removed.  Dropping the  requirement for MCS design/install from the PD rules and retaining only the noise spec would be a good start, this should IMHO be done anyway.  Finding a way to allow >1 HP under PD would complete the process.

 

Beyond that however we need to be mindful of what we mean by hybrid.  In most parlance 'hybrid' means a combination of a heat pump (A2A or A2W) and a fossil fuel source.  I think we need to be very careful indeed with any encouragement for hybrid systems in this sense.  The most likely use case is a retrofit and the most likely design is to retain the existing system, which is capable of heating the whole house, and simply bolt a heat pump on the side (I considered this myself).  People are resistant to change, so the most likely use pattern is that the existing system is used frequently, and the heat pump used rarely.  So while I tend to agree that regulation should not exclude this, at the same time I don't think publicly funded incentives should encourage it as its most likely pouring public money into a) keeping the fossil fuel industry alive and b) encouraging the wrong behaviour, neither of which is good use of public funds.  Furthermore the vast majority of our housing stock needs about 8kW which is easily supplied by a fairly modest heat pump.  I cant see the case for spending public money to incentivise supplementing an 8kW heat pump with a fossil fuel burner.

[Beelbeebub]

10 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Yes, but if you want to take that into account you do so by adjusting the design load and the same principle, that there are extremes beyond the design load, still applies.  Basically its always going to be a bell curve and the decision to be made is how to deal with the extremes.

 

 

I agree that A2A needs to be made easier and has a valid part to play.  Combinations of A2A and A2W ditto.  The regulatory barriers should IMHO be removed.  Dropping the  requirement for MCS design/install from the PD rules and retaining only the noise spec would be a good start, this should IMHO be done anyway.  Finding a way to allow >1 HP under PD would complete the process.

 

Beyond that however we need to be mindful of what we mean by hybrid.  In most parlance 'hybrid' means a combination of a heat pump (A2A or A2W) and a fossil fuel source.  I think we need to be very careful indeed with any encouragement for hybrid systems in this sense.  The most likely use case is a retrofit and the most likely design is to retain the existing system, which is capable of heating the whole house, and simply bolt a heat pump on the side (I considered this myself).  People are resistant to change, so the most likely use pattern is that the existing system is used frequently, and the heat pump used rarely.  So while I tend to agree that regulation should not exclude this, at the same time I don't think publicly funded incentives should encourage it as its most likely pouring public money into a) keeping the fossil fuel industry alive and b) encouraging the wrong behaviour, neither of which is good use of public funds.  Furthermore the vast majority of our housing stock needs about 8kW which is easily supplied by a fairly modest heat pump.  I cant see the case for spending public money to incentivise supplementing an 8kW heat pump with a fossil fuel burner.

All good points but I was thinking more along the lines of allowing HPs to be installed alongside an *existing* boiler system and still qualify for a grant (maybe with different amounts and stipulations about upgrading the rads). Rad upgrades would make the existing system more efficient as well. 

 

Fitting a new system as a hybrid should not be done. 

 

By allowing "piggyback" installs we can sidestep the "why throw out a good boiler" argument as well as the "but what if the HP can't keep me warm in the depths of winter" one. 

 

The HP can then be undersized, or at least not oversized, making it cheaper and more efficient. It can work for most of the year and when it gets to it's limit the existing system kicks in. 

 

The control system can prioritise the HP to run only when it is cheaper than gas, ie the conditions allow high cop.

 

This negates the "costs more to run" argument. 

 

It woiod also allow installs with combis and sidestep the hot water problem. 

 

Finally, when the existing boiler packs in it can be replaced by *another* HP of appropriate size (by then the control system would have a good idea of actual demand). This woukd result in a twin HP system, theoretically more expensive and complex but in practice not so bad as it would be installed in stages. It would then have the huge advantage of a bigger modulation range than a single HP. 

 

If the grant could make the install more or less free, then the proposition would be 

 

"hey, can I fit this gizmo to your heating system for free that will make it more efficient and cheaper to run?" 

 

I reckon people woukd be biting your hand off.