Still it continues....

[Beelbeebub]

55 minutes ago, scottishjohn said:

yes you might have to extend the roof line and as for exterior appearnce ,whilst it would not be cheap you could still apply cotswold stone slips to outside  and keep it looking like it did 

 

its a money not a tehcnical problem 

maybe the rates need to go up on badly insulated properties to make people do it .a bit like the window tax of the 1700,s

there certainly will be little chance of grants  the way the economy  is 

 and maybbe a better defintionn of what should have listed status - a lot really should not have it

 

You are right, to an extent it is a money issue, but then so is installing a heatpump! 

 

You can't handwave the costs of installing to the aesthetic requirement as but then also point to the costs of installing a heatpump! 

 

Right now we could heat almost any building in the UK with a heatpump and achive a better than break even scop. The exceptions are off grid houses or those with an insufficient electricity supply for their demand (big stately home on a poor single phase supply) 

 

But a 40kw HP is bigger and more expensive to install than a 40kw boiler and UFH or fan coils or k3 rads are more expensive to install than some k22 ones you can grab down screwfix for £150 each. 

 

Dont get me wrong, we should be insulating houses, and looking hard at things like AONB and listing when they get in the way of efficency, but HPs are the absolute best way to cut our heating carbon emissions (which are significant) 

 

We will always need gas for some uses - high temp industrial,maybe some cooking, portable power even vehicles. But keeping you living room at 20C isn't one of those uses. 

 

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

47 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

I think the biggest problem in changing household heating systems is the unbelievable prejudice to new technology, just think back to Dieselgate.  People still believe that our government at the time told us that we MUST buy diesel cars, and now government is now telling us that we MUST NOT buy them.

People still believe that the embodied carbon and energy in renewable energy system is greater than they can ever pay back, never been true.

The times when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, well a quick look at the UKs power generation shows that this has never happened, and never will.

People often say they they are all for renewables, but they need to be in the right place i.e. not near them.  Well the truth is, for an efficient system, they do need to be near them, with turbines up high and PV on hillsides, facing the right way.  I take a special interest in this as I live in a place with great wind and solar resources (for the UK).  I often point out that Penzance has a windturbine and it cannot be seen from most places.  If a windfarm was installed over say 5 hectares of land, a mile from Land's End.  No one would say it is spoiling the view, the view is the ocean, not the grade 4 farmland behind it.

People say that covering good farm land with PV will effect food security, how/why.  No farmer will rent or sell his most productive farmland for the income potential from renewables, farming still pays better.  Wind and solar are put on unproductive land, what the rest of us call scrubland.  About 30% of farmland is not farmed.

We throw away about 30% of the food we produce.

 

I was in a conversation with a maintenance person the other day about cooking on gas compared to cooking on an induction hob, he knows I am a chef.  He told me that there is nothing batter than cooking on gas. After a bit of probing, it transpires that he cooks on an old electric heater and had never used an induction hob.  He also says killer wots an our, but he is from Bolton.

 

As many of you know, I like collecting data and analysing it for my amusement.  We often get people on here wanting to know how much their heating system should cost to run, or why the usage is so high, but are unwilling to look at their data, or spend a few quid getting some monitoring kit.  I tend to loose interest in their problems.

I recall there was a fair bit of resistance to the switch to condensing boilers. Clouds of steam, condensate drains, more cost and complexity, less reliable (the heat exchanger rotted out fast in early ones). 

 

People found endless reasons why they were a bad idea and a dead end that we would regret installing. 

 

Now they are standard, nobody blinks an eye.  

 

The diesel "gov said we should have diesel now they changed their minds - idiots!" (normally followed up by a rant about wokeness or something) is a but more nuanced. 

 

The switch was for carbon emissions amd they are lower carbon per km than petrol though that advantage has been erroded by the introduction of evermore powerful diesel and evermore frugal petrol units. 

 

But the turn against them now is because of air quality problems, specifically. nitrogen oxides and particulates.  

 

Back in the 90's these issues were known (my first job was in diesel particulate abatement) but the view was they weren't an issue.  Of course one diesel engine in 10 spewing Nox and PM2.5s isn't a major issue. When you have half of the vehicles doing it, and they have got bigger because everyone needs a 250bhp turbo diesel to haul their 2 ton SUV around town. It becomes a bigger issue. 

[SteamyTea]

17 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

 

The diesel "gov said we should have diesel now they changed their minds - idiots!" (normally followed up by a rant about wokeness or something) is a but more nuanced

Yes, and beautifully highlighted by @ProDave's statement above.

 

It is often a case of people mixing things up and not realising there is a difference.

Reducing CO₂/km has nothing to say about NOX or particulates. They have other limits layed down in legislation.

 

In someways it is a shame that housing is not treated the same as vehicles. An annual check and if it fails, you have the choice to repair or replace. Failure to do so means it is effectively handed to the state for disposal.

My car costs me more to run than my house, and mine did 72 MPG on my last tankful, but it has a mass on of 1576 kg dry.

My first diesel was a 205 and that did around 50 MPG and had a mass of 935 kg. The emission were dreadful, though exact figures are hard to come by now.

Pop my current engine into the 205 body and more power  torque and milage.

[ProDave]

29 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

It is often a case of people mixing things up and not realising there is a difference.

Reducing CO₂/km has nothing to say about NOX or particulates. They have other limits layed down in legislation.

I realise it is a measure of different things, but to the uneducated it sends a mixed message, your diesel is cleaner so less VED but it is too dirty to drive into a LEZ.

 

Expecting all the general public to understand that is a bit like your kWh per hour situation.

[SteamyTea]

9 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Expecting all the general public to understand that is a bit like your kWh per hour situation

I think there is a limit to how much knowledge can be dumbed down before only legislation can replaced it.

Taking it to a natural limit, much loved by the right wing in politics, why bother with any education, or any sort.

[MrPotts]

6 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Which has the same emissions as natural gas (near enough as it does depend on the gas composition).

 

We are now about 170ppm of CO₂ above our pre-industrial levels, so releasing 'last years sequestered CO₂ does (expletive deleted) all to stabilise the atmospheric conditions.

We have to stop combustion technologies, that is the end of it.  We have the technologies to do this, it is really just a matter of doing it.

We have the technologies but are being ripped off with the cost! Not many people have £20k to install PV and a heat pump.

[SteamyTea]

11 minutes ago, MrPotts said:

We have the technologies but are being ripped off with the cost! Not many people have £20k to install PV and a heat pump.

I would need to see the detailed quote to be able to judge that i.e. is it for a 500 W PV system with a basic A2AHP, or for a 10 kW PV system with batteries and a totally new A2WHP system in a 10 room house.

 

We think that the fuel companies are ripping us off, and the competitions commissions seem to agree, but I am always amazed that I can find the fuel for my car, when I want (near enough), at the quality specified, for £1.3*/litre.

Fantastic service when you think about it.

 

I have just thought of a better example.

For some reason, my local bus service started charging a maximum of £2 per journey, this has recently doubled to £4.  People are winging that this increase means they cannot afford to take the kids to school. 10 years ago, it would have cost them £5.20 (last time I took a bus, almost).

So no one is being ripped off in reality.

Edited October 13 by SteamyTea

[scottishjohn]

5 hours ago, saveasteading said:

It doesn't have to be an amazing building, just significant or rare

Iwould agrue the one I have rebuilt with its postion is jsut as worthy as the other 

 ,but am very glad they did not

[ProDave]

My pet thought on this subject is WHY do people pay the same for a leaky old wreck just because it looks nice?  Surely it is about time the market valued houses by their true worth and old houses needing 10's of 000's of £££ spent should be worth less than nice modern efficient houses?

[scottishjohn]

8 minutes ago, ProDave said:

My pet thought on this subject is WHY do people pay the same for a leaky old wreck just because it looks nice?  Surely it is about time the market valued houses by their true worth and old houses needing 10's of 000's of £££ spent should be worth less than nice modern efficient houses?

I totally agree 

 

you start adding up what it costs to renovate an old old to modern sppec and flatten and rebuild could be cheaper 

so it comes back to the value of the serviced  plot its location  as the starting point 

 which is where istarted wioth my renovation ,but asit went on  it seemd wrong to destroy the old ruin of  a house which was basically very sound in walls etc 

 

the value of the plot and its outlook  amde both options possible  and on one hand if ihad gone for flatten and put something new of there ,samller than it is  it might have been right  choice 

too late now 

 

Edited October 13 by scottishjohn

[SteamyTea]

7 minutes ago, ProDave said:

WHY do people pay the same for a leaky old wreck just because it looks nice

It could be because of the location.  Old houses tend to be closer to the town centres, or in remote locations.

Newer houses tend to be on the outskirts of towns or close to main roads.

 

[saveasteading]

13 minutes ago, scottishjohn said:

am very glad they did not

I live in a listed building. It has a cost in having to do things properly, but what is wrong with that?

You buy it with this knowledge and can bid accordingly, or go elsewhere.

 

The trouble with a lot of people (I've heard them complain) is that  they think they should be able to do whatever they want. 

"My house, my money !"

The world revolves around them. Heritage, tradition and everyone else, don't matter to them and nobody had explained to them that listing had obligations.

[sharpener]

7 hours ago, Gone West said:

Around here oil is 62.45p/l. One litre of heating oil contains 10.35kWh and allowing for burning inefficiencies will reduce that to 9.32kWh. So 9.32kWh for 62.45p is 6.7p/kWh. My current electricity cost is 23.03p/kWh so an ASHP would need a SCOP of 3.4 to break even, so borderline as to whether it's cheaper than oil to run.

 

Not so very different in S Devon. That price and breakeven CoP are about average but I am hoping for better on a ToU tariff, am amazed that more ppl are not on them.

 

7 hours ago, Gone West said:

For me, in an old house, it would be much cheaper to upgrade the existing oil boiler than to fit an ASHP.

 

Almost borderline for us, I was told the flue for my 25 y/o boiler was not up to modern standards so would need to be changed as well. Through-the-wall flue might have been an option but significant building work with 60mm stone walls. After BUS we paid £7k5, so not a lot extra for the HP over a new oil boiler, some new rads were needed anyway. Admittedly we have not had the old flue removed and the roof re-instated.

 

6 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

Then there is the biggie - appearance. External insulation will change the appearance of buildings. In places. Like the cotswolds this is going to be unacceptable. Nationally we need to reach a consensus about priorities, climate change or olde worlde cottages.

 

I think this is indeed the biggie. As well as costing north of 20k this would not be acceptable in many places, ranging from a Victorian terraced street to our stone barn conversion (in an AONB, with most deemed planning consents annulled, I can't see it getting PP). Perhaps stone facings could be used but roof overhang and detailing round openings would still be problematic - planners insisted (arguably rightly) that original openings be retained and they all incorporate big quoin stones interspersed among the smaller stuff).

 

IME having had 4 different solid wall Victorian houses there are a lot of pickings to be had from WC and good zoning. They were certainly not wrong to incorporate these into the Building Regs, though whether the installers know what they are doing or the householders know how to drive them is another thing.

[Beelbeebub]

I am all for heritage and tradition.... To a point. 

 

When it comes to cutting carbon emissions it's pretty urgent. 

 

Imagine the blitz and someone saying "you can't put blackout blinds up there! It will ruin in the look of those Georgian windows!" - 😁

 

But the solution then is to just install a bigger HPs

 

If we (as a society) have accepted that keeping traditional buildings is going to be expensive, why baulk at the cost of a 20kw HP? We've already accepted that you have more for new windows or new doors or repainting or re-roofing.

 

We need to get the capital cost of HPs (and associated stuff like fan coil rads) down and ideally adjust the balance of gas/elec prices to make hitting the break even (and hence saving money) easy.

[SteamyTea]

28 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

ideally adjust the balance of gas/elec prices to make hitting the break even (and hence saving money) easy.

For over 20 years there has been talking of a carbon tax on energy, I just don't understand why it has not been fully implemented.

Overall it would not increase the amount we pay in taxes.

The carbon price is around £40/tonne at the moment.

 

A good gas boiler probably produces 0.25 kg CO₂/kWh.

So a penny per kWh.

 

Our electrical generation is at a slightly lower level  0.225 kg CO2/kWh, so 0.9p.

 

Now those numbers could have a multipler applied to them, that multiplier could be dynamically variable to take into account domestic price stability, generation mix and international gas prices.

 

It really does not need to be complicated or expensive, it just needs to be implemented.

Edited October 13 by SteamyTea

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

When it comes to cutting carbon emissions it's pretty urgent. 

Bringing things back to reality, urgent for us but spaceX just relanded a booster rocket, all methane powered, how many thousand boilers would that power a year. But space is sexy so it's ok.

 

Urgent probably, but no one seems to care.

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

capital cost of HPs (and associated stuff down

But they aren't expensive. Think the statistic is a 6kW heat loss covers over 80% of all properties. So just over £2k to £3k for just about any heat pump.

 

 

[SteamyTea]

13 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

spaceX just relanded a booster rocket

 

"According to Andrew Wilson, assistant professor in environmental management at Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland, one Starship launch produces 76,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (a measure combining different types of greenhouse gases in one unit). That's 2.72 times more emissions than those produced by a single SpaceX Falcon 9 launch but only 0.96 of the emissions produced by a Falcon Heavy liftoff. Both the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy combust the much dirtier oil-based rocket fuel RP-1, so their carbon footprint per ton launched is much higher. The Falcon 9, for example, has less than one-sixth the payload capacity of Starship."

 

Was an amazing RTE though.  The automated control must be phenomenal.

 

There was a bit on the radio about space launches and the environment, I think it may have been a World Service broadcast, so fell asleep to it.

[JohnMo]

59 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

76,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent

 

 

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

how many thousand boilers would that power a year

So 1600 years of me heating my house and producing all the DHW I can use.

 

So 1600 boilers a year. 

[SteamyTea]

16 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

So 1600 years of me heating my house

Will you live that long?

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

Will you live that long?

Maybe not

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

Rocket launches are an example of a flashy high carbon thing that isnt actually a big % of the total. 

 

Each launch is 1,600 homes for a year. 

 

If we launched 2 a day, it would be just over 1. 1m homes for a year, which is about the number of homes in Wales (the standard SI tabloid unit)

 

So 2 rocket launches a day worldwide, which is about 3 or 4x the current rate, would have the carbon emissions of one Wales. 

 

Measured against that are the benefits of space industry, primarily satellites, for navigation, earth observation, communication, science etc. 

 

Sadly, or fortunately  depending on your POV, climate change will be fought with unsexy stuff that lots of people do. More efficient hearing and (more importantly) cooling. Lower carbon transport. Less transport (as in better planning of our cities and work patterns along with more public transport). Getting rid of high GWP refrigerants. Minimising or eliminating methane leaks. 

 

We'd probably get more benefit from abnnig SUVs in Europe and America than space flight. 

[JohnMo]

@Beelbeebub out of interest do you have a heat pump in your house? Is the house well insulated etc?

Do you have any green tech also?

[Beelbeebub]

13 hours ago, JohnMo said:

But they aren't expensive. Think the statistic is a 6kW heat loss covers over 80% of all properties. So just over £2k to £3k for just about any heat pump.

 

 

I think the average is closer to 11kw, but yes a bare HP for a typical house can be had for as little as £2k but more likely £4k.

 

But the point holds that a bigger unit will cost more than a smaller unit. Then you also have a higher likelihood of having to upgrade pipes, emitters etc. at extra cost. 

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

4 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

@Beelbeebub out of interest do you have a heat pump in your house? Is the house well insulated etc?

Do you have any green tech also?

The house we just moved into is fairly well insulated and has good heat recovery system though it is stupidly big which pushes up the demand. 

 

My old self build had a demand of around 3kw at -5C and was stupidly easy to heat. I don't think the heating has come on yet (my parent now live there) 

 

Both are still on gas as the boilers are trucking along nicely and no point in chucking them out. My old house will be very easy to convert as I designed it to use a HP. The new one (my parents) will be a pig as the UFH has packed up and it's massive so the HP will cost more than ideal. 

 

Both will get swapped when they die.