Are we targeting ASHP's at the wrong market?

[Roger440]

4 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

 The government coukd subsidise the costs of fitting a2a.

 

If memory serves, the reason for not doing so, is that they can be used for cooling. And thats not acceptable. Apparantly. Unnecessary energy use.

[Beelbeebub]

3 minutes ago, SBMS said:

I thought labour have committed to removing gas as an electricity source by 2030?

Have they? Not very realistic.

 

I doubt we will ever get rid of it entirely. We will always need some backup for cold dark windless periods. But if we coukd get it so we fire up the gas stations a few weeks a year and run on solar, wind etc the rest of the time that would be possible.

 

Mad star I saw the other day.

 

Last year 2024, Pakistan imported around 13Gw of solar panels from. China.  Mostly for individual homes and small businesses.  The entire grid generating capacity of Pakistan is only 46Gw.  In one year they fitted (OK some are stillvprobbaly waiting to be fitted) 1/3 of their entire electrical capacity.  They could have 2x times their 2023 capacity of electricity entirely carbon free by 2030 and only be firing up the fossil fuel plants a few weeks of the year.

 

For reference the UKs total generating capacity is 75-100gw

[Roger440]

11 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

osndoes boil down to the old "it's too expensive to reduce carbon emissions so we shouldn't"

 

That neglects the costs of doing nothing which are starting to bite now.

 

All the people displaced by fires, floods, drought probably don't think it was too expensive if they had their time again.

 

I saw a good quote

 

"the climate change effects will play out as a series of videos on your phone, until it's your phone making the videos."

 

 

For that, you have to believe that anything we do will have an impact. It wont.

 

We should be preparing for the inevitable. Id suggest this would be a rather better use of resources. Indeed, im confident in 50 or 100 years, history will prove that.

 

In the meantime, i guess we keep giving away £7.5k to the leeches bleeding the taxpayer dry.

[Beelbeebub]

1 minute ago, Roger440 said:

 

If memory serves, the reason for not doing so, is that theyt theye used for cooling. And thats not acceptable. Apparantly. Unnecessary energy use.

 that was the argument - and a fair one. We don't want to end up like California where our peak demand is summer afternoons!

 

The solution may be fairly simple.

 

The units availble for subsidy must be verified models that have the minimum air temp output at (say) 28C.  This would make them only good for cooling on the warmest of UK conditions, where or is prob useful at a national level to prevent heat stress issues. Another one would be not allow them to have condensate drains (which also makes them cheaper)

[Roger440]

2 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Have they? Not very realistic.

 

I doubt we will ever get rid of it entirely. We will always need some backup for cold dark windless periods. But if we coukd get it so we fire up the gas stations a few weeks a year and run on solar, wind etc the rest of the time that would be possible.

 

Mad star I saw the other day.

 

Last year 2024, Pakistan imported around 13Gw of solar panels from. China.  Mostly for individual homes and small businesses.  The entire grid generating capacity of Pakistan is only 46Gw.  In one year they fitted (OK some are stillvprobbaly waiting to be fitted) 1/3 of their entire electrical capacity.  They could have 2x times their 2023 capacity of electricity entirely carbon free by 2030 and only be firing up the fossil fuel plants a few weeks of the year.

 

For reference the UKs total generating capacity is 75-100gw

 

Starmer and Miliband both said this prior to the election. It would seem real life has caught up with them.

 

Starmer also said he would turn of the gas supply to domestic properties by 2030. Seems to have changed his tune on that too.

 

At a guess, id imgaine gas will be classed as "green" in years to come.

[Roger440]

1 minute ago, Beelbeebub said:

 that was the argument - and a fair one. We don't want to end up like California where our peak demand is summer afternoons!

 

The solution may be fairly simple.

 

The units availble for subsidy must be verified models that have the minimum air temp output at (say) 28C.  This would make them only good for cooling on the warmest of UK conditions, where or is prob useful at a national level to prevent heat stress issues. Another one would be not allow them to have condensate drains (which also makes them cheaper)

 

Far more sensible would be to fit solar at the same time. Then who cares how much energy they use? 

 

You do seem to have some ideas that make life worse for people?

 

[Beelbeebub]

2 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

For that, you have to believe that anything we do will have an impact. It wont.

 

And everyone says that and nothing gets done.

 

We have the Americans advancing that argument. "China emits more" - so the 2nd place person can't do anything?

 

I thought the UK was supposed to be a world leader? Apart from, apparently, tackling climate change.

 

Itvs important because we tea an example. It's true the big issue is"what happens when all.of Africa tries to live like the West?"

 

It would be catastrophic.

 

But if we can show we can live a high standard ofiving whilst having low emissions it will encourage them to develop. In the same way

[Beelbeebub]

3 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

Starmer also said he would turn of the gas supply to domestic properties by 2030.

Have you got an actual quote. One that isn't a daily mail headline?

 

There was a plan to end new gas boiler installs from then. But there was never any plan to turn off gas in 2030.

[Beelbeebub]

We should be banning new builds from having gas heating. If you are a new build then accommodating a HP is no problem. The building industry always carps on about how expensive it will be.

 

Bollocks.

 

They say that about every single thing and then cut every possible corner anyway. If they had their way we'd have single glazed solid block walls with no insulation at all.

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

And everyone says that and nothing gets done.

 

We have the Americans advancing that argument. "China emits more" - so the 2nd place person can't do anything?

 

I thought the UK was supposed to be a world leader? Apart from, apparently, tackling climate change.

 

Itvs important because we tea an example. It's true the big issue is"what happens when all.of Africa tries to live like the West?"

 

It would be catastrophic.

 

But if we can show we can live a high standard ofiving whilst having low emissions it will encourage them to develop. In the same way

 

I think you may have missed my point, or ascribed a position to me that im not taking.

 

Im not using the argument that because no one else is, we shouldnt. Please re-read my post

 

As for your last paragraph, we wont be able to show that. Because, its essentially impossible with the country the way it is. If we continue on the path proposed, we will have a much lower standard of living. We are already going backwards on that measure.

 

 

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

Have you got an actual quote. One that isn't a daily mail headline?

 

There was a plan to end new gas boiler installs from then. But there was never any plan to turn off gas in 2030.

 

It was in a newspaper or two, ill give you that. But it was a direct quote.

 

It proves nothing however, beyond how clueless they are.

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

We should be banning new builds from having gas heating. If you are a new build then accommodating a HP is no problem. The building industry always carps on about how expensive it will be.

 

Bollocks.

 

They say that about every single thing and then cut every possible corner anyway. If they had their way we'd have single glazed solid block walls with no insulation at all.

 

Agreed. As always though, follow the money. The government needs the big boys "on side" to build houses. There a price to be paid for that, as the house builders hold all the cards.

[Beelbeebub]

9 hours ago, Roger440 said:

 

It was in a newspaper or two, ill give you that. But it was a direct quote.

 

It proves nothing however, beyond how clueless they are.

This is the closest I could find, from 2022.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63023277

 

"Labour conference: Starmer ambition to get off fossil fuels by 2030"

 

But in the text it's clear that he is referring to electricity generation, and even then he later clarified that fossil fuels may still be required as a backup.

 

I don't think that's an impossible target or one we shouldn't be aiming for. We already have some fossil fuel free days. It's just a case of expanding capacity so they become the norm.

[Beelbeebub]

9 hours ago, Roger440 said:

 

Agreed. As always though, follow the money. The government needs the big boys "on side" to build houses. There a price to be paid for that, as the house builders hold all the cards.

the housebuikders won't go on strike. They need to build and sell houses to make money.

 

Plus, with the large number of houses needed it would probably be economic in the long run for a nationised house builder to enter the market. The Gov employs the supply chain from architects to final finishes and ground works.  A % is kept for social housing and some sold off.  The workforce can be fully employed and nkt subject to boom and bust cycles and as we near the end of the building program thry can transition to maintance of those social houses.

 

The presence of well built reasonably proved homes on the market would act as a moderator on the private builders.

[Dillsue]

44 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

But in the text it's clear that he is referring to electricity generation, and even then he later clarified that fossil fuels may still be required as a backup.

 

I don't think that's an impossible target or one we shouldn't be aiming for. We already have some fossil fuel free days. It's just a case of expanding capacity so they become the norm.

Maybe Labour have a cunning plan but the BEIS think differently 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/energy-and-emissions-projections-2023-to-2050

[Dillsue]

9 hours ago, Roger440 said:

If we continue on the path proposed, we will have a much lower standard of living. We are already going backwards on that measure.

 

It's mentioned often enough that dealing with climate change is going to come at enormous cost and that is undoubtedly going to change our way of life. If everyone engaged with it, the cost will be less. To resist is only growing the problem and pushing the problem onto future generations which is a very selfish thing to do.

[Roger440]

3 minutes ago, Dillsue said:

It's mentioned often enough that dealing with climate change is going to come at enormous cost and that is undoubtedly going to change our way of life. If everyone engaged with it, the cost will be less. To resist is only growing the problem and pushing the problem onto future generations which is a very selfish thing to do.

 

Any succesful economy, and the corresponding living standards that come with it, relies on abundant, low(ish) cost energy.

 

If electricity (and energy generally) is niether of those things, then the economy wont do will and living stadards will drop. I dont think thats controversial. History shows this.

 

I see nothing selfish in not wanting our kids and future generations to have a standard of living at least as goid as we have experienced. Indeed, id suggest what is selfish, is to consign those future generation to to that, in order to achieve nothing useful at all. For clarity, i dont buy into the idea that we will stop or reverse, or even slow done climate change by doing the things we are currently set to do Whats going to happen is going to happen. Best deal with it..

 

One can only assume you believe that if only we all did our bit, the climate will go back to how it was?

 

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

the housebuikders won't go on strike. They need to build and sell houses to make money.

 

Plus, with the large number of houses needed it would probably be economic in the long run for a nationised house builder to enter the market. The Gov employs the supply chain from architects to final finishes and ground works.  A % is kept for social housing and some sold off.  The workforce can be fully employed and nkt subject to boom and bust cycles and as we near the end of the building program thry can transition to maintance of those social houses.

 

The presence of well built reasonably proved homes on the market would act as a moderator on the private builders.

 

No, they wont go on strike. They will, however, secure concessions, which is, as you already observed, is a lower standard of house.

 

They know that if they ramp up house building, that the cost they can achieve per house will decline. They will seek to protect their profits.

 

In addtion, and as some on here have already experienced, outside the south east, the cost of building  "good home" as opposed to a cheap one, already puts you in a non profit territory. If house builders are forced to build houses to a higher standard in areas where house prices wont support it, what do you think wil happen?

 

[JamesPa]

19 minutes ago, Dillsue said:

It's mentioned often enough that dealing with climate change is going to come at enormous cost and that is undoubtedly going to change our way of life. If everyone engaged with it, the cost will be less. To resist is only growing the problem and pushing the problem onto future generations which is a very selfish thing to do.

Which is precisely what we have been doing for 50 years, which is why it has now become a crisis.

 

Unfortunately the physics doesnt care one iota about what you, I, the reckless climate change deniers or the selfish 'do nothing' merchants think, it will do what it will do.  Furthermore if anyone is stupid enough to believe that they are more powerful than nature, so preparing for it will alone be enough, then they should study the videos of California to see just how pathetic the efforts of human beings look for example when dropping fire retardant onto natures flames.  Nature is far bigger than we are and we had better get over than.

 

Actually i dont think anyone is stupid enough to believe that, including the world leaders who posture as denialists.  They are just looking after their own interests at the expense of our children (nb not theirs, theirs will be housed in bunkers).

 

8 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

I see nothing selfish in not wanting our kids and future generations to have a standard of living at least as goid as we have experienced.

Sadly that is probably not now possible.  If we had limited population growth and if we had taken action on climate change 50 years ago, then maybe.  We did neither and have now created a crisis.

 

8 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

Any succesful economy, and the corresponding living standards that come with it, relies on abundant, low(ish) cost energy.

Yes it does, but that doesn't have to mean fossil fuels.  There is more than enough energy falling on the earth from the sun, and sloshing around in our oceans due to the moon, to fuel our economy and harvesting at least the first of these it is pretty cheap.  The pain is largely in the transition, not the end point.

Edited Wednesday at 08:45 by JamesPa

[JamesPa]

5 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

No, they wont go on strike. They will, however, secure concessions, which is, as you already observed, is a lower standard of house.

 

They know that if they ramp up house building, that the cost they can achieve per house will decline. They will seek to protect their profits.

 

In addtion, and as some on here have already experienced, outside the south east, the cost of building  "good home" as opposed to a cheap one, already puts you in a non profit territory. If house builders are forced to build houses to a higher standard in areas where house prices wont support it, what do you think wil happen?

 

As you say house builders will always protect their profits.  These exist in large part because they ration the housing supply.  I am frankly not sure the standard makes that much difference (although they will of course always argue against it), but the rationing certainly does.

 

Somehow Government needs to get to grips with this rationing.   It may well be that the only way to overcome it is to create a publicly owned house builder which is not motivated solely by profit.  They of course will be hampered by the fact that the private developers have already bought up (or have options on) most of the land rights, so land/planning reform of some kind is likely also necessary.  This is clearly a long term project, 10 years at least to make an impact.

 

If anyone can suggest an alternative way then it would be interesting to discuss, but while housebuilders are strongly motivated to ration the supply of houses its difficult to see how the supply will increase materially.

[Roger440]

3 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

 

 

Sadly that is probably not now possible.  If we had limited population growth and if we had taken action on climate change 50 years ago, then maybe.  We did neither and have now created a crisis.

 

Yes it does, but that doesn't have to mean fossil fuels.  There is more than enough energy falling on the earth from the sun to fuel our economy and harvesting it is pretty cheap.  The pain is almost all in the transition, not the end point.

 

No, it doesnt mean fossil fuels, i agree. I never said it did. But an orderly sensibly paced transistion is fine and achievable. What we are roposing to do is niether of those things. The costs of building the infrastructure are vast, and, i would suggest, well out of reach. Cheap it most certainly isnt. To spend all that money, in a short space of time WILL be a disaster. It always is when we do things like that. And this will be on a whole other level. The projected costs are unaffordable, and we know the actual costs will be many multiples of the projection. We cant even manage to build a short railway from London to Birmingham in less than 20 years!

 

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs, it wont happen at pace, because it cant be funded.

 

Show we a long term plan, with low energy costs, and abundant supply, im there. The current proposals are the opposite of all those things.

[Roger440]

1 minute ago, JamesPa said:

As you say house builders will always protect their profits.  These exist in large part because they ration the housing supply.  I am frankly not sure the standard makes that much difference (although they will of course always argue against it), but the rationing certainly does.

 

Somehow Government needs to get to grips with this rationing.   It may well be that the only way to overcome it is to create a publicly owned house builder which is not motivated solely by profit.  They of course will be hampered by the fact that the private developers have already bought up (or have options on) most of the land rights, so land/planning reform of some kind is likely also necessary.  This is clearly a long term project, 10 years at least to make an impact.

 

If anyone can suggest an alternative way then it would be interesting to discuss, but while housebuilders are strongly motivated to ration the supply of houses its difficult to see how the supply will increase materially.

 

Maybe one way is to have more players in the market. Sadly, every change that happens, makes things increasingly difficult for smaller players. In the current world, scale is everything.

 

I cant see it possible to build at such a rate, that there will be any meaningful dent in the shortage of supply and hence cost. Even if government took action to do so.

 

The institutions that used to deliver not just housing, but so many other things have already been either destroyed or hollowed out. It would take a concerted 20 year effort to build up our building (not just houses) capability. No government is going to do that with a 5 year time horizon.

 

It just wont happen. In the meantime, illegal house bulding in back gardens continues apace in big cities at least. If i look out of the inlaws back window, i see rows of garages and sheds with people living in them. The council do nothing. If they did, they will all be homeless, and the council problem.

 

As you say, ideas needed, but i doubt there will be a solution in my lifetime. The closest we will get is going bankrupt and needing an IMF bailout. Plenty of people will then leave the country easing the pressure on housing.

[JamesPa]

2 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

No, it doesnt mean fossil fuels, i agree. I never said it did. But an orderly sensibly paced transistion is fine and achievable. What we are roposing to do is niether of those things. The costs of building the infrastructure are vast, and, i would suggest, well out of reach. Cheap it most certainly isnt. To spend all that money, in a short space of time WILL be a disaster. It always is when we do things like that. And this will be on a whole other level. The projected costs are unaffordable, and we know the actual costs will be many multiples of the projection. We cant even manage to build a short railway from London to Birmingham in less than 20 years!

 

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs, it wont happen at pace, because it cant be funded.

 

Show we a long term plan, with low energy costs, and abundant supply, im there. The current proposals are the opposite of all those things.

... and your alternative plan is...

 

Its all very well to criticise others, in fact its the easiest thing in the world.  More difficult is to have a realistic constructive and thought through alternative which has some chance of passing the test of political reality.  That's what politicians have to do.  I don't envy their task to be honest particularly with the amount of mis information (aka lies) out there.   

 

Id far rather have a politician that is trying to do something, than one that is actively promoting things which are objectively at variance with the scientific facts.  At least the former probably has the right motives, whereas the latter clearly does not.

 

SOFAIK the UK is committed to net zero by 2050, which is a long way off still and we will probably miss, if the history to date is anything to go by.  in your 'orderly sensibly paced transition' which  'is fine and achievable' what should the 2050 date be replaced by?

 

 

[JamesPa]

3 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Maybe one way is to have more players in the market. Sadly, every change that happens, makes things increasingly difficult for smaller players. In the current world, scale is everything.

 

I cant see it possible to build at such a rate, that there will be any meaningful dent in the shortage of supply and hence cost. Even if government took action to do so.

 

The institutions that used to deliver not just housing, but so many other things have already been either destroyed or hollowed out. It would take a concerted 20 year effort to build up our building (not just houses) capability. No government is going to do that with a 5 year time horizon.

 

It just wont happen. In the meantime, illegal house bulding in back gardens continues apace in big cities at least. If i look out of the inlaws back window, i see rows of garages and sheds with people living in them. The council do nothing. If they did, they will all be homeless, and the council problem.

 

As you say, ideas needed, but i doubt there will be a solution in my lifetime. The closest we will get is going bankrupt and needing an IMF bailout. Plenty of people will then leave the country easing the pressure on housing.

So no solution then, just give up hope and you might as well do nothing.  How depressing!

 

PS why should we expect the problem to be fixed in a 5 year timescale, as you say thats unrealistic.  Is it solely because we, as a nation, are too stupid and too much led by the Daily Mail (other organs of information and misinformation are available) to realise that some things take longer than a single electoral cycle?

Edited Wednesday at 09:07 by JamesPa

[Roger440]

12 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

... and your alternative plan is...

 

Its all very well to criticise others, in fact its the easiest thing in the world.  More difficult is to have a realistic constructive and thought through alternative which has some chance of passing the test of political reality.  That's what politicians have to do.  I don't envy their task to be honest particularly with the amount of mis information (aka lies) out there.   

 

Id far rather have a politician that is trying to do something, than one that is actively promoting things which are objectively at variance with the scientific facts.  At least the former probably has the right motives, whereas the latter clearly does not.

 

SOFAIK the UK is committed to net zero by 2050, which is a long way off still and we will probably miss, if the history to date is anything to go by.  in your 'orderly sensibly paced transition' which  'is fine and achievable' what should the 2050 date be replaced by?

 

 

 

Im not sure a "date" is all that sensible. Its just arbitary.

 

As per your other post, we need to build up our capability to do stuff in order to build the infrastructure. Its the work of decades. With concerted government will, we might get there by 2100? But it cant and wont happen.

 

Anyway, i dont have an alternative plan. If i was that clever, id be in a power! What i do know, is driving living standards down, with scarce and expensive energy, most definitely isnt a solution to anything.

 

Id love politicians that actually worked for the people and had morals and integrity. Even if i disagree with their views. Sadly, again, zero possibility. They are all in the pockets of big buisness, coprarations etc etc.