Are we targeting ASHP's at the wrong market?

[Roger440]

18 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

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?

 

Correct, no solution. There isnt one. Certainly not one that can be succesfully implemented by our government(s). Lets be blunt, ive long given up on anything other than continued decline. Ive accepted it and plan my life accordingly.

 

I dont expect anything to be solved in 5 years. Im not even sure its people being to stupid. Its government creating that message. Look at all the current targets. Like housing. 1.5 million homes in the current term. They said that, not the newspapers etc. No plan at all beyond the current term.

[JamesPa]

44 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

I dont expect anything to be solved in 5 years. Im not even sure its people being to stupid. Its government creating that message. Look at all the current targets. Like housing. 1.5 million homes in the current term. They said that, not the newspapers etc. No plan at all beyond the current term.

Unfortunately the newspapers (and other media) create, at least in part by pedalling deliberate misinformation or analysis so dumbed down as to be laughable, the environment in which the politicians have to operate to win votes. 

 

If we didn't have such a divisive political system it might just be possible for the more sensible politicians to get together and overcome this, but we do have a divisive political system.

 

44 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

Correct, no solution. There isnt one. Certainly not one that can be succesfully implemented by our government(s). Lets be blunt, ive long given up on anything other than continued decline. Ive accepted it and plan my life accordingly.

Noted and of course that is your prerogative.  (Would a modest decline in return for greater security such a bad thing - is monetary wealth the sole goal of the human race, and is it compatible with the laws of nature?)

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:12 by JamesPa

[Beelbeebub]

2 hours ago, Dillsue said:

Maybe Labour have a cunning plan but the BEIS think differently 

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

That report projects that renewable will hit around 300Twh by 2030 and gas will fall to below 50Twh (less than half now) using policies as of June 2024 ie pre Labour.

 

IIRC the tory plans didn't include any onshore wind (cheapest wind source) and labour have said they will remove the defacto ban. 

 

I'd say *if* a significant restart of onshore wind can be accompanied by more offshore and solar the the goal of having near zero (gas for backup only) electricity by the early 2030's isn't unrealistic.

 

[Beelbeebub]

Just had a look back to my Jan 2018 bills.

 

Gas was. 2.5p

Elec was 12p

 

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

Quote from here

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-electricity-was-cleanest-ever-in-2024/

 

 

 

Other key insights from the data include:

    In 2024, the country generated just 91 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity from fossil fuels – mainly gas, as coal was phased out in September – down from 203TWh in 2014 (-55%).
    Renewable sources more than doubled from 65TWh in 2014 to 143TWh in 2024 (+122%).
    Gas-fired power stations remained the UK’s single-largest source of electricity in 2024, generating some 88TWh (28%), just ahead of wind at 84TWh (26%).
    The remaining sources of electricity in 2024 were nuclear (41TWh, 13%), biomass (40TWh, 13%), imports (33TWh, 11%) and solar (14TWh, 4%).
    Some 58% of electricity – or 64% excluding imports – came from clean sources, both records, but a long way off the government’s target of at least 95% clean power by 2030.
    The emissions associated with UK electricity supplies has fallen from 150m tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) in 2014 to below 40MtCO2 in 2024, down 74%.
    The reduction in the carbon intensity of electricity means that an electric vehicle (EV) now has lifecycle CO2 savings of 70% over a petrol car, up from only 50% in 2014.
    Similarly, a household using a heat pump instead of a gas boiler is now cutting its heat-related CO2 emissions by 84% per year, rather than only 45% in 2014.

 

Again to circle back to should we be looking to swap out direct electric for HP systems...

 

Yes, because we would be massively reducing the co2 output from those properties but also, it would reduce the demand for electricity

 

For every home currently on electric you swap to a HP, you can move another 2 similar homes currently on gas to HPs without needing to increace the electric supply at all.

 

If 10% of homes are on direct electric at the moment that means we could end up with 30% of homes on HPs without any additional generation capacity needed.

 

(broad figures)

 

 

[SteamyTea]

I am not sold on having cheaper energy is the sole reason for higher living standards.

There is some data here.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-use-per-capita-vs-gdp-per-capita

Ireland has a higher GDP per capita than the UK, and uses less energy.

Trinidad and Tobago have similar GDP per capita and much higher energy usage.

 

Much of it will depend on what type of economy a country has i.e. agricultural, industrial, service.

They are all valid ways to earn a living, some use more energy than others.

[Roger440]

2 hours ago, JamesPa said:

Unfortunately the newspapers (and other media) create, at least in part by pedalling deliberate misinformation or analysis so dumbed down as to be laughable, the environment in which the politicians have to operate to win votes. 

 

If we didn't have such a divisive political system it might just be possible for the more sensible politicians to get together and overcome this, but we do have a divisive political system.

 

Noted and of course that is your prerogative.  (Would a modest decline in return for greater security such a bad thing - is monetary wealth the sole goal of the human race, and is it compatible with the laws of nature?)

 

 

 

A modest decline is an easy thing to say if you are insulated from the effects of said decline. 

 

No, wealth is not my sole goal, though i dont speak for others. However, i do like to be warm, a not unreasonable ambition in the modern world id suggest. However, with prices double what they were just a few years ago, that now more difficult, indeed impossible for some. 

 

Current plans seem to steer us towards ever increasing energy costs. Which means more people being cold more often.

 

 

 

 

[Roger440]

37 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

I am not sold on having cheaper energy is the sole reason for higher living standards.

There is some data here.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-use-per-capita-vs-gdp-per-capita

Ireland has a higher GDP per capita than the UK, and uses less energy.

Trinidad and Tobago have similar GDP per capita and much higher energy usage.

 

Much of it will depend on what type of economy a country has i.e. agricultural, industrial, service.

They are all valid ways to earn a living, some use more energy than others.

 

Im not sure anyone said it was. Cheap energy allows a succesful thriving economy. Everything spins off from that.

 

 

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, Roger440 said:

Cheap energy allows a succesful thriving economy. Everything spins off from that.

 

Including greater inequality.

[Roger440]

2 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

Just had a look back to my Jan 2018 bills.

 

Gas was. 2.5p

Elec was 12p

 

 

 

 

Proves my points really. Electricity is too expensive.

[Roger440]

Just now, SteamyTea said:

Including greater inequality.

 

So we should all be equally cold?

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, Roger440 said:

So we should all be equally cold

Why choose the negative.

We could all be equally as warm.

There are many ways to make a society more equitable.

You think that perception is reality, but you know it isn't really so.

 

[Roger440]

1 minute ago, SteamyTea said:

Why choose the negative.

We could all be equally as warm.

There are many ways to make a society more equitable.

You think that perception is reality, but you know it isn't really so.

 

 

Well, clearly with ever higher costs, all being warm isnt going to happen. Maybe you can explain how a scarce expensive commodity can result in everyone being equally warm.

 

Current policies and plans will 100% ensure lots of cold people. Already has.

[Beelbeebub]

18 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Well, clearly with ever higher costs, all being warm isnt going to happen. Maybe you can explain how a scarce expensive commodity can result in everyone being equally warm.

 

Current policies and plans will 100% ensure lots of cold people. Already has.

You can be warm without burning lots of fuel. Insulation.

 

Government's have little say over the cost of gas. The bulk of the cost is the world price.

 

The price of electricity is more malleable. There are the taxes we mentioned as well as the "last generators price for all" structure of the market.

 

Bringing down the price of electricity would be a good thing for everyone.

 

Reducing the demand (Heatpumps and insulation) would help, not onky reduxe the cost to end users of staying warm, but also reduce (to a degree) the price of electricity as the demand shrinks (and yes overall demand will increace as we move. To EVs and more HPs replace gas, but the demand will be less than if we did nothing).

[SteamyTea]

15 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

scarce expensive commodity

By promoting the transaction to RE, rather than the old fashioned combustion technologies that you claim are the answer.

 

I posted up somewhere that we have not had any new thermal plants built for nearly a decade now, we still have energy costs at around the long term average of 5% of household income (it goes up and down a bit, but not much).

 

So if the electrical generation industry is not investing in new thermal plants, but are investing in the cheaper RE capacity, what does that tell you about the medium term price structure and business plans.

Trying to get a long term, reliable and cheap supply of natural gas is not one of them.

[ProDave]

It IS possible for us all to be warm BUT the capital cost required to do so means it is not going to happen.

 

Even with the high electricity cost at present, my house in the Highlands uses not much over £300 per year to heat it.  I can only speculate how low that would be if I had built the identical house in a less cold part of the UK.  If every house was that efficient, then most people could afford to be warm.  But there is no way many houses will get anywhere near that any time soon.

 

But what angers me is there is no reason why ALL new build houses are not that good already as built.  Honestly the cost of doing so in a new build is not much and build time is the optimum time to insulate it properly and make the right choices like low temperature UFH etc.

[Beelbeebub]

One massive policy failure that came back to bite us when gas prices soared is our failure to upgrade our housing stock.

 

Having been through several iterations of the various initiatives - they were all bloody nightmares.

 

Costly, convoluted applications that resulted in inappropriate work carried out to a poor standards - if any work coukd be done at all.

 

We applied for one tenant who was told they would qualify for new windows but the only firm authorised to do the work couldnt fit them on for 18 months and the scheme was only valid for 12.

 

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

4 minutes ago, ProDave said:

But what angers me is there is no reason why ALL new build houses are not that good already as built.  Honestly the cost of doing so in a new build is not much and build time is the optimum time to insulate it properly and make the right choices like low temperature UFH etc.

100% this.

 

We should have had high level insulation back in 2016, but the new government scrapped it.

 

The other part of the equation is ensuring houses are built to thwt spec and things like loft insulation aren't ommited.

 

The building inspector system needs to be scrapped and moved back to council inspectors who's next job doesn't depend on them signing this one off.

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

 

Having been through several iterations of the various initiatives - they were all bloody nightmares

There does seem to be a large amount of government lead micro management in most initiatives.

 

Unfortunately, with the advent of social media and the most awful of human beings  'the influencer', it will be really hard to convince the majority of people to change anything, including their grumblings about the price of everything.

[Beelbeebub]

Yeah. I think a core issue (and this cuts across alot in thr UK) we absolutely (as a nation) cannot abide anyone getting something they aren't entitled to (unless it's a PPE contract)

 

We will go to enormous lengths to stop that even if it means preventing those who should be receiving something getting it.

 

So we end up with huge bureaucratic systems dedicated to filtering out every single possible instance non-entitlement. Which often prevents things being done.

[JamesPa]

2 hours ago, Roger440 said:

Current policies and plans will 100% ensure lots of cold people. Already has.

Sorry to ask again, but what would you do differently (within the bounds of political reality and physics)?

Edited Wednesday at 15:23 by JamesPa

[sharpener]

3 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

The building inspector system needs to be scrapped and moved back to council inspectors who's next job doesn't depend on them signing this one off.

 

Spot on. Our loft conversion firm "preferred" to use a private sector one. He said he would if necessary get them to open up their work to rectify missing ridge ventilation but in fact didn't. It was clear that he didn't want to jeopardise a lucrative, captive stream of work.

However it dried up anyway as firm deservedly went bust, fortunately I had kept back £500 for reinforcing floor joists they had weakened with non-compliant holes for pipes. Nightmare.

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, sharpener said:

 

Spot on. Our loft conversion firm "preferred" to use a private sector one. He said he would if necessary get them to open up their work to rectify missing ridge ventilation but in fact didn't. It was clear that he didn't want to jeopardise a lucrative, captive stream of work.

However it dried up anyway as firm deservedly went bust, fortunately I had kept back £500 for reinforcing floor joists they had weakened with non-compliant holes for pipes. Nightmare.

The inspectors work for whoever pays them, and that isn't the home owner......

 

Daft system that leads to Grenfell

[Mike]

12 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

 

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

Or Councils could be funded to recreate the Direct Labour Organisations that they closed in the 1990s, and build them themselves. Maybe they could call the homes something like, err, Council Houses?

[Roger440]

7 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

By promoting the transaction to RE, rather than the old fashioned combustion technologies that you claim are the answer.

 

I posted up somewhere that we have not had any new thermal plants built for nearly a decade now, we still have energy costs at around the long term average of 5% of household income (it goes up and down a bit, but not much).

 

So if the electrical generation industry is not investing in new thermal plants, but are investing in the cheaper RE capacity, what does that tell you about the medium term price structure and business plans.

Trying to get a long term, reliable and cheap supply of natural gas is not one of them.

 

I havent said fossil fuels is the way forward. Please re-read my posts.

 

It isnt going to be cheaper. Ed's self written report says that. Its the infrastructure to move the power generated where the real costs, cost overruns and delays will come.

 

The capital costs will be off the charts. Thats what will be the issue. And of course our old favourite the pegging of the price. Which wont change, irrespective of anything else.

 

When someone sorts that out, i might just start believe the government is serious. Its isnt and it hasnt. As it stands, its wedded to the idea of ever increasing prices.

 

Only action will convince me otherwise. In the meantime, we will disagree.