Are we targeting ASHP's at the wrong market?

[SteamyTea]

14 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

If we just cut the price of gas to "help the poor", it won't. 

So true.

When I get time I may look at the cost differences between energy types, I am a bit tied up this weekend, but have a good 11 hours driving time to think about it.

[Roger440]

4 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

But domestic gas is also kept artificially cheap. 

 

First you have all the subsidies for fossil fuel companies. 

 

Then gas used for generation (which then sets all the electricity unit prices) is carbon taxed, but gas for homes is not. 

 

You are right that raising any energy prove will hit the poorest most and thwt should be avoided as much as possible. 

 

But that doesn't mean we should do nothing 

 

And yes, that might extend to paying for people to have their heating system upgraded so it costs them less to run. 

 

As I pointed out before, switching any direct electric house to an a2a system will cut the bills by 2/3. If the house is on e7 then your cost drop would be less but still a saving *and* you wouldn't have the crappy storage heaters going cold in the evening forcing them to use extra expensive portable heaters. Right now, new "HHR" heaters that wouod help. Are about £700-1000 each. So 4 (the likely minimum in a property) is £2-3k. Then you have labour to fit, and if the place is up stairs..... That's gonna cost as you hump the better part of half a ton up and down! Couple that with the wiring needing upgrading in some cases (dual supply) and you coukd easily be knocking on £4-6k to end uk back where you started. Or you could fit an a2a muktisplit for bit much more. 

 

You do keep avoiding the thorny issue of how, whatever you do, is funded?

 

An easy first step is to unpeg renewable costs. Simple. Could be done tommorow.

 

But it wont be, nor next week, or next year, or during my lifetime probably. Making mad money is way more important than worrying about climate change. As i keep saying, no one in authority is serious. Self enrichment comes first.

 

Regardless of anything else, electricity needs to come down, not putting up gas.

[Roger440]

5 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

I would contest that. 

 

There has been, over the last few decades a deliberate (and to some extent self fulfilling) narrative that government is incompetent and only private enterprise can get things done. 

 

Governments can and have carried out big complex projects. Quite often the foundations of private success stories are from government beginnings - the whole bloody Internet and world wide Web upon which many of today's billionaires built their fortunes was a series of public projects. 

 

Where thing often come unstuck is when government mixes with private. 

 

There are some things that should be private. Shoes, clothes, TVs, your kitchen etc. Things where the market is the best mechanism and governments role is as regulator (eg food standards, consumer rights, employment law etc) 

 

There are other things where the public model is better. Generally large natural monoploies with high infrastructure costs. Water supply, transport infrastructure, aire traffic control etc. I would say energy supply and distribution is one of those areas. 

 

When you try and mix those areas and shoe horn some sort of market system into something that it doesn't fit you get a bloody mess. Is anyone here going to argue that the privatisation of water and rail has been a success? How about the post office?

 

So what else was privatised in that rush?.... Oh look, energy.... Is that the one shining example of success? 

 

Can you refer me to some succesful government infrastructure projects? Say, in the last 10 years.

 

I can think of one. HS2. What an utter shambles. Assuming its ever finished, its going to be at least five times over budget, and wont deliver half what was planned. And never mind the sheer cost of building it to a bigger gauge for bigger trains. Which now wont be built, because the trains will now have to use the exsisting infrastructure, so will be conventional size. With HS2 it goes on, and on, and on.

 

I do agree with you, that the core services of the nation should be government run, but the damage is done, and is, without a huge long term program of building back up the institutions, impossible to recover

 

 

[Mattg4321]

I'm not sure anyone's going to change their minds really as leaving aside the extreme positions on both sides, there's broadly two camps, as there often is with other big issues of the time like covid.

 

One side sees climate change as an almost existential threat, with death and destruction on a scale not seen before - even in 1913-45. If living standards take a fairly substantial hit then thats just the price that will have to be paid. The collateral damage from the damage to the economy will be painful to say the least, but better than the alternative.

 

The other side sees it as a smaller problem in relation to the damage that the solutions put forward will cause. They would rather take all the measures that can be taken without hurting living standards or the economy. The collateral damage would be unacceptable in relation to the risk of the climate warming as the IPCC etc predicts, which they think can be dealt with by learning to live with, rather than attempting to prevent.

 

Trying to attribute the extremists views to the other side isn't really helpful, but probably human nature and inevitable. Each side think they are correct and neither side can possibly prove it.

[Crofter]

1 hour ago, Roger440 said:

 

Can you refer me to some succesful government infrastructure projects? Say, in the last 10 years.

The Queensferry Crossing was pretty well handled. Scottish government rather than UK one though.

[JamesPa]

1 hour ago, Roger440 said:

Can you refer me to some succesful government infrastructure projects? Say, in the last 10 years.

Haven't heard many complaints about the Elizabeth line.

 

The point surely is that part of the role of a successful government is to take risks that the private sector won't, in the greater interest of the nation.  So you can expect them to be difficult, controversial, and occasionally even to fail at least in part.  Unfortunately it doesn't suit the media narrative of perpetual incompetence of government to point that out, because in reality all they want is to swipe at one side of the political divide and a sup to the other, in support of their paymasters.

 

I'm not defending HS2 btw, imho it's an anachronistic vanity project promoted by the rail industry, suited to an age before it was possible to work whilst on train, and a country much bigger physically than the UK..  Unfortunately government fell for it, but now we have to make the best of it.  Such projects often find a good use eventually!

 

If someone desires a society run solely by the oligarchy for the oligarchy then so be it.  Just bear in mind that this is the ultimate objective of the drip drip of bile in certain sections of the media.  Unless someone following the lead of this sector of the media is very rich, they are almost certainly acting against their own self interests. Since the majority aren't very rich, this shouldn't be a threat.  Unfortunately, time and time, again turkeys do vote for Christmas (or for that matter Thanksgiving) lured into that by the misinformation put out by those parts of the media.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by JamesPa

[Alan Ambrose]

Yeah the Lizzie line is very good. Someone was smart enough to use trains and tunnels bigger than the standard tube line and not to stop every 1/4 mile. Fantastic work. Victorian in its boldness and quality.

Edited 4 hours ago by Alan Ambrose

[Bornagain]

8 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Haven't heard many complaints about the Elizabeth line.

Well, other than the fact that it was the better part of four years late and at least £4 Billion overbudget.

 

[JamesPa]

7 minutes ago, Bornagain said:

Well, other than the fact that it was the better part of four years late and at least £4 Billion overbudget.

 

Yeah, but now it's hailed as a great success.

 

If you build your own house, chances are it will go over time and over budget.  That's the nature of construction unfortunately.  Government isn't magically immune to the failings that afflict us as individuals and, unlike individuals, has to deal with changing colour potentially every 5 years, which is a lot less than the timescale for major infrastructure projects.  This alone inevitably multiplies cost.  I'm not defending it, but don't have a practical alternative proposition if we are to build national infrastructure.  It's easy to criticise, but what is the alternative?

Edited 4 hours ago by JamesPa

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, Roger440 said:

 

Can you refer me to some succesful government infrastructure projects? Say, in the last 10 years.

 

I can think of one. HS2. What an utter shambles. Assuming its ever finished, its going to be at least five times over budget, and wont deliver half what was planned. And never mind the sheer cost of building it to a bigger gauge for bigger trains. Which now wont be built, because the trains will now have to use the exsisting infrastructure, so will be conventional size. With HS2 it goes on, and on, and on.

 

I do agree with you, that the core services of the nation should be government run, but the damage is done, and is, without a huge long term program of building back up the institutions, impossible to recover

 

 

The government would be commissioning and operating various wind and solar farms in exactly the same way that any private company would. These projects are not normally built and operated by the same entity. Just like most people don't actually build their own house, they commission an architect, a builder etc to do that and then take ownership at the end. 

 

The prokciple difference is the final owner won't have the shareholder profit motive (and cut) to account for and the government can finance the project much cheaper than any commercial entity and so the interest payments make a smaller cut of the costs. 

 

Just addressing HS2, the majority of the issues are due to politicians canceling bits of it to either save money or curry votes in marginal constituencies. There are cost inflations due to environmental issues eg there is alot more tunnelling than would be ideal and there was alot more environmental remidiation that would strictly be required. 

 

The tracl gauge is the same as normal trains but the loading gauge is bigger. This makes perfect sense as the standard uk loading gauge is really too small, being set by victorian infrastructure.  If you are building a new line it makes sense to make the loading gauge a more more modern size (bigger) as you are building the infrastructure. 

 

Of course this all comes a bit unstuck when some brightspark politician cancels a section and required the trains to run on old track "to save money" - and then spends more money modifying the old track to fit the wider gauge. 

 

We also then piss money away having bought up land that we aren't going to use anymore. 

 

If we had built (do build) HS2 as originally intended without various cancellations and back and forth it would have still been over the original budget (don't forget the orogonal budget doesn't account for inflation losses due to delays) but we would have had a major boost to the rail capacity up and down the country. 

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

15 minutes ago, Bornagain said:

Well, other than the fact that it was the better part of four years late and at least £4 Billion overbudget.

 

Let's not forget that tge initial bidvest are almost always low because the don't (and can't) account for delays and inflation.  Even things like changes in taxes can't be accounted for. 

 

You may forecast £10bn but by the time it is dalyed by 5 years in various legal challanges that becomes £13bn even if everything goes exactly as planned.  Then the spec gets changed - costs and the £1bn. Then somebody halts it all because it now cost £14bn not £10bn. Then when it restarts vat or NI or pension contributions have changed which adds another £1bn on top of the £1bn caused by more inflation. Before you know it, everything has gone exactly as planned on the ground but your £10bn forecast is now £16bn cost and you're 6 years late. 

[MikeSharp01]

15 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

If someone desires a society run solely by the oligarchy for the oligarchy then so be it. 

Ah the techno feudalist future on the march! A commentator once likened us to maggots thriving in the filth of a social media-driven, tech-obsessed future. Tech billionaires look on, grinning, as we wallow in the muck like pigs in excrement. Wonder if the plebeians of Rome or the medieval peasantry were so taken in by their equivalent of the oligarchs.  

[MikeSharp01]

6 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

prokciple

Sounds like a word we should all be clear on the definition of - just can't place it .

[Beelbeebub]

Many years ago I worked on a major military ship project - the one where we built 2 and mothballed one immediately so the final cost per operational ship was astronomical. 

 

The project was going back and forth on basic things like how long the ship was, how many aircraft it would have and even what type. Every time a politician said "we are saving money by using aircraft X" it would kick of a few months of rejigging everything - at vast expense - before a new cost was generated and the politician would say "top much! We'll save money cutting aircraft/changing aircraft type/ditching feature X" and it would all start again. And each round added cost and delay and each delay would add more costs again. 

 

The point is the civil servants and private contractors that were doing the work were all very capable. The problem was the uncertainty at the higher levels 

[Beelbeebub]

5 minutes ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Ah the techno feudalist future on the march! A commentator once likened us to maggots thriving in the filth of a social media-driven, tech-obsessed future. Tech billionaires look on, grinning, as we wallow in the muck like pigs in excrement. Wonder if the plebeians of Rome or the medieval peasantry were so taken in by their equivalent of the oligarchs.  

The US seems to be having ago at the "broligarchy" 

[MikeSharp01]

1 minute ago, Beelbeebub said:

broligarchy

Yep - seems so, do you think they have gold plated heat pumps? Still you have to feel sorry for them when your personal security bill is $24 million! (Mark Zuckerberg) - that's a few click throughs on Facebook and you still have to pay everybody else. 

[Roger440]

33 minutes ago, Bornagain said:

Well, other than the fact that it was the better part of four years late and at least £4 Billion overbudget.

 

 

Exactly what i was going to say!

 

But i think anyone could have guessed that. 

[Roger440]

21 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

The government would be commissioning and operating various wind and solar farms in exactly the same way that any private company would. These projects are not normally built and operated by the same entity. Just like most people don't actually build their own house, they commission an architect, a builder etc to do that and then take ownership at the end. 

 

The prokciple difference is the final owner won't have the shareholder profit motive (and cut) to account for and the government can finance the project much cheaper than any commercial entity and so the interest payments make a smaller cut of the costs. 

 

Just addressing HS2, the majority of the issues are due to politicians canceling bits of it to either save money or curry votes in marginal constituencies. There are cost inflations due to environmental issues eg there is alot more tunnelling than would be ideal and there was alot more environmental remidiation that would strictly be required. 

 

The tracl gauge is the same as normal trains but the loading gauge is bigger. This makes perfect sense as the standard uk loading gauge is really too small, being set by victorian infrastructure.  If you are building a new line it makes sense to make the loading gauge a more more modern size (bigger) as you are building the infrastructure. 

 

Of course this all comes a bit unstuck when some brightspark politician cancels a section and required the trains to run on old track "to save money" - and then spends more money modifying the old track to fit the wider gauge. 

 

We also then piss money away having bought up land that we aren't going to use anymore. 

 

If we had built (do build) HS2 as originally intended without various cancellations and back and forth it would have still been over the original budget (don't forget the orogonal budget doesn't account for inflation losses due to delays) but we would have had a major boost to the rail capacity up and down the country. 

 

 

 

I get all that, i know more about it than i want to. But it is a demonstration of a government run project. And its a small trifling one compared to what Ed has planned.

 

And you think it can go any other way than badly?

 

A bilion or so here and there isnt much to get worked up about on projects like this. But its going to be more than 100 billion over budget. You can do a lot with 100 billion. Its just not sustainable.

[Roger440]

16 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Many years ago I worked on a major military ship project - the one where we built 2 and mothballed one immediately so the final cost per operational ship was astronomical. 

 

The project was going back and forth on basic things like how long the ship was, how many aircraft it would have and even what type. Every time a politician said "we are saving money by using aircraft X" it would kick of a few months of rejigging everything - at vast expense - before a new cost was generated and the politician would say "top much! We'll save money cutting aircraft/changing aircraft type/ditching feature X" and it would all start again. And each round added cost and delay and each delay would add more costs again. 

 

The point is the civil servants and private contractors that were doing the work were all very capable. The problem was the uncertainty at the higher levels 

 

Proving my point once again.

[Bornagain]

39 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

If you build your own house, chances are it will go over time and over budget.

We did.

It didn't and it didn't.

 

[ProDave]

1 hour ago, Crofter said:

The Queensferry Crossing was pretty well handled. Scottish government rather than UK one though.

Remarkably yes.  Now compare that with trying to procure a couple of ferries.

[Roger440]

1 minute ago, ProDave said:

Remarkably yes.  Now compare that with trying to procure a couple of ferries.

 

Dont mention the ferries!

 

And definitely dont mention port issues.

 

Sadly proves my point yet again.

[ProDave]

Just to avoid thread drift, if we want to discuss failed government projects, perhaps someone could start a separate thread for that.