Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

Would a large tank charged by cheap 5p electricity over 4hours be better than a heat pump?
1 ton tank can store 70KWh of heat energy probably sufficient for 20h for most homes

Just had a Google and a 500 litre tank can be had for sub £1000 doubt a 1000 litre tank would cost much more to manufacture and retail. Cheaper than a heat pump system and even a heat pump needs a tank

If I was buying a new build and it had to be all electric I'd probably opt for this type of setup.
500 litre tank would probably be fine and 5p for heat is affordable especially as these should have close to zero maintenance just DIY change the elements once every few years many thanks also have 30 year guarantees and will likely last much longer than a boiler or heat pump

Wonder if such a setup would be more affordable than oil fired heating there are something like a million oil fired homes in the UK

Also if you go for an agile tariff you could potentially charge the tank multiple times a day so a smaller ta k could do the job

This would be interesting to research

GreatApe

GreatApe wrote: »

Would a large tank charged by cheap 5p electricity over 4hours be better than a heat pump?
1 ton tank can store 70KWh of heat energy probably sufficient for 20h for most homes

Just had a Google and a 500 litre tank can be had for sub £1000 doubt a 1000 litre tank would cost much more to manufacture and retail. Cheaper than a heat pump system and even a heat pump needs a tank

If I was buying a new build and it had to be all electric I'd probably opt for this type of setup.
500 litre tank would probably be fine and 5p for heat is affordable especially as these should have close to zero maintenance just DIY change the elements once every few years many thanks also have 30 year guarantees and will likely last much longer than a boiler or heat pump

Wonder if such a setup would be more affordable than oil fired heating there are something like a million oil fired homes in the UK

Also if you go for an agile tariff you could potentially charge the tank multiple times a day so a smaller ta k could do the job

This would be interesting to research

About the same price as a boiler
Significantly Cheaper to install
Cheaper to maintain
Possibly 4 X the life (60 year life Vs replacing boiler once every 15 years)
No need for gas connection so saving gas standing charges that alone gets you about 3 units per day for 'free'
No need to pay for gas to be connected if a new build
Greener than gas oil or biomass
Allows more wind paper onto the grid without curtailment
Doesn't stress the grid at peak times
Can retrofit into existing heating systems unlike a heat pump which would likely require bigger radiators

Presumably with more wind power deployed there will be more than 4h a day when it's cheap to buy electricity so future tanks can be smaller

Interesting. Obviously the big problem is space Vs a combi
Can supplement with air to air heat pump for warmer periods

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

As we are only responsible for 1% of global emissions shouldn’t the ratio be 7:100 (adaptation costs : avoidance costs) in terms of impact in the UK?

Possibly the worst bit of maths I've ever seen on here, or possibly the most extreme bit of spin.

We are responsible for 1% of annual emissions (and 5% of historical CO2 emissions), so having 1% of the World's population means we are clearly as responsible (at the very least) as everyone else.

Trying to spin something based on 1% is a hopeless denial argument.

If you are so against action on AGW, then I simply can't understand why you spend so much time on this board/thread.

JKenH wrote: »

I look at it as insurance in case the other guy doesn’t step up to the plate.

I look at your comments as mis-information, since we (and everyone else) are already spending monies on land drainage and flood defence. Pretending that we aren't, or won't have the funds (after RE spending) is false. The reality however, is that the more we spend on mitigation, the less we will need to spend on adaptation.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

"A word salad of silliness" is a typical blase remark from someone who's house is several hundred feet above sea level. For those that live on the coast at sea level, CC is a clear & present danger and there is no guarantee that we'll be successful in preventing a rise in sea level.

Coastal defence & flood mitigation is actually something where we could make a significant difference if we started planning now ... whereas spending every penny of GDP for the next 20 years trying to stop AGW would guarantee nothing.

And yet another word salad of silliness. Why won't you be honest, why all these false claims and mis-information.

I live about 20ft above high tide, I walk my dog(s) daily around a lake/park that's above low tide, but below high tide. Why do you need to post all these personal attacks and gibberish.

And then more nonsense, that we need to start planning now ....... we are planning now, and spending monies already now ..... why make such a false claim.

And then we get your favourite false claim, yet again "spending every penny of GDP for the next 20 years trying to stop AGW would guarantee nothing." Why keep posting these lies?

We're not spending all our money to stop AGW, what a riduclous and inflammatory statement. We are only spending a small amount to mitigate it, we should spend more, or drive faster change especially now that RE, storage and BEV's are getting cheaper and more economical. And every penny we spend on mitigation, as ABrass points out, is equal to far more money spent on adaptation.

You are going in pointless circles, making false claims, and ignoring reality.

Martyn1981

RE costs keep falling, no surprises there, but I liked the bit about 'phases' which helps to make things clearer for us, and see where the economic cliff edges are for new FF capacity, and then old FF capacity. It suggests that around 2030 it will be more expensive to even continue using existing FF capacity ...... there is still some hope then!

Latest BNEF Report Finds Levelized Cost Of Renewables Continues To Fall

In an e-mail to CleanTechnica, Tifenn Brandily, author of the latest BNEF’s energy economics report, says, “This is a three-stage process. In phase one, new solar and wind get cheaper than new coal and gas plants on a cost-of-energy basis. In phase two, renewables reach parity with power prices. In phase three, they become even cheaper than running existing thermal plants.

“Our analysis shows that phase one has now been reached for two-thirds of the global population. Phase two started with California, China and parts of Europe. We expect phase three to be reached on a global scale by 2030. As this all plays out, thermal power plants will increasingly be relegated to a balancing role, looking for opportunities to generate when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow.”

1961Nick

ABrass wrote: »

Would it be unfair to say that's a typically blaz! approach to the problems that people younger than you will have to manage once you've shuffled off this mortal coil.

Based on your user name you're around 58 years old. That means you've got roughly 30 years left. Maybe more if you're in good health, maybe less if the robots kill us all first. When you see reports of sea rises for 2100 that's beyond your conceivable lifetime. For someone turning 18 today they might live to see that. Unless the robots get to them.

It's more probable that in 50 years time, those turning 18 today will be calling us idiots for chasing the holy grail of stopping AGW & not doing enough to deal with the consequences of it.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

And yet another word salad of silliness. Why won't you be honest, why all these false claims and mis-information.

You're quite a piece of work aren't you Mart - your posts are outrageously biased & yet you have the temerity to accuse others of spreading mis-information & making false claims.

I live about 20ft above high tide, I walk my dog(s) daily around a lake/park that's above low tide, but below high tide. Why do you need to post all these personal attacks and gibberish.

6m is enough for your "I'm all right Jack" perspective

And then more nonsense, that we need to start planning now ....... we are planning now, and spending monies already now ..... why make such a false claim

.

Do you honestly think we're planning for 1 -1.5m rise in sea level over the next 50 years. If so, you're clearly deluded.

And then we get your favourite false claim, yet again "spending every penny of GDP for the next 20 years trying to stop AGW would guarantee nothing." Why keep posting these lies?

Explain to me how the UK can guarantee to stop AGW & the rise of sea level. The fact is that you can't.

We're not spending all our money to stop AGW, what a riduclous and inflammatory statement. We are only spending a small amount to mitigate it, we should spend more, or drive faster change especially now that RE, storage and BEV's are getting cheaper and more economical. And every penny we spend on mitigation, as ABrass points out, is equal to far more money spent on adaptation.

It is a ridiculous statement - who said it?

You are going in pointless circles, making false claims, and ignoring reality.

It's you that's about as detached from reality as it's possible to get. I often think you live in a parallel universe such is your incapacity to accept simple facts.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Possibly the worst bit of maths I've ever seen on here, or possibly the most extreme bit of spin.

Please explain why the points we make are always spin whereas what you post on here isn’t.

Take the post on Big Oil lobbying in Europe a couple of days ago. In 2018 one trade union spent 7 times what ExxonMobil spent lobbying the EU yet the article implies the Oil companies are the big bad lobbyists. The source was a PV trade magazine - objective or spinning?

Most of the publications/websites you quote from have declared policies of campaigning on AGW. Do you honestly believe their reporting is straight down the middle? Do you not think they might spin their stories to support/validate their campaign.

You are obviously an intelligent guy so I wonder why you are taken in by so much of what you read to the extent that you reject every other point of view as misrepresentation or spin.

Cardew

GreatApe wrote: »

Would a large tank charged by cheap 5p electricity over 4hours be better than a heat pump?


This would be interesting to research

Where is '5p electricity' available?

GreatApe

Cardew wrote: »

Where is '5p electricity' available?

https://octopus.energy/blog/go-faqs/

It's only available 12.30 - 4.30 so four hours
Large tanks have 3 elements of 9KW so can store 36 KWh a night
No reason a 1 ton 2 X 9KW element tank couldn't be produced for affordable prices
That would be big and powerful enough to store 72KWh a night @5p a unit

I think such a set up would be cheaper than oil when oil prices are above 45p a litre
There are hundreds of thousands of oil fired homes that could be converted to affordable off peak electricity