The move to heat pumps

Mickey666

QrizB said:

If we can supply enough energy, do so without destroying the climate, population really isn't an issue. With enough clean energy we could have 100 billion on the planet, all with adequate food, clothing and housing.

I'd be interested to read any references that support your view.  Just saying or believing something doesn't make it true.

As for 'adequate' food, clothing and housing, who wants to be 'adequate'?  I'd like to aspire to greater things than mere 'adequacy'.

Verdigris

There is a calculation that the photosynthetic output of the planet could support a human population of 100 billion, so population, per se, is not at anything like a critical level. Populations are tending to fall in so-called "advanced" counties. Birth rates fall with increasing education in developing countries. The main culprit in climate change, as I see it, it the permanent growth financial model, largely enabled by the burning of fossil fuels.

Until we are using only renewable energy, made more effective with technologies like heat pumps, we are stuffed. I suspect we are far too late, anyway, having done virtually nothing to mitigate climate change in the half century we've known it is happening.

Martyn1981

Mickey666 said:

QrizB said:

If we can supply enough energy, do so without destroying the climate, population really isn't an issue. With enough clean energy we could have 100 billion on the planet, all with adequate food, clothing and housing.

I'd be interested to read any references that support your view.  Just saying or believing something doesn't make it true.

As for 'adequate' food, clothing and housing, who wants to be 'adequate'?  I'd like to aspire to greater things than mere 'adequacy'.

But would you believe it?
You've tried to shift the problem to population size, without yet providing your solution to that problem. Do you have one, perhaps a first solution, second solution, third solution ..... final solution? I suspect not.
Then you've made a false statement:

In short, our civilisation is not sustainable, and no amount of windmills and solar panels is going to change that for our current global population, never mind for the projected additional 3-4billion people by the end of the century.

Says who, please provide some data or report that says we can't roll out enough RE? To match current UK annual demand we would need to cover 2% of England in solar panels, which is roughly the percentage covered by golf related activities. The UK sea waters could provide 10-100x our future, all electric energy demands from off-shore wind. And yes, I appreciate singular solutions are not the answer, but I'm simply addressing the issue of scale.

So why does your 'blame it on the population/population growth' (false) argument concern me, simples, it's because these tactics are diversionary, and move attention and effort away from the problem, and instead waste it on blame, and/or false scapegoating. And what's the result, as I mentioned earlier, more delays, more time wasted, more CO2(e).

The problem is simple, we can't burn FF's. The solution is simple*, stop burning FF's. Any distraction from this is harmful, it's akin to the US gun control argument - "guns don't kill people, people kill people", yes, with guns, so remove the guns / remove the FF's, don't waste time on pointing out there are too many people on the planet, when that's not the disease, and when you have no solution.

*Simple, because we have solutions to all the issues now, and in most cases the RE solution is cheaper. Admittedly on this thread issue (the cost of a heat pump v's gas) it may not appear to be completely clear, but that's because the true cost of the gas consumption is not being paid for by the consumer ...... yet.

AntonyTewks

Baxter100 said:

4 bed detached house. Radiators. Annual space/water heating requirements of 25,000kWh.

90% efficient gas boiler. Average cost of gas 3.80p/kWh. Annual bill = (25,000 x 3.80)/0.9 = £1056 annual bill

Replaced with 220% efficient air source electric heat pump. Average cost of electricity 14.37p/kWh. Annual bill = (25,000 x 14.47)/2.2 = £1644 annual bill

A well over 50% increase in simple running costs, not to mention the initial £5,000-£10,000 installation costs.

How is the government planning to make this work?

That is a heck of a lot of gas. We're in a 4 bed detached, perhaps a bit more modest maybe and we have young kids so less showers, but we only use less than 10mwh heating and hot water. Will be less this year as we've switched our hot water to electric immersion - combining Octopus Go and solar PV the cost of the hot water is only looking at about £60 or so for the year. We have cavity insulation and decent loft insulation.
Our boiler is only a few years years old so we're planning to gradually put things in place ready for a heat pump. Worth bearing in mind if you haven't already that you only get that condensing boiler efficiency of 90% if the return is below 56 degrees. So if your flow temp is above 65 (if there's little temp drop on your system) then it may not be condensing and the efficiency could be much lower pushing up the gas consumption. We turned ours down to 60 and lower at times this winter and there was a noticeably lower gas consumption across similar days.
We do need to upgrade some rads tho to get to lower temps so plan to do that bit by bit over the next few years. Unfortunately I reckon we may need to change bits of the pipework too as we have some microbore, just off the radiators though I hope. 
Our boiler info says it's closer to 100% efficient if you can get the return temp down to 30 degrees, if I can get to that stage then I should then be heat pump ready also. Hoping that will coincide with a cheaper install from Octopus...

Mickey666

Martyn1981 said:

Mickey666 said:

QrizB said:

If we can supply enough energy, do so without destroying the climate, population really isn't an issue. With enough clean energy we could have 100 billion on the planet, all with adequate food, clothing and housing.

I'd be interested to read any references that support your view.  Just saying or believing something doesn't make it true.

As for 'adequate' food, clothing and housing, who wants to be 'adequate'?  I'd like to aspire to greater things than mere 'adequacy'.

But would you believe it?
You've tried to shift the problem to population size, without yet providing your solution to that problem. Do you have one, perhaps a first solution, second solution, third solution ..... final solution? I suspect not.

 I don't have an answer to overpopulation that would be acceptable in a free society except to make more people aware of the issue and hope they'd take responsibility for such things for themselves . . . but of course that's unlikely to work if they don't believe it, don't care or believe the planet can support 100 billion people.
But if you really do wish to learn about some possible solutions there are plenty of resources out there and you could do worse than start here:
https://populationmatters.org/solutions 
https://populationmatters.org/mythbusting



Then you've made a false statement:

In short, our civilisation is not sustainable, and no amount of windmills and solar panels is going to change that for our current global population, never mind for the projected additional 3-4billion people by the end of the century.

Says who, please provide some data or report that says we can't roll out enough RE? To match current UK annual demand we would need to cover 2% of England in solar panels, which is roughly the percentage covered by golf related activities. The UK sea waters could provide 10-100x our future, all electric energy demands from off-shore wind. And yes, I appreciate singular solutions are not the answer, but I'm simply addressing the issue of scale.

Your fixation on RE has caused you to misinterpret my statement.  Sustainability is a lot more than just replacing F-Fs.  I'm guessing you didn't read all the links I've already posted. 



So why does your 'blame it on the population/population growth' (false) argument concern me, simples, it's because these tactics are diversionary, and move attention and effort away from the problem, and instead waste it on blame, and/or false scapegoating. And what's the result, as I mentioned earlier, more delays, more time wasted, more CO2(e).

The problem is simple, we can't burn FF's. The solution is simple*, stop burning FF's. Any distraction from this is harmful, it's akin to the US gun control argument - "guns don't kill people, people kill people", yes, with guns, so remove the guns / remove the FF's, don't waste time on pointing out there are too many people on the planet, when that's not the disease, and when you have no solution.

*Simple, because we have solutions to all the issues now, and in most cases the RE solution is cheaper. Admittedly on this thread issue (the cost of a heat pump v's gas) it may not appear to be completely clear, but that's because the true cost of the gas consumption is not being paid for by the consumer ...... yet.

What's that old saying?  "if you think the answer is simple then you don't understand the problem"
I have little doubt we can replace F-Fs with RE and I'm equally sure it's a worthwhile thing to do but I don't believe it's going to solve the problem of ecological unsustainability.  I would offer more links but since you've ignored the ones I've already posted then what's the point?    Your fixation on RE as if all our problems are based on F-Fs is simplistic thinking at best.  But you carry on rearranging those deckchairs . . . 

Mickey666

Verdigris said:

There is a calculation that the photosynthetic output of the planet could support a human population of 100 billion, so population, per se, is not at anything like a critical level. Populations are tending to fall in so-called "advanced" counties. Birth rates fall with increasing education in developing countries. The main culprit in climate change, as I see it, it the permanent growth financial model, largely enabled by the burning of fossil fuels.

But what sort sort of planet of planet would those 100bn people be inhabiting?  If 7bn people can have already wreaked the environmental damage we're already living with, just imagine what 100bn people could do.  So what if photosynthesis could feed algae to 100bn people?  Does no one care about the QUALITY of life or our environment any more?
Have a look at this website and let me know if you still believe being a member of 100bn people would be remotely desirable when the current 7bn people on the planet are ALREADY using the RENEWABLE resources of 1.7 Earths ie we're ALREADY living unsustainably - and it has little to do with Fossil fuels.  Yes, burning them makes things worse, but replacing them with RE is not enough.  
https://populationmatters.org/the-facts
https://populationmatters.org/resources-consumption

Verdigris

I am not saying having a population of 100bn is a good thing. I am merely illustrating that the present population isn't sustainable merely by virtue of its size.

Yes, I'm perfectly aware that if we all consumed at the rate of the USA we'd need 2.5 planets to sustain it. Europeans use far to many resources but it is at half the rate of the USA. It is noticeable that people who claim it is population numbers that are the problem never point the finger at the US. It is always people with more melanin that are the problem, to them.

Martyn1981

Mickey666 said:

Martyn1981 said:

Mickey666 said:

QrizB said:

If we can supply enough energy, do so without destroying the climate, population really isn't an issue. With enough clean energy we could have 100 billion on the planet, all with adequate food, clothing and housing.

I'd be interested to read any references that support your view.  Just saying or believing something doesn't make it true.

As for 'adequate' food, clothing and housing, who wants to be 'adequate'?  I'd like to aspire to greater things than mere 'adequacy'.

But would you believe it?
You've tried to shift the problem to population size, without yet providing your solution to that problem. Do you have one, perhaps a first solution, second solution, third solution ..... final solution? I suspect not.

 I don't have an answer to overpopulation that would be acceptable in a free society except to make more people aware of the issue and hope they'd take responsibility for such things for themselves . . . but of course that's unlikely to work if they don't believe it, don't care or believe the planet can support 100 billion people.
But if you really do wish to learn about some possible solutions there are plenty of resources out there and you could do worse than start here:
https://populationmatters.org/solutions 
https://populationmatters.org/mythbusting



Then you've made a false statement:

In short, our civilisation is not sustainable, and no amount of windmills and solar panels is going to change that for our current global population, never mind for the projected additional 3-4billion people by the end of the century.

Says who, please provide some data or report that says we can't roll out enough RE? To match current UK annual demand we would need to cover 2% of England in solar panels, which is roughly the percentage covered by golf related activities. The UK sea waters could provide 10-100x our future, all electric energy demands from off-shore wind. And yes, I appreciate singular solutions are not the answer, but I'm simply addressing the issue of scale.

Your fixation on RE has caused you to misinterpret my statement.  Sustainability is a lot more than just replacing F-Fs.  I'm guessing you didn't read all the links I've already posted. 



So why does your 'blame it on the population/population growth' (false) argument concern me, simples, it's because these tactics are diversionary, and move attention and effort away from the problem, and instead waste it on blame, and/or false scapegoating. And what's the result, as I mentioned earlier, more delays, more time wasted, more CO2(e).

The problem is simple, we can't burn FF's. The solution is simple*, stop burning FF's. Any distraction from this is harmful, it's akin to the US gun control argument - "guns don't kill people, people kill people", yes, with guns, so remove the guns / remove the FF's, don't waste time on pointing out there are too many people on the planet, when that's not the disease, and when you have no solution.

*Simple, because we have solutions to all the issues now, and in most cases the RE solution is cheaper. Admittedly on this thread issue (the cost of a heat pump v's gas) it may not appear to be completely clear, but that's because the true cost of the gas consumption is not being paid for by the consumer ...... yet.

What's that old saying?  "if you think the answer is simple then you don't understand the problem"
I have little doubt we can replace F-Fs with RE and I'm equally sure it's a worthwhile thing to do but I don't believe it's going to solve the problem of ecological unsustainability.  I would offer more links but since you've ignored the ones I've already posted then what's the point?    Your fixation on RE as if all our problems are based on F-Fs is simplistic thinking at best.  But you carry on rearranging those deckchairs . . . 

And yet again, you blame the population as the problem, but fail to offer 'your' solution. I'm starting to suspect that you don't have a solution. In fact I'll ask one more time, just to prove it, if the population size is the problem, and that's what we should be concentrating on (not FF's, which you claim is too simplistic) then what is your solution to the population problem ..... no more obfuscation ...... what is your solution, and it better be green, ethical, achievable and moral, otherwise you are just trying to move the emphasis away from FF's, right at the time when we need to be acting faster (not slower) on removing and replacing them.

So, as I said earlier, population size is irrelevant, since 'it is what it is' and we can't do anything about that side of the equation, so it's the FF consumption that we have to deal with.

PS. So now we can build enough 'windmills', well at least you've done a whole 180 on that side of things.

Mickey666

Martyn1981 said:

Mickey666 said:

Martyn1981 said:

Mickey666 said:

QrizB said:

If we can supply enough energy, do so without destroying the climate, population really isn't an issue. With enough clean energy we could have 100 billion on the planet, all with adequate food, clothing and housing.

I'd be interested to read any references that support your view.  Just saying or believing something doesn't make it true.

As for 'adequate' food, clothing and housing, who wants to be 'adequate'?  I'd like to aspire to greater things than mere 'adequacy'.

But would you believe it?
You've tried to shift the problem to population size, without yet providing your solution to that problem. Do you have one, perhaps a first solution, second solution, third solution ..... final solution? I suspect not.

 I don't have an answer to overpopulation that would be acceptable in a free society except to make more people aware of the issue and hope they'd take responsibility for such things for themselves . . . but of course that's unlikely to work if they don't believe it, don't care or believe the planet can support 100 billion people.
But if you really do wish to learn about some possible solutions there are plenty of resources out there and you could do worse than start here:
https://populationmatters.org/solutions 
https://populationmatters.org/mythbusting



Then you've made a false statement:

In short, our civilisation is not sustainable, and no amount of windmills and solar panels is going to change that for our current global population, never mind for the projected additional 3-4billion people by the end of the century.

Says who, please provide some data or report that says we can't roll out enough RE? To match current UK annual demand we would need to cover 2% of England in solar panels, which is roughly the percentage covered by golf related activities. The UK sea waters could provide 10-100x our future, all electric energy demands from off-shore wind. And yes, I appreciate singular solutions are not the answer, but I'm simply addressing the issue of scale.

Your fixation on RE has caused you to misinterpret my statement.  Sustainability is a lot more than just replacing F-Fs.  I'm guessing you didn't read all the links I've already posted. 



So why does your 'blame it on the population/population growth' (false) argument concern me, simples, it's because these tactics are diversionary, and move attention and effort away from the problem, and instead waste it on blame, and/or false scapegoating. And what's the result, as I mentioned earlier, more delays, more time wasted, more CO2(e).

The problem is simple, we can't burn FF's. The solution is simple*, stop burning FF's. Any distraction from this is harmful, it's akin to the US gun control argument - "guns don't kill people, people kill people", yes, with guns, so remove the guns / remove the FF's, don't waste time on pointing out there are too many people on the planet, when that's not the disease, and when you have no solution.

*Simple, because we have solutions to all the issues now, and in most cases the RE solution is cheaper. Admittedly on this thread issue (the cost of a heat pump v's gas) it may not appear to be completely clear, but that's because the true cost of the gas consumption is not being paid for by the consumer ...... yet.

What's that old saying?  "if you think the answer is simple then you don't understand the problem"
I have little doubt we can replace F-Fs with RE and I'm equally sure it's a worthwhile thing to do but I don't believe it's going to solve the problem of ecological unsustainability.  I would offer more links but since you've ignored the ones I've already posted then what's the point?    Your fixation on RE as if all our problems are based on F-Fs is simplistic thinking at best.  But you carry on rearranging those deckchairs . . . 

And yet again, you blame the population as the problem, but fail to offer 'your' solution. I'm starting to suspect that you don't have a solution. In fact I'll ask one more time, just to prove it, if the population size is the problem, and that's what we should be concentrating on (not FF's, which you claim is too simplistic) then what is your solution to the population problem ..... no more obfuscation ...... what is your solution, and it better be green, ethical, achievable and moral, otherwise you are just trying to move the emphasis away from FF's, right at the time when we need to be acting faster (not slower) on removing and replacing them.

Read the links I've already provided and comment on those rather than attack me.  Your denial is very telling.   I'm not trying to slow the move away from F-Fs, I'm trying to point out that this alone will not solve the issue of ecological sustainability.  Using the 'Titanic' metaphor again, replaceing F-Fs with RE might SLOW the rate of sinking, but it alone won't prevent it.


So, as I said earlier, population size is irrelevant, since 'it is what it is' and we can't do anything about that side of the equation, so it's the FF consumption that we have to deal with.

You're wrong - dangerously wrong.    Again, it's not irrelevant and we CAN do something about it but only if people would accept the issue.  By deflecting the issue you are part of the problem. 


PS. So now we can build enough 'windmills', well at least you've done a whole 180 on that side of things.

Again, your denial of the bigger issue and your obsession with F-Fs is leading you to misrepresent me, probably because you can't bring yourself to admit I (and millions like me) are right.  I said we can't build enough windmills to solve our SUSTAINABILITY problem.  Yes, of course we can build enough RE to replace F-Fs, but the point you're not understanding and insist on denying is that replacing F-Fs is only a PART of the issues we face.  You are so obsessed with replacing F-Fs that you can't see the bigger picture and by arguing against the ecological sustainability issue you become part of the problem by effectively selling false hope, ie that RE will save us all.  Well it won't and it can't.

QrizB

Mickey666 said:

Again, your denial of the bigger issue and your obsession with F-Fs is leading you to misrepresent me, probably because you can't bring yourself to admit I (and millions like me) are right.  I said we can't build enough windmills to solve our SUSTAINABILITY problem.  Yes, of course we can build enough RE to replace F-Fs, but the point you're not understanding and insist on denying is that replacing F-Fs is only a PART of the issues we face.  You are so obsessed with replacing F-Fs that you can't see the bigger picture and by arguing against the ecological sustainability issue you become part of the problem by effectively selling false hope, ie that RE will save us all.  Well it won't and it can't.

To quote someone earlier in this thread, "Just saying or believing something doesn't make it true."

We're all agreed, it seems, that we can sustainably supply humanity's energy needs indefinitely. Which other issues do you see being a problem? Here's a few common topics to consider:

Water. The planet is covered with water, desalination works but needs energy. If energy is sustainable, so is desalination.

Food. We're currently feeding 7bn people. We grow enough food to feed 10bn if we stop feeding so much of it to farm animals. The Haber process still works so we can turn air and water into fertiliser; with water and fertiliser we can grow crops anywhere below the Arctic circle and below the snow line.

Clothing, housing, transport, education, iron, aluminium - all of those follow on from food, water, energy.

Greening energy is the essential first step towards greening everything else. If you don't green energy, nothing else will succeed either.