The move to heat pumps

Mickey666

So as long as we can feed and water people, nothing else matters?  How will green energy halt the loss of biodiversity?  How will green energy halt the advance of habitat destruction to make way for more agriculture?   And those are just two examples?

I'm all for optimism as long as it is rooted in reality and is not simply bind faith - although I recognise  that blind faith is a time-honoured method for abdicating all responsibility and simply relying on some higher power (ie someone else) to fix everything.

I'm just glad I'm not going to be living on a planet where the natural environment and biodiversity has been sacrificed in the name of unfettered human reproduction and the entire surface of the planet is either concreted over by mega-cities to house the mythical 100bn people or vast acreages of mono-cultured genetically engineered plants to feed them. 
"It's life Jim, but not as we know it"

Think it won't happen?  Then just consider the damage ALREADY done and scale that up by a factor 10.  It's all very sad and the fact that so few people seem to care is even sadder.

"All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder - and ultimately impossible - to solve with ever more people."  Sir David Attenborough.   https://populationmatters.org/

Martyn1981

Mickey666 said:

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.

Just more obfuscation I see.
Any reason why you keep failing to explain how you plan to solve the population problem? I think I've asked you enough times, and you've responded enough times to make it clear that you have no answers.

So, to repeat again, we have a lot of people using a lot of FF's, and this is leading to AGW, so the problem seems to be:
LP x LFF = AGW
It seems obvious to me that one way to deal with the issue is to remove the FF element of the equation, whereas you tell us we have to deal with the people side, so once again, how are you going to do that?
And whilst you continue to waste time, is it ok if the rest of us just continue working on the solution?

Martyn1981

Mickey666 said:

So as long as we can feed and water people, nothing else matters?  How will green energy halt the loss of biodiversity?  How will green energy halt the advance of habitat destruction to make way for more agriculture?   And those are just two examples?

I'm all for optimism as long as it is rooted in reality and is not simply bind faith - although I recognise  that blind faith is a time-honoured method for abdicating all responsibility and simply relying on some higher power (ie someone else) to fix everything.

I'm just glad I'm not going to be living on a planet where the natural environment and biodiversity has been sacrificed in the name of unfettered human reproduction and the entire surface of the planet is either concreted over by mega-cities to house the mythical 100bn people or vast acreages of mono-cultured genetically engineered plants to feed them. 
"It's life Jim, but not as we know it"

Think it won't happen?  Then just consider the damage ALREADY done and scale that up by a factor 10.  It's all very sad and the fact that so few people seem to care is even sadder.

"All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder - and ultimately impossible - to solve with ever more people."  Sir David Attenborough.   https://populationmatters.org/

So it seems we are agreed, we need the birthrate to stabilise, and then the population - so that's sorted. [Here's an explanation from nearly a decade ago.]
And we need to power the World sustainably, which means getting rid of FF's asap - just a shame we can't agree on that.

michaels

Perhaps we could park solving the whole problem and discuss how we solve the little bit of the problem that is heating homes in the uk.

In theory we have a technical solution: insulation and heat pumps, and we could use the market mechanism via carbon pricing to make it happen but the politics means this is not happening.

What is the solution? 

Mickey666

Martyn1981 said:

Mickey666 said:

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.

Just more obfuscation I see.
Any reason why you keep failing to explain how you plan to solve the population problem? I think I've asked you enough times, and you've responded enough times to make it clear that you have no answers.

You clearly have not read any of the links I've provided that contain answers to your questions so you are clearly not interested in a sensible discussion.  You have a fixation on RE to the exclusion of everything else and are not open to any evidence, despite many links to reputable websites supported by reputable scientists, that RE alone cannot solve the problem of ecological sustainability.  RE is certainly an important element but it is not THE all-encompassing solution that you seem to believe with an almost religious fervour.  You are a classic denialist.

ABrass

Unless heat pumps act as prophylactics or aphrodisiacs, I don't think that discussions about the optimum number of humans on the planet earth are on topic.

Shall we move on?

shinytop

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?

Simple. We're all going to pay more to heat our homes and provide hot water.  Most houses don't use 25,000kWh per year - I think the average is more like 12-15,000.  So £600 increases to £1000.  £8 a week.  Those who really can't afford it will get help; the rest of us will have to suck it up.  Grants will help with installation and insulation, paid for by increasing domestic gas prices. 

What we spend money on changes all the time.  We happily spend more than £400 a year on mobile phones, data, TV channels, etc. that didn't exist a few years ago.   

Remember these huge gas-guzzling Americal cars?  Nobody cared because petrol was so cheap in the 1970s and didn't harm the environment. We're back in the 1970s with gas heating and it's got to change.

Reed_Richards

On News section of the BBC website you can see pictures of all the newspaper headlines.  I see that on the front page of the Telegraph there is a headline; "Motorists face biggest annual fuel price surge in 10 years".  I don't expect rioting in the streets because by and large we have been worn down to expect petrol and diesel prices to go on rising and that a lot of what we pay is tax.  The Government is now looking to raise huge sums to cover borrowing so if the chancellor misses the opportunity to slap a carbon tax on domestic oil and gas then he (or maybe she by the next budget) is missing a trick.  

jamesmorgan

The problem is overpopulation - as many have said, cutting down on fossil fuels is only a small part of the solution.  However, what hasn't really been mentioned is that overpopulation is not really due to too many babies (fertility rates are falling in most countries).  It is largely due to advances in medical science leading to increased life expectency.  This trend isn't suddenly going to stop - if anything it is entering a positive feedback cycle of exponential increases.  It won't be long before we crack the major causes of death - cancer, dementia, organ failure, ageing.  We will soon have people living for hundreds of years.

Of course, this is good news for the people alive today, but it is not going to be good news for the planet.  I've no idea what the solution to this will be, especially now that we have invented fiat currency there is no limit to how much money can be spent on medical research (we just print as much as we need).  In times of crisis, it is human nature to focus on small things that can be influenced (like cutting down on fossil fuel use), however, we need some smart people to start looking at the bigger picture.

Verdigris

It is not a matter of cutting down on fossil fuel use, it is cutting it out altogether. There is more than enough renewable energy available, the main problem is storage and distribution.