The move to heat pumps

Martyn1981

Mickey666 said:

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.

So, since you have failed to offer any solution to the population problem, is it ok with you, if we continue to address the real problem, which is FF's, without you trying to blame people, instead of FF's.
When you finally have an answer, that is green, ethical, rational, and most importantly 'moral' to the population problem, let me know, but till then, your distractions will only delay real action, and continue to benefit the FF industry.

Mickey666

Martyn1981 said:

Mickey666 said:

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.

So, since you have failed to offer any solution to the population problem, is it ok with you, if we continue to address the real problem, which is FF's, without you trying to blame people, instead of FF's.
When you finally have an answer, that is green, ethical, rational, and most importantly 'moral' to the population problem, let me know, but till then, your distractions will only delay real action, and continue to benefit the FF industry.

You just cant leave it can you?

You refuse to read any of the links I've provided, refuse to actually engage in any sensible discussion and resort to ad hominem attacks instead - exactly the sort of behaviour you'd be the first castigate in anyone who doesn't share your fervour that RE is our universal saviour.   You are a classic denialist.

No wonder you confine yourself to a dusty corner of a money-saving website instead of engaging with the people who are trying to preserve our natural environment and biodiversity and work towards true ecological sustainability, so that we have a planet that's actually WORTH living on.

You carry on with your RE crusade, as I've said many times it's a very important thing we must do and I'm sure heat pumps have an important role to play . . . but please try to open your eyes and your mind to the uncomfortable truth that RE alone is not going to solve all our looming problems.

Martyn1981

Mickey666 said:

Martyn1981 said:

Mickey666 said:

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.

So, since you have failed to offer any solution to the population problem, is it ok with you, if we continue to address the real problem, which is FF's, without you trying to blame people, instead of FF's.
When you finally have an answer, that is green, ethical, rational, and most importantly 'moral' to the population problem, let me know, but till then, your distractions will only delay real action, and continue to benefit the FF industry.

You just cant leave it can you?

You refuse to read any of the links I've provided, refuse to actually engage in any sensible discussion and resort to ad hominem attacks instead - exactly the sort of behaviour you'd be the first castigate in anyone who doesn't share your fervour that RE is our universal saviour.   You are a classic denialist.

No wonder you confine yourself to a dusty corner of a money-saving website instead of engaging with the people who are trying to preserve our natural environment and biodiversity and work towards true ecological sustainability, so that we have a planet that's actually WORTH living on.

You carry on with your RE crusade, as I've said many times it's a very important thing we must do and I'm sure heat pumps have an important role to play . . . but please try to open your eyes and your mind to the uncomfortable truth that RE alone is not going to solve all our looming problems.

Hi. Once again I'll ask, how are you going to reduce the population?
If you could snap your Thanos fingers today, and halve the population of the planet, then that would buy us (or those remaining) about 10-20 extra years of current FF use (per capita), so even that wouldn't work.
But I don't want to put words into your mouth, so again, please explain how yopu are going to solve the problem via population reduction?

In the meantime, we need to reduce FF consumption asap, and get it down to zero, asap.

Mickey666

You either still don't get it or you're being deliberately obtuse.  Given your behaviour I'm choosing to believe the latter.
There is not ONE problem.
There is the problem of F-Fs and there is the problem of ecological sustainability.
RE can solve the problem of F-Fs but it cannot solve the problem of ecological sustainability.  RE is PART of the solution but it is not THE solution.
Read the links I've already provided and LEARN for yourself because you're verging on trolling now.

Martyn1981

Mickey666 said:

You either still don't get it or you're being deliberately obtuse.  Given your behaviour I'm choosing to believe the latter.
There is not ONE problem.
There is the problem of F-Fs and there is the problem of ecological sustainability.
RE can solve the problem of F-Fs but it cannot solve the problem of ecological sustainability.  RE is PART of the solution but it is not THE solution.
Read the links I've already provided and LEARN for yourself because you're verging on trolling now.

Hiya. You started all this by trying to divert attention away from reducing FF use, and instead blaming the problem on the World population and birthrate:

The real elephant in the room is global population growth, which has almost trebled in my lifetime.  Imagine what fewer environmental problems we'd have with only 2.5bn people on the planet instead of 7bn and rising.  Not only do governments and pressure groups have a very hard sell to wean the public off fossil fuels in the first place, they have to do it against a background of a rising global population and rising global living standards such that we're being asked to pay more for a lower standard of living and ultimately it won't prevent climate change anyway!

Now, I appreciate that you don't want to change your lifestyle / living standards, and that there are many, many more folk like you, but, unless you can provide a solution to the population size (the birthrate has already stabilised), then clearly all you are doing is distracting from the true problem, and the real elephant in the room, which is the consumption of FF's. Without any willingness from yourself to change your life style, then I see no solution from you to deal with AGW and sustainability.

In fact your repeated attempts to suggest we will have to pay more for a lower standard of living, are entirely misleading, since the alternatives, such as RE, BEV's, heat pumps etc, should improve the quality of life for us, and may be cheaper, certainly cheaper than the current cost of our activities when we include the externalities, that so far, we simply haven't been paying, but clearly exist.

So again, explain how you are going to immediately cut the population down to say the 2.5bn you pointed out would reduce the pressure a bit (but only temporarily), otherwise your argument is moot, irrelevant, nothing more than a distraction to move focus away from the #1 problem ..... FF's.

Mickey666

Martyn1981 said:

 Without any willingness from yourself to change your life style, then I see no solution from you to deal with AGW and sustainability.

Well I suppose I can't force you to read any of the links I've already provided.  I can only assume it's because you're too frightened of the possibility that you're actually wrong and that F-Fs are NOT the #1 problem the planet is facing.  We actually have a far bigger problem that you're not even willing to contemplate.  You really are fixated on rearranging deckchairs while the ship slowly sinks beneath the waves.

As for your questioning my life style choices when you know nothing about me, that's just another example of how you insist on living in your own little blinkered world and can't cope with anyone throwing inconvenient facts your way that might threaten your pseudo-guru status on an irrelevant (to the wider subject) website.

Let me ask you this: how many children have you got?

Verdigris

If the human population was magically zero tomorrow, but if CO2 and other greenhouse gases continued to go into the atmosphere at the rate they are now, the planet would still go into a runaway heating scenario and become uninhabitable except, perhaps, by some of the most extreme thermophile organisms.

Martyn1981

Mickey666 said:

Martyn1981 said:

 Without any willingness from yourself to change your life style, then I see no solution from you to deal with AGW and sustainability.

Well I suppose I can't force you to read any of the links I've already provided.  I can only assume it's because you're too frightened of the possibility that you're actually wrong and that F-Fs are NOT the #1 problem the planet is facing.  We actually have a far bigger problem that you're not even willing to contemplate.  You really are fixated on rearranging deckchairs while the ship slowly sinks beneath the waves.

As for your questioning my life style choices when you know nothing about me, that's just another example of how you insist on living in your own little blinkered world and can't cope with anyone throwing inconvenient facts your way that might threaten your pseudo-guru status on an irrelevant (to the wider subject) website.

Let me ask you this: how many children have you got?

Hiya, I didn't question your lifestyle choices, I responded to your own statements that you weren't willing to accept a lower standard of living (not that I believe any of us will have to (edit)). Please don't get upset at my reading and remembering, what you have posted.

Now, back to your belief that FF's are not the #1 problem:
Firstly, may I point out that this is a Green & Ethical board, and secondly, that this thread is about finding ways to transition away from FF use for space heating.
It is not a suitable place for you to try to claim that the problem is one of population size, since there is nothing that we can do about that ethically, nor morally. In fact I've asked you now 6+(?) times what your proposal is to massively and immediately reduce the population part of the Pop x FF = AGW equation, and you won't tell me. So clearly that is not an option, and therefore the population size 'argument' is simply a distraction.

Regarding your attempts to separate the issues of AGW and sustainability, can I please ask you to take this next sentence seriously - you can't have, won't have, will never have, sustainability until we end the use of FF's. As was explained to you by another poster, FF's are a part of everything we do (and enjoy), be it home energy, heating, transport, travel, agriculture and so on, so if you really want to achieve sustainability, then you (and I) need to do two things first:
1. Aim for the end of FF use asap.
2. Not get distracted/misled by FF industry fake arguments, such as 'blame it on the population size'.

Only then can we hope to achieve sustainability.

Martyn1981

Verdigris said:

If the human population was magically zero tomorrow, but if CO2 and other greenhouse gases continued to go into the atmosphere at the rate they are now, the planet would still go into a runaway heating scenario and become uninhabitable except, perhaps, by some of the most extreme thermophile organisms.

I find it so sad and frustrating that we didn't tackle this back in the 1980's when most World Governments were on board and willing. It all fell apart when the FF industry got their misinformation campaigns up to speed, and torpedo'd things.
What a wasted opportunity to get ahead of the problem, possibly prevent serious heating, and ..... dare I say ..... just make the World a more pleasant (and sustainable) place for all of us.
Maybe I have an inner hippie?

michaels

ABrass said:

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?

SO under current pricing ASHP running costs are about 50% more than those of gas.  Installation costs are also higher although I suspect if a system had been sized for the lower water temps the actual price of an ASHP 'boiler' vs a gas boiler would be pretty similar.

Adding a carbon price to gas would obviously close the price gap but at what is currently a politically unacceptable cost and I can't see the electoral arithmetic changing any time soon - perhaps a 'gas escalator' ill be started but eventually it will reach an unpalatable level as happened with petrol taxes.

Reducing energy demand can obviously help but is very expensive given our current housing stock and there is not much scope for 'mass production' style savings - look how well retrofit of external insulation and cladding went....  Let's assume that savings could reduce energy demand (and thus bills) by 25%.  So our OP would reduce his heat pump bill from 1600 to 1200, still 20% more than electricity but perhaps 'bearable' but what would the capital expenditure cost be to make this saving, and where would the money come from.  Perhaps if low income people were given the efficiency improvements to keep their heating bills stable when switched from gas to ashp and everyone else just faced the higher gas prices and that was enough to spur them to switch and save that might be acceptable?

Is there any chance that the greening of the electricity supply might also help by reducing relative prices of electric heat especially when used in conjunction with time of day pricing and short term in the home storage (in hot water tanks and storage heaters and car batteries)?