How do you reckon we'll be heating our homes in years to come?

strawb_shortcake

Some of our neighbours are HA, about 6 years ago the HA fitted the air source heat pumps to their houses and none of the tenants are pleased with them, claim they are more expensive and don't heat the homes sufficiently.

The homes are mid 1950's, with a mixture of Oil, coal and gas canister heating and now the ASHP, I have oil and quite happy with this, by the time we need to look at other options we'll hopefully have moved

Section62

ka7e said:

Passive house technology has been around for over 40 years, but it doesn't suit the house-building lobby and the construction industry to invest in new methods.

This simply isn't true. Anyone who has been involved in the building and construction industry over the last 20 to 30 years will have witnessed huge changes in the materials and methods being used.  Not all of them positive changes (vide 'Grenfell')

Ultimately the house builders will build the houses people want to buy.  The priority for most people is affordability, followed by the quality and finish of key rooms such as the kitchen and bathroom.

Paying more money for insulation over and above minimum requirements, or reaching passive house levels of efficiency, simply isn't on the list of priorities for people stretching themselves financially to be able to afford a tiny box with a handkerchief garden and one parking space.

Passive house standards make perfect sense if you take a long-view of house ownership - the additional construction cost will be offset by energy savings.  But the buyers of new-build aren't necessarily looking at the overall cost of ownership over a 20 to 30 year period - they won't be living in it that long to reap the benefits, and the valuation of second-hand homes in the UK hasn't yet reached the point where energy efficiency is a significant factor.

Instead, at present, the market shys away from anything non-standard, perceiving it to be a risk or 'too complicated'. Even on this great forum, people considering buying a property without GCH are warned about the ruinous costs and ineffectiveness of heating by any other means.

What's needed is a change in attitude of the buyers (and funders) and the only way that will come about is through their pockets feeling the financial impact of the environmental cost of carbon-based energy.  When customers ask for passive houses the builders will be delighted to build them.

We've had exactly the same thing happening with cars, vans and other commercial vehicles over the last 30 years and people are still buying new petrol/diesel vehicles because of low first-cost.  That's also only going to end with a ban on new sales.

[/Rant]

Section62

ajfielden said:

I've often wondered why new house builds don't include a PV array as standard. Seems like an obvious thing to mandate if the govt has such green credentials. It could even be subsidised. I'd rather see money ploughed into this, than a half baked scheme of mass installation of ASP on houses which are not suitable for them!

Not all new builds are suitable for PV.

Mandating PV as standard on every new build - regardless of suitability - would be as much a 'half baked scheme' as doing the same with ASHP.

We need to be clever about this - different solutions will be appropriate for different situations. There's no one-size-fits-all solution.

ajfielden said:

If all new build houses had solar capability, just think how much load that could take off the national grid.

Just think how much energy PV produces at times of domestic peak energy demand.

That will explain why all new build houses having PV will make not a jot of difference to the total load on the national grid.

And ASHP technology at least has the benefit of producing some energy gain 24/365, so has some considerable advantages vs domestic solar.

Grabs39

I had a vague look at ASHP - it looks ideal for the most part, particularly as it can work in "reverse" to cool homes in the summer, as we seem to be getting more days over 30C.

Of course, the cost is a huge problem - at over £6k for the one I looked at it would never pay for itself on a cost basis against my current gas combi.  And as I understand it they don't work as well below freezing so some electricity might be needed to "top up"?

I wonder how much behaviour can make bigger impacts though.  Anecdotally I know a lot of people who have their heating set to 22 or even 25, but refuse to wear a jumper in the house.  Appreciating some people with medical conditions etc do need the heating on there must be some carbon savings in behavioural change somewhere?

Section62

ajfielden said:

So that'll be a hybrid system (using a gas boiler), or immersion heater - so watch your meter spin round when that kicks in!

It just seems to me that there's no really effective replacement for a gas boiler. Am I wrong? 

Would that matter when the cost per kWh of electricity is less than the cost per kWh of gas?

(also see my previous post about anything other than GCH being cast as ruinously expensive)

LV_426

Section62 said:

ajfielden said:

I've often wondered why new house builds don't include a PV array as standard. Seems like an obvious thing to mandate if the govt has such green credentials. It could even be subsidised. I'd rather see money ploughed into this, than a half baked scheme of mass installation of ASP on houses which are not suitable for them!

Not all new builds are suitable for PV.

Mandating PV as standard on every new build - regardless of suitability - would be as much a 'half baked scheme' as doing the same with ASHP.

We need to be clever about this - different solutions will be appropriate for different situations. There's no one-size-fits-all solution.

Well yes that's true, not all houses are suited to PV installations, but many are. All I'm saying is that it's a missed opportunity to take advantage of a renewable energy source, that while not a complete solution, can definitely help to take the load off the national grid. How many billions are going into grants for heat source pumps etc? Could some of that not be used to help with PV installation costs?

LV_426

Section62 said:

ajfielden said:

So that'll be a hybrid system (using a gas boiler), or immersion heater - so watch your meter spin round when that kicks in!

It just seems to me that there's no really effective replacement for a gas boiler. Am I wrong? 

Would that matter when the cost per kWh of electricity is less than the cost per kWh of gas?

(also see my previous post about anything other than GCH being cast as ruinously expensive)

Probably not, and I expect the govt to make the cost of running a gas boiler much more expensive over the coming years.

LV_426

annabanana82 said:

Some of our neighbours are HA, about 6 years ago the HA fitted the air source heat pumps to their houses and none of the tenants are pleased with them, claim they are more expensive and don't heat the homes sufficiently.

That is quite worrying isn't it? We're being pushed an alternative heating solution that isn't as effective, and actually costs more to run. 
The govt doesn't give a damn because they've ticked the 'net carbon zero' box. 

Rosa_Damascena

ajfielden said:

annabanana82 said:

Some of our neighbours are HA, about 6 years ago the HA fitted the air source heat pumps to their houses and none of the tenants are pleased with them, claim they are more expensive and don't heat the homes sufficiently.

That is quite worrying isn't it? We're being pushed an alternative heating solution that isn't as effective, and actually costs more to run. 
The govt doesn't give a damn because they've ticked the 'net carbon zero' box. 

This is the government's problem to solve. There is no way they can force people to buy a solution forced on them with money they haven't got. I can see gas being around for much longer unless the right sweeteners for early adoption are thrown in PDQ and the industry expands to make it more affordable for the rest of us.

Section62

ajfielden said:

Well yes that's true, not all houses are suited to PV installations, but many are. All I'm saying is that it's a missed opportunity to take advantage of a renewable energy source, that while not a complete solution, can definitely help to take the load off the national grid.

The point is domestic PV doesn't take a significant amount of load off the national grid.

At peak demand times domestic properties with PV will still be importing most of their electicity from the grid.  Thus the grid and the generation capacity attached to it has to be sized to meet that demand.

When domestic properties are achieving maximum output from their PV (noon, in the Summer), the domestic demand is usually at its lowest.  Meaning the assets (cables and generating capacity) expensively provided for the grid to cope with peak domestic demand will be sitting around doing not very much. It makes the overall generating system less efficient than it already is.

To be more efficient, domestic PV needs to be combined with storage capacity. Either batteries, or preferably electric heating of water.  The latter requires a reversal of the current popular approach of replacing storage of energy (hot water cylinders/storage heaters) with gas combi boilers.  Which people are doing because they've been convinced that a gas combi is the cheapest and most efficient way of meeting their energy needs.

ajfielden said:

How many billions are going into grants for heat source pumps etc? Could some of that not be used to help with PV installation costs?

Look into how many 'billions' went into grants for PV and feed-in tariffs.

ajfielden said:

Probably not, and I expect the govt to make the cost of running a gas boiler much more expensive over the coming years.

Exactly.  And people will only change the things they do (e.g. buy non-passive houses) if there is an economic penalty for doing the 'bad' stuff.

Moreover, grants for PV (or any alternative energy source) need to be paid for - and currently there is a lot of extra cost slapped on your electricity bill to cover the cost of previous 'green' initiatives.

ajfielden said:

That is quite worrying isn't it? We're being pushed an alternative heating solution that isn't as effective, and actually costs more to run. 
The govt doesn't give a damn because they've ticked the 'net carbon zero' box. 

It isn't just about 'net carbon zero'.

There is growing concern about the impact of NOx on health in urban areas.  The deaths of children from air pollution is far higher on the 'action required' list than what you consider to be box ticking -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55330945

And if you don't agree with developing alternative ways of heating our homes then you need to start lobbying at a much higher level -

UK found guilty of dirty air breach by EU court
"The court ruled that, since the 2010, the UK had failed to tackle the problem of toxic NO2 gas emissions in the shortest possible time."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56282064