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

Section62

Rosa_Damascena said:

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.

Similar arguments were made about getting rid of lead in petrol.  People weren't going to be able to afford to buy a replacement car which could run lead-free, or afford having conversion work done on their car.

The government started to impose a tax differential on leaded fuel.

People adapted by buying replacement cars which used unleaded.


Part of the solution when it comes to affordability is going to require mortgage companies to release additional funds for heating and insulation upgrades. And make the process of getting those additional funds easier than the traditional approach of getting further advances.

I think there will be limited public tolerance of additional tax (or energy levies) to fund home improvements for people sitting on assets with 5 or 6-figure amounts of equity available for release.

LV_426

Section62 said:

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 -

Where have I said this? What's up are you having a bad Monday or something?
I'm fully behind reducing emissions and trying to find environmentally better ways of producing and consuming energy. But we need to be given alternatives which aren't worse solutions than what we have currently. 
And yes I know that PV arrays won't contribute a "significant" amount, again a word I didn't use. But any contribution they can make will lessen the load on the national grid. And yes I'm fully aware that batteries will be needed to store and provide electrical energy at night.

aoleks

to be honest, I don't mind investing thousands in my house to make it future proof, even though it has a brand new boiler. unfortunately, I disagree with the approach. yes, I will get triple glazing, yes, I will insulate the walls, yes, I will replace the bulbs with the most efficients ones available. what I won't do is "invest" into something that doesn't work. with all due respect, a heat pump is so extremely inefficient that it's not worth it, the equivalent of the first electrical cars.

what bothers me is the fact that we got to a very mature phase in the development of good boilers and now they're getting rid lof it. the same thing they did with ICEs, after decades of refinements. sustainability is not just getting the latest tech available, it's efficiencies across the board, it's not wasting something that's got plenty of life left in it and it's investing in something that's a real, measurable improvement over what's already out there. a heatpump is currently NOT any better than a boiler and the cost simply doesn't make any financial sense.

LV_426

aoleks said:

to be honest, I don't mind investing thousands in my house to make it future proof, even though it has a brand new boiler. unfortunately, I disagree with the approach. yes, I will get triple glazing, yes, I will insulate the walls, yes, I will replace the bulbs with the most efficients ones available. what I won't do is "invest" into something that doesn't work. with all due respect, a heat pump is so extremely inefficient that it's not worth it, the equivalent of the first electrical cars.

what bothers me is the fact that we got to a very mature phase in the development of good boilers and now they're getting rid lof it. the same thing they did with ICEs, after decades of refinements. sustainability is not just getting the latest tech available, it's efficiencies across the board, it's not wasting something that's got plenty of life left in it and it's investing in something that's a real, measurable improvement over what's already out there. a heatpump is currently NOT any better than a boiler and the cost simply doesn't make any financial sense.

Totally agree. These established technologies (gas boilers, diesel/petrol cars) are now very efficient. Less polluting than ever. And the proposal is to throw it away, and replace with a less effective system, that potentially still needs a gas boiler as a supplement. It just feels like a sticking plaster.

To reiterate: I'm not against alternative heating solutions. It's why I started this thread, because I want something greener, I'm just far from convinced that heat source pumps are the answer.

Section62

ajfielden said:

Where have I said this? What's up are you having a bad Monday or something?
I'm fully behind reducing emissions and trying to find environmentally better ways of producing and consuming energy. But we need to be given alternatives which aren't worse solutions than what we have currently.

It is there in the BiB.

Heat pumps have zero emissions at the point of use.  They also have efficiencies greater than 100% (300 to 400% is the often quoted figure)

Perceiving a heat pump as a worse solution than a gas boiler means either not understanding how they work, or not seeing a need to reduce emissions at the point of use.

ajfielden said:

And yes I know that PV arrays won't contribute a "significant" amount, again a word I didn't use. But any contribution they can make will lessen the load on the national grid.

Again, you are missing the point.  The problem for the national grid is matching generation capacity to demand (essential for keeping the supply voltage and frequency within limits) and having sufficient capacity (generation and distribution) to meet peak demand.

Domestic PV doesn't 'lessen the load' on the national grid when it matters. Instead it introduces an additional variable that the grid has to cope with, and means expensive equipment sits idle rather than being productive.

That doesn't mean domestic PV is all 'bad' - it just means it isn't the solution people think it is, and also explains why public policy hasn't mandated the installation of PV on all new-build homes.  The decision-makers understand and realise the limitations of domestic PV as a solution.

ajfielden said:

Totally agree. These established technologies (gas boilers, diesel/petrol cars) are now very efficient. Less polluting than ever. And the proposal is to throw it away, and replace with a less effective system, that potentially still needs a gas boiler as a supplement. It just feels like a sticking plaster.

To reiterate: I'm not against alternative heating solutions. It's why I started this thread, because I want something greener, I'm just far from convinced that heat source pumps are the answer.

a) you need to define "effective".

b) You need to consider emissions at point of use, as well as in total.

c) Heat pumps are three or four times more efficient than gas boilers.

d) Heat pumps output more energy for the same electrical input than all other forms of electrical heating.


After a long debate the conclusion is going to be that we all need to have less heat in our homes; or get used to paying a lot more for our heating; or have heat pumps contributing a much greater proportion of our domestic heating needs.

Or a combination of the above, or hope that nuclear fusion can soon be miniturised to the size of box we can fit on our kitchen walls.

LV_426

Section62 said:

ajfielden said:

Where have I said this? What's up are you having a bad Monday or something?
I'm fully behind reducing emissions and trying to find environmentally better ways of producing and consuming energy. But we need to be given alternatives which aren't worse solutions than what we have currently.

It is there in the BiB.

Heat pumps have zero emissions at the point of use.  They also have efficiencies greater than 100% (300 to 400% is the often quoted figure)

Perceiving a heat pump as a worse solution than a gas boiler means either not understanding how they work, or not seeing a need to reduce emissions at the point of use.

ajfielden said:

And yes I know that PV arrays won't contribute a "significant" amount, again a word I didn't use. But any contribution they can make will lessen the load on the national grid.

Again, you are missing the point.  The problem for the national grid is matching generation capacity to demand (essential for keeping the supply voltage and frequency within limits) and having sufficient capacity (generation and distribution) to meet peak demand.

Domestic PV doesn't 'lessen the load' on the national grid when it matters. Instead it introduces an additional variable that the grid has to cope with, and means expensive equipment sits idle rather than being productive.

That doesn't mean domestic PV is all 'bad' - it just means it isn't the solution people think it is, and also explains why public policy hasn't mandated the installation of PV on all new-build homes.  The decision-makers understand and realise the limitations of domestic PV as a solution.

ajfielden said:

Totally agree. These established technologies (gas boilers, diesel/petrol cars) are now very efficient. Less polluting than ever. And the proposal is to throw it away, and replace with a less effective system, that potentially still needs a gas boiler as a supplement. It just feels like a sticking plaster.

To reiterate: I'm not against alternative heating solutions. It's why I started this thread, because I want something greener, I'm just far from convinced that heat source pumps are the answer.

a) you need to define "effective".

b) You need to consider emissions at point of use, as well as in total.

c) Heat pumps are three or four times more efficient than gas boilers.

d) Heat pumps output more energy for the same electrical input than all other forms of electrical heating.


After a long debate the conclusion is going to be that we all need to have less heat in our homes; or get used to paying a lot more for our heating; or have heat pumps contributing a much greater proportion of our domestic heating needs.

Or a combination of the above, or hope that nuclear fusion can soon be miniturised to the size of box we can fit on our kitchen walls.

I define effective as heating a house to the same standard as current boilers. If you are saying this isn't possible then the general public need to have more clarity on this. We've already seen a comment in this thread to the effect that people aren't happy because their house isn't as warm as previously.
So if the reality is that these new boilers won't provide the same level of heating, then people need to be made aware of that, and expectations set appropriately. I've not seen this mentioned anywhere in any of the articles I've read promoting heat pumps. 

Nuclear fusion is a dream. That technology is not even on the radar. Although it would solve a lot of energy problems.

Section62

ajfielden said:

I define effective as heating a house to the same standard as current boilers. If you are saying this isn't possible then the general public need to have more clarity on this. We've already seen a comment in this thread to the effect that people aren't happy because their house isn't as warm as previously.
So if the reality is that these new boilers won't provide the same level of heating, then people need to be made aware of that, and expectations set appropriately. I've not seen this mentioned anywhere in any of the articles I've read promoting heat pumps. 

Here's two, although aimed at general public information/discussion/debate rather than promoting heat pumps as such -

 
How will we heat homes in zero carbon Britain?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55948531

"What's more, we'll have to radically improve insulation, too, because some of the new-style kit can't heat the UK's cold, draughty houses."


Heat pumps: What are the alternatives to gas boilers?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57159056

"Depending on the type of technology used, installation can be a lot of hassle - involving fitting bigger radiators and sometimes digging into floors.

What's more, heat pumps need high levels of insulation which aren't always possible on older solid-walled homes that populate many of the UK's cities."

danrv

ajfielden said:

To reiterate: I'm not against alternative heating solutions. It's why I started this thread, because I want something greener, I'm just far from convinced that heat source pumps are the answer.

A/C inverters I think are more efficient. When used with ductless indoor handlers, there’s virtually no heat loss.
It could work out cheaper to install than adding an ASHP to your radiator system.

LV_426

Interesting report on hybrid heat pump systems here

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/700572/Hybrid_heat_pumps_Final_report-.pdf

shinytop

In answer to your question, I think a combination of (1) heat pumps and (2) H2 produced by renewable energy, stored and piped into homes. 

I don't think there would be so many objections to heat pumps if they were cheaper to run than gas CH.  The problem is, gas has been so cheap that the amount we all used wasn't a consideration for most people.  A bit like big cars in the USA than did 12mpg. Nobody cared because the gasoline they ran on was so cheap.  Like domestic gas at 2p/KwH. These days (for cars and central heating) are gone for good now.       

Heat pumps could work for most people but they are not the same, nor as good as, gas boilers.  Just like EVs aren't the same, nor as good as, ICEVs.

It was good while it lasted but we all need to move on now.