Ground Source Heat Pump

Is Geothermal Power going to make any impact at all? What about Heat Pumps?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Ground Source Heat Pump

Post by biffvernon »

We used to have a field:

Image

and the house looks like a plumber's workshop.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12586
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

They should be banned unless the house has been insulated and made air tight to Passivhaus standards first because it's as stupid as having a hot bath in a sieve putting all that energy into a leaky house. Sorry Biff but for someone as Peal oil and GW/CC savvy to install one of these things in beyond my comprehension.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

The way the RHI is set up, it is a complete no-brainer. We get a big taxpayer subsidy (but not as big as the real subsidies gien to fossil carbon or nuclear). As far as saving the planet is concerned we will have to wait till the electricity supply is 100% renewable before switching it on. ;)

I don't see a link between GSHP and insulated buildings that is any more important (very) than with any other form of heating. One might better say gas and oil should be banned from anything non-Passivhaus.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12586
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

Says a lot for the way the RHI, and FIT for that matter, are set up. Wouldn't want to save too much energy. It wouldn't be good for growth.

Cock eyed government by Lawsonian economists!!
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Yes, it's all a bit bonkers.
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 8851
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

A big problem with FIT and RHI is that it's funded from energy bills. This was a huge mistake, it should have come from general taxation.
Little John
Posts: 8765
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

Funding all of these things from energy bills has simply meant that the only people who can afford to pay the extra money on top of the subsidy in order to have these systems (solar voltaic, heat pumps etc) installed are the same people who are least in need of making the savings that come from such installations. Furthermore, the percentage of a household's budget that an energy bill represents rises as household income falls. And finally, on top of that, families with very low incomes are ones that are least likely to be living in houses that are well insulated/energy efficient. Thus, their consumption levels (and attendant costs) will likely be relatively higher per person than for families with higher incomes (who are more likely to be living in better insulated/energy efficient homes).

In short, then, the people who pay the most, as a proportion of their household income, towards subsidizing these kinds of systems are the one least likely to be able to afford to benefit from them and the ones who pay the least, as a proportion of their household income, towards funding these kinds of systems are the ones most likely to be able to afford to benefit from them.

Sound familiar?

Yet more f***ing transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 8851
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

Little John wrote:Yet more ******* transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich
There is one other important consideration. The benefit of these systems isn't just private. There is significant social benefit to decarbonising electricity supply in the case of FIT and reduced oil/gas burn in the case of RHI.

Whist these schemes are unfairly incentivised by subsidies disproportionatly paid by the poor (general taxation would have been better) the schemes have mobilised the capital of the wealthy and resulted in more 'good stuff' being deployed than would otherwise be the case.

One's opinion on the merit of FIT and RHI rests largely on where on the spectrum of social benefit to private benefit you lie.
Little John
Posts: 8765
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

clv101 wrote:
Little John wrote:Yet more ******* transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich
There is one other important consideration. The benefit of these systems isn't just private. There is significant social benefit to decarbonising electricity supply in the case of FIT and reduced oil/gas burn in the case of RHI.

Whist these schemes are unfairly incentivised by subsidies disproportionatly paid by the poor (general taxation would have been better) the schemes have mobilised the capital of the wealthy and resulted in more 'good stuff' being deployed than would otherwise be the case.
Oh right, the old trickle-down bollocks of letting the rich get fat at the big table cos it means more of the rest of us get to feed off the big crumbs they leave behind...right?

Give me a break.
One's opinion on the merit of FIT and RHI rests largely on where on the spectrum of social benefit to private benefit you lie.
No

Any objective opinion on the utilitarian merit of FIT and RHI rests largely on an objective analysis of the facts of these funding structures. That is to say, a relatively large number of relatively poor people have funded the energy savings of a relativity small number of relatively rich people. Those are the facts.

Any opinion, then, that is broadly supportive of these funding structures can only be based on:

a) an ignorance of the facts

b) not giving a shit about the facts due to, presumably, personally benefiting at the expense of relatively poorer people

c) hypocrisy, vis a vis the facts, due to an unwillingness to acknowledge having, presumably, personally benefited at the expense of relatively poorer people

Personally, I find (c) more sickening than (b). At least (b) is honest.

Would I avail myself of these subsidies should the opportunity arise? Who knows? I would hope not, to be honest. But I am also honest enough to admit to the possibility that I might if I could see savings stretching out for many years ahead. But, above all, I would hope to God I also at least had had the honesty to just call a spade a spade in terms of where that free money was coming from.
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 8851
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

That is to say, a relatively large number of relatively poor people have funded the energy savings of a relativity small number of relatively rich people. Those are the facts.
Yes, everyone recognises that. Funding FIT and RHI from energy bills is wrong. I think everyone agrees with this.

The more interesting point is where the benefit of installing £5-10k of PV on ones roof lies. There is a clear private benefit - after some 7-10 years the system will have paid for itself, and continue of offer a return for another decade+. As with all investments there's a risk not least the long term nature means you might be even live long enough to see a return!

But that isn't the end of the story! The widespread deployment of embedded renewables mitigates carbon emissions, mitigates imported energy, increases energy security and weakens the position of big suppliers. These are real social benefits, not only to the poor in the UK but to the global population. I hope you don't interpret this benefit as 'trickle down bollocks'?

Without FIT billions of private money wouldn't have been invested in renewable infrastructure, we'd have less (higher carbon, less energy security) and the wealthy would have found something else, with fewer social benefits to invest in.
Little John
Posts: 8765
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

clv101 wrote:
That is to say, a relatively large number of relatively poor people have funded the energy savings of a relativity small number of relatively rich people. Those are the facts.
...The widespread deployment of embedded renewables mitigates carbon emissions, mitigates imported energy, increases energy security and weakens the position of big suppliers. These are real social benefits, not only to the poor in the UK but to the global population. I hope you don't interpret this benefit as 'trickle down bollocks'?.....
I interpret it as precisely that. This is just another variation of the same old line trotted out that basically states we must let the rich have their toys in order that the rest of us may eventually benefit from their "leading the way". We've been fed this bullshit as an excuse for the growing divide between rich and poor for decades and it's just that.

Bullshit.

You may well sincerely believe it. But that's just because you have been subjected to the same free-market neo-con narrative as everyone else and so are as fully inculcated in it as anyone else, I dare say you may be on the right side of the wealth equation of that narrative as well. Though, only just, if my guess about your age is right. You have your doubts, I can tell that from the tenor of your posts. Think about what you are arguing for. Think about the utter bankruptcy of the cultural/political narrative underlying those arguments.

You know they are bollocks CLV.
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 8851
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

I think you have this one wrong.

You are putting more weight on the private benefit of a FIT funded solar system than on the social benefits.

I believe solar has a major role in the slim chance of avoiding climate change/energy security collapsing civilisation this century. FIT and other similar schemes have over the last decade increased PV manufacturing and reduced costs faster than anyone thought possible. If these schemes hadn't existed PV would still be an order of magnitude more expensive and little more than a toy.

As a result of FIT and similar schemes, India for example is planning to deploy some 100GW of PV - that's the social benefit, which in my opinion is greater than the private benefit.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12586
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

I don't think Chris approves of the concept of, or even believes in, "trickle down" but is saying that this is perhaps the only time where there has been a beneficial trickle down effect for society. After all, any method of preventing money being "invested" in the financial system must be good although there could be better ways.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Little John
Posts: 8765
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

clv101 wrote:I think you have this one wrong.

You are putting more weight on the private benefit of a FIT funded solar system than on the social benefits.

I believe solar has a major role in the slim chance of avoiding climate change/energy security collapsing civilisation this century. FIT and other similar schemes have over the last decade increased PV manufacturing and reduced costs faster than anyone thought possible. If these schemes hadn't existed PV would still be an order of magnitude more expensive and little more than a toy.

As a result of FIT and similar schemes, India for example is planning to deploy some 100GW of PV - that's the social benefit, which in my opinion is greater than the private benefit.
I didn't say these technologies were not valuable. I also did not say that they should not be funded by the common purse for the common good. Are you seriously trying to tell me, however, that there were not more equitable funding and deployment arrangements that could have been implemented? That such alternative funding and deployment structures were simply beyond the ken of man? If you are, then I cannot take anything else you say on this topic seriously. If you are not, then why on earth are you trying to justify them, if only by way of apologetics. There are no apologetics that can ameliorate what is yet another episode in the transfer of wealth from poor to rich that has continued more or less unabated for the last two or three decades.
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 8851
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

Little John wrote:Are you seriously trying to tell me, however, that there were not more equitable funding and deployment arrangements that could have been implemented? That such alternative funding and deployment structures were simply beyond the ken of man?
Good god, man, no! My first comment here was critical of the way FIT and RHI are funded. It's been broken from day one and I called it out many years ago.
Little John wrote:If you are, then I cannot take anything else you say on this topic seriously. If you are not, then why on earth are you trying to justify them, if only by way of apologetics. There are no apologetics that can ameliorate what is yet another episode in the transfer of wealth from poor to rich that has continued more or less unabated for the last two or three decades.
The world is not black and white. Look at the bigger picture. Whilst there are obviously far better ways to fund renewable energy, the current system has delivered dramatic costs reductions and capacity increases in what I consider one of the most important technologies of the 21st century.

In my opinion this global social beneft is larger than the clear negative of poor to rich wealth transfer in rich countries operating FIT schemes.
Post Reply