The Renewable Heat Incentive

[kenneal - lagger]

You are using additional energy to power the heat pump. With Passivhaus levels of insulation you wouldn't be using any energy at all to heat the house most of the time.

PassivHause uses additional energy to heat water and run the heat exchangers. It's the same thing.

You don't need heat exchangers if you're using a wood burning stove occasionally. All houses heat DHW.

A stone house would give tremendous thermal mass which, if warmed during the summer, could heat the house well into the winter

The corollary being that the house would then be cold well into summer! No thanks.

Only if you are silly enough to let it get cold. With good insulation levels it is easy to keep the house at a constant or controlled temperature. We aim to keep our house at a cool temperature, compared to outside, so warmish really, during the summer so we are comfortable in shorts and T-shirts. During the autumn and into winter we let it gradually cool down before we start heating so that when it gets cold outside we are comfortable in three layers inside ready to put an extra layer on to go outside. Once the weather starts to warm up in spring, and the outside temperature is above the inside temperature, we start to open the doors and windows to warm the house up again.

You're assuming that the next fifty years will be like the last fifty years. A grave mistake.

I'll take my 'chance' that you're wrong (I shan't sleep nights).

In that case, I'll ask you again, "Why are you on this forum?" You don't believe in AGW. You seem, from that last remark, to believe in BAU. Are you so bored with your life that you have to show off your superior knowledge to us unbelievers?

[An Inspector Calls]

Thanks for the acknowledgement of my superior knowledge.

I do consider we're at peak oil - we've probably been there for quite a while, and will continue to be so a while longer. We should move away from fossil fuels as much as possible since we no longer produce our own, everyone/every country should do this in a sensible way that protects the economies of the world. That would give, as far as an electrcity grid is concerned BAU. I can't see any reason why that's not achievable in 20-30 years time. For the UK, that does not involve wind or solar, both of which are expensive, short-lifed, and intermittent.

As for your PassivHaus tripe:
consider two houses of identical outside dimensions and appearance. One is a PassivHaus, the other a part insulated, heat-pump house. Both have only one external energy supply - the electricity grid. Both use the same annual energy from the grid. You are equipped with a watt-hour meter. How do you tell which house is which? You can't, so who cares?

[kenneal - lagger]

Thanks for the acknowledgement of my superior knowledge.

You obviously don't understand irony!

I do consider we're at peak oil - we've probably been there for quite a while, and will continue to be so a while longer. We should move away from fossil fuels as much as possible since we no longer produce our own, everyone/every country should do this in a sensible way that protects the economies of the world. That would give, as far as an electrcity grid is concerned BAU. I can't see any reason why that's not achievable in 20-30 years time. For the UK, that does not involve wind or solar, both of which are expensive, short-lifed, and intermittent.

You need to do some serious reading about Peak Oil and its effects on the world's economy. You also need to listen to Albert Bartlett on exponential growth and effects on the supply of commodities. Try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqcHG7QUK9k or a longer version at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY. Then look into the growth of China and India and their importation of resources. Look at the relative bank balances of eastern vs western countries and put 2+2 together and hopefully you will get 4.

China and India are set to double their resource use in the next seven years so in the 20 to thirty years you are quoting the economic system will be broken. Try the Crash Course by Chris Martenssen http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

As for your PassivHaus tripe:
consider two houses of identical outside dimensions and appearance. One is a PassivHaus, the other a part insulated, heat-pump house. Both have only one external energy supply - the electricity grid. Both use the same annual energy from the grid. You are equipped with a watt-hour meter. How do you tell which house is which? You can't, so who cares?

Your question is wrong because the PassivHaus will have a lower electricity consumption. Even if they did have the same consumption you wouldn't need a meter. Just wait for the first snow fall and look at the roof where there would be a difference in accumulation. Then wait for the next power cut and after a lot more snow accumulation the snow levels might even out. But the Passivhaus will be a lot warmer inside than the heat pump house especially if, as I recommend, both houses have a woodburning stove.

It is never safe to rely on one technology, especially if it is complicated. In a resource depleted future complication means complete failure.http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

[An Inspector Calls]

Thanks for the acknowledgement of my superior knowledge.

You obviously don't understand irony!

Nor do you!!!!

Your question is wrong because the PassivHaus will have a lower electricity consumption.

Rubbish.

In this thread:
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... hp?t=16794
JohnB linked us to a video about PassivHaus installation. The summary of the electricity needs of that PassivHaus were for an expenditure of £75 on DHW, and £100 on the heat exchanger. I'll take that as an observation, rather than one of your aspirations. Without PassivHaus standard a comparable house would require £1100 of heating and DHW, again, as stated in the video. . So the PassivHaus has quartered the energy need of the house. Perfectly doable with a modern heat pump.

As for reading material on PeakOil, no need for a lot of reading: just look across the Channel at France to see their accomplished, post Peak Oil preparations.

[Aurora]

The Guardian - 10/03/11

The government laid out details of its subsidies for renewable heating on Thursday morning, as part of a series of environmental announcements aimed at burnishing the coalition's green credentials.

The long-awaited renewable heat incentive is aimed at increasing the amount of heat that households and businesses can generate from low-carbon sources. To date, only a tiny proportion of the UK's buildings have renewable heat sources, partly because there are only a small number of such sources that are practical and available.

These include biomass boilers, which burn wood pellets, and air or ground source heat pumps, and boilers that generate electricity at the same time as heating.

However, some of these are difficult to use. Biomass boilers require more attention and refuelling than standard fossil fuel boilers. Ground source heat pumps need to be installed underground and cover a wide area, which makes them impractical in urban areas and hard to retrofit, so installing them in new houses is easier.

The renewable heat incentive has been beset by problems, as the government has struggled to decide how to structure the scheme and how much money should be made available to households.

The subsidy will be paid for through government coffers.

Original Article

For further details, see DECC page: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/n ... 1_023.aspx

[kenneal - lagger]

Rubbish.

In this thread:
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... hp?t=16794
JohnB linked us to a video about PassivHaus installation. The summary of the electricity needs of that PassivHaus were for an expenditure of £75 on DHW, and £100 on the heat exchanger. I'll take that as an observation, rather than one of your aspirations. Without PassivHaus standard a comparable house would require £1100 of heating and DHW, again, as stated in the video. . So the PassivHaus has quartered the energy need of the house. Perfectly doable with a modern heat pump.

Your arithmetic isn't very good. £175/£1100 x 100 = 16% or 1/6th, definitely not doable with a heat pump.

As for reading material on PeakOil, no need for a lot of reading: just look across the Channel at France to see their accomplished, post Peak Oil preparations.

The French haven't done anything about car use, nor road transport, nor agricultural production. Yes, they do have nuclear power but how long will that last at an affordable cost once the oil price rockets and their fuel becomes a lot more expensive. As everyone else jumps on the nuclear bandwagon uranium will go exactly the same way as oil. That will blow a very large hole in your economic calculations on the worth of insulation. It's not the ultimate amount of the resource that counts, it's the rate of its production and the cost of that production.

Our problem is that we don't have enough time or money to invest in the plant to replace all our coal and nuclear installations let alone built new stuff to cater for the growth which is essential to keep all the bright new heat pumps that you want fitted going as well as all the electric vehicles. The country is broke if you hadn't noticed and it takes at least ten years and about three times the budget to get one nuke from drawing board to production. We need about ten of them in your scenario of Business as Usual for ever into the future. Crazy!!

[emordnilap]

Using a heat pump introduces a lot more complications - pressurised equipment with sophisticated controls are not likely to stand the test of time. I doubt it's economical in the long run.

Simplicity will last.

[An Inspector Calls]

Using a heat pump introduces a lot more complications - pressurised equipment with sophisticated controls are not likely to stand the test of time. I doubt it's economical in the long run.

Simplicity will last.

Piffle.

Most central heat controllers are computerised these days.

As for the pressurised refrigeration system being unreliable, that's bunkum. Fridges and freezes are the most reliable types of domestic appliance we have - they last forever, and are zero maintenance.

Does anyone still have a low pressure central heating system? A dwindling number, but since the building regs now stipulates pressurised hot and cold water systems (there's a derogation for existing low pressure systems in the loft) they'll gradually become as thing of the past.

[An Inspector Calls]

Rubbish.

In this thread:
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... hp?t=16794
JohnB linked us to a video about PassivHaus installation. The summary of the electricity needs of that PassivHaus were for an expenditure of £75 on DHW, and £100 on the heat exchanger. I'll take that as an observation, rather than one of your aspirations. Without PassivHaus standard a comparable house would require £1100 of heating and DHW, again, as stated in the video. . So the PassivHaus has quartered the energy need of the house. Perfectly doable with a modern heat pump.

Your arithmetic isn't very good. £175/£1100 x 100 = 16% or 1/6th, definitely not doable with a heat pump.

And neither is yours, because now we see a PassiHaus requiring an input of £175 of electricity - enough for nearly 2.5 MWh. A far cry from your NIL requirement. A heat pump will not do 1/6th but it will do 1/4th, and I don't see why you should be the only one here making prreposterous claims. The difference is small. Given the cheapness of a heat pump instalation compared to PassivHaus (even better with RHI now it's out) it becomes an obvious choice for older houses.

The French haven't done anything about car use, nor road transport, nor agricultural production.

But why bother, as of now, when we still don't have largescale electric car use? The French have electrified/nucleared their rail system.

Yes, they do have nuclear power but how long will that last at an affordable cost once the oil price rockets and their fuel becomes a lot more expensive.

Well, another 20 years at least because that's how long they're targetting their life extension programme - see my reports elsewhere. And the cost of nuclear fuel is largely irrelevant as it's such a tiny component of the operational costs of a nuke - see my reports elsewhere.

Our problem is that we don't have enough time or money to invest in the plant to replace all our coal and nuclear installations let alone built new stuff to cater for the growth which is essential to keep all the bright new heat pumps that you want fitted going as well as all the electric vehicles. The country is broke if you hadn't noticed and it takes at least ten years and about three times the budget to get one nuke from drawing board to production. We need about ten of them in your scenario of Business as Usual for ever into the future. Crazy!!

Equally, the wind power budget of £100b is beyond our means. So is all this silly solar for FITs. So we'd best just build low-cost gas-fired plant.

[emordnilap]

Most central heat controllers are computerised these days.

Really?

Fridges and freezes are the most reliable types of domestic appliance we have - they last forever, and are zero maintenance.

Really?

Does anyone still have a low pressure central heating system?

Yes. They require maintenance but much less than high pressure ones.

they'll gradually become as thing of the past.

Really?

[clv101]

...as of now...

A reoccurring theme of your posts is 'currentism' for want of a better word. Your analysis looks at today's situation with little regard for future trajectories. We absolutely don't want the the 'best' system for today when we can see the future will be very different. The gas vs wind debate is an example. Of course gas is cheaper today, cheaper energy and cheaper carbon savings - that doesn't automatically make it the right though.

And the cost of nuclear fuel is largely irrelevant as it's such a tiny component of the operational costs of a nuke...

This isn't as clear cut as you make out. Sure the price is low so we could afford to pay dramatically more. The point is, everyone else can also afford to pay dramatically more! What's the price elasticity of demand and supply? How much does the price have to rise to clear the market when supply can only fuel 80% of the world's reactors? Who owns the 20% that have been priced out. We can't assume that just because uranium fuel is cheap today as a fraction of generation costs it will remain to be so in a shortage scenario.

[An Inspector Calls]

Really?

emordnilap, I'm not a VET. Get your owner to write your point down.

[An Inspector Calls]

cvl101
Currentism will do as a word, I know what you mean.

I'll confess that I will do project economic assessments in present day terms, usually avoiding any allowance for possible interest, inflation, currency, fuel movements. That's the way most economic assessments are done, understanably because of the lack of reliable data for the future.

Other than that, I reject your point. My advocacy of nuclear power, for example, is always with a recognition of the high possibility of movements in the availability of fuel resources, future global economic well-being (and thus population), and the availability of nuclear fuels

As to your point on nuclear fuel costs. There are many articles on the fractional costs of uranium ore (which is what I assume you mean, rather than processed nuclear fuel) in nuclear energy delivery costs. It's always a very low fraction. Here's one article that gives some idea small idea of just how low that fraction is:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
I have seen figures as high as $1,000/kg being considered viable for economic nuclear generation (and that's the cost estimate of extraction from the sea).

[goslow]

AIC, are you american. I just noticed your use of the $. If so, why are you over here on this forum?

[RenewableCandy]

Because he's *** in drag?