Air pumps

On today's BBC Breakfast about them who in their right mind is going to pay upward of 13k+ for the system even with a 5k government grant and only to save around £150 a year off your normal heating bill?
We all want to do our bit for the environment but the price needs to come way way down or the grant increased until the majority move over to it.
Making it compulsive in new builds would be a start.
 
I still think the most viable thing to do by any government would be to fit solar panels to every building, feeding the electricity into the national grid and then charging the householder a fair amount for their power, as well as taking the profit to cover the cost of the initial installation.
 
On top of the boiler cost you need your house being mega insulated as the output isn’t enough to heat current houses unless you fit 2 heat pumps !!!
 
Unless the price drops considerably how will most people be able to afford to replace them in the future? Also do they need to be maintained annually. Are they reliable and how much will replacement parts cost? Given the starting price I wouldn’t expect this to be cheap.
Personally I agree that solar panels would seem a better option although admittedly my knowledge of heat pumps is very limited.
 
Curryman said:
I still think the most viable thing to do by any government would be to fit solar panels to every building, feeding the electricity into the national grid and then charging the householder a fair amount for their power, as well as taking the profit to cover the cost of the initial installation.
Click to expand...

Not a good idea.

The obvious problem is that solar panels don't work at night and it's hard to store electricity on a large scale, so you'd need 100% backup, presumably gas powered, which is obviously not very efficient.

The wider problem is that solar output is inversely correlated with energy demand, demand being highest on cold winter nights and lowest on hot summer days, thus the energy you're producing is to all intents and purposes useless.

The fundamental problem is that because renewables are high capital cost/low operating cost, they're in direct competition with nuclear, which shares the same economic model as renewables but doesn't have the downside of intermittency, thus if you go heavy on renewables you're displacing nuclear and because you need 100% gas fired backup you're actually increasing CO2 emissions by going down this route (which of course is what we're doing).

You're probably better off with solar thermal or ground source heat pumps to generate hot water and reduce electricity demand, because this can be stored at least short term, but again you have the seasonality problem.
 
Seasideforever said:
On top of the boiler cost you need your house being mega insulated as the output isn’t enough to heat current houses unless you fit 2 heat pumps !!!
Click to expand...

Also the water they produce isn't very hot, thus you need huge radiators or underfloor heating to have a meaningful heating effect.

This stuff really isn't easy to retrofit into existing houses.
 
Sounds like UKG are keen to do something with Rolls Royce and their mini nuclear reactors (obviously this is not at a household level!), but might help to plug some gaps?
IF we could get our non fossil fuel electricity supply up and costs down this could help, especially with the new, more efficient electric heaters ?
It looks like there are no easy solutions however. Can’t see our old house being made suitable for heat pump use.
 
There’s some fitted down Dock road Lytham and theyr noisy when operating and they do cool the area outside where theyr fitted so not good next to your patio area .If Youv got a 4 bed house you will probably need 2 fitting (cost) .
 
Lost Seasider said:
Not a good idea.

The obvious problem is that solar panels don't work at night and it's hard to store electricity on a large scale, so you'd need 100% backup, presumably gas powered, which is obviously not very efficient.

The wider problem is that solar output is inversely correlated with energy demand, demand being highest on cold winter nights and lowest on hot summer days, thus the energy you're producing is to all intents and purposes useless.

The fundamental problem is that because renewables are high capital cost/low operating cost, they're in direct competition with nuclear, which shares the same economic model as renewables but doesn't have the downside of intermittency, thus if you go heavy on renewables you're displacing nuclear and because you need 100% gas fired backup you're actually increasing CO2 emissions by going down this route (which of course is what we're doing).

You're probably better off with solar thermal or ground source heat pumps to generate hot water and reduce electricity demand, because this can be stored at least short term, but again you have the seasonality problem.
Click to expand...
Tidal could be an option, the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun - maybe in Florida. the tide is always there twice a day and we know when and how much water will be available. Hydro-electricity has been around a long time and is a proven technology. You don’t hear it mentioned much maybe it’s too difficult, or there isn’t enough will to give it a decent chance.
 
We have one, the house is only 4 years old so built to accommodate one , radiators , underfloor heating ....insulated to the gunnels.
Bills are reasonable.

Have only had it and the boiler serviced once. The bloke seemed a bit embarrassed , said they don't really need much attention. Seemed to be struggling to find things to do to justify his fee.
 
Started researching all this in 2014 and thermodynamic panels seem to be the best solution, every year since then the government has been expected to offer some sort of incentive, example RH payments but nothing yet.
Thermodynamic panels are a type of air source heat pump combined with a solar panel which works 24/7.
 
I'm all for reducing the CO2 emissions for future generations, but ......
Let's recall the government and scientists telling us that diesel engines were best for the environment and many of us went out and bought a diesel car, which will soon be scrap metal 😫
The UK produces less than 1% of the world's carbon emissions, so why are we trying to lead the world, at a massive cost to the public? And all whilst the big polluters are dragging their feet / totally resisting?
 
Longshanks said:
Tidal could be an option, the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun - maybe in Florida. the tide is always there twice a day and we know when and how much water will be available. Hydro-electricity has been around a long time and is a proven technology. You don’t hear it mentioned much maybe it’s too difficult, or there isn’t enough will to give it a decent chance.
Click to expand...
Fitted a hydro power station on the river near us in 2017.
Cost 5.3 million generates enough electricity to power over 800 homes, runs 24/7 and will last 100 years!
Provision has also been made for migrating fish.
That's the cost of a small stand at a football ground.
What's not to like?
 
At least for once it seems a sensible debate has broken out? I want our Govt to look at the options - even the ridiculous ones.
We have water and wind a plenty, so let’s begin there as power production.

Storage of power and transmission is still an issue but technology continues to move along so yes for now we need gas, coal or nuclear options alongside to fill the gaps. This should be seen purely as back up and all national efforts should be on how to increase our renewables and a clear annual goal to reduce the back up (which can reduce once we can sort out storage more efficiently).

The national grid for transmission still needs an overhaul too as it’s archaic in places and the forthcoming demand for EVs will put it under more strain
 
Longshanks said:
Tidal could be an option, the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun - maybe in Florida. the tide is always there twice a day and we know when and how much water will be available. Hydro-electricity has been around a long time and is a proven technology. You don’t hear it mentioned much maybe it’s too difficult, or there isn’t enough will to give it a decent chance.
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about tidal to comment, but the fact that the Severn barrage has been talked about for years but never seems to go anywhere might tell us something.

Solar might make sense in places like Florida, because they're using lots of electricity to run air-conditioning through the day so you've got a correlation between demand and supply.

Hydro, what you really need is lots of mountains so our landscape doesn't suit it.
 
Chunkylad said:
Storage of power and transmission is still an issue but technology continues to move along so yes for now we need gas, coal or nuclear options alongside to fill the gaps. This should be seen purely as back up and all national efforts should be on how to increase our renewables and a clear annual goal to reduce the back up (which can reduce once we can sort out storage more efficiently).
Click to expand...

You can't use nuclear to fill the gaps, the economics only make sense if you're running them full time.

This is the big problem with wind power, because it shares the same basic economics with nuclear they're in direct competition with each other so you can either have one or the other, in fact this is the paradox of wind, because it needs 100% coal/gas backup it actually increases CO2 emissions, because when the wind isn't blowing you're burning gas instead of splitting atoms.

Until we've got electricity storage sorted out there really isn't a place for renewables and this rush towards wind power is a huge mistake IMO.
 
Lost Seasider said:
You can't use nuclear to fill the gaps, the economics only make sense if you're running them full time.

This is the big problem with wind power, because it shares the same basic economics with nuclear they're in direct competition with each other so you can either have one or the other, in fact this is the paradox of wind, because it needs 100% coal/gas backup it actually increases CO2 emissions, because when the wind isn't blowing you're burning gas instead of splitting atoms.

Until we've got electricity storage sorted out there really isn't a place for renewables and this rush towards wind power is a huge mistake IMO.
Click to expand...
Good post
 
The government is offering a £5k subsidy as someone has mentioned above. The low carbon pumps currently cost between £6k and £18k depending on property size.
They’re quite bulky so maybe won’t suit all smaller properties.
I think it’s a step in the right direction.
No matter whether I sit my boney ass on amounderness way in rush hour or not, the government isn’t going to wave a magic wand and pay for every house to have its insulation and heating transformed.
It will be a gradual process. There’s always folk who will be first in line to take up new technology. That’s down to their personality and/or their financial position.
We will probably see those richer folk lead the way. Over time the technology will improve and the cost will come down as it always does with new innovations.
In a couple of decades I can see all new homes with these air pumps. And most older homes will be converted too. It’s a journey.
As with electric cars, it’s going to be a long journey to get us all driving electric. 🧐
The subsidies will increase. The costs will come down for manufacturers.
Getting back to air pumps, it’s right to say they don’t create high temperatures. Instead they have a warming effect. The days of blasting the heating will eventually be over.
That’s no bad thing perhaps. Reason I say that is cos I have electric heaters with three vents.
On cold days I would put them on and stand against the radiator to warm myself up. That’s ok you might think. Well yeah - until you notice yourself in the mirror when getting in the shower and see that you’ve effectively branded you buttocks with three parallel burn lines. That got me to thinking what the hospital medics would make of it if I had an accident and had to be taken into hospital unconscious. They’d examine me and be perplexed by the parallel lines. How would they ever solve that griddle ? Err riddle I mean.

🤔🤣
 
My wife got a new Jaguar I-pace in July. It’s certainly been interesting running it.

Home charging makes it easy, then when the charger broke (still waiting for Podpoint to resolve it) we had to go to public charging. Already finding some locations with broken chargers or just a bit temperamental (not accepting touch less card / Apple Pay / Android) so that can be frustrating.

Currently more than enough charge points out there but increase in EVs will soon swallow them up. Most are the slower chargers (under 50kw/h) so again we need quicker chargers to get people in and out faster.
 
We looked into heat pumps for our offices and were quoted £10,000+ for doing test borings on our site to find the best location for the pump.

The other factor is that older pipes and radiators cannot cope with the new system and have to be replaced.
 
Takes loads of electricity to run if it’s cold. You can’t change hydrothermal tech yet. All a Load of nonsense. The world is going to tie itself in knots with all this green energy malarkey. Its all just give and take and eventually a very expensive exercise to appease.
 
Scaramanga said:
Takes loads of electricity to run if it’s cold. You can’t change hydrothermal tech yet. All a Load of nonsense. The world is going to tie itself in knots with all this green energy malarkey. Its all just give and take and eventually a very expensive exercise to appease.
Click to expand...
There's some truth in that too. We have to do something though, but I'm far from convinced we as a country won't get fleeced by various unscrupulous companies & their cronies who again will get rich, without achieving very much.
 
poolseasider said:
On today's BBC Breakfast about them who in their right mind is going to pay upward of 13k+ for the system even with a 5k government grant and only to save around £150 a year off your normal heating bill?
We all want to do our bit for the environment but the price needs to come way way down or the grant increased until the majority move over to it.
Making it compulsive in new builds would be a start.
Click to expand...
I think the idea is - according to His Borisness - that as manufacture increases, unit retail prices come down, a la mobile phones and microwave ovens.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
I think the idea is - according to His Borisness - that as manufacture increases, unit retail prices come down, a la mobile phones and microwave ovens.
Click to expand...
So the well off who can afford the system and the massive difference in cost, get a 5k government grant off the total and the rest of us peasants have to wait until it potentially comes down in price bonkers.
 
Longshanks said:
Tidal could be an option, the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun - maybe in Florida. the tide is always there twice a day and we know when and how much water will be available. Hydro-electricity has been around a long time and is a proven technology. You don’t hear it mentioned much maybe it’s too difficult, or there isn’t enough will to give it a decent chance.
Click to expand...
The problem with tidal is the environmental cost. There's long been talk of a combined bridge/tidal barrage on Morecambe bay but it would totally change/destroy the ecosystem of the bay.

It's a catch 22 in some ways. Save the environment by destroying the environment.

I don't know. I do think partly best solution is to use less energy but now my wood stove is really bad and I got it so I could use less gas and stuff.
 
My FiL got an air source heat pump prob 10 years ago. Lives south Midlands, 1920's house, conventional wet heating system. Took them several visit to get working properly, but he is very happy with it. Never noticed the noise, tbh. Think he paid about 3K, obvs gone up a lot in the intervening years.
 
td53 said:
The problem with tidal is the environmental cost. There's long been talk of a combined bridge/tidal barrage on Morecambe bay but it would totally change/destroy the ecosystem of the bay.

It's a catch 22 in some ways. Save the environment by destroying the environment.

I don't know. I do think partly best solution is to use less energy but now my wood stove is really bad and I got it so I could use less gas and stuff.
Click to expand...
Good point. I think the Ribble estuary is a better bet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top