I used gas to heat a gas stove kettle with a cup of water in it to a
certain temp, and did the same thing for an electric kettle. Turns out
that gas now costs 30% more than electric using this crude test. Is it
now more economical to get electric central heating installed rather
than gas?

Thanks for your interest.

"blackhead" wrote in message
...
I used gas to heat a gas stove kettle with a cup of water in it to a
certain temp, and did the same thing for an electric kettle. Turns out
that gas now costs 30% more than electric using this crude test. Is it
now more economical to get electric central heating installed rather
than gas?

You're not really comparing like with like. A gas heated kettle will
generally waste a lot of heat due to losses around the sides, something that
doesn't happen with an electric kettle. A CH boiler is a very different
(kettle of fish). It's efficiency is much higher than a kettle heated over
an open flame.

Tim

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
blackhead wrote:

I used gas to heat a gas stove kettle with a cup of water in it to a
certain temp, and did the same thing for an electric kettle. Turns out
that gas now costs 30% more than electric using this crude test. Is it
now more economical to get electric central heating installed rather
than gas?

Thanks for your interest.

No! As you say, it was a crude test - very crude!

What price per kWH do you pay for gas and on-peak electricity? In terms of
converting input energy into useful space heating, electricity may be 10%
more efficient than gas - but costs several times as much. [I currently pay
3.4 times the gas price for each unit of electricity].

The only way in which electrical heating can get anywhere near competing
with gas is to use off-peak electricity - which means you get it when it's
available rather than when you need it, with a resulting total lack of
flexibility. You may just get away with a high capacity water-based heat
bank - but conventional storage heaters are the work of the devil!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In article
,
blackhead wrote:
I used gas to heat a gas stove kettle with a cup of water in it to a
certain temp, and did the same thing for an electric kettle. Turns out
that gas now costs 30% more than electric using this crude test. Is it
now more economical to get electric central heating installed rather
than gas?

Not a good comparison. And electric kettle has the heat source inside so
less loss. To compare the two in this way you'd need to boil the kettle on
an electric hob.

A good condensing gas boiler will be very nearly as efficient as an
electric one so all you need to do is compare the prices of each fuel per
kilowatt/hour.

--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

blackhead wrote:
I used gas to heat a gas stove kettle with a cup of water in it to a
certain temp, and did the same thing for an electric kettle. Turns out
that gas now costs 30% more than electric using this crude test. Is it
now more economical to get electric central heating installed rather
than gas?

Thanks for your interest.
No.

"blackhead" wrote in message
...
I used gas to heat a gas stove kettle with a cup of water in it to a
certain temp, and did the same thing for an electric kettle. Turns out
that gas now costs 30% more than electric using this crude test. Is it
now more economical to get electric central heating installed rather
than gas?

Thanks for your interest.

No, just don't go with British Gas or you will pay 100% more than everyone
with other companies. Certainly for gas anyway, they are the most expensive
company about but stupid people still go with them.
Electric storage heaters are a waste of time and once the heat has gone
that's it. So no turning them up a few times per day.
Change to a cheaper gas supplier, get your home insulated and get a new
boiler fitted. You can get some work done under certain government schemes
if you are on some benefits or can't be bothered working. Those who are not
afraid of working or can't think of a good enough excuse will have to foot
the bill.
The test you mention couldn't be measured in the home accurately anyway.

Rob wrote:
"blackhead" wrote in message
...
I used gas to heat a gas stove kettle with a cup of water in it to a
certain temp, and did the same thing for an electric kettle. Turns out
that gas now costs 30% more than electric using this crude test. Is it
now more economical to get electric central heating installed rather
than gas?

Thanks for your interest.

No, just don't go with British Gas or you will pay 100% more than everyone
with other companies. Certainly for gas anyway, they are the most expensive
company about but stupid people still go with them.
Electric storage heaters are a waste of time and once the heat has gone
that's it. So no turning them up a few times per day.
Change to a cheaper gas supplier, get your home insulated and get a new
boiler fitted. You can get some work done under certain government schemes
if you are on some benefits or can't be bothered working. Those who are not
afraid of working or can't think of a good enough excuse will have to foot
the bill.
The test you mention couldn't be measured in the home accurately anyway.



Well if you wait a decade till gas is three times as expensive as
nuclear electricity...

Well if you wait a decade till gas is three times as expensive as
nuclear electricity...


Which will, of course, be too cheap to meter :-)

--
Ron

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:21:00 +0100, Ron Lowe wrote:


Well if you wait a decade till gas is three times as expensive as
nuclear electricity...


Which will, of course, be too cheap to meter :-)

Pay attention in the back: that was 3 or 4 decades ago. It's now so cheap
they pay us to use it ;-)

--
John Stumbles

Pessimists are never disappointed

John Stumbles wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:21:00 +0100, Ron Lowe wrote:

Well if you wait a decade till gas is three times as expensive as
nuclear electricity...

Which will, of course, be too cheap to meter :-)

Pay attention in the back: that was 3 or 4 decades ago. It's now so cheap
they pay us to use it ;-)


A lot of con-fusion ?

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:10:03 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
blackhead wrote:
snip

No! As you say, it was a crude test - very crude!

What price per kWH do you pay for gas and on-peak electricity? In terms of
converting input energy into useful space heating, electricity may be 10%
more efficient than gas - but costs several times as much. [I currently pay
3.4 times the gas price for each unit of electricity].

The only way in which electrical heating can get anywhere near competing
with gas is to use off-peak electricity - which means you get it when it's
available rather than when you need it, with a resulting total lack of
flexibility. You may just get away with a high capacity water-based heat
bank - but conventional storage heaters are the work of the devil!

This 'sparks' another train of thought....

.....if electricity is over 3 times more expensive than gas, how about a
gas powered generator for the electricity? [Yes, I know that's how we get
a lot of our electricity anyway.] If you could get a home generator which
was 50% efficient in converting gas to electricity then you would be ahead
of the game.

Cheers

Dave R

David WE Roberts wrote:

....if electricity is over 3 times more expensive than gas, how about a
gas powered generator for the electricity? [Yes, I know that's how we get
a lot of our electricity anyway.] If you could get a home generator which
was 50% efficient in converting gas to electricity then you would be ahead
of the game.

Interesting idea, though I doubt you'd manage as good as 50%. ISTR that
large power station steam turbine generator sets are less than 40%
efficient and they're pretty close to the thermodynamic maximum efficiency.

OTOH diverting the waste heat into your heating system could lead to a very
good overall efficiency.

Finding a CORGI installer certified to install gas fired engines might be a
bit of a problem though. The CORGI site only came up with 2 within 50 miles
of my home.

--
Mike Clarke

"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
news
....if electricity is over 3 times more expensive than gas, how about a
gas powered generator for the electricity? [Yes, I know that's how we get
a lot of our electricity anyway.] If you could get a home generator which
was 50% efficient in converting gas to electricity then you would be ahead
of the game.

They are here. They are called Combied Heat and Power units (CHP - cogen in
USA).

http://www.eonenergy.com/At-Home/Pro...WhisperGen.htm

wrote in message ...
On 8 Apr,
David WE Roberts wrote:

....if electricity is over 3 times more expensive than gas, how about a
gas powered generator for the electricity? [Yes, I know that's how we get
a lot of our electricity anyway.] If you could get a home generator which
was 50% efficient in converting gas to electricity then you would be
ahead
of the game.

Laws of thermodynamics would make that impossible with current technology.

That's why electricity is dearer than gas.

Combined Heat & Power using Stirling engines can get 50% efficiency and
more. See the link I gave.

I can be cheaper using a Stirling engine to generate electricity than diesel
IC engines, however the electrical energy used has to be 100% used to make
it viable. No having it tick over in case a light is switched on. The
national grid make it easy to use the grid as a buffer. So having a
Stirling put its surplus electricity into the grid and be paid for it using
a reversible meter can be cost effective. Also using any surplus heat to
heat DHW and the building.

CHP is dispersed power generators. One in each home.

On Apr 6, 11:45*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *blackhead wrote:

I used gas to heat a gas stove kettle with a cup of water in it to a
certain temp, and did the same thing for an electric kettle. Turns out
that gas now costs 30% more than electric using this crude test. Is it
now more economical to get electric central heating installed rather
than gas?

Not a good comparison. And electric kettle has the heat source inside so
less loss. To compare the two in this way you'd need to boil the kettle on
an electric hob.

What would he then use for the comparison with gas? Bubble it through
the electric kettle and set light to it?

MBQ

Ron Lowe wrote:

Well if you wait a decade till gas is three times as expensive as
nuclear electricity...


Which will, of course, be too cheap to meter :-)

I doubt that.

David WE Roberts wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:10:03 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
blackhead wrote:
snip
No! As you say, it was a crude test - very crude!

What price per kWH do you pay for gas and on-peak electricity? In terms of
converting input energy into useful space heating, electricity may be 10%
more efficient than gas - but costs several times as much. [I currently pay
3.4 times the gas price for each unit of electricity].

The only way in which electrical heating can get anywhere near competing
with gas is to use off-peak electricity - which means you get it when it's
available rather than when you need it, with a resulting total lack of
flexibility. You may just get away with a high capacity water-based heat
bank - but conventional storage heaters are the work of the devil!

This 'sparks' another train of thought....

....if electricity is over 3 times more expensive than gas, how about a
gas powered generator for the electricity? [Yes, I know that's how we get
a lot of our electricity anyway.] If you could get a home generator which
was 50% efficient in converting gas to electricity then you would be ahead
of the game.


Yup. CHP sets will do getting on for overall 70% plus electricty/heat.

Problem comes when you want leccy, but not heat.


Most useful in colder climes.

Cheers

Dave R

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Ron Lowe wrote:

Well if you wait a decade till gas is three times as expensive as
nuclear electricity...


Which will, of course, be too cheap to meter :-)

I doubt that.



*woosh*

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:21:00 +0100 Ron Lowe wrote :

Well if you wait a decade till gas is three times as expensive as
nuclear electricity...

Which will, of course, be too cheap to meter :-)

In my BCO days I visited a house on Coombe Hill Kingston - a 1960s Grand
Design, built on this basis with electric underfloor heating. It was
then (25 or so years ago) costing the owner £2K a year for heating. The
real problem was that it had been built with solid ground and first
floors to take the underfloor cables and so the only way to install wet
central heating would have been surface pipes everywhere .... which
would scarcely have looked good on a house like that

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

In article ,
David WE Roberts wrote:
....if electricity is over 3 times more expensive than gas, how about a
gas powered generator for the electricity? [Yes, I know that's how we
get a lot of our electricity anyway.] If you could get a home generator
which was 50% efficient in converting gas to electricity then you would
be ahead of the game.

In practice this would mean converting some form of internal combustion
engine to run on gas and drive the generator and you'll not get that sort
of efficiency from it in everyday use.

--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article
,
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Apr 6, 11:45 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
blackhead wrote:

I used gas to heat a gas stove kettle with a cup of water in it to a
certain temp, and did the same thing for an electric kettle. Turns
out that gas now costs 30% more than electric using this crude test.
Is it now more economical to get electric central heating installed
rather than gas?

Not a good comparison. And electric kettle has the heat source inside
so less loss. To compare the two in this way you'd need to boil the
kettle on an electric hob.

What would he then use for the comparison with gas? Bubble it through
the electric kettle and set light to it?

So you do work at B&Q?

--
*Women like silent men; they think they're listening.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
David WE Roberts wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:10:03 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
blackhead wrote:
snip
No! As you say, it was a crude test - very crude!

What price per kWH do you pay for gas and on-peak electricity? In terms
of converting input energy into useful space heating, electricity may be
10% more efficient than gas - but costs several times as much. [I
currently pay 3.4 times the gas price for each unit of electricity].

The only way in which electrical heating can get anywhere near competing
with gas is to use off-peak electricity - which means you get it when
it's available rather than when you need it, with a resulting total lack
of flexibility. You may just get away with a high capacity water-based
heat bank - but conventional storage heaters are the work of the devil!

This 'sparks' another train of thought....

....if electricity is over 3 times more expensive than gas, how about a
gas powered generator for the electricity? [Yes, I know that's how we get
a lot of our electricity anyway.] If you could get a home generator which
was 50% efficient in converting gas to electricity then you would be
ahead
of the game.


Yup. CHP sets will do getting on for overall 70% plus electricty/heat.

Problem comes when you want leccy, but not heat.

Not designed for constant electricity generation. The electricity is a
by-product of the heat.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:21:00 +0100 Ron Lowe wrote :

Well if you wait a decade till gas is three times as expensive as
nuclear electricity...

Which will, of course, be too cheap to meter :-)

In my BCO days I visited a house on Coombe Hill Kingston - a 1960s Grand
Design, built on this basis with electric underfloor heating. It was
then (25 or so years ago) costing the owner £2K a year for heating. The
real problem was that it had been built with solid ground and first
floors to take the underfloor cables and so the only way to install wet
central heating would have been surface pipes everywhere .... which
would scarcely have looked good on a house like that

External insulation, triple glazing and air-tightness will probably drop
that by half.

On 2008-04-09 00:10:08 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:21:00 +0100 Ron Lowe wrote :

Well if you wait a decade till gas is three times as expensive as
nuclear electricity...

Which will, of course, be too cheap to meter :-)

In my BCO days I visited a house on Coombe Hill Kingston - a 1960s Grand
Design, built on this basis with electric underfloor heating. It was
then (25 or so years ago) costing the owner £2K a year for heating. The
real problem was that it had been built with solid ground and first
floors to take the underfloor cables and so the only way to install wet
central heating would have been surface pipes everywhere .... which
would scarcely have looked good on a house like that

External insulation, triple glazing and air-tightness will probably
drop that by half.

.... and the value of the property.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:47fc6d67@qaanaaq...
On 2008-04-09 00:10:08 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:21:00 +0100 Ron Lowe wrote :

Well if you wait a decade till gas is three times as expensive as
nuclear electricity...

Which will, of course, be too cheap to meter :-)

In my BCO days I visited a house on Coombe Hill Kingston - a 1960s Grand
Design, built on this basis with electric underfloor heating. It was
then (25 or so years ago) costing the owner £2K a year for heating. The
real problem was that it had been built with solid ground and first
floors to take the underfloor cables and so the only way to install wet
central heating would have been surface pipes everywhere .... which
would scarcely have looked good on a house like that

External insulation, triple glazing and air-tightness will probably drop
that by half.

... and the value of the property.

Matt, you made that up.

On Apr 8, 11:25*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *Man at B&Q wrote:





On Apr 6, 11:45 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *blackhead wrote:

I used gas to heat a gas stove kettle with a cup of water in it to a
certain temp, and did the same thing for an electric kettle. Turns
out that gas now costs 30% more than electric using this crude test.
Is it now more economical to get electric central heating installed
rather than gas?

Not a good comparison. And electric kettle has the heat source inside
so less loss. To compare the two in this way you'd need to boil the
kettle on an electric hob.
What would he then use for the comparison with gas? Bubble it through
the electric kettle and set light to it?

So you do work at B&Q?

And you clearly work at MacDonalds.

So, tell us, how does comparing a kettle boiled on an electric hob
against an electric kettle give a comparison between gas and
electricity?

MBQ

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 23:10:03 +0100, "Roger Mills"
wrote:


You may just get away with a high capacity water-based heat
bank - but conventional storage heaters are the work of the devil!

Depends what you mean by 'conventional' Roger?

We have some slimline input_time_delayed / managed storage heaters and
they have been in there 15 odd years, are switched on 365 and just
look after themselves.

No changing thermocouples, fans, risk of water pouring out,
poisoning anyone or blowing the side off the house. Also, *all* the
heat stays in the house not lots going up the flue. They are also
virtually silent.

Ok, they are no good for instant heat needs nor manageable via a wall
stat on an instant basis but some of us can live with that for all the
advantages. Plus they are fully zoned. ;-)

Ours are very different beasts to the things you used to see in
offices etc though.

All the best ..

T i m

In article
, Man at
B&Q wrote:
On Apr 8, 11:25 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article
,
Man at B&Q wrote:





On Apr 6, 11:45 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
blackhead wrote:

I used gas to heat a gas stove kettle with a cup of water in it
to a certain temp, and did the same thing for an electric
kettle. Turns out that gas now costs 30% more than electric
using this crude test. Is it now more economical to get electric
central heating installed rather than gas?

Not a good comparison. And electric kettle has the heat source
inside so less loss. To compare the two in this way you'd need to
boil the kettle on an electric hob.

What would he then use for the comparison with gas? Bubble it
through the electric kettle and set light to it?

So you do work at B&Q?

And you clearly work at MacDonalds.

So, tell us, how does comparing a kettle boiled on an electric hob
against an electric kettle give a comparison between gas and electricity?

Were you born thick or did you have to work at it?

--
*People want trepanners like they want a hole in the head*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
T i m wrote:

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 23:10:03 +0100, "Roger Mills"
wrote:


You may just get away with a high capacity water-based heat
bank - but conventional storage heaters are the work of the devil!

Depends what you mean by 'conventional' Roger?


I had in mind anything which uses electrical heating elements to heat up a
load of bricks. I accept that modern ones are better than the original sort,
and give you *some* control over the rate of heat discharge. But they can
only give out the heat they have stored, and when it's gone it's gone -
until the next off-peak boost. And if you fail to anticipate a cold spell .
..

I wouldn't give them houseroom! A couple of years ago we had to sell my
father-in-law's bungalow in which the only heating system was storage
heaters - and the valuation, and ultimate selling price, was a lot lower
than if it had had a 'proper' central heating system.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
T i m wrote:

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 23:10:03 +0100, "Roger Mills"
wrote:


You may just get away with a high capacity water-based heat
bank - but conventional storage heaters are the work of the devil!

Depends what you mean by 'conventional' Roger?


I had in mind anything which uses electrical heating elements to heat up a
load of bricks. I accept that modern ones are better than the original
sort, and give you *some* control over the rate of heat discharge. But
they can only give out the heat they have stored, and when it's gone it's
gone - until the next off-peak boost. And if you fail to anticipate a cold
spell . .

I wouldn't give them houseroom! A couple of years ago we had to sell my
father-in-law's bungalow in which the only heating system was storage
heaters - and the valuation, and ultimate selling price, was a lot lower
than if it had had a 'proper' central heating system.

Water stores 4 times as much heat as masonry. Why they do not have tanks
filled with water (filled by hose) is beyond me.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

Water stores 4 times as much heat as masonry. Why they do not have tanks
filled with water (filled by hose) is beyond me.

Masonry doesn't leak.

BTW electricity may well be cheaper than gas with a good heat pump to help
it out.

dennis@home wrote:


"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

Water stores 4 times as much heat as masonry. Why they do not have
tanks filled with water (filled by hose) is beyond me.

Masonry doesn't leak.

BTW electricity may well be cheaper than gas with a good heat pump to
help it out.

How about jelly? Doesn't flow as fast as water. Maybe even self-sealing
jelly...

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:

Water stores 4 times as much heat as masonry. Why they do not have tanks
filled with water (filled by hose) is beyond me.

Mainly because that's not really true.

Water has about four times the specific heat capacity of bricks,
but bricks are about twice as dense as water, so the volumentric
heat capacity is about a factor of 2. (High density bricks are
probably better than than this per volume.)

However, water has a couple of major drawbacks...

You can only heat it about 80C hotter than room temperature,
whereas you can easily manage 3-4 times that difference with bricks,
thus enabling bricks to store up to twice the energy.

Water corrodes, risking leaks and failures of the heating circuit.
Bricks have no such problem.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

Water stores 4 times as much heat as masonry. Why they do not have tanks
filled with water (filled by hose) is beyond me.

Masonry doesn't leak.

BTW electricity may well be cheaper than gas with a good heat pump to help
it out.

Heat pump? Not as cheap as natural gas yet. The best of them is extracting
from running water, and few have a stream in the garden.

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 00:10:08 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


External insulation, triple glazing and air-tightness will probably drop
that by half.

So, with all this air-tightness don't we suffocate? After we
hermetically seal the house we have to fit more air bricks?

Are there any 'domestic' Air-to-air heat exchangers that are actually
worth installing yet (both from their payback and functionality) and
from a d-i-y pov?

All the best ..

T i m

dennis@home wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

Water stores 4 times as much heat as masonry. Why they do not have
tanks filled with water (filled by hose) is beyond me.

Masonry doesn't leak.

And water can only be heated to nearly 100 °C unless you resort to an
expensive pressure vessel. OTOH storage heater bricks can be heated to
several hundred degrees.

BTW electricity may well be cheaper than gas with a good heat pump to
help it out.

Doubtless true for fuel costs alone, but what's the answer when you
factor in the capital cost of the heat pump and its source, and
maintenance...?

--
Andy

T i m wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 00:10:08 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


External insulation, triple glazing and air-tightness will probably drop
that by half.

So, with all this air-tightness don't we suffocate? After we
hermetically seal the house we have to fit more air bricks?

Are there any 'domestic' Air-to-air heat exchangers that are actually
worth installing yet (both from their payback and functionality) and
from a d-i-y pov?

Technically domestic (because it is fitted to a house), the Grand
Designs house built into the ground up in the Lake District for a vet
and her family had one. (Reshown in extended form just a few weeks ago.)
The *claims* were that it is staggeringly efficient and wonderful...

But as to fitting it to an existing house, I doubt it.
--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

Water stores 4 times as much heat as masonry. Why they do not have tanks
filled with water (filled by hose) is beyond me.

Masonry doesn't leak.

And water can only be heated to nearly 100 °C unless you resort to an
expensive pressure vessel. OTOH storage heater bricks can be heated to
several hundred degrees.

BTW electricity may well be cheaper than gas with a good heat pump to
help it out.

Doubtless true for fuel costs alone, but what's the answer when you factor
in the capital cost of the heat pump and its source, and maintenance...?

Probably cheaper that gas CH to install and maintenance is on a per fault
call, no need for regular checks like gas is supposed to have. I might
install a heat pump AC unit as heating in the house conversion I am doing,
heat has a bad effect on his breathing so some AC may be a good thing if we
have hot summers. Not that it would be on much as he likes about 75F anyway.

"Rod" wrote in message
...
T i m wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 00:10:08 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


External insulation, triple glazing and air-tightness will probably drop
that by half.

So, with all this air-tightness don't we suffocate? After we
hermetically seal the house we have to fit more air bricks?

Are there any 'domestic' Air-to-air heat exchangers that are actually
worth installing yet (both from their payback and functionality) and
from a d-i-y pov?

Technically domestic (because it is fitted to a house), the Grand Designs
house built into the ground up in the Lake District for a vet and her
family had one. (Reshown in extended form just a few weeks ago.) The
*claims* were that it is staggeringly efficient and wonderful...

But as to fitting it to an existing house, I doubt it.

Maybe http://www.wickes.co.uk/invt/156417 ?

"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

Water stores 4 times as much heat as masonry. Why they do not have tanks
filled with water (filled by hose) is beyond me.

Masonry doesn't leak.

And water can only be heated to nearly 100 °C unless you resort to an
expensive pressure vessel. OTOH storage heater bricks can be heated to
several hundred degrees.

BTW electricity may well be cheaper than gas with a good heat pump to
help it out.

Doubtless true for fuel costs alone, but what's the answer when you factor
in the capital cost of the heat pump and its source, and maintenance...?

Heat pumps are maintenance free. Their proud boast in factoring in running
costs.