I'm seeing quite a few new build properties advertising this type of
heating.

Presumably, there's an electric "boiler" heating a mass of water, which is
then pumped around the house.

ISTM that this is going to be the worst of both worlds.

You get the "expense" of electricity to provide the heat that you are using,
and then the waste of that water getting cold when you turn the system off
during the day. Plus there's a extra cost of installing all the pipework and
maintaining the boiler instead of just plugging a wall heater into the
electric system.

Does anyone have any experience of this.

Does it work well as an idea or is it a dunce?

We're talking very modern, presumably well insulated, small (1 bed)
properties here, so the additional cost of running it isn't going to be
huge. OTOH it isn't going to be hard to heat such a property with a couple
of 30 quid panel heaters, so the installation cost is going to be much
larger.

Finally, if it was installed "underfloor" I might understand it, but it's
not, it's standard wall radiators

TIA

tim

On 18 Jan, 10:40, "tim....." wrote:
I'm seeing quite a few new build properties advertising this type of
heating.

Presumably, there's an electric "boiler" heating a mass of water, which is
then pumped around the house.

ISTM that this is going to be the worst of both worlds.

You get the "expense" of electricity to provide the heat that you are using,
and then the waste of that water getting cold when you turn the system off
during the day. Plus there's a extra cost of installing all the pipework and
maintaining the boiler instead of just plugging a wall heater into the
electric system.

Does anyone have any experience of this.

Does it work well as an idea or is it a dunce?

We're talking very modern, presumably well insulated, small (1 bed)
properties here, so the additional cost of running it isn't going to be
huge. *OTOH it isn't going to be hard to heat such a property with a couple
of 30 quid panel heaters, so the installation cost is going to be much
larger.

Finally, if it was installed "underfloor" I might understand it, but it's
not, it's standard wall radiators

TIA

tim

I've thought the same as you. I guess it's a marketing ploy for people
who don't really understand heating. People have an idea that electric
panel heaters cost a fortune to run and that radiators are somehow
good. So this is just a way of trying to trick them.

The general level of understanding of anything like this is pretty
low. Ever tried to convince a convert to oil-filled radiators that
they cost exactly the same to run as an electric convector heater? I
remember arguing with someone who claimed that pans with heavy bases
needed less power to cook food because they held the heat better. In
fact oil-filled rads are part of the same con trick - overcomplicating
electric heating to fool people that it's cheap to run.

Cheers!

Martin

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
I'm seeing quite a few new build properties advertising this type of
heating.

Presumably, there's an electric "boiler" heating a mass of water, which
is then pumped around the house.

ISTM that this is going to be the worst of both worlds.

You get the "expense" of electricity to provide the heat that you are
using, and then the waste of that water getting cold when you turn the
system off during the day. Plus there's a extra cost of installing all
the pipework and maintaining the boiler instead of just plugging a wall
heater into the electric system.

Depends. If it used off peak and stored the heat - then used a wet system
to distribute it as needed - it perhaps would be ok. But if it's not
storing heat can't see any advantage over directly heated rads.

--
*Hang in there, retirement is only thirty years away! *

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

"Martin Pentreath" wrote in message
...

I've thought the same as you. I guess it's a marketing ploy for people
who don't really understand heating. People have an idea that electric
panel heaters cost a fortune to run and that radiators are somehow
good. So this is just a way of trying to trick them.

The general level of understanding of anything like this is pretty
low. Ever tried to convince a convert to oil-filled radiators that
they cost exactly the same to run as an electric convector heater?


Oil stores more heat than water. The oil filled rads could be heated via
off peak and stay hotter for longer - so it went.

Many new houses have rads off an electric thermal store/heat bank. This
again, relies on storage after heating on cheaper overnight energy. In
reality, unless the store of water is massive, only the rads getting hot
when the heat is initially dumped on morning switch on, is cheaper, than
running through the day. However in flats with high insulation, and
excellent CH controls that is probably all you need most of the time - a
thermal store heat bank in the airing cupboard. TRVs and a Smart pump
greatly benefits the system.

On Jan 18, 7:40*am, "tim....." wrote:
I'm seeing quite a few new build properties advertising this type of
heating.

Presumably, there's an electric "boiler" heating a mass of water, which is
then pumped around the house.

ISTM that this is going to be the worst of both worlds.

You get the "expense" of electricity to provide the heat that you are using,
and then the waste of that water getting cold when you turn the system off
during the day. Plus there's a extra cost of installing all the pipework and
maintaining the boiler instead of just plugging a wall heater into the
electric system.

Does anyone have any experience of this.

Does it work well as an idea or is it a dunce?

We're talking very modern, presumably well insulated, small (1 bed)
properties here, so the additional cost of running it isn't going to be
huge. *OTOH it isn't going to be hard to heat such a property with a couple
of 30 quid panel heaters, so the installation cost is going to be much
larger.

Finally, if it was installed "underfloor" I might understand it, but it's
not, it's standard wall radiators

TIA

tim

'Electric Furnaces': Not uncommon now, here in eastern Canadian
province.

Especially where people have converted their oil fired hot water
radiation systems to electricity (which is now a cheaper fuel). There
are no cheap or late night rates here. The only gas available is truck
delivered propane which is very uneconomic.

Typically for converting older installations the furnace and oil tank
are removed (thus getting rid of the pollution hazard) and the chimney
is either blocked off or removed.

Following some spectacular, very expensive and extensive oil spills
(in one case the tank/piping had been leaking for over four years!)
the annual cost of insurance against the possible pollution hazard of
oil leaks and spills has also risen sharply. In one instance a
complete new building extension basement plus main storey, was
constructed in the hole that had to be excavated to remove a long term
oil leakage. Following an also expensive court case! This all a few
miles from here. And if oil spillage occurs where wells and septic
tanks are used the results can be disastrous. If oil tank installed in
house basement, not uncommon 'in town' (presumably where people were a
little more house-proud about not having external tanks in view) no
one wants several hundred gallons of fuel oil in their basement!

Oil fired hot air furnaces can also be converted to electricity in a
similar manner.

Know of only one 'new' (well it was actually a complete house rebuild/
refurnish from bungalow with a basement apartment/flat to three
stories six bedrooms and 3.5 baths etc. It also completely upgraded
all insulation etc. in the now much larger home) where the heating
system now comprises mainly in-floor piping that is fed from a double
'electric furnace'. IIRC there are four or five zones in the house,
with controls and two circulating pumps, one for each 'furnace'.

This in floor heating system IMO seems to have some disadvantages. It
is very slow and the piping being installed below the floors in most
areas except the basement where baseboard radiators were retained may
be causing the wooden flooring to 'gap'.

Generally people report that the above forms of conversion to electric
heating are more economical than oil. And have much lower maintenance
costs, no tank, furnace inspections or chimney cleaning. Domestic
electricity cost here, which is a little above the Canadian average,
is about ten cents (Canadian) per kilowatt hour/unit.

Personally speaking our individual in each room electric baseboard
heating with individual room thermostats has worked well. It allows
unused rooms to be turned down or off. And individual rooms to be
turned 'up' if say someone is ill. Maintenance has been almost nil;
only replacements have been two thermostats and one circuit breaker at
a cost of less than $100 during the last 38 years. None of the approx.
12 baseboard heaters ranging from 500 watts (bathroom) to 3000 watts
(large room) have failed. Originally for safety with small children we
chose baseboard heaters that had small slots, barely capable of poking
in anything thicker than a pencil.

Last night I manually turned down the living room and kitchen on the
way to bed. This morning I turned them up again. However many people
install 'Programmable thermostats', these cost around $25 to $35
Canadian each and can quickly replace existing typical wall mounted
'230 volt line voltage' thermostats. The minimum wattage that
programmables will work with is usually 500 watts. Their maximum
capacity at around 17 - 18 amps seems to be around 4000 watts.

There's nothing magic about electricity, or how it is turned into
heat. Each kilowatt provides around 3400 BTUs of heat. It does seem
cleaner and simpler easy to work with and modify and much less of a
pollution hazard. And since almost all electricity here is hydro
generated a suitable choice.

Have to agree about the sad state of understanding of basic 'Physics'.
people will tell you something like metal IS COLDER than say wood.
It isn't! Just that it consucts heat away from your hand more quickly,
if you touch it. Geez why do yout hink people wear gloves! Have fun.
Today it's minus 10 Celsius, not very cold by Canadian standards!

terry wrote:

Especially where people have converted their oil fired hot water
radiation systems to electricity (which is now a cheaper fuel).

Unfortunately, here in the UK electricity is rule-of-thumb three times
the price of gas for the same power. I agree it's easier to work with,
which is why it still gets used in small flats and so on, but it's not
really feasible price-wise for a larger home.

Pete

Pete Verdon d wrote:

Unfortunately, here in the UK electricity is rule-of-thumb three times
the price of gas for the same power.



Perhaps the price relationship will change over time.

To some extent, we are still living in an era of relatively cheap gas.
As the current Russia/Ukraine spat has shown, that era is rapidly coming
to an end.

Cheap gas meant that many gas-fired power stations were built. As gas
becomes more expensive, and new nuclear stations come on stream, the
relationship between gas and electricity prices will change.

Our current heavy reliance on gas-fired central heating will also
change, possibly with a wider mix of energy sources coming into use.

Are not heat pumps (electrically driven) already an attractive option?

Bruce wrote:
Pete Verdon d wrote:

Unfortunately, here in the UK electricity is rule-of-thumb three times
the price of gas for the same power.

Perhaps the price relationship will change over time.

Possibly. My understanding is that lots of electric heating was put in
decades ago on the assumption that cheap nuclear electricity would make
them worthwhile. Unfortunately that never happened.

Cheap gas meant that many gas-fired power stations were built. As gas
becomes more expensive, and new nuclear stations come on stream, the
relationship between gas and electricity prices will change.

Well, if it does, I guess I can install one of Terry's "electric
furnaces" to heat my existing wet system. I'm going with an electric
bathroom floor already for simplicity, so one step is done. :-)

Are not heat pumps (electrically driven) already an attractive option?

If they are, it's because they need less power for a given heat output
(moving the heat rather than generating it) rather than because the
power is cheaper.

Pete

Pete Verdon d wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Pete Verdon d wrote:

Unfortunately, here in the UK electricity is rule-of-thumb three times
the price of gas for the same power.

Perhaps the price relationship will change over time.

Possibly. My understanding is that lots of electric heating was put in
decades ago on the assumption that cheap nuclear electricity would make
them worthwhile. Unfortunately that never happened.


Nuclear will only ever be cheap in comparison to wind power (which makes
anything else look cheap) and the future price of Russian gas.


Cheap gas meant that many gas-fired power stations were built. As gas
becomes more expensive, and new nuclear stations come on stream, the
relationship between gas and electricity prices will change.

Well, if it does, I guess I can install one of Terry's "electric
furnaces" to heat my existing wet system. I'm going with an electric
bathroom floor already for simplicity, so one step is done. :-)


Interesting.


Are not heat pumps (electrically driven) already an attractive option?

If they are, it's because they need less power for a given heat output
(moving the heat rather than generating it) rather than because the
power is cheaper.


Of course. But the result is still cheap(er) heat.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:11:18 +0000 someone who may be Bruce
wrote this:-

Cheap gas meant that many gas-fired power stations were built. As gas
becomes more expensive, and new nuclear stations come on stream,

Both will increase the price of electricity. Nuclear was always
expensive, but that was hidden from the public until exposed to the
light of day on privatisation.

Despite various bungs from Mr Brown to organisations like the one
his brother works for nuclear will remain an expensive way of
producing electricity.

It is also a slow way of doing so. The Finnish plant is now going to
be completed three years late, it was originally supposed to have
been built in four years, now it is supposed to be seven.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/14/areva-nuclear-finland-olkiluoto
outlines the current row and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/05/nuclear-energy-rising-cost
has some background.






--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:

Both will increase the price of electricity. Nuclear was always
expensive, but that was hidden from the public until exposed to the
light of day on privatisation.

yawn

France.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"Martin Pentreath" wrote in message
...

I've thought the same as you. I guess it's a marketing ploy for people
who don't really understand heating. People have an idea that electric
panel heaters cost a fortune to run and that radiators are somehow
good. So this is just a way of trying to trick them.

The general level of understanding of anything like this is pretty
low. Ever tried to convince a convert to oil-filled radiators that
they cost exactly the same to run as an electric convector heater?


Oil stores more heat than water. The oil filled rads could be heated via
off peak and stay hotter for longer - so it went.

I suppose you might be able to come up with a weird definition of 'storing
more heat', but in strictly physical terms, that statement is umm
misleading.

Water releases 4200 Joules when a kilogram cools by 1 degree, whereas oil
releases less than half of that (~1700 Joules). The lower heat capacity of
oil is one reason why the oil radiator heats quicker than a water filled
one. Of course, having less thermal mass, they aren't so good at retaining
heat once they are switched off.

The only way that you could reasonably argue that oil 'stores more heat'
would be to use oil heated to 100C, but it would be a bit risky as a means
of room heating.

OG wrote:

Oil stores more heat than water. The oil filled rads could be heated via
off peak and stay hotter for longer - so it went.

I suppose you might be able to come up with a weird definition of 'storing
more heat', but in strictly physical terms, that statement is umm
misleading.

I think "********" would be more accurate than "misleading". Mind you it
was posted by Drivel so "********" is a given.

(Steve Firth) wrote:

David Hansen wrote:

Both will increase the price of electricity. Nuclear was always
expensive, but that was hidden from the public until exposed to the
light of day on privatisation.

yawn

France.


French nuclear electricity only appears cheap per kWh because the French
government paid for all the design, development and construction costs.
The apparent cost of a unit of electricity therefore only reflects
operating costs.

The decommissioning costs will also be picked up by the French
government.

A further subsidy came in the form of generous bribes to local
authorities in the areas where nuclear stations were built, and the
offer of free domestic electricity to anyone living within a certain
distance of a nuclear plant.

This meant that local opposition was minimal, but the cost to the French
taxpayers has been colossal. At one time, Électricité de France was the
most indebted company in the world, and the French taxpayers are having
to pay it all back.

Perhaps something similar will happen in Britain. :-)

On Jan 18, 3:47*pm, Bruce wrote:
(Steve Firth) wrote:
David Hansen wrote:

Both will increase the price of electricity. Nuclear was always
expensive, but that was hidden from the public until exposed to the
light of day on privatisation.

yawn

France.

French nuclear electricity only appears cheap per kWh because the French
government paid for all the design, development and construction costs.
The apparent cost of a unit of electricity therefore only reflects
operating costs.

The decommissioning costs will also be picked up by the French
government. *

A further subsidy came in the form of generous bribes to local
authorities in the areas where nuclear stations were built, and the
offer of free domestic electricity to anyone living within a certain
distance of a nuclear plant. *

This meant that local opposition was minimal, but the cost to the French
taxpayers has been colossal. *At one time, Électricité de France was the
most indebted company in the world, and the French taxpayers are having
to pay it all back.

Perhaps something similar will happen in Britain. *:-)

Great info and discussion re nuclear and gas. Nuclear which also, in
Canada, appears to have not been economic or that reliable.

The info regarding 'electric furnaces' in this part of Canada (where
piped in gas is not available) Gas (gasoline) here = petrol btw! Was
in reply to the original posting about whether it was wasteful to have
a body of hot water heated, by any means, sitting there all day until
one returns home in the evening from work. Hence the observation about
hot water radiation being 'slow'.

And it was all for information and comment.

That in my mind raises a question about the thermal mass of a house
structure?
On might think that a typical brick house with the proper thermal
breaks between the outer and inner walls and properly insulated and
vapour barriered should have greater heat storage than our
comparatively light-weight 'stick built) ones. But I suspect that such
a house as the one we lived in Liverpool UK, in the late 1940s and 50s
and still standing AFIK, could not be insulated effectively? It was
gas only when we lived there by the way. That house was then probably
at least 60 years old?

This 38 year old (all electric, although we have added a wood stove
etc in basement) house has 2 by 4, insulated wood frame walls. If
built today it would have six inch walls and be better insulated.
Following recent snow piled some of it up around the approx six inches
of concrete basement that is above ground level to reduce wind induced
heat loss. The almost completely in-ground basement is uninsulated but
this morning (with minus 11 degrees C, outside) was at +9 C (50 F).

Energy costs have risen rapidly during the last 25 years and various
'energy conservation' incentives are being touted by our federal and
provincial governments.

As usual with anything designed by a bureaucracy it will have snags.
One time taking advantage of such a scheme (adding loose fill attic
insulation) later found I had to pay income tax on the subsidy having
already remitted the incentive cheque to insulation installer company.
Costing it out found that I could have done the same work, buying the
material and doing the work myself without any 'incentive', at a lower
overall cost!

So am a little cynical and must check; the 'guvmint' seeing very
little interest or 'take-up' has reportedly changed the incentive
plan. If so and worthwhile, glad we waited!

So what about thermal mass of the house structure?

Oh btw heat pumps. Local discussion seems to show. There is a cost to
installing heat pumps systems. The idea that the extra capital costs
is worthwhile in energy savings does not yet seem to be well accepted!
I guess one can buy a lot of heat against the annualized cost of the
plus $10,000 extra cost? Maintenance of refrigerant pumps and valves
and controls is also needed!.

Air heat pumps seem to have problems pulling enough heat at anything
below about minus 10 C. So auxiliary electric heaters cut in. That
reduces the overall efficiency/savings. The weather today for example.

When working within a certain range of air temperatures the heat pump
efficiency ratio is said to be anywhere from a 2:1 to a 4:1 energy
saving?

Better than air are said to be ground systems where pipes are buried
or ducted through the ground from which heat is pumped into the house.
Water systems require quite a large body of water or a large ground
water well.

Basically they are all like big refrigerators with the advantage, not
much needed in these parts, that some can be reversed to provide
summer cooling/air conditioning.

"terry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 18, 3:47 pm, Bruce wrote:
(Steve Firth) wrote:
David Hansen wrote:

Both will increase the price of electricity. Nuclear was always
expensive, but that was hidden from the public until exposed to the
light of day on privatisation.

yawn

France.

French nuclear electricity only appears cheap per kWh because the French
government paid for all the design, development and construction costs.
The apparent cost of a unit of electricity therefore only reflects
operating costs.

The decommissioning costs will also be picked up by the French
government.

A further subsidy came in the form of generous bribes to local
authorities in the areas where nuclear stations were built, and the
offer of free domestic electricity to anyone living within a certain
distance of a nuclear plant.

This meant that local opposition was minimal, but the cost to the French
taxpayers has been colossal. At one time, Électricité de France was the
most indebted company in the world, and the French taxpayers are having
to pay it all back.

Perhaps something similar will happen in Britain. :-)

Great info and discussion re nuclear and gas. Nuclear which also, in
Canada, appears to have not been economic or that reliable.

The info regarding 'electric furnaces' in this part of Canada (where
piped in gas is not available) Gas (gasoline) here = petrol btw! Was
in reply to the original posting about whether it was wasteful to have
a body of hot water heated, by any means, sitting there all day until
one returns home in the evening from work. Hence the observation about
hot water radiation being 'slow'.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't need a body of hot water if using a gas heated system

You can supply enough energy to heat the water virtually instaneously as it
passes through the system, you can't do that with electric (not without a
three-phase system), so you need the stored water

tim

tim..... wrote:
I'm seeing quite a few new build properties advertising this type of
heating.

Presumably, there's an electric "boiler" heating a mass of water, which is
then pumped around the house.

ISTM that this is going to be the worst of both worlds.

You get the "expense" of electricity to provide the heat that you are using,
and then the waste of that water getting cold when you turn the system off
during the day. Plus there's a extra cost of installing all the pipework and
maintaining the boiler instead of just plugging a wall heater into the
electric system.

Does anyone have any experience of this.

Does it work well as an idea or is it a dunce?


Well if we get another world consumer boom and oil goes to $150 a barrel
again, then nuclear electricity is cheaper..

And if its a heat pump, its cost competitive right now...with any other
fuel.

Bruce wrote:
Pete Verdon d wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Pete Verdon d wrote:
Unfortunately, here in the UK electricity is rule-of-thumb three times
the price of gas for the same power.
Perhaps the price relationship will change over time.
Possibly. My understanding is that lots of electric heating was put in
decades ago on the assumption that cheap nuclear electricity would make
them worthwhile. Unfortunately that never happened.


Nuclear will only ever be cheap in comparison to wind power (which makes
anything else look cheap) and the future price of Russian gas.


Current generated price of *modern* nuclear is around 2p/unit if you run
the stations to the limit. In fact, with interest rates zero, its even
less..most of the cost is the capital cost of building..




Are not heat pumps (electrically driven) already an attractive option?
If they are, it's because they need less power for a given heat output
(moving the heat rather than generating it) rather than because the
power is cheaper.


Of course. But the result is still cheap(er) heat.


Yup. About 4:1 step up IF you design the house for warm rather than hot
water heating.

Which makes them cheaper than gas at 1/3rd the price as it were.

Also, for heated watts out, even on carbon fuel power stations, the
station has to be running at 25% efficiency to be worse on Co2 than the
oil or gas boiler.


If I was redoing the house from scratch I would 100% use a heat pump.
Just an immersion extra to take the hot water up to 65C or so.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
OG wrote:

Oil stores more heat than water. The oil filled rads could be heated
via
off peak and stay hotter for longer - so it went.

I suppose you might be able to come up with a weird definition of
'storing
more heat', but in strictly physical terms, that statement is umm
misleading.

I think "********" would be more accurate than "misleading". Mind you it
was posted by Drivel so "********" is a given.

This weido should be tagged.

Bruce wrote:

(Steve Firth) wrote:
[snip]

French nuclear electricity only appears cheap per kWh because the French
government paid for all the design, development and construction costs.
The apparent cost of a unit of electricity therefore only reflects
operating costs.

Ah yes, the classic of the anti-nuclear lobby "lets make up some costs".

The decommissioning costs will also be picked up by the French
government.

As are the decommissioning costs of coal. And if you think that
decommissioning a coal-fired station is zero-cost, zero-hazard then you
need to think again.


A further subsidy came in the form of generous bribes to local
authorities in the areas where nuclear stations were built, and the
offer of free domestic electricity to anyone living within a certain
distance of a nuclear plant.

This meant that local opposition was minimal, but the cost to the French
taxpayers has been colossal. At one time, Électricité de France was the
most indebted company in the world, and the French taxpayers are having
to pay it all back.

Perhaps something similar will happen in Britain. :-)

And perhaps the government will simply take an objective look at costs.

Currently nuclear is competetive with coal, including decommissioning
costs. From 2030 nuclear will be cheaper because the EU plans to impose
a EUR 30 per tonne tax on carbon emissions from generating plant.

David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:11:18 +0000 someone who may be Bruce
wrote this:-

Cheap gas meant that many gas-fired power stations were built. As gas
becomes more expensive, and new nuclear stations come on stream,

Both will increase the price of electricity. Nuclear was always
expensive, but that was hidden from the public until exposed to the
light of day on privatisation.


Was, Because it was never designed to produce power, only weapons grade
plutonium, and decomissioning wasn't thought to be an issue.

Modern sets are way cheaper.

Despite various bungs from Mr Brown to organisations like the one
his brother works for nuclear will remain an expensive way of
producing electricity.


Total bull**** as usual.

It costs less than windpower,. About £1000-£2000 per Kwh capital costs

And thats 24x7 90% plus uptime over a 40 year plus life span. With
almost zero fuel costs.

I'll do the maths for you, as I know you cant do it yourself.

Ignoring cost of capital (interest), thats a break even price of 0.63p
per unit. Uranium fuel adds about another 0.1p to that. So less than
0.75p a unit.

What kills you is interest on the capital..e.g. at 5% thats 1.14p per
unit more..taking you to around 3p a unit.


It is also a slow way of doing so. The Finnish plant is now going to
be completed three years late, it was originally supposed to have
been built in four years, now it is supposed to be seven.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/14/areva-nuclear-finland-olkiluoto
outlines the current row and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/05/nuclear-energy-rising-cost
has some background.



Usual bollox from dynamo dave.

Bruce wrote:
(Steve Firth) wrote:

David Hansen wrote:

Both will increase the price of electricity. Nuclear was always
expensive, but that was hidden from the public until exposed to the
light of day on privatisation.
yawn

France.


French nuclear electricity only appears cheap per kWh because the French
government paid for all the design, development and construction costs.
The apparent cost of a unit of electricity therefore only reflects
operating costs.

The decommissioning costs will also be picked up by the French
government.

A further subsidy came in the form of generous bribes to local
authorities in the areas where nuclear stations were built, and the
offer of free domestic electricity to anyone living within a certain
distance of a nuclear plant.

This meant that local opposition was minimal, but the cost to the French
taxpayers has been colossal. At one time, Électricité de France was the
most indebted company in the world, and the French taxpayers are having
to pay it all back.

Perhaps something similar will happen in Britain. :-)

No, EDF is buying BGY, and will be running our stations and building
more shortly.

All the R&D is largely done,and there are 4-5 well proven safe reliable
and decomssionable designs in the world.

terry wrote:
On Jan 18, 3:47 pm, Bruce wrote:
(Steve Firth) wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
Both will increase the price of electricity. Nuclear was always
expensive, but that was hidden from the public until exposed to the
light of day on privatisation.
yawn
France.
French nuclear electricity only appears cheap per kWh because the French
government paid for all the design, development and construction costs.
The apparent cost of a unit of electricity therefore only reflects
operating costs.

The decommissioning costs will also be picked up by the French
government.

A further subsidy came in the form of generous bribes to local
authorities in the areas where nuclear stations were built, and the
offer of free domestic electricity to anyone living within a certain
distance of a nuclear plant.

This meant that local opposition was minimal, but the cost to the French
taxpayers has been colossal. At one time, Électricité de France was the
most indebted company in the world, and the French taxpayers are having
to pay it all back.

Perhaps something similar will happen in Britain. :-)

Great info and discussion re nuclear and gas. Nuclear which also, in
Canada, appears to have not been economic or that reliable.

Quite the reverse. The CANDU reactors have the best uptime of any in the
world to date.And some of the lowest costs.



Oh btw heat pumps. Local discussion seems to show. There is a cost to
installing heat pumps systems. The idea that the extra capital costs
is worthwhile in energy savings does not yet seem to be well accepted!
I guess one can buy a lot of heat against the annualized cost of the
plus $10,000 extra cost? Maintenance of refrigerant pumps and valves
and controls is also needed!.


depends n the oil/gas price.

Air heat pumps seem to have problems pulling enough heat at anything
below about minus 10 C. So auxiliary electric heaters cut in. That
reduces the overall efficiency/savings. The weather today for example.


You have to go deeper for the coils. below the frozen topsoil.

When working within a certain range of air temperatures the heat pump
efficiency ratio is said to be anywhere from a 2:1 to a 4:1 energy
saving?

4:1 is typical.. thats for about 40C output temps. As you pump higher,
the efficiency goes down.

Better than air are said to be ground systems where pipes are buried
or ducted through the ground from which heat is pumped into the house.
Water systems require quite a large body of water or a large ground
water well.


yes. Air is crap when sub-zero.

Unless you are in permafrost, a few hundred meters a meter or so down
will get you all the stored summer heat back in winter.

You can use water, but its a slightly different situation I didn't
explore myself.


Basically they are all like big refrigerators with the advantage, not
much needed in these parts, that some can be reversed to provide
summer cooling/air conditioning.


Not easily. Ice cold underfloor will just result in pools of water!

You need a warm air/cold air system plus dehumidifier when working
backwards. Gets complex and expensive.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Oil stores more heat than water. The oil filled rads could be heated via

How exactly? Water has a high SHC, considerably higher than most liquids and
solids. If these radiators were filled with Ammonia, Helium or Hydrogen then
this would be true

I'd guess that the reason for filling them with oil, rather than water, has
more to do with keeping the weight of a portable heating device down than
anything else.

off peak and stay hotter for longer - so it went.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Pete Verdon d wrote:

Unfortunately, here in the UK electricity is rule-of-thumb three times
the price of gas for the same power.

Perhaps the price relationship will change over time.

To some extent, we are still living in an era of relatively cheap gas.
As the current Russia/Ukraine spat has shown, that era is rapidly coming
to an end.

Cheap gas meant that many gas-fired power stations were built.

Political spite by Thatcher hating miners, eliminated the British coal
industry. Middle Eastern oil was buttons to buy and the North Sea was full
of cheap gas. Mrs Thatcher was told to reserve the gas for primarily
domestic use and not use it to generate electricity - use the masses of coal
we have under the country to generate electricity.

She never. We are now are semi-dependent on Russian gas as we used a masses
of our own reserves needlessly. Russia refused to supply gas to the Ukraine
a few years ago, so alarm bells rang. We need stable fuel supplies. We
get oil and gas from the politically unstable Middle East and Russia - which
is a political concern.

Thatcher squandered the greatest legacy this country had ever had.

Are not heat pumps (electrically driven) already an attractive option?

Only if running low temperature UFH. Capital cost of heat pump and UFH is
prohibitive. Ground source only makes it compatible with gas.

Mark Evans wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Oil stores more heat than water. The oil filled rads could be heated via

How exactly? Water has a high SHC, considerably higher than most liquids and
solids. If these radiators were filled with Ammonia, Helium or Hydrogen then
this would be true

I'd guess that the reason for filling them with oil, rather than water, has
more to do with keeping the weight of a portable heating device down than
anything else.


Could it also be a means of avoiding internal corrosion?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bruce wrote:
Pete Verdon d wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Pete Verdon d wrote:
Unfortunately, here in the UK electricity is rule-of-thumb three times
the price of gas for the same power.
Perhaps the price relationship will change over time.
Possibly. My understanding is that lots of electric heating was put in
decades ago on the assumption that cheap nuclear electricity would make
them worthwhile. Unfortunately that never happened.


Nuclear will only ever be cheap in comparison to wind power (which makes
anything else look cheap) and the future price of Russian gas.


Current generated price of *modern* nuclear is around 2p/unit if you run
the stations to the limit. In fact, with interest rates zero, its even
less..most of the cost is the capital cost of building.


That's the sort of nonsense that was talked about nuclear power in the
1960s - and comprehensively disproved since.

If you really believe that nuclear electricity can be generated for 2p
per unit including the construction cost (I will even allow you to
ignore the much higher decommissioning cost) there will be a job for you
at the very top of any of the companies that want to build nuclear power
stations in Britain. You will be able to name your salary in terms of
how many millions of pounds a year you would like to be paid.

Why? Because you are the only man on the planet who knows how nuclear
electricity can possibly cost so little. Everyone else, including the
directors of all those companies, knows that nuclear is extremely
expensive and can only operate with a very heavy government subsidy, as
in France and elsewhere.

You do talk such nonsense. It appears to come naturally.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
OG wrote:

Oil stores more heat than water. The oil filled rads could be heated
via
off peak and stay hotter for longer - so it went.

I suppose you might be able to come up with a weird definition of
'storing
more heat', but in strictly physical terms, that statement is umm
misleading.

I think "********" would be more accurate than "misleading". Mind you it
was posted by Drivel so "********" is a given.

This weido should be tagged.

TBH it was a stupid thing for you to have said

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
OG wrote:

Oil stores more heat than water. The oil filled rads could be heated
via
off peak and stay hotter for longer - so it went.

I suppose you might be able to come up with a weird definition of
'storing
more heat', but in strictly physical terms, that statement is umm
misleading.

I think "********" would be more accurate than "misleading". Mind you it
was posted by Drivel so "********" is a given.

This weido should be tagged.

TBH it was a stupid thing for you to have said

He should be.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
We are now are semi-dependent on Russian gas

About 5% comes from Russia.

--
*Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

We are now are semi-dependent on Russian gas

About

Please eff off as you are an idiotic plantpot.

Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bruce wrote:
Pete Verdon d wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Pete Verdon d wrote:
Unfortunately, here in the UK electricity is rule-of-thumb three times
the price of gas for the same power.
Perhaps the price relationship will change over time.
Possibly. My understanding is that lots of electric heating was put in
decades ago on the assumption that cheap nuclear electricity would make
them worthwhile. Unfortunately that never happened.

Nuclear will only ever be cheap in comparison to wind power (which makes
anything else look cheap) and the future price of Russian gas.

Current generated price of *modern* nuclear is around 2p/unit if you run
the stations to the limit. In fact, with interest rates zero, its even
less..most of the cost is the capital cost of building.


That's the sort of nonsense that was talked about nuclear power in the
1960s - and comprehensively disproved since.

If you really believe that nuclear electricity can be generated for 2p
per unit including the construction cost (I will even allow you to
ignore the much higher decommissioning cost) there will be a job for you
at the very top of any of the companies that want to build nuclear power
stations in Britain. You will be able to name your salary in terms of
how many millions of pounds a year you would like to be paid.


http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Decomissioning of a MODERN plant is about 5-15% of construction costs.



Why? Because you are the only man on the planet who knows how nuclear
electricity can possibly cost so little. Everyone else, including the
directors of all those companies, knows that nuclear is extremely
expensive and can only operate with a very heavy government subsidy, as
in France and elsewhere.


Not at all. Everyone knows how cheap it really is. They also know that a
campaign was launched against it by people with extreme vested interests.

Originally of course, because it was being used to drive atomic weapons
there was an intense interest in slagging it off by certain cold war
opponents.

That is why anti-nuclear is very largely associated with the Left, and
its often why nuclear is NOT cost effective, because the political
restrictions imposed on it and the intense antipathy generated by it
costs a lot to fight.


You do talk such nonsense. It appears to come naturally.

You don't research the facts.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You don't research the facts.


You take blatant propaganda at face value.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Originally of course, because it was being used to drive atomic weapons
there was an intense interest in slagging it off by certain cold war
opponents.

That is why anti-nuclear is very largely associated with the Left, and its
often why nuclear is NOT cost effective, because the political
restrictions imposed on it and the intense antipathy generated by it
costs a lot to fight.

Nuclear is a by-product of A bombs. It is used a front for A bomb research.
Many undersea containers dumped decades ago, are starting to leak. Now the
oceans and food supply chain is affected. They are a waste of time and not
needed. 20% of the Irish Sea can be tidal lagoons that will supply all the
UKs energy needs, even vehicles (electric).

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Despite various bungs from Mr Brown to organisations like the one
his brother works for nuclear will remain an expensive way of
producing electricity.


Total bull**** as usual.

It costs less than windpower,. About £1000-£2000 per Kwh capital costs

And thats 24x7 90% plus uptime over a 40 year plus life span. With
almost zero fuel costs.

Do we own the supplies of this fuel?

--
*Where there's a will, I want to be in it.

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

Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You don't research the facts.


You take blatant propaganda at face value.

Er, no, you do.

The actual facts on CANDU reactors around the world are fairly easy to
come by.

Right now with materials and credit at a very low cost, is the ideal
time to build.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Despite various bungs from Mr Brown to organisations like the one
his brother works for nuclear will remain an expensive way of
producing electricity.


Total bull**** as usual.

It costs less than windpower,. About £1000-£2000 per Kwh capital costs

And thats 24x7 90% plus uptime over a 40 year plus life span. With
almost zero fuel costs.

Do we own the supplies of this fuel?

No, but the chief suppliers are anglophile..australia, canada, ok the
african places are a bit dodgier..

And at 50 tons a year per power station, of VERY heavy material its not
hard to stockpile enough for a few decades. In fairly small spaces.
Obviously not refined and packed like a sardine can :-)


A lot easier than coal, oil or gas.

Which are the only other alternatives.

Nuclear may be cheap if you work out the costs of
buying the stuff and building the power stations
and selling it for 50 years then going bankrupt
and leaving the thousands of years of waste
and cancerous leaks clearups to future generations.

It's a large scale version of bunging someone a tenner
to take your asbestos away on a flatbed
knowing they'll chuck it over a hedge
and leave it for a grown up to tidy up...

[g]

"george (dicegeorge)" wrote in message
...
Nuclear may be cheap if you work out the costs of
buying the stuff and building the power stations
and selling it for 50 years then going bankrupt
and leaving the thousands of years of waste
and cancerous leaks clearups to future generations.

It's a large scale version of bunging someone a tenner
to take your asbestos away on a flatbed
knowing they'll chuck it over a hedge
and leave it for a grown up to tidy up...

Nuclear waste can be stored down disused mines after re-processing.
Concrete the stuff in, in the end of the seams. A large mine will store the
countries wastes for hundreds of years to come and no contamination of
oceans, etc. When the seams are full, fill in the shafts.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:58:45 +0000, Bruce wrote:

Mark Evans wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Oil stores more heat than water. The oil filled rads could be heated
via

How exactly? Water has a high SHC, considerably higher than most liquids
and solids. If these radiators were filled with Ammonia, Helium or
Hydrogen then this would be true

I'd guess that the reason for filling them with oil, rather than water,
has more to do with keeping the weight of a portable heating device down
than anything else.


Could it also be a means of avoiding internal corrosion?

And avoiding pressure build up or more likely kettling noises caused by
localized boiling.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html