Jules Richardson wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:36:11 -0700, wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSHP.

The initial costs are considerable though

Where are the costs, though? The way I understand it, it's mostly in the
labour involved in installing the ground loops - which, given the nature
of this group, *could* be handled by the home owner.


thats nothing you can do yourself in a couole of days with a mini digger.
Problems I have he

1) Knowledge Commercial installers seem to have the market pretty well
sewn up, and there's comparatively little design knowledge in the public
domain,


I di a load of reserach.

teh main costs were not in the ground loop - I coudld easily do that
myself, and the people I spoke to were almost relieved that I would,
but in te heat pump units themselves - at leats 5-6k, and probably more,
and in the electricity supply - they really need a massive amount of
startup power even on soft start units. In fact the guyt never did get
back to me to explain why a 15Kw unit at an alleged 4:1 step up of input
power to heat out, needed a 25Kw supply..

Finallyy, there is a hiddne cost that basically made the project
unviable in my case. Although my ground floor is largely UFH and highly
suitable, the hot water and upstairs circuits are radiators and a sealed
tank, neither of which, or the ancillary pipework were sized for 'lots
of warm' rather than ;'a little hot' water. Esssentially I would have
had to rip out and replace the mains pressure tank, all the upstairs
heating circuits and double up on the radiators and towel rails.


2) My 'leccy company gives a huge discount for having a GSHP, but only if
it's a commercial system fitted by 'professional' installers,


therss always a catch.

3) I can get tax breaks for a GSHP, but hit the same problem as in 2
above.

I have always found that any government grant costs precisely as much to
achieve as it pays back, within 10%, every time I have investigated one.

I regard them as mere spin.



as time goes on that'll hopefully change - design books will appear,
parts will be available off the shelf etc.


Parts are available, BUT the real problem is that its a totally green
field install. Almost nothing you have in place will be suitable.


Retrofitting is not really an option. Its rip out, redesign and replace
just about all the pipework and heating system.

Also note that if your ground goes below -5 at deep levels, it may not
work at all.




cheers

Jules

"Bruce" wrote in message
...


"Peak uranium" is not far behind "peak oil", which is going to happen
within the next decade. The rush to nuclear power, the result of a
desire to lower CO2 emissions, will bring peak uranium ever closer.
Uranium prices will rocket and finding secure supplies will become
ever more difficult.

British reactors are burning plutonium oxide ATM, there is enough here to
keep us going for many decades, unless someone starts a war and we waste it
on bombs.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:27:42 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

MM wrote:

Of course, the price of oil has since increased (latest price I have 42.27
pence per litre 16/Mar/2010), whereas the electricity went down last year
from 12.74 to 11.51 pence a unit.

1 litre of 28 sec. Kerosene = 10 kWH = 43p
10 kWH electricity = 115p

That's an impressive saving you're making there, bub, paying about three
times more to heat your home using electricity than the cost of using CH
oil.

But with oil I would be heating parts of my home that I don't reach!
Therefore you are not comparing like with like. With CH you cannot
'dose' the heat like you can with a fan heater, whose heat is
instantaneous (no pipes to heat up, etc). With CH you don't feel any
benefit for at least 20 minutes, whereas with the fan heater you feel
the benefit within about 10 seconds. Meanwhile I would be paying for
the oil needed for those 20 minutes during which no benefit is
perceived.

The way that you are making savings is to heat less of your home.

Exactly! You finally understood.

You
could reduce your bills further by turning off all the CH rads in the
rooms you don't use and by restricting your CH to the same times that
you use your electric heater.

Oh, what a brilliant suggestion. So here I am in my workroom and it's
cold, so I run down to the annexe to switch the CH on for 30 minutes,
remembering to switch it off in good time so as not to build up too
much residual heat that I have to open a window. Then I run back
upstairs again and carry on working. Repeat as necessary.

Alternatively, I reach under my desk to the fan heater and press the
switch...

MM

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:48:15 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:27:42 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Of course, the price of oil has since increased (latest price I
have
42.27 pence per litre 16/Mar/2010), whereas the electricity went
down
last year from 12.74 to 11.51 pence a unit.

1 litre of 28 sec. Kerosene = 10 kWH = 43p
10 kWH electricity = 115p

That's an impressive saving you're making there, bub, paying about three
times more to heat your home using electricity than the cost of using CH
oil.

But the he isn't heating the whole house. If you don't heat it you
don't spend any money on fuel for space heating, which is the biggest
consumer of energy.

I'd also say that the OP ought to shop around for his electricity 11
to 12p/unit is expensive, I'm paying 9.03p/unit.

What would you be paying to the same supplier if you were in Spalding,
though? Southern Electric has many different rates, depending on where
one lives.

MM

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:06:40 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Fredxx wrote:

Perhaps we should invest in more zoning valves.

If it didn't mean ripping half the plumbing apart..

Perhaps there may be market for a retrofit system comprising
wireless programmable roomstats and associated radiator valves
(interchangeable with existing), together with a central unit
triggering the boiler if there is demand anywhere.

Can't see it as a quick payback though.

I think there needs to be a lot more thought put into heating systems
by the manufacturers. For instance, my Drayton timeswitch for my oil
boiler only provides for three on/offs per day, but I reckon you
should be able to program the boiler to come on/go off 20 times a day.

What I do for the hot water, since I don't need the one-hour button's
worth (press the button and the boiler comes on for precisely one
hour), is that I set my kitchen timer and time the boiler* "on" for 20
minutes, which is more than enough hot water for personal needs and
for the washing up, even on the coldest days this winter. In the
summer I get enough hot water from my DIY solar heating matrix. This
summer I intend to experiment also with 30 metres of garden hose,
since the water therein can get very hot on a really sunny day.

* hot water circuit only; the CH circuit I have mainly left off,
except when the outside temperature has been *well* below freezing

MM

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:27:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:36:11 -0700, wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSHP.

The initial costs are considerable though

Where are the costs, though? The way I understand it, it's mostly in
the labour involved in installing the ground loops - which, given the
nature of this group, *could* be handled by the home owner.


thats nothing you can do yourself in a couole of days with a mini
digger.

*exactly*. Frost line's pretty deep around here though, so I'd probably
be looking at putting loops 8' down or so - but it's still just "grunt
work".

Problems I have he

1) Knowledge Commercial installers seem to have the market pretty
well sewn up, and there's comparatively little design knowledge in the
public domain,


I di a load of reserach.

teh main costs were not in the ground loop - I coudld easily do that
myself, and the people I spoke to were almost relieved that I would,
but in te heat pump units themselves - at leats 5-6k, and probably more

Ouch. What's the reasoning for the cost?

I went through this with wood-burning furnaces, which are similarly
expensive - and there's really bugger-all to them. The cost seems to be
just down to "that's what the market will take", rather than something
that reflects construction time and materials costs. Heat exchangers for
GSHPs may or may not be different...

and in the electricity supply - they really need a massive amount of
startup power even on soft start units. In fact the guyt never did get
back to me to explain why a 15Kw unit at an alleged 4:1 step up of input
power to heat out, needed a 25Kw supply.

Extra ouch :-) I'm not sure if our place would take that or not. We've
got about 14Kw of electric heating at the mo, but I don't know how much
spare capacity there is.

2) My 'leccy company gives a huge discount for having a GSHP, but only
if it's a commercial system fitted by 'professional' installers,

therss always a catch.

Yep. No doubt their list of approved installers all charge 30% over the
going rate anyway...

3) I can get tax breaks for a GSHP, but hit the same problem as in 2
above.

I have always found that any government grant costs precisely as much to
achieve as it pays back, within 10%, every time I have investigated one.

Certainly seems the way for 'big stuff'. It's not so bad over here for
things like installing energy-efficient doors and windows; I can do that
myself and just wave a receipt for the materials under their noses and
they seem to be happy.

Retrofitting is not really an option. Its rip out, redesign and replace
just about all the pipework and heating system.

It's not so bad at our place for the ground floor, because the basement
(almost) covers the entire house footprint and isn't finished (yet - it's
on my to-do list for this year), so I can easily get at the underside.
The top floor would be more tricky, though (although to a certain extent
I could rely on heat rising up from the floor below)

Also note that if your ground goes below -5 at deep levels, it may not
work at all.

Yes - I meant to bury a few temperature sensors before winter hit, but
never got the tuits together. The water we get out of the well sits at
around 55F year-round though, which is promising - but the depth of the
frost line over here makes things a bit more challenging.

Using bores rather than trenches for the loops would be better, perhaps -
but there's no way to DIY that, so it's back to enormous costs again...

cheers

Jules

Chris J Dixon
wibbled on Thursday 25 March 2010 13:06

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Fredxx wrote:

Perhaps we should invest in more zoning valves.

If it didn't mean ripping half the plumbing apart..

Perhaps there may be market for a retrofit system comprising
wireless programmable roomstats and associated radiator valves
(interchangeable with existing), together with a central unit
triggering the boiler if there is demand anywhere.

Can't see it as a quick payback though.

Chris


Assuming that's not tongue in cheek, Honeywell do exactly such a system

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:27:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:36:11 -0700, wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSHP.

The initial costs are considerable though
Where are the costs, though? The way I understand it, it's mostly in
the labour involved in installing the ground loops - which, given the
nature of this group, *could* be handled by the home owner.


thats nothing you can do yourself in a couole of days with a mini
digger.

*exactly*. Frost line's pretty deep around here though, so I'd probably
be looking at putting loops 8' down or so - but it's still just "grunt
work".

Problems I have he

1) Knowledge Commercial installers seem to have the market pretty
well sewn up, and there's comparatively little design knowledge in the
public domain,


I di a load of reserach.

teh main costs were not in the ground loop - I coudld easily do that
myself, and the people I spoke to were almost relieved that I would,
but in te heat pump units themselves - at leats 5-6k, and probably more

Ouch. What's the reasoning for the cost?


No idea. Lack of economy of scale I suspect.


I went through this with wood-burning furnaces, which are similarly
expensive - and there's really bugger-all to them. The cost seems to be
just down to "that's what the market will take", rather than something
that reflects construction time and materials costs. Heat exchangers for
GSHPs may or may not be different...


same rules. Not enough of them, no real thought to cost reductuion,
madee by hand somewhere..usually Germany or Sweden..

and in the electricity supply - they really need a massive amount of
startup power even on soft start units. In fact the guyt never did get
back to me to explain why a 15Kw unit at an alleged 4:1 step up of input
power to heat out, needed a 25Kw supply.

Extra ouch :-) I'm not sure if our place would take that or not. We've
got about 14Kw of electric heating at the mo, but I don't know how much
spare capacity there is.


Im fused at 100A, so 25KW is my peak draw.. capability. Realistically
they don't draw that for any time at all. Like fridges most of the time
the compressor aint on.

2) My 'leccy company gives a huge discount for having a GSHP, but only
if it's a commercial system fitted by 'professional' installers,

therss always a catch.

Yep. No doubt their list of approved installers all charge 30% over the
going rate anyway...

3) I can get tax breaks for a GSHP, but hit the same problem as in 2
above.
I have always found that any government grant costs precisely as much to
achieve as it pays back, within 10%, every time I have investigated one.

Certainly seems the way for 'big stuff'. It's not so bad over here for
things like installing energy-efficient doors and windows; I can do that
myself and just wave a receipt for the materials under their noses and
they seem to be happy.

Retrofitting is not really an option. Its rip out, redesign and replace
just about all the pipework and heating system.

It's not so bad at our place for the ground floor, because the basement
(almost) covers the entire house footprint and isn't finished (yet - it's
on my to-do list for this year), so I can easily get at the underside.
The top floor would be more tricky, though (although to a certain extent
I could rely on heat rising up from the floor below)

Also note that if your ground goes below -5 at deep levels, it may not
work at all.

Yes - I meant to bury a few temperature sensors before winter hit, but
never got the tuits together. The water we get out of the well sits at
around 55F year-round though, which is promising - but the depth of the
frost line over here makes things a bit more challenging.


Right. That is encouraging.

The fact that you can pump it in winter at all, means there is stability
till quite near the surface.

In the UK frost doesnt generally reach more than a foot down. And that's
unusual.

1-2meters is the recommended pipe depth. two meters is a bigger than
mini digger, but its still a trivial trench with a decent bucket on a
3-5 ton machine.




Using bores rather than trenches for the loops would be better, perhaps -
but there's no way to DIY that, so it's back to enormous costs again...


No, not if you have the space. soggy ground is best. a meter down in a
peat bog is the sort of thing to aim for, and anyway, you have very hot
summers, so you should be starting from a decent level anyway.



cheers

Jules

John Rumm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
wrote:

Not likely. Electric is 3x 4x as expensive and that gap will not be
closed for the lifetime of any current type of gas/electric system.

And what effect do you think the introduction of Travelling Wave
Reactors (TWRs) will have on the costs of nuclear electricity
generation?

My Nuke (c) Microsoft ;-)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03...nd_terrapower/

Make it more expensive mainly.

Fuel costs are currently so low in a Uranium reactor as to be almost
irrelevant.

Build cots are everythung.

No one has ever built a TWR

True, but it sounds like maintenance and decommissioning costs ought to
be significantly cheaper. Its also a handy use of the DU from existing
reactors.

TWRs can be fuelled on depleted uranium with a single charge
lasting 60-100 years,

THERTEICALLY.

Theoretically a fusion reactor could use distlled seawater and be
even cheaper. Don't see any about though.

TWR sounds a little more doable with the technology we have now thought.


I agree. It's well worth putting a billion into to see what the issues
are. Along with pebble beds, and laser ignited reactors and the like.
Both inerently stable and cant run away..



BUT in the meantime, we have enough expertise to utilise PWRS or
whatever the latest stable technology is.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:40:12 +0000, MM wrote:

I'd also say that the OP ought to shop around for his electricity
11
to 12p/unit is expensive, I'm paying 9.03p/unit.

What would you be paying to the same supplier if you were in Spalding,
though? Southern Electric has many different rates, depending on where
one lives.

This is true and why I said that the OP ought to shop around rather
than go for company X. My 9.03p/unit is Scottish Power, electricity
only, paperless, online, fixed monthly DD, standing charge. Southern
Electric for here best price is 10.09p/unit. Use one of the price
comaprision sites.

Even Equipower is competative with the OP's rate for here at
12.14p/unit remember that with there is no standing charge at all not
even a "hidden" one so thats about £35/year cheaper straight off.

--
Cheers
Dave.

MM, if you can super-insulate the room with spot-electric heating the
payback can be quick.

Even if you already have loft & cavity wall insulation, it can be
worth putting 25-50mm on the inside particularly if the room has 2
outside walls (many "home offices" do re thermal losses). It means
faster warmup such that body heat and a PC is enough to get things
warm.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:29:24 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I tried one of those online calculators and it showed that I couldnt do
much better than 10.snmething p for my actual total usage across any
supplier.

Assuming 5,000kWhr/year a 1p saving on the unit price is £50/year,
2p/unit £100. I consider that to be worthwhile.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:27:42 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

MM wrote:

Of course, the price of oil has since increased (latest price I have
42.27
pence per litre 16/Mar/2010), whereas the electricity went down last
year
from 12.74 to 11.51 pence a unit.

1 litre of 28 sec. Kerosene = 10 kWH = 43p
10 kWH electricity = 115p

That's an impressive saving you're making there, bub, paying about three
times more to heat your home using electricity than the cost of using CH
oil.

But with oil I would be heating parts of my home that I don't reach!
Therefore you are not comparing like with like. With CH you cannot
'dose' the heat like you can with a fan heater, whose heat is
instantaneous (no pipes to heat up, etc). With CH you don't feel any
benefit for at least 20 minutes, whereas with the fan heater you feel
the benefit within about 10 seconds. Meanwhile I would be paying for
the oil needed for those 20 minutes during which no benefit is
perceived.

The way that you are making savings is to heat less of your home.

Exactly! You finally understood.

You
could reduce your bills further by turning off all the CH rads in the
rooms you don't use and by restricting your CH to the same times that
you use your electric heater.

Oh, what a brilliant suggestion.

Actually it is a brilliant suggestion. That is what I do in winter. I turn
the radiators TRVs to the frost setting in the rooms that I am not using.
Simples.


So here I am in my workroom and it's
cold, so I run down to the annexe to switch the CH on for 30 minutes,
remembering to switch it off in good time so as not to build up too
much residual heat that I have to open a window. Then I run back
upstairs again and carry on working. Repeat as necessary.

Buy a better programmer so that you can set the on/off times to suit your
needs and install TRVs in the rooms you use.


Alternatively, I reach under my desk to the fan heater and press the
switch...

And you press the switch that costs you more money than heating heating by
oil.

Adam

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:27:42 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

MM wrote:

Of course, the price of oil has since increased (latest price I have
42.27
pence per litre 16/Mar/2010), whereas the electricity went down last
year
from 12.74 to 11.51 pence a unit.

1 litre of 28 sec. Kerosene = 10 kWH = 43p
10 kWH electricity = 115p

That's an impressive saving you're making there, bub, paying about three
times more to heat your home using electricity than the cost of using CH
oil.

But with oil I would be heating parts of my home that I don't reach!
Therefore you are not comparing like with like. With CH you cannot
'dose' the heat like you can with a fan heater, whose heat is
instantaneous (no pipes to heat up, etc). With CH you don't feel any
benefit for at least 20 minutes, whereas with the fan heater you feel
the benefit within about 10 seconds. Meanwhile I would be paying for
the oil needed for those 20 minutes during which no benefit is
perceived.

You have a cr@p system if it takes that long to have an effect.
Mine is 50,000 BTU into a copper heat exchanger into low water content
radiators.
It takes no more than a few minutes to warm up.

It doesn't hold the heat much either so it doesn't overshoot the programmed
temp.

In article , David Hansen wrote:
There is something to be said for a mini CHP installation burning
gas to produce electricity as well as hot water. However, if going
for that the heating system needs to be designed for it, not a bog
standard system installed by a plumber. Assuming a Stirling engine
the key is to ensure the unit runs for long periods, with long off
periods between, to maximise electricity generation. At least one of
the manufacturers recommends a thermal store.

I think that's probably equally applicable to fuel cell based mCHP
systems. Or will be, once/if household size ones reach production.
http://www.baxi-innotech.de/index.php?id=27&lang=1
http://www.cerespower.com/ProductOve...esidentialCHP/

(I have a thermal store, and a boiler I don't expect to last much longer....)

Bruce wrote:

But that was also a barefaced lie, as nuclear power in the UK has
always cost more per kWh than electricity produced commercially from
any fossil fuel.

That's an accountant's result, because the nuclear industry has to
factor in the cost of decommissioning but the fossil fuel industries
don't have to factor in the cost of cleaning up the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Andy

dennis@home wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:27:42 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

MM wrote:

Of course, the price of oil has since increased (latest price I have
42.27
pence per litre 16/Mar/2010), whereas the electricity went down last
year
from 12.74 to 11.51 pence a unit.

1 litre of 28 sec. Kerosene = 10 kWH = 43p
10 kWH electricity = 115p

That's an impressive saving you're making there, bub, paying about three
times more to heat your home using electricity than the cost of using CH
oil.

But with oil I would be heating parts of my home that I don't reach!
Therefore you are not comparing like with like. With CH you cannot
'dose' the heat like you can with a fan heater, whose heat is
instantaneous (no pipes to heat up, etc). With CH you don't feel any
benefit for at least 20 minutes, whereas with the fan heater you feel
the benefit within about 10 seconds. Meanwhile I would be paying for
the oil needed for those 20 minutes during which no benefit is
perceived.

You have a cr@p system if it takes that long to have an effect.
Mine is 50,000 BTU into a copper heat exchanger into low water content
radiators.
It takes no more than a few minutes to warm up.


Well it totally depends ..I calcilated the thermal time constant of my
house - the mass inside the insulation, is about 3 days... yes, thats
how long it takes to get up to 95% of its final temperature, and how
long it takes to lose it again.

..Its a blessing and a curse. it makes it hard to just 'pop into' a room
and get it warm in a hurry, but conversely, it eases the load on the
system once its up to temperature. And its goregous in summer, because
it stays at a constant cool temperatire +- 2 defgees or so when daytime
temperatures soar up towards the 40's.




It doesn't hold the heat much either so it doesn't overshoot the
programmed temp.

MM wrote:


The way that you are making savings is to heat less of your home.

Exactly! You finally understood.

I understood from the begining, you apparently didn't.

Here's another clue, fit TRVs.

Or if that's beyond your limited talents, simply turn the radiators off
in the rooms that you don't use.


Heck, that was difficult.

Andy Champ wrote:
Bruce wrote:

But that was also a barefaced lie, as nuclear power in the UK has
always cost more per kWh than electricity produced commercially from
any fossil fuel.
That's an accountant's result, because the nuclear industry has to
factor in the cost of decommissioning but the fossil fuel industries
don't have to factor in the cost of cleaning up the CO2 in the atmosphere.


And it's actually not true, not in the case of Sizewell at least. Early
reactors were of course primarily designed to make plutonium, not
electricity. That was a neat way of getting rid of the waste heat and
spinning them as useful.

Current generating costs are cost competitive with carbon fuel.

see

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionC.htm#n


Basically, a good reactor operating at a decent load factor is well
clear of the competition in terms of overall cost - and that graph is
2002 figures, when the global gas market was still relatively cheap.

AND it includes decommissioning.


I guess there wasn't room at the top of the graph for windpower..


Andy

"Al 1953" wrote in message ...
I'm wondering whether I should fork out for gas central heating in my new
house. However, I wonder if elctric heating will be cheaper than gas
heating after they build the new nuclear power stations. I think that's
what happened in France, isn't it?

It might have already have been said in this long thread but...
....I seem to remember at about the time they opened Calder Hall
they said nuclear power would become too cheap to bother with meters.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:37:38 +0000 (UTC) Al 1953 wrote :
I'm wondering whether I should fork out for gas central heating in
my new house. However, I wonder if elctric heating will be cheaper
than gas heating after they build the new nuclear power stations.
I think that's what happened in France, isn't it?

For a new house built to Building Regs or better you may well find
that the energy used for hot water exceeds that needed for heating.

My instinct would be underfloor heating and think about a heat pump
- energy cost may be a bit more than gas, but the unit should run
with next to no maintenance, but if you use gas for cooking it's
there and gas boilers are cheap compared with heat pumps.

On the DHW side there is a complicated interplay between usage and
storage - lots of solar panels and limited storage just means that
you run out of stored solar heated DHW and need to top up with more
expensive energy; lots of storage (so you can heat all your DHW with
off peak electricity on overcast days) = higher storage losses.

You'll need to get a SAP calculation done for BR anyway - I would
ask the person who does this to produce several alternative options
and see how they compare.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

Graham. wrote:
"Al 1953" wrote in message ...
I'm wondering whether I should fork out for gas central heating in my new
house. However, I wonder if elctric heating will be cheaper than gas
heating after they build the new nuclear power stations. I think that's
what happened in France, isn't it?

It might have already have been said in this long thread but...
...I seem to remember at about the time they opened Calder Hall
they said nuclear power would become too cheap to bother with meters.


And Brown said no more boom and bust. I meann really, did you actually
believe either statement?

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:37:38 +0000 (UTC) Al 1953 wrote :
I'm wondering whether I should fork out for gas central heating in
my new house. However, I wonder if elctric heating will be cheaper
than gas heating after they build the new nuclear power stations.
I think that's what happened in France, isn't it?

For a new house built to Building Regs or better you may well find
that the energy used for hot water exceeds that needed for heating.


Then you are taking far too many baths. Or you live in an apartment
block. Or a rabbit hutch.


My instinct would be underfloor heating and think about a heat pump
- energy cost may be a bit more than gas, but the unit should run
with next to no maintenance, but if you use gas for cooking it's
there and gas boilers are cheap compared with heat pumps.

On the DHW side there is a complicated interplay between usage and
storage - lots of solar panels and limited storage just means that
you run out of stored solar heated DHW and need to top up with more
expensive energy; lots of storage (so you can heat all your DHW with
off peak electricity on overcast days) = higher storage losses.

solar panels are a complete waste of time in this country. They never
pay back maintenance costs even.

You'll need to get a SAP calculation done for BR anyway - I would
ask the person who does this to produce several alternative options
and see how they compare.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

solar panels are a complete waste of time in this country. They never
pay back maintenance costs even.

Even if the feed-in tariff cuts in next year?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:50:45 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

MM wrote:


The way that you are making savings is to heat less of your home.

Exactly! You finally understood.

I understood from the begining, you apparently didn't.

Here's another clue, fit TRVs.

I have them already. They're Honeywell.

Or if that's beyond your limited talents, simply turn the radiators off
in the rooms that you don't use.

Oh, and when I'm not using the room I normally use, e.g. I've gone to
the shops or the library, then the room is still being heated? Have I
got that right? Are you recommending I do that? Heat an unoccupied
room for several hours?

'Cos I'd just like to make sure where you're coming from!

Heck, that was difficult.

But doesn't address my requirement to NOT heat parts of the house I am
not in, including not heating up the pipework unnecessarily. And if I
turned the rads off completely, how would I take the chill off to
protect against frost damage when it's really cold? (Recall that I
already said I'll switch on the CH during the night sometimes just for
that purpose.)

Or am I expected to set an alarm for 3am, then get up and go around
the house turning on all the turned off rads?

MM

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:57:09 +0000, Chris J Dixon wrote:

solar panels are a complete waste of time in this country. They
never
pay back maintenance costs even.

Even if the feed-in tariff cuts in next year?

How do you feed in from a thermal solar panels? Photo voltaics are
staggeringly expensive for any meaninful level of power output,
thousands per kW...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:07:01 -0000, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

And you press the switch that costs you more money than heating heating by
oil.

So you reckon I could have got the same amount of *targeted* warmth
(i.e. only where I am at at any given moment) over the past 110 days
from less than a £100's worth of heating oil? Because that is how much
I've spent on top of my usual electricity bill. One hundred pounds.
Less than a quid a day. Do you reckon your CH is costing you less than
a quid a day?

MM

Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:57:09 +0000, Chris J Dixon wrote:

solar panels are a complete waste of time in this country. They
never
pay back maintenance costs even.

Even if the feed-in tariff cuts in next year?

How do you feed in from a thermal solar panels?

OK, not the right term, I should have said "Tariff levels for
Renewable Heat Incentives"

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cm.../pn10_010.aspx

I believe that they are still contemplating how the energy will
be measured, but it may well simply be that a certain size
installation is "deemed" to have produced a corresponding output.
It may also be qualified by the capability of the property to
make use of that energy.

Photo voltaics are
staggeringly expensive for any meaninful level of power output,
thousands per kW...

Indeed they are, which is why the tariff terms are so generous.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

Chris J Dixon wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

solar panels are a complete waste of time in this country. They never
pay back maintenance costs even.

Even if the feed-in tariff cuts in next year?


Why not go on the dole instead? you will get more money from us
taxpayers that way?

And how long do you think the public will stand for subsidised
inefficient eco-bollox when petrol is £2 a litre?


Chris

Chris J Dixon wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:57:09 +0000, Chris J Dixon wrote:

solar panels are a complete waste of time in this country. They
never
pay back maintenance costs even.
Even if the feed-in tariff cuts in next year?

How do you feed in from a thermal solar panels?

OK, not the right term, I should have said "Tariff levels for
Renewable Heat Incentives"

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cm.../pn10_010.aspx

I believe that they are still contemplating how the energy will
be measured, but it may well simply be that a certain size
installation is "deemed" to have produced a corresponding output.
It may also be qualified by the capability of the property to
make use of that energy.

Photo voltaics are
staggeringly expensive for any meaninful level of power output,
thousands per kW...

Indeed they are, which is why the tariff terms are so generous.

Chris
And what happens when we all do this, because its so attractive?

1/. Britain'ss net power requirements will reduce .001%.
2/. Britain's net gain (because we pay the tax as well as gain benefits
from it) will be a 1% loss to to bureaucratic overheads.
3/. People in sink estates will complain that its a middle class
privileged elitist subsidy, because they can fit them in a tower block,

This is loony ecobollox, and it wont last. Not in current economic crises.

a few years ago it was gay afro Caribbean lesbian drop in centers. Today
is buying domestic power at 20 times what its worth to put money in a
highly lobbied industries pockets.

The good thing about an economic crisis, is that people actually are
forced to do the sums, and work out how MUCH stupid government costs
them, before they vote for it.

Owain wrote:
On 26 Mar, 00:18, "Graham." wrote:
It might have already have been said in this long thread but...
...I seem to remember at about the time they opened Calder Hall
they said nuclear power would become too cheap to bother with meters.

Was that before or after we were promised jet-packs?

Owain

They never promised us I-pods, or the Internet though.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Chris J Dixon wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

Photo voltaics are
staggeringly expensive for any meaninful level of power output,
thousands per kW...

Indeed they are, which is why the tariff terms are so generous.

And what happens when we all do this, because its so attractive?

1/. Britain'ss net power requirements will reduce .001%.
2/. Britain's net gain (because we pay the tax as well as gain benefits
from it) will be a 1% loss to to bureaucratic overheads.
3/. People in sink estates will complain that its a middle class
privileged elitist subsidy, because they can fit them in a tower block,

If a carrot is dangled that I am in a position to nibble, I'm not
at all sure I am worrying where it came from.

There are those who decried the lottery as a tax on the lower
classes to support the arts for the middle classes. Doesn't seem
to have stopped them though.

The good thing about an economic crisis, is that people actually are
forced to do the sums, and work out how MUCH stupid government costs
them, before they vote for it.

As this seems to have cross-party support, I don't think you will
find one supporting your view that is likely to be in a position
to form a government.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Chris J Dixon wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

solar panels are a complete waste of time in this country. They never
pay back maintenance costs even.

Even if the feed-in tariff cuts in next year?

Why not go on the dole instead? you will get more money from us
taxpayers that way?

No need, I'm retired and looking forward to when my state pension
will kick in, for a bit more pocket money, so I trust you will
keep paying your stamps. ;-)

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:07:01 -0000, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

And you press the switch that costs you more money than heating heating by
oil.

So you reckon I could have got the same amount of *targeted* warmth
(i.e. only where I am at at any given moment) over the past 110 days
from less than a £100's worth of heating oil? Because that is how much
I've spent on top of my usual electricity bill. One hundred pounds.
Less than a quid a day. Do you reckon your CH is costing you less than
a quid a day?

MM

Over the winter months my heating bill was more than a quid a day.
I do not go for the completely unheated house though. I also heat the
hallway, landing and bathroom. I would find it rather unplasant having no
heating on at all in those rooms.

My winter heating cost me £130 for 90 days. Of course I might be out of the
house for a lot longer than you or prefer a cooler temperature. The room
stat in the hall is usually set at 17 deg.

Have you thought about a wireless roomstat that you can take around with
you?
By all means use the electric fan for the instantaneous heating when you
first enter a cold room but turn the radiator on. As the radiator heats up
(so seem to have a big time lag) you can then turn the fan off and you can
control your room temperature with the remote stat.

Adam

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:50:45 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

MM wrote:


The way that you are making savings is to heat less of your home.

Exactly! You finally understood.

I understood from the begining, you apparently didn't.

Here's another clue, fit TRVs.

I have them already. They're Honeywell.

Or if that's beyond your limited talents, simply turn the radiators off
in the rooms that you don't use.

Oh, and when I'm not using the room I normally use, e.g. I've gone to
the shops or the library, then the room is still being heated? Have I
got that right? Are you recommending I do that? Heat an unoccupied
room for several hours?

'Cos I'd just like to make sure where you're coming from!

Heck, that was difficult.

But doesn't address my requirement to NOT heat parts of the house I am
not in, including not heating up the pipework unnecessarily. And if I
turned the rads off completely, how would I take the chill off to
protect against frost damage when it's really cold? (Recall that I
already said I'll switch on the CH during the night sometimes just for
that purpose.)

Or am I expected to set an alarm for 3am, then get up and go around
the house turning on all the turned off rads?

MM

Set the TRVs to the frost stat position.

Adam

Chris J Dixon wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Chris J Dixon wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

Photo voltaics are
staggeringly expensive for any meaninful level of power output,
thousands per kW...
Indeed they are, which is why the tariff terms are so generous.

And what happens when we all do this, because its so attractive?

1/. Britain'ss net power requirements will reduce .001%.
2/. Britain's net gain (because we pay the tax as well as gain benefits
from it) will be a 1% loss to to bureaucratic overheads.
3/. People in sink estates will complain that its a middle class
privileged elitist subsidy, because they can fit them in a tower block,

If a carrot is dangled that I am in a position to nibble, I'm not
at all sure I am worrying where it came from.


More fool you then.

Yu are a prime candidate for Labor.

Take £50 quid off you in taxes, and give £25 back to you and you are
GRATEFUL for it!

Meanwhile yet another generation of fat arsed bureaucrats are getting a
lifetimes pension off you for the privilege.



There are those who decried the lottery as a tax on the lower
classes to support the arts for the middle classes. Doesn't seem
to have stopped them though.

The lottery is a free choice.
Taxes are not.

The good thing about an economic crisis, is that people actually are
forced to do the sums, and work out how MUCH stupid government costs
them, before they vote for it.

As this seems to have cross-party support, I don't think you will
find one supporting your view that is likely to be in a position
to form a government.


And you are naive enough to believe that what a party says pre-election
has any relevance to what it does post election?

Vote labour, they love people like you.

Chris

Chris J Dixon wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Chris J Dixon wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

solar panels are a complete waste of time in this country. They never
pay back maintenance costs even.

Even if the feed-in tariff cuts in next year?
Why not go on the dole instead? you will get more money from us
taxpayers that way?

No need, I'm retired and looking forward to when my state pension
will kick in, for a bit more pocket money, so I trust you will
keep paying your stamps. ;-)

Chris
not me mate. I paid a lifetimes taxes in one hit when I had to liquidate
the shares in the company that bought mine in the dotcom crash.

The government owes me..a LOT. and I will probably never pay income tax,
and almost certainly never pay capital gains tax, ever again.

Of course Labour looks on savings as an evil thing, and would no doubt
commandeer my savings.

They want everybody to have to go to them for money.

President Gordon Godfather Brown Stailin the IV.


WE are more communist than Russia was, these dqatys.

I await mass starvation, with interest.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:04:36 -0000, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:07:01 -0000, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

And you press the switch that costs you more money than heating heating by
oil.

So you reckon I could have got the same amount of *targeted* warmth
(i.e. only where I am at at any given moment) over the past 110 days
from less than a £100's worth of heating oil? Because that is how much
I've spent on top of my usual electricity bill. One hundred pounds.
Less than a quid a day. Do you reckon your CH is costing you less than
a quid a day?

MM

Over the winter months my heating bill was more than a quid a day.
I do not go for the completely unheated house though. I also heat the
hallway, landing and bathroom. I would find it rather unplasant having no
heating on at all in those rooms.

Ah, you see, I don't. I wear a jersey. I grew up in houses without CH.
I am a hardy soul.

My winter heating cost me £130 for 90 days. Of course I might be out of the
house for a lot longer than you or prefer a cooler temperature. The room
stat in the hall is usually set at 17 deg.

The temperature in my hall dropped to 10 deg during the coldest
nights. But I'm only in the hall for a matter of seconds while I walk
to the room I occupy.

Have you thought about a wireless roomstat that you can take around with
you?

Is there such a thing?

By all means use the electric fan for the instantaneous heating when you
first enter a cold room but turn the radiator on. As the radiator heats up
(so seem to have a big time lag) you can then turn the fan off and you can
control your room temperature with the remote stat.

How would the remote stat work anyway? How would I connect it to the
existing CH system? (I think this is all rather "blue sky" thinking on
your part, actually.)

MM

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:09:30 -0000, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:50:45 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

MM wrote:


The way that you are making savings is to heat less of your home.

Exactly! You finally understood.

I understood from the begining, you apparently didn't.

Here's another clue, fit TRVs.

I have them already. They're Honeywell.

Or if that's beyond your limited talents, simply turn the radiators off
in the rooms that you don't use.

Oh, and when I'm not using the room I normally use, e.g. I've gone to
the shops or the library, then the room is still being heated? Have I
got that right? Are you recommending I do that? Heat an unoccupied
room for several hours?

'Cos I'd just like to make sure where you're coming from!

Heck, that was difficult.

But doesn't address my requirement to NOT heat parts of the house I am
not in, including not heating up the pipework unnecessarily. And if I
turned the rads off completely, how would I take the chill off to
protect against frost damage when it's really cold? (Recall that I
already said I'll switch on the CH during the night sometimes just for
that purpose.)

Or am I expected to set an alarm for 3am, then get up and go around
the house turning on all the turned off rads?

MM

Set the TRVs to the frost stat position.

Fine. And the room I am in? How does that get heated? Switch on the
oil boiler and wait 20 minutes, or switch on the fan heater and wait
10 seconds?

MM

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:04:36 -0000, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:07:01 -0000, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

And you press the switch that costs you more money than heating heating
by
oil.

So you reckon I could have got the same amount of *targeted* warmth
(i.e. only where I am at at any given moment) over the past 110 days
from less than a £100's worth of heating oil? Because that is how much
I've spent on top of my usual electricity bill. One hundred pounds.
Less than a quid a day. Do you reckon your CH is costing you less than
a quid a day?

MM

Over the winter months my heating bill was more than a quid a day.
I do not go for the completely unheated house though. I also heat the
hallway, landing and bathroom. I would find it rather unplasant having no
heating on at all in those rooms.

Ah, you see, I don't. I wear a jersey. I grew up in houses without CH.
I am a hardy soul.

I cannot close all the doors and just sit in one room as I have two cats.
Therefore I need to have some heat in the hall and landing so that the room
I am in is not blasted by cold air from them. And when I am work the heating
is off. The cats have fur and not my central heating to keep them warm.

My winter heating cost me £130 for 90 days. Of course I might be out of
the
house for a lot longer than you or prefer a cooler temperature. The room
stat in the hall is usually set at 17 deg.

The temperature in my hall dropped to 10 deg during the coldest
nights. But I'm only in the hall for a matter of seconds while I walk
to the room I occupy.

See above re. my cats. And at night my heating is off unless the frost stat
kicks in.

Have you thought about a wireless roomstat that you can take around with
you?

Is there such a thing?

Of course. See below for a few examples

http://www.heatingcontrolsonline.co....s-c-21_31.html



By all means use the electric fan for the instantaneous heating when you
first enter a cold room but turn the radiator on. As the radiator heats up
(so seem to have a big time lag) you can then turn the fan off and you can
control your room temperature with the remote stat.

How would the remote stat work anyway? How would I connect it to the
existing CH system? (I think this is all rather "blue sky" thinking on
your part, actually.)

It is not at all "blue sky" thinking. You would connect it to your existing
system by following the instructions in the manual or by asking on this
newsgroup (I have installed hundreds of them) if you need a little help.

You would then control your CH via the wireless room stat. No need to run
down to the annex to turn anything on or off.

I appreciate that it is not instantaneous heat from the CH but if you know
what time you are going to use your computer room you can set the timer to
come on 20 minutes before you go in and leave all the other TRVs in the
house on the frost setting. You can also turn the heating off 20 minutes
before you leave the room as the heat stored in the radiator will keep the
room warm unlike an electric fan.

Cheers

Adam