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?

Al

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?

Al

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.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:15:54 +0000, 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?

Al

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.


Especially given that, for the next decade at least, most of the UK's
electricity will be generated by burning gas.

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? TWRs can be fuelled on depleted uranium with a single charge
lasting 60-100 years, they have higher thermal efficiencies than current
technologies and produce less waste. It's estimated that current
supplies of depleted uranium if used as fuel in TWRs would produce
sufficient electricity for 80% of the world's population to sustain
Western electricity consumption for 1000 years.

Very little CO2 emitted over that 1000 years either.

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?

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


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.

they have higher thermal efficiencies than current
technologies and produce less waste. It's estimated that current
supplies of depleted uranium if used as fuel in TWRs would produce
sufficient electricity for 80% of the world's population to sustain
Western electricity consumption for 1000 years.

Very little CO2 emitted over that 1000 years either.


The figures are even better for fusion, but no one has built a practical
unit yet either.

And with the Losers Party running everything, its unlikely anyone is
educated to a standard to allow them to, either.

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?

Al

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.

Oddly enough it was at a point last year cheaper to use electricity than
OIL. taxation accounts for some of it. The heat pump calculations I did
- because the 'effective' efficiency of a heat pump is 300-400%
typically, meant it was very comparable with direct fuel burning as far
as burn to heat output conversion efficiencies and costs went. Possibly
even better.
..
At one point, cheap rate overnight electricity got cheaper than oil too.

Even without the heat pump.

On 24/03/10 22:15, wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:37:38 +0000 (UTC), Al
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?

Al

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.

So why is it not economical to generate one's own domestic electrickery from
a small mains gas-fired generator.

chunkyoldcortina wrote:
On 24/03/10 22:15, wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:37:38 +0000 (UTC), Al
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?

Al

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.

So why is it not economical to generate one's own domestic electrickery
from a small mains gas-fired generator.




If you use a heat pump, electricity is actually cheaper than gas or oil,
just about. its certainly in thee area where a blanket statement is not
true. The devil is in the details.

secondly, the efficiency you get from a petrol or diesel generator is
far less than you get from a properly constructed power station, and
you will almost certainly end up paying road fuel tax on the fuel. Even
if you don't, its very marginal. And you cant get a domestic nuclear
reactor, which is of course currently pipping the post as the cheapest
way to push electrons down wires.

you probably only get 20% eff. form a diesel generator, and that varies
with the load. A good power station averages the load of lots of people,
and achieves up to 60%. AND they can forward buy fuel in bulk.


You can get 80% eff* off a boiler heating water. Maybe more.

Compare that with 60% for the power station and 95% for the grid. No
point in direct electrical heating carbon wise unless you use nukes to
make it.

Finally, if nuclear power becomes widely adopted, and fossil fuel start
to get hard to extract, and or attracts a carbon tax, electricity will
in time be cheaper than fossil fuel.

*true thermal efficiency, not concocted figures by boiler manufacturers.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If you use a heat pump, electricity is actually cheaper than gas or oil,
just about. its certainly in thee area where a blanket statement is not
true. The devil is in the details.

secondly, the efficiency you get from a petrol or diesel generator is
far less than you get from a properly constructed power station, and
you will almost certainly end up paying road fuel tax on the fuel. Even
if you don't, its very marginal. And you cant get a domestic nuclear
reactor, which is of course currently pipping the post as the cheapest
way to push electrons down wires.

you probably only get 20% eff. form a diesel generator, and that varies
with the load. A good power station averages the load of lots of people,
and achieves up to 60%. AND they can forward buy fuel in bulk.


You can get 80% eff* off a boiler heating water. Maybe more.

Compare that with 60% for the power station and 95% for the grid. No
point in direct electrical heating carbon wise unless you use nukes to
make it.

Finally, if nuclear power becomes widely adopted, and fossil fuel start
to get hard to extract, and or attracts a carbon tax, electricity will
in time be cheaper than fossil fuel.

*true thermal efficiency, not concocted figures by boiler manufacturers.


Is a domestic scale CHP system feasible? (use the coolant and hot
exhaust from your diesel to heat the hot water / radiators)

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If you use a heat pump, electricity is actually cheaper than gas or
oil, just about. its certainly in thee area where a blanket statement
is not true. The devil is in the details.

secondly, the efficiency you get from a petrol or diesel generator is
far less than you get from a properly constructed power station, and
you will almost certainly end up paying road fuel tax on the fuel.
Even if you don't, its very marginal. And you cant get a domestic
nuclear reactor, which is of course currently pipping the post as the
cheapest way to push electrons down wires.

you probably only get 20% eff. form a diesel generator, and that
varies with the load. A good power station averages the load of lots
of people, and achieves up to 60%. AND they can forward buy fuel in bulk.


You can get 80% eff* off a boiler heating water. Maybe more.

Compare that with 60% for the power station and 95% for the grid. No
point in direct electrical heating carbon wise unless you use nukes to
make it.

Finally, if nuclear power becomes widely adopted, and fossil fuel
start to get hard to extract, and or attracts a carbon tax,
electricity will in time be cheaper than fossil fuel.

*true thermal efficiency, not concocted figures by boiler manufacturers.


Is a domestic scale CHP system feasible? (use the coolant and hot
exhaust from your diesel to heat the hot water / radiators)


Of course its feasible: whether its cost effective is quite another matter.

Its a bloody poor way to make watts in summer!

at 20% efficiency a 25bhp engine (small 2 liter non turbo diesel at say
3000 RPM) is generating 15Kw of electricity, and 60KW of heat!

I often need 15Kw electricity. I NEVER need 60KW of heat.


Andy

On 26 Jul,
chunkyoldcortina 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.

So why is it not economical to generate one's own domestic electrickery
from a small mains gas-fired generator.

Cos it's limited in efficiency by thermodynamic constraints. If you use the
waste heat it's a different matter, hence the interest in CHP. Capital costs
will be high.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

In direct heating terms, probably not - as a large proportion of our
electricity will continue to be generated from fossil fuels, even when
more nuclear power stations come on stream (plus the costs of cleaning
up emissions from both existing and new fossil fuel power stations).

However, electrically powered ground/air source heat pumps might
become much more attractive, as they already have a considerable
efficiency advantage over direct heating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSHP.

The initial costs are considerable though, and your site must be
suitable.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:36:11 -0700, wrote:

However, electrically powered ground/air source heat pumps might
become much more attractive, as they already have a considerable
efficiency advantage over direct heating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSHP.

The initial costs are considerable though, and your site must be
suitable.

I think the running costs are similar: the possible advantage of heat
pumps nationally/strategically is that the electricity they use can in
principle be sourced from non-fossil sources (if such are available)
whereas GCH is of course restricted to fossil-fuel (unless one acquires
renewable source of methane or similar).


--
John Stumbles

What do you mean, talking about it isn't oral sex?

I think the running costs are similar: the possible advantage of heat
pumps nationally/strategically is that the electricity they use can in
principle be sourced from non-fossil sources (if such are available)
whereas GCH is of course restricted to fossil-fuel (unless one acquires
renewable source of methane or similar).


My knowledge of these is not through practical experience of them,
but...

This is heat pumping, *not* geothermal heat.

This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSHP#Thermal_efficiency

and everything else I've read about them says they deliver at least 3
times the heating efficiency of direct heating, *because* heat is
pumped.

John Stumbles wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:36:11 -0700, wrote:

However, electrically powered ground/air source heat pumps might
become much more attractive, as they already have a considerable
efficiency advantage over direct heating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSHP.

The initial costs are considerable though, and your site must be
suitable.

I think the running costs are similar:

Similar to what? certainly not to straight electrical heating!


the possible advantage of heat
pumps nationally/strategically is that the electricity they use can in
principle be sourced from non-fossil sources (if such are available)
whereas GCH is of course restricted to fossil-fuel (unless one acquires
renewable source of methane or similar).


Well, quite, although all 'renewable' energy (as opposed to nuclear) is
vastly more expensive (apart from hydro) than fuel burning.

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.

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,

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

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

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

cheers

Jules

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

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

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

Al 1953 wrote on 24/03/2010 :
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?

You will be looking at a lead time of 10 to 15 years before any new
nuclear stations were to come on line and it will take many of them,
before they make any difference to the methods of generation. Costs
will not come down until their build has been more or less paid for, so
I would stick to gas and invest in good levels of insulation.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Al 1953 wrote on 24/03/2010 :
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?

You will be looking at a lead time of 10 to 15 years before any new
nuclear stations were to come on line and it will take many of them,
before they make any difference to the methods of generation.

No.

That is wrong. One nuclear power station more would probably out perform
all the installed base of windmills. 30 nuclear power stations would
generate all the current electricity we use. 100 would generate enough
energy to run all the non-electrical stuff off electricity. Including
transport.

And still cost less than we have lent to bail out the banks, or run the NHS.

A typical modern set is several GW. Our peak consumption is 70GW right
now for electricity, or about 300GW total in terms of all energy used by
the nation on shore.

Going all nuclear on current electricity would reduce our onshore carbon
footprint by about 50GW out of that 300GW, or about 16%. More than
enough on its won to meet our CO" reduction targets. Start to use
electricity for things its not cost effective to use it for now, and you
could get to a lot more than that.


Costs will
not come down until their build has been more or less paid for, so I
would stick to gas and invest in good levels of insulation.



Even sillier statement.

A nuclear power station is effectively never paid for until its
decommissioned. What sets its costs are the costs of *borrowing the money*..

Its like a bank. Deposit money into (building) a nuclear power station,
and get a lifetime pension fund from selling its electricity.

The cost is about £3000 per kilowatt capital outlay over 60 years.

Which means that I personally, could e.g. theoretically pay £10,000 to a
nuclear company for all the electricity I will ever need in my life.

A deal which I would instantly take up should it ever be offered.

My investment in a nuclear fund has already made 10% in less than a year.

Although a lot of that is due to the tanking pound.

Its a massively good investment IF the government stops monkeying around
with the rules , especially on decommissioning and waste disposal. There
is no shortage of pension fund and private capital to fund them either.

The FACTS of the matter are that a nuclear set every 18 months IF we
could have started 7 years ago, would be easily enough to see us through.

The actual costs at - say £3000 per kilowatt - with is conservative - to
build 70Gw of capacity is £210 bn. Or about £1000 per head of population.


Bailing out Fred the Shred and his pals has cost twice that, with far
less returns, other than a crippling tax debt we will never escape.


To totally electrify the country is probably £3000 per head. Maybe
£5000. That's assuming electric cars, and the infrastructure to make
them work effectively, etc as well as build nuke sets.

Which would you rather do? spend £5000 on traffic wardens, drop in
Afro-Caribbean lesbian day care centers, Duck islands, Liars for Hire,
affordable homes for thieving pikey *******s, or free electricity and
fuel for the rest of your life?

The Natural Philosopher
wibbled on Thursday 25 March 2010 08:08

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Al 1953 wrote on 24/03/2010 :
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?

You will be looking at a lead time of 10 to 15 years before any new
nuclear stations were to come on line and it will take many of them,
before they make any difference to the methods of generation.

No.

That is wrong. One nuclear power station more would probably out perform
all the installed base of windmills. 30 nuclear power stations would
generate all the current electricity we use. 100 would generate enough
energy to run all the non-electrical stuff off electricity. Including
transport.

Not forgetting the infrastructure upgrades though...


The cost is about £3000 per kilowatt capital outlay over 60 years.

Which means that I personally, could e.g. theoretically pay £10,000 to a
nuclear company for all the electricity I will ever need in my life.
A deal which I would instantly take up should it ever be offered.

I would too.


To totally electrify the country is probably £3000 per head. Maybe
£5000. That's assuming electric cars, and the infrastructure to make
them work effectively, etc as well as build nuke sets.

Which would you rather do? spend £5000 on traffic wardens, drop in
Afro-Caribbean lesbian day care centers, Duck islands, Liars for Hire,
affordable homes for thieving pikey *******s, or free electricity and
fuel for the rest of your life?

Not forgetting that our gross national external debt (public and private) is
now around 9x10^12 US dollars (Wikipedia) second only to the USA in absolute
value and the worst per capita ($150k). What's another few thousand each to
sort out two massive looming problems (energy and CO2)...


--
Tim Watts

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

Tim Watts wrote:
The Natural Philosopher
wibbled on Thursday 25 March 2010 08:08

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Al 1953 wrote on 24/03/2010 :
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?
You will be looking at a lead time of 10 to 15 years before any new
nuclear stations were to come on line and it will take many of them,
before they make any difference to the methods of generation.
No.

That is wrong. One nuclear power station more would probably out perform
all the installed base of windmills. 30 nuclear power stations would
generate all the current electricity we use. 100 would generate enough
energy to run all the non-electrical stuff off electricity. Including
transport.

Not forgetting the infrastructure upgrades though...


No. Thats why I quoted £3000 a KW rather than the base cost which is
more like £2000 a Kw for actual real life standard nuclear stations
these days.

Wind is far worse, because you have to size for peak loads three times
higher than the average, due to their lousy load factors. And by
definition they are always sited away from population centres that use
the power.





The cost is about £3000 per kilowatt capital outlay over 60 years.

Which means that I personally, could e.g. theoretically pay £10,000 to a
nuclear company for all the electricity I will ever need in my life.
A deal which I would instantly take up should it ever be offered.

I would too.

To totally electrify the country is probably £3000 per head. Maybe
£5000. That's assuming electric cars, and the infrastructure to make
them work effectively, etc as well as build nuke sets.

Which would you rather do? spend £5000 on traffic wardens, drop in
Afro-Caribbean lesbian day care centers, Duck islands, Liars for Hire,
affordable homes for thieving pikey *******s, or free electricity and
fuel for the rest of your life?

Not forgetting that our gross national external debt (public and private) is
now around 9x10^12 US dollars (Wikipedia) second only to the USA in absolute
value and the worst per capita ($150k). What's another few thousand each to
sort out two massive looming problems (energy and CO2)...



Straw, camels back..

But like I said, the government doesn't need to fund this: ALL they have
to do is allow planning and whatever sweeteners are required for people
who live near them, and sign a binding contract on decommissioning, so
the costs are fixed in advance, and let private finance do what it does
best. Take a long term medium risk medium return gamble.

Oh, and stop subsidised windmills, and tax carbon fuels no matter what
they are used for.

It was the government's involvement in nuclear power in the first place
that lead to things like Windscale.

Keep the *******s out. They can **** anything up.

If the true environmental cost of burning fossil fuels means its 15p a
Kwh, charge it, and use the money to set up a fund to deal wit the
damage. Of course they'd steal it to pay back the debts owed to the
sovereign gilt holders ..

No is the short answer, however...

#1 Insulation makes a huge difference.
With 2009 levels of insulation very little heating is required.

#2 CO2 Heat Pump at gas boiler price will take time.
CO2 heat pumps only hit parity (1kW out for 1kW in) down at -25oC and
are thus ideally suited to the UK temperature climiate. Existing
heatpumps are R410A and expensive (£1k), not the much more expensive
CO2 (£4k). The economy of scale of CO2 Heat Pumps is some way off -
probably 15yrs.
The benefit of CO2 Heat Pumps is very high real-world CoP (4:1) from
air sources avoiding the "dig cost" of ground source heat pumps. The
long term risk of such heat pumps I suspect may be noise based - a
neighbourhood of such pumps battling a heat island effect could get
undesireable acoustics (as with windmills & geology/buildings).

#3 Storage Heaters are near parity with gas if 2009 insulation.
That is to say 5p/kWhr isn't a mile off gas at 3.5kWhr when you factor
in a) installation cost b) maintenance c) depreciation. The problem is
storage heater comfort/usability does not have parity with gas re
controllability & on-demand capability.
To get true controllability you need commercial fan storage heaters
which are very large and expensive (£750-1250), these leak very little
heat and instead blow it out on demand. Essentially a fan heater which
just happens to cost 5p/kWhr. Due to their cost they are impractical,
good for shops and offices.

Nuclear will not come online and even if it did the cost will not be
comparable to gas re debt.

A spanner is the potential for future gov't to essentially tax gas
consumed by householders rather than by power generators for "green
reasons", thereby bringing closer parity between gas & electricity.
There is no logical reason for this to happen - except to fund bonkers
windfarms & nuclear plant. It would be a dirty trick negating the
benefit of insulation, alternatively it could be the reason for doing
it "creating money out of nothing", quant-energy as it were.

Overall if you are buying a 2009 build flat, electric heating via say
Dimplex Duoheat storage heaters works supposedly well. They are
cheapish to install, no maintenance, minimal depreciation re long
lifecycle. Storage Heaters also provide objects of high thermal mass,
often missing in "minimalist apartments" when a door is opened. The
benefit of insulation is that it somewhat undermines the "need" to
have the high capital & maintenance & depreciation cost of gas boiler/
radiator system to "force enough kW in at low enough cost".

Vaillant boast their air, ground & gas heating options - it is likely
we move to heat pumps at some stage, however that is going to be "New
Build" no doubt by loony-regulation or loony-subsidy like PhotoVoltaic
panels to meet some "carbon requirement".

Put another way, cheapest is insulation - that way whatever they do it
makes screwing us harder.

js.b1 wrote:
No is the short answer, however...

#1 Insulation makes a huge difference.
With 2009 levels of insulation very little heating is required.

#2 CO2 Heat Pump at gas boiler price will take time.
CO2 heat pumps only hit parity (1kW out for 1kW in) down at -25oC and
are thus ideally suited to the UK temperature climiate. Existing
heatpumps are R410A and expensive (£1k), not the much more expensive
CO2 (£4k). The economy of scale of CO2 Heat Pumps is some way off -
probably 15yrs.
The benefit of CO2 Heat Pumps is very high real-world CoP (4:1) from
air sources avoiding the "dig cost" of ground source heat pumps. The
long term risk of such heat pumps I suspect may be noise based - a
neighbourhood of such pumps battling a heat island effect could get
undesireable acoustics (as with windmills & geology/buildings).

#3 Storage Heaters are near parity with gas if 2009 insulation.
That is to say 5p/kWhr isn't a mile off gas at 3.5kWhr when you factor
in a) installation cost b) maintenance c) depreciation. The problem is
storage heater comfort/usability does not have parity with gas re
controllability & on-demand capability.

So far correct, except heatpumps are not noisy.

They are just large fridges, in reverse.

To get true controllability you need commercial fan storage heaters
which are very large and expensive (£750-1250), these leak very little
heat and instead blow it out on demand. Essentially a fan heater which
just happens to cost 5p/kWhr. Due to their cost they are impractical,
good for shops and offices.

Nuclear will not come online and even if it did the cost will not be
comparable to gas re debt.


Its way below gas at around £1.5p /Kwh ex the set itself.

Current build costs are as stated early somewhere between £1000 and
£3000 per Kw installed capacity including decomissioning: At 1% of
capital build costs. fuel and maintenance are peanuts.

That means you have to find ~30p per kilowatt generated *over the
lifetime of the set*.

With NO costs of borrowing, that's 3p a unit over 10 years. Most sets
are built for 25-50 years, and with refurbishment 60-70 is possible.

At 10% interest and 10 year lifespan its still only 6p a unit. That is
as bad as it gets conceivably. More likely is 5% interest and 40 years,
at which level the total cost of the units lifetime assuming the debt is
not paid down (sort of interest only mortgage) is 4.5p a unit.

IIRC the government subsidises to around 10-12p for windpower.

If gas and oil at somewhere in the 3.5-5p/Kwh go up to say 5p-10p, which
is more likely tnan not, nuclear is massively the cheapest way tio get
energy.



A spanner is the potential for future gov't to essentially tax gas
consumed by householders rather than by power generators for "green
reasons", thereby bringing closer parity between gas & electricity.
There is no logical reason for this to happen - except to fund bonkers
windfarms

yes

& nuclear plant.

No.

Governments are not involved in funding nuclear power at all, except in
France.

Nuclear power needs no govt. funding: Its a viable commercial enterprise
IF the decommissioning and waste disposal rules are not suddenly subject
to change and political whim.


The government sold its last remaining interest to EDF when British
Energy was bought out by them.


Put another way, cheapest is insulation - that way whatever they do it
makes screwing us harder.

Certainly as far as domestic heating goes, the best payback starts
there. But once you have that, you run into the law of diminishing returns.


After a lot of calculations, Only one technology - heat pumps - looked
likely to better my fuel bills, And that needed an oil price of 45p
plus to be worth doing.

And £10k investment.

The other possible but equally capital intensive system was heat
recovery ventilation.

Forget solar panels, or domestic windmills. Complete waste off money.

Put the money in a nuclear fund, you will get more ROI from that!

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Al 1953 saying
something like:

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?

"Too cheap to meter", that rings a bell.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Al 1953 saying
something like:

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?

"Too cheap to meter", that rings a bell.

never took capital costs into account: That was political spin anyway.


No, I believe that in France, if you are within 20 miles of a nuclear
power station, and a lot of people are, you get free electricity or very
cheap electricity. This changes local peoples perceptions dramatically
when it comes to planning permission....

The Natural Philosopher
wibbled on Thursday 25 March 2010 08:36

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Al 1953 saying
something like:

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?

"Too cheap to meter", that rings a bell.

never took capital costs into account: That was political spin anyway.


No, I believe that in France, if you are within 20 miles of a nuclear
power station, and a lot of people are, you get free electricity or very
cheap electricity. This changes local peoples perceptions dramatically
when it comes to planning permission....

Probably would here. Possibly to the extent that the locals would go and
sort out the hippie protesters, saving the police the job.

--
Tim Watts

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

Tim Watts wrote:
The Natural Philosopher
wibbled on Thursday 25 March 2010 08:36

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Al 1953 saying
something like:

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?
"Too cheap to meter", that rings a bell.
never took capital costs into account: That was political spin anyway.


No, I believe that in France, if you are within 20 miles of a nuclear
power station, and a lot of people are, you get free electricity or very
cheap electricity. This changes local peoples perceptions dramatically
when it comes to planning permission....

Probably would here. Possibly to the extent that the locals would go and
sort out the hippie protesters, saving the police the job.

WE occasionally swim a couple of miles up from Sizewell B. My wife
reports the water is perceptibly warmer..

I tend to not swim in water below 20C, so I'll take that on trust.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:19:17 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Al 1953 saying
something like:

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?

"Too cheap to meter", that rings a bell.


When they got past that particular barefaced lie, there was a
publicity drive stating that the prices of electricity generated from
nuclear, coal and oil were in the ratio 1:2:3.

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.

"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.

I wonder what the next "quick fix" will be after nuclear power? Tidal
power, more wind power, perhaps, but these systems don't generate
power reliably when you need them. Clean coal? The first UK clean
coal station has just been denied planning permission on the basis of
a detailed report that showed the technology did not have a cat's
chance in hell of doing what was claimed for it. Biomass? The
proposed biomass power station on Anglesey would need most of its fuel
to be imported over long distances by sea, adding CO2 emissions.

So it looks like nuclear fusion will be needed to save the day. But
it's 20-30 years away. Funnily enough, they said the same 20-30 years
ago. But 20-30 years on, it is still 20-30 years away.

Must keep trying. ;-)

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:19:17 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Al 1953 saying
something like:

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?
"Too cheap to meter", that rings a bell.


When they got past that particular barefaced lie, there was a
publicity drive stating that the prices of electricity generated from
nuclear, coal and oil were in the ratio 1:2:3.

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.

It doesnt now.


"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.


Utter ********. Ther is certainly enough urnaium for 50 years, and fasty
brerders and other technologies can make a lot more fissionable material
IF THE PRICE IS HIGH ENOUGH. Currently the cost of fuel is about 0.1p
per kilowatt hour. When you look at the potential uranium reserves at
say 10 times the price that it costs now - still only 1p per kilowatt
hour - the resources are MASSIVE.

Peak oil has a natural cutoff, in that if it takes more energy to get it
out than it produces , its really totally useless.

But that sort of figure, with uranium, is never reached. Its energy
effective to filter it out of seawater. Its very EXPENSIVE, but not as
expensive as oil at say $300 a barrel is.

Uranium exploration and mining is almost nil at the moment. A few rich
and easily exploitable resources are in play, but no one has gone
looking for more, or developed extraction for it, because its too cheap
to be worth it.




I wonder what the next "quick fix" will be after nuclear power? Tidal
power, more wind power, perhaps, but these systems don't generate
power reliably when you need them. Clean coal? The first UK clean
coal station has just been denied planning permission on the basis of
a detailed report that showed the technology did not have a cat's
chance in hell of doing what was claimed for it. Biomass? The
proposed biomass power station on Anglesey would need most of its fuel
to be imported over long distances by sea, adding CO2 emissions.


Fusion power and second generation reactors. There are at least 5
potentially far better fission technologies out there, that have never
been researched or developed because the cash wasn't there to do it.
And the Greens managed to lobby hard to get them kicked in the balls.

The fact is that we cant with any current technology, except in a very
few instances, run an industrial society on renewable resources. WE have
to exploit the energy density of atomic reactions. Period.

If one tenth te effort going into trying to make windmills work, went
into new reactor development, we wouldnt be in the mess we are.





So it looks like nuclear fusion will be needed to save the day. But
it's 20-30 years away. Funnily enough, they said the same 20-30 years
ago. But 20-30 years on, it is still 20-30 years away.

Must keep trying. ;-)


OTOH fission is here now and able to do the job.

Fusion has, finally shown energy positive reactions. Its taken a hell of
a lot of mathematics to get that far, but its progress. At least another
50 years is my guess, BUT there are so many far cleaner and safer ways
to do fission with almost any reasonable staring material, that it seems
that will be the way forward.

That takes energy off the map as far as a major problem is concerned,
leaving more basic things like food an water to become real issues And
general overpopulation.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:54:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Utter ********.


Your speciality.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:54:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

"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.


Utter ********. Ther is certainly enough urnaium for 50 years, and fasty
brerders and other technologies can make a lot more fissionable material
IF THE PRICE IS HIGH ENOUGH. Currently the cost of fuel is about 0.1p
per kilowatt hour. When you look at the potential uranium reserves at
say 10 times the price that it costs now - still only 1p per kilowatt
hour - the resources are MASSIVE.

To avoid Uranium, cut the lead time, remove problems re. proliferation etc.
and have the reactors close to popuations, Thorium looks promising.

http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_rea..._reactor_1.php

http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPe...orium_Reactors
--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.

"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.

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

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

On Mar 25, 5:47*am, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:19:17 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon

wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Al 1953 saying
something like:

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?

"Too cheap to meter", that rings a bell.

When they got past that particular barefaced lie, there was a
publicity drive stating that the prices of electricity generated from
nuclear, coal and oil were in the ratio 1:2:3. *

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.

"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.

I wonder what the next "quick fix" will be after nuclear power? *Tidal
power, more wind power, perhaps, but these systems don't generate
power reliably when you need them. *Clean coal? *The first UK clean
coal station has just been denied planning permission on the basis of
a detailed report that showed the technology did not have a cat's
chance in hell of doing what was claimed for it. *Biomass? *The
proposed biomass power station on Anglesey would need most of its fuel
to be imported over long distances by sea, adding CO2 emissions.

So it looks like nuclear fusion will be needed to save the day. *But
it's 20-30 years away. *Funnily enough, they said the same 20-30 years
ago. *But 20-30 years on, it is still 20-30 years away. *

Must keep trying. *;-)

Here; a province in eastern Canada, with a population of approx. a
half million persons, almost all (about 95%) of our electrcity is
generated by hydro. With reasonable insulation levels, very tightly
sealed modern homes having heat recovery air exchangers etc, is
completely competitive with other fuels. Very few new homes now use
other than electricity for heating and it would be true that virtually
100% of new construction is electric. There are no supplies of piped
in gas; propane is used for BarBEQUes and/or delivered to 100 or 200
pound tanks for say a gas fireplace. The occasional restaurant use
propane for cooking stoves.

Electricity is without the complications/hazards of gas lines,
chimneys, combustion chambers, fuel tanks and the need for electricity
anyway to operate relays, pumps, ignition systems and blowers etc.
Electric heating is usually installed by the electricians at same that
they wire the house.

Our electrcity is generated several hundred miles away; a situation
similar to say using Scottish electrcity in Bristol?

Here there are no cheap rates, all domestic electrcity is rated the
same no matter when consumed. Taking an average domestic electrcity
bill (monthly billing) and dividing by the number of kilowatts used it
average to just over 10 cents per k.watt/hr (Unit). This takes into
account a monthly per account charge of about $16 (About ten quid even
if no electricity is used) and an overall sales-tax of, now, 13%.

Reliability of service is excellent, even with heavy icing and snow
storms. The general use of aerial lines and connections to individual
homes also allows very fast restoration. Imagine trying to dig up a
street with below freezing temps and traffic! Billing methods are
operated very fairly and speedily and phone access to power co.
service-reps. or maintenance depts. is good. Rates are regulated by a
provincial government Public Utilities Board.

Personal electric baseboard maintenance cost for this all-electric
house during the last 40 years has been less than $100; two
thermostats and one circuit breaker. None of the approx. dozen
baseboard heaters, ranging from 500 watt (bathroom) to 3000 watt (two
1500s end to end in the biggest room) have gone open or given other
trouble. We do use a small fan in the family room which is open to the
kitchen and also to the front hall/passage way to bedroom (all on one
floor bungalow) to help circulate the heat.

Allowing for other costs versus the low front end cost of an electric
heating installation (electrcity being needed anyway for other
household work) compared to the first costs and other trades need for
other fuels it would appear that, here, that basic electric heating
would be/is competitive up to somewhere around 1.5 times the cost of
the fuel.

Air and occasionally ground heat pumps are appearing in some newer
houses. First costs of a minimum additional $15,000 to $20,000 are
mentioned for an average 3 bedroom two storey house of around 2000 to
2500 sq. feet. They seem to work OK? Down to around minus 10 to 15
degrees Celsius? Especially when windy (not uncommon here next tot he
North Atlantic!) Below which it becomes electric heating. Much larger
homes are appearing with, rumoured heating installations costs much
higher!

We are, ironically, subjected to acid rain from North American
industrial pollution; which afterwards blows out over the Atlantic
towards Europe. There's no such thing IOHO, as 'clean coal'; as
British cities found out about a century ago? One does recall walking
right up to the side of a fully lit up a double decker bus (Unlike the
red London buses, were they green? Or was that only Liverpool buses
and trams,) in Manchester in 1955/56 and being a few feet away before
knowing what it was!

Anyway just for comparison-info/comment. BTW It's about plus 3 degrees
C. today (unusually mild for here) snow mostly gone it but feels damp
and bone chilling!

terry wrote:
On Mar 25, 5:47 am, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:19:17 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon

wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Al 1953 saying
something like:
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?
"Too cheap to meter", that rings a bell.
When they got past that particular barefaced lie, there was a
publicity drive stating that the prices of electricity generated from
nuclear, coal and oil were in the ratio 1:2:3.

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.

"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.

I wonder what the next "quick fix" will be after nuclear power? Tidal
power, more wind power, perhaps, but these systems don't generate
power reliably when you need them. Clean coal? The first UK clean
coal station has just been denied planning permission on the basis of
a detailed report that showed the technology did not have a cat's
chance in hell of doing what was claimed for it. Biomass? The
proposed biomass power station on Anglesey would need most of its fuel
to be imported over long distances by sea, adding CO2 emissions.

So it looks like nuclear fusion will be needed to save the day. But
it's 20-30 years away. Funnily enough, they said the same 20-30 years
ago. But 20-30 years on, it is still 20-30 years away.

Must keep trying. ;-)

Here; a province in eastern Canada, with a population of approx. a
half million persons, almost all (about 95%) of our electrcity is
generated by hydro. With reasonable insulation levels, very tightly
sealed modern homes having heat recovery air exchangers etc, is
completely competitive with other fuels. Very few new homes now use
other than electricity for heating and it would be true that virtually
100% of new construction is electric. There are no supplies of piped
in gas; propane is used for BarBEQUes and/or delivered to 100 or 200
pound tanks for say a gas fireplace. The occasional restaurant use
propane for cooking stoves.

Hydro, if you have the correct geography, is in fact dirty cheap, as teh
fuel is free. Its very similar to nuclear in that respect, although
nuclear has the added complexity of steam generation and the actual
reactor, so capital costs may be higher, depending on how big a dam has
to be built. Hydro dams though have longer lifetimes than most power
stations .



Electricity is without the complications/hazards of gas lines,
chimneys, combustion chambers, fuel tanks and the need for electricity
anyway to operate relays, pumps, ignition systems and blowers etc.
Electric heating is usually installed by the electricians at same that
they wire the house.

Our electrcity is generated several hundred miles away; a situation
similar to say using Scottish electrcity in Bristol?


a couple of hundred miles of RELIABLE generation to consumer adds about
10% typically to the cost at our rates here (UK)

The problem comes when you have to over specify that to use teh power
that e.g. a windfarm MIGHT generate. Or might not. Because the load
factor is around 30%, you need typically three times as much grid
capacity to fully utilise the windfarm, which is a hidden cost that is
almost never mentioned by anyone, and certainly never by the Dynamo
Devotees.


Here there are no cheap rates, all domestic electrcity is rated the
same no matter when consumed. Taking an average domestic electrcity
bill (monthly billing) and dividing by the number of kilowatts used it
average to just over 10 cents per k.watt/hr (Unit). This takes into
account a monthly per account charge of about $16 (About ten quid even
if no electricity is used) and an overall sales-tax of, now, 13%.


I suspect that because when its cold, people run heating 24x7, and when
its hot, aircon 24x7 :-)

Reliability of service is excellent, even with heavy icing and snow
storms. The general use of aerial lines and connections to individual
homes also allows very fast restoration. Imagine trying to dig up a
street with below freezing temps and traffic!

There you are wrong. Aerial lines may fix faster, but they need fixing
more often. For which reason the National Grid here no longer builds any
11KV overheads and all new build houses have underground feeders.

They almost never go wrong.

Whereas we get outages from the overhead 11KV stuff every year. Trees or
wing causing them to arc over., or simple insulator degradation causing
similar.


Although its 5 times more expensive to underground, in general, the cost
benefit from less maintenance makes it ultimately the cheaper way to
manage lines at these intermediate voltages.

At higher voltages the capacitative loss to ground makes it infeasible
sadly. Unless you use DC. But that has other problems.


Billing methods are
operated very fairly and speedily and phone access to power co.
service-reps. or maintenance depts. is good. Rates are regulated by a
provincial government Public Utilities Board.

Personal electric baseboard maintenance cost for this all-electric
house during the last 40 years has been less than $100; two
thermostats and one circuit breaker. None of the approx. dozen
baseboard heaters, ranging from 500 watt (bathroom) to 3000 watt (two
1500s end to end in the biggest room) have gone open or given other
trouble. We do use a small fan in the family room which is open to the
kitchen and also to the front hall/passage way to bedroom (all on one
floor bungalow) to help circulate the heat.

Allowing for other costs versus the low front end cost of an electric
heating installation (electrcity being needed anyway for other
household work) compared to the first costs and other trades need for
other fuels it would appear that, here, that basic electric heating
would be/is competitive up to somewhere around 1.5 times the cost of
the fuel.


Yes, its very cheap. I doubt even nuclear can match a good hydro power
installation.

And of course Canada is home to the CANDU reactor which is also very
cheap per Kwh as a generator.


Air and occasionally ground heat pumps are appearing in some newer
houses. First costs of a minimum additional $15,000 to $20,000 are
mentioned for an average 3 bedroom two storey house of around 2000 to
2500 sq. feet. They seem to work OK? Down to around minus 10 to 15
degrees Celsius? Especially when windy (not uncommon here next tot he
North Atlantic!) Below which it becomes electric heating. Much larger
homes are appearing with, rumoured heating installations costs much
higher!


yes, the heatpump doesn't do a good job at REALLY low temps.

We are, ironically, subjected to acid rain from North American
industrial pollution; which afterwards blows out over the Atlantic
towards Europe. There's no such thing IOHO, as 'clean coal'; as
British cities found out about a century ago? One does recall walking
right up to the side of a fully lit up a double decker bus (Unlike the
red London buses, were they green? Or was that only Liverpool buses
and trams,) in Manchester in 1955/56 and being a few feet away before
knowing what it was!

Anyway just for comparison-info/comment. BTW It's about plus 3 degrees
C. today (unusually mild for here) snow mostly gone it but feels damp
and bone chilling!

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?

I don't have gas, I have domestic oil heating. However, this winter I
have used a small fan heater to heat only those parts of the house I'm
actually using and I reckon it's worked out cheaper than oil.

Consider:

My house is not fitted with a CH thermostat, even though the house was
only built in 2004. Dunno why the builder didn't fit one, since he
wasn't into cutting costs. A thermostat wouldn't have cost a lot
during construction, but there ya go. It's only this winter that it
has been very cold for a long time. In previous very cold winters
heating wasn't so expensive, relatively speaking. Since 2004 the
winter heating bill was only a little higher than normal. I can
remember one winter a couple or three years back when the outside temp
barely got down to zero, it was that mild.

Anyway, back to the non-existent CH thermostat, and instead of this
each radiator is fitted with a Honeywell thermostat, so you can adjust
the temperature of each rad. That does, of course, mean that you have
to constantly monitor the setting, which is a PITA.

Next, when the CH comes on you have to wait some considerable time (20
minutes) before a cold room starts to become warm, whereas a fan
heater is instantaneous. The fan heater does have a thermoswitch, so
it constantly cycles on and off as the desired room temperature is
maintained. Most importantly, only the room I'm using is heated. Okay,
on VERY cold nights I've switched on the CH during the early hours
merely to avoid pipe damage.

I have just paid my winter electricity bill. £218 for 110 days. This
is roughly £100 more than the previous bill which was for 92 days.

BUT.....! How much targeted heating would I have got from a £100's
worth of heating oil over the same 110 day period? £100 would have
bought approx 267 litres of oil back in early December and I don't
think 267 litres would have lasted 110 days! 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.

I may spend up to 8 hours a day in my computer room (although retired,
I dabble in software development), so what's the point of switching
the CH on to heat (even on a low setting) the rest of the house? Sure,
it's a bit nippy taking a dump, but I grew up in houses without any
form of CH, so I can take it! And if it's REALLY cold I'll take the
fan heater with me into the bathroom. We're only talking a few minutes
here, anyway.

Most recently I purchased a small oil-filled radiatior for one room
(Argos £24.99) and it is even better than the fan heater. One should
not leave a fan heater unattended, but it's far safer to leave a room
with one of these oil-filled rads. Now, once the temperature of the
room comes up I can turn down the thermostat on this little radiator
to half or a quarter and it keeps the room quite comfortably warm for
very few pennies per hour.

I do, of course, have a considerable amount of oil left in the tank! I
use the oil boiler mainly for hot water, but that doesn't consume
anything like as much as the CH. I can get a bathful of piping hot
water and do this for days and days without the level on the oil tank
barely dropping. Just heating hot water using oil isn't expensive, I
reckon. It's the CH that whacks up the costs.

MM

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.

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