"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
I don't know how the DHW works. Perhaps a second stage heat pump. She
seems happy with it but the house is now on the market:-)

DHW uses heatpump as preheater then immersion.

So you have to heat a cylinder of water in advance, rather than having the
heat-on-demand of a combi boiler. Yet another nail in the coffin for the
system as far as I am concerned. Having to plan ahead when you are going to
have a bath (or keep the cylinder permanently hot) is a real retrograde
step.

In article ,
ARW writes:
On 21/02/2019 17:40, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/02/2019 16:09, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 21 February 2019 11:24:38 UTC,
wrote:
On Thursday, 21 February 2019 10:42:08 UTC, Brian GaffÂ* wrote:
In theory, there is no real reasonÂ* for theÂ* ban, as for the
foreseeable
future they have to use Gas to generate power.

It's a lot easier and cheaper for the gas transporters to sell bulk
gas to a power station than to have to pipe up lots of new housing
estates and have retail sales involved in the supply chain.

The electricity retailers will be happy as they'll be able to pass on
the generation costs through smart meters.

We'll pick up the bill as usual.

Owain

Using gas to generate electricity is far more efficient than caol or oil,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combin...le_power_plant

62% if you are lucky. A condensing boiler is more like 90% (If heat is
what you want and you are comparing it with a resistive electric heater).

Is it really 90% or is that based on the same thing as Volkswagen figures?

They really are.

That makes them about twice as efficient as a gas power power station
(ours are around 40%, and most of the 'dash for gas' ones were lower),
so it makes no sense unless we aren't running any gas power stations
by then.

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

"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 14:28, NY wrote:

And you have to "sell" the idea that it will be more expensive to
install, and maybe to run, and (according to the article) will take
longer to heat up a room - presumably because it is lower power. That's a
hell of an advertising and PR campaign that you are going to need :-)

Something like..

"It's not lower powered, it's more efficient."

That's almost as bad as the low-powered vacuum cleaners which don't produce
enough suction so you have to keep going over the same bit of carpet, or
lower-powered kettles which take longer to heat the water... but the
legislators can't see further than "it uses less power".

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant whether
it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the amount of energy used
is the same.

wrote in message
...
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 7:49:58 PM UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:44:28 PM UTC, Rod Speed wrote:

Many power stations seem to be using something like wood chips
instead
of
coal at the moment.

**** all do.

The trains carrying these wood chips to Drax from Immingham go past our
back window every day.

Still **** all of the power generators in the UK or europe.

6% last year.

Drax isnt 6% of the power generators in the UK or europe.

Coal is zero most days now.

More fool you lot. It makes no sense to be carting wood half
way around the ****ing world to use it for power generation.

Nukes should be used instead.

https://renewablesnow.com/news/uk-wi...sept-9-626083/

At a completely stupid cost and only because 3 nukes were down for routine
maintenance.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
That makes them about twice as efficient as a gas power power station
(ours are around 40%, and most of the 'dash for gas' ones were lower),
so it makes no sense unless we aren't running any gas power stations
by then.

When has common sense ever affected any environmental kneejerk decision. We
have closed many of our coal-fired power stations (Ferrybridge and Didcot,
for certain), leaving us with barely enough generation capacity. It may or
may not be a good idea to get rid of coal-fired, but NOT until you've got
equivalent generating capacity from other sources (gas, nuclear, wind, solar
cells). We need one of those huge solar arrays like they've got in Spain
(*) - it could look quite majestic in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(I'm being ironic), though we might struggle to get the same amount of
sunlight as Spain...


(*) As seen on the James May "Big Ideas" programme that was repeated the
other day. It uses steerable mirrors to focus the sunlight onto a heat
exchanger to boil water to make steam for running the generators.

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
I don't know how the DHW works. Perhaps a second stage heat pump. She
seems happy with it but the house is now on the market:-)

DHW uses heatpump as preheater then immersion.

So you have to heat a cylinder of water in advance, rather than having the
heat-on-demand of a combi boiler. Yet another nail in the coffin for the
system as far as I am concerned. Having to plan ahead when you are going
to have a bath (or keep the cylinder permanently hot) is a real retrograde
step.

Trivial to insulate the cylinder well enough so you dont waste any heat.

On Thursday, 21 February 2019 20:52:08 UTC, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
That makes them about twice as efficient as a gas power power station
(ours are around 40%, and most of the 'dash for gas' ones were lower),

Is that including the losses in the electricity distribution network?

So, what do you want to do this evening?
- Pay surge pricing to have your heating on at peak rate
- Pay surge pricing to charge your electric car so you can go to work tomorrow
(you can't choose both, the smart meter is going to limit your max demand)
- Sit in the cold and dark like it's 1935

Owain

In article , NY
wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 14:28, NY wrote:

And you have to "sell" the idea that it will be more expensive to
install, and maybe to run, and (according to the article) will take
longer to heat up a room - presumably because it is lower power.
That's a hell of an advertising and PR campaign that you are going to
need :-)

Something like..

"It's not lower powered, it's more efficient."

That's almost as bad as the low-powered vacuum cleaners which don't
produce enough suction so you have to keep going over the same bit of
carpet, or lower-powered kettles which take longer to heat the water...
but the legislators can't see further than "it uses less power".

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant
whether it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the amount of
energy used is the same.

but you might get more radiation losses with the longer time?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 20:56:46 -0000, "NY" wrote:

snip

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant whether
it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the amount of energy used
is the same.

Or it could be worse as it's loosing heat all the time so the longer
time to boil the more heat lost.

Cheers, T i m

Ed Davey MP told our 2018 Green Libdem conference:
"In government we were experimenting with electrified heating, heat pumps, experimenting with biomass, and district heating. But at relatively low volumes. There's a reason for that. That is that there's a real challenge if you use those technologies to replace methane gas, it looks like it will be very expensive, take a long time, and have a lot of political reaction. Most people are used to their gas boilers and central heating systems, nice and simple with north sea gas. To rip out all that? I call that politically brave. We haven't quite worked out how to do that.

Instead there's a lot around Hydrogen (which really wasn't happening when I was Secretary of State).

Whether or not hydrogen or some other form of hydrogen mix or a biofuel could be used as a replacement for fossil fuel gas. We're a long way off from knowing if that is going to happen, so don't rush off say Ed says hydrogen's the way of the future. it may be, it may not, we don't know.

What we should be doing is very large scale pilots of all these different low carbon, zero carbon heating options. All these heating options. We've got to get cracking on this, the government's being far too slow.

We could crack up the pace in our time, but we weren't able to fix that as well as all the other stuff we were doing.

So, to conclude: we did a load domestically on power, (particularity offshore wind), we did a load internationally. "

https://greenlibdems.org.uk/en/artic...R37M_qs-h8X9wk

On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 8:33:04 AM UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...en-target.html

Well they are poisoning the users I suppose.
Once again Lam a trendsetter. No gas in our house!

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , NY
wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 14:28, NY wrote:

And you have to "sell" the idea that it will be more expensive to
install, and maybe to run, and (according to the article) will take
longer to heat up a room - presumably because it is lower power.
That's a hell of an advertising and PR campaign that you are going to
need :-)

Something like..

"It's not lower powered, it's more efficient."

That's almost as bad as the low-powered vacuum cleaners which don't
produce enough suction so you have to keep going over the same bit of
carpet, or lower-powered kettles which take longer to heat the water...
but the legislators can't see further than "it uses less power".

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant
whether it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the amount of
energy used is the same.

but you might get more radiation losses with the longer time?

Not enough to matter with only double the quite short time.

Still no point in half power kettles tho.

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:37:42 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

Trivial

Nothing could be as trivial as your trolling, senile idiot!

--
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp addressing Rot Speed:
"You really are a clueless pillock."
MID:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:31:29 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:


At a completely stupid cost and only because 3 nukes were down for routine
maintenance.

Teaching the Brits again how Britain works, you subnormal senile idiot? BG

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On 21/02/2019 20:56, NY wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 14:28, NY wrote:

And you have to "sell" the idea that it will be more expensive to
install, and maybe to run, and (according to the article) will take
longer to heat up a room - presumably because it is lower power.
That's a hell of an advertising and PR campaign that you are going to
need :-)

Something like..

"It's not lower powered, it's more efficient."

That's almost as bad as the low-powered vacuum cleaners which don't
produce enough suction so you have to keep going over the same bit of
carpet, or lower-powered kettles which take longer to heat the water...
but the legislators can't see further than "it uses less power".

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant
whether it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the amount of
energy used is the same.

Where are the EU's proposals for kettles?

I saw in 2016 they had decided against early action but were including
kettles (but not toasters!) in the Ecodesign programme of work for
2016-2019. I must have missed news of proposals from that.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 09:30:35 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:


Not enough to matter

In auto-contradicting mode again, senile Ozzietard? Take your meds!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Thursday, 21 February 2019 20:56:47 UTC, NY wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 14:28, NY wrote:

And you have to "sell" the idea that it will be more expensive to
install, and maybe to run, and (according to the article) will take
longer to heat up a room - presumably because it is lower power. That's a
hell of an advertising and PR campaign that you are going to need :-)

Something like..

"It's not lower powered, it's more efficient."

That's almost as bad as the low-powered vacuum cleaners which don't produce
enough suction so you have to keep going over the same bit of carpet, or
lower-powered kettles which take longer to heat the water... but the
legislators can't see further than "it uses less power".

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant whether
it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the amount of energy used
is the same.

Well ****-fer-brains, the reason is smaller power stations is needed to deliver that power.
Ti's about peak loads.

On Thursday, 21 February 2019 17:40:48 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/02/2019 16:09, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 21 February 2019 11:24:38 UTC, wrote:
On Thursday, 21 February 2019 10:42:08 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
In theory, there is no real reason for the ban, as for the foreseeable
future they have to use Gas to generate power.

It's a lot easier and cheaper for the gas transporters to sell bulk gas to a power station than to have to pipe up lots of new housing estates and have retail sales involved in the supply chain.

The electricity retailers will be happy as they'll be able to pass on the generation costs through smart meters.

We'll pick up the bill as usual.

Owain

Using gas to generate electricity is far more efficient than caol or oil,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combin...le_power_plant

62% if you are lucky. A condensing boiler is more like 90% (If heat is
what you want and you are comparing it with a resistive electric heater).



Gas is far less efficient if compared with a heat pump.
Which is the alternative technology being proposed.

On Thursday, 21 February 2019 19:38:03 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 21/02/2019 17:40, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/02/2019 16:09, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 21 February 2019 11:24:38 UTC,
wrote:
On Thursday, 21 February 2019 10:42:08 UTC, Brian GaffÂ* wrote:
In theory, there is no real reasonÂ* for theÂ* ban, as for the
foreseeable
future they have to use Gas to generate power.

It's a lot easier and cheaper for the gas transporters to sell bulk
gas to a power station than to have to pipe up lots of new housing
estates and have retail sales involved in the supply chain.

The electricity retailers will be happy as they'll be able to pass on
the generation costs through smart meters.

We'll pick up the bill as usual.

Owain

Using gas to generate electricity is far more efficient than caol or oil,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combin...le_power_plant

62% if you are lucky. A condensing boiler is more like 90% (If heat is
what you want and you are comparing it with a resistive electric heater).


Is it really 90% or is that based on the same thing as Volkswagen figures?

--
Adam

It can be more. Depends on if you're looking at net or gross calorific values.

On Thursday, 21 February 2019 21:34:59 UTC, NY wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
That makes them about twice as efficient as a gas power power station
(ours are around 40%, and most of the 'dash for gas' ones were lower),
so it makes no sense unless we aren't running any gas power stations
by then.

When has common sense ever affected any environmental kneejerk decision.

It makes perfect sense if you understand the technology.
Which clearly,you don't.

On Thursday, 21 February 2019 22:03:33 UTC, George Miles wrote:
Ed Davey MP told our 2018 Green Libdem conference:
"In government we were experimenting with electrified heating, heat pumps, experimenting with biomass, and district heating. But at relatively low volumes. There's a reason for that. That is that there's a real challenge if you use those technologies to replace methane gas, it looks like it will be very expensive, take a long time, and have a lot of political reaction. Most people are used to their gas boilers and central heating systems, nice and simple with north sea gas. To rip out all that? I call that politically brave. We haven't quite worked out how to do that.

Instead there's a lot around Hydrogen (which really wasn't happening when I was Secretary of State).

Whether or not hydrogen or some other form of hydrogen mix or a biofuel could be used as a replacement for fossil fuel gas. We're a long way off from knowing if that is going to happen, so don't rush off say Ed says hydrogen's the way of the future. it may be, it may not, we don't know.


Hydrogen is total bollix.
Expensive, inefficient and dangerous.
It will never happen.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:33:02 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...en-target.html

Well they are poisoning the users I suppose.
Once again Lam a trendsetter. No gas in our house!

Should being the operative word.

More lies by a racist Brexit traitor.

If you feel strongly about it, onstead of posting brain dead Mail
fiction, why not contact an MEP such as Farage who is well known for
speaking up on UK citizens interests.

AB

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 20:56:46 -0000, "NY" wrote:

"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 14:28, NY wrote:

And you have to "sell" the idea that it will be more expensive to
install, and maybe to run, and (according to the article) will take
longer to heat up a room - presumably because it is lower power. That's a
hell of an advertising and PR campaign that you are going to need :-)

Something like..

"It's not lower powered, it's more efficient."

That's almost as bad as the low-powered vacuum cleaners which don't produce
enough suction so you have to keep going over the same bit of carpet, or
lower-powered kettles which take longer to heat the water... but the
legislators can't see further than "it uses less power".

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant whether
it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the amount of energy used
is the same.

Your drivel about the vacuum is a downright lie. I have a new vacuum
and it will "stick" to the floor easily.

I have seen nothing from the EU regarding kettles, only the English
gutter press, what is your source?

You are totally wrong on energy useage incidentally, as a few seconds
thought would reveal. Like most of the lies about the EU though a few
seconds thought isn't really a tool in the armoury of the Brexit
morons.

AB

On 21/02/2019 20:51, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
I don't know how the DHW works. Perhaps a second stage heat pump. She
seems happy with it but the house is now on the market:-)

DHW uses heatpump as preheater then immersion.

So you have to heat a cylinder of water in advance, rather than having
the heat-on-demand of a combi boiler. Yet another nail in the coffin for
the system as far as I am concerned. Having to plan ahead when you are
going to have a bath (or keep the cylinder permanently hot) is a real
retrograde step.

WEell a modern mains perssure tank lose very little heat and since you
are already all electric with heating it loses it inside te house where
its need 9 minths of the year.

And its way better than a combi in terms of hot water delivery,


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 21:51:48 +0000, T i m wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 20:56:46 -0000, "NY" wrote:

snip

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant whether
it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the amount of energy used
is the same.

Or it could be worse as it's loosing heat all the time so the longer
time to boil the more heat lost.

Cheers, T i m

Ah we have a thinker :-)

Someone that probably didn't fall for the bent banana ploy either.

There is another factor that comes into play and makes the sums a
trifle more difficult, thats the I^2R losses in the supply. As Ohms
Law would take most of the EU critics into uncharted waters, a bit of
calculus would be on another plane completely :-)

Anyway as one of the posessors of the NG's brain cells are you aware
of a European directive on kettle power?

AB

On 21/02/2019 19:56, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 21/02/2019 19:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/02/2019 18:52, NY wrote:
"Andy Bennet" wrote in message
...
We looked at installing an air source heatpump, would have cost
£13k to upgrade our existing wet system.

So does it heat the rooms by blowing warm air (*) through vents in
the room?

No

(*) I presume it does, since you say that it replaces your wet system.

Oh dear. Heat pump produces warm water,. Needs massive rads or
underfloor pipes and LOTS of insulation.


Two heat pumps in series can produce 80C down to -7C outside temp.
LG, Daikin and Panasonic already produce such systems which can use
existing rads.

But at a cost.
Both in capital and efficiency terms



--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 21/02/2019 19:59, wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 7:49:58 PM UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:44:28 PM UTC, Rod Speed wrote:

Many power stations seem to be using something like wood chips instead
of
coal at the moment.

**** all do.

The trains carrying these wood chips to Drax from Immingham go past our
back window every day.

Still **** all of the power generators in the UK or europe.

6% last year. Coal is zero most days now.

Well not in winter, no.


https://renewablesnow.com/news/uk-wi...sept-9-626083/

Ther Day The Wind Blew.

OTOH over a year its about 10-15%.


--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 21/02/2019 20:52, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
ARW writes:
On 21/02/2019 17:40, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/02/2019 16:09, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 21 February 2019 11:24:38 UTC,
wrote:
On Thursday, 21 February 2019 10:42:08 UTC, Brian GaffÂÂ* wrote:
In theory, there is no real reasonÂÂ* for theÂÂ* ban, as for the
foreseeable
future they have to use Gas to generate power.

It's a lot easier and cheaper for the gas transporters to sell bulk
gas to a power station than to have to pipe up lots of new housing
estates and have retail sales involved in the supply chain.

The electricity retailers will be happy as they'll be able to pass on
the generation costs through smart meters.

We'll pick up the bill as usual.

Owain

Using gas to generate electricity is far more efficient than caol or oil,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combin...le_power_plant

62% if you are lucky. A condensing boiler is more like 90% (If heat is
what you want and you are comparing it with a resistive electric heater).

Is it really 90% or is that based on the same thing as Volkswagen figures?

They really are.

That makes them about twice as efficient as a gas power power station
(ours are around 40%, and most of the 'dash for gas' ones were lower),

No, our CCGTS ONCE WARMED UP are in the high 60s low 60s.

Only OCGT is below 40%.


so it makes no sense unless we aren't running any gas power stations
by then.



--
"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".

Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14

On 21/02/2019 21:42, charles wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 14:28, NY wrote:

And you have to "sell" the idea that it will be more expensive to
install, and maybe to run, and (according to the article) will take
longer to heat up a room - presumably because it is lower power.
That's a hell of an advertising and PR campaign that you are going to
need :-)

Something like..

"It's not lower powered, it's more efficient."

That's almost as bad as the low-powered vacuum cleaners which don't
produce enough suction so you have to keep going over the same bit of
carpet, or lower-powered kettles which take longer to heat the water...
but the legislators can't see further than "it uses less power".

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant
whether it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the amount of
energy used is the same.

but you might get more radiation losses with the longer time?

you WILL get more radiation losses...

--
"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".

Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 February 2019 20:56:47 UTC, NY wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 14:28, NY wrote:

And you have to "sell" the idea that it will be more expensive to
install, and maybe to run, and (according to the article) will take
longer to heat up a room - presumably because it is lower power.
That's a
hell of an advertising and PR campaign that you are going to need :-)

Something like..

"It's not lower powered, it's more efficient."

That's almost as bad as the low-powered vacuum cleaners which don't
produce
enough suction so you have to keep going over the same bit of carpet, or
lower-powered kettles which take longer to heat the water... but the
legislators can't see further than "it uses less power".

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant
whether
it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the amount of energy
used
is the same.

Well ****-fer-brains, the reason is smaller power stations is needed to
deliver that power.
Ti's about peak loads.

But its far from clear that kettles do produce peak loads anymore
not what we have a lot more TV channels with ad breaks.

"Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:33:02 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...en-target.html

Well they are poisoning the users I suppose.
Once again Lam a trendsetter. No gas in our house!

Should being the operative word.

More lies by a racist Brexit traitor.

If you feel strongly about it, onstead of posting brain dead Mail
fiction, why not contact an MEP such as Farage who is well known for
speaking up on UK citizens interests.

Because there is nothing an MEP can do about it.
Specially one that only has 5 weeks as an MEP to go.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 21:42, charles wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 14:28, NY wrote:

And you have to "sell" the idea that it will be more expensive to
install, and maybe to run, and (according to the article) will take
longer to heat up a room - presumably because it is lower power.
That's a hell of an advertising and PR campaign that you are going to
need :-)

Something like..

"It's not lower powered, it's more efficient."

That's almost as bad as the low-powered vacuum cleaners which don't
produce enough suction so you have to keep going over the same bit of
carpet, or lower-powered kettles which take longer to heat the water...
but the legislators can't see further than "it uses less power".

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant
whether it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the amount of
energy used is the same.

but you might get more radiation losses with the longer time?

you WILL get more radiation losses...

But not enough to matter. But its far from clear that half power kettles are
worth it.

On 22/02/2019 08:24, 2987fr wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 21:42, charles wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 14:28, NY wrote:

And you have to "sell" the idea that it will be more expensive to
install, and maybe to run, and (according to the article) will take
longer to heat up a room - presumably because it is lower power.
That's a hell of an advertising and PR campaign that you are going to
need :-)

Something like..

"It's not lower powered, it's more efficient."

That's almost as bad as the low-powered vacuum cleaners which don't
produce enough suction so you have to keep going over the same bit of
carpet, or lower-powered kettles which take longer to heat the water...
but the legislators can't see further than "it uses less power".

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant
whether it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the amount of
energy used is the same.

but you might get more radiation losses with the longer time?

you WILL get more radiation losses...

But not enough to matter. But its far from clear that half power kettles
are worth it.

Probably not worth it. But convenient and accurate filling/dispensing
for just what's used, an insulating shell, and variable temperature may
well be worth considering.

The kettle is well within the top 5 consumers of household electricity
and is the one appliance that virtually every household has and uses.
Many little gains that are cheap and easy to adopt add up.

--
Cheers, Rob

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 February 2019 21:34:59 UTC, NY wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
That makes them about twice as efficient as a gas power power station
(ours are around 40%, and most of the 'dash for gas' ones were lower),
so it makes no sense unless we aren't running any gas power stations
by then.

When has common sense ever affected any environmental kneejerk decision.

It makes perfect sense if you understand the technology.
Which clearly,you don't.

There are probably many reasons that coal is bad and other forms of energy
are better. I don't dispute that.

But the problem comes when you close the coal stations *before* having
sufficient replacement in place, leaving the country running very short of
energy at times.

I do wonder whether it is better to burn gas in people's houses to heat them
directly, as opposed to burning it centrally in a power station and then
using the electricity to heat the houses. All energy conversion tends to
produce heat as a waste by-product. Given that fact, it is better that this
heat is produced where it is needed, rather than in a power station where it
has to be got rid of with cooling towers or other heat exchangers.

harry wrote:

NY wrote:

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water:

Well ****-fer-brains, the reason is smaller power stations is needed to deliver that power.
Ti's about peak loads.

But more people will be using their underpowered kettles at any given
instant, so the same power stations required.

On 22/02/2019 07:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/02/2019 20:51, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
I don't know how the DHW works. Perhaps a second stage heat pump.
She seems happy with it but the house is now on the market:-)

DHW uses heatpump as preheater then immersion.

So you have to heat a cylinder of water in advance, rather than having
the heat-on-demand of a combi boiler. Yet another nail in the coffin
for the system as far as I am concerned. Having to plan ahead when you
are going to have a bath (or keep the cylinder permanently hot) is a
real retrograde step.

Â*WEell a modern mains perssure tank lose very little heat and since you
are already all electric with heating it loses it inside te house where
its need 9 minths of the year.

And its way better than a combi in terms of hot water delivery,


.... and you can heat it overnight on cheap rate electrity. BTW our 220l
vented tank has a heat loss of 78W (delta T not specified). and as you
say that goes towards heating the house anyway.

On 22/02/2019 07:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/02/2019 19:56, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 21/02/2019 19:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/02/2019 18:52, NY wrote:
"Andy Bennet" wrote in message
...
We looked at installing an air source heatpump, would have cost
£13k to upgrade our existing wet system.

So does it heat the rooms by blowing warm air (*) through vents in
the room?

No

(*) I presume it does, since you say that it replaces your wet system.

Oh dear. Heat pump produces warm water,. Needs massive rads or
underfloor pipes and LOTS of insulation.


Two heat pumps in series can produce 80C down to -7C outside temp.
LG, Daikin and Panasonic already produce such systems which can use
existing rads.

But at a cost.
Both in capital and efficiency terms



I agree with you. which is why we wrote them off as a viable heat
source. - yes the COP can drop below 2.5 in cold weather - just when you
don't want it to!

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 19:24:08 +1100, 2987fr, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:

you WILL get more radiation losses...

But not enough to matter. But its far from clear that half power kettles are
worth it.

Are you now smartassing about kettles or what, you unnatural senile
Ozzietard? LOL

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On 22/02/2019 08:41, RJH wrote:
snip
Probably not worth it. But convenient and accurate filling/dispensing
for just what's used, an insulating shell, and variable temperature may
well be worth considering.

I agree about variable temperature, although the working group in the
previous EU programme were rather cack-handed in handling the fact that
most things don't need water at 100 degrees but "some tea drinkers
insist on" boiling water.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 19:16:18 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:



But its far from clear that kettles do produce peak loads anymore

What's VERY clear is that you will keep producing ****loads of your stinking
senile troll****, senile Rot!

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 22/02/2019 08:24, 2987fr wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 21:42, charles wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 14:28, NY wrote:

And you have to "sell" the idea that it will be more expensive to
install, and maybe to run, and (according to the article) will take
longer to heat up a room - presumably because it is lower power.
That's a hell of an advertising and PR campaign that you are going
to
need :-)

Something like..

"It's not lower powered, it's more efficient."

That's almost as bad as the low-powered vacuum cleaners which don't
produce enough suction so you have to keep going over the same bit of
carpet, or lower-powered kettles which take longer to heat the
water...
but the legislators can't see further than "it uses less power".

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a
fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant
whether it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the amount
of
energy used is the same.

but you might get more radiation losses with the longer time?

you WILL get more radiation losses...

But not enough to matter. But its far from clear that half power kettles
are worth it.

Probably not worth it. But convenient and accurate filling/dispensing for
just what's used, an insulating shell, and variable temperature may well
be worth considering.

The kettle is well within the top 5 consumers of household electricity and
is the one appliance that virtually every household has and uses. Many
little gains that are cheap and easy to adopt add up.

Not with a kettle they dont except with the amount of water you heat
and few kettles do a minimum amount of water very well at all.