On 18/05/2021 12:55, Theo wrote:
Pancho wrote:
On 18/05/2021 12:28, Theo wrote:
AIUI a boiler replacement is supposed to be registered with GasSafe. If the
age of the boiler doesn't match the age of the most recent registration,
someone might start asking questions...

How do we check that out boiler installer did this?

Ask GasSafe?

Theo


BG gas fitters are nothing to do with Gas Safe.

On 18/05/2021 10:52, charles wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:
On 18/05/2021 09:37, Tricky Dicky wrote:


Boilers that can be converted to using hydrogen are to be exempt.

Richard



I see Worcester-Bosch are suggesting they are developing hydrogen ready
boilers. Boilers which can run on natural gas now, but someday, and that
day may never come, they can be called upon to run on hydrogen.

It was done with coal gas natural gas. Simply a change of burners.


And then all the joints between the cast iron gas pipes slowly started
to leak while they were trying to replace umpteen thousands of miles of
pipes with yellow 'plastic'

On 18/05/2021 12:51, wrote:
On 18/05/2021 09:31, Tim+ wrote:
In the light of plans to stop new gas or oil boilers being fitted after
2025 how many folk are considering buying a €œspare€� boiler? ;-)

I must admit the thought has crossed my mind€¦

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57149059.

Im assuming that only professional installs can be banned.

Tim

Some of us would need to stock-pile heating oil, as well as a spare
boiler :-(

Make friends with your local chippy ?

On 18/05/2021 14:57, Theo wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
What always intrigues me about pieces like that, is how they all gloss
over the fact that the renewables industry in the UK is dependant on gas
for balancing load and intermittent supply.

Articles like this gloss over a lot.

And they all present it.

In one sentence per paragraph.


I don't think gas is a showstopper as such. Better to use renewable
electricity for the say 90% of the time you can, and generate electricity
from gas only when needed to bridge intermittency (and no other storage is
available - batteries should handle short term grid stability). Result is a
90% decline in carbon emissions. Power stations are also much easier places
to fit CCS than everyone's boiler flue.


One episode of "how to they make that" on Quest showed a ?coal-fired
powerstation where the flue gases were used to make ?gypsum which
was then turned into plasterboard. My chemistry is rusty, so I can't
remember the details. Might be something like this -


https://www.nepic.co.uk/wp-content/u...arbonCycle.pdf

On 18/05/2021 11:11, Spike wrote:
The Germans had an idea of delivering such material by rocket to New
York in WWII,

That would only have ended badly for them.

Bill

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
A non-professional gas installation voids your household insurance.

I take it you have a vested interest?

I'll take a bet with you. That there are far more gas explosions where
'professionals' were involved than skilled amateurs.

--
*I'm reading a book about anti-gravity. I just can't put it down.*

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

Theo wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
What always intrigues me about pieces like that, is how they all gloss
over the fact that the renewables industry in the UK is dependant on gas
for balancing load and intermittent supply.

Articles like this gloss over a lot.

And they all present it.

In one sentence per paragraph.


I don't think gas is a showstopper as such. Better to use renewable
electricity for the say 90% of the time you can, and generate electricity
from gas only when needed to bridge intermittency (and no other storage is
available - batteries should handle short term grid stability). Result is a
90% decline in carbon emissions. Power stations are also much easier places
to fit CCS than everyone's boiler flue.

Obviously there's a whole load of economic implications (upgrade the grid;
pay to keep stations idle, not pay them per unit of generation) but it
doesn't seem technically problematic.

Apart from a workable/economically viable carbon capture system.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
A non-professional gas installation voids your household insurance.

I take it you have a vested interest?

I'll take a bet with you. That there are far more gas explosions where
'professionals' were involved than skilled amateurs.


But there are far far more €œprofessional€� installs than amateur ones so
total numbers of explosions
per type of installation would be misleading.

Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls

Tim+ wrote:
Apart from a workable/economically viable carbon capture system.

Carbon capture is doable (at a power station). Storage is the problem.

But anyway, reducing emissions by (say) 90% is still a win.

Theo

On 18/05/2021 13:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/05/2021 11:49, Robin wrote:

I know the basics of atom bomb making.Â* But a plutonium RDD avoids all
that.Â* Use it above a major city centre.Â* Then sit back to watch to
the panic over hours & days, the economic impact over months and
years, and the health impact over decades.

Why would there be ANY?. Plutonium is so un-radioactive that there is
more danger from e.g. inhaling lead dust than plutonium dust., Its very
heavy, so it hits the ground early.



Can you cite research to show a government could truthfully say after
plutonium has been dispersed in a city it will cause /no/ deaths? And
that's what's needed. If all you can truthfully tell the public is that
the excess deaths will be lost in the noise of the usual deaths from
cancer many (if not most) of the public will stay away until you
decontaminate. And some (possibly many) will stay away even after
decontamination.


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

On 18/05/2021 14:34, John Rumm wrote:
What always intrigues me about pieces like that, is how they all gloss
over the fact that the renewables industry in the UK is dependant on gas
for balancing load and intermittent supply.


Surely the reason for not having domestic gas boilers is that there is
far more utility in burning it in a combined cycle electricity
generator, possibly linked to some district heating than just heating
water up to 80C and circulating it. Thus some may still be available to
fill in the gaps renewables leave.

On 18/05/2021 16:30, Robin wrote:
On 18/05/2021 13:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/05/2021 11:49, Robin wrote:

I know the basics of atom bomb making.Â* But a plutonium RDD avoids
all that.Â* Use it above a major city centre.Â* Then sit back to watch
to the panic over hours & days, the economic impact over months and
years, and the health impact over decades.

Why would there be ANY?. Plutonium is so un-radioactive that there is
more danger from e.g. inhaling lead dust than plutonium dust., Its
very heavy, so it hits the ground early.



Can you cite research to show a government could truthfully say after
plutonium has been dispersed in a city it will cause /no/ deaths?Â* And
that's what's needed.Â* If all you can truthfully tell the public is that
the excess deaths will be lost in the noise of the usual deaths from
cancer many (if not most) of the public will stay away until you
decontaminate.Â* And some (possibly many) will stay away even after
decontamination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity

Suggests that the effects may be overstated, especially its toxicity.

This article may be of interest but will attract less scrutiny than a
wiki page:
http://ecolo.org/documents/documents...ard-cohen.html

On 18/05/2021 09:58, Robin wrote:
On 18/05/2021 09:31, Tim+ wrote:
In the light of plans to stop new gas or oil boilers being fitted after
2025 how many folk are considering buying a €œspare€� boiler? ;-)

I must admit the thought has crossed my mind€¦

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57149059.

Im assuming that only professional installs can be banned.


It could be banned under building regulations (which already make
fitting a new gas boiler notifiable).

As usual, what effort will be put into enforcement is another matter.

Indeed, how will they know if you've self installed a replacement
boiler, unless you've asked them in to look at something else and they
see it? Especially as an enforcement notice must be issued within 12
months of the completion of the work or a prosecution started within 2
years of it, so probably too late if they do eventually see it.

Yes they can seek an injunction preventing any use of the building until
it is put right, but a) that is really reserved for dangerous situations
and b) this power is rarely (if ever) used.

On 18/05/2021 12:01, Tim+ wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/05/2021 09:37, Tricky Dicky wrote:
On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 9:31:34 AM UTC+1, Tim+ wrote:

In the light of plans to stop new gas or oil boilers being fitted after
2025 how many folk are considering buying a €œspare€� boiler? ;-)

I must admit the thought has crossed my mind€¦

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57149059.

Im assuming that only professional installs can be banned.

A non-professional gas installation voids your household insurance.

Seriously, how is anyone going to know? The quality of €œprofessional€�
installations is so variable that as long as youre halfway competent no
one will be able to tell the difference, particularly if youre just
swapping a boiler and not relocating it.

And how can it void your insurance when the legal requirement is for the
installer to be competent and there is no requirement for them to be
registered, as long as they are not being paid for the work?

Where in most insurance documents does it mention self-installing boilers?

On 18/05/2021 17:19, Steve Walker wrote:
On 18/05/2021 12:01, Tim+ wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/05/2021 09:37, Tricky Dicky wrote:
On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 9:31:34 AM UTC+1, Tim+ wrote:

In the light of plans to stop new gas or oil boilers being fitted
after
2025 how many folk are considering buying a €œspare€� boiler? ;-)

I must admit the thought has crossed my mind€¦

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57149059.

Im assuming that only professional installs can be banned.

A non-professional gas installation voids your household insurance.

Seriously, how is anyone going to know?Â* The quality of €œprofessional€�
installations is so variable that as long as youre halfway competent no
one will be able to tell the difference, particularly if youre just
swapping a boiler and not relocating it.

And how can it void your insurance when the legal requirement is for the
installer to be competent and there is no requirement for them to be
registered, as long as they are not being paid for the work?

Where in most insurance documents does it mention self-installing boilers?

That was my thought too.

On 18/05/2021 09:45, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/05/2021 09:37, Tricky Dicky wrote:
On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 9:31:34 AM UTC+1, Tim+ wrote:

In the light of plans to stop new gas or oil boilers being fitted after
2025 how many folk are considering buying a €œspare€� boiler? ;-)

I must admit the thought has crossed my mind€¦

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57149059.

Im assuming that only professional installs can be banned.

A non-professional gas installation voids your household insurance.
There was a spectacular one went bang round here about a decade ago.

Can you provide evidence of this?

The
burnt out remains of the house sat unloved for years afterwards.

Which suggests there was no insurance in the first place.

Boilers that can be converted to using hydrogen are to be exempt.

Persuading hydrogen to stay inside the existing gas distribution pipes
is going to be interesting (Chinese usage).

Quite, except town gas seem to stay in the pipes ok.

On 18/05/2021 13:57, Robin wrote:
On 18/05/2021 13:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/05/2021 11:49, Robin wrote:
Indeed.Â* But I don't see how that's going to give much of a blast.
As I am sure you recognise, hydrogen per se cannot explode.

Oh yes it can.

Or did you think the challenger mission was faked up in a hollywood
studio?



No.Â* I do think it was caused by a *mixture* of hydrogen and oxygen.

Well of course.

Unfortunately any time hydrogen gets loose there is a lot of oxygen around.

You might just as well say that fuel doesn't explode.

So why are they making fuel-air bombs?

You might just as well say that flour or coal dust doesn't explode.

In air it damn well does.


--
€œIt is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong.€�

ۥ Voltaire, The Age of Louis XIV

It won't happen. At least if it does somebody is going to have to build some
nuclear reactors very quickly to serve all the electric heat pumps.
These are used in many parts of the world of course, and are a pretty
mature technology now.

What with Electric vehicles and electric heating, the power is going to have
to come from somewhere especially in Winter.
I think the idea is a good one, but one wonders how much psh will be on to
actually do it.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Tim+" wrote in message
...
In the light of plans to stop new gas or oil boilers being fitted after
2025 how many folk are considering buying a "spare" boiler? ;-)

I must admit the thought has crossed my mind.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57149059.

I'm assuming that only professional installs can be banned.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 18/05/2021 14:57, Theo wrote:
Better to use renewable
electricity for the say 90% of the time you can, and generate electricity
from gas only when needed to bridge intermittency (and no other storage is
available - batteries should handle short term grid stability). Result is a
90% decline in carbon emissions.

Result is a 3% increase in carbon emissions


--
€œIt is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong.€�

ۥ Voltaire, The Age of Louis XIV

On 18/05/2021 17:05, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2021 16:30, Robin wrote:
On 18/05/2021 13:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/05/2021 11:49, Robin wrote:

I know the basics of atom bomb making.Â* But a plutonium RDD avoids
all that.Â* Use it above a major city centre.Â* Then sit back to watch
to the panic over hours & days, the economic impact over months and
years, and the health impact over decades.

Why would there be ANY?. Plutonium is so un-radioactive that there is
more danger from e.g. inhaling lead dust than plutonium dust., Its
very heavy, so it hits the ground early.



Can you cite research to show a government could truthfully say after
plutonium has been dispersed in a city it will cause /no/ deaths?Â* And
that's what's needed.Â* If all you can truthfully tell the public is
that the excess deaths will be lost in the noise of the usual deaths
from cancer many (if not most) of the public will stay away until you
decontaminate.Â* And some (possibly many) will stay away even after
decontamination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity

Suggests that the effects may be overstated, especially its toxicity.

This article may be of interest but will attract less scrutiny than a
wiki page:
http://ecolo.org/documents/documents...ard-cohen.html


Indeed. But AFAICS neither allows a clear and simple "Nothing to worry
about, it can't kill you." And leaders have to work with the
populations they have, most of whom won't give a toss that earnest
scientists tell them they're more likely to die from lightning than the
the plutonium.



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

On 18/05/2021 16:24, Theo wrote:
Tim+ wrote:
Apart from a workable/economically viable carbon capture system.

Carbon capture is doable (at a power station). Storage is the problem.

But anyway, reducing emissions by (say) 90% is still a win.

First of all only if you believe that CO2 is EVIL. All the evidence is
that a doubling of CO2 would increase food production, shrink deserts
and have **** all effect on global climate, although 1 °C would be nice
and give us more farmland.

Secondly no intermittent renewable source will achieve that or anything
like it. In fact intermittent renewable energy actually increases
emissions die to its massive energy footprint in manufacturing and
disposal and the fact that it has to be co fired sub optimally with
fossil fuel.

Renewable energy„¢ is an ArtStudents„¢ solution to an ArtStudents„¢ nonproblem.

If you want reliable cheap low pollution power, you build nuclear plants.

If you want to scam consumers and virtue signal your way to massive
taxpayer ripoffs, you build windmills


Theo



--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 18/05/2021 16:30, Robin wrote:
On 18/05/2021 13:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/05/2021 11:49, Robin wrote:

I know the basics of atom bomb making.Â* But a plutonium RDD avoids
all that.Â* Use it above a major city centre.Â* Then sit back to watch
to the panic over hours & days, the economic impact over months and
years, and the health impact over decades.

Why would there be ANY?. Plutonium is so un-radioactive that there is
more danger from e.g. inhaling lead dust than plutonium dust., Its
very heavy, so it hits the ground early.



Can you cite research to show a government could truthfully say after
plutonium has been dispersed in a city it will cause /no/ deaths?

Well of course it wouldn't causes any deaths! Not unless you collected
it all up and swallowed it, and that would be *chemical* poisoning


Â* And
that's what's needed.Â* If all you can truthfully tell the public is that
the excess deaths will be lost in the noise of the usual deaths from
cancer many (if not most) of the public will stay away until you
decontaminate.Â* And some (possibly many) will stay away even after
decontamination.


The public will believe anything they are told if it is told them long
enough and loud enough





--
€œThere are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isnt true; the
other is to refuse to believe what is true.€�

€”Soren Kierkegaard

On 18/05/2021 16:56, AJH wrote:
On 18/05/2021 14:34, John Rumm wrote:
What always intrigues me about pieces like that, is how they all gloss
over the fact that the renewables industry in the UK is dependant on
gas for balancing load and intermittent supply.


Surely the reason for not having domestic gas boilers is thatÂ* there is
far more utility in burning it in a combined cycle electricity
generator, possibly linked to some district heating than just heating
water up to 80C and circulating it. Thus some may still be available to
fill in the gaps renewables leave.

Not really when modern condensing boilers are up to 94% efficient -
which is significantly better than even combined cycle generators ...
and that's before transmission losses of around 20%.

On 18/05/2021 17:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/05/2021 16:30, Robin wrote:
On 18/05/2021 13:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/05/2021 11:49, Robin wrote:

I know the basics of atom bomb making.Â* But a plutonium RDD avoids
all that.Â* Use it above a major city centre.Â* Then sit back to watch
to the panic over hours & days, the economic impact over months and
years, and the health impact over decades.

Why would there be ANY?. Plutonium is so un-radioactive that there is
more danger from e.g. inhaling lead dust than plutonium dust., Its
very heavy, so it hits the ground early.



Can you cite research to show a government could truthfully say after
plutonium has been dispersed in a city it will cause /no/ deaths?

Well of course it wouldn't causes any deaths!

I haven't read a single article suggesting your fallacy.

Not unless you collected
it all up and swallowed it, and that would be *chemical* poisoning

No, the plutonium would migrate to bones and being an alpha, beta and
gamma emitter would cause damage and cancers over the subject's lifetime.

Â* And
that's what's needed.Â* If all you can truthfully tell the public is
that the excess deaths will be lost in the noise of the usual deaths
from cancer many (if not most) of the public will stay away until you
decontaminate.Â* And some (possibly many) will stay away even after
decontamination.


The public will believe anything they are told if it is told them long
enough and loud enough

Of course you won't recognise you've been conned into believing that?

On 18/05/2021 17:15, Steve Walker wrote:
On 18/05/2021 09:58, Robin wrote:
On 18/05/2021 09:31, Tim+ wrote:
In the light of plans to stop new gas or oil boilers being fitted after
2025 how many folk are considering buying a €œspare€� boiler? ;-)

I must admit the thought has crossed my mind€¦

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57149059.

Im assuming that only professional installs can be banned.


It could be banned under building regulations (which already make
fitting a new gas boiler notifiable).

As usual, what effort will be put into enforcement is another matter.

Indeed, how will they know if you've self installed a replacement
boiler, unless you've asked them in to look at something else and they
see it? Especially as an enforcement notice must be issued within 12
months of the completion of the work or a prosecution started within 2
years of it, so probably too late if they do eventually see it.

Yes they can seek an injunction preventing any use of the building until
it is put right, but a) that is really reserved for dangerous situations
and b) this power is rarely (if ever) used.

OTOH things may change. Perhaps the Building (Climate Change) Act 2025
will bring fitting a new gas boiler within the new offence of "Building
against planet". With Punishable by an unlimited fine and a sentence of
up to 14 years. And with a new BCO force - uniformed, armed with 12"
angle grinders, and authorised to say "Are you feeling lucky, punk?"

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

Steve Walker wrote:
Not really when modern condensing boilers are up to 94% efficient -
which is significantly better than even combined cycle generators ...
and that's before transmission losses of around 20%.

It's hard to beat heat pump efficiency of 200-400%, even with transmission
losses.

Theo

In message , John
Rumm writes
I seem to recall there is an experimental village somewhere in the UK
where they are trialling this.


I think it is on the site of RAF Spadeadam in Cumbria

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "diy" with "news" and reverse the domain

If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter,
DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and
you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block
posters coming from web portals due to perceieved SPAM or inaneness.
For a better method of access, please see:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 18/05/2021 21:02, Adrian wrote:
In message , John
Rumm writes
I seem to recall there is an experimental village somewhere in the UK
where they are trialling this.


I think it is on the site of RAF Spadeadam in Cumbria


I think near the RAF station but not on it. ISTR it's on a site long
used for testing things that go bang.


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

On 18/05/2021 09:31, Tim+ wrote:
In the light of plans to stop new gas or oil boilers being fitted after
2025 how many folk are considering buying a €œspare€� boiler? ;-)

I must admit the thought has crossed my mind€¦

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57149059.

Im assuming that only professional installs can be banned.

Tim


I cannot imagine why anyone would want to do such a thing.

George Carlin's very telling words spring to mind.

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are
stupider than that."

Tricky Dicky presented the following explanation :
Well it does beg the question why Northern Gas Networks are busy ripping up
roads around here putting new pipe work in or lining existing pipes.

Likewise here too and they have been at it several years, just in our
village.

The Natural Philosopher explained on 18/05/2021 :
On 18/05/2021 16:24, Theo wrote:
Tim+ wrote:
Apart from a workable/economically viable carbon capture system.

Carbon capture is doable (at a power station). Storage is the problem.

But anyway, reducing emissions by (say) 90% is still a win.

First of all only if you believe that CO2 is EVIL. All the evidence is that a
doubling of CO2 would increase food production, shrink deserts and have ****
all effect on global climate, although 1 °C would be nice and give us more
farmland.

Secondly no intermittent renewable source will achieve that or anything like
it. In fact intermittent renewable energy actually increases emissions die to
its massive energy footprint in manufacturing and disposal and the fact that
it has to be co fired sub optimally with fossil fuel.

Renewable energy„¢ is an ArtStudents„¢ solution to an ArtStudents„¢ nonproblem.

If you want reliable cheap low pollution power, you build nuclear plants.

If you want to scam consumers and virtue signal your way to massive taxpayer
ripoffs, you build windmills


+1

Theo wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
Not really when modern condensing boilers are up to 94% efficient -
which is significantly better than even combined cycle generators ...
and that's before transmission losses of around 20%.

It's hard to beat heat pump efficiency of 200-400%, even with transmission
losses.

Theo


But per kWhr, electricity is a lot more expensive than gas.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

Chris Bacon wrote:
On 18/05/2021 09:31, Tim+ wrote:
In the light of plans to stop new gas or oil boilers being fitted after
2025 how many folk are considering buying a €œspare€� boiler? ;-)

I must admit the thought has crossed my mind€¦

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57149059.

Im assuming that only professional installs can be banned.

Tim


I cannot imagine why anyone would want to do such a thing.

To avoid future fuel poverty?

Plenty of folk struggle at present to meet their fuel bills. Forcing
everyone to install a system that at current energy prices costs more to
run will not be popular.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 18/05/2021 19:30, Theo wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
Not really when modern condensing boilers are up to 94% efficient -
which is significantly better than even combined cycle generators ...
and that's before transmission losses of around 20%.

It's hard to beat heat pump efficiency of 200-400%, even with transmission
losses.

Oh indeed. However, they are bloody expensive to buy and install,
require changes to radiators or a switch to underfloor heating (with all
the cost and disruption of that) and the improved efficiency only brings
the cost of running them down to roughly that of a gas boiler, so it
will never pay for itself. So loads of up-front cost and disruption and
the bills stay just as high.

How many householders would actually be able to afford to replace a
failed gas boiler with a heat pump, at many times the cost, at zero
notice? How many people would like to be without heating and hot water
for weeks, mid-winter, while everything else was changed? Yes
installation could be done faster, but not with fitting under-floor
heating and new power cabling to the heat-pump, while still living in
the house and trying to install it neatly.

On 18 May 2021 09:40:09 GMT, Tim+ wrote:

Making a nuclear weapon is a very very skilled exercise in precision
mechanics.

You need to machine the elements to fit exactly without being able to
put them together first, and then design an explosive detonator to slam
them all together at exactly the same time

Not if you just grind it into dust and scatter it or blow it up with
conventional explosives.

Careful what you type into search engines.

On 18/05/2021 23:15, Tim+ wrote:

Plenty of folk struggle at present to meet their fuel bills. Forcing
everyone to install a system that at current energy prices costs more to
run will not be popular.

The whole greeny thing relies on brainwashing. All that will be needed
will be more brainwashing.

Bill

NY wrote:

Is ammonia flammable? I've heard of it being used as a refrigerant, but
not as a boiler fuel.

I've heard of it it as a possible replacement for bunker oil for big ships.

On 18/05/2021 21:24, Robin wrote:
On 18/05/2021 21:02, Adrian wrote:
In message , John
Rumm writes
I seem to recall there is an experimental village somewhere in the UK
where they are trialling this.


I think it is on the site of RAF Spadeadam in Cumbria


I think near the RAF station but not on it.Â* ISTR it's on a site long
used for testing things that go bang.



I thought wrong. I recalled it was a company rather than HMG facility.
But it is on the RAF site. I apologise for doubting you.

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

On 18/05/2021 16:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/05/2021 16:24, Theo wrote:

But anyway, reducing emissions by (say) 90% is still a win.

First of all only if you believe that CO2 is EVIL. All the evidence is
that a doubling of CO2 would increase food production, shrink deserts
and have **** all effect on global climate, although 1 °C would be nice
and give us more farmland.

Secondly no intermittent renewable source will achieve that or anything
like it. In fact intermittent renewable energy actually increases
emissions die to its massive energy footprint in manufacturing and
disposal and the fact that it has to be co fired sub optimally with
fossil fuel.

Well said.

Renewable energy„¢ is an ArtStudents„¢ solution to an ArtStudents„¢ nonproblem.

LOL

If you want reliable cheap low pollution power, you build nuclear plants.

If you want to scam consumers and virtue signal your way to massive
taxpayer ripoffs, you build windmills

WHS

--
Spike

Andrew wrote:

BG gas fitters are nothing to do with Gas Safe.

Other than Gas Safe registration No. 198312 (and others)