Reposted from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
JULY 17, 2021
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
GREEN alternatives to gas boilers will cost £11.8 billion more than the Government has budgeted for over the next four years as ministers have vastly underestimated the scale of home retrofits, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Homeowners and landlords also face paying £17.8 billion in the next four years to go green, claims analysis from leading energy groups and think tanks
The Government aims to replace oil and gas boilers at the rate of 600,000 a year by 2028, although campaigners say it will need to rise to 900,000.
But it has underestimated how many homeowners can pay thousands of pounds to retrofit and install heat pumps, says analysis from the Energy Efficiency Infrastructure Group (EEIG), which includes utility provider EON and the Confederation of British Industry. The technology, which is similar to a refrigerator in reverse and runs on electricity, heats radiators to a lower temperature and often requires insulation, bigger radiators and underfloor heating to keep older homes warm.
The scale of the challenge to install them is immense. Energy efficiency retrofits, which the Government says it wants to achieve in around 17 million houses by 2035, are expected to cost £4,400 per home. A heat pump ranges from £7,000 to £15,000, though manufacturers say they will be able to halve costs within 18 months.
But a third of homeowners have no savings, according to the most recent English Housing Survey. “UK homes perform shamefully when it comes to energy efficiency – and we simply have no more time to waste in making improvements,” said Alan Jones, president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, a member of the EEIG.
MPs and industry figures say a huge education campaign will be needed to explain to people how heat pumps work. Heating our homes accounts for around 14 per cent of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, one of the biggest single sources. The vast majority of that comes from gas boilers in the 85 per cent of homes that use them.
But 85 per cent of Britons do not think their boiler is a major contributor to the UK’s emissions.
Heat pumps are common in Europe, particularly in Nordic countries, belying the idea that they cannot be used in colder climates, and are currently “the only viable low carbon heating source”, said Philip Dunne, the Tory chairman of the environmental audit committee.
But they are an unfamiliar technology and can be tricky to get right, particularly in the UK’s older, leaky homes, which often require a bespoke system.
And there is a huge lack of trained installers in the UK – only 1,200 compared to the 10,000 that will be needed by 2025, according to research by EY. Air-source heat pumps work by using a fan to pull ambient heat out of the air, which is converted via a compressor to hotter temperatures, used to heat radiators and a hot water cylinder for taps and showers.
Ground-source heat pumps work in a similar way, but draw their heat from pipes buried in either horizontally, or vertically at around 90m to 160m deep.
For maximum efficiency, heat pumps are designed to heat water to lower temperatures than a gas boiler, by around 10 degrees. That is plenty for a hot bath or shower, but can require bigger radiators, underfloor heating and insulation to ensure a typical home stays warm.
The technology can also take more than two hours to heat water and is designed to heat up gently to a lower temperature, requiring planning ahead for showers and times when you will be home. “We need to level with consumers. But instant heating of our homes to similar degrees as the tropics isn’t the answer. We need to reduce excessive energy consumption to reduce the impact on our environment,” said Mr Dunne.
“People have come to expect everything should be instantaneous, which is a false reality that is a product of artificially low gas prices,” said John Szymik, the chief executive of Octopus Energy Services, which is investing millions in heat pump technology and training.
So another £30 billion on the already bloated and unaffordable bill for decarbonising heating. But apparently it’s all our fault, as we have not insulated our houses!
Forget about the nonsense about Scandinavian countries, as I suspect most of their homes burn an awful lot of wood etc to stay warm in winter. As for prices being cut in half, they would say that. Let manufacturers put their money where their mouth is, and cut prices now in return for orders in bulk.
Meanwhile, MP Philip Dunne is sure we will be happy to fork out once we realise how much carbon dioxide our gas boilers are emitting.
Then there’s little Emma Gatten. I would have said she had lost the plot, but I doubt whether she had ever found it! She is worries that a third of homeowners have no savings. What gives her the right to demand that people’s hard earned savings are spent on green frippery which nobody wants?
The real problem here is that successive governments have relied solely on the advice of Gummer’s CCC and the green blob which infiltrated DECC, and subsequently BEIS. They were assured that decarbonising would be easily affordable. But gradually cold hard reality is beginning to dawn.
The article includes this case study, which is a timely warning:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More importantly the calculations assume ground source temperature is constant but in medium to high density housing it is only constant for two to three cold days before it gets the heat sucked out of it and costs rocket as housing association project victims of this dishonest oversell of heat pumps will tell you.
Heat Pumps are Money Losers in my Vermont House (as they are in almost all people’s houses)
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governments-play-deceptive-games-with-co2-emissions
I installed three Mitsubishi, 24,000 Btu/h HPs, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.
The HPs last about 15 years. Turnkey capital cost was $24,000
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-of-ashps-is-based-on-misrepresentations
They are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3500 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house.
The house has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.
Energy Cost Reduction: Before HPs, my space heating propane was 1,000 gal/y
After HPs, it was 750 gal/y, a reduction of 250 gal/y, or $600/y, at $2.399/gal; I am a member of a fuel-buying group.
Additional electricity cost was 1,899 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $380/y, including taxes, fees and surcharges.
Domestic hot water, DHW, heating, requires about 200 gallon/y
My energy cost savings were 600 – 380 = $220/y, on an investment of $24,000!!
My existing Viessmann propane system is used on cold days, 15F or less, because HPs would have low efficiencies, i.e., high kWh/Btu, of delivered heat, at exactly the same time my house would need the most heat, Btu/h; a double-whammy regarding hourly heating cost, $/h, due to the laws of Physics 101!! Most non-technical people have no idea why this is happening, until they see their electric bills.
The HPs would be slightly more efficient than electric resistance heaters at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature.
It would be extremely irrational to operate air source HPs at such temperatures.
Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or mandates, the addition of expensive RE electricity, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would increase electric rates and worsen the economics of HP operation!!
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems
Amortizing Heat Pumps: Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y.
This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.
https://www.myamortizationchart.com
There likely would be service calls and parts for the HP system, as the years go by.
This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system.
Cost of CO2 Reduction would be (2059, amortize – 220 energy saving + 200, parts and maintenance)/0.838, table 4 = $2,433/Mt, which is even greater than for very expensive electric school buses. I am losing more money.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-likely-not-cost-effective-in-vermont-at
Highly Sealed, Highly Insulated Housing: If I had a highly sealed, highly insulated house, with the same efficient propane heating system, my house, for starters, would use very little energy for space heating, i.e., not much energy cost saving and CO2 reduction is possible.
If I would install HPs, and would operate the propane system on only the coldest days, I likely would displace a greater percentage of propane and would have annual energy cost savings; much depends on electricity and propane prices. See Note.
I likely would need 3 units at 18,000 Btu/h, at a lesser turnkey capital cost. Their output, very-inefficiently produced, would be about 27,000 Btu/h at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature.
However, any annual energy cost savings would be overwhelmed by the annual amortizing cost, and parts and service costs. i.e., I would still be losing money, if amortizing were considered.
NOTE:
1) About 1.0 to 1.5 percent of Vermont households is highly sealed and insulated
2) Vermont’s weatherizing program, at about $10,000/unit, does next to nothing for making energy-hog houses suitable for HPs; it is a social program for poor people.
NOTE: VT-Department of Public Service found, after a survey of 77 HPs installed in Vermont houses (turnkey cost for a one-head HP system is about $4,500; almost all houses had just one HP), the annual energy cost savings were, on average, $200, but the maintenance and annual amortizing costs would turn that gain into a loss of at least $200, i.e., on average, these houses were unsuitable for HPs, and the owners were losing money.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-savings-of-air-source-heat-pumps-are-negative-in-vermont
Ground Source HPs: They are widely used in many different buildings in northern Europe, such as Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland.
Their main advantage is the coefficient of performance, COP, does not decrease with temperature, because the ground temperature is constant; i.e., 100% of fuel oil, or propane, or natural gas can be economically displaced, whereas the economic displacement would be at most 50% with air source HPs; the percentage depends on how well a building is sealed and insulated.
Their main disadvantage is greater turnkey capital cost. See URL
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/residential-and-other-gshp-systems-in-new-england
BTW, all of the above (minimal annual CO2 reduction and meager annual energy savings) has been widely known for at least a decade, and yet, RE folks, in and out of government, keep on hyping air source HPs in cold climates.
If heat pumps replace gas furnaces, they would place a major additional demand on electric grids.
If electric vehicles replace gasoline vehicles, they would place even more demand demand on electric grids
There will need to be major upgrades of transmissions and distribution grids
There will need to be major additional electricity generating capacity.
Basic Rule Applicable to All Grids: Normal wind and solar output could be 10,000 MW. During a wind/solar lull, it could be 1,000 MW. Such lulls may last 5 to 7 days, and may occur any time of the year. Sometimes a second multi-day lull occurs a few days after the first one.
At least 9,000 MW of other generators would be needed to counteract the shortfall. No matter what up/down performance wind/solar has, these generators have to supply enough electricity to meet demand, 24/7/365
Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governments-play-deceptive-games-with-co2-emissions
School Bus Normal Operation at 32F and below: On cold/freezing days, an electric bus would use on-board systems to heat the battery, as needed, during its daily route.
EV Parking: When at home, it is best to keep EVs plugged in during periods with 32F and below, whether parked indoors or outdoors.
When parking at a motel, or an airport, it is best to fully charge EVs prior to parking, to enable the on-board systems to heat the battery, as needed, during parking.
Charging at 32F and below: Li-ion batteries must not be charged when the batterytemperature is at 32F or less.
Turn on “pre-conditioning”, i.e., the battery heating/cooling system (which could be a heat pump) very slowly heats up the battery to about 40F. After the battery is “up to temperature”, normal charging can be started, either at home, or on the road.
Pre-conditioning can be set to:
1) Preheat the car cabin and/or seats
2) Defrost windshield wipers, windows, door handles and charge port, etc.; Tesla has a charge port heater. See URL
https://getoptiwatt.com/news/tesla-extreme-weather-considerations-how-to-optimize-your-tesla-driving-for-winter-months/
Power Failure, while parked at 32F and below: Partially charged batteries, connected to dead chargers, could use much of their remaining charge to prevent freezing of batteries.
See URLs.
NOTE: Li-ions (pos.) are absorbed by the anode (neg.) at lesser rates at a batterytemperature of 32F and below. Any excess Li-ions plate out on the anode, which further reduces the absorption rate. This condition increases charging percentage, increases kWh/mile, and reduces range. This condition is permanent, i.e., cannot be reversed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/12/electric-bus-inferno-in-hanover-germanyexplosive-fire-causes-millions-in-damages/
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/263036/why-charging-li-ion-batteries-in-cold-temperatures-would-harm-them
https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_at_high_and_low_temperatures
NOTE:
– Batteries have miscellaneous losses to provide electricity to on-board systems, similar to Tesla and other EVs
– On cold/freezing days, an electric bus should be ready for service as soon as the driver enters the bus
– On cold/freezing days, the driver would need at least 70% charge, because travel would require more energy per mile
NOTE:
If the battery temperature is less than 40F or more than 115F, it will use more kWh/mile
The higher efficiency range, charging and discharging, is 60F to 80F.
Batteries have greater internal resistance at lower temperatures.
Pro-bus folks often point to California regarding electric buses, but in New England, using electric buses to transport children would be a whole new ballgame, especially on colder days. See URLs
NOTE: Where would the electricity come from to charge and protect from cold, expensive batteries during extended electricity outages, due to multi-day, hot and cold weather events, with minimal wind and sun, as occur in California, Texas and New England?
Emergency standby diesel-generators? Emergency standby batteries?
https://www.wired.com/story/electric-cars-cold-weather-tips/
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1127610_keep-your-parked-electric-car-and-its-battery-healthy-with-these-simple-tips
CO2 Reduction of an EV, based on real-world values
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governments-play-deceptive-games-with-co2-emissions
According to the Haas study, EVs are driven an average of 7,000 miles/y, compared to 12,000 miles/y for the US and VT LDV mix.
The difference holds for: 1) all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, 2) single- and multiple-vehicle households, and 3) inside and outside California. See URL
This means, as a fleet, EVs would reduce less CO2 than envisioned by RE folks’ dream scenarios. See URLs.
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ldavis/Davis%20AEL%202019.pdf
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35498794/ev-owners-low-mileage-study/
EV sales have been trending towards longer ranges. See table 3
EVs, with longer ranges, are driven more miles per year, on average.
Thus, we can expect the 7,000 miles/y to increase over time.
This article will use 9,000 miles/y
Table 2 is based on:
Before EVs
– Gasoline travel of 12,000 miles/y
With EVs
– EV travel of 9,000 miles/y, with the remaining 3,000 miles/y by gasoline vehicle
– EV electricity consumption of 0.350 kWh/y, which is more realistic for the EV mix of US and VT LDVs
– ISO-NE CO2 of 317 g/kWh
The resulting CO2 reduction would be 2.180 Mt/y. See table 2
EAN, with help of VT-DPS, claimed, without providing any calculations, a CO2 reduction more than two times as great, based on realistic values, i.e., 4.492 versus 2.180 Mt/y per EV; the reduction would be even less if A-to-Z CO2 and lifetime conditions had not been ignored
This likely was done to deceive people, including legislators, and to hype the adoption of overly expensive, not-very-useful EVs.
NOTE: EAN, VT-Department of Transportation, “Concerned Scientists” (anyone can join), etc., would GROSSLY OVERSTATE CO2 emission reduction of EVs by assuming:
– Excessive EV travel of 12,000, or even 15,000 miles per year
– Ignoring A-to-Z CO2
– Excessive battery lifetimes of 15, or even 20 years
– Ignoring EV battery degradation after about 8 – 10 years of travel
NOTE: I also made calculations:
– For 2000 miles/y for a gasoline vehicle and 10,000 miles/y for an EV; CO2 reduction increased to 2.422 Mt/y
– For 0 miles for gasoline and 12,000 miles/y for EV; the resulting CO2 reduction increased to 2.906 Mt/y, a far cry from 4.500 Mt/y, bandied about by EV proponents.
AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governments-play-deceptive-games-with-co2-emissions
Vermont Energy Action Network Overstates CO2 Emissions per Heat Pump
EAN, prepared a report listing the measures required to “meet Paris by 2025”. That goal is mandated by the Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GWSA, and in accordance with the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan.
https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/EAN-APR2020-21_finalJune2.pdf
EAN, with help of VT-DPS, claimed, without providing any calculations, 90,000 HPs would reduce CO2 by 0.370 million Mt/y, or 4.111 Mt/y per HP
See page 4 of URL
https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-final.pdf
EAN ignored the A-to-Z CO2 of:
1) Upstream CO2 emitted for extraction, transport and processing fuels
2) CO2 emitted, due to making the HP system, etc.
3) Lifetime conditions.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-of-ashps-is-based-on-misrepresentations
CO2 Reduction of a Heat Pump, based on Real-World Conditions in my House
I used the following parameters to calculate my CO2 reduction:
– Before HPs, my space heating propane was 1,000 gal/y
– After HPs, my space heating propane was 750 gal/y
– The 2018 VT-DPS “paper-based” value of 190,000/5.6 billion kWh = 33.9 g CO2/kWh
– HP electricity consumption of 1,899 kWh, from my electric bills
– Average HP coefficient of performance, COP, of 2.6
– I operated my HPs at temperatures of 15F and greater
– I operated my traditional propane system at temperatures of 15F and less. See Note
https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
The resulting CO2 reduction was 1.376 Mt/y
The CO2 reduction would be 0.838 Mt/y, if the ISO-NE CO2 of 317 g/kWh had been used. See table 4
EAN, with help of VT-DPS, claimed, without providing any calculations, a CO2 reduction 4.111/1.376. = 3.0 times greater.
The ratio would be if 4.111/0.838 = 4.9 times, if the ISO-NE CO2 of 317 g/kWh had been used.
My real-world experience showed about 25% of my normal space heating was displaced by the HPs.
The EAN estimate likely was done to deceive people, including legislators, and to hype the adoption of overly expensive, not-very-useful HPs
NOTE: I could have operated my HPs at less than 15F, but the COP would have been less, and the electricity consumption would have been much greater, likely eliminating my very meager annual energy savings
Removing gas (primarily water heaters & central heating) from new homes will require significant upgrades to the distribution system.
The electric utilities, over the last 30 years, have required an estimate of electric use for all residential development (subdivisions). The (urban) utilities then design the transformers & secondary to accommodate the minimum (they have a piece of paper from the developer of expected use, so it takes them off the hook for future problems).
Almost all residential development (my region of the NW) in the last 30 years includes gas for heating). A removal of the gas appliances from the homes would require upgrades of the underground systems and addition of transformers (either that, or the utilities would need to accept that there is zero safety factor).
The cost of infrastructure upgrades would be thousands per household.
Emma Gatten and ‘green frippery’ sums it all up. But it’s worse than that because of all the falsehoods that they pervade. Which is another way of saying ‘lies and untruths’
The cost of all this destruction and restructuring of Britain’s energy / home heating system will be phenomenal and will be a massive burden to ordinary folk. And all unnecessary ! !
If we simply wait for climate change to warm the place by a few more degrees, which _might_ be sped up by a small amount if we use more gas boilers, we won’t need all those heat pumps.
We could save billions.
Where do I send my bill?
Our home in Virginia uses propane for the stovetop, for central heating, and for the water heater (which is what we call a “boiler.” Most people in the U.S. call it a “hot water heater” for some inexplicable reason…).
I wouldn’t trade a gas stovetop for anything. However, I’m indifferent to either gas or electric when it comes to water and central heating. The only discriminants would be cost and reliability.
Our electricity is provided by Novec, a Northern Virginia electricity cooperative – and the best-run company I’ve ever seen in my life. My wife and I attend their (extremely well-run) annual meetings, just for fun. They really are fun, and informative. Meetings are held at a capacious local high school, and are always packed – hundreds of customers show up.
Novec supplies the cheapest electricity I’ve seen in 40 years, and due to the superior insulation qualities of our house, even torrid Northern Virginia summers don’t break the bank when it comes to air conditioning. Our bill last month (with a big heat wave) was $230. That’s for a 3,500 square foot house. Their service reliability is unparalleled in the mid-Atlantic. Rarely have we had storm-related outages, even when the rest of the state was without power. The random transformer failure, or power-pole-meets-car outage, are usually resolved within a few hours.
We will have to replace our water heater sometime soon. I’m definitely on the side of an electric heater. The energy cost is trivial compared with what we have been paying for propane. Though we have recently cut the latter in about half (by buying our tank, and then going to the lowest propane bidder), it still can’t compete with Novec electricity.
However, if Novec ever went “green,” I’d cut off my connection to the grid and install a diesel generator on the property. Just sayin’…
That smacks of code for:
Royal Society of Architects’ spokesperson doesn’t care. His house is already constructed, funded and warm in winter and cool in summer.
Australian States legislate a health requirement for a minimum setting of 60C/140F for water heaters. That is the temperature required to kill nasty bugs that set homes in plumbing.
Are there similar requirements in the UK?
The real question though, is what will be the political consequence of this insanity?
Currently there is no meaningful political opposition to green lunacy in the UK – all parties represented in parliament vie with each other to be seen to be the greenest of them all. I don’t see this changing until voters wake up to the cost realities of policies which are based on timelines that still seem a long way off. Until and unless politicians realise that green lunacy will lose them votes, I don’t see this changing.
Making such blanket claims about “heat pumps” is totally misleading in itself. You can be fairly sure that Scandinavia is NOT using air-air heat pumps which would be grossly inefficient with freezing outside temperatures.
Natural gas is the purest and cleanest energy source known to man yet this ignorant dystopian push to ban domestic natural gas will lead to finincial ruin and deaths for many elderly people.
Living in Finland, I can assure that ” You can be fairly sure that Scandinavia is NOT using air-air heat pumps which would be grossly inefficient with freezing outside temperatures.” is incorrect.
Air-to-air heat pumps are very common as an additional heating system. Never as sole one, since it needs to operate also when it is -30 celsius outside. But it works great from -20 celsius and up reducing the electricity bills.
Also air-to-water heat pumps are common in new houses. They are used as ”poor mans” heat pumps if you don’t want to invest on ground-to-water heat pump.
Can you tell us what is the efficiency at -20 Celsius outside?
I suspect your heat pump may have gone into resistive heating mode at low temperature?
No, air-to-air heat pumps do not have such mode. COP just goes down. Premium air-to-air heat pumps have COP 2.5 at -20 celsius and COP 1.5-2 at -30 celsius.
So at -20 celsius they still provide 2.5 kW of heat with 1 kW electricity consumption.
For the writer: ”The technology can also take more than two hours to heat water and is designed to heat up gently to a lower temperature, requiring planning ahead for showers and times when you will be home.”
Incorrect. The boiler has hot water all the time. Here in Finland no-one needs to wait for hot water in a shower for more than couple of seconds after using the tap.
Also, we do not burn ”a lot of wood” – Wood burning as a heating system is rare. Heat pumps, direct electricity heating or district heating are the main heating sources to keep us warm with nice 20-23 celsius inside even if outside temp is -25 to -40 celsius.
Soon homeowners will be burning dried animal dung to heat their homes due to government policies. The law of unintended consequences.
Heat to a lower temperature. So get used to living in cold houses.
Why do we need heat pumps when the planet is warming .. what about air conditioners?
It’s much worse than even you think. The bitter truth is that heat pumps do not work at all in colder climates like ours. They are only effective in warmer climates, like for instance California. They have a back up system comprising a large electrically heated water tank to compensate for lack of heat from the heat pump. In our climate they run almost all of the time on that during winter. The best way to come to understand this is to get it from the horse’s mouth, so I refer you to a plumber who has experience of installing heat pumps.
There are natural gas based heat pumps. With simpler design (adsorption and absorption ones) than electric heat pumps.