Future Electricity Costs

[Ivor Windybottom]

If oil is not an option, maybe LPG.

Just different variants of the same stuff. Setting fire to decayed biology from underground to create heat, releasing all the CO2 that was previously locked away when it was buried.

Heat pumps are the future, they move heat from outside to inside. This takes energy, but less than creating that heat. All other forms of heating rely on setting fire to something, either directly or indirectly. Electric heating theoretically could be wind or solar powered, but in the winter it's more likely to have come from setting fire to natural gas, i.e. decayed biology from underground. Wood burning is renewable, and is effectively indirect solar power, but it poisons the residents and neighbours with very dangerous toxic gas and particulates.

Looking forward to eventually getting a full heat pump air con system installed in our 1950s place, as soon as I have the time to find someone capable and willing to install it. I'm looking for a ceiling mounted heating/cooling system (commercial type of thing) rather than clunky old radiators, the people who can fit these are very thin on the ground.

 

[Odds]

The amount of public money flowing into coal, oil and gas in 20 of the world’s biggest economies reached a record $1.4tn(£1.1tn) in 2022, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) thinktank, even though world leaders agreed to phase out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies at the Cop26 climate summit in Glasgow two years ago.

G20 leaders agreed to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies “over the medium term” as far back as 2009. At the Cop26 climate summit a decade later, world leaders agreed to accelerate these efforts.

In June, a report from the World Bank found that “by underpricing fossil fuels, governments not only incentivise overuse, but also perpetuate inefficient polluting technologies and entrench inequality”. The authors also found that of all subsidies to the energy sector, about three-quarters go to fossil fuels.
To offset the costs to vulnerable people living in poverty, the authors recommended targeted welfare payments to those who need it most. They also recommended world leaders drop the qualifier “inefficient” from their promise to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, and instead name exceptional cases where they would be justified.

GoGreen@theGreendian

Considering the ceo of BP just had a 16% pay rise, it seems they're just taking the pi$$ now.

 

[jeds]

If oil is not an option, maybe LPG.

LPG was my initial solution and was costed. Cheaper to install - more expensive to run but viable. Problem though is LPG boilers also will not be an option in the future. The system will eventually run on eletric only.

 

[jeds]

I don't see the relevance of a draughty old mansion to anyone in the real world.

Well, it isn't. That's why I said the draughty old manor house was a particularly acute case. The more important issue is that millions of ordinary households, at some point in the future, are going to be faced with either; high upgrade costs or excessively high running costs.

The idea that most ordinary houses can be simply upgraded is incorrect.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

The idea that most ordinary houses can be simply upgraded is incorrect.

Yes they can.

There are lots of good accounts of old houses being heated with a heat pump, youtube's full of videos and they can't all be by some kind of conspiracy mob. But there's a strong resistance to change among many, who want everything to be like it was in the good old days. In reality, the days of cheap gas and oil were just a brief blip in history. So we have to use what's available, which is likely to be a heat pump.

Regardless of the eco arguments, it's getting more difficult and expensive to extract, as we've burnt all the cheap easy stuff. So we end up relying on countries we really don't want to end up relying on, a lesson that's been thoroughly learned in Germany.

 

[jeds]

Yes they can.

No they can't.

There are lots of good accounts of old houses being heated with a heat pump, youtube's full of videos and they can't all be by some kind of conspiracy mob. But there's a strong resistance to change among many, who want everything to be like it was in the good old days. In reality, the days of cheap gas and oil were just a brief blip in history. So we have to use what's available, which is likely to be a heat pump.

Regardless of the eco arguments, it's getting more difficult and expensive to extract, as we've burnt all the cheap easy stuff. So we end up relying on countries we really don't want to end up relying on, a lesson that's been thoroughly learned in Germany.

Yes, agree with all of that. Slightly off topic though.

 

[Roy Bloom]

I don't know, hence the question:
What is the current legal or best practice for providing hetaing in new houses?
And from when does/did it apply?

 

[TeaAndBiscuits]

Yes and no.

In the UK then a typical PV system produces something like 8x as much during summer as it does during winter. No sensible sized system would ever be able to directly power a heat pump system over winter, but it could cover summer use, earn some money selling to the grid and pop off a few quid in winter.

Is this still a thing? I thought all the subsidies were basically over now?

 

[IT Minion]

Is this still a thing? I thought all the subsidies were basically over now?

Subsidies yes, payments no.

Octopus will pay you a minimum of 15p per kWh you generate and export to the grid. Which makes sense for them as they are then selling it to your neighbour for closer to 30p.

All providers will pay you something as they have to by law (Solar Export Guarantee or SEG) but typically the rest are closer to 5p or less.

My system has had a mess getting set up but I've earned well over £100 for exports this summer. It should have been far more but I'll get it sorted eventually.

 

[jeds]

I don't know, hence the question:
What is the current legal or best practice for providing hetaing in new houses?
And from when does/did it apply?

It is really a matter of compliance with building regulations, which is not prescriptive on what form of heating you must have.

The way building regulations works for new build is to set maximum standards of fuel consumption and carbon emission and it is up to you how you meet those standards. The requirement is satisfied by an overall design calculation known as a standard assessment procedure. (SAP) Easiest way to think of it is that you punch in certain geographical and locational information and then you add the property details and then you fiddle about with the heat loss through the various elements and junctions until it says 'Pass'. Sounds easy? I can promise you it isn't. That is a very simple explanation of things and making it pass is much, much harder than it sounds. Particularly since the recent increase in regulation standards. In 2025 there is another round of increases - after the current ones have bedded in. You do get people moaning and crying now. When the next lot comes in those people might as well retire.

TBH, I have no real issue with newbuild. The best time to increase standards is when you are building anew. It's the millions of existing properties that will become the issue. The costs of upgrading the majority of the existing stock is going to be an unimaginable figure.

You mentioned best practice? That generally comes in the form of a percentage improvement over the minimum requirements. My local local authorities, for example, require a 20% improvement at the planning stage.