The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
JagLover said:
2035 wasn't possible and 2030 is even more impossible.
2030 is 8 years away. It is a nonsense promise.
It's worse than that, it's just over 7 years and 3 months to be precise. 2030 is 8 years away. It is a nonsense promise.
But Starmer's masterplan has even less time - he won't be able to swing it into action until May 2024 at the earliest.
So that's just 5 years and 7 months.
You'd think they'd do some basic research, or at least chat to those in the industry before coming out with such grandiose statements, but they just can't help themselves.
They've put about as much thought into the subject as those that clap and vote for them.
Boris's idea of 2035 was bad enough. But 2030? It doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny. And to make it worse he thinks (like some on here) it can all be done by massively increasing wind and solar.
I'll not bother pointing out the obvious flaws in this. It's been done to death already.
Keep clapping comrades.
Cobnapint said:
You'd think they'd do some basic research, or at least chat to those in the industry before coming out with such grandiose statements, but they just can't help themselves.
They've put about as much thought into the subject as those that clap and vote for them.
They've no intent to deliver so beyond the soundbite it doesn't matter to them what may or may not be possible or how, and their audience of clapping morons don't understand either (and will forget anyway) so why worry about it?They've put about as much thought into the subject as those that clap and vote for them.
The only actual outcome of all this is that zero happens (net or gross) and shouty idiots something to keep them busy.
Glade said:
I am with the the Mrs family in France, at the dinner table last night they asked if we are expecting power cuts in winter…. I said no.
Apparently they are expecting systematic power cuts… i can’t tell if it’s legit or just social media hype they’re tapped into though.
So the difference is solely between what you expect to happen and they expect to happen? Do you think that expectation will have any bearing on reality in either case? Apparently they are expecting systematic power cuts… i can’t tell if it’s legit or just social media hype they’re tapped into though.
The politicians seem to forget (if they ever knew) , though most on this thread will know, gas for electricity generation is only part of our gas needs. Even if we removed gas from electricity generation which we can't because of wind lulls we would still need large amounts of gas for other purposes. Net zero by whenever Starmer or Boris claimed was a fantasy.
skwdenyer said:
Glade said:
I am with the the Mrs family in France, at the dinner table last night they asked if we are expecting power cuts in winter…. I said no.
Apparently they are expecting systematic power cuts… i can’t tell if it’s legit or just social media hype they’re tapped into though.
So the difference is solely between what you expect to happen and they expect to happen? Do you think that expectation will have any bearing on reality in either case? Apparently they are expecting systematic power cuts… i can’t tell if it’s legit or just social media hype they’re tapped into though.
On the French side, my relatives appear to have been told by some sort of authority to expect it... But the old man reads all sort of s
te on twitter, and my french conversation isn't good enough to determine if he's talking le bks.I was hoping someone on this thread would know about any official announcement of expected power cuts in France. Probably should have just said that.
irc said:
The politicians seem to forget (if they ever knew) , though most on this thread will know, gas for electricity generation is only part of our gas needs. Even if we removed gas from electricity generation which we can't because of wind lulls we would still need large amounts of gas for other purposes. Net zero by whenever Starmer or Boris claimed was a fantasy.
The argument is that we work to a 2030 target, achieve it by 2035 and still have a long tail of minority fossil fuel usage after that point.Trying to achieve perfection would mean nothing gets done. This policy announcement is really just a statement of the direction of travel.
Domestic gas consumption is perfectly replaceable by air source heat pumps. This works better with more insulation but the temperatures heat pumps can deliver is only going up so plenty of old stock housing will be able to run one anyway.
Realistically speaking there will be some deployment of heat pumps by the current administration so scaling up from that is perfectly feasible.
As an approximation let's say we wanted to be able to fit 2 million heat pumps a year. We could probably do that with 25-50k installers and have the job broadly complete by 2035.
In the grand scheme of things training up 50k people is well within government capability.
Talksteer said:
Domestic gas consumption is perfectly replaceable by air source heat pumps. This works better with more insulation but the temperatures heat pumps can deliver is only going up so plenty of old stock housing will be able to run one anyway.
and new radiators. You can't just swap out the gas boiler. JagLover said:
Talksteer said:
Domestic gas consumption is perfectly replaceable by air source heat pumps. This works better with more insulation but the temperatures heat pumps can deliver is only going up so plenty of old stock housing will be able to run one anyway.
and new radiators. You can't just swap out the gas boiler. JagLover said:
Talksteer said:
Domestic gas consumption is perfectly replaceable by air source heat pumps. This works better with more insulation but the temperatures heat pumps can deliver is only going up so plenty of old stock housing will be able to run one anyway.
and new radiators. You can't just swap out the gas boiler. Right now for most heat pumps are a jam tomorrow solution, with people cherry picking the ideal situation and ignoring the many cases they just won't well or pinning their hopes on a hypothetical cost & performance shift happening at some future point, along with a load of extra generating capacity to run it all.
So same level of optimistic vaguely scoped solutioneering we usually get promising to lead us to the sunlit uplands.
So same level of optimistic vaguely scoped solutioneering we usually get promising to lead us to the sunlit uplands.
Talksteer said:
irc said:
The politicians seem to forget (if they ever knew) , though most on this thread will know, gas for electricity generation is only part of our gas needs. Even if we removed gas from electricity generation which we can't because of wind lulls we would still need large amounts of gas for other purposes. Net zero by whenever Starmer or Boris claimed was a fantasy.
The argument is that we work to a 2030 target, achieve it by 2035 and still have a long tail of minority fossil fuel usage after that point.Trying to achieve perfection would mean nothing gets done. This policy announcement is really just a statement of the direction of travel.
Domestic gas consumption is perfectly replaceable by air source heat pumps. This works better with more insulation but the temperatures heat pumps can deliver is only going up so plenty of old stock housing will be able to run one anyway.
Realistically speaking there will be some deployment of heat pumps by the current administration so scaling up from that is perfectly feasible.
As an approximation let's say we wanted to be able to fit 2 million heat pumps a year. We could probably do that with 25-50k installers and have the job broadly complete by 2035.
In the grand scheme of things training up 50k people is well within government capability.
tescorank said:
JagLover said:
Talksteer said:
Domestic gas consumption is perfectly replaceable by air source heat pumps. This works better with more insulation but the temperatures heat pumps can deliver is only going up so plenty of old stock housing will be able to run one anyway.
and new radiators. You can't just swap out the gas boiler. There is no inherent reason why a heat pump should be expensive to create or to install. It's mostly down to volumes and experience. As you install more of them they get cheaper to make and installers start designing around common problems or creating new tools to solve them in a labour efficient manner.
It's pretty similar to EVs in that some level of subsidies are likely needed to initially push through the phase where they are not economically competitive with gas boilers. However within a few years a heat pump just becomes what we expect a heating system to be.
It makes sense to subsidize early adopters because they are doing a socially useful thing bringing the price down for later people.
You could craft the policy as follows:
- Move the subsidies and the building of capacity to install/manufacture in lockstep that way the money stimulates higher value activities rather than inflation and cash transfers abroad.
- Build a national centre of competence that both increases the efficiency of the build out and captures IP across the lifecycle
- Make the incentives regional, pick the area where the housing stock, employment costs, geography and climate make it the cheapest place for the industry to build experience. Start the incentives there a few years earlier.
Talksteer said:
tescorank said:
JagLover said:
Talksteer said:
Domestic gas consumption is perfectly replaceable by air source heat pumps. This works better with more insulation but the temperatures heat pumps can deliver is only going up so plenty of old stock housing will be able to run one anyway.
and new radiators. You can't just swap out the gas boiler. There is no inherent reason why a heat pump should be expensive to create or to install. It's mostly down to volumes and experience. As you install more of them they get cheaper to make and installers start designing around common problems or creating new tools to solve them in a labour efficient manner.
It's pretty similar to EVs in that some level of subsidies are likely needed to initially push through the phase where they are not economically competitive with gas boilers. However within a few years a heat pump just becomes what we expect a heating system to be.
It makes sense to subsidize early adopters because they are doing a socially useful thing bringing the price down for later people.
You could craft the policy as follows:
- Move the subsidies and the building of capacity to install/manufacture in lockstep that way the money stimulates higher value activities rather than inflation and cash transfers abroad.
- Build a national centre of competence that both increases the efficiency of the build out and captures IP across the lifecycle
- Make the incentives regional, pick the area where the housing stock, employment costs, geography and climate make it the cheapest place for the industry to build experience. Start the incentives there a few years earlier.
I know somebody who went into heat pumps in a big way, believing the propaganda , he also has solar and multiple Tesla battery bank, the electricity costs to run it were massive, in the end he switched them off,
from what I have read you need a well insulated house for them to work and most of Housing stock in the UK is not suitable with the average cost to rectify coming to about £30,000 , who is going to pay ?
PRTVR said:
Talksteer said:
tescorank said:
JagLover said:
Talksteer said:
Domestic gas consumption is perfectly replaceable by air source heat pumps. This works better with more insulation but the temperatures heat pumps can deliver is only going up so plenty of old stock housing will be able to run one anyway.
and new radiators. You can't just swap out the gas boiler. There is no inherent reason why a heat pump should be expensive to create or to install. It's mostly down to volumes and experience. As you install more of them they get cheaper to make and installers start designing around common problems or creating new tools to solve them in a labour efficient manner.
It's pretty similar to EVs in that some level of subsidies are likely needed to initially push through the phase where they are not economically competitive with gas boilers. However within a few years a heat pump just becomes what we expect a heating system to be.
It makes sense to subsidize early adopters because they are doing a socially useful thing bringing the price down for later people.
You could craft the policy as follows:
- Move the subsidies and the building of capacity to install/manufacture in lockstep that way the money stimulates higher value activities rather than inflation and cash transfers abroad.
- Build a national centre of competence that both increases the efficiency of the build out and captures IP across the lifecycle
- Make the incentives regional, pick the area where the housing stock, employment costs, geography and climate make it the cheapest place for the industry to build experience. Start the incentives there a few years earlier.
I know somebody who went into heat pumps in a big way, believing the propaganda , he also has solar and multiple Tesla battery bank, the electricity costs to run it were massive, in the end he switched them off,
from what I have read you need a well insulated house for them to work and most of Housing stock in the UK is not suitable with the average cost to rectify coming to about £30,000 , who is going to pay ?
Really you should have two units that take it in turns.
The installation costs are astronomical and it is just a silly idea to try and retrofit old houses with them. It would be easier to go big on nuclear power, and run resistive heating in older homes. Could even use electric boilers - running three phase power to everyone's homes to facilitate this would be less disruptive than installing heat pumps. Not to mention quieter.
Sadly, I can't see that happening - parliament seems utterly against any big engineering projects that will improve everyone's quality of life, whilst simultaneously allowing them to avoid spending vast amounts of money to follow policies that have been imposed on them.
Regards heat pumps, I think the most practical solution is to have a dual fuel setup. ASHP for when conditions are suitable, that has gas heat backup to cover extremes/emergencies.
Such solutions are commonplace in the US, and work well. You still end up producing way less emissions as the super efficient heat pump is running most of the time, and the gas heat backup isn’t actually used all that much.
We don’t need to completely stop carbon emissions, and it’s generally impractical and unsustainable to do so. We ‘only’ need to reduce them to sustainable levels.
Dual fuel is an excellent solution, and plays to the strengths of both energy sources.
Remember, perfection is the enemy of the good, and right now it seems like everyone is fixated on the ‘perfect’ when that isn’t actually achievable.
Such solutions are commonplace in the US, and work well. You still end up producing way less emissions as the super efficient heat pump is running most of the time, and the gas heat backup isn’t actually used all that much.
We don’t need to completely stop carbon emissions, and it’s generally impractical and unsustainable to do so. We ‘only’ need to reduce them to sustainable levels.
Dual fuel is an excellent solution, and plays to the strengths of both energy sources.
Remember, perfection is the enemy of the good, and right now it seems like everyone is fixated on the ‘perfect’ when that isn’t actually achievable.
dvs_dave said:
Regards heat pumps, I think the most practical solution is to have a dual fuel setup. ASHP for when conditions are suitable, that has gas heat backup to cover extremes/emergencies.
Such solutions are commonplace in the US, and work well. You still end up producing way less emissions as the super efficient heat pump is running most of the time, and the gas heat backup isn’t actually used all that much.
We don’t need to completely stop carbon emissions, and it’s generally impractical and unsustainable to do so. We ‘only’ need to reduce them to sustainable levels.
Dual fuel is an excellent solution, and plays to the strengths of both energy sources.
Remember, perfection is the enemy of the good, and right now it seems like everyone is fixated on the ‘perfect’ when that isn’t actually achievable.
What extremes? Norway copes, many of our commercial buildings cope.Such solutions are commonplace in the US, and work well. You still end up producing way less emissions as the super efficient heat pump is running most of the time, and the gas heat backup isn’t actually used all that much.
We don’t need to completely stop carbon emissions, and it’s generally impractical and unsustainable to do so. We ‘only’ need to reduce them to sustainable levels.
Dual fuel is an excellent solution, and plays to the strengths of both energy sources.
Remember, perfection is the enemy of the good, and right now it seems like everyone is fixated on the ‘perfect’ when that isn’t actually achievable.
dvs_dave said:
Regards heat pumps, I think the most practical solution is to have a dual fuel setup. ASHP for when conditions are suitable, that has gas heat backup to cover extremes/emergencies.
Such solutions are commonplace in the US, and work well. You still end up producing way less emissions as the super efficient heat pump is running most of the time, and the gas heat backup isn’t actually used all that much.
We don’t need to completely stop carbon emissions, and it’s generally impractical and unsustainable to do so. We ‘only’ need to reduce them to sustainable levels.
Dual fuel is an excellent solution, and plays to the strengths of both energy sources.
Remember, perfection is the enemy of the good, and right now it seems like everyone is fixated on the ‘perfect’ when that isn’t actually achievable.
Heat pumps work perfectly fine in much of Scandinavia. Even if they're less efficient or nearly COP1, can't see having a second gas system to be cost effective...Such solutions are commonplace in the US, and work well. You still end up producing way less emissions as the super efficient heat pump is running most of the time, and the gas heat backup isn’t actually used all that much.
We don’t need to completely stop carbon emissions, and it’s generally impractical and unsustainable to do so. We ‘only’ need to reduce them to sustainable levels.
Dual fuel is an excellent solution, and plays to the strengths of both energy sources.
Remember, perfection is the enemy of the good, and right now it seems like everyone is fixated on the ‘perfect’ when that isn’t actually achievable.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff