Heat Pumps, the great deception?

Currently reading:
Heat Pumps, the great deception?

AndyRKett

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
12,194
Location
Norfolk UK
Our eldest lives in a terraced weavers cottage which is well over 200 years old. It has solid stone floors, no cavity walls, just enough length outside the house (no drive of course) for a modern day Mini Cooper S to sit without encroaching on next door's space. But it is their house where they want to live and they love it.
To think you could insulate this house to an adequate level to make an ashp viable is fanciful. And as already mentioned where would it go?
And as the terraced houses are obviously close together imagine the noise of them all going at once 24/7?



Illustrates the point perfectly.
There are a million houses which are around 100 years old and could be knocked down and rebuilt but there a many more much older houses which you’d struggle to justify knocking down and rebuilding just for some insulation.

Also the government would need to look at compulsory purchase of tens of thousands of houses to do it.
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
9,022
Location
Faringdon, Oxfordshire UK
Illustrates the point perfectly.
There are a million houses which are around 100 years old and could be knocked down and rebuilt but there a many more much older houses which you’d struggle to justify knocking down and rebuilding just for some insulation.

Also the government would need to look at compulsory purchase of tens of thousands of houses to do it.

I guess they'll be more difficult to sell in the future. We'll have to be sell them to the older folk, shortly before they need a nursing home, then let the council 'own' it to pay the bill, finding it won't cover it.

My hovel is a 1975 built semi, built cheaply. Like a lot of that era, the top half, front and rear faces are tiled. Bottom half is cavity, brick faced. The tiles are fixed to battens on the inner wall. So vertical battens, then horizontal battens for eah row of tiles, much like a roof. Any soft insulation placed in 1975 will have fallen into the cavity below. 'Fix' would be to remove all the tiles, and the horizontal battens, then fix the modern insulation foam blocks, fit new horizontal battens and refix the tiles. That's a few days work, with scaffolding. Can't see that paying for itself in my lifetime.

I often get cold calls offeering spray in foam insulation. I have a vision of that popping all the tiles off.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
highlands
Our house is 70s built, it’s actually well constructed for the Scottish weather, double wall. Years ago when most only rented, the council was cavity insulating. We had purchased ours. Fella knocked on our door asking if we wanted cavity insulation at a knock down price. Haggled him down to £90 and watched him to do the job properly.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
3,438
Location
Stockport
Illustrates the point perfectly.
There are a million houses which are around 100 years old and could be knocked down and rebuilt but there a many more much older houses which you’d struggle to justify knocking down and rebuilding just for some insulation.

Also the government would need to look at compulsory purchase of tens of thousands of houses to do it.

This sounds similar to the argument over which is more "green". An existing car that has already made its carbon footprint or a yet to be built car that uses exotic materials from all over the globe?
A house that has been there for 200 years or knock it down and start again with newly manufactured materials?
 

DaveMcT

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
18,496
Illustrates the point perfectly.
There are a million houses which are around 100 years old and could be knocked down and rebuilt but there a many more much older houses which you’d struggle to justify knocking down and rebuilding just for some insulation.

Also the government would need to look at compulsory purchase of tens of thousands of houses to do it.


It's all about not having cheap energy. People have to be kept scared.

The fast spectrum molten salt reactors going through homologation in Canada should be happening in UK. It uses the high level nuke waste as fuel and extracts the 96% energy not taken by the original PWR (CANDU to be fair). The whole thing is a simple as its possible to get a steel set in 1 metre of nuke brake concrete. But there is no containment dome as it has no high pressure that can explode into steam. Corrosion is almost non-existent. PWR have quite a problem because hot high pressure water under constant neutron bombardment cracks the water leading to free oxygen and hydrogen both of which attack metals.

The reactor has a high negative temperature coefficient - power drops as temperature rises. Above its rated temperature, the power falls rapidly. The load could be unplugged while the controls rods remain fully out and nothing would happen. The reactor would gradually use up its fuel.

Decay heat (another killer of big PWRs) is removed entirely passively. That gives a small thermal loss but means no operator input is needed to manage a reactor in shut down mode.

It's correct to say this will (probably) never happen in UK. But not because the design cannot work. There is ample evidence (1) of its safety and (2) its low costs per MegaWatt, cheaper than coal, and (3) its controllability. The issue is entirely regulatory. Hazard tests that apply to the AGR (CO2 gas cooled reactors) and PWR are not appropriate for a reactor that has no cooling water and no cooling gas and no moving parts within the core. The problems PWR/AGR solve with engineered fixes are not there in the molten salt. Proving a negative is always hard especially when the regulator is looking for reasons to prevent any progress.

It's very sad that a British company with an excellent engineering team a proven but different approach has been forced to work abroad. By the way the big nuclear engineering companies (Babcock et al) were/are all ready to go. They don't associate themselves with no-hopers.

It's even sadder that the man (Alvin Weinburg) who held most of the PWR (submarine) patents said that the type was not scalable. It's great in a sub or ship where passive cooling is always there. It's not safe when cooling water has to be pumped. Weinburg's molten salt experiment ran for five years in the 1960s. He proved the negative temperature coefficient by literally closing the cooling and all was well. His project was shut down by Nixon and a few years later Three Mile Island did exactly what Weinburg said it would.

https://www.moltexenergy.com
 
Last edited:

DaveMcT

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
18,496
Our house is 70s built, it’s actually well constructed for the Scottish weather, double wall. Years ago when most only rented, the council was cavity insulating. We had purchased ours. Fella knocked on our door asking if we wanted cavity insulation at a knock down price. Haggled him down to £90 and watched him to do the job properly.

Derby has a lot of solid concrete council houses built after WW2. They were terrible for condensation and high heating costs. During the 1990s, the council insulated them externally with 3" rock wool and a hard render over. People love them and they have stood the test of time.

The cast iron council houses were knocked down. Yes they really did build houses from iron.
 

AndyRKett

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
12,194
Location
Norfolk UK
Corrosion is almost non-existent. PWR have quite a problem because hot high pressure water under constant neutron bombardment cracks the water leading to free oxygen and hydrogen both of which attack metals.

I’ve told you a million times why these reactors are nonsense, especially your claims about corrosion not being a problem, they do produce quite a lot of waste and so not efficiently burn off off old waste as you love to claim, but you still keep banging on about it.

Stop reading conspiracy theory websites
 

puntofan01

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
4,533
I must admit, if it is less environmentally damaging to have electric heating and water, then I would prefer that. However, I just can't see it being as efficient and practical as a good gas system.

I live in a 1 bedroom flat, and when I 1st bought the place, it had no central heating. The heating was by a single convector heater in my living room, and a fan heater in my bathroom, with nothing in my bedroom. (It was previously a rental property.) Hot water was by an immersion heated cylinder, fed by a small header tank above it. This system was very expensive to run, whilst not being terribly effective, and using up a lot of space. I replaced it with a central heating system that utilises a Glow Worm combi-boiler. Not only does this work very effectively, but it is also a lot more wallet friendly, as well as freeing up a very useful amount of extra space in my kitchen. As I say, the idea of being gas-free is appealing, but I can't see it being able to match the system I now have.
 

chris3234

Tipo owner
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
4,277
Location
West Yorkshire
I must admit, if it is less environmentally damaging to have electric heating and water, then I would prefer that. However, I just can't see it being as efficient and practical as a good gas system.

I live in a 1 bedroom flat, and when I 1st bought the place, it had no central heating. The heating was by a single convector heater in my living room, and a fan heater in my bathroom, with nothing in my bedroom. (It was previously a rental property.) Hot water was by an immersion heated cylinder, fed by a small header tank above it. This system was very expensive to run, whilst not being terribly effective, and using up a lot of space. I replaced it with a central heating system that utilises a Glow Worm combi-boiler. Not only does this work very effectively, but it is also a lot more wallet friendly, as well as freeing up a very useful amount of extra space in my kitchen. As I say, the idea of being gas-free is appealing, but I can't see it being able to match the system I now have.
It will be far more efficient electric heating is vastly superior in term of heat gain per kWh put in then burning gas

But it also takes far long and costs far more in the UK
 

DaveMcT

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
18,496
I’ve told you a million times why these reactors are nonsense, especially your claims about corrosion not being a problem, they do produce quite a lot of waste and so not efficiently burn off off old waste as you love to claim, but you still keep banging on about it.

Stop reading conspiracy theory websites

Narrow minded people like you are exactly why British nuclear power is such a side line.

You are saying the Canadian project is a silly idea driven by conspiracy theorists. In which case, New Brunswick Power must be complete idiots. I suggest you check back in a few years time and see who got it right.
 
Last edited:

AndyRKett

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
12,194
Location
Norfolk UK
You are saying the Canadian project is a silly idea driven by conspiracy theorists. In which case, New Brunswick Power must be complete idiots. I suggest you check back in a few years time and see who got it right.

Nope I’m saying you read conspiracy theory websites which is why you come out with incorrect information like claiming these reactors don’t have any problems with corrosion read the actual science which I’ve done many times before and you’ll see why we are many years down the road already and there are still non of these reactors out there working in anything more than an experiment.
Also you seem to think that these reactors which you believe are an answer to everything are being suppressed by the powers that be. Again no, they are not being adopted because the world doesn’t want more nuclear power and they are not a developed technology.

Hinkley point was given the go ahead in 2008, it then took another 10 years before they started building it and it won’t be finished till 2025 and that’s based on proven designs in nuclear power station building, how long till it take an experimental technology being pushed by a small design company to get the go ahead to build something, and once they have the go ahead every single step of the way they are going to have to jump over red tape and regulations.

Maybe if we check back in 2040 we might have some actual news on this, by which time how much power generation and storage will have been replace with solar and batteries ?
The world doesn’t want more nuclear power.

As this is a thread about heat pumps, which the government are looking to make compulsory and ban gas heating from 2025, maybe we need some more immediate ideas.
 
Last edited:
Top