The accompanying picture highlights people's lack of understanding of the concept of what a gas boiler is:
Quick update
4 hours ago
Monday 7 February 2022
"Many people still in the dark over gas boilers, say MPs"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
The Heat and Buildings Strategy set out measures to support customers switching away from gas, with additional support for those on low incomes. From 2035 all new heating systems must be heat pumps, hydrogen-ready boilers or similarly low-carbon systems.
Hydrogen is a gas, you ignorami.
Mr Jones told BBC News: “We were not convinced that hydrogen was proven to be a front-running, viable technology.
"I understand why trades unions are enthusiastic about hydrogen because it preserves jobs – but many workers will need to transition to heat pumps. Concerns around hydrogen included “supply, distribution, changes to the network, changes in the home with safety work around pipes and valves - so many reasons we’re not convinced,” he said.
Before we started burning methane, we were burning town gas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and, yes, hydrogen. We were able to change from that to methane without much problem, so why should we not be able to change back? There must be a lobby at work here. Even MPs aren't that stupid.
B, I'm old enough to remember the switch to North Sea gas. It was a faff but do-able.
But as much as I'm in favour of innovative policies, I don't think going back to Town Gas will be on my list. We have to tilt at the 'C02 changes climate' windmill first.
The useful idiots are trying to pretend that there are technical problems with switching to hydrogen, "because the molecules are very small and can leak out past seals", which I have seen quoted as the reason that "changes in the home with safety work around pipes and valves" are TFD. The fact is, that the hydrogen molecules are no smaller than when they failed to leak out past the far more rudimentary seals we had in the days of Town Gas.
There has always been a good reason to phase out reliance on fossil fuels, which is that they are going to run out one day. As we know, that doesn't cut any ice with people who tend to be of the "apres nous, le deluge" opinion, so they are pretending that the CO2 will cook us or drown us or whatever nasty end is the bogeyman de jour. That doesn't mean that switching from fossil methane to renewable hydrogen isn't a step we are going to have to make sooner or later. Anyway, the CO2 lies and the hydrogen lies are all part of the same effort by Big Green to improve market share and keep those subsidies flowing into their pockets.
B, if you think about it, piping gas (of whatever type) into homes is insanity. You need it for hot water/heating, in which an electric boiler serves just as well, and it's nice to have a gas hob with flames, but that's hardly essential.
How that electricity is generated is a question of economics, pollution and practicality. If renewable generation is cheaper, then I'm all in favour. If gas etc gets more and more expensive, then renewables will be the cheaper option by default.
These "peak oil" stores don't scare me much. The switch over to electric-only homes and (dare I say it) electric cars will be done in two decades if and when we put our minds to it. Electric cars take the fun out of it, but hey, I'll find some other pastime.
Also, this wasn't the point of the post. It shows people installing an air conditioning unit, which has f- all to do with gas boilers.
As far as I am concerned the supply of fossil fuels is to all intents and purposes limitless. There's stacks of coal left in the UK. Oil wells recover a minority of the reserves, we can now make petrol and diesel from the air etc etc.
On the subject of CO2 nonsense, taking the 1850 date so beloved of the 'hockey stick' brigade the population of the world has gone from 1.2 Bn in 1850 to 8 Bn now. So how much extra CO2 are we now breathing out @ 1 kg a day per human bean (I have read on the internet which is never wrong). 365 kgs per year. More if you are a keep fitter. 8 Bn x 365kgs / 1000 = 2,920,000,000 tonnes per annum. In 1850 it was 1.2 x 365 / 1000 = 438,000,000 tonnes. So if we 'reduce' (please suggest your preferred method) the human population by 6.8 Bn we'll 'save' 2.482 Bn tonnes per year.
Just saying
L, it's not limitless in absolute sense. But my view is, we will see the end coming a few decades in advance (might be next week, might be in centuries, who knows?), which gives us time to switch over. It's only economics and pollution that matter on a day to day basis.
Also, there's no point trying to disaggregate all the CO2 breathed out or emitted vs absorbed by trees or oceans. It's only net emissions that matter (to a scientist), which I guesstimated at 4 tonnes per capita per year averaged over whole world (Yanks are probably ten times that, South Sudanis probably one-tenth).
L, the other issue is political. If we can wean ourselves off the natural gas that we buy from the most despicable regimes in the world (Russia, Gulf Arab countries), then that's also a win, even if there is a cost to it.
"Also, this wasn't the point of the post. It shows people installing an air conditioning unit, which has f- all to do with gas boilers."
Nor quite, the air source heat pump (which I suspect is what that is) industry is a tentacle of Big Green, which is pumping out the misinformation about hydrogen as a fuel which forms part of the article.
The point about hydrogen is that it enables a switch away from natural gas without huge infrastructure changes, which we will need if we are going to do everything with electricity. There's not much point weaning ourselves of natural gas from Russia and the Gulf if we just end up buying it from the US who are just as bead, if not worse.
B, sure, it might be an air source heat pump, that's just air con in reveres. But those run off electricity, don't they? And also they are shit.
We can easily do everything domestically with electricity. New boiler, new cooker, sorted. Cost a few thousand quid, affordable over ten years for people who need to spread the payments.
That seems more sensible than fannying about with hydrogen.
Tin foil hat wearer 01 here: we should leave the gas in the ground. until its required for emergencies. Because its the quick easy way to make power.
On electricity, when I was taking my BRE code assessor for sustainable homes exam we went into all this deep and at length. If new homes could be built with better insulation(say, Structurally Insulate Panels) and a heat exchanger, we worked out a home would only need an annual average of 400W in direct electricity to heat it. Let's say 10kWh or UK£2 daily.
Its a big IF sure. And it can be done. It would add about 10% to the price of the house. But economies of scale would eat that away if the inertia of the building industry could be dealt with.
Hydrogen would be nice for some applications because its a fuel. But its no panacea yet largely due to engineering and materials. These could also be overcome quickly.
For all of it, necessity is the mother of invention. History so testifies. Today none of the above, in the eyes of the great masse of people, is a necessity. We might be approaching necessity given the bonkers energy problems recently.
And so it goes.
"We can easily do everything domestically with electricity. New boiler, new cooker, sorted."
You've missed out all the new power distribution cables and all the new nuclear power stations for when the wind don't blow and the ship don't go. That's quite a few thousand quid. Without that, we will all turn our boilers on and nothing will happen.
In any case electric heating boilers are a complete nonsense. It's far more efficient and flexible to use plug-in heaters.
"But its no panacea yet largely due to engineering and materials."
What "engineering and materials"? Hydrogen was in use as a fuel for decades and the "engineering and materials" problems were solved in the C19th.
@Bayard. Google is your friend. You can see there's plenty of way to go here: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/high-pressure-hydrogen-tank-testing
On Nuclear, that also still requires plenty of materials tech to work properly for all.
SO let's get going. IF there's a necessity for it. Right now there is no necessity.
If fear you are using hydrogen religion to make you case. And a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.
RS, agreed. Insulation is a good thing and saves money. And draught excluders.
B, yes, we would need a bit more leccy, I knew that.
RS/MW - Existing housing stock v hard to insulate to best modern standards. I know this. I live in one.
MW. For all intents and purpose oil/coal/gas etc are limitless. As it gets harder to extract so the costs goes up which spurs lower consumption/substitution etc. and makes it economic to do things like say make petrol from the atmosphere. etc etc
MW re importing gas. We have stacks of it. We just need to het fracking.
@Lola Really? Is it a PassiveHaus or similar (Code Level 6 or 7)
Agreed on fossil fuels. But they are toxic and highly radioactive. You don't really want to expose that to the environment.
What about syn fuel instead of hydrogen? Made using high temperature nuclear reactors? Syn fuel is far better than hydrogen as it can be stored at room temperature. Much like petrol.
There's so much that can be done for energy. Its barmy that we're not doing it.
Even solar could be good if done in the right way.
RS, that is using hydrogen to power fuel cells. That's not what is being talked about here, which is burning hydrogen in your gas boiler.
Bayard, thanks for the clarification.
Hydrogen is such a religious activity for people is my point. Avoid. Follow the science.
Post a Comment