Did you see the report that boilers sales are to stop 2025

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
the current phrase is climate change, global warming is a boomer phrase
This boomer is of the belief that it is a climate emergency, the cosy phrases global warming and climate change went out a long time ago. The Stern report was published in 2006. Stern Review - Wikipedia and we are still talking as though change was a choice. As a world, we have slowly got into action about the pandemic, that is yet to be the case for the far bigger problem, that will effect your life long after the likes of me have shuffled off our mortal coils. Technology has solutions and we should embrace and exploit them, not whinge about the relatively small costs they impose. (I'm sure with the right strategy you will become a property owner.)
 
I doubt Mr Scargill would have accepted that she was closing the coal mines because she was an enviromentalist, and I think she has got many titles and names but an enviromentalist is not on the list.
Of course he wouldn't - his job was to protect workers rights, which he certainly worked hard at!
Thatcher was more into attacking union power than looking after the environment - climate change was hardly on the agenda, which is interesting as it was only 35 years ago - some things really have changed!
 
New to the forum but here goes. An interesting thread. Firmly believe the solution is more low tech than heat pumps etc. We just refurbed our 120 year old home by upgrading insulation (200mm all round) airtightness (<3 air changes per hour) and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery. We looked at heat pumps but were advised, correctly I think, that with mains gas and an efficient boiler it was uneconomic. Having lived there for 6 months it’s amazing - the boiler hardly ever comes on. No need to ban something that is so infrequently used. The house feels warm and fresh at 20C as there are no draughty or cold spots. Hot water 70% from solar thermal. On the downside: 1. not cheap and will take years to recoup costs if I live that long. 2. Most components had to be imported (German). 3 We were unable to access any “green” funding from government schemes which are pathetic, badly thought out and derided by those who know. 4. Few tradesmen understand the ideas, especially airtightness - I often had to stop people whacking holes in walls. Solutions. 1. Zero VAT for refurbishment of this type. 2. Regulate properly to force new builds down this route instead of pandering to the big builders bottom lines. 3. Long term commitment to educating the public and trades rather than promoting ill thought out schemes whose main purpose is political.
Did similar here, not quite to the same extent. Chapel conversion 100+mm insulation all round inside external walls down to 50mm in deep window reveals. 200 to 300mm Kingspan plus rockwool in attic ceilings. Careful avoidance of all holes through, with wiring etc surface mounted on external wall inner faces, no gaps, no cold bridges.
Big low tech success is "Passivent" air extraction - duct in each of two upstairs bathrooms open and close according to humidity and keep them dry, no fan required, also drawing air from rest of building. You can see them open up if you have a shower, half hour later a very steamy room is now bone dry and the vents closed to trickle gap.
We looked at wood burning bio mass with hot water storage but it was very expensive - and you'd need continuous supply of very dry stuff and to employ a full time stoker! Instead went for simple wood burner as near middle as possible, which heats a huge space very quickly if you have enough dry stuff on hand, including all sawdust and shavings. Also have conventional gas boiler for hot water and CH - gas bill about £500 p.a.
 
Last edited:
re Tomin Dales comment. Paste The subsidised scheme for CFLs was to encourage a switch from incandescent (a 75% reduction in energy use), which preceded an outright ban of the sale of incandescent lights in the EU - at that time. The UK has maintained the ban post Brexit. LED lights are about twice as efficient as strip lights and nearly 3x more so than CFLs, (use about 10% of the power of an incandescent), the prices is such that for most people the payback is a year or so. As the technology is maturing the reliable lifetime of LEDs is rising, I've had some going for 4 years and the failure rate is falling with each new batch, so I guess there is no need to subsidise the switch. The other benefit of LEDs is the new phosphors give out a decent colour light and there is a wide choice of colour temperature. The biggest issue with CFLs was the poor light quality. So I guess there is no need to an incentive.
I read the above quote, I run 4 x 60watt CFLs old light bulbs in our main living room on a dimmer switch for convenience with no other lighting, but can I run a dimmer switch on those modern bulbs you mention?
Good question, There are plenty of sparkys on this forum who can give you a fuller or simpler answer than me. LEDs sold today tend to say on the box if they can be dimmed or not, so start there. I've found by buying one or two and trying them out is the simplest way to find out. If you have a long string of lights on the same circuit you can often find that leaving one traditional bulb will help stabilise the dimmer controller.

There is an issue with dimming, traditional dimmers work by trimming the voltage down on mains ac, its called leading edge trimming. Mains power is ac so is a wave form and this is modified by the dimmer to reduce the voltage and hence the power. This works well for incandescent and halogen lights but not so well for CFLs and LEDS, can casue flicker or buzzing noise. However the manufactures of LEDs and CFLs have build in compensation circuits to allow to back compatibility with older switching gear, it will say on the packet if this is the case.
Here is a link to a company selling lamps with an simple explanation How To Dim LED Lights - The Lightbulb Co. UK

This blog is more in depth on the topic. Using Dimmer Switches With LED Light Bulbs | Lightbulbs Direct.

I buy LEDS from regular stores (eg mr bazos's ) or the supermarket that say they are dimmable. Over time I'll probably uprate the dimmers. I read Amazon reviews where the odd person says there light buzzed or flickered whereas other reviews don't see it, one of the reasons is LEDs draw so little power that dimmers don't control them well. I've found where we have a string of lamps in our bookcase and kitchen is to replace all the bulbs bar-one with LEDS and keep one traditional lamp in the circuit that stops the flicker as it provides enough load for the controller.
Some of our lamps were low voltage halogen with a simple transformer - installed donkeys years ago. These seem to work perfectly with LEDS. The other thing I've noticed with some of our low voltage lights, the cost of an LED transformer is only about £3 so it was a simple upgrade.
You may want to start replacing your CFLs in non dimming circuits to stat with and see how you get on with LEDs.

A few things to watch out for.
- very cheap ones don't last that long - the ballast tends to wear out, so go for ones with good reviews of sold by a reliable shop, also the colour rendering is poor ie the type of white isn't that pure due to cheap phosphors so they can look greenish or orange.

- choose the colour temperature that your household like, most traditional bulbs have a colour temp in the Uk of about 3000k, in Europe colour temperature varies in the south eg Itally its high at 4000k and in Scandinavia it was low at 2700k. With old bulbs you weren't offered much choice apart from the odd specialist 'real home fire effect lights'.
LEDs are manufactured on a global scale we are offered a huge choice in colour temperature. In my experience 2700k to 3000k look a bit too yellow. I've tended to settle on 4000k as that slightly higher temperature seems to give a similar quality of light to what we were used to, slighly less yellow. I now find 3000k is quite yellow and 6000k is quite blue. One thing to get right is keep them all the same in one room, it looks odd if you mix an match in the same room. You may want to have your kitchen in the 4000k range for a clean look but the sitting room at a lower temp for a more relaxed look.

Like you I still have a box of CFLs, the mother in law was given a job lot by the council before she died, I'm using them up in the kids bedrooms, but they last for ages.
Hope that helps.
 
Although I wholeheartedly support reducing pollution I'm concerned that all the current and proposed heating technology, transport of every type etc needs electricity to operate. If gas, coal and wood is being phased out for electricity generation we are left with wind turbines and nuclear power stations. Trials are underway to test small scales nuclear stations that will replace existing regional power stations which could result in a plethora of nuclear stations across the country.
 
I looked at ASHP a few years ago to replace our decrepit oil boiler. We live in an old stone cottage with modern but poorly insulated extentions. After substantial heat loss calcs were carried out we were quoted £12k for an ASHP that could cope plus replacing existing rads with larger ones designed for low heat levels. It just didn't make financial sense even with RHI so we bought a wood pellet boiler under the RHI scheme for £4k. This pays for our pellets for 7 years but then we will be left with hefty fuel bills as the price of pellets has shot up over the past 5 years so we are now contemplating replacing the wood pellets boiler in 2 years time with whatever is cheaper to run. And I might add, complete the house insulation to a high spec.
 
Last edited:
Although I wholeheartedly support reducing pollution I'm concerned that all the current and proposed heating technology, transport of every type etc needs electricity to operate. If gas, coal and wood is being phased out for electricity generation we are left with wind turbines and nuclear power stations. Trials are underway to test small scales nuclear stations that will replace existing regional power stations which could result in a plethora of nuclear stations across the country.
n.b. "Pollution" as such is just a trivial detail - climate change is an imminent threat to our life on this planet.
I agree with you about nuclear power - another similar threat!
 
Trials are underway to test small scales nuclear stations that will replace existing regional power stations which could result in a plethora of nuclear stations across the country.
In this very unstable world with all sorts of nutters and terrorist then this could be a very bad idea, each one having the potential to become a dirty bomb.

The issue remains that we are chasing moving targets, population growth, global warming, dwindling resources so much more difficult to solve, in essence we are slowly blowing up a ballon, just a few little puffs here and there but eventually we all know what happens to that ballon.
 
How much is all this 'decarbonisation' going to cost the average person? From this article by Steve Baker MP, it seems Whitehall's estimate is about £100,000 per household.

It’s alright for some | Steve Baker | The Critic Magazine

As for global warming, I've just come back from doing my mum's weekly shop. Everybody I saw was muffled up in woolies and winter coats - and it's damn near the end of May. I can't recall a colder spring for many a long year. If the climate is in run-away warming mode, it's doing a pretty good job of hiding it - I can detect precious little evidence of it.

As far as 'scientists say' - yeah, I've looked in some depth at climate science, and once you get past the media rhetoric, there's not much evidence of runaway warming there, either. The climate warmed until the late 1990s, since when it's rate of warming has slowed almost to flat - which does seem to bear out personal experience.

I suspect that all this government zeal is one of those establishment fashions that's about to reach 'peak w*nk'. When the Red Wall voters discover that they'll be expected to pay about £100,000 a household for all this fancy climate mitigation stuff, there will be loud rumblings - and Whitehall and government will have to have some pretty convincing evidence to back up their policies. From what I've seen of climate science, I don't think that evidence exists.

Matthew Goodwin (political scientist and commentator) said a few months ago that post Brexit, he thought the next big political theme would be policy around climate. I think he may be right.
 
How much is all this 'decarbonisation' going to cost the average person? From this article by Steve Baker MP, it seems Whitehall's estimate is about £100,000 per household.

It’s alright for some | Steve Baker | The Critic Magazine

As for global warming, I've just come back from doing my mum's weekly shop. Everybody I saw was muffled up in woolies and winter coats - and it's damn near the end of May. I can't recall a colder spring for many a long year. If the climate is in run-away warming mode, it's doing a pretty good job of hiding it - I can detect precious little evidence of it.

As far as 'scientists say' - yeah, I've looked in some depth at climate science, and once you get past the media rhetoric, there's not much evidence of runaway warming there, either. The climate warmed until the late 1990s, since when it's rate of warming has slowed almost to flat - which does seem to bear out personal experience.

I suspect that all this government zeal is one of those establishment fashions that's about to reach 'peak w*nk'. When the Red Wall voters discover that they'll be expected to pay about £100,000 a household for all this fancy climate mitigation stuff, there will be loud rumblings - and Whitehall and government will have to have some pretty convincing evidence to back up their policies. From what I've seen of climate science, I don't think that evidence exists.

Matthew Goodwin (political scientist and commentator) said a few months ago that post Brexit, he thought the next big political theme would be policy around climate. I think he may be right.
Global warming doesn't just cause an increase in global temperatures it creates extremes in weather patterns. We've all seen reports of 'the driest/wettest/coldest month on record. Last May we were enduring the hottest May on record, last month was the driest. The world is seeing increases in droughts, wild fires, floods etc etc it makes the film 'The Day After Tomorrow' look a worrying possibility.
 
n.b. "Pollution" as such is just a trivial detail - climate change is an imminent threat to our life on this planet.
I agree with you about nuclear power - another similar threat!

You're neurotic Jacob. Thinks like malaria, dengue, covid, etc, are imminent threats to our life on this planet. Global warming is not. It's a threat of future suffering.
 
How much is all this 'decarbonisation' going to cost the average person? From this article by Steve Baker MP, it seems Whitehall's estimate is about £100,000 per household.

It’s alright for some | Steve Baker | The Critic Magazine

As for global warming, I've just come back from doing my mum's weekly shop. Everybody I saw was muffled up in woolies and winter coats - and it's damn near the end of May. I can't recall a colder spring for many a long year. If the climate is in run-away warming mode, it's doing a pretty good job of hiding it - I can detect precious little evidence of it.

As far as 'scientists say' - yeah, I've looked in some depth at climate science, and once you get past the media rhetoric, there's not much evidence of runaway warming there, either. The climate warmed until the late 1990s, since when it's rate of warming has slowed almost to flat - which does seem to bear out personal experience.

I suspect that all this government zeal is one of those establishment fashions that's about to reach 'peak w*nk'. When the Red Wall voters discover that they'll be expected to pay about £100,000 a household for all this fancy climate mitigation stuff, there will be loud rumblings - and Whitehall and government will have to have some pretty convincing evidence to back up their policies. From what I've seen of climate science, I don't think that evidence exists.

Matthew Goodwin (political scientist and commentator) said a few months ago that post Brexit, he thought the next big political theme would be policy around climate. I think he may be right.
Not many climate change deniers left! Congratulations CC, ahead of the curve as ever, I'm so relieved!
 
Ahh...I know how you create a false argument of something being imminent. Avoid discussing actual measurable things that will happen in the near future and put other people on teams ("you're on the denier team"). Both sides can make catastrophic comment and we can tell the person who fell over from malaria that they're lucky that they didn't live to see the effects of climate change (at most ages, they wouldn't have, anyway, except the people barking in their face about imminent death and scorching temperatures and polar vortexes and bigger hurricanes).
 
This boomer is of the belief that it is a climate emergency, the cosy phrases global warming and climate change went out a long time ago. The Stern report was published in 2006. Stern Review - Wikipedia and we are still talking as though change was a choice. As a world, we have slowly got into action about the pandemic, that is yet to be the case for the far bigger problem, that will effect your life long after the likes of me have shuffled off our mortal coils. Technology has solutions and we should embrace and exploit them, not whinge about the relatively small costs they impose. (I'm sure with the right strategy you will become a property owner.)

This is the essence of what cognitive behavioral therapy is about -gnashing teeth over something as yet undefined as if we will float through decades or centuries of time doing nothing to mitigate the problem, and don't forget, we have to act in the next five years or it's all over. 20 years ago we had to act in the next 2 (why are we still acting in the next 5 now?).

When the problem becomes more significant, it will be addressed. It's not as if it will not be possible to address it - that's nonsense. For all of the folks decrying the disaster that's to come, for each one of us, our footprint could be lowered to near zero - and I don't mean by political schemes. I mean that you could spend your time as an individual finding extremely low consumption electronic devices and minimize use of the internet (as enormous amounts of energy are used putting together and sorting the data that you're accessing all the time), cease driving, cease going on vacation (absolutely do not fly - period), and share your experiences with something feasible. If it is that big of a problem, you can do that. Going on vacation (flying anywhere...period) and traveling in large vehicles that haul you as a very small % of the load) and heating more than an essential living space in a house - anyone decrying just how big the problem is and not doing those things, I'm not buying the explanation.

Solving problems is a specific thing - complaining that other people aren't solving problems isn't solving problems.
 
Although I wholeheartedly support reducing pollution I'm concerned that all the current and proposed heating technology, transport of every type etc needs electricity to operate. If gas, coal and wood is being phased out for electricity generation we are left with wind turbines and nuclear power stations. Trials are underway to test small scales nuclear stations that will replace existing regional power stations which could result in a plethora of nuclear stations across the country.
My understanding is that scenario is extremely unlikely due to local planning and security concerns. What is being looked as is replacing the existing huge reactors at existing sites such as Hartlepool, Sizewell with dozens of small modular ones - ie the turbine hall at Harlepool would have dozens of smrs in it rather than 4 mega reactors.

Rolls Royce has been working on this for about 20 years - its a modification of their well established and reliable submarine reactor. it addresses the problem that current nuclear reactors are too big to build. The current manufacturing method is to build these huge reactors that need to be constructed on site this is very costly. Also the huge size means they take years to build which adds capital risk resulting in the cost of capital being 3 or 4 times what it could be. The idea of SMRs is to factory build them similar to Henry Fords idea of mass production, that way every one is identical, with the same safety protocols the same operating guidelines etc so that you get quality control, safe systems and lower manufacturing costs. Similarly for decommissioning the reactor and be taken back to a factory as with sub reactors and decommissioned. The decommissioning of sub reactors is pretty efficient and on a wholly different scale to that of the fixed plant. The likely sites for these are where nuclear is already established. If it works well, I could image them being rolled out further in years to come, but that is probably 30 years off as they will need to establish a long run of safe operation and decommissioning before confidence is established in this approach.

You make a perceptive observation about the rise of electric. Its a popular vector for powe,r because it can be generated from many sources and used for many applications. But we have never tried it on this vast scale. In addition to wind, there is also solar, the latest solar farms are about as cost effective as wind. There is an Australian scheme to build a huge combined wind and solar farm in western Australia and export the power by cable to south east Asia, solar and wind are quite complementary in hot climes as the sun compesates for windless days and vice versa.
Other vectors are being researched, the main one being hydrogen, Ammonia is being considered (electrify, hydrogen and air being the raw materials), and turning electricity and hydrogen into some sustainable hydrocarbons using CO2 sequestered from the air, .aviation fuel being a likely early use. The overall concern is about storing energy in the form of electricity in batteries, pump storage etc and how to power ships across the oceans. You need enough storage to cope with unusual weather events when there is less wind or sun, hence the nuclear options.
 
According to my father, who sometimes got things wrong, The Festival Hall, when it was built in 1952(?), the year before I was born, was intended to be heated in the winter, and cooled in the summer, by heat exchangers using water from the Thames.

I believe it didn't work out, and they had to add additional heating/cooling systems.
Very interesting. Looks like they did a year long trial for the Festival of Britten and then it was ripped out by the incoming Churchill government. They seemed determined to bury the festival of Britten as quickly as they could dumping a fair amount of it direct into the Thames - skylon etc.
https://claverton-energy.com/introduction-to-thermogeology.html
 
When the problem becomes more significant, it will be addressed.
But what if at that point the problem is so large and out of control it cannot be addressed. It is like catching a forest fire as it starts in a campsite rather than waiting for it to engulf a few acres before attacking it.
 
No, it's not like that because the situation doesn't change in minutes and we will be more motivated to act base on discomfort. But I think we'll act long before then, anyway. What if scenarios that are only negatively biased with catastrophic uncontrollable outcomes are the hallmark of cognitive traps with anxiety. Ask me how I know this. They can prevent you from taking positive measure action or even understanding what it should be because measured pragmatism and rationality is never as attractive.
 
Electric cars, non gas heating,renewable energy, aiming for carbon neutral, all very good on paper.

But we'll be importing a great deal of foodstuffs from places like south America or Australia, consumer goods from Asia. Diesel powered container ships sailing thousands and thousands of miles.
Good point. Sea freight is actually very efficient so its not top of the priority list for decarbonising in transport. This graph form the IEA shows the comparative emissions. Cars and trucks are the top priority as they account for 2/3s of all emissions. However aviation and shipping will account for most by 2050 is nothing is done about it.

1621605818687.png


Lloyds of London - who have a research station in Southampton, sponsored by the big shipping lines are doing research into shipping and the big lines are trialing various alternatives fuels such as hydrogen, ammonia and sustainable diesels. Electric ships are being tried in ferries where there is a short journey and defined ports to recharge. The London stretch of the Thames has some trials going on with plans to electrify the ferries and barges. Amsterdam has an electric fleet.

The other big issue you mention if food - food production - mainly meet - is responsible for about 25% of all emissions, so expect to read about reduced meet and lab/factory grown meets to hit the press......:D
 

Latest posts

Back
Top