Did you see the report that boilers sales are to stop 2025
- Thread starter devonwoody
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
You make some great points however this section is problematic, why? Because poor people already do this and still live in relative fuel poverty.
Our flat isn't going to get anymore insulated, we do wear more clothes in the winter to keep warm, we do regulate our thermostat and run a dehumidifier to keep the air dry rather than opening windows (which is a waste of time in the South West in winter anyway), we do shop at our local supermarket/shops and we drive a car that we can afford. Our fuel consumption is about as low as we could make it and we are not alone, indeed I consider us to be reasonably comfortable compared to some people I know and some of our neighbours. In our last flat which luckily we only lived in for 18 months (but did 2 winters including a very cold one for our location) we got by with no running hot water and no central heating.
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
A big snippet from Upsetting a delicate balance
The issue facing humanity – both in energy and climate terms – has never been getting people to give up petrol cars. If it was, state-subsidised public transport and the increased use of electric trams and trains would be a far more effective alternative than electric cars. The problem has always been the power-to-weight problem in attempting to shift from diesel to batteries for heavy machinery, large trucks, ships and aeroplanes. Just as coal remains the only economically viable basis for producing essentials like steel and cement – and less essential solar panels – diesel will remain the only economically viable power source for mining, industry, agriculture and transport for decades into the future.
The planned shift away from petrol – which is planned by governments, unlike the unplanned way in which the economy developed to this point – threatens the delicate balance in pricing between the most essential oil products – diesel, aviation fuel and bunker fuel (35% of a barrel) – and waste products like petrol (43% of a barrel). The present set up allows the essential products to be subsidised by the sale of largely non-essential petrol. If the proposed shift to hydrogen and batteries goes ahead, the price of the essential fuels – which we have no choice but to keep on using – must increase to account for the lost revenue from the non-essentials. At the same time, the price of petrol will be lowered to a point where enough people who still drive petrol vehicles are prepared to grow its use once more – most likely by shifting light goods transportation to petrol-powered vehicles.
I recommend the entire article - in fact all his writing is very well thought out, and not the usual economic postulating. It is, however, a bit depressing. This article would sit just as well on the electric vehicle thread, but we are going green on both, apparently.
Cooper
Established Member
I'm no chemist but a friend, who worked for ESSO told me, when I raised a similar point, that the crude oil could be "cracked" to produce almost whatever was wanted to match demand. The graphic says how crude is used currently.
Fit a system boiler and it may well see you out, they are just a basic condensing boiler unlike combi's with pumps built in and more complex systems to go wrong. Also they can be more efficient as they leisurely heat up a tank of water rather than having to go through thermal shock to generate enough heat for instant hot water.
Some of the worlds biggest excavators are so big that they cannot even use a diesel engine so no chance of becoming battery powered when they use a high voltage supply and consume 16.56 megawatts.
Doesn't sound like they need to, they stay wired then.
Suffolk Brian
Established Member
Yes, but; land covered in solar panels is land not available for food production. You cannot eat a dead solar panel.
Last edited:
Devmeister
Established Member
Omg And here I thought the crazy yanks had a corner on this market. Last summer, we were evacuated twice as beetle kill standing wood burst into forest fires. I just installed a 188,000 BTU Buderus boiler burning propane along with a hydronic wood burning boiler interfaced into six zones with grundfoss alpha 2 circ pumps using vintage 1950 cast iron baseboard. I burn beetle kill pine, old wood scraps, pallets and trash in the boiler. The environmentalists can kiss by back side if they have issues. I am not freezing when it dips to minus 20 F.
Yes, but not all land is suitable for food production nor is all suitable land used.
It's large fields used around here, not 100s of acres of mine dumps.
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
If I'm reading your post correctly I'm a bit surprised that you see this discussion as a hot bed of environmental extremism. The rules in the UK are simply changing so new build properties will use heating that lessens our impact on the environment. IMHO it's actually quite a healthy debate on what works best going on and no one is expecting anyone to freeze or kiss anyone's bottom
Your individual situation sounds very different to the UK. Whether domestic burning of trash is a good thing I don't know. If we all did it in the UK though I suspect it wouldn't be.
Are they fields that were used for food production and now no longer are?
Usually.
Ok that seems rather silly then.
I don't think it is totally incorrect. Those pictures make for nice PR, but I don't see how you are going to run any kind of machinery to work around all those poles. Might work on land suitable only for grazing.
A much better idea would be this sort of thing:
Solar Tiles | Spirit Energy
This also solves another problem with solar panels. Like wind turbines, solar panels are not very nice to look at, and they spoil both the country and the villages.
Solar roof tiles are crazy expensive now, but like nuclear, the price would come down if they came into widespread use.
Last edited:
Droogs
Not the Sharpest Moderator in the box
@sirocosm the tile you point to would be great if all new roofing or replacements where mandated to be made of this. That would bring the prices down , but the biggest factor for making a difference would be to mandate decent levels of insulation (double the R value now) and only triple glazing. This should be lead by a massive investment in building new social housing projects that provide decent homes. That way the overinflated market prices fall and by setting building taxation based on environmental impact as well as financial value then perhaps that would incentivise those who choose to live in inefficient homes to improve them. All of which would reduce demand for power and therefore emissions and waste.
Droogs, you are totally correct about new builds, but the problem is that it is not so easy for some of us. I live in a detached 30s house. It has cavity wall downstairs and 2 wythe solid up. I can easily upgrade the loft insulation, but there really isn't much I can easily do about the walls.
But your house will probably have provided a home for people for a lot longer period than many of these new builds will and it will remain standing for a lot longer than many of the new builds so therefore it will have been a more sustainable build.