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

[D_W]

I can't imagine ground temperature in vertical wells will decrease. I think there's a misunderstanding of how much mass is involved when we're just heating a little bit of air in each home.

(by that statement, I don't mean the aggregate around each well, but the ground in an entire area as a whole - obviously, the aggregate should shoulder some of the thermal burden around the piping).

 

[Jacob]

Very interesing.
Never thought too much about heat pumps, knowing that I can't afford one!
Presumably as they work with quite small temperature differences in UK they are not appropriate for large power station extraction such as the Icelandic geothermal generators. Is it an entirely different concept or just a matter of scale?
If they produce more energy than is needed to drive them then presumably they could be designed to power themselves?

 

[TominDales]

It's known as free market economics. Very much the ideology of the right. Probably going out of fashion though, and about time too!We voted for feeble regulation. De-regulation was the big issue with Brexit. It was second on the bill after immigration. Some re-assessments going on, perhaps?Just a detail but migration and asylum seeking, including entry to the country, are not illegal. They may be treated like criminals but are perfectly legally here until applications to remain are duly processed and refused. It was always an imaginary issue, as the benefits of immigration have always out-weighed the disadvantages.
An odd comparison to make anyway, as climate change could be the greatest disaster to ever hit the human race. Increased migration as a result of climate change may become a bigger issue, arguably it is already underway.

I don't see a huge difference in party political objectives for the environment between the two main parties in the UK over a long period of time. Yes there are differences over individual issues, and there approach is based on different political philosophies, but when you stand back both main parties were pretty similar on their goals over a very long period of time. Environmental Policy in the 70s through 2000s was pretty medium road - lagging well behind Germany and Northern countries and ahead of the US (excepting California and a few states). Ironically Mrs Thatcher achieved the greatest moves for climate change by initiating and strongly pushing the Montreal protocol and by shutting coal mines, this is an area the UK has led over Germany.

Since 2007 the two parties have both adopted a much greener agenda, Ed Miliband under labour, Ed Davy under the Condemns and then Gove catching the attention of May and then Johnson on the issue. Apart form the extremes there is a general consensus in the UK. We are not at all like the US where there is a huge difference of opinion between the Dems and Republications on this topic. Where I work in Teesside the Tory mayor is as keen on green energy as his labour opponent as they both can see an opportunity to revitalise the economy on the back of this initiative. The Greens are strong top down environmental agenda and the Lib Dems have a strong bottom up environmental agenda but the two biggest parties are really quite similar despite coming at it from very different political perspectives, one tends to look at supply side interventions while the other looks at demand side, but there is general agreement on what needs to be achieved. I don't really see this as that 'political', at least no more than anything else.

 

[Sachakins]

The simple answer to your questions is the ground warms up in summer by extracting heat from the air. This leads to global cooling in the summer, which is a good thing.
In simple terms the solid earth acts as a large reservoir of heat, not unlike the sea provides a reservoir for water to create rain to replenish local reservoirs. The sun provides a huge amount of energy, there is enough solar energy to re-heat the ground each year. ca 170w/m2 of solar energy averaged over the earth - 340 at equator and 72 in Scotland. The UK land mass of 240,000km2 receives enough energy to power the entire worlds energy needs (at 100% efficiency). Essentially the energy is extracted in winter cooling the ground and the ground re-heats up in the summer months. Newtons law of cooling means that the more the ground is cooled the faster it heats up ie it extracts heat faster in the summer if its cooler than when its at normal temperature.

In reality is much more complicated, if the pipes are not sized correctly then you get local freezing of the soil. This can build up over time, so good design is essential for an efficient system. Furthermore if the piping is optimised and benefits from fast solar re-heating the heat pumps are more efficient turning 1Kw of electrical power into 6Kw of heat (theoretically 8kw can be achieved) whereas if the system is inefficient the return is only 2kw of heat for every 1 put in. For example putting the pipes in a pond or lake provides the most efficient system that into certain rock materials. This is so important the the EU is doing geological surveys to provide installers with this information. High thermal conductivity is good. Where we live in Ripon is a a very poor areas for heat pumps as you cant build vertical boreholes (the most efficient) in a gypsum area (due to subsidence) and its heat conduction is poor.

View attachment 110894
Heat pumps in effect are pumping the summer sun into our homes using the earth as a big storage reservoir. Another factor is air conditioning. In hot countries the heat pump is reversed in summer, heating the ground in return. This means a more compact system can be built as the cooled ground is more efficient as a cool source in summer and vice versa in winter. We wont benefit from this in the UK.
I hope this answers your concern.

Very good and informative article.
However, we would still have an impact on the ecosystem in the vicinity and around the GSHP source, since we would be altering the ground temperature outside its normal limits, thus imbalancing nature's habitat.

Personally I would prefer sustainable development of purely solar energy extraction, which I see has having minimal if any impact on our ecosystem. The current problem is the designs require much use of finite resources to manufacture.

Maybe the answer is to collect solar energy in space, how we get that back to earth is beyond my comprehension, but does not mean it will remain impossible, but its a thought process that negates having to extract anything from our planet.

Maybe a mathematically simpler solution would be for population redistribution to areas where the clean energy is plentiful?
Or the massive input into countries ideal for solar generation to build supersized generating plant, then redistribute the energy around the world?

I think the last one is less likely to happen than my space theory, too much conflict, insurmountable trust in nations etc.

 

[Jacob]

..... Ironically Mrs Thatcher achieved the greatest moves for climate change by initiating and strongly pushing the Montreal protocol and by shutting coal mines, this is an area the UK has led over Germany.
.....

Perhaps because she was unusual in having had a scientific education.
Coal mines had to go, pity it wasn't been done with more grace! Should have been a proactive opportunity to revitalise the regions.

 

[Spectric]

Where I work in Teesside the Tory mayor is as keen on green energy as his labour opponent as they both can see an opportunity to revitalise the economy on the back of this initiative.

But is this not because they can see an economic gain rather than because it is the right thing to do, would they be so keen if there were not local incentives their attention is on an investment to make wind turbines and another for batteries.

 

[Bojam]

But is this not because they can see an economic gain rather than because it is the right thing to do, would they be so keen if there were not local incentives their attention is on an investment to make wind turbines and another for batteries.

Perhaps. But does it matter really? The net effect (a shift to renewable energy sources) is the same whether the primary motivation is purely environmental or driven by economics/job-creation. Economic incentives are always going to be a key driver of change.

 

[Jacob]

.... Economic incentives are always going to be a key driver of change.

But not necessarily for the better, as we see with climate change.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

But is this not because they can see an economic gain rather than because it is the right thing to do?

Yes, they know there'll be massive subsidies.

 

[Spectric]

Perhaps because she was unusual in having had a scientific education.

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.

 

[Bojam]

But not necessarily for the better, as we see with climate change.

Ok. Care to elaborate?

 

[Spectric]

Economic incentives are always going to be a key driver of change.

That is where change is needed, we need to accept a much longer period for returns on our investments rather than short term. If it is the right thing to do then we should do it even if there are no economic gains for a while, long term investment is often more stable and better overall returns.

 

[Bojam]

That is where change is needed, we need to accept a much longer period for returns on our investments rather than short term. If it is the right thing to do then we should do it even if there are no economic gains for a while, long term investment is often more stable and better overall returns.

Agree on the need to take a longer-term perspective on investments. Still, this doesn't invalidate my point. We can economically incentivise the shift to renewables and couple it with other investments in the "Green Economy" which promote local employment and a more environmentally sustainable future.

 

[Jacob]

Ok. Care to elaborate?

Isn't it obvious?

 

[Bojam]

Isn't it obvious?

Your statement is too vague to infer what you really want to say.

 

[TominDales]

I can't imagine ground temperature in vertical wells will decrease. I think there's a misunderstanding of how much mass is involved when we're just heating a little bit of air in each home.

(by that statement, I don't mean the aggregate around each well, but the ground in an entire area as a whole - obviously, the aggregate should shoulder some of the thermal burden around the piping).

My understanding from reading around is its a local thing. The ground around the pipes freezes causing problems in a poorly designed system. The other problem, is for the pumps to work efficiently you needs a temperature gradient. ie ground that is warmer than the water entering the pipes. If the ground is not a good heat conductor - see the above graphic eg tuffstone or gypsum it cools down and is too slow to warm up so the pump becomes inefficient and the cost of running it goes up.
I've not heard of whole neighborhoods freezing, and, not done the math(s), but suspect the volume of earth that would need to freeze is orders of magnitude higher than anything remotely likely. Its would be a good question to set GSCE physics /chemistry students when they study heat capacity.

 

[D_W]

Right on those, but it's not a matter of someone "sucking" the heat out of the ground entirely for a whole area when it comes to residential - it's an individual system problem.

It gets very cold here, not generally at long stretches, but you may see a day or two with highs around 15C and lows touching ten below that and stretches often where it doesn't thaw during the day. No issues that I'm aware of with systems freezing, but would guess also that the fluid in systems here isn't something that freezes that easily.

If someone were talking about cooling ground under a dense city environment with ground source, I could see that - I guess - never really thought about it as it's not done here. GSHP is a rural and suburban thing here where gas is not available cheaply. There may be some forward looking folks putting houses in with it now (I'm in the middle of the marcellus shale, gas will dominate for a long time here unless there's a political issue), but we don't see much of it. Further east where my in laws live - same state, but no gas layer - much of the rural suburb style development is in areas where gas mains don't branch off to developments - they run cities only and to powerplants. GSHP is popular there. GSHP combined with solar is also getting more popular as the net metering allows for solar to be a "$0 cost option" on a lease (as in, it can be privately installed for less than the cost of net offset electricity and then a private installer sells the payment to a finance company as asset backed credit and keeps the difference. The house inhabitants then fail to understand that they could've just had the system installed for less - all they see is they can switch to solar for "no cost" an get a rate guarantee as per terms of the credit.

The wells here have aggregate around them in a sleeve or similar setup to get liquid contact with the piping, and then that outer layer exchanges heat with the earth (or cool) - I'm assuming that all are generally set up the same way when closed loop. If gypsum fails to transfer thermal energy efficiently, it would be a big surprise to find that it somehow freezes through and through in a neighborhood, too!! Those two things would be at odds.

 

[TominDales]

I doubt Mr Scargill would have accepted that she was closing the coal mines because she was an environmentalist, and I think she has got many titles and names but an environmentalist is not on the list.

I'm sure you are right, that is what I see as the irony, whilst she would have been aware of the greenhouse effect (widely discussed by scientist in her day) and other pollution aspects of coal, I doubt those were high up on her priority list. And as Jacob has pointed out, it could have been done with more grace and sympathy to those affected.

However she did push for the Montreal protocol on environmental grounds. The UN was stuck and she shifted opinion and persuaded other leaders on the right to support it.
There were probably several factors at play in the debate, firstly the science, she was often persuaded by that (eg DNA finger printing, she pretty much pushed the home office to implement it). Secondly it was the British Antarctic survey that observed the Ozone hole so there was prestige from British science. A big concern was what to replace CFCs with, they are vital for refrigeration and several other health-giving reasons - flame proof degreasing etc. A key moment came when ICI said they had found a viable replacement, from that moment on she ran with the it with her characteristic full on approach until she had got it through the UN. I've heard it said the protocol is the most successful environmental treaty in history.

 

[D_W]

(to further beat the GSHP dead horse here where the average temp is probably a little lower than England - east of here where my inlaws are, avg daily temp in winter is somewhere around 30F - avg daily in summer is probably something like 80-85F but with a lot of sunlight (so radiant heat on the house roof and walls - most is reflected or sent back into the atmosphere, but attic areas are always hot so some gets transferred to the house).

Extreme temps below 0F in winter not uncommon (at night), a couple of days per year, and temps in the 90s in summer are common - probably more like several weeks of those.

Heating options there are
* air source heat pump inexpensive, no gas or oil needed, but struggles in extremes - not sure about service life, but better than it used to be. Would guess heat/AC combo in new construction is about $7500
* propane heat / air source A/C - probably about the same cost as heat pump. Propane hauled in is expensive, slightly more than oil, but easy on equipment so some trade off in equipment service - also about $7500
* oil heat (generally water boiler and circulation) / Air source A/C - becoming uncommon and wasn't offered in inlaws development. Don't know why. 150k btu oil boiler is probably not cheap, and annual cleaning is necessary (which is filthy). I think some of the reason this wasn't offered as it doesn't work well with air heat exchange and the HVAC setups are all in one with air. Variable speed fans have gotten rid of the old time myth that forced air heating leaves the temperature bobbing up and down. I have a single speed household and have never actually noticed this, and neither have my parents (who are sure that the temp looks like sine wave with air heat, but have also had a very expensive A/C system installed to complement the circulated water heat, and have never mentioned bobbing temperatures with the A/C - ...anyway
* GSHP - $15-20k, generally in combination with GSHP water tank (slow) which usually results in a reserve water tank (so 160 gallons of hot water on hand instead of 50-80).

FIL's bills show about a $75-100/month reduction in cost despite having a spouse who is my spouse's mother - which means far corners variations of 2 degrees are decried loudly and all rooms must be fully heated or cooled at all times Along with the OWT that if you allow a room to get warm for three days and cool it later that it will take more energy than it would have taken to keep it cool the entire time.

For new construction, unless someone doesn't have the means to afford another $10-12k in their loan, the other combinations don't make any long-term sense.

for retrofit where boiler heat is in place without ducting, not sure - BIL retrofit forced air and GSP in a brick house that had circulating water, but I'm sure it added a lot to the cost.

HVAC companies here have taken to the game of "servicing" the GSHP systems each year for $300 or so. The service appears to be in proportion to the cost of the system, but time spent is about the same. FIL is hunting around for someone who doesn't charge $300 for 45 minutes of sitting in the basement after changing the air filter. The fact that it costs more for someone to review the GSHP system records and change the air filter vs. a filthy job of cleaning fuel oil boiler tubes, etc (which is an actual hour of nasty work in a large system) is kind of confusing.

 

[TominDales]

Right on those, but it's not a matter of someone "sucking" the heat out of the ground entirely for a whole area when it comes to residential - it's an individual system problem.

It gets very cold here, not generally at long stretches, but you may see a day or two with highs around 15C and lows touching ten below that and stretches often where it doesn't thaw during the day. No issues that I'm aware of with systems freezing, but would guess also that the fluid in systems here isn't something that freezes that easily.

If someone were talking about cooling ground under a dense city environment with ground source, I could see that - I guess - never really thought about it as it's not done here. GSHP is a rural and suburban thing here where gas is not available cheaply. There may be some forward looking folks putting houses in with it now (I'm in the middle of the marcellus shale, gas will dominate for a long time here unless there's a political issue), but we don't see much of it. Further east where my in laws live - same state, but no gas layer - much of the rural suburb style development is in areas where gas mains don't branch off to developments - they run cities only and to powerplants. GSHP is popular there. GSHP combined with solar is also getting more popular as the net metering allows for solar to be a "$0 cost option" on a lease (as in, it can be privately installed for less than the cost of net offset electricity and then a private installer sells the payment to a finance company as asset backed credit and keeps the difference. The house inhabitants then fail to understand that they could've just had the system installed for less - all they see is they can switch to solar for "no cost" an get a rate guarantee as per terms of the credit.

The wells here have aggregate around them in a sleeve or similar setup to get liquid contact with the piping, and then that outer layer exchanges heat with the earth (or cool) - I'm assuming that all are generally set up the same way when closed loop. If gypsum fails to transfer thermal energy efficiently, it would be a big surprise to find that it somehow freezes through and through in a neighborhood, too!! Those two things would be at odds.

Hi DW, I've not been very clear in the explanation. GSHPs when installed properly don't cause the ground to freeze, They extract heat from the ground and there is so much thermal mass below the ground that it has no impact on neighboring property or neighborhoods in cities. Widely used in German cities without a problem.
However there have been cases where the engineer got their calculations wrong and basically put in too small a borehole with pipes for the size of heat pump. The result is the small pipes caused the aggregate lining to freeze-up rendering the pump useless and in some cases breaking the system. There were quite a few instances of this happening early on as the calculations are quite tricky.