That's just four years away, our boiler in the house was easily over a decade old, and was in the house when we left. New boilers don't last that long.
Models designed so they could switch to burn hydrogen could be an option - and will probably be around £100 more than the £2,000 standard gas boiler.
Hydrogen in a domestic setting? Seriously?
So most are expected to be warmed by heat pumps, which extract warmth from the air or the ground, or from water - a bit like a fridge operating in reverse which sell for between £6,000 and £18,000.
Ouch. Like you said Cris, the environmentalists and MPs don't live in the real world.
Theres obviously no joined up thinking going on anywhere. Woodburners and coal being banned Oil banned Gas banned Heat pumps horrendously expensive and require a lot of electricity to run pumps. Electric heating...erm needs lots of electricity generation by? Coal gas oil nuclear (wind) Hydrogen not viable alternative. Biomass... Produces methane...see gas problem.
What are we supposed to use to heat homes and stay warm....friction?
Only thing i can think of is solar water heating tubes that heat up exposed to light not just direct sun,but theyre not cheap by any means and wont work in low light levels and short days of winter northern hemisphere.
Gas is the most economic and efficient heating and I would have thought it more sense to engineer gas boilers to more efficient and priduce less CO2 or deal with it until theres a viable alternative.
Theyre just adopting same nonsensical approach as banning petrol/diesel vehicles with no thought as to where all the extra electricity generation is coming from.
Lets ban gas boilers but in the mean time lets keep on flying 10k polluting airliners a day and 10k polluting cruise and container ships and carry on building coal mines and burning forests.
"There's obviously no joined up thinking going on anywhere. Woodburners and coal being banned Oil banned Gas banned Heat pumps horrendously expensive and require a lot of electricity to run pumps. Electric heating...erm needs lots of electricity generation by? Coal gas oil nuclear (wind) Hydrogen not viable alternative. Biomass... Produces methane...see gas problem".
If implemented, this is a massive step in the imposition of just one method of heating and lighting and cooking.
So if everything is electric they can turn up the price screws really high, because there will be no alternative.
At the moment we have the luxury of coal/wood fire, gas cooker, electric (oil) or fan heaters if we need it, where we need it. We refuse to have electric central heating installed, because many of our neighbours who did now cannot afford to run it, and the 'smart' version can never be completely turned off.
Just another attempt to screw down the consumer and ensure that he/she has no other choice available.
Heat pumps are being falsely touted as environmentally friendly because we (allegedly) get "free" heat out of the ground. Nothing could be further from the truth. Its just an electric refridgeration system that vents the cold into the ground. Key word electric
Unless the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong there is no such thing as free heat
Now one house on a lonely hillside doing that is OK I guess. How about a whole new estate of ticky tacky boxes? Where is the cold going to go?
Heat pumps are actually quite efficient at what they do, they can absorb heat from the ground or surrounding outside air (depending on type of system) and raise the home temperature by 20 to 30 degrees. In this country thats sufficient to warm the average home.Theyre an air conditioning system in reverse and can in summer be used as air conditioning. They do require an electric compressor pump to work though and theyre not cheap to run continuously. You still need to balance how much electricity is being used to gain heat in the home and whether its as efficient as other forms of heating.If youre using fossil fuel generated electricity to power your heat pump then the environmental benefit is probably questionable.
The only 'free' heat is geothermal and even then you need to power circulation so has to be sufficient heat to provide power generation as well. Not many places apart from somewhere like Iceland where theres suitable geothermal heat. But then youve expended huge amounts of energy building the geothermal system to extract the heat and distribute it.. Its by no means free.
There is no totally free electricity or free solar heat either if you factor in costs of manufacture of wind and solar power or solar heat systems and batteries and systems for energy storage.Non of them are simple and they require a huge amount of energy to extract materials and manufacture.
Even if you peddled a bike to generate electricity,it isnt free.Its taken a lot of energy to build the bike and you have to fuel your own body which means energy has gone into producing your food and getting it to you.
But it still makes more sense to use the suns energy as it streams to us free 24/7 than expend huge anounts of energy to dig up ancient fossilised sunlight to burn and pollute the atmosphere.
Theres never going to be a perfect solution to our energy needs. Its always going to be a balance of energy expended versus energy gained and more importantly which source of energy has the least detrimental effect on the environment.
The more 'green' we go the more mining extraction we have to do which means environmental damage and fuel burned to extract and transport material and more energy used in manufacturing and transport of goods.
In the long run its probably less damage than a few billion vehicles burning diesel and petrol,maybe.
I agree,theyve spent hundreds of millions on making diesel and petrol engines super efficient and clean. It would have made more sense tackling the particulate emissions and making them even more efficient or switching to bio fuels or hydrogen. Getting rid of diesel particulates doesnt get rid of all the other dust like brake dust and tyre particulates from tyre wear which we will still get from electric vehicles and get thrown into the atmosphere constantly.
The real problem that very few governments are tackling is the obsession with personal vehicles and the need to lose our dependency on them and cease the utter stupidity of using them to commute in them. Work practices and work locations need to be addressed to reduce commuting by cars.The Dutch are doing it,as are a few cities around the globe but its not enough. Banning combustion engine cars doesnt address the car dependency. Ive been saying it since the 80's its just not sustainable or viable for every adult on the planet to have a car. Other more sustainable methods of moving about have to be found and distances travelled for work drastically reduced or where possible eliminated altogether.
Agreed. Can't understand why in this computer age people still need to travel into the cities just to sit at a computer screen. What the fuck is that all about? Lots of people could surely work from home just as well as from an office. Then I wouldn't have to worry about losing my only transport....🐻
Exactly,computers were supposed to eliminate the need to commute to offices, not build call centres and HQs that folk have to commute hundreds of miles to just so employers can watch your every move. Live in the country and especially if retired youre fucked without a car but it makes no sense that one car someone owns is taking a long journey with driver alone in the car to do work that could be done at home. We also need to get rid of this inflexible 8-4 9-5 working hours mentality,make work time more flexible and stagger commuting times and school hours to reduce the concentration of vehicles on the roads at any one time.
Life is entirely oriented around the private car and the commercial interests of the motor industry...It needs radical change.