Notes from an eco house.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9 yards.
Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer controlled UFH
zone with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and a batter, and heat
recovery ventilation. And smart meters. Some of it is great, some of it
not so much.

What is great is the level of insulation, the UFH and the heat
recovery. HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19
degrees or so. There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way to
go, although the active ventilation requires constant servicing to clean
the filtration.And it can get stuffy.

What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it costs
him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to, due to the
exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

However he is arbitraging his smart meter, to make sure we, not he, pays
some of the costs.

His (7kWh) battery gets charged up by either solar panels or cheap night
time electricity and is fed back to the mains when peak demand is
massive and the buy back price goes through the roof. This enables him
to lower his electricity bills somewhat.

However this installation was not cheap. Nor its its TCO known yet.
The overall impressions is of absolute comfort, but not really cosiness.
If that makes sense. It was a bit soulless.

And trying to actually program the heating was something he simply
hasn't mastered yet. It is so smart it make its owner look stupid.

This is information for those envisaging doing this themselves. The
house was a new build about 5 years ago. The pre-existing house was
demolished to build it.

I think this more or less confirms what I was leaning towards with
experience of my own house.

+UFH good
+Multi zone control good.
+Mega insulation good.
±Heat recovery ventilation quite good, but active system is high maintenance
±computerised central heating controls with multiple zones with smart
bollocks everywhere is quite good, if you can actually learn to program
the fucking thing.
± Solar panels plus battery plus smart meter does help with electricity
bills, but the jury is still out on whether the capital invested is
actually worth it.
- At current electricity prices, unless you are getting massive grants,
heat pumps are a fucking disaster. Not because of their technology, but
because of the massive costs of 'renewable' electricity.

Electricity is 3-5 times the price of gas or oil per unit energy.

I hope this helps.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
This is information for those envisaging doing this themselves. The
house was a new build about 5 years ago.

I haven't seen a decent new build anywhere. Despite a tour of the county
a few years ago of at least 20 developments.

The fact that you can get companies to manage dealing with all the faults
of new builds on your behalf speaks for itself.

5 of them could not be accessed by wheelchair. Despite being listed as
accessible. Apparently "accessible" means "we have paid some people to
say it is" not "we got someone in a wheelchair to confirm this".


As you were.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Natural Philosopher
This is information for those envisaging doing this themselves. The
house was a new build about 5 years ago.

I haven't seen a decent new build anywhere. Despite a tour of the county
a few years ago of at least 20 developments.
The fact that you can get companies to manage dealing with all the faults
of new builds on your behalf speaks for itself.
5 of them could not be accessed by wheelchair. Despite being listed as
accessible. Apparently "accessible" means "we have paid some people to
say it is" not "we got someone in a wheelchair to confirm this".
As you were.

I agree with both of you. As does Lyn.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Natural Philosopher
This is information for those envisaging doing this themselves. The
house was a new build about 5 years ago.

I haven't seen a decent new build anywhere. Despite a tour of the county
a few years ago of at least 20 developments.

I think the previous owner built it. It goes beyond 'meets regulations
technically

Post by Jethro_uk
The fact that you can get companies to manage dealing with all the faults
of new builds on your behalf speaks for itself.
5 of them could not be accessed by wheelchair. Despite being listed as
accessible. Apparently "accessible" means "we have paid some people to
say it is" not "we got someone in a wheelchair to confirm this".

Yup. wheelchair access is a moveable feast

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Jethro_uk
5 of them could not be accessed by wheelchair. Despite being listed as
accessible. Apparently "accessible" means "we have paid some people to
say it is" not "we got someone in a wheelchair to confirm this".

This one near me seems daft - they have built an access ramp,
only to then add a 90 degree turn and a couple of steps.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/2oi6WGiw4aiJTt2DA

Not the best angle, but there is a van in the way.

Chris

[Andrew]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Jethro_uk
5 of them could not be accessed by wheelchair. Despite being listed as
accessible. Apparently "accessible" means "we have paid some people to
say it is" not "we got someone in a wheelchair to confirm this".

This one near me seems daft - they have built an access ramp,
only to then add a 90 degree turn and a couple of steps.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2oi6WGiw4aiJTt2DA
Not the best angle, but there is a van in the way.
Chris

Steps directly up from the pavement would need high
risers between each step. Not sure if that would fail
building regs but that house does not comply with
Part M anyway. Maybe it had exemption or wheelchair
access to the rear to compensate ?.

The houses on the other side of the road have completely
level access from pavement to the top of the door cill
while further round the corner some houses have a step
half way between pavement and front door cill.

Milkbottle too. Don't see those very often.

[Max Demian]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9 yards.
Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer controlled UFH
zone with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and a batter, and heat
recovery ventilation. And smart meters. Some of it is great, some of it
not so much.
What is great is the level of insulation,  the UFH and the heat
recovery.  HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19
degrees or so. There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way to
go, although the active ventilation requires constant servicing to clean
 the filtration.And  it can get stuffy.
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it costs
him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to, due to the
exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

I think they'd have to repeal the second law of thermodynamics to fix
that, unless they get all the people with gas boilers to subsidise the
heat pump users - and cope with all the millions of people freezing to
death as they can't afford to heat their homes.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9
yards. Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer
controlled UFH zone with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and a
batter, and heat recovery ventilation. And smart meters. Some of it is
great, some of it not so much.
What is great is the level of insulation,  the UFH and the heat
recovery.  HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19
degrees or so. There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way
to go, although the active ventilation requires constant servicing to
clean   the filtration.And  it can get stuffy.
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it costs
him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to, due to
the exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

I think they'd have to repeal the second law of thermodynamics to fix
that, unless they get all the people with gas boilers to subsidise the
heat pump users - and cope with all the millions of people freezing to
death as they can't afford to heat their homes.

Nuclear electricity will render heat pumps both cost effective first and
then irrelevant, as electricity will be so cheap that spending money on
using less simply wont be worth it...

[Andrew]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9
yards. Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer
controlled UFH zone with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and a
batter, and heat recovery ventilation. And smart meters. Some of it
is great, some of it not so much.
What is great is the level of insulation,  the UFH and the heat
recovery.  HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19
degrees or so. There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way
to go, although the active ventilation requires constant servicing to
clean   the filtration.And  it can get stuffy.
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it
costs him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to,
due to the exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

I think they'd have to repeal the second law of thermodynamics to fix
that, unless they get all the people with gas boilers to subsidise the
heat pump users - and cope with all the millions of people freezing to
death as they can't afford to heat their homes.

Nuclear electricity will render heat pumps both cost effective first and
then irrelevant, as electricity will be so cheap that spending money on
using less simply wont be worth it...

Err, that's what they said 70 years ago, and we are still waiting.

[Tim Streater]

Post by Andrew

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9
yards. Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer
controlled UFH zone with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and a
batter, and heat recovery ventilation. And smart meters. Some of it
is great, some of it not so much.
What is great is the level of insulation, the UFH and the heat
recovery. HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19
degrees or so. There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way
to go, although the active ventilation requires constant servicing to
clean the filtration.And it can get stuffy.
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it
costs him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to,
due to the exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

I think they'd have to repeal the second law of thermodynamics to fix
that, unless they get all the people with gas boilers to subsidise the
heat pump users - and cope with all the millions of people freezing to
death as they can't afford to heat their homes.

Nuclear electricity will render heat pumps both cost effective first and
then irrelevant, as electricity will be so cheap that spending money on
using less simply wont be worth it...

Err, that's what they said 70 years ago, and we are still waiting.

No, that's not what they said.

[mm0fmf]

Post by Tim Streater

Post by Andrew

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9
yards. Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer
controlled UFH zone with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and a
batter, and heat recovery ventilation. And smart meters. Some of it
is great, some of it not so much.
What is great is the level of insulation, the UFH and the heat
recovery. HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19
degrees or so. There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way
to go, although the active ventilation requires constant servicing to
clean the filtration.And it can get stuffy.
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it
costs him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to,
due to the exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

I think they'd have to repeal the second law of thermodynamics to fix
that, unless they get all the people with gas boilers to subsidise the
heat pump users - and cope with all the millions of people freezing to
death as they can't afford to heat their homes.

Nuclear electricity will render heat pumps both cost effective first and
then irrelevant, as electricity will be so cheap that spending money on
using less simply wont be worth it...

Err, that's what they said 70 years ago, and we are still waiting.

No, that's not what they said.

Anyway the purpose of "power stations" like Chappelcross was the
production of Pu239, the electricity was a by-product.

[jon]

Post by mm0fmf

Post by Tim Streater

Post by Andrew

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9
yards. Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer
controlled UFH zone with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and
a batter, and heat recovery ventilation. And smart meters. Some of
it is great, some of it not so much.
What is great is the level of insulation, the UFH and the heat
recovery. HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even
19 degrees or so. There is no doubt that on a new build this is the
way to go, although the active ventilation requires constant
servicing to clean the filtration.And it can get stuffy.
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it
costs him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to,
due to the exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

I think they'd have to repeal the second law of thermodynamics to
fix that, unless they get all the people with gas boilers to
subsidise the heat pump users - and cope with all the millions of
people freezing to death as they can't afford to heat their homes.

Nuclear electricity will render heat pumps both cost effective first
and then irrelevant, as electricity will be so cheap that spending
money on using less simply wont be worth it...

Err, that's what they said 70 years ago, and we are still waiting.

No, that's not what they said.

Anyway the purpose of "power stations" like Chappelcross was the
production of Pu239, the electricity was a by-product.

As well as the Magnox station at Sellafield.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Andrew

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9
yards. Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer
controlled UFH zone with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and
a batter, and heat recovery ventilation. And smart meters. Some of
it is great, some of it not so much.
What is great is the level of insulation,  the UFH and the heat
recovery.  HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19
degrees or so. There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way
to go, although the active ventilation requires constant servicing
to clean   the filtration.And  it can get stuffy.
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it
costs him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to,
due to the exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

I think they'd have to repeal the second law of thermodynamics to fix
that, unless they get all the people with gas boilers to subsidise
the heat pump users - and cope with all the millions of people
freezing to death as they can't afford to heat their homes.

Nuclear electricity will render heat pumps both cost effective first
and then irrelevant, as electricity will be so cheap that spending
money on using less simply wont be worth it...

Err, that's what they said 70 years ago, and we are still waiting.

1/. 70 years ago the oil and gas intersts wanted to sell all their
reserves to you first.
2/. That was said about fusion, not fission
3/. In countries with lots of nuclear and or hydro, it is already the
case that a simple wire under the floor is cheap as chips and so is the
leccy.
4/. in 2010 I was informed 'all electricity will be renewable, by 2020.
I am still waiting.
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate 24x7
electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any other
gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p
6/. Fossil fuel isn't going to get any cheaper and nor are renewables.

[Joe]

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

e.g. Google: "The initial phase of work is intended to bring Kairos
Power’s first SMR online quickly and safely by 2030"

Rolls Royce: "The European Industrial Alliance on Small Modular
Reactors aims to facilitate and accelerate the development,
demonstration, and deployment of the first SMRs projects in Europe in
the early 2030s."

"On 18 September, Czech Prime Minister Fiala announced that
CEZ and Rolls-Royce SMR would enter a strategic partnership to enable
the development and construction of SMRs in the Czech Republic. CEZ and
Rolls-Royce SMR will work collaboratively on plans for the deployment
of up to 3 GW of clean, affordable energy in the Czech Republic. CEZ
and Rolls-Royce SMR will work to finalise contractual order terms for
an order of the first unit with early works expected to commence as
soon as 2025."

'Development' and 'Early works' sounds like being a long way from 'off
the shelf'.

[Tim Streater]

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

Not so. With fusion, no one even has a proof of concept, never mind a working
prototype. With the SMR (fission), there are plenty of small reactors in ships
and subs which WORK and have for years. Meaning that an SMR for land use is
only engineering.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Tim Streater

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000 The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

Not so. With fusion, no one even has a proof of concept, never mind a
working prototype. With the SMR (fission), there are plenty of small
reactors in ships and subs which WORK and have for years. Meaning that
an SMR for land use is only engineering.

Just for reference the entire Apollo program was "just engineering"

[Tim Streater]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Tim Streater

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000 The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

Not so. With fusion, no one even has a proof of concept, never mind a
working prototype. With the SMR (fission), there are plenty of small
reactors in ships and subs which WORK and have for years. Meaning that
an SMR for land use is only engineering.

Just for reference the entire Apollo program was "just engineering"

Quite right.

[Andrew]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Tim Streater

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000 The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

Not so. With fusion, no one even has a proof of concept, never mind a
working prototype. With the SMR (fission), there are plenty of small
reactors in ships and subs which WORK and have for years. Meaning that
an SMR for land use is only engineering.

Just for reference the entire Apollo program was "just engineering"

and some amazing maths to get the re-entry calculations correct

https://plus.nasa.gov/video/katherine-johnson-an-american-hero/

and the code for lunar module computer was hand-stitched by
threading minute magnetised 'doughnuts' onto wire ropes which
were presumably the equivalent of a backplane/core memory block

[Pancho]

Post by Tim Streater

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

Not so. With fusion, no one even has a proof of concept, never mind a working
prototype. With the SMR (fission), there are plenty of small reactors in ships
and subs which WORK and have for years. Meaning that an SMR for land use is
only engineering.

And economics. There are economies of scale building big. It maybe that
the advantages of having a smaller more agile design and deployment
model outweigh the economies of scale, but I don't think it a sure thing.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Pancho

Post by Tim Streater

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

Not so. With fusion, no one even has a proof of concept, never mind a working
prototype. With the SMR (fission), there are plenty of small reactors in ships
and subs which WORK and have for years. Meaning that an SMR for land use is
only engineering.

And economics. There are economies of scale building big. It maybe that
the advantages of having a smaller more agile design and deployment
model outweigh the economies of scale, but I don't think it a sure thing.

The economies of SMR are massively affected by toiw factors.
Proximity and regulation.

Proximity means that large business can build one attached to their data
centres and don't need huge cables from Morocco or Scotland to bring
unreliable energy in.

Regulation means that type approved factory built and tested units can
be erected in months, not decades, representing a far more efficient use
of less capital. And below a certain size emergency forced cooling on
PWR shutdown is simply not required. The design is simpler. It needs
less testing

[Nick Finnigan]

Regulation means that type approved factory built and tested units can be
erected in months, not decades, representing a far more efficient use of
less capital. And below a certain size emergency forced cooling on PWR
shutdown is simply not required. The design is simpler. It needs less testing

Are you regarding the AP1000 as 'below a certain size' or 'requires
emergency forced cooling' ?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Regulation means that type approved factory built and tested units can
be erected in months, not decades, representing a far more efficient
use of less capital. And below a certain size emergency forced cooling
on PWR shutdown is simply not required. The design is simpler. It
needs less testing

 Are you regarding the AP1000 as 'below a certain size' or 'requires
emergency forced cooling' ?

Neither.
It isn't pre built and it doesn't require forcced cooling.

[Pancho]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Regulation means that type approved factory built and tested units
can be erected in months, not decades, representing a far more
efficient use of less capital. And below a certain size emergency
forced cooling on PWR shutdown is simply not required. The design is
simpler. It needs less testing

  Are you regarding the AP1000 as 'below a certain size' or 'requires
emergency forced cooling' ?

Neither.
It isn't pre built and it doesn't require forcced cooling.

I think Nick's point was that large generation 3 reactors have passive
safety features. Actually, I think it is part of the key characteristics
of generation 3.

[Pancho]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho

Post by Tim Streater

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

Not so. With fusion, no one even has a proof of concept, never mind a working
prototype. With the SMR (fission), there are plenty of small reactors in ships
and subs which WORK and have for years. Meaning that an SMR for land use is
only engineering.

And economics. There are economies of scale building big. It maybe
that the advantages of having a smaller more agile design and
deployment model outweigh the economies of scale, but I don't think it
a sure thing.

The economies of SMR are massively affected by toiw factors.
Proximity and regulation.
Proximity means that large business can build one attached to their data
centres and don't need huge cables from Morocco or Scotland to bring
unreliable energy in.

Large nuclear reactors have been close to London, Dungeness, Bradwell.
Sure, that is not next door, but it is also not Scotland or Morocco.

The most obvious benefit of proximity is the availability of hot water,
rather than reducing electricity transmission lines.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Regulation means that type approved factory built and tested units can
be erected in months, not decades, representing a far more efficient use
of less capital. And below a certain size emergency forced cooling on
PWR shutdown is simply not required. The design is simpler. It needs
less testing

If we build multiples of the same design, Hinckley EPR, or indeed a
variants of the AP1000, regulation could be shared and reduced. These
are proven reactors.

Early SMR delivery, i.e. proof of concept installations is early 2030s,
we should expect that to slip. Mass production will lag considerably.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Pancho
Large nuclear reactors have been close to London, Dungeness, Bradwell.
Sure, that is not next door, but it is also not Scotland or Morocco.
The most obvious benefit of proximity is the availability of hot water,
rather than reducing electricity transmission lines.

You would be surprised at how much transmission lines cost

Post by Pancho

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Regulation means that type approved factory built and tested units can
be erected in months, not decades, representing a far more efficient
use of less capital. And below a certain size emergency forced cooling
on PWR shutdown is simply not required. The design is simpler. It
needs less testing

If we build multiples of the same design, Hinckley EPR, or indeed a
variants of the AP1000, regulation could be shared and reduced. These
are proven reactors.

No, it could not.

Type approval only applies to factory built modules of identical design
and construction

Post by Pancho
Early SMR delivery, i.e. proof of concept installations is early 2030s,
we should expect that to slip. Mass production will lag considerably.

I dont expect it to slip.

[Pancho]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho
Large nuclear reactors have been close to London, Dungeness, Bradwell.
Sure, that is not next door, but it is also not Scotland or Morocco.
The most obvious benefit of proximity is the availability of hot
water, rather than reducing electricity transmission lines.

You would be surprised at how much transmission lines cost

Surprise me! Apparently £24.50 of the average annual bill is
transmission costs.

A lot of stuff said in this thread surprises me. Apparently people are
claiming the can make money from home battery storage. That surprises
me. I'd have thought the generation companies could balance load much
more cheaply than a home battery.

I also find it hard to understand how huge investments in insulation and
new heating systems would ever be economic for me, given I don't spend
that much on heating.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Regulation means that type approved factory built and tested units
can be erected in months, not decades, representing a far more
efficient use of less capital. And below a certain size emergency
forced cooling on PWR shutdown is simply not required. The design is
simpler. It needs less testing

If we build multiples of the same design, Hinckley EPR, or indeed a
variants of the AP1000, regulation could be shared and reduced. These
are proven reactors.

No, it could not.
Type approval only applies to factory built modules of identical design
and construction

Well you can claim that, but I fail to see why the approval process
couldn't be streamlined for large power stations with the same design.
Just as construction costs would benefit from shared knowledge, as they
did in France.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho
Early SMR delivery, i.e. proof of concept installations is early
2030s, we should expect that to slip. Mass production will lag
considerably.

I dont expect it to slip.

And yet... new technologies, construction projects do slip, it is the
normal thing to happen. It seems to be a natural consequence of our
investment/procurement methods. Unrealistic promises are dishonest,
irritating, but it is what it is, it is the way the world works.

I agree we should race ahead with the Rolls Royce SMR project, but we
need solutions now, not delayed in the hope of a magic new technology.
We have had 25 years of that, and see where we are now.

A sensible thing to do might be to use government money to parallelise
development stages in the same way they did with Covid vaccines.

[Paul]

Post by Tim Streater

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

Not so. With fusion, no one even has a proof of concept, never mind a working
prototype. With the SMR (fission), there are plenty of small reactors in ships
and subs which WORK and have for years. Meaning that an SMR for land use is
only engineering.

Only ten years to go.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/29/climate/nuclear-fusion-openstar/index.html

Paul

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Paul

Post by Tim Streater

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

Not so. With fusion, no one even has a proof of concept, never mind a working
prototype. With the SMR (fission), there are plenty of small reactors in ships
and subs which WORK and have for years. Meaning that an SMR for land use is
only engineering.

Only ten years to go.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/29/climate/nuclear-fusion-openstar/index.html
Paul

When you have problems to which even the shape of viable solutions - let
alone the costed detailed design - is unknown, no realistic timescale
estimates can be made.

No one knows how long it will take, and whether it will ever be cost
competitive with fission

[blacky]

Post by Tim Streater

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

Not so. With fusion, no one even has a proof of concept, never mind a working
prototype. With the SMR (fission), there are plenty of small reactors in ships
and subs which WORK and have for years. Meaning that an SMR for land use is
only engineering.

That's very arguable given the availability of the sea for cooling with
ship and sub SMRs.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.

Rolls Royce has been running them for over 40 years, dimwit.

The challenge is only one of production engineering

Post by Joe
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

They are, up to a point.

Post by Joe
e.g. Google: "The initial phase of work is intended to bring Kairos
Power’s first SMR online quickly and safely by 2030"
Rolls Royce: "The European Industrial Alliance on Small Modular
Reactors aims to facilitate and accelerate the development,
demonstration, and deployment of the first SMRs projects in Europe in
the early 2030s."
"On 18 September, Czech Prime Minister Fiala announced that
CEZ and Rolls-Royce SMR would enter a strategic partnership to enable
the development and construction of SMRs in the Czech Republic. CEZ and
Rolls-Royce SMR will work collaboratively on plans for the deployment
of up to 3 GW of clean, affordable energy in the Czech Republic. CEZ
and Rolls-Royce SMR will work to finalise contractual order terms for
an order of the first unit with early works expected to commence as
soon as 2025."
'Development' and 'Early works' sounds like being a long way from 'off
the shelf'.

Dont be too sure.

[blacky]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 06:18:48 +1100, The Natural Philosopher =

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any=
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.

Rolls Royce has been running them for over 40 years, dimwit.
The challenge is only one of production engineering

The challenge is also cooling them when it's not in a ship or sub.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

They are, up to a point.

Not cooling wise they aren't and particularly a sub SMR
doesn't produce anything like enough power for them
to be viable to power a city or even a town.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
e.g. Google: "The initial phase of work is intended to bring Kairos
Power=E2=80=99s first SMR online quickly and safely by 2030"
Rolls Royce: "The European Industrial Alliance on Small Modular
Reactors aims to facilitate and accelerate the development,
demonstration, and deployment of the first SMRs projects in Europe in=
the early 2030s."
"On 18 September, Czech Prime Minister Fiala announced that
CEZ and Rolls-Royce SMR would enter a strategic partnership to enable=
the development and construction of SMRs in the Czech Republic. CEZ a=

nd

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Rolls-Royce SMR will work collaboratively on plans for the deployment=
of up to 3 GW of clean, affordable energy in the Czech Republic. CEZ
and Rolls-Royce SMR will work to finalise contractual order terms for=
an order of the first unit with early works expected to commence as
soon as 2025."
'Development' and 'Early works' sounds like being a long way from 'o=

ff

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
the shelf'.

Dont be too sure.

[Tim Streater]

Post by blacky
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 06:18:48 +1100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.

Rolls Royce has been running them for over 40 years, dimwit.
The challenge is only one of production engineering

The challenge is also cooling them when it's not in a ship or sub.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

They are, up to a point.

Not cooling wise they aren't and particularly a sub SMR
doesn't produce anything like enough power for them
to be viable to power a city or even a town.

You any idea of the power output? For WW2 warships using oil/boilers/turbines,
50 to 80MW equivalent was not unusual. That much power from an SMR would go a
long way.

[Chris Hogg]

Post by Tim Streater

Post by blacky
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 06:18:48 +1100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.

Rolls Royce has been running them for over 40 years, dimwit.
The challenge is only one of production engineering

The challenge is also cooling them when it's not in a ship or sub.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

They are, up to a point.

Not cooling wise they aren't and particularly a sub SMR
doesn't produce anything like enough power for them
to be viable to power a city or even a town.

You any idea of the power output? For WW2 warships using oil/boilers/turbines,
50 to 80MW equivalent was not unusual. That much power from an SMR would go a
long way.

https://gda.rolls-royce-smr.com/our-technology

[Tim Streater]

Post by Chris Hogg

Post by Tim Streater

Post by blacky
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 06:18:48 +1100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.

Rolls Royce has been running them for over 40 years, dimwit.
The challenge is only one of production engineering

The challenge is also cooling them when it's not in a ship or sub.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

They are, up to a point.

Not cooling wise they aren't and particularly a sub SMR
doesn't produce anything like enough power for them
to be viable to power a city or even a town.

You any idea of the power output? For WW2 warships using oil/boilers/turbines,
50 to 80MW equivalent was not unusual. That much power from an SMR would go a
long way.

https://gda.rolls-royce-smr.com/our-technology

Thanks - I should have remembered that the ouput is closer to 0.5GW.

5.3 acres footprint. Hmm, that means that on the field behind us and the field
opposite us over the road they could put 8 of these things. No cooling water
available, though.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Chris Hogg
https://gda.rolls-royce-smr.com/our-technology

Thanks - I should have remembered that the output is closer to 0.5GW.
5.3 acres footprint. Hmm, that means that on the field behind us and the field
opposite us over the road they could put 8 of these things. No cooling water
available, though.

I am unclear as to how much of that they need. Many gas turbines manage
with cooling towers and atmospheric condensation.

A nearby river is a cost saving luxury...

A quick google suggests that the actual input of fresh water is really
quite low...

[David Paste]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Chris Hogg
https://gda.rolls-royce-smr.com/our-technology

Thanks - I should have remembered that the output is closer to 0.5GW.
5.3 acres footprint. Hmm, that means that on the field behind us and the field
opposite us over the road they could put 8 of these things. No cooling water
available, though.

I am unclear as to how much of that they need. Many gas turbines manage
with cooling towers and atmospheric condensation.
A nearby river is a cost saving luxury...
A quick google suggests that the actual input of fresh water is really
quite low...

Fiddler's Ferry coal burning power station is now shut and partly
demolished. It is on the banks of the Mersey. It has a footprint of 253
acres on one side of the St. Helens Canal, and possibly similar on the
otherside (looks like ash heap or something, not sure).

It produced 1989 MW at it's best, and all the grid wiring is still there.

So naturally it is being buldozed and replaced with what will be shitty
quality housing and warehouses (inevitably).

Why aren't old power station locations being reserved for SMR use? To
the simple minded it seems obvious.

[Spike]

Post by David Paste
Why aren't old power station locations being reserved for SMR use? To
the simple minded it seems obvious.

There’s an anti-nuclear lobby out there that simply doesn’t want nuclear’s
6p/kWh wholesale price at any cost, as it will show up the poor performance
of renewables.

The solution to defunct power stations is not to put a SMR there and make
use of the in-place infrastructure but to bulldoze them ASAP to avoid that
situation, and then put up The Slums of Tomorrow.

[David Paste]

Post by Spike
There’s an anti-nuclear lobby out there that simply doesn’t want nuclear’s
6p/kWh wholesale price at any cost, as it will show up the poor performance
of renewables.
The solution to defunct power stations is not to put a SMR there and make
use of the in-place infrastructure but to bulldoze them ASAP to avoid that
situation, and then put up The Slums of Tomorrow.

Infuriating, isn't it.

[David Paste]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Chris Hogg
https://gda.rolls-royce-smr.com/our-technology

Thanks - I should have remembered that the output is closer to 0.5GW.
5.3 acres footprint. Hmm, that means that on the field behind us and the field
opposite us over the road they could put 8 of these things. No cooling water
available, though.

I am unclear as to how much of that they need. Many gas turbines manage
with cooling towers and atmospheric condensation.
A nearby river is a cost saving luxury...
A quick google suggests that the actual input of fresh water is really
quite low...

AND! The coal plants have rail access...

[Tim Streater]

On 29 Dec 2024 at 13:15:49 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Chris Hogg
https://gda.rolls-royce-smr.com/our-technology

Thanks - I should have remembered that the output is closer to 0.5GW.
5.3 acres footprint. Hmm, that means that on the field behind us and the field
opposite us over the road they could put 8 of these things. No cooling water
available, though.

I am unclear as to how much of that they need. Many gas turbines manage
with cooling towers and atmospheric condensation.
A nearby river is a cost saving luxury...
A quick google suggests that the actual input of fresh water is really
quite low...

OTOH, we are on top of a hill.

[nib]

Post by Chris Hogg

Post by Tim Streater

Post by blacky
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 06:18:48 +1100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.

Rolls Royce has been running them for over 40 years, dimwit.
The challenge is only one of production engineering

The challenge is also cooling them when it's not in a ship or sub.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

They are, up to a point.

Not cooling wise they aren't and particularly a sub SMR
doesn't produce anything like enough power for them
to be viable to power a city or even a town.

You any idea of the power output? For WW2 warships using oil/boilers/turbines,
50 to 80MW equivalent was not unusual. That much power from an SMR would go a
long way.

https://gda.rolls-royce-smr.com/our-technology

From that site's FAQ:

"Is your technology a ‘scaled-up’ submarine reactor?

"No… Rolls-Royce has decades of experience and an unrivalled heritage
designing propulsion systems for submarines, but the Rolls-Royce SMR has
been designed specifically for use providing large amounts of stable,
carbon-free electricity for the grid and energy intensive industries."

nib

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Tim Streater

Post by blacky
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 06:18:48 +1100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.

Rolls Royce has been running them for over 40 years, dimwit.
The challenge is only one of production engineering

The challenge is also cooling them when it's not in a ship or sub.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

They are, up to a point.

Not cooling wise they aren't and particularly a sub SMR
doesn't produce anything like enough power for them
to be viable to power a city or even a town.

You any idea of the power output? For WW2 warships using oil/boilers/turbines,
50 to 80MW equivalent was not unusual. That much power from an SMR would go a
long way.

It isn't a particularly closely guarded secret. Marine reactors are
around the 20-80MW mark, and are fundamentally boring in design.

Given the much vaunted '1kW per household' figure used to generate
bullshit about wind turbines...that equates to a town of up to 80,000
people or more than enough for a data centre..

But in fact RR has chosen with their design to build the biggest reactor
that doesn't need active safety and can be transported by road. 470MWe.

And that is similar to older Magnox reactors so the SMR would not be
hard to retrofit to decommissioned Magnox steam and turbine plant.

Even the AGRs are 600Mwe, in pairs so three SMRs could replace them.

Re-using all the old nuclear sites with existing planning permissions
and infrastructure could enable up to around 10GW of nuclear power to be
installed extremely rapidly as well as generating enough income at those
sites to guarantee site security and the money for decommissioning them

As of today, the vulnerability of long distance undersea cables has
already been demonstrated by that nice Mr Putin. Attacking energy
infrastructure is his thing.

Renewable energy is massively vulnerable - it is not self contained.
Nuclear power is, with 10 year plus stockpiles of nuclear material
easily achievable.

The tide is turning against wind and solar and firmly in nuclears favour.

[blacky]

Post by Tim Streater

Post by blacky
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 06:18:48 +1100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.

Rolls Royce has been running them for over 40 years, dimwit.
The challenge is only one of production engineering

The challenge is also cooling them when it's not in a ship or sub.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

They are, up to a point.

Not cooling wise they aren't and particularly a sub SMR
doesn't produce anything like enough power for them
to be viable to power a city or even a town.

You any idea of the power output? For WW2 warships using
oil/boilers/turbines,
50 to 80MW equivalent was not unusual. That much power from an SMR would go a
long way.

I said SUB SMR for a reason.

[Tim Streater]

Post by blacky

Post by Tim Streater

Post by blacky
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 06:18:48 +1100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.

Rolls Royce has been running them for over 40 years, dimwit.
The challenge is only one of production engineering

The challenge is also cooling them when it's not in a ship or sub.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

They are, up to a point.

Not cooling wise they aren't and particularly a sub SMR
doesn't produce anything like enough power for them
to be viable to power a city or even a town.

You any idea of the power output? For WW2 warships using
oil/boilers/turbines,
50 to 80MW equivalent was not unusual. That much power from an SMR would go a
long way.

I said SUB SMR for a reason.

Whatever that reason was appears to have been overtaken by other posts.

[blacky]

Post by Tim Streater

Post by blacky

Post by Tim Streater

Post by blacky
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 06:18:48 +1100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:41:39 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate
24x7 electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any
other gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p

The problem there seems to be the same as with fusion i.e. nobody
actually has a working prototype yet, and won't for some years.

Rolls Royce has been running them for over 40 years, dimwit.
The challenge is only one of production engineering

The challenge is also cooling them when it's not in a ship or sub.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Presumably existing ship/submarine reactors are not suitable.

They are, up to a point.

Not cooling wise they aren't and particularly a sub SMR
doesn't produce anything like enough power for them
to be viable to power a city or even a town.

You any idea of the power output? For WW2 warships using
oil/boilers/turbines,
50 to 80MW equivalent was not unusual. That much power from an SMR
would
go a
long way.

I said SUB SMR for a reason.

Whatever that reason was appears to have been overtaken by other posts.

No, clearly a sub SMR is irrelevant to what would be useful for a
city or even a decent sized town, quite apart from how it is cooled.

[blacky]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 01:41:39 +1100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Andrew

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9
yards. Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer
controlled UFH zone with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and
a batter, and heat recovery ventilation. And smart meters. Some of
it is great, some of it not so much.
What is great is the level of insulation, the UFH and the heat
recovery. HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19
degrees or so. There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way
to go, although the active ventilation requires constant servicing
to clean the filtration.And it can get stuffy.
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it
costs him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to,
due to the exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

I think they'd have to repeal the second law of thermodynamics to fix
that, unless they get all the people with gas boilers to subsidise
the heat pump users - and cope with all the millions of people
freezing to death as they can't afford to heat their homes.

Nuclear electricity will render heat pumps both cost effective first
and then irrelevant, as electricity will be so cheap that spending
money on using less simply wont be worth it...

Err, that's what they said 70 years ago, and we are still waiting.

1/. 70 years ago the oil and gas intersts wanted to sell all their
reserves to you first.
2/. That was said about fusion, not fission
3/. In countries with lots of nuclear and or hydro, it is already the
case that a simple wire under the floor is cheap as chips and so is the
leccy.

Name those

Post by The Natural Philosopher
4/. in 2010 I was informed 'all electricity will be renewable, by 2020.
I am still waiting.
5/. The fact of the matter is that SMRs are looking set to generate 24x7
electricity without batteries, huge long distance cables or any other
gunk at a wholesale price of around 6p
6/. Fossil fuel isn't going to get any cheaper and nor are renewables.

[Tricky Dicky]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Nuclear electricity will render heat pumps both cost effective first and
then irrelevant, as electricity will be so cheap that spending money on
using less simply wont be worth it...

Ah, yes where have I heard something like that before? Back in the 50/60’s
nuclear generated electricity would be so cheap it would not be worth
metering it and sending out bills. Well that never happened no matter how
cheap it might be to generate as long as someone is willing to pay for it
someone will sell it.

Don’t get me wrong I am totally in favour of nuclear generation and feel we
are missing a trick here when you look at the likes of France but as is the
British way will we ever produce enough power plants and be doomed to
blackouts just because someone spotted a great crested newt where they are
about to build one?

[Tim Streater]

Post by Tricky Dicky

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Nuclear electricity will render heat pumps both cost effective first and
then irrelevant, as electricity will be so cheap that spending money on
using less simply wont be worth it...

Ah, yes where have I heard something like that before? Back in the 50/60’s
nuclear generated electricity would be so cheap it would not be worth
metering it and sending out bills.

Are you nodding off or something? That witticism has already been suggested in
response to TNP's post and larfed at as irrelevant, relating, as it did, to
*fusion*.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Tricky Dicky

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Nuclear electricity will render heat pumps both cost effective first and
then irrelevant, as electricity will be so cheap that spending money on
using less simply wont be worth it...

Ah, yes where have I heard something like that before? Back in the 50/60’s
nuclear generated electricity would be so cheap it would not be worth
metering it and sending out bills. Well that never happened no matter how
cheap it might be to generate as long as someone is willing to pay for it
someone will sell it.
Don’t get me wrong I am totally in favour of nuclear generation and feel we
are missing a trick here when you look at the likes of France but as is the
British way will we ever produce enough power plants and be doomed to
blackouts just because someone spotted a great crested newt where they are
about to build one?

That depends.
What is happening in the West today is that people are discovering they
would rather have reliable cheap energy and no potholes in the road than
transgender polticians with a prick and a pussy.

Or lesser spotted asian crested newts.

[Harry Bloomfield Esq]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Nuclear electricity will render heat pumps both cost effective first and
then irrelevant, as electricity will be so cheap that spending money on
using less simply wont be worth it...

+1

[Tim+]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Nuclear electricity will render heat pumps both cost effective first and
then irrelevant, as electricity will be so cheap that spending money on
using less simply wont be worth it...

+1

Two fantasists in one thread…

Tim

[alan_m]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9 yards.
Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer controlled UFH
zone with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and a batter, and heat
recovery ventilation. And smart meters. Some of it is great, some of it
not so much.
What is great is the level of insulation,  the UFH and the heat
recovery.  HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19
degrees or so. There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way to
go, although the active ventilation requires constant servicing to clean
 the filtration.And  it can get stuffy.
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it costs
him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to, due to the
exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.
However he is arbitraging his smart meter, to make sure we, not he, pays
some of the costs.
His (7kWh) battery gets charged up by either solar panels or cheap night
time electricity and is fed back to the mains when peak demand is
massive and the buy back price goes through the roof. This enables him
to lower his electricity bills somewhat.
However this installation was  not cheap. Nor its its TCO known yet.
The overall impressions is of absolute comfort, but not really cosiness.
If that makes sense. It was a bit soulless.
And trying to actually program the heating was something he simply
hasn't mastered yet. It is so smart it make its owner look stupid.
This is information for those envisaging doing this themselves. The
house was a new build about 5 years ago. The pre-existing house was
demolished to build it.
I think this more or less confirms what I was leaning towards with
experience of my own house.
+UFH good
+Multi zone control good.
+Mega insulation good.
±Heat recovery ventilation quite good, but active system is high maintenance
±computerised central heating  controls with multiple zones with smart
bollocks everywhere is quite good, if you can actually learn to program
the fucking thing.
± Solar panels plus battery plus smart meter does help with electricity
bills, but the jury is still out on whether the capital invested is
actually worth it.
- At current electricity prices, unless you are getting massive grants,
heat pumps are a fucking disaster. Not because of their technology, but
because of the massive costs of 'renewable' electricity.
Electricity is 3-5 times the price of gas or oil  per unit energy.
I hope this helps.

Looking a some Youtube videos and there are quite a few saying how
successful are ASHPs BUT the further you get into the videos you find
that they have all also invested in 10+kW batteries which charge at a
cheap off peak rate during the night to run the house/ASHP during the
day.

If the grants were removed I'll bet the heap pump installation business
would collapse overnight.

What I have yet to see is people posting about having a ASHP
installation in a older terrace house which is the typical housing stock
where I live, and for many miles around. I have yet to see people
posting about operating costs where they haven't also invested in
batteries, or solar to offset costs between winter and summer.

[Tim Streater]

Post by alan_m
What I have yet to see is people posting about having a ASHP
installation in a older terrace house which is the typical housing stock
where I live, and for many miles around. I have yet to see people
posting about operating costs where they haven't also invested in
batteries, or solar to offset costs between winter and summer.

Humph.

a) Where would they put it such that it wouldn't annoy themselves or the
neighbours. Such properties can be quite narrow.

b) Most such blocks of terrace would presumably also require all the
downstairs floors taking up and being insulated.

We've done a number of things here - such as cavity wall and attic insulation,
replacing the old boiler with a condensing one. The north-facing wall is
hanging tile, and if you lift the floor on the inside in those rooms (next to
the outside wall), you can feel the pointy ends of the nails that attach the
battens to the 8x4 sheets of cardboard or whatever it is, that the tiles are
hung on. The walls there are studwork and although insulated, its only with
rock wool, not celotex, so the wind can go straight through. And under the
floor, where the nails can be felt, there's no insulation. Previous owner did
that bit of extension on the cheap.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Tim Streater

Post by alan_m
What I have yet to see is people posting about having a ASHP
installation in a older terrace house which is the typical housing stock
where I live, and for many miles around. I have yet to see people
posting about operating costs where they haven't also invested in
batteries, or solar to offset costs between winter and summer.

Humph.
a) Where would they put it such that it wouldn't annoy themselves or the
neighbours. Such properties can be quite narrow.

Actially they should use the roof space. would recycle any wasted heat

Post by Tim Streater
b) Most such blocks of terrace would presumably also require all the
downstairs floors taking up and being insulated.

Many are suspended wood. A layer of concrete then massive foam then UOFH
in screed would work well

Post by Tim Streater
We've done a number of things here - such as cavity wall and attic insulation,
replacing the old boiler with a condensing one. The north-facing wall is
hanging tile, and if you lift the floor on the inside in those rooms (next to
the outside wall), you can feel the pointy ends of the nails that attach the
battens to the 8x4 sheets of cardboard or whatever it is, that the tiles are
hung on. The walls there are studwork and although insulated, its only with
rock wool, not celotex, so the wind can go straight through. And under the
floor, where the nails can be felt, there's no insulation. Previous owner did
that bit of extension on the cheap.

At some level its worth going to a bare shell on some houses or even
demolsihing and starting again.
But most people move...

[Nick Finnigan]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9 yards.
Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer controlled UFH zone
with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and a batter, and heat recovery
ventilation. And smart meters. Some of it is great, some of it not so much.
What is great is the level of insulation,  the UFH and the heat recovery.
HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19 degrees or so.
There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way to go, although the
active ventilation requires constant servicing to clean  the
filtration.And  it can get stuffy.
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it costs him
more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to, due to the
exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

If the level of insulation and heat recovery is really great, there
should be no need for under floor heating.

[RJH]

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9 yards.
Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer controlled UFH zone
with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and a batter, and heat recovery
ventilation. And smart meters. Some of it is great, some of it not so much.
What is great is the level of insulation, the UFH and the heat recovery.
HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19 degrees or so.
There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way to go, although the
active ventilation requires constant servicing to clean the
filtration.And it can get stuffy.
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it costs him
more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to, due to the
exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

That makes no sense. I suspect there's something wrong with their
calculations.

Post by Nick Finnigan
If the level of insulation and heat recovery is really great, there
should be no need for under floor heating.

Plus the triple glazing - that has to be approaching Passivhaus. Should be
possible to heat with very little energy.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by RJH

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9 yards.
Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer controlled UFH zone
with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and a batter, and heat recovery
ventilation. And smart meters. Some of it is great, some of it not so much.
What is great is the level of insulation, the UFH and the heat recovery.
HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19 degrees or so.
There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way to go, although the
active ventilation requires constant servicing to clean the
filtration.And it can get stuffy.
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it costs him
more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to, due to the
exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

That makes no sense. I suspect there's something wrong with their
calculations.

I did the calculations. It makes perfect sense

if electricity costs are greater than gas by a factor larger than the
upcycle gain on the heatpump, a heatpump will be more expensive.

Given that gas is typically 4-6p a kWh, and electricity these days is up
around 20p and the time you need heating is in the winter when the
heatpump can't do 4:1 and may struggle to do 2,.5:1

Post by RJH

Post by Nick Finnigan
If the level of insulation and heat recovery is really great, there
should be no need for under floor heating.

There wasn't a lot. the floors were barely warm. Nevertheless his
electricity costs were very high

Post by RJH
Plus the triple glazing - that has to be approaching Passivhaus. Should be
possible to heat with very little energy.

[alan_m]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by RJH
That makes no sense. I suspect there's something wrong with their
calculations.

I did the calculations. It makes perfect sense
if electricity costs are greater than gas by a factor larger than the
upcycle gain on the heatpump, a heatpump will be more expensive.
Given that gas is typically 4-6p a kWh, and electricity these days is up
around 20p and the time you need heating is in the winter when the
heatpump can't do 4:1 and may struggle to do 2,.5:1

With a big enough battery the current electricity cost may be closer to
10p/kwh off peak. However this is the ongoing running cost and doesn't
take into consideration that the up-front costs are likely to be £15K
more than replacing a gas boiler (ignoring grants).

[Tim Streater]

Post by alan_m

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by RJH
That makes no sense. I suspect there's something wrong with their
calculations.

I did the calculations. It makes perfect sense
if electricity costs are greater than gas by a factor larger than the
upcycle gain on the heatpump, a heatpump will be more expensive.
Given that gas is typically 4-6p a kWh, and electricity these days is up
around 20p and the time you need heating is in the winter when the
heatpump can't do 4:1 and may struggle to do 2,.5:1

With a big enough battery the current electricity cost may be closer to
10p/kwh off peak. However this is the ongoing running cost and doesn't
take into consideration that the up-front costs are likely to be £15K
more than replacing a gas boiler (ignoring grants).

A grant or subsidy does not reduce the cost. It simply shifts it elsewhere.

[RJH]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by RJH

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9 yards.
Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer controlled UFH zone
with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and a batter, and heat recovery
ventilation. And smart meters. Some of it is great, some of it not so much.
What is great is the level of insulation, the UFH and the heat recovery.
HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19 degrees or so.
There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way to go, although the
active ventilation requires constant servicing to clean the
filtration.And it can get stuffy.
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it costs him
more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to, due to the
exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

That makes no sense. I suspect there's something wrong with their
calculations.

I did the calculations. It makes perfect sense
if electricity costs are greater than gas by a factor larger than the
upcycle gain on the heatpump, a heatpump will be more expensive.
Given that gas is typically 4-6p a kWh, and electricity these days is up
around 20p and the time you need heating is in the winter when the
heatpump can't do 4:1 and may struggle to do 2,.5:1

Electricity does cost more - by a factor of about 4. And perhaps the heat pump
costs double to run in winter - although I doubt that, given the
solar/battery.

If all else is equal, besides the eco-features of the new house, the new house
should cost a fraction of the old to run. I think you're keeping at least one
critical variable all to yourself. My guess is is property size - the new one
is a lot bigger with masses of glazing. And there could be a fault, user
error, or poor installation at play.

Just adding a few solar panels and a battery, with no cheap feed in to charge
it overnight, has cut my annual dual fuel costs by maybe a quarter (I haven't
gone a full year yet). If I had all of that insulating, heat pump, and heat
recovery gubbins I'd expect to save a lot more. Not stay the same.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by RJH

Post by Nick Finnigan
If the level of insulation and heat recovery is really great, there
should be no need for under floor heating.

There wasn't a lot. the floors were barely warm. Nevertheless his
electricity costs were very high

Post by RJH
Plus the triple glazing - that has to be approaching Passivhaus. Should be
possible to heat with very little energy.

[Chris Green]

RJH <***@gmx.com> wrote:
If I had all of that insulating, heat pump, and heat

Post by RJH
recovery gubbins I'd expect to save a lot more. Not stay the same.

Yes, but you'd "save a lot more." whatever you were using to
provide the heat.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by RJH
If all else is equal, besides the eco-features of the new house, the new house
should cost a fraction of the old to run. I think you're keeping at least one
critical variable all to yourself. My guess is is property size - the new one
is a lot bigger with masses of glazing. And there could be a fault, user
error, or poor installation at play.

I was surprised myself, but he assured me that that was the case.

Property went from 3/4 bed detached victorian single brick to full eco
house of similar size. Big windows yes, but vert well glazed. solar gain
is enormous

[RJH]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by RJH
If all else is equal, besides the eco-features of the new house, the new house
should cost a fraction of the old to run. I think you're keeping at least one
critical variable all to yourself. My guess is is property size - the new one
is a lot bigger with masses of glazing. And there could be a fault, user
error, or poor installation at play.

I was surprised myself, but he assured me that that was the case.
Property went from 3/4 bed detached victorian single brick to full eco
house of similar size. Big windows yes, but vert well glazed. solar gain
is enormous

Fair enough! Be interesting to see how it ends up in a couple of years.

My sister had a heat pump installed in her pre-Victorian 5 bed detached house.
Seemed unlikely to me. I've asked her (and her environmental scientist
husband) a few times about before/after costs. They don't seem to know - they
just say it's fine, and pay the bills.

Theo of this group seems to be doing some pretty thorough analysis, but the
problem for me is transferring his experience to others.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by RJH

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by RJH
If all else is equal, besides the eco-features of the new house, the new house
should cost a fraction of the old to run. I think you're keeping at least one
critical variable all to yourself. My guess is is property size - the new one
is a lot bigger with masses of glazing. And there could be a fault, user
error, or poor installation at play.

I was surprised myself, but he assured me that that was the case.
Property went from 3/4 bed detached victorian single brick to full eco
house of similar size. Big windows yes, but vert well glazed. solar gain
is enormous

Fair enough! Be interesting to see how it ends up in a couple of years.
My sister had a heat pump installed in her pre-Victorian 5 bed detached house.
Seemed unlikely to me. I've asked her (and her environmental scientist
husband) a few times about before/after costs. They don't seem to know - they
just say it's fine, and pay the bills.
Theo of this group seems to be doing some pretty thorough analysis, but the
problem for me is transferring his experience to others.

The takeaway is that for the same power OUTPUT gas is slightly cheaper
than a heat pump due to the inflated price of electricity.

Which the renewable lot claim strangely is 'because of the high price of
gas'...

My guess is that if you are running a cheap peaking OCGT plant for an
hour a day you need to raise your prices to make any money.

So gas generation would be cheaper if there were no renewables....

[Spike]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
The takeaway is that for the same power OUTPUT gas is slightly cheaper
than a heat pump due to the inflated price of electricity.
Which the renewable lot claim strangely is 'because of the high price of
gas'...
My guess is that if you are running a cheap peaking OCGT plant for an
hour a day you need to raise your prices to make any money.

The system is that every electricity supplier for those 30-minute slots
will get paid the same amount per kWh as the costliest among them, so if an
OCGT
plant successfully bids at 100x ‘base rate’ then that’s what they all get
paid. None of this ‘cheap renewables’ rubbish, they just take the profits
while complaining publicly about the high price of gas.

It’s lunatic, for everyone but the suppliers.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
So gas generation would be cheaper if there were no renewables....

Innit just.

[Theo]

Post by RJH
Fair enough! Be interesting to see how it ends up in a couple of years.
My sister had a heat pump installed in her pre-Victorian 5 bed detached house.
Seemed unlikely to me. I've asked her (and her environmental scientist
husband) a few times about before/after costs. They don't seem to know - they
just say it's fine, and pay the bills.

Look up their gas+elec kWh consumption if you put in their postcode here:
https://energy.which.co.uk/
(just click through to accept all the defaults)
and you can tell us what their usage looks like compared with their
neighbours.

Post by RJH
Theo of this group seems to be doing some pretty thorough analysis, but the
problem for me is transferring his experience to others.

Every house is different. But mine's pretty average - typical 1960s
construction, no attempt at insulation made in the build. The usual
upgrades have been made that most people have (90s UPVC double glazing, 90s
cavity wall insulation, 100mm fibreglass loft insulation). Because it has a
1970s loft conversion it is harder to insulate than regular houses (eg 80mm
fibreglass wool behind the loft walls, loft height restrictions means
putting in 300mm of insulation is not feasible due to only having crawl
access), and the loft is very very leaky (the location is exposed and the
wind blows through every gap). So the message is that it works for bog
standard boring houses, you don't need a fancy super insulated eco home to
benefit.

Theo

[RJH]

Post by Theo

Post by RJH
Fair enough! Be interesting to see how it ends up in a couple of years.
My sister had a heat pump installed in her pre-Victorian 5 bed detached house.
Seemed unlikely to me. I've asked her (and her environmental scientist
husband) a few times about before/after costs. They don't seem to know - they
just say it's fine, and pay the bills.

https://energy.which.co.uk/
(just click through to accept all the defaults)
and you can tell us what their usage looks like compared with their
neighbours.

Doesn't work for her address for some reason - asks me to input the figure
(tried some variations around the defaults).

Some *very* peculiar readings around me. Mine's pretty much accurate, but some
are from an educated guess wild underestimates - some are even negative.

My immediate neighbours use over 3 times the gas, and double the electric, to
me. Says something about someone :-)

Post by Theo

Post by RJH
Theo of this group seems to be doing some pretty thorough analysis, but the
problem for me is transferring his experience to others.

Every house is different. But mine's pretty average - typical 1960s
construction, no attempt at insulation made in the build. The usual
upgrades have been made that most people have (90s UPVC double glazing, 90s
cavity wall insulation, 100mm fibreglass loft insulation). Because it has a
1970s loft conversion it is harder to insulate than regular houses (eg 80mm
fibreglass wool behind the loft walls, loft height restrictions means
putting in 300mm of insulation is not feasible due to only having crawl
access),

100mm of PIR maybe?

Post by Theo
and the loft is very very leaky (the location is exposed and the
wind blows through every gap). So the message is that it works for bog
standard boring houses, you don't need a fancy super insulated eco home to
benefit.

OK thanks, yes. I think an additional issue with older homes is damp,
especially to the ground floor, where the building is constantly drying out
due to partially failed DPMs. No evidence mind, just a guess.

My comment on transferring was made in trying to make your experience widely
applicable - it does sound average(ish), but there's such a wide variety of
homes . . .

All of that said, it's not too difficult to calculate heat loss, at least to
ballpark figures.

[Theo]

Post by RJH

Post by Theo

Post by RJH
Fair enough! Be interesting to see how it ends up in a couple of years.
My sister had a heat pump installed in her pre-Victorian 5 bed detached house.
Seemed unlikely to me. I've asked her (and her environmental scientist
husband) a few times about before/after costs. They don't seem to know - they
just say it's fine, and pay the bills.

https://energy.which.co.uk/
(just click through to accept all the defaults)
and you can tell us what their usage looks like compared with their
neighbours.

Doesn't work for her address for some reason - asks me to input the figure
(tried some variations around the defaults).

It doesn't work for my own either. Maybe being on a smart tariff foils it,
I don't know.

Post by RJH
Some *very* peculiar readings around me. Mine's pretty much accurate, but some
are from an educated guess wild underestimates - some are even negative.

Tried a few houses I know and the numbers seem about right, but I wouldn't
be able to verify with actual bills.

Negative could be if they're exporting solar?

Post by RJH
My immediate neighbours use over 3 times the gas, and double the electric, to
me. Says something about someone :-)

I checked a house on a retirement estate. Don't know the occupants, but the
usage was high as you might expect.

Post by RJH

Post by Theo

Post by RJH
Theo of this group seems to be doing some pretty thorough analysis, but the
problem for me is transferring his experience to others.

Every house is different. But mine's pretty average - typical 1960s
construction, no attempt at insulation made in the build. The usual
upgrades have been made that most people have (90s UPVC double glazing, 90s
cavity wall insulation, 100mm fibreglass loft insulation). Because it has a
1970s loft conversion it is harder to insulate than regular houses (eg 80mm
fibreglass wool behind the loft walls, loft height restrictions means
putting in 300mm of insulation is not feasible due to only having crawl
access),

100mm of PIR maybe?

Yep, that's the plan. Just the crawling is such a PITA. I've invested in
some Gapotape to make installation easier.

Post by RJH

Post by Theo
and the loft is very very leaky (the location is exposed and the
wind blows through every gap). So the message is that it works for bog
standard boring houses, you don't need a fancy super insulated eco home to
benefit.

OK thanks, yes. I think an additional issue with older homes is damp,
especially to the ground floor, where the building is constantly drying out
due to partially failed DPMs. No evidence mind, just a guess.

I think a big unknown is the pre-WWI houses - single skin brick, suspended
wooden floors, designed to be heated with a big coal fire running
constantly. Some decent internal wall insulation would likely help a lot
there, but it's quite disruptive.

Post by RJH
My comment on transferring was made in trying to make your experience widely
applicable - it does sound average(ish), but there's such a wide variety of
homes . . .

Indeed.

Post by RJH
All of that said, it's not too difficult to calculate heat loss, at least to
ballpark figures.

My ASHP installer's survey came in at 5kW, my own calcs at 8. So that's
pretty average I think.

Theo

[RJH]

<div id="editor" contenteditable="false">> Some *very* peculiar readings
around me. Mine's pretty much accurate, but some

Post by RJH
are from an educated guess wild underestimates - some are even negative.

Tried a few houses I know and the numbers seem about right, but I wouldn't
be able to verify with actual bills.
Negative could be if they're exporting solar?

No chance! They're big houses occupied by single state pension men.


snip

Post by RJH
OK thanks, yes. I think an additional issue with older homes is damp,
especially to the ground floor, where the building is constantly drying out
due to partially failed DPMs. No evidence mind, just a guess.

I think a big unknown is the pre-WWI houses - single skin brick, suspended
wooden floors, designed to be heated with a big coal fire running
constantly. Some decent internal wall insulation would likely help a lot
there, but it's quite disruptive.

Yes, I recently completed the traditional building retrofit assessor course,
and it's a minefield. You have to variously maintain ventilation, keep it all
breathable, and have a regard to the enviromental integrity of whatever
materials you use. And insulate it.

I've only got a little (HNC building modules) level of technical knowledge,
but I think they overdo the porosity/ventilation thing. Seal the envelope with
celotex and heat recovery ventilation - through wall by room if necessary.
I've got a pile of books to get through on the subject . . .

Post by RJH
My comment on transferring was made in trying to make your experience widely
applicable - it does sound average(ish), but there's such a wide variety of
homes . . .

Indeed.

Post by RJH
All of that said, it's not too difficult to calculate heat loss, at least to
ballpark figures.

My ASHP installer's survey came in at 5kW, my own calcs at 8. So that's
pretty average I think.

Mine's about 10 (1910 semi).

[alan_m]

Post by RJH
Some *very* peculiar readings around me. Mine's pretty much accurate, but some
are from an educated guess wild underestimates - some are even negative.
My immediate neighbours use over 3 times the gas, and double the electric, to
me. Says something about someone :-)

Possibly the only accurate results are from those with a working smart
meter. Some people will not bother with giving monthly readings to
their utility companies

[Theo]

Post by alan_m

Post by RJH
Some *very* peculiar readings around me. Mine's pretty much accurate, but some
are from an educated guess wild underestimates - some are even negative.
My immediate neighbours use over 3 times the gas, and double the electric, to
me. Says something about someone :-)

Possibly the only accurate results are from those with a working smart
meter. Some people will not bother with giving monthly readings to
their utility companies

I think the numbers come from the same place as the 'your annual consumption
is ...' on your bill, which must be calculated from actual bills and
estimated readings if you don't have a smart meter.

Interestingly, someone with no smart meter in the middle of a switch had a
'your annual consumption' figure on their account even though the switch
hadn't happened yet (no switch date set and no readings sent). So there
must be some database that their old supplier is submitting the reading to
that the new supplier and the comparison sites can find it out from.

Theo

[Jeff Layman]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by RJH
If all else is equal, besides the eco-features of the new house, the new house
should cost a fraction of the old to run. I think you're keeping at least one
critical variable all to yourself. My guess is is property size - the new one
is a lot bigger with masses of glazing. And there could be a fault, user
error, or poor installation at play.

I was surprised myself, but he assured me that that was the case.
Property went from 3/4 bed detached victorian single brick to full eco
house of similar size. Big windows yes, but vert well glazed. solar gain
is enormous

With very high solar gain, how easy are they to cool in a hot summer? I
assume that blinds/curtains are essential, but what about
air-conditioning? I suppose the simplest thing would be to run the ASHP
"in reverse", but isn't there some ban on doing that for subsidised
installations?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by RJH
If all else is equal, besides the eco-features of the new house, the new house
should cost a fraction of the old to run. I think you're keeping at least one
critical variable all to yourself. My guess is is property size - the new one
is a lot bigger with masses of glazing. And there could be a fault, user
error, or poor installation at play.

I was surprised myself, but he assured me that that was the case.
Property went from 3/4 bed detached victorian single brick to full eco
house of similar size. Big windows yes, but vert well glazed. solar gain
is enormous

With very high solar gain, how easy are they to cool in a hot summer? I
assume that blinds/curtains are essential, but what about
air-conditioning? I suppose the simplest thing would be to run the ASHP
"in reverse", but isn't there some ban on doing that for subsidised
installations?

Well naturally they will have to draw what curtains they have And open
winbdows at night.

[Theo]

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by RJH
If all else is equal, besides the eco-features of the new house, the new house
should cost a fraction of the old to run. I think you're keeping at least one
critical variable all to yourself. My guess is is property size - the new one
is a lot bigger with masses of glazing. And there could be a fault, user
error, or poor installation at play.

I was surprised myself, but he assured me that that was the case.
Property went from 3/4 bed detached victorian single brick to full eco
house of similar size. Big windows yes, but vert well glazed. solar gain
is enormous

With very high solar gain, how easy are they to cool in a hot summer? I
assume that blinds/curtains are essential, but what about
air-conditioning? I suppose the simplest thing would be to run the ASHP
"in reverse", but isn't there some ban on doing that for subsidised
installations?

The pre-2020 RHI prevented an ASHP being installed that could be used for
cooling (officially, there was usually a hidden jumper or something to turn
it back on). But subsidies are only for retrofits - on a new build you
wouldn't get them and are free to install what you want / could get past
building regs.

A decent new build would have sufficient shading and/or overhangs so that
solar gain isn't a problem in summer. Part O should cover it, although it
only came in in 2022.

Theo

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9
yards. Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer
controlled UFH zone with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and a
batter, and heat recovery ventilation. And smart meters. Some of it is
great, some of it not so much.
What is great is the level of insulation,  the UFH and the heat
recovery. HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19
degrees or so. There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way
to go, although the active ventilation requires constant servicing to
clean  the filtration.And  it can get stuffy.
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it costs
him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to, due to
the exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

 If the level of insulation and heat recovery is really great, there
should be no need for under floor heating.

Well there definitely was. I could her it humming away outside

[Rod Speed]

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9 yards.
Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer controlled UFH
zone with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and a batter, and heat
recovery ventilation. And smart meters. Some of it is great, some of it
not so much.
What is great is the level of insulation, the UFH and the heat
recovery. HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19
degrees or so. There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way to
go, although the active ventilation requires constant servicing to
clean the filtration.And it can get stuffy.
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it costs
him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to, due to the
exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

If the level of insulation and heat recovery is really great, there
should be no need for under floor heating.

And that's the way the Scandinavians do it.

[Alan Lee]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9 yards.
Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer controlled UFH
zone with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and a batter, and heat
recovery ventilation. And smart meters. Some of it is great, some of it
not so much.

Each room with its own zone? the Designer has not got that right then.
It's a perfect install for a totally open system. Having zones reduces
any heat sources efficiency, as it is the on/off that causes more energy
use.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
What is great is the level of insulation,  the UFH and the heat
recovery.  HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19
degrees or so. There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way to
go, although the active ventilation requires constant servicing to clean
 the filtration.And  it can get stuffy.

Eh? Change filters every 6 months, or whenever they are required. Two
minute job.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it costs
him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to, due to the
exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

The Heat Pump is nothing to do with the higher bills. It should easily
put out a SCOP of 4 if designed properly, for which, see above, this
houses heating system has not been well designed. If a gas boiler was
fitted, it would have the same result if the system has been designed
badly, it will use more gas.
The only way the bills should be higher is if the new property is a lot
bigger, and the temperature is kept at a higher level than in the old house.
He needs a consultant in to inspect his heating system to see where it
is failing.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Alan Lee

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I spent Christmas with a friend who has an eco house. The full 9
yards. Heat pump triple glazed, UFH with every room a computer
controlled UFH zone with its own smart thermostat, solar panels and a
batter, and heat recovery ventilation. And smart meters. Some of it is
great, some of it not so much.

Each room with its own zone? the Designer has not got that right then.
It's a perfect install for a totally open system. Having zones reduces
any heat sources efficiency, as it is the on/off that causes more energy
use.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
What is great is the level of insulation,  the UFH and the heat
recovery.  HEPA filtered air is good for me, as is a totally even 19
degrees or so. There is no doubt that on a new build this is the way
to go, although the active ventilation requires constant servicing to
clean   the filtration.And  it can get stuffy.

Eh? Change filters every 6 months, or whenever they are required. Two
minute job.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it costs
him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to, due to
the exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

The Heat Pump is nothing to do with the higher bills. It should easily
put out a SCOP of 4 if designed properly, for which, see above, this
houses heating system has not been well designed. If a gas boiler was
fitted, it would have the same result if the system has been designed
badly, it will use more gas.
The only way the bills should be higher is if the new property is a lot
bigger, and the temperature is kept at a higher level than in the old house.
He needs a consultant in to inspect his heating system to see where it
is failing.

Cognitive dissonance is a marvelous cope.

[Theo]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it costs
him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to, due to the
exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

Annual electricity consumption here is 6700kWh. That's everything - ASHP
heating, hot water (ASHP+immersion for legionella), cooking, dishwasher, WM,
tumble dryer, electronics (of which there is quite a bit, baseload is about
150W).

Currently on Octopus Tracker the daily price averages about 20p/kWh (without
messing about with time scheduling beyond doing the washing on windy days),
with about 60p/day standing charge. Total for the last 12 months £1453.09.
(have only been on Tracker about 10.5 months though, on standard tariff
before that)

This property has never had gas so can't really compare costs with that.
It's a 1960s 120m2 chalet bungalow.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
This is information for those envisaging doing this themselves. The
house was a new build about 5 years ago. The pre-existing house was
demolished to build it.

Is that house enormous? Some self builds (see Grand Designs) mean somebody
building a cathedral just because they can, even if they never use half the
space. Then they end up with somewhere that's 400m2 and full of floor to
ceiling glazing and it ends up costing a lot to heat.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I think this more or less confirms what I was leaning towards with
experience of my own house.
+UFH good
+Multi zone control good.
+Mega insulation good.
±Heat recovery ventilation quite good, but active system is high maintenance

Is that maintenace in terms of changing filters, or fiddling with settings?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
±computerised central heating controls with multiple zones with smart
bollocks everywhere is quite good, if you can actually learn to program
the fucking thing.

That's the downside of allegedly 'smart' stuff. I prefer smart stuff that
just works without programming.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
± Solar panels plus battery plus smart meter does help with electricity
bills, but the jury is still out on whether the capital invested is
actually worth it.

Agreed, from r/SolarUK on Reddit current quotes seem to be about £7-10k for
a solar+battery system (~5kW solar + 5-10kWh battery). Compared with
putting the money in the bank I'm not clear how it works as a financial
proposition, and the payback depends a lot on future electricity prices. If
you don't use a lot of power to begin with, generating your own seems less
attractive.

If you have an EV I think the numbers might stack up better, because now you
have a battery and a big consumer of power so there are more kWh to be
saved.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
- At current electricity prices, unless you are getting massive grants,
heat pumps are a fucking disaster. Not because of their technology, but
because of the massive costs of 'renewable' electricity.
Electricity is 3-5 times the price of gas or oil per unit energy.

It would be interesting to know what their usage is like.
If you go to the compare here:
https://energy.which.co.uk/
and put in their postcode and then click through the screens, it tells you
how much their gas and electricity annual kWh are. Can you tell us?

Theo

[ajh]

Post by Theo
If you have an EV I think the numbers might stack up better, because now you
have a battery and a big consumer of power so there are more kWh to be
saved.

You also have access to much better rates for off peak electricity once
you have the EV, from Octopus, Tomato or Eon, so you can charge the car
and a home battery at ~7p/kWh and run the house all day on that if the
battery is big enough.This then gives a saving of the normal daily
tariff minus 7p and minus the cost of the charge discharge cycle and
cost of storage/kWh over the life of the battery. This latter is the
gamble, from what I can see the minimum is 7p/kWh recovered from battery
and it could be double that if the battery only lasts 8 years.

Once one is in that league it gets to be difficult to decide how much
the return on solar panels is as it becomes worthwhile to simply export
all daily production with a SEG of 15p/kWh. I still don't expect that
SEG rat to last long.

[alan_m]

Post by ajh

Post by Theo
If you have an EV I think the numbers might stack up better, because now you
have a battery and a big consumer of power so there are more kWh to be
saved.

You also have access to much better rates for off peak electricity once
you have the EV, from Octopus, Tomato or Eon, so you can charge the car
and a home battery at  ~7p/kWh and run the house all day on that if the
battery is big enough.

Perhaps only while the minority have EVs and electric heating? Will that
7p/kWh be that price in the next 5 to 10 years when the targets are for
everyone to be driving EVs (or at least migrating to them) and for close
to a million ASHPs per year to be installed?

[ajh]

Post by alan_m

Post by ajh

Post by Theo
If you have an EV I think the numbers might stack up better, because now you
have a battery and a big consumer of power so there are more kWh to be
saved.

You also have access to much better rates for off peak electricity
once you have the EV, from Octopus, Tomato or Eon, so you can charge
the car and a home battery at  ~7p/kWh and run the house all day on
that if the battery is big enough.

Perhaps only while the minority have EVs and electric heating? Will that
7p/kWh be that price in the next 5 to 10 years when the targets are for
everyone to be driving EVs (or at least migrating to them) and for close
to a million ASHPs per year to be installed?

Yes that is how I see it, in fact I believe the special EV rates are
loss leaders.

[charles]

Post by ajh

Post by alan_m

Post by ajh

Post by Theo
If you have an EV I think the numbers might stack up better, because
now you have a battery and a big consumer of power so there are more
kWh to be saved.

You also have access to much better rates for off peak electricity
once you have the EV, from Octopus, Tomato or Eon, so you can charge
the car and a home battery at ~7p/kWh and run the house all day on
that if the battery is big enough.

Perhaps only while the minority have EVs and electric heating? Will
that 7p/kWh be that price in the next 5 to 10 years when the targets
are for everyone to be driving EVs (or at least migrating to them) and
for close to a million ASHPs per year to be installed?

Yes that is how I see it, in fact I believe the special EV rates are
loss leaders.

Be that as it may be, but I reckon that their low overnight rates have
saved me about £1k in the last 12 months. Moving to Octopus generally has
also saved another £1k agoinst the charges of my previous supplier.

[ajh]

Post by charles
Be that as it may be, but I reckon that their low overnight rates have
saved me about £1k in the last 12 months. Moving to Octopus generally has
also saved another £1k agoinst the charges of my previous supplier.

Yes I'm not knocking it, it just doesn't suit me. My daughter OTOH
benefits greatly , runs a car for no net fuel cost and the surpluses
offset her standing charge.

[Roland Perry]

Post by ajh

Post by Theo
If you have an EV I think the numbers might stack up better, because now you
have a battery and a big consumer of power so there are more kWh to be
saved.

You also have access to much better rates for off peak electricity once
you have the EV, from Octopus, Tomato or Eon,

It's a year now since I switched to Octopus, and I've still failed to
persuade them to either fix my broken (for about three years now) smart
meter, or fit a new one.

I'm beginning to lose my patience.

[ajh]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by ajh

Post by Theo
If you have an EV I think the numbers might stack up better, because now you
have a battery and a big consumer of power so there are more kWh to be
saved.

You also have access to much better rates for off peak electricity
once you have the EV, from Octopus, Tomato or Eon,

It's a year now since I switched to Octopus, and I've still failed to
persuade them to either fix my broken (for about three years now) smart
meter, or fit a new one.
I'm beginning to lose my patience.

I've been with them over a year and never had problems with smart meter
but none of their innovative tariffs suit my demand so I have stuck with
their flexible offering.

Their new cosy offering would suit me but my smart meter does not have
the switched output for a storage heater so that's out too.

[Theo]

Post by ajh
I've been with them over a year and never had problems with smart meter
but none of their innovative tariffs suit my demand so I have stuck with
their flexible offering.
Their new cosy offering would suit me but my smart meter does not have
the switched output for a storage heater so that's out too.

Surely you don't need that, just a timer? Teleswitching was needed when
everything was mechanical and clocks could get out of sync, but nowadays a
simple electronic timer would suffice - either a plug timer or something
beefier wired in.

You would need to set the timer to match the published periods on your
tariff, and keep it updated with summer/winter time changes if it didn't do
that automatically, but that's more or less fit and forget?

I have one of these - it's a PITA to use with a tiny screen and
buttons so I wouldn't recommend it, but it sits on a DIN rail and could
easily live inside a consumer unit:
https://www.greenbrook.co.uk/timers-thermostats/din-rail-mounted-timers/t80-c
There are no doubt better versions out there.

Theo

[ajh]

Post by Theo
Surely you don't need that, just a timer?

The new Octopus cozy tariff requires one to have a smart meter that
switches the storage heater. Apart from that it would suit me.

[Theo]

Post by ajh

Post by Theo
Surely you don't need that, just a timer?

The new Octopus cozy tariff requires one to have a smart meter that
switches the storage heater. Apart from that it would suit me.

Is that something they've told you? There's no mention of meter-based
switching here:
https://octopus.energy/smart/cosy-octopus/

It does say at:
https://octopus.energy/policies/smart-tariffs-terms-and-condition/#cosyoctopus
"2.7.3 To be eligible for the Cosy Octopus tariff, you must have a heat pump
or compatible low carbon heating system installed and operational at the
property which we supply. Compatible systems are determined at Octopus'
sole discretion. If you sign up to our Cosy Octopus tariff but do not meet
this eligibility criteria, we can place you on an alternative tariff that we
consider is more appropriate for your circumstances. We will let you know
if we do this and advise you of the rates and terms that apply to the
alternative tariff."

so depends what a 'compatible low carbon heating system' means. A random
storage heater might not count.

Theo

[ajh]

Post by Theo

Post by ajh

Post by Theo
Surely you don't need that, just a timer?

The new Octopus cozy tariff requires one to have a smart meter that
switches the storage heater. Apart from that it would suit me.

Is that something they've told you? There's no mention of meter-based
https://octopus.energy/smart/cosy-octopus/
https://octopus.energy/policies/smart-tariffs-terms-and-condition/#cosyoctopus
"2.7.3 To be eligible for the Cosy Octopus tariff, you must have a heat pump
or compatible low carbon heating system installed and operational at the
property which we supply. Compatible systems are determined at Octopus'
sole discretion. If you sign up to our Cosy Octopus tariff but do not meet
this eligibility criteria, we can place you on an alternative tariff that we
consider is more appropriate for your circumstances. We will let you know
if we do this and advise you of the rates and terms that apply to the
alternative tariff."
so depends what a 'compatible low carbon heating system' means. A random
storage heater might not count.
Theo

My mistake, the tariff I am referring to, for storage heating, is called
snug, not cosy which is the one aimed at heat pump users.

[Andy Burns]

Post by ajh
My mistake, the tariff I am referring to, for storage heating, is called
snug, not cosy which is the one aimed at heat pump users.

I understand that Octopus want to sell you power at a time they can buy
it cheaper, but why are they *so* concerned with whether you're then
going to use it for heat pumps, EVs, or growlamps?

[Theo]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by ajh
My mistake, the tariff I am referring to, for storage heating, is called
snug, not cosy which is the one aimed at heat pump users.

Ah, I'd not come across that one. It seems like it's a variable time that's
set by the meter, rather than the fixed times on Cosy.

Have you asked them if they'll install the right meter for you?

Post by Andy Burns
I understand that Octopus want to sell you power at a time they can buy
it cheaper, but why are they *so* concerned with whether you're then
going to use it for heat pumps, EVs, or growlamps?

Probably that they give you discounts based on predicted usage. eg if you
have an EV your usage might be a constant current draw in the nighttime,
while a heatpump will tend to run more at dusk in winter when the
temperature drops. They aren't too bothered if individual customers deviate
from the model, but in aggregate they predict that X million customers'
consumption will look like <this>, and price the tariff accordingly.

If they take on too many customers who don't fit the profile (eg those who
use more energy in peak times) then it blows holes in their pricing model.
By filtering on what you have it's a hurdle to prevent growlamp/etc users
from jumping on those tariffs. They're also keen when they can tell your
car/heating/etc when to fire up, rather than just having fixed periods.

Theo

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by ajh
My mistake, the tariff I am referring to, for storage heating, is
called snug, not cosy which is the one aimed at heat pump users.

I understand that Octopus want to sell you power at a time they can buy
it cheaper, but why are they *so* concerned with whether you're then
going to use it for heat pumps, EVs, or growlamps?

AIUI growlamps are mainly LED now.

[Andy Burns]

If you don't use a lot of power to begin with, generating your own
seems less attractive.

An immersion heater would soak-up surplus PV output, better than
exporting it at SEG pittance rates?

If you have an EV I think the numbers might stack up better, because now you
have a battery and a big consumer of power so there are more kWh to be
saved.

[Theo]

Post by Andy Burns

If you don't use a lot of power to begin with, generating your own
seems less attractive.

An immersion heater would soak-up surplus PV output, better than
exporting it at SEG pittance rates?

Yebbut that only 'saves' if you were planning on heating the water with the
immersion anyway. If you were going to use a gas boiler (or an ASHP) then
the actual value of the heat is more like 6p/kWh not 25p.

And if you're on the SEG you're likely doing something wrong as there are
better tariffs available, although probably when it's a sunny June midday
the export rates are going to be low because everyone else is also
exporting, so diverting into immersion could make sense then. But better
would be to store in the battery and use it in the evening when peak rates
are higher.

There are so many variables it's very hard to project what your 'return'
might be in the future, even if you can get a feel for how things work right
now.

But I think solar makes a lot of sense if you can keep the install cost
right down. eg if you go here:
https://www.cityplumbing.co.uk/content/solar-pv-kit-builder
and price up a 5kWp system it's about £1200-1500 in materials.

If you can DIY and you can keep roof access cheap, then that reduces the
payback time to a few years even with the most pessimistic assumptions and
making no attempt to optimise your consumption.

Rule of thumb is that every kWp generates 1MWh over the year. So that
system would generate 5000kWh per year, and even if you only used a small
percentage of that optimally then payback would only be a few years if you
were able to DIY the install (or contract out the minimum that you need help
with and DIY the rest).

Theo

[ajh]

Post by Andy Burns
An immersion heater would soak-up surplus PV output, better than
exporting it at SEG pittance rates?

Yes but as long as the cylinder is not lossy (John R said his lost
about 60W) you can heat it off peak at 100% efficiency for 7p/kWh and
export during the day at 15p/kWh, losses of 1.5kWh (10,5p) in 24 hours
compared with dhw on demand.

[RJH]

Post by Theo

Post by The Natural Philosopher
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it costs
him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to, due to the
exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

Annual electricity consumption here is 6700kWh. That's everything - ASHP
heating, hot water (ASHP+immersion for legionella), cooking, dishwasher, WM,
tumble dryer, electronics (of which there is quite a bit, baseload is about
150W).

I was taking a casual look at the Givenergy forum the other day, and noticed a
post complaining about the running cost of their (same as mine) solar inverter
- 80W/hr. I asked if that was constant or varied by the 'work' it was doing
but no reply.

I was surprised it was so high - no mention of it in the initial calculations,
just efficiency. Certainly explains why my ambient consumption jumped up after
the solar was installed. And the cost of running the thing will wipe out most
of the export - if those figures are correct.

[Theo]

Post by RJH

Post by Theo

Post by The Natural Philosopher
What isn't so great is the heat pump. It works just fine. But it costs
him more than the gas in his old Victorian property used to, due to the
exorbitant price of 'renewable' electricity.

Annual electricity consumption here is 6700kWh. That's everything - ASHP
heating, hot water (ASHP+immersion for legionella), cooking, dishwasher, WM,
tumble dryer, electronics (of which there is quite a bit, baseload is about
150W).

I was taking a casual look at the Givenergy forum the other day, and noticed a
post complaining about the running cost of their (same as mine) solar inverter
- 80W/hr. I asked if that was constant or varied by the 'work' it was doing
but no reply.
I was surprised it was so high - no mention of it in the initial calculations,
just efficiency. Certainly explains why my ambient consumption jumped up after
the solar was installed. And the cost of running the thing will wipe out most
of the export - if those figures are correct.

Does it feel warm? It's hard to lose 80W, that's like an old hot lightbulb.
You'd expect it to either be hot or running a fan to vent the heat as warm
air, like a PC.

I can't see how it would lose that other than as overhead when converting -
at night say it isn't doing very much. At full tilt if the inverter was say
95% efficient then 80W losses would incur at 1600W generation, which sounds
plausible.

Does the manual give any efficiency curves?

For baseload I wouldn't be surprised at say 10W extra all the time, just to
run all the stuff. But 80W sounds a bit much.

Theo

[ajh]

Post by Theo
Does it feel warm?

Mine does when the load is high, heating the air fryer etc. I would
think 80W is realistic then but less when drawing the 150W base load here.

[RJH]

Post by Theo

Post by RJH
I was taking a casual look at the Givenergy forum the other day, and noticed a
post complaining about the running cost of their (same as mine) solar inverter
- 80W/hr. I asked if that was constant or varied by the 'work' it was doing
but no reply.
I was surprised it was so high - no mention of it in the initial calculations,
just efficiency. Certainly explains why my ambient consumption jumped up after
the solar was installed. And the cost of running the thing will wipe out most
of the export - if those figures are correct.

Does it feel warm? It's hard to lose 80W, that's like an old hot lightbulb.
You'd expect it to either be hot or running a fan to vent the heat as warm
air, like a PC.

I'll measure it under different loads. Bought myself one of these as an xmas
present to self:

https://www.topdon.com/products/TC004

Better work out how to use it . . . ;-)