Good.
OK :-)
Times over 20 million households. Costs are not just monetary, or per user.
Well yes, in your case, where you need 365.24.7 heating. I accept that you seem to say you do - most don't.
That seems to be the total energy consumption - of which, yes, space and water heating takes up the bulk.
How can you expect anybody to take you seriously with that type of reasoning? Any energy saving is a saving. Wasting energy is wasting energy. Not difficult.
Maybe the idea is to encourage developers/builders to fit better insulation.
Less useable in high density housing though... as with many "green" projects they are good for virtue signalling if you have spare land and money.
You have the wrong sort.. the ones that heat for about 40 seconds and then dispense put out boiling water, they have to as its the steam that propels the water out all in one go.
The ones that trickle don't put out boiling water.
That's easy enough - just update the building regs with a higher minimum level for new builds / substantial alterations.
568 ml, a pint takes about 60 Whr to heat by 90c. I'm not surprise a natural philosopher can't do sums.
Lets say someone at home actually does it ten time a day.
Or added on to cooling in summer.
Yeah gods why do you need that much heating? My heating is only actually running for about six hours a day in winter and never in summer. It doesn't use fuel for all that time either.
And you think everyone else does the same as you.
Yes, but you concentrate most effort on appliances that use most energy. Better insulation etc is going to save more energy per household than heating less water in the kettle or using energy-saving bulbs in a house. In an office where there are lots of lights which are left on all the working day, the savings of using fluorescent (or LED) over tungsten are more significant, but in a house where lights are usually only on for a few hours in the evening and early morning, it's less signifiant.
But I agree, every little helps - a little!
I bought my diesel car as much for the extra torque and therefore less need to change down as far for every little gradient or junction, as for the saving on fuel consumption. Ironically, my wife's diesel Honda is much more like a petrol: I forever forget that it needs one or maybe two gears lower than my Pug when going round a junction or as a downhill road starts to rise again. Heavier vehicle, engine probably depends more on its turbo - it's only a 1.6 but a much bigger car than mine. I reckon the turbo sometimes runs out of puff as you slow down for a junction and then can't get enough air in the cylinders as you start to call for power.
My present 1.6 HDi Peugeot 308 has averaged about 54 mpg since I got it at
18,000 miles (it's now done 180,000) and the last petrol car that I had was a 1993 1.8 Golf which averaged 37 mpg. OK, so that was old technology: better to compare the Golf with the 1.9 HDi Peugeot 306 that I bought immediately after the Golf (in 1997) which averaged 47 mpg.So a significant saving: 37 compared with 47. However you have to take into account that diesel is now *more* expensive than petrol, so cost per mile is a better indicator. I can remember in the mid 70s, when the only diesel cars were taxis with tractor-like engines, diesel was about half the cost of petrol, partly because it was taxed at a lower rate. Then the tax rate became the same, and diesel rose to about 90% of petrol price, and now the cost of the raw diesel is actually more than for petrol, despite the much greater demand nowadays than in the 70s when only lorries and taxis used it.
He's a brexiteer what do you expect!?
It also has some significant advantages
True, but then so were solar panels.
Not really relevant - petrol is also very inefficient - not only in the engine, also the full fuel cycle through extraction, processing, delivery etc.
So is petrol but that does not seem to bother anyone.
There are plenty of challenges certainly, but "never" is long time... it would only take one of the big oil companies to decide it was a way for them to remain relevant in an EV world, and push roll out of the infrastructure.
The big advantages from the consumer's PoV is that it retains the familiar infrastructure, and matches peoples expectations of fuelling their car.
i.e. they can stop at a filling station, take on a full "charge" in five mins and be off again with another 300+ mile of range. Fuel can be stored on site at stations, and delivered by tankers if necessary in much the same was as petrol etc is now.
Fuel can also be manufactured locally. You can even drive the hydrogen generation plant from intermittent renewables.
My three-bedroom house, built in 2000, had a much smaller cylinder: probably about 4 feet tall and 2'6" diameter - I'm guessing because the top of the cylinder was probably about the same height off the ground - at slightly above eye level, and I'm 5'10" and one's eyes are a few inches below that - but mine rested on the raised "floor" of the airing cupboard where it went over the stairwell, whereas the one in the house that we saw rested on the ground. I think the one in my parents' 4-bed house is about the same size. I'd never seen a 2 metre high cylinder before: it looked very big!
My hot water cylinder was fine when I lived alone - unless I'd been doing a lot of washing in the evening (*), there was always enough water for a bath. But when my girlfriend came to stay, and we both had baths, it took a long time to heat enough water for a second bath, even with the boiler *and* the immersion heater on. When we moved to her house and got married, we didn't have that problem because her house had a combi boiler so it heated water on demand - very hot, even at full mains-pressure flow-rate - and had no cylinder.
(*) My washing machine was an old one that had the now-deprecated hot water fill, so its washing programs were a *lot* shorter because it didn't have to heat the cold water before the program could begin - such is "progress" ;-)
Over 9 minutes of kettle boiling per day (assuming 3kW) not true here.
I'm probably an exception: I record everything that I want to watch, and rarely watch anything as it is broadcast, and I edit out the adverts so I can watch a drama uninterrupted by three breaks per hour. Even if I watch "live" it's actually delayed a little while on the recorder so I can edit out the breaks on-the-fly and still finish watching at about the same time as it's going out live - I have a pathological hatred of being force-fed with adverts.
But I know I'm in the minority. Apparently at one time (maybe still to this day) broadcasters used to inform power-generation companies of the exact times of each day's ad breaks in Coronation Street, Crossroads, Emmerdale etc, so the power stations knew exactly when to start up the booster generation plants to cope with the peaks - so they were prepared and were doing it in advance rather than reacting to demand that had already begun. It is also said that they used the size of the peak to gauge how many people were watching that day: "ah, today's Corrie has only had a 2 MW advert peak - not as many people watching as yesterday's which was 3 MW" ;-)
Slight problem there. Because hydrogen is a smaller molecule (there are none smaller!) it can find its way through small gaps in the joints of pipes, so hydrogen (and helium, though that's not flammable) require much higher-standard connections than methane, propane or butane. Also, hydrogen is flammable at a much lower concentration in air than methane etc are, so you need to be damn sure that there are no leaks.
No, it's where 2987fr is as usual talking total bollocks
certainly not true here. kettel boils in about 30 secs about 4-5 times a day. 2 minutes give or take
It will leak out. Its would be massively unsafe. Its a very small slippery moolecule.
Convert everyone like from
And wasnt very safe either.
A lot of 'energy saving' does NOT save energy. It causes it to be spent elewhere..
For eaxample if - say - we mandated that it was illegal to USE a 3KW kettle, the energy to manufacture new ones would add to the extra energy lost because of the longer period of heatloss from the kettle. Therefrore its easy to see that 'energy saving' low power kettles would actually increase energy consumption.
It is similar with solar panels... total EROEI is very small.
As the late David Mackay said 'a lot of littles make a little'
Viurtue signalling politics and crony capitalsm footles around with virtue signalling littles because the averege half educated punter - as is aply demonstrated by RJH - can't do sums. Only 'refer to authority' and since authority is paid to support the government incitiatives...well there you go.
90% of all green initiatives do nothing for the environment or carbon emissions whatseover, except to increase them. Usually in China.....They do however make lots of profits for 'green' conmpanies.
They are and they have to the point where the most heatloss from a house is through the mandatory ventilation.
Heat recovery ventilation is the next step...
its reached the limit of usefulness already. Unless you add heat recovery ventilation you cant really add much to a modern house thermal wise.
Or quad glaze the windows.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.