Electric central heating via radiators?

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:11:18 +0000 someone who may be Bruce

Both will increase the price of electricity. Nuclear was always expensive, but that was hidden from the public until exposed to the light of day on privatisation.
Despite various bungs from Mr Brown to organisations like the one his brother works for nuclear will remain an expensive way of producing electricity.
It is also a slow way of doing so. The Finnish plant is now going to be completed three years late, it was originally supposed to have been built in four years, now it is supposed to be seven.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/14/areva-nuclear-finland-olkiluoto outlines the current row and <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/05/nuclear-energy-rising-cost has some background.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<yawn>
France.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

French nuclear electricity only appears cheap per kWh because the French government paid for all the design, development and construction costs. The apparent cost of a unit of electricity therefore only reflects operating costs.
The decommissioning costs will also be picked up by the French government.
A further subsidy came in the form of generous bribes to local authorities in the areas where nuclear stations were built, and the offer of free domestic electricity to anyone living within a certain distance of a nuclear plant.
This meant that local opposition was minimal, but the cost to the French taxpayers has been colossal. At one time, Ιlectricitι de France was the most indebted company in the world, and the French taxpayers are having to pay it all back.
Perhaps something similar will happen in Britain. :-)
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Great info and discussion re nuclear and gas. Nuclear which also, in Canada, appears to have not been economic or that reliable.
The info regarding 'electric furnaces' in this part of Canada (where piped in gas is not available) Gas (gasoline) here = petrol btw! Was in reply to the original posting about whether it was wasteful to have a body of hot water heated, by any means, sitting there all day until one returns home in the evening from work. Hence the observation about hot water radiation being 'slow'.
And it was all for information and comment.
That in my mind raises a question about the thermal mass of a house structure? On might think that a typical brick house with the proper thermal breaks between the outer and inner walls and properly insulated and vapour barriered should have greater heat storage than our comparatively light-weight 'stick built) ones. But I suspect that such a house as the one we lived in Liverpool UK, in the late 1940s and 50s and still standing AFIK, could not be insulated effectively? It was gas only when we lived there by the way. That house was then probably at least 60 years old?
This 38 year old (all electric, although we have added a wood stove etc in basement) house has 2 by 4, insulated wood frame walls. If built today it would have six inch walls and be better insulated. Following recent snow piled some of it up around the approx six inches of concrete basement that is above ground level to reduce wind induced heat loss. The almost completely in-ground basement is uninsulated but this morning (with minus 11 degrees C, outside) was at +9 C (50 F).
Energy costs have risen rapidly during the last 25 years and various 'energy conservation' incentives are being touted by our federal and provincial governments.
As usual with anything designed by a bureaucracy it will have snags. One time taking advantage of such a scheme (adding loose fill attic insulation) later found I had to pay income tax on the subsidy having already remitted the incentive cheque to insulation installer company. Costing it out found that I could have done the same work, buying the material and doing the work myself without any 'incentive', at a lower overall cost!
So am a little cynical and must check; the 'guvmint' seeing very little interest or 'take-up' has reportedly changed the incentive plan. If so and worthwhile, glad we waited!
So what about thermal mass of the house structure?
Oh btw heat pumps. Local discussion seems to show. There is a cost to installing heat pumps systems. The idea that the extra capital costs is worthwhile in energy savings does not yet seem to be well accepted! I guess one can buy a lot of heat against the annualized cost of the plus $10,000 extra cost? Maintenance of refrigerant pumps and valves and controls is also needed!.
Air heat pumps seem to have problems pulling enough heat at anything below about minus 10 C. So auxiliary electric heaters cut in. That reduces the overall efficiency/savings. The weather today for example.
When working within a certain range of air temperatures the heat pump efficiency ratio is said to be anywhere from a 2:1 to a 4:1 energy saving?
Better than air are said to be ground systems where pipes are buried or ducted through the ground from which heat is pumped into the house. Water systems require quite a large body of water or a large ground water well.
Basically they are all like big refrigerators with the advantage, not much needed in these parts, that some can be reversed to provide summer cooling/air conditioning.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Great info and discussion re nuclear and gas. Nuclear which also, in Canada, appears to have not been economic or that reliable.
The info regarding 'electric furnaces' in this part of Canada (where piped in gas is not available) Gas (gasoline) here = petrol btw! Was in reply to the original posting about whether it was wasteful to have a body of hot water heated, by any means, sitting there all day until one returns home in the evening from work. Hence the observation about hot water radiation being 'slow'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't need a body of hot water if using a gas heated system
You can supply enough energy to heat the water virtually instaneously as it passes through the system, you can't do that with electric (not without a three-phase system), so you need the stored water
tim
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
terry wrote:

Quite the reverse. The CANDU reactors have the best uptime of any in the world to date.And some of the lowest costs.

depends n the oil/gas price.

You have to go deeper for the coils. below the frozen topsoil.

4:1 is typical.. thats for about 40C output temps. As you pump higher, the efficiency goes down.

yes. Air is crap when sub-zero.
Unless you are in permafrost, a few hundred meters a meter or so down will get you all the stored summer heat back in winter.
You can use water, but its a slightly different situation I didn't explore myself.

Not easily. Ice cold underfloor will just result in pools of water!
You need a warm air/cold air system plus dehumidifier when working backwards. Gets complex and expensive.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[snip]

Ah yes, the classic of the anti-nuclear lobby "lets make up some costs".

As are the decommissioning costs of coal. And if you think that decommissioning a coal-fired station is zero-cost, zero-hazard then you need to think again.

And perhaps the government will simply take an objective look at costs.
Currently nuclear is competetive with coal, including decommissioning costs. From 2030 nuclear will be cheaper because the EU plans to impose a EUR 30 per tonne tax on carbon emissions from generating plant.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bruce wrote:

No, EDF is buying BGY, and will be running our stations and building more shortly.
All the R&D is largely done,and there are 4-5 well proven safe reliable and decomssionable designs in the world.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Hansen wrote:

Was, Because it was never designed to produce power, only weapons grade plutonium, and decomissioning wasn't thought to be an issue.
Modern sets are way cheaper.

Total bullshit as usual.
It costs less than windpower,. About £1000-£2000 per Kwh capital costs
And thats 24x7 90% plus uptime over a 40 year plus life span. With almost zero fuel costs.
I'll do the maths for you, as I know you cant do it yourself.
Ignoring cost of capital (interest), thats a break even price of 0.63p per unit. Uranium fuel adds about another 0.1p to that. So less than 0.75p a unit.
What kills you is interest on the capital..e.g. at 5% thats 1.14p per unit more..taking you to around 3p a unit.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/14/areva-nuclear-finland-olkiluoto
Usual bollox from dynamo dave.

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do we own the supplies of this fuel?
--
*Where there's a will, I want to be in it.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

No, but the chief suppliers are anglophile..australia, canada, ok the african places are a bit dodgier..
And at 50 tons a year per power station, of VERY heavy material its not hard to stockpile enough for a few decades. In fairly small spaces. Obviously not refined and packed like a sardine can :-)
A lot easier than coal, oil or gas.
Which are the only other alternatives.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nuclear may be cheap if you work out the costs of buying the stuff and building the power stations and selling it for 50 years then going bankrupt and leaving the thousands of years of waste and cancerous leaks clearups to future generations.
It's a large scale version of bunging someone a tenner to take your asbestos away on a flatbed knowing they'll chuck it over a hedge and leave it for a grown up to tidy up...
[g]
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nuclear waste can be stored down disused mines after re-processing. Concrete the stuff in, in the end of the seams. A large mine will store the countries wastes for hundreds of years to come and no contamination of oceans, etc. When the seams are full, fill in the shafts.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Political spite by Thatcher hating miners, eliminated the British coal industry. Middle Eastern oil was buttons to buy and the North Sea was full of cheap gas. Mrs Thatcher was told to reserve the gas for primarily domestic use and not use it to generate electricity - use the masses of coal we have under the country to generate electricity.
She never. We are now are semi-dependent on Russian gas as we used a masses of our own reserves needlessly. Russia refused to supply gas to the Ukraine a few years ago, so alarm bells rang. We need stable fuel supplies. We get oil and gas from the politically unstable Middle East and Russia - which is a political concern.
Thatcher squandered the greatest legacy this country had ever had.

Only if running low temperature UFH. Capital cost of heat pump and UFH is prohibitive. Ground source only makes it compatible with gas.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

About 5% comes from Russia.
--
*Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:>> We are now are semi-dependent on Russian gas

Please eff off as you are an idiotic plantpot.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
tim..... wrote:

Well if we get another world consumer boom and oil goes to $150 a barrel again, then nuclear electricity is cheaper..
And if its a heat pump, its cost competitive right now...with any other fuel.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.