I'm wondering whether I should fork out for gas central heating in my new
house. However, I wonder if elctric heating will be cheaper than gas
heating after they build the new nuclear power stations. I think that's
what happened in France, isn't it?
I'd agree with that. I guess the current nuclear electricity cost must be
similar to combined cycle gas turbine electricity, which gives you about 60%
But if it's heat you want, using gas direct gives you about 90%.
Its about 1.somethng p per unit, but varies tremendously with the
interest rates, since to an extent, its all in the cost of the money you
borrowed to build the thing.
A complete contrast to a gas set, which is cheap to build but expensive
And what effect do you think the introduction of Travelling Wave
Reactors (TWRs) will have on the costs of nuclear electricity
generation? TWRs can be fuelled on depleted uranium with a single charge
lasting 60-100 years, they have higher thermal efficiencies than current
technologies and produce less waste. It's estimated that current
supplies of depleted uranium if used as fuel in TWRs would produce
sufficient electricity for 80% of the world's population to sustain
Western electricity consumption for >1000 years.
Very little CO2 emitted over that 1000 years either.
Make it more expensive mainly.
Fuel costs are currently so low in a Uranium reactor as to be almost
Build cots are everythung.
No one has ever built a TWR
Theoretically a fusion reactor could use distlled seawater and be even
cheaper. Don't see any about though.
The figures are even better for fusion, but no one has built a practical
unit yet either.
And with the Losers Party running everything, its unlikely anyone is
educated to a standard to allow them to, either.
I agree. It's well worth putting a billion into to see what the issues
are. Along with pebble beds, and laser ignited reactors and the like.
Both inerently stable and cant run away..
BUT in the meantime, we have enough expertise to utilise PWRS or
whatever the latest stable technology is.
Oddly enough it was at a point last year cheaper to use electricity than
OIL. taxation accounts for some of it. The heat pump calculations I did
- because the 'effective' efficiency of a heat pump is 300-400%
typically, meant it was very comparable with direct fuel burning as far
as burn to heat output conversion efficiencies and costs went. Possibly
At one point, cheap rate overnight electricity got cheaper than oil too.
Even without the heat pump.
If you use a heat pump, electricity is actually cheaper than gas or oil,
just about. its certainly in thee area where a blanket statement is not
true. The devil is in the details.
secondly, the efficiency you get from a petrol or diesel generator is
far less than you get from a properly constructed power station, and
you will almost certainly end up paying road fuel tax on the fuel. Even
if you don't, its very marginal. And you cant get a domestic nuclear
reactor, which is of course currently pipping the post as the cheapest
way to push electrons down wires.
you probably only get 20% eff. form a diesel generator, and that varies
with the load. A good power station averages the load of lots of people,
and achieves up to 60%. AND they can forward buy fuel in bulk.
You can get 80% eff* off a boiler heating water. Maybe more.
Compare that with 60% for the power station and 95% for the grid. No
point in direct electrical heating carbon wise unless you use nukes to
Finally, if nuclear power becomes widely adopted, and fossil fuel start
to get hard to extract, and or attracts a carbon tax, electricity will
in time be cheaper than fossil fuel.
*true thermal efficiency, not concocted figures by boiler manufacturers.
Of course its feasible: whether its cost effective is quite another matter.
Its a bloody poor way to make watts in summer!
at 20% efficiency a 25bhp engine (small 2 liter non turbo diesel at say
3000 RPM) is generating 15Kw of electricity, and 60KW of heat!
I often need 15Kw electricity. I NEVER need 60KW of heat.
In direct heating terms, probably not - as a large proportion of our
electricity will continue to be generated from fossil fuels, even when
more nuclear power stations come on stream (plus the costs of cleaning
up emissions from both existing and new fossil fuel power stations).
However, electrically powered ground/air source heat pumps might
become much more attractive, as they already have a considerable
efficiency advantage over direct heating.
The initial costs are considerable though, and your site must be
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:36:11 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I think the running costs are similar: the possible advantage of heat
pumps nationally/strategically is that the electricity they use can in
principle be sourced from non-fossil sources (if such are available)
whereas GCH is of course restricted to fossil-fuel (unless one acquires
renewable source of methane or similar).
What do you mean, talking about it isn't oral sex?
My knowledge of these is not through practical experience of them,
This is heat pumping, *not* geothermal heat.
and everything else I've read about them says they deliver at least 3
times the heating efficiency of direct heating, *because* heat is
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.