No planning to be granted unless.......

fishdog

I feel that many of the suggestions for making our country “greener” are either unworkable or in practice will have very little positive impact on our planet. Often these well intentioned measures will be very unpopular due to the general public’s selfishness. I have an idea that will address all of those issues I believe.

Geothermal and solar heating for homes has been proved to be effective and extremely efficient. The problem is that they are both expensive (and sometimes impossible) to install after a house is build. However these systems are easy to install as a house is being built, and would not increase the overall price of building a house by very much if the house has been designed with this in mind.

Therefore I suggest that planning permission should ONLY be grated to buildings that use this type of system or similar. I know that monthly mortgage repayments would be slightly higher due to the increased build cost, but monthly savings on heating would more than pay for this. The value of the house would also be dramatically increased.

I do not see why a large housing estate could not have several geothermal heat pumps heating a multitude of homes from a small building housing the necessary equipment. A modest yearly fee can pay maintenance of the equipment. This would be less than a yearly boiler service fee. Heat pumps can be run at night to avail of off peak electricity to further improve efficiency.

I feel that at the moment it is short sighted, expensive and plain crazy to allow anybody to build houses that are heated by oil, gas or electricity. It is simply wrong to keep giving planning permission to developers to keep building homes that are heated in this way when there is a viable, cost effective and greener alternative.

With my suggestion:

1) Heating costs of homes would be reduced considerably.

2) The ESB would have less peaks and troughs in their demand.

3) Carbon emissions would be reduced.

4) The building industry would be able to sustain this boom for far longer.

Everyone is a winner!!!

I think it is important to note that solar panels can do more than “what it says on the tin”, they are aesthetically pleasing and they project a modern, positive image of Ireland.

I have worked in the construction industry as an electrician for 16 years. At present I am a full time student in DIT on a degree course studying to be an electrical engineer. I have hands on experience installing geothermal heat pumps, wind turbines and solar panels, so I do know what I am talking about.

nam76loc

I think Dun Laoghaire Rathdown CoCo have introduced this, any planning permission lodegd after Jan 1st next will be subject to renewable energy requirements

fishdog

No, they have looked for houses to be moe energy efficient mainly by having a higher standard of insulation. They will still grant planning to new houses that have oil or gas boilers.

ardara1

fishdog wrote:

No, they have looked for houses to be moe energy efficient mainly by having a higher standard of insulation. They will still grant planning to new houses that have oil or gas boilers.

If you follow you're argument - why do you want to install a geothermal system at all - if the houses were well built you'll not need a 20000 Euro heating system - a small gas boiler will give you heating when it might be needed during th nigh in winter - you'll have to plan days ahead to turn your geothermal on and off.

Go for solar water they're great - but not all roofs face the right direction to take advantage.

fishdog

Im sorry ardra I dont understand what you are trying to say.

I am saying that we should try not to install any more gas or oil heating systems for a variety of resaons (pollution, cost, world running out of oil etc.). My alternitive is to use renewable energy such as solar panels, geothermal heat pumps etc. I have worked on these systems as an electrician as I have with gas and oil boilers. I install the same make and model of time clock on the heat pumps as on conventional boilers. It is this time clock that the end user turns on which ever heating system that they have on and off with. I fail to see the need to plan days ahead and I am unsure where you got €20000 from.

I accept that this is not a runner in some situations, but it could be in many if it was planned form the start of the design process. What other options do we have??

ardara1

fishdog wrote:

Im sorry ardra I dont understand what you are trying to say.

I am saying that we should try not to install any more gas or oil heating systems for a variety of resaons (pollution, cost, world running out of oil etc.). My alternitive is to use renewable energy such as solar panels, geothermal heat pumps etc. I have worked on these systems as an electrician as I have with gas and oil boilers. I install the same make and model of time clock on the heat pumps as on conventional boilers. It is this time clock that the end user turns on which ever heating system that they have on and off with. I fail to see the need to plan days ahead and I am unsure where you got €20000 from.

I accept that this is not a runner in some situations, but it could be in many if it was planned form the start of the design process. What other options do we have??

Hi FD - your GSHP runs heavily on electric - the most expensive and dirtiest of all fuels.

It's also running under floor heating that takes on average 3 hours to react to either way - Irelands climate is not that predictable. Last night was cold - we had to close the bedroom windows and put the heating on for 1 hour at 7pm - tonight my kids are comfortable with the windows open - there's no heating on - do that with UFH.

On the cost of geothermal why not ust spend it on the building fabric and insulate the place properly - cut the heating demand - no need for UFH

fishdog

ardara1 wrote:

Hi FD - your GSHP runs heavily on electric - the most expensive and dirtiest of all fuels.

A small amount, yes you are correct. However most of the energy required is comming from the heat of the water in the ground. But I agree, it is a shame that it has to use any.

It's also running under floor heating that takes on average 3 hours to react to either way

It can also do radaitors. If there are room stats they can ensure that each room is at a constant temerature. If all of the rooms are above the set points the heat pump will not run even if the time clock is at an "on" time.

- Irelands climate is not that predictable. Last night was cold

Therefore when the temerature drops below a preset temerature the heat pump comes on. If the house is well insulated the temperature in the house should not be able to drop so quickly that the heat pump can not react quick enough.

-On the cost of geothermal why not ust spend it on the building fabric and insulate the place properly - cut the heating demand - no need for UFH

I think insulation is a great idea, but it is only part of the solution.

Do-more

fishdog wrote:

I think insulation is a great idea, but it is only part of the solution.

Why only part? A well designed and insulated house can run without any supplemental heating.

If you really feel you need an additional heat source add an electric or solar coil to your heat recovery ventilation system. The max. requirement should be 3kW.

fishdog wrote:

It can also do radaitors. If there are room stats they can ensure that each room is at a constant temerature.

Heat pumps will only produce water at approx. 50 deg C. traditional radiators do not run efficently at that temperature. You can run heat pumps with fancoils but frankly your money would be far better spent on good insulation, windows doors etc.

Also it is best to run heat pumps with underfloor where they are timed to come on just once a day. Running with fancoils (or rads) means many more stop/start cycles in the day which can diminish the service life of your heat pump.

fishdog wrote:

If all of the rooms are above the set points the heat pump will not run even if the time clock is at an "on" time.

If only one or two rooms are below setpoint it is incredibly inefficent to have a heat pump starting and running for a short time just to top them up.

fishdog

A well designed and insulated house can run without any supplemental heating.

Because a passive house like this has too many restrictions that can impact on how comfortably you can live. I do like the concept, but only to a point.


I will finish this post later, got to catch a dart!!!

Red Alert

At the moment, I'd imagine that underfloor with fancoil backup (possibly as part of a HRV vent system) is probably the best way to go. Underfloor provides bulk of heat, fancoil with possible inline gas heating element can bring things quickly up to temp if problem arises.

With such a high thermal inertia, the electricity suppliers could start offering load shedding and absorption programmes which use people's heat pumps to balance demand throughout the day.

ednwireland

fishdog wrote:

A small amount, yes you are correct. However most of the

i think most geothermal systems have two 1.5 kw pumps thats by no stretch of the imagination a small amount, i beleive newer vertical systms are more efficient
i agree that the focus should be on reducing consumption - been round insulating my uninsulated doors (polystyrene and timber cladding) last winter and it made a huge difference - aparently no u values required for doors until recently.
the problem is reducing consumption doesnt suit big business even though its the most logical thing to do
solar water heating i would put in if i could afford it

nam76loc

fishdog wrote:

No, they have looked for houses to be moe energy efficient mainly by having a higher standard of insulation. They will still grant planning to new houses that have oil or gas boilers.

I think in fairness they're looking for a little more than that:

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000
DUN LAOGHAIRE-RATHDOWN COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2004-2010
NOTICE OF THE MAKING OF VARIATION NUMBER 5
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 13 (8) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 that on 12th February, 2007, the Council of the County of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown made a Variation to the County Development Plan, 2004- 2010 entitled:-

NEW ENERGY POLICY ET7

The Council will encourage more sustainable development through energy end use efficiency, increasing the use of renewable energy, and improved energy performance of all new building developments throughout the County.
This policy objective will be achieved by:

1. Encouraging responsible environmental management in construction;

2. Promoting sustainable approaches to housing developments by spatial planning, layout, design and detailed specification;

3. Ensuring high standards of energy efficiency in all housing developments and encouraging developers, owners and tenants to improve the environmental performance of the building stock, including the deployment of renewable energy;

4. Through the introduction of a performance based CO2 emissions target for all new building developments greater than 10 dwellings or greater than 1,000 sqm floor area for non residential and mixed developments;

5. In meeting the CO2 performance target, the development shall achieve a collective average reduction of at least 40% in energy consumption for space heating, cooling, water heating and lighting within the development, relative to the baseline of existing regulatory and design practice and using the methodology outlined below.

The specific approach is to set a target, accompanied by a menu of design and technology options, including renewable energy technologies, as a means of offering flexibility towards meeting that target in the most technically and economically feasible manner on a case by case basis.

The CO2 emissions target shall require a collective reduction of at least 40% in CO2 emissions deriving from energy use for space heating, cooling, water heating and lighting within the development, relative to a baseline of prevailing norms. The initial baseline of comparison is the DoEHLG Technical Guidance Document L (Conservation of Fuel and Energy - May 2006 Edition).

Furthermore at least 20% of space and water heating shall be from a renewable energy source.

Before construction starts for new developments greater than 10 dwellings or greater than 1,000 sqm, including apartment blocks, due consideration shall be given to the technical, environmental and economic feasibility of using alternative energy systems. The preferred methodology for assessing the feasibility of such sustainable energy systems shall be the Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI) software tool or other acceptable methodology.

In pursuit of these targets, a menu of superior design and specification options will include the following:


Site layout and associated bio-climatic/passive solar design measures
Enhanced levels of insulation in walls, floors, glazing and doors
Reduced uncontrolled air infiltration losses
Use of healthy and controllable ventilation systems
Heat recovery systems
Use of daylight
Water conservation measures
More sustainable building materials
Improved heat generation appliance efficiency, e.g. condensing boilers
Intelligent heating system configuration and time/temperature/zone/function controls
Efficient provision of domestic hot water
Fuel switching to low or zero CO2 emitting fuels
Energy efficient lighting systems
Incorporation of renewable energy systems e.g. active solar, heat pumps, biomass
Provision of appropriate group or district heating systems.

In the case of non-domestic buildings additional options include:
Heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems
Electrical energy use including motive power
Efficient lighting systems and controls
Building Energy Management Systems
Occupancy Controls
Monitoring and Targeting Systems
Combined Heat and Power (CHP).

Other measures that can contribute to the energy efficiency and renewable energy targets can also be considered.

The implementation date for Energy Policy ET7 is 1st January 2008 and all appropriate developments seeking planning permission from that date will be subject to this new policy.

The reason for the variation is to encourage more sustainable development through energy end use efficiency, increasing the use of renewable energy, and improved energy performance of all new building developments throughout the County.

Copies of the Variation are available for inspection at the offices of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Economic Development and Planning Department, County Hall, Marine Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin between the hours of 10.00am and 4.00pm and at Dundrum Local Office, Dundrum Office Park, Main Street, Dundrum, Co. Dublin between the hours of 9.30am to 12.30pm and 1.30pm to 4.30pm, Monday to Friday (Public Holidays excluded).

M. Gough
Director of Services
Economic Development and Planning Department

15th February, 2007.

fishdog

Look I know you can pick little holes here and there in my argument here and there but I feel than the general thrust of my argument is correct.

That is that a house heated with a geothermal heat pump, solar panels etc. is better for the enviroment and cheaper to run. Therefore my proposal is that when possible new homes being built should have to use renewable energy of some form or they should not get planning. I do not believe that gas or oil fired boilers are the way foward. It is unfortunate that heat pumps require electricty to run, but this can be generated in more enviromently way and the amount of electricty required is less and less with improvements in heat pump technology.

I agree with other posters that improving the insulation in homes helps a huge amount.

jackofalltrades

Often these well intentioned measures will be very unpopular due to the general public’s selfishness.

Calling the public selfish is never going to help in trying to sell them an idea. I think there's a very strong appetite in the general public to be greener, but its up to people like yourself to convince them, most people don't know much about geothermal energy or solar energy systems.

As other people have said tougher insulation standards for new homes and grants for re-insulating our current housing stock would be a good start and would lead a significant decrease in energy use.

air

A geothermal heat pump installed in Ireland today is no more environmentally friendly than a gas or oil burner. The COP of the heat pump is cancelled out by the inefficiency of the transfer of energy from the oil/gas/coal at the power station to the motive energy required to drive the pump.
This will change when / if we ever have an electricity suppy with an appreciable green component.

Solar is a different story.

CJhaughey

I would agree with Air in that Geothermal systems are not that practical when you look at how hopelessly inefficient the insulation is in most houses.
If the houses were insulated properly then the need for energy consumption is greatly reduced, Did anyone see Nationwide early in the week?
There was a piece about Passive Houses being built by Scanhome.ie in Galway, They have no heating apart from passive solar and the appliances and body heat .
That to me is more the road that we should be looking at in terms of energy comsumption.
I would be in favour of a massive increase in insulation values for houses being made a statutory requirement, with associated inspection regime.
coupled with effective sanctions ie If it does not meet regs it will have to be taken down!.

ardara1

CJhaughey wrote:

.... with associated inspection regime.
coupled with effective sanctions ....

Fair play to you CJ - we should have this as the motto on the top of the board. Whether we're after a reduction in CO2, or cheaper energy - it's about ENERGY EFFICENCY - which in simple terms mean wearing a jumper, or in building terms - making sure the jumper fits! Well said.

fishdog

air wrote:

A geothermal heat pump installed in Ireland today is no more environmentally friendly than a gas or oil burner

Sorry, but that is complete rubbish! The energy consumed running a heat pump that is properly installed is a small percentage of the total energy required to heat a house.

Why are there grants available if you are correct??

If it caused as much pollution it would mean the ESB are burning as much gas/oil/turf to generate the electricty for me to run my heat pump. In which case they would have to charge me more than it costs them in order to make a profit. So how come it costs so much less to heat a house with a heat pump??

I have never come across such negativity towards heat pumps.

I agree with CJhaughy about inspection regime. That is what the building industry lacks across the board.

air

fishdog wrote:

Why are there grants available if you are correct??

Well as I said they are a better option when the electricity is generated from green sources, perhaps they're looking at the long term.

fishdog wrote:

If it caused as much pollution it would mean the ESB are burning as much gas/oil/turf to generate the electricty for me to run my heat pump.

They do as it stands!
Using a heat pump is going to cost a lot less than heating using resistive heating but the costs would be very close to fossil fuel heating if you were buying your fossil fuels at the same cost per unit of energy that the ESB are.

---

How it works at present is something like this:
The ESB burn 3 units of fossil fuel energy.
This is converted to heat and then electricity and transported to your home.
The burning of these 3 units of fuel energy results in one unit of electrical energy reaching your house.

You use one unit of electrical energy to run your heat pump.
Your heat pump outputs 3 units of heat energy.

Why not just burn the fossil fuels at home?

---

fishdog wrote:

I have never come across such negativity towards heat pumps.
.

I think you're mistaking objective discussion for negativity. I think heat pumps are a great idea, its just that they're don't really deserve the green image they have when installed in this country (as things stand).

bushy...

air wrote:

.......................

---

How it works at present is something like this:
The ESB burn 3 units of fossil fuel energy.
This is converted to heat and then electricity and transported to your home.
The burning of these 3 units of fuel energy results in one unit of electrical energy reaching your house.

You use one unit of electrical energy to run your heat pump.
Your heat pump outputs 3 units of heat energy.

Why not just burn the fossil fuels at home?

---

They'd be worth it (pollution wise ) with reactor providing the power , those 10MW Toshiba ones look good for small scale stuff

fishdog

Rubbish!

Sorry your figures are incorrect. To put it simply, I live in a house 1450 sq. feet heat by a gas boiler (boiler not my choice). A customer lives in a house in excess of 3000 sq. feet. His electricty bill is far smaller than my electricty and gas bill combined. Most of the energy heating the house comes from the water in the ground. He also has solar panels. This house has a stat and corrisponding zone valve per room, so unused rooms can be turned down or off.

At the start the ESB bills were high. With advice from the engineer we made constant adjustments to the system, which improved efficiency. For example, a dual tarrif (day & night) meter was installed. No zone is ever allowed to drop below a certain temerature, I think it is about 16C. Generally all rooms sit at 21C.

I have seen cases where heat pumps have been installed very badly or with poor control resulting in increased costs.

Do-more

fishdog wrote:

I have seen cases where heat pumps have been installed very badly or with poor control resulting in increased costs.

Unfortunately that seems to be the norm in this country, the installation of both UFH and heatpumps seems to be very hit and miss with lots of problems as a result.

In particular heatpumps encounter lots of problems with "rule of thumb" sizing being used, resulting in under or oversizing of the heatpump. Incorrectly sized ground loops and installations in unsuitable ground conditions are also all too common.

Another point to note is that the COP of ground source heat pumps is almost always overstated. This is because COP is measured under laboratory conditions and therefore only relates to the COP at startup of the system. As the pump is running the heat from the soil directly next to the ground loop is stripped away quickly and the heat must be drawn from soil further and further away from the ground loop with the COP steadily falling as a result. This is particularly the case if the heatpump is running on nightsaver electricity when there is no solar replenishment of the soil.

Air source heat pumps don't have this problem, but unfortunately because of our relatively high humidity here (compared to Scandinavia where they are usefully employed) they do suffer from iceing of the evaporator. Electricity must then be consumed de-iceing which results in.....a reduction of COP!

As for heat pumps running off well water, the electricity useage in pumping water to the surface can be very considerable, however the major problem with them is if the temperature of your well water ever dips below 7 degrees C. As the heatpump will be stripping about 7 degrees from the temperature of the water, falling below this level will result in frezzing of the heat exchanger plates and probable destruction of your heat pump!

In rubbishing air's figures you are looking at a cost basis for your comparison whilst air has rightly made the comparison on a carbon basis. (We are in the Green issues forum not the Bargain alerts forum after all!;) )

Forgive my negativity, but I am just putting forward the cases for why heatpumps are not the answer to all of Ireland's heating problems.

Personally as I have said, my next house will be built to passive or near passive insulation levels with an active HRV system (which is a small air to air heatpump!) which will make up any shortfall in heating requirements.

If you really want a zero carbon heating system Steorn should have a real "free energy" heating system available in 2 or 3 years time which you could power by your own mini windturbine!

fishdog

Originaly posted by Do-more

Personally as I have said, my next house will be built to passive or near passive insulation levels with an active HRV system (which is a small air to air heatpump!) which will make up any shortfall in heating requirements.

So you will built a house with very good insulation and install a heat pump?

Exactly the type I house I have suggested in this thread! This is the type of house I believe should be given planning i.e. no gas or oil boiler and high insulation value.:D

sarahirl

personally, from what i've heard from various sources, that whoever is in charge of the planning process in this country should be shot out of a cannon. they have allowed homes to blight the countryside, homes to be built too close to environmental amenities such as lakes or on floodplains, they've allowed homes to be built to substandard insulation levels - being able to hear your neighbour make a cup of tea and letting all the heat in house out the windows, walls, roofs, etc, they've allowed homes to be built without corresponding upgrades in services such as waste water treatment plants, the list goes on. what has this resulted in - contamination of our water supplies! i totally agree that homes should be built to better standards - much higher insulation and air tightness, solar panels/wind turbines as standard. although i would agree more with collective schemes but as a nation we seem obsessed with living as far away from eachother as is humanly possible. i myself would love a home in the country with a few acres, but it has to be considered what our 'needs' result in in relation to the impact we are having on the environment as a whole. dick roche has let the planning process run rampant across our nation and he says 'ah sure we're grand'. it's very frustrating!!

CJhaughey

sarahirl wrote:

whoever is in charge of the planning process in this country should be shot out of a cannon.

I would respectfully suggest that they be lined up against a wall and shot with a ball of their own sh1t.
It is not just frustrating sarahirl it is criminal, 10 yrs of one of the most massive building booms in europe and we are left with a housing stock that will most likely not pass in the new BER scheme.
For the sake of the countries energy security alone the regs should have been changed, but developers have really muscled the govt and ensured that the issue of energy efficiency hasn't really had much airing.
It is terrible that many people will be forced to live in cold and inefficient housing precisely because the government has failed them.

Capt'n Midnight

ardara1 wrote:

If you follow you're argument - why do you want to install a geothermal system at all - if the houses were well built you'll not need a 20000 Euro heating system - a small gas boiler will give you heating when it might be needed during th nigh in winter - you'll have to plan days ahead to turn your geothermal on and off.

Passive heating , works in Sweden and they have worse winters than we do. You'd need the gas or an imersion for hot water. Cooking, solar, people and electrical appliances supply the rest of the heat.

http://www.localplanet.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=203&Itemid=53

Do you notice an increase in the number of people inquiring about your passive house, and what are the key points of passive design?
"An enormous interest, everybody wants a passive house.”
"The most important thing about a passive house is that it needs less energy. It is important to accept a few facts if you want to build a passive house at a reasonable price. Preferably single story, with only a few windows to the north, most on the south. Make the shape of the house in such a way that ordinary tradesmen can finish it: if you start to do funny things with split levels and things like that, it is impossible to get it airtight, and to avoid cold bridging. You can create unusual shapes inside, but they have to be down to earth practical and rectangular on the outside. On fashion, take something that was very hot in the seventies; how hot is that now? How well does the traditional shaped Irish house which was fairly rectangular hold up over time? It holds up better, and these fashion items, they go out of fashion; always. All these funny angles that they put on houses today are a disaster for function and long life span. Every housing estate is full of this and it is sickening to see such heat losses; the bay windows that hang outside the wall probably use as much heat as the entire house does."

fishdog

sarahirl wrote:

personally, from what i've heard from various sources, that whoever is in charge of the planning process in this country should be shot out of a cannon. they have allowed homes to blight the countryside, homes to be built too close to environmental amenities such as lakes or on floodplains, they've allowed homes to be built to substandard insulation levels - being able to hear your neighbour make a cup of tea and letting all the heat in house out the windows, walls, roofs, etc, they've allowed homes to be built without corresponding upgrades in services such as waste water treatment plants, the list goes on. what has this resulted in - contamination of our water supplies! i totally agree that homes should be built to better standards - much higher insulation and air tightness, solar panels/wind turbines as standard. although i would agree more with collective schemes but as a nation we seem obsessed with living as far away from eachother as is humanly possible. i myself would love a home in the country with a few acres, but it has to be considered what our 'needs' result in in relation to the impact we are having on the environment as a whole. dick roche has let the planning process run rampant across our nation and he says 'ah sure we're grand'. it's very frustrating!!

I agree 100%.
I was never suggesting that heat pumps were the complete solution, just that they could be part of it. Solar, wind turbines, hydro, real insulation etc. etc....All have their part to play.

When I started this thread it was to suggest that we should stop granting planning permission to unefficient homes that are exclusively heated burning fossil fuels.

If you want planning and dont like heat pumps for whatever reason, choose an alternitive, but not an oil or gas boiler!

air

fishdog wrote:

Rubbish!

Sorry your figures are incorrect.

Well,which figures are you taking issue with exactly?
Granted I was using very round figures, but they are in the ball park (COP of 3 and efficiency of electrical generation,distribution etc of 33%)

If my figures above are close to the truth and a heat pump is indeed cheaper than fossil fuel heating in the same house, then this only reflects the disparity in price per unit of fuel that the ESB pays versus yourself.
Given that they buy cheap fuels such as heavy fuel oil and the like, this is quite possible. The fuels that you and I have access to are no doubt subject to more taxation also.

To go into it in more detail, this is what happens when you turn on a heat pump.
The ESB fire a boiler with heavy fuel oil or gas and produce steam to power a turbine. Some heat is lost in this process through heat loss to ambient and friction etc in the turbine.
The turbine spins and generates electricity (more losses here in cooling the stator, inefficiencies in the provision of the excitation current etc). The electricity in the station I am familiar with is generated at 20Kv and immediately stepped up to either 110Kv or 220Kv for transmission - further losses here.
The electricity is transported to your home over the lines (line losses) and through at least 2 / 3 step down transformers before it reaches your house (more transformer losses).
It then goes through your distribution board and to the motor where it is converted from electrical energy to mechanical energy (more losses in the motor itself).
Now I would be very surprised if the conversion factor from the chemical energy in that fuel to the motive energy for your heat pump compressor is greater than 33% .

Now compare that to burning natural gas in a condensing boiler at home where the conversion should be over 95% efficient for a modern boiler.

If the cost of the input fuels is the same, then for a heat pump to be more efficient is reliant on the efficiency of the above process being raised above 33%(taking a COP of 3).

Personally, I feel that it is a huge waste to use all that generation and distribution equipment to shift heat from one place to another when that heat could be created on site far more efficiently.

While your simple comparison between your experience with your own house and the house of your customer might seem valid, there are many possible factors that could make the comparison invalid, such as:
1. They may heat the house to a different temperature to your own
2. The houses may have differing levels of insulation and heat loss
3. Their usage pattern for their house may be completely different
4. Their electricity usage pattern for other appliances may be completely different.

fishdog wrote:

I have seen cases where heat pumps have been installed very badly or with poor control resulting in increased costs.

Indeed, poor installation and control will increase costs with any form of heating system.

In relation to the comparison being on a cost / carbon basis, the two are generally quite closely related anyway in energy prices and even in the pricing of commodity goods.

fishdog

Sevral points to look at here:

1) The heating of the house is done by taking the heat out of a large amount of water in the ground. Unfortunately this requires the use of some electricity. The amount of electricity used is small. At full load the heat pump pulls about 14 amps (I may be wrong on this, I measured it about a year ago, but I will check). This equates to about 3 kW, i.e. 3 units per hour. No matter what way you look at it this a a small amount of power to heat a house that is over 3,000 square feet. It would add up to a very large electricty bill if it was pulling 14 amps 24 hours a day, but it is not, not even close.

2) I keep stressing that I am not saying that heat pumps are the answer to everything. They are possibly part of the solution. High quality insulation, wind turbines, solar panels are all options. I keep repeating this but my point is that I believe that we should not grant planning permission to buildings that are heated exclusively by fossil fuels. A heat pump was one suggestion. If you have an issue with heat pumps, fine dont use them, use an alternitive. But tell me Air do you agree with my arguement leaving aside your disagreement with me about heat pumps? I did not start this thread to aruge about if heat pumps are good or bad!

3) It is inportant to note that electricity does not have to be generated by burning fossil fuels. I know that most of it is at present, but this is slowly starting to change. A gas boioler even with 95% efficiency must burn gas!! A heat pump can use electricity generated in any manner!!

4) Transformer efficiency is typically well over 96%. Large transformer that the ESB use are far more efficient than the air cooled transformers you use for down lighters. Transmission losses can not be eliminated, but they are reduced substantially by transmitting at much higher voltages. To get the votage higher step up transformers must be used. At a later stage step down transformers must be used. Although as you point out each transformer has a loss, the losses are much less than transmitting at the voltage the electricity is generated at. Line losses = Current squared X line resistance (unit, watts). Higher voltage = Lower current, hence less losses.

5) My suggestion was that you would have a large heat pump for multiple dewellings. This has been done sucessfully in Dublin already. This would mean that a 3 phase heat pump would be the obvious choice. 3 phase means, increased efficiency, more reliability, less maintenance, cheaper motors (for same power output).

Perhaps to go with this a large wind turbine that can sell electricity back to the grid, or power the heat pump as required.

6) A gas or oil boiler also needs electricity to function and central heating requires a circulation pump! Like the heat pump the electricity used in making the boiler function is small in comparison to the energy required to heating a house.

air

No, I dont disagree with any of the above really.
I agree basically with everything you are saying, except that I would argue that at present heat pumps dont help make a house any greener due to where you source your energy.
1) Everything you say there is true, I never said heat pumps use a huge amount of energy, I just argued that a lot of energy is used at the power station to produce the relatively small amount of electrical energy that they consume at the house (small amount relative to equivalent resistive heating options). As stated I reckon that at present they output roughly the same amount of heat energy at the house as is input in the power station.
2)No argument here
3)No argument here either, heat pumps would be mighty if we could up the proportion of green generated electricity that comes down our lines.
4) Agreed, transformer should be around 95%, however your electrical energy will go through at least 4 of them. Taking traffo efficiency as 97% gives a total energy loss of about 11% for a 4 stage system (100 -((((100*.97)*.97)*.97)*.97) )
The large transformers used by the ESB are actually air cooled, they have large oil filled radiators all around and usually about 12 3 phase cooling fans that run intermittently. I spent a few months working on them at one point.

5) I'm sure this would result in economies of scale if there werent any issues with contention on when it should run etc.

6) There's a big difference here though, the electricity used by a boiler is normally for control only and is negligible. Running a circulation pump is a small ancilliary load related to heat distribution. The electrical energy used by a heat pump however is a large component of the energy that it outputs, apples and oranges really.

fishdog

air wrote:

The large transformers used by the ESB are actually air cooled, they have large oil filled radiators all around and usually about 12 3 phase cooling fans that run intermittently.

This oil makes them oil cooled.

air wrote:

6) There's a big difference here though, the electricity used by a boiler is normally for control only and is negligible. Running a circulation pump is a small ancilliary load related to heat distribution. The electrical energy used by a heat pump however is a large component of the energy that it outputs, apples and oranges really.

But like a heat pump, only a small amout of electricty in means alot more heat energy out.

I spent months working on large transformers also!

Do-more

air wrote:

In relation to the comparison being on a cost / carbon basis, the two are generally quite closely related anyway in energy prices and even in the pricing of commodity goods.

Do you have any figures for comparison of different energy types? It would be interesting to see what the variations are.

Just comparing gas for example, for a specific heat output carbon emmissions should be the same, however if you compare Mains gas vs. Bulk tank vs. Bottled gas you have approx. two fold difference in price between the extremes...

air

fishdog wrote:

This oil makes them oil cooled.

Yeah, transformer -> oil -> air. I guess practically everything that generates waste heat transfers it to the air eventually but oil is the transfer medium here.

fishdog wrote:

But like a heat pump, only a small amout of electricty in means alot more heat energy out.

Yes but in a heat pump the proportion of electrical energy is much higher - say 33% vs 3% (Take a 20Kw oil burner with a 500w circulation pump plus 50w running power.

fishdog wrote:

I spent months working on large transformers also!

Not very exciting is it

Do-more wrote:

Do you have any figures for comparison of different energy types? It would be interesting to see what the variations are.

No, I don't have any figures but I've seen discussions on other forums where guys work out the relative costs of a ton of wood vs a ton of coal etc.
Normally the market evens out prices across all energy types but with adjustments for cleanliness of fuel, convenience etc.
For example coal would likely always be cheaper than natural gas per unit of energy but it's much dirtier and more inconvenient to use.

Do-more wrote:

Just comparing gas for example, for a specific heat output carbon emmissions should be the same, however if you compare Mains gas vs. Bulk tank vs. Bottled gas you have approx. two fold difference in price between the extremes...

Yeah, thats a good example, you're paying a large premium here for the bottling and / or delivery of the bottled gas & the cost of the provision of the storage I guess.

fishdog

air wrote:

Yeah, transformer -> oil -> air. I guess practically everything that generates waste heat transfers it to the air eventually but oil is the transfer medium here.

Still they are refered as oil cooled!

air wrote:

Yes but in a heat pump the proportion of electrical energy is much higher - say 33% vs 3% (Take a 20Kw oil burner with a 500w circulation pump plus 50w running power.

Sure but it is possible to run a heat pump without burning fossil fuels. Or at least install a wind turbine that sells back as much power to the grid as you are consuming.

air wrote:

Not very exciting is it

Working on transformers, no!! 620 square singles on the secondary side of a transformer to be made off, lugged etc. But it was indoors and outdoors was 20 degrees below freezing!!


At least if we could build all new homes heated with anything but gas or oil in the future when these fuels run out or cost so much we can not afford them people will have an alternitive.

air

fishdog wrote:

Still they are refered as oil cooled!

Yes, I was agreeing with you, I misstated originally, I thought it was clear that I was admitting that when i said "Yeah" and "oil is the transfer medium here".

The reason that I brought it up originally was to highlight that they do require active cooling as they generate a sizeable amount of heat - i.e. significant losses.
Anyway, yes I totally agree with the point of the post, the planning requirements / building regs should be totally overhauled so that all houses in future require little or no fossil fuel energy to run.

fishdog

I always said you were a nice guy, Air!!

Do-more

Fishdog, you might be interested in the report by the UK Government on Low or Zero Carbon energy sources which can be downloaded here

fishdog

thanks

Mellor

fishdog wrote:

3) It is inportant to note that electricity does not have to be generated by burning fossil fuels. I know that most of it is at present, but this is slowly starting to change. A gas boioler even with 95% efficiency must burn gas!! A heat pump can use electricity generated in any manner!!

I think this is the one point that sums everything up.
If we generated clean electricity, we would we able to use heat pumps as a very green source of energy.
But we don't, as it stands electricty is incredibly dirty and a heat pump as the same carbon emissions as a good wood, gas appliance etc

From an environmental point of view, the money spent on a heat pump (as this moment in time) in better spent on making the house more thermally efficient. Heat pumps have great potential, but electricty isnt produced like that yet, and it is also possible to remove the need for such heat.

sarahirl

by the way, i've been searching through different candidates stances on the environment - handy site to sum up your feelings and send out automatic emails is www.StopClimateChaos.ie. Got a reply from Ruairi Quinn who prior to his reply I hadn't even considered voting for the Labour Party - but what he said has changed my mind;

- All new homes to be built to a passive house
standard from 2012.
■ Revised building regulations from 2008 so that
all new homes use 60% less energy for space
and water heating than houses built to current
building standards.
■ A radical overhaul of the Greener Homes
scheme to achieve ‘whole house’ emissions
reductions and energy saving measures.
■ The inclusion of heating systems run on
renewable energy in the Warmer Homes Scheme.
■ All new commercial and public buildings, where
practicable, to be carbon neutral (i.e. with low
energy requirements served by renewable heat
and electricity sources) by 2012.
■ Ensuring there are sufficient trained local authority
building inspectors to enforce regulations.
A ban on the use of hollow blocks in the
construction or extension of residential,
commercial and public buildings.
■ An energy audit of all public buildings and
retrofitting to a high standard of energy
efficiency within our first term of government.

To be honest, I'm thinking of giving him my number 1 vote as the Green Party as their manifesto states;

-introduce new national building standards to
require that new housing has 60% lower heat
energy demand than existing building standards,
and that 30% of that demand is met from
renewable sources (This has already been achieved
by Green councillors on Fingal County Council);
-provide urban micro-forests in all large open
spaces within new residential areas and ensure
that landscaping plans enhance biodiversity;
- ensure the focus of residential planning is to
create long-term sustainable communities;
• produce new Residential Guidelines based on
good urban design principles
• A National Landscape Policy and a Landscape
Ireland Act
• A Policy and Act on Urban Parks and Green Spaces
• Create parks and landscape services in all local
authorities on a phased basis
• Integrate landscape management into the NDP
2007-2013.
• increase spending on capital investment for
sewage treatment infrastructure in key towns
and villages under development pressure;
• introduce a new septic tank servicing subsidy for
rural home owners to reduce water pollution and
kick-start better monitoring of tanks;

Nothing about changing how homes are built, just where and the surrounding amenities and services. Important, but I don't think as important as changing fundamentally the construction of homes and a revamp of the Greener Homes Scheme to put the horse before the cart this time round. It just strikes me that the Greens are not spelling out what they want to achieve and the Labour Party have a clearer path...

Mellor

Well rurai quinn does have a background in construction, so he would be fairly up to speed with technologies