I wish we could afford one, but so many other maintenance issues come up, and our property tax and home insurance seem to go up every year, so who knows if we’ll ever be able to. We’re also well below even the new median salary of homes getting them. Just glad we can afford our reasonable mortgage and modest home in our high CoL area.
electricity is cool, but its not the only source of energy used in the country: fuel is also a source of energy and needs to be replaced. The amount of electricity consumed in France is about 470 Twh, and the amount of Joules used overall is equivalent to 1500 Twh, per year.
To be clear: you only need to replace the final energy from the fuel, not the primary energy. That’s a big deal, because it reduces the amount you need to replace sharply.
gasoline is 100 time more energy dense than electricity, thus even inefficiencies at 70% for IC engines, gasoline would still be more dense somehow. But there is alot of geopolotics and environement issues involved with fuel. The problem of energy density needs to be resolved for electricity so it would be more convenient to use, even at the industrial scale, which is a major carbon emitter.
The issue is that ICs just suck badly. So badly that carrying around half a ton of batteries still makes EVs much more efficent. that is not even looking at how petrol is made, which btw also requires electricity.
but heavier cars ruin the road structure. Highways need an alternative for bitumen, and overall electrify the production of road components, including steel and concrete.
Yep, road where goes with the square of vehicle weight. A singe semi truck is far more damaging than a hundred cars, and bikes don’t do damage period.
As for EVs, while they are often heavier than ICE’s, it’s only by a few percent, and less impactful than the vehicle obesity epidemic we’ve seen here in the US in the last decade.
It makes some sense to use electric or biofuel trucks to move goods for short distances as well as the distance between a facility and an distribution yard, but for long distance I fully agree that we called them multi modal containers for a reason. You can move a container from truck to electric train in seconds, and indeed we already do that for anything that has to travel by ship anyway.
Moving goods vast distances over land extremely cheaply and with zero carbon emissions is a problem that was solved long ago with overhead electrified rail, and it’s amazing to see the lengths we here in North America will go to avoid investing in it.
Moving goods vast distances over land extremely cheaply and with zero carbon emissions is a problem that was solved long ago with overhead electrified rail, and it’s amazing to see the lengths we here in North America will go to avoid investing in it.
i hope that this falls in the same line but in Germany they rather tow double trailers (40 tons) on the Autobahn (highway) instead of shipping by rail (which is maybe slower) while destroying highways in the process (always Baustelle: road works), and costing the taxpayer money to be repaired. So shipping companies like Hermes® would trick the taxpayer into competitve shipping prices and fast shipping but is in fact stealing tax money from him/her indirectly. Same day delivery is a disaster to nature. Why can’t people be patient about their goods being shipped 3-4 days later than usual? the logic beats me really :/
Actually better than that: I already have the batteries and the inverter and just need to get some solar panels to install (next year sometime) and then it will run almost completely on locally produced renewable energy.
Right now it is still on local grid power, but that is mostly geothermal and wind (at least 60% on average).
yea, there is nothing record about the number mentionned above. But journalists need clicks to get food on the table :/
edit:
The EU installed a record 56 GW of solar capacity in 2023, well above the 40 GW added in 2022, SolarPower Europe said on Tuesday as it released its 2023-2027 market outlook. This year is the third in a row in which the European solar market has experienced at least 40% growth. The expectations are for a slower expansion of 11% in 2024, when annual installations are seen to reach 62 GW
rudimentary (biaised and prone to error) back of a napkin math:
We have a house from the 1920s. The isolation in these houses are non existent or minimal. I isolated things i could access like the roof. But still i can really isolate the walls because since they are double walls (2 walls with a space between them) there is a lot of debris on the bottom which has to be cleared before they could be filled with isolation (expensive) if thats even possible if not (in our case it isnt) then i would have to put isolation on the outside which is a min of €20k. And i would have to isolate the floor another €8k and even then the house isnt 100% isolated. Then the cost of the heatpump which is about €10k to €15k in our case. And then if i really want off gas i also have to do some sort of boiler for water which i dont really have space for. So all in all it would be cheaper to build a new house then to retrofit my 100 year old house. And there are a lot of old houses here. Heatpumps in its current form are just not feasible for “normal” people.
These houses were never designed to be insulated or airtight, and (controversial take) IMHO often shouldn't be fully insulated. I lived in a larger old house, and we'd heat a limited amount of rooms. The rest of the house was largely unheated and not properly insulated, allowing moisture to come and go. You simply dress accordingly. That's why people were always wearing multiple layers and three piece wool suits back in the day.
Eg. some old houses use lime mortar instead of cement. Lime mortar is more porous than cement, so it absorbs and wicks moisture. If you insulate that improperly, you're asking for problems, because moisture will build up behind the insulation or get absorbed into it.
Same thing for the roof of an old property. They were designed to circulate air. Water gets under the tiles, the wooden structure get damp, but it's not a big problem, because the air and moisture can evaporate and escape. People will poorly insulate their roof, then end up with disastrous moisture/rot issues, resulting in very expensive structural damage.
TLDR: If you insulate these properties improperly, the chance of rot or moisture issues is not negligble, and arguably you should ask yourself if it's even a good idea to insulate at all, rather than simply adapting your lifestyle and heating a limited amount of rooms.
I agree with you. But there are breathable insulation types for these older houses. So they can be used. These are more expensive so should have higher tax breaks when applied to houses that need them.
Also I agree with the wearing extra clothing part. One extra jumper never hurt anyone.
But allow me to rant, for which I apologise. Feel free to ignore, it's not that interesting, and I'm not an expert.
The main thing is (properly installed) moisture barriers, if necessary increasing ventilation, getting rid of any moisture, choosing the right insulation for the right job, etc.
Eg. rockwool is very absorbant and is even used in hydroponics, but if you pop it in an attic, use a decent moisture barrier, but ventilate it well, it's not a disaster if it gets a bit moist sometimes. Meanwhile, in an (almost always) damp basement, forget using rockwool. Even using PUR/PIR foam is likely to cause issues, even if you use the best and most professionally installed moisture barrier. Better off using XPS. Meanwhile, when it comes to wall insulation in older houses, spraying foam into the intrawall cavity(inner wall, space, outerwall), can also cause issues.
The problem is that people will hire a company with a load of good reviews. They're friendly, they're affordable, afterwards the house is nice and warm and well insulated. Everything's covered up, so even if you were an expert, it's not as if you can check if they didn't half arse their job or if they aren't well intentioned morons who installed a moisture barrier the wrong way around so it only allows moisture in rather than letting it out.. But years later, when the damage starts becoming apparent, when people start falling ill from mould, or the concrete has become so weak so you have a pothole in your living room, the company likely doesn't exist anymore. And it's not as if you can hire a company with 50 years experience, because some of these kinds of insulation are quite new, and not everyone has experience working with older houses.
Eg. Lime mortar started being being phased out at the beginning of the 20th century, so it's no surprise someone who's 'only' 40 wouldn't know it has different properties than portland cement.
And for professionals who do know their shit, do it properly, and charge accordingly, it's not unlikely the homeowner will go with the cheaper offer because they don't think it'll make a big difference but can save thousands.
Cavity filled insulation is very common and relatively cheap. I know people who did it themselves with an expanding foam gun and multiple cases of foam.
They sometimes do, but some of these older brick houses use lime mortar which is far more breathable. Allows moisture in and out. Some older houses are also not that water tight anyway or often have moisture issues.
If you use the wrong foam, it absorbs that moisture. Bad. Think mouldy sponge. If you use the right foam, but don't ensure ventilation and tackle moisture issues? Still bad. If you don't mix the foam right or use too much? Possible structural damage. Or the foam's flammable which is an issue in an old house with old electrics.
The person you're responding to mentions people doing it themselves with an expanding foam gun, which as someone who worked in the industry gives me the shivers tbh. I mean, maybe they'll get lucky, but I wouldn't buy that house. If they used the wrong foam or did it wrong, it's not as if you're going to be able to remove it or start over. It's there forever now.
When I planned my house in 2018, my heat and water installer more or less shoved a heatpump on me, after he heard I wanted heated floors. I gave up on fighting him because I had a lot more on my plate at the time and told him “yeah, whatever, if you think that should be it…”. Cost me like, 10k€ more than the cheap gas heater I had planned, but then again, no gas tank, no chimney, it came to a point where I just didn’t give a fuck.
Last Christmas that dude got a very expensive bottle of whiskey from me.
A big part of the cost is probably refitting the heating system. Radiators are designed for water temps that are not efficient for a heat pump.
The default for newly built heat pump systems is underfloor heating but that’s not something you’d install unless you’re ripping out all floors anyway.
The alternative would be large panel radiators or an air/air heat pump with air ducts.
The other one is that a lot of people presume a house needs state of the art insulation, which obviously costs a lot to retrofit.
However in nearly all cases the old radiators work just fine with a heat pump as does the insulation. Underfloor heating and more insulation would make it more efficient, but that is often not worth the money, unless you do plan to do it anyway. When you redo the floors you can then add underfloor heating. Same for insulation, once you redo the roof or have to do work on the walls.
Confused side note - why does the title link point to a BBC story about South Africa? :) Edit: oh, I see.
To answer the question - I don’t know.
For comparison: installing an air-to-air heat pump for a tiny house in Estonia:
heat pump unit (smallest unit, maybe 3 KW heat output for 1 KW electrical input), bought at the deepest discount: 450 €
physical installation (mounting on a rack on a wall) - DIY, 0 €
electrical installation (running a cable to the outer unit and back to the inner from there) - DIY, 0 €
insulated copper heat pump pipes, 3 meters: less than 60 € (don’t remember)
pressing flanges on the pipes with a car brake pipe tool: DIY [note: leave to technicians, this is tricky], 0 €
sealing and letting the working fluid into pipes - technician’s visit, 100 €
I would imagine that an air-to-water unit costs more (the cheapest are probably over 1000 €, unless you use a pool heat pump which can be crappy), that an average German family lives in a far bigger house (so maybe 3 x more wattage, making the machine cost 3000 € instead), and that they need 3 installation technicians for several hours (maybe 1500 €).
Tiny house = very tiny and probably new and well insulated.
Estonia also likely has very low labour costs and less difficulty finding staff.
Hydronic systems are usually in the >15kW range, and often have split indoor and outdoor units so you need to both do the refrigerant piping between indoor and outdoor, and the water piping to the radiators. Many systems also include domestic hot water heating as part of the same system, so three separate sets of plumbing.
In most of the first world, purging linesets, vacuuming, and releasing refrigerant is usually ~$500.
That pricetag is just the unit and standard installation probably. Pieces are crazy high Here in Germany because the demand is crazy high. Not many heating installers have made the additional qualifications, so those who did can demand practically anything.
It’s not that the people don’t want the technology, the adoption pace is just higher then the supply chains can deliver.
And btw: you don’t need to reach 60°C with a heat pump. That would be pretty inefficient. That wouldn’t prevent installers from up selling you, but that’s a different story.
And btw: you don’t need to reach 60°C with a heat pump. That would be pretty inefficient.
Thanks for the feedback.
My boiler gives me control of the temp of the water running through the radiators which is independent of the room air temp thermostat. I set the water to ~55°C which seems to reasonably get the air to 17° without running continuously. I mentioned 60° because I figured that temp would enable someone to heat their room up quickly. I wonder why you say a heat pump would not need 60°. I would think the radiators need to reach a high temp like ~50—60° regardless of the kind of furnace. Maybe I’m doing something inefficient. Should I use a lower temp? I could lower the water temp but then there would be a point where the furnace has to run continuously which i would think is inefficient. I’m not sure how to find the efficiency sweet spot.
UPDATE
That pricetag is just the unit and standard installation probably. Pieces are crazy high Here in Germany because the demand is crazy high. Not many heating installers have made the additional qualifications, so those who did can demand practically anything.
Sounds reasonable. So if the demand has out-stripped supply on heat pumps, I wonder if geo-thermal would actually be cheaper than a heat pump ATM. IIRC the digging would be ~€10k (what I think is a typical price for digging a well… could be off). Though I don’t suppose you could use wall radiators with geothermal. Since geothermal water is only ~6° warmer in the winter, hydro-radiant flooring would have to be installed.
Running continuously is usually the ideal point. For heat pumps, it definitely is as the efficiency is highest with the lowest split between indoor and outdoor temps.
The issue is that if you suddenly want more heat, you first have to raise the water loop temperature before that can start pushing more heat into the house.
Systems are usually designed to keep up at perhaps 22-24C even on the worst days of winter; maintaining 17C is a lower target that can be met with less capacity and cooler radiators.
The issue is that the original radiators were sized to move the necessary n kW into the room with a water temperature of 60C. If you drop the water temperature to say 45-50C, you’re only going to get roughly two-thirds of the heat transfer. The other third needs to be made up somewhere else - additional heating or better insulation.
As you said, running continously is the ideal point for heat pumps. And for a continous load most radiators are big enough. In Germany they were scaled so they could heat up the rooms pretty quickly and then idle for time. Since thats not the goal with a heatpump we can use the idle time to even out the lower peak capabilities. You loose the ability to quickly adapt the room temperture, but with outdoor temperature probes connected to the heatpump this istn an issue. I am in the process of retrofitting my home to a heatpump and that what the engineer told me at least.
A bigger issue seems to be the single-pipe heating vs. two-pipe heating systems, but those are not the majority in germany and should be phased out anyway because they are so inefficient.
Levelized using which interest / discount rate ? As I understand, wind-power has recently been hit by high interest rates (which is relatively worse for renewables with high capital outlay yet low running costs).
It is a global study, so financing costs are different between countries. For example Chinas interest rate is at 10 year low right now. China also happens to be the largest market for renewables. In Europe fossil fuels are above average inflation numbers, so the high interest rate is made not that important as fossil fuels prices have risen that much faster. Indian prime interest rate is at about average right now. Japans interest rate is even negative right now.
Really it is USD which has a high interest rate right now, where it matters and it is bad.
Should be so, hope you are right (didn’t find rates in the pdf). However, these are all temporary, can change a lot on the timescale of such investment. I recall Brazil had a development bank with special rates to get around this problem, but that way is potential source of corruption. Chinese economy is also unstable. Need a risk model. Although not perfect foresight - that’s only a concept of IAMs - real investment made by people acting on promising trends then retiring.
No, no storage, but you can calculate LCOE with storage, and that is pretty close too, problem is scaling it up, we don’t have enough mining capacity to scale it up to replace fossil fuels entirely, either we find multiple types of batteries so we can distribute load away from lithium nickle and cobalt, or we start to scale nuclear, those are our options.
Actually large grids are another option as well and a really good one. Basically it is always sunny or windy somewhere and when you can transport the electricity you avoid storage. Also there are other types of none battery storage like hydro from reservoirs and pumped, chemical storage with hydrogen or something similar and well stuff like biomass.
It really starts to scale nicely with a bit of overcapacity, a bit of storage, a good grid and a lot of different types of renewables placed over a large area.
It is just electricity generation, but it is also important to add, that it is the global average price of solar being 29% lower then the global average price of fossil fuel power generation. That means in good locations it would be even cheaper.
As for storage batteries are starting to kill gas power plant projects for cost reasons. That mainly happens in Europe with higher gas costs and emissions pricing, but there are some US examples as well. Both solar and batteries are rapidly becoming cheaper as well.
energy
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.