Yes a better price - but we get 30 days to pay with our usual lot which makes life easier.Home Fuels Direct seem better?
View attachment 380842
Yes a better price - but we get 30 days to pay with our usual lot which makes life easier.Home Fuels Direct seem better?
View attachment 380842
Interestingly Electrical CO² emmissions don't seem to be much offset by wind turbine power? i.e Mains gas produced less?I guess £1191? (1500 x £0.784 +£15) = 79.4p/litre
Even with oil at 89p/litre, it was actually the cheapest source of heating for last month at 10.19p/kWh (4th column below).
(Who'd have thought it?)
79.4p/litre would reduce this to just over 9p/kWh.
Energy Cost Comparison – Nov 2022
Fuel Fuel price (p per unit) Unit Pence per kWh (after boiler efficiency) Energy content (kWh per unit) KgCO2e per kWh* Electricity Standard Rate1 39.21 kWh 39.21 (100%) 1 0.231 Electricity Online Rate1 38.41 kWh 38.41 (100%) 1 0.231 Mains Gas Standard Rate2 11.52 kWh 12.81 (90%) 1 0.215 Mains Gas Online Rate2 11.06 kWh 12.29 (90%) 1 0.215 Kerosene3 89.67 Litre 10.19 (90%) 9.8 0.298 Gas oil4 115.49 Litre 12.71 (90%) 10.4 0.316 **LPG5 N/A Litre N/A (90%) 6.66 0.240 Butane6 191.20 Litre 29.34 (90%) 7.97 0.247 Propane7 135.57 Litre 22.69 (90%) 7.07 0.239 Seasoned Wood (Logs)8 37.02 Kg 10.37 (85%) 4.20 0.028 Pellets (Bagged)9 70.73 Kg 16.37 (90%) 4.80 0.053 Pellets (Blown Bulk)10 61.30 Kg 14.19 (85%) 4.80 0.053 Smokeless fuel11 67.22 Kg 13.38 (75%) 8.51 0.398 Coal12 76.40 Kg 12.81 (75%) 6.20 0.398 GSHP13 39.21 kWh 11.20 (350%) 1 0.083 ASHP14 38.41 kWh 14.23 (270%) 1 0.108
From here
That's what makes a nonsense of all the talk about Hydrogen. The plant is claimed to be around 60-70% efficient, well actually they said "hoping to reach" that efficiency. You can see why, all those pumps, two separate compressor stages, and huge cooling plant guzzling energy and dumping heat to the atmosphere. It might be OK if they could run solely on surplus wind power, but the plant takes time and energy to start and stop, so really needs to run 8 - 10 hours at a time.Interestingly Electrical CO² emmissions don't seem to be much offset by wind turbine power? i.e Mains gas produced less?
Yes it is all nonsense - peddled by the people who are determined to make wind power work even though there is still no sensible way to store the energy. The same people who seem to think batteries are the answer. Trillions are being wasted on this nonsense and people wonder why our bills are so highThat's what makes a nonsense of all the talk about Hydrogen. The plant is claimed to be around 60-70% efficient, well actually they said "hoping to reach" that efficiency. You can see why, all those pumps, two separate compressor stages, and huge cooling plant guzzling energy and dumping heat to the atmosphere. It might be OK if they could run solely on surplus wind power, but the plant takes time and energy to start and stop, so really needs to run 8 - 10 hours at a time.
This makes Hydrogen around 0.33kg carbon per kWh.
The same people who seem to think batteries are the answer. Trillions are being wasted on this nonsense
With just a hint of a profit motive.No breakthrough or new technology occurs without trial & error. At least they are investing to try & improve matters.
Precisely. Global warming be damned, unless there's money to be made from it.With just a hint of a profit motive.
Personally I think the error is in concentrating on the source of energy rather than energy saving. The attitude seems to be it doesn't matter how much energy you use as long as it's electric. That's why even small electric cars have 150hp motors.Yes it is all nonsense - peddled by the people who are determined to make wind power work even though there is still no sensible way to store the energy. The same people who seem to think batteries are the answer. Trillions are being wasted on this nonsense and people wonder why our bills are so high
The problem with batteries is they haven't advanced that much in 100 years. Most cars still use a normal lead acid. Forklifts and submarines the same. When it comes to cost v capacity lead acid is still the winner and they haven't changed. Yes lithium are lighter for the same power but weight isn't really an issue for storage.No breakthrough or new technology occurs without trial & error. At least they are investing to try & improve matters.
With just a hint of a profit motive.
The waste heat you mention might be used for commercial & domestic heating and crop greenhouse heating etc similar to secondary heat reuse from Germany's power stations . Obviously heat some will be lost but a lot could be recovered , fresh water fish and salt water fish farming along with all manner of factory food farming production might also be beneficiaries . It's early days yet in this quest of as many alternative useful energy sources as possible so we are no longer reliant on one type or one source of supply .That's what makes a nonsense of all the talk about Hydrogen. The plant is claimed to be around 60-70% efficient, well actually they said "hoping to reach" that efficiency. You can see why, all those pumps, two separate compressor stages, and huge cooling plant guzzling energy and dumping heat to the atmosphere. It might be OK if they could run solely on surplus wind power, but the plant takes time and energy to start and stop, so really needs to run 8 - 10 hours at a time.
This makes Hydrogen around 0.33kg carbon per kWh.
Not quite right , in 1988 we had roof void insulation and cavity walls filled with blown rock wool fibre , we also put in all CFL's in place of incandescent lamps. In 1993 both our rearing sheds were given a 100 mm interrnal coating of sprayed expanding poly urethane insulation foam .Personally I think the error is in concentrating on the source of energy rather than energy saving. The attitude seems to be it doesn't matter how much energy you use as long as it's electric. That's why even small electric cars have 150hp motors.
I worked in the energy management business in the '80s, and the bottom absolutely dropped out of the market round about 1990. No interest whatever in energy saving. Now it's back under the carbon guise, and now cost again. But we have lost nearly 30 years when we could have been improving.
If you listen to their propaganda you'd think they do.No-one works for free.
To the Earth's core? Geothermal! I like where you're coming from.Have you thought about drilling a well ?.....
Read the article..intriguing. Might get some Glaubers (if possible) just to experiment with for personal academic interest. I remember someone I knew building a heat storage water tank in his greenhouse floor.That was 50yrs ago, way-before solar becameNot quite right , in 1988 we had roof void insulation and cavity walls filled with blown rock wool fibre , we also put in all CFL's in place of incandescent lamps. In 1993 both our rearing sheds were given a 100 mm interrnal coating of sprayed expanding poly urethane insulation foam .
All over East Anglia and Lincolnshire new buildings industrial commercial and domestic ones were being well insulated from at least 1988 till I stopped working in 1995 and .
All of the Peterborough new town builds of some 65 thousand houses were insulated to the latest grade . 1995 onwards out in the Fenland industries all new or renovated commercial buildings had to have building regulation compliance wrt insulation .
Come our move here to Wales June 2005 there were already government assisted insulation grants & schemes in place mainly for green renovations but a while later for domestic dwellings
Glaubers salts can be used for massive heat stores , I seriously looked into having a 20,000 litre insulated tank store of it back in 1992, siting the collectors & a buried insulated store in the railway bank we owned where our home was. Unfortunately I got crippled due to people failing to do their job properly at my day job earner and had to give it up and move to a bungalow.
www.researchgate.net/publication/335105744_The_Behavior_of_Glauber's_Salt_as_a_Heat_Storage_Material_for_Residential_Iraqi_Buildings
On a non-PC level heating oil is coming down in price.
View attachment 381819