I cant support the building of ever more gas burning plant, the gas is in short supply and is imported from or via unstable places.

The answer is more wind and more solar generating capacity, a bit more hydroelectric and more storage. A large new pumped storage scheme is proposed in Scotland, at Coire Glas. We will still need some natural gas capacity for the foreseeable future, but the aim should be to reduce this and not to expand it.

I agree. Tidal power is not the complete answer as it is inherently variable, it could however play a significant part. Tidal power plants situated in different locations, COULD in total meet a large proportion of the UK demand as tide times differ in different locations.

It is in fact possible to generate tidal power 24/7 at any one location, but this adds considerable cost and complexity and therefore seldom finds favour.

A large tidal power plant has frequently been proposed in the Severn estuary, near me. I think that the NIMBYs won, with the great increase in natural gas prices, the idea should be re-visited.

broadgage said:

The answer is more wind and more solar generating capacity, a bit more hydroelectric and more storage.

I think more solar and more electric on a small scale. I have the advantage of living on the south coast and that means that I could probably generate, and store on a short cycle (over-night), sufficient electricity for 10 months of the year. In the event of a power cut, I might survive for several hours by keeping to essentials.

I can see that if the majority of a neighbourhood (i.e. supplied by one transformer) has solar and battery storage, everybody could survive for a few hours.

Unfortunately, this may be less helpful for a N-S oriented terrace in the north.

In my black and white mindset, it's a no brainer as we're an island so a co-ordinated plan would provide a consistent energy source, and with a little thought we can mitigate the ecology impact.

I also think electric combi-boilers should be considered for older houses are heat pumps aren't the solution for the older housing stock.

I also think electric combi-boilers should be considered for older houses are heat pumps aren't the solution for the older housing stock.

Why would resistive heating (100% efficient at best) be better than a heat pump (even with a low COP, but still >1.0)?

   - Andy.

Because older houses don't have the necessary insulation unless the homeowner can afford to insulate their house on top of the heat-pump costs. An Electric Combi-boiler wouldn't require new pipe work, radiators etc. Plus they wouldn't be affected by the outside temperature.

David Cieszynski said:

Because older houses don't have the necessary insulation unless the homeowner can afford to insulate their house on top of the heat-pump costs. An Electric Combi-boiler wouldn't require new pipe work, radiators etc. Plus they wouldn't be affected by the outside temperature.

Extra insulation isn't needed for a heat pump per se - it's just that it all becomes much more affordable if the heating load (and flow temperatures) are reduced - regardless of the heat source. Many heat pumps are perfectly capable of producing high flow temperatures (e.g. latest Vaillants can run at up to 75 degrees - compared with around 60 degrees to keep a gas boiler in condensing mode) but that's usually avoided because the COP drops to something horribly low and it gets too expensive to run - even though COP is still significantly above 1.0.

Given electricity is about 4 times the price per kWh compared with gas, heat pumps need a decent COP to break even - low flow temperatures and large emitter surface areas (e.g. underfloor) are just a means to achieve that.

By comparison, resistance heating has a COP of 1.0 at the very best - so simply switching a gas boiler for an electric combi would seem to be taking the worst possible case for a heat pump and making it slightly worse. The only positive I can see is possibly a slightly reduced capital cost - but that would soon be forgotten with the quadrupling of energy costs.

   - Andy.

David Cieszynski said:

I also think electric combi-boilers should be considered for older houses are heat pumps aren't the solution for the older housing stock.

Only if you want to bankrupt the unlucky people who have them installed.  Electricity is about 4 times the price of gas, and they can't sensibly work on off-peak electricity.

You might as well give them a new fireplace and tell them to burn £5 notes in it.

If a heat pump isn't going to work, fit modern high heat retention storage heaters instead.  At least they can run on Economy 7.

Heat pumps aren't cheap to run, the only way to make electric heat sources economically viable is to switch the green tax from electric to gas for domestic properties.

Here's a novel idea. If wind and solar are so cheap (as we are constantly being told,)  then why not remove all subsidies from them and let them stand on their own 2 feet  in the mktplace against fossil fuel based energy?

Then, let us see how many jump on the renewable bandwagon when the horses have been taken away.

After all, what could go possibly wrong? Might the emperor not be wearing any clothes after all?

David Cieszynski said:

I also think electric combi-boilers should be considered for older houses are heat pumps aren't the solution for the older housing stock.

Two problems: (1) it would be cheaper to supply a pile of fan heaters; (2) the electrical installation might not be capable of supplying such a large sustained load.

David Cieszynski said:

I also think electric combi-boilers should be considered for older houses are heat pumps aren't the solution for the older housing stock.

Two problems: (1) it would be cheaper to supply a pile of fan heaters; (2) the electrical installation might not be capable of supplying such a large sustained load.