On balance, I would give Priti a positive rating. She is the sort of person I want to see occupying the role of Home Sec. Someone who wants to lock up criminals.
What I don't want is some north London hand-wringer, saying that the criminals are victims of society, and being soft on crime, being clueless about its impact on Red Wall voters.
I saw Priti as someone who would go places as soon as she entered parliament. I've not been wrong, although #Priti4Leader has yet to come to fruition.
That's all fine. So why isn't Ms Patel locking up criminals? To do so you need coppers and well-resourced police forces, a well-staffed CPS and then a courts system that hasn't been budget cut to death.
One of our lawyer contributors can opine as to the exact length of the backlog in the courts, I know it isn't short. And this is nothing new with this government. Lots of guff about "we're going to do this" whilst slashing resources so that even the old standard they want to improve on is impossible.
A lot of it is out of Priti's hands. She isn't the Chancellor. She isn't the Justice Secretary. She isn't a Calais copper giving the boats a shove to get into the Channel. But as an instinctive "Hang Em and Flog Em" authoritarian, she comes to the Home Office with the right attitude.
You are very "Blue" Labour, Sandy, I have to say.
And that's where the votes are. Hence why Boris, despite his obvious problems, does so well. But Labour will never compromise with the electorate on this stuff, whether it's the Starmerites or the Corbynites. That is why they keep losing.
I hear this a lot, that the stones of this country are socially conservative, but for me the evidence for it isn't really there. However if Labour were to go into the next election with a leader who looks competent and doesn't scare people, and with policies clearly in the economic interests of working people, and they lose badly again, then perhaps I'll start to entertain it.
These lack of booster shots is beginning to cut through. R5L done a big feature on it. Anyone know if this is due to shortages or incompetence?
Incompetence. We’ve got more than enough doses.
Is it incompetence or people not that bothered? They've been double vaxxed and that's enough thanks? If the correct letters have gone out at the six month mark and the vax centres are up and running, then surely it is about the punters?
I really don't know, it's a genuine question.
Incompetence, ask an NHS doctor/GP surgery staff, and the question they are getting asked the most is when can I have my booster jab and the reply they get told is wait until you are contacted.
FWIW I was impressed by the efficiency - I was contacted for the booster on the 6-month anniversary of my second jab, and got it a week later with the flu jab thrown in as an optional extra (no problems with either). Perhaps my particular Trust is more efficient than others, but I couldn't fault them.
There is obviously lots of demand from people who were vaccinated less than 6 months ago (which I think is just misunderstanding - it does make sense) or who are under 50 (maybe we should start lowering that soon), and that's what GPs are hearing.
Thus I don't think the punters aren't up for it. I don't personally know anyone of any age who doesn't want the booster. A poll on that would be interesting.
NE farmers, fishermen, proposed closure of Kinloss barracks, now this? BJ & co seemed to have given up on NE Tories.
HYUFD assures me that they will be re-elected because everyone up here Loves Them.
There are only 6 Tory MPs in Scotland, even if the Tories lost every one of them they would still have a comfortable majority given their current majority of 80 UK wide.
It is holding the RedWall and the BlueWall which will determine whether Boris wins the next UK general election again or not, not Scotland
So "Fuck Scotland" and "Fuck these MPs"
Thanks for confirming.
Scots decided to remain in the UK in the once in a generation 2014 referendum.
Scottish MPs therefore count no more than MPs from any other part of the UK in UK general elections.
The Tories have far more MPs in the South and Red Wall than they do in Scotland, in fact the Tories have fewer MPs in Scotland than in Wales or in any region of England.
So obviously to preserve their majority the Tories need to look beyond Scotland, Scotland makes little difference to their prospects
“One nation conservatism”
The nation, it seems, changes, depending on the polls.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
BBC list of 100 greatest 21st Century TV series 1 The Wire (2002-2008) 2 Mad Men (2007-2015) 3 Breaking Bad (2008-2013) 4 Fleabag (2016-2019) 5 Game of Thrones (2011-2019) 6 I May Destroy You (2020) 7 The Leftovers (2014-2017) 8 The Americans (2013-2018) 9 The Office (UK) (2001-2003) 10 Succession (2018-) 11 BoJack Horseman (2014-2020) 12 Six Feet Under (2001-2005) 13 Twin Peaks: The Return (2017) 14 Atlanta (2016-) 15 Chernobyl (2019) 16 The Crown (2016-) 17 30 Rock (2006-2013) 18 Deadwood (2004-2006) 19 Lost (2004-2010) 20 The Thick of It (2005-2012) 21 Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000-) 22 Black Mirror (2011-) 23 Better Call Saul (2015-2022) 24 Veep (2012-2019) 25 Sherlock (2010-2017) 26 Watchmen (2019) 27 Line of Duty (2012-2021) 28 Friday Night Lights (2006-2011) 29 Parks and Recreation (2009-2015) 30 Girls (2012-2017) 31 True Detective (2014-2019) 32 Arrested Development (2003-2019) 33 The Good Wife (2009-2016) 34 The Bridge (2011-2018) 35 Fargo (2014-) 36= Downton Abbey (2010-2015) 36= Band of Brothers (2001) 38 The Handmaid's Tale (2017-) 39 The Office (US) (2005-2013) 40 Borgen (2010-2022) 41 Schitt's Creek (2015-2020) 42 Peep Show (2003-2015) 43 Money Heist (2017-2021) 44 Community (2009-2015) 45 The Good Fight (2017-) 46 Homeland (2011-2020) 47 Grey's Anatomy (2005-) 48 Inside No 9 (2014-) 49 The Bureau (2015-) 50 Halt and Catch Fire (2014-2017) https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20211015-the-100-greatest-tv-series-of-the-21st-century
Mrs America is an obvious omission, unless I missed it in the list. Peep Show should be way higher, certainly top 10. Fleabag continues to be absurdly over-rated. I'd put The Crown higher. I'd throw in Mrs Brown's Boys, too - mostly just to wind people up, but really it's no worse than Downton Abbey.
This is Us would be my biggest omission, I would definitely have it in the top 10.
Topping is the master of the box set reviews, he is always on point with those.
Ooh I've never watched that. Started watching the first season of Succession last night and am already hooked, absolutely brilliant.
Even if you believe in the global warming worldview, unless China does likewise cutting carbon zealously is pissing in the wind, then spending cash to buy Chinese-made cleaning products.
The thing is China is doing likewise. Not at the same speed, granted - they still feel they are in catch-up mode - but where they are even now compared with where they might have been absent any investment in efficiency and renewables is an important start.
Most carbon reduction approaches make economic sense in the long run anyway as they tend to save running cost at the expense of more up-front investment, and reduce geopolitical vulnerability. The Chinese government aren't daft, and one thing they do do is plan long term.
It is better for the world that China goes halfway as far as the West in cutting emissions, even if that seems unfair, than the West doesn't cut at all and nor does China. They did after all - unintentionally - make one of the biggest of all contributions to emissions reduction by instituting the one-child policy all those years ago.
BBC list of 100 greatest 21st Century TV series 1 The Wire (2002-2008) 2 Mad Men (2007-2015) 3 Breaking Bad (2008-2013) 4 Fleabag (2016-2019) 5 Game of Thrones (2011-2019) 6 I May Destroy You (2020) 7 The Leftovers (2014-2017) 8 The Americans (2013-2018) 9 The Office (UK) (2001-2003) 10 Succession (2018-) 11 BoJack Horseman (2014-2020) 12 Six Feet Under (2001-2005) 13 Twin Peaks: The Return (2017) 14 Atlanta (2016-) 15 Chernobyl (2019) 16 The Crown (2016-) 17 30 Rock (2006-2013) 18 Deadwood (2004-2006) 19 Lost (2004-2010) 20 The Thick of It (2005-2012) 21 Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000-) 22 Black Mirror (2011-) 23 Better Call Saul (2015-2022) 24 Veep (2012-2019) 25 Sherlock (2010-2017) 26 Watchmen (2019) 27 Line of Duty (2012-2021) 28 Friday Night Lights (2006-2011) 29 Parks and Recreation (2009-2015) 30 Girls (2012-2017) 31 True Detective (2014-2019) 32 Arrested Development (2003-2019) 33 The Good Wife (2009-2016) 34 The Bridge (2011-2018) 35 Fargo (2014-) 36= Downton Abbey (2010-2015) 36= Band of Brothers (2001) 38 The Handmaid's Tale (2017-) 39 The Office (US) (2005-2013) 40 Borgen (2010-2022) 41 Schitt's Creek (2015-2020) 42 Peep Show (2003-2015) 43 Money Heist (2017-2021) 44 Community (2009-2015) 45 The Good Fight (2017-) 46 Homeland (2011-2020) 47 Grey's Anatomy (2005-) 48 Inside No 9 (2014-) 49 The Bureau (2015-) 50 Halt and Catch Fire (2014-2017) https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20211015-the-100-greatest-tv-series-of-the-21st-century
Mrs America is an obvious omission, unless I missed it in the list. Peep Show should be way higher, certainly top 10. Fleabag continues to be absurdly over-rated. I'd put The Crown higher. I'd throw in Mrs Brown's Boys, too - mostly just to wind people up, but really it's no worse than Downton Abbey.
This is Us would be my biggest omission, I would definitely have it in the top 10.
Topping is the master of the box set reviews, he is always on point with those.
Ooh I've never watched that. Started watching the first season of Succession last night and am already hooked, absolutely brilliant.
Yes amazing characters in Succession, a complete lack of "goodies" is unusual and gives the audience a different dynamic with the "baddies", ie everyone. Not seen the new series yet but looking forward to it.
NE farmers, fishermen, proposed closure of Kinloss barracks, now this? BJ & co seemed to have given up on NE Tories.
HYUFD assures me that they will be re-elected because everyone up here Loves Them.
There are only 6 Tory MPs in Scotland, even if the Tories lost every one of them they would still have a comfortable majority given their current majority of 80 UK wide.
It is holding the RedWall and the BlueWall which will determine whether Boris wins the next UK general election again or not, not Scotland
So "Fuck Scotland" and "Fuck these MPs"
Thanks for confirming.
Scots decided to remain in the UK in the once in a generation 2014 referendum.
Scottish MPs therefore count no more than MPs from any other part of the UK in UK general elections.
The Tories have far more MPs in the South and Red Wall than they do in Scotland, in fact the Tories have fewer MPs in Scotland than in Wales or in any region of England.
So obviously to preserve their majority the Tories need to look beyond Scotland, Scotland makes little difference to their prospects
“One nation conservatism”
The nation, it seems, changes, depending on the polls.
Most governments do what they see as right for the country and then add the "this is why you should vote for us" spin. With HYUFD and chunks of the government, the first calculation is what is in our interest and worry about what's right for the country at another time.
I'm not surprised by the data in the Header. Ms Patel is a right wing populist lacking the je ne sais quoi needed to really excel in that space. Home Sec is her peak (imo) and in itself represents considerable career over-achievement by a person of quite limited ability. Speaking of right wing populists, I've just been reading about that Eric Zemmour in France, ex TV shock jock, sort of a French cross between Piers Morgan and Tucker Carlson, now a Trumpiste candidate for president. A joke candidate then? I'm afraid not. There are big vibrant rallies in the provinces and a surging enthusiasm amongst folk who are discontented with their lot and blame foreigners and woke liberals for it. Which they are right to do, according to this Zemmour character. He tells them that, oui oui, foreigners and woke liberals are indeed to blame for the lot with which they are discontented. They love him for it, apparently, cheering him to the rafters. They say he’s “not like normal politicians” (natch) and - oh no please spare us - he TELLS IT LIKE IT IS. I do wish some politician would one day be brave enough to tell the sort of people who lap this up how it really is. They'd have my vote, left or right. Anyway, off to betfair to check, and the worst is duly confirmed. He’s clear favourite after Macron. Mon dieu.
I have often set out my view that Brexit and Trump were just the soft version of darker things to come. It seems likely that Zemmour will have a decent run. He is no idiot, looks like an intellectual Trump. At one point there was talk of an english translation of his book (the suicide of france) but it seems like it never materialised.
A British Zemmour? Hard to see where it will emerge from. I did think Priti Patel could fill this role, but her moment has passed. Lee Anderson, Ben Bradley?
More likely, the tory acquiescence with the woke under the direction of Carrie Symonds will result in this arriving from outside the current main political parties.
Not good developments, but a fate we seem to be uncontrollably sleepwalking in to.
Yes the Conservative embrace of soft socialism and wokery have been a disaster.
This Brexit/BritNat iteration of the Tory Party has embraced wokery? That would be a democratic outrage. As soon as all the "trad values" Leavers whose support they rely on become aware of it, it's curtains. Betting volte face - lump on that Lab majority!
People who voted for the Tories but now think the government is too woke, are not about to help Labour.
So, who’s the next Farage?
We're going with Piers Morgan. And it would help Labour if lots of Con voters split off to him. If Morgan picked up, say, 15%, mainly from the Cons, the FPTP impact would be a shift of seats from them to the main opposition, which is Labour. Morgan might win a seat himself, in a village or town where he as an individual really resonates, but that would probably be it. We've seen this movie before.
Does anyone actually like Piers Morgan though? I know this is inconceivable to many, but people liked Farage. He was seen as someone you could have a pint with. I don't think Morgan has the same appeal. People watch him out of horrified fascination. Even people who agree with him find him dislikeable. Also, he was nanny-in-chief during the pandemic. No restrictions were restrictive enough for Piers. I'd say that sits uneasily with the natural territory of the burn-the-woke party.
Even if you believe in the global warming worldview, unless China does likewise cutting carbon zealously is pissing in the wind, then spending cash to buy Chinese-made cleaning products.
The thing is China is doing likewise. Not at the same speed, granted - they still feel they are in catch-up mode - but where they are even now compared with where they might have been absent any investment in efficiency and renewables is an important start.
Most carbon reduction approaches make economic sense in the long run anyway as they tend to save running cost at the expense of more up-front investment, and reduce geopolitical vulnerability. The Chinese government aren't daft, and one thing they do do is plan long term.
It is better for the world that China goes halfway as far as the West in cutting emissions, even if that seems unfair, than the West doesn't cut at all and nor does China. They did after all - unintentionally - make one of the biggest of all contributions to emissions reduction by instituting the one-child policy all those years ago.
Pollution is a big topic in China. The government is under pressure to do summat about it. As you say, they aren't daft.
Even if you believe in the global warming worldview, unless China does likewise cutting carbon zealously is pissing in the wind, then spending cash to buy Chinese-made cleaning products.
The thing is China is doing likewise. Not at the same speed, granted - they still feel they are in catch-up mode - but where they are even now compared with where they might have been absent any investment in efficiency and renewables is an important start.
Most carbon reduction approaches make economic sense in the long run anyway as they tend to save running cost at the expense of more up-front investment, and reduce geopolitical vulnerability. The Chinese government aren't daft, and one thing they do do is plan long term.
It is better for the world that China goes halfway as far as the West in cutting emissions, even if that seems unfair, than the West doesn't cut at all and nor does China. They did after all - unintentionally - make one of the biggest of all contributions to emissions reduction by instituting the one-child policy all those years ago.
Pollution is a big topic in China. The government is under pressure to do summat about it. As you say, they aren't daft.
A big reason masks are so popular in East Asia is due to very poor air quality and not due to viruses.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
I assume all this hydrogen is going to come from gas with the carbon removed and 'captured' somewhere.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
That 80% is a hydrogen industry soundbite. The issue is storage and transportation of hydrogen vs natural gas. Even our best natural gas storage is still too porous for hydrogen, this has been quietly shunted to one side but the costs of replacing existing natural gas infrastructure with materials that can properly contain gaseous hydrogen is prohibitively costly, the other alternative is to have liquid hydrogen storage which fixes that issue but would need active cooling for hydrogen storage sites. It is, aiui, one of the major reasons the hydrogen battery idea has been put to one side vs the compressed/liquid air battery which has far lower cooling requirement and allows for distillation of liquid air into its component compounds (meaning we can tap the CO2 out of the liquid air and keep it in storage or flush it into disused mines/oil wells).
The basic chemical process has been known for decades, I think the original paper outlining the issues with hydrogen dates back to the 1920s or 1930s.
Moving onto safety, the explosiveness issue is absolutely massive and domestic plumbing would all need to be upgraded significantly to avoid deadly explosions of hydrogen through what we currently consider sealed piping.
Our future is generating 3-5x current peak electricity from a mix of renewables and nuclear with a storage mechanism. The government is betting on hydrogen and it will backfire quite badly on all of us. Electric water heating works, we just need to generate that electricity from non-polluting sources.
Even if you believe in the global warming worldview, unless China does likewise cutting carbon zealously is pissing in the wind, then spending cash to buy Chinese-made cleaning products.
The thing is China is doing likewise. Not at the same speed, granted - they still feel they are in catch-up mode - but where they are even now compared with where they might have been absent any investment in efficiency and renewables is an important start.
Most carbon reduction approaches make economic sense in the long run anyway as they tend to save running cost at the expense of more up-front investment, and reduce geopolitical vulnerability. The Chinese government aren't daft, and one thing they do do is plan long term.
It is better for the world that China goes halfway as far as the West in cutting emissions, even if that seems unfair, than the West doesn't cut at all and nor does China. They did after all - unintentionally - make one of the biggest of all contributions to emissions reduction by instituting the one-child policy all those years ago.
Pollution is a big topic in China. The government is under pressure to do summat about it. As you say, they aren't daft.
A big reason masks are so popular in East Asia is due to very poor air quality and not due to viruses.
Yes indeed. There were many worn in Taipei in the 90's. They became ubiquitous after SARS, but were not uncommon before that. Because of the air quality. The newly minted middle class, let alone the super rich, don't like it.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
I'm not surprised by the data in the Header. Ms Patel is a right wing populist lacking the je ne sais quoi needed to really excel in that space. Home Sec is her peak (imo) and in itself represents considerable career over-achievement by a person of quite limited ability. Speaking of right wing populists, I've just been reading about that Eric Zemmour in France, ex TV shock jock, sort of a French cross between Piers Morgan and Tucker Carlson, now a Trumpiste candidate for president. A joke candidate then? I'm afraid not. There are big vibrant rallies in the provinces and a surging enthusiasm amongst folk who are discontented with their lot and blame foreigners and woke liberals for it. Which they are right to do, according to this Zemmour character. He tells them that, oui oui, foreigners and woke liberals are indeed to blame for the lot with which they are discontented. They love him for it, apparently, cheering him to the rafters. They say he’s “not like normal politicians” (natch) and - oh no please spare us - he TELLS IT LIKE IT IS. I do wish some politician would one day be brave enough to tell the sort of people who lap this up how it really is. They'd have my vote, left or right. Anyway, off to betfair to check, and the worst is duly confirmed. He’s clear favourite after Macron. Mon dieu.
I have often set out my view that Brexit and Trump were just the soft version of darker things to come. It seems likely that Zemmour will have a decent run. He is no idiot, looks like an intellectual Trump. At one point there was talk of an english translation of his book (the suicide of france) but it seems like it never materialised.
A British Zemmour? Hard to see where it will emerge from. I did think Priti Patel could fill this role, but her moment has passed. Lee Anderson, Ben Bradley?
More likely, the tory acquiescence with the woke under the direction of Carrie Symonds will result in this arriving from outside the current main political parties.
Not good developments, but a fate we seem to be uncontrollably sleepwalking in to.
Yes the Conservative embrace of soft socialism and wokery have been a disaster.
This Brexit/BritNat iteration of the Tory Party has embraced wokery? That would be a democratic outrage. As soon as all the "trad values" Leavers whose support they rely on become aware of it, it's curtains. Betting volte face - lump on that Lab majority!
People who voted for the Tories but now think the government is too woke, are not about to help Labour.
So, who’s the next Farage?
We're going with Piers Morgan. And it would help Labour if lots of Con voters split off to him. If Morgan picked up, say, 15%, mainly from the Cons, the FPTP impact would be a shift of seats from them to the main opposition, which is Labour. Morgan might win a seat himself, in a village or town where he as an individual really resonates, but that would probably be it. We've seen this movie before.
Does anyone actually like Piers Morgan though? I know this is inconceivable to many, but people liked Farage. He was seen as someone you could have a pint with. I don't think Morgan has the same appeal. People watch him out of horrified fascination. Even people who agree with him find him dislikeable. Also, he was nanny-in-chief during the pandemic. No restrictions were restrictive enough for Piers. I'd say that sits uneasily with the natural territory of the burn-the-woke party.
Yep, that's his Achilles heel, his personality. His pub aura isn't 'have a pint with' it's more 'oh god, he's in, no don't look!'
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
True enough, it can leak through just about anything.
How easy is it to incorporate the smell into Hydrogen? Methanethiol is heavier than methane but obviously still mixes quite well. Would it work that well with such a large molecular weight ratio?
I'm not surprised by the data in the Header. Ms Patel is a right wing populist lacking the je ne sais quoi needed to really excel in that space. Home Sec is her peak (imo) and in itself represents considerable career over-achievement by a person of quite limited ability. Speaking of right wing populists, I've just been reading about that Eric Zemmour in France, ex TV shock jock, sort of a French cross between Piers Morgan and Tucker Carlson, now a Trumpiste candidate for president. A joke candidate then? I'm afraid not. There are big vibrant rallies in the provinces and a surging enthusiasm amongst folk who are discontented with their lot and blame foreigners and woke liberals for it. Which they are right to do, according to this Zemmour character. He tells them that, oui oui, foreigners and woke liberals are indeed to blame for the lot with which they are discontented. They love him for it, apparently, cheering him to the rafters. They say he’s “not like normal politicians” (natch) and - oh no please spare us - he TELLS IT LIKE IT IS. I do wish some politician would one day be brave enough to tell the sort of people who lap this up how it really is. They'd have my vote, left or right. Anyway, off to betfair to check, and the worst is duly confirmed. He’s clear favourite after Macron. Mon dieu.
I have often set out my view that Brexit and Trump were just the soft version of darker things to come. It seems likely that Zemmour will have a decent run. He is no idiot, looks like an intellectual Trump. At one point there was talk of an english translation of his book (the suicide of france) but it seems like it never materialised.
A British Zemmour? Hard to see where it will emerge from. I did think Priti Patel could fill this role, but her moment has passed. Lee Anderson, Ben Bradley?
More likely, the tory acquiescence with the woke under the direction of Carrie Symonds will result in this arriving from outside the current main political parties.
Not good developments, but a fate we seem to be uncontrollably sleepwalking in to.
Yes the Conservative embrace of soft socialism and wokery have been a disaster.
This Brexit/BritNat iteration of the Tory Party has embraced wokery? That would be a democratic outrage. As soon as all the "trad values" Leavers whose support they rely on become aware of it, it's curtains. Betting volte face - lump on that Lab majority!
People who voted for the Tories but now think the government is too woke, are not about to help Labour.
So, who’s the next Farage?
We're going with Piers Morgan. And it would help Labour if lots of Con voters split off to him. If Morgan picked up, say, 15%, mainly from the Cons, the FPTP impact would be a shift of seats from them to the main opposition, which is Labour. Morgan might win a seat himself, in a village or town where he as an individual really resonates, but that would probably be it. We've seen this movie before.
Does anyone actually like Piers Morgan though? I know this is inconceivable to many, but people liked Farage. He was seen as someone you could have a pint with. I don't think Morgan has the same appeal. People watch him out of horrified fascination. Even people who agree with him find him dislikeable. Also, he was nanny-in-chief during the pandemic. No restrictions were restrictive enough for Piers. I'd say that sits uneasily with the natural territory of the burn-the-woke party.
Yep, that's his Achilles heel, his personality. His pub aura isn't 'have a pint with' it's more 'oh god, he's in, no don't look!'
This seems to imply that might like a drink with Nige?
Not quite. Look at Farage. Everyone kept dismissing him as way out there, way beyond the realms of acceptable opinion, fruitcakes and loons, etc; stood X times for parliament and never got anywhere. And much of this was true. For years UKIP didn't do very well and looked like a lost cause. But many people were ultimately very sympathetic to its key position about the EU. And there is a similarity between this and Laurence Fox's defence of freedom and free speech.
Farage is very good at the "tells it like it us" impression, and there's definitely an audience for that, which linked up well with scepticism about the EU and general grumpiness. Insurgents don't need to get a majority - just enough to worry a major party, which will feel they need to shift their policies to stem the losses.
But I don't think there is anything like that level of sympathy for Fox's line and the liberty-including-freedom-from-vaccines stuff. It feels cranky and runs against the very large majorities in every poll that want tougher controls on the pandemic.
Agree. Fox as critic of groupthink, free speech suppression, wokery, leftish self hatred is fine. Once he starts espousing pointless causes it's a different matter. he's entitles to be an anti vaxer if he likes, but it eliminates his support from lots of people who will also defend his freedom to think it. Free speech and consequenceless free speech are different. Free speech often allows you the space to decide that the free speaker is a twit.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
True enough, it can leak through just about anything, which is why I didn't think it would hang around, but the risk of any sort leak must be much higher.
How easy is it to incorporate the smell into Hydrogen? Methanethiol is heavier than methane but obviously still mixes quite well. Would it work that well with such a large molecular weight ratio?
And even if you did mix it, could the hydrogen leak in certain situations but the methanethiol not? In which case, why try to incorporate a smell?
Go too far he alienates conservatives - do not go far enough he alienates labour and of course the same is true for Starmer bur reversed
Introducing the potential cost implications tips Conservative supporters over to opposing most net zero policies – with changing product pricing to reflect carbon impact the exception. In contrast, Labour voters remain supportive of 5 of the policies on balance
Told you Boris Johnson was a socialist, this is HIPS on speed.
Home buyers face having to improve the energy efficiency of their new properties under the terms of their mortgage as part of government plans to decarbonise Britain’s housing stock.
Mortgage lenders will have to disclose the energy efficiency of homes they lend money for and set themselves targets to improve the insulation of buildings in their portfolio.
Ministers hope the plan will encourage lenders to fund homeowners to carry out green improvements when they move into a property, with the money spent added to mortgages and repaid through cheaper bills.
However, it will lead to fears that new buyers could find it hard to get a mortgage unless they commit to spending potentially thousands of pounds on home improvements.
The plan is contained in documents due to be published today that set out the government’s road map to reduce CO2 emissions by nearly 70 per cent by 2030.
That's actually quite interesting. The Scottish Govt proposal is that improvements should be done before the house is placed for sale.
I think a good point of that proposal is that works can be combined with normal decorating / work of newly purchased houses etc, prices will adjust according to what it will cost, and finally we will get some market value placed on energy efficiency.
These are bullet points from Scottish Govt proposals:
- Net Zero target for heating buildings is 2045 - 2030 target to have 68% lower emissions (from heating buildings) than 2020 level, requiring over 1,000,000 homes to be made zero carbon this decade. - Vague statement that "most" homes must be EPC C or better by 2030 - More definite statement that all homes (where feasible and cost-effective) must be EPC C or better by 2033 - Legislation to be introduced in 2025 requiring any home changing ownership or tenancy to be EPC C or better at point of sale - Earlier date set at 2028 for all private rental homes to be EPC C or better - Ban on installing fossil fuel boilers from 2025 for off-gas properties - Ban on installing fossil fuel boilers from 2030 for all properties
Some of those proposals seem absolutely crazy!
Absolutely it makes more sense for renovations to be done by the buyer not the seller.
So if someone is broke and wants to sell their home before they default on the mortgage, how are they supposed to make their home EPC C or better before they put it up for sale?
1 is 5 years better than England. 2 I think means -68% wrt to 1990, and is exactly in line with the Boris target for general emissions. May be challenging for housing. 3 is fairly easy I think. The average EPC in Scotland is already a high D. 4 Looks challenging. 5 Is the one we were discussing. 6 Gives LLs a slightly tougher target than the previous 2030. I think the new 2025/2028 target is the same as in England, and this was mooted by the Coalition in 2012/13. Doable imo. Danger in Scotland is that LLs will choose to get out; PRS is already down by about 15% since 2015. Useful forerunner for England to see what happens when the PRS is downsized. 7 That is for new boilers, and I think they are targetting oil-fired-CH, of which there are 105k systems in Scotland. I do not know what the aim is for totally off-grid properties. 8 That's the England new Gas Boiler ban 5 years earlier. Will be a useful canary in the coalmine for UK Gov to watch.
Not quite. Look at Farage. Everyone kept dismissing him as way out there, way beyond the realms of acceptable opinion, fruitcakes and loons, etc; stood X times for parliament and never got anywhere. And much of this was true. For years UKIP didn't do very well and looked like a lost cause. But many people were ultimately very sympathetic to its key position about the EU. And there is a similarity between this and Laurence Fox's defence of freedom and free speech.
Farage is very good at the "tells it like it us" impression, and there's definitely an audience for that, which linked up well with scepticism about the EU and general grumpiness. Insurgents don't need to get a majority - just enough to worry a major party, which will feel they need to shift their policies to stem the losses.
But I don't think there is anything like that level of sympathy for Fox's line and the liberty-including-freedom-from-vaccines stuff. It feels cranky and runs against the very large majorities in every poll that want tougher controls on the pandemic.
Agree. Fox as critic of groupthink, free speech suppression, wokery, leftish self hatred is fine. Once he starts espousing pointless causes it's a different matter. he's entitles to be an anti vaxer if he likes, but it eliminates his support from lots of people who will also defend his freedom to think it. Free speech and consequenceless free speech are different. Free speech often allows you the space to decide that the free speaker is a twit.
Indeed part of the reason that we can believe in free speech is that its better for a twit to open their and verify they're stupid, than to have their mouth forced shut and have doubt about it.
On balance, I would give Priti a positive rating. She is the sort of person I want to see occupying the role of Home Sec. Someone who wants to lock up criminals.
What I don't want is some north London hand-wringer, saying that the criminals are victims of society, and being soft on crime, being clueless about its impact on Red Wall voters.
I saw Priti as someone who would go places as soon as she entered parliament. I've not been wrong, although #Priti4Leader has yet to come to fruition.
That's all fine. So why isn't Ms Patel locking up criminals? To do so you need coppers and well-resourced police forces, a well-staffed CPS and then a courts system that hasn't been budget cut to death.
One of our lawyer contributors can opine as to the exact length of the backlog in the courts, I know it isn't short. And this is nothing new with this government. Lots of guff about "we're going to do this" whilst slashing resources so that even the old standard they want to improve on is impossible.
A lot of it is out of Priti's hands. She isn't the Chancellor. She isn't the Justice Secretary. She isn't a Calais copper giving the boats a shove to get into the Channel. But as an instinctive "Hang Em and Flog Em" authoritarian, she comes to the Home Office with the right attitude.
You are very "Blue" Labour, Sandy, I have to say.
And that's where the votes are. Hence why Boris, despite his obvious problems, does so well. But Labour will never compromise with the electorate on this stuff, whether it's the Starmerites or the Corbynites. That is why they keep losing.
I hear this a lot, that the stones of this country are socially conservative, but for me the evidence for it isn't really there. However if Labour were to go into the next election with a leader who looks competent and doesn't scare people, and with policies clearly in the economic interests of working people, and they lose badly again, then perhaps I'll start to entertain it.
Labour under SKS are going to do exactly that; and while they can't 'win' (do the maths) they can still come top of a collective centre left majority pile with only a medium size swing. SKS bores people but does not scare them. His party still does, and he needs to work on it. If he detoxified the party I think he would have a 50%+ rather than 50%- chance of being next PM.
On balance, I would give Priti a positive rating. She is the sort of person I want to see occupying the role of Home Sec. Someone who wants to lock up criminals.
What I don't want is some north London hand-wringer, saying that the criminals are victims of society, and being soft on crime, being clueless about its impact on Red Wall voters.
I saw Priti as someone who would go places as soon as she entered parliament. I've not been wrong, although #Priti4Leader has yet to come to fruition.
That's all fine. So why isn't Ms Patel locking up criminals? To do so you need coppers and well-resourced police forces, a well-staffed CPS and then a courts system that hasn't been budget cut to death.
One of our lawyer contributors can opine as to the exact length of the backlog in the courts, I know it isn't short. And this is nothing new with this government. Lots of guff about "we're going to do this" whilst slashing resources so that even the old standard they want to improve on is impossible.
A lot of it is out of Priti's hands. She isn't the Chancellor. She isn't the Justice Secretary. She isn't a Calais copper giving the boats a shove to get into the Channel. But as an instinctive "Hang Em and Flog Em" authoritarian, she comes to the Home Office with the right attitude.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
True enough, it can leak through just about anything.
How easy is it to incorporate the smell into Hydrogen? Methanethiol is heavier than methane but obviously still mixes quite well. Would it work that well with such a large molecular weight ratio?
It would be interesting to see what work has been done on this - they used to add something back in the airship days (in some cases) IIRC.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
Yes, which is why the 80% number is a load of rubbish.
Go too far he alienates conservatives - do not go far enough he alienates labour and of course the same is true for Starmer bur reversed
Introducing the potential cost implications tips Conservative supporters over to opposing most net zero policies – with changing product pricing to reflect carbon impact the exception. In contrast, Labour voters remain supportive of 5 of the policies on balance
Whatever happens at COP26, I reckon Boris has already planned to make a massive show of u-turning and ripping it all up at some point in the near future. That seems to be key to the Boris dynamic - make the base disappointed in him then go for the big comeback by throwing them goodies.
These lack of booster shots is beginning to cut through. R5L done a big feature on it. Anyone know if this is due to shortages or incompetence?
Incompetence. We’ve got more than enough doses.
Complacency seems to have set in now Covid isn't the top news agenda item any more.
It is so obvious, we all know the winter could be bad, we should have prepped for this, mass media campaign, which the government is now starting this week, instead of two months ago.
Coupled with the blunder of not vaccinating kids during the summer, the powers that be have screwed this up.
Back to the 5 Live phone-in. Head teacher off school with Covid. Still no vaccination done at his school, nor any word as to an indication of any timeframe. Still banging on about vaccine success, mind.
There are no legal restrictions (barring a few related to quarantine and so the fear has subsided.
The fear probably never needed to be ramped up to 11 before. Which is a shame because many will have lasting mental health effects from it.
I know people in their twenties reluctant to socialise, won't go on public transport etc, in fear of a virus that will likely barely affect them. And which they're vaccinated against to boot.
I know of 5 or 6 people who have caught covid since vaccination. They've spent between 0 and 4 days in bed. Sounds increasingly like a bad cold now, to me.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
That 80% is a hydrogen industry soundbite. The issue is storage and transportation of hydrogen vs natural gas. Even our best natural gas storage is still too porous for hydrogen, this has been quietly shunted to one side but the costs of replacing existing natural gas infrastructure with materials that can properly contain gaseous hydrogen is prohibitively costly, the other alternative is to have liquid hydrogen storage which fixes that issue but would need active cooling for hydrogen storage sites. It is, aiui, one of the major reasons the hydrogen battery idea has been put to one side vs the compressed/liquid air battery which has far lower cooling requirement and allows for distillation of liquid air into its component compounds (meaning we can tap the CO2 out of the liquid air and keep it in storage or flush it into disused mines/oil wells).
The basic chemical process has been known for decades, I think the original paper outlining the issues with hydrogen dates back to the 1920s or 1930s.
Moving onto safety, the explosiveness issue is absolutely massive and domestic plumbing would all need to be upgraded significantly to avoid deadly explosions of hydrogen through what we currently consider sealed piping.
Our future is generating 3-5x current peak electricity from a mix of renewables and nuclear with a storage mechanism. The government is betting on hydrogen and it will backfire quite badly on all of us. Electric water heating works, we just need to generate that electricity from non-polluting sources.
Nope, and it is not just a sound bite. Hydrogen is part of the mix. It is already being trialled in domestic heating. It has other applications too in development.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
Yes, which is why the 80% number is a load of rubbish.
Who to believe, industry experts or a London based pensions man.
On balance, I would give Priti a positive rating. She is the sort of person I want to see occupying the role of Home Sec. Someone who wants to lock up criminals.
What I don't want is some north London hand-wringer, saying that the criminals are victims of society, and being soft on crime, being clueless about its impact on Red Wall voters.
I saw Priti as someone who would go places as soon as she entered parliament. I've not been wrong, although #Priti4Leader has yet to come to fruition.
That's all fine. So why isn't Ms Patel locking up criminals? To do so you need coppers and well-resourced police forces, a well-staffed CPS and then a courts system that hasn't been budget cut to death.
One of our lawyer contributors can opine as to the exact length of the backlog in the courts, I know it isn't short. And this is nothing new with this government. Lots of guff about "we're going to do this" whilst slashing resources so that even the old standard they want to improve on is impossible.
A lot of it is out of Priti's hands. She isn't the Chancellor. She isn't the Justice Secretary. She isn't a Calais copper giving the boats a shove to get into the Channel. But as an instinctive "Hang Em and Flog Em" authoritarian, she comes to the Home Office with the right attitude.
You are very "Blue" Labour, Sandy, I have to say.
And that's where the votes are. Hence why Boris, despite his obvious problems, does so well. But Labour will never compromise with the electorate on this stuff, whether it's the Starmerites or the Corbynites. That is why they keep losing.
I hear this a lot, that the stones of this country are socially conservative, but for me the evidence for it isn't really there. However if Labour were to go into the next election with a leader who looks competent and doesn't scare people, and with policies clearly in the economic interests of working people, and they lose badly again, then perhaps I'll start to entertain it.
If you look at global surveys like the World Values Survey the UK is relatively socially conservative, compared to most other Western, largely Protestant countries - its closest peers are Australia, France, Germany and New Zealand but it is more conservative on most dimensions than those countries and especially compared to the Scandis and the Netherlands. We are less conservative than the US and much of Catholic Europe, however, and a lot less conservative than most developing countries, so some of this idea of us as leaning conservative is narcissism of small differences stuff. Compared to most places in the world we are all woke as hell.
These lack of booster shots is beginning to cut through. R5L done a big feature on it. Anyone know if this is due to shortages or incompetence?
Incompetence. We’ve got more than enough doses.
Is it incompetence or people not that bothered? They've been double vaxxed and that's enough thanks? If the correct letters have gone out at the six month mark and the vax centres are up and running, then surely it is about the punters?
I really don't know, it's a genuine question.
Incompetence, ask an NHS doctor/GP surgery staff, and the question they are getting asked the most is when can I have my booster jab and the reply they get told is wait until you are contacted.
FWIW I was impressed by the efficiency - I was contacted for the booster on the 6-month anniversary of my second jab, and got it a week later with the flu jab thrown in as an optional extra (no problems with either). Perhaps my particular Trust is more efficient than others, but I couldn't fault them.
There is obviously lots of demand from people who were vaccinated less than 6 months ago (which I think is just misunderstanding - it does make sense) or who are under 50 (maybe we should start lowering that soon), and that's what GPs are hearing.
Thus I don't think the punters aren't up for it. I don't personally know anyone of any age who doesn't want the booster. A poll on that would be interesting.
I had my booster jab yesterday. It was provided by a pharmacy chain at a local village hall together with volunteers. I was contacted exactly 6 months after my second jab and given a large choice if times. It seemed that people were arriving at 5 minute intervals and the whole thing went like clockwork.
BBC list of 100 greatest 21st Century TV series 1 The Wire (2002-2008) 2 Mad Men (2007-2015) 3 Breaking Bad (2008-2013) 4 Fleabag (2016-2019) 5 Game of Thrones (2011-2019) 6 I May Destroy You (2020) 7 The Leftovers (2014-2017) 8 The Americans (2013-2018) 9 The Office (UK) (2001-2003) 10 Succession (2018-) 11 BoJack Horseman (2014-2020) 12 Six Feet Under (2001-2005) 13 Twin Peaks: The Return (2017) 14 Atlanta (2016-) 15 Chernobyl (2019) 16 The Crown (2016-) 17 30 Rock (2006-2013) 18 Deadwood (2004-2006) 19 Lost (2004-2010) 20 The Thick of It (2005-2012) 21 Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000-) 22 Black Mirror (2011-) 23 Better Call Saul (2015-2022) 24 Veep (2012-2019) 25 Sherlock (2010-2017) 26 Watchmen (2019) 27 Line of Duty (2012-2021) 28 Friday Night Lights (2006-2011) 29 Parks and Recreation (2009-2015) 30 Girls (2012-2017) 31 True Detective (2014-2019) 32 Arrested Development (2003-2019) 33 The Good Wife (2009-2016) 34 The Bridge (2011-2018) 35 Fargo (2014-) 36= Downton Abbey (2010-2015) 36= Band of Brothers (2001) 38 The Handmaid's Tale (2017-) 39 The Office (US) (2005-2013) 40 Borgen (2010-2022) 41 Schitt's Creek (2015-2020) 42 Peep Show (2003-2015) 43 Money Heist (2017-2021) 44 Community (2009-2015) 45 The Good Fight (2017-) 46 Homeland (2011-2020) 47 Grey's Anatomy (2005-) 48 Inside No 9 (2014-) 49 The Bureau (2015-) 50 Halt and Catch Fire (2014-2017) https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20211015-the-100-greatest-tv-series-of-the-21st-century
Go too far he alienates conservatives - do not go far enough he alienates labour and of course the same is true for Starmer bur reversed
Introducing the potential cost implications tips Conservative supporters over to opposing most net zero policies – with changing product pricing to reflect carbon impact the exception. In contrast, Labour voters remain supportive of 5 of the policies on balance
Whatever happens at COP26, I reckon Boris has already planned to make a massive show of u-turning and ripping it all up at some point in the near future. That seems to be key to the Boris dynamic - make the base disappointed in him then go for the big comeback by throwing them goodies.
Perhaps he will claim not to have understood what he was signing up to, he has form there.
BBC list of 100 greatest 21st Century TV series 1 The Wire (2002-2008) 2 Mad Men (2007-2015) 3 Breaking Bad (2008-2013) 4 Fleabag (2016-2019) 5 Game of Thrones (2011-2019) 6 I May Destroy You (2020) 7 The Leftovers (2014-2017) 8 The Americans (2013-2018) 9 The Office (UK) (2001-2003) 10 Succession (2018-) 11 BoJack Horseman (2014-2020) 12 Six Feet Under (2001-2005) 13 Twin Peaks: The Return (2017) 14 Atlanta (2016-) 15 Chernobyl (2019) 16 The Crown (2016-) 17 30 Rock (2006-2013) 18 Deadwood (2004-2006) 19 Lost (2004-2010) 20 The Thick of It (2005-2012) 21 Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000-) 22 Black Mirror (2011-) 23 Better Call Saul (2015-2022) 24 Veep (2012-2019) 25 Sherlock (2010-2017) 26 Watchmen (2019) 27 Line of Duty (2012-2021) 28 Friday Night Lights (2006-2011) 29 Parks and Recreation (2009-2015) 30 Girls (2012-2017) 31 True Detective (2014-2019) 32 Arrested Development (2003-2019) 33 The Good Wife (2009-2016) 34 The Bridge (2011-2018) 35 Fargo (2014-) 36= Downton Abbey (2010-2015) 36= Band of Brothers (2001) 38 The Handmaid's Tale (2017-) 39 The Office (US) (2005-2013) 40 Borgen (2010-2022) 41 Schitt's Creek (2015-2020) 42 Peep Show (2003-2015) 43 Money Heist (2017-2021) 44 Community (2009-2015) 45 The Good Fight (2017-) 46 Homeland (2011-2020) 47 Grey's Anatomy (2005-) 48 Inside No 9 (2014-) 49 The Bureau (2015-) 50 Halt and Catch Fire (2014-2017) https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20211015-the-100-greatest-tv-series-of-the-21st-century
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
Yes, which is why the 80% number is a load of rubbish.
Who to believe, industry experts or a London based pensions man.
Industry experts with an agenda to push their industry. I'm sure you would have believed the tobacco industry experts 40 years ago too.
Not quite. Look at Farage. Everyone kept dismissing him as way out there, way beyond the realms of acceptable opinion, fruitcakes and loons, etc; stood X times for parliament and never got anywhere. And much of this was true. For years UKIP didn't do very well and looked like a lost cause. But many people were ultimately very sympathetic to its key position about the EU. And there is a similarity between this and Laurence Fox's defence of freedom and free speech.
Farage is very good at the "tells it like it us" impression, and there's definitely an audience for that, which linked up well with scepticism about the EU and general grumpiness. Insurgents don't need to get a majority - just enough to worry a major party, which will feel they need to shift their policies to stem the losses.
But I don't think there is anything like that level of sympathy for Fox's line and the liberty-including-freedom-from-vaccines stuff. It feels cranky and runs against the very large majorities in every poll that want tougher controls on the pandemic.
I think Fox is in it for the long run; he has no other career option, and lots of money behind him, it seems. He will learn from his weird courting of the anti vaxxers and it won't harm him too much. His basic popular appeal is rooted in his performance on question time, which prompted his cancellation and subsequent political career.
Fox's 'basic popular appeal', as you put it, won him 1.9% of the vote in the London mayoral election. He campaigned on anti-woke, anti-BLM stuff. If he was any good, there's plenty of low-hanging fruit that he could have won over, especially in the London suburbs.
I think you seriously underestimate quite how thick Laurence Fox is. He makes Farage look like an intellectual titan.
I don't disagree with you about his lack of intellectual skills. But then again, we've been saying the same about Priti Patel. Fox just needs to find the right wave to surf on. What I am seeing in him is determination, which is another parallel with Priti Patel.
Farage is still the only one who can get any sort of traction from that type of politics I reckon. I wouldn’t write off a comeback near the next GE, he’s keeping his profile high
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
Yes, which is why the 80% number is a load of rubbish.
Who to believe, industry experts or a London based pensions man.
Industry experts with an agenda to push their industry. I'm sure you would have believed the tobacco industry experts 40 years ago too.
These lack of booster shots is beginning to cut through. R5L done a big feature on it. Anyone know if this is due to shortages or incompetence?
Incompetence. We’ve got more than enough doses.
Complacency seems to have set in now Covid isn't the top news agenda item any more.
It is so obvious, we all know the winter could be bad, we should have prepped for this, mass media campaign, which the government is now starting this week, instead of two months ago.
Coupled with the blunder of not vaccinating kids during the summer, the powers that be have screwed this up.
Back to the 5 Live phone-in. Head teacher off school with Covid. Still no vaccination done at his school, nor any word as to an indication of any timeframe. Still banging on about vaccine success, mind.
There are no legal restrictions (barring a few related to quarantine and so the fear has subsided.
The fear probably never needed to be ramped up to 11 before. Which is a shame because many will have lasting mental health effects from it.
I know people in their twenties reluctant to socialise, won't go on public transport etc, in fear of a virus that will likely barely affect them. And which they're vaccinated against to boot.
I know of 5 or 6 people who have caught covid since vaccination. They've spent between 0 and 4 days in bed. Sounds increasingly like a bad cold now, to me.
My early 40's, double jabbed, colleague had a rough few days, with a very high temp and was borderline needing hospital (sats down to 90%, temp touching 40 deg C) but pulled through by the next day after having been advised to stay at home a it longer. So yes, nasty, but he's through it now.
We have set ourselves up to perpetuate the fear. The reporting of cases daily, and deaths, keeps it going. Some will say that we shouldn't stop, as it will look like we are hiding things. Our local news (BBC) is down to one update a week, and that provoked complaints. but ultimately we don't report deaths from heart disease daily, or from cancer or dementia. We are transitioning to an endemic disease with most protected to an extent by vaccination or prior illness. We have opened society and most people are enjoying life.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
Yes, which is why the 80% number is a load of rubbish.
Who to believe, industry experts or a London based pensions man.
Will that be industry experts with or without an agenda?
Any time a so called expert speaks the first question you should stop and ask yourself is "who are they and what is their agenda?"
If their agenda is to ensure hydrogen is in the mix in the future because that's their business model then that makes them an actor in this, not an independent expert.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
Yes, which is why the 80% number is a load of rubbish.
Who to believe, industry experts or a London based pensions man.
Industry experts with an agenda to push their industry. I'm sure you would have believed the tobacco industry experts 40 years ago too.
Or Facebook today ...
Indeed. I always find it interesting to be told about basic chemistry and materials science by "industry experts". I imagine it's what the doctors fighting the tobacco companies felt like (though to a much lesser degree for me, of course).
Go too far he alienates conservatives - do not go far enough he alienates labour and of course the same is true for Starmer bur reversed
Introducing the potential cost implications tips Conservative supporters over to opposing most net zero policies – with changing product pricing to reflect carbon impact the exception. In contrast, Labour voters remain supportive of 5 of the policies on balance
Whatever happens at COP26, I reckon Boris has already planned to make a massive show of u-turning and ripping it all up at some point in the near future. That seems to be key to the Boris dynamic - make the base disappointed in him then go for the big comeback by throwing them goodies.
I am of the opinion that either Boris or Starmer will have a problem when the electorate find out how much this is costing them and they will not be happy
The irony is that all this is relative easy for the wealthy and it will be the wealthy who will beat the drum while impoverishing swathes of the ordinary populace who could never hope to find £20-30,000 to satisfy the climate demands
Thanks for that. I'll make an effort to try and come back on that, but it will be 4pm or so.
We do install heat pumps, although we would never recommend them, and in order to get any heat into the radiators the pipework has to be changed, 15mm pipework simply does not provide enough flow to heat the radiators. By far the best use of an ASHP is underfloor heating as this operates at a lower temperature, but as most houses in this country have concrete floors downstairs, its very hard to retrofit.
Also we have the question of flats.
Is it still copper piping with push fit elbows and tees ?
Mine is about 10mm !!
We much prefer soldered copper, we have had a couple of nasty incidents with push fit pipework, it can hold the pressure for 9 months and then suddenly blow, always when the owner is out for the evening.
Kind of puts in perspective your previous post, if you knew he has used the words "brutal killing" in a different statement. Just perhaps desperately searching for reasons to moan because you don't like him and little to do with what he says or doesn't say.
How, we wonder, can so many voters support an obvious phoney? How does a prime minister who makes it up as he goes along get away with it?
The fraudulent promises of rising living standards, the national self-harm of Brexit, the deliberate exacerbation of tensions in Ireland and the treatment of former friends in Europe as enemies have produced an anti-Johnsonian culture. Its brilliant satires and devastating newspaper columns are as ferocious and outraged as the anti-Thatcherism of the 1980s – and just as ineffective.
And then the final season happened. While quality did decline after the fourth, it became a nosedive for the last seven episodes. *sighs*
I still hope the rumours of Amazon aping the frisky time stuff with their LOTR series proves false. Apparently they're going to have Lenny Henry as a hobbit. (In the Second Age. Before the Shire exists and the hobbits are still to the east...).
Kind of puts in perspective your previous post, if you knew he has used the words "brutal killing" in a different statement. Just perhaps desperately searching for reasons to moan because you don't like him and little to do with what he says or doesn't say.
I just posted was Fox said, I knew Khan had subsequently used ‘horrific killing’ because I read the following tweets.
But the photo of the two quotes is going around on what’sapp, with predictable responses
And then the final season happened. While quality did decline after the fourth, it became a nosedive for the last seven episodes. *sighs*
I still hope the rumours of Amazon aping the frisky time stuff with their LOTR series proves false. Apparently they're going to have Lenny Henry as a hobbit. (In the Second Age. Before the Shire exists and the hobbits are still to the east...).
I'm interested to see how Amazon deal with the Wheel of Time.
And then the final season happened. While quality did decline after the fourth, it became a nosedive for the last seven episodes. *sighs*
I still hope the rumours of Amazon aping the frisky time stuff with their LOTR series proves false. Apparently they're going to have Lenny Henry as a hobbit. (In the Second Age. Before the Shire exists and the hobbits are still to the east...).
Money Heist has declined even more. At least with GoT it was essentially just the last episode that needed re-writing. Money Heist has dropped from being completely gripping to unwatchable by the current series.
Kind of puts in perspective your previous post, if you knew he has used the words "brutal killing" in a different statement. Just perhaps desperately searching for reasons to moan because you don't like him and little to do with what he says or doesn't say.
I just posted was Fox said, I knew Khan had subsequently used ‘horrific killing’ because I read the following tweets.
But the photo of the two quotes is going around on what’sapp, with predictable responses
Going around because people spread it without the context they know about to provoke reactions. Sad.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
Yes, which is why the 80% number is a load of rubbish.
Who to believe, industry experts or a London based pensions man.
Industry experts with an agenda to push their industry. I'm sure you would have believed the tobacco industry experts 40 years ago too.
Or Facebook today ...
Speak for yourself. I used to work for a boiler company in an engineering role and still speak to them. Don’t assume everyone gets their info from Facebook, even if you do.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
Yes, which is why the 80% number is a load of rubbish.
Who to believe, industry experts or a London based pensions man.
Will that be industry experts with or without an agenda?
Any time a so called expert speaks the first question you should stop and ask yourself is "who are they and what is their agenda?"
If their agenda is to ensure hydrogen is in the mix in the future because that's their business model then that makes them an actor in this, not an independent expert.
Hydrogen may have some use as an industrial fuel, but for domestic heating it's likely to be marginal or a non event.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
Yes, which is why the 80% number is a load of rubbish.
Who to believe, industry experts or a London based pensions man.
Industry experts with an agenda to push their industry. I'm sure you would have believed the tobacco industry experts 40 years ago too.
Nope. Never smoked, always believed it was a vile habit and bad for you. 😂😂😂😂
BBC list of 100 greatest 21st Century TV series 1 The Wire (2002-2008) 2 Mad Men (2007-2015) 3 Breaking Bad (2008-2013) 4 Fleabag (2016-2019) 5 Game of Thrones (2011-2019) 6 I May Destroy You (2020) 7 The Leftovers (2014-2017) 8 The Americans (2013-2018) 9 The Office (UK) (2001-2003) 10 Succession (2018-) 11 BoJack Horseman (2014-2020) 12 Six Feet Under (2001-2005) 13 Twin Peaks: The Return (2017) 14 Atlanta (2016-) 15 Chernobyl (2019) 16 The Crown (2016-) 17 30 Rock (2006-2013) 18 Deadwood (2004-2006) 19 Lost (2004-2010) 20 The Thick of It (2005-2012) 21 Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000-) 22 Black Mirror (2011-) 23 Better Call Saul (2015-2022) 24 Veep (2012-2019) 25 Sherlock (2010-2017) 26 Watchmen (2019) 27 Line of Duty (2012-2021) 28 Friday Night Lights (2006-2011) 29 Parks and Recreation (2009-2015) 30 Girls (2012-2017) 31 True Detective (2014-2019) 32 Arrested Development (2003-2019) 33 The Good Wife (2009-2016) 34 The Bridge (2011-2018) 35 Fargo (2014-) 36= Downton Abbey (2010-2015) 36= Band of Brothers (2001) 38 The Handmaid's Tale (2017-) 39 The Office (US) (2005-2013) 40 Borgen (2010-2022) 41 Schitt's Creek (2015-2020) 42 Peep Show (2003-2015) 43 Money Heist (2017-2021) 44 Community (2009-2015) 45 The Good Fight (2017-) 46 Homeland (2011-2020) 47 Grey's Anatomy (2005-) 48 Inside No 9 (2014-) 49 The Bureau (2015-) 50 Halt and Catch Fire (2014-2017) https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20211015-the-100-greatest-tv-series-of-the-21st-century
Mrs America is an obvious omission, unless I missed it in the list. Peep Show should be way higher, certainly top 10. Fleabag continues to be absurdly over-rated. I'd put The Crown higher. I'd throw in Mrs Brown's Boys, too - mostly just to wind people up, but really it's no worse than Downton Abbey.
This is Us would be my biggest omission, I would definitely have it in the top 10.
Topping is the master of the box set reviews, he is always on point with those.
ha very kind of you to say. A solid list. My comments:
This is Us absolutely an omission even though it has become somewhat tortuous now Other omissions:
When They See Us (limited series?) The Night Of (limited series?) Modern Family West Wing (although it was 1999-2006 so perhaps was excluded)
I never saw the point of GoT and never got into MadMen.
Good to see Small Axe in there could be higher imo. And arguably (arguably for the cultural relevance) put Top Boy in but I see it's a stretch although looking at some of the other stuff in there it belongs.
Holy shit, i just spotted that Band of Brothers is 36 on the list. What the ever living fuck?
It is one the greatest TV events of all time. 36 is absurd, it would be better to be not on the list at all.
Most of the ones above it are nevertheless pretty good
Only about half a dozen of them could reasonably be considered in the same league as Band of Brothers.
It is a triumph. Ive seen it excluded for "best TV lists" in the past as people argue the amount of money that went into it made it more like a series of Movies rather than a TV show. When I didn't see it in the top 10 I had assumed that is what had happened here.
Not that "experts" thought How I Met Your Mother was better.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
Yes, which is why the 80% number is a load of rubbish.
Who to believe, industry experts or a London based pensions man.
Will that be industry experts with or without an agenda?
Any time a so called expert speaks the first question you should stop and ask yourself is "who are they and what is their agenda?"
If their agenda is to ensure hydrogen is in the mix in the future because that's their business model then that makes them an actor in this, not an independent expert.
Of course that’s the case. But these people are people I used to work with who I catch up with from time to time. In our discussion there is no agenda and I don’t doubt they are right. Hydrogen may not be part of the domestic heating future but it may well be.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
Yes, which is why the 80% number is a load of rubbish.
Who to believe, industry experts or a London based pensions man.
Will that be industry experts with or without an agenda?
Any time a so called expert speaks the first question you should stop and ask yourself is "who are they and what is their agenda?"
If their agenda is to ensure hydrogen is in the mix in the future because that's their business model then that makes them an actor in this, not an independent expert.
Of course that’s the case. But these people are people I used to work with who I catch up with from time to time. In our discussion there is no agenda and I don’t doubt they are right. Hydrogen may not be part of the domestic heating future but it may well be.
Of course there's an agenda, hydrogen keeps these companies in the game because it's a gas/plumbing based ecosystem. Electric heating sidesteps them entirely.
Kind of puts in perspective your previous post, if you knew he has used the words "brutal killing" in a different statement. Just perhaps desperately searching for reasons to moan because you don't like him and little to do with what he says or doesn't say.
I just posted was Fox said, I knew Khan had subsequently used ‘horrific killing’ because I read the following tweets.
But the photo of the two quotes is going around on what’sapp, with predictable responses
I follow Khan on FB and the amount of vitriol posted under every comment he makes, however innocuous, is quite astonishing. Judging from the thumbnail profile pictures attached, it often seems to come from older white gentlemen who like Union Jacks. For a fairly average centre left politician with no power over the lives of most people in the UK he certainly seems to stir some deep passions.
Mrs America is an obvious omission, unless I missed it in the list. Peep Show should be way higher, certainly top 10. Fleabag continues to be absurdly over-rated. I'd put The Crown higher. I'd throw in Mrs Brown's Boys, too - mostly just to wind people up, but really it's no worse than Downton Abbey.
This is Us would be my biggest omission, I would definitely have it in the top 10.
Topping is the master of the box set reviews, he is always on point with those.
ha very kind of you to say. A solid list. My comments:
This is Us absolutely an omission even though it has become somewhat tortuous now Other omissions:
When They See Us (limited series?) The Night Of (limited series?) Modern Family West Wing (although it was 1999-2006 so perhaps was excluded)
I never saw the point of GoT and never got into MadMen.
Good to see Small Axe in there could be higher imo. And arguably (arguably for the cultural relevance) put Top Boy in but I see it's a stretch although looking at some of the other stuff in there it belongs.
Good call on Modern Family.
Phil Dunphy is one of my favourite comedy characters.
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
Yes, which is why the 80% number is a load of rubbish.
Who to believe, industry experts or a London based pensions man.
Will that be industry experts with or without an agenda?
Any time a so called expert speaks the first question you should stop and ask yourself is "who are they and what is their agenda?"
If their agenda is to ensure hydrogen is in the mix in the future because that's their business model then that makes them an actor in this, not an independent expert.
Of course that’s the case. But these people are people I used to work with who I catch up with from time to time. In our discussion there is no agenda and I don’t doubt they are right. Hydrogen may not be part of the domestic heating future but it may well be.
Of course there's an agenda, hydrogen keeps these companies in the game because it's a gas/plumbing based ecosystem. Electric heating sidesteps them entirely.
There’s an agenda with any company or group lobbying. That’s just the way it is. The green lobby has an agenda,
Doesn’t make my initial comment which you got shitty about Incorrect with your needless ad hominem. Don’t assume people just fall for industry spin.
These companies will find a way to stay in the game even if hydrogen fails for domestic heating. There will be something else and Hydrogen will be part of the future.
Mrs America is an obvious omission, unless I missed it in the list. Peep Show should be way higher, certainly top 10. Fleabag continues to be absurdly over-rated. I'd put The Crown higher. I'd throw in Mrs Brown's Boys, too - mostly just to wind people up, but really it's no worse than Downton Abbey.
This is Us would be my biggest omission, I would definitely have it in the top 10.
Topping is the master of the box set reviews, he is always on point with those.
ha very kind of you to say. A solid list. My comments:
This is Us absolutely an omission even though it has become somewhat tortuous now Other omissions:
When They See Us (limited series?) The Night Of (limited series?) Modern Family West Wing (although it was 1999-2006 so perhaps was excluded)
I never saw the point of GoT and never got into MadMen.
Good to see Small Axe in there could be higher imo. And arguably (arguably for the cultural relevance) put Top Boy in but I see it's a stretch although looking at some of the other stuff in there it belongs.
Good call on Modern Family.
Phil Dunphy is one of my favourite comedy characters.
He had a small part (as a Rotarian!) on the West Wing episode I saw last night. He is all round excellent I agree.
And then the final season happened. While quality did decline after the fourth, it became a nosedive for the last seven episodes. *sighs*
I still hope the rumours of Amazon aping the frisky time stuff with their LOTR series proves false. Apparently they're going to have Lenny Henry as a hobbit. (In the Second Age. Before the Shire exists and the hobbits are still to the east...).
Honestly, I thought Season 7 of Game of Thrones was pisspoor. Of course, the last season was worse. Simply because it's fantasy, you can't get away with making it unbelievable. IMHO, getting logistics, characterisation, and strategy right is all the more important, so that you can get away with the more fantastic elements of the story.
Looking back, too, the fact that Season 6 finished very strongly tended to mask the silliness of some of the earlier episodes in that season..
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
Yes, which is why the 80% number is a load of rubbish.
Who to believe, industry experts or a London based pensions man.
Industry experts with an agenda to push their industry. I'm sure you would have believed the tobacco industry experts 40 years ago too.
Or Facebook today ...
Speak for yourself. I used to work for a boiler company in an engineering role and still speak to them. Don’t assume everyone gets their info from Facebook, even if you do.
Mr. F, the penultimate season had a very nice cliffhanger, that set things up perfectly, only for the showrunners to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that while they could adopt good source material they sure as hell couldn't write a good story.
You would've thought that simply the exposure to the fantastic first four seasons would have given them basic feel for a good story, at least to the extent of not buggering it up quite as comprehensively as they did.
And then the final season happened. While quality did decline after the fourth, it became a nosedive for the last seven episodes. *sighs*
I still hope the rumours of Amazon aping the frisky time stuff with their LOTR series proves false. Apparently they're going to have Lenny Henry as a hobbit. (In the Second Age. Before the Shire exists and the hobbits are still to the east...).
I found the entire last season* basically unwatchable. None more so than the entire 500 hour-long CGI battle scene that was completely black for the entire duration. From genius characters to that. What a fall from grace.
And then the final season happened. While quality did decline after the fourth, it became a nosedive for the last seven episodes. *sighs*
I still hope the rumours of Amazon aping the frisky time stuff with their LOTR series proves false. Apparently they're going to have Lenny Henry as a hobbit. (In the Second Age. Before the Shire exists and the hobbits are still to the east...).
I found the entire last season* basically unwatchable. None more so than the entire 500 hour-long CGI battle scene that was completely black for the entire duration. From genius characters to that. What a fall from grace.
Laurence Fox @LozzaFox China is building coal power stations at an unprecedented rate, whilst you are about to impoverish the most vulnerable in society (again)
Also, the clue is the word “global” in global warming.
I'm not surprised by the data in the Header. Ms Patel is a right wing populist lacking the je ne sais quoi needed to really excel in that space. Home Sec is her peak (imo) and in itself represents considerable career over-achievement by a person of quite limited ability. Speaking of right wing populists, I've just been reading about that Eric Zemmour in France, ex TV shock jock, sort of a French cross between Piers Morgan and Tucker Carlson, now a Trumpiste candidate for president. A joke candidate then? I'm afraid not. There are big vibrant rallies in the provinces and a surging enthusiasm amongst folk who are discontented with their lot and blame foreigners and woke liberals for it. Which they are right to do, according to this Zemmour character. He tells them that, oui oui, foreigners and woke liberals are indeed to blame for the lot with which they are discontented. They love him for it, apparently, cheering him to the rafters. They say he’s “not like normal politicians” (natch) and - oh no please spare us - he TELLS IT LIKE IT IS. I do wish some politician would one day be brave enough to tell the sort of people who lap this up how it really is. They'd have my vote, left or right. Anyway, off to betfair to check, and the worst is duly confirmed. He’s clear favourite after Macron. Mon dieu.
I have often set out my view that Brexit and Trump were just the soft version of darker things to come. It seems likely that Zemmour will have a decent run. He is no idiot, looks like an intellectual Trump. At one point there was talk of an english translation of his book (the suicide of france) but it seems like it never materialised.
A British Zemmour? Hard to see where it will emerge from. I did think Priti Patel could fill this role, but her moment has passed. Lee Anderson, Ben Bradley?
More likely, the tory acquiescence with the woke under the direction of Carrie Symonds will result in this arriving from outside the current main political parties.
Not good developments, but a fate we seem to be uncontrollably sleepwalking in to.
Yes the Conservative embrace of soft socialism and wokery have been a disaster.
This Brexit/BritNat iteration of the Tory Party has embraced wokery? That would be a democratic outrage. As soon as all the "trad values" Leavers whose support they rely on become aware of it, it's curtains. Betting volte face - lump on that Lab majority!
People who voted for the Tories but now think the government is too woke, are not about to help Labour.
So, who’s the next Farage?
We're going with Piers Morgan. And it would help Labour if lots of Con voters split off to him. If Morgan picked up, say, 15%, mainly from the Cons, the FPTP impact would be a shift of seats from them to the main opposition, which is Labour. Morgan might win a seat himself, in a village or town where he as an individual really resonates, but that would probably be it. We've seen this movie before.
Does anyone actually like Piers Morgan though? I know this is inconceivable to many, but people liked Farage. He was seen as someone you could have a pint with. I don't think Morgan has the same appeal. People watch him out of horrified fascination. Even people who agree with him find him dislikeable. Also, he was nanny-in-chief during the pandemic. No restrictions were restrictive enough for Piers. I'd say that sits uneasily with the natural territory of the burn-the-woke party.
Yep, that's his Achilles heel, his personality. His pub aura isn't 'have a pint with' it's more 'oh god, he's in, no don't look!'
This seems to imply that might like a drink with Nige?
It's his USP, isn't it. Even I might have done - just a swift half mind - before he showed his true colours with all the Trumpery in recent times. I'd steer well clear now on every level. I think Johnson picks up most of this fruity right wing support these days tbh. Probably not an issue for the Cons as long as he's there.
Thanks for that. I'll make an effort to try and come back on that, but it will be 4pm or so.
We do install heat pumps, although we would never recommend them, and in order to get any heat into the radiators the pipework has to be changed, 15mm pipework simply does not provide enough flow to heat the radiators. By far the best use of an ASHP is underfloor heating as this operates at a lower temperature, but as most houses in this country have concrete floors downstairs, its very hard to retrofit.
Also we have the question of flats.
Is it still copper piping with push fit elbows and tees ?
Mine is about 10mm !!
We much prefer soldered copper, we have had a couple of nasty incidents with push fit pipework, it can hold the pressure for 9 months and then suddenly blow, always when the owner is out for the evening.
I can concur. A friend had a pushfit failure on some temporary bathroom plumbing, and the downstairs became a whole house paddling pool...
I'm old enough to remember Labour's Green Deal, and then I look at the size, complications and cost of heat pumps and I think...ok, good luck with that.
That was before the cost of gas quadrupled in the space of a couple of months. Alternative heating solutions and/or improved insulation might look rather more interesting to consumers now.
Its a lot of equipment to fit in a standard three bed semi.
Despite what is says if you are going to use the ASHP a lot then the radiators and pipework will need to changed, as pumping 40 degree water through 15mm pipework into a standard radiator will provide very limited heat.
Agree on the lot of equipment.
That looks like someone trying to create an opportunity to keep their technology in the game. It's problematic because 1 - we are pivoting away from gas, 2 - because it is a more complex install which will requite you to eg have 2 annual services not one (gas engineers will love you), 3 - because there are far simpler solutions available.
The stuff about always needing new pipework is for an ASHP is baloney, btw. You perhaps resize your rads (or use a double of the same size). Once you have improved your fabric you do a heat demand model for your house, and a calculation which will tell you what kit you need. Replacing rads is cheap. And then set the appropriate flow rate.
Keeping the same radiators is even cheaper. Which is what happens if you switch from natural gas to hydrogen.
Gas explosions are more common than you'd like them to be. Another home was destroyed in Ayr from a gas explosion yesterday. I was woken up by the Police and ordered to evacuate my own home in the week after the London Riots after a lone copycat moron chose to go on an arson campaign and set fire to the gas pipe going into one of my neighbours leading to a fear the entire bloc could go up.
I'm no chemist but from what I understand hydrogen seems even riskier than natural gas to be connected to homes for if things go wrong.
Safety studies have been performed, and more are ongoing. On balance, the risk from hydrogen is roughly the same as that from natural gas. While, for example, there is a greater leakage potential, hydrogen is less likely to achieve a fuel-air mixture in the explosive region. Also, no carbon monoxide deaths from hydrogen.
More to the point, how will it ever be economic ?
Once we fully internalise the negative externalities of burning unabated fossil fuels, then low-carbon technologies will be cheaper.
In other words, tax the feck out of CO2 emissions.
We think we've been having a free lunch since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Now the earth has presented us with the bill.
I'm not asking about the economics versus fossil fuels. I'm asking how producing hydrogen to heat homes will ever be economic versus doing so with green electricity.
Yup, hydrogen seems like a fool's errand. It would require ripping out and replacing our existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate how tiny hydrogen molecules are.
The nation has got to look beyond gas delivery and move towards electrical heating for everything with electricity generated by SMR/mini-nukes and renewable energy with compressed air battery storage.
In the end hydrogen will prove to be unfeasible due to the hugely explosive nature and inability to safely transport and pipe it to homes it as we do with natural gas.
Over 80% of the existing infrastructure is hydrogen compatible and it is already being trialled. The large boiler companies are heavily investing in it. The issue is the safety.
Is it really that much more explosive than our current gas supply? I can't imagine it collecting in the air in the same way as methane unless a house is extremely well sealed.
The fuel-air mixes are different - the real issue is that hydrogen can leak much more easily. Proving that a set of pipework is hydrogen tight is an interesting challenge.
Yes, which is why the 80% number is a load of rubbish.
Who to believe, industry experts or a London based pensions man.
Industry experts with an agenda to push their industry. I'm sure you would have believed the tobacco industry experts 40 years ago too.
Or Facebook today ...
Speak for yourself. I used to work for a boiler company in an engineering role and still speak to them. Don’t assume everyone gets their info from Facebook, even if you do.
I think you missed the point of my post.
It was as valuable a contribution as Big Poochie D.
As someone who used to design heat pump systems - I don’t like them.
I don’t really like anything that requires an expensive and unreliable gas safe qualified heating engineer to repair or service them.
The future is cheap renewable electricity and direct electric heating in my opinion. Much simpler and much less waste.
Less waste? Installing sufficient generating capacity to meet peak heating demand on a cold, still January evening?
Not viable.
Of course it’s viable. You just need masses of redundancy and adequate energy storage.
It’s slightly futurology but at the end of the day if you have a air source heat pump and traditional rads you’re basically going to be running at near direct electricity anyway on a cold January morning.
I don't want to 'spoil' it, but the way the entire arc is concluded is massively unsatisfying.
There are also certain plain stupid/illogical moments. Two characters set off for the capital first, but arrive after the army. Anyone who's into military history will know that an army is much, much slower than one or two travellers deliberately making haste.
Edited extra bit: probably unnecessary but edited to obscure two character names in case anyone's watching and doesn't know if X and Y survive.
Comments
There is obviously lots of demand from people who were vaccinated less than 6 months ago (which I think is just misunderstanding - it does make sense) or who are under 50 (maybe we should start lowering that soon), and that's what GPs are hearing.
Thus I don't think the punters aren't up for it. I don't personally know anyone of any age who doesn't want the booster. A poll on that would be interesting.
The nation, it seems, changes, depending on the polls.
Most carbon reduction approaches make economic sense in the long run anyway as they tend to save running cost at the expense of more up-front investment, and reduce geopolitical vulnerability. The Chinese government aren't daft, and one thing they do do is plan long term.
It is better for the world that China goes halfway as far as the West in cutting emissions, even if that seems unfair, than the West doesn't cut at all and nor does China. They did after all - unintentionally - make one of the biggest of all contributions to emissions reduction by instituting the one-child policy all those years ago.
And re the betting, yes I'd join you at 50/1 Morgan PM. It's shorter at the bookies.
The government is under pressure to do summat about it. As you say, they aren't daft.
I assume all this hydrogen is going to come from gas with the carbon removed and 'captured' somewhere.
The basic chemical process has been known for decades, I think the original paper outlining the issues with hydrogen dates back to the 1920s or 1930s.
Moving onto safety, the explosiveness issue is absolutely massive and domestic plumbing would all need to be upgraded significantly to avoid deadly explosions of hydrogen through what we currently consider sealed piping.
Our future is generating 3-5x current peak electricity from a mix of renewables and nuclear with a storage mechanism. The government is betting on hydrogen and it will backfire quite badly on all of us. Electric water heating works, we just need to generate that electricity from non-polluting sources.
They became ubiquitous after SARS, but were not uncommon before that. Because of the air quality.
The newly minted middle class, let alone the super rich, don't like it.
How easy is it to incorporate the smell into Hydrogen? Methanethiol is heavier than methane but obviously still mixes quite well. Would it work that well with such a large molecular weight ratio?
Go too far he alienates conservatives - do not go far enough he alienates labour
and of course the same is true for Starmer bur reversed
Introducing the potential cost implications tips Conservative supporters over to opposing most net zero policies – with changing product pricing to reflect carbon impact the exception. In contrast, Labour voters remain supportive of 5 of the policies on balance
https://twitter.com/Emily_IpsosMORI/status/1450369697468370946?t=T0a754NUsxMQalFWI3vcqg&s=19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct4g7RNTDcE
On the above.
1 is 5 years better than England.
2 I think means -68% wrt to 1990, and is exactly in line with the Boris target for general emissions. May be challenging for housing.
3 is fairly easy I think. The average EPC in Scotland is already a high D.
4 Looks challenging.
5 Is the one we were discussing.
6 Gives LLs a slightly tougher target than the previous 2030. I think the new 2025/2028 target is the same as in England, and this was mooted by the Coalition in 2012/13. Doable imo. Danger in Scotland is that LLs will choose to get out; PRS is already down by about 15% since 2015. Useful forerunner for England to see what happens when the PRS is downsized.
7 That is for new boilers, and I think they are targetting oil-fired-CH, of which there are 105k systems in Scotland. I do not know what the aim is for totally off-grid properties.
8 That's the England new Gas Boiler ban 5 years earlier. Will be a useful canary in the coalmine for UK Gov to watch.
The fear probably never needed to be ramped up to 11 before. Which is a shame because many will have lasting mental health effects from it.
I know people in their twenties reluctant to socialise, won't go on public transport etc, in fear of a virus that will likely barely affect them. And which they're vaccinated against to boot.
I know of 5 or 6 people who have caught covid since vaccination. They've spent between 0 and 4 days in bed. Sounds increasingly like a bad cold now, to me.
I have no doubt it is a part of the mix.
Strike that. I missed the 21st century bit ...
We have set ourselves up to perpetuate the fear. The reporting of cases daily, and deaths, keeps it going. Some will say that we shouldn't stop, as it will look like we are hiding things. Our local news (BBC) is down to one update a week, and that provoked complaints. but ultimately we don't report deaths from heart disease daily, or from cancer or dementia. We are transitioning to an endemic disease with most protected to an extent by vaccination or prior illness. We have opened society and most people are enjoying life.
Keep vaccinating and live our lives.
While we’re talking Lozza Fox
‘Says it all really’
https://twitter.com/lozzafox/status/1450386775558524934?s=21
Any time a so called expert speaks the first question you should stop and ask yourself is "who are they and what is their agenda?"
If their agenda is to ensure hydrogen is in the mix in the future because that's their business model then that makes them an actor in this, not an independent expert.
Scotland Daily Coronavirus (COVID-19) Report · Tuesday 19th October.
2,459 new cases (people positive) reported, giving a total of 612,416.
24 new deaths reported, giving a total of 8,954.
https://twitter.com/UKCovid19Stats/status/1450447901424066561?s=20
Week ago was 1,908 cases % 27 deaths.
Shocking.
Wales Daily Coronavirus (COVID-19) Report · Tuesday 19th October.
3,200 new cases (people positive) reported, giving a total of 404,844.
2 new deaths reported, giving a total of 6,037.
https://twitter.com/UKCovid19Stats/status/1450417202600022019?s=20
Last week 2,047 cases & 1 death...
https://twitter.com/negscratch/status/1450403856463056899?s=21
The irony is that all this is relative easy for the wealthy and it will be the wealthy who will beat the drum while impoverishing swathes of the ordinary populace who could never hope to find £20-30,000 to satisfy the climate demands
It is one the greatest TV events of all time. 36 is absurd, it would be better to be not on the list at all.
It is almost like Khan is a qualified solicitor who knows the temperate and non prejudicial language to be used.
I'm touched you think I'm as influential as the Mayor of London.
I don’t really like anything that requires an expensive and unreliable gas safe qualified heating engineer to repair or service them.
The future is cheap renewable electricity and direct electric heating in my opinion. Much simpler and much less waste.
https://twitter.com/statesdj/status/1449105999198101510?t=6-FOY2RDT6oh1PNvwiTytw&s=19
The fraudulent promises of rising living standards, the national self-harm of Brexit, the deliberate exacerbation of tensions in Ireland and the treatment of former friends in Europe as enemies have produced an anti-Johnsonian culture. Its brilliant satires and devastating newspaper columns are as ferocious and outraged as the anti-Thatcherism of the 1980s – and just as ineffective.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-boris-johnson-keeps-on-winning
And then the final season happened. While quality did decline after the fourth, it became a nosedive for the last seven episodes. *sighs*
I still hope the rumours of Amazon aping the frisky time stuff with their LOTR series proves false. Apparently they're going to have Lenny Henry as a hobbit. (In the Second Age. Before the Shire exists and the hobbits are still to the east...).
But the photo of the two quotes is going around on what’sapp, with predictable responses
I've seen 37/100, more of them coming from the top 50.
England 1-in-60
Scotland 1-in-80
The week before was
England 1-in-70
Scotland 1-in-60
Not viable.
Got two on the go at the moment (Chronicles of the Black Gate, and Emperor's Edge).
Mr. Above, I'd argue the whole seventh season needs that, to be honest.
Cunningly, I've never watched any of Money Heist.
This is Us absolutely an omission even though it has become somewhat tortuous now
Other omissions:
When They See Us (limited series?)
The Night Of (limited series?)
Modern Family
West Wing (although it was 1999-2006 so perhaps was excluded)
I never saw the point of GoT and never got into MadMen.
Good to see Small Axe in there could be higher imo. And arguably (arguably for the cultural relevance) put Top Boy in but I see it's a stretch although looking at some of the other stuff in there it belongs.
It is a triumph. Ive seen it excluded for "best TV lists" in the past as people argue the amount of money that went into it made it more like a series of Movies rather than a TV show. When I didn't see it in the top 10 I had assumed that is what had happened here.
Not that "experts" thought How I Met Your Mother was better.
Surely anyone who heard it is already behind or underneath their domestic furniture?
The state of our country is as if SeanT had been made moderator of PB.
Phil Dunphy is one of my favourite comedy characters.
https://twitter.com/ZMiklosi/status/1450007197623128064
There seems to be the momentum to oust Orban - but will he fix the election ?
Doesn’t make my initial comment which you got shitty about Incorrect with your needless ad hominem. Don’t assume people just fall for industry spin.
These companies will find a way to stay in the game even if hydrogen fails for domestic heating. There will be something else and Hydrogen will be part of the future.
Looking back, too, the fact that Season 6 finished very strongly tended to mask the silliness of some of the earlier episodes in that season..
'it appears that the horrific killing'
https://twitter.com/norramot/status/1450160978361004033
You would've thought that simply the exposure to the fantastic first four seasons would have given them basic feel for a good story, at least to the extent of not buggering it up quite as comprehensively as they did.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1450451513353154560?t=txr8KFPYHJFP-xMWDQRkAQ&s=19
Edit: * of GoT
Laurence Fox
@LozzaFox
China is building coal power stations at an unprecedented rate, whilst you are about to impoverish the most vulnerable in society (again)
Also, the clue is the word “global” in global warming.
People voted conservative not green.
https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1450451487633682435
It was a needless sly dig.
It’s slightly futurology but at the end of the day if you have a air source heat pump and traditional rads you’re basically going to be running at near direct electricity anyway on a cold January morning.
The darkness wasn't the worst aspect, though..
I don't want to 'spoil' it, but the way the entire arc is concluded is massively unsatisfying.
There are also certain plain stupid/illogical moments. Two characters set off for the capital first, but arrive after the army. Anyone who's into military history will know that an army is much, much slower than one or two travellers deliberately making haste.
Edited extra bit: probably unnecessary but edited to obscure two character names in case anyone's watching and doesn't know if X and Y survive.