I understand that but what I am trying to put across is that we still need to looking for an alternative source of power whatever it will be. Electric IMHO is not the answer, but at the moment is a good substitute.
Living in the countryside with power cuts from time to time makes you think hard about relying solely on electric. During the past summer we had to long power cuts with one being nearly all day and the other only 2 -3 hours.
If it was middle of the winter we would have had to drag out the gas heater to keep warm. We also have a small camping gas stove as a backup. Worst of all we need to fit an old style telephone so that we can phone out as no mobile signal.
Now people are being offered £5k grants to change their boilers away from gas so another drain on the system? If it gets really cold, air source heating will struggle. Also if you are taking heat out of the atmosphere perhaps that wil have a negative effect overall on the environment when loads other people are doing the same?
Your telling us that Electric is not the answer, so what in your opinion is the answer?
Considering the emission's produced by burning fuels in a power station, the nature of the emissions is not as damaging as burning fuel in IC engines. So even if it was all loaded onto fossil fuel power stations, the overall emissions would be more tolerable. But the fact is an increasing proportion of grid electricity is produced from either renewables or from zero emission sources, so we are never going to be as dependant on fossil fuels as we have in the past.
The body that runs the national grid has openly stated that the grid has the capacity to deal with and all electric road transport system, where the problems begin to show are local feeds, and even here the capacity is there, but it needs to be managed to prevent local over loads by smart charging and switching of loads to off peak periods.
You local issues are just that local, and it seems that regardless of how much grid activity there is else where, your locality is weak. That is not a reflection of the situation in the whole country. You should be badgering your supplies to improve the local infrastructure, that is one of the risks of deciding to live remotely.
It seems you were badly advised about the size/capability of the Air Source heating system you chose to have fitted. That does not make AS inherently poor its just your particular installation. There are an increasing number of very successful AS schemes in use, perhaps you should look at upgrading yours.
As for the effect of AS on the environment, ignoring the costs and effects on the environment of constructing the systems and having them fitted, Heat is extracted from teh air which cools it a bit. The heat energy is transferred to the inside of the house. the insulation of the house prevents its escape, but not completely, so eventually all that heat energy manages to escape back to the environment. The energy is not destroyed it's simply borrowed temporarily, so the net thermal effect on the environment is actually slightly positive, as you also have to include the energy used run the AS which all eventually emerges as heat .
As Ern posted, greater emphasis should be put onto thermal insulation to reduce the quantities of energy needed for heating. I will add that all new housing and building should be better insulated, and required to have local energy storage systems that can help to balance teh peak loads on local mains supplies.
I agree - lots more of this for heating (deep ground source heat pumps) at a community level is very good idea. Something that is being used on the green housing development in Bicester. High up front costs, needs to be designed into the development build, but very long life sustainable renewable and long term cheap, heating for the whole community.
Facebook
Twitter