The oil lamp – shining God's light on peak oil

Wouldn’t it be great if when you live in a part of the country where there are loads of renewables the electricity was cheaper? Or would it? Is this just a chimera?

At the moment in the UK we live with a situation where piles of renewables have gone onto the grid, are going onto the grid and will continue to go into the grid and are far cheaper then any alternatives – but the cost of power is high. Why? The cost is set by the cost of the gas which does some base load and fills in at night, or when the wind is low. The gas price (as we have seen since the war in Ukraine started) is set on international markets. Even producing more here wouldn’t necessarily lower the price.

However a battle royal is currently waging on whether the electricity price should be set locally depending on regional demand and supply. On the local side is the energy supplier Octopus, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM) and about half the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. On the other opposing zonal pricing – everyone else.

The proponents of zonal pricing say it will encourage both investment in renewables and investment into areas of low electricity price of energy intensive industries (such as data centres). They say it will also lower the power price for everyone by stopping the ludicrous situation where wind farms are ordered to switch off because of grid constraints. It will also mean less pylons are needed.

Their opponents say the uncertainty caused by the switch will mean the price of the investment will go up wiping out any of the above savings and all the above is in any case untrue.

It’s certainly true that this would mean a postcode lottery on power prices. This might actually encourage investment where possible. London is the example that the anti’s mention. I’ve just been there and there’s hardly any roofs with PV’s on them. I can see the argument that raising power prices would make PV’s even more cost effective and encourage their uptake – although I expect the reasons for low number of PV roof is more to do with high mortgages or high % of renters than disinterest.

The main problem with the whole issue is the postcode lottery aspect. People would feel its unfair that through no fault of their own they have to pay more than people who may just live a few miles away. There’s also something that seems fair about sharing the costs around evenly. Annoying though it is to have windfarms switch off and gas stations fill in when there’s plenty of wind – the cash savings on our bills from the quoted total would be small.

However all being said we need to see bills come down and the benefits of renewables made clear and if it would avoid some infrastructure costs it could be worth it,

The arguments to me seem finely balanced and I’m glad I’m not Ed Milliband whose taking the decision.

Neil

I’ve been vaguely aware of Freecycle but never used it before. I took up our Parquet floor for reasons that will be explained in another post. It came up easily and most of it undamaged. The floor underneath formed of wooden floor boards was in good, although not perfect condition. It required a professional varnish and polish but other than that for something that was laid in 1971 is in remarkably good condition. As for the Parquet although its not to my taste it was in good nick so the last thing I wanted was it to go to landfill. At that point there were a number of alternatives. A charity shop along the road that takes anything – but that meant getting about 10 bags there, Gumtree or Freecycle. I decided to try Freecycle.

Freecycle was ludicrously easy to sign up to. It literally took one minute. You don’t even get an email link to click on to activate your account (which nowadays is is almost unheard of). After you do that you say which town/city/area you’re in. That gives you a local dashboard. How much information you gave about your location and how you protect your privacy is up to you. When I posted I just put my general area in.

Posting an offer is easy too (of course you can also post ‘wanted’ too). (There is a check of what you are posting but this is so quick it must be automated.) Within an hour I had four people interested and later that afternoon someone turned up with a van and took it it away.

I now get regular emails with offers and its amazing what junk people will offer and presumably take. Its a good way of reducing and recycling your needs.

Overall verdict: Very good – but only post with offers when you’ve got time to deal with the potential takers. If you want something you have to be quick off the mark – competition is clearly fierce.

Over the summer of 2022 one of our doubling glazing units ‘failed’, the dried air has gradually leaked out of the gap between the sealed panes. The symptoms of this are that moisture appears in the gap and the glass looks dirty, but of course cleaning it has no effect. Today this unit was replaced twenty-seven years after it was put in. All this got me thinking – does doubling glazing pay for itself in monetary terms in its life time? My suspicion has always been that it wouldn’t. First a bit of background rules and comment.

Most of the double glazing was replaced twenty-seven years ago, but not all. Four windows were replaced with Low E double glazed units in the intervening period. According to the double glazing company that quoted for the current replacement job you can expect a lifetime of 30 years.

Twenty-seven years is a long time and in that time of course things change.

• We’ve added a lot more insulation and in 2008 a wood-burner.
• In 2018 we had a new boiler. This cut our consumption massively. This was not due to a massive gain in efficiency per se – although it is a bit more efficient – but because the old boiler heated the water when the central heating was on whether we wanted it to or not.
• In 2000 we had an extension built. This was heated for a while by an electric heater on the wall but after a few years we extended the gas central heating system and put a radiator in. The unit that failed was in this room. The particular glass was at the end of the kitchen which the extension was built onto. We moved the double glazed unit which failed into the new room and reused it.
• I’ve also taken no account of inflation which until this year has been low. In any case in my view it cuts both ways since inflation reduces the size of the original sum invested. We didn’t borrow money to do this, but paid out of our own capital.
• I assumed a 10% heat loss saving on single glazed units. As far as I can gather the U value of a single pane of glass is 5.6W/m²K. This means every metre of glass transmits 5.6W of heat. This doesn’t sound much, but adds up. A double glazed unit of that era is probably half that*. It might be more in our case. The old windows were very bad fitting with lots of drafts. We only had one winter in the house pre doubling glazing, but I can remember the house being very cold and the curtains in the lounge flapping around when the wind blew.

The cost of the original installation was £950 (1995 price).

I have almost all the Q1 and Q4 bills or price and gas usage data with the exception of 1995. This means the % payback is slightly too low (explained in more detail in the next post).

All the above means the calculation is a bit crude. Part two will cover the results of these.

In January 2005 I had an infrared survey done of the house by a professional whose day job was decommissioning nuclear power stations.  Last year someone at church did an EPC (Energy Performance Certificate) for us.  We were at the bottom end of a C rating. We achieved a C due to our solar panels, an energy efficient boiler and (mostly) old double glazing (see my post on double glazing paying for itself).  The EPC report made three recommendations.

• Upgrade the windows.
• Insulate under the floors.
• Insulate the walls.

At the beginning of the 2023 we upgraded the windows in the coldest room in the house (ironically the newest – built in 2000).  This dramatically improved the situation.  Also we replaced the 1995 era window in the bathroom which is the highest in the house.  This also helped.  In November we replaced all the windows upstairs other than the new bathroom one and the kitchen ones downstairs.

In addition I’ve started on the walls and floor.  We live in a conservation area so insulating the outside stone walls is a non starter (even if I wanted to), but the kitchen is a narrow galley type that pokes out the back of the house.  One side is a party wall with our neighbours and at the end is the 2000 extension used as an office/spare room.  The whole thing is brick covered in render.  My aim is to remove the render, insulate it and cover it with silicon render.  Part of the wall is inside an unheated conservatory and I was going to start with this since the outside will require at least a building warrant – if not that and planning permission.  In October I went on a a day course to learn how to do this since I can’t get anyone to do what is a small area.  The problem is at the moment there’s a leak into the conservatory and until that’s fixed I can’t start.

In September I made a start on the floors.  We want to have the wooden floor in the hall sanded, so this seemed like a good opportunity to insulate under there – something I’d had a half hearted go at some years ago.  This time I was serious.  I’ve done the lot.  I did it myself partly to save costs and partly since I couldn’t find anyone else to do it.

The EPC gives links to general advice on the suggested measures they suggest.  There are two recommended methods to insulate floors.  The first is a robot that sprays a foam onto the underside of the floor boards.  I have concerns about its breathability, but in any case its expensive and requires good access and a level surface.  Under our floor it looks like the surface of Mars with rubble everywhere and there are pipes and wires to obstruct its progress.  In the end I used the other recommended method which is to suspend insulation between the joists.  There is no issue with damp since it’s on the cold side (imagine if you flipped it 180 degrees and it was above lying between the roof joists). 

Part of the hall floor and downstairs toilet completed.

I also did under the floor of the adjoining toilet since we decided we’d go back to bare boards there too.  In doing so I discovered worm and a leak at junction of the waste from the sink and boiler.  This was sorted out by plumber who at the same time replaced the sink down pipe (lead) and toilet waste pipe (rusting cast iron) with plastic. Both were ‘cold bridges’ so this and the insulation have largely sorted out condensation gathering on the toilet cistern.  I’ve treated the worm.

This made a massive difference to the hall temperature.  10-15% is lost through floors – less than walls, but in the hall there is very little external wall (the toilet is tiny).  After I’d finished the floor I cast around for other places to insulate.  The new window in our lounge helped, but it still didn’t warm up quickly in very cold weather.  The lounge is a particular challenge.  Like the rest of the house (other than the kitchen/extension) its formed of solid stone walls.  It’s above our neighbours lounge and extends out from the house with one totally external wall and two others that are about 60% external.  From the inside the window looks almost like it’s a bay window although its not (see images below).  Below it was a wooden panel which when I tapped it sounded hollow and it’s the thinnest bit of wall (approximately half the thickness of the rest).  I reasoned there was considerable amount of space between the wood and the stone and I could insulate behind it.  The panel was two tongue and groove floorboards and took me a couple of hours to remove.  The image below shows the mess behind it (complete with 1917 newspapers and a number of wine corks). 

Below the lounge window. What I found.

I cleaned it out, re-pointed the worst of the mortar with fresh lime and packed insulation in it, then put the wood back and repainted bits of it. 

After re-pointing with lime. I re-pointed some of the outside with lime last summer so it should breathe very well.

This small area heatwise has made the biggest single difference other than the roof insulation.  I’ve monitored the temperature in the room for years and this and the new double glazing has raised the temperature by 2-3 degrees.

Post insulation. I stuck the front page of the Guardian in.

In the last few weeks I’ve stuck reflective insulation behind all the radiators, sorted out drafts using sticky draft excluders, made the homemade conservatory to kitchen cat flap less leaky and added a bit more insulation onto the roof hatch.  The company that put our new windows in replaced a vent in the kitchen window which had broken and was drafty.  Today we put in insulated blind over our front door.

What have I learnt?

• I was rather overwhelmed by the infrared survey.  Insulating walls and floors seemed both expensive and difficult.  High energy costs and the need to put in a heat pump at some point in the future have made me revisit it.  DIY is relatively cheap however.  I’m intending to insulate under at least one more room downstairs.
• Everytime I do something major on the heatwise side of things the comfort level in the house moves up a level.  I’m monitoring the gas bills to see how much difference it makes although this is not easy since the use varies from day to day much less month to month.
• Small things can make a disproportionate difference. 

My aim is to get the house to a B rating.  An A rating is likely unachievable due to its solid walls.  Since the EPC rating we’ve bought an EV which has doubled our electricity use.  Ironically this will lower our EPC rating?!  But that is for a future post.

Neil

Stage 1 was to deny it’s existence at all. This was prominent from the 60’s to the 00’s. When the sceptics came up against the science and the overwhelming agreement of the scientific community they had to drop it.

Stage 2 was put forward by people like Bjorn Lomberg. This line was to accept the science but to argue the problem was not that big and we could adapt. This sceptic view was increasingly undermined by the weather and the 2015 Paris agreement.

Stage 3 – the current one is an extension of the second stage. It’s not to deny (on the face of it) the science but to argue that mitigation measures are too expensive especially at the moment. In the UK the argument is extended to our emissions versus China. Which is not really the point and whilst I’m not a great fan of the Chinese government (to put it mildly), assumes that they aren’t doing anything themselves. Some then move back to stages 1 and 2.

None of these stages are absolute and the boundaries between them are fluid. Nor to do any of them take any account of what is going on in the developing world where the effects of climate change has been obvious for years. Nor of course resource depletion – the advocates of oil and gas seem to think they go for ever.

This is all come to head in the UK since a series of bye-elections. One seat (Uxbridge) in outer London the Tories managed to hold onto (just) and the extension of the Low Emission Zone* to it was said to helped them keep the seat. Now both main parties are re-considering their green policies although the Tories seem to be doing it more than Labour.

Stage 3 is getting more prevalent for several reasons. Firstly since we’re getting closer to 2050 and it’s more difficult to kick the issue into the long grass and secondly since the easy to do stuff (the electricity system has been done (or is on an unstoppable course to being done since the main renewables used and now storage are so much cheaper than fossil fuels). (I say easy, but even de-carbonising the electricity supply has caused a degree of angst.) Although its easy for the general public, who use electricity as per usual. The next levels of de-carbonisation which involve heating and transport are much more tricky which is why they’re in the sceptics sights. We’ve seen push back from the people in trials of hydrogen boilers (they were right to be sceptical even if their reasons were wrong). Transport and heat come up against people having to make lifestyle changes and pay something themselves. Hence the problem.

The solution on heat pumps is to do what was done with PV. Have a grant scheme to get the industry and installer base up and running. Then go back to the renewable heat incentive which should be tapered from day one over 10 years to reflect falling costs. (No cliff edges unlike the FIT.) On Low Emission Zones and electric cars the current grants which seem generous on the face of it, need to be increased. The transition to net zero needs to be above all fair. Oh and see off stage 3 and there’s likely nothing left for them to fall back on.

* NOTE. This was a Tory act that has been forced on Labour councils in many cases and in London was kicked off by Boris Johnson when he was mayor. So it’s very hypocritical of them. It has to be said Siddiq Khan is going ahead with the extension and it has to be said that once these are introduced the polling evidence suggests they are quite popular as most motorists find they are unaffected.

I did a blog on potential PV capacity in the UK here.  There is an article from the Solar Power portal here which suggests the capacity is much lower (but still considerable).  I looked at this again a few months ago and I’m sure I wrote a followup but can’t find it.  The original area seemed to be plucked out of thin air with no basis in fact.  The one given above is more realistic. 

Excuse the lack of posts I’ve had problems with WP and updating it without breaking the site.  More will follow.

Neil

One of the most frustrating things in life is recycling (what you can and can’t recycle). I’ve just read an article in the Guardian on difficult to recycle stuff. I’m not going to recycle it (sic) here. It’s well worth a read and I don’t think I can improve on it. I’m just going to throw in a few comments about it.

Firstly of course as it says the best way is not to buy stuff like plastic in the first place – reduce or re-use. But this is expensive, time consuming and and in many cases difficult. It’s really up to the government and big business to make these changes not us. (It’s up to us to make sure they do.) A lot of stuff in the article we simply never buy – so there’s no problem.

Second. We have made a lot of progress. Think about the whole single use plastic bag to put your shopping in – you can still buy a plastic bag if you want. But that’s the point – you have to buy it. Or as the article says plastic has been removed from virtually all teabags (by the way I’m quite happy to compost these.) Yoghurt pots can also now be recycled. All this change – like a lot of change, has been incremental so you don’t recognise it when it’s happening and then suddenly it’s normal.

One area that is still confusing though is the recycling number on your plastic in the middle of the recycling symbol. It’s very hard to find out whether your council takes it and they vary. Yes that’s another frustration – you go on holiday and you find that another council doesn’t take what you can do at home. It can be quite basic when I lived in Glasgow recently there was no kerbside collection of glass (or food waste).

Another thing that is mentioned that’ll highlight in the article is cables and chargers. These maybe difficult to recycle but you can take them to a charity shop. We have one near that takes anything including electricals. Recently I took a load of stuff to the council dump. All of it went in for recycling (apparently) including the failed LED light-bulbs. Our council collects batteries and electricals (defined as small) with the kerbside glass. Larger stuff like bikes? Just bought a second-hand one from somewhere that recycles those and also their components.

Neil

Over the summer one of our doubling glazing units ‘failed’, the dried air has gradually leaked out of the gap between the sealed panes. The symptoms of this are that moisture appears in the gap and the glass looks dirty, but of course cleaning it has no effect. Today this unit was replaced twenty-seven years after it was put in. All this got me thinking – does doubling glazing pay for itself in monetary terms in its life time? My suspicion has always been that it wouldn’t. First a bit of background rules and comment.

Most of the double glazing was replaced twenty-seven years ago, but not all. Twenty-seven years is a long time and in that time and things change. According to the double glazing company that quoted for the job you can expect a lifetime of 30 years. We’ve had two glass doors replaced with double glazing since. Like the single glazed window they open up onto the conservatory – so not directly onto the outdoors unlike the other double glazing. One of these in particular has made the dining room warmer. However this was done more than 10 years after the initial tranche of doubling glazing.

Two smaller windows were also double glazed at a later date. One of these is in the down stairs toilet and is so small a child couldn’t get through it (thieves note despite this it still has bars on the outside). Another is above the main door and is also small.

We’ve also added a lot more insulation and in 2008 a wood-burner.

In 2018 we had a new boiler. This cut our consumption massively. This was not due to a massive gain in efficiency per se – although it is a bit more efficient – but because the old boiler heated the water when the central heating was on whether we wanted it to or not.

In 2000 we had an extension built. This was heated for a while by an electric heater on the wall but after a few years we extended the gas central heating system and put a radiator in. The unit that failed was in this room. The window was at the end of the kitchen which the extension was built onto. We moved the double glazed unit which h has failed into the new room and reused it.

I’ve taken no account of inflation which until this year has been low. In any case in my view it cuts both ways since inflation reduces the size of the original sum invested. We didn’t borrow money to do this, but paid out of our own capital.

I assumed a 10% heat loss saving on single glazed units. As far as I can gather the U value of a single pane of glass is 5.6W/m²K. This means every metre of glass transmits 5.6W of heat. This doesn’t sound much, but adds up. A double glazed unit of that era is probably half that*. It might be more in our case. The old windows were very bad fitting with lots of drafts. We only had one winter in the house pre doubling glazing, but I can remember the house being very cold and the curtains in the lounge flapping around when the wind blew.

The cost of the installation was £950 (1995 price).

I have almost all the Q1 and Q4 bills or price and gas usage data with the exception of 1995. This means the % payback is slightly too low.

All this means the calculation is a bit crude. Part two will cover the results.

* In the UK the part L of the building regulations cover energy use in England. Scotland or Wales. These are not available on-line so far back but the amendments to the 1991 building regulation act barely mention energy, which shows how much things have changed. Nor does any of the literature we have from the doubling glazing that fitted the windows company mention U values. Some people (https://great-home.co.uk/building-regulations-u-values-how-have-they-changed/) put it at 3.1 for double glazing of that era, but I’m sticking to a 10% saving partly because as I say the drafts were horrendous and partly due to the fact that most double glazing companies put the saving at that.