|
Thought I'd throw this one out there as it's a debate we're having in our company.
Which form of heat generation is the most futureproof? Electric or wet systems? Individual dwellings or centrally generated (i.e. on a development base e.g. 100, 400 etc houses)?
|
|
What if you have a wet system that is heated electrically?
In general, a wet *distribution* system can be heated by any source and so is the most flexible.
Paul.
|
|
long term future must be electric
the wet/dry question is not relavent
district heating has proved socially unpopular in the UK
|
|
When I said electric vs wet I more or less meant electric vs gas/biomass etc.
Can the electricity infrastructure cope with everyone using electric heating?
Why is community heating so unpopular? It appears to work well on the continent.
|
|
I knew that you meant wet = not electric but even this dosen't necessarily follow.
In the long term electricity will be the main transmittable power source and so the infrastructure will be improved and upgraded to cope. It would be nice to think that it could remain as it is and everyone save energy by reducing heat losses but that is not likely, and anyway more homes and other buildings are being built all the time.
Community heating being unpopular is possibly cultural? We prefer to throw away our waste heat up cooling towers rather than use it for district heating schemes don't we!
|
|
So if electric is the most futureproof, how do we marry that with low carbon emissions? You'd need 3 no. 2m diameter wind turbines for a superinsulated house to offset the emmissions.
|
