How Electricity screws BERs

sydthebeat

Just a quick one.

Recently did a small mid terrace 2 bed 2 storey built in 2002.

Electric underfloor heating downstairs, storage heaters upstairs. Immersion water heating.

This gets a G (465 kwhr/m2/yr)

If it had an 86% oil boiler it would be a D1. (257 kwhr/m2/yr)

:eek:

d'Oracle

Yes.

Its all down to primary energy.
Electricity uses 2.7 kilowatts per kilowatt used in the gaff.

Its all down to inefficiencies in generation and transfer losses.
Apparently passive houses get hammered for it.

sydthebeat

Yes,

i wonder though if it is disingenuous to the end user.

People will look at a BER and relate it to the running costs of a house.
To be honest, i serious doubt there would be any significant difference in running costs of this particular dwelling whether it be oil heated or electricity heated.

We all get screwed for the inefficiencies in the electricity generation through our electricity bills....

d'Oracle

sydthebeat wrote: »

Yes,

i wonder though if it is disingenuous to the end user.

People will look at a BER and relate it to the running costs of a house.
To be honest, i serious doubt there would be any significant difference in running costs of this particular dwelling whether it be oil heated or electricity heated.

We all get screwed for the inefficiencies in the electricity generation through our electricity bills....

I don't think so.
Its not just down to the efficiencies in transmission.
It is very expensive to heat fluids electrically.
There are losses in the home too. Plus, electricity is around 3 times as expensive per kWh.

Thats a fairly simplistic analysis though.

http://www.sei.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Fuel_Cost_Comparison/Domestic_Fuel_Cost_Comparison_October_2009.pdf

CJhaughey

Thats exactly why BER is a flawed system and should be taken with a good handful of NaCl, Screwing over a passive house because it uses Elec to heat water is absolutely stupid.
But the BER is something which is seen to be doing something, much like most other areas of Govt planning.
It is the same with heating, far better for the BER to have a woodpellet boiler than Oil even of you only heat a very small amount of water in which case an immersion on nightrate is a better and cheaper solution.
Then only real proof is for the owner to keep bills to show usage to prospective buyers.

d'Oracle

CJhaughey wrote: »

Thats exactly why BER is a flawed system and should be taken with a good handful of NaCl, Screwing over a passive house because it uses Elec to heat water is absolutely stupid.

Its important to note that while a passive house does get a hard time its the difference between an A1 and an mid-A2 or A3.

It can hardly be described as Stupid.
A zero carbon passive standard home should easily overcome this.

Also, on a cost per kWh level, a high efficiency Oil boiler in a properly controlled system, will be cheaper than immersion, regardless of volume.

sydthebeat

if a passive house has its certification, then it doesn't matter a toss whether it gets a BER of b1 or whatever....

its debatable whether an 86% oil boiler with storage and distribution losses at 6c per unit is 3 times more expensive than 100% efficient electricity with no storage or distribution losses at 15c per unit (or more significantly 8c per unit night rate)....

d'Oracle

sydthebeat wrote: »

if a passive house has its certification, then it doesn't matter a toss whether it gets a BER of b1 or whatever....

its debatable whether an 86% oil boiler with storage and distribution losses at 6c per unit is 3 times more expensive than 100% efficient electricity with no storage or distribution losses at 15c per unit (or more significantly 8c per unit night rate)....

Well it is.
But Immersion has storage losses.

Either way, the BER isn't just about how much a house costs to heat.
Carbon is as important.

sydthebeat

d'Oracle wrote: »

Well it is.
.

.......... debatable....

d'Oracle wrote: »

Either way, the BER isn't just about how much a house costs to heat.
Carbon is as important.

Thats my point... its disingenuous to the end user who equates BER to running cost... whether correctly or incorrectly...

Im not lauding the incorporation of electrical heating systems, im just making the point that electrical heating systems seem to be penalised at a rate perhaps not reproduced in reality, all things considered...

sinnerboy

Well about 10 years ago i rented a 1970's 3 bed semi . Oil filled elec rads ( I know - unusual) . My bills were low because I choose to freeze . The system was ridiculously expensive to run . So I bought coal , had 1 warm room and used hot water bottles . I was out of there after 4 ( long ) months I can tell you .

A close friend lived in the same house type - gas fired central heating . Warm house because they could afford to run the system .

Neither house was improved in any way ( insulation / glazing )