Sadly a coal fire is probably still cheaper than this idea.

example coal at ~ £170 per half tonne.  you could burn quite  a few tonnes a year for the price of the electricity.

Progress it aint..

Mike

Chris Pearson: 
 

If you put in a set of Henleys and a switch-fuse (which seems to be an excellent solution) the existing CU will be none of your business.

Indeed. My estimate offers two options. 1. A new 60 Amp switch fuse only, and 2. A new 60 Amp switch fuse and new consumer unit. I don't really want a solid 50 Amp continuous load running from a modern consumer unit. I bet that confused the customers as option 1 is obviously less in cost, and the “boiler” installers said that the customers needed a new consumer unit. So, that ball is in the customers' court.

Z.

I have a loathing for some salesmen.

Voltage optimisation units were a good scam a while back.

People parted with hard earned money for what benefit?

ebee: 
 

I have a loathing for some salesmen.

Voltage optimisation units were a good scam a while back.

People parted with hard earned money for what benefit?

Yes. These days my financial outgoings are small. I can therefore estimate keenly and give good honest advice. My mortgage is paid off.  My salesman's sharp suit is hanging in the wardrobe collecting dust and moth holes. Now I sleep soundly at night.

Z.

davezawadi (David Stone): 
 

Whilst I see the comments, this is a very foolish idea. The running cost will be immense, and oil is much cheaper, roughly the same as gas. The electrical supply may well not really be available, and I suspect there will be flickering lights and other difficulties. This is probably the least “green” idea I have seen so far, the overall efficiency from gas in to heat out is about half or less than using a new oil boiler. Whoever sold this needs to be locked up. The alternative of LPG is another possibility, again greater overall efficiency than the “electric” solution, and only a bit more than town gas.

Edit added:

The idea that electricity is in any way green is completely untrue, as is the suggestion that it is somehow “free”. On a good windy day, the wind and solar output are still miles from being enough, despite having “invested” a huge amount of money. The idea that fossil fuel will not somehow be available is also ridiculous and despite the “Boris” ideas, we will use fossil fuel for a long time yet, if only to enable us to get petrochemicals, the by-product of refining. Imagine the world without nail varnish remover or any plastic items, including cable insulation. We truly would be back in the dark ages! There really could be no electrical industry at all, and all the turbine blades would cease to exist, as would solar cells. 

Dave, I do agree that wet central heating from a direct electrically powered boiler is not a good idea and that petrochemicals will indeed be required for many years to come. There is however a considerable amount of research in to synthesis of fuels directly from CO₂. A example being this research in the link below. It is difficult to keep track of all the various initiatives taking place in the renewable energy sector but be in no doubt the pace of research and innovation in this field is accelerating. Some of the technologies will be dead ends but as is always the case in evolution there will be winners and losers. Usually the more effective solutions will prove more economical and succeed. Cheers Andy

Andrew Ince: 
Dave, I do agree that wet central heating from a direct electrically powered boiler is not a good idea and that petrochemicals will indeed be required for many years to come. There is however a considerable amount of research in to synthesis of fuels directly from CO₂.

Two issues: (1) the capture of energy (from the sun) be it fossil fuels, wood, electricity, and so on; and (2) how to transport it. There will always be transmission losses, but it seems doubtful that using electricity to reverse the burning of carbon will be as efficient as simply sending it down a wire.

By contrast, use a sugary plant which consumes CO2, add an enzyme (in yeast) and bingo! you have a liquid fuel.

And more usefully the basis of a drink…. cheers.

Mike

Yep Plants or rather algae does have over a billion years head start in photosynthesis so we have some way to go to compete. There is of course additional research in to generation of liquid fuels directly from genetically modified algae. These can be “persuaded” to make hydrocarbons that are suitable replacements for diesel, kerosene etc. I know there's mixed opinions on the forum regarding heat pumps but compared to a directly electrically heated boiler are obviously more efficient.

I'm sure alcohol would be suitable as a fuel for heating and I remember my dad using a picnic stove from 55 years ago using meths. I think it was from Woolworths. The problem with using sugary plants is still one of planting, water supply, land, harvesting, transport, fermentation. Not necessarily a show stopper but the sugary material needs really to be a by product of food or agricultural production rather than grown specifically for fuel. Use of desert areas to produce bio fuels from algae may provide part of the solution without impacting food production.

Being able to synthesise fuel by artificial photosynthesis directly by extraction of CO₂ at the location of use does seem very desirable.

Far better as to use the fermentation for production of drinks I'm thinking.?

Cheers Andy

Andrew Ince: 

Far better as to use the fermentation for production of drinks I'm thinking.?

Cheers Andy

Absolutely. We'll all need a good drink once the climate change alarmists are finally silenced and we can crack on using fossil fuels.