Air-Source Heat Pump – our experience so far, 2 months in

Andy Balaam from Andy Balaam's Blog

Summary: less energy, more money

2 months ago, we replaced our gas boiler with an air-source heat pump, which uses electricity to heat our home and boiler. This is a report of our experience so far.

We expected it to reduce our environmental impact, and cost us more money, and we were right.

It works: our house is comfortable. We use a lot less energy, and it costs us significantly more money (because electricity costs way more than gas).

The house

Our house is a beautiful, leaky old house, with a modern extension. Half of it is well-insulated. The other half was built around 1890, and while we do have double-glazing and decent loft insulation, the walls have no cavities and feel cold to the touch, and there are drafts everywhere.

The new half has underfloor heating. The old half and the upstairs are heated by radiators. We have a hot water cylinder.

The air-source heat pump

Our air-source heat pump uses electricity to extract heat from the outside air and heats water for radiators and hot water, directly replacing our gas boiler.

Our heat pump was installed by Your Energy Your Way and I must declare in interest: my wife is a director of the company.

The heat pump is an LG 16kW “THERMA V” model. It looks like a very large air conditioning unit, which sits outside our house in the yard to the side. It is about as tall as my shoulder height, with two big fans on it.

A large air-source heat pump

It stands on a soak-away area with some stones on it that the installers made by removing some patio tiles. This is needed because it drips a small amount of liquid as part of its normal operation. The outdoor unit makes noise, but our house is next to the main road, so we don’t hear it. It is not audible indoors.

Standing next to the outdoor unit you can feel a cold breeze, like opening the fridge door. This is unpleasant on cold days.

That outdoor unit connects through the wall to an indoor part that is a bit smaller than our old boiler.

The controller box has a terrible user interface and is very hard to decipher, but we did eventually manage to programme it to turn the target temperature up in the daytime and down at night. Your Energy Your Way advised us that it is more efficient to keep the house at a cool-ish 17 degrees at night, rather than letting it get cold and having to work hard heat it up again in the morning, so that is how we have set it up.

The controller box’s built-in thermostat does not work properly (it reports the wrong temperature), so we had to add an external thermostat, which works well.

We didn’t need to change anything about our hot water cylinder, or our underfloor heating.

When planning the installation, Your Energy Your Way estimated the heat loss of our rooms, and recommended upgrading our radiators. In an old house like ours this is sometimes needed, because it is way more efficient to heat a house with cooler water running through the radiators, but if the water is cooler, you need more radiator surface area to heat the house effectively. In a newer house with existing radiators, they are probably fine as-is.

We kept most of the existing radiators, and added some more in the coldest rooms.

How comfortable is the house?

The house is more comfortable than it was before, for two reasons: firstly the radiators we had were not really adequate, and secondly the cooler water in the radiators makes a less irritating heat, meaning the house is nicely comfortable most of the time, instead of bouncing between feeling cold and feeling oppressively over-heated.

On cold days, the old part of the house is a bit cold, but I think on average it’s a little better than it was before.

We do find mornings can be chilly, particularly because the system stops heating the radiators if the hot water cylinder needs heating up after people have had showers. We could improve this situation by getting a larger cylinder, which we are considering.

However, it’s worth pointing out that we needed engineers to visit four or five times to make adjustments before we felt the system was working well enough. There are a lot of things that can be tweaked, and it took some time for it to work well.

My advice: don’t pick the cheapest quote – pick the people you think you can trust to do the work well: especially the heat loss calculations before installation and the adjustments afterwards.

How much energy are we using? (The good news)

So far, it looks like we are using about two-thirds less energy in our household than we were before:

The above chart is stacked, so the top line represents the total energy usage. We switched to the air-source heat pump exactly when our gas usage was about to skyrocket (because it’s cold in winter), and it remained relatively low.

This is absolutely fantastic: our house is more comfortable than before, and we have reduced the amount of energy we are using by 66%. This is the total energy usage of our house, not just for heating, so the reduction of energy used for heating is even more dramatic than it looks.

Even better, the energy we use is at least partly produced from renewable sources, so our carbon footprint is much lower. Previously we were directly releasing carbon by burning imported gas – now we use mostly UK-produced electricity, and as the grid decarbonises, our carbon footprint reduces even if we make no further changes.

How much money are we spending? (The bad news)

Excluding standing charges*, we are spending about one third more on energy than we were before. This is because electricity is so much more expensive than gas: our electricity costs 19p per kWh and our gas costs 4p per kWh.

* Note: our energy provider wanted to charge us £350 to remove our gas meter, so we refused, and are still paying the gas standing charge. I’m not sure how we’re going to resolve this, especially since our energy provider is now in administration.

The above chart is stacked, so the top line represents the total cost (excluding standing charges). When we switched to the air-source heat pump, our energy costs increased faster than they did the same time last year, and were consistently higher. We think the peak in November might be misleading as it may have been when the system was not set up correctly, but we are not sure.

Because air-source heat pumps are more efficient when the weather is warmer, we do expect to fare better in the summer than we are right now.

I would not suggest getting a heat pump if you want to save money. Maybe this will change as gas prices are expected to rise significantly this year.

An installation like ours, including new radiators, costs £10-15K. A decent chunk of that will be paid back to us by the government, spread out over the next 7 years, under the soon-to-be-gone Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI). RHI will be replaced by the
Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS), which will be limited to a £5K grant for air-source heat pumps, although it is paid up-front. We would have received much less money under BUS than RHI. It is almost certainly too late for you to get a heat pump under RHI, by the way – all the installers are booked up until end of March 2022, when it ends.

Thoughts

If you think it’s surprising (and deeply concerning) that taking the step of significantly reducing our carbon footprint cost us a one-third increase in our energy bills, I would agree with you.

I am told that the tax taken on electricity is much higher than on gas, even though these taxes are apparently intended help decarbonise our energy.

Meanwhile, the government is replacing (with great fanfare) RHI with the much less generous (although more timely) BUS, making it even more economically punishing to reduce your carbon footprint.

I think this should be addressed urgently: money should be provided to help people install heat pumps, and the tax regime should be changed to make it cheap to use low-carbon fuels.

The technology is available, but the financial situation makes this a vanity project for people like me who can afford it, instead of what it could be: a feasible plan to get our national carbon usage down, fast.

On a positive note, our house is nice and warm, and I feel a bit less guilty about how much carbon we’re using to keep it cosy.

Using Eliptical curve cryptography for TLS with Postfix, Dovecot and nginx

Timo Geusch from The Lone C++ Coder's Blog

I may have mentioned this before - I do run my own virtual servers for important services (basically email and my web presence). I do this mostly for historic reasons and also because I’m not a huge fan of using centralised services for all of the above. The downside is that you pretty much have to learn at least about basic security. Over the 20+ years I’ve been doing this, the Internet hasn’t exactly become a less hostile place.

Chi Chi Again – a.k.

a.k. from thus spake a.k.

Several years ago we saw that, under some relatively easily met assumptions, the averages of independent observations of a random variable tend toward the normal distribution. Derived from that is the chi-squared distribution which describes the behaviour of sums of squares of independent standard normal random variables, having means of zero and standard deviations of one.
In this post we shall see how it is related to the gamma distribution and implement its various functions in terms of those of the latter.

Can you keep Agile and OKRs seperate?

Allan Kelly from Allan Kelly

“I’ve been told to keep agile and OKRs separate”

The first time I head this I was surprised, “missed opportunity” I thought but then, as I thought about it more, the more I realised that it was impossible.

Start with the OKRs: OKRs are about deciding what to put your time and energy into. OKRs are about the big priorities for your organization and team. The more I’ve spent time with OKRs, the more I’ve come to see them as the management method rather than a management method among many. Let me caveat that lest it sound arrogate: management within an organization.

The management approach

There are many management approaches out there: strict time-and-motion were workers time is schedule to the minute by experts; complete devolution giving employees free rein and managers (if they exist at all) only exist to coach. And there is everything in between, including project management which attempts to define the start and stop dates in advance. At this level OKRs are one management approach among many and organizations are free to choose which they follow.

Even combining traditional HR performance review processes with OKRs can lead to ruin. Once compensation is conected to OKRs people become incentivised to stay safe by setting OKRs which bring rewards, i.e. not ambitions ones that might be missed.

Running any other management method in tandem with OKRs risks jeopardising both. So if you choose OKR then follow it all the way, call it “Extreme OKRs” if you like.

Just try imaging agile as something separate to your OKRs: you set OKRs and then you run iterations. What are you delivering in the iteration? Surely iterations are delivering progress against OKRs?

I suppose you could have a backlog of work to do (Track A) and some OKRs to work on as well (Track B). Track A and B might lead to different places or represent different work to do. Leave aside potential conflict for a minute, think about how you divide your time.

More WIP, fewer results

Agile teaches that work in progress should be minimised, but now in this example there are two sanctioned work streams. Maybe we could ring-fence work: Agile in the morning, OKRs in the afternoon. I find it hard to see that working well.

Maybe A could be the main stream and B other a “best efforts” / “spare time” stream. But, if both A and B are important then why leave prioritisation be left to the worker? It smells a bit of leadership abdicating responsibility for prioritisation.

It is a fantasy to think that workers can focus on delivering the backlog and in their “spare time” deliver the OKRs. If your workers have copious amounts of spare time then something else is seriously wrong. It is easy to overload workers, and thereby create problems further down the line. People will burn out, goals will be missed or goals are met but with such poor quality that problems emerge later.

I can see how you can run OKRs without agile.

And I’ve long seen Agile working without OKRs.

But if you have both Agile and OKRs in the same company I just don’t see how Agile and OKRs can be separated. Conversely I can see how they can work well together – yes, I wrote a book on that.

If you are going to have OKRs and Agile in the same company then you need to consider them as one thing, not as two separate endeavours.

Photo by Jackson Simmer on Unsplash


Subscribe to my blog newsletter and download Continuous Digital for free

The post Can you keep Agile and OKRs seperate? appeared first on Allan Kelly.

Find My Tea: A technical journey through new product development (online 1st February 2022)

Paul Grenyer from Paul Grenyer

What: Find My Tea: A technical journey through new product development

When:
Tuesday, February 1, 2022 7:00pm to 8:30p (GMT)

Where:  SyncIpswich (online)

RSVP: https://www.meetup.com/SyncIpswich-Ipswichs-Tech-Startup-Community/events/281991960/

 

 

After what feels like an age I’m getting back into speaking and of course I’m speaking about Find My Tea! This time it’s technical!

As well as online with SyncIpswich I’m also doing the ACCU Conference, nor(DEV):con and one other:

    ACCU Conference - 4pm 8th April (Bristol) - 90min version
    nor(DEV):con - 24th & 25th June (Norwich)
    TBC - July

Find My Tea: A technical journey through new product development

There is more to having a great idea for an app than just building the app. You’re not only required to be a full stack developer (whatever that means), which doesn’t usually include the skills for building an app, you need to understand and be competent in ‘Ops’ (there’s really no such thing as DevOps) and the automated pipelines used for testing and deploying the app, it’s backend services and supporting applications. And there is so much to choose from!

In this session I will take you on the journey of discovery from having an idea, to choosing, rechoosing and choosing again the different technologies and platforms I used to build and release a new product from scratch.

This session will be focussed on the technology choices made and the reasoning and not on the product itself - although of course this will feature. This will include the mobile technology, the technology used for the web applications, backed services, hosting and development pipelines.

You can download the Find My Tea app here: https://findmytea.co.uk

 

Paul Grenyer

Husband, father, software engineer, metaller, Paul has been writing software for over 35 years and professionally for more than 20. In that time he has worked for and in all sorts of companies from two man startups to world famous investment banks and insurance companies. He has built and run three limited companies, none of which made him a millionaire and two of which threatened his sanity on more than one occasion.

Paul was a founding member of both SyncNorwich and Norfolk Developers, two of the most successful tech and startup based community groups in the East. He created and chaired the hugely successful Norfolk Developers Conference (nor(DEV):con) for seven years bringing in speakers and delegates in the sphere of software engineering from around the globe.

Paul is currently a Senior Software Engineer at Bourne Leisure, the owners of Haven caravan parks, and the founder of the tea finding app, Find My Tea. He loathes the word Entrepreneur, not least because he struggles to spell it and it reminds him of Del Boy from the 80s sitcom Only Fools and Horses. He sees Entrepreneurship as a side effect of the creative process of problem solving, rather than a career path in its own right.

Despite having dealt with the world of business from directors of the board down, Paul has kept both feet firmly on the ground even when his head has been in the clouds with healthy doses of Heavy Metal, Science Fiction and Formula One and long hair until it started falling out in 2013.

Oh, and he loves good tea too!

Visual Lint 8.0.7.349 has been released

Products, the Universe and Everything from Products, the Universe and Everything

Visual Lint 8.0.7.349 has now been released.

This is a maintenance update for Visual Lint 8.0, and includes the following changes:

  • The Visual C++ project (.vcxproj) file parser now defines the value of _MSVC_LANGappropriately if /std:c++14, /std:c++17, /std:c++20 or /std:c++latest are used within a Visual Studio 2015, 2017, 2019 or 2022 project configuration.

  • Fixed a bug in the Clang-Tidy analysis results parser which could cause some "note" issues to be hidden.

  • Fixed a bug in the handling of UTF-8 files in VisualLintGui.

  • Updated the PC-lint Plus compiler indirect file co-rb-vs2022.lnt to support Visual Studio 2022 v17.0.4.

  • Updated the PC-lint Plus compiler indirect file co-rb-vs2019.lnt to support Visual Studio 2019 v16.11.8.

  • Updated the PC-lint Plus compiler indirect file co-rb-vs2017.lnt to support Visual Studio 2017 v15.9.42.

  • Updated the PC-lint Plus library indirect file lib-rb-atl.lnt.

  • Updated the help topic for the Clang-Tidy Analysis Configuration Dialog "General" page.

Download Visual Lint 8.0.7.349

Creating and evolving a programming language: funding

Derek Jones from The Shape of Code

The funding for artists and designers/implementors of programming languages shares some similarities.

Rich patrons used to sponsor a few talented painters/sculptors/etc, although many artists had no sponsors and worked for little or no money. Designers of programming languages sometimes have a rich patron, in the form of a company looking to gain some commercial advantage, with most language designers have a day job and work on their side project that might have a connection to their job (e.g., researchers).

Why would a rich patron sponsor the creation of an art work/language?

Possible reasons include: Enhancing the patron’s reputation within the culture in which they move (attracting followers, social or commercial), and influencing people’s thinking (to have views that are more in line with those of the patron).

The during 2009-2012 it suddenly became fashionable for major tech companies to have their own home-grown corporate language: Go, Rust, Dart and Typescript are some of the languages that achieved a notable level of brand recognition. Microsoft, with its long-standing focus on developers, was ahead of the game, with the introduction of F# in 2005 (and other languages in earlier and later years). The introduction of Swift and Hack in 2014 were driven by solid commercial motives (i.e., control of developers and reduced maintenance costs respectively); Google’s adoption of Kotlin, introduced by a minor patron in 2011, was driven by their losing of the Oracle Java lawsuit.

Less rich patrons also sponsor languages, with the idiosyncratic Ivor Tiefenbrun even sponsoring the creation of a bespoke cpu to speed up the execution of programs written in the company language.

The benefits of having a rich sponsor is the opportunity it provides to continue working on what has been created, evolving it into something new.

Self sponsored individuals and groups also create new languages, with recent more well known examples including Clojure and Julia.

What opportunities are available for initially self sponsored individuals to support themselves, while they continue to work on what has been created?

The growth of the middle class, and its interest in art, provided a means for artists to fund their work by attracting smaller sums from a wider audience.

In the last 10-15 years, some language creators have fostered a community driven approach to evolving and promoting their work. As well as being directly involved in working on the language and its infrastructure, members of a community may also contribute or help raise funds. There has been a tiny trickle of developers leaving their day job to work full time on ‘their’ language.

The term Hedonism driven development is a good description of this kind of community development.

People have been creating new languages since computers were invented, and I don’t expect this desire to create new languages to stop anytime soon. How long might a language community be expected to last?

Having lots of commercially important code implemented in a language creates an incentive for that language’s continual existence, e.g., companies paying for support. When little or co commercial important code is available to create an external incentive, a language community will continue to be active for as long as its members invest in it. The plot below shows the lifetime of 32 secular and 19 religious 19th century American utopian communities, based on their size at foundation; lines are fitted loess regression (code+data):

Size at foundation and lifetime of 32 secular and 19 religious 19th century American utopian communities; lines are fitted loess regression.

How many self-sustaining language communities are there, and how many might the world’s population support?

My tracking of new language communities is a side effect of the blogs I follow and the few community sites a visit regularly; so a tiny subset of the possibilities. I know of a handful of ‘new’ language communities; with ‘new’ as in not having a Wikipedia page (yet).

One list contains, up until 2005, 7,446 languages. I would not be surprised if this was off by almost an order of magnitude. Wikipedia has a very idiosyncratic and brief timeline of programming languages, and a very incomplete list of programming languages.

I await a future social science PhD thesis for a more thorough analysis of current numbers.