Strange Question

[EnglishRose]

4 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

The other thing with air source is a big noisy fan!

Exactly, the more we read on Air Source the more we don't like it but the alternative is oil if we can't progress on water source.

 

@Tumshie yes you make a valid point. The closing email from CRT, just after sentence about them not being able to respond for three weeks noted that it would certainly need to be fendered ie protected against boats colliding into it and a solution may be to hide the blades under a pontoon. 

 

I wish we had gas but we are over a canal bridge so can't get a gas supply over the bridge..... 

 

And even if all this is possible, if they want to charge us too, it could be financially not viable. 

[Tumshie]

6 minutes ago, MHS said:

Our previous house had around 300 yards of river frontage on the river Don so ideal for water source pumps. 

I would have happily replaced the old inefficient oil fired boiler with ground source heat pumps in the paddock but for the lack of insulation and ceiling height. We would have had to install underfloor heating for it to have worked. That wasn’t sensible with stone flagged floors and beautiful 3/4” mahogany parquet floors in the lounge and dining rooms. 

 

I looked at hydro, but the weir on our land had collapsed years ago so only had a head or around 4’. Now we are in a house with an epc rating of B it doesn’t seem relevant. 

I'm trying to change the world one Fully Charged link at a time - but I don't think any body watches them. ?

 

 A B rating is pretty good I don't think I've ever lived in a B rated house.

[jonesthenuke]

Re the Nuenta Energy Blades. These seem to be a relatively bespoke solution to the problem. It may be cheaper to pump water through a standard (cheaper) heat exchanger? I realise there is more energy consumption from the pump but it probably worth assessing the long term costs. It would also be much less intrusive to the canal infrastructure if CRT raise concerns over such issues.

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, jonesthenuke said:

I get the impression CRT are keen on pursuing all forms of income and may well want to charge for the "use" of their water, even if you give it all back a little cooler. I seem to recollect them charging businesses for use of the canal water for cooling., which is in principle much the same as you propose.

C&RT's income from water abstraction & discharge licences is getting closer & closer to the income from boat licences (£28m Vs £38m 2017/18)

 

You pay and abstraction licence fee to take it out, then a discharge licence fee, to put the same bit of water back in.

Extract from the C&RT annual accounts :

 

Utility and water development income. Utility income is received from third parties who
use the towpaths or bridges for their infrastructure cables for data, telecoms or electricity.
Income from water development arises through abstraction of water from the canal as well
as discharges of excess water into the canal and the use of water for heating and cooling
of buildings.

[MHS]

33 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

I'm trying to change the world one Fully Charged link at a time - but I don't think any body watches them. ?

 

 A B rating is pretty good I don't think I've ever lived in a B rated house.

Insulation makes a massive difference. 

 

The gas bill for our new house vs our similarly sized old one’s oil bill is about 1/3 of the cost. We also ran one 8kw and one 12kw stove at the old house virtually constantly as we were self sufficient for firewood. 

[Tumshie]

1 minute ago, MHS said:

Insulation makes a massive difference. 

 

The gas bill for our new house vs our similarly sized old one’s oil bill is about 1/3 of the cost. We also ran one 8kw and one 12kw stove at the old house virtually constantly as we were self sufficient for firewood. 

A couple of years back I got this insulation stuff blown into the cavity of my outside walls - wow what a difference. I use so much less energy heating the house and then I can turn it off earlier in the evening because the house retains the heat for longer. I was quite staggered at just how much difference it makes. 

[cuthound]

My concern would be that if a large enough number of people extracted heat from the canals to heat their homes, the canals would freeze over and I would have to swap the boat for a motor home fitted with studded tyres. ?

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, cuthound said:

My concern would be that if a large enough number of people extracted heat from the canals to heat their homes, the canals would freeze over and I would have to swap the boat for a motor home fitted with studded tyres. ?

 

Is that so you can get down the by-wash ?

(Obviously you couldn't use the locks as the gates would be frozen closed)

[NigelMoore]

For a good number of years now, Glaxo Smith Kline in Brentford have been using heat pump/water cooling from the Grand Union, as mentioned in a number of case studies -

 

https://www.gshp.org.uk/CP2/Wincott.pdf

http://www.aqualorenergi.com/case-studies/

 

I believe CaRT derive a nice bit of income from it.

 

 

[NigelMoore]

15 hours ago, yabasayo said:

Interesting point, maybe slightly academic. Does the CRT actually own the water or as I suspect just the canal bed beneath it ?

It IS “slightly academic”. You are correct, under UK law (as with the Justinian Code underpinning most European and some American legislation) nobody ‘owns’ the water; it is the property of all (regardless of ownership of the land beneath). The caveat to that, however, is that certain parties may have rights to the USE of the water, whether under Common Law or by statute. Where Statute grants rights of control – of this or other commodities/assets private or public - it does so regardless of ownership.

 

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

It IS “slightly academic”. You are correct, under UK law (as with the Justinian Code underpinning most European and some American legislation) nobody ‘owns’ the water; it is the property of all (regardless of ownership of the land beneath). The caveat to that, however, is that certain parties may have rights to the USE of the water, whether under Common Law or by statute. Where Statute grants rights of control – of this or other commodities/assets private or public - it does so regardless of ownership.

 

But while the law has established rights in terms of abstraction and discharge of water, can the same be said with regard to the heat stored in that water?

[Chewbacka]

6 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But while the law has established rights in terms of abstraction and discharge of water, can the same be said with regard to the heat stored in that water?

My understanding Is that you can not put your heat exchanger in the canal without permission as you are obstructing crt canal bed.  Same as mooring.  So whilst one may be able to argue the water is owned by all, the canal bed and above it is owned by crt.

[Alan de Enfield]

BIG fire in Nottingham - I wonder if the Fire Brigade have to pay for an extraction licence ?

 

"Because of the amount of material involved in the buildings, we had problems with the water pressure from the fire hydrants and had to use a high pressure pump to get water from the canal."

 

The only injury reported was one man - who was reportedly bitten by a snake while moving livestock from the exotic pet business.

Richard Wragg, who runs a cold storage unit nearby, described how the reptiles had to be evacuated from the scene.

"So, 200 reptiles to evacuate in the space of about 20 minutes is a bit interesting," he said.

"So it was just a mad dash ferrying them from their unit to our unit."

One lizard was so large it had to be moved in a shopping trolley, he added.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-46094570

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

My understanding Is that you can not put your heat exchanger in the canal without permission as you are obstructing crt canal bed.  Same as mooring.  So whilst one may be able to argue the water is owned by all, the canal bed and above it is owned by crt.

Heating tubes laid on the canal bed could prove a bit awkward for dredging. How about piling the edge with piping

 

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Heating tubes laid on the canal bed could prove a bit awkward for dredging. How about piling the edge with piping

 

What dredging? Do you know something we dont know ?

[ditchcrawler]

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

What dredging? Do you know something we dont know ?

They don't do much but you can bet your life if you cover the canal bed with a pipework mat they would want to,

[Momac]

6 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

 

 

That looks like  a properly engineered pit and probably has a pipe   through the sheet piled wall. Not a simple hole dug at the side of the cut. then there is the outfall seen in the background. al that would cost a fair bit. not to mention the fees for designing it.  Nice to have for a company wanting to make a contribution by having a sustainable  energy source  but probably not viable for  a single dwelling .

[Mike Todd]

19 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

My understanding Is that you can not put your heat exchanger in the canal without permission as you are obstructing crt canal bed.  Same as mooring.  So whilst one may be able to argue the water is owned by all, the canal bed and above it is owned by crt.

Perhaps that explains why it was suggested in a much earlier post that the equipment be located in a newly dug extension to the canal into the land owned by the OP.

[EnglishRose]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

Perhaps that explains why it was suggested in a much earlier post that the equipment be located in a newly dug extension to the canal into the land owned by the OP.

Exactly, although we will see what CRT say.... Will keep you all updated. 

[Chewbacka]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Perhaps that explains why it was suggested in a much earlier post that the equipment be located in a newly dug extension to the canal into the land owned by the OP.

Probably the equipment is in a side ‘extension’ to avoid damage from boats, but they would still need crt agreement as it’s either a connection (bit like a marina needs) or it’s a pipe that extracts water and discharges effluent (even if it’s the same water but at a different temperature).  Either way I don’t see crt letting you do it for free, and as a licence payer I hope crt gets a fair return for the use of it’s assets.

[Mike Todd]

40 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Probably the equipment is in a side ‘extension’ to avoid damage from boats, but they would still need crt agreement as it’s either a connection (bit like a marina needs) or it’s a pipe that extracts water and discharges effluent (even if it’s the same water but at a different temperature).  Either way I don’t see crt letting you do it for free, and as a licence payer I hope crt gets a fair return for the use of it’s assets.

But if (for argument's sake) the design does not involve exchanging water but only heat? But I agree about the bit regarding a fair return on assets.

[Jerra]

17 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

But if (for argument's sake) the design does not involve exchanging water but only heat? But I agree about the bit regarding a fair return on assets.

Boaters pay for the privileged of floating on top of the water (merely using it) and remove nothing.  I would suspect CRT would want paid for using the water whether they count removing heat in the calculation or not.

[Alan de Enfield]

32 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Boaters pay for the privileged of floating on top of the water (merely using it) and remove nothing.  I would suspect CRT would want paid for using the water whether they count removing heat in the calculation or not.

I suppose we should be grateful that we are not charged an additional licence fee for 'Discharges' of our Grey water.

[Mike Todd]

36 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Boaters pay for the privileged of floating on top of the water (merely using it) and remove nothing.  I would suspect CRT would want paid for using the water whether they count removing heat in the calculation or not.

What I was suggesting was an arrangement that did not use any water (ie by using heat exchanger such as pipes) that transfer heat but no water, especially if not in the original channel. A more challenging case might be to sink a tank alongside the bank such that it is in contact with the canal water but not in it.

[Jerra]

27 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

What I was suggesting was an arrangement that did not use any water (ie by using heat exchanger such as pipes) that transfer heat but no water, especially if not in the original channel. A more challenging case might be to sink a tank alongside the bank such that it is in contact with the canal water but not in it.

I quite understood what you were suggesting.   What I was trying to point out is that if CRT want a fee (licence) for merely using the water I would expect they are going to they would want a fee for merely using the water for any purpose, let alone extracting heat from it.

 

To me it seems obvious that with future funds from the government not guaranteed they will seize any opportunity to charge a fee for any use of the canal.