Why One Strike on Iran’s Oil Infrastructure Undermines Every Heat Pump and Solar Array in Britain

The images from Tehran continue to dominate the screens: vast plumes of black smoke rising from the Shahran oil depot and other fuel storage sites in the Iranian capital, ignited by strikes carried out jointly by American and Israeli forces as the conflict enters its second week.

Credible reporting from outlets including Sky News, BBC, CNN, France 24, The New York Times, AP and Reuters confirms that these attacks, which began targeting energy infrastructure in earnest over the weekend of 7-8 March 2026, have set alight depots holding millions of litres of refined products. The fires are not brief flares. They burn with the intensity that turns night into an orange haze, releasing hydrocarbons directly into the atmosphere in quantities that dwarf everyday calculations of domestic emissions.

A single large oil storage tank, when breached and ignited, can release tens of thousands of tonnes of petroleum products into combustion within hours. The combustion is unforgiving. Each tonne of fuel burned produces approximately 3.1 tonnes of CO2.

Eyewitness footage and satellite observations suggest multiple tanks at Shahran and nearby facilities were compromised, with fires spreading across infrastructure linked to the Revolutionary Guard. Conservative estimates, drawing on the known capacities of these depots (often in the range of hundreds of millions of litres) and the visible scale of the blazes, place the immediate CO2 release from one night’s strikes in the order of 50,000 to 200,000 tonnes or more.

A thick plume of smoke rises from an oil storage facility hit by a US-Israeli strike late Saturday in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, March 8, 2026. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

This figure excludes additional emissions from associated refining complexes damaged in the campaign, as well as the black carbon and other short-lived climate forcers carried aloft by the smoke.

The military operations themselves compound the damage. The United States has deployed carrier-based aviation from the Abraham Lincoln strike group in the Arabian Sea, launching waves of F/A-18 Super Hornets and F-35 Lightning IIs. Israeli squadrons of F-35 Adirs and F-15s have conducted long-range strikes, supported by aerial refuelling tankers.

Each fighter sortie consumes between 5,000 and 15,000 litres of jet fuel, each B-2 or refuelling mission several times that. Aviation kerosene emits approximately 2.53 kg of CO₂ per litre when burned. A single Super Hornet combat sortie therefore generates 15-40 tonnes of CO2… a B-2 mission more than 60 tonnes.

With hundreds of sorties flown since 28 February, when the joint operation began, the cumulative fuel burn from aircraft alone already exceeds 35,000 tonnes of CO2 in the conflict’s first week, according to preliminary assessments modelled on similar campaigns. Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from US warships add further emissions, as do the logistics flights ferrying munitions and personnel across the region. The Pentagon’s own historical data show that modern warfare is among the most carbon-intensive activities on earth. In fact, the US military alone accounts for a larger annual emissions footprint than many entire nations.

When these direct releases from targeted infrastructure and operational fuel burn are combined, the carbon cost of even a limited phase of the campaign becomes staggering. A single concentrated assault on Tehran’s fuel depots, coupled with the sorties required to execute it, can equate to 100,000-300,000 tonnes of CO2 released in days.

In the United Kingdom, the switch from a conventional gas boiler to an air source heat pump typically saves between 1,400-1,900 kg of CO2 per household annually, according to figures from British Gas, Energy Saving Trust and other analyses. Pairing the heat pump with a domestic solar array pushes that saving comfortably above two tonnes per year for many homes.

The arithmetic is merciless. The emissions from one strike in Iran offset the annual decarbonisation gains of 50,000 to 150,000 British households. Extend this across the full scope of the ongoing campaign (with its repeated waves, retaliatory exchanges and broadening regional disruptions) and the equivalent quickly reaches hundreds of thousands, potentially millions, of household-years of effort erased.

This disparity raises a question that cannot be evaded by those of us who have invested time, money and conviction in home-level decarbonisation. Is it worth it?

When geopolitical decisions taken far beyond our borders unleash carbon pulses of this magnitude, when a handful of precision-guided munitions can incinerate the equivalent emissions savings of entire cities’ worth of retrofitted homes, what rational basis remains for the individual householder to persist?

The British government urges millions of installations by the end of the decade, backed by grants and mandates, yet the global carbon ledger appears to be balanced not in planning documents or domestic energy bills, but in the targeting cells of distant command centres.

The conflict’s wider repercussions compound the futility. Disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz, where roughly one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas transits, have already forced rerouting of tankers, idled production in Qatar and elsewhere, and driven up energy prices worldwide. I covered this in my video here.

Such shocks historically prompt short-term shifts toward coal in import-dependent markets like Europe and Asia, as gas supplies tighten which is a “nightmare scenario” for energy security and emissions alike, in the words of analysts tracking parallels to the Ukraine invasion.

The war has suspended significant fractions of Middle Eastern supply, pushing consumers toward dirtier alternatives and elevating overall global emissions even as physical production halts in some areas.

None of this diminishes the intrinsic value of the technologies themselves. Heat pumps remain vastly more efficient than gas boilers, solar generation displaces marginal fossil-fired power on the grid. The physics holds.

Yet the episode exposes a profound asymmetry in accountability. Domestic climate action in Britain is measured with precision (every kilowatt-hour tracked, every tonne saved audited) while the carbon consequences of state violence remain largely externalised, uncounted in national inventories and politically insulated from scrutiny.

Humanity’s capacity for self-destruction appears to outpace its capacity for self-restraint by orders of magnitude. The same species that can engineer a heat pump capable of extracting warmth from minus five degree air cannot, it seems, restrain itself from setting fire to oil depots on the other side of the planet.

For the UK homeowner who has spent thousands on a retrofit, who monitors their smart meter with satisfaction, the question lingers. Why persist when distant decisions can undo it all so effortlessly?

The answer, if there is one, lies not in abandoning the endeavour but in recognising its limits. Individual and national action, however diligent, cannot insulate against a world where conflict remains the ultimate emitter. The fires in Tehran are burning more than oil, when the blazes at Shahran alone can release in days the carbon equivalent saved annually by tens of thousands of British heat pump and solar homes, one is forced to ask whether all this domestic effort is simply futile in the face of such effortless, distant destruction. They are burning any illusion that our small, earnest efforts can outrun the larger folly of which we remain collectively capable.

Image credit: U.S.-Israeli Strikes Grow as Fuel Depots Burn in Tehran – The New York Times

Related posts

Vote for the Best Heat Pump Brand in the UK – 2027 Edition

Living with a Low Loss Header (Or Measure For Measure, it’s All About the Pump)

George Cove and Lord Kelvin: The Missed Convergence That Could Have Reshaped Renewables & the World

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
47 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JamesPa

The answer, if there is one, lies not in abandoning the endeavour but in recognising its limits. Individual and national action, however diligent, cannot insulate against a world where conflict remains the ultimate emitter. The fires in Tehran are burning more than oil, when the blazes at Shahran alone can release in days the carbon equivalent saved annually by tens of thousands of British heat pump and solar homes, one is forced to ask whether all this domestic effort is simply futile

No it isn’t.  Conflicts will continue, its the human condition and we can only change what we can change.  The good news is that climate change may well be non linear, but it isn’t binary.  Every tonne of carbon we save here reduces global warming a bit and makes it less likely that tipping points will be reached and more likely that the worst effects will be avoided.  Furthermore, every time we build a wind turbine, fit a solar panel or move a house off of gas, we take another step to becoming energy independent, as opposed to our current position of perilous dependence on a resource shipped from despot countries through fragile shipping routes.  Doing this is a key pilar of national security in a highly insecure world.  

Toodles

@Mars If we are to believe what that verbose leader of a rather large country is telling us, global warming is nonsense and as to a shortage …. well … Drill Baby, Drill!
Ever Warming Regrets, Toodles.

Batpred


My piece wasn’t arguing we should stop (far from it) but highlighting how disproportionate the carbon math can feel when a single strike undoes household-level savings on a massive scale.

Yes, it is a good observation I had not heard before.
Targeting oil and gas infrastructure is an act that does not attract the same scrutiny. Not long ago, the high losses of methane to the atmosphere from operations in the Gulf were painstakingly reduced. 
One positive effect of the bombing and cycles of price hikes is that they may lead many consumers to take steps to reduce their dependency on fossil fuels. I see no signs of any erosion of the transition towards a decarbonised future. 
But the reaction to the bombing confirms that armies are not being scrutinized regarding the emissions that their attacks are causing. 
 

MK4



The answer, if there is one, lies not in abandoning the endeavour but in recognising its limits. Individual and national action, however diligent, cannot insulate against a world where conflict remains the ultimate emitter. The fires in Tehran are burning more than oil, when the blazes at Shahran alone can release in days the carbon equivalent saved annually by tens of thousands of British heat pump and solar homes, one is forced to ask whether all this domestic effort is simply futile



No it isn’t.  Conflicts will continue, its the human condition and we can only change what we can change.  The good news is that climate change may well be non linear, but it isn’t binary.  Every tonne of carbon we save here reduces global warming a bit and makes it less likely that tipping points will be reached and more likely that the worst effects will be avoided.  Furthermore, every time we build a wind turbine, fit a solar panel or move a house off of gas, we take another step to becoming energy independent, as opposed to our current position of perilous dependence on a resource shipped from despot countries through fragile shipping routes.  Doing this is a key pilar of national security in a highly insecure world.  

@Mars
I share your frustration and I often feel like an ant in front of an army of a gazillion of elephants, but I am 100% with @JamesPa on this. 
We started our 4 year investment plan on insulation/pv panels/heat pump, not because we expected a viable ROI but because the 2021 wildfires in our country shook us to our core. 
I believe that climate change is the biggest challenge the world is facing and as a mother and part of the generation who f**ked up, I will do everything in my power to promote awareness and action.
I try to instill in my son and his friends a culture of low energy and low water consumption, I confront and challenge my (beloved) US-based relatives who seems to have no sense of the urgency (ignoring all the while the smirks), I make an effort to use public transportation and yes I support Greenpeace (even though I do not agree with all their actions, at least they do take action). Even if I am a tiny ant, I will not give up. Every drop, every gram of fossil fuels that is not burned counts.
 

Morgan

Allow me to chip in here.  Before the Iran strikes kicked off, we decided to top up our oil tank (we have an oil-fired AGA). We ordered and paid for 1100 Litres of oil. The delivery has just been done, but only 500 Litres were deposited. The driver told us that the amounts were now being limited/rationed due to the conflict in Iran and that we should contact Boiler Juice to arrange a refund of the overspend.
Just my 2pennorth.

Toodles

@Morgan The chances are that when you request the balance of your ordered quantity, that balance will be at a somewhat higher cost! Toodles.

Morgan

@Mars Yes, but………….. we now wait for the overspend to be refunded to confirm that is what has actually been returned.

Majordennisbloodnok

@Morgan I’ve been hearing that kerosene is currently selling for £1.57/litre! Staggering!

In order to keep track of how much our switch to heat pump/solar PV setup is costing or saving us I keep an eye on the price of the heating oil we would’ve had to buy. In December, we’d’ve been buying at 70.29p/L ex VAT. I’ve just checked today (although historically we wouldn’t have needed to buy again until May) and the same supplier is currently quoting 138.59p/L ex VAT. That’s an increase of 97%.

 

Old_Scientist



@Morgan I’ve been hearing that kerosene is currently selling for £1.57/litre! Staggering!

In order to keep track of how much our switch to heat pump/solar PV setup is costing or saving us I keep an eye on the price of the heating oil we would’ve had to buy. In December, we’d’ve been buying at 70.29p/L ex VAT. I’ve just checked today (although historically we wouldn’t have needed to buy again until May) and the same supplier is currently quoting 138.59p/L ex VAT. That’s an increase of 97%.

Same here – I record the price of oil on the 1st of each month in my spreadsheet and work out what my break even price for electricity would be given my current monthly COP (even though I’m on Cosy, I’m interested to know if a heat pump on the SVR would be cheaper than the oil boiler it replaced)
At the start of the month kerosene was 62.5p per litre here, yesterday it peaked at 144p and this morning it’s down slightly at 135p (inc VAT) – more than double pre-war prices.
I keep hearing on the news that suppliers won’t quote for delivery. That’s not due to any shortages in kero, simply that they would rather do no business than trade at a loss where the price is currently so volatile. I’m guessing they’d rather lose a few orders and wait a few days for things to stabilise a bit.
 

TechnoGeek

@Mars at the time of writing heating oil is £1.28 / ltr in our area. One positive item to come out of all this is my Wife, who was very sceptical of all this renewable technology, is not so sceptical anymore. She is now glad I ignored her and went ahead with everything! 😀

Last edited 1 month ago by TechnoGeek
Old_Scientist

@Morgan A friend of ours told us they placed an order with Boiler Juice just before the conflict and Boiler Juice cancelled the order a couple days later, just leaving them hanging. They managed to reorder from a local supplier at twice the cost. Our local supplier was charging 62.5p at the start of the month and now it’s 144p per litre.
At the moment, someone is making a killing (no pun intended). Crude oil is bought in advance on the futures market (it’s bad news to run out of crude oil in a refinery), and takes 1-3months for delivery, refining and distribution into retail channels, so there is no reason for price rises to be passed on to consumers right now. I wonder if prices will be as quick to drop at the back end of the crisis?
At least those of us who have switched to solar and a heat pump are relatively isolated from such shocks.
As an aside, many of you may already know that the Jet Fuel used in fighter jets is exactly the same as the domestic kerosene we burn in our oil boilers, other than for the addition of a fluorescent dye added to prevent people sticking it in their diesel cars due to differing rates of fuel duty.
 

Morgan

@Old_Scientist
I have switched to solar and a heat pump, but retain an oil-fired AGA.
“I wonder if prices will be as quick to drop at the back end of the crisis?"  I suspect that we all know the answer to that. 🤬 

bobflux

I wonder how much coal the Germans are going to burn when they run out of natgas.
 

MK4

Since electricity prices follow oil and gas prices, I thought I’d share with whomever is interested what happened here after the invasion in Ukraine and how government intervened to moderate prices. Warning: this is a long post, aimed at those who have an academic interest in how markets work in other parts of the world.
First some basic (simplified) background about how the electricity market works here for medium and low voltage customers:
1. All electricity producers chip in their production in a common pool, at a price that they deem best serves their interests (variable throughout the day)
2. The System Operator decides the variable mix of producers that actually will participate each day (based on price optimization and system stability criteria)
3. All electricity sellers buy from this common pool at the variable spot price determined by the System Operator and subsequently resell it to end users (each using their own commercial policy)
4. Greece has a high percentage (>50%) of renewables in the daily mix (solar, wind and hydro)
Following the invasion in Ukraine, oil and natural gas prices skyrocketed. Producers using natural gas had no option but to offer highly priced electricity to the common pool. And since this is a free market, producers using renewals followed suit taking advantage of the situation.
The result was staggering bills for consumers and record profits for renewals producers. Hence the government intervened, passed a limited time bill for taxing the super profits of producers and distributed the money back to the consumers (to all consumers based on their consumption and regardless of their income level). 
No producer dared complain. Sometimes, a long government arm makes sense….
PS I know the above because I have had clients in all the spectrum of the local energy industry. 

Old_Scientist


@MK4 thanks for dropping in with that Greek deep-dive.
What strikes me most is the sheer absurdity it exposes: renewables, which should be the stabilising force, end up profiting wildly from gas-driven price madness because of marginal pricing rules. Producers with near-zero marginal costs pocket the same sky-high rates as the gas plants setting the price. Consumers get hammered, governments scramble to claw money back and in the end everyone’s playing catch-up to a crisis they didn’t cause. I find situations like this so bizarre.
It also makes you wonder. If governments can tax super-profits and rebate consumers after the fact, why not redesign markets upfront so renewables actually dampen volatility instead of amplifying it? Until then, the push for personal independence (more panels, bigger batteries, smarter usage) feels less optional and more like basic survival strategy.
Again, really appreciate you sharing the Greek angle.

Unfortunately this tale of woe perfectly illustrates why removing the link to gas prices in the UK system won’t result in cheaper electricity prices as long as a portion of UK electricity demand is still met from gas.
The current UK system sounds very similar to the Greek system, except that in the UK every bidder is automatically paid the highest price (normally that of the gas power stations) rather than going through the process above whereby cheaper supplier can bid up their price. The solution is to completely remove dependence on the most expensive sources of electricity so only the cheaper (renewable) sources remain.
 
 
 

Batpred


The current UK system sounds very similar to the Greek system, except that in the UK every bidder is automatically paid the highest price (normally that of the gas power stations) rather than going through the process above whereby cheaper supplier can bid up their price. The solution is to completely remove dependence on the most expensive sources of electricity so only the cheaper (renewable) sources remain.

I believe the concept of paying the price of the highest bidder works as long as the carbon emissions price is adjusted to account for the damage it is doing..
Greece is a coastal country with wind and where the sun shines most of the year so it probably was mostly a case of countering anti competitive practices etc and let the system find a new balance. 40% is a big improvement on previous years, it must have saved lots in terms of fossil fuel imports…. Curious how it got there.. 
 

MK4


40% is a big improvement on previous years, it must have saved lots in terms of fossil fuel imports…. Curious how it got there.. 
 

Not sure if this answers your question, anyway the below chart depicts today’s production planning mix (and the wholesale price becoming practically zero when wind and solar dominate almost entirely production output).

IMG 3339

Wind and PV capacity has increased sharply during the last years, driving lignite almost out of production. It would have been entirely out had it not been for Ukraine (reserves are being kept still alive). Hydro is circa 3.4GW installed capacity.
There are still oil based plants in the islands that are not connected to the mainland’s grid (many do have RES but they cannot rely on RES alone). We all pay a small extra charge in our bills to support the financial viability of power production in the islands.

IMG 3343

IMG 3344

 
 

MK4


 
It also makes you wonder. If governments can tax super-profits and rebate consumers after the fact, why not redesign markets upfront so renewables actually dampen volatility instead of amplifying it? 

The extra tax was a measure introduced under a sort of force majeure situation, it was not meant as a permanent measure. You cannot limit profits in a free market, else companies will not invest. Some 30 years ago electricity was a state monopoly (production, sales, DNO, TSO all functions under one company) – not any more. Bear in mind also that during spring and autumn (when RES production is high and demand is low), the TSO cuts off the system for some hours several large PV parks to preserve system stability. Less often during high summer because there is high demand from airconditioning units (which units of course only make the situation worse, but this is another discussion).
Unfortunately the interconnections we have with surrounding countries do not yet have the bandwidth required to support export of all the excess RES energy. 
 

MK4

And since we are all worried about oil and petrol prices, a new measure was just announced today valid till the end of June. Oil and petrol profits are capped to 5c/lt in wholesale and 12c/lt in retail in the local market, else hefty fines apply.

Judith

In June 2025 this academic group at Oxford modelled the impact on supply of LNG and hence price of closing the Strait of Hormuz. Their conclusion price up 2x but also that it is unlikely to happen. Shame about the second part of their predictions(!)
Since LNG affects our electricity prices we’re in for another wild ride. More panels and bigger battery might be cost effective yet!

Toodles

@Mars Can’t have you Trumping your own rules can we?😉 Toodles.

Abernyte

As a full price electricity user (nae smart meter signal) I am suffering kerosene price envy! £1.28/ltr is 12p/KWh…..  I remember those days!  😥 

Old_Scientist


As a full price electricity user (nae smart meter signal) I am suffering kerosene price envy! £1.28/ltr is 12p/KWh…..  I remember those days!  😥 

Why?
Factor in 85% efficiency for that oil boiler and you’re looking at more like 14p/kWh.
Therefore, a heat pump with a COP of 4 (easily achievable this time of year) would be comparable at 56p/kWh electricity price so even at SVR of a round 28p/kWh, a heat pump is half the price of an oil boiler given current kerosene prices. I note our local distributor has been charging £1.55/L for the last few days, which makes the equivalent electricity price more like 70p/kWh for a COP of 4 (so oil is currently 2.5 times more expensive than the SVR).
I get it’s no fun not having access to cheaper tariffs, but I for one certainly do not miss the wildly varying price of oil.
 
 

Morgan

@Old_Scientist
“Therefore, a heat pump with a COP of 4 (easily achievable this time of year)"……………… Whaaat! I struggle to get anywhere near a COP of 3!
I would love to achieve 4. Actually, I’d love to achieve 3!

Judith

@Morgan @Old_Scientist
i agree that a COP of 4 is achievable at this time of year. The figure for the full week for us is 5.0 but I think it’s ~5% optimistic. The coldest day showed full power used in the middle of the night (defrosting clearly on the load figure too) but the day warmed up.

IMG 0981

 

IMG 0979

IMG 0980
Abernyte

You must live in balmy climes, minus 1C and snowing here yesterday so who knows what COP may or may not be achieved or what efficiency that oil boiler has but paying 12p or 14p/kWh for the most polluting heating fuel is a perverse distortion in a seriously broken energy market.

Batpred


@TechnoGeek, on Ed Miliband’s push for energy independence, the answer is a clear yes IMO. This crisis is adding serious weight to it. In his recent statements to Parliament and media interviews, Miliband has repeatedly framed the events as a stark reminder that the UK’s long-term security lies in breaking dependence on volatile global fossil fuel markets and accelerating to clean, home-grown power sources we control.

I have been making the same point whenever I hear people raising concerns about fossil fuel prices and arguing for lower taxation.
Also the fact that my virtual equivalent petrol tank is staying still below £9 … 
I appreciate some people were not able to switch yet but worth highlighting as it is a point not made often enough 
 

cathodeRay

The coldest day showed full power used in the middle of the night (defrosting clearly on the load figure too) but the day warmed up.

A bit off topic, but just wanted to clarify what ‘defrosting clearly on the load figure too’ actually means? Cold weather means energy use rises for two reasons, firstly because it is cold, and secondly because COP falls, perhaps by as much as a factor of 2 eg normal milder weather COP of 4 becomes 2 in defrost temperatures, meaning a substantial rise in energy use. A while back I assumed defrosts further aggravated the situation but on the ‘Setback Savings – Fact of Fiction’ thread there is some considerable evidence that defrosts are probably energy use neutral, give or take. This appears to happen because there is actually an off period for normal heating during the defrost itself, meaning energy (electricity) use falls during the the defrost, but then there is a small post defrost recovery boost which increase energy use a bit, and the two all but cancel each other out. One way of looking at it is that a defrost is a sort of special case mini setback. This means you can’t reliably detect a defrost from energy use alone, you either have to look at energy produced (it goes negative during a defrost, heat moves the ‘wrong way’, from house the the heat pump) or usually more easily by looking at the LWT in relation to the RWT, during a defrost the former drops below the latter.          

Judith

Repeating the figure for clarity 
The sampling is only every 5 mins so the accuracy isn’t wonderful. But I would contend that the overshoot (in terms of the integral over time) is greater than the dip of reduced electrical load. To do it accurately I would need to establish the nominal power of each cycle once the boost has finished, which is different on each cycle, and compare the energy above nominal to that below. There’s not much else going on with the house load (except one 7am kettle but I only have the total) so that is another approximation. Overall it looks like about 10-20% more load to me due to de-frosting. Thermodynamically there will be some extra energy since the ice is melted then evaporated or drips off, which doesn’t go into the house heating. 

IMG 0981
Old_Scientist


Now that the world economy is getting a sharp lesson in who really holds world influence, ie Iran (potentially backed by Russia and China), due to the single point of “failure" ie the Strait of Hormuz and the potential major impact on the UK and world economy, do people think this situation will add weight to Ed Milliband’s drive to energy independence?
I have a number of neighbours who are dependent on heating oil and at the time of me installing my renewable’s equipment thought I was spending a large amount of money unnecessarily. Now those same neighbours are facing a 100% increase in their energy costs and are looking at me with jealous eye’s. Will this Iran conflict reinvigorate the UK population to transition to renewable’s in the future?
Interesting thought

One can only hope.
We were in that position back when Putin invaded Ukraine, but I fear that as long as bills just continue rising, many a person may not be able to see or understand that prices may have risen more had we chosen to build more new gas fired or nuclear power stations. It worries me that political parties (I’m looking at you, Tories) are quick to set policy (to abandon Net Zero ambitions) to win votes as polling tells them it’s easier to sell a narrative that building wind farms is driving up the cost of bills only to spend even more curtailing their output than it is to sell a vision of what the future looks like if we do nothing.
Anyway, I’m happy that my heat pump is currently costing me five times less than oil to heat my house (COP of 4, Cosy tariff 14.8p/kWh, oil at £1.55/L locally). I’m currently draining the last of the oil from my old oil tank for my neighbour in my good deed for the week.
 

Toodles

@Old_Scientist And those of us lucky enough to have our own solar generation will at least have some relief for some months ahead as the heat pump starts thinking about a vacation and the battery has capacity for the rest of the household needs so that immediate hikes in energy prices are less of a concern to us; I realise this may sound like smugness and it is not intended to – just grateful for small mercies. For everyone’s sake, I hope this whole sorry foul-up (toned down expression there) is resolved very soon. Toodles.

cathodeRay

The sampling is only every 5 mins so the accuracy isn’t wonderful. But I would contend that the overshoot (in terms of the integral over time) is greater than the dip of reduced electrical load. To do it accurately I would need to establish the nominal power of each cycle once the boost has finished, which is different on each cycle, and compare the energy above nominal to that below.

One of the things that has emerged on the setback thread is that even minute sampling may miss some events during a defrost. You need to look at minutes rather than hours on the X axis. Here is a defrost from my heat pump in January this year. The darker blue line is energy in (Wh not kWh!). You can see the defrost dip and then the post defrost recovery. Do they cancel each other out? It all depends on where you put the baseline (what would have happened without the defrost).

 

image

 

I used some AUC estimates (using pixel counting) to get some idea of the energy values from some other charts (see the other thread for examples eg this one and my comment ‘I don’t have to change the baseline very much to reverse the result, such that the setback and recovery uses more energy than steady state running’ – I don’t want to hijack this one too much!) and it suggested the energy in deficit during and boost afterwards are not far off cancelling themselves out. The ‘nominal power’ or baseline, ie what would have happened without the defrost, is extremely difficult to establish, most often because the OAT will not stay steady, and it matters, very small differences in the baseline can reverse say a net energy saving into extra energy used and vice versa. 

 

 

Judith

@cathodeRay I agree the baseline set is tricky and I hadn’t followed the other thread because I couldn’t contribute much.
Off-topic subject closed?

cathodeRay

Off-topic subject closed?

Or just add any further discussion to the other thread. I know it has been somewhat dominated of late by a bun fight between two Mitsubishi heat pump owners over what their respective data, collected in different ways, show, but in a way that is just a reflection on how difficult it is to answer the question of whether setbacks (including the defrost special case) do or don’t save energy/money. I’m still collecting my routine data, and come the end of this heating season I will attempt a matched pairs analysis, the matched pairs being days matched on weather, but one with a setback, the other without. This goes at least some way towards solving the baseline problem, at least for whole days, the day without the setback is the baseline. It will be less useful for assessing defrost energy use, because if it is cold enough for defrosts, they will occur, so there are no matched controls without defrosts. But for now, I am sufficiently persuaded on the evidence to date that defrosts do not of themselves increase energy use. It appears to be a classic association is not causation situation, defrosts are associated with high energy use in cold weather, but they are not the cause of or even a contributor to the high energy use. Instead the high energy use happens (a) because it is cold and (b) because COP falls, creating a double whammy to push energy use up.   

Old_Scientist


I have to admit, the longer this Iranian saga drags on, the more I struggle with it. As I grow older, these situations irk me more and more. My patience for arrogance, ignorance, flexing, bullying, gold-plated White House ballrooms and the casual disregard for the human cost of big decisions is getting noticeably shorter. It genuinely gives me anxiety.
What astounds me most (and I know it shouldn’t) is that the decisions and actions of one man can inflict this much damage on billions of people around the world.
What hits me hardest is how heavily this penalises the very people who have been trying to do the right thing. Tens of thousands of us here in the UK have spent our own hard-earned money on solar arrays, heat pumps, batteries and insulation precisely to reduce our reliance on volatile fossil fuels and protect ourselves from exactly these kinds of global shocks. Now those careful, responsible steps are being undermined in real time. Even with renewables on the roof, the knock-on effects (higher wholesale electricity prices, inflated grid charges and the wider cost-of-living squeeze) mean the financial payback stretches out and the sense of security we thought we’d built evaporates. It feels profoundly unfair that those trying to act responsibly are being penalised so heavily by events far beyond their control. I’ve spent the weekend (again) thinking how we can limit the impact on our household and our finances.

I feel your frustration and anger.
I try to lessen those feelings of anxiety by looking at how much we would now be paying for oil had we not ripped out the oil boiler and replaced it with an ASHP. Our bills are low instead of currently being sky high, and we are as well placed as we can possibly be to remain being resilient to future shocks. I realise everyone is not as fortunate as ourselves and that is immediately apparent talking to my neighbours who are still dependant on heating oil and their petrol & diesel cars.
 
 

JamesPa

I have to admit, the longer this Iranian saga drags on, the more I struggle with it. As I grow older, these situations irk me more and more. My patience for arrogance, ignorance, flexing, bullying, gold-plated White House ballrooms and the casual disregard for the human cost of big decisions is getting noticeably shorter. It genuinely gives me anxiety.

I cannot see any way this is now going to end quickly, simply because there is no way out for either side that doesn’t involve accepting defeat (and America wont ‘win’ by sheer might).  My current guess is that it may well last just under 3 years, ie until shortly after the next Presidential elections and even that assumes that the poorer people in America don’t choose to shoot themselves in the foot again.  I hope I’m wrong, but Vietnam suggests I may not be.  If you read what the trustworthy commentators are saying its mighty depressing.

 

Toodles

@JamesPa To my way of thinking, there is one common factor in every war; the decision to declare war is made by a crazed individual and many thousands or even millions of innocent people around the globe have to risk their lives at the whim of such individuals – and as far as I can see, all to no-ones’s advantage in the end. Power corrupts – absolute power …
Regrets, Toodles.