How Will Britain’s Homes Be Decarbonised?

By Paul Homewood

 

 

The Climate Change Act 2008 commits the UK to huge reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050 cuts of 80% below 1990 levels are mandated. The fourth carbon budget enacted last year demands a reduction of 50% by 2027.

While much of this reduction will be targeted at electricity generation, all types of energy use will be affected. According to government figures, domestic buildings account for 40% of energy use and three quarters of this is for space and hot water heating, most of which comes from gas fired boilers. The government is planning to cut building emissions to “virtually zero” by 2050, but what plans does it have to achieve this?

 

The first stage is to reduce demand for energy by improving the heat efficiency of buildings through insulation etc. Even the government admits though that we will soon run out of “easy wins” on this score and that any energy savings will be limited.

The only way to achieve the government’s target is to “decarbonise our supply of heat”. So what does this entail? The Carbon Plan, which says up to 45% of heat supply to our buildings will need to be low carbon by 2030, lists several options :-

1. Biomass boilers.
2. Electrical resistance heating.
3. Heat pumps.
4. Micro-combined heat and power.
5. Solar thermal hot water.

The government says that “All households and businesses will need to play a part in this transformation”, but also admits there are a number of key obstacles to overcome, including :-

Low carbon heat technologies such as heat pumps and biomass boilers are still expensive relative to conventional boilers, costing in excess of £5,000, and payback periods for this investment are often long. This is by far the biggest barrier to deployment. [I might add – where are people supposed to find such sums of money, even if they had a good payback?]

Low carbon heat technologies take longer to install compared with a conventional boiler, which offers a particular barrier given that heating systems are often ‘distress purchases’ – bought only when the old system breaks down.

Heat pumps in particular can place added strain on the electricity grid. This can partially be managed through the use of storage, such as hot water cylinders to store heat, or batteries to store electricity generated off-peak

Put quite simply, people don’t want them. They are too expensive, inconvenient, obtrusive and often only a partial solution. (According to experts, “heat pumps are not great in cold climates” and “below a temperature known as the “balance point,” normally from 30 to 45 degrees F., supplementary heat is required”.)

So we come to the $64000 question. How will home owners be persuaded? There seem to be four main options :-

1. Subsidising the new low carbon technology – but of course we all have to pay the bill in the end.
2. Increasing the cost of natural gas, by taxation or other means. This may be one of the reasons why, so far, the government has been so against developing shale gas, which has lowered gas prices in the US.
3. Increasing the cost of conventional boilers, by taxation or the imposition of costly standards and regulations.
4. Compulsion – maybe by banning the sale and installation of conventional boilers and even banning their use eventually.

It seems there will be a price to pay regardless.

The government itself admits that it has no answer to this question. However, they will shortly be publishing a “Strategic Framework for Heat”, which will look at the issue in more detail. Watch this space.

 

The full Carbon Plan can be seen here.

 

FOOTNOTE

1. The Low Carbon alternatives will of course need electricity to power them. According to government figures, “electrification of heat and transport implies a increase in electricity demand of 11% by 2030”, most of which will need to be renewable.
2. Nowhere in the Carbon Plan does there seem to be any reference to the fact that a warmer climate will reduce the need to heat our homes.