Decarbonising Domestic Heating
By Paul Homewood
I have reported previously on the government’s plans to decarbonise UK homes. Last year DECC published their “Strategic Framework for Heat”, which gave us a glimpse of their latest plans, which essentially amounted little more than waffle. They did promise an update this year, and this is now out – “The Future of Heating”.
In his introduction, Ed Davey tells us:-
“As a country, we spend £32 billion a year on heating. It accounts for around a third of our greenhouse gas emissions.Without changing the way we produce and consume heat, we will not meet our long-term climate change target.”
The numbers do include heat used in industry, but, as the executive summary also says:-
“But there will always be demand for heat in buildings, and in the future that will need to be met as far as possible without burning any fossil fuels. The Carbon Plan explained that by 2050 carbon emissions from heating and cooling buildings will need to be nearly zero to meet the overall target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80%”
So how do we achieve this? The government’s hopes centre around two main strategies:-
1) Heat Networks
This is the concept of providing heating to an area from a central source. This is already used on a small scale in places like apartment blocks and university campuses.
There may be scope for expansion in areas where many homes are clustered closely together, for instance, in city centres, but it seems unlikely that the impact of such networks will be more than marginal.
There are, of course, two other huge drawbacks:-
a) The capital cost of developing networks would be huge, and neither central or local governments have the finance available to fund them currently. Neither are these projects attractive to private finance as matters stand.
b) As DECC admit, there is no point building heat networks, unless the heat is provided emission free. DECC seem to be no nearer finding a solution to this.
2) Renewable Heat
This covers technologies such as solar, heat pumps, biomass and geothermal. The fundamental problem these face is one of cost.
DECC recognised this in their “Carbon Plan” as long ago as 2011, but as yet still have not found a solution. As they said then:-
- 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
- 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.
Put simply, customers don’t want them, yet DECC are targeting for 8.6 million homes, or about 40%, to have installed low carbon heat installations by 2030. Last year I suggested there were four possible answers to this conundrum:-
- Subsidising the new low carbon technology – but of course we all have to pay the bill in the end.
- 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.
- Increasing the cost of conventional boilers, by taxation or the imposition of costly standards and regulations.
- Compulsion – maybe by banning the sale and installation of conventional boilers and even banning their use eventually.
I have seen nothing since then to change my mind. All the government’s latest paper can propose is:-
a) Extending the Renewable Heat Premium (i.e subsidy) to March 2014.
b) A voucher scheme for installer training (i.e. subsidy)
c) Pilot an apprentice scheme with 100 places.
d) Support development of a consumer guide.
e) Consider what role tighter standards on building emissions and heating systems could play in achieving the goal of decarbonising heat in all buildings (i.e. increasing cost of conventional/compulsion).
Extra Demand on the Electricity Grid
Let’s finally return to the question of the extra strain that these “low carbon” alternatives will place on the electric grid. Apart from marginal contributions from biomass, waste heat and solar, they will all consume electricity. Of course, the government’s theory is that this electricity will be carbon free, which in itself is a huge leap into fantasy land.
The 2011 Carbon Plan talked of :-
The high levels of electrification in heat and transport included in the non-traded sector scenarios imply increased levels of electricity demand to be met by the power sector. For instance, Scenario 3 includes significant electrification of both heat and transport which is partially offset by increases in energy efficiency but still implies a level of electricity demand that is about 10% higher than the current government assumption of approximately 410 TWh in 2030.
This actually seems hugely optimistic. The same Carbon Plan states:-
Looking to the future, between 21% and 45% of heat supply to our buildings will need to be low carbon by 2030. We will therefore need between 1.6 million and 8.6 million building-level low carbon heat installations by 2030, delivering 83–165 terawatt hours (TWh) of low carbon heat, alongside 10–38 TWh of low carbon heat delivered through heating networks.
So excluding the extra electricity needed for transport, domestic heating alone will increase demand, on a mid estimate, by 148 TWh. Total electricity generated last year was 363 TWh, so by 2030 we could be looking at an increase in electricity capacity of 40%, and this at a time when power supply is being stretched to breaking point by the premature shut down of fossil fuel and nuclear power stations, stalemated negotiations on nuclear and overreliance on unreliable wind.
More and more, governmental energy policy resembles a Soviet Five Year Plan. A politically correct wish list, that bears little resemblance to reality or what is remotely achievable or practical, or indeed desirable.
Unfortunately, this is what happens when people like Davey, and Miliband before him, are left in charge. Neither have had any real experience outside of politics.
In the meantime we can all look forward to the next instalment, which will probably announce new initiatives such as sending us all pamphlets advising us to wear thicker jumpers.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I was expecting the announcement of a massive programme installing smart meters.
Here it is https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/197794/smart_meters_programme.pdf
Running a year or more late, the full implications for domestic customers have yet to be published. We shall have to watch the smart meter instead of the tele.
It will be your own fault if you have gigantic energy bills and if it seems that the lights might go out, the suppliers will be able to isolate whole districts or, more sinister, cut individual customers they think are using too much. Smart meters open the door to energy rationing.
1. Heat Networks (District Heating)
This can never be as efficient as point-of-application heating. There are transmission losses; and, different people want their heating on at different times (e.g night-shift workers), so the central boiler plant has to operate continuously.
2. Domestic Biomass boilers
Irrespective of their enormous cost and low(er) efficiency, few houses have the space to accommodate them or their bulky fuel store. (Or access for their bulky fuel delivery.)
Actually, the solution is quite simple:
“..,, we will not meet our long-term climate change target.”
In the light of current research, they should admit the the current ‘target’ was agreed on the basis of factual errors, and simply scrap it.
Electricity currently provides about about 20% of our ENERGY. [Our politicians seem to confuse electricity with energy!] The UK has an installed capacity of about 75,000 MW.
To arrive at the 2050 position of cutting CO2 by 80% we would need to replace all home heating and most of out transport fuels with energy from a carbon free source. The principal way do this is would appear to be by carbon free electricity [or the products of electricity say hydrogen]
By my count we should need about 300,000 MW of installed electrical capacity to do this [80/20 x 75,000 =300,000] Carbon capture & storage CCS loses about a third of the electricity to power the process and in any event doesn’t catch all to CO2; wind power needs ‘back-up’ [usually from fossil fuel] on standby to cope with intermittency and in practice wind saves little or no CO2. So the answer would seem to be 100 Hinkley Point ‘C’ nuclear power stations at only £1,4000,billion. say £40 billion per year!
Some how I suspect we will not complete two/three Hinkley Point power stations every year till 2050 so the goal of cutting CO2 by 80% seems doomed. We should face the facts and revoke the 2008 Climate Change Act.
Sorry for the typo should be £1,400 billion not 1,4000 billion.
What ever happened to transporting electricity efficiently using superconductors?
as Joe public mentioned above about transmission losses, there are huge transmission losses within our electricity grids, a huge amount of funding has went into superconductor technology since the 70’s and we don’t have any of our electric grids applying the technology.
The only possible way for the government to reach a carbon reduction target of 80% is for 80% of the population to produce no carbon dioxide at all.
Unless the government is suggesting that the general population compete financially with the wealthiest for their energy needs, effectively a financial energy rationing scheme, population reduction reduces carbon emissions too, how extreme are these nitwits going to get before they get a kick in the pants.
But, but, but this is all unnecessary because 97.1% of scientists believe that man is changing the climate:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10061285/Scientific-consensus-that-humans-to-blame-for-climate-change.html
What do we do? For humanity!
The fundamental irreducible conundrum is the Nonsensus itself. Since it is a political veneer over the real opinions of scientists AND the public, it will shatter from blows from within and outside. Come the day!