Expensive and wasteful heat pumps are not the solution to Britain’s energy crisis
By Paul Homewood
A reminder of what the experts have to say about heat pumps:
Heat pumps are receiving much attention as the alternative to home heating now that the switch from gas is beginning to take effect. The Government’s “net zero” initiative demands that we move to a more electricity-centric economy.
Roughly a third of our future electricity demand will be for home and office heating – amounting to an approximately 50 gigawatt peak requirement. Air source and ground source heat pumps are being proposed to be the major provider of this heat.
But is this realistic?
Ground source heat pumps require digging up substantial pieces of land surrounding the property; this adds to cost and means they are useless for flats and office accommodation.
Air source heat pumps seem to be the answer, but they do not work very well when the outside temperature is less than 5°c. Many people have to use supplementary heating with gas or oil to keep warm. This, of course, is not carbon friendly.
The answer is to insulate homes more effectively, but for most homes this is impractical. Already the cost of the heat pump installation is £15,000 to £20,000 and adding another £20,000 or £30,000 for better insulation is unthinkable for most people. The efficiency of heat pumps is roughly half that of a gas boiler because the working fluid is typical of that used in refrigerators and only operates at 37°c, as opposed to 70°c for water in gas boilers.
So, the large part of the electricity used to drive a typical household heat pump is wasted compared to a gas boiler with similar power rating. The conclusion is that the move to heat pumps is going to be impossibly expensive, and will be less energy-efficient than with current gas boilers.
The best solution is to use green hydrogen in a gas boiler. This means that all homes can carry on much as before but with hydrogen as fuel. This hydrogen can be manufactured by electrolysis from water, and emits no CO2 when combusted. The only issue is that large amounts of electricity are required.
Which brings us to the core issue: how can we produce electricity economically from green sources in the quantities that we require? Adding requirements for transport and industry, and hydrogen production, to that for heating adds up to a 150 gigawatt peak demand.
Sadly, Britain’s electrical energy provision policy has been non-existent for the past 30 years. In response to the zero carbon initiative, ministers have invested in renewable sources of energy at the expense of the public and common sense.
They have argued that renewable energy is cheap, but it isn’t, as the green levies on our electricity bills are now telling us. They have been unable to comprehend that renewable energy is intermittent, so that we cannot rely on it to provide stable supplies of electricity to run our industry, to run our cars, and to heat our homes.
So, what are our alternatives? In the growing realisation that renewables are not the answer, gas has come back into favour, even though it produces vast amounts of CO2. Now, due to the activities of Mr Putin, amongst others, gas is becoming a strategic weapon, and we are faced with hugely increased energy bills if we continue to burn gas to produce electricity.
Because of our lack of energy policy we seem incapable of making proper, appropriate, investment decisions to benefit the country. Rolls Royce could produce 100 modular nuclear “pressurised water reactor” systems in the time that it is going to take to finish Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C. This would produce stable, economically attractive, green electricity that the country now so desperately needs.
Roy Faulkner is emeritus professor of materials engineering at Loughborough University and has wide experience in the energy industry, particularly with coal and nuclear, and the drive to reduce emissions. He is currently a consultant with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Great article Paul. I’m keeping the link as I’ll be crediting you with this information in my social media debates. Many thanks…
`In view of the very low potential cost of resistive electric heating units compared with the high capital and maintenance cost of heat pumps, this would surely be the best way to go. Maybe it would be economical to back it up with highly insulated water heat storage units to be heated at off peak rates and the heat drawn off as required. Hydrogen appears to be impractical to implement.
The problem isn’t heat pumps, the Hydrogen Economy or Windmills.
It’s the arrogance of government that thinks it can overcome the Laws of Physics, Chemistry et al and predict what might work, instead of allowing ingenuity seek a solution in the market place.
It only encourages would be entrepreneurs to seek shelter behind government grants, subsidies and legal protection, especially those in academia.
The problem is our political class is dominated by wishful thinking. They want stuff to be true and that’s it. Johnson wants Net Zero to be cheaper so he believes it is. Labour want more spending to make the NHS better so they believe it will. It is childish nonsense, unconstrained by reality, economics or facts.
It’s Star Trek Physics – Captain Jean-Luc Picard: “Make it so”
Dennis. From Bones…”it’s science, Jim, but not as we know it.”
“In view of the very low potential cost of resistive electric heating units compared with the high capital and maintenance cost of heat pumps, this would surely be the best way to go”
Given that currently the price of my electricity is 28.01p/kWh compared with gas at 7.34p/kWh that is very clearly NOT the way for me to go at all, not even close!!
So the Government’s response will be to ban gas usage.
Query. How many houses have a fireplace/stove that could use wood or coal for heating? I’ve noticed that in the Adelaide Hills (in renewables mad South Australia) that wood use seems to have increased even though the cost has risen 90-100% in the last 20 years, way below the rise for gas and electricity.
A point that Faulkner is presumably well aware of, but ignores in this piece, is the awkward fact that a very significant proportion of the UK’s housing stock is well past its sell-by date.
My wild (but realistic) guess, is that it could easily be 25% – 33%.
I recommend you take a long ride through the suburbs of any major city on the top deck of an omnibus and note how many terrace houses with solid brick walls and poorly maintained roofs and guttering you see. Then add most semis. Demolition and re-build would be the only realistic option if we are serious about insulation and a damp-free interior. Never mind CO2.
My house was built in 2001 and the walls are very well insulated. But for various reasons it would be extremely expensive to retro-fit a heat pump (any heat pump) system. (A concrete slab foundation, just for a start.)
This whole scam about “Climate Breakdown” etc is obviously ludicrous and unaffordable. The rate of new build is laughable, especially when you consider illegal immigration. But no-one is looking at the problems with the existing housing stock and money is being thrown away on ruinable energy by gormless arts-grad politicians following what they pretend to be “The Science”.
The arts-grads don’t understand that parrotting Scientific conclusions from an authoritative source isn’t Science.
It’s half way to facism.
A 15kW resistive electric central heating system makes more sense than heat pumps, a fairly large tank of water that is heated overnight (but with all the cars charging will it still be off peak), that would give morning heat, with a heating top up in the afternoon before the evening peak demand. Of course just staying with gas makes even more sense,
Geoff , there will be no off peak .
In 2016 a Government committee concluded that to change to electric home heating was impossible as it would need a 400% increase in generation capacity .
Then there is their aim of 10 million EVS in a few years time .Which would need another [ at least ] 100% increase in generation
So , until there is about 100 new Nuclear power stations built , there would be no heat and very little driving for most of the country .
Correct!
‘Sadly, Britain’s electrical energy provision policy has been non-existent for the past 30 years.
‘Because of our lack of energy policy we seem incapable of making proper, appropriate, investment decisions to benefit the country.’
THIS I don’t understand. EVERYBODY knows what the policy is. Renewables, heat pumps, hydrogen, shut down coal. That it’s juvenile doesn’t mean it’s not a policy.
Bad policy is still a policy.
‘This would produce stable, economically attractive, green electricity that the country now so desperately needs.’
The good professor underestimates the government’s ability to muck it up. The government can make RR SMR very expensive. Government makes large scale nuclear very expensive; there is no reason to believe they won’t make small scale nuclear very expensive.
PAUL, You say the only downside to Hydrogen usage is the cost of electricity to produce it.
However, as I understand it, there is another almost insurmountable problem; the metal gas pipework network reacts badly to Hydrogen, which degrades the metal.
This efectively means replacing all the gas pipework for this to be an effective solution.
“how can we produce electricity economically from green sources in the quantities that we require? ”
Simple, we can’t.
Why are people like the Professor not listened to by our ministers. Why do listen to the Green devils only and only now are realising we need energy security not vast amount of polluting wind turbines.
How the hell do you service a turbine out in the sea, it must cost a fortune hence the subsidy lie.
It was not long ago that Govt was encouraging people to buy diesel vehicles because they were deemed to be more “emissions friendly” ….. we all now know how that campaign ended,
https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/least-400000-diesel-drivers-facing-23941477
There is a lot of misleading talk today about the efficiency of Heat Pumps and legal challenge to what is being claimed versus actual performance is likely to result in the future, likewise Electric Vehicles where manufacturers performance claims are at best highly dubious.