Households face £2,300 bills under net zero plans
By Paul Homewood
h/t Philip Bratby
Just one more cost burden from Net Zero:
Households face an estimated bill of £2,300 each to shut down Britain’s gas grid as part of the Government’s drive towards net zero, a leaked draft of an official report suggests.
The cost of decommissioning the grid could reach a total of £65bn, according to a draft National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) report.
It is the first time a public body has examined the future of the 176,000-mile network of buried pipes, which serves eight in ten homes but risks becoming obsolete under plans to reach net zero carbon emissions. Unused pipes must be removed or they risk decay and experts fear the potential collapse of roads.
Households could be left to foot the bill through higher energy bills or taxes since there is no provision for decommissioning in current government budgets, and energy companies are not obliged to cover the costs.
The NIC did not dispute the figures when contacted, although an insider insisted the report was a draft and could change before final publication next month.
The NIC believes the grid could theoretically be converted to carry hydrogen, which is cleaner, but that would also come at cost of “tens of billions of pounds” and there are doubts over the suitability of hydrogen as a mass heating solution.
Senior Conservatives said the figures raised serious questions about the Government’s plan to reach net zero by 2050.
Craig Mackinlay, a Tory MP who chairs the Net Zero Scrutiny Group in Parliament, said: “Bit by bit, the true astronomical cost of net zero is being revealed, and it’s far from clear the products we are being forced to switch to are any better than their forebears.
“The forced conversion from gas boilers to heat pumps appears to be a case in point; it will also leave the country with a vast network of redundant infrastructure that will take tens of billions of pounds to decommission.
“I’m worried the command and control approach to net zero that the Government is taking will leave us with a cost of living crisis that stretches far into the future.”
The prospect of hydrogen heating looked “dead in the water”, Mr Mackinlay added, after Grant Shapps, the former energy secretary, appeared to rule it out in July.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business and energy secretary, said the Government’s net zero plans were “stuck in cloud cuckoo land”.
He said: “The Government cannot decommission the gas grid, because it can’t afford to.
“They have got to look very seriously at whether the legal obligation to reach net zero is realistic.”
However, Kwasi Kwarteng, another former business and energy secretary, said the costs of decommissioning was “hypothetical”.
He said: “Given the infrastructure we’ve got, it doesn’t make sense to decommission the whole grid at vast expense. I cannot see a government doing that.
“It’s unrealistic to expect that all household heating in this country will be electrified.”
Under current proposals for households and businesses to “stop unabated burning of natural gas”, ministers are backing electric heat pumps as the main replacement for gas-fired boilers.
But if most households ditch their boilers, the existing gas grid cannot just be switched off and left in the ground due to safety concerns.
One industry source said: “We’ve got large-diameter pipes criss-crossing major cities. If we were to just turn them off and not maintain them, they would decay – and roads could start falling in.”
Shutting down the gas grid would be a complex but gradual process as people switch to alternative technologies, requiring engineers to safely close off certain areas while allowing gas to keep flowing in others.
The ultimate fate of the network, which was privatised by Margaret Thatcher’s government in 1986, will depend on how much is repurposed to carry hydrogen.
At least some of the grid is likely to be used to supply hydrogen to heavy industry, which cannot easily decarbonise, in future. But ministers are waiting until 2026 to decide whether hydrogen will also be used for home heating.
Many experts have also poured cold water on that idea, pointing out that hydrogen is energy-intensive to produce and must be burned in much higher quantities than natural gas to produce the same amount of heat.
In the meantime, the monopoly owners of the gas networks continue to invest billions of pounds in upgrades, replacing metal pipes with plastic ones, in a programme that stretches into the 2030s.
These investments will be paid for by consumers through their bills – in addition to any future cost of decommissioning.
Dr Richard Lowes, an expert in heating at Exeter University, said the Government should review whether the upgrade programme was still good value for money or would make energy bills unnecessarily higher.
He also warned that as more households abandon gas, those still using the network could be forced to shoulder an ever-larger share of decommissioning costs – raising the risk that those who cannot afford a heat pump become financially “trapped”.
Dr Lowes said: “It’s a huge issue and no one [in the Government] has got their head around this properly.
“Fundamentally, there’s two options: You pay for it through bills, or via the tax system.”
One way to ensure the burden is spread fairly would be for the Government to nationalise the network, which is valued today at about £20bn, he said.
A government spokesman said: “This claim is simply untrue. Our gas network will always be part of our energy system and therefore any such estimations are wrong.
“We have and will always put affordability at the heart of our approach to improving it. We will continue to work with the industry to explore if using hydrogen offers value for money for consumers and meets the required safety standards.”
The govt response is the usual head in the sand one.
“Our gas network will always be part of our energy system “
Seriously? What will it be carrying then – certainly not gas! And not much in the way of hydrogen either by all reports.
For all of the promises of a golden Net Zero future in thirty years time, the harsh and undeniable reality is that there are enormous costs to be paid for, both now and in the next decade or two. It is no consolation to be told we might be a bit better off long after we are dead!
This story also highlights a very serious dilemma.
As more and more households stop using gas, per govt plans, the increasingly small number still using gas will have to pay a much bigger share of the overheads associated with the gas network, and not just these decommissioning costs. As this very good article outlines, the alternative will be for government to assume responsibility for the gas grid and its costs.
A further problem, also outlined, is how we will be able to gradually decommission the gas grid, district by district. If, say, there are a few homes in a street still using gas, will their gas supply simply be cut off regardless?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Unfortunately the actual situation on the ground is that National Grid who own the major pipelines have no long term investment plans for the Gas network infrastructure. It is quietly being left to life expire.
Net Zero means what it says, Zero heating, Zero electricity supply, the UK is a typical 3rd world country governed by the incompetent.
“although an insider insisted the report was a draft and could change before final publication next month” You bet it will be.
The pipelines are still being upgraded to plastic under a long-term plan, as the report says. My area was done only a few months ago.
But this sums the whole thing up:
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business and energy secretary, said the Government’s net zero plans were “stuck in cloud cuckoo land”.
He said: “The Government cannot decommission the gas grid, because it can’t afford to.
“They have got to look very seriously at whether the legal obligation to reach net zero is realistic.”
The report notes the gas network can’t be left to rot either, due to subsidence risks.
Much more important is repealing the insane “Climate Change Act” that apparently caused the “legal obligation” to pursue all the policies, taxes, regulations and bans that are making life worse for ordinary people.
>>legal obligation to reach net zero is realistic
If the Government insists on pursuing their present course then that is just what will happen. Gentle decay which be repaired piecemeal and will be somebody else’s problem in years to come when this lot are enjoying their gold plated pensions and directorships.
Net zero simply cannot be done until we have total nuclear generating capacity. This is likely to be at least fifty years away.
One area where Net Zero has escaped significant scrutiny is national security. Not energy security, actual national security.
We all know of the intermittency issue and how interconnectors to Europe and beyond are intended to plug the gaps in energy supply, but how secure are they?
Putin (or any enemy come to that) could sabotage these interconnectors with almost zero risks of being caught red-handed. At any time they push the big button and that’s the UK out of electricity, out of heat, light and transport.
We’d have NO fallback position to protect ourselves, taking the entire country down.
Currently petrol, diesel, LNG, EV and hybrid all bring flexibility and robustness to our transport system. Going all electric means a single super-hack or terror attack would wreck all mainstream transport. Pony and cart, anyone? Suffice to say we’d get to experience a national disaster event. It would be a nation-threatening catastrophe.
How has this risk been so overlooked for so long?
In the US FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)reinstated ontheir website the manual for a diy gassifier build.
https://www.build-a-gasifier.com/fema-gasifier-plans/
Seems they expect something.
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/11/gas-bag-vehicles.html
Quite correct. I have written to my MP pointing out the economic and security dangers of putting all our energy eggs into one, electrification basket. Needless to say I received no answer to this point.
We are in the hands of an idiocracy.
Hey , dont worry about the subsidence risks .We will not be able to afford cars and only walk or cycle around our 15 minute prisons .I am sure that the Gruppenfurher for each of these will know exactly what is happening so any risks to us as citizens of the World leading Nett Zero Island will be minimal.
The World will be weeping with laughter at our self inflicted madness as they fire up another coal powered power station .
In 30 years I will probably not be here but I cry for the future our children now face .
Not just heating – where is the perceived benefit in forcing households to dump millions of gas stoves for electrically powered black out vulnerable cookers ??
Cost benefit risk analysis in the works……of course not ; “ we did not need it to save millions of lives with safe and effective new drugs during the (sc)amdemic – we own the science so proceed as – can anyone hear Scnapps or his Blairite successors using these words ??
Oh forgot! Cookers too! so WHY did they only RECENTLY Complete laying Pipelines ( PLASTIC) around the rural countryside ? I wonder what else we could use these pipelines for ? Maybe it was all that OIL burnt to lay the pipes that caused globull warming”
The insanity continues – wilful abandonment of perfectly good, functioning infrastructure. This is national self harm. The government needs psychotherapy.
That is the first time I have read “mass culling by FMJ applied technology” referred to as “psychotherapy”.
Repurpose the pipes to deliver “Happy Gas” to every home so we can all be psychotherapied into a state of euphoria.
Absolutely correct. As the water mains are in disrepair perhaps the better maintained gas pipes could take over? It is sheer madness to just dump such an asset.
£2,300 doesn’t seem a lot. My duel fuel bill, for an ordinary semi-detached is £2,900. Fortunately for me, the solar panels on my roof are generating income of 68.3pence per KwH which equates to about £1,700 pa. Insanity!
There is a lot of reserve gas around the world.
It might just be possible to extract suitable gas from the coal that is under our feet (UK)
Total UK gas consumption 2022 was 72 billion cubic metres. The UK estimated Coal Bed Methane reserve is 2,900 billion cubic metres. Recovery rates of up to 40% have been achieved in similar US geology
Click to access Promote_UK_CBM_2012.pdf
A few years back I was in discussion with a company looking to exploit the Kent Coalfield licensed area. He commented that if they were given the “Green Light” there were dozens of private equity funded groups eager to proceed.
Useful info re gas, thanks Ray.
So far the exploding costs issue is mostly explained on a piece meal basis.
To have any political impact and for the editor of The Daily Mail to take notice
it’s time to set out the full costs of the rush to poverty. I will start -per household
New back-up domestic boiler.
Ground source heat pump.
Replace all domestic radiators.
Enhance insulation.
Pay the difference between a CV and an EV
Compensate for the loss in residual value of the EV relative to the CV in 5/20 years.
Gas grid shut down cost — capitalisation of annual surcharge of utility bills.
That could be £40,00 per household. (£11,000 could be saved by not having a car)
Who can fault this, how with and at what further cost? Offers please.
Once they’ve put all the plastic pipes in, the gas grid can run with upto 20% hydrogen or so we’re told.
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2022/01/britain-s-gas-grid-preparing-to-accept-20-per-cent-hydrogen-mix-by-2023/
It is a gross underestimate. It only covers the decommissioning cost, not the cost of replacement by heat pumps and the insulation and electricity they would require. That would completely dwarf theses sums at about £3trillion.
Will the idiots in government ever waken up to the stupidity and impracticality of the whole net zero scheme. I guess when the whole economy collapses the public might just fire the lot of them. I am wondering why small nuclear reactors are not given priority. Too practical I presume.
And hear some bullshit from our over-promoted middle manager PM Sushi:
“The net zero story for me shouldn’t be a hair shirt story of giving everything up and your bills going up. That’s not the vision of net zero that I think is the right one for the UK”.
Some more?
‘net zero done in the right way’ and ‘very beneficial for jobs’. The words ‘which’ and ‘planet’ come to mind.
Not a problem while they’re digging up the 176,000-mile network of buried pipes they’ll be able to put in the massively upgraded electricity network cabling necessary to support all the heat pumps and EV charging facilities, won’t they?