Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

shinytop said:

I've seen comments on this board that nuclear, as a 'base' type capacity that is always on, is a poor mix with RE.  Isn't tidal the same? (a genuine question, not a troll!)

I'm not sure that's right, do you have a reference?

It's not a bad mix, certainly in my opinion, it's just that nuclear comes with a lot of baggage and cost. In fact I used to be all in favour of nuclear, after all it's safer than coal, when you consider the actual harm coal pollution causes, even when it's running 'right', and it's cheaper than coal when you consider the externalities, the most obvious being AGW.

But, today (again, just my opinion, but since about 2015), nuclear is no longer worth the trouble, since RE or RE + (RE + storage) is cheaper, and doesn't come with all the downsides of nuclear. Plus of course, since RE can be rolled out very fast, spending the money on nuclear slows down the transition away from FF's.

Sorry to harp on about storage so much, but it's also important to remember that nuclear needs it (such as Dinorwig, E7 and 'Heat Electric'). It's fine to point to nuclear being on when the wind isn't blowing, but when the wind is blowing, then nuclear adds to the excess, since it can't demand follow. If, as ABrass suggests, one of the forms of storage is bio-mass and/or H2, then they can demand follow, and work in conjunction with tidal. [BTW whilst tidal is entirely predictable, it is also variable.]

If we have to curtail something, isn't it better to curtail wind at £50/MWh, rather than nuclear at £114/MWh? If storage is 'mopping up' excess RE at say £20/MWh (or TOU deals are encouraging demand at that price), then the support cost would be £30/MWh for the wind, but £94/MWh for nuclear. Or pay nothing, after all, wind and PV generation falls out of the subsidy mechanism after just 15yrs (35yrs for HPC).

Not sure I'm making sense, but it's not the way nuclear works that's a problem, it's the cost of generation (v's alternatives). If nuclear could demand follow, like coal, gas, bio-mass, some hydro etc, then that would be a benefit, but even if you can ramp a nuclear plant down, its costs don't fall (like gas for instance (reduced fuel cost)), so you simply get less generation for the same cost. Hence why all new nuclear needs Government support.

Exactly the same can be said about wind, PV etc, their costs don't reduce if you ramp them down, but they cost a hell of a lot less to start with.


I'm not sure I have this next bit right, so apologies if I accidentally mislead, but think of the next 25yrs+, as we reduce gas use for leccy, but also move to an 'electrify everything' future. Lets say we need 25GW of gas generation, operating anywhere between 0% and 100%, with an annual cf of 10%. I say 25yrs, since leccy demand will be growing fast, so as hard as we decarbonize it, we will be adding to it. But burning the same amount of gas for leccy is fine, since we'll be displacing vast amounts of FF's elsewhere, such as gas for space heating, or petrol/diesel for transport.

So, would nuclear help - well if the gas needed is 25GW, then a couple of nuclear powerstations, let's say 6GW, would reduce gas generation, but not eliminate it. And if the gas demand is zero, then the nuclear is competing against RE, and not really helping (v's other RE excess at a lower cost of generation).


So, short term (5yrs), build out RE as fast as possible, displacing FF's.
Medium term (10yrs), continue with the RE build out, plus start to establish intraday storage.
Long term (15yrs+), where nuclear would start to reach completion, continue as above, with RE starting to move into an average excess position, and start to build out longer term storage - CAES, LAES, H2, bio-mass only for demand following, possibly even some export based hydro storage with European neighbours.

[Edit - that 5-15yr period is moveable, it applies to 2010, or 2022/23. At any point we can consider how we move forward expanding low carbon leccy, and decarbonising energy as a whole. At any point in time till we get to the end, we will need (moving forward) more RE, plus some more intraday storage, plus more large scale storage.]


Probably needs better explaining, so if it seems a bit dodgy, my bad, it's already too long so I'll stop there.

shinytop

Martyn1981 said:

shinytop said:

I've seen comments on this board that nuclear, as a 'base' type capacity that is always on, is a poor mix with RE.  Isn't tidal the same? (a genuine question, not a troll!)

I'm not sure that's right, do you have a reference?

It's not a bad mix, certainly in my opinion, it's just that nuclear comes with a lot of baggage and cost. In fact I used to be all in favour of nuclear, after all it's safer than coal, when you consider the actual harm coal pollution causes, even when it's running 'right', and it's cheaper than coal when you consider the externalities, the most obvious being AGW.

But, today (again, just my opinion, but since about 2015), nuclear is no longer worth the trouble, since RE or RE + (RE + storage) is cheaper, and doesn't come with all the downsides of nuclear. Plus of course, since RE can be rolled out very fast, spending the money on nuclear slows down the transition away from FF's.

Sorry to harp on about storage so much, but it's also important to remember that nuclear needs it (such as Dinorwig, E7 and 'Heat Electric'). It's fine to point to nuclear being on when the wind isn't blowing, but when the wind is blowing, then nuclear adds to the excess, since it can't demand follow. If, as ABrass suggests, one of the forms of storage is bio-mass and/or H2, then they can demand follow, and work in conjunction with tidal. [BTW whilst tidal is entirely predictable, it is also variable.]

If we have to curtail something, isn't it better to curtail wind at £50/MWh, rather than nuclear at £114/MWh? If storage is 'mopping up' excess RE at say £20/MWh (or TOU deals are encouraging demand at that price), then the support cost would be £30/MWh for the wind, but £94/MWh for nuclear. Or pay nothing, after all, wind and PV generation falls out of the subsidy mechanism after just 15yrs (35yrs for HPC).

Not sure I'm making sense, but it's not the way nuclear works that's a problem, it's the cost of generation (v's alternatives). If nuclear could demand follow, like coal, gas, bio-mass, some hydro etc, then that would be a benefit, but even if you can ramp a nuclear plant down, its costs don't fall (like gas for instance (reduced fuel cost)), so you simply get less generation for the same cost. Hence why all new nuclear needs Government support.

Exactly the same can be said about wind, PV etc, their costs don't reduce if you ramp them down, but they cost a hell of a lot less to start with.


I'm not sure I have this next bit right, so apologies if I accidentally mislead, but think of the next 25yrs+, as we reduce gas use for leccy, but also move to an 'electrify everything' future. Lets say we need 25GW of gas generation, operating anywhere between 0% and 100%, with an annual cf of 10%. I say 25yrs, since leccy demand will be growing fast, so as hard as we decarbonize it, we will be adding to it. But burning the same amount of gas for leccy is fine, since we'll be displacing vast amounts of FF's elsewhere, such as gas for space heating, or petrol/diesel for transport.

So, would nuclear help - well if the gas needed is 25GW, then a couple of nuclear powerstations, let's say 6GW, would reduce gas generation, but not eliminate it. And if the gas demand is zero, then the nuclear is competing against RE, and not really helping (v's other RE excess at a lower cost of generation).


So, short term (5yrs), build out RE as fast as possible, displacing FF's.
Medium term (10yrs), continue with the RE build out, plus start to establish intraday storage.
Long term (15yrs+), where nuclear would start to reach completion, continue as above, with RE starting to move into an average excess position, and start to build out longer term storage - CAES, LAES, H2, bio-mass only for demand following, possibly even some export based hydro storage with European neighbours.

[Edit - that 5-15yr period is moveable, it applies to 2010, or 2022/23. At any point we can consider how we move forward expanding low carbon leccy, and decarbonising energy as a whole. At any point in time till we get to the end, we will need (moving forward) more RE, plus some more intraday storage, plus more large scale storage.]


Probably needs better explaining, so if it seems a bit dodgy, my bad, it's already too long so I'll stop there.

Thanks @Martyn1981, a useful summary.  My question was simply that, given everything you say above, doesn't your assessment of the (ir)relevance of nuclear apply equally to tidal? That is, why bother? 

Martyn1981

shinytop said:

Martyn1981 said:

shinytop said:

I've seen comments on this board that nuclear, as a 'base' type capacity that is always on, is a poor mix with RE.  Isn't tidal the same? (a genuine question, not a troll!)

I'm not sure that's right, do you have a reference?

It's not a bad mix, certainly in my opinion, it's just that nuclear comes with a lot of baggage and cost. In fact I used to be all in favour of nuclear, after all it's safer than coal, when you consider the actual harm coal pollution causes, even when it's running 'right', and it's cheaper than coal when you consider the externalities, the most obvious being AGW.

But, today (again, just my opinion, but since about 2015), nuclear is no longer worth the trouble, since RE or RE + (RE + storage) is cheaper, and doesn't come with all the downsides of nuclear. Plus of course, since RE can be rolled out very fast, spending the money on nuclear slows down the transition away from FF's.

Sorry to harp on about storage so much, but it's also important to remember that nuclear needs it (such as Dinorwig, E7 and 'Heat Electric'). It's fine to point to nuclear being on when the wind isn't blowing, but when the wind is blowing, then nuclear adds to the excess, since it can't demand follow. If, as ABrass suggests, one of the forms of storage is bio-mass and/or H2, then they can demand follow, and work in conjunction with tidal. [BTW whilst tidal is entirely predictable, it is also variable.]

If we have to curtail something, isn't it better to curtail wind at £50/MWh, rather than nuclear at £114/MWh? If storage is 'mopping up' excess RE at say £20/MWh (or TOU deals are encouraging demand at that price), then the support cost would be £30/MWh for the wind, but £94/MWh for nuclear. Or pay nothing, after all, wind and PV generation falls out of the subsidy mechanism after just 15yrs (35yrs for HPC).

Not sure I'm making sense, but it's not the way nuclear works that's a problem, it's the cost of generation (v's alternatives). If nuclear could demand follow, like coal, gas, bio-mass, some hydro etc, then that would be a benefit, but even if you can ramp a nuclear plant down, its costs don't fall (like gas for instance (reduced fuel cost)), so you simply get less generation for the same cost. Hence why all new nuclear needs Government support.

Exactly the same can be said about wind, PV etc, their costs don't reduce if you ramp them down, but they cost a hell of a lot less to start with.


I'm not sure I have this next bit right, so apologies if I accidentally mislead, but think of the next 25yrs+, as we reduce gas use for leccy, but also move to an 'electrify everything' future. Lets say we need 25GW of gas generation, operating anywhere between 0% and 100%, with an annual cf of 10%. I say 25yrs, since leccy demand will be growing fast, so as hard as we decarbonize it, we will be adding to it. But burning the same amount of gas for leccy is fine, since we'll be displacing vast amounts of FF's elsewhere, such as gas for space heating, or petrol/diesel for transport.

So, would nuclear help - well if the gas needed is 25GW, then a couple of nuclear powerstations, let's say 6GW, would reduce gas generation, but not eliminate it. And if the gas demand is zero, then the nuclear is competing against RE, and not really helping (v's other RE excess at a lower cost of generation).


So, short term (5yrs), build out RE as fast as possible, displacing FF's.
Medium term (10yrs), continue with the RE build out, plus start to establish intraday storage.
Long term (15yrs+), where nuclear would start to reach completion, continue as above, with RE starting to move into an average excess position, and start to build out longer term storage - CAES, LAES, H2, bio-mass only for demand following, possibly even some export based hydro storage with European neighbours.

[Edit - that 5-15yr period is moveable, it applies to 2010, or 2022/23. At any point we can consider how we move forward expanding low carbon leccy, and decarbonising energy as a whole. At any point in time till we get to the end, we will need (moving forward) more RE, plus some more intraday storage, plus more large scale storage.]


Probably needs better explaining, so if it seems a bit dodgy, my bad, it's already too long so I'll stop there.

Thanks @Martyn1981, a useful summary.  My question was simply that, given everything you say above, doesn't your assessment of the (ir)relevance of nuclear apply equally to tidal? That is, why bother? 

No, I don't think so. Not sure how you're reading that. If nuclear was cheaper, and safer, then having some constant generation would be a plus.*

As I've explained every time, I don't think the costs, risks, and long term waste storage issues, of nuclear, mean it's a viable competitor to RE + (RE + storage).

It could well be that tidal is also not competitive, especially if wind, PV and storage costs keep falling. But it looks to be viable at the moment, has potential for cost reductions (nuclear is very mature, and costs have risen due to increasing safety and storage issues), and doesn't carry the baggage and concerns of nuclear.

In fact, for tidal lagoons, there's potential for many valueable side benefits, such as water front housing, storm flood protection etc etc.. As I've mentioned before, both Cardiff and Swansea built bay barrages purely for aesthetic and devlopment purposes about 25yrs. I visited the Cardiff project back in the 90's whilst under construction, very impressive, especially the size of the locks.

I think it's really important when you are considering RE, tidal (lagoon/barrage versions), and nuclear, that you include the potential problems of nuclear. Whilst I don't think another Chernobyl, nor Fukushima will happen again, it is of course possible. Japan has spent about $150bn cleaning up so far, and the total bill is expected to exceed $0.5tn. Then we have all of the still unanswered problems of long term storage. These costs have to be considered when comparing nuclear to tidal. And I suspect for many, the risks simply aren't worth taking, when alternatives exists, especially if they are cheaper .... yes/no?


*Sorry to keep repeating this, but the issue with most claims about nuclear is that it provides baseload, and doesn't need storage. But that's a cheat, since it requires any storage to be 'blamed' on RE excess/shortfall. As explained, nuclear also requires storage, or TOU demand management. This is shown by the UK's rollout of Dinorwig, E7 and 'Heat Electric', in conjunction with nuclear expansion.

The benefit of nuclear is that it would require less storage, but since it alone appears to cost more than RE + storage (see previous replies mentioning the findings of the NIC and their advice to the Gov back in 2018), so is more again with 'some' storage.

Also worth repeating some of the discussion points in the past about tidal lagoons, as they employ an element of storage and demand following, since their generation can be time shifted a bit, but there is a price, since doing so will reduce the total energy from that 4.5hr 3.5hr cycle.

Martyn1981

This new wind record snuck in to 2022, with a new peak of 20.9GW. Though, with rounding, the previous record was also 20.9GW, so just a small increase.

However, the article raised a pleasant thought, as it mentions low carbon generation reaching 87%. I remember when folk (for many countries, not just the UK), liked to state that RE couldn't be supported on grids at more than 30% 40% 50% ..... I also recall national Grid ESO saying the UK Grid would (should) be able to cope with 100% low carbon generation by 2025, though they didn't expect it to reach that level by then. We'll obviously need more RE, and just the right timing, but perhaps we may see a brief ~100% in 2025(ish)?

New wind energy generation record set for the third time in a year

RenewableUK is highlighting a new wind energy generation record set on Friday 30th December and confirmed today by National Grid ESO.

Wind generated 20.918 gigawatts (GW) of electricity in the half-hour period between 6 and 6.30pm on Friday, beating the previous record of 20.896GW set on 2nd November and reaching a new high for the third time in a year.

National Grid ESO also announced that a new record was set on the same day for the percentage of low-carbon electricity (renewables and nuclear) generated in a half-hour  period, which reached 87.2%. Overall, wind provided 61.4% of Britain’s electricity that day.

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 said:

shinytop said:

Martyn1981 said:

shinytop said:

I've seen comments on this board that nuclear, as a 'base' type capacity that is always on, is a poor mix with RE.  Isn't tidal the same? (a genuine question, not a troll!)

I'm not sure that's right, do you have a reference?

It's not a bad mix, certainly in my opinion, it's just that nuclear comes with a lot of baggage and cost. In fact I used to be all in favour of nuclear, after all it's safer than coal, when you consider the actual harm coal pollution causes, even when it's running 'right', and it's cheaper than coal when you consider the externalities, the most obvious being AGW.

But, today (again, just my opinion, but since about 2015), nuclear is no longer worth the trouble, since RE or RE + (RE + storage) is cheaper, and doesn't come with all the downsides of nuclear. Plus of course, since RE can be rolled out very fast, spending the money on nuclear slows down the transition away from FF's.

Sorry to harp on about storage so much, but it's also important to remember that nuclear needs it (such as Dinorwig, E7 and 'Heat Electric'). It's fine to point to nuclear being on when the wind isn't blowing, but when the wind is blowing, then nuclear adds to the excess, since it can't demand follow. If, as ABrass suggests, one of the forms of storage is bio-mass and/or H2, then they can demand follow, and work in conjunction with tidal. [BTW whilst tidal is entirely predictable, it is also variable.]

If we have to curtail something, isn't it better to curtail wind at £50/MWh, rather than nuclear at £114/MWh? If storage is 'mopping up' excess RE at say £20/MWh (or TOU deals are encouraging demand at that price), then the support cost would be £30/MWh for the wind, but £94/MWh for nuclear. Or pay nothing, after all, wind and PV generation falls out of the subsidy mechanism after just 15yrs (35yrs for HPC).

Not sure I'm making sense, but it's not the way nuclear works that's a problem, it's the cost of generation (v's alternatives). If nuclear could demand follow, like coal, gas, bio-mass, some hydro etc, then that would be a benefit, but even if you can ramp a nuclear plant down, its costs don't fall (like gas for instance (reduced fuel cost)), so you simply get less generation for the same cost. Hence why all new nuclear needs Government support.

Exactly the same can be said about wind, PV etc, their costs don't reduce if you ramp them down, but they cost a hell of a lot less to start with.


I'm not sure I have this next bit right, so apologies if I accidentally mislead, but think of the next 25yrs+, as we reduce gas use for leccy, but also move to an 'electrify everything' future. Lets say we need 25GW of gas generation, operating anywhere between 0% and 100%, with an annual cf of 10%. I say 25yrs, since leccy demand will be growing fast, so as hard as we decarbonize it, we will be adding to it. But burning the same amount of gas for leccy is fine, since we'll be displacing vast amounts of FF's elsewhere, such as gas for space heating, or petrol/diesel for transport.

So, would nuclear help - well if the gas needed is 25GW, then a couple of nuclear powerstations, let's say 6GW, would reduce gas generation, but not eliminate it. And if the gas demand is zero, then the nuclear is competing against RE, and not really helping (v's other RE excess at a lower cost of generation).


So, short term (5yrs), build out RE as fast as possible, displacing FF's.
Medium term (10yrs), continue with the RE build out, plus start to establish intraday storage.
Long term (15yrs+), where nuclear would start to reach completion, continue as above, with RE starting to move into an average excess position, and start to build out longer term storage - CAES, LAES, H2, bio-mass only for demand following, possibly even some export based hydro storage with European neighbours.

[Edit - that 5-15yr period is moveable, it applies to 2010, or 2022/23. At any point we can consider how we move forward expanding low carbon leccy, and decarbonising energy as a whole. At any point in time till we get to the end, we will need (moving forward) more RE, plus some more intraday storage, plus more large scale storage.]


Probably needs better explaining, so if it seems a bit dodgy, my bad, it's already too long so I'll stop there.

Thanks @Martyn1981, a useful summary.  My question was simply that, given everything you say above, doesn't your assessment of the (ir)relevance of nuclear apply equally to tidal? That is, why bother? 

No, I don't think so. Not sure how you're reading that. If nuclear was cheaper, and safer, then having some constant generation would be a plus.*

As I've explained every time, I don't think the costs, risks, and long term waste storage issues, of nuclear, mean it's a viable competitor to RE + (RE + storage).

It could well be that tidal is also not competitive, especially if wind, PV and storage costs keep falling. But it looks to be viable at the moment, has potential for cost reductions (nuclear is very mature, and costs have risen due to increasing safety and storage issues), and doesn't carry the baggage and concerns of nuclear.

This is a silly thing, but it's been nagging at me, so I thought I should mention it.

Some folk may recall discussions about the Swansea Tidal lagoon scheme, probably 8-10yrs ago. I seem to recall the costs, and I may have actually posted them, as being roughly the same as the HPC strike price. In case anyone does recall this, I thought I should explain the bigger story, in case it seems I'm being hypocritical.

The Swansea scheme is actually very small, I think the generation is estimated at 320MW (v's HPC 3,200MW), so a handy comparison, at 1/10th the size, and therefore subsidy support. However, that's the max power, so for lower tides it will be less, and as the level of the water falls, the power will drop. I'm not sure if it's linear (Z can you help?), but probably, so the average power would be 160MW (or less), and for 14hrs per day, not 24.

[Probably muck this bit up, but if an average tide is 80% of that max (total and utter guess), then for Swansea we get 320MW x 80% x 50% x 14/24 = 75MW, so roughly 2.5% of HPC (at a 92%cf).]

This is all important, as I've always thought (personally) that it's real value is as a proof of concept, and lessons learned exercise. If it works well, then larger and cheaper schemes can be built.

The big benefit of going larger for tidal lagoon schemes is down to a simple mathematical 'bonus'. If you double the circumference of a circle, the volume increases fourfold. So in the case of a semi circle, where the coast represents the flat bit, then increasing the length of the curve (the barrage wall) by 2x, can lead to an increase in volume of upto 4x.

For this reason, the suggested Cardiff Tidal lagoon scheme, which would produce 10x the power/energy of Swansea (est ~3GW), is estimated to generate at a cost of roughly half that of Swansea.

Hope this makes sense. I know I'm being a bit silly, and fussing, but thought it worth clarifying. And it may be interesting too.

Martyn1981

Bristol starts work on England's largest onshore wind turbine. I believe it's 4.2MW, whereas most in the UK top out at around 2.5MW due to issues getting the blades to site (think narrow tracks and steep British hillsides).

Bristol: Work to begin on England's biggest wind turbine

Work to build England's biggest wind turbine will start in February.

The 150-metre structure will dwarf the other turbines already in Avonmouth, Bristol, when it is finished.

Around 100 tonnes of steel and 1,000 tonnes of concrete will be needed to build it.

Project development manager David Tudgey said the turbine would be a "real testament of hope for the future".
It is hoped it will be up and running by spring, providing low-carbon electricity to 3,500 homes and saving 1,965 tonnes of CO2 per year.

gefnew

Hydrogen truck use in docks.
Hydrogen-powered truck used in trial at Immingham docks - BBC News

michaels

Hydrogen Buses

German city to retire its one-year-old hydrogen fuel-cell buses after €2.3m filling station breaks down | Hydrogen news and intelligence (hydrogeninsight.com)

And another Tesla fail
Tesla driver intentionally drove car off a cliff with family, but everyone miraculously survived | Electrek

2nd_time_buyer

Martyn1981 said:

This new wind record snuck in to 2022, with a new peak of 20.9GW. Though, with rounding, the previous record was also 20.9GW, so just a small increase.

However, the article raised a pleasant thought, as it mentions low carbon generation reaching 87%. I remember when folk (for many countries, not just the UK), liked to state that RE couldn't be supported on grids at more than 30% 40% 50% ..... I also recall national Grid ESO saying the UK Grid would (should) be able to cope with 100% low carbon generation by 2025, though they didn't expect it to reach that level by then. We'll obviously need more RE, and just the right timing, but perhaps we may see a brief ~100% in 2025(ish)?

New wind energy generation record set for the third time in a year

RenewableUK is highlighting a new wind energy generation record set on Friday 30th December and confirmed today by National Grid ESO.

Wind generated 20.918 gigawatts (GW) of electricity in the half-hour period between 6 and 6.30pm on Friday, beating the previous record of 20.896GW set on 2nd November and reaching a new high for the third time in a year.

National Grid ESO also announced that a new record was set on the same day for the percentage of low-carbon electricity (renewables and nuclear) generated in a half-hour  period, which reached 87.2%. Overall, wind provided 61.4% of Britain’s electricity that day.

I was wondering about when we might get to zero FF. However, the gas consumption has been low for an extended period to a large extent regardless of demand and wind supply, with imports, biomass, etc, making up any shortfall. This has made me wonder it i there is required to have a minimum tick over output for the power stations.

Martyn1981

Articles like this, pointing out what is so important, and so obvious, also make me very angry. Why did the fools in charge turn their backs on energy efficiency and insulation when it was going so well. Doesn't matter if they were in denial about AGW, or thought RE was 'green carp', it still would have saved money for the population, regardless of the source of the energy.

So much lost time.

Energy efficiency ‘war effort’ needed to cut bills and emissions, say MPs

A national “war effort” on energy efficiency is required to cut energy bills, reduce climate-heating emissions and ensure energy security, according to a cross-party committee of MPs.

Boosting efficiency in homes and businesses is the fastest way to cut energy use but the government missed a “crucial window of opportunity” last summer, the report from the environmental audit committee (EAC) said. The energy bills crisis was sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, while political turmoil in the UK resulted in three prime ministers in office between July and October.

The report said some of the windfall tax on energy companies’ profits should be used to bring forward efficiency funding and fulfil the government’s 2019 manifesto commitment to invest £9bn in energy efficiency: “A national ‘war effort’ on energy saving and efficiency is required.”

The number of UK energy efficiency installations, such as insulating lofts and cavity walls, peaked in 2012 at 2.3m. Subsequently, the then prime minister, David Cameron, slashed efficiency programmes amid claims he wanted to get rid of the “green crap” from energy bills. By 2021, annual installations were 96% lower, at fewer than 100,000. The EAC called for at least 1m installations a year by 2025 and a target of 2.5m by 2030.

“Bold action is needed now,” said the EAC chair, Philip Dunne. “We must fix our leaky housing stock, which is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and wastes our constituents’ hard-earned cash. The government could have gone further and faster.” Ministers were split over a public information campaign on energy efficiency, which finally launched in December.