Energy news in general

MattMattMattUK

The_Green_Hornet said:

UK government scraps plan to ban sale of gas boilers by 2035

‘Future homes standard’ will not mandate replacing boilers with environmentally friendly alternative

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/06/uk-government-scraps-plan-to-ban-sale-of-gas-boilers-by-2035

It appears to be an incredibly stupid idea, but typical of the current trajectory. 

MikeJXE

Gas boilers first EVs next 

Scot_39

Perhaps if can give up on the bulk of 18% or since last cut - 80% of 18% - so easily - and not mandate other savings like solar on new build if article correct - perhaps we should give up on the rest of our green domestic energy plans.

Are they going to stop loading electricity prices for emissions when need gas generation - as we all too frequently still do - given the inherently unreliable (inconsistent) nature of wind and solar power - with the recent £10s bn in capture technology adding to existing generation levies ?

OR add the equivalent costs to domestic gas to balance the equivalent C02 green costs fairly ?

Or as I suspect simply kick another difficult decision - into the long grass - for future govts and generations to deal with.

Given according to gov uk data we are currently fitting about 10,000 heat pumps per quarter - in first 3 quarters of 2024 - despite the £7500k grant - and under 1/4 million in total over last n years - even if started now - with c24m mains gas and 100,000s more with oil and LPG gas - it's not going to happen at current scales.  

Delaying the target cut off surely just makes "net zero" failure that little bit more inevitable. 

MikeJXE

As soon as costs to go green started being lumped on to consumer bills 

It was doomed to fail 

Scot_39

Green politicians in UK have often been driven into electoral obscurity by their willingness to be honest about the true costs of green energy transition.

Just for Scotland - Harvie et all in Scottish Greens were publishing medium - long term estimates of iirc c£33bn over 20 years in transition costs to 2045 - for his net zero "Heat in Buildings Strategy" - including new heating systems for public buildings and all domestic homes - just for c5.5m population of Scotland.

2 years later the SNP had softened some of the targets, pushed other decisions out beyond the next Holyrood Election (sounds all too familair given recent domestic GCH boilers 2035 plan scrapped south of border) and widespread discontent at conference over plans and costs the following year - ultimately led to Bute House collapsing.

And the format of current contracts - in order to get lower rates when generating - in terms of curtailment etc - that reportedly hit £1bn last year - and will hit £3bn for grid thermal constraints alone - £95 per connection - by 2030 - are just part of that.

As are the current estimates of upto £77bn for grid new connections in next 5 years alone - new pylons new undersea / underground cables and conversion stations etc - to connect to remote renewables, to deliver their power to markets often 100s of miles away and of course capacity increases on existing to supply for anticipated higher demand (to replace 11,500 kWh of gas at median TDCV and 8000 miles of diesel / petrol for average car etc) - also need to be paid for.

Network costs in the current cap are almost £100 more expensive than 2019 levels - but down a little on peak.

Over £100 of which have been attributed as fixed not unit based costs by Ofgem - and so are now driving the electric standing charge increase since Apr 22 - nearly half the average c£220 cap.

It's already in our bills - and it isn't going away.

Wind and solar may be free sources of energy in theory - the costs of capturing it, transmitting it - with new kit and new transmission lines - and maintaining / replacing / upgrading reliable traditional generation at similar capacity to current to replace it when it regularly fails to generate anything like its average power (lows of sub 10% installed capacity happen frequently in UK - just this week - windy in parts of UK - saw sub 20% at 5.5 GW ave on Saturday of last years 30.2 GW capacity - suspect higher now ) are not.

This past week saw wind generate 20GW on average at peak - but much lower 5.5GW on Sat of just under 35GW demand - as the recent low - traditional gas had to pick up much of the 15 GW shortfall - as well as 2GW from French interconnect plus others too.

 

So we have two expensive generation systems - one being built from scratch including new grid support - the other having to be maintained and replaced - yes we are building new gas generation plant in the UK - and all of it greened by projected £10s bn in carbon capture tech - or replaced by new nuclear (which if include Sizewell - will iirc have less capacity by its completion - than when Hinkley C negotiated over a decade ago - although there are several other projects in background in various states that could add more) - having to exist in parallel.

Chrysalis

MattMattMattUK said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

UK government scraps plan to ban sale of gas boilers by 2035

‘Future homes standard’ will not mandate replacing boilers with environmentally friendly alternative

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/06/uk-government-scraps-plan-to-ban-sale-of-gas-boilers-by-2035

It appears to be an incredibly stupid idea, but typical of the current trajectory. 

If they were to uphold that, they would in my opinion be responsible for replacing gas boilers with heat pumps.

The problem with the previous proposal, was many properties are not eligible for grants, so when boiler packs in, the LL is then forced by law to switch the person to electric, and would of course not be paying out for a heat pump, so in go the panel heaters.
If the gov announced instead they would pay for heat pumps for tenants after 2035, then I expect you wouldnt be happy with that either?
I managed to get my LL to fit a new replacement boiler, by paying some of the cost, but a heat pump would have been out of the question.  We have to look at the wider picture, its the same reason the C EPC plan got scrapped as well, as these legislations have a cost attached to them.

We can still clean up energy by preventing the need to fire up gas stations for electric supply.

MattMattMattUK

Chrysalis said:

MattMattMattUK said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

UK government scraps plan to ban sale of gas boilers by 2035

‘Future homes standard’ will not mandate replacing boilers with environmentally friendly alternative

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/06/uk-government-scraps-plan-to-ban-sale-of-gas-boilers-by-2035

It appears to be an incredibly stupid idea, but typical of the current trajectory. 

If they were to uphold that, they would in my opinion be responsible for replacing gas boilers with heat pumps.

That would be an irrational position. The government banned the sale of new cars which required leaded petrol, they banned the use of coal in towns and cities, there are clean air zones etc. Just because progress happens does not mean that cost should be passed to taxpayers.

Chrysalis said:

The problem with the previous proposal, was many properties are not eligible for grants, 

That is not a problem with the previous proposal, not every cost should be passed on to taxpayers, grants have a place to encourage early adoption, not as a long term solution.

Chrysalis said:
so when boiler packs in, the LL is then forced by law to switch the person to electric, and would of course not be paying out for a heat pump, so in go the panel heaters.

That is either a negotiation between landlords, an area for regulation, or both, it is not a reason for taxpayer subsidy.

Chrysalis said:

If the gov announced instead they would pay for heat pumps for tenants after 2035, then I expect you wouldnt be happy with that either?

I would not, because again, the cost should not be passed to taxpayers. It is also irrelevant to the banning of new gas boilers, because the banning of one outdated and polluting technology should not mean that the taxpayer has to pay for the replacement.

Chrysalis said:

I managed to get my LL to fit a new replacement boiler, by paying some of the cost, but a heat pump would have been out of the question.  We have to look at the wider picture, its the same reason the C EPC plan got scrapped as well, as these legislations have a cost attached to them.

The cost of inaction is far higher than the cost of action. What you are saying is that you would rather things are cheaper now, but we ignore the catastrophic implications for our children and grandchildren of refusing to decarbonise. There is a word for that kind of attitude.

Chrysalis said:

We can still clean up energy by preventing the need to fire up gas stations for electric supply.

We can decrease CO2 emissions, we cannot clean it up, gas still pollutes, yes it is better than coal or oil, but it is also infinitely worse than wind, solar, tidal, wave or nuclear. We should be getting rid of fossil fuels altogether, not rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. 

bristolleedsfan

Consultation has been running since 12 December - ends 9th January, not had much publicity.  DBT estimate this funding equates to between £3 and £5 per electricity account

Introducing a Network Charge Compensation allowance in the energy price cap | Ofgem

victor2

MattMattMattUK said:

...

The cost of inaction is far higher than the cost of action. What you are saying is that you would rather things are cheaper now, but we ignore the catastrophic implications for our children and grandchildren of refusing to decarbonise. There is a word for that kind of attitude.
...

Whilst I agree with much of what you say, the other side of the coin is what global effect would it have on the climate if the UK went totally "green"? Probably nothing measurable by future generations when you look at what other developed and developing nations are doing. How much is global pollution in its various forms affecting the climate anyway and how much of it is just part of the Earth's lifecycle?

I'm not saying we should do nothing, but is expecting millions of people to make sacrifices to reduce our output of pollutants in the hope that the rest of the world will follow our example too hard a pill to swallow?..

MattMattMattUK

victor2 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

...

The cost of inaction is far higher than the cost of action. What you are saying is that you would rather things are cheaper now, but we ignore the catastrophic implications for our children and grandchildren of refusing to decarbonise. There is a word for that kind of attitude.
...

Whilst I agree with much of what you say, the other side of the coin is what global effect would it have on the climate if the UK went totally "green"? 

The UK is responsible for about 1% of global emissions, but also at 4.4 tons per capita is still well above what is sustainable on a per-capita basis and it is very hard to argue that developing nations should reduce their emissions which area already below ours on a per capita basis when we are not reducing ours. 

The world's biggest emitter is China, but much of that comes because the West has outsourced manufacturing to them, if we added the carbon from imported goods to the recipient countries then China's emissions would be far lower. China is also pushing for full adoption of EV's by 2040 (no more ICE vehicles), carbon neutral electricity production by 2055 and no domestic gas or solid fuels. China also has solid plans in place to achieve these goals and may well achieve them ahead of time. They are largely doing so because they want energy security but there is also a recognition that climate change will bring huge economic costs and so reducing that by moving to net zero is gain overall in more ways than one.

victor2 said:
Probably nothing measurable by future generations when you look at what other developed and developing nations are doing. 

Not measurable individually, 1% is going to sit within the margin of error, however that is a very poor argument for not acting. On top of the climate change reasons it also makes sense to move away from fossil fuels for energy security reasons, something which will likely have a huge impact on future generations. 

victor2 said:
How much is global pollution in its various forms affecting the climate anyway and how much of it is just part of the Earth's lifecycle?

The science is settled on climate change, it is manmade, claims that it is "just part of Earth's lifecycle" have been fully discredited for more than two decades. 

victor2 said:

I'm not saying we should do nothing, but is expecting millions of people to make sacrifices to reduce our output of pollutants in the hope that the rest of the world will follow our example too hard a pill to swallow?..

We are talking about people having to make minor lifestyle adjustments that most will not even notice after a few years, not expecting them to make "sacrifices" in any meaningful sense of the word. EVs are cheaper to own and operate than ICE vehicles, heat pumps are cheaper to operate and have cheaper whole life costs than gas boilers, solar panels reduce energy bills and have a ROI of 4-10 years depending on usage and how much individuals adapt their usage, going green is not only the morally right thing to do, it is also cheaper and it increase energy security. If people were willing to revaluate their politics and look at things rationally, if people were willing to look at actual costs, not what they just read in certain newspapers, if people were willing to think, then the would see that transitioning away from fossil fuels is a win all round.