Thread by @heatpolicyrich

I think I've now managed to digest all the Times pieces today (I was featured in one of them) and thought I should set out my stall in a short thread. So, last week The Times featured an 'opinion piece' suggesting No 10 were very interested in hydrogen:

I was interviewed following the submission of a letter to the editor, not from me, but from another academic. csrf.ac.uk/2020/09/letter…. A shortened version of this letter featured today.

The Times also ran a story on the letter and which included a quote from me: thetimes.co.uk/article/fossil…

The Times also ran a 'leading article' (viewpoint) on the issue which I agree with @jbuckland13 on is actually quite balanced

I'm not going to go into the details of hydrogen/electrification but while we might need lots of both (yes I agree @ChiefExecCCC), it is hugely important where and how they are used

I've seen plenty of occasions where 'balance' and being 'technology agnostic' just means nothing happens. We simply don't have time for nothing to happen.

The risk is, as we saw with the first Times article that hydrogen becomes seen as the only game in town, when actually for heat, both energy efficiency, electrification, heat networks (and maybe hydrogen) will have a role and energy efficiency is actually vital for everything.

So overall I'm pleased that this issue has received some coverage and from a policy perspective opening up UK policy making in general and more coverage of lobbying would have huge value. But, on a practical level we're still way-off-track for net-zero heat by 2050.

Hence my repeated called for rapid deployment of heat pumps, heat networks and energy efficiency. We also need a rapid in-situ, decent scale, hydrogen for heat conversion trial to flush out the remaining uncertainties, and to objectively investigate costs and issues.

I outlined 12 steps to net-zero heating last year and think these are still useful: blogs.exeter.ac.uk/energy/2019/08…