1) Let’s take a step back to understand what’s going on here. The Energy Company Obligation (ECO) is a long-standing energy efficiency programme. The first variation of its kind started in 1994. 10 years ago I wrote my PhD thesis on it @ecioxford. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
2) ECO (or the Supplier Obligation as it is also known) has always supported installing new fossil fuel boilers. Especially during EEC 1+2 and CERT millions of condensing boilers were installed. This led to very large energy savings. centrica.com/media/1635/bg_…
3) But since the predecessor of ECO came to an end energy efficiency measure installation rates collapsed especially insulation of walls and lofts.
4) ECO obliges larger energy suppliers to save a fixed amount of energy but does not prescribe the detailed delivery path. Since 1994 there has always been what is called an 'illustrative mix' of technologies government expects energy companies to deliver.
5) So what do the current ECO proposals say about gas boilers? Under the preferred option 45k gas boilers are expected to be subsidised compared to just 30k renewable energy systems (heat pumps and solar PV).
6) In the short-term replacing direct electric heating and an old inefficient boiler will lead to energy, carbon and cost savings for those who benefit from the installation. But in the medium to long-term this is not compatible with the climate goals.
8) The European Commission has recognised the problem of funding new fossil fuel heating systems in its Fit for 55 Package proposals. Under the proposals Member States can not longer count energy savings achieved from fossil fuel combustion technologies.
9) However, at the moment most European countries continue to subsidise new fossil heating systems. Given the long lifetimes of these technologies and the need to decarbonise much more rapidly this cannot be a good use of public funds.
1) It is widely accepted that heat pumps will play a major role for decarbonising heating. But their running costs are usually higher than gas boilers. This is because we put most of the climate policy costs on electricity and almost none on fossil fuels.
The UK hydrogen strategy is finally out. My take on it in this thread. gov.uk/government/new…
1) The hydrogen strategy rightly identifies hydrogen as a key ingredient for the energy transition especially in areas such as power, industry and parts of the transport sector.
2) As my quote on @BBCNews says “But, as the strategy admits, there won’t be significant quantities of low carbon hydrogen for some time. We need to use it where there are few alternatives and not as a like-for-like replacement of gas.” bbc.com/news/science-e…
Not only can we afford the costs of net zero but we will have to. The alternative is a disastrous and very costly future. Excellent piece by @jameskirkup@SMFthinktank@spectator.
1) The climate deniers lost the battle around the evidence base and failed with their attempts to discredit the science more than 10 years ago.
2) Unable to challenge climate science the deniers have now turned to the costs of net zero as the new battleground. On a weekly basis they attack policies driving decarbonisation as being unaffordable.
In recent weeks claims have been made that electrification of end uses doesn’t deliver carbon savings because it runs on dirty fossil fuel generation. I argue here that these arguments do not stack up and prolong the combustion of fossil fuels. Thread 1/n energymonitor.ai/tech/electrifi…
2) Estimating carbon savings associated with electrification is complex. A number of analysts have made admirable attempts to appraise emissions savings from a shift to EVs and heat pumps. These studies show electrification leads to significant reductions in carbon emissions.
3) The German media reported widely on research claiming electric cars that run on power generated by coal are no cleaner than petrol and diesel cars. @AukeHoekstra quickly debunked this.
The Fit for 55 package presented last week includes carbon pricing in the buildings sector through an ETS. This raises equity concerns that will need to be addressed or the project will fail. euractiv.com/section/climat…
2) Carbon revenues can also be used to lower policy legacy costs put on energy bills. This is what Germany is implementing. Revenues will be used to lower RES surcharges, relief measures for citizens and climate action support programmes. @cleanenergywirecleanenergywire.org/factsheets/ger…
Opponents of heat electrification often state heat pumps 'don't work in old buildings'. Not true says @JohnCantor2 dispelling this myth in his excellent article. And John knows - he has been designing & installing heat pumps since the 1980s. Thread 1/7 heatpumps.co.uk/2020/11/03/hea…
@JohnCantor2 2/7 First conclusion: “The right heat pump could be made to heat any building to any temperature we like. But the crux of the issue is the installation cost and the running cost.”
3/7 The question John says that we should ask is – “can we heat old buildings and achieve acceptable energy-efficiency?” His response: “Well… we probably can, and as time passes, it gets better.“