UK Gas heating ban for new homes from 2025

Keifer301

Interesting!
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47559920

SuperTech

That's great and all, but unless the power is made from a source that doesn't require combustion it won't do a bit of good. Power plants don't create electricity as efficiently as modern boilers create BTUs is what I usually hear. I can't comment on the UK but here in the states the majority of our electricity comes from fuel burning sources. The biggest issue is that combined with an inefficient power grid.

kcopp

Still yet another example of government overreach thinking they know what is best for people.... They are picking who wins and who loses.
They need to stay out of it and let the consumer make their own decision.

GroundUp

No means of mass hydrogen manufacture currently in place, nor any mass produced equipment to burn it. To make that the sole fuel source in 6 years is laughable at best. Not happening

Sal Santamaura

Construction of new housing in Great Britain is extremely small. The article indicates that only new construction would be prohibited from using gas heating appliances; existing housing stock could continue to use (and replace as required) them.

Give the dire threat that anthropogenic global warming presents to continued existence of homo sapiens, this proposal doesn't seem unreasonable. It is, however, just that, not something actually implemented yet. Parliament can easily reject it. Given how Theresa May's Conservative government has fared in Commons votes lately, I suspect the ban stands little chance of being approved. Besides, the way things have been going across the pond, neither Phillip Hammond nor Theresa May are likely to be in power much longer. A new Chancellor of the Exchequer could revise or eliminate the proposal.

Just as California has tightened building envelope standards and, for homes newly constructed starting in 2020, mandated solar panels, other places need to find ways of radically lowering their residents' carbon footprints. Whether banning gas boilers in England is the best way there remains to be seen. Despite the political overtones, science demands action, and soon.

Inliner311

Also the UK imports the vast majority of their natural gas. I was they have been able to reduce their electricity from coal to only 7% in 2017 and it was 40% 4 years earlier. Wind power has help replaces a good amount of that. They have actually reduced their electricity needs as a nation recently too.

Also isn't geothermal alot easier and cheaper to install in new construction?

Sal Santamaura

kcopp said:

Still yet another example of government overreach thinking they know what is best for people.... They are picking who wins and who loses.
They need to stay out of it and let the consumer make their own decision.

I disagreed with this because consumers will decide based on the immediate out-of-pocket dollar cost to themselves and ignore numerous other costs resulting from their decisions, monetary as well as non-monetary, that redound to others/society, including their children, over time. Rather than complaining about perceived "government overreach," those with expertise would accomplish more by seeking public office to ensure mandates are technically viable.

Kevin, what did you disagree with in my comment that appears two above this one?

Leonard

Problem with shifting energy source to another fuel is other fuel's infrastructure is already at about max capacity. And it likely will take decade or 2 to significant;y change that. Companies don't build in $$$$$ extra capacity to let it sit unused.

Other issue is it ASSUMES you have UNLIMTED source of the fuel. And won't run out in 100 years and have to switch back to coal. Also makes country more vulnerable to other countries if they control that fuel source. (OPEC oil/ Russia-nat gas type issue) .

Electric power plants run at ~ 40% efficiency at best. That plus losses of transmitting long distances might wipe out lot/all savings of heat pumps. Add in high costs of adding electrical generation/transmitting equipment and you likley will have HIGH costs to save very little.

Jamie Hall

A few miscellaneous thoughts here...

First one is to remember that the European countries -- including the UK -- are much more accustomed to having the bureaucrats dictate what the people can do and when -- not only in such areas as to how to heat one's house, or what car to drive, but which doctor you can see or what medication you are permitted to have, or even where you are permitted to go. Bureaucratic dictates, such as what fuel you can burn for heat, are taken as routine. Closely related to this is the illusion that if the bureaucrats dictate something, it must be good.

Then -- in this particular instance - there is, world wide, a tremendous demand from people for the bureaucrats to be seen to be doing something concrete about a problem. Whether the something actually helps or not is completely irrelevant to the majority; they just want to see something done. Again, one can see this in a wide variety of regulations and legislation, not just energy.

This second thought intersects and reinforces the third: not only do consumers think in the short term, politicians and regulators do too. Long range thinking is rare enough to be almost unheard of.

@Sal Santamaura suggests that those with technical expertise should seek public office. Might not be a bad idea, except for two factors: first, technical expertise in one area does not necessarily translate into the ability to create good policy in all areas -- and office holders should, in my view, by broad thinkers with a deep understanding of history as well as other fields -- but second, I at least can see no reason why a sane, technically or otherwise well-qualified individual, would seek public office in today's slanderous, clickbait oriented world.

Leonard

Need politicians that consult engineers/technical people first.

I remember reading in 60's before President Kennedy said we're going to the moon he first asked the engineers if it was possible. And how long it would take , then he padded the landing date with extra time for unexpected delays.

Jamie Hall

Leonard said:

Need politicians that consult engineers/technical people first.

I remember reading in 60's before President Kennedy said we're going to the moon he first asked the engineers if it was possible. And how long it would take , then he padded the landing date with extra time for unexpected delays.

That was JFK. There's no way he could have been elected in today's environment.

Sal Santamaura

Jamie Hall said:

...technical expertise in one area does not necessarily translate into the ability to create good policy in all areas...

In a world where the problems we face are increasingly technical, would someone possessing technical knowedge/skills be better or worse equipped to consult appropriate subject matter experts, then evaluate their inputs than are today's science-rejecting, willfully ignorant anti-technical officials? I know who I'd prefer making decisions.

My electrical engineering-specific college education provided a thorough grounding in scientific method. Anyone who has such technical expertise, regardless of the area it's in, can build upon it to separate the wheat from the chaff when faced with pseudo-scientific nonsense.

kcopp

@Sal Santamaura I disagreed w/ a good part of your thought.
I do not think that "global warming/ global cooling/ climate change... is a threat to mankind. Plenty of so called experts have made all kinds of doomsday predictions that never end up materializing. Don't all they keep changing the term? Global cooling, warming, climate change.
Don't get me wrong. I am all in on conserving and being a good steward of the planet. I don't believe in waste and think we should make every effort to tighten homes & keep energy use down. I just don't think the government should be involved.
It should be voluntary and through private means../
Government mandating/ Dictating how people spend their own money is not right.
Whenever government gets involved corruption and crony capitalism follows. There is plenty of history to back up that.
I am not a fan of subsidizing ANY industry. Lower involvement is better. Please let the free market pick the best solutions.

Jamie Hall

Sal Santamaura said:

Jamie Hall said:

...technical expertise in one area does not necessarily translate into the ability to create good policy in all areas...

In a world where the problems we face are increasingly technical, would someone possessing technical knowedge/skills be better or worse equipped to consult appropriate subject matter experts, then evaluate their inputs than are today's science-rejecting, willfully ignorant anti-technical officials? I know who I'd prefer making decisions.

My electrical engineering-specific college education provided a thorough grounding in scientific method. Anyone who has such technical expertise, regardless of the area it's in, can build upon it to separate the wheat from the chaff when faced with pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Um... maybe. If you have someone making the decisions who is answerable to the people -- which in our system is how it's supposed to be -- and who has the intelligence and background to know when they themselves don't know, and who has the ability to sift the varying expert opinions given them, it works. Two good examples: JFK, mentioned earlier, was very good at that. General Eisenhower was even better.

It is remarkably rare for there to be one and only one solution to a technical problem -- look at some of the debates even here on the Wall! When the problem to which the solution is sought involves multiple technical fields and is then overlain with social and economic and political constraints, separating the wheat from the chaff becomes almost impossible in any definitive way; it becomes necessary for a true statesman to balance the conflicting options which are presented -- and that person has to have a very broad education and life experience.

The real problem, though, comes up when you have people who are very very expert in one field, who then decide that because they are brilliant in that field that they can also give expert advice in other fields. This is rarely the case. For some reason medical doctors seem particularly subject to this illusion, but I have seen examples from almost any discipline.

And last, I do have to disagree on one point: I would not want to have a technocrat, however well versed in his or her field, making large scale policy decisions which have impacts outside of his or her field. Giving advice to the stateman, yes. Making the decision, no.

The Steam Whisperer

I have to agree that the "free market" ( which we certainly don't have today with the power of huge corporations) is not going to address the need for conservation. If the typical owner is only looking five years out, then the free market will only dictate a solution that is favorable for that five year period. The next homeowner then has to pay for that five year solution through higher costs and higher fuel usage the next 5 to 10 years. Free markets just don't work in this area... the view has to be larger and longer than the typical consumer. The foremost economists of our country in this century have already provided a substancial amount of mathematical evidence that the concept of a "free market" economy is incomplete. The individual doing the best for himself must be balanced with the best for the whole of a society. Our economy of the 1950's, 1960's was working, at least in part that way, and I suspect that is in part why the standard of living was improving in the US for many groups throughout that time. Economies of most western societies long ago abandoned the concept of a completely free market and instituted governmental control to improve the overall quality of life of all individuals. The creation of Labor unions are part of this idea of improving the quality of the whole, not just a few. The 80's started seeing a reversal of the application of the idea of a balanced economy and now we are essentially a greed based economy where most indicators of quality of life in the US have dropped or greatly fallen behind other countries ( ie 40 to 50 hour work week vs 30 hour in other societies, an increasing infant mortality rate now equal to 3rd world countries). Free market will dictate that nearly all american jobs be shipped overseas since cheaper labor results in cheaper products. Our current "free market" in the HVAC world dictates that everyone should have forced air heat. However, nearly everyone here agrees that there are much more cost effective alternatives over the long term. Free markets clearly failed in the past ( think Great Depression) and our country responded by limiting the free market with some governmental control to keep some level of equity in the economy. Those controls have largely been removed over the past 35 years and a number of economic indicators are now at the same point as they were just before the Great Depression. I suppose you can say that massive economic collapses are an example of free markets correcting themselves, but just how well does that do for the regular Joe or Jane working to make a good life for their family and their community. I don't think its working very well for them.

Inliner311

I have also read the UK is using sewage and adding enzymes into vats to produce methane in 18 days. They think they can produce 15-20% of their natural gas needs by doing this. Imagine how much they could produce if you could add all the other biomass waste like trash, agriculture waste, leaves, etc to that process.

Sal Santamaura

kcopp said:

...I do not think that "global warming/ global cooling/ climate change... is a threat to mankind...

It's anthropogenic global warming. Using different nomenclature in an attempt to avoid conflict with the uneducated who confuse weather and climate was an ill-considered failed effort. I stick to reality: temperature of this planet, integrated over its entire surface, is rising. Fast. As a result of human activity. The science is clear and, if nothing is done to address emissions, doomsday predictions will come true. I'm not sure why I care. Being old and childless, given my genetic heritage, I have no stake in the future much beyond 20 years from now. May the progeny of those making decisions today not be too bitter about what their ancestors did to them.

We've already dipped our toes too far into politics for The Wall. I appreciate the comments that followed my most recent one, but will refrain from violating Erin's site rules by answering each point in them. Good luck to everyone's children and grandchildren.

Solid_Fuel_Man

Without getting politics (oh man I could!) I believe our subsidized fuel prices have a big reflection of our long and short term habits.

Government officials dictating end goals is a two edged sword. Example: Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) must be xxmiles per gallon by 20XX. We end up with some new technology and some major engine problems which can all be traced back to said CAFE standards.

Wood gasification technology was brought about by federal and state monies sponsoring a thermodynamics professor (**** Hill) in Maine back in the 70s.

I now enjoy the refined result of his work by saving money and forest by a 50% reduction in wood consumption. Niche market though.

We in the US have much lower fuel costs than the EU. If NG quadrupled and so did Oil, would some of the atmospheric boiler guys be rethinking condensing equipment?

Would I be installing more wood, pellet, and coal equipment? How about electric sourced heat (HP, geo, splits etc) what would happen long term?

I built my own home to almost double the building code energy standards at the time. Should we dictate all older homes be either retrofitted with copious amounts of insulation or torn down and rebuilt?

All just random thoughts...