8 minute read
Letters
Intouch Please send your letters, which may be edited, to editorial@registeredgasengineer.co.uk.
Are the challenges facing low-carbon heating being exaggerated?
With reference to your May article “Brits want lowcarbon gas as alternative, finds EUA survey”.
We are a small renewable energy company who install heat pumps, battery storage and solar PV systems. We are Gas Safe registered as we need to be able to work on decommissioning boilers and, as a very temporary solution, fit hybrid gas/heat pump solutions. We also provide MVHR and occasionally solar thermal systems.
We have been operating for 11 years and have seen the rapid development of heat pump heating systems. We set up our company to help with decarbonisation, so do not consider ourselves to be traditional heating engineers or electricians; rather we use those skills and technologies to find solutions to help decarbonise.
Lobbying
I have noticed recently that the EUA, a lobbying operation for the gas boiler manufacturers and energy supply companies, who desperately want to keep selling gas and other centralised energy sources for as long as possible, is starting to get more and more coverage in trade publications and the wider press. The danger of articles like this is that they cleverly attempt to appear as independent and impartial, while choosing questions for their surveys that give the answers they want to use to propagate a particular message.
One survey question highlighted in the report asks people if they would “support the development of low-carbon gas boilers that can easily be swapped for an existing boiler”. But they might just as well have asked: “Would you support a really cheap way of dealing with climate change that doesn’t inconvenience you?” It’s too simplistic and I am surprised that only 64 per cent said yes.
I suspect if the same people were asked: “Would you support attempts to develop heat pump heating solutions that have the potential to be 100 per cent carbon neutral and can easily be swapped with your boiler?” the answer would be the same or probably better.
I could go on, but please can your editorial team bear in mind that information from the EUA is not unbiased. All of our children’s future depends on the right messages getting out to the wider installation population so that renewables can develop, as everyone agrees they must.
The EUA is looking to exaggerate the challenges associated with finding lowcarbon solutions – which
keeping as much gas/oil as possible for as long as possible is not. I expect to see more of this death-rattle activity from the fossil fuel and centralised energy vendors, using apparently impartial entities to push an agenda of fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Whether the established industry likes it or not, we simply have to embrace more renewable technology over the next five years. We absolutely all understand the affordability gap between sticking in a replacement combi boiler compared to a heat pump, but with a government-declared climate emergency, we all need to be moving towards being on a ‘war-footing’ to deal with the challenges.
Government subsidy will be required to bridge the gap, I am sure, but we need to be finding solutions, not trying to create reasons to stay with the status quo or maintain it as long as possible.
Although I suspect the EUA will disagree, I do think it is the role of a properly advised government to guide us as a country to do what must be done for the greater good, even if it is unpopular to some of our population. Not everyone is going to be happy moving to electric vehicles either, but it has to happen so we might as well stop moaning and find solutions.
Of course most people will say, if asked, that they would prefer not to pay more for their heating system, compared to not
paying more. But that isn’t the real comparison. Maybe try asking people if they would pay a bit more rather than see catastrophic climate change effects on their grandchildren.
The EUA’s current lobbying activity is suggesting that hydrogen will solve all the problems but we should look critically at where the proposed hydrogen comes from. Fundamentally it’s a fossil fuel source or using electricity to produce hydrogen by splitting water. Even if it was all produced by splitting water (which is not 100 per cent efficient) using 100 renewably generated electricity, it then has to be burnt in a boiler that is not 100 per cent efficient.
It would be much better to just use the electricity to run a heat pump at 350 per cent efficiency and work to overcome the design, insulation and cost challenges that that presents.
The wording of surveys and reports like this matters and a critical view from publications on the bias of such press releases is also important. Mike Stephenson H2-eco Ltd
From the editor: We thank Mr Stephenson for his valuable points. This magazine’s editorial policy has always clear: as well as providing essential gas safety information from Gas Safe Register and the wider industry, we report what is going on inside our industry and include news and viewpoints from those people and organisations working within it.
The article to which Mr Stephenson refers is a news story clearly indicated as being the findings of EUA’s survey. We also report on other surveys and opinions that are in favour of heat pumps and other technologies and we do not agree that the magazine is biased in any one direction.
Mike Foster, chief executive of the EUA, replies: I am sorry that Mr Stephenson takes offence at the work EUA does in the move towards achieving net zero, but I suspect he is confusing a number of trade bodies that have the word “energy” in them.
We do not represent energy suppliers: that role is for Energy UK. At EUA, we want to see an end to fossil gas use, not prolong its life. We believe there are a range of technologies, heat pumps, heat networks and hydrogen that will enable consumers to have net-zero homes in the future. No single
solution works for all.
The letter also confuses a valid debate over the most effective technology with opposition to tackling climate change. There is a world of difference between natural gas (methane) and hydrogen: they are both gases but one offers a route to net zero.
While we offer a range of options going forward, Mr Stephenson appears to be in the camp of one-solution fits all, a heat pump, when all the evidence suggests that approach won’t work.
Having said where we disagree, let’s focus on what unites us. Mr Stephenson states there is an ‘affordability gap’ between a replacement combi boiler and a heat pump, and we agree. For most consumers, that gap is simply unaffordable. Now we argue there is a key role for technological solutions that require no upfront costs to the consumer, such as hydrogenready boilers with ultimate conversion of the gas networks to hydrogen.
Given the challenges faced by the UK economy, I’m far from certain that the government will pay for us all to have heat pumps, given all the other demands on the Chancellor.
At the EUA, we want to end our reliance on fossil gas and we want to work up practical solutions that function in the real world; we don’t want to fleece consumers or force upon them a solution we don’t think is right for them. I write with regard to the item on page 13 of May’s edition about CIPHE low temperature systems [“CIPHE low-temperature qualifications get lift-off”].
While I am a true advocate of reducing emissions and greenhouse gases, I feel more and more is being put unfairly on the shoulders of the gas installer. More and more expensive qualifications are required, and time off work to execute these qualifications.
Last year I wrote a letter to Kwasi Kwartang, the then Energy Secretary, voicing some ideas that would really help our heating systems: the first of which being the banning of micro and mini bore systems that do not heat radiators effciently and cause cycling of very high-efficiency boilers, thus bringing efficiency back down.
While sitting in the M60 car park in Manchester, I suddenly became aware of just how many 3, 4, 5 and even 6-litre cars (petrol and diesel) were sat going nowhere and chugging out their fumes. I’m fairly sure that’s far less efficient than most gas boilers today, and yet there is no CIPHE qualification requirement to buy, rent or lease such a noxious beast.
No one needs a car engine bigger than 2 litres today, so why does our government allow this but want us to sit cold in our homes?
Since the condensing boiler hit the British market, there should have been some more sensible legislation surrounding their installation. ALL boilers should be range-rateable and many are not. Installers are still fitting 30kW and 35kW combis and leaving them at full central heating rate at commissioning. Why aren’t they rating them down if they have that facility?
I’m fitting boilers and getting efficiency readings equal to that of a condensing oil boiler, my best at 98.8 per cent net efficiency. How many 6-litre cars can boast that?
A lot more can be done to reduce climate change that does not mean we have to be persecuted into sitting with a blanket around us.
Needless to say, I did not get a response from the Energy Secretary.
