Working to Net Zero?

[Dave2002]

On a recent BA flight [OK, OK - I know I shouldn't be doing those ...] I noticed that for a "small extra fee" somewhere between £2-£3, I could pay to have "my share" of the emitted CO2 offset.

My question is - "Why isn't this mandatory, and paid for by the airline?"

[Old Grumpy]

Agree - the cost of air travel should adequately represent the costs of associated environmental damage caused, but that would probably increase fares by more than £2 - 3

[Dave2002]

Agree - the cost of air travel should adequately represent the costs of associated environmental damage caused, but that would probably increase fares by more than £2 - 3

Depends on the distance travelled I think. In the meantime the UK government makes noises, but never actually does anything useful. Doesn't have a plan or any enforcement strategies after the initial sound bites. The only measurable success which seems to matter is the result of the next election - with no attempt to significantly improve - the X, where X = one or more of - health service, schools, water quality,
carbon emissions.

Current sound bites of course are the boat people - who definitely should be stopped or discouraged, but are a small problem in the total context - and are blown out of proportion as some goons think that this will be a vote winner.

[oddoneout]

On a recent BA flight [OK, OK - I know I shouldn't be doing those ...] I noticed that for a "small extra fee" somewhere between £2-£3, I could pay to have "my share" of the emitted CO2 offset.

My question is - "Why isn't this mandatory, and paid for by the airline?"

Given that the whole concept of "offsetting" is how shall I put this politely - dubious - then it is probably just as well it isn't paid for by the airline (aka customers). In terms of paying for things, the question of not paying duty on avgas is quite high on the agenda - effectively a subsidy to continue polluting.
It leads to an interesting situation if driving to the airport

At present, although road fuel is charged excise duty, which represents a substantial proportion of the pump price paid by motorists, aviation kerosene (AVTUR) which is used in jet engines is exempt from tax.

from here https://researchbriefings.files.parl...23/SN00523.pdf which I see makes use of the EU excuse for not acting, even though presented in 2019.
At least you didn't go private... https://www.theguardian.com/environm...f-private-jets
Given that the current PM isn't interested in net zero and the party of government is too interested in keeping the right people on side it's not a situation that's going to change soon.
More on aviation offsetting here https://www.theguardian.com/environm...carbon-offsets

https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/airlines-carbon-offsets-solution-climate-change-wrong/

[Dave2002]

There's yet another view on offsetting here - https://www.vox.com/23817575/carbon-...solutions-scam

Arguably we have just "saved" about 9 tonnes of CO2 output per year by installing an air source heat pump - only time will tell. The faff of getting these things to work is considerable, and there are nothing like enough competent installers. If "nudge" incentives are to have an effect, then HMG has to do a lot better than it has done so far.

Where are the training schemes for the plumbers and electricians required to do this kind of work?
ASHPs are not suitable for all homes, and one argument which might be used against them is that many of the benefits are to people who are already quite well off - though that seems like politics of envy. There are different ways to look at these matters.

ASHPs could work quite well in communities - but that kind of housing is not very popular in the UK, where "everyone" aspires to have their own home - their own garden - and all the commensurate responsibilities which come from trying to manage things on too small a scale.

[oddoneout]

There's yet another view on offsetting here - https://www.vox.com/23817575/carbon-...solutions-scam

Arguably we have just "saved" about 9 tonnes of CO2 output per year by installing an air source heat pump - only time will tell. The faff of getting these things to work is considerable, and there are nothing like enough competent installers. If "nudge" incentives are to have an effect, then HMG has to do a lot better than it has done so far.

Where are the training schemes for the plumbers and electricians required to do this kind of work?
ASHPs are not suitable for all homes, and one argument which might be used against them is that many of the benefits are to people who are already quite well off - though that seems like politics of envy. There are different ways to look at these matters.

ASHPs could work quite well in communities - but that kind of housing is not very popular in the UK, where "everyone" aspires to have their own home - their own garden - and all the commensurate responsibilities which come from trying to manage things on too small a scale.

I watched this programme last week and jotted down some of the figures that came up, which annoyingly I can't now find.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66359093

If I remember correctly there are currently 4000 qualified heat pump engineers in the country, which doesn't quite stack up against the 600,000 pump installations pa the government has as a target. The other stray figure was that 90% of homes are suitable for HP installation. I don't know if that was whole of UK/NI, but it doesn't really matter because I don't see it can be a credible figure. Apart from anything else, living as I do in a mid-terrace house, and knowing that a lot of urban housing stock is the same, it makes no sense at all.
The other thing was the installation the programme showed, and the cost of it. It was a fair size house(actually I think it may have been a bungalow), and all the radiators had to be replaced, hot water tank installed, lots of pipework from the various bits and pieces in the garage, extra insulation, etc. Cost about £18000. The £5000 govt grant sounds a lot until put up against the cost of such installations.
There was a lot of other interesting information in the programme as well about things like hydrogen as natural gas replacement. I was pleasantly surprised to find it was mostly straightforward documentary rather than the kind of content-lite, graphic/special effect heavy offering that long ago put me off a great many BBC documentaries, such that I often don't bother even trying them out nowadays.

[Dave2002]

There was a lot of other interesting information in the programme as well about things like hydrogen as natural gas replacement. I was pleasantly surprised to find it was mostly straightforward documentary rather than the kind of content-lite, graphic/special effect heavy offering that long ago put me off a great many BBC documentaries, such that I often don't bother even trying them out nowadays.

It was quite a good programme - there have been a few in this kind of area recently.

I'd have to watch the programme again myself to check the details, but 90% of homes being suitable for ASHP installation seems a lot to me.There is still a lot of misinformation in the area of heat pumps and insulation - and that's even from people working within the industry who may know more about these issues. Until there are more homes with ASHPs installed it is going to be difficult to get a handle on the "truths" of this technology. So far I can't say too much about our own installation - other than it hasn't been completely trouble free, and there are still a couple of minor [hopefully] problems to fix, and also that after a week or so post initial installation we do now seem to have a working system, and it has been capable of pushing the temperature up inside the whole house to levels we really don't want, besides also giving a good supply of hot water. A few days were unpleasant as the antifreeze solution which was put into the pipes [we have underfloor heating] was supposed to be circulated round every loop, so we pushed the temperature well above ambient for over 24 hours to make sure that happened, and then we had to repeat that process a few days later as the system sprang leaks due to the fittings failing - one apparently due to a washer/gasket which broke, and one probably was due to a joint which just hadn't been tightened up enough.

Because of our location, the team had to be called back from Glasgow to fix problems - a distance of over 170 miles. There is as yet no network of engineers and fitters who can be relied upon to pick up each other's work, and monitor and fix problems. So there is a shortage of people to do installations, and up here in Scotland they are spread so thin on the ground that travel is going to be a major part of each person's work load - not efficient at all.

Are ASHPs a good thing? Probably yes - but there needs to be much more training and a bigger workforce and more support for people willing to install this form of heating. Our house already had underfloor heating, which we think may be ideal, but many houses have conventional radiators. Those may have to be replaced for retrofitting ASHPs in some houses, though I have known one family who had underfloor heating retro-fitted to their house - but driven by a gas boiler. That would be ideal for ASHPs, but I also know it was quite an upheaval. Many people don't want to have massive upheavals, and a somewhat extended installation time. Generally replacing an existing boiler [gas, electric or oil] only takes a day or two, and currently boilers are considerably cheaper than ASHPs. Also the workforce which deals with boiler installation and maintenance is generally at least adequate - though sadly I can't say much better than that.

[Dave2002]

A couple of things - first this quote from the BBC site also mentioned above:

The front-runner in the race to replace our boilers is undoubtedly the heat pump.


There is a very simple reason why - they are extraordinarily efficient.


They cost more than gas boilers, but for every unit of energy you put in, you can get about three units of heat out.

That's a bit simplistic. I have done the calculations based on the calorific value of fuel oil vs electricity. I can go through them again here if anyone wants me to.

However, the point I discovered is that at current prices there is very little to choose between 1 litre of oil and electricity at a very low price of around 5p per unit which we have had on occasions. OK - so electricity prices vary quite widely, and some tariffs have dynamic or variable pricing, Our highest price for electricity has been around 43p per kWh, and even at a high oil price that is probably not cheaper than oil. Oil burners are inefficient, and it is the case that putting in 1 unit of energy [heat] into an ASHP should give around 3 units of heat out, so in that sense ASHPs are more efficient. The good thing is that if an ASHP works properly and has a reasonable lifespan, the CO2 "saved" [i.e. not created by other roughly equivalent alternative methods of heating] is considerable.

Mentioining the faff of putting in ASHPs - the disruption, maintenance etc., from an earlier post, I can now mention that our system is supposed to have hot water priority operation. Today it looks as though this hasn't been set up properly, as there was insufficient hot water for a shower. The equipment should be capable of giving good performance, but there is still a wiring "issue" which I suspect means that hot water piority doesn't work if there's no part of the heating system actually requesting heat. Since it is [allegedly] summer we don't need any heat on, but nevertheless we'd still like to have hot water.

So it looks as though it's going to be some while longer before we can actually assert that this system really works as it should.

[Serial_Apologist]

Best of luck Dave is all I can say!

[oddoneout]

A couple of things - first this quote from the BBC site also mentioned above:

That's a bit simplistic. I have done the calculations based on the calorific value of fuel oil vs electricity. I can go through them again here if anyone wants me to.

However, the point I discovered is that at current prices there is very little to choose between 1 litre of oil and electricity at a very low price of around 5p per unit which we have had on occasions. OK - so electricity prices vary quite widely, and some tariffs have dynamic or variable pricing, Our highest price for electricity has been around 43p per kWh, and even at a high oil price that is probably not cheaper than oil. Oil burners are inefficient, and it is the case that putting in 1 unit of energy [heat] into an ASHP should give around 3 units of heat out, so in that sense ASHPs are more efficient. The good thing is that if an ASHP works properly and has a reasonable lifespan, the CO2 "saved" [i.e. not created by other roughly equivalent alternative methods of heating] is considerable.

Mentioining the faff of putting in ASHPs - the disruption, maintenance etc., from an earlier post, I can now mention that our system is supposed to have hot water priority operation. Today it looks as though this hasn't been set up properly, as there was insufficient hot water for a shower. The equipment should be capable of giving good performance, but there is still a wiring "issue" which I suspect means that hot water piority doesn't work if there's no part of the heating system actually requesting heat. Since it is [allegedly] summer we don't need any heat on, but nevertheless we'd still like to have hot water.

So it looks as though it's going to be some while longer before we can actually assert that this system really works as it should.

I think the point about cost of oil v electricity was mentioned in the programme. It is also worth bearing in mind that the "one unit in 3 out" is based on various assumptions and I think is misleadingly simplistic.
Your issue with the shower raises another point; many households already have electric showers as it removes the problems of finite hot water where several people may want showers in a short space of time but that is also an advantage of combi boilers. So replacing a gas boiler with an ASHP may involve installing an electric shower.

[Dave2002]

I think the point about cost of oil v electricity was mentioned in the programme. It is also worth bearing in mind that the "one unit in 3 out" is based on various assumptions and I think is misleadingly simplistic.
Your issue with the shower raises another point; many households already have electric showers as it removes the problems of finite hot water where several people may want showers in a short space of time but that is also an advantage of combi boilers. So replacing a gas boiler with an ASHP may involve installing an electric shower.

The shower/hot water issue is it seems a real one. It is possible [if it works .... ] to have a cylinder installed with an ASHP - as I mentioned it'll probably be water priority. However the cylinder takes up space which is a significant issue for many houses. It is even an issue for large houses, but for small houses it would be significant. In our previous house we actually had a pressurised cylinder installed in loft space which worked for us then - there was already an old style tank up there. There are so-called heat stores which are more compact than water cylinders, but they are probably not compatible with ASHPs as the ones I've seen specs for have a minimum input temperature of 60 degrees C, which is slightly above the max temperature for ASHP operation. Those could work with other forms of heating, such as electric heaters powered by batteries or PV panels as well as direct from the grid. However buying electricity from the grid at on demand prices is expensive, so not a very good option. It could work for some suppliers if they had a very cheap tarrif so that even a thermal heat store could save heat well enough for use during the day, but that would need a careful estimate of the likely demand and costing. The reason that those heat stores are compact is that they actually work by using materials which are operating at transition point, either from solid to liquid, or liquid to gas, and make use of the fact that a significant amount of energy is stored and subsequently released as the materials change state - but without a significant change of temperature.

Another solution for eco warriors is to use a solar thermal panel on the roof to generate heat for hot water. These can work very well, but are only really useful for around 6-8 months of the year. In the winter months they may still heat up water, but not enough for a good shower, so other heating is also required. Installers will generally tell you it's not worth doing - though they may have particular vested interests. It can work - but as with other technical solutions, often the pricing has been calculated so that the benefits to the end user are not so high, and that much of any financial benefit goes to the installer. For example in the UK we know that these solar water panels work, but they typically will cost over £6k fitted. I know someone who did his own in one house, and then tried to get a quote for a house in the UK. It came in a lot more than he expected or hoped for. He had a discussion with one of the potential installers - who as usual tried to tell him a lot of things.

A:"Why is it so expensive".
Salesman: "Blah, blah".
A: "Well I've already fitted one in another house".
Salesman: "Where was that?"
A:"Greece".
Salesman:"Oh - yes - there's a lot of sun there - and there are cheap units for DIY installation. Our units are the best from Germany, and installed by qualifiied fitters."
A:"No - the units I bought were also from Germany and the same kind of specification as the ones you are hoping to install here, and the installation I made was fine.
Can't you come up with a better price?"

.... end result - no sale.

Sure if the UK government is serious about newer types of systems it has to provide some incentives for end users to install the kit, and some incentive to installers to buy the parts, train up their teams, and get the work done. There are major problems with trying to get service teams up and running - and the UK government seems hopeless at doing this kind of thing. Even PV panel installation which was successful in bringing down the costs of the parts and installation has now stalled to a considerable extent. There is no serious political will to do things better.

[oddoneout]

Solar water heating may well be worth considering if other work is being done; a quick search suggests cost should be £3000-£5000 depending on which system is used. Even when the temperature reached needs topping up, pre-heating the water in that way makes a difference to energy costs overall.
There was an electric shower in my current house when I moved in. It only got used when I had visitors, which was infrequently, and eventually it decided to pack up. I didn't bother arranging replacement as I didn't use it and other work was more of a priority - the roof for one. A couple of things have made me rethink its replacement though. A few months ago the boiler stopped working and I was left without hot water for a week, and later on I had a family member staying overnight who ignores the bath option and uses the handshower attached to the bath mixer. It is messy and also as the water pressure is erratic - not just to my house( water company has been out - "nothing amiss and no we don't know why the water flow pulses so badly or why everyone in the block has a water hammer."..) the flow rate and thus the temperature are hit and miss. It reminded me that none of the visitors I do have, however infrequent, use the bath option, so it would be best to replace.

As you say the political will is completely absent. Coupled with deliberate, or just par for the course, ignorance (ASHPs as straight swaps for gas/oil boilers being a glaring example) we are going backwards at a rate of knots . The much trumpeted grant schemes have been more and more unworkable with each attempt which seems to be the result of ignoring any input from those who are best placed to warn of difficulties before things go live, and also ignoring any lessons that should have been learned from previous attempts. As mentioned previously there is a major shortage of suitably qualified heating engineers, not helped by the onerous costs and admin of obtaining registration for the grant schemes. Those costs are too great for small firms, which reduces the numbers even more.

[Dave2002]

Solar water heating may well be worth considering if other work is being done; a quick search suggests cost should be £3000-£5000 depending on which system is used. Even when the temperature reached needs topping up, pre-heating the water in that way makes a difference to energy costs overall.

Solar water heating probably is worthwhile if it can be fitted into a system, though it may require yet another water cylinder with an additional heating coil. [Funny that installers are always quite happy to trash an existing component, and replace it with a new one. Not quite sure why it's not possible to make water cylinders with several different options for heating coils. Well - of course it is - but installers can't be bothered etc. - they "know" what they want to fit, and that's probably what they'll do.]

Another factor with some of these improvements is related to the potential users/owners. One problem is that some of us are older - so that suggesting that a new installation might be a good idea and "pay for itself" in ten years [say] is not necessarily going to go down well with someone over 75! "No thanks," they may say, "we'll go on a cruise instead" - and stuff the planet even further. Not necessarily unreasonable for people who may figure that their time on this earth is going to be limited.

As you say the political will is completely absent. Coupled with deliberate, or just par for the course, ignorance (ASHPs as straight swaps for gas/oil boilers being a glaring example) we are going backwards at a rate of knots . The much trumpeted grant schemes have been more and more unworkable with each attempt which seems to be the result of ignoring any input from those who are best placed to warn of difficulties before things go live, and also ignoring any lessons that should have been learned from previous attempts. As mentioned previously there is a major shortage of suitably qualified heating engineers, not helped by the onerous costs and admin of obtaining registration for the grant schemes. Those costs are too great for small firms, which reduces the numbers even more.

Agreed. Not to mention further the hassle of trying to get grants and loans by potential end users. If one doesn't care about the environment at all it's easier just to replace an existing boiler and hope that the fuel costs don't rise. Obviously we've not done that - but many people will be put off by what they expect to be difficulties in just getting things done in a timely and affordable way.

[oddoneout]

Some interesting points here. I think the last sentence is very much the crux.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/14/uk-homes-install-record-number-of-solar-panels-and-heat-pumps

It won't be disregard for the environment that means my boiler replacement in the next 2 years will be another gas one. As a mid-terrace I can't meet the distance from boundary requirements for ASHP, but even if I could the cost of full installation(ie not just the pump) can't be justified. The work I had to do on this house when I bought it was time consuming, hard work and costly, and having to go through more disruption, including ripping out some of the work done, for something which might not deliver as promised or needed, ain't going to happen.I am not at a stage of life, health or personal circumstances to risk making difficulties and expense for myself. Replacing the boiler with a new, more efficient one, replacing the end of life double glazing(and what a con uPVC DG is - 30 years life if you're lucky), both things for which there wasn't the budget in the original works, nor a pressing need 9 years ago, will improve my energy usage figures, although at an embedded environmental cost. Something that might be on the list in due course,depending on finances, is external insulation to the single storey rear kitchen and bathroom, which although it had cavity and ceiling insulation put in when it was extended in the 80s is often too cold for comfort during the winter, despite radiators, not least because it faces the easterly weather.

[Dave2002]

Some interesting points here. I think the last sentence is very much the crux.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/14/uk-homes-install-record-number-of-solar-panels-and-heat-pumps

Something that might be on the list in due course,depending on finances, is external insulation to the single storey rear kitchen and bathroom, which although it had cavity and ceiling insulation put in when it was extended in the 80s is often too cold for comfort during the winter, despite radiators, not least because it faces the easterly weather.

Good luck with that. Did you hear the recent comment - was it on Any Questions or Any Answers from someone who lives in a National Park. Apparently he wanted to put in an ASHP, but that's effectively blocked for a couple of reasons. First he's not allowed to change the exterior appearance of his building - even though his suggestions might be reasonable, and secondly he can't put up external insulation as that would need to be rendered - and thus fall foul of the first rule. Also he presumably wouldn't be eligible for a grant or interest free loan without installing additional insulation - basically this country is bonkers and stuffed - seemingly run by malevolent morons - or maybe they are aren't morons - simply cunningly malevolent!

Re our ASHP installation - the hot water doesn't work yet again - so now on the 4th or is it 5th call out call someone to come and help to get this up and running. Fortunately I've not paid in full yet, and I'm not now going to unless the whole thing works properly.

In the meantime I am trying to get my car [Tesla] fixed. I think Tesla are top of the league for appalling customer service.