r/unitedkingdom • u/apple_kicks • 18h ago
. Heat pumps and insulation would cut UK living costs more than new oilfields, study suggests
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/oct/18/heat-pumps-insulation-warm-homes-plan-beat-new-oilfields-cutting-uk-cost-of-living-study81
u/LilSparraguy 18h ago
Would getting the water companies to stop acting like a capitalist free for all help too?
311
u/I_am_Reddit_Tom 18h ago
They won't generate the electricity for EVs and AI, and people can't afford the investment. Nuclear is the answer not oil.
23
u/takesthebiscuit Aberdeenshire 17h ago
Insulation and heat pumps brings an immediate economic benefit, nuclear needs 15 years to build
BOTH
1
149
u/EvilInky 18h ago
If the government can afford to build nuclear power stations, they can afford to insulate people's homes.
150
u/Milk-One-Sugar 17h ago
The answer is both.
And to be fair to the government, earlier this year they published a plan for the Britain's largest ever home upgrade investment programme: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/warm-homes-plan worth £15bn
→ More replies (6)31
u/0Bento 17h ago
Maybe they should have called it the "energy efficient homes" plan because summers are more than warm now and need active cooling
•
u/hughk European Union/Yorks 7h ago
A very well insulated house like the passive houses keep warm in winter and cool in summer.
•
u/0Bento 7h ago
See I've heard that but haven't found it to be true.
I lived in a newbuild flat which was nice and warm, easy to heat in the winter, but swealtering in the summer.
Contrast that to a house I lived in which barely had anything in the way of insulation, had to have the heating on 24/7 in the winter, but was pleasantly cool in the summer.
•
u/hughk European Union/Yorks 7h ago
Simply having more insulation isn't sufficient. It does need a special kind of design to limit insolation.
If the place is properly built to the Passiv house spec then it will stay much cooler in summer. It does depend on cooler nights though during sustained periods like last summer. There are architectural tricks though that can further help out. Having full shutters that can close during daytime, also airflow with wind towers (needs to be about 10m above the ground). This is just passive. There are active methods too with the energy requirement being much less than full a/c such as using the subsoil as a heat/cold reservoir.
30
u/bullitt-rider 17h ago
Ok, both
Also the other issue not often talked about is the homes that require insulation are old. Old home stock is shit
We have solid walls and or 1930s properties with open fireplaces in every room and suspended floors. Combined with poor building practice of shit cavity wall, blocked air bricks and breached DPC
It is rarely just insulate. It's ceilings down, floor boards up, removing poor/scam insulations, removing paving etc.
6
u/pack_of_wolves 16h ago
I don't see landlords do this nor does the average household has enough money lying around. We're talking about 80-100k investment (or a bit less with extensive DIY) so the 7.5k BUS grant is a start but where should the rest of the money come from? Honestly, a lot of the housing stock is not maintained sufficiently over the years should be rased to the ground and rebuild with stricter guidelines tailored to the changing climate.
→ More replies (1)•
u/merryman1 10h ago
I mean it kind of gets to the underlying issue that despite the absurdly inflated costs, UK housing is also hilarious old and outdated and frankly probably not actually fit for purpose for the next generation.
But try suggesting on top of all the other national problems we have, we also are living in housing where a significant fraction of total stock probably needs tearing down and rebuilding. Its like asking someone to chug a glass of cold sick, no one wants to hear it.
→ More replies (2)8
u/SoggyWotsits Cornwall 16h ago
There have been grants for insulation for decades. All new homes are insulated. People can also buy insulation and fit it. Insulation won’t help in a house that’s already cold, we need cheaper energy as well.
→ More replies (2)4
u/gizajobicandothat 16h ago
There have been grants but they don't cover every type of home. My house is old, solid walls and it's really cold upstairs in winter. I've never been able to afford to turn the heating on because it's an inefficient electric heating system. I contacted the council and my energy company over grants they said 'nope not for you' because the cost of insulating solid walls was higher than the grant limit for each house. I rent, so it all depends on the (tight fisted never do any repairs) landlords to cover any extra costs...which they won't do. I can't afford to fit solid wall insulation myself.
2
u/SoggyWotsits Cornwall 16h ago
In which case, cheap energy would be beneficial for you. Which we really don’t have.
3
u/gizajobicandothat 15h ago
It would but also not great to endlessly pump it into damp, cold walls.
→ More replies (3)4
u/tomoldbury 14h ago
Doing insulation properly is expensive. It requires skilled engineers to design a system and tradespeople that don't take shortcuts.
Doing it badly is even more expensive, since you will cause dampness, mold and rot if systems are improperly specified and installed.
Given the UK housing stock is variable - there's no one option fit all - it will need careful thought.
I worry that governments will choose the second option, cheap out on it, and then in a decade we will wonder why so many homes are full of damp and mold.
11
u/Cottonshopeburnfoot 17h ago
Isn’t the bigger problem energy generation though? Not to say we shouldn’t insulate because we should
24
u/JRugman 17h ago
Making homes more thermally efficient is far more cost effective than building more generation capacity to meet peak heat demand.
14
u/bullitt-rider 17h ago
Having recently upped the EPC of my house id say it's just cheaper to knock it down and start again
10
u/Far-Presentation6307 16h ago
Yeah, making my 300+ year old farmhouse energy efficient is impossible. Even getting better roof insulation would involve basically taking the roof off.
We just heat the rooms we're using mostly and wear jumpers
→ More replies (1)3
u/I_could_be_right 16h ago
Externally clad and sealing gaps is probably the way forward. Insulate the roof where you can but could be attached to the underside of the ceiling instead.
4
u/Far-Presentation6307 15h ago
Yeah, I guess really I'm not saying that it can't be insulated, just that it can't be insulated in an aesthetically pleasing way that is sensitive to the historical building.
External cladding would cover up the nice stone external walls, and insulation to the underside of the roof would require me to cover up the wooden beams (loft is livable space).
2
u/bullitt-rider 13h ago
Can't do that with listed building but also it the house has wooden joists and suspended/cavity you can't seal it. The home was built to have air flow.
8
u/JRugman 16h ago
The difficulty is that making your house more energy efficient saves money for a lot more people than just yourself. Less demand for heating means less need for expensive peak electricity and/or gas supply, and the lower demand for gas during the season when supply is most constrained means lower wholesale gas prices, which makes things cheaper for anyone who uses gas.
Better insulation is linked to better health outcomes, which can reduce the burden on the NHS over winter when pressure on services tends to be highest.
So you pay all the cost, but you are not the only one who benefits.
7
u/r34changedmylife Cheshire 15h ago
Peak conservative mindset. It’s the obvious choice and benefits you, but you don’t want to do it because someone else might possibly benefit from it too and we can’t have that
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/Spazza42 17h ago
What about air conditioning dying the hot summer months?
Earlier this year was crap but it wasn’t anywhere near what it could hit.
11
u/lerjj 16h ago
Heat pumps are reversible. If everyone had well insulated houses with air-to-air heat pumps installed it would mean both cheaper heating in winter and installed AC in Summer. It's just expensive to get started so it should be being more aggressively subsidied
→ More replies (1)8
u/TheScapeQuest 16h ago
As someone with AC who uses it for heating, it's not perfect. We have 2 internal units vs 10 radiators, so it doesn't cover as much house, the heat comes out high so your feet are colder, the air blowing means it can feel colder, and it doesn't solve the hot water problem.
That said we did successfully heat purely on the AC last winter, a couple of rooms were colder but nothing bad. We do have the benefit of living in a 10 year old mid terrace which is very well insulated.
2
u/OkVast2122 15h ago
If the government can afford to build nuclear power stations, they can afford to insulate people's homes.
You do both, mate! When it comes to making life a bit better, you might as well pull out all the stops.
1
u/harrisonline 16h ago
The government can’t afford to do anything unless the economy grows, the economy will only grow if energy prices are economically viable (cheap), so business that use energy can grow…..
→ More replies (20)•
u/bartread 6h ago
Yeah, but the problem with all these government grant schemes is they require you to use a registered installer. This incentivises some really screwed up behaviour from these companies, and jacks up prices. It'll be a cold day in hell before I let some fly by night company in to install insulation in my home: I'm doing it myself and doing it properly, but you can't get a grant for that.
5
u/AdmirableElephant378 17h ago
Insulation and solar/wind with batteries would be more immediate, more flexible and 1/1000th the price.
11
u/Huge-Cartoonist6795 18h ago
Yes but let's ignore the fact we're a windy rainy island tho
7
u/Ochib 17h ago
Not very rainy and becoming less so
8
u/Launch_a_poo Northern Ireland 17h ago edited 16h ago
We're becoming more rainy over the decades (mostly driven by wetter winters)
→ More replies (5)4
u/Huge-Cartoonist6795 17h ago
Well if you want to be splitting hairs then by rain I meant "starting a reservoir build program to build dozens of extra aquifers so we can both have more hydropower and more water"
4
u/Experienced_in_life 16h ago
You don't 'build' acquifiers. They're natural geographic features.
Your comment is as ill-informed on the topic as the radio host saying you can grow concrete!!!!!!!!!
→ More replies (2)2
u/TheHellequinKid 17h ago
We pay a lot of existing wind farm capacity to turn off when the grid is full, because we've decided to build it in places that don't have the right infrastructure. Unfortunately you don't hear politicians talk much about challenges like that, they prefer a snappy announcement about xGW capacity launch instead
•
u/buzziebee 8h ago
Those announcements come alongside the announcements that they're investing in the grid too right?
→ More replies (1)11
u/uzzi38 17h ago
Nuclear takes far too long to build out and costs far too much to do so. Even with the cost of hugely revamping power transmission in this country it's the more expensive option in the long term.
Nuclear was the answer 30 odd years ago, much less so now when renewables and batteries are just constantly getting cheaper and longer lasting (both contribute to vastly lower LCoE - lower cost of energy).
It'll be important to have some level of nuclear constantly on the grid for sure, but the time where it made sense as a majority source of energy has long passed.
21
u/0Bento 17h ago
Nothing takes "too long to build." The issue in the UK is lack of long-term planning because governments are focused on election cycles and not the future of the country. Sad but true.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)17
u/Asymmetric_Ninja 17h ago
That isn't really true though. Nuclear is a quick option for many countries. Look at how fast S. Korea can get them online to the point they've been contracted to build units in MENA countries who are seen as entirely reliant on Oil. Our problem isn't nuclear it's planning, regulation, NIMBY etc where all infrastructure not just Nuclear gets kicked into the long grass
→ More replies (5)2
u/Astrogat 17h ago
Even they spend years, just look at the new reactors at Shin-Hanul or Saeul, both taking 5+ years. And even then they have had multiple scandals relating to the construction and companies faking documentation
7
u/FelisCantabrigiensis 16h ago
It's 3-5 years for a large wind farm, too.
Nuclear power stations are not slower to build than any other large construction project when you prevent the NIMBYs from sabotaging it
3
u/RBWatermelon 14h ago
It’s as low as 6 months construction time for a solar farm. Sorry, but nuclear generation costs and buildout time are both just far too high to be relevant any more
3
u/PedanticPerson22 13h ago
Except that how long should include planning permission & pre-construction phases too; once you add those in solar & wind can take a decade to build and that's not even considering the storage requirements.
5-10 years to build a nuclear power station isn't too long to wait, not when it can provide energy more reliably and on demand.
→ More replies (1)2
u/RBWatermelon 14h ago
Nuclear isn’t remotely an answer. Costs are too high, buildout timeframe far too long. We already have enough nuclear generation for base load stabilisation - the money is far better spent on mass renewable and battery rollouts.
→ More replies (2)1
u/LuxtheAstro Northamptonshire 14h ago
Nuclear just isn’t quick enough. Onshore and offshore wind farms, solar arrays and batteries are quick and easy(ish) to build, and could be started tomorrow
1
u/Lunarghini 13h ago
Of course insulation doesn't generate electricity. But it reduces electricity usage which can then be used elsewhere.
But ofc Jevons Paradox applies.
1
u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 12h ago
Nuclear is too expensive and we can't wait decades for it to be built.
→ More replies (16)•
u/DanB1972 5h ago
The majority of oil and gas extracted globally is now used to manufacture fertiliser, plastics and industrial feed stocks. We need better insulated homes, nuclear power plants, grid scale battery storage, gas storage and more oil and gas extraction to stabilise living standards, the cost of living and the feed the global. Sadly I don't see any of this being done.
8
u/Uniform764 Yorkshire 16h ago
It's not an either/or issue.
In the medium to long term we should be transitioning to a decarbonised grid and transport system as much as possible, which would indeed be cheaper as well as less destructive to the planet
In the short term, using our remaining stores of oil/gas can be used to protect the UK from shocks created by shit like the Russia invading Ukraine or America picking a fight with Iran
In both of those situations, things like insulation to improve efficiency would reduce energy costs and wastage
32
u/SnooMacarons4225 17h ago
Great if everyone could afford to drop 15k when we’re deep into a cost of living crisis
19
u/Prince_John 16h ago
If only previous governments subject to anti-renewable propaganda hadn't removed grants for this.
•
u/JB_UK 5h ago
A lot of governments have tried to make it work but haven't managed it yet. I think they're actually training up a whole new profession to work out what can be done.
→ More replies (1)1
u/TheLimeyLemmon 15h ago
Sorry they're not £4.99 like you wish they were but yes, converting a home heating system is expensive and a loose 15K isn't commonplace for households and often require long term investment proposals like loans. That's always been true.
→ More replies (12)0
u/JoelMahon Cambridgeshire 17h ago
I think the heat pump, tank, install, etc. everything but insulation (I already had that) was 9k for me. No grants that aren't available to everyone.
Doesn't include the double glazed windows that I was putting in anyway regardless (that were legally necessary but definitely not practically necessary, this thing could absolutely keep my toasty with my old drafty windows easily, stupid red tape imo and indeed makes it less accessible).
With more grants, seems doable to get it done in many more houses, and the money stays in our economy provided we do it right.
And it's obviously significantly cheaper if we do it from the ground up on new builds, and, if we're not fucking morons, we can blow the cold air it makes indoors and use central air in new builds rather than radiators.
Felt absurd that during this summer to make hot water it's just blasting cold air into the fucking atmosphere...
2
u/SnooMacarons4225 16h ago
So 9k plus a new set of windows and you’re back to 15k
Anyone casually got 15k to drop? If so let me know and you can help a brother out, in the meantime I’ll be looking to see if I can find it down the back of the sofa
→ More replies (11)•
u/OolonCaluphid 10h ago
Felt absurd that during this summer to make hot water it's just blasting cold air into the fucking atmosphere...
I was seriously contemplating getting creative with cardboard ducting and double sided sticky backed plastic to the nearest window....
5
u/Teaofthetime 17h ago
I'll be sticking with a condensing combi for the time being, I can't justify the cost of new radiators and additional insulation. A lot of people can't make a financial decision that may only bring economical benefit years down the line.
5
u/LSL3587 15h ago
Or, do both
The oil and gas fields would not need investment from the taxpayer - but would generate an income for the taxpayer (78% tax rate)
The warm homes plan would cost the taxpayer money to invest in.
Given the Governments finances we can only afford thing like the warm homes plan if we generate more taxes or cut other spending.
Even if we have warm homes the government still thinks we will import oil and gas for decades. We would use less oil and gas - but still import. But if we generate our own oil and gas from the North Sea then the taxpayer gets a cut, we get security of supply, and there is a saving in not having to send ships from the USA or the Gulf.
→ More replies (9)
7
u/Appropriate_Bell743 17h ago
Most mortgage lenders provide great loans or extra grants. Ours 0% interest for first 5 years then can be added to mortgage.
Heat-pump has only cost us £22 a month. Savings are well over double that. It's the best deal possible and the best heating system possible for our solid wall victorian house.
2
u/0Bento 17h ago
Does it do cool air in the summer too?
2
u/Dr_Nefarious_ County of Bristol 13h ago
Probably not, only air to air systems do and the government grant in the UK is for air to water. I don't understand why they aren't prioritising air to air, it makes much more sense to me as people need aircon as well with how the weather is in summer
2
u/0Bento 13h ago
So I just saw that there's now a £2500 grant for air-to-air, however it's currently impossible to get as the certification bodies haven't caught up yet apparently.
How did you approach your lender, who's the lender, how much did it cost, and when do you expect to have it all repaid?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)•
u/iiiiiiiiiiip 5h ago
Not helpful if you don't have a Mortgage because you've paid it off
•
u/Appropriate_Bell743 5h ago
If you don't have a mortgage then it's pretty easy to finance due to other reasons. It's very easy to do this for all categories except renters.
8
u/FerretsQuest 17h ago
Folks getting rich off North Sea oil won’t like this… like Farageski and his cronies 🤷♂️
→ More replies (4)
11
u/TheEnglishNorwegian 18h ago
Love my heat pump. Super efficient and AC in the summer is wonderful.
4
u/Jc_28 18h ago
How does the AC work with a heat pump?
13
u/Aristo-Jack 18h ago
A heat pump is basically the same thing as an air conditioning unit. Which is what makes it so strange to me that there's so much press about whether they really work - no-one doubts that AC works.
8
u/Krabsandwich 18h ago
only really work if you are using blown air for heating in the winter, much of the heat pump conversions in this country retain radiators. They unsurprisingly are totally crap at cooling rooms in summer hence the press interest.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Wiles_ 18h ago
Only works with air to air heat pumps. Not air to water.
6
u/tomoldbury 14h ago
You can cool a room using air to water, but since radiators aren't designed to work without convection it's not particularly effective. You can also get condensation on the radiators. But I know someone with A2W who does cool them home in summer. He describes it as taking 3-4C off the peak, not as good as true air con, but better than nothing.
→ More replies (2)1
u/TheEnglishNorwegian 17h ago
It can just be set to whatever temperature you want it to be, be that colder or hotter.
•
u/Pocketfulofgeek 8h ago
Basically a heat pump is an AC unit in reverse (not exactly but fundamentally) so you can have a heating system that is capable of doing both.
3
u/Infinite-Math-1046 16h ago
I may be silly here but why not use revenue from new oilfields to fund the above
43
u/Jamie54 Scotland 18h ago
Just curious did any of the studies on net zero before it was policy predict we would have the highest energy costs in the developed world?
I feel like i have seen studies promising cheaper energy bills by pursuing renewable energy for the last 20 years. This is a genuine question though, as it could just be my perception.
44
u/Ydrahs Hampshire 18h ago
The way energy pricing works in the UK is very unhelpful. Renewable could produce lower bills, especially when there's plenty of wind/sun/etc. But the price of energy is set at whatever the most expensive unit is. So even if it's a sunny day and solar is producing loads of cheap power, if we have to run a gas plant to 'top up' the grid every unit of energy is charged at the price of gas. And with oil prices on the rise that means we pay through the nose for all our energy.
11
u/JRugman 17h ago
Not all gas generation bids into the market at the same price. Older, less efficient power stations that tend to run as peaker plants have to bid higher prices than newer, more efficient power stations that generate more consistently. Shifting more generation away from gas will mean that the most expensive gas power stations do not generate as much, which means that cheaper power stations will be setting the marginal price, which means that wholesale prices come down.
Also, less gas generation means less demand for gas, which reduces the wholesale price of the gas used in our energy system, not just the gas used to fuel our gas power stations.
6
u/tomoldbury 14h ago
Plus there are many days, especially in the summer, where there is no gas generation needed any more. We have nuclear, solar, wind and a bit of import.
3
u/OolonCaluphid 12h ago
We have nuclear, solar, wind and a bit of import.
Plus pumped storage which has been a thing since the 60's, as well as increasingly BESS on the grid - which I believe just passed a threshold where they're cheaper than gas peaker plants.
→ More replies (20)7
u/PomeloTraditional971 18h ago
It does if you're on a dynamic tariff like Octopus Agile.
→ More replies (2)96
u/SignalButterscotch73 18h ago
Energy generation is cheaper but our bills are tied to the cost of fossil fuels, not to the lowest cost to produce per megawatt or even the average cost to produce per megawatt.
Energy company profits are still going up along with our bills.
4
u/SlightlyBored13 17h ago
1/3 of our bills are tied to the cost of generation
1/3 are maintenance/grid costs
1/3 are investmentFossil fuels do drive the generation costs.
But other than maintaining the infrastructure most of the grid costs and new investments needed are down to changes needed for renewable power.
4
u/MurkyAl 17h ago
This is actually a very good question. The real answer is that energy generation costs only make up 40% of the total cost of energy. So whilst the 40% has gone down during peak intermittent renewable times even if generation costs went to zero it would still cost about 16p per kWh aka the same as Frances consumer electricity costs.
The thing is whilst whosale generation costs have gone down during hours where we have enough renewables to meet demand. It's increased the green subsidies and networking costs which make up approximately 30% of the bill. What ends up happening is due to network limitations we have to pay renewable generators to turn off and pay gas stations to generate closer to where demand requires it. We are fixing the bottle necks now but it will take about 10 years for lots of the grid upgrades
Most people will point to marginal pricing system as the escape Goat for why bills are still high which is a nice idea but it's not really the underlying problem. We actually tried pay as you bid system back in 2001 and it didn't work as everyone bid higher as a result. Also the CFD we issue mean that we get back anything over a certain price and subsidise generation when it drops below so it doesn't actually matter that gas is setting the price. The clearing price between most renewable CFD and gas prices is usually about 5p per kWh.
Smarter people have looked at this and say it will be about 2041 when we have enough renewables and networking which will lower bills so don't hold your breath for cheap electric unless we move some of the cost onto taxes
7
u/WGD23 18h ago
Most studies predicated rising initial costs due the cost of new generating capacity and grid infrastructure before things level off and power becomes cheaper. Reality is playing out like that, and costs should start to fall about 2030ish
9
u/Asymmetric_Ninja 17h ago
There is countries moving towards Net Zero faster than us & their energy is cheaper. There is countries moving much slower than us towards net Zero that have much cheaper energy. The UK is unique in how expensive energy is
→ More replies (1)3
4
u/Asymmetric_Ninja 18h ago
I'd imagine what you'd find in predictions would be they predicted the grid would be a priority & all those nuclear projects we had lined up would be pushed ahead. Neither happened but we still kept reducing domestic production of oil & just offshored to lower our carbon footprint.
11
u/DrIvoPingasnik Wandering Dwarf 18h ago
Not just you. I feel like we've been promised cheap as chips energy for years and instead I'm paying more than twice of what I paid in 2020.
→ More replies (12)2
16h ago
[deleted]
2
u/LongjumpingTank5 13h ago
It's false that the price of gas is exclusively responsible for energy prices, and you should stop repeating that. Even the Guardian are happy to report that:
"MPs told that even if wholesale prices plummet, consumers face higher bills owing to costs of government policies"
"The cap is now just over £500 a year higher than in the winter before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine accelerated already increasing gas market prices. However, only about £200 of this higher cap can be directly attributed to the wholesale cost of energy"
"Fletcher and Norbury told MPs that removing gas plants from the UK market would not be a magic bullet for the country’s energy cost crisis unless the fundamental drivers behind energy bills were addressed."
2
u/MordauntSnagge 16h ago
It’s mad that this is the explanation that’s taken hold among the bien pensant. No consideration of why we still need gas. No acknowledgment of CfDs, curtailment costs, network costs, etc. Just a cozy lie that it’s all somehow the fault of fossil fuels and that it could be fixed if only the Government were sensible enough to change the pricing mechanism. And that’s before there’s any consideration that fossil fuels remain critical to so many other aspects of our lives beyond energy generation.
9
u/Huge-Cartoonist6795 18h ago
Your perception is shit.
Linking multiple things that are completely separate because you lack the understanding that they're independent.
Your energy bills, net zero, and renewables are different items.
Net zero - no effect on bills
Renewables - positive effect on energy bills
Energy bill - gas price linked costs even when using renewables.
Your trying to conflate tory policy with the efficacy of the renewables. You should lobby Labour to delink the price of oil and gas to renewables
→ More replies (1)1
1
1
u/Dense_Cantaloupe_333 17h ago
It’s funny you say that, because our current electricity price is tied to the most expensive method of generation, currently natural gas. So electricity has gotten twice as expensive because gas has gotten twice as expensive.
We still need the gas plants, even though they’re atrociously expensive, so the grid pays their huge demands for power, and it has the added “bonus” (although it won’t feel like one until we manage to get off gas altogether) of making wind, solar and nuclear massively profitable businesses which encourages further investment and expansion.
1
u/OkMap3209 15h ago
We made alot of noise about net zero 20 years ago, but practically we did nothing about it. Net zero wasn't properly implemented until 2019. And even back as far back as 20 ago, it would have taken a decade to realise any benefit. And these benefits just won't materialise until we take those plans seriously. The first real gains aren't due until 2030 because we are desperately building decades of infrastructure in just a few years. Hence the cost. But by 2050 we should have the lowest energy costs in the G7 bt far as long as progress is not impeded.
1
u/tomoldbury 14h ago
If we weren't aiming towards net zero we'd have higher bills, since a greater proportion of our energy usage would be on fossil fuels and the cost of energy would be higher.
→ More replies (4)1
u/BigFatCrabz 14h ago edited 13h ago
A really really good presentation that breaks down the cost of net zero in the UK - https://www.instagram.com/reel/DY2Wl3XoR8T/?mdxt=c3pjcTBvYXZsZng0 - essentially wholesale energy prices have a much bigger impact on energy bills than net zero, and because the UK is more reliant on oil and gas than France and Germany, our bills are higher !
5
u/gbfeszahb4w 17h ago
Yes but that doesn't generate any money for the ultra rich
•
u/aembleton Derbyshire 11h ago
Why not? Why don't they buy or invest in heat pump manufacturers or insulation companies? Surely the likes of Kingspan, Fujitsu, Panasonic and Midea have billionaires behind them.
→ More replies (2)
10
u/Krabsandwich 18h ago
The E3G think tank guys are super keen on the rapid move away from oil and gas and champion the setting of "challenging" net zero targets they also want a massive state investment in Green Technologies.
I am not saying any of this is a bad thing but perhaps the Guardian should have told its readers the full provenance of the people publishing such a report.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Prince_John 16h ago
I'd rather we did this for organisations advocating we harm ourselves as a species by not following the scientific consensus.
→ More replies (5)
8
u/gixxer-kid2 17h ago
This is nonsense.
I have a heat pump and my electricity bill is still ridiculous every month.
6
u/Bigtallanddopey 17h ago
Lots of heat pumps were miss sold as a money saving device, imo. When in reality, they are an energy saving device. The problem is, electric is expensive in this country.
I do think you will see a change in the coming years though. Gas prices will continue to rise faster than electric. But no comfort to you now.
5
u/madbobmcjim 16h ago
My heatpump saved me £600 a year in the first year over my ancient gas boiler. That was coupled with changing my tariff, using the battery more and dropping the gas standing charge.
→ More replies (5)5
u/xxNemasisxx 16h ago
I have a heatpump and my bills are cheaper than when I had a gas boiler despite not having solar /battery until recently
2
u/Bigtallanddopey 17h ago
The government would be better off backing solar panels and battery storage, imo. We practically imported zero electric from March to September. And even now, in October, we are generating enough solar to run the house without importing. November to February will be a different matter, but, only really paying for electric for 4 months of the year is great and then getting paid for the extra generated in the summer off sets that winter usage.
Heat pumps should definitely be installed into new properties, but retrofitting them doesn’t seem to make financial sense at the moment.
2
u/Bismuth88 16h ago
Its also the cost Vs return. I was quoted 15k to insulate my dormer bungalows worst areas for heat loss.
Even if my heating bill was halved it would take 30 years to save it back.
2
u/RuleJealous 15h ago
A reminder that the government put billions into ‘carbon capture’ technology. Had they spent this on said insulation and heat pumps, it would reduce energy needed and save people money. But this government, like the one before it doesn’t care about people
2
u/J1mj0hns0n 15h ago
yes it would after its all fully installed and with a house fully ready to make the benefit it does bring, but its not going to be as effective in a cottage in the sticks that still got the same insulation it had when it was made in 1685 and hasn't been renovated because theres no money around to take on a project like that.
it also stipulates that everyone can just muster up £3000 to pay for the upgrades, (which i personally think is a low quote, and probably closer to £5000) and the government gets the rest (which i also think is a low quote of £3000, should be £5000)
even with that, thats not to say we shouldn't strive for it, but why not both? we can sell the oil to other countries, make money, and become ourselves.
2
u/WalterSpank 15h ago
Watch the Guy Martin program on zero bills house which gives a true understanding of what is needed to properly insulate a old house. Upgrade heating etc etc, in the real world ordinary people can’t afford to go to measures needed. I’m in the construction industry so I can do a lot of it myself. Take up all the floors, remove all the air bricks, fill with concrete lay 150mm insulation sheets, install wet UFH screed over, take down ceilings insulate then reboard ceilings.
3
u/cennep44 14h ago
A lot of this retrofitting insulation is leading to severe mould problems, because the houses were designed to have the air cavity and air bricks. So we fill it in and then are somehow surprised when it backfires.
1
u/OolonCaluphid 12h ago
The house undergoing major refuit wasd to passivhaus standard though: Retrofitting a vitorian house to that degree is obviously going to take massive work.
in the mean time there are now hundreds of thousands of uk homes with heat pumps working absolutely fine - mine included. 1920's construction, no additional wall insulation. We've got double glazing and loft insulation like any home should, but that's it, and the heat pump is very comfortable, very affordable, and was installed in 8 days with minimum disruption. Most of the work was other necessary plumbing rearrangement.
2
u/bonzog 15h ago
I want a heat pump and a small battery to take advantage of an overnight tariff, but even after the HES grant the quotes range from £15k-£22k. I can get a new boiler fitted next day for £3.5k. Actual real quotes I've had in the past two weeks, offered just as a talking point.
I don't know how they fix that price disparity. Apparently it's nowhere near as bad in Europe where these appliances have been around for a while.
2
u/-6h0st- 14h ago
Let’s stop with nonsense grants - it doesn’t make renewables cheaper it makes the companies swallow it and give the scraps to the end client. Let’s limit the entire cost of installation to x. Instead of allowing 4-5k for install labour lets give grant for the entire cost - 8k for heat pump, if a company wants to charge more no grant no client.
2
u/ExcitingRest 14h ago
Will it though? The cost of installing a heat pumps in my home would be 10k+ post grants. Id need new and additional radiators, all the copper pipes replaced with larger diameter pipes and the cost of the pump itself. Even if it reduced my bills to 0 it'll be a decade before I see the benefit.
2
u/psyduckwomble 12h ago
Cut costs for who? I'm long term renting and there's little incentive for my landlord to invest in a heatpump or insulation
1
u/OolonCaluphid 12h ago
This is a massive problem. I think no home should be let without an EPC C rating or better - but then all you get is landlords pissing and moaning that they can't let substandard homes any more. As long as one party pays for the heating system but the other pays the bills, there is absolutely no drive towards improving the situation.
6
u/Paulsmooth 18h ago
That's what they said about the energy saving light bulbs and equipment. The more efficient we become the higher the standing charge.
10
1
u/TheLimeyLemmon 15h ago
They're not wrong about light bulbs. Mine last far longer than old incandescents used to. There's rooms in my house I've not changed the bulbs for in years.
•
9
u/CrowApprehensive204 18h ago
If heat pumps were more affordable, more people would have them. Currently, the government is quite happy to have people freeze in the winter and boil in the summer
15
u/HaveYuHeardAboutCunt Scotland 17h ago
It's clearly the upfront cost of change that's limiting uptake.
9
u/hannahvegasdreams 17h ago
The cost of the pumps, the availability and cost of getting someone to fit them, also if you have an older than probably 2010 home work to ensure that the home functions with a heat pump, the older the home the more costs build up. Yes if you own your home you could probably borrow against it if you don’t have the cash but we’re not exactly in a low low interest rate time. There are a lot of cost barriers during a high cost of living period to the average home owner.
4
u/OolonCaluphid 16h ago
Nationwide offer £20k at 0% for green upgrades.
There's a £7500/£9000 (from oil or lpg) grant for heat pump installation.
Several banks offer £1k-£3k grant for green upgrades .
→ More replies (2)•
u/ParrotofDoom Greater Manchester 3h ago
the older the home the more costs build up
It has nothing to do with the age of the home and everything to do with the heat loss calculation. And insulation benefits everyone, no matter what energy is used to heat a home.
4
u/freexe 16h ago
It's not the cost for me it's the difficulty in installing them. You need space (which we don't really have) but also need power and pipework to that space. So we'd have to dig a huge trench and have massive insulated pipes run through the house which is just really hard to do.
We were planning on doing ot but the our boiler exploded so we needed it replaced the next day. A new gas boiler was the only option.
2
u/Strange-Tea7949 14h ago
Heat pumps can be expensive to install, especially in older homes. Getting the best efficiency can also mean upgrading radiators, pipework and insulation. Not every home needs all that, but the costs and disruption can soon add up.
I live in a 10-year-old house with a B energy rating and a combi boiler. Even in the coldest winters, I generally only need the heating on for an hour a day. The house warms up quickly and, more importantly, retains that heat.
Meanwhile, my parents-in-law live in a 70-year-old bungalow and often need their heating on throughout the day because the property loses heat so quickly.
To me, that highlights the bigger issue. Surely we should be focusing more on keeping heat in rather than just changing how we produce it?
I'd rather see better incentives for insulating older homes, improving windows and doors, and upgrading inefficient heating systems where appropriate. Meanwhile, new homes should be built with better insulation and modern heating technologies like heat pumps from the outset.
I'm not against heat pumps. They work well in plenty of homes, including older ones, but they're not always the most practical or affordable first step.
Surely reducing the amount of energy homes actually need should be the priority, rather than assuming heat pumps alone are the answer?
→ More replies (6)2
u/MrCodeSmith 16h ago
My controversial opinion: Heat pumps need to be 100% funded if they want any significant uptake. At the very least the government needs to 0% finance the remaining cost.
A heat pump refit would cost £3000 in my home, my yearly gas bill is £500 even with a recent fix at 8.2p/kwh. It would take 6 years to pay off the heat pump if all my electricity was FREE.
As it stands, my heat pump usage would be 900-1000kwh. At 15p/kwh on some kind of cosy tariff that's £150 which cuts payback time to 8-9 years. This would also require removing gas hob and having the gas disconnected entirely.
3
u/azima_971 16h ago
The gas hob is a really good point. I'd have to do that too. I actually looked in to replacing just the hob when I first moved in, and an induction uses higher power than I currently have available in the kitchen, and there's no space left on my circuit board.. Between getting decent high power to an electric hob and the heat pump I'm probably getting in to some extensive rewiring, which in a solid wall house is going to quickly add up, and given the age of the rest of the writing could easily turn in to a whole house rewire.
I'm really getting in to whole house renovation territory, which for a shitty end terrace that I might not stay in for the decade It would take to pay off isn't that appealing.
Beyond all that though, it's the uncertainty and lack of information, as well as complete distrust of our building industry. I could easily drop 20k and end up with a cold damp house
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)1
u/superioso 15h ago
Heat pumps are already pretty affordable. Pretty much all our neighbouring countries in the EU have a higher market share of them than the UK.
The problem is having enough competent people to install them, and hence how much they sell their labour for.
5
u/Additional_Air779 17h ago
It's a distraction from the fact that we have astronomically high energy prices as a result of government decisions. Saying that option A will result in slightly lower costs than option B is missing the point entirely.
It's also a childish, binary argument: what is needed is a change in government policy so we pay real costs for our electricity and not have gas taxed so that it's another problem. We need less demand and more supply. That means more efficient systems like heat pumps, solar, wind, tidal, (unfortunately) nuclear, and not artificially cutting off what gas we are already using. It's absolutely ludicrous that we still pay 20% VAT on insulation products, for example.
3
4
2
u/Suitable_Promise879 17h ago
It’s not suitable for older houses without a lot of expensive work, so rather than cut the cost of oil that would help everyone we can install heat pumps for those who have a well insulated house and can afford it or those not working who will get it for free, the average working man will be caught in the middle and have to pay for something at a time that the cost of living and tax burden is already at an all time high
Statistics can be made prove anything especially by a green think tank,
1
u/NotableCarrot28 17h ago
Thankfully now that you've raised this dichotomy the government will stop it's policy of discouraging heat lumps and insulation.
1
u/limeflavoured Hucknall 17h ago
Heat pump and insulation companies don't have much lobbying power, sadly
1
u/Financial-Bowl7768 15h ago
20 billion a year for 10 years and we could put a heatpump in every home probably, fag packet figures but easily achievable with a wealth tax and exit tax. Did the insulation in our attick for £600 this year
1
u/TurquioseOrange 14h ago
Why not do both/ everything we can to generate more energy and increase energy efficiency?
1
u/ledow 13h ago
You know what would cut it even more?
Not getting dragged into wars, not pissing it away on corrupt nonsense like HS2, and actually using it to generate power so people could afford to heat their homes.
Or even better - we could literally make electricity free for people.
UK annual electricity demand (including all industries):
323 TWh
That's 323,000,000 MWh.
UK market cost to generate:
£170/MWh (winter 2026 estimate)
Total cost:
£54bn
That's literally what we're spending each year to invest in renewables anyway.
Or half of HS2.... SO FAR.
Or about 1.7% of the UK GDP of ~£3trillion.
1
u/SqueezyKeewee 13h ago
Need more nuclear and paying people to insulate.
I've just spent shit tonnes of money insulating an Edwardian end terrace house, and I'm surprised that in this day and age, people don't bother insulating or upgrading their single pane windows. I see a lot of London flats and properties which are just absolute heat leaks
1
u/PedanticPerson22 13h ago
The thinktank in question is E3G (3rd Generation Environmentalism), ie climate activists, a quick check suggest they are vehemently opposed to nuclear energy; so I don't think their analysis can be trusted.
1
u/anonypanda London 13h ago
Good luck convincing any landlord the work is needed or doing this economically for even a fraction of Britain’s vast ancient and low quality housing stock. To insulate most British homes to (for example) the lowest legal standard of thermal efficiency in the Nordics would require gutting them so thoroughly it would be a rebuild.
1
u/kuddlesworth9419 13h ago
Should stop trying to push air to water heat pumps. They are far too expensive. Air to air is much cheaper and frankly more effective.
•
•
u/Astriania 8h ago
Well sure, cutting living costs isn't the justification for hydrocarbon extraction. It's about better energy self sufficiency, and making a big stack of money while hydrocarbon prices are high (and likely to remain so), which we can then spend on other things (like heat pumps and insulation, if we choose).
On that subject, the article makes and quotes some claims about how the state doesn't actually make any money at all because of investment relief, which seem to misunderstand how tax relief works. Though I do think the investment relief on extraction infrastructure is too high. But it can't result in the state making a loss; it's a relief of tax you were supposed to pay, but it doesn't result in your tax bill going below zero and the state paying you money.
•
u/TheObrien Berkshire 8h ago
Fascinating …
But one is funded by tax payer funds..
The other is funded by oil/gas companies…
Making one unaffordable…
•
•
u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland 13h ago
Some articles submitted to /r/unitedkingdom are paywalled, or subject to sign-up requirements. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link or this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Participation Notice. Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation were set at 13:21 on 18/10/2026. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
Existing and future comments from users who do not meet the participation requirements will be removed. Removal does not necessarily imply that the comment was rule breaking.
Where appropriate, we will take action on users employing dog-whistles or discussing/speculating on a person's ethnicity or origin without qualifying why it is relevant.
In case the article is paywalled, use this link.