this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
56 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

4113 readers
101 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
tom@feddit.uk
GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
flamingos@feddit.uk
frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
56
UK government scraps plan to ban sale of gas boilers by 2035 | Green building (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 6 months ago by sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tinned_tomatoes@feddit.uk 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Whilst I fully support diminishing gas as a heating source, it was never going to work.

Houses in Britain are too inefficient for heat pumps. We needed to have listened to Insulate Britain, and that's what Labour should be focusing on instead of forcing heat pumps.

This was something the Lib Dems focussed on during the 2010 coalition. Many older houses had loft insulation installed for free, greatly increasing efficiency. I wish more people voted Lib Dems.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

That's not how this works. Even without decent insulation, a heat pump is still the most efficient way to warm a home. I have shit insulation in my house; the heat pump is my only source of warmth and it does a damn fine job.

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Efficiency =/= load capacity

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Which can be solved by installing a bigger heat pump. No boiler can compete with 300% efficency.

[–] scratchee@feddit.uk 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Which brings us back to efficiency, this time cost efficiency.

If the heat pump costs more than insulating would have, then obviously you’ve not so much solved the problem but rather made it bigger.

[–] c10l@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Yeah I had a heat pump engineer come and do a survey and heat loss calculation, and the conclusion is that I would require 2 pumps to produce enough heat. I’d be looking at around 20 grand upfront for that, after the government grant being applied.

For that money I could probably replace all windows with triple glaze and add insulation, and come out a lot more efficient than replacing the gas boiler.

In fairness, that would also likely get the house ready for a single pump, and when electricity prices cease to be kept artificially high it will probably be economical to make the switch.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Fair; can't argue with that

[–] tinned_tomatoes@feddit.uk 0 points 6 months ago

My understanding is that heat pumps are too slow for old Victorian houses for them to be more efficient than gas boilers (which are pretty fast comparatively). I'm glad your heat pump was viable though!

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

it was never going to work.

I'd rather have a ten year target and fail to hit it, than have no target.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There are much better 10 year targets to have. Too many 10 year targets dilutes them all and soon people don't pay attention and so you fail them all.

As such I agree - everything I know about the UK (I'm an American who has never been there so not much!) says their insulation levels are world leading pathetic. Fixing insulation would make a much larger difference than just about anything they could do as such I would (again as an outsider who doesn't know UKs problems) place insulation as what should be a top priority because of how much larger the impact it would have. A 60% boiler (something 50 years old) in a well insulated house would use similar energy to a heat pump in an uninsulated house (there are so many variables in that statement that you cannot actually find any comparison to verify it)

[–] tinned_tomatoes@feddit.uk 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The issue we have is that we have a large supply of housing stock built 80-120 years ago that cannot be efficiently insulated without it costing an obscene amount of money. A lot of these older houses also have no wall cavity, meaning wall insulation can't be done (without adding thick panels to the inside of every room, making each room smaller).

It's a tough situation, so I don't envy the government. Much like our roads, we are massively impeded by the fact that we're an old country and we tend to not want to knock things down and build from scratch.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io -1 points 6 months ago

Not knocking things down and rebuilding is often a problem. People get too caught up in things they can see would be lost (those old buildings which often were beautiful) but fail to see what they are missing: a well insulated building that meets/fits modern needs.

Of course it is expensive to rebuild from scratch so you wouldn't do it too often, but don't be afraid to do it either - it should be a great long term investment (paid off in lower HVAC bills, and layouts that are more modern)

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

A lot of these older houses also have no wall cavity, meaning wall insulation can't be done (without adding thick panels to the inside of every room, making each room smaller).

Where is this one coming from now?

You can insulate terraced housing perfectly well from the outside. Added benefit is increased aesthetics of such solution.

[–] c10l@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I live in a conservation area where external insulation will be a hard sell. There’s a lot of such areas around, some a lot more restrictive than where I am.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And many more areas which are less restrictive. Your point is?

[–] c10l@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

My point is that not all houses can be insulated externally. In fact, many cannot even if it would be technically viable.

I thought it was pretty obvious but happy to clarify!

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

My point is that not all houses can be insulated externally.

Well, nothing can be done for "all houses". Insulating vast majority of housing which can be insulated externally would be a good start.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I'd rather have a ten year target and fail to hit it, than have no target.

Than you don't have a clue. Unrealistic targets are demotivating and counterproductive - why to try if you don't have a chance to hit it?

Targets should be realistically achievable with the best effort. This one never was.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

10 years to say no new boilers can be installed is not unrealistic. All you need to have is a good supply of an alternative and a supply of maintenance parts for current boilers. You can set that up in 5 years.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

10 years to say no new boilers can be installed is not unrealistic.

Says who? At the moment replacing of the boiler is a couple of grand. Replacing it with a heat pump means replacing boiler, radiators and insulating home. It is completely unrealistic.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

In 25 years of house owning I've never had to replace a boiler. Service...yes. Repair...yes. Never replace. I've even had boilers that are no longer made due to safety regs changing.

Nobody is telling people to rip out their boilers.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

I had to. And I wouldn't be able to replace with the heat pump without thoroughly insulating the house and replacing all the radiators.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Still banned for new builds, however anybody whose boiler breaks won't be forced into moving to a heat pump.

Bad for net zero, good in that people who may not have the money won't have to potentially uproot their entire house's heating system (adding even more cost and downtime) if their boiler breaks.

I'd hope that grants on heat pumps are good enough that they're a competitive choice over going for a new boiler when someone's old one packs in, but I've not looked into it.

[–] solarpunkandrobots@feddit.uk 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Heat pumps still need to get much cheaper to be viable for most people.

[–] Schal330@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's not just the cost that prevents heat pumps from being viable, there are other costs too. In order to have a heat pump the house needs to be fully insulated, not just loft insulation. Radiators need changing, and there needs to be sufficient space for the heat pump unit.

There are plenty of houses with solid brick walls rather than cavity, which costs a lot more for external/internal insulation installation. Older houses were never built with the idea of heat pumps in mind, and so I think there needs to be a much more realistic and viable solution.

[–] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

My house was built in 1800. The level of work needed to make it ready for a heat pump would ruin me financially, even if a heat pump were a suitable alternative to my combi boiler.

An electric combi would be a much more straightforward alternative - but I never hear anyone suggesting them when we discuss moving away from gas in UK homes?

[–] c10l@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Are electrical combis actually better than gas though? Sure there will be fewer emissions on the edge (the end user house) but it’s not nearly as efficient as a heat pump, which would put pressure on the grid, increasing the need for gas and coal power plants.

I’m wildly speculating here though, I have 0 data to back up this hypothesis.

[–] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk 1 points 6 months ago

The efficiency of heat pumps is dependent on the ability of the home to retain that heat. In the UK that's a huge issue.

But my point was really more that to get to that point (and to install heat pumps) would be ruinously expensive.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Wouldn't have stopped repairing old boilers when they break. My old house had a back boiler of a type that was banned in the 80s. It broke a few times, but never had to replace it.

[–] LuckingFurker@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Starmer and Co are u-turning on something, must be a day ending in Y

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

This is an extremely sensible change.

And I want the government making sensible decisions.