Latest news with #BritainRemade
Telegraph
a day ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Why the Government doesn't want you to have aircon
It's been a long, hot summer in Britain. Three official heatwaves have been declared so far, and June was the warmest on record. It followed what the Met Office said was the driest January-to-June period since 1976. With a summer of back-to-back heatwaves, is this the new normal? Sweltering nights have left many longing for air conditioning, but just 5pc of British homes have it, according to a government report. This is far lower than the European average of 20pc and nothing compared to the US, where nine in 10 homes have AC. British government policy discourages built-in air conditioning at every level, argues Sam Dumitriu, of the think tank Britain Remade. Obtuse planning rules mean new-build developers must exhaust all methods of so-called 'passive cooling' before considering AC, and those in older homes risk torpedoing their home's energy rating if they install it. 'Nozzle Britain' Planning laws force new-build developers to demonstrate that 'all practicable passive means of removing excess heat have been used first' before installing AC. For the most part, this means new-builds have tiny prison-style windows that let in little sunlight and are not much help when the air outside is already warm. The Government is still weighing up responses to a consultation run by the Tories in 2023 to change the rules. In the meantime, many households rely on portable AC units. It is not uncommon, Dumitriu says, to walk around new-build estates and see 'lots of little tubes poking out of windows', dubbed by some online as 'Nozzle Britain'. Christian Deilmann, of smart energy firm Tado, says demand for portable units is soaring. But, he warns, 'they can be some of the most energy-intensive appliances in the home'. The issue is at its most acute in London, adds Dumitriu, 'where instead of recognising the policy is bad, they double down'. This is largely because of Mayor Sadiq Khan's London Plan, which ultimately warns against installing AC units as they 'have significant energy requirements' and expel hot air, making the surrounding area even more stifling in hot weather. It also says that London homes must maximise 'dual-aspect' before considering AC. In layman's terms, that means improving airflow with windows on different walls. The so-called 'urban heat island effect' means flats and offices that do have air conditioning make life worse for those who don't, says David Hilton, of consultancy Heat and Energy Ltd. He adds: 'The mass of the other buildings means that ventilation cooling is even more problematic, as the outside air is hot.' EPC penalties Most people switching their gas boiler for a heat pump opt for an air-to-water model, which extracts the heat from the air and uses it to heat the water in radiators. The lesser-known air-to-air heat pump can reverse this process, heating homes in winter and cooling them in summer. But it does not create hot water, meaning you would have to have a regular boiler or other heater installed alongside. And, crucially, it is currently excluded from the £7,500 boiler upgrade scheme (BUS) grant. Ed Miliband's energy department is poised to allow households to install air conditioning with these taxpayer-funded grants. Bean Beanland, of the Heat Pump Federation lobby group, says policymakers are leaning towards bringing air-to-air heat pumps, which are much cheaper than other systems, into scope for the BUS. 'It's very mature technology,' Beanland explains. Some 160,000 are installed every year, mostly in commercial properties – but it's not caught on with homeowners yet, mostly because it's not supported by the subsidy. But installing an air-to-air heat pump could backfire on homeowners by tanking their energy performance certificate (EPC) score. Dumitriu says: 'EPCs are based on primary energy use, which naturally discourages electricity. In the case of air-to-air heat pumps, if you've not ripped your boiler out and you've kept it for hot water, the EPC treats the heat pump as a secondary heating system, so that hurts your score.' Dropping an EPC band can hit your house price and can limit the availability of cheaper mortgages. A landlord whose property drops from a C to a D will be banned from letting it to tenants from 2030 under laws proposed by Miliband and Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary. 'A lot of the data we use to grade the efficiency of a heat pump is completely out of date and inaccurate,' says Dumitriu. While domestic air conditioning remains a pipe dream in Britain, some believe it is the ideal solution to meet the surplus energy supply from increased solar generation. 'You'd effectively be able to power the AC with just solar. With a variable tariff, you get an hourly price that drops when we have an abundance of solar energy that we'd otherwise have to sell to France,' says Dumitriu. 'We need this kind of solution, because if you don't use AC to mop up the extra energy, we will be in a situation like in Scotland, where they have to pay to turn off wind farms.'
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Households that are near new electricity pylons could get £250 off their bills for the next 10 years
Households near new pylons could get £250 a year off their bills for the next decade as Ed Miliband seeks to win their backing. The Energy Secretary hopes to reduce opposition and planning delays to electricity infrastructure he aims to build by 2030. He has faced a backlash against plans to build hundreds of miles of electricity pylons across rural parts of the country. The plans make up part of Labour's pledge to deliver clean energy by 2030 to reduce the UK's reliance on other countries for its fuel. The cost of compensating families living nearby will be picked up by bill payers, with a small increase in the average annual bill across the country. Under the plans, households within 500 metres of new or upgraded pylons will get discounts on their bills of up to £2,500 over 10 years, equivalent to £250 a year. The compensation scheme is expected to be in place from 2026. Mr Miliband told the BBC: 'At the moment, we're having to switch off offshore wind farms because we haven't got the transmission infrastructure. 'So everybody benefits from this. Everybody gets lower bills, and those who live near pylons are given a recognition of what they're doing.' Earlier this week, Storm Floris caused wind gusts of more than 100mph. But consumers face a £33million bill after turbines were shut down because the electricity network could not handle the excess power and gas stations had to be fired up. Sam Richards, of the pro-growth campaign group Britain Remade, said: 'Cash off bills alone won't build the grid Britain urgently needs. 'Vital projects are being delayed by a broken planning system. We can't enjoy an abundance of clean power, cut bills for households and businesses, or secure our energy future without new pylons and energy infrastructure. 'That means removing planning barriers, reforming the grid queue, and speeding up approvals.' Jackie Copley, campaign lead at CPRE, the countryside charity, said: 'Investing in local green spaces or improving community infrastructure would be a better way to spend this money. 'Paying individuals comes with many problems, including questions of fairness, likely legal challenges, and the fact that it's impossible to put a price on the loss of a landscape.'
The Herald Scotland
29-07-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Nuclear power drive obsesses over baseload. Do we need it?
Lately there has been a mounting noise on behalf of more nuclear power in Scotland, pleas for John Swinney to do a u-turn on his ruling out of new nuclear reactors. For the Herald's recent Torness series, I covered the calls by campaign group Britain Remade for a new small modular reactor to be built on the site of Scotland's only working power station which is set to be shut down in five years. 'Scotland, a country with a proud nuclear heritage, 'said Britain Remade founder Sam Richards, a former Boris Johnson advisor, ' should be looking to build a next generation of reactors.' Calls for Scotland to embrace nuclear have been greeted with a certain amount of enthusiasm in some quarters, including many SNP voters. But what troubles me, in the current debate, is that all too often it feels like we are stuck in an old vision of the grid – and one of the terms that suggests this is 'baseload'. Baseload is defined as the minimum amount of electricity required by a grid to meet the continuous demand for power over a day. Currently, it's mostly used to refer to the generating capacity that we need to always be there if the wind stops and the sun doesn't shine. Britain Remade, for instance, talks about nuclear in terms of 'clean, reliable baseload power'. But what if nuclear is actually a technology that does not suit a modern renewable grid? What if wind and nuclear are not good bedfellows and, as a baseload, new plants will only make our electricity more expensive? In a recent Substack, David Toke, author of Energy Revolutions: Profiteering versus Democracy, described the 'accepted truth' in the media that new nuclear power is needed because there is no other practical or cheaper way to balance fluctuating wind and solar power, as 'demonstrably false'. He said it 'runs counter to the way that the UK electricity grid is going to be balanced anyway' – which, he noted, is by gas engines and turbines 'that are hardly ever used'. Simple gas fired power plants, he said, are many times cheaper per MW compared to nuclear power plant. Toke advocated for a system balanced by more batteries and other storage as well as gas turbines or engines which will proved 'capacity' rather than generate much energy. He has a strong point. Of course, the problem with gas, is that it is, famously, a fossil fuel and produces greenhouse gas emissions. However, if, as Toke says, that gas is an increasingly small percentage of electricity generation, about handling the moments when demand is not met by wind and solar, the 5% predicted by the UK Government's Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, to be what we require, perhaps that's no big deal. It's a bigger deal, though, if the gas power station emissions required to balance the grid are, as another Substack write calculated recently more like 19 percent. Interestingly, Toke, whose main criticisms of nuclear are its high cost of electricity generation and lack of grid balancing flexibility, also noted that if we are thinking about the financial costs of reducing emissions we might be better off spending our money in other ways. For instance: 'setting up a scheme to pay £15000 each to 500,000 residents not on the gas grid to switch to heat pumps will likely save as much carbon as Sizewell C is likely to save'. One of the problems with the nuclear and renewable energy debate is that it plays into the idea of energy production as an ideological issue. But it seems to me the question is not whether nuclear power is simply right or wrong, but what its place is within the kind of modern grid we are developing, a grid which faces transmission challenges between Scotland, already producing more energy than it uses, and elsewhere, and whether the costs are worth it. It's hard to get clear answers on this. The problem in part is the sheer complexity of the grid and the absence of any clear map for how that is really going to be done. NESO itself doesn't give any kind of guidance on what the grid actually needs. It is technology agnostic, and simply has to work with whatever the politicians and the market dictate. Too often those that argue for nuclear sell it via the concept 'baseload'. But you only have to do a quick scan of the internet to see it is brimming also with articles about how baseload is extinct or outdated. These critics point out that what the grid actually needs is more flexible sources, both of storage and power. One of the problems is that traditional nuclear power stations tend to be all on or all off. Torness, for instance, has either one or both of its reactors, either at full or zero capacity. That kind of inflexibility in nuclear plants has already led to constraint payments being made to wind farms, which have been switched off because there was too little demand even as the nuclear power stations kept producing. In 2020 energy consultants Cornwall Insight estimated the quantity in MWh of constraints that could have been avoided had nuclear power plants in Scotland been shut during two recent years. It found that, in 2017, 94 per cent worth of windfarm output that had been turned off (constrained) could have been generated had nuclear power plant not been operating. But a new nuclear power station wouldn't have to be like Torness. Ideally, it would be flexible, of what's called 'load-following', reacting quickly to changes in demand on the grid. France, for instance, does have some load-following flexibility in its nuclear system, So, is that what we in the UK are developing? Not if we look at the two nuclear power stations in the pipeline, Hinkley Point C or the £17 billion Sizewell C, which is not due to generate electricity till after 2040. Hinkley Point C, though it is set to have some load-following capabilities, is not designed to be a load-following reactor. As written evidence to the UK Parliament from the Nuclear Industry Association in 2023 put it: 'Load-following is not the intended method of operation for the EPRs at Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C because the ratio of nuclear capacity to grid demand will only shrink in the medium term and because in a net zero grid, nuclear could be used for instance to power hydrogen production at times of excess power on the system rather than reducing output…. 'This would avoid sacrificing clean energy production and would produce a clean[1]burning fuel for hard-to-decarbonise sectors such as heavy industries that need high temperatures for production.' As the statement shows, Sizewell C, which got the green light only last week, will be a near replica of Hinkley Point C, in order to reduce production costs – and will therefore also not be load-following. Winds of Change on nuclear power (Image: Derek McArthur) The good news is that the UK government has a 44.9% stake – but this is only good news if it's the right technology for the right purpose and doesn't go ludicrously over budget. This is a project with estimated costs of £38 billion, which, it has been calculated, could see the public exposed to up to £54.6bn of costs. So, if neither Hinkley Point C, nor Sizewell C, are set to be load-following, what about the new generation of Rolls Royce Small Modular reactors which the UK Government are backing. These new SMRs are more flexible – but are they even, in any case, what Scotland needs? But balancing capacity in a grid that requires flexibility is not the only potential use of nuclear – as the Nuclear Industry Association statement shows, it may also be used for hydrogen production. READ MORE: Nuclear has been touted as an answer in some of the harder to abate industries, like steel and cement. Sam Richards from Britain Remade raised with me its potential as a source of energy for AI firms. Gillian Martin recently responded to calls to end the moratorium on new nuclear in Scotland by saying, "We think the investment is much better placed in areas of renewable energy, which is cheaper to produce and is also cheaper for consumers. "We already have in Scotland more renewable electricity than can often fit onto the grid. We also have hydro power stations which are a way of filling in any gaps in the generation of power." When people start arguing their case by saying things like 'because baseload' without ever discussing how the grid works, or what that means, it's clear there is a problem. When the lights went out in Spain, many, including myself speculated over whether the problem could have been lack of inertia, or even inadequate baseload in a grid that was over-reliant on renewables, but the problem turned out to be a flaw, according to the most recent report, in the rules governing what renewables and battery storage are required to do in terms of voltage regulation. I suspect that when we look back in the future we will consider baseload a security blanket and an unnecessary cost, incompatible with the kind of grid we have in Scotland. But, who doesn't need that blanket? Meanwhile, our evolving energy system is such a complex thing that what we need is more debate and discussion rather than kneejerk answers. The one thing we can be sure of is that it will be different from the grid of the past.
Telegraph
12-07-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Air con grants to be rolled out to homeowners - but you need a heat pump
British households could be allowed to claim £7,500 to install air conditioning heat pumps in their homes, under plans being considered by ministers. The boiler upgrade scheme, which supports homeowners to replace outdated boilers, is currently restricted to heat pumps which cannot pump cool air. If the scheme is amended to include grants for air-to-air heat pumps, homeowners could benefit from carbon efficient heating in the winter, and air conditioning in the summer, campaigners say. Labour is considering amending the scheme to allow claims for the dual heat pumps, the i newspaper reported. Britain Remade, a pro-growth campaign group, has launched a petition calling for the Government to allow all new homes to have air conditioning installed, as well as extending grants to cooling heat pumps. The organisation wrote: 'Summer's never been hotter. Electricity has never been cleaner. It's time to ditch the anti-air con rules, written for a world where summer was 25C and our electricity was coal-powered.' In London, plans from Mayor Sadiq Khan make it clear that 'passive ventilation should be prioritised' over air conditioning, which is said to be less desirable due to 'significant energy requirements'. Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, said in a video on social media that: 'This is a poverty mindset that we need to get away from. Our energy policy should fit what people want to do, not the other way around. 'We have to make Britain cool again.' Electricity blackouts Air conditioning has become a hot topic following a series of heatwaves across the country in June and July, which saw temperatures reach 35.8C in Kent on July 1. The number of households using air conditioning units jumped from 3pc to 20pc between 2011 and 2022, according to a study published earlier this year. But traditional air conditioning units, which are common in hotter countries including the US and across Europe, can put extra strain on the electricity grid and cost homeowners thousands of pounds a year. The devices are expected to increase power demand by 45pc by 2050, leading to fears of electricity blackouts as power stations struggle to cope. Predicted overspend Heat pumps, which are the backbone of the Government's Net Zero policy, can cost up to £13,000 to install. The boiler upgrade scheme, which was launched in May 2022 by the previous Conservative administration, provides up to £7,500 towards their installation. In its first year, the scheme spent just a third of its allocated budget, although it is predicted to overspend in this tax year. Nearly £2bn has been budgeted for the scheme until March 2028. But despite a Government target of 600,000 installations a year, since the beginning of 2024 just 365,397 have been installed, according to the MCS Foundation. Earlier this week, The Telegraph reported that the Government's chief new-zero advisor had admitted that it was unclear whether the green devices saved households money. A meeting chaired by Professor Dame Angela McLean found it was 'not currently clear' if heat pumps were cheaper to run than a traditional gas boiler. The report, published on Wednesday, said heat pumps represented 'a major financial decision and long-term commitment,' adding 'it is not currently clear that heat pumps will save people money'.
The Herald Scotland
28-06-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Torness ideal for small modular reactor, says Britain Remade
Sam Dumitriu, head of policy at the campaign, said:'Torness has got the expertise, the grid connections, the water supply and everything else that you would need to be a site for one of these new next generation reactors.' Also important, said Dumitriu, is that a site with nuclear history, like Torness, tends to have 'local buy-in'. 'One of the most important local resources at Torness,' he said, 'would be the fact that you've already got that local support, which is a challenge for lots of infrastructure in bits of the country where sometimes see campaigns against new pylons or new turbines or whatever it be. That would not be the case here. You've got some of that infrastructure already, but also you've got some of that local support. 'What we've found with our campaign across the country to make it easier to build the new infrastructure that we need, that those areas that have hosted nuclear power plants before, be that Torness, or Anglesey in North Wales, or Dungeness in Kent, are incredibly supportive of new nuclear because they know the job benefits that come with it.' Britain Remade, which is strongly focussed on campaigning for 'nuclear power alongside the rapid roll-out of renewables' and infrastructure-building to drive growth, hosted a public meeting in Dunbar in April. The event's promotional material asked: 'Will Torness have a future in the next generation of nuclear energy, or will we lose out on jobs, investment, and energy security?' (Image: georgeclerk) READ MORE: The campaign also conducted a poll which found that half of the SNP's voters believe nuclear power should be part of Scotland's mix of clean energy generation. 'Of course we're going to need many more windfarms and solar, and you'll need the pylons to deliver that as well, but you are going to need a reliable source of power for when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shing and for a long time in Scotland, that source has been nuclear. But it won't be able to play that role if the Scottish government ban remains in place.' But many in Scotland still maintain a strong objection to nuclear. Pete Roche, who campaigned against Torness in the 1970s, founding the Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace, said: 'The last thing Scotland needs at Torness is more reactors, whether large or small. Incidentally Rolls Royce's so-called small reactors at 470MW are only slightly smaller than Torness's two 660MW reactors.' Britain Remade was launched in Yorkshire in 2022. The campaign's main objective, he said, is 'getting the economy going by making it easier to build the homes that we need, the new transport links that we need and the new sources of clean power that we need'. Previously Dumitriu worked for the free-market Adam Smith Institute. The group also campaign against environmental regulations which they say are 'crippling the building of new homes, infrastructure, and the clean energy sources Britain needs'. 'As things stand,' Dumitriu said, 'at the end of this decade, Torness is set to close. The lights on nuclear energy will go out in Scotland. Obviously just ten years ago, Scotland was producing about 40% of its power from clean and safe and reliable nuclear energy. 'Scotland, a country with a proud nuclear heritage, should be looking to build a next generation of reactors and clearly the sites that make most sense for that are those that already have lots of infrastructure, already are clearly good sites for power plants, already have a local buy-in and local expertise.' Nuclear power, Dumitriu also pointed out, could be key in powering the giant, electricity-gobbling datacentres needed for artificial intelligence. 'For the datacentres that you need for AI, you need a constant supply of cheap electricity and there's a reason why a lot of the developers in Silicon Valley are signing memorandums of understanding with nuclear developers because they know that this is a way for them to have constant 24/7 reliable power. Earlier this month, the UK Government announced its selection of Rolls-Royce SMR as the preferred bidder 'to develop small modular reactors, subject to final government approvals and contract signature – marking a new golden age of nuclear in the UK'. Dumitriu said: 'SMRs are already being deployed in Canada. The idea behind them is that because you build them in a factory and 90% of the construction of them is done in a factory, you're rolling them off a production line and because of that you get all of the cost reductions of economies of scale, of learning by doing and you're able to build them a lot cheaper than the current design.' But that cost reduction remains much debated and one of the criticisms levelled by the Scottish Government, and others, is that nuclear power is very expensive. Dumitriu blamed some of that high price on 'the cost of environmental regulations'. He also maintained that SMRs will come down in price over time. 'Because they are modular,' he said, 'and they can build 90% of them in a factory, you get those economies of scale. And all the projections are that the costs will come down significantly to the point where it is significantly cheaper than the large scale nuclear we are building now, cheaper than new gas, and when you take into account the intermittency costs, even cheaper than renewables as wells.' Artist's impression of a design for an SMR for Western Gateway in Gloucestershire (Image: Western Gateway) However a recent analysis of the technology in the United States said that SMR are projected to be the most expensive of all electricity technologies per KW. The report by management consultancy firm ICF found that they would cost more than any other source of electricity, including battery energy storage systems, solar, wind, combustion turbines and gas. Campaigner Pete Roche said: 'There is no evidence that small modular reactors will be cheaper, because almost none have ever been built. In fact it is beginning to look like small reactors will be even more expensive than large reactors because they won't benefit from economies of scale.' Energy Secretary Gillian Martin said: 'The Scottish Government is focussed on supporting growth and creating jobs by capitalising on Scotland's immense renewable energy capacity rather than expensive new nuclear energy which takes decades to build and creates toxic waste which is difficult and costly to dispose of. 'However we recognise the significant value that Torness and its workforce has contributed to Scotland's economy and local community. 'Decommissioning Scotland's nuclear sites will take decades and will require the retention of a highly skilled workforce. Meanwhile, the significant growth in renewables, storage hydrogen, carbon capture and decommissioning are key opportunities for our future energy workforce in Scotland – with independent scenarios from Ernst and Young (EY), showing that with the right support, Scotland's low carbon and renewable energy sector could support nearly 80,000 jobs by 2050.'
