UK government scraps green homes grant after six months

From The Guardian

£1.5bn scheme at heart of Boris Johnson’s ‘build back better’ promise has struggled since launch

Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent Sat 27 Mar 2021 17.00 EDT

The government has scrapped its flagship green homes grant scheme, the centrepiece of Boris Johnson’s promise to “build back greener” from the Covid-19 pandemic, just over six months after its launch.

The abandonment of the £1.5bn programme, which offered households grants of up to £5,000 or £10,000 to put in insulation or low-carbon heating, leaves the UK without a plan for tackling one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

People who have had their applications for vouchers under the scheme accepted will receive any money owed, but no new applications will be accepted after the end of this month.

Green campaigners said the scrapping of the programme – the only major green stimulus policy yet announced by the government and originally expected to create tens of thousands of green jobs – came as a serious blow as the government prepares to host vital UN climate talks, called Cop26, this November.

Ed Matthew, campaigns director at the E3G thinktank, told the Observer: “The demise of the green homes grant is an embarrassment [before Cop26], and a disaster in terms of the UK getting on track to net zero [carbon emissions]. Emissions from buildings and transport have flatlined over the last 10 years. If we don’t have programmes to tackle this, we have no hope of meeting the net zero target.”

The green homes grant has been troubled since its launch last September, after it was announced in July as the central plank of the government’s bid to “build back better” and create new green jobs to help the economy recover from the pandemic. There were more than 123,000 applications for the grant by the end of February, but only 28,000 vouchers had been issued and only 5,800 energy efficiency measures had been installed.

Builders complained of excessive red tape in registering for the scheme, while households found it difficult to access. A US company was awarded the contract to administer the grants, but a Guardian investigation found numerous people unable to get a response. Many people were given conflicting advice, while builders have complained that heat pump installations in particular have been stymied by the rules.

Last week, a select committee of MPs delivered a damning assessment that found the scheme “botched [in] implementation … the administration seems nothing short of disastrous”. Far from creating new green jobs as had been promised, the environmental audit committee found some builders had laid off staff owing to problems with the scheme. The MPs recommended an urgent overhaul.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/27/uk-government-scraps-green-homes-grant-after-six-months

Read the full article here.

4.8 13 votes
Article Rating
85 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Toland
March 29, 2021 10:36 pm

It costs 4 times as much to heat a house from electricity as from gas central heating. The following link from a British energy company which actually promotes “green” energy admits this. Is there any wonder that demand for heat pumps has been so poor?

https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/heating-costs-gas-vs-oil-vs-electric-storage-heaters.html

Last edited 4 months ago by Bill Toland
Bill Toland
Reply to  Bill Toland
March 29, 2021 10:53 pm

Heat pumps may be cheaper to run than mains electricity but they are still more expensive to run than gas boilers.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/03/17/are-heat-pumps-cheaper-to-run-than-conventional-gas-boilers/

willem post
Reply to  Bill Toland
March 30, 2021 7:03 am

Hi Bill,
For your info

Heat Pumps are Money Losers in my Vermont House (as they are in almost all people’s houses)
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems
 
My annual electricity consumption increased about 50% (the various taxes, fees, and surcharges also increased), after I installed three Mitsubishi, 24,000 Btu/h heat pumps, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.
The heat pumps last about 15 years.
 
They are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, well-sealed/well-insulated house. It has 2” of blueboard (R-10 vs <R-0.67 for 8” concrete) on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab which has saved me many thousands of heating dollars over the 35 years.

The heat pumps displaced about 300 gallon of my normal space heating of about 1,000 gal
Domestic hot water, DHW, heating, requires about 200 gallon
 
My existing Viessmann propane system, 95%-efficient in condensing mode, is used on cold days, 15F or less, because heat pumps have low efficiencies, i.e., low Btu/kWh, at exactly the same time my house would need the most heat; a perverse situation, due to the laws of Physics 101!!

The heat pumps would be slightly more efficient than electric resistance heaters at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature. It would be extremely irrational to operate air sourceheat pumps, “cold climate” or not, at such temperatures. 
 
I have had no energy cost savings, because of high household electric rates, augmented with taxes, fees and surcharges. Vermont forcing, with subsidies, the addition of expensive RE electricity to the mix, would make matters worse!!
 
Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y; I am losing money.
 
There likely will be service calls and parts for the heat pumps, as the years go by, in addition to annual service calls and parts for the existing propane system; I am losing more money.
https://www.myamortizationchart.com
 
NOTE:
If I had a highly sealed, highly insulated house, with the same efficient propane heating system, my house would use very little energy for heating.
If I would install heat pumps* and would operate the propane system on only the coldest days, I likely would have energy cost savings.
However, those annual energy cost savings would be overwhelmed by the annual amortizing cost, i.e., I would still be losing money, if amortizing were considered.
 
* I likely would need 3 units at 18,000 Btu/h, at a lesser turnkey capital cost. Their output, very-inefficiently produced, would be about 27,000 Btu/h at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature.
 
NOTE: VT-DPS found, after a survey of 87 heat pumps installed in Vermont houses (turnkey cost for a one-head HP system is about $4,500), the annual energy cost savings were, on average, $200, but the annual amortizing costs turned that gain into a loss of $200, i.e., on average, these houses were unsuitable for heat pumps, and the owners were losing money.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-savings-of-air-source-heat-pumps-are-negative-in-vermont

Drake
Reply to  willem post
March 30, 2021 9:27 am

So did you install the mini split heat pumps for the cooling in the summer? If you already had, and still have, a propane furnace, why bother? Did a big tax subsidy play any part in your decision?

The tax code is used by politicians for behavior modification. Clinton and higher education subsidies, Obama and the government takeover of student loans, leading to rich universities and overpaid “professors” and expanded leftist indoctrination.

Willem post
Reply to  Drake
March 30, 2021 3:06 pm

Hi Drake,
The cooling is a side benefit, works great, does not use much electricity, because of high HP efficiency.

I am a high-income person, retired, etc.
I get no subsidies
I pay for other people’s subsidies.

TRM
Reply to  willem post
March 30, 2021 10:43 am

Thanks for the feedback. Always good to get a practical, first hand report.

Meanwhile Russ Finch and his GeoAir system which uses $500 a year (yes per year) in electricity to run is still growing citrus crops on the high plains of Nebraska and other locations.

https://greenhouseinthesnow.com/

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  willem post
March 30, 2021 1:15 pm

In Vermont, wood is cheap. It’s local, sustainable and dependable when the power goes down.

Willem post
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 30, 2021 3:13 pm

Hi Joseph,

I am 84
I do not do wood hauling
I have two, small cast-iron, 85%-efficient propane stoves in my finished basement.
They require no electricity.
They keep the house from freezing during power outages

I am a retired energy systems analyst.
If I were younger, my next house would be off the grid, for sure.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Willem post
March 31, 2021 8:51 pm

With many (1,166) hydroelectric dams in Washington State, it is cheaper for us to heat with electricity.

David A
Reply to  willem post
March 31, 2021 6:37 pm

Willem, one thing to consider, that may mitigate your loss a bit, is that over the next X years, electrical rates will likely rise at 3 percent to 5 percent per year.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Bill Toland
March 30, 2021 10:56 am

Natural gas, if you have access to it, is generally the cheapest way to heat a home. If like me, you don’t have access to natural gas, then it’s a bit more complicated depending on where you live. For me, a dual fuel system made the most sense. This consists of an Air Source Heat Pump for temperatures down to about 30F, and Propane when it gets colder than that. The compressor for the heat pump does double duty as the A/C compressor in the summer and has an SEER rating of 22, so pretty efficient as compressors go. Where I live the electric costs make the Heat Pump a little cheaper to run than burning Propane, but it may be different elsewhere, so YMMV.

Willem post
Reply to  Paul Penrose
March 30, 2021 3:16 pm

Hi Bill,
In Vermont, electric rates are 20 c/kWh, including taxes, fees and surcharges.
Running air source heat pumps would be irrational at 15F or less.

niceguy
Reply to  Paul Penrose
March 31, 2021 8:48 pm

Natural gas is “cheap” in France (compared with electric energy), but the new boiler every ten years is not, and neither is the yearly maintenance!

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Bill Toland
March 30, 2021 3:11 am

plus theyre bulky noisy and stuffed if i can work out HOW??? youre supposed to get the motor OFF to access the sacrifial anode
its very important here cos our town water is hard bore water n if you dont…the heaters last about 12 to 18mths before they get eaten out.
Ive run my old hws on rainwater and so far have 14 yrs from it

Last edited 4 months ago by ozspeaksup
Tom
Reply to  Bill Toland
March 30, 2021 4:42 am

I’ve had three heat pump systems, and none has been great. The first was a ground water system in Michigan. At first it was acceptable, and no more expensive than gas. It was fraught with problems, including constant maintenance issues. A big problem was clogging of the water return lines. At first I had a second well. It plugged. Fortunately, I live near a lake, and put in a return to the lake. It, too plugged, and had to be replaced. It had numerous problems with electrical parts and wiring. I finally replaced it with a gas furnace when the Freon to air heat exchanger started leaking. It lasted less than a dozen years. The good news was that the water to air cooling worked OK so air conditioning was inexpensive.

I have two systems here in Texas, one for the house, and one for the workshop/lab. The house continued to work OK during our recent cold period, but it switched to resistance heating during the time that electricity was most in need here.

The lab unit was never even set up for resistance heating, as it does not have constant use. It froze into complete ice blockage twice as I was using it during the cold spell. Fortunately, our ground water here is 70 degrees F, and I was able to flood it with water to melt the ice.

All in all, watch out for heat pumps.

Drake
Reply to  Tom
March 30, 2021 9:36 am

And my mom’s place on Cape Cod, with an open loop, the first system worked without repair for 30 years. The second system is over 5 year in with only a servo going bad, not a part of the heat pump itself. The systems use the water source heat pump for heating, cooling is from a direct water to air heat exchanger. She has 45 degree water.

I guess it is all in the application. If you were using a water source heat pump for heating with 70 degree source water, you would be golden. It would probably be really efficient for cooling also, 70 degree water VS 80-100 degree air.

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  Bill Toland
March 30, 2021 6:44 am

Bill,

The same energy in kWh on my bill from SSE in the UK costs 5 times as much for electricity than it does for natural gas.

Paul C
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
March 30, 2021 5:35 pm

Yes, ridiculous as it sounds at first, it may be feasible to go independent of the electric grid, perhaps just retaining a connection for back-up. A gas fuelled generator with a battery bank should be competitive in price for electricity, with the “waste” heat also being useful for most of the year in the UK. You could even add solar and wind if you want to look green, or diversify power sources. The biggest issue is probably the location of, and noise from the generator, but that should be manageable.

TonyG
Reply to  Paul C
March 31, 2021 6:49 am

Do they make single-home level generators designed for nearly continuous running like that?

Joel O'Bryan
March 29, 2021 10:53 pm

Like Massachusetts Green energy advisor to the Governor said (paraphrasing), “There’s no more low hanging fruit on cutting emissions. We’re just gonna have to break the will of people on fixed incomes and the middle class (on expectations of affordable energy).”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/12/video-massachusetts-climate-official-people-on-fixed-income-we-have-to-break-their-will/

Last edited 4 months ago by joelobryan
Spetzer86
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 30, 2021 2:41 am

Wonder when they’ll implement the pitchfork and torches ban? Some of the statements these people are making need to get more attention from the general populace. Hopefully before they turn off the power during the winter.

saveenergy
Reply to  Spetzer86
March 30, 2021 3:27 am

“Wonder when they’ll implement the pitchfork and torches ban?”

They are already,
under the guise of coronavirus. on 26 March 2020 police enforcement powers were increased, ( the police may:instruct them to go home, leave an area or disperse ) if members of the public do not comply, they will be acting unlawfully, and the police may arrest them where deemed proportionate and necessary & be taken to court, with magistrates able to impose unlimited fines.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/police-given-new-powers-and-support-to-respond-to-coronavirus

That’s on top of The 307-page ‘Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill’ that hands police and the home secretary greater powers to crack down on protests & plans to give officers more powers to restrict demonstrations.
Even Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey called the measures “shocking” and “offensive anti-democratic proposals

Last edited 4 months ago by saveenergy
Bryan A
Reply to  saveenergy
March 30, 2021 5:41 am

The solution to that is to carry “BLM” and “Social Justice” banners along with the pitch forks and torches, the greentard forces tend to leave them be without disbursement efforts, even when they’re blocking freeways

Timo, not that one
Reply to  Bryan A
April 1, 2021 4:02 pm

That’s genius! Go out and protest China virus lockdowns, in the name of BLM.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 30, 2021 1:21 pm

And they will break their will- the state just passed the net zero by ’50 bill. But people in the state are starting to complain about large ground mounted solar. I had an 18 acre solar “farm” built next to my neighborhood in 2012. In MA there is a visceral hatred of all forms of energy- so I guess that’s what the net zero means- no energy by ’50. Personally, I think fossil fuels are great- and woody biomass.

Last edited 4 months ago by Joseph Zorzin
Herbert
March 29, 2021 10:56 pm

So the scheme failed to produce “green jobs”.
What is a “green job”?
According to a paper prepared for the ILO, Geneva in 2011, the concept of “green jobs” has not been universally agreed yet.
In an earlier ILO UNEP Report,”Green Jobs: Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable Low Carbon World”, a definition was agreed as follows-
“…..work in agriculture,manufacturing research and development (R&D),administrative and service activities that contribute substantially to preserving or restoring environmental quality.
Specifically, but not exclusively, that includes jobs that help to protect ecosystems and bio-diversity, reduce energy, materials and water consumption through high efficiency strategies,de-carbonise the economy, and minimise or altogether avoid generation of all forms of waste and pollution.”
The wide definition seems to exclude mining, construction, quarrying and energy supplies.
Green jobs also have to be “decent jobs”.
Ultimately nothing is “sustainable”.
Everything requires net energy input.
There is no perpetual motion machine.
So we are facing years of obfuscation about “green jobs”.
Everyone from the “climate czar” to the street cleaner will be in a “green job”, to say nothing of countless bureaucrats.
I foresee “ millions and millions of green jobs” coming, almost everywhere, in fact.

fretslider
Reply to  Herbert
March 30, 2021 12:39 am

A green job is fitting cladding and/or insulation

Oldseadog
Reply to  fretslider
March 30, 2021 3:30 am

In our sailing club a “green job” was a can of McEwans Pale Ale which came in a green can. It was said by some that if you had a metal detector on board you could get to the Isle of Man and back just by following the line of green cans on the sea bed.

Bryan A
Reply to  fretslider
March 30, 2021 5:43 am

I thought a Green Job was holding an XR banner and protesting in intersections

Notanacademic
Reply to  Herbert
March 30, 2021 2:04 am

I’m a pest controller, I kill things for a living. Don’t think that will ever be called a green job which pleases me.

Editor
Reply to  Herbert
March 30, 2021 2:37 am

A green job is one that destroys two or more jobs in the real economy.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Mike Jonas
March 30, 2021 6:08 am

In the US it includes activists campaigning for ‘green’ things I believe. Not unlike the EU paying groups to campaign against it for changes that it really wants to make but has not got the guts to do straight off so can hide behind the campaign groups as a justification.

ripshin
Editor
Reply to  Mike Jonas
March 30, 2021 8:00 am

Don’t forget, it also costs the taxpay twice what it produces…

George Daddis
Reply to  Herbert
March 30, 2021 7:51 am

In my former South Carolina town, the Federal government subsidized the replacement of fossil fueled buses with electric for area suburban towns and several local universities.

The former drivers of the evil CO2 emitters are now employed officially in “green jobs”.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Herbert
March 30, 2021 1:26 pm

“…..work in agriculture….”
gonna be tough to farm without fuel to run the tractors- time to invest in mules

PCman999
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 30, 2021 9:15 pm

No mules! That will be cruel! Don’t forget, the biggest green job for useless climate idiots will be pulling the plow. Most are vegans anyway so they won’t mind working for oats.

Adam Gallon
March 29, 2021 11:39 pm

A poor & overly complex scheme from the start.

PCman999
Reply to  Adam Gallon
March 30, 2021 9:19 pm

Definitely! Rube Goldberg was born to early – he’d have a field day with the green economy. To avoid coal and gas idiots build inefficient wind turbines and solar panels, 3x or more than needed and put in expensive and toxic batteries when even the over-supply isn’t enough to make up for windless nights – and the kicker is they were all made using lots of coal!

griff
March 29, 2021 11:54 pm

How can anyone object to the principle of this scheme – that is lowering heating costs?

Though a typical cock up by UK govt in delivery!

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
March 30, 2021 12:07 am

Griff, increased insulation in British houses would be a good idea. However, heat pumps increase heating costs.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Bill Toland
March 30, 2021 11:52 am

As usual, the devil is in the details. British housing runs the gamut from brand-spanking new to several hundred years old. It is highly unlikely that a single insulation method will be suitable for all types of construction. I doubt, in fact, that they’ll manage one method for one construction type that will not trap moisture, invite rodents, dump chemical fumes or damage windows and framing. Just saying.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Bill Toland
March 30, 2021 1:29 pm

They can burn American made pellets!

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 31, 2021 6:18 am

Don’t encourage the clear cutters and their tax credits. We have enough overlapping layers of policy and tax distortion to go around.

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  griff
March 30, 2021 12:13 am

Easily. Even with the grants you end up massively out of pocket. Of course the grants are just money extracted from you via tax in the first place.

fred250
Reply to  griff
March 30, 2021 1:40 am

It was never really about heating costs…..

Otherwise they would be sticking to coal and gas and not talking about carbon taxes, paying huge subsidies for wind turbines and the huge costs of integrating unreliable supplies into the grid.

fretslider
Reply to  griff
March 30, 2021 3:13 am

Griff, thanks for showing everybody outside the UK that our parliamentary parties are now all well to the left of Leon Trotsky.

Strange times when you support a Tory scheme? Not really, you activists are all cut from the same cloth.

For ordinary people it’s all about affordability, with or without subsidies. And it ain’t affordable in the slightest.

I can only assume you do not own a house in England, or if you do it fell into your lap with no work involved. MIddle class bliss. Very Guardian.

The only escape from the loony ideas you espouse is Bitcoin. Which happens to be helping to green the planet.

Last edited 4 months ago by fretslider
ozspeaksup
Reply to  griff
March 30, 2021 3:14 am

try because if YOU bought the insulation it would be half or less the cost the govts being screwed by the “green installers” as well as inflated wages charges

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  griff
March 30, 2021 4:06 am

Correction: the promise of lowering heating costs. The promise is thermodynamically nonsense.

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  griff
March 30, 2021 6:52 am

In the UK, on my energy utility bills, the cost per kWh for electricity is 5 times the cost for the same energy produced from Natural Gas. This also immediately demonstrates that natural gas is the cheapest fuel for electricity generation, belying the claims that renewables are cheaper.

Insulation is fine but not if the cost of insulation (and the inconvenience eg removing usable loft storage space) exceeds the savings in fuel over a reasonable time period eg 10 years or so. Also, the government should not be paying for it, only the homeowner. If it there were real cost savings everyone would do it without government largesse or bribes with tax payers money. On the other hand, switching from natural gas as the source of heating to electricity is inevitably substantially more expensive.

Note also that replacing cheap natural gas in the electricity generation mix with renewables will also result in a further 70% increase in the cost of electricity, long term.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  griff
March 30, 2021 8:25 am

Tax-onomics….paying for insulation costs the treasury money….carbon taxes bring money in. Simple really….

Last edited 4 months ago by DMacKenzie
Paul Penrose
Reply to  griff
March 30, 2021 11:01 am

If the government typically cocks things up, then why would you ever want them to anything beyond the bare necessities that only government can do?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  griff
March 30, 2021 12:19 pm

Oh Griffypoo, you’re such a moron. If they actually lowered heating costs (which includes installation costs), why would the government need to pay people to do it?

Coeur de Lion
March 30, 2021 12:23 am

And this is just the start of the Tories losing the next General Election. The famous ‘Red Wall’ ( previous Labour voters in the less prosperous North) won’t like exchanging their £3000 over age jalopy for a Nissan Leaf at thirty grand depreciating at £5000 a year. Nor the pointless hydrogen caper. Nor not being able to sell buy or mortgage their homes. Nor the inevitable hikes in electricity prices. Hooray

Redge
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
March 30, 2021 12:34 am

By the time the worse off people in the less prosperous north get round to buying an EV, they are looking at spending up to £££££ to replace the batteries.

Only the elites will be able to afford their own personal transport.

It’ll be Shanks pony for the rest of us, mate.

Reply to  Redge
March 30, 2021 2:26 am

It’ll be Shanks pony for the rest of us, mate

As someone who grew up during the Apartheid days of “passbooks”, I can tell you now: You will either take officially sanctioned transport from and to only those places your (covidiot) pass specifically allows, or get harassed, arrested or shot, for “being in the wrong place at the wrong time, so sorry”. The fact that you are walking, will be automatic proof that you are not ‘authorised’ to travel.
Even the rich will rent, lease or share vehicles, only “key administrators” will have access to go-everywhere transport, dutifully escorted by big mean guys in kevlar underwear and guns at the ready.

Last edited 4 months ago by paranoid goy
Redge
Reply to  paranoid goy
March 30, 2021 3:04 am

I want to respond “there’ll never be pass laws in the UK” but the way we are sleeping walking towards “utopia”, I’m not so sure

Peta of Newark
Reply to  paranoid goy
March 30, 2021 3:38 am

Its coming…
Headline: Drivers over 70 could face curfews or bans
here

And as our diet is forcibly destroyed via increased carb & fibre consumption combined with increasing deficiencies lack of essential brain-nutrients will, that age 70 will come down and down and down.
Innit strange though that the Retirement Age keeps going up and up. We are being forced to work but cannot drive.

My” I exclaim, “Things Have Never Been Better

In many ways thanks to a paranoid heavy handed mendacious police doing the bidding of a paranoid and perfectly panic-stricken government, its already here
Covid being the ideal testing ground
Smart meters and electric cars will put the seal on it

And as regards Home Insulation and Efficiency, Stanley Jevons had it worked out way back in the 1850’s

Increased efficiency on;y leads to increased resource use.
Even the Grauniad realised that, ten years ago.
rebound effect

PS Watch this space.
I’ve worked out an ever so neat & simple little spreadsheet that calculates Earth’s Temperatures, as seen and recorded at all latitudes and explains the extent of Ice Ages to uncanny accuracy and, doesn’t need any green house gas to do it
When I’ve tidied it up so anyone can read it and see how it works, I’ll share

Last edited 4 months ago by Peta of Newark
mkelly
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 30, 2021 6:14 am

PETA says:”When I’ve tidied it up so anyone can read it and see how it works, I’ll share.”

Does that include Griff and Loydo?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  mkelly
March 30, 2021 11:56 am

Hope springs eternal.

fretslider
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
March 30, 2021 4:25 am

All those tower blocks with recharging cables hanging out of the windows

Jean Parisot
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
March 30, 2021 5:20 am

What will the option be? Labour will be running on energy schemes that are even more insane.

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
March 30, 2021 6:58 am

On climate, Clegg, Cameron and Miliband all signed a pact committing all the 2.5 main parties to the same climate pledges, undermingin democracy at the stroke of a pen. So a change of governing party will make no difference whatsoever.

Cameron, Clegg and Miliband sign joint climate pledge | Environment | The Guardian

Ben Pile has an excellent article on this:

Come clean about the cost of Net Zero – spiked (spiked-online.com)

jtom
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
March 30, 2021 4:26 pm

But who will they lose to? Seems like all major parties have bought into this plan. You need a new party.

Laurence
March 30, 2021 12:49 am

It was a so convoluted scheme, and I was intending to apply on behalf of my sister for her property, but gave up trying to complete all requirements, and suspect explains why it is being scrapped.

Climate believer
March 30, 2021 1:51 am

I went to check out their website…

Image 7.png
Rhs
Reply to  Climate believer
March 30, 2021 6:05 am

The hamsters running the servers need more Redbull!

climanrecon
March 30, 2021 1:54 am

A widely overlooked (totally ignored) issue in home insulation is simply the air-tightness of windows, the frames that can be opened. Don’t bother spending thousands on triple glazing, with argon air-gaps, just make sure that your existing windows close properly.

I recently had a FENSA inspection of my new uPVC windows, cursory does not do justice to how useless it was, in particular there was no checking of the air-tightness of the moveable parts.

“Green” buildings: just another state-sponsored rip-off protection racket.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  climanrecon
March 30, 2021 11:58 am

Unless you do a blower-door test, there’s no hope of quantifying any before-and-after comparisons.

fred250
March 30, 2021 2:06 am

Someone tried to implement a “Green Scheme”

… and it FAILED.

Why is another surprised ?

ozspeaksup
March 30, 2021 3:09 am

best laugh today! theyre a right rort and dont know any of them thats done much FOR the people but the bidwinners n middlement do very well financially it seems
presently we have a lightbulb swapsie going in Vic, supposed to hunt out us nasty people with decent lighting n give free LED swaps. you can buy a LED globe for 4 to 5$ anyway
bet theyre charging 10 or more per bulb they supply and would figure 15 more likely
the workers get peanuts and theyre all indian/pakistani etc not ONE white aussie to be seen

Mr.
Reply to  ozspeaksup
March 30, 2021 7:53 am

What does it matter if white Ozzies don’t do these jobs?

Green jobs should only be done by green people anyway.

Oldseadog
Reply to  Mr.
March 30, 2021 10:29 am

Yep. The Mekon will organise the Treens to do everything.

Cheshire Red
March 30, 2021 3:42 am

A cynic might suggest the scheme was deliberately designed to fail from day one. It gave the government a green net zero flag to wave to the electorate – whilst they simultaneously made it all-but impossible to access, thus costing very little.

There’s almost no other explanation, given that had they really wanted to allocate the £1.5 Billion they could easily have amended the rules to enable that outcome.

Rusty
March 30, 2021 4:06 am

For the UK to replace natural gas for domestic heating, hot water and cooking would require an additional 170GW of power to meet peak electricity demand during a cold winter like 2010.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518307249

Hinkley Point C (nuclear) = 3.2GW. Do the math as they say.

Insulating a few homes isn’t going to make any difference.

Notanacademic
March 30, 2021 4:30 am

An insulated house will still be cold if you can’t afford to heat it in the first place.

A government scheme failed surely not. Sarc

Peter
Reply to  Notanacademic
March 30, 2021 11:51 am

Not true entirely. You have passive sources of heat, sunlight and body heat. TV will give you 100W, human body 200W, sunlight from window 1000W. Rest is only math and physics to make it work.

Notanacademic
Reply to  Peter
March 30, 2021 4:46 pm

I understand that we have passive sources of heat but at night in northwest England when the telly is off and the sun isn’t shining I would have to make do with 200w from my wife but if she has a headache I’m in for a cold night.

ResourceGuy
March 30, 2021 6:16 am

Congrats to the planners and generals behind Operation Market (Green) Garden. Now who will start picking up the bodies?

Bruce Ranta
March 30, 2021 6:54 am

Building codes here in Ontario require homes to be so well insulated it’s now code to have an air exchange unit because a house cannot be air tight; the air quality quickly becomes unsuitable. So if you have an older house and seal it up and squish it with insulation, you’ll probably wind up getting sickly – and having to spend oodles on an air exchange unit. Most of these government retrofit programs, wherever you live, are a scam.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bruce Ranta
March 30, 2021 7:19 am

“I’m from the government and I am here to help!”

Paul C
Reply to  Bruce Ranta
March 31, 2021 4:48 am

There is loads of old housing stock in the UK. The rules for new houses in the UK generally result in highly insulated and airtight homes, but to meet ventilation requirements, air vents are built into the window frames of the double-sealed double glazed windows, rather defeating the object. Ventilation in the UK building codes is normally only System 1 (background, with intermittent extractor fans). System 4 Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR) is a rarity, though I have heard that once inspection compliance has been completed, the ventilation rate is ALWAYS turned down. MVHR is not a good retrofit, as duct runs, and air-tightness are best designed into the original construction. Apparently those window frame trickle vents often get sealed up in winter, causing condensation/damp problems, but who wants a cold draught coming from all their double glazed windows? We don’t generally use positive-pressure ventilation here I suspect that it never got past the initial hurdles in retrofits of pushing moist internal air into the cold building fabric where the water condenses. I think the regulations fail to achieve the correct balance between cost and efficiency, as most builders will opt for the cheapest which complies with the rules. A retro-fit will never achieve the potential of a fully integrated approach on initial construction. Spending taxes to patch up deficient old housing stock is not a sensible approach.

ResourceGuy
March 30, 2021 8:23 am

Meanwhile….

China Generated More Than Half Of World’s Coal Power In 2020: Report (yahoo.com)

Add proportions to the things forgotten in the Climate Religion Era in addition to the concept of cycles.

TRM
March 30, 2021 10:40 am

“botched [in] implementation … the administration seems nothing short of disastrous” – ROTFLMAO. Like any other outcome of a government run program is likely? How can you screw up insulation? WTF? INSULATION? I can do that (and have). How on god’s green earth can you screw that up? LOL.

The ONE thing that works both ways, hotter and colder, and is practical, easy to do and hard to screw up they manage to make a mess of. Colour me shocked.

John Sandhofner
March 30, 2021 3:27 pm

The nature of how governments functions leads to these problems with red tape, etc. They seem to thrive in creating ways to tie your hands so you can not accomplish anything. The world has become so legalistic that they overdo all the regulations for protection.

Editor
April 2, 2021 1:56 am

The real reason why the Green Deal has floundered is the same as why previous Green Deals have – homeowners know they are a waste of money, even when govt is offering subsidies:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/04/02/ben-pile-the-public-just-isnt-buying-the-climate-agenda/

Heat pumps, solar panels and insulation cost far more than they will ever save.

%d bloggers like this: