Labour’s Net Zero Scheme to Ship Hot Water to Homes by Barge

By Will Jones

Labour has launched a Net Zero scheme to transport hot water on barges on the River Thames to heat London homes instead of each home having a gas boiler. The Telegraph has the story.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has earmarked £41 million for a project to launch electric boats that will travel upriver from a power plant in Belvedere, south east London, before pumping water into storage tanks on riverside pontoons.

From here, the water, heated to almost 100 degrees Celsius, would flow through pipes into nearby heat networks, which are systems that supply hot water to multiple buildings from a centralised heat source, rather than each property having its own boiler. The Government has claimed the project could eventually supply up to 650,000 homes.

The scheme, believed to be the first of its kind anywhere in the world, could also serve London landmarks, including the National Theatre, when it launches in 2028.

The Telegraph understands that most of the £41 million funding will go towards extracting waste heat from the Belvedere power plant to warm the water, as well as building four barges. Each barge could hold two million litres of water, equivalent to 80% of the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

It comes as part of the Government’s plan to roll out heat networks to as many as five million households in Britain by 2050. Under plans drawn up by Ed Miliband, the former energy secretary, Labour is expected to spend £1.1 billion on heat networks by the end of this Parliament.

The Government has said the rollout of heat networks is an important part of its Net Zero drive because the systems often rely on waste heat to warm homes. This power can be drawn from excess heat produced by data centres and energy facilities that would have otherwise been wasted.

Shimeon Lee, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Taxpayers will be baffled that £41 million is backing a scheme to ship hot water down the Thames.

“Net Zero projects cannot be handed blank cheques simply because they sound innovative. Ministers need to prove this delivers real value for money before taxpayers are asked to bankroll it.”

The barges will act as a temporary hot water supply while construction of a ‘mega’ heat distribution system underneath central London takes place.

Worth reading in full.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 5 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
105 Comments
Scarecrow Repair
September 23, 2026 10:07 pm

They should compress the hot air coming out of Parliament.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
September 24, 2026 7:31 am

What? And ship CO2 to all those millions of homes?
HOW DARE YOU!

LOL

September 23, 2026 10:13 pm

I hadn’t even finished reading the title when I knew the word Miliband was going to be in there somewhere. It’s OK though, he’s been moved to a less important position. Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, the USA, immigration, what could possibly go wrong?

Did your country run out of straitjackets?

Rod Evans
Reply to  philincalifornia
September 23, 2026 11:04 pm

No, we just allowed the inmates to take over the asylum.

Coach Springer
Reply to  Rod Evans
September 24, 2026 5:42 am

I think they may have been encouraged to do so.

Reply to  philincalifornia
September 24, 2026 5:51 am

Sigh. All the smart people work in the city. Well you have AOC…

Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez_IQ_Test_Negative-e1551395220840
Dave Andrews
Reply to  philincalifornia
September 24, 2026 7:10 am

Before the parliamentary reshuffle there was talk of Mad Ed becoming the new Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would really have been able to ruin the country if that had happened!

Nick Stokes
September 23, 2026 10:26 pm

“The scheme, believed to be the first of its kind anywhere in the world”

Really? New York and other major US cities have long supplied premises with piped steam or hot water.

What’s wrong with using barges?

Rod Evans
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 23, 2026 11:07 pm

What’s wrong with barges? Well handling cost, complexity and inefficiency for starters. We might include cost/benefit but Net Zero does not concern itself with cost.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Rod Evans
September 23, 2026 11:11 pm

Barges are used for may other bulk commodities where a wterway is available. They can carry a lot.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 23, 2026 11:38 pm

Just not as much as a pipe would connected directly to the heat needing to be trnsported.

SxyxS
Reply to  Rod Evans
September 24, 2026 1:18 am

That’s the same as using trains to transport oil instead of pipelines like keystone XL.
The irrational trippling in outlay(pump&empty waggons and use a vehicle- pipeline)benefits railroad-owners.

I wonder who really benefits in this case?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Rod Evans
September 24, 2026 4:47 am

But it is likely that there is less heat lost in transit with a well insulated barge. Engineers have put some thought into this.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 5:52 am

No Nick, engineers have not.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 6:00 am

Got any sources for that? If you do, and they had no list of drawbacks, they’re pretty crappy unreliable sources.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 7:55 am

Do not disparage engineers like that.
You have no proof “Engineers have put some thought into this.”
And, apparently you likewise have not.

This is a political concept.

In reality engineers would have addressed multiple means of getting the hot water transported, then optimized the cost for each before downselecting.

The transit time in a well insulated pipe is orders of magnitude less than the transit time with barges. On top of that, the earth is a much better insulator than flowing water, which apparently was not taken into consideration.

Someone had a brain fart and now they are spending millions on it without thinking it through, including unintended consequences.

Question: What do you think would happen to the Thames ecosystem in the event a barge sank or collided releasing vast quantities of scalding hot water or a massive battery fire?

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 8:07 am

Politicians have put thought into this. Not engineers.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 8:47 am

No, it was the politicians who generated this absurdity.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 3:34 am

These are to be new electric powered barges moving water up river to carry less than a swimming pool of hot water to be off loaded apparently to another reservoir and pumping station. This does not seem to be a bit nutty to you?
All part of a crazy dream to run the UK without reliable energy.

  • Nut Zero
rovingbroker
Reply to  Dan Davis
September 24, 2026 4:00 am

Sails. Wind power.

“I’m sorry Mrs. Jones. No wind today. How about a little cologne?”

Reply to  Dan Davis
September 24, 2026 8:52 am

Yeah to support a city of only 9.5 million who use over a one MILLION gallons of water daily, from them website:

Figures from their 2021/22 report indicated that daily water consumption in London was 144.4 litres per capita, down from 152.2 litres per capita in 2020/21, but still higher than their target of 142.6 litres per capita.

LINK

oeman50
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 4:45 am

Hot water is not a “bulk commodity” to be transported by barge. And I have a sneaking suspicion that the energy required to charge the batteries on the barges (for the full and empty trips) and pump the water on and off the barges would exceed the energy transported.

This is a truly idiotic scheme.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 7:36 am

That is why the Erie Canal is transporting so much cargo today. /s

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 7:50 am

Can carry a lot.

Jumbo Barges: Larger inland barges can hold up to 2,000 tons (or about 1.26 million gallons of liquid cargo)

Water weighs 8.4 lb/gal. The liquid cargo mentioned above does state what kind of liquid.

Depending on which ton is used, the amount of water ranges from ~ 450K to ~ 530K gallons.

4 barges. Assuming 2 round trips per day. 4 x 2 x 530,000 = 4.2 M gallons per day.
According to Google AI, a typical UK household uses ~ 20 gallons of hot water per day.

So, this scheme could possibly supply 210K households. The UK government projects this could service 650K households. Oops. Not with 4 barges.

According to Statists, there are about 3.7M households (2.5 average occupancy) in London.

MarkW
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 24, 2026 8:10 am

The hot water is also going to be used for heating. In the winter, the average house is going to need a lot more than 20 gallons.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MarkW
September 24, 2026 8:33 am

Correct.
Google AI gave me the average.

Use of averages is perfectly acceptable in climate science, right?
So why not here?

/sarcasm on steroids

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 8:06 am

For once Nick, use your brain for something other than a device to prevent your skull from imploding.

Think about all the issues involved.
There’s the cost of barges vs. the cost of pipelines.
There’s the energy needed to move the barges upstream vs the energy needed to move the water through pipes.

The biggest idiocy of all is how much heat is going to be lost from that hot water while it is being transported and stored.

Yes, there are places that use hot water for heat. The vast majority of them are for single buildings. A few are used for a single complex of buildings. Most of the places that try to heat a block or two, use steam, not hot water.

John XB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 8:36 am

Bulk hot water is nit a commodity – it’s a folly.

True commodities have a value. They will be sold for an amount greater than their cost of production and transportation. If not they would not be shipped.

This insane scheme does not involve a market price system for the water being shipped. Therefore it is impossible to measure whether it is destroying wealth or not.

Given that it requires taxpayer funding, this means private investors wouldn’t invest. Therefore it is not economically viable, not a business and destroys wealth – but then that is the case for wind/solar too.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 8:46 am

Bulk commodities don’t degrade much at all, but water loses hot water to the outside at variable rates thus increases inefficiency.

GeeJam
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 23, 2026 11:41 pm

Nick, they are electric barges. I trust this answers your last question.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 23, 2026 11:45 pm

Con Ed has five steam plants in NYC. Many of the buildings in lower Manhattan are heated with steam.The steam plants use fossil fuels.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
September 24, 2026 5:57 am

Buildings in London used to be heated by Battersea power station. The pipes still exist. But Battersea power stations was COAL and the urban woke were not having that so they turned it into a heritage site instead of a power station.

In fact if small modular reactors ever end up being built close to towns they could do the same thing, and keep the streets clear of ice and snow as well.

My personal hope is a glasshouse next door to a reactor growing pineapples and mangoes. Or bell peppers and chillies.

Richard Rude
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 23, 2026 11:53 pm

OH? Please enlighten us just how and where this system in “New York and other major US cities” operates.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Richard Rude
September 24, 2026 12:21 am
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 1:00 am

No mention of barges, which is the whole point of the article.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  DavsS
September 24, 2026 1:56 am

Nick excels at changing the subject.

Scissor
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
September 24, 2026 3:54 am
Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Scissor
September 24, 2026 9:12 am

And don’t forget the carp, which he’s so full of.

oeman50
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 4:54 am

District heating from a central plant is used all over the world and is a highly efficient system. NYC uses steam, which carries much more heat per unit weight than hot water. And all of systems pipe the steam or hot water to the load.

MattS
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 7:40 am

In this case Nick is correct, steam heat (power plant waste heat and purpose built boilers) is common in major cities. My college dorm was heated by steam from the campus power plant – resulting in us opening windows in January during local grid outages when the plant was running at full capacity. However, nobody was ever stupid enough to attempt to transport this in bulk to remote sites. I find it hard to believe a credible cost/benefit analysis was done in this case.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 8:12 am

Steam, not hot water.
Steam carries a lot more energy, it also is not used to carry heat long distances.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 8:35 am

Steam, not hot water.

Swing and a miss.

leefor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 12:32 am

I would hope the electricity comes solely from onboard solar panels. 😉

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 12:54 am

The ‘first of its kind’ refers to transporting by barge, isn’t that obvious? District heating itself is nothing new, it’s pretty common in eastern Europe for example.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  DavsS
September 24, 2026 8:36 am

If it is first of its kind, one has to wonder why after decades (or longer) no one ever tried it before.

Walbrook
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 12:59 am

Good way to cool data centers, but what about summer.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 1:54 am

The question should not be, “Why not?” when governments propose novel uses for taxpayer money, but “Is it worthwhile? Does it do something useful, and is its cost worth its benefit?”

Your default position seems to be “Let’s spend money ob every hare-brained idea possible” without even planning to come back a year later to see if it was effective or worth the cost.

You are a tried and true statist who loves to spend other people’s money.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
September 24, 2026 8:00 am

You left off the obvious questions of what else could be considered? and what are possible unintended consequences?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 2:41 am

Nothing wrong with using barges if it makes economic sense, but this scheme says the barges are only a temporary system so is a waste of money. Just get on with building the underground system of pipes, so long as that is economic. (If it is a Government scheme I doubt if it will be, though.)

SxyxS
Reply to  Oldseadog
September 24, 2026 3:10 am

Shipping water on water does not sound like something that makes the most economic sense
but it makes sense in a progressive scenario where middle age windmills are the solution for energy problems.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 7:35 am

What’s wrong?

Cost. Including labor costs for the crews.
Flow rate inefficiency.
Then there is the risk of water transported disease.
Then there is the risk of water transported chemicals.
Keeping the water hot.

I am sure if a few more brain cells are dedicated to this the list would grow longer.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 8:00 am

Between buildings, they use steam, not hot water. There are buildings that use hot water for heat, but those heat the water on the premisis.
What’s wrong with using barges? Both cost and transit time. Even with insulation, a lot of heat is going to be lost between the power plants and the homes.

John XB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 24, 2026 8:30 am

Which they installed before they built the city.

What’s wrong with using barges – they will heat the River Thames.

GeeJam
September 23, 2026 11:19 pm

I am submitting my entry for the ‘Naming of the Four Barges’ competition . . . .
“Hairbrained”
“Dickhead”
“Shear Stupidity”
and
“Madness”.
Let’s hope there’s a general election ASAP.

Rod Evans
Reply to  GeeJam
September 23, 2026 11:43 pm

The naming ceremony will be eagerly attended. The actual names which correspond perfectly with your suggestion are.
Abbot
Lammy
and
Milliband

1saveenergy
Reply to  GeeJam
September 24, 2026 12:02 am

[“Let’s hope there’s a general election ASAP.“]

NO !! Not another costly charade.

General elections are now just a revolving door, allowing the next section of the uni-party to take their turn of feeling important while lining their pockets.

The plebs voters think they are able to change things by changing the MP, but while they are distracted with petty squabbles or the latest scare, the main scam goes on in the background; it’s a bit like a drunken gambler convinced they can beat the casino.

SxyxS
Reply to  1saveenergy
September 24, 2026 3:15 am

Correct – elections are just temporaryrelieves for the deep state,
as it takes a few months for the peoples benefit of doubt to wear of and realise that
that nothing has changed except for the name of the parrty and minister – and that the hidden empire is still in charge.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  GeeJam
September 24, 2026 8:01 am

I would have chosen to include Greta. 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  GeeJam
September 24, 2026 8:15 am

What about Boaty McBoatFace?

John XB
Reply to  GeeJam
September 24, 2026 8:41 am

Argy-bargy.

SwedeTex
Reply to  GeeJam
September 24, 2026 10:17 am

Rube Goldberg

Richard Rude
September 23, 2026 11:49 pm

Oh, like in medieval times when the public baths were heated 3 times a week.

September 23, 2026 11:52 pm

Use otherwise wasted heat from burning municipal waste to heat homes? Brilliant! What could go wrong? In the hands of Miliband and Labour, everything. These are not engineers or entrepreneurs. They’re idiot politicians who have never created anything useful or productive in their lives. First of all the numbers don’t add up. Heat 650,000 homes from the waste heat of a minuscule 66 MW “Energy from Waste” power plant? I don’t think so. And why not pipe hot water to homes near the Belvedere plant? That’s much more practical than barging it upriver. In the hands of a proven, successful innovator like Elon Musk this could be great. Directed by Ed Miliband? It’s a waste of money. Leftists’ only great accomplishments are…um…nothing. But they’re really good at wasting taxpayers’ money and making their lives more miserable.

Reply to  stinkerp
September 24, 2026 4:12 am

Well, Elon’s big dream is that Rockets will replace airliners taking people from one city to another across the globe.* Also moving people on a lifetime adventure of living on Mars! Take an exciting 9 month journey to a new uninhabitable world with opportunity to remake it into a new home for other people in the distant future.
Perhaps he could also bring “waste heated” boiling water to London in the future as well….

* nextbigfuture.com/2019/07/spacex-starship-will-carry-1000-people-anywhere-on-earth-cost-500-2000.html

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  stinkerp
September 24, 2026 8:15 am

Hmmm….

66 MW power plant.
Just numbers, not reality.

Assume half of that is recoverable waste heat. 33 MW.
Assume starting temperature is 20 C.
1,187,862 Joules to raise 1 US gallon of water to 100 C starting at 20 C.
1 J = 1 W-s.
The power plant could warm 27 gallons water, per second.
2M L = 528K US gal.
5.4 hours to heat a barge worth per hour.
4 barges per day is the maximum supported by the assumptions in this analysis.

J Boles
September 23, 2026 11:54 pm

Leftists, they have the WORST ideas, they never work, because they are idiots.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  J Boles
September 24, 2026 8:18 am

I dislike the use of left and right sobriquets.
They have origin in the seating arrangements of the Roman Senate.

My preferred flavor of the day:
“Activists, have the idiotic ideas that never work, because they are idiots.”

Decaf
September 24, 2026 12:00 am

This has to be the stupidest idea ever. The UK has lost it

1saveenergy
Reply to  Decaf
September 24, 2026 12:11 am

[“This has to be the stupidest idea ever.“]

No !! The stupidest idea ever was allowing self-serving & or zealous politicians to run/control countries.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Decaf
September 24, 2026 12:45 am

Well it is certainly up there with the Labour idea of leaving our own oil and gas in the ground while championing paying premium world prices to import the same gas and oil from the same ground via Norway.

Reply to  Rod Evans
September 24, 2026 4:23 am

Brilliant!
Perhaps remodel the UK’s oil platforms into “affordable” homes and then create round trip electric barge transportation to haul residents, their shopping and boiling water out and “recycling ready fuel” back along with the “compost”…..

Reply to  Decaf
September 24, 2026 4:14 am

Ya ain’t seen Nuttin, yet.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Decaf
September 24, 2026 8:18 am

Not sure it is the top of the list, but certainly it is a contender for that spot.

Sean Galbally
September 24, 2026 12:24 am

Net Zero WHAT?

another ian
September 24, 2026 12:58 am

IIRC

Shades of the potential Labour Minister for Transport in “How to win an election or at least lose by very much”

September 24, 2026 1:16 am

Head meet Desk,
Desk meet Head.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  huls
September 24, 2026 8:19 am

I prefer drywall. Leaves better impressions. 😉

MrGrimNasty
September 24, 2026 1:23 am

I don’t think these idiots have got a clue what installing a district heat network retrospectively in a city means.

The cost, the disruption, the bankrupting of local affected businesses when customers can’t park or even get to their premises for weeks on end. All using diesel powered construction equipment of course.

ntesdorf
September 24, 2026 1:41 am

The reason that this is the first scheme of its sort is that previously, no one has ever proposed anything as stupid in living memory.

strativarius
September 24, 2026 1:43 am

Another day and another loony idea from Lol Lol Labour.

Ed Zuiderwijk
September 24, 2026 2:00 am

I didn’t realise April 1 arrived late this year.

SxyxS
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
September 24, 2026 5:02 am

You seem to have missed the other 250 april fools days we had so far this year.

Rahx360
September 24, 2026 2:02 am

Bookmark this for when wee see an article that the electric barges can’t move upstream.

Ed Zuiderwijk
September 24, 2026 2:19 am

The BBC has a variation on the theme.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxe87mp60lg2o

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
September 24, 2026 8:22 am

And, as Paul Harvey would have said, “the rest of the story.”

FrankH
September 24, 2026 2:21 am

“Government scheme.”
“£41 million.”
Let’s just stop and think about that for a moment. Does anybody want to place a bet on how much it will really cost the government (AKA the taxpayer)?
I give it a couple of years before the government (i.e. the taxpayer) coughs up another £41 million, then another, and another.
Because we all know the government, i.e. the taxpayer, has bottomless pockets.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  FrankH
September 24, 2026 8:24 am

So, 3 x 41M = 123M to save how much?
An investment, by traditional definitions, yields a return on investment.

Do not tell Massachusettes about this.
They would want to create a local Thames River, the duplicate the UK insanities.

Gregg Eshelman
September 24, 2026 3:30 am

Story tip. There are places in the UK with geothermal potential, but not in or around London. Ground source heat pumps are a better bet there. https://ukgeothermalplatform.org/

Tony Sullivan
September 24, 2026 5:06 am

Reads like an article from The Onion.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Tony Sullivan
September 24, 2026 8:25 am

Not quite. Most of the Onion articles get a laugh of a chuckle or a guffaw.

John Pickens
September 24, 2026 5:28 am

You can’t pump and store liquid water at temperatures greater than around 95C, and to heat a home, you need delivered water temperatures of at least 60C to prevent Legionella bacteria proliferation. What’s the total heat capacity of “80% of the volume of an Olympic swimming pool” with a 35C temperature change? Do competent engineers even exist in the UK?

MarkW
Reply to  John Pickens
September 24, 2026 8:20 am

They exist, it’s just that showing too much competence makes it hard to be employed by government.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  John Pickens
September 24, 2026 8:24 am

I posted most of those number in a post up above.

September 24, 2026 5:47 am

It might technically work, but I doubt it will be cost effective, but Labour and other peoples money is a bit of a meme

socialism
Coach Springer
September 24, 2026 5:56 am

I have to think it would be better to put those resources toward actually installing the central heating system (if you are dead set on that) rather than investing in an alternative green virtue venture.

Also, where does the energy come from to charge the barge and heat the water? (Yes, it’s waste heat, but what is the source?) And why not use it directly to heat the buildings instead?

Craig Graham
September 24, 2026 5:58 am

20 years ago I went fishing in Kamchatka IN JULY. The city had central hot water instead of houses having its own hot water heaters. The city was out of budget and there was no money for hot water until next March. Always have a backup!!!

Malcolm Chapman
September 24, 2026 6:11 am

This is the first time I have seen a fraction of an Olympic swimming pool used as a measure. It is not clear to me that % division is the best system for good public understanding. We already have pints, gallons, hogsheads, and others. Indeed, it would make a kind of retro-poetry to have barges full of hogsheads of hot water moving up the Thames. Loading and unloading them will create jobs. There would be no need for batteries to move the barges – the tide will do that, on its own timetable. Earth hath not anything to show more fair…than extreme political idiocy, exercising in its own sunshine.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Malcolm Chapman
September 24, 2026 8:28 am

I had a paper published decades ago where I used file cabinets to compare sizes of various approaches.

The concept is to give the uninformed a means to conceptualize, but an Olympic swimming pool is not a common size metric.

SxyxS
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 24, 2026 8:47 am

Division is never a good approach to help people visualize things.

Especially not with Olympic Swimming Pools.
As most people have never seen one and have no clue what the actual size is(especially in countries with no metric system).
And those who have seen one know only about 2 dimensions as the depth is not really visible and irregular on top.