The Cold Chill of the Heat Pump Reality

From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

by Sallust

It may come as a surprise to the most dedicated eco warriors that heat pumps don’t last forever. Those installing them now are in for a nasty shock 15–20 years down the line when their costly noisy power-hungry government-subsidised outdoor heat exchangers come to the end of their lives and need replacing. There won’t be any grants or subsidies around then.

According to the Telegraph some of the early birds are already suffering from buyer’s remorse:

Peter and Anne Watts made headlines when they became one of around four British households to have an air-source heat pump fitted in 2008.

That Mr and Mrs Watts, 88 and 82 respectively, had installed a heat pump a decade before the likes of Boris Johnson seized upon them as the future of home heating was highly unusual.

“We had a reporter up from the local paper asking us about our solar panels and our heat pump,” recalls Mr Watts. “In the days afterwards, we got a call from the BBC – I thought it was a prank call from the neighbours.”

Yet 17 years on, the pump is nearing the end of its lifespan – and the price tag for a replacement is £17,000, around £10,000 more than they paid for their original.
Mr and Mrs Watts are in a highly unique quandary – one that shines a light on the shortcomings of the Government’s heat pump drive.

Households currently benefit from a £7,500 grant to install a new pump, thanks to the generous Boiler Upgrade Scheme run by the energy department. But no such generosity exists for early adopters whose systems are now nearing their end.

It begs the question: how do households – who relied on low prices or government grants to get their heat pump fitted the first time around – afford its replacement?

Unfortunately, Mr and Mrs Watts can’t retrofit a gas boiler because a) they’re not on the gas grid and b) because the house was expensively renovated with the installation of a heat pump in mind. Now it seems they haven’t the cash for a new heat pump. That’s an interesting development since it’s often the well-heeled retired who have the resources and time to fit a heat pump in the first place. Unfortunately, if they live long enough their dwindling incomes turn the ageing heat pumps into a time bomb:

The couple, who ran a business selling animal feed and now live off a private pension, cannot afford a new heat pump. They have already stripped back on holidays since electricity prices first rose.

It is a problem that the pair, who live in a four-bedroom detached house in Buckinghamshire, did not foresee when they became one of the first British households to have an air-source heat pump installed.

Back when they installed the pump the whole idea was to future-proof their bills by investing in more efficient and cheaper-to-run equipment. Moreover, there were no grants back then though they did enjoy an advantageous scheme of selling the power they generated from solar panels back to the grid. Mr and Mrs Watts make around £900 per annum that way.

However, the cost of electricity has soared and heat pumps use so much it’s difficult for a domestic solar panel system to do more than make a dent in the running costs:

Almost two decades later, Mr Watts is doubtful the switch saved him much money, because in more recent years, so-called all-electric houses like his have been hamstrung by high electricity rates. “We don’t save a lot relative to oil and gas, but I would still recommend any house with a heat pump also gets solar panels,” he says.

Since they have no choice but to replace their heat pump or wait in trepidation for their existing one to break down, Mr and Mrs Watts are hoping their early loyalty will make it possible to obtain a discounted replacement:

After being approached by the Telegraph, a spokesman for the company said: “We value Mr Watts’ loyalty and appreciate his contribution to promoting heat pumps. If Mr Watts wishes to upgrade his system, Daikin has offered to supply a discounted heat pump.”

A Government spokesman said: “Heat pumps are three times more efficient than gas boilers, enabling families to save around £100 a year by using a smart tariff.”

£100 a year. If Mr and Mrs Watts can get a discounted heat pump for, say, £10,000 (a very optimistic prospect) they should be able to recover the replacement costs in only 100 years when both are over 180. Except by then they’d have had to replace the new heat pump at least five times.

It’s highly unlikely anyone currently buying a heat pump will find their installers lining up to offer them a discounted replacement in the 2040s, having been prompted by the Telegraph to do so.

With VAT imminent on heat pumps, the government has some solutions up its sleeve. One of them is to lock householders into debt to pay for them. The Government spokesman went on:

There is zero VAT on heat pumps until March 2027. Overall installation costs are coming down and will continue to do so for all consumers as the market develops. We are also exploring private finance options, such as loans, to support homeowners with the upfront costs of heat pumps.

It can be safely assumed that the cost of servicing those loans will exceed the nominal savings from a heat pump of £100 a year. Presumably, the loans will run the risk of still being paid off when the heat pump needs replacing, necessitating further loans for a new one.

One day there may be millions of pensioners living in houses with failing or failed heat pumps that they cannot possibly afford either to run or replace or obtain loans to do either.

Worth reading in full.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/VsNopcw

April 2, 2025 at 04:06AM

The Feds are hiding the eagle death data

The FWS eagle kill data is all a big government secret designed to protect the wind industry from public outrage.

via CFACT

https://ift.tt/LugayK3

April 2, 2025 at 03:47AM

LABOUR TO INFLICT EVEN HIGHER PRICES ON THE BRITISH PEOPLE

This government must have a death wish by driving up prices with every policy. There is no way they will get re-elected if they keep going like this. They seem to be totally obsessed with achieving net zero no matter what. 

Labour Set To Rejoin EU ETS Scheme | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

via climate science

https://ift.tt/cUHaGij

April 2, 2025 at 01:40AM

US Military Exits Climate Change After Wasteful Decade

“Military climate policies under the Biden Administration, even if fully implemented, would not have had a measurable effect on global temperatures. But they would continue to waste hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Secretary Hegseth will put these funds to better use to strengthen the US military.”

The United States military has pursued an increasing number of programs to try to fight climate change for more than a decade. The Air Force, Army, and Navy each developed programs to use alternative energy and to reduce hydrocarbon-based fuels, with aggressive carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reduction plans. But under the Trump Administration, climate change mitigation will no longer be an objective.

Earlier this month, the new Department of Defense (DoD) Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote “The Dept of Defense does not do climate change crap. We do training and warfighting.” The DoD is now cutting Pentagon programs that involve climate change. So begins a new age of realistic military policy and an end to more than 15 years of wasteful climate change spending.

Under President Joe Biden, the US government adopted a goal of net-zero emissions for both the US economy and the federal government by 2050. At the direction of the administration, all branches of the US military developed plans to try to get to Net Zero, the elimination of all hydrocarbon-based energy.

The US military is the largest institutional user of petroleum-derived fuel in the world. It is estimated that the DoD uses 4.6 billion gallons of fuel each year. According to the DoD, military emissions in FY 2021 were Air Force (56%), Navy (31%), Army (9%), and Marine Corps (5%). Aircraft accounted for 76% of emissions and ships emitted most of the remainder at 17%.

Navy

The Navy began climate change programs more than a decade ago during the administration of President Barack Obama. In 2011, US Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus stated, “By no later than 2020, at least half of the energy that the navy uses, both afloat and ashore, will come from non-fossil fuel sources.” The Great Green Fleet initiative was a key part of this effort.

The Great Green Fleet program attempted to use a drop-in blend of biofuels to replace diesel fuel in ships. In 2016, the navy deployed a carrier task force using a fuel mixture of 90% diesel and 10% biofuels. But the biofuel portion cost about $14 per gallon, seven times as much as the diesel portion. The navy also proposed to install hybrid electric-drive engines in 34 “green destroyers” to allow them to run on either fuel or electricity generated from fuel.

But the Great Green Fleet was a dismal failure. Biofuels were high cost and not available around the world, requiring the use of traditional diesel fuel in overseas ports. The hybrid electric-drive destroyers could not keep up with nuclear-powered carriers when using electric engines.

By the end of 2017, the Navy had spent $57 billion on green fuel programs. The electric-drive destroyer program was cancelled in 2018. By 2022, except for nuclear-powered ships, more than 99 percent of the US Navy’s fuel still came from petroleum.

But the Biden Administration urged the navy to double down on climate change objectives. The Navy issued its Climate Action 2030 plan in May of 2022, pursing a “department-wide pathway to net-zero by 2050.” The written plan lauds recent climate change “achievements,” including the “Mekong Delta Climate Research Collaboration” with the government of Vietnam, the “California Organic Recycling and Composting” project, and a partnership with the armed forces of Ghana to “combat vector-borne diseases that are exacerbated by climate change.” It’s not clear that these programs improve navy military readiness in any way.

Air Force

Since aircraft emit the most CO2, the US Air Force has focused on reducing aircraft emissions. But aircraft emissions are very difficult to eliminate. An aircraft on a long mission produces as much CO2 as the weight of the plane. Fuel engines deliver a 20-to-one energy advantage compared to batteries and electric engines, making electric aircraft impractical.

Air force climate plans count on Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF). SAF is made from biomass or waste, with claims of lower CO2 emissions. SAF would have the same specifications as current aviation fuel, allowing it to be “dropped-in” to existing aircraft operations. Military SAF would be similar to planned commercial aviation SAF.

But SAF is expensive, not available in large quantities, and may not even reduce CO2 emissions. Jet fuel emits 3.16 tons of CO2 for each metric ton of burned fuel. When you burn SAF, 3.16 metric tons of CO2 are also exhausted for each ton of SAF burned. Both jet fuel and SAF are produced in refineries. So how can SAF reduce emissions? In any case, the use of SAF provides no military value, so Secretary Hegseth will likely shut down all SAF programs.

Army

The “Army Climate Strategy” plan of February 2022 called for the near-term use of microgrids and renewable electricity at military bases. It called for a 100% transition of the “non-tactical vehicle fleet” to electric vehicles (EVs) by FY 2027. Spending would amount to about $2 billion per year from 2023 to 2027.

The plan also proposed to begin a transition of light, medium, and even heavy battlefield tactical vehicles to electric drive by 2027, and the development of “battlefield chargers” for these vehicles. Charging electric tanks on the battlefield is another example of “climate change crap” with no military value. 

Department of Defense climate plans call for adaptation measures, such as building sea walls, erecting flood barriers, hardening military installations, and constructing backup power systems. These adaptation measures are sensible policies to build resilience to weather events. But here is no evidence that climate change can be “mitigated” enough to be measurable. Switching all US military vehicles to EVs will have no measurable effect on storms or sea-level rise.

Coast Guard

Earlier this month, the US Coast Guard Academy announced that it was removing “climate change” from its academic curriculum. The Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security in peacetime, the only branch of the military that is not part of the DoD.

Conclusion

Military climate policies under the Biden Administration, even if fully implemented, would not have had a measurable effect on global temperatures. But they would continue to waste hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Secretary Hegseth will put these funds to better use to strengthen the US military.

——————-

Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and author of the bestselling book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure. His previous posts at MasterResource can be found here.

The post US Military Exits Climate Change After Wasteful Decade appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/4qyGpIt

April 2, 2025 at 01:17AM